The URL can be used to link to this page

SDR6-75 POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm.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. . ,.. .-. . tii:,w2�«�ti H;�F» vtim..J�;"'..�� 7� .1� .w.r,M1,.u'.0 w �«� i Iw�1 ;dt a i �'•,)..t At_.' ";.,,_I',aH...4ati,r.t..+.;� ,-:•?1-51'.„µ�.,,,-.,'r.:r.;.:cii,c,`.-, «u:m'L,,ii i,.w',,, ,r..n.,rn AAA, 4.S „ M , . w 'A' b � CD"'�,lYCA µii., N t ,Y 4J;�� C, ,!•,,.4 j „ .'�w''1V� . „ '4�, 1.. , 0 ..,.. a r,.i _ ,,r. „w r.h. w,..ww.ww, :....u, .; i...._;< iru°+tWol WE aw+,YYa4nwt:i .«.-. arii.!n,...» .«,.u..,:wrd., rr,..;.i1l.:...,ii_...,,Ml'c...,..ry.....r..r._.i.t.,-«,1w..:..i.k'-a..RU» • . . n r { • I I r' . I' jr • . . r, )' ■ r I p i 1.. • li i; • 1iit ii ,wt ' a A' . I , t r o ■ ... a u .. s... .. �..W� .e 4"4 ..... ..+..4'4 ....,.N,w,;4''', ✓'-'..i, A'i.t... _ :'n...+'-rt..r. ....:'' ,L.-s'.:A".vAti.''''''..'' r t . girl A M " �i -,,,,,,,,p,',p Ii N r A i,'� 1. 1 Y/� .e' Tr �►�. t.,l 1975 1'IA DEPARTMLiNT *IF „: v,,,„ r ,;(5 CITY GE TIGARD ' G , ti,,„..„ ,,,.�i 1, / t. r0 1 . . 1' A 'i r "�3 it L„82., gg. o r . 1234 S.W. MORRISON STREET 0 PORTLAND, ORE. 97205 0 Telephone (503) 229-5279 ROBERT W. S T:E AU13 GOVERNOR , Mr. 011ie Lund „ 3150 NE 143rd Avenue Portland, Oregon 97230 � , Re: Request for Additional S • Information, McDonald's, Tigard •• Dear Mr. Lund: y; I r As I indicated in our telephone conversation on July 3, 1975, (� . additional information is needed in order to complete the application f' for construction of an 81-space parking facility for the proposed • McDonald"s Restaurants 13225 SW Pacific Highway, Tigard. Specifically, the Department needs written confirmation from you that a 20% discount ' on transit tickets or passes will be provided for those employes • �' desiring to use the bus service to and from work.„I If Tri-i'let desires, i and the City of Tigard is in agreement, a bus shelter may be required as a condition of this approval . ' pp y' . Our computer analysis of the proposed restaurant indicates that • no significant increase in air contaminants will be caused by the con- 1 stru'ction of this facility. The Department will be prepared to issue i a proposed permit for the facility upon receipt of your confirmation p • of the transit incentive program. If there are any questions , please advise,. 1 Sincerely LOREN KRAMER Director ) '' . R. M, Johnson ■ Env i ronmenttal Specialist RMJ:mh ,,,„€4, c c:«, i gar d Planning Department bill Hall , Tri-Meg r bEc'.1 ' , -rlir ( . ; ) , . . . • ':ti,...,.._.,.,4,,,,.«_._,. e.,...-,..«:1,., .r.. ._., ...,�.,..,,..a'w_...«.a.._...•..,...,,..u,,.,....._...,a,:,:.,.,,..,iw"t, .._.c,:..„ter,.,w.,u..,,� ._._ y,».v.. •,r~.., .. ,. - , •yoa.AA.. +v wF'.•W:i.- ,I.u. sAtlkJr•L.tJk+.i.•,«..,a"1.:.:1:.1,YF,F»i..':JM«S,'dY'«:+.1',. l'..5i ! n, 'u...,.1t :„JaMd«.h.,.✓.7..,uwS4.,-;,..«.-u...rx'..X453„55+«,v,:«1wa1_,«rx:"•tdSA1u: • MINUTES Tigard Site Development & Architectural Design Review Board June 24, 1975 ' • Tigard City Hall, 12420 SW Main St. , Tigard, Oregon CALL 1. TO ORDER O The meeting was called to order by acting Chairman Cook at 5.10 p.m. , o Staff welcomed McMona le, Cook and Olson to the Design Review ' Board, these members having been appointed b y Council the preceeding week to fill vacancies created by the resignations of Cook, McMonagle and Bartel. 2. ROLL CALL, Present were Cook, Hammes, McMonagle (late) , Olson and Wakem, staff: Powell 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the preceeding meeting were not -• available able a•t time of meeting. 4. COMMUNICATIOWS: None •M . PROJECT T REVIEW SDR 17-75 (Tigard Water District Administration Building) A request for review of a proposed remodeling of an office building and fire station at 8841 SW Commercial Street A. Site Development Review 1. Staff Report ti o Pow e report r verbally .e •. , Powell read staff and reported on the status of the Ash Avenue Dedication. o Recommendation was for approval with conditions as outlined in the staff report 2. Applicant's Presentation o Bob Santee told the Board what he intended and s in the .,staff report ,�,.. addressed the staff's comments 3: Publio Testimony n•,1 o e Gr ..' lich Valle �7'o eu. of Tualatin Valley Fire District read a letter from the District Beard and indicated he • iO4,.w �.ao, • Lax _ r,A r4se r a ..».+A .. :. • 1.a.,M.-...*•.4-I,.+FIe.. ,,,,..i.t+F.' rJ.r.,^A•.rM..........,MUr i v ;,.aoJ2l,;k., LaxHl..u-ti....•...„..,,5.,}.«..,,... ,J..,,4k....cn „,+4:.i+,a-'..•F,,3C..« rar • � • I till") . was attending as a representative of the fire district. 4. Board Discussion and Action o Board discussed the need for parking on the site ' and possible interference with parking of land- . soaping if all present code requirements were met. o Greulich asked that attention, be given the needs of the fire station for good visibility of the street. He said the fire district had not been aware that there was any problem with the Ash Avenue dedi- ca-tio,n. o also o Discussion touched a� on the probability of the Commercial Street Local Improvement District be- coming active this year. o Motion for approval (McMonag►-e) subject to staff recommendation that a 5 'ftG sidewalk and 10 feet of landscaping be provided on Ash Avenue, that landscaping on Commercial St. be held in advance until such time as the Commercial St. L. I. D. might be undertaken. The staff is to review the landscape plan and plant types which will be sub- ject to staff. approval o Seconded, (Wakem) o Passed (unanimously) B. Architectural Design Retrieve 1. Applicant's Presentation Applicant described the proposed remodeling and the facial treatment proposed. ►,' 2. Board Discussion and Action 0 Board discussion with the applicant related to : (a) The g . . s between the stucco blending of surface e remodeled portion and the concrete block ock older portion, and the difficulty of dealing with that transition ' p1 (b) They discussed the two roof lines proposed and the existing parapet wall and the 1 relationships between those elements . (o) The s structural integrity of the remodeling where frame structure was to be added to a • a l 4 ' " . ft .«�........„w,4,.:.:.;n4w.t..:. «...r._ ;is,-•...:.4-»x.;:.ta.vKrk:t+...:n..e'e.......:e-.:',u:..wrM.aU.;+..ly,".l..we..;h.5rc,7:+x;a.T.ti.,:r:..._ ,..:...:7:..kwl::.„=..:.:, „— ....:..U,.tiwh::-.o-.+.«:.::''..:N.::.f 'wM..:.,..t✓'�'.»C.i;.`l0.",.?i;.*. % concrete block lower and the difficulty pointed out by the applicant with respect to unknown footing qualities. • (d) They discussed the difficulty presented by w differing door heights and window heights on the existing portion of the building to re- ° main as is and discussed the structural aspects of the proposed remodeling. o Motion to approve as drawn (Hammes) ec 0 Seconded on d Ols o n o Discussion of the motion pointed out that ''as drawn" inc luded surface treatment and "roof detail”. o Olson pointed out the 'code defined responsibility of the Board for improving the appearance of Tigard. o Motion defeated (Hammes voting for) o Discussion continued concerning the. appropriate use of a false mansard and the viability of the , proposed two layered mansard. , .. o The Board. offered alternatives including.- (1).' the o � • aint and texture to cars the "functional' use f carry p design of the building with the proposed remodeling; , (2) to apply wood siding to the proposed remodeling thereby setting the remodeled portion distinctly apart; or to use a full story ,mansard on the 2 story portion. o Applicant (Mr. Santee) said he felt the Board was trying to impose their esthetics on the building 4 and that many people had told him they thought his design was an improvement over the existing building and that he had a severe budget constraint r on what he could do. o The Board pointed out l that none of their "suggestions would add to the cost of the remodeling. o Mr. said g ... �sbedrawn by an o Santee aa.d his design tY� fire 1district ough.t it was good as' had the . board. o Consensus of the Board hat ar was. that architectural whould be resubmitted design by the applicant' rather than amended b• � the .bard and approved with rather y ; approved applicant `would.have to coordin- ate such amendments as � , ve ate his design with the fire district board. Motion denied based o n findings a redesign of o o ` dings `iha�t cede s�.gn o a a the building fascaoe would be necessary to con- . form with the intent of the Architectural Design Review Ordinance and stating that the applicant could resubmit his plan at any time to be heard further by the Architectural Design Review! Board. 1 o Seconded (Olson) • o Approved unanimo, � � � pD ( asly4� 6. OTHER BUSINESS A. Election of officers o Nominations were opened by acting Chairman Cook • o Nominated for Chairman was McMonagle; for vice-chairman, was Cook. o There were no further nominations and the nominations wexe declared closed b y Chairman Cook. o Motion to cast unanimous ballot (Waktm) o Seconded (Hammes) . o Approved •(unanimously) B. Staff read the memorandum submitted to Design Review Board concerning McDonald's current plan. Discussion by the Board ' of the plan the Board had considered and the plan submitted by McDonald's, indicated they felt the staff's red line drawing conformed with their intent. Staff reported that Mr. Mike Emert, who had indicated he would attend this meeting, had called earlier to indicate 1 he would be unable to attend. 7. ADJOURNMENT: 7:15 p.m. 4 . .. t • n- ' - H , . , : , „H „ „ H , . ,I I ' ' ' '' ' ' 'la ', j4 i • 'n`` f;,.,J • . . k, , i � r : 0 co " d 'ae t o �poratic�. . 2471 East &iy'shore Drive Suite +•. 1 � : H, the Tigard City Council, turned down an appeal by adjacent I pr opert7 owners and appro red t e si e plan and des gn plan , • ,With, the following condi.tibx . 2. That Planning pl4nning,' stafY will word, with t a appl,cant in order 'to ', H revise the site deve ..op ent plan according to changes r. necess ±ted by the required° change$, and conditions. . p ! t' the p arki g a be ex p anded teward Park - rear rid' ` her bu i14ing, '.,. '. That additions l trees� be r :v ded ��lon, the "east° 41 � � � along si .e of the, site similar to the' north side. 5,4 That ` ' in ,plan d. cel ' • service station and redesign plantings in those areas' to coordinat better. ' • • - . . urh .rove �e s ' 'fie provided on Pa rk Street and on Grant Street (or the : : the right ,to„remonstrate y Sincerely I I .I I r i f "'' ..HCitY Fkeoorder ' so ' fi . , , I ( ±�1 r NV , • (a) Motion to adopts Councilman Mickelson;, seconded by Councilman Barkhurst. (b) Motion by Councilman Cook to remove the emergency clause in section 6; seconded by Councilman Mickelson. { Amendment approved by 3-2 vote of Council. Mayor Bishop and Councilman Barkhurst voting NAY. Council discussed proposed ordinance as amended. (c) Motion to adopt ordinance was approved by 3-2 majority vote of Council. Roll call of vote as follows: Councilman Barkhurst AYE, Councilman Cook NAY, Councilman Mickelson AYE, Councilman Moore, NAY, Mayor Bishop AYE. • As ordinance did not receive unanimous vote, it will be read second time at next , ;\ Council meeting. ' Recess 10:05 P. M. - meeting reconvened l0020 P. M. 3. APPEAL - Appeal of May 27, 1975 decision by the Tigard Design Review Board, approving the site development and architectural plans for a McDonald's Drive-In Restaurant facility on S. W. Pacific Highway between School Street and Park Street (tax map 2Sl 2CB, tax lot 300). (a) Council discussed the fact of an improperly constituted Design Review Board in that • three members are non-residents of the City. Question under consideration was if their action was invalid, should the Council hold a public hearing. • Attorney Anderson read his opinion that where the action of the Design Review Board was invalid, there was no action and due to inaction within the 30 day period of time the plan was approved. Council, staff, members of the audience, reviewed the past two months events and City Planner gave synopsis of background of submission of plans. Members of the audience who testified are: ' Bill McMonagle Mrs. Scheckla Attorney Louis Fasano • • Donald Regher, S. W. School St. • Mr. Rulon Garrett Lucy Mayernik, S. W. Chippewa Trail, Tualatin (b) Motion by Councilman Barkhurst to hear the appeal; seconded by Councilman Cook. ,/e Motion passed by 4.1 vote of Council with Councilman Mickelson voting NAY. (c) Public Hearing Opened. Attorney Fasano representing McDonald's, and Mr. Jack Robertson, stated he wished to challenge the right to heat the appeal, and if the appeal is proper,; as well as if the Council holds a public hearing the issue be limited to the questions filed in the letter of appeal. City Planner gave background of facts Attorney Fasano stated, as a matter of record, this was an improper hearing in that the applicant,failed to receive notice of the appeal., Testimony by proponents - Attorney Fasano Testimony by opponents. Stewart Moore Mrs. Bibianne Scheckla bon Regher, S. W. School St. Rulon Garrett Mike Myers, S. W. 110th Page 4 - Council Minutes.,, June 0, 1075 )41 , • Cross Examination and rebuttal.' Attorney Lou n Fasano �. Public Hearing Closed. (d) Consideration by Council. Council discussed testimo n y and propex p rocedure under the existing problem as well as closing off exit on S. W. Park Street. • • (e) Motion by Councilman Nickelson to deny the appeal; close off S. W. Park Street exit and retain the right to review; approve the plans and conditions as placed by the Design Review Board; motion seconded by Councilman Moore. Motion passed by 4-1 vote of Council with Mayor Bishop voting NAY. ;! Mee '., aeen 12:25 A. M. - reconvened 12:35 A. M. 14. VARIANCE REQUEST BISSETT & OREGON BANK (a) Continued from May 12, 1975 meeting Public Rearing Opened. (b) Statement of facts by Planning Divector. (c) Public Testimony. None Public Hearing Closed. 4° (d) Motion by Councilman Barkhurst to approve the variance request and staff recommendations; seconded by Councilman Moore. Approved by unanimous vote of Council„ • ' 15. APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS - RESTROOMS JACK PARK (a) City Administrator recommended Council approve plans and specifications, subject to City Legal Counsel final review, and authorize the calling for bids. (b) Motion by Councilman Moore to Approve plans and specifications and call for bids; seconded by Councilman Barkhurst. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. ' 16. APPROVE PENSION PLAN AMENDMENTS - BANKERS LIFE (a) City Administrator commented the amendments would bring the pension plan in conformance With requirements set by the 1974 legislature. (b) Motion by Councilman Cool, to approve the amendments to the pension plan and authorize execution; motion seconded by Councilman Barkhurst. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 17. RESOLUTION No. 75.29 - A RESOLUTION DISCONTINUING THE SPECIAL ROAD FUND, AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OP BALANCE THEREIN TO THE GENERAL FUND AND AUTHORIZING THE DEPOSIT OF COUNTY ROAD TALC REVENUES TO THE CITY-STATE TAX STREET FUNI. E.. (a) Motion to adopt: Councilman Moore; seconded by Councilman Cook. Approved by unanimous vote of Counoili 18. ORDINANCE 75-30 AN ORDINANCE CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THE 24th DAY OF • y 1975, PURPOSE OF SUBMIT TANG TO THE LEGAL VOTERS BASE THE JUNE, 1.975 FOR THE P1f�Pb5 ' CITY FIVE (5) MEASURES TO LEVY TAXES IN EXCESS OP THE TAX FOR CI Y S GENERAL FUND FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING ITEMS I,C1975, AND ENDING. JUNE 30 1976 FIXING AN EFFECTIVE D TL THE t �� EGINNING J'U � � .'" DATE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Page 5 - Council Minutes JUAe 9, 1975 • 4 4 • •-■1," 4 .1,1. P 44. ... I CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City Council at New Fowler Junior High Lecture Room, 10865 S. W. Walnut, on June 9, 1975, at 8:00 P. M. with respect to the following: Proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Tigard, creating a new zone, (C-3-M) differentiating between General Commercial (C-3) properties located on Pacific Highway and those located in the Main Street area. An appeal of a May 27, 1975 decision by the Tigard Design Review Board, approving the site development and architectural plans for a McDonald's drive-in restaurant facility on S. W. Pacific Highway between School Street and Park Street (tax map 2S1, 2CB, tax lot 300). All interested persons may appear and be heard in favor of or against the said proposal. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL • Doris Hartig City Recorder - TT publish June 5, 1975 • • -1 ( • ;_.. 1 ,.,,, -.,".w.4.:xa..4144.�.ra.4,,,...u...,,44,-.2..,,,...,....1,,,,,.....:c.w.:�r.,..a.....a. ..e.,wu _,,..w,, r.4».w ,,,, ,47:44w,..l i...�w.::4:t+7.1tw..,a, ". ..,,.",..r . i *L i , I r • • \ I i 1 1 II AFFIDAVIT or PUBLICATION 4 1 , . STATE �, C�'`."? 11,p',..4 \Y vl {i4 Z,„ r .',rt., ,7,,t+t«...,«.,, „�0.,., ° OF OREGON, 'jai t . � 1 ,. �,;; a ss�' tirr '' 0 0&' � 4 . : I. G$ ah ,;; , COUNTY OF'WASHINGTON /a '; �,_ r.' "i' F��;. �G r b , ! '� ��,' Ili ryl�fi'i. "`' y L,�y'..� � '°f I rt.,t 1177,yy A-p -I r Y!y,1 n 'L^" ' `4) _Jsi{�!'�,y5i 4 Ntr 0 r M f d : 1:1^7 Il J �q rr g duly ► p say m the publisher Y' _,. d being first dul sworn, depose and sa that T a ex -_--- _--- ee �y }�j1 t ° '. ....of The Tigard Times ews a er of m r °t:t? d01t�iine'i!tr �#xtfir;jt. '„' ` . • g , a n g p f," a al circulation,' as defined t ew ze, � _" 1 f °ti��e' ,n-', (3 r�',z. 1," + �s ,, � j,{, _ } by ORS 193.010 and 193.020, published at,Tigard, in,the aforesaid county and •h;! , ,A,e; 00g'1 t'at + 1 ''#, "1' 7,' `k, fate that the iP. di7 �, .l„F .r,l,1 ,.+',I ari 4: f, - S , gall notice, a printed copy of which. is hereto annexed, was I ,ti',I I,r.�..ru�iit; ,, P'r ,c,.� � +, ,1 'Y�.,,,''� w all §'i T, .9 1" a ' yam. J„.1�1, h•n, w „'r, 'YA published in the entire issue of said newspaper for . T ,, successive and i'rt,,* ,. ;,,, ',� 4?, .t ,(. i.�"1,= ":r' ut' ' Ids ` 'i,t re,_ 4Jrh * ,,f F .41 ,,,.n�.'� I"i. ,,,:„. ,. d�„~,r., consecutive weeks in the following ,i ', .: ti kd,i ,r� ,, , • ,s.h;1 w ng issues .. ..-_.-_. ,- [il�, 'i e' ut li; r �1 � K „ �,aah e 5 �.9?5 f 1 lifir ay;1 t ,LA4, "��`,4/a •, t i I,!±:: i{f0,, © ,; jt a'`pcy,r� t * I ' , y; et,',.. 1 i4 i+ a,li1 . , rig`=."r7 � ±O•��^ Subscribed and,sWgrr�to before me this ,-- _ .�». day of ...,_�.., 1,, b I ,',",..1-- r}a'�11�(d�?i �1�� 1 /' 1 Y i'L t,,,,,,i) L d ... _?iotary Public of Oregon JUN N r" 9 1975 i p k . My comiraission expires .... .: 2c .!. ..... 19.. � . i • • I I I:„ I , 1 I , \ I I L u F' n \ ., , p ,; a x I %• i I I. I , I0 ''. rt it tr , ' • �; Th•• I i ' i I ql , ... '''''',12.'''''''1,' ' 1 ' ' ' ' '' '' , 1 l'1 „ '''''''''''i'. " .. o. 11 I ) une 3 9 197 ,, ; . Mel Brcc A 'Rea Eotate Rep. Y . cOona1d 9$ Corpo / ta I • • 4' 130 Andover Park tast ii a �io 81 E I,. I� M Reference: File NO. SDR 6 75 (McDonal 'a - Robertson�'Prt e may) Dear Mr. Brook; , t Please ;be advised that ,t a Tigara Site, Development an Design evriew , Board, at their May 270', 19750' meet ng, considered your request for I l site Plan and architectural review and your submission eras .ppro ed , • 4r as shown on '"rod lines" drawings and tea, o Uawir g conditions: • • • 1 , m Direction, a traffic flow sho'L�.1d be reversed. �` , ,,, \ , 2.. No parking should be allowed on 'the east (ingrR.as) aids n p Dtparl,d. parking area toward Park St. for aa ad di t or 0. ft.,. allowing a total of 8O parking Spaces, ". • N Provide additio al trees along ""oast' side of ' site similar '' 5 Provide ground cover in planting areas adjacent service " station and r de i, . plantings it 'thos. are, a to coordinate better ,6. Waiver of right to ra rove to district for curbs, sidewalks a�c4�4 :e, ;y stet improve- F merits of Park St, and.. on Oran+ 't a 44ri lieu, of provision a at, time of c sriatruotia t ,, . I ' as appr1 o your provid yya redwood o a to the r deletion of,the roof top Sign and i s a1.latio1 of 101 srld t roc-stand g ro ' I I a jerai,d U. Powell, AO . ATP f"i., t' • h ,,.#Awtw•4 ,.''..,•,. �-wbY.•. f .':'b..d '#/,r r '.! ;``a!YYYf::9.w :NYSxa;'wWla..fl..,u v,uN .,w,a... r.,.',' .,.;,,-i.,n ..,, ,.... ,.,., ..,.,.a ... ,..• ,,. +�f'.. e n �, t y r n t ." • n H • . r P.t � u,. • -{.wig ..J,. . . .,.. .,. .. ..,.,,..« r »„.,..,...+... , .w... +�,.Mq..-.r.,.Y++,•._ .Lea ,1kc.1k...s...,,.r,«,6'-t+,,.a11.,a.n.,L+1...I.•....k7A4Y::F«., 1+4.YaSk:Ut+'.GwuYA1zYFd,. I O/ '9 , June 2, 1975 r, Mayor & City Councilmen w City of Tigard Tigard, g ard ' Oregon 97223 Gentlemen: We wish to appeal the May 27th decision of the Design Review Board at which time they, approved the site plan for McDonald's for the • following reasons: , 1) The site plan that was approved by the Design Review Board has been judged unsatisfactory due to traffic conflict by the Oregon State Highway Division as • stated in a letter dated May. 13, 1975. 2) The access to Park Street will result in considerable more traffic on Watkins Street and all through the Derry Dell residential neighborhood (see letter of 5/13/75, ' f from O.S.H.D.) • • Park Street is a substandard streei i,nd cannot handle the existing residential traffic. The r?'di or so school children that must,walk down Park and Grant Streets will be put in a very dangerous walking �situation. 3) We question why this site plan would be in conformance with the. Tigard Comprehensive Plan when the City Council . denied the minor land partition on this property earlier. I- We feel 1 that these above stated ve �ated'reasons are enought to uphold this appeal said deny the granting of a building permit for McDonald's on this location. Sincerely yours, i • Robert W. Camp ell oe • • ' • .}„ ..,n,.X51.a k.w... ...................r.+m ..y,._.c:...... ,.: ....:.16,;,w..w.....,.aw,.:..-,a .;1.M...4., l.e • AGENDA r' Tigard Site Development and Architectural Design Review Board May 27, 1975 - 4:30 Twality Junior High School- Lecture Room 14650 S. W. 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon • 1. CALL TO QRI)ER ,: 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4, PROJECT REVIEW 4.1 SDR 6 .75 (McDonald' s - Robertson) A request for review of a proposed franchise fast foods restaurant e b SW Pacific Hwy. between School St. and Park St. A. Site Development Plan Review 1. Staff Report 2. Applicant' s Presentation. 3. Public Testimony 4." Board ar Discussion and Action B. Architectural Design Review 1. Applicant Presentation 2. Board Discussion and Action 4.2 SDR 2- 75 (Oregon Bank * Bissett) A request for review of a proposed bank at SW Greenburg Rd. and Pacific Hwy. A. Site Development Plan Review 1. Staff Report 2, Applicant's Presentation 3. Public Testimony 4. Board Discussion and Action B. Architectural Design Review 1, Applicant Presentation 2. Board Discussion aid Action 4.3 SDI, 13-75 (Willowbrook Apts. - Tualatin Development Corp. ) A request for review of a proposed 57 unit apartment project ir', Summerfield Planned Development on SW Summerfield Dr. west of SW 109th Ave R • a, ..ai. . e., v k. .,� a _ . _ E # u.7:,:o _114.k77,�.4l7 d4 lh7.�. 4+ UJ;0 lil'L.tAi.W, A. Site Development Plan Review 1. Staff Report a. 2. Applicant's Presentation 3. Public Testimony 4. Board Discussion and Action B. Architectural Design Review 1. Applicant Presentation 2. Board Discussion and Action 4.4 SDR 14-75 (Gottor Building Sam Gotter) • A request e st for review of a proposed 5000 � . ft. of.Lice building at 12963 SW Pacific Hwy. (west of Walnut St. ) 4114' A. Site Development Plan Re Ja.e w 1. Staff Report 2. °A ub1ican t s P x eser Presentation 3. Public Testimony ,I I 4. Board Discussion and Action I � , B. Architectural Design Review 1. Applicant Presentation .�, 2. Board Discussion and. Action 5. OTHER BUSINESS �x 6. ADJ'OURNMENT • • • • PC Agenda - May 27) 1975 - page 2 I r ) , MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION May 27, 1975 - Study Session Twality Junior High School - lecture room 14.650 SW 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Whittaker called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. 2, ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Ball, Hartman, Popp, Porter, Sakata, ' Wakem (arrived at 8:30 p.m. ) ; Chairman Whittaker; Planning Director Bolen Commissioners absent: Hansen and Nicoli 3. ZONINC. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 1-75 - Differentiating a Separate . , • C-3M Category for the "Downtown" Area o Bolen distributed a memorandum to the Commissioners which summarized the Planning Commission discussion of this item ). at the May 20, 1975, regular meeting. In addition, the memo attempted to explain the staff position taken at that meeting in regard to the appropriate zoning for the Fowler and Buchholz sites. o Porter suggested that rather than applying the existing C-3 category to the "downtown" area, this zone should consist of the revised C-3 zone with the difference of adding the C-4 permitted uses as outright uses in the C-3M category. o Whittaker recognized Porter' s proposal as having merit, but stated his own pre'f'gr9nce for the revised C-3 zone on the Fowler and Buchho] z sites, stating his preference for the review capability provided the Planning Commission by this zone. • o Ball stated his concurrence with Whittaker and said he had confidence that the. Planning Commission would use the review capacity provided by the conditional use procedure in a responsible manner and that the strategic location and size • of the two parcels being discussed made it essential that , • the Planning Commission have some capability for guiding their development. o Popp said that he voted against placing the revised C-3 category on the Fowler site at the May 20, 1975, meeting, but has since changed his poSition, redognizing the value of the review carabt1K+y provider9 the Planning Commission ,. in attempting to guide the appropriate development of hug the "downtown" and the highway by the conditional use propels. =s ( • o Bob Grenwood of the Tigard School District was :present and Chairm,.n Whittaker asked him if he had any comments in re- sponse to the Planning Commission discussion of this, matter. Mr. Greenwood replied that he really couldn't agree with the position of some Commissioners and the staff that the Fowler site is in the category of other parcels located on Pacific Highway and said that he feels it should be in- eluded within the zoning category for the "downtown" • •. properties. o Hartman moved to rezone the "downtown" according to the C-3M category and within the bounds on the map provided by staff. This map excluded the Fowler and Buchholz sites. M o Sakata seconded the motion and the motion passed by majority vote with Porter voting no 4. Chairman Whittaker announced to the Commission that he would be resigning effective June 3, 1975. He pointed out that Hartman • is the vice-chairman and will continue in the role of chairman following his resignation. Hartman stated he was sorry to see Whittaker leave the Planning Commission and also that he was concerned about the amount of time he would have available to °Y . fulfill adequately the role of chairman. The Commissioners then discussed whether any other member felt he had adequate time to ' devote and if he could be interested. No other member stated a desire to seek the position and Hartman was asked to fill the position for an interim period to see if his time schedule could be worked out. 5. NPO #4 and NPO #5 - Member Selection Process o Bolen summarized his previous memorandum to the Commission on the suggested membership of NPO t s 4 and 5 and also Summarized the testimony of the May 20, 1975, public hearing on this issue. • o Porter said that he f )und the vo,..tn process to be some„? gat haphazard in that in ills neigh bw5 °,h''.,,: some persons did n,'t receive ballots and others did n ,N g , - the initial nomin- ation letter, etc. He stated hs preference for electing the NPO's at a regular election, possibly electing the mein-- bers of all the remaining NPO,s il,j s way. In addition, he suggested that the self-nomination process be augmented to require that a person obtain a minimum number of signa- tures in order to nominate himself a� o Popp stated his preference for the s(Af-nomination process , and said he did not like the idea of having people obtain ” signatures in order to, nominate themselves. The result ` would possibly be that many people would choose not to nominate themselves in that they would find it disagreeable to obtain: the required number of signatures PC l� 1975 PG. Minutes � May ��3 -'� page 2 � 1 \ " • I . i 2 . . G...-a� .m.+aMwR..�.y., ».+ �rnlu.;:�,:.tawp lT.,I:M�t:,_.,«..�...,u.IerYti. ,.,1:; w ',;. o Bolen suggested that one way to overcome the problems of the handouts not reaching everyone within the neighborhood . would be to send them through the mail. He pointed out that when handing out these materials door-to-door, the student • volunteers are not allowed to place them in mail boxes. This sometimes results in the materials being blown away. However, • • he did point out that this mailing would involve a consider- ,able amount of staff time and expense o The Commissioners agreed upon mailing out both the nomi-• nation letter and the ballots and went on to discuss the G. makeup of the NPO membership. Bolen said that the member- ship proposed in his memorandum to them had the potential • of askewin.g, the 'voting, power toward the business interests. Porter stated his concern that the business interest would have the advantage on the NP0's and said he would like to see it skewed toward the residents if there were any doubt that one or the other faction would have a voting advantage. The final arrangements agreed d u on b y the Plannin g C om- mission, were as follows: d Tr.�an _ e �, NPR #1 1 T a yr a 1.' resident of an area planned in 1971 7 reps to remain residential 2. resident of an area planned in 1971 1 rep to be converted to some use other than residential 3. absentee landowners 1 rep 4. business-commercial 3 reps 5. business-industrial 0 reps 12 reps NPO #5 - Freewa�r l�'it us-�rial--dolling HiHHH ;ls 1. resident of an area planned in 1971 7 reps to remain residential s an area planned 1971 rep • 2. re�iden� of p ed Zn �. 71� 1 re to be converted to some use other • her than residential 3. absentee landowner , rep s 4. business - commercial/ ndustrial reps i . ;� 12 reps 6. ADTOUF N1 • 9:4, p.m. • I , PC Minutes " May 27, 1975 - page 3 I il„ I it I fi L..•-.-«.,.,...,n..»....4iwn r4-a1,....t r....,a.,.-Lr r. • ...:...r....-...-..n,.r:«A».vJ:-.r�":...,.•..W"♦..,......�.%:n.�aµh+-.1:+ .:..rU�1«-.w. ..,err. .µtw w.r,.,_U_...m«..r..w.{....fA.C.nAA„!.4,•∎•.F»«.t..S,.L4,-a.,rlsku:t«-Yl fJ1LYF.+L:u1,::J'aL.lAr.v t..f,.w«*unw,r:W.vm,......+:.b.1..{«at..1.a..,1n../.ci.S.r.-•.14MtJA1-:x' - 1 MINUTES TIGARD SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW BOARD May 27, 1,975 Twality Junior High School Lecture Room 14650 S. W. 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Bartel called the meeting to order at 5:50 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: n . L. Members present were Bartel, Cook, Hermes, • McMonagle, Wakem and staffT-Powell ' 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the May 10, 1975 meeting were approved as read. o Wakem asked if staff had brought the color o d for. . , b era^ 'th e Harris Bros. Project (SDR 8-75) o Staff said it hadn't 4. PROJECT REVIEW 4.1 SDR 6-75 (McDonald's Robertson) • A request for review of a proposed franchise fast foods restaurant at SW Pacific. Hwy. between School St. and Park St. A. Site Development Plan Review 1. Staff report read by Powell with recommendations as follows: (a) Modify the common access to constrain traffic to a 900 intersection with Pacific Hwy. and limit cross traffic between the Standard Station. and McDonald's. (b) Eliminate the "exit shown and use School St. a,s a common access with. the School District, develop School St. to a minimum commercial drive standard (30 ft. ) and coordinate such activities with the School, District with respect to curbing the edge ' of their parking lot. (c) Ex p and parking area toward rd I ark St. for an additional 20-30 ft. , allowing an additional 6 to 12 spaces. • (Capacity as drawn is 71 autos j seating capacity of restaurant is 1280 probable. employment i s estimated at 16 per shift. Assuming 2 persons per auto, the parking • . deman.c.. would be 72 ��paces» Staff recoininends additional 8-10 spaces to allow for turnover overlaps 'anal 'carry out business). y,• • • • ' 1r V.t rl:'..i;:-..;_It.«,.,,f.-....r�,-xcuc..:a.;..a..'tc.X..»,h,...,,k,S.W.l hw4..'...5::+:;n+.eWlu.+.ia*,}i%il..Y..,w.«.wf«wyl....w..+U.i«':Aµi..-.:i-J.r.N.;...Lt4'1-ar.l0.I'..YL...axJ..,,,.n._..n,.+i:.r(,`,c.na....-..,..::C:YrI*4'.74w:La.F • (d) Provide additional trees along "east" side of site similar to "north" side. (e) Provide ground cover in planting areas adjacent service station and redesign plantings in those areas to coordinate better. ti (f) Provide curbs, sidewalks and necessary street improvements on Park St. and on Grant St. (Grant St. will soon develop for multi-family use and Park St. will experience a rapid in- crease in traffic. Neither is presently adequate for its use and introducing the pro- ,.. posed project without those improvements would be a hardship on the, community. 2. Applicant's Presentation r.,l. o r. M Mel Brook (McDonald's) spoke to the points brought up in the staff report. He felt that I staff had implied that they would, approve the plan as submitted with redline corrections. o Staff responded that staff had told them that the plan submitted conformed to City code ,minimums, not that staff approved or favored the plan. o Mr. Fasano said he thought the requirement of street improvements, curbs and sidewalks exceeded the authority of the Design Review Board as the action was not a land use question, but a design review for a building permit. He further stated that he had (I_ asked that the McDonald's hearing, not be started until he arrived and the meeting was , already in • progress when he walked in o Bartel asked that ff sk a the City Y Attorne � for his opinion regarding Design Review Board's authority and responsibility for requiring conformance to Comprehensive Plan and for street improvements. e Public Testimony ` �o Mrs. Lucy Ma yernik asked if the Design Review ew Board • was trying to prevent access to the o Mr. Dick lleumpke (chr°mne NPO #3) testified in opposition. , 1 "• o Mr. Bob Reynolds ds (l d nd1 o r d on G a nt S t. ) asked ed what the status of School St. was and offered testi- mony in favor. DRB minutes w May 2 .ald li... ,.u.._. o,:e .tia.... .,,....••..,. v...«.r.....-.......I:..,.,...,..a-.Y.4aFw ._........,-......—«..+-w.-„.G..;., a...:..y..,...urW+..di..aa..:.a..::•r,r._..I.,.;N..:.:.IA•.......,•+,u.,.,u.wx.,s;.,.w..w...... dwf..x,i._»»n,M:..wr/:i.«.nw..x., I;,r. « w' +i.,u`r: :1.F.'.n:i..+F::!„-+'w."+',^-a4 +:.-:•,pp ' o M . Bob' Greenwood (School District 23-J) said the school hoard had indicated its wish to leave School St. open. o Mrs, Bibianne Scheckla testified in opposition. o M r. Christenson ns o n (Mc Do ald s) testified that based on a daily customer count of other McDonald's in the Portland area, he estimated a 1023 vehicle trip/ day traffic generation versus the 1570 projected •. by the City. �.' o Mr. Mike ' Emert (McDonald's) asked why Planning Dir. 1' . Dick Bolen was not present. t' s. o Staff responded that he was not usually present at Design Review Board meetings. o Mr. Larry Haugset said that he felt that the City was reversing its approval given by the Planning , Director. o Emert stated that the access proposed was not acceptable to McDonald's and that the corporation wanted it reversed. to enter at the north east and �. a , exit on the south west. o McMonagle pointed out that that was precisely the configuration that the Oregon State Highway Div. said it would not approve. 1 o Emert indicated that the corporation would work that out with. the Highway Division th g Y , o Chairman Bar t el asked Emert if that was what Mc- Donald's wanted. o Ernert said it was. ° o Staff (Powell) asked the applicant' s representative S t (Emert) if his intent was to change the site plank 4 > ' o Ernert said that the plan he could approve and the • one he expected to be approved by the Design Review Board was as he was asking. I I o Powell said that there was no recourse for the • staff but to recommend l denial. o Mr. Fasano asked on what, findings was the recommen- dation based. o Powell- said it was based on staff's judgment that the approach configuration n requested was unsaf e. • I I I I I I DRB Minutes May 27, 1975 page 3 I I I I • • t •.....c r.!•.Rd«Y....:_•IIkU.n .w........ww..l.✓.•w.».. Hlnlr., .......ll,><.r.rt ...1 r .+.sN.ntV4t"]-t.i,,.-4.w+4H.:uAw.-+l...ll.✓1...nH.."1.�i1{-.".A1:t:ww3'.wAGM4rh%t+.i..:/i.+4A+.r.a.«ru':u• ri.rt.a.:lk l`<'4Vlitli w 0 Motion for denial (Wakem) - died for lack of second. o Motion to approve (Cook) as shown on "red line" drawing, subject to staff recommended conditions • #3 (with a minimum of 80 parking spaces) , #4, #5 and #6 (allowing a waver of right to remonstrate C lieu an L. I. D. of street improvements in 1 against n of requiring the improvements now) . o Seconded (McMonagle) o Failed (3-2) o Motion to approve (McMonagle) ` as shown on "red line" , with direction of traffic flow reversed I"east" eat (ingress) a owin arkn on the s and not allowing g p g side, subject to staff conditions #3 (80 parking • spaces rp in the rear of the building) , #4, #5 and #6 (allowing waiver of right to remonstrate in lieu of improvements) . o Seconded (Cook) o Carried (3 to 2) B. Architloctural Design Review 1. Applicant Presentation o Emert and Brook (McDonald's) described building and supplied additional information. 2. Board Discussion and Action s o Cook asked if the facia would extend around the building. o Applicant said they would provide a redwood screen to the rear, but ,a solid facia would interfere with ventilation. I , o Christenson pointed out that the roof top sign would be deleted and the free standing sign would , be the 100 s� ft. version ` somewhat smaller 1 than some in th Portland area, I . o Motion to approve 'as amended ( M Pp (Cook) , o Seconded (Bartel) o Carried (unanimous 4.2 SDR 2-75 (Oregon Bank - Bissett) A re review a proposed bank at and • quest for Devi of SW Greenburg ad. a Pacific Hwy. I I , 3 i SDR ZVI�.n"L1.`teS May 2"6 1975 5 page 4 • r I H.i .............•Incl.,aSd..k i..i....»._A...a•I...L_4:{.1YI.4+.-,...-x.A-rr....1.4.1zw..n,al,:.Jai..rMra A..A .M.n.A.,......... a J J r•+n r• ' • • • •.w4'.n fa.:t..r.. ....�«.-r.J .,r1-.;lw„.w.Y 1:7W%✓+.tii,7.':.:a..n.'YJ.uu ..*W....iA'l•rL«..:d4 iti.rlr..•.un.•._.'wl...�:...a.iti+•.A.+1.......%.+xt......5:...W:...J.:ci3MHt'i=:.'Llµf A. Site Development Plan Review 1. Staff Report was presented by Powell. I I I I • 2, Applicant's Presentation o Larry Bissett (applicant) described the project and provided response to the questions brought up y In staff report. 3. Public Testimony o none I I 4. Board Discussion and Action o Motion (Cook) to approve subject to: Catch basins on and off the site relocated per t p Public Works, Director's direction, an approved variance for exit configuration on to Greenburg Rd. , approval of a landscape plan. o Seconded (Names) • o Carried. '" B. Architectural Design Review . 1. Applicant Presentation o Mr. Bissett described design considerations in the proposed building and discussed the difficulty he had with the proposed brick facade. 2. }hoard Discussion and Action II , o Motion to approve (Cook) subject to board review) of color and surface treatments and a "cut l sheet" on signs. o Seconded (Wakem) o Carried 4.3 SDR 13-75 rescheduled for the following meeting, , 4.4 SDR 14-75 (Gotter Building - Sam Gotter) 7 5 ( II • .� 5000 s . f e office building ' I A request for review of a proposed dOC7l � - `� at 12963 SW Pacific Hwy.) (west of Walnut St. ) A. Site (Development Plan Review I I SDR Minutes - May 27, 1975 - page • I I r I I I I I I k • I ' II , +1 ,.a'.-..wr•-..., «..-•,v.« ..... 'rlv ,m t...,»....,._es.l,' _,.nvk.`.,.s.,..a-..t...r,4.:....:.aA{.,r...,r:LY.+...--..,...nr...»+».T_.k.«:s..,.L+iwo..r w—«._r'«.:1M.,r,.s,...,.•... •'.Ar,..,.r'„u..,:ar+1i.u.'.a4::.F«.,_.•tlrlG ldrtL1..»,4:==,&.uJi=,t:.d.-.J,.u..i.r..Jk....l,...1.'anwt,.........J.w:«..•.ww,.,,s,.ul».r..,i..,....SCI.;wh,.:.......1...4:.,L...t.•.. 0I v` f� c} !+ ! 1f ' fl, I. Staff a 1. R ep Report read b y P ow ell. fi; ■ r 2. Applicant's Presentation 1 o Mr. Gotter presented pland and described project. , I 3 Public Testimony t o None y , r Board 4. Br Discussion. and Action f, • ^ o McMonagle queried applicant about drainage problems II on the site and how they were being corrected. i o Applicant said he was constructing a 12 inch storm i sewer across the site and increasing the size of f a sump pump used to pump storm water across the highway. . . i 0. . o Motion to approve (McMonagle) subject to sidewalk to be provided as shown and driveway cut to be • built per public works approval (30' max..) . { % o Seconded (Cook) li o Carried B. Architectural Design Review 1. Applicant' s Presentation • o Mr. totter described the building and materials. . 2. Board Discussion and Action o Motion (Cook) to approve as submitted. o Seconded (Hanes) , u , I I k o Carried. 5: OTHER BUSINESS: none ? r 6. •ADd OURNNJENT y 8:30 p.m. { , I I g4 I I I SOR Minutes - 'May 27, 1975 - page 6 w �; I, I 4 i Iii i1 I I y Afrri?‘ f„,h, ,a. . ., _„ ,...., .,. ..a _ .., ,« „- ri l.:._.:A'.'.4 ., ,.w.uJ.J.,..,.,........ em:INy..; r.NU7«i,Atr.,tl...;.( ,,U..J.,W.1y.tMt::... .'Y..,,.-mod r-r •,.,.0=.as_,dwU,.Y..,na.:.=:.r,.x:e.,ttu..,,uk....a,.w..,ats d.s.a.-k»*44H.lss: STAFF REPORT 4, Tigard Site Development & Architectural Design Review Board May 27, 1975 SDR 6-75 Mcnonaid' s Restaurant Robertson. property) 75 C Applicant's Request kf to construct a drive-in restaurant facility on Pacific Hwy. at School Street , Sta 'f. Finding ' 1. In g eneral the submitted materials are adequate per code requirements with the exception of: k' a. No grading plan has been submitted and b. The adjacent streets are not shown. 2. While specific directions of the Design Review Board have not been followed, applicant. is proposing alternative solutions to most of the problems addressed in previous , Design Review Board actions on this project. (minutes 4 of previous meetings are attached) . 3. Access and parking conforms to City code, although staff questions adequacy of the parking provided in that there is t less parking provided in this project than at other McDonald's Restaurants in the Portland area which have apparently less i. "sit down" space. A projection of parking requirements by' McDonald' s would be helpful; however, additional parking space can easily be provided by expanding the parking area to the south west. 4. This proposal contemplates use of the entire Robertson site, surrounding the existing Standard Service Station. The, applicant will provide copy of the lease agreement to sub- stantiate this. 5. There is a potential con ` potential conflict with some front landscaping and the vision clearance areas adjacent the driveway approaches. The reversal of the traffic p i ern on site to minimize t' 6 pattern `mi that conflict with the Standard Station complies with an Oregon s State Highway Division request ( ' letters attached) ,' bu,t � ee leaves a dangerous conflict with School St. , 30 feet away. ' This ion' hats conflict is accentuated by the fact that the deceleration ,. District Administration Building . , will tend to keep automobiles entering Pacific Highway southbound back of the vision area of a driver entering r exit, s ed by the the Mc This i� Dona � x trams Pacific Hwy. from t ld s problem P � areStncand.fPac �fic �� .,transmission. I at corn oun on pole the corner of School St. • ( Sy . .4r 7 If School St. is to remain open, widening and improvement . i may be eventually necessary; however, the City Public Works Dept. has recommended its closure (in spite of neighborhood objections) . 8. Exit to School St. from McDonald's has been discussed, Mc- Donald's feeling that that solution would not be acceptable to the neighborhood. Staff and Oregon State Highway Div. . concur that School St. could provide a safer exit if traffic could be restricted from the School Administration parking lot and from using School St. to gain access into the resi-- . dential portion of the neighborhood. 9. Applicant proposes to constrain traffic from "wrong way" use of the entrance from Pacific Hwy. ' by placement of signs. Staff feels this measure to be inadequate and would suggest physical constraints. 10. The presently shown "shared access" with the adjacent • Standard Station is a primary concern of staff as well as the Oregon State Highway Dept. A "shared access" is in- . tended as a two way common approach which constrains traffic to a right angle, two lane, two way approach, functioning, in other words, much as a local street. In order for such a "shared access" to work properly, it is most important that adequate queuing space is available to store autos waiting to enter the highway without blocking either individual approach. The "shared access" scheme. proposed here avoids some of the more obvious shortcomings of the first plan submitted by McDonald's in February; however, it is not, in staff's opinion, an adequate solution, If the coin.-- figuratio,5 shown on the site plan is found to be acceptable to the Design Review Board, that at the very minimum the planter dividing McDonald's from the Standard Station (existing planter's on site plan) needs to be extended or a "pork chop" provided to control traffic entering McDonald's and prevent cross circulation between the two sites. Land- soaping of that "planter" is not shown and must be adequate and compatible with McDonald's landscaping. • 11. The access shown to Park St. meets City standards, but raises some questions as to the effects upon the surrounding, vehicular circulation pattern. Por example, it willprobably reduce thy: number of vehicles using the access on Pacific Hwy. (State estimate is by as much as 40%) , but conversely will result in additional traffic through the residential area adjacent Watkins Avenue. Grant right-of-way needs an 12. S. W. ,grant Avenue has a 40 ft. right of w�:y and nee additional 5 ft. dedicated (one side) to conform to City requirements. An agreement not .to remonstrate .against a • future street improvement district is necessary to adjacent landowners waiting to develop. S. W. Pa Sa is an substandard collector street, with adequate right--of--way but which, with the addition` of traffic from SDP. Staff Report May 270 1975 item 4,1 - page 2 hl r r, ......a,,........x.w.�w.-.,-....a...,.......m_..«...M...««.,,.wt...,:,k»a.„k..,J:,,........»—...M::I.,,r.:+-,r..;.a.,..a;rta 1 this project must be improved to City standards at least as far as the influence and congestion due to •McDonald's can be expected to extend. S. W. School St. a 20 ft. p , right- , of-way existing on a private easement, should be improved to minimum standards for a private commercial access drive if it is used for access to or from McDonald' s. Otherwise, . �. it probably should be treated as a part of the School Dist. site 13. Landscaping of west portion of site pis insignificant and needs a major shade tree or trees to provide some shelter in the "picnic area". Retention of some of the existing native hawthorne and vi n e maples les could be nicely � w o rked � n . as well. 14. Ground covers not specified in planting areas adjacent Grant St. and Park St. , nor adjacent the service station` �-- plantings adjacent service station should be compatible 15. The 10 ft. planting area (as corrected) adjacent, School St. . needs flowering trees as provided along the rear property line in order to more effectively integrate the landscape theme. Staff Recommendation In view: of the several faults found by, staff in our review of this project, staff recommends that the Design Review Board either deny the application pending the submission of an amended plan which adequately addresses the findings herein, or' that the applicant be invited to amend appropriately his site plan to such extent as may be conditionally acceptable at this meeting to the Design Review Board. r • DRB Staff Report' May '27, 1975 —item 4.1 page .r ' „.............T,., .....,.. n.«..,„s,..+..,x.. .,w,_ ... ,.. »,.-..,.,,._.....,u..,.-.. ., .....;.,aF.,t.,... '.1..._4.:,:4`..r..law .—....uK.;.a.x,i:..l.... :,.7...:.u,wtM..J,_5.:'«sw.....t,a;6..,d..:,.."..1.:....c..,.trG..ot: ,-.,,zs..s.:.a:w.MS.;'f+..,:.;.,:.f.n ..t.:w.:,.:!,'.:.:.ciS.ut:.+i,S.r:/:l_.ckrrui k,a rY•,:.wr.r:agaa..Gti Memorandum To: File From: Jerald M. Powell Subject: Access Rights and Approach Permits to State Highways In a telephone contrersation with Mr Terry Flink, OSHD, May 1 1975, , Mr. Flink stated that generally the state would grant no more than one (1) access right, up to fifty (50) feet wide per one hundred (100) . feet of frontage on a state highway. He stated that a fifty (50) foot "access right” was not the same as an "approach permit" for that access -- that the Highway Division generally would consider granting one sixteen (16) to twenty-four (24) foot width driveway approach for single owner use, or one thirty (30) to thirty-five (35) foot . . width driveway approach for commercial two way use in a fifty (50) foot wide "access right". Mr. Flink further stated that they con- sidered fifty (50) feet (center line to center line) the minimum allowable interval between driveway approaches unless, in the case . of a two approach situation, the fifty (50) foot interval would not allow a vehicle to fully pull off the highway right-of-way. The Highway Division, as a matter of written policy, will not issue an approach permit in areas where they have original jurisdiction where j. such permit would interfere with traffic, vehicular or pedestrian. In urban areas, within."a city, the Highway Division, again as a policy matter, defers to the °street standards of the municipality and will not issue an approach permit without City approval. Should _ the city's standards be less restrictive than the state standards, and the City approves an approach not in conformance with state criteria, the state could conceivably protest the (City t s approval • but most likely would go along. (I intend to check further on this point with Ed Hart) . Persons to contact for further info: Sylvan Maintenance Station (West District) 2131 SW Scholls Ferry Rd. Terry Flink (asst. dist. engr. ) P. 0. Box '565 Beaverton, Or. 97005 , tel. 229-5002 MLlwal.xkie Maint. Of c.. re ional engr. ( g g 9200 SWMcLoughlin �l Blvd- Ed Hart (regional engr, ) tel. 653-3090 I I I I I , '. . . , , . . v , FORM 81-Y 4-3220 05947.'� INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS FORMS,INC. 1 �,i ' T3: ' �� 1 OREGON S ATE w1G 1NAY DIVISION c ' //.� � 7 ` _________ FROM: . SUBJECT:,, ./4// jp�� i/7� .fir/ "�✓` /r-/'� .� .r_�,,, i '! y/ y t`. , DATE:. Ac )9Z vI - . 4 1. ,2, / , .147/1") , .76..;,...„_471,„ .....:eg ,di t,.. ,...,...)„-- 472,1• ..,, 4,7 : ),.c. ..... 7,7.5.7. `ei ii,,,,,,,,. t,,;,...„,fyi-/,,,..,4,t,I, Y p-o- /0..... 0 0 y-a 77,- .52?e 9.431---, ,,,,k , ,.,,,..) . -3'7..0 171)/), V.,./16)p'%,..73 6 9, (A,/, , ,,/ --,—.,/4 °II , , , 1, . , , , 9 • r dC24./*1 )io, , d , /7o v1 ,. ' ,..2(S" /2.�- Ca . )f �-� 2 r-� , ,' 1 • ' i ,2e gc-c -l-e."-"t-7. ee.... ./Av74. -,4) (:-.) ,. ."., fP- - ....-7,e-e.d" 1),_e__;-.,,-: . ,. , / -.'e"e'e' 4 C4-'4 47 ..)-/;011' '44-e. ic.:::;')-1 1/L))) s VII t �4,:y- 1 . ))....or • '6AV e:› 0'.#7.-W. 5--el,\,',/8 e .4',,,o,,,--,-,, 2i vi• .-.., ' S, ,„ ,. A2_,-,' 7)7 9/-y,1 ._p,. 1 ', . , ' . )1/1) )) g4----; )-'01,/ d).-y.--e,,,<,Q124,,, c6(:":5t-7-1 ',' 1.1" i. 1L1 ,A' r 4' 2 i )'// ' e�41 ,,L / lvY1 (SIGNATl.REO 1 • 12 ,AS E REPLY H E' �.a . 1 1,, . ,.....'''7"..4i , ) '1 0'7;7 , .. • •,.. '1 , •'',.-.14 fril/ 1'1 ' d ,..f) iti-ei-:)-5". e'"),b /2-'4n--- 1°.-4ti 7'.---/4"9•'2'? ' ''''''' d ' li , , . r r 1 • Y , r r4 A • 1 j • I r • • • , /yam-. 4 t • p K� 5 DT 'ADZ bO sic YYY 1 I I • 1i i 4 A .M 4 . ' [771:7',-.J;(4-4V.7'7,f7' ;a,.,a,...•,,....,,.+.4...1t••)....._.:,i.,1ae.:a:..,...a:,t.,1.......=..........r=:.x..aa.......w..u.rA•se... ...iirl:n,J I....I+.+..a ..,.,..:. ....,w...�.•...n.,.:uw+4.-r..ndi,'-.;ia.>,x4u..k..;.a'N,. r... ,M.-.,w..v'.r•.-:r•:.nu.;",.f.kA•ro:.'7a'A:-:,,:r4,n.i.7L•,+:NY+Y.�C'.[:::c:.::u",.+nE... it • ,•1,,, •.k•,'k I^., ,,,►q ?Ire +..,•', j.y✓:hn - �. Via,:. -I:, ,-.... .,,,,—. ,-.7,,,s;:!%,. !', ' , ,I 1,/c ' .,J;•" OREGON STATE,` E � s . •.� , ° :-.•.,�•T�..- .,„,.. p,0: Box 565 �A Y � _ 1975 r 1 -/ : gY'`. �.; Beaverton, Oregon 97005 ,,* y.fi*-' '%' .,i ,: Cl calla qn ate` Yk i,.rnt� I ...4 ROBERT W. STRAUB • l - May 13, 1975 '^. GOVERNOR i; City of • F.9.KA60E y f {: i. 1. Admlrthtrefor of Hiflhways P.O. BOX 23557 Tigard, Oregon 97223 ATTENTION: Gerald M. Powell Assoc, Planner r' , RE: Mcdonalds Restaurant site Plan We have studied the proposed site„ developement plan for'McDonalds . Restaurant on Pacific Highway West in Tigard as requested. We • have also had a study by made by the Regional Traffic Engineer • , � e The plan is unsatisfactory due to traffic conflict. A fast food facility such as this generate ' a high traffic volume'. The estimate for this particular site is 1570 vehicles per 24 hour . period. During the peak hour, 12 noon to 1:00 p.m., the volume would t be 205 vehicles. 1. b • The approaches would have to be 2-way. Joint Use of the service '-, station driveway could not be allowed as it Woild cause conflicting movement. Widening of this access could not be allowed as the ” existing access grant is 50 feet wide. The plans ca .1 for a '60 l foot access. . It is estimated that not more than 40 percent of the traffic would, use the Park Street approach. There would also be a conflict between } the vehicles using the northerly entrance and the traffic to and from School Street. n. road approach permits until the applicant We would not issue r�a � � has approved• any pp 1 a.l pp h a site plan pp by ht, City of Tigard V T er t ruyy yours, ii W. W. Geibel 1 n District Engineer. • m ° C T. Flinit CF:cl Asst: District Engineer , • H Oct On FailmeZgex"' �a t 1� �m B 1 M 73d� O 1 i r......L4-ww�......fV-Jdv�tu...,,.« .0 e_,./.wrl..waA..i,.�fla nL ,:.i�hra.a w .�41.I_L.x..«I+:�.�S.I JI-I.�.µ.i.«r-auaz.,,-.Vwl.a...,...xuGa.wl..._,I�-�-II.}}/,;;.:.-1-«. .l u,A e:L: 1 � o...,,i r„ �4,...,wVu...«. .w,....w.w. kiww.+rr,..�sl nr�ev.I:.w.rn .r,V..•w-f.:::.rn� t:l�,( I+.....�Jouru .r4.<4.•. .,i .7.747,7177.7574F544,fi r”'�xr �` .k RECEIVED', :��1"'.t ' ._. ,, OREGON STATE , ;i t ' `W 0, MAY 2 ' 1975 m �;- = ._'- HIGHWAY DIVISION tr\vv:,, q. f�. P.O. Box 565 CITY OF TIGARD a ` c sc ar ,, nJar . Beaverton, U.aegon 97005, ' f�LP•' .+�� 1• �o t ma` kg, f ROBERT W. STRAUB y:. I I � ��xt'rk) May '20, 1975 I GOVERNOR • F.B.KLABOE Administrator of Highways City of Tigard 12420 S.W. Main, T'g and, Oregon 97223 A TENTION: Mr. Dick Bo1en • Planning Dil.ector. RED McDonalds;Access Pacific Highway West (99-W) After a great deal of investi and stud we have submitted I . study, a road approach permit 'application' forthe proposed 'McDonalds Restaurant. This permit application is for a 30' foot,,wide' road ! approach a Engineers Station 119+14, which will be the most northerly access to the property. In conjunction with the permit application, we have submitted an' Indenture of Access application. ` This indenture moves the access from Station .118+78 to its new location at Station 119+14. This ' new location complies es with the City of Ti and Yrc uirementl 'of a '' p Y g q m'nimum of 30 feet from the property line to the near, edge of the C I driveway. The most southerly access to the restaurant utilizes a portion of an approach , Sdaxd Oil Company � tation. Si e this s L approach is 50 feet wide and was granted with no restrictions as to {: its' use, we have concluded that we have no jurisdiction. i 1 .1 The access permit rat Station 119+14 will be issued subject to approval (P. by the City of Tigard accordance with our Rules and Regulations Governing Road Approach Permits (December 1, 1974). This is' required u since the city has land use zoning jurisdiction. a Please call on us if you have any questions.' Ve r y truly r u ly yo r s , � ' .r ' { W. W. 0EIBEL ! . DISTRICT ENGINEER it by � r 1 r I C T. Fl ink CF:cl L Asst. District Engineer . ,,,,,t,„,fli: cc: R Failure er Mr on g , of P M t31�' t2:� ' I • • i it ..-1.•r-.,.w., ., ..wv....- l , r.«....-.,.,„...•r.^ n,..5 ..hr.._ ..J..H rl r.. ..«..wr. Mx vm...._..wr ! .vr. G„x wl. .n ..Ar«_r,.aY r.4v.N 4.r+ ..s.+•a•,...r..rr+.r...tiw.,-•n. r.-+1.•,. ./- ..w •.n .ti. .-, n,,-.r ......vw._ ' • .,M.r.,,., Mr....y_:... r..4:.,.•..+.x.. ..:1....,h I.-' ..t_..,:.....+,...::v....r A..a;..,.. p'a Memorandum To: Planning Commission From: Planning in g Department Downtown Area District for the D . Subject: C--3M Zoning Date: May 23, 1975 At the May 20, 1975, Planning Commission meeting, staff presented a proposed division of the existing C-3 zone to separate the downtown area Rr from the revised zone being considered' for Pacific Hwy . The Planning Commission agreed with the findings presented by staff describing why :k the downtown arm should be in a • separate zoning district than commercial rr properties on Pacific Hwy. ; however, there was disagreement concerning whether or not the Fowler Jr. High site should fall under the proposed C-3M zone. In the process of discussing ,this) matter, the major dis- cussion revolved around the appropriate zoning for the Fowler site. Reasons for placing the proposed C-3M zone on the Fowler site, as expressed by four of the Planning Commissioners and a representative . from the School District, can be summarized as follows: 1. The City should cooperate with other governmental bodies, in this case the School District, and put Fowler in the C-3M category as requested. Not to do so could'make the site more difficult for the District to sell. 2. This site is part of the "downtown" , having frontage on Main St. and on Scoffins and should- therefore be included in the C-3M zone. 3. The Fowler site should be considered differently from the, •- Buchholz property because it has access to Hall Blvd. from • Scoffins. The Buchholz site only has access to it from Pacific Hwy. Therefore, i the Fowler 'site 'could r be approximately 1 a. zoned C-3M, while the Buchholz site C-3. The Planning staff and half of the Planning Commissioners present felt that the Fowler and Buchholz Sites should both be separate from the C-3M dategory and the following reasons were provided: 1. Both the Blachholz and Fowler sites are large parcels of developable commercial land directly accessible, from Pacific Hwy. , being at either end of Main St. where it intersects Pacific Hwy. The development of these sites has serious' implications for both the future of Main St. and Pacific , Hwy. at this location. For instance, either of the sites • could be developed into high, traffic generating uses which, . may necessitate Planning Commission review in order 'to assure that safe and efficient vehicular access can be provided. In • addition, these sites should both be developed in order to compliment the ttdowntownit, as conceived in the NPO #1 Plan . and not in a manner that would be detrimental to its economic viability. Both sites should be developed in an integrated fashion with the "downtown", rather than being totally oriented to Pacific Hwy. The review capability offered by the coil- , ditional use aid the Planning Commission in process will id .tn ...,..,...,..... ....' ...,,-,,,. :':... „,...... ._.,.- .,...,.,«,, ..«.,..,. i.« ,. „., ,, ., ...... _r4.✓.x.rr,wrl r.r rrww,rrt rkrr .r,..Mrr.N rl.... r i.•Mr . I r A ' r r i -....ar.....«.a Y..ti t• 111...x^ 1 .•.f r ...n ., GY e a r „ achieving these ends. 2. The City Council has requested the Planning Commission to consider retaining the existing C-3 zoning in the Main St. area because it is com p r,ible with the existing development p ment pattern. For instance, restaurants which locate on Main St„ . are not of the fast food type. In addition, the lotting pattern is already. established into small parcels and the 30,000 sq. ft. minimum proposed in the revised C-3 zone would not be appropriate. Again, the Fowler and Buchholz sites present 'a much different circumstance, both being very likely to attract highway oriented businesses and both representing large lots which could be divided into small units. As a result, the larger lot size requirement of the revised C-3 zone is appropriately applied to these properties as are the inclusion` of high traffic generators in the conditional use category. • 3. The revised C-3 zone, which staff finds the proper zoning , for the Buchholz and Fowler sites, provides the Planning Commission with a review capability while not excluding outright any uses which were previously possible., Staff finds the protection afforded the community by the conditional use process to be no greater than necessary to achieve the City's adopted planning objectives and policies. The School District has objected to the revised C-3 zone because it would unduly encumber their property for purposes of offering it for sale. While it is true that some uses previously allowed outright would come under Planning Commission review, '' the same will be true for all other properties located on Pacific Hwy. and any business wishing to locate on the highway will be confronted by the same ordinance provisions, placing the Fowler and Buchholz sites in an equally cgmpetiti.ve position with all other properties visible and accessible from Pacific Highway. • cl • Memb to PC - 5/23/75 . page 1 . • . . ...a..(..la,.;..,., ,..» ...... ,. ...,...,_..,..... ,.wai, •.r,,...;<r+,m.,µ kr...,,.a,.......,..,.r.,....i.-+,s.,.J.. ,.r....,- .,_....,,..,_._.. ..r.rr».u.,o-a .:...0—a. u.. ».. -i'.r,._., ,.......,t _. ..r».a.....',r;a'.,..,.r'a....a,..«:.'aAJ...,d.0. ».... ,..v<,a�+.... .T,i ..1: ...»...a.,,r rr sl ..a_ T TT • lvlcDonald s Corporation ',Alf 0-" 180 Andover Park Cast Tukwila, Washington 98118 :'j 31cponaid'a 206/246-7000 3 .4t ;le May 20, 1975 � '1 Ir Mr. Richard Bolen' Tigard City Planning Director r Tigard City Hall Tigard, Oregon I , Dear Dick: Yesterday, while in the San Francisco Regional y, Office, our Design Staff spent several hours reviewing the plot plan and considering possible alternatives to the last drawn plan dated April 23, 1975. This discussion was prompted by the meeting of last Thursday, May 15 in your office at 10:30 a.m. attended by Mr. Lou Fasaho, Mr. Jack Robertson, Mr. 011ie Lund, Mr. Win Christiansen, Mr. Larry Haugset and myself. During the meeting of May 15, 1975 the following items were discussed as a recommended alternative to the April 23rd 1 plan. (Copies of the red lined prints are enclosed) rtl,- 1 There is concern over the traffic flow involving . and egress Highway. a a solution 1 ingress g g to and from Pacific As McDonald's could change the common curb cut with Standard Oil Company to make it an entrance and the curb cut nearest ,1 School Street, the exit . Along with the lighted entrance and exit arches provided in the front landscaped area, clearly painted arrows on the aisles very close to Pacific ' Highway can be provided. McDonald' , will provide on premise signage making it quite clear as to the one-way drives We have discussed this revision with the Oregon State Highway Department , Ronald W. +ailmezger, Regional Traffic 'Engineer, Geibel , y feel this is and William solution and would a. �� I ' � m VI1. a.bel on M 'i6, 1975 and they a workable solution uld be willing to provide immediate approval and issuance of State Highway ay Curd Cut Permit . + 21 School Street is considered to be a public) through fare 1 , thereby requiring ten feet of landscaping bordering that ! street. This can be accompli shed by the following: II I l , 1 a. Dieting the ten parking stalls on the left (West) of the building. b. Moving the building and walkways to the west and adjacent w to the entrance aisle. " c. Pro'riding for ten feet of landscaping next to School Street d. angle parking on both sides of the exit isle to the right/ east of the building. �. e. This will re-adjust parking in the form of losing three { - parking spaces in the parking area in the rear of the building. If, in fact , School Street is a public street , the above changes can , be made, however, in light of the tremendous amount of landscaping already provided (almost 34,000 square feet of total green area) , we request that the changes under item number 2, Paragraph "c" and "e" be considered by the design review board as unnecessary. 3.The April 23rd plan suggest that we widen the common curb cut , with Standard Oil an additional fifteen feet. This is a misprint in as much as the existing curb cut is already an approved fifty feet common cut and there will b, no need to widen it. 4.The Curb cut nearest School Street is not a proper distance from the property line. The Tigard code calls for a thirty foot distance between top of curb lot to property line. We believe this can , be accomplished when building is moved to the left/west as outlined • in item number. 2. It is our understanding and by those that attended the meeting in • your office on May 15th that these changes were approved by you and your staff and that these changes were considered the best possible solution to traffic flow, Because of the time squeeze involved in re-design , I would request " . that these red lined prints along with this letter be given to the Design Review Board for their consideration May 27, 1975 McDonald' s would request that upon approval by the. Design Review Board, a building permit be issued subject only to a revised print . Thank you for your time last Thursday and for your involvement with • bringing this design to workable stage for everyone concerned. Very truly yours.. a �t met"Bra `lt r Real Estate Mep-reSentative MB/di cc ; Lou Fasano Bill McMonagle Ray Bartel Lynn Wakem Monte Cook Phillip Bain M � .� � .. .. .,. ,mow..,.�,..,... • """ M a,,. .. . .,'w::.d t,-.....r..r.s:.,..W.r.s...,+a.G_,..«,..rta..�r,..,...r«r.,aA.A.....,x„r.,t...xi...eua'n•;.ar,e..a.63.r..,.u:iu«;-wcw::;k.<-.. NORRIS, BEGGS & SIMPSON 900 S.W.FIFTH AVENUE,PORTLAND 97204.(503) 223.7131 i May 20, 1975 • • . I k Mr. Dick Bolen (1 Panning Director City of Tigard • ' 12420 SW Main Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Dick: Enclosed please find six (6) copies each of the original and red-lined McDonald' s site plan, irrigation plan, land- scape plan, sanitary and storm sewer plan. Also enclosed please find six (6) copies of the boundary survey and six (6) copies of the topography survey. A general site plan showing adjoining property is on the topography survey which your staff has indicated is sufficient. ' . Architectural drawings drawn to scale including floor plans, 4, elevations and other improvements have been submitted on prior submittals and, to my understanding have been approved by Mr. Russ Austin. Also on our previous submittals we havl e sub mitted colored photos showing the completed McDo nald' s struc- ture and all signage they desire I have you from Mr,. Mel e also enclosed a letter addressed to ou from B ro ok, Rea l Estate Representative for McD nald 's Corporation and the application form which y ou requested. If there is •' r any further information you need, please advise.11 Very truly. yours, . I I . NORRIS, BEGGS & S pS ON '' ,.... / , „„...„... ..., ,, , , Larry of I4augset Enclosure ' • . I I I • cc: Lou W asa'nV 1 o er s d`ac;it �. b ton Mel Brook r r I I Ooll-ri.ANb 4 sAN pNAhclso • 1N JbsE b o iq A tV1 tV T C i -n N CLI ULU . TACOMA, r '' SITE ' DEUELOPMF.N.T PLAN APID LD�LSxDN Iii 'V!FI�� Sit© P .a1 ©v.xc�� ti evic x 1t r facture Z File' I,�,� .....q.A P� C R T I ON 1, t Z f:3 r,c; ► �l .. .,.M .! M•..• a•••^o �. i 1.r " ON 639-4171 Da��c:� F71313iIJG x sr TIGARD PLANNING �. 4 2[} GJ ivl a n k,r s c'L'., �" . ry a w O r �7 c ri ,9722 L3 y. ,...... . ......,,..,....�.... ;,..... 1 .. ... .....,..t...: Yrmi:• ..t6,,....X.t >�uL':.n° i .. tl.1C d;ov.,,r �� ... ._..,.......». ,.� �� .»•........—•'�,'t""G .,.'"�7'iS:h.�ST1CSAkit"�L'� » 'A.9J"d7C1'S:SJYSF.Y:.LYiiCt9:. ��" �ECR::+�dlC«...liliti3'SA`,',YtR...tL:•"�'•�'«••I.�.i".�.3Lt. • a ,,2 , 1975' •' ' Pro oct Title McDonalds of r garde Ore a Dete Fa1Wr µ Owner De e1rrJ ex� MGDona�c ' s Corpora iori . .01;:00.,....,,,,a., l 3 0ndov Address s Seattle, Washington 98118 . . 1rle hon � '206-24677000 . .. . � �ea� c nex M a06d' s Co porataor _,.. _ T . . ' rer4+ru.w..VA1+�M0++r�M�MrWWb*.1F1�Awr +w+w w:.W. Ot00...w.rMhw..w1,aJ.r.a4MrrlwwMwMr1■111rtM/MIM01.10M .. , � D�'S C I t 7 C7"��I D N (�F~� i�f��)�E �'�Y Mi,,,;,W, ,.,,.....r..,rwu.,.,.Iww,..Wroww,...�arw,.,.l..rt.«�.wr+P.s•w, , ra.�. S� '�� F3E3� erain .w.wwA..+ww..ui..n.+niw�..w..rrn+ •w+awr..r.+.ww _. wrw..r.+.4Jr>.u,:r +r...w.•..�..1 www.uww....w+.uwiwr waw.i.,.,w�ww,.nwil..w4.e.�Mr�....�,irrw .wNU.rliu,�s+in4�U+r.►n .M.w�.+wa+n►...�'r'. McDonald` Rest ura t� .., ,, _ one �.?�6 4>L. a• -f .�:.,...�.�.. w1..... ��.. w....+, .L. .I .....y.....:.:.�..4,...aria... • ■ N www..+ W ' u SwY�N . d ..M+. .... Pw/ wn.iKWr.wL .ww+MMibwWMNM 6u.�.w..40.1∎∎42 .414 r,Y.rwrWLL Mw UYo..dr 41h 1.•• fM:TW�M:Y1 ..a•a.MMer.....a..wnw.0.1.4w1. , + r:r w.l..:ww.w+++ii.w.wr.+.o�r1....wr«+wr.i.w.rr..w.,ri .WwIAwJ..r�wi+.+,rw..tr.wwer.:U«1.11..rr.4..wmwN rl/1+w+ MNu.w w6H.I«r'1k4+wuYI r4r4uti tY.Aww+uhl W1.w:nla «s+uwllwJorwaM 41•w�llMi.1L+u . ',�,�,�, y,....:L.+y .ww.,t+..r.n+.,N1...wuJ..rr..+n.41.4....v..,o.r/.Ww.rn1r4...J4M.:,.4.i.....i.L.w:v/ir....4.wN..1U' 41.....w1.M4.1,411 .;,wU'r,.1w.4.:ln i.0 r ' wwi..nitl.1.ir..W..JW..koi.nw :41.4.1.411, • . Site 'S 2d 71 95«5 s ft. TtoLo S1T)9 r± of L31..ia 1 rI'incl" : 2 642 sr ..1..,. t.,„.»., . . Sqd Ft., of Paving Al.•p ' 4,i• ' �itg0 r.t. r6 ' 1.er�dar1 r� �.+ © 4�„04f1.. : • Antiipatedoves r en te ooas sa p �. , r� „ 1 An is Anticipated: Development Phae =� One phaso 120 da s w:.v..w.4...0+..../1..w»aUwwM.ww+.a••.1w.0101..wl:»Yr.46.,i. .,r....:W«.JW::' .«....».'iuw+.wn.e f ■ Ua1 uion r � � ate L, aa 000 L VDT' WRIT , O (� Speaia1 c �.�a.,d • i, { }• ,+a .4u.:. _ -ts4. 'sndaiw� `"'r'd '' .. G1 r't`��+r 11 a....i.i.�iµv/we..4w..,,dui.....,.,t4.HU�MN.,,„..„..M........Y.e.1,,..),"....wiI....e,„,,,„ MiC w...�eww„...,...:i....... . • ' . N 1�fi7 Ie„,,,„ .,„ . ',i.,y 444.0iei,:l1.4Ae.i1..,4 6,1.1.•,1u1M awWW,.Y4+i.r.iliu:k.riii0M41.4•4.4,11 .4.414144.40,40 i4irY NlWi. Mwiii iiii rir� - O e' n e. C i�,p h a..,,,,, , „ ,. ,.,..,+.....1 .,,.;.4..�,;i;.,,K ,.,.r., .:,� �(J Gy t r A ' , , . . , r `1, Staff Report .,.., Tigard Planning Commission _.. .. . Agenda Item 4.3 May 20, 1975 ZOA 1-75 ' I I Zoning Ordinance Amendment A modification of the original ordinance amendment to revise the C-3 zone. , Applicant City of Tigard Applicant's Re guts The Tigard City Council, in considering the revision of the C-3 zone as proposed by the Tigard Planning Commission, has suggested that the revised zone only apply to properties located on Pacific Highway and that properties in the Main St, area remain under the existing C-3 zoning provisions. Staff Findings 1. As the Commissioners will recall, revision of the C-3 zone was 7 found by the Planning Commission to be necessary due to the , circumstances existing on Pacific Highway, such as high traffic volumes, numerous curb cuts and a general development pattern found by the Commission to be to conflict with the objectives and purposes of the Tigard Community Plan and the spec1fic plans formulated by the citizens of Tigard in the NPO planning process. Specific findings included that continued use of Pacific Hwy. ' ° for both local shopping and arterial transport ,would result in its becoming nonfunctional, that arterial commercial land uses could be accomodated within appropriate limitations and that the continued well being of the City of Tigard depended largely on appropriate development of the highway. As a result of the unique planning problems presenting themselves on Pacific Hwy. , the Commission revised the C-3 zone according to the, following objectives: A. Control the placement of high traffic generating land use. 8. Provide site design criteria which will minimize traffic r conflicts and improve highway appearance, and compatibility ' . with adjacent residential development. C. IJlscourage the placement of neighborhood convenience commercial where it may result in an inappropriate mixture r of local shopping traffic and through traffic. D. Allow placement of commercial-professional office uses in specified by the locations most for that use 1� ado pted. NPO plans ' And the Tigard. CoMmunity Plan,, l I ( .,,w..mlr,.,.—.,M.......,.,,k, „r..,._Ir ...I., .,.It.+ :..ln. ,.....'I_.....,.,;'«ai,.., ,.,,..,.M ..__,.. ..a ,....w_.,....- .,..4.,,.,. ',..tr.c,...',..,.a.._..._...:...:...........,...ti..u.,.._ ....u,........ .i..z.....t.._.,..,.. . .,.,' ...,n„ ...re:.7wrrMd.,.,.Wy q. 1 +41 -- . ( I � . 2. In that the Planning Commission found it necessary to revise w the C-3 zone due to the specific problems existent on Pacific "' . (, Highway, the City Council, in their deliberations on the pro - p osed revision q uestioned whether this should apply to the r main St. area which does not represent the same 'situati:on as seen on the. highway. Main St. l is a commercial street intended �' to provide access to commercial properties serving the community. In contrast to Pacific Hwy. , its function is not to carry through �� arterial traffic. 3. The NPO #1 Plan, which is the adopted nComprehensive Plane for the downtown area, states that the downtown should function as a retail-commercial, governmental and community center for the citizens of Tigard. Most significant is the fact that the downtown ' is intended to provide a neighborhood convenience shopping function in direct contrast to the discouragement of this kind of activity1 on the highway. Therefore, the plan's intentions for the down- ' • , town are very different than for Pacific Highway. ' 4. The C-3 revision has been accomplished in such a way as to pro- vide the City with a review capability and, as written, does not prohibit outright any uses previously permitted. What it does do, however, as a result of providing this review capability, is add more conditional uses and reduce the number of uses perm mitted outright. The staff finds that, applied to the Main St. area, this review capability is unnecessarily encumbering. Activities which, in staff' s opinion, should be encouraged to t locate on Main St. may be needlessly discouraged. Of greatest . , '4,.. significance are the neighborhood convenience commercial uses such as bakeries, hardware stores, etc. The NPO #1 Plan finds the downtown a desirable location for this type of use. . Thee staff is concerned that by requiring a conditional use permit for , such uses when unnecessary, we may: (1) expend unnecessary staff and Planning Commission time to review the application and/or i,. (2) discourage enterprises from locating on Main St. either through 1' the added administrative time and expense or through fear of an • uncertain outcome before the Planning Commission. ( ` • 5. The Planning Director attended e. luncheon of the Tigard Develop merit Cooperation, an association of Main St. businessmen, where he was asked to apeak on the proposed C-3 revision which the Commission previously sent to the City Council. At this meeting 1, • he was informed that the Main St. businessmen were concerned that ,' .. the proposed ,revision was appropriate as it applied to the highway, I but did not serve the needs of the Main St. area. I 1 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Main St. area remain under' the present that this be established i', C�3 zoning category and � lished� �a5 �a new zone � �� called C-3M, and applied to the property which is shown'on the l I, attached map. 1, PC Staff Report - May 20, 1975 - item 4. -j page �Jr',h • ..W iii 1' 1 . l n w. c n,'M1 Y,.1r ryey vnrvw w V.iPU i4 M (' r W' " MINUTES ' TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1975 REGULAR MEETING TWALITY JR. HIGH SCHOOL 14650 S.W. 97TH!AVENUE, 'TIGARD, OREGON '\) 1. CALL TO, ORDER: The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:40 Pm. 2. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Ball, Hartman, Nicoll, Popp, Porter, ',' Sakata & Whittaker present; Staff d Powell, Bolen & City Attorney Anderson. Commissioner Hansen arrived late. 3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: • . Minutes of May 6 were not yet finished. Porter asked deletion of statement in minutes that he had suggested a proportional voting scheme - Chairman Whittaker directed staff to review the taped minutes and make appro - priate changes. * COMMUNICATIONS: Chairman Whittaker directed the agenda to be amended to consider Item #6 first. 6, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (NPO #4 & #5 Delegate Selection Process) A. Staff Report: • Bolen read a memorandum from staff recommending a, method and process for NPO delegate selection . The methodology used by staff and the voting rights of members was discussed by the board. B. Public Testimony & Discussion 1. Paul Warner, resident of 72nd Street asked clarification of NPO #5 status. 2. Mike Oberhoffer (Farmer's Ins. ) spoke in favor of the proposed sed membership distribution. 3. Fred Fields (C oe Mfg. ) asked how the distribution had been arriv ed at. Bolen responded. that the process Was 1st to establish the ;rumber of memb ers then to insure the participation of eac h affected intereet group by designating delegate ohai r; ,ro or 1iona then to assign the remaining chairs by P p l numbers ,, taking care to avoid probable tie vote situations. • • •' -.r,'._,.. ..._'. ....._ •r_,,..t...,.. ._. ,-:a'.,,..a:-w r.•.. _..r„''..l,...!•..,...,,.,..__.,..a... ... _..,.A......,m,.. ter.,. .-4,I:.:a;.,w,a. . •....,, Ii,.rdtv.l,,. .,lr I,.V....1•'1..ilY .r.i+...J..6ii'r:4 rr Ar.Y.o....t....-.-w.wr....-im..l,..i_A.JIk 1. _...,,iAr........+....t..::1..-..l.rru•r...tN::l'•a.r.,...t'L:YE.4• 1 u • , Page 2' PC Minutes Nay 20, 1975 4. Mr. Warner asked if the groups would meet together or remain independent. . Bolen responded they could handle meetings either way, but that that would be largely up to the NPO's. 5. Chairman Whittaker spoke to the difficulty that the commission had had with previous NPO formations. , 6,. Mr. Fields said he was interested and wanted more _ • information. 7. Mike Oberhoffer asked if the NPO plan would invalidate the "Triangle Plan” and if a new plan could be more speedily adopted thail the Triangle Plan. 8. Chairman Whittaker said the commission preferred a t"citizen generated" plan. C. Commission Action: Consensus was that the process and method developed by staff would meet the needs in the subject NPO's and would meet re- • quirements for citizen participation. 4. PUBLIC HiARINGS • 4.1. Conditional Use CU 9-75 (L«wrevce Whitaker) .- A request by Lawrence Whitaker to allow a cabinet shop as a conditional use it a C..3 zone at 13565 SW Pacific Highway (Tax Lot 600, Wash. Co. Tax Map 2Sl 2CC.) A. Staff Report: Read by Powell (dated May 6) B. Public Testimony: 1. Mr. Whitaker (applicant) testified on his own behalf introducing a site plan and addressing conformance with g grit the comprehensive plat. Greulich (Fire Marshall) on Conformance ect with h 'the fire code. 2 'cal 1l) spoke c • fc'�r nce, of the J . P � t No one spoke in oppositions 4. Staff recommended approval. C. Commission Discussion & Action: The commission discussed parking with the applicant. I Ball asked t he applicant if he c••o uw_ c.. c,ar ky the he necessary ; insurance: r r • ,.,...».,n.«. .I, ..., H...,..u....,cu.,....,.... ..,._..... .._ ....,..a.....,,_. _. ',..,' ,.,_.•...^..ai..,.,... ... ,....+..,,scW.u...w.. w..1„...«.,.,.a,...cw.-1',w,.,-.,...,..,......._.,..J_....,.�...,,..r.... .-c......._,....t:b.........., ...,.....-.,.,cM., ....,..-.+,,:i. ».M . 4 Page 3 v- , PC Minutes 'a Ma y 20,20 1975 ' • • Motion for approval (Porter•). Y . • '„.Seconded by Hartman. . Carried by unanimous vote. 4.2 Conditional Use CU 7-75 (Randall Construction Co. ) A request by Randall Construction Co. to allow multiple conditional uses in an Industrial Park (M-4) zone on a 5.56 acre parcel at 8900 SW Burnham, Street, known as "Security Storage" (tax lots 2200 and 2300, Wash. Co. tax map .251 2AD) - previously tabled. A. Staff Report: �. . . Powell read staff report citing memorandum from City Attorney. . Anderson explained his opinion more fully. . Ball asked Anderson if he meant that the applicant would have to ask the Planning Commission for modification of his Conditional Use permit for every change in use, infra-project shifting of tenants, remodeloing, addition, etc. that he (the applicant) under took. • Anderson said that generally that would be true - a condition- al use permit is a specific permission to do something in a particular place and under certain conditions. B. Public Testimony I. Steve Mosinski (Randall Construction Co. ) reiterated their request and said that the, applicant would agree to: a. Place limits on kind and scale of the tenant business. b. Strictly control location within the building of incompatable tenants. c. Redesign the parking layout per a site trap (Exhibit G) so that approximately 96 cars could be parked. , d. Limit number of occupants to 20 establishments. 2. Joe Oreulich entered his letter into the records (Exhibit H) 3. No one spoke in opposition 4. Staff recomm en da tion read by Powell: Denial of the c ondd i tional us e request, but allowing storage as a onditional Us e in buildings A end B the sm aller ones) Only, and requiring the following conditions to be met by the occupant of r building C , • I ' x:.,...�.}.W-..4..... 14.,a_lL.._I -....J...v.a....... ..L.„l Y..l..i.:««.l+u...._.a...t..w.•.✓I'w...rvA ...w. •.,..;•.-.,.l- . ..w:JY.iy, :..u+.. .r. _.lea uxW.J. ....4.+«.. aw—+M. 5...... _ <. . ...... 1 Page 4 PC Minutes May 20, 1975 . 1. No less than 1500 sq. ft. of con.tinguous floor area may be leased to any one tenant. 2. No more than 20 tenant spaces may be leased or used concurrently. 3. The maximum floor area employee/floor area ratio shall be one employee (occupant) per 600 sq. ft. of gross leased floor area. r 4. No fire wall shall be penetrated by doorways, ventilation . ducts, windows, or any other opening. ..� 5. No retail or wholesale sales activities or customc,r service to be conducted on site excepting that purely incild.enta1 to a permitted use. 6. No outside storage of materials, vehicles, waste or debris will be permitted on site. 7. No overnight parking of vehicles will be allowed. ,• 8. No more than one nameplate of less athan 10 sq. ft t., , . � mounted flat on the building wall line will be permitted for each enterprise located :n said building. 9. The project shall be resubmitted to the Tigard Design Review Board for approval of a new site plan and land- scape plan following the applicant's redesign of . access, parking, landscaping and screening and provision . of appropriate screened locations for solid waste collection. Such additional improvements as may be required by the Design Review Board shall, be executed before any additional occupancy may be permitted in the e. project. Site design standards and criteria to be applied by the Design Review Board will be such that: �. ' 1. Length of buildings and asphalt areas are broken up or masked at appropriate intervals. 2. Adequate parking is provided such that a parking slot is available on a one per each employee of maximum allowable employment and at least, one additional space per each establishment -- all parking to be appropriately p p g �P .. e 3. Adequate maneuvering'... space is available for each operational loading door. ' ' Pp t SW will., i ,l . 4. �' road� �1 ��o: W Burnham will be redesigned .to ,,,•�..�� ect the needs of g • th � f the changed �.0 e. � 5. Appropriate sight obscuring screening is provided. 6.y An irrigation systeM adequate to ensure survival of all I landscaping is provided. 11 ` C. Cca„mission Discussion and Action 4 e . .. ' µµ Popp asked the applicant why they had,proposed offices I 1. and restraoms in each space in the building. App licant responded that it had be en done f ar f i exability. . Ball Stated felt h� th e � staff recommendation_'. exceeded 1 what the applicant hrd asked and the c ould , • - - - .+.._..+,.." »I++.lu _k.._...i I.... .a.... ..,.».....0 6.a.a"'....s.w..i, a.✓;,,.4«G...,.;Ax.......:.o4tf.:::;.r:.i«.145.,:_.,.e....•..,M. r..n la, w» • Page 5 P d;„ PC Minutes May 20, 1975 r only rule on the applicant's request . Motion for Denial (Hartman). Seconded (Hansen). • . Carried. 4.3 Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZOA 1-75 A request to amend previously considered. ZOA 1»-75 to include the { creation of a new zone designation for portions of, the C-3 zone. and general provisions to include restrictions on high traff .c generating establishments (referred by Council). A. Staff Report on C-3(M) Proposal: 1. Bolen read staff report. 2. Chairman ask,.d that the staff recommendation be read inasmuch as this was a legislative hearing. 3. Staff recommendations approval of the changes referred. • 4. Chairman Whittaker explained further what the status of ZOA 1--75' was at the Council level. B. Public Testimony: Bob Cr eenwood (SD� 23� testified in opposition ition to designation of the "Cld Fowler" site as part of the C-3 (Highway) zone rather than identifying it with Main Street. C. Commission Discussion and Action 1. Chairman Whittaker asked commissioner Hansen if he was intend- ing . .• ing to participate n the discussion in view of his election • to the School Board. 2. Hansen stated that his election was not official and that he would participate. p Porter said he felt the school site was indeed �. part of 1 Main Street, 4. Ball disagreed. • out the "new C-3 zone ( • Highway) was �°i�te4for large sites 3" t un Paoi:fi�� y.. � , 5. Gartman poi e Fow-.er C-3 �. p anal'.,that► thet...owlerpsite should fbe with the ve Hi.�phwa i ( t7 R/ ). Haasen said that he fel t the st aff had 'been biased by the he City's unsuccessful bid for money to `build a civic center C n, the site. ;. '�, Bolen po�.�.ted out that i � project.,. , t been . ' .. x�.�� • ,. ,, : the Civic center load nr� a ?lanrii .g Department project; nor was the staff necessarily 1, • • - r - ^ Y� • ' • • r ', • wNrr._... .. rs-.. .»..,.....:1 .._r.......rA4n.a. _.,,.,..M._......«r, r_.... ._ ,.....r x.M,...l-.....r 4w ..."+ixr;4.ari'.I...4..r....r.! ...,+I.rYv.,+.....—+.r.. .r w u. a,).e.....Jr...... r i.....i.... kw wN.....kt,:.fi..++;-1 a.,..n 1.r+?.li....'4i4tl=r.a E Page 6 . PC Minutes May 20, 1975 ' in favor of that particular development.c Incept. 8. Whittaker pointed out that such a center would have been a conditional use, and would have had to go through the same process that a shopping center or grocery store would - . have to go through, and that as far as community development a' . was concerned, the l3ucholz property at the south end ofi Main, and the School District property at the horth end are '? the two most significant sites in Tigard, and ought to be treated carefully. 9. Motio�. to adopt as drawn (Ball) . Second (Hartman) . h' ,,,,. . 10. Motion to amend to include Fowler site in Highway designatd, area (Han) Seconded (Nicoll) I . /. Question (Ball) Failed - (tie vote, lacked majority) Nay - Ball, Hartman, Sakata, Whittaker • 11. Question, original motion (Whittaker). ' Failed - (tie vote, lacked majority) Nay - Hansen, Nicoll., Popp & Porter �, • 12. Hansen said he felt that the City owes the School District • some cooperation. , 4 13. Motion to table to the 27th of May for consideration at a study session. (Ball) ] Seconded (Popp) • 14. Popp said he felt that the Main Street was more in tee d of "protective z oning than the IIg hway. 15. Question (Sakata) 4 Motion carried, (Hansen against) D. Staff Report on the "high traffic generat ors" amendment,a o Staff rep.'. ort was read by Bolen. ti y pointed out an ambiguity of the City ,�ttomne. Anderson oiM aoeed ordinance;and' suggested. that if),be be . tabled until fter the after the proposed charter amend ont, i . t .o ', I, t. PUblic . No one was present to spe },, n • r Mr �� Page 7 Pu Minutes May 20, 1975 F. Commission Discussion and Action: . Hartman said he disagreed with Mr. Anderson - that he felt it ought to be dismissed. . Chairman Whittaker said he felt it ought to be opposed actively `:by the planning commission. . Motion rto table (Ball) Seconded (Hansen) r Carried (unanimous) . . . Whittaker said the question was whether the commission ought to go on record'. opposed to the proposed ordinance revision and the proposed charter amendment. . Chairman polled the commission, Porter disagreed. . Chairman asked the City Attorney to read the memorandum he had earlier alluded to. . Ball suggested that the commission could go on record opposed to the ballot measure (charter amendment)based on its findings that there' was"ra'potential' •:legal problem and that it was conceived without proper consideration of land use criteria, • Moved (Hartman) Seconded (Sakat :) Carried (Porter against) 5. SHBDIVISIC r S S1-74 Preliminary Plat Approval A request for approval of a preliminary plat for Phase III Summerfield Planned Development, located at and near 8.W. Hghland. Drive and 109th Avenue. A. Staff Report: ▪ Staff report was read by Powell, with recommendation .for approval subject to conditions of ZC 5-72. B. Commission Discussion and Action: ▪ Moved to approve (Hartman) Seconded (Hansen) Carried (Unanimous) n ried (U nanimous) 7. OTHER BUSINESS: None 8. ADJOURNMENT: 11:50 P.M. " o • • " , • May 120 1975 Mr. Louis J. Fasano Lovett„ Stiner & Posen° 610 S. W. Alder Portland, Oregon, 97200 Referencet McLonaldfs Restaurant Submission for Tigard Design Review Board Dear Lou: • As you aø aware from our telephone conversation or May 90 1975, I am in rAceipt of a memorandum from the City os legal counsel, Anderson, Dittman and Anderson, regarding the adequacy of Mond ws April 300 1975, su iliasict for design review. As a result of the guidance pro., vided this department, I now find it appropriate to accept the plans submitted by the MCDonald's Corp. for development of Jack Robertsotos site located at SW Pacific Highway and School St. Inasmu61i as oot.. siderable time has boon spent by myself and legal counsel in determin,- in the adequacy of this submission, it will not be possibl to toe to item on the agenda o the Design Review Bo.rd for May 13, 1975. This item will therefore be considered by the Desist Review Board at their May 270 1975, meetins, within the 30 day period required by the Design Review section of the Tigard Municipal Code (16.59.040 (2)). Enclosed is the memorandum from legal counsel to this department. It addition, I am aware that you have received my metaorandutt to legal couns,I. I believe the two documents indicate the amount o time and careful deliberation which has been necessary tor staff' conevrting this matter. 1cwevex Z am sure that you are we that 14 any con. • tested zoning mattr 0 the stztf must be absolutely Certain that the proper procedures are being followed. X addition, It is important that neither side has a his for claiming that ,Italf h,ts be.n par- . tisan and therefore treated either of the parties in an unfair ,manner. Por instance, mY contention that the 14 day submibsion requirement must be adhered to was based upon our operating procedures and was being applied to the 7pplicant in the faOhion that it is applied to others for dosi., review. It wan not intended t be used, when eatab- lised by the Design Review Board as a tl,-thed of fruetrating 3P1)11,.,, cants, but rather as a guarantee that staff would have suffiCient time to 1 .view a 00mplete ,ubmission of materlaIsq ) I • • , Pr u h {i�'I it ' ' i Mt Louis J P, sono , , "); Nay Z.*, 197 ,,x .page r y �,,j watt 4. '�ri'Y' o r .M'� ,say, 2t' m 'R^' +�, �A , ,;t�.7g7' ,: w'�i" ;w . y�7(W, 1 d}{µ�'�r�!�� Q{��jj� �(��y�7 our tt}pp'�fry{71�{I �y��(� �,yp�,q�� ^ytl�Y�J��, that ��{y� j{4y� L Y I `^+!! '�Ar.�9r YTr 11 it Ti�+1r, I�P�+'r�/! yen 'h 'i• �(.• ' � *T MIM, Tn1 ,iii Y+Y a, (-,:Iti.004$ I* the applicant discuos ,may mditications and prv,m to to the sit'4 pilau Bch ' Ni we tlay fInd mutually ,',000ptableo given If tltdo may 'occur after 1.40 ; :tibriii.sion deadlio,o We may t an appoittoebt O etteh , ' s be arranged, rather than o : into ttt rtAo e 4W % • 1 pout. ' has ' € . o he past S ll t • ` ,i i �. because I believe *e eut4emo will be a plan MVO etk • ':i to the g' ' ' m .0 Moot be Them by the h or the 27th. ^:4 or the architectural will be conol4ered approved. Pollowing a ► ,ssim period the arohitecturo i L the k .,te deve/kopment plan not boing Outtijottt a M r OO ow ' 3 day e i n' o p *tom + Hoare 1108 b ' ,, treatIns both ao one Id atto .tiag to voider a deoision i " ,, ' on of aspects of the overall project *. the 3 , day period* ; .. 3, ;, the MoDonaidos submission their Nay 27'0 197$0 meet-1,134;p 4g30 ppm. I. the e room of '1Vality Junior Ili& Schoolo 1400 So Wo 'DIth 1 • o0u i Tigardo O* or r C Y � X . (7 + r d Sole i r y o A op ' p y t o p / o Beggs, $tops 0 I I ' At " as I 'o .,,I,.,w.,.,.,,..z.r...�,,. ,.,�".... .,...,.�r.,...,,.,�., _.,...,,,"..,, ,r ..,..,,,. ,�, .�.,�„w, ,” ,;,�.,.„uaM„r.,.,.i�.... .............. ..... ..... „� .,.,, LMT.. ,.,�, • , .er I �.• i q.!y I, IF{'!.„ I May 12, 19751 (` 1 • MEMO TO: City Planner ;City of Tigard FROM: Anderson, Dittman & Anderson • SUBJECT: SITE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW---- 1' HdD'ONAL•D'''S. ; LI • 1 j In your memorandum of May 5, 1975, under your point 3, you indicated some possible problems arising from the fact that the two driveways shown on the site development plan to provide access from Pacific Highway were deficient in that (a) The Easterly driveway was 23 feet from an ad- joining driveway when a distance of 30 feet is required by the Municipal Court. • •(b) The. Westerly driveway was proposed to be stared with the Standard Station and involve a curb cut of more than 30 feet, P� Further consideration of this matter, in the light of ' my experiences with curb cuts and access ways on State highways in the past, has brought to mind the probability , that the matter of reasonable access to State highways from abutting property is within the jurisdiction of the State Highway Division rather than that of the City. It is recalled that when Pacific Highway West (99W) through the Tigard area was expanded to four lanes that the highway right of way department purported to acquire ail access rights excepting those particularly reserved to the property owners in connection with the purchase of additional rights of way more than twenty years ago. In placing the curbs along this frontage, even though the • property was undeveloped, curb cubs were made at the points • of reserved access . The reserved accesses to the State highways were considered as vested property rights and were not susceptible g r n.;�s the e property owner and the high- of change without consent of both h • way department. In this connection, I refer to ORS 374•.305 and 374. 310.' Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of 374.310 purport to vest in the highway department rule making authority as well `as require the department to determine what steps are required to protect the traveling public. In the case of highway) Commission v. Beech, 244 Or. 162 recognition Was given to the fact that reasonable access to • ro State hi ghways is a , prope rty right, but it may be controlled o n trolle c and regulated b y the State in t h o interest o f the safety the traveling public under the power of the States • • ..J +�4 . A ' 1 I « ... .,._..-.i..r.,..._,.,t 1,r . ».n r-..r.i4..-..lr r _ ,. .J. iuC r,..rr • _ _ _ ,,... . e r .t..,-. ..T6rw...'.,Jew.., . .,_ .. ..w..w.,. .• _ r • • .M ku F • N • JJ Page 2 City Planner May 12, 1975 provisions �of� � Tigard Municipal In considering the prov the T. g � r Code, in relation to access rights, it would appear that the City' s jurisdiction, is applicable to City streets and ways , and that pursuant to ORS 374.310, the Department of Transportation, with respect to State highways, and the County Court or. Board . r of County Commissioners, with respect to County roads, has juris- diction to issue permits and to determine the extent and location ir' of access. I find no exceptions with respect to control of access ' to State highways within the, boundaries of cities and no ' basis appears for dual jurisdiction. • Accordingly, I recommend that the matter of access to • the Robertson' tract from the state highway be further examined in cooperation with. the State Highway Division to determine whether the reserved accesses which apply to this tract may be modified to conform to the City' s. code. If, as I believe, the right to determine what is reasonable access is vested in the State Highway Division, such determination would appear I to be binding upon both the City and the applicant. "le Fred. A. Anderson �r FAQ.: m l � . . �..--•- • • • ' 6, ' Memorandum To: Fred Anderson From: Dick Bolen, City Planner Subject: Acceptability of the McDonald' s Submission for Design • Review on May 13, 1975 Date: May 5, 1975 • The assistance of your office is needed to determine if the Planning - - b staff has acted properly in refusing to accept submitted plans for a McDonald' s Restaurant on the Jack Robertson property, School St. ° at Pacific Highway, to be considered at the May 13, 1975, Design Review Board meeting. The following represents the basis for re- jecting the submitted plans. • On April 30, 1975, this office received a set of plans from the tS McDonald's Restaurant Corp. for submission to the Design Review Board. 1 . As much as 30 days previous to this time their representatives, in- cluding their legal counsel, Lou Fasano, had been informed that the DRB has a 14 day submission requirement and that April 29th would be the deadline date for the May 13, 1975 Design Review Board meeting. In addition to the subject submittal being received later than the prescribed deadline, there also appears to be several deficiencies in the plans which, according to Section 18.59.040, empowers the Planning Director, or his designate, not to accept plans for for- , warding to the DRB if they are deficient in terms of other ordinance , requirements. CODE DEFICIENCIES: 1. Aside from some standards of the Code which have not been complied with, undoubtedly the primary question to be resolved is whether or not the submitted plan constitutes a partitioning of land (see attached site plan and landscape plan) . The submitted plan shows essentially the same conditions to exist as when the memorandum of , March 20, 1975, was provided this dept. by legal counsel. In addition, no lease documents have been provided as previously requested by your office. The major departures are that what was termed an "easement" , providing access from Park St. to the subject site, is now termed a "driveway and the vacant one half of the remaining portion of Jack Robertson' s property is shown to be seeded with grass and there is a statement saying picnic tables will be located there. It would apper to the Planning ntaff that the planting of grass and the placing of picnic tables is merely a means of circumventing the land partitioning requirements. This is especially evident in that no other aspect of the site develop- ment plan has changed with the building and parking still arranged on one half of the lot as per the original partitioning request. ' Therefore, we are once again asking legal counsel whether a partitioning of land does exist. 2, The submitted site plan does not show a required 10 ft. landscaped Setback on School St. as required in Section 18,28.040 (1) , The applicant's legal counsel has contended that the front yard setback ( } «,wa C ti.,,..:,.,,...., .,tr....,.,..,..,...». .t._,.a.,. .. .F.„ m..w.u,„.,...'i-.ry .�1....til-....r,.»......,a.,.. »�4a:.,.rl.a«...-U....7...r:.t».i:+v..,.r r..-•.,..:.,<..,..ru.u..rt....w.rc..».,.4'wr::,...»..—.r.++:',:....4k„a:u:.«Lrc'c r 'ww:r:Invd...Y.nL..+R1u:t,KG.si:.ac rk,x,,C-P:.4:Kiitr t.,r-, .. .._...1.•••,«swp+=ti., ,. , • is not required adjacent School St. becauseµ- it is °'not, in fact, • a street. This then takes us to the definitions provided in the Zoning Ordinance Section 18.08.510, where Planning staff has determined that School St. would be considered a street and a 10 ft. setback should therefore be provided, two driveways shown on the site t ;�. .I The y e develo menu plan, to provide development 9 P x access from Pacific Highway, are each deficient for two separate • reasons: 1 r , ti a) The easterly driveway is shown as being located 23 ft. from the adjoining driveway when a distance of 30 ft. is required. See TMC Sections, 18,64.040 (d, e) and Section', 15.04.06.080 (d) . b) The e westerl Y driveway, which is proposed os d to be shared with the Standard Station, is proposed, to be greater than 30 ft. in width, a wider driveway than permitted by Code. (See TMC Section l5 O4.O6.o8o (d). 4. The final question is, assuming that my interpretation is in= correct and the plans do meet City Code requirements as contended by Lou Fasano, whether we can enforced the 14 day submission ` deadline established by the DRB. Mr. Fasano has pointed out that -t�... the plans were postmarked April 29 and this should constitute : meeting the submission deadline and furthermore, he s e has questioned g and, � 9 the authority of the 14 day deadline. The staff cannot establish this 14 day deadline by means of DRB minutes or the like, but we .°' do have a list of submission requirements which is provided ''.. applicants for Design Review specifying' the 14 day submission requirement., Of .c )urse, the applicant's legal counsel does readily admit that they were given notice of the 14 day notice well in advance. I might add that, as a rule, this 14 day period isn't strictly adhered to and we do receive plans a day or two late for sufficient reason. This case is somewhat un usual,' however, in that it has become a political issue in the community and the Planning Dept. is somewhat caught in the middle between contestants in this case, namely, several residents t who are concerned with the safety of children attending Charles F. Tigard Elementary School and traffic congestion on P , '« fc High- way and the property owner, to include ,'various . elemen' s of the Tigard business community.this Because we are being watched closely to handle all aspects of this case p properly and. equitably, we are adhering strictly to all the established rules. In addition, this entire matter has become so intertwined in legal questions that the Planning staff does not feel qualified to make` determinations • on these matters. Your assistance 1therefore requested and r app reciated in advising u s in these matters. Me . ao 4-5ciho i memo — 5/5/75 - page 2 ...... ....',.....'..,...r. a .... i ' , . .. ., ..:..", '. ,rvH..x.xs.;,...wV y x» .... n r..n I.•. •.,... n ..., ... • • n-,.....-.m_i A .e.i...i...u., ,,.«...,... ✓.,....._».,,...i.....-.,....N......rrax.u:.a�..,,.+...✓,:,.s+16:.:.:gr,r.V.......+.».,:..a+...,....Uw...x:.,1,: �:L'r:iti,.,....n�....-uF L..ti...t_..z.e.:...4.444'4.',1.4...44-„iu .. .4u.." l i .,��-.«....:,..e» ...:�Fwtk.!-urv4rJ�.».�.,.:..._ •.�I-..,.7�:.a..�....c,,.ww:.�:.A�.JU:u:r aa:�.::a:..«,,.,.w:..:=,:tti.::a=tur.N.�.+.,,.u:rae,...W.4_;:u:�.:,.r,�h.,;ua'd-WU. • N'ORRIS, BEGGS 8& SIMPSON , 900 S.W.FIFTH AVENUE,PORTLAND 97204•(503) 2237181 May 5, 1975 • Mr. Dick Bolen Planning Director U The City of Tigard 12420 SW Main Street • Tigard, Oregon', 97223 Dear Dick: Enclosed please find five copies each of the proposed McDonald' s site plan, irrigation plan, landscape plan, sanitary and storm sewer plan. These are extra copies that I though may be of use to you. Very truly yours, NORRIS, BEGGS '& SIMPSON • Larry 0. Haugset by Hnclosure cc: Louis J. Fasano Jack Robertson Mel Brook 4' Kati p Oft 1 L AN] SAN r'AA NC I��cy sA I 1b st- = sAckAMENTo �u�a.�LU rACrj MA • , '1:1) rY LAW OCE8 LOVETT. STINER & FASANO, P.C. • tolei OREGON NATIONAL BUILDING CHARLES M.LOVETT WO S.W.ALDER STREET ALONZO P.STINETi LOUIS J.FASANO PORTLAND, OREGON 97205 TMLEPHONE ROGER C. TRAGESSER 222.1331 DAVID H. DE SLASIO May 2 , 1975 • RECENED The City of Tigard 12420 S .W. Main St. MAY 5 1975 • Tigard, Oregon CITY OF TIGARD Attention: Bruce Clark Administrator Dear Mr. Clark: Pursuant to our telephone conversation wherein we agreed it would be appropriate to seek a legal opinion from the City Attorney on the two subjects covered below, I submit the following and ask that you refer it to the City Attorney for his opinion. We have been told by the Planning Department that in order to be scheduled for a Design Review Board hearing, the applicant's required materials must be submitted at least four- teen days prior to the date of the hearing. My clients , Jack Robertson and McDonald's Restaurants, mailed their design review documents on April 29th and they were received on April 30th by the City, and we were advised by the Planning Department that they were not submitted in time to all us to be scheduled • for the May lath Design Review Board hearing. The question • for Mr. Anderson' s consideration is whether there exists a binding 4 • requirement that all relevant documents be submitted at least fourteen days ahead of time in order to be shceudled for a Design Review Board meeting. A secondary question on this subject for Mr. Anderson's • consideration is , assuming there i8 a binding fourteen day filing requirement, must the documents be received by the City at least fourteen days prior to the hearing, or is the deposit in the United States Mail at least fourteen days prior to the hearing sufficient? • ° The second major area for Mr. Anderson's consideration is whether or not "School Street" is a "street" within the meaning • of Section 18,08,510 of the Tigard Municipal Ordinances. If it is , our design plans would have to provide a front yard land- soaped setback of ten feet along School Street, and place any proposed Curb cut on Pacific IlighwaV at least thirty feet prom • ' ,........ ..;x.,...4...., ..,,,,,.,..,.,,.., ...«.,...,..._.. ,.....k„ ...,.;u•G°°..,.,...:...,;l.:.c,.:... ......»..uµw.a-%a..,,o...-,...j,.,d.-:a...,,.... o..-..:a.w.A..+ .ni6 MU,.;u' a'r N.:x«aMq'ay.xu;.1:wi u'...a..w:wHl1,ttA,YFUtbra.:.s,, _'vz:a.w.w.... d _ .....:wa;.w:u ..a. fi • May 2 , 1975 The City of. Tigard Page 2 School Street. If it is not, neither of these restrictions would apply, and the plans we submitted by mai i osa April 29th would be in full compliance with the Tigard Municipal Ordinances . We respectfully ,request that you ask Mr. Anderson for his opinion on these subjects as soon as possible and that you submit to him, at the same time, all pertinent information relating to the requirement that all design documents ,be:submitted at least fourteen days prior to a Design Review Board hearing in order to�, be scheduled for that hearing. • • Very truly Ve ,y tr y LOVETT, STINFR & FASANO,, P .C. Louis J. Fasano „ . LJF:crd cc: Fred 'Anderson Dick Bolen Larry Haugset Jack Robertson Each Member of the Tigard City Council • • • . ( , . . _• , r l 1 I � x.u>..a,n.ar.'ri�'xA.rr+W.i,.:;R.kA.Y.,I.....J:.«M.IK1Y:s'aCJ�.t.cia:.r«:H+Crstuwu,.xi.«ar,,.wi+..kam ,-k.w,r.,.rr.w•. a..w.,•..ry'nn,e>AaW'rrar• • ti_.w±...,zv arm.M..t:+..aw:.I.•+++�h».w,.a,..r.-,...rux+.w..»+'r.w+r+.r r+w✓•.rtaw..w:...eN'.+r�,..w+.,'•1'•'AH.�rNUWNF•4..,i.WC.A't'1.111�fU..rn 1�1?'"•':-i'1�J.«r..l'wtLWti..,-.rm�.,.r�l.4k:41MN+wC�a.V,.tia».,w�+Wa: 4 t .. •• r Coe Manufacturing Company - 2230 S.W, s-i∎rZXSER ROAD P ,PORT D,OR.UGO 92'223 ,. FRED W.FIELDS I ,x'" t, - April 28, 1975 • • . I Mrs, Doris Harti.g C 8260 S.e W. Hunziker Rd. i. • I' Tigard, Oregon 97223 II. Dear Doris :' 1' m unable to attend the city council . • meeting tonight; therefore, would appreciate • your presenting the contents of the enclosed r . letter at the appropriate atu t ime in regard to , the Jack Robertson matter when it comes up on the agenda. I Thanks . [" 1I Fred d • II 11 1 I J , iI 1 I � , I r Ir I • I i i i, .,.u,...,..I... i, r.nr,v.1.r .I..,r r. .•.. ,h. x .•. .I r r r, ..,, n 11 r 1 e..Ma ra,k nr♦ !u..tea-.vA .,. ,r w..yx..+...« e...s ..1 AlJ4'A.ra..,... .,.I... ...."iat<Y .ra.....w+.S..A Mtr,.. 1M0.... .w..v. xa,a-W1..H..»n �A.. .r..G'' �+ 5....:J'. •.. r, .� 5 - � i ' s�,Mw r.l,r.x h,.._.v.+.•..w. W...Xr..4.A+ a ..«..Wn .�n... ,w... 4.. a i A ,A 1 tl W 'H 4.� Al r+Y J' • Coe Yfanufa.eturial.g Company Z030 S.'N'. 1IUNZI:EEER ROAD l' ra �z� ✓' I I2 ORE� G+UN 8223 I I Fr b W.FIELDS i April 28 , l 7 p � 9 a I I City Council Tigard, Oregon • Ladies and Gentlemen: I; , I u ' I I 've become very concerned with your 1 attitudes toward property zoning, and part! cularly with that proposed for the Jack Robertson property. I have discussed this with many people in the area including several members of your planning commission. I must say that I disagree with Y disagree you and C, suggest you give this matter much more consider- , ation before reaching a final decision. Yours trul Y4 I �1 r'red W. pields FWF: ln I � I ' a n �•;' 1.FI ..„s.o.r,.,w.l_.:.-�.K:..�...,.,..4.:;.,r::i,..u.-,::.MM�Y�-+«...,s,,.{,�... yIG'.,.;.r.«.,....;Ik:...:,.�.,,i...r.«.zuLe,..4..cta...�.,�.r .:...a.::.,ecaY..+a.,,s,..U�.«.w:.�dY.,MM�Y:,�::,,.�.�;.;.GCJ.......�,.:,.r,�nu.1t;,::.�s-- , ........: ........ al.µ.„ .,a.._.w...., ..I-r.Y..i.4 1R.. H,Id:.� .,r.� ; 1 . y TO: / 4 d6Vre, F ROM: MORRIS, BEGGS & SIMPS:N_. a�� JOO''S'. W. 'FIFTH AVENUE Ate I PORTLAND. OREGON 97,204 . 7/.9ick.ear 6:::,/: (503) 22 .7181 1 �. MESSAGE --� ---� A W� , ..., ,0"r --- , Date �° ',�°'". i 7� /9 p/`/ �, SU�BJEC'�':� ,� _t_:_2f-%_ ‘,,t.-/ 5.( t1.7 jeyie,o ee;i:// ,,,z, .74lX.i'e „Le_lf0,40%,ffea, ,,f0 , ,,,:s;,e_c„.,,,,,, ._..L, _ (' _ , ).) 6.5,,,7,,-,,,e.„,,,,, ,,,..._...cv,-/ ,,,,,v ,i9c," _ ,,,... / &.... _ ,4 , . : ,,g6r.,___„„ c.;,,pe!_„,,gi, , /- '7,..5 ._____:-, i 4,, . , 6 44-&177e -6-,-'7' C,(62eriaol'e -6 ..1, . c4:-/k ,tzLlef: ' - ,..-,, ../Aie ' - ' Jo/tee, j 76,/,7 . '. A, ," ../.: , / Y,,,,, e-e,"5.6',7:2 ; 4 • 4 l.2.4 df , a✓',1 . .., , , � �, '' e-;:'e�Y✓ i ? 4 OCR'' r 00,E)e [. ,, �� .......z.7._ei.i z._ e,___,,—c,e*----t-,.„--e.- ----4 çzi te ” . f7--' i _07 - ca.,A,f7 ,_,..?„, a eil,,,,i ,t?,,'" ail:), /STA-47i..t.,,, .,,, ,,i6se",,, (...-V-4,": . , ' ' &:,,,24, 4i_ ez.,/f _v4,1",; ' Y�" ,7 ,t,,I „44,) .�. . ' tiirfricci,e, , , .C111 OE :FIGARO , • . .. ,■,,,;:7 x.7 .7" ------- . ' 1 .,.7',„ Ak,-;,,,,67,1 ' ' „ g ,...`,40'e"'' . , iel ge,'6e61(*4',/,--** C iVER M R 'a'AIN 144W,COPY II II i r gyp, r . I y • - • • vr,_n....•....,a,_r..,..-._.,,..,-._..,,..,.,».,, r .,,....,,, ,w.,,....,,,».._.,,,G.:.:,......,i.,..u..- .:,w.,.•.....,,..w..F....u'.lt..:rt:+..r.L,:.......::.L....,,».•..._r,-.. .A:.l...l'.,u,...:.(.... ,...k.....,....,.11M._..t—x.-w..:. .........x,...._,11a,L..,..,,.1\k...e_..rl r...,.w.4.. ' l •. ...._,-,-,... .._,.,,.,._,--».,...,•,_ ...a..u4raa-.rue...,r..aL..:...V=+-,..7.uN..u1.• • elY Property Description McDonald's Corporation April 25, 1975 " A portion of Lot 33, North Tigardville Addition, a plat of reco„cded in e Section 2, Township 2 South, Range 1 West. of the Willamette Meridian in Washington County, Oregon and more particular described as- follows: Beginning at a point that bears South 45° 00 ' West along the northwest- erly line of said Lot 33 , 10.00 feet from the most northerly corner thereof; thence, South 450 00 ' I'East l along the southwesterly line of an easement to School District No. 23U, recorded September 5, 1972, in Book ° 885 at. 'Page 951, 211.07 feet to the westerly right-of-way line of S.W. Pacific Highway; 'thence along S.W. Pacific Highway on the arc of a 2904.79 foot radius curve to the left with a chord that bears South 37° � 41' 55" West, 136.28 feet, an arc distance of 136.29' feet to the most easterly corner of the property leased to Standard Oil Company May 25, 1960 arid recorded in Book 436 at Page 583; thence North 55° 14 ' 50" West along said Standard property; 110.04 feet to the most northerly • corner thereof; thence South 350 29 ° 30" West' a-ong said Standard Oil 1 00" most westerly f ` Company property, 140.00 feet to mos "fir",corner thereo • ,( thence South 19 41 ' 0 East along said oil company lease line, 77. 00 feet to the north line of S.W, Park Street, said point also' being the most sduthe1y 89° corner of the said Standard Oil Company lease; • thence South 89 19 ' 00" West along said S.W. Park Street, 138 .78 feet to tho easterly line of S.W. Grant Avenue; thence North 25° 01' 00" We t along Grant Avenue, 1123 .31 a point o West ril said S.W., feet to p i on the north. w s ei�ly line of said Lot 33, thence North 45° 00 ' 00" East, 382 .90 feet to the point of beginning. � I I The above described tract contains 70,955 square feet or 1.629 acr es, o; more or less I • P!EJTIdOHN ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC N,,, , ,c , 74-ri60 b r. Its4 C7/' " w r it .n•..-...". ••+..r..f.,+", =A.rr,• - :l' • , •• ,,-. • " • TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report Agenda Item 4.2 k ZC 3-75 , Zone Change • of a 1/2 acre parcel located on the northwest corner of SW 67th and i Hampton (tax lots 1100 and 1200, Wash. Co. tax-map rs1 lAD) p• • Applicants Hawes, St. Clair, Miller, Cook & Tollen, optional purchasers for Randy and • Karen Schultz, owners Applicants Request Approval of a zone change from Wash. Co. RU-4, single family residential (similar to Tigard R-7) to Tigard 'C-P (Commercial-Professional) • Applicants' Proposal 6 to construct a 6000 sq. ft. office building with parking Staff Findings 1. This site has recently been approved for annexation to Tigard by the • Metropolitan Boundary Review Commission. 2. The Tigard Community Plan identifies this area as "commercial-residential" and the Tigard Triangle Plan more specifically recommends office park development. 3. Streets adjacent to the parcel are SW 67th Ave. (60 ft. R/W, unimproved gravel) and SW Hampton St. (60 ft. R/W, paved enter •strip). Neither street is identified on the Tigard Community. Plan or in the Tigard Triangle Plan as collector or arterial streets. The "Triangre Plan" recommends vacation of both the portion of Hampton adjacent the site • and all of 67th. The intent is to provide large planned developments (on super blocks) rather than cutting the area up with a gridiron street pattern and single, isolated developments. 4. Parcenzation of the four blocks bounded by Hampton, 68th, Franklin, and 66th shows some assemblage of potential commercial parcels has al- ready occurred. Assembly of parcels of such size or configuration as to afford all the present lands to the centef of the "super block" (those that front 67th) access to either 66th or 68th seems unlikely,however. Staff feels that an option should be left available for internal cir- - culation along present street rights-of-way. Future development could , be either as a loop' off 66th (Gonzaga-67th-Hampton) or as cul-de-sacs of 68th 66th and/or off Franklin. Certainly 67th should not remain . a ' through streetb nor should Hampton: r r r , r .... mow+ »�..�..,...... ...,...- �.. r..,u.w...n, .r,aw.4,.W.F+-L.N..I'� b.w.....•�r-4rh,:-r.:...i•:,u:rk.«.�:.:..:l+.i: ....a•k:.lraue...,. xlws.. s4 r.l.•t:;.::+.4R+IWF4.....7.:,'71n:.ir+4n:..»...wl.m.7::iA-.,.w:..:., » .». ,. • 5. Sewer is available approximately 100' from the S. W. corner of the site. 6. Public water mains are to be bid soon for 67th. 7. Surrounding present land use is predominantly residential to the north east and'west of the site, but is apparently being held speculatively in anticipation of commercial development. Land use to the south of the site is recent commercial office development. 1; Staff Recommendation to be advised after close of public he-ring • { u r Y 1 r , PC Staff Report April. 15, 1975 -' page 2 II i I .:,�..,, r......,',., ...,... •,�n..,,,, .,... r:, I �,.��.•, „ .,.�.,.r..a.... ur r,�,.,. �,.. ....r .. ,.... .. ........r-........,u.,,,....•..... , .r � .� ..,...,.. ..0 r,r,�.. .,i .•.� ,n.�l �,... .xu.nula-r-„n x,rvn ��u.,.,HhrcurvWrl�n,.�r r r ........I.♦xa+N-I ...6.,_:.>Mw..' .,..w.,,,44•o...,i.i+l.�,.,—a;c...�w. hN' v<a '�1�'. ti ' ,.'. ..L>Y:.. ..:cl. e..r+t».t"-...'xc—n..,,.-:a..w.a,'.+.aiw..+„a:...•:—u--:bc.i.,..444..,a40, ,4....L ILIA.rwiui..r::uuc.._._w,w,.E+.,.a A....,., .«.n..w.n,.»."....,,,....c....i.li.n,Y, ZC 3-75 (Schultz/Hawes, St. Claa.r et al) April l5, 1975 Staff Recommendation APPROVAL with conditions that: 1. Applicant provide curbs and sidewalks on his frontage on Hampton Street and on 67th to the north side of his most northerly parking lot entrance. I I • , 2. Street surface to ma tch existing be provided u p to new curb line n e (based on 34' street width). I 3. Applicant has agreed, that a non-remonstrance agreement be executed allowing the v alue o f street improvements be deducted from future L. 1. D. 4. That proposed ;building site and parking configuration be arranged • a8 to accomodate future street alignments and vacations. • • ' 1 ' I . , I 4 I I I I + ' I I G.1 1to ♦ i I I I ", .,......., ..,. ,.. ,,,_. ..k...,. ,.....k. .., !_..,.«,,.,..._.,.,,,r..,i.. .....«.,....',.«,r.y.u,...,..«wa.F..«..r:;:�....,, .+,r,»a.».rr,Maa„.....,.:r.,.,;..,,ar. -.•,+:4,.'�,„,wa--..„r,:ca.,L.ka:J.z,...��,.... ...,- ,.,..,�.. _ r uw:.., aww.,1� r /�'�`• • .,• . wA NO'riCE OF 'PIJfLIC HEARING - CITY OF TIGARID `..,.✓ANNING COMMISSION Notice is hereby given, that public hearings will be held by the Planning Commission of, the City of Tigard in the 'Nallty Junior, High School Lecture' '' Room, 14650 SW 97th Ave., Tigard, Oregon. Said hearings I will occur. on • April 15, 1975,. at 8:00 p.m. g; and will concern the followin by a r al amend.An a la.cata.on 1`�av�c.s St. C1az o” m nd�, the' Tigard PP y , I �. Zoning Map from County RU-4 zone 'to Tigard C-P (commercial-pro- .'N fessio,nai) zone at 12755 SW 617th Avenue `tax' lots 1100 and 1200, • Wash. Co. tax map 2S1 lAD) . . . ., .3o sgW 1 13 i ._.___ a — _ — — '7100 K; r 7200 2$ b s 90l) I? s�9 _ I if—I sr��o • 7••. 7400 • 7360 J t 1'• . I i" °!1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 2 I t ;41 1 I I I I + psi ' . I • . _ 19120'21'22 23 24125 25 ,1 1 1 1 i tr as' me ....a.—L-1 .1--- *4. On 1. • _ G'0'PSI Z A G A, r (7 TN) ____ 1 ST:: 15 I 19bo 8 0 17}001 ! soTo T 41- 7040 I 1010 I I cl0 e' ar' 1 .a' 1 i ae -� I . I ' Ii ( ( o : 1 1 w I I I ^' ro I i i I I -� ie if, 1 ) : III S° 9oa_ ., e r.� 11.1 i «' 200 . 1600 �:�-Irwesasl I r.,.-..- _ _--.... 1 .-� _._. ,M r.__r i..r..._ .,r. rte- , .. _ _ .. • I o oo _ • �: I . L. z aloo Aa'_ 1400•._-. 3 M ,-- 3• a __., ...W i_— _.— P aaoo ( __ (•.^oo t•- i� .__. 'JO4_.. .." „,:/.7 '... . .. . , .1.,::_.__1 —r 3c ' 3 Mumma ,...�'�:::;'.: z 50 0 � - .m._ __2300 — I'3OO , - i, ''3,r q:: j 1 12 C31'!' i 1„ i r . .,/r 4 / +I o i ...A I 1 1.i I �+ : r�l j Y,. l /�•i 1,`.�l a i to 111) 1:1!,d,a e r t0 i 1 ! .I I 1 4.1)1 I I �' f.,:„,;::1,,,,:,,,,::111 +'! 4.." A..:.1 i ii' �� .d..® .,.,.. . r r..a r W w..•., . r... r r...., _ .t.:•"-J i..., b r... r ■ .�. a is i ry or--7--/67,4. .. C'r� r + , C 1 i 3, i 5 � � 331001 o i 11 I - s I 1 2 3 14 5 6 .7' &.° liI I [ I °1 •I I. I I I ! ' !JJ4 t I I ( _ y to �,id,,-sp_ ., i a ,,,,, 36 1 1 19 3,1 S40CIy .38. l i " ` I s i ,y.,.,lw.. ,.r.Miy K.--r--.-..1-�N�/ / ♦ L.._....« �- ._..� + i J �' 1 v / J r I' {ri•i �.. •, V"+1,r,.iw N+u.xur.-+ Al]. persons re to attend' ari i��:�x - ,invited b Wand g d ' fans hava. e�k xrt 't-here rna.,tte�s � to be beard, r - jI fY • • MINUTES C:;) p TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION April 15,15, 1975 , Twenty Junior High School Lecture Room i 14650 SW 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m: 2. ROLL CALL Present; Ball, Hartman, Popp, Sakata, Wakem, Chairman Whittaker; • 1 Staff; Powell, City Attorney Anderson o ' 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. March 4, 1975 minutes were approved as read. B. March 18, 1975 minutes were amended to show that in item 4.3 the motion was made on the basis of a finding that a hardship was existing. C. April 1, 175 minutes amended to shops that Commissioner Ball and Commissioner Wakem abstained from voting or participating on the C-P sign code matter. Whittaker asked that zoning ordinance amendments be tabled for the +' May 6 hearing. ° Staff brought up the matter of determination of similar use of a • cabinet shop in a C-3 zone. 4 ° Commission resolved to adopt a cabinet shop in a C-3 zone as a similar use. Motion for the resolution (Popp), seconded (Hariman), J` unanimously carried. 4. PUBLIC HEARING 4.3 Item was deleted from the agenda per the Chairman's instructions above. 4.2 Zoning Amendment ZC 3-75 (Schultz/Hawes, St. Clair, Miller, Cook and Tolen) q t to amend the Tigard zoning map county AU-4 or our R-7, Are request g g p f ron count single family residential zone, to Tigard Commercial-Professional, C-P, at 12755 SW 67th Avenue. A. Staff Findings p read by Powell (see attached).. The staff report t was tea � B. Public Testimony 1. Applicant, Terry Toien, indicated the purpose of the zone . , MH.w c! a: e I is to develop a L..ormercial building. The property t Y is app.cop'.riate for the use intended. The project conforms to the Triangle and the Community plans and is compatible with the .' existing development around it. 2. Commission Cross Examination: o Ball" asked the applicant about his project's relationship to the Comprehensive Plan about pre-leasing agreements that had been made and what demand the applicant anticipated for his project. o Tolen indicated that the project related more closely to the Triangle Plan than the Comprehensive Plan but regarded the Triangle Plan as an extension of, the Comprehensive Plan., He said that they intended to pre-lease, but would build whether pre-leasing arrangements were made or not. He indicated he felt that demand was high for 'a particular kind of project . such as his, but acknowledged that demand for certain kinds of office space was low as indicated in the market place. . ° " about . g - how many parking would pro- _ asked abo parkin be _ vided and whether it would be sufficient for the building's sq. footage and employment. Tolen replied that he felt it would be and that the Commission had the power to restrict the use of his site if he did not have ' sufficient parking anyway. 3. Testimony Opposed: There re was no opposing n g testimony. • C. Staff kecommenda tion APPROVAL with c and i ti or,.4 that: 0 1. Applicant provide curbs and sidewalks on his frontage on Hampton St. and on 67Th to the north side of his most northerly parking lot entrance„ 2. Street surface be provided to match existing up to new curb line based on 34 ft. street width. 3. Applicant ha s agreed that a non-remonstrance ce agr eement be executed allowing the value of street improvements be deducted from future L.I.D.sb • 40 The proposed building site and parking configuration be arranged as t o accomodate future street alignments and vacations. .' D. Commission Discussion, and' Action The e C any S s�oT briefly x�fly dasc, ussed parking on the site and the future of the 'Triangle Plan in that vicinity. • I I PC 'Minutes t x es April 15, 1975 page 2 , x`7tir • ,. ..«I,.,4:. ,r w,.,ll.w to-raRr.....4....,.4:.—.r4.«.,.FI lw.4'....ri 444+41 K. 44,4..'4 r—+ 1......l.;e...,....4 rvY;.t!r..n.yYJN:nu •C.n 4,1- uh1,v...,.:441, µ F.ny:s,,.+;;a ;rc. :,a.,..K� w....,' y Motion to API', E (Nicoli), subject to staff , Iditions (above.mer,tioned), seconded (Ball); unanimously carried, 403 CONDITIONAL USE CU 7-75 (Randall Construction Co,) A request to allow: A. Automobile service station to include the automotive related services of auto repairing,airin g: customizing and restoring, body and fender work, painting and upholstery. B. Furniture manufacturing to include, combined, assembly, ware- housing and distribution plus the refurbishing of used stock. C. Machine shop, welding shop' and contractor's office • D. Tool and hardware manufacture • E. Warehousing and wholesale distribution all of which are conditionally permitted in an M-4 zone, at 8900 SW Burnham St., an existing project known as '`Security Storage". A. Staff. g Findin s Powell read the staff report (see a~ttached) B. Public Testimony 1. Applicant°s representative, Steve Mosinski, read ,a letter in response to the guidelines after Fasano (see letter attached). 2, Commission Cross Examination: o Commissioner Ball asked if the units were ventilated or air conditioned; asked about storm drainage and asked if all units had garage doors. o Applicant responded that they e y were no t air conditioned, that t storn drainage had been provided for and that all units did have garage doors, o Porter asked the size of the units. ° The applicant responded that the units were about 900 sq. ft. ° Hartman offered the obserration that t he existing co4ditional use for the storage could be rescinded if, in the Planning . Gottnission°s View;; that use had become a problem. o Popp,asked') the applicant what, they were intending to do o Applicant responded that they intended to lease the units t!:t Building' "C" for businesses and continue- the storage. in the other two PC Minutes - April. 15, 1975 page a r, .1+ 4,44 ...014,I44., • • ° asked the applicant if the t( a of their tenancy was by the month or long term lease, 0 Applicant responded that generally they were by the month tenancies. ° Ball asked then if there was a possibility of 60 conditional use applications per month if the project were to continue • on a case-by-case .case �bass. • °' Applicant responded that there was that possibility. 3. Opposing Testimony: None C. Staff Recommendations . APPROVAL of the following requested conditionally i Y allowable activities: 1. minor auto repair (involving exchange or installation of parts only), customizing and restoration (including auto body work, painting :only as incidental and related to above) 2. upholstering (commer cial and automotive) 3. furniture manufacturing and refurbishing ' 4. machine shop, welding shop 5. contractor's office 6. tool and hardware manufacture 7. storage (in units A & B) In addition to the permitted use s allowed in an M-4 zone,. providing ' that the following conditions are satisfied with respect to all activities allowed on the siteo, � � , Each proposed occupant and/or activity-shall shat be sub ec t . o ` Planning Director's approval. 2. The project will be resubmitted to the Tigard Design Review Board for design approval following redesign of access and o parking, inclusion of a solid waste collection p � g� `- � 1. � � , larea or dumps for site conforming, to code and a suitable sign scheme and landscape plan. . This shall be accomplished before further occupancy permits may be granted. 3. The maximum employee/floor area ration shall be one (1) employee per 600 sq. ft. of net floor area per individual establishment: • PC Minutes April 15, 1975 page .ti .a..,-,«i,..t,s,..,.4,.+.u.aw,...',.:,u..aac..cwaw1a•�. h. 4. No one establishment shall lease or occupy less than 500 sq. ft. of contiguous floor space. . . All partitions, fire walls and exposed framing shall be brought, up to minimum building and fire code requirements. 6" Storage only will be permitted in buildings A a nd B 7. No retail sales or drop-in customer service or pick,-up and delivery excepting that purely incidental to a per mitted or conditional use for which approval has been ' secured. 8. No commercial vehicles shall be stored or parked overnight on the site. 9. No outside storage of materials, vehicles, waste products, or debris shall be permitted 10. No corrosive chemical fumes, opaque smoke, noxious vapors ' or, exhaust gases will be emitted from any activity on the site: 11. .Noise generated on site will conform strictly to "Quiet Zone" standards promulgated by the State of Oregon FQC. 12. No more than one nameplate of less than 10 sq ft mounted,, flat on the building wall above the window line wilt be permitted for each enterpriser D. Commission Discussion and Action ° The Commission discussed the performance standards recommended by staff and the possible ramifications' of.i'Security 4Storage" bey coming a "mini-industrial park". o Motion to table (Ball) on' the basis that the Commission, needed' further time to consider the staff recommendations. o Seconded '(Hartman) Commission Discussion of the Motion on the Floor: o Whittaker commented on the q ues question of occupancy of the units. N indicated opposition to project on the basis of o ' .cola. �.n ated 1Yxs o' the e L of inadequate parking o Sakata was opposed on the basis of a l fire problem. • Porter wanted to know how the question of future tenancies could be handled administratively. °' Hartman voiced his concern that permitted_ruses be controlled in , this project as well as conditional uses and ,felt -t1 e proposal FCMinutes y p April 15 1975 page.e 5 • u , I . ' ..r . 4w.,n„u, .'..LL.... +....r lr•I. ..lor+l.._.......M.•e.,..n,i..7,...»-r,i-...w,11. ,..1,,.r.F.mMv.l.l. ,.-...,1:4..baro.A..r_ �' r 41 +,.« ..... .1_,...,.h.r..�,:.%Aar, .,drYri.,..:«r...al.x.:.>,rrawM:r.!1�,........�!...„.«w:....,.r,«.._.,.ti,HU.I. 111 n. V Nti'+[w : � ✓A-A,n ur.;...f,l r Arv«.14,,.n1.rA.t.',:4iW..1: d ;lrs&kl..Ywr;.+,e.;Y1,;t. would • "handle” _ ould gzve the Commission a handle n on obnoxious permitted • uses as well, as on conditional• uses., 0 Ball observed that even a permitted.use may not be allowed when the project had been approved as a conditional use. . • ° Attorney I Cit y A nderson responded that he felt this was not the ; a' case. The presence of an existing conditional Use did not im- peach the applicant's inherent pe°rmis$ion to install a use permitted outright under the zoning code. I I I Question was cal.l.ed. Commission vote was unanimous to table to the i regular • next uXa a x eg meeting (May 6, 1975). • 4.4 CONDITIONAL USE CU 8-75 (S & S Garden Service, Inc.). I I A request t o a 1 lQ w a garden supply 1 y a nd landscape co n tr aG for e' s off1ce a n and outside 'storage and sales in a:C-3, General Commercial ,zone, at 12535 • SW Main St. ' I , A. Staff Findings See staff report attached. B. Public Testimony 1. Applicant' ° Ernie White, owner of the subject parcel, testified in favor, described the premises involved. He further indicated that the applicant had improved the appearance and use pf the property and he felt the use was a benefit to Main S t'e and ' that there was a pu'b .3 . demand for the services offered, ° Jerry Cacho neighboring businessman, testified''',id favor 'of . the application, indicating that he appreciated the imp provement of tbe' adjacent site,. 2. Opposing Testimony • • I I None C. Staff Recommendation , • APPROVAL of a conditional use permit to operate a garden supply store and a landscape" contractor's office and shop,; including out 4 ide storage and sales anallowing an exception to on-site parking standards i n the zoning code, b1 Commission Discussion and Action • I • ° Popp observed tha t the neighborhood did b enPf i t frot the e use described. . I PC Minutes April 1 '� 5, 1975 page 6 I • I I I . .'.. i .....,'.' .,i,:I... ,..,..1 r" r,„',,..at '• ..',i ,., „'.f,.'r Nk kNlvilltlb.rl,L,ai I' -, .. ., .._. _. .. .. .,. ., , , . -'�.,.,. .. a ,.. ,. -_,J.w' ,td wM1.....,..M c....w:.l.w'w ,.+•u..a.4 d«...«.,,....,.v ,_A:..,.a,r.....4..."a•-t:,.+ 1M,,., .ra4.,...c. ' . ° Porter asked if outside storage would be a r,roblem. ~ ° Nac oli said he felt there was no sp ace th ere for storag e of � equipment. ° Motion (Wakem), seconded (Popp) for APPROVAL per staff recommendation with the additional condition that no outside storage of other than plant materials and normal garden supplies be allowed. . ° APPROVED unanimously 4.5 VARIANCE V4-75 (Ted Foster) A request to allow an exception to Chapter 18.20,060, Tigard Municipal, Code, allowing an 11 ft. rear yard in an R-7 zone at 12555 SW Brook- side Court. A. Staff Findings Staff report (attached) was read by Powell, B. Public Testimony 1. Mr. Foster testified in his own behalf observing that his request would make no hardship on adjacent property owners; that the. re- quest was necessary to preserve his right, to use the property; that the variance was necessary because of the unusual long and narrow shape of his lot and that the request was the minimum variance that he could ask in order to enable him to use his lot. 2. Opposing Testimony None w , C. Staff Recommendation APPROVAL D. Commission Discussion and Action Motion (Ball) to approve; seconded (Hartman) Approved unanimously 5. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROV AL - S 2-74 (Way Lee/Alpha E ngineeritg) A request for an, amendment of an pp . pr e1iminary plat to Include ex cep Lion Chapter 17.28, Ti �ard unl,ci al Code s tr ets ,... �. x•e" ues t approved r . H w a s to Chat Ave.,� s >an � ,, •, P �' � g P c d s�.d ewa�1 ks)'..-in the Way� Lee subdivision on SW Pacific �wy. �at 69th A � � � � � , A. Staff Report • Read by Powell (see attached). C nu ; � Minutes d April 15y 1975 - page 7 ; r l Ai as ► ( c . i B. Public Testimony 1. Torn Amburg, representing the applicant, testified in favor of the proposed amendment citing the need for additional space on the two lots created by the creation of SW. 69th Ave.' He specified that the applicant intended to conform to all City codes and that the 60 ft. street standard, which had been asked in the original application}, was due to a (misunderstanding of the applicable street standard. 2. No one spoke in opposition. C. Staff Recommendation APPROVAL subject to conditions: • 1. allow a 60 ft. right-of-way for SW 69th for 100 ft.. from the curb line of SW Pacific Hwy. • 2. require a ft. minimum sidewalk on each side of 69th ' adjacent to the edge of the rights-of-way... y , 3: Allow a 34 ft. paved (curb-to-curb) roadway with 44 ft.. paved (curb-to-curb) for the first 100 ft. from tie SW . Pacific Hwy. curbline. 4. Conform with remaining conditions of the, previous Planning Commission approval (through traffic !in parking, areas to facilitate emergency vehicle access, pavement of proposed street to the furthermost driveway access with a bond posted 1 to ensure completion when appropriate, and required party ticipation in the cost of signalizing SW 69th intersection at SW Pacific Hwy.). 5. Street lights shall be provided to City standar:ls for 4 commercial street. 6. Water pressure and volume must be sufficient to provide full j fire flow. ' 7. Storm dra, ge be provided for per City code. D. Commission Discussion and Action o Motion to a PP rov..e. (Popp); se conded (Hartman), subject t o staff conditions. � • o Ball observed ' that he 'wou 1 d like to see e dsztive landscape. 'e .. , measures taken with respect to site development. p � Hans'en observed that t. he applicant s proposal seemed reasonable,but he fel t that the sidewalks were adequate. ' ° Whittaker aske d that the sidewalks he placed adjacent to property lines: PC Minutes April i5 1975 - paged • • f 7✓ • W.Cf t, • Pf Staff ebserved that was included in the staff recommendations , Bail asked that street trees be included at a specific interval, I for example, 40 ft. on center. ��; ° Whittaker said there were design problems in the curvature of ' , in the.design desi n of gad'anent • should be 'addressed hash ,rho g J the roadway � landscaping and sidewalk provision. ' ° A motion to amend the previous motion (Hartman) to apply site 1 design review, to that area between the property line and the curb lines of SW 69th St.„ requiring the applicant to provide sidewalks and landscaping to conform to the topography with the intent that the developer provide landscaping in the areas between the sidewalk and the curb line allowing adequate space • for a street tree planting and a pleasant pedestrian ei}viron- ment: °Motion seconded (pope) to, amend. • o carried unanimously. o Motion to amend condition 1 of the stRaff requested conditions (allow a 60 ft. right-of-way for SW 69th for 100 ft, from the curb line of SW Pacific Hwy. ) (Popp), seconded (Hartman).. .the . as approved add "for 100 ft. except 'by��Public Works Dept. from � y the curb line of SW Pacific Hwy. • Amendment carried unanimously. °i Original motion to approve called to question, oarried .unani- mously. 6. . MINOR LAND PARTITION - MLP 2.075 (Ashbrook Farm/Charles Petersen) , k. A request for ;partitioning of lot 22 Ashbrook Farm at 11090 SW 95th. ° Motion to table (Ball), seconded (Porter), finding that the applicant as not present to testify on his, own behalf'; r approved unanimously. • M • 7. OTHER BUSINESS • None 8 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.t .r . • PC Minutes s April 15 1 9 5 page • r. ..4.. .. - r,....ru W.,.,.,.awl.....W.. .._1A».....,.t...rt......«..... ....,.,....w.r......,.,......n.....,xr..r..<,.dA„_. •,x.,,,,+.rr4,l.r,.- ....,Naa-.-..e„r..a«»6 r...-..i l.. .....w.,J.«..r.4......_..,.,.....4':.,;a...l.:.h..-_w.,t«..9.,,....,..„CJ:.,.-.1.:,',.4:L'a.!'.-si,ls:,...i-..ar.i,:rrYw.iu.-C: .4 M..1 r.)wri,i. To: City Council From: Planging Department Subject: NPO #1 Plan Text Revision Date: April 4, 1975 t .. was adopted 0 Map on Ma and a w March 2 As the Connell is aware, the NPO #1 Plan Text a p p c 24, 1975. It is important that while the Plan was adopted, there were certain changes specified by the Council concerning the Plan Map which had not been recognized in the Plan Text. It is therefore necessary that the Plan text be revised to recog- nize these changes (C-3 on Pacific Highway rather than c-P) It will therefore be necessary, first of all, for a revision of the text to be agreed upon and subsequent- r ly for an ordinance revising the March 24th ordinance to be drafted. The following text change of the NPO #1 Plan is proposed to recognize the intent of the Council's action when adopting',the Plan: On page 24A delete the last paragraph and replace with the following: "The zoning of that portion of Pacific s Highway traversing the Neighborhood - 0 is proposed to remain C-3, General Commercial zone, with the above-stated,' preference for types and locations of land uses providing policy direction for businesses wishing to locate on the highway and to be used by the Planning Commission and Council when considering P ermits and land P artitionings.1 An additional text revision made with the ordinance adopting the. Plan states that the existing frontage road will extend from Garrett. St.'' to the Heinz Auto Repair Shop and when these access points are developed at either end, its access point to Pacific Highway from Park. Street will be vacated. The above text changes represent the staff's judgment as to how to properly amend the text to reflect the intent of the Council adoption of the NPO Plan. It is expected that the Council may wish to change or reword sortie of this material. In Council may wish to ask the assistance of •. addition, the C a.sh t NPO #1 in this matter it that they are mee';ing on the 10th of April, 1975. G . ...n. x- w.mnhvurssk.•anm+a:tbk„ .r. • '.,r .. (//') r... .r .•r F,n . « 4 II , . . . , , . . . . , . • ' . ,Ir- . • . . . . . . . , . . ' • (..r:' . . . . , . .. . . March 20, 1975 .. .•, . . MEMO TO: City Council, City Administrator and City Planner City of Tigard .. . . , • PROM: Anderson, Dittman & Anderson . . • SUBJECT: LEGAL ASPECTS OF PARTITIONING OF COMMERCIAL TRACT •-. . , This office has been requested to consider the legal im- plications of what I understand to be the latest site plan sub- . , mitted to the City in connection with the proposal to develop a portion of the Robertson tract located at or near the inter- » section of S. W. Grant Avenue and S. W. Park Avenue, aid also . ct,.. having frontage on S. W. Pacific Highway adjoining the parking lot of the CharleS F. Tigard. School. . • . A minor partitioning prop.)sal was previously considered . by the City Council at its meeting of March 10, 1975, and the , / proposal was denied after appeal from approval by the Planning I Commission. • . . The question upon which we were rquested to express our . , 4 outlook is whether or not the latest 14ot plan and proposal as , Submitted bearing a re-drawing date of March 4, 1975, involves • a partitioning of land under the City's ordinances and the State e statutes. We are informed by City staff that the total lot area, exclusive of the present site of the Standard Station, is now 1 , t under long term lease for partial development as a McDonald'S • . t Restaurant, to be located on the Easterly parcel of Lot 33, .. . , Tigardville Addition, leaving the Westerly parcel abutting S. W. Grant Street and S. W. Park Street undeveloped. , . AS defined in ORS 92.010 (7) : "Partition land' means to divide an area or tract of land into two or three parcels within a , calendar year when such area or tract Of land exists . . as a unit or contiguous units of land under Single . 4 ownership at the beginning of such year. . ." • . Pursuant to statutory authorization (ORS 92.046) , the City of Tigard by Ordinance No. 74-3, now codified as Section 17.24.010 , . of the Tigard Municipal Code, with respect to minor land partition- fr • ing, provided that . . , "A tract of land or contiguous tracts under a . single ownership within the City shall not be par- , titioned into two or more parcels for transfer of ownership, development or for any other purpose So as to conflict with the requirements of this title." It is to be noted, that to come within the definition "par- tition land", change in ownership of a partitioned parcel is not , a criteria, but to partition lands means to divide an area or tract of land into two or three parcels. A further limitation of Sec . tion 17.24,010 of the Tigard Municipal Code is imposed preclud- ing partitioning "into two or more parcels for'transfer of owner- I ship, development or for any other purpose". Thus, it is our r t . , . , . i I 0 . . , r . -•', 1 ...44.14.4....-.""'*'1,.) • ' f° '''''' . '5' . A, * • • • ■ Page 2 City Council, City Administrator' and City Planner March 20, 1975 opinion that continued common ownership of adjoining parcels (existing as a unit or contiguous units of land under single ownership at the beginning of such year) and the use of one or more of such parcels by a lessee for differing purposes under the land use classifications of the zoning laws and regulations does not place such activities outside the statutory land par- F ': ' titioning definition above quoted. This is particularly true inasmuch as separate ownership of the segregated parcels is not a criteria of the partitioning process but that transfer t 1 of ownership is one criteria while, division of the tract for Y, development or other purposes are criteria of equal importance { in a determination of whether a partitioning is proposed or has taken place. Another aspect of this matter arises from the fact that McDonald's. Restaurant layout plat which was made available to /: us by the City Planner, as redrawn Marcia 4, 1975, does. not depict the total pre-existing Robertson ownership, but only the Easterly portion to be occupied by the McDonald development. r This plat shows what appears to be ''a 25-foot road leading from S. W. Grant Street to a point near the most Westerly corner of the Easterly parcel. The roadway area is annotated "Pave Ease-- ment", which immediately brings to mind the outlook that an ease- ment for access road purposes is being imposed on the Westerly , parcel as an appurtenance to the McDonald development. ORS 92.010 (9) defines: , 4' "'Road' or 'street' means a public or private ' Way that is created to provide ingress or egress r: for persons to one or more lots, parcels, areas or , tracts of land. .." • and it is noted that ORS 92,010 (2) defines: "''Major partition' means a partition which includes the creation of a road or street." These definitions are also embodied in Chapter 17.08 of the Tigard Municipal Code. If the foregoing factual analysis may be relied upon, it, K' would appear that the latest proposal involving the creation iof a private way from S. W. Grant Street to the Easterly parcel to I "provide ingress or egress for persons to one or more lots, parcels, areas or tracts of land" gives rise to the legal out- look that a major partitioning is in fact proposed rather than T • a minor partitioning. • The foregoing impels us to the outlook that the proposed ' McDonald development involves partitioning of land whether or not ' the entire tract, including both the parcel to be developed and the parcel to remain undeveloped, are involved in one or more • ownershipS or under one or more long term leases.. r . . Pag e 3 • • City Council, City Administrator • and City Planner March 20, 1975 � The above should be considered as discussionary rather than final for the reason that a reliable analysis cannot be • made in the absence of any documentation to show the truetre lationship between the parties interested in the, lands not the use purposes of each parcel now or in the future. When ti such further information is available we would be willing to offer a further comment. B -d. A. Anderson F. A:pml • • • ' 4 I , I , • ' 41, 1 °. . • MINUTES TIGARD: SITE DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN REVIEW BOARD March 20, 1975 . Twality JuniorHigh School - lecture room 14650 SW 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 97223 1. CALL TO ORDER • The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Mann, McMonagle, Edin, Bartel, Wakem, Powell (staff) 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the March 6, 1975, meeting were not yet available. • Chairman Bartel noted that McDonald's site plan and architectural plan would not be available for consideration at this meeting, so item 4.1 would be stricken from the agenda. 4. SITE DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 4.2 SDR 5-75 (Sabre/Bethlehem Steel) • Request for review of a proposed warehouse and office space to be constructed in an M-2 zone on SW Landmark Lane off SW 72nd Ave. This is a resubmission item. A. Staff Report • read by Powell (see attached) B. Applicant's Presentation Presentation by Mr. Mike McGee for Sabre Construction Co. • indicated that they had attempted to comply with requests • of the Board, but felt that they cOuld defend the requested , • large maneuvering area. The maneuvering area was therefore • not reduced in size, although an additional 5 fto of planting area was given on the west side and an additional planting area had been provided in the parking area next to the • building. Mr. McGee also stated that he agreed with the • staff's recommendations with the exception that he felt that no landScaping need be provided along the railroad easement at the back of the parking lot. He then further explained the traffic patterns in the maneuvering area dna explained the schematic drawing 'of those traffic patterns • that he had provided the 'Design Review Board. A w a • C. Board Discussion and Action 0 0 �t �de based review m deny a on the Motion (Wakem) b lack of ir�� to revue Ilion (Wa ) y � t .• proposal. Seconded (Edin) , Motion defeated with Mann, cMo a gle and Bartel against. Motion to accept (Edin) on the conditions that: • '4.1) No permanent or temporary storage of parked trailers should be allowed in the parking or maneuvering areas. (2) that the northwest corner of the maneuvering area be landscaped (3) that the landscaped islands adjacent to the parking and truck loading door be relocated and that some major plantings be provided there (4) that an irrigation system be provided (5) that Northern Yards landscaping and Bethlehem Steel landscaping be tied together with a common plant material theme McMonagle seconded Approval was by majority vote, (Wakem nay) Y r Architecturlal Design. Review A. Applicant 's Presentation Mr. McGee presented the color board and architectural elevations of his proposed building indicating the basically metal building would have tilt slab lower portions and that a broom finish would be applied to those areas. He also indicated that mechanical equipment would be lo- cated on top of the building. B. Board Discussion and Action 1 Motion to approve (McMonagle) , seconded ( ,dingy) , carried ; by mi .jority. (Wakem abstained, Mann nay) f, 4,1 SDR 6-75 (McDonald' s) �II A request for review of a proposed franchised fast foods restaurant at SW Pacific Hwy. and School St. A. Staff Report Staff report was read by Powell (see attached) • SDR Minutes t- March 20, 1975 Page 2 13 I i I I .,. Y ' ter.aa..vin^.ofwrn++V aaw.aKVtR'ks • I , •IJ W 7 .,-,. .awl.• ...,.,,, .. 1. 1'N.. _ _. .,w-.._....,_. ..._,...._ ...,,A,..'J ,.. 1... .._.4. ....w._,. ,A.n..v..a..d.k--J-..,......w- t.,n..I._.r..Yl...+..i.,..xis+-.-n.,.,. .... N " Bartel asked when submission was made. Sta ff resp onded Tuesday, explaining that due to the continuing character of the case it was, felt that it should be brought back as soon as possible to the Design. Review Board. Wakem asked why staff accepted the resubmission that did not speak to, the issues brought up by the Design Review Board. Staff replied that McDonald's had sought other remedies , to the problems seen rather than accepting Design Review Board's solutions. • Wakem asked that the City Attorney's opinion, cited in . the staff report, be read in full. Staff complied. a McMonagle asked what zoning applied in the area. Staff pointed out areas of A-2 and C-3 zoning around the • i s te. McMonagle asked for documentation of the lease on the whole site. Staff indicated its only documentation was the site plan, no lease documents or other documentation was available to the staff at the time. McMonagle asked if any site changes had really been made. Staff pointed out that the site plan showed the School St. • easement as part of the McDonald's site and that the building was shifted somewhat on the site and that the exit to Grant . St. was added. McMonagle asked if the applicant had actually vacated the School St. easement. Mr. Robertson, the property owner, responded that he had discussed vacation of the easement with the School District. Mr. Fennell, School Supt. , clarified by remarking that the issue had been brought up to the School District Admini- stration, but it had not been before the School Board yet. , Bartel asked staff about the City's position with respect to vacation of School St. Staff responded that it was the City's position that it did not want necessarily, but that several land owners on Grant St. wanted it to remain open: Staff also pointed out H. . that an opinion by the previous City engineer had indicated that it was not a desirable public right-of-way, ;din moved denial on the basis that SDR, Minutes March 20) 1975 - page .K (1) The Board does not have sufficient information of the legal status of the property. (2) The Board does not have adequate information on the proposed use for the remainder of the site. (3) The submission was received too .late to adequately review it. (4) it appears to be a partition of land undertaken . , without proper City approval. Bartel stated that he had intended to conduct this meeting under public hearing rules and that he felt that if the , motion was made for denial, then all parties should be ' heard; however, that if a motion was made not to accept a submission, due to insufficient information or because some statutory requirements were not met, then that would be a different matter. Based upon this, then, the chairman • . felt that he could not support the motion as' stated. - Wakem said it seemed more appropriate not-t6 accept the • submission and allow the applicant to settle the land partitioning question elsewhere other than in front of the Design Review Board. Edin asked if he could change his motion to be "moved to take no action based on the four findings: (1) The Board does not have sufficient documentation as to the legal status of the property. (2) The Board does not have adequate information on the proposed use of the remainder of the site. (3) The submission was received too late to adequately review it. (4) It appears to be a partition of land undertaken without proper City approval. " .Seodnded (Mann) . McMonagle said that he felt that part of the purpose of '. the Board was •to guide whoever comes before the Board to knowing what the Board wants. He felt a recap of the Board's findings and the Board's wishes with respect to site design would be in order And that particular site problems identified by the Board should then be specilically addressed by the applicants with City staff and, if necessary, City legal counsel, so that the Board is not put in the • position again of reviewing an inadequate submission. Bartel asked if McMonagle could not support or if he felt , SDR Minutes - March 200 1975 page 4 1 1 0 • -AAA", A • i it needed clarification. McMonagle said he supported the motion but felt that c:1_ari- f icatic,n was needed. Several .questions existed that he wanted answered, before the project was again before the I Design Review Board. Those questions are: (1) What is the use of the entire property and all parts of it and what is the intended use of the entire property, (2) What is P p Ys ( the road from Grant Street? Is it an eavesment, driveway, or what? (3) The site plan should show the` entire site. (4} What street improvements will be ,made to Grant St. and to Park St. and how will pedestrian traffic to the site from the rear be handled? (5) What will Robertson do about School St. and what is the City' s position with respect to School St. ? Powell, staff, asked if McMonagle intended to recommend that egress from the site be to Grant S . McMonagle stated he was not stating a preference either way. Powell stated that staff may not be empowered to speak to the rights enjoyed by the property owners holding interest in the eavesments, but could speak to the City's wishes with respect to continued public access through that eaves- ment to a public street. Wakem queried McMonagle if his request applied after the applicant had resolved the land partition issue. McMonagle said that it depended on what the applicant de- cided to dog Bartel said that he felt that if the applicant wanted to use the entire tract, then he would not have to address the land partition issue, but that if the applicant in- tended to partition in the future, he would have to answer the questions brought up by the community then. "'He pointed out that there may be a risk involved there. McMonagle acknowledged Bartel 's comment, but said that he didn't think the Board shoW.d or could deal with a future possibility. Mann asked if the vacation of the eavesment must be addressed before the applicant could show it as a part of the site plan. c Staff said that may be but is not necessarily true. An ' applicant for a building permit or for site development approval need not necessarily be the owner. of the land at the time the approval is given, but ultimately that issue will have to be resolved. The City would hold the applicant to developing the site plan that had been approved. SDR Minutes - March 20, 1975 page " •1 .. ..-.........+m...a-:,,m.w..+...�a.u...cne••rais.t. . -,. - 1 . -..r.x_.r, . ,- _s• •r.w•....-.....a..«i+::..+......,r.n,l4u ',.L.:,w...:..........:......:. «.u'.,-x.,.A... ,t...,l,....,,...,. .,,5uw ,s . '114.. r J,.:F.,}.I.L°.,..«in...t.-...ri.S;...,.:,:,+::....,.s':..,.awuw r....., a.-M4a„ r.,....un vi.x,,. r.u, ....,v H.,..,,.iJ..w.ari x.nn xtl.i •.. „ .. .x n..,... _ ,......, a . . ♦ �J Bartel asked McMonagle if his request was a motion to amend Edin's motion. McMonagle affirmed that it was. Seconded (Wakem)ke rn Ammendment approved (unanimously) . , .. Question called Edin's Motion,9 as amended. Approved (unanimously) . Chairman Bartel instructed staff to advise applicant of the outcome of the meeting. . Staff- agreed.. a g Mr. Robertson asked if that was all. Bartel said that the hearing was over, but the meeting was not adjourned, and that the ''applicant could discuss his project with the Board informally after the meeting. • 5. OTHER BUSINESS J Wakem expressed his concern over the review time available /'� 1J the Board members. Staff indicated that the problem was that several deadlines were stacked up on the few critical days and that a solution could be to change Design Review Board meeting days. . Bartel asked if staff had any suggested days Staff asked if second and fourth Tuesdays would be cc e ac eptable. Bartel asked if there were any objections from the Board. McMonagle asked when the next meeting would be. Staff said the April 3 meeting would be as scheduled. The following meetirlg would be on the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays of each month. 6 ADJOURNMENT Chairman Bartel adjourned the meeting at 7, :00 p.m. i nf.o. r m,al session fJ llow ed the close of the meeting with h informal dialogue ue bet, een McDonald s Robertson and the members Of the Design Review Board. SDR Minutes -' March 2O 1975 — Page A . r -'a A 1 • • • ' TIGARD SITE DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN REVIEW BOARD , Staff Report March 20, 1975 . SDR 6-75 (McDonald' s Restaurant) - (Robertson Property) 1 N • to construct a drive-in restaurant facility on Pacific Highway 1 • at School Street Staff Findings 1. The submission is viewed as deficient by the staff in the following areas: a. Neither site plan nor landscape plan shows or deals ! with entire site. b. Parking conforms to City code, however, provides less parking than another smaller restaurant by the same operator. c. Area indicated as "paved easement" required to be ) 30 , paved and curbed; again, according to City Attorney, it must be an on-site access road, not an "easement", • or a land partition would be required. d. Conditions of the site design review board are not specifically met, although alternative solutions have been sought by applicant. e. Near building lines are not shown, nor are perimeter boundaries of site, nor are adjacent streets. 2. The restaurant is proposed to be constructed on a portion of a larger lot which had been approved by the Planning • Commission for partitioning on February 18, 1975. 3. Applicant has submitted present site plan claiming that the entire site is to be leased to McDonald's and School St. easement is to be vacated and blocked. 4 4, The landscape plan does not meet the 10% area requirement due to the doubled size of the site. 5. The Tigard City Council denied the partition at their March 10, 1975, meeting. The City Attorney has offered an opinion that the present site plan still contemplates 1 a partition and is possibly a violation of City code. j 6. Rear "access eavesment" exists to Grant Ave. , a substandard residential street, Either this street mudt be improved or access must be to Park S-b. H . ,fik .M...._.,w, 4.4 a.4�.a+�lw,2,,,a:..t�..�.,:w„+1.„..r..��...r...,�......:.4.x4,.ll,.u:,.:.ti.�.,�...::,.+.,.._».i,a4tJ,:+uw.._,:r0.4a ...._.:,.u.am 4..ut.-,c 7. Entrance and exit signs and some landscaping g p g are within I 20' vision clearance cone. 8. The City Attorney has offered his opinion that if a sub-' mission is not considered adequate by the resign Review Board, then this board may refuse to. act. Staff Recommendation This matter jr, referred to the Board without recommendation. Staff suggests that the alternatives available are to: . 1. take no action per City Attorney's finding (qv) , or it may 2. Approve subject to conditions of rem;,c?,ying the site plan difficulties, the landscape plan and the access/egress site on Grant St. , or it may 3. Disapprove, the site plan. • • • SRD staff report 3/20/75 page 2 - item 4,1 . • . L (r ...L....l..« ,. „„.Yf7.,u4.,...»x.w Mk�.M..!a:...,...,.-A.-..•M••,-.:Ga..1.ti.,..•P...,-r.cayx;,..0-4, ! w,sb.a.«x.M..l„r�..rw...M-n..,_�,..r,...�,.M a.,,,.,,,..t..G...xe,:...4,..ud.I4.w4.,...,..xaG.,,,,....:4U r.....+,.....,...,4,,,:LLu...l1,,.......IA....k,.�.:... .,,..,,...,.«....i„, ,zS;.t,—,,u. . a,,; ..r' s4%a ti:usa. 1, . 4 Eck 1”. k9 ti c u vi 0 r� - �. i r�! s L) ZA cie of f�f r lri,-ti'0 i/ Olt/ 4 5' e, e lac' at t�je el I) F 'r‹' '� F 4 S-ct lJ M,1 1$5,0,j 4 h}s h.e e ti r'L,'t T 6„,6 I UJ r��a'11 f h1 j'wl n/f c t,,,,,,.1" ' / 7d' I,,! ra✓ , 0/ r�,ra.7,-�Y 1 r / yli.6.4,..,......it flitt944.),;.4.4.,At, 4 . 8) 4- p-4,14,4s rt, ,/,) ,\ 1 1 I J • i w ! • 1 j a' I I I . I I I , .e .,.. n.i...........i."tW+.-.-..«-,....yJw....,.-„.,M-::.,,yr -,w.. ..+..t. .-..S'4.:.......wW"..iu.W'«.-..,...,.....,a...w.....«.....+a.;w «.u,+.: C• dl v��`; • , .fir', t L r (c) Councima.n r,t, rkhurst requested correct, n of typographical ,/1' errors to read' Sect on �� d Secti®x Exhibit.D. . (d) Motion Co cilman Cook to add Subsection G that fencing , be provided alorg ra lroad right-of-way to bi approved by , the Design ReView Board opraviion it tae i n tall f concurrently with the approval of';the first building Permit; motion seconded by Councilman'•.Barkhursto Approved'' g unanimous votet•of Council.- . , . ' •, . • (e)' Motion by Councilman Moore to adopt staff recommendat•i-ons . • as'amended; Seconded by Councilman �Mickelsono • j Approved by an cus vote of Council. ; • Recessed 9:20 - Meetir.;; reconvened 9850. i r -,2 o. APPEAL MINOR LAID PARTITIONING Appeal M.P.O. #3 of the Planning Commission Approval of a . minor land partitioning for the Jack Robertson property located ” .. at Pacific Highway and School Street (Tax Map 251 2CB9 Tax Lot, • J 3Q0)o . Ma.yor Bishop stated the public hearing would be held under the Paean guidelines as required by City Ordinances o r ! Public hearing opened. . ..' ). A (a) Presentation of facts by City Planner. A TESTIMONY: ' Opposing Minor Land Partitioning: . . Dick umpke q Chairman of N.P.O. #3,; _�, Gene Halvorson.p Representative of M.P.O. #3 • S s to Representative ve p..t Whiting; Herman Pcrterb member of Planning Commission; Stuart Orr0 •1271; S.W. 121st; Bill Heppnev. U.W. Watkins. ",i Cross examination of witnesses by Council„o ., TESTIMONY BT APPLICANTS: . . , k Attorney Bill Crows, representing aura R�mf�r�rrtreic, p pt ' Vi o t neJl,-4 �• ,P Cross examinations Stuart Orr; • Mies Anton Porter; i . Chuck Stears L n • Lucy Mayer ik Duane Meyers; W °o.e Rowe; a►; Don 1.egehrn S.W. °chool; . . Nancy Sti 7l.ern S.W. .1.15thn Crosa examination by Counoiilb City Recorder-reported.reported• receipt of ,f`olllowing° correspondence Letter from Tigard Development Corporation supporting McDonaldva deveio went n . PACE 4 - COUNCIL MINUTES - ARCH lap •1975 . • • . . ' ) ' ' ,, ■ . ... (4. , • ' rhos ‘ 1 Petition, previously presented by Floyd BergMann supp6, ti . f MoDon ,ic°a�"'de 'e10 ;gent o"„ " _, ,,. .. ,. . -',7 ,. -- , . Carbon rbon 'copy from rs. Kenneth Soh eca t o a ' Whiting. , opposing 'de clop cent.. , " . . _ . . ' Arden Manning of Gerber lades e aperUin aPa�lda o l r TIE'BUT AIo° ' , ' Lucy Mayernik0 , : 17780 S.W. Chippewa; , • Kenneth Scheckla; Herman Porter.;. ' Larry Haugaetto realtor representing developer; ' Mrs. Kenneth' Scheckla; `', ' ' Bill-Heppner 9 S.W. Watkins; Gene Halvorson, a Public Hearing closed P (b) Council and'Mayor each individually stated:'uhe1 had contacts,' � from interested parties regarding this.natter and because of the Fasano guidelines would not discuss the merits of the' G case. All stated they were'not,prejudiced in rkeking_their j' decision and therefore felt they would not have',to'disqualify , ' . `' themselves. ; . v ?k (0).. City Planner stated the Planning Commission had t eco ended approval,, however, since that time many things have changed N' and based on the Tigard Municipal Code'felt the applicant . �' V had not carried. the burden of proof% •, a Council and staff discussed the ramifications of the ' '; Fasano guidelines, if the minor land partitioning require- rnents have been met and if the request was'in compliance'with ' the comprehensive plan. . , G (d) Motion by Councilman Barkhurst to uphold the appeal of M.P.G. ., • a #3 With the findings' that eased �on. t to teotimo that it is ' not tn CC)nforn49e vith the co wposJ;"lmiSaav4; rar"P. R {4,the . granting of request may require an Undesirable burden be , )'' placed on the community; further,, that it is not in conforms r M mance with Section 17.74030 of the Tigard Municipal Code; ;;j motion seconded by Councilman Mickelson. •° . . . q Motion passed by 3 to 2 vote of Council with Councilman ,w�>,,,, Cook and Councilman Moore voting NAT. Meeting recessed 11:40 - Reconvened 11055 P.M. • 13. '1Y #1 „.P.O. ' Consideration i of the Neighborhood Planning Organization 11th, 1 • plan' for the Ash Avenue - Downtown area. The affected area is bounded by Pacific Highway, Hall Boulevard and McDonald Street, , 0 Th'e proposed plan map and text is a revision Of the plan foa _. this area which was adopted by the Tigard Olt'? CowidA of ' May 200 1974. hearingsbelcontinuedstod notheroti e9 lengthy wev. . conaensu$ of et. the flAblic y, ' C'ooncil was' to hold the hearing as scheduled. n . (a) Public hearing opened. H 1 .' to Y, ' 'PAGE 5 - COUNCIL MINUTES m MARCf 100 1975 'ti .. -:1 1 , ! , �' i, W C V . , 1 + It I n , • .1 1 ' , ,,, ` ' ' 1 •4 y' �vv . , NN ri Beg Simpson , - ,0,,:,' 1 900 SW 5th Avenue ' ' 2 I • ' crt an , o 9704 ',' ' i • ere S o ,' 675 "!s• I ' T is fetter 'o i .y oti ` you tta o � ease Far Site Development' .0 Yeeh i eve Board " ry 20* L975 0 and oo d t on toy ' { � � M" 1 are M. M 1 pq I , 'i Y� ,', 1 ' ede i n south' ai ' t�� t _te' ad ,d and. p e ' I y v ,f ' Yy A� ,7p/. �qy yy��'y{�y., y�j Wes,�1�J'�"'y 'y(y ,W,� Q}��, �!1�, .��;ry^. ,}�Ny� drives �/��{{y■ {�iWy ',,�� 1 � _order: R^.M �'M�� AMiM�.11W 1� �IAY��94/�IMhrO��'41� Y4' M/' a"q �NF! �CWI �TAf 'W 1iP and �1M� I only e i o e ' n 1 o oo tr e g o sang northerly,' a es.s ' ` v' ' ntt 'e . �, i I ' , ' ,' Pisses' a t e the o er p r ie thi s i o is ► U r and When ,' Orojeotplantaroveady., tor res b ttta l ► s allow'uot skis Cite to review, th e plats ts and'. p l,;y,ac e e a o end .h 1 • , , �� , � 1 1 � ,� P • to taRe ah Jyes , a o Ono z A u g the above0N sd o rot T ' " ' tate "to. , thiso ice at ?) 4 710 1 I 1 r ' 1 ' a , 'dowell9 Ass000 AZT' ' , ' 'L C, Chls i o 1 I • � I 1 p ' w t. +r,v .,. .} J 4 Y nr lnl nn r.r ..+«.L Y.H.r.l A-.1.u1:F4lw! •! H- .N,.i+.,-A.9 .....w,.4mti..- 4. .y. .w....'. '...a.. L.1. ...... .:'.n .-., ....._.. lx ..MA..I.I.L+.... .w. —. .. .. MINUTES TIGARD SITE DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN REVIEW BOARD r February 20, 1975 regular meeting , Twality Junior High School Lecture Room 14650 SW 97th Ave. , Tigard, Oregon 1. CALL TO ORDER. 4:45 p.m. china Bartel 2. ROLL CALL: members present: Bartel, Cook, Edin, McMonagle, Wakem; _. staff - Powell 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of February 13 meeting were not yet available , 4. SITE DESIGN & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 4.1 McDonalds .- 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: C taff Re ort: see attached) B. Applicant's Presentation: 1. Larry Haugset (Norris, Beggs & Simpso',a) asked for clari-� fixation' of staff finding #4 c & e. 2. Mr. Mel Brook, representing McDonalds, felt exit on School St. is needed. 3. Mr. , attorney for Jack Robertson, ds- cussed the easement on School St. for the board. A 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. C. Opposing Testimony: 1. Mrs. Eleanor Quimby cited danger to school children - brought up the pedestrian activated' signal. 2. Mr. pke, chairman Tigard the NPO� is con- NI . glum , b 1 and NPO3 said to cerned about traffic problems on School St. and on Pacific Hwy. 3. Petitions opposing the project were entered in the record (attached) . 4. Letter from Tigard Public Schools read into record d (attached) . D. Board Discussion and Action V 1 , \ »...;,.+.....,a.......,„'4 i.:,,:.:....._....,,.. .' ._I:. .,...,.' .»,.'....,,.;..,.............:.....'. _.,».. .....,..._. .,».Ma, ,..,,_,. ..,...,_.,.,.=r...._.,.-.,..a,.,.. ,._,. y,a.' ..,..,.._.,.....,,.,.....,. ..,....;.n,...a a. ..,.,,-,..,,.,.S,..x.,..... :c..,..._..-...,....,.,.... .,.....,,..r,,.0 e.....,.o.." 1. Cook/Edin discussed traffic problem -- Cook suggested that closing School St. exit and reversing traffic flow may be worse than applicant's plan. 2. McMonagle said cross traffic at s ervice station entrance x. and McDonalds exit is only one problem conflict between . deceleration lane in front of school, the entrance/exit at School St.and McDona` As northerly access as more critical. � 3. Bartel summarized concerns he had over the pedestrian : activated signal, the joint access with the service 4 . station and McDonalds nd 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 ;n , proposal. C. Board Discussion and Action 1. Board discussed access through site and whether there is need for updated site plan/landscape plan. i to y approval a a : _ re 2. Staff was asked t clarify boundaries of a. o and if the rear landscaping and parking wa,s included. Staff's inderstanding was that there would be a final 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 #10 2, 3, 4 86, D. Architectural Review SDR Minutes - 2/2Q/75 -- page 2 . Ye @4b . + ... I Rv ... - m",1_...-:,�. ...._. a.I.i..n,..L-., .... ..Yii•.nL.m.r..1,....«,..,.1..n...ALr_-,,.w.... .,u... , r»acl.»...r-,.,._«:.w:..-,n.J' 1 ... x.4« .w.,r„nmu.......w1.«..:+.w.,I..Mi.S...,.bn.0 M.. • .'' ' I t..,.'.,,..tF•NW...rY+t�l,4S w.>-5......Y:;t✓' ,4v4.a.J%iJMIM....w1u,.N.F,:SW.+ mt 4 , 1. Applicant's Presentation. Mr. Bob Gray said that the building plans submitted were i.•,I . g p � Ir • in error and that the elevations would appear the same 1 as Tigard IV, the building immediately north east of I i I the proposed Tigard III. ;; I t 2. Board Discussion and Action: 'I Moved (Cook) , seconded (Bartel) to accept building as altered by applicant 0 • 5. OTHER BUSINESS • 5.1 Charlotte brought ht in revised site plans and elevations g p a for Setniker project to confer with board. Board consensus 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 desig n, but would furnish design criteria and proposed elevations to :I.1 architect selected by Mr. Setniker . c. 6. ADJOURNMENT: 8:00 p.m. i 1 I I I r Y .. I SDP, Minutes 2/2O/75 - page I I I I II I I I r ,_I .,. ,,., .. .. .., i,. ,..,i ..w,.. b N ai,N•wy...uy r4, r .i f k• • • • (AA TIGARD SITE DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN REVIEW VIEw BOAR D Staff Report February 19, 1975 SDR 6-75 (McDonalds Restaurant) (Robertson property) Aprplicant's Request , To construct a drive--in restaurant facility on Pacific Hwy at School Street Staff Findings 1. The restaurant is proposed to be constructed on a portion of a larger lot which has been approved by the Planning . Commission for partitioning on February 18, 19750 The Commission approved the Minor Land Partitioning with recommendation to the Design Review Board, that access not be provided to School Street and that a fence be con- struoted along this frontage to eliminate pedestrian access. ' • 2. The Tigard Ci ty Council, at their February 17, 1975 , meet- ing made a similar statement and directed a recommendation to the Design Review Board that through access not be per- mitted to School Street and that a fence would be appropri- ate along the School street property line. If the access drive to School Street is eliminated, there will be a need for additional landscaping (70 feet on center) in the park- ing area. 3. The landscape plan meets the 10% area requirement. 4. The landscape plan is viewed as deficient by the staff in the following areas: a) Along the back row of. parking (north property line) landscaping is not provided at 70 feet on center. . b) The planting area on the west and north property lines should include deciduous trees in addition to the indicated ground cover. a) The landscape islands in the center of the parking F area a r shown as width on the land- scape plan 4 site plan. The 10 feet is preferable. d) The landscape plan does not specify, the numbers of plant materials to be planted or planting intervals for shrubs or ground cover. e) Location of entrance and exit on Pacific Highway con- flict with 1) a power pole on the 'corner of Pacific . Hwy, and School Street and with traffic entering the • ' ..r.....4 w»....r,. ... .. .. .. i . .r,.._....r ...rw...-..>.„r. r .. .n.11._».:u.». ..,lr.....r:l.,ru i-1,4Yr.•......rt........ i„1...-.._.-.. ........1 i3«!.'.`.n.....'1...n....1i....LG,n1:'I,r:C+.ti'.L14',.r.,.,_...i.ur.u«.t�.u;twui+V-.r_k.ur.».n..ar ,u.....w._ r�r-«..r✓..,usl rr.aFrx.l3 P:.0« adjacent Standard station. A joint access agreement k,i j . has been executed between. Standard Stations, Inc. and ;Is' the applicant, but an obvious conflict between autos exiting McDonalds queuing at the exit apron and autos leaving fast moving traffic on Pacific Highway in order Ar. to "slide n into the service station. Additionally, some discrepancy exists between the proposed driveway cut and the existing driveway cut as shown on topog !{ ./ sheets furnished by applicant. f) Entrance and exit signs and some landscaping are within 20' vision clearance cone. . ' g) Parking exc eeds m.ax imu m requirement. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the site plan on the condition {, that 'l) the applicant submits acceptable landscape plans which show planting interval, numbers, sizes and species of plants. 2. that no access be allowed to SW School Street and that the site plan and landscaping on site be modified to reflect the change in access. Specific recommendations or changes may be placed on the site plan as well. 3, that the exit and entrance locations be interchanged such that the entrance is southerly of the building and the exit northerly. (Staff realises that this is not consistent with, general practice) . 4. that a separation such as that shown on the landscape plan 1' be provided in the back parking row It 1 + ,r DR:B staff report ?ebruary 20 1975 item 4.1 - page 2 r , „ . ,.1.. .., :. an u,..wxw•,«4-k .-,.wr n.-«..«W1K...,...k,....,,.d..,.,u:.....k.:«,u::„v'”r... : ,. Ina h«t,7+i7.fF,.x.w.4:4::I.«n,G.t.... u».L• It... , ,,.,. r• .R;..+M+ ra,a,.,,,,.,,K 4.b..a:,wc.u.u»..u,r 7b e • ? y 'yV wy 7 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report February 18, 1975 Agenda Item 4.2 • ; d MLP 1-75 (Robertson Minor Land Partitioning) ` Minor Land Party tion.1 • A request by Jack Robertson to divide his property (tax lot 300 on tax map 2S1 - 2CB) into two separate parcels. Staff Findings The tax ea 1. subject ax lot 300 presently has frontage on three streets; Pacific Highway, School Street and Park Street. (see attached map) . The applicant proposes a nearly equal division of the property into a 40,000 sq. foot lot on parcel B and a 31,000 sq ft. on parcel A (vis. map) . The minimum lot size permitted in the C-3 zone, is 6,000 sq. ft. 2. Each lot being formed will have access to the City otreet system. meeting City code requirements. Application has I to been made to the State Highway Dept. to place two drive- ( ways on Pacific Highway, one of them to be shared with the adjacent Standard Oil service stational) 3. Section l .2_'8.0 0 of the subdivision 3 ? 9 s b vision ordinance States, "Whenever existing streets adjacent to or within a tract are of inadequate width, additional right-of--way shall be provided lat the time of subdivision. " This section also applies to minor land partitions. In this case, the only street not having sufficient' Width is Grant Avenue, 40 ft. where 50 ft. are needed. This would require a 5 ft. dedication Grant from applicant's'n sp property. While SchoolStreet is only a 20ft. ghto fway, • i this is actually an easement and not a public way and no dedi- cation is required. n i fact, the Public Works Dep-Ji. has stated.. a preference t o sae School Street closed because to I its inadequate width presents a traffic hazard. I I Staff Recommendation 1. Staf f recommends with the condition thato , be dedicated to- Grant venue and that access be p rV zded • to lot B frorri Pacific High y only. I I I I • I I I I • I r • • • A ,. x-.a+.,,_... . 14.....4 4....1.4 .......,..,_e,_..i„.<, .., 1,,,..,..,.. .,,,...x.:w:... .1,.t.,-J..,....,,,,. .,.:,ax,,,-,w ,...,..,. , . ,......,.....,b - .rr.,,a..,.._..•...t.+_...,.._ ,..,, .,, L;a.-L,,,,',-..1k..,G7+,44,1,[6 ,:.akK- b :.6::M:;7.,,L....w...,.S..l._-,.p:....4...04. U.:..i4 0. • * 6, '.14 °7`'. . i :*‘ ' ''''' Oa' ° ., 'lap . r/0 X600' ?'� V ti: • v` . . e 1 r ./iaO .. 8 . sao �L�CJGT o �as � ! Nil ., ,1 !�:o •_ . .,' �A Oat , I ' Cri.... ..fri . ■ 1 '� � 1' , Ojai' jai 1i0 r,,� . �' Oj pe,)/e?7r4,,,qa i , . 1 /t/' 1 / 1. ,,,s fr. � f 4 . . 1 1, ti r • , a p 1 gel//2/ . . . . . . ,, , • . , , t. sc Ql .• /'', ,/,c O•; ai , a ♦ S r G, i • I 'I,. D .4. ti x. • T n \ ' • • I i III i i , { f, • • • Property Description • A 40,000 square foot parcel of land, being a portion of s µ Lot 33, North Ti gardvi l l e Addition, a plat of record in Section. 2, Township 2 South, Range 1 West of the W111 a,iette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, said parcel being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point that bears South 45° 00' West along the northwesterly line of said Lot 33, 10.00 beet from the most northerly corner thereof; thence South 45 00' East along the southwesterly line of an easement to School District No. 23J, recorded September 5, 1972 in Book 885 at Page 951 , 211.07 feet to the westerly right-of-way line of S. W. Pacific Highway; thence along, S. W. Pacific Highway on the arc of a 2904. 79 fopt radius curve to the left 'with a chord i that bears South 37 41 ' 55" West, 136.28 feet, an arc distance of 136.29 feet to the most easterly corner of the property leased to Standard Oil Company May 25, 1260 and recorded in Book 436 at Page 583; thence North 55' 14' 50" West along said Standard property, 1.10.04 feet to the most northerly corner thereof; o 29' 'the 30" West y o , t once South 35 2 along said Standard property, 56.56 ,feet; thence Not~th 45® 00' West parallel with the northeasterly lie of said Lot 33, ► 129.45 feet to a point gn the northwesterly line of said Lot 33; thence North 45 00' East, 210.53 feet to the point ' of beginning. � r / Standard Oil ; + Subject to an Ingress Egress easement to the i it i t2ompany,, dated October 14, 1960 and recorded in Book 436 zit i Page 583. • Subject to a 5.0 foot slope easement to the Oregon State 1 g Highway Commission, dated July 18, 1952 and recorded in Book 335 at Page 70. ti • • ` y I , •4 n ., ,....w., N-....,.,.._,..w:�:,., ,.,..,..,.,.u:t».,•.: .. a u,...,�.. ..i.a:f;....":e::x=z;_,,„_„.+G,.,-,-.ast; .., ad..«,.y .e.:N.w�,u.i.,i»...;..r�.ti:::ae.�,ira w,-�n..,.,:r.K,u4 4I - vn.,t.,.L+;.L,.,-,..�-L.;:a'c1 M4:1t�t.7A6,:...%,....ak.14,4,tAx..r”,,.�'•.w1.t;:::t3Ga l:,G-.+:a.,,.N«;«>1�+,:a.h,..w; ' FEB 18 1975 NORRIS, BEGGGS & SIMPSON 900 S.W.FIFTH AVENUE,PORTLAND 97204-(503) 223-7181 CITY OF TIGAR1) Fe'bx^wary 17,' 1975 • r. Jerry owel1 • a �'l nri ing Department City of Tigard 12420 SW Main Street Tigard, • a.g'a r , Oregon Dear Jerry: Enclosed l o s e d 'ple a S e' find the revised s ed copy of the KcD onald s 'site plan for, the City of. Tigard. These, 'plans are per your request indicating traffic flow within the site.' • Very truly yours, NORRIS, BE(rGS e& S � � zM�sON ; Larry, ,;.w+. Baugset by Enc;losure cc: Mr. Roy Drake . • . Mr. Jack Robertson Miss Sue Miller Mr. Mel Brook Mr. Dick Bailin l7 'r"L c : � � b �4N �f� Clsco . s' ti AN �IJ JC�E 5 r� oNoLUL AL'Z��VIS H r.l "r'a,bo F N Ni A uar `' ,., ,,N,,,,, --';',,-',',-+.».uw, »,',-..,,'.:.,'.,...._..L.4--,,∎•,4.'L-'',;-,.:m..ai.v.-.—'.'-' ,,-:,:t_.-.n','',ak''-' '',,,.,-•,','s",-,.•;.L,`''','','.:a.•-,.m-..s.'r'j'-'.u'''""';',4"::'''",,',,''',''''.''-"'''.''''r:�,"k'':1 • � ..�+-u.., Al-. .,s..w,.....�..w d .._r� �.J�,«� ...A,.-.a,,.,.a4•..-.-,u, �.. ..,A.w..� Y ' i M , r � � ... „ „ „„ „ ,„ . . ; : , . .. , . . , , . , , , .. • . . ; . . , . „ , ., , . . „ . . . : , . . . . .. . . . , , . . • , i , . , , . , , ,. , , . . . : . . . • . . . . , . ,,,,,, :, .. . . . ., , . , : .. , . . , . ,.. ,, , .. . . . . , . . . . ,„ „ , , . . , . .I . . , . ,. . .. ,. . . . ., • . ,. , . . . „ . „ ,. . , . , . . . ,, . , . . ,.. , i. . , . , . , . .,. . , . . .. . . . „ . . . .., . , . . , . ., . . . „. . ,. , . . t , . . . , , . . . . . ,. , . , . , . , .. , . . , , . . . . . „ . , . . , . . . . . 1 . . i. ,, , , , , . . . , .. . , . . „. . . . , . , , .: . . ,. , , . ,, . . , , , , . , . , , . . . . . , , . . , . . . „ ., , . , , . , , , . ,. . , . . . • ,. . . . . . . „. . . .. ., , . . .. , ,, , , , , . , . .. , .. , . 1 , . : . , . . . . . . ,. . .. , . , . . . . , . . . . . . . , . . . , , . . . , . . . . , . .. , • , , 1. . : . ., . . . . . . . . . . .• , .. , . . . „ . .. ” . ,. ... . ,. ., . , , . . , . ., . , . . . , . . . . „. . , . . , . , . . . , , . . , . . . , . . . , ., : . ,: . . , , . „ . . . , , . , . . . . , , . . , .., . . , , . , , . . . , , . . , . , : , . ; . " ,, " , : . . . . . „. . , . , . . , . . . . , ,, , , • . . . . . . , . ,. , . . , , . . . . , . . . . , . . , .., . . . . . . . . • . o , .. . . .. , . . ., . , ,.. , „ . , . , . . , . . . , . . . .. ...,„ , ., ,,. , . . . , . , .. . . .. . ” . • . , , I , . ; • . . „ . . . . . . ., „ „ .,. . , . . , , , . 1 .11. , . , . , . . , .. , . . . ., . .. . . . , . : •, . . ., . , . , , . . .. , , . . . ,. . . . .. ,. . . 1 , . ., . . . , . . . . , . . . ., , . . . , . , „ ., „ . . . , . . . , ,. . . . . . . . ., . ,„ , , , , . . . ,. . . . . . . , . ,, . . , I „ , . . . . . , . . , . , , . , . . . , , . . . . . , . . . , ........,,. ,, ... ,Y . , . , , . . . , „ „, „„, 5.; ... ..., . ,'., .. , . , .. ,, , . 1. . . . . . . . . . . , 0 ,. . . . . , , . . , . , . 1. . ... . . . . ., .. . , . , . . . . . , .. ... , . . . , , . . , . . . ., ., .. ” . . 1 . . , , , . . • . . . . , , , . , , .. . . , „ • , .. . . . . ., , . . . .. . , . . . . , I • • • . . , , . , . . . . , . ., . , . . . . , , . : . , , . „ . . . . . . , .. , •,, ,,.:.,. ,..,,... ..... ,.•:1,,. : . ,,. .. .. .. . . : ,!,H,. . .,:.,, . . . . . . , . . . , (,, HP ' ' '' . ,. . . . . , , , . ,. . , ,, , , .. . : • . : „. . 1 ir . . , , . , . , , , . , . . . . , . . ' Li'i.'': ',',.. .S ' . ' ''.., ..: ' , ',, -...., H. , ' . , . . . . . . , , . . 1. . . . . . . ,,,, . , . . „ .• , . ., , ! . . . . , , . , . „ , . . . . . . , . . . . , , . . . , . ... , ... ,,, , 1 .. , , . .. . , , , , . . . , .... , . , , .. , . „, , , . , .. , . , . , . , , : . , ,. , . . , . , . . , .,, .,, ...,.., ..,:, .... .. . . . . . , ,.,, . . . . . , . . . , . ,. . . , . . , . , , , . , . . . , ,,.„ . . . . , , . . , ,. „ , . , . . .. . . , , . 1, ! , : 1, II „ .. . . , , . , .. . , , , . , .. 1. . . , . . . . . . ,, . , .. , . , , , . , . . . , , . . . . „ , , , 1 . , , , . , , , , . . , , ,,, . . . . .. . , . , . . „ ., .. . , . , . .. . . . ,, ,„ , .. . , , , , , , ,,, , ,. ,,,, . : , ..,,,,,,, , : , , . .. . ., . . 1. .. . . , . . . . , , . . . , , . 1 . ., ,. . . : . . .. , . . .,. . ,., . . , . , . . , . . ,, „, . I I . : . . , , ,, . . . I . , , ., , , ,. .. , . , , .„ .. . . , , , ., I . . .. , . . , . . . , . , , ,. I „ . ., . , I . . . I I I .„ . . . . r 1 I. ». ..+:-.,-A.. .........-. ...,,,,i...-. ,...I:...,,.,.....«. .M-.»w....x.,.a,.n,,, we:,—...d-.a»..,,«..-::-.F ..r...,+.....4..F»u:......-...,-:w,n i.....,.,». .....,x F,..�...,,.w.1.:. .a«I...k«.;..,.i..,.,.,a,.1,;,t„1A,.«,.wi.a,.............ua,..ww.....,...r,.-...a,M..l-r—...+n....,..w,-..M...;U',,..,.....K; r.H,..i...aF..,M n,�;n..;...lJ. • SDR 6-75 Ks McDonald's The following suggested conditions are recommended by staff should the Board opt to approve the submitted site development plan and architectural design: 1. Modify the common actcess to constrain traffic to a 90° intersection with Pacific Highway and limit cross traffic between the Standard Station and McDonald's. • 2. Eliminate the exit s ho wn and use S ch oo l St a s a access with th the School District, develop School St. , to a minimum commercial drive standard (30 feet) and coordinate such activities with the School District with respect to curbing the edge of their parking -� lot. ' I I 3. Expand parking area toward Park St." for an additional 20-30 ft. , allowing an additional 6 to 12 spaces. drawn, Capacity as drawn, 71 autos -- seating capacity of restaurant is 128 probably employment is estimated at 16 p er shift. ' Wi Assuming 2 persons per automobile, the parking demand would be 72 spaces. Staff recommends an additional 8-10 spaces to allow for turnover overlaps and carry-out business. 4. Provide additional trees along "east" side of site similar. to "north" 'side ' 5. Provide ground cover in planting areas adjacent service station and redesign plantings in those areas to coordinate better. 6. Provide curbs, sidewalks and necessary street improvements on Park St. and on Grant St. I Grant St.' will soon develop for multi-family use and Park St. will experience a rapid increase in traffic. Neither is presently adequate for its use and introducing the pro- posed project without those improvements, would be a hardship • on the community, • • o a I I r i I I I I 11 I o r la, I i \•..,. ,._t. ..,... ' «.11.-.-,.:..�� ..�.._,..l..h :�,,4..e..... ....I..l' r_:.k..� ...I.•.,...,., i-.,..'rY :A.. ,.t..,,.i ,I� g .,..,7. . .. . 0. „, . . .. . . 1: 1 . *, . : n, 0 ,,, i , , 11 ' . , „ . . , , . . . „ . ,, . , .,. , . , . , „.. w h �y, . , : . , tri,...,.., I . y, ., .. , , 1. , . ' — . 1' 641 - ' c '.'''')''''' ' 9 Cj' .' . „ ' ''. , e IP 4 I ,O. ' I , ti' r p .. f'. I f �omr ` ,--. ' ,'+O � .`��6r �. ..» 4 . f.. t . . . i i k� *� oil J .4 ' ' ' is*IL, kt),. ' ---.." tom r, .,�• � �- ,- .- ,` -. .. Z!° '`I I k. �.: l .g. , .i . ui,i,. „. _ .. '.',.. d'H. .:-.' ,4 • 'I , . , • ' '' - ' -'.1;.; ', ' , 0 1 � ' YD 1 iY, (■/,may +'`7\74.' 1,p as*.\'' • ° o -�� 1 r.." �a 1 vl, •, . .. s i : 7-7D . , .' • ',. " . ,. •, • .•.:. : ,i i. , \'..• ,•,1''. , . . .. : . . . Ask. .i.iii . q 'JR' 11 '-- • . c., , ..:*. a . 0 .. . , I. '-',..,01iiiito. 1 >4: . 1 ' ' . ..,,, . , ...ii ..,. tifilikt. .1Y: 1 , . , , . . 1,‘,,,,,, . dtH ',, ' ,,,L ,-,.. . _ ', , .. 1111141 -.....\\'. ..'.. . ,. . ..1,), i''' - . • .-. ..e.4-v-,..,,e,,,,,,._ .. Nri....-. ' ,.' + I I . . . . .4,...- .. . . - . , . ,,,. . ,. 4 , . N ' ' :al. li 1 ..1.110k ' c;-1' ' ' 0':;':'::'- ::.'' :-Z ' - - .t‘ :;" ; 0 '' ' ' 'I" : 6'''-t'Z") ,..,..,,,iiz. ,, .'..' :',',- :."'.,.:,H. 1. ..- .:- . , .. . . ,,e . . . . . . , . , . , , oL ... . ,... . 't( e.. ' -•.' '."::' ' ....: : .-'4., , ''''. .'',••' ' • ' ",s0 . '".. :' • .•4110 .. . •- ,, - ...., -. 0 p .,•,L,,,,...:.,,.., S)...7.,.,its,,.. . , ,.,:. ,..,,,,.. . g.... . , ., n A ,D(/\./\ . •'.- : '. ' ' ..., .'-,,,.. :.::' -.. :: '. ... , .-: ' ,' ' :- . • 42 .. ,:: ,' • . :,•- ; :-.•:-t:.' . '\ . . - 316. ' — ' . ' '' '-s, ' '.' '-' •'''' '''''' '1'.'::.:: ' .' '' '.'','' •H ' - - 4'- .-'''' ' '''' '----- ' — ' -1,..:.- . .. .. • .. 0 ,...., ., - 4„_ ;, .,, ,.., „ :.,": ' - ':1; .. . '>4 - ' . 41•1' . ''T' ' a , ' • ' 'Air I''' 1 r,' ' '.`t.i.Y '. ''447 ,-;'......----L-....1, - ; .1 ', ':! , - , „... .,, \,' ' - .ti', ,.', „,,,, 0010- ' 4 ' .,r” • • i /,., .,,.fit., ,P:/ `�./..:. , 4 Q tir r..+wt�4.i Nw1 � , -------"? 0 i b 2 YL e o d '1. •, ,sue �� ••r J o‘ , / , • i ,.. . . `• _The/0 Cj ,,„44 I,Z37-1;1Thi r---------- v;i,, . , . . IN ‘,, ..,. ....„I , 11.1 • \ '... III SIP - 0 �I, D , - •N 4, • p 1_ . ® ' _� ---• d r r r9 7L , % a,0 1 . 1 a �• �, �,• b :° Pap , , • .?" 1i _ 1 4 C3 \ \\ \ ,,. ' ,ir.0..."..„,\\\N„... q ,----n— ) . 1 1111,, g 1-N, , . , ,,.. , , , Ns. • f,. ,,, . 1 i r______,,,,i \ \ . „......_. ,,,, ,,,.........., ....1 ....,„ r,/' ,.... s, , 07 1 N.,......,,,, 'sf ii 2O 1 ii N:.. \ ., . SC 0 I he ;\/\\sv\> '''''''0 INit>,8 '■. *s. (;)P lli't 4 c.,, D , , a t 1 .D‘..". \\,c3..... .<> * 0 till i., '''fiZ's Al C.,, 0 411 _ 1,1 , 6) %,ee",0 t-.) 0 ,, is �a 5 a� r 5Q 1�1,3°eik C3 ----, ___,,,,_(.7-— C>V" 0 . + , , `\ a _� Jr..,�/ 7 W 0 '°' j„,-) t *'' t-\;\\ 4,- fr;Ib`c---'-----"-- ! < /, ',,, It ,,' /,' ,......._,.......... ..,:—."------,,,, , 0 L _.,.....\\\:\ . ..\[13. 0 ,, ,, ,,/ . , No i .. ..„----- ,L, .4t 11 \ ,,,4 ili , . 4 . \ 1 .,,, , , + L . . '' . • c . ., , ) ‘