Resolution No. 95-16 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. 95- 1L
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTIC11 OF A FINAL ORDER LTPON CITY COUNCIL REVIEW
OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT REV_T.EW/PLANNED DEVELOPMEAT REVIEW/SENSITIVE LANDS
AP LiCATION (PDR-94-0002/SDR 94-0019/SLR 94-0024) GORDON MARTIN/TRI
COUNTY CENTER.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed this case at its meeting of
November 21, 1994; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission apDr^..ved the application subj ect to
certain conditions of approval (Plann:ia?g Commission Final Order 94-08
FC) and;
WHFREAS, the City Council veted to call the development up for Council
review at its December 27, 1994 meeting; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed revised plans and findings at public
hearings on January 17, 1995 and February 21, 1995.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard Clty Council th•..At_ Ciicy
Council upholds the Planning Commission's decision approving Site
Development Review/Planned Development Review/Sensitive Lands Review
application (Pia 94-0002/SDR 94-0010/SLP, 94-0024) with additional
findings and conditions of approval as approved by the City Council on
February 21, 1995 including City Council review of final detailed plans.
The City Council adopted as findings the attached Exhibit "A".
PASSED: This day QiLG�i� , 1995.
.t
l
r - City of Tigard
ATTEST:
W
City Recorder _ City of Tigard
I
RESOLUTION NO. 95-_ C,Q_
Page 1
j,
BEFORE THE CXTY OF TIGARn CITY COUNCIL
A FINAL ORDER APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 94-0019,
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 94-0902 AND, SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW
94-0004.
A. FACTS
1. General Information
A request for Site Development Revie-,.,, Planned
Development, and Sensitive Lands Review approval to
allow the constrv.ct.ion of a 360,620 square foot
commercial retail center and related facilities,
16.0% landscaping area and 1495 parking spaces on
25.65 acres in the General Commercial ("CG") zoning
district.
o Owner and
Applicant: Gordon S. Martin
12265 SW 72nd Avenue
Tigard, OR 97223
• Agent: Ed Christensen
Christensen Engineering, Inc.
-7000 SW Hampton St., Suite 220
Portland, OR 97223
• Location: The southwest corner of SW 72nd
Avenue and Dartmouth Street
(WCTM 1S1 36 CD, tax lot 2005;
and WCTM 2S1 1BA, tax lots 100,
101, 300, 400, 401, and 402.
• Exhibits physically placed before and not
rejected by the City Council by the applicant on
January 17 and February 21:
Exhibit 1, Grading Plan
Exhibit 2, Revised Site Plan
Exhibit 3, Typical Street Sections
Exhibit 4, Concept Plan
Exhibit 5, Topographic Plan
Exhibit 6, Hardboards
Exhibit 7, Large Aerial
Exhibit 8, Photograph of Mercantile Plaza
Exhibit 9, Revised Elevation Plan (colored)
Exhibit 10, Revised Site and Landscape Plan
2. Applicable Review Criteria
O Tigard Community Development Code ("TCDC")
Chapters 18.62, 18.80, 18.84, 18.90, 18.96,
FINAL ORDER-SDR 94-19/PDR 94-02/SLR 94-04-TRI-COUNTY
PAGE 1
PD%1-164470.2 24056 0001
1£3.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120,
18.150, and 18.164.
Si-ate Transportation Planning Rule, OAR 660-12-
045(4) (a)-(e; and (5) (d).
3. Background Informatigai
The site has been zoned General Commercial ("CG")
since the Tigard Comprehensive Plan ("TCP") was
adopted in 1983. it is within the area known as the
Tigard Triangle. The Triangle has been the focus of a
planning effort over the. Fast two years. The City
Council recently adopted a resolution denying
adoption of the Tigard Triangle Specific Plan.
The Transportation Planning R_+lc ("TPR") contains
applicable criteria fc-r this application. OAR
660-12=04 5(3) (4)(a)=(e) and (5) (d) are applicable to
applications such as this if the City has not
implemonted these sections. The city has adopted
provisions addressing OAR 660-12-045(3) . Other TPR
provisions such as building location and orientation_
remain to be incorporated into the code. For the
review of this application, both the TCDC provisions
and the remaining TPR requirsments must be
considered.
The Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on
Novembea 21, 1994 concerning these applications and
recommended approval subject to the attached
conditions. on December 9, 1994 the Planning
Commission adopted a Final Order which mistakenly
included a condition :oncex® wing Lues lviceat IoT. Qf
loading aresss for the Pad A retail site. The
Planning Commission action did not include a
requirement for a revised location of this loading
area. The loading area was approved as shown on the
proposed site plan. The previous Final Order also
included an incorrect site pl&n map which was not
revieeaed by the Planning Commission.
The City Council elected to call-up the Planning
Co_mmisoion's decision £or review pursuant to TCDC
18.32.310. The City Council opened the public
hearing on January 17, 1995. The City Council closed
the public hearing on January 17, 1995. The City
Council voted to reopen the public hearing on
February 14, 1995. The February 14, 1995 Hearing was
continued to February 21, 1995. The City Council
opened the public hearing on that date and
tentatively approved the application and directed the
applicant to prepare findings for adoption.
FIYvAL ORDER-SDR 94-19/PDR 94-02/SLR 94-04-TRI-COUNTY
PAGE 2
60X1-164410.2 24056 0001.
4. Vicinity Information
The property is bordered by SW Dartmouth Street on
the north side. A Cub Foods store is located on the
opposite side of the street. A recently opened
Costco store is located to the northwest, on the
other side of Red Rock Creek, which runs 3-o the
southwest between the two properties. Commercially
zoned property that is predominantly wetland, lies to
the west. A residential subdivision Is immediately
south of the property. SW 72nd Avenue abuta the
property on the east frontage. Single-family
residences are located on the east side of SW 72nd
Avenue. A 1.08 - unit apartment complex is under
construction to the south on the east side of SW 72nd
A-renue. The zoning on the east side of SW 72nd
Avenue is a mixture of C-G (directly east) , R-3.5
(northeast and east) , and C-P (southeast) . The
zoning designations in the surrounding area are shown
in Figure 1.
SW Dartmouth Street is decignated as a major
collector. Existing improvements include five travel
lanes (except near the crossing of Red Rock Creek
which is three lanes) , bicycle lanes, and curbs.
Sidewalks are being installed as a condition of
development approval for properties along the street.
a In addition, a landscaping concept has been developed
and implemented for new development on SW Dartmouth
Street.
SW 72nd Avenue is also designated as a major
collector street. Existing improvements along the
property Trontage and the imutediate -v_c.c:i iiity include
two travel lanes and gravel shoulders-
Tri-Met bus service is not available to the site.
However, two routes are within walking distance of
the p-sperty. Route #12 provides service on SW
Pacific Highway with stops on SW Pacific Highway near
SW 78th/Dartmouth intersection and SW 72nd Avenue.
Route 078 travels on SW 72nd Avenue, SW Hampton
Street, and SW 58th Avenue, which parallels SW. 72nd
Avenue approximately 1,200 feet to the east.
5. Site Description
The property consists of a number of parcels that
will be consolidated to allow the construction of
this project. There are four single-family residences
and a number of accessory buildings which are
generally located in the southeast: portion of the
site. The property has been used for a variety of
agricultural uses, including Christmas trees which
can be found along SW Dartmouth Street.
FINAL ORDER-SDR 94-19/PDR 94-02/SLR 94-04-TAI-COUNTY
PAGE 3
PDX1-164410.2 24056 0001
The grades on the property are variable. In the
southeast corner of the site (southeast of Pad H)
the grade is one to five percent. To the northwest II
and down the hill they vary between five and slightly
over 10 percent (near Pads H, F. and the adjoining
parking areas). The western half of the property has
grades that one to,f iv a percent (Pads A-E and related
parking area).
Red Rock Creek runs along 4he northwest corner of the
site. In addition, a wetland of approximately 8,470
square feet is located on the south side of the
creak. it has been identified as a significant
wetland in the city's inventory.
A small drainage way and related wetlands run through
the site from the intersection of SW 72nd Avenue and
SW Dartmouth Street to the approximate mid-point of
the western site boundary. A separate wetland area
is lo,:ated in the southwest corner of the site. The
wetlands total about 63,867 square feet. In addition
to t1hP drainage way and wetlands, there are a
significant number of mature trees, with diameters in
excess of 12 inches. These trees tend to be
concentrated in the southeast portion of the site and
along -the drainage way corridor.
6. Proncnsal Description
a. Proposed Improvements
The applicant proposes to build a 360,620 square
foot retail center. This total retail floor
area will be divided by a number of buildings,
including a large anchor store (Pad A) of
143,000 square feet located in the southwest
corner of the site. Seven '!pad" sites are
proposed along the SW Dartmouth Street and
SW 72nd Avenue frontage with sizes of 46,800
(Pad B), 9,880 (Pad C), 14,400 (Pad D) 36,120
(Pad E), 9,580 (Pad F) and 27,400 (Pad G) square
f=et. The proposed height of the buildings is
not provided. The remainder of the site will be
used for parking (1,495 standard and handicapped
spaces), driveways, loading, and landscaping.
A total of four full-access driveways are
proposed. Driveway A is located on SW Dartmouth
Street in the northwest corner of the site,
*between Pads B and C. Driveway B is proposed to
be located o, SW Dartmouth Strest across from
the Cub Foods driveway, approximately 435 feet
west of the SW Dartmouth/72nd intersection.
Driveway C is located on SW 72nd Avenue
approximately 300 feet south of SW Dartmouth
Street. The second driveway !D) is an
FINAL ORDER-SDR 94-19/PDR 94-02/SLR 94-04-TRI-COUNTY
PAGE 4
MI-164410.2 24055 0001
additional 250 feet farther south. The
applicant proposes that the access across from
Cub Foods wi11 eventually be a signalized
intersection at Driveway B.
Pedestrian access to the center is provided by
sidewalks along at least one side of each of the
driveways. A system of walkways is shown on the
site plan which is intended to provide walking
links between the eight buildings on the site.
Building entrances are oriented toward parking
area as shown on the site plan. These entrances
range from approximately O to 600 feet from the
street frontage.
b. Site Grading
An extensive amount of site grading and filling
is proposed. The applicant proposes to grade the
entire site and fill the -western area to provide
a level area for the anchor retail building on
Pad A and parking lot. The depth of fill on the
, ;^tern portion of the property is generally
proposed to be 6 to 3.0 feet, with a maximum
depth of 18 feet in the southwest corner of the
site. This filling willrequixe a retaining
wall alon the west and southwest edge of the
project that will be between 2 to 14 feet.
c. Wetland and Drainage Way
The wetland area along Red Rock Creek, in the
northwest portion of the project, will be
partially retained. The drainage way and
related wetland areas are proposed to be
relocated along the SW Dartmouth Street
frontage. The relocated drainage way will join
Red Rock Creek in the northwest corner of the
property. The wetland in the southwest corner of
the property is proposed to be filled. The
applicant proposes to replace this loss of
wetlands by providing a new and enhanced wetland
area on the north side of Cook Park. A permit
application to relocate the wetlands has
recently been submitted to the Division of State
Lands, and a decision is pending.
Ct. Parking and Loading
The site plan shcws 1,456 parking spaces of
which 34 are for handicapped use. In addition,
there are 68 "preferential" parking spaces shown
near building entrances. Sixteen on-street
parking spaces are shown on SW 72nd,Avenue. A
truck loading area is indicated at the rear of
FINAL ORDER-SDR 94-19/PDR 94-02/SLR 94-04-TRI-COUNTY
PAGE 5
PDXI-164410.2 24056 0001
Pad A, but the number of loading spaces is not
revealed. No bicycle parking facilites are
shown, however, the applicant has previously
indicated that bicycle parting will be provided,
generally in the vicinity of the building
entrances.
e. Transit
There are no transit routes adjacent to the
site. Because of the potential for transit on SW
72nd Avenue and/or Dartmouth Street in the
future-, two transit stop locations are shown on
the site plan. One is located immediately west
of Driveway A on SW Dartmouth Street and the
second is shown north of Driveway C on SW 72nd
Avenue_
f. Landscaping
A conceptual landscaping plan has been included
with the application. It appears that the only
existing trees on the site that will. be retained
are located in the northeast corner of the
property where the existing drainage way/wetland
will remain in its present location. The
conceptual plan indicates that trees and shrubs
will be provided along the southern perimeter of
the project. The remainder of the plan shows
the location of other landscaped areas on the
site.
g. Signs
The site plan indicates that one monument sign
will be placed at each of the driveway
entrances. No other information has been
submitted regarding the size or design of the
signs.
7. Agency and Neighborhood Orctanization Comments
a. Engineering Department:
e Traffic
The applicant has submitted a "Transportation Impact
Study" entitled "TRI-COUNTY CENTER, Tigard, Oregon",
prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. of Portland,
Oregon, dated July, 1994. Subsequent to the
submittal, various meetings were held with the
applicant, the consultants, Clay Staff, and the
City's consulting traffic engineer for the Tigard
Triangle Area, Mr. Randy McCourt of DDS Associates.
Pursuant to the meetings, amendments to the tra`_fic
report and the site plan were submitted to supplement
FINAL ORDER-SDR 94-19/PDR 94-02/SLR 94-04-TRI-COUNTY
PAGE 6
PDM1-1.54410.2 24056 0001.
the application. The letter of September 26, 1994,
by Kittelson & Associates, highlights the changes to
the site plan that were to be made in response to the
critique provided by the City consultant.
To summarize, the project adequately provides for the
proposed traffic impacts by the inclusion of the
following design features:
a. The four driveways to the site, two each from SW
Dartnouth Street and SW 72nd Avenue have been
located in accordance with the overall street
and driveway alignments for the area.
b. The two driveways on SW Dartmouth Street were
the subject of an intensive investigation, which
resulted in the use of wider driveways and a
widening of SW Dartmouth Street to provide
additional left-turn storage, as shown on Fig. 2
of said letter of September 26, 1994, from
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
C. The Kittelson report indicates that traffic
signal warrants gill be satisfied for the public
street intersection of SW Dartmouth Street/SW
72nd Avenue in 1995 with the opening of the Tri-
County Center. The applicant should construct
the signal concurrent with the new construction.
As an alternative, the traffic signal
construction could be included in a new area-
wide Local Improvement District. Traffic Impact
Fee credits are available for portion of the
work in SW 72nd Avenue and for the traffic
signal at SW Dartmouth Street/SW 72nd Avenue.
d. The Kittelson report also provides Level of
Service calculations for the proposed Driveway
"A" which indicates that the driveway will
operate at a Level "E" in 1995. It is
recommended that the applicant consider
installing the traffic signal at this driveway
to enhance the ability of the potential
customers to enter anal exit the new development
with less delay than that which will occur as
indicated by the Level "E" determination.
As recommended in the Kittelson letter of September
26th, SW 72nd Avenue should be designed as a five-
lane street south of SW Dartmouth Street to
accommodate future traffic and turn movements.
As part of the detailed design of the improvements to
Sid 72nd Avenue, additional traffic engineering review
is needed relating to the driveway spacing on SW 72nd
Avenue. of concern is the potential for proposed
Driveway "C" to be blocked by future peal:-hour
FINAL ORDER-SDR 94-19/PDR 94-02/SLR 94-04-TRI-COUNTY
PAGE 7
PDXI-164410.2 24056 0001
traffic queues from thz signal at SW Dartmouth
Street. 1.1so, the City needs to be assured that the
'left-turn lane has sufficient storage capacity for
vehicles turning into the driveways (including future
commercial driveways to the property on the e.<st side
of SW 72nd Avenue) and for vehicles waiting to turn
into the public streets. If sufficient left-turn.
storage space is not available, it may be necessary
to eliminate left turns to and from Driveway "C".
To avoid traffic operations problems, Driveway "D"
should be aligned with the centerline of existing SW
Elmhurst Street, which would be widened in the future
with the development of the adjacent property to the
north.
The traffic report points out that intersection
revisions are needed on SFT Dartmouth Street at 99W to
allow for left turns from two lanes. The report
assumes that these revisions will be made by the
Costco development. While this assumption is
probably correct, it is not certain. Completion of
the recommended intersection revisions should be
required prior to the opening of the Tri-County
Center.
m Streets
Both SW Dartmouth Street and SW 72nd Avenue are Major
Collectors as shown on. the City Comprehensive Street
Plan. The applicant should dedica'ce right-of-way for
both streets to comply with the recommendations of
the traffic reports and a final street plan, and
construct the strP2ts to the prnpnsed wi riths itn
provide for the following:
a. Additional left-turi-. storage in SW Dartmouth
Street as shown= on iz—he F it gur=: 2 noted above.
b. Widen SW 72nd Avenue to provide a total of four
lanes; two southbound, a northbound left-turn
lane and one northbound lane, with the initial
Tri-County Center development, as recommended in
the September 26, 1994 letter noted above.
Dedication of additional right of way will be
required along the south side of SW Dartmouth Street
and along the west side of SW 72nd Avenue. The
additional right of way on SW Dartmouth Street is a
result of the locations of the driveways of the
proposed development and the need for side-by-side
left turn lanes on SW Dartmouth Street between
Driveway "B" and SW 72nd Avenue, as noted above. In
addition, the widening in SW Dartmouth Street will
provide for the sidewalk separation from the curb and
the streetscape landscaping approved by City Council
FINAL ORDER-SDR 94-19/PDA 94-02/SLR 94-04-TRI-COUNTY
PAGE 8
WN-764470.2 24056 0001
for this portion of the SW Dartmouth Street within
the.Tigard Triangle.
on SW 72nd Avenue, the additional right of way is
needed to accommodate the tong-range need for a 5-
lane street. In the long term, SSV 72nd Avenue is
projected to carry between 1,200 and 2000 vehacles in
the peak hour (depending on whish traffic study you
use as reference) between SW Dartmouth and SW Hampton
Streets. This proposed development is projected to
generate approximately 500 vehicles per hoar on SW
72nd Avenue or 25-40$ of the long-range traffic on SW
72nd Avenue. The proposed development has
approximately 20% of the frontage of SW 72nd Avenue
between SW Dartmouth Street and SW Hampton Streets.
Thus, the proposed dedication is deemed to be roughly
proportional to the need generat=d by this
development.
In addition, a portion of the existing power poles
and overhead lines serving the area are located along
tha easterly side of SW 72nd Avenue. Street lighting
is provided on the existing poles in both fronting
streets. However, the applicant should be required to
install City standard street 13.gh ring along SW 72nd
Avenue.
w Sanitary Sewer
The existing 8" public sanitary sewer in SW Dartmouth
Street has a number of sewer lateral stubs
constructed with the Dartmouth LID to serve the site.
This existing sewer has sufficient capacity to serve
thio dcvc1cp .cnt The exis-ti n�r m�wpr in SW 72nd
L.....,....
Avenue should be extended to a point opposite SW
Elmhurst Street and stubbed to the east.
o Storm Sewer
The site currently drains on the surface to the
existing natural swale that crosses the property from
northeast to southwest to the Red Rock Creek and the
contiguous wetlands. The applicant proposes to fill
a portion of the existing swale and wetlands and has
submitted to the Corps of Engineers and the Oregon
Division of State Lands for the permits. The plan
would provide for mitigating wetland restoration off-
site. The final plan should also be submitted to the
City of Tigard and the Unified Sewerage Agency for
their review and approval
The Unified Sewerage Agency has established and the
City has agreed to enforce (Resolution and Order No.
91-47) Surface Water 'Management Regulations requiring
the construction of on-site water quality facilities
or fees in-lieu of their construe-tion. The proposed
FINAL ORDER-SDR 94-19/PDR 94-02/SLR 94-04-TRI-COUNTY
PAGE 9
PDXi-164410.224056 0001
Moo
site grading and underground system has been designed
to incorporate a water quality facility that treats
the surface stormwater flows prior to the disposition
of the story+ water ixxto the existing Red Rock Creek
area. The final design should also include
provisions both low flow water quality treatment, and
25 year and 100 year design flow by the construction
of an outfall directly to the Red Rock Creek culverts
crossing SW Dartmouth Street at the westerly edge of
the site.
a. The Building Division has no objection to the
proposal.
b. Tigard Police Department would like an
opportunity to review and comment on detailed
plans for the exterior lighting and landscaping.
C. Portland. General Electric and Northwest Natural
Gas have no objections to the proposal.
d. The Tualatin Valley Water District has no
objection to the application but it will need to
work with the applicant or,. the final design
details of the water system improvements.
e. Tri-Mreviewed a preliminary site plan and
their comments were incorporated into the plan
approved by the Planning Commission and the City
Council. The agency indicates that no service
is planned in the immediate future on SW 72nd
Avenue. However, the site could accommodate bus
stops on either street in the future. Tri-Met
has the following comments:
a. if bus seryirc+ is irmri tied in the future,
stops are typically provided at signalized
intersections to allow for safe pedestrian
crossings. Secondary stops may be located
near driveways.
b. At bus stop locations, a five-foot wide by
eight-foot deep landing pad is needed.
d
C. Distances between buildings should be kept
to a minimum to promote pedestrian access
and convenience.
f. The Oregon Department of Transportation has
commented that:
Given the impacts to the local street system,
restricting certain traffic movements on drive-gay B
and C as well as future signalization of driveways A
and D is encouraged.
FINAL ORDER-SDR 94-19/PDR 94-02/SLR 94-04-TRI-COUNTY
PAGE 10
PnX1-164410.2 24056 0001
The impacts of commercial development in the Tigard
Triangle area on the local street network and ODOT
facilities should be analyzed. The current zoning in
the Tigard Triangle Area was based on the assumption
that certain transportation improvements would be
made that may not materialize, such as six lanes on
Pacific Highway. The city should evaluate this
relationship between land uses and transportation
capacity.
No other agency comments have been received.
B. MAJOR ISSUES
This portion of the findings outlines the major issues
pertaining to the application. This summary is followed by
findings and conclusions in Exhibit A, attached hereto to this
decision and incorporated into this decision by reference.
1. Transportation Planning Rule (TPR)
OAR 6650-12-055(3) provides, in part, as follows:
"By May 8, 1994, affected cities
and counties within MPO areas shall
adopt land use and subdivision
ordinances or amendments required by
OA_R 660-12-045(3) , (4) (a)-(e) and
(5) (d) . Affected cities and counties
which do not have acknowledged
ordinances addressing the requirements
of this section by the deadlines
listed above shall apply OAR 660-12-
045(3) , (4) (a)-(e) and (5) (d) directly
to all land use decisions and all
limited land use decisions.1°
The City of Tigard is within an MPO area. OAR 660-
12-005(6) .
60-
12-005(6) . Therefore, the 'PPR required the City to
have adopted amendments to its land use and
subdivision ordinances implementing the above-
referenced parts of the TPR by May 8, 1994. The City
has amended its land use regulations to implement
OAR 660-12-045(3), which provide for pedestrian and
bicycle "friendly" development.
The City has riot complied with the requirement to
amend its land use regulations to implement OAR 660-
12-045(4) (a)-(e) and (5) (d) by May 8, 1994. This
application was submitted on July 6, 1994 and made
complete within 180 days of the submittal date.
Therefore, it is judged according to the standards
and criteria applicable at the time it was first
submitted. ORS 227.178(3) .
FINfAI, ORDER-SDR 94-19/PDR 94-02/SLR 94-04-TRI-COUNTY
PAGE 13.
FD%1-164410.2 24056 0001
At the time it was first submitted, the deadline for
compliance with OAR 660-12-055(3) had passed and the
City had not implemented all required provisions of
the TPR. Therefore, OAR 660-12-045(4) (a)-(e) and
(5) (d) are applicable approval criteria.
OAR 660-12-045(3) is not an applicable approval
criterion because the City has amended its land use
regulations to implement this section. of the TPR.
a. OAR-660-12-045(4) (a)-(e)
These TPR sections are intended to support
transit in urban areas with a population of
25,000 or more already served by public transit.
OAR 660-12-045(4) (a) requires:
"Design of transit routes and
transit facilities to support
transit use through provision of
bus stops, pull-outs and
shelters, optimum road
geometrics, on-road parking
restrictions and similar
facilities, as appropriate;"
The evidence is the record shows that no transit
routes or transit facilities are located
adjacent to the site on either SW Dartmouth or
SW 72nd Street . The City provided notice of
this application to Tri-Met, the regional
transit provider. Tri-Met did not require bus
stops, pull-outs and ;.eiters for approval of
this application. The City Engineer has also
reviewed the application. The City Engineer did
not require on-road parking restrictions nor did
he find that optimum road geometrics were not
provided.
The City Council notes that OAR 660-12-045(4) (a)
is qualified by the phrase "as appropriate."
The City Council finds that, based upon the
comments of Tri-Met and the City Engineer, the
facilities listed in OAR 660-12-045(4) (a) are
either not appropriate for this application or
are provided, such as optimum road geometrics.
The City Council finds that OAR 660-12-045(4) (a)
is satisfied.
b. OAR 660-12-045 rcauires:
'-New retail, office and
institutional buildings at or
near e, isting or planned transit
stop � provide preferential
FINAL ORDER-SDR 94-19/PDR 94-02/SLR 94-04-TRS-COUNTY
PAGE 12
PDX1-164410.2 24056 0001
access to transit through the
following measures:
"(A) Orienting building
entrances to the transit stop or
station;
"(A) Clustering buildings
around transit stops; and
"(C) Locating buildings as
close as possible to transit
stops.,,
The application shows two future transit stop
locations on the site. The proposed building
locations are all within 300 feet of the
proposed two future transit stops, with the
exception of Pad A, ;which is approximately
600 fact from the street.
Whether this TPR section applies depends on
whether the application proposes new retail.
office and institutional buildings at or near
existing or planned transit stony. The
application proposes new retail and office
buildings. However, the new retail and office
buildings are not located at or near existing or
planned transit stops.
The City Council finds that the record shows
there is no existing transit service on the
adjoining streets and, consequently, no existing
transit stops closer than 1,200.teet to this
site. Tri-Met commented that no service is
planned in the immediate future on SW 72nd
Avenue, but that the site could accommodate bus
stops on either street in the future. Tri-Bet's
commant noted that if bus service is provided in
the future, transit stops would be provided at
signalized intersections. Tri-Met also
indicated that secondary steps may be located
near driveways. The City Council finds that
this TPR section does not apply to this
application because there are no existing or
planned transit stops at or near the new retail
and office buildings.
Alternatively, the. City Council finds that even
if this TPR section is applicable, the
application meets its requirements. OAR 660-12-
045(b) (A) requires that building entrances be
oriented to transit stops or stations.
"Orienting" is not defined in the TPR. The City
Council finds that OAR 660-12-045(b) (A) may be
achieved in a number of :rays, depending upon the
FINAL ORDER-SDR 94-19/PDR 94-02/SLR 94-04-TRI-COUNTY
PAGE 13
PDX1-164410.2 24056 0001
site conditions (including topography) , street
system and type of development. Based upon
these factors, this development meets OAR 660=
12-045(b) (A) by orienting building entrances to
pedestrian facilities that directly ca:n-Gct to
likely transit stop locations. As noted above,
there are no existing transit stops adjacent to
this site, but if transit stops are developed,
they will be located, primarily, at signalized
,intersections and, secondarily, at driveways.
The signalized intersections adjacent to the
site include the intersection of SW Dartmouth
Street and SW 72nd Avenue and, potentially, at
the intersections of Driveways "A" or "B" and
SW C<irtmouth Street. The site plan shows that
all building entrances are connected by
sidewalks linked to the two signalized
intersection locations and the other driveway
locations. The City Council finds that this
design meets the TPR requirement of "orienting
building entrances to the transit stop or
station."
OAR 660-12-045(b) (B) requires "clustering
buildings around transit stops-"
No transit stops currently exist adjacent to
this site but, if such transit stops are
established in the future, the City Council
finds, based on Tri -Met's comments, that they
will be located; primarily, at signalized
intersections and, secondarily, at driveways.
The City Council notes that the purpose of
OAR 660-12-045(B) is to provide "preferential
access" to transit by clustering buildings
around transit stops. The City Council notes
that "clustering" is not defined in the TPR.
The City Council finds that the goal of
providing "preferential access" to transit
through "clustering" of buildings around transit
stops is achieved by this application because
the buildings are linked to sidewalks connecting
directly to signalized intersections and
driveway locations. The sidewalks are separated
from vehicle parking areas except where
necessary to cross the streets. The City
Council notes that the requirement to cluster
buildings is not required to be achieved in a
particular way. The City Council finds that the
requirement to cluster buildings around transit
stops is met if preferential access to those
transit stops is provided from buildings.
OAR 660-12-045(b) (C) requires:
FINAL ORDER-SDR 94-19/PDR 94-02/SLR 94-04-TRI-COUNTY
PAGE 14
PDX1-164410-2 24056 0001
11-Lod..ging buildings as close
as possible to transit stops.,'
The City Council notes that this TPR section is
qualifiea by the phrase "as close as possible."
The City Council notes that the buildings'
dist?nce to transit stops is controlled by land
use regulations and physical c^+nditions on the
site. The record shows the building site plan
is dictated by several physical constraints.
First, the proposed grading raises the level of
the western half of the property to reduce the
driveway and parking lot grades acroLs the site
in order to enhance pedestrian access at ADA
standards;. Additionally, pedestrian access to
and throughout the site plan is accommodated by
the grading plan by providing more level
sidewalks for use by pedestrians and bicycle.
The other physical constraint on the site is the
location of wetlands. The a>3plication proposes
to .relocate an existing arainageway and related
wetlands to an area along SW Dartmouth Street.
This relocated drainageway will connect with Red
Rock Creek at the northwest corner of the site.
These physical constraints necessarily limit the
building locations and prevent them from being
closer to possible transit stops at signalized
intersections and driveways on SW Dartmouth
Street and SW 72nd Avenue.
The TPR does not require that buildings be
located immediately adjacent to transit stops,
but rather that. they ne located as close as
possible. The City Council finds that this
qualification permits the consideration of other
factors, such as physical constraints, building
visibility and location, and parking layout to
determine whe,,. sr a building is as close as
possible to a transit stop.
The City Council finds that the site plan
provides buildings as close as possible to
likely transit stops for the following reasons:
(1) Relocation of a drainageway and wetlands
along SW Dartmouth Street;
(2) Grading necessary to make the site more
accessible and easily used by pedestrians
and bicyclists;
(3) Grading necessary to provide for suitable
drainage on the site throughout the parking
lot; and
FINAT, ORDER--SDR 94-19/PI)R 94-02/SLR 94-04-TRI-COUNTY
PAGE 15
P0X1-16"10.2 24056 0001
(4) Provision of parking spaces, especially
including those for handicapped
individuals, adjacent to building
entrances, which means that the vehicle
access ways must be located between the
building entrances and the streets.
The City Council believes it would be
undesirable to provide accessways serving only
handicapped spacea without serving other parking
spaces becausa of the 'waste of land and the
increased cost to the applicant to provide
additional accessways. The City Council also
notes that the General Commercial zoning
district require_ss a minimum 15 percent
landscaping and that the requirement of
redundant accessways would reduce the amount of
landscaping on the site.
For, the reasons noted above, the City Council
finds that the application complies with
OAR 660-12-045(B) .
C. OAR 660-12-045(4) (c) requires:
"New industrial and
commercial developments to
provide preferential parking
for carpools and vanpools."
This application proposes a new commercial
development. The City Council notes that this
TPR section does not require a particular amount
of preferential carpool or vanpooi parking to
meet this requirement. The City Council shall
require as a condition of approval that at least
one carpool and vanpool space be provided
adjacent to each proposed building pad.
d. OAR 660-12-045(4) (d) requires:
"An opportunity for existing
development to redevelop a
portion of existing parking areas
for transit-oriented uses,
including bus stops and pull-
outs, bus shelters, park-and-ride
stations; transit-oriented
developments, and similar
facilities, where appropriate;
The City Council finds that this TPR section is
inapplicable to this request because it is not
an "existing development." This TPR section
applies only to existing developments.
FINAL, ORDER-SDR 94-19/PDR 94-02/SLR 94-04-TRI-COUNTY
PAGE 16
PD#1-164410.2 24056 0001
e. OAR 660-12-045(4) (e) requires:
"Road systems for new
development, which can be
adequately served by transit,
including provision of pedestrian
access to existing and identif led
future transit routes. This
shall include, where appropriate,
separate bicycle and pedestrian
ways to minimize travel
distances"
The site plan submitted with this application
shows a system of _91terna7 streets providing
connections between the driveways onto
SW Dartmouth Street and SW 72nd Avenue and
throughout the site. The City Council finds
that the road system could serve transit if the
transit operator desired to use the interior
woad system. The City Council notes that
' CDC 18.26.030 defines "street" or "road" to
include public or private ways created to
provide ingress or Egress to property. The City
Council finds that this TPR section is satisfied
because the interior private street system could
be adequately served by transit.
This TPR section also requires, "where
appropriate," separate bicycle and pedestrian
ways to minimize travel distances. The City
Council finds that separate bicycle and
pedestrian ways are not appropriate to minimize
travel distances. The travel distances from the
adjacent public streets and the interior private
streets to uses on the site are the same for
bicyclists and pedestrians.
The City Council finds that OAR 660-12-
045(4) (a)-(e) is satisfied.
f. OAR 660-12-045(5) (Q) . This TPR section
.requires:
"Require all major industrial,
institutional, retail and office
developments to provide either a
transit stop on site or a
connection to a transit stop
along the transit trunk route
when the transit operator
requires such an improvement."
This application is a major retail development.
OAR 660-12-005(5) (b) . The City Council finds
that this TPR section, is inapplicable because
FINAL ORDER-SDR 94-19/PDR 94-021SLR 94-04-PRI-COUNTY
PAGE 17
PO#1-164410.2 24056 0001
the transit operator has not required such an
improvement. The City Council finds that this
is so based on the comments from Tri-Mat
contained in the record.
g. 1000 Friends of Oregon raised several issues
regarding this application's compliance with the
TPR in a January 17, 1995 letter.
1000 Friends argues that the application "fails
to meet the letter and the spirit of the
Transportation Planning Rule." The City Council
rejects this argument because the "letter and
spirit" of the TPR is not an applicable approval
criteria. See ORS 227.178(3) .
1000 Friends also argues that "crucial bicycle
and pedestrian connections to existing
developments are missing." The City Council
notes that the site plan shows pedestrian and
bicycle connections from all building pad to
other building pads and to likely transit stops
and the public sidewalks a pedestrian connection
is provided from the site to the Hermosa Park
subdivision along SW Dartmouth Street and
SW 72nd Alvenue.
1000 Friends also argues that "the buildings on
the site are oriented toward the central parking
lots rather than transit in the street as
required by the Transportation Planning Rule."
1000 Friends' letter fails to note any
particular requirement of the TPR that supports
this assertion. The City Council finds that its
findings on OAR 660-12-045(4) (b) (A) demonstrate
that building entrances are oriented toward
likely transit stops.
1000 Friends argues.
"Merely locating building pads
closer to the street does not
ensure that they will be easy to
walk to or that they will
encourage transit use or enhance
pedestrian e-,virvnment. OAR 660-
12-045(4) (b) (A) requires
entrances to face transit stops."
The City Council notes that OAR 660-12-
045(4) (b) (A) requires preferential access to
transit through various measures. Nothing in
the applicable sections of the TPR contains a
requirement"to enhance thF! pedestrian
environment." Moreover, the city Council notes
that this decision includes findings explaining
FINAL ORDER-SDR 94-19/PDR 94-02/SLR 94-04-TRI-COUNTY
PAGE 18
PD%1-164410.2 24056 0001
why it believes OAR 660-12-045(,4) (b) (A)
(orienting building entrances tc the transit
stop) is satisfied.
1000 Friends argues that OAR 660-12-045(4) (b) (A)
is not met because the distances from Pads A, B
and C to a bus stop on Dartmouth a: Driveway A
are excessive. 'The City Council notes that no
bus stop currently exists on Dartmouth at the
location of planned Driveway A. Moreover, the
comment from Tri-Met indicates that the primary
transit stops will be at signalized
intersections and there its only a passibility of
other transit stops at driveway in-,cersections.
However, even if transit stops are to be loca=ed
at driveway intersections, the TPR does not
impose a distance requirement to transit stops.
Instead, OAR 660-12-045(4) (b) requires
preferential access to transit stops through
various measures. The City Council's findings
explain why it finds that this requirement is
met. The letter from 1000 Friends does not
explain why preferential access is not provided
notwithstanding the distances between Pads A, B
and C and Driveway A and the Driveway A
intersection.
1000 Friends also argues that crossing the
driveway twice or traveling out of direction
does not meet the requirements of the applicable
TPR section. Nothing in the TPR prevents
"preferential access to transit" from crossing
driveways or requiring travel out of direction.
The City Council finds that the term
"preferential access to transit" is achieved
through compliance with OAR 660-12-045(4) (b) (A)-
(C) , none of which, prohibits transit and bicycle
routes from crossing driveways or requiring "out
of direction" travel.
1000 Friends also argues that a pedestrian
connection is required but is not shown to
single-family dwellings located on SW Hermosa
Way. The City Council notes that the site plan
shows a pedestrian and bicycle connection from
the site to SW Hermosa Way. The City Council
notes that nothing in OAR 660-12-045(4) (a)-(e)
or (5) (d) requires a connection between this
site and adjacent residential developments.
Further, the City Council notes that
1000 Friends' letter states:
nSince bringing Pad A up to
the street is not easily accepted
(and may not [be] possible) ***."
FINAL ORDER-SDR 94-19/PDR 94-02/SLR 94-04-TRI-COUNTY
PAGE 19
P0x1-164410.2 24056 0001
The City Council belisves that this is
substantial evidence from 1000 Friends that the
Council's interpretation of OAR 660-12-
04 5(4) (b) (A)-(C) is correct.
1000 Friends argues that the City should require
an internal street system. The City Council
notes that the site plan includes such an
internal street system.
Additionally, 1000 Friends argues that the City
Council should reconsider the location of the
drainageway and require windows facing
sidewalks. The City Council notes t1hat the
applicable TPR sections do not require the
relocation of the drainageway but, instead,
requires location of buildings "as close as
possible to transit stops." Moreover, no
applicable TPR or TCDC section requires windows
facing sidewalks.
1000 Friends argues that the internal bicycle
and circulation system could be improved by
creati:g an internal street system, preriding
pedestrian walkways within the large parking
areas and requiring that all pedestrian ways be
constructed to ADA standards. The City Council
finds that the site plan creates an internal
street systems, provides pedestrian walkways
within and between large parking areas and that
Condition of Approval 26 requires that all
pedestrian walkways shall conform to ADA
standards.
Finally, 1000 Friends argues that the sidewalk
connection should be extended west on
SW Dartmouth Street to the Costco site. There
is a sidewalk along the entire Dartmouth Street
f'^ ntagc The City .,ouv-1 'fnda that a
sidewalk extension on SW Dartmouth Street to
Costco is not required because there is no
showing of a rough proportionality between the
need created for a sidewalk by this applic.^tion
and a condition requiring one.
The City Council finds that the application
satisfies the applicable TPR requirements.
2. Access
Driveway access to the site is generally acceptable
as noted in the cor-rents from the Engineering
Division. Additional study will be required to
develop a suitable design for the driveways on SW
72nd Avenue. Access for pedestrians and bicyclists
FINAL ORDER-SDR 94-19/PDR 94-02/S.T�R 94-04-TRI-COUNTY
PAGE 20
-A-164410.2 24056 0001
to the site is provided by existing or prcposed
sidewalks and bicycle lanes on SW Dartmouth Street.
3. Clearing and Site Grad;na
The applicant proposes a significant amount of
grading and fillinc. that would completely transform
the site. The grading will raise the level of the
western half of the property to reemce: the driveway
and parking lot grades in an east-west direction:
across the site. Having a direct, east-west,
driveway access between Pad A and SW 72nd Avenue
appears to be part of the motivation behind the
grading plan. This is the primary reason that none of
the significant trees on the site are proposed to be
saved (except for a few that may be saved in the
northeast corner of the site) .
Though the TCDC standards may permit this type of
site modification, the Planned Devalopment provisions
of the Community Development Code encourage the
retention of existing trees and topography.
TCDC 18.80.120A. 3. a. (i) states:
"The streets, buildings, and
other site elements shall be designed
and located to preserve the existing
trees, topoga-aphy, and natural
drainage to the greatest degree
possible"
TCDC 18.80.120 A. 3. a. (v) states:
11mre eS with a six inch caliper
measured at four feet in height from
ground level, shall be saved where
possible"
FA The City Council finds that TCDC 18.80.120 A. 3. a.
(i) and (v) are satisfied because the site elements
are designed and located to preserve existing trees,
topography and natural drainage to the greatest
degree possible. The applicant has demonstrated that
- development of the site, including the drainageway
and wetlands relocation, requires grading and tree
removal.. The existing trees, topography and natural
drainage remaining reflect the minimum site changes
necessary to develop the site.
4 Parkins
a. required Parking Spaces
Of the 1,495 parking spaces proposed, only 857
are required by the TCDC using the "general
retail sales" category, which requires one space
FXNAL ORDER-SDR 94-19/PDR 94-02/SLR 94-04-TRI-COUNTY
PAGE 21
PDX1-164410.2 24056 0001
-'or every 400 square feet c)f building area. The
actual parking requirement may be slightly
different if some of the development is
partially devoted to ',eating and drinking
establishments" (1 space/50 sq. ft. of dining
area) or "financial, insurance and real estate"
(1 space/350 sq. ft, of floor area) for example.
Because of the nature of retail business, it is
recognized that exceeding code requirements is
nc::essary to accommodate the customers during
peak business periods. The TCDC does not
contain a "cap" on parking space requirements.
The City Council finds that the application
satisfies requirements for off-street parking
spaces.
b. Handicapped Parking
The handicapped parking spaces are appropriately
located in front of proposed building entl--ances.
Buildings "B" and "C" do not meet this
requirement. The City Coluncil finds that this
requirement can be satisfied by a condition of
approval requiring this to be on the detailed
development: plan.
c_ Preferential Parking
The site plan shows preferential parking spaces
located next to the handicapped spaces. TCDC
Section 18.106.020 14. requires preferential
parking spaces for vanpools/carpools when the
amount of "long term1, parking spaces exceeds 20.
The ionq term spaces in this case would refer to
employees working iz the development. Though
the applicant has shown these preferential
spares near i
buldI ng an
ances, It is not
necessary that they be located in this way.
In the final site design, the applicant should
indicate the number of employee parking spaces
and their location in the project. Of these
spaces, five percent are required to be the
preferential variety which provide the best
access to the building in which the employees
will work. If the applicant is attempting to
meet the five percent requirement for employees,
the proposed 68 preferential spaces are adequate
for 1,360 employees. obviously, in the final
site design, the number of preferential spaces
may be reduced substantially.
d. Bicycle Parking
The applicant does not indicate the number or
location of bicycle parking spaces for the
FINAL ORDER.-SDR 94-19/PDR 94-02/SLR 94-04-TRS-COUNTY
PAGE 22
PD%1-164410.2 24056 0001
project. Section 18.106.020 O. requires 1
bicycle space for every 15 required vehicle
Spaces. The bicycle parking is required to be
located within 50 feet of the primary building
entrance. The plan should be amended to include
a minimum of 58 bicycle parking spaces as
required by, the TCDC and to distribute the
bicycle parking throughout the site so that it
is easy to see and use by customers and
employees. Where possible, these spaces should
be located under a building canopy or eaves.
Employee bicycle parking can be provie:ed indoors
if a specific area is designated for this use.
5. Eoadina
TCDC 18.106.080 contains loading space requirements
for industrial and cauffuercial buildings that are
lnten&�d to ".. . receive and distribute material or
merchandise by truck...". The TCDC requires
coul."ercial buildings which are greater than lo,000
square ;eet to have a minimum of one loading space.
There is no specific requirement for uses that will
only -receive material by truck. Depending upon t1T.>
ultimate use of the pads on the site, loading spaces
may or may not be required by the TCDC. For example,
a restaurant, which only receives truck deliveries,
would not need a loading space while a furniture
store, which receives and delivers merchandise by
truck, would be required to have at least one loading
mace.
It appears likely that Pad A will have one or more
loading spaces to accommodate such a large general
retail use. The site plan shows a loading area on
the south side of Pad A.
6. Landscaping and Screening
Because of the site grading noted above, virtually
ail of the existing vegetation is proposed to be
removed for the buildings, large parking lot, and
some landscaped areas. The landscaping concept
presented is consistent with the basic TCDC standards
for landscaped area and parking lot landscaping. A
final landscaping plan should be submitted to confirm
code compliance. The TCDC requires a minimum of 15%
of the site area be landscaped. The application
currently shows 26_0% landscaping.
Ip. addition to these general standards, screening and_
buffering are.important because of the extent of the
grading, vegetation removal, and the scale of the
p-rojeat. A building and parking area of the size
proposed can have a very imposing presence. TCDC
18.80.120 A. 4. requires that thought be given to
FINAL ORDER-SDR 94-19/PDR 94-02/SLR 94-G4-TRI-COUNTY
PAGE -3
PDX1-164410.2 24056 0001
screening of: buildings, rooftop equipment, parking
lots, and loading areas. In order to provide
improved visual screening, the following items should
be include=d in the final landscaping plan:
- The speclfi.c number and location of the
landscaping materials, including exist:tng trees
to be saved.
- A minimum 20 foot wide landscaped buffer strip
along the entire southern boundary of the
project which is in addition to all paved
surfaces such as sidewalks.
- Landscaped islands with trees that have mature
heights equal to or greater than the height of
the building on Pad A on the east, north, and
south sides of the building. Also, a landscaped
area for shrubs, etc. should be provided on the
east and north building faces. These features
are intended to soften the mass of the building,
help screen rooftop equipment, and hslp focus
attention toward the entrance and wall signs.
- A plan for the parking lot trees that will
provide a canopy when they mature. The canopy
will cover- 35 percent of the parking area when
the trees reach mature size. The view corridors
for signs should be identified by the applicant
so that the trees selected provide the maximum
amount of screening while allowing visual access
to the wall signs after_ the trees mature.
7. Noise,_imp--q
A noise study has been submitted which describes the
background noise on the site and the potential noise
impacts caused by the proposed development. The:
noise study also indicates possible mitigation_
measures that can be taken to reduce noise impacts to
surrounding properties. In addition to the noise
impacts considered in the report, there are a number
of noise issues that can cause compatibility problem!:
even if the noise does not exceed State Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) or city noise standards.
Such sources of noise include vehicles, HVAC and
refrigeration units, parking lot sweepers, employee
activity, and garbage collection.
In order to reduce the potential for noise impacts on
the residences to the south, the following amendments
should be made to the site plan:
- Move the loading space(s) to the west side of
Pad A or the reasons indicated above.
Regardless of the buZfering that is provided,
FINAI, ORDER-SDR 94-19/PDR 94-02/SLR 94-04-TRI-COUNTY
PAGE 24
PDX1-164410.2 24056 0001
trucks and related activities will cause noise
that will be problematic for the neighbors.
Sound walls should be provided which are a
minimum of 8 feet tall and constructed of
material, as described in the noise study, to
have a meaningful reduction of noise levels.
All ancillary equipment such as HVAC units,
generators, refrigeration units, and trash
receptacles and compactors, should first be
located so as to minimize the potential for
noise impacts. This equipment should generally
be located as far away from the south property
line as possible and placed behind buildings
and/or sound walls. Second, the specific design
a .,a, noise buffering methods for the equipment
should be evaluated during the building permit
process to ensure compatibility with neighboring
properties.
8. Wetlands
As indicated above, the applicant has applied to the
Division of State Lands (1'DSL1t) to move the existing
drainage way to the north and the replace a portion
of the wetland with a new, enhanced wetland near Cook
Park. About 1.6 acres of wetlands are impacted on
this site. The applicant proposes to construct 3.2
acres of wetlands at Cook Park. The Sensitive Lands
chapter of the TCDC applies to the proposed
relocation/filling of much of the drainage way and
wetlands found on the site. TCDC 18.84.040 C. and D.
contain approval criteria that apply to this
apptll ati The 'tc uapply to
environmental impacts and Water capacity will be
addressed by the DSL and the Engineering Division.
The two above TCDC sections also state that landform
alterations in drainage way and wetland areas should
00not create site disturbances to the extent greater
than that required for the use. 11 As mentioned
above, the grading plan which requires the relocation
and filling of these areas as well as the removal of
virtually all trees on .the site, does not appear to
meet this criterion.
C. RECONNENDATZ039B
The City Council approvF•, SDR 94-0019, PDR 94-0002, and SLR 94-
0004 subject to the following conditions. Unless otherwise
noted, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of
building permits.
FINA3, ORDER-SDR 94-19/PDR 94-02/SLR 94-04-TRI-COUNTY
PAGE 25
PDX1-164410.2 24056 0001
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE QF A BUILDING PFRMiT TH- FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED OR FINANCIALLY SECURED:
1. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to .the public
along the SW Darc�ffiouth Stz:eet frontage to Jnczease the
right-of-way to a minimum c;f 48 feet from centerline,
between the westerly property hne and Driveway "A", and
59 feet from centerline, between Driveway "B" and SW 72nd
Avenue, with appropriate transitions between Driveways "A"
and "B" Th description shall be tied to the existing
right-oma ,gay centerline. The dedication document_ shall be
on City forms. Instructlons are available from the
Engineering Department. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman,
Engineering Department.
2. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the public
along the SW 72nd 'Avenue frontage to increase the rightt-
of-way to 41 feet from the center"ine. The description
shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline.
The dedication document shall be on City forms.
Instructions are available from the Engineering
Department. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering
Department.
3. Standard half-street improvements, including concrete
sidewalk, driveway apron, curb, reinforced Portland cement-
concrete
ementconcrete pavement, storm drainage, streetlights, and
underground utilities shall be installed along the SW
Dartmouth Street frontage to widen the pavement to 45 feet
from centerline between Driveway "B" and SW 72nd Avenue,
as measured to the curb face, consistent with the
recommendations of the traffic reports, to an alignment
approved by the Engineering Department. STAFF CONTACT:
_ hasl Anderson. Engineering Department.
4. Standard half-street improvements, including concrete
sidewalk, driveway apror., curb, asphaltic concrete
pavement, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, streetlights,
and underground utilities shall be installed along the SW
72nd Avenue frontage to widen the pavement to 33 feet from
centerline on the westerly side of the street. Depending
on the width of the Existing pavement, widening on the
easterly side of the ight-of-way may be retpuired to
provide for the northbound left-turn pocket as recommended
in the traffic report. Improvements shall be designed and
constructed to major collector street standards consistent
with the recommendations of the traffic reports, and shall
conform to the alignment of existing adjacent
improvements or to an alignment approved by 'the
Engineering Department. STAFF CONTACT: Z41chael Anderson,
Engineering Department.
5. The applicant shall prepare a striping plan for SW
Dartmouth Street to be installed with th_e new construction
for approval of the City Engineer. STAFF CONTACT: Michael
Anderson, Engineering Department.
FINAL ORDER-SDR 94-19/PDR 94-02/SLR 94-04-TRI-COUNTY
PAGE 26
PDXt-764470.2 24056 DWI
6. Additional right-of-way and street improvements shall be
provided in SW Dartmouth Street to provide for the
transition as shown in Figure 2 of the September 25, 1994
latter from Kittelson & Associates. STAFF CONTACT:
Michael Anderson, Engineering Department.
7. The applicant shall install a traffic signal at the
intersection of SW Dartmoutt. Street and SW 72nd Avenue in
accordance with City Standards and as approved by the City
Engineer, or provide for the signal installation work to
be assumed by an LID. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson,
Engineering Department.
a. The applicant shall install coriduit along SW Dartmouth
Street between the intersection of SW 72nd Avenue and
Driveway "AE" to provide for the future hard wiring of the
traffic signals to provide direct interconnection and
operation control. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson,
Engineering Department.
9. The intersection of Sad Dartmouth Street and 99W shall be
revised to allow left turns from the existing through
traffic lane, as recommended in the applicants traffic
report. The applicant shall participate in work assumed
under an LID. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson,
Engineering Department.
10. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the
_-x�nt�
^g and proposed contours. A soils report shall by
provided detailing thesoil compaction requirements
consistent with the requirements of Chapter 70 of the
Uniform Building Code. S'TAF'F CONTACT: Hichael Anderson,
Engineering Department.
11. The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality
facility as established un&!r the guidelines of Unified
Sewerage Agency ("USA") Resolution and Order No. 91-47.
The water quality facility shall be designed to comply
with all USA standards and the plan shall indicate that
the facility is to be maintained by the property owner.
STAFF CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Department.
12. The applicant shall submit a final hydrology and hydraulic
study for the new on-site storm drain system and provide
an underground system for the 25 year flow to the Red Rock
Creek, and provisions for the overflow conditions of the
100 year flow. STAFF CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering
Department.
13. The applicant shall obtain a joint permit from the US Army
Corps of Engineers and DSL for construction in the wetland
area prior to building permit approval. STAFF CONTACT:
Greg Berry, Engineering Department.
FINAL ORDER-SDR 94-19/PDR 94-02/SLR 94-04-TRI-COUNTY
PAGE 27
PDX1-164410.2 24056 0001
14. Two (2) sets of detailed public improvemenc plans and
profile construction drawings shall be submitted for
preliminary review to the Engineering Vepartment. Seven
(7) sets of approved drawings and one (1) itemized
construction cost estimate, all prepared by a Professional
Engineer, shall be submitted for final review and approval
(NOTE: these plans are in additior_ to any drawings
required by the Building Division and should only include
sheets relevant to public improvements. STAFF CONTACT:
John Hagman, Engineering Department.
15. The applicant shall make an appointment for a pre-
construction meeting with the City of Tigard' Engineering
Department after approval of the public improvement plans
but before starting work on the site. The applicant, the
applicant's engineer and contractor shall. be required to
attend this meeting prior to receiving the approved plans
and permits. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering
Department.
16. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access
and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. All
construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-site.
No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to
park on the adjoining public streets. Construction
vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or
subcontractor involved in the construction of the site
improvements or buildings proposed by this application,
and shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and
employees associated with the project.
17. Construction of the proposed public improvements and
issuance of Building Permits shall not commence until
after the En^_' cer.:g Department: has reviewed and approved
the public improvements plans, a street opening permit or
construction compliance agreements has been executed,
execution of a developer-engineer agreement and payment of
all permit fees. A 100 percent performance assurance or
letter of commitment is required. STAFF CONTACT: Michael
Anderson, Engineering Department.
18. An erosion control plan shall be provided and shall
conform to "Erosion Control Plans-mechr_ical Guidance
Handbook, November 1989.11 STAFF CONTACT: Greg Berry,
Engineering Department.
19. The applicant shall obtain a "joint: Permit" from the City
of Tigard. ThIs permit shall meet the requirements of
NPDES and Tualatin Basin Erosion Control Program.
20. The annlicant shall construct the sewer main in SW 72nd
A:-enue on the westerly side of the street, within the area
to be widened, to provide the necessary Health Department
required s.paration from the existing 3611 trunk water
main. The cost of this work may be assumed under a
re--mbursement agreement. The appl-cant may also provide
FINAT. ORDER--SLR 94-19/PDR 94--02/SLR 94-04-TRI-COUNTY
PAGE 28
PDX1-164410.2 24056 0001
an acceptable alternative design option to the -
satisfaction of the, City Engineer. ST'\rF CONTACT: Michael
Anderson, Engineering Department.
21. Demolition permits must be obtained from the Building
Division prior to the removal of any structures on the
site. STAFF CONTACT: David Scott, B1lilding Division.
22. All existing underground utilities shall'be removed during
site work operations. STAFF CONTACT: David Scott,
Building Division.
23. An agreement shall be executed, on forms provided by the
City, which wives the property owner's right to oppose or
remonstrate against the future local improvement district
formed to install a traffic signal or otherwise improve SW
Dartmouth Street. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson,
Engineering Department.
24. The applicant shall provide, as a minimum, a 25 foot
buffer which meets the requirements of Section 6.08.3, of
USA Resolution. and Order No. 91-47. STAFF CONTACT:
Michael Anderson, Engineering Department.
25. Revised site, grading, and landscaping plans, which
contain the following elements shall be submitted for
Planning Director approval:
- - Ra edo..cswalks shall be used to delineate all
pedestrian crossings.
B. Sidewalks and walkways on the sit, will have a
minimum amount of usable width of eight feet, with
do storage
cars parised up to tia0 curb. ..,., - storage
interior sidewalks andwalkwaysshall be allowedthat
reduces usable width to less than four feet.
C. Fifty-eight bicycle parking spaces shall be provided
and distributed throughout the site so that they are
easy to see and use by customers and employees. At
least half of the required spaces shall be located
within 50 feet of building entrances under the
building canopy. Employee bicycle parking can be
provided indoors if an arca is designated for this
use. The bicycle rack design shall also be submitted
for approval.
D. Street trees shall be provided along the SW 72nd
Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street frontages. The SW
Dartmouth Street tree plan, shall be consistent with
the "Landscape Development Standards for Dartmouth
Street Extension", dated October 1, 1992.
E. Landscaped islands shall be provided with trees that
have mature heights over 30 feet near the east and
north sides of Pad A.
FINAL ORDER-SDR 94-19/PDR 94-02/SLR 94-04-TRI-COUNTY
PAGE 29
PDX1-164410.2 24056 0001
F. Parking lot trees will be provided to create a canopy
that covers a minimum of 35 percent of the parking
area when they mature. The view corridors for signs
shall be identified by the applicant so that the
trees selected provide the maximum amount of
screening while allowing visual access to the wall
signs after the trees mature.
G. Vegetation which will grow and cover the retaining
wall shall be provided along the top of retaining
walls located on the perimeter of the nroiect.
H. Plantings near driveway entrances shall meet visual
clearance standards.
I. In order to help compensate for the visual impact of
the grading and tree removal, the Director shall
place a 3 inch minimum size requirement on
replacement trees in specific locations to provide
the desired level of screening.
j. Buffering between the project and adjacent
residential uses to south shall include an eight foot
high, masonry wall which meets the specifications
noted in the applicants noise study and supplemental
letter dated October 11, 1994 submitted by VGO, Inc.
The base of the retaining wall shall be placed such
that it is equal to or greater than the elevation of
the adjacent parking lot grade.
K. The lighting plan for the entire site shall be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The
plan shall provide adequate lighting for the project
--h"- not causing light and glare to affect ad-Joining
properties.
L. The applicant shall prcpare an impact study which
addresses the fair share of the construction of a
pedestrian pathway. Based on the impact study the
.applicant shall provide an irrevocable letter of
credit or pay into an escrow account with funds
dedicated for construction of a pedestrian pathway
from SW Dartmouth Street to the southern property
line. The amount of the deposit shall be based upon
the fair share of present day improvement cost
estimates for a 10-foot wide paved pathway. I£ the
pathway is not constructed within five years, the
account, with interest, shall be refunded to the
applicant. If a pedestrian pathway is not feasible
due to wetlands prior to building permit issuance,
this fee shall not be collected.
FINAL ORDER-SDR 94-19/PDR 94-02/SLR 94-04-TRI-COUNTY
PAGE 30
.80X1-164410.2 24056 0001
M. A minimum of 16% .landscaped area shall be provided.
STAFF CONTACT: Mar]-_ Roberts, Planni.n,- Division.
26. All pedestrian walkuaVs shall conform to ADA standards.
27. The applicant shall submit the detailed development plan
required by TCDC 18.80.015 (B) (3) to the City Council for
its review and approval.
28. The applicant shall construct an appropriz-telt'-sized
sanitary sewer line from SW 72nd Street westerly along its
southerly property line in order to serve the adjacent
single family dwelli,Ygs. The sanitay sewer line shall
provide for "stubs" in order to allow connections from
these dwellings.
29. The detailed development plan shall show at leant one
handicapped parking space in front of buildings "B" and"C"
and one carpool or vanpool space adjacenic to each proposed
building.
IN ADDITION THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING
_SECTIONS OF THF: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE: THIS IS NOT AN
EXCLUSIVE LIST
1. SECTION 18.120.060 DOVD:ENG AND ASSURANCES
A. On all projects where public improvements are
required the Director shall:
1. Require a bond in an amount not greater than. 100
percent of other adequate assurances as a
condition of approval of the site development
plan in order to ensure the campleted project is
In conformance with the approved plan; and
2. Approve and release such bonds.
B. The bond shall be release when the Director finds the
completed project conforms to the approved site
development plan and all conditions of approval are
satisfied.
2. SECTION 18.164 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS.
Section 18.164.180 Notice to City Required
Work shall not begin until the City has been notified in
advance. if work is discontinued for any reason, it shall
not be resumed until the City is notified.
FINAL ORDER-SDR 94-19/PDR 94-02/SLR 94-04-TRI-COUNTY
PAGE 31
PDR1-164410.2 24056 OGGI
D. DECXB=OAT
On a motion by Councilor Hawley, second by Councilor Roh If, the
City Council hereby APPROVES this application by a vote of 4-0
(Councilor, Scheckla abstaining) and adopts these findings in
support of the decision, including Exhibit A, attached hereto
and incorporatad herein by reference.
PASSED= This ?nth day of March, 1995 by the City Council of
the City of Tigard.
FINAL ORDER-SDR 94-19/PDR 94-02/SLR 94-04-TRI=COUNTY
PAGE 32
PDX9-964410_2 24056 0001
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS AM CONCLUSIONS
The applicant has presented a report for the Tri-County Center
that provides information about the center and how it conforms
with the applicable TCDC provisions. This report also includes
an environmental analysis prepared by ASCG Incorporated. A
separate traffic study prepared by Kittelson and Associ.-_aes and
a noise study prepared. by VGO, Inc., were also submitted as
part of the application. These documents are referred to as
the "applicant's statement" below.
The relevant TCDC provisions are found in Chapters 18.62,
18.80, 18.84, 18.90, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108,
18 .114, 18.120, 18.3-50,18.164, and the Transportation Planning
Rule OAR 660-12-045(4) (a)-(e) and (5) (d) .
The proposal, as modified by the staff recommendations,
complies with these criteria as described below.
1. Chapter 18.62 General Commercial District
Section 7.8.62.0330 is satisfied because the proposed general
retail sales activity is permitted in the C-G zone.
2. <�haioter 18.80 Planned Development
The majority of the approval criteria in this chapter, refer to
other portions of the TCDC which are addressed elsewhere in
this report. The criteria that require an amendment of the
proposal relate to tree preservation and screening (mCnr
,g,an=i?4 A. 3.). The nature of the development will require a
substantial amount of tree removal. Once additional trees are
preserved or planted as recommended in the staff report, these
criteria will be satisfied.
3. Chapter 18.84 vn c... sitye Laij-s _
With the amendment of the grading plan to reduce the amount of
landform alteration on the western portion of the site and the
approval of the DSL, and the Engineering Division, the proposal
will meet the applicable criteria in TCDC 18.84.040 C. ad D.
4. Chatter 18.90 Environmental. Per.formance Standards
Provided the lighting plan, amendment to the site plan, and the
noise buffering required by the decision are implemented, this
chapter of the CBC is satisfied.
FINAL ORDER-SDR 94-19/PDR 94-02/SLR 94-04-TRI-COUNTY
PAGE 33
PDX1-164490.2 24056 0001
5. Chapter 14.96 Additional Yard Setback Reauiremants and
Exceptions
This chapter is satisfied because I:he development provides the
required setbacks from SW 72nd A�aenue and SW Dartmouth
Street.
6. Ch�zS" 18_i00 Landscaping' and Screening
The proposed layidscaping meete the general TCDC recltuirements.
Additional landscaping details to assure TCDC compliance,
street trees along SW Dartmouth Street, and screening (as
described in the conditions of approval) must be provided to
satisfy this chapter.
7. Chapter 18.1.02 Visual Clearance Areas
Compliance with the provisions of tSai.s chapter must be
confirmed during the review and approval of the fiaaal
landscaping plan_ The conceptual Alan indicates that trees and
other plantings will be located in vision clearance areas. The
size and species of these plantings must be selected and placed
in a ,Manner the provides adequate visibility at the CLriveway
entrances.
a. Chapter 18 106 Off-Street Par2eina and Loading
TCDC 18.106.030 requires one parking space for every 400 square
feet of general retail floor area. This yields a parking
requirement of 857 spaces. The site plan shows a total of
1,546 spaces.
TCDC 18.106.020 P. requires one bicycle parking space for every
15 required vehicle parking spaces. A total of 58 bicycle
parking spaces are required, and these will be shown I.P. the
final site plan.
The dimensional standards outlined In TCDC 18.106.050 are
satisfied. TCDC 18.106.050 J. states that access drives from
the street to off-street parking and loading areas l°provide
maximum safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic- - -11 The
proposed plan will satisfy this criterion.
9. Chanter 18.108 Access. Earess and Circulation
The proposed access driveways meet the requirements of this
chapter. Also, the driveway locations are consistent with the
access plan for SW Dartmouth Street_
10. Chapter 18.114 Signs
Signs will be reviewed through the appropriate process at a
later time.
FINAL ORDER-SDR 94-19/PDR 94-02/Sl--Z 94-04-TRI-COUNTY
PATE 34
PUw9-164490.2 24056 0001
11. Chapter, :1.8.120 Site Develq_pment review
As in the Planned Development chapter, this chapter calls for
the protection of existing trees where possible. (TCDC
18.120.180 A. 2. a.) . The existing site plan addresses this
issue. It is acknowledged- that the majority of the trees on
the site must be removed to develop the property as it is
designated in the Comprehensive Plan.
Providing improved linkages to transit are required by Section
18.120.080 A. 12. and the Transportation Planning Rule. The
amendments recommended in this report will comply with this
se..ction.
The applicant submitted Exhibit 9 (revised elevation plan) that
the City Council finds meets the requirements of TCDC
18.120.140 (A) (2) by showing typical elevation of each
structure.
12. Chanter. 18.150 Tree Removal
In order to satisfy the criteria in Section 18.150.030, the
applicant must show how reasonable efforts are being made to
preserve trees on the site. In addition, to help compensate
for the visual impact of the trees removed, the applicant will
be required plant trees of an appropriate number and size as
part of the development.
13. Charter 18.164 Street and Utility Improvement Standards
As conditioned by the Engineering Department, the standards of
this chapter will be satisfied.
WOW
h:\login\patty\clean2
March 13, 1495
FINAL ORDER-SDR 94-19/PDR 94-02/SLR 94-04-TRT-COUNTY
PAGE 35
PDX1-164410.2 24056 0001