SDR9-75 POOR QUALITY RECORD
PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and
put on microfilm. The following document is a copy of the
microfilm record converted back to digital. If you have questions
please contact City of Tigard Records Department.
r ro sc.,+.::..i�x.,...x..van:urm,.xr:+�a^:a.n ra ,ru-w- +M,,r - >,,.»r'i.w.ni..a.•„._> w.n e.
..::,;...s",♦,.� .c.�.�c ��- :a„r,a d�..i,v-:w.. •. ...w�.+., .,....-,-a..,.+n,.rya,MG w ,p,;:.�Y Nr�i t��..o t :.�«F'r.•i ne,.a a .,; � w.. rx near r'„..x,w•-•.wry •--+.�.:...
•
,� , t rc t �>"!�]]�'Ji�l�j Ii !., 4�: ��1 � "...•• I • 1♦�l W �7.N1C'A�':1i } n 2 f d t i r.
i r'�� � a C.: +t 4 i ai��n
'
" . Site De,re1opmer�t;'tRe i ($DRS 9-y7 ) I
_: � �•.'.• ,r.,.:,. �a,h.du�,,,. ..•,plw�.-,.”nGi.u�,;�.n..,rnw.v�.,.�.u.,�.«z,vra.�x� �faan,wG.:.kmicu!a.N +Mdkec.wM1+4is'�N;u�+�+w�E�fa�wawW9kLrd+ •
c
•
. r I
J
•
• . • tip
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
.r
•
4t is
i I
■
t I I
Y, J,•r S
r Ii 1" - i•
it
« .
' .,,F,Ft-. .:,Yq.J+.rM«.41t4L.•dv.d..l..aJy!5...lI.Y.rY-e.,.,d-.. -M,.4r•.-.-r1 r.1A«-....vA..,.uAN.+,FtIl L....,LM+.+..y«.nA.51.,'_.1-......IV.;«NA.J.:.4v r.YJ,.r..i:.J�.:'i'«7ine'-..wMwi.va!f..iYA.'u%iik+4UWUl.VU:Y,iN'N1:N'.i4hA.uINYJ.la4.tk q,..n-U .A+-.:.w -emu .ss... ..i.,rtu>:.• ...Yww:kau.uNW4WIl:i11
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION No.. ��j. �
A RESOLUTION PRESCRIBING NEW FEES FOR SUBDIVISION AND ZONING APPLICATION REQUIRING
A
PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL REVIEW.
.r> WHEREAS, the City of Tigard has adopted subdivision and zoning ordinances pursuant:
to Chapters 227 and 92 ORS;, and
WHEREAS, the adopted subdivision and zoning°ng ordinances require that for the
purpose of partially defraying the expenses necessarily arising from or incident to
' : investigation, evaluation and processing of applications that fees be prescribed.
z.
WHEREAS, this resolution, is amending Resolution 75-51 and 77-71.
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVE R.� CITY FOLLOWS:
BY THE TIGA
COUNCIL AS �OLLUWS.
•
Section 1: That fees for .;.ubdivis.ion and zoning applications will be levied according
to the following schedule noted on Exhibit l'A'
PASSED:
This
a. o.�
397
ayor -- City of Tigard
ATTEST: A,
v 74A,
City Recorder ity of -rd
•
RESOLUTION No. - > i./
• �
i
1
, . , / ..)
t ,
•
EXHIBIT 'A'
PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEE SCHEDULE
Fees for subdivision and zoning applications will be levied according to the following
schedule:
ter. .. .,
r
.•: � A. ZONE C ,AGE REQUEST
1. Single family residential zone
A. 1 acre or less $ 125.00
B. More than 1 acre to 5 acres $ 300.00
{; C. More than 5 acres to 20 acres
500.
00
D. Morey than 20 acres $ 900.00
2. Multi-family residential zone
A. 5 acres or less $ 400.00
B. More than 5 acres $ 800.00
3. To a commercial or industrial zone
A. 1 acre or less $ 400.00
B. More than 1 acre to 10 acres
$ 500.00.
C. More than 10 acres I
• $1100.00
4. To a planned development zone
A. E view of relitminary
7 preliminary� � y pl.an and px'agraau
125,00
B. general plan and program review
(1) 1 acre or less $ 275.00
(2) More than 1 acre to 4 acres $ 375.00
(3) More than 4 acres $ 675.00
B. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST
1, rot a change in use of an edi,stiag structure wherein the total activity
utilizes a site area of 30,000 square feet or lees $ 125.00
For a change
2 e E hange in use of an e.�i:sting structure t�herexn. the total activity
utilizes a site area of more than 30,000 square feet. .$, 175.00
3. Request involving development of a vacant parcel of $325.00
land.
) 4. Re uest for outside storage. $1a0 �
aLla
ti 5. Renewal of an expired cor ditonal use pert 1t. $ 50.00 r.
6. Request for a home occupation. 50.00
C. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
$500.00
D. REINSTATEMENT OF A NON-CONFORMING USE $300.00
j N
a.
n '
~ 1_:.... w.:,, .,..is..N t....fir,'.. r,.::w..M..4aL=: w_t....,.r•. aw...
w E. FLOOD PLAIN FILL PERMIT
s 1. Area of flood plain affected 7500 square feet or less $100.00
I 2. Area, of flood plain affected more than 7500 square feet $300.00
1 F. VARIANCE (ZONING)
:Y°� ' 1. Single family residential zone q 50,.00'
" .4,' ' 2. All other zones
$125.00
C. SIGN CODE APPEAL 25.00
H. TEMPORARY USE `
1. By Planning Commission for less than six months $ 50.00 f'
•
2. By City Council for more than six months. $100.00
I. SUBDIVISIONS
1. Minor land partition
A. Partitioning of a residentially zones land parcel $ 50.00 .
B. Partitioning of a parcel of land zoned for multi-family',
commercial or industrial use. $100.00
r 2. Major land partition $150.00
3. Preliminary plat $250.00
5.00/1ot
4. Street dedication
50.00
5. Street vacat ;on
$ 50,00
* deposit
6. Variance
• $100.00
J. DESIGN REVIE W
1. $9,999 or less
20.00
' 2. $ �O;000 to $49,999
$ 50000
1 3. $50,000 to $99,999 90.00
4. $100,000 to $249,998 $'150.00
, 5. $250,000 to $499,999
$175.00
6. $500-000 to $749,999
'.y 7. $750,000 to $999,999
8 $1,000,000 ,end OVER
1 ,+O C$O1 t'a0 v os0 r eoaa
t
$ oer,
$1,000,000
r , A I + Ib tffT1 . ' 7T
1 h 1' l/h I t WI ' I I I �.
a I�
I ,
y •a r 4 ,I I "ri
I � .
�l:� 1 �,
r4
i
i
i
May 0 1975
' I I
h�.
14 S. n° e ' . . n .
ir° , �
Reference:
less•` (Ira : 't
, Please I r°
he advised that the Tigard Site Development '
a r ' ' April Design ou A
Review d their 2 0 197 me in 0 considered„d your 1 e ,uest for site Plan
review
3�y� ��"'��+' to �► yp� yq y+y� .��4d p �^�,yy�ryy�'"yy'- �y�{ { � submission was � �
U e WF No the •�Uwo11owrinrSr g condi 1'Mion1 *
1. Garbage oollection area 4 s e adequately,uat screened
and not be located in setback areas. `
2. A non-remonstrance
apreement s t o executed w y y
the i y tor suture L.I.D. and applicant should
" voluntarilY •dedioate 10 ft. additional Co Walnut Sty
.F
3. Additional juni e s be placed
o as to screen w Lion of Paring and . rin area, 1 °\
!1
visible from single l family home adjacent,
With respoot to architectural din 0 Your ' x i$s t w , a . o`ve
.>
ur a 'with more is�� olor snipe and
material samples at the May ;, ,I' 1975, etei n
r I »
lx ?loose do not hesitate 1 me at 639-4171 if you ha
yes iO
f ,
L ,
l fq,
I
I
I
I
{
• � I I p1,
et'
rr
rs
,...�., 1 ..,c.>: .�....,�,. _.i:,,,.• a •,u. _..1.._:�::�.,�. .�u u
AGENDA 4 y w
TIGARD SITE DEVELOPMENT AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD .
' April 22, 1975 4:30 p.m. , Regular Meeting .
Twality Junior High School - lecture Room'
° 14650 SW 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 1,,
J 1„ CALL TO ORDER ,
t 2; ROLL CALL
,
1 ,, 3. MINUTES
March 6, 1975 March 20, 1975 April 3 f, 1975
4 1'
4. SITE DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
• \ SDR 9-75 (jack Graff, Apartments) a
A request to review a proposed 5 plex on SW Walnut, approxi-
'', ; mately 100 ft. south east of Grant Ave. (tax lot 900, Wash, ;,'
i Co. tax map 2S1 2Bd)
5. OTHER BUSINESS )'
�1 I
6 ADJOURNMENT
t.
n
1
li
■
\ I I
I A
• 1 ,
�tl
• I
j•
+ I I i I
• Y i �x 4 1 �
' � I
Y• f
. Iµ
, ,.r.xl_.,,. u..,.._. .. .... .,... .,,,....., .;i , ...,,.:.: ,• ......... .......o,uw,.,tt.,.,:.-,..r,•..M.ft...0 .....,....,,,.»..,..r_ , ,.. ,,. K tS.,.�u"
r ab,,. .. w 1W.. I, .4kbth 7 zl Fn4.e.l xJ
• - ). 59k q . i9t .
11N
t3
MINUTES
. TIGARD SITE DEVELOPMENT AND ARCHITECTURAL DEaIGN REVIEW BOARD /
,, April 22, 1975
TwalitY Junior High School Lecture Room
� Tigard,14650 SW 97th 'Avenue Ti ard Oregon
on
1. CALL TO ORDER
. The meeting was called to order at 4:50 p.m. ,
2. ROLL CALL
„y•, • Members present: Bartel, Cook, Kelting, McMonagle, Wakem;
staff: Powell and Austin
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES �.
Minutes of march 6, 1975, meeting , approved as submitted
Minutes of March 20, 1975, meeting approved as submitted .
;P
Minutes of April 3, 1975, meeting approved- as submitted
. 4. SITE DEVELOPMENT & ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW ,
- DR 9-75 (Jack Graff Apartments)
. . r A request to review a 5 tanit town house apartment building on
} SW Walnut St. , approximately ;.'>_OO ft, east of Grant Ave' ip
A. Staff Report
"' Staff report was read by Powell (attached) noting that; •
staff finding #7 does not apply due to grading of site , .
which will continue to drain to rear. ' i
B. Applicant Presentation '
/
l
rf Mr. Graff described his project generally and.�.��. �� � answered l
, questions from the Board concerning irrigation, land-
,' ° soa i on lot line adjacent to parking and garbage e
collection facilities.
Testimony
C. P ublc restmon
i. . None
,a r D. Eoardt jiscussion. and Action
y;,,41 r o McMonagle asked if a dedication n. of additional street '[
Rz would affect a Pplicant t s setbacks or Make his lot
'a:,' coverage or number of units E cceOsive
o Stsf' responded that it wouldn't
y
,.,'Ittl ,/
;i 2
' l'i'/I n 1� ,
•
r
rl jh
, I
..1..,.r..tw rM15�+1..rw.,.r,..�:.....lr.:-LL,„(. M+,.I...IM�M.y�1.4r,hJYrlU:..u.«:,d..H..tr:.q+.,I4.-t.-wl�aFr1,'iW'!N'>I.-t...J rltRkttK:i.«e.,.ti.hr.ahHw.4p+lekxF+llr.11..,i-r%Ww1 irAY4Y4,....A..rv,J,.JrArs.am-iru..f7,.i.,:
•:..,....:W.i -;...•r..,. ..:.W4__,..;.-,4..,...a'«. ..rvr,..„,,.YID'.. ,V..a..,.,,...c,...w.:4..,.:,f.,.J,...»+.._......'..�..�....1,,.:.1,:'ktl�.-.rr.-.wn.w....1.r.,I.1,L4.�o.a....,....r.:..w. .r.. ,.
n
I
a
•
O McMonagle asked applicant if he would consent to or
voluntarily conform with a request to dedicate an
,
•
additional 10 ft. to Walnut St.
, •I
0 Mr. Graar said he thought it would enhance his
property to improve the street.
o Kelting and Bartel (principally) discussed the
screening of subject parcel, agreeing that site
screening n, the "rear” between 'ae two adjacent ',
scr
g adjacent
apartments was 'unnecessary an d probably desirable/
/
but that the landscaping should 'blend, to provide a
•
visually common open space.
I
• ', o Bartel observed that some` screenin g
should be between
the parking ar e a and�the adjacent single family house
.
o Kelting asked how high the ivy would grow, pointing
out that part of the property line would be screened
by the carport.
r o Bartel
su gg es t ed
that adequate screening could
be
,
provided by using a more upright species of juniper
in the front planting area where juniper
ground cover
is specified and by adding�g two more similar to those
along the property line
o McMonagle asked about facilities for garbage collection
and said it should be screened and not in the setback
area.
o Kelting observed a common collection area would
• probably be necessary to satisfy the sanitary service.
f\ o Mr. Graaf said he had preferred individual collection
points.
o Cook said that may not be possible.
o Moved to approve site plan subject to conditions`
(Kelting):
1. garbage collection area be adequately sor
eened
f I and not be in setback areas I
2. Applicant execute a non-remonstrance agreement
with the City for future L.I.D. and voluntarily
" , ft. additional to Walnut 8t.
dedicate 10 �"
3. Additional junipers be placed adjacent to parking r
area so as to screen portion of parking and
home
r�aneuverin areal visible from single family 1 s
adjacent: 12
a o Seconded (Cook) , passed unanimously
,i.
SDA Minutes - AprIl 22, 1.975 - page
p
■
II I,
.'I
♦
f� ,
t i i
i t
c
E. Architectural Design Review
o Board discussed architectural design and asked about
siding, roof materials and colors
( Moved to approve (Kelti. .g) subject to applicant's return
with more appropriate color samples and material samples
at the next meeting.
o Seconded (Cook) , unanimous
� lY passed•
5. OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
I
6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5:4O p.m.
1 ,
j
r 1rr
jl
.I ,f
J ,
i
sToi. N .n tell - April 22; 1975 rage 3
. Staff Report
TIGARD SITE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
April 22, 1975
I
Agenda Item 4.1
SDR
9-75
Applicant
Jack Graff
Applicant's Proposal
to build' a 5 unit apartment on a .4 acre site
fir,•, ,
Site Development Plan Review
for a site approximately 100 _ft. southeast of Grant Avenue '
on S. W. Walnut
I ,
Staff Findings
1. Site meets zoning code criteria for size, number of
units, setbacks, parking and access.
2. Walnut Street here lacks sidewalks and curbs.
eFti 3. City policy 1' s been to require "half-street" improve--
ments or an agreement not to oppose street improvements'`
under an L. I. D. when and if proposed and/or bonding
such improvements as a condition of construction.
_on.
street 4. resent a 40 ft. r2 ht-of�wa sty
Wa p g y and is
designated arterial t. t
gn street requiring a CO fit. ,::.right-oi'-
way.
5. Site screening .is not rerxired between sites zoned A 2.
,
Staff feels that some site screening for privacy and to I.
enhance site amenity would be advisable.
b Irrigation plan not shown "l
An additions catch basin al base is necessary toward the front 1-
of the parking lot.
I 1�
b a'
QQII
i
i
7
I
, , 5 1, n
MINUTES,'
Tigard Site Development and Design Review Board
April 3, 1975
TwalitY Junior Hi g h School - lectu re room
14650 SW 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon '
14 CALL TO ORDER'
- chairman Bartel called the meeting to order at 4:40 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL (r oll was recorded b y y
Powell, staff)
Members present: �Jartel, Cook, Mann, Wakem
Staff: Powell, Austin (City Building Official)
Tom Whittaker, Chrmn. Tigard Planning Commission, attended
to observe
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the last meeting were not yet available.
Staff asked the agenda be amended to add an Architectural
Design Review item for Clark Industries on a previously
approved Site Design Review'
4. SITE DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
4 .1 SDR 8-75 (Harris Enterprises dba Awful Brothers)
A request for review of the remodeling and site development •
of an existing service station on SW Pacific. Hwy. at Park St.
A. Staff Report
Staff report (attached) was read by Powell; staff pointed
out additionally that some of the plant materials shown
were not hardy enough for a service station site.
B. Applicant' s Presentation
' Mr. Dennis'' Norstrom (Design Forum, designers for the appli-
cant) told the board that Mr. Harrid had been called away
on business and would not attend, but that he was present
answer what design questions he could.
C. Public Testimony
Mr. Dick Kluerrpke, Chairman p of NPO #3, indicated that the
burbs had no objection to the plan but wanted curbs a
nd side-
walks provided, access to Pacific Hwy. and Park Si",. re-
stric-ted to conform to City code and would additionally
like to see the corner "sign cubed moved back to allow
better vision when approaching Pacific Hwy. on ,Park.
l _
(
•
" iTom Whittaker a s k ed i f t his w as an adequate submission.lon.
It appeared to lack many of the items required to be sub-
mitted before the Design Review Board for consideration.
- D. Board Discussion and Action
Motion for approval (Cook) on conditions that:
1. Curb cut and apron on Park St. be no more than 30 feet .
wide.
2. Areas of landscaping be provided adjacent that access '
(per code) .
3. Some curb, bumper rail or other protection be provides'
between the outer service lane (adjacent to pumps)
and sidewalk.
Bartel indicated he could not support the motion.
Discussion of the adequacy of the submission ensued. Corr
census was that under the circumstances of a remodelin g
.
where much was predetermined, that the plan was sufficient,
even if not entirely complete. 6
Cook withdrew his motion (there had been no second) .
Mann asked about storm drainage and how the canopy would
/i be drained. „
Bartel drew a diagram of the sign cube" location with
' -n-- 4
respect to the posts and poles on the street c:kconnth.e site
dicating
a location about 15 ft„ further back site,
but only 10 ft. further back from the highway.
Wakem asked if there were sidewalks now on the site
Staff responded "yes" , but really they were simply the
edge of the station's apron.
Motion
for denial (Cook) based on the findings that:
1. Plant sizes and irrigation were not shown on plane
2. Applicant had not shown compliance with City code on
pp
drainage disposal. I,
3. Size and location of driveway r, access on Park Avenue was
inappropriate. {
4. Sign location should be moved back from Pacific H gh
way nless applicant can ,
y pP
that ,�� 'doesn t interfere
with vision from park.an ; opt e
and the;, t'
5 Separation between the outermost service lane a
sidewalk is necessary for safety.
J;G
,IZ
SnR Minutes April 3, 1975 - page 2 ,.
( 'a.
J I \
R4111111ORON
_ + .....i.., .. . ..1..n.....s 'n. .J. .a n..rr.,..a..ww+.YU rn 4H •.
+ w.
Second (Wakem)
Motion approved unanimously
Norsfrom asked if the Design Review Board was going to
look at the architecture.
Bartel answered "no", that the Board would consider the
architecture after it ha d approved the site' P l an.
Cook asked if the applicant woulc. bring in more detail on
elevations when resubmitting and bring materials samples
4, rather than a "color board".
Applicant said that was possible.
5. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW
SDR 9-73 Clark Industries
A request for architectural design review of four duplexes
at 124th and Walnut. The site Plan had been approved riot
to creation of the Design Revieww Board, but the project had
not been built and the applicant now is applying for new build
ing permits. (Staff provided site plans from file) .
A Applicant's Presentation .
Mr. Orville, Chapman presented his proposed project
Tom Whittaker indicated he had been on the Planning Commission
when the project had been approved and recalled it
B. Board Discussion and Action
Mann asked if the trees at the front of the site were on
the site or in the street right f--ways
Applicant said they were right on the property line.
Bartel asked if all units would be the same color and
materials.
Applicant said they would.
Dann observed that nearly an ythin g- tucked back in the site
would be ok. because the site was really domt nated by the
,:1 trees:
Motion (Cook) "to approve, second (Mann) , vote unanimous.
6. OTHER BUSINESS (none)
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
sDR minu tes - April p rid �t 19 5 Page
3
L I , ' 5 1 '
•
U•
` !( E IiY '! qq R n •N� 'l •wrrPwl" 1,
• :116�r'�1 "M''„M'"7 i�"" n'IW'� IzN°wanj,M4�. I
•vs ,a.yv
SAMPLE COPY
a r
"""^,•,+'a.«„naucr+«wssuur u+tiwa'++""n:` "r'""""'r•+,'rv' +e.qtr,wtaeox•.uuai�s4u,w:rsae•>.iw+m a>•,uwwv w,µlame.nurwwuu.esrwrr.q>[u. tl wenytiaY.ua+arewurnrrYen.ulr,,,y 'e.`:p+N n yw..r»+rw.,rwn410046"w. satia,k,, ,•xnia
October 22, 1974
•. .,,.K,. is `� '
"r.
4 (or whatever
�.eference. , File No. CU �..0 7 � �
Dear •
. This letter officially notifies you that your request for• for a duplex in an �.��7 zone
on a 1.5
and located on the west side of S. W T'iedemsn.
acre p�:r°ce�. o� �.
Avenue opposite S. W. Meadow Street Ma (Tax Map 151 34D, Tam
Lot; 5600) was (approved, denied, etc. ) by
following
the Plax�.�.n Commission ,on November �.7, x.97� wit e :
condition(s) :
l
This matter will be recommended to the city Council and you will
be notified of the date of their public hearing.
Please feel free to contact t is office if you have any questions. `'
Sincerely,
Lick Bolen
l)Beps /
, aro
1 I I
. „ ,•