Resolution No. 91-66 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. 91- (01P
i
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 "All
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 /-7+�) day of September, 1 —7
Gera Edwards, Mayor
City of Tigard
ATTEST: �[
I�-1L-L7L/LC tiLC
Tigard City Recorder
h:\logi\dick\do1app.res
RESOLUTION NO. 91-� U
Page 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 ?1-0010) 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 appraval 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 Coda 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 andpathway
areas not be required to be dedicated and also
that pathway construction not be required as a
condition of approval of tnz:t Site Development
Review request.
ii. Section 28_106.030.C.20 (min__mum Off-street
parking requirements) which requires provision
of one Off-street par)-ing space for every 400
square feet of general retail c>ales area.
The applicant requests tpproval of a site plan
that would prcavide a 39 parking space parking
lot whereas 44 spaces would be required for
the size of the proposed 9uilding to be used
for general retail sales_
FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 1
j
E
i
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 varianceto 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 impesed 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 theoccupancypermit
(Final Ander PC 89-25 dated December 15, 1989).
FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 2
i
masa
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 re floodplainsIgned e area responsibility
for surveying and marking e
rom the
City's engi nearing/surveying department
applicant to the
(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, 7991, LUBA
L
denied the appeal thereby upholding the City's decision on
this matter (LT-TBA Final Order and Opinion No. 90-029)-
prior to the above-describedS:L City of 1Tigard land usemen-t Review and
vaotherriance request, the only
development actions directly related to this parcelon
r the r
series of notices regard billboard signs and onenlarge roof
property. Two frac standing
sign on the property have been considered nonconforming as of
Diarch 20, 1988, and property and business owners ware notified
of this prior to that time. A voluntary compliance
rop eagreement
at
has been used to provide affected downtown
ey_ten been
o£ time until a City Center Plan is adopted. The
sent to the
voluntary compliance agreement e owners of the
subject parcel has never been signed. The property and
bt;,si.ness 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 Coda ..
section 18114.090_F..4_a.
SITE INFORMATION AND PROPOSAL DESCEIPTTON
properties surroun=ding the subject site are also zoned CBD-AA
(Central Business District - Action Area) and contain a
variety of commercial uses. Proparty immediately to the west
contains the Fanno Creek floodplain and is d part of the
Tigard's Comprehensive Plan to ba included as p
Ci.ty's greenway/open space system-
The subject site is approximately 1.67 acres in size and to
bordered by Fenno 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 location withca
approximately the late 1940s. A freestanding sign
readerboard stands along the Main Street frontage of the
property. Two large billboards stand on or near the
property's northeastern boundary-
PAGE 3
FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC
S
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. Tha 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 f'or 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 Devalopment 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
valid for eighteen months from the date of issuance.
Therefore, that approval is likely to expire before
development proposed by the: current application can began.
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 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:
t
The site fronts S.W_ Main Street which is classified as
a major coll-ecto-r 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 nroposal.
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 abai.-Ioned
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 5
i
i
E
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 lin, 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 faet 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 wound 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
floodplai_:. 3g;. This should be required on a revised
site rlan. In addition, dedication of the land area on
FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 6
y
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 th-- 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 TSF 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
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 recommencls 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 f ire 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.
ANALYSTS AND CONCLUSION
Stiction 18.120.180 lists the standards whereby the approval
author=ty is to approve, approve with modifications or deny a
request for Site Development Review approval. Tn 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.
Tn addition to all of the above approval criteria, this order
will review the proposal in light of the Parks Master Plan for
Fenno 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 �; 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
}
with the maximum 8o foot building height permitted in the
�. zone.
In the CBD zoning district, maximum site coverage allowed is
85 percent_ Site coverag- 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
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_56.040 contains interim standards which are to
be addressed far new developments in the CBD-AA zone. These
requirements are intended to provide for projected
transportation and public facility reeds 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 publi.^ 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
i
Avoiding the creation of small scattered parking
areas by allowing adjacent development to use
shared surfaces 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 b3cvcle transit circulation systems,
linking developments by requiring dedlc:ation 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 deva lopment within the action area_
Specific items to be addrassed are as follows:
i_ Continuity and/cr compatibility of landscaping,
circulation, access, public facilities, and other
improvements_ Allow required landscaping areas to
be grouped together_ Regulate shared access where
appropriate. P2--ohibit lighting which shines on
adj acent 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
4
t
•. t 1
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 connectlori 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 roust travel between
their cars and the sidewalk and entrance to the building_
The proposed development= plan is reasonably coordinated with
other development within the actlora area. The site
improvements will be required to satisfy Code landscaping
requirements as described below. Screening of the truck
loadirig area on the southern portion of the building can be
accomplished with eitber a fence or tall vegetation. Outdoor
lighting should be specifically addressed by the applicant as
to how it might b2 provided. These modifications or
clarifications can be accomplished as mirror amendments to the
site plan prior to building permit issuance.
The proposal is consiater..t with only so3na 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 wi13- 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
--very 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.
yarlarace requested. The application ir?cludes a request Por
a variance from the requirement of dedication of adequate area
for and construction of a bicycle/pedes x-:Lan path along the
site's western side adjacent to Farnno Creek as well as
dedication of the floodplain area on the site itself. Because
the requirement for pathUrav area and construction is raised by
Code Section 18.86.040 separate from the requirement for
floodplain dedication and dedication of sufficient area Por a
pathway, the Commission will consider the requirement for
flooaplain dedication separately later i---1 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
i
EL
Pedestrian/Bicycle Pathway Plan 1974) . In addition, Community
Development Code Section 18.120.2SO.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 ranno 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 Coda, he 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 an the same zoning district or vicinity_
(2) There are special circumstances that exist which are
peculiar to the lot size or shape, top:)graphy or other
circumstances over which the applicant has no control,
and which are not applicable to other properties in the
same zoning district;
1 (3) The use proposed will be the saLme 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 unlawfil
taking and violation of the Oregon Constitution, Article
FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 pC PAGE 12
I
1
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 reeds.- 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 az:d
arterial streets. Creation of a convenient, safe
pedestrian/bicycle patway system as an alternative means of
transportation could offset some of the traffic demand or_
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 18.12O.O80.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
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 sarving 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 Paan. Comprehensive
Plan Volume 2 at Policy 8.4.1 calls for the City to recl-,lire
the dedication of area for and construction of
pedestrian/blcycle 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 ra ly 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 Creels near the subject site is already
partly constructed in both directions_ Tha 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 pa---tial extension of
l the pathway '-p 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 therefor,- would conflictwith 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 NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 14
{
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.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 Far�no 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
Chanter 18-102- Landscaping and ScreeniD-cJ
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 bewaived. The Commission will
consider an exception from the minimum landscaped sate 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 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. The Commision will hold with the Counci 1'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 vegeta-tion-
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 pgoposes 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
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_
Chanter 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.
Chanter 18.106: Off-St-4-
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
F
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 busir_ess 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 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. he issue of parking space numbers will also be
T
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 pllysicoalalnd natural
al systems
will not be affected by this prop Therefore,
he
Commission finds that the variance related to parking
is
justified.
Other parking standards__ The Code requires one secure bicycle
parkingspace for every 15 required automobile spaces. are
this case a minimum of three bicycle In
parking sP
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
Os required
q although the
Oregon Revised Statutes (2 required; l prop ),
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
d
designated handicapped parking space. The y
Development Code will need to be revised to reflect this
stringent standard that took effect on September 1,
CodeSection 18.106.020.M requires parking lot landscaping in
accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.1ar That
of trees in
chapter requires the provision the area of a
PAGE 18
FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC
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
space
standard is therefore sanisfied. However, the loading
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 18.108.40.0 requires that vehicular access be
provided to commercial and industrial uses within 50 feet of
g- The
the primary ground floor entrances to
adjacent tolthenproposed
proposed parking lot is immediately
building entrance. Code Section 18.108.5O_A requires walkways
connecting ground floor entrances of couPmerci�l 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
r driveway would connect the proposed parking lot
with should
Main
Street. The proposed access and circulation pattern
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. Th—_ 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
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
8114- . Code
Code
Section 18-114.070.11 prohibits roof signs a11types
Section 18.114.090_A.1_a_i_1 perbillboards 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
g p period
signs that have gone beyond the 10-year amortization
PAGE 19
FINAL ORDER NO- 91-09 PC
P
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 roo£ 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 ,,..,� pion 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 IIII
earlier development application decisions affecting this site. i
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
i
from the requirement to dedicate portions of the site within
the 100-year floodplain Of
a Fa o applicant's sfo Statement water
management purposes_ 14p of this report) does not
Justification for Variance (page
directly address storm water drainage concerns but instead
provides the genfar lall toments listed above the variance requests s comments
intended to apply
The Commission does not find that the requirements for
dedicationo£ the area within the floodplainof
Fanno Creek
constitutes
for storm water management and greenway pure
a taxing 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
Creek. The
storm water runoff from the urbani_z tionFanno over
Creek drainage basin has experienced rapid
the past 30 years causing a significant increase In stream
flows after periods of precipitation. The anticipated
increased storm water flow fnage basin can only rom the subject propertyadd to the
already strained creek and drai
public need to manage the stream channel and floodplain for
drainage purposes_ Because the proposed development's storm
add to the need for public management of the
drainage would
Fanno Creek floodplain, the Commission finds that the
requirement of dedication of the
ftoo intensify ensify development lain area on the to
is related to the applicant's p
lan on
the site.
The Planning Commission finds that the requested variance
would conflict with many Plan and Cede purposes and policies
and therefore is not with the first the heCodela at approvalnce
Section
criteria. As alreadynoted,
18.120.080_A.8 and many other related sections (e.g. , Section
I8_84.040.A.7) require dedication of floodplainareas, 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 Two evel the Plan aland t Section n the 1ed 3-2
s year floodplain.
discusses the City's objectives in regulating development
to
within and adjacent to floodplain areas to avoid hazards e
the public and to downstream properties. Volume One of the
Comprehensive Plan at pages 192 and 193 provides a d1scussion
of the reasons for develpnt of a coon inated city-wide
of the Plan also
storm water management system- produced b CH2M
i
cites the Master Drainage Plan for the city p Y
ther discussion. of the need or
Hill Inc. in 1981 for a fur
public management of the storm water drainage system and for
measures intended to increase the flow efficiency of r'anno
Creek and other drainage channels in the city.
PAGE 21
FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC
E
i
AML
As noted by the. Engineering Division, the Master Drainage Plan
recommends improvements to the `r"ann creek el downstream
from the Main Street bridge. Proposed channel p
would include channel widening and slops 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 Plain,
Community Development Code, and the City's Master Drainage
plan.
The Commission fails to find special circumstances that exist
which are peculiar to this rice 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
circumstances 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 floodpl-ain. 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-yea37
floodplain area is virtually unusable due to the year-round
water flow caf 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 vaiclance 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 Soy the City's Master Drainage Plan- Again, the
applicant £alis 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
PAGE 22
FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC
i
M01002 mom
I 911�fll�il�i aan®-
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 char_rel 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 tiie 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 Pian for Fanno Creek Park
Fanno Creek Park is a community park located along Fanno Creek
between Main Street and 5W 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
its southwestern property line. It 1E. 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 r�.creationai 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 preserver) 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 acccmunodate 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 arder 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
j
i
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 :,mitten 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
all new title lines, prepared by a registered professional land surveyor,
shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to recording." 2 5
FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PACE
r
7. The applicant shall install an 8-foot tall solid plywood
fence behind the sidewal3c/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.
a. 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 Har_dboo}c, 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
Y
Davies, Engineering Division_
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE Fori-OWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE
SATISFIED PI2IOIY TO ISSUANCE OF AN OCCUPANCY PERAEET:
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
lecial document which prohibits their reiac val. 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
FSNAI. ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 26
t
are being abandoned. Prior to any work being started
within the public Right-of-Way the applicant shall obtain
a Street Opening pex-mit from the Engineering Department
STAFF CONTACT: Chris Davies, Engineering Division_
I
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 SE VALID FOR EIGHTEEN (18) MONTHS FROM TEE
DATE OF THE FINAL DECgS=ON.
The Planning Commission's decision eliminates condition of approval
1t9 of the D13 ector's designee's decision_ That condition stated
that a Traffic Impact Fee was required to be paid upon issuance of
a building pewit 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 Ta-affir 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 Plain Co ission
jo/Dolan.FO
FINAL ORDER N0_ 91-09 PC PAGE 27