The URL can be used to link to this page

SDR28-79 POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm.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. • 1 '• „*�1'trt7!1.;i kY(WWeirS hn°Inl'k;lr,n.,uU ';. ..r,,,�'.+2 �rn,..�rA;u:n V I,,,.Fi:M "�'r�"k-h 't+<r.t� r r�.•v;u.r rGr.�..... , b;.i' II �: ' Yb 1 2BYIII I n7?j i( 1 • ' n ,t� s'UILDi c ' �Intetase Lion ,�,o f ' SW 'Greenberg,>��`Sh��ac�� an� 40°' 1 � •. r�4 1 ..N•.r•h I i ik RI u,..M: .h_..+. � ,..v s fl • /t,TM+a x I • • • • • • IYf1 ry • � ...i'.,. Sv'._.:, .....:1.�. _:.1- ... ... ..r .... ,.. , , r ,..., r - .« mwA,r. .1 „ , rl;�«..,J.—.n.r w„+.n11.....:.r........ • r 1 t• w i d • • • • • • • r I is f • I 1 m I li 1 f• n1 i i r I r r 1 I I ' , `1 r ,-., k4 r C - - TTYOF yyr g A j a. t J ' gire,roF TIF, RD ., /1//4 WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON , July 14, :1980 i 7 3 " Mr. Raymond J 0 Ba 2515 SF Harrison e`sV Milwauke, Oregon 97222 I „ .„,„z,wi,1., RE EraNCE: S�M MERFTE�_ ? �CQMNSPC��L CENTE R, ZC 5-72 �� j111:1, a 1 • Dear Mr. Bartel: I Please be advised that the Tigard Planning Commission at their zegitlar meeting of July'8, 1980, approved' your request for a 'eenant mix of financia ,, ' 13% office, 24%; retail, 63%•; and that in the event the ap- licant desires I '� higher retail occupancy, he should again apply to the Planning Commission and. submit an up-dated traffic impact study and bear the Cost of any additional traffic signals indicated' by the etudyo If we can he of any further assistance& please do not hesitate to contact this office”at 639-4171. . Sincerely Al,!iowRrd anna.n.g• Director z ' • vmc NOTE: This acknowledgement tnU5t be signed and ret`i rned to the City of T .gaa dd • P1-.' .a.hg Department. opp, i '-IF -- 1 I-1;., dp•''',F--) ' a .0 . . A%4AstIOANd Si* at bate 0 l ' f u 12420 S W. 1UVAIN P•O, BOX 23397 1"IGARD, OREGON 47223 PH: 639,4171 , II, I; ,;,,.,. „e..u.. '.v...,u.w.,;:. ..t.e..w,: ...,w ,.a'. n ,....n.' ....,..• ,.,. .. ...1"., ,., :.. .. ..,ni„ ..w r., _. vr.,.,,.... , ...,1,'.x ., t ,..,. i ..,,,. .. . ••••, —•mv.+r:...,wn.+annuwrsaStNy,�� ,, s II • ORIGINAL PL.A�TN L N� O �IS S O1 APPROVAL PPR OU AL Proposed s e a C qu,a� G Land Use Feet Per-centa e Retail Shops 22,500 41',3,',''',, ' Office 1 2880 55° '' , , ,...• o posed qua �e k.=, , • Land. Use Feet r! 1'er.centarr.e , . • Savings ea ?.io ari• 3,300 ' _:;Bank , e 4,000 13;� • ,,Medical Office o 2,000 . . 4 '. ' "''L•�'ornm Office' ,, ' 11`,,500 , '). ,etail Shops 30, 00 6 3,d �o4`n.'� �, Grac. k,f 00 \ Total 5tr' . I L , y .07 ky ` L L 1 ' 1 ( 1, RAYMOND J B A R T E - Al A I r ,., r ARCHITECT AND PLANNER ,�R ..•;.;, 2515 S.E.Harrison MILWAUKIE,OREGON 97222 t.. (503)659.3988 i ay 19, 1980 City of Tizard P.C. Box 23397 Tigard g OR. 97223 ATTENTION Aldie Howard RE: Reouest for reappraisal of approved tenant mix for Summer-- field: Co mmercial Center. September 5, 1978 Planning Co a ssi on a Review. •The exhibit submitted to the Planning Commission for the review ,. the Commercial Center included a statement of of tae �umr_�erfi eld Cor�merc probable use mixes equal to 4Os retail and 60% office. The d.esin of the site plan and structures as originally ' plan � �' pro,�osed. retail as implemented alloys a flexible a g office . �` implemented �.ble znte-r_m�x�.n,� of ofl ice asn.d t , , . A�T1 or_ i nap,.. rise-mix nroposai p oved by_the .�lan-�? �r Gomm..:_ss_on was base upo market studjr ro ' m ...�.-,�.,�.. � c�1 ads. �.he . We ' s notwr been ested..� as the pro:ject s nearing completion. market��et �.� y.We find that actual conditions are close to the reverse of what 9 had been originally approved. With the demand for office and retail space being reversed, we (hear by) request that the Planning Commission reverse the mix originally shown or delete the requirement for a prescribed mix. `fie r eel t__ey use rlz�, can be iodifzed orele�ed tvzr no n.e ,,ative. a _ i fac to zrix �c� ura thee. area based anon: the fo� "las;r�.n rs e ' l. Major transportation streets bound]ng the pro- ject are being improved. d$ 2 The ''traffic impact analysis' by CH2I4--dill Pre- pared durin T th e design review phase of the pro-. 11" ject reflects similar trip generation per square foot for retail space and Most allowable office uses. Tl1rough the process of des c•� ` Taps �. C � � ,' extensive s u17�.y t� ��,•t�ari' `E;rti "-�'h 'tT�11 i,, `F'� ��,re� � � n , - ,. review e.�tex ,.♦_UMe of traff i and auto circulation in and around the Summer- ' field Center site, Right turn only s foa west bound traffic been fi'.i_�, l,� .lane � s 7. + project _ �? y u Durham Road at the ., - ��T�c' beep added. on � rer't, exit has been added traffic;. of the Pacific �1�. bound lane ,ra y. A redesign of theot icy , , Durham y � signal at �u_re F o ad and Pac f i I�:gh is also a � i roveme�t pro r . , .��a- roa.ru or the traff�_c �_m�o rt+.rnm.w• ^+ ' M . k / C of Ti`-��rc. sc. ,e, .• , e .�r e�7 cor 1.erca �n 1 o.T. lc e med -al/dental� office and s avi ns and loan uses aueti� :o as office use per the previous Planning Commissions action. The "traffic impact analysis" estimates trip C space. as approximately the same for ��h, generation ti�oi1 por square foot of .� J (� e_a- Y retail shops, medical/dental office ,and savings and `loan. . Commercial r office use is the only one which is much lower. No;restrictions have been placed on the different t�-pes of office tenants allowed. The traffic study. also states "that a port on of trips generated by developments similar to this one comes directly from` traffic pa ssin y the sii;e on adjacent ?:'Ocl+ti:;�ys aid, th ref o''e , does not contribute to increased traffic flow on those facilites." In conclusion y we feel deleting the use--mix requirement would have little impact. Nodi fying it to retail and `,.)5/0 off ice would have no impact. w Yours truly CC 1 � t / •. 1 Ray • Jp Baste • R Agile rs l }{ ! ��* L 11. .m 41 I O TIFARE: WASHINGTON CULINTlfs OiRGOlNt'•• ., ,. , . A y 21, 1.980 • a • r ti v a d• +a Aax�a 1 2515 Harrisoa� : MI.lcra.ukie, Oregon 97222 • .•R.... i E ': 1,' .,R.T 3`". T, 1" C�iifnE �7 . t 1'' '.. 7C',5-7 ♦ Dear Sir: . the •Plana. ng Coimni sion nuetit g last a nirLg, ;I d•.scussed your request ' • �� with the Cam ma.ssi�n. They have a ad t� cocis,ad�a this f • We will meet :on, Juxle 3rd,. but are unable to y&',the pt.l.bliri notice ., " .. , re:cjuirements' in yqu case.: • T`he July meetin.g will ba held. at Fml.ler, Ji.•a ,or ' sigh Schcx)7,p ,ecture fciom on *Tilly 8,, 1980 at 7.,30' pate•. cl Pl an rxia C mmu .ssieari asked that you p rr asert a brief pei rs eta of the g project ' da fi e p show a site plan wd.tla traffic patterns including the 99W ing rees 0 • B g .ese point, an,d clearly indicate what traffic c:har:tges you ♦ pp sug est you polish the traffic study and coutaet Q.3.O.T so that;you are , 1 coti-eered: it Is not my .ntent�.on at thz.s point. to draft a 8taf deport. I will ... clu • °' , your letter - o me and this response ay their pa ts, I suggest that.ytiu y •' �,t( I, • send Sze a letter details.ngy 'ur,plan ,1 et O. have 1, ?6. 5' your p 1 P Y• w a`chatrioe to �tUd caur ro► sad. raor to the meet•3.atQ r I effect 1, �i,( ' - the lett� :. to be in my hands not later' that" ♦June 1"p' 1980..` r Y , i rl e,,�r ` tai ' Planning birector 4 1 � . � a G P �. l+ s"l „ , 4,1 ►�� , ��r 'it 12420 S,W, 1,6;11'4 P,O, BOX 23397 ThhA D, OREC Oi`J 97223 PH'639 4171 '-- ' ..... J... .... .... ' It.,. �,.... • p t• r • . i I J+As • .. . w.w'.Fr.Uw.: w w+.ra..1..+.....+kMt.JUK.4.ur .I s.r.rstt l k1 aw-,itY.Au �YMWw+_Mru,M•4M...J.1'Nw•MM..ww:..p.n .HSNYLNw4✓..'4«.a:."w n,lw.Yiwr..rt li�+.M'rbJ.+t..W Wdcl..Ntl+4.+.s34rw.uM.W Mluuw.Iwll.rl.nYw4.Wi...r....y.••/t..:• y µ err 1 i AY MAt1 O N D B A R T E L A 1 A ARCHITECT AND PLANNER ..," • 2515 S.E.Harrison MIILWAUKIE OREGON 97222 .1/ (503)659-3988 June 12, 1960 •'.)i y of Ti`'aC1 .t 12420 S.W. i t a`i ,, Btreet P.O. Box 2339'7 Ti:ard, OR a722 RE: voril`:lerc±a1 Center CZ5- 2 1 Dear Aldie: Vie would file this letter fort,rarded to the llannin Commission along t•;iun 4 copy ,of the project site plan deiineatinS traffic courts and traffic direction It is our request that this issue be reviewed b r the Plannin7 Commission at their July u, l aQ m�eetin q j t discussed in our letter of r vie are recuestin that lavr l9, 1980 the previous occupancy use mix be reversed or deleted 'ey the piannin Commission for this project. Our reasons for this request are founded upotheriMfact menu of Durham Road discussion was made reg�:ding an sr ? - T' _ access to ��1 •p ve t and modification of the signal of Durham and 99W when the Plane ins' Commission originally : reviewed the project. We feel that the current improvements negate the r need for, any prescribed mix outside of the uses allowed In a commercial zone 3eEides the Isouco expressed in our previous letter, we would also like to point out the other followinR facts that we feel supported. • our case from the Traffic Impact Analysis pr repared by C A24 Hill. Page 8 rof the Traffic Report under Capacity nan.d Level W Service Dev�elonraen� states "Since critical intersec .ion of Se movements e�� v, _ "_e]._ts az°e not significantly altered. for the various �., access plans , all plans are expected to have a vehicle count ,� + of .87 ,� D. vehicle count ratio only sli.'ht_ higher than th ��. to o� 8 at LOS D- The calculated vet .87 is o ��, � �'�,� � -� �j� the vehicle count retit o�. .66 which was calctl.latecl estimated for the 9 of l,�o additions tCt �.In t the Liim'ier±'i eld Colir'aerc i 7 Center' end with no road way or traffic control modi?is Pt io:?s 1 ti Therefore the -►.rtp pct of added site r'enere ed tra 'io fron 'torte Su .mere- f ie7 d Com_ .ercia.l Center is effectively off set by the proposed''road way and traffic c oonurol mod]fi % atlons. • Page 9 Traffic Impact 99r! E.cceGs b. Access to • reduced traffic demands on Durham Road. an i us inter section With 99 . r 11 . • 4 rot.,..,wl:«i.t4w.sv.««3r.µ-:.Iw,:. +aa,.n+u„s;..n.x,ww=«,.+. „x,.«wka:.r.N.w'_.,:,-a.r 4'WSlr,+wa,x..,....«.-.rA.,v,: a G..rua v.w.aF�wM�Miw+•r,i.i.w,..,r a.=»r»«wl;.««x.:e., ,...s.-.+4!,v.:..a w.,rrrW.rs.:..xai+_«w y.,+,.«w-s.e+..rr.�YNw«..«..419�«.•r....r a,s,++.a,..w • • r.� This vo1ii ae reduction is 1.articu,lc7r�J helpful in reducin zne __ i proolem of raf y is queues blocking •tie Poe.d entrance to the Commercial Center, Ender the e_xPressed concerns of ODOT.P` t',Te feel points expressed in the Traffic• Analysis " Study along with points previously expressed in our November 9 point that_ r ,r,, ��,.� well-� -'- ?..2 3�. r e g�Y'd�...rl�, the t e I1"c�.'3t mix ?"'a�?O� w . .• letter,, �,._�.�, X1.1._ �, � 1S Te��. v2.=" I I We arorec.ia.te your considerat�.on o phis r?c nor an— ii t re are �; �•�- •if' ^' ice . C�-1 'SJ" cr"15 O;' i"��or r.i» rl �.. • �y� e , 1 pl ease do ±ia -� hesitate o ca�,l. • You-,''s truly 9 • • tr .r, Rey . i:d. J. Bartel I , 1. �•? lc , • • • MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION July 8, 1980 Page 2 • tenant could live with the prohibition on outside parking* Eden stated be could accommodate fmur cars in the building, and there are three • outside parking spaces available„ funk raised the question of security from ,vandalism, in light of proximity to the high school. Smith seriously questioned whether such a business could operate very successfully with • only that limited storage capacity, but it was pointed, out this and the liability were pointed out to the prospective t+eaant, who seemed • satisfied nevertheless. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION: Holleas MOVED approval of Conditional Use staff recommendations. Use CU � 8Q, based on .staff f�,ndin�e and , .. The motion was seconded by Helmer and passed unauximously . � 5.2 ZONE CHANGE, zc 5-72 (Summerfieid)' ,.,� . NPO #6 • A request by Raymond J. Bartel, AIA, Architect and Planner, for reappraisal of approved tenant mix for Saerfie d Commercial Center located at Pacifi( Highway and Durham Road Howard gave a history of the project, and enumerated changes n # 7 some years ago. The f the Abe ahilicant�ask,ssth retail commercial ratio lace since initial approval changed from 40/60% to 60/40%Q The APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION was, made by Raymond J. Bartel, { 'archi'mect for the project, 2515 SE Harrison, Mi1waukie He presented p, page handout to passed a wog follow during his presentation, and pass a reported ttze .. 6 .'L around some mmercial mix pearedfmoxrs practical in today's market. p- P project, 6Q �O` retail co appeared P Re reported on a traffic study by CH2M-Hill indicating the transporta« Rion system to be very adequate for this proposed mix, and another �which he g ave to the eta3f) indicating ndiratin g that even if the Centex were 100% retail, the only modification which mi g ht be necessary to handle ,. and Summerfield the traffic Would be a traffic signal at Durham Road ; � . Drive There was no PUBLIC TESTt��ONY. :� There was considerable discussion among staff, Bartel, and some commissioners prompted by the introduction of the study of the traffic if 100% r objected to approving 1f the Center lUOy" retails® had asked any greater retail. percentage thane they Be: felt there is considerable vacancy in office space at the present, and retail 1 spaces especially iu this area, is relativ®ly easy to rent; therefore , he aspects virtually 100% retail occupancy before long. He objected ■ to increasing the retail ,Percentage beyond what Was asked for without '/ n to the Planning Commission. FUrt yer discussion on n another application 4 • • • "• • ,. ... ,. ' .n'.,: . ,•F., ,....,.- rx...::. F .:A.rw.«J.ar^..N.V•wWX aMi hY,Y Yt+wa.++. ., uA..•w 1u.xMxyi♦Cwx3i.+iLxu.M1 J« h d u.x « .K � . MIN1J :S' TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION July 8, 1980 Page 3 the commission indicated that if the developers wished approximately , they to provide a traffic analysis, and if the 100% retail the would have t analysis showed justification for the light at Summerf .eld and Durham Road, the signal would have to bo installed at their expense s COmmissION DISCUSSION AND ACTS: After further discussion, Smith MOVED approval of the tenant mix requested by the applicant: financial, 13%; office, 24%; retail, 63%; that in the event the apel lant td sired higher retail occupancy, he should again apply'+to g C mmis ion and submit an up.-dated traffic impact study and, bear the cost of any additional traffic signals indicated by the study. The motion was seconded by Bonn and carried unanimously, 5.3 VARIANCE, V 6-80 (Dennis O'Neel) NPO A re uest by Dennis'O r located g y Neel for a ,lot aye variance loca on the north side of North Dakota A 210' east. of 95th, 250' ,,west of 92nd (Wash. Co. Tax Map 1S1 35AC, 700). Howard read the STAFF REPORT and RECOMMENDATIONS. The APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION was made on behalf of the owner, Dennis O'Neel, by Eugene Harfst, 18740 Wood Duck Circle, Lake Oswego, who had nothing to add to the staff presentation. PUBLIC TESTIMONY was confined to a question by a neighboring residents who.questioned what was meant by a variance. Howard responded by outlining ordinance requirements irements for the granting of a variance, and ho this Particular request meets those requirements* COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION: Speaker asked the reason for + 9 strip d attached hey o the most southern of the four the foot etri of lan most involved, separating Lot 701 from the dedicated half street, This was what was left over from previous flag lot accesses to these four lots before it was decided to make a city street which would eerie undeveloped property to the north. a , Bonn MOVED approval of Variance V 6.-80, based on staff findings and recommendation. Eelmer seconded the motion. Smith raised the question would the five—foot. s tri p east of Lot 701 expressing that it become a hoe-mao's-a1and. Mr. Narfst stated they WoUld be glad to did to the owner of Lot 701 g give the land t � proper x' te.; In discussion the co�u,ss:�on while 3,t d.1d not feel it ro e' P g lot, did 1 j; mandate the deeding of the 5 foot serf, to the ad o3nin �,ot feel the problem should be resolved among the parties. The hiot1On for approval thereupon passed unanimously. I I n , I I r • October 223 1979 Reference: Th be1'1 Building (8D 28-79) on Shady tan o Tigard, Oregon To Uhonl it 'L ay Concern: ., No portion of this site is 'within the 100-year f1oodplain As it ezLst today. 1 small portion = the site does lie xi xn al identified drainag way however construction of 1 c1rainan'e system for this ;sits will alleviate any difficulties. Thla actual builaing location is rsr oved from both the flood w» plain and drainageway areas,' A4 ! n Howard : lannLn + Diroator UHp j r 1 . k•' , r i jj n i .. .:I•.'471, i...1 NIYI f5..Ia NLA1At•CIW,A...,e .•i14.,r.. . µ} k hIv nUJ 11."p+4tlA INMY I,•N6Ni YI t1.1..v, q Y rw, +1' Y xK', AI U• •YW.Y`•.Vr• •n.fx i .-.—...wMwrl.>.,,IkasM.+•,'..✓ma�br_`Mw.�:ue-'—'.`,I+.., y .•,w.x.., t • p i _.. .4,. .�4__,„ ..t::.,,J .a._ll,.i.. Ma ..lu` 4 / y t CITYOFTIGi 9, •Jeri ai[h 1 •� P.O.Box 2339e 12420 S 1W11° Bao�r� TIgard,Oregon 97223 June 25 1.9 7 9 John H'o Greiner G°e° w. ° d ' ne THOMAS & GREINER ARCHITECTS P.O. Box 1927 Bellevue, 'Washington 98009 Re: SDR 28-79 - Tarbell Building Mr.a Greiner rn . a The Planning; Commission received your letter 'at their June 19th meeting, it g conditional use permit had expired making i was their feeling that the ,c , necessary reapply. The next available hearing date. is August 7th. y y to rea ar for you Bncx.osed is an application and list of required materials for a conditional use permit. I suggest that you get all the requiredlmaterials in as soon as possible in order to secure a hearing date. The fee is $325 , [ Design Review approval of the Tarhell Building has been granted with the con dition that the Planning Commission approve the additional height. The Building Department issue grading foundation >>permit at this point, but no p t can issue �'. radxn and founda�: building permits can he issued until the height is resolved. If I can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to call me at 639-4171, . Sincex•:1 Hilary`Mackenzie Planner Assistant P�� • 1416/P3r Incl. • ° b I A 7 79 a BARD CITY TIGARD 2 ''A4aaaor +eo ,nd •.".. P.O.Box 23397 CITY OF 11aARD 12420 S.W,Main Tigard,Oregon 97223 June 22, 1979 . ., r THOMAS & GREINER REINER - ARCHITECTS P.O. Box 1927 Bellevue, Washington 98009 Re: SDR 28-79 - Tarbell Building ,, Dear Mr. Greiner: Please be advised that the Planning Director on June 19, 1979 approved your request for site plan and architectural review of the above referenced . project. This approval is subject to the following conditions: Jl. street a.m. r`ovement be done on Shad Lane as er That a half p• Shady per the City 4 EngineerVs recommendation nsure the survival o 2. That protective measures be taxed during construction to 1 f the large oak. 3. That the applicant submit a lighting and irrigation plan for design review approval. 4. That the Planning Commission approve the extension of the conditional use permit allowing the additional building height. 5. No changes will be made to approved plans or specifications unless formal application is made to the appropriate department and changes, are approved p Application changes.-. by that department. A lication for than s will be ma de in writing and • shall include applicable drawings, engineering specifications and other , details requested by the department. construction shall' take place in c1 e artment� these instances until after the changes ohave sbeen approved: Any deviation from this condition will result in the immediate posting of a stop work order on the project or any portion of the project. If we can be of any further assistance9 please do not hesitate to contact this office at 639-41710 SALncF r, ary kentie T Plann.zTig Assistant Am/p j r Prendergast°Moore Company for D.M. Tarbell C . • • .w •• ..:L. !"» wutl ::.. .......,, ....,..J..... ..... .{.....I.fa.w"JM.. .A:...1 'k:-. 1 ��ti-,. Stl :• •... .. ......ul! w.._ r r.Ax1a.:ah..+.«`NN....s A.. wl. r w .,.n.,.. rm a1...i•ry ..rxM:.0 wQ±f� al.».n..,..:•.1:......11._.+....x..rt -.+I'A➢..,.,,+a.:.:..-I,er.:d:ULLIS».+.kU Page 2 June 22, 1979 d SDK 28-79 Tarbell Building 1 'd~ I , Note: ` hP following acknowledgment must be received by the City of Tigard within fourteen (14) days of your receipt of this letter. Failure to return this P acknowledgment may result in by the City of Tigard. g action ac I hereby acknowledge this 1eter documenting the action of the Tigard Planning Department. I have received and read this letter, and I agree to the decision here documented and to abide by any terms and/or conditions attached. (Silature "4 Date am I 1 1 , V STAFF Rya� T TIGARD SITE DESIGN PEVIEW June 19P 1979 TIGARD CITY HALL 12420 S.W. Main Street(' Tigard, Oregon' • • Docket: Site Design Review SDR.28-79 Greiner Applicant: John A. Site Location: S.W. Shady Lane and Greetlburg Road (Wash. Tax Map iSi 35E, Tax Lot 205) Request: For Design, Review of a three story office building Previous action: On November 1, 1977, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the building height limitation. On February 16, 1978, design review of an office building for the site was approved. parking Requirements: One space for each 350 square feet of gross floor aL a. App , floor area 92 Applicant show �2 2f31D ,square feet of flo spaces required. Applicant proposes 90 spaces. Due to the site locahion near public transit, .staff feels that the tro additional spaces not shown on the site need, not be required. (TMC Sec. 18.59.070) 1 • r Site Design Review: The subject site is zoned C-3. The property is bounded by 217 to the north and east; vacant land to the south, and a se :vice station and mixed comxnerdial uses to the west. The applicant is proposing to build a three story office build-- , . � ing 45' .�.n height. Approval. was given for the additional ' height, and design review approval of the project was grant- ed over a year"ago. The owner has since hired a different architect and resubmitted for design review. The proposed office building is 10' higher than the required 35' in C-3 zone: The conditional use for increased height was approve r:1 well over a year ago. Howe ver, the planning Commission must approve the extension of the additional use permit. , The site plan is acceptable and meets the setback, land- , soaping, parking and access requirements of TMC. The Y ri ht-of-wa ' on S.W. Shady Lane is s60' which is 10' more 1, g (y than is necessary for a local street. The applicant may wish to have the extra right-of-way vacated. A half street improvement is necessary on Shady 'Cane; The right-of-way width should be cleared with the City. Engineer ' ' street improvements.prior to any a or , ,. n 1 1 ....' ,.:. .. .. :., ... ......,.:A..«.......«:;:-.,,ar...•.,.... 'm,........,.,-i.:.... .1.+.,.:«-.. .w,...,..`:i. ....,,,,•. 4 a4 ,..i .,}.+..u, .u.--....,..Jd.,J.:S.,IK,.«w STAFF ,PORT' SITE DESIGN REVIEW • • June 19,>1979 SDR 28-79 -2 or o Page g g plans Igo irra.gatzo�7 or la. ht�.n have been submitted to design review. • . Staff Re coxnmeniatxoMS4 Staff recomends approval with the following conditions: 1. That a half street improvement bP done on Shady Lane as per the City • Engineer°s re commendation • "• 2. That protective measures be taken Burin g construction to insure the - , • r survival of the large oak„ • 3. That the applicant submit a lighting and irrigation plan for design review approval. 4. That the Planning Commission approve the extension of the conditional use permit allowing the additional buiLcli.ng:height, • 5. No changes will be made to approo ved plans or specifications unless for- ).ttal application:is made to tth,e appropriate department and changes are • approved by that department. Application for changes will be made in writing and shall include applicable drawings, engineering specifi.oa- details requested by the department. No construction shall take place in these instances until after the changes have been pp Any n from this condition will result in the immediate approved. An dev�.utio posting of a stop work order on the project or any portion of the project • ' Report prepared by: Hilargt," a� kenzie Report Approved by; Ala'e 'ward Plarinii assistant Pla� a Da.rector frIr • • I , r . • fit, q}f • I ql I �4 I' l I �I II , ; DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DEPARTMENT File # 12420 S.W. Main Street d�`1- � �Ti Fee Rec ga , Oregon 97223 639-4171 G Receipt 4 Date Rec'd Gf BY • PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE IN INIC i o PROJECT TITLE: Tarbe1 l� 5na E • pRdJECT ADDRESS: t rs.JC, .ia:n, Of S.W . J rgh rd . & • • 4 TAX MAP 1S5, TAX LOT(s')' 2 " CIRCLE AS APPLICABLE: OWNE:DEVELOPER'S NAME: , Prendergast Moore Company for D.M. Tarbell AODRES5:• 421 S.W, 6th 1400. C ommonweal t b..Bl j.c_ P o r t 7 a n d. Ur�gon ,;9 7 2.0 4 •(STP.EE'') CITY { ) (ST .TEt, (ZIP) • PHONE (BUS.) : 75 SIGATATURE • n • REPRESENTATIVE'S NAME: , Thomas a Grelher_ • ADDRBSSt 12505 r3e1-Red Roa,d . Bellevue, _WL5b1 ngtan 98009 ' (STREET) (CITY) (STATE) (ZIP) ' Q PHONE (BUS) (206) 455-5236 • PROPOSED USE: Off•iCe bUjlding , DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY PROPOSED USE #BUILDINGS *UNITS SQ: FT. commercial SITE SIZEI 64033 TOTAL SQ T: OV BUILDINGS: FT. OF PAVIWO• o SCAPXNO: 14,700 S ft. 38,300 s f�. S FT. oE' LA1D (y)1{ ANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENT DATE Summer i 79 , • ANTICIPATED DEVETOPt4ENr PI.IASSS: p VALUATIOW: 850;000 L.* • 0 rc, I.1" ° a If 1,1g ).1 P.O. EO>C 1192.7 a EELLEV1l..IE , WASHINGTON 99009 q [209) 455-9239 June 15, 1979 Planning Commission City of Tigard 12420 S.W. Main Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 re Tarbell Building #7911 Shady Lane . Dear Commissioners: • We have been advised that a conditional Use permit granted for this site That permit was granted for a three • has expired as of November 1978. p . g story structure originally intended for construction on the site in 1978. The documents for that structure were prepared for the Tarbell Realtors people by another professional firm. That package was submitted and approval given by Tigard Design Review under file #SDR 44-77. The owners of the Property secured our services this year to Provide �! documents for a three story structure on the same site. Our concept is again a three story building with a similar site plan. The use permit was for a 45 foot building height, which is also the height proposed for the sly new building. Since the concept was a p previously, and no major proved ,' changes made to that concept, we are as<i ng approval of the new package. Documents are on file with the Planning r �, Doc rein Department. Please advise should s' further documents by required, ery trcly', y urs, r Joh H Greiner JH sf • • • • • ' Lf .e"f� 1 . Y ul,� ' a•„�!'' i'`1,,� ,,, ! 4'�.. .'."..*r. .✓ ✓ I,,, ,,, ,r,j f �t_r/ 4, ? HOME OFFICE, TACOMA, WASHINGTON ,1 ' 4• POWER OF ATTORNEY . KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS,That the UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY,a corporation duly organized under the laws of the taata,of Wa* g does hereby make,constitute and appoint S ttin roars d R. B. NEIGHBOR of PORTLAND, OREGON , . its true rend lawful Attorney-in-fact,to make execute,seal and deriver for and on its behalf,and as its act and deed 1 • ANY AND .ALL BONDS AND UNDERTAI(INGS OF SURETYSHIP— --W , C'. - . £cA-_e f r,.--,/c ,./. 4 . _e. 6 G/i c(k ' . ,1,' 6-7-,...,6.,_.‘z._,L__,- 44.e.,,,t,o. ),ze,c9 N2_,.././y2„,64.. te,,,,,,uct..z...,. 6),z(00' ?'?a,3 ii..)_,1 / , and to bind the UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY thereby as fully and to the same extent as if such bonds and undertakings and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof were signed,by an Executive Officer of the UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY and sealed and attested by one other of such officers,and hereby ratifies and that its said Attorney(s).in-fact may do ii)pursuance hereof, hereby confirms all t ;; This Power of Attorney is granted under and by authority of Section 37A of the By-Laws of UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE . COMPANY which provisions are now in full force and effect,reading as follows: ' SECTION 37A—ATTORNEYS-IN-FACT SECTION 1, The Board of Directors, the President, or any VicePresident or Assistant Vice-President shall have power and authority to: (a) appoint y Assistant r . y undertakings, contracts of indemnity and other g s ,it ngs obligatory f ain the aturreithereof,and(b)to remove any s such Attorney-in-fact-fact at any time and revoke thexaraces,c d authority given to him. ■ y- power ari .SECT1ON 2, Attorneys-In-fact shall have power and authority,subject to the terms and limitations of the power of attorney issued to therri,t,o execute • and deldver on behalf of the Company,bonds and undertakings,recognizances,contracts of indemnity and other writ ngs obligatory in the nature thereof, contracts of indemnity and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof, fao y Y any undertakings,recognizances,corporate seal is not necessary for the validity of an bonds end undertakin s,reua nizan CeS,con This power of attorney is facsimile adopted by the Board of Directors V , • , p Resolution i! by authority p a b ,aesirnile .under and by authorit of the following Resolution UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY at a meeting held on the 26th da of October, 1971 at wifich a urarum Was resent,and said Fiesolu�ion faire 15 51 red and seals ” '' has not been amended or repeated: ''Resolved,that the signatures of such directors and officers and the seal of the Company may be affixed to any such po wer of attorney'or any certificate relating thereto by facsimile, and any such power*of attorney or certificate bearing such facsimile 1 signatures or facsimile seal shall be a binding the Company any power executed and c ertified by . � facsimile signatures and facsimile seal shall be valid and binding upon the Company in hutur ewith i e spe t to a ny bond or ' Undertaking to which it is attached," 1 , IN WITNESS V..VHEREOF,the UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE CCNIPANY hes caused these presents to be signed by Its Vice-President,and its corporate ' , seal to be hereto affixed,this 21St day of Mci,rc.h,.,. ,,,,.,,,i'g;, , • UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY, ; ' sy a r vice-President ----- I hn,i STATE OF Wa,shi ,grtozi �' CCIUNTY OF s5. pie�ce 21S`b ME wnl J, COTTER r On this day of. Ch 79 ,..,. ,i9_....,personally appeared. to me known to be the Vice the UNITED PACIFIC I3 ' � PreStderit of FIC iNSUi�ANCIE COMPANY, and I; ge g instrument and affixed the"seal of said car ration thereto,and that Sections 37A,Section 1 r 2 � the foregoing arckrtowlcjd d that he executed and attested the Resol , therein,are still in full force, . . I Arid of the By lavis of said Gompahtiy and th ution set # My Commission Expires: {. u .e 12 f 82 '4`°;,' Was,`a .ia gt�� 1 .......,.......................w.,....-, :", 19 a:.;sot V Notary Public In and for S'tatc o'f f";0 Saw°,Q i'1. 31 �." Residing { Tacoma, _ C1a �i ,,,�,r2 Ass INSURANCE CC)MPANY,do hereby certify that the aboiae and Power at Attorney executed ylsaid UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE CC?MPA IY,which instill ih full ,`. ' I, x�.1 -r� {r istant 5ecre{any of foregoing is a true and�orr�ct copy of a l'a forte and effect. ' ' IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Conihpan ° ,Is..,, •5th day of Y 09 '8D j to ,,sees,,,;,; . + �0 Assistent 5'ec�'e .r C) Uµi4Sl ED,2-7 2 i1 • to _ ., y. .... �.,. sees. ,...... .,, .. •r•„,..� .,. u,. ,, .. �'+� .. _. . .._' .. ,; ,. ".... ,....• .,..••......i .i.,.,.,,..,., • .. i,.•... . ... ,. ..•• <I • () IIw, ..... ... t..♦.0 { N..«. ,..k n:1: .. ., . ..-... LJln,rw Ixx, - UNITED J -SIP FMA aY�i � .�..I`�'�r., . cQ P A. '" " HOME OPFICE, TACOMA, WASHINGTON 5UsDiViSIONBOND U 302316 , B ol,d N o. t,. KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that we R A. GRAY & CO® • 11 as Principal, and UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY of Tacoma, Washington, a Washington Corporation, Oregon ----�-- Surety, firmly bound unto fi "aut, flrized to do business in the State of as Suret are held and CITY Off' TIGARD, OREGON os Ob igee,' in the penal sum of ' TWENTY' THOUSAND AMID NO/ OOth��» »..».�.,�,,...»_.,.. ...,_ .,.»� «- 20)000.00 • DOLLARS, lawful money of the United States of America, for the payment of which well and truly to be made, we I bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators successors and assigns jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. R. A. GRAY & CO. WHEREAS, WHER • has agreed to constructA •!p ~ • w, SHAM �s� i n e, ;Subdivision, in .�. , the following,improvements: Constructs on of Landscaping and Earkra.tig Lot Lighting to be comP .eted by November 15E 1980 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that if the said Principal shall con- struct, or have constructed, the improvements herein described and shall save the Obligee harmless from any cost or damage by reason of its failure to complete said work, then this obligation shall be null find voids other- wise toirenlain i5i full force and effects Signed, sealed and dated this s_____1S_th day of, Ia 19,80 ' M ✓yy��, , :r /��+Y��/✓ principal 1.� _" *�... `,,/ y\ Mai„' "^.Y' 1tiY � y� y".y 'L 'i.rte ci X j. UNITED !'ACIrIG INSURANCE COMPANY + iAei I,lbori Aftaeriey-tri.ract/ bbUy , .U.:I w..a.. ..,.,u r Su..... v '.i. ♦ .�:. ..,_ ....,. ... .x. .. . .. gnmMw.n,m,WVam.64C+mm9l:�L w xw r nnww .Nn. • v w,xi r. n ..r4.xs ...+ . i1 PLEASE REVIEW FOR SEPTEMBER 5 , 1978 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING STAFF REPORT TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION September 5 1978 -- 7 : 30 p. m. Fowler Junior High - Lecture Room 10865 S . Y. Walnut St . - Tigard, Oregon Dc ck ,t ZC 5-72 (Summerfield) • Request : A request for review and approval of the Summerf ield Commercial Center as required by Condition #2 for approval of zone change ZC 5-72 ( 12/19/72 Planning Commission Meeting minutes) Location T North side of S .W . Durham Road and east side of S.W. Pacific Highway . , Applicant : All Benkendorf I . Findings of Fact : 1 . That the Planning Commission must u:5t first approve the uses on the Commercial Site . 2 . That condition #2 requires the Planning Commission to approve location, access, siting and range of permitted uses . II , Conclusionary Findings : 1 . The applicants 'ts plan illustrates access , location, siting t and range of uses 2 . The plan intergrates vehicle , pedestrian and bike circulation to connect with Surnmerfield residential development 3. The proposed permitted uses are derived from -a stud calculation nearby commercial type facilities, to avoid duplications of need. . II 1 . 1 . Staff Recommendations : Stuff recommends approval . , e . ' • ' , ) '.', ,. .. '•f C..u 1•.�• , ,Ic iy..•. _ • •...•4 . .•1 - . _ •1. .30.7,-.,..:.: ' ti .. .=,'..4.t04,,,,,.....7.. , s ry yy.•■ -'1,18� r''moo- ',-/ r w{', • i'a , 7 .n .-y, -7}I�.r ':n..'.' .. " �. .r,t. � •7'•. f-� .4:. 1- y, � .,,,.,'V , xJ:„{l, ..1" .,T,/a{C-."- .�"',J'v:• , ! °4,f �'tirr«� ,,Jy'I E,',,4'11. � ..,4,,--4:,t-' !.••`.' f n r�Fw�.' �'3 1 ';1:.I k.ry f yY 1:i"� t.y7 i f r^t{ ,M.r fir � H,. w »r ,:i7.•;.,-a J)i.' ,i t{.r,�r.-r;Y tp'":• ' .�S y,;sr{��...6.-..w, - ,ir ,»•$-i s,.- .ji.' ,.1.a -K. .i •a,.t.• i,^.'rr if a..'..,-4.1` 4 Y•i 7.' J .R-»•: •� y.. ,. , •+.. 1. M, ,: . . . . _ ..7 y r s e u i• yr Iii • t r yV' :<J tYi, . ,�• , Wit' - trJ ;,Ms,w 2. The Community Pi.ln does not designate c and development for the node: ist or southeast 'darner of Durhs,m Road tazid Pacific Highway. 3. The pro3*1 includes: a. 201 acres 1!11.4):P.ortizig 1250 dwelling t • b. 1.92 person* aer duvlling unit or a maximum of 2400 total population • C. Typical rlesidential lot arta of 4, square feet d 49.5 acres of golf comae and natural reserve areas �. :r t. Approximately 20, square foot recreation building, maintamance building, lalwz, pool, tennis courts and Parking for 125 cars. f. Single family lots of 50'x&' with 10 feat ; front, 4 foot side and 8 foot rear yds. Rear ` and side Yard setb*k may be waived for "coffin- wall" or "z o lot 1. " dwellings 4. Adequato community vhopping and commercial facilities are provided in proximity to the dev lop ont- t tha King 5. With dIveloo ant of this magnitude, road imprvvemento will bo required to saes the additional resident nt population and those who will u the► public recreational facilities • 6. The Department of Environmental Quality has approved nO c f toeing p t)r t to allow constructlon of model homea. Comneotiona to the King City plant will dvvitcd upion D.E.Q. A prow 1 of the completed s nt plant ita2plansi= next yeaz.. 7. The Tiszrd Watvr District i.a in the press of connecting its line* to the Lalce 012wIt! '2 water 8Y3t4m* This should 8. HouSing will h* a age restriction* in the prOJect by the daveloPer. Based upon the above findings, the staff recommends xyv , of t request with the f 1 .. co di � 1. Prior to the issuance of y bruilding permit , the devel n setting forth the site stand' :S shall. .Au .:. iG t*d to the P1 4 Commission �or review and approval. l shall include but not 1,,t li to • to landscapitge setbacks building height3, street-a, ProPosed imProvements, , gutters, parking, service and storage areas. • aat P 2 . staff Report osumm6r .".i''e�Y�3” ,. • 1 , i. err s ,cr 7• a • • ►. 2. All latid within the d• iop t t shall be used for " residential reoreational Purposes; exce ;� that . ' area designated or c o e wee or sib p i 1ude tBary ce and/er Pr'oiesslonal office e uses 1 serving to d lopmen't. If such uses ere approved, z fj , the P i•.i COMM1,32ian X11 .pp 'fe the 1e'cati n, access, siting and rye of. permitted u303. 3 Each ihase of the development z 1 . be rviewed and a rid bY tha Planning Commission. At the time °�f app .v of each pia*, the densitiad ; uses shall be approved. 4. A boat and trailer storage area sall be designated in an area contained d by an opaque fence or sight ob landscape screening maintained. at not less than six i. (6) feet nor more'than seven (7) feet i height. ' L 5. The apartments it the prvject s:hall be develop in accordance w - standards unless ess offil sae apps ov „ on a specific site plan b7 the Plnning Corirtissi,on. 6. Th6 overiI1 dens; of th de lopmnt s ' all be no' greater th " 6.25 dvelling unitz per re (1250 total r Persona. 7. The: , lot z zea a3 prcpo ad for single fmlly veAlta dhall �. rid, es otherwise ecifi Pl _ Co i. aion# except that tee shall be a t (lo) foot miniou yard equir e en whew any yard abuta a public stet y o � subdivided ] be t•• taebd.ivisio'n c procedures. 9. °Pen : e ahl1 be maintained t rhough a Hoteowner,a Association or by thw developers with convena si 1tt d for aPProval at filing of the ,final Plat 10. All 1.1 t�ili.s ies a ll be subsurfacd installations. 11. Housing sball be limited to dn average Jeri 'off no dare than 1.92 person4 per d*elling unit 1 . Excluded parttls surrt zded by "StAttmerfieldn Shzll be included in the it pltn with the 'pczeibili of acces4 provided these parcels, li.m:in . • their isolation, . i • Pg. 3 -- Staff Rap n • . r.., r.x • �7„ ,• •L � t • i` tix^ 7 .- . N +4� r= yI. ti� w '• f t r x ♦ ., J , i r tS 1i {, st i rr ►`"till 13. There shall be dedication to 45 feet from :centerline on S.W. Trhx,La Road. 14 nt centerline 14. There l� dedication of 35 feet �� e with a 40 foot improvement, provide on S.W. 98th • der the development abuts both sides of the road • a half abet improvement where the develqpwiort abuts only one side of .the road. cl . r 15. Terre shall be dedication of 25 feet fr centerline (32 fast improvement) on S.W. Waeve Stet with half i street improvement are applicable. , 16. There mill be dedication of 30 feet from centerline on S.W. Sattler (36 feet improvement) with half street .• improvement wh re applicable. 17. Internal Stet iIvements util.l. be designated at the ;. time of the platting of the subdivision. 16. There ill be no o C aancy without public later sever. 19. A copy of the deed. restrictionz and covenants l �, be attached to the approved l n to help insure conformity with pl. ad denoiti98. ' 1 . 7 . )r 20. i3 Phase 11 of the development until additional water servloe is available to :the 1 . Ti ,rd W tttr Diatriot from the City of Portland • i/ox° City of Lake e p • • R .. I , �+ i �wti"�Via; f• I I t 4 Pg. 4 -Staff Report " serfie1d" M N ,.0 a�e., .,.e...� ,,.«,. ,dr..+w ,x�.aw.,..,�.i I. ,a,,,.ew ::::: ,._. .. ....,,, ,,,,,,,,, ,, , ;. ,.: ..... , ....:: ,. ,. •ti,uh•1„ ,:., .. • w , (y . ,—,A('.F,,j-i�' , M C r%.',,.I.A 1 1 j ., tp, , . BULL MI'f•t RD, 2 CITY R47.....,z,v,.A.z•. . ,,4......,. ,.,,....,,,,.. .. . ,,,,..,..i•.,C,.->.D r t...I.,",,.■,....::.,,.....,,..,.i. ,.,.,.„., G COUNTY S AT T(,. • ,,.".,t v . . i ISING CITY �_7 •"`� ., • . . .', .''',' '• . 1 • , , '.. .,•_ .7. 7, ‘ ,„. ..,. . . , (...,, , . . . ...z.. ,.'''''"•`•'s"',.'s''''',.. '''.., '''`-..:',.-'...,',.• . < ,, t.',. ... rl,D W . DI.Rd Y C.OU^NTY i7: • ' 11,1,4.t"' i ,.,, R s . . -. 1 ,,,ti—. : ' ' , ' , • • 9 : ZONE H I j 5. ► • AREA or CON iD iRATIO COUNTY P_R T CITY r),D �, ' �. • • . fa n fu �i t YYU+..W. ,/, ^'.1'.';'..--2.L111/4:','. ^•M•, -'� f Y•1 I T / r'1 1 T r Y l.��:i'.I�.I.i'� �A' .0 1 .•'..�L'7i'.r.�'l�.rf 11 I 1 "1''•i ;,.. Ti .''^+ , P 1-.) r�r .nzrar T'r Y,. i•ti,-tili•rS•t;�.�.ON Q 1!1.,w nlY },... rs-i�.; 1 tih/ l,INM,S7u S«.Y+1{ •.i'n1�,ta J.IYJ►'3.da V:1 j' Yp Ia ii - 9 Notie r1 717"•f given that a S i li• ` by the '.P]u nri C'amm.i.s�1L'w:.on of :;„,;T: C +y of i,t-...cl. within tbb • Tw •7 Jr. H 1 S T�”"`y 1, room, .(�t• ,t y� 6 i�4.a�J.SJ,�; 1a.1•H��L 0.d:w..l'••J�.L lecture Y 4��/Ui f Y;iA'J �.1�� S.W. ��i./dy� TigarTy rw,y on T c. 1',--+',+r 1 ' 8.00 't� t with i d, r�.yG t .)� C?,ya ._ �i.G+. �� r� r�r n Y�et"1c� �Al respect to �t the 1.oww-:�„:Y...ngo . I 1 All a,-p iicat Lo'.. by the, Cit, oy ,.--g .,.,1 f'o4 ..*7 a C":; a^. C of zoo aJsl1 •.tat ,w7,, f.:-..om Couri+`,! 7 Pnr,,s r 1 D€.L.a.1... .m r u t ..,`.~Jn .•^ +.''•M 20 + tract 1..twm o.aly .nYnt vrt. as 11Cum rl:er,K.le.i.i.,. o T planned r id,Bnti > comet 1?"l.{�,^r;yr Is .1.b"::ated on the•y Y n y..{.1.: co YI w f t/ r -,7+�'� g r� 4d.:.;w 1:v.L 1,►.Y.a«:aA v yr w/,M .L Irq, oil q p'r,+«..i..,I..h: a.i u'. ,�..�•,�. 'I and, S.W. Duruaam Road., vit'::ndla s tYl wr y frog F:...c 1 i i J S i h N sixty b!'00 +'•..y.Y. just ' L S.4 Iw ds......4.. r/.,0 rJ r .Zwi l��.r4..I. .1 .�. hfAl4a . r 4” ••-.- & Y •"yy� -1 d 3 �'•y n '�"r � ., .:.i"�]�l3'rs .5...1.00� , ...4t' ''')9 ..3!• i 1:3,033.9 4�.".+y Y0 k 1 '..n.. -- .� u�..9 C'e2 and. 1 400 on tax ,�1f7�•, "i ` •,7 l^ tag,,r `+ t s /.gyp '] 0 .4 114 dA l�L�s Sr K.7�J ,�iu�w:YY wY'��Jl. {�•.M V? r1.r'!u��;+1� 1.P7jUYtW9 �4'0C9 ' , 100 j' 1900 7 '�.,)O s 1700 9 2000 rte.;,:,d. 60 on m 'tax 2S1 1103 aam tam .ot s 1500 ew:d 90 0 , on tae m 261 _1]) r pN , T fry,, l■ All persons a vi an interest in the matter are Ii invited to attend. and to ,rle „` • , 4.mss• n r • O � I Y �.,,..,,. a ,.v..u, �.,...,_...,. . ti. , r„„ r. .,, �. „�, ,,,,•..-. „�. , ..,..., r .,,-,. r ,r.. .. rvir ; .... .. ..i . ro• "V1 11 tR Y • • MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION r September 5, 1978 Fowler Junior High School Lecture Room 10865 , 5»W Walnut g nut Street - Ti and Oregon g r Q 46. . 1. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M. 2. Roll Call: Present: Smith, Brian, p' ker, Quimby, Tepedino, F, S ea Funk, Corliss, Rossman. Absent: Wood I I Staff: Selby, Mackenzie 3. Approval of Minutes: nutes p The minutes for Planning Commission meetings 7/25/78 ,, 8/1/78 I, ° and 8/15/78 approved as submitted. 4. Communications: None t: 5. Public Hearings 5. 1 ZONE NE CF P;NGF ZC �.�.. 1-68 (Bellwood Park. Subdivision) NPO 07 A request by Raymond J. Bartel for density review of Phase III of the Bellwood Residential Pla nned Development at S W 128th & North of Walnut (Wash. Co Tax Map 2S1 4AA, part of Tax Lot 100) . A. Staff Report: Read by Selby Ba licant' s Presentation: Pp ti Stan Martinson, Attorney, representing the applicant stated that the current staff report represents e:agreed conditions and.:... position tr o ` recommendations. The developer will develothose common of the a licant with regard to staff P wall units in such a manner as to promote individual owner-- ship and condominium) living- Ray Bartel, Architect for project, Stated that all multi- family units were now eondorniriutn, 'The duplexes had been !' " 1 vegetation c�elet�.d. g � bn site Will be resp,�=c�.ec�, and /� Actual rT the greenway preserved. , c. Public Testimony: 1 I - Residents of Eellwoo d stated concern with traffic on 128th !i & Walnut, II inadequate recreation facilities adjacent to 1; ; multifamily units) and the impact on ,ic.ho'ols �'I ' I � r '! !". .lu.:.. .✓G.. . I.. 1r +a- ,. ,i_. ,rw.,.... .a,..=. u, k„aY...,- , ` •I. r„ ' MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMiS57:ON MO • Septentbe3 5, 1973 p i Page 2 .a; Bonnie Owens, NPO #7 Chairman, stated that NPO #7 was opposed to the increased density. Selby stated that Walnut is designed to handle 3,500 cars per day. Sidewalks are a school district concern in that the school district sets the standards and WJ'•sn a street is judged unsafe for pedestrian travel, the ': schools bus the children. Bartel stated access width would be 30 feet for common wall units. The adjacent development to the north is , required to have the same access width so the proposed r� access line a Stated that there was` '' r' Possibility of through automobile access but it had not roads will p • been discussed as to whether or not that information would be recorded on the final plat. D. Staff Recommendation:. 1. That the developer receive approval from the City '� Engineering Department prior to construction and especially in regard to the effect that the construction may affect exi3ting grade. e11. t 2- An agreement and bond shall be exacuted and submitted to , the City for approval prior to recording of the final ---• 3. Construction and building plans shall b e submitted to the City' s s building department for approval prior to any construction occurring. 4. A site drainage plan must be submitted and approved by the building department prior to issuance of a building permit. 4 5. That the common wall units be designed and Landscaped as follows; a a- Provide individual housing entry court ways b. Provide individual front or back yard space. c. Provide ind.7.k,vidual g ;• ;1 or Vehicle cover-, and a adequate visitors parking space' with proper traffic 0 circulation. , 1 - and ,.. n s � i Shall bedesigned m la d: Lad cap ng s 1 p n�.ed in a manner to provide sound buffering between housing .(` units yet not restridtitte to police su^Veiilanc:e o e. B�ter�I rI r.. physi�y�a l building materials i S shall ll re flect the r hesive natural environmental atmosphere (roofing, sd�ng, paint m ate r,lals) . . t 1.t... .. i;.. ..I. :.. .., .:... , .....,. _........:M...... .. .! „ .na=u... „ n ... ,.. ...,of ,.. .. ...i r... r,.. ... ' '; r ' Y ,\. J,,.I , ..;..r_ r........w,r n.:.. +.r... o �!:,,A - .a. n u...l. h w.Nr $,.P a •Plno-..: w ♦ r MINUTES 'k TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION September 5, 1978 Page 3 • 6 . That the common wall units be condominium in design. And that, the developer agrees to promote individual ownership.ownership. 7. Construction and building plans shall be submitted to r , the police and fire department jurisdictions for i . approval prior to any construction. 8. That the developer er and/or. association (of 1, p to the Greenway) be ,r homeowners associat are fronta ce and vitality of the units which a g • responsible for the mainten .n y Greenway. 9. That the developer clean out the dead or dying vegetation j. and remove the litter >and unnatural matter from the Greenway which is within the project' ion . t s !'boundaries , prior to the Building Departments approval for construct p g � gip 10. That the Greenway be dedicated as an easement to the City and be maintained by the owner or Homeowners u Asap^iatorl 11. That the developer executes an agreement of d edicat ion to the City with the appropriate fire and police depart- ment to construct upon their approval an easement for emergency access between developers project and ` Mo r' ni ng Hi] ' Wedgewood Homes stbdavisaon property, with improvements as dir ected. r 12 P. That the developer will phase his construction as approved R phase by all the utility companies prior to construction- ,. Commission Discussion Joe Bailey, City Attorney, question; of Cit ,�.tt s the legality staff cori lition 46 In that the City does not have the ' ' tool. within ordinances to request or enforce such a '� the ordin menu removing the second lotion. g d sentenc,�. recommendation. RecQZn of staff condition 46 what is the overall densit allow ° for that , . r ° Stith asked w y � sd • zone. . Selby units per acre. h wanted to see a cost/benefit it description with Sm�.t w � - regard - p .g j �i al units and creating t-o the develo or adding 16 additional g eenway area. , He did not think that it was a fair the r trade off, 41 1 Speaker stated that the greenway trade off may not be r • for tho increased density . acceptable to the 're,sdent:� c� y Thought the to f f had worked with developer to solve { drainageway problems. p (. ....1.. ». ar, m.. .,.....r. r..0 usu+t ,.�r n.r.-_w . '.A. v .. •'i • ••.rfP+aMk.il. ra� - rI . P . P w MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION i; September 5, 1978 ,, Page 4j Tepedino asked about the agreement and bond referred in staff condition #2. Staff recommended that condition #2 is routine as requested by the City Engineer Speaker moves to adopt the staff recommendation with the conditions as stated with the deletion in #6, of the second sentence, (that the common wall units be condominium in design and individually platted. 4 "I Brian seconded the motion. Motion fails 4-3. Rossman abstains. } a Joe Attorney/ stated that whole range of oe Bailey, City A tom � r � � O � � densities is availabl.. to the Planning Commission for 'the t density of Phase III r but some density should be decided on and approved so the applicants could act accordingly. Smith recommended eight (8) additional units above the 210 either single family or multifamily, with the conditions J as recommended by staff with the recording of #6 as ..• Previously agreed on. , Brian agreed with Smith. Funk recommends p submitted at. !;1 ._.., r ommends the 228 units be accepted as submit that time. Speaker agreed with Funk, Thought that the Commission' was ' responsible for ro�tidin city Planning in e g that a range of housing was available in the cit , ? ' p p g good and se , Quimby agreed with Smith and, Brian. g g with ' t that. the commission i , � n either go Corlissthou h mission s . should e the original 210 Units or 228 as Presented; liked the ', greenway but preferred the lower density.,' • Tepedino thought it was best to go With the staff recommendation as presented. i moves that the applicant return with a compromise . � density.m s i Yt , Brian seconded the motion: Smith withdrew his motion. l' Brian withdrew hi Seeonded ,.,... .,,.,w Diu ,,. Y ,t .—«.-.,..Ma.•.«»n«.m..aw.. k�+.yy44+ 1 ti� MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION September 5, 1978 Page 5 Selby stated that the applicant meet code requirements • and that any additional 'units would have an impact on traffic but i't was not the responsibility of one particular development. Corliss moved to approve the request as submitted with °`'•- the conditions as stated by staff with the exception :. that staff condition #6: be reworded as agreed and that staff condition #5 be submitted to site design review. L Speaker seconded the motion. Quimby recommends that staff condition #5 be submitted to the site design review board (motion modified) . First vote four in favor, 2 abstain, 2 against. Second vote five in favor, Rossman abtains,' Brian and Smith opposed. Motion passes unanimously. 5. 3 ZONE CHANGE ZC 16-78 (Wedgewood Retirement Center) NPO #6 A request by Mike Elton and Victor or L. Lund for a zone map amendment from RS-1 Washington County to City of Tigard R-7 "Single Family Residential" zone for a .2 .83. acre parcel at southwest corner of Durham Road & S.W. 108th (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 15A, Tax Lot 1500) . A. Staff Report: Read by Selby . B Applicant s Presentation F Ken Cole Architect for p ec tr Presented proposal. The first Phase would be 80 nits, two stories with basement. rr The second Phase would be an intermediate care facility of, 90 beds or 45 units. The buildings would lie on either stream. � e " ponds k side, of the � ream. The stream area would bE., made into onds` J • of the c�cc p � ,few of the I , with landscaping and Pathways. lie stated that f would drive an that the majority'(J' 4� �z ants wool and t were ` � y I were not '� active members of the community. C. Public Testimony: Ms.I A anskas objected to the increased traffic density and the two stor y building and a sked abou: greenway.` Veit that 1 Tigard has supplied enough facilities fbr the aged through 1 summerf,ield and Xing City. Submitted letters of objection i that sited. the disrupption of the creKkp and Increased traffic ^ 1 . as reasons fot denial. I I 1 MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION September 5, 1978 • Page G Other persons spoke addressing the same problems as sited above. Resident's complaints were addressed to the conditic,na] use permit not the zone change. Tepedino stated that testimony for both requests would be accepted in the interest of saving time. • Residents expressed concern with the safety of the. intersection of 108th and Durham, Road, especially as a bus stop for their children. Ms. Arlanskas stated parking was inadequate for the develop- ment and that the sewer was inadequate, D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject 'co the following conditions: . 1. feet right-of-way along S .W. Durham Road be dedicated to the City and the api,licant file an ., agreement to participate in the improvementIof S.W. Durham, Road 2 . That five feet of right of way along S.W. 108th be dedicated to the City and a, half street improvement be provided along S .W, 108th to the City g of Tigard Standards before a building' permit is issued for the is r lot. • I 3: That the developer receive approval from the City Engineer ,-,51 prior to construction; and especially in regard to building on natural drainageway and grade. 4 . All utilities be subsurface installations. 4 Commission Discussion: Brian moves for approval with the staff findings and conditions speaker seconded the motion 0 M o tion car r es R ss an against. t 5. 4 CONDITIONAL Retirement Center) ��RO TIONAL `USA CU 18-78 (G�'ed ev�ood R A request by Mike Elton &. Victor L. Lund for- a conditional use permit to construct an 80 unfit retirement center in a P- r .. Single b�aim' ly Residentia l° zone on, a 2 . 83 acre parcel at soutt-awes'h corner of Dtxrhazn Road S.W. 108th (Wash. Co. Tax Map 251 15A, Tax Lot 1500) , ; M1 I o-. k xr r:l wr f r- w'1 b i MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION . , ,. September 5, 1978 Page 7 A Staff Report: Read by Selby . B. Applicant' s Presentation: , Michael Elton,' owner, compared proposed development with Wedgewood Downs in Beaverton. Said location adjacent an intersection was a satisfactory one for this type of development. Residents enjoy being near activity and schools. Proximity of Sumrne rfield also m de location desirable. Lewis Svart thought objections were based on a misconception g � p - of the types of housing the applicant would be providing. Stated residents were very dedentary People, few would drive. C. Public Testimony: Letter from Helen Blood of Stanford University Medical Center ,r (dated 7/20/78) is read into the record supporting the applicant b s proposal Patricia Ogle stated that residents along creek have en�cs alon the c�ee » 4 , creek and the flow cannot be stopped. She also asked wherecthe rights water the sewer would be coming from? Y Walt Lissy saw inadequate shopping and recreational 1 activities for the residents of the proposed development. r Nancy Stimler stated parking space was inadequate for the °'° proposal. F . D Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. That access be restricted to S.W. Durham Road and allowed only on S.W. 108th. 2, That an effort be made to preserve the edist.ing trees on the sitea ' 3. That the plans be approved by the Tualatin Rural, Fire III Protection` District. 4. That the developer receive approval from the City -;ngirleer Prior+ to construction, and especially in regard to t, �� p � r e building on a natural d�.ainageway and grade. t. 5 . An agreement executed and submitted. �� enle�n�t and bond shall �y ::�.. ; g� . ha�.�: be�� e� ., to r " ti the City for approval prior to recording of final plat: , Ili i n a,..0 r a., ,..,,M..w«,k«,nw -. S• w � � ..r�.»..d.L. ,a.,,r.».wwn.avam,rtn"xy, - ;:r , i Y .its 'I r . 1/ ` MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION C, September S, 1978 Y Page 6, issuance of a building permit,rmit, a site Prior to drainae Zan mast be submitted and approved by the g p Building Department. ' 7, Construction and building plrans shall, be submitted to the City Building Department for approval prior to C any construction occurring. 8. The apartments in the project shall be developed in • accordance with A-2 zoning. standards unless otherwise approved on a specific site plan by the Planning '' Commission. { 9. Open space shall be maintained by the owner or through . Y _ . . for a. a Homeowners Association with approval of the filing of the final: lat. covenants submitted • 1 app p 10. utilities shall, be subsurface installations.$ d. A1.1� utilities 11. The developer, shall phase his construction with approval by all utility companies prior to construction. g g 'density of no 12. Housing shall be limited to an average dens A ( more than 1. 92 persons per dwelling unit. 13,, That no surface fill on or along the drainageway be . permitted. E. Commission Discussion: Selby stated that parking, density and setbacks were items that could be covered in site design review. Mike Elton stated that a retirement center was the best use of the site. Stated that they would be willing to eliminate the second phase of the project and the addit'Lonal forty , units. Tepedino stated that the applicant must carry the burden of proof in a conditional use permit. Thought that the questions raised this evening were not adequately answered by the applicant, especially relating to density and building ' near a natural drairlageway. The Problems of traffic and access to the site Were also inadequately addressed. Quimby stated that' T. i gard 'w as being overloaded with housin g for the a ged: Thought that traffic Would be too much of a problem. I Brian agreed with `Tepedino and Quimby that the project Should tN, be dower density. • Quimby moves for denial of request. G MINUTES r TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION ■ September 5, 1978 r a r page Corliss seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. (additions ZC 5-72 (Summerfield) --------- -- f Tepedino questioned the legality of hearing the request without sufficient publice notice. , Selby stated that public notice was not necessary as this was ; . m only a condition of a already approved Phase of the planned ''. development. Quimby would not hear the item, sat in audience, Quimby left at 12 :10 A.M. _ � directed + to get a Tepedino moved o tabl e e item and diiected legal opinion as ether or not a public hearing was necesary. If it is not necessary, the item would be scheduled at the soonest possible date. , Smith seconded the motion i Motion carries. Corliss against. 5. 5 Conditional Use CU 23-78 (Sierra) WPC? #7 A request by J. Alan Paterson f r a conditional 'use permit to construct duplexes on a 8 .3.5 acre 'parcel in a R-7 "Single Family Residential" zone on the southside of Tigard Street, ` noth of Fanno Creek (Wash. Co. Tax Map 151 34D, Tax Lot 5600) . A. Staff Report: Read by Selo Applicant ' s Presentation: Alan Paterson s esen rt ro osale Stated that p P P .'- the 100 year r flood Plain line elevation was at 156 feet above sea level 4, and chat nothin would be built belowth at level. Described 1 P ublic improvements that the subdivision 'would. supply, s `t } C1 Public Testimony Nancy Stimler thought that the site was inappropriate for multifamily 'dwellings Stated that there Was little room 1 for recreation as the water table was high even where the flooded . backyard area was not s • D. Staff Recommendation; ti • .."fw •Yrx .I ,i ul iv. ..JaM..vT. y,1.I I' • • MINUTES C TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION September 5, 1978 Page 10 4 r , Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: ; 1. That the developer receive approval from the City Engineer prior to construction, and especially in . regard to building on a natural drainageway' and existing grade. r � 2. An agreement and bond shall be executed and submitted to the City for approval prior to recording of the final plat. 3. That the developer shall dedicate to the City, that Greenway along Fanno' Creek after developer has removed and cleaned out the dead or dying vegetation and unnatural matter from all areas to be left undeveloped. Also, , d eveloper shall illustrate portions of dedicated Greenwa y and land on preliminary plat. 4 . That any remaining natural area within the projects ■ p _ ` of the applicant for the maintenance and vitality of the boundaries become the .res onsiblla.ty ie appl Y Greenway. I , 5. That the developer dedicate 10 feet of right-of-way to • F Tigard Street and improve half of the street which lies within the applicant 's grass boundary area. That improved right-of-way be p ,axed u p to 22 feet and curb and sidewalk be constructed as required 6 . Construction and building plans shall be submitted to Ir . the City' s building departme nt for approval prior to an y construction occurrin g �I 7. Minimum floor elevation (not . less than( three feet) to be approved by building department as directed by flood plain ordinance. • grading will be executed that Will fill onto and 8Y ' uteri th portion ors flood plain. tl 9. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a site drainage Plan must be submitted approved by the building T� ted and. ap department. le. That lot 47 on preliminary plat be deleted, \ n. Commission Discussion: S p e a ker wanted to l�n�w l zf 1 o t s would be platted in a flood , plain area? x , TeP edino stated that the Army Corp. of Engineer'S data i regaralnq the flood plain was in ue ition in recent I � Years: I , I+i—'•- .,_rM„.y�Yxmr.R.Yr...:•aes,auxa;ur, M4I uTEs' TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION September, 5, 1978 r page ll J o e Baile y thought h t that th e City had no legal ground to o restrict plattting on the flood plain. Te edino stated that .�t was not. acceptable to invade the P flood plains.• Smith suggested that if the' lots were expanded the ' orientation, of the structures could h' p arallel to the flood plain and thus be at p � greater distance from it. Smith moves to table the request in order to give the .f applicant an opportunity to present a revised plat Brian seconded the motion. • II Motion a s s e s unanimously. imo u s l" p Y 6. Other Business. None • I. Adjournment: • Meeting Was adjourned at 1:45 A.M. y I r • • III• i y II I . I ......,.. .... .,. ..,.:..,.. .,,....... ..,,...... ..I... ,,. . .,, r ,.r..., ..r. r, ...,,, r. •,,. ,,r ., r ... _.. c..m,.s.r-ww,r.v.w..._...,_ • , C a i0 1 , • y • I • • • i .. SUMMERFIELD COMN.ERCIAL CENTER I • .,,. Applicant: Tualatin Development Company • i } • • I , Consultin' Planners : l I I i3enkendor & Associates 1 r,i ,. . . " 620 S.W. 5th Avenue 1, S` 1 Portland Oregon 97204 (503) 226-006 I � , , a ° 1• r • i i • i I � I +n • • TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. I. Purpose 1 ITO _Introduction III. The Plan and Allowable Uses` List 4 IV. Conclusion 8 • • 6e I Ij •••}} ,.w rt Nry:r '1 „{ al, ,r,u,v'... ,,..a', fLLLau ,,. v.v.t r»:�,...,, ,X,.. .,<...,. ,u.... .,.e .+. .... ..�. ......,. ' n....... ,,...,. „w .,,.,.. ... ,,Ilcu,..♦. .. .,. ,....n. ,,.x..n.. PURPOSE The followin information has been prepared to serve as the basis g p P • for reviewing a development concept for a neighborhood commercial center at Suxnmerf geld. The. center nter is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Pacific Highway and Durham Road. applicant seeks planning commission app development p g roval of the dev The concept and a list of permitted uses. The approved concept will be the basis upon which detailed development plans will be p�:e-; Pared for Design Review,and• the approved list of available uses tenants. ' will selection of ten ' ' 11 be the basis for the select I � sl . vr . ....u.,.,„,•, wL ,.,.,.W. .....w..«, .»,.u .. , ..«A ...i.,s. y„ . ... . _ .... ....a ,, ,�._.... .w..+ n�lx>,..�tt.,,xl„ .,, ... .., i + w.. .Y.,. _. ..w.,. a :s, .,... 4 , f Y . 4l i I. "1N'Z'RQDUC'TTON I I I , The appicant,Tualatin Development Company, is the developer of Summerfi , Planned adult commul:ity east of King City. " The eld a >�.a Tigard Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of , the development plan and program on February 6, 1973 and the , I , Council adopted the Commission' s recommendation on February 12, 1973. The approval was made subject to twenty conditions. The purpose of this application is to fulfill the intent of Condition 2. That condition provided that "all land within the development shall be used for residential and recreational purposes, except that the area designated for commercial uses on the site plan may include service and/or;P'rofessiona'l office uses serving the development. . . .the planning commission shall approve the locati access, siting, and range of 'permitted' uses. " During the Past six months, the applicant, consultant and aitY planning staff have reviewed numerous conceptual plans for the y+�, deter- , Summerfeld Commercial Center. Analyses were conducted to mine what uses and arrangement would best meet the needs of the �. immediate area, 4,l eld residents to primar y Summer field i- residents,►, to be served by � I, the center. Commercial uses within one mile of the proposed the in `� � in order to avoid the inefficiencies center were inventoried brought. about by duplication of services. Because the center) is intended to serve primarily the residents of 'Summer.., field, con- i . review were conducted existing residents: saltation and rev After several reviews, Mr. Richard' Bolen (former Planning director • Is' of Tigard) concluded that the plan submitted "provides the best combination of vehicular and pedestrian access and appears to pro- ' vi de an equitable balance e between economic and aesthetic concerns. " , Mr. Bolen' s letter of concept approval follows. • f ' tr • ti r , r July 5 1978 Bob Luterl • president: Tualatin Development Corporation 15300 S.W. 116th Tigard, OR 97223 � r Dec r Bob,T, • On June 28th I taet with John Adams and Al 13enkendor f to discuss . alternative site development plans and uses for the shopping • center which is part of, the larger Summerfield P.U.D. Of the f`;fr, alternates discussed, Plan 04 is the most desirable from the i Cty's standpoint. This plan provides the best combination of • vehicular and pedestrian access and app' ars to provide an equitable balance between economic and aesthetic concerns. • The next step e p in the Process is for P iai n in g Commission to ' review thi s plan and ratify t he staff approval which am providing by this letter. Following Planning Commission approval, you may then groceed to the Design Review stage where the detailed site plan and architectural sketches will be reviewed. Please be ?, aware that the ddsign review stage will be a "detailing out" pro- cess d Plan 44 is the concept that this work wi l l build from. , If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to clan me at 639-4171• sincerely, Dick 801en P ani to r Director or cc: Al Benkendorf nkendorf Planning consultant i • • 14V • TT' THE PLAN' AND LIST :OF. ALLOWABLE USES The following section describes the develrpment concept in detail. The concept defines areas 'n which buildings will be located, vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle circulation systems, and landscape features. The plan concept allocate land in the following way: Building area 1.30 acres, (22%) Streets and parking 1.70 acres (30%) open space, setbacks, and pedestrian use , a.reas. . .2.75. acres (48%)) Site area total 5.75 acres f' The plan is made up of six principal plan elements: (1) vehicular access/egress (2) available uses \ (3) parking , (4) pedestrian circulation (5) building form and style (6) landscaping (l) :Vehicu1ar :a.cces's./'egweSs. and circulation The Suznmerfield commercial center site is bounded on the west by Pacific highway, on the south by Durham Road and on the southeast by Summerfield Drive. The development concept proposes two access/egress points. Two 1„ are needed to assure ease of vehicular movement, to avoid con- gestion, and to reduce any delay should emergency iervice vehicles es be needed on the site. The easternmost access point is from S.W. Summmerfield. Drive, approximately 130 feet north of its intersection T `+th Durham Road. (This access exists and currently d currentl serves the existing gatehouse. ) The access point leads directly to several • . I l w , { M m parking areas, carries traffic leaving the drive-in bank facility, and conveniently serves the existing gatehouse. The westernmost access point is 200 feet east of the intersection of the Pacific Highway and Durham Road. This distance provides adequate ' space for vehicles seeking access to Pacific Highway, and enables those drivers leaving Summerfield to observe traffic moving on Durham Road. In addition to connecting with Summerfield Drive through parking areas to the east, this access point also serves several remaining parking areas and the entrance to the drive-in bank facility. It terminates in the north in a cul-de-sac with a 100 foot diameter` in which is centered an island for planting. (2) Available uses General use categories for the commercial center have been de- ( termined Along the western and northern sections of the site are - several building location d d . g locations. It i proposed that these buildings . contain primarily office uses. The applicant may use the northern building complex as its corporate offices. It is proposed that the central and easternmost buildings contain commercial uses and a • ux bank. The existing gatehouse at the southeast corner of the site will continue to be used by the applicant as a general sales office- The general use categories, the interior dimensions of the buildings, 4 the n umber of buildings, and the number of square feet per use and building,, are set out below. Interior Number of Square Building Dimensions Buildings Feet Ban 1 28U0' Retail 60i x 75° 2 22 .500 i• Office 65° x 80° and 3 30,700 I. 55' x 60 Existing ` 580 gatehouse F r. TOTAL 7 56,580 a. 5 +nsn.r+w+wanvssF us��\\ 9 Ir' i). .. i. r. r 1 r i .:.:..,rr,»r .. ......_.v. L• .. W. Hulk:- r Ar: Because of the difficulty of determining who will be leasing ' particular spaces before development approval, the applicant proposes to have the commission approve a list available of a lable uses, to which list the applicant will adhere when seeking and cone tracting with lessees. The list is drawn from the Community " f Builders' Handbook of the Urban Land Institute; it corresponds to the uses most often found in neighborhood and small co mmunity shopping areas and is set out below. Summerfield Commercial Center Proposed Use List (See U.L.I. Community Builders' Handbook) Food and Food Services`, such as Baker Grocery Restaurant Candy and nuts General merchandise, such as Variety store Clothing, such as Apparel f Shoes.. pther Retail Goods, such as Jewelry Hardware Drugs L Florist Appliances Camera Supplies Gifts, Stationery, Books 1' Sporting Goods 1 Services, such as Beauty/Barber Shop Cleaner/Tailor/Laundry Offices, such as Medical/Dental Business Bank (3) Parking If amount f zit. the mo �.. 'The... zoning� code of the, City of Tigard sets out t • *„ ♦ I off street parking which must be provided by general categories of users. The plan concept adheres to those requirements. The amount of parking for each <.? P g general use is set out below. , use Numer of parking spaces Bank 23 ;. fetail 57 Office 90 TOTAL 170 The plan provides a number of parking areas, instead of; concentra- ting 9' parking in one massive lot. Such an arrangement pr♦ovias the best service to each building without creating a sea of macadam, II .t yp ical of many lar g e shopping centers, and is in keeping ng with`' the , w scale and mix of development on the site. The easternmost p ark- g may also Provide_parking parrking during� ing m hours n off-peak hour. for future residential development planned for the land to the east. (4') Pede'str:ian circulation Because of its neighborhood orientation, the plan gives special attention to the needs of pedestrian users by providing a system" "° of sidewalks and bicycle aths throughout the Center ♦ y p g � that Will 1 connect to the residential areas. These sidewalks de walks converge at several points to create high use spaces; Particularly in front g complex, (retail) of the northern (office) buildin com lex at the easi-ern {ret building complex, and at the juncture between them, From this juncture parallel sidewalks alks till carr y pedestrians east into the , , u residential areas of Sumrnerfield; A passenger drop-off area is p rovided on the Southeastern side of the cul-de- sac which m , connects the vehicle circulation System to the pedestrian walk- ' ways Sidewalks a',so abut each parking area. (5') Landscap'i'ng I , Specification of landscape det'ai'ls will await concept approval. topography of the existing site is predominantly flat, sloping � The to i I jj 1r gradually to a low point along the southeastern edge of the site. site existing landscaped berm. The southern. edge of the site 1s an exa.stin landsca �.d berm. The remaining vegetation is predominantly grass. Two existing trees near the central, point of the eastern edge of the site will be preserved, if possible An extensive program of tree-planting is proposed for the site. Trees will line pedestrian and circulation vehi- cular . 'rculat�..on routes and will buffer the western and southern parking areas from the sound generated by traffic on the Pacific Highway and Durham Road respectively. The space between the two retail building complexes and the bank will be landscaped to create a pleasant, pedestrian mall. Sitting areas will also be provided in the mall area. (6) Building form and style The buildings will be designed in accordance wit h the design ; theme established by the existing gatehouse. As such each build- ing will have vertical walls which meet at right angles and a flat- , pp gambrel large. . topped ambrel roof with lar overhan g s. Materials will he select- ed which compatible _ ' p gatehouse. All h are com atiblr� with those used in the atelouse. A buildings will be one story to preserve the neighborhood scale. Buildings along the western edge of the site are set g g g t back a mini-' mure of twenty-five feet from the Pacific Highway right-of-way. C.`ONCLUS ION The open' nature of the plan is in keeping with the residential' • uses in the remainder of the greater Summerfield development and realizes the beneficial characteristics of the PD--planned develop- ment district " The a pp licant seeks a pp p p roval of this s plan concept, and the list of uses outlined in accordance with Condition 2 of the summer field Planned Unit Development Ordinance +m1 8