Planning Commission Packet - 07/07/1987 POOR QUALITY RECORD
PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and
put on microfilm. The following document is a copy of the
microfilm record converted back to digital. If you have questions
please contact City of Tigard Records Department.
POOR QUALITY RECORD
PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and
put on microfilm. The following document is a copy of the
microfilm record converted back to digital. If you have questions
please contact City of Tigard Records Department.
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTBS
WORKSHOP WITH CITY COUNCIL & OTHER BUSINESS - JULY 7, 1987 - 7:00 PM
l. PRESENT: Commissioners: Don Moen, Bonnie Owens, Deane Leverett, Milt
Fyre, Dave Peterson, Chris Vanderwood, and Greg Newton; Mayor
Tom Brian; Councilors: Carolyn Eadon, and Jerry Edwards, Valerie
Johnson, and John Schwartz; City Staff: William Monahan,
Director of Community Development; Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel;
Keith Liden, Senior Planner; and Diane Jelderks, Secretarq.
GUESTS: Marv Himmel (facilitator), Will Newman, and Geraldine Ball.
2. WORKSHOP
o Legal framework and procedures of Planning Commission and City Council in
land use decisions.
Tim Ramis reviewed the legal framework and procedures of Planning
Commission and City Council ir� land use decisions. The major points being
the 120 day LDCD deadline and the ability of the City Council to affirm,
reverse, modify, or remand t�ack to Planning Commissian any land use
decision which is appealed. On Legislative actions, which determine the
rules that will be us�d, ultimately these are City Council decisions as
lon� as they are within the land use goals. On Quasi-Judicial, the
Planning Commission reaches its decision based upon an adopted set of
rules (the Community Development Code) and adopts findings. When the
decision is appealed to City Council, they may affirm, reverse, modify, or
remand back to Planning Commission. Currently, the City Council has been
allowing additional testimony in order to modify decisions to stay within
the 120 day deadl3ne. He noted also that Counc3l has no more "discretion"
within the Code than the Commission. Both bodies apply the same set of
rules. They may reach different conclusions because of the weight that
, they give to evidence. This must be expected.
o Buildin a workin relationshi between the Council and C
8 6 p ommiseionera.
Marv Himmel, facilitator, asked what can be done to make the system work
as effectively as possible? What woulcl t'he Council like to see from the
Planning Commission and what doea the Planning Commission need from City
Counc3l?
Lengthy discussion followed regarding specific issues and the roles and
responsibility of the Planning Commission versus the City Council. Issues
wh3ch need to be addressed were:
1. Communication between City Council and Plann3ng Commission. The
Planning Commission needa to make findings which fully articulate the
reasons for their decieion. Also, the Planning Commission should
repeat in their deciaion, in summary, why the Commission decided as
they did. Thir� would help with the poor quality of traascripts.
[Suggestion to investigate the use of lapel mikes. ]
2. City Council needs to cammunicate back to the Planning Commiasion the
result (final order) and the reason for thei.r deciaion. This has
been initiated with positive reaults.
PI�ANNING COI�AlI�SION/CITY COUNCIL WORRSHOP MTNIITBS JULY 7, 1987 Page 1
3. Wkien an item is considered to be a "hot potato° Planning Commission
should �etermine if a representative should attend the City Council
hearing as a resource person.
4. Periodic meetings should be held with City Council and Planning
Commission when issues arise.
o Prioritization of Communj.ty Development Code Review 1987-88.
William Manahan, Director of Commun�ty Development, reviewed the proposed
schedule of code revisions. Discussion followed with the Council and
Commission accepting the schedule. •
3. Warkahop Ad�ourned: 9�30 PM
PLANN�NG COMMISSION
4. OTHER BIISINESS
o Request by Citizens Savings & Loan Association for a six month extension
to obtain preliminary plat approval for Summer Lake No. 2 Subdivision.
Senior Planner Liden reviewed the request and made staff's recommendation
for approval.
* Commissioner Fyre moved and Co�issioner Vanderwood seconded to approve
the si� month eatension as requested. Motion carried by ma�ority of
Commissioners pre$ent. Comsi.saioner Owens abstained.
o Vacation Requests: 1. Request for vacation of public uti'lity easements
, for Chelsea Hills No. 1 Subdivision (Lots 13 and 14). 2. Request for
vacation of public utility easements for Morning Hill No. 1 Subdivision
(lots 35, 36, and Tract I) . 3. Vacation of SW 76th Avenue between SW �
Bonita Road and S�1 Durham Road. �
,
Senior Planner Liden reviewed the requests and made staff's recommendation
for approval.
o Discussion followed regarding the way Falcon Rise Drive dead e�.dg.
* Com�iasioner Peteraon moved and Commissioner Vanderwood seconded to
forward �he three request to City Council with a recomsendation for
approval, requesting that a condition be added to the Marning Hill No. 1
Subdivision that s temp�rary turnaround be inatalled at the end of Falcon
Rise Drive. Motion carried unanimously by Commisgionera present.
5. ADJODRNMENT: 9:50 PM
3385P/48Pdmj '�
c I
Diane 3eldzr s — Secretary -
ATTEST:
� /
F-� �� 1
Planning Commission Chairman , I
PLANNING COI�AIISSION/CITY COUNCIL WORRSHOP MINUTES JULY 7, 1987 Page 2
; '�
�
.� :Y
MEMORANDUM
CTTY OF TIGARD, pREG4N
T0: Bob Jean, Keith Lideri, P�.ann'ng Cc�mmission J'uly 21, 1987
FRUM: Wi1la.am A. Monahan
SUC3JECT: Cade Revi�w
The fallowing is the staff schedule of camprehensive plan code reviews for the
next year. The list is based on a discussian with the Planning Cr�mmission �nci
City Gauncil on July 7.
pRdPOSEb SCHEDULE OF CODE RfVYSTONS ;
�
f
PRES�.IUT TO �
COUNCIL T4PTC �
fi
September Sensitive Lands — Procedural Section
Sept/Oct Pl.anned Development's/Density Compwtation
Sign Code Cleanup
• October CBD Zane/Landscaping and Parking Standards F1
October Streamlining I
Navember Half Street Improvement Policy/Si�e Deuelapment Review
December Ap�eal Period Reuiew
;:_
FQbruary Sensitive Lands — Palicy, Goal 5 Tssu�s (Inuento�^y
Conc�r•n s)
February �treamlini.ng Tx
Spring Hous�keeping Ordinance
I P/I l. ;';;;'i
Partitinns
Established Ar�ea Procedur�e Reuiew ``
Solar Access Related Standards
Historic Ouerlay Zones z�
,:.
#r-�:
;'.:
r:''
;;I
t:;,
(::'.
f,.
�!.':
t' _ _ _ _ . ........... ... .
__ _ _ _ _ f
���
' �
,, ,
PREVIEW UF STAFF ANALYSIS
C;ade Reuision Schedule �!
5e�atemk,et^, 1987 Sensitive I_ands — Procedural Sc�ctian
o Streamlining ta have mare staff � eui.ew ins�ead af NO,
and r�move s�7me actions from review. Lnnentory work �
. fa�^ Gc�al 5 — per�iodic r�eview, clarify wetland and �a
wildlife cr^it�rXa. �
�
�
Sept/Oct, 1987 Planned Deuelopment/Density Compu�atiqn }
o Study is in pru�rt�ss i
Sign Code Clean�ap �
a Som� streamlining in exceptions, perhaps some
Directar's Decxsion (i.e. , :low perc�rri:age increases
with justificatian) .
a Rewrite af sign code based upon that of Multnomah
Coun�y ta avoid challenge nf Constitutional grounds.
Sign Code
a. Content — neutral
b. C--P and G—N zone revis�.ons
c. Housing complex ID signs in R-12, R-25, and R—AO zones
d. Standards for electronic readerboards
e. Standards for fre�w��y—oriented signs
f. Standards for delineation of sign area
g. Sign Permit requir�ements
h. Sign code exception criter�ia
. i. Outdoor adv�rtising signs
j . How sign is at�s�ched to wall
October, 1987 CBD Zone
a CCPTF input for possible revision, i. .e. , uses allowed,
special desigr standards.
Landscaping and Parking Standards
o On small parcels shocald we �pply the established
s�andards, particularly in rewse situations7 Special
� requirements for CBD to allow combining of landscaping
and parking requirements. Perhaps w� should make it
legal and unifnrmly apply.
Streamlining I
o Cr�Eatian of anaL-h�r reView procedure for small
Director's Decisian like minnr setback var�iances (A
ft. inste�d of 5 ft.) . Accessory structures, lot line
adjus�n►ents, possibly some �emporary uses, and tree
cutting.
n RQUise Temporary Use criteria -- �ninisterial approach.
Try to eliminate some of the red �ape, clarify policy
and regulations. Ts. nntice needed?
�
;
r
j:_.
i
il
o Fl.exible seL-hack standards - imprnve variance Y�
standards using these standards as criteria.
o Tape Remaval - develop a procedure for issuance 'llil
o Discussion on the jurisdiction csf Planning Commissian,
Hearings Officer and Directnr. Shauld a shift i:ake ;I
place by adding and deletin� responsibili�ies7 i.e. ,
sensitive lands, PD's, etc.
o Subdivisions - clarify the staff discretion on r�eview
and approval of final plans.
o Noti.ce - use of signs erected and the site af pending
land use actinns as a m�ans of nnt:ice.
a Reuise Temparary Use Section ta:
a. streamline the process
b. expand section 18.140,050(b) allowing other si
additional uses
c. expand the approval criteria to allow starage of a
mobile hame for� the purpose of tempora�^ily
expanding present commercial or industrial space
d, set a threshold fnr applications which do/do not �
;
warrant a full staff review
7ime Extensions
o Liber�alize 9.t ta replace resubmittal requirements.
Allow revi�w authority to make additional extensions. `=
November, 1967 Half Street Impr�ovement Policy
. o Nalf SLreet Tmprovement policy and regulatians. Code
should clari�y what types of deuelapment require, ;;
which should not.
Si�e Development Review Policy
o Site �evelopment Review policy regarding .wh�n a fo�^mal
review shou].d take place. Should it be required upon
expansion, remodeling, what is the threshald?
December, 1987 Appeal Period Review
a Broader extensi.on of appeal periods fnr amend�d
decisions. Ability to extend the 10 day appeal per�ind
in certain caseg, try to reach a campramise, then `
continue appeal period with amended decision. Y
;:
Febr�uar�y, 1988 Sensitive Lands Palicy/Goal 5 Issues i
o The City's policy `.
�
o Gaal 5 Issues - the Cit;y must make changes to the plan
p�ortions governed by Goal 5. S1:aFf was concer�ned ��
abaut this section at the time of plan appro�al `
February, 1988 Si:r�amlining T� '
o A seriex of minor changes will be presented
i
s
f
�.
�
�
:
,
Y
Spring, 1988 Nousekeeping Ordinances
o I�/IL Zane.
What is the distinction betweeri I—P �nd T—L zanes?
What are we trying to achie�e wiL-h I—L zon�s?
a Partitians.
ModifiGatinns of what requirements are needed ta
r�co�d partitinned lots with Caunty. Sign uff
co�ies. Make it into a madified subdivisio�� procedure.
o Est�blished Area Procedu�e Review
At what paint shauld the Established/Developing Area
Map be updated and revised to reflect changps brought
about by development?
o Sola� access relat�d standards or requi�empnts
resulting farm Metro—wide study. Review findings of
study, decide whether we want to adapt a new ar�dinance.
a Historic Qverlay
Changes needed for periodic review
br/0143D
-
i
�
�
s
r'
f
t
`t.
�
4
�
�,
j,
�'
. .w...: . � . . ..
�
MEMORANnUM
('.I'TY OF� 'TIGAC2D, ORE("y0N
T0: Elob 7ean, Cit,y Administr•�i;ar June 19, 1q87
FROM: � William A. Monahan, Director, .'y�r-�'
Gommunity Devc�lo�mrenl.
.�UBJ'F��T: (�i�y Cuur�cil/Plannin� t,��mmissic�n Wor•ksh��r�
Carolyn E;�don and I met W��:r, tr,� Plar�nin<� C;c�mmissiari ��ri "1°uesd�y eveniru� iu
cliscuss issuPS. The Commissic�n wU�ald 'lik� tb nreet wiLh lhn C>ity Gouricil �ri
Tuesday, July 7 at I F�M in a workshc�p scatling. C:�r��lyn will make thc�
arrangements wi�h Council membPrs. 'The ��mmission and rar•alyn would likEZ tc�
us� 'M�rv Nimm�l as a facilitat�r and h�ue 7im Ramis available far abUUt ari
hour to taik about process and lec�al iss�a�s. I joLLF►ci down a number �f -
cnncerns raised at the meeting whicti the G�mmissi�n wc�uld like me t� k�r•ief
Marv with befnre the Juiy 7 session,
;i
,
/3328P � i
. )
. • �
° �
�
S
i ��j�''� '� . �
' �'� � s
� r v v E,
�.
. - ;,
� � r
. •
'�
. �
r � ;
0 S o W� � ` ,
� - t
. t
r[.
M
�
!•
i
�(
A'
�{"
1
'
Y
�
![
@
G}
k
�
�
. . . . ". . � ��
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKS�OF�
JUNE 16, 1987
Workshop Needs/Format
Milt Fyre � Open discussion of perceived role of CC and PC. F�aw it is
. � worknng7 Should a PC rep be present at de novo hie�rir�gsl
Wh�re is th� Council coming fram - ecanomic d�velo�amcant,
code enforcement?
De�ne Leverett - Agrees with Milt. Feels there was misinterpret�tion of
�ouncil statement at the last meeting with Council , ,
Ghris V�nderwood -� Understands the pC and CC dori't �c�ree, but unsure cif' thie
direction that the Council is going and what dirc�ctiuri i�.hc�y
want the PC to go. Recogni-r_e that Council is mor•ca unific�d
than in �rior years -- what does this mean in t�r•ms uf NC
direci�ion7
Dan Maen - CoWncil needs to understand bounds af qu�si-�judicial
` hearing, be same as PC. How far can PC go legally. Nc�pd
discussion an the process i.e. , if reviews ar� ori t�tica
record, shouldn't Council r�mand when new information cumes
up7 Milt suggested that a repres�ntative from PC can be
present to state whether something constitutes new
informati.on.
Bonnie Uwens - She is co,ncerned how the City Council uses ttie. cade
compared to the PC. The change both�rs he►^.
' ' Chris noted that • the Commission loses credik�ility when
, decisions by the Commission are overturnPd by Council.
� John Butler - Referr�d to 135th where the C�mmission expressed coric�rn
that Council not approve further development. The L:CD r�as
, been delayed, no improvemEnt to the road yet.
Greg Newton - Stated that the Commission pt^obably doesn't put everything
in the decisions, the relevant factars and deb�tt�s whic6�
occurred may be lacking. FeQls the decisions issued by 1;he
Planning Commission are dry, often they do n�t have
surficient finciings of fact �or Council to considt�r.
Perceptions that they have been overturned wher� th�?rr•. i.s
not justification in the statu�es or when �coriamic ccanc:�.►r�s
� gaver•n.
Carol.yn Eadon feel.s that h�ving a Cammission member present wil� k��� vc�t�.ir�bl��
to keep the discussion to the record. She suggested �hat there m�y be a few
wh�.� work the system, but not the majority. Also, the City Attc�rnc�y c���.ild br
available L-u Lhe Planniny (,r�mmission For the major issu�?s ,
There have als� be�n somc.� prnblems wi�h ordinances, iri particul�r th�� han►�
occu�ation code. The (:�mmissiort was attempting to makc� legal such k>tasincassas
as a piaria t�acher� with st��aclent:s cceming t� her home. Council did nat �����r•�.�ve
it,
Carolyn rep�rted that tPie Council also would like to discuss roles.
The Cc�mmission wou.ld k>e avaa,lable to mecat on Jtaly 7 at 7;04 #�M. '
* ^ �\
Greg referred tc� Tigard`s sign code exceptian criteria and Newport's. The
issue is how much discretion the Council and Commission have. The Commission
does not agree th�t the Council has more discretion than �h�e Commissio� has i�
interpreting the Code.
Bill and Caralyn will work to set up the workshop. Marv Him,mel will be
br�ught in to facilitate with Attorney Tim Ramis present for about an hour to
a�swer questians c►n process.
sb/1807W
,
. �
`
• i
` � � � ��
b
. k
s
�'
E!
Y'
��
4�
L',
P
�"
i
yl
isl
';t
,�
�!?
t"'
y
` �}i
t':
.. . .. . ��.,.:
��I
r };
4;�
. .. E..�t�.
. .. ��':;�:�.
. . . . . h„'..
� � tir
Iu
j!
('f
'4.�
. .. . . �� �..;:,
if;;
. . . . ;,;�,.
( 1
. � � .. . . � . �f...i
I.F
�':
.. . � . . � �'.
� � � . � . ....... .... . ..:.:. .. ....:._:.. . . .......
PROPUSED SCNEpULE OF CODE REVISIONS
pRHSENT TO
COUNCIL TOPTC
_ ____. _�.....�__.._._ � _._____.�.._.. _
SPptember Sensitiue l.ands — Procedur•al Spction
Sept/Oct pl�nned peuelopmc�nt's/�ensi.i:y C�mputation
5ign Coc�e (:leanup
Octnb�r Stre�ml.in9.ng I
Novemhaer Half Street ;ImprovEamF�nt pol�cy/Site Qevel.opm�nt R�vic�w
Novem�er CE3D 7..ane/Lanc�scapa.ng anc� F�arking ���and�ards
q�cemH�er fippeal Per•iUd Rev:ic�w
Febru�r•y Sensi.ti.ue L.�nds -•• F7oli.cy, Gnal �; �1'ssu�s (:T:nuentc�ry concc�r•ns)
C�ebruar^y ;treamlinzng :CT
Sprinc� Housekeeping Ordinance
Notice
IP/IL
Partitions
Established Area Praced�are Review
So1ar Access Related Standar^ds
Historic Quer�J.ay Z.ones
�
/3374P
`�.,
M�MORANnUM �
(;ITY OF T:LGARD, �OR�GON
i
T0; Members of the City Council June 30, 1987
Memb�rs of the Planning Commission i�
' �
FROM: Williotm A. Monahan, Director of Community Deuela�ment
SUBJkCT: Council/Cammission Workshap — July 7, 1987
4ur worksfiop will be held at 7:00 p.m. on 7uesday, July 7. Marv Himmel will
be present as a facilitator and Attorney Tim Ramis as 1ega1 advisor. Enclosed
for your informatian are the following:
1. My notes c,f the June Planning Gommission meeting where Commission mem'�ers
expressed their concerns.
2. A list of land use actions campleted by Di.ane J'elderks which shows the
decisions mad� by the C�mmissian and subsequent Council act9.on, if any.
I laok farward ta seeing you on 7uly 7.
WAM,sb/1930W
cc: Bob �'ean
Tim Ramis
Keith Li.den
,
j
^ AC.:T]:ON F�.0 METHOL') T'U • C];-I°Y GOUNCI:t�
fiNPLI(;ANT R�UESI"�p ACTION� CITY COUN(:'L_�1_ ' _ ACTION` _,_
Waymir�e/Waver'ly 7] lots Uenied
River Lan<�irig t; �+•�-flG/PD .l�--fl6
Waymire/W�aver•ly 8�t lc�t:s Uenied Rppeal:�c� Ap�rc�vE�d wi:t:f� ., '
Oouer Lanciirag � 7••-Q6/'(�D ?..-g6 i�y Ar��lic�r�L- cor�ciifii.caris
.��:
Gentury 2.1 Prnp. 43 lol:s Approved
S 10�-86/PD 3--f36
L;pc�ctr•tam Pr•c�p, lats ���r•c�ued
:.; 12...-�36/F�D h t36
:�wzansc�n Glen 1C��� loi:r> a�pr•ov�c�
Titan Pr�.�pert;i��s S l�r--f►C
L.i.ncoln Savings 8 lots a�Prnued appeal�d k�y Apprc�v�d wi.i::h
S 1--86 NPO 1� 6 modificatians
�am Gotter 7 lots denied
Butle�^ Terrance
LA DEV/BEAVERI"SON 33 lats appraved
Pei�n Lawn EstaLes S 3••-fl6
Ftok�ert C].ause 6 loi:s approued
� �...-86 ,
Geti:y Const. 10 la�s approved
Fm�rald fic,rns S 6--fl6
Sam Gotter� 6 l�ts apprau�d
(r.�.__a�ply 5 p....8ti
Butl�r Terracce V 9-••Q6 appr�ved
Wesley Brookman 13 lo�s a�aproved �
Rok��ri: C].a��as S g-..Sfi
V 4--86
KruE�ger• (Gotsw�lci) 7�+ J.c�l.s ��>pr•ovEC�
H � K Invc�sl:ar�s 5 1.oLs �z��ruveci
� ].3_..gE,
Halvorson 34 lc>i:s appr�ued
Tom Mi.l.l�r E3uil.dcar ;� ].f-••E�6 .
NI..F�IUIU:CNG (,CN1M;[�S:L<)N/l.:[7Y (:OUN(.zL UE.(,:LS:COf� Page 1
' � AC"C'TON PC Mf'1'HOU "I'p C:I:"I°Y GOUN(:,T,I... �
I1PPI..xC�NT RE UQ FSTED ACTION„___ CTTY COUN(,.iL ___F�C7ION .,. ,_ _
Kriaeg<�r Move CN approved automati.c aK��r•c�uec� .
135/Wa1r�uL-/Scho'lls Ferry
WI•iite/Wil.hc�].rn t_�w i:o M�d, dcaniecl autom��t.i.c. �ap�•ic�ld c�E�ni.al.
1.1730 SW Grec�nF>urg Res. 1:� CN
. C;F�A 2.-•86/"LC 4--•86
City R--12 to CG approved autnm�L-ic �ppr•avcaci
10�i80 SW Mcpt�ntalca CF�f1 3-86
Ci.t:y/Coc.F�r�ari CPA 4-••86 dc�nied aui�:omr:�i:i.r.. rEVersEd �f
.106/N. I)akc�1:� d<�c.i.s i.c>n j`�~
ag�prc�vE�d
Albertsc�ris ' Rc�s . i:a CG denied �utom�l;ir, r•c�vE�r•s�ad ,�/f
D�arri�m/Pacif�i.c CNf� 6-••86 c��ci.sa.ori ,.�
a�:>�roued ` .
Geurgia Pacific TH to :LP approved autnmdLic uphe.ld a�pr•uval
SW 77.nd CPA 6-�86
Nordl.ing/Scot�/ R 3 .5 to CG denied autc�matic u�held deriial
Mar•tin CPA 4--86
. .
United Fi.rst Fed. TP to CG denied autam�L9.c. u�hE�ld deni�l.
15995 SW 7?_rid CF�A 9--86
� Be1�:Fiany A�soc. CF� to CP F CG �p�roued aiai:om�t,ic mc�dific?c�
'ocholls 1=er•i��y CPA 10••-86 a�pr��u�l
CT"I"Y OF "I'I:GAkq Mi.nor aK>�rouec� autc�mati.r.. a��raveci
Riv�r�wood I._anc� collectur l:o
(CF�A ll.--QEi) Lacal Si;,
CT"fY OF" l"TGARCt M�jor collector� ap�r��u�d �tutnma{:ic.. approued
13�5th i:o Mirior
Kai�ser Pc�r•n�. L�CE 1--8fi �aF��roveci
t_aridm�r•k i-ar•d ::C:1= ?_--£iEi dcni�<� a�>K�ealc?d �r>r�r•«„�ad
a��lic.ant: ` wit::hi cc�nc�it,i.�,ris>
C�lumF>ia Nc�un :�(�� 3--86 deni<�d
Pat:ri.c.ia Sigier �CF: 4-86 denied
Il�ad:son I�l�a�a :3(;I� !3....A6 d�nicad
M�ira lyn Ilucas�>ri
C::q�.ii.Li.czs NW �;(;F 6.. f�f., c�erii�:c�
PLANN:f.NG (',01'1MTSSION/CT."I'Y COUNC;:tI.. nl::(;:C;>'.I:ON Page 2 !
f
i
�c�-rioN �c ME�1"HOn TU C7:T'Y cauiuci:� ____
- - f�PPL:f.(�ANT RFQUESTEf) _. ACTTON„` CTTY COUNC:LL At"TIOlV . . _ :
L.�uiLz Furniture L�C;E:: 7-66 Approved
. �nnnis 'Thotnr�son :�l,f= a•--86 d�ni.�d
f>ark 2.17 SC:F' 9--Q6 a��aroved
Oregon Ki Society SCL 10-•-426 approved
F��zrk 2.17 SCE:: 1].--86 �p�roved ����pe�].c�d tipK�rov�c� wi.t:Nt
h�y ��>�l.ic�ant moc�i.ficat:ic>ns
[iurger King S('.� 1?_-.,86 �r>r�r•����� �
L_�nc�mark F'ord SC;E:: 13..�.86 CIE?I'tl.(?c� a�pe�l. by �K>��r•c?ve�ci wi.t.Ni
<3r��lic�tr�t mcadific:.atic,r�s
City of Tig�rd 'ZC ?•-86 ar�rar�ued
Histc�ric Uistrici�s
Pre�-Oelivery ZC 19-86 approved
' Service
' ,
19f37
E3ar^Lholemy 50 lots a�provecl s'
= t3�nchv9.�w F�0 87--01/�; 87--02/7_C 87-..01
Ch�].mer, Georg� SC�R 87-03 �pF�rov�d
13 i 11 (',00r�er PD f37•�-Q2
EJ.rJerc:are
Tim Perri PCl 87-07_ apX>roved
Rob�r•t Randall �o. L�I�R 87--Oh
, V 67-03
Krueg�r lot a�provec�
; Ch�1Fc,r•d :; �7--•Q4
V f17 04
;'
K�varrisi;r�m �pr�e<�l. uf �
MI..F> 2--f36 [)i.rectc�r' [)c�c. u�h�ld Da.rectar' s apprau<al. :
wit:h moclificatic�ns � '
i
Wt�ymi.r•e �zE�pc��a] c�t' U�helc� �pprovec� r
MI_f� 1]. -8G I)ir��ckor•' s> Dir•<�c1:�.�r' s f'�al.lc�d ur� for• wi.t:h�
cleni.a.l �.-�f' I...c,l dc�ri:i.tr.l i^E�ua.c��a c•�:,ric�:i l.i.�:yPis.
I. i.r�� �d j . ��
Vr�ri�aric�> .
33!iUl'� `
�:
dmj '
j.
�
P�.ANN7:N(:, C;OMM:1;;fi:IUN/(:;:1`I.Y CUIINf;:I'I.. DEC;1;S7:ON PdgE� 3 �
�
i
i
,
NO7E: _
THERE WERE TEN (lU) ZONE ORDTNANCE AMENDMENTS PROCESS IN�198.6.
ZOA 6-8b is far amendments to the Planned Develoment Section of the Code and.
is s�ill in the process.
ZOA 7-�6 is,the amendments to the Nome Occupation 'Section of the Code. This
is the only ordinance that the City Council made major modifications to after
Planning Commission reviewed. �
A11 other ZOA's were housekeeping type items and City Gouncil adopteci the
Planning Commission recommendation.
3350P
dmj
I
PLANNING t�ONM'IISSIONfCI7Y COUNGIL DECISTON P�ge A
PLFii1lIUTIVG COMM]:,raalON WQRKSHOF� - '
JUNE 16, 1987 -. - _
Workshop Needs/Format I �'�
Mil.t Fyre -• O�en discussi�n of perceived re�le of CC and PC. How it is � II
wor•kinc�? Should a PC r•�p be preserit aL- d� riovo hearirigs7 �
Wher•e is tNie Cc�unc.il coming fr��m -- ec..or�omir. develo�mc�r�t, �
. code Enforcement? I
Ge�ne Leveretfi; - Agrees with Milt. � F'eels ther•c was mi.si.nter•prc�L�t;ion af
Council statement at i;F�e last mneting wiL-h C,ouncil .
Chr9.s V�ndc�rwo�d -� Underst�nds the F>C and CC don't ac�re�, b�at unsur•c of� Lhe
direction Lha� L-he ��tancil is gning �nd wh�t dirc�ctinr� L-hey I
want tFie PC ta go. Recognixc? i:hat Ca�anc:i.l. is mc�r•E� uriiried
L-han in prior y<�ar� •- what daes this m�an in terms of NC I
dir•<�ci;ian? I
Gori Moen - Council. needs to understanci bc�unds of qu�si--judicial. ;
hearing, be same as PC. How far can NC go l�gally. IU�ed ;
discussion on the process i .e. , if reviews are on the '
record, shouldn't Cauncil remand when new information comes
up7 Milt suggested that a representative from PC can be
present to state whether someth�ing constitutes new •
infor�mation.
Bonnie Uwens - She is concerned how the City Council us�s thie code
compared �o the PC. The change bother•s h�c�r.
' Chris noted thiat the Commi.ssiori lc�se� cr•edik�ility wher� �
decisions by the Commission are overi:urr���d hay Cuuncil.
I John Butler• - Referred to 135th where the Commissi�ri ex�aressed concern
that Council nat approve further dpv�l.or�mc�r�t, The l_:CD has
been delayed, na improvement to t;he r•o�c� yet.
Greg Newton - Si:ated that the Commis�inn probably d��sn' t put everytFiin��
in the decisions, the relevant facLars arid debates whicFi
occurr�d may be lacking. Fpels tMe deci.sic�ns issued by i:he
P].anning Commissian o�re dry, oft�n i;h�y dc, not haue
surficient Pindings of fact Por �o�ancil to consic�er.
Perceptioris that they . have been �veri;ur•nc�d wMteri thier� is
not justification in the statutes or wF»n �conumic concerns
go�ern.
Caro].yn Eadan feels that h�ving a Camnrission member preser�t will bca valuak�le
to keep the discussion to the record. She suggested that t;Fiere may be a few
wh�.� w�.�rk the system, but not the maj�rity. A].so, th� City Attorney coul.d be
available i:o i:he Planning Cummissi�n for the major iss�aes.
1'here have also been some probiem5 wzth ordinarices, i.n p�:er•t;icular thie homc+.
occupation code. The Cammission was attempi:ir�g ta m�k� lc�g<�1 suc.h k�usinnssc�s
as a piar�a t;eacher• wit-h stuc�ents coming �c� hen c��mc�. Counc.il did riot appr•out�
it,
Carolyn reparked th�zt t;h� Council also wc�uld like t� da.scuss r�les.
TPi� c;��mm:i:csion wc>ul.d I:�c! �vai l�ble �o m�c�� on J�aly 7 ��l 7:Ai) i>M.
Grega referred to Ti��rd's sign code exceptian criteria and Newport's, The
issue is how much discretion L-he Eouncil and Commission have. The Gommission
does not agree that ttie Couneil ha�'more discretion than the Commission has in
i�terpreting the Cod�. �
f3i11 and Carolyn will work to set, up tMe w�rkshop. Marv Himme] will w�
brought in to facilitate with Attorney Tim Ramis present For about an hour to
answer questians on process.
sb/1807W I
I .
• ' �
- �
.
�
�