The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 02/05/1990 r TIGARD CITY COUNCIL IYJBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an REGULAR MEE TING AGENDA agenda item should sign on the appropriate FEBRUARY 5, 1990 5:30 PM sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, TIGARD CIVIC CENTER ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's TIGARD, OREGON 972223 Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the city Administrator. o WORKSHOP DISCUSSION WITH METZGER WATER DISTRICT (5:30 p.m.) o STUDY SESSION (6:30 p.m.) - Agenda Review 1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 p.m.) 1.1 Call to order - City Council and Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Pledge of Allegiance 1.3 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items t 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 3. CONSENT AGENDA: 'T'hese items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may reg-lest that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. x Motion to: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: Dec. 4, 11, 20, 1989 & Jan. 8, 1990 3.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar z 3.3 Local contract Review Board: Authorization of Consultant Contract for the Lincoln Street/Locust Street Local Improvement District 3.4 Approve Lien Search Fee - Resolution No. 90- ti 4. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING - SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN An appeal of a Director's decision to approve the reconstruction of a } general retail sales facility, A-Boy Electric, Plumbing and Supply, with a new 17,600 square foot building on a 1.67 acre parcel subject to 14 conditions. The decision included approval to a Variance request to allow 39 parking spaces instead of 44 as required by the Code. Zone:' CBD-AA (Central Business District - Action Area). Location: 12520 S.W.. Main Street (WCIM 2S1 2AC, Lot 700) o Public Hearing Opened o Declarations or Challenges o Summation by Conmiunity Development Staff o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination o Recommendation by Coimunity Development Staff o Council Questions or Comments o Public Hearing Closed o Consideration by Council i COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 5, 1990 - PAGE 1 w l 5. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE CU 87-03 MINOR LAND PARTITION MLP 87- 09 ROBERT P+YATT (TEXACO) NPO #3 A request for a six-month extension of an approval period for a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a vehicle fuel and convenience sales business on property zoned C-G (General Commercial). Also for a Minor Land Partition to divide this 1.54 acre parcel into two parcels of 38,468 and 28,532 sq. ft. each. ZONE: C-G (General Commercial) LOCATION: 11290 S.W. Bull Mountain Road (WCIM 2S1 10AC, Tax Lot 1100) o Public Hearing to be continued to February 19, 1990 6. NON AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff 7. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 8. ADJOURNMENT cca205 i i i f F f } i L } i kk~ 1 F t! f r i { F COUNCIL AGENDA -FEBRUARY 5, 1990 -PAGE 2 T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L MEETIIM N NUI S - FEBRUARY 5, 1990 1. ICL CALL: Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors: Carolyn Eadon, Valerie Johnson and Joe Kasten. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Ken Elliott, Legal Counsel; Kith Liden, Senior Planner; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Liz Newton, Community involvement coordinator; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. 2. 6 DISCUSSICK - NETZGER XVUM DISIRICP The following persons from the Metzger Water District met with Council: Jesse Lowman, Administrator; Ray Pirkl, Board Chair; and Board members Gus Anderson, Dick Holmes, and Norm Staat. Mr. Lowman advised that he and the Board wanted to share with the Tigard City Council their philosophy on formation of a regional water authority. To accommodate continued growth, it has become apparent to the Metzger Water District and the Wolf Creek Water District that a regionalized approach would be necessary to hold the line on costs and avoid duplication of services. The two agencies passed a resolution a year ago to study the feasibility of a regional water agency and have urged other districts to join them. Water resource management will become more difficult and costly, according to Mr. Lowman. Areas affected include storm drainage, sewage treatment, drinking water, and irrigation. The target date for water authority formation is July 1, 1990. To date, no other districts have opted to join. Water resource rights was another area of concern. Mr. Lowman advised that establishment of regional water rights would assure equal access to everyone as the population in the area continues to grow. Pipelines which were planned to accommodate growth through 2005 have almost reached capacity. After discussion, Mayor Edwards requested that Council continue to receive information on the regional water authority formation effort. 3. AG NnA REVIEW a. City Engineer advised there may be a petition filed with regard to a request for street closure on S.W. North Dakota Street. Council had heard this issue about a year ago; several temporary measures were put into place. The area NPO should also review to determine impact to other neighbors. _ CITY COUNCIL MEETING HDX1TES - FEBRUARY 5, 1990 - PAGE 1 b. Finance Director reviewed Consent Agenda Item .4 concerning a lien search fee resolution. He advised a lien docket was now being maintained; approximately 25-30 searches per week were being performed. Fees were in line with costs. C. Review of Public Hearing Process - Dolan Appeal Legal Counsel affirmed that the hearing would be limited to items of record; that is, no new testimony should be accepted. d. City Administrator reviewed a proposal for the Washington County Cooperative Library Service (WCCLS) reimbursement schedule which has been altered to reflect a compromise for Tigard's concerns with the proposed formula. The new schedule has not yet been approved by the Board. e. City Administrator updated Council on the President's Parkway Urban Renewal effort. Consultants have reviewed the report and more work is necessary. Other issues include pulling together loose ends with the number of agencies affected by the wetlands proposal. Also, the school relocation issue remains; the school district must be assured that a site has been located. f. Councilor Kasten noted the 11/20 City newsletter was not delivered until 11/29. Councilor Kasten was advised that if the urban renewal issue fails at the election, then taxpayer dollars would not be at risk. City Engineer advised Councilor Kasten that the catchbasin near the National Guard Armory parking lot would be going out to bid. 3. VIS17MIS AGENDA a. Mayor welcomed Boy Scout Troop No. 799 of Templeton Elementary School. The Scouts attending the meeting were earning their citizenship badge. b. Joy Henkle, Chairperson of the Third Annual Fanno Creek Conference invited City Council to attend at the Tigard High School Cafeteria, beginning at 8:30 a.m., on February 24, 1990. C. Troy Canaday presented a petition from the Anton Park neighborhood requesting time on City Council's agenda to consider at least a temporary closure of S.W. North Dakota. 4. CIQNSE NT AGENDA 4.1 Approve Council Minutes: Dec. 4, 11, 20, 1989 & Jan. 8, 1990 4.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar 4.3 Loral Contract Review Board: Authorization of Consultant Contract for the Lincoln Street/Locust Street Local Improvement District / 4.4 Approve Lien Search Fee - Resolution No. 90-06 Council Meeting Recap - February 5, 1990 - Page 2 5. AST. PUBLIC EMRTM - SITE DEVECDPMENr IWJIM [SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOIAN An appeal of a Director's decision to approve the reconstruction of a general retail sales facility, A-Boy Electric, Plumbing and Supply, with a new 17,600 square foot building on a 1.67 acre parcel subject to 14 conditions. The decision included approval to a Variance request to allow 39 par-:.ing spaces instead of 44 as required by the Code. Zone: CBD-AA (Central Business District - Action Area). Location: 12520 S.W. Main Street (WCIM 2S1 2AC, Lot 700) a. Public Hearing was opened. b. There were no declarations or challenges. C. Senior Planner Liden advised the proposal was originally approved by the Planning Director subject to conditions. This decision was appealed to the Planning Commission. The Commission approved the decision as well and, primarily upheld the Planning Director's decision. The Planning Commission reduced the number of Conditions of Approval from 14 to 12. The applicant has appealed the Planning Commission Decision due to a disagreement over some of the Conditions of Approval. The areas of disagreement related to the following four basic areas: 1. Land dedication requirements along Fanno Creek. 2. Code requirement for landscaped islands in the parking lot. 3. Stipulation that applicant was to pay engineering and survey costs for area to be dedicated. 4. Removal of non-conforming signs (3 signs). Senior Planner noted packet information included: A January 24, 1990, memorandum to Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; a draft resolution to uphold the Planning Commission Decision; a copy of the appeal letter submitted by the applicant; Planning Commission minutes and transcripts from the August and December hearings; and a copy of the site plan proposed by the applicant. d. Legal Counsel reviewed that the hearing would be on the record noting there had been two Planning Commission hearings. Members of Council had been provided full transcripts of the two hearings. Council hearing would be limited to the applicant's appeal and the grounds of appeal stated in the letter from the applicant to the Council. No new evidence would be considered. e. Public Testimony: o Joseph Mendez, Attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Dan Dolan, 1318 S.W. 12th Avenue, Portland, Oregon, testified he was appearing on behalf of the Dolans in their process of exhausting administrative remedies on the way to seeking judicial relief. He noted the subject property was located at 12520 S.W. Main Street, Tigard, Oregon. Council Meeting Recap - February 5, 1990 - Page 3 Mr. Mendez Is testimony is summarized as follows: Mr. and Mrs. Dolan have owned the property since approximately 1970. Now that they were interested in developing the property to the benefit of not only themselves, but also the COMM nity and business area, the Planning Commission was holding up approval until Mr. and Mrs. Dolan dedicate, without compensation, all portions of the site that fall within the 100-year flood plain plus fifteen feet. The additional fifteen feet would be for a bicycle path to a park which does not exist. The Dolans were being denied development of the entire parcel until they give the City the 15 feet of land which belongs to them. The action proposed by the planning Commission constitutes an unlawful taking of a citizen's private property in violation of the Oregon and United States Constitution. The City should be required to pay the fair market value for the property and follow condemnation rules. In addition, the City was requiring Mr. and Mrs. Dolan to pay the costs of surveying and marking the subject 15 feet of land. Mr. Dolan was willing to waive his argument on landscaped islands. When the signs were erected, they were in compliance with City ordinances. Their position was that the signs were conforming. The signs have become an integral part to A-Boy's business in that area they were recognized by the public and by the patrons of the business; the signs, therefore, constitute a business asset. If the City deems the signs to be nonconforming, this should be handled through a separate procedure, not as part of the development permit process. Su mmry remarks: The Planning Commission's Final order violates Mr. and Mrs. Dolan's Constitutional rights; specifically, the U.S. Constitution Fifth Amendment and the Constitution of Oregon, Article I, Section 1s. The demands of "gifts" to the City were no more than the City holding up the permit process; holding the Dolan's right to build on their property for ransom until the city was given what it wants. e. Mayor called for response from staff: Comimini.ty Development Director advised that the dedication of the bicycle path was being treated similarly to a right-of-way dedication. For such dedication, a developer must dedicate right-of-way, survey the right-of--way, and then improve the street in accordance with the development process. The idea of a pedestrian path was articulated in a design plan, parks Council Meeting Recap - February 5, 1990 - Page 4 plan, and downtown development plan. 'T'herefore, it appeared C clear that the intent was to eventually have a trail along - Fanno Creek and it was appropriate to take steps to assure that land be made available. Trail construction was not a requirement at this time. Community Development Director advised that the staff agreed, while this would be unusual, that the City would survey the land to be dedicated in an attempt to reach a compromise. The signs were nonconforming. Ccmmunity Development Director advised it had been standard practice that, at the time of development permit issuance, illegal signs were addressed. Commamity Development Director noted staff was recommending the appeal be denied. Mayor asked, and senior Planner Liden confirmed, that a 10- year amortization period had been extended to businesses to conform to the sign regulations. The expiration of this phase-in period expired in March 1988. Business owners, who were not in conformance, were extended an opportunity to sign a voluntary compliance agreement stipulating how nonconforming signs would be removed or modified to conform. The City was asking for voluntary compliance Agreements in the downtown area because the Downtown Plan was pending; sign design elements associated with the Plan were anticipated. Therefore, actual enforcement or removal of non-conforming` signs throughout the downtown area would not be done until the Downtown Plan was finished. The City requested a voluntary compliance agreement for the subject property, but did not E' receive one. Another option would be to submit a request for a Sign Code Exception or Variance from the Planning Commission. Legal Counsel responded to a request from Councilor Johnson to explain the City's land dedication policy. community Development Director's analogy to right-of-way dedication was r. accurate. Local governments have long been given the right to impose reasonable conditions on development approvals. Mr. Elliott referred a recent case in point was "Nolan" from the State of California. It was decided by the U. S. Supreme Court that a condition imposed had no reasonable connection to the permit being sought; the condition did not substantially further the governmental purposes. In the case before City Council, there was a requirement for a 15-foot dedication which goes beyond the floodplain because of the topography of the property. City Legal Counsel added that this was not a condition unique to this property; other commercial property owners, in redeveloping their property along Fanno Creek, have been Council Meeting Recap - February 5, 1990 - Page 5 t' i required to dedicate similar land for the bikeway. The bikeway was shown in the Park Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. There was no other way to preserve the bikeway land without the condition. City counsel advised that the Planning Commission recommendation provided two or three conditions to modify the impact which could potentially arise from the "taking" being argued by the appellant. Even if this area was not dedicated to the City, there would be landscaping requirements; however, now the city would landscape the subject area. Legal counsel concluded that the "Nolan" case does not appear to apply to this situation because the condition was related to the development of the land and was in furtherance of the City Council's goals of developing the Fanno Creek and greenway area. f. Council received clarification on several issues including the provision that the City would pick up the survey costs on the 15-foot wide strip of land along the flood plain boundary. An amendment to the proposed resolution would be necessary. g. City legal counsel noted the need for clarification. The applicant's attorney noted they were waiving the appeal of the landscaped islands issue. Mr. Elliott said he wanted to make it clear that, at this hearing, all grounds for appeal were required to be raised. Mr. Mendez advised that in order to reserve this issue for appeal, he would argue that they considered the requirement for landscaped islands to be "a taking" in violation of the Constitution. It was clarified that all four issues, noted in previous testimony, were maintained for this hearing. h. Mr. Mendez advised that, in 1986, the City was willing to purchase the bike path and at that time, they only wanted 8 feet. The Engineer's Report requested 10 feet, and the Planning Commission's final opinion was for 15 feet. i. Councilor Johnson asked if the landscaped islands were necessary in order to meet percentages of landscaped area required by the Code. Senior Planner advised that landscaped islands, with trees, were required in and around parking areas at a ratio of one tree per seven parking spaces. There were a number of ways this requirement could be achieved. The landscaped islands would be counted towards the landscaped area requirement of 15 percent. j. Mr. Mendez referred to City Legal Counsel's notation that Mr. { Dolan had been given credit for a portion of the landscaping Council Meeting Recap - February 5, 1990 - Page 6 :.._...'..u.... c,vr :.e ..r . .„u<- .r.,_.s.%. ...iyv ii....>'.'.- .•:wi :r..,,k.:.:.' .a:r::i)..... +w.,..... requirement; he advised there was a big difference between landscaping requirements and having land taken. Mr. Mendez thought the "Nolan" case would support Mr. Dolan's position that this was a taking for which there must be compensation. (Public hearing was noted as being closed; Mr. John Dolan then advised he would like to comment; Mayor noted, for the record, the Public Hearing was "reopened.") k. John Dolan, 4015 S. E. Brooklyn Street, Portland, Oregon, said the land dedication was about 7,000 feet. A building permit for this property, in his opinion, would have nothing to do with the land dedication requirements. with regard to the surveying costs, he said he did not receive word in writing as to whether or not the City would pay for these costs. Mr. Dolan argued against the process noting conditions should be complied with prior to receipt of an occupancy permit rather than before being given a permit to build. With regard to the signs, Mr. Dolan said he disagreed that they were non-conforming. He said he does not believe the one sign was a roof-top sign as it was mounted on the parapet wall. He advised he has a sign permit on file from 1970 at which time he was given permission by the City of Tigard to build the sign. The billboard sign has been on the property since he purchased land. Mr. Dolan advised he had not been notified of the change in the Sign Code. Mr. Dolan advised the taking of this property was a violation of his constitutional rights. k. Public Hearing was closed. 1. In response to a question from Councilor Johnson, Senior Planner advised, in Condition No. 12 of the Planning Comni,ssion Final Order, that the roof sign was to be permanently removed from the subject property within 45 days of the issuance of the Occupancy Permit. m. Council discussion followed. Legal Counsel advised, if Council detexm ned that the survey costs should be paid by the City, then the resolution should be modified reflecting this point of the applicant's appeal was sustained. Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to amend Condition No. 5 of the Planning Commission Decision to read as follows: The City's engineer/surveyor shall locate and clearly mark the 100-year floodplain boundary prior to C Council Meeting Recap - February 5, 1990 - Page 7 commencement of construction. Floodplain boundary markers shall be maintained throughout the period of construction. STAFF CONTACT: Jon Feigion, Engineering Division. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. n. RESOLUTION NO. 90-07 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 89-13) /V 89-21) PROPOSED BY JOHN AND FT-OPM,TCE DOLAN. Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to adopt Resolution No. 90-07 as modified to reflect the amendment to Condition No. 5 of the Planning Commission decision. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 6. PUELIC BEAIUM - CICNDTTIONAL USE CU 87-03 N3NOR LAND PAIU `i'rON MLP 87- 09 ROEERT W-ZM (TEI AM NPD #3 A request for a six-month extension of an approval period for a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a vehicle fuel and convenience sales business on property zoned C-G (General Commexcial). P.lso for a Minor Land Partition to divide this 1.54 acre parcel into two parcels of 38,468 and 28,532 sq. ft. each. Mayor declared the public hearing was opened and would be continued to the February 19, 1990, Council meeting. 7. NCN-AGENDA TTEKS• None. 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Cancelled 9. ADIOCENMERr: 8:37 p.m. cZv Catherine Wheatley, City R rder A Gerald R. , Mayor Date: 3/619 ccm25 Council Meeting Recap - February 5, 1990 - Page 8 F E B R U A R Y 1 9 9 0 SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY r Y ~J 1 2 3 " I 7:OOPM LAND USE GROUNDHOG • HO - TH DAY z ' 5 7 * 8 9 10 4 F7 6:OOPM COUNCIL M PARK BOARD 7:OOPM NPO #3 7:OOPM LIBRARY STUDY SESSION CR - THCR BOARD - THCR 7:30PM COUNCIL 7:OOPM TRANS BA - TH & THCR CDCR 11 r6:30PM 13 14 * 15 16 17 J r ALENTINES WORKSHOP 7:OOPM BUDGET DAY ING COMM WORKSHOP 7:30PM.NPO #1 - THCR & #2 - THCR :OOPM UTILITY 7:30PM NPO #4- & FRANCHISE -CDCR CDCR PM BUDGET 21 * 22 23 24 18 19 PRESIDENTS 20 7':0M11 DAY CO- THCR CLOSED! 7:30PM PLANNING NPO #5 & #8 ° -6:30PM COUNCIL COMM - CDCR - TBA STUDY SESSION 7:30PM COUNCIL BA - TH & THCR 25 26 27 28 6:OOPM COUNCIL ;,-STUDY SESSION 7:30PM COUNCIL BA - TH & THCR ke/calendar.5 * Department Head Staff Meeting: 8:30 - 10:30AM (THCR) TH - TOWN HALL Second Tuesday - Attorney Trials: 8:OOAM - 12:30PM (TH & THCR) THCR - Town Hall Conference Pnom Seco A Tuesday - Civil Infraction Hearings: 2:30 - 4:3P'" (TH & THCR) CDCR - Community Development.. -ence Room Ever knesday - Municipal Court: 2.00 - 7:OOPM (TH & CR) CSCR - Community Services (.x. terence Room Fw~r'v-Thursdav - MuniCipal Court: 12:30 - 5:OOPM (TH & -ifiCR) TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal 7_6473 P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 Notice BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising • City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice PO Box 23397 • Tigard, OR 9 7 2 2 3 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. 1 Linda L. Maris being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the T ig ar d T i m e s a newspaper of general circfl jk s Jelin gar ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at g in the aforq(!jiV yoVnAV~1-qatggW11&9 a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for 1 successive and consecutive in the following issues: February 1, 1990 February 8, 1990 Subscribed and savor to before me this Notary Public for Oregon My Commiss Expires: 6 / 3 / 9 3 AFFIDAVIT IGA OREGON?'- TIM following selecEd ends items are published for y infonnation. Further information ull ageadas may be obtained from the City:Re- corder,° 13125 S.W. ll Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, or by calling 639-4171. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING - FEBRUARY 5,1990 6:30 PM STUDY SESSION, 7:30 PM BUSINESS MEETING, TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON • Metzger Water District Discussion • Appeal Public Hearing - Site Development Review MR 89-131,89-21) Dolan • Local Contest Review Board Meeting - Authorization of t Consultant Contract for the Linconl St./Locust St. Local Improvement District ` VExecuRve Session = under the provisions of ORS 192.660,(1~.(d), . ( & (hYid discuss labor relations, real property tC sacdans,. atxi ca>iralt;& pending litigation issues. TT6d73 - Pnb)ish February 1, IM TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY 7-6466 Legal %~ElfH$X P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising • City of Tigard • XM Tearsheet Notice PO Box 23397 • Tigard, OR 9 7 2 2 3 • O Duplicate Affidavit s ~ AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss- I, Linda L. Maris ~q being first duly sworn, depose and say Tat g a r dt/he T u as tnen Times Director, or his principal clerk, of the a newspaper of general circula?rgaw8r9efined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at in the aforep@idlcj)FtXjWLlrqEq%; that the a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for 1 successive and consecutive in the following issues: January 25, 1990 Subscribed and swor to before me this January 25, 1990 Notary Public for Oregon My Commi n Expi s: 6/ 9/ 9 3 AFFIDAVIT Z7follo Will be wt our~c~l on Feburary 1 811YR`c lrr; 312 W7 i+N f Jay Hall~oulevard;;li re8 , 'from"the3Cmnmutiity~~eve1' ''~to~:ar~ity'Rec~lefat~-t~ce locaadWorby cabin G39=~ 1~ tnvned tosubnut written tes k fun~ny~in edvasealie~ibl€i~~ rig, written and oral tmany ~an'If 1, be co4nsidc-n , alitliek ea rig' ubLc hearing will be cgtiduet e cordancev~►ith the' uS1tp 18.32of the'ligardMiuliai to aad any rules oM541 b thGCo and av~sila121d ac Crryj Yom' A1All Satii'~ ~ A y F 1 ~Tjf~Tli~j~E✓V~E~,O `L_ 'L 4 yVa^_-'ur~~v v .mot. 1C~jnW4~aV- ~h., 5 ~.~M P g eons6tncttbn of l id l sa ac~>i , p` y r a d'Wa'y r T; lO nit f btu ding ~scto l su~ F A e' E a d&ijb7'i-Wft1i ipr _ ~ei:f 101 hof► ~'i1 o a ~ , to a1 Business Do s" ~f U "Ca' a7 FDA L11 Mfj-p 01 w ROBED'!'' t X 81 6 qr, bEa•vefinclrr an xanve~Cs' a~es_b~c~ ,h ( ` ,a>~.~AL f Ito 4 "oln A F AGENDA ITEM # 2 - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE_ 2/5/90 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Administrator prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. i NAME & ADDRESS TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED t ~"`r v C c cQ ~'1 T o ti a L o 5 L ~ t DATE 2/5/90 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) PERSONS WILL BE ALLOWED 10 MINUTES FOR PRESENTATIONS. Item Description: AGENDA ITEM'~NO 4. -":APPEAL,-'' +'PUBLIC-HEARING. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW:.(SDR-89-13/.. V '89-24 DOLAN Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation r ~a al~~~o January 29, 1990 Cc( Via f Tigard City Council City of Tigard 13125 SW Hail Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Honorable Mayor and Councilors: Once again the uiidersigned residents of Anton Park Subdivision request time on the City Council's agenda to consider at least a temporary closure of Southwest North Dakota Street as shown on the attached map. Since our meeting with the Council, February 13. 1989, meetings have been held with the Chief of Police and the City Engineer, traffic counts have been taken, dividers have been tried unsuc- cessfully, and all other alternatives have been thoroughly dis- cussed, researched and discarded. The safety and well-being of the Anton Park residents still remains in .jeopardy. The only solution is to close Southwest North Dakota Street to through traffic at least temporarily until such time when the widening of Scholls Ferry has been completed. We respectfully request time on the Council's agenda as soon as possible. Name/Address - - 0_ --,Z3 - ~ - `-d,,-a I 113 C) -4C - Honorable Mayor and Councilors - 2 --~23~D_Sc~l'~9,LLT=S7----------- - --~~i~Q, - - - - -1-?~?- Ss~11CS_~r~'~_ - - - - - - - - - z zQO S~ N~ Af --aa t~`st2~t--ry` ,~_~aia sOx_~ d~~-'3~1~_ •w~~`, ~__11_/(2~_ S - - - c.>- S &L",-_ /4~ _ QccC U---- - r - - C1 - - - - - _°_------~rlrv-_ C4"-- ---------Cf_---------- - (Il(J_ - - - - ----s '---y------------------ -01 ~l/ 141 l S" S~-j I Z `'l fl-)96-r c 2 Honor le Mayo and Councilors - 3 - s -PL _ - - -Ton a CT G 0Ll G'f ~ 7 Z/ - - - X11 l~•- ~ - - - ~ ~1 Gc /mss - ZZA - - - , 7 - t K r~ --------Lt--- -Z,> ~I,v t2 s pl L.L ----------d--~ 3 Honorable Mayor and Councilors - 4 ---1// v -----o 4 Goo w:, W RE►nb) tit C y~ , r N s - N, aIL MAF! RJ[ « C`°WWt ti. ~ t.« :IA:Lnr► tt• ~ / a.at. aAUfA~ ( ( • ri-r PP► ~ J t r •:1 S « \NO«iMOC ~ ~ u *J}y .1 y • C s Sr SCNOL «000 _ . s • OREENWAY 'T o a 4 waLK t r ~allcl,iAIL 70WNCE14TER 1 Ir ~O Z ~ Y > g ' A ~Vdt c « F ~ ~ ~ s« o w AF tl C~Ai~ a i ~ K ' • L~ r 44 11 {11-11' 1xr1~1 8dt1~l51~77 • " U© 0 II+N AMiA t • t 'w'w ANto_y-- OR`s-..-: ; - - -t . • OTA asI fY ~ w • ~ t } ° o tl a r aw. i !4*3 ~ ♦ ~ M. M w ue ` aLR R u~r ! ~RLUCS OR Sw i Sif i~ty" GT. O.It WRl n° a • • ••.`•1 ~•j0 grA't MILLVItN • f PARK 1 r• ••„~SUMUERI. ~ Sf,yytR n. ~c ~ r <\~*NtF P:tLO O MRLSI ~RiJ1y, ~ t ~ d' P It \ Sy MCACSI NC C 11- ~ l 1 c , a.r ti 1 r AY~V L«LN ~fP♦ tpa• ~ ar NAi Rf+t p.. \ r Nan ► ~ 1 L~iRMONT~ J.URMON iARY L.•••`1 ~L~' tCµ00t it - i ~ SUMLtE~ r ~l~` IIWYY r = rALa fa °R. 33 34 s ° t ~ tN0 ri YORMN° t 1 A l l 1{ ~ sI. - ( i a M. pAtNCR a ~ a t.S IrMY ' « J 1 DI R ~ O ~ OwC tr rLLa ~ ~ ~ C a.«. r' 6T. :1 i), AXM f. ` -p.. r 6 w Cr ttW.CP 4 w s R X' Tr.• AXN )~4 ` ~ ;n 1 aft.tir+N c' aA`~L• E s li~iJR w PA}1~f)yC~~~Uj«Ar YMOOR GI w MaL11~ ~`6f YC •R1LnSlori \ l\ t M i JACk g 4 w PARK Y?,''.. F rAfat cc « frrm n i^l~ r ~«Afput si % i f T iT•~~ ' w MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council ATE: January 26, 1990 FROM: Patrick J. Reilly, City Administrator SUBJECT: COUNCIL CALENDAR, Feb. - Apr. 190 Official Council meetings are marked with an asterisk If generally OK, we can proceed and make specific adjustments in the Monthly Council Calendars. February 190 1 Thu Town Hall Meeting - Urban Renewal (7:30 @ Tigard Water Dist.) * 5, Mon Council Business Agenda (5:30/7:30) *12, Mon Council Dinner Meeting; Portland City Commissioner Earl Blumenauer @ Newport Bay on Pacific Highway (6:30) *19, Mon Council Business Agenda (6:30/7:30) President's Day (City Hall Closed) 20 Tue Budget Committee Meeting (7:00) 21, Wed Legislative Breakfast (Eggs & Issues, Elmer's, 7:15 a.m.) *26, Mon Council Business Agenda (5:30/7:30) Workshop Meeting with Transportation Advisory Committee 27 Tue Budget Committee Meeting (7:00) March '90 * 5, Mon Council Business Agenda (Urban Renewal) (6:30/7:30) *12 Mon Council Business Agenda (Urban Renewal; Workshop Meeting with TRFPD @ 6:30 p.m.) Note: Spring Vacation is Week of March 19-23 *19 Mon Council Study Agenda (6:30) 21 Wed Legislative Breakfast (Eggs & Issues, F-Imer's, 7:15 a.m.) *26 Mon Council Business Agenda (Tentatively Scheduled: Richard Devlin, METRO Councilor @ 6:30) (5:30/7:30) April '90 * 9 Mon Council Business Agenda (6:30/7:30) *16 Mon Council Study Agenda (6:30) 18 Wed Legislative Breakfast (Eggs & Issues, Elmer-s, 7:15 a.m.) *23 Mon Council Business Agenda (6:30/7:30) cw/cccal Council Calendar - Page 1 3.3 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: February 5. 1990 DATE SUBMITTED: January 25. 1990 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Authorizatio PREVIOUS ACTION: of Consultant Contract for the n,I C~ PREPARED BY: Gary Alf son Lincoln St. cost St. LID I' M/11 I DEPT HEAD O CITY ADMIN ORi~//% REQUESTED BY: PO ICY ISSUE Authorization of a consultant contract for engineering services for the Lincoln Street and Locust Street improvements as required by the Lincoln Street/Locust Street LID. INFORMATION SUMMARY A contract is proposed with the firm of KPFF Consulting Engineers to provide engineering services to design and construct improvements to Lincoln Street and Locust Street. KPFF will prepare the detailed construction plans, contract documents, and provide construction management services. KPFF has completed a major portion of the design prior to the formation of the LID under contract with Trammell crow company. The fee for engineering services will be paid by r the L.I.D. Construction of the improvements is expected to occur this summer 1990. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Authorize the City Administrator to sign a contract with KPFF as outlined above. 2. Negotiate a contract with an alternate consultant. 3. Have engineering services provided by city staff as time allows. t i FISCAL IMPACT i This contract will be funded by the LID. SUGGESTED ACTION i i Y k Staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, authorize the City Administrator to sign a contract with KPFF as outlined in the information summary above. 't dj/ss-c-11.GA t i kpff Consulting Engineers January 11, 1990 Mr. Gary Alfson CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd. P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Lincoln/Locust Street L.I.D. KPFF Project No. 89010.5 Dear Gary: KPFF is pleased to provide this proposal for civil engineering services for the development of S.W. Lincoln Street. Improvements will be constructed from S.W. Locust Street to approximately 280 feet north of S.W. Oak Street. Our estimate of the scope of work for each phase of the project is as follows: Construction Documents - Prepare construction plans for two-third street, improvements including curb and sidewalk on west side of the street. The east side will have a rural road section for the shoulder area. - Prepare construction plans for storm drainage improvements. - Prepare construction plans for underground utilities including electrical, telephone, cable, water and street lighting. Portland General Electric Company, telephone and cable agencies shall design system on base drawing= prepared by KPFF. KPFF will draft design onto construction plans. - Prepare construction documents based on American Public Works Association 1980 Edition specifications modified as required to meet the City of Tigard requirements. The contract document shall be prepared in similar format to Locust Street L.I.D. or preferably to the Hall Street L.I.D. designed by KPFF to allow the City of Tigard to publicly advertise for bid. - Prepare an itemized construction cost estimate. - Prepare half street improvemnets along frontage of two homes in Locust Street, north of the Locust/Lincoln Street intersection. 707 SW Washington St., Suite 600, Portland, OR 97205-3523 (503) 227-3251 FAX (503) 274-8029 Los Angeles Portland Seattle Mr. Gary Alfson CITY OF TIGARD RE: Lincoln/Locust Street L.I.D. KPFF Project No. 89010.5 January 11, 1990 Page 2 Bidding Services - Provide twenty-five (25) sets of construction documents to the City of Tigard. - Answer questions during bidding period and attend pre-bid conference if required. - Attend bid opening and assist in the selection of a contractor. Construction Services - Provide construction surveying. - Provide daily construction observation/inspection, based on a 30 working day construction schedule. Determine compliance of materials in place with specifications. - Provide daily inspection reports. - Prepare progress payment estimates on a monthly basis. - Prepare contract change orders as required. - Make final inspection and recommendations regarding acceptance of the work performed. Prepare final engineer's report with final payment request. - Provide as-constructed survey. - Prepare as-constructed mylar drawings, which will become the property of the City of Tigard. - Provide centerline and rights of way monumentation in accordance with Oregon Revised Statutes 92.060, subsection (2). Our estimated fee by phase, as well as our maximum fee, is tabulated below: Construction Documents $ 6,190 Bidding Services $ 1,460 Construction Services $13,210 TOTAL $20,860 Mr. Gary Alfson CITY OF TIGARD RE: Lincoln/Locust Street L.I.D. KPFF Project No. 89010.5 January 11, 1990 Page Three We will bill for our work monthly based on a time and material not to exceed basis. Attached is a breakdown of KPF F hourly rates. We look forward to working with the City of Tigard on this project. If you have any questions, or require further information, please call me. Very _truly/ yours, David J. DeHarpport, P.E., P.L.S DJD/hs 3- Ll CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM! SQ14MA2Y AGENDA OF: Z ` S'" Qo DATE SUBMITTED: January 18, 1990 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Approval of PREVIOUS ACTION: January 10, 1977 Lien Search Fee PREPARED BY: Wayne Lowry otOr DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK / REQUESTED BY: Wayne Lowry PO CY ISSUE Tigard Municipal Code Section 3.32 requires that all fees and charges be approved by the City Council. Shall the Tigard City Council approve a fee for providing lien search service? INFORMATION SUMMARY Tigard is one of the only cities in Washington County that does not provide lien search services. Title companies are required to come into our building and search our lien docket for liens on property within the city. We have been contacted by several title companies that would like the City to perform the lien search service. They are willing to pay a reasonable fee as it will save them the cost of sending someone from their staff to the City for each search. We estimate that no more than 5 hours of staff time per week will be spent performing this service and can be absorbed with existing staff. By performing this service, we assume certain risks associated with the accuracy of lien information reported to title companies. Current insurance coverage includes an errors and omissions policy with no deductible to insure against such risks. Through a survey of surrounding cities and an examination of the city of Tigard's cost in providing the lien search service, we have determined that $10.00 per search will adequately recover the City's cost and is a reasonable fee. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Adopt resolution to set fee of $10.00 per lien search. 2. Do not adopt resolution. FISCAL IMPACT 1. Estimated revenue of $1,000 per month. 2. No impact. SUGGESTED ACTION Staff recommends adoption of resolution to set lien search fee of $10.00. DCLIINSRCH.MEM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: 2/5/90 DATE SUBMITTED:-1/25/90 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Appeal - Site PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Commission Develo ent Review SDR 89-13 8 _approval subject to conditions 21 Dolan 411, 1 PREPARED BY: Keith Liden DEPT HEAD CITY ADMIN O REQUESTED BY: 12 777VF P ICY ISSUE Should the City Council uphold the Planning Commission decision and conditions of approval for the redevelopment of the A-Boy property on Main Street? INFORMATION SUMMARY On August 8, 1989, the Commission reviewed an appeal of a Director's decision to approve the re-construction of a general retail sales facility, A-Boy Electric and Plumbing Supply. A new 17,600 square foot building is planned for construction on the existing 1.67 acre A-Boy site. The decision included approval to a Variance request to allow 39 parking spaces instead of 44 as required by the Code. The site development review proposal was approved subject to the satisfaction of 12 conditions. The applicant appealed the decision to the commission because of an objection to several conditions. Attached is a staff memo reviewing the appeal request, a draft resolution to uphold the Planning Commission decision, the Commission's final order (89-25 PC), the applicant's appeal, the Commission transcripts and minutes for the Commission hearings on August 8, 1989 and December 5, 1989, and the proposed site plan. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve the attached resolution to uphold the Commission decision 2. Modify and approve the attached resolution FISCAL IMPACT SUGGESTED ACTION Approve the resolution. ( DOLAN2/kl YKNAPPENBERGER & MENDEZ JOSEPH R. MENDE2 ATTORNEYS AT LAW PETER MILLER ALLAN F. KNAPPENBERGER HONEYMAN HOUSE OF COUNSEL 1318 S.W. 12TH AVE. - PORTLAND, OREGON 97201-3367 FAX (503) 294-0442 (503) 294-4317 December 27, 1989 City of Tigard Community Development P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re:* Application Being Appealed: John T. and Florence Dolan SDR89-13/V 89-21 To Whom It May Concern: Please accept this correspondence as a formal request to provide each City Council member and the applicant herein, a copy of the complete transcript of the hearings and a copy of the minutes from all relevant proceedings which resulted in the Planning Commission's approval with conditions of the above- referenced application. This request is made consistent with Section 18.32.330A of the Community Development Code for Tigard, Oregon. Consistent with Section 18.32.3308 the appellate will assume responsibility to satisfy all costs incurred for the preparation of the transcript at a rate of actual cost up to $500.00 and one-half of the costs for any amount incurred over $500.00. In the event there are any questions as a result of this request, please contact Joseph R. Mendez, attorney for John T. and Florence Dolan, at the telephone number listed above. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation and consideration in this matter. Very truly yours, KNAPP ER EZ Jo R. Men ez JRM:sp Enc. cc: John T. Dolan Florence Dolan NOTICE OF APPEAL OF FINAL ORDER OF DIRECTOR 1. Concerning case number: SDR 89-131V 89-21. 2. a) Name of owner: John T. and Florence Dolan. b) Name of applicant: ?filbert R. Kenney, Jr. 3. Address: 9500 S.W. Boulevard, Portland, Oregon, 97206. 4. a) Address of property: 12520 S.W. Main Street. b) Tax Plap and Lot No(s).: 2S1 2AC, tax lot 700. 5. Request: Applicant requests the Planning Commissions Final Order in the above referenced matter be reviewed by the City Council regarding the conditional approval of the reconstruction of a general retail sales facility, A-Boy Electric Plumbing and Supply, with a new 17,600 square foot building on a 1.67 acre parcel subject to 14 conditions enumerated in the Final Order. Zone: CBD-AA (Central Business District - Action Area). A copy of the Notice of Final Order - By Planning Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Final Order") is attached hereto marked as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The applicant qualifies as a party by being the owner and the real party in interest intending to develop the parcel. 7. Specific grounds for the appeal for review are: a) Paragraph 1, page 10 Final Order. The decision demands John T. and Florence Dolan (hereinafter referred to as Dolan) dedicate a substantial portion of their property to the City as greenway, i.e., all portions of the site that fall within the existing 100-year floodplain and in addition the Final Order demands Dolan surrender 15 feet above (to the east of the floodplain boundary. This demand by the Planning Commission constitutes an unlawful taking of a citizen's private property in violation of the Constitution of the United States Fifth Amendment and in violation of the Constitution of Oregon Article 1, Section 18. b) Paragraph 4, page 11 Final Order. That portion of Paragraph 4, subnumbered 3) which requires Dolan to construct landscaped islands in the parking lot and plant trees in the islands is of first impression to the 1 - NOTICE OF APPEAL OF FINAL ORDER OF DIRECTOR applicant. This condition was not included in the previous decision and was not included in Dolan's initial appeal. This requirement is not uniform in its application by the City Planner and constitutes an unlawful taking by this governmental agency. c) Paragraph 5, page 11 Final Order. Requires that Dolan at Dolan's expense survey and mark the land they are required to deed to the City. This expense should be born by the City since the City would be the beneficiary of the dedication. d) Paragraph 15, page 11 and Paragraph 12, page 12 Final Order. The Planning Commission requires Dolan to remove certain signage prior to the occupancy phase of the development. The signage referred to by the Director was erected by Dolan with the permission of the City and in conformance with city ordinances at the time of construction. The signage is integral to Dolan's business and its required removal constitutes an unlawful taking for which Dolan must be compensated beyond the mere approval of their application. The signage issue of a separate building is improperly addressed by the Planning Commission in this application process and should be struck from the Final order. 8. a) Date decision was filed: 12/18/89. b) Date decision scheduled to be final: 12/28/89. DATED this o?7t' day of 1989. RNAPPENBHRGER EZ y: J E R. AND O k8- 3 torneys or hn T. and rence Do - t1V) RECEIVED BY: I yL DATE: TIME: APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: DATE: TIME: 'DENIED AS TO FORM BY: DATE: / j TIME: NOTICES OF FURTHER ACTION AND HEARING DATES SHOULD BE SENT TO: Mr. John Dolan Mr. Joseph R. Mendez, Esq. Globe Lighting Supply The Honeyman House 1919 N.W. 19th Avenue 1318 S.W. 12th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97219 Portland, Oregon 97201 r C 2 - NOTICE OF APPEAL OF FINAL ORDER OF DIRECTOR TIGARD PL81n2w COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - AUGUST 8, 1989 1. President Moen called the meeting to order at 7:32 PM. The meeting was held at the Tigard Civic Center - TOWN HALL - 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. 2_ ROLL CALL: Present; President Moen; Commissioners Barber, Castile, Fyre, Newton (arrived 7:45 PM), Peterson, and Rosborough. Absent: Commissioners Leverett and Saporta. Staff: Senior Planner Keith Liden; Legal Counsel Phil Grillo (for item 5.1); Planning Secretary Diane M. Jelderks. 3- APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Commissioner Pyre moved and commissioner Barber seconded to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried by majority of Commissioners present. Commissioner Rosborough abstained. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION o President Moen stated he had received a letter of appreciation from the Fountains Condominiums; minutes from the June 1st meeting regarding the I-5/Kruse Way improvements; and a Metro newsletter. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPEAL SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN/A-BOY NPO #1 An appeal of a Director's decision to approve the re-construction of a general retail sales facility, A-boy Electric Plumbing and Supply, with a new 17,600 square foot building on a 1.67 acre parcel subject to 14 conditions. The decision included approval to a Variance request to allow 39 parking spaces instead of 44 as required by the Code. Zone: CBD-AA (Central Business District - Action Area). Location: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC lot 700). Senior Planner Liden reviewed the conditions that were being appealed by the applicant. Staff felt that the conditions were appropriate. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Commissioner Newton arrived 7:45 PM_ o Joseph R. Mendez, 715 SW Morrison # 500, Portland, Or.,97205, Attorney for A-Boy, referenced sections in the Code which they were appealing. He stated that the land being required for dedication would encroach into the building that they are proposing for construction. He opposed ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 8, 1989 - PAGE 1 r r / 1 conditions 1, 6, and 9 which involve taking land without compensation. Be objected toIsigning a non-remonstrance agreement because it gives away their 'guaranteed constitutional rights. The condition regarding the billboard signs is beyond their control because the sign is owned by Ackerly. The roof/wall sign was constructed- in conformance with the existing Code at that time- and to remove it prior to demolition of the existing building would injure their business. Discussion followed.with the Commission regarding the signs. o Dan Dolan, 4524 NE Davis, Portland, 97213, read a letter from John Dolan, ? President of A-Boy, stating. the importance and need for expanding their facility. Be read a second letter dated April 4, 1988, regarding the sign and compliance agreement. :Discussion followed regarding removal of the signs, location of the building, bicycle/pedestrian path, and buffering. o Sarah Dolan, 2410 SW 17th Ave, Portland, OR., speaking in behalf of her father opposed the taking of the additional 15 feet. She stated that they had previous conversation& with William Monahan regarding he City purchasing a portion of their property for park use. Now, the City is taking the land, requiring them to do the surveying, as well as designing the path. She felt this requirement was unreasonable and unfair. PUBLIC TEST33IONY o No one appeared to speak. - o Lengthy discussion followed regarding the time frame for-removal, of the roof/wall sign, the billboard signs, dedication of the additional 1S feet above the flood plain, the Drainage Master Plan, improvements to Fanno Creek (widening of the flood channel), location and width of the bikepath, location of the building, allowing construction in the flood plain, landscaping/buffering abutting the park, the City's right to require dedication of land, and signing of a non-remonstrance agreement. o Phil Grillo, City Attorney, reviewed legal aspect of requirements for dedication (taking of land) and signing of non-remonstrance agreements. REBUTTAL o Joseph Mendez stated that it is impossible to move the proposed building because of a sewer easement in front of the proposed building. They were never informed during the pre-application process that they would be required to dedicate an additional 15 feet. They are willing to work with the City to determine if a variable amount of dedication between -10 and 20 feet could be worked out for construction of the bikepath. They still oppose taking of land without compensation and signing of a non- remonstrance agreement- Discussion followed regarding width of the bikepath, the Fanno Creek Park Plan, location of the building, and possible solutions to the problem. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 8, 1989 - PAGE 2 i i PUBLIC BRAKING CLOSED o • Commissioner Peterson supported 39 parking spaces, did not support signing a non-remonstrance agreement if curb and sidewalk repairs were done, removal of signs should be done in 30 days, agreed 5 feet is necessary, however, there is not sufficient information to require an additional 10 feet for the- bikepath, and the 'bikepath should be constructed by the Developer. o Commissioner Barber supported removal of signs within 30 to 60 days, did not support requirement for a non-remonstrance, supported the 5 foot dedication for work in the flood plain, dedication of greenway, construction of the bikepath, and-surveying as required by the Code. o Commissioner Pyre favored the bikepath but did not-feel there was enough information to determine the location. He favored requiring a non- remonstrance. o Commissioner Rosborough supported 39 parking spaces, agreed signs should be removed within 30 to 60 days, did not support requiring a non- remonstrance agreement, and felt there was not enough information to determine the location} of the bikepath. ' o Commissioner Castile felt that modifying the 15 feet requirement to a variation of 10 to 20 feet would work for a bikepath. o Commissioner Newton favored the requirement for a non-remonstrance agreement,. that all signs should be removed within 30 days, that the building could be moved 3 to 5 feet without a problem, and a variable dedication would work for the bikepath. o Commissioner Moen had no problem with the dedication and favored the requirement for a non-remonstrance agreement. He felt the City and applicant could work out the problem with the bikepath. Discussion followed regarding the Master Drainage Plan and the bikepath. * Commissioner Castile moved to approve Site Development Review SDR 89-13 and Variance V 89-21 for 39 parking spaces. Require the non-remonstrance agreement to be signed. Remove all signs 45 days after occupancy. Require Engineering and the applicant to work out an agreement for a variation of 10 to 20 feet for constructing a bikepath. If an agreement cannot be worked out then the application will come back to the Planning Commission. o Phil Grillo, Legal Counsel, suggested that a time frame be given to work out a compromise. Discussion followed * Commissioner Castile withdrew is motion- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 8, 1989 - PAGE 3 * Commissioner Fyre moved and Commissioner Castile seconded to approve SDR.89-13 and V 89-21 with staff's conditions. Modifying condition number one to require the applicant and City Engineer to work out an agreement, being as flexible as possible, to vary the 15 feet to accommodate both drainage improvements, bikepath, and buffering without requiring the building to be moved. Modifying condition number nine requiring the applicant and City Engineer--to work out an agreement on a paved bikepath, giving consideration to public safety. This order will become'final 30 days from August 8, 1989. If an agreement cannot be reached between the City Engineer and the applicant then the application will be brought back before the Planning Commission on September 5th. Motion carried by majority of Commissioners present. Commissioner Peterson voting no. 5.2 SUBDIVISION S 89-06 RRESSLEr/CONSULTING BNGIIRSRING SERVICES 21PO #8 For approval to amend the preliminary plat for the previously approved subdivision S 89-06 to provide- an additional lot by changing 'the - configuration of lots 1, 2, and 3 to create four lots. The new lots will range in size from 9,215 'to 34,250 square feet and the subdivision will contain a total of 7 lots. ZONE: R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) LOCATION: 7017 SW Mapleleaf (WCTM 1S1 36AA, tax lot 800) Senior Planner Liden explained that the application had been approved by the Commission in June, 1989. The applicant is requesting to add one additional parcel. He reviewed the proposal and made staff's recommendation for approval with a request to modify condition number 14. He added, as a result of a problem with trees being cut on the Site, staff has modified condition number 11 to enable a civil- infractions citation and summons to be issued if any more trees are removed without a permit. Senior Planner Liden read a letter into the record from Charles W. McCart ,and Richard Toman expressing their concerns and objections. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o John Godsey, 12655 SW Center, Beaverton, OR, 97005, concurred with staff's recommendation and modifications to condition 14. He asked that the Commission approve the proposal as recommended by staff. o Marty Bosner, 2058 SW Spruce, Portland, OR 97214, stated that he did not feel that he had violated the previous final order regarding tree cutting. He explained that he had been clearing the site of blackberry vines, small trees, and underbrush; he also removed a couple of red cedar trees where foundations were going to be placed, but did not feel these trees were larger than 6 inches in diameter at the four foot height. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o David Saul, 10205 SW 70th, Tigard, 97223, was concerned that the issue regarding survey/property lines had not been resolved, that the additional lot would create more traffic congestion, and that the filling proposed by the applicant would create a drainage problem- He felt that a parking restriction on Locust Street should be added as a condition of approval. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 8, 1989 - PAGE 4 TIGARD PIANN.ING CCHMISSION REGULAR MEETING - AUGUST 8, 1989 5.1 SITE DEVE OPME3U REVIEW APPEAL SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN/A--BOY NPO #1 Liden: This first item is an appeal of a Site Development Review Approval and Variance Approval for A-Boy property on Main Street and it's for a retail building of aver 1700, 17,000 square feet in size and also for a variance to allow 39 parking spaces where the code requires 44. This was approved subject to 14 conditions; and the applicant has appealed this decision based on a disagreement over 5 of the conditions listed in the staff decision. Condition No. 1 requires dedication of the 100 year flood plain along Fanno Creek along with an additional 15 feet. Condition No. 3 requires that a non-remonstrance agreement be signed for future improvements on Main Street. Condition No. 9 requires that a paved pedestrian path be provided along Fanno Creek. And conditions 12 and 13 require removal of non-conforming signs that are on the property. There are presently two billboard signs and one roof sign on the property. We have reviewed the appeal by the applicant and feel that all the conditions are clearly called for in the provisions in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, the Tigard Park Plan, the Master Drainage Plan for the City, as well as the Community Develop Code. In you packet you have a copy of Deborah Stuart's memo summarizing what has occurred to date, a copy of the decision, a copy of the applicant's appeal letter, and also a site plan of the proposed development. We also have Phil Grillo from the City Attorney's office and Phil can also answer any questions particularly, obviously, those of a legal nature. And I guess with that I'll close and see if there are any questions. I think everything's pretty well explained in the packet. Moen: Any questions, commissioners? I have a questions, as far as the appeal process. What happens. Is there appeal beyond this? Liden: After the Commission decision, the City Council would have to call up the decision. Yours would be final, unless the Council on its motion called it up for review. Moen: Okay. Could we have the applicant's presentation, please. Mendez: Good evening. My name's Joseph Mendez. I'm an attorney. I represent A-Boy and Mr. and Mrs. Dolan. Initially, in order to protect my clients' rights on appeal, I'd like to address the ' issues and, in particular, the criterion that's required by the G Community Development Code. The issue with regards to the flood t plain, dedication, the boundary marking, and the pathway are addressed in criterion 18.120. The non-conforming billboard issue is addressed in 18.114. And the required agreement that Dolan sign a remonstrance, a non-remonstrance agreement, is, I don't find that addressed in the code; however, I think there not only United States constitutional entitlements, but also Oregon constitutional entitlements which prevent a government authority from requiring you to sign an agreement whereby you waive your objection to further government action. I'd also like to incorporate, by reference, the items set forth in the the appeal, and in doing that specifically address the issue that what is being asked for for Mr. Dolan to develop his property, property that he awns, we're asking him to dedicate, give away, I don't know why we use the word dedicate, we're asking that he give away, for the right of developing his own property, give away a flood plain, the 100-year flood plain land. In addition to that, 15 feet which in, which is on top of the flood plain, which encroaches into his building site. so what you're basically telling him by requiring him to meet these commitments is that you're not going to build your building, because we have an intention to put a park or a public access easement through your land, which we don't have funded yet. And we're going to take it, and we're not going to pay you for it. And that's fundamentally wrong. It's unconstitutional to take a man's land without paying him its market value. And that's the basis for our appeal on item 1, item 6... Is this conditions number you're referring to? Mendez: Yes, sir, I'm sorry. Conditions No. 1, 6, and 9 of the Staff report on pages 11 and 12. The second issue, that of the non-remonstrance agreement, ladies and gentlemen, you require, in order for Mr. Dolan to develop his land, you're requiring him to seal his fate in the future against all future, all government action in front of his building. You're saying, "You're waiving your constitutional rights. For you to have the right to develop the land you own, not only are you, are we going to take this land, a certain portion of land from you, not only are we not going to pay you for it, but you're not going to have the right to object to any further government activity which takes place in front of your land. Specifically, that's the right to object to the formation of a future local improvement district or similar device to reconstruct Main Street. For the purpose of constructing. Mendez: Right. Again something that's fundamentally wrong. A right that's constitutionally guaranteed, which you're asking him to waive. The non-conforming billboards, there's a long-standing issue with l regards to those billboards. Whether or not we have a roof billboard, which we maintain we don't. The City maintains we do. The billboards have been there. When they were put up, they were in conformance with City ordinance. They should be grandfathered in for that purpose. The fact that you want to take that away jeopardizes and injures the business which Mr. Dolan is maintaining in the City of Tigard, which brings in hundreds of thousands of dollars. Brings people dawn to that area and benefits that business ccm aunity probably more than any other business in that area. And you're asking him to take down the major draw. Not only injures him, it injures the entire business coo manity. We're asking that that condition be waived. Would you, I'd care to entertain questions, if you have, have any for me. Let me ask a question. Mike, one question I have first to know, I have some others, but with respect to the non-conforming billboards, ah, that you can, there are some billboards that, or signage that has been on that property for quite some time. And if I understand that this proposal that the City is asking the developer to do is, you know, if I understand it right, you'd planned to destroy the current building and the current signage which the building is associated with. Is that correct? Mendez: That's correct. Okay. And what the city has asked you to do, if I understand, is that the new signage that you would have would conform to current city standards is that, and that's what you're objecting to. Mendez: What we're objecting to, I'm not sure. Are we planning on taking the building dawn at the same time we put the new one up? Well, there's going to be a time lag there. We cannot... Okay. Mendez: That's that's, there, there, there's, it, they won't be simultaneous. We won't be, put one building up and the other come dawn. On so as long as... sign. We can cancel the contract when we put the new building in there. But we're powerless to take down that sign, now the Planning Commissioner has to deal directly with Moen?: We'll give you a chance to address those questions when you testify. Okay, do we have some other questions for this gentleman, Commissioners? I have a question pertaining to the street, but, ah, that's for Staff. Shall I wait, ah. Moen: Ya. Anything further? I have one question which may be relevant. Moen: Yes, ma'am. Was, what was the reason that the voluntary compliance agreement regarding the signs was not forwarded to the city? Mendez: I'm sorry, I don't understand the question, maybe I didn't hear it? What was the reason that the voluntary compliance agreement regarding the signs was not completed and forwarded to the City? Mendez: I'm, I'm afraid I can't answer that question, who Moen: He's signed up to testify here. I think he can... Dan Dolan: I'm not going to testify, but I'll answer if you like. Mendez: Dan Dolan is scheduled to testify. And he, ah, he may have the answer to that question for you. Moen: Oh, okay. Any other questions right now. Okay. Thank you very much, sir. Mendez: Thank you. Moen: Okay, is there anyone here from the NPO to speak on this issue? Moen: Okay. Ah, we have two other, let's move on to the public hearing portion of the meeting. Ah, I... Moen: Yes? I was signed up. Moen: I'm going to get to you, I think. Oh, okay. Moen: We have two people, we have three people signed up in opposition. I assume that's in opposition to the decision. Dan Dolan is the first person signed. You signed up as an opposition. I assume you're in favor of the proposal, so... Dan Dolan: My name's Dan Dolan, with A-Boy Supply Company. Moen: Okay. Dan Dolan: First I want to read letter: A-Boy Supply Company brings t approximately one-half million people a year into downtown Tigard. The people who shop at A-Boy are primarily homeowners and small contractors. A small contractor usually brings or sends in the homeowner to select merchandise. Many customers are building or repairing their own home. These people are hard working, industrious and self-reliant with a large investment in the cmmunity. I would think that they are just the type of people to be attracted to downtown Tigard. A-Boy Supply Company has been advertising downtown Tigard with their ads for twenty years. During this time, we have developed an excellent reputation. Every year our sales have increased significantly. When and if we are allowed to build a new and much larger store on our property, we expect to double the number of of employees and improve the Main Street view. Our plan calls for us to move into a new 17,000 foot building on the west side of the property and then demolish the present store on the east side of the property and build a new larger building with small shops on the site. Secondly, I think, I don't know if all of you have seen the issue of where our, um, the creek boundary is in relation to our building. Do you have a map there to look at? Well, let me show you what we have here. Dan Dolan: I just wanted to make sure that you car: see where the edge of the flood plain is in relation to out building. If they take 15 feet further in. For scale this little jut that comes in, where it carves in, that's twenty feet there. Okay, so you can kind of see how much land, this goes above and beyond the flood plain, that 111 be taken out of our building. And I'm not sure if we can build right up to that or not. But I thought maybe I'd add that. Any questic. is? Moen: Yes, we need it for the record. If you want a copy of it back. Dan Dolan: I don't need a copy back. copy of that letter. Dan Dolan: Oh, this other letter? Dan Dolan: Oh. Did you want an answer to your other question about... Yes. Dan Dolan: Ifil, . Let us read that. Moen: our opponent, can you, why don't you read it to us so we all know what it is? What do we have here. Moen: Okay. Is this part of our packet here? Keith, this a letter to yoU. Liden: No, I don't think so. This is a separate issue. I don't know anything about that. What was your question you had? I was wondering was for not having filed and completed that voluntary compliance form with regard to the signs. Liden: Well this, this letter here explained that. Moen: Okay, why don't you read it for the record. That would be, if you wouldn't mind. That's so that we can all understand and answer. Dan Dolan: Okay. This letter is dated April 20, 1988. It's address to Mr. Keith S. Liden, Senior Planner of City of Tigard. It's signed by John Dolan, property owner, President at A-Boy: "Mr. Liden, I received your letter dated March 25, 1988. If you or your staff recently, or really sent a previous letter, as you have referenced in this letter, I have not received it. In response to your letter, I can assure you that we have a legal wall sign on the front of your, our building. When we purchased this property in 1970, there was a feed and seed hay store with a warehouse and old sheds on this site. The main building was an old corrugated iron-sided warehouse with a small retail store next to it and an old open shed on the far west side. Soon after the purchase, we rebuilt the structure into our present A- Boy store. In the process, we built a parapet wall directly above the outside walls between the overhang and the roof of the two smaller buildings both on the west and south sides of them. It was extended against the front wall of the warehouse building. Here the parapet wall was about two feet below the top of the roof. The wall was built to hide the unsightly roof lines and enhance the appearance of the building giving the three buildings the appearance of one. After the parapet wall was built, we cut out letters and attached them to the part of the west side wall to make our sign. From this brief history, you can plainly see that we have no roof sign and whatever ordinances you mentioned, do not apply to our wall sign. The billboard sign you mentioned in your letter as being an illegal, in an illegal location belongs to Ackerly Communications, Inc., 715 NE Everett Street, Portland, Oregon, 97232. I suggest you contact them if there are any other questions regarding this sign. Sincerely yours John T. Dolan. Moen: Is the billboard sign that was referenced there, is that on your 1 property. Yeah, there's a, there's two signs. There's a, the one she was asking about is a sign on our building which is our wall, on the wall. It says "A-Boy West." The other signs are on the a, guess it be eastern edge of our building. And they're Ackerly signs. Their bill, what we call billboards. Any other questions? Ah, I don't think so. Not right now. Bill, I'm confused now on the signs. What do you want to do? Do you want to keep the signs up until your new building is opened, and then tear the signs down? Dan Dolan: Yeah, we, well... Dan Dolan: I don't have it in front of me, but the way the wording of the, of that one condition of the permit was that, that, a, as a, um, what do you call it when you get a permit to... occupancy... Dan Dolan: Occupancy permit, that we have to tear dawn the other sign. Which would leave us in one building with no sign and maybe a sign on the new building. But we didn't want, we want to have a sign at all times in the business that we're doing business in. But you don't have to tear it down until you get occupancy permit? That's when yol'd have everything moved over there, right? Dan Dolan: Yes. We'd have to tear it down, the sign on our existing building, in order to get an occupancy permit on the new building. And a, if they could work out a time schedule where we could, you know, the whole thing is going to come down. But, a,... Well if you, if you had thirty days after you opened your new building or something... Dan Dolan: Well I'm sure something like that could be worked out, but, but we don't want to be in business without a sign for one day. I think can appreciate that, we just, I think we're just a little unclear as to what you're asking for. What we have is a problem in timing with the sign question. You don't have any problem, I assume, with your new building needing a new sign code once the Dan Dolan: I don't think there's any problem once you've moved out of the old building.•. Dan Dolan: We're not gonna, we're not going to put the same sign on the new building. No. Dan Dolan: We're going to comply with the codes. But you want, you want to have that while you're making the move. Dan Dolan: Yes. We... Is 90 days after occupancy permit's issued? Is that good enough? Dail Dolan: I would, a That should be fine. Dan Dolan: Yeah, I would say that's... We can take the sign dawn almost immediately. Building we have to get our permits and things before we can tear that down. Ninety days... I had one other question that might have some bearing here. Okay we have, we have concern with billboards and then the signs, and r those are primarily a matter of timing in terms of shifting from - one to the other. That's one question. He has a non- remonstrance agreement which is a basic question as to whether you feel it's, you folks feel it's proper and right. We can discuss that. We'll discuss that. Then back to the flood plain issue you have what the Staff is asking us to do, what they have said, if I understand it right, is that they wish for you to dedicate the flood plain to the City and secondly dedicate up to 15 feet from the current flood plain to, I believe, Staff may help me with this, 15 feet from the current flood plain to where they might locate a building. Is that right? Yes. Okay. For the purposes of us, in effect a setback or whether it's be a dedication or a setback. We can talk about. You're asking for a dedication, is that right? Well there isn't a setback requirement, so the building can be on the property line. So there, therein lies the rub. Okay. One, one other question that relates in, we in effect are hearing the whole case. We're looking at the points you've raised, but we also need some, I'd like some information on the whole situation. One of the things that was mentioned in here was the concern that the City had in that this building would be located nearby the, um, future park that we envision for the downtown area. There is some concern about screening, or the way that this building might appear towards that park, particularly the back end of commercial buildings are not necessarily the most aesthetic, and I guess this is just a, I was curious about what your intentions were in terms of the design of the building and the fact, I don't know what, either the Staff is put, the Staff has put... Dan Dolan: landscaping back in the back side, and I think... The Staff has put quite a few restrictions, in terms of landscaping, and I guess my question revolved around sort of what kind of facade and that sort of thing you were expecting on there in lieu of, possibly in lieu of some of that landscaping. That's just my, just a question. Dan Dolan: I mean, I'm not sure what you're asking. Well, if you're going to build a building that's plain cement block in the back there then it's probably appropriate for Staff to ask for a lot of trees or buffering and that sort of thing. I was just curious a what you, what your intent was, in terms of the back part of the building. Dan Dolan: Well, you know, there's no park there now, but I know that it's planned that, um, what you see is what we have planned. And we've got landscaping and trees behind here. We haven't, a, C really, I didn't know of any requirements of putting any facade back there. There really isn't, but there is requirements of buff, there is, the City can require you to do buffering. I guess my question is more related to a, whether there was any possible trade offs there. But that's an issue that we can discuss later. Dan Dolan: Well, I'm sure that trade-offs are possible. I withdraw the question, I guess. Dan Dolan: I mean I don't know if this is the place to hammer something out. But, ah... Probably not. Dan Dolan: Okay. We need, we need, excuse me Mr. Dolan, we need a copy of the other letter that you read. If you'd like a copy back we can get you one. Dan Dolan: I don't think so. do you need a copy of that? Thank you. The other party signed up to speak is Sarah Dolan. r Sarah Dolan: Hello, I'm Sarah Dolan. I work in my father's business also, as does my brother. And, um, I guess I'm speaking on my father's behalf also. He is a little frustrated in that he has discussed this property between the flood, flood plain and 15 feet above the flood plain with, um, Phil Monohan from early in 1986. I don't know if you're familiar with this history or not. But he has been more than willing to discuss purchasing moving, um, his plans, changing his plans. You were to survey it, you didn't. In his mind, you kind of dropped the ball, and he went on the plan his building and has spent a lot of money on architectural drawings, planning it, and is ready to go, um, on this building. And in his mind, now you are pulling, now you are telling him that no, we want you to do the surveying, we want you to give the property to us, though, both the Oregon State Constitution as well as the U. S. Constitution deny you that right. You cannot take property away without compensation. You not only want him to survey, you want him to put in the path, design it, have, go through this approval process, and then meanwhile our business, which has a potential of doubling, you know, we're losing revenue every day we can't build this building. And I just, I guess I'm 1 just here to vent my frustration with the whole process. I was a political science major in college and I find that what you are f requiring of him to do is not only unconstitutional, but it's also unreasonable; and that I think you should look at it a little more carefully and think about him as an individual. Just like if you were to have property and we were to say I want half of your backyard or a quarter of it because we're going to put in a park potentially. We haven't designed it, we don't have any money yet, but we want you to give us your property just, you know, it's not only unconstitutional, it's unfair. And, um, I guess that's what I have to say. Are there any questions? Thank you. Sarah Dolan: You're welcome. Thank you. Moan: That concludes those wishing to speak on this issue. Commissioners, do you have any questions of Staff or any of the speakers? I have some questions of Staff and counsel that I'd like to get in I think that's appropriate. I'd like to hear from and then... the applicant rebuts. Okay. That's fine. We'll give them a chance to do that. Do you want the Staff first, or the counsel, or both. Staff. Okay. I guess a general question with regard to the signage. A, the way the conditions are written, would the applicant have to go without signage for a period of time? Liden: Well I think that would depend a little bit on the timing of how they get the store stocked up and so on. I mean they could receive the occupancy permit without any inventory in the store and then have a lag period of course while they move from one building to the other. If, you know, typically we have conditions of approval subject to receiving something from the City, as opposed to releasing all permits and having to go back and try and enforce something that's just the usual procedure. If it would help the applicant to have a lag period of thirty days, or something, to get occupancy permit, get fully established in the new building and then take the sign down, I really don't have any problem with that, if that would help. What, ah, why are we, why are we requesting that 15 foot dedication above the flood plain; and is this consistent with other similar applications? Liden: Well, this, this case is a little bit unusual from others that the Commission has recently reviewed. There are two reasons that the staff has for the additional 15 feet. One is the City's drainage master plan, which outlines the types of improvements that need to be made along Fanno Creek, so that as we get more development, and additional storm runoff, that we don't experience in flood levels as time goes on. Essentially the advice that we've received from engineers that have studied this is that if we do nothing in Fanno Creels and allow development as it is happening right now, that flood levels will rise over time. So in order to combat this, the storm drainage master plan indicates prescribes improvements along Fanno Creek that need to be done with the idea of keeping flood levels the same as they are now. That, in this location includes some widening of the flood channel, if you will, not the normal everyday stream channel, but the flood channel, to accommodate more water going through in the area of the bridge. And the Engineering Division has calculated that that would amount to five feet from the center of the Creek to the center of the Dolan property. On both sides? Liden: Well, I, presumably it'd be five feet or some other similar distance on the other side of the creek. In effect, five feet in addition to what, where the flood plain is nova? S Liden: That's correct. That's correct. We have a situation with a creek and then a bank and then a level area where the Dolan's are F i t i preparing to build the building. And so Engineering is saying that we have to go over five feet to accoitmodate this additional flood flow. And this is the... Five feet beyond the flood plain? Maybe I can try to scribble something on the board here Got a situation sort of like this. And the storm drainage master plan is saying that in order to acccmmiodate the flood flow which will rise to about this level, there needs to be some additional excavation that takes place that will amount to five over what there is now the top bank. Then, see this isn't drawn very well, and the curve might be a little bit closer to this. And then the other ten feet, is for bike path, stressed both in the Tigard Park Plan and then also the code for the downtown area. The bike path, which is eight, eight feet wide and then typically put inside of ten-foot wide areas so you have a little room on either side of the pavement. engineering choice was to either put the path near the creek, but then in order to have enough level area we'd have to have another ten feet here, and go up this way and have the path right here. or we would just excavate the bank five feet and just have a path here. Actually we're talking about the Staff Report is to have the path up here with an excavation of this area of the bank. I guess the one thing that I don't follow there, Keith, is that sometimes, you know many times the bike paths that we build in the greenways in the City are in the flood plain. Ah, and if you're building a bike path in the flood plain, let's say you remove that five feet you're talking about to take care of the flood plain capacity. What prevents you from building the bike path in that, in effect flat area right above the five. Rather than going, encroaching on the property another ten feet. Liden: Well, this ah, by being just ah, you're not moving the five feet as part of the... Well you've got, what appears in your sketch, and I know that doesn't necessarily have bearing in fact, but what appears in your sketch, you've got on the lower five, where you've got the five feet there, well that five feet plus another five feet towards the waterway would give you 10 feet to build the bike path on. Granted it would be flooded when it floods, but so would the whole park so... (end of first side) and ask him to sign, or require him to sign a non- remonstrance agreement. The non-remonstrance agreement is, a, the City's way, and you mentioned that, you know, maybe he's the only one that's, has signed that. Well unless, if the City puts 4 F l ~v{ f { I E 'r together an LID, their going to have to have a lot more sign that, too, before anything happens, and they'll have to sign up. If there's more development, they will be asked, required to sign a non-remonstrance agreement if it's a project that we can't develop right at that time. It's not an unusual thing. And I think it's, it's appropriate. The signs, thirty, sixty days is fine. Thirty-nine parking spaces I can live with whatever. Getting back to the bike path, though, how do we accomplish that? And do it in a timely manner that I think we have to decide number one is there, should there be a bike path there? Okay? Number two, should there be allowance for the master drainage plan? Okay. I wonder, and then the third question is I guess we have to decide whether we feel we have enough, information to lay the ground work for the Engineering Staff and the developer to come up with a solution to this problem; or we feel we have to have the information brought to us and we'll figure out a solution to it. Now, I, I think we've got two parties here that 4 I, I guess I'd to say could come up with a solution to it, E although it would appear to me, I guess I'm a little disappointed in both Staff and the developer that we haven't had a solution before we got here. Maybe we just needed to answer the questions "does there have to be a bike path there?" Once that's decided, then maybe the answer will come out. I don't think that we have to, it's pretty obvious that from our little sketch there, and that's not necessarily the way it really is, that bike path could r be somewhat below hundred- year flood plain level. It probably r has to be at above hundred-year flood plain level at street level when it, when it enters into the Main Street area because we have a safety problem in terms of the you know, haw steep it is and is some kid going to fall off his bicycle into the deep creek and i a bunch of other things. There's some safety considerations. Engineering is perfectly capable of handling that. So I guess my suggestion would be that we some language that requires that the, that the City and the developer come up with a plan there. F Now one of the things we could do is request the developer to, I'd like to throw this out for some discussion, request that the developer show how he can accommodate the bike path and the f requirement for the flood plain. And if he can show that he can do that and the buffering in X amount of feet, that's how much we have. Well I think one of the things you're, if I can kind of narrow the issues down a little bit, I agree with that. I think f, everyone is on board for the five feet. Is that, is that correct? Y Well whatever it is, I think the Staff has suggested five feet is the question. But the question is enough land to take care of the master flood plan. Is that what you're saying? And it's been suggested that five feet is a safe number. We can accept that or if the developer can show can it could be less than that, I'm sure that's a possibility, too. I guess the question is do we have to, do we have to cover the master drainage plan and do we have to cover the bike path? Maybe we can get a consensus. { t I I guess I feel like we have to cover the drainage. The bike path, I feel like it would be nice to have more information. But, you know, I'm open to putting it into their mutual hands if... Moen: Well, let's hear scene other comments. Cmmients? Well, I agree, I mean I think they ought to have, they need the five feet, I guess, if that's what's in the master plan. I think the bike path has to be there, whether it's in the, whether it's t in the flood plain or up above, I think there's room to... ? : The point is it can't be in the flood way. It can be in the flood plain but it can't be in the flood way. And if the flood way is, which is the deep channel. The flood way is, is there. s i is that correct? Is the flood way? S If the flood way is right up tight to the flood plain... b Well the flood way and the flood plain are almost the same thing in this case, I guess. I think you brought up another point. It may very well may not be possible to put one here from the safety standpoint. You know, maybe going out over the edge of 12 feet of water. 4 Castile: I'd like to see us go ahead and approve it, based on the fact of them working a deal with Engineering that would allow for the bike path to go in. And if they're not able to work it out with Z. Engineering, it comes back to us, and we'll make the decision. Moen: I think that's fine. Do you want to make a motion? r, Castile: Make a motion a, great. Well it's piecemeal this thing. That the parking spaces are okay. Motion that the non-remonstrive f. 1. agreement be signed. Give them 45 days after occupancy for having the signs dawn. t That's all signs? Castile: All signs. E Including the Ackerly ones. Castile: Include, all signs. Except for the ones that are on the new building and have permits. Ah, then an agreement be made that they have between, the city will gain between 10 and 20 feet to install, or to have bike path put in. And they will install the bike path, and if that can't be worked out with Engineering, then the deals off on, on the whole proposal. So that it would, it would come back to, come back to us. C i You mean you would want all those things changed. Castile: No I, I, it wouldn't... You mean just the ten, the five feet the ten feet, you know just boundary on it. Castile: Yeah, if they can't, if they can't work it out with the Engineering on the ten to narrow it down to a ten-foot area, in certain areas, then they're either going to decrease the size of the building or I would assume they're going to have, they're just going to have to work that out with Engineering to be able to use the ten feet and if they can't, then they're going to have to decrease the size of the building. And I think that Engineering, if they'll take a look at that, they may be able to, to manipulate it in order to get the bike path in there. Moen: As far as constructing the bike path, though, you're going to leave that in the hands of the developer? Castile: Yes. Yes. Moen: Okay. Grillo: In order to try and protect, ah, both parties' interests, and facilitate that they can came to some sort of terms, I suggest perhaps that with regard to this bike path issue that, ah, the commission consider, ah, providing a certain amount of time for the applicant and the City's Engineering Department to work out a compromise within some guidelines as you suggested. So that there's some time frame that a final decision might be able to be reached from. otherwise, ah, it's very difficult to try and determine when decision is final for the applicants' purposes or for counsel's purposes, if they wish to follow the matter up for review. I suggest that maybe you give some specific time period for the two parties essentially to work out a compromise. If that falls through then it seems to me what you're left with is the prior decision of the director. And that that decision could be appealed by means of the code to counsel. By counsel code. Well really if I understand the code, our decision on this issue is the final decision unless the counsel decides to call it up. Grillo: That how that provision has generally been interpreted. That's correct. Which they do on occasion if they feel that they want to see it. But it's at their prerogative. Grillo: That's right. we need to write a decision that did give a certain... Open end? Grillo: ...period of time for the, for this compromise to be worked out. It would be an issue as to when your decision was final. There could be an argument that your decision was final as of the date your order was issued and mailed. And then not knowing whether they would be able to work out a compromise, counsel wouldn't know whether to call the matter up or not. And the time period. It seems to me that that's at least that issue in terms of a, of the appeal to counsel is in both parties to keep a definitive time period as to when your decision actually becames final. F F o' Okay. Let me make this suggestion. : sure. The decision here specifically calls for, I believe, a dedication of all property within the hundred-year flood plain, plus all property fifteen above the 150-foot flood plain boundw y, which is where we got into trouble in the first place. It would seem to me that maybe we're making this more complicated than it needs to be. I would think we could pass a resolution that says that we would amend condition 1 to say "all property that the t additional property the fifteen feet would, could be reduced if it can be shaven to the Engineering Department that the bike path and the, and the other drainage... the drainage, and the buffering. can be accommodated with less to Engineering's satisfaction.' That way we have a final decision. We've net the requirements. If they can satisfy Engineering that it, that it, that they can show this can be done, ah, then we have our compromise. If they can't, then we don't have a compromise, in which case, I'm afraid, the thing, it basically lapses. Grillo: The only issue there is when does your decision become final. Does it become final if and when a compromise is reached, or does it become final when, ah, when your decision... Is made here. Grillo: ...signed by the decision makers. It becomes... Oh, you mean in terms, in terms of appeal. Grillo: Which would you suggest is more appropriate? Grillo: Well, I would suggest that... ...or more fair to both parties. Grillo: I think, I think unless you set out a specific period of time in which this compromise can be worked out and specifically say in your motion that this decision does not become final until X period of time, which is the period of time that you intent to have the compromise worked out. Otherwise your decision, I believe, will become final for appellate purposes, ah, once it's reduced to writing after this hearing. Then you're going to, then both sides are going to lose the ability to take it to Council not knowing whether a compromise has been reached between the parties. I understand what you're saying. Let me ask you turn that around just a little bit. It would seem to me that, and you tell me if I'm wrong, that since really there is no right of appeal by the, by the, by our code to Council automatically. That I don't know there really is a time limit for appeal because any appeal would have to be taken up as a request to Council to call it up. And I imagine they could do that at any time. If... Council has to call it up, I believe it's within 10 days, of the date your decision becomes final. Ten days? Twenty-one? I don't know. The decision's final. There's already, they've already gone through a ten-day appeal period. They have, the next step would be the appeal M. Okay. But I guess I'm trying to see if it hurts anyone to make this decision final. Because that way as soon as they reach a compromise, if they do, they can go ahead and proceed. There's two here. one is, what the code I believe calls a review, and another is what the code call appeal. The appeal, once your decision becomes final, Right. However, there is provision in your code that allows council to review the Planning Cmmnission Decision and I believe the trigger period is ten days. We don't put on the contact It's not ten days. Grillo: Here's what I'm saying is if Council decides to call... Moen: If it's, if you, if counsel feels it's more appropriate to put a time limit on it, what's an appropriate time limit? Thirty days? i r 4 Staff, is that sc mething that you feel that, you, you, I'm sure you people have both hashed this thing out before. Thirty days would seem to be reasonable. With that input, would you like to rephrase your motion? Castile: Somebody else take a stab at it. So modified. _ z Moen: Well, you want to withdraw and let someone else take a, I think it's appropriate that you withdraw it. Castile: Okay, I'll withdraw then.' Moen: Okay. Milt do you want to take a crack at it? Fyre: Let's see, I've gone through the hearing, I've looked at the condition, help me out as we go through these. Moen: Milt, speak up a little bit. r, Fyre: Let's came back to condition number 1; but number 2 looks okay. y Number 3 looks okay. That's a non-remonstrance agreement. At least for this motion we'll leave number three in. Number 4 will stay in. Number 5 will stay in. Number 6 will stay in. Seven, I r believe is okay. Eight, I believe is okay. Nine we need to modify. Ten looks okay. Now eleven, I'm not sure. We need to change one of these to add a 45-day grace period. That's number 12. Fyre: Okay 11's okay. Twelve we need to change for a 45 day. Now would the 45-day period apply only to the sign on the building, or would it also apply to the Ackerly? p Right here. i. So we're going to let the Ackerly sign stay up until, until 45 days. S Fyre: Okay. That'll apply to all of them? You mention, item 12 mentions non-conforming billboards. Does it also refer to the wall sign or roof sign as however... Existing roof sign is down at the bottom, it's number 14. Fyre: Okay. So we need the same condition on 14? The 45 days? Forty-five days after occupancy. Fyre: Forty-five days after occupancy. Okay all those stay the same. Let's go back to number one and see if we can put some wording e there. The intent is to have the applicant and the Engineering Department reach agreement on varying the 15 feet. To accommodate, to accommodate both the, ah... Fyre: ...drainage and bike path. The drainage and a 8-foot bike path requirement. And buffering. Fyre: And buffering. Three things. Fyre: With consideration given to trying to fit that in without moving, without requiring the building to be moved. so our direction would be to try and be as flexible as possible to, if they they have to the bank. With the goal of not moving the building. Fyre: Right the goal, okay. Now, which other one did we need to get on? Number 8? Number 9. The, that the applicant and the City Engineers come to agreement on the width of the paved pathway through their, how should we word that? Grillo: As is required in the public safety. Well I guess the question is does it have to be 8-foot wide? Should we give the Engineering latitude to decide haw wide it needs to be? Given considerations in public safety. Fyre: Okay, consideration to public safety, plus a less than 8-foot wide... I wouldn't say, I'd just leave it. Let's see 8-foot wide. Eight-foot wide paved pathway shall be installed by the applicant. I would say a paved, just strike the 118-foot." A paved pathway shall be installed by the applicant through the greenway per Engineering requirements, per Staff Engineering requirements. Do you need Lo take out the "constructed to City standards?" City standard is 8 feet. Moen: I don't think that the City standards is what the Engineering decides they are. Fyre: Uh-huh (yes). Moen: In a bike path aren't they? Is there a published standard for bike path? Liden: I'm not sure if they're in our code or not. Fyre: Then we'll put "as required by city Engineer." And I guess that's it. Okay Castille: Thirty days. Fyre: Oh. Yeah, you got to have 30 days. Oh. Forty-five. No, the 30 days is the... Oh. One and nine will be subject to this. Fyre: That agreement must be reached with the City on conditions 1 and 9 wihtin 30 days. Within 30 days of today. Okay. Fyre: And that we request the City to be as flexible as possible as possible in acccnmodating... Well, that's just a direction, that doesn't have to be part of the motion. Fyre: Okay. Okay we'll leave that out of the motion, then. Agreement must be reached by the City Engineering and, and, ah... Fyre: Applicant. Applicant within 30 days. Fyre: Within 30 days. Huh? Of the final order, of signing of the final order. Fyre: Okay. Do we have to state that if these, if the agreement is not reached... Grillo: I would suggest two things. That you indicate what their decision is in the event that no mutually agree, agreeable compromise can be reached. So that it's clear what remains of that condition. And secondly, you state whether your intent is that this decision become final in 30 days, or whether your decision is final I think that's the key issue and focus. Okay. I would think that the two things... Fyre: You want me to try that? I would think that if condition number 1 can't be met, or an agreement can't be reached, that condition number 1 will revert back to its original wording. As does condition number 8. If I may interject, that means no, there's no reason for the Staff to negotiate. Why can't we have it come back to you guys for some final decision. Otherwise the Staff can say, "I'm sorry." Catmnissioner can say, "I'm sorry, we can have it all our way, all we have to do is wait out these 30 days." Fyre: That's fine with me. I'm not saying that shows bad faith or not fair dealings, it's just no incentive to arrive at an agreement. Fyre: Okay what would be the best way just to word that in as a contingency? "If agreement Can't be reached within 30 days..." If your decision is not final for 30 days, you can reconsider your decision within that period of time. so, it seems to me that preserves then, the notions of that there is some motivation for City, too. They have to deal with this knowing that your decision can be reconsidered if, in fact, there's really been no movement on the issue. So I guess, in order to accommodate his concerns, I suggest that, ah, you consider having the decision become final in 30 days, with the knowledge that your decision, you can reconsider your decision as to this condition within that period of time, since your decision was not final. Liden: We won't meet now probably for another 30 days. So make it 35 or 40 days. Forty days? f` Grillo: You can vote to reconsider your decision and schedule it for your next, the next time we meet. In other words, ah... Well, we could have done that and not gone through all this. Grillo: I mean I agree with you. I agree with you. I mean if you want cane to some final determinations, my advice to you is that you make it at some time specific. If you want to rehear this matter, that I think is clearly the other way to go. : Let me just ask the applicant, you know another way we can do this, and why we asked the question if you guys were in a rush, is because we needed more information. Now what you're suggesting is that you want it to come back to us for final decision. And... We can do that if we can't reach a negotiated... Yeah, and if that's the case, we could just change the motion. And since you've heard what we had to say, we can hold this over for a final decision. Yeah... I have a suggestion. In the event the parties can't resolve it. Probably be a good idea to give you a shot at, at getting an agreement with Staff because you could get out a solution quicker. Right. Okay. Let's, go ahead. If the, if we can get them, if they can have a decision, if they can cane to an agreement, we'd like to just clear it off the boards and go on, right? Fyre: Well, can we just schedule this for a hearing again, just in case a final decision, just in case they can't reach agreement with the City. I think we ought to schedule it for... Grillo: You could continue the public hearing. Well we could. f Grillo: be giving direction to the city. l There's only one issue that we're talking about, that is what this, we can make a decision on all the other points really, I think, tonight. Grillo: Just isolate the bike path issue. And we can isolate the bike path issue. And my cc mint is that I think we should give the City and the Engineering 30 days to solve the problem. If the problem is not solved, then we schedule a date certain to rehear that portion of the issue with new evidence. Okay? But I think that time, to be fair to everyone, probably should be not, probably should be 60 days from now riot 30 days. That gives them enough time to get their decision made. It buys us enough time to have it back here. The only reason I don't say 45 is that we don't always have a meeting every other month. So it's either going to be the first meeting in September or the first meeting in October. And I would suggest to first meeting in October. Good. That gives everybody emphasis to get f Final decision on everything but the bike path? Let's vote on it? C Well we have a final decision on the bike path, too. It's just that if they can solve their differencus then within 30 days, the decision's final. It becomes effective then. If they can't, that portion of the decision reverts back to us on the first meeting of October. Fyre: I'd like to do it sooner, if we can. I hate to hold them up. If we could do it in September. When is the first meeting in September? That's less than 30 days from now. Let's do it anyway. Yeah, that's probably, I'd feel a little be less, I think, what is it, 5th? I don't have my calendar with me but I think it's September 5th. Okay whatever you want. Your, it's your motion. Go for it. Ask them what they want. Fyre: What would you prefer? Since we're operating so informally here. Probably would have preferred not to come here tonight. Prefer not to be here. i Mendez: I think the September meeting would be satisfactory for us. You got it. Fyre: Okay. September meeting. Has the motion been seconded? So we have... Jelderks: Who seconded? Castile: I Will. Jelderks: Okay. Okay. To be, to be clear on this, on this last point, before we vote. Is that we would have, ah, we would request that the City Engineering and the applicant have an agreement within, work to have an agreement on the above proposal within 30 days, and that, should that agreement occur, that this final decision will become effective at that point of the agreement. Okay? And within 30 days from tonight. Okay. And in the meantime, we'll go ahead and sign a final order based on that so that it's all set and when they sign it goes "should that agreement be unable to be reached that the issue of the bike path and its location... size. ...and size and a dedication" those, that specific issue would be reheard or the hearing would be reopened on that point on the first meeting in September. Okay? Okay. Moen: All those, ah, we have a motion before us that's been made and seconded. All those in favor of the motion as made and seconded signify by saying, "Aye." Barber, Castile, Fyre, Newton, Rosborough: Aye. Moen: Opposed? Peterson: Nay. Moen: Okay. Do you have that duly recorded? Jelderks: Yes. Moen: Okay. The motion carries. We will have a break between now and we'll re-open the hearing at 10:00. a i t CD MANAGER'S AGENDA January 23, 1990 1. Budget/Goals 2. Council after-action 1/22/90 3. Interns for Summer 4. Street Vacation Policy in Triangle 5. Trammel Crow - Tenant Improvement Permits - Urban Renewal 6. After Council Retreat 7. Training Requests 8. Council Timelines 9. Other Business 10. Adjourn TIGARD PLANNING CONXISSION REGULAR MEETING - DECEMBER 5, 1989 1. Vice President Pyre called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM. The meeting was held at the Tigard Civic Center - TOWN HALL - 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: Vice President Pyre; Commissioners Barber, Castile, Fessler, Leverett, Rosborough, and Saporta. Absent: Commissioners Moen and Peterson. Staff: Senior Planner Keith Liden; Building Official Brad Roast (left 9:00 p.m.); Planning Secretary Diane M. Jelderks. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Rosborough moved and Commissioner Barber seconded to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried by majority of Commissioners present. Commissioner Leverett and Saporta abstained. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION o Senior Planner Liden reviewed sites that Tri-Met is considering for locating a park and ride. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 MISCELLANEOUS M 89-20 MANUFACTURED HOME AT SW COOK LANE NPO #3 A request for review of the Directors interpretation of Chapters 18.26 and 18.94 of the Community Development Code pertaining to manufactured and mobile homes. Senior Planner Liden reviewed information enclosed in the Commission's packet and the sequence of events resulting in the issuance of permits. The main issue is, does the manufactured home comply with the Community Development Code (CDC) and the Uniform Building Code (UBC). After reviewing the issue the Director determined that permitting the manufactured home was consistent with the CDC and the UBC. Discussion followrd between Senior Planner Liden, Building Official Brad Roast, and the Planning Commission regarding the definition for mobil and manufactured homes, the standards and requirements in the CDC, UBC, & HUD (Housing and Urban Development), the ability to move the manufactured home, tie down requirements for mobil/manufactured homes, and the different types of foundations which could be used. ` PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 1 t' c. i APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o Herman Porter, Chairperson for NPO # 3, speaking for Don Moonier, who was unable to attend, stated that the manufactured home does not meet the UBC. Also, he had been a member of NPO 3 when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted and it was not the understanding of the NPO that manufactured/mobile homes would be permitted on single family lots. The NPO would have opposed if they knew this was the intent of the code. He felt the Planning Department had made a mistake and if mobile/manufacturing homes are permitted on single family lots then the Code needed to be changed. He did not feel that Mr. Johnson's foundation meets the requirement for manufactured homes. PUBLIC TESTIMONr o Wilbur Bishop, 10590 SW Cook Lane, Tigard, OR 97223, had staff read his letter supporting Mr. Moonier's position regarding the manufactured home. He added that the concrete foundation for the garage is well done, the driveway has been paved, and Mr. Johnson has done a nice job on the lawn. He disagreed with Senior Planner Liden regarding the intent of the Code. He stated that in 1983/84 it was the intent of the Code to accommodate mobile/manufactured homes in mobile home parks not on single family lots. o Mr. Clyde Johnson, 10675 SW Cook Lane, Tigard, OR 97223, owner of the manufactured home stated that the salesman had not placed the ordered as requested which is why the porch is like it is. He will be installing a porch roof when the weather is nicer. He described the type of foundation used and explained that the manufactured home does not need to be tied down. o David Nicoli, 14180 SW 141st Avenue, Tigard, OR 97223, stated that he had sold the property to Mr. Johnson and is here to support him. He added that any house can be moved and the-sewer is connected like any other home. The manufactured home is well kept and is as nice as any other home on that street. Some of those homes do not have paved driveways. REBUTTAL o Herman Porter stated he had nothing further to add. The main issue is the interpretation of the meaning of the law. He requested that the Commission find that the Planning Department made an error in its interpretation. o Discussion followed regarding restrictions/covenants in the neighborhood, whether the UBC allowed for alternative designs, and whether there was an oversight in the Code. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Commissioners Leverett, Castile, Barber, Rosborough, and Saporta favored upholding the Director's interpretation. They did feel the Code needed to be looked at as it is ambiguous in terms of manufactured and mobile homes. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 2 1 o Commissioner Fessler felt the definition for manufactured/mobile homes needed to be refined. She supported the appeal. o Vice President Pyre had also been a member of the NPO and stated it was not the intent of the Code to allow manufactured/mobile homes on single family lots. He felt since the home had been placed on the site, Mr. Johnson needed to be made whole or be compensated for removing the home. * Commissioner Leverett moved and Commissioner ROSborough seconded to uphold the Director's interpretation of tile 18.26 and 18.94, file number M 89-20 and for staff to prepare the final order for Vice President Fyre to sign. Motion carried by majority of Commissioners present. Commissioners Fyre t and Fessler voting no. 5.2 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPEAL SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN NPO #1 An appeal of a Director's decision to approve the construction of a ! general retail sales facility, A-boy Electric Plumbing and Supply, with a } new 17,600 square foot building on a 1.67 acre parcel subject to 14 conditions. The decision included approval of a Variance request to allow 39 parking spaces instead of 44 as required by the Code. Zone: CBD-AA .(Central Business District - Action Area). LOCATION: 12520 SW Main St. (WCTM 2S1 2AC, tax lot 700) o Senior Planner Liden reviewed the issues regarding the application and the amendments to the proposed conditions. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o John Dolan, 4025 SE Brooklyn St., Portland, OR, stated that they had worked out most of their concerns with staff except for the dedication of the land. He stated he would not dedicate land to the City for nothing. He would prefer to be paid money, however, he would be willing to accept eliminating the requirement for landscaping. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o No one appeared to testify. o Discussion followed regarding area to be dedicated, area to be landscaped, and the percentage of landscaping credit that the City would give A-Boy. REBUTTAL o Mr. Dolan stated that he would earn more money if he sold the land to the City and used the money to landscape his site. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 5 1989 PAGE 3 t. t' i PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o The majority of Commissioners supported staff's recommendation and conditions. Commissioner Leverett felt the application should be tabled to allow the applicant and City to work out the landscaping issue. * Commissioner Saporta moved and Commissioner Castile seconded to approve SDR 89-13 and V 89-13 per staff's recommendation and amended conditions; and for staff to prepare the final order for Vice President Pyre to sign. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. 5.3 SUBDIVISION S 89-10 PLANNHQ DEVELOPMENT PD 89-03 STEPHENSON/BEACON HOMES NPO #6 A request for approval of an 18 lot subdivision planned development on a 3.18 acre site. The lots will vary in size from approximately 5,280 to 11,330 square feet. Also requested is a variance to allow three of the lots to be created to have lot depth to width ratios of 4:1 whereas the Code permits a maximum depth to width ratio of 2.5:1. ZONE: R-7 (PD) (Residential, 7 units/acre, Planned Development) LOCATION: southeast corner of SW 98th Avenue and SW Sattler Street (WCTM 2S1 11CA, tax lot 300). Senior Planner Liden reviewed the proposal and made staff's recommendation for approval with 20 conditions. Discussion followed regarding street frontages and size of lots. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o Don Fournier, Alpha Engineering, 1750 SW Skyline # 19, Portland, 97221, agreed with staff's recommendation and conditions. o Kurt Dalbey, Beacon Homes, PO Box 1368, Beaverton, OR 97005, explained that the lot depth ratio was designed to have the smaller lots abutting Summerfield keeping in characteristic with the area. i o Pete Kusyk, President, Mariner Homes, stated that they already have two ? people interested in purchasing the smaller lots and both parties are over 55 years old. i PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Howard Graham, 9410 SW Lakeside Drive, a member of the Summerfield Board, representing citizens in the area (approximately 25) were opposed to the lots accessing onto Lakeside Drive. He felt the lots should be annexed to Summerfield so they would have to abide by Summerfield's rules; however, that would take a 75 percent vote and he doubted if they could get it at this time. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 4 i 2 F, r r 1 o Keith Phelps, 9450 SW Lakeside Drive, Tigard, also representing the neighborhood group, opposed the addition of three new lots accesses onto Lakeside Drive. Currently, the street is congested with heavy vehicle and golf cart traffic as well as residents walking and jogging. o Dick Lawrence, 9500 SW Lakeside Drive, Tigard, agreed with Mr. Phelps regarding the traffic, congestion and felt it would be unsafe to allow three more driveway to access onto Lakeside Drive. He suggested that the subdivision be designed to access onto Sattler Road. REBUTTAL o Kurt Dalbey, stated that they have looked at alternative designs and there is not another way to access these lots. He stated that Lakeside Drive is a public- street and they are not asking for anything unusual. He added that they had requested annexation into Summerfield, but Summerfield had rejected these lots. Discussion followed on why Summerfield had rejected these lots. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Consensus of the Commission was for approval of the subdivision. * Commissioner Barber moved and commissioner Saporta seconded to approve PD 89-03, S 89-10, and V 89-30 subject to staff's conditions; and for staff to prepare the final order for Vice President Fyre to sign. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. 5.4 SUBDIVISION S 89-12 VARIANCE V 89-29 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD 89-05 ZONE CHANGE ZC 89-09 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT M 89-21 PYRE NPO # 3 A request for approval of an application to subdivide a 5 acre parcel into 18 lots. A zone change is requested to apply the planned development overlay zone to the property. A lot line adjustment approval is requested to adjust the boundaries of the site on which the subdivision will be located. Several variances to Code standards are also requested: 1) to allow a 28 foot wide public street where 34 feet is required; 2) to allow a 42 foot wide right-of-way where 50 feet is required; 3) to allow a 1000 foot long cul-de-sac whereas 400 feet is the maximum allowed; 4) to permit a hammerhead turnaround where a circular turnaround is required; 5) to allow sidewalk on one side of a street only whereas both sides are normally required to have sidewalks; and 6) to allow a 75 foot curve radius where a 100 foot radius is required. ZONE: R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) LOCATION: SW 121st Avenue at Tippitt Place (WCTM 2S1 3BC, tax lots 1100, 1300, & 6100) THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED TO DECEMBER 19TH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 5 6. OTHER BUSINESS o There was no other business. 7. ADJOURNMENT - •10:30 PM 0A Diane M. Jelde Secretary ATTEST: Milton Fyre, Vice President dj/pcml2-5 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 6 5.2 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPEAL SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN NPO #1 Liden: Okay, this next item involves Dolan, Mr. Dolan Is A-Boy Electric and Plumbing Supply on Main Street, and as you might recall, the Planning Commission reviewed this on an appeal from a Director's decision back in August. And the proposal is to create a new building of approximately 17,600 square feet, ah, on the 1.67 acre site, and then to eventually remove the existing A-Boy building. The Site Development Review Proposal was approved subject to the satisfaction of fourteen conditions by the Planning Director; and then that decision was appealed by the applicant because of an objection to the contents of a number of, a number of the conditions, including dedication of the 100 year flood plain and an additional 18 feet to the east to the top of the bank of Fanno Creek; a non-remonstrance agreement that was required relating to future street improvements on Main Street; the provision of a paved pathway within the dedicated area adjacent to the Fanno Creek; ah, the removal of two non-conforming billboard signs that are on the property; and finally the removal of a non- conforming roof sign that's on the existing A-Boy building. The Commission reviewed the application and upheld the Director's decision, with a couple modifications. One was to try to work out some alternate arrangement on the dedication of property along Fanno Creek to see if the City could get by with a little less property and acconmiodate the storm drainage improvements that are proposed as well as the pedestrian bike path along that side. And, ah, condition number 9 was modified to require that the City Engineer work out an agreement on the design of the paved pathway, and that if an agreement couldn't be reached, that the item should be brought back to the Council in, excuse me, the Commission in September. Although it wasn't part of the final motion, the Commission did seem to favor and amendment to another condition that would delay the removal of the non-conforming roof sign on the existing building until 45 days after occupancy of the new building. 'Cause the proposal is that A-Boy would move into the new building, and idea was that then you could get occupancy permit, have 45 days to fully move in and be operational at the new site before the other sign was taken down. Since the hearing Staff's reviewed these issues that have been raised by the applicant, we've talked about them a number of different times and, ah, in the memo that I have in the packet I indicate what types of issues that we've discussed with the applicant and the types of amendments that the Staff is willing to propose to the original decision. I'd just like to go through those briefly. After reviewing this with the applicant and also our Staff on the conditions of approval and the items that are being contended were reconmiending the following amendments: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 1 t First, we are saying that the, after looking at the 15-foot 1 setback from the existing top of bank really is the minimum that's going to be needed to accommodate the storm drainage improvement and the eventual construction of that pedestrian path and bike path, and that that requirement should be retained. As far as the non-remonstrance agreement is concerned for future improvements on Main Street, we don't agree with the applicant's contention that it's illegal. However, after reviewing this further with the Engineering Staff and the Community Development Director, we decided that a non-remonstrance agreement would be inappropriate at this time. And we feel that some other method other than a local improvement district would really be required when Main Street is upgraded. Because the construction to accommodate storm drainage along Fanno Creek would follow sometime later, and is not a requirement of the applicant, it was felt that because everything was going to be in such close proximity that it would be unwise to do the, or construct the bike path/pedestrian path at this time, and that it followed that with construction very nearby for the storm drainage improvement. So we're recommending that the construction of the bike path condition be deleted. As far as the billboard signs are concerned, ah, it is not the Staff's intention to, to have the applicant stuck between a rock and a hard place, if there, if he does have a contract which obligates him to keep those billboard signs. So we're suggesting there that the signs not be required to come down if we can receive a copy of the contract showing that the applicant is required to leave those billboard signs. So then presumably, at some future time, we will work with the sign company as far as those signs are concerned. We feel that the roof sign issue on the existing A-Boy building was settled in concept, at least, based on the discussion of the Planning Commission allowing the sign to stay after the occupancy permit was granted, as opposed to being a condition of the occupancy permit. One other thing that was discussed was landscaping of the dedicated area. And as we understand it the applicant is willing to dedicate that area if the City is willing to take responsibility for landscaping of that area. That that area could be used towards meeting the 15% landscaped area requirement in the code. And finally the applicant also is interested in a waiver of some of the other landscaping requirements, including street trees and trees in the parking area. The Staff is recommending that we go along with the wishes of the applicant as far as landscaping of the dedicated area, and using part of the ` plant, dedicated area to count tarrards to 15 % landscaping requirement; but we do feel that other landscaping requirements, such as trees in the parking area, street trees should still be a requirement of the development. So I think with that I'll close just to mention that in your packet you do have a copy of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - DECHMER 5, 1989 PAGE 2 Staff decision, a copy of the minutes from the previous Planning Commission meeting when we discussed this. And we xeroxed a copy of the site plan that was considered at that meeting. Fyre: Any questions? Thanks Keith. Is anyone here from the NPO wishing to speak? If not we'll hear from the applicant, John Dolan. Dolan: Oh, we're a lot closer than we were last time I was here. But there's still some things that have to be resolved. One of them is, I don't object to landscaping that area, I'll do that, fine. But I'll not dedicate that land to City unless they get something in return as, as a landscaping deal. Now there's been a Supreme Court decision that says like in recent, recent case there was, um, what's the name of that, Nollen, yeah, Nollen with 2 "L"s. They, the case came to the Supreme Court and they decided there, and you probably already know it, if you talked to the attorney, but that you cannot compel me to give you something unless it pertains to the permit. They're two different things. The permit is not, should be granted to me on it's own rights, not demanding that I give you, ah, substantial amount of property for it. The only thing that you really can ask me is to do k something that, that you need to do in order to give me a permit. If I'm causing extra traffic, or something, or if I have to do this, or put in a road, or, to, if I live out in the sticks, and N do something like that that pertains to the property itself. That you cannot, and I'm not going to give you any property for << nothing. Now if you want that property, I'll trade you. a landscaping deal for it and it won't cost you any money. Fyre: You're objecting to the dedication of the... Dolan: Yes. I mean I'm willing to make a deal with, with you, which I set forth, and, and in lieu of landscaping give you, dedicate that 5 feet to the City of Tigard Otherwise, they can buy the property from me. They got to have it for the, I know they need it for the park, the property and I'll sell it to them. And then I'll put in the landscaping according to code. It's one thing or the other, but I'm not going to give you something for nothing. It isn't, it doesn't make sense. Why should one person have to pay for something that benefits the whole City. Is that fair that I should do that? This is America. You can't take things from me without paying for them. That's about all I have to say. Fyre: Is that the only, the only... Dolan: Ah, we're agreeing on most the other things, I mean, there's a lot, there's, I don't agree on the sign; but to build another building, I got to tear everything down anyhow. And the sign has to come down. So, I mean those things will work out. The only thing really th•it we're apart on is, is this one I'm telling you I t PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 3 o; 4` now. And I think if you look it up, you'll see that I'm right, that you know, what's right is right. Is it morally right that I should full price of the improvement that doesn't help me, it only helps everybody in the City that uses that. let's get together and, and do the American thing and if you got, if you're right, you're right. And I'm right, and I'm going to stick to my guns to over there. Fyre: go ahead. What I understand them saying is that you can use this property as part of your 15% of your landscaping, but you certainly wouldn't want to build a nice building and not put some street trees and something out front. Dolan: I.. . It'd look like the other plumbing store up there. Dolan: That's true. I don't know how they get away with it. They don't, don't even, they pulled the slats out of their fence. Anyway, you, you would, you would certainly want to have some street trees in there. Dolan: I, most shopping centers, a lot of them don't have, have that much. I would want it to look right. Right. Dolan: But I don't want to say that somebody telling how to do this. I want to say, 1 want to trade you for that. And then what I think I need to make the property presentable, I'll put in. But I... I think that's what they're asking. Dolan: I mean, but all I want to do is give you that 6,000 or 7,000 feet of land, but I'm not going to give it to you for nothing. We want, we'll talk about it and, and make a trade. But aren't you seeing... (tape ended) Dolan: ..is, you've got it earmarked for the park, and you don't have it. And I'm, I don't want it, if you, for you, if you want it. But I don't want to give it to you for nothing. So all I say is, is all you have to do is make the deal and we can go ahead on this and get out of the rut. We've all, the other things that were bothering me already, I think, have been resolved. And the signs, it's not a, they keep calling it a roof sign. It's not a roof sign, it's a wall sign. It's right on the front wall of the building. And it's not illegal, and a permit was granted when we PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 4 put it up and there's never been anything said about it until recently. And, but it's not going to do me any good on that building. But if I tear it down and I move into the other building, so it has to come down, so the deal we made, that you presented last time is alright. I will tear that down, you know, a month or two after we get in at the latest. We'll get that out of there after we get our, our... Fyre: Okay, what, let me see if I can get this clear. What you're objecting to is the 15-foot dedication? Is that? Dolan: I'm not, there's more than 15 feet involved. That's just part of it. That's above the flood plain. What they have asked from me was about 6 to 7,000 feet of land. Fyre: In the flood plain. Dolan: No. There's, there's the 15 foot is 250 foot long. So, I mean, you have 15 feet times 250 foot. And then you have, besides that you've got some stuff in the river. I've got like a riverfront property. It's, be a nice property if it, the City didn't want it, you could develop that property to its best usage and take advantage of the creek there and have a nice different type of deal, but I never taken that idea seriously myself because it's for the public good and they, they have to have it for the, to get an entrance to their property. I've even gone so far, one of my, way saying that we'd sell the more property I'd just build where we are there, and something like that if I wanted to. We could work out a deal, flexible. But this is what they came back with, what you have there. And I think that, that's what should be done. Because I think everybody knows that, that I know what's going on and it's right. It's just, too. When you want to buy something, you have to pay for it. And if you don't pay for it in cash, you can pay for it in something of equal value. Fyre: Any questions? Okay, you'll, you'll get another chance. Dolan: All right. What does that mean? Fyre: Well I wanted to ask a couple questions of Staff and then you'll have a chance to rebut. Dolan: All right, fine. Fyre: Cause there's nobody signed up to speak in opposition. Staff, could you please clarify the dedication issue here if you could? Liden: Um, in what respect? Fyre: Exactly what we're talking about in terms of Mr. Dolan's objection. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - DEMMER 5, 1989 PAGE 5 `r r F Liden: Okay, maybe I'13. see if we have a up here. byre: Okay. Liden: I don't have the property memorized, but anyway we've got main street, the bridge, and, I don't know if this is the right shape. We've got an area that's in the flood plain. Then we've also got this additional area 15 feet, it's outside of the flood plain. And the Staff is saying that between the flood improvements that, the storm drainage improvements that need to be made in this area, and the addition of a bike and pedestrian path, there is a need to come out to this line to accommodate both of those. Part of it's going to involve some excavation right along the edge of the flood plain to widen this area out so we can accommodate the flow of water in a flood condition adequately, and then the remaining 10 feet, there abouts would be for an 8-foot wide pathway to get into the main park area to the south. What the code allows in the central business district, it does allow normally that you can, in other situations, that you can at least be eligible to look at developing in the flood plain area, if you can show that you're not going cause a rise in flood elevations elsewhere. Now this case, since we're at a critical place where the flood plain is relatively narrow, we've got a bridge immediately upstream, and so forth, it's been concluded by a study that was done a number of years ago by CH2 M.Hill that this stretch of the river has to actually be widened to accommodate flood flows adequately. So if there was a proposal that came in, said we want to fill to the center of the creek, we'd say, "Well, you can't do that because then that, according to the study's going to make that flood water go up. so the applicant's not proposing to build in here, so that's not really : an issue. And we're saying in this area of the city that if you're not going to use that area that if you, and as a condition of development that you should dedicate the 100-year flood plain. Now one thing that's unique about this was that since the flood plain area is so narrow and we're also trying to get a pathway through there, we're actually looking at land that's outside of the 100-year flood plain to accommodate the path. Typically when we've had paths constructed usually as part of residential developments and so on, the flood plain area is wide enough, there's plenty of room within the flood plain to put the path and not, and not look at the land outside of or above the 100-year flood plain. So this is a somewhat unique situation because the ' flood plain is so narrow and we don't have the space down here to put the path. So the reason that the Staff is recommending same flexibility is because we do see the existence of a unique situation that we're, we're looking for dedication of land that's outside of or above and beyond the typical requirement of the 100-year flood plain. So that's why we are recommending that this area can still be used to be counted towards meeting the landscaped area requirement of 15% of the entire site. As opposed to giving the dedication and then saying well okay now PLANNING COZUSSION MEETING - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 6 x'. a you need to meet the 15% And then... Fyre: Can you back up Keith, I didn't quite, I'm missing something here on this, this landscape requirement that you're. Liden: Well code is saying that if you have on this site that 15% of 1.67 acres needs to be landscaped. Now if we have the dedication take place, then it's down to, say an acre. Then we'd be saying 1/4 acre of the remainder has to be landscaped. So that he dedicates this which essentially is going to be landscaped or left in its natural condition. And then you'd be saying okay now that we've taken this part, we want 15% on what's left. And since we're having the requirement of 15 feet additional outside of the flood plain, it's our feeling that he's getting caught a little bit in a double whammy here. We're taking this and saying okay now where's your 15% landscaping? Would have had plenty of land if we didn't require the dedication. Fyre: Right. Liden: Now, as far as meeting the landscaping requirements, it's our feeling that the applicant to benefit the town on the landscaped area, but that at least in the parking area street trees and so on, that those amenities still should be required. As far as space is concerned, the landscaped area we're talking about to have some trees in the parking area and the street trees is really quite minimal. Just have some islands, small islands with the trees in them. That can really be basically the extent of the landscaping. And that would satisfy the, as you've got it proposed, all the landscaping requirements? When you take into consideration the 15-foot strip. Pretty close. Liden: Cause then, also we're recommending that, as part of this park the City's going to be involved in doing some landscaping anyway. And after the construction of the storm drainage improvement, whatever landscaping is put in would be taken out. We'd be starting over anyway. City will do it? Liden: Right. City will maintain it after... Liden: Right. And we would be responsible for maintenance after dedication anyway. Fyre: So you're essentially dropping the bulk of the landscaping • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 7 requirements in return for dedication of the flood plain an additional 8 feet? Fifteen. Fyre: Fifteen. Dolan: There's one other point here that I might point out. I also agreed, besides doing this, to give them some footage around here so they could landscape it, give it landscaping where you put some trees in so you wouldn't be seeing it from the park which they will have down here. That width I would dedicate also. It would be probably 5 to 10 feet or something like that. Fyre: Okay. Any questions on what's going on here? We're asking for 15 additional feet of dedication and reducing the landscape requirements, dramatically. Is that a good characterization. Liden: Well I'd say reducing, for the remainder that's left we'd be reducing the landscaped area requirement. Fyre: To, ah, just street trees? Liden: Street trees and those other things are provided in some small landscaped islands. I would guess that the lengthy area here after dedication would probably be less than 10%, M. Fyre: Okay. Any questions? If the numbers meant anything, you were looking at about 11,000 square feet of landscaped area. And if he's giving 7,000, so there's 3, 4,000 feet left of landscaping to go. Fyre: Any other questions? Thank you. Mr. Dolan would you like to say a few concluding things? Dolan: Well there isn't much more, I think I've said what I want to say. The landscaping on the rear of the lot by the, that land there I think is important to shield the building, the back of the building and also anything else from the park that you'll have down below. That's why that was my idea is to give them that because. So we'll have 7,000 feet actually would be 100 or more of the landscaping right there. And this I think would be somewhat of a price, it would benefit the City probably more than it would me. I think if I sold the property to the City and used that same money to landscape it, I would make lot more money that way. It wouldn't cost the value of the land that I would dedicate to the City. Is that clear? Fyre: I guess we could look at it a couple ways. Dolan: Take 7,000 feet of that property and say we had a value of $10 a PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 8 foot, would be $70,000. And say the landscaping for the whole thing for my site without take the 7, I wouldn't need as much landscaping after I sold that, but say. Then say you got 15, 20,000 for landscaping, that would be a benefit the City of $50,000. Pyre: Sure you could look at it a number of ways. Dolan: That's a roughly, those figures, but I mean it's, it's apparent that the City would get a good deal on it. Fyre: I guess you could... Dolan: Aside from that, my own costs now, taken that I have to redesign the building and all this other additional cost should be taken into consideration, too. If we do get to a cash settlement on this deal, that would be involved in it. Fyre: Any questions? At this point it appears you would probably like the money, you would like the City to buy the property from you, or are you still open Dolan: It don't make any difference. I don't need the money for construction. Okay. Dolan: I would sooner let the City take it. In other words, if I do sell it for a profit, I'll have to pay taxes on the profit. This is true. Dolan: And, and you know other things. It isn't all profit. Right. Okay. Dolan: But so it's better both ways for a trade. Mr. Dolan, what exactly is it that you disagree with? Dolan: Well, I don't, I, I refuse to give that property to the City for nothing. They want, they say, "Dedicate this." First of all they want to say, "Give us this property, build a road on it and these other things and I mean... But that isn't the case now. Dolan: Well, now, since last time, they've withdrawn the demand that I build the road on it. But still they, they're telling me, "You dedicate this property, do this other thing." And it's my t PLANMG OOMIMISSION NEEMG - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 9 AIM property, and to get a permit, there's no reason why I have to 19 give them that property. That's not my idea, that's the Supreme Court. That's the way things work. No, it was, it was the court's idea for that particular case. Dolan: Well, it's, it's only been a couple years ago and I can, ah, I surely don't have it with me, but I sure could give you the... I have it, thank you. Dolan: Do you have it? Uh-huh (yes). Pyre: What's happening here is it appears that, let's say, for instance, the City didn't want to build a bike path along there. The regulation or the code says you have to provide 150 landscaping. The code says that. They aren't taking anything from you, that's in the code, everybody has to do it. Dolan: Okay. Pyre: Okay. Now what we're doing here, it appears to me what's happening here is the landscape requirement is being reduced... Dolan: Well, not really what he's saying. You must remember this: he's saying we're going to take your land and give you credit for landscaping. But if I keep the land myself, I could still get the landscaping credit for that. Fyre: I don't... Dolan: I mean I put the landscaping there, I mean I can still... Fyre: You'd have to put it there, right. Dolan: Yes, but I, I mean that would be it. Fvre: And that would be it, but there would be a cost associated with it. Dolan: There would be a cost, but it would be a lot less to landscape the land than to buy the land or the land value. Pyre: May very well be. I'm not sure. Dolan: It, it makes sense. Fyre: But, but the issue, you know, I don't want to get off onto a broader issue, but the issue of dedication is something that's, ` that's done and it's applied in all municipalities, and the, the 1, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 10 Nollen case was somewhat, somewhat unique and specific and may or may not apply to this one. Dolan: It, it applies. I went into that pretty, but there's even people that like to see test case of that. Fire: Sure that's debatable whether it does or not, but I guess what we have to decide here is, is what needs to be done. Any other questions? Mr. Dolan, I have one question. What the Staff has proposed you seem to still be hesitant to... Dolan: Well ...agree to there. I think you said it's getting closer than we were, but when you talk about a fair trade, it this isn't far enough in your mind to be a fair trade, what is a fair trade? Dolan: Well, they, the best way would be then to do it would be, say, that I111 sell you that property and then, then we can do it normally without any trades. It's you know, I'm kind of a horse trader, have always been that way and I thought if trade on something else. But it's like it's to the City's benefit to make a trade. I, I would come out in the long run better financially but it might be a little more work for me. I'm getting so old I the less I get that better is getting that landscaping in. Fyre: Okay, any other questions? Or want to share? Okay, what I guess that we're going to have to do, since you, you haven't quite reached agreement with the Staff, is we're going to have to decide how to proceed with this agreement. Dolan: Yeah, you got to remember... Fyre: Can you give us any help here? Dolan: Well I can tell you one thing, if, if I don't build on there, you'd have to buy that land. anyhow, wouldn't you? So, if we can't do one way, let's just buy the land and we won't have any argument. Other, the other thing I'm offering you an alternative instead of buying the land, to give me that landscape, landscaping credit and get my building up. All I'm doing is asking for a trade. You got to give me something if I give you something. Nothing's for nothing. Fyre: Right. Are you saying you wouldn't want to put any landscaping on your building then? Dolan: I wouldn't, I don't want to have that requirement. I, I'm not { PLANNING COMMISSION ME=G - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 11 saying I won't put any, but I, there's going to be, you got it where you have some of these islands and stuff, I know I have to put some there. But one thing I do, I hate to have say you need this kind of a thing and I like some other kind of a plant there and all this other stuff involved with it? Mr. Liden, is some, there some latitude in the types of plants? I mean, it appears that Mr. Dolan, that something could be worked out. It sounds like he maybe has accepted the fact that he wants to do landscaping within the island part. I think you're close. Yeah, I think you're close. Dolan: Yeah, I think we're, there'd be a little of that but, ah,... 15, 12 1/2... Dolan: I'm willing to do, I'll do what I have to do. I'll put sprinklers in the other parts. So there isn't going to be any problem there. Fyre: Okay, our, how's your time line? Are you in a rush to get this thing going? Or you want another couple weeks to work this out with Staff? Shall we reach a conclusion here tonight? Dolan: That wouldn't be too bad. I'm getting kind of antsy about it. It's, ah, you know, it's kind of dragging. A couple weeks, another couple weeks isn't going to be too much. Probably... Do you want us to approve it Lois way, or do you want a couple more weeks to work it out? Dolan: We, I can, if we can work something out, I don't like to come back to, to, you know, all this hassle with you fellows again. I've been through it once. But if we can work something out and I don't have to come back here... Fyre: Okay, let's, ah, let's close public hearing and get on with it. Mr. Leverett? Leverett: Well, I, I'm opposed to negotiatiig out this landscaping, cause I think that's a, we're trying to make Tigard look half way decent. I think the landscaping isn't, shouldn't be to give him the opportunity to do what he wants to do. You know, it could look like Toys R Us, or something like that. And I don't think we want that. I think that we should table it and let him try to work it out. Fyre: That we should? PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 12 Leverett: I think we should table it. Fyre: Mr. Castile? Castile: I think we should, I, I'd just go for going with the Staff recommendation and, cause I think they're that close to within 3, 4,000 feet landscaping and that's nothing. And I think the trees, whatever, whatever his design with the Staff we can have it worked out. Fyre: You're in favor of going with the Staff recommendation? Castile: Yes. Fyre: Commissioner Barber? Barber: I would agree with going with the Staff recommendation. Fyre: Commissioner Rosborough? Rosborough: I would agree with Commissioners Castile and Barber. I think if the, if we, you know, went with the Staff recommendation and the two sides got together, I think it's going to be awful da , close to being there, I think with the way Mr. Dolan has said he wants to do it and what the Staff is proposing. I think it's, I think it's very close the way it is. Fyre: Commissioner Fessler? Fessler: I agree. I think that Staff and Mr. Dolan are getting closer. And I think it would be probably to, they've been working with this longer than we've been able to, and I think they're just about there. Fyre: Commissioner Saporta, do I hear a motion? Saporta: Ah, sure. Sure. I move that we approve Staff's recommendations as amended. Is that right? Fyre: Is that correct? well let's you, I guess approve or mandate the original Director's decision with the changes to the conditions that I have noted in my memo. That sounds good. Fyre: Do we hear a second? Castile: I'll second it. Fyre: It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor signify by PLANNING COMMCSSION MEETING DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 13 t saying, "Aye." All Comuissioners: Aye. Fyre: This motion carries. Liden: You might want to add that we'll prepare a final order for your signature. Fyre: Okay. Final order will be prepared for my signature. of/BMRPC125.90 N:\WORD\COMEV PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 14 t` MEMORANDUM TO: Ed Murphy, Community Development Dept. Director FROM: Keith Liden, Senior Planner 9, RE: Dolan appeal (SDR 89-13/V 89-21) DATE: January 24, 1990 The Planning Commission approved the above application subject to 12 conditions. The applicant has appealed this decision to the City Council due to objections relating to requirements found in several of these conditions. 1. Condition 1. - Dedication of property The applicant indicates that the dedication of the 100 year flood plain and a 15 foot wide strip of land along the flood plain boundary is unlawful. Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.5.3 (amended by Ord. 87-66) and Section 18.120.180 A. S. of the Community Development Code require the dedication of sufficient open land for greenway adjoining and within the flood plain and that suitable room be provided for a pedestrian/bicycle path. Because of the narrow width of the 100 year flood plain, the location of the Main Street bridge, and the storm drainage improvements required by the City's Master Drainage Plan, this dedication requirement is considered the minimum necessary to accommodate these improvements. City legal counsel indicated at the Planning Commission hearing that the City's dedication requirements where constitutional and although not totally conclusive, the existing case law supports this position. The City Attorney can further address this issue at the Council hearing. 2. Co, idition 4. - Landscaped islands; The applicant states that landscaped islands and trees were not addressed in the original Director's decision and therefore it is not appropriate for the Commission to require them in Condition 4.. These landscaping features were not listed as part of the conditions for the Director's decision because the applicant's site plan indicated the number of landscaped islands and trees as required by the Code. During the Commission hearing, the applicant stated that he did not want to install the landscaped islands and trees. The Commission found that this Code standard should not be waived and as a result condition 4. of the Commission's order specifies that these landscaping features be provided. 3. Condition 5. - Survey expenses The applicant states that the City should bear the cost of surveying the 100 year flood plain boundary. The staff and applicant have discussed the survey costs associated with this condition and Condition l.. The staff agreed to accomplish the survey work because of the additional dedication outside of the 100 year flood plain that applied in this case. 4. Condition 10. and 12. - Sign removal Both the Director and commission decisions conclude that the two nonconforming billboard signs and the nonconforming roof sign on the site should be removed as a condition of approval. Section 18.114.110 requires that nonconforming signs be removed by March 20, 1988. Because of the unresolved design issues associated with the City Center Plan, the owners of nonconforming signs in the downtown were allowed to keep these signs if they signed a voluntary compliance agreement to remove or modify them at a later date to conform with City Code. The applicant has refused to sign such an agreement. When approving a Site Development Review application, the City must consider the approval standards in Section 18.120.180 of the Code. This section requires compliance with the provisions of the Sign Code (Chapter 18.114). DOLAN2/kl i k (F>k' S _ _ _ ~2 5a a;, , _ Fill 1 1 Ill~llllll~ll.l~~l !~Pl l.ll~l~l~l II!~Ij~hl?.I]Tf I~~[~fi !JI~!II~IITI 1~1 II~I~I. :If)I 1~1 I~[~I I I 1111 ~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ nn .,+s«awwe+ - _ . I 2 3 4 l l l ~ ~ J~ ~ ~..l.l l I I I ~ L l I ~ 1 1111 ~ llll~ll~lllllllllryl~4ll.i a_ N]TE: IF THIS MICROFILMED - ~ _ B ~ B J IO IF • DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR 11iAN ~ THIS NDT1CEi IT IS DUE TO I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ THE pUALITY OF Tff ORIGINAL _ , • 'DRAWING. OE 6Z 8Z LZ 9Z SZ bZ EZ ZZV ~Z~ 02 61 81~ [+,I;~ 91 51 bl EI ZI II OI 6 B L 9 5 b E Z I~~ ~ ' ~ ~NI ilRlinllludnNlnHlmllmi6lR~URh(II~IIN~nuluu~wlGluhwllul~Rillllll~llll~llu611dullIIEIIII I~IIltgplJlltt ~Illl~p III , IIIilII1jII1111I11~11i!)~11III11IIIIIIW~W11yIWnllm~lNllllll~llll~lllll y, I''' ~ WI~IWtlII~W~IIII~W1IWl~lll(IWw11ll. rte, _ ..Y _ 1 _ R a ~ - _ ~j T T ; _ Y' V ARY .T..,: _ _ . -T ry~~ _ r _ 1; 6ASIS OF El`eV~S _ GENERAL NOTES a SPEC'S ~16iC IN SIDEWAL'G ,,v(>~-_ " JOB 1 08037 FEB, 20, 7908 ' O~' _ • TIG42^>T E NgtN 5T I I 1. Yorlfy a confirm ell existing oonditlons and dlnanalona ELEV ISlg5 1 I MA~~ S~ A2'•O'_._... . 3!°_..._.._..~ W ! prior to faurication or conatruatlon. Noti ty A S _ I I coordinate n ehun 100 -0~...--'-"~" IH H o Y pas with engineer Detore preoeadlnD. ~ 2. DESIGN 'LOA06: ~ 150.52 (21M) I I _ _ . A) float LL . 25 Pat ...r. . ' 511GE r^:d'1'L (3)"~ { - - ~ - - B) wind load 00 mph (B) UBC I - 1 CI seismic zono 2 I - _ ASf~ r." 1 DI sesla capacity = 1500 psf 0 Is1.24 its ~ = N / 3, Footings to root on firm natural untllsturhetl sail; free - ~-151.2 2 - ~ - 11 I ~ " I of or0anies er other tloloterieus matorial T2• min. bolow Drip, Ifinel Grade. Over oxeovoto oa required if noeosa, ISI. S . - I I'. cry to fire bearing. Compectatl crwhotl roeh may, with "OI ~ I. I~ ` on0lneer's's eppv'1, bo used to bring up gretle to Drip. i ~ I I ~ Sntantlad !oval. 4I I ,A(I I \ - / ~ 1 ~ ' 6~ 4. Concreto to bo f'c = 3000 psi @ 20 da s (nin). Protect I, ell concrete Prom Sncloae y I ( nt woathor antl impset until ~ ~ suffioient stronpth is dovelopod to prmvent tlana0e. ' 1 j ~'I/~eHG yJING OI~~L-Y ~ 6, gainforcinD to bo ASTM Or 40 (detormod) oxeapt as nototl. . • 1 _ .TARO ~IbHT / I 'Him>E T _ J 1I I ~ 6. Concreto masonry units to comply with ASTM C-90 grade n ti ,1.. II type 1 (half 8 halt) with moisture eontpnt not to oxeeotl / \tr' ~ ~ ~ 30 5 of total absorption. Protect antl maintain drynosa \ ~ ` ~ ~ I ~ O until leitl in wall: ! - I Q...'. ' 15O,SG ~ I _ 1~ I 7. Mortar shall ba typo 'S' A6TN C-270 (assumed f'e 2500) ~j ~I ~ _xl$ . I.l31DGn.~_~- . 11 ---y N, ~ I ~ _ B. 6reut to Dm F'e = 3000 psi @ 2D deya with 1/2 max W - I a0gragate size 8 9' slump. Oreut till all calls I ~ Y- ontaininp roinf., embodotl Stems, or below gratlo. \ ~ 9. Ty Dleel vmll rain torcinD to btu: I ~ i ) _ I~ ~I ~ I Al a'5 @ 4'-0' of c, wall onda d e s (vort) - 1 B) a5 ~Z.4 -0 o/e,' tops of Iwll, ohotrof wall d as shown 15O.6G :~r - - - I or indicotod on dwg•s: (UOrix) _ :.ri~ DEM e) (zl r 5 around and zA• (min) nose 011 onn'Da•(u0x) 1 Tor ~3ANIa-J ~ I`JEW hl_D~-~ ` rt •''11 ~I A=r=_2 MAW BLCG I, -'HASc 1 10. sloe! to be: L -1 1 \ ~ 17~t~C0 --'Ed- I ~_C II A) p etas 6 span aaatlana, ASTH A-3G 't CD C) bolts, ASTM A-307 D) welds, AWS E-70 (114' VON p 'FIN F~ _u'_v 152.50 , ) ~I E) All stool to hnvm a shop coat of rust inhibiting ~ ` --T primer 8 be cmmfetl with o es heltic emulsion - Iv ' ` whmro below prodo. p IcOb ) Sir - - 'i~)''_~ ~ ~ F) Fabricate 8 oroet stool a eortlin0 to AISC apse's. , .~,1~~,.~ t? '1 11. All nails to ba 'common' or galy. (hot dip only) box. ' ~ll Except roof sheathing to be 'ringshonk•. No •alnker' ~ ~ " ~ ~I ^ ~ ~I .rl nails ellowod. ' j ~ N ~ 12. All wood in per ant contact with ma my or concrete I I { V I to bo pros s troatotl par rep's of ASTM D-1760. pool d, - 2 latl o s 4x10r8 lnr or ma bo retoeted with 55r Colt or lC q r 9 Y p aC. 1 I' - - 'd--, L , , - I \ - 26 W Baly ahaot mortal smaller mombora must ba troatod. l 1 aW ~ I tP ~ ~ n - (pW ` ._pl g ' Q ~ _ . r,. Drn~• au iolsta a D'-D• ma: aro ann aolin Dta~h _ rLOOD ~ I. - aver all beernq Points. rite bloeh all atua wawa ae ?L~^ -.^pr 7 10'-0' (maz) o/e, of collines mntl roofs. • I~I \YAa.n d 1M1. Lumber gratlea 11 1~ ~ ~ q) studs, a`2 8 btr DF-L (KD) ` \-~T B) plates a blocking, 02 8 btr OF-L / 15O.d4 I1 ` C) joists antl lodgers, w2 8 btr DF-L t I { DI hsgders 8 Dogma, /1 8 btr OF-L (VON) i II ~ d, EI Lam's, Fb=2A00, Fv=1A5, Fcl=A55 DF (industrial) with / ~ -t ) I exterior glue, Load wrap. flodlus 2000' (situp span) s j (ne canbor an contilovor hoams). . , t ;r I F) float ahoathin0 to hp APA 42!20 (oxt) plywood, D50, or 1 'COMPLY'. Nail aht g with Otl ®6• e/e along panel ;I. 1 yy 'i od9ms and 12' o/e oleng Sntorior supports. Solitl ~ ~ ` N 1 1'~I bulldindgostewiMln 12' of walla and btu nlignvd wlih -I t 1 _ D's P'. . ~I • 1 j 15. float in0 to bs Owona Corning i 37-IC with whiten cap sheet 150.~P ~ . _ - - (UL CLASS A). _ _ 16. Fascia motel to be ECI aM1005 'slim rib' 26 qa as mfp'd G ~ 4 by En9lneeretl Campononis Ina. Tualatin, Dfl. Instollod ' •'SO'~~ according to the Hfr's Snstruetions. (Or approvotl eq.) IGI. 61 21M I provldo flashin0 mtc color matched to complete. • 17. Insulation to bo: ~Y'~5~. ' A) floor, 2• 'blue board' @ pmrinster, B) walls, (NA) 5 I T ~ PLAN ` 201 tia2 D> reef, fl-18 rigitl (ot Ilantetl areas only) " rH 18. OlazinD to bo Sn eecordenea with CII 54 (all) UBC end ho sefoty Glazed when in or within 1'-D• of doors, in otllmr • hazardous locations antl/or m toga Dy UBC. 19. gostreom finishes: S I T ~ STA-1 S i I GS " A) rloar, anaat v,1ny1 ' A2 E A : ll) 500 a) bane, c' rubhoor C) wolnacote, mast laminate on X91 0yn, bd. PHA6~ 2 `.U/CGG _ top la D> wets, onemol on wq avn• ad. G'LCC~ a Il~OC4U 33'1° ~ E) coil, gnamol en gYP• htl. . ?AVING ' =01 2C0ti 4 O%c ~ ~ ~ P'rIASC WALKS - I Y E 2 C 7 Q ^Ic ~(-IAS- MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL 8 PLUNBINO BV SEPEgATE DERHIT. Moeh. • ~ 2 I tostroemse 115) efm I oeeupgnt 8 (6) olr changes J hr 'Ln i AND CGA. E E NATU2AL 10;>bO re TAX LCT '7pC_ LoGq-rED lu -HE CONJT T YP~. -~Z-N (su3)<:~•~eib~R:.2G;-;;}7 9 W o- rd ~._~T I~~: Z T ~ 5 - z I ~ ALBERT RI~NNEYJR.PE (zl-2-ACS ~.CU~ANCY -I3 2 CONSULTNGEVCNEER/PLANNER ~23Gi55'I-OR'682sO491 (RETAa./I,.)HSLE SALESI WHSf=~ ~,r / A P20POSEO 6LDG DATE4-22•EG - p'R JOHN DOL.AN ~ y-a•,;q A•F_>OY ST02E.5 /GL06E L16HTWG~ I JOB N0. 02/fjs'S'I FGENDA a4 i t. I.. ~ 5_ 037 , I I i a ,err - r. _ ';L->~...xat,,. _1•revrnr.,mera.o, w__ / b _ _:n _ , l 11111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIII III 111111 111111 fit 11 111111 II II1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 • X11 }11.1111 PI 1.1111.1)1) 11111111 L)~.flm111.11)II~)li•~III~11NI111 ~).11111~1(111( 1111 11111 1111111 1 .ay Holt: ly 1x15 Aiaarlu[o I 2 3 9 5 6 7 B 9 ~0 II I l~eu ~ 1 I pRW II6 16 IE66 CIFAA mVN " 1X15 NgTitE; 11 16 pIE le ~ ~ , M WaL11Y OF iH D316INAl 1~00~62 -~82 [2 O2~SZ K EZ 22 ~12~~U2~61~BI 11 91~ 81 bl CI ZI II 01 E~ 0 L-9 6~6 D 2 Imo' ~ " gBllllllunlulllnnll I I ullnllbp~lulllll~IIN111n~NnIImIIWIuIIIYIIIYIlII111IYIlIIIBIIIIlY18I49INIIlA•IIIC11111 IIIII 11411IIIII BINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIBIIINIBIIYWIIIIY8111WWDW~I~IIIIIIIn~IIIIIG1111111~mmppUly~IIBWIULUN1111181WY11 :FEBRUARY : i~ . • :19 1991 - - _ _ MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council January 29, 1990 FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City RecorQ~k SUBJECT: February 5, 1990 Council Agenda - Item No. 5 Please be advised that staff is recommending the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 5 (Conditional Use CU 87-03; Minor Land Partition MLP 87-09; Robert Wyatt-- Texaco) be opened and continued to February 19, 1990. Community Development Staff has mailed out notification that it is being recom- mended to continue the hearing to a date certain. ow