Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Planning Commission Packet - 10/02/1984
POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm.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. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - CONFERENCE ROOM 10865 SW WALNUT ST. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approve Minutes from August 22, 1984 and September 4, 1984 Planning Commission Meeting. 4. Planning Commission Communication 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT ZC 12-84, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD 4-84, SUBDIVISION S 9-84, VARIANCE V 15-84; FARR DEVELOPMENT CO./MALLARD LAKE/FERD WARDIN (continued from Sept. 4, 1984, hearing.) NPO # 6 5.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 20-84, ZONE CHANGE ZC 13-84 BUTTERFIELD CAPITAL CORP./WESTLAND INVESTMENT COMPANY NPO # 1 5.3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 21-84, ZONE CHANGE 14-84 PACIFIC WESTERN BANK NPO # 5 5.4 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 22-84 CITY OF TIGARD CORNER OF SCHOLLS FERRY RD NPO 1/ 7 5.5 ZONE CHANGE ZC 15-84 CITY OF TIGARD - HISTORIC DISTRICT OVERLAY 5.6 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 23-84 SUBSIDIZED HOUSING 5.7 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 24-84 DEVELOPING AND ESTABLISHED AREAS ■ WgrNORAWA/ 5.8 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 25-84 ESEE DOCUMENT 5.9 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 6-84 CITY OF TIGARD 5.10 APPEAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 20-84 RICHARD SMITH NPO # 5 (This item will be set over to October 3, 1984) 5.11 SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 3-84 OAK HILL DEVELOPMENT CORP. NPO # 4 (This item will be set over to October 3, 1984) 5.12 REVIEW OF WEST TIGARD PLAN - By Washington County (This item will be set over to October 3, 1984) 6. OTHER BUSINESS 7. ADJOURNMENT - - _ • TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - OCTOBER 2, 1984 1. Vice President Owens the the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. The meeting was held at the Fowler Junior High - LGI Room - 10865 SW Walnut. 2. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Vice President Ownes, Commissioners Fyre, Butler, Leverett, Peterson, Van6erwond, and Campbell. President Moen (arrived 9:15 P.M.). ABSENT: Commissioner Bergmann. STAFF: Director of Planning and Development William A. Monahan (arriving at (9:30 P.M. ); Associate Planner Liden; Associate Planner Newton (arriving at 9:15 P.M. ); and Secretary Diane M. Jelderks. 3 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: � Commissioner Campbell moved and Commissioner Venderwood seconded to approved minutes of September 4, 1984, as submitted. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. • Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Fyre seconded to approve minutes of August 22, 1084, as submitted. Motion carried unanimously • by Commissioners present. } 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION � Commissioner Butler commented that he had been called at home • regarding item 5.1, Mallard Lake. Several other Commissioner had • also been called. • Commissioner Vanderwood stated she had communication regarding item 5,10, the Richard Smith appeal. 8. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD 4-84, ZONE CHANGE ZC 12-84, SUBDIVISION S 9-04, VARIANCE V 15-84; WAQBIN/FARR DEVELOPMENT/MALLARD LAKE NPO # 6 Request for a rezoning from R-4.5 to R 4.5 (PD), Planned Development Detailed approval and Preliminary Plat approval for a 43 lot, single family residential development, and a Variance to the maximum cul-de-sac length of 400 feet to allow a 460+/1 foot length. Located: North of SW 8attler St. between Launalinda Park and Scheckla Park subdivisions, OWCTM 2S1 11AD, lot 6600). • Associate Planner Liden reviewed the status of the application, recommending approval with oonditiwnm. Discussion followed regarding the wetlands/sensitive lands, density, and NPO # 6 comments, PLANNING COMMISSIONER MINUTES October 2, 1984 Page 1 .` __ _-- APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION • Bill McMonagle, 8905 SW Commercial, agreed with the staff report. He commented on the density, the pond/park areas, and the difficulty involved regarding the Development Code. ~. NPO COMMENTS • Phil Pasteris, NPO # 6 Chairman, reviewed the written material they had submitted, stating that they are willing to work with the developer to resolve the Sensitive Lands issue. Discussion followed regarding the density. PUBLIC TESTIMONY -' w Tom Arvidson, 8885 SW Scheckla Park, opposed the development. He submitted drawings of the ponds stating the applicant's drawings did not accurately show the size of the ponds. His property abuts one of i! the ponds. • Pat Phelps, 8855 SW Scheckla, opposed the development. He submitted pictures of the area and gave testimony as to why the property should be designated wetlands/sensitive lands. Connie Smith, 8860 SW Scheckla, opposed the development as proposed. She submitted a map which depicted the property owners they had contacted. She also submitted a petition signed by approximately 100 homeowners who opposed the development. • Myron Recob, 8795 SW Reiling, opposed the development for reasons � previously stated. • John Hansel, 8880 SW Scheckla, opposed the development because it was not consistent with the surrounding area. He submitted a map ` showing the project in relationship to the zoning of the surrounding properties. REBUTTAL • Bill McMonagle responded that the their concerns were the same as the surrounding property owners regarding the ponds. He addressed the density issue as being consistent with the Community Development Cwde, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION • Commissioner Fyre stated that he had walked the area and supported designating the lands as wetlands/sensitive lands. PLANNING COMMISSIONER MINUTES October 2, 1984 Page 2 • Commissioner Butler stated he would deny a park dedication at this time, . Also, his calculation only allowed 38/39 buildable lots (Commissioner Eyre concurred) . He noted sections in the code which would require the lands to be wetlands/sensitive lands. • Commissioner Campbell was concerned that the ponds would become a safety issue with samll children in the development, • Commission Peterson did not believe the upper portion of the project could be developed because of the ponds. • Commissioners Owens and Vanderwood supported that the area should be designated wetlands/sensitive lands. • Lengthy discussion followed on how to proceed with the application with regards to the density and sensitive lands. • Commissioner Fyre moved and Commissioner Vanderwood seconded to deny ZC 12-84, PD 4-84, S 9-84, and V 15-84 based on the finding that there appeared to be gross inaccuracy in the mapping of the ponds, which made density calculations in error. Also, because of the number of uncertainies as to whether the City intended the area to be wetlands. The findings are based upon the following Code sections and Plan Policies: Sections 18.02 A. ; 18.40.040; 18.80.110 C. 1, 2, 3. & 4. ; 18.84.010 A, ; 18.92.020 A. & B. ; and policies 3.1.1 A. & F. ; 3.4.2 A. ; 6.3.2; 6.3 ,3; and 7.2.1 A. Motion carried by majority of Commissioners present. Commissioner Leverett abstaining because he is an abutting property owner. 5,2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 20-84, ZONE CHANGE ZC 13-84 BUTTERFIELD CAPITAL CORP./WESTLAND INVESTMENT COMPANY. NPO # 1 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential and a Zone Change from R-12 (Residential 12 units/acre) to R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre) on property located at 9815 SW Walnut Place (WCTM 251 28D, lots 1501 & 1502). • Associate Planner Liden made staff's recommendation for approval. Discussion followed as to why this property had been zoned with the lower density . APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION • Jerry Mason, Westland Investment, 6823 SW Canyon, explained how through a sale of this property that it was discovered it had been downzoned and why it would be appropriate to rezone to the high density. PLANNING COMMISSIONER MINUTES October 2, 1984 Page 3 • , . . -- . - NPO COMMENTS • Gary Ott, Acting NPO # 1 Chairman, opposed changing the Comprehensive Plan because of the precedent that it would set and the pocket of Medium High Density which would be created. Recommended looking into a alternative method to resolve this type of problem in the future. PUBLIC TESTIMONY � No one appeared to speak. REBUTTAL • Jerry Mason, explained the hardship that has been created by this downzone. Discussion followed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION w Consensus of the Commission was that a alternative method for reconstruction should be dealt with in a workshop. • Commissioners Peterson and Vanderwood favored denial. • Commissioner Campbell, Butler, Leverett, Fyre, and Owens favored approval with some concern for buffering. President Moen arrived: (9:15 P.M.) e Discussion followed regarding the hardship created and the need for a condition regarding buffering. * Commissioner Fyre moved and Commissioner Leverett seconded to forward the Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 20-84 to City Council with recommendation for approval and to approve Zone Change Ze 13-84 from R-12 to R-25 based on Statewide Goals 1, 2, and 10; and locational criteria 12.1.3 . Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. RECESS 9:22 P.M. PRESIDENT MOEN RECONVENED 9:38 P.M. 5.3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 21-84, ZONE CHANGE ZC 14-84 PACIFIC WESTERN BANK NPO # 5 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from (Heavy-Industrial) to e-P (Commercial Professional) and a Zone Change from I-H (Heavy Industrial) to CP (Commercial Professional) on property located On the NE side of SW 72nd Ave. south of SW Tech Center Drive (WCTM 281 1DC lot 4100 & 281 10D lot 700) . ' PLANNING COMMISSIONER MINUTES October 2, 1984 POge 4 - -- - • Associate Planner Liden made staff' s recommendation for approval adding that a more appropriate zone for the area might be IP, because of the existing uses on Sandburg Street, it was recommended that this issue be studied further in the near future. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION • Richard W. Norman, Architect, 730 SW 1st Ave. , representing Pac West, stated that apparently an error had been made during the Comprehensive Plan process because a plan had been submitted for this site years ago. Discussion followed. PUBLIC TESTIMONY • No one appeared to speak. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION * Commissioner Butler moved and Commissioner Peterson seconded to forward the Comprehensive Amendment CPA 21-84 to City Council with recommendation of approval and to approve "LC 14-84 per staff's findings. Discussion followed 'regarding zoning the property IP. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. 5.4 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 22-84 CORNER OF SCHOLLS FERRY RD. NPO # 7 A request by the City of Tigard to assign the Medium High Density Residential Comprehensive Plan Map designation to land on the northwest edge of the city, east of SW Lower Scholls Ferry Road. (WCTM 1S1 33C Tax Lots 301, 700, 800, 1300, 1301 and 1302) • Associate Planner Newton explained why the City was placing the Comprehensive Plan Designation on these properties and recommended approval. PUBLIC TESTIMONY • Evelyn Karls, Rt, 1 Gnx 382, Beaverton, opposed being automatically brought into the City. (Staff explained she was not.) She also � the Medium High density because of the heavy traffic and opposed number of accidents which have occurred in that area. Discussion followed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION • Consensus of the Commission was to support staff's recommendation. • Commissioner Butler moved and Commissioner Owens seconded to forward Comprehensive Amendment CPA 22-84 to City Council with recommendation of approval. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. PLANNING COMMISSIONER M October 2, 1984 Page 5 - - ' - 5.5 ZONE CHANGE ZC 15-84 CITY OF TIQARD HISTORIC DISTRICT (HD) OVERLAY A request to assign the Historic District Overlay on the Zoning District Map to the following properties: Joy Theatre (WCTM 1S1 35DD lot 2700); Tigard Grange (WCTM 281 3DD lot 600); Tigard Street Farmhouse and Windmill (WCTM 1S1 34DD lot 100); and Tigard Feed and Seed (WCTM 281 2A8 lot 5400) . • Associate Planner Newton reviewed the zone change recommendation explaining how the Planning Commission had to apply the HD Overlay or she would have to rewrite the EESE. Also, the joy Threatre and the Tigard Street Farmhouse and Windmill opposed having a HD Overlay; the Tigard Feed and Seed had called and said they only owned the building, the land is owned by Southern aoifio; and staff had been unable to contact anyone from the Tigard Grange. Discussion followed. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Larry Derr, 33 NW 1st, Portland, representing Tigard Plaza, opposed having the Joy Threatre designated a Historic District. His main concern was for the lack of adequate parking. • Bob Bledsoe, NPO # 3 Chairman recommended that the Charles Tigard house located at 11180 SW Fonner be included under the Historic District. Discusssion followed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION � Consensus of the Commission was not to require the HD designation on properties who opposed it. ` * Commissioner Vanderwood moved and Commissioner Peterson seconded to delete all but Tigard Feed and Seed and Tigard Grange from the request to have a HD designation. Also to setover the hearing to October 3, 1984, for Tigard Feed and Seed and The Tigard Grange. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioner present, 5.6 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 23-84 SUBSIDIZED HOUSING A request by the City of Tigard to review and amend policies 6.1.2 and 12.1.1 4, of the Comprehensive Plan - Volume 2 - FINDINGS, POLICIES, AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES, • Associate Planner Newton reviewed the status of the policy and the options available. She requested the Commission recommend one of the options, PLANNING COMMISSIONER MINUTES October 2, 1984 Page 6 - _ _ PUBLIC TESTIMONY • Geraldine Ball submitted a letter into the record recommending that the City copy the subsidized housing policy from the City of Lake Oswego, • Bob Bledsoe, 11800 SW Walnut, recommended that the Commission adopt one of the first three options. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION � Consensus of the Commission was to go for option number five which would delete the existing policy and replace it with a policy that commits the City and Washington County Housing Authority to develop guidelines to be used for locating subsidized housing units in the City of Tigard. Commissioners Moen and Vanderwood preferred option number three which would revise the policy changing the limitation on the number of units allowed contiguous to one another from 2 to 3. Lenghty discussion followed. � Commissioner Eyre moved and Commissioner Leverett seconded to forward a recommendation to City Council for option number four, which reads as follows: Delete Policy 6.1.2 and Policy 12.1.1 4. Motion carried by majority vote. Commissioners Moen and Vanderwood voting no. 5.7 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 6-84 CITY OF TIGARD A request by the City of Tigard to review amendments to the following sections of the Community Development Code, 18.130 Conditional Use 18. 120 Site Development Review 18.94 Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations 18.188 Established Area — Developing Area Classification 18,32. 120 Notice of Decision by the Director 18. 136.020 Annexation — Administration and Approval process. 18,32.350 Persons entitled to Notice on Appeal or Review — Type of Notice 18,114 Signs 18 .26 Definitions - "Wetlands", "Review", "Accept", "Receipt", "Appeal", "Public Business Day' "Complete", "Incidental", "Fmrm:ing" . 18.60.050 Industrial Park — Front Yard setback 18.70.050 Light Industrial — Front Yard Setback 18.72.050 Heavy Industrial — Front Yard Setback 18.40.040 Residential Density Transition 18. 100 Landscaping and Screening — spacing of tree buffer 18.42 Use Classifications 10. 132 Non Conforming Uses 18.108 Inadequate or Hazardous Access PLANNING COMMISSIONER MINUTES October 2, 1984 Page 7 - ---- ' -, I 18.44 R-1 Single Family Residential - Livestock 18.46 R-2 Single Family Residential - Livestock 18.48 R-3.5 Single Family Residential - Livestock 18.50 R-4.5 Single Family Residential - Livestock 18.52 R-7 Single Family Residential - Livestock 18.32.276 E. Amended Decision Process 18.32.380 Final Action of the Approval Authority PUBLIC TESTIMONY w Bob Bledsoe, 11900 SW Walnut, recommended that farming be restored, specific standards be required for manufactured homes and that the notification be retained through the newspaper, except for Temporary Uses. Also, acting as a Commissioner for the Water District, he , , � requested that the issue regarding the Public Administration Agency be set over to April. Discussion followed. e Geraldine Ball, Chairman NPO # 4, approved items recommended by staff except to have Directors decisions advertised. Also they did not unanimously agree on the request for street trees buffering. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION * Commission Owens moved and Commissioner Campbell seconded to forward to City Council with recommendation of approval for ZDA 6-84. Tabling Sections on Directors Decisions, Public Administrative Agency, buffer tree spacing, and the definition for Wetlands until October 3, 1984, public hearinQ. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioner present. S.8-5.12 * President Moen moved and Commissioner Peterson seconded to continue ' items 5.8 thru 5. 12 to October 3, 1984. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present, 6. OTHER BUSINESS • Discussion on Mallard Lake decision. 7. MEETING ADJOURNED 11:30 P.M. ateLgiie./A96rIti_- - ^ Diane M. �e���rkm' ATTEST: - __- . A. Donald Moen, President � 0695P dmj PLANNING COMMISSIONER MINUTES October 2, 19W4 Page 8 --... .."......,-••■ ' , . . . PLANNING COMMISSION DATE 41' ,),— , :_s • Don Moen kilt) Bonnie Owens ())'.4.../ , . 0 . e ‘.4 • Milt Fyre John Butler Dean Leverett Dave Peterson Chris Vanderwnod . ._....LI ' Floyd Bergmann VIA) . f)aintti aatvir k,ef__Tfre' . . . . . .. 0 it , ft' ii.. .t. ,.., 0, . t , t . . 0 . 1 . . . t . ,. _ . . DATE 4/0 G A R D P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME and note; their address on this sheet. (Please Print your name) ITEM AIESCRIPTION o f 10/6`40r 01A) PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) . .._ Name, Address and Affiliation ( Name, Address and Affiliation 11! `�.0 /`.) e��',�s ` .\C' /.+,,) C' .) ,k) !) giMige5) ciceisireifithfrimaw c?- Tt t-keLr etas ,„ - : Al ::I. =.a.�;!�� JO 1440 • 10 s / fir F ii t4 DA'Z'E /C/4 /Vi asjGARD P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N, NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME and notes their address. on this sheet. (Please Print your name) ?15:42 OPA ITEM/bESCRIP.TION it f r/► ! ., r d'� PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation f I I 0 / I( .--Om-■ ell «.-. DATE /Q /..7 S L A N N I N G C O M M I S 5 O N i CARD P 7/ NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME and noted their address on this sheet. (Please Print your name) ITEM/bESCRIP.TION: PA / 6,3 garImo ; / PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation Vr c2, , rz 0 f l� ,M 4.A.1 ,� c e� rac- Ptie War sla0LiatiLk. , • r.. I': DATE !v �. c,V GARD PLANNING CoI'AMI SS Ism l NOTICE: ALL rAacov. S DESIRING TA SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME and note their address on this sheet. (Please Print your name) ITEM/DESCRIPTION: (2 A 6 q i PROPONENT (For) • OPPONENT (against) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation . S A 3' AP. i DATE /072)/1), T I G A R D P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN TiEIR NAME and notel their address on this sheet. (Please Print your name) ITEM/bESCRIPTION: ep 5( . _ 6. 6 .4._ ,, i_41„ 4iwz.0_7z. ..e.. . ...z ilim--A.Hif •r_t _ .„4„.. .4 ... __ PROPONENT (For) - OPPONENT (against) Name, Address and Affiliation . Name, Address and Affiliation 75---"` to Ve%‘41-' . MININIIIIIMP J 3(� 's- //7-c/0_, S J wc,r4,, rf I DATE l(2(-/,,P amiGARD P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME and noted their address on this sheet. (Please Print your name) ITEM 1t E CRIPTION: 2c.... i, ` E 5 55° A illitgilliii . / ' 1 ., PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) Name, Address and Affiliation I Name, Address and Affiliation V 0 .3 1 ,......,/- t--- , / .4, (..-e 'S csz_ : , (X (2,,,Y.L4 ,„„ix, .r -„ .3 4)0 ,4,-.(.1,'...:kte.:31 e I 1 q. y �- " fl ..-e . c'L .'�.,r'. I I 1 1 I I . 1 I , . 1 1 I [ • 1 _ t i I , I . ., 1 I: ,r. DATk !T I P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN TIHEIR NAME and note\ their address on this sheet. (Please Print your name) ITEM/bESCRIPTION: �„,,,4e l M' 1/ Adff.,17 40, v2- 0- . R ' - PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) .® Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation P,50S" 4/. LJu(`//i. tot C 14 '- P!1�,(� P{,� 04,6 40," , 0 .0 .4 ik.y. 1/ tcuo 2 S • "► toy- emassmossaaerwee is PlANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 1984 Agenda Item # 5.1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Planning Commission September 28, 1984 FROM: Keith Liden, Associate Planner +Zt' SUGJECT: MALLARD LAKE/FERD WARDIN/FARR DEVELOPMENT CO. Attached is a copy of the Staff Report from the September 4, 1984' Planning Commission Meeting. Also, attached is a revised plan submitted to City Staff, Thursday, September 27, and a memo from NPO # 6. Staff will comment on this project verbally the night of the public hearing. 0657P , ` ------- _`~- - REPORT STAFF r. AGENDA ITEM 5.5 SEPTEMBER 4, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - LGI 10865 S.W. WALNUT TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FINDING OF FACT 1. General Information CASE: Planned Development (PD 4-84), Subdivision (S 9-84), Zoned Change (ZC 12-84) and Variance (V 15-84) REQUEST: Request by G. Ferd Wardin for a rezoning from (R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) to R-4.5 (PD) Planned units/acre, Planned Development) Development approval and Preliminary Plat approval of a 43 lot, single family residential development. A variance to the maximum cul-de-sac length of 400 feet to allow a 460+ foot long cul-de-sac is also requested. The property is located on the north side of S.W. Sattler Street between Lauralinda Park and Scheckla Park subdivision, Tigard (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 11AD, Tax Lot 6500). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential r:. ZONING DESIGNATION: R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) APPLICANT: David L. Farr OWNER: G. Ferd Wardin Farr Development Co. 915 E. First St. 9520 SW Beaverton Hwy. Newberg, OR 97132 Beaverton, OR 97005 2. Background Sattler Park Estates received preliminary approval in 1979 (ZC 22-78, Ord. 79-52), however, the project did not proceed. In 1981, a revised and proposal featuring 34 cowman t at unnorthern single of family the property residences, This a 3.7 acre open space are project also did not materialize. 3. Vicinity Information Single family residential subdivisions zoned R-4.5 and R-4.5 (PD) abut the property on the east, north, and west. The Summerfield development which zoned R-7 (PD) is located to the southwest on the opposite side of Sattler Street. The remaining area south of the street is undeveloped and zoned R-4.5. Except for this undeveloped parcel, the surrounding properties are within an Established Area as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF REPORT - PD 4-84, S 9-84, ZC 12-84, V 15-84 - PAGE 1 A wooded tract adjacent to the northeast corner of the property is owned by the City as park land. It contains a drainageway for the ponds and a bicycle/pedestrian path which connects 89th Avenue with Scheckla 4. Site Information The property is undeveloped, relatively flat, and it contains two small man-made ponds near the north end of the parcel. The ponds are not identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a sensitive land area or as open space. The applicant proposes to develop a 43 lot, single family residential +�' 250 and 8,680 square feet in subdivision. Lots will vary betn wec' , , size. Two separate parcels of 0.82 and 0.61 acres which include the two ponds are proposed to be dedicated to the City as park land. The addition of a Planned Development zoning designation is requested to allow for a planned development instead of a standard subdivision. This development will connect the two stub streets which presently terminate at the east and west sides of the property. The primary access to the development will be provided by a local street intersecting with Sattler Street and terminating with a cul-de-sac near the northern end of the project. The cul-de-sac is proposed to be 460 feet in length from the intersection with the subdivision cross-street. The area around ponds the onds is to be cleared selectively, however, they - are to basically be retained in their natural 1 State The cul-de-sac sa c street will extend between the ponds. The land adjacent to the ponds is proposed to be dedicated as a City park. 5. cy & NPO Comments The Engineering Division has the following comments: a. Sattler Street is a minor collector street which requires a right-of-way width of 60 feet. b. Joint use and maintenance agreements should be required for all common driveways. c. The Code requires that street intersections are not less than 60°. d. The street intersection should be modified to be consistent with Section 18.164.030 H. 1. . e. Sidewalks should be 5 feet wide and adjacent to the curb except along Reiling Street between 91st Avenue and Scheckla Park Estates and along Sattler Street where they should be constructed along the right-of-way line. s' STAFF REPORT - PD 4-84, S 9-84, ZC 12-84, V 15-84 PAGE 2 f. Interior streets shall be dedicated to the public and shall he improved to City local street standards (50 feet right-of-way, 34 feet between curbs), including curbs, sidewalks, streetlights, driveway aprons and wheelchair ramps. g. The City Park Board should review proposed "Park Dedication" of ponds. h. Private streets (designated Tract "C" & "D") require that a bonded maintenance agreement be filed with the City or that a homeowners association be created to assure continued maintenance. (T.M.C. 18.164.030(S)(2)). i. Storm drainage and sanitary sewer details should be provided as part of the public improvement plans. B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION The proposed development is basically in conformance with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan andt Community o DevelopmentedCode. There are several aspects of the project perhaps discussed in more detail during the public hearing. 1. Zone Change The Zone Change to add the Planned Development (PD) overlay zone A to the R-4.5 designation is consistent with the R-4.5 (PD) zone • which applies to Scheckla Park Estates to the east. The overall density allowed on the property remains unchanged. 2. Subdivision Lots The lots range in size from 4,250 to 8,680 square feet. Setbacks of 15 feet for front and rear yards, 4 foot side yards, 10 foot street side yards, and 20 feet between garages and property lines are proposed. It appears that each lot will have an adequate buildable area. The setbacks on the periphery of the development must meet the requirements of the R-4.5 zone. Also, a house on Lot 29 must maintain a 10 foot side yard setback from the eastern property line as required in Section 18.96.090 of the Code. 3. Density The R-4.5 zone allows for a maximum density of 4.5 units per acre. Chapter 18.92 of the Code provides a method for calculating the allowable density for a specific proposal. Sensitive lands, park land dedications, and public facilities (e.g• streets) are subtracted from the total to produce a net acreage. The net acreage is then divided by the minimum lot size (7,500 square feet) to establish the maximum number of units allowed. STAFF REPORT - PD 4-84, S 9-84, ZC 12-84, V 15-84 - PAGE 3 The answer for the density calculation varies depending upon disposition of the ponds. If the ponds are not dedicated to the public and not considered as a sensitive land area, 44 lots are permissible on the property. When the ponds are subtracted from the gross acreage, 40 lots are allowed. If the proposed park land is dedicated as shown, 38 lots are permitted. 4. Density Transition Area Section 18.40.040 of the Code provides that when developing within 100 feet of an Established Area, the density within this 100 foot wide area may not exceed 125% of the density allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. Accordingly, a 100 foot strip along the west, north, and east property lines may not have more than 6.25 units per acre. The 100 foot wide boundary area contains 5.31 acres and 31 lots for a density of 5.8 units per acre. 5. Park Land The proposed park land dedication would need to be reviewed by the City Park and Recreation Board. Based upon the City's present financial situation and resulting difficulty in maintaining existing parks, acquiring additional land is probably not desirable. The land could be maintained by a homeowners association and dedicated to the public at a later time when the City's financial situation improves. 6. Variance No objections were received in regard to the variance to exceed the maximum cul-de-sac length noted in the Code by 60 feet. Section 18.160.120 B. states the following: A .variance may be approved, approved with conditions or denied provided the Planning Commission finds: 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property which are unusual and peculiar to the land as f compared to other lands similarly situated; 2. The variance is necessary for the proper design or function of the subdivision; 3. The granting of a variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the rights of other owners of property; and 1,1 4. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment t,, of a substantial property right because of an extraordinary 1 hardship which would result from strict compliance with the regulations of this ordinance. STAFF REPORT - PD 4-84, S 9-84, ZC 12-84, V 15-84 -- PAGE 4 Est 4 l The applicant has submitted the following response to these approval criteria: a. The previously determined street stubout locations of S.W. Reiling Street determined the southerly intersection location. The position of the cul-de-sac was placed so as to provide more usable ground adjacent to the ponds. It is felt that a variance of approximately 60 feet in length tends to preserve the ponds adjacent area. b. The variance requested is the minimum required to serve the land adjacent to the cul-de-sac and preserve the ponds as opposed to using the City standard of 400 feet and causing unnecessary construction directly adjacent to the ponds. c. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare and will not injure any adjacent property rights. d. All other City requirements for street construction will be met. Sewer, storm drainage, water supply and utilities do not pose any problems due to this request. Traffic circulation will be virtually the same as any other cul-de-sac. The Planning staff concurs with the rationale presented by the applicant. However, this is based upon the assumption that development around and north of the ponds does not conflict with any sensitive lands or environmental issues. A As stated above, the proposal warrants additional discussion before a complete set of recommended conditions can be established. C. RECOMMENDATION The Planning staff recommends approval of PD 4-84, S 9-84, ZC 12-84, and V 15-84 subject to the following conditions: 1. Standard half-street improvement to minor collector standards including sidewalks, curbs, street lights, and wheelchair ramps shall be provided along the S.W. Sattler Street frontage to match the alignment of existing improvements. 2. 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 approval. 3. Storm and sanitary sewer details and pond details shall be provided as part of the public improvement plans. STAFF REPORT - PD 4-84, S 9-84, ZC 12-84, V 15-84 - PAGE 5 4. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering 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. Also, the execution of a construction compliance agreement shall occur prior to, or concurrently with the issuance of approved public improvement plans. 5. Joint use and maintenance agreements shall be recorded for all common driveways and copies of the recorded document(s) shall be submitted to the Planning Director. 6. The intersection of 91st Avenue and Reding Street shall be modified e d t obec consistent with Section 18.164.030 H.1.. 7. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the public along the Sattler Street frontage to increase the right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. The legal description for said dedication shall be on City forms and approved by the Engineering Division and recorded with Washington County. 8. After review and approval by the Planning Director and City Engineer, the final plat shall be recorded with Washington county and a mylar copy of the recorded plat shall be submitted to the City Engineering Division within la' days of recording. 9. Survey Conditions apply as follows: a. Compliance with Section 18.160.160 (A11) with the following exceptions and notes: Exceptions: (1) 18.160.160 A.2. Capped 5/8" X 30" I.R. 's on surface of final asphalt lift will be acceptable. Notes: (1) 18.160.160 8.1. Point numbers for all points in C.S. 20,223 have been increased by one. Ex: point No. 56 is not point No. 57. This was due to improper point numbering in. S.C. 19.947. (2) 18.160.160 B.2. Local grid coordinates are acceptable. The City will make transformation to State Plan coordinates. STAFF REPORT - PD 4-84, S 9-84, ZC 12-84, V 15-84 - PAGE 6 18.160.160 Monumentation, Basis of Bearing Requirements and Acceptance of Improvements A. Monumentation 1. In accordance with ORS 92.060 subsection (2), the centerlines of all street and roadway right-of-ways shall be monumented before the City shall accept a street improvement. 2. All centerline monuments shall be placed in a monument box conforming to City standards, and the top of all monument boxes shall be set at design finish grade of said street or roadway. 3. The following centerline monuments shall be set: a. All centerline-centerline intersections. Intersections created with "collector" or other existing streets, shall be set when the centerline alignment of said "collector" or other street has been established by or for the City; b. Center of all cul-de-sacs; c. Curve points. Point faAlsrsinside (P.I.) when their position limits of the pavement otherwise beginning and ending points (B.C. and E.C.). d. All sanitary and storm locations shall be placed in positions that do not interfere with centerline monumentation. 10. The zoning map designation shall be changed from R-4.5 to R-4.5 (PD). 11. This approval is valid if exersed lat must within filed within this (time decision date. The f inal p period or the approval shall expire. '11 P � de I APPROVED BY: William A. Monahan PREP D BY Keith Liden Director of Planning Associate Planner Development (KSL:pm/0604P) STAFF REPORT - PD 4-84, S 9-84, ZC 12-84, V 15-84 - PAGE 7 in SEP 23 1984 141 CITY OF tIGHKD /A-0Y J o : / cct,ccC Ayaminn I;1/SSGSYI PLANNING DEPT. 434( dPo 6 da,01/02,0 ptt,a g/m4.5 ,c(thJ; PetHit,--0 S 6- P.D q-81 s `�-ss . c (2-8 q v 1 C=8 X1/1 a,Q( � ' ' � 141— Aeliniftl'Aj /`144'1--S T-14/t_ /4.67c/Ax $ ¢�. art r c eerd- 5-tr -J .cn� -Hu.) sed-Z6 t _�-�gy�pp csk " " f oc. " tie a/7 a. sztAsr Jana �u.e c�- as 'u et..., 6n.��lii ,SD ,Se Gut.ci[( k41 tett ,V PO (MC L&` _I AUL&CaL yf.. c GaeS +CAA Stack__ amp 4,tice,cit S 51 J S l dedtAit ••• An • 7 1 P r- is a4 elYitAtiYzk. tau: ' I/lewd /?.orZ foytn �GttLA at,o5feS ileca 8° 6e - • radii-ee-- sr P. - 15044. u,a-pex- avtAd tesk)(4_ 19fric&IxDk- Path coL. giet:tgei hum_ , ` / • G(Le, -/�I l �1 P, / /)A J d ct s "AS a/LC- P^fitrdi eActv;tel kute, CeaS cc, 94(AAAC"61 1/tit‘teA. (r2: ltA3 ) (Ara&C -716i,efeeo Cam cd4-0 pG se c c 'c44,64 es . .- eC,ciJ r/ , we-AAAAcis coa dAcuA; Lce (was (Art . Printv Cdc ik,J 16c - s(Clsivid watt xi, (,e7ec w c viii (Akvedowt..se..s ot,vts_ el/Lew/1.y_ saisto — &dints dAiy"„i.ayt__ pV Po ata v6,4,v0 5 + i S ^ rhfy - 04 _s t_ fry AZ cumA t.-. /V Ito G(,dleo d5 4-60-,;(_& , ?) IL- 41:),A aimat (Co GVt,Q et ILL at.cact.G Pte' ,, s s 1;44 - df P P'tu S a,vt �Gu ck oc (M.. . aa.. awl *• cd(1-0 clortai(-5 C10,6-1114.e_. Iftat eciL_ p6Ytd5 Cctnv . S `t y ;! c& C G C*3 -1 L'6 - - S Gi.G. po-Y1 c(s . 7L ,1PO ^ /,0f oLjecf 71-e ffdd /4A-& Cvwt vhWl CIL S dry S sere l Crn.. /54-s r2 ! ( 3 N � i / / /7 yG, —4ok) .5 arm S fXee5.51,11e �. ck c Ae. 5 L drL dm . Th.tvtc;It) —C-Aa4Afil-lie_td-eaL, / r dt,44 ".(-. `frG V'S(JU)l at Ike, h a r lLe rvt ��-�-- ( ger/v► 0u6 e apt. .- es /4n.2Njn9K �- ii,oes wo l2S- 20 1.441,0(26014,;YI Esc d , 1 Sur 7 ,tos cv t4A4A jdz ft,e_ 5 oa.:h w / t-s (rn r. L . 7/A,eo c sl jj (2-? 9c.) cvAd_ 7rit- 44-4/xim,u.' ailevuldi-ec_ .J 5 do6 ,„,7,,,ruce q15.,( shit) l I l l vt ,t/) !)dl list real 4 aNtG Sl�Gcn%(,t.-GC ulicivo { A . fJ Po nit z t,k4 - (984. Pc-r-tA stRA-4 .(� ; ( Cv . 746-)L-- c at.. . fist lam.' d °ce 1 . A-I _ c 44--- s c s cr,taictitti cc ) 'w... a.- �AWit f' ci)016Cillt -Xivakatitd er y .&eCk .)Ls44,6't4)A1tS 444421-4-4-04 . 2 . I es 4,k :Q.rQ toc ocia AAA0( too -- (Amtiviitt(fakJ C - � _ Vatlea. use., eite,vdt-pA441,7(7 3• - 'lei(A Q)tiers c cc� /0(`` s w PLaMIti C &W l55 1,OA stet K e341 1' i)otAAL 14A/4 Audi: St..104€4, Q U lM lM &Sp° 41- exp-tc44 s ,3 -h'1.4wt,4 h fece. eau2 S e tz-e4" 6- Z 0,.. ic( "/RAAA.(L e 74)2_ NPO / ecas vi r � - 2 r �Gi,vJ potA CA1- czAAA stt-ta d emumik coo s i v,(- w-1 74( 1('Ct.e.._. )2-s,(7,4-6:1--440( ite.1 walk u ' cd Ski �f c�,M�vrcwv,, CGw�wt c��� �. � lezetitiutGA.14 YD 4.0- v- ,.c.et,,,tsAtt7T/ ct.vtd ,,r : w P i t-, 1S T�F f.' T= I _J 1 J 1 ,0‘.: • , II \it- 0 5 ..._ . . , f I ..., .... „tic . t ; „( t; . ,... 1 ,T ca 5—?: • -I - ., a, / , ,.r4.. sigid . • . ‘ t_t__... ..... • • ' to • ic '. itZnak4 Y . ._ , t , , , m � �m�%/ / .1 , S W t ✓INESFOOKi i . �� ) _,. _ . 1.Slit °tE Ct• C.,/ 1 � r C T • Li-- .. - ' 0 L \\ �. n mil ' ►�, PE'C.°W44 S. ,. * - --:t.E‹Tt 4._ •1 CT • '� --►c- t mow" -�^� n^- '' -.' '40 !)Z.::-i ?4,4.7111W-, , ' --— - - - ...s., 4 _ �yYF� ,� YGyw2'�1 r ,j Ne.1.1% 4q?...:1 -4.-%-.ham` i`w� \1—.T ,,, .�:. `s i 1 ' . , 1, s f, x ' ° '� — III i1 9M e II lk, „,.., I -- .. R - 12..... 1 2 i ? : jIJ1J ek\itk ' '•'''''''' .`44,......P*, 'zt.k.., 4 ' -ik k*IA 0 T k- . R r\ k H ' e ° ,.. � y y � war �� � S / L, lti, x \` 4t y r "41 .� \ ,•. k �y • dg So' /, \` J J ! 0 /5 �J .° ( / as 30' /oo 777-/ ' I ,-1 -- .',-, ,N,, / ON /3 h ` • 1 3Z --4- -"3- � - `t,"s PP'°2,`� •6/AG M. / ss — U e �6 Is �.._ -_♦ _2s e ✓ h scl o o-, N 7'.'"'"-----______\n'ils ______ •t C N,n ' � � /� S yam. \, T� /O�. ' \ ti r .../C-',4, x=283- t� l L \ -eeo - -1 z 0 z -..\Q... \ivtt)_____ .... NI \i zs zs y AN Q LZ , `�, 97 i — i \�- , zo ,o ■ sQ z W 8s'hI t N�z,s , t F sT Ex 2/:E.5 ,ou I • \ *-.7i J �� J -/ \ - il ,\, • ; �3 It 3S` f j C70 ik: r RETAKE OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT ' L '•- ‘ s. ' ''17, ...--------1- —--—- ---....„........._.. s I - / 7,---- --s, 4. -' 4 EX / \ /0 0, 1 ., ' HIBI , k -,.. ) . P\ \ /1/11//1 3 . 1■413) / ' I t ''..---'■--__...., "••■1' / P e fli‘a I- \.b 'k r") 1 6 ^-, \ ■ 3z I_ Lt3 -;;4'-- . - n-r-L--.--______ _sp.,._. 4''s r V cl.l4 0•61/* /k1 -- 1..,-''6. s... \ It •.,), c-8 rgRc /0o' ... ....ss --, r\1 i 2 .'' ...... . ' ,9..,,,,,,5-• ,,c7,9 \ // , .. f. k, - NN '' --r" - ----- S — -'-------- ‘ 74,— ---e'''''"----=---- _,./:q,e; ... , --•s--------4-- -----,____ _ , ____..------ ri 'KIP ::- rk . • N' •-• - - • /,\-<•;,------_, -91,10 ' li ■ qs ,,., ...., .„: - ---- -- /0 , c- • '-.,* --," 1 <1 '7 , -., . I ,--,_.., • 7....s.".."'■.„.„''''''....,.„,......: 4. 2 3 -- -- - -.5-.5------ ,. -r_,./C-',,dp \ .s...\\ C' RI , .,*/ -------...._,.. 1,4 1 2/ t'"----• ' c-,..,,'- t ----- — / i o Z /7 ------ I I 1_ _ __, Ic) , e. i \ .I, •\ N 97' 2 q •7 6 .\ a...., / 6 t.,1 Es- 1-., .4, 0 .„R- N .,... 1\2,\........... 'I .i ,1 0 i I I i I . \.., ■,j. "r" :1.° i 1-1 - •- , : `--„ 1 I. i -...., ----..„, • „ -›) C/7 /2 0.).L. N 206.2 /eh' . . 1,, I poN- , - - ■ ..-r- I •sr. - _1 } ,E•5 1 ,ay 2 i, i i, I . --- . '1 \ - .,_o ' ...1 '1/011=110...----........- _ --- P-1- fl I __----- 7,' 9 0' ______,,,_______4--_ 260 2 e- 2 5- /00 : --,-.......-........pe - t I , 1 11 i ,i i ire . — 9,0 / 1 ` W; ,' the undersigned homeowners at the addresses set opposite our signatures, oppose the Mallard Lake Plan Development. The plan proposes 43 single-family dwellings on lots ranging in size from 4 ,250 square feet to approximately 6 ,000 square feet. This does not maintain the continuity of the established neighborhoods: Scheckla Park Estates on the East, Launalynda Park on the West and Pinebrook Subdivision on the North. The proposed construction of a 60-foot road between the ponds and the development north of the ponds would greatly curtail the natural habitat of the pond area. We, therefore, ask for a denial of the Mallard Lake Plan Development. -� 4. EXHIBA NAME ADDRESS PHONE # i 4 G �A IrA it Q�r 9) 8 S ,w k L L.N:j -c�c.,-r-c4) C�,�_t>•-�Y< Q , V61e 0(C1,1(e'f ALn..74 -) •`6f,',-K-7 `,")(,,(.,' f<(.4, 1/c.oe.-,, 1;144'(A,e{, &,,,,-265-- 1-1'.3'3"'-) q102;',, r'/ c �x_.,✓ 1 /7 U n/6,J:LO c'I L',,,...`r l-'A /' /?z' YJ-, C5- f c,Z f 9 U V\ c 9.-,)1tv'J��„/ ie q 7�,!c 5,uJ, Kc�..4 tivtyy. 'f .775 '. i) 7 20- 766 5.- e 9/.04, 4, /227a?.../ ,i3a4 1 ? 7.S S 1,0 R-(-, 4.. s r, T -,e G(' 6 o-.2 736' 7, - '�A4' z /, '/ <, - C /271Z 5 z-J e/Z.� � _ y,�7_4!„)=■ ...„--.4,. .,Ml I r„ i a . NIA .€,-- ' - ,tJ (- '---4'` ,ST: _ - _L„ 5-c) 7/ 7 _,-) 1 r", cs ',- c:) , c...; T, - -. 4'- LI S 3S- 'cr;:.,14 t- n eit'v cfVo 3 PAS nni s 637 - 7c/C ? 7( •G a--,11 -:.. ..„_cu......_ ,ns-6 ,-„(..1 .. -\ e,\,,--\ 6 X a -'2 9 t 1) 7%*ti C c•lin 9. r dir _ �2, O-.►4 `� • • 44�� i _ rl►— r I certify that every person who signed this document did so in my presence on the date shown following their signature. l Date � /°1984 G �� r ' We,' the undersigned homeowners at the addresses set opposite our signatures, oppose the Mallard Lake Plan Development. The plan proposes 43 single-family dwellings on lots ranging in size from 4 ,250 square feet to approximately 6 ,000 square feet. This does not maintain the continuity of the established neighborhoods: Scheckla Park Estates on the East, Launalynda Park on the West and Pinebrook Subdivision on the North. The proposed construction of a 60-foot road between the ponds and the development north of the ponds would greatly curtail the natural habitat of the pond area. We, therefore, ask for a denial of the Mallard Lake Plan Development. NAME ADDRESS PHONE # DATE . 4./it - J62/1.0, /6 cg 6- „e g 9' e 6? �0, ,4 1 2 ..... L _ : - _. _ �g 7L . u.� 4. / ?9 (5a) KW, X)/- - ;22F-3 ?- 7- 4( t _i .c__ 15 O d14) (Mt-A. PL- 6 6ci- a..)- 5 y/ -�! l j _ �� 9 rr /^ JJ / 7 iffi ,tea! * .A I/ .4/A A ,V �'W `� ./_ . . . O-3 � i't .may �._ / ; 44-1/ /V g / 13 77 9.- ;/d / fI std t 1!.ith ii, l() c<. ) f9 k�. ,4 -83'77 9-- 7-d' _mac.. r ' 2.9 a S%/ ,./ : . _ • •_ , -s - liter .' .�.�� f A49 J). , . A 65 - 74/96 a- 2 S2 4,- Q .k.-y gs°c-ree/ Vie,/.7 Zo- '762- ,/if 4/1 Of r. !✓57 0 ` ' .5 8` ••t p/ 2/ 336 y' ^.7o FY t ' LI t -- z083 9. 30x.24, I ) t - 43-1,/5- LS:(-4,1 c?d -/---. 0.6 --,5 ,VZ) Y.- 3o-R5, Aira,' , .. . . /4-//acir-‘2, JO •I'',4-r,- . 6.Pb -..for7 9/7 a -S-1 AA I Alr,41-11aA.A.Ad ; ■ b b4) AdP0 le4 . 4216,--7qt3 .?-,k)—k 6( P I certify that every person who signed this document did so in my presence on the date shown following their signature. ?7,2,7 7�C�Date /c.4f 1984 djk"--e---'e-- I i ' We; the undersigned homeowners at the addresses set opposite our signatures, oppose the Mallard Lake Plan Development. The plan proposes 43 single-family dwellings on lots ranging in size from 4 ,250 square feet to approximately 6 ,000 square feet. This does not maintain the continuity of the established neighborhoods: Scheckla Park Estates on the East, Launalynda Park on the West and Pinebrook Subdivision on the North. The proposed construction of a 60-foot road between the ponds and the development north of the ponds would greatly curtail the natural habitat of the pond area. We, therefore, ask for a denial of the Mallard Lake Plan Development. NAME ADDRESS PHONE # DATE ~ ' cis� 3 r•.«: g`1�a �� ecic l�� s-4-. 184-2.4,10 - 30-84 ‘ , • o d 19-'S'79 2 - �- I ` G� 'ti r- C '�S U 7:s� e'o/`z,/ i } I certify that every person who signed this document did so in my presence on the date shown following their signature. Date 9/42 , 1984 &7evict,(} 1 We , the undersigned homeowners at the addresses set opposite our signatures, oppose the Mallard Lake Plan Development. The plan proposes 43 single-family dwellings on lots ranging in size from 4 , 250 square feet to approximately 6 ,000 square feet. This does not maintain the continuity of the established neighborhoods: Scheckla Park Estates on the East, Launalynda Park on the West and Pinebrook Subdivision on the North. The proposed construction of a 60-foot road between the ponds and the development north of the ponds would greatly curtail the natural habitat of the pond area. We, therefore, ask for a denial of the Mallard Lake Plan Development. NAME ADDRESS PHONE # DATE iQg Gaga..., ?4 .E `Ns C- S 1.3 5"C;ke c L/,,,,- 1°39 -0 .= r:. — `lPcull- p S SLO SC44 ckee, 6039-O. --q 3 J I.2 °�,,., —�6' ?g/ - sw & .. L 6 2,0- 9/26 Cji'6Qa. iLi. (,ei of 88.2 ,S(,U/. Sc ket "L9‘ 4j,*, (03 9"81/4_ 9/0,a )y'"`ia t �y , - P - 5c 6 gre) C_ - . 4,59-a),6 9/24 7 0' ' Vt ;,-,L &0 c. �G, QA 6�9-a..t i Q 112 Co �•` L"-S C✓ �� e-�c DA • r -074( c? ��•w► i►."� ffE C r1 to .� � 14 61. il �` 149R5 6w %g-5 C� . 061/00 5 9� A ��y' CW"''° 9e7 se9 S c) PFN ST- (057 ` / e) 9? 0- e 6.( r_tti ih,a , , 9/0) s'a,) R.,,,e4,,ei_ 5-1- ,, ti3f -i's-f9' fi/2-(07 '/ J, l !.�7 a 5 . �.J•7'.�C/l�i.�t.../2 r=r'�i�. c�.4 •-' /.Sa y/e (./T� J / . / Att.---- 9620 s t v, tr,: D"'^w I- ‘ '`f -8Y( ? V-1/i' r ) g .E./eW-: 4.- .2 6-7:53e I certify that p.: son who signed this document did so in my presence on the date shown following their signature. Date 9.� , 1984 nig&S.2_ / %. ' CKS I • We," the undersigned homeowners at the addresses set opposite our signatures, oppose the Mallard Lake Plan Development. The plan proposes 43 single-family dwellings on lots ranging in size from 4 ,250 square feet to approximately 6,000 square feet. This does not maintain the continuity of the established neighborhoods: Scheckla Park Estates on the East, Launalynda Park on the West and Pinebrook Subdivision on the North. The proposed construction of a 60-foot road between the ponds and the development north of the ponds would greatly curtail the natural habitat of the pond area. We, therefore, ask for a denial of the Mallard Lake Plan Development. NAME ADDRESS PHONE # DATE �{ �. 4 • 9-8 ..- .5 8"'CT' X20- f� / �% . ' J _..... S fW k/azik./, , t.., r., i .6--,_.3-- 05 a.) .8r% tz e--k_ Z,- .2)--.63 F 9/:= 9"11 w.. .. `.... � l' t16 5LA? .' " Ck . (�21) OM.' q 2l� (fit r . J It 1, ,_ _ , _ it ,.4/i i i). .. .,_'!. i .► it—a 43 4 V 0/ 9- 06 -.PY I certify that every person who signed this document did so in my presence on the date shown following their signature. Date 1?/2LO , 1984, 01/&S a_. !1. We , the undersigned homeowners at the addresses set opposite our signatures, oppose the Mallard Lake Plan Development. The plan proposes 43 single-family dwellings on lots ranging in size from 4 , 250 square feet to approximately 6 ,000 square feet. This does not maintain the continuity of the established neighborhoods: Scheckla Park Estates on the East, Launalynda Park on the West and Pinebrook Subdivision on the North. The proposed construction of a 60-foot road between the ponds and the development north of the ponds would greatly curtail the natural habitat of the pond area. We, therefore, ask for a denial of the Mallard Lake Plan Development. E ADDRESS PHONE # DATE x �� u. , , , I f 1 (�© uw1 92." 639- 02 4 9- 2'6- 84 Cap 4.' .,,,e -%.Ar /5e d $Gcl a a c)-,37 I —,p2 --7` No .v.. . ./r_:...�._id V9-O . 411) 92 39-61-7,15- 9 49— /�., ,—� . i1. � /493n sh( 9a ' (ova - ,t,(9,1_, 9-� -P (,),4? 513ady, _ Pfg1 - 5; . / ibeic:yi, 6.2 o - 396,2 9- ,9- - -5 5 ♦ `r(. 6 .0 •. 3 q/4'7 <_7— ..2 i-w , : ------ 1.,Nk \i- 65c6--- :\O - 4, - ‘ - - 4.4 - ITS\ -D- - 40 -°-7-' j y sSSg 7 (g y 0 -, ci- a -fir f- ` O. .,, , * - ti-.2 0 S-A/ ql,.�' 637 -5 7 2 �/ f�- . -.'r i. • 9 7 v S\)v' qL P9 tfilL- Ylf,/ 0 -0 r 1�77d Sze) J" .-2`/ �y(�""l�2i r' z T 11.I4" ..:?�., :Iris_. . .: ' I - 4-/ & " 5a-S— 9 ,/,eM :1 , 17&A t /ei 7W) see 92.0 &Z./3- 78z `9/L�/ef . ...e___ /1/9 --.51� :a4/1J 9,-/- 2y-i'9/S/ Air Alpf x'''''' i/j-: " ,51,:‘, ./ez,,./ ,-- ,6 Z7—21./7q P)67/./-Y /A/ - .4.,:j I certify that every person who signed this document did so in my presence on the date shown following their signature. Date 9- A90 , 1984 Qt ) (44-•44:4-'') ' ' ' We, the undersigned homeowners at the addresses set opposite our signatures, oppose the Mallard Lake Plan Development. The plan proposes 43 single-family dwellings on lots ranging in size from 4 ,250 square feet to approximately 6 ,000 square feet. This does not maintain the continuity of the established neighborhoods: Scheckla Park Estates on the East, Launalynda Park on the West and Pinebrook Subdivision on the North. The proposed construction of a 60-foot road between the ponds and the development north of the ponds would greatly curtail the natural habitat of the pond area. We, therefore, ask for a denial of the Mallard Lake Plan Development. NAME ADDRESS PHONE # DATE 9.2111,49.-.)e s, 3 '- 9 2/;0/1„,p , 41.6' Dab 5.. G . r` " •M t /.�1 l�/L. J4AL. S -0 56t1 �tai,�( 31417 9/36/ril t _ /5040 51), q2q tpLa- ZLs74 9/314 4t I � () LO. q2 eld Cap o 20'71 1 "84 4 / ("/g'dsS. w if d ct- 6 ?- 301y t2 /C/WO 5/.,2/ ,-fit / /OS'17 r' I certify that every person who signed this document did so in my presence on the date shown following their signature. Date JD - , 1984 1 �sr .a .r i Fr) 5 ° e � hb �o r Th Dt 9 lir:. Y. /62 r, t[ 10 - 2 $9 ayena 5. ' --.-- CITY OF TIGARD FINAL ORDER NO, 84-_,(0 PC A FINAL ORDER IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR A ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, SUBDIVISION, AND VARIANCE REQUESTED BY Q. FERD WARDIN, FILE NUMBERS ZC 12-84' PD 4-84, S 0-84, and V 15-84, DENYING THE REQUESTS, ENTERING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. The Tigard Planning Commission heard the above application at a hearing held on October 2, 1984. Bill McMonagle appeared on behalf of the applicant and several people testified in opposition to the proposal. The Commission finds the following FACTS in this matter: 1. The property is zoned R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) and located north of S.W. Sattler Street between Launalinda Park and Scheckla Park subdivisions, (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 11AD, Tax Lot 6508). 2. The applicant's justification in presented in the minutes of the September 4, 1984 and October 2, 1984 Commission hearings. Information supporting the request is found in Planning File Numbers ZC 12-84, PD 4-84, S 9-84, and V 15-84. Based upon the record in this case, the Commission makes the following FINDINGS: ( 1. The relevant approval criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1 and 2; Comprehensive Policies 3 .1.1 a. and 4. , 3.4.2 a. , 6.3.2, 6.3 .3, and 7.2.1 a. ; and Community Development Code sections 18.02 A. , 10.40.040, 18.80. 110 C.1. through 4. , 10.84.810 A. , and 18.92.020 A. and B. 2. Statewide 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 (NP0). In addition, all notice requirements were met. 3. Statewide Planning Goal #2 is met because the City applied all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies, and Development Code requirements to the application. 4. Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.1.1 a. is not satisfied because the northern portion of the property is known to have a high seasonal water table and it has not been demonstrated that this area can be made suitable for development. 5. Comprehensive Plan Policy 3 .4.2 is not satisfied because it has not been shown that the clearing and grading proposed will preserve the wildlife habitat values of the ponds and the adjoining area. 6. Comprehensive Plan Policy 6.3.2 is not met because the number of lots on the north side of the development exceeds the density allowable by he density transition section of the Community Development Code, FINAL ORDER N0. 84- g_PC - Q. FERD WARDIN - PAGE 1 7, Comprehensive Plan Policy 6,3,3 is not satisfied because the proposed subdivision is of a higher density than the adjacent developments. 8. Comprehensive Plan Policy 7,2.1 is not satisfied because the applicant has not shown that the development will not create adverse off-site impacts, The drainage on the northern portion of the property is poor and the development will encroach upon this area without a plan for mitigating adverse impacts. 9. The proposal is contrary to the purpose of Community Development Code Section 18.02 A. because the proposal is not commensurate with the physical limitations of the property. 10. Section 18.40.040 of the Community Development Code is not satisfied because the number of lots within the norther 100 feet of the subdivision exceeds the maximum allowable density in this transition area. 11. Sections 18,80.110 C.1. through 4. of the Community Development Code are not satisfied because insufficient information was submitted to adequately evaluate the proposal. 12. Section 18,84..010 A. of the Community Development Code applies to this application and the related PP sensitive lands issues have not been addressed. 13. Sections 18.92.020 A. and B. of the Community Development Code are not met because the density proposed exceeds the allowable number of residential units based upon the provisions of the Code. The Commission adopts the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. Based upon Findings 2, and 3, the Commission has determined that the proposal meets the applicable Statewide Planning Goals. 2, Based upon Findings 4 through 13, the Commission has determined that the proposal is not consistent with the applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development Code requirements. Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the Commission denies 'LC 12.84, PD 4-84, S 9-84, and V 15-84. It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this order. PASSED: This _27 , day of (/ I-44, , 1984, by the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard. ats•Loa/2,4 -41.- A. Donald Moen, President Tigard Planning Commission (KSL:pm/0719P) FINAL ORDER NO 84- hp PC -- G. FERD WARDIN - PAGE 2 CITY OF TIGARD FINAL ORDER NO. 84 - 1/ PC A FINAL ORDER IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE REQUESTED BY WE8TLAND INVESTMENT CO. , ILE NUMBERS CPA 20-84 AND ZC 13-84, APPROVING THE REQUEST, ENTERING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. ___________ The Tigard Planning Commission heard the above application at a hearing held on October 2, 1984. The applicant's representative appeared before the Commission, Neighborhood Planning Organization #1 appeared in opposition to the application. The Commission finds the following FACTS in this matter: 1. The applicant requested to change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Medium Density Residential to Medium high Residential and a modification in the zoning designation from R-12 (Residential, 2 units/acre) to R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre) . The property is located at 9815 S.W. Walnut Place (Wash. Co. Tax Map 281 2BDTmx Lots 1501 and 1502) . ^ 2. The applicant's justification is presented in the minutes of the October 2, 1984 Planning Commission Hearing. Information supporting the request is found in Planning File Numbers CPA 20-84 and ZC . The 13 84 Th applicant's - representative, Jerry Mason, supported the Staff recommendation, A representative of 0P0 #1 voiced an objection to the proposal because of the precedent that could be set to legalize non-conforming uses. Based upon the record of this case, the Commission makes the following ,FINDINGS: 1. The relevant approval criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, and 10 and Comprehensive Plan Policy 12. 1 .3. 2. Statewide Planning Goal #1 is met because the City has adopted a Citizens Involvement program including review of all development applications addition, all public notice requirements were t 3 . Statewide Planning Goal #2 is met because the City applied all and Development Code requirements to the application, �| 4. Statewide Planning Goal #10 is t because subdivision will allow for the preservation of 70 reozu t / 1t i th i ��' --�~ ~^ City of Tigard Plan Policy 12, 1.3 is ti fied because the proposed zoning designations are consistent t ith � criteria set � the ^�~~°^~`~^ policy. FINAL ORDER NO 84- x0_ �� INVESTMENT CO.~-. PAGE 1 _ -' The Commission adopts the following CONCLUSION OF LAW: 1, Based upon Findings 2, 3, and 4, the Commission has determined that the proposal meets the applicable Statewide Planning Goals, 2. Based upon Finding 5, the Commission has determined that the proposal is consistent with relevant Plan policies. Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the Commission recommends approval of CPA 20-84 and approves ZC 13-84 subject to City Council approval of CPA 20-84. It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this order, zi :11 PASSED: This 7 daY of _.0...6(Itle45± , 1984, by the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard. 4-001-S*1014/ tte&----- A. Donald Moen, President Tigard Planning Commission (KSL:bs/0719P) FINAL ORDER NO 84- II PC - WESTLAND INVESTMENT CO. - PAGE 2 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5.2 October 2, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - LGI 10865 S.W. WALNUT TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FINDING OF FACT 1. General Information CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 20-84, Zone Change ZC 13-84 REQUEST: For a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential and a Zone Change From R-12 (Residential 12 units/acre) to R-20 (Residential 20 units/acre). APPLICANT: Westland Investment Co. OWNER: Butterfield Capital Corp. 6823 SW Canyon Road Santa Ana, Calif. Portland, OR 97225 LOCATION: 9815 SW Walnut Place, Tigard (Wash. Co. Tax Map 1501 and 1502) 2. Background The apartments were developed in 1969 and 1970. The past record of this development is unclear. Staff will research the matter further prior to the hearing. 3. Vicinity Information Pacific Village Apartments which are zoned CBD (Central Business District) lie to the northeast. Single family residences, zoned R-4.5 (Residential 4.5 units/acre) are on the opposite side of a creek to the southeast. Land zoned R-12 containing a church and commercial development zoned C-G (Commercial General) are adjacent to the southwest and northeast respectively. 4. Site Information and Pro•osal Descri•tion The property is totally developed. It contains 70 apartment units located within nine, two-story buildings. Access is provided to Pacific Highway via Walnut Place and Mackenzie Street. The applicant is proposing the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change to alleviate the development's non-conforming status in terms of allowable density. The 2.9 acre property has a present density of 24.1 units per acre. The proposal is intended to protect the present investment. If the apartment complex was over 60% destroyed, it could only be rebuilt with a maximum density of 12 units per acre due to its non-conforming status. STAFF REPORT CPA 20-84/ZC 13-84 - PAGE 1 r, 5. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering Division and the Building Inspection Office have no objections to the request. The State Highway Division notes that if additional development is contemplated, a traffic study will be necessary. NPO ##1 does not object to the maintenance of the existing apartments. However, the group does object to the Plan Amendment and Zone Change as a means of dealing with the non-conforming use. It was felt by the NPO that a precedent should not be established for approving zone changes to eliminate non-conforming situations. B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION According to the Comprehensive Plan, Plan Map changes may be approved by City Council when: a. The change is consistent with applicable Plan policies; b. A change of physical circumstances has occurred since the original designation; or c. A mistake was made in the original land use designation. The following Locational Criteria in the Comprehensive Plan apply to this proposal: Medium-High and High Density Residential A. The following factors will be the determinants of the areas designated for high density on the plan map: (1) Areas which are not committed to low density development. (2) Areas which can be buffered from low density residential areas in order to maximize the privacy of established low density residential areas. (3) Areas which have direct access from a major collector or arterial street. (4) Areas which are not subject to development limitations. (5) Areas where the existing facilities have the capacity for additional development. (6) Areas within one quarter mile of public transit. (7) Areas within one quarter mile from neighborhood and general commercial shopping centers or business and office centers. (8) Areas adjacent to either private or public permanent open space. STAFF REPORT - CPA 20-84/ZC 13-84 - PAGE 2 -------..■••■••■■•••■•7 The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change is consistent with Plan policies. It also meets the above Locational Criteria because the property is presently committed to high density development; buffering is provided by the creek and vegetation between the apartments and the single family homes to the southeast; direct access to Pacific Highway is available; no development limitations are apparent; public facilities are established; and the property is within one quarter mile of public transit and commercial centers. The apartment complex contains some private open space and the proposed Fanno Creek Park will be within one-quarter mile of the property. Other policies in the Plan relating to such issues as public facilities and services are not particularly applicable since the property is fully developed and being served at the present time. No changes have occurred since the current zoning designation was applied, however, the City appears to have errored by utilizing a zone that was not compatible with the existing development. Since the existing use can meet the Locational Criteria for Medium-high Density development, an R-20 zoning designation would have been more appropriate than the R-12 zone. C. RECOMMENDATION The Staff supports the NPO recommendation to evaluate the City's policy regarding non-conforming uses. However, the Staff does not concur with the NPO recommendation to deny the request because the proposal is consistent with adopted City policy contained in the Comprehensive Plan. PREPA D BY: Keith Liden APPROVED BY: William A. Monahan Associate Planner Director of Planning & Development (KSL:pm/0649P) STAFF REPORT CPA 20-84/ZC 13-84 - PAGE 3 ,.r,....i :•�7;• rim//i CVO d6@ v`/ s \--I \ lin ��i///z. %/� 6,8 1°H. ------.____t 7 _ •'%% '.y,'%fir t",., . 2 253 • /9 SO `� m 120 39 . \ q — p 00 CO + r3 12 0 'D Q+ it' .2-bi .Q�d '9 /� \'1 - `• x71 _O lT A�`Yll ` 266.,a irs-- As O 94 t� a • I \ In s�w A v "../.\'�f ju 0 /� }� u p Sr Q + � m Oq c 15 2.0 50 -<0--\r-�.c/ 1_ _ 4 d1r� W, Z a 1,..0 ✓` 1 _ �� w �`,,�� n o \ m 222,SO s _ ' • d, \. ,79.74 o 1 s, O/ _: to .wI Sp al i 63 �\ \ I 9 '\o �2 ✓ cn r ti Nos so t,:, ,,,. :3, '>_.1 Vil, ! N 'Is, Okt v I ' '')-1— To pu� 2 /°1 S6J .'em.. N43 , . a AI \ ( y ..1.329/s�lie ■ / o�C� I � ` O 40 Ho / .V 3. 'SoSS'E m o ,/I 14y E s.o se'p.r ` : ✓`"ci I /(5) _ o 1 ' w 0 / ` 0 v, Slsa ` N a ° ( No•�3jSl �� -. `'\ 206:39IO"E N� ' ° -�4�`JE u'_, /N. a I• 142. fe ev ✓/ N 1 \._./.„) 61 • t01. OBI , S\ ♦ -big' - w ^ a I L j / ~w 4 L�_s� e- ,::::::,,.. -.leo._ . , t ca a v .--ti- a n / f./� �� 2 w2s, tltl 0 if I �� 'i G t. L Sp r I},' J 4 / Ci / /(� a •N C. 4 S � `'•_ l bU �`U •v- y it; �'b e s ? °le COy JB 11;', 39.6 3 �oj Y+ 5 it._ O.• ` l0 . 13,1 "'r 1-.;---;` .4i'/. �, C!j L,"'''() N-, �` 5.00 u r3 o` ' ,y `*--`�) r '• 1, 8' (.1. II 6 N9tyo• ,.7,_4 , n �. : w U-� V s•,,, m,r,,u 0 fill:. C5, ■ Tr 7-phDtD9rQ � � S c) ? P Th b1D � ob -� lO28L/ A3eiv to/a # 5 2 _ __ CITY OF TIGARD �� FINAL ORDER NO. 84-_42 PC A FINAL ORDER IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE REQUESTED BY PACIFIC WESTERN BANK, FILE NUMBERS CPA 21-84 AND ZC 14-84' APPROVING THE REQUESTS, ENTERING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. -___.-__-- The Tigard Planning Commission heard the above application at a hearing held on October 2, 1984. The applicant's representative appeared before the Commission and no one appeared in opposition to the application. The Commission finds the following FACTS in this matter: 1. The applicant requested to change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Heavy Industrial to Commercial Professional and a modification in the zoning designation from I-F| (Heavy Industrial) to CP (Commercial Professional) . The property is located east of 72nd Avenue north of Tech Center Drive (Wash. Co. Tax Map 281 1DC, Tax Lot 4100 and 2S1 1DQ, Tax Lot 700) , 2. The applicant's justification is presented in the minutes of the October 2, 1984 Planning Commission Hearing, Information supporting the request is found in Planning File Numbers CPA 21-84 and ZC 14-84, The applicant's representative, Richard Norman, supported the Staff recommendation. No other persons appeared to testify. Based upon the record of this case, the Commission makes the following FINDINGS: 1, The relevant approval criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1 and 2 and Comprehensive Plan Policy 12.2.1. | 2. Statewide 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 (NP0) . In addition, all public notice requirements were met. 3 . Statewide Planning Goal #2 is met because the City applied all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Development code requirements to the application. 4. City of Tigard Plan Policy 12.2.1 is satisfied because the proposed Plan and zoning designations are consistent with the locational criteria set forth in this policy. The Commission adopts the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. Based upon Findings 2 and 3, the Commission has determined that the proposal meets the applicable Statewide Planning Goals. 2. Based upon Finding 4, the Commission has determined that the proposal is consistent with relevant Plan policies, FINAL ORDER No. 84- /. PC - PACIFIC WESTERN BANK - PAGE 1 ^ ^ Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the Commission recommends approval of CPA 21-84 and approves ZC 14-84 subject to City Council approval of CPA 21-84. It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this order. AsPt PASSED: This .227 day of 1984, by the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard. 4.. J11.-‘44-10/941r--4%-- A. Donald Moen, President Tigard Planning Commission (KSL:bs/0719P) FINAL ORDER NO 84— 62 PC -- PACIFIC WESTERN BANK — PAGE 2 _ _ STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5.3 October 2, 1984 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - LGI 10865 S.W. WALNUT TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FINDING OF FACT 1. General Information CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 21-84 and Zone Change ZC 14-84. REQUEST: For a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Heavy Industrial to Commercial Professional and a Zone Change from I-H (Heavy Industrial) to C-P (Commercial Professional). APPLICANT: Pacific Western Bank OWNER: Same 10888 S.E. Main Street Milwaukie, OR 97222 LOCATION: South of 7150 S.W. Sandberg (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 1DC, Tax Lot 400 and 2S1 1DD, Tax Lot 700) 2. Background The subject property has been partially developed under the provisions of three Site Design Review approvals (SDR 38-73, SDR 19-75, and SDR 33-77). The last application submitted indicated future commercial office development on the southern position of the property. During the period of development, the entire property was zoned M-2 (General Industrial) which permitted industrial and commercial office uses. Between 1977 and the present, the zone designations have been changed so the northern section of the property is zoned C-P and the southern portion is zoned I-H (Heavy Industrial). With the adoption of the new Code, the I-H zone no longer includes offices as a permitted use. 3. Vicinity Information The first phase of the Administrative Service Center which lies to the north is zoned C-P. The western property line abuts 72nd Avenue and the properties to the west, south and east are zoned I-H. 4. Site Information The area involved in this application is undeveloped and slopes down to 72nd Avenue. The conceptual plan presented in 1977 indicated that two additional buildings are anticipated on the subject property. Site Development Review approval will be required prior to construction. STAFF REPORT - CPA 21-84/ZC 14-84 - PAGE 1 5. Agency & NPO Comments The Engineering Division and Building Inspection Office have no objection to the request. No comments have been received from NPO #5. B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION • According to the Comprehensive Plan, Plan Map changes may be approved by City Council when: a. The change is consistent with applicable Plan policies; b. A change of physical circumstances has occurred since the original designation; or c. A mistake was made in the original land use designation. The Plan has been reviewed and the proposal is consistent with Plan policies. The following Locational Criteria also apply to this request: Commercial Professional Commercial Professional areas are intended for a diverse range of office uses and supportive uses; and to promote user convenience throughout the City. A. Scale (1) Trade area. Varies (2) Site size. Varies (3) Gross leasable area. Varies B. Locational Criteria (1) Spacing and location (a) The Comprehensive Plan map fixes exact boundaries of the commercial professional area. (b) The commercial professional area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides. (2) Access (a) The proposed use or expansion of an existing area shall not create traffic congestion or a traffic safety problem. Such a determination shall be based on the street capacity, existing and projected traffic volumes, the speed limit, number of turning movements and the traffic generating characteristics of the various types of uses. STAFF REPORT - CPA 21-84/ZC 14-84 - PAGE 2 (3) Site Characteristics (a) The site shall be of a size which can accommodate present and projected needs. (b) The site shall have high visibility. (4) Impact Assessment (a) The site configuration and characteristics shall be such that the privacy of adjacent non-commercial uses can be maintained. (b) It shall be possible to incorporate the unique site features into the site design and development plan. (c) The associated lights, noise and activities shall not interfere with adjoining non-residential uses. The proposal is consistent with this portion of the Plan because it is not adjacent to residential development, proper access to 72nd Avenue is available, the site is an adequate size for the proposed use, it will be highly visible, and the change will be compatible with the surrounding commercial and industrial properties. No changes have occurred since the modifications in the Code were made, however, findings can be made showing that a mistake had been made by limiting the southern portion of the property to industrial uses. Although not formerly proposed, the applicant's intent to continue with office development was presented in 1977. Also, the site has a significant slope which limits the utility of the property for heavy industrial uses which characteristically require large, flat parcels. Staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with City policy and should be approved. It should also be noted that the properties located on Sandberg Street contain a mixture of light industrial and office uses. This is a transition area between the offices on Fir Loop and the heavy industrial uses to the south. It appears that the I-P (Industrial Park) zone, which allows both commercial office and light industrial uses, would be a more appropriate designation. A study and possible zone change for this area should be considered. C. RECOMMENDATION The Planning staff recommends aproval of CPA 21-84 and ZC 14-84. iOle 001, 041,044.4 /:0 PREPARED ;Y: Keith den APPROVED BY: William A. Monahan Associate Planner Director of Planning & Development (KL:bs/0654P) STAFF REPORT - CPA 21-84/Z0 14-84 - PAGE 3 SITE I DEVELOPKENT PLAN .(c t DES•i ON REVIEW ( 4 Site Plan Review File No. _ Architectural Review Fee Received APPLICATION Receipt # Date Received ------- Tigard. Planning Commission By 12420 SW Main_ St. , Tigard, Or. 97223 639-4171 Phase-2, Alterations and Additions to the Project Title Admin. Service Center Fi Date Filed Project Address 7150 S.W. Sandburg Road Tigard, Oregon 97223 Tax Lot -No. 03801 , 03900, 04100, & 00700-PT4 Tax Map No. Owner/Developer First State Bank of Oregon Ned Takasumi Address 10888 S.E. Main Street, Milwaukie, Ore. 97222 Telephone 653-3410 Owner's Telephone Signature DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY jl Proposed Use #Buildings # Units So. Ft. Main fl . add. 7,878 sq.ft. Offices One One Bsmt f1 . add, 3 664 sg.ft. — ExistMain f1 . 10,000 sq.t Site Size 6. 14 acres. Tot, Sq. Ft. of Buildings Add. 7,878 sq.ft. JI Sq. Ft, of Paving Add. 16,220 sq.ft. . Sq. Ft. of LandscapingAdd. 10, 160 sq.ft. Anticipated Development Date .September 1977 Anticipated Development Phases Valuation $ 350,000.00 DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE Special Conditions - Dedications Bonding _—_ • Other Final Inspection by _.— Date �X�I�t31T- 'Ili RICHARD W. NORMAN AIA ARCHITE( 'l)i,i SEVEN THIRTY SOUTHWEST FIRST AVENUE PORTLAND, OREGON • 97204 (503) 228-9581 l',;, :7S,j tia;KK111 'M1ti3, ,iy.,,4, t t�::ri aA ```'' Tigard Planning Commission M54 12420 S.W. Main Street Nig Tigard, Oregon 97223 i 41 Re: Phase-2, Alterations and Additions to the Administrative ;1 Services Center, First State Bank of Oregon. i31 'V"a Dear Commissioners: r:. ',_ The Standard form for "Site Development Plan and Design Review" does not seem to adequately cover the kind or amount of infor- mation needed for this kind of project. `•14,,± For this reason, a short narrative may be helpful in your !kl deliberations. 1 The total existing site consists of 6. 14 acres. The building project and its immediate developed surroundings 7 ' will cover approximately 2.8 acres, of which, about 1 acre (36%) i.EN can be considered as landscaped; 1 .4 acres (50%) in paving; and . 4.64 .4 acre (14%) is in building. u. y The balance of the property,may be developed;, in the future, as xA shown on the Site`Development/Master Plan, Sh. nog A-1, ; ,g4 Since the Additions will cover some of the existing landscaped sa areas, as shown on the plans of the original landscaping, the trees and large plant material will be relocated, as noted on ? the Site Development/Parking Plan, Sh..no.A-1 , and new plant . material installed at the East ends of the Additions. li A 12" main irrigation line has already been extended to the South, under the existing paving, and this will be continued + ? further, to care for the relocated trees. a . The building forms, materials, and colors are an extension of _ the existing scheme. • I believe that a visit to the site, or color slides of the exist ing development could more accurately show the overall character - • of the project, and the Additions are planned to continue that theme. l il Y. Si erely, Y fit; ichard W. Norman, ALA . ' August 24, 1977 , ,• Ill I. , ! 'r 11 % I 7 164, 1./q/77 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW SDR 33-77 (Administrative Service Center) September 8, 1977 The following items were noted by staff and should be addressed by the applicant : 1. There seems to be a discrepancy as to property line location on the site, particularly for the north lot line. The exact loca- tion of all property lines should be researched and submitted on the revised plan. 2. Right-of-way for the realignment of S .W. 72nd should be speci Pied at 60 feet . This realignment should be approved by City of Tigard Public Works Department and by the Washington County Public Works Department . The applicant should also be aware that slope easements might be necessary. A non-remonstrance agreement for the improvement of S.W. 72nd will also be necessary. ' 3. The following code requirements would apply to this development : a. The front 20 feet shall be landscaped and maintained (measured from the new property line dedication) . b. Five foot landscape strip between the property line and any parking. • c. Tree .and shrub planting areas of a minimum eight feet in width every 70 feet on center each way in parking areas. 4. The main focus of the redevelopment should be the appearance from the public right-of-way (S.W. 72nd) . Therefore, once the realignment has been ascertained, a landscape plan should be presented for that area. 5. The proposed expansion is acceptable to staff in that the site is zoned M-2 (General Industrial) and buildable land should be utilized wherever possible. However, the building style and use is professional in nature; therefore, staff feels that more landscaping should be retained around the front of the building and a main entry area l established. I4 a AI K ( / PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW SDR 33-77 (Administrative Service Center) September 8, 1977 Page 2 6. Landscaping along the north property line is negligible and should be revamped. 7. The applicant should clarify the amount of back-up space avail- able to the cars along the north property line. 24 feet back- up is necessary, according to the code. • • • • • r7 i �p r; -- — v I v i - _ • LAKE ., ‘ . g- --1 _,_,.. -- .- --1-- _ . . ! • • 0 • EGO Rr .R:TALL. ,. lAM..URI .4, . � If (.1,c(.1,c ' - .• .-II STRICT - - - . i , P. , . , i to 1_ILL ISIr \ - illit • .a_ ` � N obi \ -',EA <-- % '41110 .\\— . \,...'414i ".....\ % iiir •. , ! .._____T___„_......„________ -ll / I H (1 . ....., .• , \d ROAD RDAd .ONITi ' a - MI' A is • - 1 I lir ' �- _ � ■� `: 1 I L 1 Sill 1 ._ . . • ICI;. pile . _ \// /z ‘fir,/ i-i -- i t .. 4 AA 71111 — � C` . . • • _ • fIR-45 --- `‘-- I Al. . \,-.(\ id.. i . PAI olli, ,„ MIMI --• : ...__ • - - i t �j M: 4'r . . ., .4 1 I / . Iti In ill • ~- , r iii I! \ ■ r— �� s � f ,. . 1 . ... :.1• ...R� w�rniam.ri mill ■I• 4 �. ,__ . - 4 /*** J1. -''i -1- I • ji , OM , I 1 v , 1 . ,t ,. . . NN.. .,,,_,,,,c_i T y i ... i f Sail IT.' mirl ! s' ...4 ;a•iiiih /,. ' all PACIFIC IF WESTERN BANK BUILDING AND PLANNING 300 Pacwest Center 1211 S . Fifth Avenue Portland, OR 97204 503/790-7577 Tigard Planning Commission Tigard, Oregon - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Zone Change from I-H to C-P on TL.4100, 2S-1-1DC, & TL.700, 2S-1-DD BACKGROUND: In 1972, FIRST STATE BANK built the first phase of the ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE CENTER on T.L. 3900, address: 7150 S. W. Sandburg. In 1974, the Bank purchased T.L. 4100 and T.L. 700, South of their site, to provide space for future expansion. All of the property was zoned M-2, and allowed both manufacturing and office construction. In 1977, Phase-2 additions to the ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE CENTER were submitted to Tigard's Planning Commission for Design Review (exhibit-A), together with a supplemental letter from the architect (exhibit-B) des- cribing the project and future plans, and a print of the Site Development Plan (exhibit-C). The Tigard staff report (exhibit-D) noted the acceptability of the project, which was subsequently built. Tigard's new COMPREHENSIVE PLAN did not recognize the future plans submitted by the FIRST STATE BANK, and the zoning map of the area (exhibit-E) shows T.L.4100 and T.L.700 rezoned as "I-H", which would prohibit the future development of offices, as submitted to the Planning Commission in 1977. RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT We believe that the zoning on T.L.4100 and T.L.700 should be changed from I-H to C-P for the following reasons: 1 . The Planning Commission honestly erred by not including these tax lots in the adjacent C-P zone, when drawing up the Plan. 2. The C-P zoning would conform to the Goals and Policies of the Plan. 3. The land was purchased in 1974 to provide for expansion of the adjacent office use, and the future development was planned and submitted to Tigard's Planning Commission in 1977, before the creation of the Comprehensive Plan. A RACWEST BANK __________ . , il II RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (cont'd) 4. The sloping topography of the Tax lots is not suitable for I-H development. RE: GOALS AND POLICIES The proposed zone change supports LCDC Planning Goal #9, "to diversify and improve the economy of the state." The zone change would conform to COMMERCIAL POLICY 12.2.1 THE CITY SHALL: a. PROVIDE FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT BASED ON THE TYPE OF USE, ITS SIZE AND REQUIRED TRADE AREA. In addition: 1 . The future u s e is compatible wi th the adjacent developments. s. 2. There are no adjacent residential zones to be impacted. J p 3. All utility services are installed and available. 4. Traffic is served by 72nd Avenue, a major collector. y ACIFIC WESTERN BANK 4.14„, ice President /sg tile iv o. ------ ---- Architectural Review Fee Received ' APPLICATION Receipt # --------- Date Received ___ . ___ _ Tigard Planning Commission �Y 12420 SW Main St. , Tigard, Or. 97223 A • 639-4171 Phase-2, Alterations and Additions to the Project Title Adman Sery _center,Fi Date Filed Project Address 7150 S.W. Sandbur1 Road Tigard, Oregon, 97223 Tax Map No. Tax Lot No. 03801 , 03900, 04100, & 007c0-PT4 Owner/De.ve-!oper Fi rst State Bank of Oregon — Ned Takasumi Address 10888 S.E. Main Street, Milwaukie, Ore. 97222 Telephone 653.3410 Owner's Telephone Signature DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Proposed Use #Buildings # Units So. Ft. Main fl . add. 7,878 sq.ft. • Offices _ One One Bsmt fi,,,_add� so_ft. �- ExistMain fl . 10,000 sq.t Site Size 6. 14 acres Tot, Sq. Ft. of Buildings Add. 7,878 sc.ft. Sq. Ft. of Paving Add. 16,220 sq.ft. Sq. Ft. of La_ndscapingAdd. 10, 160 sq.ft. Anticipated Development Date September 1977 _. . Anticipated Development Phases �. Valuation $ 350,000.00 _.._..._..__.. DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE Special Conditions - Dedications Bonding __- Other Final Inspection by __—.._..___... ._..__..__.__ _ Date • E • I fh Y e: j .ca Tigard Planning Commission s 12420 S.W. Main Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 4".7 j� �:i'l Re: Phase-2, Alterations and Additions to the Administrative ;y Services Center, First State Bank of Oregon. : '; Dear Commissioners: 1..-.t The Standard form for "Site Development Plan and Design Review" tv". does not seem to adequately cover the kind or amount of infor- y 4 mation needed for this kind of project. For this reason, a short narrative may be helpful in your `' . deliberations. 2 y The total existing site consists of 6. 14 acres. �`',.. The building project and its immediate developed surroundings ='' will cover approximately 2.8 acres, of which, about 1 acre (36%) can be considered as landscaped; 1 .4 acres (50%) in paving; and .4 acre (14%) is in building. '1.4 '~_' The balance of the property may be developed in the future, as shown on the Site Development/Master Plan, Sh. no. A- I . °`` Since the Additions will cover some of the existing landscaped areas, as shown on the plans of the original landscaping, the trees and large plant material will be relocated, as noted on ;0' the Site Development/Parking Plan, Sh.no.A-1, and new plant r material installed at the East ends of the Additions. : �Ll A l2" main irrigation line has already been extended to the viv South, under the existing paving, and this will be continued ,&. further, to care for the relocated trees. 4 ,;. The e building forms, materials, and colors are an extension of to the existing scheme. 's I believe that a visit to the site, or color slides of the exist- "L ing development could more accurately show the overall character 4, of the project, and the Additions are planned to continue that „ s theme. ' '' Si erely, 7. i l •� V. 40`9'~•,_, ,Ip 'chard W. Norman, AIA August 24, 1977 ozis i A v A ' El { i } { ? t 1 { { j , r kA i t I ,. :1..e.,-,O,0 , I I. 1 I�x `, \ -• e ,r rr' I , i _ 1r 1 \ \ .- �. { \1 \ :aaD V...1{N p` - 3g.(l" •�+y`"l F { t r' {{ 1_ }__ ! 1 f 1f 4 i , • I ■ i P {c 1 -I qi7 �-- �i It 1 l d Itit r :. { i 'tr \ .'",.... ; .1Q1 , 40 -t-4 .. t (fir ( #r} t `, {jiaf .a.pa- ? arf_2 :rts+c+,-icr,., !14 - , ' � . 7. \-: , k r r �^.: Jsi:,� ..,__jv' C-at: .-- \M k : \ - - . ---u- -- --:-:::_ ---1.4''''"fa-;:r.,..::-E,,......7..107.-:-, ;-,7:1 - r*:44-t:---A77''''; -"----...........„.....-- N. . 1. 1 . y ` '. k , ' �.,�1Zecr L. i$ 4 ^ I -- — __. `� _ t\, - \ za .�.szs ATVra F:04AZ.".. _ • 1/ 4 I it- : , . { 1 is1. y September 8, 1977 • The following items were noted by staff and should be addressed by the applicant : 1. There seems to be a discrepancy as to property line location on the site, particularly for the north lot line . The exact loca- tion of all property lines should be researched and submitted on the revised plan . 2. Right-of-way for the realignment of S .W. 72nd should be speci fied at 60 feet. This realignment should be approved by City of Tigard Public Works Department and by the Washington County Public Works Department. The applicant should also be aware that slope easements might be necessary. A non-remonstrance agreement for the improvement of S.W. 72nd will also be necessary. • 3. The following code requirements would apply to this development : a. The front 20 feet shall be landscaped and maintained (measured from the new property line dedication) . b. Five foot landscape strip between the property line and any parking. c. Tree .and shrub planting areas of a minimum eight feet in width every 70 feet on center each way in parking areas. 4. The main focus of the redevelopment should be the appearance from the public right-of-way (S.W. 72nd) . Therefore, once the realignment has been ascertained, a landscape plan should be presented for that area. 5. The proposed expansion is acceptable to staff in that the site is zoned M-2 (General Industrial) and buildable land should be utilized wc,erever possible. However, the building style and use is professional in nature; therefore, staff feels that more landscaping ,should be retained around the front of the building and a main entry area4established. 3414 im•1:7 SDR33-77 (Administrative Service Center) ' 'September 8, 1977 Page 2 • 6. Landscaping along the north property line is negligible and should be revamped. 7. The applicant should clarify the amount of back-up space avail- able to the cars along the north property line. 24 feet back- up is necessary, according to the code. • • • er+r, 1:rF16c.. I ir----4- --= .1 ')V EGO—_"mil 1 �.M..OF i • ! .' I — P ._ .a IR a TRII 1 \ . iiiii / i� ... 4F� H is 9 t.Obi 11 i ��rr• II I I— 1 . ill&1 R—1 Lij .CHIT. I 104D I H•(1N1tF -_.t+ 1uuli !004 I L._ ' ------* 1 ' 1 1 ' °MI ---li I s .riNNI ■ ' ' ' .T r■a III•�i�N1oNmE k J F -- ' , , �'1 !� 11. !!/►��i R® r _ __ . ' � -• //k,e,"\, \ \s NI.-4 \/.., \ s'.)p../\.\ Ilh. '------1—.— ■ ' \1.'C ,. I r . ' 4401.6 .57016.7 % ) ` R1. 4444... l ----' { _. R-4 5 1`-,� 1I • ' \ I -/ ://�� - —I // it--- -- R-12 1 � ►�i. ... I I \ I 1,o ! Ieta-, P '!.. -'- --1 I— - — . ____,, - - l , ■ -- �--11 I /� = • 15)-12 -• , t i ak; 1 '.1 IA r _ 1111. 3 ip. i _. L__ r~ _ 1 T--- , s - - , .... •sir s:-i IN • ■ • \ • ,y., • i FAA I , ,,,,, EKfr ^ ITS ' T G Pme _—~_-__' - Planning Commission October 2, 1984 Agenda Item 5.4 CPA 22-84 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Planning Commission September 20, 1484 FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Designation on Lower 8uhvllo Ferry Property It was brought to staff's attention by Mike Byers, Lead Plan Reviewer for the LCDC, that neither Washington County nor the City of Tigard had assigned a east side of Lower .~.~~^~ Ferry Road. Washington County and ` '"^ believe that the City of Tigard should have Planning responsibility for those lots. The City Planning Staff concurs. The area immediately adjacent to the east is designated Medium High Density on the City's Comprehensive Plan Map. These are existing single family residences on the lots marked with "*" on the , attached map There is a total of 16.41 acres. Zoning this property at 25 units per acre would boost the City's overall density by approximately 400 [ addition. RECOMMENDATION: P T. Planning Commission should forward a recommendation to the City Council ' . that the 6 lots be designated as Medium .^=.. Density Residential on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. (EAN:pm/0646P) il VI / .' ' . ' t. & ` .` ' . ' R WA$HIN6TON- COUN1`Y b G B,. . '• SCALE "1"x:200 . • J i4 ao L asAe. SEE MAP �� ,__ . IS •1 .338 QP. h LO/Ae ®� I f .6T 5 .r 100 G �1 X40® a /.SSAC. g , 4.I6Ae. rn , - . . f /� ' I irY_e 3 .. ,: 502 ,g,� r �V�5 / f,td 0 sq• 3.96 AC. / / 10 Ae. CP _,=- -- 1 JeiJ I r� Aso k 4 c 4 0603 v 0 ` 4. :.. f 0.53 • .!L. i i at Ac n IT v 1Q5 �s N$ .6i et o. 37 , h .. 7.36Ae. 6z _ 1. 0 1 �<.0 107 • .t. A - 301 ° N. 3.36Aa .. 2!7 f • 800 c., t 3.0 _ I - 6SAe- 1,.. f t - 2!T 1 J , Y of - r� r }� i Ca � . 101 t,. 1 '� /36Ae ">' DEECEO to z 330• ROAD ai w -. ,NI ip r MT/ tl % ,ps -k" ` - 3 ;1' .=. 297' •o 4.854c. 34-1OAe. p Z"Y • Till A. ' : •' • i 660' .,•- .: ;:.:34.7.7.1=,':-.';`," Vi- .4577 . \Ot9 --- - 4‘ • !! s _ �;<- "rte a,�0,. vt,•c gas 4- = WEST a ; � _ „, zoo Y K,,,, tom , 4.4 C n �, le •bz4 cc G i +130. V r • .4.' ),.,,. 00 y i % ' s 1 1 - x 130• .- .4-,-. \ • it ti"' 'v -- :1, V \ ..„,.... F . - Illir iiiir if. , ,.., Y 4. " P„ yk ' ',r' a .r a ' r' # ti i.:4,7', • ypE -,'" r { ;f r - ` ? -6.• xti - 3__ • i i SE • MAP .� l;,; , ; • . -e ii • • 1 I r . • ' i ... i__i t---- -• -L1 1 - ---- . Ll._ ----i :,. • , , ,__ • . __ IF, 1 . . •------.- ;'-,---1 , . I , ---- --- ---- -----ii L , •11' rivil 0,1 .,,,,, „pi. Dr.:: .1.- 4: :413 iiiii drtl 1 .4,11 cat • . . 0 '':< E L , ...,,:ii -I __ r: ____J , ,,,.. . • .... : . _ — „...,./ , - i_ • ---- • • t--- c\. ..-v I' -r--__T-.1-.] • --yrr ______z_ -__ ___ N, IP- _ ., ;- I 411 i _ . ____, , , --- LCIIILL4.4114. ,.- Ins . • link 1 31 34 .1' 32 33 4 . , ' • • . ' . . . b... As .. . ,•. . sung INIS031111111115 ....._ iroplimirtnn Oat. 5 4 01.1."" ibi is, owes shill an ailillIIIVA.,,, . .5, \ . 1... ___ llo 44 : , qt....2.0, al 1147111111 'MVP III III. si. 1111111, . v Ira aim p, Teggit mai * w411 air idis . . dill IS N 2 411 , 9 tn i I vollihis. al garr411 1 J IIII 11 41T-3 IN rsto s : ei . •,---- Ploy I. • •:.• is,i s,*a •,;•■• „gm ,..,,, I oh ■ ( pip . , II ,..1,„ i, • • t---7------T-7---------• -.; 11. ' 'N 1-11 . • - mug ago . 11111 a ow- , ,. • lr i p Hilo AIL. .. A.. MI = r• .' 1 IPPr • , , • ! , ,, --.......,..s• 01011. - - . 1110—• rilON e • MILII W 1 III I L__, . 1 . ,,•-7- • „. ... .. . p,.1 Li- .5 ,„.:. , .• . - ---, I . ,• ,,, 1...____i • -,-,.: • , Illt 4 4, . ■„ ,, - .' r---' I ,. .. L....: ,..W'' 4 __ . . ' I L il ...,. ,z, ---- ---- . W1,1 ', , — :',.. -- JIRO . • L 11 P • _., ' .... ._ . .4. ... . ... . .... ,..._ __________ . _______ __T . 1 . I i ..,' Planning Commission October 2, 1984 Agenda Item 5.5 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Planning Commission September 20, 1984 FROM: Planning Staff OM SUBJECT: Historic District Designations The ESEE section of the Natural Resources section of Volume I of the Comprehensive Plan identifies potentially significant historic sites within the City of Tigard. In the ESEE document, it is recommended that the Goal 5 process on several sites be delayed until more information can be obtained. These sites include the Upshaw House/Seven Gables, the Tigard Grange, the Tigard Farmhouse and Windmill, Tigard Feed and Seed and the Joy Theater. The Washington County Museum has conducted a cultural resource inventory for each of those sites. Copies are attached. The present owners of the Upshaw House/Seven Gables have expressed their preference in not having the Historic District designation placed on their property. A copy of their letter is attached. All of the property owners have been mailed a copy of the Washington County Museum cultural resource inventory for their property and have been asked to comment prior to the Planning Commission meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the cultural resource inventory and property owners' comments for each site and determine whether or not a Historic District designation should be assigned. (EAN:pm/0648P) • WASHINGTON COUNTY CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY CITY OF TIGARD 251 /80o RESOURCE NO.: PRESENT OWNER: Herb Burns and Donna Flemmer T 1S R 1W Sec. 34 1/4 DD ORIGINAL OWNER: _ TAX LOT #: 100 ARCHITECT/BUILDER: CONDITION: Good LOCATION: 10525 Tigard Street, Tigard CONSTRUCTION DATE:_ca.1910 COMMON/HISTORIC NAME: H. E. Cowgill Residence USE: PRESENT Residence THEME: Architectural: 20th Cent. ORIGINAL Residence & Farm TYPE: Building * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Description of the resource and statement of historical significance: (Continue on back if necessary) ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION The Cowgill residence is sutuated on the rise of a hill, overlooking agricultural fields below. This bungalow style residence stands IA stories high and is sided with weatherboard and raked shingles in the gable ends. The medium piched gable roof has a noched barge board and decorative, exposed rafters and purlins. An interior brick chimney with a corbelled cap crests the roofline. Windows are fixed on the first story north (rear) facade and on the south facade. Double hung sash windows of 15/1, and 1/1 are located in the upper story gable ends. Twelve pane casements are seen in the east and west dormer windows. 1 The gable covered front porch on the south facade remains as constructed except for the porch posts which have been replaced with wrought iron posts. The porch has decorative exposed rafters and purlins. Access to an enclosed east side porch is gained through aluminum sliding doors. This porch is two stories, and the second story is enclosed with a wrought iron railing. This porch appears to be a later addition. The residence has a concrete foundation and basement. The Cowgill water tower is situated west of the residence. It is sided with weather board on the first story, and wood shingle on the second story. The hip roof covering the water tower has exposed rafters. The wheel mechanism is still intact, however, the blades of the wheel are missing. (don't.) Sources consulted: . Cowgill, Forest L. Telephone Interview. May 1984. . Flemer, Gertrude. Telephone Interview. May 1984. Recorded by: Demuth/McLaughlin Date: May 1984 PRESENT OWNER'S ADDRESS (If different from above): 10'111 1E I I'I{A1. DE:;t:1:11'1'1tl:; ■ f (),; ' t . ) 'r:, :1,1 1 ,I ;51 t. L.1 .1' ': .11 • , I H• H.I I I I. • ,I ,•,III .: • I ,l l 1,1'1 i• i t)•■1 i. Ii 1•1 ,t l•, I.,,, ,t • .l i •. . 1• „ H It 1 i , , • . , '4.i ; I 1 • , t,it ,.n me:: It 1 11 t • H. •i 1 1,/:• , ..,I.••• , I i "d. . , . i 1 , .p! u••. , ippl I• , ti Iherl , pt al , w,I : :. ,t ,:td t,t tic r : rtti t t rt t t1:I11 t Lt 1,11 :;e 14a l I.nt t ret1s i:, pl.1ticled : "81acs .,., 1..,.1 111, t II ,1.,, I , I•• I,I • i II, IIv h,Il , ." 1;1, prep('rt. V ,11)pt',Ir . I hav, ht , :1 1.4L111 .11,11nt ,.I int ,d up InI i I tIlt I ,Ist Ic•se Vt•ars. H1 :n1UIt;A1. :1:;:a AkCH1TECTUk■:11. d1G:;lrlh:1',:CL The how,1111 residence was ronstrurtrd in the early IHUU s , according to Forest E. Cowr.ill , a former owner of the house who still owns the surrounding acreage . Forest 's parents, Hal Ervin and Frances Susan Cowgill moved into the area from Portland and bought the house in 1936. Many families had owned the' residence previous to the Cowgills purchase . Frances Cowgill lived in the house until 198U, when it passed to her son, Forest . The house has recently been sold to Herb Burns and Sonna Flenlmer, though Forest still owns the windmill and surrounding property. Some minor changes have been made to the residence since the Cowgills purchased in 1936. The front window on the south facade was replaced with a large , fixed pane and the oniginal front porch posts were removed; wrought iron supports were then added . There was originally a bay window on the east facade which has been replaced by a covered porch . The Cowgill residence is a significant resource to the City of Tigard due to its association with the Cowgill family for many years. Hal Cowgill , originally from Portland, was an employee of Pacific Power and Light Company for many years . The residence is in good condition and is one of few bungalow farmhouses with a watertower still intact on the property. • r . , , 4 ,^ 1 . ,..,,,,,f,;,,,,,, Sp . r ^t / 4"10: t", , N, t •"1.• a V4 N ! t � Y.; �y B t y *.+• '. . ! .• ..,.',',.•::::' ' --44°- .. , . .. , . , , .. .. ..,..., ., ."..... ..., . • . , , , ,., ...,, ..,,,,,,,..,.. . ., .._, ....„, ,,,:y 1/4. _,.,..„.„..„...,, , ,,, a'''' „f 'late*, mo; fta 0.. " a .. t * � WASHINGTON COUNTY CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY CITY OF TIGARD RESOURCE NO.: 252/807 PRESENT OWNER: J.J. Taggert T1S R 1W Sec. 35 V4DD ORIGINAL OWNER: J. J. Taggert TAX LOT #: 2700 ARCHITECT/BUILDER: CONDITION: Good LOCATION: 11959 SW Pacific Hwy. #99 ,Tigard CONSTRUCTION DATE:1939 COMMON/HISTORIC NAME: Joy Theatre USE: PRESENT Theatre & Businesses THEME: Art: Performing Arts ORIGINAL Theatre TypE: Building * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Description of the resource and statement of historical significance: (Continue on back if necessary) ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION The Joy Theater exhibits the combined use of Art Moderne and Art Deco Styles popular in the 1930's. The building, constructed in 1939, has a flat roof and a stepped parapet above the marquee. It is sided with stucco and is 1 a stories high. Port colored tile is been below the large, fixed, storefront windows on either side of the recessed entryway. The doors to these businesses have one light. The transoms, originally of one light, have been replaced with plywood. Two sets of double wooden doors with one light each open into the theater. These doors are situated on either side of the ticket booth. The marquee over the entrance on the east facade is constructed of metal, which has been textured and painted. The neon sign "JOY", rests on a stepped triangular stucco tower above the marquee. A two story brick and stucco building is attached to the north and east facades of the theater. Entrance to the north facade of the building is gained by steps leading from the ground level to the second story. CONTEXTUAL DESCRIPTION • The theater is set back only a few feet east of Highway #99,near the intersection of the highway and S.W. Hall Boulevard. The area surrounding the theater is commercial. A shopping center is west of the theater d a file shho is across Highway 99 to the east. Sources consulted: • Martin, Bob. Interview, March 7, 1984 ,r . Payne, Mary. Telephone Interview. April 16, 1984 • Demuth/ McLaughlin Aril 1984 Recorded by: Date: April C PRESENT OWNER'S ADDRESS (If different from above): 5010 Rocklynn Place, Beaverton, OR 97005 t HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE Though the Joy Theater was built as late as 1939, it is one of the few significant architectural examples of an Art Deco/Moderne Style building in Tigard. The theater was built and owned by J.J. Taggert, the current owner. Mr. Taggert named the theater after his wife, Joy, who's mother also owned a theater in Vernonia. The interior of the theater has been remodeled since 1939, however, the building has been in use as a theater since its construction. The exterior of the building remains in good condition and an important landmark for the many travelers along Highway ;I 99 going through Tigard. fit, e 4 ,iZ'"` 16,4 "r k 4 °f r r tix h.l L s" YY 'S y1�'i.���� �ry '�,r`•c� � • i r Iv ., ham-.: .„, M, , .r�i�io Y (,, 4 y - _of �U' r k i� �GL a', ��>r„art ,�tift �^ , 4 ^ s °#,'\ i 1, 1 . 9 } . i N4,, >i/, } a ,''A`= 4 4 L4, ,u Ab p^ 1'F,y .! ,+ Ss. { a 1J , • _ • WASHINGTON COUNTY CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY CITY OF TIGARD RESOURCE NO.: _253/808 PRESENT OWNER: H. A. Johnson T 2S R 1W Sec. 2 1/4 AB ORIGINAL OWNER:August Schubring/W. Biederman TAX LOT #:. 5400 ARCHITECT/BUILDER: CONDITION: Fair LOCATION: 12355 Main Street, Tigard CONSTRUCTION DATE:1924 COMMON/HISTORIC NAME: Tigard Feed and Garden Store Commercial: Business USE: PRESENT S tore THEME: & Industry y Store ORIGINAL TYPE: Building * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Description of the resource and statement of historical significance: (Continue on back if necessary) ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION: The Tigard Feed and Garden Store was built in 1924 by August Schubring and operated by his partner Wilbur Biederman. The original building is rectangular in plan, one and one half stories high, and has a gable roof covered with corrugated tin. A metal cupola projects from the gable ridge. There is an interior metal flue on the NE gable slope. The building is clad with tongue and groove siding, and finished with corner boards. In 1941 two additions were built onto the store. A one story, low pitched gable roof is attached to the rear elevation. On the west elevation there is, one story, _flat roof attachment. Prior to the addition, there had been a drive up ramp on this side' to facilitate customer pick ups. A shed roof porch, supported by three square posts, stretches across three quarters of the front facade. Side stairs lead to the two foot porch platform. One of the entries on this facade has hinged double doors, each having three wood panels and a single light. Another door has four lights and three panels. Track sliding doors are located on the east and west elevations. Fixed windows of three and six lights are seen throughout the building. The foundation is constructed of concrete piers and wood posts. t' (Con't.) Sources consulted: . Johnson, H. A. Interview, March 1984 . Moore, Mr. & Mrs. Robert. Interview, May 1984 . Root, Neva. Telephone Interview, May 15, 1984 . The Tigard 'Times, June 30, 1974 McLaughlin/Demuth Date: May 1984 Recorded by .g PRESENT OWNERS ADDRESS (If different from above): , CONTEXTURAL DESCRIPTION (CON'1.) The feed and garden store is sited to the NW, off of Main Street, between SW Tigard Street and several sets of railroad tracks. In front of the store is a gravel parking lot. A three foot loading dock is located behind the building, and Highway 99 passes above and behind the property. Other commercial buildings are sited along Main Street. ARCHITECTURAL & HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE In 1924 August Schubring and his partner and nephew, Wilbur Biederman, built the Tigard Feed and Garden Store as an adjunct to their existing grocery store on Main Street. As a graduate of the Oregon Agricultural College (now OSU) , Biederman took responsibility for managing the feed store and Schubring continued to operate the grocery store. For twelve years Biederman used his technical knowledge to ground feed to order for his Tigard customers. In 1936 he and his family moved to Wisconsin leaving Schubring to operate the warehouse by himself. The feed and garden store was sold in the late 1930's to the partnership of Gray and Rasmussen. (For additional biographical information on Biederman and Schubring see form number 262/829 . The feed store was moved forward to its current location to make room for the Highway 99 overpass during the Grey—Rasmussen ownership period. The overpass was constructed in 1939-40. The Tigard Oregon Electric depot located in front of the feed store, and the Portland Gas and Coke Company Warehouse, located behind the s tore, were both razed at this time. According to Neva Root, long time resident of Tigard, it was during this time that the east facade of the store was used as a screen for showing outdoor motion pictures. After K. P. McLean purchased the store in 1941, he constructed the two additions, that gave the building its current appearance and size. The business was sold to the Harvest Milling Company in 1948, and then to the current owner, Hal Johnson, in 1954. Johnson's earlier experience of having served as a chief store keeper in the Navy, and in merchandising feed, were put to good use when he became owner of the feed store. Little has changed on either the interior or exterior of the building in keeping with Johnson's belief that modernization would cause the store to lose its identity. After nearly thirty years of successfully operating the Tigard Feed and Garden Store, his philosophy rings true. The store is significant to the City of Tigard in its association with the variety of colorful owners since constructed in 1924, and as the only wood frame building on Main Street that has not been significantly altered. 5 , t rw� JCe �t�� '� '�'M1t� � � {fit tr e �y 1''11`.7 ' p, lV I �� fM tr4t 4141%;a t a '2 �" , J t " b ! -ry 11I _"/"\ pIw�s4 r{tz t«S py r 4�a, ivy ; Y1.4,rt",� 4 44 ii#rt 1 ''' cii7 3 �.. 1 5,}4'42.4 j C 0 arm. .. • , 7 •• . . . . • .. , ... y1�, 1 , . . . . .......... .• . . . ... t. . ..... .., . ... . . ,, .. ; 1,, 1 .. ,. ., .. . . . . , . .. ,.L' . • .. ,„,....„:„.„,4,,,,,,,t,„:,. . . .. . ; , • . , . . . , , • . .,.._,........ , . ... t., . . .. .. _ 1 1 , . 1 . . .. WASHINGTON COUNTY CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY CITY OF TIGARD RESOURCE NO.: 255/S10_ PRESENT OWNER: bard Grange T 2S R 1W Sec. 3 1/4 DD ORIGINAL OWNER: Tigard. Grange TAX LOT #: 600 ARCHITECT/BUILDERsGrange Members CONDITION: Fair LOCATION: 13770 SW Highway No. 99, Tigard CONSTRUCTION DATE: 1925 COMMON/HISTORIC NAME: Tigard Grange/Butte Grange // 148 USE: PRESENT Church and Orange Hall THEME: Social: Regional Culture ORIGINAL Grange Hall TYPE: Building Description of the resource and statement of historical significance: (Continue on back if necessary) ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION The old Tigard Grange is a one story Mission Revival style building, constructed in 1925. It has beveled wood siding on the major portion of the exterior, and stucco on the west facade. The flat roof on the building is hidden by a stucco and wood parapet along the north, south and west facades. A brick chimney with a corbelled cap is on the south building facade. Double hung sash windows of 6/2 lights are paired on the south and north facades. The double entry doors on the west facade have one panel and one light, with sidelights of eight panes each and transoms of two lights. A portico projects over the front of the west facade. It is made of stucco, with a gable roof, and arched door and window openings. The rear attach- ment to the building is sided with shiplap. The windows have been boarded over, and the entrance is no longer in use. This attachment is a stage addition that was constructed using lumber from the first grange. (Con't.) Sources consulted: . Root, Neva. Telephone interview. May 23, 1984. . Payne, Mary. Telephone interview. April 16, 1984. Recorded by Demuth/ McLaughlin Date: April 1984 PRESENT OWNER'S ADDRESS (If different from above): CONTEXTUAL DESCRIPTION The grange is sited on the east side of Highway 1199 in Tigard. A commercial area is directly across the street . A gravel parking lot and grass strip is south of the building. Large oak trees and a residential area is behind the building. HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE The present Tigard Grange replaced the previous grange hall, which had been constructed in 1875. The first grange hall was built by volunteer labor, and in 1884 was insured for $500.00. It was built on land donated by Wilson Tigard, for whom the town of Tigard was named. The grange was first known as Butte Grange 41148, and was organized on April 22, 1874 . It wasn't until 1927 that the name was changed to the Tigard Grange. Prior to the construction of the first grange hall in 1876, meetings were held in a cookhouse that was built for sawmill workers. The building was located on O'Mara Street, on the property of W.W. Graham. In 1925 at a special meeting, the grange members voted to construct a new grange building. At this meeting, Charles F. Tigard was elected Chairman and Orman Butler, W.A. Root, and George Arnold were elected trustees. The present Tigard Grange Hall was constructed in 1925. It was built mainly by grange members. Mr. Root and Mr. Metzentine were among those who devoted much of time to the project. The hall cost about $5,960.00 in materials. While the grange hall was under construction, the members met in the upper story of the McDonald's Store which stood on the corner of Highway 4199 and McDonald Road. The Tigard Grange is significant historically in that it has been in use as a Grange Hall since 1925. It has kept its original integrity and is in good condition. The Tigard Grange Hall remains an important landmark in the City, representative of the efforts of early grange members, including Wilson Tigard. The grange currently rents space in the building to the New Covennant Community Church. •Ys *a w a, ,ad x1h� 4 ?�< ki'� s '14:74 ro r g n s z s44° k4x4,4" Y $)£ 4:4 t 19;0 F i. e;,,(0,1, .u ' uw ,.S*. ft lalft It • • • WASHINGTON COUNTY CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY CITY OF TIGARD RESOURCE NO.: 258/813 PRESENT OWNER: Susan & Dennis Reed T 2S R / 1WSec. 11 1/4 BD ORIGINAL OWNER: Walter & Eda Upshaw TAX LOT 0: 1521 ARCHITECT/BUILDER: CONDITION: Good LOCATION: 15020 SW 100th, Tigard CONSTRUCTION DATE:ca• 1909 COMMON/HISTORIC NAME: Seven Gables - Upshaw House USE: PRESENT Residence THEME: Arch. 20th Century ORIGINAL Residence TYPE: Building * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Description of the resource and statement of historical significance: (Continue on back if necessary) ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION The Upshaw House is a one and one half story building, T shape in plan, with several major additions .Commonly referred to as the Seven Gables House , this name reflects the seven gabled roof pattern which includes four main gables and three dormers. The medium pitched roof is covered with composition shingle. The exterior of the house is sided with shiplap and cornerboards. There is an exterior brick chimney on the north facade and an interior chimney in the rear gable ridge which is no longer used. The rear gable, from which the three domers project, was a later addition to the house. Windows throughout the house are 9/1, 12/1 and 15/1 double hung sash. The simple window trim projects into the frieze boards in the main gables indicating there has been some window alterations. The original front porch, which had decorative brackets and wood detailing, was replaced with the existing hip roof porch in circa 1928. Two square the porch; the two wood brackets were added at a later boxed posts support p , P date. The central entry door is also a replacement. A fifteen light door in one of the north facade dormers opens onto a second story balcony enclosed by a three foot railing. It is supported by two square posts. The ground level door sited under the balcony has nine lights (Con't.) Sources consulted: . Fredericks, Mary Jane Upshaw. Telephone interview, April 17, 1984 . Reed, Susan. Interview, March 6, 1984. . Payne, Mary. Tigardville, Tigard. Lake Oswego: Lake Grove Printing Co. , 1979. pp. 221, 223, 171 Recorded by McLaughlin/Demuth' Date: March 1984 PRESENT OWNER'S ADDRESS (If different from above): ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION (Cont 'd) and wood panels. The neighboring dormer on this facade features a 9/1 double hung sash window. A similar dormer is seen on the south facade, as is a small enclosed shed roof attachment used as a bathroom. Under the house is a partial brick basement covered by cement on both the interior and exterior. Since the current owners purchased the house in 1979, they expanded the kitchen on the east elevation by removing the wall that sectioned off the pantry and enclosed porch. They also installed new hardwood flooring on the main level. Earlier interior alterations include: removing the central stairway to the rear of the house, and remodeling the two rooms into a single living room. CONTEXTUAL DESCRIPTION The Seven Gables House is located on Little Bull Mountain in Tigard, to the east off of 100th street. The property currently totals 3.6 acres. Houses which date from 1950 to the present surround the property in all directions. The grounds are handsomely landscaped with trees, shrubs, grass and flowers. The large Western Red Cedar tree just east of the house was planted in ca. 1919. HISTORICAL ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE According to Mary June Upshaw Fredericks, daughter of Walter Edwards Upshaw, there was an existing house on the property purchased by Reverend William Loomis Upshaw in 1909. Reverend Upshaw retired to this house after serving for several years as minister of the Mississippi Congregational Church in North Portland. Prior to his service in Portland, Reverend Upshaw, and his wife Ora Estelle, lived in Kansas, Oklahoma and Honduras (Their son Walter Edward was born in Kansas in 1890). After retiring to the property on 100th Street in 1909, Reverend Upshaw invested his time in raising Buff Orphington Chickens, and planting about thirteen acres of apple orchards.' Once the apples began to produce, the family phased out the chicken business. Walter Upshaw became involved early on with the production and marketing of the apple produce. He delivered them to stores and markets' on the east side of the Willamette River by horse and wagon. Married to his wife Edah in 1915, they had three daughters, Helen, Mary Jane and Estelle. After a stay on a farm near Lafayette in Yamhill County, they moved back to the Upshaw farm in 1924 following the death of Walter's mother Ora. They cared for William Upshaw until his death in 1928. Upon his return to Tigard, Walter became a Washington County horticulture inspector. In 1933 he was appointed head of the Department of Agriculture for the Portland Branch. In his spare time Walter involved himself in the Tigard Lions Club and was a charter member, and first full time president. Mrs. Edah Upshaw was likewise involved in the Auxiliary. The Upshaws continued to reside at the farm until Walter passed away in 1977. Mrs. Upshaw moved to King City about a year and a half later, and sold the property to the current owners in April 1979. Page 3 Seven Gables-Upshaw House HISTORICAL ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE (Cont'd) Although this resource has been subjected to several alterations and remodelings, its integrity has not been compromised. It remains in good condition, well maintained and respected by the current owners, as it obviously was by the Upshaw family. There is contextual signifi- cance in the remaining portion of apple orchards which originally totalled thirteen acres . In its association with the Upshaw family since 1909, this resource represents an earlier way of life, one that is fast disap- pearing from the neighborhoods of Tigard. t Aga ,MA.. ,r• . At i14{}"..1 4 +,� r 0 .. V a !e p Ex a r, rvz -‘ ' . i p x 41113'', '0.,,� ray 4 . ;{• _ ;AV te ,-a, J 6 3A iaY J wt q i JAW- • _ r .�r,W. a l�, y 4 le lK `Pty,�u�+.a' 1.4∎tg lfik .�• s . ..s ,t74-,'''',,40,4,� ;,-'\,-.4,'.."�Y4,�'� 41,,U ust S',,A;s i. 4 1 " to �; s '4 # lam` : F wx.�...."v' .� t 9 � �1 T. j {�1 ) $ au r a ps�4 xc ,T. 67 /V6 cif- 1,4-• G �`' • Az.ve edieoe dor sizi4 . „/ Ante/a ez444/.... "6„... efr-At t a/Le ..4-e ,,,00-07/Azdtie.te.,;..- 61.„ zziAi• • - %st.:440:-.344- £? L U I,4, 24 i�2e-t aZzed zini•Le eXf diodof aff.-4-;ec.-6' e.414:244,94:2--• evatiza • Z016' , i(efLase 416,-74- Aceituie /eeze(.., • ti fl } 18.82. HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT 18.82.010 Purpose A. The purpose of this Chapter is to: 1 . Implement the Comprehensive Plan; 2. Effect and accomplish the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of such improvements and of districts which represent or reflect elements of the City' s cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history; 3. Safeguard the City's historic, aesthetic and cultural heritage as embodied and reflected in such improvements and districts; 4. Complement any Registered Historic or cultural areas designated in the City; 5. Stabilize and improve property values in such districts; 6. Foster civic pride in the beauty and noble accomplishments of the past; 7. Protect and enhance the City's attractions to tourists and visitors and the support and stimulus to business and industry thereby provided; ii 8. Strengthen the economy of the City; 9. Promote the use of historic districts and landmarks for the education, pleasure, energy conservation, housing and public welfare of the City; and 10. Carry out the provisions of LCDC Goal #5. 18.82.015 Applicability of Provision and Initiation A. The Historic Overlay District shall apply to the following: 1. Historic sites and areas (Section 18.82.030); 2. Cultural sites and areas (Section 18.82.030); and 3. Landmarks (Section 18.82.030). B. The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to: 1. The demolition of structures within a Historic Overlay Zone Area (Section 18.82.050) . • 2. The exterior alteration or to new construction within the Historic Overlay Zone Area (Section 18.82.040). • III — 132 I/ 18.82.020 Administration and Approval Process_i plication_for District_r_ Demolition of Structure A. The applicant for a Historic Overlay District designation shall be as provided by Section 18.32.020, however, application for a demolition permit or for new construction or for alteration to an existing structure shall be the record owner of the property or an agent authorized in writing by the owner. B. A Pre—Application Conference with City staff is required. See Section 18.32.040. C. Due to possible changes in State statutes, or regional or local P olio Y. information tion g iven by staff to the applicant during the Pre—Application Conference is valid nor more that 6 months. 1. Another Pre-Application Conference is required if any application is submitted more than 6 months after the Pre—Application Conference. 2. Failure, of the Director to provide any of the information . required by this Chapter shall not constitute a waiver of the standards, criteria or requirements of the applications. D. The Hearings Officer shall approve, approve with conditions or deny any application filed under the provisions of this Chapter. The Hearings Officer shall apply the standards set forth in Section 18.82.030, 18.82.040 or 18.82.050 of this Code as appropriate when reviewing an application. F. The decision of the Hearings Officer may be reviewed by the City Council in accordance with Sections 18.32.310 (B) , F. The Director shall mail notice of any application to the persons who have a right to receive notice of a hearing before the Hearings Officer in accordance with Section 18.32. 130. 18.82.030 Criteria for Historic Overlay District Designation A. Approval of a Historic Overlay District designation shall be made when the Hearings Officer finds that any of the following criteria have been met: • • 1 . The proposed district or landmark would serve the purpose of the Historic Overlay District as stated in Section 18.82.010, purpose; 2. The site or area proposed for the designation reflects the broad cultural or natural history of the community, state, or nation; 3. The site or area is identified with historic personages, or with important events in national, state or local history; III - 133 4. The site or area proposed for the designation embodies the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural specimen inherently 'valuable for a study of a period, style, or method of construction; or 5. The proposed site or area is a notable work of a master builder, designer, or architect. B. The age of a specific building shall not be deemed sufficient in itself to warrant designation as historic. 18.82.040 Criteria for Exterior Alteration and New Construction Criteria A. Except as provided pursuant to Section 18.82.040(E), no person shall alter any structure in an Historic Overlay District in a manner as to affect its exterior appearance, nor may any new structure be constructed in an Historic District, unless approved by the Hearings Officer. B. Exterior remodeling as governed by this Chapter shall ; include any change or alteration in design or other exterior treatment excluding painting. C. For exterior alterations of structures in an Historic Overlay District, the criteria to be used by the Hearings Officer in reaching the decision shall include the following: 1. The purpose of the Historic Overlay District as set forth in Section 18.82.010; 2. The provisions of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan; 3. The economic use of the structure in an Historic Overlay District and the reasonableness of the proposed alteration and their relationship to the public interest in the structure's or landmark's preservation or renovation; 4. The value and significance of the structure or landmark in i an Historic Overlay District; 5. The physical condition of the structure or landmark in an ;. Historic Overlay District; 6. The general compatibility of exterior design, arrangement, proportion, detail, scale, color, texture and materials a. proposed to be used with an existing structure in an le Historic Overlay District; 7. Pertinent aesthetic factors as designated by the Hearings Officer; and 8. Economic, social, environmental and energy consequences related to LCDC Goal #5. `. III - 134 ; ,.... ......,, . e,� � .., ,,., s�.. ,.b.. D. For construction of new structures in an Historic Overlay District, the criteria to be used by the Hearings Officer in reaching the decision shall include the following: 1. The purpose of the Historic Overlay District as set forth in Section 18.82.010; 2. The provisions of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan; 3. The economic effect of the new structure on the historic value of the district; 4. The visual effect of the proposed new structure on the architectural character of the district; 5. The general compatibility of the exterior design, arrangement, proportion, detail, scale, color, texture and materials proposed to be used in the construction of the new building or structure; and 6. Economic, social, environmental and energy consequences related to LCDC Goal #5. E. Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to prevent the ordinary maintenance or repair of any architectural features which do not involve a change in design, material or the outward appearance of such feature which the Building Official shall • certify is required for the public safety because of its unsafe ( or dangerous condition. •18.82,050 Criteria for Demolition A. No person shall demolish a structure located within a Historic Overlay District unless it is approved under the provisions of this Chapter. B. In determining the decision regarding a requested demolition permit; the Hearings Officer shall consider the following criteria: 1. The Tigard City Comprehensive Plan; • • 2. The purpose of this Chapter is as set forth in Section 18.82.010; 3. The criteria used in the original designation of the District in which the property under consideration is situated; . 4. The historical and architectural style, the general design, arrangement, materials of the structure in question or its appurtenant fixtures; the relationship of such features to similar features of the 'other buildings within the district TIT'— 135 and the position of the building or structure in relation to public rights of way and to other buildings and • ( structures in the area; 5. The effects of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the district which cause it to possess a special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value; 6. Whether denial of the permit will subject the City to potential liability, involve substantial hardship to the applicant, and whether issuance of the permit would act to the substantial detriment of the public welfare and would be contrary to the intent and purposes of this Code; and 7. The economic, social, environmental and energy consequences related to LCDC Goal #5. 18.82.060 Application Submission Requirements A. All applications shall be made on forms provided by the Director and shall be accompanied by: 1 . Five copies of the Historic Overlay District, Exterior • Alteration, New Construction or Demolition site plan(s) and necessary data or narrative which ,explains how the proposal conforms to the standards: a. Sheet size for the proposed site plan and required drawings shall not exceed 18" x 24"; and b. The scale of the site plan shall be 20, 50, 100 or 200 feet to the inch; and c. All drawings of .structure elevations shall be a standard architectural scale, being 1/4" or 1/8". 2. A list, certified by the Washington County Tax Assessor's Office of the names and addresses of all who are property owners of record within 30 days before the application and whose property is within 250 feet of the site. 3. The required fee. • • B. The required information may be combined and does not have to be placed on separate maps. 18.82.070 The Site Plan A. The proposed Historic Overlay District plan shall include the following information: 1 . The proposed site and surrounding properties ( III - 136 • 2. The location, dimensions and names of all existing streets; 3. The location and dimension of: a. The entrances and exits on the site; , b. The parking and circulation areas; c. Loading and services areas; d. Pedestrian and bicycle circulation; e. Outdoor common areas; f. Above ground utilities; and • g. Existing landscaping. 4. The location, dimensions and setback distances of all: a. Existing structures, improvements and utilities which are located within 25 feet of the sites and are on adjoining property; and b. Proposed structures, improvements, landscaping and utilities on the site. 18.82.080 Architectural Drawings A. The Historical Overlay District plan proposal shall include: 1. Floor plans indicating the square footage of all structures existing and proposed for use on—site; and 2. Elevation drawings of each proposed structure and elevation drawings or photographs of each existing structure. 18.82.090 Landscape Plan A. The landscape plan shall be drawn at the same scale of the site plan or a larger scale if necessary and shall indicate: 1. Location and height of fences, buffers and screenings; 2. Location of terraces, decks, shelters and common open spaces; and 3. Location, type, size and species of existing and proposed plant materials. 18.82. 100 Sign Drawings Sign drawings shall be submitted in accordance with Chapter 18.114 of this Code. ZII — 137 • 18.82. 110 Additional Information Required and Waiver of Requirements A. The Director may require information in addition to that required by this Chapter in accordance with Section 18.32.080 (A). B. The Director may waive a specific requirement for information in accordance with Section 18.32.080 (B) & (C) . • • • III - 138 • 1 ' Planning Commission October 2, 1984 Agenda Item 5.6 CPA 23-84 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Planning Commission September 27, 1984 FROM: Planning Staff gayi SUBJECT: Subsidized Housing Policy On April 26, 1984, the Land Conservation and Development Commission voted to continue acknowledgment of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan to July 1, 1984, The City submitted responses to the continuance order on June 28, 1084. Then on August 13, 1984, the City submitted additional information to |-CDC. Following our submittal, on August 24, 1984, LCDC issued a memorandum asking for comments to the newest submittal. The Commission received four letters of objection to the City's new subsidized housing policy. The letters are from Oregon Legal Services Corporation, 1000 Friends of Oregon, attorneys for the Washington County Housing Authority and the State Housing Division. Copies are attached. The In Order to comply for the subsidized housing policy reads: "Delete Policy 6, 1.2 dealing with dispersal of subsidized housing, or, provide an analysis in the plan why this policy will not unnecessarily add to the cost of needed assisted housing and more clearly define the term "subsidized housing" " It is the City's position that the In Order to Comply Statement has been met. Policy 8.1.2 was deleted and replaced with new policy 6, 1.2 and locational criteria, In addition, the term "subsidized housing" was clarified. The new policy 0. 1.2 was modeled after a subsidized housing policy included by reference in the City of Salem's acknowledged Comprehensive Plmn, The City of Tigard's policy is less restrictive in that there are fewer locational criteria incorporated into the policy. However, the City of Tigard's policy is more restrictive than Salem's in that Tigard's subsidized housing policy allows no more that two subsidized housing units together. Salem's policy allows a maximum of three subsidized housing units together. The LCDC staff has indicated to the City's Planning Staff that they will recommend another continuance for acknowledgment of Tigard's Plan requiring the City to delete policies 5.1 .2 and 12.1.1 or provide an analysis in the plan why these policies will not unnecessarily add to the cost of needed assisted housing. If the subsidized housing policies are deleted by the City, | the LCDC Staff will recommend delayed signing. ( . � Subsidized Housing Policy Memo September 27, 1984 Page 2 OPTIONS: 1. Keep the revised police as adopted by the City and argue that if Salem did not have to provide an analysis as to how these policies will not unnecessarily add to the cost of needed assisted housing, the City of Tigard should not be required to provide one. ADVANTAGES: No additional staff time required. DISADVANTAGES: The Salem policy was reviewed prior to changes in the OAR relative to this issue and an analysis may not have been required at that time. The four agencies which have objected would still object and ask LCDC to delay acknowledgment. LCDC staff would recommend a continuance of acknowledgment until the policies were deleted or the analysis was completed. The Salem housing dispersal policy was supported by the local housing authority. Ours is not. If the Land Conservation and Development Commission did acknowledge the plan with the policy intact, one of the four objections would appeal to the courts. That would cost the City in legal fees and time 2. Keep the revised policy as adopted and do the analysis required in the original comply statement. ADVANTAGES: If the analysis shows that the policies do not unnecessarily add to the cost of needed assisted housing, the objections to the policy would probably not be sustained by LCDC staff. DISADVANTAGES: Determining the methodology to do the analysis could be difficult and may not show that the policies do not add to the cost of needed assisted housing. It will be difficult to prove that the Housing Authority can acquire and develop housing sites to accommodate only two adjoining lots at a cost which is no greater than acquiring and developing lots to accommodate larger development, 3. Revise the policy changing the limitation on the number of units allowed contiguous to one another from 2 to 3. . Subsidized Housing Policy Memo September 27, 1984 Page 3 ADVANTAGES: This would conform to Salem's policy. The City could then use a fair treatment argument at the LCDC Hearing. If the City changed the policy, performed the cost analysis, and the completed analysis showed that the cost of assisted housing would not be adversely affected, LCDC staff could not reasonably sustain the objections. DISADVANTAGES: LCDC may contend that the OAR now in effect regarding assisted housing did not apply at the time of Salem's acknowledgment. The Washington County Housing Authority does not support the policy. The cost analysis may show that the policy would add to the cost of assisted housing. If the City changed the policy and chose not to do the cost analysis, LCDC staff would recommend a continuance until the City complia6. 4. Delete the policy. ADVANTAGES: The LCDC staff would recommend acknowledgment with a delayed signing until Washington County adopts designations for the unincorporated areas within the City's planning area. Washington County's action would be the only remaining issue. DISADVANTAGES: The City would not have policies or guidelines for the location of subsidized single family units in the commuhity, however, in the coming year the Housing Authority expects to only build 25 units; perhaps two would be allocated in Tigard. 5. Delete the existing policy and replace it with a policy that commits the City and the Washington County Housing Authority to develop guidelines to be used for locating subsidized housing units in the City of Tigard. ADVANTAGES: The city and the Housing Authority could come up with mutually agreeable guidelines for the location of subsidized housing units. LCDC staff may not sustain , the objections and the objectors may withdraw their comments if the City and Housing Authority agree on locational guidelines, • Subsidized Housing Policy Memo September 27, 1984 Page 4 DISADVANTAGES: The City and Housing Authority may not be able to agree on guidelines. An impartial party, selected in advance by the City and Authority, may be needed to resolve differences which may arise. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Commission should review the alternatives and select one to propose to the Council. (EAN:pm/O653P) . OREGON LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION HILLSBORO REGIONAL OFFICE 230 NORTHEAST SECOND,SUITE A HILLSBORO,OREGON 97124 (503)648-7163 September 14 , 1984 Ms. Elizabeth Newton City of Tigard Planning Department P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Comprehensive Plan Acknowledgment R Dear Liz : Enclosed is a copy of our most recent objections to the proposed Plan. Sincerely , MO.A-1(1' (OA,m Charlie Harris Attorney at Law CJH:mcs cc: Department of Land Conservation and Development lik1811�M1 SEA Iv OF S1G(4 ) �1G �EPI' p NN1 ti OREGON LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION HILLSBORO REGIONAL OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF LAND 230 NORTHEAST SECOND,SUITE A CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT HILLSBORO,OREGON 97124 (503)648•7163 SEP 1.2 1984 September 11, 1984 SALEM Mr. James Ross, Director Department of Land Conservation and Development 1175 Court Street, NE Salem, Oregon 97310-0590 RE: Objection to Tigard Request for Acknowledgment of , Comprehensive Plan - Housing Element Dear Mr. Ross: I am an attorney with Oregon Legal Services; I am also the chairperson of the Community Housing Resource Board of Washington County. Both of these organizations are interested in assuring the availability of housing for low-income people in Washington County. On behalf of these organizations and on behalf of our low income clientele, I strongly object to the City of Tigard' s policies regarding subsidized housing. In April I submitted objections to Tigard' s original proposal, which objections were upheld by the Commission. Tigard' s current proposal is no better, and in many ways worse than, the original proposal. Policies 6 . 1 . 2 and 12 . 1 . 1 (4) fail to meet Goal 10 and the Metropolitan Housinq Rule in the following respects: ( 1 ) The Findin• on which the subsidized housin• •olic is based is unsupported by any data in the Resource Document. Policy 6 .1 (Housing Needs) includes the following Finding: Undue concentrations of public assisted or sub- sidized housing serves to isolate the recipient of such housing from the mainstream of the com- munity, its full range of basic services and the diversity, of its neighborhoods. For this reason, the City should take steps to disperse such housing within individual neighborhoods and throughout the City itself. (p. II-33) There is no data in the Resource section or otherwise to support this Finding. The only statement in the Resource document relevant to this point actually indicates the opposite: The various residential densities intend to provide 111 a variety of living environments while providing Ey N for the housing needs of different family sizes and needs. (p. I-154) It appears from this statement that the concerns expressed in the Finding are already addressed in a much less discriminatory manner by the various residential densities. The most that can be said for the Finding is that it is an attempt to perpetuate a myth with no basis in reality. In fact, without any supporting facts, one can't even be sure what myth we are trying to perpetuate. What is the evil of "subsidized" housing? Is a house built with U.S . HUD funds inherently more evil than a house built with U .S . Bancorp funds? If not the house, then perhaps it ' s the occupant of the house. But all we know about the occupants is that they qualify for "subsidized housing" ; presumably, then, they have either low or moderate incomes. One fact that is clear from the Resource volume is that one third of Tigard' s population fits within the low/moderate income category. Do they feel "isolated from the mainstream of the community?" Probably not, since they are the community. What then, is the purpose of limiting subsidized housing? Without any facts in the record, it is impossible to tell . Without any facts to support them, both the Finding and Policies must be invalidated. (2 ) Policies 6 . 1 . 2 and 12 . 1 . 1 (4) are arbitrary, bearing no rational relationshi . to the Findin su ortin them. Fven if the Finding discussed above could be justified, the Policies themselves are arbitrary, since they bear no rational relationship to the Finding. For example, Policy 6 .1 .1 incorporates a requirement that all subsidized housing be located within one mile of an elementary school. Why does a senior citizen have to live within a,mile of a school, '?merely because the dwelling was built with government funds? just as importantly, hdw is subsidized housing going to be dispersed "throughout the City, " if it can only be built within a mile of a school and within a quarter mile of a bus route. These two requirements alone would prevent subsidized housing in large areas of the city, especially in the outskirts where much of the undeveloped but bui] dahle land exists. (3) The amended Policies violate Goal 10 and the Metropolitan Housing rule because they are neither clear nor objective. Policy 12 . 1 . 1 (4) sets out several factors which will be determinants for locating subsidized housing. These factors, however, contain vague terms which are susceptible to wholly arbitrary interpretation. For example, subparagraph (2) contains a requirement that all subsidized units should "if possible, " be within 1/4 mile of a public transit route. Does this mean that so long as land is available within this 1/4 mile strip, subsidized units cannot be built elsewhere? Or is that statement merely a guideline? Subparagraph (3 ) encourages additional subsidized units "in areas which exhibit a lower-than-average level of subsidy and medium-to-low level of poverty. " While the intent of this phrase is admirable, the vagueness of the terminology is exactly what is proscribed by OAR 660-07-015, 660-08-010 and ORS 197. 307(5) . The effect of these vague criteria is to deter construction of subsidized housing in any part of the city. It is virtually impossible for a developer to anticipate how the city will interpret these criteria in any particular case. These Policies are not the "clear and objective" approval standards and special conditions allowed by Oregon' s land use law. While the dispersal of subsidized housing may be an admirable goal, the City's lip-service to this goal is belied by its actual Policies, which only serve to deter subsidized housing all together. I think the real attitude of the City is indicated by the criterion which states that not more than 30% of the units in a development of at least 10 units can be subsidized. If the City were really interested in providing needed housing for the third of its residents who would qualify for subsidized housing, it could rephrase this criteron to say that at least 30% of the units in a development of 10 units or more shall be subsidized. The Implementation Strategies on pp. 11-34-35 contain good ideas to assure both the adequate supply of and dispersal of low and moderate income housing throughout the City. Strategy #6 could be expanded to apply to all lower income housing, not just housing for seniors and handicapped. But Policies 6 .1 .2 and 12 .1 .1 (4) are arbitrary policies which defeat the purpose of Goal 10. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan should not be acknowledged so long as these Policies (or any subsequent Policies of their ilk) are contained within the Plan. fir; Thank you for the opportunity to make these objections to the Plan. Please notify me of the exact time, date and place of the LCDC Acknowledgment hearing. Sincerely, < Charlie Harris Attorney at Law CJH:mcs cc: Jean Fogarty Dayton Page 6,p ti 4 ,,,,,.Eti>✓, ; (3-T1, . , i „. . _ ., , ,.,._..,..„....._.,,,.:‘,:_...r.,..„...,...„... ,,,_.. ......_----:.'7':''''.',N . 1 h !n!+'.' F4 ten 1 ) ._f} o ., I ;,....1{ Y M L i i4.0^ft Lr*rtwr -' t .. ` ' i �- Y wi .J " a N 1.. $ "r M sti f x sr: � , t. a {',11",,,:i t1r '?, LYf °''P x rY : i 1S .,, , i r ' :([ ..k �,,..'` 1w.L,' , t t `r t' a 4.,.:uT' y Nk_''4 a�i t f -:.:1:;,1:1:1‘, .::,..^i.':'.:;,:.;:::,.` t T r r:,, r�( `1 F# fp +g�C.a� I�(�y f f3 }}, {f�i[� Ct}r'^1- ll ,il 1:A t..T� �i h%),, 17 5 . �15F ct' " ]��4�ar d�.:�,{(t •` 4r. ` t t t ty.,_.'; ,y rr: t�,v 1ti .�u,J`.:hd,,i3...,L).::4rAnCm1.,, ,.,„a1 riil,..e,LL,ay..,,:,:::-,L rliA:;,ui..A;L:',:3d,Lt}....tw±ll,-.,1„a•.",,f, X17:4 a:. XiWe4etaziYrn.i.E,, ,, t,.fd.s"9'st k. .,,i2.f, ASS"d. iig,,:4;;IIItr_7tu«l. w�=,44,,,F September 10, 1984 Mike Byers, Lead Reviewer Dept . of Land Conservation and Development 1175 Court Street NE Salem, OR 97310 • RE: City of Tigard Acknowledgment Request--Objection Dear Mr. Byers : 1000 Friends of Oregon has reviewed for compliance with Goal 10 the materials submitted by the City of Tigard in res- ponse to the April 1984 Continuance Order. We are impressed with the organized and systematic manner in which the City has responded to each order to comply. We are particularly pleased that the City has taken steps to comply with the Me- tropolitan Housing Rule requirement of providing opportunity for housing to be built at a density of 10 dwellings units per net acres . I Unfortunately, the package of amendments currently under review fails to address the effect of the City' s density tran- sition standards on overall density. Because of this and other deficiencies , 1000 Friends of Oregon objects to acknowledg- ment of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and implementing ordi- nances . We have previously participated in the City of Tigard' s I` acknowledgment proceedings , as evidenced by letters dated Feb- ruary 24 , 1934, February 19, 1981, October 10, 1980, and Au- gust 8 , 1978 . We will be happy to cooperate with the City I in formulating amendments which bring the Plan into full com- I plinace with the Housing Goal. j 1 Goal 10, Housing 1. 1 . Density Transition Policy As was pointed out in 1000 Friends ' previous letter of f objection, and those of several other objectors, the City' s I' Density Transition standard (section 18. 40. 040 of the Code) 1 has the potential of limiting actual permitted density to a I 1 I. 400 DEN UM BUILDING 519 S.W.'I.1°JIRD AVENUE PORTLAND,OREGON 97204 (503)223-4396 • • f • Mike Byers September 10, 1984 Page Two level below the 10 units per acre required according to the Metro Housing Rule . This concern was shared by LCDC, result- ing in two different orders to comply. Order No. 4, which deals with overall density, states : "Calculations of overall density shall include consideration of density reductions due to transition from established to developing areas . " The City has not addressed this part of the order in its response (Exhibit H) . An assessment of the effect of these density reduction standards is essential, because overall permitted density is exactly 10' units per acre, with no surplus capacity whatso - ever. Therefore, the density reduction standards inevitab- ly bring the City's overall permitted density down to a level below the required 10 units per net acres . In order to evaluate the overall effect of the density reduction standard it is essential to also consider the im- pact of the reclassification of "established" and "developed" areas . According to the Development Code, Section 18 . 138 . 010 .B, land which is currently classified as "developing"will at some point be reclassified as "established. " The effect of that reclassification is to further reduce permitted den- sity, because additional land area will be subject to the den- sity reduction standard. This issue is addressed in the order- to-comply number 7, which requires the City to either delete the whole _reclassification process or to adopt language to indicate that it "will not have the impact of reducing the residential density below the required 10 units per acre av- erage . " Here again, the City has not taken any steps to meet this requirement . Exhibit K (ordinance 84-32 ) does not address the issue of reclassification . H The City of Tigard should either delete the process of density reduction due to transition from established to de- veloping areas , or assess its impact on overall density and compensate for the loss of density elsewhere . 't. 2 . Subsidized Housing The City of Tigard has revised its subsidized housing f, dispersal policy in response to the order-to-comply number. 5. As amended, the factors to determine the location of subsi- dized housing are: I C6. i' • 1 i t Mike Byers September 10, 1984 Page Three ( 1 ) All units should, if possible, be. with- in 1/4 mile of a route of public transit . ( 2 ) Additional subsidized units should be encouraged in areas which exhibit a lower- than-average level of subsidy and medium- to-low level of poverty. ( 3 ) No more than 30 percent of the units in a development of 10 units or more shall be subsidized. • (4 ) No more than two subsidized housing units shall adjoin. In addition, the definition of "subsidized housing" has been amended to clarify the City's intent of excluding owner-oc- cupied homes financed by, for example, State G. I . loans . However, the City has failed to "provide an analysis in the plan why this policy will not unnecessarily add to the cost of needed assisted housing, " as required by the Commis- sion in its order to comply. For instance, no analysis has been conducted to assess what proportion of SF buildable lands in Tigard lies within 1/4 mile of a route of public transit . Considering there are only four bus lines serving the City f� of Tigard, which run mostly along major transit roads gener- ally bordered by higher-density residential or commercial zones , this requirement - could severely limit the availability of land for subsidized housing in single-family zones . Likewise, no information has been provided to identify which areas are considered to "exhibit a lower-than--average level of subsidy and medium-to-low level of poverty, " and whether these areas coincide with land which is within a quarter mile of a route of public transit . Admittedly, these first two standards are phrased so as to not be mandatory, but they could be used by opponents of subsidized housing to discourage such housing forms . • The third and fourth requirements particularly affect certain (quasi)public agencies whose main purpose it is to provide subsidized housing. Because of these requirements , they cannot make use of the cost advantages resulting from buying a large parcel, subdividing it , and building several units as part of one project . The City of Tigard has failed to consider how these stan- dards might add to the cost of subsidized housing, and has not provided any reasons which might justify such standards • t , Mike Byers September 10, 1984 Page Four in spite of their cost-increasing effect . Considering that 28% of Tigard households may need housing assistance, the City j ' must assure that adequate opportunity exists for the appro- priate agencies to provide such assistance. Summary In summary, the City of Tigard has adopted plan and or- dinance amendments which in most instances satisfy the Com- mission's orders-to-comply and therefore bring the plan into compliance with Goal 10 . Unfortunately, the City has failed to consider the impacts of its density transition requ:ir'eiments on `tiue: l7 densy., and has ,amended •it •s:ubs.idized•;hous:ing dispersal ,po31.i,c#l',wi t:tkOnt ''analy0iag,.how; the new staandar'.ds, a:f- fe"cf costs and land availability for subsidized housing. For these reasons, 1000 Friends of Oregon must object to acknow- ledgment of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. I We appreciate this opportunity to comment . Yours sincerely, I . Lidwien de Kr-•oon-Rahman Land Use Planner Ir. II I ! I s' f f t' { 4 LdKR:yc cc: City of Tigard It' Mary Holley, Housing Division Charles Hales, Homebuilders Association t ' r CERTIFIED DEPARTMENT OF LAND - CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 428 963 625 SEP 12 1584 ROWN$TEIN, RASK, SWEENEY, KERR & GRIM /1'�♦ y ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1200 S.W. MAIN BUILDING SALEM PORTLAND, OREGON 97205 V ..vnry n,hILBERTSON TELEPHONE(503)221-1772 FRED T.HANNA RICHARD J.BROWNSTEIN GEORGE G.CURTIS• RAYMOND M.RASH MICHAEL R.SANDOVAL MILES SWEENEY JEFFREY V.HILL ANDREW P.KERR JEAN FOGARTY DOUGLAS R.GRIM MARK B.WEINTRAUB KIT A.JENSEN DAVID J.SWEENEY September 11, 1984 OREGON STATE AND WASHINGTON STATE BANN III, CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Department of Land Conservation and Development 1175 Court Street N.E. Salem, Oregon 97310 Re: Housing Authority of Washington County - Cit of Tigaard 's Comprehensive Land Use Plan Dear Mr . Ross and Fellow Commissioners: As you are aware, the undersigned are attorneys for the Housing Authority of Washington County, an affected agency with respect to the granting of an acknowledgment of compliance to the City of Tigard. On behalf of the Housing Authority of Washington County (hereinafter the "Housing Authority") , we ob- ject to the granting of an acknowledgment of compliance to the City of Tigard and are submitting the following to you pursuant to OAR 660-03-020. On April 26, 1984, the Commission reviewed the City of Tigard's acknowledgment request for compliance with the statewide planning goals. The Commission found that the City of Tigard's comprehensive plan and land use regulations did not yet comply with statewide planning Goal 10. Particularly, the Commission sustained the objections of the Housing Authority, Oregon Legal. Services, and 1000 Friends of Oregon to Policy 6 .1.2. The Com- mission stated: "Tigard's housing background material does indicate that approximately 1,900 households, or about one-third of its existing households, have income levels at or below the moderate income level for Tigard, and these groups may need some housing assistance (Resource Docu- ment; page 167) . However, Policy 6.1.2 as it is written does not encourage needed assisted housing, nor is there sufficient information �` `R} in the Plan to justify this policy or to show Illy Department of Land Conservation and Development September 11, 1984 Page 2 that this policy will not necessarily add to the cost of needed housing." By its continuance order of April 26, 1984, the Commis- sion found that in order for the City of Tigard to comply with the statewide comprehensive Goal 10 it must: "Delete Policy 6.1.2 dealing with dispersal of subsidized housing, or provide an analysis in the Plan why this poi....cy will not unneces- sarily add to the cost of needed housing and more clearly define the term 'subsidized hous- ing' ." The City of Tigard's response to the Commission's order has been the following. It has deleted the following language: "Subsidized housing units shall conform to all applicable development standards. To prevent the geographical concentration of public housing and ensure a balance in the distribution of such housing, the minimum distance between subsidized housing units located within any single family zoning district shall be five times the minimum lot on any street in the development." It has added the following language: "To avoid concentration of subsidized housing in single family zoned districts, the loca- tional criteria in Section 4 of Policy 12.1.1 shall be applied when siting subsidized hous- ing projects in single family zoning districts." Section 4 of Policy 12.1.2 provides: "4. Subsidized Housing in Single Family Zon- ing Districts. " (A) The following factors will be the determinants for locating subsidized housing, as defined in Policy 6.1.2, in single family zoning districts: " (1) All units should be located within one mile of an elementary school. • Department of Land Conservation and Development September 11, 1984 Page 3 " (2) All units should, if possible, be within 1/4 mile of a route of public transit. " (3) Additional subsidized units should be encouraged in areas which exhibit a lower- than-average level of subsidy and medium-to- low level of poverty. " (4) No more than 30 percent of the units in a development of 10 units or more shall be subsidized. " (5) No more than two subsidized housing units shall adjoin." The City of Tigard also expanded its definition of subsidized housing to include that owned and maintained by a "nonprofit, quasi-public" agency. The Housing Authority objects to Policy 6.1.2 as re- written, and Section 4 to Policy 12.1.1, as violative of state- wide planning Goal 10. The Housing Authority reiterates its objections as stated in its February 21, 1984, letter to the Department of Land Conservation and Development and makes the following specific objections: Policy 6 .1. 2 and 12.1.1 (4) are more offensive to Goal 10 than their predecessors. Goal 10 requires that planning juris- dictions must provide their "fair share" of low and moderate cost housing in response to the needs of the relevant area. The City of Tigard has documented a need for housing assistance in approximately 1,900 of its households, or about one-third of its population. Rather than responding to this documented need, the City of Tigard has chosen to artificially and unnecessarily restrict subsidized housing and concentrate the location of such housing to areas located approximately 3-1/2 blocks away from bus routes and within one mile of elementary schools. It further seeks to restrict subsidized housing into areas where there is a lower than average concentration of medium to low levels of poverty. Nowhere in its plan does the City of Tigard demonstrate that there is any buildable land that meets criteria, nor does the City provide any objective basis for its limitations as set forth in Policy 12.1.1(4) . For example, why should subsidized housing constructed for the elderly be restricted to one mile from an elementary school? In its April 26, 1984, order the Commission stated that the City of Tigard must delete Policy 6 .1.2 or "provide an Department of Land Conservation and Development September 11, 1984 Page 4 analysis in the plan why this policy will not unnecessarily add to the cost of needed housing. " The City has failed to delete 6.1.2, but has not provided the explanation required by the Com- mission. Clearly, the criteria contained in Policy 12. 1.1(4) that restricts subsidized housing to 30% of the units in a de- velopment and further requires that no more than two subsidized housing units may adjoin unnecessarily increases the cost of needed housing and are therefore violative of Goal 10. In addition to its lack of rational foundation, Policy 12.1.1 (4) is internally inconsistent with Policy 6 .1.2. Policy 6.1.2 states that the locational criteria in Section 4 of Policy 1.2. 1.1 seeks to "avoid concentrations of subsidized housing in single family zoned districts. " In fact, Section 4 of Policy 12.1.1 results in just the opposite. Assuming that there is buildable land within the City of Tigard that meets the numerous and restricted criteria established in Policy 12.1.1, all sub- sidized housing, as defined in Policy 6.1.2, would be located therein. The effect of Policy 12.1.1 (4) therefore contradicts its stated policy objective as provided in Policy 6 .1. 2. Such internal inconsistencies support the Housing Authority's position that Policy 12.1.1 (4) , like its predecessor in Policy 6.1.2, is a thinly veiled effort by the City of Tigard to avoid its respon- sibilities to low income persons as stated in statewide planning Goal 10. By its order of April 26, 1984, the Commission also instructed the City of Tigard to more clearly define the term "subsidized housing". The City 's attempt to comply with this order amounts to the deletion of housing owned and maintained by private agencies and the inclusion of housing owned and maintained by "nonprofit, quasi-public" agencies. This attempt at redefin- ing "subsidized housing" does little to clarify the term. Fur- thermore, it fails to address why such subsidized housing, as opposed to other low income housing, must be restricted to these locational criteria. It is apparent that the City of Tigard has concluded that low income people who receive certain kinds of publicly assisted housing, as opposed to other public assistance, or preferential loan treatment, are undesirable. It is also clear , from Policy 12.1.1 (4) 's requirement that no more than 30% r? of the units in a development of ten units or more shall be sub- sidized- and that no more than two subsidized housing units shall _ adjoin, that the City has concluded that having low income people living near one another is also undesirable. Policy 6.1.2, as rewritten, and Policy 12.1.1(4) con- it tain restrictions that are violative of Goal 10 in that they serve to restrict low income housing to a narrow location with t m r J Department of Land Conservation and Development September 11, 1984 Page 5 1 out any factual basis whatsoever. Said policies are internally inconsistent and unnecessarily increase the cost of needed hous- ing. The Housing Authority wishes to be heard at the hearing with respect to the City of Tigard's plan and further requests that notification thereof be sent to the undersigned, as well as to: Mr . Dayton Page Executive Director Housing Authority of Washington County P. O. Box 988 560 S.E. Third Avenue Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 r^ Respectf Ily,s. mitted, AND1..zfR l a(f Kt rR APK:jme cc Dayton Page a w .� Department of Commerce N; ! V HOUSING DIVISION VICTOR ATIYEH 110 LABOR & INDUSTRIES BLDG., SALEM, OREGON 97310-0161 PHONE (503) 378-4343 GOVERNOR September 13, 1984 MR JAMES F ROSS, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT 1175 COURT STREET NE SALEM OR 97310 ATTENTION: MIKE BYERS, LEAD REVIEWER Dear Mr. Ross: The Housing Division has reviewed the amended comprehensive plan materials submitted by Tigard for acknowledgment. The Housing Division filed a written objection to the plan during the first acknowledgment proceedings in February, 1984. Based on our review of the resubmitted materials, we found that the City has made substantial progress toward meeting the compliance issues set out in the April 4, 1984 Director's Report. However, our review also revealed two significant Goal 10 compliance issues that remain unresolved. We there- fore object to acknowledgment of the plan at this time for the reasons detailed below. 1. Residential Density Transition Policy and Ordinance Goal 10 in order to comply statement #4 directed Tigard to include in its density calculations a consideration of density reductions due to transi- tion from "established" to "developing" areas. In order to comply state- ment #7 similarly required the City to either delete implementation of its density transition policy or assess the impact of the implementing ordi- nance on the City's ability to meet the ten units per acre density requirement. >I Tigard has chosen to retain its density transition policy and implementing ordinance. Although the ordinance has been amended it still provides for a density reduction in transitional buffer zones between "established" and "developing" areas: "The density transition still will not exceed 125 percent of the abutting established area density." (Tigard Community Development Code §18.40.040(A) , as amended by Ordinance No. 84-32) k Tigard has not addressed the impact of density reductions due to these transitional buffer zones on its ability to meet a density of ten units per acre. i] 1 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER James F. Ross, Director September 13, 1984 Page 2 It is important to note that the density transition policy and ordinance not only apply to existing "established" and "developing" areas, but also to future designated "established" areas. Land that is currently vacant or "developing" may soon be built upon and thus designated as an "established" area. The on-going impact of the density transition policy must be assessed and compensated for in Tigard's density calculations. 2. Subsidized Housing Dispersal Policy Goal 10 in order to comply statement #5 required Tigard to either delete its dispersal policy for subsidized housing or explain why the policy did not unnecessarily add to the cost of needed assisted housing. In response, Tigard has chosen to retain and amend its dispersal policy. The amended policy sets out four locational criteria for siting subsidized housing in single-family zones: a) All units should, if possible, be within 1/4 mile of a route of public transit. b) Additional subsidized units should be encouraged in areas which exhi- bit a lower-than-average level of subsidy and medium-to-low level of poverty. c) No more than 30 percent of the units in a development of 10 units or more shall be subsidized. d) No more than two subsidized housing units shall adjoin. The Housing Division believes that these criteria are vague and discre- tionary and may have the effect of adding unneccessarily to the cost of needed housing in Tigard. For example, the plan does not include an inventory of vacant land zoned for single-family housing that is located within 1/4 mile of a public transit route. Tigard has limited public transit service and there may be little, if any, suitable vacant land that meets this criterion. Likewise, the plan contains no discussion of areas that exhibit a low level of subsidy or of poverty, or even how those levels might be measured. The last two criteria, that prohibit adjoining subsidized housing units and limit subsidized housing to 30 percent of all units in a development of 10 units or more, are vague and may prevent• developers from taking advantage of economies of scale. There are considerable cost savings in �. developing more than one housing unit at a time in the same proximity. r'. James F. Ross, Director September 13, 1984 Page 3 Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the City has not addressed why the . four criteria are necessary at all . As we stated in our February 24, 1984 letter of objection, the recipients of State and Federal single-family subsidy programs are typically indistinguishable from their neighbors. The dispersal policy places an unwarranted burden on both the eligible households and the agencies administering the subsidy programs. 3. Conclusion In conclusion, the Housing Division objects to acknowledgment of the Tigard comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances at this time. We would be pleased to work with the City in finding amenable solutions to the compliance issues we have raised. Please contact this office if you have questions or require further information. Si ncerely, ko.r.AA E.,• -2 Mary E. Ho1le . . Senior Housing Pla r MEH:swd (PLNILMH-10] cc: William Monahan, Tigard'" Jim Sitzman, DLCD V _ I s` 1 Geraldine L. Ball : <: EXHIBIT t1141:'4114Racucaaix6nil 56 11515 5outhwesct 914 A /0 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Y Mr. President and Members of the Planning Commission: My name is Geraldine Ball and I am speaking to you as a concerned citizen who is anxious to have the Tigard Comprehensive Plan accepted by LCDC mainly because the City of Tigard cannot afford to have the expenditures for staff and the City attorneys to go on and on. I have done quite a lot of investigating on mY' own and I attended the last meeting when the City of Tigard> appeared before LCDC. We have one bkg stumbling block and that is SUBSIDIZED HOUSING -• and believe me, the objectors including the 1000 fiends of Oregon, the Home Builders Assn. etc. carry a lot of weight when they appear before LCDC. if I could make one suggestion to help us get our plan through± it would be to copy Lake ()Swoop's l? .ar, s zee I gather it hle been accepted or at least DODO finds no fault with it. Since Lake Oswego and Tigard are similar in size and adjoin each other it would seem that Tigard should be able to live with the same conditions as Lake Oswego. ( ' d pi K w Rs )h Z Craor / ir" i/9)Ce a rw 4,-S-4 . It is may understanding that since the City of Tigard and Washington County have signed Urban Area Planning Agreements,'; LGDC will not held up acknowledgment of Tigard's plan bee cause of Transportation differences between the City and County. Also since the County seems willing to zone the property' within the Tigard Planning Area but in the unincorporated area with a designation as close to the 6 Tigard designation as possible, this will not hold up the Acknowledgment. \ro 4 ,S'( I2-t.. 0 { cat��i / h,� fv i //v h 11�, Ns mhoh 4. t i j PLANNING COMMISSION October 2, 1984 Agenda Item 5.8 CPA 25-84 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Planning Commission September 28, 1984 FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Modifications to the ESEE Document Several sites in the City of Tigard were identified in the ESEE Document as potential historic sites. The recommendation for those sites is to preserve them through the Historic District designation. The sites under consideration are the Joy Theatre, the Upshaw House/Seven Gables, the Tigard Grange, Tigard Feed and Seed and the Tigard Street Farmhouse and Windmill. If the Planning Commission does not assign the Historic District designation to these sites, the ESEE Document will have to be revised to reflect that decision. RECOMMENDATION: The Commission should take action on the Historic Site designations and then recommend language to the City Council to revise the ESEE document as appropriate. 0640P TIGARD FARMHOUSE AND WINDMILL The Washington County Museum has performed a Cultural Resource Inventory on the Tigard Farmhouse and Windmill and determined that it is a significant resource, due to its association with the Cowgill family for many years. It is also one of the few bungalow farmhouses remaining with a watertower still intact on the property. The house was constructed in the early 1900's. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the resource is Medium Density Residential (6-12 units per acre) with an underlying zoning of R-12 (Multiple Family). The land use designation could be a potential problem related to land values and the feasibility of keeping the single family farmhouse and windmill structures amongst higher density development. In 1982, the owner of the site partitioned off the farmhouse and windmill from the remaining 10 acres; thus somewhat deterring extensive development on the resource. In addition, it is possible to integrate the farmhouse and windmill architecture into any development proposal. This would be accomplished via the Planning Development (PD) process. In order to protect this resource, the City approached the property owners, Herb Burns and Donna Fleimmer, about assigning a Historic District Overlay to the property. The owners have indicated to the City that they are not interested in the Historic Overlay District for the property at this time. It is the City Council's policy not to place the Historic Overlay District designation on a site without the support of the property owner. (0687P) JOY THEATRE The Washington County Museum has performed a cultural resource inventory on the Joy Theatre and determined that it is one of the few significant architectural examples of Art Deco/Moderne Style Buildings in Tigard. Built in 1939, it is the only indoor theatre in Tigard with a classical marquee. Although the lobby of the theatre was remodeled after 1939, the remaining portions of the structure are original and the theatre has never been used for anything other than a theatre use. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan designates the resource site for Commercial-General with the same underlying zoning; which allows theatres outright. Therefore, there would not be any conflicting uses due to land use designations. In addition, adjacent uses include commercial and office uses which complement the theatre. In order to protect this important landmark, the City approached the property owner, J. J. Taggart, about assigning a Historic District Overlay to the property. Mr. Taggart has indicated to the City that he is not interested in the Historic Overlay District for the property at this time. It is the City Council's policy not to place the Historic Overlay designation on a site without the support of the property owner. In addition, the Joy C, Theatre is on a site with no off-street parking, and the abutting property owners are concerned that the Historic District Overlay will constrain future development in the area. • ii (0681P) • r,. UPSHAW HOUSE/SEVEN GABLES The Washington County Museum has completed a Cultural Resource Inventory on the Upshaw/House of Seven Gables. Although this resource has been subject to several alterations and remodelings, its' integrity has not been compromised. The home is in good condition, well maintained and respected by the current owners. The residence was erected around 1909, and has never been moved. The site is now approximately 1.1 acres, although it appears to have once been at least 13-15 acres. The Comprehensive Plan designates the area for Low Density Residential with an underlying zone designation of R-10 (Single Family Residential). Therefore, there is not a conflict between the existing use and the land use designation. To ensure that development on the resource site is compatible with the structure, a Historic Overlay District (HD) will be placed on the site. In order to protect this resource, the City approached the property owners, Susan and Dennis Reed, about assigning a Historic District Overlay to the property. The Reeds have indicated to the City that they are not interested in the Historic Overlay District for the property at this time. It is the City Council's policy not to place the Historic Overlay District designation on a site without the support of the property owner. The Reeds have indicated a desire to protect the character of the structure but do not want future owners of the property to be limited by the Historic District designation. (0681P) • _ 4.m..mmNMNr� II PLANNING COMMISSSION MEETING October 2, 1984 • AGENDA ITEM 5.9 ZOA 6-84 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON • , TO: Planning Commission September 28, 1984 • ���8 FROM: Planning Stmff~v~' ~ M U SUBJECT; Amendments to the Community Development Code Attached is a list of amendments the Planning Staff is proposing to the Development Code. Most of the changes proposed are for more efficient administration of the Code. A few of the changes are as a result of discussions with LCDC 8taff. . ." RECOMMENDATION: The Commission should review each Code Section change and make a recommendation to the City Council. 0662P � . i 1 , ] / - � � ` � / _ ' ^ �� , ' -- - -� -� -� �_ r- - � ��--~`-- 18.130.150 C. 20 Manufactured and Mobile Home Parks see Chapter 18.94 Add. "a. Applicable Zones: R-3.5' R-4.5' b. Minimum Lot Size: one acre c. Minimum lot dimension: frontage - 100 feet depth - 150 feet d. Minimum setbacks: front yard - 25 feet rear yard - 25 feet side yard - 10 feet corner lots - 25 feet e. Height Limitations: see applicable zone f. Off Street Parking: See Chapter 1*.106 for for applicable use. g. Landscaping: equivalent of 20% of the park area. h. Screening: See Chapter 18. 100 i. Outdoor recreations: Have a minimum of 60 square feet of outdoor recreation area, suitably improved for recreational use, provided for each unit exclusive of required yards. Each recreation area shall have minimum size of 2,500 square feet. Manufactured Home Subdivisions j . Applicable zones: R-3.5, R-4.5 k. Minimum lot size: see applicable zone 1. Minimum lot dimensions: see applicable zone m. Minimum setbacks: see applicable zone n. Heith limitations: see applicable zone o. Off Street Parking: see Chapter 18.106 for applicable zone. p. Landscaping and Screening: see Chapter 18.100" 18.120.020 Add: "4. Mobile Home Parks and Subdivisions" Page 2 _ . ` � �. � / ^'~=01 10.94.030 A. Delete "Chapter 18.120 (SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) and" 18. 138.010 8. Add "Any changes to the Established or Developing area boundaries shall comply with OAR 600-07-036." 18.32. 120 A 3. Delete entirely 18.32. 120 B Delete "and publication" Add "and" between mailing "and" posting 18.136.020 A. Add "and for a Zone Change following procedures outlined in Chapter 18.32." 18.32.350 Add . . .given "to parties entitled to notice under Section 18.32.290" 18.114.130 (B) Add: "3. Permanent housing complex identification signs. One ground sign, at each entry point to the housing complex from the public right-of-way, with the site property landscaped, denoting the development name and not exceeding 32 square feet in area. Illumination may be approved as long as it does not create a public or private considering the purpose of the " 18.114.130($) 18,26 In "Review To re-examine administratively, a recons "Accept To receive as complete and in compliance with all submittal requirements." "Receipt Mere acknowledgement of wunmxttml ^ "Appeal higher approval authority." - ~' y ' pwge3 ^ - "Public Business Day The regular hours of business of Tigard City Hall as designated and posted by the City." "Complete Entire, include every item of the thing spoken of, without omissions or deficiencies." 18.72,050 C. 1. Delete: "Except 50 feet shall be required where the 1--H zone abuts a residential zoning district," 18.68.050 C, 1. Delete: "Except 50 feet shall be required where the T--P zone abuts a residential zoning district." 18.40.040 C Add: "actual existing" before the word abutting in the last sentence. 18.100.080A Delete entirely Add: "1. At least one row of trees with a combination of deciduous and evergreen trees not less than 10 feet high for deciduous trees and 5 feet high for evergreen trees at the time of planting, and spaced as follows by size of tree: a, Small or narrow stature trees (under 25 feet tall and less than 16 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 20 feet apart. b. Medium sized (25 to 40 feet tall, 16 to 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart. c. Large trees (over 40 feet tall and mre than 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 40 feet," Page 4 - 18.42.020 (B) (1) [Page III-62] • 1, Administrative � Refers to public service providers, record keeping, clerical, or public contact service that deal directly with the citizen, together with incidental storage and maintenance of necessary vehicles, and excludes commercial use type, "Professional and Administrative Seroioea." Typical use types are associated with governmental offices. The City Council has asked that the code be reviewed to establish criteria by which to dertmine how "incidental storage and maintenance of necessary vehicles" should be interpreted. The Tigard Water district has proposed to utilize a parcel of land in the CBD zone where Public Agency Administrative Services is allowed as a permitted use. The District's plans show approximately 40% of the site as open, available for truck storage and circulation. In the Commission's opinion, should the word "incidental" be defined as proposed: "use of premises which is dependent on or affliated with the principal use of such premises" �. or, should percentage limitations be placed within the definition, such as adding the words "not to exceed 50% of the land area" . Also, should the definition of Public Administrative Agency be revised to add "outside storage of materials" in the definition after "vehicles"? Add to 18 13� 01�{G} "except that the enlargement of expansion of a single family residence will be allowed in the CBD zone pnDy. . . " "except that the enlargement expansion of single Add to 1W.�32.�48 A (1) ew��pt en ar�eme or eupmn� wn a o e family residence will be allowed in the CBD zone only." 18.44.030 add "D. Farming" ` 18.46.030 add "D. Farming" 18.40.030 add "Q. Farming" 18.50.030 add "D. Farming" 18.52.030 add "G. Farming" 18. 108.060 R. Delete may permit direct access to an arterial v'-, approved prior to the effective date this Code. See 18. . 1�� 050(F)." Page 5 „`'�����Ja - _ . 18,108.860 8. Add "shall be discouraged. Direct access to major collector or arterial streets shall be considered only if there is no alternative way to access the site." 18.32.275 E. 3. Add after the word period "which was not available when the decision was made" .' 18.32.380 8. Delete "5» [ Add "10" 18.114.150 A Add "Fifteen copies for review by the Planning Commission of the sign plans for oiqn code exceptions." ' . r � ' ` ` ^ ^. Page 6 /, l -CITY OF TIGARD,—OREGON _ J ORDINANCE NO. 84-39 -._ _1 s AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.130 CONDITIONAL USE, TO GRANT EXEMPTIONS FOR MANUFACTURED HOME SUBDIVISIONS AND MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 18.130.040 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (CPA 14-84) WHEREAS, the City of Tigard adopted a Comprehensive Plan for the City by Ordinance 83-52 on November 9, 1983; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Code was adopted as a part of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan was submitted to the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) on November 18, 1983; and WHEREAS, the Land Conservation and Development Commission held an acknowledgement hearing on Tigard's Comprehensive Plan on April 26, 1984; and ` WHEREAS, at the April 26, 1984, LCDC Hearing, the Commission voted to continue acknowledgement on Goal #10 with In Order to Comply Statements; and 1"1 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on June 12, 1984, to consider the In Order to Comply Statements and a recommendation was made to the City Council; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the City Council on June 25, 1984, for Council consideration of the Planning Commission's recommendations. s NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Section 18.130.040 A.1. of the Community Development Code shall ..bm amended to delete subsection b. as set forth below. I Language to be deleted is shown in [brackets]. 1. The site size and dimensions provide ;�' [a. ] [A] adequate area for the needs of the, proposed use[; ]_ (' [b. ] [Adequate area for aesthetic design treatment to i I mitigate possible adverse effect from the use on surrounding properties and uses. ] f, i Section 2: Section 18.130.040 shall be amended to add Section D. as set forth below. Language to be added is underlined. D. Manufactured Home Parks and Manufactured Home Subdivisions are exempt from the provisions of 18. 130.040(C) above. Manufactured Home Subdivisions I are subject to approval under the provisions of 4 Cha•ter 18.160 (SUBDIVISIONS) . Manufactured Home 1 Parks are subject to approval under the provisions of i Chapter 18. 120 (SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW). I ORDINANCE NO. 84-3(7 Page 1 WETLANDS: Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water with a frequency and duration to support and, under normal circumstances, do support a prevalance of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soils conditions. Such as swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. WETLANDS: Lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this classification, wetlands must have one or more of the following 3 attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land supports predominantly hyrdophytes; (2) the substrate is predominantly hydric soil; (3) the substrate is non-soil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing of each year. CITY OF TIGARD FINAL ORDER NO. 84-.11.9_ PC A FINAL ORDER IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUESTED BY RICHARD SMITH, FILE NUMBER SDR 20-84, APPROVING THE REQUEST, ENTERING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. _______________ The Tigard Planning Commission reviewed the above application at a hearing held on October 3, 1984. John Greiner appeared on behalf of the applicant. John and Beth Bishop, the appellants, appeared in opposition to the application, Other parties, including NPO #5, testified before the Commission. The Commission finds the following FACTS in this matter: 1. The applicant requested a Site Development Review approval to allow a commercial office complex consisting of four buildings. The property is zoned C-P (Commercial Professional) and located on the southwest corner of Hunziker and 72nd Avenue (Wash. Co. Tax Map 281 108, Tax Lot 100) . 2, The Planning Director approved the request subject to conditions on August 31, 1084. This decision was appealed by the Bishops on September 10, 1984. Information relating to the proposal and the appeal is found in Planning File No. SDR 20-84. Based upon the record in this case, the Commission makes the following FINDINGS: 1. The relevant approval criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals I and 2; Comprehensive Plan Policy 12.2.2; and Chapters 18.64, 18.100 and 19. 120 of the Community Development Code. 2. Statewide 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 notice requirements are met. 3. Statewide Planning Goal #2 is met because the City applied all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies, and Development Code requirements to the application, 4. As amended by the conditions below, Policy 12.2.2 of the Comprehensive Plan is met because sufficient building setbacks, landscaping and buffering will be provided, 5. The provisions of Chapter 18.64 of the Community Development Code is met because the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the C-G zone. 6. The proposal, as amended, is consistent with Chapter 18.100 of the Community Development Code because the landscaping and buffering to be provided will meet or exceed the requirements. 7. The proposal, as amended, is consistent with Chapter 18.120 of the Community Development Code because all of the issues noted in this chapter have been adequately addressed by the applicant. FINAL ORDER NO. 84- os PC - RICHARD SMITH - PAGE 1 _~ - ~ - ^ - _ ' _ - The Commission adopts the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 0RIF 1. Based upon Findings 2 and 3, the Commission has determined that the proposal meets the applicable Statewide Planning Qoalo, 2. Based upon Finding 4, the Commission has determined that the proposal meets the applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies. 3. Based upon Findings 5, 6, and 7, the Commission has determined that the proposal meets all applicable Community Development Code requirements. Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the Commission approves SDR 20-84 subject to the following conditions: 1. UNLESS CIHERWISE NOTED, ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. 2. Standard half—street improvement to 'major collector' standards including sidewalks, curbs, 6ikepath, street lights, and driveway aprons shall be provided along the SW Hunziker Street frontage prior to occupancy, 3. 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 approval. 4. Storm and sanitary sewer details shall be provided as part of the public improvement plans, 5. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering 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. Also, the execution of a street opening permit or construction compliance agreement shall occur prior to, or concurrently with the issuance of approved public improvement plans, 0. A revised site plan shall be submitted for Planning Director approval with the following changes: a. The northwestern driveway location shall be combined with the Plaza 217 driveway or the proposed driveway shall be moved to the southeast. The applicant shall submit engineering calculations to verify adequate sight and stopping distance for the driveway location. b. Parking spaces for handicapped persons shall be located with unobstructed access to the building entrances. c. A minimum of 16 secure bicycle rack spaces shall be located near building entrances. Bicycle rack design shall also be submitted for approval. d. The plan shall be consistent with a revised site and landscaping plan �N�� reviewed by the Commission which is dated October 1, 1984, Robinson �� Development/Hilltop Business Center, pages P5 and P6. FINAL ORDER NO 84-0? PC — RICHARD SMITH — PAGE 2 ~ � - 1 __ ^ . ^' ' e. The dumpster location shall be moved to the north side of the liidevelopment. , f. A chain link fence shall be provided along the south and west property line. . . 7. The landscaping plan shall be consistent with the landscape concept plan dated October 2, 1984 submitted to the Commission and in addition: a. Trees in the buffer areas shall be no more than 10 feet on center and 7 to 10 feet high. b. The berm on the south and west boundaries shall be 15 feet wide with 5-foot high earth berm. n. The trees planted in this buffer area shall be Western Red Cedmr, 8. Landscaping improvements shown on the approved plan shall be installed prior to occupancy . The landscaped buffer area along the south and west boundary of the property shall be installed and landscaped, including the irrigation system, prior to occupancy of any buildings on the property. 9. If a common driveway is established with Plaza 217, a joint use and maintenance agreement shall be recorded for the driveway and copies of the recorded document(s) shall be submitted to the Planning Director. 10. The approval is valid for a period of one year from the final decision x�K date. Once the project is initiated, it may be developed in phases not to 0�� exoeed 3 years. A new application will be required for any phases remaining after the 3-year time limit. It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this order. � ^� � ^~~ PASSED: This �� 7 of O , 1984, by the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard. 1 ' _ ��v~-°~l~~ A. Donald Moen, President Tigard Planning Commission (KSL:pm/0719P) . J ��� u�� -_ FINAL ORDER NO. 84-0 PC - RICHARD SMITH - PAGE 3 i_ _ ___ _ ,__'~=��_= _= _ `�'�_ _ �; `� ,����� ����,� ����_ ���.� � _� �z,/`� ,,_�-,,�_�,`�