Planning Commission Packet - 03/05/1985 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PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and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.
PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 1985 - 7:30 P•M•
FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - LGI ROOM
10$65 SW WALNiJT
TIGARD, OREGON
4
1. Cali to Order
I� 2e Roll Call
�
3o Approw� minutes from previous meetin.g.
4o P1�nning Conm►issian Communi�ation
5, gU}�I,IC HEARINGS
5.�. ZONE ORDINAYVCE AMENDM�N7C ?OA �-84 CYTY OF TIGAR� (Section I8�26,
I8.94 Irlanufactured Homes)� (Sectian 1f3o96 and 1$.9� Flag Lot� an�
iiei.gh�s JLimit�).
5.2 CCIMPREHENSIVE PLAPT AMENDAi�NT CPA 3�1-84 CITY OF T�GARD (Policies
3.1.1, 9.2, 3e2.3, 3.4, and 3.4.1)
5a3 SIUBDIVISIOAd S 1-85 �DrTH CARNAHAN 10985 SW N. Dako�.a AtP� l� 7
5.4 SiJBIDIVZSIO�Y S 2-�5 & VARIANGE A°85 ARLT� & IRENE M�1FIHIRTER NPO �l 6
9680 SW McDoei�ld St.
5.5 'LONE CHANGE ANNE}Ct#TION ZGA 1-$5 CnMPTtEHENSIVE PLAN �IENDMENT CPA 2-85 -
GENE AND VIVIAN DAVIS Property bounded by Highway 217' Npo 9�5�, SW
Oak and SW 89th
5.6 SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 1-85 CROW/SPEIICER/HOSFORD (Pl�FtK 217? NP0 # 5
Se7 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 1-•85 CITY OF TIGARD (Seeiions
28.70.030, 18.72.030, 18e1Q0.090)
6. Other Business
7. Ad3ournment
1047P
dm�
,
,
_ _ ..:., ,. __.,._ _ . _.�,M,��_.s��
`TIGARD PLANNZNG COMMISSZON
REGULAR MEETING - MARCH 5, 1985
1. President Moen called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM, The meeting was
held at Fowler Junior High - LGI Room - 10865 SW Walnut.
2,. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: President Moen; Commissioners Butler, Fyre,
Owens, Vanderwood, Ber�mann, and Campbell.
ABSENTu Commissioners Leverett and Peterson.
ST�FF: Associaee Planners Keith S. Liden and Elizabeth
A. Kewton; Seeretary Diane Me Jelderks.
3. APPRQVAL OF MINUTES
* Commissioner Fyre maved and Commission Bergmaa�n seconded to approve
mtnutes as sabmitted. Motion ca�ried by majority vote of
Commissioners present, Commissioner O�aens abstain�ede
�+. �;OMMI5SIQN CONI�IUNICATION
o Staff distributed copies of sections of Land Use Proceduxes and
Prac�ices in Oregon. Also, a letter from NPQ �� 3 was dis�.ributed
reg�rding agenda item 5.1 (ZOA 8r�G).
5. PUBLIC H�AR.INGS
5.1 ZONE OItAINANCE AM�NDMENT ZOA 8-84 (COMMUNZTY DEUET.OPMENT COI�E)
(5.1. a.) Review Section 1�.26, 18.94 (Manufactur�d Hnmes), (5��. b.)
18096 anci 18.98 (Fla� Lots and Hei�ht Zimits).
5.1 a. Associate Plann�r Liden explained that the information on
Manufactured Homes had been taken baek thraugh the NPO process. He
reviewed NPO 3, 5, and 6's commEnts. The other NPOs laad not
responded. He requested that the Commi.s�ion make a recommendation to
Ci.ty Council whether or not manufactured/mobile homes should be
allowed an individual lotsa
PUBLIC TEST�MONY
o No one appeared to speak
PUBLIC HEARING �LOSED
COMMISSION DISCUSSIUN AS ACTION
o Consensu� of the Gommissioners was that Man�afactured Homes should be
allawed if they met the standards as required by stick built homes
and have criteria which they would ha�e ta meet to be allowed on:
individual lots. Also, they felt their was a need for a strong
definition between manufactured homes and mobile homes,
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 5, 1985 Page 1
rl
�t 7 ai
* Commissioner Campbell moved and Commiasioner Fyre seconded to
recommend to City Co�ncil to a11ow Manufactured Homes nn Single
Family Lots, that tlzey meet the �ame standards as required for stick
biiilt houses, that theq meet the standards for subdivision and
criterions be established to alluw manufactured homea on individual
lots. �lso that a definition be made for manufactured and mobile
hames. Motion carried unanimously by Comffiission present,
5e1 b. Associate Planner Liden reviewed the memo and infoam�t�oiz stating
that staff preferred altern�tive number five. Lengthy discussion
f�llowed.
PUBLIC T�STIMONY
o Mary Clinton, 9865 SW View Court, representing NFO �� 6, read the
NPO°s recommendatian frnm their February 25, 1985 minukeso �hey were
concerned about giving authority to the Director to decide this issue.
�UBLIC HEAItIN� CLO�ED
COMMISSION DISCiJSSION ANI) ACTION
o Cammissioner 'Vax�derwood, Fyre, Bergmann, Butler, Oaaens and Campbell
fav��ed alternative number fivee Co�issioner Bergmann was not sure
why the code needed changing, he felt it was adequa�e as iso Lengthy
disr.ussian reg�rding the side yard setbacks.
Q President M�en stated his concerns fox altern�tive five. He su}�parted
a].�ernative number ta�o, which would require that th� Code provisions
be applied nnly to flag 1o�s which are not in subdivisions.
* Commissianer Fyx'e moved and Commis�ioner Vanderwaod seconcled to
recommend alternative number 2, which Y`��C.CLA��7� th�ir r�cammendat3.on
of May �, 1984, to have the Code provisions only apply to f1a� lots
which are not in subdivi�ions. Also to add 10 ft. for side y�ra
setbacks, a�so remove ths word provided. Mo�ion carried by ma3ori�y
vote of Gommis�ioners present, Commissioner Butler vo�ing no.
5.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMEIdI�ME�1T CPA 30-84 FINDINGS POI,ICIES AND
IMPLEMENTATION STR.ATEGIES DOCUMENT.
Review PoYicies 301.1, 3.2, 3.2.3, 3.4, and 304.1. i
l
Associate Planner iVewton reviewed the status and requested that staff's �
recommendations be forwarded to City Cauncil. y
,
a
PUBLIC TESTI:MOI�Y ;;
o Geraldine Ball, read her eoncerns into the record, she favore� }
staff's recommendationo
t
� � � E
�
� f
i
�
FLANNING COMMISSIQN MIN[JTES Marah 5, 1985 Page 2 !
i
� _ _ , _.. b�,>�,�;.,r.
o Associate Planner addressed NPO �� 3's �ritten concerns.
* Commissioner Fyre mo�ed and Commissioner Owens seconded to forward
staff's recommendation to City Council w3th a recommendation for
app�oval.
5.3 SUBD'IVISION 5 1-85 EDITH CARNAHAN NPO �� 7
Requast to subdivide a 129,329 square foot parcel into ].3 lots ran�ing
from 7,500 to 8,4�0 square feet on property zoned R-4.5 (Resid�ntial 4.S
units/ac�e). Located: 109�5 5W North Dakota St. (WCTM 1S1 34BC lot 200).
Associate Planner Lidsn n�ted �arrections on the staff report and made
staff's recommendstimn fo� approval w�th 10 conditions.
APPLICANT'S PRESENT�TION
o Gordon Hobbs, Presiden.t, OR-AI� Corporation, 13050 5W Forest Meado�
Way, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, accepted sta£f°s recommendation and
asked the Commissinn fnr the3.r approv�.lm
PUBLIC TESTTMONY
o Stan Smith, 1Q925 SW 108t�, adjacent property owner, was conc�rn
about the severe drainage prol�lem they c�srently have, he did nat
want �o see this pro�ect develope if it would increase his exist3ng
prob�em. He �lso wmtat�d to know wha� type of homes woul� be built.
RE�UTTAL
o Gordon Hobbs stated that the C�ty has drainage r�quirements and if
ther� is any affect on the adjaceixt progerty it would decrease their
water runoff. He was not su�e of the types of homes, he �o�ld be
selling off the lots �o builders, but expected them to be compatible
with the surrounding n.eighbarhoods.
o Edith Carnahan, ?�985 S� Nor�h Dakota, owner of the property,
ob�ected to the fact that she w$s required to da half-street
improvement in front of her house. She felt the improvement should
only be required in front of �he subdivi.�ion.
PUBLIC HEARrNG GLOSED
o Discussion followed �egarding the 25' easement strip, why Mrs. i,
Carnahan was being required to improve in £ront of her house, road 4
�
alignments and the turnaro�ndo ;
* Gommissioner Butler moved and Commissioner Bergmann seconded to '.
approve S 1-85 adding condition �umber 9. Requiring a turnaround at �
the end of 109th which is a�ceptablE by the City and Fire
Department. Change Conditi�n number 9. to 10. an� condition number
10. to 11. ; and modify candition number 1. to read PRIOR TO RECORDING
OF FINAL PLA'P ir�stead oE ISSUANCE OF BUILAING PERMITS. Also, to
PLANNING COMMISSION MINTJTES March 5, 1�85 Page 3
a
authori�e staff to complete the final order and have President Moen
sign off on that final order. Motion pas�ed unanimously by
Commissionexs present.
5.4 SUBDIVISION S 2.-85 AND VARIANCE V 1-85 ARLTE & TRENE MAWHIRTER NPO �� 6
Request for preliminary plat approval of a six: 1ot �ubdivisinn with
parcels ranging between 7,125 and 8,500 square feet and for a Variance to
allow two lots below the 7,500 square mininaum 3.ot size of t�e R 4.5
(Residential 4,5 units/acre)a Located: 9680 SW McAonald St. (iJGTM 2S1
11B.A lots 104 and 200)a
Associate Planner Liden reviewed the staff repost and m�acle staff's
recoffimendation for approval with 11 conditions, noting th�t in condit�an
numbe� three, the word ma,jor should be minora
APPLICANT PRESENTArION
o Vern Lentz, 8150 SW 39th, Eortland, concurred with the staff report
x�nd felt al�. canditions w��e acceptable.
PU�ILIC TESTIMOIVY
o Elise Vaillancourt, 1414Q SW 97th, opposed grranting the variance, she
£el� this would �et a precedent which wUU1d allow lat� ta becom�
smallez than necessary.
a �tu Kendall, 44+40 Dougla� Way, Lske O�swega, repreaent3.�g Ron Z�zutt,
opposed allowing six lots as they �*ould aff�ct the LTD partions,
which had alread�r been assessed. He did not f�el the owner wvuld be
paying his fair share if he wa� a1J.aw�d six lmts instead af five,
which they felt he should be alZowed.
REBUTTAL
o Vern Lentz, was not sure there is a fairness i�sue involvede He felt
this proposal wa� the highest and best use for the laa►d.
o Arlie Mawhirter, 14265 SW SQth Place, owner, atated tk�at it w�s
beeause of the c�ty�s xequirements for street dedicatioms, that t�e
was r�quiring the Variance.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
o Commissioners discussed the align�ent of McDonald Street, tk�eir
concern for £ive biew driveways access onto McDonald Strset, �nd
whether or not there was a legitamate need fur the Variance.
* Commi.�sioner Vanderwood maved and Cummissioner Bexgmann seconded i:or
approval af S 2-85, per s�aff's recommsndation. Mo�ion failed 3 to
3, Commis�sioners Moen, Owens, and Campbell voting no, Co�is�ioner
Butler abstained (property owxrer within 250').
PLANNING COMMISaIOI� MTNUTES March 5, 1985 Page 4
* Commissioner Owens moved to gable S 2°85 and V 1-85, requesting that
the staff and applicant get together and revi�� the impact that this
num�e� of access would have on McDonald, possibl� �oint access.
Mation failed 3 to 3, Commissionexs Fyre, Vanderwood, and Bergmann
voting no, Commissioner Butler ab�taining.
o F�rther discus�ion.
* Commissioner Campbell maved and Ccammissiorner Owens seconded to table
S 2-85 to allow staff and appllcant to review the impact of five
access onto McDonald, anci to reset tk�� hearing to April 2, 1985.
Motion passed by ma�ority of Commissioners present, Commissioner5
Fyre and Vanderwood voting no, Commissioner Bu�ler abstaining.
5.S ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 1°85 AIdD Ct7MPREHENSIVE i?LAN AMENDMENT
CPA 2°S5 GENE AND VIVIAN DAVIS NPO �� 4
Request �o annex 13.19 acre parcel inta the City of Tigard and approve a
Gomprehensive lPlan Amen�3ment from Washingtan County Affice Commercia.� and
Residential (5 un.its/acre) Metzger Frogress Co�ununi�y P1an designation �o
City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Designation Commercial Parofessia�al and
Lo�a 1D�resity Reridentia]L! anci £or � Zone Change �'roffi Washtngton Goun�y �C
(Office Comffi�rcial) and R-�5 (Res�.dential) to City of Tigard CP (Comauercial
Prof.�ssional) snd R-4.5 (Residexxtial, 4.5Jun�.ts/acre) on prop�rt� baund�d
by Iii��way 217, SW 9Sth, uW Osk �nd SW BJth (WCT1�I 1S1 35AC, Tax Lots 101,
2800, 4500, 4600, 4700; a�zd 1S1 35AD, Tax Lots 1?.00, 1300, 1400, ax�d 15A0.}
Associate Planner New'tan reviewed the staff r�por� and mad� �taff'�s
recc��nwendation for a�pproval with two cs�nditions.
AF'PLICANT'S JPRESENTATION
o Gene Davis, 10875 3W 89th, stated he had lived on the property for 18
years. He wanted to be annexed into the Gity because the City Code
aaare�s�8� runoff pxoblems better than the Washington Coun�y Codee
A1so he had been �iurglarized five times snd would like t� be able to
call the City of Txgard Pol��ce.
PIJBLIC TESTIMONY
�
o Reid iford, g970 �W Greenburg road, GPO 4 - Metzger Chairman, 3
supported the annexation. He was concerned that he had not been ��
properly notified o£ the hearing, He felt the applicant hr�d been the
victim of inaccurate �.nf�rmati4n through the Washington County '
process and should be allo�ed to annex and de�elop in the City of '
Tigard.
i!
o Hazel Lyon, 10440 SW �7th Av�o portland, 97223, opposed the p.
i'
annex�tion and read her concerns to the Commission.
�.
k
t,
i,
i
�
�:
r
;
r
}
t.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mareh 5, 1��85 Page 5 �?
,;
�
v _ �,. ..: _...,,.M,.�.�_�.�::... ,,
o John Blomgren, 9460 SW Oak, Tigard, opposed the annexation as being
piecemeal. He stated that the Metzger Plan did not allow far piec�
meal annexation, it is to be a11 or nothin�� He was concerned when
the property developed that it would affect the existing traffic
problems on Greenburg and 4ak. He felt the property should be
d�veloped as a park as most of the property is in the floodplain and
ia a drainage pond for the entire area.
REBUTTAL
o Mr. Davis agreed their wh�re flood problems and �hat he would like to
improve them but could nnt unless he was allowed to annex into the
City of Tigard.
o �engthy discus5ion followed re�ardi�g Police service, floodplsin,
traffic, piece�eal annexation, the Metzger Plan, and the Urban
Plannin� Area A.greemente
* Commissioner Owens moved and Commissioner Butler secon�ed to forw�ard
CPA 2-85 and ZCA 1-85 to City Council x�qaaesting tha� the CPO and
Metzger Res3dents be in£ormed of this hearing. They would like City
Council to act on this application and r�turn some fndication af
policy regarding future ann�xations in the Metzger mrea.
Co�missioners Moen} Campbell, and BPrgmann favored the annexation,
Commissioners Fyr� and Vander�rood opposed 4:he annexation and
Commissioners Butler and 4wens wer�e undecided.
5.6 SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 1-85 CROW/SF'ETKER/HQSFORD {PARK 217) N1'0 �� 5
Request for mpproval of a second freestanding sign and to mod3fy a
non-conforming sigx� on prog�rty zoned C-G (Commer�ial General). Located:
11860 SW Pacific Hwy. and Garden Place. (WCTM 2S1 1B� lot 400 and 1400).
Associate Planner Liden made raviewed the staff report and made staff's
recommendation for approval with 4 conditions.
APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION
o Dandy Mawhirter, 9350 SW Tigard St., representing the Sign Gompany
was available for queations.
o Mark Rockwell, Trammell Crow Co., 10300 SW Greenburg Road, explained
their need for the additional sign and why they were modifing the
existing signs.
PUBLIC TESTIMONX
o No one appeared to speak.
PUBLIC �IEAR.ING CLOSED
o Consensus of th►e Commission was that the sign was justifi.ed.
.
PLANNING COZ4IISSION MINUTES Mmrch S, 1985 Page 6
-,
� _ _ _ _ r
* Commissioner Campbell moved and Commissioner Bergmann seconded to
approve SCE 1-85 per staff's recommendation and to requir� staf£ to
compos� the final order and have President Moen sign off on that
final order, Motion carried unanimously by Commissioner present.
5.7 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 2-85 GOMMUNITY DEVELOPM�NT CODE
Review Sections 18.68.030, Industrial Park Permitted Uses; Section ''�
i8.70.030, Light I�dustrial Permitted Uses; Section 18.72.030, Heavy '
Industrial Permitted Uses. Also Section 18.100.090 Setbacks for fenc�s or
�al1s.
Associate Plannes Liden reaiewed the memn and made staff's r�commendation
r�questing the Co�mission forward recommendations to City Council with
approvala
o Discussion followed regarding fence fieightse
* Commissioner Chvens moved and Commis�ioner �ergmann s�conded to
forward staff'e changes to City Counc3l with x�c�mm�ndation for
approeal. �otion pass�d unanimously by Commissioners prese�t.
6. Other Busine��
o There was �o other businesse
7. Adjournffient - lle�5 P.M.
D ne �. J�ld , Secretaxy
I ATTEST:
Vi • �0 •�a'//sL�
.
A. Donald Moen, President
1082P
dmj
PLANNING COI�iISSION MTNUTES March 5, 1985 Page 7
I'i
DATE �sv� s1�S. ,
S�+r�-�. « `� �
ROLL CALL: �° �
1/� * �7'�"�°�
Don Moen � `
John Butler �
, C�
Milt Fyre �t� `
De�ne Levezett � '�
Bonnie Qwens �v% �
-'iT- �
Dave Petersan �� � /R'n �,
U/ U , /
Chris Vanderwood , `Lf��
i� � �� �
F1ayd Bergmann ._._.r-.--'''�
Nancy Campbell
�
;
i
�
�
i
�
�
�
I
s
�
�� �� �� ����� � �� ���� a���� �-��5�
P.O.SOk 370 PNQP3e{503i 6i34-035U �€P�B�� �
BCAVE';fOn ORFGOA:�7G75
��� `����9z��' �r����?t���•����`�3t��.�6;����
��ga� P������ ��������a�� �,���� � _.
� �• �� �������������������
� � ti �� '�1�`C>`� ���;.: `��.���'; =��:E'�� `�`��_�
�C i ty �f T i g ar d � �s ��aP��3�E� �°40i4C� �r `� � ���i����������e��,a�PF�s�������e����t�1�'7����'�.,��
g..� �l�9;.F&�$�f���`n"��E'�E°���`�`Z-c`$y 3B�'�33�7��9Yi$�'2x�'���b,
P � 0 e B o x 2 3 3 9 7 (��' ��.���� �f�a��.����tti�'�-°°�
� ° � C3�plicai� ��ic�avE3 ��� �%�����Id�:�+3�El3.�P�"'�.&��':� � ��"`�d3�°�°��:��
T i g a r d, 0 R g 7 2 2 3 ����w��?�o��8.��,I�a�4(Pe�a'�'���3'_�c������R96��1�e�8
0 � �����.���g�e����a � �e� �s�����.t����
���,
���:�� �t,� �����rr� �;��� ��°� �� ���
�,�� e , _.. .
_ �4���r��%�62�5llq�11fQ.�.��nda d p eP���&p.e3uvi.Sa9�a8."Ef�Yan�c�.�.H V9 63G�d'R�Sd�y S al�B�.pSS
������������sa���f�a�t�sac��; :..
�����A��� �3� �lls��.6���"��@� �������T��3�����1t��.���. �a�`"���'���`a�
��A�E O� �9��GCP�1, � ��w�e� ���Ja� F�.�4���¢ �?��„��'� �'��=t�3 ����; �a��
���8�9�'Y �� Vi��SB�tr�@C'a3'J�l, }s5. ��0��3,��k�f����s�1�@S`2���' . �7���� �8.��.€4������
�aa�e��$ ����� tJ� ���ica�a ��.I�<4��,�� ts�� ��f��
� Susan Pinkley a!���€��: - - ,
��ing �arst c�€a9y s�c��n, (�����a£ �P� S�y �ila� { c37Yi YQ14.' A4$��P�iSlt1� ����%A�%�3T��� �����,i���e� t���'�
�i��ctor, os �ais �Pa�e�i�a€ cler�:, o� th� Ti�ara Times ����`-�� ��������,:�,�'�a����T�� ' l�#�
� n���pa�e� o� gen���i �4rvu6�+'soe� �u d��'s��d in QR� 1�3.C31u ��� � �, � �- � � �ar�+� ���d � �� ��e�a�� ��
�1��;�.�,��".���:��������� 't��f.(��'��.-����;�a
�"xfi� i��.�2`�; �a.��a9�h'�'t� c°lt T=°a-N d SPl f410 �� �
����es�ad caaa�s4� ��d �4�te� th���he � ���t���.��``�����I��'�,-,`�'' �= ,.�� %��
Public Not�ce
— -- �_ ��V ����
� �Oran��� c�a�y �fi w�i�h is her�4s� �nr+�xe�, �ra� ��b8ish�d i� @�c �����3�;�����`a`�s�y����aa��z��f�f���t�.$��
1 ��a�� �'����;������^�"����:
�fB$9�� f�^s��9� O� S�Ei� d3c�S�i����f4P succe�s�i�� �sd - �������'�,����� a " ��a;�������
G6Ad9S�Cd�$6W@ !P!$�i� �Ca$�O�°§�l�A 6S"sBa�S: ����"���'A����1���;#��:�i ` r ��� „ '�
��-��: -2�.`����s��"�,�¢��. �
�� � ' _ �..?�'�.� ��.� .'_ ��
Feb � 219 1985 �,
��.�T � _. , ��'���'�4���f���� "
,�. - -
_-----� s���f���;�����=t�.�����:�g�������
- ^, �s���g�;�.����"�.'����������,:��
� ,, �/}�� � �, i� �����;,:���3���� ����,
����I� ' �T������ �€s���t��.��
� . � � ���. ����s����aal� �
�aa�rs�ee�e� �n���s � �e,�a�e e�- t - "� Feb , 21 , 19��J ����'�.�����t����.��a �aa�� . �
, ���?���� �k���� : ' � _. ��
>I l�ii ^y„ ( v f \ s'-` �E�+�'F`r3�j r�,c3$4���$.�?� ° Iz�c�5}��►�#�'Zt���':c
'' .� />��� &B��s��`�y����.�.������"�td� ��.. �"�n'�
C/3'
� � �o�a�y �u�l��fo� C)����n �s���Ip� ,� 9����. �����9'���������
r ����.$4i�: ���.
9/"0/88 � _
_ _ ��: , _ :_-
l�8� Coee��a��eoea����ar�s: ���,��� = ���'��"�;����,..� ���. �'_��
���2..����.:: ��'� , ,.
���g����� ������������ ���.���>-�.�:.
� ���:��.�����������
�2a���.�� "X�� ��� � � L1�� � _, �:
����a�� ���z������.
� .. �'��"�;�� _ °.: . _., ; _=_ , _.:_..:
Ut1'_'c.
-----�—...--- -----•–•--------- -- ---•
Z'IGARD PLANNINC COf��lIS5ION SIGN UP SEdk;L;T
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK OIJ ANY' ITEM rIUST SIGN THE:IR NA��IE
�
and note their addr.ess on this sheet. (please Print you�' name)
ITEbl/bESCRIPTIc�N: �,/� �f "�� _ _
� � —
�� '
i
PRQPO[�ENT (For) APPONENT (agains�j
Name, Acldres� and �ffiliation � Name, Address and A:��iliation
,
HOTICE: P►LL PERSONS DESIFtTI�TG TO SP�AK ON AI3Y IT�b! DxUST Sa+�N THEIN N1�i�fE
•
�
and note th�i.r address on this sheet. (pZ��se Print you7r n�ame)
ITEFSJbESC TTON: �� °'
•
. ,
���
PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against)
Na�ne, Address and Affiliation � Name, Address ar�d Affil.iation
...r....
_ �..._
DATE 3 °,s`��
T I G A R D P L A N N T N G C O M M I S S I Q N
NOTTCE: ALL PERSONS DESTI2ING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST �TGN THEIR P1AME
and note; their addr�ss, on this sheet. (please P�'in� your n�ne)
� ITEM�bESCRIPTTON: �� 3{„� ' g � '
./'�°" �
�--�� . • . .
�= o�«��. �s
3. :�� � � � � �. �
PROFONENT (k'or) OPPOIIiIEENT (against)
Name, .Addr�ss and Af�ilia�.ion � Name, .Add�ess �nd A��iliatit�xa
�-��-f'it C�A / I /� IN �t
�
�I
� '
�
I
a
_ F
t
♦ �
�
t
, �
� � �, �.__ _.._ ...�. ._ . ...._._.. .: �._..... �.�, -�.n-.��
DATE ,�' �'��a�
T I G A R D P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S T Q N
NUTICE: IALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY TTEM MUST SSGN TI3EZR NAME
and note� their adc]ress. on this sheet. (please Print your name)
ZTEM/bESCRIP.TTON a � I ��
, 3
���1.. C'��r� o.r�. l`U�
�
o���� �'� �,-.�_,R � � �
PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against)
Ie7ame, Addre�s ax�d A�filiatie�n � Name, Adc��ess and A��iliation
i ����1�u� �.�Yv�� 0 Z� 5,,� I� �c� 11a��.+�.
�' ' o ,s�s� /��.�ow
r.
�
� _ .._.�..
,
.
�
�i
. ,
DATE 'S ' S' �j„��
T I G A R D P L A N N I N G G O M M T S S I O N '
NUTICE: ALL PER50T35 DES�RII�iG 'I'O rsPE1�K ON ANY ITEM MjJaT SIGN THEIR NAME
and note� �kheir address, on thi� sheet. (Please print your 2nazne)
STEM�ESCRTF�TIOI�T: �p���� '�,. �/° �,�- �
fJ � •
� ��
.�,° �
i, — .
PROPONENT (�or) (3PP�IJENT (agair�stj
Name, Address and A�'filia�ion � Nam�, Address and Af�ilx�tion
�
. —�i� �/c..�Il�ncc�u�-1- ��1��-fo sw��- �
, �
�.s�:� � � I�t��u��� ��v���5 ^ �����°
�-- ', �-t..�--v� a._.�.___�
�
r
�
j
DATE ��' S��j� '
�� G A R D P L A N N I N G C O M M I 5 S � 0 N �
;a
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING 'I'0 SPEAK ON ANY ITEM NIUST SIGN THEIR NAME
and note1 their address. on this sheet. (ple�se Print your name) �1
ITENI/bESCRIPTI�N: 7� l'-' S� � � S.�
_.
� .
�r/' •
N� � t
� s
PRO�ONENT (For) OPPONENT (against� ;
i
Name, Adc�ress and Affiliatic�n Name, 1�,ddx°ess and Af�iA.iai�ion
t ots75' .�w g9 ✓ d� y7z�-� s
--e ti^--� �Q J �S C,�" �,.,v '� - /G.� ��� , �'-U ��/-�, n.
' � ` ��
��� ��� .���--� ���,�.� ,�,�, �� � �
� , _ � �_ �3
� ,
' - - > `� �� ,h- �D��(� ' � / `��z1„�;
, � � ��,/6 � S bv �q /c'' �i� ;
�JQ � L v m �i��-W � � � �,,_ �,��?� '
—' � �� +--� ,
�
�
;
�
;
�
;
�
_
,
;
�
�
. s
i
E
�
i
i
7
f �
i
I
i
i
i i
I
;
�
U t\':'i•.
-----..�_____....__ .__----._. .._.._.__..-- -
Z'IGARD PI,ANNING CQt�iMISSIUN SIGN UP SEIELT
hOTSCE: ALL PERSONS DESIRTNG TO SPEAK G�td ANF ITEt�t PIUS^L SICN TIiL:Ik NA[�IE II
� �
and nate their addr.ess on this shee�, (please Print youx name)
ITEN16bESCRIPTION:_ S� ���
�J. '• t'�r.°�� � 1 "7
S' e� �
� �
PROPONENT (For) OPPONEVT (against�
Name, Addres� and �ffiliation I3aiue, Address and Af�il.iation
!� '1 n j �j�so s w iis�,.�(
� v�
.�`ae , oe��.u-�.._. %'�,��. u,
��3.n s;�,�.�.�a.��v��- .� �
PIOTICE� ALY. PERSONS DESJCRIIdG TO SPEAY{ O1Q ANY ITEL�i b�UST S�GId T�dEIIE? NAbIF
. •
and note tt-,�ir address on thi.s she�t. (please Px'int yottr n�ame)
�I .
ITEbI/bESCRIPTION: ��..� ,�"�" ��
�� r
5 � o�-
_ ��'��• oi�.�, � s � ��.. l� •�Vo• �7�
PROPONENT (For) OPPONCNT (against)
Na�ie, Addr�ss and Affilia�ion � Name, Address and Affi.liati.on
� -----_----
AG��pA �TE� 5.1 a
PL.ANN�NG �OMM;C�y,CC1fl{
M�r�M 5, 19�65
�pA 9��-�4
M�MORAIVqUM
CI:TY OF T'�:GARD, Ol2E:G�7�1
"FQ: Planninc� Comanissian � March 1, �.�8!`�
FF70M: Planni.ng St�f•f ��G�
SU�JE'.CT; Manu�a�tured Ham�s
At the January 8, '198�'s, Planni.ng Cc�mmi.KSi.r�r� n���ting, �hie P1ann3.rrg ��taf�
�r�ser�tcac� a m�rn�r r�c�arcli,ng siti.r�g r�� manu�ac�t�ar�dOmabile homes. 'Th� pr�i.mary
iss�e rais�d w�s whetpier or �ot manufac�ur�e�d�mak�il� hame sh�ul.d �� a17:owed r,,rr
irtdi.vic�ua7. l.cs��s i.n r��sidentia�. zunes irr h� C�.�;y. A� �t:3��t m�e�:ii°rg. �:h�
l�lar�nir+g Comm�.ssiQr� d3.�^eGted staff ta reuiew �he issues with �I��? iUpO's,
5iru:r� fi:hat ti.r�e, s�GafF h�as madQ 'LFre �.n�Farn�a•tior� �v�il�b1� �to �l.]. r�� th�
AfPtJ's. NC►0 $} 5 and NP� �' 6 have kaa�M reviewed the a.raform�t:ion. '1"Me cons�rtsus
r�f NPO I$ 5 was tc� allow iitiad�u�Factured M�ames rrn ind:ivicl�aal 7.ufi:s s�ak�ject trs
certai.n standards s�t forth xr� �:pq� . Cam�aur�ity I�evel.rapment Coc�e ancl
�r�forcc�abl� ��hra�s�h �ou�nar�ts, Cond�.�ions, and �e�tr�.c��.�ns. �
• i
NP.4 # 6 drres nr�t suppart a�7.3owing mar�ufac�ured/mr�bile hom�� on indivi.du�). 3.a�:s
and reerammends t^etaining �k:he exis�irrc� Cammur�ity D�v�7.opment Code ].�ng��ge.
51`AF�' RE�:OMMEN�AT'�:t7N:
Rc�vi.ew th� attach�ci starodards .praposed by �he Manw�ac�tur�d Housi:ng Assaca�tior►
�nd farw�r�d a r�cr�n�mer�da�ian tr� the �i.ty C�auncil reg�i^cVa.ng �i�:i.r�g ;
manufac�:ured/m�abile F►omes on inda.vidual. lats,
1t�63P
dmj
� �;;
a3
��
. . . . . . ' . - � . � ... � � � . �i:
.. . . . . . .. � . . � �;�
;�
.. . . � . . . . � � . . i�
. . . . . . � . . :l.I
. . . . . . . . . .' . . . . ..�S�
. � . . ..�. � �. �:. ..�.� . .�,,.... ...��.i. �._-..,.. .,_� � �..�. . ���,.�
M' �.:,� ..��. . .. . . .. .. .
. ,
. v�.� �
.,;�`" " /�� ,�
63rd OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY-1985 Regular Session �
�
�enate Bill 53 �
;
PRINTEA PURSUAN7'TO ORS 171,l 30 by order of the President o}'the Senatc in conformance with presession filing rules,
indicating neither advocacy nor opposition on the part of the President(at the request of Joint Interim Committea on
Land Use) �
i
SUMMAItY ;
• The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the mcasure and is not a pan of the body ther•eof subject ta `°
cansideration by the I.egislative Assembly.lt is an editor's briei'statement of the essential features of the meas�re as antrodaced. ;
Requires city and county comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances to allow the siting of certaira •
manufactured homes on at least some lots zoned for single family dwellings. Requires local governments to `;
designate lots on which manufactured homes will be allowed. f
� A BII.Y.FOR AN ACT
2 Relating to manufactured homes. �
acted b the Peo le of the State of Oregon: �
3 Be It En y P
4 SECPION 1.Section 2 of this Act is added to and rnade a part of ORS 197.295 to l 97.307.
II riodic review cit and caunty cornprehensivt plans and land uso
5 SE�T'IOIV 2.(1)LJpon and after the first pe , Y
6 regulations shalI ailow cx►anufactured hoanes meeting the requirecnents nf subsections(2)and(3)of this section to
aoned for sin e famil dwellings.The comprehensive plan or land use
ast sa
m�lots lanned and B1 Y
n a41� P
7 be sited c� ,
8 regulations shall designate the l04 or lots planned and zoned for single family dwellirngs on which tt�ose
9 manufactured homes are allowed.
� �p (2)A manufactured home qualifies under subsection(1)of this section if it meets all of the following criteria:
s� (a)It is rnultisectional.
�Z (b)lt encloses a space of not less than 864 square feet.
�3 (c)It has a pitched composition shingle or wood shake roof.
t4 (d)It is set upon a foundation approved 6y the Department of Comat►erce,and if not placed�at ground level,
15 it has skirting which complements the structure.
�6 (e)It has exterior siding in color,material and appearance similar to the extcrior s6ding material commonly
17 used on residential dwellings.
I8 (3)A city or county may subject a manufactured home sited under subsection(1)of this seclirrn and the lot
19 upon which it is sited to any development standard to which a convcntional single 4'smily residential dwelling on
z0 the same lot would be subject, except those development standards which would prevent �Il manufactured
2I homes from being siud on the lat.Development stane�ards include,but are not limited to,building setbacks and
22 aesthetic and architectural r�quirements. �
33 (4) Nothing in this section precludes a city or county from ailowing mobile homes, as defined in ORS
bsection
2 of this sec
tion on dots
e that do not r�neet the re uireme
nts of su ( )
24 446,003(!9),and manufactured hom s q
1!
25 planned and zoned for single family dwellings. ;',
26 (SD�'�ty and county comprehensive plans and land use rcgulations shall adequately peovide for the siting of y;
27 mobile homes,as defined in ORS 446.003(19),and manufactured homes not prnvidcd for in subsection(l)of y
i
?� this section within areas planned and zoned for residential usc. �`
�'
f`
a
NOTE: Matter in M►Id tace in an amcnded scction is n�w;matter(ifalic and hrasketedJ is existing law to be omit►ed.
i
k;
�!
�:
�
. . . . . . � . . . . ��"�:
.. � . � . . � . � . . . �Fs
� -��' � . � . . .�.. . . . n ..�.�'
. a ..
SB 53
► SECTION 3. Subsections(1) to(4)09'section 2 of this Act apply to a comprehensive plan snd lsnd use
2 regulations upon and after the first periodic review of'that plan and regulations.
I
�
I �
.
[Z1
PUBLIC TESTIMONX
o Gereldine Ball questioned the need for a field surveyo Discussion
followed.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
o Vice Fresident Owens moved and Commissiones Butler seconded to set
CPA 30°84 over to the February 5, 1985, Planning Commi�efon meeting.
Motion carrled unanimously by Commissioner present.
FINAL ORDERS FOR TTEMS 5.2 and 5.3.
Associate Planner Liden revfewed the final order far PU 4-84, S 9-84� ZC
12-84, and V 15-84e
* Commissioner Peterson moved and .Commissio�er Be�gmann se�onded to
�dopt the £fnal order as proposed by st�£f and authoriz� �ice
President OFrens to si�n the final ord�ra Motion earried unanimously
by Commissioner pres�nt.
Associ�te Planner Liden reviewed the final order for PD 6-84 an� S il-�4a
* Coe.�issidner Peterson moved and Commission Butler seconded to adopt
the final order as proposed by st�ff �nd suthorize Vice gresi�ent
Owens to sig� th� final order. M�tion carried �n�nimou�ly by
Co�missfane�s p�esenta
i
��� 5.6 ZONE QRDINANGE A2�IdDMENT ZOA 8-84 CITY O1� TZ�l�.3D
Review section 1�.26, 18.94, 18.96, 18�98, and ].8.144 of the -Community
Development Code.
Director of Community Davelopment Ma�mahan reviewed his memo regarding ;
, � � Manu€actured/Mabile Homes. He requested that the Commiesion giqre him some
direction as to wE�ether manufactured homes should be allowed on gingl� '
family lots.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY ``'
Aon H�lbrook� 1109 Sierra Vista, Newberg� supported staff's recocomend�ztion ,'„
' :Eor the definition of manufactureel homes. He supported allowing
manufactured homes on single fa�ily lots.
Mary Clinton, 9865 SW View Court, wae concerned about the eff�ck
� Man�:�factured homee would have on established homes if they were allowed on '
;:
sin�le fam±ly lots. , �;
;i
�,
�'
��
�
�;
��
t
t.
PLAIVNING CO[�IIrtISSION MINUTES January 8 0 1985 Page S �4';
I,
_ 4�
■_' ' _ �_ --
._ :_ __._.. . _ ��::... �,., ._._
,_ .._. .--_......_�.- -..._.....___�.._,�.._.._._�__
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
o Commiasioner Eyre stated he was on NPO �l 3 dur�.ng the Comprehensive
Plan and their intent was not ta al.low manufactured homee on single
family lots.
o Commission Vander were not to be allowed�on single�familynlots. that
manufactured homes
o Commissioner Campbell stated she was not present during the
Comprehensive o��s s��mobil.e homesr� Shes feltcthat th�yhshould ibe
manufactured h
cansidered dwelling units.
o Commissioner �utler stated h� was on NPO 4� 1 during the p
rocess and
they determined it was discriminatory not to allow them, however, the
intent of the plan was nor ta� allow them on single family lots.
o Commissioner Peterson was nmt around during �h� Compxehex�sive Plan
� process but felt they sinould be allowed in subdivision with
convenants and on eingle famil3� lo�s if �Candards were set.
o Vice President O�rexis recalled thak i� was PTPO � 7 intent to allow
manufactured t�o��s in manufactured k►ocre� subdivisioneo She felt there
was a need for a definition and supported st�ff's recommendation.
o Commissioner Leverett £elt manufac�ured hoaa�s should be allowed as �
matter of economicse If they meet the b�nilding cade th�y should he
, allowed as a dwelling unit. ,
v
o Commission Butleg cam�erated that he felt allowing manufactured home�
would help meet th� LCDC goal which r�quires pro�iding � diverae type
of naeded housing. He fel� miniffium standards could be esta�lished.
: o Lengthy discussion following reg�rding allowing manufacCuxed home�.
o Frank Johnson, 15685 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd. commented Ghat he
, � , � lived in a mobile 'home and that their is a big difference between
manufactured and mobile homes. He added that LaGrand allnsas
manufactured inomes in a specific area.
o Discussion followed on how to continue. Consensus was to ,go back
through the I�iPO prncesse No actLnn was taken.
Director of Community Monahan reviewed his memo on flag lqts and height
limitations. He explained the difficulty of applying ttte restriction when
flag lots are being developed. He then reviewed aeven alternativea.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
o Mary Clinton, 9865 SW View Cts , representing NPD # 6 suggeated not
allowing flag lots to abut existing establiehed nreae, She felt flag
lok should only be allowed on R 3.5 lota or largex.
PLA.NNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 8. 1985 Page 6
.�" �`� �
� �
63rd OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY—!985 Regular Session
Senate Bill 53 �
PRINTED PURSUANT TO ORS 171.130 by order of the President of th�Senate in conformance with presession filing rules,
indicating neither advocacy nor opposition on the part of the President(at the request af loint Interim Committee on
Land Use) �
SUMMARY
• The following summary• is not prcpared by the spc�nsors of the measure and is not a pan of the body thereof subject to
consid�ration by the Legislative Assembiy.It is an editor's brief statement of the essential features of thc measure u intirodaced.
Requires city and county comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances to allow the siting of certain
manufactured homes on at least some lots zoned for single family dweliings. Requires local governments to
designate lots on which manufactured homes will be allowcd,
I A BILL FOR AN ACT
2 Itelating to manufacturad homes.
3 Bs Yt Enacte�d 6y the People mf the S2$te of Oregon:
a SECTFON 1.Section 2 c�f chis Act is added to and made a part af CiRS 197.295 to 197.307.
5 SECTION 2.(1)Upon and after the firsY periodic review,city and caunty comprehensive plans and iand use
6 re�ulatians shall allovr manufactured homes meeting the require�nenYs of subsections(2)and(3)of this section to
7 be sited on,;ae flaasY some lots plannect arid zoned for sin�le family dwellings.The comprehcnsive plan or land use
8 regulations shaU d�signate the lot or lots planned and xoned for single family dwcltings nn which thase
, 9 manufactur�d haenes are allowed.
r
I 0 (2)A manufactured h�me qualifies under subsectinn(1}of this section erit meets all of tF�e foliowing criteria:
1 I (a)14 is mul4isectional.
12 (fi)It�nclases a space of not less ehan�S4 squarc feet.
13 (c)it has a pitched camposition shingle or wooci shake roof.
14 (d)1t is set upon a foundation approved by the bepartmen�t of Commerct,and if not p{aced at ground levol,
1 S it has skirting which complements the structure.
- t 6 (e)It has exterior siding in color,material and appearance similar to the exterior siding material commonly
l7 used on residential dwellings.
I8 . (3)?�city or county may subject a manufactured home sited under subsection(1)of this section and the lot
19 upon which it is sited to any development standard to which a conventional single family residential dwelling on
20 the same tot would be subjece, except those developmeni standards which would prevent all manufactured ':;
;
21 homes from bein�sitcd on the lot.d�evelopcnent standards include,but are not limited to,building setbacks and �
2? aesthetic ancf architectural requirements.
33 (4) Nothing in this section precludss a city or county from allowing mobile hom�s, as defined in ORS "
24 446.003(!9),and manufactur�d homes that do not meet the requirem�nts of sulisection(2)of this section on lots ��
25 pEanned and zoned for single family dwellings.
?6 (5)City and county comprehensivc plans�nd land use regula4ions Shall adequately pcovide for the siting of
37 mobile homes,as defined in ORS 446.003(19),and manufactured homes not providr,d for in subscction(l)of
28 this section within areas planned and goned for residential use.
�,'.
NOTE: Matter in bold tace in an amended section is new;mattsr[rlolic and hrackeredJ is existing law to be omitted,
��
!�
:.�
,;
� � � � � � � ,;�
�1:
�, _.. .. .
�
. /
� SB 53
� SECTION 3. Subsections(1)to(4)of section 2 of this Act apply to a comprehensive pian and land use
2 regula�ions upon and after the first periodic review of that plan and rogulaiions.
I
1
�,
i
i
{
�
;
`
i
��
,
' 1
�
�'.
;
�
�
s
!
�
�
�2�
pGE'IVCDA Il"k.M 5.]. b
PL�AiUtU;LMG ��P1f'1:L5�:�ON
M�rch 5, 1985
Z4A 8--84
M�MURRNDUM
CI:1"Y OF T'�:GARp. ORF:GON
_
�
'T'U: P].anning Cc�mmissir�ri March 1, 1��5
FRC7M: PJ.anreinq Staff �'CG'/l
�UEI;l'l:�CT': alag Lc��s/Hei.c�Mt Limits
fa�: th� J'anu�ry 8, �.985, Pl�innanc� CUllll117.35].OYt m�e�i.ng, �he F�l�nrsi.rrog Sta�f�
presert'k:�d � mema �u�l.ininy r�p�ic,ns �Far r�eg�la�t�.ng d��41�{�m�i��: �.,n �F1�a� �.o�s.
1"F�� Cammi.ssir,n d�.r�cted s�aff �c� send thw issue back through tt�� IUPO pr�c�cess.
l3uri���,� f:hr� mc,n�hs o� �'anu�ry �trrd F'�bruary �he staf�F ina�d� the iri�ur°tnata,on
�vaz1a6a1� to tF�� NP0's. 1"he minu�es frnm tl•ee 1�1�(D �P l5 rn��ti.11g regardir�g tha.s
is�ue are a�t�chr�d. �IF�c� f� 5 al�a revie�ec� tMe a,ssu�, howeuer, na r�ir�utes
h�ve be�n r�ceiusd by staff regdrdi.ng thi� isgue.
�Tfia�� 12�,:C�N'IM�A9qA'1"IUN;
T'�ie min�tes uf th� Planni.ng Cammissian anc� NF�t7 are at�tached . �Cn adcii.iti.an,
�the mf�mo ciated Dr�cc'mber 2�, 'L98�1, Fr��tsm F��,11 Mc�nahan rautlir�ing fi>he a7.�ewn�tiu�s
is attached. TMe Comniiss3.an shc►uld make a r�cc,mmendatic�rr ta •tl��e Cownci,�.
re�arciir�g �Zag I.�ots arid Nea.ght I_imits.
iQ63P
;
i
� �
� � � � � �
�
#
r
f:
u
n
i
� . . . � .. . � 5��1
� � .. . � _.. . . �i�
. . . . . � .. . ..
.. � . . . � . . �. . � . . � �[
. ,. . . � � . � . � � � . � . �`i
. . . � . � � . . . . . . .... 7:^�
.. . . . . . . � . . . j,�;
. . . . � . . . . . . . . _ . � �i*
�.
�
� .. .: . ..��. ._��_ ..� � . . . . - �:
. . .. . .. : :�
1 �
rebruary 25, 1985
NPO #6 Minutes from February 20, 1985 meeting.
l. The meeting was called to oz�der by 1'hil Pasteris at 7: 30 p.m.
2. Roll was Laken with Phil Pasteris, Sue Carver, Mary Clinton, F'unice Day, '�,
Jane Mill�.r and Connie Smith present. I
3• 'Ihe minutes of the previous mc�ting wei� approved.
�I. Jeff Fish - Representative fbr the "Street of Affordable Homes" and
Brian and Michele Lessler - Bridon Hon�s presented their plan for the
above function to be held star�ing June 14 and continuin� on for 17 days.
The hours will be 11 a.m. to 8 p.m. dur9ng the weekdays and 10 a,m. to
8 p,m. on L-he weekends. Admission will be $3 for. adults and $1 for child�
i�n. `l�is will bE located on the corner of Dtuham and Hall Blvd. There
will be 15 builders b uilding 18 differenct homes. Zhis area is zoned
R-7 (5,000 sg. ft. lots). The homes will range from 1,250 to 17,000 sq.
ft. and rang� f�om �60,000 to $80,000. They have worked thin�s out with
the Tigard Police and City ior maximum security. There will be parking
avai.lable in the Tigard High Swim Center. They v�ill be using volunteers
from the Muscular Dystrophy and will uzturn ma�ce a donation to the found-
ation<
5. Vern Lentz was present represen�cing Arlie and Irene Mawhirter in a sub-
division they are plaruZing. `l�is is located on the cornel of McDonald and
97th. They have plann�d 6 lots, 4 of which are at least 7,500 sq. ft or
better. There are 2 lots that are under the 7,500 sq. ft. lot minimum,
and he was asking for a variance for those 2 lots. A motion was made,
seconded and passed to re�orr¢nend to th� Planning Corimv.sion o.f approval of
this.
6. NPO #6 joined �nrith NPO #5 to p�et some input on the Zone Change of an area
� south of Ross St. and an Hall Blvd. The representative for this Zone
i Chan6re, Ryan 0'Brien sai.d they want to change the zone from R-7 to R-12o
There is about 3.72 acres in this pi�ce of property. They a.re planning
rnulti--family dwellings, with 42 to 48 units, Tl�e traffice on Hall Blvd.
was one of the bigger issues discussed in this matzer. NPO #5 did riot
have a quorom, so they were unable to make any recommendations.
7. NPO #6 made a motion, which was seconded and passed, to recoitffriend that
the Flag Lots and Heights Limitation Code read as follows. (Combining
# 3 and #6 of the Alternatives to Modify the Code Provisions)
Reduce the maximum heig�t of homes on flag lots to either
30 or 25 feet. NPO #6 recomnended in May of .198� that
Section 18.9$.030 be r�placed by the fo11ow3ng: i
"The maximum height for a single-family, duples, attached �
or multiple family residential structure on a flag lot or j
a lot having sole access fY�om an accessary private drive or ;
easement shall be no higher than the talles house on an �
adjoining lot or twenty five (25) feet, whichever is less." '
I
Continued on Page ?_ i
;
1
,.�.._.. ....,�-,�,.,�. ..,__ _. ..... .. . . .,,��„�.,�.�.._..
_ , .,__,.. ,...._... .. ....._�. .. .... �._ �
a '
NPO #6 Minutes of February 25, 1985
7. Continued.
And . . .
Provide special screen�ng requirerr�nts in addition to
the cur.rent code r��ulations. Th� screening could be
patter.ned a.i'ter Lhose used by the City of �ugene which
prove an option to an abutting property owner to request
screening along the access drive or a five foot high sight
obscw°in� fence or wall, or landscaping that will be i'ive
I'�et hi�h and 75% si�ht-obscuring within five years.
�ugene applies its r�p�ulations at the time of land division
i^eview. The City of Portland also has a screening requirPment.
Portland requires screening along ar�y lot line between a flag
1ot and aiz abuttin� lot where the abutting lot is in different
ownership than the lot being partitioned/subdivided to
create the flag lot. Tnus, the burden is totally on the
flag lot property owner to provide a .fence fbr scr.eening
r�gardless of whether the adjoii�ing properties are dev-
eloped first. Portland does provide for� a waiver if all
owners give written consent.
A�zcl . . .
Ar�l prohibiting F)_ag Lots in Zone R-4.5, R-7, R-12,
R-20 and R-y0.
A �
#♦y'
`lhis information was to be passed on to the Planning Commi:ssion.
�. Other busi�zess - Mary and Yhill'were planning to go,the grade' school
'i and the junior high to see what kind of support they°could r.eceive
f2om them in making a bike path on Pinebrook.
9. Wit-h no f'�zr�her business, the rr�eting was adjourned.
r .
� r. .5:•>,�."++lcsSYm.rr�rv.: :•.;s:♦ +e,,..!...., �,,..,�•..- .:r........ . ..�:... �:... ,�..._... . h�� .� �. � .
. - r...,...... a.�nrr�+.^TT^vYY ..n�n. ..�..a. '�-Tt.r>-1 ..�.,...
_ ._ ��• '•'i . .� �
-_— . . . r.tw.v;�nf�4r.:rre�eq.
�...... .. .r�._,.'�• �.....T"^•.r. fnn
i
,_.:.__._._...__..�....._.______�__._.__�,..�_�.--
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
o Commissioner Fyre stated he was on NPO # 3 during the Comprehensive
Pl�n and their intent was not to allow manufactured homee on single
family lots.
o Commission Vanderwood stated it was h�er understanding that
manufactured hames were not to be allowed on single family lots.
o Comm�.ssioner Campbell stated she was not present dur�.ng the
Comprehensive Plan process, however, was concerned with treating
manufactured homes as mobile homes. She felt that they should be
considered dwelling units.
o Commissioner �utler stated he was on NPO IF' ]. during the process and !I
they determined it was discriminatory not to allow them, however, the �
intent o€ the plan was not to allow them on single family lotso
o Commissioner Peterson was not around during the Co�aprehensive Plan ;
process but felt they should be allowed i�n subdivision with �
convenants a�nd on single family lots if standards a��re set.
� Vice President Owens recalled that it was N]PQ � 7 intent to allow
manu£actured homes in ffianufactured hoffie subdivisians. She felt there
was a need for a definition and supported stagf's recommendatianm ;
o Commissione� Leverett felt manufactured homes should be allowed as a� ;
.
matter of economics. If they meet the building cod� they should be �
allowed as a dwelling unit. �
��
o Commission Butler commented that he felt allowing manufactE;::��� homes
would help meet the LCDC goal wtnich sequires providing � di�v�rse type
of needed housing. He felt m�tnimum standards could be established.
; o Lengthy discuseion following regarding allawing manufactured homes. ;
. • ;
o Frank Johnson, 15685 SW Upper Boonea Ferry Rd. commented that he
; , � lived in a mobile home and that their is a big difference between !
manufactured and mobile homes. He added that LaGrand allows i
manufactured t►omes in a specific area. �
o Discussion followed on how to continue. Consensus was to go back
t!?x�ough the NPO process. No action was taken.
Director of Community Monahan reviewed hie memo on flag lots and height p
limitations. He explained the difficul[y of applying the restriction when
flag lots are being developed. He then reviewed ae�ren alternatives.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
o Mary Clinton, 9865 SW View Ct. , repres@nting NPO # 6 suggested not
allowing flag lots to abut existing establlshed areas. She felt f1Rg �,
lot should only be allowed on R 3.5 lots or larger. �
• PLANNING COMPy11ISSI0N MIAT[JTES January 8, 1985 Page 6
. �
�..�,.�...�-u.,y.:..,::,._.._...�._,.� ._..__ ._ ._.. -•�-• -------�-----�--�— �.�y:�� _ .. �, _ _ . . . .,�:.�.:.�:,�.
o Diacussian followed. Consensus of the Commission was to send this
item back through the NPO process. Commissio�ler �utler and S�'aens
fav�red alternative number 5 and Commissioner Petersvn favored
alternative nu�nber 2. No action was taken.
6. OTHER BUSYNESS
o Director Monahan reviewed his memo regarding sign code exceptians for
restaurant�� motels, and gas stationsa He asked the Commissioners
for their input on whether these types of bu�inesses shauld be
allowed �pecial exceg�tionse
o Consensus of the Commission was for limitatians and not to a11ow
special exceptions.
7. AU30URNMEidT 11:08 P.M.
�
Diane M.Jelder aecreta��
ATTEST:
� �lice–Pre�ident Bonnie Owens
�903P -. . ..
t dm�
, •
PLANNING C01�4tISSION MINUTES January 8, 1985 Page 7
AGENDA ITEM 5.6
"` TIGARD PLANNIMG CONIMISSTON
January 8, 1984
ZOA 8-84 (18,96 & 18.98)
T0: Members of the Planni.ng Commis�i�n G� '
FRCkM: W�11iam A. Mpnahan, Directar of Planning �nd Devalopment I
OA�E: Oecember 28, 1984 II'I
SU6T�CT: Flag Lot� and Neight Limits I
�igard's Community Deuelopment Cade contains a special sectiun cancerning
height limits which are applied to flag lots. The section has been applied an
a few o�casia�s with mixed resul�s. In order that we may �ssegs the adequacy
of the cnde ���visions, I conducted a survey af Oregon communities to
determine if th�r� are o�her ways ta regulate flag lo�s which may better sui�
mur �urposes, The survey wa� se�t ta twen�y four jurisdic�ions wath fauwteen
respanding. (See Flag L�t Regula�ion 5urvey - A�tached). ' Al�hough the
majarity of Gb�ies do not apply �ny special standards to flag lots, some
inte�estir►g re�trictaans �nd definitio�s were provided to �s. T haNe
�ttempt�d ta an�lyze our cade provisions and apply the alternative s�aredards
sa that yau may revi�w the current langu�ge to determi�e if any mad�fic�tio�
sh�uld be made.
I'�� Present Gode Larrauage �
Sectian 18.96.OS0, 18.96.Q90, and 18.98,030 rQlate to �l�g lots. Ira additi.on,
a �lag l.at is defined in sec�ion 18.26,03d as '°a lot or,parcel which includes
� a private acce�sway as part thereof". The purpos� of creating flag 1�ots zs to- --
allow for maximum utili.zatian of land by creating lots with less frontage than
norn�ally r~equired to aceommodate an access carridor to lats a�ro parcels which
are located behind lots ar parcels with normally required street fror�tage.
�`he particu7.ar cancern which Tigard's present code deals with is that of
privacy. Each of the special conditions dealing with height, setbacks from
exis�in� residential structures, reg�alation af windows, and tree planting were
established far �he purpose of preseruing privacy on adjacerit lats. �t is
f�lt that a home on a flag lat has the patential to infringe on the privacy of
neighbc�rirsg lats since the house may face the private rear yard area of one or
mare lats. Whether ar not this is a cancern which justifies the continuance
af the present code provisions should be eualuated. The current language is
a�s fol lows:
"18.96.080 Lot area for flag lats. (a) The lat area for a flag la� shall
� comply with the lot area requirements of the applicable xo�ing distriet.
(b) The 1�t area shall be provided entirely within the building s3.te area
exclusive of any accessway (see figure in Section 18,95.090). {Ord. 83-52
Exhibit A (part), 1983) .
18,96.090 Front vard de�ermination. The owner or develaper of a flag lot
may determi�e the locatian of �he frant yard; provided no side yard setback
area is less than ten feet, and provi:ded the requirements of Section
. 18.98.030, building heights and flag lots, are satisfied.
Page 1
18.98.030 8uildinq_ heiahts and flag lots. . (a) The maximum height for a
single-family, duplex, attached ar multiple-family residential structure on a
flag lot or a lot having sole access from an accessway, private drive ar
easement is on� and ane-half stori�s or �wenty-five feet, whicheve� is less,
except �hat the maximum height may be twa and one-half storfes or �hirty-five
feet, whichever is less, provided:
(1) The proposed dwelling atherwise cornplies with the applicable
dimensinnal requirements of the zonir�g district;
(2) A residential structure on any abutting lot either is located
fifty feet or more from the nearest point of the subj�ct dwelling, a�r the
residential structure exceeds one and one-half stories or twenty-five feet in
height on any abutting lot; and
(3) Windows fifteen feet o�^ more abuue grade shall not face
� dwelling ur�it windaws or patias an any abutting lot unless �he proposa�
includQS an agreement to plan� tr�es capable of mitigating direct vi.ews, or
that such �rees exist and will be preserved.
�b) Where an agreement is made to plant trees capable of mitigatireg
direct views, the agrec�ment shall be de�med a canditi�r+ af apy�roval under the
provisions o� Sect,ion 18.32,25Q(f). '
(c) T't�� tree planting agreement shall be a cr�nditian of Chap��r ].8.12U,
Sa�e C�eaelopment Review, for three of more attached units or a mul�iple�famil�
residential structure, or for single detached units, ane duplex ar twa
�a�tached resYdential unit�, at �he issuance of builda.ng permits."
Specaficall.y, Tigard's code provides for speca.�l hei�ht li.mits for glag lats �
unless the proposed hause complies with the dimensional r•equiremerets of the
zoning district, a hause mn any abu�ttirrg lot is ei.�her 50 �Feet or more from
the praposed dwelling or �hat existing house is gre�ter than one and _one-half _ .,
stories or twenty five feet in Meight, and w�.ndows of the hause which f�ce
adjacent dwellin� unit windows �tnd patios ar� nert more than fifteen feet abo�►e
' grade unless tree planting to mitigate direct views is pravided for. These
conditians place all of the respnnsibility Fo�^ preseruing privacy on th�e
develaper of the flag lot, however, the conditions fail to meet thei.r int�nded
purpose if all surrc�unding lats are nat developed prior to cQ�n�truGtion of the
home on the flag lot. $n addition, the cade does nat apply pr^operly where the
flag 1ot is th� initial lot to be developed in an area nor daes it provid� for
the privacy o� the residents of the flag 1ot when �uture development on
adjainit�g lots take place.
Purpose af Restrictions
, Ideally the code pravisions will allow each flag lot to be developed without
unduly adding to the cost of development while m�*eting the in�ent of tMe I
Gode. eut, why place special cnnditions on flag lots wh�re samilar
r�strictions are not 'placed on other single family strwctures which may
similarly infringe on the privacy af athers for any of a number of reasons? '
Examples of conflicts which are not prcuented by nur Code ora
standard lots �r�:
. ;
1. The thirty five foat house in an R-7 zone surrounded by one or ane
and ane-half story hames.
Page 2 �
�
_ �
2. The house with secand stary windows which lonk out onto a
neighbor's patio (regardless af wh�ther the patio pre�existed th�
house).
''i:.
3. Areas where only ten feet separate homes in an R-7 or R-4.5 zone
could result in windows direct�ly facing each ather which limit
privacy.
4. 'The orientation csf a house Qn higher graund is such that ev�n
though it is only one stary, windows Face dwellir►c3 unit wi�dows or ',
look down on the patio of an adjoining lot. '
In terms of the preservatian of privacy, it is d'afFicult to anticipate the
many circumstances which could occur where pri�acy wi].l. become an issue. In �
most af Yxgar�l's subdivisions the develnpment oF an ar•ea is no4: cc�m�leted in a
so called planned farmat as al.l hauses to tae deuelaped are not plann�d in
advance. Normally a developer will sukx�ivide an area, put in the public
facilities, and thera offer the lats for sale. As a result, the lats are
bought and developed by builders ei�her on contract to a buyer or built an
s�eculatio�. �1ot knawing what type of home will be built on ar� �djaining lot
can resu�t in home ori�a�tativre and window placement which cau�e a canflict
when later develapment takes place or results in desi.gn modifi�ation by th�
later bualder, Unless the Ci.ty a.m�aoses special cand'ations on builders on
standard lots the end result could be that the last hame built is �►llawed only
l.imit�d wi�dows and restricted placement of the home. '�
Ir�stances whea^e 7iqard's Code Ma� Rlot Accam�,lish the Int�nded Resul't
Tigard's c�de provisinn is geared towa�rds the flag lot beang t'he last lot �
developed. When 'this accurs, if all homes surrounding it are one or one and
one-half story in heiyl�t and all are bu.i].t less than fif�y feet Fram the �F1ag
lot home, som� c�ntinuity and privacy can be achievec� which m�y be pr_eferaf�le .. .�
to that which a two �r two and one-half story home wauld allaw. Hawe�rer, when
the flag lat is develaped earl�y i.n �the completion of a subdivisian or if there
is a difference in topography, �he purpas� of the cade provision may not be
achieved (or insured) ar application a�f the code may not be r�eeded ta preserve
privacy.
1. Qevelopment of the Flag �ot is e�arly in the build aut of the subdavision.
Tf �he flag lot is developed fir•st, item 18,98.030 (2) cannot apply as no
structure is �0 feet or more from the structure �o be baaxlt on th� lot.
Also, 18.98.030(3) can not apply. As a resul�, the City must determine af
the lot can be developed at twa and ane half stot^ies or if it is
restri�ted to anly one and one half since i�te�n (2) c�n not be met. This
i.ssue needs to be clarified.
� 2. A differen�ce in topography exists -- the flag lot could be situated in a
subdivision either aboue or below other lots in the $ubdi�ision or r�n
adjoining lots. If a great diFference in grade exists, t�ne purpose of the
cnde prouisions may be deferred. Far instance, if the flag lc�t is
substtantially below the grade of an exist�.ng ham� an an adjacent lat, even
if the existi�g hame is of one story, sectiasa iS,98.0�0 (3) may not be
applicable if the windaws "face" the existing structure, but in �act are
below them. This situ��ion points out the problem in defining �+hat 10shall
nat face dwelli�g unit windaws or pata,os" m�ans.
Page 3
Alternat�ves ta Modify the Code Provisionx to Meet the Intent of Preservin� '
Privacv. � -°°-°—�°
There are sever,�l wa�y� to preserve �arivacy in those i�stances where � fl�ag lat
is developed:
�., Mainta�ir� �he existing regulatiar►� ar�d �pply theon ta all existing flag l�ts
as welb as tho�� wha.ch will be �r�ated in the future.
2, �arry out the Planning Commission re�ommendation af l�1aay 8, 1984 that the
Code provisions only be applied ta flag lats which are ndt in subdivisions.
3. Reduae th� maximum height of homes an flag lo�s to ei�her 30 or 25 f�et.
NPO 1/6 r�ecommended ir� May c�f 19�4 �hat Seetiors 18.98.030 be repla�ced by i
th� fol�owi.�c�: �
�• .°'1`he max�mum height for a sinqle—�family, dwplex, attached or
multiple Fami�y residential s�ructure on a Flay—'l��t c�r a lot i�aving ,
iva�t�e d
rive or easemen� shaA1 be r�o
�ssar r .
sal.� �cc�ss from ar� acc y p
� � i
, ' i lot� or twe�ity five
h�gher tha�n tFre tallest house orr an �adjoar� ng
� d25) fget, whichever i� less:°' , �
�
4, t9tilize th� height limits rr�gulated by the s�aexiards of t�e urxiet^lyi� A'
he 'urisdic�ions surve ed which allaa flag Tots allow �he �'
zone. Each of t !t
]
hames ba�i.lt on these lots to have a height equ�l ta nan �la� lot hnmes. ;
The �ity ��F �uc�ene, howe�er, does req
uires
that a structure tc� th� rear of i
areather be �aic least thirty (3A) f�et firam the stru
ctures on �he frc�nt lo�t.
.
,.
m
t af a fla lc�t i� a CYa.re��t�r �
ish a ra�redwrr� wher•e developmen 9 'i
5. �stab�. p
Decision requi.rirrg noti��, bu� no hearir►r�. Wh�� a permi� applx�atnor� i.s ,
proce��ed for a flag lot the permi�t wauld be s�abject to a rea�iew sim�.law
t� that of W�shina��on County whi.ch evaluates creati.on of a flac� lat
subjec� to: �
1, Buildings �n flag lats shall be mriented tp pro�ide the a�aximum
privacy to surroundiny existing and future residential �tructures,
2. Access and drainage are reviewed.
3. Land�caping and fencir►g �o insure that privacy of eatisting
r�sidential strucicures is mai.n�ained.
4. The s�tbacks and minimwm lot area requirements of the primary ,�
district shall be maini�a�ined. , �i
� � 5. Wash�i�ny�c►� County's �prc►cedu�re cau�ld b� app].i��d� to e��xis�xng lots af � � ����
record in a madified si.te developmer�t review, Many pot�nti.al ;`
�roblems c�wld Ibe avQid iF at the time of parcelitatian or ;
subdivi.sion cansidea^atian is given ta �he buildirrg lQCation as �a�ell 4=;
a►s the a�ccess and circulation, i��
. . . � . . . . . t�l.
. . . . . . . � �;
.. . .. . . . . � . . � . '.Y
� . . . � . . . . � r;.
f':
� F;;.
�,:
_ �'
_ �;
;�
�;
Page 4 �i
�
� �
6. Provide special �creening requirem�nta i� addatian tn the curre�t
cade regulations. The SC���MII'1g cauld be patterned �ft�r khose
�sed by the City �� Eugene which prove an optinn to an absattic�
�roperty ow�er to wequest screening alarig �he access drave or a
- five �oot high sigh� obscuring fence or wall, or landscaping t�at
will be five �ee� high and 76� sigfit—obscuring wi�hin f�v� �e�rs.
�ugene applies its r�gwla�io�s at the time of land diuision
review. vhe City of Portla�d also �a$ a screening requirement.
Portland requires scre�ning along any lnt line between � flag lo�
and an �butting lot wfiere the abuttarag lot is in differ�n�
awnership than the lat be3ng p�artitioned/subcizvided to �reate the
fla� lot. Thus, the burden i� tot�lly o� the flag lot praperty
otan�r to provide a fence fs�r screening regardles'g of whether the
irst. Portla�nd d�es rovide
e develo ed f P
�dje�i.ning praperties ar p�
far a waiver if all awne�^s give written cartis�n�.
A final a�.ternative requa.res drastic ste{�s:
. � .. .t���..:..
7. PraMilait the creation of f la�g lcsts. ��os fl�ay took thi.s step irti
� 1982, however, gi,ven T'igard's densi�y requYremerats, this pr�apo�al
vaowld not apply properly. As larrcl is su�►divided oa^ partatae�n�d,
par�icularly within thQ �lder s�c�a�ns af t�re �aty, d�v�l��rs aa�.11
find theat it is necessary to cwe�te fla�g lo�� �o m�ks� tt�e high�s�
use wf the land.
r
Recomm�nclation
I recommend th�t th� P3anr►ing Commis�ian s^�view ttte vari�us �l�er�r�tier�� �o
determxrse af �a�y of �hose nat now aappl,ied would h�±tter seru� Ti�ard than tFa�
�xistang cc,de. I have not revi�w�d the cmde or th� s�arv�yed js�ri�d�s�irans .
concerrair�g �olar aceess or view raghta. My r°eview sts^ictly r�lalte� to t1�e
issue of privacy and h� privacy is impacted by building height �nd wiradaw
placem�r��. Tt appears that Ti:�ard pla��s mare r�st,ric�:iar�� +�n ev�ryday
applicatian of �he Code on flag l�ts �han other jurisdictimr�s, I�� h�ve,._.., '
howeuer•, •re a s e.i al re�iew of flag lot d�velopment under a Uirectar°� ,
' �
s in if we re uz p . �
left aut the o rtunxt for fl�xYbi].it Flexzbilit care e wor � II
DecisS.an, ��.mi lar ta t h a t a p p l a e d t a a c c e s s a r y u s e s.
Pl�ase advise me mf yowr desire to ].oak further at thi.s issue, Sp�Cl�1C COCI@
language could be pr�pared for review at a 1�ter da�e shauld the Cominission
wish to mod'ify the 'code. Please note that this issue has not beee� presented
to the C�I for NP4 input as no meetin�g was held in 6ec�mber due to th� holiday
scF►edul�. Capies can be s�nt ta the NPe''$ for their input prior ta any f�tur�
Planning Gommission dis�ussior�.
(0872R)
Page 5
�LAG L4T RE�l1LATx(iNS SURV�Y '
Portlarid �K No speci�►,1 buildialg height regul�tions, regula�ed by I'
pravisions of wnderlying aone. Cade places emphasxs cen i,
access ansi �.mpact rather than height. 'I
Tual�tio� No sp�ecial height limits.
Beavertan No specia]: heigMt li�i.ts.
Eugene Have an ardinance wha.ch allows ae madifiGation ta minimum
lot s�aMdards.
Height maximum is determined toy zonirsg distric� nf the
devel�� .ent.
M�.nimum af 30 foot placement between structu�res e�r a �
foot setback on interior property lines.
Screening requirem�n� gives the abut�ing praperty owner
the optian to request scre�n�r� along �he drive or a five
i�oot high sight—obscuring �ence or wall.
Lake 4�swego No special h�igh� requiremen�.
P1�ast hav� 25 faot front�c�� e�n str�et. "
l�il�ar�mille I�o pro�isions for r�gulatarag flag lots.
Must compA� with requirem�nts of the zohe i�twhich they
are located.
Approval by PC since acces� does not COI'1'F�9"ill tc� tM� CA�e
for minimum fron�age.
'� TrAUtdale Utilize �ame h�a.�ht standards for all types of lots.
Medfard No special requiremerrts other th�►n a tninimum gtir�eet
� frcan�ag� af 20 feet. -• - •-
Lat range, �etFaack, and hei.ght carrespoved to the
' underlying zoning.
Gresham No difference in regulatian ti�an a standard lot
configuration.
Coos 0ay 5irrce 19�2, do not allaw creatio� af flag lots. Wow
requ�.re a �AO faot frontage on a publicly dedacated
r��ht--af-•way.
Roseburc,� No special. rec�ulation of flag lots.
Salem 1Vra special height li.mits for flag lc�ts. Neight determined
by underlying zoning di��rict.
Washington County Setbacks mf the primary di.strict are maint�ined.
Require landscapir►g and fencing through Developmen� Review
to i�sure maintenance of privacy �ar existing residsntial
structur�es.
. Forest Grove Do not impase more restructive height limits on flag lots, �
(0872P)
���•yn .�• '�
�/5-�� ����
M�MORANDUM �� `�p � �r
�:f:'TY t�F" '1'IGARD, t�R�Cc�N
T0: PL.Ai11NZNG CQNIP1I�S7C4N �'tarch ]., '198�
� 1•"RC�`1: P�.anning 5taf�F !'��
5U8�'�c;"f'; Flaodplai.n and Wet].ands P�rli.ci�s
At �hr� Janu�ry S, 198!5 Rl.�anning Commissir�n Meeting, �the Plannxng Staff
praposed ch�nges ta �roli.ci�s 3,1,]., 3.2., 3.2,3, 3.4 and 3 .Q.1 r�lating �o
flca�ad�lains +�nd w�t].and�. At that me�tirrg, �he pl�nnar�g Crsmmissiun c�ir�c>�:�d
staff ta take tMe �,ra�ased 1,ar►c�uage cteanges �:a the CG:1: and the �IpQ`s �ar
revie�. Sirrce the �'ar�uary Rl.�r�nin� Gammissia�a �ie��xnc�, Sfi.di`f has scheduls�r� �.
�►re�ePita�ta:on �:o �t�e CG7C �n�{ h�s made the i.nfarmati.�,n avail,�.bl� to �he lVP�3°s.
The G�:L w�s sch�d�sl�d �a revaew tFre pr•c�posec� ch�eng�s on January 28, 1'�85,
hawev�r, a �uorum o�F m�mbers was not pres�nt sa no aetion was t�l��n.
'1`h� ��kYl^L9c"YY'�J 2��, 198"� NPC� �`3 m���ins� agenda lis�ed reuirw af �:Fse �rvpos�d
pr�la.cy cha�nges as d di.scussian i.�tem, i"he Pl.anning S�a�f Mas nat r•ece�.ved
mi.r�ut�� r�r a� wri���n r�spanse v�+ the rl��r�ges,
N�►U �#4 gch��l��7.�d a meefi:ing �or 7�:nu�ry 9, x985 ta r�!v�.�w the prupased �han�es,
howEVer, a qi�cer�um �ias nof: pr�esent to r�uxew ��Me 7.araguac�e. NPO #5� reuA�wed �he
�.angu�g� a•h th�ir �'anuary �.6, 198'a nie��i�rg �nd si.�ppc�rted ti�e �•�,�.n�es
re�r,antun�ndr�d by st�ff. NP� l�fi alsc� re�eiew�ci �t;he prn�cas�c� e�shang�s nn J'anu�ry
16, 19�5 and suppart�d th� langu�ge suc�gss'�ed Bay sta�ff,
�TAF F' RFGOMM�.NOA"T'�C3fl1 t
S�aff requeqts tt�at �he Planninq Cummissian review the a.�ngu�ge «�s �xplaa;ned
in attached f.xhik��.t ��A�� ta �mend pol.ici.es ir� �he Gumpr��hensive plan rela�+�d t�a
flcyo�plai.ns and we��.arrds ar��a� forward a recnmmenda�ian �cr rity Ca�an�i.l.
(FAN:�am/1(361 N)
�xHx�r-r• ,����
r�ta.� �-a s��ti�� �,x. �
Exa.s�9.ng L_angGiage
PHY5I:�AL. I..TMI:7"AT:�(�AIS Ai11[7 NAl"URAL HAZARU�
Prc�posed t�anguage
PHYS�:CAI.. l.I'.M:Ci"Al"�:pN�, NATURAt.. HAZAR�S ANd WET'L.AND�
'This chanye is propr�sed to in�l.ude wetl.arrc�s in the �itle.
Poli.cy 3.1.1 (�)
Exisf:a.ng l.�nguage
� .1.�. "�'HE �Il"Y :;MALI... Npl" A1..L.OW QF:V�L.,�PNI�Nl" IN AE2�AS HAVTiU� Ti-I�
�'41..L_QW:CNG O�VEIrQPP'ILN'T i_:CNl;C:TA'T'ItaNS �.Xl":E�'T Wt�IE�{tE :C:T CAN BE
SNCN,dfli 1'MAT k�.;l`A41L]C�HEU ANp f��tOV�:N �NCI:P�E:E�RI:M�; 1"k��C;Fd11l�;QU�:S
F�h i_t�'1"�� �'4 A �F�Ft;;:Y:a TC S�T'F P1�1�N W�I_I_ MFlKf� Tl�iE AR�A SU�:TAB!_E
F'OR TH� pt70P�SECJ t3�VELOPMENI":
w, AR�'A�� HAVINt� A N:C�N�I �E�SONt�I_ WA'�'Eft TRI�L.E W:�THTf� �•-�4
�:6VCMES OF 1"HE: �UR�A�.F.. f"c�l� 1"HR�� QR P'I�Fti:: W�;F;KS OF "I"N�
YEAR:
Pro�osQCi l..�ngwage
3 .1.]. T'ME C;TI'Y SNALI_ NOl" AL.L.QW DE::V�LC1FrMENT IIV AR�:AS hIA'JT.NG TfdE:
F4t..I..OWINta D�VELqPMH NT I�T�I:CTfl'TSC7NS EX��.P'T W}�k ita; :CT CAI� 6�
SHCaWN TNAT E:STfipl_�SNEp AIUq F��ipVE:�i EIVG7C�IE:E:R1�1� 1"ECHNTQUES
FtfI..A'�"EO TQ A SPFC:C:�'TC S;CTE PI..AN I�.T.I..L MAi(k. TI•iE AR�A �UT1!'AE1LE
FOR THE PRQPpS�D C7EVEI,.UpM�N"I"t
a. AR�AS ME�TING �"HE UEF'ZNT.."fTqN t�� �WkTLANDS U�UD�R GHFiPT'ER
18.26 OF THE G(N'IFIIJNITY�Q�VELOPNOENI" COD�E.� �� �
Thi.s �charrgp wil.l acidrPSS th� cr�r���rn a�f giui�g c+�nsidera�i.an ta al.�. ],and I'�
which may m�et �he wEtlands defi.nata.hn.
�
:CMPI..�:MEI�TA'r"IQN 5"CRA'1"�:�:��:�5 F'bl..l..c�4JIMG Pbl_TI:Y 3.1.1
�xis�:i.ng Language
IMPI.EMENTA'T'TON STRATE(?IES
1 . T'he �ity shall d�signdte on � m��i ar�e�s havi.ng physical
limitation (paur cirainage, seasonal �=loodir�g, u►�st�ble
ground) and shal]. incarparate th�se d,esigriations in �he
Tigard Ccymmur�:ity Qevelc�pm�nt (;rad� arod map, and shall
develap graduatECi deu�].apment r�qtric�ians �GCnrding tu the
dist:inei� character3.st;ics crf �the constra9.nts and artt�,�a:pat�d
1�.mitations.
2. THie Ci.ty sha].]. reai,se the sensiti.ve l.ands sc?cti.on af the
'Tigard Cr�mmur�ity O�uelUpmGr�t Cr�c�� tc� i,der�tify �hr�sc� ar�aas
' h�u�.ng di,s�inct canstr�ti.n�s and 19.mitati,ons,
3. 'The t:iity �P�all. cr�oper•ate wa.�h c�ther agenci�s �l:a hel.p
identa.fy the�e are�ts.
A. The Ci.�:y o�F Tigard sF�all. provi.d� i.n �th� C��,mm�en�.ty
D�vel.ca�merit Crad� a prova.sic�n for• thN C;ity ta rec�ui.re s�.te
speGi.fic scei.]. surveys and ger,lagic studi.es where �ratent�.al.
ha;cards ar�e a.�ler�tifie�i hased u�sara av�il.ak�l.e geolr�ga.c ar�c�
sai.ls evi.d�ncp. Wherti ►�atural. hazards are i.denti.f�ed, thr�
Ci�y wa.l�. requare ��hat spec,:i,al d�sign r�nsa.dera�i.un� and
. construati,an me�sures be tak�r� to affs�t th� soa.l ancl
realrac�ic cr�nstrairrh� �res�re� ir� ur�cier ta pra�QCt lif� �nd
�roperty, and to prr���ct env�.ranm�r�ta].ly serrsa.ta.ve areas.
5. The rammur�:ity DevQlr��ment Cr,,cie sh�all r�ot �aermit
c�euelopm�nts ta be p].anrt�d ar ].c,ca�ted a.n known are�s r�f
ri��tur�l. disast�r�s �nd t��zarc�s wi�th�aut a�aprc�priate .
safegw�rds.
Prrapa�c�d t_anr�uage
I:MPLFM�:tUT'ATIt�IU iTRATE:GIES �
].. Ar�as hauing physic�l. limi.tata.ons (p�rar drai.nage, se�gana].
fl.4c�dii�g, unst�ble c�rr�und) may b� s�abjec�� ta pnlicy 3.]..1
af th� Compreh�nsi.ve Plan,
2. The City shall. revis� the sensitiue l�nc�� s��ctirrn r�f the !
'T'i.g�rd C;Gmmunity t)cvelopment Cod� �o id�n�i.fy �he st�nd�rds ;
and d�fir�e �thc�se ar�eas Piauing c�is�Einct constrai:��:s awid
lima.�tatians. '
l"he chanc�es wi.l.l. put pruperty awners on na�ice �hat any land having
physical. li.mi��tions may only be deuelaped in cor�fr,rm�nce wi��h �ol.icy ;
3,]. .1, Tn �addi,taan, any areas wi.th di.stinct . dev�lo�,ment limi.�atians
shr.,�ld k�e a,cienta.fa.ed i.n the Canrmunity p�ve].r.�pmQnt Cade. �
1"it],e for Secti.ur7 3.2 �'
�'xisting 9..�nguage
F1.00p PL.,AIIUS ANC) WETt.ANf�S
};
Proposad I_anguage �"'�
FLOOn PLAINS "'
1"his ch�nge is praposed b�cawse Secta,r�n 3,2 deals onl:y with F].aad plains
i
F';CNC?:�NGS irt Section 3,2
y
�
CNA �p-�SA — PAG� ]. `
� � t
�:
. � . � . . � � � .. . . . . . .it�.
� . . .. . � . � . � . .. . � � ...:�1
Fxisting Language
3�2 FL000 PI�A�NS
FINDINGS
u Ths c�bjec�i.ue af the Ci.�ty is ta use tPie detai.l.ed i.n�orm�ti.nn gatMer�d
on f],orad plains �frti�m tFie U.S. Ar•my �c�rps c,�F Errga.neaers, ar7d c�evel.r,,p
pa].i.ciQS tc�: •
1. Contrr�l. deuElc�pment, as �o not ac�versely a�ffect tF�� f].or�d pl.aa.n
anc� f loc�dway areas,
2. Minimix.e the ruinaff_..erosa.on impact vf d�velapmen� an �th�
�urro�anding arr�a and c�awns�trr��m �rr�per�ti,es, �nd
3, �mphasix.e the retenti.ran af �a u�g�ta�:3.ve buf�Fer �1c�r�g str��ms ar�d
c�rainag�ways, �� rnc�uc� rur�nf�f anc� �loac� da►ria�ca and prr�ua.de
erasi.an anc� si.l�a,�:9.ari control..
o In additir,n, ther� a.s th� i.ssue ta�� the c�a�w].a�ivP ��Ffec�l: of
dev�l.apmr�wr� ups��^e�rn af T'igarc�. F'l.uod l�uel.s a.n �"i.gard will be,
suk�starot�.al.ly dc�t�r�min�c� lay �t:he cc�r�tr�als €xer•ci.sec� r,v�r ciev��.c�pmen'�.
autsi.de th� �l.ari area, �as we7.l, as i,rssi.d� `i"igard's P7.ar�nznc� Area.
o 'Tlr�� Fannra Cr•�ek cirairj�c�e syst�m a.nclut��s neam��^ous �mal]. w�ter
caur�ses. TP7e integr9.ty af these natur�a]. d�^airr�gew��s as
intrinsa„r,�11y cann�cfi:�c� tca �tl°�e sy�tQm's capar,ity ��o absc�r�9a exc�ssa.v�
runaff �ncl or� subsequ�nt fl,oad 1�u�7.s, qften, haweuer, wat�r r,aursss
�r4a a1Ler�ec� �c� prauide mar� u;�abl� land. �'he r��gul.��ant; aduerse
im�act:s ar� d�trim�ntal. ta the �r�ti.re drai.n�g�e syst.,em, i,e, , the '
s�or•age cap�ci�y af •the wat�r ,r,�aurse 9.s �.ess�raed and �Flocadi�+g Accurs.
o Besides tF�e bwsic need to ca��t�^o]. deV�l.opm�nt in fl.nad prone �reas,
ii; was fr�eanc� that {aublic knowl.�dg+� r�� f�.os�ci plairr hac�rds was
lacki.ng. Many af �he obstructi.ar�s pr�eviawsly pl�c�d i.n th� florrd
plain were 1:N�� resul� a�F Q:i�O�r 1�Ytm1"d�1rP or� overly ap�ima.stic
attit�ad�s aboGit potenti.al flr�odinq problems.. Thes�� abstructioris �i
(e,g. M«�in Str�et �ridge) hinder the �Flr�w of high wa��ar• arrd t>end k:o �
i.ncrease fload levels.
a Pruper adma,ni.�trd�ian Uf �h� fl.ae,d �].aa.n areas r�e19.�s heavi.].y upar� j
the auaal�bility aF ad�c��.�ate ir��Fc�r�irra�tinn upr�n whicF� tn as�eg� the ;
envi.ronn�en�t�]. impacts ra� a� K�roj�K,t. T'h� devel�apmc�nt, wh9.ch crea�te� i
th� n�ed, sM�aul.� be re3pr�nsibl� fat^ provic�ir�g thp �ity wi�h the
necessary d��:� .f�r maki.ng sawnd dec�:si.nns. The burdcn i.s nn the
appli.carrt tra prau� i;hat � proj�et wa.11 n�� aduersely affec:t the
envirnrtim�nt ar cr�ate undu� future ].aab�l.i;ti�es for the Gity.
a The City ofi Tigarcl, with assa.stanc� from the U.S, Ar�my Craps af
Engine�rs, has estak�li.sh�d an area c��si.gnated N�itF�in the 10Q�y�ar
flc,�d �],a�.n.
�pA �0-�•8A -� pAGE, ?..
1 ._, ... _... : . __...__ ._. __ -
�:
... __ _�_....��I
o �he Ci,ty a� T'igar� ha� bs�ri �cce�ted �s a� e�i,�ible area far the
Natir,n�]. �'loac� Tnsurance Program, and a�s � result fload insur�nce
wiJ.l. k�� auail.�b].e to prQ��rty awners in flood prone are�s. The
��dera]. pragram, haw�ver, r�Fquires �he Ci�y ta adUpt an ardir�arrce
whi.ch me�ts c�rtai.ri federa]. standards.
� Th� t:;ity of 'fir�ard cur�r�n�ly has r,rciiriances, palicies ar�d stwnciards
withi.n ths Ti.gard Communi,ty Dpvelopmer�t C�de wh�.ch pravide adeqwate
cun�rr,ls far cic�u�lopm�rit wa.thin fl.oad plain �rea.
o Accarctii�g to the �.�8�. C)ra:3.n�ge Mas�er plar� Study conclucted by CH�M
Hil.l �Por �:he �ity, Flaac� 1�u�1s caf two tr, fio�ar� fc�e�t t��ic�F�i��^ �Li���n �th�
exist3.ng iQO...year flor�d �l.�in m�y be ex�rected i.f rti� carrec�ive
measur�es �re �:aken. .
Proposed L.ang�ag�
o T'he F'anrir� Greek dra9.ri�qe system a�7elud�s �7umerous �mal.l water
cc�urses. Y1�e i.rit�yri�ty c�P �these r�a�ur�]. drair►ag�ways i�
i.ntrinsi.call.y car�necteci to �the sys��ms ca��aci.ty ta absarb �xcessiv�
{^UYld3'�'P ai�d r,,�^� subs�c�u�rf�t f.l�od leu�ls. q�ftc�n hUw�ver, wa�er cr�ur•5es
ar� a].��r�<� �a prc,vi.d� niar� usable l.a�nd, If altera�a.ans �cre duns
incor•rec�Iy, �i.rnpacts can be adv�r•se. :C�F fi:hp i.m�art;� arF� aduerse,
they car� be cl�trim�r��:a]. t� th� �ntir•� drainag� system i..e. , th�
stur�ge r_ap�ca.�9r rafi ��r� watt�r cc,��ars� is 1PSgen�:d �nd f7.�a�d�.rig
acca�rs. �:n f�act, i.n low�r reachc�s, i.t �.s bc�n�ficial. ta F�aue mr�re
w�.�ter� 'mc,ve �t:hrough �t a faster rata.
n ��sid�� th� k�asi.� r�eed tu curitrul developm�nt in f9.00d �,ron� area�,
i�� wtas ��r.,ur�d �t:hafi; �rublic kr�ow�.ed�e o�F �load �laxn haxa�r'ds w�s
lacking. M�r�y o� the nbs�rcac�ir.�r�s preuiuusly pl�c�d i.n the fl�ac�
plain wer� ��ht� resul.t r>F � l.ack o�f arii�c�r�m�tior� �n�i a�d�quat� ruriUff
predi.G�aans ak�aut patenti.al floodi.n� prr�b7.ems, 1"hes� ak�structi.�ans
(e.g. Main ��l:r�Qt 13ra.dc�e) r,��,a�r �i:�,� �F�.aw of higF+ water� aryd �:�±nc� to
incr��se �F1oad leUel.q.
v (�dd�d) To p�^ratect the i.nt�:nt c�f the Ci,�y's Gre�nway pali.cy, the
Gr��nw�y is deFi��red wa.�th �thp samp phy�ical b�,unc�arieR �x th� 10a�.-y�ar
f l:ac,d �laa.n baundary. ' �
T'hese ntr.�d7.fi.r.�tians �,re prapased ta clar•ify the Greenway dF�Fi,ni,t3:an and ta
include fiildings an pateintial aduerse ainpacts fr�Qm d�vpinpmerit.
F�ol.i.cy 3.2.3
Fxi�ti.ng l.,anguage
.�' . 3 .2..3 WMfw"RF: L..ANQ F�F2M AL_T'�:FiATI4NS ANt� p�V�:LOpMENT' ARF t�L.l,.t7WE:[) ''
W:C'1"H:CN '1"��F' �,Oq.,_Y�'AR �LU(?15 PI..A:CN'� t7U'1'�II��: TaaE lk:RO._:FOQ'7' R:C;SE „
F'l_OODWf�Y�, TH�: CTl"Y SHALI.. REQU1REt
a. T'WE u'1"12EAMFI�.f7W CAPA�:�C"fY U#� '1"Nf� 1�R0�-1"t�'1" V2:C�E
F'LOOqWAY� 8�: MA�:NTATN�ra: '
�,
;;{;;
�PA �Q•�.aq - RA�� 3 '`
,r
.
�,�.
�. __. -_ _ -.. -.
__;._. _:__._� .__...:.
b. ENGI:NE�REC) �RAW�NGS ANC) D�CUMENTATT.QN SM�4JIN� TMAT
T'l�dli"RE W:�I..1.� I�f:� NO I�k'T'RIM�N'TAL Uf�S'�"F7CAt'� OF2 CJOWIUST'RFwAM
CNANG�:� IN "I"H�: F'L_UUD PLAT.N� AR�'A, ANp 1"HAT' 1"Nk�
�R:C:'�"I:"{2�A ��T' FURT'HI TN TNk. SEN.�'a:�'1":CV� I,.ANC�S :�iE't;'T':CVN OF
THE:: GOpE HAV� Ei�'k.lU ME:1" (See F'�:5 5eptemk�er 198].);
c. '�"HE pl.(�1U'�"TNU c�F t�N �:VkR�:�I�F��N 13U�'P"1:�R �IV 'TF9E Cdf�N�.Rt,IAL
0�2 �NfJU51"F?I:AL. I,�AN� ApUTl"1fliG R�.:�l:Uf„N1"Tf�l,. I,.ANI� WNT:CH
S�;Fi1;:H N� :�'FfiE �a VFI_OPMF'�IT N"ROM V;C�W BY '1"F�E AI�J�J�R1:l.NG
RE��IpFNl"I:AI� G..ANl7, ANC? WHT.C;N �::; 0��' SIJt°F':Y:t;Z�:IU"C' WT.C?'�"N T�►
�� a�z�� ra.�..,r..�n�uflr��uc�� r��uo
d , TN�: IJE.:I:)IC;�11"T:UII� qF :iUFf"�:CIEIVT' �IF�E:N LAIVL7 ARE h� fit?it
GRk:;�:NWAY AU�'��IV:�flIG '1"I��E �Ll)UD PLA:Ci11� xN�LU47:CN� nOF�'1°;CUNS
AT' A SUTI"A�1L.E �I..a,i,VAI"�:OiU FOR T'HEi: C(7N�a1"GtUCl"l:t7111 OF' A
PFCJ�.�"fR�AN/H:CCYt.";I_E. 9�A'TI��Wf�Y W:C'1"H:CN 'r�l�' FL,.c�pD P1�A:CN� IN
AC.,CORC)ANCF: WT."I"N 'TNE: AL7fJPTE�G7 P�I��:SI"I'tIAN E�TC;`(CL.F PAl"WWAY
PLt�N.
� The F'l�aad plai.n �nd Flraradway, as d��fir�ed by �he �'1c��ad Ir�st.orai�ice Study far
�tt�re City �sf Tzc�ard c��ted Sc�atr�mt��r 1, 198r.
Prapr�sec� L�nguag�
�.2.3 b. EIVGTI�E�:R�.G) DRA�II:9VGS AfVU UUC;UM�:t�'1"Al"xUN SHt�JI:I�G TPdt�l�.
'CI��1�R� l�J�:1..J.. t�k, NQ '��:'1"RTNltwN"I"AL UP;;'T62�AN1 ()Ft qOWN�"1"RfAM
E�H�.GTS �N "f'H6�: ��'L_OOp N>LA:t:iU� AFt�.A, AND 1"Nt�i" THF:
(��x•r°},�xa '�F"Y" F�k'1"i-1 :CN '1"I�a� S��I�:C:'T'SV�' I..f�iVq� �3��'7":�:t�N 0
TNE" GbC?� HAV� BC:E:N M�1" (See F:1:S Se�tember 1981);
c, A QU�'F'kR, i�::C:'1"I�iF.:R �XI�'1":�:�i� cJR Pl�AN'1"Fp, QN 't"HE
CC)NlM�:RGx;f�L. sJR �NL7lJ5�"f2TAL, I..ANp AE3U"f"I"I:NG �2EST.UE�NTTAi..
I..ANd WNTt:�H RU�QUA'i"�l.Y ��:Rt�;kNS 'T'ME IJ�VFI�OF�NI��I'r' H 1�QP'1
VIk�.W E3Y �1"HE: t�f.lJ'07[NI:NG t2�S:C��:N'1"I:AL_ I..ANtI, ANC� WkIICH IS
c7� SUFH:C�;:C:f�NT W:CI�TN '1°0 F3E Nc�:LSE A1"TNrNUA'r'TN(�; f�ND
d , 1"ME U�::C)�S:CAT�:OiU 0�' Oi��N LfiNC) AF2�.A F'Ufi GF2E�:IUWAY
AQJO:CN:C:�IU �r�i�i� �i..c�a PI,..f�XN* INCLUI);CAlG P4RT:CQNS A'1" A
SUI:`I"AE3L.E E.l_E:VA1"IqIV f"4ft "I"H� CONSTRUUTI:�N qF" A
I�FI�FS'1"R�A11! �:�(:YCI..E RA'1"I�•1WAY WTTM�N Tl�i�' F1.00D PI:.A:CN� ;CN
ACCCIRC)AN�;E. WIl"H T'Wf:; ADOPT�'fa PEU�'STFI:LRN �T.CY�LE: PATMWf�Y
PI,.AN.
l°h�se changes �,re �rnposed for clarificatinn,
� .z.n
Exi.sting l..anguage
Nrane
Propased l:�nguage
1"NE CI"I"Y SHAI.L. REQUTRE THE qEt>xCAT7l'ON OF AL..L. UNqE1/EI.OPEL� LANp W�"I"HIN
'rME ].00„_YFAR FIM(X�D PI..A�N PLUS SUF'F;�C.C;I�N'1" pi��:N I�ANq fQR GI2F'�NWAY
PUF2POS�'S SPE»CT.F'�GALL,Y TOENI"TF'l�q F'OR R�CREATION W�1"H�N THE PLAN.
CPA 30--84 — PAGE 4
P�licy 3,4,1
Exzst3.rig I..anguage
� ,4.1 1"M� CSl"Y SNALt,. [)F:`iI:C;NAl"� T'M�. FOL.L,pWINC A� AR�:RS 4F
S:�(aN;C:F":CCANT F iUV;�RQNNIF NT'AI� C�'1111i:Fa.RN.
Prr�posed L.anguag�
� .A.7. �"HN� CTI"Y SWALL. bE:�TGNATE. BY DEF'�N��'�C0�1 IU01" 9Y LQCAT7CUfll,
'TI•{E t"01..1_c7lr1�NG AS AREAS OF S:C�P�:CF:CCANT �N!/�RC?NM�N1'AL.. �t]NC�RN.
T'his ct�ar�g�s i.s �rwopc�s�d tra ti.e tMri.� K3GI].C,�( to defi.nit�.ans and not to sate
g�j6?C1'F7.0 bounclar9.es which ;�re di�F�Fi.cul� 'tc, deter•r�ine withr�ut fi��.d survc�ys.
(�AIU:�am/7:Q61 P}
�
i
i
;:;
;I
`i
;�
ci
};.
+'i
h;
,�
i
.. . � . . . . . . .. j:
�
t
caA �o�-aa — p��� 5 _
,
5
�
� � ;::, .,.,.. r �,.._.__� . .�
�'�.��Nl�iII�7(� CUP+�i�iZS�T�N' - CI3'X ��' T1GF::�ll
M�s�ch �, 1�8g �:�`'
S��,[�1 5,.2 - C�'.l� 30-8�. ;`i
M�°P Px�esident ana Nl�mbe��u of the Commission:
M�r' n�ne is Geral.dine 33a11 and. :C am repxesen�tin� DJt3, Inc, and myself, G, .i,. i�a11. ';_
.A.s you wi11 remem��i, yau discussed G��. 30-84 before on Janua:ry a� 1985. ,��; the time .'',
of th.e cli.scussi.on of I�tem 3o4y 1 I asked a y,Lies�i;ion biz-� T ce.rt�,iz1].y da.d nat say �h�.t '
I felt �l;ha�t ther� was no :zeed for a Field Survey, as r��orted in the ninutes� ±;
�,,
T-b be oertain of wh.�t �►_� s.-:id I went down to the Ci1�y of Tig�.rd and made a transcxipt
o{' -�l7dt portion of �;he �'laruzi.ng Commission meeting - and it werat like -L-k�iso
Geraldane Ba11 speaking� �
"The ques•tion :� have is now with this map you ase �alsin.g off the wetland map th.en ";
do you ne�d a fi�ld suxvey in ad.dition'� Is that what you mean?" ';;
��.z� Newc�rispeak.in.�s ?'
��NO' wha�� the policy wa.11 m��.n is �tha� now if tn�y ch�,n�e the polic� - if you hav� ar.�
area of land �Lh�t mee�;s thc definition of' wetland y�nu could s�ill be subject �o the ,';
�olic;a.es tl�.t ap;�l;� ta w��i;l.and. hut you only need a field su?,vey if th.exe i� a g,uestian." :{?
`f FI
Geraldine �a11 speakin�: _;�
"I ��e, tYiato s the poi.nt, � didn'1; know if you m��:nt all ti1� areas w�xe �oine ta Y��,ve
a :£i e1 d surve,y,d1
Liz Newtoaz spea�.a.n�;;
"No� as a een�r�,l .rv1e if ther.e is �, que,tiUn -Lhe boundar.y of wetl�.nds w,i11 be d�t�xmiriod
by� a :�ield survey. Obviou�l.y some a:rea,s arp not wetlar�dsa" r
G�ra.�,diize Ba11 speaki.ri�•;
II "I'm in-teresl;ed becaLti�e: :L'm ch�.i.rmrm of NPO �t} and we are goin.� tio h�,ve �, mee'�in�
tomorror; i2i.�ht arid T tieant to lcnow at l�ast par�t of wha,t T'm talki�l� aboui;,"
:�1er�.�c mal�e no�a�ion in tne minutes o£ triis meetin�: o.f' Ntaxch 5, 1gs5 to show �he
correc�f,;ion. -to minutes of' J'asi, 3, 198�.
�`E'tEr receivins a copy of' map of �tlxe Tr.i::�ng:Le irorri ti�a,sh?n�,tt�n Cou.n�t,y on �`ebru���,� 'f;,
1�E35, I r�a1i�:.c :..oti•, ����,;T i��,c�s°t�azt �'ield Su:�veys �ei �spcca�ally izti �ric�w of -l;he f"ac�;
-cha,�t the ma� shows th� �va.tEx .t'xom •the Ya.11�, kZid�� i�avin�, one oi Ta.�ard's ].ax��est
t�^�butasies to I+'�au10 Greelc bei.n�; cliverted onto a. W. 66th, I trust th� Ci�T of Ti�;�rd
b
y�.l� rec�ui:re a field sux�vey in the �Vil1a ��id�,e �:�.a.v�ne ar.�a before ar�r btu.lda.�.� or
Zowd coxz�tructa.on a.s allowed an,d �1.�o tnai; -they will see tYa�.t i;he water stay,��,� in a.i;s
n�•cural d.raan�,�;eway as aho�w�:a on the 19'r30 ODOt map, copy of whi.ch I am �i�ring yo�x �o-�
xii�h�;. This i5 impoztasi•L so as •to n.ot disturb the wildlife habitat in the a�:sa as v7e1:E.
�,s �z�evEn�tin� tkie wate.r endin�; up o�z ��.i.ZrGLi;e px•oj�C�x'ty', �both of wka.ich I beli�v�e ase
against the 1.aw. � am also subraitt9.n� h���wi�th �, cnpy o�' arap ob�L-ained f'rom 1da,shi.n�;�Lon
Cotzn�Ly c�n k'eb, 1y, 1y£i5 fro;n w�.i.oh I obtain.ed my inforn�ai:iona �aid ma,p d.o�a r_o1;
properly shotiv Vaca�Led a. 4!. Dartmoui;iz ar3d Vaca,�ted S. ��0 67th, most of which kias beexa �
1e�.sed to •L•he �brd �.��:�lers�zii� �ina� 1�70. To ve•rify tYi� stxeet va,c�,i;:iox� c�py of 1�Ja�h,
�au.iz�ty � � 0 67�37G, �.sst. �i;tarney Gene�:�a1� Jac4c So11is}s l�t•tei of June 29, 1982,
�1.on� with �ap� �,nd Circuit Court Case 42-399 a,re herewi�h submi�Lt�d. We a�lt th�.t �1.1
•th.�se clo�rnents a1on� witiz the Or��;on 7�eptw o�' Transpox�ta�;i.on 1980 m�,p and tkie ina� 01�
t�.ined fxom l+lashin�;ton Coun-ty on �'ebw �9, -19�5, be mad� paxt of �oni,�lzt's .�'i],aaa.x�i..n,� ;;
�ommis5ion :I:'ublic Hedrin� on Ttem 5.2 Comp:rehensive �'lan .�mendmen.t 30-8�.,
,f�1so I want to point OLl'� tYlr'],'� '�l'1G irxformatian xe�;ard'xn�; �ted �fiockc Creck reparted on
T4 a�;e T -- 58 of Comprehensive S�:Laxi is incorxect. 1�e� }�ock Cxeek �tarts on So la. 72nd
zi�-� o�.�. M-�o Syl.v�niao i�thc�n T ceal.lea on •th� Corps of L+'ngine�x�s in 1Q82 �t;h��r vEri�ied
t1ai.� infarn-xati.on �,g wre17. as �he lo�ation of Vi1.1a R.ad�e xa,vine an,c� �a1.a. 4xeek a5 the
seme �.� sl�.own on tl�e 1980 0�0� rua�r Ba11 Creek is nat in the ��'riangle bu� Vi�.1a �icl�e `
.�.avirxe is �aa�d i s jus� sou-ti� o:E' GoGaa, the �io te1� 3�G:C;, Chevron ��Lion, U�iHaiiL etc, �11 ,�
o�' whicl� arc �oca,ted on ri�ghway 9�W4
Fleac�e � �'ke ���.5 c�nd a7,1 a�•�a,clunents pazt oi' tonigh��� l�.ea,s�ii�.g� and t��i� Ci�t�r o� m����a:o
�
_ . �:.
�
�
TRI�TSCRIPT FROM MINUTES OF FL.ANTdING CGMNIISSION -� �an. �� �985
ae transcribed from tape at City Ha11 by Ger�ldine L. Ball
Tui� Newton speal�in�
3•4«1 We tallc �bout d�s�ign�.tin� the following ar�;as of si�nificant environm�ntal
concern. and we warit to say City sha�l d�signate by def'S.nit�.on nat by �ocat�on
the .following as areas caf sigxxi.ficant environ�ental. concern �nd th�ra list....et�,
�o that �ets back to map f�r de�i�nated areas by location000then tape carinot b�
understood and ther� it �;ae� on �o
Geral.dine I,. Ba1.1 speaking
��.e question I have is now wi�h tl�s map you �xe taking off the wetZ�nds inap then do
grou �e�d a fie�;d surv�y f,n additiora. Is tha� wkxa�t you mean?
L3z N�wton speak�.n;:
�To - What the policy will meun is that nc�w if they� change the policy.
If you have an asea of lana that meets the d�finition oi wetland you could
still be subj�ct to the pol.icies that apnly to wetland but you on7.y need �
field surve i£ ther.e is a uest on I
y q
i .
I
Gerald3ne L. L�all epea�cir�g
T �ees that's tt-�e poin�t. T didno t know if you meant a3.I the axea,s wese �a.irag tc�
hav� a sx gi�1 d $urve,y m
Liz Newt�n
No, as 3 general. xu.le if thexe is a questioxa kae boundary af taet3andss wi11 be
d�te�rained �by� a field surv�y. Obviously, gome ar�as axe not wetlands.
a.....I'm interestecl because Z°m chairruan �sf �3P0 �4 and w� ax� �ing to have a
me�ting tnmorrow r�.f�ht and S want to know �ae at leas� part of what T'm t�lkin� about.
. I
,
. _._ �.
owtt ��_ � �t . 1 ; '`� __
` � �
w � <
tl 1050 =
►INE � . 5T. `
���� ; . ��
SPRU 5T �
.• � �
� �
•
� u z9 , I ['°'� q 0 ;
�sTM a. I a � h � « �
a ;
���� 4ye . '
7
'y , .i
� � ��� � � �A� ��o�o t � c
� ��
N � � � o
Y �.� �.
S . � S.W. NA1 'ST /� I�:
11TLAMTA L'\
1G 2g I I i
,' '' r�• SL,� .. I �����.
s.w •:::,,.:... . I
' iI50CJ�
WVALL ST. �i SN. � <:• ' �
t CI.INTON���:,�;�.�••,. I �.
;. A ,
, .; ........
�' A
�' ZH �: 5�,� � �
�:DwRT.iO +
/ .� ' �
ya / _���.�... 27 r
�, r�._ :
S.W. p�,
` •': ELYM T `S �' ,y I(�O O � .
� s:�.
! 25 N,.: •
,r a�+a ��;' �� � �
" `"r �0 1tv :. °i R ;
i �
o s.w; F xu i
�YO �G: �. �
l . 'pF . �....�$�,.. '�� 5T. � c+
�
;
y .�; s.w. ( �i�'• � � i i
' �~ � :; ►► Fo. . i
U7 � H v�oa LJi Si � ���� �
5 T.
�� �
�i . a�I M
c
� w 9 i LYC IMO
!. r "
_"'_ ° y
• S.w. .
CR rnEw
S�. VARNS ST. VARNg p )3� �
� 1 VA
s
•w FIR ST. Q E
�' O o° +'\
` � FIR v % � . .
h
s.w.
CNERRY ^ ST. S.M. • G . I 35 O�E: F�• .
� f
/ xk
� Y ST. � :�
I LANDMARK LH -
��/ . - • (wy
jEK�� � . � �� - �"T��
E. �r.• W a��.,
� 'ROESE � i L/ ��1 �
� � I' •
sor* ' ,J �wo
S
W� ,� J � �..
> W � ° � I 50
fi 4 s � �
� �
'^ � �.
�y ' � �� �5 000-
� a - . ~,1 s.w. �• .
'j/I ^ �I� KABLE LN� 3�� '
r
�
, ...C-.'.,'.'•_"' � n.:r.-r -. :.r;cir.aa:. - ii+wci
,:3i •�, - _- - _
.... �, � :�-���, s ` I�I
A� COU�N M � •u
Or GRf(MWOODO�'� CI��'��.J1� `L�`0����IJL/ •�� 5t�f� I �� i
0 0.��.0 ,� .��7 :��,1�►���
..,.,. �„��. ,.< <.,U.�-��. : �_� , . «
,.. : �
��� _ ;��� ;ao� .;,,�.,.� o� �.,,o �
� p �1 �w��L R _ . ]t y� /
\ i '���410N �V��OPtMCE Ln ; ��v a�LCln J \ �cf•�y�ll �` �' � ,��� !�
� y� ^
� tl1YLOR5 �tllllv p5 .FNRV f I I = t �r 'I J� ��PPVC"` L�``4/
lR�DIlV � �ct� 9o�p f0 _ • �� ^� �`J� ^ 'a�`r�rion5 / 'IP
nir�ci� � I.1(.
�oq� ,,;�,,,.,,, .,A�C�j� ` , o'-�L:I��UU� �,� ���._��,��---`��.;.� �
; o ���5, „< +��_�:7�o. " `� ;� � =--J = ' L
� � � — � '-7 .� 5 �. (/�'
\ _ :a�H�STH� 5, •.� �J O: , ° :l .:�•.� S' �J'� �
p ,�� I� F�"_�_.. ^l_ � ���`\
� � � ioa�
�.,,��o «�o o ,. 0: ,���� .�,� G�!=� � _ � ��
�� MEy ��wu ��V�y ,COU Q �I
' L'/llNMAN ^� _}' I IOCK dy � I�C ` t �I �'
� Lhru �' �.� ,��:�.���r�5t� !-' �O ��~� ��I��li �
�/f011�1 ST c0��wiiw "�e„'�J���' � ��qy,^ 1 �I II I I I I I I I w cw% �
�JtUl��$.�R . InNDAU i� ST. �V ' — r, � C�� _\ O�f�/�r.)Or�� �C
. �a �oc� . � = 99 „ �r �
ST. lOCU51 ��� �
T 1 ~= _ : _ °° �l L. W � 1�, \ — '�L��—
Jf� �,,...0�..4 � . r— I`,
���� �•��LE. IE�F � ST. _ • �Ina I � w��w �+�
U lJ .�.�a�C� a � a.� �,J U����.- .. �� .,— ,��.��� .o� , �,
s;.�..:� DD�ao 3, � ��� i � , ��,� �� o�,o, � �„�,
= a :r� �-���
\`,,.=� � .v,� _�� s, :CI' e�����a ��,�r���1= 10..�a — �,. �e��'r ..
.\. 1 �j ' �nN �a�� �_% "r �I � � .. nwvrncr�—Cir
f � 0 l�l s� coaw.�o
� s�nucEI Sr.� � sr.uc� ^�--�---- o s
:1 �. i ` � � �� L�°��'i o�^cT�«��_�L__ �JI
tNO�n �}� �T110RN St T_^ F O. VnCLNZ n
i . o �.,.. ��— „ �
i���. ` JU`— �^y^�7 1 �'a ^Q ------
'' �. � �_' „W � r,, �- � � a = _, '� = STEM!'Mprl� �
-��O s� � _ = I� : � / ±5. r�'""r; ��� D Y o, : � � ;
� 217 �r , � I � �' - .
�' 9 T ���� / Ilc I � \� ; /°/,M'Ir$YLVANIA ( � 1:
I . IF4FitE• I J � o�:`�..� ��.,rH 4_�� ° 1,.
� t i " x `co�umo "� u]
t I ��, O
� � � i�J 99 c^'iiv sT. +�� `" � 1 �� '
� - R � W ��—' t s �i�����V'" 'a i C�
_ c9�rNe \ � � �a � i ���_ \
4 � � I � �:4 �
��wcll• � �� C MhTI 1� ws ���Ox I � SO ii`v[wti "if� o��i�w � �i � ��1� 1�
�C l� Z C�y�
�=i �D � a y�., � :`�,.., ;W.«_, ���� ,--� _ u, � ?,� �_.
� `` � �(�' _
q a C " ' O � SwiN t ��\NS� ��hw�r t
� 1
.+. rC�.� ?,4P O ' �°+ < ^ _ _ qO9O^ 'c 4 i�[e�[f��qO�F<`�d�� _ a ��
� ,, t'4 ' y °�'"
�c, `• 1 a�,o �
,° � CJiYS AL [�w.unsi s* � I i W V SOUTHWOOD �5' r���' st ° r J�w��c q�
a �e � ��:.
�q �a+ "M1ni LAKE I �('►''L� � i PARK ' �w %i ('�
yy� � ° � � HcnMOSOwev .{er.nun � J � � ' . co.nc�. q. �./. 1
�cw�c.r.„ v
9 Ji ,��,, � o � OEV[LSN �o i' `� J � x U r��<�y ���M1�� 1�
�� ��9 9 P L.awi��fw�s [ lOUJ SDO ' t �1 D j�)� �� �, ii
� 1' ryy � h fcH. to� � `1� '/` ? tI .,
�'`M � /i�1 �,yi+fq A f aMtwcw�r. i ' f �JIJ� ��q f "- '��
� z c6trEL�ti si � i I flnoi clrr� � . � �
TIGARD J< \ � ' --:_;� ��
°° i r'— �.Z,c
.i.�wG►oP 1Af60 ^zr. �9L �ev ,c : : �L.�� �� I' r ( `co� ,`"`, ��L
.; � s; ..�, �� =��
9
y C �.� c.[nvicw o ° P. �p o �� ��• �RnR�r
�� �.` ��� � ��`F,Y oN*st. ?'n G �h A �t� �
r ��� . nr�s y ii� i � � � �
: � � � �? �a° 9° y � . .d�� : �
�:C � x ru sT. PV :h o•a /
��M�� j. � S 0 W�11T�INf4111� *.f• T. 4> �`
ou.n� S� � 9FC K � Wr.� F �
:
�.��y" t O y -V CMlPRY Sf. =�I q.� / u V. O O"� �n�1�
y�� a O ���. G�'� Mu�o ,ry c �-�
� lxfwoou iT r r �'1� c�` y / �'e rw�•�sH c�.
° W q 9 a r. � ry�q 4Q' ��J o �d�
� , '�C� 'Ye v�v� �. I u.or ;Q c(°'°ryt �
..a.c.. n�H n. � '➢G '9c� t �3� � i� Y Su %.
:.-n.�o _ fr. �: �`�� , e � Rnut[ � cn+i' }�, e `�C'3
--� ,. — . ���
� .�.�.� : ,. , ;� : �
�. � u[wooWS �o. � ` s
e� r«�«..�wne.�n � qp Q 'a \,` q�� ; � o t ,��+�
r„ GH. � 2 i . /
I � ' 1 —1�--- .•• 8P� rFR o Cp' J � •$�L�
��a� �� '� �OMIT• � � �1��� ('�` S l ���
...J � �O�D MHIT11 Ii0�0 ` p��Y�}� / 4
�� 4 t.�nun� t '� . s � e� �nvev �r`
Iw�\G� w �r �„e i ^ eiw���00R J �•�; Q �P' �j_— '�
�• M M ' ' I > wl�e�w� ��IIK Mht}}. � tDLLIW W�Y � �R�
� i � u �ot ew�.�r
.��:i:�n � ^ �
=' �fCHMIl4 1�J�1�� = O I ' ' �URM� RO. ! .��� pl1LUY1� LAS M�V/!-�-��_n���(� �
�'"� i � � UF�• I /� ��[������$) //�
' "l��! �llwa�<rNC Si � � • W/1KESIE/111E IID. '+CO ' ^wK��V6 `—�I„"�
1 �� „ti I
� �� �\ C a .�r��� _ J k a �1e Te iwm�w c��r� o� � ��l iw«r r�v M� U.Sfi� �I
� WW pJ' ` sr. V�cr. (}; :(1 I
N '
=l�li+(�i� � �r',. , � .�.._i.�..,��n .. /S/Y ' 1 .
�
_ \+ �� < Kp`�\ ��RI I IIOV! L.
. . . .• • II.. WII _ 'n ? �. ` �°���'�" C.A�°/
... .. S::Yv �t.:' � r:._• . . .. . . .. � . . . ° " ^:ti'
• —• _.-a..a ._. �.. �:..,.�..+....._.��.,.�r,.r.:., .�.�f..'^.,:.:..._..�.,'..._ ' ' .,.rt!`l'..�`:n►Y:.�.:.r� ...
. ...-. .. . �.... .i. r ... � ... . . . . .. 'i.!4'"a�+^'_... . . ..... ... . .. . . . . . . �aiw:. ..-.. ...
.. ... � . ... =.P='� . — �•..- � ..- .._.._.�. . . . ,
. . I 1 • `� , � . '. .. .�. ' '� F4 r. .�• , �� J .{ �Y,' � � .. . .�Y't� '•j� '. �...
... ._w. �...� ... . � � �.t• :f�}i*��:�:�� .� .
. . . _ .._. . . _... . .. ._. . ��� .l�o j-" �9��� ...:.:: . ... .._ . _. . . ..
� , .
,���i M•�`� y ':� ' , - :i
l s'., �� - . . �,��.
j . . 1 nnI �� • , . �.,
I i'. ^'} t���i.I /•. x �,
a .:� � �
c �
' �rC;^� �� Jr t'�',5 t�.
, �4
� • ,
��� 1 ILi THE IIOr1RD OF CO[TNTX C0:IMISSIONER$ , r /�:- ' �' -
.�, ,•.�� •
� �H FQR WrASHIiiGTON COiJNTY. ORECOt7 � "`'�:' ' _,"F:;-' �
�•�' r J i
. •d RF.SOLUTION ) I:r' THP•. DS)1TTER OF T:.I; '.'"tCit'CI�:l �.r 11 - '�
AAiD ' )�/- �;��: POR'SION OF [C�URTH STi?ii"r.',T (J?si�i'r�;f'TH `','
�',� ��r
• ' � ORJER ) ST.) r'u�ID LIP�COLPJ ST;�.::ET (Si.:�1.:i'_it .,;;`.�
AVE.) in TF(E PLAT nr, 'Wc..°iT i'�J::"CLA.ID t+.:!y�
.. HEIGHTS". s �,.�. ,.��;���,;
, ', .1s:7.L:r., . ,} .�,,r
, � s.:
• ti This matter having come on for hearing before the Bc�ard of C4unty ���t+,;:,-.�u,
l�;
• 7 Commissioners at its re lar meetin on December 5, 1,57; and • 'y'r� � �
.� 9u 9 d, ,r,.
��4'1 i
. . $ I� appearing t_hat on October 26, I967 a petition was filed for zt3"'s' I
, ,-,.�-;,
� .?k`2Y�y=,
9 vacation of a portion of Eourth S�zeet (Aartmouth St.) nnd Lincoln � •�.;,�;�,,,,;
� . �a. . -� ;.�.,.,r.
'�.r:.��,^. .
, . lU Street (5. :d, 6%th Ave.) in the lat of "West Portland fiei hts" a �1at �,��-. 1T'c�
P 9 r+ .�,;,
� ;..,t:A,.,.:s+;
.,_r';�5��;:t.
�� of record in Washington County, Oregon; and :.�µ,s;,�_;7�
• �i��?,
;� ly It further appearing that said petition did describe tne L.crtion �,ay7��g
� ;� � �!L{ti�
13 of the roadwa to be vacated, the names of th� persons to be '
' '' ;c� Y Part�cularlY rt,-�;',
1� affacted, and set farth the ��j&�t�
, ; '� particulas circumstances of the r.ase; and .. t,k��u.
�r ,�,
; fS tt fur�ner appearinq that notice af the pendency of said p�tition '* 1"r.
• ,�s.,,
P t>ya�
' y� Io �oas given bX written notice beinq posted more than 30 days prior to the ���:
' � T;,,�-
tz4
" � 's 17 3a�e of the hearing, which notices were posted in three of the r.;ost public M1�;t�
;�`` �.�� r.: ..,
'�f±';T•
. �.� �$ an3 consoicuous places within the limits of said streets, as sno:vn L•y ?�Z?,T��
,.� „ t��e��;
i'� �`�e affidavit on file hezein; and " :�ij";�iw�;
� .s . , ;.,i+nry
� �t�:�.:
'� It further appearing that said notice contained a description of 4�� '!,
a�� r�s;�
, � �• .� �1 the p�rtion of the streets to be vacated, and qave the date of ??.'�;{?'.•.
r
� . � . :� • :US��(_C�I�.
I�� .�
22 December 5, 1967 at '7:30 P.M. as the time, and Room 206 of the Washington `'`'�-'���•
� �� f��� •
4 lYn !
' ' > �3 County Courthouse, Hillsboro, as the pl.ace for hearing th� �aatter; and �i,;�;���
. ,� H w s�{.��.
= 2� u, ry.
o It further appeaxinq that no objections have been made to 4:he �' ���
� • �'� u � ; �a:
' � • ' 1# ' . � �"'��, �
;�z 75 granting oE said pEtition; -snd ��M`•
p �;U F, ���,c,. .
�� .i ?; �6 It further appearing that said vacation would not be detrimental f��a'��,�:'�
��') f �t h
� �r 27 to the interests of the public and that good cause appears hliereEor; #;
. . � , � ,.. ,
:! '�� � 73 now, tnPrefore, it is hereby '''?''���';r
• � ., �r. e;�:.
; ��•
� � z �9 F.I.SOLVED ?u]D OFtDERED that the follo�ring describeci portion of ��f
.",� . i s��°�;,
• iour�h Stre�t (�art:nouth St.) and Lincoln Street (S.S9. 67th i1ve.) in �,•;,::"x;,.:,
. .31 t � `:i;
_ t:he �lat oc "t9r_s.0 ��rtland (:eights" be, and thQ ssme i:, harei�y, •
w `� ,�t�_aL',�j: �.i�'`
. ,,e
' .,,.,.� �,�
� •� � , _ ..,... , '
I
�
i
�
}
,
��� � f� � � _ . . .
,�T x �,:
v�r,�a ,� �i. � }L .
f ru �"
^' ; i . ... atf�
s
;�����. ; 3 3 0� � � .� ��
:�;,� � ;�;; t �
�,�ti�..'
� ,L�'� �".,x,�.
.(��� »�
L z �3 5 c. L
. t ��� �� .?.� "1�" F�Y .Z:
i +'�}.� 'ri
�� 1 Iy� ,n -.!}f��y 'f�.
M
�°' +� �' "` l 3eginni^q at Lhe southwest corner of �locY. 17 rir.ring r �� r�'�
t
- ��,m �,� �: � . ,�r A t,
��-�s �� ,� , thence north to ��ze norch•�res� corner thereot; �.hence east to , ��f ^
. ,k��,A�l�v` 3 the northeast corner o: said �lock; thence nor�':•.�esterJ.y to <� ��r�ti
�"����""" � a L.�oint �n the so�th line oi 1ct 26, , r�et west +`�4` �
�'v"�����t;?,� , U Io ck 14 2� ;�. ;�.� ,
,� �; ff ��y';:= 3 0: the southeast corner of said block; ttnence :�est to t:�e . �r8 ,
� �'f�'��• ' sauth��+ast corner ot sai.: b�cck; �:�ence narth to tre rorth- � s a '
+ `�
�''���,��,,�� � ' west ccrner of iot i7, said block; thence norr.'�•+�escerly �o "�"��,'�u ��
x'��' " 'a^�` the southea s t c o r r.e r o f 1 o t 3 0, b l o c k 1 3; t h e n c e s o u t h t o ��e ; �.q w�A
,?+��°;�k�r� 3 sout,heasC cozner of said 'nlock; thence west to tne sou�'�aeat � �`�����c^,;
:;�,,,, , a*�xyv corner of said block; tnence south to the r.orthwest corner , f� �.� ,,
� �Ti�� f.f F
'�,�,a, �,,,hr� 6 of block 18; thence east to tne northeast corner thereaf; :; ��!�rr
-°'�� �;�' thence south to the soutneast corner r�hereof; thence �ast ; �" ��
��� �,��`�'� 7 �o the point of beginning. �';��'��et
^'''�3-� ���� . �.�. y�,�a
�'�s m'��'r'' 8 and it is further i��~�ri+��
`�� �'��"�o,� "'���� •.�
'�� ��Y���i . � RrSOLVED AND ORDERED that the County Surveyor oE Washinqton County, 4�}x���„��.
�rt�p`�.�� ;:'Fi��''4�.�
t * � x ' 1D Oxegon. be and he is hereby authorized and directed to r.;ark that portion i;�;;r�,�v�
.v� +�"��Is�; ', , 44*���y���;
• ���;;w,;�;,= ' . il of Fourth 5treet (Dartmouth St.) and Lincoln Street (S. 04. b7th Ave.) �,`)'�+�}: '
� L[j
��Y �{ N d'; � 1' !�I J:_ �
.,,�1 h�,f���` . � � 4l'+�•i��a
,:,�ti�,w���� 1? vacated as vacated upon the Qlats and r�cords of Washington County, ����is.
A" r `Y� i .. . � � . � f�Ai. �
• �'�w�y�,� 13 Oregon;. and it is furthes � � ;}G}��y�fi+��'
��� �-��. �r������ .
��'��`��;� . H4 RE50LVED A���D ORDERED that the Director of Records and £lectior.s 'of , �;�i"
i
'���' Y���
��-�����Q�,�'�' , y��,�,Y ia�.
,�s�«���yh�, fl5 t�Tashington County, Oregon, is hereby authorized and directed to callect s;,,� �,��i.r
'�'r r����` t, i .f�.�� .
�•L ,„��(� �r.t+ ° 16 fram the oetitioners herein the required statutory fees �or paftnen� tp ;`�Y=;'
+ir�L ��� ' y,�+.,'��r�
�:�td �� � . t!`�x&.tt"��1s
��'�'���`L�', ' • 17 the surveyor as surveyor°s fees, and pay-menk to the recorder as recorder's t,�2,� �+ k ,
�,
- ��i ��'`r'� 1 s�� � .. � � � . .�. i`,`�I`�-.�r'�T.
k�` �`.�i`�3 � 1g fees: and have this order of vacatior� recorded on the records of � ����^Y
�.� >SL��� • p'� ���; '
`A� ?"e 4 e� . , � Sy.,tiY'-e-�.44�� . - 1
;,����`"�o�`�� 19 S�'ashinqton County. • �?�<,<��3�T ' '
�`'�''� �'`���.�;~"�.. , ;�`;' �+�' '
� �,��,;�'����s . "' 71) Dated this 5th day nf Decemlaer. 1967. ' ,%�;����5�,� �,
�h R� �� � 1} '�', I
,s "' �,��,� r- Z1 BOARD OF COUNTY CO:�IMISSIONIItS j����r�'�w' '
i !Y u.�'��,i� .' �UTt WASHSNGTON COUNTY, OREGON r`��� y;=_
.: ��c��:i�. i az Fr.,��E��� II
;i��; � h�C�,!>>;� y � . , n ;� Fl�.,
•�..,�f' o. -1�.,��.
�., 23 . --�-t� ;;.:,,,����,��,
,-�• A
# ;{ ,vr� 2 � ��"�-'� x`n'�br'�^u '
•����,���y , `' . Chairman r` ��,�'�.
�' ��F .� z yC�F�`}�f X
�'°�r,,;�j'a�� a o 24 ,� �� ��?r:
T� �-4�� y � v - �� • ^ � �l ��j3�F
Ei E'� ( ''�� z � � . , � � '!'1 fj � " � , t,`� k �
;�� �+�1 J'�,; ' �Z 5 /� //t:.tJ•�.'�;�2Y_. �✓' c �ty.Q :1'
,;��" �;'� ,4'� �° ' ' Recording SeCretazy � i�a�{���'`�4'�:
���y�r i� �� � . .�i r
`a,[l�a' ,;r t t� 26 , . " �3 t�'i-ti?Yti,
.w�'�.�A�c � 3� �, �° . ' 'r�r
✓' }} �SS:�;�
tt� STATE OR OREGON � +.,}�iK tL� �
,. 1_tM 1�...M� ' ; Q� L7. . • . ,.
�j,ti*�,��1�{.�7 ,�- ;q , _ . . Caen�y of Wasnlnvron � y ��•_e.r.ac..<,� �'���r'
:',y t'�"�i�� t r . �o ; . .. . ..., ��;�� �
{ L�� �8 . ����x� . �..: � 7. . . 1��.Ai �j,
'xe�'�5�F� �li - .
:'+ t•-l �{. '!1 J � . ~� 1.,Rewt 7naTt+�n.drectx el Recwdt+M � ��f Y' :��.
d���t'2"�it �' �j� 29 � - . � et.c.twn� �na e�.uMk�o F«.c.dK o� tonvev�ncn �ft .�`' �„ ..
L: �,Sµ'F�4 ;�p tJ Z . � . . .. . f�lf '.1.0'COUIIIY. 00 11eIe0Y�ClI1HY fNai iM L11IP1111 . �+�, ti� y., �
�
�:T��ty,� �i�2 V � Y�yfrurtenl ol w i1-�s a�� iK4vM aM teco.tled .. 7 r � �
�
3:4 1� 7.
� �'�dNn1�y '4 11 F J�. . . . . . ,. Inht4 ..: .. . ....._. ... G'�,;�-. l� Y�r1 .
� y t �C�� �i ' . N Ih..p�r.oM�ol ...... . . . .. . � A � �..
� �y''�'')�� �`� ,>r i � � . .. of wia ccy+nir. .. , .'. �a�iS�
.;���ya''',�;: � � 31 .. �. . ; .�p�t 1 � ,
�s ��tl��� ::#� � w::ntss mr�eM cM v��aNi�M� - .. �:,
. ,a i � a , . . �q,ER THOM SGN.plrMa d . �;�ty � �•
. . ;�+'�� ^� . i 3Z /.��'. .'.�,.C^icf L E.Ulans, �1'�1 � � :�
.F�'7 P : �' � • } � y
�_ � � 7 �.�y� � : � � J �
s.x1 S� / n�.. a �;;;�C z '7 �1��. 1�'�1.:�� . _...r..__-.L�.�� �r.i..�iti.sl� . Y
.� iu.��K ! .l. . . .,awlY � ,I'r �
�t� ", -�i � � . . .. pZi�,ir,f .. � ..Y a �� ��
' ' , f� f�, �.i �,• , .L� C� ' . M� �
v : . ., ... _... � . . . ._..-, .. 1 ' '
�
...._. �
. . ... . ,. .. . . � . . . , . .. f
.. . . � . . . .. . . . ' ' ' . i
..,��.�:;.�py�. �' ' O � � � ' a:• ,L'�1 � .J-ut# � .kt �L:
�._��+�'�'� r•, � . � �:'v;t �:'tv�i� � :?�%i�K��r � n'��� ^g.�p,'4 ��'rf
�����l1t�1MAYER � ''f'' ; ,� '.�`r�,r:�.'#�,,� Y:�� / .� , .. ��,� ..,,,•�
af+ � a � Cr•. , � ' '
41� �R��l .;.r y'y�,�,'�+Jy.°.?��, :�t'� 1 ,�. ;yt'�.s •=�.j -
�{ .�f Y �' Y.I•. wu
.ly�'f ` t'p �i � ../ r♦ �F � � �, �'�V��
r�4:r. . { . . . �K;t-... 17: ... . • . , F` . - - ' ,}ti �
��: .� ' ' ''" ' . ' . . '';' a
:a;� �, • . •. ,
•,�• . �E�/����� � �� ;�'�^��s�
° HIGHW/1Y LEC'.A,L �`
.. ' 113 Tre�esportatien Buip�W� . �`• ,
. Salem, Orrgcx� 97310 '�`R�
.. gcx •�a�:.�+
� ir-
Telephone: (503! 37tl-4259 �•-�-�
, ' . r��,°��
� •':;�
June 29 , 1gg2 � _ ''
_�.
' Mr . F'red Anderson -
AtLorney at Law ,�_�
P. 0. Box 23006 �•
Tigard , Oregon 97223 � _ �
RE: Haines Street Interchange -
• DJB, Inc . and G. Le Ball � ' .
. '�►a�hington County Circuit Caurt Gase �42-399
#42-�02 -
Dear Fred : .-
:,-�+��y t�.�:-
, I really don ' t understand what your coneern is abvut th�se �as+�s.-�� ":��,��
in as �uch as they are all completed and the final �udg�en� f.� `��-;��
entered . I am seflding you for yaur° information a copy o�' the l "�"
right-of-way map th�t was used in the acquisition of tn� `�r'T
properties and that is sti11 the r�ght-of-�ay that ha� D�en �
.
acquired by everybody involved ana is the right-of-eaay that will � -
be vsed by the Highway Divisian ts constr�u�� the pro�eat . If �
_ this is any different than thP ri�ht-of-�a� m�p that .you feel an �
� agreemerat was n�ade on , please le� Ae knoH.
� '' --
. Yery trul� yours, ' '� . ��=•
• �:,•:;,
. : �:
• . �.�..,,���'='�:
, ,,,;:�r:.:
.,- . • :� :.,�:•••
;•.• �. ' • .o�i�� . . .� �:.,�.�I'j�3
;j� " - sai.�tant Attorney General . . -4i,.Y�'" _
":�=- . � s�ad Attorney-In�Charg� " ��. .��� -•
�:- :. . . J L3.s s • � ' ' � '-��:
��:.�L; , , .. �+t!��
�'�°`+'�,' Enclosure • . � . �'`xt
�-�. ... . �-,
tr� :.:; . � •�. .'y.�;,�°
; :.A� CC: J . B. BOyd ..' • �. ' . .. ti� ,�,'.�;
���'t' ,;'� . � • � • �' �' , ' : .'.��•; , �/!��..�
�I'��° J ' ' ' � � ' •' .. � ,i4!,•ui. 1�'f���i ti '�.'!?�:` ,'' �... ;+Yf'",• .
���N`.�: . . , .. •. . �•. - .,�L..,n •a.%.' �,.~i:.•� �������' '��+�7,�' ..
/i ��., •• ����C� �>'. �p �,�.a.4,' ��is,�!r
.t^o r � „� ��'°o:�
�r''�` � '1•i: . , . � ? .�N;9 r' ��+t�+ ?'.�''�•����S i,�� ����"t i�t�'}rJ���,w f
•,��-��``N��f ' . . . • • , ,. . `. `7 �, Y ;^�� '�.�r 5+ R�,/��r'������ {.:F �k�.i�D����y+��j�i'.
,.��.i�,.}�M �� .�p�i,: � �►,.� � ' k , ..! ��� 1 '}A1 �" a' �..� '',-
w, ,��5 i.•iY � , . , • , .��t •� .:M �. .?'.f� ���o�s.:r.,�,tA ��ri 1',l�f�� L. • �� w � �.�
w� �'�`� �r :��.�c. , i� .I� �r.'�,a„�1� *� '� ^}�
�p!�e���. �� . . . . � . . � . o.�� b}e �S; ''�, �'�' �
Y: .�,.�. ,��ti.n . . . .�.�?'� ^t�,�` �T4,����M.
-� ��.•"�;�� �W� r�� �[--� t
'f 6T��i'�I,.;ir• , ^ . . Y .'R�' 'f�'. :Jib�" . .Y �
. . . . ._ _.. . . . � . � � � � .. � ��.'
;a=�•, '» �' ► ' .i2i y ��:�'�' h �; ., +: �.�,,,.�i'�Yi,� L � M :f++,��-�l ..
�� � _ :, •�r���4 .� ��,�� ��!-. .
C y v �• ' �! �, •!
, � � i�� � '2 '.�, " ���� . 1 . .,
.' �� �• 'y1�6 �� 4a ' � � 1, � lf•�n���O t , � ,� • .
��� ;.1 D6� � I = 9 ' Ic . � 1� � '' �i ` �.. 1
14 �2�'ff' g '`!\ a �'�.^✓�' 1 � �' 1 �l �-� � 1 � ��
t.- �" - -�`^ s �'-�r- , ,D� �� ;; ,: - _- � �y �
.��ii�.. rg.� � '^ '� a �;' , � � '
�� > > � � 1,�A � _
�� � .�� �' 1�, „f"1 '
�� � .�; °_> > _-�4 � , „ � � � �� �=?.
.f'M';rff/�'� ���, � ��� f.�l� ��� � �f ' `' � Z'F C> � �1.
���� i, � � Ns .t �/ � ' 1 A.�9��7: Mr' 1 1.
P_,��{ ' �, ���/ �' 8 _ l `z - w zii•�„•^ 1 � � C� 4, ,
1�� � p 19� 3a� �� ^p � �'� �� �� �, � ' 1 � " '^ ���
J 1 N
',p �LLa� p•� q �n.�n�`"�� �� � � , � ` f�`-1� .? �i..
�� 1 i f�
�- w ��,;; �2'�'`-��'
1 .'�'� �l f�►i i-j. ..e'" K :.! 1 \ ;t % xs 1 y )
. �` ���>> 1� � �O s'��5T��7•:`r � - • \ xt xe 1 r � ���
�05dI���„�(� � 1�;� f=�:iif J ZQ.� 1� �� s� at Il 1` �!�•�.K?
., ��� ^ r' � 1 �` � a�,�
� f''���� L��, �� � L7 �o:, v'� 1\ ♦ . i .��
���o A;wH -�" � , 1 \ �\ „�• �`�'�.•`°�:4�'-0
:.... e M.y - �;`"� '� '�L a `'j \ 1, , \\ °� �� �
. � ��
s�:� 7 ', V a.�c. 1 _4 �V�' f� `ti ) t� \�, \����.- r- / r.r�'i
� c� � u �` �
, '~.n �;o t, +10 `� O r�i ' �,� + � 11 . _•-�'�� � ���
.. `\ 9w i � ti.� . L Z•1 IL � '�"lr.�r � �,�'.:-�� �� �•�b C�
v� r � � b� � pi s� K^"'`' ^� \ .4 �"y'-
,= 3 T.�\ v _ _' !r � -,��'� � i :�i S
�. � 4 .�•..
�
�'ti 1` �.,e j�,y�9'' :�a,}tQO �11NrQN .--'�' �, � �� �� �U
� •�,�,qp;� _ a..•, � . �,'�, �
� L' ' 1,ta' �_-' �sas�.o; • .
.. ��...�T_,y.ty ��.zd�. R. , 1 15€•��'
sac�,,ro...Gif �' f^.• `'j' ` t 4
�_• � � 1 ���.
..�.��:�s.:� oii JSJ',p� ,F rou.►�
d
;N� `.—='° �• �o� � ' r =��;'�e, . ' � . 1 � �
' _ A "�1 M ` p 1�w �'S.� 4. �n�*w�i, , d .
; � f1� a i • N^M�...p . 7G � ,
' o'i �` 1 t��, v��o � � � � � , e , .��� � 1,�a
1 w1 a L1.��� ^;.�° �` l 0 5�� s� W�p ,�
.� --� " ,? 'v�� au�� i � ! . � � �h� 1 1 .
r '.' �` � �, ,, °,. . � ,ts� . . t ;�;;; �'�a
� J � � � � � u,e • • i`' �;;'�
..t � o ' �ck' O^' 1 .. •/ � w . �-' � � ��y:F',•:� q:
X � {� W
� � O/�• °td� . �" � �„�� A . '�`''-��.
�r,:�.... ' ��j7 i..4��o � � 3,7r��� � ' @a
..� 7� ��9'.�IY � '� t ti � a v.o� t .
' ,�u��.
fb��rMr �,-�"�.oti'.�� � �d,8a°R �.� % �T �
'� . .n �' r �1 O p � ,� � ,. �� ' � b
� ,13 •. � � _u� I ..� � � �o,/ ��y �
� 12��:s���Gpi 6.�9�.�i7. �` Q �� ;, . � �� �Poj�ti.��
'`4 !� �9f.� �. O_ � --�;p'r���'� t /l7so ro +r4 �
_�- . �.. �,�
.G�.�e,��x�to ''". ...f,� pr 15 ••�—sO...�� Ze I .� .
'=s�=�'` , �' .--' �.- ti•�r" "� _' �� � „ � � ,.�°`�.•`F
�, �— � �'� , .� . ��,,�s �. �:,,, �..,.. W`l� ,, ,�, r ;�� ,,
1 l . _ �. �,,�. ,;�-� .���.1 1 ��'��a�� � `�•,,,`�1 � :� , � Z F ,` ,
y- , r � 1 ;'�•� �, o •i � �, ypp
� � . '�� �;�'�i�.�•:_ .'1` N ' �IS� V�i.'.�.-. ���f y7 �1 , i� g� \
A � 1 �� 1
'r < '' ' '1 :1 �� ' �'i n � � •1
1 '^"�� � '�'' � ''•',,. ''r '�wl�p• � � il , ^1,.` �`� ;,1 _<�. � x;•�� �•
1 q .Jr� V � 1�. 1 � `�•' Si\� ' '�1 �',� �
I :�p ' t:`� 'tt� \ �w.� � � O,+ Ia 1\),� � 1 �,�� '�S:'1
` 1 .� ��4�;" t� 'w.,�1���.,�-� •� � �- �.'�—" � �
, � , , U 24 ; `� .a;., � o ._. ._ .
` � � • ., � —
� ID .J ,2 rj r^1 .4�:1 � � _� ,jd�.
V
� ���80 � `/O f I.r — �4�� 1 ;h �� Yw
� +�' V�� r "� ^I}��ry l y c ''�"
• 1� �1 , � � , ��,s :,, .. � �'.�, ' .
� „ : ., �g �� ,
. .' !:� °'` ; �� s $ l�a� ti',l� , a• � . i , .;,.�C-�,
�., �� 4� � �� 1�� = I � • . .
1 .j � r 1�1^� . '• , ,,_
• °, � �t�.r „ , . � ,
•I.. `...,�,. 'b �=1� � a ll Y L���J '� ..
. . ' 1. . le SS 'J L .1� �` � 71 � ' �
.�,.. t .� , '. r, o� O ! •�� '
•�`i. � %T: ll �j ln:�G
�:'•�'� :#` ' � �� �,:� ��►���g , � "a �
' �,: � � ' '� v.��aF��� r� _- s� '� ' �♦ �
����' � ` 19 � '1 ��', - '� `_' '_�
1 �� � � , �
' .�� .
•� ' 1 , r o •^ .,R,., 'd� —' �� v x .
'. 1 �� �M�f 1�R� s s' ' - _ f �a a� �' . ,�,
1 � .�!i'.:v�� .l. . !� �
. �• �' t �, . . . ..� ' : . . .� ' . � { V
� �
�.
� 1 � CTI2CUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGO��LED �`,� .
2 COUNTX OF WA�HIIdGTON �'`�� ��'�� �Q r'� `� 3 '
,
3 Case No. 42-399 ftEC.�:��CS ��� E�ECf�llP�"
�rAsii,�;r,r��� c��cc�.r
� STATE OF OREGON, by and through)
` its D2partment �at )
$ Transportation, �
6 P].aintiff, )
7 v, ,
)
8 �7• fJ s D��/ )
� Defendant. )
10 FIN1�L �t7DGMENT
X1 The above-entitled cause h�ving came on regularly upon stipu0
12 la�ion �a� the pax�t�.es, p].air��iff acting by and through Robert A.
�3 Holland, of it� attorney�s; de�endant acting by and throuc�h �r�c�
il
14 �„ ��e.rson, her attorney�; and
15 Yg appearing to the Co�xrt and the Court now finds thaf. the
1Ci acquisition described in paraqraph III of plaintiff' s Complaint
g7 on �ile her�in is necessary �or public use; and
1$ It appearing to the Court arid the Cour� now finds tha�
19 plairatiff, prior �ko the commEncement of this action and pursuant
20 to its resoluti.on, attempted to acquire said acquisition by
21 agreement and purch�s�, but was unable to do so; and
u G
� a c 22
.._,� � I� appearing to the Court from the records and f9.l�s herein
�
� ` a � 23 and the stipulation of the partie� that the suzn to be awarded to
� � ° "' 2� the defendant for the approp�iation of the property hereinafter
� �
� � � �
�; $ �, � 25 �
described is the sum of $24,000.00; and '
Pa�e � _ gINAL JUDGMENZ' •
BOOK 4�� PnGr J5�
�
: �� ," �� � , ,
. � � � � � .
� � I� further appearing to the Court tt►at the plaintiff on th�
? lOth day af April, 1981, deposited with the Clerk o£ �ktais Cpurt
� the surn of $10,000.00 for t'he use and benefit of th� defendant;
4 and
5 Tt further appearing that the plaintiff has deposited with '�
6 the C�erk of this �ourt the balance af the amount c��' the
7 appropriation saha.eh is t�ver ar�d above the ;10,000.p0 heretQ£ore
8 deposited, to-wit a the sum of $14,000.00, and plas.nta.�� is nc�w
Q entitled to ud ment a
7 g , ppropriating the acquisi�ion hereina�ter
la described, to the State of Oregon, by and through its Departmer�t
�� of Transportatian, in :�ee simple, free and c1ea� of a1� Tier�s az�d
1� encumbrances except as her�inafter men�tioned, now, tt��re�or�,
�3 TT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREEll by �his Court as
14 ,�ollows:
15
I
�� Tr,at the �equisition her�inafter described be, and the saane
�i 17 h��eby is, apprapr3.a�ed for public pux�poses; and �k.i�tle to said
�g aequisi�ion, together with a11 rigl�ts and �asem�nt� t,herein, be,
19 and the same h�reby is, ve5��d in the St�te o�' Oregon, by
20 and through its Department of Transportation, in fee simple, free
^ � 21 and clear af all li.eaas �rad �ncumbrances except as hereinafter
;� � 22 p�.ovided. Said acquisition so appro�aria�ec� is described as
.�. ^
° uP823
`" ° � follows:
" ° e
-- o m .
v v
F = � '� 24
�
� � ���
v E c
c;, � �'
'� � v0, 25
���
PaFe
2 - �INAL JUDGMENT
Bo�K 49� P���55�
�� � .. . • . . . . f .. � ,�
. � • rf � � i
� � i
. , • I
• i
I
� �� j
�
° S Title in fE� simple to khe fr�llowjn�; de5crabed rea] I
property for right of way purposes inc.lu��ng itc use i
2 tor tht Haines Road Int.er��han�e: j
3 • �
A psr�el oF idna �y�.��, �n Lots 19 �
thruugh 2), B1oc�c 13, W�S'!' POkTI�:•:U F1tIC:HTS,
4 and th�t portion of the N1 ef vscate3 S.W,
Dart.mout}3 Street inuring to said Lot 7.9, i
�S iJas}iin;;ton County, Oregan; the said parcel
being that portion of s:�id I,at� anu said :�'•2
6 of vacated SoW. Dar±mouth Si_reet lying
rorthcrly and ::e�t��r1.y ef the following
7 dPSCribed linE: �
8 Be�,irening at a P�inY: c,pp�site anu 30 .
feet Easterly o:: F.n�inter's Station "H" 67+OU
Q on t.}�a center lirie of relocated 5.4:. tiLtl�
Avenue; thence Nort!-�erly in a �txaibht Iine
10 to a point opposite and 50 feet Easterlv uf
Engirieer's Station °'H" 54+20 on said center
11 line; thence Northeasterly in a ��trai�ht Iine
to tht� N�rthe�st cornar af said Lot ?2.
.12
T}ie ceaater line of relocated S.W, b$th
13 Avenue referr.ed to hereiii is desc.ribed as
f ol'lows:
14
Beginning at Engineer`s center line
15 Station "H"� 60+Q0, said station being 475.9$
feet North and 759.24 feet West of the tiortheast
1� corner of Section 1, Township 2 South, i�ange
1 West, W.M. ; thence South 2° 34' West 1544.23
17 feet to Engineer°s center line Station "H"
� 75+44.23. ,
18
Nuar InKS �re britie�d nj��,►� t I�c• ur ri;r�n Cc�-
19 urdin�ite System, N�rtii %i�ne.
20 The parce] �of land to which ti:is dE�ti�•rii�tion
applies contains 3,244 s�uarc fe�rt.
21
�
� � /�. � i'�};}lt5 Of �l<'Ce�.S �1� t'\'i'1'�' Ii:ll UJ'l' i(1 L��i ��1'p� �• 't j'
' = 22 I�e�rc•inahc�vc� describu�.
� = o
� 'a r.
"'�� �
�
° •� � 8 23 II
�
� o �<
� = � � 24 '
;; � There is hereby appropriated a permi.t of entry to acquire
v. E �
.� � ;: a 2$
and entirely remove the house bisected by the acquisition
Pa�e 3 — FINAL JUDGMENT
BOOI( 4�� p„;r55�
.. . . . . . . . ... ..Q + .... . . . . . . � . . .. . �
}. � •� r� 1 �� I
• • � p � �
� " �
« � ,
.�, ; , . _ �
��
� ' I
� � I
1 approximately o�posite Hic�hway Engineer° s center la.ne �tation '°H" I
- . ;
2 64+20 and Easterly o� the center line o� Sa W. 68th Awenue; and
,
3 in connec�ion with this remaval, declared it necessary to acquire ;
� a ri ht of entr to ° �
� 9 y go uposa the defendant s r�maining �ea1 pro- �
i
� per�.y continguous to the house f��° the purpose of moving, �i�� j
6 mantl.ing aX otherwise disposing of the sam�. � ;
% . � III i
,�
8 That none of the parties shal]. recover in��resto costs d� '
Q attorneys fees hereino .
10 DATED on .�� ��L �� � ` ��° ;
.
_e_.___.__._..� �
11 cl
.
'12 il
13 Ca.rcuit �7�adc��
14
15 �
I
16 '
1� �`.
18
�
19
r;ll
20 �' �i�
� - �,,,•�,�...A,,,� •.
a �
r
21 ;_;�� STATF�'��� �i
,� � '';_ e-p,:�c,,��`��,�1► 3
� �' g 22 �ea �0��8�� the� '�: � �
� 'a t;
"'� � Cecti�f �,oQ`1 y ;'
o = °� oC�eGt �.� . tiie`�1.�� ,
oa � 23 C .., � ea�t p , �oti�4�
R �
� � o ^ 24 pa�e `���ate� � �j Pa!�'��1 tY�� ,;I
.. v u p �� Ga'��a r��G���P�'�1 :�i: ()C�� ill
p ,/�t i,
� � y�v C��i �S • °;�;,7� � �A 1� . ��il
� id
I•I
E�':.
Pa�e 4 - F INAL JUAGMENT � ��
12/4/81 -� mj �
!;
F.
F,i
Bo�K 49� pas�555 ��
. �
fs
_ _ �
_
S
. , �
,
and south Garden Home. The portion in the plan area is a low gradient
flood�lain with a small drainageway entering from he east. The basin is
largely urbani�ed and therefore water quality is rather poor and flooding
is cammon during storms.
�� Redrock Creek — This fourth largest tributary �of Fanno Creek drains
�,; ,� southwesterly from the northwest heights of Mt. Sylvani� where the
t� ° drainage dfvi.de with Ball Creek on the south is rather indeterminate. The
lower portion of the stream is a low—gradient floodplain. Few hy.drQloyie
measurements have been made on the stream,
�
� Ball Creek — This third largest tributary of Fanno Creek d�^ains the
/t� j`'� sou�hwest slopes of P1t. 5ylvania, flowing southwesterly to its mouth. 'The
i • sMort lower section within the plan area has been extensively channelized,
� � k,u� east of ]Cnterstate 5, 9AX of the basin is in woodland or a�ricwltur� •
with anly 576 impervious surface. Little hydrologic dat� is available.
Urbanizatian of the Ti.g�rd area create� several water resource management
pt^oblems including flooding, water pol.lution, and declininc� ground water
; le��ls. With regard to flooding (also see fallowing appendix), �he 7igard
ar�a is the recipient of �he exportatian �f draie�age/runoff of upstream
ur(�anization, especially from Multnomah Caur�ty, Portiand, Metxger, Garden tiome
ared Beaverton. 7he steep slopes of the We�t Hi.11s h�ve sluiced moa^e �torm
wa�er dnwnhill as they have bsen couered wi�.h impervious surfaces. Flgo�d
storage a�eas within the flnodplain have also ber�n filled and developed,
causir�g higher flood cre��s. Fc�r any given s�orm ir►ter�sity �p�^ecipitatxon per°
hou�^), ¢lood cregts/�requencie� i.n th►e Fanno Creek basin can be exp�cted to
con�inue tu �^ise as urbanizatian proceeds. The majo�^ contributors wi11 be
floodplain filling (unless seuer�ly r�st�ieted), �urth�r development in the ,
W�st Hi11s of Portland, and new developm�n� of Mt. Sylvania, Bull Mountain and I
�nc,per Mountain. The steep �lopes and drainageways of the latt�r �.reas will �
requir°e stringent protectian af there is to be any hope fcsr a leveling off af
increasing fYood problems. Since this is the basinwide problem, enactment of
protective measures within the pl�n arr�a must be matched by effective �
watershed management by ups�tream jur%sdictions.
The Tigard Plan Area has 16 lat^c�e ponds and lakes. They range in size from
over 4.S �cres to about one tenth acre (see Table �II).
!`<;
i;::;
� � ;
�c �����,., 'd�,sc-cQ.e� � V t l/a. (�� ��c: d10�✓��,.e — Gu /� , �,
� �'"' � .s v�►� a� L a.C� �s T' 7'��c'i C3� i a c'. F.S o h �'a�>�l� o �`�'��.j�
/� ��a=l� r'c.l� , `'
� �:�
� % "'
� � ��� �
(� � �J���GC ��L��--�-Y� �c�'�J �r��-T �a��.E..r ��, �r�� , � � ��
�j' �
.i- � -S ,r���� � � `�� lN � �/ -�n-e G�. ( � � �
�� ' ���•}�,��M'rR...iL �,/l` � �'�� ,� f�.�f,rL�R.4�� rG� � �� � `�- . �,,
� � C/ I -58 ti c� ,„
. ['i
'r`;:
,.i
_
�'_ _ -
CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
� FINAL ORDER N0. 85- Q� PC
A FINAL ORDER TNCLUDING FTNDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, WHICH APPROVES A PRELIMINARY
P'LAT APPLICATION (S 1-85) REQUESTED BY EDITH CARNAHAN.
�he Tigard Planning Commission reviewed the above application at a public
hearing on March 5, 1485. The Commission based its decision on the facts,
findings, and conclusions not�d below: ',
Ao FACTS
1. Gene�al Information
CASE: Subdivision S 1-85
REQUEST: To divide a 2.97 acre parcel into 13 'lots ranging from 7,500
to 8,400 squarQ feet.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low De�sity Residential
ZONING DESIGNATION: R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre)
.APPLICAAiT: OR-AK Corporation OWNER: Edith Carnahan
13050 SW �orest Meadow Way 10985 SW North D�kota
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Tigard, Oregon 97223
�
LQCATIONa 149$5 SW North Dakota St, (Wash. Co. T�x Map 1S1 34DB, Tax
Zot 200).
2. Backgraund
i The City r�cently approved a lot line ad�ustment which iiivolved the
subject property and the parcel to the north (M 7°84). The plot plan
submitted reflects the new parcel configuratione
3. Vicinity InEormation
All of the surrounding properties are also zoned R-4.5. Black Bull Park
Subdivision is situated immediately to the northwest. Except for this
development, the surrounding properties can be characterized as small
ac•reage homesites. North Dakota Street is designated as a minor
collector and will provide access to the development from the south.
4. Site Information and Proposal Description
The west side of the propexty contains a residence and one small farm
building. The applicant proposes to create a 13 lot development with
one 0.92 acre parcel which will include the existing buildings. Access
will be provided by one local street extending noxth from North Dakota
Street. This street will dead end, leaving the opportunity for future
� extension to the nox�hern property.
FINAL ORDER N0. 85-O,� PC - S 1-85 - PAGE 1
The remnant pa�cel will include a 25 foot wide access strip to the
� subdivision street. It is intended that this parcel will be divided in
the future and the 25 foot acc�ss will meet City standards. Half street
improvemenes for the subdivisi�n along Narth Dakota Street will j.nclude
the remnant parcel frontage.
5. Agency and NPO Gomments
The Engineering Division has the following comments:
a. Additio�al right-of-way should be dedicated along the entire North
Dakota frontage ta provide � 30 foot right-of-way width from I
centerline.
b. The sanitary sewer mainline sha11 be exten�ed westerly across a 1S
foot sanitary and atorm dr�inage easeffient shall also be provided.
Ea�ements sha11 be executed on Gity forms.
c. Bike/wheelchair ramps shall be �nstalled at intersections and
mailbox clusters shall be i�st�lled along SW 109th Avenue.
Further, all publ3c construction work sha11 conform to the C3ty's
standards.
d. Twn sa�itary sewer service lateral� and a concrete driveway apron
s���l be �nst�lled ta the west xight-of-way line af SW 109th to
pr�vide future service at the twent�-five foot wide tract between
l I�ot4� 2and �� 3o
e. A temparary turnaround shalZ be installad a'� the terminus of SW
109th Avenue in a canfiguration acceptable to the City �nd Fire
District. All necessary construction �nd document�tion requiredl
by the City and Fire District shall be completed prior to issuance
of any building occupancy permitso On street paxking ffiay be
restricted at the City°s discretion.
f. The pavement taper �t the west end af SW North Dakota Street shall
be increased to five to one and $tandard traffic waxnin� devices
shall be installed.
g. The sanitary sewer mainl�ne shall be extended westerly across the
north line of Lot 6 to the plat boundary. A 15 foot sanitary and
storm drainage easement sha11 als� b:e prnvided. This requirement
is due to the limited options available to the properCies to the
west for obtainin� a sewer eonnection.
'The Washington Fire District No. 1 has the folZowing comments:
a. The street width eh�uld be a minimum of 20 feet. i
�
b. All streets over 150 feet in length need to have ar� alI weath�r �
cul°de-sac or hammerhead turnarounsl. �
� c. uildin s. �
Fi�e h drants should b� instal�:ed no more th�n 500 feet from. al� E
b g i!
No other written comments have been reeeived. �
�;
FINAL ORDER N0. 85-�_ PC - S 1-85 - P9GE 2 �
fi:
(;
_ _ �,
, ,: ;., ...,��;a.
B. F7NDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
�- The rel�vant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2,
and 10; Tigard Comprehensi�ve Plan policies 2.1.1 and 8.1.3; and Chapter
18.50 and 18.160 of. the Community Development Code.
The Planning Commiasian concludes the the proposal is consistent the the
applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines based upon the
following findings:
a. S�atew�de Planning G�al �1 1 is met becau�e the C�ty has ad�pted a
Citizens Involvement program including review of all development
applications by the Neighborhood Planning qrganization (NPO)» In
addition, all publi.c notices requirement� were ffie�s
b. Statewide Planning Goal 4� 2 Is met because the Gity applied all
applicable St�tewide Planning Go�l.s, City Comprehensive Plan
Polici�s and Development Code requirements ta the applicatfona
cQ Goal �� 10 is satisfied because �he proposal will prov3de for
housing as contemplated by the City Comprehensive Plan.
The Planning Staff has determined that the proposal as sub�ifited,
�r with minor modifications, is consistent with the r.eievant
portiQns of the Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted
below:
� a. Plan Policy 2,.1.1 is sati�fied ��C�uSE the Neighborhaod
Planning Organization and su.rrounding proper�y owners were
�i��n notice of th� hearing and an oppartunity to comment an
the applicant°s proposal.
bo Pl�n Palicy 8.1.3 will be satisfied if the plat is modi�ted �i
as suggested by the Engineering Division ta include a I
comb3nation of permanent roadway easements, right-of-way ,I
dedication, and street improv�ments. ',�i
The Planning Commission has determ3ned that �he proposal is consistent
with the relevant portions of the Community Development code based upon
the findings noted below:
. i
a. Chapter 1$.50 of the Code is satisfied because the proposal meete �
all of the requirements of the R-4.5 zone. ;
1
b. Chapte� T8.164 of the Code can be satisfi�d because the applicant �
will be able to meet :�11 of the staadards for public imprAVements. �,
G. DECISION �;
Based �ipon the above findings and conclusions, the Plannin� Commi�sion �'
npproves S 1-85 sub�ect to the following conditions: �
�
{ 1. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL COINDITIONS SHALL BE M�T PRIOR TO �
`�- RECOItDTNG THE FINAL E'LAT. �
�
�
FINAL ORDER N0. 85_�� PC - S 1--85 - PAGE 3
2. Standard half-street improvement including sfdewalks, curbs,
streetlights, driveway aprons, storm drainage and utilities
(delete inapplicable items) sha11 be installed along the SW North
Dakota Street frontage. Safd improvements along SW North Dakota
Street shall be built to minor coYlector standards and conform to
the alignment of the centerline of said street.
3. �even (7) sets of plan-profile public improvement construct3on
plans and one (1) itemized constructian cost est�mate, �tamped by
a Registered P�of�ssional Civil Engineer, detailing all prAposed
public iffiprovements shall be submitted to the Engineering Sect3on
for approval.
4. Sanitary sewer plan-profile details shall be provided as part of
s ha
11 include
a sewex
the gublic iffiprovement plans. Said plan s
line as describ�d in A. 5. g. above.
5. Construction of �roposed pubYic improv�ments shgll not commence
until after the Engineering Section has issued approved public
improvement plans. The Section wil.l require posting of a 1007�
�erfa�rmanc� Bond, the payment o� a p�rmit fee and a sign
installation/streetlight fee. Also, the ex�cution of a s�reet
openin� permit or canstruction compli�rece agr�em�r�t �hall occur
prior to, or cmncu�rentZy with the issuance of approve public
improvement plans. SEE TF1� ENCLOSEA HAND�UT GIVING MORE SPECIFIG
IPTF'ORMA`TION REGARDING FEE SCHEDULES, BONDING, AND AGREEMEN'i'So
�_ 6. A one (1') fovt reserv� strip gran.ted to the "City of Tigard"
shall be provided at the �.erminus of SW 109th Avenuee
7o Additional right-of-way sha11 be dedicated to the Public along the
�W N�rth 1'Jakota Street f.rontmge to increa�� the right-o£-way t+o 30
feet fro� centerline. Th�e deseription for said dedication s'ha11
be tied to the existing right-�of-way centerline as established by
Washingtan County Surveyor. The d�dication document shall be on
City form and approved by the Engineering S�ction. DEDICATIOid
FORMS AND INSTRUCTION3 ARE ENCLOSED.
$. Street C�nterline Monumentatian
1. In accordance with ORS 92-060 subsection (2), the centerline
of all street and roadway right-of-ways shall be monumented
before the City shall aceept a street impxovemente
2. All centerline monuments shall be placed in a monument box
contorming to City ��a�►aaras, and the top of all monument
boxes shall be set at desi$n finish gratle af said �treet or ,
roadway.
�
FINAL ORDER N0. �5- EC - S 1�$5 -- PAGE 4
'
` _ .... .,,
3. The followin� c.ent�xline monuments shall be set:
` a. All centerline-centerline intersectio�se
Intersec[ions created with "collector" or other
�xisting streets, sha11 be set when the centerline
alignment af s�id "ca�lector" or mther street has been
established by ar for the City;
b. Cent�r of all cul-de-sacs;
c. Curve points. Points of intersection (PAIa) when
their poeiti�n falls inside the limits of the pavement
otherwise beginning and ending points (B.C. and E.C.).
d. All san.itary and starm locations sh�il �e placed in
positions that �o not interfere wlth centexline
manumentatione
9. A tuxn�round shall be presvided at the end of 109�h Avenue which. is
' in confox°mance with acc.epted Cit� anrl Washington Gou�a�ty Fixe
District No. 1 st�ndards.
la. Afte� revies� and approval by the Pl�nning Directnr, and Public
Works Dir�ctar, tin� final pla� shall be recorded with Washin�ton
Countqo
11. �his appraval is valid if �x�dei�eci within one yea:r of the fin�l
�:_ �e�isioca date.
It is furth�r o��d�rr�d ths� the applicarit be not�ifieai of ttie entry of this
UY'(�EY'e
P.ASiEDo This �,rG � day �f /�� , 1985, by tk�e Plann�ng
Commission of the City of �igardo
�. �e/�'L�6.R�' i��//�I.,,,.,i
A. Donald Nloen, President
Tigard P].anning Comimission
(lOS7P/dm�)
�..
FINAL ORDER N0. 85 a; PC - S 1 85 - PAGE 5
STA�F R�PORT AGENDA ITEM 5.3
TUESDAY, March 5, 1985 - 7:30 PM
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
F(?WLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - LGI
TU8fi5 S.W. WALNUT
TIGA�D, OREGON 97223
A. FAGTS
1. General Information
CASE: Subdivision S 1-$5
REt�UEST: To divide a 2,97 acre parcel into 13 lots ranging from 7,500
to 8,400 square feet.
COMPItEHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential '
ZONIN� DESIGNATION; R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) '
APPLICADtT: 0�2-AK Corporation OWNERa �d3th Carna�an III
1305U SW Forest Meadcaw �Jay 10985 SW Nor�h Dak.ota
Lake Oscaego, Oregon 97034 Tigard, Oregon 97223
L(?C��IOId: 10985 SW North Dakota St. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 1S1 34DB, Tax
Lot 200)0
2a Background
The City recently approved a lot line ad�ustment which involved the
subjec� propertq and the parcel to the north (M 7°84) . The plot plan
submitted reflects the parcel configuration.
3. Vicinit�Information
A1� of the surrounding properties are also zoned R-4.5. B1ack �ulJ. Park.
Subdlvision is situated immediately to the northwest. Except for this
developffient, the surrounding properties can be characterized as small
acreage homes3tes. North Dakota Street is designated aa a minor
collector and will provide access to the development from the south.
4. Slte Information and Propo�al Dascription
The west side af the property contains a resislence and one small �arm
buailding. The applicant proposes to creste a 13 lot d�velopment with
one 0.92 acre parcel whieh will inrlude the existing buildings. Accesa
wi11 be proeicied by one local street extending north from North Dakot��
Street. This street will dead end, leaving the opportunity for future
extension to the northern property.
STAFF REPORT - S 1-85 - PAGE 1
The remnant parcel will include a 25 foot wid� access strip to the
subdivlsion streete It is intended that th3s parcel will be �ivided 3n
the future and the 25 foot access will meet City standards. Ha1f street
improvements for the subdivision along North Dakota Street will include
the 'remanent parcel frontage.
5. Agency and NPO Cotnments
The Engineering Division has the following comments:
a. Additional r3.ght-of-way shauld be dedicatad along the entire North
Dakota frontage to provide a 30 foot right-of-way width from
centerline.
b. The sanitary sewer mainline shall be extended westerly across a 15
foot sanitary and storm dra:�nage easement shall also be pravided. '
Easements shall be executed on City f�rms.
c. �3ke/�heeZchair ramps �hall be installec� at intersection� and �
mailbox clusters sha11 he installed a�onp SW 109th AvenueW ;
Further, all public const�uction work shall conform to the City's
standards. j
d� Two sanitary sewer serv:i.ee laterals aixd a concrete driveway apron �
shall be installed to the west right-of-way line of SW 109th to j
p�°ovide fature service a� the twenty-five foot wide tract between ',
Lot �� 2an34�' 3. �
s
e. A temparary turnaxound shm�i be� installed at the terminus of SW `;
1Q9th Avenue in 3 configurat3.on u^ceptable to the City and k'ire �
,
District, All necessary construction a�d documentation required
by the City and Fire Distriet shall b� campleted prior to issuance
of sny bu�lding occupan�y permits. On. street parking may be
restricted at the City's discretion,
f. The pav�ment taper at the west end of S6J North Dakota Street shall
be increased to five to one and stand�rd traff�c warnin.g devices
shall be installed.
g. The sanitar}� sewer mainline shall be extended westerly across the
north line of Zot 6 to the plat boundary. A 15 foot sanitary a:z�l
strom drainage easement sha11 a7.so be provided. Th3s requirement '!
is du� to �he limited Aptions availatale to the propexties ta the s'�
west for obtafning a sewer connection.
The Washington Fire Uistrict No. 1 has th� following comments: �'
�
;
a. The street width ehould be a minimum of 20 feet. �
i��
b. All streets over 150 feet in length need to have an all weather �
cul-de-s�e or hammerhead turnaround. #
s
t
;
c, Fire hydrants should be installed no more than 500 feet from all F
buildings. ?
�
No other written com�►ents have been received. �
i
STAFF REPORT - S 1-85 - PAGE 2 �
B. FZNDINGS AND GONCLUSIONS
The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2,
and 10; Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1 and $.1.3; and C�ap�er
18.50 and 18.160 of the Community Development Code.
The Planning Staff concludes the the proposal is consistent the the
applicable Statewide Planning Goa1s and Guidelines based upon the
followtng findings:
a. Statewide Planning Goal 4� 1 is met because the City has adopted a
C�tizens Involvement program including reeiew of all development
applications by the Neighborho�d Planning Organization (P7P0). In
addition, all public notices requirements were met.
b. Statewide Planning Goal �� 2 is met because the City applied all
in Gaals Cit Gomarehensive Plan
w de Plann Y t
app
licable State i $ �
Policies and Development Code requirements to the ap�lication.
c. Goal �t 10 is satisfie� because the propasal wiZ� provide fo�
housing as contemplat�d by the City Comp�ehensive Pl�n.
Th� P�anning Staff has de�ermined that the proposal as subm�tte�,
or with minor mo�ifications, is consist�nt with the relevmnt
por�ions af the Comprehensive Plan based upon th� findinge noted
below:
a. Plan Pol�cy 2.1.1 is sati�fied because the Neighborhood
Planning Organization and surrounding pro�erty nwne�s were
given notice of the hea�3ng and an opportunity to comment on
the applicant's proposal.
b. PYan Policp 8.1.3 will be sat3sfied if the plat is madified
as suggested by the Engineerin� Division to include a
combxnation of permanent raadway easements, right-of-way
dedicatian, and street impro�rements.
The Planning Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with
the relevant portions of the Community Developmene code based upon the
findings noted below:
a. Chapter 18.50 of the Code is satisfied because the proposal meets
all of the requirements of the R-4.5 zone.
�
b. C�apter 18.160 of the Code can be satisfied because the applican.t
will be able to meet all of the standards far public improvements.
C. RECOMMENDATION
Based upan the above findings and conclusions, the Planning St�ff
recommends approval of S 1-85 subject to the following conditions:
1. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL C��TDITIONS SHALL BE k?ET PP��D T0
ISSTJANCE OF BUILDING PERA�IITS.
STAFF REPORT - S 1-85 - PAGE 3
�. , �.. . ....._,���.�:..
2. Standard half°street improvement including sidewalks, curbs,
streetli.ghts, driveway aprons, storm drainage and utilities
(delete inapplicable items) sliall be installed along the 3W North
DakoLa Street fr.onta�e. Said improveffients along SW North Da�ot�
Street stiall be built t� minor �ollector standards and conforni to
the alignmer►t of the cent�rline of said street.
3. Seven (7) set of plan-profil� public improvement construetion
plans and nne (1) it�mized construction cost estimate, stamped by
a Registered Professional Civi1 En$ineer, det�iling a11 propos�d
public improvement� sha11 be submitted to the Engineering Section
far approval.
4. Sanitary �ewer planmprofile d�ta3ls shall be gxovided as part of
the public improvement plans. Said p1�ns shall include a sewer
line as descs�bed in Ao 5. g. abovea
5. Construction of proPosed publ'c improvements shall not commence
until after the �n�ineertng Section has issued approved public
impsov�ment glans. The Section will require posting of a 100x
Performance Bond, the p�yment af a permit fee and a sign
installation/str�etlfght fee. Also, the �xec.u�ion of a �treet
opening permit or construction complia�ce agxeement sha11 occur
priar to, or concurrently with tr� issuanc� of app�ove public
improvement plans. SEF T�E ENCLOSED HE�DOUT GIVING MOR� SAECZ�IC
INFORMATION REGARDING FEE SCHEDUL�S, �ONDING, AND AGREEMENTSe
6. A one (1' ) foot reserve s�rip gr�nted to the "City of Tigard'°
shall be provi�ed at the terminus of 5W 109th Avenue.
7. A�ditional right-�f-way sha11 be dedicated to the Public along the
SW North Dakota 5treet frontage �o increase th� right-of-�ay to 30
feet from centerline. The description .fo� �aid dedication shall
be tied to the existing right-of°w�y centerline as est�blished by
Washington County Surveyor. The dedication d�cumen� shall be on ;
City form and approv�d by the Engineering Saction. �EDICATION ;
FO1tMS �,ND INSTRUCTIONS ARE ENCZOSED. 1
;
8. Street Centerline Manument�tion �
1. In accordance with ORS 92-060 subaection (2), �he centerline ��
of all street �nd roadway right-of-ways shall be monumented 4
before the City shall accept a stre�t improvement. t
2. All centerline monuments shall be placed in a monument box ;;
conforming to City standards, and the top of all mon�.m�nt '
boxes sha11 be set at de�ign finish grade of said street or �
roadway. �
;:
�
s,
,
�!
�:
�
STAFF REPORT - S 1-85 - PAGE 4
3. The following centerline manumen�s shall be set: '
a. A11 centerline-eentexline intersections.
Intersections creat�d with °'collector" or other
exist3ng streets, sha11 b� set �hen the centerl.ine
alignment of s�id "calleetor" o� other sfireet has been
eatablished by or fo� the City;
b. Center af all cul-de-sacs,
ce Curve points. Points of int�rsecti�� (P<I.) when
their position falls inside t�e limits of the pavement
otherwise beginntng and ending po3nts (BoC. and E.C«).
d, All sanitary and storm 14catians sha11 be placed in
.
posi�ions that do not intexfer with cenLerl.ine
monexmentation. �
9. After review and ap�xmval by �h� Planning Direc�ar and Public
Works Dir�ctor, the final plat shall be r�corded �rith iJashimgton
Coun�yo
10. This appror�al is valid if exexciser� w3.thin ax�e �*e�x' af th� f3.axa_l
deci$ion cl�te.
// � �
� �„�,�f.��"�.��✓ �'%'/dl"-�'-,,��
P1tEPAItE B e eit�h Liden ,AFPRI�VEI3 �Y: �i3.13am A. Mcsnahan
As$ocia�te �lanner Dir���or �f P�.az�mi�g &
De�elo�s�ent
(1057P/dmj)
�
STAFF REPORT -`S 1-85 -- PAGE 5
� _ �
�,..! G� " (� ..�� �o�z. o�zaL�on.
. �
OREGON-ALASKA LAND DEVELOPMENT CO.
13050 SW FOREST MEADOWS WAY
LAKE OSWEGO. OREGON 97034 503-635-4551
P.raposal for preliminary pla� approval II
Carnahan°s Addition to the Gity of Tigard I
February t, 2�9Fi5 II
The Request:
Thi s i s a request �o su�di vi de a par�cel of 1 and i nto 13 si r�gl e
family lots with a manfmum o� 7,540 square feet in �a�h lot.
I
Exi�ting Condi�ions:
The si�ke is loc�ted on SW tVQrth Dakota S�.r�et.
Th� site ha� goe�d drainage and th� clevation� vary from 2t�t7 f�et ��
a low of 1�2 feet near tt�e tJa�rtheast �oundry.
�carrent l.ls�:
The prop�rty is vaeant and ur�til recently was used as a pa�.tua��m
Vegetatianv
The main portion af the proper�y is �. pasture with some aak tr�es
al cang the Nar�.h bounc�ry.
Surrounding Land Uses:
The Black B�ull S�abdivision abuts the property on a portion of �he
North lin�. Th� balance of the surraundang property is sc�ttered
singZe family and same vut buildings.
It is our intention to conatuct the �u�division impr-ovements to
meet or exceec6 the Public Wor-I� S��ndards for tF►e City of "figard.
We will provide a11 improvem�nts ta each lot so that tt�i�, will be a
"Full Service Subdivision". �
To the best of aur knowlecige all requir�e�ents have been met for
approval of this propsal and all required submisaions have been
inclueied with th�s applic�tion.
Applicant:
OR-AK Corporation, an Oregon Corporation
Gordan Hobbs, President
CI1"Y QF' '1"T:G�Rp PLANN�:NC CONIMI�;�;T4N '�
F":CNt�L �P21�H'R NQ. 85•- C9a PC
f , .,,,,._...�._.
��
` A F�NAI. ORG)E::R IIVCt..Uqi;NC �':C;Nl7IiVGS ANp �;t�NCi..,U�Ic�NS, WHTCM APPROV�:fi AN
(�pPi.,.ICf�'r":Ct)N FpR A SIJHi�:C:V:CS:ION (ti 2,�w85) ANp VARIANt,E (U 1-�5) I't�'�1UF�'y"FI) 9Y
AFtLTE: ANl7 IR�Nf•.MAWt�I:X:�tT'E:Ft.
"f':CGHRQ PI_l�NflI:CNG C�'ITyS�CON
FOWL..E:R 3UIUIOR HT.(aH SCHOQL - LGI
�.08�5 S.W. WAI..NUT
T'1:U"ARn, Qf2E'Gt�iV 972�3
A. FAc:TS
1. General. �nfarm�tiari
�"AS�: Subda.vis�.rrn S 2•��5, V�riance V 1..-85
RE.QUE�T'; Prel.i,miriar_y pl�t appa�oval for a si,x l.a� subdiuigi.on �rrcl to
a11ow two 7,�,25 squar� font lc�ts whcar�n a min�.mum a•F 7,504
squarE fe��: a.s r�q�aa.red.
�,t�'1l�I'tFwt3N�N�:CVE PImAN I�ES:CGNA'C:�QIV: I..ow Uens:i�Ey R�si.denti,al
� Zt�iUING [a�:;;ICNAI":C:c�N: R_...A.S (Resi.denti�l 4.5 units/acr�)
APPI,.:CCf�NT; Arlie and :Crcane P1�whir•ter taWNfWR; samP
1476�.i SW 8t�th Place
Ti.��rd, Or�go►� 97�.23
1�4CA1"TQN; 9�i84 SW McG?ai°ral.c! 5tt^eet (WC'1'�i 7.SJ. i.1, 1"ax La�s 1qA � 7.OQ)
2. 8ac„_kg.,round
The s�abj�ct pr�r.,�aerty was annexed into thie City and xoned R_..7 in 7..979.
'Th� 'Tigar�c�ui:ll� H�igr�ts Str�eet �..7C.1�, :�nc1�dG'Ik?CI '�I'17.$ praper•ty. As a
result of fi;hri,s L.�I:.b, , street in��rauem�rt�:s un th� frr�n�ag� Uf tl�e '
�arnper•ty has be�an ��ar�tially c•c�rnple•tpd.
3. Va.cini,t�,.l;nformation,
A11 af tti�� swrrc�unding �rr�per�ti.e.s ar� al.su zraned R_..4,5. �"hre ;,;�jurity nf
l:he parrels a.n �:he ar4�a eil;her cr�nfi:�in single f�mi.l.y r�si��nces or are
undeuelrrped. Mcbur�a3.d Street, wha:�h �buts �he prop�r�k;y c,n the nr,rth, is
ci�si na�Ceci ;�s
� a ma'c�r ��l,�.ec�ar.
Th�
7 w�st�rn ��.de a�F' �LFre prr,�p�r�y is
adjac�nt ta 97�h Avenue wha.ch is d��ignated a nia.nor 4��.I.EG'�qY`.
��.
F'INAI. URqkR N0. 85-� pC �- S 2�-85/V 1��-85 .�. PAC;� 1 `�
;�
'�,;1
-- ��,.
'_ .
:,
r _ _-_� -.--- �
k
4, Site Inf�rma�a.on
� qne Nir�use is si.tu�ted rie�r tFre Mcnc,nald/97tt� i.nt:ersectian, ar�d a garage,
th�a�t is �Ec, k�e r�mou�:�l, a.s spu�h nfi �Ehe resid�nce. 'The r���maa.rrc�er of ��hre
pra�er•fi:y is �andc:�u�l.op�d, A raui�� arid drainagew�y runs frnrn w�s�: ta
e�st �Lh�raugh �tMe s��ath�r�n �c,r���ian c�� ��he parc�l.,
Ttr� a�pl3,cant �r�o�os�s ta �stabl.i.sh a sa.x lot s�akrdivis�,an ��or si.nc�l� ?
�Fama.ly residences. A11. c�f �th� lats w•i.l.l hav� c�irect accr�ss �c, Mcqr,n�lc� ''
5tre�t ar 97'th �v�nu�.
Ir� ad+�i.tic�n, a variance i.s r�ques�ted ta p�rmit two lats a�f 7,125 sqw�s^e
fc�eG �acM wl°�ere •tt�p Ccjc�e r��qaaires d minim�.�m lot sire af 7,°`�00 squ�r�
fec�t. 1"he two lots u�i.th fran��ge nn �7th Aver7ue are bei.ng cansi.der�d
�far �hi.s vari.ance.
5, Ag,enc�,and Nf�O Cammerrts r
,
'1'he Fngin�er•;ing 13a.visa.an has �thP fallowir�g camm�nts: �
a, An easern�nt c�r sa.�ni].ar arr�ang�ment w9.).l. b� n�ces�ary #:o
acc•ummc����Ce �h� swir��miric,� p�aal which stra<�d7.es i:1~ie pr��p�r��y �.i.»e
betwe�n l�ats 9. ar�cl 2.
b, l"he dc�d�.catiran af right_..of._way a].�ai�g Mcl�r,�r�ia.ld Str�e�t �r�d 97thi
f�u�r�iva w�s i.rr�t�ncled t�a be �ccampl.ish�c� as �aar•� o�F �fi:he !_.T,p. `�
Nowe�er, Ci.�y r�GOrds c�r•a nr�t i.rrc�icatp th�� tFii.s was euer
� fir�a�.ized, 'T'ha.s iss�.i� shault� be resoT+e�d before th� f:ir�al. p1a� is
�'�-. r�corw�d,
k3ec��is� of th� c�xi.stin� s�reet i.mpruuem�r�t, ir�cludi.ng si.d�w�.1k
�h��t exa.sts alonc� tMe �Fr�r,ri�tag� uf �"/i:h Aver7���.� �r+c� thp wc�s���r�n y.5�
� -
. .
. .
.
� . i.d� �abli� r�r�adwa ���emc�rit
•t a 5-�faat w
fe�t
�if Mcpuna�,d .,tr ec� , p .Y
,a n an fWci�or�al,d Stree�t
�a ..
r ini.n •Fr�ant
.table.
The r�.n a
..c� �
wi�.1 k�� au 9
�
shau).d mect the right-•of-wa_y requi.rem�n�: r�f 34 fe�� fram
r�n�tc�r7.:�ne.
c, Assessm�nt5 ar�� outstanding on the �ropprty far th� Mcqanalt�
Str��t �ani�Gary Sew�r i_,I.D, a�~�d tM� Tigar�clvi�.l� }�c�ights Strc�et
t..I.Q. An ar�r�e�merit has been re�cM�d ta a11ow far paym�nt r,f the j
r�maining bal.ance dt the tAme of pla�t appraval,
d, 1"h� prr��osed bGii.lcla.ng sit��g wi.l.l. auraid the dr•ai.r�aqeway and th�
pur��iurrs af �k:h� prapc�r�y tha�k: �x�cr���cd a 257K s7.�p�. !•fow�ver,
because af �the clase �rr�ximi.ty of �;he si.tes ta the steep slopes
arPas, soils and faurec�ati�n r�P.por•ts shaulc� kre suk�mi�:t��d prior to
recei.uinq b�aa.l,d:ir�r� perm�.ts. I� tN�e re�or�ts i.rrdicat� �:hat l.andf�yrm
al�er�ation wi,l.1 be ne�pssary within fi;h� c�r�ai.nac�eway ar �r��aa n1��^r
25�, slape, a Sensa.ti.�e L�nc�s pFrmi.t wi.l]. �,e requa,red.
�;rai�ments haue na•t bcaGn recea.uGCi fr�m th� 8ui.lding InspeG�ian Offi,ce ar
tF�e Tua�.��:a.n Rura]. F'ire Prot�ctiori di:strict,
� NP4 i�6 has no�t abj�c;ted ta tFre Karr�pasal.
�,
F'�IVAL. ORDE�2 N0, 8��--_Q�. PG --. S 2-�85/V ]._.,,85 �-. PAGE: 2
- I
B. F':CNp:CN�S ANp �qN�:i..US;CONS
� 1"he rel.euant Gri.teria i.n �h�.i.s cdse are St�tewide fi��.�nning GU�].s 1, 2,
�tnd l.0; "figarc� Conrpr�hensive Plan �aola.cies 2,1.1, 3.1.�.. 7.�. ]., and
8.l..3; and Chapte►~ 18.50, 18,8p, 18.13A, and �.8.160 r��F the Canrmuni.ty
DevPl,rrpm�nt CGde,
The Pl.anning Cranimi.ssion canGl.uc��s tl���� tai� prupr�sa]. i.s cor�sistent with
�Nic� �yaplicabl.� �ta��wi.d� Pl�nnir►g Ga�ls aryd �uidelines based upna� �:he
fol.l.s�wing fa.ndi.ngs;
a, 5ta��wid� Pl.anning Goal #1 � is me.t because the City h�s ada}�t�d a
t�i�ta.xens Ir�uol.vem�r�� prc,c�r��m includinc� reva.�w of �11 �ic�v�lr�K3mer�fi;
applicati.ons by �thY� NeigFrborhr,oci F�lanni.r�g br�a�nixati.ary (Nfan) . Tn II
t;
addita.a� �I1 ublic
, nn#:ices r�
p e< uir�ments w�re rn�t.
�
k�. Sta�te�vi.d� P1�nnarrg Gaa], #?.. i.s met k��caGise tF•�e Gaty a��a�rlied all.
�p�l.icabl� S�tatewa.d� Pl�nning G�aals, Ci�y G�am�ar�ei�ensiue P�.�n
Pol.ici.es �nd Uev�1.�Jpment Cade requi.r^em�n�s tq •tFve app�.a,cati.on,
c, �oa1 #�.t3 i.s satisfied because •ti�te �rcapr,,:�al wil�. �ar�au•i�i� 'Fc�r�
hc,usi,ng as r.r,�n�ertt}�].ated by the Ci.�y Cumprehei�sa.ve P1an.
Ti�e P1anr�a.r�g Gc,nimiss�arf hias c���ter�ma.i�red �L••hat �1:1�7� �r�pa�al �s �u�an�a.t�.ed,
or watF� mir7c,r mr�di.fica�9.ans, is cr�nsa.:�tent w�.tM th� a�el.�van� prsrta.ons o•�
the Cr�inpreh�nga.ve Plan b�s�ci upon �:h� findings n�s��d be�law;
� �. P1an rao�.a.ty ?.;l,i is s�ti.��ied b�eause the iV�iqhbor�hoad pl.ar�rtii�g
t�r��ni�catir�n ar�d sura^�aundinc� pr�aper�ty c,wners ws�re given nrrt,ic� af
thE F�ieari.ng anci �i� r,p�por•tur�ity to c:ammerit or� �h� �p�li.cant°s
praprasal.
b. Plan Palicy 8.�.,3 wi.l.1 bQ satisfied a.•F the �l�t is modified as
sugges��d by thQ Ei�yin�er�i��g pivisian �F:n include � aUmbinatirrn nf
pe�^mar�ent roadway easemt�pts, ri.ght-�af--way d�c�i.r•�ti.an, and street
impre,vemen�ts.
�"h� Planni.ng Gr�mmi.gsi.r�n has det�rmi.ned that the �arapr�s�l. a.g carrsi.stent
with the relev�rit portions of �:he Cnmmunity Q�velrr�am�rrt Cacie bas�c� upun
�he fi.ndi.ngs nated b�lc,w:
�. C;Mapter 18.5Q af the Crade is satz5fi�d b�c�use thc prc�pasa,l ma.�c�t:s
all of �:he rc�qua.r�men�:s r�f �h� R�-4.5 �c,np, �xc��a�G �For mi.na.m�am �.�at
sax�. T'his issue is discuss�c! bs].ow,
b. Ch�����r 18,84 o�F ��:Me �ude provid�s tF��t� dev�l:�apmerst wi.th%n
draa.r�ageways and upc�n steep slope� r�+�u9.res � Sensi.ti,u� l.ands
revisw, ?Mig �an be h�ard by �he H�arings t�f-Fa.c�r 1��:�r tMis ;
month, i
�
s
�
c. Chapter 18.13A �f the C�de xr�r,:ludes fi.ve criteri,� (Secti.z�ri �
].8, 1�4.C�5p) �t�r c�ran�a.ng a vari�nce. Th�4a �pplic�ti�t has a�c�dress�d f!
c
�hese cra.�pr�.a in an appropria�e manner.
r � � i�
�� c!
}i
;s
� � � � � � ?',;
!`
!�"xNAL URp�.R NO. 85-- ,� PC -- S 2�_85/V 1�-85 — PAG� 3 �.;
�;;
• ��.
- i�
,
� ..._,._
T.t shr�uld k�e nr�t�d that �ti�i� �t��l.i,�artit's Y"�3pUi'15� was b�s�d u�r,,n
�t:he assump��ion �ti��at ��Id�.ti�nal s�rc�r�t right._of.�.-way wr�uld nc�t be
� n�cessary. The right-�of--�w�y r•�qui.r�mer�t pr,apc�sed by th��
�rrgin�er•i.ng diuis�.un wa�1�. resul�h in lot sar�s c��F 7,125, 7,�.�5,
7,5QQ, 7.00q, 8,088, 8,Q88 square feet. l"he averag� l�at six.� is
7,A88 squ�re f�e�t. "fha s�l:afF c�anca.tades �hat �t:he u�r':l'o'll"1CP.. �.s st�.11
ap�ro�ria�e b�c�use af th� sn�a7.1 cic�ui�•tiar•i frr,m �t�e ln� sir..e
st:anc�ar•d.
d, Ghapter 18.160 of the cade c�►� h�� s�ti.sfied becaus� the a�p].9.cant
wa.11 be abl.e �tr� m�at all rsf fih� 5��ndar�ds f'ar iinprouement a�F
publi.c facili.�i.es.
c. a�c�x�xoN
Based upr�n the akaau� fa.nc�i.ngs and corsc].usions, the Planni.ng Cammi4sian
appr�ues S 2•-85 �nd V 1�-8� s�abject to the fol.lnwing cr�nda.tir.�ns:
1, UNI.f:'�S t7THE:6tWT:SE'. !V(71"EC), Ai..l_ CdNUx;1":T:t�NS SHAL.I_ �3E' Nl�'�" wRI�JR 1"0
RF.C�i'tq:C:�iG T�i�' �':INAL PI,_(�T.
2. Stand�rd I�ialf-�stre�t i.mprvu�n��nts i,ncludi.riq canc�^�te si.d�walks,
cr,r�crcate curk�s s•i:r�*etligPi�s, r:��ncr�cat� c�r�.u�way a�arr�ns, s�t:arm
drainage �nc1 unc{er�ground uti.l.i.ti.c�s srial]. be 'l.l'13'f:i��.�.P.CI ��.c�ng th� SW
MrOonald S•�reet Fr��,ri�t�ge (wh�re such dra�, r�ut i�c�w exist) . S�ad
im�rov�ments al.ans� 5W Mr,l)r�r7ald Stre�t shal.7, b� bLiil�t t�r m�jor
crallect:rar s�tr��a�•t ���nc�arc�s qU'I(� cr.,r�frsrn� �:a I�,e a1i.c�nm�re� r.�f �xi.st;3.r�g
�` impruvem�n�ts,
�1,.
3 . St�ndarc� h��l.�--street imprauem�i7�ts i.nc].udi.ng coricret� si.c�e�val.ks,
c:ancr•�t� curbs�, s�tr�etl.i,gh�:s, cran�:r�c���:� ciri��wa� ��r�or�s, ��trarm
dr�ainag� anr� undr�rgrr�und uti.3.i.ti.es sha�,l be �.n��alled alr,ng fihe
" S,W. �37�th t�ueniae. S�id imprr.,vc�mer��s alrar7g :�.;W 97th Av�rrtae sh�.11 �,e
bwilt to mi.rrar ca).lect�,r streefi: s��ndards ar►d cr,r��°rarm trr �f7e
al.ignm�n�: c��F �xisfiirrg s�rc�et :�mprovem�nts there alr�rtig.
4. F"iv� (5) sets of p].�n�_..�rofil.e publi.c impruvemen� cGnstructian
pl,ar�s airic� r,,r�e (1) i�:emi.xr�d curr;s�:ruet:ir,�� �ost e:stimate, s�amped by
a Regi.st�red Wr�a�fessiona�. Civil Engiw�eer, detai.la.ng ��.]. propasEd
p►abli.c a,inprr�v�i��er�ts sMal.x b�: suk;�ni.�l:�h:c�cd �to �l;he engin�Pring Sec�:ian
fur ap�rUVal.
;
�
5, Sanitary sc�w�r l.�teral (plar�_,.prr�fil�) d�tai).s, far prc,u�sion o•f
s�u►�r servicca �tU �ach ],ra�t, sha].1 b� providr�d a� �art of �th� pwbl�ic �
i.m�rav�m�nt �l.ans,
6, Cr�nstruction o� pruposed puk�l.ic 3,mprr�u�ments shal.l ncr� commence
ur��l:i.l a�Fter thp �riga.i��ering 5��:�•s.on has issaec� app�^auc?d pub],a.c
impravement �lans. T'he Sec�i�n wa.].]. r�quir� posting of a �.QO�
Per•�Far�mar�r� F3r,izd the �aaymen� Ufi a per�ini.t ar�ci � s a,c�n
instal].atinn/str��tlight fe�. Alsa, �he ex�cutian uf a street `
r,�p�ning per•init c�r crrnstrue�tian camplianc� ac�r��men� shall nrcwr
prior to, ar� curicurrer�tly with the issuante af a�praved publ,i.c
� imprrav�m�rit plar►s, SEE T'HE ENCLOSED HANDOUT G�VIN� M6RE SPECIFIC
]�NF'ORMAI,�„xQN R��ARUING FE:E SCN�pUL__E,�S� BOND'Ih6�ANO AGF2��ME:�NTS.
;
F'�NAI. ORQ�R NU. 8�5--.,Q,,,,� PC - S Z-85/V 1•--85 - PA(;E 4
i
� � � � '
; _. __ ___ _- �
7. Ac�ditional right—of-•way shal.l. b� convey�d as �n easEmerrt or '
dedic:at:ed ta ��thH publi.c alr�ng �:he iW McDar��ald St�r��aet� fr�zrra�t�g� f�a
� pravide for pwk�li.c rigMt-�af--way to �C3 f��t from c�nterline, where
. �ar��.y a curb exis�s ar�d 25 f��L frr�m er�n�erl,ine wh�r•� ����e sidpwalk
exists. T'he deseripti.an for ��i.d cc�nVe+�ance shall be ta.ed ta the
�xi.sting ra.c�ht--of.�..+�ay renterline as �s��Fa�.i�hc�c� by �oun�Cy Survey
Na. 2;7,i.87, Th� canu�y�nce d�cumen�(s) shal.l. b� �n Ci�y �For��s and
ap�roued by t:he �riga.r��erir� Sectinn. FqR�1S t�NO :CiVS'1'h2U�'�":�OIU� ARE
AVATLABL.E AT CT'1"Y HAL.L. Further, �a cos^ner radius af rro� less �th+an
15 f€���� sMa11 I�� so cnnu�yec� at L-Fr� in��rs�cti�n r�f Mc63r�r�al.d
Street & 97'th Aver�u�.
8, Additir,nal righ�•-c,f�-way �h�ll b� GonuEyed as �r� �asen�ent or�
dedica�:�d tc� the publ,ic alurac� �i�e �W �7•rh f�v�nue frc,r�t�c�e ta
prc�vadp for publi,r, raght;-af--w�y shal.l. be �i�d to th� e�aista.nq
right.--af-�ay ceroterline �s e��L�bl�.shed by Caur��y Rr.»d 1Vo. 19A2.
T'he canvey�nca drrr:ument(s) sFiala. b� on Ci,�ty farms ar7d apprc,w�d by
the Engin�er�ing 5ectian. FORM� i�Nq :CIV�fRUt�"fI�I�S AF2� AVA�CI.�A81..�: AT'
C7CT'Y NF�LL,
9. Af�er rc��ri.�w and ��rprr�ua� k�y �ti�� Pl�nni�7g [3ia^�ctcar �ncS Pub1�.e
W�arks pirectos^, the �'anal l�l.at shall. be r��:rarx��c� w:�tF� Washis�c��tur�
Caun�y.
�.0, A sai.ls arrd �oured�a�ic�r� r��rnr� sha13. b� submi.ti;Qd pricar tc� i:ssua3�t.�
caf btai7.din� permi�s. Tf 7.ancifarm �1�tsra�iUn is rec�uirPd wa.thin
th� drair�agew�y o�F �r�e� over 2.5� sl.r�pe, a Senxitiue t..�nds p�rma.t
� wi.11 be requit^eci,
1�.. Ap�al.i.can� grant relea�� fr•um any eonditians r��.ated to previs���s
n�c�a•ti:a•tiryns �ur� c�nciemnation c��f righ�.�.af•�-way a.nit�a�l;�<� {�y •k;he
City.
�.�. T'he �ppra��l. iq valid if ex�rci,s�d witMi.n one y�ar af �Me final
decisic�n ci�te.
It 9.s �Further ordered tMat tMe applicant be noti.fied a�F the entry af this
rrr^G�L�r.
i
PAuSkC): t"his S �` day of � , �,985, by the Pl�nning Cornm�.ssa:on
of the �a.ty of 7'ig�rd.
� U��,e�/.�/�/�--
A. �oflald M�aer�, Pr�sicden� �
T�.gard Pl.anning Cuanmassa.c�n
(K'I..:pm/1i?�P)
��
�
FI:�IAL OR(��k N0. 8�s_-,,Q:� P� - S 2-�85lV 1—�5 -- PAGE 5
, _ , _ . , v
.�,�.,. ,..�..., ..�_._ . ....
._._. _�,. .�_.: _ _ .. _. . , _
,:
i
�;.
i�
fI
STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5.4
TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 1985 - 7:30 P.M.
TIGARD PLANNING COMMIS5I01� I
FOWL,ER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - I�GI
10865 SoW. WALNUT
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
A. FACTS
1. Gener.al Information
CASE: Subdivision S 2-85, Varian.ce V 1-85
REQUEST: Preliminary plat approval for a six lot subdivision and to
allow two 7,125 square foot lots where a minimum of 7,500 '
�quare feet is required. �
COMPRE�IENSIVE PLAN AESIGNATION: Low Density Re�idential
�
ZONING DESIGNATION: R-4.5 (Residential 4.5 units/acre)
APPLICANTo Arlie and Ir�ne Mawhirte� OWNER: Same
1G265 S5J 80th Place
Tigard, Oregon 97223
LOCATTON: 9680 SW McDonald Street (WCTM 2S1 11 Tax Lots 104 & 2QA).
2e Background
The sub�ect property was annexed into the City and zoned R-7 ln 1979.
The Tigardville Aeights Street L.I.D. included this property. As a
result of this L.I.D. , street improvements on the frontage of the
property has been partially completed.
3. Vicin3ty Information
All of the surrounding properties are also zoned R-4.5. The ma�ority of
the parcels in t�e area either contain single family residences or are ±
�
undeveloped. McDonald Street, w&�ich abuts the property on th� north, is
designated as a major collector. The western side of the property is ';
adjacent to 97th Avenue which is designated a minor collector.
7
4. Site Information '
;
One house is situated near the McA�nald/97th intersection and a garageA f
that is to be rer;E��ved, is south of the residence. The remainder of ttze �
property is undeveloped. A ravine and drainagewa,y runs from west to �
east throu�h the southern portion of the parcal. C
r
�
�
4
I
i'
6
�
A
�
f
E
e
STAFF REPORT - S 2-85 & V 1-85 - PAGE 1
r
° ;
The applicant proposes to establish a six lot eubdivision for single
family residences. All of the lots will have direct access to McDonald
Street or 97th Avenue.
In addirion, a variance is requested to permit two lats of 7,125 squaxe
feet each where the requires a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet.
The two lots with frontage on 97th Avenue are being considered f�r this
variance.
5�. Agency and NPO Co�tments
The Engineering Divis�on has the following cQmments:
a. An easement or similar arran.gement will be necessary to
acc�mmodate the swimming poul wh3ch straddles the property line
betwea� Lots 1 and 2.
bm The dedication of right-of-�way along McDonald Street and 97th ;;
AvenuQ was 3ntended to be accamplished as part of the LeZmDe.
Fiowever, City records do not indicate that this was �v�r
final3zed. Th3s issixe shoe�id be resolved before th� final plat is
recorded.
Because o£ the existing �treet improvemen[, including sidewalk �
that exists along the f�on�age or 97th Avenue and the western 150
feet �f McDonald Streeet, a 5 foot wide public roadway easement
wi11 be acceptableo Th� remaining frontage on McDonald Str�et
should me�t the righ�-of°way requirement of 30 feet £xom
centerline.
c. Asaessments are outstanding on the property far the McBonald �'
Street Sanitary Sswer L.I.D. and the Tigardville Heights Street �'
L.I.D.. ' An agreement has been reached to allow for payment of the
remaining balance at the time of plat approval.
;
d. The proposed building sites will avoid the drainageway and the ;
portions caf the property tha� exceed a 25% slope. Howev�er, '
because of the close proximity of the sites to the steep slopes '
areas, soils and foundation reports should be submitted prior to �
receiving building permits. If the reports indicate that landform �
alteration will be necessary within the drainageway or area over !
25°6 slope, a Sensitive Lands permit will be required. �
�
Comments have not been received £rom the Building Inepection Office or
the Tualatin Rural Fire ProtQCt3on Die�rict.
NPO # 6 has not ob�ected to the proposale
B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The rel�vant criteria in this case ar� Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2,
and 10; Tigaru Compxehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 7.2.1, and
8.Y.3; and Chapter 18.50, 18.84, 18.1�4, and 18.160 of the Community
Development Code.
STAFF REPORT - S 2-85 & V 1-85 - PAGE 2
The Planning Staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the
applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Gu3delines based upon the
following findings:
a. Statewid� Planning Goal �� 1 is met because the City has adopted a
Citiz�ns Involvem�nt program including review of all development
applications by the Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO). In
addition, al1 public notices requirements were met.
b. Statewide Planning Goal 4� 2 is met �ecauae �he City applied all
agplicable Statewide Plannin� Goa1s, City Comprehensive Plan
Policies and Dewelopment Code requirements ta the applicat3on.
c. Goal 4� 10 is satisfied because the propo�al will provide for
housing as contemplated by the City Comprehensive Plan.
The Planning Staf£ has determin�d that the proposal as submitted, or
with. ffiinor modificationa, is consistent with the relevant �ortions of
the Comprehensive PZan �ased upon the findings noted below:
a. Plan Polfcq 2e1.1 is satisfied because the Neighborhood
Planning �rganizatio� and surrounding prope�ty owners were
given notice of the liearing and an opportunity to camment on
the applicant's pxopa�al.
b. Plan Policy 3.1.1 is nat satisfied because the d�velopment
of Che property will 3nclude construction of house and �ewer
lines within the drainageway and for an area of ste�p slopes
over 25%o A Sensit3ve Lands r�v�e� will be necessary tp
address �here issues.
c. Plan Policy �.103 will be satisfied if the plat is modified
I� as euggested by the Engineering Division to include a
� combination of permanent roadway easements, right-of-way
dedication, and street improvements.
The Planning staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with
the relevant portions af the Community Development Code based upon the
findings noted below:
a. Chapter 18.50 of the Code is satisfied because the proposal ffieets
all �f the r�quirements of the R-4.5 zone, exeept for minimum lot
sizea This issue is discussed below.
b. Chapter 18.84 of the Code provides that development within
drainageways and upon �teep slopes requires a Sensitive L�nds
r�view. This can be heard by tih� Hearings Afficer later this
montho
c. Chapter 18.134 of the Code include fiee criteria (5ection
1$.134.050) for granting a variance. The applicant has addressed
these criteria in an appropriate mannere
STAb'F REPORT - S 2-85 & V 1-85 - PAGE 3
It should be note3 that the applicant's response was based upon
the assumption that additioa street right-of�way would not be
necessaxy. The right-of-way reQuirement proposed by �he
Engineeririg Division will result in .lot sizes of 79125, 7,125,
7,500, 7,000, 8,08$, 8,088 square feet. The average lot s�z� i�
7,488 square feet. The staff concludss that the variance is sti�l
appxopriate because o£ the sma11 deviatian fraffi the lot size
standard.
d. Chapter 18.160 of the Code can be �ati�fied becauge the applic�nt
w�ll be able to meet all of the st�ndarde far improvement of
public facilities.
C o RECOP�IENDATION
Based upon the above finding and conclus3.ons the Planning Staff
recommends apgroval of S 2°85 arad V 1-85 sub�ect to the fol�owing
conditions:
1. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL CONDITION3 SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO
RECORDTNG THE FINAL PLAT.
2o Standard half-�treet improvements includin.g concrete sidewal.ics,
concrete curbs stree�Iights, concrete driveway aproizs, storm
drainage and underground utiliti�� Sr►aii be instialled along the �W
McAnnald Street frontage (where such doeb not now exist). Said
improvements alang SW McDonald 5tr��t shall b� buf.lt to �ajor
callector street standards and conform ta the alignment of
existing improvement�.
3. Standard half--street improvements including concrete sidewalk�,
�oacrete curba, stxeetlights, cancrete driveway aprons, starm
drainage and underground util3ties shall be instslled along the
� S.W. 97th Avenue. Said improvem�nks along SW 97th Avenue shall be
' built to major collector street stand�rds and conform to the
alignment of existing street improvements Chere along.
4. Five (5) s�ts of plan°profila public improvement construction
plans and one (1) itemized construckion cast estimate, stamped by
a Registered Professional Civil En�fne�x, det�iling all proposed
public improvements sha11 be submitted to the engineering Section
for approval.
5� Sanitary sewer latexal (plan-p�ofile) el�kails, far pravision of
sewer service to each lot, sha11 be prowi�ded as part of �he publie
improvement plsns.
�
�
'
STAFF REPORT - S 2-85 & V 1.-85 - PAGE 4 �,
_ �
6. Construction of proposed public improvements sha11 not commenc�
until after the En�ineering Section has issued approved public
imp�ovement plans. Th� Section will require posting of a 100X
Performance Bond the payment of a permit fee and a sign
�.nstallation/streetlight fee. Also, Che execution of a street
opening permit or construction campliance a$reeme�at shall occur
prior to, or concurrently with the issuance of approved public
improvem.ent plans. SEE T1H� ENCLf1SED HANDOUT GI�IING MORE SPECIFIC
INFORMA�ION REGAR.DING FEE SCHEDULESy BONDING AND AGREEMENTS.
7. Additional right-of-way sha11 be conveyed as an ea�ement ox
dedicated to the public along the SW McDanald Street frontage to
provide for public right-of-raay to 30 �eet from centerline, where
only a �urb exists and 25 feet from centerlime where the sidewalk
exists. The description for said conveyance sha11 be tied to the
existing rightrof°way centerline as established b� Count3r Survey
No. 20,187. The conveyance dncument(s) sha11 be on City forms and
appraved by the Engineering 5ection. FORM� AND ZNSTRUCTIONS AR�
AVAILABLE AT CITX !l[�iLL. Further, a corner radius of not less than
15 feet shall be� so convayed at the intersection of McDonald �
Street & 97th Aven,ue.
8. Additional right-of-way shall be conveyed as an eas�ment or �
dedicated to the Public along the SW 97th Avenue frontage to ��
provide for public right-of-way shall be t�ed to the existing
right-of-way centexline as establish�d by County Road No. 1982. I�
The conveyaxac� document(s) staall be on City �orms and. approved by �,
the Engineering Section. FOItMS AND INSTRUCTIONS A�RE AVAILA�LE A�
CITY I�.ALL. I
III
9� After review and approval by the PlanniLng Director' and P�xblic '
Work� Director, the Fina� Plat shall be recorded wi�h Waehington �
Countyv �
l0o A soils and foundation report sha11 be submitted prior to iesuance I���
of building permi�.s. I£ landform alternation is required within
the drsinageway of area over 25% slope, a Sensitive Lands permit
will be required. '
11. The approval is valid if exercised within one year of the final il
decieion date.
� �"�'i��x�,��^�...
iL' C��,,!��'�
PREPARE BY: th Liden AP ROVED BY: William A. Monahan 'i
Assor_iate Planner Director of Planning &
Development
(KSL:dm�/1056P)
STAFF REPORT - S 2-85 & V 1-$5 - PAGE 5
t
�
February 5 , 1985
Arlie Plantation �ubdivision
25-1 -1 1 -1 04 & 200 , Lot 28
Tigardville Hei�hts
Preliminary i'1at Narrativeo
1 . Proposed Name ; Arlie Plantation
2 . Assessor ' s Map ( s�e attached )
� 3 . Br�undry Lines ( see attached )
4 . Names of Ad,jac�nt 5ubdivisions ( see att�ched )
5 . Existing house , pool and lanai tn remain. Out building garage
on Lot 2 to be removede
;
;
This is a request for apprnval of a six-lot subdivision of
Tax Lots 104 and 200 of Lot 28, Tigardville Heights, 2S 1 11, and
for approval of variances in area for �wo of the six lots pro-
posed.
The subject property is situated at the southeasterly corner
of the intersection o� S.W. McDonal� St. with S.W. 97th Avea and '
contains approximately 1.06 acres; sufficient area for six lats
under the R°4 , 5 zoning that has been applied to the area. �
The varianc�s consist of the establi.shment of lot areas of
7,125 sq. ft. for Lots 1 and 2 of the proposed subdivision i.nstead
of the reguired 7,500 sq. ft.
VARIANCE APPROVAL CRITERIA
A. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the I
pur�r�ses of this Code, be in conflict with the policies of the �
Comprehensive Plan, to any other applicable policies and stand-
ards; and to other properties in the same zoning district or 'I
vicinity; i,l
RESPONSE I
There will be no detrimental effect to the pur:poses af the �
Developmen� Code fr�m approval of this request nor wiil such i
i
approval c�nflict with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan �
or with any other applicable policies or stan.dardsa Neith�r will Ili
such approval compromise other properties in the vicinity. !�
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as
being within a Law Density Residential Single Family district
which is zoned R-4 .5 with a minimum lot area of 7,500 sq. ft. �I
�
. Ths combined area of the two tax lots comprisin� Yhe proaerty
to be subdivided is 46,250 sq. ft. , or slightly more than 1.06
acres. The overall density of the proposed six--lot subdivision '
provides an av�rage area of 7,708 sq. ft. per lot - about 3�
larger than the required minimum - which is a fact that must b�
considered as meetin� the spirit of the Comprehen�ive Pian, even '�
though Lots 1 and 2 fall short of the letter of the area require-
ments of the R-�d .5 zone. The reduction 3.n area for each of these
two lots is about 5� of the required area per lot, but they have
been laid out with increased widths to partially comp�nsate for
this loss of area. In the case of' Lot 1, the width and depth
�
are 95 ft. and 75 ft. , respectively, providing �ard setbacks
for an existing residence that are above Code minimums. Sim-
ilarly, the width and depth of Lot 2 are 75 ft. and 95 �'t. ,
respectively, again providing front, side and rear yards greater
than required by th� Development Code.
No other policies or standards are applicable to this site
and there will be no detrimental effect to other properties in
the vicinity since �the reguested variances impact Un1y two lots
within the proposed subdivision.
B. There are special circums�ances that exist which ax�e pecu.liar
ta the lot size or shape, topagraphy or other circumstances
over which the applicant has no control, anc� which are nat
applicable ta other properties in the same zoning distx°ict.
RESPONSE
The site is bordered on the north by S.W. McDonald Ste and
on the west by S.Wo 97th Ave. These frontages measure 2�5 ft.
and 150 ft. , respectively, with the depth along the easterly
border expanding to 170 ft. A we:Ll°defined drainageway enters
the property near the mid°point of the south�rly boundary, traver-
ses the site and exits just south of the mid•-�aoint of the easterly
boundary. kn existing single-family dwelling occupies the north-
westerly corner of the property along with a lanai and swimming
pool. These circumstances, which are unique to the site, combine
to create a situation where, if the requirements of the Develop-
ment Code were strictly applied, only five lots could be created
with each of them being 20� oversize ancl wasteful of the land
resource. Mitigation of these factors is beyond the control of
the applicant and none of them is applicable to other properties
in the district.
C. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this Code
and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent
that is reasonably possible, while permitting same econom3c
use of the land.
REiPONSE
The proposed use of the sub�ect property is in conformance
with the Development Code, which provides �hat th� si�e may be
developed with single°family residences on 7,500 sq. ft. lots .
As stated above, the average net lot area for the subdivision
is in excess of 7,700 sq. ft. and all City standards wi11 be
maintained, excludin� those that a�e the sub�ect of this request,
D. Existing� physical and natural systems, sueh �s but not limited
to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms or parks wi11 not be
: adversely affected any mare than would occur if the dev�lop°
ment were located as specified in the Codeo
�
RESPONSE
Approval of thi.s request will not adversely affect any existing
physical and natural systems, including traffic, drainage and land
forms. As stated previously, �eduction of the area for Lo�s 1 a.nd
2 is an accomodation o�' physical limitations on the site and will
not increase the overall density o#' development or runoff generating
surface above that allowed by the zone. Furthermore, grading for
new structures will occur away frUm the aforemPntioned drainage
channel and will not markedly imp�.ct the existing land form of
the site.
E. The hardship is not self-imposed and tne variance reguested is
the minimum varian.ce which would allevia�te the hardship .
�
s
RESPONSE �
�
The constrainta upon this site which necessitate this request ;
were not created by the applicant; the drai.nageway is a natural
landform and the two �a� lots with their inherent- dimensions were
creatEd by others. In addition, at the time the applicant first
proposed subdivision of the property and made inquiry to the Ci�ty, '�'
a moratorium had been placed on creation of new subdivisions pending
adoptior� of the current Development Code, even though the superseded
Code was sti11 in effect at the time. Had the subdivision been `�
accepted and processed und8r the requirements of the former Code,
no variances would have been necessary si�ce the widths of the two s=;
Yi
most easterly Iots could have been ad3usted to provide the required �I
area in Lots 1 anci 2. Indeed, with varian�es, such ad�ustments
could be znade in this instance as well. Howe'ver, it has been deter- �'
mined that the sub�ect variances are the minimum that would al° ;''
. �`'i
i�,�
{�
�'�
�`l
�
■.
�
I
�
,
. ' I
,
�
leviate the hardshi.p, since reduction of width to less than 50 ft,
on Lots 5 and 6 would severely cramp the buildable area of those
lots, whereas the requested variances create no such hardship.
F�°om the above, it can be d�termined that the requested
variances meet the criteria f.or approval and that no detrimental
effect will ensue from such approval, either to the purposes of
the Development Code cr to �he policies of the ComprehensivE Plan
or any other policies or standards. The circumstances that com-
bine to necessitate the request for varianc�s are unique to the
sub�ect property and were not created by the applicant, nor are
they subject to mitigation by the applicant. The use groposed
will be the same as that allowed by the Development Code and there
will be no adverse effect to existing physical and natural systems,
since there will be no increase in overall density as a result of
approval of the request. The variance request should tlzere.fore
be approved.
With approval of the requested variances, the prnposed sub-
division can be approved as submitted.
Services are available to the property tl�rough the City of
Ta.gard (water, schools, parks, police) , Tualatin Rural Fire
District, The Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County,
Tri-Met (Line 43) , Portland Gez�eral Electric Co. , Northwest
Nai;ural Gas Co. , and General Telephone Co. Both 97th Ave. and
McDonald St , are paved, but have been designated as Ma�or Collector
Streets and will be widened 'co suit that status at some future date.
The drainageway through the property provides for storm water
disposal and it has been determined that the site contains no
sensitive lands.
Existing trees on the site wi11 be preserved insofar as prac-
ticable and will be added to with new plantings as the residences
are completed.
Use of the swimming pool on the site will be provided throu�h
deed covenents among the properties within the subdivisi.on. I
i.
i
f.
i
i.
�'
r
1'
1'
r
�
t
&
�
�
�n �:....��s` •.�... ;. ,. .,.. ..� �....��.. . . . .. 4,. ,... .. .. . .. .. . ...V .. � . � � ' /d�000-< I ,... .
��oy}�y� � r � r S' � cem•.n s� o x v
,C' �70^rTl � � .� . � . .
\�\y� .`ti . E.1.(. /� SW. 8 ST. b .
� d,M, .._.,/ . � .y`..4 ��` r\,, n .a 1p �•
� �,..... , .�-J \:9ryro� ,. � Y� �
� �� '. � �J _.-� D
PIR fT.
� �' ���k N 6� <�� ��� rT
ly;�, d�. ���'y.� � 'O-c dr 37. g� �! sN.rlpLOOV � /3�?00
l��Y9�'�' �'..OP�:1`�� � � S1M. ? �O�UR�� ^ SW.'l l N � ����� 7
A �, e
� ° p* a i. ,n crrcxirr s.w.
�. � %' :
`t ¢�W' q'� S�W EDBEWOOD ST. N � SpNS� �
�
Y.c1.. �, .. . �.� � �c S EbH CCNI'EF DR.
I ST. . .. �� S.M. � ,q
!�1 ; �+
r'Q�����,�. .IIILLVIEW CT. � ��, �� .I �
J [ 5• McD � 5T. , g11 .t
/I�U00
. . - � _J . ITONY CREEII CT. �-'•.•/\ S
�.. SW rt u �'� ELROSE � \ 1
S dANZW CT. /
Plf�� w CT. m �. ; � 8 f � Q'./
� 4 y� .,� S•W.. � 0 NYAHNIEW____ LANE � F $ �Np � W p�,,,FGGG....:///
' N>r.�n F.V .W - . � .� L__ � �
V �� 6�.�11 = C / .
'�� � � m E .�-� � �,:
�
'ERTiACE . � a� �� A �T - �ROAD
a S.W. INES fL Y� � � — 5•`d• I��StlO �
I !i `
� �N . � e cx ' v
i p� . S.W. � � � N . ; � ��s N . . � � ' �. �•'� �-y
�� PEMlROOK ; . ��. ,�, 5T � i 4 :t i < �
9T T- S.W. � 3. P�NE/R� �
. � . . �i � � K y� Ufm 4L ��
m �L�. v,..+ (
< CT•� < CY. �IUNG �i LAMAN. A y I� f\�7 /1.000 a
€ u c CT tl I /
GNM g Q; � f
CT �. � n K � S.W. n�I 'a
6.W. � � SATTLEfl . Y. "W� �( o
ROSS ST.
IVIEW j . 1, �. �I s
��� � s.�� � a0� c � � � s
�sr w � ��... I __s.W�_`
p� rv F 1� �� NR91E�9T.
°m 'r.aH� f � i� � 9.W.K E
�' {:� DRfVE a ��J s _ _ ---_. x� �i LN. /5�100 9
I MEEx�c�F sL Q OMiBIMN�RL.i� y�I � � I( �
� �.cT . � . �,�ti� my: s.u.xeHi.crar. �� i� e6 i i/ Pp0
� w a�,:u� '�} '�fy � � W c 'i I� � �
q � � � oF � � \�',�' � sw aono s� •j.l �
��f j a`i..�, _,� �w�i � a
/� � � �o i I � s /�
Yrp (/o' W �u DURH4M Rn. �I „ �;i �I a �.I_ /6�000 E--1
!� AY� o�; � � j' �/.���\q'#V� V
� �.MpRfN
� . � S.W.COOI(/���S,x..� � � — �i r •,�•
�
PI(�. CL�4�Yi." "a \\ 1 i ^
� £ /4� C�JUUA SL �I \�.�� /\ a.
a�,1`:`•�AtILLE � I I �°'�� '• '
SVIVA � �
CT. I rl1� �.i i ��-1
�,� \����'�A, ` :,I! � ie,son (o
.. �� In y . m.. q e�� VI
_, VEAWOOD .� II � BRAD@UHY
R � � �A I I �°'
{�, .0 v.LO �p' ;,i 3 �O
� GyUE�y y��t 4P//J S S.W. FINDIAY ROAB� .�
'�.^-•�. .tt�(�.�r�j1���'t3r r, y /
li - �ir i JEAnp� a
w�4 t4 w G � i�,000
�I e�}it� CO N MR � .
t R
a h "� }
'�S'���'°�t a �a'�'�r � � t•� � `4 � �
,,,y^.r.t 9,�,.>rs,*r �
; 4'� n?'C (1 .
fn�'3a/,�`T4�hCty�'+? '`l * �'� �y�iw $ . x ,
..y� ��1(��!�`+.. n�o[Qun �:y� U
i,�,cry ! ct c' R t� �t I J
� 74�,n:.,�. � . � P` 'p! �U
1 �� � woaor�� y �.. S.W. ��, /7U00 " .
� �Y� �' ' . 9. OI
I ��'�i�'. S.W. ELLMFN LKNE !y4 �
`�SHAWNEE ��� �z
i WA CO WAY �WNEE � 0 S .
p P N
� ��^y � E p a', �� A a � ��,
� y K K yj� � PETEPS 'RD. � . 9y��� . 3.
� .� .f. el ��� u. p�.�� � '
�� ' �f� (4 13 .��� y u ""h0 �� �Y�O00 .
1 23 4 �. � Q .I .
.. ...r . .. .S� �
P
' __:°"�� _ ��_._.
; VICrN]CTY MN]P .
1" = 1,600 ft .
�
�
� �
STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5.5
TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 1985 - 7:30 P.M.
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - LGI
10865 S.W. WALNUT
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
A< FACTS
1. General Information
CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 2-85 and Zone Change
Annexation ZCA 1-85
REQUEST: To annex a 13.19 acre parcel into the City of Tigard. Also,
for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Washington County
� Office Commercial and Residential (S units/acre) Metzger
Progress Community Plan designation to City of Tigard
Comprehensive Plan Designation Low Densi.ty Res3ciential (1-5
unit�/acre and Commercial �rofessional and; for a zone
I change from the Washington County Zone OC (Office
Commercial and R-5 Res�dential Professional zone o
) ( ) t
Tigard CP (Commercial Professional) zone and R 4.5
(Residenti�l, 4.5/units/acre} zonP.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESiGNATION: �dashingtan County Office Cammercial
and Wabhington County Reaidential
(5/units/acre).
ZONING DESIGNATION: Washington County OC (Office Commercial) and R-5
(Residential).
APPLICANT: Gene & Vivian Davis OWNER: Same
4550 SW Lombard
Beaverton, Oregon 97005
LOCATION: North of 217, south of SW Oak, East of SW 95th �and West of
SW 89th. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 1S1 35AC lots 101, 2800, 4500,
4600, 4700, and Wash. Ca. Tax Map 1S1 35AD, Tax lots 1200,
1300, 1400, and 1500.)
2. Background
The C3ty has not processed an� other appl3cation on this property. City
ataff has had numerous discussion with Dr. Davis regarding annexation
into the City.
3. Vicinity Inform�ation
Al1 of the property to the north and east of the site ia designated in
the Coun�y for residential development - 5 unite per acre. The Dennis
James a�artments lie to the southwest on property zoned R°12. The
praperty is also bordered on the south by Hwy. 217. Access to the site
is currently available from SW 95th, SW Oak or SW �9th.
STAFF REPORT - CPA 2-85 & ZC 1-85 - PAGE 1
4. Site Information and Prop�sal Description
There is one single family residence on the site which faces SW 89th
, Avenueo Most of the remainder of the site is in use as a cow pasture>
Ash Creek runs through the site and under Hwy. 217. The �ropert� slopes
toward Ash Creek and Iiwy. 217. There are some ash trees on the property
along Hwy. 217.
There are no immediate plans by the property owner to develop �lthough
the portion of the property currently zoned OC is for sale.
5. Agency and N'PO Comments �
N�'0 �� 4 has the following comments:
There was no �aorum present but na ffiembers present ob�ected to annexing
the llav3s property iitto the City.
The Polic�e Department has the following �comments:
`The proposed anneacation of undeveloped land poses no i.mmediate police
serv�ce impace. However, �.s the property develc�ns, polic� �errice wi11
increase and t�e provided as required u�xder a limited priority serv�.c�
delivery as is paavided to �he xest ot th� �igard Community.
No other written comrnents have been r�ceivedv
B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIQIVS
The relevant criteria in th3s case are 3tatewide Planning (�oals l, 2,
and 14; Tigard Comprehensive P:I.an policies 2a1.]., l0.l0l0, 10.1.20, and
10.1.3 and Chapter I8.13b of the Communiky Development Cc�de.
The Planning Staff concludes that the prc�posal is consistex�t with the
applicable Statewi.de Planning Goals and Guidelines based upon the
following findingE:
a. Statewide Planning Goa1 �� 1 is met because the City has adopted a
Citizen Involvement program including revi�w of all development
application� by the Neight�orhood Planning Organization (NPO). In
addition, all public notice reqnirements were me�.
b. Statewide Planning Goal �� 2 is met because the City applied all
applicable Statewide Plannir� Goals, City Comprehensive Plan
Policies and Development Code ;-equirements to the application.
c. Goal �� 14 is met because the C��y and Washington County have
adopted an Urban Planning Area Agreement which provides policies
for annexation of property from Washingtbn County into the City.
The Planning Staff has determined that the propo�al �s submitted is
consistent with the relevant portions of the Compreh�nsive Plan based
upon the findings noted below:
STAFF REPORT - CPA 2-85 & ZC 1-85 - PAGE 2
a. Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied becau�e the Neighborhood Planning
Organization and surrounding proper.ty owners were given notice of
the �aarin� and an opportunity to comment on the �pplicant's
proposa�.
b. Plan Policy 10.1.1 is satisfied because the required services
either currently are provided or can be adequately provided to the
�ite.
c. Plan Policy l0.102 is sat3sfied because the annexation wi�l not
create an irregular boundary or an island, the Po13ce Department
has commented on the ax�nexation and the land is located within
Tigard's area of interest�
d. Plan 1'olicy 10.1.3 is satisfied because upon annexatiun the land
will be zoned the City zoned which most closely conforms to the
I County zoning designation.
The Planning staf£ has determined that the proposal is consistent with
the relevant partians of the Community Development Code basec� upon the
fiiidings noted be'low:
�. Chapter 18.136 is met because the applicant has met all of th�
approval standards.
b. Chapter 18.138 is met because the land does not meet the
definition of an "established area" so it shall be designated as a
°'developing area".
Co RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the above findings and conclua�.nn�, the Planning Staff
recommenda approval of CPA 2-85 and ZCA 1-85 subject Y.o the following
condi�ions: �
1. The property shall be designated as a "developi�ng area" on the '
Development Standard Areas map.
2. A11 future development on the proper�y sha1T be reviewed and
� approved by the City of Tigardo
, ,�---�_,��iG� �--��--�
P&EA RED BY: E a e . Newton APPRQVED BY: idilliam A. Monahan
Associate Planner IDirector of Pl�:nning &
Development
(1059P/dm�)
STAFF REPORT - CPA 2-85 & ZC 1-85 - PAGE 3
,
/d i�5�1��� �'7 � �%�'G,
' ��-�; �� 9��z�
��� �-, iy�'�-
���> '�� � ���;���: .
�����
,�����,� �,��� _ ,, ����
� ����� - , ��
�,��,G���c�c��� �� � ���'!�'�� �c�%�,���..
D�C'���`%1/� '� ��
� ✓� . � ���� � ��
(� ��
. �� ��� ���
��, � G���� ! �,,���
� ��� .
��� ;���/ � �
�����^"- ��""""�',i�� �EZ�f / i r. [
� //�!i� C� o�/ 'o��.�r/�
, G%�' l/�'� � ' �� /� � r
�yt�,� � �V✓J�G^� , G��
'J" - ./�`'/e�G� � � �/�
�,�/ i//��� ,,� � ,(��J'�//�%� � �
GYr/`ra�_"� aGi� ,/�// 1
'�CJ .�.1�2i tl�/�G�✓ir�'T�c.�"����'%'!�."�'Gc�c�✓'����/�I�
�=���L�� , '���� � / — ; �� . G:e!�•��'
: . � � �'.2 ��/"" . l�
.�-��r,�',,��' . �� '��� � .����
� �� �-- � d �
�� .�
������j��
, � �
' ����,����`� d
,'����.���.����) � , o��''
' � "!/�.,�A'�"..�����v i�� ��' ��' �
�i�i`��� ����. ,�`�
�, ;�/���� �,�� •
���/2`��'c% � �
�� %�� �✓��
�
� �
,
✓�//����J��� �/� � .�
i /G/�7��i�' �������yr� ��' ^�
����_ ) /(�J
J�����,�G�e���jCG���. ' � � ,.>✓�„�,��.�2���/A��'� C�"
�;��,��,�t�jy"_ ,�''y�' �,���;�'/!�'" C%�GE , ���, G�'
�/ r� `"} G�� � � � 7 � �
v,�'r;✓���AJ�'2� ��,�G� ��G;�L/��x�.°�f�—
,� _ . /� � ����c���_�'��
���?�"'��2��� .
(��✓��� ��� �� � a��-�-.. -�''
�� ���� � �.
���'� �
, ✓���� '�,�� ��� ` ...
j > � ���r i. ' ' �� �'�t�.� �,rt�l/�����
r � �
� ������
��JG�����G���� � �
� r72%�2C��
�a� � �_.A�,r
C���
\
PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY� MARCH 5, 1485 - 7:30 P.M.
FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - LGI ROQM
10865 SW WALNUT
TIGARD, GREGON
1. Call to Order '
2. Roll Call
3. Approve minutes from previous meeti.ng.
4o Planning Commfseion Communication
S. PUBL,iC HEARINGS
5.1 ZONE ORDINA�ICE AMENDk1ERIT ZOA 8-84 CZTY OF TIGAItD (Sec tion 18 n 26�
18.94 Manufactured Homes), (�ection 1�096 ar►d 18.9II Flag Lots and
I�eights �imit�s).
5m2 COMPREHENSIVE PLA.N AMENDMENT CPA 30--84 CITY OF TIGARD (Poli.cies
3.1.1, 3.2, 3a2.3, 3.4, and 304.1}
. Sa3 SUBDIVISION S 1-�5 EDITH CARH,AHAId 10985 SW N. Dakota NPO /� 7
5.4 SUBDIVISION S 2-85 � VARIANCE 1-85 AItLIE & IRENE MAWHIRTER NPO � 6
9680 SW McDonald St.
- 5.5 ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATIdN ZCA 1-�85 COMPREHENSIVE PL�1N AMENDMENT CPA 2-85
GENE AND yIVIAN DAVIS Property bounded by Highway 2i7, SW 95th� 5W '
Oak and SW 89th NPO l� 4
5.6 SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 1-85 CROW/SFEIKER/HOSFORD (PARK 217) NPO � 5
5.7 ZONE ORDIN.ANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 1-85 CITY OF TIGARD (Sectiona r
18.70.030, 18.72.030� 18.100.090)
6. Othex Business �
7. Ad,journment
;
�
�
�
1047F� �'
dmj
. :;;
}
_ _
� �,,
�
.'1� i ---- _- _-��_ _ , � _
I �� ��''— r.ukaTMJr�,fi): r'`,�5r��� � F-.
f t e};�r til Rats1�§r.+��t'�����.
.. ^A jk � ��'�?t�.iY+ti.h
•K�R�iS'S�h=�1�r� Fi�!1�5inti"�ii'�_' ^\
�<< '�,;�!��;a•k''k \
nr '3AV _ ��1�.�c1"���x% \
, Vllt I �:;� ( Ji �.._��.._..�. .��.
:l:�.�;L,';i'.
� i � ;�.t �: "t r�
� -- — L � '�'. —
1 '1 I — � '�I ���. 'I i�
',�,i� � '; ,�_1_�_ �
\t___ i—A� VI �
� L 1 I
�{ — — � 3 � .`g _ _ — _— _ i�
.r m -� o — — - -- — -- —— �t � J-� �
— > a� -- _ _ �. _ -r --,i
�
y '\ � �—�1-- -— - -U~j '—�,C ' CL
7n♦ . Q w
�J v�za _ ;.r �
� i i;:t:i.!�
,i:t 1;��:�� �
_ � _ _ _ __��� :W:.x: _ _ _� __._� __ __ �-��-` � C
— U ` u'� - --U -� — - _ _ _>; `�
� ��, �)— h�'� —� __— — — -- — — � — — —
\ I
�y / , r• , , � � /
T J i �i�,��l�6� ��+�� : 3nY V�Sa i
� ��� I� � �� I /
� 4 � �eMC�N�, � :c;��;:�SY — L.�
°��;,�,
' C� � (� �1.iti F 1 �F!�.,` � ( _
J _ —_ _ .ti`4F f Y, �.;'i. . • � 1 'b _� O .��/ �
�
--- _L ..,: � _, , �,
/ -- -- ��'3AV YIIA '�'-
-_ /. �� _ - __'_ f•I �.
_ _ I �— ��I �
, _ --- �'� ''- ���r
, _ -- ��
- �_ '�
'3A� VIOfi ___ �
�� l�� i � ['� 7nY wtd
�� ---- �z�_ - iG'� y'�Gt � �j y� i�� � � ��V
� � n -- ,g, r � ,��4r{��,5 q, \
_ _U��_ _ . � �!, P
�. - - ..__G��1 ! _ ...U�i"' y.�.lYt���1� / ` �
� - _- .�. .�_�_ }�.° / i�4'i`l.i� ---- �(�/ . 1��
_._ 1 'l �ty���,i�\�� � / , /1 � ,�-- C�.r
"":"ik�:,lr � {' �
7nr n�tr A4— 'yn!:�{�!�;; _ ��
Y � .. � z , '�1 �F� / �O _.�._'� �
. 15 N 1�Nll ,��ni?� / �'� �
a ,� .n.
� ` �„�.� ,;y'�: J I
j � �e t� '� �
� : . � x11���.����:,;' —_ (�},(��,� � �
y�- :,». r ''� t �� . , . . \ ��/v I. ;/ �
�r :��t" `� ' y `� . y0�.'� . . . i._. _,! ::- `.
� �� -�,��� ;;,� „ � ,, �n8ry,� � \
y �,., �., r ,�. , � ,.�,z�, 3 A,� �� 1 µ --
/ u��. -r• i . Tt> i .�i�� . 1���'' IFti�;;yy,��i���'. 'Y's �,,� � ; "�.��
rry ��` i-4� .ry S1 :�i� x+4 y4��y `flt e� _i `-
c 1
x�, r"V tr ,�,5 i�,ri.. �` 1 ��.t ir�� ��j�.i� �MI An�� �: � >
h . f G'�e i'a^ � .. � � ,�1 ,� S s�N �? 1 ui I 2� i . , j� I /
� } 4.r+ � � ��i�� �rt��; �� Sy��l. rot�� - . • .'� .,� � �
� r>1'h��ti� 4,�J. ... s•5i . .\
, � r � ,� � ��
� k� c " �ii� r.�)���C�4�.r{IjT����t�� . � .. . � ' ^ � ;�.
.�r ,�_ ' ., ' <t ';�;�;�';�i`��4����4; ' I '� � .
'f�� � ���� ��'tKr�u�� ;��� ,� ��, i
� �,s �.���x i��,,r� ..� "�� (�\ /
� A�� ` �. �'1 Y�.�Ifi;�. . .� , ' •• � �['�� `.\�\�'�✓ �
� � V
fz,�f � ' � `�
7i,s,'Y'�� �: , . ' y , �
� .���A;`4 1 . . ..� . . . � . � . `�'A� 1 �„ . \ 4JM1!4M1'!
�
�V��ry'�� ' . . �_' ..._..__�_... I �,�y.1 j",�___,_._��"^'._'�-t`3
_IIi^,Vli" —..�'J �.i"' ,,l,Y1".'
�y��i , ���s.l'� \ .
.��1�'�J �.. .. � . `� \ \
- ---�----.�``___'.• ^�"� ,a�rs . H'�
\./ °��
//�/ 0
7 � Y / ,/ rv:� vLG\fIG
� ,�� j I ry Ir' � �
L' y�� /_.,HVI 1'T'
u '� ' �����j ,�
> I.\f
_ �\
J .rV'Cr�
/ �
�++++++-1-1-�H �
i . �`.'� ,\'�
, City of Tigard
12755 S .W. Ash
Tigard Oregon 97223
i
I
The applicants of the comprehensive plan amendmenh.
n e are in th� xocess of annexing �heir
and zone cha p
9 {
�
properties into t�ae City of Tigard. The groperty to be : ;
annexed consist of approx9.mately 21. 89 P,aresm Approx- �
i
imately 13m19 acres are zoned R-5 in Washington Co. , ' °
�
and Appxoximately 8. 7 aares are zonee� C-O, Commercial ;
i'
O£fiae fn Washington Coun�y, The appli�ants zntend to '
keep the closest City of Tigard zone designation on Y
r
their re��ective propertxes � 7.'his wi.11 camply with
�he Statewide planning goals and guidelines �
'r
�
�
k;
�':I
i'i
ii
t.
ji
�'.
� � �_.
!
�'
t
i
t.
�'
�
t
�
�
5 F } -�>r. �i't��.4{)�./��i�5y. �..� 4 y�! �'1 f�_�!p����V �' .i�M"1. 'i l �.{Yn t. +.1. /�:!i Z ( � -'aS.�J 1�.' �y`'J"�t.o h K�:. ..}c. !F �� ._'.'!
f. - r�T�i'!"�'kY��,f�'S4��K�''.1�J75�1r.1"�'��'E'�T��..3'�rvrt�laP��y�l ?�'vr�'tle r�(,..��Gt�twlq3d`qti*{ . t�'S?�,k� 'f�'tJ"rscb>? tr�.,,,;.y(t�,,,.d'W�yl�'?.x..�i 4.. . 'e't,•°� s . sr'. �{q .. > crtt,:hr: ,.n_ '�'.
...,,.,..,._J..r..t1.....,....ita.s,�,.r.. .... ,..�.r_...t• . �. �i .. .,� n_ .�....a.,..+...F�Y. ......_.act'...�.�r..a,R �.:hS........�.�..F! ,..v.,;,'�.ei+..._70.dw. �..d�1u�_.c�b+.ti�a':.�e.hs6�_�:wet•. -e.fc"3„w:.:-
�
CPA 2-85 and
'LCA 1-$5
� � REQUESTS FOR COMMENTS
' ; " •�+�� �' �� DATE; February 21, 1985
:� ro:
�. �-. �
� �
� ��M: Tigard Planning Depar[ment
_� o ,� +
�
a�
'"� t � � Request by Gene and Vivian Davis to amlex a acre arcel to the Cit of Ti ard anci
;� � •--�
� � �,w � a�ompze ensive Plan Amendment CPA 2--85) from W�sh. Co. Office Commercial and
.:�y a �°-!+ � Residential (5 units/acre) Metger Progress_Communi�Plan desi�nation to City
_ � � � o�£`'I''igar omprehens�ve Plan Designation Low Density Residential ( 1�5 un.�.ts/acre)
.� �s �
� � and Commercial Professional •and; for a zone chan e fram the Wash. Co. Zone OC
�� � � ice oc�ercLa and R 4.5 Residential, 4.5/units/acre) zon� on property
•-g ° bounded by Highway 217, SW 95eh, SW Oak and SW 89th (WA. Co. Tax Map iSl 35AC
� o s , , , , 0 and IS1 35AD, lots 1200, 1300, 1400 & 1500)
� ACtached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your reviev. From
• information supplied by variou� departments and agencies and from other
informa[ion available to our staff, a reporC and recnmmendation vill be
f prepared and a decisioa will. be rendered on Che proposal in t4se near future.
Februar
� If you wi.sh to eommecxt 'on Ctiis application, we need yaur commenta by _ Y
25 ` � 19_ 85 You may use the space Provided below or atCach a
� separate LeCter to reCurn your eoum�€ats• If ou are unable to rea ond b the
i above date, please photae th� sCaEf contact noted belov With your cormn�e�t$ and
, �co�afi.r� you� eomments x�s wri.ting as soon as posaible. Lf you have, �ctiy
� que�Ciona segarding this m�tter, contacC Che Tigard Planning DepartmenC, P•as
i3ox 'L3397� Burnham and Ash �.ve. o Tigard, OR 97223. Phone: 639-4171.
Keith Liden
STAF�' COtd'TACT: �-----
. PLEASE CHECK THE FaLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY:
� � GIe have reviewed the proposal and have no objectians ta it•
� II
Please contact of our oEEice. I
;h -�--°-
Please refer to the enclosed letter.
Written cou�aents:
�•;
. '
i�tS 5 -P"
�,
� cn�Y u � •H
P�q�jyr n�'PT, —
�; .
� '';I
p
.. • ';I
Name of Person Gommen[ing:�����M / !�'4'����
Phone No. ���'"0 ��7 : �
�
f KS1.:pm/U356E') %I
�" �
� � ,� CPA 2-85 and
- ZCA 1-85
' " REQUE:STS FOR COHMENTS •
T0: r' DATE: February 21, 1985
FROH: �'igerd re�ning Department
' ��; Request by Gene and�Vivian Davi.s to annex a acr-e Parcel to the City of Tittard a;
a �mpre ensLVe Plan Amendment CPA 2-85) from Wash. Coo Office Commercial and
Residential (5 units/acre) MeCger P�ress Community Plan desiQnation to CiCy
o� igax omprehensive Plan Designation Low Density Residential ( 1-5 units/acr�
' and Commiercial Professional •and; for a zone chan e from the G1ash. Co. Zone OC
ice ommercia and R 4.5 Resx.denCial, 4.5/units/acre) zone �c� property
bounded by Highway 217, SW 95th, 5W Oak and SW 89th (WA. Co. Tax Ma 1S1 35AC
o s , , , , -� �nd 151 35AD, lots 1200, 1300, 1400 & I500)
Attached is the Site Plan' and applicant's statement Eor yous reviea. From
, information supplied by various departraente and agencies and from other
information available to our staff, a repart and recommendation s+ill be
pr•epared and a decision aill be rendered oa the proposal in the neer Eutuse.
If you �ish to co�nent om thie application, we need yous cou�enCa by February
: 25 , 19_ 85 __. You may use the spa�ce provided below nr attaeh n
' � separate letter Co seturn your comments. If you ase unable to �eepond by the
� above date, please phone the stafE contaat noted belov wiCh your co�aenta� and � •
confitm your co�oents a.n writang as soon es possible. IE yau have, a►�y
• queetioe�s regarding thia w�eter� coc�tact the Tigard Planning Depnrtmento P.O.
�ox 23397� Burnha�a and Ash Av�., Tig�rd, OR 97223a phone: 639°4171.
Keith La.den
' ST�FF OONTACT:
PLEASE CHECK THE �OLiAWINC ITEMS THAT APPLY:
� Fle have cevieved the proposal and have no obj�ction� to it.
. Please contace � of our office.
I "°r
� Please refer to the enclosed letter.
' � �, -
Written comments: �(J9 i .��.�7��C�;u� /�Zi� /�Y1�eL�� % '�'1 ��'�.
) l � iJ,�r A �. .� �'% �' 7 4 � •� �U' �%t�..0� 7 '� Z��LL• ���
, ,�/ •,r,� j - � ��, .//, � ), 71? /b��� �;) '/ �i ti/ 1 Cn•Y� �� ��:/?�Y�+�G���
..: 'J �� � ` , •
� n , .� a,q� , � - ,��.�. � t�'' -� • i � � � � �� .
;� y �/�,' ;�� -%l% '� / i ,�� � � �i? i [.? � 'i � /' %
�
' , /,.�
i i J i � /,� ' ,� ?,5.� /��_
/�
i I /� � '�� y� /% J �lJl���c '• ' ' �C.
,�� l ' ' i.U,2??��z} '�r� �.�.�:fni'� ��/�_�l—�L1_l�(���% � (.;�i 1, � �1 cti,����� �l/��,
• � � i„'� � � ^�/J'` �;��;'� �;�. -�� �� ��. � ,� � ��� f���_�,
� /I�/a �� c� � � r'.� �� � ,( �_. '
�
, �< <i u �(.� Q J`'/1 V
, Name of Pereon Corranenting: �1h ����(.�1�;�, /ti.�,(C " � �
Phonc No.
(KSL:pm/U356P) ' •
• ' ,
r � ,
� � � r /�
(
' /� �, � � ��� �:�' ', ��'��%,i�L Y',✓,Y;' �.kC%7Li�! .�.ri��,'�CZ����:�.�,, ;.�C�y� ���:
�G'�.e.�.,v �i'�. ��.. � -� E'l", �'�� �`
/� � J
� �'� ` ` -� :z � � � '° L� ;te� n.,�.t�.��, �- � -�
��,'jZ�.�E.i �c���'' .� f ,�.� «���.C.0 ,. �CC%�',� !�� y1
�"'�"'-�;�i�,(�� ��c.-S. L� i l�L..'1.��'�'�.1.- (.r�/ LC4.��(.�`.� C ( :�`") �_.`�..(.1.�L� U?�L�i"'i., �.��.:�L'Jlt.l�`Z(,�( .
� �l � J
a� ����-�-���y� ��.�� �;��c� ���c: ���;�< <���n,��?E�%' , ���L�� �ll���z�� �'�1�,.:� c�:r �
�� ` ,'� � , . � .. �-;���`-� ,
;;;�y�1.:C. �GZ.c-1���� c�.�- �%����: `f�?�� � �`c.� L ....ZG� c:�A��:.��c'��' `�-�� c. - :c
,
I. A�/ / � .lr il / � � /^ / ,
�� . � A�. r ' j �/ ; ' i .� �r�/� ')4�i(��L, � 1i „ �l' �����C�
r��-y�_C�.�I� �, �,��,���L.�:�'� ._�� �:��'�-�'• �-� �� �-" �-
• / / J � � t�
� —y— /) R',ti�i�t�Y v��C�..
, � ' '1 M� 1�v "� �,,•z� L,�.1,y�c.I.�d��/,�S i.�� Cti�/..c��.�.i ���'��
�� Gc �z��.�, �� ,�
� ;��,��C r;'� �.��� -�-�a :ti�' �.G j�:�"�;'.r,vt ,2�;�1�'� �:�C., dvt i�5 C�� �
C�. � �� �� � ���J�
�
<-,
< � �
, � �
�-� �
�,L'��u����. C.��,.ct� ������.� ��'���: /,.�� C�'�fz�;�: Z�.�{ '����� �� c�l1.��<., �
J ��
j1�1�:� �������Y�) ,��1!�L/ `�l!(' �.f��� ���l�;',;�:� /Gi /PGry�4�!!_ /l�i�,,��6� c:y,L��•
°— / J
� -�� l�' � .�(�'. �.- ��- ��:.Zo,� �c.� '�G����i�_y, �L�,�.�., �c,�� l,•G�l��.�c-Z
Cc�c �1 t f ,� � � � � � - c�
�L(_ �1„��� '� ���I' )'E.� ,.1� L?��� -f��' LLGv ' C� �ILr✓.� C�'�-- ��
�, _,
n C
LL�1�- �
'd .
f')�' c2 ;��. i�);,;,a.z `)c;�Y"1�L.�� C`? ���7G�C��
� CYA 2-85 and
- ZCA l-85
��� � REQUF;STS FOR COMMENTS •
t -
� ,��: � � pAT�; February 21 , 19�5
�
� FKOM• Tigard lenning Depertment
, kE; Request by Gene and�Vivian Davis to annex a acre arcel to Che City oP TiQard a
,j a ompre ensive PLan Amendment CFA 2-85) from W�ash. Co. Office Commercial and
�� Residential (5 units/acre) Met er Pro ress Communit Plan desi nation to City
n igar omprehensive Plan Designation Low Density Residential ( I-S uni[s/acr
' and Commercial Professi.onal �and; for a zone change from the Wash. Co. Zone OC
. ice or�nercia and R 4.5 Residential, 4.5/units/acre) zone on properCy
. bounded by Highway 217, SW 95th, SW Oak and SW 89th (WA. Co. Tax Ma IS! 35�C
o s , , , , and ISi 35AD, lots 12Q0. l300, 1400 & 1500)
• Attach.ed is the SiCe Plen and applicant's statement Eor your reviev. Fram
' • inEormaCion supplied by various department� and agencies and Erom othex
� informatio� available to our staEE, a report and recommendation will. be
prepared and a decisio� vi11 be rendered on the proposal in Che aear Euture.
' L£ you vish to comment oa Chis application, c+e need your comments by February
25 � 19 85 You may use Che space provided belov or attach a
'y aepax-ate letter to return your comment�. If �rou ar� unable to reapond b� the
�, above date, please phoc�e ttee aCaff contact noted 6elov vith your com�nents nnd
�•, confirm your co�ente in aciCing as soon �s poseible. If you have, any
• quesC�one regarding this maCCer, contact the Tigard PLanning DeperCmene, P40.
Box 23397, Burnham and Ash Ave. � Tigard, OR 97223. Phone: 639-4171.
� Keith Liden
� STAFF GONTACT:
i PC,EASE CN.ECK TNE FQLLOWINC ITEMS THAT AP�'LY:
We have revie�red the proposal and have no objections to iC.
i �lease contact of our oEfice.
• Please reEer [o the enclosed lette�. `�� /
�� " ____� � Z� ���"�"/zC.:,/� _. " ' ��c9/i'z.�i : �/21
,�•y�,.-'�-��.L�- � '� �
f�—-ti�i�-�- �/%��-.��/ � / � � ,�. t'irvJC'v -�'�' /.Lt�Lf
7'�t�Gt.� ��i--/�C-�� ��-� �J�%-`�L�� ��,r.G�_� 4�r.-c�k�Yl.-l�ca'.✓�' -rr.i� �""'������
�—�"Y �J.� -Z ;�'/��'--�-�.�l� ��—!�J Y��a�'� z��' ��
�-
�: � ,.���(� , _ �-
� /� � "77�i' .... ./���G •�i,.L -�.%?�-���L.J�B�.�Y ���rx.LJ�'Y1-c�/�t�
� .� � "�- ,..,:,.� ��-�'
�l .a ' :-,�,�-�e�•''��-.. •-C,�'�,.�,z.�. Y-t'•,ki�C..�/•�-t'��+��' , . t
��-G2�'1/ L��! ,..�ta�G��'."� � � /��
.��, � A��...G:S..C�C-�-C/`'�'°
��-C �r9�C� -��- '<'',t�°� � -�l � a�-2 �C---1� �
,.- -�'7'�-f.'-h �z-(•,'�L°�L- �J , �'-� ,
��.-�''r ,�t�. --ai:Lt--�1�..�u��%C `�'a'��h'.�'__-G�vvG l
"�/y!i •-��vCJ_) �.G..�C.� ✓�1i1.���'- / 1.v G ?�hJ "�'?v
�?���.�N� .�`r J-� � -�.���������u� �r..��.�r��r �
' ,� ��� �1�/� � "�✓-r�-L-� .L%�' �-dYr�'z�. ��rx..-'
�/ .( ���! ��`�
�
�...U'v���C�/ -�i�1✓'Yy-GC. aG t% �7 t�G''� -�''�Y�
� �.� /� � °1.�.,
"� r� ,� '--��1�) �-Z-G� �l-'N�j'�G G' '/,.,//-� --G•!/ ^ _---=
'1�./�' / r "/" � x��i"c-7"l�./9r.��
�(i �%�/ � �-�.tia'1�2��� -��G.�✓�'2.� ,�G,�i-�--�1-�� �-C�.J 'C/r / �
� n �
� v �,ti•�.� � �'�y�v'YZ-'�--�'�' '-��
�2�/�"�'- , G�u..��
.
�'�'-���.— "/' ��.,� ��-G,�'
� � �
(7`-f-�-�-r'�,�_�� , ��i_ " ��`�`� 1�
. y � ��A l-�5 and
- ZCA I-85
1
°� - ItEQUESTS FOR COHHENT5 .
i -
� � DATE: February 2I , 1985
• TO. I'�"
�
i fKOH: Tigerd lanni�g Depertment
KE: Request Y�y Gen� and�Vivian Davis to annex a acre arcel to the Cit o£ Ti ard a
� a ompre ensLVe Plan Amendment CPA 2-85) f.rom Wash. Co. Office Commercial and
•; Residential (5 units/acre) Met er Pro ress Co�r¢nunit Plan des�.�;nation to GiCy
� o igar omprehensive Flan Designation Low Density Resident%al ( 1-5 anits/acr
' and Commercial Professi.onal •and; for a zone change Erom the Wash. Co. Zone OC
: ice o�ercia anci—R 4.STeidential� 4.5/unitsJacre) zone on property
. bounded by Highway 217, SW 95�th, SW Oak and SW 89th (WA. Co. Tax Ma 1S1 35AC
, r� , , , , and 1S! 35ADy lots 1200, 1300, 1400 & I500)
At[ached is the SiCe P1an' and applica�t's statemenC Eor your reviev. From
' • informaCion supplied by various deparCments and agencies and Erom oP_her
inEocmati.on available to ouc staff, a report and recommendation aill be
prepared and a decisio� will be rendered on Che proposal in th� near future.
If you wish ta comment on this �pplicacion� ve need your cormmente by Feb'ruary
25 , 19 85 You m�y use the epace provided beloc+ or attach ,�
� �eparate letter to reCusn yous coaeuents. If you are unable Co seepand by the
, above date, please phone the etaff contarC noCe� belov with your commen�s and
conFiem your coaauenCs in ariCing as saon as pos�ible. I¢ you have, any
- questione regarding this caatter� contact the Tigard Planning Depncta,emt. P.O.
Box 23391, Burnham and Ash Ave. � Tigard� OEt 97221. Phone: 639°4171.
• Keith Liden
' STAFF CONTACT:
PLEASE CHECK THE EOLIANINC ITEMS THAT APPLY:
Gle have revieaed the proposai and have no objectio�s to it.
; Please contact nf our. office.
. Please refer to the enclosed Letter.
� �, J . . .
I do not approve of any build.ing on the flood plain. If any of the srea is
covered Rith buildings or asph�.lt it vrill cause more run-off th�.n there is nopa
R'hen �re have heavy rains the creek gaes r�ay out of its b�n:ks. The flat l.and
is a big lake and i.f extremely heavy, it f'loods on the north side of m3� r�roper�y,
, floP;ing across t.he land instead oF going around �he ben� in the creek,
This flaod p18.in +e.lso is a v�ildlife h�.bitat. There �:re veood ciucks, ►�ii�.ra�,
pheasants, beever beside all the various song birds. The flood plain should be
left as it is - nature.l.
I c�n see no res.son for Tigard to annex �. thin, irregule� stri� of land sur-
rounded by county l�,nd. A::nexation should be uone more orderly.
� Mrs. :�. 0. Juve
10655 �. F?. Hall Blvd.
Port�.and, Qregon 97223
� CPA 2-85 and
- ZCA 1-85
;
"; . REQUESTS FOR COHMEN'CS
i
� Tp: �—' DATE: Februarq 21, 1985
�
�i EKOM: Tigard lanning Department
� ; .
� K�; Request by Gene andrVivian Davis to annex a acre arcel Co the Cit of Ti ard a
a omprs ensive Plan Amendment CPA 2-85) from Wash. Co. Office Commercial and
� ResidenCial (5 units/acre) Met er Pro ress Co�nunit Plan desi natiocx to City
� o �.gar omprehensive Plan Designation Low Density Residential ( 1-5 units/3cr
and Gommercial Prnfessional •and; £or a zone chan e from the Wash. Co. Zone OC
. ice ommercia and R 4.� Residential, 4.5/units/acre) �one on property
bounded by Highway 217, SW 95th, 5W Oak and SW 89th (WA. Co. Tax Ma IS1 35AC
o s , , , , and iS 1 35AD, lots 1200, 1300, 1400 & 15fi0)
� Attached is the SiCe Plan� and applicant's s[atement for your ceviewe From
' . information supplied by varrous departmente an� agencies and Erom oCher
information available to our staff, a report and reco+amendaCion vill be
prepared and a decisio� c+i11 be rendered on the proposal in the near future.
If you ai�h to comment on this application, ve need yous commenta by February
25 � 19 �35 You may use the space provided beloer or ateach a '
r� � septrate letter Co return your comments. IE you are unable t� reepond by the �
i�: above date, pleas� phone the staff contect noCed belov �ith youx co�nents and
',�-; confirm y�ur co�ents in writing as soon as possible. If you have, eny :
questione regerding Chie maCter. contact the Tigard 1'L$nning Departme.nt. PoO. '
Box 23397. Burnham and Ash Ave. � Tigard� OR 97223. Phoe►e: b39-4171.
- Keith Liden
STAFF OONTACT:
.
PLEASE CHECK THE FOL
IANINC ITEMS THA'T APPLY.
tde have reviewed the proposal and hasre no objectians to it. ;
;
; Please contact � of our officee !
, Please refer tm the enclosed letter.
J
_,_,� Written commenta: _„f �1 /3 �TE(i�`��T/� � �'►%� d Pd v•�i' � . � ,
,
� N A 1,�� L t V �I� r x 7 '7' � �7</E L, ir N a M c�R17i a l+d� .,�
. 'F�D(/� D U c'� �� u � �'i��3 � T�I..S L at .�1 �'-- r�/�/ �" �G.�0 (J
• P L�t-l_� - � �7 � �""✓t�L L Y �`?� S 7 �� /-t-�� [� D � /��� �u�
s — - ----
: �v /� /� L (� `?�/�F /L' v�V- D �/= !� � i/� c�= �SF J�' E-'� .
F Ti�G� !� � G' P U:S A�C (.�ii c� c� L 0 v� ��� '7"/�¢/ S __ /�"' �'�
�' -
i ` -
, �tJ i !J l N� Lv .y'/C� i.V o u L d C�Oi C'?y � G�'" /a 1-tdt�'Q ° .
� �--5�� �P l2 c� �� 1 l� E`i' I�-�-�'/�` V'�'y R .�- 1 �N"�S . r !:
,
; �'I
Name of Pereo� Commenting: ('' � [�. 0 (�. � ":;
4, �
' Yhonc No. �, � � ` 7 y 2 ``I
� � � � ;;I
' (KSL:pm/U�56E') ' ' � �+�
�':i
� ��
■ - --
�... _: . _ ....-:_ ._ .,�;;_ _.. : ,.�. ���x•��
_ 3:
� �'r��r< <,�%.a`?"i'}' ��l.vY� `T � `' - - � -' CPA 2-85 and
� � - ZCA t-85
I,
-' _ REQU�STS FOR COMMENTS
T0: /'"` /� DATE: February 21, 1985 �I
-
.
, FKOM: Tigard lanning Department
• kE; Request by Gene ancLfVivian Davis to annex a acre parcel to the Citv af TiQard a� ;,
a ompre ensive Plan Amendm�nt CPA 2-85) from Wash. Co. Office Commercial and �
Residentzal (5 units/acre) Met er Pro ress Commun.it Plan desi nation to City
o igar omprehensive Plaz� Designation Low Densitq Residential ( 1-S units/acr: "
� and Commercial Professional �and; for a zone chan e from thr� Wash. Co. Zone OC
Lce oumiercia and R 4.5 Resid�ntial, 4.5/units/acre) zone on property
bounded by Highway 217, SW 95th, SW Oak and SW 89th (WA. �o. �ax Ma iSl 35AC '
n � , , , , and 1Si SAD, lots 120U, 1300, 1400 & 1500)
Ateached is the Site Plan' and applicant'� statement for yoG�� reviev. From
i, . infor�etion supplied by variou.s depar[ments and agencies and Erom other
- � information available to our ctafE� a report and recommen�dation Will be
prepared and a decision will be rendered on the propvsal in the near future.
If you assh to comment on this application, c+e need your coanment� by k'eb�uarY ;
25 � 19 85 You may use the space provided belov ox •ttach a `�
� sep�rate. lett�_' to return your comments. Lf you ar� unable to reepond by the
� above date, {;lease phane Che BCaff contact noted beloa vith you= com�ee�ty and -
confirm your co�ent�s in WriCang as sooa as pos$iblee If you have, any
. que�tions regaudi.ng thia mgtt�r� contact Che Tigard Planniang D�pasCm�nto F.Oa i:
Box 23397� Burnham and Ash Ave. � Tigard, OR 97223. Phone: 639°4171.
Keith Liden '
S'TA�F liONTACT:
--—
PLEASE C({ECK THE FOLLOWIt�G ITEMS THAT APPLY:
. .
. •
0 osal an
d have n�o ob �eta,ons to �.t.
v'ewed the r 3
41e have re L p P
��
Please contact ' of our o�Ei.cev
Pleese refer to the enclo�ed le[ter.
�` Wcitten commenta: I� � ,
i
�___ ,�i�...C�.�.�
f
�:
_ , �,
�
,�
� , � , �.
i
i
B
�
, Name of Person Commenti�g: � , � �'
Ph o n c No. n � �� �,4 Z,G� / c:./�iG-�'°c.,-1 �.
� � �,�, i�'
/,�?�j- i �� 7,z� �
(KSL:�m/U356E') /G�/�� �"��' �, �
� . �«�c,� �� � �'.��Z ..� �
, �' a
,
.. ... ,.. ,�,�., .. LL , . .
, _ . . .
i. .
CITY OF TIGARD PLAPTNING COMMISSION
(p` FINAL ORDER N0. 85 - � PC
�
A FINAL ORDER INCLUD'!NG FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, WHICH APPROVES AN
APPLICATION FOR A SIGN CODE EXCEPTION (See 1-85) R.EQUESTED BY
CROW-SPEIKER-HOSFORD ��67.
The Tigard Planning Commission received the above application at a public
hearing on March 5, 1985. The Commission based its decision on the facts, 'i
findings, and conclusions noted below:
A. FACTS
1. General Information
CASE: Sign Code Exception SCE 1-85
REQUEST: To allow a second freestanding sign and to modify a
non--conforming sign.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATZON: Commercial General
ZONING DESIGNATION: C-G (Commercial General)
APPLICANT: Crow-Speiker-Hosford �{ 67 0'WNERs Same
10300 SW Greenburg Road
�.. Portland, Ore�o� 97223
LOCATION: SW Ga.rden Place (Wash. Go. Tax Map 2S1 1BB Tax Lots 400 and
1400).
2. Background
I �
The Park 217 project received City approval in 1978. Phase I of the
pro3ect was completed in 1980-81 and Pt�ase II was approved by the City
in 1984 (SDR 13-84). As a paxt of the completion o£ Phase I, an
off-premise sign was instalYed at the corner of Pacific Highway and
Garden Place and a second sign was constructed on the Hall Blvd.
frontage.
3. Vicinity Information
The Park 217 development �s an "L" shaped property which is ad�acent to
Highway 217 and Hall Blvd. One parcel lies between the pxo�ect and
Pacific Highway. The properties to the north are also zoned C-G. The
area west of Hall Blvd. is zoned CBD (Central Business District) and the
land to the south is zonPd R-4.5 (Resident3al, 4.5 units/acre) and I-L
(Light Industx'ial).
4. Site Inform�tion and Proposal Description
��'` The applicant proposes to install a 10 foat high, k5 square foot
� identification sign on Highway 217. The non-conforming sign on Pacific
Highway and Garden Place ia proposed to be reciuced in size from 81 to 62
square feet and from 17 to 13 £eet in heighto
FINAL ORDER N0. 85-� PC - SCE 1-85 - PAGE 1
_. ,
�
I
5. Agency and NPO Comu�ents •-
� �
�- The Engineering Division, Building Inspection Office, sand the State
Highway Division have no objection to the proposal.
No other comments have been received.
Bs FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goa1s 1 and 2;
Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.101; and Chapter 18.114 of the Commun3.ty
Development Code.
The Planning Commission concludes that the proposml is consistent with
the applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Gu3.delines based upa�n the
follawing findings:
a. Statewide Planning Goal 4� 1 is met because th�: City has adopted a
Citizens Involvement program including review of all development
application by the Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO)o In
addition, a11 p�ublic notices requirements were ffiet.
b. Statewide Planning Goal �� 2 is met because the City applied all
applicable Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehens3ve Plan
Policies and D�velopment Code requirements to the applicationo
The Planning Commission has determined that the proposal as submitted is
�_ consistent c�ith the relevant portion of the Comprehensive Plan based
upon the finding noted below:
Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because the Neighborhood Planning
Organization and surrounding property owners were given notice c�£
the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the applicant°s
proposal.
�
The Planning Commission has determined that the proposal is cansistent
with the relevant portions of the Community Development Code based upon
the findings noted belows
a. Chapter 18.114 of the Code cont�ins the only relevant criteria to
this application.
b. Section 18.114.130 (c) permits one freestanding sign n.ot to exce�ed
70 square feet per face, and 20 feet in height. The proposed sign
along Highway 217 will meet this standard.
ce Section 18.114.130 (g) allows for the approval of a second
freestanding sign during Site Development Review when a shopping 1
center has more than ane street frontage. The new aign would
represent the second fre��tanding sign located on the Park 217
property. Thi� could have been granted durin� the Site
Development Review process if it was requested by the applicant at
�^ that time.
�.
FINAL ORDER N0. 85� PC - SCE 1-85 - PACE 2
_ _ _ _ ._. _ _ > _.._. .
- =— ,_ , .--�-�.
de Section 18.114.145 of the Code allnws the Planning Commission to
�,���" approve a sign code exception based on f.indings that at l;east one
�:
of the following criteria age satisfied:
1. The proposed sign code exception is necessa�y because a
conforming building or sign on an ad3a�ent property waul.d ,
limit the view of a sign erected on the site in conformance
with he sign cmde standards;
2. The pro�osed exception to the height limits in the sign code
is necessary to make the sign visible from the street
ibecause of the topography of the site;
3. There is an access drive which services the business or
service from a street other than the street which. it is
].ocated on.
Sinc� the size of the off premise sign on Pacific Highway is eonsistent
with the size requirements of the C°G zone, the €irst two criteria do
not apply� The third criteria daes appear to be relevant in this case.
A�though access to the site is provided by Pacific Highway and HaZl
B1ed., the center only has direct access to Garden Place. Garden Place '
is a publia street which only serves the center and one undevelaped
parcel.. In a practical sense, this street fu�ct�ox�s as a driveway '
connecting Park 217 with Ha11 �lvd. an�l Pacific Highway. '
���._ The sign is located on a separat� parcel which does not have additional I
fre�standing signs for the business mn thP property. �f the existing ��,
sign for Park 217 was rremoved, the tenants an the property would be ',
entitled to one f�ceestand�ng sign.
Because of the unique circumetances related �o the locat3.on of the
property and the function of Garden Place, th� proposed modificstions to �
the existing non-conforming sign on Pacific Highway �ppear to be I'�
just3fied. However, additianal free�tanding signs should not be
permitted on the property located om Pacific Highway (Tax Lot 400). I
C. DECISION
Based upon the findings and conclusions nated above, the Planning II
Comffiission approves SCE 1-$5 sub�ecC to the following conditions:
1. Building permits shall be obtained as necessary for t'he sign
construction.
2. The sign shall be constructed or modified as s�bmitted in the
application.
3. Additional free:standing signs on Tax Lot G00 shall not be
permitted.
�
FINAL ORDER N0. 85� PC - SCE 1-85 - PAGE 3
4. This approval is valid if exercised within one ye�r of the final
(;�' decision date.
��
It is furthex• ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this
order.
PASSED: This {p� � day of (/%/.Qit�� , 1985, by the Planning
Commission of the City af Tigard. �T
l�o � /�)��''
A. Donald Moen, Pr�sident
Tigard Planning Gommission
(lOGOP/dm�)
�, .
�, � ,
FINAL ORDER N0. 85-� PC - SCE 1-85 - PAGE �i
STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5.6
T�ESDAY, MARCH 5, 1985 - 7:30 P.M.
T.IGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
FOW.LER JUNIOR IiIGH SCHOOL - LGT
10865 S.W. WALNUT
TIGARD, OIt�GON 97223
A. FACTS
1. General Infnrmation
CASE: Sign Code Exception SCE 1-85
REQUEST: To allow a second freestandin� sign and t4 modify a
non-conforming sign.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGIVATION: Commexcial Gereeral
ZONING DESIGNATIQN: C-G (Commercial General)
APPLICANT: Crow�Speiker-Hosford �� 67 OWNER: Same
10300 SW Gre�nburg Road
Poxtland, Oregon 97223
LOCATION: SW Garden Place (Wash. Co. Tax I��p 2S1 1B� Tax Lots 4q0 and
1400).
2. Background
The Park 217 project received C�ty approval in :C97$. lPhase I of the
project was co�apleted in 1980-81 and Phase II was approved by the City
:in 1984 (SDR 13-84). As a part of the completion of Phase I, an
off-premise sign was installed at the corner of Pacific Highway and
Garden Place and a second sign was constructed nn the Ha11 Blvd.
frontage.
3. Vicinity Information
The Park 217 development is an '"L°' shaped property which is ad jacent to
Highway 217 and Hall Blvd. One parcel lies between the project and
Pacific Highway. The properties to the north are also zoned C°G. The !
area west of Hall Blvd. is zoned CBD (Central Business District) and the j
land to the south is zoned R-4.S (Residential, 4.5 uni.ts/acre) and I°-L J
(Light Inctustr�.al). �
4. Site Information and Pxoposal Description
The applicant proposes to install a 10 foot high, 45 square foot �
identification sign on Highway 217. The non-conforming sign on Pacific ;
Highway and Garden Place is proposed to be reduced in size from 81 to 62 '
square feet and from 17 to 13 feet in height. �
�
;
STAFF REPORT - SCE 1-85 - PAGE 1
5. Agencq and NPO Comments
Th� Engineering Division, Building Iiispection Office, and the State
Highway Divisinn have no ob�ection to the proposal.
No other comments have been r.eceived.
B. FI�IDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1 and 2;
Comprehen�ive Plan Policy 2.1.1; and Chspter 18.114 af the Community
j' Deve�.opment Code.
The Planning Staff concludes that th� proposal is consistent w�th the
wi lann�n Goals and Guidelines based u on the
applicable State de P g P
following findings:
a. Statewide Planning Goal �� 1 is met becaease the Gity has adopted a
�itizens Involv2ment program including review of all development
ap�plication by the Neighborhood Pl�nning Organization (lVPO). In
addition, all �ublic n.otices requ3rements were met.
b. Statewide Planni�g Go�l 4� 2 ie met because the City applied all
applic�xble Statewide Planning Goa].a, City Comprehensive Plan
Policies and Development Code requirements to the application.
The Planning Staff has determined that the proposal as submitted is
consistent with the releva�t �ortioix of the Connprehensive �'lan bas�d
upo�x the finding noted below:
Plan Policy 2,1.1 is satisfied because the Neighbr�rhood Planning
Organization and surrounding property owx�ers were given notice of
the hearing and an opportunity to comment an th�e applicant's
proposal.
The Planning Staff has determineci that the proposal is consistent with
the relevant portions of the Community Development Code based upon the
findings nated below: �,
a. Chapt�r 18.114 of the Code contains the only relevant crizeria. to ,
this a lication. I
PP
�
b. Section 18.114.130 (c) permits one freestanding s3gn not to �xceed
70 square feet per face, and 20 feet in height. The proposed sign
along High�aay 217 will mee� this standard.
c. Section 18.114.130 (g) allows for the approval of a second
fre�standing sign during Site Development Review when a �hopping
center has more than one street frontagee The new sign would
represent the second freesta.nding sign located on the Park 217
property. This could have been granted during the Site
DevelopmenC Review process if it was requested by the applicant at
that time.
STAFF REPORT - SCE 1-85 - FAGE 2
d. Section 18.114.145 of the Code allows the Planning Commission to
approve a sign code exception based on findings that at l;east one
of the following criteria are satisfied:
l. The proposed sign code exceptiori is necessary because a
conforming building or sign on an adjacent property would
�imit the view of a sign erected on the site in conformance
with he sign code standards;
2. The proposed exception to the height limits in the sign code
is necessary to make the sign visible from the street
because of the topography of the site;
3. There is an access drive which services the business or
service from a street other than the street which it is
located on.
Since the size of the off premise sign on Pacific Highway is consistent
with the size requirements of the C-G zone, the first two critexia do
not apply. T�e third criteria does appear to be relevant in thi� case.
Al�hough access to the site is provided by Pacific Highway and Hall
Blvd., the center only has direct access to Garden P1ace. Garden Place
is a publ3c street which only serves the center and on� undeveloped
parce�.e In a practical sense, this street functions as a driveway
connect�ng �ark 217 with Hall Blvd. and Pacific Highway.
The sign is located on a separate parcel which does not have additional
freestanding signs for the business on the property. If �he exieting
sign for Park 217 was removed, �he tenants on k.he property would be
entitled to one freestanding s2gn.
Because of the unique circumstances related to the location of the
property and the Function of Ga.rden Place, the proposed modifications to
the existing non-conf�rming sign on Pacific Highwa� appear to be
justified. Howe��er, additional freestanding signs shoe�l� not be
permitted on the property located on Pacific Hi�hway (Tax Lot 400).
C. RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the findings and conclusions noted above, the Planning Staff
recommmends approval of SCE 1-85 subject to the following conditions:
1. Building permits shall be ok;�ined as necessary for the sign
construction.
2. The sign ahall be constructed or modified as submitted in the
application.
3. Additional freestanding signs on Tax Lot 4�0 shall not be
permitted.
4. This approval is valid if eacercised within one yeax of the final
d cisi te. '
;.
/ _��
.,� �� �
�/� A���----�����ytir...�'�, �+
PREPARE BY: eit den A�PItOVED BY: William A. Monahan ' �,,
Associate Planner Director of Planning &
Development
(10bOP/dmi) �.
� _ i
A DUOTATION DATE; 1''e b. 1 j,_ ,l y�i'1
�ROM �
� , , Lu�'tZijZite Sign Co.
J350 S.W. Tigard Ave. — P.O. Box 23636
- 7igard, Oregon 97223 •
639-4991 �
Park 217 - En-tranc e Si�ns
� JOB �
LOCATION ' TAKEN 9Y: ���dy 1��iawhir�ter
FIRM NAME C i�,.y o f T�,�,�� BY�
ADDRESS
PHONE N0.
DESCqIPT10N Pii10E
� . In. re�;uards to other si:�n at the two entrance to
I'ark 217:
1 . ai�n s�t Ezltrance to Park 2.1 an Paci�#'�.c w w'
�� have cony chan�e to match new lo�-o lettQr_ s�1 �
�.nd will be .renain.ted �to match new color. d�si9�
�
�`�'his sign will also be lowered 4' in hei�h� to
malce it mare com�atible with surroundin�, �
, 2. Sign �.t '�ntrance on Hall $lvd. will also be
refinished to match all other si�ns. V�e feel th�
sign will remain the. size �,� is at this time.
3. �,'he �irectary in the center will have a new face
which is compatibl.e wi�Lh al], other signs and
brought up to date in re�uar.ds ta tenan�a� �n
center.
� LUP�tINTTE SIGPI CU.
� Randy Dlawha,rter
_
_
_ _. . . ._:. :::. : _ _._.:: . .,:,,., _.�;.T ... ... ...:.;.
� ' o» :, F .,jj ���'�Yhr` �,' �'l .`
ir a�:t� er , , �r ";a�.�t �'- � . s ��,.' ' , `"� '�'. F.'w��'.
�' ��.-. . �*'i, 5 j .�l,N . �1 � '
t ' ' �y'. t ..�. . � t
N
'.. � ' � :1 S .
1"'`.` �"q". � `^»,� . ��,a�jy �i9� �i��,
'�.d} . �
� 'a_�� I�--�--�-, — - ���� � r {,
n�.� � � . _ , {r � ;
, . .
���� Q � �
� ��� ;1 }` k �'��M�S;
�
""'� � -- —�---.�-~/^-_ ` nr.�;,
1 �j�y�/''}j� '�� �f��ra.«r.MY.u'Cf� / ; � K I {.}
.. ��r ��. n'^r"` ^ ' � ;`x �py �i .
\.n.>� �yL✓ � � i tl.�{.
. � �� �� '� � . 19.,1'Y
, �� t .. . � � l ,�`7., � 1..
i ., � 1� :s+.:.. ��t� ,1��..:
.�.,� ; � - `1 r ',��r t
l�i� � , '+ i' . � �r ;'•,.
� �
�
T� �
��� ��� . <:x' � :
.I��� / ��^"._ ++rn�.-+rl ' .. �rF +,'i�
I�.CA'
7� �.� m�...� 5 h ; fi {'..� :
. ��� ��.�""'�'� '2 .�._...,� ? �,/1 C+ /4��i�
� C /'//+'`' �' '�j1 �Y�'1i
� I � !I ✓ b
+ ., a� i !_" _ " _ ' '�,Mi� �'.�M
,. , � .. . ,, ��¢ �,. .
� ��
.. . . � �. .�f,.,.,�� .���� _ _ ...---•.-....—,-.....,._..____..,. e �' `.�.� �',�.
� � �i�y.u.r)�. � f ��r � ,� r ,�:� 4,y?
:.,�,�.,� �� a�'' . '��
�. �° +' �,.r..m.� .�� � � � ''�, . .,
�P� . ��� . o ;f',4 i��"
, ��`� . ' "��� � . s �' '
-^r''... , n �(!
` f S 3' r�fi�,' t
� � •. . .. � ,�I'(` �,.
'"" "� 3:D
� ..,.,,�,, • ,�4 ' 4:.,
i�....�� �
�� t .�-�` ��,tY
'1� � ;���'.
��-��, �� ,��;' i ..
; � -. . � .� ��f�^%k4�,i.
• �� �,'' � t
j� � �t
�i��� �• �+� �ry ..
, ' ? �,
�; t .
� �.,y„��� . . . . � ry �.,;p �a
� �j`
t� ' •� �tq �'�a_.
�„"' S
' t,,�, I , � �2 1 ,.
. �`y�,;i +.
� 'R IJ+� �
�.:� � 1 � ��:.
9
a A ry lT
'. � ��r�1 ��
. ' ' / L r� � ',�.K.
.. " ��,�'. ,�+'� �
�1�:. . t I. � 4 . . . � 1 J M'' �
,j N ,
� � � yi �� � i
i �_ �"i J t A_
� �Y 6 �
i t ... �, •' 1 �t� t {* 3F�t.t
' � � � �
., a ��,�,.,,{ t��i,
} *
r ' �,
� �.
..R,, } �, ��..i
s.
� — " . _ �a�� �i.
1 ��' ��>
C
, � A f •�:.�� �A�t.,�
. �' i .. .� , t.
t�
' � . � � ����rfe, )�..
.M .i; ✓ .i���"'�
'� (�,�.�,g .,
"
.
_ . . ,: ._ . :
_ _ �
• �
�
• ('
. � Z
� hl
' C:
�
!;
, �
�
• �
. �
�
.. �
{'
1
� �- . � - � �
� � Fr
. . ��° � � �,
, �
. U.� � f . �
. , � �
r
�� G,i � I .
�v � �
`� � � ,.
� �_ _. I � li
� ` /Y� �u � ��
. �:� ��-- -v- , ,.,. ;
. �: �_
� �_...���� .
� �I � � _ �
� � -r � � �
� ���� �
` 11 ,�
I � , s
_....�� !
T�.....�._...__T_�_.-.•- � T . �(:,
L����I� `i��`I��J��..� '� �� ' ' ,1
- i{
(�' �l�-,rj�Il! �--,1,�� ' ;i
t�:
CI � _.� ..,._�...,.,._1 �
r._�i ± � _,'
�, 4 � , ;
t; { ; ,,
._Z:i i j �
�� .� i � � ��:
- � ;
� �k
� :
� � S�
. , ,
"�J ; � t
'Vl ! }
� i�l � ?i
Ci � "`
� �4
. . � l) , . � � . '�.
. �. � . . . .. . ���
. � ' � I i � .. �i
. . .. . � . . .. ,.
. �
I �_ __ . . . __ . . . ., .._ � R�
-- ��, ��„ -.� ;
I _.
. :
. _ . `�'` �, ' ,
t�
` �� ..
'tYK�i� NNtNItUI)N�Nf> }11UlIN�RlkAl11'111N1+� �
t 111 1 I� 1 � � �,� �,w,) � �,��Wl;a ,
., u
- AGENDA I�EM_� 5.7
PL�.NNING COMMISSION
March 5, 1985
MEMQRAIdDiJM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
T0: Pl�nning Commission March 1, 1985
FROM: Keith S. Liden
SUBJECT: ZOA 1-85 �'�U lJ � � . ZG?/� r°���
, As a �ar� of the zone ordinarcee amendm.ent Chapter 18ox44 af the Cadefl ane
su�section was to be transferred to the Permitted Uses sections ot tt��
industrial zones. The wording is nated below an� the location of this
3nsertion is noted on the attached pages tSections 18.68.030, 18.700030, &
18.72.030)e
(4) �. single-family detached un�t or a single manuf�ctured/mobile home
provided that the uses are limi.ted to the followinge
(Ae) A dwellin� for a caret�ker ar supertendent whi�h is lccated on
the �ame s3.te with ttae permitted industrial use and is occupied
exelusively by � caretak�r or superintendent of the industrial
� use and family; or
(B,) �1 dwelling for a kennel owner ar operator which is located on
the same sit� with the kennel and is occupied exc�usively by the
owner or operator of the kennel and family. (Ord. 83-52 Exhibit
A (part), 1983).
The issue of maximum fence height was also di�scussed and the staff is
recommending an eight (8) foot limit to be inserted as shown in Section
18.1000090 of the Cnde. This section is attached.
1062P
am�
� ♦ • r�r � ",,.•,• • � �- ,• �•� 1� . �� . U4U--Lki .bii .U�U
� ( e�cceed ten percent of the total square footage within the
office complex) ;
(I) Laundry services ;
(J) Research servi,ces ;
(K) Vehicle fuel sales;
(L) Eating and drinking establishments (not to exceed
ten percent of the tatal square f�otage within the development
complex) ;
(M) Participation sports and recreation:
( i) Ind�or,
(ii) Outdoor;
(N) Professional a�nd administrat�ve offices.
(3) Industrial Use Type .
(A) Manufacturing of finishsd products ;
� (B) Packaqing and processing;
(C) Wholesale, storage and dis�ribution:
( i) Miniwarehouse,
��` (ii) Light. (Ord. 83-52 Exhibit A(part) , 1983) .
�
18 .68 .040 Conditional use (Cha�ter 18 .130) . Conditional
uses in the I-P district are as follows:
(1) Day care facilities, limited to ten percent of total
complex;
i (2) H�lipox�ts, in accordance with th.e Aeronautics Divi-
sion (nDOT) and the FAA;
� (3) Utilities. (Ord. 83-52 Exhibit A(part) , 1983) .
i
18.68 .050 Dimensional recLuirements. Dimensi_onal require-
ments in the I-P district are as follows:
. (1) There ,are no minimum• lot area requirements.
(2) The average minimum lo� width shall be fif�y feet.
(3) The minimum setback requirements are as foll.ows:
(A) The front yard se�back shall be a minimum af
thirt•y-f ive fe4t� 9iiL.^..°.. t' f i Ft � f o�' ^ti'�1 1 h� v'G1/"t919 r-eA .-•t+carg
. � : C��.� s�-� !�
(B) On corner lots and through lots the setback
shall be a minimum of �wenty feet on any lot facing a street;
however, the provisions of Chap�.er 18 . 102 , Visual Clearance
Areas, must be satisfied;
(C) No side yard setback shall be re�uired except
fifty feet shall be required where the I-P zone abuts a
residential zaning district;
(D) No rear yard setback shall be required e:ccept
Eifty feet shall be required where the I-P zone abuts a resi-
dential zoning district;
(E) All building separations must meet all Uniform
Building Code requirements.
(4 ) Except as oth�rwise provided in Chapter 1a .98 ,
Building Height Li.mitations, no building in the I°P zoning
district shall exceed forty-five feet in height.
(5) The maximum site coverage shall be seventy°five
� percent, including buildinqs and impervious surfaces .
1
29-0 {Tigard 9;n4 )
. . . .. . . . . ,_, . . , . ...... . .. ..... ... . .t.n. rr�•.. . .
! �. iv �...��i� l INV,
• �• 18 . 70 . 030--18 . 70 . 050
( 18 . 70 . 030 Permitted uses . Pern�i�ted uses in the I-L
district are as fallows :
(1) Civic Use Types.
(A) Public sup�ort facilities;
(B) Parking servzces;
(C) Postal services;
(D) Public safety se�vices .
(2) Commercial Use Types .
(A) Agricultural sales;
(e) Agricultural services;
(C) P.nimal sales and service :
( i) Auctioning, �
( ii) Kennels, �A�''�4' i
(iii) Veterinary, small and large animals;� �
(D) Automobile and equipment: �
( i) Cleaning, ;
( ii) Fleet storage,
(iii) Repairs, heavy and light, �
' ( iv) Sales and rental, heavy equipment, farm
eauipment, light equipment;
(E) Building maintenance services;
(F) Constr�action sales and services;
(G) Laundry services;
(H) Research services ; ''',
(I) Vehici.e fuel saies.
� (3) Industrial Use Type . '
(�) Manufacturi.rig of finished products ;
(B) Packaging and grocessing;
(C) Wholesale , storage and distributic�n:
� ( i) Mini�aare�ouse, '
/�` (ii) �.ight. (Ord. 83-52 Exhibit A(part) , 19�3) .
� ) �✓°
18 . 7Q . 040 Conditional use (Chap�.er 18 . 130) . Conditional
uses ii1 the I-L district are as follows :
(1) Heliports , in ac�ordance with
�n
e Aeronautics Divi-
sion (ODOT) and the FAA;
(2) Utilities;
(3) Vefiicle fuel s�les wi�h convenience sales. (Ord .
83-52 Exhibit A (part) , 1983) .
18 . 70. 050 Dimensional recuirem�nts . Dimensi:onal require-
ments �n the I-L district are as f�llowss
(1) There are no minimum lat area requirements .
(2) The average minimur� lot width shall be fifty feet.
(3) The minimum setbacl: requirements are as follows :
(A) The front yard setback shall be thirty feet ,
aire��t...f.���y—€�a.�---si�a]1 hP ,-Pnr,�l_i rPt3 hP ra �h�--n--�;ne.�ahu�s�dlR� ��" ', '
o'�.�P c�G�Q n t i�1 7 n n; n g... d-�-S-�-i`'-3.-��; ,
(B) On corner lots and through lots , the setback �
shall: be twenty fEet on any si�e facing a street;, :►owever,
t'�
�. Y.;
• , �,,,�
� � �,r
292 (Tigarri a ;8�l ? t�
� � �
�:;::
�+;,
�,'1
... . ._. .,_, , .
��:
�
I �. � ' r � 1�►� lV Y � �"L
1f� , 7"l .040--18 . 7"L . U(iU
. ,'
� ( ii) I,ight,
(iii) Heavy. (Ord. 83-52 Exhibit A(part) , L9II3) .
���
18 . 72 . 040 Conditional use (Chapter 18. 130) . Conditic�nal
uses in the I-H district are as follows :
(1} Heliports;
(2) Utilities . (Ord. 83-52 Exhibit A(��art) , 1983) .
1g , 72 .C>50 Dimensional requirements . Dimensional require-�
ments in the I--H district are as folZows :
(1) There are no mi.nimum lot area requirements .
(2) The average minimum lot width shall be fifty feet.
(3) The minimum setback requirements are as follows :
(A} '�he f�ront yard setback shall be thirty feet, �6�
.a � � . _�� .. : �k, �4 r�
(B) On corner lots and through lots, the setback
shall be twen�y �eet on any street facing a street; however,
• the provisicans o� Chapter 18 . 102 , Visual Clearance Areas ,
must be satisfied;
tC) No side yard setback shall b� required except
fifty feet sha].1 be requized where the I-H �OI1� abuts a resi-
dex��.ial zcaning distri.ct;
(D) No r�ear yard setback shall be required except
fifty fee�. shall be required where �he I°-H zone abuts a resi-
dential zoni.ng distriGt;
� (E) All building separations must meet all Uniform
Building Code requirements.
,� (4) Exc�pt as otherwise provided in Chapter 18 .98 ,
Bui�.ding Height Limitatinns, no buildzng in the I--H zoning
� district shall exceed forty-f.iv� feet in height. �
(5) The maximum site coverage shall b� eiqhty°five
percent, including btxildings and imper�►ious surfaces.
(6) The minimum landscaping requirea��;, sh�98�b�Ozdf
teen percent. (Ord. 84-29 §1 (lExhibit F.(p
83-52 Exhibit A(part) , 1983) .
18 72 060 Additional requirements. Additional r.'�quire-
ments for the I-Ei distrlct are as follows:
(1) Off-street parking and loading, Chapter 18 . 108 ;
(2) Access and egress, Chapter 18 . 108;
( 3) Lan�iscaping and screeninq, Chapter 18 . 100 ;
(4 ) Signs, Chapter 18 . 114 ;
S Nonconforming situations , Chapter 18 . 132 ;
( )
� 84 . Ord. 83-52 �i
(6) Sensitive .�ands, Chapter 18 . ( i
Exhibit A(part) , 19P3) .
�
295 (Tic3ard 9/84 )
�i,
,
,:, . , . ., . . . . . .:,._. . _ .:. ,. �..,.....
....... .. .: .. .. :.... . . .., i
� �• ' ' ' ^'"""' """ ' ' �% 1ti .lUU . U7U--lU . lvv . l��
. . n
/ height gr�ate�r than Lhat p�rmitted by these regulations for
� a fence or wall in a vision clearance area as set Eorth in
Chapter 18 .102. (Ord. 83-52 Exhibit P.(part) , 1983) .
18. 100. 090 Setbacks for fences or walls . (a) No fence
or wa11 shall be constructed which exceeds the standards in
subsection (b) of this section except when the hearings
officer, as a condition of ap�roval, allows that a fence or
wall be constructed to a height greater than otherwise per-
mitted by thi_s sectiolz in order to mitigate against poteatial
adver.se ef fects. �e�ra�11'(8' f�� �►� �
(b) Fences or walls: orNar������3
(1) May not exceed three feet in height in a required
�'n a11
cases
, .rd ancl i
n a cor
nez s
ide a
front ard or six feet o Y
Y
shall meet visian clearance area requirements (Chapter
18 .102) ;
(2) Are permitted ou�righ� in side yards or rear
yards to a height of six f�et; Aee6.�SG.'cW�.�3
�d�b� (3} Loca�ed in a side ar rear yard and wha.ch �
' six�feet in height shall be subject to buildi.ng permit ap-
praval;
(4} Located in the front yard or corner sid� yard
and whir.h exceed the height limitation sha11 comply with
�he setback requir�ments for structures set forth in the
applicable zone ;
(5) Located witk�in a corner side shall be no claser
� than two feet from the property line, and shal]. satis�y
visual clearance requir�ments. (Ord. 83-52 Exhibit A(part) ,
1983) .
18 .1000100 'Height restrictior►s. (a) The prescribed
heights of required fences, walls or landscaping sYaall be
measured from the actual �,djoining level of finished grade,
exc�pt. that where parki�g, loa�ing, storage or similar areas
are located above finished grade, the heiqht of fences, wails
or landsca�ring required to screen such areas or space shall
be measured from the level of such improvements.
(b) An earthen berm and fence ar wall combination shall
nnt exceed the six-foot height limitation for screening.
(Urd . 83-52 Exhibit A(part) , 1983j .
18 . 100. 110 Screeninq , special provisions . (a) Screen- �
ing of Parking and Loadi.ng Areas . Screen�.ng of parking and j,
loading areas is required. The specifications for this j
screening are as follaws : �
(1) Landscaped parking areas shall include special. 4
design features whi�ch effectively screen the parking lot '
areas from view. These design features may include the use 1
of landscaped berms, decorative walls and raised pJ.anters. ;
�
;
,
!
� l � �
�
314-26 (Tigard 4/84) k
7
�
r
�
�
�
� , .,
. . ..... . ... :. ..,� ::; . ; �
� _. _ _ _ . _
_..
< � . ,.. :., _ _ _
i �
�+
` � TABLE OF CONTENTS
�
Title Page
Land Use Decision Defineci 1
Policy Plaking and Policy Application 2
Procedural Requirements for Land Use Decisions 3
Types of Land 'Use Decisions 4
Form and Structure of Land Use Regulations 5
Land Ose Pr.ocedures and Practices 6
G�nera]_ Public Information 6
Pre-Application Contact . 6
Applicati�n Submittal and Review g
Initial. Review $
Fees g
I Filing Systems 9
Coordinated Review g
Staf� Reports and Staff-Level Decision Making 1p
Public Hearing Ix
Legal �tequirements for a Hearing 12
Notice of Hearing 12
Standing �3
Quorum lg
Qua�i-Judicial Procedures 1l�
1)pp�rtunity to Be Heard 14
Right to Present and Rebut Evidence 14
Kight to an Impartial Tribunal 14
An Adequate Record 15
Findings 15
Conducti.ng the Hearing 16
Time and Place 16
The Agenda and Related Information 16
Role of the Presider 17
Post Hearing Activities ig
Notice of the Decision ig
Permits, Authorizations and Related Private Formalities 18
Appeals 18
Local Level lg
State Level � ig
Monitoring and Enforcement Zp
APPENDTX: Sample Forms 2�
.��.�_
�`J
9
4
LAND USE PROCEDURES �ND �R�CTICES IN OREGON
Land Use Decision Defined ,
It is important t� distinguish land use decisions from other actions
of local government be�ause Oregon state laea specifies procedures for
land use deciaion� that do not necessarily apply to other govern-
menCal actions. A land use decision is defined in the Orego❑ Revised
5tatutes as follows:�
ORS 197.015(10) 'Land use decision°
(a) Includes:
(A) A final decision or detextnination made
by a local government or special distric[ that
concerns the adoption, amendment or application
of:
(i) The goals;
(ii) A comprehensive plan pravision;
(iii) A land use regulation; or
(iv) A new land use regulaCian; or
(�) A final. decision or deterenination of a
state agency other than the cammission with
respect to which the agenc� is required fio apply
the goals.
(b) Does not include a aninist�xial deci-
sion of a local goverannent made under cle�e and
ob�ective stanclards cont�ined in. an acknowledged
camprehensive plan or Yan� use regulation ac�i for
which no right to a heari.xsg i� provided by �he
local governmenC under ORS 215p402 to 2Z5.438 or
227.160 to 227.185.
Ministerial decisions involving clear and objective staedards and
made without the right to a hearing, even tha�gh they may affect the
use of land, are no longer termed land use decisic�ns under Oregon law
and are �givPn less attention in this manual. Final decisions by a
local government to establish pr apply a canp�cehenaive plan or a land
use regulation are "land use decisions" to which the forms and the
procedures discussed in this manual appl}►. Generaily� the forms and
. procedures pertain to the manner in which decisions are made at the
local gover�nnent leve� and with the type of appeal that is available
to anyone who is dissatisfied with the the local decision.
1. ORS 197.d15. Despite legislative efforts to clearly def.ine "land
use decision," same confusfoar remains. See, for exampl�, Fo�man
v. Clatsop County, 297 0�. 129, Po2d (1984), for a ease
that discusses sahether a deci�ion regarding vested rights in a
nonconforming use ie a land use decision.
t
[
Once a city or county plan is acknowledged by LCDC� the plan �ceplaces
the goals as the basis for land use decisions. Amendments to an ,
acknowledged plan, nr to an acknowledged land use regulation, and new ',
land use regulationa must conform directly to the goals or �o the �I
acknowledged plan.2 li
The statutory definition o€ "land use decision" obviously includes
decisions that directly and immediately affect the use of land, such
as rezonings, conditional uses, etc. The legislature and the co�rts
have deemed "land use decisian°' to include;
(1) Decisions on annexation (ORS 197.175(1) (1977));
(2� A street improvement authorization if the street work will
have "sign�ficant impact on present or future land use"
(City_of Pendleton vo Kerns, 56 Or. App. 818, 643 P.2d 658,
aff'd 294 Or. 126, 653 P.2d 992 (1982)); and
' (3) Incorporation of a city (1000 Friends of Oregon vv Wasco
County� 67 Or. App. 418� 679 P.2d 320 (1984)).
Some court decisions regarding goal caopliance may not apply when an
acknowledged plan is i.n place. For example, in 1981 the Oregon Court
of Appeals held that i.ssuance of a building permit in an undeveloped,
unaoned, rura3. foresC area that was not sub�ect to an acknowledged I
coiuprphe��ive plan was a "land conservatfon and development action
I�� sub�ect�.�to re�i�w by tlae Land Conservation and Development Cowmission '
(LCDC). However, the land use determination made before issuairce
of a building p�r�nit for a zoned area that is sub�ect to an acknowY° '
ed�ed plan is probably noC a land use decision, but rather a "minis- ;
t�rial. decision" as defined in ORS 197.015(10)(b)o � I
Policy Making and Policy Application
To fu11y understand land t�se decision-making procedures in Oregotil,
some distinction shoulal be made between actions that create policy
(legislative) and those that apply policy (quasi-�udicial and minis- �
terial). As noted above, Oregon statutes declare that ministerial
decisions are not land use decisions. "Land use decisions," as
defined by statute, then� are either of the following.
(1) Legislative Deeision Making: Policy making in its broadest
context, i.e., those decisions that apply to an e�tire can-
munity or class of individuals and prescribe the critetia
and sCandards by which cases arising under the policy will
be deci.ded. Examples include adoption or amendment of the
comprehensive plan or regulatory ordinances.
2. ORS 197.175(2).
3. Coltambia Hills v. LCDC� 50 Or. App. 483, 624 P.2d 157 (1981),
rev. den., 291 Or. q (1981}� , But se� McCoy v. Marion County,
LUBA No. 83°042 (11/8/83).
_�_
�....._� _
K
(2) Quasi-Judicial Dec3sion Making: The application af policy
to a small, identi.fiable group of individuals or properties
in a setting in which a decision must be made concerning
the rights, duties and obligations of the respective par-
ties. Decision makers must ascertain the facts, draw con-
clusions, and apply poJ.icy as an exercise of ,judgment in
which there is raom for discreti,on. Examples include deci.-
sions on proposed planned unit developments, zone changes,
conditional uses, and variances.
Proaedural Requiremente for Land U�e Deci�ions
In 1973, Fasano v. Board of County Commissioners of Washington County
focused attentioca on the quasi-judicial nature o� certain Iand use
decisions and the related procedural xequirements.� After character-�
izing the decision under review (rezoning 32 acres) as adjudicatory
or quasi-judicial� the caurt added that such a procedure requires
(1) an opportunity for parties to be heard; (2) an oppartunity for
parties to present and rebut evidence; (3) an impartial tribunal (no
prehearing or ex part� contact leading to bias); and (4) a recard
made and adequate f.indings.
�lthough the court in Fasano concluded that zone changes that appl.y
existing polLcy to �pecific parcels are quasi°�udicial �ather than
l.egi�lative, it did not provide a complet� list of criteria for iden-
tifying a quasi-3udicial action. Subsequently, �ourts have required
qu�s.i-�udicial pxocedures when (1) a particular action is disected at
a relatively small number of idecitifiable persons; (2) the action
applies existing policy to a specific parcel; and (3) the proc�ss
must resul� in a decision.5
Althou�ti the classification of land use decisions was a ma�or issue
immediately following the 1973 Fasano case, it is naw largely moot
because of legislative enactments which mandate ad�udicatory proce-
dures for virtually all types of land use decisions. For example, ,,
• Planning Goal 2, "Land iJse Planning," requires that "all [land use]
deeisions° have an "adequate factual base" and that all plans and II'
implementing ordinances may be adopted only after publlc hearing.
Goal 2, as incorporated by OAR 660-15-000(2) . That requirement
applies equally to legislative and quasi-3udicial decisions and has
been interpreted by LCDC as requiring f�.ndings of fact for both typea
of decisions.6
4. 264 Or. S74� .507 P.2d 23 (1973) .
5. See e.g. , Strawberry Hill. 4-Wheelers v. Benton County Bd. of
' Comm. , 287 Or. 591, 601 P.2d 769 (1979); and Neuberger v. City of
Portland, 288 Or. 155, 161, 603 1P.2d 771 (1979) (rev. den. 288 Or
�
585, 6A7 P.2d T22 (198Q).
� 6. See Joseph, "Changing Rale of the Trial and Appellate Courts" in
Land Use Litigation Coursebook III-D-1 {Oregon Law Inetituee ed.,
1980}.
_g�
'
T
�
Additionally� most of che Fasano procedural require�ents have b�en
codified into statutory law. For example, before a city ffiay grant a
discretionary perrnit (e.g. 9 variance, condfi:ic�n�l use, s�all-scale
zone chan,ge), the statutes require (1) notice; (2) the opportunity to
be heard; (3) a decision based on s[andards and criteria set forth in
the development ordinance; (4) written findings of xact and conclu-
sions of law; (S) a pe nnanent record of the p�oceeding�; and (6) an
oppoxtunity for appeal and hearing.� County land use planning and
zoning enabling statutes (ORS 215.402 to 215.513), although struc-
tured differently, contain nearly identical lac�guage regarding
decision-�aking procedures.8
Types of Land Use Dectsions
Despite the exclusion of ministerial decisions frau the st�tutory
definition of land use decision, it is useful to distinguish all
three types of dec3sions that aff�ct land use--legislative, quasi-
. �udicial and ministeria].. Exaunples of each tqpe are;
• Legislative: adoption of a subdivisian ordinance.
s Quasi°Judicial; whether a conditional u�e permit for a video
�ame parlos should be granted based on an ordinance provision
requiring "eompatibility with ad�acent land uses."
s Min�sterial: whether a cainor land division will be approved
based on a determination of whether the resulting parcels
would be wiehin a required 2.5: 1 length-to-width ratio.
Court decisions, statutes and LCBC goals establish procedural re-
quirements for borh !egislatiee and quagi-�udicial decieions, but
there are some impottant differences betwsen them. For example, the
decision-making body �rust take some kind of action (approval or
denial) on every quasi-judicial matter, buC action on most legisla-
tive mattexs is optional. Also, the legal requirement of impartial-
ity �pplies fully to quasi-�udicial decisions, but to a much lesser
extent to legislative actions. Some requiremenlCS, such as notice
andl findings, apply in different degrees to legislati�ve axed quasi-
�udicial decisions.
It should be noted that whether a paxtieular matter is hamdled by !
�
quasi-judicial or minfsterial proeedures depends not only nn state
laws and regulations, but also on local regulations, polfcies and
practices. For example, some �urisdictions handle all variances ''
through quasi-�udicial procedures, but o�hers handle at least s�me ti y
minor variances ministerially. �
.�
�.
--- �:
7. ORS ch. 227. �" `
8. See .Buresu of Governmeatal Re�earch and Service� Universit of � :
Y
Oregon, Planning Note No, 4 (1977). ;' '
�� �:
� �
-4- � �
�` �
�
� � � � _.., ���� _ ��.... � ..>> _... :,:�.. _ .....w. ._..__. ;��_.�:I
a
ti
Finally, land use declsi�ns are not easily compartmentalized into the
three types of procedures, and many jurisdictions are now using pr�-
cedures that represent combinations of minisCerial and quasi-�udicial
features. This "phased quasi-judicial" approach is appropriate when
standards and crikeria tend to be at the measurable end of the scale,
when the decision is not ].ikely to be controversial, and when staff
expertise is equal tm the technicaX dete mninations involved. An
example might be the issuance of a commercial use permit where the
primary issues are related to traffic engi.neering and the local gov-
er�nent has a qualif:[ed traffic engineer Co make tfie decision. Under
a "phased quasi-judicial" procedure, notice is given to affected
parties and initial decisions made by the staff may be appealed to a
hearings officer, planning commission, or governing bady for consid-
eration under full yuasi-judicial procedures.
Form and Structure of Lacad Uee Regulations
Oregon law a�lows, and practical cansiderations require, variety in
the form of �ocal land use decision making> For exampl�, some �aaris-
dictions adopt land use regulations as separate ordinances (e.g.,
zor�ing, land division, flood plain control, estuary management, sign
control, etc.); others �se a single-docuraent, land�develop�ent-code
approach.
Socne �urisd.ictions con�inue to rel.y primarily on the "use district°' �
approach to zoning (e.g. , single-family, multi-family, cor.�mercial and �
indusCrial)y others e�a.phasize th:e "'design review" approach (e.�•� ;
planned unit development, conditional usey overlay zone, etc.) . �
'rhe gx'eater the emphasis on desi�n review, Che more complex the
decision--making proeess. There is variety also in the efioice of
general criteria or measurable standards for development. Wi[h the
"use district°' approaeh, especially when coupled with measura'ble
stansciards, procedures can be more min�sterial, i.e., a staff inember
ma consider the re uest b a l ing nondiscretionary standards; less �
Y 9 Y PP Y
ts required in the way af notice, public hearings, and appellate
review. If design and type of use are more flexible, and if criteria
that requir� discretionaxy judgment are used, full quasi-�udicial
procedures are required: an opportunity to offer t�sttmony on the
issues naeds to be provided; the proposal fs measured against the
criteria through the application o.f �udgment; and special condi.tions
are imposed more frequently to balance or mitigate conflicting
interests.10
t 9. See footnote 11, below. ;
10. See generally, Bureau of Governmental Rese�rch and S�rvice, }
� University of Oregon, Criteria and Standards: Precision v. :
Flexibility (1981) . �
;;
� �rt
� � . . � . . . � . � . � . .. .f}.
. . . . .. . . . .. ��
. . . . .. . � �p��.
. .� . . . .. . � . a.:p.
-5_ ��.i
��
� �� � � �� � � � � � t;
+:
Y '.. .... .. . . . . . . . .. _ . . _—.— _.. .. .., . .
.
A related quesCion is whether the physical standards for development
are to be tailored to each project as part of the ir�dividual discre-
tionary decision-making process or are to be specifiecl in advance and
applied uniformly to all projects of the same character.11
Land U�e Procedures and Practices
General Public Information
The various brochures, checklists, application pacs:ets and other
handouts available from the planning or development department are
important to the success of a planning program. Public information
material should be interesting, eas3► to read, concise arid accurate.
(This manual contains only a few of Che many examples avai�.able.)
The material falls into two categories: mateeial nf a generzl
nature, whict: explains basic functions of planning and development
. and variaus procedures, and detailed information geared to a specific
process. An example of the first category is a brochure explaining
the duties of the planning commission and some of the basic planning
processes such as comprehensive plan development, zoning, and land
division. The second category might include an application packet
for a c.onditional use, a zone chan�e or an annexation. Although
there is so�ae overlap in content, the Iatter category us�ily con-
tains an application form and specific requirements taken directly
from the applieable regu�.ations� as well as a general description of
the process. Examples uf general public information mat�rial are
reproduced in the Appendix, pages 25-37.
Pre-Application Contact
Contacts between applicants and staff may be efther formal or irr-
formal. An informal contact usually occurs before an appl�cation is
prepared so that staff can answer the applicant's questions.
A formal conferer�ce usually occurs after a preliminary appli.cation
has been submitted and consists of a flow of informakion between the
applicant and the staff. Some jurisdictions use a formal pre-appli-
cation conference, but only if there is an indication that the appli-
cant is sexious about proceeding with the pro�ect.
A formal pre-application conference helps to coordinate the planning �
of ma�ar developments. The primary purpose of the conference is to �`
review atl of the pertinent regulatory requirements= as well as to �
allow an early reaction to the applicant's initial design. The
11. For a cauprehensive treatment of some relevant issues and far
specific examples see Bureau of Goverr�mental Research and Serv-
ice� University of Oregon, A Model Land Development Ordinance
Format (September 1979); The Development Standards Doc�ent
(December 1979); and Summary of Concepts Included in the Model
Land Development Ordinance March 1981).
-6-
...��,.., .. ,
..�0_
� .
I
� conference approach is particularly well suited Co th� "design
review" method of land use regulation and accommodates the concerns
of various agency departments, as well as the applicant's representa-
tives.I7.
Follo�ring the initial contact with a staff person, the typical appli-
cant submits an official application. If poorly handled, th:is can be
the source of some of the most negative public impressions of the '�i
planning and development process, becausP many people have an aver-- I
sion to filling out forms, and some instructions given .in the p�e-
application conference may have been miseonstrued by the applicant<
One key to an effective process is well-designed� comprehensive, and
easy-to-u�p forms. The following points should be considered when
drafting application forms.
(1) Does the farm contain the essential elements?
. (2) Does the form comply with the requirements of statutes and
ordi.nances?
�3) Does the form contain unnecessary language that �i�sould be
deleted?
(4) Is the form clear and concise so that it can be easily
understood?
(5) Has the form been verified or autharized by the proper
persons?
(6) Fias every required form been prepared?
(7) Are the forms clearly identified and arranged in a logical
sequence?
(8) Have provisions been m3de to inake the forms available in a
timely fashion at 2ogi.cal locations?
12.. Design review refers to � regulatory system under which each
d�velopment proposal is reviewed for its impact and is designed
to fit the particular piece of pro��rty under con�ideration.
Development is guided by policies adopted intq law and by
conditions imposed speci€ically on each pro�ect. Sometimes a
point sy�ten is used to evaluate propasals. A minimum numbex o£
points is usually required, which can be achieved by a vaxi�ty
af ineans. By comparison, traditional use-distriGt ar Euclidian
zoning groups similar activities together and allows development
as a matter of right if the stanciards of the ordinance are met. �
5ee K. Wickersham, "The Permit System of Managing Lan� Use and j
Growth,"" Land Use Law and Zoning Digest, Val. 30, No. 1 (1978). "
� � � � � � � � i
i
. i
-7- ,�
� $
�s } �
_ �
. '
Local practice varies with respect to the amount and type of assist-
anee provided to the applicant by stafF. In some cases, the staff
merely dispenses the application form and provides the necessary
ordinance information. In other cases, substantive design assistance ,
is provided by a member of the professional staff. In the latter
case, as well as in the for.mal conference discussed above, care must �
be taken to inform the petitioner as to when comments of the staff �
are binding, and when they are not binding, on the ultimate decision �
makers. In adddition to the public relations aspects, �here are �
possible legal ramifications in teYtus of tort liability for negligent �
or intentional misrepresentation.13 I
Examples of pre-application materials can be foand in Sample Group I
in the Appendix, pages 25-37.
�
Application Submittal and Review �
' Init�al Remiew
The formal app7.ication review phase begins when the petitioner sub-
�i[s an application in proper form and the required fee. The "atatu-
tory time clock'° sCarts on the date the application is received. �
]Existing practices should be checked for compliance aaith 1983
legislative enaetments, which may have chat�ed the Itime available for
some local process�s4 ORS 215.428 and 227.17� require final �ction
on an application for a development pegtni.t or a �one change within
120 days after an application is considered to be complete. An
applicant must be advised af any miss�.ng infosmation within 30 days
of the origin�l submission or the appli�cation. Time must be alloweci
within the 120-day period for reso�ution of local appeals following a
hearing and decision in a contested case. The application-acceptance
process should clearAy identify khe date the a�plication is submitted
and tYie date that �t is considered complete.
Fees
Some ad justments also may be requ�.red in fee �rhedules due to 1983
legislation. Under ORS 215.41f,�1) and 227.175{1), fees charged for �.
processing permits cannot exc�eed tlie "actual or average cost" of �
provicling the service. 'Lt may be important to disti�uish the appli- !
cation processing fee, which is based on costs up to the point of �
decision, fr,om the permit issuance fee� �wt►ich is based on follow-up
costs such as inspection, monitoricxg and enforceaner.t. An example is
i
the difference between plan review and building permik fees used in a
building code enforcement program.
13. See Brockman, "Local Government Tort Liability," in the 1983 ':
Oregon Planning Institute Papers, Bureau of Governmental Re- f
search and Service, University of Oregon.
r
;
[
f'
,.
_g.. ;:
�
i'
�
r:
Prr+"+*q,.;a, a
� • . . . _ ��.. . .. `
Filing �stems
The four basic systems for storing and identifying files are alpha-
' betical, numerical, geographical and topical. The system chosen
� depends on the volume of files and whether files are stored centrally
j or are decen�ralized. In practice, the basic systans are often
; mingled, as showr► in [he example below. Cross-referencing is also
; common. For example, it may be useful to have [he file identified by
? the name of the applicanL• or the type of action (subciivision, vari-
� ance, etc.) while the permit is b�ing processed. Once the permit is
; issued, however, the applicant°r �ame i� no longer as important as
the location, and a cross-reference to a geographical system may be
more useful. Geagraphical systems ar� camma�aly based on street �
address, �ax lot numb�r, or geographieal coordinates.14 I
' An example of the above is: 83-1-CU�Jones
i 60 I,inden Ave. S.
This file would be located in the 19�3 fiies anci would be the first
file in the section on canditional use permitso The petitioner's
name alsa appears, but is not used tc� order the files. The file i�
cross-referenced to the st�eet address fnr later enforGement use and
also for use by review�ing deFartments such as water� s�wer, �tc.a , �o
might al�o organize �heir information by geo.graplhic loeation. ��h��
variations are also used.
Co�rclinated Re�vi.ew
Coordinated review of planning and land development rasy c�ccu� a�
several levels. At the legislative lev�l, i.e. , deveAopm�ent of plans
or implementing regulatians, ORS 197.190 makes each caun.f:y (witta
certain exceptions) responsible for cooxdinating plannin�g activiti�s
thae affect land use within the county, including planning activitiss
of the county, cities, �pecial districts, and state agenciLes. This
coordination is required to assure an integrated comprehensive plan
for ths enti�e county area. At the quasi-judicial level, many local
land use procedures require that certain organizatio:ns, agencies or
individuals be notified of land use permit applications.
Land use regulatians frequently contain mechanisms for coord3nated
review of specific development proposals. Urban growth boundary
management agreemenrs, comprehensive plan elements, and other inter°-
govexnmental agreen�ents also may contain coordination pc>licies and
procedures.
14. See Bureau of Governmental Research and Service, University of
Oregon, MapfM�del System and Systems Operations Manual (1974)•
-9- _
Commonly, petitions are submitted ro a central processing agency such
�as a planning depart�ent or a permit application center.IS Acting as
a coordinator, the central processing agency then summarizes the
request and refers it to various other agencies, departments arxi
units nf �over�nent for raview and comment. The cauments received
are then incarporated into the staff report. The review and comment
function may be carried o�t by a technical review te�n made up of
interested agencies and departments. The reviewing entities may be
invited to attend a public hearing on the matter and to present their
canments and respond to questions.
Typical coordination problems include (1) providing adequate informa-
tion to the reviewer; (2) receiving the response in time to keep the
process "on [rack;" and (3) confusion over the impact and legal force
of Ch� reviewer's eomments. In addition to carefully drafted agree- '�
ments, well drafted forms that invite a prompt re�ponse are essential j
to a smoothly functionin� process.
�
Examples of forms used during the period be�ween application submit-
tal and publ.ic hearing are in Sampl� Group II in the Appendix, pages
39-67.
Staff Re�orts and Staff-Level Decision Malcing
For most quasi-�udicial applications, the staff re�view occurs after
preapp�.i�ation and before the public heaxing. Th� staff review �
dise.ussed here concerns the substance of the applicaCion. Staff-
level decision making may occur on quasi-judicial matters, but� if �='.
requested� notice and the right to a hear�ng mugt be providea.lb r
In those cases, notice may be given at two poi.nts: notice - that an ��
application has been filed and notice of the staff decisior�. �
The skaff report assists the decision maker by assuring an adequate, :
�,
factually based hearing, a proper record, and adequate findings. The
staff function is often hard to define because of its dual ndture.
In one role, the staff functi.ons as an impartial facilitator: staff ��'
, members provide the applicant with information, review and accept �he '�
application, provide notice, and prepare and submit a report on the '-?
f actual back round. �n another role staff ma take a sition in
g � Y F�
favor of or opposed to the application and provide recommendations
to the decision-making officer or body. Such recanmendations should .
be based only on achieving canpl�.ance with ordinance criteri2 acd
�
15. For a di5cussion of one-stop permit application cenkers as well ',?
as man other im rovements to the regulatory system, see S�ream- ��
Y P
_.�___�.
�:5
lining Land Use Regulationc � Guidebook for Local Governm�nt �;�,
(Chicaboi American Planning Association, 1980) . �'
I
16. ORS 215.416 and 227.175. See also Columbia Hills Development �;;
.�
,.
Co. v. LCDC, 50 Or. App. 483� 624 Pa2d 1S7 (1981) , for � d�.scus- ;:;
>
ini erial ersus uasi- udicial act ion.s az� the roce- s�
sion of m st v p
q 3
dural requirements that pertain to each. �
'�:
;
�
;,
;
-10- }y i
� �
�;
, a;
I _ tr
� ,._.:_. __:... ::......... . .....:. .� , ._.._..
_ ,
,
_ and standards. Tf staff inembers use any other gr�ounds, e.g. "good
planning practice," the grounds should be clearly identified.l�
Because of the significance of formal "findings" in Oregnn law and
because of the caeed to expedite procedures, staff reports are fre-
quently structured as a findi.ngs document.18 A typical report first
recites the basic facts, then the applicable criteri� and standards,
anci then draws conclusions leadfrag tc� a decision by tying the facts
Co the crit�eria and standards. A staff report may frequently recom-
mend that special conditions be attached to an approval t� fulfill
the criteria or standards,
Basic facts �nclude, foa example:
• General background: naCure of request; location of property;
lan and zonin ma desi nat.ions• histor of rior actions
P g P g � Y P
affeccing the property,
• Nature of site: size; shape; t�pog�aphy; ve�etati�n; soilsa
current land use; access; avaflahle utilities and publiG
facilities.
• Nature of surrounding area: land uses �if abuttirqg p�operty;
p�iysical facCors; availability of utilities and publlc facil-
iCies; fire protection; road conditions, �capscity �m:I traffic
valume.
ti'Y I
=� • Nature of request: description of proposed use; site p�an
�� infotmation; �perational and environmen:tal. factors; int�nded
'` use of �roads, utilities and public faeilit�e�; relation to
� ordinance standardsel9
'�; Because it is the decision maker who must actually make the find-
� ings,20 the decision maker should not me�el}� rubber stam;p the staff
report. If staff makes the initial. decision� this admonitian applies
to the appellate body.
Ideally, the staff report should be prepared far enough in advance of
" the hearin,g that all parties can request a copy and �o that it can be
�,
:yt,
� z�'��� � �
��;
;, 17. Bureau of Goverzimental Research and Service, University of
' Oregon� Quasi-Judicial Land Use Hearing Proce�s (January 198'3).
r.;
�; 18. Buresu of GovercumentaY Research and Service, University of
�!,
�^' Ore on Findin s in Land U�e Decisions
��.: g , g , (January 1982) .
�x 19. See generally Bureau of Gnvernmental Research and Service,
,�
�;� University of Oregon, Criteria and Standaxd�: Precision v.
f�" Flexibility (November 1981).
,{:
20. Fasano v. Board of County Commissioner,s of Was6ington County,
'� 264 Or. 574, 507 P.2d 23 (1973).
,?.
;
�,. -11°
%
t
reviewed before the hearing. Some �urisdictions provide an opportu-
n�ty for a meeting among the staff, the proponents and the o nents
21
PI�
to review the draft staff report.
Public Eiearing
As noted on pages 3-4 , quasi-judicial land �se hearings must meet
certain procedural requirements. Within that framework, however,
much of the he�rings procedure rnaq be determined by the local govern-
ing body.
Legal Requirements for a Hearing
Y,ocal land use hearings are governed by Oregon's open meeting law,
ORS chapter 192; public records law, ORS chapter 192; gover�ent
ethics 1aw, ORS chapter 244; and other specific statutes, case law,
and local regulations, as noted belowa
Notice of Hearing.--In or.der for Che parties (usually the petitioner
and certain othec property owraers) ko have the opportunity to be
heard, adequaCe notice of the public heasing must be provided. The
basi.c xequirements of Oregon law are as follows.
• Authority for Notice Requtrements: For citi�s, see ORS 227 .
175(4); for counties, see ORS 215.223(3) and 215.416(4). In
addition, ORS 227.170 and 215.412 require cities and coun-
ties, respectively, to adopt hearing pracedures that often
have additional notir.e pravisions. Also, the notice require-
ments of the Or�gan op�n meeting law must be follo�red (ORS
192.640) .
• Who Must Be Notified: As a general rule, the person request°
ing the action and owners of abutting land within a certain
distance must be notified. The distance often varies with
the type of action, e.g. , in the city of Corvallis, from 150
to 500 feet.
� Tiate Requirements: ORS 215.223(1) acd 215.060 prescribe a '�
10-day natice period before a hearing on adoptian of a county
zoning ordinance or a county comprehe:nsive plano See also
ORS 193.040 and 193.060.
e Type of Nakice: The type of notice varies with statute� �nd
local regulations and may fnelude person:al service, mail,
posting, or newspaper publlcation (see ORS 215.223{3}� 215.
503 and 215e5D8).
I
- ; ;+
21. ��� generally Oregon State Bar, Continuing Legal Education, L,and i
Use� secs. 33.11, 33.26 and 34.10 (1982). — '
� �
;� f',
' f.l
-12s � �:�
� 4�.i
� �'I
, �,i
�� ,
�
}
• Cantent of Notice: Generally� the notice must state the
nature of the application, describe th22 property, and give
the time, place ar►d date of the hearing.
Some statutory notice provisions were modified by 1983 legislation.
ORS 197.610(2) eliminates the need to notify the director of DLCD of
a proposal t� amend an acknowledged plan or regulatinn or to adopt a
new regulation if city or county officials detec�nine that the goals
do not apply to the proposal. ORS 215.416(9) and 227.175(6) author-
ize a land use decision on a permit application without a hearing if II
notice of the decision and an opportunity for a full hearing on
appeal is provided to those who would atherwise have be�n entitl�d to
notice af a hearing held before the decision. These sections have
particular significance for staff-leve� decision making. They give
statutory recognition to procedures commonly used in a number nf
jurisdictions. See also the "Type II" procedure in Bureau of Govern-
mental Research and Service, Model Land Development Ordinanee Format
(September 1979). �
Because improper notice is a basis for invalidating a decision, care
should be taken to provide and dacument the provision of notice.
Standing.-�-In one context, staa�ding means the right to be heard at
the decision-making hearing. Cities and counties are free to adopt
stacdards g�verning standing "so 1on� as those standards are consis-
tent saith due process requirements. �j In its other context, stand-
ing means the right to appeal a decisiun. (3tanding requirements for
� local hearin�s and £or appeals are not necessarily the same as those
for judicial or state administrative agency review.)
The �ignificance of the rel.ation between the state and local require-
ments is apparent in the requireouent for petiCioning LUBA for �eview
of. a local legislative or quasi-�udicial declsion. For legislative
� decisions, the petitioner must be adversely affected or aggrieved.
For quasi°�udicfal decisions, the petitioner must have (1} appeared
at the local level, and (2) either be entitled to notice or be adver-
sely affected or aggrieved.24
uorum.--Generally, the nu�ber of inembers of a decision-making body
required to conduct business is governed by local poli.cies.25 Quorum
22. For further information, Ibid. secs. 11020 through 17.24; and
Bureau of Governmental Research and Service, Qua�i-Judicisl Land
Use Hearings Process (1983) .
23. Duddles v. City Council of West Linn, 21 Or. App. 310, 329, 535
P.2d 583 (1975); ORS 197.830; and Jefferson Landfill Com�nittee
ve Marion County, 65 Or. App. 319 (1983).
24. ORS 197.830.
25o See Oregon S�ate Bar, Continuing Legal Education, Local Govern-
..T; ment, se�. 4e4 (1979) .
.�
'�, -13-
y
�
I
requirements for a planning commission are often contained in the
ordinance that created the planning commission or in the pl�nning
commission's adopted rules.
Quasi-Judicial Procedures
Hearing procedures are partly dictated by the organizational alterna-
tive selected, e.g. , hearings officer or planning canmission. For
the most part, however, the basic re�uirements for quasi-judicial
actions are uniform and include the following.
Opportunity to Be Heard.---This means that a public hearing must be
available at some point in the local process. See ORS chapters 215
and 227. Tt is directly related to the notice requirement discussed
above.
Right to Present and Rebut Evidence.--While participants have basic
rights, th;e hearing body may se� limits on the manner of presentation
� and rebuttal. For example, many �urisciictions set limits on the
length of oral testimony, encourage the use of written presenkations,
and discourage repetitive testimany. Formal rules af evidence such
as those found in a court of law axe not required unless cont�ined in
the rules of the governing body.26
Right To an Impartial Trihunale--Oregon courts have generally fol-
lowed the interp�etation that actual bias, rather than the mere
appearance of bias, must be shown in order to establish that a tri-
bunal has nnt acted impartially.27 Contentions of bias usually arise
in terms of (1) contac.ts ou�side the formal hearing process (ex g�arte
contacts) betwe�n interested parti�s and the d�cisioa-making body,
and (2) conflicts of in:terest (generally financial) as defined by
Ore�on statutes.28 In addition to financial conflicts, there is a
somewhat murky judicial standard governing personal bias. Hearing
procedures are usually organized to allow disclosure of bias at the
beginning of the hearing.Z`�
26. Oregon State Bar, Continuing Legal Education, Land Use, sec,
17.27.
27. Tierney v�. Durfs, Payless Properties� 21 Or. App. 613, 536 P.2d
435 (1975); Peterson v. Lake Oswego, 32 Or. App. 181, 574 P.2d
326 (1978); Friends of Benton County vs Benton Cou�ty, 3 Or.
LUBA 165 (1981); Neuberger ve City of Portlanci� 288 Or. 585, 607
P.2d 722 (1980).
28. Ge�erally, fJRS ch. 244 requires only that public officials
disclose potential conflicts of interesk. However, O1tS 215.035
and 227.035 require city and county planning canmissian members
to withdraw from canmiesion proceedings or actions when a
conflict of interest exists.
29e See Bureau of Governmental Research and Service, Univer�ity of
Oregon, The Impartial Tribunal Requirement in Land Uee Decision �
Making (1 82). �
��
r�,
-14-
�f
,'
i �
, ;
An Adequate Record.--A ma�or purpose of the hearing is to create a
record of reliable evidence on which a decision can be made. The
importance of the record to the review process is evident from the
fact that review beyond the local level is almost entirely "�n the'
record."30 The record should conCain all of the evidence presented
at the hearing, including exhibits, maps, documents and other written
material, and all written testimony submitted. The minutes of the
hearing, the final decision, and the findings of the hearing body are
also part of the record.
Findings.--Quasi-judicial decisions n�ust be supporCed by findings
based on evidence in the record of the proceedings.31 These findings
should include the relevant criteria an which the decision is based,
the basic
fa
ets discover
ed in t
he hearing, and a com lete stat
eman
P t
of reaso�►s justifying the decision based on tti� facts and the
criteria.32
Findings are required for two major reasons. First, appellate bodies
, at the state, and of�en at the local, level review an initial deei-
sion "on the record" (i.e. , without takin� additional testimony or
evidence from kk�e parties) , �indings provide those badies with a
docu�ent to rev�ew and analyze in determining the validity of the
decision beir►g challenged.3� Second, findings encouz•age the hearing
L�ody to use cl.ear rea$oning in arrivin� at a conclusinn. This
assures considered aceion and helps Co prevenC the hearing body from
exceeding the bounds of its legal authority.34
Those who prepare findings should bear in mind the severa], audiences
to which findings are directed: (1) petitioners; (2) nearby resi-
dents and oth�r affected parties; (3) lncal appellate bodies; and
(4) state-level appellate bodies, including the courts. As noted
above, the staff can assist the decision makars by drafting the ini-
rial staff report in a form that leads to the ultimaCe finding� of
fact, conclixsions of law, and the decision.
A hearing body wil.l sometimes make eentative ficulings at the close of
its evidentiary �hearfng and instruct its staff or a party to prepare
formal findings befor� the body adopts the final order. This is
appropriate if the information in the document was presented as
evidencP ar the hearing and if all parties are advised that the
3�. See ORS 197.830(11) .
31. �'asano v. �oard of Caunty Commissioners of Washington County,
- 2b4 Oro 574 at 5$8, 507 P.2d 23 (1973) .
- 32o ORS 215.416(6) for counties; OR.S 227.173(2) for cities.
33. Nomore v. Polk County, 3 Or. LUBA 128, 130 (1981) 0
34. For information on what constitutes adequate findings and on
procedures for making findimgs, see I3uresu of Gavernmental
Research and Servi:ce, Univers�.ty o� pregoce, Findings in I,and Use
`` Decisions, (1982} -
�
�
�s -15-
,,y,
.v
'.,.
. `.t
m
initial decision is only tentative and is sub�ect to ahan�e when the
findings are reviewed and adopted by the decision maker.35
Conducting the Hearing
Yn addition to the fo rnral legal requirements described elsewhere
(e.g. , notice� impartial tribunal, record, adequate findings, etc.) ,
there are sorne important practical consideratians for the canduct
of a successful hearinga There are no fixed rules for these matters,
and the final form depends on local conditions and preferences.
Time and Place
Whether hearings are held once or twice a month or during the day
rathe� than khe evening are matters to be decided by matching the
time that decision makers have available with that of the parties and
the general public. Linn County, for example, has adopted a proce-
dure by which the planning cammissian meets twice a manth with the
meetings one week apart. Evidence is taken at the firs� meeting, and
decisions are rendered at the ��cond, thus shor�sning the delay fram
one manth to one week.
The "�ite" cc�nsid�rationg for a hearing are usually size, acaustics,
visibiliCy of exhlbits, and cost. T'he provisions for oral testimony
(e.g. , speaking frrnu a central Zectern or from the audience) �inould
be geared to the size and nature of the audience and the need to make
an adequate r�cord. Also, all �echanical equipment for di.splaying
exhibits and recordict� the hearing should be ehecked before the
hearing to a�s�ure t�at they are in proper w�orkiqg order.
The Agen+da and Relat�d Information
Another matter of purely local option is the agenda. Often, one of
the critical decisions in these days of budget eutback is whether
copies of petitions, staff reports and related printed material can
be provided for each persor� at the hearing. Many jurisdictions
encourage people to obtain information ak the planning office before
the heaxing. Another solution is to separate the material by appli-
cation an� encourage the audience to take only material.s that pertain
to the application in which they are interested. I
I
A written agenda is important in helping the audience participate
properly. For that reason, many jurisdictions include general
35. Hazen Investments� Inc. v. L�ne County, 2 Or. LiJBA 151, 152
(198U); 1000 Friends v. Clackamas County, 3 Or. LUBA 2D3, 1210
(1981) . LUBA Rule of Procedure 3(c) sta[es: "Fi:nal decision or
deteimination means a decision or determination which has been
reduced to writing and �which bears the necessary signature of .
the governing body." �
�
'�-Y 6- '�
�
��
.�> ;
�
info rn►ation on the agenda, such as the names of hearing body members
and staEf and the rules for testifying.
Role of the Presider
The presider has the most crucial role in the hearing and often
sets the tone and pace for the entire proceeding.36 It is imsportant
at the beginning of the hearing for the presider to:
(1) Introduce the hearing body and staff;
(2) Explain the order of presentation of individual. hearings;
(3) Explain the burden of proof;
(4) Explain the functions of the hearing body and sta.ff;
(5) Explain the rules for presentation of testimony;
(6) Explain the method provided for rebuttat;37
(7) Ask people to identify themselves for the record;
(8) Explain whether the hearing is a one- or a two-step proc-
ess, i.e. , whether testimony will be taken and a decision
rendered in the same meeting or in a subsequent meeting;
(9) Explain the procedure for site visits;
(10) Explain the procedure for further testimony and continuance
of the hearing; and
I (11) Explain how the decision will be announced and how the
i
appeals process operateso
� Often, some or all of this information will be available in a public-
inforrnation handout for those attending the meeCing.
Exatuples of materials applicable to the public hearirrg are in Sample
Group III in th�e Appendix, pages 69-°77.
36. For a discussion of the role o£ presi.der, see G. Fleerlage,
"The Local Land Use Hearing Room," in 1982 Oregon Planning
Institute Papers (Bureau of Governmental Researeh and Service,
University of Oregon) .
37 e The hearing body may decide how the right to rebut may be exer�
cised. Cross-examination is neither required nor canmon in
practice. See South of Sunnystde Neighborhood League v, Board
of Comm's of Clackamas County, 27 Or. App, 6k7, 6b3, 557 P.2d
1375 (197b), rev'd on other grounds 200 Or. 3 (1977)e A common
form of rebuttal is to submit questions either verbally or in
writing to the hearing body through the chair. See also Clink-
. scales v. City of Lake Oswego, 47 Or. App. 1117� 1123, 615 P.2d
1164 (1,980) .
-17-
i . , , ' _
. �
r
Post-H�aring llctivities
Notic� of the Declsioc�
The appeal remedy is adequate only when the petitioner is aware of
its nature and availability early enough in the decision-making
process to make use of it. The appeal remedy is inadequate when the
complaining pacty fails to receive notice of its availabflity, ttius
depriving the party of the oppoxtunity for timely review.38
Because the timeCable for ffling appeals begins when a r,aritten
order and finciings, with the necessary signatures, is executed,�9
it i5 important to notify the parties 3.n a timely fashion. The forms
, in Sample Group IV in the Appendix, pages 79-93, indicate how this
may be don�a Also included are forins designed to notify certain '
other public officials, such as assessors and recorders, who may not (
have directly participated in the decision-making process and wt►o do
not have standing to appeal� The notice-of-decision requirement
applies to staff-level decision making, as well as to decisions �nade
by a hearings afficer, planning commission, design review board, or
governing body.
Permit�, Authosiz�tio��s and Related ]Private FarmaliCies
After a final decision is made, it is often formalized with a pe rnait
or authorization that sets forth the nature, location and cluration of
the structure or use allowed, plus any conditions that have been
attached. This is alsc, the time foc executian of private disclo°
sures, waivers, agreements, bonds, etc. Examples of these forcns are
also in Sample Group IV, pages 79-930
�.ppeal s
Anyone who is dissatisfied with a local government land use decision
ordinarily has two levels of a�,pellate review available: (1) local
review by the planning commission or governing body (common but not
required by state law) ,40 and (2) review at the state level.�l
38. See Finnerty v. Cowen, 508 F.2d 979, 981 (2nd cir. 1974).
39. Hazen and cases in accord, see note 34.
40. OR� 227.175(6) for cities, ORS 215.41b(9) for counties.
41. State-level review begins with the Land Use Board of Appeals,
which has exclusive jurisdiction to review local goverarnent land
use decisions. Decisions of LUBA ar.e appealable to the Oregon
Court of Appczals. ORS 197.880{3) . Ministerfal decisions made
under authority of ORS 197.015(10)(b) are not land use decisions
and are excluded from LUBA review. Preswnably they may be
challenged in circuit court. Oregon Real Estate and Land Use
Digest, Vol. 5, No. 4 (October 19$3), p. S.
i`,
�'
�
��',
� � ���
+,
-18-
�
� �.-
��
■ _ _�_.,....�,��. .... .
« �
m
Local Level
Considerable latitu�e is accorded cities and c�unties as to ilow 1oca1
review is conducted. Review may be to the pYanning commission or
governing body and may be de novo (new he�iring) , "on the record,' or
a comhination of the two, as prescribed by the governing body.�°2
Cities and counties reviewing a land use decision an appeal must
include a hearing, at least for argument, and must consider the
record of the initial hearing body. The record need not be s�t forth
verbatim.43
As noted above, it is im portant Co provide timely notice to those
wikh standing to app�al. It is also important not to change the
procedural rules for a local appeal during the eourse of the appeal.
Failure to observe this rule may result in the local rule being over—
turned .44
Other important considerations that can be aided by proper forrus and
procedures include (1) accurate preservatiun and transmittal of the
record; (2) adequats public information reg�rding deadlines, requiYed
information and fees; and (3) observance of procedural rules conc�a�n—
ing the notice of a hearing, an impartial tribunal , and a ciecision
based on the record with �dequa[e findings.
State Leae�.
Local decisions may be appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals
(LUBA) , and, from there, to the c.ourt of appeals. Ap}�eals may be
b�sed on numerous grounds, including (1) lack of local �urisdiction;
(2) failure to follow proper proc2dures; (3) failure to bas� the
decision on sufficient evidence; (4) a mistake in applytng the law;
or (5) making an unconstitutional decision.45
To help assure a f�ir local hearing and to minimize ths pot�ntial for
rev�rsa].s or remands, the foLlowing checklist is su�gested for use by
lacal planning officials. This list is abbreviated; the full text
may be found in the 19$2 Oregon Planning Institute Papers, BurPau of
Governmental Rssearch and Service, (Jniversity of Oregon, �o A2.15.
(1) Maintain case files in chronological order;
(2) Develop and use an affidavi[ of mailing;
(3) Obtain an aEfidavit of publication;
41. If iro hearing was provided prior to making a land use deeision,
the hearing on appeal must be de novo,
43. ORS 227.18Q(1)(a){G) .
44. Adaim v, Scappoase, 27 Oro App. 219, 223, 5S5 P.2d f309 (1976).
45. ORS 197.$35.
_1q_
v
(4) Obtain a complete application;
(5) Ensure that Che �SUblic hearing is tape recorded and that
adequste minutes are prepared;
i
(6) Develop a complete and ti�orough staff report;
(7) Establish and ubli.cfze i'
p proper hearing procedures; �{
!
(8) Obtaln and retaln canprehenslve written testimony as much
' as possible;
i
(9) M�thodically mark and preserve all exhibits;
(10) Prepare proper findiqgs; consider placing some of the bur-
den on the parties to provide findings;•
(11) If funds and time are a probleme and if the decision under
appeal is an approval� consider requiring the applicant to
be the respondent, rather than the local government;
(12) Comply fully and promptly with the LUBA proc.edural rules.46
Materials dealing with the appeals process are in Sample Group V in
the AppendixP pages 95-101e
Monitoring and Enforcement
Enforcement act.ions are necessary when a landowner or a local gavercr
ment agency acts contrary to an adopted ordiaance or regulation. ORS
21.5.185 specifically provides to counties or affected laeuiowners a
variety of remedies to redress the construction of a serucCure or
"any oCher land use'° in violation �f a camprehensive pian or imple-
mentic� land use regulation.47 The statute provfdes that� in addi_
tion to other remedies at law, action may be brought for injunction
and mandamus.
ORS chapter 227 does not set forth similar express powers for cities;
however� simila� remedies are available under common law and charter -
and ordinance provisions.
The appropriate enf�rcement remedy will deperad on who is suing and
for what purpose. A declaratory judgment action� for example, may be
brought by a private party or a municipality to dete nnine the rights j
of the parties (e.g. , to deter�nine whether a use is nonconforming) .
�
46o See OAR 661-10-000 to 6b1-01-075. (;opies may be obtained frosn '
the Land Use Board of Appeals, 106 State Library Building� ,
Salem, Oregon 97310 (telephone 373-1265) . `!
;,
47. See ORS 215.185(2) for amendments dealing with award of aCtorney !
{
fees and expenses and charges to the county. i:
;
;;;
� � �:,
r,.
-3�0- � � � � � � ;':;
.. .`..•Yf'C'n•,'�4"flf?� ..�L�'1l�14t`...SF''.�1ti4iY�:1&R�'i'AR1'e. . � � . . � � ����,
� -�... ....:..,� ��
, ,
I�. � � . .. � . . . .. _. :� ... . �.�
� , � .. ,
An injunction action may be instituted by a private party or the
government to stop a code violation, or by an applicant to stop the
local government from enforcing its ore3inance.
A mandamus action is usually instituted by an ap�lica�it to compel the
issuance of a permit or by an aff�ected party to compel the local gov-
ernment to withdraw its approva1.48
i Note that sometimes the remedies above may be considered to be im-
� proper, and the parties may Ue dicected to seek relief through LUBA
� review.49
i
I Ordinance violation also may be remedied b
; y penalties that arP cri�i-
nal or quasi-crimina1.50 When the action is cocisidered criminal, the
� burden is on the local government to prove beyond a reasonable daubt
' that Che defendant violated the ordinance without benefit of a vested
right in the use,51
Same municipalities in Oregon have established , by ordinance, com-
plaint and citaCion procedures similar to those used to handle
traffic code infractians.52
Forms dealing with monitoring and enfoccement can be found in Sample
Group VI in the Appendix, pages 103-109>
Prior to enforcement, of coursey it is necessary to learn of the
alleged violation through a monitorfng process. "Monitoring" has two
general meanings: (1) systematic data gathering and anlaysis to
judge the effectiveness and desirability of comprehensive plan
policies,53 and (2) detection of specific violations of ordinance
provisions or conditions imposed through the d�scretionary permit
process. While the first catEgory rnay foeus attention on certain
48. See generally, Oregon State Bar, Continuing Legal Education,
Land Use, secs. 29.1 to 29.6, for details and specific examples.
49. See Forman v. Clatsop County, 63 Or. A,pp. 617 (1983); Turner v.
Lane County, 63 Or. App. 611 (1983) .
50. Lan� d Use� svpra at sec. 29.7; 3 Rathkopf, The Law ot Zoning and
' P�anning, sec 45-8 (4th ad. i983) . �
51. See Land Use, supra at secs. 29.10 to 29.12 for defenses to
various land use actions.
52• See, e.g. , Klamath Falls Code� sec. 2 .840 to 20862.
53. See Richard Ragatz Associates, Inc. , GomRrehensive Plan Mon.ikor-
ing (DLCD, March 1983).
-21-
a
�• �
acLiviCies or certain areas of the �urisdiction, code enforcement is
usually carried out by c�ther me��s imPlied uexder the secan� category.
The most cammon method i� enforcement through the building code
div�sion as part of its normal inspecti.on function. Alleged viola°
tions also may came to the municipality's attenti.on through co►n-
plaints by affected or interested citizenso
Monitoring and enforcement is sometimes handled through business
13.cense procedures or b.y withholding certain municipal servfces a� an
incenti�✓e for campliance.
i
i
� � � '1
� �
;
� I
I
�
i
!
�'
r
�
r
' i
i
I
i
i
,
, �
,
-22-
�i
,� n, �p �
APPENDIX
These forms have not been reviewed or approved by the Bureau as to
1ega1 effect in specific situations. Ptease consult your legal
counsel on specific matters.
Fo nn
1 Number Title �'ag�
I
� GROUP I: GG[VERAL PUBLIC INFORRI�ATION
i
II.1 Response to Request for Information 25
I,2 Pre-Appli.cation Conference Informakiom 27
�i I.3 Residenti.al Uses in Forest: Zones Zg
� I.4.a Site Design Review Handout 31
! I•.4.b Site Design Rev.iew Handout 33
� I.5 Summaxy of 'Loning Srandards �5
I.6 Summary of Land Use Actions 3�
GROUP II: PRB-NEARING APPLTCATI0�1 SUBMITTAL AND RF.VIEW
Il.l.a Comprehensive Plan Change Application 39
Il.l.b Comprehensive Plan Change Appiication �+1
Il.l.c Comprehensive Plan Change Application 4�
II>2 Conditional lJse A�plica�ion �+5
II.3 Building P�rmit Appli.cation G�
LI.4 Explanation of Fees 49
II.S Annexatioei Ghecklist 5�
IIe6 Developrnent Permit Processing Checklist 53
II.7 Notice to Pet.itioners
' Regarding Application Completeness 55
II.8 Summary of Signif'icant Processin:g Uates 57
II.9 Consent to Annexa[ion Sg
II.10 Review and Gnmment 61
II.11 Review and Commen't 63
II.12 Staff Report and Findings Document 65
II.13 Notice of Pending Administrative Action 67
GROUP LIIs PUBLIG HF.ARINGS
III.1 Notice of Hearing and Affidavits
o€ Publication and Notice 69
III.2 General Informatlon on Public Hearing 71
III.3 Request to Speak and Request for Party Status 73
III,.4 Vot ing Recorcl �5
III.5 Final Order Form 77
-23°
.
-- ,: -__ _--- �'�
� �15{6, p� . .�
_Appendix` ' .
Form
Number Title Page
GROUP IV: POST-HEARING ACTIVITTES
� tV.l Notice of Dispositian 79
1V.2 PetiCioner's Memorandum of Underst�anding f31
Iv.3 Notice to As�essor of Map Change 83
IV.4 Gertification: Notices nf AcCi.on �nd I�speetion 85
IV.S Certificakion of Map Maintenance 87
IV.6 Tempotary Sign Permit 89
IV.7 Security Interest A�reement 91
IVoB Disclosure StatemenC . 93
GROUP V: APPEALS
y.1 Appeals Procedure �5
V.2 Appeal Application 97
V.3 Appeal Applicatic�n 9�
'V.4 C�rtification of the Record 101
GItOUP VI: MONITORING AN� �NFARCE�N`I'
VI.1 Certificate of Occupancy 103
VI.2 Busfne�s Permit A.pplication 105
t1I.3 Nuisance Complaint/Inspection Report 107
VI.4 Notice to Resident of Code Violatian 109
�he fornas included in this manual are only a saraple of those avail— f '
able through the Bu�eau. If you have questions ax' want; td see other
examples, ple�se contacC uso
Bureau af Goverimmental Research and Setvice
Un�versity of Oregon
P.Q. Box 3I77 `�
Eugene, Oregon 97403-0177
(SD3) 686-5232 �
�
�
;�
�
�
i
-24� `
� r ,:
[Page Too Large for OCR Processing]
[Page Too Large for OCR Processing]
[Page Too Large for OCR Processing]
[Page Too Large for OCR Processing]
[Page Too Large for OCR Processing]
[Page Too Large for OCR Processing]