02/25/1985 - Packet AGENDA
NPO #3 MEETING
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 7:30 P.M.
FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
10865 SW WALNUT — Library
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: BLEDSOE MOONIER MORTENSEN PORTER
RAMSDELL SMITH EHR FLOWERS JAMES
3. Approve Minutes from previous meeting
4. Review ZOA 8-84 Sections 18.26, 18.94 (Manufactured Homes), 18.96 and
18.98 (Flag Lots and Height Limits) .
5. Review CPA 30-84 Policies 3.1.1, 3.2, 3.2.3, 3.4, and 3.4.1 of the
Findings, Policies, and Implementation Strategies document.
6. Review ZOA 1-85 Section 18.68.030, Industrial Park Permitted Uses;
Section 18.70.030, Light Industrial Permitted Uses; Section 18.72.030,
Heavy Industrial Permitted Uses.
7. Other Business
8. Adjournment
1041P
dmj
RECEIVED
0 0 MAR - 51985
CITY OF TIGARO
FROM: NPO #3, meeting on February 25, 1985
TO: Tigard Planning Commission
Because of conflicting schedules, we sill not be able to send anyone to
your meeting of March 5, 1985. However, we would like to give our
recommendations on some of the items you will be considering.
MANUFACTURED HOMES ZOA 8-84
If manufactured homes are allowed in any lot in the city (rather than in
mobile home parks and manufactured home subdivisions, as at present) , we
believe they should be allowed as a conditional use. We suggest that
necessary conditions would include a standard, continuous perimeter, solid
foundation, and also roofs with a minimum of a 4/12 pitch. Also the
requirements of construction should result in a product similar to that
which meets the UBC.
FLAG LOTS ZOA 8-84 ??
We see no need for special height limitations beyond those for all homes
in the city. But we think thatall setbacks for a flag lot should be the
distance of front or rear yard setbacks; that is, no 10-feet side yard
setbacks allowed. Also we support a screening requirement like Eugene has:
screening should be provided on the access strip for an existing neighboring
residence✓, if so requested by the owner of the residence (who should be
notified of this right), at the time of issuance of the building permit.
WETLANDS CPA 30-84
We object to the removal of the findings (3.2). They are still true and
therefore should not be removed.
Regarding 3.1.1(a) and 3.2.3(b), there is a question of the proper order of
things. The comprehensive plan is supposed to set policy and the code is
supposed to implement that policy. When you have a comp plan policy referring
to a provision of the code, it is outside this proper order. You might as
well not have a policy. The thing to do is to state what you want to achieve
as a policy in the comp plan, then have a code which implements that policy.
Sincerely,
Bob Bledsoe, Chairman, NPO #3