Loading...
LUBA1991-161 - John and FLorence Dolan BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON JOHN T. DOLAN AND FLORENCE DOLAN ) Petitioners, ) ) VS. ) LUBA No. 91-161 Index and Record CITY OF TIGARD, ) Respondent. ) Certified to be a True Copy of Original on file W)AA U By: A'-a J-A c U,) ~A-t City Re rder J- City of Tigard T Date:._____1_U1 3D1 C i SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-0010 (APPEAL) OWNER: JOHN T. AND FLORENCE DOLAN APPLICANT: KNAPPENBERGER & MENDEZ I, Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder for the City of Tigard, certify that the contents within are a true copy of the record. r J"Ok~f~ 10130 /<rl Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder Date tuba. do , i TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa e Statement Certifying the Record of Proceeding i Table of Contents ii-iv Exhibit No. 1 10/2/91 Letter from Joseph R. 1-4 Mendez to Land Use Board of Appeals; Includes Petitioner's Notice of Intent to Appeal 2 9/20/91 Affidavit of Mailing 5-35 which includes Notice of Council Final Order - SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-0010 (Appeal) 3 9/10/91 Council Minutes (Excerpt) 36-38 4 9/10/91 Council Agenda Item 39-41 Summary (Includes Draft Resolution) 5 9/10/91 Testimony Sign-In Sheet 42 for City Council Public Hearing 6 9/10/91 Council Agenda 43-46 7 9/5/91 Affidavit of Publication - 47 Legal Notice of Summary of Council Agenda Items for 9/10/91 Meeting 8 8/29/91 Affidavit of Publication - 48 Legal Notice of Public Hearing for Council Meeting of 9/10/91 9 8/20/91 Affidavit of Mailing - Notice 49-54 of Public Hearing - 9/10/91 Council Meeting 10 7/26/91 Memorandum from Cathy Wheatley 55-56 to Ed Murphy & Dick Bewersdorff 11 7/16/91 Affidavit of Mailing - Notice 57-86 of Final Order by Planning Commission ii . Exhibit No. Page 12 7/8/91 Minutes - Planning Commission 87-90 13 5/27/91 Memorandum from Jerry Offer to 91-92 Planning commission 14 6/18/91 Affidavit of Mailing - Notice of 93-98 Public Hearing 15 6/4/91 Memorandum from Cathy Wheatley to 99 Ed Murphy 16 6/3/91 Land Use Decision Appeal Form 100-101 Completed by Joseph R. Mendez; Reference SDR 91-0005, Variance VAR 910010 17 5/24/91 Affidavit of Mailing - Notice of 102-129 Planning Director Decision - Site Development Review SDR 91-0005, Variance VAR 91-0010; A-Boy/Dolan 2 18 5/23/91 Affidavit of Publication 130 - Legal Notice - Site Development Review SDR 91-005, Variance 91-0010; Dolan/Mendez 19 5/13/91 Memorandum from Chris Davies to 131-134 Ron Pomeroy 20 4/24/91 Letter from Jerry Offer to 135-136 Joseph R. Mendez 21 4/19/91 Facsimile Transmission from 137-138 James M. Coleman to Jerry Offer 22 4/15/91 Request for Comments 139-148 23 4/5/91 - Receipt for Payment from 149 A-Boy Supply Co. 24 3/28/91 Transmittal Notice of Delivery 150-154 for 3/28/91 Letter from Joseph R. Mendez to Jerry Offer (with Statement of Justification for Variance) 25 3/28/91 Site Development Review 155-156 Application iii • • Exhibit No. Page 26 3/19/91 Transmittal Notice of Delivery 157-160 for 3/12/91 Letter from Joseph R. Mendez Letter to Jerry Offer (with Applicant's Statement) 27 10/15/90 Resolution No. 90-65 161-162 Reference Traffic Impact Fees 28 8/28/90 Letter from Keith S. Liden 163-164 to John Dolan 29 8/28/90 City of Tigard Community 165-168 Development Department Application Checklist 30 Miscellaneous Papers: Photos of 169-172 A-Boy Building; Vicinity Maps 31 Large Maps (In Separate File Folder) Per OAR 661-10-025, the City of Tigard will deliver at the time of oral argument, the following documents: • Community Development Code (as of 3/28/91) • Master Drainage Plan - CH2M 1981 • City of Tigard Parks Master Plan - 1988 • Tigard Area Comprehensive Pedestrian/Bicycle Plan - 1974 • Comprehensive Plan - Volume I • Comprehensive Plan - Volume II • Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park iv KNAPPENBERGER & MENDEZ"E~yED PANNING JOSEPH R. MENDEZ ATTORNEYS AT LAW VT g g 1891 PETER MILLER ALLAN F. KNAPPENBERGER HONEYMAN HOUSE P OF COUNSEL 1318 S.W. 12TH AVE. PORTLAND, OREGON 97201-3367 FAX (503) 294-0442 (503) 294-4317 October 2, 1991 Land Use Board of Appeals 100 High Street S.E. Suite 220 Salem, Oregon 97310 Re: John T. and Florence v. City of Tigard Dear Sir or Madam: Please find enclosed for filing with the Land Use Board of Appeals an original and two copies of Petitioner's. Notice of Intent to Appeal. I have enclosed this firm's check in the amount of $200.00 representing the $50.00 filing fee and $150.00 deposit required by the Land Use Board of Appeals. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the above, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration in this matter. Very truly yours, KNAPPENBERGER & MENDEZ Joseph R. Mendez JRM:sp Enc. cc: John T. and Florence Dolan Timothy V. Ramis, Esq. City of Tigard LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT #r` L PAGE # 1 BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS 2 OF THE STATE OF OREGON 3 JOHN T. DOLAN and FLORENCE DOLAN, ) 4 ) Petitioners, ) 5 ) VS. ) LUBA NO. 6 ) CITY OF TIGARD, ) NOTICE OF INTENT 7 ) TO APPEAL 8 Respondent. ) 9 I. 10 Notice is hereby given that Petitioners intend to appeal the 11 land-use decision of Respondent entitled Notice of Final Order 12 By City Council, that became final on September 17, 1991, which 13 involves a site development review appeal of tax map and lot number 9 2S1 2AC, Tax Lot 700, commonly referred to as 12520 S.W. Main 15 Street, regarding the reconstruction of a general retail sales 16 facility, A-Boy Electric Plumbing & Supply, with a new 17,600 17 square foot building on a 1.67 acre parcel, subject to fifteen (15) 18 conditions. A copy of said Notice of Final Order is attached 19 hereto, marked as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this 20 reference. . 21 11 22 Petitioners, John T. Dolan and Florence Dolan are represented '23 by: Joseph R. Mendez of Knappenberger & Mendez, Attorneys at Law, 24 Honeyman House, 1318 S.W. Twelfth Avenue, Portland, Oregon, 97201- 25 3367, telephone (503) 294-0442. ' 1 - NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL ~a •ir~•-• a 1,.:' LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD KNAPPENBERGER MENDE? EXHIBIT # ATTORNEYS AT LAW ROIE-1. HOUSE PAGE n 1318 S.r/. t2T'» PLRTLAND_ OREGON 57201'3367 (503) 25e-C442 • Respondent, City of Tigard, has as its mailing address and 2 telephone number: 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, 3 Oregon, .97223, telephone (503) 639-4171; and has as its legal 4 counsel: Timothy V. Ramis of O'Donnell, Ramis, et al., Attorneys 5 at Law, 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street, Portland, Oregon, 97209. 6 III. 7 Other persons mailed written notice of the land-use decision 8 by City of Tigard as indicated by its records in this matter 9 include: John T. Dolan and Florence Dolan, 405 S.E. Brooklyn, 10 Portland, Oregon, 97202. 11 NOTICE: 12 Anyone designated in Paragraph III of this Notice who desires 13 to participate as a party in this case before the Land Use Board of Appeals must file with the Board a Motion to Intervene in this 15 proceeding as required by OAR 661-10-050. 16 KNAPPENBERGER & MENDEZ !7 !8 By:/s/Joseph R. Mendez JOSEPH R. MENDEZ, OSB ;82333 19 Trial Attorney for Petitioners CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 2, 1991, I served a true and ;2 correct copy of this Notice of Intent to Appeal on all persons -3 listed in Paragraphs II and III of this Notice, pursuant to 24 2 - NOTICE OF INTENT TO A-PPEAL ~P:=.P?c'.B==G~~ u ?:i=fdn~~ LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT r / PAGE = J tc =__....2 - A, • OAR 661-10-015(2) by first-class mail, postage paid and deposited 2 in the Post Office at Portland, Oregon. 3 KNAPPENBERGER & MENDEZ 4 5 By:/s/Joseph R. Mendez JOSEPH R. MENDEZ, OSB #82333 6 Trial Attorney for Petitioners 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1• 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 l3 24 25 3 - NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL KNAPPENSERGER & MENDEZ LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD ATTORNEYS AT LAIN EXHIBIT E HO-El HOUSE PAGE 1318 $ 114 12TH AVE. PORTI.vtO. OREOOri 97201-3367 (503) 2S4-0442 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) _ounty of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I l~(.~f ► tPrIIle. L'J rNe~l hereby certify: , (Please Print) That I am a 1~~1 ~2Gt~rC~eJt, for the City of Tigard, Oregon. That I served notice of the Tigard City Council Fin6J _(~p5 yfl(~cil-[X~►UO sD9 D~ e,tr - k250l.c., t3Y\ 1uy. Cl -Co( - L Rol of which the attached is a copy (Marked Exhibit A) upon each of the following named persons on the c~ 0{h day of , 19 by mailing. to each of them at the address shown on the attached list (Marked Exhibit B), said notice is hereto attached, and deposited in the United States Mail on the aU day of 19 Cl1 postage prepaid. P ared Notice -;Lx Vscrib'ed 4i4`-sworn to before me this day of , 19-11 &-vuAA-Z f~ I " 1 LA 0 Q-t/ Notary Public of Oregon Z M Commission Expires: 01 Mailed ice/Delivered to Post Office ubscribed and sworn to before me this day of 19 1t. Notary Public of Oregon My Commission Expires: \togin\cathy\afofmait 1 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # a1 PAGE # S CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE .OF FINAL ORDER - BY CITY • COUNCIL--: ` =1 _-__Concerning Case-_Number(s)3 `SDR 91=0005/VAR 91=0010 Appeal) 2.` Name" of Owner: John: T. & Florence D 1 z_ j Name:of.Applicant:`.Rnappenberger & Mendez 3. Address 1318 SW 12th Avenue J.City Portland State OR Zip 97201 .4. Address'-of Property:-12520 SW Hain Street Tax._Map and Lot°No(s):2S1 2AC tax -lot 700' 5::_';::__ Request::: An` appeal by John Dolan of a- Planriing commission decision K-: to•deny:a requested variance subject to conditions requiring the applicant to: (1) dedicate to the City 'as greenway all property within the 100 year flood plain,.{2) 'dedicate-property 15 feet above the 150 foot floodylain. boundary for a-pathway; (3) survey the boundaries of the dedication; and (4) remove a roof sign within 45 days of the issuance of an occupancy permit for the new building. ZONE: CBD-AA (Central Business District zone with the Action Area overlay zone) 6. = Action:_ Approval as requested Approval'-with .conditions ' -Denial X Approved in_.part, denied in part 7. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall, and mailed to: X The applicant and owner(s) % Owners of record within the required distance R The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization % Affected governmental agencies 8. Final Decision: THE DECISION WAS SIGNED ON 9/17/91 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON 9/17/91 The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of conditions can be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. A review of this decision may be obtained by filing a notice of intent with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) according to their procedures. 9. ODESTIONS: If you have any questions, please call the Tigard City Recorder at 639-4171. bkm/SDR91-05.BRM LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD / EMIBIT € a PAGE r CD CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 91- IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF A FINAL ORDER UPON CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND VARIANCE APPLICATION .(SDR 91-0005, -VAR91-00100) PROPOSED BY JOHN DOLAN.. WHEREAS,: a. Director's decision was appealed to. the Planning Commission by the applicant for further consideration; and. WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed the case at-its meeting of July`8, 1991; and. WHEREAS, the`:- Commission upheld - the. Director's ; decision' with - modification-to-the original-conditions of approval.(Final:Order -No. ..91-09- PC) ; and - - WHEREAS, this matter came before the City Council' at` its meeting of September 10, 1991,-upon the request of the applicant; and WHEREAS, the Council reviewed the evidence related to the applicant's appeal; and THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the requested appeal is allowed in part and denied in part, and the Planning Commission decision is upheld as modified based upon the facts, findings, and conclusions noted in Planning Commission Final Order No. 91-09 PC (Exhibit "A" as modified) The Council further orders that the City Recorder send a copy of this final order to the applicant as a notice of the final decision in this matter. PASSED: This 10th day of September, 1991. APPROVED: This day of September, 1 Gera . Edwards, Mayor city of Tigard ATTEST: regard City Recorder 'l h:\logi\dick\dolapp.res RESOLUTION NO. 91- Page 1 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT n Z PAGE n 1{'. ))EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WHICH UPHOLDS 'A DECISION.OF.THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S DESIGNEEE (SDR- 0005) AND VARIANCE (VAR 91-0010) REQUESTED BY JOSEPH MENDEZ.(JOHN AND FRANCES.DOLAN, PROPERTY OWNERS)- The Tigard Planning Commission has reviewed the above application, on appeal, at a public hearing on July 8, 1991. The Commission has based its decision on the facts, findings,..and conclusions noted below. SUMMARY OF `APPLICATION REQUEST:: a) Site Development.. Review ,approval.-is requested to. ction of : a 17,600 square foot .retail allow. constru sales building on a` 1.67... acre site; b) Variances are requested to the following Community Development Code requirements: .i. Code Section 18.120.180_A.8 (Site Development Review approval .standards) which requires dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain where development is allowed adjacent to the 100-year floodplain_ In addition, this section requires that the dedication include area at a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway. The requirement of area for a pathway as well as construction of the pathway is also made by Code Section 18.86_040_A.l.b (Action Area overlay zone interim requirements). The applicant requests that floodplain and pathway areas not be required to be dedicated and also that pathway construction not be required as a condition of approval of the Site Development Review request. ii_ Section 18.106.030.C.20 (minimum off-street parking requirements) which requires provision of one off-street parking space for every 400 square feet of general retail sales area. The applicant requests approval of a site plan that would provide a 39 parking space parking lot whereas 44 spaces would be required for the size of the proposed building to be used for general retail sales- FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 1 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE `r' iii_ Section 18.114_070_H (certain signs prohibited) which prohibits roof signs of any kind. The applicant requests__that the City not ,require removal of a sign above the roof line.of an existing building on the site as a condition of approval of the current development application: The applicant characterizes the sign as a wall sign built on a wall parapet. APPLICANT: Joseph R. Mendez, Attorney at Law 1318 SW 12th Avenue :Portland,. OR 97201 OWNER: John: and. Florence Dolan :1919 W 19th Avenue N -.Portland, OR 97209 LOCATION: _12520 SW-Main.-Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC, TL :700) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:. Central Business District ZONE DESIGNATION: CBD-AA (Central Business District, -Action Area overlay zone). PRIOR BACKGROUND The property's owners previously applied for Site Development Review approval for plans that are largely the same as the plans that are presently under review. The applicant also. requested a variance to the parking standard for general retail sales to allow 39 parking spaces to serve development on the site whereas 44 spaces would normally be required. The Site Development Review and the Variance requests were approved on July 10, 1989 by the Planning Director subject to 14 conditions. The applicant appealed the Director's decision to the Planning Commission. The applicant raised concerns with five conditions of approval that were imposed by the Director's decision, including conditions requiring floodplain and greenway area dedication, construction of a bicycle/pedestrian pathway within the greenway to be accomplished by the applicant, and removal of a non-conforming roof sign from an existing building prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the new building. The Planning Commission upheld the Director's decision, except that the condition requiring removal of the roof sign was modified to require removal to occur within 45 days of the issuance of the occupancy permit (Final Order PC 89-25 dated December 15, 1989)_ FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 2 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE n q The applicant then appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council challenging the same five conditions. The City Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision, with .one modification. The Council reassigned the responsibility for surveying and marking -the floodplain:. area from:..the- .applicant to the City's engineering/surveying department (Council Resolution 90-07 dated February.. 5; 1990) The applicant appealed the Council's decision.to the-Oregon. Land Use Board of Appeals (CUBA).: On January 24; 1991,-LUBA denied the appeal thereby upholding the City's decision .on this matter (LUBA Final order and.Opinion No:. 90-029).. -Prior to.. the above=described Site Development. Review.."and Variance - request, the, only. other: 'City.- of Tigard land:: use . or development actions directly related. to this'-: parcel .,...are*- a. series of notices 'regarding nonconforming. signs. on_.:.-the. property_ Two. freestanding billboard signs: and one large roof sign on the property have been considered nonconforming as: of - March 20, 1988, and property and- business owners were .notified- of this prior to that time. A voluntary compliance agreement has -been used to provide affected downtown properties an extension of time until a City Center. Plan is adopted. The voluntary compliance agreement sent to the .owners of the subject parcel has never been signed. The, property and business owners have been cited for...; the . following nonconformities: A. Roof sign, a violation of Section 18.114.070.H; and B. Two nonconforming, amortized billboards (illegal location), violations of Code Section 18.114.090.A.4_a. SITE INFORMATION AND PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION Properties surrounding the subject site are also zoned CBD-AA (Central Business District - Action Area) and contain a variety of commercial uses. Property immediately to the west contains the Fanno Creek floodplain and is designated in Tigard's Comprehensive Plan to be included as part of the City's greenway/open space system. The subject site is approximately 1.67 acres in size and is bordered by Fanno Creek on the southwestern side. The site includes a 9,700 square foot building and a partially paved parking lot which have been in their present locations since approximately the late 1940s. A freestanding sign with a readerboard stands along the Main Street frontage of the property. Two large billboards stand on or near the property's northeastern boundary. FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 3 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGA.tRD EXHIBIT tt D PAGE it to The property's owners plan to raze the existing structure, • currently used by A-Boy Electric and Plumbing Supply a general retail sales use, and to embark on a multi-phase redevelopment of -the site. . The building will be razed in sections corresponding to progress on the construction of the first phase of redevelopment of the site. The current, proposal includes development of a 17 , 600 square foot, single- . story structure on the. southwestern side of the site,.. for relocation -of -the A-Boy Electric and Plumbing - Supply" operations. The plans also: show an outline of a phase two building on the northeastern side. of the site--- No details have been provided for the building in phase two. A parking lot containing 39 parking spaces intended".to serve the phase one building is proposed' between the two phases.: One designated handicapped parking space-and a 3 bicycle.rack are also proposed.. The-site plan also indicates an:area for additional parking for phase.-two. The applicant requested variances to Community Development Code standards requiring dedication of area of the subject parcel that is within the 100 year floodplain of Fanno Creek and dedication of additional area adjacent to the 100 year floodplain for a bicycle/pedestrian path, as well- as the requirement for construction of the pathway in this area.: In addition, the applicant requested a variance.to the Code prohibition against roof signs. Through this request, the applicant is requesting reconsideration of the earlier City determination that an existing sign on the present building on the site is a roof sign. The applicant also requested reconsideration of an earlier council directive that would require the sign on the existing building to be removed within 45 days of occupancy of the proposed new building. In addition, staff also considered a variance request previously made by the property's owners in 1989 for a reduction in parking spaces, even though the applicant neglected to raise this issue with the current application. The parking variance considered would allow 39 parking spaces to suffice for the proposed phase one development whereas Community Development Code Section 18.106.030.0.20 requires one parking space for every 500 square feet of building area for general retail sales, or in this-case 44 spaces- The City is under no obligation to reconsider this variance since the applicant failed to raise the issue with the current application; however the Commission believes there is a need to reconsider the variance for the City's own administrative purposes. The variance is reconsidered as part of the present application so that there will not be different approvals with different approval periods regarding this site and site plan. The previously approved variance related to parking was issued by the City Council on February 5, 1990. This approval is FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 4 LU34 FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT = PAGE # 1 ! valid for eighteen months from the date of issuance. Therefore, that approval is likely -to expire before development proposed by the current application can begin. Reconsideration and reapproval of the parking variance at this time would reset the clock for: that- variance 'so that the variance approval period would be concurrent-with the approval .period for the new Site Development Review application.. On May 24, 1991, the Community Development Directors designee approved the Site Development Review request. and the Variance related to parking. The approval --.-was.subject-.--to- 16 conditions. The other variance requests were denied..- AGENCY AND NPO COMMENTS The `City Building Division notes that.- a- canopy.-and. an 8-foot tall solid plywood fence must be installed. behind the sidewalk/public right-of-way along SW. Main-Street - ( from the southwestern- property line to a = minimum ; of - 20= feet, beyond the _ new building) prior to start of`construction -'and must remain .until all construction is complete:*; (Uniform Building Code section 4407(c). A-demolition permit will be required for the removal of any or all of the existing building. The City Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal and has the following comments: A. Streets: The site fronts S_W_ Main Street which is classified as a major collector street. Main Street along the site's frontage is fully developed with curbs and sidewalks. A 1986 engineering study of the condition of S.W. Main Street recommends that the pavement be completely reconstructed and that the storm drainage system be replaced. It appears to be impractical to perform the proposed reconstruction of Main Street in a piecemeal fashion on a lot-by-lot basis; instead, the reconstruction needs to occur in larger segments beginning at Fanno Creek Bridge and working uphill. Therefore, we do not propose that any reconstruction of Main Street be required as a condition of approval of this development proposal. This development should be required to replace - any existing sidewalks and curbs which are damaged or in poor repair and to reconstruct any existing curb cuts which are being abandoned. As part of the Tigard Major Streets Transportation Safety Improvement Bond, the City plans to replace the Main Street Bridge over Fanno Creek. The bridge replacement • FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE S LUBA _ILINC; - CITY OF TIGARD E)CHIBTT -r' PAGE I J is scheduled to begin in June 1991_ The bridge construction is expected to occur within the existing right-of-way and should have little impact on the subject site.. B. Sanitary Sewer:. _ There are two sanitary sewer.truck lines that cross the., site. in existing easements. One line is 24-inches.in diameter and the other -is:60.,inches in diameter. The applicant has shown 'on the application plans the easement . . and location for the 24. inch line but not the easement and location.:for- the '60 inch line. Additionally' after reviewing.the:sanitary - sewersystem plans on file in 'this office, it appears.- that ..there: may be some mix-up as to where .the sanitary.sewer:system is as_shown on..the applicants-submitted plans. Basically,. it appears'`,;that - the-.. 24 inch, line is within:.:' a . 10 foot easement and goes along the front-of the proposed new building and diverges.to the east as you go south. The 60 inch line is within a 30 foot easement and again is in front of the proposed new building but does not diverge as fast to the east as -yougo south:-' Based on the plan submitted by the applicant and the "as-built" plans for both the sanitary sewer systems, it appears that the new building would be located over the easement for the 60 inch line by approximately 6 to 8 feet at the approximate middle of the building. Therefore, the applicant should be required to submit evidence as to the actual location of the sanitary sewer lines and easements, and their relationship to the proposed building. If it is determined that the submitted proposal for the building does encroach upon the easement, the applicant should be required to change the location of the building or the design so that it does not encroach upon the easement or to provide evidence that the Unified Sewerage Agency does not object to the encroachment- C. Storm Sewer: The City's Master Drainage Plan recommends improvements to the Fanno Creek channel downstream from Main Street. The proposed channel improvements would include widening and slope stabilization. These improvements would move the location of the top of bank approximately five feet closer to the proposed building than the location of the existing top of bank. Therefore, an adjustment of the building location will have to occur in order to accommodate the future City-initiated relocation of the floodplain bank. This should be required on a revised site plan. In addition, dedication of the land area on • FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 6 LUBA..FILING - CITY OF TIG_APD _ EXHIBIT r PAGE n 13 this property below the elevation of the 100-year flood should be required-. The Unified Sewerage Agency:-has established and the City has. agreed to"enforce (resolution - No90-43) Surface Water Management."Regulations requiring the construction of on-site water quality -facilities`or fees in lieu of their construction*.-**: 7.Requiring,surface -water quality facilities on' small ''sites .could result-:- in - numerous facilities that could become a: maintenance burden to'the City. Furthermore,. the applicant has not proposed--any such facilities and there are no natural-depressions or other -areas of this. site. that. are particularly. suitable for water quality facilities: Regional facilities, funded by.' fees°"inlieu""::>of`.,: construction ;of smaller`; isolated facilities, would provides.:.-the:: required treatment with.. improved reliability and less maintenance:- Consequently a fee-in-lieu - of the construction of on-site water quality facilities 'should".be assessed:: D_ Traffic Impact Fee Washington County has established and the City has agreed to enforce (Resolution No. 90-65) Traffic Impact Fees. The purpose of the fee is to ensure that new development contributes to extra-capacity transportation improvements needed to accommodate additional traffic generated by such development. The applicant will be required to pay the fee- Based on the following information, the ESTIMATED TIF for this development would be: 1) Use: Retail Sales 2) Land Use Category: Business & Commercial 3) Rate per trip: $34.00 4) ITE Category: 816 5) Weekday average trip rate: 53.21 per T.G.S.F. 6) Existing Square Footage: 9,720 approximately 7) Proposed Square Footage: 17,600 8) TIF = 53.21 X (17.6 - 9.720) X $34.00 = $14,256.02 NOTE: THIS IS ONLY AN ESTIMATE OF THE APPLICABLE TIF FEE. THE ACTUAL FEE WILL BE CALCULATED AT TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION. The actual TIP will be based on the total square FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 7 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT tt PAGE ) 14 l' - footage shown in the building plans, the trip rate in effect at the time of building permit application, and the fee rate in effect at that time. The City of Tigard Parks Department recommends that area adjacent to the floodplain should be required to be dedicated :for-pathway.construction. The Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District notes that automatic sprinkler protection or some other means of built-in fire protection will be required- In addition, a fire hydrant must be provided within 500 feet of all exterior portions of the proposed structures, but not greater than 70 feet from a -fire department.connection- '.:Portland General Electric._and* the Tigard Water District, have reviewed the proposal' and- have no objections to -it_. No:.. ther.comments. were.received. _ ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION Section 18.120_180 lists the standards whereby the approval authority is to approve, approve with modifications or deny a request for Site Development Review approval. In addition to .those contained in Chapter 18_66, Central Business District, the following sections of the Tigard Community Development Code are also applicable: Chapter 18.86, Action Areas; Chapter. 18.100, Landscaping and Screening; Chapter 18.102, Visual Clearance Areas; Chapter 18.106, Off-street Parking and Loading; Chapter 18.108, Access, Egress and Circulation; Chapter 18.114, Signs; Chapter 18_120, Site Development Review; and Chapter 18.134, Variances- In addition to all of the above approval criteria, this order will review the proposal in light of the Parks Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park. Chapter 18.66: Central Business District Zone The applicant intends to construct a new and larger structure suited for general retail sales use- Such a use is permitted outright in the CBD (Central Business District) zone. Therefore, the intended use is acceptable for this site- The CBD zoning district does not require any minimum building setbacks except that a 30 foot setback is required if any side of the property abuts a residential zoning district. . Since none of the four sides of the subject property abut a residential zoning district, no other building setbacks are required. The proposed 16.5 building height is consistent FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 8 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT 01 PAGE with the maximum 8o foot building height permitted in the zone. In the CBD zoning district, maximum site coverage allowed is 85 percent- Site- coverage includes all structures and .impervious surfaces such as parking,-loading areas, sidewalks and pathway areas- .A minimum of 15 percent of the site must be" -landscaped. These standards will be reviewed during the discussion of landscaping and screening below- Chanter 18_86: Action Area Overlay Zone The "AA" Portion'. of the subject site's zoning designation indicates that an additional :'layer" of-zoning regulations has been imposed on this property.. The purpose of the. Action Area Overlay designation is-to..implement the policies of the Tigard Comprehensive'Plan'for action areas which include provisions fora mixture of intensive land useSince-permitted- uses; in 'the Action Area overlay zone must be" those specified:in the underlying zoning district; in this'.case, the CBD zone; this requirement has-been met- Code Section 18_86_040 contains interim standards which are to be addressed for new developments in the CBD-AA zone. These requirements are intended to provide for projected transportation and public facility'needs of the area. -The t City may attach conditions to any development within an action - area prior to adoption of the design plan to achieve the following objectives: a. The development shall address transit usage by residents, employees, and customers if the site is within 1/4 mile of a public transit line or transit stop- Specific items to be addressed are as follows: i. Orientation of buildings and facilities towards transit services to provide for direct pedestrian access into the building(s) from transit lines or stops; ii. Minimizing transit/auto conflicts by providing direct pedestrian access into the buildings with limited crossings in automobile circulation/parking areas- If pedestrian access crosses. automobile circulation/parking areas, paths shall be marked for pedestrians; iii. Encouraging transit-supportive users by limiting automobile support services to collector and arterial streets; and • FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 9 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE # 1lL • iv_ Avoiding the creation of small scattered parking areas by allowing adjacent development to' use shared surface parking, parking structures or under-structure parking; b. The development .shall.. facilitate, pedestrian/bicycle circulation _if the site is located on :a street with designated bike paths.. or adjacent to a designated greenway/open space/park..,. Specific items to be addressed are as follows: i. Provision of efficient, convenient and continuous pedestrian and bicycle transit circulation systems, linking developments.:by..requiring dedication and construction..-: of. pedestrian -.and bike paths _.comprehensive plan. If direct identified - in-. the, connections cannot be made, require.-that funds.in the amount of the construction cost.. be-.. deposited into an account for the purpose . of.: constru cting paths; ii_ Separation of auto and truck circulation activities from pedestrian areas; iii. Encouraging pedestrian-oriented design by requiring pedestrian walkways and.street level windows along all sides with public access into the building; iv_ Provision of bicycle. parking as required under Subsection 18.106_020.P; and v_ Ensure adequate outdoor lighting by lighting pedestrian walkways and auto circulation areas. C. Coordination of development within the action area. Specific items to be addressed are as follows: i_ Continuity and/or compatibility of landscaping, circulation, access, public facilities, and other improvements. Allow required landscaping areas to be grouped together. Regulate shared access where appropriate. Prohibit lighting which shines on adjacent property; ii_ Siting and orientation of land use which considers surrounding land use, or an adopted plan. Screen loading areas and refuse du.mpsters from view. Screen commercial, and industrial.use from single- family residential through landscaping; and iii- Provision of frontage roads or shared access where feasible- FINAL ORDER NO- 91-09 PC PAGE 10 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT a PAGE I The submitted development proposal satisfies the above requirements for transit usage- The subject site is within one quarter mile of several Tri-Met bus stops on Main Street and Pacific Highway. The site plan provides an. on-site sidewalk providing a direct connection. between..-the public sidewalk on Main Street with the entrance to. the -proposed building. The proposed parking lot's relatively. narrow width will minimize pedestrian/vehicle conflicts because of the relatively short distance pedestrians must travel between their cars and the sidewalk and entrance to the building. The proposed development plan is reasonably coordinated with other. development within the action area The site improvements will 'be required to `.satisfy Code landscaping , requirements as -described below.. Screening of:.the. -truck loading area on.the southern _-portion of the building-. can _be accomplished with either.a fence or tall vegetation., Outdoor lighting should be specifically addressed by the applicant as. to how it might . be provided- These modifications. or clarifications can be accomplished as minor amendments to the site plan prior to building permit issuance. The proposal is consistent.with only some of the Action Area overlay zone requirements related to pedestrian and bicycle circulation, as described below. Pedestrian ..areas. i are adequately-separated from vehicle circulation areas by curbs and landscaped areas- The northeastern side of the building will include a pedestrian walkway and windows along the side of the building that will provide pedestrian access. Adequate lighting of the public-and private sidewalks and the parking lot will be provided by parking area lights and building mounted lights. The proposed development would be provided with adequate bicycle parking as required by Code Section 18.106.020.P which requires one bicycle rack parking space for every 15 auto spaces, or portion thereof. The site plan proposes a three-bicycle bike rack at the northeastern corner of the building, adjacent to the public sidewalk. Variance requested. The application includes a request for a variance from the requirement of dedication of adequate area for and construction of a bicycle/pedestrian path along the site's western side adjacent to Fanno Creek as well as dedication of the floodplain area on the site itself- Because the requirement for pathway area and construction is raised by Code Section 18.86.040 separate from the requirement for floodplain dedication and dedication of sufficient area for a pathway, the Commission will consider the requirement for floodplain dedication separately later in this report. A bicycle/pedestrian path is called for in this general location in the City of Tigard's Parks Master Plans (Murase and Associates, 1988) and the Tigard Area comprehensive FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 11 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT i# PAGE a Pedestrian/Bicycle Pathway Plan 1974)_ In addition, Community Development Code Section 18.120.180.A_8 requires that where :landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of, sufficient open land area for greenway.adjoining _.and within the',- floodplain in accordance with . the adopted. pedestrian/bicycle plan. The_ proposed development site includes land within the 100 year floodplain of Fanno Creek. Section 18.234.050 of the Code contains criteria whereby the decision-making authority can approve, approve with modifications or deny a variance request: (.1) ..The proposed variance-will not be materially *detrimental . to ; the Purposes of this Code, be in conflict with the policies of the Comprehensive, Plan, -to any. other applicable policies of the Community Development Code, to:- any other applicable policies and standards, and to other . properties in the same-zoning district or.vicinity_ _ (2) There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape,. topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the .same zoning district; (3) The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this Code and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent possible, while permitting some economic use of the land; (4) Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development were located as specified in the Code; and (5) The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate .the hardship. Applicant's Variance Justification. The applicant has provided the following as -a statement of justification that is intended to cover all of the requested variances: The variance requested by the applicant should be allowed as the conditions and dedications required by the City of Tigard violate the applicant's rights under the Oregon and United States Constitutions- Specifically, the City's demand for dedication constitute an unlawful taking and violation of the Oregon Constitution, Article FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 12 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIC_A.RD EXHIBIT R a PAGE E I Cj 1, Section 18 and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The proposed variance will not materially be detrimental to the purposes of the title nor conflict with the policy of the comprehensive plan as no park exists at this time nor does the City have ' sufficient funding in:: which to create a park that the, bicycle/pedestrian path-'is. theoretically going to be used to access. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot in that, the building..which the applicant proposes to construct cannot be erected without invading the City's proposed-bicycle/pedestrian path if 'the-land is dedicated.. The hardship is-.not'-self-imposed but rather-imposed by the City's-dedication-and:-the variance.requested.is the. minimum variance which :would alleviate the hardship to- -the applicant. Analysis of variance Request. The Commission does not find that the requirements for dedication of the area.adjacent to the floodplain for greenway'purposes and for construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway constitute a taking of the applicant's property.: -Instead,.the..Commission. finds that the • dedication and pathway construction are reasonably related to the applicant's request to intensify the development of this site with a general retail sales use, at-first, and other uses to be added later. It is reasonable to assume that customers and employees of the future uses of this site could utilize a pedestrian/bicycle pathway adjacent to this development for their transportation and recreational needs. In fact, the site plan has provided for bicycle parking in a rack in front of the proposed building to provide for the needs of the facility's customers and employees. It is resonable to expect that some of the users of the bicycle parking provided for by the site plan will use the pathway adjacent to Fanno Creek if it is constructed. In addition, the proposed expanded use of this site is anticipated to generate additional vehicular traffic thereby increasing congestion on nearby collector and arterial streets. Creation of a convenient, safe pedestrian/bicycle patway system as an alternative means of transportation could offset some of the traffic demand on these nearby streets and lessen the increase in traffic congestion- The Commission finds that the requested variance would conflict with many Plan and Code purposes. As already noted, the Code at Section 18.120_080_A_8 and many other related sections (e-g., Section 18.84.040_A.7) require dedication of sufficient area adjacent to floodplain areas for construction FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 13 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT u a PAGE n a O of pedestrian/bicycle pathways- Volume 1 of the Comprehensive Plan at pages 256 through 258 provides a discussion of the reasons-for development of a City-wide pathway system as part of a multi-modal transportation-system serving the-varied. needs of the City's citizens and businesses-.:-: This section essentially summarizes the findings of the adopted Tigard Area Comprehensive Pedestrian/Bicycle Pathway Plan- :Comprehensive Plan Volume.2 at Policy 8.4.1 calls for.:the City.to:require .the dedication' of area for.- and construction of pedestrian/bicycle pathways as- a condition of development approval for areas identified by. the adopted pedestrian/bicycle.plan. The.Plan notes that as -the city grows, more people may rely on the pathways for :utilitarian as well as recreational purposes and that . there ;-is,'.a-:--,need:-'t0 . . develop a safe and convenient pathway system The pathway system . along Fanno Creek near -the-'.subject site- is already - partly-constructed in both directions- The City is actively -pursuing land acquisition and park:.:improvement planning for:: Fanno Creek Park to the south..--:* Contrary ..to the =.applicant's statement that no park exists At this time nor:. does the. City have sufficient funding in_which to-create a park that the bicycle/pedestrian pathway is theoretically going-to be used to access," the City has established Fanno Creek park, constructeda pathway and other improvements in area to the south, recently purchased 3.19 additional acres`. for park expansion, and has set `aside funds for a partial extension of the pathway in the summer or fall of 1991 It is imperative that a continuous pathway be developed in order for the paths to function as an efficient, convenient, and safe system. omitting a planned for section of the pathway system, as the variance would result in if approved, would conflict with Plan purposes and result in an incomplete system that would not be efficient, convenient, or safe- The requested variance therefore would conflict with the City's adopted policy of providing a continuous pathway system intended to serve the general public good and therefore fails to satisfy the first variance approval criterion. The Commission fails to find special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to this site for which the applicant has no control and therefore the second criterion for approval of a variance is not satisfied. The applicant states that the inability to develop the proposed building without invading the City's intended pathway area is a special circumstance dictating the need for a variance. The design of the building is completely under the control of the applicant. The applicant's engineer was apprised of the need to provide area for the pathway at the pre-application conference with City staff prior to the submittal of the site plan. The applicant's engineer could have designed the building with respect to the need for dedication for the pathway. The FINAL ORDER i:0. 91-09 PC PAGE 14 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT n PAGE - a' 1 f ~-l applicant has not submitted any reasons supporting why the same amount of building square footage could not be provided on multiple levels or. why the proposed square footage is needed. If the building must be developed on.:a single level and at the same square .footage,.other options may exist for varying Code standards that-would not-have such.a detrimental effect on public purposes as the`-requested-variance.-.. The Commission finds that the applicant has. not, met the burden of proof regarding special circumstances affecting. this site related to the requested variance The requested variance would not.affect- .uses of: the site permitted by the Code. The applicant: has not:addressed.how City standards (i.ethe connection:'of the'various :pathway segments). will be accomplished.:.Jf `the; variance request is approved.. Therefore, the third variance: 'approval is only partially.satisfied.' As noted above, approval. of the variance request` would have an adverse effect on the existing - partially completed. pathway system because a system cannot fully, function with. missing pieces. If this planned for section `is omitted .from the pathway system, the system in this area will be much less convenient and efficient. If the. pedestrian .and. bicycle traffic is forced onto City streets at this point in the pathway system because of this missing section, pedestrian and bicycle safety will be lessened. The fourth variance approval criterion is therefore not satisfied. As noted above, the applicant has not provided reasons why the building must be constructed with the proposed footprint, square footage, or on a single level. Without such evidence, the Commission f inds no evidence of hardship that would result if strict compliance with the Code dedication and pathway construction standards are required. Again, the Commission finds that the applicant has not satisfied the burden of proof related to the variance request. Without evidence of a hardship, the fifth variance approval criterion is not met. The criteria for approval of a variance to the Community Development Code requirement of dedication of sufficient area for and construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway in conformance with various adopted City plans calling for the pathway are therefore not satisfied. The applicant has failed to provide adequate evidence or reasons addressing the criteria- The request is therefore denied. The applicant will be required to dedicate area 15 feet in depth from the east bank of Fanno Creek and will be required to construct an 8 foot wide pedestrian/bicycle pathway in this area. The footprint and possibly the design of the proposed building will need to be revised to comply with this requirement. FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 15 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT y o, PAGE a a 1 Chapter 18.102: Landscaping and Screening Although not noted _ in the submittal for the current applications' the applicant previously has requested that in return for. dedication of property along Fanno - Creek, other landscaping standards-should be waived. =The Commission will consider an exception from the minimum landscaped site area on the net site after required dedications because this decision rejects the applicant's variance requests from floodplain and .pathway dedication requirements- -The Planning Commission finds that the City has-previously :allowed the.inclusion of. dedicated floodplain/park -landfor - the.purpose.of:calculating_required landscaped area for other projects. 'Such an - allowance, is . also :-appropriate.'..--in:- this instance. ..The site plan; does not `'note:. .-the.. of landscaped. _area .that"would be provided: on. the, net.. Site after floodplain.and"pathway area dedications, .but.the:plan notes that-21 percent of the gross- site would.be -landscapedarea or natural area., This percentage is consistent with the 15" percent minimum landscaped area standard of the..CBD zoning district as well as with Section 18.120.170.E which allows the director to grant an exception to the minimum landscaped area requirements upon a finding that the overall landscaped plan provides for at least 20 percent of the gross site to be landscaped.. The City Council decided, with regard to the earlier Site Development Review request for this site, that the City would be responsible for landscaping and screening the area between the required pedestrian/bicycle path and the proposed building- The Commision will hold with the Council's earlier decision regarding this area and therefore will not review the applicant's landscaping plans for this area adjacent to the future pathway and Fanno Creek. The provision of a landscaped buffer by the City along the east edge of area required to be dedicated for pathway purposes is justified because the maintenance of this area will be the City's responsibility and the future storm drainage and pathway improvements will cause the destruction or removal of existing vegetation. Code Section 18.100.030.A requires that all development projects fronting on a public or private street provide street trees spaced between 20 and 40 feet, depending on the mature size of the :trees. The site plan pKoposes only one flowering pear tree along the site's Main Street frontage- The proposed flowering pear tree would be located in a planter on the west side of the entrance driveway to the parking lot- Because the proposed building would abut the public sidewalk further west from the driveway, no additional trees can be located west of the driveway- The City will be responsible for landscaping west of the proposed building. This area should include a FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 16 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT n PAGE r a 3 street tree or two. Approximately 85 feet to the east of the proposed driveway is not shown to include any landscaping, building, or paving- The landscaping plan will need to be revised to include additional street trees consistent with the size and spacing standards of Section 18.100.035.: Chapter 18.102: Vision Clearance Section 18.102.020 requires that clear vision be maintained between 3 and 8 feet above grade at the-intersections of:all streets and driveways. The- f lowering pear tree intended to. be .planted immediately to the west of the proposed driveway need not be relocated out of this area'.-as long -as branches- below.- ..-eight feet- in_ height- are- kept- trimmed. In addition, - bushes . .planted adj acent , to the = tree- -must. -.be kept trimmed to ` below three feet in--.height Chapter 18.106: Off-street Parking-and Loading Variance to Minimum Parking Standard. The.applicant proposes to construct 39-standard 90-degree parking spaces. Community Development Code Section 18.106.030.0.20 requires that 1 parking space be provide for every 400 square feet of building area. Therefore, 44 parking spaces would be required for the proposed 17,600 square foot general retail sales building: As previously noted, the applicant neglected to request- a variance to this parking standard with the current request. However, the director and the Planning Commission had previously approved such a request for the earlier application utilizing the same site plan- The Commission will consider a variance to the minimum parking standard with the current application in order to affirm the earlier variance approval and to make its period of approval concurrent with the approval period for the current Site Development Review application. The following findings relative to the variance approval criteria (Code Section 18.134_050) are essentially the same as previously adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council with regard to the earlier application affecting this site. Special circumstances exist which are peculiar to this site and proposal- The applicant proposes to construct this project in two phases: the first phase consists of construction of the new building on the southwestern portion of the property. The existing building would then be demolished. The applicant hopes to attract a complimentary business(es) to build on the northern portion of the lot as part of Phase 2. Should additional parking be found to be necessary in the future, the applicant suggests that a shared parking arrangement could be worked out with the adjacent structure- FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 17 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT n d PAGE r a The applicant points out that the A-Boy store does not attract '$browser or window shoppers", in that the business constitutes a retail/wholesale type of business which sells bulky merchandise. The latter fact results in -the attraction of customers who decide in advance of travel that a product is needed and who travel to a specific destination to obtain that product. The applicant has stated that the existing store rarely has more than six or eight vehicles at any one time- The Commission notes that employees of the.business will also require parking spaces and perhaps delivery trucks will need to, park and unload. on the property; however, it is clear that the existing store use should not need 44 parking spaces. The :,City agrees that the present use is. similar. to a. "general retail sales, bulky merchandise" use..:. -.If the .City.. were to employ the parking standard used,for~retail sales businesses which.. sell bulky merchandise,. namely,,a.space`for every 1000 square feet of gross floor area but.not.less than 10 spaces, it is clear that the proposed-39.:spaces;:are well within.City., parking requirements.. Although the use of the building may later change, alternatives are available in conjunction with the future -phase of construction on this property. If a new use, which has a higher parking demand, occupies -the building, a new site "development review and evaluation,:of parking "would be required. The issue of parking space numbers will. also be evaluated as part of the site development review for phase two of this development. The use will be the same as permitted by City regulations and existing physical and natural systems will not be affected by this proposal. Therefore, the Commission finds. that the variance related to parking is justified. Other parking standards. The Code requires one secure bicycle parking space for every 15 required automobile spaces. In this case a minimum of three bicycle parking spaces are needed. The site plan indicates a proposed location for a 3 space bike rack. This standard is therefore satisfied. The site plan does not provide for an appropriate number of designated handicapped parking spaces as required by the Oregon Revised Statutes (2 required; 1 proposed), although the 1 space proposed would satisfy City of Tigard Community Development Code standards as currently written. The site plan will therefore need to be revised to add one additional designated handicapped parking space. The Community Development Code will need to be revised to reflect this more stringent standard that took effect on September 1, 1990. Code Section 18.106.020.M requires parking lot landscaping in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.100. That chapter requires the provision of trees in the area of a FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 18 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE tt a 5 parking lot at a minimum ratio of 1 tree per 7 parking spaces. The site plan proposes 7 trees in landscaped islands within and adjacent to the 39 space parking lot. This standard is therefore satisfied- Code Section 18.106.080.A requires.. at least one off-street loading space for commercial uses having more than 10,000 square feet of floor area. The site plan proposesa loading area on the south side - of the proposed building- This standard is therefore satisfied. However, the loading space will need to be provided with adequate screening from views ..from neighboring parcels as has previously bee.described. Chapter 18.108:` Access. Egress and Circulation.. .Code Section 18.108.40.C requires that vehicular access be provided-to commercial and-industrial uses within 50 feet of : `,the `primary ground floor. entrances to :.the building. ---The proposed parking lot is immediately adjacent to the proposed building entrance. Code Section 18.108.50.A requires walkways connecting ground floor entrances of commercial buildings with adjacent public streets- The site plan proposes a sidewalk along the front of the building connecting to the public sidewalk along Main Street. Code Section 18.108.80.A requires a minimum of one 24-foot wide access driveway to a parking lot of this size serving .a commercial use. One 36-foot wide driveway would connect the proposed parking lot with Main Street. The proposed access and circulation pattern should provide adequate and safe access for the proposed use. Therefore, the Code's requirements for access and circulation have been satizsfied. Chapter 18.114: Siqns The applicant has proposed no new signage in conjunction with this application. The existing freestanding sign will apparently be removed. All new wall and freestanding signs must be reviewed by the Planning Division prior to their erection for conformity with the City Sign Code. The two billboard signs and roof sign are in direct conflict with Code Section 18.120.180, which requires that the approval of a Site Development Review be conditioned on the proposal's ability to comply with all other applicable provisions of the Code, including sign regulations of Chapter 18.114. Code Section 18.114.070.H prohibits roof signs of all types. Code Section 18.114.090.A.1_a.i.l-permits billboards in certain zoning districts only; the CBD zone is not one of the listed zones- The prior Commission and City Council reviews affecting this site have determined that the billboards and the sign atop the existing A-Boy building are nonconforming signs that have gone beyond the 10-year amortization period FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 19 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGA_RD EXHIBIT # PAGE n 1 V adopted by the City Council in 1978 and thus were required to be removed. Consideration of sicm variance. The applicant has requested a variance- to the roof sign prohibition `.:of Section 18.114.070.H. The. applicant requests that, the ,.City. not require removal of a sign above the roof line of an'existing building on the site as a condition of approval of the current development application. The applicant characterizes the sign as a wall sign built on a parapet wall- The City Council and Planning Commission previously considered the. sign. and determined that the sign was a roof sign. The applicant has .-not submitted a variance justification. statement specifically addressing the sign situation,. nor has the applicant submitted any.evidence related to why the-.sign on the existing. building is not a roof sign. The previously quoted. justification statement submitted by the applicant (page 12 of. this: report) is . all that. was submitted in response--to .:the - staff;. notifying . the applicant that the application.was incomplete`-without.a statement of reasons supporting the variance requests. Since the applicant's Statement- of Justification is clearly addressing the pathway dedication and construction issues only, and since the Commission is unaware of any other ..reasons in support of the requested variance to the prohibition on roof signs, the Commission has no alternative but to concur with the Commission and Council's earlier determination that. . the sign on the existing building is a roof sign and that it must be removed within 45 days of the occupancy of the new building. No variance request has been received with regard to the billboard signs needing to be removed as was required by the earlier development application decisions affecting this site. The applicant apparently does not contest removal of the billboard signs as a condition of development approval. Compliance with all requirements of the Community Development Code as required by Section 18.120.180 would entail complete removal of these signs prior to occupancy of the building proposed as phase one of the redevelopment of the site. Chapter 18.120: Site Development Review Code Section 18.120.180.A.8 requires that where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the 100- year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle plan- This order has already dealt with the question of dedication of area outside the floodplain for pathway construction and the construction of the pathway as it relates to the provisions of the Action Area overlay zone. At this point, the report will consider the applicant's request FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 20 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE m a from the requirement to dedicate portions of the site within the 100-year floodplain of Fanno Creek for storm water management purposes- The applicant's -Statement of Justification for Variance (page 14 of this report) does not directly address storm water drainage concerns but instead provides the general statements listed -above as comments intended to apply to all of the variance requests ....The Commission does not--find that the requirements for dedication of the area within the f loodplain, of Fanno Creek for storm water management and greenway purposes constitutes a taking of the applicant's property.. Instead, the Commission finds that the required dedication would be reasonably. related to the applicant's request, to: intensify the usage of this site thereby increasing the site' s. impervious area=-.The increased impervious surface would be. expected to increase the amount of " storm water runoff from the site to-Fanno Creek.. The Fanno Creek drainage basin has experienced rapid..urbanization over the past 30 years causing.a significant increase. in stream flows after periods of precipitation. -The anticipated increased storm water flow from the subject property to an already strained creek and drainage basin can only add to the public need to manage the stream channel and floodplain for drainage purposes. Because the proposed development-'s storm drainage would add to the need for public management of the Fanno Creek floodplain, the, Commission --finds that. the • requirement of dedication of the floodplain area on the site is related to the applicant's plan to intensify development on the site: The Planning Commission finds that the requested variance would conflict with many Plan and Code purposes and policies and therefore is not with the first of the variance approval criteria. As already noted, the Code at Section 18.120.080_A.8 and many other related sections (e.g_, Section 18.84.040.A.7) require dedication of floodplain areas, not only for construction of pathways, but primarily to allow for public management of the storm water drainage system- These Code sections implement Comprehensive Plan Policy 3_2.4 which requires dedication of all undeveloped land within the 100- year floodplain. Volume Two of the Plan at Section 3.2 discusses the City's objectives in regulating development within and adjacent to f loodplain areas to avoid hazards to the public and to downstream properties- Volume One of the Comprehensive Plan at pages 192 and 193 provides a discussion of the reasons for development of a coordinated City-wide storm water management system. Volume One of the Plan also cites the Master Drainage Plan for the city produced by CH2M Hill Inc. in 1981 for a further discussion of the need for public management of the storm water drainage system and for measures intended to increase the flow efficiency of Fanno • Creek and other drainage channels in the city. FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 21 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT » o PAGE n a As noted by the Engineering Division, the Master Drainaqe Plan recommends improvements to the Fanno Creek channel downstream -from the Main Street bridge. Proposed channel improvements :would include channel widening and slope stabilization- These. improvements would move the- location of: the top'..of bank approximately five feet closer to-the proposed.building;:than . the location of the existing top of bank: -:.:In.. ;order:_ to. accomplish these public improvements related to-increasing-the ..flow efficiency of Fanno Creek, dedication of the area: of the subject site within the 100-year floodplain - and .-also.. the adjacent five feet is imperative.. Not requiring-dedication,'of this area - as a condition of, development approval; as the applicant's variance proposal requests; would clearly conflict:. with purposes.: -and'.. policies: of: ` :the Comprehensive:`:_Plan, Community Development Code, ---and :the 'City's- Master Drainage`. - Plan_ -.-The Commission fails'-to find special circumstances"that exist: -.which are peculiar.to-.this site.-over..which. the, applicant. has no. control that relate to the variance request'. -:-The applicant states that the inability to develop the proposed building without invading the City's intended pathway area is a special circumstance dictating the need for a variance. The commission does not see. how.this statement relates'.to any difficulties involved in the applicant's ability to dedicate area within the 100-year floodplain of Fanno Creek-.:- -.'The applicant's statement refers only to land outside of the 100- .year floodplain. The request therefore fails to satisfy the second of the variance approval criteria. The requested variance to omit floodplain dedication would not affect possible uses permitted by the Code for this property. Dedication of the portion of the property within the 100-year floodplain of Fanno Creek would not be expected to diminish the usability or value of the property because the 100-year floodplain area is virtually unusable due to the year-round water flow of the Creek within a well defined narrow channel. The applicant has not addressed how City standards (i.e., management of the interconnected storm water drainage system) can be accomplished if the variance request is approved and an important piece of the Fanno Creek stream channel is not available for public improvements to expand the channel as called for by the City's Master Drainage Plan. Again, the applicant fails to meet the burden of proof relative to the variance criteria. The third variance approval criterion is not satisfied. If the area within the 100-year floodplain is not dedicated as the variance application requests, the existing storm water drainage system would be affected because additional stormwater runoff resulting from additional development, both from the subject site and elsewhere within the Fanno Creek FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 22 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT 2~ PAGE drainage basin, is expected to increase flow within the creek and a rise in the 100 year flood elevation without the .:public's ability to make channel modifications in this area to offset the increase in stream flow. If dedication is required as specified by.the Code, the channel.of Fanno Creek in.this area could be improved by public agencies as called for by the Master Drainage Plan. These channel improvements, here'and elsewhere along the creek, would- be. expected. to improve the channel's ability .to .transmit stormwater'. flows.. thereby reducing. the 100 year flood elevation -and reducing the. possibility 'of floodwater damages and :threats to public safety..- Because.the.requested variance would therefore have ..an--:. adverse. effect upon an '.important-.physical system, the request is not consistent with. the.:fourth : variance- approval criterion..:' The Planning-Commission finds that the applicant has. failed to- state what -hardship. would exist related to the requirement, for floodplain dedication since this floodplain area; is .not buildable land under the City's regulations because the land in question within the floodplain is-primarily the actual stream channel of Fanno Creek. Therefore, the Commission is unable to find that the applicant's. request would be the minimum variance which would relieve an uncertain hardship. The fifth variance approval criterion is.therefore not met. The applicant's request for a variance from the floodplain dedication requirement of Community Development Code Section 18_120_080_A.8 is not supported by adequate documentation addressing the variance approval criteria. The variance request is therefore denied- Additionally, the Engineering Division has noted that an adjustment of the proposed building's location will need to be made in order to accommodate the pathway and the future City- initiated relocation of the floodplain bank as well as to avoid conflicts with existing sewers passing through the site. This should be accomplished on a revised site plan that will need to be largely consistent with the site plan and landscaping plans that have been reviewed or else a new Site Development Review application will be necessary. The Commission calls to the applicant's attention the provisions of Code Sections 18.120.070 and .080 which limit the degree of modification from an approved site plan that may be reviewed by the director without a new application becoming necessary. Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park Fanno Creek Park is a community park located along Fanno Creek between Main Street and SW Hall Boulevard in the Central Business District- The site lies within the 100-year floodplain and immediately abuts the subject property along FINAL ORDER No- 91-09 PC PAGE 23 0 LUBA.FILING - CITY OF TIGARL- EXHIBIT PAGE r' `~j b • its southwestern property line. It is hoped that the entire park will eventually contain 35 acres. The dedication of the land area within :the 100-year floodplain_ and the eventual construction of a pathway in that area on the- subject property, . is.consistent with the-City's park plans for the-:area.- In the City's Master Plan.for Fanno Creek Park, it is stated that Fanno Creek Park. is-.- to become the focal point for community, cultural,- civic and recreational activities. A paved urban plaza, an amphitheater, arf English water. garden, pathways,.a tea house, a man-made enlargement of the existing pond, as well-as-preserved natural areas are all components foreseen for this area .The.proposed development. presently under review will abut this planned: community park, and at its-"closest point, would be. no - : - -more than eight feet from- the outer boundary of the 100-year- The..'. Engineering'... Division - has-. stated. that - the proposed structure.:. should-'be at least 10 feet away from the relocated outer bank .in order to accommodate an eight foot wide pathway and the planned reconstruction of the storm drainage channel along the flood plain- This indicates that an adjustment.to the placement of the building on the site will be necessary in order-to adequately accommodate the path and vegetative screening up_ to -the relocated bank of the storm drainage channel. • VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission concludes that the proposed development, with modifications, will promote the general welfare of the City and will not be significantly detrimental nor injurious to surrounding land uses, provided development that occurs complies with applicable local state and federal laws. To that end, the Commission unanimously upholds the May 24, 1991 decision of the Community Development Director's designee approving Site Development Review SDR 91-0005 and a Variance allowing 39 parking spaces to suffice whereas 44 parking spaces would normally be required for a general retail use- The Commission also unanimously upholds the denial of the remainder of Variance VAR 91-0010 upon finding that the applicant failed to show that the Variance request satisfied the variance approval criteria. The Commission's approval of SDR 91=0005 is subject to the following conditions of approval: UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALT. BE MET PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 1. The applicant shall dedicate to the City as Greenway all portions of the site that fall within the existing 100- FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 24 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE -,2r 3 year floodplain (i.e., all portions of the property below elevation 150.0) and all property 15 feet above (to the east of the 150.0 foot floodplain boundary. The building shall be designed so as not to intrude into the greenway area. STAFF CONTACT: Chris Davies, Engineering Division..* 2.. .,The applicant shall obtain written approval from Unified ..Sewerage Agency of Washington County-for connection to the Unified Sewerage Agency trunk line prior.to issuance of aPpblic improvement permit.. A copy of the permit shall be submitted to the City .of. Tigard Engineering Department. - .STAFF-CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Division. 3. The applicant shall submit a`revised site plan showing: -.1) building plans which show the :proposed design and ,location of outdoor lighting and rooftop mechanical "equipment; 2) the location and screening.of the trash :disposal area; 3) the. relocation of the phase one building outside of the greenway area and out of conflict with existing sanitary sewer easements; . and 4) a minimum' of two appropriately located designated handicapped accessible parking spaces. STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer, Planning Division. 4. The applicant shall submit a- revised landscaping plan showing: 1) screening for the trash disposal area; and 2) the installation of street trees along the Main Street frontage of the site to the east of the proposed driveway. For purposes of calculating the required landscaped area (15%), the dedicated land noted in Condition No. 1. above may be included. The City shall be responsible for landscaping the land dedicated to the public. STAFF CONTACT: Ron Bunch, Planning Division. 5. The City Engineering Division shall locate and clearly mark the 100-year floodplain boundary prior to commencement of construction. Floodplain boundary markers shall be maintained throughout the period of construction. STAFF CONTACT: Chris Davies, Engineering Division. 6. A demolition permit shall be obtained prior to demolition or removal of any structures on the site. The applicant shall.notify Northwest Natural Gas prior to demolition. STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division. *This condition has been amended per Council action on September 10, 1991. The following sentence was removed: "A monumented boundary survey showing 0 all new title lines, prepared by a registered professional land surveyor, shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to recording." FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 25 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD -.--z~ EXHIBIT n J / / PAGE tt a 7. The applicant shall install an 8-foot tall solid plywood fence behind the sidewalk/public right-of-way along SW Main Street (from the southwestern property line to a minimum of 20 feet. beyond the new building to'. the northeast) prior to start of construction and must.remain until all construction is complete (Uniform Building code section 4407(c). STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast; Building Division. 8. As part of the improvement plans the applicant shall. submit details and calculations that show the change in the amount of impervious. surface: area created by this. development. . In. addition, the fee-in-lieu for water quality shall be paid-. STAFF.* CONTACT: Chris.Davies, Engineering Division:. 9.- An erosion control plan shall-be provided as-part of the improvement drawings: The plan shall conform to "Erosion, Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, November 1989_" 10_ The applicant shall submit evidence that the proposed building does not- encroach - upon the sanitary sewer easements that cross the parcel or, alternately, submit evidence that the Unified Sewerage Agency does not object to any proposed encroachment. STAFF CONTACT: Chris • Davies, Engineering Division. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT: 11_ All landscaping materials and other proposed site improvements noted in Conditions 3_ and 4 shall be installed or financially assured prior to occupancy of any structure. STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer, Planning Division. 12. All new signage must receive approval by the Planning Division prior to being erected. STAFF CONTACT: Ron Pomeroy, Planning Division. 13. The two nonconforming, amortized billboard signs and support structures shall be completely removed from the property prior to occupancy of phase one of this development OR the applicant shall submit any applicable legal document which prohibits their removal. STAFF CONTACT: Ron Pomeroy, Planning Division. 14. As a condition of the occupancy permit, the applicant shall be required to replace any portions of the existing sidewalk along Main Street which are damaged or in poor repair and to reconstruct any existing curb cuts which FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 26 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # a PAGE', are being abandoned_ Prior to any work being started within the public Right-of-Way the applicant shall obtain a Street Opening .permit from the Engineering Department_ STAFF CONTACT: Chris Davies, Engineering Division. 15. The existing roof sign shall be permanently removed from the subject.property within 45 days of'the issuance-of the Occupancy Permit for the new building.. STAFF CONTACT:. Ron Pomeroy, Planning Division.. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR EIGHTEEN (18) MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE FINAL DECISION. The Planning Commission's decision eliminates condition of. approval #9 of the Director'_s designee's.decision.-. That condition stated . that a Traffic Impact. Fee was required to be paid-upon issuance of a building permit for the proposed building on the' site..-,: While the,. Commission does not find that this statement regarding the: Traffic Impact Fee needs to be a condition of approval of the application, this action does not relieve the applicant of the responsibility of compliance with Washington County Ordinance 379 related to the county-wide Traffic Impact Fee program. It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of .the entry of this order. PASSED: This day of July, 1991, by the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard. i Fyre, je Tigard Plan Cission jo/Dolan.Fo FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 27 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # a PAGE # ' ~,c l~~o t t tS KNAPPENBERGER & MENDEZ JOSEPH R_ MENDEZ 418 SZJ 12TH AVENUE RTLAND, OR 97201 JOHN T. & FLORENCE DOLAN 1919 NW 19TH AVE PORTLAND, OR 97209 ED DUFFIELD 8895 SW E DGEWOOD TIGARD, OR 97223 JIM.COLEMAN . 1727. NW HOYT PORTLAND, OR 97209 GARY OTT 9055 SW E DGGE'WOOD ST TIGARD, OR 97223 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGPJRD EXHIBIT tt a PAGE tt 5 1 8. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING - SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 91-0005 VARIANCE 91-0010 DOLAN/MENDEZ (NPO 1) An appeal by John Dolan of a Planning Commission decision to deny a requested variance subject to conditions requiring the applicant to: (1) dedicate to the City as greenway all property within the 100 year flood plain; (2) dedicate property 15 feet above the 150 foot floodplain boundary for a pathway; (3) survey the boundaries of the dedication; and (4) remove a roof sign within 45 days of the issuance of an occupancy permit for the new building. ZONE: CBD-AA (Central Business District zone with the Action Area overlay zone). LOCATION: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC, tax lot 700) APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Community Development Code chapters 18.32, 18.66, 18.86, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.134; the Parks Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park, and the City of Tigard Master Drainage Plan. a. Public hearing was opened. b. There were no declarations or challenges. C. Community Development Director Murphy reviewed the staff report as presented in the Council meeting packet. d. Public Testimony: • Joseph Mendez, Attorney for Appellant, 1318 S.W. Twelfth Avenue, Portland, Oregon, advised his client had appealed a prior City decision on this issue to the Land Use Board of Appeals but was referred back to the City to apply for a variance. Mr. Mendez advised that the requirement of the dedication for the bikepath without compensation represented an unlawful taking and represented a violation of rights as stipulated in the United States Constitution. In addition, his client objects to the requirement to pay for a survey of the property after giving the land away. Mr. Mendez advised that the sign in question has always been a "wall" sign and was recharacterized in the Director's Decision as a "roof" sign. e. Community Development Director Murphy commented on the survey costs disputed by the appellant and noted the City offered to combine effort on the part of the City and the appellant to save costs. Mr. Murphy recommended that the City Council adopt the Resolution before them tonight and deny the appeal. S CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1991 - PAGE 7 LUBA FILING - CITY O. TIGARD EXHIBIT ' _3 PAGE r rJ l f. Council comments: • Councilor Schwartz commented on the survey work costs and asked if the proposed resolution before the Council could be amended to share costs. • Councilor Johnson advised she needed consultation with Legal Counsel on an issue pertaining to the subject of the appeal hearing. After brief discussion on process, Legal Counsel Coleman advised that a Executive Session could be called. Mayor Edwards called a brief recess at 9:02 p.m. in to allow Legal Counsel an opportunity to review State Statute to determine the section under which an Executive Session could be called. The meeting reconvened at 9:20 p.m. Mayor Edwards called for an Executive Session at 9:20 p.m. under ORS 192.660 (1) (f) - To consider records that are exempt from public inspection. Council meeting reconvened at 9:35 p.m. g. There being no further comment from Council, Mayor Edwards closed the public hearing. h. RESOLUTION NO. 91-66 - IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF A FINAL ORDER UPON CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND VARIANCE APPLICATION (SDR 91-0005, VAR 91-00100) PROPOSED BY JOHN DOLAN. i. Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor Kasten, to adopt Resolution No. 91-66 based on the facts, findings and conclusions contained in the Planning Commission Final Order No. 91-09 PC; the Council noted the burden of the survey should be minimized and the appropriate amendment reflected in Resolution No. 91-66. Resolution No. 91-66, as amended, was adopted by a unanimous vote of Council present. j. Legal Council Coleman advised that the following wording on Page 25'of Exhibit A to Resolution No. 91-66 would be deleted as this appeared to be a duplication of wording contained in Condition No. 5: CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1991 - PAGE 8 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT r PAGE lit' (Condition No. 1) - "A monumented boundary survey showing all new title lines, prepared by a registered professional land surveyor, shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to recording." In addition, Mr. Coleman noted the following wording would be placed in the resolution in the enacting "Therefore" clause: "THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the requested appeal is allowed in part and denied in part, and the Planning commission decision is upheld as modified based upon the facts, findings, and conclusions noted in Planning Commission Final Order No. 91-09 PC (Exhibit 'A' as modified)." 9. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 91-0001 A proposal to amend and repeal various provisions of the Community Development Code pertaining to the Central Business District (CBD) including: repealing Section 18.86 (Action Areas) and amending sections 18.42.0209 C.6.h. (Automotive and Equipment: Sales/Rentals Light Equipment); 18.66.030 (Permitted Uses); 18.66.040 A. (Conditional Uses); 18.66.060 A.1. (Additional Requirements); 18.66.070 (Interim Requirements); and- 18.130.150 C.23.a & 29.a. (Applicable Zone) a. Public hearing was opened. b. There were no declarations or challenges. C. Community Development Director summarized the staff report as submitted in the Council meeting packet. d. Public testimony: None. e. Council questioned outdoor storage and screening and whether there was adequate protection for existing uses in the downtown area. After discussion, Council consensus was to was to table the consideration of the proposed ordinance until October 8, 1991. 10. CONSIDERATION OF CUSTOMER SERVICE STATEMENT • City Administrator advised that staff had identified the key values in the delivery of customer services. Mayor Edwards read the Customer Service Statement: CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1991 - PAGE 9 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT 7 2 PAGE tt $ COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: September 10, 1991 DATE SUBMITTED: 8/28/91 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Dolan Appeal PREVIOUS ACTION: Director's decision May 24, 1991, Planning Commission JkUv 8 1991 PREPARED BY: Planning Staff DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN 0 REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy AK T~.7E ISSUE BE ORE THE COUNCIL An appeal by John Dolan of a Planning Commission decision to deny a requested variance subject to conditions requiring the applicant to: (1) dedicate to the City as greenway all property within the 100 year flood plain; (2) dedicate property 15 feet above the 150 foot floodplain boundary for a pathway; (3) survey the boundaries of the dedication; and (4) remove a roof sign within 45 days of the issuance of an occupancy permit for the new building. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission decision by adopting the attached resolution. INFORMATION SUMMARY The applicant appealed a May-24, 1991 Director's decision to approve a site development application subject to sixteen conditions and deny a variance (SDR 91- 0005, VAR 91-0010). The conditions required modification of the site plan to move the building out of area to be dedicated for a pathway along Fanno Creek. The decision also denied requests for variances requiring dedication of area within and adjacent to the Fanno Creek floodplain and removal of a roof sign from an existing building. The Planning Commission heard the appeal on July 8,1991 and voted unanimously to uphold the Director's decision with the deletion of Condition No.9 and deny the variance. The Planning Commission deleted Condition No. 9 based on staff and the city attorney's recommendation since the Traffic Impact Fee is governed by. Washington County ordinance -and is not appealable through the City land ' development process. The appellants claim that the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code requirements for dedication of floodplain and 15 feet east of the top of the bank constitute a taking of the appellant's property without compensation in violation of both the Oregon and United States Constitutions. The Director's decision provides staff's rational for denying the request for a variance from the dedication requirements of the Plan and Code. In summary, the Director found that the requirement for dedication of area within the floodplain for public stormwater drainage purposes is reasonably related to the proposed development's impacts upon the public storm water drainage system.. The Director found that the requirement for dedication of land adjacent to the floodplain and construction of a pedestrian and bicycle pathway is reasonably related to the proposed development's impacts LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT 4 PAGE - , :~G on the public transportation system. This system not only includes roadways, but • also sidewalks and pathways that serve as alternate transportation routes to streets. The appellants also claim that the condition requiring removal of the sign on the top of the existing A-Boy building is an unlawful taking. Staff found that no taking would occur since the removal of the, sign from the roof would not confiscate any property. In addition, the City would not prohibit relocation of the sign to another portion of the site as long. as the relocation conformed to City sign standards. The appellants state that the sign is wrongfully characterized as a roof sign and should be characterized as a wall sign installed on a parapet wall. Both Planning Commission and City Council decisions during review of the A-Boy site development review application in 1989 concluded that the sign was a roof sign. The current application contained no additional information with regard to the sign. Therefore, the Director did not find any reason to differ from the Commission and Council's earlier determinations. Attached to this summary are the Planning Commission Final Order, the Planning Commission minutes and applicant's appeal form. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the applicant's appeal thereby deleting the conditions of approval. is 2. Deny the applicant's appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision. 3. Modify the conditions of approval and deny the appeal. FISCAL, NOTES None LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT _ L PAGE ur" L4 C / CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 91- IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF A FINAL ORDER UPON CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND • VARIANCE APPLICATION (SDR 91-0005, VAR91-00100) PROPOSED BY JOHN DOLAN. WHEREAS, a Director's decision was appealed to the Planning Commission by the applicant for further consideration; and WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed the case at its meeting of July 8, 1991; and WHEREAS, the Commission upheld the Director's decision with modification to the original conditions of approval (Final Order No. 91-09 PC); and WHEREAS, this matter came before the City Council at its meeting of September 10, 1991, upon the request of the applicant; and WHEREAS, the Council reviewed the evidence related to the applicant's appeal; and THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the requested appeal is PARTIALLY UPHELD and the Planning Commission decision is partially upheld based upon the facts, findings, and conclusions noted in Planning Commission Final Order N. 91-09 PC (Exhibit "A") The Council further orders that the City Recorder send a copy of this final order to the applicant as a notice of the final decision in this matter. PASSED: This 10th day of September, 1991. Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor City of Tigard ATTEST: Tigard City Recorder RESOLUTION NO. 91- Page 1 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT v y PAGE = L Please sign in to testify on the following: AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE: C I o Icti r-- PLEASE PRINT NAME & ADDRESS NAME & ADDRESS LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT r S PAGE r LIB {f:oS+GJi;.. /F. •/f i-~.:n}.. r•.: <::CITY OF TIGARD ?}';'GYF,.}T.?1{'Sahf..-iW.'~~}+YP~i'fr. YF•vv}:.TYX •.'M~i~i$,f}•T..?N J~Jjj~~n//:;: i{{'r//i,}?~{S'~iiYv::.}:-i OREGON f:. i~-«fi,:... ;~:y~;/~i;;.{ min •~.':::~:;;F,r..,; •:,>..::n}>{.. y1.i .}:AGENDA ??}?i: ..{'';£n,::::;%?{Y;t~~/.f'Ir~::h a"{•+x?u ~'x`2•,{:::~ f~{Fkfi{' ~•`.~.~1,.'~cy{:,:•: {.•V'}~{•'.•: . +?x;-. {i l ft s f PUBLIC NOTICE. Anyone 4.'•:SiF.:v ` r~ r.>. wishing to speak on an .v~{ - .f • ; ~ir.•,~r agenda item should sign on :•}}fit "-{.A. SS':in }}T}'v:~i •:{Y:Fi: the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. • STUDY SESSION (5:30 P.M.) - Council Discussion: Selection process for Council Position 3 which will become vacant October 1, 1991 1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 P.M.)) 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. PRESENTATIONS: • Special Acknowledgement - to Don Moen for Planning Commisison Service - Mayor Edwards • Proclamation: Oregon Recycling Awareness Week - October 5-12, 1991 - Mayor Edwards VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE L13 CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 4.1 Approve City Council Minutes: August 13 and 28, 1991 Meeting 4.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar 4.3 Local Contract Review Board: Award Bid to Bruce Chevrolet for Two Dump Trucks 5. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL ORDER - SIGN CODE EXCEPTION - SCE 90-05NAR 90-27 - SHERWOOD INN APPEAL • Staff Report - Community Development Department • Council Discussion and Comments • Council Deliberation: Resolution No. 91- 6. CONSIDERATION OF NO PARKING ORDINANCE ON A PORTION OF HIGHLAND STREET • Staff Report: Police Department and Engineering Department • Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 91- 7. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 91-0016 BRAJAVICH (NPO #3) • A request to annex one parcel consisting of 0.36 acres to the City of Tigard and to change the zone from Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units/acre) to City of Tigard R-7 (Residential, 7 units/acre) ZONE: Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units/acre) LOCATION: 13440 SW Howard Drive (WCTM 2S1 3CA, 1700) APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development sections 18.32.020, 18.32.040, 18.32.130, 18.36.030, 18.136, 18.138, 18.138.020 (A) (B); Comprehensive Plan Policies 10.1.1, 10.1.2, 10.1.3, 10.2.1, 10.2.2, 10.2.3, 10.3.1, 10.3.2. • Open Public Hearing • Declarations or Challenges • Staff Report - Community Development Department • Public Testimony: - NPO 3 - Proponents (Speaking for Annexation) - Opponents (Speaking Against Annexation) - Additional Testimony • Staff: Response to Testimony and Recommendation to Council • Council Questions or Comments • Close Public Hearing • Consideration by Council: Resolution No. 91-Ordinance No. 91- COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 10, 1991 - PAGE 2 LUBA TILING -CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT tt PAGE L414 8. APPEAL HEARING - SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 91-0005 VARIANCE 91-0010 DOLAN/MENDEZ (NPO 1) An appeal by John Dolan of a Planning Commission decision to deny a requested variance subject to conditions requiring the applicant to: (1) dedicate to the City as greenway all property within the 100 year flood plain; (2) dedicate property 15 feet above the 150 foot floodplain boundary for a pathway; (3) survey the boundaries of the dedication; and (4) remove a roof sign within 45 days of the issuance of an occupancy permit for the new building. ZONE: CBD-AA (Central Business District zone with the Action Area overlay zone). LOCATION: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC, tax lot 700) APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Community Development Code chapters 18.32, 18.66, 18.86, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.134; the Parks Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park, and the City of Tigard Master Drainage Plan. • Open Public Hearing • Declarations or Challenges • Staff Report - Community Development Department • Public Testimony: - NPO1 - Proponents (Speaking for Appeal) - Opponents (Speaking Against Appeal) - Additional Testimony • Staff: Response to Testimony and Recommendation to Council • Council Questions or Comments • Close Public Hearing • Consideration by Council: Resolution No. 91- 9. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 91-0001 A proposal to amend and repeal various provisions of the Community Development Code pertaining to the Central Business District (CBD) including: repealing Section 18.86 (Action Areas) and amending Sections 18.42.0209 C.6.h. (Automotive and Equipment: Sales/Rentals Light Equipment); 18.66.030 (Permitted Uses); 18.66.040 A. (Conditional Uses); 18.66.060 A.1. (Additional Requirements); 18.66.070 (Interim Requirements); and 18.130.150 C.23.a & 29.a. (Applicable Zone) • Open Public Hearing • Declarations or Challenges • Staff Report - Community Development Department • Public Testimony: - Proponents (Speaking for Amendments) Opponents (Speaking Against Amendments) Additional Testimony • Staff: Response to Testimony and Recommendation to Council • Council Questions or Comments • Close Public Hearing • Consideration by Council: Ordinance No. 91- COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 10, 1991 - PAGE 3 LUBA FILING -CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT r ('ri PAGE 4 14 5 0 10 . CONSIDERATION OF CUSTOMER SERVICE STATEMENT • Staff Report: City Administrator 11. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 13. ADJOURNMENT WRECORDEMCMCCA910.91 COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 10, 1991 - PAGE 4 LLTBA FILING -CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT ~G PAGE z ~p Cu O E 9IIVIES PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal g 7043 " P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684 0360 O BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 v- C I GPO. _ gal Notice Advertising C\1 M =11= ~ The following.meeting`)iighlights'arepublish'edr or, your information. Full rL, • ❑ Tearshoet Notict >a~un(Lis 'in y` c'olilaincd.frorrt`ttic City., Rccordcr;-1312S;S.W', 1f++11 Boulcvaird,` TiSard.'Ore80ri'7•~t23;bY'C lin 8 639. -41 , 9. y~ 71,,, "ITTC~CI ~.j'•~i'~`- .'1~`h: J. ~•4 ~.y;l^1, iii, J•i• K(, plicate Affidar ;z •~',,.:cp, +):',~w, ~ ..1!,?a= ;r,j•,,':; R,af.,~•, awn, r'c CITY CO.UNCIIr'"BUSINESS MEETING:;. :r,"SEPTEMBEW '0 1991:." " " , ?5': t7:'t'~1tf71J111!' j(~+J'(1~,'i ;I 1 i-gard , Or 97223 • . tiTI~iA .D CIWiHAL L'.-~TO WN'HALL''„ • it, • ; ~~;;-:13125 ,SW''.HAI:I BOUL D;:TIGARD'; ON ri„C~~'iGtlti;i.;liti~~r Study Mewing'.(,To n al Con o•R6om)'(5:30 P.M.) Busuiess Meeting;(Towti Hfill)(7t30aP. ` j Rm+i AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Special PreSCntStlollft0,D0A Moen for Plann+ng Commission STATE OF OREGON ) ~,~•~~t,'~'ServiCe C't~+~"h~al5'~' ~~i~; rn:~k~~`:a~.~ t - J; • Pigclamaaon: Q on Recyc~mg W ek 'October 5 12, 1991 )ss 4 COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, 4r~r?~tir sti, t 3 y ~b ' $ Judith KOehler Council wil c~onhs>der worn, depose and sa that I am the Advertising ,•rHighlarid'StreeCNo.Parkpg Ordtnanc being first duly s o~`•' ,t. •}'.iw Ga^^ Si' liJ .•i'J.,.~. , ,t ;S:i• 7;'a r`'.t ' clerk, of the Director, or his principal `5: c'~1 :j ..1 t.,, "`Vi'i}; , 1ii,';'^.•" • `i ubhc Hearings a newspaper of general cir'Vlatiop as defined in ORS 193.010 igard and 193.020; published at in the .MuniciP.- C e Amendmerits•to,Central B afore usiness Distract ' Appeal tiea{ ng•,A;Hlanning said county and state; that the Tigard ;Comm+s5>On Decision SDR.91-0005' Meeting i ''Vnance`VA 91-010 DoIanJMende(NPO 1) { yl • ~1nn~icAtiontzCAk9~0016 Bea 1ZViCfi a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the }(N O . 3P1-`1-344'0 S W . . One ~;ard Drive~t??~,r, t : ti J 3 Il « + l ti" ' 'A~iJ; t? f~` }`4'ftr~+t~t1t3 t`+ ,t/i e " p entire issue of said newspaper for successive and Executive Se`ss+oJ` .f C,l, • r f 1,~Jn7 ,l,?r ' , . consecutive in the following issues: z, The T+gard.Gity Council:will o into Executive Sess+on under the: Sept r mbeS 1991 ? `F 'provisions of ORS,192.660 12.(d);k(g)%R&t,(4)s~b`Aiscuss labor: Xelatioris real prp~ ni Gons, current anti perici>ng l(t%ation__ L1S$ye3.~ r i'' , r a°) a 1,J{t~~ ~f JFt'liJa~„t. ia,j`I'r7E11't' .lt.•.~~r : }«a,,~lwt;'rg'K J4y~~Lf,tC f Local Contract Review:Bbard IVeeting,.:~ I N I~ s, + t e / / .1f' '..l\~i1~~ .Nf~ J5'!'ri-1; F.: t.: i.' :1.'•~.,\:•. ,..~;•i/l" ;:1, .?.R„5r L7 t~j,ti.,.r:,~,;1 ' /L `TT7043,,Publish.,Scptcmbcr. 1991 th day of September 1991 ' Subscribed and sworn to before me this OMAS QQ =PUBLIC- AL Notary Public for Oregon OREGON .000352 MY COl1LY t5, 1994 My Commission Expires: /99 AFFIDAVIT H TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY 44 P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Nog cteTT 7041 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 PUBLIC HEARING v Legal Notice Advertising The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council on g Y Y c-p(cm- itoo oc ber 10. 1991 at 7:30 PM at the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall Room, _-I' • City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Noti 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Further information may be ob PO Box 23397 tained from the Community Development Director or City Recorder at the a E-i • Tigard, OR 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affida • same location or by calling 639-4171. You are invited to submit written w testimony in advance of the public hearing-, written and oral testimony w will be considered at the hearing. The public hearing will be conducted in x~' Q accordance with the applicable Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal a w a, Code and any rules of procedure adopted by the Council and available at the City Hall. ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 91-0016 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION BRAJAVICH (NPO 43) A request to annex one parcel consisting of 0.36 acres to the City of STATE OF OREGON, ) Tigard and to change the zone from Washington County R-6 (Residential, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss' 6 units/acre) to City of Tigard R-7 (Residential, 7 units/acre) ZONE: I. Judith Koehler Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units/acre) LOCATION: 13440 S.W. Howard Drive (WCTM 2S1 3CA, 1700) APPLICABLE REVIEW being first duly sworn, depose and sa that I pry Jhe Advertising CRITERIA: Community Development sections 18.32.020, 18.32.040, Director, or his principal clerk, of the ! arc '!'Imes 18.32.130, 18.36.030, 18.136, 18.138, 18.138.020 (A) (B); Comprehen- a newspaper of general cire tttat9das defined in ORS 193.010 sive Plan Policies 10.1.1, 10.1.2, 10.1.3, 10.2.1, 10.2.2, 10.2.3, 10.3.1, and 193.020; published at g in the 10.3.2. afo s,ud co t and stat that t1~e nl aftc ~'ea~King` Lone GA 91-006 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 91-0005 a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the VARIANCE 91-0010 DOLAN/MENDEZ NPO ff 1 An appeal by John Dolan of a Planning Commission decision to deny a entire issue of said newspaper for One successive and requested variance subject to conditions requiring the applicant to: (I) consecutive in the following issues: dedicate to the City as greenway all property within the 100-year flood plain; (2) dedicate property 15 feet above the 150 foot floodplain boun- August '29, 1991 dary for a pathway; (3) survey the boundaries of the dedication; and (4) remove a roof sign within 45 days of the issuance of an occupancy permit for the new building. ZONE: CBD-AA (Central Business District zone with the Action area overlay zone). LOCATION: 12520 S.W. Main Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC, tax lot 700) APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Community Development Code chapters 18.32, 18.66, 18.86, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.134, the Parks Master Plan for Subscribed and savor to before me this 29th day of August 1991. Fanno Creek Park, and the City of Tigard Master Drainage Plan. , ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 91-0001 A proposal to amend and repeal various provisions of the Community Notary Public for Oregon Development Code pertaining to the Central Business District (CBD) in- cluding: repealing Section 18.86 (Action Area) and amending Sections My Commissi Expires: 18.42.0209 c.6.h. (Automotive and Equipment: Salcs/Rentals Light E quipment); 18.66.030 (Permitted Uses);. 18.66.040 A. (Conditional Uses); AFFIDAVIT 18.66.060 A.I. (Additional Requirements); 18.66,070 (Interim Require- ments); and 18.130.150 c.23.a & 29.a. (Applicable Zone). 777041 - Publish August 29; 1991. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING. STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) Ss- City of Tigard ) I,I& DAM-81 w being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say: (Please print) That I am a ✓A Ac, for _ The City of Tigard, Oregon. That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR: D' That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: City of Tigard Planning Director Tigard Planning Commission igard Hearings Officer Tigard City Council A copy (Public Hearing Notice/Notice of Decision) of which is attached (Marked Exhibit "A") was mailed to each named p~r$pns at the addres shown o!~ the attached list marked exhibit "B" on the LUTE day of 19 , .4 M 6-1- said notice NOTICE OF DECSION as her to at ached, was ASte on an appropriate bulletin board on the 20 day of 19_q~-; and dep(~,jited in the United States Mail on the day of 19 ( , postage prepaid. Prepared Notice Posted (For Decision Only) gh7ibed and sworn/affirm to me on the day of , , , .a N PUBLI OREGON 2 ~,'Y Commission Expires:cle, ~J "V/ N . .~~~'~llllll i ll. •.111 ;:t~;};~:q _ - - -Person w elivered to POST..-OFFICE Subs ribed and sworn/affirm to me on the day of , .19 N PIIBLI F O GON Q My COmmission Expires: 7 bkm/AFFIDAV:BRH LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT R PAGE - q N O T I C E O F P U B L I C H E A R I N G NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL, AT ITS MEETING ON TUESDAY, September 10, 1991, AT 7:30 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BLVD., TIGARD, OREGON, WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO.: SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-0010 (Appeal) FILE TITLE: Dolan/Mendez NPO NO: 1 APPLICANT: Knappenberger & Mendez OWNER: John T. Dolan Joseph R. Mendez Florence Dolan 1318 SW 12th Avenue 1919 NW 19th Ave. Portland, OR 97201 Portland, OR 97209 REQUEST: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 91-0005 VARIANCE 91-0010 DOLAN/MENDEZ (NPO #1) An appeal by John Dolan of a Planning Commission decision to deny a requested variance subject to conditions requiring the applicant to: (1) dedicate to the City as greenway all property within the 100 year flood plain; (2) dedicate property 15 feet above the 150 foot floodplain boundary for a pathway; (3) survey the boundaries of the dedication; and (4) remove a roof sign within 45 days of the issuance of an occupancy permit for the new building. ZONE: CBD-AA (Central Business District zone with the Action Area overlay zone). LOCATION: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC, tax lot 700) APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Community Development Code chapters 18.32, 18.66, 18.86, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.134; the Parks Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park, and the City of Tigard Master Drainage Plan. (See Map On Reverse Side) THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30. ANY PERSONS HAVING INTEREST IN THIS MATTER MAY ATTEND AND BE HEARD, OR TESTIMONY MAY BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD OF THE HEARING. INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE COMMISSION WILL BE BASED UPON THESE CRITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER PRECLUDES AN APPEAL, AND FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE CRITERION FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AT WHICH A COMMENT IS DIRECTED PRECLUDES AN APPEAL BASED ON THAT CRITERION. ALL DOCUMENTS IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TEN CENTS PER PAGE. AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TEN CENTS PER PAGE. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY RECORDER OR PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT 639-4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BLVD., TIGARD, OREGON 97223. bkm/SDR91-05.BKM LUBA FILING - CITY Or TIGARD D'.HIBIT PAGE = 7 J/ v + y f . P ANb - g}iH Sr b V'Lf~ S4 rq +~r n { ~v, S 94 t~ Sv;. 9- m - icy gI~° AYE. , 10~ ~n ~pJ'µ C' •'F 4I.~ ` V aPi p cCfy S.W. 92nd AVE .r ~ 3e ••a: r I J ~ S.W. OIN AVE. ,W. Out AYE Sy Ot "t 6 ' 1 UNC l AV a _ P ~f• AYE. L ~0 5 C4 'C .t 0 a rN ~ , " X ,W C ~ AvE 1 I bb t~ l r T A .~~J ,D aco s 4 a n, ~ ;o y1 • LY 0 NAIL N U1 of N f-_' N a LA d9~'M s =tic L~ h ~ , ~ , p ~ l t O 1 ( pvhb'~1 o H 2S102AB-01902 2S102AB-0200 - ATLAS LAND COMPANY FINKS, ALEX J_ . LOTTI A2ID 0 SW TIGARD HANS CERISTIA27 OR 97223 PO BOX 23562 TIGARD OR 97223 2S102AB-02100 2Si02AB-02200 _;_t_ .MME FINKE, ALEX AND I AND CACH, GERALD C JO;UZ L HANS CHRISTI 15170 SW SUNRISE LN /LoTT PO BOX 2356 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD 97223 2S102AB-02300 2S102AB-02400 :r-ANSON, DO SHIRLEY HANSON, DONALD E SHIRLEY --O BOX 12 PO BOX 12 97067 WE iME OR 97067 2S102AB-02401 _ 2SI02AS-02402 HANSON, DONALD BURTON, WILLIAM H LIT AL SHIRLEY % ANKEZE, MARVIN R & KATHRYN ?O BOX 12 12SI1 SW MAIN STREET --EHE R 97067 TIGARD OR 97223 2S1-2AB-02800 2S102AB-04900 THOMPSON, DENNI_S C DREESZEN, MARY ANN H LYNNE H 20900 SW 120TH - 9523 SW 62ND DRIVE TUALATIN OR. 97062 OrLAND OR 97219 - 2SI02AB-04300 2S102AE-04400 _ - MOORE, ROBERT C AND ELIZABETH R TIGARD, CITY OF PO BOX 23098 PO BOX 2339 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD R 97223 2SI02A.B-04500 _ 2S102AB-04600 MOORE, ROBERT C AND ELIZABETH-R PEREZ, JOSE EVODIO POZOS PO BOX 23098 8915 SW COt4iERCIAL TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 2S102AB-04700 2S102AE-04800 HOFFARBER PROPERTIES GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY 12005 SW HALL BLVD OF THE NORTHWEST TIGARD OR 97223 P O BOX 1003 EVERETT WA 98201 2S102AB-OS000 ' 2S102AB-05100 MCDAID, MARGARET CORDI, D A DORIS N 9225-SW BIIRNHAH ST 2 DRINRHATER, R.IC$ARD L AND TIGARD OR 97223 BARBARA J 9205 SW BUR-N'HAH PORTLAND OR 97206 02AB-1)5200 2S102AB-05300 a F PA$TLIERS$LR- D LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EX.F.IBIT cJ PAGE 5a 2S102BA-01200 2S102AC-002( MORI-bal PROPERTIES ET AL SOUTHWEST POh LAND 9 SE FOSTER RD PARTNERSHIP fD OR 97206 2121 N COLUMBIA BLVD PORTLAND OR 97217 2S102AC-00203 2S102AC-00201 - CITY OF TIG SEAFIRST REAL ESTATE GROUP PO BOY 233 Al-TN: J HARRIS - SPECIAL CREDITS 12420 MAIN PO BOX 34401 TIC OR 97223 SEATTLE WA 98124 2S102AC-00400 2S102AC-00500 DOLAN, JOHN T AND WOODARD, CSARLES L AND LORENCE T _ ARLIE C 7344 SE FOSTER RD PO BOX 23303 PORTLAND OR 97206 TIGARD OR 97223 2SI02AC-00600 r 2S102AC-00700 VERMILYE, HOBART P JEAN DOLAN, JOHN T 11272 SW CAPITOL HWY 1919 NW 19 VE PORTLAND OR 97219 PO OR 97209 2S102AC-00800 2SI02AC-00900 - HEUVELHORST, HIC UM J DAVIS, EUGENE L VIVIAN _ KADEY, GEORGE S JR 4550 SW LOMBARD 551 SW HAIN ST BEAVERTON OR 97005 OR 97223 2S102AC-01000 - 2S102AC-01100 HOFFARBER P ERTIES SORG, OTTO 12005 SW BLVD BY FIRST INTERSTATE BANK TIGARD OR 97223 OF OREGON N A PO BOX 2971 PORTLAND OR 97208 2S102AC-01101 2S102AC-01200 GULIZr, JOHN R LOIS I ffPqBox IRST GROUP 14095 SW HARGIS RD J S SPECIAL CREDITS BEAVERTON OR 97005 4401 WA 98124 2S102AC-02200 SEAPIRST REAL ESTATE- GROUP KNAPPENBERG£R & MENDEZ ATTN: J HARRI SPECIAL CREDITS JOSEPH R- MENDEZ Po BOX 344 1318 SW 12TH AvENuE SEATTLE WA 98124 PORTLAND, OR 97201 JOHN T- & FLORENCE DOLAN 1919 NW 19TH AVE PORTLAND, OR 97209 ED DUFFIELD 8895 SW EDGEWOOD TIGARD, OR 97223 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT r PAGE r r-i3 PORT AND 97206 2S102AB-OS200 2S102_aB-0S3G F[JRRER & SCOTT REAL ESTATE DEHARPPORT, ( E C AND AkRTNERSEIIP TRAVER, RONALD D 85 SW BIIRNFRAH RD 6676 SW 162ND DR TIGARD OR 97223 BEAVERZ`ON OR 97007 JIM COLEMAN O'DONNELL, RAMIS, ELLIOTT, & CREW 1727 NW HOYT PORTLAND,'-',OR 97209 GARY OTT 9055 SW EDGEWOOD ST _ TIGARD, OR 97223 1 LUBA..FILING - CITY OF TIGARD. EXHIBIT Iff P=GE T 50 LOOL6 HO 170S23aAV22 EZZL6 230 QHK9IS UG UNZ9T MS 9L99 HKH2Rioa MS S816 ' 023 uaAV23S dIHSH3Nxuvd QlIE' O - - - " " ' " " " " a- 3ZE'ZS3 `IK3H s -dau na / _ "-'OESO-SKZOTSZ - - OOZSO SKZOLSZ MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Ed Murphy, Community Development Director Dick Bewersdorff Senior-Planner FROM: Cathy Wheatley /u(, DATE: July 26, 1991 1, SUBJECT: Land Use Decision Appeal - SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-0010 - John T. Dolan (Final Order No. 91-09 PC)` Attached is a copy of the appeal received today for the above- referenced Planning Commission Final Order. This item is scheduled for the September 10, 1991, City Council meeting. cwc726.91 sLUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # In PAGE 1# 5-- LAND USE DECISION APPEAL FILING FORM • 1. Application being appealed: Upholding the decision of the Community Development Directors designee (SDR 0005) and variance (Var. 91-0010). City of Tigard Planning Commission Final Order No. 91-09-PC. 2. How do you qualify as a party: Petitioners qualify as parties as the owners of the affected property. 3. Specific Grounds for appeal or review: The Notice of Final Order by Planning Commission imposes conditions and dedications which violate the applicants' rights and constitute and unlawful taking under the Oregon Constitution, Article 1, Section 18 and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Specifically: Page 24, VI, Paragraph 1, as a condition to approval of the requested variance the Planning Commission requires the applicants to dedicate to the City as greenway all portions of the site which fall within the existing 100-year floodplain (i.e. all portions of the property below elevation 150.0) and all property 15 feet above (to the east of) the 150.0 foot floodplainboundary. A monumented boundary survey showing all new title lines, prepared by a registered professional land surveyor, shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to recording. The building shall be designed so as not to intrude into the greenway area. Conditions set forth in the first paragraph as stated above • constitutes and unlawful taking without just compensation to the applicant. The Planning Commission not only requires the applicants' land to be dedicated free of charge to the City, it also requires that the applicant pay the expenses of a boundary survey. Page 27, No. 15, the Planning Commission's decision requires that prior to an occupancy permit, the existing "roof sign" shall be permanently removed from the subject property within 45 days of issuing of the Occupancy Permit for the new building. No such sign exists on the applicants' property. A wall sign which was and is in compliance with City ordinance does exist on applicants' property. Requiring removal of the wall sign constitutes an unlawful taking without compensation and violation of the Oregon and U.S. Constitutions as stated above. 4. Scheduled date decision is to be final: July 26, 1991 at 3:30 o'clock p.m. 5. Date notice of fina i was given: July 15, 1991. 6. Signature: JO EP MEN Z, orney for Applicants * FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Rece ved By: U>11111 a-H-eL Date: 7 ( ~j( Time: I~•5y Approved As to Form By h_~ . r( Date: / Time: J~j~ Denied As to Form By: Date: Time: N Receipt t7o.: Amount: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * is * * PLANNING 3 L) LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGA.RD EXHIBIT Q ID PAGE FN Ju .1 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING -STATE OF OREGON _ j County of Washington.. City of Tigard ) k. I, w\\ t being first duly" sworn/affirm,. on oath. depose and, say (Please print] That Z am a l A~ for The City of Tigard,.Oregon. _ That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR: That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: - City of Tigard Planning Directoz..- L.-Tigard Planning Commission `r Tigard Hearings Officer Tigard City Council v A copy (Public Hearing Notice/Notice of Decision) of which is attached "(Marked sons at th dress shown on the Exhibit "A") was mailed to each named Per attached list marked..exhibit "B" on the day of 19 4?1 said notice NOTICE OF DECISION as hereto attached, was poste on an appropriate bulletin board-on the r~ day of , 19 and deposited - -11L in the United States Mail on the I(Q_ ay of 'Jil ..:19 4 postage prepaid. 61AAA-kt Prepared Notice Posted (For Decision Only) $~ib ,ribed'°and sworn/affirm to me on the day of z91 NOT PUBLIC OF OREGON My ission Expires: Person who delivered to POST OFFICE _ Subscribed and sworn/affirm to me on the day of , 19_. NOT Y PURL C F OREGON My C mmission Expires: bkm/AFFIDAV,13KM LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT fr JJ PAGE } CITY OF TIGARD Washington, County NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER - BY PLANNING COMMISSION 1.'•=. Concerning Case Number(s):' SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-0010 (appeal) 2.Name_.of Owner:. John T.-Dolan Name of Applicant:- Joseph'R. Mendez' 3. Address 1318 SW 12th Avenue City`Portland State. OR Zip:97201 4. Address of ProPertY12520 SW Main Street Tax Map and:-Lot No(s).:. 2S1 2AC, tax lot 700 5 ;Request: An appeal of the director's approval of a Site Development Review request to allow construction of an approximately 17.600'square foot retail sales buildinq.- The approval was made subject to certain conditions which would require modifications to the•site plan.' The director approved a y Variance to allow 39 parking spaces whereas 44 spaces are.. required. - The Director has denied the applicant's request for Variance approval to allow retention of area within the 100 year floodplain and area adjacent to the floodplain for bike path construction and construction of the pathway bV the applicant. The Community Development-Code requires 4 dedication of this area to the City and construction of the path by the applicant. ZONE: CBD-AA (Central Business District-zone with the Action Area overlay zone) 6. Action: Approval as requested X Director's decision upheld, with slight modifications Denial 7. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall, and mailed to: X The applicant and owner(s) X Owners of record within the required distance X The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization X Affected governmental agencies 8. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON July 26, 1991 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of conditions can be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. 9. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with 18.32.290(B) and Section 18.32.370 which provides that a written appeal may be filed within 10 days after notice is given and sent. The appeal may be submitted on City forms and must be accompanied by the appeal fee ($315.00) and transcript costs, (varies up to a maximum of $500.00). The deadline for filing of an appeal is 3:30 p.m. July 26, 1991 10. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Department, 639-4171. LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD bkm/SDR91-05.BKM EXHIBIT lar PAGE u S$ CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC- A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS-WHICH UPHOLDS A DECISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S..DESIGNEEE (SDR- .0005) AND VARIANCE (VAR 91-0010) REQUESTED BY-JOSEPH MENDEZ (JOHN .;AND-FRANCES DOLAN PROPERTY. OWNERS The Tigard Planning Commission has reviewed-the above application on appeal,:': at a public hearing on July 8, 1991.. .:The Commission has based its.decision on the facts, findings,. and.conclusions noted below.: SUMMARY OF APPLICATION REQUEST:.- a) `S it e.. Development Review :approval.,:is requested to allow. construction of a._17,600: square. foot retail .sales building.on a 1.67 acre site; b) Variances are requested to the following community Development Code requirements: i. Code.Section 18.120.180..A.8 (Site"Development Review approval standards) which requires dedication. of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain where development is allowed adjacent to the 100-year floodplain. In addition, this section requires that the dedication include area at a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway. The requirement of area for a pathway as well as construction of the pathway is also made by Code Section 18.86.040.A.1.b (Action Area overlay zone interim requirements). The applicant requests that floodplain and pathway areas not be required to be dedicated and also that pathway construction not be required as a condition of approval of the Site Development Review request. ii. Section 18.106.030.C.20 (minimum off-street parking requirements) which requires provision of one off-street parking space for every 400 square feet of general retail sales area. The applicant requests approval of a site plan that would provide a 39 parking space parking lot whereas 44 spaces would be required for the size of the proposed building to be used for general retail sales. • FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE I LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT n PAGE z Y iii. Section 18.114.070.H (certain signs prohibited) which prohibits roof signs of any kind. The applicant requests that the City not require removal of a sign above the roof line of an existing building on the site as a condition of approval of the . current development application. The applicant characterizes the sign as a wall sign built on a wall parapet. APPLICANT: Joseph R. Mendez, Attorney at Law 1318-SW 12th Avenue Portland,.OR 97201 OWNER: John.and Florence Dolan- 1919 NW 19th Avenue Portland, OR 97209 LOCATION: 12520. SW Main Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC, TL-700)-__ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Central Business District ZONE DESIGNATION: CBD-AA (Central Business District, Action Area overlay zone) PRIOR BACKGROUND The property's owners previously applied for Site Development Review approval for plans that are largely the same as the plans that are presently under review. The applicant also requested a variance to the parking standard for general retail sales to allow 39 parking spaces to serve development on the site whereas 44 spaces would normally be required. The Site Development Review and the Variance requests were approved on July 10, 1989 by the Planning Director subject to 14 conditions. The applicant appealed the Director's decision to the Planning Commission. The applicant raised concerns with five conditions of approval that were imposed by the Director's decision, including conditions requiring floodplain and greenway area dedication, construction of a bicycle/pedestrian pathway within the greenway to be accomplished by the applicant, and removal of a non-conforming roof sign from an existing building prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the new building. The Planning Commission upheld the Director's decision, except that the condition requiring removal of the roof sign was modified to require removal to occur within 45 days of the issuance of the occupancy permit (Final Order PC 89-25 dated December 15, 1989). FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 2 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT u -1 PAGE =Z V1D • The applicant then appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council challenging the same five conditions. The City Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision, with one modification. The Council reassigned the responsibility for surveying and marking the floodplain area from the applicant to the. City's engineering/surveying department - - (Council Resolution 90-07-dated February. 5;--1990). The applicant appealed the-Council's decision to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA)..-On.January 24, 1991, LUBA denied the appeal thereby upholding the City's decision on this matter (LUBA Final Order and Opinion No. 90-029).. Prior. to the above-described. Site Development Review' and: Variance request, - the only other-- City of Tigard land use.-or development action s.directly':related:to this.: parcel. are a . series of notices regarding -nonconforming signs:. on the property. Two freestanding billboard signs and one large roof sign on the property have been considered nonconforming as of March 20, 1988, and property and business owners were notified of this prior to that time. A voluntary compliance agreement has been used to provide affected downtown properties an extension of time until a City Center Plan is adopted. The voluntary compliance agreement sent to the owners of the . subject parcel has never been signed. The property and business owners have been cited:,..for-:.the.. following • nonconformities: A. Roof sign, a violation of Section 18.114.070.H; and B. Two nonconforming, amortized billboards (illegal location), violations of Code Section 18.114.090.A.4.a. SITE INFORMATION AND PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION Properties surrounding the subject site are also zoned CBD-AA (Central Business District - Action Area) and contain a variety of commercial uses. Property immediately to the west contains the Fanno Creek floodplain and is designated in Tigard's Comprehensive Plan to be included as part of the city's greenway/open space system. The subject site is approximately 1.67 acres in size and is bordered by Fanno Creek on the southwestern side. The site includes a 9,700 square foot building and a partially paved - parking lot which have been in their present locations since approximately the late 1940s. A freestanding sign with a readerboard stands along the Main Street frontage of the property. Two large billboards stand on or near the property's northeastern boundary. • FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 3 LUBA FILING - CI'T'Y OF TIG_n2D EXHIBIT 1) PAGE ' 0( S I J The property's owners plan to raze the existing structure, currently used by A-Boy Electric and Plumbing Supply - a general retail sales use, and to embark on a multi-phase redevelopment of the site. The building will be. razed in sections corresponding to progress on the construction of the first phase of redevelopment of: the site. The current.., proposal includes development of a 17.;600. square.foot single- : story structure on thesouthwestern side.of the'. site..: f or:.. .relocation of the A-Boy Electric: and Plumbing Supply operations. The plans also show an. outline of, a ..phase two building on the northeastern side of the. site. No-details have been provided for the building in phase two. A parking lot containing 39_parking,spaces--.intended-to serve. the phase one building is ,proposed_:between the two phases. { -One designated handicapped parking space and a:3 bicycle..rack are also proposed. The"site:plan also indicates an area for- ...'additional parking for phase two. The applicant requested variances to Community. Development Code` standards. requiring dedication of area of the subject parcel that is within the 100 year tloodplain of Fanno Creek. and dedication of additional area adjacent to the 100 year floodplain for a bicycle/pedestrian path, as well as the requirement for construction of the pathway in this area. In addition, the applicant. requested _a variance to the. Code prohibition against roof signs. Through this request, the applicant is requesting reconsideration of the earlier City determination that an existing sign on the present building on the site is a roof sign. The applicant also requested reconsideration of an earlier Council directive that would require the sign on the existing building to be removed within 45 days of occupancy of the proposed new building. In addition, staff also considered a variance request previously made by the property's owners in 1989 for a reduction in parking spaces, even though the applicant neglected to raise this issue with the current application. The parking variance considered would allow 39 parking spaces to suffice for the proposed phase one development whereas Community Development Code Section 18.106.030.0.20 requires one parking space for every 500 square feet of building area for general retail sales, or in this- case 44 spaces. The City is under no obligation to reconsider this variance since the applicant failed to raise the issue with the current application; however the Commission believes there is a need to reconsider the variance for the City's own administrative purposes. The variance is reconsidered as part of the present application so that there will not be different approvals with different approval periods regarding this site and site plan. The previously approved variance related to parking was issued by the City Council on February 5, 1990. This approval is FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 4 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT r ~I PAGE r (o 2 valid for eighteen months from the date. of issuance. Therefore, that approval is likely to -expire before development proposed by the current-application can begin. Reconsideration and reapproval of the. parking variance at this time would reset the clock for.. that .variance so that. the variance approval period would be concurrent'with -the approval period for-the new Site.Development:Review:application: On May. 24, 1991, the Community Development Director's designee approved the Site-Development Review request. and. the Variance related to- - parking... The approval was .-:subject..,to 16 conditions.--: The ' other variance requests were denied:.. AGENCY AND NPO COMMENTS = The City Building Division .notes:.thata canopy-:and an.8=foot. tall. solid;plywood; fence must -be installed behind. .the sidewalk/public right=of-way along SW.Main_-."Street ; (from the. southwestern-property :line to a minimum of:20::feet.beyond the. 6. a new building) prior to`-start of construction and must- remain- until.all construction is complete (Uniform.--Building Code section 4407(c). A demolition permit will be required for the removal of any or all of the existing building. The City Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal and has the following comments: A. Streets: _ The site fronts S.W. Main Street which is classified as a major collector street. Main Street along the site's frontage is fully developed with curbs and sidewalks. A 1986 engineering study of the condition of S.W. Main Street recommends that the pavement be completely reconstructed and that the storm drainage system be replaced. It appears to be impractical to perform the proposed reconstruction of Main Street in a piecemeal fashion on a lot-by-lot basis; instead, the reconstruction needs to occur in larger segments beginning at Fanno Creek Bridge and working uphill. Therefore, we do not propose that any reconstruction of Main Street be required as a condition of approval of this development proposal. This development should be required to replace - any existing sidewalks and curbs which are damaged or in poor repair and to reconstruct any existing curb cuts which are being abandoned. As part of the Tigard Major Streets Transportation Safety Improvement Bond, the City plans to replace the Main Street Bridge over Fanno Creek. The bridge replacement FINAL ORDER PiO. 91-09 PC PAGE 5 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT n PAGE TM ID 3 is scheduled to begin in June 1991_ The bridge construction is expected to occur. within the existing right-of-way and should have little impact on the subject site.. B. Sanitary.Sewer:- There are-'two sanitary sewer : truck lines that cross the. site in existing easements One line is 24 inches in diameter and the other is 60 inches -in diameter. The applicant has shown on the application plans the easement and location for the 24 inch-line,but not the easement :and location for the-60 inch 'line. ..Additionally, after:reviewing.the sanitary.sewer system, plans-.on file in this office, it: appears .that there may -:..be some mix-up as to where the sanitary sewer system is s-as.-shown on the applicants submitted. plans Basically,~ t appears that : the:- 24 inch line is, within'- a 10 foot easement and goes along the front of the proposed new :building and diverges to the east as you go south.. The 60 inch line is within a 30 foot easement and again is in front of the proposed new building. but does not diverge as fast to the east as you go south... Based on the plan submitted by the applicant - and the "as-built" plans for -.both the sanitary sewer systems, it appears-that the new building would be located over the easement for the 60 inch line by approximately 6 to 8 feet at the approximate middle of the building. Therefore, the applicant should be required to submit evidence as to the actual location of the sanitary sewer lines and easements, and their relationship to the proposed building. If it is determined that the submitted proposal for the building does encroach upon the easement, the applicant should be required to change the location of the building or the design so that it does not encroach upon the easement or to provide evidence that the Unif ied Sewerage Agency does not object to the encroachment. C. Storm Sewer: The City's Master Drainage Plan recommends improvements to the Fanno Creek channel downstream from Main Street. The proposed channel improvements would include widening and slope stabilization. These improvements would move the location of the top of bank approximately five feet closer to the proposed building than the location of the existing top of bank. Therefore, an adjustment of the building location will have to occur in order to accommodate the future City-initiated relocation of the floodplain bank. This should be required on a revised site plan. In addition, dedication of the land area on FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 6 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT n ~I PAGE n LO • this property below the elevation of the 100-year flood should be required. The Unified Sewerage Agency has established and the City has:agreed .to..enforce_-.(resolution No..-90-43) Surface Water Management...Regulations requiring-the.-construction' of on-site water. quality facilities or1fees in lieu bf their:-construction. Requiring- surface water quality facilities on. small sites could result in numerous facilities that could become a maintenance burden to the City. Furthermore,-the*applicant.has not proposed any such facilities and there are no natural depressions or other.areas of-this-site-that are particularly suitable -for water quality facilities.: Regional facilities,funded by =f ees : - in : lieu . of . construction of smaller... isolated facilities; would `provide the required. treatment with improved reliability,and less. maintenance. `Consequently a fee-in-lieu of. the:-construction of on-site water.: quality facilities should be assessed. .D... Traffic Impact Fee Washington County has established and the City has agreed to enforce (Resolution No.. 90-65) Traffic-Impact Fees. The purpose of the fee is to ensure that new development contributes to extra-capacity transportation improvements. needed to accommodate additional traffic- generated by such development. The applicant will be required to pay the fee. Based on the following information, the ESTIMATED TIP for this development would be: 1) Use: Retail Sales 2) Land Use Category: Business & Commercial 3) Rate per trip: $34.00 4) ITE Category: 816 5) Weekday average trip rate: 53.21 per T.G.S.F. 6) Existing Square Footage: 9,720 approximately 7) Proposed Square Footage: 17,600 8) TIF = 53.21 X (17.6 - 9.720) X $34.00 = $14,256.02 NOTE: THIS IS ONLY AN ESTIMATE OF THE APPLICABLE TIF FEE. THE ACTUAL FEE WILL BE CALCULATED AT TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION. The actual TIF will be based on the total square FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 7 LUBA..FILING (CITY OF TIGARD- EXHIBIT T PAGE r V • footage shown in the building plans, the trip rate in effect at the time of building permit application, and the fee rate in effect at that time. The City of Tigard Parks Department recommends that area adjacent to the floodplain should be required.to be dedicated for-:pathway construction..:"-. The. Tualatin Valley- Fire and Rescue District notes that. automatic sprinkler protection or some other means of built-in fire protection will be required.. In addition, :'a fire hydrant must be-provided within 500 feet.of all exterior portions of -the proposed structures, but not greater than 70 feet from.a... fire department connection.. Portland General .Electric .and the Tigard Water-District.,.=.::have reviewed the proposal and have no objections ' to it.'._':: ; : No other comments were -received., . - ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION Section 18.120.180 lists the standards whereby the.approval authority is to approve, approve with modifications or deny a request for Site Development Review approval. In addition to those contained in Chapter 18.66, Central.Business District, • the following sections of -the Tigard Community Development Code are also applicable: Chapter 18.86,- Action Areas; Chapter 18.100, Landscaping and Screening; Chapter 18.102, Visual Clearance Areas; Chapter 18.106, off-street Parking and Loading; Chapter 18.108, Access, Egress and Circulation; Chapter 18.114, Signs; Chapter 18.120, Site Development Review; and Chapter 18.134, Variances. In addition to all of the above approval criteria, this order will review the proposal in light of the Parks Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park. Chapter 18.66: Central Business District Zone The applicant intends to construct a new and larger structure suited for general retail sales use. Such a use is permitted outright in the CBD (Central Business District) zone. Therefore, the intended use is acceptable for this site. The CBD zoning district does not require any minimum building setbacks except that a 30 foot setback is required if any side of the property abuts a residential zoning district. Since none of the four sides of the subject property abut a residential zoning district, no other building setbacks are required. The proposed 16.5 building height is consistent • FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 8 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT r PAGE n IO(D it/l 1 • with the maximum 80 foot building height permitted in the zone. In the CBD zoning district,,maximum site coverage allowed is 85 percent. Site coverage includes all structures and -impervious surfaces such as parking;-. loading areas, sidewalks and pathway areas. A minimum of 15 percent of the site must be landscaped.. These standards will'be reviewed during the, discussion of landscaping and screening below. Chapter 18.86: Action Area Overlay`Zone The "AA" portion of the-subject site's zoning designation indicates that an additional- "layer" of zoning regulations has been ::imposed on this property.::-The purpose of the Action Area overlay designation is:.to,implement the policies of the Tigard -for.actionareas which include provisions Comprehensive Plan mixture of intensive land use.- Since permitted-uses in the Action Area overlay zone must be -specified in thei underlying zoning district;.in.this case, the CBD zone; this requirement has been met: Code Section 18.86.040 contains interim standards which are to be addressed for new developments in the CBD-AA zone. These requirements are intended . to provide for projected transportation and public facility needs of the area. The City may attach conditions to any development within an action • area prior to adoption of the design plan to achieve the following objectives: a. The development shall address transit usage by residents, employees, and customers if the site is within 1/4 mile of a public transit line or transit stop. Specific items to be addressed are as follows: i. Orientation of buildings and facilities towards transit services to provide for direct pedestrian access into the building(s) from transit lines or stops; ii. Minimizing transit/auto conflicts by providing direct pedestrian access into the buildings with limited crossings in automobile circulation/parking areas. If pedestrian access crosses automobile circulation/parking areas, paths shall be marked for pedestrians; iii. Encouraging transit-supportive users by limiting automobile support services to collector and arterial streets; and • FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 9 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGLRD EXHIBIT T PAGE = ( p iv. Avoiding the creation of small scattered parking areas by allowing adjacent development to use shared surface parking, parking structures or under-structure parking;. b. The development shall -facilitate .pedestrian/bicycle circulation --.if the site is.. located.:: on a street with designated bike paths'. .or adjacent to.-!.,.a 'designated greenway/open space/park. Specific. items to be addressed are as follows: i Provision of efficient convenient and continuous pedestrian and bicycle transit circulation systems,.. linking developments by requiring dedication and' construction of pedestrian and bike. paths identified in the comprehensive plan If .direct connections cannot . be ; made,. require : that,.., funds in the. amount.: of the construction. :cost. -be deposited..... .-into an account for the purpose of. constructing paths: ii. Separation of auto and truck circulation activities from pedestrian areas; Iii. Encouraging pedestrian-oriented design by-requiring- pedestrian walkways and street level windows along:: all sides with public access into the-building IV. Provision of bicycle parking as required under Subsection 18.106.020.P; and v. Ensure adequate outdoor lighting by lighting pedestrian walkways and auto circulation areas. C. Coordination of development within the action area. Specific items to be addressed are as follows: i. Continuity and/or compatibility of landscaping, circulation, access, public facilities, and other improvements. Allow required landscaping areas to be grouped together. Regulate shared access where appropriate. Prohibit lighting which shines on adjacent property; ii. Siting and orientation of land use which considers surrounding land use, or an adopted plan. Screen loading areas and refuse dumpsters from view. Screen commercial, and industrial.use from single- family residential through landscaping; and iii. Provision of frontage roads or shared access where feasible. • FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 10 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE n . The submitted development proposal satisfies the above requirements for transit usage.. The subject site is within one quarter mile of several Tri-Met bus stops on Main Street and Pacific Highway. The site plan -provides an on-site sidewalk providing a direct connection between the public sidewalk on Main Street with the entrance - to the proposed -building. ...:.The proposed parking lot's relatively narrow width -will minimize pedestrian/vehicle conflicts, because of -the -relatively short distance pedestrians must travel between, their-cars.and the sidewalk and entrance to the building.: The proposed development plan is reasonably coordinated with -other development --within the action- area. The site :_:improvements will be- required to satisfy Code-.-landscaping., requirements as described below- Screening- of -the -truck loading area-on the southern portion of the-- building .'can: be accomplished with either a fence or tall vegetation."'-Outdoor '=---lighting should be specifically addressed by:-the: applicant as to :.how it might be provided. These '.-modifications or clarifications can be accomplished as minor amendments.to.the - site plan prior to building permit issuance. The proposal is consistent with only some of the Action Area overlay zone requirements related-to pedestrian and bicycle circulation, as described below. .Pedestrian areas -are adequately separated from vehicle circulation areas by curbs • and landscaped areas. The northeastern side of the building will include a pedestrian walkway and windows along the side of.the building that will provide pedestrian access. Adequate lighting of the public and private sidewalks and the parking lot will be provided by parking area lights and building mounted lights. The proposed development would be provided with adequate bicycle parking as required by Code Section 18.106.020.P which requires one bicycle rack parking space for every 15 auto spaces, or portion thereof. The site plan proposes a three-bicycle bike rack at the northeastern corner of the building, adjacent to the public sidewalk. Variance requested. The application includes a request for a variance from the requirement of dedication of adequate area for and construction of a bicycle/pedestrian path along the site's western side adjacent to Fanno Creek as well as dedication of the floodplain area on the site itself. Because the requirement for pathway area and construction is raised by Code Section 18.86.040 separate from the requirement for floodplain dedication and dedication of sufficient area for a pathway, the Commission will consider the requirement for floodplain dedication separately later in this report. A bicycle/pedestrian path is called for in this general location in the City of Tigard's Parks Master Plans (Murase and Associates, 1988) and the Tigard Area Comprehensive S FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 11 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE = Lc? Pedestrian/Bicycle Pathway Plan 1974). In addition,. Community Development Code Section 18.120.180.A.8 requires that-where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to -the 100-year floodplain,-the City shall require the -dedication......... of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain in accordance with the -.:,:adopted pedestrian/bicycle plan--,..-.: 'The proposed. development::. site includes land within the 100-year floodplain of.Fanno.-Creek Section 18.134.050 of the Code contains criteria whereby.:the decision-making authority - - can -approve, approve*...:'.-.. with. modifications or deny a variance request: (1) The proposed variance will not be. materially .detrimental to the purposes of this Code, be in coriflict . with-: the. policies of the Comprehensive ;-.Plan; to - : any:'::, other±.: applicable policies of the Community Development::Code;-.to any other applicable policies and standards, and, to:..other properties-in the. same zoning district or--I vicinity.;; (2) There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or. shape, topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control,. and which are not applicable to other properties, in the same zoning district; (3) The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this Code and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent possible, while permitting some economic use of the land; (4) Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development were located as specified in the Code; and (5) The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Applicant's Variance Justification. The applicant has provided the following as -a statement of justification that is intended to cover all of the requested variances: The variance requested by the applicant should be allowed as the conditions and dedications required by the City of Tigard violate the applicant's rights under the Oregon and United States Constitutions. Specifically, the City's demand for dedication constitute an unlawful taking and violation of the Oregon Constitution, Article FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 12 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT T i~ PAGE n -l D 1, Section 18 and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The proposed variance will not materially. be detrimental to the purposes of the title nor conflict-with:the policy --of the comprehensive plan as no park exists.*at-:this time nor does the City have suf f icient : funding.. in ` which. tocreate- a park =that the bicycle/pedestrian'-path ,is- theoretically going to be used to.access.::.. There are special circumstances that. exist: which are peculiar to the- lot in that. the.:building,:'which the applicant proposes to construct cannot beerected without invading the City's--,proposed bicycle%pedestrian.path.if. the land is, dedicated:' The hardship is :not self-imposed but.' rather- by the City's:dedication.and the.-variance requested..is the minimum variance which would alleviate-the. hardship to the applicant. Analysis of Variance Request. The Commission does not find that the requirements for dedication of.the area adjacent to the floodplain for greenway purposes and for.construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway constitute a :taking of the applicant's property. Instead, the Commission finds that the • dedication and pathway construction are reasonably related to the applicant's request to intensify the development of this site with a general retail sales use, at first, and other uses to be added later. It is reasonable to assume that customers and employees of the future uses of this site could utilize a pedestrian/bicycle pathway adjacent to this development for their transportation and recreational needs. In fact, the site plan has provided for bicycle parking in a rack in front of the proposed building to provide for the needs of the facility's customers and employees. It is resonable to expect that some of the users of the bicycle parking provided for by the site plan will use the pathway adjacent to Fanno Creek if it is constructed. In addition, the proposed expanded use of this site is anticipated to generate additional vehicular traffic thereby increasing congestion on nearby collector and arterial streets. Creation of a convenient, safe pedestrian/bicycle patway system as an alternative means of transportation could offset some of the traffic demand on these nearby streets and lessen the increase in traffic congestion. The Commission finds that the requested variance would conflict with many Plan and Code purposes. As already noted, the Code at Section 18.120.080.A.8 and many other related sections (e.g., Section 18.84.040.A.7) require dedication of sufficient area adjacent to floodplain areas for construction FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 13 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE n I of pedestrian/bicycle pathways. Volume 1 of the Comprehensive • Plan at pages 256 through 258 provides a discussion of the reasons for development of a City-wide pathway system as part of a multi-modal transportation system serving the varied . needs of the City's citizens and businesses. - This section essentially summarizes the findings of the adopted Tigard Area : -Comprehensive Pedestrian/Bicycle Pathway Plan. -Comprehensive Plan - Volume 2 at Policy 8.4.1- calls for-.the" City. to : require the dedication of area for.---- and construction of pedestrian/bicycle pathways as a - condition development approval for areas identified by the adopted pedestrian/bicycle plan. The. Plan notes that-as the city grows; more people may rely on the, pathways for utilitarian as well:.. as recreational - purposes and that there is - a . need to develop a safe and : convenient: pathway : system. The pathway systems along Fanno Creek - near:. -the;_ subject:. site is : already' :partly constructed in both directions The 'City is 'actively pursuing land acquisition and park: improvement planning for. Fanno -.Creek Park. to-.the south..-,`-Contrary. to the applicant's -statement that "...-no park exists-at this time nor does the City have sufficient funding in which to create a park that the bicycle/pedestrian pathway is theoretically going to be used to access," the City has established Fanno Creek park, constructed a pathway and other improvements in area to the south, recently purchased 3.19 additional acres for park expansion, and has set aside funds for a partial extension of • .the pathway in the summer or fall of 1991.- It is imperative that a continuous pathway be developed in order for the paths to function as an efficient, convenient, and safe system. Omitting a planned for section of the pathway system, as the variance would result in if approved, would conflict with Plan purposes and result in an incomplete system that would not be efficient, convenient, or safe. The requested variance therefore would conflict with the City's adopted policy of providing a continuous pathway system intended to serve the general public good and therefore fails to satisfy the first variance approval criterion. The Commission fails to find special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to this site for which the applicant has no control and therefore the second criterion for approval of a variance is not satisfied. The applicant states that the inability to develop the proposed building without invading the City's intended pathway area is a special circumstance dictating the need for a variance. The design of the building is completely under the control of the applicant. The applicant's engineer was apprised of the need to provide area for the pathway at the pre-application conference with City staff prior to the submittal of the site plan. The applicant's engineer could have designed the building with respect to the need for dedication for the pathway. The S FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 14 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TICARD E-'-:Hi BIT P-•-GE = 7L applicant has not submitted any reasons supporting why the same amount of building square footage could not be provided on multiple levels or why the proposed square footage -is needed. If the building must be developed on a single level and at the same square-:footage, other options may exist for varying Code standards that.would not have such-.a detrimental effecton public purposes----as the requested variance. The. Commission finds that the.applicant has not met the.burden:of -proof- regarding- special circumstances affecting this - site -related to the requested.:variance. -The requested variance would- not affect' uses of the site permitted by the Code. The:applicant has.not.addressed how -City standards (i..e.,:.the connection of.:.the various - pathway segments) will be accomplished'-if the variance request is .approved. Therefore, the third variance approval criterion: is . only partially satisfied:->:::`_:.: As noted above, approval-of.•the variance request would have an adverse effect on : the., existing partially- completed, pathway.. system because a - system. cannot fully function- with- missing pieces. If this planned for section is omitted from the pathway system, the-system in this area will be much less convenient and efficient. If the pedestrian and bicycle traffic is forced onto City streets at this point in the pathway system because of this missing section, pedestrian and bicycle safety will be lessened. The fourth variance approval criterion is therefore not satisfied. As noted above, the applicant has not provided reasons why the building must be constructed with the proposed footprint, square footage, or on a single level. Without such evidence, the Commission finds no evidence of hardship that would result if strict compliance with the Code dedication and pathway construction standards are required. Again, the Commission finds that the applicant has not satisfied the burden of proof related to the variance request. Without evidence of a hardship, the fifth variance approval criterion is not met. The criteria for approval of a variance to the Community Development Code requirement of dedication of sufficient area for and construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway in conformance with various adopted City plans calling for the pathway are therefore not satisfied. The applicant has failed to provide adequate .evidence or reasons addressing the criteria. The request is therefore denied. The applicant will be required to dedicate area 15 feet in depth from the east bank of Fanno Creek and will be required to construct an 8 foot wide pedestrian/bicycle pathway in this area. The footprint and possibly the design of the proposed building will need to be revised to comply with this requirement. • FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 15 LUBA -FILING - CITY Or TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE - % 3 • Chanter 18.102: Landscaping and Screening Although not noted in the submittal for the current application,.the applicant previously has requested.that in return for. dedication of property. along Fanno.Creek, other landscaping standards should be waived. The Commission will :;-consider an exception-from the minimum landscaped site .area on W. W -the'net site after required dedications because this decision rejects the applicant's variance. requests from floodplain and -..pathway dedication requirements. The-Planning"Commission finds that the city has previously allowed the inclusion.of dedicated floodplain/park land for the purpose of calculating required landscaped area for other- projects..; Such an- allowance is .also appropriate,in this instance The, site plan does.. not note the amount of landscaped area that would be:provided on.the-net site after :f1 odplain and-.pathway area-'dedications, but. the plan.notes ..that 21 percent of-the gross site would be.:landscaped area or natural area. This percentage is - consistent with the 15 percent minimum landscaped area standard of the CBD zoning district as well. as with Section 18.120.170.E which allows the director to grant an exception to the minimum landscaped area requirements upon a finding that the overall landscaped plan provides for at least 20 percent. of the gross site to be landscaped. The City Council decided, with regard to the earlier Site Development Review request for this site, that the City would be responsible for landscaping and screening the area.between the required pedestrian/bicycle path, and the proposed building. The Commision will hold with the Council's earlier decision regarding this area and therefore will not review the applicant's landscaping plans for this area adjacent to the future pathway and Fanno Creek. The provision of a landscaped buffer by the City along the east edge of area required to be dedicated for pathway purposes is justified because the maintenance of this area will be the City's responsibility and the future storm drainage and pathway improvements will cause the destruction or removal of existing vegetation. Code Section 18.100.030.A requires that all development projects fronting on a public or private street provide street trees spaced between 20 and 40 feet, depending on the mature size of the trees. The site plan proposes only one flowering pear tree along the site's Main Street frontage. The proposed flowering pear tree would be located in a planter on the west side of the entrance driveway to the parking lot. Because the proposed building would abut the public sidewalk further west from the driveway, no additional trees can be located west of the driveway. The City will be responsible for landscaping • Blest of the proposed building. This area should include a FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 16 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT - PAGE n street tree or two. Approximately 85 feet to the east of the proposed driveway is not shown to include. any landscaping, building, or paving. The landscaping plan will need to be revised to include additional street trees consistent with the -size and spacing standards of Section.18.100..035. Chapter 18.102: Vision Clearance Section 18.102.020-requires that, clear vision be maintained .between 3 and .8 feet above grade at the intersections of all .streets and driveways. The flowering pear tree intended to be planted immediately to the west of the proposed driveway need not be relocated.out of.:this area.as.long,as branches.below eight feet in height are kept trimmed. In.addition, bushes -:'planted adjacent to the tree must.,-be .kept.: trimmed . to below three feet in' height Chapter 18.106: Off-street Parking and Loading Variance to Minimum Parking Standard. ."The applicant proposes -.to construct 39 standard 90-degree parking spaces. Community Development Code Section 18.106.030.C.20 requires that 1 parking space be provide for every 400 square feet of building area. Therefore, 44 parking spaces would be required for the proposed 17,600 square foot general retail sales building. As previously noted, the..applicant neglected .to.,request a variance to this parking standard with the"current.request. However, the director and the Planning Commission had previously approved such a request for the earlier application utilizing the same site plan. The Commission will consider a variance to the minimum parking standard with the current application in order to affirm the earlier variance approval and to make its period of approval concurrent with the approval period for the current Site Development Review .application. The following findings relative to the variance approval criteria (Code Section 18.134.050) are essentially the same as previously adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council with regard to the earlier application affecting this site. Special circumstances exist which are peculiar to this site and proposal. The applicant proposes to construct this project in two phases: the first phase consists of construction of the new building on the southwestern portion of the property. The existing building would then be demolished. The applicant hopes to attract a complimentary business(es) to build on the northern portion of the lot as part of Phase 2. Should additional parking be found to be necessary in the future, the applicant suggests that a shared parking arrangement could be worked out with the adjacent structure. FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 17 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT tt PAGE L -JS The applicant points out that the A-Boy store does not attract "browser or window shoppers", in that the business constitutes a retail/wholesale type of business which sells bulky merchandise. The latter. fact results in the attraction of customers who decide in advance of travel that a product is needed and who travel . to a specific destination, to obtain that product. The applicant-.-.has ..stated that' the existing store rarely has. more than six- or. eight vehicles at any one time.. - The Commission notes that employees of the business will also require parking spaces and perhaps delivery.trucks will need to park and unload on the property; however, it is.clear that the existing store use should not need 44 parking spaces. The City agrees that the-..present use As similar to_a '.'general retail sales, bulky-merchandise" use. If the City were to -employ the parking standard.used for retail.sales businesses -which sellbulky merchandise,`--namely 1 space for..every 1.000 square feet of gross floor:".area but not less-than10 spaces, it is clear that the proposed-39-spaces are:well within City parking requirements. Although the use of the :.building may later change, alternatives are available in conjunction with the future phase of construction on this property. If a new use, which has a higher parking demand,: occupies the building, a new site . development review- and evaluation of parking would be required. The issue of parking space numbers will also be evaluated as part of the site development review for phase two of this development. The use will'be the same as permitted by City regulations and existing physical and natural systems will not be affected by this proposal. Therefore, the Commission finds that the.variance related to parking is justified. Other parking standards. The Code requires one secure bicycle parking space for every 15 required automobile spaces. In this case a minimum of three bicycle parking spaces are needed. The site plan indicates a proposed location for a 3 space bike rack. This standard is therefore satisfied. The site plan does not provide for an appropriate number of designated handicapped parking spaces as required by the Oregon Revised Statutes (2 required; 1 proposed), although the 1 space proposed would satisfy City of Tigard Community Development Code standards as currently written. The site plan will therefore need to be revised to add one additional designated handicapped parking space. The Community Development Code will need to be revised to reflect this more stringent standard that took effect on September 1, 1990. Code Section 18.106.020.M requires parking lot landscaping in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.100. That • chapter requires the provision of trees in the area of a FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 18 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT #1 1~ PAGE -l Cp parking lot at a minimum ratio of 1 tree per 7 parking spaces. The site plan proposes 7 trees in landscaped islands within and adjacent to the 39 space parking lot. This standard is therefore satisfied. Code Section 18.106.080.A requires at. least one off-street loading space for commercial uses having -more than 10,000.- square feet of floor area. The site plan proposes a loading area on the south side of the proposed building. This standard is therefore satisfied. However, the loading space will need to be provided with adequate screening from views from neighboring parcels as has previously bee described. Chapter 18.108: Access Egress and Circulation Code Section 18.108.40.C requires that vehicular access'-be provided to commercial and-industrial uses within 50.'feet of the primary ground floor entrances =:to,the building. The proposed parking lot is immediately adjacent to the proposed building entrance. Code Section 18.108.50.A requires walkways connecting ground f loor entrances of commercial buildings with adjacent public streets. The site plan proposes a sidewalk along the front of the building connecting to the public -sidewalk along Main Street. Code Section 18.108.80.A requires a minimum of one 24-foot wide access driveway to a parking lot of this size serving a commercial use. - One 36-foot wide driveway would connect the proposed parking lot with Main Street. The proposed access and circulation pattern should provide adequate and safe access for the proposed use. Therefore, the Code's requirements for access and circulation have been satisfied. Chapter 18.114: Signs The applicant has proposed no new signage in conjunction with this application. The existing freestanding sign will apparently be removed. All new wall and freestanding signs must be reviewed by the Planning Division prior to their erection for conformity with the City Sign Code. The two billboard signs and roof sign are in direct conflict with Code Section 18.120.180, which requires that the approval of a Site Development Review be conditioned on the proposal's ability to comply with all other applicable provisions of the Code, including sign regulations of Chapter 18.114. Code Section 18.114.070.H prohibits roof signs of all types. Code Section 18.114.090.A.l.a.i.1 permits billboards in certain zoning districts only; the CBD zone is not one of the listed zones. The prior Commission and City Council reviews affecting this site have determined that the billboards and the sign atop the existing A-Boy building are nonconforming signs that have gone beyond the 10-year amortization period FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 19 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE r adopted by the City Council in 1978 and thus were required to be removed. Consideration of sign variance. The applicant has requested a variance to the roof sign prohibition of Section .18.114.070.H. The applicant requests that the City not require removal of a sign above the roof line of an existing building on the site as a condition of approval of 'the current development application. The applicant characterizes the sign as awall sign built on a parapet wall.=;. The City Council and Planning Commission previously- considered the .'sign .and determined that the sign was a roof sign. The applicant has not submitted a variance justification statement specifically addressing the sign situation,--nor has the applicant submitted -.any evidence related to.why the sign on--the existing building is not a .roof sign > The previously quoted...'justification statement submitted by the applicant (page 12,of this report) is all that was submitted in response.to,the staff notifying the applican t that the application' was:-incomplete without-a-' statement of reasons supporting the variance requests. Since the applicant's Statement of ,Justification is clearly addressing the pathway dedication and construction issues only, and since the Commission is unaware of any other reasons in support of the requested variance to the prohibition on roof signs, the Commission has no alternative but to concur with the Commission and Council's earlier determination that the sign on the existing building is a roof sign and that it must be removed within 45 days of the occupancy of the new building. No variance request has been received with regard to the billboard signs needing to be removed as was required by the earlier development application decisions affecting this site. The applicant apparently does not contest removal of the billboard signs as a condition of development approval. Compliance with all requirements of the Community Development Code as required by Section 18.120.180 would entail complete removal of these signs prior to occupancy of the building proposed as phase one of the redevelopment of the site. Chapter 18.120: Site Development Review Code Section 18.120.180.A.8 requires that where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the 100- year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle plan. This order has already dealt with the question of dedication of area outside the floodplain for pathway construction and the construction of the pathway as it relates to the provisions of the Action Area overlay zone. At • this point, the report will consider the applicant's request FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 20 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE n -j from the requirement to dedicate portions of the site within the 100-year floodplain of Fanno Creek for storm water management purposes. The applicant's Statement of .Justification for Variance (page 14 of:.this report) does not directly address storm water drainage concerns but instead provides the general statements ::,listed,::_above as comments intended. to apply to. all of . the variance.. requests. The Commission does not- find. that the requirements for dedication of the area within the.:floodplain-.of Fanno.Creek for storm water.management and-greenway purposes constitutes a taking of the applicant's property.._Instead,..the.Commission finds that the required dedication would be reasonably related to the applicant's request to intensify: the.'usage of :this site. thereby. increasing .the sites impervious area..;:: The. 'increased impervious surface would be expected -.to,.increase the.:amount of. storm=water runoff from-the site to Fanno Creek.- The:Fanno Creek drainage basin..has experienced.:.rapid urbanization over the past 30--y . ears causing : a : significant : increase in 'stream flows after periods of precipitation.,-P..,; The anticipated increased - storm -water f low from the subject property to an already strained creek and drainage basin can only add to the public need to manage. the stream channel and floodplain for .drainage purposes.- Because the proposed development's storm -drainage would add'to the need for public management of the Fanno..Creek floodplain, the Commission finds.. that the requirement of dedication of the floodplain area on the site is related to the applicant's plan to intensify development on the site. The Planning Commission finds that the requested variance would conflict with many Plan and Code purposes and policies and therefore is not with the first of the variance approval criteria. As already noted, the Code at Section 18.120.080.A.8 and many other related sections (e.g., Section 18.84.040.A.7) require dedication of floodplain areas, not only for construction of pathways, but primarily to allow for public management of the storm water drainage system. These Code sections implement Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.2.4 which requires dedication of all undeveloped land within the 100- year floodplain. Volume Two of the Plan at Section 3.2 discusses the City's objectives in regulating development within and adjacent to f loodplain areas to avoid hazards to the public and to downstream properties. Volume One of the Comprehensive Plan at pages 192 and 193 provides a discussion of the reasons for development of a coordinated City-wide storm water management system. Volume One of the Plan also cites the Master Drainage Plan for the City produced by CH2M Hill Inc. in 1981 for a further discussion of the need for public management of the storm water drainage system and for measures intended to increase the flow efficiency of Fanno • Creek and other drainage channels in the city. FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 21 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE z F' As noted by the Engineering Division, the Master Drainage Plan recommends improvements to the Fanno Creek channel downstream from the Main Street bridge. Proposed channel improvements would include channel widening and slope stabilization. These -improvements would move. the-location, of. the top of bank - approximately five feet..closer-:;to the proposed building.than the location of : the existing -.top . of -bank. - In : order to accomplish these public improvements related to increasing the. flow efficiency of Fanno Creek, dedication of the area of the- .-subject site within the 100-year, floodplain. and also the. adj acent f ive feet - is imperative. Not requiring dedication of this area as a condition -of --development approval, as the applicant's variance. proposal requests, would clearly conflict - .with -purposes and.,.: poli.cies-.,:o f._ . the Comprehensive Plan, Community Development Code,-!.-_ :and the City's Master Drainage .,The Commission.fails:, find.-special:circumstances.that exist, : which are peculiar.to.-:this:site'over 'which the applicant has. °no. control that relate to the variance request. -The applicant states that the inability to develop the proposed building without invading the City's intended pathway area is a special circumstance dictating :the need for a variance. The Commission does not see how this statement relates to any difficulties involved.in the: applicant's ability to dedicate. area- within the 100-year; floodplain of Fanno Creek. The applicant's statement refers--only to land outside of the 100- year floodplain. The request therefore fails to satisfy the .second of the variance approval criteria. The requested variance to omit floodplain dedication would not affect possible uses permitted by. the Code for this property. Dedication of the portion of the property within the 100-year floodplain of Fanno'Creek would not be expected to diminish the usability or value of the property because the 100-year floodplain area is virtually unusable due to the year-round water flow of the Creek within a well defined narrow channel. The applicant has not addressed how City standards (i.e., management of the interconnected storm water drainage system) can be accomplished if the variance request is approved and an important piece of the Fanno Creek stream channel is not available for public improvements to expand the channel as called for by the City's Master Drainage Plan. Again, the applicant fails to meet the burden of proof relative to the variance criteria. The third variance approval criterion is not satisfied. If the area within the 100-year floodplain is not dedicated as the variance application requests, the existing storm water drainage system would be affected because additional stormwater runoff resulting from additional development, both from the subject site and elsewhere within the Fanno Creek FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 22 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT 11 PAGE r S( • drainage basin, is expected to increase flow within the creek and a rise in the. 100 year flood elevation without the public's ability to make channel modifications in this area to offset the increase in stream flow. . If dedication, is required as specified by.the Code, the channel of Fanno Creek in this area could be improved by public agencies as called for .by the Master Drainage Plan. -These channel improvements, here and- elsewhere along .the creek, would be expected to.improve the channel's ability to=-transmit. stormwater- flows. -thereby reducing the 100-. year - flood . elevation and: reducing. the -possibility of.-.floodwater damages and threats to public safety. Because. the requested variance would therefore have an adverse effect . upon an important- physical system,.. the request is not.consistent with the fourth variance:,"approval... criterion.- The Planning Commission finds that the 'applicant has failed to -state what -hardship would exist related to the requirement for. floodplain.dedication ` since- this floodplain,;:.area.is -.not. buildable land-under the City's regulations because the land in question within the floodplain is primarily the actual stream channel of Fanno Creek. Therefore, the Commission is unable to find that the applicant's request would: be the minimum variance which would relieve an uncertain. hardship. The fifth variance approval criterion is therefore not met. The applicant's request for a variance from the floodplain dedication requirement of Community Development Code Section 18.120.080.A.8 is not supported by adequate documentation addressing the variance approval criteria. The variance request is therefore denied. Additionally, the Engineering Division has noted that an adjustment of the proposed building's location will need to be made in order to accommodate the pathway and.the future City- initiated relocation of the floodplain bank as well as to avoid conflicts with existing sewers passing through the site. This should be accomplished on a revised site plan that will need to be largely consistent with the site plan and landscaping plans that have been reviewed or else a new Site Development Review application will be necessary. The Commission calls to the applicant's attention the provisions of Code Sections 18.120.070 and .080 which limit the degree of modification from an approved site plan that may be reviewed by the director without a new application becoming necessary. Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park Fanno Creek Park is a community park located along Fanno Creek between Main Street and SW Hall Boulevard in the Central Business District. The site lies within the 100-year • floodplain and immediately abuts the subject property along FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 23 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT n PAGE n its southwestern property line. It is hoped that the entire park will eventually contain 35 acres. The dedication of the land area within the 100-year floodplain and the eventual construction of a pathway in that area on the subject property is consistent with the City's park plans for the area. - In` the City's Master Plan for.Fanno Creek Park, it is stated that Fanno Creek Park is intended to become the focal point for,community, cultural, civic and recreational activities. A paved urban plaza, . an amphitheater, an English water garden, pathways, a tea house, a man-made enlargement of the existing pond, as well as preserved natural areas are all components foreseen for this area. The proposed development presently under review will abut this ' planned community park, and at its closest point, would be no more than eight feet from the outer boundary. of the 100-year floodplain. The Engineering Division has stated that -the proposed structure should be at least 10 feet away from the relocated outer bank in order to accommodate an eight foot wide pathway and the planned reconstruction of the storm drainage channel along the flood plain. This indicates that an adjustment to the placement of the building on the site will be necessary in order-to adequately accommodate the path and vegetative screening up to the relocated bank of the storm drainage channel. VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission concludes that the proposed development, with modifications, will promote the general welfare of the City and: will not be significantly detrimental nor injurious to surrounding land uses, provided development that occurs complies with applicable local state and federal laws. To that end, the Commission unanimously upholds the May 24, 1991 decision of the Community Development Director's designee approving Site Development Review SDR 91-0005 and a Variance allowing 39 parking spaces to suffice whereas 44 parking spaces would normally be required for a general retail use. The Commission also unanimously upholds the denial of the remainder of Variance VAR 91-0010 upon finding that the applicant failed to show that the Variance request satisfied the variance approval criteria. The Commission's approval of SDR 91--0005 is subject to the following conditions of approval: UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 1. The applicant shall dedicate to the City as Greenway all portions of the site that fall within the existing 100- FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 24 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT ' PAGE T ~2 1. • year floodplain (i.e., all portions of the property below elevation 150.0) and all property 15 feet above (to the east of) the 150.0 foot floodplain boundary. A monumented boundary survey showing all new title lines, prepared by a registered professional land surveyor, shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to recording. The building shall be designed so as not to intrude into the greenway area. STAFF CONTACT: Chris Davies, Engineering Division. 2. The applicant shall obtain written approval from Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County for connection to the Unified Sewerage Agency trunk line prior to issuance of aPpblic improvement permit. A copy of the permit shall be submitted to the City of Tigard Engineering Department. STAFF CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Division. 3. The applicant shall submit a-revised site plan showing: 1) building plans which show the proposed design and location of outdoor lighting and rooftop mechanical equipment; 2) the location and screening of the trash disposal area; 3) the relocation of the phase one building outside of the greenway area and out of conflict with existing sanitary sewer easements; and 4) a minimum • of two appropriately located designated handicapped accessible parking.spaces. STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer, Planning Division. 4. The applicant. shall submit a revised landscaping plan showing: 1) screening for the trash disposal area; and 2) the installation of street trees along the Main Street frontage of the site to the east of the proposed driveway.. For purposes of calculating the required landscaped area. (150), the dedicated land noted in Condition No. 1. above may be included. The City shall be responsible for landscaping the land dedicated to the public. STAFF CONTACT: Ron-Bunch, Planning Division.. 5.. The City -Engineering Division shall locate and clearly' mark - .the 100=year. floodplain boundary prior to -commencement of construction. Floodplain boundary markers shall be maintained throughout the period of construction. STAFF CONTACT: Chris Davies, Engineering Division. 6. A demolition permit shall be obtained prior to demolition or removal of any structures on the site. The applicant shall'.notify Northwest Natural Gas prior to demolition. STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division. • FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 25 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT R PAGE r K~ 1 7. The applicant shall install an 8-foot tall solid plywood fence behind the sidewalk/public right-of-way along SW Main Street (from the southwestern property line to a minimum of 20 feet beyond the new building to the northeast) prior to start of construction and must remain until all construction is complete (Uniform Building Code section 4407(c). STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division. 8. As part of the improvement plans the applicant shall submit details and calculations that show the change in the amount of impervious surface area created by this development. In addition, the fee-in-lieu for water quality shall be paid. STAFF CONTACT: Chris Davies, Engineering Division. 9. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, November 1989." 10. The applicant shall submit evidence that the proposed building does not encroach upon the sanitary sewer easements that cross the parcel or, alternately, submit evidence that the Unified Sewerage Agency does not object to any proposed encroachment. STAFF CONTACT: Chris Davies, Engineering Division. UNLESS .OTHERWISE-NOTED, THE.FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.. SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF AN OCCUPANCY.PERMIT:... 11. All landscaping materials and other proposed-. site improvements 'noted in Conditions 3. and 4 shall be installed or financially assured prior to occupancy of any structure. -STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer,. Planning Division.'* 12: All new. signage-must.. receive approval by the Planning Division prior to being erected. STAFF CONTACT:' Ron. Pomeroy`Planning.Division. 13. The-.two nonconforming,-amortized billboard signs and support structures shall be completely removed from the property prior to occupancy of phase one of., this development.OR the applicant shall submit any applicable legal document which prohibits. their removal. STAFF CONTACT: Ron.Pomeroy, Planning Division. 14. As' a condition of the-occupancy permit, the applicant shall be required to replace any portions of the existing sidewalk along Main Street which are damaged or in poor repair and to reconstruct any existing-curb cuts which FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 26 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE r are being abandoned. Prior to any work being started within the public Right-of-Way the applicant shall obtain a Street Opening permit from the Engineering Department. STAFF CONTACT: Chris Davies, Engineering Division. 15. The existing roof sign shall be permanently removed from the subject property within 45 days of the issuance of the Occupancy Permit for the new building. STAFF CONTACT: Ron Pomeroy, Planning Division. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR EIGHTEEN (18) MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE FINAL DECISION. The Planning Commission's decision eliminates condition of approval #9 of the Director's designee's - decision. That condition stated that a Traffic Impact Fee was required to be paid upon issuance of a building permit for the proposed building on the site. While the Commission does not find that this statement regarding the Traffic Impact Fee needs to be a condition of approval of the application, this action does not relieve the applicant of the responsibility of compliance with Washington County Ordinance 379 related to the county-wide Traffic Impact Fee program. It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this order. PASSED: This day of July, 1991, by the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard. i Fyre, e Tigard Pl Co ission jo/Dolan.FO FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 27 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT T PAGE r ~s KNAPPENBERGER & MENDEZ JOSEPH R_ MENDEZ ~18 SW 12TH AVENUE RTLAND, OR 97201 JOHN T. & FLORENCE DOLAN 1919 NW 19TH AVE PORTLAND, OR 97209 ED DUFFIELD 8895 SW EDGEWOOD TIGARD, OR 97223 JIM COLEMAN 1727 NW HOYT PORTLAND, OR 97209 GARY OTT 9055 SW EDGEWOOD ST TIGARD, OR 97223 • • LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGP_RD EXHIBIT r PAGE r ~SCD i jIGIG( r l TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - JULY 8, 1991 1. Vice President Fyre called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM. The meeting was held at Tigard Civic Center - TOWN HALL - 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: Vice President Fyre; Commissioners Barber, Fessler, Moore, and Saxton. Absent: Commissioners Boone, Castile, and-Saporta. Staff: Senior Planner Dick Bewersdorff, City Attorney Jim Coleman, and Planning Commission Secretary Ellen Fox. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Fessler moved and Commissioner Barber seconded to approve the minutes of the previous meeting as corrected. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present, with Commissioners Fyre and Saxton abstaining. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION o Community Involvement Coordinator Liz Newton introduced Wendy Hawley who will be joining the Commission to fill the position vacated by Don Moen. She will be confirmed July 23rd at the City Council Meeting. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1 . S.LTE DEYELOPMENT~REYIEW=:SDR 91,=0005 :.VARIANCE _YAR,91=0010:::DOLAN/MENDEZ ;;A,(NPO''411. An appeal of the Di rector's, approval of a Site Development request to allow construction of an approximately 17,600 square foot retail sales building. The approval was made subject to certain conditions which would include some modifications to the site plan. The Director has denied the applicant's request for Variance approval to allow retention of area within the 100 year floodplain and area adjacent to the floodplain for bike path construction and construction of the pathway whereas the Community Development Code requires dedication of this area to the City and construction of the path by the applicant. ZONE: CBD-AA (Central Business District zone with the Action Area overlay. zone). LOCATION: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC, tax lot 700) APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.66, 18.86, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.134; the Parks Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park, and the City of Tigard Master Drainage Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 8, 1991 PAGE 1 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE 7 l ~ Senior Planner Dick Bewersdorff reviewed the previous decisions made pertaining to this Site Development Review and Variance request. He discussed the conditions of approval, several of which the applicant is objecting to. He said the condition requiring the dedication of property within the Fanno Creek floodplain for the purpose of constructing a bike/pedestrian path was of major concern to the applicant. He explained that the applicant did not intend to give this land without adequate compensation. He discussed the condition of approval requiring the removal of the sign on top of the existing A-Boy building. He said the applicant characterized the sign as a wall sign installed on a parapet wall, but both the Planning Commission and City Council found the sign to be a roof sign (SDR application in 1989). He said staff was recommending that the Commission uphold the Director's decision. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o John Dolan, owner of the subject property and the A-Boy business, explained he favored construction of a bike/pedestrian path, but he was opposed to dedicating some of his property without compensation. He said there were originally 12 conditions of approval, and now there are 16 conditions. He objected to the City adding conditions beyond the original 12. He discussed the erosion control and Traffic Impact Fee conditions. o Commissioner Barber commented on the reasoning behind the Traffic Impact Fee. There was brief discussion about this issue. o Commissioner Fessler requested clarification pertaining to the sign issue. She recalled from the previous hearing that the applicant agreed to take down the sign after the new building was constructed. There was discussion, with Mr. Dolan advising that he did not want to take the sign down until the old building was demolished. o Commissioner Fyre asked Mr. Dolan about his consideration of moving the location of the building with regards to the bike path. Mr. Dolan said he was flexible about this issue, as long as he was justly compensated in return for the dedicated land. o Commissioner Saxton asked how the value of the land could be determined since the land is not buildable in the floodplain. Discussion followed concerning how to determine a fair price and how the 15 feet of land would affect building plans. o Commissioner Moore suggested an easement for the bike path instead of the City buying the property. There was discussion about the pros and cons of an easement versus a dedication. o Commissioner Barber sought clarification from City Attorney Jim Coleman concerning the Planning Commission's role in deciding whether the City can purchase the property for Fanno Park. Mr. Coleman advised that the Commission had no authority to commit to such a purchase. He discussed • the variance process and standards for granting a Variance. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 8, 1991 PAGE 2 LUBA.FILING - CITY OF TIGARD. EXHIBIT tt a PAGE n PUBLIC TESTIMONY • o Gary Ott, 9055 SW Edgewood Street, Tigard, testified in favor of staff's recommendation to uphold the Director's decision. He noted that one of the main issues was the integrity of the Fanno Creek Park Plan, which he said was very important to the livability of the community. He pointed out the wild life habitat, picnic area and natural setting available in the urban environment. He advised that NPO #1 and 7#2 were on record as supporting the park linkage along Hall Street to Main Street, although he said he was not speaking for the NPO. He spoke about other functions the park provides, such as: transporting storm water, removing pollutants from surface water, and as an important wetlands area. He encouraged the Commission to uphold the Director's decision. APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL o John Dolan stated he agreed with Mr. Ott about the importance of Fanno Creek Park to the community. He did not agree, however, with the method of obtaining land for the park by taking it without compensation. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Commissioner Fessler discussed the issue of dedication of land for the bike path and compromises which both parties have made. She sympathized with the applicant's desire to be paid for the dedicated land, but pointed out the trade offs to be made. • o Commissioner Saxton said he could sympathize with the applicant wanting to be paid for the dedicated land, but stated he agreed with the staff's recommendation. o Commissioner Moore referred to the Development Code and said he did not find that the Commission had any latitude. Therefore, he favored upholding the Director's decision. o Commissioner Barber agreed with Commissioner Moore regarding the authority or latitude allowed the Commission, and she was in favor of following staff's recommendation. o Commissioner Fyre discussed the Code requirements and said he favored upholding the Director's Decision. o City Attorney Jim Coleman suggested deleting Condition #9, the Traffic Impact Fee, from the conditions of approval, as it is a City requirement. He said the applicant would not be relieved from paying the fee in the future, but it would not be connected with this SDR or Variance hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 8, 1991 PAGE 3 LUBA FILING - CI Z OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE 774' lzci * Commissioner barber moved and Commissioner Saxton seconded to uphold the Director's decision which approved SDR 91-0005, but with condition 1#9 deleted from the conditions of approval, and to deny VAR 91-0010. Motion carried by unanimous vote of Commissioners present. 6.0 OTHER 6.1 ELECTION OF PRESIDENT o Vice President Fyre called for nominations for President of the Planning Commission to replace the position vacated by President Moen. * Commissioner Barber nominated Commissioner Fyre. There were no other nominations. Vote was unanimous to elect Milt Fyre as President of the Commission. * Commissioner Fessler nominated Commissioner Barber as Vice President of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Saxton moved and Commissioner Fessler seconded to close the nominations. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. Commissioners voted unanimously to elect Commissioner Barber as Vice President of the Planning Commission. 6.2 OTHER BUSINESS o Commissioner Fessler suggested that the Commission do something to thank Don Moen officially for his years of service to the Commission. There was discussion, with Commissioners deciding to buy a gavel and have it engraved appropriately. Commissioner Barber volunteered to select the gift. o Commissioner Moore brought up the issue of absenteeism of Commissioners. President Fyre requested Secretary Fox to provide a copy of the rules of absenteeism for discussion at the next meeting. 7. ADJOURNMENT - 8:30 PM Ellen P. Fox, Secretary ATTEST: Milt Fyre, President PLANNING COt1,1ISSION MINUTES - JULY 8, 1991 PAGE 4 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE = ~1 r 7 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Planning Commission FROM: Offer, Associate Planner DATE: ne 27, 1991 SUBJECT: Appeal of Director's Decision for Redevelopment of the A-Boy Site-on Main Street - SDR 91-0005, VAR 91-0010 Summary On May 24, 1991, the designee of the Community Development Director approved a Site; Development Review application for redevelopment of the A-Boy property at 12520 SW Main Street subject, to sixteen conditions. Those conditions will require modification of the site plan prior to the issuance of a building permit. The decision also denied requests- for variances from Code standards requiring dedication of area within and adjacent to the Fanno Creek floodplain, construction of a bicycle/pedestrian path, and removal of a roof sign from an existing building on the site. The owners of. the property, John T. and Frances -Dolan, have appealed the decision through their attorney, Joseph Mendez. The appellant's appeal form and statement, the Director's decision, and the site and landscaping plans are attached for your review. The appellants claim that the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code requirements for dedication of portions of the site that fall within the 100 year floodplain of Fanno Creek and property within 15 feet east of the top of the bank of the creek constitutes a taking of the appellant's property without compensation in violation of the State of Oregon Constitution and the United States Constitution. The Director's decision, at pages 11-13 and 18-20, provides staff's rationale for denying the appellant's requests for variances from the dedication requirements imposed by the Plan and Community Development Code. In summary, the Director found that the requirement for dedication of area within the floodplain for public stormwater drainage purposes is reasonably related to the proposed development's impacts upon the public storm water drainage system. The Director found that the requirement for dedication of land adjacent to the floodplain and construction of a pedestrian and bicycle pathway is reasonably related to the proposed development's impacts on the public transportation system. This system not only includes roadways, but also sidewalks and pathways that serve as alternative transportation routes to crowded roads. LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT n 13 PAGE 11r g i c . l l The appellants also are appealing the requirement for payment of a Traffic Impact Fee prior to the issuance of a building permit. The appellants allege that because the Traffic Impact Fee is not uniformly applied to all commercial landowners in the City, the fees are unconstitutional. The Engineering Department, at page 6 of the Director's decision, notes that Washington County established the county-wide Traffic Impact Fee program in order to assure that new developments contribute to extra-capacity transportation improvements needed to accommodate additional traffic generated by the new developments. The County adopted this program in response to a popular vote of the citizens of Washington County. The Traffic Impact Fee requirement is not a standard of the Community Development Code and therefore is not an issue that is appealable to the Planning Commission. The appellants also allege that the condition of approval requiring removal of the sign on top of the existing A-Boy building is also an unlawful taking without compensation in violation of the-U.S. and Oregon constitutions. Staff finds that no taking exists since the required removal of the sign from the roof would not confiscate any property from the applicants. In addition,.-the City would not prohibit relocation of this sign to another portion of the site as long as the relocation conformed with City sign regulation standards. The appellants also state that the sign is wrongly characterized as a roof sign and instead should be characterized as a_wall sign installed on a parapet wall.- The Planning Commission -and City Council previously considered this same argument with regard -to this sign through the reviews of.the prior A=Boy Site Development. Review application in 1989. Both the Commission and Council found the sign to be a roof sign. The current application contained no additional information with regard to the sign. Therefore, the Director was unable to find any reason. to differ, with the. Commission and Council's earlier determinations on this same issue. No additional information with regard to the construction of this sign or the alleged parapet wall have been submitted with this appeal. Recommendation Staff recommends that the' Commission uphold the Director's decision. JO/A-Boy Memo LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT #7' 13 PAGE 1 9 ;;L • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, {~~Ille- M&LAA \ e4x(1 - being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say: (Please print) That I am a Vn (Jtt1LQ __SI for The City of Tigard, Oregon. That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR: That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: City of Tigard Planning Director ~ Tigard Planning Commission Tigard Hearings Officer Tigard City Council A copy :(Public Hearing Notice/Notice of Decision) of which is attached (Marked Exhibit "A") was- mailed to each named persons at the address shown on the attached list marked exhibit "B" on the -jj-jt day of LIL~y g 19411 said notice NOTICE OF DECISION as hereto attached, was posted on an appropriate bulletin board on the day of , 19 and deposited in the United States Mail on the- day of , 191 postage prepaid. MA AA A 0 Prepared Notice Posted (For Decision Only) `iiiit111111111JJ1~j~~i bed and sworn/affirm to me on the day of 194V J =r __-NOTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON ~.z 3 My Commission Expires: Person who delivered to POST OFFICE . Sub cribed and sworn/ affirm to me on the day of PUBL lr"ic OF OREGON ,g )i; My Commission Expires: li~/AFFIDAV _ BKM LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE n CI C N O T I C E O F P U B L I C H E A R I N G NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION, AT ITS MEETING ON MONDAY, July 8, 1991, AT 7:30 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BLVD., TIGARD, OREGON, WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO.: SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-0010 (Appeal) FILE TITLE: Dolan/Mendez NPO NO: 1 APPLICANT: Rnappenberger & Mendez OWNER: John T. Dolan Joseph R. Mendez Florence Dolan 1318 SW 12th Avenue 1919 NW 19th Ave. Portland, OR 97201 Portland, OR 97209 REQUEST:SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 91-0005 VARIANCE 91-0010 DOLAN/MENDEZ (NPO $1) An appeal of the director's approval of a Site Development Review request to allow construction of an approximately 17,600 square foot retail sales building. The approval was made subject to certain conditions which would include some modifications to the site plan. The Director has denied the applicant's requested for Variance approval to allow retention of area within the 100 year floodplain and area adjacent to the floodplain for bike path construction and construction of the pathway whereas the Community Development Code requires dedication of this area to the City and construction of the path by the applicant. ZONE: CBD-AA (Central Business District zone with the Action Area overlay zone). LOCATION: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC, tax lot 700) APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Community Development Code chapters 18.32, 18.66, 18.86, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.134; the Parks Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park, and the City of Tigard Master Drainage Plan. . (See Map On Reverse Side) THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30. ANY PERSONS HAVING INTEREST IN THIS MATTER MAY ATTEND AND BE HEARD, OR TESTIMONY MAY BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD OF THE HEARING. INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE COMMISSION WILL BE BASED UPON THESE CRITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER PRECLUDES AN APPEAL, AND FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE CRITERION FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AT WHICH A COMMENT IS DIRECTED PRECLUDES AN APPEAL BASED ON THAT CRITERION. ALL DOCUMENTS IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE 21-RE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TEN CENTS PER PAGE. AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TEN CENTS PER ' PAGE. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT 639-4171, l TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BLVD., OR CONTACT YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING j ORGANIZATION (NPO) # 1 CHAIRPERSON: Ed Duffield. PHONE NUMBER: 620-8494 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT r 114 PAGE r 61 U r /b~41 , 95 TN S W IN IN S/. •L• V Ltd Sh, Y'; R 'k 4'e~ 1u• ] 941n ].W. 93- MZ ~ r ~ r„ ~ q 0 o AVE. gin = ,ti ~ ~ ~ ~ b,W. VIN AVE, qIN WE ]w 91.1 Ct. AY m ~ ~50 r C 1 C LINC l . AYE CV /C 9 C rH SW. ,W. C f~ i L M TA AYE IN/ %WD ;i;}; Z r 0 t N p HALL ~ ' r pt d' ~ 31,8 S.w. 8brd NC 62rr s W, r rr3 hGO a 2S102AB-01902 - - - - - - - - - 2S102AB-0200 ATLAS LAND COMPANY FINKE, ALEX. LOTTI AND 93 0 SW TIGARD HANS CHRISTIAN OR 97223 PO BOX 23562 TIGARD OR 97223 2S102AB-02100 2S102AB-02200 FINKE, ALEX AND LOTTI AND CACH, GERALD C JOAN L HANS CHRISTIAN 15170 SW SUNRISE LN PO BOX 23562 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 2S102AB-02300 2S102AB-02400 HANSON, DONALD E SHIRLEY HANSON, DONALD E SHIRLEY PO BOX 12 Po Box 12 WEMME OR 97067 WE ME OR 97067 2S102AE-02401 2S102AB-02402 HANSON, DONALD-E BURTON, WILLIAM H ET AL SHIRLEY % ANKELE, MARVIN R & KATHRYN PO BOX 12 12511 SW MAIN STPJ= WEMME OR 97067 TIGARD OR 97223 2S1O2AB-02800 - 2S102AB-04900 THOMPSON, DENNIS C DREESZEN, MARY ANN H LYNNE M 20900 SW 120TH 9523 SW 62ND DRIVE TUALATIN OR 97062 1 002AB_04300 LAND OR 97219 Z - - 2S102AB-04400 MOORE, ROBERT C AND ELIZABETH R TIGARD, CITY OF PO BOX 23098 Po BOX 23397 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 2S102AB-04500 - 2S102AB-04600 MOORE, ROBERT C AND ELIZABETH-R PEREZ, JOSE EVODIO POZOS PO BOX 23098 8915 SW COMMERCIAL TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 2S102AE-04700 2S102AB-04800 HOFFARBER PROPERTIES GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY 12005 SW HALL BLVD OF THE NORTHWEST TIGARD OR 97223 P 0 BOX 1003 EVERETT WA 98201 2S102AB-05000 2SI02AB-OSIOO -r.:...__. MCDAID, MARGARET CORDI, D A DORIS N -.9225 SW BURNHAAM ST % DRINKWATER, RICHARD L AND. TIGARD OR 97223 BARBARA J 9205 SW BURNHAM PORTLAND OR 97206 AM02AB-05200 2S102AB=05300 PAIMIIERSAI-R--- D LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT r 14 PAGE h C~ 2S102BA-01200 2S102AC-002_________________---- HORLAN PROPERTIES ET AL SOUTHWEST PORTLAND S SE FOSTER RD PARTNERSHIP LAND OR 97206 2121 N COLUMBIA BLVD PORTLAND OR 97217 2S102AC-00203 2SI02AC-00201 CITY OF TIGARD SEAFIRST REAL ESTATE GROUP PO BOX 23397 - A=M: J HARRIS - SPECIAL CREDITS 12420 SW MAIN PO BOX 34401 TIGARD OR 97223 SEATTLE WA 98124 2S102AC-00400 2S102AC-00500 DOLAN, JOHN T AND WOODARD, CHAFES L AND FLORENCE T ARLIE C 7344 SE FOSTER RD PO BOX 23303 PORTLAND OR 97206 TIGARD OR 97223 2S102AC-00600 2S102AC-00700 VERHILYE, HOBART P JEAN DOLAN, JOHN T 11272 SW CAPITOL HWY 1919 NW 19TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97219 PORTLAND OR 97209 _ 2S102AC-00800 2S102AC-00900 HEDVELHORST, MICHAEL J DAVIS, EUGENE L VIVIAN % KADEY, GEORGE S JR 4550 SW LOMBARD 12551 SW MAIN ST BEAVERTON OR 97005 OR 97223 2S102AC-01000 2S102AC-01100 HOFFARBER PROPERTIES SORG, OTTO 12005 SW HALL BLVD BY FIRST INTERSTATE BANK TIGARD OR- 97223 OF OREGON N A PO BOX 2971 PORTLAND OR 97208 2S102AC-01101 2S102AC-01200 GULLEY, JOHN R LOIS I SEAFIRST REAL ESTATE GROUP 14095 SW HARGIS RD ATTN: J HARRIS - SPECIAL CREDITS BEAVERTON OR 97005 PO BOX 34401 SEATTLE - WA 98124 - - - 2S102AC-02200 SEAFIRST REAL ESTATE GROUP KNAPPENBERGER & MENDEZ ATTN: J HARRIS SPECIAL CREDITS JOSEPH R. MENDEZ PO BOX 34401 1318 SW-12TH AVENUE SEATTLE WA 98124 PORTLAND, OR 97201 JOHN T_ & FLORENCE DOLAN 1919 NW 19TH AVE PORTLAND, OR 97209 ED DUFFIELD - 8895 SW EDGE -jow TIGARD, OR 97223 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE tt a7 PORTLAND OT' 97206 2S102AB-05200 2S102AB-0530. gIIRRER-S6AYT_..REAL ESTATE DE OR T, E C ACID PARTNERSHIP TRAVER, RO" 9185 SW BDRNMP M RD ` 6676 SW 162t4l DR TIGARD OR 97223 BEAVERTON OR 97007 2DVd ~ ZIgIHX2 GUVDIS 20 TZID - DNI'II3 VM11 LOOL6 210 NOlUaAVS9 EZZL6 HO Zia aNZ9T MS 9L99 CCU KVIINUflgl NHS s8'L'S a a-ivN02i luaAKiiZ dIHSdatu va ativ o a 'suoaauvHau - -s-.Tessa rQ-au jzoas 3 xaxxna QCSO-gKZOTSZ oozso-gl'ZOTSZ 9c- aNWI.LIIOd MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Development Director TO: Ed Murphy, Cr7E"4-n FROM: Ca thy Wheatl, Recorder DATE: June 4, 1991 SUBJECT:, Appeal - Hearings Officer Decision - John T. and Florence Dolan; SDR 91-0005, Variance VAR 91-0010 The attached appeal was received yesterday afternoon. Please notify the applicant as soon as possible about the scheduling of the public hearing before Planning Commission. c: Dick Bewersdorff Victor Adonri cwc64.91 i LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # y0-6/<i3/91 11 : 20 0 5~ : S84 7297 CITY OF T I GARD C~ 002 - - - - 1 • LAND USE DECISION APPEAL FILING FORM The City of Tigard supports the c:ilizen's right to participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use C-->de therefore sets out specific requirements for r filing appeals on certain land use decisions. CITYOFTIGARD The following form has been developed to as-;ist you in filing an appeal of a land uxe decision in proper OREGON form. To determine what filing fees will be required or to answer any que-stions you have regarding the appeal process, please contact the Planning Division or the City Recorder at 639-4271. 1. APPLICATION BEING APPEALED: John -T. a.nd Florence Dolani' SDR 91-0005 Variance Var 91-0010 2. FLOW DO YOU QUALIFY AS A PARTY : band owners. 3. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW:. The Notice of Decision filed by the.. Director- imposes conditions and. dedications which violate • the Applicants' rights and constitute•an unlawful taking under the Qregon Constitution, Article 1 Section 18 and the Fifth- Amendment-to the United States Constitution. Specifically:. A) Pg. 21, Condition 1L of the Director's Decision requires the Applicant dedicate to the City,.without compensation, all portions of the site that fall within the existing 100-year floodplain and all property 15 feet above-(to the east of) the 150.0 foot floodplain boundary. (See attached Exhibit A.) 4. SCHEDULED DATE DECISION IS TO BE FINAL: 1,0/ L 5. DATE NOTICE :OF FINA '0'-'AS GIVEN: S/a y L C(~ _ _ 6. SIGNATURE(S e ph ;`i ez, Attorney for Applicants ~-3!~yi ;cam-??-tiS :~i-?C ;t ~-K-~ _ }y?tY.-a ~X-ic-k ~E~-1--?~?4-,v.:: Y 1~;.~. V J(14'(-1S'?(-X'~(3(-31-x"X-rE~(-'(. '3(-Y.'Y•'Y.'Y. X X'X X X' Y. X(7(~ h X X K X i( X FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Received By:C_ LU'~~^~~✓1 ate: k3b_r Time: `I • Approved As To corm By: _Time: //tom Denied As To Form gy: D4te_ Tine:-J Receipt P1o. Amount: _ 3:-f~`~-\ :~-X-'r.-!C-Y:-tL-:'=r.-~-~-t-~-X-~-~ ~.~Y;r.acY.-!t-`:-!(~ ii x j-'r:-~: :ti . ..-.,.v_,..y v.v ti• v v- v.~ r ~ t L v~ LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT n 1(O PAGE 100 • EXHIBIT A The Director further requires the Applicants to incur the expenses associated with surveying the property it demands be dedicated; B) All other conditions listed by the Director in his Decision which reference the unlawful taking as described in A) above are appealed for the-reasons stated above; C) Page 22, Condition 9, of the Director's Decision requires Applicants to pay the Traffic Impact Fees prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. The Traffic Impact Fees are not uniformly applied to commercial landowners in the City of Tigard and are" therefore unconstitutional.. Imposing taxation characterized as "Fees" on Applicants based on their decision to develop the subject property when there are other properties similarly situated which do not pay the referenced tax is illegal; and D) Page 23, Condition 16, of the Director's Decision incorrectly refers to an "existing roof sign." No such sign exists on the Applicants' property. A wall sign which was and is in compliance with the City ordinances does exist on Applicants' property. Requiring the removal of the wall sign constitutes an unlawful taking without compensation in violation of the Oregon and U.S. Constitution. LUBA..FILING - CITY OF TIGCARD-. EXHIBIT # 1(10 GE ZE lot AFFIDAVIT O? MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard A~ ) -,being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say: (Please print) That I am a for The City of Tigard, Oregon. That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR: _~hat I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: 1/~City of Tigard Planning Director Tigard Planning Commission Tigard Hearings Officer Tigard City Council A copy (Public Hearing Notice/Notice of Decision) of which is attached (Marked Exhibit "A") was mailed to each named persons at the address shown on the attached list marked exhibit "B" on the Z~ day of 19 a17 , said notice NOTICE OF DECISION as hereto attached, was pos d on an appropriate bulletin board on the 2_~f day of 19 !1 and deposited in the United States Mail on the 7 _LM-, of , 19 postage prepaid. repa-ed!Notice Posted (For Decision Only) Sub ibed and sworn/affirm to me on the day of , 19~.~, NOT PUBLIC OF O GON ' ssion Expires: -I 3 My qbmm ~Perso ho de ivered to POST OFFICE Subscribed and sworn/affirm to me on the day of , 19 NOTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON My Commission Expires: bkm/AFFIDAV.B-S • LUBA FILING - CITY Or TIGPRD E=_.IBIT = ~ P I Da- • CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE-OF DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 91-0005 VARIANCE VAR 91-0010 A-BOY/DOLAN 2 SUMMARY OF APPLICATION REQUEST: a) Site Development Review approval is requested to allow construction of a 17,600 square foot retail sales building on a 1.67 acre site; b) Variances are requested to the following Community Development Code requirements: i. Code Section 18.120.180.A.8 (Site Development Review approval standards) which requires dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain where development is allowed adjacent to the 100-year floodplain. In addition, this section requires that the dedication include area at a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway. The requirement of area for a pathway as well as construction of the pathway is also made by Code Section 18.86.040.A.1.b (Action Area overlay zone interim requirements). The applicant requests that floodplain. and pathway areas not be required to be dedicated and also that pathway construction not be required as a condition of approval of the Site Development Review request. ii. Section 18.106.030.C.20 (minimum off-street parking requirements) which requires provision of one off-street parking space for every 400, square. feet of general retail sales area. The applicant requests approval of a site plan that would provide a.39 parking space parking lot whereas 44-spaces would be required for the size of the proposed building to be used for general retail sales. iii. Section 18.114.070.H (certain signs prohibited) which prohibits roof signs of any kind. The applicant requests that the City not require removal of a sign above the roof line of an existing building on the site as a condition of approval of the current development application.. The applicant characterizes the sign as a wall sign built on a wall parapet. APPLICANT: Joseph R. Mendez, Attorney at Law 1318 SW 12th Avenue Portland, OR 97201 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT 17 PAGE L I OWNER: John and Florence Dolan 1919 NW 19th Avenue Portland, OR 97209 LOCATION: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC, TL 700) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Central Business District ZONE DESIGNATION: CBD-AA (Central Business District, Action Area overlay zone) BACKGROUND The property's owners previously applied for Site Development Review approval for plans that are largely the same as the plans that are presently under review. The applicant also requested a variance to the parking standard for general retail sales to allow 39 parking spaces to serve development on the site whereas 44 spaces would normally be required. The Site Development Review and the Variance requests were approved on July 10, 1989 by the Planning Director subject to 14 conditions. The applicant appealed the Director's decision to the Planning Commission. The applicant raised concerns with five conditions of approval that were imposed by the Director's decision, including conditions requiring floodplain and greenway area dedication, construction of a bicycle/pedestrian pathway within the greenway to be accomplished by the applicant, and removal of a non-conforming roof sign from an existing building -prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the new building. The Planning Commission upheld the Director's decision, except that the condition requiring removal of the roof sign was modified to require removal to occur within 45 days of the issuance of the occupancy permit (Final Order PC 89-25 dated December 15, 1989). The applicant then appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council challenging the same five conditions. The City Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision,. with one modification. The Council reassigned the responsibility for surveying and marking the floodplain area from the applicant to the City's"-engineering/surveying department.-. (Council Resolution 90-07 dated February 5; 1990). The applicant appealed the Council's decision to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). On January 24, 1991, LUBA denied the appeal thereby upholding the City's decision on this matter (LUBA Final Order and Opinion No. 90-029). Prior to- the above-described Site Development Review and Variance request, the only other City of Tigard land use or development actions directly related to.this parcel area series of notices regarding nonconforming signs on the property. Two-freestanding. billboard signs and one large roof sign on the property.have.been considered nonconforming as of March . 20, 1988, and property and business owners were notified of this prior to NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-0010 - A-BOY/DOLAN 2 PAGE 2 LUBA F+_LING - CITY OF TIG=R7 EXHIBIT = ~1 PAGL 1 that time. A voluntary compliance agreement has been used to provide affected downtown properties an extension of time.until a City Center Plan is adopted. The voluntary compliance agreement sent to the owners of the subject parcel has never been signed. The property and business owners have been cited for the following nonconformities: A. Roof sign, a violation of Section 18.114.070.H; and B. Two nonconforming, amortized billboards (illegal location), violations of Code Section 18.114.090.A.4.a. SITE INFORMATION AND PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION Properties surrounding the subject site are also zoned CBD-AA (Central Business District - Action Area) and contain a variety of commercial uses. Property immediately to the west contains the Fanno Creek floodplain and is designated in Tigard's Comprehensive Plan to be included as part of the City's greenway/open space system. The subject site is approximately 1.67 acres in size and is bordered by Fanno Creek on the southwestern side. The site includes a 9,700 square foot building and a partially paved parking lot which have been in their present locations since approximately the late 1940s. A freestanding sign with a readerboard stands along the Hain Street frontage of the property. Two large billboards stand on or near the property's northeastern boundary. The property's owners plan to raze the existing structure, currently used by A-Boy Electric and Plumbing Supply - a general retail sales use, and to embark on a multi-phase redevelopment of the site. The building will be razed in sections corresponding to progress on the construction of the first phase of redevelopment of the site. The current proposal includes development---of -a--171*600- square foot, single-story structure -on the southwestern-side of the site for relocation of the A-Boy Electric and Plumbing Supply operations. The plans also show an outline of a phase two building on-the northeastern side of the site. No details have been provided for the building in phase two. A parking lot containing 39 parking spaces intended to serve the phase one building is proposed between the two phases. One designated handicapped parking space and a 3 bicycle rack are also proposed. The site plan also indicates an area for additional parking for phase two. The applicant requests variances to Community Development Code standards requiring dedication of area of the subject parcel that is within the 100 year floodplain of Fanno Creek and dedication of additional area adjacent to the 100 year floodplain for a bicycle/pedestrian path, as well as.the requirement for construction of the-pathway in this area. In addition, the applicant requests.a variance to the Code prohibition against roof signs. Through this request, the applicant is requesting reconsideration of the earlier City determination that an existing sign on the present NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-0010 - A-BOY/DOLAN 2 PAGE 3 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE 1175 building on the site is a roof sign. The applicant also requests reconsideration of an earlier Council directive that would require the sign on the existing building to be removed within 45 days of occupancy of the proposed new building. In addition, staff will reconsider the variance request previously made by the property's owners in 1989 for a reduction in parking spaces, even though the applicant neglected to raise this issue with the current application. The variance considered would allow 39 parking spaces to suffice for the proposed phase one development whereas Community Development Code Section 18.106.030.0.20 requires one parking space for every 500 square feet of building area for general retail sales, or in this case 44 spaces. The City is under no obligation to reconsider this variance since the applicant failed to raise the issue with the current application; however staff believes there is a need to reconsider the variance for the City's own administrative purposes. The variance is being reconsidered as part of the present application so that there will not be different approvals with different approval periods regarding this site and site plan. The previously approved variance related to parking was issued by the City Council on February 5, 1990. This approval is valid for eighteen months from the date of issuance. Therefore, that approval is likely to expire before development proposed by the current application can begin. Reconsideration and reapproval of the parking variance at this time would reset the clock for that variance so that the variance approval period would be concurrent with the approval period for the new Site Development Review application. AGENCY AND NPO COMMENTS The City Building Division notes that a canopy and an 8-foot tall solid plywood fence must be installed behind the sidewalk/public right-of-way along SW Main Street (from the southwestern property line to a minimum of 20 feet beyond the new building) prior to start of construction and must . . . - remain until--all-coristriictibn -is' complete (Uniform Building code section 4407(c). A demolition permit will be required for the removal of any or all of the existing building. The City Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal and has the following comments: ' A. Streets: The site fronts S.W. Main Street which is classified as a major collector street. Main Street along the site's frontage is fully developed with curbs and sidewalks. A 1986 engineering study of the condition of S. W. Main Street recommends that the pavement be completely reconstructed and that.. the storm drainage system be replaced.- It appears to be impractical to perform the proposed reconstruction of Hain Street in a piecemeal" fashion on a lot-by-lot basis; instead, the reconstruction needs to occur in larger segments beginning at Fanno Creek Bridge and working NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-0010 - A-BOY/DOLAN 2 PAGE 4 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT r PAGE r D to . uphill. Therefore, we do not propose that any reconstruction of Main Street be required as a condition of approval of this development proposal. This development should be required to replace any existing sidewalks and curbs which are damaged or in poor repair and to reconstruct any existing curb cuts which are being abandoned. As part of the Tigard Major Streets Transportation Safety Improvement Bond, the City plans to replace the Main Street Bridge over Fanno Creek. The bridge replacement is scheduled to begin in June 1991. The bridge construction is expected to occur within the existing right-of-way and should have little impact on the subject site. B. Sanitary Sewer: There are two sanitary sewer truck lines that cross the site in existing easements. One line is 24 inches in diameter and the other is 60 inches in diameter. The applicant has shown on the application plans the easement and location for the 24 inch line but not the easement and location for the 60 inch line. Additionally, after reviewing the sanitary sewer system plans on file in this office, it appears that there may be some mix-up as to where the sanitary sewer system is as shown on the applicants • submitted plans. Basically, it appears that the 24 inch line is within a 10 foot easement and goes along the front of the proposed new building and diverges to the east as you go south. The 60 inch line is within a 30 foot easement and again is in front of the proposed new building but does not diverge as fast to the east as you go south. Based on the plan submitted by the applicant and the "as-built" plans for both the sanitary sewer systems, it appears that the new building would be-located over the easement fort the 60 inch line by approximately 6 to 8 feet at the approximate middle of the building.-. Therefore, the applicant should be required to. submit evidence as to the-actual location of the sanitary sewer lines and easements, and their relationship to the proposed building... If it: is determined that the submitted proposal for the building does encroach upon the easement; the applicant should be required to=•:,= change the location of the building or the design so that it does ' not encroach upon the easement or to provide evidence that the- Unified Sewerage Agency does not object to the encroachment. C. Storm Sewer: The City's Master Drainage Plan recommends improvements to the Fanno. Creek channel--downstream from Main Street. The proposed channel. improvements would include widening and slope stabilization.--:These- improvements would -move the location of the top of bank approximately.five.feet - closer to the proposed building than the location of the existing top of bank. Therefore, an adjustment of NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-0010 - A-BOY/DOLAN 2 PAGE 5 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT B. 1, PAGE r I y1 the building location will have to occur in order to accommodate the future City-initiated relocation of the floodplain bank. This should be required on a revised site plan. In addition, dedication of the land area on this property below the elevation of the 100- year flood should be required. The Unified Sewerage Agency has established and the City has agreed to enforce (resolution No. 90-43) Surface Water Management Regulations requiring the construction of on-site water quality facilities or fees in lieu of their construction. Requiring surface water quality facilities on small sites could result in numerous facilities that could become a maintenance burden to the City. Furthermore, the applicant has not proposed any such facilities and there are no natural depressions or other areas of this site that are particularly suitable for water quality facilities. Regional facilities, funded by fees in lieu of construction of smaller isolated facilities, would provide the required treatment with improved reliability and less maintenance. Consequently a fee-in- lieu of the construction of on-site water quality facilities should be assessed. D. Traffic Impact Fee Washington County has established and the City has agreed to enforce (Resolution No. 90-65) Traffic Impact Fees. The purpose of the fee is to ensure that new development contributes to extra-capacity transportation improvements needed to accommodate additional traffic generated by such development. The applicant will be required to pay the fee.- Based on the following information, the ESTIMATED TIF for this development would be: 1j- Us(?i --RetailSales 2) Land Use Category: Business & Commercial 3) Rate per trip:. $34.00 4) ITE Category: 816 5) Weekday average trip rate: 53.21 per T.G.S.F. 6) Existing Square Footage: 9,720 approximately 7) Proposed Square Footage: 17,600 8) TIF = 53.21 X (17.6 - 9.720) X $34.00 = $14,256.02 NOTE: THIS IS ONLY AN ESTIMATE OF THE APPLICABLE TIF FEE. THE ACTUAL FEE WILL BE CALCULATED AT TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION. The actual TIF will be based on the total square footage shown in the building plans, the NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-0010 - A-BOY/DOLAN 2 PAGE 6 LUBA FILING - CITz' OF TIG_ARD EXHIBIT PAGE = I C trip rate in effect at the time of building permit application, and the fee rate in effect at that time. The City of Tigard Parks Department recommends that area adjacent to the floodplain should be required to be dedicated for pathway construction. The Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District notes that automatic sprinkler protection or some other means of built-in fire protection will be required. In addition, a fire hydrant must be provided within 500 feet of all exterior portions of the proposed structures, but not greater than 70 feet from a fire department connection. Portland General Electric and the Tigard Water District, have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. No other comments were received. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION Section 18.120.180 lists the standards whereby the Director is to approve, approve with modifications or deny a request for Site Development Review approval. In addition to those contained in Chapter 18.66, Central Business District, the following sections of the Tigard Community Development code are also applicable: Chapter 18.86, Action Areas; Chapter 18.100, Landscaping and Screening; Chapter 18.102, Visual Clearance Areas; Chapter 18.106, Off-street Parking and Loading; Chapter • 18.108, Access, Egress and Circulation; Chapter 18.114, Signs; Chapter 18.120, Site Development Review; and Chapter 18.134, Variances. In addition to all of the above approval criteria, this report will review the proposal in light of the Parks Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park. Chapter 18.66: Central Business District Zone The applicant intends to construct a new and larger structure suited for general retail sales use. Such a use is permitted outright in the CBD (Central Business District) zone. Therefore, the* intended use is acceptable for this site. The CBD zoning.district does not require any minimum building.setbacksi except that a 30 foot setback is required if any side of the property . abuts a residential zoning district. Since none of the four sides of the subject property abut a residential zoning district, no other building setbacks are required.- The proposed 16.5 building height is consistent with the maximum 80 foot building height permitted in the zone. In the CBD zoning district, maximum site coverage allowed is 85 percent. Site -coverage includes all structures and impervious surfaces such.as parking, loading. areas, sidewalks and. pathway areas. A minimum of 15 percent of the site must be landscaped. These standards will be reviewed during the discussion of landscaping and screening below. NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-00 10 - A-BOY/DOLAN 2 PAGE 7 LUBA FILING - CITY O~ TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE 14 1 ( { Chapter 18.86: Action Area Overlay Zone The "AA" portion of the subject site's zoning designation indicates that an additional "layer" of zoning regulations has been imposed on this property. The purpose of the Action Area Overlay designation is to implement the policies of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan for action areas which include provisions for a mixture of intensive land use. Since permitted uses in the Action Area overlay zone must be those specified in the underlying zoning district; in this case, the CBD zone; this requirement has been met. Code Section 18.86.040 contains interim standards which are to be addressed for new developments in the CBD-AA zone. These requirements are intended to provide for projected transportation and public facility needs of the area. The City may attach conditions to any development within an action area prior to adoption of the design plan to achieve the following objectives: a. The development shall address transit usage by residents, employees, and customers if the site is within 1/4 mile of a public transit line or transit stop. Specific items to be addressed are as follows: i. Orientation of buildings and facilities towards transit services to provide for direct pedestrian access into the building(s) from transit lines or stops; ii. Minimizing transit/auto conflicts by providing direct pedestrian access into the buildings with limited crossings in automobile circulation/parking areas. If pedestrian access crosses automobile circulation/parking areas, paths shall be marked for pedestrians; Encouraging---transit-supportive -users by-limiting automobile support services to collector and arterial streets; and iv. Avoiding the creation of 'small scattered parking areas by allowing adjacent development to-use shared-surface parking, parking structures or under-structure parking; b. The development shall facilitate pedestrian/bicycle circulation if the site is located on a street with designated bike paths or adjacent to a designated greenway/open space/park. Specific items to be addressed are as follows: i. Provision of-efficient, convenient and continuous pedestrian and bicycle transit circulation systems, linking developments by requiring-dedication and construction of pedestrian and bike paths identified in the comprehensive plan. If direct connections cannot be made, require that.funds in the amount of the construction cost be deposited into an account for the purpose of constructing paths; • NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-0010 - A-BOY/DOLAN 2 PAGE 8 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE r \ C ii. Separation of auto and truck circulation activities from pedestrian areas; iii. Encouraging pedestrian-oriented design by requiring pedestrian walkways and street level windows along all sides with public access into the building; iv. Provision of bicycle parking as required under Subsection 18.106.020.P; and v. Ensure adequate outdoor lighting by lighting pedestrian walkways and auto circulation areas. C. Coordination of development within the action area. Specific items to be addressed are as follows: i. Continuity and/or compatibility of landscaping, circulation, access, public facilities, and other improvements. Allow required landscaping areas to be grouped together. Regulate shared access where appropriate. Prohibit lighting which shines on adjacent property; ii. Siting and orientation of land use which considers surrounding land use, or an adopted plan. Screen loading areas and refuse dumpsters from view. Screen commercial, and industrial use from single-family residential through landscaping; and • iii. Provision of frontage roads or shared access where feasible. The submitted development proposal satisfies the above requirements for transit usage. The subject site is within one quarter mile of several Tri-Met bus stops on Main Street and Pacific Highway. The site plan provides an on-site sidewalk providing a direct connection between the public sidewalk on-Main Street with-the-entrance to the proposed building. The proposed parking lot's relatively narrow width will minimize pedestrian/vehicle conflicts because of the relatively short distance pedestrians must travel between their cars and the sidewalk and entrance to the building. The proposed development plan is reasonably coordinated with other development within the action area. The site improvements will be required to satisfy Code landscaping requirements as described below. Screening of the truck loading area on the southern portion of the building can be accomplished with either a fence or tall vegetation. Outdoor lighting should be specifically addressed by the applicant as to how it might be provided.- These modifications or clarifications can be accomplished as minor amendments to the site plan prior to building permit issuance. The proposal is consistent with only some of the Action Area overlay zone -requirements related to pedestrian and bicycle circulation, as described below. Pedestrian areas are adequately separated from vehicle circulation NOTICE-OF DECISION - SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-0010 - A-BOY/DOLAN 2 PAGE 9 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT r I~ 1 PAGE It areas by curbs and landscaped areas. The northeastern side of the buildi:-._- will include a pedestrian walkway and windows along the side of the building that will provide pedestrian access. Adequate lighting of the public and private, sidewalks and the parking lot will be provided by parking area lights and building mounted lights. The proposed development would be provided with adequate bicycle parking as required by Code Section 18.106.020.P which requires one bicycle rack parking space for every 15 auto spaces, or portion thereof. The site plan proposes a three- bicycle bike rack at the northeastern corner of the building, adjacent to the public sidewalk. Variance requested. The application includes a request for a variance from the requirement of dedication of adequate area for and construction of a bicycle/pedestrian path along the site's western side adjacent to Fanno Creek as well as dedication of the floodplain area on the site itself. Because the requirement for pathway area and construction is raised by Code Section 18.86.040 separate from the requirement for floodplain dedication and dedication of sufficient area for a pathway, staff will consider the requirement for floodplain dedication separately later in this report. A bicycle/pedestrian path is called for in this general location in the City of Tigard's Parks Master Plans (Murase and Associates, 1988) and the Tigard Area Comprehensive Pedestrian/Bicycle Pathway Plan 1974). In addition, Community Development Code Section 18.120.180.A.8 requires that where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of. sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain in accordance. with, the adopted pedestrian/bicycle plan. The proposed development site includes land within the 100 year floodplain of Fanno Creek. Sect ion'18.134:050-of-the- Code contains criteria whereby the Director can approve, approve with modifications or deny a variance request: (1) The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Code, be in conflict with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, to any other applicable policies of the Community Development Code, to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity. (2) There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the applicant..has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; (3) The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this Code and -City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent possible, while permitting some economic use of the land; NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-0010 - A-BOY/DOLAN 2 PAGE 10 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE a C F- • (4) Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development were located as specified in the Code; and (5) The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Applicant's Variance Justification. The applicant has provided the following as a statement of justification that is intended to cover all of the requested variances: The variance requested by the applicant should be allowed as the conditions and dedications required by the City of Tigard violate the applicant's rights under the Oregon and United States Constitutions. Specifically, the City's demand for dedication constitute an unlawful taking and violation of the Oregon Constitution, Article 1, Section 18 and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The proposed variance will not materially be detrimental to the purposes of the title nor conflict with the policy of the comprehensive plan as no park exists at this time nor does the City have sufficient funding in which to create a park that the bicycle/pedestrian path is theoretically going to be used to access. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot in that the building which the applicant proposes to construct cannot be... erected without invading the City's proposed bicycle/pedestrian path if the land'is dedicated. The hardship is not self-imposed but rather imposed by the City's dedication and the variance requested is the minimum variance which would `alleviate ahe hardship to the applicant:- . _ Staff Analysis of Variance Request. Staff does not find .that.-the requirements.. for.: dedication of - the""area adjacent:to the. f loodplain for greenway -purposes-.and:for construction of"a pedestrian/bicycle pathway' constitute a.taking of the.applicant Ia property. Instead, staff.finds. that:the dedication and pathway construction are reasonably related to the applicant's request. to intensify the development of this site with a general retail sales use, at first, and other uses to be added later. It is reasonable.to assume that customers and employees of the future uses of this: site could utilize a pedestrian/bicycle pathway adjacent to this development for their, transportation and recreational needs. In fact, the site plan . has: provided for bicycle parking in a. rack in front of the proposed building to provide for the needs of the facility's customers and employees., It'.-is resonable to expect that some of the users of the bicycle. parking: provided for by the site plan _will. use the pathway adjacent to.Fanno Creek if it-is constructed. In addition, the proposed expanded use of this site is anticipated to generate additional vehicular traffic thereby increasing congestion on nearby collector and arterial • NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-0010 - A-BOY/DOLAN 2 PAGE 11 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD E-KHIBIT u I PAGE 113 streets. Creation of a convenient, safe pedestrian/bicycle patway system as an alternative means of transportation could offset some of the traffic demand on these nearby streets and lessen the increase in traffic congestion. Staff finds that the requested variance would conflict with many Plan and Code purposes. As already noted, the Code at Section 18.120.080.A.8 and many other related sections (e.g., Section 18.84.040.A.7) require dedication of sufficient area adjacent to floodplain areas for construction of pedestrian/bicycle pathways. Volume 1 of the Comprehensive Plan at pages 256 through 258 provides a discussion of the reasons for development of a City-wide pathway system as part of a multi- modal transportation system serving the varied needs of the City's citizens and businesses. This section essentially summarizes the findings of the adopted Tigard Area Comprehensive Pedestrian/Bicycle Pathway Plan. Comprehensive Plan Volume 2 at Policy 8.4.1 calls for the City to require the dedication of area for and construction of pedestrian/bicycle pathways as a condition of development approval for areas identified by the adopted pedestrian/bicycle plan. The Plan notes that as the city grows, more people may rely on the pathways for utilitarian as well as recreational purposes and that there is a need to develop a safe and convenient pathway system. The pathway system along Fanno Creek near the subject site is already partly constructed in both directions. The City is actively pursuing land acquisition and park improvement planning for Fanno Creek Park to the south. Contrary to the applicant's statement that no park exists at this time nor does the City have sufficient funding in which to create a park that the bicycle/pedestrian pathway is theoretically going to be used to access," the City has established Fanno. Creek.park,.constructed a pathway and other improvements in area to the south, recently purchased 3.19 additional acres for park expansion, and has set aside funds for a partial extension of the pathway in the summer or fall of 1991. It is itiperative-that- a continuous-pathway-be'developed-in order for the paths to function as an efficient, convenient, and safe system. Omitting a planned for section of the pathway system, as the variance would result in if approved, , would conflict _ with Plan purposes' and' result in- -:an incomplete system that-would.not be-efficient, convenient, or safe. -The requested variance therefore would conflict with the City's adopted policy of providing a continuous pathway-system intended to serve the :general public good and therefore fails to satisfy the -first variance approval. criterion. Staff fails to find special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to this site for which the applicant has no control and therefore the second criterion -for approval .bf a variance is not satisfied. The applicant states that- the. inability. to - develop. the proposed building ,without invading the. City's intended pathway area is a special circumstance dictating the need--for- a variance. The design of the -building-.-is completely under.the control of the-applicant.. The applicant's engineer was apprised of the need to: provide area for the pathway at the pre- application conference with City staff prior to the submittal of the site • NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-0010 - A-BOY/DOLAN 2 PAGE 12 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT n PAGE r plan. The applicant's engineer could have designed the building with respect to the need for dedication for the pathway. The applicant has not submitted any reasons supporting why the same amount of building square footage could not be provided on multiple levels or why the proposed square footage is needed. If the building must be developed on a single level and at the same square footage, other options may exist for varying Code standards that would not have such a detrimental effect on public purposes as the requested variance. The applicant has not met the burden of proof regarding special circumstances affecting this site related to the requested variance. The requested variance would not affect uses of the site permitted by the Code. The applicant has not addressed how City standards (i.e., the connection of the various pathway segments) will be accomplished if the variance request is approved. Therefore, the third variance approval criterion is only partially satisfied. As noted above, approval of the variance request would have an adverse effect on the existing partially completed pathway system because a system cannot fully function with missing pieces. If this planned for section is omitted from the pathway system, the system in this area will be much less convenient and efficient. If the pedestrian and bicycle traffic is forced onto City streets at this point in the pathway system because of this missing section, pedestrian and bicycle safety will be lessened. The fourth variance approval criterion is therefore not satisfied. As noted above, the applicant.has not provided reasons why the building must be constructed with the proposed footprint, square footage, or on a single level. Without such evidence, staff finds no evidence.of hardship - that would result if strict compliance with the Code dedication and pathway construction standards are required. Again, the applicant has. not met the applicant's burden of proof related to the variance request. Without evidence of a hardship, the fifth variance approval criterion is not -met ~ - The criteria for approval of a variance to the Community Development Code requirement of dedication of sufficient area for and construction.of- a pedestrian/bicycle pathway -in conformance with various adopted City plans calling.-for the pathway are therefore not satisfied. The applicant-=has.. failed to provide adequate evidence.or.reasons addressing the criteria. The, request "is therefore denied.' The-applicant will be required'to dedicate area 15 feet in depth from the east bank of Fanno Creek and will be required to construct an 8 foot wide pedestrian/bicycle pathway in this area. The footprint and possibly the design of the proposed building will need to be revised to comply with this requirement. Chapter 18.102: Landscaping and Screening Although not noted in - the - submittal for the current "application, the applicant previously has requested that in return for-dedication of property along Fanno Creek, other landscaping standards should be waived. Staff will consider an exception from the minimum landscaped site area on NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-0010 - A-BOY/DOLAN 2 PAGE 13 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # M PAGE ff 1 1.5 the net site after required dedications because this decision rejects the applicant's variance requests from floodplain and pathway dedication requirements. Staff finds that the City has previously allowed the inclusion of dedicated floodplain/park land for the purpose of calculating required landscaped area for other projects. Such an allowance is also appropriate in this instance. The site plan does not note the amount of landscaped area that would be provided on the net site after floodplain and pathway area dedications, but the plan notes that 21 percent of the gross site would be landscaped area or natural area. This percentage is consistent with the 15 percent minimum landscaped area standard of the CBD zoning district as well as with Section 18.120.170.E which allows the director to grant an exception- to the minimum landscaped area requirements upon a finding that the overall landscaped plan-provides for at least 20 percent of the gross site to be landscaped. The City Council decided, with regard to the earlier Site Development Review request for this -site, that the City would be responsible for landscaping and screening the area between the required pedestrian/bicycle path and the proposed building. Staff will hold with the Council's earlier decision regarding this area and therefore will not review the applicant's landscaping plans for this area adjacent to the future pathway and Fanno Creek. The provision of a landscaped buffer by the City along the east edge of area required to be dedicated for pathway purposes is justified because the maintenance of this area will be the City's responsibility and the future storm drainage and pathway improvements will cause the destruction or removal of existing vegetation. Code Section 18.100.030.A requires that all development projects fronting on a public or private street provide street.trees spaced between 20 and 40 feet,. depending on the mature size of the trees. The site plan proposes only one flowering pear tree along the site's Main. Street frontage-.The propbsed-flowering pear tree would be located in 6-planter on the west side of the entrance driveway to the parking lot. Because the proposed building would abut the public sidewalk further west from the driveway; no additional trees can be Jocated west of the%driveway. -;The City-will be responsible for landscaping west of the proposed building. This area should include a street tree or two.- Approximately.85 feet:to . the east-of the proposed driveway is. not shown to include any-landscaping., building, or paving. The landscaping plan will- need to - be.revised- to include -additional street trees-consistent with the size and spacing standards of Section 18.100.035. Chapter 18.102: Vision Clearance Section 18.102.020 requires.that clear vision be maintained between 3.and 8 feet above grade at the-intersections of all streets and driveways.=-The flowering pear tree intended to-be planted immediately to the west of-the proposed driveway need not be relocated out of this area as. long as branches below eight feet in height are kept trimmed. In addition, bushes NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-0010 - A-BOY/DOLAN 2 PAGE 14 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE r 1I C_ . planted adjacent to the tree must be kept trimmed to below three feet in height. Chapter 18.106: Off-street Parking and Loading Variance to Minimum Parking Standard. The applicant proposes to construct 39 standard 90-degree parking spaces. Community Development Code Section 18.106.030.0.20 requires that 1 parking space be provide for every 400 square feet of building area. Therefore, 44 parking spaces would be required for the proposed 17,600 square foot general retail sales building. As previously noted, the applicant neglected to request a variance to this parking standard with the current request. However, the director and the Planning Commission had previously approved such a request for the earlier application utilizing the same site plan. Staff will consider a variance to the minimum parking standard with the current application in order to affirm the earlier variance approval and to make its period of approval concurrent with the approval period for the current Site Development Review application. The following findings relative to the variance approval criteria (Code Section 18.134.050) are essentially the same as adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council. Special circumstances exist which are peculiar to this site and proposal. The applicant proposes to construct this project in two phases: the first phase consists of construction of the new building on the southwestern portion of the property. The existing building would then be demolished. The applicant hopes to attract a complimentary business(es) to build on the northern-portion of the lot as part of Phase 2. Should additional parking be found to be necessary in the future, the applicant suggests that a shared parking arrangement could be worked out with the adjacent structure. The-applicant-points-out that-the A=Boy store does not attract "Yitowser or window shoppers", in that the business constitutes a retail/wholesale type of business which sells-bulky merchandise. The latter fact results in the attraction of customers who decide in advance of travel that a product is needed and who travel to a.specific destination to obtain that product. The applicant has-stated that the existing store rarely has more than-.six or eight vehicles .at;--any one--time. ` Staff notes that employees. of`. the business will also require parking spaces and-perhaps delivery trucks will need to park and. unload on .the property; however,-it is clear that the existing store use should not need 44 parking spaces. The City agrees that the present use is similar to a "general retail sales, bulky merchandise" use. If the City were to employ the parking standard used for retail sales businesses which sell bulky merchandise, namely 1 space for.. every 1000. square feet of gross floor area but - not less. than 10 spaces, it is clear:--that the proposed 39 spaces are well within City parking requirements. Although the. use :of the building may. later, change, alternatives. are available in conjunction with the future phase of construction on this NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-0010 - A-BOY/DOLAN 2 PAGE 15 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT & PAGE z ~ 1 property. If a new use, which has a higher parking demand, occupies the building, a new site development review and evaluation of parking would be required. The issue of parking space numbers will also be evaluated as part of the site development review for phase two of this development. The use will be the same as permitted by City regulations and existing physical and natural systems will not be affected by this proposal. Therefore, staff finds that the variance related to parking is justified. Other parking standards. The Code requires one secure bicycle parking space for every 15 required automobile spaces. In this case a minimum of three bicycle parking spaces are needed. The site plan indicates a proposed location for a 3 space bike rack. This standard is therefore satisfied. The site plan does not provide for an appropriate number of designated handicapped parking spaces as required by the Oregon Revised Statutes (2 required; 1 proposed), although the 1 space proposed would satisfy City of Tigard Community Development Code standards as currently written. The site plan will therefore need to be revised to add one additional designated handicapped parking space. The Community Development Code will need to be revised to reflect this more stringent' standard that took effect on September 1, 1990. Code Section 18.106.020.M requires parking lot landscaping in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.100. That chapter requires the provision of trees in the area of a parking lot at a minimum ratio of 1 tree per 7 parking spaces. The site plan proposes 7 trees in landscaped islands within and adjacent to the 39 space parking lot. This standard is therefore satisfied.- Code Section 18.106.080.A requires at.least one off-street loading space . for commercial uses having more than 10,000 square feet of floor area. The site plan proposes a loading area on the south side of the proposed building_.___ Thi 'standard -is therefore- satisfied.- --However the-- loading space will need to be provided with adequate screening from views from neighboring parcels as has previously bee described. Chapter 18.108: Access, Egress and Circulation Code Section 18.108'*40.C requires that vehicular access be provided to commercial and industrial uses within 50 feet of the primary ground floor . entrances to the building. The proposed parking lot is immediately adjacent to the proposed building entrance. Code Section 18.108.50.A requires walkways connecting. ground floor entrances of commercial buildings with adjacent public streets: The site plan proposes a sidewalk along the front of the building connecting to the public sidewalk-along Main Street. Code Section 18.108.80.A requires a-minimum of one 24-foot.- wide access driveway to a parking lot of this size serving a commercial. use. One 36-foot-wide driveway would connect the proposed parking-lot- with Main Street. The proposed access and circulation pattern should provide adequate and safe access for the proposed use. Therefore, the Code's requirements for access and circulation have been satisfied. • NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-0010 - A-BOY/DOLAN 2 PAGE 16 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT h PAGE z ~~5~ Chapter 18.114: Signs The applicant has proposed no new signage in conjunction with this application. The existing freestanding sign will apparently be removed. All new wall and freestanding signs must be reviewed by the Planning Division prior to their erection for conformity with the City Sign Code. The two billboard signs and roof sign are in direct conflict with Code Section 18.120.180, which requires that the approval of a Site Development Review be conditioned on the proposal's ability to comply with all other applicable provisions of the Code, including sign regulations of Chapter 18.114. Code Section 18.114.070.H prohibits roof signs of all types. Code Section 18.114.090.A.l.a.i.1 permits billboards in certain zoning districts only; the CBD zone is not one of the listed zones. The Commission and City Council, in their prior reviews affecting this site, have determined that the billboards and the sign atop the existing A-Boy building are nonconforming signs that have gone beyond the 10-year amortization period adopted by the City Council in 1978 and thus were required to be removed. Consideration of sign variance. The applicant has requested a variance to the roof sign prohibition of Section 18.114.070.H. The applicant requests that the City not require removal of a sign above the roof line of an existing building on the site as a condition of approval of the current development application. The applicant characterizes the sign as a wall sign built on a parapet wall. The City Council and Planning Commission previously considered the sign and determined that the sign was a roof... sign. The applicant has not submitted a variance justification statement specifically addressing the sign situation, nor has the applicant submitted any evidence related to why the sign on the existing building is - not a roof sign. The previously quoted justification statement submitted by-'the applicant ._-(page 12' of this report) is--all-that-was- submitted-'in response to the staff notifying the applicant that the application was incomplete. without a statement of . reasons supporting.. the variance requests. Since - the applicant' s. Statement of Justification is clearly addressing the pathway dedication and construction issues only, and since staff is unaware of any other reasons in support of the requested variance.., to the prohibition on roof signs, staff has no alternative but to concur; = with the Commission and Council's earlier determination that the sign on: the existing building is a roof sign and that it must be removed within 45 days of the occupancy of the new building. No variance request has been received with regard to the billboard signs needing to be removed as was required by the earlier. development application decisions affecting this site. -The applicant apparently does not contest removal'of the billboard signs as a condition of development approval. Compliance with all requirements of the Community Development Code as required by Section 18.120.180 would entail complete removal of these signs prior to occupancy of the building proposed as phase one of the redevelopment of the site. • NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-0010 - A-BOY/DOLAN 2 PAGE 17 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE # \ Chapter 18.120: Site Development Review I Code Section 18.120.180.A.8 requires that where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle plan. This report has already dealt with the question of dedication of area outside the floodplain for pathway construction and the construction of the pathway as it relates to the provisions of the Action Area overlay zone. At this point, the report will consider the applicant's request from the requirement to dedicate portions of the site within the 100-year floodplain of Fanno Creek for storm water management purposes. The applicant's Statement of Justification for Variance (page 14 of this report) does not directly address storm water drainage concerns but instead provides the general statements listed above as comments intended to apply to all of the variance requests. Staff does not find that the requirements for dedication of the area within the floodplain of Fanno Creek for storm water management and greenway purposes constitutes a taking of the applicant's property. Instead, staff finds that the required dedication would be reasonably related to the applicant's request to intensify the usage of this site thereby increasing the site's impervious area. The increased impervious surface would be expected to increase the amount of storm water runoff from the site to Fanno Creek. The Fanno Creek drainage basin has experienced rapid urbanization over the past 30. years causing a significant increase in stream flows after periods of precipitation. The anticipated increased storm water flow from the subject property to an already strained creek and drainage basin can only add to the public need to manage the stream channel and floodplain for drainage purposes. Because the proposed development's storm drainage would add to the need for-'public rnanageraerit -of the Fanno Creek floodplain; staff finds that the requirement of dedication•of the floodplain area on the site is related to the applicant's plan to intensify development on the site: Staff finds that the requested variance would conflict with many Plan and Code purposes and policies:and therefore is not with .the first of :the. variance- approval: criteria. As already noted, the Code at- Section 18.120.080.A.8 and.. many : other related sections (e.g., Section 18.84.040.A.7), require dedication of floodplain areas, - not' only. for construction of pathways, but primarily to allow for public management of the storm water. drainage system. These Code sections implement Comprehensive.-Plan Policy 3.2.4 which requires dedication of all undeveloped land within the 100-year floodplain. Volume Two of the Plan at Section 3.2-discusses the City's objectives in regulating development within and adjacent to floodplain areas to avoid hazards to the public and to downstream properties. Volume One of the Comprehensive Plan-.at pages 192 and 193-provides a discussion of the reasons for - development of a' coordinated City-wide storm water management system. Volume One of the" Plan also cites the Master Drainage Plan for the City produced by CH2M NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-0010 - A-BOY/DOLAN 2 PAGE 18 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD MiIBIT 1 PAGE r X01 u Hill Inc. in 1981 for a further discussion of the need for public management of the storm water drainage system and for measures intended to increase the flow efficiency of Fanno Creek and other drainage channels in the city. As noted by the Engineering Division, the Master Drainage Plan recommends improvements to the Fanno Creek channel downstream from the Main Street bridge. Proposed channel improvements would include channel widening and slope stabilization. These improvements would move the location of the top of bank approximately five feet closer to the proposed building than the location of the existing top of bank. In order to accomplish these public improvements related to increasing the flow efficiency of Fanno Creek, dedication of the area of the subject site within the 100-year floodplai.n and also the adjacent five feet is imperative. Not requiring dedication of this area as a condition of development approval, as the applicant's variance proposal requests, would clearly conflict with purposes and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, Community Development Code, and the City's Master Drainage Plan. Staff fails to find special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to this site over which the applicant has no control that relate to the variance request. The applicant states that the inability to develop the proposed building without invading the City's intended pathway area is a special circumstance dictating the need for a variance. Staff does not see how this statement relates to any difficulties involved in the applicant's ability to dedicate area within the 100-year floodplain of Fanno Creek. The applicant's statement refers only to land outside of the 100-year floodplain. The request therefore fails to satisfy the second of the variance approval criteria. The requested variance to omit floodplain dedication would not affect possible uses permitted by the Code for this property. Dedication of the portion of the-property within the 100-year floodplain of Fanno Creek would--not - be-- expected --to- dimi:nish the - usability-or -value- of the property because the 100-year floodplain area is virtually unusable due to the year-round water flow of the Creek within a well defined narrow channel. The applicant has not addressed how City standards (i.e.,,-management of the interconnected storm water drainage system) can be accomplished if-the variance request * is approved -and an important piece of the Fanno Creek stream channel is not available for public improvements to expand the channel as called for by the City's Master Drainage Plan. Again, the applicant fails to meet the burden of proof relative to the variance criteria. The third variance approval criterion is not satisfied. If the area within the 100-year floodplain is not dedicated as. the variance application-requests, the existing storm water drainage system would be affected -because additional. stormwater runoff resulting from additional development, both from the subject site and elsewhere within the Fanno Creek drainage basin, is expected to increase flow within the creek -and a rise in the 100 year flood elevation-without the public's ability to make channel modifications in this area to offset the increase NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-0010 - A-BOY/DOLAN 2 PAGE 19 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT P'_GE 1 in stream flow. If dedication is required as specified by the Code, the channel of Fanno Creek in this area could be improved by public agencies as called for by the Master Drainage Plan. These channel improvements, here and elsewhere along the creek, would be expected to improve the channel's ability to transmit stormwater flows thereby reducing the 100 year flood elevation and reducing the possibility of floodwater damages and threats to public safety. Because the requested variance would therefore have an adverse effect upon an important physical system, the request is not consistent with the fourth variance approval criterion. Staff finds that the applicant has failed to state what hardship would exist related to the requirement for floodplain dedication since this floodplain area is not buildable land under the City's regulations because the land in question within the floodplain is primarily the actual stream channel of Fanno Creek. Therefore, staff is unable to find that the applicant's request would be the minimum variance which would relieve an uncertain hardship. The fifth variance approval criterion is therefore not met. The applicant's request for a variance from the floodplain dedication requirement of Community Development Code Section 18.120.080.A.8 is not supported by adequate documentation addressing the variance approval criteria. The variance request is therefore denied. Additionally, the Engineering Division has noted that an adjustment of the proposed building's location will need to be made in order to accommodate the pathway and the future City-initiated relocation of the floodplain bank as well as to avoid conflicts with existing sewers passing through the site. This should be accomplished on a.revised site plan that will need to be largely consistent with the site plan and landscaping plans that have been reviewed or else a new Site Development Review application will be necessary. Staff calls to the applicant's attention the provisions of Code Sections 18.120.070 and .080 which limit the degree of modification " from-an- approved site -plan that-'_iuay --be reviewed-Yiy--'th6 director without a new application becoming necessary. Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park Fanno Creek. Park: is a community park located along Fanno Creek between -Main.Street-and SW Hall Boulevard in the Central Business District. The site..lies within the 100-year-floodplain and immediately abuts the subject property along its southwestern property .line. It is hoped that-the entire park will eventually contain 35 acres. The dedication of the land area within the. 100-year floodplain and the eventual construction of a pathway. in that area on the subject property is consistent with the City's park plans for the area. In the City's Master Plan for Fannno Creek Park, it is stated that Fanno Creek.Park-is.intended to become the focal point for community, cultural, civic-and recreational activities. A paved urban plaza, an amphitheater, an English water garden,.pathways, a tea house, a man-made enlargement of • NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-0010 - A-BOY DOLAN 2 PAGE 20 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE # lda i the existing pond, as well as preserved natural areas are all components foreseen for this area. The proposed development presently under review will abut this planned community park, and at its closest point, would be no more than eight feet from the outer boundary of the 100-year floodplain. The Engineering Division has stated that the proposed structure should be at least 10 feet away from the relocated outer bank in order to accommodate an eight foot wide pathway and the planned reconstruction of the storm drainage channel along the flood plain. This indicates that an adjustment to the placement of the building on the site will be necessary in order to adequately accommodate the path and vegetative screening up to the relocated bank of the storm drainage channel. DIRECTOR'S DECISION The Community Development Director approves SDR 91-0005 subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions. The Director denies the requested variances attached to this application, Variance VAR 91-0010. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 1. The applicant shall dedicate to the City as Greenway all portions of the site that fall within the existing 100-year floodplain (i.e., all portions of the property below elevation 150.0) and all property 15 feet above (to the east of) the 150.0 foot floodplain boundary. A monumented boundary.survey.showing all new title lines, prepared by a registered professional land surveyor, shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to recording. The building shall be designed so as not to intrude into the greenway area. STAFF CONTACT: Chris Davies, Engineering Division. 2. The applicant shall obtain written approval from Unified Sewerage Agency•of Washington County for connection to the Unified Sewerage Agency trunk line prior.-to-issuance of aPpblic improvement permit. A copy of the permit.shall be submitted to the City of Tigard Engineering Department:. STAFF.CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Division. 3. The applicant shall'submit a revised site plan showing: 1) building plans which show the' proposed design and location of outdoor lighting and rooftop mechanical equipment; 2) the location and screening of the trash disposal area; 3) the relocation of the phase one building outside of the greenway area and out of conflict with existing- sanitary sewer easements; - and 4) a ,'minimum of two- appropriately- located.designated.-handicapped accessible parking spaces.. -STAFFCONTACT: Jerry Offer, Planning Division. 4. The applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan showing: 1) screening for the trash disposal area; and 2) the installation of NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-0010 - A-BOY/DOLAN 2 PAGE 21 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT n n PAGE # V J'. ) street trees along the Main Street frontage of the site to the east of the proposed driveway. For purposes of calculating the required landscaped area (15%), the dedicated land noted in Condition No. 1. above may be included. The City shall be responsible for landscaping the land dedicated to the public. STAFF CONTACT: Ron Bunch, Planning Division. 5. The City Engineering Division shall locate and clearly mark the 100- year floodplain boundary prior to commencement of construction. Floodplain boundary markers shall be maintained throughout the period of construction. STAFF CONTACT: Chris Davies, Engineering Division. 6. A demolition permit shall be obtained prior to demolition or removal of any structures on the site. The applicant, shall notify Northwest Natural Gas prior to demolition. STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division. 7. The applicant shall install an 8-foot tall solid plywood fence behind the sidewalk/public right-of-way along SW Main Street (from the southwestern property line to a minimum of 20 feet beyond the new building to the northeast) prior to start of construction and must remain until all construction is complete (Uniform Building Code section 4407(c). STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division. 8. As part of the improvement plans the applicant shall submit details and calculations that show the change in the amount of impervious surface area created by. this development. In addition, the fee-in- lieu for water quality shall be paid. STAFF CONTACT: Chris Davies, Engineering Division. 9. The applicant shall pay the Traffic Impact Fees prior to the issuance of a Building Permit:-'The actual TIF will be based-oa-the total gross square footage shown in the final approved design and the trip rate in effect at the time of Building Permit application. STAFF CONTACT: Chris Davies,'-Engineering Division. 10. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the improvement drawings. The planshall conform to "Erosion--- Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook,. November 1989.- -11. The applicant shall submit evidence that the proposed building does not encroach upon the sanitary sewer easements that cross the parcel or, alternately, submit evidence that the Unified Sewerage Agency does not object to any proposed encroachment. STAFF CONTACT: Chris Davies, Engineering Division.- UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE FOLLOWING.CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT: NOT _ ICE OF DECISION SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-0010 - A-BOY/DOLAN 2 PAGE 22 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGA_RD EX..9IBIT PAGE ►J0 12. All landscaping materials and other proposed site improvements noted in Conditions 3. and 4 shall be installed or financially assured prior to occupancy of any structure. STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer, Planning Division. 13. All new signage must receive approval by the Planning Division prior to being erected. STAFF CONTACT: Ron Pomeroy, Planning Division. 14. The two nonconforming, amortized billboard signs and support structures shall be completely removed from the property prior to occupancy of phase one of this development OR the applicant shall submit any applicable legal document which prohibits their removal. STAFF CONTACT: Ron Pomeroy, Planning Division. 15. As a condition of the occupancy permit, the applicant shall be required to replace any portions of the existing sidewalk along Main Street which are damaged or in poor repair and to reconstruct any existing curb cuts which are being abandoned. Prior to any work being started within the public Right-of-Way the applicant shall obtain a Street Opening permit from the Engineering Department. STAFF CONTACT: Chris Davies, Engineering Division. 16. The existing roof sign shall be permanently removed from the subject property within 45 days of the issuance of the Occupancy Permit for the new building. STAFF CONTACT: Ron Pomeroy, Planning Division. • THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR EIGHTEEN (18) MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE FINAL DECISION. DECISION AND APPEAL PROCEDURE 1. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: X The applicant and owners X Owners of record within the required distance X The.affected Neighborhood Planning Organization X Affected government agencies 11 2. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ONV l UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED BY 3:30 P.M. ON THAT DAY.- 3. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.370 of the Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal must be filed with the City Recorder within 10 days after notice is given. and sent. Appeal fee schedule and forms are available at Tigard City Hall,'13125 SW Hall"Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. 4. Questions: If.you have questions, please call City of Tigard.-. Planning Department, City of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. • NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-0010 - A-BOY/DOLAN 2 PAGE 23 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT n 1`1 PAGE it 1 r~°S ~ i APPROVED BY: Dick Bewers ff DATE Senior Planner br/SDR89-13.ks NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-0010 - A-BOY/DOLAN 2 PAGE 24 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIG_uRD EXHIBIT PAGE ff I 2S102AB-01902 2S102AB-0200! . _ ATLAS LAND COMPANY FINKE, ALEX I LOTTI AND 9380 SW TIGARD HANS CHRISTIAN TIG OR 97223 PO BOX 23562 TIGARD OR 97223 2S102AB-02100 2S102AB-02200 FINKE, ALEX AND LOTTI AND CACH, GERALD C JOAN L HANS CHRISTIAN 15170 SW SUNRISE LN PO BOX 23562 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 2S102AB-02300 2S102AB-02400 HANSON, DONALD E SHIRLEY HANSON, DONALD E SHIRLEY PO BOX 12 PO BOX 12 WEMME OR 97067 WEMME OR 97067 2S102AB-02401 2S102AB-02402 HANSON, DONALD E BURTON, WILLIAM H ET AL SHIRLEY 8 ANKELE, MARVIN R & KATHRYN PO BOX 12 12511 SW MAIN STREET WEMME OR 97067 TIGARD OR 97223 2S102AB-02800 2S102AB-04900 THOMPSON, DENNIS C DREESZEN, MARY-ANN H LYNNE M 20900 SW 120TH 9523 SW 62ND DRIVE TUALATIN OR 97062 PORTLAND OR 97219 IR02AB-04300 2S102AB-04400 . RE, ROBERT C AND ELIZABETH R TIGARD, CITY OF PO BOX 23098 PO BOX 23397 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 2S102AB-04500 2S102AB-04600 MOORE, ROBERT C AND ELIZABETH.R PEREZ, JOSE EVODIO POZOS PO BOX 23098 8915 SW COMMERCIAL TIGARD__ OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 2S102AB-04700:_ 2S102AB-04800 HOFFARBER PROPERTIES GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY. 12005 SW HALL BLVD OF THE NORTHWEST TIGARD OR 97223 P 0 BOX 1003 EVERETT WA 98201 2S102AB-05000 2S102AS-05100 MCDAID, MARGARET CORDI, D A DORIS N 9225 SW BURNHAM ST $ DRINKWATER, RICHARD L AND.. TIGARD OR 97223 BARBARA J 9205 SW BURNHAM PORTLAND OR 97206 2S102AB-05200 2S102AB-05300 TATS nrszaDVVnpT nATp r ntyy NERSHI-R- D _ LUB?1-FILING - CITY-OF TIGARD_ EXHIBIT PAGE r I a~ 2S102BA-01200 2S102AC-002( MORLAN PROPERTIES ET AL SOUTHWEST POK17-k D 5529 SE FOSTER RD PARTNERSHIP TI,AND OR 97206 2121 N COLUMBIA BLVD PORTLAND OR 97217 2S102AC-00203 2S102AC-00201 CITY OF TIGARD SEA FIRST REAL ESTATE GROUP PO BOX 23397 ATTN: J HARRIS - SPECIAL CREDITS 12420 SW MAIN PO BOX 34401 TIGARD OR 97223 SEATTLE WA 98124 2S102AC-00400 2S102AC-00500 DOLAN, JOHN T AND WOODARD, CHARLES L AND FLORENCE T ARLIE C 7344 SE FOSTER RD PO BOX 23303 PORTLAND OR 97206 TIGARD OR 97223 2S102AC-00600 2S102AC-00700 VERMILYE, HOBART P JEAN DOLAN, JOHN T 11272 SW CAPITOL HWY 1919 NW 19TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97219 PORTLAND OR 97209 2S102AC-00800 2S102AC-00900 HEUVELHORST, MICHAEL J DAVIS, EUGENE L VIVIAN % KADEY, GEORGE S JR 4550 SW LOMBARD 12551 SW MAIN ST BEAVERTON OR 97005 TIGARD OR 97223 1902AC-01000 2S102AC-01100 HOFFARBER PROPERTIES. SORG, OTTO 12005 SW HALL BLVD BY FIRST'INTERSTATE BANK TIGARD OR 97223 OF OREGON N A PO BOX 2971 PORTLAND OR 97208 2S102AC-01101 2S102AC-01200 GULLEY, JOHN RLOIS I SEAFIRST REAL ESTATE GROUP 14095 SW HARGIS RD ATTN: J HARRIS.- SPECIAL CREDITS BEAVERTON:..-OR' 97005 PO BOX 34401 SEATTLE WA 98124 2S102AC-02200 SEAFIRST REAL-ESTATE GROUP KNAPPENBERGER & MENDEZ ATTN: J HARRIS SPECIAL CREDITS JOSEPH R. MENDEZ PO BOX 34401 1318 SW 12TH AVENUE SEATTLE WA 98124 PORTLAND, OR 97201 JOHN T. & FLORENCE DOLAN 1919 NW.19TH AVE PORTLAND, OR 97209 • ED DUFFIELD 8895 SW EDGEWCOD TIGARD, OR 97223 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT r' PAGE r 13R PORTLAND O?' 97206 2S102AB-05200 2S102AB-0530x---- FURRER & SCOTT REAL ESTATE DEHARPPORT, l E C AND PARTNERSHIP TRAVER, RONALD D 9185 SW BURNHAM RD 6676 SW 162ND DR ARD OR 97223 BEAVERTON OR 97007 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGP.RD EXHIBIT n PAGE n TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal TT P.O. BOX 37Cr PHONE (503) 684-0360 { Notice 7999 BEA. -RTON• OREGON 97075 _ SITE DEVELOPIv<LrIT REVIEW SDR 91-0004 Legal Notice Advertising DIBBAYAWAN (NP(. The Director has approved a request for Site Development Re~ approval, subject to conditions, to allow construction of an office • ❑ Tearsheet automotive repair facility of approximately 9,250 square feet. ZC. Ci y of Tigard CBD (Central Business District). LOCATION: 8830, 8840, 8860 PO Box 23397 • ❑ Duplicate. Commercial Street (WCTM 2S1 2AD, tax lots 1200, 1202, and 1204) Tigard, Or 97223 I ~ ~ 99 1 • S W Gf- t t0 e~1tt1CM AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION J iTATE OF OREGON, )ss .i co _ f AUNTY OF WASHINGTON, Judith Koehler- - N )eing first du( sworn, depose and say that I art the Advertising )irector, or his principal clerk, of the Tigard Times i newspaper of general circ4?tion as defined in ORS 193.010 ind 193.020; published at 1:3 In the iforqsaid cfOur b~ics te-e~tlat t R 91-0004/ 91-0005 _ Votice tice o tinted copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the :DEVEMPMENT REV)EW =SDR ' 1~. ~ 5° P R ARIANCE 91-0010'1JOI:AN/MF.NDEZ;- (NPC :ntire issue of said newspaper for One successive and The Director has approved aSite----Development Review request to a :onsecutive in the following issues: construction of an approximately 17,600 square foot retail sales buil( The approval is subject to certain conditions including some modifica May 23, 1991 - to the site plan. The Director has denied the applicant's reques Variance approval to allow retention of area within the 100- floodplain and area adjacent to the floodplain for bike path construe and construction of the pathway. whereas the Community Develop: Code requires dedication of this area to the City and construction e path by the applicant. ZONE-- CBD-AA (Central Business District with the Action Area overlay zone). LOCATION: 12520 S.W. Main c 23rd day of May 1991 (WCTM 2S 12AC, tax lot 700). Subscribed and sworn before me this Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT r - - c. ~ .a . , r The adopted finding of facts, decision, and statement of conditions c~ obtained from tht: Planning Department, Tigard Civic Center, 13125 - Hall Blvd., P.O: Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. The decision sh, final on June 5.1'991 Any party to rte decision may appeal this dec: in accordance with Section 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.370 c_ =Community Development Code, which provides that a written appeal be filed within 10 days after notice is given and sent-The deadlin: filing of an appeal is 3:30 P.M., June 5. 1991. The hearing on an al will be. De Novo. TI7999 - Publish May 23, 1991. LUB3..FILING - CITY OF TIGP.RD- EXHIBIT g PAGE 1~~~ 1 131 cf~ MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Ron Pomeroy, Assistant Planner May 13, 1991 FROM: Chris Davies, Development Review Engineer n _z RE: SDR 91-0005/var 91-0010 DOLAN/MENDEZ Description: The applicant proposes to construct an approximately 17,600 square foot retail sales building. Findings: 1. Streets: The site fronts S.W. Main Street which is classified as a major collector and is fully developed with curbs and sidewalks. A 1986 engineering study of the condition of S.W. Main Street recommends that the pavement be completely reconstructed and that the storm drainage system be replaced. It appears to be impractical to perform the proposed reconstruction of Main Street in a piecemeal fashion on a lot-by-lot basis; instead, the reconstruction needs to occur in larger segments beginning at Fanno Creek Bridge and working uphill. Therefore, we do not propose that any reconstruction of Main Street be required as a condition of this development proposal. i This development should be required to replace any existing sidewalks and curbs which are damaged or in poor repair and to reconstruct any existing curb cuts which are being abandoned. As part of the Tigard Major Streets Transportation Safety Improvement Bond, the City plans to replace the Main Street Bridge over Fanno Creek. The bridge replacement is scheduled to begin in June 1991. The bridge construction is expected to occur within the existing right-of-way and should have little impact on the subject site. 2. Sanitary Sewer: There are two sanitary sewer truck lines that cross the site in existing easements. One line is 24 inches in diameter and the other is 60 inches in diameter. The applicant has shown on his preliminary application the easement and location for the 24 inch line but not for the 60 inch line. Additional, after reviewing the sanitary sewer system plans, on file in this office, for this area, it appears that there may be some mix-up as to where the sanitary sewer system is as shown on the applicants submitted plans. Basically it appears the 24 inch line is within a 10 foot easement and goes along the front of the proposed new building and diverges to the east as you go south. The 60 inch line is within a 30 foot easement and again is in front of the proposed new building but does not diverge as fast to the east • ENGINEERING COMMENTS - DOLAN/MENDEZ SDR 91-0005/VAR91-0010PAGE 1 LUBA FILING - /C~ITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT = j"I PAGE A 13 as you go south. Based on the plan submitted by the applicant and the "as-built" plans for both the sanitary sewer systems it appears that the new building is over the easement for the 60 inch line by approximately 6 to 8 feet at the approximate middle of the building. Therefore, the applicant should be required to submit evidence as to t actual location of the sanitary sewer lines and easements, and her relationship to the proposed building. If it is determined t the submitted proposal for the building does encroach upon the easement then the applicant should be required to change the location of the building or the design so that it does not encroach upon the easement or to provide evidence that the Unified Sewerage Agency does not object to the encroachment. 3. Storm Sewer: The City's Master Drainage Plan recommends improvements to the Fanno Creek channel downstream from Main Street. The proposed channel improvements would include widening and slope stabilization. These improvements would move the location of the top of bank approximately five feet closer to the proposed building than the location of the existing top of bank. Therefore, an adjustment of the building location will have to occur in order to accommodate the future City-initiated relocation of the floodplain bank. This should be required on a revised site plan. In addition, dedication of the land area on this property below the elevation of the 100- year floodplain should be required. The Unified Sewerage Agency has established and the City has agreed to enforce, (resolution No. 90-43) Surface Water Management Regulations requiring the construction of on site water quality facilities or fees in lieu of their construction. Requiring surface water quality facilities on small sites would result in numerous facilities that would become a maintenance burden to the City. Furthermore, the applicant has not proposed any such facilities and there are no natural depressions or other areas of this site that particularly suitable for water quality facilities. R e g i o n a l facilities, funded by fees in lieu of construction of these facilities would provide the required treatment with improved reliability and less maintenance. Consequently a fee-in-lieu of the construction of on-site water quality facilities should be assessed. 4. Washington County has established and the City has agreed to enforce, (Resolution No. 90-65) Traffic Impact Fees. The purpose of the fee is to ensure that. new development contributes to extra-capacity transportation improvements needed to accommodate additional traffic generated by such development. The applicant shall be required to pay the fee. Based on the following information the ESTIMATED TIF for this development would be: A) Use as defined by applicant: Retail Sales B) Land Use Category: Business & Commercial C) Rate per trip: $34.00 ENGINEERING COMMENTS - DOLAN/MENDEZ SDR 91-0005/VAR91-0010PAGE 2 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE 13~ D) ITE Category: 816 E) Weekday average trip rate: 53.21 per T.G.S.F. F) Existing Square Footage: 9,720 approximately G) Proposed Square Footage: 17,600 F) TIF = 53.21 X (17.6 - 9.720) X $34.00 = $14,256.02 PLEASE NOTE THIS IS ONLY AN ESTIMATE OF THE PROPOSED TIF FEE, THE ACTUAL FEE WILL BE CALCULATED AT TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION. The actual TIF will be based on the total square footage shown in the approved building plans and the trip rate in effect at the time of building permit application. In addition, the rates will be increased as of July 1, 1991. Recommendation; PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS THE FOLLOWING SHOULD BE COMPLETED: 1. The applicant shall be required to replace sections of the sidewalks that are in disrepair or damaged along the frontage of the site and to reconstruct any existing curb cuts which are being abandoned. Prior to any work being started within the public Right-of-Way the applicant shall obtain a Street Opening permit from the Engineering Department. 2. The applicant shall obtain written approval from Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County to connect to the Unified Sewerage Agency trunk line prior to issuance of a Public Improvement Permit. A copy of the permit shall be submitted to the City of Tigard Engineering Department. 3. As part of the improvement plans the applicant shall submit details and calculations that show the change in the amount of impervious surface area created by this development. In addition, the fee-in-lieu for water quality shall be paid. 4. The applicant shall pay the Traffic Impact Fees prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. The actual TIF will be based on the total gross square footage shown in the final approved design and the trip rate in effect at the time of Building Permit application. 5. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, November 1989." 6. The applicant shall submit evidence that the proposed building does not encroach upon the sanitary sewer easements that cross the parcel or, alternately, submit evidence that the Unified Sewerage Agency does not object to any proposed encroachment. 7. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing the relocation of the phase one building outside of the greenway area. ENGINEERING COMMENTS - DOLAN/MENDEZ SDR 91-0005/VAR91-0010PAGE 3 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT i ~P PAGE ' 13") 8. The area below the 100-year floodplain elevation and all property that is within 15 feet of the 100-year floodplain, on the subject site, shall be dedicated as greenway - open space to the City. A monumented boundary survey showing all new title lines, prepared by a registered professional, land surveyor, shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to recording. 9. The applicant's engineer/surveyor shall locate and clearly mark the 100- year floodplain boundary prior to commencement of construction. Floodplain boundary markers shall be maintained throughout the period of construction. APPROVED- Randall R. Wooley, C Engineer cd/SDR91-05.CRD ENGINEERING COMMENTS - DOLAN/MENDEZ SDR 91-0005/VAR91-0010PAGE 4 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT r Iq PAGE r 134 April 24, 1991 CITY OF TIGAR® Joseph R. Mendez OREGON Knappenberger & Mendez, Attorneys Honeyman House 1318 SW 12th Avenue Portland, OR 97201-3367 RE: Dolan/A-Boy SDR Application Dear Mr. Mendez: Your April 12, 1991 letter to Jim Coleman of the City Attorney's office states that you believe that "an extraordinary amount of time is being taken by the City Planner's office to issue a recommendation rejecting the variance" related to the A-Boy Site Development Review application. This assertion deserves a written response from the Planning Division since you clearly do not understand the process by which this application is being reviewed. First, the Dolan/A-Boy Site Development Review and Variance is a brand new development application, not a continuation of a previous application. As such, the proposal receives a full review including an opportunity for review by service-providing utilities and the neighborhood planning organization. The City cannot presume that the comments and recommendations of.these outside agencies will remain the same as provided approximately two years ago when the previous A-Boy application was - filed.. For. this reason alone, the review process can take . a considerable amount of time. Because the neighborhood organization meets only on a monthly basis, the City must wait for the organization's comments until at least early May before the decision on the application is issued so as to incorporate:the neighborhood organization's comments. Second, an incomplete application submittal-by courier was received in our office. on March .19, 1991.-.: Icontacted your office by phone to notify you.that the application was substantially incomplete and that we would not begin to process the application until the.additional materials were submitted. -On March 28, 1991, additional materials were submitted, again by courier., As required by City-- of Tigard procedures, the application was processed within ten days of receipt-- on April 5, 1991. Copies of - the application materials were subsequently distributed for agency and neighborhood comments. The processing of this application has followed standard City. of Tigard development processing procedures. Third, this application was among the last-of a large group of applications received by the Planning Division in late. March. We set the applications up generally in the order in which the applications were received.and we will review the applications in the same fashion. -The A-Boy application-is just another development application to the Planning Division and will be processed and reviewed under the same rules as any other application. - The application-is receiving "the proper attention" your letter requests - no more and no less. i LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD ~ EXHIBIT * ~ D 13125 SW Hall Blvd. P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171- EXHI _ 13 Joseph R. Mendez, Attorney April 24, 1991 Page 2 Fourth, your letter refers to the staff issuing a "recommendation" regarding the application. Please be advised, as you previously have been, that the staff will issue a decision on the application. The staff report on this matter will contain the City's final decision on this matter unless the decision is called up for review by the City Council or the decision is appealed. Fifth, I believe the application processing will take between six to eight weeks from the date of acceptance of the application (April 5, 1991) to the issuance of a director's decision. This is the standard processing time for an administrative review as noted in the City of Tigard's pre-application conference notes and as explained orally to all applicants who follow City of Tigard requirements to personally submit applications at the Planning Division counter in City Hall. I regret that you did not submit the application in person so that you could have had the opportunity to hear our standard explanation to applicants regarding application processing. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, Nop it Review Planner c: Jim Coleman John Dolan File SDR 91-05 br/JO:A-Boy LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT 1 a0 PAGE Q 13LI AF'R 1 _ -'D 1 FFl- Z = 22 GRE ~C ~0 ?2' 43~2'D44 F' _ 0 1 • 'l O'DONNELL, RAIMIS, CREW & CORRIGA , JEFF H. BAC:HRACH ATTOR\F.YS AT LAW BALIOW & WRIGHT BUILDING CLACKA.MAS COLfiiY O. TICE CHARLES E. CORRiC.AN* 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street 181 N. Grant, S_-he 202 STEPHEN P. CREW Pottland, Orrgon 97209 Canby, OreSan 97013 CHARLES M. GILEEFF (503) 2bb-11;9 t NCYM A. ARAN T-ti(503) 222.4402 NANCY 8. MURRAY FAX: (503) 243.2944 MARK P. OWNNELL JASfES M COLEMAN DENNIS M. PATERSON III PUME REPLY --V PORTLAND OFFICE KENNETH M. E,IIOTT TIMOTHY V. RAMIS GARY M_ GECIRGEFF* SHF11A C. RIDGWAY* ROBERT J. McGAL'GHEY* W11IdAM J. STAINAKER spec zi Courted •Abe Admitted to Pra Cite b State of Neswzton FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION OVER SHEET DATE: April 19, 1991 CLIENT NO.: 90024-4 TO: Jerry Offer Tigard Community Development FAX 684-7297 Phone 1: 639-4171 • FROM: James M. Coleman O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, OR 97209 FAX j (503) 243-2944 COMMENTS: See attached. Call Mendez and give him the status of your review; follow with a letter and cc me with the letter. If you have questions, call me. -1_ PAGES TO FOLLOW, EXCLUDING COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL THE UNDERSIGNED AT (503) 222-4402 IMMEDIATELY. THANK YOU. SIGNED: Lori Foster LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT z al PAGE r 131~ FaF R- 1 5- 1 FR I ± _ 2'_+ 0PEE 2:~f! ~0Z 2 4~ 2f 'D44 F• _ 02 i1 t KNAPPENBERGER & MENDEZ JOSEPH R. MENQE2 ATTORNEYS AT LAW R~CEIYED PETER MILLER ALLAN F. KNAPPENBERGER HONEYMAN HOUSE OF COUNSEL 1318 S.W. 12TH AVE. APR 81991 FAX PORTLAND. OREGON 97201-3367 (503) 294-0442 (503) 294-4317 o•u April 12, 1991 1 s James W. Coleman, Esq. 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 , Re: Dolan vs. City of Tigard As you are aware I represent Mr. and Mrs. Dolan with regard to a variance which they have submitted to the City of Tigard at the suggestion of the Land Use Board of Appeals. The issues are certainly not unique to the City as they have passed on them .several times, yet it seems that an extraordinary amount of time is being taken by the City Planner's office to issue a recommendation rejecting the variance. The City's position will undoubtedly remain unchanged and to prolong issuing the recommendation is blantant bad faith. i' I would appreciate if you would contact the City Planning office and ask them to give proper attention to the application for i the variance submitted by my clients, submit the recommendation and allow us our appeal. , In the event you have any questions or concerns, please feel i free to contact me. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration in this matter. Very truly yours, 1 KNAPPENBERGER & NDEZ i~ o h R. en JRM:sp cc: John Dolan ' i LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT r PAGE h ) 3~ REQUEST FOR COMMENTS TO: _C'j( r1 ILl.~,~hQ DATE: April 15, 1991 FROM: Tigard Planning Department RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 91-0005 VARIANCE 91-0010 DOLAN/MENDEZ (NPO #1) A request for Site Development review to allow construction of an approximately 17,600 square foot retail sales building. Also requested is Variance approval to allow: 1) retention of area within the 100 year floodplain and area adjacent to the floodplain for bike path construction whereas the Community Development Code requires dedication of this area to the City; 2) retention of an existing roof sign on the adjacent building whereas the Code requires removal of all roof signs. ZONE: CBD (Central Business District) LOCATION: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC, tax lot 700) Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, we need your comments by Apr. 25, 1991. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, PO Box 23397, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE: 639-4171. STAFF CONTACT: Ron Pomeroy PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written Comments: Name of Person Commenting: Phone Number: bkm/SDR91-05.BKM • LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT t PAGE f N01 ICATION LIST FOR ALL APPLICATIC 1. NPO NO. ! (2) copies CPO NO. 2. CITY DEPARTMENTS / Building Official/Brad R. ✓ Parks & Recreation Board City Recorder Police Engineering/Chris D. Permits Coordinator/Viola G. L~~ t (c yd f &0p cli 3. SPECIAL DISTRICTS (DN(Y ) ✓ Fire District School~ist No. 48 (Pick-up box) (Beaverton) Joy Pahl PO Box 200 / Beaverton, OR 97075 ✓ Tigard Water District School Dist. 23J 8777 SW Burnham St. (Tigard) Tigard, OR 97223 13137 SW Pacific Hwy. Tigard, OR 97223 Metzger Water District 6501 SW Taylors Ferry Rd. Tigard, OR 97223 4. AFFECTED JURISDICTIONS Wash. Co. Land Use & Transp. Boundary commission 150 N. First Ave. 320 SW Stark Room 530 Hillsboro, OR 97124 Portland, OR 97204 Brent Curtis Kevin Martin METRO Joann Rice 2000 SW 1st ave. Scott Ring Portland, OR 97201- Fred Eberle 5398 Mike Borreson DLCD (CPA's only) City of Beaverton 1175 Court St. NE Jinn Hendryx Salem, OR 97310-0590 PO Box 4755 Beaverton, OR 97076 Other State Highway Division Lee Gunderson PO Box 565 Beaverton, OR 97075 5. SPECIAL AGENCIES General Telephone Portland General Elec. Mike Lutz Brian Moore 12460 SW Main St. 14655 SW Old Scholls Fry. Tigard, OR 97223 Beaverton, OR 97007 / V NW Natural Gas Metro Area Communications Ronald D. Polvi, PE, PLS Harlan Cook 220 NW Second Ave. Twin Oaks Technology Center Portland, OR 97209 1815 NW 169th Place S-6020 Beaverton, OR 97006-4886 TCI Cablevision of Oregon US West Mike Hallock Pete Nelson 3500 SW Bond 421 SW Oak St. Portland, OR 97201 Portland, OR 97204 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD D~ IBIT _ oZy PAGE I q V 6. STATE AGENCIES Aeronautics Div. (ODOT) DOGAMI Engineer Division of State Lands Board of Health Commerce Dept. - M.H. Park Fish & Wildlife Parks & Recreation Div. LCDC Subdivision Supervisor Dept. of Energy PUC Dept. of Environ. Quality Fire Marshall Other 7. FEDERAL AGENCIES Corps. of Engineers Other Post Office 8. OTHER Southern Pacific Transportation Company Duane M. Forney, PLS - Project Engineer 800 NW 6th Avenue, R. 324, Union Station Portland, OR 97209 bkm/NOT.LST LUBA-FILING - CITY OF TICA.RD . EXHIBIT PAGE r (1 ~-(lr5 /mar( C s,~ I! REQUEST FOR COMMENTS TO: r ~N (S _ DATE: April 15, 1991 FROM: Tigard Planning Department RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 91-0005 VARIANCE 91-0010 DOLAN/MENDEZ (NPO #1) A request for Site Development review to allow construction of an approximately 17,600 square foot retail sales building. Also requested is Variance approval to allow: 1) retention of area within the 100 year floodplain and area adjacent to the floodplain for bike path construction whereas the Community Development Code requires dedication of this area to the City; 2) retention of an existing roof sign on the adjacent building whereas the Code requires removal of all roof signs. ZONE: CBD (Central Business District) LOCATION: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC, tax lot 700) Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, we need your comments by Apr. 25, 1991. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, PO Box 23397, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE: 639-4171. STAFF CONTACT: Ron Pomeroy PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING.ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to.it. Please contact. of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written Comments: Name of Person Commenting: l r S )n c i i P_ Phone Number: X 3 ( J - bkm/SDR91-05.BKM LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT r D PAGE tt I LI REQUEST FOR COMMENTS TO: tv C >f I DATE: April 15, 1991 FROM: Tigard Planning Department RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 91-0005 VARIANCE 91-0010 DOLAN/MENDEZ (NPO #1) A request for Site Development review to allow construction of an approximately 17,600 square foot retail sales building. Also requested is Variance approval to allow: 1) retention of area within the 100 year floodplain and area adjacent to the floodplain for bike path construction whereas the Community Development Code requires dedication of this area to the City; 2) retention of an existing roof sign on the adjacent building whereas the Code requires removal of all roof signs. ZONE: CBD (Central Business District) LOCATION: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC, tax lot 700) Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, we need your comments by Apr. 25, 1991. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, PO Box 23397, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE: 639-4171. STAFF CONTACT: Ron Pomeroy . PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have' reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. 11 Written Comments: l f f•~ I~ f7 /vvc~ TS S t,l LL- iQ P G`vO t S I F-o.f IJ ,ADD 4. c.~- P .e... rS ,S' mac- L J c~ cc- cJ Rc~ d as C, c-~ .9 rJ Ft (k psl Name of Person Commenting: 4! C-`~ Phone Number: bkm/SDR91-05.BKM TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE & RESCUE AND. BEAVERTON FIRE DEPARTMENT Fa GENE BIRCHILL LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD Deputy Fire Marshal/ Plans Examiner EXHIBIT ~a. 503-526-2502 PAGE '-~3 FAX 526-2538 l REQUEST FOR COMMENTS TO: (Ly~ ~~F~ ~~S DATE: April 15, 1991 i FROM: Tigard Planning Department RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 91-0005 VARIANCE 91-0010 DOLAN/MENDEZ (NPO #1) A request for Site Development review to allow construction of an approximately 17,600 square foot retail sales building. Also requested is Variance approval to allow: 1) retention of area within the 100 year floodplain and area adjacent to the floodplain for bike path construction whereas the Community Development Code requires dedication of this area to the City; 2) retention of an existing roof sign on the adjacent building whereas the Code requires removal of all roof signs. ZONE: CBD (Central Business District) LOCATION: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC, tax lot 700) Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, we need your comments by Apr. 25, 1991. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, PO Box 23397, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE: 639-4171. STAFF CONTACT: Ron Pomeroy PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. i/ Written Comments: nn I ` Clf~t 5 e~~X f~ u~ 4kv- ye9.~~rc~ . ~~hTf WhX ~p.~ ~cr~4. CEi~S~V~cw Lr^ C~~ `i Lo3_~ Name of Person Commenting: Phone Number: 0 bkm/SDR91-05.BKM LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE 1 y t REQUEST FOR COMMENTS TO: DATE: April 15, 1991 FROM: Tigard Planning Department RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 91-0005 VARIANCE 91-0010 DOLAN/MENDEZ (NPO #1) A request for Site Development review to allow construction of an approximately 17,600 square foot retail sales building. Also requested is variance approval to allow: 1) retention of area within the 100 year floodplain and area adjacent to the floodplain for bike path construction whereas the Community Development Code requires dedication of this area to the City; 2) retention of an existing roof sign on the adjacent building whereas the Code requires removal of all roof signs. ZONE: CBD (Central Business District) LOCATION: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTH 2S1 2AC, tax lot 700) Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, we need your comments by Apr. 25, 1991. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, PO Box 23397, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE: 639-4171. STAFF CONTACT: Ron Pomeroy PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. u" Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written Comments: Name of Person Commenting: Phone Number: bkm/SDR91-05.BKM LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT ` ~ a PAGE r C SDR91-0005 o A protective canopy and fence shall be provided during construction, in conformance with chapter 44 of the State Building Code. LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT w as PA .GF 7 1L4(D ECEI't'TE, "."NA 1 v i-l REQUEST FOR COMMENTS TO: 1 DATE: April 15, 1991 FROM: Tigard Planning Department RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 91-0005 VARIANCE 91-0010 DOLAN/MENDEZ (NPO #1) A request for Site Development review to allow construction of an approximately 17,600 square foot retail sales building. Also requested is Variance approval to allow: 1) retention of area within the 100 year floodplain and area adjacent to the floodplain for bike path construction whereas the Community Development Code requires dedication of this area to the City; 2) retention of an existing roof sign on the adjacent building whereas the Code requires removal of all roof signs. ZONE: CBD (Central Business District) LOCATION: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC, tax lot 700) Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, we need your comments by Apr. 25, 1991. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, PO Box 23397, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE: 639-4171. STAFF CONTACT: Ron Pomeroy PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: X We-have reviewed the proposal..and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written Comments: John P. Miller, Administrator Name of Person Commenting: Phone Number: 639-1554 bkm/SDR91-05.BKM i LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT r C_~)a PAGE - I LI -j RECEIVED PLANNING REQUEST FOR COMMENTS APE( TO: l 1 (rcj CS16A (C DATE: April 15, 1991 FROM: Tigard Planning Department RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 91-0005 VARIANCE 91-0010 DOLAN/MENDEZ (NPO #.1) A request for Site Development review to allow construction of an approximately 17,600 square foot retail sales building. Also requested is Variance approval to allow: 1) retention of area within the 100 year floodplain and area adjacent to the floodplain for bike path construction whereas the Community Development Code requires dedication of this area to the City; 2) retention of an existing roof sign on the adjacent building whereas the Code requires removal of all roof signs. ZONE: CBD (Central Business District) LOCATION: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC, tax lot 700) Attachcd is the Site Plan* and applicant's statement for your- review. From information supplied by -various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, we need your comments by Apr. 25, 1991. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, PO Box 23397, 13125 SW Ball Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE: 639-4171. STAFF CONTACT: Ron Pomeroy PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written Comments: Name of Person Commenting: Phone Number: Co~7 bkm/SDR91-05.BRM LUB FILING - CITY OF TIGJkRD EXHIBIT frl Q Q PAGE'r' 10q .'1~~ i-; r..-:1 =1-S i'r!°:r-•.Ti 1_ ~.~Si-rl-i rv ~i llyr `_„-i: :--l7_~i_i ~y• }y !)-1P E~ j ;i _i i'-j ~ f f_1 F DP; i t is 'S I 1z.F rll: .•_-..tr F~ S 'r r_ qr-.- C_• r F-+`-' 'r t a Ir'' T iD t•__r_ CIF AY1.r•;r flrl0_1. J\i , F'1ii1. lr.r Lj..: 1 1iYe•rC_i~i li _Ji,., t=r SDR 91-0005/ VAR9 1-0 10 TOTAL- AMOUNT PAID - - - 3310. 00 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT r ~3 PAGE ~~q -s PICKUPTII'<~~L~;aIRBILLSriiPPER"S,AGENT D Y Q _ - . ti_.~. t:_ Ai\D DATE 1 D/\~ L _ 50.0`::= _ _ (50~ - -41 0484 ' : - _ A C K A G E E X P R.E SS ACCT. NO e,' DATE: ( ; 3 L1.•,I'_-?! . ~ Z ~ DECLARED' - DRIVER' VALUE $ N TELEPHONE NA"'.E , : / TELEPHONE.: - FROM: COMPANY NAME. _ - TO f: ROF.'f COM? NY NAM :;ADDRESS:• . , '1.-a.l $.:.1. 1. ADDRESS i .-t'r' A tr£ . - _ . ;'fir' ;cc~~ Atli r:: CLi~; _ STATE G J:W ,r.: v ZP 1 .STATE;;: L+f? r~ ZIP REQUrRED...': REF.EREN , DE T /ORDER N :,c r: - - : . . -e: ~t- -;:1:• i T~. - r. - - THIRD' NA 'ifs , PARTY. sTV~{JSJ E - ADDRESS CITY S~ATE,~ (t xZlp alLtirvc Cl, F#ENT CUSI'OMEF~ c~r~ - N -i1— e~ ~_t ' J <3 .DESCRIPTION t( - - }z . ~ :2 S=?;ti u'.:'-~* a't. a s >f'tN __t_,•~~ - - WEIGHT , ' :RA:T~%#iti i. 2-:,.• .,try' 2 l Y `c °f > ' 1 < ~i r-.: r k i 4MOUI{(7a 'y'am) t: I = i Y h i S r r. s yt ri t ~ Fs ibt~ ,,s z > t :AIR EXPRESS , i i (d iv d 5. ~j f LOCAL Df LIVERY , r 'fir '•*{a) ~ s = s SPECIAL"INSTRUCTIONS: a ' r NEXT DAY A M .j. 1 EXPRESS iETTER y ' g - ) .YJ f..a❑ NaTOeaz) is~; ~sY ❑ 3- ADVANCED s n,- } . FEES`..?_•~ .a r ;,-,:h,s,;•- SUPERRUSH ❑ _ INTERNATIONALt EXPRESS-ENVELOPE:;::'' ^ ` WRONG='. "'=f s. ` ;.r'f: ~r_•••; (wTOZCS) ❑ DIRECT '1 :'z t ADDRESS ; i ` S` NEXT-0E1 BY 9 ❑ CUSTOMER PACKAGE it Nona o~ f ° t ¢¢SATURDAY,SVC ❑ (~y2~) DEFE)tREO J Q n. i f. :1 WAlT1NG t {~5i+ 7 •SJ .y:_ i . E E4' i r K9' T,IME3r'"`+~ a'+au`~~' `Y:b ' x, , y F'es'.AT i ti,~y.4 ( F10lAi DE~zt i' . - -,v t G r-•.- G 7 z r ~'t lR s t,~.y:. ~i' 'SA._ ME'DAY~ ❑ b{ERfIGIi✓~TUBE 7~~r yF1 fl E~4 : ` s r rat''iLC.,tt rr .yia { x . y' r,.I=ha !i`.-a yi:,~j Ts .!•~~:°--a" )7L...F •s- IiOIJNDTRiP.ty'iT•~ yf..' tiS s _s.;T i-,'si;•'^- . e.rrr .,y. rn.. -tr_~ OTiHEri• 'i •q' ..A Li1TEPiCKUPs` sa w.❑ Vie:. ' S.J'4 ~ E:.Cx: '`r`JY < ih"l+ ei;-'~•ti,, i -~r.:..,~3:a~.:-'r r, - xi t~ .;i,'~. i~ t ' c,v+..r~> i11;•. X .•r j - s,r//`-, .1- -r'T~-^-' , r 1 aaO(iTE' J; < ^ - s.Z ~A;~ REGU t -4Z3* -.f' ` h.y. '3 a "4i !h. ❑ il...,f. Y-~ ~-_f a~_. ~'-I R '1•i i~'j~'•~ryy>; .a ' ~".v EXTRA CHARGF~AP LIES -/'+l•r1r r~°< DEL DEADLINE -=`j I 2 R ATTEMPTc~,fr 1L REC o . RUSH i1 - h X F j ;'ME ATE n t . ` < {TIME . f PATE ATTEMPTrs ko- tiC _ CS+ x - RETURN'f0 " c 3}i r~.!••w~ svi a_. TOTAL.i~- {'Y- f' yx 8~5w-~••Ju~ S~'7<`i 'i.~_.ar 7 t'~2•,y!*4~<rc-` f'. s -1 c'J r a4 x 1 -i-. *;"2 :L f tr T#-.-i 'c,~ti ;.s r s"J _ :-':;.Y x ' "Fytti' i¢y'.~ 'L'r- "i';t"F ;'c:,~3;~,., T,,-..; i:!y~ 4 ~ 4~--c:r c%~#ti'~~,~ ~ 4I• ~-1~f ~as'~f~ ~ er~♦~ ~ f ~ t •S°'' y -w ~h rrr a)' ,Iy C-~,r`fT7 1 v ~;~~;:x~7'lr ~'~'gy'T"i4~_'~'r~~~x -Ia _ } ' n= r rsr . A t"~.=='i: '#`...,tiM1xr; t rf'-~,. iJ- i'S.>x y~is:,tit~.i { ,i 31 ~isf 5~{t?f sus ~;.7j -"Yra} ?i~i:_a,~~- `'a y- tl - - c•L= : a• a-a..- ..\_..r. 'W-.--_ bN >rY•~s:. rAr' .a..A.~:•:+. -'.'?.a.; _ I:__~•;-- . s!;'`ni:~:-'iv_~.-. •f,. Jk, ra~ .>1s%!.~r-Pry. _ jS.. i.'}. 3:_ La- ~3. - :F.: z. - =r`.i rU- _ :.i:?.~ . ' :i•`. ^r...:. S*<r <`.'tr . . f. - . . . . . - - . - - - ',y . ` 2' 6 1 Y•• f i!'. - J. ~J~ i n}♦ . - •t1Y 711 tt: '-,v; •'a. .W a' } ..Z..N,,-.w a~~•;~: 1~3~-•: Qa.- .<'Fa3~Y .h~1•.f Ss,"T - _ - r -x ae<v - - _ - _ 'a ::f a: l• _ S f: _ _ 1:: • a=.: i i' _ - - iii. - - - - o; _ - --V. _ - - - .:i: - - _ - _ _ - } - 3: ii}' - - - _ _ - - - - •F:: - - - - - - - - i~ `i•. t.s •T• - W J-_- - - { - LUBA FILING -CITY OF TIGARD . - - . EXHIBIT # PAGE ~ Jc KNAPPENBERGER & MENDEZ JOSEPH R. MENDEZ ATTORNEYS AT LAW PETER MILLER ALLAN F KNAPPENBERGER HONEYMAN HOUSE OF COUNSEL 1318 S.W. 12TH AVE. PORTLAND. OREGON 97201-3367 FAX (503) 294-0442 (503) 294-4317 March 28, 1991 Jerry Offer RECEIVE[ PLANNING 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Planning Dept. MAR 2 8 P.O. Box 23397 1991 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: John and Florence Dolan Site Development Review Application Dear Mr. Offer: Please find enclosed Applicant's Statement of Justification for Variance, Construction Cost Estimate and 15 copies of the site plans. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the above, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration in this matter. Very truly yours, KNAPPENBER NDEZ o e R. M ez JRM:sp Enc. LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT Qq _=GE 1 151 STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION • FOR VARIANCE The variance requested by the applicant should be allowed as the conditions and dedications required by the City of Tigard violate the applicant's rights under the Oregon and United States Constitutions. Specifically, the City's demand for dedication constitute an unlawful taking and violation of the Oregon Constitution, Article 1, Section 18 and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The proposed variance will not materially be detrimental to the purposes of the title nor conflict with the policy of the comprehensive plan as no park exists at this time nor does the City have sufficient funding in which to create a park that the bicycle/pedestrian path is theoretically going to be used to access. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot in that the building which the applicant proposes to construct cannot be erected without invading the City's proposed bicycle/pedestrian path if the land is dedicated. This hardship is not self-imposed but rather imposed by the City's dedication and the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship to the applicant. DATED this 26 day of March, 1991. KNAPPENBERGER & MENDEZ By: J E R. MEDE , OSB #82333 V6rney fo plicant • LUBA FILING - CSI/T'Y OF TIGARD EKHIBIT # a `1 PAGE ` I t CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE Applicant states the construction cost estimate for the building on the site is $352,000.00. Said construction cost estimate is based upon a cost of $20.00 per square foot for the 17,600 square foot building to be constructed on the site. KNAPPENBERGER & MENDEZ By: J S R. ME EZ, B #82333 V~6rney f A icant i LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT f Qq PAGE -Z'* 155 - PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION FILE NO:SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-0010 FILE TITLE: Dolan/Mendez APPLICANT: Knappenberger & Mendez OWNER: John T. Dolan Attn: Joseph R. Mendez Florence Dolan 1318 SW 12th Avenue 1919 NW 19th Ave. Portland, OR 97201 Portland, OR 97209 REOUEST, ZONE, LOCATION: . Applicant requests Site Development Review approval to allow construction of an approximately 17,600 square foot retail sales building. Applicant also requests Variance approval to allow: 1) retention of area within the 100 year floodplain, and area adjacent to the floodplain for bike path construction whereas the Community Development Code requires dedication of this area to the City; 2) retention of an existing roof sign on adjacent building whereas the Code requires removal of all roof signs. ZONE: CBD (Central Business District) LOCATION: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC, tax lot 700) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Central Business District NPO NO: 1 NPO.CHAIRPERSON: Ed Duffield PHONE NUMBER: 620-8494 CHECK ALL WHICH APPLY: % STAFF DECISION COMMENTS DUE BACK TO STAFF ON 4/25/ 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF HEARING: TIME:7:30 HEARINGS OFFICER DATE OF HEARING: TIME:7:00 CITY COUNCIL DATE OF HEARING: TIME:7:30 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND ATTACHMENTS: % VICINITY MAP % LANDSCAPING PLAN X NARRATIVE ARCHITECTURAL PLAN % SITE PLAN OTHER: PREPARE FOR PLANNER APPROVAL: % ADVERTISEMENT - TIGARD TIMES OREGONIAN % NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS TO BE MAILED LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE OF APPLICATION NOTICE TO DLCD - ATTACHMENTS: STAFF CONTACT: Ron Pomeroy LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE 2 Iri i ~ 02/27/91 14:54 $503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD ` 0007 GM OF TIGARD, OREGON SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION CITY OF TICARD, 13125 SW Hall, PO Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 - (503) 639-4171 FOR STAFF USE ONLY CASE NO. SP R C'I-O OTHER CASE NO'S; V)PT-R R RECEIPT NO. 611- Z-f ( 7 APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY: DATE: 1. GENERAL INFORMATION Application elements submitted: PROPERTY ADDRESS /LOCATION 12520 S.W. Main Street X (A) Application form (1) Tigard, Oregon X (B) Owner's signature/written 9%P AND TAX LOT NO. 2S1 ZAC, TAX LOT 700 authorization x (C) Title transfer instrument (1) SITE SIZE 1.67 x (D) Assessor's map (1) John T. Dolan PROPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDER* Fl r) nee nnl an (E) Plot plan (pre-app checklist) ADDRESS 1919 N.W. 19th Ave. PHONE 225-9009 X (F) Applicant's statement CITY Portland, Oregon ZIP 972m9 (pre--app checklist) APPLICANT* Attorney: Joseph R. Mendez (G) ADDRESS 1318 S.W. 12th Ave. PHONE 294-0442 arld~ae CITY Portland, Oregon ZIP 97201 X (H) Filing fee 23 *When the owner and the applicant are different (I) Construction Cost Estimate people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a leasee In possession with written authorization DATE DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE.: from the owner or an agent of the owner with written authorization. The owner(s) must sign this application in.the space provided on page two or FINAL DECISION DEADLINE: submit a written authorization with this application. COMP. PLAN/ZONE DESIGNATION: 2. PROPOSAL SUMMARY UbKphl ~'~n~ % ~ US I n~ F-SS 1 S 1- The owners of record of the subject property request site development review approval to N.P.O-. Number: 10 allow The construction of a 17 , 600 square foot building having a general Approval Date; retail sales facility Final Approval Date: Planning; LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARE EXHIBIT # a rj PAGE # 1~ t 02/27/91 14:54 b 503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD 008 List any variance, conditional use, sensitive lands, or other land use actions to be considered as part of this application: See Attachment A Applicants: To have a complete application you will need to submit attachments described in the attached information sheet at. the time you submit this application. THE APPLICANT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT: A. The above request does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed upon the subject property. B. If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. C. All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. Ul DATED this Z-9 day of March 19 91 IGNATURES of each owner (eg. husband and wife) of the subject property. X3J DOLAN FLORENCE DOLAN KSL:ps/0524P) LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT a CS PAGE ) 5 (p H~cly ( nJN-N.GOTIA3LE :.IREILL SHIPPER'S AGENT L:ur Y v PICKU? TIME AND DATE 5 8 PDX42$ ~..c~' (5( 241-0484 r' DATE: ..-PACKAGE E XPRESS ACCT. NO. c= y.•.r tA^ _ ( DECLARED DRIVE= b'v \ 1 VALUE g . NAME TELEPHO NE NAAdE TELEPHONE F COMPANY NAME TO (FROM): CO. ,PAN NAME 3 :la~i *;•~rC-rah. E•?''T~l=T•. 6 f}~E_ Y7C~E < - - _t ADDRESS RESS ✓ 0~ CITY STATE ZIP CITY" ' STATE ZIPREOUIRED C. T 't 7 u4 Y1d: ~f✓ - 2C _ _ . 7 REFERENCE. 1 Z" DEPTJOYbER NO. NAMEc" PARTY;:';: 'ids AOOR> SS CITY ''STATE: ZIP :BILLING BE" ' .v91ENT C US T 0itiEr~ C$. a DESCRIPTION :'WEI H - G T:::+: RATE MOUNT. AIR.EXPRESS= LOCAL DELIVERY : SPECIAL+ INST R UCT IONS ' AD' CEO;: 3 NEXT DAY A.M;_, ~ Exmr=SSLETTER ;(~tt~BwEErKDn» ; Mroeaz) ❑ FEES • FEES A SUPER RUSH' - INTERNATIONLOEXPRESS ENVELOPE WRONG f M to ttij DIRECT„ - _ - ADDRESS _ DEL 'NEXT DAY BY9 CUSTOMER PACKAGE ` " . ❑ WAITING--`., DEFERRED.::' • SAT - ❑ TIME 'SAME r OVERNIGHT TUBE Q _ DAY ❑ art ROUNDTRIP ❑ - Y - s OTHER c .ti:c LATE PICKUP ❑ ROUTE , t REGULAR ` l _ n ' s t ATTEMPT.: c f EXTRA CHARGE PP IESu` _ RUSH r f - DEL DEADLINE RECS ED Y TI ATE 'x' TIME DATE ATTEMPT RETURN TO ,TOTAL: • 'r ,::.rz.": Z:. _ _ _ - - '•rz: - - _ i.4 -i ~vt'.~h:-a ,t~G dT_+-♦r_+.y' ::Ja'd 'S*.v. ~!v j'gDi. '•T.f_.~:. - - - _ - - ~~'i3.a~•.f'1: rsi iZ'~'rr Sa:•'~~.. S~t Sta ]:'y5i a: isa--.}'Yt» -a~~:ts.•'~•.y}.3~=~3D°Z"y i "r':,i' - ~iv.'~`s=~d=:'si:. - i, St 1•. .fi :Y{:WrN..: r:: •:4 .yt~ it •aa. a"r. _ 3_~.w_. _ •.i%c°~'-Y t'':~.~> 'r;S...,~i 3:~ it ~.ir'lt•:!"s J.+s sf c: .>~-.4r,~i •I -J~. .4t_.a•'-`'.f•-^4{.;'' ;'K .tom .ii - - LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT w a CO PAGE r 1577 KNAPPENBERGER & MENDEZ JOSEPH R. MENDEZ ATTORNEYS AT LAW PETER MILLER *ALLAN F. KNAPPENBERGER HONEYMAN HOUSE OF COUNSEL 1318 S.W. 12TH AVE. PORTLAND, OREGON 97201-3367 FAX (503) 294-0442 (503) 294-4317 March 12, 1991 Jerry Offer 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: John and Florence Dolan Site Development Review Application Dear Mr. Offer: Please find enclosed herewith the Site Development Review Application, Applicant's Statement and Attachment A. In the event there is any problem with either the variance documents, attachments or time limitations, please notify my office immediately. S Thank you for your cooperation and consideration in this matter. Very truly yours, KNAPPEN ME EZ os M nd JRM:sp Enc. cc: John Dolan LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT T o~ (a PAGE I sl~ APPLICANT'S STATEMENT The applicant is requesting variances with regard to the dedications required which comprise approximately 7,000 square feet or ten percent (10%) of the subject parcel. Variances regarding the dedication of all portions of the property below the elevation of 150 feet that fall within the existing 100 year floodplain and all property fifteen (15) feet above, to the east of 150 foot floodplain boundary which is intended to be used as a pedestrian/bike path. In addition, the City has inappropriately characterized an existing sign as a roof sign. The applicant requests that the wall sign not be required to be removed within the forty-five day period set forth in the Notice of Final Order by City Council which became final on February 5, 1990. mot. DATED this day of 1991. O OLKN LORENCE DOLAN LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT 4 ;~(n PAGE ~Cj r ATTACHMENT A The property owner/deed holder is requesting approval of the variances listed below as consistent with section 18.134 et seq. of the code as follows: 1. Variance from the condition requiring dedication to the City as greenway all portions of the cite that fall within the existing 100 year floodplain (i.e. all portions of the property below elevation 150.0) and all property 15 feet above ft.-) the east of) the 150.0 foot flood plain boundary. 2. Variance from the condition requiring dedication of that portion of Petitioner's property for the purposes of a bike path. 3. Variance and the requirement that the "roof sign" that the owner/deed holder maintains is not a "roof sign" and should be accurately characterized as a "wall sign" be removed within 45 days of occupancy of the new building. LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT = aCD P ,GE F CPO .y l 1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE COUNTYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF TIGARD. WHEREAS, on September 18, 1990, the electors of Washington County approved Washington County Ordinance No. 379, establishing a County-wide tax on new development; and, WHEREAS, Section 3.17.110 of Ordinance No. 379 entitles each city to collect the tax, administer its provisions and retain 1008 of the proceeds upon adoption of a resolution or ordinance in accordance with Section 3.17.110; and, WHEREAS, the City of Tigard desires to collect and administer the tax in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. 379. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1. The City of Tigard shall administer the tax of the Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance within its City limits in full compliance with all of the terms of Washington'County Ordinance No. 379. Section 2. The City of Tigard accepts complete and sole responsibility for proper administration, including financial responsibility for any fund deficiencies arising at any time including upon termination- Section 3. The City of Tigard shall provide Washington County no less than 90 days written notice of termination of this Resolution and shall work with Washington County in a good faith and reasonable manner to provide a smooth transition to Washington County administration of the tax. Section 4. The City shall cooperate with Washington County and other cities within the County to adopt intergovernmental agreements setting forth more complete administrative and project funding procedures to ensure uniform and fair application of this tax. RESOLUTION NO. 90- Page 1 LUBA FILING - CITE' OF TIGARD EXHIBIT 'If -7 PAGE z Section 5_ City administration of the Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance shall GO' commence on October 22, 1990, or the date this Resolution is filed with the clerk of the Washington County Board, whichever occurs last. PASSED: This / ✓ day of Ot LCity JMayor. Tigard ATTEST: - u,-rU (,[>h ity Recorder - City of Tigar d7'/r-cwtif_rw RESOLUTION NO. 90-1~ Page 2 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT a1 Pa GE ( r✓n ~~)1 August 28, 1990 John Dolan, President CITY OF TIGA RD A-Boy Supply Co. VZ. 1919 N.W. 19th Street OREGON Portland, OR 97209 RE: A-Boy development Case No. SDR 89-13 Dear Mr. Dolan: I have reviewed your revised proposal for the redevelopment of the A-Boy property located at 12520 S.W. Main Street and I have the following comments: Procedure As we agreed earlier, the revised plan will be reviewed administratively as a new Director's Decision as was done with the original application (SDR 89-13). This' will 'include the preparation of an application and submittal of a Esite' play.laadscapitigplanaadaarrative" describing any aspects of the proposal that are not apparent on the plans (eg. proposed use or business to-occupy the buildings or phasing). I have attached a pre-application checklist which itemizes the information to be submitted as well as the required number of copies- Compliance with the Community Development Code The preliminary' site= plan= dated July 20th"appears -to be =in "conformity: with" Code . standards with the -.except iow~ of 'the -following: !71T.., 1. La ndscaping Landscaped:Earea =requirement for'>the= CBD' zone= is-- 15% sand =the plan- shows' 11%; > .includIng.:~the,•,=eland = toV*be-•r;dedicated -~`to`7` the4'City:=_. Earlier, it -was. agreed that this area near Fanno Creek-could be applied3towards'meeting.the landscaped area standard. If less than " 15t~landscapedf'area!t..is desired;t a.; Variance' application==must;~be submitted- witlia the ° Site. Development Review tapplicatioaand =the Variance criteria must"-be satisfied. Street trees are required with average spacing along the street frontage of, 20 to' 40 :.:feet>depending-:upon the mature size of the tree-.J;' This4-would' result.rin-= a=:requirement=-"for="between-- 7--and - 14 trees. . ~ ~ .,.k•_„sue '4=-:. -~3T-- - - Trees are, also'-required.;in the="parking area,at=<a ratio of 11F-"tree " per:; - parking :spaces:?:r-Tea titrees would ?'be necessary'-based upon the plan` you=-submitted.. _e:D`k' LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD • EXHIBIT g PAGE m Cs 3 13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503)639-4171 • 2. Parking The previous decision allowed a Variance to the parking standards to have 39 parking spaces instead of the 44 required for a 17,600 square foot retail'building. The two buildings now proposed total 37,000 square feet. The Code has a standard o€`1-parking space for - every 400 square: feet of: gross :floor larea =for -general retail activity and 1 space per 1,000 square feet for retail sales of bulky merchandise such as appliances, furniture, and carpeting. As before, a 'Variance will 'be-'-,necessary if -`theparking=arrangement does not comply with the above standards::, 3. Access The Code -requires ...that two-way.-: or :.one-way ; :driveways with . perpendicular-parking have ==a '.width of.:.24=' feet. The - driveway,- shown `s is:20'feet-in .width:, The Code-does-allow a reduction-in the'width of?a•=one-way:driveway- when the °-parking spaces are at an - angle. 1--The `attached pages from the Code illustrate this standard. Other than the items noted above, the conditions that applied to the approval of:~ SDR 89-13 :should be expected- to -apply to this proposal as well. Please submit: the' -revised :application as: indicated on-the attached ':'checklist =--and -we will process it promptly. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, 74~ Keith S. Liden Senior Planner c: Phil Grillo Ed Murphy DOLAN.3/kl LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT awl, PAGE a ~IJG fCb ( Staff f Date CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPLICATION CHECKLIST The items on the checklist below are required for the successful completion of your application submission requirements. This checklist identifies what is required to be submitted with your application. This sheet MUST be brought and submitted with all other materials at the time you submit your application. See your application for further explanation of these items or call Planning at 639-4171. ITEMS TO BE BASIC MATERIALS INCLUDED: A) Application form (1 copy) B) Owner's signature/written authorization C) Title transfer instrument 0) Assessor's map E) Plot or site plan [v~ F) Applicant's statement (G) List of property owners & addresses within 250 feet [ ] (H) Filing fee S ` ) [SIT SPECIFIC MATERIALS !O A) Site Information showing (No. of copies [f 1) Vicinity Map 2) Site size & dimensions 3) Contour lines (2 ft.at 0-10% or 5 ft. for grades > 10%) [s~]~ 4)._ Drainage:_patterns,:,courses, and. ponds„ 5) Locations of natural.,hazard areas including:. a) Floodplain areas: b) Slopes in excess of 25% [ ] c). Unstable ground-.., [ ) d) Areas with high seasonal,,water table -_:e); -Areas with.seyere•,soil erosion potential [ ] f) - Areas having:severely .weak:.,foundation soils [ ] 6) _ .Locatione.of -.resource-.,areas as;:.shown on -the .Comprehensive Map inventory including:-:- Wildlife,habitats b) Wetlands. qc„•~ s ;.y-? C ] 7) Other. site;::features,:-2_„ y,;_iv-:, a) Rock outcroppin s_ b)•. Trees with 6"-+ caliper measured 4 feet t from ground=.level, 8) :,:Location of.. existing structures.;=and.-thei-ruses [ 9), ;:Location. and, type ofron-,and; off=site noise sources [ ] 10): Location-of _existing=utilities, and easements [vj~ 11)_,-Location of.,existing.,dedicated,.r.ight-ofywaysb.. (O [vj/ B) Site Development Plan showing :1)-: The--proposed'site.and-surrounding--properties---"" [ Contour line intervals; 3) The location, dimensions and names of'all:-- a),-.. Existing,& platted streets & other public ways and easements--on the -site and on adjoining properties APPLICATION CHECKLIST - Page-1 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # 1 ~0 b) rroposed streets or other public ways & easements on the site. c) Alternative routes of dead end or proposed streets that require future extension [ ] 4) The location and dimension of: a) Entrances and exits on the site [y]am b) Parking and circulation areas c) Loading and services areas d) . Pedestrian and bicycle circulation [ e) Outdoor common areas, [ ] f) Above ground utilities 5) The location, dimensions & setback distances of all: a) Existing permanent structures, improvements, utilities and easements which are located on the site and on adjacent property within 25 feet of the site [t!~ b) Proposed structures, improvements, utilities and easements on the site [✓J' 6) Storm drainage facilities and analysis of downstream conditions [ ] 7) Sanitary sewer facilities 8) The location of areas to be landscaped [t~ 9) The location and type of outdoor'-lighting considering crime prevention techniques 10) The location of mailboxes [ ] 11) The.Jocation of all structures and their orientation 12) Existing or proposed sewer reimbursement agreements [ ] C) Grading Plan (No. of copies ) [ ] The site development plan shall include 'a-grading plan at the same scale as the site'-analysis-drawings and shall contain the following information: 1) The location and extent'to which grading will take place indicating general contour-:lines, slope ratios and soil stabilization-proposals; acid time of year it'is proposed to be done.' [ ] 2) A statement from a registered engineer supported by ` 'data factual' sub's tantiating:,r' ' a) Subsurface exploration and=geotechnical engineering' report":. b) The validity of?sanitary!=sewer:and storm drainage service proposals [ ] c) That all problems -wilUbe 'mitigated=and % how they will be mitigated [ ] D).. Architectural Drawings (No'of-copies). --The'"site development-plan proposal shall=include: 1) Floor plans indicating-the'scjuare footage of all . - C structures proposed for use on-site`-And tJ', 2).. Typical elevation drawings of `each stru;t-yire E) Landscape Plan `(No' of copies-- The'-landscape' plan shall' be drawn-at the same scale of the site analysis plan or a larger scale-if necessary and shall indicate: :1):' Description of the irrigation system where applicable •2) Location and height of fences;. buffers and screenings LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD APPLICATION CHECKLIST - Page 2 EXHIBIT # Q PAGE r I & (p r 3) Lo'•. _-.ion of terraces, decks, shelter play areas and common open spaces [ ] 4) Location, type, size and species of existing and proposed plant materials. The landscape plan shall include a narrative which addresses: 1) Soil conditions. [ ] 2) Erosion control measures that will be used. [ ] F) Sign Drawings Sign drawings shall be submitted in accordance with Chapter 18.114 of the Code as part of Site Development Review or prior to obtaining a Building Permit to construct the sign. [ ] G) Traffic generation estimate [ ] H) Preliminary partition or lot line adjustment map showing (No. of Copies 1) The owner of the subject parcel [ ] 2) The owner's authorized agent [ ] 3) The map scale, (20,50,100 or 200 feet=l), inch north arrow and date [ ] 4) Description of parcel location and boundaries [ ] 5) Location, width and names of streets, easements and other public ways within and adjacent to the parcel [ ] 6) Location of all permanent buildings on and within 25 feet of all property lines [ ] 7) Location and width of all water courses [ ] 8) Location of.any trees with 6" or greater caliper at 4 feet above ground level [ ] 9) All slopes greater than 25%- [ ] 10.), -Location-of existing utilities and utility easements [ ] For major.land partition which creates a public street: a) The.proposed ,right-of--way.. location and width [ ] b): A scaled cross-section of-the, proposed street :plus any reserve strip.. [ ] 12) Any applicable deed.restricti_ons. [ ] 13) Evidence that land partition will.not preclude efficient future-land division where applicable [ ] . I);-_:Subdivision Preliminary-Plat Map and data showin (No. of Copies ) . 1)-.rt±;;Scale equaling.: 30;50•;.100 or•-200 feet-to the inch and l imi ted to ::one": phase, :per. sheet...--...' [ ] 2)..:: The "proposed:-name of,the_subdivision [ ] 3) Vicinity map showing property's relationship to arterial ;and :collector streets [ ] 4) Names, addresses and telephone.-numbers of the owner developer, engineer, surveyer, designer, as applicable[ ] 5) Date of application* _ _ ( ] 6) Boundary lines of tract to be -subdivided--"" [ ] 7) Names of adjacent subdivision---or names--of-recorded owners of 'adjoining` parcels'-of -unsubdi-vided -land [ ] 8)" Contour lines related"to a City-established bench- - mirk at 2-foot"intervals-for' 0-10% grades greater_ • than 10% APPLICATION CHECKLIST - Page 3 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGAPM EXHIBIT PAGE I ct l V 9) The p.rpose, location, type and size o. all of the following (within and adjacent to the proposed subdivision): [ ] a) Public and private right-of-ways and easements [ ] b) Public and private sanitary and storm sewer lines [ ] c) Domestic water mains including fire hydrants [ ] d) Major power telephone transmission lines (50,000 volts or greater) [ ] e) Watercourses [ ] f) Deed reservations for parks, open space, pathways and other land encumbrances [ ] 10) Approximate plan and profiles of proposed sanitary and storm sewers with grades and pipe sizes indicated [ ] 11) Plan of the proposed water distribution system, showing pipe sizes and the location of valves and fire hydrants. [ ] 12) Approximate centerline profiles showing the finished grade of all streets including street extensions for a reasonable distance beyond the limits of the proposed subdivision. ' [ ] 13) Scaled cross sections of proposed street right-of-way; [ ] 14) The location of all areas subject to inundation or storm water overflow [ ] 15) Location, width and direction of flow of all water- courses and drainage ways [ ] 16) The proposed lot configurations, approximate lot dimensions and lot numbers. Where losts are to be used for purposes other than residential, it shall be indicated upon such lots [ ] 17) The location of all trees with a diameter 6 inches or greater measured at 4 feet above ground level, and the location of proposed tree plantings, if any [ ] 18) The' existing uses-of the property; including the location of all-structures and the present uses of the structures,' and a"statement of which structures are to remain after platting - [ ] 19) Supplemental information including: a)- Proposed deed restrictions (if any) [ ] b) Proof of property ownership . c) -.A. proposed=plan for_"provisionsubdivision _ improvements _ [ ] ' 20) r Existing--natural` feature§=1including rock--:out= L r cropping!;' wetlands and:.'marsh--areas 21) If any `of the foregoing information cannot practicably be 'shown on th(i'~preli61nary" plat; -it shall be incorporated into"a narrative and submitted with the applicati-ori: J) Other Information [ ] J.: (2362P/0028P) LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD APPLICATION CHECKLIST - Page 4 EXHIBIT paq PAGE n ( COQ, i M -E (1'##t€f([f(IFf~fff(ff~ffft;,f~ ° _ ''Yrtt~ ufr~ -~2fi," •t. tS i ~f°`-' ~J..1 "%F - A4 'ti"4.. a 1 It 4 M II 4 I LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT n 3 b PAGE r } ..y 1800 .6t Ac. 1801 e /C S I v / T 1.10Ac, S. No. , 132631 / 1900 ih P 40 123Ac. -ya3700'00 !J J 3600 °'a ? 54Ac. 1902'. ST i r / C 1. 49AC. Mp 6 100, ,tom , • ` ` / \yo ca n x 117 1901 /0 \ BPS / FOR ASSE.' DO NOT RI as h / \ ,QS p ayJ 2~7 Op• / \ ~ , G i0 ~ / \ 20 p G V ~V / / _ / CO a / v V lee" 'C ./0 Ac. ~j C.S.10102 -ro / 5400 Al \ r~~ GREEt:6AY.jg v \ 1 ,s p Ib* 3400 = 3 \ \ 3300 h 3500°° ~Ov 43 \ r 9°~ yo s° ,0 2\ a`- ck SEE 3100 y~ t~00 y 2S 1104,' 3 a` "-4'02Ac 3900 y , C3 I . h /BAc. • \>~~`~i ~F' 14~Ile/ .9y, W C°R ~i J~•~ pp 34/136 4100' `6 , • 6'~ 30-0,.; sib o~0 / zi 66 - 4400 `l , ab \3 \Y : ' c as i04c. F°' 5302 i r ti qb % K 4,500 'r ob7 0 F29Qc ° 5e Ac. s 9 2 \ ~'~•~,o ,pQia o \ ae K 10 / b` 0 \6: 4~J 5 1, •d" Oi Jo gafc yt6o '94 '0. •S '~i 5a X400;. ~ • ao F P~ os~ a ' Y~J a 481.9 00 ~J s° F \ Fs Ac. 34, ti 11'x2,100 agy r'y I a°~ J 10• / J ~es''ss use Ji, hyy 5301 9F 2 s r %15 p~ app / 2y k % E ODV'd 1561.7 N32°55'E TO i o 0 a Ja,.r : s •b- 0 WE CORNER OF THE ° J 9a• ~ 5a 'D' 2 p~ 0A[ O d bx/ c ayy`yb' 2Z1 o SOUTH 1/2 OF JOHN F l m.c \ "J 66 ro X5300' °tih 6/ J' / tiy5 oil NICKLIN 016.37MOST `rJ a 63 yag gyp' 60 NORTHERLY CORNER OF Jj 2 I N J oap \es ~ '6 1.44QC. \ BURNHAM TRACT. 10Gr ; \s ae go as eJ iah e v1 i . s e ` 23A c m s C2 i 9 \ J° Sy oa ,~g~ i , SEE MAP ~ 2S 1 2AC -r!.. m ti0 ai" 2-SJ 2,46 LUBA.FILING - CITY OF TIGA.RL- D EXHIBIT it \ PAGE - g ~T2.5 KEGON N8g°59w ~H1NG"(ON C~UN~Y OO', 0 Ww j'~10 ~ ~ S , ASE ` a ! o M M 1-p7 S i ED 'TAX ~AttCEl.1. 700, 2400, SO U T ED', • .o • N 111oR pgC/F O o n ~ Gt 1 es.sso22c ° 1 ~ BT i 4q6 3,8? 43 AC o 67•gg - 38 T / CN 1 N AR _ Goo ► Boo tnq . to '69AG I 1.07 AC• 10 N64°49' I°o 3I :CR NO e96 O 60 f ,Jp+ " 8c, r (GS.No.11T011 90 Tg~ A~ to a 0 u o h i-•'S N I h I N ^ 1/ t goo b to a n ~V 3gpc. 901 0 0i N~ 59 ha t004Ac C"' ~ I a, I `V y a Z.34 60 N W p ^qy'w 6° ryN 1 X40 ° ' °o. r M .9 . 8 4 Q 1 J ~V 0) a b ,yse o s s Iv s° 4, rep t z V. I\Oo MM S*T Q d~ .6 C• a' o ,w a o a 0 t }q MAa S. i 2 9p! ado ~s tt~Q N SFyapsF . t6 AC s .y ~ ~~O ape tgOt '2s~so J'F 4b* ASS~SSMEN~ C ~QR ONLY •78 Ac. 705pc• ~FF,P pi1RP0s RELY ON FOR 04NY0Q~H~R USE. 5 r `v so°JSS t 400 r s~ 3.73AC. 8q 1111-.10, / • o 150? all w I. 10 4 . e~ NO 1500 10 q ^ 28A c. s 4 ` y 075 ► SZSB•gS kC.S.No.114491 tat o go 04 AC, 5 Qt 9° ly t3° ro~O N' 200;'.r• ; PO t~J 6t.~4„«..a }v Z`P 104 Ac. 13 310AC 5 O v 90'k, , W M 0 X23 °j ~ 7O AC- 0 P o~60 F 07dC ~~~,1 M~ 53 c M W Mo'~Mb \ \ 1190, q 4r C M M CR tvo o . e~9 3., o 13p0 ` C qCy `y .20AC T 1 _PI MAP dv \ 80 ZgS 1 254 40w A4~ o`. cZ of rTGNRO CZ4ZNG ~ E~Z4Z`1' _ u 1561.7 N 32'55'E TO S. f/f N.E I/4 SECTION 2 T2S ~ •I•~ W.M. N.E. CORNER OF THE -2AC SOUTH 1/2 OF JOHN WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON \a1 CS = HICKUN01L.3TMOST NORTHERLY ~PO~P~ BURNHAM CORNER ; / SCALE I"=100' \N\OAN~pN 9° 1= 0 500 's 0 .4c 0 Z~ ' 600 yyo5 .!/AC.pO °o 'h i = Z\Sy ti 6 4 p 4 \ use 700 mp c , ? J ; 05 \ J c C 67A c. \p°r\ b y"oe 4 Ny1 400G 800. 9, ,►s "s °ar e"y ZZA c. ~~ya 1 ` s ~rB s"y s s2 ` 300 - do O/Act SEE MAP .900.,'.0 e ' s SEE MAP ti 72Ac. f / We o 2S 1 2AB 2S 12BA IOOO 1t9o g\~~ ZOO,: 1 CANCELLED 03AC / Jp. 0 1702,4 101 A-1 1900 . " ?J k 2.9/1 c. r 2001, 2100.2000. 10~' 30 L \\9 ~ . J yE NbBo39 400~~ (C.S.No.12061) - 1101 4 YRT r? yy~ \ 63 Ac 536e yA3~ o c \ ti9~ : ~ yoyA ~ ~ \ 'J\ ~ 0 532• N6 soy ~e~ \ >lC•S.No.11945) f 1:200 SEE MAP 145Ac \ o / 2:02- - 2S 12AD ey 11'00 E . • s 1300 .68Ac ~h y1 90Ac. X30 D !J f~ H r~ ~~i) o . 1400, p, >:9 l /Ac. op F 100. ~C y 1500 4.71 Ac. y0 0 - 0 4.02 Ac. a o / 7 YJ 'C = 3 \ J F 'a = \ of \ e 2'03.,:.. ° \ v 7! A c. \ d 16 1600 y 9i• v. 9o +ti to o\" .41 Ac. / ?00 \"y / 4 JJ ti \ \ \\\1" ~ ~ 9O~ y 3 74 yo 4 ~o o \a'' \4 a 1hs 22001 3.80 Ac. a e -r ~ r 6,J .y ~ti oy 6° \ J• y9e 2p° r ✓ 60 a"y 1703 / '201' ~'t .18Ac. 47Ac. s o"- 1700 \ e \ ti W . ' by 15Ac6 y00. 40 yy~ 1800 ys / yoov LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT #J h` 90 i o~~ \0°1° a° ° PAGE n a \z \ ~0' /i ` \s \ 2301 y'so CERTIFICATE OF FILING I, Catherine Wheatley, hereby certify that on October 30, 1991, I filed the original of this INDEX AND RECORD in LUBA 91-161 with the Land Use Board of Appeals, Suite 220, 100 High Street, S.E., Salem, Oregon 97310 by first class mail. DATED: October 30, 1991. Catherine Wheatley Tigard City Recorder CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Catherine Wheatley, hereby certify that on October 30, 1991, I served a true and correct copy of this INDEX AND RECORD in LUBA No. 91-161 by first class mail to on the following persons: Joseph R. Mendez Attorney at Law Knappenberger & Mendez Honeyman House 1318 S.W. 12th Avenue Portland, OR 97201-3367 UV Catherine Wheatley Tigard City Recorder • IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON ' JOHN T. DOLAN and FLORENCE DOLAN ) LUBA No. 91-161 ' Petitioners, ) ) VS. ) Appellate Court CA No. A73769 CITY OF TIGARD, ) Respondent. ) ) ' RESPONDENT'S BRIEF Judicial Review of Final Opinion and Order of the Lana Use Board of Appeals. ' David B. Smith, OSB #88315 Virginia Linder, OSB #80294 8255 S.W. I-iunziker, Suite 200 Solicitor General P.O. Box 230637 State of Oregon ' Tigard, Oregon 97281-0637 Justice Building (503) 620-0258 Salem, Oregon 97301 (503) 378-4402 ' Attorney for Petitioners, Jo.n and Florence Dolan Attorney for LUBA ' James M. Coleman, GSB #76101 O'Donnell, Ramis, Crew & Corrigan ' 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street. Portland, Oregon 97209 ;503; 222-440?_ Attoriey for Respondent, City of 'J'igard i TABLE OF CONTENTS ' Page STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ' Material Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Questions Presented on Appeal . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 ' RESPONSE TO FIRST AND SECOND ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR • • . . . . - 3 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 I I ' 11 ' TABLE OF AUTHORITIES UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT OPINIONS Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 US 419, 102 S Ct 3164, ' 73 L Ed2d 868 (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 6 Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, ' 483 US 825, 107 S Ct 3141, 97 L Ed2d 677 (1987). 6, 7, 8, 9 ' UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 9TH CIRCUIT OPINIONS ' Parks v. Watson, 716 P2d 646, 653 (9th Cir 1983) . 7 OREGON SUPREME COURT OPINIONS Department of Transportation v. Lundberg, 312 Or 568, 577, P2d (1992) . . . . . . . . . . 7, 8 State v. Weeks, 107 Or App 575, 813 P2d 1066 (1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Younger v. City of Portland, 305 Or 346, 752 P2d 262 (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 OREGON LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS OPINIONS ' Dolan v. City of Tigard, Or LUBA (1992) (LUBA No. 91-161, February 7, 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 2, 4, 7 O'Keefe v. City of West Linn, 14 Or LUBA 284 (1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION Amendment V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 3, 5 Amendment XIV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 3, 5 OREGON CONSTITUTION S Article I, Section 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 3, 4, 5 ' OTHER AUTHORITIES ORAP 5.45(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Respondent accepts petitioners' Statement of the Case with the following additional material facts, and qualifications to ' their questions presented on appeal. Material Facts The Land Use Board of Appeals concluded that petitioners had not questioned nor challenged the legitimacy of the public purpose served by the establishment of a greenway for storm water management in the floodplain of Fanno Creek and by providing pedestrian/ bicycle pathway systems as an alternate means of transportation. LUBA further found that the petitioners did not challenge the sufficiency of the "nexus" ' between these legitimate public purposes and the condition imposed by the City requiring dedication of the portions of petitioners' property for greenway and pedestrian/bicycle pathway purposes. Dolan v. City of Tigard, Or LUBA _ (1992), (LUBA No. 91-161, February 7, 1992)'slip op at 6; Rec. 203. The city's decision includes specific findings addressing the impacts of the proposed development and the relationship ' between the impacts of the proposed development and the required dedication of land for greenway and pedestrian/ bicycle path purposes. Dolan, slip op 7, 8; Rec. 204, 205. Petitioners did not challenge the adequacy of the city's findings or the evidence supporting those findings at LUBA. Dolan, slip op at ' 8; Rec. 205. Petitioners only challenged the city's decision on the ' basis of alleged violations of petitioners' rights under the ' 2 Oregon and United States Constitutions. Dolan, slip op at 5; Rec. 202. The constitutional challenges were raised in the First and Second Assignments of Error. LUBA specifically considered and denied the First and Second Assignments of Error. ' Dolan, slip op at 15; Rec. 212. LUBA also denied petitioners' Third Assignment of Error which is not at issue in this proceeding and affirmed the city's decision. Dolan, slip op at 16; Rec. 213. Respondent specifically rejects the assertion by petitioners in their Statement of Material Facts at page 6 of the Petition for Review that LUBA made no finding as to whether the dedication requirement was an unconstitutional taking of property. ' Questions Presented on Appeal Respondent accepts petitioners' characterization of the ' questions presented on appeal in their Questions #1 and #3. However, Questions #2 and #4 are incorrectly framed to direct ' the court's attention to the decision of the City Council and ' not the decision of the Land Use Board of Appeals. The matter before this court is the decision of the Land Use Board of ' Appeals and not the decision of the Tigard City Council. Younger v. City of Portland, 305 Or 346, 752 P2d 262 (1988). ' SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS The decision of the Land Use Board of Appeals should be affirmed. LUBA correctly articulated the limitations imposed by 1 Article I, Section 18 of the Oregon Constitution, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution on ' a city's authority to require dedication of property as a condition of development approval. LUBA reviewed the city's 1 ' 3 decision in light of these constitutional limitations and properly concluded that the decision did not constitute an ' uncompensated taking of property. Petitioners' assertion that any physical invasion of petitioners' property is a per se unconstitutional taking of property is not supported by the case law and was not presented a by petitioners to the Land Use Board of Appeals. On either or both basis, petitioners' argument should be rejected. Petitioners did not challenge the city's findings or conclusions, and did not challenge the evidentiary support for the city's findings in their Assignments of Error before the 1 Land Use Board of Appeals. Petitioners may not now present argument challenging the sufficiency of the evidentiary support for the city's decision or the adequacy of the city's findings. RESPONSE TO FIRST AND SECOND ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Respondent will combine its argument on Assignments of Error No. 1 and 2 because they are essentially the same and this presentation will be most efficient if the arguments are combined. ' Assignment of Error No. 1 alleges that LUBA erred in concluding that the city's requirement for dedication of property for pedestrian/ bicycle pathway purposes was not an uncompensated taking of property in violation of Article I, Section 18 of the Oregon Constitution and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Petitioners' Second Assignment of Error again alleges violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution in connection with the city's decision to ' 4 require dedication for pedestrian/bicycle pathway purposes, in addition to greenway purposes. ' In analyzing the State constitutional claim, LUBA held that there must be a "reasonable relationship" between the condition requiring dedication for both greenway and pedestrian/ bicycle pathway purposes, and the impacts of a proposed development, in order to not infringe upon property rights guaranteed by Article I, Section 18 of the Oregon Constitution. Petitioners argued in their Amended Petition for Review before LUBA that the I "reasonable relationship" test articulated in O'Keefe v. City of West Linn, 14 Or LUBA 284 (1986), was the appropriate standard 1 by which to evaluate the challenged condition of the city's i development approval. Rec. 124-125. LUBA agreed with petitioners, applied that test and concluded that such a ' "reasonable relationship" exists in this case. Dolan, slip op at 8-9, Rec. 205-206. Petitioners take a different approach to the Oregon ' Constitution taking claim before this court. In their Petition for Review, at p. 9, they cite this court to a 1933 Oregon ' Supreme Court case dealing with flooding of property. That case involved bridge construction by a county which resulted in the ' permanent flooding of the plaintiff's property. That case is distinguishable from the facts of this case in which petitioners have requested the necessary development approvals to allow for an intensification of use on their commercial property. Petitioners will not have to dedicate property unless they carry ' through on the approved intensification of use of their commercial property. LUBA has correctly stated the standard by ' S which the city's decision must be evaluated in determining ' whether the imposition of the condition constitutes an ' uncompensated taking of property under the Oregon Constitution.1 In articulating their federal taking claim, petitioners now rely on Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 US 419, 102 S Ct 3164, 73 L Ed2d 868 (1982). Before LUBA this r opinion only warranted a footnote reference in Petitioner's ' Brief, and the theory of a per se taking was never presented by them. See Rec. 110. The Loretto case involved the unilateral action by the State of New York through the adoption of a statute to force a landlord to allow cable television companies ' access to their property for the purpose of installing CATV ' facilities. Loretto is not controlling due to the facts presented by this case which involve a request for a development ' approval by petitioners to allow for the intensification of the commercial use of their property. No dedication of property ' is required of petitioners unless they choose to develop their commercial use as proposed and thereby increase the impacts that r the use of their property has on the city's public facilities. The Supreme Court in Loretto made very clear that the scope of its holding was very limited and was not to be construed to t be a limitation on the government's broad power to regulate the use of property. Loretto only limits the attempt by government r to unilaterally force property owners to allow for the physical 1 1The city presented its analysis of the case law setting the I limitations imposed on government action by Article I, Section 18 of the Oregon Constitution, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution in its brief before LUBA, found ' in the record at Rec. 177-194. For brevity's sake, that analysis will not be repeated in this brief. r 6 ' invasion of their property by third parties. Loretto, 458 US 419, 441. ' The petitioners also argue at length concerning their interpretation of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, ' 483 US 825, 107 S Ct 3141, 97 L Ed2d 677 (1987). Petitioners' misunderstanding and misapplication of that case is clearly articulated by LUBA in its slip opinion at pages 9-15; Rec. 206-212. Nollan does not, as petitioners argue, change the necessary connection that must exist between a condition and the impacts of a development. To the extent that Nollan requires any greater scrutiny of a government's decision to impose a dedication requirement as a condition of a development approval, that scrutiny is to be focused upon the connection between the articulated governmental interest being furthered by the ' development regulation and the particular condition that is being imposed. ' In Nollan, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that such a ' connection was utterly lacking between the California Coastal Commission's regulation and the condition of approval. LUBA, ' after analyzing the findings in the city's decision, determined that in this case there is a sufficient connection between the city's requirement for dedication of greenway and 1 pedestrian/ bicycle paths and the condition that was imposed requiring dedication. The city's factual basis and reasoning ' concerning the connection were not challenged by petitioners before LUBA. ' LUBA concluded that the Nollan opinion does not modify the ' federal test for the requisite connection between a condition of 7 approval and the impacts of a development necessary to support that condition. Dolan, slip op at 9-11; Rec. 206-208. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that a development exaction must have a "reasonable relationship" to ' the impacts or the needs created by a proposed development. ' Parks v. Watson, 716 P2d 646, 653 (9th Cir 1983). The U.S. Supreme Court, in the only portion of the Nollan opinion that discusses the required connection between a condition and the impacts necessary to justify the condition, leads off a string citation with reference to Parks v. Watson. Nollan, 483 US 825, 839. Respondent agrees with LUBA's conclusion that Nollan 1 does not alter that test. ' In Department of Transportation v. Lundberg, 312 Or 568, P2d (1992), the Oregon Supreme Court had the opportunity to explain the holding in the Nollan decision and apply that holding to the City - of Portland's sidewalk dedication requirements. The Oregon Supreme Court construes Nollan to hold that a dedication condition to a development approval will result in an unconstitutional taking of property unless there is ' an "essential nexus" between the land use regulation that the permit condition is intended to implement and the permit condition. Lundberg, 312 Or 568, 576. The Oregon Supreme Court went on to state that in Nollan the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the permit condition did not serve any of the purposes ' relied on by the California Coastal Commission to justify its imposition. The lack of nexus between the permit condition and ' the purpose of the building restriction converted that action ' into an unconstitutional taking of property without 8 ' compensation. Lundberg, 312 Or 568, 577. The Oregon Supreme Court then analyzed the impact of Nollan ' on the City of Portland's sidewalk dedication requirements. That ordinance requires the dedication of land for sidewalk ' purposes when there is an intensification of the use of property. Similarly, the Tigard Development Code provisions considered by LUBA require pathway and greenway dedication as a precondition of the intensification of use requested by petitioners. The Oregon Supreme Court found a reasonable ' relationship between the City of Portland's purpose in protecting pedestrians and mitigating negative impacts of the ' intensification of the use of property and the dedication ' requirement. The Court stated that the Portland ordinance substantially furthers the purposes articulated by the city. . . An 'essential nexus' exists between development of property abutting public streets and sidewalk dedication. The sidewalk dedication requirement in PCC §17.88.010 serves the same legitimate governmental purposes that would justify denying defendants' permits to develop their commercially zoned ' properties. Although the sidewalk dedication requirement results in an appropriation of land for a public use, security & Invest. Co. v. Oregon City, 161 Or 421, 432, 90 P2d 467 (1939), under Nollan that requirement would not be considered a taking if it were attached to a permit to develop property. See Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, supra, 483 US at 836. PCC §17.88.010 is, therefore, a valid regulation of the use to which Defendants property can be put." Lundberg, 312 Or 568, 578. i Petitioners have not questioned the legitimacy of the public purposes supporting the city's requirements for providing ' an adequate storm drainage system and an adequate transportation ' system. On the contrary, at LUBA they admitted that these purposes are, "all valid, even laudable, public goals." Rec. 128. LUBA correctly found that the city's means of 9 implementing these legitimate public purposes through the dedication requirements establishes a sufficient connection or "nexus" in order to survive an allegation of violation of the Federal Constitution. Petitioners' argument that Nollan creates a greater limitation on government action is incorrect. Finally, Respondent agrees with LUBA's conclusion that the city adequately explained in its decision the relationship between the condition imposed and the impacts of the petitioners' proposed development. Petitioners before LUBA did not challenge the adequacy of the city's findings, nor the evidentiary support for those findings and is precluded from ' raising such a challenge in this proceeding. State v. Weeks , 1 107 Or App 575, 813 P2d 1066 (1991); ORAP 5.45(2). DATED this day of March, 1992. 1 Respectfully submitted, O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN 1 By. JWqA M. Coleman, OSB #76101 1 N.W. Hoyt Street 1 Portland, Oregon 97209 (503) 222-4402 Of Attorneys for Respondent 1 I CERTIFICATE OF FILING ' I hereby certify that on March 27, 1992, I filed the original and 20 copies of the foregoing Respondent's Brief, with the State Court Administrator, Supreme Court Building, 1163 ' State Street, Salem, Oregon 97310 by first class mail, with postage thereon prepaid, and placed in the U.S. Mails at Portland, Oregon. DATED this Z1 day of March, 1992. O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN i By. J yet M. Coleman, OSB #76101 Of torneys for Respondent i CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I hereby certify that on March 27, 1992, I served two, true and correct copies of this Respondent's Brief, by first ' class mail to the following persons: Virginia L. Linder ' Solicitor General 400 Justice Building Salem, Oregon 97310 ' David B. Smith, OSB #88315 8255 S.W. Hunziker, Suite 200 P.O. Box 230637 ' Tigard, Oregon 97281-0637 Attorney for Petitioners Land Use Board of Appeals 100 High Street, S.E., Suite 220 ' Salem, Oregon 97310 DATED this Al day of March, 1992. ' O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN 1 By m s M. Coleman, OSB #76101 O ttorneys for Respondent 1 - CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND MAILING KNAPPENBERGER & MENDE^Z"EIVED PLANNING JOSEPH R. MENDEZ ATTORNEYS AT LAW PETER MILLER ALLAN F. KNAPPENBERGER ' HONEYMAN HOUSE OCT 0 9 1991 OF COUNSEL 1318 S.W. 12TH AVE. PORTLAND, OREGON 97201-3367 FAX (503) 294-0442 (503) 294-4317 October 2, 1991 Land Use Board of Appeals 100 High Street S.E. Suite 220 Salem, Oregon 97310 Re: John T. and Florence v. City of Tigard Dear Sir or Madam: Please find enclosed for filing with the Land Use Board of Appeals an original and two copies of Petitioner's Notice of Intent to Appeal. I have enclosed this firm's check in the amount of $200.00 representing the $50.00 filing fee and $150.00 deposit required by the Land Use Board of Appeals. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the above, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration in this matter. Very truly yours, KNAPPENBERGER & MENDEZ Joseph R. Mendez JRM:sp Enc. cc: John T. and Florence Dolan Timothy V. Ramis, Esq. City of Tigard 1 BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS 2 OF THE STATE OF OREGON 3 JOHN T. DOLAN and FLORENCE DOLAN, ) 4 ) Petitioners, ) 5 ) VS. ) LUBA NO. 6 ) CITY OF TIGARD, ) NOTICE OF INTENT 7 ) TO APPEAL 8 Respondent. ) 9 I. 10 Notice is hereby given that Petitioners intend to appeal the 11 land-use decision of Respondent entitled Notice of Final Order 12 By City Council, that became final on September 17, 1991, which 13 involves a site development review appeal of tax map and lot number 14 2S1 2AC, Tax Lot 700, commonly referred to as 12520 S.W. Main 15 Street, regarding the reconstruction of a general retail sales 16 facility, A-Boy Electric Plumbing & Supply, with a new 17,600 17 square foot building on a 1.67 acre parcel, subject to fifteen (15) 18 conditions. A copy of said Notice of Final Order is attached 19 hereto, marked as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this 20 reference. 21 I I . 22 Petitioners, John T. Dolan and Florence Dolan are represented 23 by: Joseph R. Mendez of Knappenberger & Mendez, Attorneys at Law, 24 Honeyman House, 1318 S.W. Twelfth Avenue, Portland, Oregon, 97201- 25 3367, telephone (503) 294-0442. ?ac 1 - NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL OWN 70 BE 1 !a COPY" KNAPPENBERGER & MENDEZ ATTORNEYS AT LAW HONEYMAN MOUSE 1318 S.W. 12TH AVE. PORTLAND. OREGON 97201.3367 (503)294.0442 L Respondent, City of Tigard, has as its mailing address and 2 telephone number: 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, 3 Oregon, .97223, telephone (503) 639-4171; and has as its legal 4 counsel: Timothy V. Ramis of O'Donnell, Ramis, et al., Attorneys 5 at Law, 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street, Portland, Oregon, 97209. 6 III. 7 Other persons mailed written notice of the land-use decision 8 by City of Tigard as indicated by its records in this matter 9 include: John T. Dolan and Florence Dolan, 405 S.E. Brooklyn, 10 Portland, Oregon, 97202. 11 NOTICE: 12 Anyone designated in Paragraph III of this Notice who desires 13 to participate as a party in this case before the Land Use Board 14 of Appeals must file with the Board a Motion to Intervene in this 15 proceeding as required by OAR 661-10-050. 16 KNAPPENBERGER & MENDEZ 17 18 By:/s/Joseph R. Mendez JOSEPH R. MENDEZ, OSB #82333 19 Trial Attorney for Petitioners 20 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 21 I hereby certify that on October 2, 1991, I served a true and 22 correct copy of this Notice of Intent to Appeal on all persons 23 listed in Paragraphs II and III of this Notice, pursuant to 24 25 / ?age 2 - NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL KNAPPENBERGER & MENDE? ATTORNEYS AT LAW HONEYMAN MOUSE 1318 S.W.12TH AVE. PORTLAND, OREGON 97201.3367 (503) 294-0442 1 OAR 661-10-015(2) by first-class mail, postage paid and deposited 2 in the Post office at Portland, Oregon. 3 KNAPPENBERGER & MENDEZ 4 5 By:/s/Joseph R. Mendez JOSEPH R. MENDEZ, OSB #82333 6 Trial Attorney for Petitioners 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 3 - NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL KNAPPENBERGER & MENDE? ATTORNEYS AT LAW HONEYMAN HOUSE 1318 S.W.12TH AVE. PORTLAND. OREGON 97201-3387 (503) 294-0442 CITY OF TIGARD January 21, 1994 OREGON Keith Garcia U. S. Department of Justice Environmental & Natural Resources Division General Litigation Section Eighth Floor - Room 841 601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW - Washington, DC 20004 Dear Mr. Garcia: Per your request, attached are the following documents pertaining to the Dolan case: Tigard Area Comprehensive Pedestrian/Bicycle Pathway Plan City of Tigard Park Plan - City of Tigard Parks Master Plans - Design Narrative City of Tigard Title 18 (also known as Community Development Code (as of 3/91) LUBA No. 91-161 - Dolan vs. City of Tigard - Index and Record City of Tigard Master Drainage Plan Charges are as follows: 948 copies @ .25 per page - $237.00 Please make your check payable to the City of Tigard, and send to my attention. Thank you. Sincerely, r~ C t u-r-c Catherine Wheatley City Recorder - attachment h:\W91n\lo\bNng1tr 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 ATTN: KEITH GARCIA U S DEPT OF JUSTICE ENVIRONMENTAL & NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION GENERAL LITIGATION SECTION EIGHTH FLOOR - ROOM 841 601 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON DC 20004 FED EXP. 151012922 3RD PARTY 167672221 r3l a l ~i r~c~~ cry YO -%.a3 7. 1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 93- AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTERS 18.3 0 , 18.3 2 , AND 18.142 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE; COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 2.1.2 AND THE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES FOLLOWING POLICY 2.1.3 AND 11.5.1, AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION 82-13 AND 82-14. WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council set as a priority broadening citizen involvement; and WHEREAS, The City of Tigard reviewed the Board and Committee structure for citizen involvement; and WHEREAS, The Tigard City Council has determined that citizen involvement will be better served with modifications to the Board and Committee structure; and WHEREAS, the Neighborhood Planning Organizations (NPOs) will be succeeded by Citizen Involvement Teams (CITs); and WHEREAS, references to the NPOs in the Community Development Code and Comprehensive Plan are no longer applicable; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission reviewed the staff recommendations at a public hearing on July 12,1993 and voted to recommend approval of the amendment to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the amendments are in compliance with the State Planning Goals and City Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on July 27, 1993 to consider the amendment. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Community Development Code shall be amended as shown in Exhibit "A". Language to be added is underlined. Language to be deleted is shown in [brackets]. SECTION 2: Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan shall be amended as shown in Exhibit "B". Language to be added is underlined. Language to be deleted is shown in brackets. This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. 1 ORDINANCE No. 93- Page A-1, PASSED: By (~t1Ct ~'1 rf, VuS vote of all Council members present after being re Ad by number and title only, this day of 1993. Catherine Wheatley, City Record APPROVED: This day of Gt , 1993. a Id-R-. Edwards, Mayor Approved as to form: Cit Att rney 2 1-3 Date ORDINANCE No. 93- Page a' L EXHIBIT A one G4:ty shall eent:inue infermt in -a timely manner, apprepria-te all land use planning inatters. <_3-. The City shall continue to assist and support any City Council recognized citizen group in providing adequate meeting places, distribution of materials, policy direction and staff involvement. Additional citizen task forces shall be appointed by the City Council, as the need arises, to advise the City with regard to Comprehensive Plan issues. POLICY 2.1.2 THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROVIDED BY THE CITY SHALL BE APPROPRIATE TO THE SCALE OF THE PLANNING EFFORT AND SHALL INVOLVE A BROAD CROSS-SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY: a. Zlgq tyf~¢.e`Y ♦}'t~~[~~~!Y}~~ i:4, ' !/M,-. ~('A,{. _ .jiC~:.~:uW:;yK.`.-:-~y+..:.:,y;.},r~pn~:. .:~♦J_;1.+.. ...:.eKrl.: .:.i'::: }i::i::::}'4': r r4 J,•l1l'1v:i s~J:YZ1tiii.i:::~J1::~:~E::::'1-:i~~~JG:-~:i~S r-':1:-i{i~ i`►Y11\i-:4-".ii}~e:-.Y' "?(~':::yy~: i-1 ..{y}~~y...fr ..L1: ~Cii:Y r b. WHERE APPROPRIATE, OTHER INVOLVEMENT TECHNIQUES WILL BE USED; AND j INVOLVEMENT++rSHALL-BE+I2ESPONS-IBLE-FOR CLMUIATTTEIE NG FOR CITIZIEN+++ THE CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT~PROGRAM AND FOR WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS IN RECOMMENDING CHANGES IN THE PROGRAM. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 1. The Committee for Citizen Involvement andt:~ Pie4:ghber-heed Planning Grganizatiens shall conduct their citizen involvement programs in accordance with the needs of the Tigard community and LCDC Goal #1 requirements. A review and evaluation of each group's programs and processes shall be reported to the Planning Commission and City Council on a yearly basis. 2. The City Council, the Planning Commission, M the Committee for Citizen Involvement and the Neighber-heed Planning shall recommend, as needed, additional methods for involving citizens in the planning process. II-10 \ EXHIBIT A POLICY 2.1.3 THE CITY SHALL ENSURE THAT INFORMATION ON LAND USE PLANNING ISSUES IS AVAILABLE IN AN UNDERSTANDABLE FORM FOR ALL INTERESTED CITIZENS. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 1. The City shall continue to publish information on land use planning issues in a form accessible to all citizens- and shall use the Gemmittee f er Gitizen-invelve r-eseut-ees -fe per-mi ng sueh rrevlews. II-10 I EXHIBIT "A" Chapter 18.30 PROCEDURES FOR DECISION MAKING: LEGISLATIVE Sections: 18.30.010 Purpose 18.30.020 The Application Process 18.30.030 Time Periods: submission/Hearings 18.30.040 Additional Information Required, Waiver of Requirements and Report Required 18.30.050 Duties of the Director 18.30.060 Recommendation and Alternative Recommendation by the Director 18.30.070 Consolidation of Proceedings 18.30.080 Public Hearing: Notice Requirements 18.30.090 Mechanics of Giving Notice and Failure to Give Notice 18.30.100 Hearings Procedure 18.30.110 Continuation of the Public Hearing 18.30.120 The Standards for the Decision 18.30.130 Approval Process and Authority 18.30.140 Vote Required for a Legislative Change 18.30.150 The Final Decision 18.30.160 The Record of the Public Hearing 18.30.170 Reapplication 18.30.010 Purpose A. The purpose of this chapter is to establish procedures applicable to the community development code for consideration of legislative changes to the provisions of the comprehensive plan, implementing ordinances and maps. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.30.020 The Application Process A. A request for a legislative change may be initiated by: 1. Order of the Council; 2. Resolution of a majority of the Commission; 3. The Director; Any persons or the person's agent authorized in writing to make the application. B. The applicant shall be required to meet with the Director for a preapplication conference. Revised 02/27/89 Page 35 EXHIBIT "A" C. As a result of the-public hearing on the proposed change, the Commission may on its own motion recommend to the Council an alternative recommendation, however, in addition, the Commission must take action on the specific application before it. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52 Exhibit A (part), 1983.) 18.30.070 Consolidation of Proceedings A. In the event there is an application for a legislative change to the plan text or map, and an application for a legislative change to an implementing ordinance text or map, both of which involve either the same geographic area or the same subject matter, the hearings may be consolidated, however: 1. The decision on the proposed plan change shall precede the decision on the proposed change to the implementation ordinance; 2. Separate actions shall be taken on each application; and 3. The change to the implementing ordinance shall implement the change to the plan. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52 Exhibit A (part), 1983.) 18.30.080 Public Hearing: Notice Requirements A. The Commission shall hold at least one public hearing on each application request. B. The Council shall hold at least one public hearing on each application request. C. Notice of the public hearings on the proposed change and alternatives, if any, shall be given by the Director in the following manner: 1. At least 10 days prior to the scheduled hearing date, notice shall be sent to: a. The applicant; b. Any affected governmental agency; C. The FF a vRqPqpioRd ..i,.. Y:.., 7 - ~l-}}ii:JiJir+i+%f.:k iix:i+ri4iv:F:3iYr+:_iiii:i•+I..+~'>:++!i: Si:+i: ii..... ~.'+ii+:iA'fiiC d. Any person who requests notice in writing and pays a fee established by Council resolution; and 2. At least 10 days prior to the scheduled public hearing date, notice shall be given in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. Revised 02/27/89 Page 40 EXHIBIT "A" 18.32.010 Purpose A. The purpose of this chapter is to establish procedures under this title for the consideration of development applications, for the consideration of quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendments and for appeal or review of decisions. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.020 The Application Process A. Applications for approval required under this chapter may be initiated by: 1. Order of Council; 2. Resolution of a majority of the Commission; 3. The Director; boa-rd or e9mmisslent or W=6, Application of a recorded owner of property or contract purchasers. B. Any persons authorized by this title to submit an application for approval may be represented by an agent authorized in writing to make the application. (Ord. 90-41; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.030 Time Period for Decision Making A. The City shall take final action on an application for a permit or a zone change, including the resolution of all appeals within 120 days after the application is deemed complete, except: 1. The 120-day period may be extended for a reasonable period of time at the request of the applicant; 2. The 120-day period applies only to a decision wholly within the authority and control of the City; and 3. The 120-day period does not apply to an amendment to an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.040 Preapplication Conference Required A. The applicant shall be required to meet with the Director for a preapplication conference. B. At such conference, the Director shall: 1 Revised 1/17/91 Page 47 EXHIBIT 'A' b. All surrounding property owners of record of property within 250 feet of the property for the following types of Director's decisions: (i) Minor Land Partitions; (ii) Site Development Reviews; and (iii) Sensitive Lands (steep slope, drainageway); (iv) Type II Home Occupations (Chapter 18.142.060.8.3) C. All owners of record of property immediately abutting a site subject to the following types of director's decisions: (i) Temporary uses; (ii) Flexible Setback Variances; (iii) Lot Line Adjustments, and (iv) Administrative Variances. d. The applicant for a Director's Interpretation or a Director's Decision regarding an extension of approval; e. The a€€eeted nei hberheed ' nninn nr-"""` , An r _ - _ ...:....•.xnr.......:..:r .............:....reu.r........:rJ•. rffvr. .....4:i.?.ti: ii. I is J f. Any governmental agency which is entitled to notice under an intergovernmental agreement entered into with the City which includes provision for such notice; and g. Any person who requests, in writing, and pays the required fee established by the Council. 2. Within 10 days of signing the decision, the Director shall post a copy of each notice of decision at City Hall; and 3. Notice shall be published in a local newspaper of general circulation for site design review, major land partitions, and minor land partitions a minimum of 10 days prior to the date the decision becomes final. Newspaper notice is not required for other decisions by the Director. B. The Director shall cause an affidavit of mailing, posting and publication of notice where newspaper publication was required in Subsection A.1 of this section to be filed and made a part of the administrative record. C. Notice of a decision by the Director shall contain: 1. The nature of the application in sufficient detail to apprise persons entitled to notice of the applicant's proposal and of the decision; J Revised 10/28/91 Page 57 EXHIBIT "A" (vii) Comprehensive Plan Amendments; (viii) Zone Changes; (ix) Zone Ordinance Amendments; C. Any affected governmental agency which has entered into an intergovernmental agreement with the City which includes provision for such notice; d. The a€€eated neigbberbesd n3;lnnin `;-;...::.:~?f.-dew:. Y:H.: 1...•n}:Y.:.:d - T.n/.x-w+xC+..v+x.:.:.- s4x+Cv:.(n:,C.tx.+n Wnvrn+C::n.:-.....-. e. Any person who requests, in writing, and pays a fee established by the Council; and f. The appellant and all partieE to an appeal or petition for review; and 2. Notice of a hearing on a proposed zone change for a mobile home park shall be given to tenants of that mobile home park at least 20 days but no more than 40 days prior to the hearing; and 3. The Director shall cause an affidavit of mailing of notice to be filed and made a part of the administrative record. B. At least 10 days prior to the hearing, notice shall be given in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. An affidavit of publication shall be made part of the administrative record. (Ord. 90-41; Ord. 90-24; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18 32 140 Contents of the Notice for Public Hearings A. Notice given to persons entitled to mailed or published notice pursuant to Section 18.32.130 shall include the following information: 1. The number and title of the file containing the application and the address and phone number of the Director's office where additional information can be obtained; 2. A description of the subject property, reasonably calculated to give notice as to its actual location which shall include, but not be limited to, the metes and bounds description or the tax map designations of the County assessor's office; 3. Except for notice published in the newspaper, a map showing the location of the property; 4. The nature of the application in sufficient detail to apprise persons entitled to notice of the application's proposal; and 5. The time, place and date of the public hearing, a statement that both public oral and written testimony is invited, and a statement that the hearing will be held under this chapter and any rules of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall. B. When the proceeding is an initial evidentiary hearing before the Hearings Officer, the Planning Commission, or the City Council the following information shall be included in the mailed notice, in addition to the Revised 1/17/91 Page 59 EXHIBIT "A" information required pursuant to Subsection A, above: Revised 1/17/91 Page 59 EXHIBIT ^A' 3. Formally adopted by the Council, and signed by the Mayor and filed with the Director and the City Recorder within 10 calendar days of the formal adoption of the decision. B. The final decision shall be filed in the records of the Director within 10 calendar days after the decision is signed, and notice thereof shall be mailed to the applicant and all parties to the action, and shall be available to members of the Council. C. Notice of a final decision shall contain: 1. A statement that all required notices under Section 18.32.130 have been met; 2. A statement of where the adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained; 3. The date the final decision was filed; and 4. A statement of whether a party to the proceeding may seek review of the decision, as appropriate, to wit: a. In the case of a final decision by the Council, the statement shall explain that this decision is final and how review may be heard by a higher authority; or b. In the case of a final decision by the Hearings officer or Commission, the statement shall explain briefly how a review can be taken to the Council pursuant to Subsection 18.32.310.B, the deadlines, and where information can be obtained. (Ord. 90-41; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 84-69; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.270 Notice of Final Decision A. Notice of the final decision shall be mailed to the applicant and to all the parties to the decision, and shall be made available to the members of the Council. (ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.275 Amended Decision Process A. The Director may issue an amended decision after the notice of final decision has been issued and prior to the end of the 10-day appeal period. B. A request for an amended decision shall be in writing, accompanied with the appropriate fee and filed with the Director not more than eight days after the notice of final decision has been filed. C. A request for an amended decision may be filed by: 1, The nei~hber-heed- planni.- ergar~isatlen- affeeted by the Initial dee l spa Page 69 Revised 1/17/91 i \ EXHIBIT "A" 18.32.330 Transcripts A.' If a transcript is requested by any party, the city shall provide each Council member, the applicant and the neighborhood planning organization (if requested), a copy of the complete transcript-of the hearing and a copy of the minutes. B. The appellant or any party who is the first to request a transcript shall be responsible to satisfy all costs incurred for preparation of the transcript at a rate of actual costs up to $500 and one-half costs for any amount incurred over $500. Payment shall be made in full at least five days prior to the hearing. C. Any party other than the appellant or the first party to request a transcript shall be charged the actual copy costs. (Ord. 90-41; Ord. 89- 06; Ord. 84-69; Ord. 84-09; Ord. 83-52) 18 32 340 Notice of Appeal or Petition for Review A. The notice of appeal or petition for review shall contain: 1. A reference to the application sought to be appealed or reviewed; 2. A statement as to how the petitioner qualifies as a party; 3. The specific grounds for the appeal or review; and 4. The date of the filing of the final decision on the action or, in the case of a decision by the Director, the date the decision was filed and the date notice of the final or proposed decision was j given. B. The appeal or review application shall be accompanied by the required fee except as allowed under Section 18.32.345. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 85-45; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.345 Fee Waiver for Appeals A Fees €ar land ' ' t • a . pp : e^t; eas _f ' f a use eEo~lew land shall -vc-waived -s•vs-aP'P's'swcc=vsze-rxrcd zj--u s:ei•y. e i. The appeal 9E land a9e appileatlen must have been supper-ted by a s?. A 99p= of the minutes of t NPQ " g ;her the appe 7 !a 'i use apgileatlen-was initiated must he oub-witted with theappeal -o land use applleatlept- Page 73 Revised 1/71/91 / EXHIBIT 'A' a. The-appeal applieatien will be eensidered valid when eendit-Le" (1) and (2) ef this eeet-*-.. met and all ether---f-14+ftg r-eg 4Eeatente aEe net; and 4v The NPG ehairpereen or designated representative shall appe" et--t-~ next available Gity Geunell fneeting after the appileatien or appeal Is filed. The NPQ shall werk threugh the Planning Divisi-en to within three weriting days ef the denials The fee shall be filed by three p.m. en the thlEd day. Council may, on its own motion and by voice vote, waive the appeal fee for :ether part#ea, when appropriate. (Ord. 90-41; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 85-45) 18.32.350 Persons Entitled to Notice on Appeal or Review: Type of Notice A. Upon appeal or review,* notice shall be given to parties entitled to notice under Sections 18.32.130 and 18.32.290. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 84-71; Ord. 84-61; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.360 Contents of Notice on Appeal or Review A. Notice shall include those matters provided by Section 18.32.140. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.32.370 Action on Appeal or Review: Time Limit and Authority to Change the Decision ` A. The approval authority shall affirm, reverse, or modify the decision which / is the subject of the appeal; however, the decision shall be made in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.32.250; or B. Upon the written consent of all parties to extend the 120-day limit, the approval authority may remand the matter if it is satisfied that testimony or other evidence could not have been presented or was not available at the time of the hearing. In deciding to remand the matter, the approval authority shall consider and make findings and conclusions regarding: 1. The prejudice to parties; 2. The convenience or availability of evidence at the time of the initial hearing; 3. The surprise to opposing parties; 4. The date notice was given to other parties as to an attempt to admit; or 5. The competency, relevancy and materiality of the proposed testimony or other evidence. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 84-61; Ord. 83-52) l Revised 1/17/91 Page 74 . 1 EXHIBIT "A" 18.142.060 Permit Procedures for Tyne I and Type II Home Occupations A. Type I and II Home Occupations: A person wishing to engage in a Type I or Type II home occupation must be a principal occupant of the property, pay a one-time review fee to the City, agree to abide by the provisions of this chapter, and acquire an annual Business Tax Certificate. B. Additional Permit Procedures for Type II Home Occupations: A person wishing to engage in a Type II home occupation is required to have a pre- application conference with City staff in accordance with Section 18.3.2.040 and is also required to submit an application and a fee. 1. The decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a Type II home occupation permit shall be made by the Community Development Director upon findings of whether or not the proposed use: a. Is in conformance with the standards contained in this chapter; b. Will be subordinate to the residential use of the property; C. Is undertaken in a manner that is not detrimental nor disruptive in terms of appearance or operation to neighboring properties and residents. 2. The Director's decision to deny an application or approve it with conditions may be appealed to the Hearings Officer. 3. Upon approval of a Type II home occupation application, the Community Development Director shall issue a preliminary notice of approval and provide notice of the same to the i Plan a:.;..;? a j< act<:p_ers p and roperty owners within 250'feet-'of the property line off' the proposed use. The decision shall be final within twenty days following the day of mailing of notice unless appealed to the Hearings Officer. C. Appeals shall be made in accordance with Subsection 18.32.310.A at a cost equal to sixty (60) percent of the City's standard appeal fee. (Ord. 91- 32; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 87-20; Ord 83-52) 18.142.070 Submission Requirements for Type II Home Occupation Applications A. An application for a Type II home occupation shall be made on forms provided by the Community Development Director and shall be accompanied by: 1. One copy of the applicant's statement or narrative which explains how the proposal conforms to the approval criteria in Sections 18.142.040 and 18.142.050; 2. The required fee; 3. A site plan of the property drawn to scale with a north arrow indicated. The site plan shall show all major features of the property including buildings, major vegetation, access for public streets, sidewalks, etc. Revised 10/28/91 Page 369/370 EXHIBIT "A" 4. One floor plan of all structures on the property which are to be used for the home occupation(s); 5. One title transfer instrument; 6. One assessor's map; 7. Property owner's signature(s) or written authorization. (Ord. 91-32; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 87-20; Ord. 86-23; Ord. 83-52) Revised 10/28/91 Page 369/371 V I 1pirl W__ A 2x The GIVY 8ha3A--e4 all land use planning matters. P§3, The City shall continue to assist and support any City Council: recognized citizen group in providing adequate meeting places, distribution of materials, policy direction and staff involvement. Additional citizen task-forces shall be appointed by the City Council, as the need arises, to advise the City with regard to Comprehensive Plan issues. POLICY 2.1.2 THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROVIDED BY THE CITY SHALL BE APPROPRIATE TO THE SCALE OF THE PLANNING EFFORT AND SHALL INVOLVE A BROAD CROSS-SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY: a. %M NBIGEMRMOD FLAMING GRGANIZATIONS SHALL BE OR; PR3RG6R:F - - - b. WHERE APPROPRIATE, OTHER INVOLVEMENT TECHNIQUES WILL BE USED; AND FiRcHim C.- wooTHE COMMITTEE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT = HAII BE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVALUATING THE CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT ROGRAM AND FOR WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS IN RECOMMENDING CHANGES IN THE PROGRAM. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 1. The Committee for Citizen Involvement and -thil. shall conduct their citizen involvement programs in accordance with the needs of the Tigard community. and LCDC Goal #1 requirements. A review and evaluation of each group's programs and processes shall be reported to the Planning Commission and City Council on a yearly basis.. 2. The City Council, the Planning Commission, the Committee for Citizen Involvement and the Neighberheed P shall recommend, as needed, additional methods_ for involving citizens in the planning process. Y II-10 EXHIBIT A POLICY 2.1.3 THE CITY SHALL ENSURE THAT INFORMATION ON LAND USE PLANNING ISSUES IS AVAILABLE IN AN UNDERSTANDABLE FORM FOR ALL INTERESTED CITIZENS. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 1. The City shall continue to publish information on land use planning issues in a form accessible to all citizens and shall use the Gemm&ttee • II-10 ~nIL ~ c 1 I ~Lt /tiff I JIJ ~ DEPT- 1 i j tl1' -1 ( t. S r/ ` 1 PRt Yi" tali, '19 . • •~R V 5 fUPPL,.k `.t IN_k STnut c R ~ o c~ V G •roCwrM ~ ~ ~ tPnDAVa F = y T ' ' -MTpVT EltON_ - S •a LC•+~t'N'"C-'' _ L/FO 1T5 Ra ~O 'gym , o~ t 1 t1 { M - NLQI-w"♦ w - ,MI- 5 T- tyrrR I~ , .t N ` ° - EE [ ~ alt' 1 3 _ ~p t • ~ ;a t .t 1s^tlt ~ -tar sim, w kA go- , ~ttGtt •RR va _I Ct w r• R ~ _ a7r - r• j - awRpa ` ~a~. Ft ► / oast M. + a* A7 S CPP~rS`~"EP s* uQ• v ' `r' i•R ufER/R o r LL. f,t•r • CC"E~P"(1r aEtwD♦E p tEPw + y r C~ r' Q' f ry10w aO Np'RR k.- tor, E.IIDi Rs .•f r t • t, 7 f.w Sr c t `~.t. -iLF y, Sr 4 „rt.Er ROSt !r• ~ • v ~ P ► r {M 1tw0`T _ _ ~ TtP ; t pr•.t• o 4 6 ' o •..a{ +on+•+.w `4 1 - cc►t mac` /tr C STr E=snE.~,~=o wE PC S• , ~ o pttlN TOR DR • +a ' •tiyy E'F •y~• `w ~VMP"`it > ECW ,,."R ~ _~Pr1{ltN Ct R pp•SS •a •OM,E 11Y T 4 1y OTC Ct +OIN 4 i T fj SC p►Rr SPTt aE C04 O TO►+ 1 ♦ w .t - s w y a t.P ,o{~Tt 4m QDR•""n ♦ r f' o - n .aM,Pt ,rtt - ~ • • r "dof CIE! o R ...dw..0 . C•C '..A. Y .i•,l tatY6M . N ° . r r►r SCE af'~ Ott ► . - 'T V• _ -r KK tI.(It! r : RO - fly ~0 "p t!"• ai SMEc `411 t SaGt R,,._ t -•TW~ a PO t ot4E -rwo P ~ •ar.t s } E i J IA GALA r _ 4 I Proposed City Route Priorities 1 - Phase I - 92 nd from Cook Park to Durham - Durham Road from 92nd to Hall Blvd. (existing)+ j Hall-Blvd. from Durham Road to Metzger Park Pha se II Locust Street from Greenburg to 80th 80th from Taylors Ferry to Pine St. -Walnut from 106th to 130th Tigard St. from 116th to Main St. -Greenburg Rd. from Tiedeman to Pacific Hwy 95th and Commercial from Greenburg Rd. to Main St. Ash Ave. from Frewing St. to Burnham -Burnham from Main St. to Hall Blvd. - i Hunziker from Hall to 72nd Ave. -72nd Ave. from Cherry St. to Pacific Hwy. Pacific Highway from 65th to Durham Rd. •~a -McDonald St. from Pacific Highway to Hall Blvd.A - 97th from McDonald to Murdock St. Murdock to 98th 98th to Durham ~E j -'Durham Road from Hall to Boones Ferry Boones Ferry to Tualatin (Main St.), Phase III I i Hall Blvd. from Greenburg to Scholls Ferry Rd. Scholls Ferry Rd. from Hall Blvd. to 121st Ave. Taylors Ferry from 65th to 80th Hall from Metzger Park to Greenburg Road j - Greenburg from Hall to North Dakota to Tiedeman to Walnut-_ J Tigard Drive from Tigard St. to Summercrest Dr. to 121st Pine St. from 80th to 72nd 72nd to Pacific Highway - 121st from Scholls Ferry to Gaarde Gaarde to Pacific Highway -Hampton St. from 72nd Ave. to Interstate 5 -Bonita Road from Hall Blvd. to Interstate 5 -~K- -Bull Mtn. Rd. from 161st Ave. to Pacific Highway Pacific Highway from Durham Rd to Tualatin Rd. Tualatin Rd. to Tualatin Beef Bend Rd. from Pacific Highway to 137th f .l 5 Phase IV Washington Dr, from Hall to Taylors Ferry Scholls Ferry Rd. from 21st Ave. to 135th Ave. it -135th from Scholls Ferry Rd. to Walnut St. -Walnut St, from 130th Ave, to 135th Ave. 4- Summer Creek from 135th Ave, to Tiedeman Chicken Creek from Bull Mt. Rd. to Summer Creek Derry Dell Creek from 115th to Walnut (and tributary-to Park) Frewing from Pacific Highway to O'Mara O'Mara to McDonald St. Durham Rd. from 98th to Pacific Highway Fanno Creek Drainage Greenway System from Scholls Ferry to Durham Road 85th Ave. Burlington Northern from Durham Rd over Tualatin River to Tualatin Road i t 1 i I I t i 1 ADDEND M I 1 'HOME ADDRESS - COMMITTEES PAT.WHITING 1973 SESSION: 8122 SW SPRUCE - MEMBER: ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE TIGARD. OREGON 97223 ,..I EDUCATION LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND 1V ASNINGTCN CO'JNTY URBAN AFFAIRS DISTRICT 7 INTERIM COMMITTEE ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY. .0 AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES _I HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ST"D COUM MI TTEE: OUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS SALEM. OREGON SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY TASK FORCE: 9731 O PERMIT APPROVAL SYSTEM GO-CHAIRMAN t I March 30, 1974 Washington County Commission I County Courthouse Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 I Dear Commissioner In coordination with our Pedestrian-Bicycle Committee of the Tigard area, families and school children of the Tigard, Tualatin, Metzgar, and Garden Home areas and the cities of Durham and Tigard, I hereby request your review of the community bicycle.proposal now before you. Through extensive review by many groups of people, community leaders, and families that are participating in the support of safe and adequate foot _ path and bicycle facilities through our adjoining communities, schools, and neighborhoods, the proposal here-.adopted is a result of thoughtful consideration of population densities, the need for such accomodation, and the location of businesses, schools, and recreational facilities. l Extensive support of a major bicycle route along Hall Blvd, to connect with other inner-community routes is overwhelming. I have received hundreds of signatures by petition and letters from adults and children asking for community bicycle path facilities that compliment exisiting routes of community travel. I have just recently received a number of individual letters from elderly members pf our community drawing attention to the fact that traffic hazard situations are paramount in our densely populated area where increasing vehicle and truck travel is the norm. Many individuals who have given of their time, expertise, and dedication to community health and safety and citizen participation over the past year have diligently considered various routes and proposals. Through extensive study and analysis they have evolved a comprehensive proposal that compliments man's needs and community participation as well as community accessability. The proposal herewithin represents a community consensus. I As State Representative of House District 7, Southeastern Washington County, I do hereby support and uphold the Pedestrian-Bicycle Pathway Committee proposal and request your favorable adoption and passage of its concept. Respectfully yours, 77 Ze Pat Whiting State Repres ntat Fncl: copy of coin. Lnlque to Oregon Executive Dept. _I - NOMe ADDREss - - eAT WHITING coM MITTEEs 6122'SW SPRUCE 1979 SESSION: MiMOeR: Tl..w wD, OREGON 972.] ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE _ EOUCAT7oN - LOCAL GOVEP.NMENT AND Y/ASNINGTON COUNTY URBAN AFFAIRS DISTRICT 7 INTERIM COMMITTEE: ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY. AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL REsOURC" HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STUDY COMMITTEE: COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS t SALEM, OREGON SUBCOMMITTYE ON ENERGY J TALK FORCE: • 97310 PERMIT APPROVAL SY9TEM y CO•CNAIRMAN November 7, 1973. I The Honorable Tom McCall Executive Department,; Oregon State Capitol Salem, Oregon 97310 Re.: Bicycle-path needs in Tigard Community Dear Governor McCall: j For several months I have had the opportunity to observe a dedicated group of people in the Tigard area-who are con- cerned about the hazardous traffic conditions and the need for bicycle paths in the dense living areas between Metzger and Tigard. It>~ Tigard, one of the fastest growing urban areas in the Willamette Valley, is a community caught between othbr""- expanding communities and a major city complex. It is experiencing high traffic hazard situations, lack of ' inter-neighborhood movement due to the increase in cross traffic, truck usage, and density. The Pedestrian-Bicycle Pathway Committee in Tigard and Metzger, which is composed of school children, parents, teachers, and community leaders, has researched the need for alternate transportation facilities. During many months of deliberation and public meetings the committee has researched various potential routes for needed bicycle and foot paths. They have met with our Oregon State Highway Department and County and City officals. Basically, three routes have been considered, namely, State Highway 217 proper, Fanno Creek and Hall Blvd. State Highway 217 is not an inter-community route, it does not connect our many community schools, and it is void of easy access to neighborhoods which are not directly adjacent to the highway. Therefore, Highway 217 is not an adequate community bicycle route and would not serve the needs of the communities.regarding traffic safety and recreational accessability. Fanno.Creek, which s.an-important potential inter-city.- greenway'and recreational area, by-passes the Metzger School area where a great-number.-of children reside and attend school. Possibly it-would not be-available for bicycle rid- ing activity in the winter-months-due to potential flooding. Also,- Fanno Creek would" nit be 'accessable to the northeast section population because they are geographically seperated by Highway 217. Fanno Creek preservation-is desperately needed for recreational and travel facilities, however-,-: there is-also, an .impending need ! to establish a solution to alternate inter=community transport- ! ational needs. Hall Blvd.,s the main route connecting schools, homes, family shops, and businesses from Metzger Elementary and Tigard Senior High. Hall Blvd. - also connects our few community recreation sites, specifically, the Metzger Park now gaining community attention for possible renovation of its club house and Cook Park next to Tigard High which is also the location of our swimming pool open to the community. The Pedestrian Bicycle Pathways Committee is familiar with the various travel routes and they have children using the area, shops, and schools. Threfore, they greatly support.and recommend thadt Hall Blvd be given priority as the community bicycle path route. As State Representative of House District 7, I support their request. y Enclosed for your review are petitions and letters from children attending Metzger-, Lewis, and Templeton Elementary Schools and Tigard High School which are merely a sampling of the 707 signatures and 246 indivdual letters that have ' been sent to me. I am more than happy to share them with yo~ at your convenience. If I can be of assistance to you regarding information as to the necessity of a bicycle path along Hall Blvd, please do not hesitate to call upon me. Sincerely yours, 1 Pat Whiting 1 State Representative .I CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION No. 74 - 14 I f i RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE TIGARD AREA COMPREHENSIVE PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE PATHWAY PLAN. WHEREAS, there is a need to provide facilities for an increasing number -of pedestrians and bicyclists within the greater Tigard area; and WHEREAS, there is a need for a comprehensive pedestrian-bicycle pathway plan to coordinate and guide public expenditures for such facilities; and WHEREAS, the implementation of .the subject plan will reduce hazards to pedestrians and bicyclists on existing streets; provide safe access to schools; eliminate the necessity of some school bus transportation; provide safety to pedestrians and bicyclists to summer activities normally requiring access by automobile; as well as provide safe access to mass transportation facilities; and WHEREAS, said plan map and priorities were recommended to the City Council by the Tigard Planning Commission at said Commission's February 5, 1974 meeting; and WHEREAS, said plan was presented to the City Council at said Council's regular meeting on March 11, 1974 and discussed at said Council's study session on March 18, 1974. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Tigard that the Tigard Area Comprehensive Pedestrian-Bicycle Pathway Plan be and the same is hereby adopted for the purpose of coordinating and guiding public and private expenditures for pedestrian-bicycle facilities. APPROVED this ~ ci day of 1974. i Mayor ATTEST: C City Recorder j { CITY OF TUALATIN IN THE HART O• TH[ BEAUTIFUL TUALATIN VALLEY OREGON j 97062 i I March 18, 1974 i i j Ms. Beth H. Bishop, Secretary Tigard Area Pedestrian Bicycle Committee 1375 S.W. Varnes Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Ms. Bishop: i The Tualatin City Council, at their March 11, 1974 meeting, approved your committee's revised Tigard Area Comprehensive Pedestrian Bicycle Pathway Plan. It should be noted that part of the pathway on S.W. Boones Ferry Road between S.W. Nyberg Street and S.W. Killarney Lane in Tualatin has been completed by the Oregon State Transportation Department and the portion of S.W. Tualatin Road between S.W. Nyberg Street and S.W. 103rd is now under construction by the City with completion expected this summer. It will be the City's continuing policy to require developers of land along the pathway system to install that portion of the system in lieu of sidewalks. Very truly yours, i ' Yvonne L. Addington City Administrator YLA:djh r i I 1 City of King City .5390 S.W. 116th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97223 February 26, 17 F TO: The Tigard '.pea Committee on 1 ?7 -aps and At the regular Council meeting o _ ~::ru• :~J 2f), information relating to the. proposed pike/-.ejes ,riauq for ! the Tigard txea viere displayed and discusser-. i i Concensus of those present includi Z Council e~Hers a-: aud- fence indicated general approval as to concert speci_fic^! as to the initial phase proposed.. Lotion •rras made and passed b;- I the Council to express approval of the pro ,oe;al sub,.-it cd. l~ is reminded, ho.•rever, that neither public =an s or grope= t_:_ o`_ the City are available for construction or ^i%_tenence of i'•_e/ pedestrian pathways. Very truly ours, ~ u ~ es r. - C.-l:ilc Council _res: E i I I 1 CITY OF DURHAM, 0000-' CP WON Wijky 017 31 VINO! ROAD WH ;R W, it iq a matter of statewide concern to facilitate alternate modes or Lr= nspartat o. during a continuing enarly arisio; and Wa.: 3, walking And bicycles are two such alternate -ojas; nn.; ',T ~D , i•S, i.in-ir° is need, r' % qss of energy suoply, for a -eoestrian/ticycis p^th to proviie a We north-south transpcrtatinn route for u5s by t •.alki., g and bicycling D!Iblic Oi the air a,^.1 area, 1 iign d ar?a, Met=er area, and other surrcund?ng areas, 0 4100A, n"ck '1 . "r i l d prov i d- a connent ion hi t woon i`c)Tof, i n! ~:,')')1.:, tr. . . , , ..•1 i'): t' ,•r•!tI I,ia't~ tvUl'U;, ,n l 1.'. ::r : :t i't' ! rl••v:~l•i f':tt:i 111; i:. :t:tr.tt'.. 'ir:::f.f'1',It:: tcyci i:A., flCi:~, :`if ,''~•1Z:;, I', ..'I tn: 1)Il .il..'! i;.,-'! .,...ii i':, V Dsrhni At; Co :nc it .'r1I`i,orts the coast I ict inn of a C'destrin l Nic`/cle ".7thway on P& I !10 '1evard from State Hi4^;•ny 21? to Durhv Road n Fort:':^rmore; urnes the Wte Rizhway Fivic_on to be ,in a fe'-tsibili ty survey of the proposed route. :.%Fr'7'/W: Ws ; 100 d"y or Knunrv , 1074. 02('q A _ J i 0. L'-U KZ3W, ..AYO3 WWK, 0500.N' Most j" tlgard SCHOOL DISTRICT 23J ADMINISTRATION OFFICE 13137 S.W. PACIFIC HIGHWAY TIGARD, OREGON 97223 Area Code (503) 639-3158 February 21, 1974 To Whom It May Concern: The Tigard School Board of Directors, at 1:1ieir meeting of October 4, 1973, received and took affirmative action to support the Tigard Area Comprehensive Pedestrian-Bicycle Plan, Bicycle paths and walkways are of critical concern i to the district both from the standpoint of student safety and economics (if more walkways were developed, less school busing would be necessary). ` The school district would recommend that every effort be made to immediately implement the development of bicycle paths and walkways in this community. Sincerely, T'IG• _RD CHOOL DI,57RICT 23J Delbert Fennell, Superintendent rb f I CITY OF TIGARD P. 0. Pox 23557 12420 S. W. 114ain Tigard, Oregon 97223 narch 26, 1974 Dear Sirs: Please be advised that the Tigard Citizen-Police Community Reiations Council has reviewed the Pedestrian-Bicycle Comprehensive Plan and endorses it as a definite improve- ment to the safety of the Tigard area citizenry. Very truly yours, Chuck marl eels Chairman, Tigard.Cit_zen-Police Community relations Council CS/al { .I r ! CITY OF TIGARD I P. O- Box 23557 12420 S. W. Main i Tigard, Oregon 97223 F1a_ ch 20, 1~3 7 4 j i i I i I Dear Sirs: Please ;e advised that the Tigard Park Board has reviewed i and endorses the Pedestrian-Bicycle Play, as prepared by the Tigard Pedestrian-Bicycle Committee. i i It is Felt that the implenentation of the plan will result in increased safety and will enhance the viability of the Tigard Part: System. I Very truly yours, I ~7_ !ice„ . t H C. C r i einde„ Chairman, iicard Park Soard [iC/al I I 1 l I errors ~ or Pa ss _ B E VERTU" I SI EEU •POC wrAM FLAP( Yt • • .f STnur , ~f+T,~ { [APD w lEw•w J, _ MF E.LOCN 'll o _ T [.•,u.. CO.- • N E T LAND AV LIf/r' rt •w ` w0 _ _ - - -M[4VI RrOIC- COR; PP c WIL r1EAi1-. (=«(u- i _ LIN1E$ ( a•~ ra• - SI Ow.I ; E o-°Y~bE N[DIUND r 'a S[•tr; K+D ! Srw.K ST_ Sr wOPIw OA.O T'' _ Ih• ' I a ~I L L•!Lf w • P i 3 E ,AI10'A Z• •I - L.•. r j ~Y SllrrtR FT CPLS~- r 1r w0 , L[v• - - _ _ BL•~7w IIEE pop Lo- • - ' '4Y I n TOM Il` ALVOPO V~, - - - - 1114 ` r P MEh SCt •Yw ' !rl I . (Lr1o St I" A _ q w \ S "'L L I ~ • _ ~ V • IhLll d • hat~L wL •hLh.l~ Ir Sig j _ i roa,tP _<~P i - , r•' Autwu ? po ~d"g _ I r(PM V • K • S6 i O.. •CwESE Sri . Sw SCnOI` ! ' J• 5 ' LL• .:td' r.: ` \ .APwS OP 4160 i coo. i ~uwAVFM 51 \ .'dL• ~ T ~ Lw[~+ wLC.t 4 ~ - _ • i - - ywD•t L ^ rA•'•0 ? 'E UTi•' ~I' ' ' O ' r Z -OSt a51. D. ritl•~ f • ` iu PPifS ET ,w OR OF ' •I►wDt 1 • = J` `ti °~~yE tT • C #0 4 ~ - 'E \o : , ~ f'\ ~IEr t rs* r _ ~w,1. P 4-ft "Q. SV i [raa.I 'S •(r .BaY.ai 'r p u 44 l M1 A 1>tl Yd•Tt ~P 1[• •YJw\~l♦ _ •I SCM r _ T'• gl - ]a.hEw POSS I 1 ICr[w01 < aJl`wC O4++4~G•. 1 S. T.Ltw •1 Ji ID ~ ' rwn~r • _ ~ ~ of ~ Y s vo•'a' TV 0 f t i ; ..nc [Err R ' • • * wr ..Kw..D Wont Cr rrMOI AT C.f aric. •R - LP •vew . 'I T [lQI LAri 19 ~ t ~L ` I C tE I _ E.Lrnr ~p~r E w► `O O r r O 4 1 • hTBEwO •O V Po •,o~ A•T-1-N-- '7U r~.. schoA I s -creation 7omts .0 c J 3 Public Buildings: Library Old Fowler Jr. High (tentative community center) Tigard Post Office j Tualatin Post Office School District 23J school population distribution maps were also utilized in routing the pathways. Recommended Development Phases The Committee has prioritized both the Committee's own route selections and the Planning staff's selections on the basis of public safety. It should be noted that the Committee does not feel that the proposed routing will be implemented in the exact order recommended, but rather some routes will be constructed out of phase and in conjunction with street and park projects. The Committee does recommend the described phasing as project priorities for any City initiated pedestrian-bicycle pathway program. i j 1 1 l I i 2 6. to establish pedestrian access to mass transportation Routes considered were only within the Tigard School District boundaries. The City Planning Staff has recommended additional routes to complete our Plan and create a total bicycle-pedestrian pathway system within the Tigard planning area. We have reviewed and approved the location and phasing of routes proposed by the staff. The City Staff's criteria for route selection were as follows: 1. to reflect proposed regional pedestrian-bicycle routing through the Tigard area 2. to reflect the Greenway System proposed in the Tigard Community Plan 3, to provide better pedestrian-bicycle access around and through certain neighborhoods 4, to reflect recommendations embodied in the Ash Avenue-Downtown Neighborhood Plan S. t•:) create better access to downtown Tigard from the Greenburg 3 neighborhood The described route selection criteria were measured against a relationship to major pedestrian and bicycle traffic generators. These can be grouped into four general categories - schools, recreation points, shopping and public buildings. These are described as follows: Schools: (Elementary) (Junior High) (High School) Durham Thomas R. Fowler Tigard Senior High Metzger Twa lity Phil Lewis St. Anthony's Templeton Charles F. Tigard Tualatin Recreation Points Cook Park Shopping: Canterbury Square School tennis courts Downtown Tigard Jack Park Downtown Tualatin Metzger Park Fred Meyer Tigard Swim Center K-Mart Twality tennis courts King City Tualatin Park Tigard Plaza Woodard Park Washington Square TIGARD AREA COMPREHENSIVE PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE I PATHWAY PLAN . -The following is a short report regarding the subject plan, written so that the public might better understand the thinking and rationale that is embodied within the plan. Committee History Briefly, the Washington County Commissioners chose to spend their 1% gasoline tax bicycle-pedestrian pathway money on areas close to schools. In order to determine the location of these proposed rates, the County requested the Tigard School District to make a priority listing of desired pathways on county roads within the district. The school district assigned its Safety and Transportation Coordinator, Bill Bieker, to the project and a list was compiled. As a result of this work the school district and the j management of the City of Tigard felt a comprehensive pedestrian-bicycle i plan for the Tigard area was needed. Bill Bieker from the school district and Steve Telfer, city manager, agreed to establish a committee for the purpose of developing a comprehensive pathway plan and members were selected from I each elementary school attendance area. Others who have assisted the committee include Nick Hiebert, Tigard Dept, of Public Works; Wink Brooks, i Tigard Planning Director; and Steve Oppenheim, Director of Bikeway Planning, C . R.A .G . Norm Hartman, a Tigard Planning Commissioner, is a member of our committee. Criteria for Path Selection In determining where routes were to be located, the committee chose the following criteria: 1 . to reduce hazards that exist on present roads 2. to provide safe access to schools, recreation areas and major I shopping areas 3. to develop the possibility of walking to school rather than riding, thereby eliminating some school bus transportation i 4. to serve the greatest number of potential users 5. to provide safety for walkers and bike riders to summer activities which require transportation by auto I I TIGARD AREA COMPREHENSIVE PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE PATHWAY PLAN I f Prepared by Tigard Area Pedestrian-Bicycle Pathway Committee Adopted March 25, 1974 OTONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW BALWW & WRIGHT BUHDING 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street n Portland, Oregon 97209 ,t TELEPHONE: (503) 222-4402 FAX: (503) 243-2944 F IE 8 12 1991 i; MEMORANDUM DATE: February 11, 1992 TO: V/Pat Reilly, City Administrator and Ed Murphy, Community Development Director FROM: William A. Monahan, City Attorney's Office RE: Dolan v. City of Tigard LUBA has affirmed the City's decision regarding the Dolan application. Attached is a copy of the decision which was rendered on February 2, 1992. The decision will become final if a Petition for Judicial Review and Notice of Intent to Appeal is not filed with the Court of Appeals within 21 days from the date LUBA mailed the order, February 7, 1992. WAM:smc Attachment WAM\TIGARD\90024-4\R0LLY.M11 B A11 i- A n 1. S 1 BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS FEB I 5 02 2 OF THE STATE-OF.OREGON 4 JOHN T. DOLAN and FLORENCE DOLAN, ) 6 Petitioners, ) 7 ) LUBA No. 91=161 8 vs. ) 9 ) FINAL OPINION 10 CITY OF TIGARD, ) AND ORDER 11 ) 12 Respondent. ) 13 14 15 Appeal from City of Tigard. 16 17 Joseph R. Mendez, Portland, filed the petition for review 18 and argued on behalf of petitioners. With him on the brief was 19 Knappenberger & Mendez. 20 21 James M. Coleman, Portland, filed the response brief and 22 argued on behalf of respondent. With him on the brief was 23 O'Donnell, Ramis, Crew & Corrigan. 24 25 David B. Smith, Tigard, filed a brief and argued on behalf 26 of amicus Oregonians in Action. 27 28 SHERTON, Referee; :OLSTUN, Chief Referee; KELLINGTON, 29 Referee, participated in the decision. 30 31 AFFIRI-11 E D 02/07/92 32 33 You are entitled to judicial review of this Order. 34 Judicial review is governed by the provisions of ORS 197.850. Page 1 1 Opinion by Stierton 2 NATURE OF THE DECISION 3 Petitioners appeal a city council resolution granting site 4 development review approval for construction of a retail sales 5 building, but denying variances to Tigard Community Development 6 Code (TCDC) provisions requiring dedication of land for a 7 greenway and a pedestrian/bicycle pathway and prohibiting roof 8 signs.' 9 'FACTS 10 Petitioners appealed a previous city decision granting site 11 development review approval for construction of the proposed 12 retail sales building, and imposing conditions requiring 13 greenway and pedestrian/bicycle pathway dedications and roof 14 sign removal. In our opinion in that appeal, Dolan v. City of, 15 Tigard, Or LUBA (LUBA No, 90-029, January 24, 1991) 16 (Dolan I), slip op 2-3, we set out the following relevant facts: 17 "Petitioners own a 1.67 acre parcel in downtown Tigard 18 which is designated Central Business District on the 19 Tigard Comprehensive Plan (plan) map and is zoned 20 Central Business District - Action Area (CBD-AA). A 21 9,700 square foot retail sales building, occupied by 22 an electric and plumbing supply business also owned by 23 petitioners, is located on the eastern edge of the 24 subject parcel. The structure includes a large roof 25 sign, and is adjoined by a partially paved parking 26 lot. Fanno Creek flows through the southwestern 27 corner of. the subject parcel and along its western 28 boundary.* 1The challenged decision also approves a variance to applicable TCDC parking requirements for-general retail sale businesses, allowing provision of only 39, rather than 44, parking spaces. However, this portion of the decision is not at issue in this appeal. 'Page 2 k' 1 "Petitioners applied to the city for site-development 2 review approval to replace the- existing' bbilding- with 3 a 17,600 square foot retail-sales building constructed 4 on the western portion` of the subject -parcel . t 5 6 t "Petitioners proposed to demolish the existing 9,700 square 7 foot building after the new building was-completed and the 8 electric and plumbing supply business moved into it." 9 In - Dolan I, we affirmed the challenged city decision. 10 Specifically, we held petitioners' claims that the conditions of 11 approval requiring dedication of portions of their property for 12 a greenway and a pedestrian/bicycle pathway constituted an 13 unconstitutional "taking" under both the United States and 14 Oregon Constitutions were not "ripe" for review, because 15 petitioners had not sought relief through the variance process 16 provided by TCDC Chapter 18.134. Imo., slip op at 21. We also 17 rejected petitioners' claim that the condition requiring removal 18 of the existing roof sign within 45 days of the issuance of an 19 occupancy permit for the new building was unreasonable and a 20 "denial of due process," because petitioners did not support 21 this constitutional claim with legal argument. Id., slip op 22 at 22. 23 On March 28, 1991, petitioners submitted a new site 24 development review application for the proposed retail sales 25 building to the city, including requests for variances from 26 TCDC 18.120.180.A.8,2 18.86.040.A.1.b3 and 18.114.070.H.4 On 2TCDC 18.120.180.A.8 establishes the following standard for site development review-approval: Page 3 1 September, 17',:- .1991,_-- the., city council- adopted' the, challenged 2 resolution approving site-_ development review, _but-.. denying the 3 requested variances. The city's decision includes the following 4 relevant conditions: 5 "1. The applicant shall dedicate to the City as 6 Greenway all portions of the site that fall 7 within the existing 100-year floodplain (of 8 Fanno Creek] (i.e., all portions of the property 9 below elevation 150.0) and all property 15 feet 10 above (to the east of) the 150.0 foot floodplain 11 boundary. The building shall be designed so.as "Where landfill and/or development is allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/ bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle plan." 3TCDC 18.86.040.A.1 provides in relevant part: "The City may attach conditions to any development within an action area prior to adoption of the design plan to achieve the following objectives: I.* * * * * "b. The development shall facilitate pedestrian/bicycle circulation if the site is located * * * adjacent to a designated greenway/open space/park. Specific items to be addressed are as follows: "(i) Provision of efficient, convenient and continuous pedestrian and bicycle transit circulation systems, linking developments by requiring dedication and construction of pedestrian and bikepaths identified in the comprehensive plan. 4TCDC 18.114.070.H prohibits "roof signs of any kind." There is confusion in the record as to whether petitioners really sought a variance to this provision, or rather sought to convince the city that the sign in question is not actually a "roof sign." SPO Record 9, 27, 160. Page 4 1 not to intrude into the greenway area. * * *i5 2 Record 31-32.- 3 1115. The existing roof sign = shall . be- permanently 4 removed from the subject property within 45 days 5 of the issuance of the Occupancy- Permit for,the 6- new building.116 Record 34. 7 FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 8 "The City's decision to demand the dedication to the 9 City of those portions of,Petitioners' land lying 15 10 feet to the east of the 100-year flood plain boundary 11 constitutes an unlawful taking in violation of 12 Petitioners' rights under the Oregon and United States 13 Constitutions." 14 SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 15 "The City Council's exaction of all portions of 16 Petitioners' property falling within the 100-year 17 flood plain constitutes an unlawful taking of private 18 property for public use, in violation of the Oregon 19 and United States Constitutions. 20 A. Introduction 21 In the first and second assignments of error, petitioners 22 challenge the validity of the condition imposed by the city 23 requiring petitioners to dedicate to the city the portions of 24 the subject parcel within the 100-year flood plain of Fanno 25 Creek and within 15 feet to the east of the flood plain 5The dedications required by this condition comprise approximately 7,000 square feet, or 10% of the subject parcel. Record 159. 6Conditions 1 and 15 are virtually identical to conditions included in the site design review approval decision challenged in Dolan T. 3-e-a Dolan I, slip op at 3. '7The brief of amicus Oregonians in Action includes an assignment of error which states essentially the same allegations as petitioners' first and second assignments of error. The purpose of amicus participation is to aid this Board in its review of relevant issues. OAR 661-10-052(1). We consider amicus' arguments to the extent they are relevant to the issues raised by petitioners' assignments of error. Page 5 1 boundary. Petitioners argue that -this condition of site 2 development review' approval- constitutes, a taking, without just 3 compensation;- of the. 7,000 square feet of their parcel required 4 to be dedicated for public use, in violation of the Fifth 5 Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, 6 Section 18 of the Oregon Constitution. Petitioners ask that we 7 either reverse the city's imposition of this condition or remand 8 the decision to the city with instructions to remove the 9 condition. 10 _ Petitioners do not contend that establishing a greenway in 11 the floodplain of Fanno Creek for storm water management 12 purposes, and providing a pedestrian/bicycle pathway system as 13 an alternative means of transportation, are not legitimate 14 public purposes. Further, petitioners do not challenge the 15: sufficiency of the "nexus" between these legitimate public 16 purooses, and the condi ;on imposed requiring dedication of 17 portions of petitioners' property for the greenway and 18 pedestrian/bicycle pathway. Rather, petitioners' contention is 19 that under both the federal and Oregon Constitutions, the 20 relationships between the impacts of the proposed development 21 and the exactions imposed are insufficient to justify requiring 22 dedication of petitioners' property without compensation. 23 The challenged decision includes the following findings 24 addressing the impacts of the proposed development and the 25 relationship between the impacts of the proposed development and 26 the required dedication of land for greenway and Page 6 1 pedestrian/bicycle pathway purposes: ` 2-- "The * * * requirements for dedication of the area 3 adjacent.to the floodplain.for greenway purposes and 4 for construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway [do 5 not]. constitute a taking of the-applicant's property. 6 [T]he'- dedication and pathway construction are 7 reasonably related to the applicant's request to 8 intensify the development of this site with a general 9 retail sales use, at first, and other uses to be.added 10 later. It is reasonable to assume that customers and 11 employees of the future uses of this site could 12 utilize a pedestrian/bicycle pathway adjacent to this 13 development for their transportation and recreation 14 needs. In fact, the site plan has provided for 15 bicycle parking in a rack in front of the proposed 16 building to provide for the needs of the facility's 17 customers and employees. It is reasonable to expect 18 that some of the users of the bicycle parking provided 19 for by the site plan will use the pathway adjacent to 20 Fanno Creek if it is constructed. In addition, the 21 proposed expanded use of this site is anticipated to 22 generate additional vehicular traffic thereby 23 increasing congestion on nearby collector and arterial 24 streets. Creation of a convenient, safe pedestrian/ 25 bicycle pathway system as an alternative means of 26 transportation could offset some of the traffic demand 27 on these nearby streets and lessen the increase in 28 traffic congestion." Record 20. 29 "The * * * requirements for dedication of the area 30 within the floodplain of Fanno Creek for storm water 31 management and greenway purposes [do not constitute] a 32 taking of the applicant's property. [T]he required 33 dedication [is] reasonably related to the applicant's 34 request to intensify the usage of this site, thereby 35 increasing the site's impervious area. The increased 36 impervious surface would be expected to increase the 37 amount of storm water runoff from the site to Fanno 38 Creek. The Fanno Creek drainage basin has experienced 39 rapid urbanization over the past 30 years causing a 40 significant increase in stream flows after periods of 41 precipitation. The anticipated increased storm water 42 flow from the subject property to an already strained 43 creek and drainage basin can-only add to the public 44 need to manage the stream channel and floodplain for 45 drainage purposes. Because the proposed development's 46 storm drainage would add to the need for public 47 management of the Fanno Creek floodplain, * * * the. 48 requirement of dedication of the floodplain area on 49 the site is related to the applicant's. plan to Page 7 1 intensify development on the site." Record _28.- 2 Petitioners generally argue under these assignments of 3 error that the proposed development is "in no way-related to" or 4 "not related to"-: the challenged dedication requirement. 5 Petition for Review. 11,- 14. However, petitioners do not 6 challenge the adequacy of the above quoted findings or their 7 evidentiary support in the record. Therefore, for purposes of 8 evaluating petitioners' constitutional taking claims, we assume 9 that the facts found by the city concerning the impacts of the 10 proposed development and the need for storm water management and 11 alternative means of transportation are valid, and consider only 12 whether these facts are legally sufficient to establish the 13 requisite relationship between the impacts of 'the proposed 14 development and the exaction imposed. 15 B. Oregon Taking Claim 16 Article 1, Section 18 of the Oregon Constitution provides 17 in relevant part: 18 "Private property shall not be taken for public use 19 * * * without just compensation * * 20 Petitioners contend the Oregon Supreme Court has never 21 articulated a standard for applying Article I, Section 18 of the 22 Oregon Constitution to conditions of development approval which 23 constitute a physical taking, such as a condition requiring 24 dedication of land. Petitioners argue, however, that we should 25 apply the "reasonable relationship" standard previously used by 26 the Court of Appeals and this Board in other contexts to 27 determine the. validity of development-exactions. Hayes v. City Page 8 1 of Albany_,. 7...Or App 277, :285,_ 490 P2d 1018 (1971); O'Keefe v. 2 City of West Linn,_ 14 Or LUBA: 284, 293:. (1986).. Petitioners 3 contend there is no. "reasonable- relationship". between the 4 disputed condition requiring dedication of a portion of their 5 property for a greenway and a pedestrian/bicycle pathway and the 6 impacts of the proposed development. 7 We agree with petitioners that Article I, Section 18, of 8 the Oregon Constitution requires that there be a "reasonable 9 relationship" between the challenged condition and the impacts 10 of or needs generated by the proposed development. For the 11 reasons stated in the following subsection of this opinion, we 12 find such a "reasonable relationship" exists. 13 This subassignment of error is denied. 14 C. Federal Taking Claim 15 The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made 16 applicable to states and local. governments through the Due 17 Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, provides in relevant 18 part: 19 "[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, 20 without just compensation." 21 Both petitioners' and amicus' arguments rely heavily on the 22 opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Nollan v. 23 California Coastal .om'n, 483 US 825, 107 S Ct 3141, 97 L Ed2d 24 677 (1987) (Nollan). Prior to Nollan, it had been established 25 by most courts, including the federal courts of this circuit, 26 that a development exaction- must have a"reasonable Page 9 1: relationship" to-the- impacts of, or- needs created by, the 2 proposed development. a- Bee e'. - Parks v. Watson, - 716 F2d 64 6, 3 653 - (9th Cir 1983) . = Petitioners and' amicus argue- that' under 4 Nollan, something more than a- "reasonable relationship" between 5 the impacts of the proposed development and the required 6 exaction is necessary to avoid an unconstitutional taking. 7 Petitioners and amicus variously describe the closer 8 relationship required as a "clear match," an "essential nexus" 9 '.or a "substantial relationship." Petition for Review 11; Amicus 10 -Brief 9, 11. Petitioners and amicus further argue that the 11 dedication required by the challenged condition is clearly 12 intended to secure benefits for the general public and is not 13 even reasonably related to any hypothetical impacts on storm 14 water drainage and traffic due to the proposed development. 15 Respondent contends Nollan does not require that there be a 16 closer relationship between the impacts of a proposed 17 development and the extent of exactions imposed. According to 18 -respondent, the closer relationship required by Nollan is that 19 there be an "essential nexus" between the legitimate public 20 -purpose pursued and the nature of the exaction imposed as a 21 condition of development approval. Respondent also argues that BThe "reasonable relationship" standard is somewhere between the more extreme standards followed by courts in a few jurisdictions which require that the need for a development exaction be "specifically and uniquely attributable" to the proposed development, or that a development exaction merely have "some relationship" to the proposed development. Parks v Watson, jupra. Page 10 1 in Commercial Builders v. Sacramento, 941 F2d 872 (9th Cir 2 1991), the court- considered the impact of Nollan with regard to 3 this issue and stated: 4 * * Nollan does not stand for the proposition that 5 an exaction * * * will be upheld only where it can be 6 shown that the development is directly responsible. for 7 the social ill in question. Rather,'Nollan holds that 8 where there is n.Q evidence of a nexus between the 9 development and the problem that the exaction seeks to 10 address, the exaction cannot be upheld. * * 11 (Emphasis added.) Commercial Builders v. Sacramento, 12 supra, 941 F2d at 875. 13 Respondent contends all that is required is a "reasonable 14 relationship" between the impacts of the proposed development 15 and the exaction imposed by the challenged condition. With 16 regard to the required dedication of land within the floodplain 17 of Fanno Creek for a greenway, respondent argues that the city's 18 adopted Master Drainage Plan indicates the Fanno Creek greenway 19 is an essential part of the city's program for storm water 20 management. Respondent further argues the city's undisputed 21 findings establish that the proposed development, which includes 22 a larger building and paved parking lot, will increase the 23 amount of impervious surface on the site and, therefore, will 24 increase storm water runoff from the site. According to 25 respondent, this is sufficient to establish a "reasonable 26 relationship": between the proposed development and the 27 dedication required. 28 With regard to the required dedication of land adjacent to 29 the.floodplain of Fanno Creek for a pedestrian/bicycle pathway, 30 respondent argues the city's adopted Comprehensive Pedestrian/ Page 11 I Bicycle Pathway Plan designates- a -continuous network of 2 pedestrian/bicycle pathways throughout the city, and i ncludes a 3 pedestrian/bicycle pathway along the Fanno Creek greenway on the 4 subject property. Respondent further- argues the city's 5 undisputed findings indicate the proposed. development of a 6 larger retail establishment on the subject property will result 7 in' greater numbers of employees and customers, and that the 8 expansion will generate additional vehicular traffic, increasing 9 congestion on nearby streets. According to respondent, there is 10 a "reasonable relationship" between such impacts and requiring 11 dedication of land to construct a segment of a planned 12 pedestrian/bicycle pathway network. 13 In Nollan, owners of beachfront property seeking a permit 14 to build a larger house on their lot challenged the 15 constitutionality of a condition imposed by the California 16 Coastal Commission requiring that they give the public an 17 easement to pass laterally across their property from one 18 -neighboring beach to another. Nollan addresses primarily the 19 necessary relationship between the legitimate state purpose for 20 -"which a development application could be denied (in Nollan, 21 primarily the commission's duty to protect the public's ability 22 to view the beach from-the upland) and the condition imposed 23 (easement allowing the public lateral access along the beach,. to 24 pass across the Nollan's property from one adjoining beach to 25 another). The Supreme Court found a required "essential nexus" Page 12 1, between. the state: purpose and the condition was lacking.9 2 Nol lan, - 483 - US at 837. _ 3 The Supreme Court next turned to the. Commission's argument 4 that its condition nevertheless did not constitute a taking 5 because it was "reasonably related to the public need or burden 6 that the (larger) house creates or to which it contributes." 7 at 438. The Supreme Court stated: 8 * * We can accept, for purposes of discussion, the 9 Commission's proposed test as to how close a 'fit' 10 between the condition and burden is required, because 11 we find that this case does not meet even the most 12 untailored standards. * * 13 The Supreme Court proceeded to conclude that the condition 14 imposed in Nollan constituted an unconstitutional taking because 15 there was njo relationship between it and the impacts of the 16 proposed development. We, therefore, agree with respondent and 17: the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' statement in Commercial 18 Builders y. Sacramento, sul2ra, that Nollan does not establish a 19 new, stricter standard for the relationship required between the 20 impacts or burdens of a proposed development and exactions 21 imposed as conditions of development approval. 22 Thus, we agree with respondent that the challenged 23 condition requiring dedication of portions of petitioners' 24 property is clot an unconstitutional taking if it has a Nowever, as we point out supra, in this case the relationship between the city's legitimate public purposes (providing for storm water management and an adequate transportation system) and the condition imposed (dedication of land for a greenway and pedestrian/bicycle pathway) is not disputed. Page 13 1- _"reasonable relationship" to: the-- impacts of or needs generated 2 by the proposed development. To the extent petitioners suggest 3- the city is required to establish -a. numerical relationship 4 between the increase in runoff due to the proposed development 5 and the amount of land dedicated for the greenway, or that the 6 land dedicated for the greenway will not also accommodate 7 increased upstream discharges, we disagree. In view of the 8 comprehensive Master Drainage Plan adopted by respondent 9 providing for use of the Fanno Creek greenway in management of 10 storm water runoff, and the undisputed fact that the proposed 11 ±larger building and paved parking area on the subject property 12 will increase the amount of impervious surfaces and, therefore, 13 runoff into Fanno Creek, we conclude there is a "reasonable 14 relationship" between the proposed development and the 15 requirement to dedicate land along Fanno Creek for a greenway. 16 Furthermore, the city has adopted a Comprehensive 17 Pedestrian/Bicycle Pathway Plan which provides for a continuous 18 :network of pedestrian/bicycle pathways as part of the city's 19 plans for an adequate transportation system. The proposed 20 ;.pedestrian/bicycle pathway segment along the Fanno Creek 21 greenway on the subject property is a link in that network. 22 Petitioners prbpose to construct a significantly larger retail 23 sales building and parking lot, which will accommodate larger 24 numbers of customers and employees and their vehicles. There is 25 a reasonable relationship between alleviating these impacts of 26 the development and facilitating the provision of a Page 14 1 pedestrian/bicycle pathway-.as an alternative means of 2 transportation. 3 -We, therefore, conclude the challenged condition requiring 4 dedication of portions of petitioners' property is not an 5 unconstitutional taking in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth 6 Amendments to the United States Constitution. 7 This subassignment of error is denied. 8 The first and second assignments of error are denied. 9 THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 10 "The City has characterized an existing wall sign as a 11 'roof sign.' By mischaracterizing the sign, the City 12 then establishes a requirement that the sign be 13 removed within 45 days of occupancy of the new 14 building which is unreasonable and hence a denial of 15 due process." 16 Petitioners argue the "roof sign" on the existing building 17 which is required to be removed by condition 15 is actually 18 "part of a parapet wall constructed on the existing building in 19 order to join three small buildings into one structure and hide 20 unsightly roof lines." Petition for Review 16. Petitioners 21 also argue that the sign in question is an integral part of the 22 existing building, and that it is unreasonable for the city to 23 require them to remove it within 45 days of obtaining an 24 occupancy permit for the new building. 25 Whether the sign in question is correctly characterized as 26 a "roof sign" is of no importance to resolution of this 27 assignment of error. Petitioners do not contend the challenged 28 condition would be impermissible if the sign were other than a Page 15 1 "roof sign`." Rather, petitioners contend the condition is 2 impermissible because the amount of time allowed for them to 3 remove the sign is "unreasonable= and hence a denial of due 4 process." 5 In response to the same argument by petitioners in Dolan I, 6 we stated: 7 * * Petitioners presumably intend this phrase to 8 indicate that the city's decision is unconstitutional 9 in some way and, therefore, subject to reversal or 10 remand under ORS 197.835 (7) (a) (E) . However, no 11 argument supporting an allegation of 12 unconstitutionality is provided in the petition for 13 review. This Board has consistently declined to 14 consider claims of constitutional violations where, as 15 here, they are unsupported by legal argument. Van 16 San v. Y -mhi l County, 17 Or LUBA 563, 566-67 (1989) ; 17 Faulkender v. Hood River County, 17 Or LUBA 360, 366 18 (1989) ; Portland Oil Service Co. v. City of Beaverton, 19 16 Or LUBA 255, 269 (1987); Chemeketa Industries Corp. 20 y. City of Salem, 14 Or LUBA 159, 165-166 (1985)." 21 Dolan I, slip op at 22 22 Petitioners still do not provide any legal argument in support 23 of their allegation of unconstitutionality with regard to the 24 time limit for removal of the "roof sign." 25 The third assignment of error is denied. 26 The city's decision is affirmed. Page 16 I 1 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING 2 3 4 hereby certify that I served the foregoing Final Opinion 5. ,..,,and Order for LUBA No. 91-161, on February 7, 1992, by mailing &--to 'said parties or their attorney a true copy thereof contained 7 c: n;„A,,,,sealed envelope with postage prepaid addressed to said 8 ~`prtes or their attorney as follows: 9 10 Joseph R. Mendez 11 Knappenberger & Mendez 12 Honeyman House 13 1318 SW 12th Avenue 14 Portland, OR 97201 15 16 James Coleman 17 O'Donnell, Ramis, et al 18 1727 NW Hoyt Street 19 Portland, OR 97209 20 21 David B. Smith 22 Attorney at Law 23 P.O. Box 230637 24 Tigard, OR 97223 25 26 27 Dated this 7th day of February, 1992. 28 29- 30 31 ~rtJ 32 33 ~to Zwem 34 fice i~oager 35 ~~EB ~ $1992 o~~~~~ f CITY OF TIGARD OREGON January 6, 1992 Ms. Angie Crosby Administrative Specialist Land Use Board of Appeals 100 High Street, SE Suite 220 Salem, OR 97310 Re: Dolan v. Tigard LUBA No. 91-161 Dear Ms. Crosby: Enclosed is a copy of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Volumes 1 and 2 with reference to the above-captioned case. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need additional information. Sincerely, Catherine Wheatley City Recorder cwc0106.92 13125 SW Hall Blvd, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW JEFF H.. BACHRACH BALLOW & WRIGHT BUILDING COUNTY OFFICE CHARLES E. CORRIGAN* 1 N. Grant, Suite 202 STEPHEN F. CREW 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Canby, Oregon 97013 Portland, Oregon 97209 CHARLES M. GREEFF (503) 266-1149 MARK E. HERZOG*** TELEPHONE: (S03) 2224402 WILLIAM A. MONAHAN FAX: (503) 243-2944 JAMES M. COLEMAN NANCY B. MURRAY MARK P. O'DONNEL.L PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE KENNETH M. ELLIOTT TIMOTHY V. RAMIS Speew Couml SHEILA C. RIDGWAY* ~f MICHAEL C. ROBINSON** WILLIAM J. STALNAKER ALSO ADMfLT13D 70 PRAG7K8 W STA78 OF WASNINGIDN .'ALSO ADMnMW W PRAcncz IN Wr"NM •••ADMrrMD TO PRACnm LN NBW YORK ONLY i TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM DATE November 15, 1991 rd of Appeals TO Land UZ Suite 100 Hi eet, S.E . Sale , OR 97310 RE John T. Dolan and Florence Dolan v. City of Tigard YOUR FILE LUBA NO. 91-161 OUR FILE 90036-3 ENCLOSURE MOTION TO DISMISS REQUESTED ACTION Please file the enclosed Motion to Dismiss and mail the enclosed post card to our office. Very truly yours, O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN es M. Coleman Enclosure JMC:dd cc: David B. Smith, Esq. Joseph R. Mendez, Esq. Client ✓ I BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS 2 OF THE STATE OF OREGON 3 JOHN T. DOLAN AND FLORENCE DOLAN, ) 4 Petitioners, ) 5 and ) LUBA NO. 91-161 6 CITY OF TIGARD, ) 7 Respondent. ) MOTION TO DISMISS 9 10 Pursuant to ORS 197.830(10), OAR 661-10-030(4) and OAR 661- 11 10-065(1), respondent, City of Tigard, moves for an order of the 12 Board dismissing the Petition for Review due to the failure of 13 Petitioners to file a petition which conforms to the requirements 14 of OAR 661-10-030(2)(c), (3)(c) and (3)(f). 15 1. The Petition for Review lists in the title on the cover 16 page "Oregonians in Action" as an "Intervenor Petitioner." The 17 Board has issued no order granting Intervenor status to any person 18 in this matter. By order of the Board dated October 28, 1991, 19 Oregonians in Action have been granted amicus status in this matter 20 to appear only through the filing of a written brief, the brief to 21 be filed at a date no later than the date the Petition for Review 22 is due. The Petition for Review fails to conform to OAR 661-10- 23 030(2)(c) in that it includes in the title a person that is not a 24 party to this proceeding. 25 2. The Petition for Review fails to conform to OAR 661-10- 26 030(3) (c) in that it does not state why the challenged decision is MONNal. RAMIE C MEW & OORRIOAN Amweer et law 17V N.W. Hoyt Sheet Page 1 - MOTION TO DISMISS P«daaa°i0 97W9 Telep6ooc: (StY3) ~ 222-4402 FAT* MIM 741 7944 r 1 a land use decision subject to the Board's jurisdiction. In 2 petitioners' statement of the case they state: 3 "The Tigard City Council continues to condition the petitioners' application for a building permit..." 4 The issuance of a building permit is not a decision subject to the 5 jurisdiction of this Board. ORS 197.015(10)(b)(c), 197.825(1). 6 3. The Petition for Review fails to conform to OAR 661-10- 7 030 (3) (f ) in that it does not contain a copy of the local law cited 8 in the petition or a verbatim quote of the local law. 9 Petitioners' failure to file a Petition for Review which 3.0 conforms to the Board's rules has created questions concerning the 31 status of the participants in this matter, the jurisdictional basis 32 upon which they assert the Board has authority to review IL3 respondent's decision and the specific local law to which they -14 object, all three rule violations creating substantial questions 15 concerning the procedural status of this matter. 16 If the Board determines this motion should not be granted, in 17 the alternative, Respondent moves for an order compelling 1L 8 petitioners to conform the Petition for Review with the '9 requirements of the cited rule provisions and to file an amended 20 Petition for Review no later than November-21, 1991. 21 DATED this day of November, 1991. 22 O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN 23 By: 24 m s M. Coleman, OSB 176101 OT-Attorneys for Respondent 25 City of Tigard 26 OMC*WEU. RANK C$WW & aDltWAN Amw" i Iwv 1727 N.N. Hwit Suva Page 2 - MOTION TO DISMISS T ~SMZ 4M FAX- (r" 247.2944 1 CERTIFICATE OF FILING 2 I hereby certify that on November 1991, I filed the original of this MOTION TO DISMISS, together with one copy, with 3 the Land Use Board of Appeals, Suite 220, 100 High Street, S.E., Salem, Oregon, 97310, by first class mail. 4 DATED this day of November, 1991. 5 O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN 6 7 By: J me M. Coleman, OSB 176101 g dt_Atorneys for Respondent _ City of Tigard 9 10 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 12 I hereby certify that on November Lam, 1991, I served a true 13 and correct copy of the foregoing MOTION TO DISMISS by first class mail on the following persons: 14 David B. Smith 35 Attorney at Law P. O. Box 230637 16 Tigard, OR 97223 17 Joseph R. Mendez Knappenberger & Mendez 18 1318 S.W. 12th Avenue Portland, OR 97201 39 DATED this day of November, 1991. 20 O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN 21 22 BY: am s M. Coleman, OSB ,#76101 23 ttorneys for Respondent City of Tigard 24 25 2 6 as O'DONNEU. VML% C'REO COMM" Lage 1 - CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE - 17V H.W. Hoyt Suva DOLAN V. CITY OF TIGARD Tdep~ b- (SO3)j2 nos FAX: (SM) 24329" - - - I a . ~ " 3 rr. ~ , l~ASI Q~ ~ c V ~ S . ; I _ , , ~ GEi.~1:~RAl.. NGl ES ~ SPEC S A. r j . . c ~SIL IN ~It~ At~ ►C. ,w. _ , a S~' M N T Ar S ~"~i I , ~ JOB * B8p3T f~ E8 20 ~ ,1989. , 1 • ~ " • ~ ~ ~ , • -1.~ , •Varify. d~•;~~ar firm aZI. axis ink ~•oonditions• and dimensi dimensions,, Z•d .r ~ ~ r~--- prior 'ta-. f,zl.►r.xcatian.~ or c nstruction. , Notify' b t . 4 r 't r ~F. , . . r•. ' , • t,•r ooardinatr~ ..,n ;chap as 'wi on na . y . q fli ar„„ botoro,;procaad~ ~ r, i . ~,r,,,... ~ i i5 Z 21M . 4S 3 . ~ 8) wind ..c-ad •~0 m h 8 UBC • ~ - - r- • P ~ ~ ~ , • I . L ' ..lr. f l ty~ r' X1.4 - t,%• r C O ~ .~ti'' l~r~~ ~ ~a...r,.,~ ~.r. ~ ~ ~ . r a . I Y' i 'N:^ t fiJt' 'I'i~~ `i ~..~r~ ~ . l'~'.~,' .~M"~R.y,~ `~~4. `.1• ,L ~ . I 1 ? ' ►'1y " ~ t.Y.'j~ 'Qr •'~1~ ' 4. ~ ~ r~ r .1 ~ r . ti , t 151 S ~ a:ti~: ~ ~ ••.r~.1. 11';.4"x.. j.J• 'i:a r f„t r' ~ ~ .y~,G. r';i~f'.~a~' IA''„y ~•)~ilit,~~fa~;.*,11 r e ~ f ~ .d, I; 1 't~ ~ 0 't 1 ~ ' ~ 4 . J I \ ~Y Lam. .r f \ • ~ r. ~ t 't I ~ ~ f w ~ . I , r ,r - - Yda . c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ 150,50 - ' ~ ~ . ~ ti ~ ~ , a ~ ' ~ ~ r ~ ~ , .z , J ' • i soil; froo t k ,A. ,,,~,,,.~r" min. bolow'. if . nocoss,., . may, . with ' r ~ w~~ -~Vr '''i . « . 0.- to ' orifl 'f i . ~ AN V r J N r / ~ I~ .~V i+ yy,, . ~ . 7 Ca b - . ~ ~J w/ ~ I. 1 t • , r r . r , r: r~'r. , a O?..,~ i i i \ T,l) ` t., tit J,~'~R~r -,l•...,n ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ Fr ~ ~ , c" ~ ~ ~t r 1 r _.w ~ .:o► ~ ~ { . ~ 1 e-' G _ t as notod, ' , ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ { 1 _ 90 0rado•n,•~ ~ . ' ' ~ ~ S ~ ~ • ' • ~ , x,41 N t to oxcood . A , , . , r ~ .,.._.,,or . r in drynoss ~ YAR. 1 , 1 ~ ' ,r f F'c a 2500). I r ~ ~ ~ ..l~x04g ~ ~ ~i t max', • , ~ ~ I , t ~ r ' r ~ . F 1~, r.. ' ~ i - • J ` r/".-.,`'`o,,. :fir. r 1 ♦ . , Sri r ~TMy- -r. ~~Ca. ~ r 1, h "1 . rl ~.41.•((1f~ h ,7,Jf 1r1(~j4t'.. t 1 t ~ w. ~ r gat ~ --r ' r E as ' shovmr 1 1 i , ~ , 4~. ' i~.► ~wr~ ~ ti - is. (U0N) ~ .w r 1 ' * ~ ti • t ~ - . 1~ c~ o o  ~ ` , r , r;~.; , •i; ; ; ; accora,~n~3 ro tno Mrr s ns ructions.. (vr approvod~.eq, vQcl .9q I • ~ • , ~ ; ~ rovide. ~ zshin otc, co or ~a►atchod to coa ~,oto R M , , , . , ~ I .•1 b, • 1 . r • ~ ~ ~ Y • • 1 • ' • . 1 . 71. , Insul.atx~itt to be, ~ ~ r . • r - ' ~ • A~ •fhoor 2 bluo boar J. a orimotor. ` ' ~ ~ ~ • . • ~w .1•Y ~ • ~'1 • . ~ ill 1 • ' ~t - . " ' C ;roof ',r~-19. r!. id nt•~ hor►tod aroa~~t ort~, ~ . • ~ U t Y~ j,7 ' 1' t. ~ •c~ r• . . r. . •r - ~ ~ ~ ~ ••a•'~ r.'; Ali . r _ . • . . ~ „ t'~r'~, 18.•„ •Olazin , ~o;~in 'accord nco with ~~Clf 5~ al]b UaC~ urtd•, I . fl { f. ti,•' 1 . ,a•~.• •r aa~`ot ~;.,od~ whan• Yn o~•~vithin . 0 •of .doors :in •ot! ' , ' . ' E'1,.. , . • y' ~ • , r , ~ . ~'haxa~rdou s 'loc~t,~ons"1 and or .ns~ ro d . ti 'UQC. . 'i , ~ TI ~ I • , 1 .r... ; ' ' 1.9 Rostroom~ ~r'in~.ahosc- • .5;. , , . „ ~ 1 ~ ~ ,1, ~ i 4 I , . ~ 1, ' r. '1 ~ ;,b 'r 1.. . n ' •ti~:. r-' ~ A}` ~~,C1or~ ~,ith00t V~ny1, ~ ;r'`' 1~,b) ,.1`,r ^t', . ~ ~r . . • ~ ~ l ~ ~ a'• ;r; 3' C 100 _ _ • , t ; C~ ••wAih~r~, io,•, plus#• lan► Hato. on'1~YR;0 'bdw ~ . i ~ - r" i , C.~ ~Co,.a~ o - , . r ~ L.;~ J p~..wazl, wnzamol on WR bd•.~.,,., r .•y . , • r• . r f~. ,.t 1•r. .,~.1• ,1 4Q~./n .1113..~o r^ ,~w~ , Jr.✓Y •'1~~,•!i'~.nil 1 a ~ ~ry 1 / ' ~ ~+t''~• . r., `i. i.'ry r'~t ,+1 / ,J , r ~ . . . r .1' . hen N 1:~' p V 1 N _ { ~ G ~ QJ _ 4 a ~ Q T ~ 1 ~ ~ ,,H~ •III ` ~ r ~ . • '.r r ~ ` r ~ r ii ! .I 1 ,I kt l~.l. It S - 2 0 ! ~ ~ 4 "k S r'. t' \ r ~ ~ f{ ~ f ( •1 . M~CHANICA_. -f . ~GTAICAL • d~ PLU RING' BY SEPERA?E•. PCRMIT Mocl c C. Q ~ o I • p vi q• -~'1 r ,~cfm•./ •.:opcupflht'.& {8}' air chanflos'~.%~~hr,, inV:, M~. ' •~i• 4 A o G ~"~.D CJ L. A N 'T' ~ ~ ~ ' • • ~ ~ ~ , a1 LS . , . . , ~ tam ~ ~.i ~ i r • ~ 1~.1 ~/4 Q , i.,l ~ ~ ~...C 1 C~ N ~ i 2 / S ►Z ! , ~ w~S !4r ~ ~ • ~ ti~ ~i r~r ~"t . ' ~ i , . ,b,.l: i . . ~Srf . ~ , ~ ~9 • • ~ ~ t ~ ~ ^ ~ , , ly. ~ ~ ' ~ ~ • , f 2 F`•' o c •f • . • , • ' , J' r fi'r' , • , i , A a ~s ~ , r r.~ • r ~ ~ 6.G~ ~ ' r. ~ } • r 1 (~A,} • a t i w l ~ Mw V 4rr/ r ~r++ ' + y. ~ ' 1 rwMrn.»..wMw ....•YYNY1Mrr :R•:. a .w ♦ n:..b it WtO.a z b ~wy+. s4~.~•,. Mb .sd~.'a'.1 ~•!'tMMMM~A4 . 1 , ti' I `y ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ :1 • ~ r i ~ , ~ ~ 1 r ~ ~ ' ,f~~T X1,{1 ` ! r i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~~nnn • J ~ NfiBCA flai►lr / " , l 1 Y II i i ~ , . ~ ' I , 1' 1 , I ~ ' ~ ~ r :t j , - . ' ~ t . .~.t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . , 12 DO - o ~ ~ ~ f , ~ ~ t^'~ ~ ~ I ~ :I ~ ~ i ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ( ' 1 I' 1 ~ 1, ~ 1~ f' 1~ i ~ • rl ~ /1 „~i a U U " ~~r~ ' rw►•H'MKVw•+ v..wwN .rwr y,+^w.ww.r+"'+. w... v~,yrt~r~Mna ~'r.'Alw.+~rf. .•~.rr+w ^~«.+~.r .y... ..IM'tM►' .'wr+"niM••' •r+w.•rwMu'~w««...•v+.~....w~f".N'I~w wr^^A"' "trr....•.t w+r+.r r1....~ • r..l , i F 1 • ~ . I ~ ~ • ~ ~ . ..N. \ 111 1 ' 11•' li ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~r ~ , . o ,zo 0 • 20 O ~ 20 r 2Q , , ~~0 0 . ~ 1 ~ ~ r I . ~ • ' ww.w w..r.r w.r.w rr~ ~w..•~ .r.r^,r • r-.+. ' ~ 1 r , I ~ • ' ~ ~ , ~ ,r j i ;I I . . I~ ~I , 3 - 4 S - f`f'4~t x 12 T' • ' Y p, . W G ~ WA ..d , 1 '~N C~ ~'I T~ CtS.: . ' ~ 'iYP . p _ ; J ___r-- ~ . _ ~ _r ~ , _r . . wry M il.. I~IM~ N~11~ •Ir~ ~r ~ti ~~II ~ ~ . , I ~ ~ . I .y~ ~Lr ~ V V t ~I W J D!` ~ D Fr"(. -G ~G I i o , I r 1 I, 1 1 Q-8 5 ~ x J2 T 1 AY ~ 0 ~ y ~ W 7 E;a • w ' v . _ ~ i ~ ~ , ~ GOL.. i 4 .0 5 x 5 N 0,~ p~~ ~ I► r1 ~ P~A1'~. ~.1 I ,c i x ~ 5 g / a n j a - -1YP 3 I i MEN" 1 0 0 _ ~ . _J ee.~ ~ j J ' 4J H ~ Lr ~ O rr ( ~ ~ I _ s',r5 r X i L I r^ - t ~ 0 o , .I ~ WIvxN Go y. _q 4 V" ~ ~A. W A1~ 'fYt' E i. 1 I 1 1 ~I ~ I~-a l~llD GJN1. rT YP. xG~:~Wt~c. Ncrf, ~ . F ~ I i e A L 1, 1. r ' t  ~ ~ ► 1' ~ _ _ _ _ (L 1.... f •r ~ -ter.--- , sic--- -..y. it r- _ ~ y,.~,. 1 ~ ~ _ . _ _ . a ..ww .a+~...A+ 1 ~ , ' • f+j 'f y~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ t-~" . J ~ a......rar....r.v.a.p.~..aaal.+~r•IYM~a~I~ .r..-,.-..---- v i y - ~ ■ { ' 1 i 1~ - ~ , r ~ k ~ , I i 1 , t 2 s i r ~ ~ ~ 1 , ' 1,. ~ , , 1 • ~ ' F~ ~ 1 , i~ ~ ~ I .rte 1 ~ ~ , ` 1 c f' ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 1~: / 1 i , ~ i iY ~ 1 ~ , , . _I~. • ~ 1 . X11. 1~ ~ -`7 ,a ~ 1 • ~ 111 al'.. 1 ~ 1 ~ 1•. :....1 a ~ ~i -l1 -LS.Y r- a i I ~ ' , ► ~ ' „ . • 1 ' ~ ~ f t ~ . ' } I i i i ~ ~ , i ' • / , i , ~ . . ~ ' ~ ~ • t : ! I ~ ' ~ G•M,U~ l~' ~AG~ , S('!. ' I + , . 5.M ~"H G ~ . ' ~ , ~ • r ~loPY . T. ~ G AM M ~ i G S~ , ' ON / r i 2 ..I E I , ''.I '.l ~ .III t ( ! i, I 'I ~ ii ~ ~ . ~ i, _ ~ r, ~ I 1• I I, , ? 11;1 ~I III I'~I,'1~ • 1 ~ , ~I I I. •1''.l,i, 4 .I I , I I I ( ~ I ( I ~ ~ 1. ' I I ( I, I~ ~ I~,~IIII,,I,I~: I~,,l I ~ - I It l 4, . ~ 'lII ~1 ~I I,~I,~. ~I ►I l ,il I ~'ll~~l~ li'~ II ~I~.►iiil 'll. !I~ ~►~~,.fit~~f~ ( • i I ~ I ~ I ~ ~If 4 , I II'I 1 1 1 t 1 i ~ I I. ! ~ I •I ~ 1~~ II 'i' I Ili I I{I h I, I X11 ~ ~ ~ X14 Ili 1 !I , , I I I"~'. .1 ~ i I i 1 i -I. I 111 i '11 .1 . ~ I ~ ~ I II 1 '1, r , I. I' I , . I ~ ~ ~ I• 111'1, I I ..~w : •.!l' I (++1' ~ 111' L, , 1 l ~ 14 .1 ~ 1 "I} I.I • I, ~ , ~ I I I .,.I . , I ~ I I i ~ , I .fl,~ I;►, ~fl J,~~I.I I I~•~ I'I ~ ' fi~~ ~ ~ ( ~ ~ ~ , ! 1i~I ~1 ~li I 'I , II~ i ~ f ~ 11~ I i . , ' ~ ' i w:..~:....^Ii:a...3+~.%wL:a~•, ~""'K"/ I~ww.r~"'n'a. ~'L` ~ Ir ~ „I 'I I . i . I ~ If ~ 'i. III ~ .~~r 1 ~ I ~ II L'' I I II ~ I I I ~ ,r I • ~ I II.I 1 ' I I ~ ~ ~ ~ 1. ~',1I~~ ; ~ i C I - I, , , I { ~ 1 ~ ~ I I , , : I I ~I,~ ~ l~ , 1 I. ~ ! I. ~ i, I l I 1 I I ~ ~ ~ i aocrc~ ,I, , 1, I ll I ~ III I, ,,I,~ I I I ►I , ~ I , 1 - I I "I ' I I ;I. 1 11 1 III,. i . I . I' ~ ~ l .I ~,I ,I "I ( < , , it i ! f I ! ( I ~ ~ ~ , I ~ I ~ ~,c~.--zas..~ .wr:-:'c' ~'~""°la''"' "~r.r`~''`~' , , ~ ~I I ~J ~ I ' i I , i ~ ' - ^ . ~ I~~..::..,, may. II ! ~ I . I~ _ ' • I, ,I , I:~: ~I i , i , ~ I I,i , I , , ~ I ! I , 1 ~ I I I,. III ~i ~ ~ I I I. ! , ..~I I ~ - . l i ' ' i it . ~ ~ 1 _1._.. • 1 J~' I . ~ , , " ~ , ' , 1 . 4,~ . , ~r~ 11 ' L ! f , , • ~ ~ ( ~ , . i , ~ . : ' ~ ~ ~ ' t ' t / i • • • ' , + I C ~1 , I I M I I T ~ co uT ~R • r ~ 1''•.11' I:I, III,' 11 I II'I I+',,'11111 ~I; l!I~ I I~ c L' 1 , 1 I~ 1 I 1 11 '+I' ~.I+'u ,41' It 1,11'1 ,1' I' I I,{1 (II , ;~Fr,,'I l'I I',~~I 111:111'1.1,11'~tt•I,I 1 :I''j l' I , I 1 11 ( II ,:II I, I 'llil. ~ I.., I~~'' SI,~ 11 'I ~ j'tll ~ ,f ~tl l+ I I''~ II,I I: lil 1,111-',I:II 1i I 'I I ~ I I ! I f I u , + ,IIII ~tt'I:• ~II ~1, t ~ II t I'I I ,~1 '4, I'. ''I , I ,u, ( I I , ' tl ' 1''i , ,I ( I , UI.I I' 1 I , ,r~'I ~ 1: I, 1111 I . I t I fl ,I I) :It.l ~ G, I' I , 1 I~,II.V ~ 1+ ,1'. .{II I .I I :II it :,i1 I 1 .I :I I .I I (I ,I f' ~ 1 1. IJ 1. I' II I' I I I 1 it 1. ~I, I' I I .I t 1; I I I I ~I ~I ,r I I,.I I II 1 ► I ~L 1 :I 41 ~I , r I I',1 I r 1;; 1 I I .I. ',I II I I t 11 ~ ' j'+ ~,"I' ~I I i 4 I I I, I. '111' i' I ~ I ~ I I' I r. ~ 'll I I I w II I'. ' ,I ('III I' 'il .I 1 11. I, , I ,I~ , , 1 Ir I 1 •II II , I III I I II ,1 ~.,i~1 I IllrfI t I, '1 1t ~ ,'1,1, I.1 I I .I: tll~ , ~I ( I I 11111 ~ ~ „I' 111 I'` I I~ I I „lr{ (I~ ' 1 I I 1 i I „ I I l I ~1 I I il,l 1, J I ~ 1 I~' Ii ( I' I~ , I ~ '1 , J 11, I I, i II..) ( ~t ( i I 1 ~I II I I 11 : I. i 1,1 I III II ; I I II V~ 1. , h ~ I I 1 JLI I I 1 1 1''I I I I I I .I ~ I( I I II (I I III ~ .I + I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1~~ ' :I I 1 f ( f 1 , , I 1 I I I , 1. I I I , ( (l I ~ I I , ~ ( 1. 1 I III I I, , I ~'11 II`I 1 ' I 1 : , I I I I II.: II ,I 1 1' ~ 1 I~ 4 ,I I , ' 'I I. I 1 , I I 1 ' I I I. I 1 , I ,I II IIII ~ 11 I, I ' 11 , II III, ,I 11 ~1, I 1,1 , ~ 1 II,,~ + ~ 1I I,' I 1 I : I 1 I I I 'I I '1 1 ' I ( I. + , I ~ { ~ 1 1 I ~ ' 11 ( ~ 1I~11 4 11 I „ , 1 I I I~ I I I I II ~ IIII ~ ' I I I. 'ICI ,1 ~t 'III II 111+1i1 '111 lil ~,I II (J. tI Ih 111 rI~ I ' I .I. ( 11 It, 1 I I.I ~ I11I ~ III ~ I I+ I1 1.1 '~1 I 1 ~I,1111 ,,IIII 11. 1 , I,. 1,' I., 11, , .'.I', 1, J I I 111 IIII ,1)f ( 1 11.: I I I I. 1 I,,I I 14 1 1 ,1 111. I I I + i ,1 F ~ I. 1. I I. r .11IU I I I.IIaI... I . II ~ r ~ , I I 4 I III 1 ~ I J ,I } l IIII I I I I~ II . II 1 I I 1 1 11 1 I I I 1 1, f I, I II 11 ~ 1, I (I 4 .J r INI I J I 1 1 I '.,I I~ I I 1.1 11 ( I I I I I ,I I 1 I I 11 1l1~ 1,1 ( I , .I I 1 I I ~ 1, ,I I, 1 r I I I ( I I +I , 1 111. 1, 'I ~ ~ I I 11 I I . I I ( I .I 1 I, ( II ( , ~ ! I I , I I ► 1 ' H 11, , I I 1 II I 1 ( Ir,l I~1 1 11 I I. II I ,I , Ills w II ,I I , I ~ ~ I ~ I ,I. I I i I,I i I : 1 ~ I I ~ 1 1, . I ,I I I I I I. I I I, I I , .I I , I I .1 I 1~ .,I ,1 1 ,.II I I I' I II V II, ~ I I I If, I, 1 1: - I ~ I ! IH I I , , 1 I I IIII LI I I I ,1 ( , , I 111 , d, 1 I-. I I I 1 4 Ilr""r~ '^...~__...~y ~ ~ I , ' 1, I I i , I :III I .I I1 I 11 + ,1 11 I I III,' 1 14 , I 4 1 I , I v t ~ ~ I ~ C.• EA. ~ ~r r f I '1 + ~ ~ 1, II I +ti ~ ,I)t i t1 .11,1 I I I I i I 1,1 1. I .I ,1 I ~I I ..,.11 , I,, (I 11 .I I ti, ' , 1, I ~~~LII ~ , I IIII ,~11 I.1 I ~ ~ 1 I ' ~I~1 I ~ il, I , ' ,I ' 11 .11 ( ~ ~ ~ Iw Ilil;'I '1J 11 ~I II I I I 1,1 ~ ~ ~ I I ,.,,~1,, „ . ,1, i I, I J ~1 , 111 I , r 1 ' I ~ ~ I III' I ( - - - I ~ ~ ,II' ,I•,'~' 1 I I 11 I l 11 + I I. I i 1 I "I:II 1•, I, , II ~ U, i + ' , . I, I' II I ~ ~ (III ~ ~ ~ I' ~ ~ ~ Ali I~:L ~1 I ',It. I ~ ,~1 I i ' ~ 1 11~ ;',t' , I ~ 1 11 I . I I ~ . i ~ , ; tl, , I , !I I ~I ~ ~ I , , I I (I , I, 1 r ~ 1 I II II+I ' ( , I i' III, I:,1 ' . i / \ ~ _ ►I III, ~ 1 , I, I I II. ~ ~ 111'1, .u. 1 ~i . I; .1 ,1 ~1 11 ~ ,I '1 . ~ Ii~~l' ' I/ i 1 I"' 1 I. ~ , ' ~ ~ I ~i II I i. ' 1.11 I , _ ' i ~ ' ` ~ ~ ~ !I 1 • ~ ~ ~ I 1 I 1 h_I_~ L . 1 ' , ' ~ , 1 , 1 . Mvca'fN, U . 7 CM , ! i i 11 . C o N'r I t3 D C~ ~ . 1 1 ' ~ 5~ p i I~ . • ~ I ,  • ~ i I I ~ , ~ ► ► / - p 8=1- . 4 i 4 , l I • " . I ~ • ' Y E • k. C .t (503) 244-9011 FAX 244-017' ti ~ i • , ~ ~ . C DATE' --22 ~ . ~ . ~ , . J'i ~ ~ . ~ ~ 1. L ~ 0 U c 1 NI Qr w R . . , 1 1 • ~ ~D , ~ ~ 1 4. i . . JOB NO. . , d~. Y tt. SHEET NO. t~E~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 t ' i ~ ~ I~ 1 , 1. ~ i~. + ~ .i i, ~ . _ ~ , ~ . . , , 1 ~ . . ~ ~ t ~ ~ , ' ~ • . ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ _ l.A~ , ~ f l~ ~ . ~ - . ~ . C ~ ~ ~ ~ f ' .Vr ~ ~ . . ~ A. ~ 13, , . hA~ ~ ~ ~I~ , ♦ ~ , i r .r. 1 • I ~ . _ . . . . ~ - ' ~ . 5 0 ~~X P Y ~ . ~ , I ~ > ~ ,.y ~M t,JT X Gr ~ I / i ~iuou5 ao t Cod! ~ r , . ,4, . ~ -,~O 2 ~ , t ~ - , a ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ w ~•,R,,.. r b ~ / i Y ~ ij. rG• ' ~T .2.X -.o,, a . ~1 Y N ~:.,Jr..~.:. sT.~o; Way . . •.n i , F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i • ~ I , { , ' ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ - I. ~ ~ ~ 'p' FirJ•~l.R• D- i t -T - , ' . ~2 ~ , , , ~ ~ _ 4 . ~~J .d i ~ , , A„ y x ~ a a ~ S~ ~iMF: GLt37C ~ , , , . ~ . , . a ~~.AM 5EA W ~ , R-ti I ~ , 2 ~ , J . A , ~ • , . ; . d ~I' ~ . .l . _ qT~ C5P5~ f~.. g o. ~ C EA W ~ ~ , l _ ~ ~ ~ , . . 1 • ~ t ' ► , . r S r 0 ~ ~ ' : n' ~IN•~l.R• ~ , ~ ' ~~r• iV - ' r 1 t . 4 I Z ~ r P- 1 : , . . r 1 ,2x l1TE 8 1 i ~ L~~7~t~~1~ --CAN 1. F a j ~ J ~ ~ ~ . L..  ~ / ~ II 1 11 1' 1 ~ W G , \ y ~ ~ ~ ~ ( ` 3~ G LIN ~ ~ GUI. M T~fo M 2t7 5~ ~ ~(P • ' M~~~ ~ x I Ca 8 ~ , ' N , .GOt~tJMN , 5 I / ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ - ' Y , 5 x ~G 5' x ~ i d s , ~ ~ ~ \ 1 1 ~ , , ~ a /z ~AS~ io X ~ rj 5 i r . a.G, );..W. ~ / ~ g cMU WA~~. ~ ~ ' 5 - oR~, SRO • ~ ~ ~ , ~ . Ilk t~ , i~ ~ - • 1 t=' - ~ ~ , . ~ ~ . ' 7 s 1 V W • ~ L,.. , ' " . ~ ' N. oi~ R~GII?.~ ~ . . , ~ ~ po>"1 , I ' 7 r 1 .I , ' ' S q, x ~ 2 F'f'~ ~ W ~ _ . v ~ 8 4 ~ . W • G trf; ' 7) 4.,5l- , ~ ' ~ ' r, ~ 0 . ► ~ ~ ' ~ w - r. - ~ ~ o ~ , VI V ~ i\ ' r ~ ~ ~ . A~ . D ~ " .t ' , . . . I 1 ~ .1 '7 1. ~ r ' r .1'"• ~ w • '~J('~~F \ ~ 1. ~•~I+'~ 'r' " r. ~4 ~ ' ~ ,r VI4~YV~ 1H I n 1~' .t ! ,I 7 ~ ~ • •r ~ . 7 r' ~ 11 ~5r ~ 7• Syr y I 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ r' ' . ~ r', 7\• 1 1 ~ 1 .11 r r ~ 1 I L ! ~ i t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ r„t~, . • / t .1 '.I' rr... •r1 T 1.. -1 t ~ ~r'KL„ i~'7,~~ tR 'a 7 ~ ~ . ~ .'r j ~~'!I~ ~ , lI ~ 1 y 7. ~ .l~ ' r ~ i. ~ t I e: ~ ' 1 y ' ~ ~ f 1. / Ir•,~••. i ,r `.11 ' ~ ~ ' ~ f. .f. r 1'• ,1 ' ~ 'i . r, i ~ * r I 11 Y "i Ir 1 , - I ":f1•• a .1. rl' rl ~1. ~ ~•r r 1' \...t ,I''• .t ,'n r t .r..r '~)i . ~ I ~ f . I ~ I ~ ~ ~ 1• rl',1 . 1~~ ~ ~ ~ . 1. + ~I,~~~J• , 1 ~ ` 1 ,e ,'ti 7 , ' . ~ ~ . - ' , ~ t.•,I,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! 1 " 'w' "~:►•+p r~I .T, •+~~'.w )..'`1. r.I_ I, ..•N•.7t:f ,+'r 5'..^f 1 "rnll.•~•~1,`h1;C-.h 'i.~~l;, ..t ll;.; tf'.. ' r". ~.1 r ~ ~ 1',• I 1 ~ 5 ~i ; ''r •.yr~ 1.i .t~ 'r ~ ' ~ I ~ e 7, -r <I ~ t . r` ..r . ~ . 1 .I, ,~r~ •r i .r,. i ~ rl'7 1' .w.-a. a:~e~.1 N~' _ ~ I.i4.1. i ~ . 1 , ~ 1 i ~ .-.t. a'.....,. ~'i.ai. ,..r Vii. ' 1 . . ~r r i - I I I ~ ~ ~ i ' • 1 f ~ ~ ~ ' , ' . I , 1 ~ ~ } ' 1 ~ ~ ~ , 1 1 1 1. 1 + , „ t ~ t 1 1 . 1 . I 1 ' 1' ' 1 1 . 1 ~ ' 1. - ' ~ ~ ~ ~ , ' , • ~ I 1 . I Ir ~ •1. 'ICY ,1 : / 1 II II r 1 ~ ' ~ ~ . 1 r~ . ~ r' 4. / ~ 11 ~Ir I'~• r ~ ~ I, ' ~ ~ + ! !f"~i ~ ' , , • J + , r1' 1 i•I .F ~ 1 , A.KoOFIN ~ , 1' 1 i ~ ~ ~ I 1 11 r , 1 ~ ~ I r~ 1 7 - i ! f ~ r 1i I r ~ 1 4 r 1 ~ ~ ~ • f.l ~ .r ~ . ~ , ~ 1 i 1~ I ~ w ~ 1 . .r. 1. ~ ~ r 1 ~ ` ~r' 1. 1 t 1 'I • 1 ' ' , • ~ , 1 n t ~ ~ 'r 1lw .J ~ . ~ ' 5 i ~ G~ 8 p~ ~•x• P LYW ~5H , . ~ . , G , . 1 1~ J f' 1 ti rJ ! 1 r~ ~ I - , 1 . .._......ti.~,. . • _ , . 1 . • ~ ti . } c~ , ~ Fit' I ~ 1. ~ ~ ~ . ~ ' 1 20 ; ~Y• ~ rC . . R ~ `•i4 w . - .•1,• ~ ~J a ~ ~ t ~ i t, . . , , 1 - ~ , w_.,__ ~ , 1 I 1 ~ ~ p , , I ~ • t I 1 ~ ~ i . it f ~ r~ . c~~fr'1 :JJ , ' Gl~'~;'~ ~J,~ ~c C3AY . } ~ r I , I i , ~ ~ ~ , , 'J ~ ` , ~i~t, ' i 1 1- ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ 7~~ , v , ~ ' i / ~ ~ x , 1 1 ~ . ~ , ~ ~ .I , ~ W ~ 1 , , ~ ; x ~ K ` , i ,~~I ~ . ~ ~ T5 G0~1 1 1 I • . r 3 ~ ~ , I - D' ~ . ' • t' 1 , f ~ . y ~ 1''Vt.t~ ~ ~!d ern a • 1 . ~ 1 • I ► .~M - ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ e j ~ . ~ ~ • ~ •1. ~ ~ ~ s t . NTC~ I • .c. ~ , , ~ . I. a r,. ~ ~ , i. • ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~t i . . , oh't,y• • . , ,1 -T 1 1 , . ~ 1 1 5 ~ - . ~ a N Ea M i f 1.i~1 E ~ 1 - i i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~~Y p LU ~ . i.e ~ ~ . , 2 •N i N ~ - f. . ~ 5 L A P w 3 ~ • . 1 ~ • . • t,; Y -f. ~ , .~0 • . ~ . N ~ . T E , ~~,c, , . ti ~©b, J N ~R~;: ~ , , . . ~ MO~'r' , ~ , . ~ . , . . 1 - ` r~ - - _S y. • ~ , . , , . . . 1. t  l 1 _ a - I .nil C 11 _ ,1 ~ . , a . , , , f , , ~ , . ~ .r - c ' i a i e ~ .I ~ , . ~ 5 3 x rb 'r5 GOL.UMN ' 1 " t • i ,I ~ ~ , l A !0 x C3A7E PLh'~ - E , ~ R ED i~7 ~ , ' B . o.c. CN Y ~ WN 1'~ P ~ - ~ . ~ I ~ T! - i ~ ~ G 0 , . FOO'fiN , _ .r f i , Lam. ~ . Imo,"~.~• a',', ~ ' . , ~ . p . ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' I ~ ~ 1 P f ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ . ~ E ~ ~ 1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - q . , 1 ' • ~ ~ . ~ , i . . ~ ~ , . , i I _ _ `1 2 IC l,P S E ~ i i ( , . ~ 4 0 I~l P, ~ ~ Za y ;I ~ ' ► tJ01~1 N ~.11~ ii I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f I i ji~ ~ ~ ~ (i ~ ~ S 5TH .I ~ i~7 ~ ~ 1 i ~ ~ ~ r 1 . ~i k 4 I ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ I I, I I~ i - - ~ L ' ~ i i 1 - - - I~ 1 ~ L j,~ _._J A . 1 ~ • ~ ~ ~ T ~ ~ sP2e uo~ 77i ,S Q , s~~N a~NT' W Z~~C . 7 l l f ~ 3 ' s' ' ' A`uEC~ PAIN" I ,I~.~/a 4 P OF /a INGED l,i~ N ~ l2 c,N AT R ~ 0 C E~.. W E ~ _ h~~. Gam. C ~ f~ QUT~ET I`C~ UT 4,=.-~l~ ST~~I... ~ G v~~.r ~ ~ -HUf3,..... °S Co N O ~ ~ Q ~ (~UCJPS ~ .F i~ Wu~R~ USEC) 1 C , ~ I 1 r ~ T L PO~,~ 5 ~ 1 ~ f ti ~ ~ ` ~ • f 1 ~ ~ l ~ ~ w ~ti = ~ 1 i ~ pR1U.~D i~ ~ ICo r .ter. ~w•.~ ~w~~..rr.~wn ~~-~+~w~~ i ~ ~ ( \ 1 ~ r~ k•'"•'~ ~ ~ , , ~ ~ V ~.oa.TE~ iN .our m ~ arcTH rd Mac ~ ~ u A P ALTIC EMUL~IGN ~ ~ t . : ~ooons N c ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 4 ~ ~ / / ~ /4 -T f~. ~ ~ , ~ `v .I ~ ~ , i~ ~ r 2 . ~ "t°YP O ~ z . w..M.ur•~ ~ ~ ~ I, t i ' ~ ~ ~ ' S TY PlC I , i D ~ c ~ ~ t 1, ~ ~ , 2' r• ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~1 ~ i 1 i ~ ~ . ~ I 1 f ~ ~ ~ ,i ~ r ~ ti i ~ i'` ~ ~ ~ ~ CONV~RS+ON 'fA&.~ ~ . j ~~pp t ~ ~ i _ ~k 'u~+ for WNrrnt nwvwtp hMp1141 ' ~Glv LD 1 ~ / ~ ~ I ~ i i ~ ~ ~ ; ~ i a (U ~ l GONC P E. I , ~t ~ f ' ~ ~ i ~ ~ ,4 GpNC.. WA ~ un.r~ (~~.1 N F Ih1 . ~ ~ ~ N ~ I V E ~ ~ ~ M , ~r ~ ~ , I ~ . _ ~ ~ nv~'' wn me µourrnwa ~ ~ _ ~ =t- _ ' ~ . IES CLJ~SS' T~ p w CONYEii~ON ~QR w. ~ 1Sw r+ rtw~Qy ~ I . dbl. , ~z _ f ' 1 1 r~ ti 1 1 I 1 ~ -r _ i ~ ~o~,rt' r r~~'k1 F~ ' 1 ~ ~ ~ P~ ~ . . 1 w ~ ~ > i, ~ ~ ~ 1~ i A ~ a fr) - _ . 1 1 ~ - ~ r .1 .I _ L 7R'f~ ~ ~ . ~ , ~ , I. ~ , ~ x:`  N J~ ~ rl re , ~ ~ , , ti ~ ~ p ;~~r ~ \ ~ .Q D ~ ~ , O ~ T r ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ' t ~ Lt ~ ~ r ~ ~ i T f_ C~ Ai r~~ G f~ ~ rte,=~,~~ ~ N G -r o ~ M K K►' ~~~'1f r , ~ yM w~ ~ ~ ~ ' t ~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ ,►~s rrq' ~ ' ' . v rs F~~ ..,s. ~ r M ~ ~ 't M 1 , 1~ ' / w ~ 4 h i ~`}1'Ii~ ~ ~ ~ ..1. C2US~-~~~ bN S''~ l 2} ~ARILIN G STA~~.S " ' ~9 L ~ CXT20000 GG~~ ~ it ~ t . r _,,,J„ , ~i A Arm. ~ .1 Y 1~ d ~ , ' , . ~ H , M R.~ . As P ~T ~1 CNT . D F 7 ' •~1 ~ . , c c ' /I , l~ / ♦I LIM r 4 C.OtvC Sl. ~ . ~ A ,ra z ~ ~N . ~ 1 v ~ 3 y f 1 ' 1 r r 't I ill rr ` s i i I I i i h . BfNCH AWRK: IWRK: ' C/ TY Of tlG,oAD ~ I ND£X N0. l J I ~ t l G,o AD Va. III , " BRASS 01SK l,y 5' NW CORh'£R T I GAR DISK l,y SJv£watA' Y£R T I GAAa S T, AND ~G4 / N S T. IN ST. EcEVArION: Isr. f ON: 117. 95 ' _ i (e 0 f ♦ - 5a ~ - ti.~T ~ • - d~ df I r , . .~~o , . ~ ~olc1 ~ ~f( - ~ ~ / rr ~ , _ i r t rr - ~ _ _ - - ~ ~ . _ J . 9, ll JE JN S, , ~k - ~ dcsc) ~ ~ wr ~ ~ 16 G BNIDGC A ~ 'J y ~ ~ J 0~0 ,1 t ~ ~ ~ ~ I 1 ~ ~9 ~ ~ 1 14 1 • ~ / ,r ~ ~ I 9 ti ~ t 1 ~ i ' 1< h~~ , ~ 1• \ ! ~ ~0 ~ p~ ~ ~ 1 L ~ ~ y ~ 1 ~ ~ ' ` ~i 1 , o ~ ~ 1 9 I ~ ~ o~ o. ~ o. ~ ~ ~ 5 t ~ ~ r---.----`-. 2 ~,1J.YO ~ 1 o ~ 1. I Y ~ ~ I , 1 ~ I ~ , 0 1 1 0 1 I I I !~rStIN6 1 y 1 ~ ~ i ~ BU (DING ` ~ ~ b ~ 1 ~ , 0 ~ ~ , 1 ~ 0' ti f , ~ ~ ` ~ 1 - 1 , 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ IJI.' I J R/11 - . o ~ ~ ~ ~ I~~.;i, 60 ~ 1 \ 'Q i s° ~ ~ ~ I 1 y f 1 ~ \ , i ~ t~~ ~M ~ ~ ~ 1 ' ° 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 z. I t~° GF y ~ K ~ S n~ ~ t ~ c*ti I , ' i SCACf: I' JO' 1~y.60 p' V ~ 1 i s t 1 ~ ` 1 ~1 t p~ ~ ~ ltd' B,I,yA' ~ ' , y , 1 ~ . 1 1~ F ~ ~ ~ , ~ } 1 J , ? 1 ~ ~ , ~ ; ~ ~ , s p ~ ~ REGI5TEREI I - I S T E R E D ► ~ 1 ' p• ~ P1ZOl~~SS(ON,1 r DJ l ~ ~ , n1 FESS[ONAL ~1 ~ , ~ .AND SURVE Y SURVEYOR , ~ ~ ro~~ l ~ ~ 5 , 30 ~rdc u~~monen! , ' i / r' I ~ ~ ~ ~ sc..er tastmenl • ~ n ~ y I I dx d yG NQ~ TI! oRECON o, .114 i ~ ~ ~ ~ is , ~ ~ ~ - f 1 /V f ~ ~ , 1 ' ~ t I i _ / E I ~ I I p • l ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~~~~r~+r .Pro err l,,.r , Aso. eo ~ Js>', +o • . _ _ _ ~ - - , . _ _ _ - _ 7_ _ ~ _ . _ _ _ i - - - n . ~ 1~6. 0~ - ti - ~ _ ~ I ~ . O S VJ 5~ .S .S: ~d , ,fir S ✓R vE roR '`6 ICI. 6I Rl~rProperty ;,rr ;r~ ;1e~d ~r~u M`DOt£ AN D rJ9, rJrE N. 170 Sw SKrL INE t, - SU 1 TE I OS  POR TL ANp, OR, S VD, OR. 9722 Px, ?9?-BOd.~ ~-BOd3 S~ i A~ l:~.d0~ 4 t ~A• C S UR VE- Y Of A TRACT Of LAND 8E /NG VD 9E /NG A POR r / ON Of (Or 1, 'BURNNAM IRACT'. S SW I /4, Nf l/~ SEC, T: rR.4 C T " _ S / r[// rrn / N TNr c i rr of r~caRp, wasx~NCrc i ti r r r. ~ ~ i ;1 ~ 3~-~SP~C`~S~~ ~GEN~~2Al.. ~ NOT'ES i ' ~ ~,,,,C U , 5 C~ASI ~ O . n3 and dimonsionz~f I ; Notify f~!?' w ~ M 1 nl ST 3 AR.1~ S~" A o foro .,procooding. t v t ~i .q 5 E.L~ ' ~ ' ' { 1 ~ i r V f Y i `oo_- 5 2 I aS i i Bl~c~ PN 3 I .-turbod soil; froo I ~ SCJ. 3 ~ v , ~ia1 12` min. bolow . 4.• r V, t. l~ ,oquirod. if nocoss,,. ~sj rock tray, with r up grado to ' ori9 - " ~ C ,ti ~ ~ ~~,~r Prttict t /yy.Y{ L ' i\ / .Y 'e.Y 'n y'v ~y~~~K~~rA`'•7}~NM. .r t. ~l t ii 1~ ~ ..y 1 y i,.~r ~ A~,t t'1 .y ~ , ~ ~ r ' { ~ ,J..' ~ ~Irr ' ~ ~ t:'~,+.~ i~ i- i ~ ~ ' i , / ' t r 1 X0,8 . \ f t i r • ~ • i, ? ~ 1 ~ .~;.r Y~ ~ ~ ~ s I ~ ~ , . ~~y i t t j - ' ~ ~ ~ r,. F C J / 1 ~ t , i ' ~ . I t ~ \ i ; ti. ~ ~ ~ OrS~ ~5 ~ ~ ~ i• , ~ ' j / i. ti , ~ t ~ t ~ ; , -r-- t . JC Y . ` , . r ti . r,. i iLi J C~ . , ~ ~ . . i ~ 'y ~ ~ ~ ! it '~~1 Sri ~ 1....t~ ~ r a r.,,. ~ L ~ ~ T - - ~ ; ~ ~ - t I .,,f, , ~,i.~,.ti~; ~ ~ ~ ~ U i ~ :.d, y„ , ~ f.;~~ I ~ E i i r r, v 1 ~ F~^~' 'Sy. . i t ~ ~ > R.~ ^k' 1 u~ . . \ r I , T r w ~ ~ ~ i r ` ~ 1 *r~ M ~ ~ 1 ~ J y I I w i~'. r. ~ a• 4 ~ ~ ; ~ r ~ , 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ . ~ ~ y I ' ~ ' 1 h ~r ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ 4 ~ Y IM .+A I.,. t F i . 1~ 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ,j / • a " ~ , I . . LA1 N (V' t f 's . , . , T i q I 4 ~ R Y' ~ \ .arr d • ~ ;f : M• i ~ , . 1 . ' ~'y T _ ' VS ~ • 1 ~ '1 '~~.r ti Vii. i n rte, F ' !p f+~ i r.~~~1,y'~ ~.r ~t ~Yr. r l t , ~ ~ ~ ',~'A1 /+~1 r;t~~.~T~+9 ~+1~1 ~ ~:,~.I 'F `~"'F ►~~1',~~' ~'•n;~,,,~r.i-~•~+t,,~ y.~..n t~~~.~ . c ~ 1 ~ ;M ; '4k. ~ , _ 1,;yr/ti fir. , i ~ 11 d ~ i,~r• ~ {*1, r r ~ ,~,,,.~~r v~t.'l~T~" vy;•!}r' ' `~:Zr .~,~.!`Yi1~ ttr ~ r r a ~ ~f ~,'YY' ^f. .17+''~ ' n~~{ 1. 'il f ~~r'1`~I,~frv» ~~('M 4. .~~~rrd;~..L, lei ~•~,`t.;' l 7.yy r 1 .y,"ti,. ,/mar ,}4' ~ ~ ~ ' I l 1 r r 'r w .ww A 1 r * . ~ ~  ~ „~Q y~ 1 ~ V , ~ 17. .Insulatl.an to be. . #loor 2" "blu© bonrd~.(~ porima ar. ~m , i ~I ' d Dt~ l~ontod' Araas only) only). {1 ~i ~ ~ r I ~ ~ ~ ~ C I ! 5~1 ~ all ~ accordunca wa.th ( ~ 2 18 . Gluz~n ro, bv, x.n r ~ ~lT~ PLAN ~ ~ - `'wh+on~ ~ or'.~►viCtiin .1 .-0 of cJaa - safaty plazod P ~ . , . i • , -Fund or.:.us ro d Uy .URC. . - - ~azaraaus .locnt°a.ans . q , Y t ! i i . . ~ 19, ~ aastroom• f`.~nYsha~► ~ • ~ 1`laar .anaat ;vinyl . ~ j I T ST:`.TISTIGS b8S ~ , ~ ~ ~ . ~ - last • laroinAta:' on '1~tR . JYP. 'bd . ' C~ •wa3,~laCata, . p . G ~ wall onamol on WR flyr~~ ' ~ - ~ ~ x • , •,Y ~ ~ . _ _ ~d. • . a ' ca~.l •orromal ,on, JYP - - . 't r ~ 1 r ~ b~~V = I'I ~OG~ ~ ~'1° ~ ~ ~ ~ r ' ; w ~ . ~ Y s~P~RAT~ ptr L~ TRICAL'•& PLUMBING B . MECHANICAL, ~ C ~ ~ ~ 6 . air chap as Pi~v ic•!G = ZfJ~ 2 00`~ y 4 G°1o ~ ~ to prauid ? ~ , ' ros ragas . , i" t - • ~ .~NDSC~PE ~N~~TU~zA1.r )o~3E~0`~'s 'L I °1~ ' ~ TAX LCT '7OO La GA-r'E~ ~'t-~~ ~ ! r ~ ~ W !/4 O- ~ %4 5 t:.CT ~ G tit Z T 2 S~ 2 I bJ . ' I R. ~ S _ 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . , . C', ' ~ al't' `r' ~ ~ t tij ~ , t ~ , h ~ b ~ G . ~ C v~~,ua- rt , . S i , r r k.,h ~ ~ ~ a ; ~ nn r ~ ~ ~nr . ~ ~ Y A E,t~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ . ~ < ~ , ~ b l • w y Y - ' l: ~ r - N~feC~ II✓P~v i. y 11 1~ Z~ IC P . r ~ I IC l,P S AR. X00 1- ~ I P ~ 0 I-1 S N~ G~~~ CJOWN~,i E. Go a ~ W ID W 1' ~ N LiG~ S r I i I i ~.o t° -ro c ~ r s-r o ~ a ~ TZS I ! I ~ti, ~ ~ i I r I (i I ~ ~ ~ s I~ ~I ~ i I r1 ! ~ t r' I ~ I k ~ ~ I i it ~ . _ _ _ _w.. _ _ _ - - ~ I I i I rv I I - ~ 1 ~ r i , 1 , i I I I ~ I~ i ti ~ ~ ~ (I ~ I I r ~ - , ► ~ 1 ~ I I t / e ( I I ~ ' ~ i I I S i i i , ~ 1 1 + C ~I ~ 1 ~ I ~ ~ I~ t ~ r ps ~-Y ~i~ A q f c ~ L ~ ~ 24'/x" ~ 24'x' ~ o~ iyt FD n ~~1.I ~ r ~ t' ~~,F'(ZC r~. G ~i ! S~~r=r~ AitiT~ W ZINC s ~ ~ ~ S' ~ (3A~,Ef~ PAINT ~I P of I i4 , ~ ~ . I ~ ~ ~ + ~ ~ ) i µiNGEG SID l ~ ~ ~ - , r- _ i ~ I ~ ( i i ~ I I ~ 1 ~ ' ~ ,1 ~ ` ~ I ~ i ~ ~ i ~ F I G O N F~.. WaTE2 S.. ~ i i i' l i _ . _ _ ~ l~1 E, ~ G c D C Cry: ~T T N~ZU ~ . - ~ ~T ~~.I~ r ~ ONG WA~I~- ~~.yt.,~ F Ir.1 G ~ r ~ ~ ~ C UT~ET r`C7(~ Q U T c A- 3 (o E,T E E t.._. i ~ ~ v~~ . ~ ~ v~ ~ ~rzooM ~ , ~ ~Y 2 ~ ~ i - N U f~.~ ~ ~ NO _ 1 ~ , ~ I~C?OPS ~ CWu~2~ uSEC~ S ~ 1 O S ~ /c C - ~ _ r-- ~ n a4cwE le.cx~ - ~ ~ - Tc7 goT a I ~ goT o~ Fr ~ w 1 ~ . C (f,, i~ ;G 1 ~ ~ - i I TC i-. c) V :-Z f ~ I~ ~ ,r--~ i i ,~GAYED IN ~OuT n1~ ~ T Ears N C'oRr~ u W ASPNA~TIC EM~I.SIGN _ ~ f T ~ ~ DC,~ N C I r 2 ' `irYF' C ,I 2' o" , 4 i e sEL TS r CQNVER'~ON TABt.E a ~ N ,a 1B A ~~.t~#~.1.1 r Erg ~t f ~ ~ t~ ~t~~~ ~ , . ~ - l . T"t t ~A ~ . . Ii1 i YV Y r-~ ~ 'V 1 ~ ~ + 1 ~ 1" f S (ra~ p •j.2 D LJ N ` ~ _ fiLF~Ef;~ VH f~ ~ rtt~tr 11Geel t av~` ~A uOUNTWO H(N _ IE$ CLASS' Type _ , . CONVf RS+ON Fr . t SSW N m~e~r ~pN ~ Sr ~I i j _ _ - . I ,n1~1 i ~ ~ 4 I I ~ . ~1 7 . l N ~ nl~w.l . 1 1 ~ ~w 1 ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ S ^1lF~~ f 1 ~ f 'l l1 w ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ nn 'd ~ ' ~ ~ ~ C ~r t~ ~P, ,np r 4 '4 ~ ~ 9 ~ ~ ~ ~j ~ 3 reC , ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,1 ~ r S 11+ ♦ Itii r ~ o , ~ r ~ J ~ ~ ~ i ~ R i } f~  ~ a ! i J h ~ M ~ ~ ~ = Z. C1 ' Y ~ M . ~ 1 ~ ~ ,11L !'L. ~ ~ it '.f ~ ! ~ N ~~.~YEs ~ ~oAr~~NG ~ M j ` 'f M WM ~ 1 ` 1 ! C. 2 U 1-i C D O N l S ~ n ~ ~ ,,,y■■~~, n ~ ~ ' R, I I T ~ I , ~ C. N ~ ~ 5 j / ~ 1 I ~t ~AV ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~"I S P JT. ~ CON T - ~ la- , i i ~ ~ v t 1 ~ ~I ~ ~ y 3 ~ ~ ~ I 7 C r 4 CoNC ,~~h ~ . ■ ~ N °°j / 1 L h I ~ (503) 236-1551 OR 682-0491 i i DATE C.~ t F-D i t~J C.a► r i G L O B E L t G 1--i N C.s~ JOB NO. a Soo.., r SHEET NO. I ~i ~ j ~k1i ;r,hb.lk V11~N1 ,',v j ' ' 1 ~~a i i I . I i r I - 1 1 i L tt~i~Cl u~ r I - f n~ `--`-r--~'~i I ~ PD - .t ' f `1 ~ ' ~ r ~1 \ ~ ~ J 7 ~ ~0 ~-.U ...fl ~ ,i I u , , ~ ~ a~ ~ ''I'c.l-~ ~ ~ ~ r., ( _ , - d .~aW ~ McNa~tin. c~ ~ , o ~ ~ ~ r ~ ✓ ~`I ~ r C _ ,r ~ CC' - ~ ~ r r 1 ~ . CL ~ ~ '~V~ =,r t ~ . i f - - 1~5 3 ~ , ~ ~ .L ~ G ~ ~ ~ AL ~ ~ • n ^ t 1.1 ~ f 00 / ~ 1 r i' r ~ I'j t ~ I . t, I 4 ~ r~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,{f G < r' L ,4~_ sr ~ G ~ ~ ~ ~ G s ~ - ~ „ ~ r, 1 rte. 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l~ ~1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .l J ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i _ .1 ~ ~ V _ ~ r~ , y `1 r.~"f t~~ ' t~'~ ~ V 1 TH ~ ~ i y FyC 1/ ~ ~ Q ~•t ~ Ct~W T~ ~ _ i ~ ~ . i ~ ~ i -~1~ - ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ 1 l" - i r~ .:..fit I 1 f~ '.~l ~ ~ ~ .t.. ~ t ~ - - ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ti I Qw ~ w. t A , ~ ~ ~ j~J l i ~ _ fC.""_ ~ 1... f • L, ~ , I . ~ r~ ~ i i ~ , . ~ ~ . ~ [ r 1 : I - _ ~ - _ - ~~~r: . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Nb ~ _ ~'A 47 ~ ' ~.~D 1 rte"" ~ ! G, , s ~ ~ r- . ~;.~C,054 - f~ ~ 3 , I + ~ •~3 J~-~r~_ _ I , , r:~; i i2 J F L ~r\ ~ J 1 i i \ ~ L1 j rJ ~ V - c ~ ~ . Gam,,.,- TN ~ ~~li ~ c I,D ~ ~ , , . i I --_1 I I-401.0 C~ u 1 O ~ i . ~ ~ a 1 I ~ .i ~ ~ ~ \ / i L ~ ~ L:_ ~ F~ ~ ~ . r , ; •J { ~ i ~ ~  ~ l ~ 1 i,~ 1G , ~ l ~ t~ 1T/ ' 1 r ' ~ ~ .r „r,~ : ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~~r~_ , ti~ ~ i Rt---------_.. u _ ~D. ~ ~ ~ !I~~.1U~ 1..1Ih L,G'~ t r~ E' ~ ~ pG~ ~ i' r l.(.~ i ~ ~G~ _,b-.~~ r ~ • - I r..._._...._ . - 1 " 1 ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ r = _ - " ~ ~ ~,r,.. i 'I , j _ i ~ ~ , / . r` ' ~ ~ 138 ~ _ _ ~ M l+ . r r' 1 w~ ~ i ~r' V~ ~ ~ , _ _ - - - _ .T- . G~E G r Imo. r G' _ c.. , V 11 U . ri - ~ i . 1 o ~ - ~ - ~ - - / ~ _ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ x _ _ ..r-....-- - - ~ _ I - t R, - - . ~ 1 k- - i I 124 - ~ ,i a 2a -0 20 2 a o r 'n~i • E_ ~ . f ='a ' _ _ ~.r i 1 4 O 1 0 T f" I r i ~ 5 _ 0 0 rf d" ~ 1. ~ ' (7 ~ ~ ~ i1`'~ 1 - ~ t=~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ! K l_. ~ H 1. ~ ~ ~ 1 ; ICI I 0 ~ I ~ V ~ `E. A~`E.- ~ j . ~ } ~ o,C, W ,,q t- 11. J ~ I ~ _ ~ (~Y~' ~ ~w ~ - _ r r~ ~ ~ R 9 ~ I o I ~ 1 i ~ m _,~_1 - - ~ - - --J ! o~ . - o `on i ter. 0 j i i ' % 1 1 i r . ' I ~ I h I V1""- ~1 ~O ~ f ~r~ ~ ~o ~ ~ i ~i V '-q' ~4~.u i7 ~ , s 4. r TY y ~ ~ ~ i - ~a 111 D~ GO~~~ =T ~ ~  i o ► ~ i i ~ s I II. l~ ~J . 1. L i ~ ~i ~ ~ r- r ~ J ~ ~ ~ ~'L ~ ~ ~ a, C 1 ~ ~ " Y pp i ~I _E - I - 4 A {T _i~ J I 1 Y lY w r j I 4 s___ - . w r • ~ 1 ~ , ` ; Y l 1 ~ 1 G r° C'L~~" ~AGG a.U• ~M001"N G.M.U- _ 5 A , . ON%t ~ r. 2 ~ ^~-.,z~xr . ~ I 'I~I , I"ii'1'~',' ~i I !i t. 1 ti I ; i' EI r h ~ li II I II ~ l , .II 1• .I I . ~ r ~ , ; I ~ ~ t 1 I I i ~I VV I ~ ~ ~ 1. i ,I, I I I. rl~ . i ; f I I i I~i ~ II ,I q I I , f I I I ~ N f I ~ I f ~ I I ~ ~I ~ I ~ ~ II a ( ! I it ! II ~1 (I ~I ~ ~ i I''1'~1' '',';f ~t,tl~~ ~'I ~ II II ` l I i I. 'I I` •1 M1A 1 1 !I K f .I I. V I , I ; t I '''I,~~ II ~ ~ I ~ C ~ f Ik 1 4 ~ , 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ i, i ~ ~ f ~ I I~~~ II II 1 ~ i~ 1 r I ~ 1 I G I I + jl ~ { ~ I f , I I I ~ I, i, II II I i 1 i ~ I~ ' 1~ i' ~ I I t~ I,'~` I I I ~ ' i r ' ~ I ~ I I ~ t r ~ ( i ~ ~ I I ~ I ~ ~ 'j ~ ` , ' 1 I I ~ ~ I ~ I L ~ .I ~ IL~.I,I ' I I 1 I I II ) I ~ 1 I ~ I , • I , ~ I ~ s, I ~ .I r. rl ~ i ` ~ II (I' i ~ r t,~t, :I:,? I ~ I i ~ I'. ~ ~ I ~i ~t I I'I I~, I.III ~ I' I V I ~ , I; ~ l ~ ~ ~ . I~ ~ ~I 1 f' ~ ! I ~ ~ ~ I I ~ 1 II _ L.~..._..-..~ _ - - t ~ ~ ~ I I ~ . i I , . r......~ f~ I~ 1 I 'I' Il' II~~ III I~ I ,I' I. ~ I ~I I i~ I ; ~ I ,I I ~ li ~ ~ ~ I ~ f'I, Illll ~~'II~` I' ,i li(111 ~ 1 r ( ~ ' ~ ~ ! ~ II I! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E. I j ~ I : I' , I I f~ ' I I' I ,I':tl~ll. I Ilrl li I ~ ~ ~~~li,t ~ ~i I 'll ! ~I III ? ~j I r t~.'~~~~~I ~ I~ _ ~ ~ I , t } I _ I I I,~ I ~ _ ~ ~ I I I~ I ~ ~_.w,~ ti~~- _ _ _..CP r_p" .F ~ ~ ~ II I I I1 ..y~..T+Y' 'tstretn'1 :w..-»w""" , ~'~.1 ! ' ~ ~ I ~ I I~ (I k I I ' I ~ I "rye ~r : ~ M I I ~p I,i I.11; I ~ ' I ~ 111 tt ~ I I , ~ U Ali, .i 'I~~.. lil '~i~i~ f,~t! lII i; i. ~ I ~i I I 11I I I. 1'' t I. ' ! ~ ~ I l ( rl I r I~,l,f' t' I , , ~ It;~~ I i ~ I, I. IJ'~ .1` I'; I; a.. au.:_a.a7.Y.~1~ au_:._at'_a.~;, ry.a,,,1 L:3aL'_l:-~:`~~~-~ ~ : I `I~ j _ ' 'i _ _.-..L. _ '~rr+r,-- -•-_•-.......:tl-r•.+.».,I.""""'.a_ .a _ x.. u' ,I ~ 1 ~t ~ J' I lII II I,I + ' ~ . ~ ~ I ~ , I ~ r ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ a . I ~ ~ ~ ' i . _ ~ ~ _ _ • ~ , ' ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ j ~ II . I. aso A r 1 ,r }I, ~~I.II' 'll il'~ tlil~~ I r ~~i ~ ( I ( 1 ~ II ~ _ 1 i ~ I , , I~ ~ ~ I _ . r^-~ I . ~ I ~I' I, , ~ ,,11 ~ , . I ii 5• . I j ' i i 1 1 _ _ ~ ► r .I • / 0 I, ~ /t n r o N ~,w~~ ! ~ --,x 1 ~ ~ ~ i ~I I ~ G I'1 L1 W ~lL ~ ~ ~ / ~ i i III Ali I -III rl il. 1 jl 1.11 tl I~ i11 1 i Ir .I ~rl, I~'I lid I 1 1 . II I III III ,III Ill,' i IIIIIi i; III 1'I 1 it I.I 'I. I I ~ ~r 'llt~~ .I `~~~I. Ir I Ill 'I lt~l ~r~l lil ~l~~ ~i,1 .1; ~I I~;I ,Ir'~ III I,I,I; III I. it , 'I. '.I; 1 ~ I I I I. 'I 1 I, I i ri 1 1 ~i~ 1 1 ~ ( I' II~ I ( I 11~ II i;f ~ ~ I rI I ~1 s ,l ~ ~ I I ~ ~ it --1 I, 1. I , I f 11jlll VIII i t III, III I ~II ~ II~~{ IIIII~IIfil II5'IIII I I( I II. ,II II I. .I.. I I ~IIIII'I.I '~I I~, ~ 'II•~, ~t~l II~II'llI II II li;. `I I . ~ i ~ I I ~i I Ilt I ,~II,I I l 'I~.I~I I f,l. ~I I ''t .I I~ I I ( a I ~ ~ I I' h I{. l I 11' I ~ i ~I I 'I I I I~'.,~II` ~I 'I ) a• III III Ij"II. II ~ ~ 1., I '1. rf' , I ,I) II I ~ III ~ ~ I'I ~ '.1 'rI~ iii I I I ~ ' i ~ II1~; ~I III i I 1 III' II ~I~ 1, II I'I , I ~ , 'i'll,~', I ~ ~11I ~ I II -tII ,{I ;~i• I C j - y. ft'I~ I ~ I, I' 11 ~ ~I ~I, II~i I. I ~ ~~'~II ,I I. ,il (I I`.I~ I I ~ f~ I~ ' ~ ~I ' ~ 11 II i, ~ •II 1 I~ I I I I I 1 I I I I I I •I I I I ] I I I` 1~ I I , . I~ i ~ 11 II I I~ ~k~ rl~ i ~ 'I ; t l 1 I` I r ,I I I~ II .I. ~ I 'I I . I ; ; I ' rl' I I I .1 I r !i I I .I r I I I 1i I I ','1 I I, i I, ..I ; I I ,I~ , ~ I I .1!I ~I ,I ~ I (ltfl ~I' I ~'ll~ ~r I " , ~I, it ~ I, I. I . I I .~i,1 I'. ~ _ I '~1. I. I I I ~I; I. ~ .I I: I' I, ;I r `I; ,'~~~r I~ 1 I 1 I I I ` I,Illr r I f i I I I. ~ , I' ~ ; \ / i ~ 1 ~ .IIIIiI~I, , 1 ly I I , ~ il' Ir ~i Illl~i~ i;f) ~ I ILA , I,~ ~ tl ! 4 11) ~ li r I i ~ I, 'll III f J I ~I II , i N I f r! ~ ~ ~II~, 'i~l ~ I ~ I , I I~ I I I ~ ( r 1 I ~ I rf' I,,, 1 ( ;I I , 'lA I II. I ~r, I 11 Ii I I ~ I I~ ~ 1 I~ i IVi i4. jl ~I II`II . I i i ~ i J r II'I'!) ~ I ,I~i;ll III . ( I .III I I 'I,I i'I i I ~I .v III '.II., li I I' r` j" fl _ i. I', I ,I',li ~ I,, i~ I.. I~ I' ~ ~ , 1 f I I VIII I` l ~ . I ~ i II a~ ~ I I i i i I , I Il I it I IL t~l; I i II I~II'I ~ I ~i .I ir. - I,I ~I~~I~, I~; ~ I~ III ~ ~ I ~ I ~ i _ ,III I ~ Ilil~ II ,111 I I ~ t +I t~ f.ll. II , ~I 'I 'I 'I r I i - y I / ~ ~ - I I Ilr 1~ II ~ II ( I1 _ _.-..rr, a-J _ 1~..iiYii+ia I IV ,I ~ I 1~:; I1 / I I r~ _ I I, ~ n I~I 1 ,I I,I.I ~ - - I I I , I I I~ f t I ~ ~ I. 1~~~1 ~ 11 1 II_ II III ~ , .I',~ ~I'II I, I11 fr ,I I ' I I I I' If I I.I~~1 ~ l i i ~ ~ ~ ~ 1. ~ I ~ I r i t' ~t I I I I ,I ~I,, Ili ..l ; I ~ 'I,I 1 I ~ ' i I r, r l { 1 i I'I' ~ I 11 'I., I _ . , , I 1 I~ I .1 ~{~I I~ I I ~ ~ I _ i ~ f- - - - I:~ 111 rJ t '.I: IIi~I I - ___,u a.- - - II III„ ~ • I ~I' II'~ it ~ I; ~ II'I (~1 II I' ~ ~I ,I , . `I ~ I I ~I , I ~I ~ II ~ I: I'IIi M1 III I) ~ I. I f III' ~ ~i ,I l~ tll~li'I;~ I I ' ~ I ;r., I ' I I, ~ I _ _ _ VIII !I!'1, ( _.J I . ___I _ ~ ! ~ i I ,I ~ j ~ I , I I i l ~ rurw.~ ' Y I j ~ I - ~ , . i mom- ~ MO o~~N C ' Nl U I i ~ Ul t3 D C~ N a ~ f 1 ~ I > s ' i  i _ 'i i', J I~ {I~ (503) 244-9011 FAX wwr,-^ nal 7 . ~L~E~T 6~~~V.~~. PE X503, CONSULTING ENGINEER/PLANNER `~`>~o~F~ JOHN l7o~AN DATE- ~<<~EF~s f. A-~oY S'ro~~~/G~o~G ~~G,HTNG 12520 . S.I~J. MAIN, '(~iGARp, D~~yo~l OREGOh a JOB NO. 7377 d '`,,,rr~,, E,L~VA'I 1ON5 SHEET NO. K. KEh F~, c. a ` ~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 ~ ' ~ ~ ~ A ~1 AG.G"~~~1..i1~ ~ t C~n!'11'1,~ i.'' ~ ( r----- C 4'~''~; ~ U o ~.1 X G u T~ K ~ ~ ~ t ~ 4. i ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ( 1 1~ - ~ 1 Pil,AS ~R ey _ ~ ~I - ~ ~ 1 V •4 I( i ~ it ~ ~ ~ .1..X~, ~ ~.-v ~,.c:~ 5 C~ ~ t-. N.W - Y.~X 4. 5'~uD ~QI.L ~ ~ ---t,-,,.,. ~ - - i ~ ~ - j~ r 1 1 I ' l ~ ~ I I ~ i . ~ I i P i. ~ ~ r'* .~.:/.:L: S:II:L'IIL. i t I F i 1 ~i r 4 ~ l~ ~ 1 ~ -4 _ - ~.r~~ _ _ _ _ - ~c,.,._ i i i f ; ~ ~ U J _ T ~ ~ V _ ~ ~i . ~ d y G a . W IMF-. ~.,►-U IC -'~~.AM 5G ~ W ! 5GA'i~ ~ Gat-. G A ,i i 2 3 M.(3, i 4 . t _ _ ~ 1 ~ ( ~ Z ~.~f ~iL (~1.,~ ~ Y l a I ~ a • 8'' c, ~~1. l,.JAY ~ ~ p'. . 5 l _ ' r 0 ' \ ~ y ,t o ~iN.~~R. ,j - _ - j u ~ I 4 a CAI F'LaSNIIJG C I I ~ I - 'ua z,~: ~ nTE 8~ I ~ r- CA ~a 1 F A~~ t-l ~ N 1  i _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ l X 30 8 ~ . _ :5~~'~Y 34~i~ C~LB W/ r 2U' Sf;f1'f C~ CUI-~I M iU ~ 3 2~ L I N'fr L L.~/(2~ ~i., i i 5Aq(7 ~ ~ C /T 1 ~ cuN'C -roP r i~oTr~r~ A / 3 i x ~ x God W 5 ~i i - ~ i o ,r ~iQ x /z f~AS~ r ~.~~C s ~ c. M U W A ~.1. ~ t , 4 ~ i , i Y , ~ ~ 'r • 5'(aR~ FRONT a~~. ~ C ' ~ ~~nzFa) ~i~ I ~ I ~ i -f'r11GK~N SLA3 EDGE W~'fi-JK~ I ( . DOWN aF ~~G~~..~N~~~. ; .~L~ERT R. KENR~EI(,JRL PE c~ I ~~.~►"'.~"5"`" 2~ K~G~u ~ CONSULTING Ef~~itiEER/PLANNER ~ ~R~u NE~efF ~ a . D D L~ C ~ ~ ~ i (503) 244-93.11, x=AX 244-9,317 ~ 1 1~ ~ I ~ ~ 5~• x i' F'1" W' ~ / ~I 7) o ~ DATE o ~ir~.~~~~Z i ~ , 1 ~ 1. L . ~ - I i,., Uu:,.tiWU~ vwr{r<p ' - ~ ~ ~ r . ~ ~ ~ ~ i l' h ~ ~ ` ~V`JHI V i ~ I ~ ~U~ Gtr~l>> `A' (~ODrlNu ~,i -2D~-l o ,1 ~ 5 ~ G •X PLYW~,~H~ . 2 0 D w ~ _ t I ~I - ~ ._20 .D _ _ 2D. O. - I ~ 0.0 20 ~ P 2 - t 8 _20-0 _ ..2 , ! _ /fir ----..Tr-~*'+- . i , I - _ _ - . r----- ~ , i . iriN , " ~~M - - ! I `1 ~ T~ 1. ~ ly - - - - - - - I r . ~ ~ i , ~ . fir. 5 0 -X P1.1 LJU• H"~ ur ~ , q2 2 Cp 5 ~ . 1 ~ p.W ~a~d , HorDIPPeD) ~C-~P~.V. - . NAME ~ i , 2 4 ~ - X ~ - - m ICO' ~ _ 0 _~t [3ox NAILS ~ ~ /I 2 , ~ , , 1 T~► 12~ of WAt-~-j. ~ 1,. ~ ; I ~,~,~7CK ~DG~S U~ N , ~ . I L p, ` ~ ~ O G ~ _ ~ - i ~ ~ ~ . ~ i ~ , _ _ L~ - - - k I - '(O f ~ 5 I Ch . I~ ~ ~ G~1 N 0 ~Y L'f1Y - I ~ - \ _ o . , i e ' I 2 xq ~ M ~ ~ ~iTr ~ ~ ~ , , alb r c~r ~ . { ~f~ i ~ - ~ ~ ,1 ~ , A J ~ ; ~ c _ ~ . , i Z ~ ~ ~ I X ~ ± 2 C ~ ~ ~ ~ 3~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ' W ~I/\t G ~ ~ + ~ ^ r I ~ _ , 2X`~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ,u ~ , l` rI/'J ~ I y 7'r ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w 0 / L / r C N V ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ „ ~ - ~ ~ x . , D , ~ ~ - ~n ~ w I / I ~ x ~ f:l ~ _ '~~f i~ i, 0 - ~ ~ ~ - v ~T ~~c~c, 11 - v ~ 0 ~ - ; ? i r~ / 1 i Q~ o Z o ~ ,d ~ U o ~ . ~ s I ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ 4.tL ~ ~ Q U ~ S 5 ,r ~ i U Got., W Iq S~A~ ' , x T P _ IG x ~ - GOB. GAF' ~ m~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ I j ~ ~ I x D • ~ ~ I - . ,n ~ X ~ k k 'T A. • t ~ J 3 i ,1 / I D ~i - r ~~DG ~ s - - - i FBI . s l ~ ~ 11 , ~ ~ .1 = ~ t ~ t { i ~ ~ N 5~ ~ 5 r1 P r , ~i , a - GMU 8 yy a1 ' 1 _ _ _ sr t_ k~ - _ - _ 3 ~ 4 - i 7:u Y' 0 k ~ . ~3 ~ . _ o ~ g I '~oUT ~ _ ~ _ _ I - j _ - o _ o ~f _ _ ~ ~ ~ 1.P~7~ Ek G. M U to r2~ I ~ r= / T Loc,+R.~~ ~ t.-V I X ~ ~ .__.._r _ - _ _ w..__._, T ~ . ~ • CAS- r ~ ~ ~ _ _ ____M--- - ~ _ ; o . F- ' I - - _ ti-, ~ , c w ~ o N t7 ~ C~ M l_ 1 ~T~ ~ n `f ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ .o ~ . ~v '1"y~~ l.. ~ ~ N ~ f•~. O C) U ~ ~ dr • , - 7,_ _ r 1T ~ ~ T~ ~ ~ ~i ~ 2 ~IAIR,~hS LA( w 3 R ~ p/L '`l~~ T 1E'~ © 8 ~ (o i rJ ~C E N O~tTA {Z i M I  ~ ~i l~ -1. i I ~ ' r1. 1l i~ ,1 3 ~ ~ - ~ ~ I /-1-____--_ o d to q i , ~ = ~_d ~ ~ u - s s ~II L i 1 i ,I I ' 3 ~o~vr~ 1 ~ ~7 X5 x ~t, T~ u f ~ ? 1"Yr'; i i 1 1 : • r t • 0 x r0 X L~A~E f't- ~ ti a A B C ND~ L~`~ n t ~ ' ,i I~ W ~ l ~ , ~i r H ,~Y i~ E' (503) 244-G311 FAX 244-9ZA7 I r~i ~ O rO~tiJ,.. N ~ ~ ' i l i~lr~' n,C, ~ , ~ - Q .t~G CC' w ~ ! ii i~ ~ c;SGG ri ~ D ~ I ,2 f I ;j d _ r^ ~ ~ Ofti..yD ' p~ -t,' ~ ~ ~ { d , il. k. K~t~ g D q s6 y ,•;tt..~ s; u! v.;