Resolution No. 94-29 CITY OF TTGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. 94-29
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF A FINAL ORDER UPON CITY COUNCIL REVIEW
OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION (SDR
93-0009/PDR 93-0006) PROPOSED BY TRIAD-TIGARD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed this case at its meeting of
August 16, 1993; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved the application subject to
certain conditions of approval (Planning Commission Final Order 93-
14PC); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission°s decision was appealed to the City
Council by separate appeals filed by Marge Davenport and Beverly Swink;
and
WHEREAS, the Triad application was approved by the City Council on
October 6, 3-993 'with additional conditions of approval and modification
of some of the Commission's conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, the Councils approval was appealed to the Land Use Board of
Appeals and LUBA remanded the plaias back to the City Council for review
of driveway widths on May 19, 1994; and
WHEREAS, the Council reviewed revised plans and findings at a public
hearing on 3una 23, 1994.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: the City
Council upholds the Planning Commission's decision approving Site
Development Review/Planner Development elopment R_'view aD 1'eation (SDR 93-0009/
PDR 93-0006) with the additional conditions of approval and modification
of the conditions of approval as approved by the City Council on
October 26, 1993, with the added condition that the access points on the
detailed development plan conform to TCDC 18.102.030 as determined by
the City Engir_e+ar. The Council adopted as findings the attached Exhibit
"A". The site plan which is approved is the revised site plan
addressing the LUBA remand.
PASSED: This Z� day of � 1994.
or - City of Tigard
ATTEST:
1q
City Eecor er - i y of Tigard
NEEM RESOLUTION NO. 94-29
Page 1
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FI1VD1NGS AND CONTCLUSIONS APPROVING REVISED PLANS
PROPOSED BY TRIAD-TIGARD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (SDR 93-0009/PDR 93-0006)
WITH RESPECT TO TCDC 18.108.070(D).
The Tigard City Council has reviewed the above application at a public
hearing on June 28, 1994- '.'rhe Council has based its decision on the
facts, findings, and conclusions noted below:
This matter is before the City Council as a limited evidentiary hearing.
The Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA") remanded the City's prior
approval of this application in Davenport v. City of Tiaard, Or LUBA_
No. 93-191, May 19, 1994. LIMA rejected all o: petitioners' assignments
of error, except their argument concerning the width of required access
driveways. The purpose of this limited evidentiary hearing is to take
testimony only on the 'ssue of the site plan's compliance with TCDC
18.108.070(D) . tic other evidence or testimony is permitted.
TCDC 18.108.070(D) establishes the minimal requirements for vehicular
access and egress for multiple-family residential uses. For multiple-
family residential projects with more than 100 dwelling units, the
minimum access width for each driveway is 24 feet with a five-foot
walkway, or a public street. Triad's site plan proposes nonpublic
streets, so the drives must be 24 feet wide with a five-foot :walkway.
in Davenport v. City of Tictard, LUBA No. 93-191, LUBA upheld the City's
interpretation that the site plan provided the required number of access
driveways (eight). Slip op 13, 14.
LUBA said, with respect to TCDC 18.108.070(D) , that the minimum pavement
width is 24 feet. The applicant has submitted the revised site plan
which demonstrates that each of the eight access driveways is a minimum
of 24 feet wide with a five-foot walkway. The driveways serving the
multiple-family residential project are all a minimum of 24 feet.
Further, the site plan indicates that there are no changes other than
the width of the driveways from the site plan previously approved by
the City.
The City Council finds that it is necessary to determine whether the
site plan conforms to TCDC 3-8.108.070(D) . The ordinance's requirements
are noted above. The City Council interprets this section to permit the
driveways to he 24 feet wide on either side of the median, therefore
meeting both the minimum number of access points required and the
minimum pavement width. The City Council also interprets this section
to allow all driveways to be a minimum of 24 feet wide. The City
Council finds that these interpretations are necessary to demonstrate
that the revised site plan conforms to the requirements or TCDC
18.108.070(D) . The City Council hereby determines that the revised site
plan meets requirements of this ordinance section.
The median islands shown on the site plan are conceptual_ The precise
configuration of the islands should be determined during- detailed
design: The City Engineer shall approve a final design that adequately
Page 1 - E7Z-HIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. 94-29
provides for left-turn movements to and from the driveways and that
meets adopted standards for pedestrian crossings. The sinal design
approved by the City Engineer shall maintain, as a minimum, the driveway
widths shown on the revised site plan.
The petitioners/appellants raised an issue with respect to the number
of driveways to be approved as part of this conceptual development plan,
to the e±fect that two ore-way drives separated by a median do not
constitute two access points. LUBA has previously upheld the City
Council I s interpretation of the applicable code provision (TCDC
18.108,070(D)) in its opinion dated May 19, 1994 on this point. This
issue may not therefore hie raised at this hearing and Council declines
to consider it.
The petitioners/appellants believe the approval of the current
application would result in inconsistency with prior findings that 24-
foot driveways would be "confusing and dangerous." There is no evidence
in the record to support such a conclusion at this point. Moreover, the
petitioners/appellants cite no TCDC provision concerning safety or any
other provision which would apply. Council finds that LUBA, in its
remand of the decision, required 24-foot driveways as shown on the
current application. The Council therefore finds that the proposed 24-
foot driveways conform to TCDC,1S.iG8.070(D) and are consistent with
LUBA`s remana.
The petitioners/appellants raised the possible lack of conformance of
24-foot driveways to the City's Visual Clearance Areas code provisions,
TCDC 18.102.030. There were no precise calculations submitted to
demonstrate the lack of conformity to TCDC 18.102.030 as the drawing was
not to scale. However, the site plan as submitted appears to have some
minor conflicts of garage structures with the required visual. clearance
area. Council concludes that such minor conflicts can be addressed and
conformance with TCDC 18.102.030 can be assured through the final design
process in approval of the detailed development plan. A condition of
approval shall be added to the conceptual development approval requiring
confoiwance to TCDC 18.102.030.
Finally, petitioners/appellants raised the issue of the need for 80 feet
of unobstructed distance at each entrance to the project. This is an
issue which was not raised in the prior appeals and Council therefore
declines to consider it. Council's review is limited to the issue on
remand, namely driveway width. Nevertheless, Council finds: there was
no the:r evidence submitted on this point. Council finds that the
statement describing 80 feet of unobstructed distance at each driveway
from tha traffic study was based on a prior site plan. Nothing in the
study affirmatively requires suci unobstructed distance nor does any
City code provision rec4ire it or provide such a Standard. Council
therefore concludes that there was insufficient evidence presented to
determine that any traffic safety issue which Council is required to
address results from the current site plan.
Council refects the submittal by - petitioners/appellants of an
alternative site plan as not relevant to the issue on remand which issue
was the sola topic of the public hearing, i.e., driveway widths under
TCDC 18.3.08.070(D) .
Page 2 - !::.MIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO, 94-29