11/14/1983 - Packet AGENDA
NPO # 3
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1983 7: 15 P.M.
FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH - LIBRARY
10865 SW Walnut
1 . Call to Order
2. ROLL CALL: Bledsoe Ramsdell Fyre Smith
Mortensen Porter Moonier
3. Review minutes from last three meetings
4. Review Staff Report for Century 21 's Park Place
5. Possible review of Joe Van Lom's project
6. Other Business
7. Adjournment
w * • •
November 7, 1983
FROM: Bob Bledsoe, Chairman NPO #3
TO: Tigard City Council
SUBJECT: Community Development Code
It's almost finished, but there is still a lot to consider. Please do
not let the length of this letter discourage you from reading it. I have
three parts: (1) Items we raised in the public hearings that have not yet
been decided, plus one problem I noticed since then; (2) some objections to
recent changes noted in the November 4 memo from the Planning Department;
and (3) recent changes which were not noted in the memorandums of Nov. 1 or
Nov. 4. Shortness of time prevents me from calling a NPO meeting, so I will
just offer my reaction to the recent changes.
Part 1
pp• 23,33,56--18.30.03OE3, 1$.32.050 B3 & C2, 18.32.340 B. We have requested
the waiver of fees for applications and appeals by official advisory committees
of the City, including NPO's. Up to now this has been the City's policy, and
there has been no abuse of this provision. In a little over 2 years that I 've
been involved, the only occasion that this provision was used was by NPO #1
in appealing a decision concerning an electric utility that did not dedicate
lands in the greenway. However, staff has been reluctant to confirm the
policy of waiving fees for advisory committees. This issue was discussed at
the CCI, and the CCI endorsed NPO #3's suggestion of waiver of fees, except
for the transcript fee. It was suggested that people on the advisory committee
could volunteer to do the transcribing since extensive staff time is expensive.
We feel that the uncertainty of possibly having to pay fees fcrapplications
or appeals would inhibit participation by the advisory committees. An
exemption could be included on each page in the Code noted above, or the
exemption could be made part of the resolution which establishes the fee
schedule. Since that resolution was passed in June, a special resolution
would be needed at this time.
p. 191--18.108.070 A. Single Family Residential Access Requirements: The
limitation of 100-foot maximum length for a 24-foot paved access is a
restriction not contained in the previous code. Instead of an outright
prohibition of lengths over 100 feet, a conditional use should be required.
It is interesting that this prohibition is proposed for 3-6 houses, but not
for 20-49 apartment units, nor for 1-99 commercial parking spaces. The words:
"(not to exceed 100 ft. length)" should be replaced by "length of over 100 ft.
requires conditional permit)".
pp. 204 and 212ff--18.114.060 and 18.114.130. Sign Exemptions. Certain
signs are exempted from requiring a permit in 18.114.060 A, yet they are
prohibited under 18.114.130, because they are not listed and those sections
all say: "No sign (of any character) shall be permitted in a zone except
the following:" The present language does not achieve the intended result
of allowing these signs. Each section in 18.114.130 could include the following
subsection: "Signs exempt from permit. The signs specified in Section
18.114.060 A shall be allowed, subject to any restrictions imposed by this
Title."
. • Page 2 •
18.164.030 E 2--at the bottom of P. 311. The City staff has composed a good
exceptions provision for street standards in established areas. They have
provided a good priority for variances to the standards when needed in the
established areas--a. through e. at the top of page 312. With the new
version in the November draft of the Code, there are now no conditions
indicating when the exceptions might take effect. I suggest the following:
"In Established Areas improvements to streets shall be made according
to adopted City standards, unless the Approval Authority determines
that theup blic benefit in a particular case does not warrant imposing
an expected severe, adverse impact on the existing development. Any
required variances to the standards shall be in the following priority
order:
PART 2
p. 89--18.56.050 A 3 Is there an error? 2 x 3050 = 6100 yet 5100 sq.ft.
is specified for a duplex. (Also on p. 81 5000 sq.ft. is specified for a
duplex in R-7: why not 3050 sq.ft. per unit as in R-12 and R-20 zones?)
p.170--18.102.015 Applicability Section for Visual Clearance Areas is not
inclusive enough. It applies only at the time of development, and plantings
could be made later. Future and existing safety hazards should be included
(except for buildings existing).
pp. 264 and 267-8. The new Established Area--Developing Area chapter and
18.136.020 A of the Annexation Chapter provide for designation of the
Established Area--Developing Avea classification upon annexation to the City.
This would be completely appropriate if Tigard had a City Limits Plan. But
Tigard has an active plan, and we have already determined this classification
for all land in the Tigard Urban Planning Area--inside the city limits and
outside. Requiring classification upon annexation negates the decision
resulting from public hearings and is inappropriate without new public hearings.
But basically it is contrary to Tigard's active plan approach. Classification
should be made upon annexation of land to the Tigard Urban Planning Area.
They have the wrong boundary line. Ihave submitted a complete revised draft
of the appropriate sections to staff for their consideration, and will bring
it with me to Wednesday's meeting. I've not included it here because staff
may likely accept my ideas, with some modifications.
p. 279--18.144.040 A separation of 15 feet is required between an accessory
structure and the primary building. Is this requirement neccesary at all?
How about applying it just to structures o6er 3 or 4 feet high? I know that
several people have dog houses closeb,y their homes.
• Page 3 •
PART 3
p. 44--B 8 has been changed significantly. Instead of allowing rebuttal by
all parties, only parties in favor are allowed rebuttal. This is something
I oppose. At a minimum, the opposition should be allowed to offer reputtal
testimony and evidence in response to the rebuttal testimony and evidence
offered by those in favor.
P-45--18.32.160 D has been deleted (a provision to refer decision to Council)
It's better to keep it.
P.46--18.32.170 Ex Parte Communication
B has been greatly enlarged--no objection.
E & F have been added--no objection.
p.48--18.32.220 Participation in the Decision--Voting
The former B is omitted (concerning challenges to the impartiality of
a member of the Approval Authority). Some provision is needed, such as
removal by unanimous vote of all other members.
The former D (2) is omitted--no objection.
p.49--18.32.250 The Decision Process
A 1 a is changed to refer to the comp plan--I support this.
A 2 is added--I support this.
P-50--still Decision Process
C is added--the time period is too long; it should be 60 or 90 days.
E 4 is expanded--no objection.
P-52--18.32.260.52--18. 2.260 Form of Final Decision
A 3 is expanded--no objection.
C 1 is shortened--no objection.
C 4 a is changed--no objection.
P. 53
18.32.260 C 4 c is omitted--I don' t know.
18.32.260 D is omitted--no objection, it seems redundant.
18.32.270 is new--no objection.
18.32.280 is expanded--no objection.
18.32.290 is changed--no objection except references.
P-54--18.32-310 is expanded--no objection except references.
P•55--1$•32.320 B 1 is expanded--I support this.
18.32.330 is changed and expanded--I support it.
P-56--18.32-370 C is changed significantly--I dislike, but do not object.
P-57--18.32-380 is changed and shortened--no objection.
P-58 Medium Density R-7 was supposed to be changed according to item #24
in the memo of Nov. 1, 1983: the /12 and /3,050 should be deleted.
P-135--i8.82.050 is rewritten--no comment.
p.140 at bottom D & E is typical of changed language concerning appeal--I support.
I • Page 4 •
p.142--18.84.040 former 5 & 8 have been omitted--no comment.
p.144--18.84.050 C former 5,6, & 7 have been omitted--no comment.
pp.149-150 18.92.030 A is changed--it is confusing.
P-153-18.94-030 P 4 has been added--no objection.
P-154--18.96.020 B 1 a The additional setback along Pacific Highway has
been changed from 68 feet to 50 feet. Why? Explanation is needed!
p.191 The minimum access requirement for 7+ SFR is omitted--dhy?
p.226-- 18.120.060 D "assume" should be "assure"
p.289--18.150.040 B is omitted--I support this.
P-311--(bottom) The exceptions provision was changed--see my comments in
Part 1 of the memorandum.