Loading...
DIR1989-00007 w November 21, 1989 ,:III I Jon R. Jurgens CITY OF T I GA RD Jon R. Jurgens and Assoc. n � 13765 N.W. Cornell Road f lJ , " / � yy OREGON Suite C ((ff'' ^ S.)'0 Portland, OR 97229 , 9 _ Y t' ud � ,y'' RE: Director's interpretation Development Complex q Dear Mr. Jurgens: I am in receipt of a letter from you and related correspondence from Bob Sherwood, McDonald's Corporation, regarding the provision of a Director's interpretation for the term "development complex" and its relationship to the property located on the southeast corner of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road and S.W. North Dakota Street (WCTM 1S1 34 BC, Tax Lot 401). In your letters, the point is made that the proposed St. Vincent Hospital, McDonald's, and future commercial center should be considered as separate projects and not combined as a single project or "development complex ". Of particular concern is the affect that this interpretation has upon the allowable number of freestanding signs which would be permitted for the entire project. I apologize for the length of time that has passed since you made your request, but it was necessary to conduct a thorough evaluation of this issue involving Ed Murphy, Community Development Dept. Director, City legal counsel, and the planning staff. To make an interpretation on this matter, the following factors were considered to be relevant: 1. "Complex" is defined in the Community Development Code as "a structure or group of structures developed on one lot of record." 2. "Development" is defined in the Code as "a building or mining operation, making a material change in the use or appearance of a structure or land, dividing land into two or more parcels... ". 3. The term "development complex" is not defined in the Code and is only used in Sections 18.64.030 A. 2. m. and 18.68.030 A. 2. o. in reference to regulations pertaining to the C -P (Commercial Professional) and I -P (Industrial Park) zones. 4. "Shopping center" is defined in Section 18.114.015 of the Code as "developments of not less than eight business units ". 5. "Shopping plaza" is defined in Section 18.114.015 of the Code as "developments of between two and seven business units ". 6. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change (File No. CPA 10 -86 /ZC 18 -86) was approved in 1986 to rezone the subject property from C -P (Commercial Professional) to a combination of C -P, C -N (Commercial 13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639 -4171 • Neighborhood), and C -G (Commercial General). A conceptual plan for the development of the entire 3.9 acre parcel was presented, but was not formally considered as part of the application. 7. Site Development Review (File No. SDR 88 -05) was approved in March, 1988 for a 24,000 square foot medical center located in the northwest corner of the subject 3.9 acre property (zoned C -N and C -P). The approved plan showed shared access with the remainder of the parcel to S.W. Scholls Ferry Road and S.W. North Dakota Street. A development concept for the land to be developed in the future was not indicated. 8. Minor Land Partition (File No. MLP 89 -14) was approved in October, 1989 to divide the 3.9 acre parcel into three parcels. One parcel will accommodate the proposed medical center and parking, a second (zoned C -G) with frontage on S.W. Scholls Ferry Road will be used for the proposed McDonald's, and a third parcel (zoned C -G and C -P) consisting of the remaining southern portion of the property which has not been earmarked for a specific commercial use. Although plans for the second and third parcels have not been presented, it has been stated by St. Vincent and McDonald's representatives that the only common element in the development of the three parcels will be the access drives to Scholls Ferry and North Dakota. In the application of the Code to the particular circumstances relating to this ' property and its subsequent development, the staff concludes that the term "development complex" does not apply and the development which is intended to occur on the three parcels will be considered as separate projects. This conclusion is based upon the following findings: 1. The term "development complex" is not relevant in this case because it does not appear as part of the regulations for the C -G and C -N zones which apply to the majority of the property. 2. The terms "shopping center" and "shopping plaza" do apply from the standpoint of determining the allowable size and number of signs. 3. For the purpose of determining when a development is a "shopping center" or "shopping plaza the following features should be present, in addition to the specified number of business units: a. Common or shared parking which is provided in such a way so that • customers have easy access to all parking spaces available in the development. b. Common landscaping and /or design elements. c. Common driveways and /or access easements within the development. Joint driveway access provided only for the purpose of accommodating safe and efficient access to separate developments on separate parcels shall not constitute a "shopping center" or shopping plaza" if no other common elements are present. 4. Separate parcels or ownerships may be present within a "shopping center" or "shopping plaza ". I - c Provided that the subject property continues to develop separately on the three approved parcels with joint driveway access as the only common element between them, future development on the 3.9 acre property will be regarded as three distinct projects. The sign portion of the Code will be applied to each parcel individually and not as a 3.9 acre "shopping center" or "shopping plaza ". This decision shall become final on December 1, 1989. Any appeals of this interpretation must be filed with the City Recorder by 3:30 p.m. on December 1, 1989. Further information relating to the appeal process and fees may obtained by contacting the Planning Division. Thank you for your patience. If you would like any further clarification regarding this issue, please contact me. Sinc rely, Approved by: Keith S. Liden d Murp y Senior Planner Directo•, Community Development Dept. c: Bob Sherwood Phil Grillo Jim Boylan, NPO #7 • JURGENS /kl • Jon R. Jurgens & Associates Architecture/Planning Nif l NO 0 198€1 C October 24, 1989 Keith Liden, Senior Planner City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 RE: ST. VINCENT HOSPITAL, SCHOLLS MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING TIGARD, OREGON - PROJECT 87133 Dear Mr. Liden: Thank you for your attendance at the recent meeting we had with you and your staff concerning the signage for the referenced project. On behalf of St. Vincent Hospital, we are asking that you review this letter and other support letters concerning the signage for the project and make a formal written interpretation of the City of Tigard signage code. We understand from our meeting that you have considered this project as part of a "development complex" specifically because of the 'required joint access on Scholls Ferry Road. We take exception to this project being considered a "development complex" which normally has considerable common features such as large retail shopping centers, office building complexes, etc. Our reasons are as follows: * The project in its entirety has separate ownership from the other two parcels mentioned. * The project in its entirety is in a separate land use zone from the other • parcels. * The project in its entirety is a separate and quite uniquely different building and use type than the other parcels. * The project in its entirety is served by private utilities separate from the other parcels. * The project in its entirety has its own landscaping and irrigation systems separate from the other parcels. * The project in its entirety has all the required parking adjacent to the facility with no shared parking from the other parcels. The project has always been viewed by our office and received by your staff as a sole independent project, which coincidentally, has a shared access drive off of Scholls Ferry Road required by the State Highway Department.' 13765 Northwest Cornell Rd. • Suite C • Portland, Oregon 97229 • 503/626-0695 Page 2 * This project was discussed at considerable lengths numerous times with your staff and was also reviewed on an informal basis (pre - application) on November 11, 1987 with no mention of it being considered as a "development complex." * This project was submitted to and approved by the City of Tigard Site Development review on March 3, 1988 with no mention of it being considered as a "development complex." _ * More recently, prior to our most current meeting with the City of Tigard, this project was reviewed on a pre - application basis for signage and again no mention of it being considered as a "develoment complex ". The project was reviewed as an independent facility with specific independent signage. At this time, we are respectfully requesting that you look at this project on an independent basis and let the signage code apply specifically to this project. In addition, address the other adjacent projects in the same matter as they materialize, and realize that the single joint access off of Scholls Ferry Road is for the sake of minimizing site access points and maximizing traffic safety and not for the purpose of redefining the project as a part of a complex. Again, we look forward to your written interpretation of this project so that we can proceed with our final signage design and review with you and your staff. Sincerely, j ai p j immo5 Jon R. Jurgens JRJ:dt cc: Ken Zinsli, St. Vincent Hospital Mark May, St. Vincent Hospital Bob Sherwood, McDonald's Corp. • McDonald's Corporation 10220 N.E. Points Drive Suite 300 McDonald's Kirkland, Washington 98033 206/827 -9700 rAX;f3 October 25, 1989 Mr. Keith Liden, Senior Planner Mr. Ed Murphy, Community Development Director City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 i;ECEiYED PLANNING RE: Proposed St. Vincent /McDonald's Development OCT 3 0 1989 Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota Street Tigard, Oregon Dear Messrs. Liden and Murphy: McDonald's Corporation is seeking a formal written interpretation from the City of Tigard regarding the above development. Preliminarily, the development has been labeled as a "development complex" by definition due to common access to both streets linked together by a common roadway. Please be advised the common access and roadway is necessary because of limited access to Scholls Ferry Road required by the State. I also anticipate the City supports the State in its requirement for limited access, since the result is less curb cuts onto the public right -of -ways. Due to this limited access requirement, both parties involved with this development are attempting to satisfy and work with the governing municipalities to achieve access concerns. Aside from both the common access and roadway, it is clear and objective that the parcels within the development are quite independent. There are no other common features such as parking, landscaping, lot lights, and building or architectural design. In view of the circumstances, McDonald's Corporation feels it is an unfair statement to label the planned development as a "development complex." It appears the intent of the definition "development complex" was created to encompass the diverse range of commercial developments such as shopping centers, office building complexes, and industrial parks which have several common area features. Where these developments typically have common access, the overwhelming majority of these projects have common parking (among various other common features). These types of developments are understandably "development complexes" with multiple common area themes. The problem with the subject development being referred to as a "development complex" is that free - standing signage is much more restricted. Only one sign will be allowed on Scholls Ferry Road, which would have to be shared by St. Vincent, McDonald's and the eventual user of the rear property. Both St. Vincent and McDonald's are independent developments and each should be entitled to their own individual signs. L /Messrs. Liden and Murphy October 25, 1989 Page 2 If the State's limited access requirements were not applicable to this development, then each of the parties could develop without the common access and roadway. This would enable independent, free - standing signs on each of the parcels. As a cooperation effort by the parties to meet the State's limited access requirements, it is not an equitable resolution to limit or penalize the development's signage by labeling this a "development complex." Your review and consideration of this interpretation request will be most appreciated. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or comments. Your input is welcome. Sincerely, S Bob Sherwood Assistant Real Estate Manager c: Jerry Offer Stew Stone Ken Zinsli 7224k:jdm DATE: 11/21/1989 CODE SECTIONS: 18.120 (was 18.26) I T,OPIel Definition: Development Complex INTERPRETATION: To make an interpretation on this matter, the following factors were considered to be relevant: 1. "Complex" is defined in the Community Development Code as "a structure or group of structures developed on one lot of record." 2. "Development" is defined in the Code as "a building or mining operation, making a material change in the use or appearance of a structure or land, dividing land into two or more parcels...." 3. The term "development complex" is not defined in the Code and is only used in Sections 18.64.030 A.2.m. and 18.68.030 A.2.o. in reference to regulations pertaining to the C -P (Commercial Professional) and I -P (Industrial Park) zones. 4. "Shopping center" is defined in Section 18.114.015 of the Code as "developments of not less than eight business units." 5. "Shopping plaza" is defined in Section 18.114.015 of the Code as "developments of between two and seven business units." 6. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change (File No. CPA 10 -86 /zc 18 -86) was approved in 1986 to rezone the subject property from C -P (Commercial Professional) to a combination of C -P, C -N (Commercial Neighborhood) and C -G (Commercial General). A conceptual plan for the development of the entire 3.9 acre parcel was presented, but was not formally considered as part of the application. 7. Site Development Review (File No. SDR 88 -05) was approved in March, 1988, for 24,000 square foot medical center located in the northwest corner of the subject 3.9 acre property (zoned C -N and C -P). The approved plan showed shared access with the remainder of the parcel to S.W. Scholls Ferry Road and S.W. North Dakota Street. A development concept for the land to be developed in the future was not indicated. 8. Minor Land Partition (File No. MLP 89 -14) was approved in October, 1989, to divide the 3.9 acre parcel into three parcels. One parcel will accommodate the proposed medical center and parking, a second (zoned C -G) with frontage on S.W. Scholls Ferry Road will be used for the proposed McDonald's, and a third parcel (zoned C -G and C -P) consisting of the remaining southern portion of the property which has not been earmarked for a specific commercial use. Although plans for the second and third parcels have not been presented, it has been stated by St. Vincent and McDonald's representatives that the only common element in the development of the three parcels will be the access drives to Scholls Ferry and North Dakota. In the application of the Code to the particular circumstances relating to this property and its subsequent development, staff concludes that the term "development complex" does not apply and the development which is intended to occur on the three parcels will be considered as separate projects. This conclusion is based upon the following findings: 1. The term "development complex" is not relevant in this case because it does not appear as part of the regulations for the C -G and C -N zones which apply to the majority of the property. 2. The terms "shopping center and "shopping plaza" do apply from the standpoint of determining the allowable size and number of signs. 3. For the purpose of determining when a development is a "shopping center" or "shopping plaza ", the following features should be present, in addition to the specified number of business units: a. Common or shared parking which is provided in such a way so that customers have easy access to all parking spaces available in the development. b. Common landscaping and /or design elements. c. Common driveways and /or access easements within the development. Joint driveway access provided only for the purpose of accommodating safe and efficient access to separate developments on separate parcels shall not constitute a "shopping center" or "shopping plaza" if no other common elements are present. 4. Separate parcels or ownership's may be present within a "shopping center" or "shopping plaza."