SDR4-75 POOR QUALITY RECORD
PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and
put on microfilm. The following document is a copy of the
microfilm record converted back to digital. If you have questions
please contact City of Tigard Records Department.
•r'.,.6.�a..,..,,+' .,a 5:�.�ay px„o-r..:,�+ ..v1.. ar.!w, ,.-«;t iA,.waYw.,i.tH.. adtur7,,.J.ki.rr{l,.u-a:;`r�t,.,Jf::.,;ti„,4:,4::..n:F-r.,,11i,.S.N.G4sw1a�,1k.:YM"x,..�.,�aw,;l-:;Y'Mt.h"e',i,:.a,{ ,.
.:nt„I':.r,-,�:,,:v:ww�_,......,w�:dr1W,.‘,*',�,t �a,l.r..,,.c�,.:i o-'AdfA:taik.:..,-.M.V.r.s.:d,,,,,..i.u. ! a 'i ire.- ..,_a, -.n'XY , "1vE^�rrr-.rr»,.n rr".- G: ^'',i !4 {
, ",,1•,,,,:.,'t ,, if ; ;,',4,,f, { ry` II' I , n k ■ii
. ;;4Q ` TNI ,f AT3 F "R8P ;, 1 ,
g t , 1 eve1( iie i. �Rev1.4W `Y ' 4�.7»5,� .,;,,�
F, , FF , t ' Yr r IF ,, J
S{,l t m e 1 J I L +' T, A ��, u�rfi14 .'•r'I' it cJ ,I r i - ',.,.,''.'-•,:','4..';','"• r r n,..r
' ' � �' ti� 4t�� A 1_ 1,,. r, -v. {v'-t4.{•n, .„ .. .,:...1„I..�:.,I,.MNI,i,. wik.:,,..,...,wa.aM�.».r«...ka', ...::.✓a..�ua:�..M,.,l
�� ,,V 1 t b pi
y5
e1 ,.A J�.1..,Mr,. E r�,„,,
f
i
. .
I
'y it '� •
■
■
/ '
4
,II
■
■
I
t.
■
■
■
■
■
1
. 1
I
,
,
r
f
■
I
� � I 1
'
I
,
1
} V. �. M n 4 r h
It ^ Y r Q
- d 4 4.w.M,4•44,4,a..!14 4.4444444,4.444.44.«.n nsni,444:4.4.,t4.444n.44,i,�.»4 444144..44+I4:.444:4.44=4,:444-4,4 4 444J-.n44,•..44444 4...+ w n 4.44 17.,deK4:<.:4...4..1
DECEMBER 12, 1989
l
C1T1/OF TIA R® ;
OREGON
•
JOHN SETNIKER, Owner
Setniker Towing P
in & Repair Service
%11830 SW Gaarde St.
Agard, OR. 97223
RS: CLOSURE' IDS' CAS$ 1t89--2'04=1
r . Mr Setniker,
This letter about the 'above
Thy. er ie to confirm the discussion we had earlier today
matter.
' ) spoke - you by phone and stated I felt you would not have appear fo
I s ke with It ot. a to a for
the hearing later today due to your compliance. I asked the Court Manager,
Nadine Robinson, to Speak with Judge Pelay about the closure and he agreed.
Keith Liden, Senior Planner, was asked his opini,.on. He agreed with the closure
decision also. o
I want to thank you for, your assistance in this matter. This case has been
difficult for everyone involved and is now resolv ed with your co-operation.
The screenin g with the fence and the planted holly trees are going to make a
real difference in the neighborhood. The newly paved asphalt section on the #'
property will help in storage of your vehicles.
• x, g
Please be aware these measures were setforth by the 1975 design review board
and are still required today unless another review is required or requested due ''
to improvements. As I stated on the phone the storage of any vehicles or
materials must be contained on the paved area only and the screening of the
fence/trees must be Maintained.
•
Xf I can be of any assistance please call me anytime. My hours are from 7:00am
to 4:00ptn Monday through Friday. The phone number is 639-4171.
say
Easy, JJ''/ '•
coy 1 , �
••-e.lnfor'cement Officer I,
c relay,Judge a P[earngd 6l Efiier '
K..
ex.th Liden, Senior Planner
crh/setrciker
•
131 25 B Hall Blvd.,0,0,Box 2397,Tigordi Oregon 97223 (505)63 -4171
�-4171
,........ ... .«....,,. . 4444. « .., .. . ,.,I,.,. ,.... ... 1,.. .. .. ..4. . ., e 4444 ,. , 4
l!
•
• ._. .. •. 1 ._ „ .a r...,�.......t.,.w...,...4.:,..k«:!.:.4»u.w ..«,......„ti.tm..-...i•'..�. ���,d...•....s:...w..ae:.3w....�ML?...,,.r..._.,�...f..+.»....;��...µ�.il:l:at..�u..uriN.i�.:.ui-.+J..•w.....�w -..MJ.,.-.a.4.'.�,ui,�,�,« .u�..Aa o4,a.«:..rA...r—....,-.....a..a...:.•v...:...,.+w.w,k:;`.'Fil(,+n.•-
..i.... •uM. - . ,,.il-,.a.., .....i...»«ter..-,L.t'..«..«4.. nom. l+.m. r
//Ginsll l �
December 1, 1989 I /41
CI1YOFTIRD
OREGON
John Setnker .
11830 S.W. Gaarde Street
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: Buffering and screening g
Property at 13340 S.W. Pacific Highway
Civil. Infractions Case No. 89.204-Z
Dear Mr. Se.adi ken.
tome of the meeting that we had on
This letter is intended to confirm� the��ou c g �
your property on November 22, 1989 involving Coy Humphrey, you, and me. We '.
agreed that the following items would be completed by December 12, 1989:
1. A solid, si z foot tall wood fence will be placed in lieu of evergreen
trees or shrubs along, the north property line at the top of the bank
(see the attached site plan).
. 2. The remaining tires and other debris shall be removed from the property •
•
or stored indoors.
3. All vehicles, including trailers, shall only be parked or stored on the
existing asphalt surface.
Please feel to call Co Hump hre or me if you have any questions. ,
Coy Humphrey Y 1C'q � � 1,
• S ln c e 1
•y
r
Keith S. Liden
Senior Planner
0: coy Humphrey
Nadine Robinson
o
SET/k1
13125 SW Nail 8Ivd,,P,O,I3ox 23397,Tigard,Oregon 97223 (603)689-4171 ` }
•
R ,
r
I r ,
a,. .. ..«.�.-.�,.. r.,_.,,....«,.......,.,., ...,.......,w.:..,t--....awu,us.1;A:a,.,u,,t.u,w.,A.m. Rt..,. ::4,w....,.m..e.... ..i.,~:�aa.T. .�+n.,. r. tn,.:--f.: �k..u-v+,u..=...ra,.-�...�a..dk.rl,�a......t r'..,a.,.u
1.w.r+.,..:.,.,r.:.1r,i-.i.,-. .,-:b..«-,,.•,....+-d.,:L„...-,.4.4,,,.,:.].1 7,.o..n..:H.w3,.....
-.Gt,■U..
I '''*..4*4. Ittato.sci,. \ . ,
ü.� t ,. piplsop. ' . 9....,.,... . Acpt,s . . ..
, , , .
, , .
, .
, ,
, ,
, • 40•1111•111101101.11. 111.11/..21.3111, 114.itilVit2INININA, Allqweiulet..14100.4 enativi..ialmt '
.
•
•
•
•
.
•
' ` r �'"qY yn'wW
r.
•
ter
�� at . 4
A . , ' VII 441144. 40411:'' 4,0..17. . . : , ' N i.
•
•
r
r
I
r
•
.
r,ice
yr I AF.M. a a
...,;.k,.,.. .........,•,,.x.....,.,.•...,• .._.. ,......_..:..J........:..._.»»r.,,,14.-..-n '.a ...,..-......,,r «.•- ,caw.. r.:•....,L..„..__.,..,,.r,!r.:aa'....».....,...-.........,..»ate ...- ....-,!.. -.r,.:v't.,„... ,.Cl..t, ....A;;,.a..a..l::.::w.....--.w...."..a.,:....l.Ae..:..+»..,.M......: :.....«.:.::d;.':wC•..41.k,.Y4.
•
•
November 1, 1989
!I
. .
John Set mikes
11830 S.W. Gaarde Street CITY OF TICA RD
Tigard, OR 97223
OREGOIM!
RE: City record CU 11-74/SDR 4-75 • •
Dear Mr. Setni ker:
At your request have reviewed the record for the second time regarding I hav g g the
actions leading up to the approval of your present business located at 13320
S.W. Pacific Highway. The sequence of events is summarized below including the
topics of discussion noted in the hearing minutes.
9 1. Conditional Use CU 11-74 application to establish the business at the
• above location was approved by the Planning Commission on November 19,
1974. Frontage road issueU and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
were discussed.
2. The Commission decision was appealed shy Neighborhood Planning •
Organization No. 1 to the City Council. The Council upheld the
Commission decision subject to the condition that "wrecked vehicles not
be stored on the site and that any other outside storage of vehicles
should be screened".
3. As required by the Code at that time, a Site Design Review (SDR. 4-75)
application was submitted to review specific design elements of the
proposed business. The Tigard Site Development and Design Review Board
analyzed the proposal on February 13, 1975 and moved to deny it with the
understanding that a revised plan should be submitted which included the
followings
a. parking be perpendicular to building or adequate back out and •
turning space be provided.
b. take design and future use of entire site into consideration •
as much as possible
c. move access to site to the west (center of lot) if feasible
and provide joint access to house and shop
d. provide 10'-15' additional fill at east end of lot to provide
additional space for parking or turn 'building 90 degrees to
parallel street,
On March 6, 1975 the Board approved the plan as presented by 4. pp p p y nlson
Design with the condition t hat no parking bs al lowed on the
,
road or in the access areas. No other discussion'is reflected in the
minutes.
i •
5. The most recent•'site plan in the Sb R 4-75 file is dated
re bru ary 20,
B109ar5 d arid a tphpe ar 'eenbrua y s 1p3r,od 9l to hear nag r and twas c te rpn l a n raaipsperd ovbey d the
March 6, 1975. This plan and the associated information in the file
r. . storage of vehicles in 'the area . e
makes no reference .
reryce� i:.
0
d' Whe
s are where they are
presently situated,
, x 23397,ligdrd,Oi•ogor�97223 (603)639;4171 �--�---
�312�9W Wc�1l Blvd.,Pb P�O,�
rr • ” ...... .i.m•h.,,v.. ..»rt.,n. r Si sir»
•
3
•
•
• I
I ,
I.. ✓,,_.,.•,_. .. .�.:1_.W.- ,� um.0 nJN ........,..m.....wa...,L:.,...,H:'1.„«�s+:.«e. N,.«.w..r,'.,.. ..a;,..«..w.,..«......��'i.,w.....,.,++,,..w.....d..,+...,«.t:...u..c:.'J,.,-:ak......-,»,,, »-u.ua:.,,«..,w,. aw.,-o,>,..w... , ,.,L.ruu d•
' ...„t4„,,. ..:q.t.+.- .J:lW.6A:f..SL—. M,-F✓,tiar-.4:.i`k.ui#+AWG.AALL44++r
,�'1
M:
6. The Code in effect at the time of the review required that all. areas for I;!
the standing or maneuvering vehicles be improved according to the same
specifications as required for City streets (Code section attached).
Pavement over a gravel base was and is the standard for City streets.
In, order to store vehicles as you have "I.tem, the City Council and/or the
Site Development and Design Review Dc;,: ,,.d would have had to grant a
, variance to waive the pavement otandard. No reference is made in the •
record to any variances or the storage of vehicles on an unimproved or
gravel surface.
y
III
In conclusion, I find no evidence in the City files which indicates that the
City approved the manner in which you are storing vehicles on the property.
The violations noted in the pending Civil Infraction Case (No. 89-204-Z) are
not contrary to the City approvals to establish the business in 1.975.
coy Humphrey and I remain willing to meet with you on the property to explain
the actions which need to be taken to resolve the existing Code violations.
Sincerely,
•
II
I t
Keith S. Li den I �
Senior Planner
c Coy Humphrey
Nadine Robinson
•
`
•
r I
"
^ I I
I
I
I+
SET/k1 I
I ,
. I
I f
Lr
1
I
r
I
wy
A
o .
-L..-�.. v v . •t. 1 kd _.U. U V 1:lJ
.w
i The minimum requirements for maneuvering space are shown,
,low-
,
. i .
, 1 ...... .. . .. ... . .
1
P /
W 1' - 241 -4,'°1-'- .___.-> C T4 i '�,-_ —_._.r> -
. , 'ti -01
�L rrl:i;vj
P s•,a rLri;rn t .
: . _ _
, . 1 ji .l ,�t . .i,� :for*: Pur',Ing '_
r�e PoA-A,.., Ioodsd
i
'w4
k 0',,l� rr,r::'i:,g
Dc'i'J'a 1,...,tf:d . .
Y•j t
r
\\NJ: g
O
2.4
°i I > .
• -pc\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\.\\.. .— .
•
rd. 7616 §3 (par ) , 1976 ; Ord. 70-32 5190-6 (c, d) , 1970) .
. '
18. 60 . 110 Imm tovemerits. Except in connection with single I
mily uses , all areas used the standing or maneuvering ' .`
. vehicles shall be improved according to the same specif i-
Liens as required for city streets. (Ord, 70-32 5190-6 (e) ,
70) , ,
_ 18 .60 . 180 Bumper rails and curbs. Parking spaces along
. • e boundaries of a parking lot shall be provided with a I
raper rail or a curb at least four inches high located four .
e€ within the property lines . (Ord. 70-32 §190-6 (f) 6 1970). .
18. 60 . 190 Drainage required. Off-street parking and
9.ding areas shall drained to avoid flow of water across
3lic sidewalks and streets. (Ord. 70-32 5190-6 (g) , 1970) . i
G ,S. 5
M
.'r 18.60 . 200 When fence required. When the boundary of a
eking lot adjoins a residential district, such parking lot
111 be screened by a sight-obsc firing fence, as prescribed
i;. Section 18. 12. 080 . (Ord. 70-32 5190-6 (h) , 1970) ,
' 18. 60. 210 Artificial lighting. Artificial lighting
.a►
Lcth ma y be provided shall c so not to shine
� w
c:e c tly into adjoining dwellings orotherty types of l ving_
+m
tz
K .
299-2 (Tigard 1/15/77) ,
....Liiii .
' .,h „.....,, .,.. ,...
in v.u. w•r.x:y. .iw
i.
..��»...'.,............: .....:.:.',. .. _.. ,_ ....._.,,....,...-...._....r. .,1,.....,.,. „a... a � ...ua»..a. - owe. ,.wv. .Na..w �
,...i.., ...... .. ..H..1,..._....-,..._......t.........-..w......Y«.,._...+......w w,,.....,...»L. r......A.l.,u.._....mnwa,'»... .....I.jn.4.._..w.. Iii.•+.+ ,... .V.. .. ....- .... w.. s.., i .
tr
. r
•
August 10, 1989
him
41,• +I I
• John Setniker :�! ' 1;ra`�.
11830 W. Gaarde Street CITYOF T
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: Property at 13340 S.W. Pacific Highway OREGON
Civil Infractions Case No. 89-204-Z
Dear Mr. Setniker:
apparent to on August 8, 1989, it was nt t
At the meeting with the Hearings Officer�,cer , .
9
g
� pp
me that confusion still exists regarding what needs to be accomplished with the
additional paved storage area and the required landscaping. Below I have '
outlined what needs to be done.
Paved Storage'Area
Prior to paving any additional area on your property, I must approve the
location of the 1,509 square foot paved surface. The site plan which you
received on July 21st only approves the additional area not its location. -
. Please identify the area you wish to pave on the enclosed site plan and return
it for my approval. If you would prefer that I visit the property to review
the area to be paved, please call to schedule a time.
Paving will also require a site work permit" from the Building Inspection
Division. The Division will need to see the area proposed to be paved and the
method for accommodating storm drainage from the paved area. Please contact
Brad Roast (phone: 639-4171) for further information.
Landscaping
Once the location of the paved storage area is finalized, the landscaping
and/or buffering plan must also be approved. Again, the July 21st site plan
provided a conceptual idea for providing screening for the storage area. A
plan indicating the specific type and size of plants w:,ist be shown on the site
plan. If a fence is to be installed, the height and type of construction will
need to be identified.
These requirements are intended to rovide an assurance to the he City of how •
compliance Development Code and the 1975 Conditional Use
approval will be achieved. The approvals also provide
you with a written
commitment from the City that the proposed improvements will be acceptable once
they are completed, 1t is critical that you receive approval fron Building
. the H
Division and me prior to paving or landscaping.
Please .
e ca7.l me if you have any gtiesi:ions«
r /
Sins rely,
lee it '
///1/'
h S. Liden
Senior Planner
O: Brad Roast Coy Humphrey - Building Division
397,11 and Oregon ----
I Blvd„(��CS,�Ba�23 �� q7
X31 Z5 SW Holt g � 97223 �50��b3q- 71
d�
D •.•^•I r
1 '
' ,...c,...... ,.... ..............._ ,_.,,a.,,_, ,,.,,.,s_.-,+,-_. .,,,..a a,x+-.--...,,_,.++._..,.,..,w,.._».....,..._,.,»,.........a..il.,,,,..,4....«6-,_.....A ,.,,._w,..,..»., a,..,-,.,uaA .,< ..«,,a. ,,. ,..",a.1iw:.,-1:..ArF.:.,,,r......:4 lra.r,.4..wi�,.,....,.u!`,,u`'G.. ..,u✓,:w ....a.w..ad� '
M5
, � I 4 ..
July 3, 1989
( CI1YOFTIE 'f il 4
y John Setniker OREGON
11830 S.W. Gaarde Street
Tigard OR 97223
•.\ a, Property at 13340 S.W. Pacific Highway
1 Civil Infractions Case Noe 89-204-2
Dear Hr. Setniker:
• Thank you for meeting with me at the above property the other day to discuss
Ways to resolve the Civil Infractions case that is currently pending. In order :,,
to bring the use of your property into conformance with the Conditicinal Use (CU
11-74) and Site Design Review (SDR 4-75) approvals which were grakited by the„
City in 1974 and 1975, there are several items that should be addressed. I
have attached a site plan which is based upon the approved plan of 1975 and 1
•
have indicated what has to be accomplished to bring the use of the property
into conformance with the 1975 City approvals and City Code, li
I 1. The wrecked vehicles must be removed from the site. For the purposes of
clarification, "wrecked" vehicle refers to any vehicle' which is
inoperable or can not legally be driven on a public street in its,
present Condition.
2. Vehicles and materials that are not stored on a paved surface must be
I removed (See A. on the site plan). The Community Development Code
allows minor expansions of approved Conditional Uses, but the present ..
amount of additional storage space requires a new City approval. I have
identified the maximum amount of additional storage area that may be
provided without requiring a new Conditional Use application (See B. on
the site lan) . This storage space could be located elsewhere
p' storage F on the
site, but tlas, square footage would
storage the
must the area sit etain e saris as ea I
have illustrated. Also, any ad g st' be paved
according to City Code.
3. from view. This I
screening was originally inall approved with a p plan to retain the existing•
All ether vehicles stored on the Site mus be sc�:ea�ned `
g �' pp p ,
to the of the site and to plant ant i 12 a See C. on the site
vegetation rear additional oniferou
trees ;n this area to provide further buffering ( e e C the
plan). The trees apparently were never p la ed. There tre es �h., nut..
d
have a minimum caliper of 2 inches.
An alternate scree for my review. A Cite
nLng plan may be proposed! �. to
obscuring fence would be a suitable substitute.
4. There is a considerable front of the
" erablP amount of debris l � ` .
I. i plan).
located in Ere
�, � the Cite ' house
that must be removed (See D. on' th
this site plan and contact me if you to suggeSt an
Please revie� t. � p .. ... . . .. . ... • 1i�
. . use of the site'.e .he site n
sugge�it
attienclament�i to the method for ,screening or �'� plain
o
13125 Ski Hall Plv
1
b
1 ,
8 I, 1
•
.,.,.,,....�rL.. ,.....u..,.,....„_ ..�..,...�„u,.�,...a.�..1..�..��F.,_,,.��...,„...,�.�:.;,+.�:a., �.»....�.,;_.w�+•....�. :_,.��...+,�,.,...,.�.,..�...k.n�......,�:..i��...:a.....::,u.: µ....i......».uaau .�.:��. -:1;4.:x.: .».,.:hw,..,.—..._,. .: _.,.,.. ,. -' .Mtw;,,«.n�.:, '
•
•
.a....� G�r.. �:I ..W...�. ti,.... ..«.....i..._,».s .,.iu.....,�,..1.,.,�.r,�,..
revisions that I have noted represent, in my view, the most extensive use of
the property possible without needing another approval from the City. In order
•
to resolve the violations noted in Civil Infractions Case No. 89-204-Z, the
items discussed above should accomplished or financially guaranteed 'by August I
8, 1989.
I checked the records for an approved site plan which allowed the storage of
vehicles in the rear of the property and found nothing. The approved plan of
record was reviewed by the Site Design Review Board on March 6, 1975 This
site plan only illustrated patking an d storage in the area which is presently ntl
Y ,
Finally, I will notify thei Building Division of the problem you described , •
pertaining to the fill which was placed on your property as a result of the
construction of Tigard Marketplace.
Sincerely,
ncerel
y
c
Keith 8. Liden
Senior Planner
•
•
•
•
•
B ... , ,. i. ...1.•'.T.._..,.M ...... '�'._ ..w. «+w.,.,.„ x,.0 ,...,..., ,jy:f' .w•r.r rn"., ,,.v .,.,'
, r.r.,.—,r......-_«Ir,.... ,.... .» l;c...,,a,...........«.4 4,..,.L,.l,,.Ir,r.,4,..».:1..._ r,..,d t NUrr,..,..w'...44.u.,y....,......-..—_,,,,.,r.,..g, ...,.4.1e,941.1.,:r,.«wrX.T_,.N ,...:,..,,"„.a.-L..,,,,, ,4,,,,'
.+,4.A.,d:.........frwtl:f.:.k..,.v.Yr.,-.::i.rr»-�L'.tF.,a-:4..:r.l,:r-..r.r+:..�.wc....4�.,.«.r, ,,.. ....,...w...,.«givr .Cra1,n«,',rcF.,ini%Frrwr.n..r.
.
rl. '
Phone 929.5718 1
,' '" E� �, Route 1 Box I I Y�
:('• ) , ox 4840
�C1 Philornath, Oregon 97370 r
I ,
CI
DEVCO ENGINEERING, IN
CIVIL, MUNICIPAL, STRUCTURAL, LAND SURVEYING
l' '' '
r I fir'.
E o f
IN/ '
June 18, 1975
JUN CO "i9?
I ,
CITY OF TIGARD A
R
D
„
I
+, City Tnginee
r City Mall
Tigard, Oregon 97223 .
} Res :Setaickers Commercial Building
• I GGentlemen:a
n. I I �
r I r
Based on the Oregon Stae Highway's Hydraulics Manual' a flow of 21.7
cfs, can be anticipated in the drainage chahtel at the subject building i' .
site. This flow is based on.a drainage basin of 23 acres, a rainfall ( •
•
intensity of 2.1 inches every 10 years, and a coefficient of runoff i .
of 0.45. l
With a flow of 21.7 cfs either an 18" concrete pipe installed on °
a 4% slope or a 24" OMP installed on a 4% slope will meet the rep,
quirements of carrying the flow anticipated.
J,
I
If' `there are at y further questions, please feel free to contact this
•r office at ally time. c..
,
'
Sincerelyy
I
1e3++ l,'
Neal•t. Peterson, P. L;. , •
rI
• E
li
'fi'. d cc. Mrs Nicoli PRO/
I aR'N ,4, � j ,
.
k '
.
•1 ortiGor4 1
'igi'2t?-- el'iS . .
I
.. I
I ,
r ,r
. ...,,I .r..r. 'w,u
' ., _ rw'..�,,r, YIY .r..+ '_'rtle Iru..lY M4MJtlle ry •
a i
•
r j..
•
April 18, 1975
k
Mrs John Se1,,nike
11830 8. W. Gaarde St.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Reference: Pile
Dear Mr.e Setnike? A ' r
AO Please be advised that the Tigard. Site Development and Design
Review Beard, at their March 6, 19750 meeting, considered your
request for site design and architectural review and your sub-
mission was approved subject to the following, condition:
1. No parking should be allowed on frontage road or in
access areas.
Please do not hesitate to contact this office.' a t 639-4171 if you
have any questions or need additional . formation
• Sincerely,
Jerald c M. Powell, Assoc. AI
JMt
' r
y
a
__... ,,. .._. ...w.., .. G.. ......:.. ...:z....ua....,_w.....a _u. _:; .;»..cJ.e, il..a , ._....a%. ,..N,I.. i.A„F ...1. r•aw,ax .wwu
f•
MINUTES 5:04y. 1) 5--
s, TIGARD SITE DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
0. March 6, 1975 - Regular Meeting j
Twality Junior High School ”- ''Lecture Room
. 1 6 5 0 SW 97t Avenue, Tigard, Oregon
O
1.
0
CALL T ORDER
T 4 : h .
The meeting was called order at F.40 .m.
2. ROLL CALL
° Members present: Bartel, Cook, McMonagle, Wakem, Ke.lting; . .
staff: Powell {
3. MINUTES
The minutes of the February 20, 1975, meetin g were approved
as read.
4. SITE DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
4.1 SDR 4-75 (S`.iliker Auto Repair)
Applicant's proposal is to build a three bay auto to re air shop
with a gas pump for his own use. Applicant proposes 'to leave ,
existing single family house on .86 acre site using 9,000 sq. } .
ft. for the proposed shop:
A. Staff Report
b I `
Staff report was read by Powell (see. attached) .
i
B. Applicant's Presentation
•
0.
•
Charlotte Olson, Olson Design, presented applicant's plan.
C. Public Testimony };
None ,
{
D. Board Discussion and Action
Monte Cook moved to approve site plan with condition #1
from staff report (no parking to be allowed on frontage
road or in access areas) .
Seconded (M oNon a gle) r approval
unanimous.
4.2 SDR 5-75 (Sabre Construction Co. for Bethlehem Steel)
A. Staff Report
•"
Staff report was read b y Powell
. .
'. '.,• '..... .,.i..,. :. ...,......, i., .,.,iii.'- r..n u.. ., ,. ...,i.,..... . ., e il. i : i
•
.. ........... _•.-. ,.l_,... I.... ....L.f .,'..U..,...N.M...,.... ..it.,...,., .........-. ,x x .... ._,.,....,,.....ee..a,.._.•............ ........a,.,.xan«;...'»»Y....i.w..alw.u.'.......R'...,r.a._.w...,.f.a_ . ....},. ...._ 11. A
•
B. Applicant's Presentation ti O
n
Staff member of Sabre Construction. Co. presented Sabre 's
project,
i
C. Public Testimony
• None
D. Board Discussion and Action ' 'l M
McMonagle asked the applicant to explain his reasons for
such a large maneuvering area for trucks. The applicant's
4 ,
representative responded that they anticipated trucks up
v . to 75 ft. long; that they would be tandem truck and trailer
• units and that they would need enough space to back through
a narc, not in one direction, but in at least two di2ferent
directions in order to drop trailers and maneuver trailers
• and trucks to the loading doors- .
Bartel and McMonagle discussed the means of trucks for t'
f, q
maneuverin g space.
Consensus of the board was that 100 ft. was the minimum
necessary to adequately maneuver trucks into position for f'
this kind of operation.
Motion to deny was then made by McMonagle,,, seconded (Wakem) . ,
McMonagle said he felt that the things that the applicant
should address before resubmitting were:
(1) justify the size of the asphalt area or reduce it,
(2) show and irrigation plan, and
(3) show additional planting along the west property
line 10 to 15 ft. in width, filling the north.
west and southwest corners
•
Vote to deny was unanimous
4.3 SDP. 7-75 (Mike Mahon/Greenburg Plaza II) ; ,C
Request for review of a proposed office building to be constructed
on a C-3 zone site on SW
{ Greenburg between Lincoln Ave. and
Center
St. The sit e �s p resently Occupied by a two story stucco and
,
frame church (tax lot 200, tax map J.81 35DC)
A. Staff Report
Read by (see attached) .
Y Powell C ) .
B Applicant's Presentation
.
pP
wM
• I CDR Minutes - March 6 1975 y Page
2
•
,d,
•
Mr. Mahon presented his proposal to the Board.
, I
C. Public Testimony
D. . Board None
Discussion and Action
Cook asked about garbage areas and about outside condensers
for cooling I I I units.
M r. Mann responded
th at garbage e a re as would
be enclosed and
screened and located to the rear of the site.
•
McMonagle asked about on-site drainage disposal. Applicant
responded that there was a storm drain available and that
his drainage system would be connected into it.
Kelting m
ov
ed a PP r ova�
o f the si L e P
Z an with recommendation
to provide drainage easement. r McMonagle seconded, vote was
unanimous for approval.
E. Architectural Review
The plan, and architectural drawings were presented by the
applicant.
Cook moved approval as presented and specified that a con-
dition should be that the building should resemble or be
similar to the existing structure of Greenburg Plaza I
Motion was seconded (Bartel) and the vote was unanimous'for ;
approval.
5. OTHER BUSINESS
I I
There was no other business.
6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m
f
i
SDR Minuted - March '6 1975 page 3 I
I I
r
t
l
I I 'f r
• .P...... .r ,.,.. ,..,, .._I., ! .w... .,k1,.....wz,1.....,... w•v i....J:,.>.Y:.i..,..iYr.-.,..r,u.J/;,.1 S. d..n.,. .»,......*x+x,:r..,....IY.«,i Wx; 4':...,,..n, • J. . nn •1
I 15..•4::,.hw :4J..,,c+,..-..,id.....'cw..:i._ nil....kd(,;,.'yay'..1.y.. uulw,.....k.e....a4..lr.wJV.a,u u-.lv..i4 r.,.,a..a.,::7... ..
TIGARD SITE DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Staff Report
y : March 5, 1975
SDR 4--75 (Setniker .Auto Repair)
Applicant �14
John Setni:>.�.er •
t
A ]_ic ant s Pro osal .
p�? p
to build 3�b a Y auto repair shop w ith a
p� p fO� his
own
.
use. Applicant proposes to leave` exiB t;ing single family house
on .86 acre site, using 9000 sq. ft. for the proposed shop.
Site Development Plan and Architectural Review'
•
•
of a proposed auto repair shop in a C-3 zone on SW Pacific
Hwy. (tax lot 2000, Wsl 2CB
Staff Findings
•
1. Existing frontage road is approximately 16' wide and shires'
right-of-way with Pacific Hwy,
2. Building conforms to setback requirements of the C-3 Zone
( "0" side yard, 10t front yard).
3. Parking requirements based on 2000 sq. ft. building with
3 people employed there is 7 parking spaces (Tigard Munici-
pal Code Ch. 18.60) . Applicant has documented to Washington
•
County Planning Department in a letter dated February, 7,
1975, that he has ordinarily parked five vehicles (trucks D
pickups and cars) of his own at his service station which If"
he used in his business and that he owned five more vehicles '
which he ordinarily parked at home. The site plan provides
9 parking spaces for the auto repair shop.
4. The conditional use permit granted by the City of Tigard
allows auto repair, with the condition "that wrecked vehicles
not be stored on the site and that any other outside stor-�
•
age of vehicles should be screened. "
5. The drawings as resubmitted address substantially the re- ;
• q uired i nformation for review by the Design Review Boa rd
excepting:
a. signs, materials and colors
b. color scheme
c. grading plan
d, floor r p lan (uu n les8 original, floor plan is Still to
be
used
Staff has not, therefore, reviewed those, issues. °3
Pr • • , Y
i \
.. •..•• 4«,- ....A1.a.. ...n�.l..nwJM..»n».Ay...rwi....4.t..,«vtlydrAl.n.R4?:n«rn.1:..n N.,1. I...s J«..../,Gl....f\.Y.u.wl..,...nr .r Fakl t.. .a :1'11,' .If ,. s-w..i_i._..n.a. .1..It...lt.v..f=i..11,.1...{.0.« 4.'l.n...4._:!: A.,, '.1«..[.r1.t.r. .•4.. ....,Y f„t ....F...IF.If.e..It1',..X3• '
6. Sight obscuring fence or vegetation as required by Ch. 18.60
Tigard Municipal Code (parking) does not appear to meet
requirements.
7. Staff feels the juxtaposition of the auto repair shop and
the, single family home on this one site is unfortunate
and feels that the dwelling will be replaced with some .
commercial building as soon as tho dwelling becomes an
\ economically unsound enterprise or actually becomes a
nuisance. Staff therefore has evaluated the site with the
option of an additional commercial structure on the dwelling M
•
site as a future possibility. Under those circumstances,
staff still finds that the site fills, present legal require-
ments,ments,' but will require careful site planning.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the site plan and the architectural
design if the questions of finding #5 are adequately answered
by the applicant and with the following conditions:
1. No parking will be allowed on or adjacent to the frontage
road or in the access areas.
2. that the applicant execute an agreement with the City notnt€
oppose an L. I. D. to improve the frontage road to City stan
dards.
3. If at any time the on-site parking approved by this action
becomes insufficient to serve the activities on the site
the applicant will expand his parking, area, and will apply
for design review.
4. No service vehicles, tow trucks or automobiles are to be ...
stored at the site unless stored inside the building or in
a screened, locked storage area. Such area may not be
part of that area presently designated ?tparking"
•
•
II
Sm staff report �- March 6, 1975 - page 2
'I
,
MINUTES
TIGARD SITE DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
` ; February 20, 1975 regular meeting
Twality Junior High School Lecture Room
14650 SW 97th Ave. ,I Tigard., Oregon
1 •
•
1 CALL TO ORDER: 4•"5 a
m
. chn Bartel l 0
2. ROLL 'CALL. members present. I Bartel, Cook, 'Edin, McMonagle, Wakem,
staff . Powell
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of February 13 meeting were not u
yet available Y g
4. SITE DESIGN & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
4.1 MoDonalds - SDR 6-75
. A request for site� design and architectural review of a proposed
franchise fast foods restaurant at SW Pacific Hwy. and School St.
A. Staff Report: (see attached)
B. Applicant's Presentation:
1. Larry Haugset (Norris, Beggs & Simpson) awaked for clari- .
• fication of staff finding #4 a & e. yk
•
2. Mr. Mel Brook, representing McDonalds, felt exit on School
St. is needed.
3. Mr, attorney for Jack Robertson, dis- '
cussed the easement on School St• for the board
4. Mr. Jack Robertson presented traffic count data on School '
District 23J parking lot adjacent to the site and pedes-
trian counts crossing the site.
I '
C. Opposing Testimony: � , .
1. Mrs. Eleanor Quimby cited danger to school children -
brought up the pedestrian activated signal.
2. Mr. it1umpke, chairman Tigard NPO �� saa said t he NPO is con x
cerned about traffic problems on School St. and on Pacific '
1-Iwy.
1
,
3. Petitions opposing the project were entered in the record i
(attached) . f
4. Letter from Tigard g Public Schools read into record
(attached) , '
D, Board Discussion and Action
I ,
s
1 (
•
•
. 1. Cook Edin discussed traffic probl em -- Coo k suggeste d
that closing School St. exit and reversing traffic flow
may be worse than applicant's plan.
2. McMgnagle said cross traffic at service station entrance
and McDonalds exit is only one problem -- conflict between
deceleration lane in front of school, the entrance/exit '
at School St.and McDonalds northerly access as more
critical.
3. Bartel summarized concerns he had over the pedestrian
activated si nal, the joint access with the service
station and McDonalds and the status of School St„
4. Moved (McMonagle) , seconded (Cook) to deny and request
that McDonalds redesign their site plan with entrance ' •
and parallel to south boundary; shifting driveway from
Standard station property line in order to establish
separation of access drives and the only exit to be
on to School Street, closing the northerly access drive
entirely.
5. Motion to amend (Edin) to have power pole moved, widen
School Street and leave fencing as shown. Died for
lack of second.
6. Original motion (McMonagle) passed unanimously. ,
4.2 Tigard Industrial Park (SDR 3-75)
A request for site design and architectural review of a proposed
light industrial building in an industrial park located at 9920
SW Tigard St.
A. Staff Report (see attached)
B. Applicant's Presentation: Bob Gray, applicant, presented
proposal.
C. Board Discussion and Action
1. Board discussed access through site and whether there
is need for updated site plan/landscape plan.
2. Staff was asked to clarify boundaries of approval area
and if the rear landscaping and parking was included. ,
Staff's inderste.nding was that there would be a final
f; • phase but that the parking lot was to be constructed in
this Phase
3. Motion (Cook) , seconded (Bartel) to accept site plan per ,
staff recommended conditions #1, 2, 3, 4 &6.
D. Architectural Review
SDR Minutes - 2/20/75 page 2
C2 I M 1' / , . +,mw rwan•,wnuwrnurrM ,,5+I ^� ,
A
,.,.I« .,.an,.,.,,.'.I...w,:....«,.N ,........JLL,Ga'. ..,.,.MU.v<i..w k'• •.. '.......1-.,1. .,.,..,
1. Applicant's Presentation: ; •
Mr. Bob Gray said that the b uildin g p lans submitted were 1 '
�ry, ;•
in error and that the elevations would appear the same
as Tigard IV, the building immediately north east of
the proposed Tigard III.
AJ
2. Board Discussion and Action:
Moved (rook) , seconded (Bartel) to accept building as
•
altered by applicant. •
5 OTHER BUSINESS
5.1 Charlotte Olson brought in revised site plans and elevations
for Setniker project to confer with board. Board concensus was
that redesign is much better than that submitted gas pump
location needs attention, existing landscaping needs to be shown
and parking may be still insufficient.
Mrs. Olson said she would not be doing building design, but ,
would furnish design criteria and proposed elevations to •
architect selected by Mr. Setn.iker.
6. ADJOURNMENT: ,
3.O p.m..
•
•
I I I I
I I
r CI
}
. I ,
I I
,
I
i
I I
I 1
1
sbR Minutos 2/20/75 �page ,� I
•
r
r
MINUTES 1 '
e
i
TIGARD SITE DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
February 13, 1975 (Special Meeting)
Twality` Junior High School. -- Lecture Room
14650 SW 97th Avenue, Tigard,and Oregon
1. CALL TO ORDER: /4:40 p.m. , Chairman Bartel
2, ROLL CALL: ' Members present - Bartel, Cook, McMonagle, Kelting
(alternate for Edin) ; staff Powell
3, APPROVAL OF 'MINUTES: moved (Kelting) seconded (Wakem) , to
approve as read the minutes of January 16
and February 6 meetings
Staff requested that agenda he suspended to consider "Shakey's”
architectural review first
5. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW(only)
, te
5.1 SDR 24-74 - Shakey's Pizza
A request for architectural design review of a restaurant to
be part of a previously considered site at SW 69th and Pacific.
A. Applicant's Presentation
Tom Lewis,for Shakey's, presented the plans and displayed
materials to be used.
B. Board Discussion and Action
Board discussion centered on the view of the building offered
approaching passersby from Pacific Highway travelling west
and from 69th St. travelling south.
Moved (Cook) , seconded (Wakem) to approve the building with
the condition that wood shakes be used rather than metal .
seconded (Wakem) amend Cook's m
Moved (Kelting) , econded Wakem) to amen f motion
to require the north and east elevations to' be covered above
the pilasters (parapets) with a natural material (wood
shakes or similar) .
Motion to
amend carried (majority) .
Motion to approve (drawings as red marked) as amended to end I,
carried (unanimous) .
4. SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
4.1 8D 4-75 - Sotniker Auto Repa
. I
4
A request, for site design and architectural review of an auto ,
repair shop On SW Pacific Hwy,
A. Staff Findings
Staff findings (qv) presented by Powell. '
B. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommendation in report was
amended to "denial" with recommendation that board confer
with applicant and that applicant be invited to modify his
plans and return to a subsequent meeting,
C. Board Discussion and Action
1. Board discussed following primary concerns:
a. access and parking for house would require backing
onto a commercial street
b. no minor land partition has been applied for yet
only 1/3 of site is provided for in site plans
c. landscape plan does not identify existing plantings
or the landscaping and maintenance of the ravine
to the rear.
2. Moved (McMonagle) to deny (second Cook) with following
conditions for resubmission and favorable consideration:
a. parking be perpendicular to building or adequate back out
and turning space be provided.
b. take design and future use of entire site into con-
sideration as much as possible
c. move access to site to the west (center of lot) if
feasible and provide joint access ,!to house and shop
d. provide 10 ',_.15 ' additional fill at east end of lot
to provide additional space for parking or turn
building 90 degrees to parallel street.
Motion carried by majority with Kelting opposed.
D. Request by applicant for board to view the architectural plans
for purpose of informal opinion on their admieability if site
plan ok'd subsequently.
Board complied with request and concurred that building needed
some surface treatment and a Tess "tricky" facia than the
proposed false mansard,
6. OTHER BUSINESS - none
ADJOURNMENT - 7:30 0
SDR Minutes -2/13/7.5 page
..... ...............i_.. .t...�.. ..,...... ,,.._ .. ..v.d:..._,. ......_..,.,..._. '. «.,--,. _ ...,..._,-.-,_ ...... F' .1.:,,,.. ,w.,.♦ G...v:... «. ,.k.. .6.......,..i t:a..;.l'., M .,.n m..-». .a...:;.....1» ,d...w::....-.,....... -
'. DESIGN 1 D ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Special Meeting of February 13, 197 5
Staff Report
stR475.
. Applicants �.eques t . .
n
The applicant is proposing to construct a concrete block building ,
to be occupied by an automotive repair and towing operation. This
is a conditional use in the C-3 zone and has been approved by the
City Council, upon appeal, with the following condition:
That wrecked vehicles not be stored on the site and that
any other outside storage of vehicles should be screened.
Staff Finding2
• 1. The staff is concerned that the site is not of sufficient ;a
size to properly support the proposed development. This is
the result of the property being bisected by a drainage way
which renders the rear portion unuseable and also by a non
Conforming use in the form of a single family dwelling which
is proposed to share the frontage with the proposed repair
garage. A relevant point in this regard is the fact that the
tax lot represented as the applicant's when applying for the
` conditional use permit was shown as being measureably larger -
than it actually is (1.4 acres versus ,86 of an acre) . The
staff is sure that this error was unintentional and is not i
suggesting that any impropriety exists. However, it is a
fact that the conditional use permit was granted to place r.
an auto repair and towing service adjacent the existing
house with the understanding that there was 50 feet more
of street frontage than shown on the present plan. This
represents a new item to br; considered by the Design Review
Board: is there sufficient useable land area on the site
to support both an auto repair towing service and a single ,
family dwelling?
2. Submitted drawings do not address the following items
A. signs; design
; location and desi/'gn
♦b
B. grading plan
C. rear 'elevations of building
D. building exterior materials and colors
Staff has therefore not had an opportunity to address
the above issues
3, The parking lot meets the code requirements for patrons
and employees but does not provide for the parking of tow
vehicles The applicant has stated th at he h ad 3 business
vehicles parked on his previous+business site across Pacific
�rehi d
Highway. The above stated-condition of the conditional use P
permit requires that the tow vehicles should be screened
t
I' A r -e ., ..-.. `., ... ..,., u.,'.4444. (•lCl ,.,7 ..k.
R a.rf lu. ,✓♦ w.h:... 7~..'4-4,t.aB.ti..lJ..+.14lta.f-tad t+.A-k-YLM:;OR'
• I
y ° from public view. No such area is indicated on the sub' .
•
mitted site plan. In addition, the staff finds that the i
parking plan does not 'provide, sufficient room for backing
out and maneuvering. fj •
4. A sight obscuring fence is not provided adjacent the resi '
dential zone as required by section 18 60.200 of the Tigard
Municipal Code. In addition, in that the applicant has •
chosen to continue the residential use on the property, the ;
staff questions if this dwelling should not be granted -the
same consideration provided properly zoned residential 'uses ,.
by also providing the necessary screening.. In this re ,ard,
the_-submitted plan proposes removing the car port and ~,rive-
w way of the subject dwelling in order to provide parking space
for the auto repair-towing business. Due to the site's
topography, a fence would not be effective along the boundary .
of the residential and commercial zones and possibly this
money would be better spent in screening the existing house.
5. Parking provided for 1 the house meets minimum parking stanW-
dards but is located in a 10 ' set back area where landscaping
is required.
I
i
Staff Recommendation
0
Staff is concerned that an effort is being made to "squeez e' the
• proposed auto repair-towing business and existing house onto too small
an area being a detriment to both. The staff finds that the best
solution to this problem is to remove the house, thereby providing •
sufficient space for the proposed business. In fact, the house
appears to be located in the proper location for the proposed building.
Following this recommendation will result in a better utilization of
the a pp licant's property by providing room for the existing business
as well as expansion. space. The house therefore appears to present a '
liability as regards the commercial development of this property.
The recommended action is tabl i n g
to allow a revision of the site
plan according to the staff recommendation. '
i III
,• I
SDR R S taff report rt
February l
3) 19
75.
-
pa
g e
2 ,
�
4444.., .. ........ .... . . . _.. _. ,,.. .,:
4444.:.
....., ..•. ... ....... . _4444 . , ' , 4444.., . , . 4444 ,.
1t'
•�+ ...... .y4-i.. ,., ..,.,..,a,;.. .� .. •.... .._.._. .,.�I.+.�..., ,,,;.,e:y,..,` 'C..w�,w... ,.1 � ,..;.,.`. .,..i.,.......i.• ._.�_.�. .. :...�..•...•.�. ,..,.... w... V 210.088 0
y , 1 1.
iii
. , 2 iiii''N 1 /401 ,
P K.
/ t4fr ' ' 156
•
zap
, 0 ' '
:list, /y 4, 14.,„
,, ,,,,,\i ,,
0----, i 7
I a 0 ' ' 1
N,
, .
. „,,„
Y y,rr
s ,
y INA ,
PAVED •I 13B• L.
195.E
OP .
/ .1 Illop //,..„6.zi' ,00 ,‘ 1., .,„
S .
/ 1 ,,'''''' .
1 1 r j II, \
. 74\
\ .
■ . ; I (:) Iiit . l % hl * .
't2) ‘ 466 Nt, 'VD , •/' \ I I
ztt • : . \ ,i .::
111111A44 ...../ / \
,
II
PVD, �
1 .,�, '''''`�
1 GAS PIMP i ,� " ' ► {.
*PAVED y �; r�
•
. . * ''''4
tee/ I fir' .-'"/�/ ;
vAir ..,:fi-,,,., .,:,:.,,,:. ,1 - i.
.3., 110 0,a ,
. .rill .
h i'
1'.
0
•
t 1 t--,. 0:::, _ :,; ,, I 1.. ,
'c.a.7 6 4 -.., -, 1, 1
.„....... ,
, ‘ „ '116 .
ca
• i
4 e I .,
i .. . , ..„--,. , .. ....,„„ 1, \ i
., ,
i 4 7.._,,,,,\„. .
..
. ,
t ,,
4,.,
•
$
It;
. .
I . it : . .
.,
,, .® . . - ,
F. . y
� «r .. " ... , „- . ems.,_ - . " ,,,
µ.
c
� I 4 .,,,,
. .
P ' '' . "44°', " scot „ ... 4'• �,,, I M',•,..
.. ./. :. .... _ .41‘—'1,'"' ' ' ''.' -; ;'','''...' '. '., .4' ''.' ,.. °,4'. -9.'.... A ' ,„„,,,,,,„,02 , ...,49.,:,,„fr., ..c././ite„„,,l'.,;‘,...o.re,04014s.. „. .... 1 ..,.„...•.:
. . ., ..':;'4.,yr,mo$1, ele- fits=
, .
4 . 141, ,
, .
. : . .:, ,f, .. : , ,,►*�s y�
. . , . .. .
t 1• . � ' a,s v ° .' , . c. _ x40, � ., . . • . • ' •
' ':11410°V IES' '0144—.4.':,s, v. • . s.•----, .... .... . , 6,0.1o',4 . ., ...foorill,,cont.tolts,..--"._ ,.. :. . ', ; F. . k
a
. . ' ' 644 ear,Witl I&d , , ,p04001(.s, ,,., edie4,4, 0010L'oti,e4H ,''' ,g
. .
c Viet .0 ..yam*' icif ., R?'?: Odm •
. .,
. ... ,.-:.' .:. .. . '.• • , 0474 cl"ticiao. 6004,. ,-.,-7- 6.,,,,,-.1t,,t. :5,...ple,.. ---,- ...h"',.4.0J4e,.4'.., ,,,,— )..,.:'.''.. .: ,,. ,.,, , ,
, ,. ,„
1 ,
. h .ok.' i .,', . 1:. ',...,... ., . , '' '.' . ,.,.. ,.. ..... 1. ,,.. ., ..', , ,,„,
,• ,
. . . . , 1 . .
. . . , .
, .
.. , .„. . . • ..„, .,
. . . . .
. . , • , . . . 1._ ", .
. . .. .
. . .
. , . , . , . . ,
,, . ,,. , \, , ', .'. . 51.:itigli. C.,,C' t 4CA ,.7::', 1441, .. ,i 0 is.49`,4'144„4.1f',6.A .1*.'Involgoli.. ..... .-, . .nt.rov, ' 44%4 taihH., '.- ' ., - , ' .
. . 4,40,44i' (1.• iLittfidc : '..• • 04,040;40.1.4. -4,e,..,'(I'4,41.1' "tr'.I''014.1.e,•„ .,'il.'o.'of'' .,„4!.-1#0.V,!.......H....- ''' _.'''.'•''. i • .
.. . . . . . .
., , ,
, .
, , i • • ,..• ..• .t. .• ..t.,.. . .. . ..04,
so Ey t.e.,, 's.i•;,',..4:404,. el up att4„:04'0,lile'ff.614',..i11044&‘.' id4en.t..144,i,t.„, fs, .. .. '.... . ...'',
, ,. .. ,',440,. t.,,,,-.' 40.iii'it,. , _ , . H ,. .: ., . , .....: .. ' ..
, , ,
. . . .,. . f .
. . ®'/ ' '- ,.
•
, : .0,41 t. 1.74,. .4:41,... pliwilo.4,.01:,•'..of, mi444.74, .. .. "0,4.c,, ,-...S.. .,_ .. ..„... . . . , .. '
c . 1 •
a.
'
i
•
• kdra:� tj7i
^ ,
% 1�
o,, /'p im;9r. - e _ 4', • . U, r n ' .„.. r f. ” t, I ,i F•..
•
r
0 ✓'
0 �' '" `*l . P fah P K.1 4 ,56
' )e1/4' 0 r.., -...--
da
6 dl t y<,.,„,, co 4 Q ' .
,, . 1\0 .
c \,,
' ' -- ' 44* ) . 0
0 00
f) /
/
\ 1 f;\e,>11' '1) V
''‘1 . 1 erI '11%* I, .S.,' S\ ,,,,, BR.
i .. ,, ,,. ./\,, illiN,.C")..........:<„, i 0 \
X.
• µ / 4\ ' .2 1 , . , .
• 1 '�aI' 1/ ,rye{
`r V/' t` //rr PAN F'n # B9.
•
Y 95x2 ' +2'°
c., ,, Li 0
c ,,,,,.,
, - . 1 #
r-,_,„, \ /
„ / I" ., t /1 i r ,J
...)... /.:4). 2.0 J r o 1
1,E>c (. ..:1\.:3 ' / / 'E"
) .011
\ I / '
-41' on PARK' 1 . S T, ,_,," ,/�;,�'/' . ..
„,, 0, '", a M'-- r/ �1 �"
, , ...A.4.-.— "4,, ' c,s3, cx. .,i ti•
..,:, -, .', \ 7 t , \ /
\-'*-- ,..-- ",,
, , : , \ / 8',r;vD,,...//:,:-.'" el:, ., ,„..,''ff' GAS PUMP IL _pnA�/JCCryry
,'"M^.^;,,-`,' ;; \ it-!-M X E D f` 1 l • ( 1 rev 74.4 ' k\\\ \ •,•—..jx— 1.,, -
'' ' F �,1\ _ e Iy.�. If.
/ ' r �' 1 C3 .."'s '''Is i (// , I /
;.. ,^'7 ''s of ' 1 .•
• ...,�, \'q ,�may„„ � "�' q,{ '' 110 .y-�- '''+'*"'"""
`
'.h I
h 7�, jf •;fiI l / :4(1"
I si, 830 / : '
"c3 - _
. IH
! \1/y` , end ✓ 4 ..
ee, ii// /
t., /cif/ i , . , /l i i , \ ''''' \ . I'; . ,
, •,4 (k..1 I i 11 ' O. j
C181 c''...A\ t
, ' ik I \44,,,7</P1 S.. '4.7,, v .:.' , lc i ,
5..."\ ,e,,,,,„A 4
. , C.B. // '''''''''''s.„:.... or 1 ,/, ,
\ ,,,........,,, 4
4,/, f ,
,,,,.,.-' e:,,,7e lf A
<'"4..„,
yt.,- x.._,s4.4)..c'''N\-1/4,*,„s\ ,. 4 , 1 tr)
-,,s, ////\\,/\,,,,,,e,-,,,>„\ tk,,,„,. .
, .
N-.:#:..i., .. by "� q\1X , .. , 0 ite.,,... .... 1.:ch,
1.14), eC 0
n•.. u
•
n , ., ,• ,, . .. .... ,..,w,n,......,.. ...• ..., ,,,_w,_.., ._... .. k �u 1.�.. ... __M JI- ,. _ _..M., .M_„.. . .µ....,. •., ._ .., 1
n
01 SON DESIGNS INC.
., 14345 SOUTHWEST PACIFIC HIGHWAY GERALD A.OLSON
C A
T
EIZBU,.Y SQUARE
CHARLOTTE J.OLSON,Designer
TIGARD,OREGON 97223
, PHONE: 639-0513
� I,
t
,
•
• , . `',�• Fir, John Setn ke °
S. 14„ Pet.olio Fivje
•
I
Building Oo o
23
, •
4 6 TALISMAN
M
•
, i
d 4803 ANTIQUE BROWN
�yty
,,,i } ,, I ! 1�r aar� , 9 6.z 1 -N6
Irk;+a )1; }t t., 4y� r,,d}., ',44..4,, g ar w ./ ir,„,4„,s a ,
LA,i�i p1f� A � �S r`k tMMy'
e»,..4..,,,.r. ,M ;44,,a 41'4,,.. 444:.,"«..>,,i m4? :. ',144",,Q,',,,,,,,,,,1, -
r 4205 ITALIAN 001-iRE
I� 4 ('1 1 'I P i 4,) M 4 r 1 4"4,1
✓.,1+ t f ..,,,6 s 6)1 ,1{i3[ q x a',,}yn7 .(!
e Y' 1 d IY V "', �'ti t4`K I Y , ter 112'1('
n V' �,nx�"Ir.61 it i l 1 t''' r,1 w k} k+� ,91SIt ,,f
a 't'I''''''a r��1z'Jv lit r}h� r,r1 l ,.1,'•'',•••i'• le';IS ..l`Ir 1a,
� r r W I r �1,�4 111•1 �,
r�,xyt A'.14Lti I 1r'o �4r 9"c��}IS��"' 1� y,l
f 1G if1 ldlr1_ak 1414 �.r,,,,,-I u9a x3-''I >C �1
1 6+'{ „.4,1,1 ,,, w 61.' i r 1t ,t r.,i^cr;Ir�41.', at
s a 1 �.n, 4
Door �{ �yq ofru rK�r ,,'i t"',11, ,f 41�r�1,, r,rys;5rr ,,,6 f,;frtulr�{
D o 4.O.iu SrI V'+.,,o I M - Z ui lr{' >PAf ft,1 j�p!�,'1 t.6,f, t�` _r r(r 1�1
,',.714.1, ,47t+, yrll ..1 " , , }r, h;,
.c ,n„r c. 1-•C.,� .a.
1. 4201 .S. 8RRY . °•
r
.
a I
.1
• , •
,
nh:rrraxt+crwer?4:^Jza•r,,,'ft,r»
zv,i,we,re 4,
• I a
i
,f, rn �� r••,,, I. ice."sv.'Im,'R. 4,,,,,r . , ,..p,, 4 ••.4 it , 4
-. • .
. .
, .
• :
. .
.' t
:., .
.. , .
: „
,,.
• , • .' .".."""'" "..... ' v
.I
. .
. ..
.•
p. 4
. ' November 24, 1998 4400 ill . ..
-111 , li
• •
CITY OF TIGARD
, ,..,.
.
. ,
. . Ralph Miser
OREG014 4 ,.
. 3795 Portland Road, NE
,
Salem, OR 97303
, .
Dear Mr. Miser:
. • . ,
• . ,, This letter is in response to your request for Minor Modification approval to modify the site
',.
. at 13340 SW Pacific Highway to allow canopy sales and outdoor storage of truck canopies.
: ' This property is zoned General Commercial (CG). The existing use of the site is
-411 •
.. .' automotive repair. Approval was granted for this site in 1975 (SDR 4-75/CU 11-74). The
, proposed use of the site, Automotive Equipment sales/rentals, light equipment, is listed as ,
, • . • a permitted use for this zoning district. The Tigard Community Development Code, Site
. , . ,
.:, Development Review Section, states: "if the requested modification meets any of the
major modification criteria, the request shall be reviewed as a new Site Development , .
• . Review application." S
. 0 • .
Section 18.120.070(B) states that the Director shall determine that a major
, •
. modification(s) will result if one (1) or more of the following changes are proposed:
•
.
• 1„ An increase in dwelling unit density, or lot coverage for residential .
development. The proposal does not involve a residential development,
,
.. therefore, this standard does not apply.
.
• 2. A change in the ratio or number of different types of dwelling units, This .
criteria is not applicable as this request does not involve a residential development
. .
' •
' • 3. A change that requires additional on-site parking in accordance with Chaptcv•
18.106. The required parking for this use is one (1) space per 1000 square feet of
,
CI • •
u ri gross floor area, but not less than four (4) spaces. The square footage of the '
, structure is 1,920 square feet, therefore, the minimum of four (4) parking spaces is
,, required. The site has an existing asphalt area which, according to the original site
r.,i .
plan can accommodate up to nine (9) parking spaces. The applicant's proposal .
shows six (6) parking spaces plus one (1) ADA space. The existing parking spaces .
I ' do riot appear to be striped, Striping of the parking spaces must be done prior to final
i
If *, modification approval. Provided the existing asphalt area is striped to allow for the,
.,. ..„. ..
number of parking spaces originally approved, this modification does not require
additional on-site parking, ,
4. A change in the type of commercial or industrial structures as defined by the , v
\ ' Uniform Building e. No change in the structure of the building is proposed, V
/
' /
■ 4
\i' )
13125 SVV Hall Blvd.,Tigard,'C)i 97,223 (503)639-4171 IDD(503)684-2772 1 -
o
age P 1 f 3
.-,
c
, ; 1
/. ,
, .
. . . • -
.
. . .
, g ,
, ?,
.
1,I,
•
.,,`.. , • ■ .
, .
,.• i ,
' ..''' ' 5. An increase in the height of the building(s) by more than 20 percent. No
• •
' . - change in the height of any building is proposed.
et.
, 0
4,•
. '' - 6. A change in the type and location of accessways and parking areas where ,.
. . , ..
off-site traffic would be affected. This request will not require a change in
• ' • accessways or parking areas where off-site traffic would be affected. .
,
,. • • 7. An increase in vehicular traffic to and from the site, and the increase can be i „ .
' expected to exceed 20 vehicles per day. The applicant has stated that based on .
„. - experience at their other locations, the site would not have more than 20 vehicle
- , .':•. trips per day, let alone exceed the current trips per day by 20 additional vehicle •
• . trip. ,
• .,, 8. An increase in the floor area proposed for a nonresidential use by more than
. .
„ ' 10 percent excluding expansions under 5,000 square feet. The proposal does .
not result in an increase in floor area, therefore, This standard has been met.
, ..
•
, ..
. •
' 9. A reduction in the area reserved for common open space and/or usable open .
c -
. V. space which reduces the open space area below the minimum required by
, .. • this code or reduces the open space area by more than 10 percent. There is
no area reserved for common open space, therefore, this standard does not apply. i '
,,
, .
, 10. A reduction of project amenities (Recreational facilities, Screening; and/or,
,
Landscaping provisions) below the minimum established by this code or by
'
, more than 10 percent where specified in the site plan. The applicant has
:
. ..,,,
, , indicated that the proposed use and storage will not reduce the current amount of
• / . landscaping. The applicant has stated that the proposed storage area will be on •
, . ,
4
existing gravel rock, adjacent to the paved parking lot. In order for staff to confirm
.• .
what is currently on the site, the applicant must submit a plan that shows the •
location of existing asphalt existins 'ravel and existin• landsca•in.. It does not
appear, however, that even if some landscaping were required to be removed that
,, the landscaping would be reduced below the required 15%.
• .
. .
,
, •
, 11. A modification to the conditions imposed at the time of Site Development
t. ,.
Review approval which are not the subject of B. 1 through 10 above. Based
A
' on review of SIDIR 4-74, it does not appear that the requested modification will
,•• preclude or hinder conformance to the Conditions of Approval, therefore, this
Y
• '• / standard has been satisfied, , .
• 7,,
This request is determined to be a minor modification to an existing site, The Directors
designee has determined that the proposed minor modification of this existing site will
promote the general welfare of the City and will not be significantly detrimental, nor
, injurious to surrounding properties provided that development which occurs after this •
, . dacision complies with all applicable local, state, and federal laws.
J.
. ,
. -
, .......____
, 11/24/98 Ralph Miser Letter Page 2 of 3
. , Re: Minor Mod,Approl for 13340 SW Pacific Highway
,
( ' 4 4• 1 ' - . ' ..:•, ' Y---- ”
• , •
' . . , A ' n • A ' , , ' "
. ., , ' 1
K. 1
n y I W I.
S
� REQUEST�� ������E:�APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: � � .
s
I. Stripe the number of parking spaces as approved with SDR 4-74/CU 11-74. i,.
R
• 2. Submit a plan that shows the location of existing asphalt, gravel and landscaping. if j''
landscaping is to be removed to accommodate canopy storage, calculate. the, 1,
percentage of landscaping that will remain after the canopy storage is in place:
a If y o u'need additional information or have e and questions,, please call me at(503) 6�g 4i 7�. 11
A Sincerely,
t
•
Julia Powell Hajdu •,
Associate Planner ,
isIcurpinljuGlmin lr�odlmiseP,tloc ,�
. o 1 998 correspondence file
SDR 4-74/CU 11-74 on microfilm
f to
.1 I/) t
•
r
.
.
4.
i l/24/0 ri Ralph Miser Letter Page 3 of 3 , .
Vie: Minor Mod4 Approval for.18340 SW Pacific Highway
A ,