The URL can be used to link to this page

SDR89-13 POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm.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. �{{ ' ..a�9., ..A... ..,Fn .��4•.�Y.F,ht.n+ ..YN Y .nr.Y.. _ , . „�,w .u. • Mall' 3, 1989 i 1 ` John T,, Dolan r 4025 SE Brooklyn St , � I Portland OR 97202 • City Tigard • 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. P.O. Box 23397 t Tigard OR 97223 1 • The purpose of this letter is to authorize Mr Albert R. Kenney to_act ixm� behalf apply for permit any teoeesary variances, through the design review process. My proPertY is ; , . '. located at 12525 SW Main Street in downtown Tigard. any questions or Problems please iv • there �.� �n � give Ike a call at I 1 ,`;' my office x� tier � � , „�. y office at 225 9009 S noereiy yours • J'oh :� n T. Dolan i • 1I • }111.. j • • I I I I • a i , I � r I r ..:•,•••, . � : .g + • M,� l4 �� C CIF ! C tt� , � {,.. • , o\S LTI\G \GIE �.. ' ': i _ • 9500 SW BARBUF1 BLVD i• SUITE'111 • PORTLAND,OR 97219• 508/244-9811 FAQ:^44-9817 ;* rt ;' ti, +ti CITY OF TIGARD 05-09--89 ...: COMMUNITY DEVELOPEMENT Job #8800'7 PO IBDX 2339? TIGARD, OR 97223 . u`, Attention: JERRY OFFER`.. , I,,u x Re: A-BOY' EXPANSION/ 'REPLACEMENT (SCAR 89-1 S e l .,, , Dear Mr Offer; r r I am 'writing ner of ' A--Boy and te propert at at 1 2520 SIN Mainost 1,Dolan Oesiring t'a refur'bis'h, Upgrade and enlarge this facility the Dolans t propose razing the` old store and replacing it with a new nicer and larger .facility on the same site while better utilizing the site configuration, ,13i. limitations, ct . t : •�' "broMrser� � window shoppers" ,: '�' S.xnce the store does not 'attract their merchandiSe. is bulky, and a large percentage of the ,/ oor ar g play their parking needy '' is devoted to. I are 'modest. The existin racking.' Of 9700 sq ft rarely has y more than six or eight vehicles on site at any one time.. • A . ,• ehicle/sq ft ratio hanthemrat�osnd ' v do for the new- building 1 oul even an `anticipated growth of sales greater t. of ( , g q �As a �o�b.�ned retaa,l whdleaoun�CS far . , , ,.. �.ess�than�that_ proposed. a would result in vehic.Ie counts �, '. P p . "destination" type of business s the y• ho e to attract : i ' p ' :,-'' simlar/comlemenatary business(es) to the,. �t ( tor e phases) Should add ` l building(s) be 'built and a need be felt for more ` , y ahs I , • ' - parking the contiguous •parcel (`��. 490) is owned b the Sol and is to made available for 35-40 additional spaaoes, s., ' . .. tha `Ghe Parking OCR It is this Writers and the owner, request { t rcfxccr tha / hi.s ratio more a g ., ;', q cc,ura to reatCts the needs re uirement for this building q and reality; Of the project r xf yoU have any questions y q or" desire additional information do '{ no t hesitate to contact, me �r i . .r Respectfully, ,r . Albert R. Kenney, Jr PE 1 ARK:a f " . co: file, Dolarti c .n LICENSED IN DALIFOFRNIA 4 COLORADO•IDAHO).1vMcNTANA•NEVADA•ODF EGeN WASHINGTON•WYON1.11�JG •:• I s ap ., m 9 . ., • t,• C. :o .. ,,. . , , '' . • ''' ' ' BOY , r A....a.« r fa rti G•.Jl.,a4',�:«�..n,uw:....w _ _,t,.....,.:a:.;n..-..n,da.+.'., 4.. SULILV r,L, .) , . , , r,..„,,,..,,. -,,,,..,/,,,,:,, ,..... ; ,,. . .H ,, , ., . , ,.' 1919 NW NINETEENTH ST.', PORTLAND. OR 97209 • G�. 03) x.26--20CJ2 L • • r,. l'ay 3,, 1989 , • '•., Albert R. Kenney,Y Jr . u i , s Consu1ting Engineer,' @ @@ 9500 SW Harbin° Blvd. Suit •111 Portland OR 9721 ear •Al Enclosed is a letter Ito authorize you to apply for the building ". , g City of Tigard .', • •.• ' for ;315.,00 to cover the to permit, in �i ar �' d� x a��® �no�o��n a check the ,, 1 If you have any questions please feel free to give me a call . '• ' Sincerely yours, 1:1 X11 0 Dan. J. pola Secretary-Treasurer • 1 J a 1' , 1 1 I r , , 1 \`I'it• '''''.'1":, AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING '..<,, y if ',. y '01 AIL, Oi= OR1.(C0111 County of Washington ) ss . City o f "1"i c r••di ) t .. \; y.,•\, I, Catherine WheatleY � hereby certify: ; (Please Print) -rhhtat I aryl a _..._.".......city w corder wM.".,._ ot- tf')e City of "I°icjarrd, C1r~!gon That I served notice of the Tigard City Council No,tipe o . Final Oder — SDR 89-13/V 89--2' . . . "« w« , • of which the attached is a copy (tilarrl<(ad Exhibit A) upon eaeh•t of the following i .. rlarrled perrK:,on:.: .can ti.1e 9'th. tJ4ay of February 19 9.0_ by rndi„I.ing to c�ac.1/4,i y of t~'rein at the address shown on the at:taoh()d list: (Marked i xl•ii.hit 13), said notice is hereto attached, and desposi.ted in the United 8ta :es Mail on the l 9th ,, -- days of 'ebrrtrar i 9O post;agta ralrKrar,aic~i " :� � I n1 1 f S+14/ X°z « 4'4i ■u "', ''. ,''''ii Pr�epar.,ed Mot CO a �� ; 'fc i f;� ;+ � 5'I�tti�I�rti t�� tae f or e me this d'ay of d «� 9 �)IJf�j`� �' n �� , 4',,,,,,'.,„',fi sff'teJ 4. ..Arp�f ,.jGr q W�,. : N'.. q u11Aa�1 o 1t r A '!„,"1.„''' 4,$",;••?:' 9�y " �. r�� K� if/n' ^ , s _t. /� Ie. .r..L,« ».1 }w"y<"r z r.��_««««.w•• "a, q , ` 'i `''' Not�ar�y oilo of Oregon .G 1r i`, My Cum ' Ss ion fKpirt^as : . 3 , • w««ir«:I�.w�w..iliµ««w r...wlw..11rrr"wf««rwr i«.w««M«r.rM,r”.r"y�.,Y..«N.,«I«i««.uN«.Y.«.u«w,«w«..N r«.�.,r,w««Hi.«r.,iwM�««.0 .' .. «r«NI,«.«. w «««w."wr«.« .",«r««u W,lu�r.UN.M«4�w•«M•In�WwiN«r1"N.'«�..w«,.r.wr..uW.N««.1«Hw.«,wx,«ii«.«Y i .' ` . 'c (1�otice/Deliver` d to Post O?ficr �MaX�.�.ri subsc—l.hed area sworn to heforre me this "r day .ot t.g `e2. t , • i ' ri o r totar Pubi ie of*r goh , w tly C{ 1mr1Xision Fkrp]r es ,. , ' ' • .i;C;" ,...� ,....., ^/ICI ...,... ......, .,.:. .....::, I .^,�.�. .. ... ..., .... ,. . n; a . �' a t • CITY OF TIGARD V; , Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER - BY CITY COUNCIL 1. Concerning Case Number(s): SDR 69-13/V 89-21 2. Name of Owner: John T. & Florence Dolan Applicant: Albert R. fienn ey. Jr e , • 3. Address 9500 SW Barbur Blvd. . City Portland „I State OR Zip 97206 4. Address` of Property:, 12524 SW Main Street ,. Tax Map and Lot No(e). _241. 2ACy tax lot 700 ,, 5. Request: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPEAL SDR 89-13/V 89-21° DOLAN 1 . NPO 1 An a' gal of:`.a P).an.na,n Cortrimission decision ta•a�p.rove the l retail ` sales of a genera Electric Plan pjr. . and Sut�pl. rte, with a never 17.600 square foot }2ui1dl.ng.. ran a 1.67 acre 'parcel �'aublect to 14 conditions. The „. decision included approval to a'' Variance rmfest to allows 39 • par.kina spaces instead of q as requited b rl✓ the Code The b2xtions of the Community De�velopnent Code that are 'relevant to , �'• . .• the a•�' e�.l are 1812�ite Development Review, 18:1.00 ,.•. (Landseapi g S and 18.114 LS igns)o ZONE= cBD-•AA (Central. • Business District -• Action Area). 6. Action: Approval as requested Approval; with conditions X Denial uheld Planning Commission decision with . ti amendment asno :ed in Resolution No. 90-U7 7. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall, and • mailed to: x The applicant and owner(s) x Owners of record within the required distance x_ The offec±ed Neighborhood Planning Organization X Affected governmental agencies ° .. �_.�... _. approved ter........_. ��8. Final Decision: THE D ECISION WAS p D CN e/�� ........�.�.. AND ., BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON /5/v0 be obtained from the findings De artl�len�C Tigard tr�ment of conditions can ; P din ,� of fact; deca.sion� and. sta Planning p i gard City Hall, 13125 sW Hall, II'M P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. n may • -obtained by' i iling a notide of intent • A review of this decision be g Appeals A) according to their ��o the Oregon Land Use Board of .� ali� LA�3 with odedures o 9 d QUESTIONS: 1 u have any gtlestior.ts, please Call the Ti did City r" • , T� ro g" �i' Recordt:,r at 635.-4171 big►/8IR8 i I , t ,.s.«..t...»...tl:..,. ..u::. ....,.v ..«... .,.. ..-..1,,:........• ._.c.•..rl,....- ,,.M.u... _ ...». .ac.. .,.Jam _ _..+-. 1N ...:_,.s•.M ..,, ,,,,,may::• .„,t " •c r 4'r r r'. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON u I , RESOLUTION NO. 90 -07 �; 4, MATT OF THE ADOPTION OF A FINAL ORDER UPON CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF AN ,. � IN THE �,� Or TH APPEAL OF A 'PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ' AND 'VARIANCE APPLICATION (SDR 89013/V 89-21) PROPOSED '' BY JOHN AND FLORENCE `` DOLAN. • WHEREAS, a Director's decision was appealed to the Planning Commission by the i applicant for further consideration; and 11 WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed the case at its meetings of August 8, 1989 and December 5, 1989; and • WHEREAS, the Commission upheld the Director's decision with modifications to \•, , ., the original conditions of approval (Fi•,ns.a. Order No. 89-25 PC); and WHEREAS, this matter cam e before the City Council at its meeting of rebrua rY 5, ''•: ; ,' 1990, upon the request of the applicant;p and 4 • • WHEREAS, the Council reviewed the evidence related to the applicant's appeal. I 4 and modified Condition No. 5. of Planning Commission Final Order No. 89-25 PC , p locating f'• so that the City's en ineer/ veynr shall be responsible for the locatiin and • g sur marking of the 100 year flood plain rather than the applicant. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED L that the requested appeal s DENIED and the Plannin g • .,.• ' Commission decision is upheld, as s amended, based upon the facts, findings, and � conclusions noted in Planning Commission • Final. Order Ito. 89-25 (Exhibit "A"`�» The Council further orders that the City Recorder send a copy of this final R order the applicant as a notice of the final decis'•n in this matter. i , r �.a th PASSED. This O day of Februar � r 990» .. 7 _ ,,--4 d'j ,imir"ld 7.''Edwards a o yor City of 'curd i,`' ATTEST: p . ' _a,24,L(,' 1' ' 7 m ' Tigard City Recotdez • * !z 17oLAI\TRES/1s1 �'• I . RESOLUTION NO. 90-07 PAGE 1 „ , ! , ' 1 • 4 .. uF:,. ,.. r., i,,........ _..Jt.„A1...��'.. ._._.,, 4...,.. ...r....u. w..,...u.• ...,4. ,1 i.w..,t: xd._.1..»i111 .I«... .1« -.. n..R. - �(+' r • ' • CITY OF ,TTG.AFdD , PLANNING COI' IISSION -= PC FINAL 'ORDER N O. 89 • . A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WHICH APPROVES AN APPLICATION . FOR MENT REVIEW (SDR 89-13) APPROVAL TO RECONSTRUCT A GENERAL ' SITE DEVELOPMENT • . FACILITY SQUARE, SCE RETAIL SALES xLIT� WITH A NEW 17,f 00 SQC�AR� POOT BUILDING, �PLUS A VARIANCE (V 89-21): TO THE REQUIRED PARKING STANDARD FOR GENERAL RETAIL SALES TO ALLOW 39 PARKING SPACES WHERE 44 ARE REQUIRED (DQLAN). , • The Tigard Planning Commission reviewed the above application at a public • hearing on December 5, 1989. The Commission based its decision upon the facts, findings, and conclusions noted below: A. FACTS 1, Genera]. Information' • R ment Site Development . .• •• CASE: p Review SDR 89-13 and Variance V 89-21:' . sales building and . REQUEST: To construct a 17,600 square root retail s I , a variance to allow 39 parking spaces where 44 are required. •.' APPLICANT: John and Florence Dolan OWNER: Same 7344 s,.e, Foster Road Portland OR 97206 " LOCATION: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 2S]. 2AC, TL 700 r COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNA.TION: Central Bu iness District ZONE DESIGNATION: clip-AA Central Business District, Action Area 2. Backe round No previous applications have been reviewed by the City with respect ' , , to the subject sate Two freestanding billboard signs and one large roof sign on the property have been considered nonconforming as of March 20, 1988, and property and busineN s owners were notified of this prior; to that time. A voluntary compliance agreement has been used to provide affected p p time Until a City Center Plan is 9 dowi�torn�t properties an a#tension of adopted. The voluntary compliance agreement was never sa.gned. ess owners h The property and bit s iY3 .. following'• have been cited for the fol,lo nonconformitices •.. sign, ct:�on 18.11.4�070.Hd and 1. Roof a violation of Sc FINAL bRDEn 89 PC SDR 89-13 V 89-21 DOLAN PAGE 1 . r . l ...,........ ..,•u,'..l w ,»u:+1.;..,.._ a..,..•.aF.,.,,.._.w_1.h.+.._..,,.n ,.Y..•.:._1 .Uu....l r_. .4'•.n •'"r • t f 2. Two nonconforming, amortized billboards (.'illegal location), } violations of Code Section 15.114.090.A.4.a. pp g The Director issued a decision a rov�.n this proposal' subject to 14 • conditions. The applicant appealed this decision to the Commission due to objections over 5 of these conditions it . 3, 'V'icinity Information ( ;I: Properties immediately in all directions are also zoned and developed CBD-AA (Central Business District Action Area). Property y to the west contains the Fanno Cr odplain and is i ` immediately designated in Ti and s Community Plan to be included ae art Creek f:Lo deg' included p • J y of the City's greenway/open space system. •�u Site Information and Proposal �? The subject site i;3 approximately ' � pp - ly �..57 acres in size and is bordered by Fanno Creek on the southwestern side. There is a 9700 square foot 1'• building and partially paved parking lot which has been in its present r " location since approximately the late 1940s. A freestanding sign with a readerboard stands along the Main. Street frontage of the property. Two large bill hoards,' which are subject to the City's sign amortization program, stand on or near the Property's northeasterly boundary. The applicants wish to raze the existing structure, currently urged by A-'-Bo Electric and Plumbing Supply, � .L7r�;00 sales use. The 1 . • y g Su 1 a general retail s' site will then be developed for a larger, e better suited to the nature of the business square foot structure ctur 1 • The applicant is also requesting a Variance to r.City parking • ' • requirements for general retail sales businesses to Provide Only 39 parking spaces when ° the community Development Code requires 44 spaces. w ,•la '11. • C. agg y and NPO Comment4 Neighborhood Planning Organization �1 has reviewed the proposal and , has the following comments: proposed The tree near the Sidewalk on the ro, osed landscape plan could + ' block the 'view of eastbound traffic. Also thi air conditioner should be provided with noise/sound screening. F`inallyy, the N, " expressed concern that a fence be constructed on the site after the earl.sting building has been removed. n :.• � r Northwest Na proposal that an eizistin 4-ins::h steel main. 14 .feet north h it ha aural Ca:=s has reviewed the ro anal and states t • ' the centerline on,,SW g o�'. Main Street and a service line, to 12520' SW Main Street. The Company ` L' will require notification prior to demolition. ". r 1?I;NAL ORDER 89 PC - S DR 89,,-11/V 89-21 1:101A1+1 - PAGE .• 1 Opt 4 ' ' }Qtly I s ` Y , a u• � •I � d' y' 11 r r ✓f 4' f ,- . , w The consolidated Rural Fire District notes that f ire f low qu irement H ;.�. , exceed 3000 gallons per. minute. Automatic sprinkler protection or ` , some other means of built-in fire protection will be required. ' ` Portland General Electric, the Tigard Water District, have reviewed l • the proposal and have no objections to it. ,. The City Building Division states that an 8-foot tall solid plywood • . '• fence must be installed behind the sidewalk/public right-of way along ,:. SW Main Street (from the southwestern property line to4a minimum of 20 '4, feet beyond the new building) prior to start of construction and must remain until all construction is complete (Uniform Building Code '"' section 4407(c). A demolition permit will be required for the removal ' of any or all of the existing building. The City Engineering Division' has reviewed the proposal and has the l following comments: ' a. main Street is a major collector street and is currently fully developed with curbs and sidewalks A plan developed earlier t ' this year by the City Center Plan Task Force calls for reconstruction of Main Street, However,, this plan has not yet • been formally adopted by the City and design details are not yet ' ' abl i `., •' available, The improvements proposed by the City ..'Center Plan ' i I.,, '' Task Force cai'i all be accomplished within the existing 80 foot •' right-of-way. A 1986 engineering study of the condition of Main street }�' recommends that the pavement be completely reconstructed and that the storm drainage system be replaced. It appears to be impractical to eal fashion the on a proposed reconstruction of Main Street in a piecemeal y , to occur larger ,' lot basis; instead, the reconstruction needs in tar segments beginna_ng at Fanno Creek Bridge and working'- uphill. Therefore, we do not propose that any reconstruction of Main • Street be required as a condition of this development p p ' ,.;.,� ,� � o meat ro osal. W This development should be re ired replace any existing r s idewalks which are damaged or in poor p a r and to reconstruct ' any existing curb cuts which are being abandoned. airs ortation 1 b. As part of the Tigard Major Streets Tr safety �•,, t d the City plans to re lade the Main Street:. Improvement �3a� � y �p p p �.. , • Bride over Panne Creek. The bridge replacement is tentatively; scheduled to occur g g s ., _ �n 1��0,. The g bridge Cory true is p .p �. 4 . ',.. and should havexlittle' r , to occur Within the existing right-of-way �; •, 3 impact on the subjeot site. , '� o The site slo °s toward Vanno Creek therefore ale ate storm drainage is available. J ,■;, � , VIN ORDER 89-' `5 PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 ;bOLAN - PAGE 3 • Y v fS eV. • • ' w., _ ;:a..,7i.. ...,,.». „1.4, ::v, .,....r.:...a....-:....,q.«...,..._...d....i,..Jk,.m a «:t..�..r_ ..-..c.. 4.t.., '.4 4 6, d. The City's Master; Drainage Plan recommends improvements to the • • Fanno Creek channel downstream from Alain Street. The proposed channel improveinents would include widening and slope sfiabi • lization. These impr::overrnent would move the location of the top of bank approximately five feet closer to the proposed , < building than the location of the existing top of bank. ' a ;r e. If a pedestrian and bicycle pathway is to be provided along Fanno Creek as proposed by the Parks Master Plan, a minimum of ten feet will be needed between the future top of bank.and the proposed ! building. Typically, new developments along Fanno Creek are ' !' required to dedicate /,.. greerxway to protect the flood plain and to �. provide for the park pathway system. f. Two sanitary sewer trunk lines cross the site in an existing ' easement. One line is 24 inches in diameter and the other is 60 inches in diameter, Therefore, ade quate sanitary sewer service is readily available. The new building has been designed to stay clear of the existing sanitary sewer easement. g. The applicant has requested a Variance on the parking , requirements, arguing that the proposed usage of tlhe building generates little g parking demand. However, it is possible that the usage of the building will change in future Years. It y appears that there is adequate room on the site to provide parking in accordance with the standard Code requirements. In fact, the applicant indicates an intention to provide additional parking in Therefore, ark�.n n the future. There we recommend that the.variance be denied. No other comments were received. B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION 4„ Section 18.120.180 lists the standards whereby the Commission is to ' approve, approve with modifications or deny the request for site development review approval. In addition to. those h e co ntained in .1 Chapter i e Central District,, he following sections of the Tigard Community Development code are also a pp licable: Chapter 18.86, Action Areas; Chapter 18.100, Landscaping and Screening; • Chapter 18.102, Visual Clearance Aras Chapter 184106, Off-street Parking and Loading; Chapter 18.108, AccesS, Egress and Circulation;' 4' - chapter p 18 114„ , Signs; Chapter 18,120, Site Development Review;' and Signs; l ha p ter 18.134, Variances. ,„ review jt e all of the above approval criteria, this order will re ew the Proposal in light of the Parks Master Plan for ' g :� Fanno Creek Park and the natural resources sletnent of the City's Comprehensive Plan • • FINAL ORDkR 89--. PC - SbR 89-,13/V 89-21--21, x9OLAN - PAGE 4 ' I I PP ' 4 ? ,' Permitted Use in the. Central Business .District; The applicant intends to construct a new and larger structure suited -0 for a general retail sales use. Such a use ;is permitted outright in •' the CBI) (Central Business :District, Action Area) zone and therefore y •4 ta A the use is acceptable for this site. . • . I t building r 30 f coo • must meet a 3 district �u g • use in the � •, .,•� ,Any a GBD-1�A zoning ■ setback requirement if any side of the property abuts a residential'' ' , zoning district. Since none of the four sides of the. property abut a , ..•_ other building Setbacks are required. k residential zoning - +� In• , the CII1D-AA zoning district, rxct- �maximum site coverage regulations allow . up to 85 percent of the site to be covered with structures :and ' impervious sur.f aces such as parking, loading and pathway areas. This ' '. will be analyzed during a discussion of landscaping and screening below. , , Action Area Overlay , • The "AA" portion of the subject site's zoning designation indicates • that an additional "layer" of zoning regulations has been imposed on , this property. The purpose of the Action Area Overlay designation is • to implement the policies of the 'Tigard Comprehensive Plan for action . " areas which include provisions for a mixture intensive land ;use. ` Since 'racl p Y tore o y �,nt •`I., ,. Since ermitted uses in the Action Area Overlay zone must be those p • ;' • specified in the underlying zoning district, in this case, the CBI), this requirement has been met . interim standards which are to be Code Section 1f.3�I�6.lJ�0 contains addressed for new developments in the CBD-.AA zone. These requirements provide projected public are .intended.. to serve the use and to rova.de far ra acted , facility needs of the area. The City may attach conditions to any ,.,..•, development within an action area prior to adoption of the design Plan( ' to achieve the following objectives: ' a. The development shall address transit usage by residents, 's employees, and customers if the site is within • 1/4 mile of a P ., '' ,° public transit line or transit stop. Specific items to be ' addressed are as follows: i. Orientation of buildings and facilities towards transit " services to provide for direct pedestrian access into the ' ' I" buildings) from transit lines or stops;: ii.. Minimizing transit/auto conflicts by providing direct • •. • p edestrian access i"nto #-�he buildings s n g s ciih limited c ross . ngs Y in automobile circulation/Parking p arkin 9 areas. If Pedestrian access crosses automobile circ elation/parking areas, p aths shall be marked for pedestrians; ': iii. Encouraging transii-su pp arLLve users b y limitinq automobile t support services to collector and arteraal stre ets; axd • FINAL rR)BR 89' Z"' ,PC - Sb� $�r l�f� f 9 �1 DOLAN PAGE 5 f- , t i Y • I I . • I • n H,.t. ».. .............._ ..L_...+il .1 A. .a _,a+«.,w.«.. .J .._«.. ...,... .... ... ...1,..... J .. ..........w. .w.- ....,.. .w. w,... ......L, ..,. ..,.4,u.. x '.'1 iv. Avoiding the creation o1 small scattered, parking areas by allowing adjacent development shared surface parking, allowing elo en•t to use share parking structures or under-structure parking; . 7 pm y. p �+, y. b. The development shall. facilitate pedestrian/bicycle t�le circulation if the site is located on a street with designated bike paths or . adjacent to a designated greenway/open space/park. Specific items to be addressed are as follows: i. Provision of efficient, convenient and continuous pedestrian and bicycle transit ns it circulation 3jrstems, linking f;' " developments requiring dedication p� �.b�' � and construction of pedestrian and bike paths identified in the comprehensive plan. If direct connections cannot be made, require that <.. funds in the amount of the construction cost be deposited into an account for the purpose of constructing paths; 1.: ii. Separation of auto and truck circulation activities from ` pedestrian areas; m, iii. Encouraging pedestrian-oriented design by requiring pedestrian walkways and street level' 4indows along all sides with public access into the building; iv, Provision of bicycle parking as required under Subsection 18.106.020.P and v. Ensure adequate outdoor lighting by lighting pedestrian walkways and auto circulation areas c, coordination _ n area. Specific ir�,atx.on of development within the action items to be addressed are as follows: i. '''ontinuity and/or compatibility of landscaping, circulation, -, ".• , access, public facilities, and other improvements. Allow required landscaping, areas to be grouped together_ Regulate snared access where appropriate. Prohibit lighting which shines on adjacent property; ii. ,r g orientation and use which considers surrounding land use, or an adopted p lan. Screen loading areas and refuse p from view, screen commercial and industrial vase from sin r fuse duce'stern from .I•, industrial gle-family residential through landscaping; and iii. Provision of frontage roads or shared access where feasible. The submitted develo .ent proposal satisfies the above requirements � p P for transit usage, pedestrian/bicycle circulation and coorcinnation this plan with the action areal Screening of the truck loading area can be accomplished with either a ;fence or tall vegetation. outdoor FINAL ORDER DO LAN LAN - PAGE �- S011 L�9-�1� .. 8�' '� �1l . • I , I • x4..._,r n.. ru! ...Aw.L..—_«,... x.._.-..i..•...,tit. _ .1..... ........... rte..—..w..«•n,.,--{.,,w.n. ..» v .0«..e,._ .... ., .. j1 r lighting should be specifically addressed by the :applicant as to how ' it might be provided. Landscapi-ncs :and Screening i The applicant has requested that in return for the dedication of property ;', along Fanno Creek, all other landscaping standards should be w aived. These , .,„• • ' waivers primarily involve use of the dedicated area to meet the landscaped area requirement (15% in this case), provision by the City of the f; landscaping and buffering for the building on the west and 'south sides, and trees p g along street frontage. The plain/park J in the Parkin lot and anon the scree g finds that the City has allowed the inclusion of dedicated flood pl /p ;.� �. ].and ,for or the purpose of calculating e qu►ired la' landscaped area for other. '. „ `� - is in .the east of the �, projects and such an allowance is provision' of a landscaped buffer, by the City, along edge the s dedicated area is justified because the maintenance of this area will be the City's responsibility and the future storm drainage and pathway improve.nenta will cause the destruction or removal of vegetation planted , now. �} The Commission finds that the waiver of other l: ndscar • requirements submit for t that the applicL „ should n P plan which is consistent with 'Code standards with the project are not warranted and th • i amended landscaping �' h exception to the items noted above. 1 Vision Clearance The ornamental pear tree intended to go immediately to thee south of the proposed driveway need not be relocated out of this area although • r_ is in a Vision clearance area, this type of tree may grow to a mature 1 height of 15-25 feet. 5o long as none of the branches extend below eight feet in. , . height,ht, this tree, or similar t yp e, will not Pose a vision clearance problem. Off-street Parking and Loading The a licant proposes to construct 39 standard 90-degree spaces Parking pacehe ' PF P P �; ; one of which will be for handicapped customers. The dimensional re irements for off-site parking. Five landscape islands are 1• alSC! to parking •'F shown. A di,scus�sion of the Variance requested Pertaining • space number follows later in this report The Code requires one secure bicycle parking space for every 15 required i automobile spaces. In this case, a minin►um of two bicycle parking spaces , I ' ate needed. The site plan indicates a proposed location for the bike rack p pW Po ed 1 but dries not indicate how many spaces will be provided. The bicycle tack submitted to the Planning Division for review prior �� design should- also be s +3 � to i.tS thstallation. Access, EgreSS and Circulation The requirements 'of the Access E res,s and Circulation have been satiLsfied q r �- �.• v1DAL CRDER - r SLfl 89-13/V 59-21 DOL� PAGE • p \' X11 AMY, Signs ' I h The applicant has Proposed no new si nag g a in conjunction with this r. ,.. A application. The existing freestanding sig n will be removed. All new wall and freestanding signs must be reviewed by the Planning Division prior to • their erection or conformity with the City Sign Code. 1 The two billboard signs and roof sign are in direct conflict with Code Section';18.120.180, which requires that the approval of a Site Development Review be conditioned on the 'P roposal°g ability to comply!' with all other C; applicable provisions of the Code,' including the Sign Code in Chapter . 18.114. These signs are noncanformi�� amortized-signs. Si nce neither the , property, business owner or sign owner signed a voluntary compliance agreement with the City, their removal should be required as a condition to pp P would include c this approval. Cozrz liar� � 'wca complete removal of the signs. ,r The applicant indicates that he is subject to a contractual ,agreement with y t removal of the billboard ° P , the sign company and is not able to order the rQZn signs. Development Site' `Review , 18.120.180.A-8 Code requires that where landfill and/or level ' Section op►nent is a , •1 adjacent sufficient 100-year land area for roe he City shall � open Y floodplain, require the dedication onaofa suet ci t o � g ay adjoining the nw and within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicyclF. plan. A p ath is als o required as p art of the, Action Area Overlay Q designation (Section 18.86.040.A.l.b.i). Therefore, dedication of the land g area on thih property p p rty below the elevation of the 100-year floodplain should be a condition to, any approval to this application. The Engineering Division has noted that an adjustment'. of the building location will have to occur in order to accommodate the pathway and the future City--initiated relocation of the floodplain bank. This should be required on a revised site plan. Parking Variance The' applicant ' ` requesting approval of a Variance to allow only 39 parking 7. a l icant a.s� spaces Where 44 spaces are required by the Code. Section 18,J134.050 of the Cade contains criteria whereby the Director can ' - h onta approve, approve With Modifications or deny a variance request: They are: (1) The proposed Variance Will not be materially detrimental to the .' Comprehensive Plan to any other applicable, olicies o the f thy purposes ' f lze u poseh of ' this 'Code �e in conflict with I the policies o i. ' Development Code, to any other applicable policies and Standards, and ' . I to other P ro p er es in the same zoning district Ct or vicinity. (2) p circumstances tha. exist which are �., _ There are s lot size or shape, topography g or othe � . .• the 2 ecial c,a.rcums a Culi:ar to th other � the over which 4 circumstances of circ ( ; y - 9 =(F+ 8 INAL ORDER 89�-Z PC SDR a9-13�V 821. ,DbLAN PAP I ' I , I I I ! F , « -,.,.:.,... rr..,:.' +,.e....,..,._...,,.....A...,.i:.._ ....,....__.._M.. ...........' .._..,....::: _.......::.:.... .....:... ..,M.::.w.-,,...-:aM C-n d•. .,_. ..,.;iw Nr .-i.. N.J _ »:.J,L•. ..u.. JJ i A d I Y` applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; (3) The use proposed will be the same as (permitted under this Code and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent possible, while permitting some economic use of the land; Y (4) Existing physical and natural -systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage„ dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected a any more than would occur if the development were located as specified in the Code; and (5) The hardship is not self-imposed po and the variance requested is the � k • minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Special circumstances exist which are peculiar to this lot. The applicant proposes to construct this project in two phases: the first phase consists ti of construction of the new building on the southwestern portion of the Property. g g pe demolished. The applicant The existing F�uildin would then be demol hopes to attract a complimentary business(es) to build on the northern Phase 2. Should additional parking b required the applicant be �. qu of portion of the lot sus eats that a shared • suggests shh� �d parking arrangement could he wo..ked ou\. with the adjacent structure. Moreover, the applicant's own tax lot 400 to the southeast, might also be used for parking purposes. applicant The points out that the store does not attract ' or window '. ' • r shoppers",pper ", n that the business constitutes a retail/wholesale in •d,/wholesale t of I �0� n y business which sells bul•Y, merchandise. The latter fact results ink the. bulky attraction of customers who decide in advance of travel that a product is needed and travels to a specific destination. The applicant cites the that destination.existing :tore rarely fact .� six or `e�eight vehicles atfan y has more than •0 vehicles any c'. One time. Staff notes that employees of the business will also require 1'; ' parking spaces and perhaps delivery trucks will need to park and ',unload on the pro g •, p pert oc+rever it �.s clear that the existing store use y' h r will not parking spaces. The City agrees that the present use is similar to need 44 arkin s a "general retail 3P g use. Sf the City were to 1; ]. ga�:es bulky em 'i.oy the parkin standard used for retail ` sales businesses which sell bulky merchand ise,y namely space 1 for 1300 square feet of f g to ss floor but not less than 10 spaces, it is clear that the p zo p 0 ied 39 s are s are well within City parking re quirements. Although the use of the building may later changer alternatives are available in conjunction 'with the future phase of construction on this property. If a new use which ha . . E s a `.. higher parking .I' building, a new site development review and evaluation r)Sa.n :demand, occup�.es the required. The issue of parking spade $1 go i of parking would be �' o number will also be evaluated as part • of the site development review for Phase ''2 of this development. The: use'. be same permitted y e regula tions s and existing physical c a i and na fora l sy stems will not be affected ed b Y this proposalw Thrreforey the find that the variance request is justified sub je ct to Condition .3, noted below: FINAL ORDER 89-x, 7PC SDR 89-ia "V ElJ_2 1 Do LAN F?A,GlE 9 • I . • I • ' it 1 . ... ::. .«.. _::: ._l,l'.. ... ...,,. _.. ,,... ...c., ..v.n. ,,., •w..,. u...,,.w. ., ..,m.+rr....v, ...., .r,.u,,.au.0 br... 1 • ' N I • Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park Park community park located along Fanno Creek between Main Fanno Creek Pa Y P Street and SW Hall Boulevard in the Central' Business' :District. The site I lies r within the 100-year floodplain and immediately abuts the subject 100-year ryy' property along its southwestern property line- It is hoped that the entire ' 35 acres. The dedication of the land area will eventually I contain ; park wa. Y within the 100-year 00-year floodpaain, and:the eventual construction of a pathway • j City's park in that area on the subject property is consistent with the r plans for the area. . In the City's Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park, it is stated that Fanno I Creek Park is intended to become the focal point f'ot community, cultural,✓ civic and recreational activities. A paved urban plaza, an amphitheater, an English water garden, pathways, a tea house, a man-made enlargement of the existing pond, as well as preserved natural areas are all components foreseen for this area. The proposed development P d develo ment resently under review will abut this planned community park, and at its closest point, would be no more than eight feet r from the outer boundary of the 100-year floodplain. The Engineering' . . proposed structure should be at least 10 feet Division has stated that the propo I away from the relocated outer bank in order to accommodate an eight foot wide pathway and the planned :econstruction of the storm drainage channel ..r along P lon the flood lain.; This indicates that an adjustment to the placement (If; spry in order to adequately the building on the ve etative screening path • bank of g h end 9 ; ,I up ba accommodate the at u to the relocated n the storm drainage channel. C. DECISION The Pztnn-ing commission approves SDR 09-13 and V 89-21 subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions: S OT$ERW'ISE NOTED, THE FOLA)WING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO �i .ES.� SMA�.I. DE �"iET PRIED ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: pp y Greenway all portions of 1, The applicant shall dedicate to the City T the site that fall within the existing 100 year floodpiain .e., all portions of the property below elevation 150.0) and all property 15 feet above (to the east of) the 150.0 foot !floodplain boundary. A y survey'I showing all new title lines, I prepared by ..: monument boundary red registered professional land surveyor, shall be submitted to the City .. and approval Prior to recording, The building shall be 1 PP p � � � � for review a into the '-reenwa area. STAFF CONTACT: designed so �r�s not to intrude .g y g' g..:I g 4171: 4171-Jon F'ei zo 's.LCano f39 n, Dn a.neer�.n Da.�x ' . 2, she applicant shall obtain approval from Unified Sewerag..e Agency of W ashing ton Count� for connection to t he Unified Sewerage Ag exc Y trunk lane prior to issuance of a Building Permit. STAFF CONTACT: Oreg Berry, Engineering Division, 5 1710', II I I I I �• F N AL ORDE R, 89.-2 PG SDR 89-13/V T�O�AN P AGD 10 I I r b I I ..... ...o ........,.. „r.rv....,,,.r„u ,w.,.,.. ..., rl,..,wr,w., .r„...., ,r,..r.r..w ,.,o,r.,, ,.....»..,. ,.,. ,,.wA r..•I... � ..,w,.,.....,I.. ,,, ,.,._., ...... .......:.. M....r ,,. ...,n. ,o , r.. .i„< .,. .,. r . y . M., M rr L , --...::... ... •:. .,.n.i.J .�'..n _ ..J.,_ .v..14n .. .._ w_...11..».n.•M• ...—..:.4.+�.... IJV ...Iw..+.ilw....W.ti:..y.LJI-,L.ay,...... ".u•...(.n wl.w ,. (jrL • ,w A \y f. • 3. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan' showing: 1) bu.ildin 9 ' plans which show the proposed design and location of outdoor lighting and rooftop mechanical equipment; 2) the provision of at least two .� and approval; 3 shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review secure bicycle parking spaces y- .Lp' g P design� ee - the rack esi sh}: the location and ,N; screening' f the disposal area;he trash „dis osa rea; 4) the relocation of the phase one building outside of the greenway area; and 5) 'a minimum of 39 1' parking spaces. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden, Planning Division, 639- 4171. { i4. The applicant shall submit a rev landscaping plan showing: 1) screening for the tr ash d�po salarea- 2) .: the installation of street I trees along the Main Street frontage; and 3) the provision of trees landscaped islands in the parking lot at a' ratio of one tree • •; nds - Pe within: la per seven , parking spaces. For the purposes of calculating the �f required landscaped area (15%), the dedicated land noted in. Condition No. 1. above may be included. ; The City shall be responsible for landscaping the land dedicated to the public. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden, Planning Division. City s 5. The appl. nt=a engineer/surveyor shall locate and clearly mark the y P boundary p o commencement of construction. , 100-year flood lain bourida_ prior t structi.nn. Floodplain boundary markers shall be maintained throughout the period of construction. STAFF CONTACT: Joni Feigion, Engineering Division. 6. A demolition permit shall be obtained prior to demolition or removal o ; of any structures on the site. The applicant shall notify Northwest Natural Gas .'prior to demolition. STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division, 639-4171- • 7. The applicant s hall install an 8-foot tall solid plywood fence behind thethsidewal p o �g ay along SW Main Street (from the the sidewalk/ bl is right ht-of-w property line to a Minimum of 20 feet beyond the new building to the northeast) prior to start of construction and must remain until all construction is complete (Uniform Building code section 4407(c). STAFF C ON TPCT: Brad Roast, Building Division. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL B ' r l� SATISFIED PRIOR )• �, ISSUANCE PERMIT: TO SL7�1NL� OE AN OCCUPANCY 7'v'ER.R�i � S. All landscaping materials and other proposed site improvements noted shall be installed or in conditions 3. and 4. financially assured prior to occupancy 01 any structure. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden, j Planning Division. 'I 9e A All ne s i ag na g P must r ecei ve approval l by the Planning Division Prior to erection of the ji na9 e. 5 TAFF COJTACT Keith Liden Planning Division 10. The two nonconforming amortized billboard I si ing and support structures shall be coh le4e1�Y removed from the property, prior to , occu. anc P y of phase one of this development OR the applicant shall $. FINAL ORDER. 09-•;L5 pC * SDxt 89_13/V 89-21 DOLA PAGE 11 Amendment peg. Council action (Resalu�ioxx NO.' 90w07) on 2d5/90 C o i eats e Y City Recorder � Y ' I ; ;1Na 4 .j.-w..._.....,._._.a.....,-... . w,..+>G «,•.. mow.. f ' submit any applicable legal document which prohibits their removal. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden, Plannin g Division. 11. As a condition` of the occupancy permit, the applicant shall be required to replace any portions of the existing sidewalk along Main Street which are damaged or in poor repair and to reconstruct any existing curb cuts which are being abandoned. STAFF CONTACT= John Hagman, Engineering Division, 639.4171 12. The existing roof sign shall be permanently removed from the subject property within 45 days of the issuance of the Occupancy Permit for g. Keith Liden, Planning Division» the new building. STAFF CONTACT: THIS APPROVAL SHALL BB VALID FOR EIGHTEEN (18) MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE 1 FINAL DECISION NOTED 'BELOW.,.. It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this final order. PASSED: This/ day of December, 1989, by the Planning Commission of the City f igard + if Atrfi Milton Fyre, P • esident Tigard Piann ng Cot mission , br/sDR89-13 e ksl; it .r r FINAL ORDER 89- ,$ Pd SDR2 89-13/v 89-21 DOLAN - PACE 12 . • • I , a < ••+.i.rti+..:.,a....,.;„,.,_Ls;•r71.,.. ,. +..M.�.rJ...s.w„..«,,...,.w.w,..�!<.ts,.....,M _ FINAL ORDER SDR 89-13/V 89 �' • w DOLAN/A—BOY ✓� ✓ a' • • • JOHN T. & FLORENCE DOLAN ,.,,.. 4025 `',E BROOKLYN ST TIGARD, OR 97202 , II ALBERT R. ,KENNEY, JR. 9500 SW BARBUR BLVD 5--111 PORTLAND, OR 97219 JOSEPH MENDEZ ATTORNEY AT 'LAW • i 31.8 SW 12T�I PORTLAND OR 97201-3367 • • • • I I . I , I I r I ti I y Kea++�♦�A ,F�y��l • : I • li ly I { I I I IL , I I � l Jti , t • I _ I ` + .:,:.:::: .......w.n.,.,:..',.....II.... ... .......:.: ...w.µ,... Nw , ,, n..... n .,..:.•,.....,. .. M.l.. ... ...... .... .....:, , t...:,,..r ,a...w .. a. ...•.. ... ...,, r i• ..... ,.. ...:., .w.:ilt�.,x 11 -N.,"n Y, an ,mr.w....n •......• ..,+,p ''- a.. �- rc yr ,� , • � • � • c I • 4 ....,._....,. .!i•,.« . s,._•.. , ,....,., ..., ....r. _ .... _..u,... .........m.Wy,- .Imo.. r...,,.,w.w,. ....,.+,.1 ....,..._ I..lu....«.i<... ,.,... ._..:.r.,.l..-, - - ", 1 v w. 1 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ), County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) ' jI r 0 t/1�' N\ -V"V w, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath ) depose and say: (Please print) That I am aV, t Q �1 1 ' _ for i 1 The City of Tigard, Oregon. I That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR: That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: City of Tigard Planning Director Tigard Panning(iCommission )T,ig Hearings Hea ings Officer L'----Tigard City Council • A copy (Public Hearing Notice/Notice of Decision) of which is attached (Marked Exhibit "A") was mailed to each named persons at the address shown on the 1` attached list marked exhibit "B" on the )I _{y-,__ day of ,,,_.� 19 , ,. said notice NOTICE OF DECISION as hereto attached, was posted on an appropriate ti , bulletin on the day of , 19 ; and deposited 1, tx.n board o • in the 'United States' Mail on the y . day of L -1.t ..r°� �._..._., 19. '/O postage prepaid. II 7 Wlitd.,(A. kJ A Signature Person vho posted on Bulletin Board R ter,,,,•.,.-„,,,,,, (For B�,cision Only) 1`, tips , irs.._..,,, Ir„., eli / :'''',1.'..'''',4‘2',1_, '/ _ Person who delivered to POST OFFICE ,aCtle� 4orn/affirm to me on the day of ..�;, .! r Subscribed and sw �, 19 %G! t•f fib � S .A°1"R W roc /' i ” I tr 1 ' . '.:�'M•e•.°., ♦ u..iY y�u.yTMMM� yyyi yy, 01? ■/�,��.. .,Y '` *' •' '1 OTARY PU •0. 0 0' j • - ,''' 4Fµ ;k' �.„'' .''r 19; a ' „ iy C'omtLss ,or E�ipi,res s i b ;m/1 FF/t.i.AV.BKH it , I i ..-:,i01' r • 1 »' 1 .,,_i •xu.w...:- .,ia.. „,.A. .,._,'t,.4...N.w.'�,:..r✓.a�ul_w..:L`,, ,..i+: ..�c:r-••,Ji..r u,,.l.,•. ..LNG •:.c.d. 1.,. .ww — - l a rH ` y t i {1r •. , NOTICE C F OF P'U B L I C H E A R I N G I NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL, AT ITS MEETING ON MONDAY, ' • Februagg 5, 1990, AT 17:30 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL or THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, APPLICATION: ' : 13125 SW HALL BLVD°, TIGARD, OREGON, ,6r1IL7L, CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING AP :.1'• 89, FILE NO° . SDR 89-13 V 89-21 NPO NO: 1 PILE TITLE: Dolan/A-Boy I • APPLICANT: Albert R. Kenney, Jr OWNER: John T. & Florence Dolan ! 9500 'SW Barbur Blvd. s--111 7344 SE Foster Portland, OR 97219 Portland, OR 97206 • REQUEST: SITE DEVELOPMENT` REVIEW APPEAL SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN NPO #1 approve the re- . ,An' apnea], of a Planning Commission n ales L facility to construction of a general retail s , A-boy E7frectriC a� Plumbing pp y, ,600 s arp,' foot building on a 1.67 aand S b eot to with conditions. The decision included adsproval acre, Parcel su � to a Variance request to allow 39 parking spaces instead of 44 as required by the Code. The portions of the Community Development Code ' that are relevant to the � appeal are 18.120 (Site Development Review), ' 18.100 (Landscaping), and 18.114, . ZONE: CBD-�A (Central (Signs) . Business District - Action Area - 1 LOCATION: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 1611. 2A C lot 700) . • f, (See.Map On Reverse Side) ,. IN ACCORDANCE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL CONDUCTED G�ITI•# THE y.. . BE CPMEI�T CODE AND i. ' ? COMMUNITY DE ' _ ADOPTED BY Z 1ER 1$ .32 OF THE COMMUI� '�' V'ELO RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPS OF CHAPTER RULES OF ,; THE R Y PERSONS HAVING INTERE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, H IN CHAPTER 18.30 18.30. A1V /' , �RIJCEDU� SET PORT BE . .: TESTIMONY MAY BE' SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO BE II MATTER MAY ATTEND AND BE HEARD, OR TE ., ENTERED INTO THE RECORD r RECORDER OR PLANNING DEPARTMENT ( FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY ;REC At 639-4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BLVD., TIGARD, OREGON 97223.. bkmjS aR89.-13.Bhtz I I I I I r• • I I Y 4, 4,1,i,, e . rW. 1 : ,. ‘ . • , ,. ,. ...__ ,, , .. ....1..w,,,,1 _1 . 15.,,) iu Hi jj. t., a \ _,,,ti ` �. \`.'/ \ ,.. i' OAK ST. i. ‘`., -... \ - - , , — I, .7--' ' i , . \_....,\ , r-------..... ' 4k , ./— . ..t— 11111.111111 i ''',, ,* `/ v1` [, a l ® S ,'• I sw' ' ""'"-------',""7- e,,,/o. ............... l' 1 j1.. „..' *- : < _=al .1 ,1111111111,..:.-.7.111. :., ., II ., �,ti c��fi r \ S 10 S ....nC � ASH ! � W ..w al»oso '1 -, '-'''''' • a I /1 •�. ail®l■ sieC aunTM oAKOrn, -pi : s, I 01111 1111111/ 'al IIIII , i'' .^ _ ® ® STREET vrif , a _ r■ M moms '.. ■ ® II t , .k fir . . . .,,, . .tat : is:di mg 1111 e MI-*--.'-----_--____ — i „ NR11111 ' . , , . ,011,, ■ , . . 2(44 1 M Elmo"Elmo" l® - f w 11� k ®T' R �+ imil „e ... , 41 Imo► El .!� �■ Milli �� w ®lls b1110 A .A t. . A ■ go \;; ' :.a �\ ■ I, • 'Pj 7ANGE6A � r . M ��✓ a „ •►1•p• ai. W ®■ r� �� • SW kEADOM 5i .��" wA 4, ; 0 ""� �,»� S.W. KA ' ., '�4• `11".' _ 111.13 'J �NERkE 5r. �� a ' • rA ,, . 1 w ♦ • 2 ; � r,Q 4P'411F4'o- � oyty ®/O <O', �� ii354.16 r V( ' . . .i Y I i e y, '444644,� y ) ocN ® 41.41,. ®®P, -col ` ■ S.ki, 40 R �, • 10®,w ( �'.' f�o�a .�®�► w. ,- 4,3 \ `')oCP u \ pia rco'' M iT u w Jo .l;4, Al ∎- s�. „,.., , 2; Elik.ii.. ' iw.,',s. ,..: .., ,,,,! tip#4104 ,,,,,.`'.%..444110,,■1‘,N,\IIIIII'\411k,„1/4„ \+.41100'410;#.41").1 10,11111141/0,-.11444,— -;',.. . , I!, j, N•11.1"7/ ,,,,„,,.. ,it, .,-,4 . 4,, \* , Ai, f",,,,,,,, , Ads, C(.7 oiiirjb . �a w a a � • �lrk .. �{f• eG � n 4, ,• . • 4'.0 410, ill)P4\>,, i ¼ 'C ts 3t1. Ar a , s , , O,p p I � . � sW IT C T s. ty sr )t•LL C \"?".ya ® P. y T - \ ,' iii �"7 • 1 , TR�GARD 1 4i ,4 ' . » , civic e 4, , , , — Ly t , { • , r ® G Pte£` -�...4:� �.. tr ` was �� wrd ,,, `' , ,,,t'A c4 TIGARbi,,. -p,j ` f,ip,+sLbOkLN ® - . . ,' _ 1 m, ''''''''' '' III mi . , ' -,..*z '. b ,.4 iti P.,,,. AIL ,,r4po., '-_.-:s- : °MARA im- ' 1„, , , / .' 1 :: , . ' iji .i 1 7 -t/r .s, , ' 't / :),'''''') ,,,e-\ ' '''''411t(:/// . ' -T--1-1-1 ' ---/ -1 :'\' 11''' . -I h, F 1 ., r, • —,1.,..,. ,L _L,. _ c,_u—..w.,t .»,4.. ,.1.. Tt,t...+.`n.-A•.:_.w..t.w;:d:,'w......:::, .t„a.,.;.k.,..t.+,.r,...d.y=.. �,a,.a.w—.,•.::4: w:r.n., F • SDR 8943/V 89-21 1100 5000 DOLAN/A-BOY ( OTTU SORE MARGARET MCDAID BY .FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF O1 ; 9225 SW BURNHAM ST I PO BOX 2971 TIGARD/ OR 97223 PORTLAND, OR 97208 • 1 1200 5100 JOHN & ,. `FLORENCE DOLAN I SEAFIRST REAL ESTAT GROUP D.A. DORRIS CORDI 7344 SE FO 101 SW MAIN ST #1520' c/o RICHARD & BARBARA DRINKWATER A PORTLAND, OR 97206 PORTLAND, OR 97204 9205 SW BURNHAM PORTLAND, OR 97206 •B B 800 5200 .. AL ERT R. KENNEY, JR. B r • �, I MICHAEL 0 FURER SCOTT REAL. E 9500 SW BARBUR BLVD S-111 c/o GEORGE S. KADEY JR. t PARTNERSHIP 12551`SW'MAIN ST 9185 SW BURNHAM ST TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 ' • t . DAN GOTT 900 13...30 SW HILL CT EUGENE & VIVIAN DAVIS TIGARD/ OR 97223 4550' SW LOMBARD BEAVERTON,. OR 97005 ' ° Sao 2oaa CHARLES & ARLIE WOODARD LOTTI ALEX/HANS PINKE . PO BOX 23303 PO BOX 23562 TIGARD, OR 97223 ' TIGARD, OR 9 7562 600 200 JEAN & HOBART VERMILYE GERALD & JOAN CACH 11272 SW CAPITOL HTn?Y 15170 SW SUNRISE LN 7 IGARD, OR 97423 PORTLAND, OR 9x219 T 300 2400 JOHN & FLORENCE DOLAN DONALD & SHIRLEY HANSON 4025 SS BROOKLYN ST PO BOY 12 PORTLAND, OR 97202 WEMME OR 97067 200 2402 AGE N. STEVENS'I WILLIAM & AUDREY BURTON/DANIEL 9180 SW IBURNHAM RD & MIRTAM BERTULEI'1' TIGARD, OR 97223 10511 SW MAIN ST TIGARD, OR 97223 202 2800 ' SOUTHWEST PORTLAND PARTNERSHIP DENNIS & LYNNE THOMPSON ' 2121 N COLUMBIA BLVD 9523 SW 62ND DR PORTLAND, OR 97217 PORTLANDr OR 97219 { 4900 MARY ANN DREESZEN 13200 SW HOWARD DR TIGARD, OR 97223 1101 1 4.800 JOCJN & LOIS GULLEY GTE OF THE NORTHWEST 14095 SW HARGIS RD PO .EOX 1003 14+� 0, ' BEAVERTON, OR 97208 E11ERETT/ WA 98201 a , :t I . , .. :,.I,.r e.,,+» ...:,+eM F,-..u,,-. .....w«x<•.„},.+.. «::G.+...... .,.:;w,.,.....JN..z: w-,....;a,rJ;,.,r+...«..,,•w.+•.. ilt:V..,wr41a,,...•,..,,au... ,...,, .» ..4- „-...w.L l.,�...aw .✓,,..,uM.,;::b,a.1 w ,.:I„e.+,a,w, •...a.- ._.aA.,:,i• , _ ,• ». .»..4. 'fit r Y 1 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) bein g first duly sworn/affirm, on oath , 4, depose and say: (Please print) I Q i 'That T am a / �. ! 1�.��. � for , • • I ;I, The City of Tigard, Oregon. ' I r I That I served NOTICE OF'PUBLIC HEARING FOR: That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: • City of Tigard Planning Director L,,,.-"'Tigard Planning Commission Hearings officer Tigard Hea:. g I , I J I 1 Tigard City Council. A copy (public Hearing Notice/Notice) of Decision) of which is attached (Marked Exhibit "A") was mailed to each named persons at - e addresp shown on the ry' �. ed exhibit "B" on the R tai day of Iit�l• , attached lLst mark said notice NOTICE OF DECISION as hereto att shed, was posted i /on an 1 bulletin board on the f. day of ,--:_.---r .� l p�r in the United States Mail on the �_`fi day of . � �'� � , 0 postage prepaid. I , w Signatnre Person who 'posted on bulletin Board 1 (ForG1a:is on only) o I ,I Person who delivered a. POST OFFICE day o ' , ed and s�ntoz: a :�L�.rm to me on the M �nbsorxb NOT1Y PUBLIC or OREGON // rq 11 i . • n Ear iree. issa.o My ComnY p �1 BKM Y� f bkm AF 'IDAV �r : ra tai ..r; W,...n:.,:r .,..n..vr.v: -,,., „Rr,.....,v,.,n, ,«„r.,.,, .•v v......:.n ......c.. ..... ....... ...................•v.v.•.,..•..,.... ... ,.....,, ..........v.•., ........,....,,., v+.v..,,..,.rw, v,,-.,•.,.... v.,.,,.,. .. .w.,.,,.. l ,...,«,..... .,.,....,.... ...-, ,...»....,,.,,....... „...,. .,,... i ( CITY OF TICAB,D �, s • 4ashington County►; Oregon NOTICE OF F/NAL ORDER -- BY PLANNING COMMISSION 1. Concerning Case Number(s): SDR 59=•13/V 89-21 2. Name of Owner: John T. & Florence Dolan . Name of Applicant: Albert fit. Kenney, Jr. _ 3. Address 9500 SW BarburBlvd. City Portland State OR Zip 97206 Addr y 4. Address of Property: 12520 SW Main Street ,. Tax Map and Lot No(s). : 2S1 2At�„ ,, tax lot 700 [ 5. Request: An a peal of a Director'd decision approve n to .____1 approv.,._ the re- , - of a general seta l sales facility, A-boy Electric - construction � Plumbing and gu ly, with a new 17. 600 ;'square foot buildin ona ' 1.67 acre parcel sub-iect to 14 _conditions. The decision included '`' approval to a Variance re»tJtest to allow 39 ar3inq s paces �: instead of 44 as required b r_l t e Code. Zone: CBD-AA',_(,_Central Business District Action Areal. 6. Action: - - Approval as requestedI / Approval with conditions Denial • yr, .. 7. Notice: Notice ti.e was published an the newspaper, posted at City Hall, and I,; mailed to: X . a p c i .�... ,o£ record within the required distance ~X Owxer9 The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization X Affected governmental aqencies , 8. Final Decision: D;:�SION SDA�nI ry BE FINAL ON UNLESS 1, AN APPEAL IS FILED. ;1 The adopted findings of fact1 decision, and Statement of conditions can be 4' -11, obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Ball, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97228, • Any patty to the decision may appeal this decision 9. Appeal: An 'ion in accordance ( ) with 13:32.290 ,A and Section 18:32:370 which provides that a written ' appeal may be filed within 10 days after notice is given and sent. filed given `; •` The deadline for filing of an appeal a.s 10. uestions•-. If you have any y queatY ons please Call the City of Tigard Planning Department 639 .4 .71 bkn/81)A89-1:3.BXM I , I � I Ii I , ` v.l.«,,.u.,.....„«. ......w.:i,ii:... _..-=-•,.a:i,ii...,-..,kw.,— ...:::.:ia'!....,w�.:]:la..«.:4,.«,In.:.ri,..a:..u.. .A.u..t....1:.4,J...,...,.-1.,.:o.:.+wu....r ..c...».•.-.. "'� b:<,,.r-„.k.,w.n4';A.......+n....w....:.;+xwa'x..«..:.:a'......d...w,...f«..:....,....J i.-..,.J.y.... W..::,'...- :.. ::...-w-.+.” ... d r. CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 89- 25 PC A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIOD7 ' . F `. S WHICH APPROVES AN APPLICATION FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR 89-13) APPROVAL TO RECONSTRUCT A GENERAL RETAIL SALES FACILITY WITH A NEW 17,600 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING, PLUS A VARIANCE (V 89-21) TO THE REQUIRED R GENERAL RETAIL SALES TO ALLOW 39 , PARKING SPACES WHERE 44 ARE REQUIRED OLAN) . The Tigard Planning Commission reviewed the above application at a public g_ - , decision upon the facts, hearing on DeceiXrbPr 5 1989. The Commission based its d findings, and conclusions noted below: ; A. FACTS • 1. General Informat ion • CASE: Site Development Review SDR 89-13 and Variance V 89-21. REQUEST: To construct a 170 600 square foot retail Sales building and a variance to allow 39 parking spaces where 44 are required. ' APPLICANT: John and Florence Dolan OWNER: Same 7344 s.e. Foster Road Portland, OR 97206 • LOCATION: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC, TL 700) • COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Central Business District ZONE DESIGNATION: CBD--AA (Central Bu , _ r ( i.et Action Area) s��.ness D�atr 2. Background . No, previous applications have been reviewed by the City with respect to the subject site: Two freestanding billboard signs and . . one large e roof s ign on the p ro p ert y have been considered nonconforming c g March 20, 1988, and pro p erty and bus iness owners were notified of is prior to that ti me A voluntary Compliance agreement has been used to provide affected downtown p ro ertiec an eXte n sarn of time until a City Center Plan is adopted. The voluntary, camplianCe a g reement eras never signed. • The property and business owners have been cited for the following nonconfbrmitieS: Roof sign,- ,a vtalat�o of Section 1:8.114.r� 0.8f and 1. R'c £ i n n £ 7 FINAL ORDER 89�G5 Pd -- 8DR 89-13 V 89-21_ DOLAN PACE 1 I :,. - •• ,rr 2. Two nonconforming, amortized billboards (illegal location), violations of Code Section 18.114.090.A.4.a. The Director issued a decision approving this proposal subject to 14 conditions. The applicant appealed this decision to the Commission due to objections over 8 of tip- e.conditions. ^'�u d • 3• Vic initY 7Cnfo=^ aation ^ . t} i ediatel in all directions are also toned and developed properties immediately CB D--AA (Central Business District - Action Area). Property ` tel to the west contains the Fanno Creek floodplain and i - edia immediately designated in Tigard's Community Plan to be included as part of the • City's greenway/Open space system. I 4e site Information and Pro steal site is approximately 1.67 acres in size and is bordered ' 1 pF The subject t , by Fanno Creek on the southwestern side. There is a 97 00 square foot. p building and'partially paved parking lot which has been in its present ,- location since approximately the late 1940s. A freestanding sign with t a readerboard stands along the Maid Street frontage of the property. • Two large billboards, which are subject to the City's sign • amortization program, stand on or near the property's northeasterly boundary. The applicants wish to raze the existing structure, currently used by A-80Y Electric and Plumbing Supply, a general retail sales use. The i a site will then be developed for a larger, 17,600 square foot structure better suited to the nature of the business. The applicant is also requesting a Variance to City parking , general businesses to provide only 39 requirements for eneral retail sales buss, parking spaces when the community Development Code requires 44 spaces: 5. Acienc and _NPO-Gomments Neighborhood opos d Planning Organization #1 has reviewed the pr al and has the following comments: µ The tree near traffic.the proposed landscape plan io could . . sidewalk on dxt p er ear- .the r�i block raffic. Also, the air con ock the view+ of eastbound t should be provided with noisef sour d screening. Finally, the NPO w ex Pressed con.ern that . after a fence be on the -site in bxildi,ng has been the a�xi�i g re Northwest Natural Gas hat.; reviewed the proposal and states that it has M an ex scing eineh steel main 14 feet north of the centerline on SW Mahn Street and a service line to 12520 SW Math Street. The Company will require notification prior to demolition. FIWAL ORDNR 89-ZS Pc SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN PAGE 2 urn a . VMw..1w.. J.._I .w k1ir4aHw m.11.e «4.v n{ ,i3ni 1 .1 kti f+ The Consolidated Rural Fire District notes that fire flow requirements exceed 3 000 gallons per minute. Automatic sprinkler protection or some other means of built-in fire protection will be required. Portland General Electric, the Tigard Water District he .J g , have reviewed' ' the proposal and have no objections to its ' The City 'Building Division states that an 8-foot tall eol.id plywood fence must t be installed behind the sidewalk/public right-of-way along . SW Main Street (from the southwestern property line toga minimum of 20 feet beyond the new building) prior to start of construction and must c remain until all construction is complete (Uniform Building Code c section 4407 . - � ( } A demolition permit will be required for the removal • I of any or all of the existi r ....I...t • • 4.,� . u.,l.,.,« ...s...ww..,..Ft,., . t d. The Cit s Master Y' Drainage Wage Plan recommends improvements to the ' Fanno Creek channel downstream from Main Street. The proposed , . channel would include widening and slope stabilization.p ..- _ improvements These improvement would move the location of the top of bank approximately five feet closer to the proposed building than the location of the existing top of bank. 1`' .: e. If a p e dea t rian and' bic bicycle pathway is to be provided along Fanno • Creek as proposed by the Parks Master Plan, a minimum of ten feet will be needed between the future', top of bank and the proposed bui:ldin p along Faring Creek are building. dedicate Typically, a to protect the flood plain and ��all� r�ew de required to dedicate greenw y p '� p ' to • provide for the park pathway systems • f. Two sanitary sewer trunk lines cross the site in an existing easement. one line is 24 inches in diameter and the other is 60 inches in diameter. Therefore, adequate sanitary sewer service is readily available. The new building has been designed to stay f 1r of the existing sanitary sewer easement. f c applicant has requested a Variance on the parking re iremen Proposed usage of the qu' ts, arguing that the propos g building ' generates little parking demand. ,' ' � .; d. However, it is P ossible that , the usage of the building will change in future years. It appears adequate room on the Site to provide , d ears that there �� . parking in accordance with the standard Coda 'requirements, In •. y fact, the applicant indicates an intention to provide additional parking in the future. Therefore, we recommend that the variance be denied. No other comments were received. B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION; Section 18.120.180 lists the standards whereby the Commission is to approve, approve With modificabions or deny the request for site ' development review approval. In addition to those contained in f ' Chapter 18.66, Central Business Dist riot, the following sections of the Tigard Community Development code are als o a pp licable: Chapter U, 18.86, ;cti Areas; Chapter 18.E 1011, Landscaping and Screening; Un ,reds � Cha P tej 18.102, Visual Clearance Areas, Chapter 18.106, Off-street ° Parking and Loading; Chapter 18.108, Access, ggress` and Circulation; Chapter 18.1 4, Signs;, Chapter. 18.120, Si p �. te Development gevi.ew; and chapter 18 134, Variances, In addition to all of the above approval criteria, this order will Proposal light aster Plan for Fanno clreck V Parke and etheo n aturaln resources telement Parks Master '' the City's Comp rehensive !. , Plait n e ol�a Uw PAG ORDER 89- pC - 517R 8 FINAL '�--1.8�V 89-21 D ro • Permitted Use in the Central Business District . ' The applicant plicant intends to construct a new and larger structure suited for a general retail sales use. Such a use is permitted outright in the CBD (Central Business District, Action Area) zone and therefore the use is acceptable for this site. Any use in the CBD-AA zoning district must meet a 30 foot building • t a residential side of the property abuts setback requirement if any d p p y zoning district. Since none of the four sides of the4property abut a ' zoning other building setbacks are required. residential aona.n district, no In the CBD-AA ;coning district, maximum site coverage regulations allow up p site to be covered with structur es u to 85 ercent of the a ` es `and impervious surfaces such as parking, loading and pathway areas. This will be analyzed during a discussion of landscaping and Screening , below. Action Area' Overlay The A r "AA" P of site's zoning g designation nation indicates that additional "layer" of zoning regulations has been imposed on this property. The purpose p of the Action ;Area 'Cverlay designation is to implement the policiesofthe Tigard Comprehensive Plan for action areas which include 1 provisions for a mixture of intensive land use. Sins permitted the Action Area Overlay zone must be those specified in the Underlying Since ermitl.ed uses in t ' p � � y g g the CBD, . zoning district, in this ease, this requirement has been met. ` 18.86.040 contains interim standards which are to be Code Section 18 g6 -; addressed for new developments in the CBD-AA tone. These requirements ` a • serve the use and to provide for projected `public are intended to s ' facility needs of the area. The City may attach conditions to any development within an action area prior to adoption of the design plan to achieve the following objectives a. The A ` . he development shall. address transit usage by residents, p y erS if the site is within 1/4 mile of a em lo' ees�' and custcym public, transit line or transit stop. Specific items to be addressed are as follows: • I. Orientation of buildings and facilities towards. orien g transit services to provide for direct pedestrian access into the building(s) from transit lines or stops; i . • aa : Minimizing transit/auto conflicts by , pr v idi n g direct 1, pedestrian access into the buildings with limited crossings in automobile circulation/parking areas: If pedestrian access crosses automobile circulation/parking areas;' paths Shall be marked for pedestrians; iii. Encouraging transit-supportive users by limiting automobile Support Services to dollector and arterial streets; and 1 INAL CEDER 89-2 PC -r SDP 89-13/V . PAGE 5 I r 3, +61 8921. �JCLADT L _ p • .. iv. Avoiding the creation of small scattered parking areas by allowin g adjacent development to use shared surface parking, , parking structures or under-structure parking; b. The development shall facilitate pedestrian/bicycle circulation if th c designated bike paths or the site is located on a street with d P i adjacent to a designated greenway/open space/park. Specific M' items to be addressed are as follows: i. Provision of efficient A convenient and continuous pedestrian and bicycle transit circulation Bystenns, linking developments by requiring dedication and construction of paths identified entified in the comprehensive pedestrian and bike plan. If direct connections cannot be made, require that funds amount of the construction 'cost be deposited osited in the amp P irito 'an account for the purpose of constructing paths; ii. Separation of auto and truck circulation activities from pedestrian areas; iii. Encouraging pedestrian--oriented design by requiring sides with along all pedestrian walkways and (street level windows g public a s >rian wa �► access into the building; iv. Provision of bicycle parking as required under. Subsection 18,106.020.P; and v. Ensure adequate outdoor lighting by lighting pedestrian walkways and auto circulation areas. c. coordination of development within the action area. Specific items to be addressed are as follows: i. Continuity and/or cam P atxbilit y of landscaping, circulation, access, public facilities, and other improvements. Allow . I. required landscaping areas to b e grouped together-ether. Regulate • shared access where appropriate. Prohibit lighting which ° shines on adjacent property; ii. Siting and orientation of land use whiglh considers surrounding land use, or an ado p ted plan. screen loading areas and refuse dtm Ps to s from vie w e ercial; and Industrial use from kin g le-fami L y re rent 3a1 through I j landscaping; and ill. provision of frontage roads or shared access wher feasible- . � � o � e • g • The submitted development +proposal satisfies the above requirements icicle circulation and coordination of _ PI an est�cx.an�k� for tran�tx.t usage, ed g this plan with the. action area. Screening of the truck loading area can be accomplished with either a fence or tail vegetation. Outdoor w V S'� 21 DmL�1N PA1 6 8� -x3 FINAL t7RDER E39�• `' ° �5 I'd Sl��t ti t ° • lighting should be specifically addressed by the applicant as to how it might be provided. Landscaping and screening The applicant has requested that in return for the dedication of property : 4 along Fanno Creek, all other landscaping standards should be waived. These waivers primarily involve use of the dedicated area to meet the landscaped 1,.; area requirement (15% in this case), provision by the City of the landscaping and buffering for the building on the west and south sides, and trees in the parking lot and along the street 'frontage. The Commission . finds the City h finds that th y as allowed the inclusion of dedicated flood plain/park land for the purpose of calculating required landscaped area for other projects and such an allowance i8 appropriate in this instance. The 1 .: r by City, along the east edge of the provision of a landscaped buffer b the Cit alon th dedicated area is justified because the maintenance of this area will be the City's responsibility and the future storm' drainage and pathway g planted improvements will cause the destruction o�. removal 'of ion F vegetation now.,, , The Commission finds that the waiver of other landscaping requirements for the project are not warranted and that the applicant should submit an amended landscaping p g Plan which is ' consistent with Code standards with exception to the items noted above. , Vision Clearance ' The ornamental immediately th of the .,° pear 1 to the sou' P � ate � mental �ar tree intended to c o imsned� i r proposed t is in a vision on c�.earance area, this type u of tree!,area� because although , , may grow to a mature height long as none eight hea. ht of 15-25 feet. So lop as Wont., of the branches extend below ei Y1t t ' feet in height, this tree, or similar type, will not pose a clearance problem. +: Off--street Parkirlg and Loading applicant proposes c truct 39 standard rd 9 0-d a g xee parking spaces,aces r one of which Will be for handicapp ed customers. The spaces meet the dimensional requirements for off-site parking. rive landscape islands are P also s discussion of e Varianc e requested `pertaining to Parking , space follows later in this r eport The Code fires one secure bicycle� P arktn J spade for every p required automobile spaces. In this case, a minimum of two bicycle parking spaces are needed. The site plan indicates a proposed location for the bike ^, rack but does not indicate how Many spaces will be provided. The bicycle rack i n: for review prior �.ng Division review i , tosi�s installation.be submitted t�Cu the T�lann ccess E ress and Circulation F' �' , The requirements of the Accessr Egress and Circulation have been satisfied. . FINAL ORDER 89 � PCB' SDR 89-13/V 8921 DOLAN -= PAGE 7 �' . I • Si n® The applicant has proposed no new signage in conjunction with this .. I application. The existing freestanding sign will be removed. All new wall and freestanding signs must be reviewed by the Planning Division prior to conformity with the City Sign Code. their erection for c The two billboard signs and roof sign are in direct conflict with Code Section 18.120.180, which requires that the approval of a Site Development Revie `ct w be conditioned on the proposal's ability to complytwith all other applicable provisions of the Code, including the Sign Code in Chapter 18.114. These signs are nonconforming, amortized signs. Since neither the Property,' business owner or sign owner signed a voluntary compliance agreement with the City, their removal should be required as a condition to this ' approval. Compliance would include complete removal ' of the signs. The applicant indicates that he is subject to a contractual agreement with the sign company and is not able to order the removal of the' billboard signs. Site 'Deve lopment Review Code Section l8.120.180.A.8 requires that where landfill and/or development is allowed within or ad acent to the 100-year floodplain,lain the City shall 7 Y P , �' require the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway' adjoining and within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle n' plan. A path is also required as part of the Action Area Overlay designation i gnation (Section '18.86.040.A.l.b. ). Therefore, dedication of the land area on this property below the elevation of the 100;year floodplain should be a condition to to an y approval to this application. The Engineering Division has noted that an adjustment of the building location will have to occur in order to accommodate the pathway and the r future City- initiated relocation of the floodplain bank. This should be required on a revised site plan. Parking 'Variance pp� requesting approval a allow only 39 parking e ir of a Variance to The applicant licant is� re ueeta.n ' spaces where 44 spaces are required by the Code. I ' Section 18.134.050 of the Code contains criteria whereby the Director can approve, approve with, modifications or deny a variance request. They are: (1) The Pro Posed variance will not be materially t y detrimental to the • y p p all.... de 'Purposes tl flict with the pol diee of the � .. 0� this Code,. be in Con �- Comprehensive plan, to any other applicable policies' of the Comthunity Development Code, to any other applicable polices and standards, and to other. properties in the dame zoning district or vicinity. 1, (2) There are special circumstanced that exiOt which are peculiar to the ' SI lot size or ,shape, topography or other circumstances over whidh the II PINP,L CR.IDER 89 PC SDR 89-13/\ 89-21 DoLAN PAGE 8 r i ' I � I I I , • ..,M:-s'v .. .v .L. tu..... _ -•, :i., ,...»J...,x,.. ..,u..i..i:;.. —..u....:li- ..:;4:, ✓;n-t.... , ..w„..,......aM.-....-..._., ._.,.ter .µ..«. ...,..,._... ...... wy„ applicant has no control, and which Fp h are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; (3) The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this Code and City otandards will be maintained to the greatest extent possible, while permitting some economic use`of the land; (4) Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land formZ or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development4were located as specified in the Code; and (5) The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the • . • minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Special circumstances exist which are peculiar to this lot. The applicant in pp e of construction o struct this project in two Phases: the first' p consists p hase cons of the new building on the southwestern portion of the property. The existing building would then be demolished. The applicant p p ary business(es) to build on the northern hopes to attract a c,om la.menta portion of the lot as part of Phase 2. Should additional parking be applicant suggests that a shared parking arrangement could be required, the ,a licant worked out with the adjacent structure. Moreover, the applicant's own tax lot 400 to the southeast, might also be used for parking purposes. • The applicant points out that the store does not ” P attract "browser wa r or window shoppers", in that the business constitutes a retail/wholesale type; of btYSines• y fact results in the attraction of customers who decide in advance of travel that a product is latter s which sells bulky merchandise,. P ' e The late p The applidant cites the fact needed and travels to a specific destination. that the existing store rarely has mo re than six or eight vehicles 'at any one time. Staff notes that y em p to ees of the business will also require parking, spaces and perhaps delivery trucks will need to park and unload on the property; however, it is clear that tho existing store use will not . a "general parking spa gales The ag t present use is' similar to need 44 ark tees that the " y , y merchandise use. City to g retail P 1 parking t were . r r businesses which sell bulky merchandise,i lot bulky t.hc. andisen nam ely space faro.for 1000 square are feet of gross floor en � g area but not less than 0 spaces, it is, clear that the !proposed 39 spaces are well within Cit • _, y parking requirements. Although the Use of the building may later change, alternatives are available in conjunction with the , future � f tore phase of construction on this property. If a new use, which has a higher parking demand, occupies the building, a new site development review and evaluation of parking would be required. The issue of parking space number will also be evaluated as part of the site development review for Phase 2 of this development. The use will be the same, as permitted by,City regulations and existing physical and natural systems , will not be affected by this proposal. Therefore, the Commission finds that the variance request is justified subject to Condition 3. noted below. • FINAL ORDER 89- PC *' SDR 89-1.3/V 89-21 DOLAN - • a ( . , ), .� . Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park }'• Fenno Creek Park is a community park located along Fanno Creek between Main Street and SW Mail Boulevard in the Central Business District. The site lies within the 100-year floodplain and immediately abuts the subject ' property along its southwestern property line. It is hoped that the entire park will eventually, contain 35 acres. The dedication of the land area within the 100-year floodplain and the eventual construction of a pathway in that area on the subject property is consistent with the City's park ' I plans for the area. ' ar it is stated that Fenno In the City's Master Flan. for Fanno Creek F .�k, Creek Park is intended to become the focal Point for community, cultural, . civic and recreational activities. A paved urban plaza, an anphithenter, an English water garden, pathways, a tea house, a man-made enlargement of M g Pond, p the e�istin od as well as preserved natural areas are all components foreseen for this area. p presently under review will abut this The proposed review more than p�.a.nned development presently �g Y park, p be no m, eight feet community a:rk, and at its closest point, g" �.• would The Engineering ter boundary of the 1U0-year ofloodplain. ng Division has stated y from the outer Division d 'that the proposed structure should �e at least 10 feet away from the relocated P P e � ' � Gated outer bank 'in Order to accommodate.an eight foot ' wide pathway and the planned reconstruction of the storm drainage channel. slamg th a flood p lain. This indicates that an adjustment to the placement of the building on the site would be necessary in order to adequately p g � up relocated bank of accommodate the a�-h and, vegetative re 'screening u to the r c ' the storm drainage channel. C. bECisloN n g . pp o- 89-21 subject to the The Planning Commission a roves 5l?R 89 13 and V 89 fulfillment of the following conditions: ATNLEs, o'i° =SIB NOTED, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SBAL]G DE. HET PRIOR TO ' , ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PEEMITS r ' areenway all portions of 1. The appliearit shall dedicate to the City as that fall within the existing 100-Year the site th �' y ear floodplain (i.e., all portions of the property below ''elevation 150.0) and all property 15 feet above (to the at of) the 150.0 foot floodplain boundary. A Monun ent boundary survey showing all new title' lined, prepared by a registers p . ati e� , the City registered d rofessional land rv� Tor shall be The building o ttx [ pP P recording, shall be SO prior approval not to intrude into the greenway area. STAFF CONTACT: Jon Feigion, Engineering bivision, 639-41/1 2 pp� shall obtain written approval from unified Sewerage The a licarit skis ' Agency of Washington count • for connection to the Unified Sewerage Agency trunk line prior to it3Suance of a Building Permit, STAFF A CONTACT: dreg Serry, Engineering bivision, 689-4171; FINAL ORDER 89-2,'"S' -2, ' PC S,DR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLA.1 - PAGE 10 . . I i e '1 wwti •:3... ....,w,..r.c:.+...,I,.t.... .«.'.. ,,4.:..v -wa.,.. ..,,.:+.'-�"`..-.,.,...•s«.... .,c,..J_..,,_.ac.�..>'... .......rA."i-:. ..ut,.ti-..o l«, «rr:=. ..-..W....iiS.wl.,�-..I.I+,+.:i:.._n.,:... ...k.:-+..>'. 3. The applicant shall submit a revised site p,'�air: showing: 1) building ; plans which show the propoded design and location of outdoor lighting and rooftop mechanical equipment; 2) the provision of at least two • secure bicycle parking spaces -- the rack design shall be submitted to r' the Planning Division for review and approval; 3) the location and screening of the trash disposal area; 4) the relocation of the phase one building outside of the greenway area; and 5) a minimum of 39 parking spaces. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden, Planning Division, 639.E 4171. I 4. The applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan showing: 1) screening for the trash disposal area; 2) the installation of street M � r trees along the Main Street frontage; ° and 3) the provision of trees ' g ) within landscaped islands in the parking lot at a ratio of one tree Per seven parking spaces. For the purposes of calculating the 'required landscaped area (15%)e the dedicated land noted in Condition No. 1.' above may be included. The City shall be responsible for . landscaping the land dedicated to the public. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden, Planning Division. I , 5. The applicant's, engineer/surveyor shall locate and clearly mark the 100-year floodplain boundary prior to commencement of construction. ` Floodplain boundary markers shall be maintained throughout the period of construction. STAFF CONTACT: Jon Feigion, Engineering Division. 6. A demolition permit shall be obtained prior to demolition or removal • of any structures on the site. The applicant shall notify Northwest Natural Gas s3prior to demolition. STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building 4171. 7. The applicant shall install an 8-foot tall solid plywood fence behind the sidewalk/public right-of-way along SW Main Street (from the southwestern property line to a minimum of 20 feet beyond the new:. building to the northeast) prior to start of construction and must remain until all construction is complete (Uniform° Building Code( form Bu, section 4407(c) . STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division. UNLESS B CONDITIONS S `BE Skive .ZSFIED PRIOR SS �Y.�Ia r To ISSUANC] OF AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT: NOTED, ,F� T�'CDLLC7�WIA�TC AND landscaping materials and other r `� f3. All. P g er proposed site �improvements noted , Conditions� t ,..... • °y in Z�,tinditions 3. and 4. shall be installed or financiall. assured • prior to occupancy of any structure. � Keith Liden, • Planning Division. y an struck g ion: re. STAFF +CONTACT 9. All new Signage must redeive approval by the planning Division prior to erection of the 5ignage' STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden, Planning Division, g,.. `zed billboard Signs'' 10. The tv�d non�onformin amorti and support • structures Shall be completely removed from the r,property prior to occupancy of phase one of thIs development OR the applicant' Shall FINAL ORbJ R 89-),5 PC - SDB. 09,13/v 59_21 £}OLAN `- FAdE 11 . I • I I n J • L(...+.hl1.h. ».•..N.3RYA... .AW+F.:,.!?1.V+«4 ..y: _ N xl:. • .0 to w... _ • )has• submit any applicable legal document which prohibits their removal. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden, Planning Division. . 11. As a condition of the occupancy permit, the applicant shall be required to replace any portions of the existing sidewalk along Main a w Street which are damaged `i n Poor re air and to reconstruct any or z. P P existing curb cuts, which are being abandoned. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering Division, 639-4171. 12„ The existing roof sign shall be permanently removed from the subject property days of the issuance of the Occupancy Permit f within 45 for the new building. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Li den, g Division. . • _• 9 .den Plar��iin I I TSIS AP P1CVII sHALL BE VALID FOR EIGHTEEN (18) MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE FINAL DECISION NOTED BELOW. It is further ordered that the ' ` applicant be notified ed of the entry of this final order. PASSED: Thy s •5 day of December, 1989, by the Planning Commission of the City f igard. I , Milton ;Fyre esident Tigard Plann ng Commission I , I , br/SDR89--13.ks1 1 . 1 I L I PINAL`'OP.DLR 89-2,6 PC SDR 89.13/V E9-21,DOLAN PAGt 12 1 1' I I , I , t a - .u.�t+lx.« �....J:W 4 d1. ,...�w..-.m,..:iw°.n„..w.+.:... �,�..�.,...ui, ,..A,...>. � •, ...r,.,.xN:. wi.4w«.�»�.�«..si.«...«�,:.. .:..+:M:.ILi:.c.M.4.r:.:,�r.(,.=:Era.:.w+.«k.l.,M.....•...u.;.�Aiw�u..-..1�� tug.:i..w.r,w.V.N,.7:.."r.....,.•.:n.i:,+,w.+«-WWV.u�`'., � M�.W[txur.".u:,.. .Ids«�u•.uu..-�.u: • • FINAL ORDER DOLAN SDR 89-13/V 89-21 a ALBERT R. KENNEY, JR. 900 SW BARBUR BLVD S-111 1 PORTLAND, OR 97219 1 • is JOHN DOLAN 4025 SE BROOKLYN ST • . PORTLAND, OR 97202 • • • • • • • • • • f , i i • • , M . • ' • 1. ' ..,..n1+.,I_w ✓.,.s,.al-.,. ...,..,,.4n-.nr,.......,4..4..:_S.l:.,. :< t....l.. .....w.... ..nx .r.--a(.'.- ■ AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON County of Washington ) sso City of Tigard ) f Toll being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath y (Please print) depose and` say: Ph That I am a �..L1 . ( for The City of Tigard, Oregon. I That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING;' FOR: • That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: City of Tigard Planing Director r!'Ti and Planning Commission ' I Tigard Hearings Officer. Tigard City Council A copy (Public Hearing Notice/Notice of Decision) of which is attached (Marked Exhibit "A") was mailed to each named pe_rTatis at the addree shown on ,he attached list marked exhibit (1 xcha,bit �'U" on the ,:'""dayl of „ •7dVL 19 said notice NOTICE OF DECISION as heretg, ,atached, was posted on an appropriate bulletin board on the _, day of tV �r 19 R .; and deposited in the United States Mail on the ` 7. day of • postage prepaid. Si��nature , �' PersoY� who pc�stedl on Bulletin toa.rd •. (For Decision Only) • % � e'' Person who delivered to POST OF ICE ' Su dcrihed' and • "7 J ��7aw�`gr k sworn/a irm to iris on the _�,. ' ray caf "► ` d A�,1.),.i '' p py 9 I ro n44'''�y ray ,yam u' u� I r ,,,,efr `�'^,, �, , ',,cY`� , , ,-''NOTARY PUSLId OF OREl7O: ' y My Commis i n Expires: bkln A,F' D FI AV'»II L . ., o ,sj�w. ` .... o ro n N O T I C E O F P U B L I C H E A R I N G NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION, AT ITS MEETING ON TUESDAY, December 5, 1989, AT 7:30 Pm, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BLVD., TIGARD, OREGON, WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO.: SDR 89-13/V 89-21 NPO NO: FILE TITLE: Dolan/A-Boy APPLICANT: Albert R. Kenney, Jr. OWNER: John T. & Florence Dolan t . 9500 SW Barbur Blvd. S-ill 7344 SE Foster Portland, OR 97219 Portland, OR 97206 •0' REQUEST: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPEAL SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN NPO #1 An appeal of a Director's decision to approve the re-construction of a general retail sales facility, A-boy Electric Plumbing and Supply, with a new 17,600 square foot building on a 1.67 acre parcel subject to 14 conditions. The decision included approval to a Variance request to allow 39 parking spaces instead of 44 as required by the Code. Zone: CBD--AA (Central Business District - Action Area,) LOCATION: 12520 SW Main St. (WCTM 251 2AC, tax lot 700) (See Map On Reverse Bide) THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30. ANY PERSONS HAVING INTEREST IN THIS MATTER MAY ATTEND AND BE HEARD, OR TESTIMONY MAY BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO BE ENTERED INTO THN RECORD OF THE HEARING. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR COMMUNITY DEVE1.,OPMEYVT CO FAILURE CRITERION FROM THE CODE OR COMPREHENSIVE TO SPECIFY. THE CRI B LETTER PRECLUDES AN APPEAL, AND,HDNSIVkd PLAN AT WHICH A COMMENT IS DIRECTED PRECLUDES AN APPEAL BASED ON THAT CRITERION. ` o SW .. PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT 639-4171, FOR FURTHER INIt7RMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE TIGARD CITY HALL,, 13125 SW fiALL BLVD., OR CONTACT YOUR NE IGHBORHOOD PLANNING • ORGANIZATION (NPO) # ._1,�;• CHAIRPERSON: Dan Cott PHONE NUMBER: 639-3065 bkm/SDR89_I .Bx r ' rt , r a v, a i , ,/ . A ,;-,----....... -, - „." L __L.__ . ) 1 ....,. t, • . ' i,• , \ \ c.) gj , ---,---..-:7-..1 (n,t.,:'i,«.t ...,..'k:. ...........» I' -.....« .,a....,_ ..... .-. .......•. . e.,...•.-„.w....,.... ....,.. ... .«li-.:. .1.�. w.... .rU._.... .,..L:::. ....a.,.,:n 44�a..,,..... I. '-I .-,- L._______ . ......... ... „, ,.,, . , ,, ,. - , , , . .. \\t ,, \ • . '.. , ST, _.-._/ J J �a.�, pp • . k \ /. ,� SHAT lN W-- .._ ------- 1',,. ' to \ r b ' ..Iiiimmezum ' , , fYO S.W..wl •�,' �,,. •.y• 1 _ I\ m tiro.. ST. 1, r y�J., a r I,., ,i , 44,,4'' sw W1Maso el. •.'� ASH .o^•_._--�-•-Y1 I '` 111 T.ie,az . Lta.1, i i k, . -- :..- -, N mil Iii :� J i � LI® S W., NORTH �'IOAKOTA 1 1-SYREE7; i J_ — C v ial WI Mli C 4 'alp 1 o . ®I s.w• ® ` ',.1® II! 11111” alt_iiiii_ Niii i , •. ST, ,:.( is r' t..., . -- 1.----.... II. Iv, ct !..1.1_,..ii,_ . ft ,, 1 — "I . \, ,1/4.,\, �l�® SAN W. Lk d .:. - ®i \ ' �•Ail W � TaC T, •-a1 � \h >® • 411141,A111111 * r y ` M fire vt `�* P r MEADGw. •VflOy !.. a J �• �X9 d , . \•.� INIIlik iili' ..�"`a kAYfk7{ME 5T. s � ® w � � ® �� •_ 3 `35 F. cENr¢ 4#/N 35:36 -s. } '~milli ®' A d omibck Lail ' toroot,„,,,,, 4$9 ,,.. . ,,' 416.4irli" --.:-.---"' I 4 r ......., E.41,„ _._ 0 ,0 ...,- 3 J, S.W, F `.� f s, Qi deo'� I. ., Y ugyN, 0 .4 A r� s.w elrrf(w� ,C. ,�t� r� N,�loit � I ...,, , + \Ill *t k "i O''''r'°4:1, 4P. :34) 4110° ,. 4,.%0 sist4,0,, \ 41/4.„0„\,, # Eli zrApAr .... y �4 KA t ` s ,4h sili .# gyp. ;hntHPlHr ,,,,.c 'it .1'It i % ll'ittp, i404, , ,. / \ 40, 0/414,, /> , J e.' •u fZ N SCHOOL #' � ia�4' ,r � y N�Q � 100 0, ,� � 1 4. ',y' st , I a Ili,41111111 AZIt c, 4 „,.., is 4, 14110, 0 140. I: 4.0 JP. 1; i & sko;�sl �� .' �• �.{�. 71GAFk� n ' !r 1 /�,.„, r I,AHK 404 I* A — , .. 1 \ . , . ,, , ,, Iimpievir frig. di IL# .0.-,.0.EhL _ ■M '''..54 u � . P iii � R ti cook .H � �d. Ili ill ipjt t,c,,,....,':-; 4 4■Aohi., NW, iii. ri. .1 . ., c, , I .i., � of t�� ' ��`,`�”' .- ,„„i„,,,,� r�is r . t o { i:%'s , ® OtitARAI ® '�� a r: ' .1 c � 1AMw .:.ice' r'� . ii ---1:i '''' '''''' 'f' 4+ N4,7-r----- I i 1 i i:M *4 . ' . s • 28u • DENNIS C. & LYNNE M. THOMPSON / 523 S.W. 62ND DR. �., P ORTLAND, OREGON 97219 SDR 89-13/V 89--21 Dolan/A—Boy 1 100 4900 JOHN T. & FLORENCE DOLAN OTTO SORG MARY ANN (. DREESZEN 7344 SE FOSTER BY FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF OREGON 13200 S.W. HOWARD DR. ' ' . PORTLAND OR 97206 P.O. BOX 2971 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PORTLAND, OREGON 97208 • ' 1200 4800 ALBERT R. KENNEY, JR., SEAFIRST REAL ESTATE GROUP GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY • 9500 SW BARBUR BLVD. S-111' 101 S.W.. MAIN #1520 OF THE NORTHWEST• ' PORTLAND, OR 97219 PORTLAND .OREGON11, 97204 P.O. BOX 1003 EVERETT, WASHONGTON 98201 •800 • DikN GC7I."3. MICHAEL J. HE(J'VELFiORST 5000 ' TitGARDS�SORTLL CT o MARGARET MC DAID , 13230 KADEY JR. , 23 12551'0SEC�T wMAI1'7` ST. 9225 S.W. BURNHAM ST. 972 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 TIGARD,D, OREGON 97223 5100 900, "• CHARLES L. & ARLIE C WOODARD EUGENE''L. &` VIVIAN DAVIS P.O. BOX 23303 4550 S.W. 1 LOMBARD TIGARD; OREGON 97223 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97005 , 600 5100 2 000 a RMILYE ALEX LOTTI & HANS CHRIS D A & DORR15 N. CORDI Hi��3ART.P & JEAN VE � CHRISTI/51.N h �� s,,RICkTARD_L. • BARBRA J" 11272 S.W. «,CAPITAL'HW"�': �'ZNKE DRINKWATER PORTLAND, OREGON 97219 P.0'. X 23562 BO 9205 S"W: BURNHAM TIGARD, OREGON 91562 PORTLAND; OREGON 97206 • 300 JOHN T. & FLORENCE:'DOLAN 4025 S : BROOKLYN ST: • PORTLAND, OREGON 97202 200 2200. 5200 STEVENS GERALD C: d t".ACI 9185 S.W: `BURNHAM D 53 i PAGE: t _ 91 SCOTT REAL ES,�AT RER SCO E ..ARTNER N SI � �9722" � 9180 S W, B'URNHAN RD. UNRISE LANE TIGARD, OREGON . 'TIGARD, ORDC OREGON TIGARD' OREGON 97223 E��ON 97223 202 • 2400 SO0T1.IWES' PORTx.iAND 'PARTNERSHIP DONALD E. & SHIRLEY HANSON 1 . • • 2121 N. COLtUMOIA BLVD): P:O. 80x 12 PORTL.FITD, OREGON 07217 WLNAME� OREGON 97067 • 203 CITY OF TIGARD i POs BOX 23397 7.2420 S.W. MAIN TIGARD,'' OREGON 97223 J, 2402 , WILLIAM H, & AUDAEY BUR'T'ON 11 1 JOHN R & LOSS tILLEy 5' DANSEL & MIRfAM BERTULEIT `, 1409a S.W. HA�.G�S RD. � �.; EEAVER'xT0N, 'OREGON 97208 % I ARVIN R. KATf1 YN ANKLE y n i—ti y r+ t.i ",mew r.M.i t,:, • • • • I • • .,...'.4+«.F.,n,.-.w ,.1:« .. ....,wL ...L.,„ ,.1... n,..+ ..._.'... ,...w..:a.,.:.u..u-«. ,...,..r...t....a,.., w....1•,....W.a.,'...,..LN„ .,.L..m Icw1,,.m -r,.,wl.+-,.k—...L n.a .._..w , 'I I TIMES. • 7--6423 . P.O.BOX 370 PHONE(503)584-0360 1VottC @- BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075 • � Legal Notice Advertising I 9' • R• * City of Tigard • 0 Tearsheet Notice • P.O. BoX 23397 • Tigard, OR 9 7 2 2 3 * ® Dupiicate Affidavit _ _ _ The following will be considered by the Tigard Planning Commission on • Dec,5,1989,at 7:30 PM at the Tigard Civic Center—Town Hall,13125 . ' SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,Oregon.Both public oral and written testimony is invited.The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance 1 with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal'Code,and rules . P and procedures of.the Planning Commission:Failure,to raise an issue in 1 AFFIDAVIT OF P11 LICA�person or by�letterprecludes an appeal„and failure to,specp,fy thescii r qnx`,. I.. . from the Community Development code or Comprehensive�Plan`at,,which a P. , ply STATE OF OREGON, ) ��omment'is directed rec�udes an appeal based on that criterion'further:4 � COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ]ss. information may be'obtained from the Planning Division at 13125 SWY • Mall Blvd,Tigard,Oregon.97223,or by calling 639=4171. m 4 ,� ,,w , t, " Pl.7Bf,IC liEATr�TNC1S 1"..1:,* . , . ,.I�. � '� ,. being first duly sworn, depose and say that �� , ta'` a • T•t MISCELLANF.,OUS;M,89-20 MANUFACTURED HOB,]E,AT S ' Director, or his principal clerk, of the__._.., , CUOIf�tA1�1E NFO.;#3,A'z �request for a:�view of��" hctor°s=in' a n ,, ,i ..,:: , ,, o ,. ,,+r., Jewspaper pOf general circulation defii �.. , � en oded',�, • and 193.020, published at Ta_gar tion of Chapt rs F18 26 and'18S4,oI the Co'Crptnunit ,f`i,,ve;iop _. 7.rwf aforesa ertainit 7, ,.' ._,,„,3 y«I,n'.�1,�i id county and state; that the p, g to°rr anuf,"'iri d'and''0 ii ',e hoirles;x414,." "a''', `", b„•„ . • w!9$,, Mad V ' ,.:r„Y�I I,, 6,,, •7 v r{ A' t.1`�yrp i4: Y ' �. �:1�-i.�.e I�-Ta�� 1 S�T7GiD.H' EX.,CJPLL7►,,lr�.�.lw 1�i+1��+`'V'IEW �'',1�t:'►S`1��.,8,,,,?-15,„/Y4$91-11,,,�� +�£ I . ; I!bl/ NPb#I.Azt.a )eal.of a T)irector's decision,to rove:thc e 1, . . is hereto anne�ted, ,., 11: � , ' ,>?,,t„M Pl .�. >��PP 1...,.q�� ..;� �'� _. ,.:+asd a printed co y of which i .. P p • •y+ �, lttrtibin d�;.; �w+",,;,;fA�:::r,.i, c' One �cor�st�c�on of a general relaii,s}ales facility, �L�leet?ric�,7�.. .,gam �_ ,..�..,...,..,. ; • newspaper for` ;,ax�c”, ,t▪ i,” ly"...withr !iit'cc''17;600 square"foot�buildmg`onTa'1:r67acrej iarcel � ....,.., entire issue of said n , . PP.,,. .��f . ..,. consecutive in following issues: sub e� 1; � '" ,' .,.., • � ovaD~�to a��'�rianre re�� • ., the fo �. ,1 `�a• -I conditions,'The decision inoluded�',^��,� '�rw�",,, f� . ,"' .w. m p �• , g p? r . d , `•rec uired:'by tile Code, , " t:quest�o allov!39 arlcin s aces instead of 44 aS r November 2 2� 19 8 9 .� Zone CBD AA(Central Bd in'ess District-Actio AM+ )t OCATlON:; 12520 SW Main,St.(WCT �S 2 U 24C,•ta c),., 0) .� ra , : r� • I t �'tstt�N,g��-10'�'4'� �DEVE L' �r D 89�03��,,, STEt'ti;ENso mBACON. o:MI S,N 4116 A Yequest for;approval of a n,, • ,/ �,,,. , p„r ,,,x �:�,r,., itieiit,oii'a 3.18 acre'site:=I'he`lz?t5, �� I �. 18 lot subdivision and fanned devt,lop ,� will vaZ'y;�°tilsize;�.orx'a roxz a l 5;280 '1;1;330"sgijareet tee �15E; r PP Y R,7: ;? , xclehtlt,'�A4,amts/ac're;�Planne, �De�relopnter�t}>�f» ,AICL`?: ,. Solttheas rifer o k '`Stmt �'• 2 � ,,A. . W 98t1t�� 11�and�$W` attlee �v � .4# tr p� Subscribed and sworn o before me this ,,,,Iy;w1•i, - .x�,�•,,,eFi� 0)4,f.�}yii!",,/,'f,4 ', ?' I s�a� i`fi'�4P,r v+4i..�ti r r, 1 ,r;; 6 !1}1�V� W./1.�otv�)T �4 / t1 r �•i: h M � � ., b� Y 1` i Jti4Sl i r.' 4'v>1>,,r. ,,t,._r it §,tif ti,r i,$,''r I '.,i0iiiii" it' Y, ',,t'01'11: ..' y',� t 1 ,�' r�+a8,dUBDI' [SION%89, 2-, I EJ3\ 9..2i3 'b..l .'D ' . • '''. 'I 4 ,1 t > '1130'q *c2 Not d�! ''. il ��'(�J� �y_ p.•. ,, w �Y t f ibatvideaa Cif"`!t -11 ll1 18 1et5 4 •o U...M,',,,I !t.)a,1,111; t , y �; • w.4 ., ....Y1ii1i:LUkl�ilLilw 1��'•�u 1.�s•. ' i� �,,,�e It/..'4:'.,":,;C-1 , -� ^N •V 6,1..9....9- V ,i" }i i b t, r i Ea r . W.I., d .,,,,',4f."4., . r i ,,, cct"ro P , .v w , 1 AF IDAViT „ it►�11y�x and�ti .P.,-ance to ti I V g°s z : f J't'••k ,�,• ,zb,,. ,n,l ,r3 ,vit test ,,to'apply4ti l ll`an,tm u�IcHLI` G �1� �" a • ,�1�,rtyt A otfltne,ildatastity6,1i ap ro c i t 1 e r1 i t qX l T( js t tic �. A alj N�LW,II�µ1V-1tt��M�X'��N� ��+et' ,�,1. .I��Y r,��ill�i U vise ' �{p �f ��l� • �k� h" r. ,, ,� >� ��si�eitti�a � �its,�acrN�: TIQ�;,,� �t t ∎','4 f. , ! q �4f !'Ii :.I.A.. p,'1,4yj! �Rp}� M' �� 1,, ��'� ' rr' y�M � :1{'�!ra"5�,, C+wx!'y� , •{��.��Ji :4i, • T 3 u`bbsb iT r, K' i { ,i.f.•,,,,,,,,,,,1;.i <!,gaF i t �,ifKYi.a .wV.I,, ,7*'l y.. r�;N!r,i,'":,,,,`:' * , ti: "• I I I I ii I 8 i « I ry �' t • _a_ _ M•,. a. 4 4... . ••-••T••••••••••••••• _. .w, .,.. � • r j I yu 33 G • i i • A Y • • • ti o''R P.o.aox 370 PHOr�E(606)68 4_0360 I tic 7_6343 BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075 r Legal Notice Advertising ;��' ' • City of Tigard • 0 Tearsheet Notice i. p. o. Box 2339? U ® ©ilpl cate'Affidavit Tigar_�d., OR 97223 9 Y l� 'fl&ARC ,-- ,,•.,•--------,7'•-•-',"-"'-'7'•'-''r•r, 1 6,410:), ,,,,, ,, ' , -..' ( •• I STATE OF ORE ON, r ". COUNT of'�iIASHIf�GTC1N r )ss. l h �.,,. '.'11-r...---', , '' µ . .•it xs rog Dor being frrst dUfy sworn depose and sa t ,'he followin ally c'asidered by xc gar4 PIannin Coin a ref : '.t Director, or his principal al Clark of the r: �Se tember 5 19$9,8L 7:3?PM at�6the "gard L ic'! cnf er'.-Tot n Hails p ' a news pa er'of general'csrcwlation as 13115,$ .vial),Blvd '`iga'c,,tire op.Both pubeic F 1i 'Vrrittf, s�,, p p ►� `. n :is"'invite .;"' e.' b�lichear on,tl r ;a ttt^ c 1 ➢ and �9�.®20 published at � � g �� _ •, 193.020; ri � tit �.,: � �, unt .lisped state; that the with the rules ot"Chapter 18.32 of the T,. d 1hx � ( , afo� a c0 4 r u l i C le a/'3.n g-- ar�x ink rules and p un s of the fi l in n ao '�, : ''s. Ott �otn�� a� ed at�lhe a printed copy of which is hereto arrr�exE.n aa`'-1n t"set�or by,`etter,1ir c lt�de a^ :an o t p p1� , .P,ai' e .ommunit. Develo ment,Code or ; f ' e plan`�•0�...e.trterly rr, C r c44. 1 t' , entire isfiue of'said newspaper for , at hie cotr rnent xs di`ected. ,: eel cle$ •an ap '.b tx h t'an�nrra�t��t �� , r ent secutive in the followin is ues: (t'tc�9 ,, ,, ay ti,c obt >ra�ni Y, ,. ¢!t 1312 �s�Hatl`,�ta'd �"1�;��cl4+�� t�• � �' .4".10,.14,,,,,,,„,,� .:'(3,,,, � August 24, .989 PUBLIC HEARINGS AI ,SIR 893°/V , 1 , I OL #1 Ar► ' tc',s,decision t i approve t ..,, construction oil a I`f eneral retail tes';� a yy yboy Electric Plum iA" and• a • c�, supply with a1 new 17600 � 's�' ,'bt�At�zag oa a��7,acro P, �e ,s�1� ;� ._a 'eet`I A.trop >iti szt ,The d cis da ine u e a irova�l t0,a Variance xequc t , . d' 4 , r� u>!r b the code.ILon r�, • t � tb Alta*so) lying sPa;es lha ea ''. y ,f x . �A Ce>rttra uslnsss, lsi rrabr°A eat.Location 12520 suascrobed and sworn to �•efore me tl�rs_ �IaXrt"s t .( .'TM„2,b 1,2 ,l0 , )' Al,.._.'T6343—Publish August 24,1989 Notary Plrblir fovTh regh My Commission ores. 6/9/9 AFFIDAVf ' i +""'' 0 VVA\ftfl,(, C.,-)(`.6-1. ‘ YC-'1A1 '•,-, -\ r ,. . . 3?( ' kir'\.t til '61' , L.CLU I I , I . • u • • • • PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal P,Or BOX 370 PHONE(503)684.0360 Notice i--6`34 BEAVERTON,;OREt ON 97b75 Legal Notice Advertising li U R • City of Tigard e 0 Tearsheet Notice Annci I. of P. 0. Box 23397 ® .Duplicate Affidavit • Tigard, OR 9722.3 Citf l'IGI l D AFFIDAVIT OF PUEI_ICATION STATE or OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ass, Ior't1.1.a Marty being first duly sworn depose and sal/ that I a e;Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the, Tz gal ime s a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 ° and 193.020; published at_ Tigard in the after aid count and state; t t the ' ublic xear�.ng'. ..ann ng Commission a printed Copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the • entire issue of said newspapor for. On'e successive and f` conAecutive in the following issues: August 24, 1989 • I i Subscribed and sworn to t st i 1989• afore me this25 25th o± August Notary Public for Oregon • My Corrrrnission E tires; 6/g/98 + AFFIDAVIT f 1 • . rfs 1qx ra. • PLACE UNDER CITY OF TIGARD LOGO k' by the Tigard Planning Commission on • The following will be considered September . x..111 r at 7:30 PM at the Tigard Civic Center -- Town Hall, 13125 SW Half. Blvd., Tigard, Oregon.on. Both public oral and written testimony 3.0 invited. The 9 �' public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and rules and procedures of the Planning Commission. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter precludes an appeal, and failure to community I p �p specify the criterion prom. the C y Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. Further information may be obtained from g 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by • . the Planning Division at l31 calling 639-4171. HEARINGS PUBLIC 1 �. 89 21 DOLAN NPO #1 i 89-13/V S1T.E DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPEAL SLIM # • An appeal of a Director's decision to approve the re-construction of a general retail sales facility, A-boy Electric Plumbing and, Supply, with a new 17,500 square foot building on a 1.57 acre parcel Subject to 14 conditions. The l' decision included a pp roval to a Variance request to allow `39 parking spaces ' instead of 44 as required by the Code. Zone: CBD-AA (Central Business District Action Area). Location: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC lot 700). 04,/4/89 10:39 1Y503 684 7297 CITY OF T I CARD 001 ACTIVITY REPORT TRANSMISSION OK • TRANSACTION # 1675 CONNECTION TEL 6203433 CONNECTION ID Tigard Times r' • START TIME 08/18 10;39 USAGE TIME 00' 37 PAGES 1 il TT PUBLISH 8/24/89 • FA X T' IR A N' s M � � rr �ns � � i. d 8DR89 13.EKM 0/ Tq:A "e --___ X10,0p .� W FAX ft: ' r-. i4,_„_,,_...3_,_ P GES C * a'. ✓ ��M� CO; r FAX I/:.„. .; Past-Nt"Nbra •f-''trsrrs'itta4l msrrmi 7871 , •Fri . . ...„.. „»..,...:, ..... .._.... . ,.,.,, .,..,,„, .._.;r:_. «,....,., ...w.....,..«.«a.,W»... µ»ms«., ...., ._... ;,..«_. '' .-,...,. . • CITE OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Keith '1 �,�, Respond'B�1'r�..�„ FROM: Cathy Wheatley For Your Information DATE: July 19, 1989 Sign_ and Return SUI3TFGr.P: ,ppeai of Director's Decision SDR 8 1-13/V John T. and Floren ce Dolan; A-Boy Electric Plumbing and Supply Bldg. • .A�., wed is�. the 1 for the abo�e ca,do 1 advised the �.icar� p w, ir.,h we discussed earlier ned v�. today. p. date for hearing before the Planning Commission ould be August k 8�,'h,the tentative • 'Ir • • h � I i I I � I .-.�r.o-.,��...;+r�`,.arr,.•�,..gym:.. H x...,,... ,�....�.:wr ..�.�.. _ "`Y'Mw-V«4.:.ArFlim, 6.+4wF1N;Y; r1,. r .4u.wu.,r<.wr NvYU.AOIYI N,a.....'ww.Y u.e u+..n.r•w1 Aw.wNw w5WYS4=.A.nxArw.u,Nw.l,.v +N•�s. { •h:».+H ,`•N i,.•^,i° '•-r»•r''«..,N.+f+.A.a.W.u+�..c�w+swmaw.Y z:a1..�',;uf,wNrr 1•---A:-* fw«•,N' r+w.w:.�w:.lw.wW - • JJJ rrIY �N +yn r y q k t Ir A y�f w Y�!ry • p yy y 4 '�r p ('� •� . 4.A j 9 v )F r . "1 316 r f W,n � :Rl t , u�A°`;, {��+�g1t{�a�k ��r a� N ��a 6 it„! �, � r,�S "'11C)..-11.x'1" k '•C�'. ;.",;A M,fi ,vh C��, k �,. ws �^� �$C,NI°�i�� ,+, ,��I« .• � A f( 1 p.Wljr.+v! /.gyp s rrYr�. '.uY e.. w.y vk n In IY'Y! M u 4 *r 0 d w g 1�f,kk,;A,t wi�Y) } {:411,115.E:1'4;: JIJ �'��' $1.rv.:.r,'tJ,+ "", ` ' �":j' w�f )i g, • 1I '7 r�.I �Ar,, �./ k`��^�'y I My a e;u�+'(7){� Arr+ft" €s;c rNI y't 1 )P ,11.)1 r +Sr z.� D"1C,� f�F•tvrld4 +<,�.:M..19 'wi�7 >tl".,: �ln.�,dAi f�.'.4.,. I11f'd'''� ,5� i5 we ♦ I OR 1•,H w YOP:r,d"!` OIL ` "" '{ �' • VI �y 11 IN r� "w rp If> rA wN M M .% N >N q Y./ r1Y MYk �W 4 �"� ',gyp°t i r 1r"4r"� '1'fi r• 3" 4"1 ,fly i,f�r'^r,� ,' Iw.t� "t'n� ,Y,", N��f, e•wF^NNV RHAAMM RiJN 1w+IAM YAArr,f rN IN=I M"'+IIMly rlipµ•N iaAM ANw.:.{i Hxrr..hwlµM11.i1(NA R.rlNw r.!1r.Nw Yl:N hAN Na,f,yN.,INb.YAAY INtA nrVY a..Ax AIM YfiIA . ANafN,N•xpl N}•f.,kR..ry.yl wiq«:N'MH NaN AMN;1iM.N+M ANAYIMtA f«,rfMlN rIN'rk.1V`sNprNpl•+M.rlN p+trrNYILy:Mrµ MwN4w M.M N..N w�pµW wMY IfWt NNeaµp aAAY-� • X .r.�y�r�. .a f,l. tlr n k .,� uu / .1 �� gyp'&X4'•1 1,JS7A1r I'ri,.,1NIr1, �.�,..tit ,1r�, ��'p "� ry�,"°�a ,)(; I L., 1 I N M'1 • • I I • Vff. I f') i.00 0 • � I� .»..,.K»/X� •+.r,ww YVw»w . ..,.w.y..:..... ,«t ,./ «w..,..,e•wwa«..n,,.r.:si«�w Y.•._•uw w.«+,...+ w,"n w..W«w.u..r�.Ww.f4..r.+V.0 xlw Kw w•ya".w♦•..«�vl fr a, 1 f , I 1 • N � r I « ...::..........:.,.. ......:..._,.,. ,.i ,..,.....�...,, ..,:1':..,.. .. .. ....,...,. •. .,...... ..,�+..,, ..... .....,,.. .... »,...,w ,w n.�,. ........ .. ....�..,, .., .., ,... .,,... .,..,,.�if.... x,. f.,�I u;,i,.,� ..« ..e w...,, .< ,er,u..,....'wi ., 1 I • r 1, '07,,i7/1',',9 09'4,1 49 ° 6t' x'4 7207 CITY OF T I CARD [j(:�C)2 {1., [5 • : : +wrnu �r.,rna» , +•�.r+-xA _, ,�., ..,.n�..r.. �:.r--w. n .... ...w� ..w.. ..wx ':n-..w.�r .. • • LAND USE' DECISIONN APPEAL AILING FORM r • yi4.�Jilh�.X rl,r The City ��F Tigard scapF>Ot t 3 t��(� pit z rc;rt' s t' yht; tt? .111, toar tic ipate ill. )c>c(a1. guvern«iczrtt, Tigard s Lurid Usc CITYOF. Code therefore sets �at�t; ;spctF is rrequi► emments fear` TI r' i� fi 1irt9 apPeal; on certain land use dt ci ions OREGON a rho, ?t)llowing VVorlm h�i hei.rl cd(.,,trcl.(,)pr,d to asii,si: you irt' fixing tarp appeal ': of .a land 0,1P d€ci.t;it.lrl in proper Firm, To drat&rrmine what fi l ircj fees will be required or to onswcr•r r-tr�y gt.,ost:ir>ns you have r`t,�cjardincg t:h7 ``---.— --- t appc;i1 process, pl4J se contact thq Planning Division , . or the 'City Recorder at 639 4171 , • I. APPL:EcA✓i"to;v EJEING e)PPFAI EC) John T. and Florence Dolan•• SDR 89-13/V 8 9-21 _.....x_. r a_r ».. _> n»✓xranrinw»-r4r I r A-Boy Electric Plumbing and Supply Bldg. 1 . r DO YOU Q)ALIF•Y i)IS A PAR..rY: App1x.cant 1 ? HOW ..rr�r.•.....r...r..:. ..,..�. --�-..x._+w..r�«r1.W✓.r.r,+Tr r,,,✓rrrr..�.....r.rr.L.Airr•' .' �, �..,..:�..�..,n_.e.._.�w..._.v..,r.r.r rr......r.r.`...«».,-..._...:.,...»......�.,w.«w.,�,...,.r.+.x......•�n_-.nw,rnu i✓.✓rrr •:, , ..�r......r. •,.—..�__..,_.r...._�....-�w»...r,W - .�.,n..,.,.,... 3. SPECIFIC GROUND S roil APPEAL. OR RGV1:E W! The Planning Directors I i xw..� r.w.ar,#�..n»r.'xl^r.�..�«_u.w.....r'».w.+......w.x Yx r ✓1 n r rJMArM11,iJrw+rJ+.w'. , designee places oppressive conditions on the approval, of .�»n.r1...r...,..aw..A....M...a.x.. .�.,.,_,�.✓.,..�LNy, • �_...�✓.�.�~._..,,,�,.�_;�_w ._._� • r theapp•r,._l.. i+N cwr ax✓nt X{.•n rs N✓N.ar..r.a p w l axr.uC..✓.+a..wrt..i..iM+eo.w..n.r..«..u.. .S..p., e.. c..r.iw+.fs_iu nwc-r-a•»+..l-Ir ly an ryrw ..w Lr L.w1..rwt.+ WK _ , a . r f (A) , 1 ... �" �.._...-�...,r.,_..X�. _._.. .paragraph 1 , page 1.�. Staff Report. The Director s Para , n,ura.:«..wrar.r»,.i...rlr^rrry:n»r»Mann.rwf...r1r.•nwrriru.�.ruxf:' -' ' br.��rxa...u».4..N...wY'•r� .s-.... r v demands John T. and Florence Dolan (hereinafter referred to --"'�.'. .^--•�r�,--....,.r.:�.:.,_..ra+�.,«.: _, ,..,»....::..._.....x.....a.x...xr'Wr.-r.frr..nnr.✓...»...«.1+..,...,.:.., r�..,�_Y..�.,.....�w..,..rW._,,.,.....Y,=.-.,..r,w_,..».-•�..-,-.+.�r.n...«»nn.••..�' . ` • as Dolan) to dedicate a substantial io.rtion f o their, -.n..w..�..�.x,�..�.. �..r.. �n.._r�.,..n.�......n�...,.✓,...._w_�..� - ,�..... y..�,,..r..�..N..r. property r B to the .»ty as greenway, i.e. ,Ci all or k _.rr .w-...,...._..w a. »•.- .. ..+wx�•�.rr+,nr.»r-r......m•n:.+:wr _.�......+.,», .,..,..r,...,�r,a. oris of the site to that+'w•• » r..«w,._: r .+r...Xrrr.rwru.ur,.yrr.,,✓i»rr.u.r;.rrwr y.. ✓x existing 100`... year fl.roodpl. + _ and in addition fall within the a.Ln an ` the Director demands Dolan surrender 15 feet above (to the east of) .. a,.. ..rr»n..�.ax✓.wr..+...r..,w✓»..+r_a��.a,_ .. ...r � .�. « ... .,.....rw....rN.lw_.ar« ..rr.•.I.r...nl...:r.r.r._ - -w.a......i.._.r« . .continued on attached sheet-- ' .r. wrxa.x.a»_r»nnNr�wX•rrh Nn✓✓_..xar.rr..Xrrw p.nwJ,. » ♦ .. .... ...-:.w:.«+-..w.....,wrro.,.r•.�.w.-u:.wa.wa«Yw�.raw..rxr+Y'r.-..r....rw r.xi+:.wrNxmr••.rrinl�wr..x,s ax.r:�, ,,..-+r_',+wnr......._-..rinw Ww•:« �1 I n. _ J Uur.k D 7A""F D�G�I:��C1 t� " 0 S FINAL:NAn r 7"20 -89 1 5 DA'r'E� Nc>OI CL r Z or C7E r,1. ON wt C t 7--�. 819 date 710 ` 89 1 r /�(.t.9 /. C Y � - x,»... . ....,.., x a w x,:.r w...w K �.rr r�.r xW� n lr� LM:Y.n for Jolin T. ✓» lr rrr. , rr.X , Jose;+ R. the ,dez ; Attor and Florence Dolan .k 4ti!•i4I.K'NNakt-trt3t ►t t: ,11r4 tMRXXuNKit�cNn),sx " KXXxxM)tX' XliN3tX t XXXNaXY4X tM l-KXXIxa(444ktXX#t4)1 ..()R oI 'x(lr. us • LY i?tic✓k iv, Y Cry to . 1/. "tIte • � ..CY.liit?J ;q 41.x, , 1 i . 1 (1FYpr ved As 1,o C"it"1it BY C G . J I.t�te!-;;J'i6/ 6 9 Ti 111(3.ML' ( C�',./ t " Dtiarriod As 16 f t r-m BY' Oat e!1 r.:«, a ,. rr.«r.«'», i�1.(;� arc. ., .. , ,.✓ .,. x� .".N w .1 M.n+ 4�){ i)t X i Dc>i rYi 9t 1t)i k fi k x�i i N?) N�E x H ii N N ii N Yi K Yt Y(Yi N 't Yt Yi Y,Yi it�Yt x 9t• Yi.ii i x xYt It. .;K,N..N rt a Yt x•Nr N) M><it Yt ti l�°Yt 3i,Yt+t iir , lwt4846e4 t,ee, t.;? of) 7//et/$q 1312b SW HdCI 131vd,.P.O.Box 3 9 ;li ritd, Ie t t 2rI2' (a r 3)or a9 4171 ', »'-- ,_ ✓wr'" ---"" .---- .-, ..-_ ._ 1. a x • • •,:;Fw'r.,,h.,.k..,»,'N..,..m.«w;.«+.++++,+M.w,,.w+-n+.I.,.+....+lA....r....a...n.a...«,..re*3k!5..,.i9R50Jx.io,11:'Mln u. x... ...w,,..,.,un,..»......a...«.,«L«..;.1 1.-u: #a.AY t._...... ...«... .n.,a ......«..;,,,....., a:,«.....�«t;' i.„+,.y .w +:u.nl.+zw._.•ur- «: ,: •'.w�-,..:i.u:. ..0 .,. w.,,c':,...� d' y ' the This demand by the Director • floodplain boundry. y . 1 constitutes an unlawful taking of a citizen's private property in violation of the Constitution of the United r States 5th Amendment and in violation of the Constitution of Oregon Article 1, Section 18. b ' (B) Paragraph 3 , page 1 Staff Report . The Director illegally demands Dolan relinquish their Constitutional rights to oppose or remonstrate against the formation of a Local Improvement District or similar device formed in the future to reconstruct main Street , This demand by the Director is illegal and violates Dolan's Constitutional guarantees under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and in violation of the Constitution of Oregon Article 1, Sections 1 and 8 . (C) Paragraph 9, page 12 Staff Report . The Director requires an eight;foot wide paved pathway be installed by Dolan through the greenway. This demand is appealed for the reasons set forth in paragraph (A) above . (D) Paragraph 12 and Paragraph 14, page 12 Staff report 4 The Director' requires Dolan to remove certain signage prior to the occupancy phase of the development . The signage referred to by the Director was erected by Dolan With the permission of the City and in conformance . ' with city ordinances at the time of construction. The signage is integral to Dolan's business and its required removal constitutes an unlawful taking ±or which Dolan must . . compensated be y o nd the mere approval of their application, • I :m,:'.:,«i l..w:.; J......,w..+. 4w..1..:..«..,.,-M..,,1::/ w.....:r. L. ,.....::_. .,.-.. ::..... ......:.'...,... ..:«......,..„:aA... .. ,._....1,«..-.'..,. I.-_.t .. , .s.......,....a - yy AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING . STATE 0V OREGON County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard being first dui); sworn/affirm, on oath depose, and say: (Please Print) {�` S Zt-A/J- for That I am a� C�� /The City of Tigard, Oregon. That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING for: L.,---That I served NOTICE OF DECY ION for: c, =-' ty of Tigard Planning Director Tigard Plannifg Commission . Tigard Hearings Officer Tigard City Council a (Public Hearing Notice/Notice of Decision) of which is attached (Marked w A. copy _ d to each named persons at the address shows on the , Exhibit A , vas mailed I • • attached list marked t. "B" oo. the 1,0 day of said notice NOTICE OF DECISION as hereto attached,, was posted on an n boar. on the (5 day of appropriate bul3�eti � and deposited in the United States Mail on the I da y og postage prepaid. Bullet �.ttzre Person who posted on Board (For Decision Only) • erson who delivered to POST OFFICE'subsc'ribed and sworn/affirm to 'before me on the day of ' X� r t'OTA t.Y p'tQBt C OF o£,iCON ' hty dbmcalissian 8xpires= 1222L 0257p/0006P r , CITY OF TICARLI NOTICE OF DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW/VARIANCE ; : a. SDR 89-13/V 89-21 John T. and Florence Dolan APPLICATION: For approval to re-construct a general retail sales facility, A- Boy Electric Plumbing and Supply, with a new 17,600 square foot building. Also requested is a Variance to the required parking standard for general'`retail sales to allow 39 arkin p� g spaces where 44 are required. Location:` 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 251 2AC lot 700) . DECISION: Notice iM hereby given that the Planning Director's designee for the City of Tigard has APPROVED the above requests Subject to certain conditions. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted below. A. FINDING OF FACT 1. Background No previous applications have been reviewed by the Planning Division with respect to the subject site. Two freestanding billboard signs and one large roof sin on the property have been considered nonconforming as of March 20, 1988, and property and business owners were notified of this prior 'to that ti me. A voluntar compliance y p ance agreement was mailed to provide , affected downtown properties an extensior>, of time until a City Center Plan iS adopted. The voluntary compliance agreement was never signed4, The City has not yet adopted a City Center Plan. P p y owners have been cited for the following: ,• . . The ro ert and business ow nonconformitiee. 1. Roof sign, a violation of Section 18.114.070.B; and • 2. Two nonconforming, amortized billboards (illegal gal location), violations of Code Section 10.119 .090 A.4 a. 2 vicinity InforMat'ion Properties immediately In all directions are also toned and developed CBD=APB (Central Business District - Action Area). Property immediately the west contains the Fanno Creek floodplain .and is designated inoTi ard's Community Plan to be included., a City's g y as part of the ity's greenway/open spade system. S A F REPORT SDR 89-13/V 89.21 DOLAN PAGE 1 I I, • r ' iAA4....A'. .,•..,u. ..-::.n ..e.nJ:.........{..-w. ...+. An:•. r n:..i-,. .::1+,Nr.,... .. -.k,n xmr x,n,n. .....-.1r_n.Ir.. 4..nF r•,nlu..r.Jl J .....,. „r .r....,,._,w„. ..a v. _a.._. .. ._.-.:,I.An. .. «... !r ...v... ..._. 3. Site anfol°matioxi and Proposal The subject site is approximately 1.67 acres in size and is bordered by Fanno Creek on the southwestern side. There is a 9700 square foot • . building and partially paved parking lot which has been in its t, present approximately 1940s. A freestanding „ resent: �.oc�ation since a the late 1 sign`with a readerboard stands along the Main Street frontage of 'thy Property.y Two large,g , amortized billboards stand can or near the property's northeasterly property line. The applicants wish to raze the existing structure, currently used by A-Boy Electric and Plumbing Supply, a general retail sales use. The site will then be developed for a larger, 17,600 square foot 1,1i structure better suited to the nature of the business:t } The applicant is also requesting a Variance to City parking requirements for general retail sales businesses in that they wish to provide only 39 parking spaces when the Community Development Code requires 44 spaces. g . 4. Agency and NPO Comments Neighborhood Planning Organization #1 has reviewed the proposal and has the following comments: l <.•. The i d l�andSc:l:. a h., .h� trEe- near the sidewalk on the proposed wp plan could block the view of eastbound traffic. Also, the air conditioner should be provided with noise/sound screening. Finally; the NPO i expressed concern that a fence be constructed on the site after p i g building the existin buildin has been removed. northwest Natural Gas has reviewed the proposal and States that it has an existing 4-inch steel main 14 feet north of the centerline on SW Main Street and a service line to 12520 SW Main Street. The company Will require notification prior to demolition. R The Consolidated Rural Fire e District m no tes that fire flow requirements exceed 3300 gallons p e r minute. Automatic sprinkler � • protection or some other means of built-in fire protection Will be required Portland General ]electric, the Tigard Water District have reviewed y ha�`e r the proposal and have no objections to it. The City Building Division states that an 8--foot' tall solid plywood • fence /pu right-of-way • alon must SW behind Main Street (from southwestern property line to a minitttum of 20 feet beyond the new building) prior to start of construction and must remain until all constructs yn is complete (Uniform Building code section 440/(c) .. A demolition, permit will be .` required for the removal of any or all of the existing bulildi i i o STA.I F REPORT' SDR 89-X13/V 89-21 �:. •1> q 1 • h . tl I • ...F ...ud.,„..x u. ..:..„,:i.w. ................+,......i ,....� w,,.,A .. mar.' w.. ..._»...«wrtJ.,w._....,...•._.,r,A.„..._-._,. ..,.r•!•,. .r,.id:L.,...•...,+ .::l,l.,.,.. ..1. _ 'fir tl The City En ineerin Division, has reviewed the proposal and has the y g' g P P •. following comments: a. Main Street is a major collector street and is currently fully . dG7c'deed with curbs and sidewalks. A plan developed earlier ?' ' this year by the City Center Plan Task Fbrce calls for reconstruction of Main rbreet. However, this plan has not yet +��• .been formally adopted by the City and design details are not yet r.. available. The improvements proposed by the City Center Plan Task all be accomplished w ,thin the existing 80 foot aslx :force can a e a p h� ex right-of-way. A 1986 engineering study of the condition o f Main Street • recommends that the pavement be completely reconstructed and that the storm drainage system be replaced. • It appears to be impractical to perform proposed �• arm th® ,ra PP p p p �' reconstruction of Main Street in a Piecemeal fashion on ,a lot- b to y- occur in t basis; instead, the reconstruction needs to oc ° t? larger segments beginning at Fanno Creek Bridge and working propose that any recoi truction of uphill. Therefore, we do not rb ose+ • P• required condition of this development ,Nairn Street be re a.red as a cons proposal. : This development should be required to replace any existing sidewalks which are damaged or in poor repair and to reconstruct any existing, curb cuts which are being abandoned. b., As part of the Tigard Major Streets Transportation Safety Improvement Bond, the City plans to replace the main Street Bridge over Fenno Creek. The bridge r eplacement is tentatively h occur in 1990. The bridge expected tooccurawthin the existing right-of-way and should have little . impact on the subject site. c. The site slopes toward Fanno Creek; therefore adequate storm • drainage is available. ' d. The City's Master Drainage Plan recommends improvements to the Fanno Creek channeldownstream from Main Street: The proposed channel improvements would include widening and slope stabilization, These improvements would move the location of the to of p _pp. . t .. iy five feet closer to the proposed b building than n the location of the existing top of bank. p bicycle p P along ' 1 ro rased b. the Pathway is to be revised al ; • e� If a edestr�.an ar�d bic c1.e a l anna Creep as P P by s Mast lan, a minimums of ,. • Park er P ten feet will be needed between the future top of bank and the proposed building, Typically, new developments along Fanno • Creek are required tdedicate greenway te pr, o tec t the flood ' plain and to Provide for the park pathway s ystem. STAFF REPORT -- SDR ,ter ' a i • wr r •.� -' .. ;..m , w r f. Two sanitary sewer trunk lines cross the site in an existing ,_' )' easement. One line is 24 inches in diameter and the other is 60 inches in diameter- Therefore, adequate sanitary sewer service is readily available. The new building has been designed to stay clear of the existing sanitary sewer easement. g. The applicant has requested a Variance on the parking requiremt.nts, arguing that the proposed usage of the building generates little parking demand. However, it is possible that the usage of the building will change in future years. It PP a e is adequate room on the site to provide parking in accordance with` the `standard Code requirements.� In P fact, the applicant indicates an intention to provide additional r° parking in the future. Therefore, we recommend that the, variance be denied. No other comments were received. B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION { Section 18.120.180 lists the standards whereby the Director is to approve, approve with modifications or deny a request for site . development review approval. In addition to those contained in Chapter 18.66,P Central Business District, the following sections of the Tigard .. Comm •, 1.8.6 Xreas�n1Cha Chapter 18 1.00 Landscaping are also applicable: Chapter 1a. , Action y Development able Cho 86 Ac �'. gi Chapter 18.102,Areas; p � aping .and. Ss~reenzn Cha trey 18,1L12 Visual : Clearance Areas, Chapter 18.106, Off-street Parking and Loading; Chapter 18.108 . Access, Bgress and Circulation; Chapter 18.114, Signs; Chapter n 18.120, Site Development Reviewp and Chapter 18.134, Variances. 4 In addition to all of the above approval criteria staff will discuss the proposal in light of the Parks Master Plan for 'anno Creek Park and �., the natural resourCe,a element of the City's Comprehensive�rehensive Plana Permitted Use in the,Central Business District • 4, The applicant intends to construct a new and larger structure suited for .) a general retail e s use. The site its presently occupied by a general retail sales use but never reviewed by the City for compliance with City e s permitted ti ' outright inp,t)ie� regulations. (Central CBb � general nu�iness� s � District,tr�.ct, ACt'<ion Area. zone and therefore the use is acceptable for this site Any use in the CBD-AA zoning distr�ot must meet a 30 j r� 7 any+ j + foot building . property abuts a residential Zoning district. Since none of the four sides of the ro. arty abti,t a P p y 1 1 residential zonin g district, no other building setback requirements have to be met. In the CS')-AA zo�zoning district, max�mum site coverage ,re g ulations allow up to 85 Per cent of the site to be covered with a STAFF REPORT - SDR 80-13/V 89-21 -- boLAN PAGE 4 • - ..u4.«..(,... . ., ... » .,kM.l.-...1«-+i.,,.»u,•u..r .r.•........-. w.� .. r� ,..,.._.v,.t., .......i.h4.....0 ..,-.....•.I..a.... .. .. ...1,r,.r-+,., .A • IP , - ' structure(s) and impervious surfaces such as parking, loading and ,;;', f pathway';areas. This will be analyzed during a discussion of landscaping %.„_.) p', and screening below. • . Action Area Overlay "Alai portion of the subject site's zoning designation indicates "�J that an additional "layer" of zoning regulations hats been imposed on r►ilementthe Property. ol�ies� of the the Action Area Overlay designation is to P p Tigard Comprehensive Plan for `;,` g F action areas which include provisions f or a mixture of intensive land use. Since permitted underlying s lthe Action Area Overlay zone ':must be those sp ■ ecified ied the zoning district, in this case, the CP,D, this requirement has been met. ,e 040 Code contains interim standards which are to be addressed t for new develorments in the CBD-AA zone. These requirements ' are intended to serve trio use and to provide for projected public facility needs of the area. The City may attach conditions to any development within an action area prior to adoption of the design plan • to achieve the following objectives; ". . ' s l w a. The development shall address tr ansit usage by residents, .employees, and customers if the site is within 1/4 Mile of a public transit line or transit stop. F .cif is items to be a addressed are as follows: i. Orientation of buildings and facilities towards transit services to provide fcyr direct p pedestrian access into the building(s) from transit lines or stops; ii. Ma.ntinisizing as transit/auto Conflicts by providing d,act im�, in transit Y p access into the building with limited e w srossinga in automobile circulation/parking areas. If pedestrian access crosSee automobile rY ti circulation/parking areas, paths shall be marked for pedestrians; , xii. 8nCouraging transit-supportive by limiting ` automobile support services to colles✓tbx° and arterial. streets; and iv. Avoiding nr�r. � `. n � � cCere.l parking areas'� y � ] wa adacentdeeLoF meat to use share, surface , parking/ p arkIn g Structures or under-structure_ L parking ; +,. :. b. The develo ment shall facilitate pedestrian/b'icy .le c dilation The F +c it . t With designated bike 1 or ` adjacent to a designated nated 'ree pates v r �f the site is located on a s�tree wa: o en s ace t g 5 �' F p park. � ec , f Ite�►s to be ��ddress' �d are as fol]�owe. STAFF REPORT - SDE 89-13/V' 89-21 - DOLAN PACE 5 I$7 d /' } • .r..IJ..+lrw..41. .LL..wIlly:,».4,,.-:1„. n .„w• ..�.�{ .I.,......,. ..«,a,,. .Irv...-w n.w. ,r..+ *.. .,. u i w+. ` r �^ 9 1 I. Provision of efficient, convenient and contiauoue ' . pedestrian and bicycle trans"i.t c'ircu at on systems, linking developments by requiring dedication and construction of pedestrian and bike paths identified • .•�, in the comprehensive plan. If direct connections I r cannot be made, require that funds in the amount of the construction cost be deposited into an account for the purpose of constructing paths; ii. Separation of auto and truck circulation activities from pedestrian areas; iii. Encouraging pedestrian-oriented design by requiring pedestrian walkways and street level windows along all sides with public access into the building; ' of bicycle parking as required under �.v. Provision Subsection 18. 106.020.P; and v. Ensure adequate outdoor lighting by lighting pedestrian walkways and auto circulation areas,.. c. coordination oordination of development within action area. Specific items to be addressed are as follows: i. Continuity and/or compatibility of landscaping, circulation, , other i. improvements. Allow required access, public facilities, and. of p � landscaping areas to he grouped together. Regulate shared access where appropriate. Prohibit lighting which shines on {, adjacent pro p ert y; . ii. S a.x.� ' Siting and orientation of land use which considora surrounding land use, or an adopted plan. Screen loading areas and refuse dumpsters from view.'- Screen 1 commercial, industrial�. from single-family .. ciao: anindustrial use f residential through landscaping; and iii, Provision frontase roads or shared access where Provision e' Geasible. I Them sit i _ice l.:' proposal at isfies the above requirements for sub�t,itted develo went ro osal satisfies qii g.., p estrian/�aicycle circulation and coordination of this The plan with the action area. screening of the truck p sa ed ! uck loading area. oan be ! accomplished with `t g p �� 1� either a fence or tall vegetation. outdoor lighting y should be specifically addressed by the lic nt as Might be (,, pp to how it rr1 provided STAFF REPORT - 89-13/V • 1 I I , e•. w e i w i a�andacapi:ng and Screening . qu planted on . section 18.100*03.0 of the Code requires that 'street trees be properties with a public street frontage of at least 100 feet. The proposed landscaping plan street tree along the SW Main Street . frontage where three to four are requited depending upon the mature size. of the selected apec'res. Staff recommends requiring the provision of " • street trees landscaping plan. The applicant proposes to n e cover a roxtmatel 21 percent of the site with` natural or man-made reed on a revised la landscaping. This satisfies the `minimum requirement of mum' landscaping recsuire 1Ea percent in the CE D--AA zone. F • Staff also aesthetic the rear of a commercial so has ak se is concerns abo ut g g City's ocal point and community building fronting on what is to be the pp proposed for the west side oil ► center. It appears that the ro odes the building will not provide sufficient screening from Fanno Creek.. This aspect of the plan should be amended to provide improved screening t; - of the 16-foot high wall. The site plan does not indicate where the �' business' dumpster will be located. Staff notes that this area must also be screened. . M �Vision .Clearance ��• .t The ornamental pear tree intended to go immediately to .::ro posed driveway need not be relocated out of this area because 4 • p p � Y type y g, ;�.t is in a vision clearance area, this t e of tree riia grow to a mature ,height of 15n 25 feet. So long as none of the branches 1 extend below eight feet in heights staff g g does not think the tree will 1 pose a vision clearance Problem. Of f-street Parkins and Loading • The applicant proposes to construct 39 standard 90-degree parking. , spaces, one of which will be for handicapped customers. Th e spades meet d for off-site parking. live landscape the ds are also e shown e�A discussion of the Variance requested elan qu Pertaining to parking space number follows later in this report. The Code requires one se cure bicycle parking arkn g s p ace for every 1 required a utomobile spaces. In this Cases a minimum of two bicycle parking spaces I. The�• are needed. t site plan indicates a proposed' location for the bike rack but does not indicate how many spaces will be provided. The bicycle design should also be submitted to the Planning Division for review p prior to its installation. Access, Egress and Circulation The requirements of the Accede, 1gresei and Circulation have been Satisfied. 1 STAFF )N.T * SOU 89-13/V 89-21 - 1 OL N PAGE '' rvr.r.!=wA,w.w.r,-:n ..1 r .:.J.„.41-,-r.N•«..i,'/Y+1.,.=i l.. w The applicant has proposed no new signage in conjunction with this ,'. • application. The existing freestanding sign will be removed. All new wall and freestanding signs must be reviewed by the Planning Divisiou City Sign Code. . prior to, their erection for conformance with the C,,.t 5i n , The two freestanding billboard s g ns and one large a roof sign have been considered nonconforming as of March 20, 1988, and property and buSineas owners were notified of this prior to that time. Once the existing building has been razed, staff assumes that the roof sign will also be permanently removed from the site; re-erection of this nonconforming roof sign would be illegal under the provisions of the City Sign Code. The site plan is unclear as to the fate of the two billboard signs. The two billboard signs are in direct conflict with Code Section ` that the approval of a Site Development 18.12b.18®, which requ.�red p d Review be conditioned on the proposal's ability to comply with all other applicable p.rovisions of the Code, including the Sign Code' in Chapter 18.114. The two billboard signs are nonconforming, amortized freestanding Signs. Since neither the property, business owner or sign , , , g voluntary compliance agreement With the City, thereby affording signed v grace period to remove these signs, full compliance g g p with the provisions for nonconforming, amortized signs should be required irec as a condition to tills compliance include approval. Com l�.ance would complete removal of both signs. • site Development Review' Code Section 18.120.180.A.8 requires that where landfill and/or 1;/ development is . allowed within or adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, area for sufficient ii�ant o en land ar.�. dedication of sub greenway' adjoin ng and within the floodplain. This area shall • . shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the Construction of a pedestrian/ ' bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordande with the adopted � ` A path ire 'also required part of the Action on 1.8.86.04©.A T1 erefore pedestrian/bicycle overlay� le plan wired as1:b ij tra.an�bic��c Area y designation (Secti dedzCata.on of the land area on this property below the elevation of the 100-year floodp1ai.n and construction of, or the financial assurance of construction of a bicycle pathway should be a condition to any approval application. to this; The Engineering Division has noted that an adjustment of the buildinc, _ y pathway and the band location Ywrilx. have � �ro of to accommodate future Cat. initiated relocation p � be�, y�- •no u1d . . . d on a revised flood plain re uire' �evised sate plan. • � g the f to STAFF REPORT - S Aft 89-131V 80-21 . DOLA 1 - FACE a �1 • ,• a, r a• • l .: - parkir!,g Variance w, The applicant is requesting approval of a Variance to al1�w only 39 parking spaces where 44 spaces are required by,the Code. Section 18.134.050 of the Code contains criteria L' ria wherek�y the D a.rector , • can approve, approve with modifications or deny a variance request. They are: (1) The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Code, be in conflict with the � policies of the Comprehensive Plan, to any other applicable policies of the community Development l„pmont Code, to any other applicable policies and • to properties zoning district or vicinity, ' her ra erti.es in the dame zon,i.n. diet (2) There are special c ircumstances that exist which are Peculiar e size or shape, topography to the lot p , or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; , (3) The proposed will be the same as ��aer�►itted under this Code ( � Pr and city standards will be poss.�ble, while permitting some economic use of f the land greatest extent �! g o�►ic land; (4) Existing physical and natural Systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely f y affected any more than would occur if the development were located as s in the Code• edified •� . P ,, and (5) The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship: Special cir cumstanc es exist which are peculiar to this lot. The t. . applicant proposes to construct this project in two Phases: the firs � P �,a. t phase consists of construction of the new building on the southwestern portion of the • property,y� existing building would t heb be demolished.a pp licant hopes to attrac t a complimentary business(es) to b uild - on Parking Portion phase 2. additional the northern onion of the lot us part of p phas Should ng be required` the applicant suggests that a shared parking arks p i arrangement could be worked out with the adjacent structure. Moreover, the applicants own tar lot 400 to the southeast, which might also be 1 , used for parking purposes The applicant PP points out that the More does not attract "browser or ",. y Y Y retail/Wholesale window sho 4ers r al.e • 7 .,. Pp , in that the h'�siness const�.t�tes a r type of 1-•4 ,Hess which sells bulky merchandises, The latter fact ',results ,. advance of trajrel that a Product the attraction of customers who decide in rid Y Y . ., . Y Y is needed and travels to a Specific destination ... •pplicant cites the fact that the existing Y .. .y than six' o Y eight y �as�in store Yarel has more tha� r si em ploy ees of the business qu Parking sj aces and perhaps w :Llcalsr�are a are one time. Staff notes that, de��i�rer t,riicka will need 6 '.. ° P �' l STAFF DEPORT - SDfl 89-13/v 89-21 'w- DO - PAAE 9 tl «.., x....,,«.,......a. k.,...«.-...n....F .............N..w. ..1...,aa.. L'1:.•r,..v .,.,N •..,..•.,,..--,a,r..r......... xw..,.M .w.M.+rv.,.w....-.,.0•.......+n..,...«.. ..._x. ..l:l-... ...«•..t✓ A.r l.w • I� to park and unload.. on the property; however it is clear that the . . existing ore use will not need 44 parking spaces. Th e City agrees that the present use is similar to a "general retail sales, bulky Merchandise" use. If the City were to employ the parking standard used ; es . for retail. sales'businesses sea which sell bulky merchandise, ' namely 1 space ' for every 1000 square f f gross floor area but not less than 10 l ,. spaces, it is clear th at the Proposed p used 33 spaces is well within City • parking re quirements. ? Although the use of the building may later change, alternatives are available in conjunction with the future phase of construction on this Property. If a new use, which has a higher Parking demand, occupies the ' building, a new site development review and evaluation of parking would be required. The issue of parking space number will also be evaluated as part of the site development review for phase 2 of this development. The use will be the same as permitted by City regulations and e;itist ,ng physical and natural systems will not be affected by this proposal. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variance request subject to one condition which is noted below. Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park Fanno Creek Park is a communit y p ar t located along Fanno creek between Main Street and SW Sall Boulevard in the Central Business District. The site lies within the 100-year floodplain and immediately abuts the subject property along its southwestern property 'line. It is hoped that ` the entire park will eventually contain 35 acres. The dedication of the land area within the 100-year flood lain and construction of Ma Pathway in that area on the subject property is consistent with the City's park plans for the areas In the City's Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park, it is stated that Fenno Creek Park is intended to become the focal point for community, act , civic A paved urban plaza, an cultural. • and recreational a.vitxes amphitheater, an English water garden, pathways, a tea house, a man-made enlargement of the existing pond, as well as preserved natural areas are all components foreseen for this area. p ea: The proposed development presently under review will immediately abut the outskirts y planned y p Closest point,of would be no more than eight feet from the outer boundary of the 100 ear Y 100-y ear The gineering Division has indicated that the proposed 1 structure should be at least 10 feet away from the relocated outer bank in order to accommodate an eight foot wide g pathway and the planned reconstruction of the drainage channel along the floodplain. his indicates that an adjustment to the eMen,t of the building structure nx.�e ne lac- �" .. h� storms. d -a epoha ,. �accommoda on the site would be necessary in order ' to adequately to the � • path and vegetative srteen ng up to the relocated bank of the storm drainage channel. , STAFF REPORT ,- SbR 89-13/V 89-21 - JOLAR - PAGE 10 • • .. .,.• .,..r,. ,.z r.•. .� ,.•M .,.. ."... ,..x .a•....•. ,w,.....• •..x.•,,. .. .,. ",. ,,...,.., r,. N,_...,• w,• •,. , ,.,.• .,.•.,r. .,,,•.,« .,r .,n.. .. •, a•a,u ...,,.,,. .x.,..... ,..: rl...n nl.... n r..i.rr. l r ,r......r, v.IFrA rte:.».nv_n..w-'w,.. n.....I r..w......,a.......«:..... -.J.'..v,...... ....r»✓u,...4..«.ew.-:....d ....::...h...0,.41•w_,v...u._r r J.a • .. i , r.rJr. ......r v....0. ...r.»w ...rtr. �, ...r,. .n...wr-. .,.w. .n.✓„.._....... •u r r L r C. DECISION , The Director's designee for the City of Tigard hereby approves SDR 89- . 1:3 and V 89-21 Subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions: UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS' SHALL BE MET PRX9R TA ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 1 1. The applicant shall dedicate to the City as greenway all portions of ),; • ∎ the Site that fall within the existing, 100--year floodplain (i.e., all portions of the property below elevation. , . � p P, p y '150.d) and all property ' • 15 feet above (to the east of) the 150.0 foot floodplain boundary. A monument boundary survey showing all new title lines, prepared by a registered P sion rofess nal land surveyor, Shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to recording. The building ;shall be g greenway STAFF CONTACT designed 'so as not to intrude into the reenwa area. Jon Feigion, Engineering Division' (639-4171). 2. The applicant shall, obtain written approval from unified Sewerage , Agency of Washington Cot nt for connection the Unified Seweage y 'ran to t Agency trunk- line rior to issuance of .a building permit.Agency p g p STAFF . CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Division (639_4171) r 3. An agreement shall be executed by the applicant, on forma provided by the City, which waives the property owner's right to oppose or remonstrate against the formation of a future Local Improvement District or similar device formed to reconstruct Main Street. STAFF CONTACT: Jon Feigion, Engineering Division, (639-4171). 4. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing: 1) building plans` which show the proposed design and location of outdoor iw . lighting and rooftop mechanical eg ipment; 2) the provision of at leas two secure bicycle ?narking spaces -- the rack design shall be submitted to the Planning b&vision for review and approval;' 3) the }: location and screening of the trash disposal relocation • area, 4) the r of the hash ane building outside of the a and 5) minimum of 39 parking spaces. STAFF CONTACT: Debo ah Stuart, Planning Division (639-4171). t 5. The applicant Shall submit a revised landscaping plan showing. 1) 1 l , vegetative screening along the entire length of the Site's s rear Or ' southwest»ern property line; 2) screening for the trash disposal area; and r3) the installation of Street trees along the Main a frontage. STAFF CONTACT: Deborah Stuart, Planning Division Main street , 41/1) - 6. The a licant*s en sneer surve or Shall locate and clearly mark the ' � a � Pp g .. � y y lob-year floodplain boundary prior to commencement of construction. Flood plain boundary :.Harker: shall be Main: throughout P � p y ta�.ned throu bout the erica; of construction. STAFF CONTACT: Jon Feigion, Engineering Division (639-4171) * STAEF RBPORT - SDR 89-13/V 89.21 - ?O '- PAGE 11 s f'. ,,,it., J,,u.. .d. ,,. .,w... •J...4,n, .i ...x. •� . .ep .,-. 1. ..r. 1.. „n.r.. ...., v,. v nl r Ate' • , . ' R8 f F i 7. A demolition permit shall be obtained prior to demolition or removal Northwest of any structures on the site. The applicant shall notify Natural Gas prior to demolition. STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division (639-4171) . 8. The applicant install an 8-foot tall solid plywood fence t shall' an�•tal behind the sidewalk/public right-of-way along SW Main Street (from the southwestern property line to a minimum of 20, feet beyond the new building Y w su ldang to the northeast) prior to start of construction and must . remain until all construction is complete (Uniform Building Code section 4407(c) . STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division (639.- 41171) . ' , 9. An eight-foot wide paved pathway shall be installed by the applicant, through the greenway. Flans for path construction and location Shall be submitted for review and approval to the Engineering Division. The path must be constructed to City standards Areas adjacent to the pathways must be graded and revegetalbed to facilitate mowing and v=ehicular. access. STAFF CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Division (639-4171). THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SALT BE SATISF'I 'ED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A a OCCUPANCY C PERMIT s; oy f 10. All landscaping materials and other proposed site improvements shall be installed or financially assured prior to occupancy of any • struloture. STAFF CONTACT: Deborah Stuart, Planning Division (639 4171) . t 11. A11 new signage must receive approval by the Planning Division prior to erection of the Signage STAFF CONTACT: Deborah Stuart, Planning DiviSion 639 D ( -4171 . 12. The two nonconforming, amortized billboards and support structures Shall be completely removed from the proporty prior' to occuparicy of phase one of this development. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden, Planning Division (639-4171) 13' As a coniditon of the occupancy permit, the applicant shall be required to replace any portions of the existing sidewalk along ;Main Strreet Which are damaged or in poor repair and to reconstruct any existing curb cuts which are being abandoned. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering Division (639. 4171). 14. The ecisting roof Sign shall be 9 permanently removed from the subject property. i THICS` Al?PR011iAL SQL BE ''VALID FOR EIGHTEEN (1E) MONTHS FROM THE DATE''OF THE FINAL DECISION NOTED BELOW STAFF REPORT -- SDR 8J-13/V 89-21 -- DOLAN PAGE 12 • E II D .. ti.w,.♦r..:.„..,.....«...x«e.4., .is.r.�::..a.l...ww....-,.• . I w .«...,,.i: i :. ..w.»,.—r w.w..............:.u.rm.ua......:J:.:.. ,x♦.-w—r. 4 4..n«h..r,...♦,r•4.1.�W..arw—. "... 'li-♦.....f..-.-..4.4.:yal a I:...t...., . 44 A.,I ♦ • D. PROCEDURE 1. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: X The applicant and owners'- X Owners of record within the required distance X The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization X Affected; government agencies • 2. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON 7/20/89 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. f' 3. A.PtPeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in .,` accordance with Section 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.370 of the Itt xl Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal must be filed with the City Recorder within 10 days after ,notice is given and sent. Appeal tee schedule and forms are available at Tigard City Hall, Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. • d C�.t Hail 13125 SW The deadline for filing of an appeal is 3:30 pan. July 20, 1989. 4. Q stions: If you have questions, please call City of Tigard Planning Department, City of Tigard City (all, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. • � I I ' I I • I ,REPARED BY: Deborah Stuart, Asst. Planner DATE ” , } APPROV1 D B :. Keith S. Liden, Senior Planner DATE I ♦ ' I1 T I I • 222,,, 111I i • I I YI I � r ST S' ]DEPORT` SDR 89-13/V 89-21 D®LAN - PAGE 13 II ' I Y ^ I p , I I. ..1,.«.n—,_ ,,,.w.<,.:w.....4., ,....0 ....... .........:.u..l..0 ..w+.l....-.-.....i;i.. ._../:',..+....,w. W..4;»„-.--. ....a., ...+e..w M.. .....,+.-_- ..-1,... I DO. •' DENNIS C. & LYNNE M. THOMPSON p523 S.W. 62ND DR. 'I SDR 89-13/V 89--21 Dolan/A—Bo;� PORTLAND, OREGON 9'727 9 7.100 4900 JOHN T. & FLORENCE DOLAN •OTTO SORG MARY ANN H. DREESZEN :,w. 7344 SE FOSTER BY FIRST INTERSTATE RANI: OF OREGON' 13200 S.W. HOWARD DR. PORTLAND, OR 97206 P'.0. -PDX 2971 TIGA.RD; OREGON, 97223 .• PORTLAND, 1OREGON 97208 , . .. 1200 4800 ALBERT 9500'ERT R. KENNEY, JR.' SL AFIRST REAL I STATE GROUP GENERAL TELEPHONE. COMPANY SW BARBUR BLVD S.. 111 101 S.W. MAIN #1520 OF THE NORTHWEST ' ' PORTLAND, OR .97219 '..',,, PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 P.0. BOX 1003 .• 1 EVERETT; WASHONGTON 98201 ' DT goo At. CaOTT' MICHAEL J. HEUVELHORST i 5000 13230 SW HILL CT MARGARET MC DAID TIGARD, OR 97223 p GEORGE S KADEY1 I.A. r 12551 S.W. MAIN 9225 SrW. BURNHAM ST. ST. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 TIGI?.RD, OREGON. 07223 500 900 CHARLES L. & ARLT.E WOOD ARD EUGENE. L. & VIVIAN'D.AVIS I 1 , . P.O. BOX 23303 4550 •S.W.1 L ' ONWARD i TIGARD, OREGON 97223 BEAVERTON, ,:OREGON 97005 .i . boa 510 .' 2ao � • ; - LYE ALEX, LOTTI & HANS CHRISTIAN 11272 S.W.'.CAPITAL HWY. FINKE °s RICHARD L. & BIRBRA J. PORTLAND, aREGON 97219 P.O. BOX 23562 DRINKWATER , TIGARD, OREGON 97562 9205S.W: BJRNHAM' ' PORTLAND, OREGON 91206 30 0 JOHN T. & FLORENCE DOLAN C S x:025 S E' BROOKLYN ST. I PORTLAND, OREGON .97202 200 2200 X200 :FU R ER 5 .. COT r , GEP.�.LD C. � J0A1V' L. CACH 7 REAL FSTA,�E PARTNER,�Hp PAGE N STEVENS i 9185 S.W. 15170 S.W. .SUNRISE BURNHAM RD.•9180 S W. BURNHAM RD. DANE r TIGARI , O 97223 TIGARD; oRGON` X72?3 I'IGARD, OREGON 97223 I 20.2 2400 7 . r i SOUTHWEST PORTLAND PARTNERSHIP DONALD E: &' SHIRLEY 3ANS0N 2121 H.' COLtUMEiA tLVD P.d ' 1�OX 12 _ ■, , ' L , a. .PORTLAND, OREGON 1 9721`7 WEMME, OREGON' 97067 20'3 1 CI!1SC OF TIGfiRD , P.O. BOX 23397 I 12420 S.W. MAIN TIGARD, OREGON 97223 ' • 1107. 1 2402 . JOI-4N R. .WILLIAM H. r. 5c t & LUIS GU L AJD, 1:40 , TON.Tai 1�1'ON ,H.' 140`95 S.WY ItAP.GIS RE. DANIEL & MIRIAM nERTULEIT , DEAEtTONy OREGON 9720 % MARV'IN " R. & (AT14 N ANKELE 1,,�a. '.•12511 S.W'1 MAIN ST. 1 ■ y wz,�. N " 2.� I ,sW' ®� rr III ).7), III N a ,t \ �.4` � S.W. 1 OAk ST" ;..._j ..±,,.,, \\\, ,c. \„ g • . • ( 7 , , \ , , ' \\ , ./ r� a _ ® C__....• y. 1,.,.....4•„ / `� �i r S.W. SHADY I N. - N. .__ r 9�L I' - 0.VO, „ •'• 1 a ®a® ., ,, .J 5.W. Nov:, T o THORN J ill / ,, < o� ASH _ J ®®� ..iM!s sr:----' — ' Ei ., er., '".:•., w w wo.II S.W. r` NOflTN 'r AkOri t2: 1 STREET WI :11 !i U r � .r, i C� I . ,, i ,i .0,, ,,..jfill ma. 4 fa v m F ® ME W! -T' I will .4 ,...m 111111 III , . ,- •• . . ,,,, ... , -- ' - > . ,,,,,,,.. ... Impi , , _ s _ _ ,. ,, , . NI i , ,, Nit L 4 It INIIII, E III , k , , ::,'Hr, I ST, ® M E —® ® 490 M. 1111111 " ral' ' ir ,, •..„,',4,.', . . 1...,...... / , , --44Gisil Msvi, I.EWIS L rst.,,,. .ti iiiiiii S.W. in , , , . 0 , \\\ ,,,,, ,,, 1,,,. . ® W wine TaMrELA.__ T. ®Ill •-• , 4..., �1 \`\ 1, S'�W.TANGELA ,' Sd 91 1' M AooW s:t °oT 2 ; ar, 0., a E, t • T� ,� rte . '4' . ® � mil.•�1.;im I S,W. ATHERdItE' r 8 .. ti SWy 1 * 63,5 pp ! } 5 r CE 1.1*.9 J6 L 6, . 1,4fp ' ,,,,,,G0'4.441.11),"„..6 0., 411r, ,,2 I . , ' :, .' ''t r, .. 0"-' C'41'4'14,/ y'� '�4 *�.I',.',, 5n41. eiilak p * ' y {lei ' FF !rs X11 ii Y . d �A.41,14, .S'L S,W:JO 1.,� � ` 4 i ' *` 0,,,,.':' ` 1 `r1,p i. �. .y ri. i . r a.0 iii ..:r r.r . . ,.,:':"7:4 Ail 'j ..,, ro\<1., ,,,P. ,,,,'' , -■P'.. *104,4'. ■eN, / 414111 t . Ire. ' ,� I "� „,,,,, 1,,,r,,,,,tHri '). 411FA , • " .' *,,4.4. ' ''. r/,* 4 40.0 4,, , 4,4* •, ,. p...•! :• .`',4-A& . . . ' l'el('s , ' 11;0•H ''' '-i" 4,- # • IS 44., ,,,.. ; . '...-`, '` ' , ', .. ' . , . ' - • V / AP ,04,44.,,. , , ,,,_441,i, , cEir 4 ' , •.,.. 1 .„_ iii, ..: v: LEMENTAti °� m ' ,4 ' s.W, ' • r.. a klNs p� s�dsP 44 own NL �a sT. • • +wN.T.. 4 x. ,, � �� °e, � , , , El ' ,., . :,,_ ,, . . I. ll ��°•4 *,. , . TK CIVIC® V q'a{y, r CENTER AR �' ®�.� 41�� 'III 1111 ��wpm/ yc ,"v�•� I ,",o` .,5Eh tt„ 1 itIA.Ot ,." ~k IN ; !4 n_ FI-T:FR gook L A,'' 4' t �r SIE GE kF immt ®■ Xi NT •") h ® u NI t ,, , ,iii �� . g l � ® ` .'1" tit ., g ■ ► el : . l'. / 5 . p ‘i...,;� • ' .• „,,. 7_L-,[t_ • , . . r.”, , ,,7 . .„.. , L 4.`(>-INN, '1 ' '' r ''''''' ' '"*.'n ro I. ; 'i4' CITY OF TIGARD OIEGON ' • i • SITE DEVELOPMENZ REVIEW APPLICATION . K hh CITY OF TIGARD, 13125 SW Hall, PO Box 23397 a FOR. ' . �• 0 STAFF ONLY , 639-4171 � Tigard, 503 639.-417. d Oregon 97223 -- (503) CASE TQO. ""( ` "q " . 1 OTHER CASE NO'S: • RECEIPT NO. ?:; i, APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY: 1_____X________ DATE: '` 1. GENERAL INFORMATION A'3plicati• n elements s, bmitted: Y • PROPERTY ADDRESS/ I,OC TIO d "" A N,�rf � 'tom f i''" A A. ( ) Application :fora (I) . 1 S 7°'f ; - AB) Owner's signature/written TAX MAP AND TAX LOT NO, 'I`- 1,...,„, be � � authorization i . '2,1— 2,. —./AC RI .. (C) Title transfer instrument SITE SIZE .' j E del i ^:" (D) Assessor's map (1) I: PROP RT`X OWNER/DEED ffOLDER* jQ(f'4-t »-,..OtZ- '1JC,g ' ✓(E) Plot plan (pre-app checklist) i1) ADDRESS %5,44 3 i FQsr . PHONE ' ,2.5"--9'4'6 9 ,L..-1 P) Applicant's statement ,l`, CITY ..'"i"`�.. .1, c.d -.._ ZIP -l_ _rte (pre-app checklist) I . \: APPLICANT* E , w A - e' « '`=✓ J fi,, ° _ �''EU) List of property owners and r ' \, ADDRESS f,/ w eLi ,,.h ill PHONE '' . _ add •ess»s within. 250 feet l ,f CITY t"`)/'�.,Z""/..� ' _ ""- ZIP ____ `tAii) Piling, fee ( t' 0-0 ) f *When'the owner and the applicant are different 1 • people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record , or a lessee in possession With written authorization DATE DE E' NED TO BE COPfiPLETE: ii from the owner or an agent of the owner with written l'•f, authhoriz: .tion. The owner(s) must sign this application in the space provided on ..P g a a two or FINAtL DECISION DEADLII " E: ,;W ,a ` / submit a written authorization with this application. • . COMP... PtAN/ZONE DESIGNATIONt 2, PROPOSAL SUMMARY I owners of record of the subject property "" , The oa' request site develop the approval to N.P.O. umber ' r�ec( p nt review apps . 0 • allow .+ 11,..x '.w"` C� ,,c l `r,,, 4, Approval bate. 8 L, S 111. 4C.11. i ''" t".. ( >t'`°, A LA 4 e - 1 1 B )t c ,..e.'.1:____ Final 'Approval Date , anming En i , • Rev'd 5/87 • I I . A, d • r..wr • },[...-.•.,...•! :Ic..,.'..7 m«.,,w..d....,..lt......,.:_ .,...._.r-'L ,.,..«:w. ,a..,..,.,.,. „u.,.-r..:. . ., ..,. .,�ry....+ti_,_.J.,«..-J:.a ..«rc;:,i.,-:J: .�:m.0. • • I : 3. List any variance, conditional use, sensitive lands, or other land use actions , . to be considered as part of this application: ','` °��q/� ,�wn,�+,. � " G t, � JC Fe ` i'r`.. ,.'i.l�47l ''.1*z.. •;r ,_,�,. y,I�T' • b► F�+r E A'�Y Y n,,4 c0 m.T.D) 4. Applicants: To have a -complete- application you will need to submit attachmets described in the attached information sheet at the time you. submit this application. F r.a 5. THE APPLICANT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT: A. The above request does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed upon the subject property. B. If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. C. 41l of the above statements and the " statements in the plot plan, t attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this P , y any such statements are a lication May be revoked if it is found , p false. and that_ .a , • entire contents of the a 1 eaL3.on including read the ent D. The applicant has rea t pp the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. DATED this a� I da y of SIGNATURES of each a wuer (ego hus band and wife) of the � r r` r-. • r (KSL:pm/O524P) r , o-,, t,.s .,,,y,....r«1m .«A..+.JLG...µ,«.�.:,nwa.....w.«•':!. J:,r+...:.r..,.—,4.w.,..r:J:4«+n.,..a...J,r+n,...nw..t_JI.«..M+r..,,.+.wn.::...,....,....u..�...a... .«:::.: .«..... A,u.._«... ,:,-nMI+• + n ( 6 � ; X LXN r O r MAILING! � 'T A f�ZDA. X. � STATE OF O GO N !r �I R L County of Washington ) ss.. City of Tigard ) I 6 I/ �, A lk 'G�,rr(A,- , being first duty sworn./affirm, oa oath y y. tint) depose and. sa (Please l fi . r am'a k�..� � for r ha t I _ ' The City of Tigard, Oregon. • 7 ed NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING for: ' ,/r ,.�,ia r�r Ilse That I served NOTICE OF DECISION for: , City of Tigard Planning Director I Y 1 ,/" Tigard Plannin Commission g 4 , Tigard Hearings Officer Tigard City Council • i •� Hearing Notice/Notice of Decisiofl of which 'is attached (';:4arked, , A copy (PurU�. .c a a d to each naffed peroot s at the address shown r�, the i.,Exhibit fir ) was mailed list marked exhibit E.' on the . day of � - ,,,. , ° l • attachedl ' said notice NOTICE OF DECISION aS; hereto attached, was• posted on. .an appropriate bulletin board on the day of , —� �-� da of ..1 '' United States Mail. on the - y , . and c�epos�ite d. in tiL.. ,,' Y 1951 : postage prepaid. • ' r � 'V , 9 , ► _ ______....._ _______________________. Sign ttre Pecson v/1..-1.0 p®sled au Bt et a.rd r (For $)ecisi.art o 'y�, ;1.-. )& v\,, . ,.....t,. who d,...Iivered to IOF;',V I _0,1 , day' of 4 Eut�iscribed and sWOrci,/af,firm to before me on the • 9 q Y , n . y NOTARY P , l4 UnLIC or oREGQ y,Cowwi sion Expires , n 1�257P/0oo6� I � ',Et, • • •E thLJ • } N O T I C E O F P U B L I C HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TI'GARD PLANNING COMmISSIoN, AT ITS MEETING ON TUESDAY, August 8 1989, AT 7:30 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC a � . :.; CENTER, 131?.5 SW HALL BLVD., TIGARD, OREGON, WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION FILE NO.: SDR 89-13/V 89-21 NPO NO: 1 • FILE TITLE: Dolan/A--Boy APPLICANT: Albert R, Kenney, Jr, OWNER: John To & Florence Dolan Por 9500 SW Barbaur Blvd. 5-111 7344 SE Foster Portland, OR 97206 Portland, OR 97219 REQUEST: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPEAL SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN NPO 41 An appeal of a Director's deCisiori to approve the re-construction of a general retail sales facility, Amboy Electric Plurnba ng and Supply, " with a new 17,600 square foot buildinq on a 1.67 acre parcel subject ., to 14 conditions. The decision included approval to a Variance request to allow 39 parking spaces instead of 44 as required by the Code. Zone: CBD-AA (Central Business District - Action Ares). LOCATION: 12520 SW Main St. (WC'.C.M 281 2AC, tax lot 700) (See Map On Reverse Side) THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE' WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18 .32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FOR 18.30. ANY PERSONS HAVING INTEREST IN THIS ' " FORTH' IN C.I�.AP7'E�R MATTER MAY ATTEND AND BE HEARD, OR TESTIMONY MAY BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD OF THE HEARING. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER PRECLUDES AN APPEAL, AND FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE CRITERION FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT; CODS OR CbMPRIHENSIVE PLAN AT WHIcR A COMMENT IS DIRECTED PRECLUDES AN APPEAL BASED ON THAT CRITERION. VOA FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT 639 4171, , TIGARD C TY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BLVD , OR CONTACT YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD PANNING ORGANIZATION (NPO) ` 1 CCHAIRPERSON: Dax Gote, PHONE; NUMBER: 639-3065 d PS13.t • Apr .,, D I • I T : 1(1 A a 5 F.-- sTr ,. 1 • ;'': I [ 1 g ,,, Ng . - › m > 0 --,-1A, ,', . ,,i ,,! . ..1-/ --,, . , . .. ": ___ 1-_-..-...-- MIIIIIIKIF im ..... itlt — , N era . . ' MI MI __I-- — 1 9 cn r --.---1--- 'JG a _0--. -.., • , , . ....,. . 1.1 - I 1l SxW - . .I �! •,. ' S.w Ltd., •, C!: r-� 1 LEWIS, �p� �,G . .. ‘ ' gliO ,, S,j.,,,,,. 'AM' TANGEL.A T. ~�„,, 4111 A. Fig `, i r TANGEL.A ui cry , • �1 CT, ` . ; Sw � ' .*. ® 5'. p ONDOV p t CT 0 ,1/4)\ 4 i . S.VV Wr ' 1 '. ,. /..,, ,. - C Elk!7-4.a ,,it... - / . i ' $14$#$--......„.....„.....„............, Ap,ir ;a dip 4,, , , q ........ ,, 9 9 c ; `� If� s... 4,17'4*'/P0/ #� �# -.------. 0, / \ I , ,. ..... q ,, . .. '4‘ilw 4 1, 4/•$1,41,..,110, 1 ,,,,, ■ �r ce ` ‘ .. , , u , .., • > .....h ''''h.., "‘•,, 0,/ ' ''.: . 4401t. , (*ti)il)\r i ' d').' ?.''.i(' \A 0 440. 4S1144,t4S0:° 4''. ‘ 'aA 140 t • '''. ..' * ' N's / �■{gip♦ f ... ..IILLVV , , • * / . S. 4 1 '.6'''' 1 H h, I I %' . E.'7(`/t),1D(4 07 , ' 1 1 G23UU , s '' DENNIS C & LYNNE M. THOMPSON it 523 S.W. 62ND DR. ' PORTLAND, OREGON 97219 SDR 89--13/V, 89-21 Dolan/A—Boy ' 1100 4900 JOHN T. & FLORENCE DOLAN OTTO SORG MARY ANN H. DREESZEN • , 7344 SE FOSTER BY F IRST INTERSTATE BANK;OF On.EGON 13 200 S,W S.W. HOWARD DR. PORTLAND,1 OR 97206 P.0 BOX 2971 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 . , ''' PORTLAND, OREGON 97208 , 1200 4800 1 •;- Y, JR. . r�IRST_ REAL ESTATE GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY' '� '' ALBERT R. KENNE SEAT TATS GROUP GE 9500 SW BARBUR BLVD. 5--111 101 S.W MAIN # 1520 OF THE NORTHWEST ' T OREGON 97204 P.O. BOX 1003 PORTLAND► OR 97219 PORTLAND ; EVrERETT, WASHONGTON 98201 $00 •I r i bAN GOTT NLICH�.EL J. HEUVELHORST X000 '. 13230 SW HILL CT MARGARET laic DA.tD TIGARD, OR 97223 '` % GEORGE' S S. KADEY JR. 922 5 SW.. BURNHAM' ST. 1.2551 S.W.. MAIN ST. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 �_, ' TIGARD, OREGON 97223 , 500 900 ' •,,,,,j;,,. ' EUGENE L. & V•IVIAN DAVIS ''CHARLES I�. � ARLIE C. WOODARD ' . ''.,.•' P.O. :90X 23303 4550 S.W. LOMBARD 1 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97005 5100 RIa N. CORDI H03ART P. & JE AN 'VERMILYE ALEX, LOTTI & HA�S CHRISTIAN o ; • 11272 S.W. ,CAPITAL IWY- k'INKE k2ICHARD L. & H,ARBEA J. PORTLAND, OREGON 97219 P.O. BOX 23562 05 S.WATER 9205 S.W. BTYRNHAM TIGARD, OREGON 97562 I PORTLAND, OREGON 97206 . 300 . . r. JOHN T. & FLORENCE DOLAN a , I 4025 S.E. BROOKLYN ST. s,, .• PORTLAND, OREGON 97202 r 5200 ! °., • Ft1RSR SCOTT REAL ESTATE 200 GEORALD C d JOAN L L. CACH "- t ; ' AT,� '�AR� NERS .. PAGE N. STEVENS 15170 S.fill W. SUNRISE' LANE 9185 1 S.W. B 1RNI'AM RD. x T/GARD, oxZECON 97223 TI ON 97223 :,, TXGARI�;V OREGONI3A97223 CARD, ;DREG t r { ,'• 202 2400 ' SOUTHWEST PORTLAND PARTNERSIXP DONALD E. & SHIRLEY HANSON 2121 N, COLUMBIA BLVD. P.O. BOX 12 1 1 7 ' PORTLAND, OREGON 57217' WEMME, OREGON 97067 203 CITY OF '1'IGARD P1O. SOX 23397 12420 r W. MAIN ,'1: . 1 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 r 24C),' � . 11.01 �, JOH11 R- & LOI S GULLEY WILLIAM 8: & AtJDREY BURTON• DANIEL & MIRIAM I ERTtJLEIT • 14095 S!Ww HARGIS RD. , r MAF�VIN R; & KF1T-iE�,X1V AI�TKFL'C i . ' B�A�EnTo�; O�EGa�' 91208 � � ) , }�, < , ', of fr r , , 1 ^\ --j ______1_1_0. I • _ July 6 89 lu � sr NM ' . M' S1V a , :. cco 7NOfiN : 1n Q �I u. c�' I SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 89-03 BROWN'/SHAW NPO#5 The ' ;• Subscrtbc'3cLand sworn to e me this`' Director has approved • � •'' � subject to conditions a request for Site Development ;, forte AA trial Park)LOCATION:7455 S.W.Bonita.Road,(WCTM,( M 2SI 12AB, P(Indus- �, . al to construct d 25 000 sq.ft.warehouse.ZONE:1-P(Indus- ' • 1 Review approval ,. • �� rov My Commission Expires:it 9/20/92 - •� • v •� y ♦ i I .i 547 ,. KtiOF=SE , . 15 I pi ' `i $XT EV8LOPMENT REVIEW SDR 89 43 VAI2YA■CE V$9�21 I3t)1�AN/A- ' BOY NPC)#Y For approval to re-construct a general retail saics,facility,A "`' Boy Electric Plumbing and Supply,with a new 17,600 square foot building. 1 ' Also requested is a Variance to the required parking standard for general retail sales to allow 39 parking spaces where 44 are required.LOCATION: '. 12520 SW Main Street(WCTM 2S1 2AC,tax lot 700) 1 f fitfr� "dr •, i1 �p 1, at, ce /> ,, ,,,.,,,i'c'? .1.,' SITE DEVELOPMENT The Director REVIEW approved Sub ecB toL and�STRUCTURES INC.NPO#21 - ' ' PP 7 a request to . allow construction of art auto service facility 5120 square feet in size. 1 t': N ZONE: Northernacre . 5 A •1 � r ern 1/+ C♦Cr (General CdnlmerShacl S�nmi t�'�3 R42 (Resi- I ) dentlal,12 un ) OCATlQN,9730 SW Shady (WCTM 1S1351tD, ',,. , tart lot 800) ' I a � r ♦Y r.• , (s.titi. sHanY l.N. 6';',a;.. ; i ..,, �'0.M. r^♦) �'i L - -ai } '114 p[ t+ �•G. 1 IN', � �-i'.r�ii "9 ' • '. t' r e, 11 •`t a r i.l;i.F a p#„.;',' •; r i, � L I '' 4^'' 'C • , ^ , ♦ f4W1TN opltera',' ®® 4 1; r , r • . .,, . :Y9 ....-..,. ..:.. • -. ..�. '4.t.'`.*','':':':om ,�r� . i MVIINoR,LAivt PARTITtO MLP 89 1 t, '' ' •t)Mcpi,�AR'k"T�1�0 Dit'octbr • :..rrroii; t t .w-,..� ...aw,_.x7r,.a.1.. ,..-Fi.,i,�..�... ,Nw . ...,r,; N.l» ..t ,Wti-....:.��nt,xNt.. J,.,..,a...�..r:,..e..,.,.».,�««:.u,.•. .:.a.,..,:..,..,a.i.i ....._�, ...w.�-.�r ' Nap 2812 AC 500 Woodard, Charles;L. and, Arlie C. a° .. P a Box 23303 Tigard, Or. 97223 • • I 600 Verniilye, Hobart 'P. Jean • 11272 S.W. Capital Hwy. • • Portland„ Or' 97219 400 John T. P & Fioxem n a T. Dolan 7344 S.E . r ekt er Rd. y.y�j.. � Or'.-'''97206 9 .. .• 300 Jo T Dolan & Florence ' 402 S.E. Brookl St. Portland, Or, 97202 • _II • 0 Stevens�t '�i' � e��3 Page� 11:80 S W. Burnham Rd •' Tigard, Or. 97223 • • II 202 Southwest Portland Partnership , , • • 2121 N. Columbia Blvd. • , Or. 97217 Portland, 20,E City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 1 2420 S.W. Main Tigard, Or. 97223 1 101 G ziley John R a Lois I • I I 1 4095 S.W. 'Hargis Rd Beaverton, Or. 97103' !' 1100 Sang, Otto, By First x t tersta- e Bad of Oregon X I P.O.• Box 2971 • Portland r a 97208 i t • I } e• Hera. • a 0 r , f 1200 a�a��r t �£ Estate • 101 S.W+ Main #1520 r, Portland, Or 97204 1's ' 800 Iieuvelh.orst, M chael •T. , % Kadey,` George ,S. Jr 12551 S.W. Main l St Q .. • Tigard, Or 9722 IT 900'� Davis F Eugene L Vivian f ' 4550 S.W. Lombard u y r,f Beaverton, •Or. 97005 r,, �: 1 ��' r 4I• Map 251/2A • • A.. °' 2000 Firlice, Alex and Lotti mod Hams Christian 1.-'1'° P.O. Box 23562 Tigard, Or. 97562 u Q F`ixake A ex d Lotti and Hans Christian P.O..I Box 562 y I, . Tigard Or. .7562 . 1. , 2200 20 W ��y•a/•t h Gerald ... e +� C Joan 15170 S.W. Sunrise 1..n. 1 Ti and 9 2 400 Ha( sor.t,y 1ronaisd E. Shirley "'60 .0 b Box 12 ' . f 1 Y p Teir ,;e, Or 97067 , `'BOO Has Dad, ;d E. Shirley 1 , I Y�a s ' j We Or. 9 � ( •1 w C , � k 9 • .r' : w,..r.. ..a, 1...-«..h-,.....,r MF��-,F••,+ew+,ra,,, s,.1 . ,�..,.,.A. ,:.,..,.,.rN f.»F .r-.r..tr-'"![ „J,..,., wl.,f. .F',w k.. i.. r 6 r� 2402 Burton, William H../ Audrey • Bertuleit, Daniel / Miriam kele Marvin R./ Kathryn �•�.: _Iii o 12511 S.W. Main St. Tigard., Or. 9722 I I Hanson, oxa.a r,d E. Shirley y'�'�,.. ' P.O. Do 12 7 06 p•. i • 2800 Thompson., Dennis C Ad T . �!� !1 G-r I 9523 S.W. 62nd Dr. Portland Or. 97219 4900 Dreeszeark, Mary I Jinn H• ,,, 13200 S.W.1 Howard Dr. Tigard,gard, Or. 97223 4800 General Telephozie' Company of the Northwest P.O. Box 1 003 A Everett, a 98201 11=5400 MGaid, Margaret r � • S.W. �P !,7 Tigard, Or. 97223 l,'r 5100 4ordi, D A Dorris N. ' r , % Dra z Waterr, .ichard L and Barbra J. y{y��/y p�� 9`205 dl Y' .Bu ArrLRJrSAl.i1, k,;' • Port aXad, Or. 97206 5200 F'urrer 8' Scott Real Estate Partnership i k 9185 S.W. Burnham Rd 1r Tigard, Or. 97223 • • I C; s'. :n r b I . I •'1� r A • • . ,. S , REQUEST FOR commBNTs .. TO: /4 r �"e DATE: PSa 3f� 1989 FROM: Tigard Planning Department ' RE: SDR 89- 13 V 89-21 Dolan/A-Boy For Site Development Review approval to , allow replacement of an existing sales' facility, the A-Boy Electric and , Plumbing Supply building, with a new facility. Also requested is a , .•. Variance to the required ire d P arkix g st andard for general retail sale (one ' space per 400 sq. ft« of gross, floor area) to allow 39 parking spaces where 44 spaces could be required. ZONE: CED (Central Business District) LOCATION: 12520 Sw main street (WCTM 2S1 2AC, tax lot 700) ) n y1r 1 Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From t' information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other , ti' information available to o�,�r staff, a report and recommendation will be L'' Prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. yy rr ' , x.989 b You may u€�e the ns this provided idne we need comments by June ' If you wish to comment on below or attach�a separate . y p P letter to ,t r eturn your comments. y2ou are unable to respond b the ab ye date. please phone the Staff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your , `'',‘ comments in writing as soon as Possible. you have ari questions regarding , ,� o p If ,, this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, P0' Box 23397, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, CSR 97223. PHONE: 639-4171« STAFF CONTACT: Viola Goodwin PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no dbjeCtions to it. r.. �. Please contact of our office. . Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comment im i . Ir 1 , . A f Name of Person Commenting: Phone Number: "' by,qq / 89-..13.BK14 • , d !d 6 I, h { , • NOTIFICATION LIST FOR ALL APPLICATIONS 1. NPO N o. / ;0 'r .N CPO No , r.,. 2 CITY bE;AkTMENTS . v'Building Inspeotor/Brad R. Parks & Recreation Board/Curtis S. ., i City Recorder Police , . 'Engineering/Gary A. Other , 3e' SPECIAL DISTRICTS • R • School Dist. No. 48 (Beaverton) ' Firs District � � .:: (pick-up box bldg.) Joy Pahl_ PO Box 200 Tigard W.D. Beaverton, OR 97075 .8841 SW Commercial School. 11ist. No. 23J (Ti g ard) .' Tigard, OR. 97223 13137 S'W Pacific Hwy, Tigard, OR' 97223 Metzger W.D. Other ' 4. i ' AFFECTED JURISDICTIONS J h Was Co. Land Use & Trarxsp Boundary Commission + , ' �'_ 150 N. First Ave, 320 SW Stark Room 530 Hillsboro, OR 97124 Hillsboro, OR 97124 . C Brent Curtis . , Kevin.n Martin METRO Joann Rice 2000 SW let Aver Portland, OR 97201 5398 L d , City of Beaverton % Jim Hendryx • PO Bo: 4755 -- 4755 SW Griffith •''.', Beaverton, OR 97076 t State Highway Division Ocher Lee Gunderson f ., , PO Box 565 ,. Beaverton, OR 97075 ' 7, SPBCIAL AGENCIES ` ' r' General Telephone Portland General Eletr±c Ed Wilmott Jim Johnson ' 12460 SW Main Portland general Electric � :. Tigard., OR 97223 14655 SW old Schol1s F d•W err' ' Beaverton; OR ,97007 unications (.,�'` Y�orth�test Natural Gas NCetropol3.ta,n Area. Coma, Ronald D. Po .,vi PE.0 P1.,S Twin Oaks Technology Centel I . 220 Second Ave, ' 1815 NW .69th Place, S-6020 .k ' 2 Portland, OR 97 09 Beavertonh OR 97'006-4886 .. i ' . I Pacific Northwest Belt. Other ' n .,.. (0257P/0006P) ;i 1, (R7/08 s w, ' , ..,.,.. ..}.I.y:.r.c...., .,.t»..: ........:..m—...,_.,.».a�.:u .1...,.x......1...., .I,. .,,,.�� .ti ..' 5. STATE AGENCIES Aeronautics Div. (ODOT) DOGAMI . • I En gineer D�visi 0 n 0£ State Lands, , . Board of Health Commerce Dept — M.H. Park Fish Vi, Wildlif e• .: I , Par k s & Eec ea o D v. (ODOT) . ' . ' LGD C r I ' Subdivision Supervisor PUC I . . r Mars hall •,. Dept. of Energy F�- e • ;.. 1 Dept. of Environ. ',Quality. Other . • , 6. FEDERAL AGENCIES Corps of En.gineer-s ; Other . Post Office , 0257P/0006P : • F r I, . �`. �. x , / ' • • '' i , , II 0 • J I r .. yl{r: 1• I •. I • 1' . • six T • r 1' • r r , {; "i • ul..ld...,.aa, .rr..t,...,..�,ti:=r...z„ ...�s,Iw...�.�...,. ..w...w ..,�...r »r...x.,.«.!,...I•r,rn.,.L. .J-I. .« _.,,,. .....t t.,..rJ,,,.:.._...,.1.1,-..u:.....,.,.�.a,_..1..,,:..,..Nu.s, aa,. .'..t.. ... rrX 1 r)♦.1 I .wn.r:.�'»a«u:. w=1^�"'""III .r N �M,RiI wm..-:.�.♦, r•1 =rte � w.. ,e•..w. +.+-+•»-1..•gr+..a:X'-ut vw'u+n„a.r^y.r.r,ti.r n...,,.;,-.1+•.rw�»^..:. •Y,I....w°t e:.:rm•.vMM-"f',. ��1 .n. p� ,pa.yec'u♦'»w gal•Y. .-..•r'N»:w.f l+i.MM a«•rWrk d,f.YN 1 !' .\ 5 4 7 4 •r qq_ p Y �, v[u »P qrr.+4f u:X.yii�"Ii:� MX�� ty1i4�ii'.5�I�`.�, .•r ;I�I,I,jJ"r P. l i rr'' r i 1.1 Y r 1 n 1r r r • Ei' r r1 A yITM�# � r� 4i �N"^^Y , M dr17�XI 01R4,!YYKX1"r �°I'��F4WN?A��A f, v r }�r l / ry .i I '. �.. P lC 6! IX ':;1 VX cf r`( 'p 1XiwY'9. 'l` �( }' ' '''14L s y} 4).1,-) l r t M,iX Nrrl r r:.F' �s/.• ' � 'IN �#'�°`^'1�I�a:.�l� ,F'�'.'r,+•iF"'E da i+ i 9J�"a>l� 1� r ? %t •r F4'0��4r��ne1`7��3't �l.� f: �' `�.,,� «• `1`", upl. r1l�j p i'''''''$1, �['M1 I, ({ (fy'y I{y +.�i +ry yH ,!.;',.1(1''11`.ti SIIrM "X1+ 141.1 tw1 F1 '',»'.i Y.11 N�HIh , I.' y i l',,i' l tl 0.}17,,) )I,IP_ 4 1 1 1«�k�t?�v c :. �»y,q 1� U r.1�r X"p l 1, � �' ;.f'-'( `V.;' p ,,,i''"E!'',I• AY kI t'l e, J.r'.."',1)1' t•;",1,6, 'E"i „4+'"an t' � I. I ,.�yR�,•{(N.rye f{J ryq...,. {1 `„ D!7,y ,Ww"1}C X11 '`',}}n( ;,}z." AI'''' l""`'''d nY'"Ir;«N' ,i''YI""l '1 3 1 , R ''''Y I an'' v ♦•i ° y CIF N yt} tl" 1..;1i/lyr/*1PY��bI�.,� 1 � D A JS'L� Ik•ML HIFNI sA:IY XFUA aiN n�A�k/rorSn Y44 „r d nX,:1.811t ^IF 1.'''k�, 1 i'�' Ki.11 f' I ,,,.,..,lMetMv ,,..,,t YN%NM,,,,,,f,uA M,,,,.. 0Y.ulYW WV,,,., ,..,,,,vUt WaNf14,.,,,, MV I,�Y.aNM VMY YCIN N,1+.1 a.laMl/M1M:•d1/M"1 MN�in YVYir XvF 1»+F»+IV r:e.l pp,X NM.•µ ,Pre Xi.Yl:•i IMl 1„nW WW1N4,•>,,11»1t1 W4». ' . N ik! »wWN1 '' 7,114' fYi'u» c' .1'',' �'1 as ( X �' Pttpr' Wr�Y�1N ei 1 Iw,r .» .e . ,N,i i • 6 ,I 1 I . I } _ t � � Y ' tA I r t Y .a 4,J,.t' M i? L» t'6tH x)1t4,1 r 1,,t i''k, C s, asn ♦.>e.a �. • r ..... nom ..., wrr•.n n-..-... { ■ i. 1- I r • ■ • �'. . ,.r.. .u,.r ca... .or.,.n♦..n.l� ,v r rrx..r.r sr.vr. r ,.ul. ..r ...:nr. •I' mot... .. e1 C• 1 u r I � • r � r tl , rI 1 Hall Blvd, , x rA z , 339 7 2 . 4, i d a n 97223 , ! �h ;' i 1 1 203 CIT'K OF TIGAR'� I 1 , 1 , BOX 23397 r 1.242.0 a.W MAIN 1TIGARD, OREGON 97223 , ' •,) cr4,,,Jz i V 41)41'.).•-( '*... .`)(//(-.,(,,',•• il' y ,,` 1 , , 1 . • .., . ,� I I I, .aer, . 1, 111 1'1111►►11a�f,l,.1.1,�1l�l,{1#I 1111 ii it. f I 1 - 1 1 I , .• 1 1 . , I , • l N 1 n yy II' ;, Hdll B1vr�; ( .,,• 23397 �•; k ' I©h 97223 1 1 MARY ANN 8. DREESZEN 1 1, i'' ,, I I ', 32{�+� C TAT 00 Sa-YY,. 1.1 Qi �T �. C74V.l�,Rt) DR �1 1 y 7223 T/GARD,I C1nEdO +I Y ,r � V X51 Ct1'�yj i . .. )�f+r"rp+ s'',� f+..Pli r I y !M 1') t:Ml 1�h: 1a!FYI , . �1 � �.�1"6�rer ��0 4r� I r�.r'r f,le� .l! �- �!! : � i . ..: JN 1r{y {{1! !Y 1 V 1ji r,w1 !cr '+{{J�y�,r 1 g +•� .1'b 1 {~ 1 1EY�1+`g1Ji!µ"l11 1NY? i {f,'11':i ANN 1 r.0.':,..; 0 0' S 11 (3 t'1,1 ,! "1"1,..10,'11".,.A1":1:1,,, W' i1+r1 i1�' � 1 �� • 1 1� !f�11"� 0 62 1 1 �'� r �k , r i , ;1il1Y11 (1>11t t 11 !Il1.,1° 1.)1.11,� 1 1, . i } I t 1 . . y.; ' r I ! �f', ..A„a..,jrw.,,' .I.... .�r.+.+.+ .•+-•J....,..- ++*eF...1+,.,,,.3.-.- d ,le,..;i. 7." 1 d,'.• ,rr"' 4 • MEMORA 'DUMC • CITY OF T IDARD • O James M. Coleman, O'Donnell.e Ramis r Crew, E Corrigan T FROM Greg Berry, Utilities :Engineer DATE: November 27, , 1990 • SUBJECT: A-Boy Appeal e • affects of recommended As requested, l have summarized the improvements upon the 100 year flows at the A-Boy site references 1 are to the City's Master Drainage Plan. Figure 5»2 shows that -increased runoff due to continuing development of the basin crease of the existing .. I •. as a.n wa.l1 result in an in p . 100 year flood plain of about one foot if no improvements are made to Fanno Creek. Figure 6.3 shows the benefit of the recommended improvements as described in the third paragraph of subsection 6.2.3. (Note: The z I "future 100 year`flaws "- existing structures" of figure 6.3 differs , ° of `from. "future 100 year flow oaf figure 5.2 in that figure 6.3 account ,,A• �, for the affects of the proposed Scholls Ferry Bridge. ) By comparing the '°exi.stin 100 year flow" of figure 5.2 with y g it can be seen that the � p '° • oa • r�co�nmendecl. improvements" of figure � 3 . p channel improvements will result recommended bridge replacement and ch in s being about one half of a foot lower than the n the 100 year f lbw g lf � . existing 100 year flow. profiles' of 6.3 it can be seen that • g d By comparing the two e: 1.0 result in futUre p •I will 1 B com ax' failing c�� construct the recommended Improvements ��. ' year flows that are about one and one half feet higher. These'� eletions may be summarized as follows: *fit se va 14 (. 11111; , ha✓ccner ° t yy ,hee„tr ., wt` h e e otrs fended iytipeotreipailiis I I a e: 1<eit a Laden 6 nd Toole 6 R�. I I , I , .. I I MI r I h• v. r r r \ y `r ,� ,. ,....,.;a,:+•,.1,. ,-.«..:.i a.m n .:. .. .+.x.....+br...—. w .„-.Jx" ..5w31r,.....x....,..y.4 , .• ..aa .,a•.1.ar�..w.«x,u u ,..•.ur:r x.d..,-.,,a.-rxw..--,a;.,,a..:.X:�.rsac,:..,..«....-. _ • • L , n , i • 0' ,e�h NNELL I.AlviIS, CREW & r RACII AT1iORNEYS AT LAW • » JEFF H.SACH BAx Low&WRIGHT BUILDING CIACKAMAS taOUP,"IY OFFICE • CHARLES E.CORRIGAN* 181 N.Grant,Suite 202 • STEPHEN T•CREW 172% ." Llnyt Stet Y�Oregon Canb O �n 97013 tl.ana Oregon 97209 ' Pot. , tag .' ., . . PIIILLIP E.'GRILLO (S03) 266-1149 REESE P.HASTINGS • S03 2 2 •' TELEAHONE. ( )2�,,-$40 .' •• WILLIAM A.MONAI`LAN I •., ,, FAX: (503) 243-294 ' MARK P.O'UOPdNF1.T KENNETH M.ELLIOTI' DENNIS M.PATERSOrr III PI EASE.REPLY'M PORTLAND OFFICE GARY'M.GEORGEFF* TIMOTHY V. RAMIS ROBERT.J McGAUGHEY* SHEILA C.RIDGWAY* Special Counsel • °'' WILLIF t‘,t J.S•I'ALNAKEFt a *Also IMMmite t to Practice September 6, 1990 in Sti,te of Washington ! ... , Mr. Joseph � Mendez ez Attorney I I .fi• Law I 1318 S. •,t., 12th Avenue • Port .. nd, OR 9720 -336? II Re: Dolan v. City of Tigard , ` Dear Mr. Mendez: t I am writing to confirm the substance of our telephone conversation g P' of Wednesday, September 5.. At that tame, you indicated to me that your client had advised you that he did not wish to file a new a l ication as directed in Keith.Liden's August 28, 1990 letter,to him. Instead, your client wishes to proceed with the LUBA appeal 5;'n from the City s conditional approval application..f y condi�i � �- ppraval of his initial a pplication As you know, the>City's brief in this LJBA case is due on September 28, 1990. The schedule to provide the 2, to brief in sche,� le had been set over s.. parties with an opportunity to resolve the matter. The City has been willing to review proposed changes in your original application and consider them in the context of the tUBA appeal. • Howe,°der, the City is bound by it8procedures and cannot process a substantial amendment to an existing application without the � y materials discussed in Mr. siden s August 28 letter der to you. This procedure is clearly N et out in the T•i�at d Devel o ment Code and it was discussed with you and your client during our initial meeting , in I June. • Before` I 'resume ire-. aration o f the brie` in this case 1 I want to preparation • be certa:I.n of your position. Please contact me by 5:00 p.m. , on • • I( �• I n�Ft "' 1 SEP 7 1990 , , CITY OF • N DE k 'IN I i I , , • ,,y;, M .-r u...,, w,r,..r«a.i..+n..dm...n+t..- ,6 Ma_..»,4,M.,,d.l..,,µ,�n rHC.n ».,. ..,.ab�. _.«1.... .., aiP,k�wr,�.,ia:i.,-,. � ..,y1..µ:-...,u..ur,, w v,-.««,4C..`,dl1,.» ,a.L w.°.i C ...-r ..' r, , •t n N*iN�T�-(pY •7� A*,CpI•{S�v Rr�yEVr rs R7 N ��Q1.VLVL'iS:.�L10 �.l'1J.Y'�R�7� CII��W i7 �1lCl�l.�lV Y' 3 ,:. Mr. Joseph R. Mendez September 6, 1990 fr • • Wage 2 } Monday, September 10, if your client wishes to reconsider his ,, position on going to LUBA. Otherwise, I will be prepared to submit , • • a brief in this matter by Pr.iday, September. 28, 1990. , Sincerely, • • , of DONNE .L, P. il" CF V & CORRIGMI ,' Phillip E Grillo {a: PSG/dd :, oreA\peg\tigard\hiendez.lt2 " l cc: Mr. Keith Lid eYt Mr. Patrick J. Riley i f . 1 • . • • •• 1 I , I I • • • ° 1 j August 28, 1990- ,/u/0//1 1$11(�f 1 1 "L . TRD john Do].an, President Ci1�Y OF . A-Boy Supply Co. 1919 N.W. 19th Street OREGON Portland, (U1 97209 RE 4 A--Boy development . Case No. SDIt 89-13 Dear Mr. Dolan: r your p` po. the redevelopment of the A-Boy 1 have reviewed our revised ro sal for th /' property located at 12520 S.W. Main st r eed and have the following comments: Procedure A s we agreed earlier, the revised p lan will be reviewed administratively as a net Director's Decision as was done with the original application (SDR 89-13). Y'4 This will include the preparation of an application and submittal of a site plan, landscaping plan, and a narrative describing any aspects of the proposal that are not apparent on the plans (eg. propored use or business`to,occupy the g phasing). pre-application checklist which buildings or ha�sixt Y itemizes the information to be submitted as well as t M 1 have attached a r lx�che�required t number of a copies. Compliance°with the Communit Develo• ent Code The preli sina:ry site plan dated July 20th appears to be in conformity with Code �! standard0 with the exception of the followings 1. Landscaping I` - Landscaped area requirement for the cBD zone is 15% and the plan shows 11%, including the land to be dedicated to the City ]earlier, it was agreed that this atea near Fanno creek could be applied �tawaxds meeting the landscaped area a�andl ard, If less than 15% landscaped area is desired, a Variance application must be Development Review application and With ps �P � tike submitted t�+tLth it~he Site Variance criteria must be satisfied. - Street trees are required, with average spacing along the street A, . frontage...of 20 t o 40 feet depending upon the mature, . size of f the tree. This woul d result in a requirement for between 7 and 14 trees. p . T.reee are also required in the Parking area at a r.. atio of 1 tree pe r 7 parking spaded. Ten trees would be necessary base d upon the e t, plan you submitted. o 13125 SW H-IdII BlVd4,P,O,Box 23397,Tigdrd,Oregon 97223 (603)689-4171 ? • r , 4.1.4∎44L.w44;,;,;44.s:. �.w.w++-:.i.,«Im I.., p.1(h1,), y •wl • 2. Parking the parking standards th . to g .- The previous decision allowed a Variance F to have 39 parkin g spaces instead of the 44 re quired for a 17,600 square foot retail, bv� ldi�ng• The two buildings now proposed total 37,000 square feet. The Code has :a standard of 1 parking space for every. 400 square feet of gross floor area for general retail activity and 1 space per 1,000 square feet for retail sales of I' bulky furniture, and carpeting. As bawl merchandise such as appliances, before, a Variance will be necessary if the parking arrangement does not comply with the above standards. 3. Access The Code requires that two-way or one-way driveways with perpendicular parking have a width of 24 feet. The driveway shown is 20 feet in width. The Code does allow a reduction in the width of a one-way driveway ", when the parking spaces are at an angle. Pages from p g attached a �s 9 The ai~ illustrate this standard. the Oaidl.e,. n Other than the items noted above, the conditions that applied to the approval ' of &DFt 89-13 should' be expected to apply to this proposal as well. Please submit the revised application p 13cataon as indicated on the attached checklist and we will process it promptly. Please contact me if you have any questions. sincerely, Keith S. I,ideca <'• Senior Planner Y • c. Phil Grillo - Ed Murphy` a.J • • • I r ....,...•,1„.:. a, �r.w... _..a,r..... .r~. -,.I,.. am ... .,,.1-ar..d7.k«r..-..a..:.t»..,lr. .....,.1ar. .;iw ,ar»4kn-wir.:u m .J. .w.,,..,..... ,-1:.a .M.. , .»«,.:_.w...,+.a.14...:i.«.»rwL...� 1 «. CJ'T?ONNELL p�•A1' IS CREW & �x. RRIGAN ,JEFF H.IIACHRA ATTORNEYS ! CH AT LAW 4 CHARLES E.CORRIGAN* BALLOW&WRIGHT BUILDING CLACKCAM[AS COUNTY OFFICE STEPHEN F.CREW 1727 N.W.Hoyt Street 18I N.Grant,Suite 202 PHILLIP E. .CRE�Q Portland,Oregon 97209 Canby, Oregon 97013 REESREESE P.HASTINGS (503) 266-1149 IAM-A.HASTINGS TELEPHONE: (503) 222-4402 MLARK P.b'DONNELL FAX: (503)'243.2944 r DENNIS M.PATE.it,SON III KENNETii M.EIJ"�TOTT ' DINIO IS . AAMIS PLEASE REPLY PORTLAND OFFICE GARY M.GEORGEFF* SHEILA C.RIDG VAY* ROBERT J.Il+co Li HEY* . WIiT,IAM J STALNAICEii I &peetat Couru►t August �1 , X990 *Also Admitted.to Prnettce in State of Washington ' I I JosehRr ` � Mendez J gt(:2?W? aiappenber. er � } g & Mendez , aneymaM House • 1y C S ��q Ave. 8 r YC r 12th Portland 4 r OR 97201-3367 . Re: Dolan v.■C` �t o f t v "ard I . Dear Mr.r Mendez: I As you knob t e city s brief in Dolan v. c l.ty of,__Ticrard is currently due on September 28, 1990. � b t is my understanding that Keith Liden is reviewing your client's revised preliminary xm .nary site plan for the A-Boy site. Also, I rec jived copies of our detailed tailed , zlis on August 20, and I am, reviewing those bills at present. p�'e- C�.verx :,. the time constraints in. this matter, I am. re following conference with you and your client for the week of requesting a confe September 3 otl nt the Labor Day. holiday, AS you know,l we discussed 3, • - d a, of ha�es�case in Plan terms , e 12 in your office. Now that. s general on June p I1 and detailed billing statements we should discuss the l dtcta,ils of this y Setl agreement As you k nal a it emt a� contingent on Council authorization and final site pp�oval . 1 would like to keep this matter moving, In the meantime, I will need at least 21�. days to prepare a brief in , if y y r this case, a.�' necessar even if we, are; able i " , c�reen�en•� in detail in early September, council tentata.ve a � e to come to a consider �r the Settlemen�l and your Site ::de �tx,st vela- still cc�n permit will still be contingent on final a pment review e circumstances, unless you have any obj ectionspr I w tinder the �, second motion to ��:�I over the brief in this; .� Will prepare a . his �a se for an additional 0 11 v AUG 19 • I I . I • II r rt I I I I I I I L`.t`J, I .•...,�.,...'................ �_x.��•.-a,:,,a,..t....,....��,,�w..,, ,.,»_ .....,,d. ..�•..u,. ..'.14 ....„....;�wre..,...y.a,..«m...,.,�w•.«:«,:,w.,._..u..e ,.,.,.,.-..:.«.t�..�...,. ,,,....,uli.-.« ..! ., .,�. .+r..,+.....,..:,w„....a...rl,.,.,.u.,.� •.—« .,.�w,.r,�n..,.; r.,,,..,.,.�.».�.,..•.,.,1.�..'..r—�. �r.«...�n-;.-.,n,.x�,�»...,�M—•.,...x.M•, ;;,�4RRIGAN r:, • O'DON�IEI,L�, RAMS, CF��l„�• ,., • • Joseph R. Mendez August 21, 1990 Page I , . . . • y , 60 days. Keith will ' be responding to your site plan within the next` few days. Please contact my secretary, Diana Doyle, to set ' up a meeting in my office to discuss the details of this case. . I Sincerely � relyd II C'DONNELL, ,I S, C EW &, CCRRIGAN Phillip Grp ll© • PEG/smc peg\ttgat- nendez.N1/dd • • cc: fir. Keith Liden City of Tigard • I I , I di . • , . !• . • .....,».«„-.,N?y...,....a4..,,,. ..a....-.,;.:i a..... . .n .»..• ... .»-...,.... ... ».,..ti ,...,,.. M., ,..„....,....,,.,.K ,. ,...,_....,u...N»M...•...,.,..,.,, ... ,.i.. .,r._,.,� r,.....-,...•.,,•,,,.,r.,. .,-.,a.......,,,.a,.1' ..r..uM .n : DONNELL, RAMIS, ELLIOTT &r', ciE ,, sµ ATTORNEYS AT LAW �N< 3 172' N,W, HOYT STREET' '' PORTLAND, OREGt N 97209 L,�„st2,. •, (503) 222-4402 r � � 1 DATE July 9(} re. !�.. k TO Tigard City Council Lik ,54.as io‘e°,. FROM Phillip E. Grillo -4 i r,tE Dolan v. Cite of Tiard, LUBA No. 90029 * . This is an appeal by A-Boy Plumbing (John _T. and Florence iDolan pp Y �' g � Dolan) from Council's conditional approval of site design review for A--Boy's expanded facility along Fanno Creek. The primary issue in the case involves the Constitutionality of the city's condition of h. approval requiring dedication of; a 10--foot bikeway strip and a 5-foot channel expansion, along Fanno Creek. The Dolan's have challenged this dedication as an unconstitutional taking. Council has previoo usly given city attorney direction to seek a settlement in this case. In June, planner Keith Liden and I met ,. r i. � • with the Dolans and. their attorney, Joe Mendel, to discuss The y are interested settlement options l he Dolans indicated that the in settling the suit and would not challenge the city"s dedication conditions if the city would w review and approve a modified site s ' plan including a second building on the property which originally contemplated as Phase II of the .development. Also, the Dolans indicated that they wish to be compensated for their attorney's fees in the matter. I indicated that I would general council, but • this praeral offer for settlement back to c 4 communicate thi that I would need some additional information on attorney's fees, ' a new site plan, and a notion and order from LUBA delaying the (' briefing schedule. On June 27 LUBA issued an order delaying the City' s brief until September 28, 1990. I have not yet received detailed statements from the ,Dolans regarding attorney's fees, nor have they submitted 1 kt an amended site plan. M At this tine I am requesting from council authorization to continue negotiations an this Case, Once plan has been prepared Once a new site i by the applicant, the Planning Department will summaries • � be in a position t Once I have seen the billing su •„'. �,, ,) perform site design review. _ . . ,se you on the easazi�ableness a01' from the I will be able to advi y Dolans, (it of attorney's fees. Given the nature of Mr Mendel brief to LLJBA • 1601 /(it , in this case, 1 would expect eot to see no more than �20-25 hours in ' x�� p • �”` , �'' -tor y , that brief. At most, estimate ,,7 i prop. attorney ne time from Mrs l�iende� in the dedicated �property to be i , . "' the dedicated e value of }�,,�e aoot" $8, 000-$10, 0 '� It is my opinion that a " : interest if the , settlement in this. case would'.b� the :city's. best interes r "' City's cost for settling the t. is kept well below the value of the dedicated property. PleasL. ,vise. Thank you. - peg\t i said\do t an\ooUhc i t"met t;l f 5 , ri:// • • y, • 4 s b .55x«55 a.N.,,hx ''''1%?Jit,„ �� _ �..�,a.,»js. .. ,. .,w. _..,.. .« .�«..✓ ... ...:�,.-,..N,.a aM«my.....«✓w.✓.,,»»�,,..,.»«....y�.:..»�.�«.«,..Y.�..M.,.,w».,.„«�,,.,—.,,.,.-..,..r.ya,.' ' ..u.,»,.P✓ '')I;,".;�t.w:.,«F,,�,«,.,,...+.x.- �w ....« {.1, "'.«,+,,..« .,w.w<.x,a✓.,,,;;:..,»..+,,....� «...nN,»,+,..«n,-...,«.a.0.n,-....,.....55„55,55«.a..•»,.•„.y.. x',ot' , . ..»......»55.5555x,55....w:.�.-..,w+„i,µ:�,=.,,w..wrw.rww.r.».w,� ry-,�., a�-�yr��m,.u,»°�,.,.,ww«r•«,el. w u+.��:.w.w--✓.w.«.,.w.+.«...,r«...,..r,+...•:.ww.=.a.»:w.a+..«wn=,.:.,-«:.:,.;,..«,,.v�»�,..w..wa....u....w,.+..w,♦r«..«.«.«o-,yr,.,..+...wa:n+...a....w•.w.,.:w.,5555.+.t.w.cn«.+r..awrrm-+r»aw«wu+«.-e...«w•rwwaw.w.r�+w.«..+.,�.�.,..�.n�.. ' J� .i I ' ..a Nr.'w, k „'y .A< •«* ['"".s '11..")1,-,) ,.,, .t C'' ,�+ rR' ✓ ,,..-»”],;N w '; , W.4. 1 i � E)LA,,, w .., w.,w.:.r..,wy.Y..,.«. .....__......,.....a.,✓:N..<.;.:r»ac,r.rrd,�...u.a.r ..j.:'i�'ICI,..,..w.,.,..:k.«.r..N«..,..:..,«...,.N.•f-,...�.ya...u.�...-✓..,...,...,..:+N._... ,...,_...».,...,..-.,«,,..:x... �.u.as'�",L.eY:=,y...,.«. ' '...,..M..«.,.,......✓..,...w..»,�,w:n.N. 'j l wMr+ r.=ra�.La:w.✓.w ,.-� - 6,.yY.. ."" •,,„'�w.»»r,y....k.rt�,. iY.'«�,N1 "dn•Sr�..,. ...N�,«N>.ar„N....„...-,..;«�an««,.«.Y.♦«.,.«x•..,»«»N.w✓�.N.y.w«w,«..�..,,».n,»,N«.;,••x �. s ,. , w 1-41 r,;r L,--,,e,,,44-1,:,,t...6;:,).(?'„0...T.,:: y r rY ;.Nr ,, ... ..L. \.11 55 4.t.' ♦.'7 "." ' r" +4.-'»,, 1 .0 i,,« i » r " , i � M 4 ) _ d"` C , «.�...,.�,.w�..w a»«.�N,w.,.«.n. .�,.,5,a♦N ..w..�,..n.,_.�... «.�.,...«.,..✓. ..... ,. ....n ,.,».,.�.,. « �,w,«.r,.., « . 55,,.....•55�..., ..._�..,.. w w� ,. r N, ✓ T`��..«.�a ./N. w. "" r w�.. � r e ;4JL ;thITTII' 4 i »w ,, 0 sue L ' EX;wu , e x. ,r t uN ,pp .ta-..... «. .oSrt"F �"' 4 �N4".a4.4 .n_ A � ' .,w ' mot,t, F ' , .✓,,w.,.•w,w.r.x.�.. «..ar. .....,.,.,.,. ,.��.�...�r,�'""'ly . ,.,:,�a1°fi:'. .« . x....�t.y,IN»wn« .,:� "� . r I .»,✓y..u,,..,�,,.,.:..a.✓ N 4 1.4 ...�r�..7.�„�.W....✓,.4,,� �.xv..w� .« W.rw,».»>w,,,b.,. N..w». ,.�Y�,.�«nw.:, y,✓..,.a�.✓�,ri.xw,.,»»..x,. .«,�._.,�. , I ♦ ,»MM1+.+o.»:u.x..-+.r+.»555555 a,.n•.,vs/+a M..,xvYrw+,.ru»+.,.v, a ♦.nv.r.uV. wrru.il a ++, ♦s..rr. _ I.N �... »amrvnxNKLwr..»�,•,u ..a...--•.-, ...�.{r�.,«... «.. ,.�.+ „ ,...:5555 ....,.r« .x..55 .N««. .. rrurMa. eMaa�,a .1•, - �' ., a 51u»Ymu.wWN»r§.•a,Mr+y',wu u+r«y.lKf k,»rvM•r✓.«n...ir:Tw»rM,n.v.<uai✓.su•a.a�,w.,iuMwNarns,wr,.+r,,.♦.,+wsr,kr+W<..�,wa.ua�M:a+xA' . .N•+yMU..w. ..Y'bix Yra.wx,.✓a+rolnw,v.4w... a--�.u, rrrvu «era.. n 9 F) .«,J,w cYU a'rw k. w r . o • ,«saw .xA�:n, avuu-w, x a., waw.NWn. 555555.nw.MlrniwNnw•w✓+.�s..a.nM1«,ron.fia..=w.n„«Ww+�r,wa•s5r�*✓ssw ,»wr«Hrww. , u r,... ..,,,r H. a ✓.r.ur it w,w ✓w.+...u,.e«.s•.n,.. raw a+a.--. • AN.. a, ..•s vr..,ror.»�NN xuR r< ,.uvu..•Yrr«5.»u.'✓+u«•v.ni,e.J.+e mey.w,np««e.w.<x..xr:+«wa.re — .�..+•t.,rw 'nw x.: .,» ,.✓N.,+. +i..r`�,+.x-.r.., .Y,ar.u..«„ n-_ ..55,55,+....,.a .,«9y.a, ..:u,�✓.,- 55.-.55.'.55.55»«,Ym.»„*+a,w..urawse.um.pmwru...�.wa.waw..Wwr+w...�...m i ,. • - . »+r..:x+N.:4. w,w,wwY....xi.4a„,...,.,� e. .»,wMwxa+, ,arv,....w»dw.w.wcm+1«,.wea>sww4v.w✓r.vwtns',�.nyn w.aw.w us w: �' ,Mxw.w✓.w,asa, .«. -�..� ...r..u...«e .rW,.-+.x*✓x w xn...» .,s'.cY , w w.. z...it c:=a xnxw r a...x:: „4,-v,t !✓' .xr+«rWMw.+a:✓.wn-. ' � � 55.55+1 w+n • bxrvw4n+•n,.u:n+s.r..iWwa,.r.w,.wlWx.ae.uW ww✓,sokw.a.lmuw >•tualu,.ea ,raW,N nM»,.. r• • aM+,aa n:,....uM ..a. ,», r.,,,... v:..e.v,,ary r-.«1...:a ,�•r.e,a.M ..nu nr..rt r,wrev.aA...a:i s r.,v 5555<r,.w n.m ,.0:.e 55555555 R ..♦wn u... .. .. pb f.. .,...55'•55 r W.u„w...,✓««.a<.,,.«.«,.,.ww w x>5555.a».w w wxN«,w..55.55 M.m «.«,w w va,.«. y ,«. ,a..1 h,.«..,aw.,...«.,,.:.. ,..,._:..,„»,5x».x».55... .„ ..,,.,,.-.,i,✓..w.. x.� ....ya.«._>, .«rt .,� ..,,..».., .w«... ...Y.~<,w ..,...�«...«..✓ .y».r.,,.�N a«.............w.,.«Na>c tiY I J 1 i nxlW -.t. r ..Y.v55 ."x.� swrynx�Na-++NM'n«Nnw ruury»Wn.,sa✓,xr_!k•+ .r.J.r ' . „Y. . .rtl,ar,,. .,,+wn.N.u....,55 m..W..:a., .+.,,yY..aw.ww .,,«,a„w�.«.,.w .««..w..w,w.wr:.rw+.�.✓r.rw,«r«,w.ra...wu,r.+w .S;;.)? y r....-,;"$ ....`. y.. ., .x r .......,..,m. A ;.. , n +y ....v.,rn„.,r..:. ,. 4..1.'_. ,.a,...__..«_._....... -.1....+-.._4-....... ,....n.:..._..wY ,_.._......:A:.-a...r»..u._ _:.__..... ....4_ ...4..,_.»f«, ..,»... ._.Jw... ........n ....a,.. ....._ ..«...._,._,......Wf....,. ..wvr...,.w r...0 w .... .....,... C'1. °T. -- , 1 — �;1 0 P'E'I to H 1 E. :.' 35 O F.: E E:: C 5032432 =144 P . Es_„ N4, . yr.,••I.a;»— "., if iiDONSICLL, RANI S. ELL,1OTT et CREW ;_,,., •,..r,,ti,f• ,, �' ATTORNFYS ;; 1727 N.W. �4OYT STREET ' �'tfs�f;( ;'i � 1'., PORTLAND. OREGON 9720 (1i ei1e (3021222-4402 ' ,,a,,eiL',,LS, ';i1)a,, DATE may 21, 1990 yo Pat Riley, Administrator, City of Tigard !ROM Phillip E. Grillo, City Attorney's Of fice L A, ea1 .,"6A-..1M-qr twa r w.....4..W mr r.,r r_r wr..iiM Is_:e_w.v.+M! ?u ri_a.or'i- Today I received a return call from Joe Mendez, representthq A- Boy Plumbing and Mr. Dolan. 1 previously indicated to him that counsel would be willing to entertain a settlement on this case and suggested a pureh : e price for the 151 X 250' bikeway/channel N rid for between $2 , 2. square foot, This widening ' strip $2 .00 and � �a a � �xre € figure was derived from a 1988 assessed va1te study prepared by the city for the downtown area. At $2 .90 a square foot, this would result in a potential purchase price of $10,875 for the 3,750 square feet involved, Our estimate for attorney's fees for taking this case to LUBA is in the range of $5, 000 to $15, 000. r Mr. Mendez indicated that his client wants $10. 00 a square foot or approximately 137,500 for the land. He provided no basis for the assessment. He added that his client is interested in Sore sort of a iandseap ins credit for the land. donation. In other words, if the city, n allows hi the landscape credit OA site against the 15% landscaping req►.airement of the city, he would be willing to reduce hfe atkinq price for the donation. I suggest that we immediately determine the nature of our landscap requirement and what sort of variance might be developed to provide him with a credit for the land donation. If we can ofE'e:r him a credit and still have an adequately lar,dSoa ped project, them i �.'t. I need to know what is perhaps we ` can arrive at �.: eett.leme�l) � acceptable from a planning Standpoint. merits. this case presents a serious challenge current �i� the , In the wake �f ��a�.lan� th�.�Zaw �n Oregon takings jurisprudence. " q i t , p y like O qon that takings : s in tr�,r�s:a.ti.or� , ea eo�.,a11 in ato�rii � Coastal from California. Oc�llan, if you borrowed their tlri� r�a�en d � haii e all was a California Coastal Cotimiss on case involving the d ~ . tl i '. W . � to 'Tt1eY9t The dedication of beach access as a condition of .ewe andard 0ehnreferred oou�r�. in Nollan �tr�o� down the dedication as a taking, 1i fi '17tk�.�.�.r to �:�'$� Florida �`� �, ne�ti� analysis 1� to as "rational n °' test. Unfortunately, the facts here are strikingly similar to the facts in Poll ,. In Oregon, state law on takings is still governed by the Eilth i : decision which has a takings feet that favors 1oeal rixnent action and would likely protect he city in this case However, Dolan makes his claim under both federal law and state h I , r:.,'—,f,...r.,.,+4i44...+.,.kla,,wr..., ,,.M.,,,-,.,a-.. :;C-,M,u..u-�+.:-w+..t,�... +,«+.ya,.., �..ww.:.w�t..a. tia.�'.,n..L:..+�»,+..I.rr.:.«..«-:+�.......:w{u i.L...-...:, ...1r-IYJI,cw.1W.. .aµMwr +. 1.+4i,.rw.A,al y w.-i., J .�N��Wa�eJn�r+h-1 +..�S, .,..,fir n 1�. ' t'lw/a 'Y" — 2 1 -- 90 M O N 16 : 36 O R: G' w C 5 ;332432944 P . 103 1 . �7 ,e I h Memorandum to Pat Riley Rel. bc1ah vs. City of Tigard - LU Appeal 1. May 21, 1990 1, Page such a case, LUBA would lbw. �n � , � l�a�ak to �'e��ra1 case law cc.gig. e ) where we are seriously at risk. I at aware of another } takings that on its way to LUBA that will also be arguing .. . kin s ease that is the u pos tion, Under the circur stances , X advise puruin 7 r a reasonable settlement in this case. Our brief in this case is w see ;. 1�1 � due or► June 29. / will work with Ed and Keith in planning `to if we can work out a landscaping variance to satisfy Dolan which is acceptable from a Planning standpoint. We will continue with our brief in the interim I , [I • I 4 4 c , A L.. wa I I pat\tto6td\rztie .m41 I I I , I 1 r A n rl , ..MaiF.if*. ,..+., .,.... • ;}.J'DONNELL, RAMS, ELLIOTT b" '4.:REVV ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W, HOYT STREET PORTLAND, OREGON 97209 (5031222-4402 DATE March 30, 1990 TO Ed Murphy and Timothy V. Ramis FROM Phi Grillo, City Attorne y s Office RE Doan v Ci ,yr_of Tigard, ?CUBA No. 90-029 Takings_ Case) Today, March 29, I agreed to petitioner's request for a 30--day �. _, this LUBA case. extension to file their opening brief in They have .. stipu,.tited to a similar time extension for us to file the respondent's brief. Currently, petitioner's brief is due on April 6, and assuming I,UBA that grants their request, their opening brief will be due oll May 7. Our brief would then be due 21 days later, on May 28. H o w ever, ,..;.� since petitioner's have stipulated to a similar time extension for " us, we will request an additional 30 days to conclude our brief. Bel.. I pending on the nature of their a„+guments in this case, this additional time may be important for the city. If they mount serious takings claim, this additional time will ive us the g , ,f opportunity to develop a thorough response. Once we receive petitioner's brief, we should meet to discuss our strategy. I . D PEG/if Ileg\tigatrd!,h rphy.mel . (' � � 1)E‘lEt.oPPI11.1 l 1 . , r PER FOOT ASSESSED LAND VALUE i 1988 A F Y LIY L 111��9999 I ,?,,',,•„,Y� ,p.,,,,11..1:11:;10,51,• . k 1 , 1P1 I ,� a t 9 u �t � d' 1 I � �',��lyail��pt(ryd�,�h",`va y,ll1•rfi,` � pyr r .,,.,,,,',.'...• r1rr 8'a,WtTII�71�M9`yy1",iII iXCi,, r.,,i .. .. t,`.2. „„,,,,,,, .J` ✓I r,Tt,1 A y: • • „.m«...,_. ..,., ,...:'.w. .a.....,,.',;...F...., r. , .n.,. ,, •. -. 5. 1X1PilEAL ] C I = Sl'17t DEVEIDPivIENT R IEX4 (s x.21 89-13/V 89-721 DOL'AN r appeal of a Director's decision to approve the reconstruction of a , general retail sales facility, A-Boy Electric, Plumbing and Supply, with a new 17,600 square foot building on a l 1.67 acre parcel subject to 14 +© conditions. The decision inclhded approval to a variance request to allow 39 parking spaces instead of 44 as required by the Code. Zone: . • Cf3D--AA. (Central Business District -- Action Area) . Location: 12520 S.W. :.'. Main Street (W(L‘ M 2S1 2AC, Lot 700) a. Public Hearing was opened. y , b, There weave no declarations or challenges. C. Senior Planner Liden advised the proposal was r ��igin lly approveCI� by the Planning Director subject to condit ons. This decision was �- g , . pp. ec�tox- e • • '` appealed to the Planning Commission. The �.omnu.ssion a rov�et� tx e l upheld the Planning Dir ,a, 4 : well and, primari y upheld decision as reduced the number. decision. The Planning Corta�urssa.on r of � .p Conditions) of 'Approval from 14 to 12. The applican4, has appealed the Planning Commission Decision 'due to a disagreement over some , i of the conditions of Ap pro�al. The areas of disagreement nt related' to the following four basic areas: • 1. Land dedication requirements along Fanno Creek. lot. tforl landscaped islands in the parking emery Code , 2. C requirement • 3. Stipulation that applicant was to pay engineering and survey '' costs for area to be;dedicated. 4. Removal of non-conforming signs (3 signs) . Senior Planner noted packet information included A' January 24, A A to Ed Murp �' y Director; 1990, mem©ra1C .um , comm�ulit Development draft resolution to uphold the Planning Cotnnlission Decision;, a copy of the appeal letter submitted, by, the applicant; Planning Commission mxnUtes and transcripts from the August and December hearings; and a copy of the site plan proposed by the applicant. S reviewed that the, hearing would be on the record view ,Z re d._ there noting Lega�. Coun.�e had been two Planning Commission hearings. Members e of the two hearings of Council h��d. been provided full transcripts A 's appeal and the , I , Council bearing would be limited to the applicant's • grounds of appeal stated in the letter from the! applicant to the evidence would be considerd: Council. �o new eviden e Public Ie"�tllttOn y, p ez; Attorne r epresenting �� and Mrs .Dan flan 0 �7ose h Mend , 'g + testified, was 1318 S.W. 12th Avenue Portland, (are, c� .. � h.. aPPearirlg on behalf of the Dolans in their process of { exhausting administrative to seeking • a dma�a.strative �emed� A in�ie way • judicial relief. . , property was located at A He noted the subaeert pr 12520 S.W. Main 5tteet, Tigard; Oregon. • Cotthdil Meeting P,edap - Februar ' 5, 1990 - Page I . ^ ^.. A , r- - ...,...a+_. r.._...».... ,n...,..._..«.e.4-..:, .. ..r....,........ a.M....n.. Jr._t... .r:.... «.I.,. «..f..J-{...v..r+'.1.1,. .,w1.... Wrl,w:.._A. ', • 'Mr. Mendez's testimony is summarized as follows: Mr. and Mrs. Dolan have owned the property since approximately ' 1970 Now that they were interested in developing the property to the benefit of not only themselves, but also the communit and business area, the Planning. y , Commission was , holding up approval un til ,Nir. and Mrs. Dolan dedicate, without compensation, all portions of the site that fall within the 100Year flood plain plus fifteen feet. The additional fifteen ±eet would be for a bicycle path to a park which does not exist. The t Dolans of were n being denedldeve o the development g pm .�_ ...�__ entire parcel until they give the City the 15 feet of land which belongs to them. , on propo The actised by the Planning Commission constitutes an unlawful taking of a citizen's private property in violation of the Oregon and United States Constitution. '' The City should be required to pay the fair market value for ., , the property and follow condemnation rules. , In addition, the City was requiring Mr. and Mrs. Dolan to pay the costs of surveying and marking the subject 15 feet of Mr Dolan was willing to waive his argument on landscaped islands. signs were erect , they compliance y When the si were e� � the were in �ante w;z..h City ordinances. Their position was that the signs were I , conforming. ,The signs have become an integral, part to A.-Boy's f I t ' business in �.at area -- they were recognized by the public and by the patrons of the business; the signs, therefore, asset. If the City deems the signs to constitute a business , be nonconforming this should be handled through a se i ate procedure, not as part the develo pment permit a process a SUmmary remarks: The Planning C ua ission's Final Order, violates Mr. and Mrs. Dolan's . . s, Co��:�titutiona]: .right;,; . . .: Constlt�tion of Or on Article on Fifth Amendment Fund :the specifically, the U.S. Constitute , 2, Section 18, The demands of "gifts" : gifts �.o the W City were no moi�. than the City holda.nq up j . u the permit process; holding the Dolan s right to build on their property for ransom until the City` was given what it wants. y response f ' e or called for res from staff: .. Ccnuiiunit Develop tent Director advised that the dedioa�ion of the b cycle path as being treated''similarly to!'a right-of-way similarly dedication For such dedication, a developer must d.dicate t-ofway, s r�g-hy survey the right-of-w'aY,; and them improve the l p with merit r .�. The idea p of a street pedestrian � the development ocess., iculated in a design Galan j parks •�. Council Nteeting P!ecap "ebruary. 5,, 1990 Page 4 1 e • • o i o i 4t cN ` a,,, s. i 1 plan, and downtown development plan. Therefore, it appeared clear that the intent was to eventually have a trail along e Fanno Creek and it was appropriate to take steps to assure that land be made available. Trail construction was n:71t a t, r a...ement at this a m e • ' ' Conanunit y y Development Director advised that the staff agreed, that • the W th while this would be unusual. ghat the City would survey Y �' ' land to be dedicated in an attempt to reach a compromise, h` ' The signs were nonconforming. community Degel o peen t Director advised it had been standard practice that, at the time of '+ ' development permit issuance, illegal signs were addressed. Community Development Director not staff was reconuuending the appeal be denied:' " Mayor asked, and Senior Planner Liden confirmed, that a 10- r year amortization period had been extended to businesses to m conform to the sign regulations. The expiration of this phase-in period expired in March 1988. Business .owners,' who were not in conformance, were extended an opportiJnity to sign ° a+voluntary compliance agreement stipulating how nonconforming signs would be z em oved or modz.fa.ed to conform. :.Z City was �+ asking for Voluntary Compliance Agreements in the downtown 4' II area because the Downtown Plan was pending; sign design elements associated with the Plan were anticipated. ; ' Therefore, actual enforcement or removal of non-conforming ., . signs throughout the downtown area would not be done until. the Downtown plan was finished. The City requested a voluntary compliance agreement for the subject property, but did not receive one. Another option would be to submit a request for a Sign Code Exception or Variance from the Planning Coxrnni sion. L4ga? Counsel responded to a request from Councilor Johnson to explain the City's land dedication policy. C omm ini ty Development Director;s analogy to right-of-way dedication was accurate. Ioca� gove�rrents have long been g°v en tte r right to • impose reasonable conditions on development `approvals, Mr. Elliott referred a recent case in point was "Nolan" from the State of California. It was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court that a condition imposed had no reasonable connection , to the permit being sought; the condition did not . substantially further the, go verrnnenta JIl l purposes. the case before• . r cif there was a r itement for a 15-foot dedication which goes beyond and the flood lain because of the topography of the property, added Ci .. not a `condition unique l' city Leval Counsel. that this was n to this property; othercial property owners, in redeveloping their pr'o . bj along r`anno Creek, have been Council Meeting Recap February 5 1990 page , I; k . 1,.:.,n............,,i 1....Yr..n_w'r-.w....r r-... Ir.n n...N.1:nwn.-L.r..:r..: »...n-.i..,e..-,.N a.wlN 'A.r.... .r•rl .w.n .., rr.s 4. .....1 .... . .... :S ..s I .s ....-4y.W_I.i.L.. m..J m•—wrJ..ry r i • " 1 »:w • • required to dedicate similar land for the, bikeway. The bikeway was shown in the Park Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. There was no other way to preserve the bikeway land without the condition. City counsel advised that the Planning Commission ' reccranendation provided two or three conditions to modify the • • from the. "taking" arise. f � impact which could potentially g argued by the appellant. Even if this area was not dedicated to the Cit:i , there would be landscaping ,. requirements; however, now the City would landscape the subject area. Legal counsel concluded that the "Nolan" case does not appear to, apply to this situation because the condition was related to the development of the land and was in furtherance of the City Council's goals of developing the Fanno Creek and • greenway area.' . f: council received clarif ication on several issues inclu 1,ing the provision that the City would pick up the survey costs on the 15'-foot wide strip of land along the flood plain boundary. An amendment to the proposed resolution would be necessary. g. City legal counsel noted the need for clarification. The a pp licant's attorne y noted the y were waiving the appeal of the landscaped landsca islands issue. Mr. Elliott said he wanted to make r it clear that, at this hearing, all grounds for appeal were ' required to be raised. Mr. Mendez advised that in order to reserve this issue for appeal, he would argue that they considered the requirement for landscaped islands to be 'ya taking" in violation of the Constitution. all dour issues, noted in previous that al It was clarified this hearing. • testimony, were maintained for h Mr. Mendez advised that, in 1986, the City was willing to „ purchase the bike Path and at that time, they only wanted 8 feet. The Engineer's Report requested 10 feet, and the Planning Commission's final on wa s for 15 opinion feet, t, 1. p Councilor Johnson asked if the landscaped islands were neces order to meet percentages `of landscapedd area required: �. the Code. Senior Planner.:.advised that landlscaped tree.,:',islands with tree were required in and around parking areas ■ at a ratio' tree per seven parking spaces. There were a ntnnbera of owaos this requirement could be achieved. The y landscaped islands would be counted towards the landscaped area requirement of 15 Percent. ' g � notation, that Mr. j. Mr. Mencr�oz referred to City al Counsel. s Dolan had been given credit for a portion of the landscaping' Council Meet Pedalo - Febrr uazy 5 1990 Page 6 • • • ... r r ......r,.,0...r,JN..v4w,..n...4n ....:...r.n.1....«.»Y.A-.mrwNi.. �,:n.-w ,....... l.. w.u.+wn.i...-.....i., ,-...,—......,.,+....n.,.w..,-...-::....•......«-«..L.J.. , ,....wu E.. .., . .., ..,. nA.J„ .,.4.u.. ,..4R......,.,W� ..:i.tt... ...NtiK.----.w.dk.'u-;h..k. ..- :::w...+.•,:.+..a.,::' ,rl: requirement; he advised there was a big difference between . landscaping requirements and having l and taken. Mr. Mendez thought the "Nolan" case would support Mr. Dolan's position. that taking a a this was takin- for which there must be compensation. I (Public hearing was noted as being closed; Mr. John Dolan then advised he would like to comment; Mayor noted, for the record, the Public Hearing was . "reopened.") k. John Dolan, 4015 S.E. Brooklyn Street, Portland, Oregon, said the land dedication was about 7,000 feet. A building permit this property, p- have nothing to do for thi.� ro in his o inion would ha with the land dedication re uirements. With regard to the , r; g �h said he did not receive word in writing as to whetherCortnotthe City would pay for these costs. Mr. Dian argued against the pross ce noting conditions should be compiled with prior to receipt of an occupancy permit rather than before being given a permit to build. - With r and to the signs, Mr. Dolan said he disagreed that W eg � they were non-conforming. He said he does not believe the yo'�ne sign roof-top sign •. + pet si was a �,wed he has a sign it was mow�.ted on the parapet _nut on file from 1970 at <: wall. He advised •� Lam"' which time he` was given permission by the City of Tigard to build the sign. The billboard sign has been on the property` since he purchased land. ; Mr. Dolan advised he had not been ' the change in the Sign;Code. notified of � ` taking this property was Mr. Dolan advised the of this ro a violation of his constitutional rights k. Public Tearing was closed.in response question front Councilor Johnson Senior l L 'Planner advised a in r •- 12 of the Planning f Condition No.' was Co omission that the roof sign was 4" n Final . Order; tax to be permanen tly removed from the subject property y within 45 days of the issuance of the Occupancy Permit. Legal Counsel Cc7tXricil. d� :. � n followed �advised, if iscussio el advi _. m y s ., .,Paid by- . Council det�nined that the survey costs should be x+d Y� the City then reflecting this ` + � should be math - C 'the�'1 t.�xe resolution modified .ref point of the applicant s appeal Was sustained. d .. Councilor Johnson,' to �' Councilor� r eCt`�r `` Commission Decision to ), Moion Eadon, s `. amend Condition t o., 5 of the Planning } read as follows: o s i locate and clearly 'I"he City s engineer/surveyor ,�hatl. Y mark the 100-year floodplain boundary! prior to Council Meeting hec•ap F ru..a�y 5, 1:990 r Page 7 , t w colTanencement of construction. Floor plain boundary I' markers shall be maintained throughout the period of • construction. STAFF CONTACT: Jon Feigion, Engineering . Division. The motion was approved by i p�. y a unanimous vote of Council • • present. n. RESOII)TION NO. '90-07 IN THE MATTER OF THE:.ADOPTION OF A FINAL ORDER UPON CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF A 1)1'.1G CONMi.SSION DECISION '10 APPROVE A.SIM DE'VEr.i'DPIENT REVIEW AND VARIANCE APPLICATION (SDR 89-13)/V 89-21) PROPOSED BY JOHN AND • FLORENCE DOLAN. Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to adopt Resolution No.. 90.-07 as modified to reflect the amendment to Condition No. 5 of the Planning Commission "' decision. o c' l The motion was approved by a un ansm ous vote of Council present✓w 6. PUBLIC BEAR -- `' _.._.. fl0N 87'-- • T C�l[`IDlL1i�L T.ISIr ax 87-0:3 LAND P 09 A(D): '#3 A request for a s�anonh ectens :on of an approval✓oval period for a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a vehicle fuel and r• convenience sales business on property zoned C-G (Ceneral ComIttercial) , •,- this 5 , Partition to divide this 1.54 acre parcel Into two Also for a Minor Land Pare. parcels of 38,468 and 28,532 sq. ft. each. Mayor declared the public hearing was opened to council meeting.g ed and would be continued the FebrL�r 19, 1990, oun 7. ___ N-P4 SrF S: None. 8. EICECUrIVE SESSION!'. Cancelled 9. JY IMN`.0 8:37 p m. • , Catrherine 'c .eat;ley, City Re rder r oilp ,. 400 . -' • Gerald R. «w rd ayor . Date: G� cdni25 Council Meeting Reca p � Feb'ii 5� 1990 =' age 8 � .»�.SU.e..-+:«.0,. ...,,uu.,, „.n..-..,,!:..,+,cM. .,wd.-L+,,,»JA,ur... ...1. ..:+.,,,...t.J.... —r.4.. .;w,,..4.1� ,+s.» vs»±n...1..XX,✓.-..Kerry-.xM, .:uW,...w.» ,.x,.a.«.w.wx....%r/xa,4w,.,,..�i»�,,+w..t.,.:tl...a. .:.ww ...,u...«.�.. • I CITY OF TIGARD. OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ' AGENDA OF:2/5/90 DATE SUBMITTED 1/25/90 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Appeal ' Site PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Commission Development Review iSDR 89-13 89( a•aroval sub'ect to conditions • 21)_Dolan -- „.' 111111 ` P1 SPARED BY: Keith Liden DEPT HEAD 0.1'1 ' CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: ' . 1� P ` . POLICY ISSUE Should the City Council uphold the Planning Commission decision and conditions pp property on Main Street? merit of the A-Boy rope • of approval for the redevelopment Y p INFORMATION ION SUMMARY . ' On August 8, 1989, the Commission reviewed an appeal of a Director's decision '• �, new 17 600 square foot building is planned A-Boy” ' ` to approve the re-construction of a ,general retail. sales facility, Electric and Plumbing Supply. A n , qu g lanned for . construdtion on the existing 1.67 acre A-Boy site. 1 The decision included '"' "'� approval to a Variance request to allow 39 parking spaces instead of 44 as . , required by the Code. The site development review proposal was approved . . Subject to the satisfaction of 12 conditions. ' The applicant appealed the decision to the Commission because of an objection I I ached is a staff memo reviewing the appeal request, to several conditions. Att •. a draft resolution to uphold the Planning Commission decision, the ' Commission's final order (89-25 PC), the applicant's appeal,pp , the Commission transcripts and ' hearings on August 8, 1989 and mintites for the Coanm�.�sazon he DeceMber: 5, 1989, and the proposed site plan. ALTERNATIVES CoNSIDERED 1. A pp rove the attached tached zegoiution to u ��,ald the Commission decision ' 2. Modify and approve the attached resolution iISdAL IMPACT . I, • I °I St1CG1 fSTED ACTION , ". t'' l',1'0 A' rove the , resolution.Pp µµ . 4 I S �..q, (0.yr)1a' X 9� � .J{M f ��jY fit 4.�" Ark � M1 boL: N2Ji l , �. °wX 4' r1'4C& ,W� ,. A r a .1 t� 4 1 i tk � ' l'i'g''' .x 1 P n.1 •� :�� yl t, uk !',. s II a • 1. ,1 _..,...mow ...._.:..,_ ..._ • : m ' MEMORANDUM • TO: Ed Murphy, Community Development Dept. Director FROM': Keith JLiden, Senior Planner ?E; Dolan appeal (SDR 89-13/V 89-21) ► DATE: January 24, 1990 + The Planning Commission approved the above application subject to 12 conditions. The applicant has appealed this decision to the City Council due to objections relating to requirements found in several of these conditions. " 1. Condition 1- - Dedication of property' The applicant indicates that the dedication of the 100 year flood plain and a 15 foot wide strip of land along the flood plain boundary is unlawful. Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.5.3 (amended by Ord. 87-66) and Section 18.120.180 A. 8. of the Community Development Code require the dedication of sufficient open land for greenway adjoining and within the 9 flood plain and that suitable room be provided for a pedestrian/bicycle of Path. Because of the narrow y flood plain, the P width of the 100 Year location of the Main Street bridge, and the storm drainage improvements required b y the city's's Master .Drainage Plan, this dedication requirement r • is considered the minimum necessary nary to accom<�.lada'te these. improvements. , • ' f ; •' city legal counsel indicated at the Planning Commission hearing that the City's dedication requirements where constitutional and although thou h nbt r totally conclusive, the existing case laW supports this position.' The , .. City y ' Cit Attorney can further address this issue at the Council hearing. 2. Condition 4. - Landscaped islands The applicant states that landsca ed islands and trees were not r • P , addressed in the original Director's decision d and therefore it is not appropriate for the Commission to require them in Condition 4.. These landscaping features were not listed conditions for the and r p g as part of the c n . Director's decision because the applicant s . site ' an ndigated the , 1 number of landscaped islands. and trees as required by the Code During the Commission hearing, pp t 4 a.n the a ]:icant stated want g stall the landscaped islands and. trees. The ComMiss'ionbfound that standard should t 7�d �` • not b'e waived arid act tCondition 4. of Commission's order specifies that t he® landdcaF i g features be provided. 3. Condition 5. - Survey expenses The applicant States , the cost` of surveying the PF s that the city should bear 100 year flood plain boundary. The Staff and applicant f c` the surve. costs associated , �' d with this condition and Condition n d�.s•uses • The Staff agreed to ac survey work' because of the additional cor�p�,�.sh, the su. dedication outside of the 100 year flood plain that applied in this O i7 s / • Ir • • , r I o • r case. • • 4. Condition 10. and 12. - Sign removal ; Both the Director and Commission decisions conclude that the two • nonconforming billboard signs and the nonconforming roof sign on the site should be removed as a condition of approval. Section 18.114.110 '' requires that nonconforming signs be removed by March 20, 1988. Because ' of the unresolved design issues associated with the City Center Plan, l the owners of nonconforming signs in the downtown were allowed to keep these signs if they signed a voluntary compliance agreement to remove or s modify them at a later date to conform With City Code. The applicant has refused to sign greement such an agreement.a '•' When approving a Site Development Review application pp . the City must consider the approval standards in Section 18.120.180 of the Code. '' I" This section requires compliance with the provisions of the Sign Code, (Chapter 18.114) DCLAN2/kl I I • • 4 } , II it 'rI r v,. 1 ' . ( c ' e I r rl t I i ¢II p _ t CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 90- IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF A FINAL ORDER UPON CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW '1 AND VARIANCE APPLICATION (SDR 89013/V 89-21) PROPOSED BY JOHN AND FLORENCE DOLAN. WHEREAS, a Director's decision was appealed to the Planning Commission by the applicant for further consideration; and WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed the case at its meetings of August 8, 1989 and c' December 5, 1989; and • WHEREAS, the Commission upheld the Director's i i modifications to for s decision wa.tk / original pp al (Final Order No. 89-25 PC); and the c�ri anal conciiti:ons of a rov nab. Order WHEREAS t this matter came before the City Council at its meeting of February 5, qu applicant; and • 1990, upon the request of the a li, WHEREAS, the Council reviewed the evidence related to the applicant's appeal. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the requested appeal is DENIED and the Planning Commission decision is upheld based upon the facts, findings, and conclusions g No. 89-25 (Exhibit "iA") Final Order noted in Planning Commission Fin The Council further orders that the City Recorder send a copy of this final order to the applicant as a notice of the final decision in this matter. • PASSED: This day of February, 1990. Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor city of Tigard, ATTEST: • Deputy Recorder City of Tigard,' APPROVED AS T'O FORMt • dity Attorney ' Date RESOLUTION NO PAGE i • r 1 f�� 4 • • r. • CITY OF TIGARD , • PLANNING COMMISSION ' FIN4 , ORDER NO. 89- 25 _ Pl", • A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WHICH APPROVES AN APPLICATION FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR 89-13) APPROVAL TO RECONSTRUCT A GENERAL RETAIL SALES FACILITY WITH A NEW 17,600 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING, PLUS A VARIANCE GENERAL RETAIL SALES TO ALLOW 39 (V 89-21) TO THE REQUIRED PARKING STANDARD FOR, PARKING SPACES WHERE 44 ARE REQUIRED (DOS)• The Tigard Planning Commission reviewed the above application at a public• hearing on December 5- 1989. The Comuiss on based its decision nPon the facts, findings, and conclusions noted below: A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Site Development Review SDR 89-13 and Variance V 89-21. REQUEST: To construct a 17,600 Square foot retail sales building and a variance to allow 39 parking spaces where 44 are required. APPLICANT: John and Florence Dolan OWNER: Same 7344 s.e. Foster Road Portland, OR 97206 12520 SW Main Street WCTM 281, 2AC, TL 700) LOCATION• '( COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Central Business District ZONE DESIGNATION: CBD-AA (Central Business District, Action Area) 2. Background No previous applications have be en reviewed bY the Cit y' with r espect to the subject site. Two freestanding si ns a and one roaf Sign n on the property have been considered nonconforming as of March' 201 1988; and property and' business owners were notified of ,this prior to that time. • . A voluntary compliance agreement has been used to provide affected , ., . downtown town' P ro P er es an ex enai on of until city Center Plan is a adopted. The voluntary compliance agreement never signed. The property and business owners have been cited for the following for nonconformities: • 18.114.070.N; a. d n I . Roof �4a in, a vii Section sign, n of 5., a. violation FINAL ORDER 89-L5 PCI - SDR 89.13/V 89-21 DOLAN -- PAGE 1 !'fir 2.. Two nonconforming, amortized billboards (illegal location), violations of Code Section 18.114.090.A.4.a. The Director issued a decision approving this proposal subject to 14 conditions." The a licant appealed aled this decision to the Commission ion PP due to objections over 5 of these conditions. 1 3. Vicinity Information Properties immediately in all directions are also zoned and developed CBD`--AA (Central Business District Action Area). Property immediately to the west contains the Fanno Creek floodplain and is designated in Tigard's ' Community Plan to be included as part of the City's greenway/open space system. 4. Site Information and Proposal I ' The subject site is approximately 1.67 acres in size and is bordered by Fanno Creek on the southwestern side. There is a 9700 square foot y a building and partially paved parking lot which has been in its present freestanding sign with location since approximately the late 1940s. A a readerboard stands along the Main Street frontage of the property. Two large billboards; Which are subject to the City's sign amortization program, stand on or near the property's northeasterly boundary. The applicants wish sh to raze the existing structure, currently used by A-Boy Electric and Plumbing Supply, a general retail sales use. The ope for a larger, 17,600 square foot structure. site will then be Bevel _d '` better suited to the nature business. •, „ furs'of the b�tss. The applicant is also requesting a Variance to City parking re quirements for general retail Sales buSinesses to provide only 39 P arsin g spaces w h en the community Development Code requires 44 spaces. 5. I I A enc and NPO Comments �1 Y Neighborhood Planning Organization #1 has reviewed the proposal and has the following comments! The tree near the sidewalk oh the proposed landscape plan could . block the view of eastbound, traffic" Also the air conditioner should be provided With noise/sound sscreening.' Finally; the CPC expressed 'concern that a fence be constructed' on the site after P g g the existing building has been remoVed. t al Cas has reviewed p po states that it has iz • Northwest Natural the rok=dal and sta .• 4-inch .' an ex�'sting 4-anch std l north of f the ce nterl ine on SW Main Street and a serrice line to 12520 SW Ma in Street. The CoMpany will require notification prior to demolition. It AD ORDER 89-ZS Pu SDR F 9-1 r V g9-21 DOLAN PAGE 2 ; . . I I . I , I The Consolidated Rural Fire District notes that fire flow requirements exceed 2000 gallons per minute. Automatic sprinkler protection or some other means of built-in fire protection will be required. d Portland General Electric the Tigard Water District, have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. The City Building Division states that an 8--foot tall solid plywood fence must be installed behind the sidewalk/public: right-of-way along SW Main Street (from the southwestern property line to4a minimum of 20 feet beyond the new building) prior to start of construction and must remain until all coin ' struction is complete (Uniform Building Code section 4407(c). A demolition permit will be required for the removal of 'an Y or all of the existing building. The City Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal and has the following ollown comments: a. Main Street is a major collector major street and is currently fully develop ed wit p h curbs and sidewalks. A plan developed earlier this year by the City Center Plan Task Force calls for reconstruction of main Street. However, this plan has not yet • been formally adopted by the City and design details are not yet • ' po by Task Force can al available. improvements pro sed b the City Center Plan l be accomplished within the existing SO foot right--of-way. A 1986 engineering study, of the condition of Main Street recommends that the pavement be completely reconstructed and that r , the storm drainage system be repla.oed. It appears to be P a P to perform the proposed • P impractical reconstruction of Main Street in a piecemeal fashion on a lot-by-- lot basis; instead, the reconstruction needs to occur in larger Segments beginning at Fanno Creek Bridge and working uphill. Therefore, we do not Propose that any . reco nst �'t1Gt .ion Y of Main Street be required qu' as a condition of this development proposal. This development should be required to replace any existing rr; sidewalks Which are damaged ar sn poor repair and to reconstruct t any existing curb cuts which are using abarjdoned» b. AS part of the Ti gard Major Streets Tr ansP art atioo n Safety • I Improvement Bond, the city P lane to repl ace the Main Street over Pan no Creek. The bridcye replacement is tentatively b` scheduled to occur in 1990. The bridge construction is expected to occur within the existing tight-of-way and should have little impact on the subject site- 0. The` site slopes toward anno creek; therefore , adeqUaLe storm , drainage is available. r , FINAL ORDER 89„.7.,:, PC _ 8DR 89_13/v 8921 bOJAN PACE i y 1 d. The City's Master Drainage Plan recommends improvements to the Fanno Creek channel downstream from Main Street:. The proposed Irian Po channel improvements would include widening and slow stabilization. These improvement would move the location of the top of bank approximately five feet closer to the proposed J` building than the location of the existing t�.n top of ban g P k. e. If a pedestrian and bicycle pathway is to be provided along Fanny proposed by Parks Master Plan, a minimum of ten feet will be needed between the future top of bank and the proposed d building. Typically, new developments along Fanny Creek are required to dedicate greenway to protect the flood plain and to provide for the park pathway system. f. Two sanitary sewer trunk lines cross the site in an existing , easement. One line is 24 inches in diameter and the other is 60 in diameter. inches Therefore, adequate sanitary sewer service is readily available. The new building has been dosigned to stay Cleat of the existing sanitary sewer easement. g. The applicant has requested a Variance on the ` parking requirements, arguing that the proposed usage of the building generates little parking demand. However, it its possible that the usage of the building will change future years. It appears that there is adequate room on the site to provide parking in accordance with the standard Code e re uirements In fact, the applicant indicates an intention to provide additional parking in the future. Therefore, we recommend that the variance be denied. • No other comments were received. B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLLYS;CON ' Section 18»120.180 lists the standards whereby the Comm .ssion is to approve, review pP ve, approve with modifications or deny the request for site Cha ter YLQ»C�8 s District,.� development review approval Sn addition to those contained in P ,g 6 , Central Business District, the following sections of the Tigard Community Deve lopment code are also a plo able: Chapter r 18,86, Action Areas; Chapter 18.100, Landscaping axed Screening; Chapter 18.102, Visual Clearance Areas; Chapter 18.106, Off--street Loading; Chapter 18.108 AcLess, egress and Crc'hlati.on Chapter 18.114, , Parking and , signs; Chapter 18-120, 5ite• Development Review; and Chapter 18.134, Variances • In addition to all of the above approval critF:riat this order will review the proposal in light of the Parks Master Plan for Vanno Creek Park and the natural resources element of the City's Comprehensive plan • FINAL ORDF,R 89-2p C SDR 89--1 • �8/1" 85-21 l3OLA11 -- PAO8 4 • , Pern■ittedi Use in the Central Business District ' y - The applicant intends to construct a new and larger structure suited for a general retail sales use. Such a use is permitted outright in the CBD (Central Business District, Action Area) zone and therefore the use is acceptable for this site. 4 . Any use in the CBD-AA zoning district must meet a 30 foot building` setback requirement if any side of the property abuts a residential zoning district.. Since none of the four sides of the property abut a residential zoning district, no other building setbacks are required. In the CBD-AA zoning districts maximum site coverage regulations allow up to 85 percent of the site to be covered with structures and impervious surfaces such as parking, loading and pathway areas. This 1. will be analyzed during a discussion of landscaping and screening F. 8 below,' . Action Area Overlay The "AA" P ortion of the subject site's zoning designation indicates that an additional "layer' of zoning regulations has been imposed on P pe•' y p rp the Action Area Overlay designation is ro rt .' to Implement this the Tpolicies�ofo the�Tigard Comprehensive Plan for action areas which include provisions for a mixture of ,intensive land use. Since permitted uses in the Action Area Overlay zone must be those 4 specified in the underlying specified y• g x oni:ng district, 'in this case, the CBD, this 'requirement has been Met' Code Section 18.86.040 contains interim standards which are to be -��.ns �.ni°erim addressed f r new developments in the CBD-AA zone. These requirements :�o are intended to serve the use and to provide for projected public facility needs of the area The City may attach conditions to any �r development within an action area prior to adoption of the design plan to achieve the following objectives: • a. The development shall address transit usage by residents, � em lo, ees and customers if the site is within 1/4 Mile of a employees, Public transit ransit line or tranSit stop. Specific items to be ' addressed are as follows: i. Orientation of buildings and facilities towards transit • services to provide for direct pedestrian access into the building(s) from transit lines or stops; ii. ransit/auto conflicts" by providing direct g �' pedestrian access into the buildings with limited crossings in automobile circulation/parking areas. If pedestrian ', access Cros ses automobile carcUlation/parkin g areas, paths shall be marked for pedestrians; Encouraging'.transit-supportive users by limiting automobile support Services to collector and arterial streets; and . ?INAL ORb1R i39-25 PC SDJR 89--13/V' 89.21 DOtAN 'AOE S • I , ae \\ iv. Avoiding the creation of small scattered parking areas by ■ I allowing adjacent development to use shared surface parking, parking structures or under-structure parking; b. The development shall facilitate pedestrian,/bicycle circulation , if the site is located on a street with designated bike paths or ` adjacent; to a designated g reenw ay/open spa ce/park. S pecific items to be addressed are as follows: • i.: Provision of efficient, convenient and continuous pedestrian and bicycle transit circulation systems, linking developments by requiring dedication and construction of pedestrian and bike 'paths identified in the comprehensive ,. plan. If direct connections cannot be made, require that funds in the amount of the construction cost be deposited into`an account for the of constructing paths; ii. Separation of auto and truck circulation activities from pedestrian areas; Encouraging pedestrian-oriented design by requiring pedestrian walkways and street level windows: along all sides withu public '.access into the building; iv. Provision of bicycle arkin as re ire Subsection ,� d under 18.106.020.P; and v. Ensure adequate outdoor lighting by lighting pedestrian walkways and auto circulation areas. c. coordination of development within the action area. Specific items to be addressed are as follows: i. Continuity and/or compatibility of landscaping, circulation, access, public facilities, and other improvements„ Allow required landscaping areas to be grouped together. Regulate shared access where appropriate. Prohibit lighting which shines on adjacent property; ii. Siting and orientation of land use which considers surrounding land use, or an p plan. Screen loading areas and refuse dun"sters from -view. 1 Screen commercial, and industrial use from single family residential through landscaping; and iii. provision of frontage roads or shared access where feasible. z The submitted deVelopStent' proposal satisfies the above requirements' for transit usage, pedestrian/bicycle circulation and coordination of this plan with the action area. Screening of the truck loading area ' can be accomplished with either a fence or tall vegetation. outdoo{�. rINAL ORDER 89- PC -- SD't' 89--13/V 89--21 DOLA '-- PAGE 6 • • I , .• ci by applicant as to how lighting should be specifically addressed the it might be provided. Landscaping and. Screening The applicant requested that in return for the dedication o9� property { a lieant ha,s re ested th ' along Fanno Creek, all other landscaping standards should be waived. These "` I, , the the landscaped primarily waivers rimaril involve use of the dedicated area to meet area requirement (15% in this case), provision by the City of the M west and mouth ides and landscaping and buffering for the building on the Sides, •• , .p� g g ding. trees in the parking lot and along the street frontage. The Commission finds that hat the ,'City'. has allowed the inclusion of dedicated flood plain/park • land for the purpose of calculating required landscaped area for other projects and such an allowance is appropriate in this , instance. The provision of a landscaped buffer, by the City, along the east edge of the dedicated area is justified because the maintenance of this area will be the City's responsibility, and the future storm drainage and , pathway p _ removal of vegetation planted ` �sn rovesn�nts will cause the destruction or remo ve etatae.an now. • The Commission ssian finds that the waiver of other landscaping requirements for the project are not warranted an d that the applicant should submit an amended landscaping plan 'which is consistent with Code standards with " ' exception to the items noted above. • Vision Clearance The ornamental pear tree intended to go immediately to the south of the proposed driveway need not be relocated out of this area because although ' clearance area, this type of tree may grow to a mature it is in a vision blears». height of 15-2 long below eight ., . , feet., So lon as none �f the branches extend beta feet in height, this tree, or similar type, will not pose a vision clearance problem -, Off-street Park .ng •end Loading The applicant proposes construct 39, standard 90-degree 'parking; spaces, p paces meet the ' one of lwhch will be for handicapped ed, c'astoimers The �a ;� parking- landscape�' . dimenibnal' re z.remerits for off-site ark.�n Five landaca �' islands are G also shown. A discusdi.on of the Variance requested pertaining to parking space number follows later in this report The Code requires one secure bicycle parking Space for every 15 required automobile spaces. minimum bicycle parking spaces p bes� ]Cn this case, a cciinimum of two ba.cy are needed., The Site plan indicates a proposed location for the bike rack.- Y The bicycle rack c design should also how many spaces will be provided.but does not �r g " •"'. g ° lso be submitted to the Planning Division for review prior to its installation. Acce$S, EqreSs and Circulation • The requirements of the Access, tgress and Circulation have been satisfied. FINAL ORDER 89--,7-41) Pd * "DR 89-13/V 89--21 DoLPN - ?'AGt 7 bti i r r q L ti v Signs ` • I I The applicant has proposed no new signage in conjunction with this application. The existing freestanding sign,will be removed. All new wall nd freestanding signs `must be reviewed by the Planning Division n prior to their erection for conformity with the City Sign Code. The two billboard signs and roof sign are in direct corliict with Code Section 18.120»180, which requires that the approval of .t Site Development • Review be conditioned on the 'proposal's ability to cf4nply!- with all other M • applicable provisions of the Code,'` includin the Sign Code in Chapter •• g �• •g nonconforming, amortized signs. Since neither the 18.114. These signs� are no property business owner or sign owner signed a voluntary compliance agreement with the City, their removal should be required as a condition to this approval. Compliance would include complete removal of the signs. The applicant indicates that he is subject to a contractual agreement with the sign company and is not able to order the removal of the billboard • n . signs+ • . Site. Development Review • Code Section 18.120.180.A.8 requires tha t where landfill and/or development y p in, the City shall is `allowed within or adjacent to the 100-year flood la require the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining "n and within the floodplain in accordance With the adopted pedestrian/bicycle • plan. path required p Action Area Overlay p A ath is also re Bred as art of the Actio, ' designation (Section 18.86.040.A.1.b.i) . Therefore, dedication of the land . area on this property below the elevation of the 100-year floodplain should be a condition to any approval to this application. The Engineering Division has noted that an adjustment of the building location will have to occur in order to accommodate the pathway and the . City-initiated relocation of the floodplain bank. This should be tia ted � future .Gib. ins, y required on a r'ev'ised site plan. Parking Vari antq approval only 39 parking ' k The applicant .�.s• requesting a Laval of a 'Variance to allow onl s ..ace3 spaces are required by the Code. P_ when 4 . y whereby the Director can Section 18.13i4» s or clenr�aevarian e request. ;' They are: 050 of the Code contain apprt�ve, approve with modifications deny (1) The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental tai the purposes of this Code, be in conflict with the policies of tine Comprehers ive Plat' , to any` other applicable o Coninunity e policies of t� p - - applicable: .. policies and ata and �.•. A the nda.rdi�, .. . y g I . Deve Ira m�.nf. Code r to ari other to other properties iii the Same zo'4In district or vicinity. (2) There are special circumstances that exist which are peduli ax` to the lot size or ,shape, topography or other dircumstances, over which the FINAL ORDER 89-75 3C ~ SOR 89-13/V 89-21 bbLAN PA+ E 8 . s,I applicant has no control, and which are not . ,applicable to other I. • properties • the same zoning district; (3) The use proposed will be the save as permitted under this Code and • City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent possible, while permitting some economic use of the land; (4) Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if t �• specified in the Code; and han wou the developmentwere located as (5) The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the he ' minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. • Special circumstances exist which are peculiar to this lot. The applicant , proposes this Project in two phases: th p psis sesta construct t p a P the first hale co is of construction of the new building on the southwestern portion of the property. The existing building would then be demolished. The applicant hopes to attract a complimentary businesses) to build on the northern Portion of the lot as part of Phase 2. Should additional parking be required, the applicant suggests that hat a shared Parking arrangement could be ' worked out with the adjacent structure. Moreover, the applicant's own tax lot 400 to the southeast, might also be used for parking purposes. • , The applicant 7LP points out that the store does not attract browser or window shoppers", in that the business constitutes a retail/wholesale business bulk ,merchandise. The latter fact result type he attraction of which sells y s in the customers who decide in advance of travel that a product is needed and travels to a specific destination. The applicant cites, the, fact eight vehicles a t any asst or ea. , one time.. Staff notes that employees g the existing store rarely has more than a ces and perhaps delivery trucks will business will also need require to park and unload on the pert;;ro however t P it is clear that the existing store use will not ace44 parking spaces. The City agrees that the present use is similar to general retail sales, bulky merchandise" parking ky rchand• + •� If employ the arking standard used for re xse use. xt the City were to •• . P y t a bulky merchandise, namely 1 space for every 1000 s retail sales businesses which sel�'�: �' � square feet of gross floor • area but not less than 10 spaces, it is clear that the, proposed 89 spaces are well within City parking requirements. Although the use of the building may later change, alternatives are available in conjunction with the fixture phase of construction 'on this property, If a new use, which has a higher 9 parking rat� lelin g � P� �.n demand occupies the building, a new site developuent review and evaluation of parking Would be issue of parking Spade number will also be evaluated as part of the p he site development review for Phase this . development. ar3e � of thideve�o ,merit: by City - �tisi-a.n h �►gal and.` P regulations - g � Y' `, natural. s stems will not be t w�.l.l be the same as permitted b' Ca: affected by this Prop os'.. Therefore/- P al: �the y that the variance request is u st�.fied Subject to Corinmissir�n finds th Condition j., not:eri below.' • PIN AL ORDER 89 • PO - SDR 09-13/V 09-x21 boLAN PAi.4t 9 • s • • Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park r I a community park located along Fanno Creek between Main - Fanno creek Park is Street and SW Hall Boulevard in the Central`.Business District. The site lies within the 100--year floodplain and immediately abuts the subject ro rty along its southwestern property line. • p � Y g � � pe Y that the entire e. xt is park eventually The dedication of the land area arks wY:ll event�yuall. contain 35 acres. within the 100-year floodplain and the eventual construction of a pathway , in that area. on the subject property is consistent with the City's park ' i plans for the area. 4 In the (City's Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park, it is stated that Fanno ' Creek Park is intended to become the focal point for community, cultural, • and recr eatio nal activities. A paved urban plaza, an amphitheater, an English wat er garden, p athwa ys, a tea hous e, a man-made enlar g e ment of the existing pond, as well as preserved natural areas are all. components foreseen for this area. *. The proposed development presently Under review will abut this planned community park, and at its closest poin t, would Ibe no more than eight feet "_ from the outer boundary 100-year Engineering bounds of the Y00-� ear_ floodplain. The En ineer, n Division has stated that the proposed structure should be at least 10 feet away from the telooatpw outer bank in order to accommodate P Po ,a eight foot ' odte a wide pathway and the planned reconstruction of the storm drainage channel along the flood p lain. This indscl afes that an adjustment to t he placement ?' • ' of the building on the site would be necessary in order to adequately A accommodate the path and ve g etative screenin g up to the relocated bank of the storm drainage channel. C. DECISION The Planning Commission approves SUR 89-13 and V 89-21 subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions: u LESS 7 rSE NOTED, THE F'01,1,041ING CONDITIONS S HALL BE Y��E2 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUIt1iING PERMITS: • 1. The applicant shall dedicate pp i_ V o the City as Greenway all portions of b the site that fall within the existing 11,00-Year floodplain !(i.e., all portions of the property below elevation 150.0) and all property 15 feet above (to the east of) the 150.0 foot floodplain boundary. A monument boundary survey showing all new title lines,' prepared by a g" professional land surveyor, shall be Submitted to the City registered rofessionall prior for review and approval p ° to recording. The building shall be � designed so as not to intrude into the greenway area. STAFF CONTACT: Jon Feigion, Engineering Division, 635-4171r 2. The applicant shall Obtain written approval from unified Sewerage g y ington County for connection to tk e Unified Sewerage .A enc of 'Wash Agency trunk line prior to issuance of a Building Peratit. ST 'E" o cNTACTz Ore Berry, Bn ineering Division, '639 417i. � �'r g j .� - I I FINAL OAGE� 89 _PC - GDt 8g-13/V 89-21 DO TAN FAGD 10 • II I - I : • The applicant shall submit a revised site • plans which show the proposed plan showing: lj building and rooftop p posed de$ign and location of outdoor. lighting . . , mechanical e a p mech quipment• 2 a, secure bicycle o 2) the , parking spaces .� provx.s.�on of at least two the Planning' Division tor, review he rack design shall be submitted to and approval- the location and screeni ng of the trash disposal area; one building outs of the 4) the relocation of the phase , • greenway area; and 5) ' parking spaced. STAFF CONTACT: a minimum of 39 `h• Diden,� Planning Division, 6,39•- e.�t_ • " . 4. The applicant shall submit a revise • screening frir`;the trash disposal revised landscaping plan showing. 1) trees along the Main Street frontage;rear 2 j the. installation of street trees landscaped islands and 3) the provision� of trees p• lands es parking an the parking ) per seven; p g' spaces. g:.lot at a ratio of one tree required For' the ,purposed of r ca er s C3 ed landscaped area '(7.5'x), the. calculating the NO. 1.7. dedicated above land n e e , noted d be in �o Y included, The City Condition landscaping the land dedicated to the public.halST be espans ble for • STAFF CONTACT . Keith LS_den, Planning Division- . .x.visi©n The applicant's..: engineer/surveyor shall locate and clearly rly mark the floodplain boundary prior to commencement of construction.' Floodplain bounds markers shall be Maintained throughout the traction STAFF CON of cons TACT: Jon Feigionr Engineering Division g 9 Div'xs.ion., • ' • , 6: A demolition '• ' permit shall be obtained 'p rior to de m_ o lition or removal any structures on the site. The applicant shall notify Norlw t-, Natural Gas to demolition: STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, 3iidi xg Division, 639-4171» 7, The applicant shall install an ' . . ' B- foot tag l l so li d plywood oo d f e nce behind ,the sidewalk/public right-of-way along SW Main Street (from the propert y line to a minxmum OE 20 feet be and the n t btg to the northeast) prior to start of construction and m sl l all const ruct ian is complete (Uniform Building code sect �n 4D ( )d ST AFF CON T ACT: Br ad Roast, Building Division.DN] S mr NO FOLLOWING CONDITIONS S BE SATISFIED xLaR N TSS , 3F CPETT:, _ • 8. All landscaping materials and other her , p ini condo b ioc 5 3. and 4 proposed site �m rbv�cxnents riots' shall any structure. be installed or occupancy of an financially assured be nsta Planning Division: STA> F CCII�TACT: Keith Ldeny 9, All new ' _ Si na a must receive a pp'. l b the e Planning Divisio n prior' to er ection of the sign e ST�FF CONTACT: Keith Lcen; Planning Division. K The two rionconryrman gr amo , etructu.r:es Shall be completely , ed ba.l�_ba�krd si ne g and supi�ro • oc�rai aric p �" .f^emo�rer.} J�r�,�itt the' p y of base brie o this development the applicant poor to � L pme��t OR the a ,, pPl�-cait shad • kiI1VAL ORDER 83-%�') PC S�7Ifi_ Bg.,.. - RANI' - QAGD 1 i • II t • I submit any applicable, legal document which prohibits their removal. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden, Planning Division. 13.. As a condition of the occupancy permit, the applicant shall be required to replace any portions of the existi tg sidewalk along Main Street which are damaged or in poor repair and to reconstruct any,'` existing curb cuts which are being abandoned. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering Division, 689-4171» 12. The existing roof sign shall be permanently removed from the subject property within 45 days of the issuance of the occupancy Permit for the new building. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden, Planning Division. • THIS APPHavAL SHALL BE VALID FOR EIGHTEEN (18) MONTHS FROM THE DATE or TEE FINAL DECISION NOTED BELOW • It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this final order. PASSED This,/ day of December, 1989, by the Planning Commission of the City f 1.igard. ,, ' Rib Milton Pyre,A0UPFr • esident a. Tigard Plann ng Commission br/abR89--13 ks1 I I • I I � FINAL OnDER G9 A PC - spa 89--15/V 89-21 DOLA.P - PAGE 12 ' I i . I A F h .. .,..u,,x.. ... d. n. , r. s a r. ., ..•r .. .. .x,,. r . r . .v .r.... .xu.r ... .<.un r... .. r. .,wa«• wx. . .nnm a rig ...r+.,.r...v ..o. 1 • ( KNAPPENBERGER & MENDE JOSEPH R.MENDEZ ATTORNEYS AT LAW PETER MILLER ALLAN F KNAPPENBERGER HONEYMAN HOUSE OF COUNSEL 1318 S.VV.12TH AVE. PORTLAND.OREGON.97201 43367 PAX (503)294-0442 (503)294-4317 December 27, 1989 City of Tigard Community Development went P.C. Box 23397 Tigard, Ore on, 97223 Re:' Application Being ',A.ppeai.. d: John T. and Florence Doa:m SDR89-13/V 89-21 To Whom It Ma y Concern: Please accept this correspondence as a formal request to provide each City Council member and the applicant herein, a copy p► the .hearn.g� copy • of the complete transcript of th s and. a co of the minutes from all relevant proceedings which resulted in the , Planning Commission's)lIl ssion's approval with conditions of the above- ' r eferenced application. This request is made consiStent with Development Code for Tigard, Section 18.32.330A. of the Community ,Dovelo m Oregon. r,,;onsistent with Section 18..32.330B the appellate will assume responsibility an5ibi lit y o satisfy a ll costs incurred for the preparation of the transcript at a rate of • actual cost up ' to $500.00 and one-half of the costs for any amount incurred over $500.00. ■ In the event there are any questions as a result of this request, please contact Jetiseph R. Nieridez, attorney for John T,. and Florence Dolan at the telephone number listed above. Dolan, e nL phCln Thank you for your anticipated cooperation grid consideration in this matter. �. Very truly Yours,' fir .' FEZ JO Men e;Z JRM:sp tnc cc: John T. DolaiCl Florence Dolan • NOTICE OF APPEAL OF . . I FINAL ORDER OF DIRECTOR 1. ConI cerning case number: SDR 89-13/V 89-21. 2. a) Name of owner: John T. and Florence Dolan. b) Name of applicant: Albert R. Kenney Jr . . 3. Address: 9500 S.W. Boulevard, Portland, Oregon, 97206. 4. a) Address of property: 12520 S.W. Main Street, b) Tax Map and Lot No(s) 2S1 2A.C, tax lot 700. 5. Request: Applicant requests the Planning Commission's Final Order in the above referenced matter be reviewed by the City Council regarding the cone't" x .zonal approval p • of the reconstruction of a general, retail sales facility, A-Boy Electric Plumbing and Supply, with a new 171600 square foot building on a 1.67 acre parcel ot to 14 conditions enumerated rated in the Order. Zone: CBD � �. (Cent ral Business District - Action Area) A copy of the Notice of final Order - By Planning Connmission (hereinafter referred to as the "Final Order") is attached hereto , marked as Exhibit ,A and incorporated rporated herein by this reference. 6 The a ppl icant qualifies as a party. by being the owner and the real party in interest intending to develop the pa.rcel 7. .. . Specific grounds for the appeal for review are: a) paragraph 1, Order. The c p page 10 Final decision demands John T. and Florence Dolan (hereinafter referred a e • to as Dolan dedicate e a substantial Portion of their r property the City as g reenwai i.e. , all Portions of the site that fall within the existing 100-year floodplain and in • above (to r demands Dolan surrender 15 feet addition the Final Order demand by east of _ .. ot,he Planning ��- � boundary. This ( the floodplain bou , s tutes an unlawful tx. taking of a citizen's private property in Commx.,,sx.on cons,,. • � violation of g p ter in the Constitution of the United States Fifth Amendment and ... in Constitution of Oregon Article 1, Sect:don 18 violation of the Co g e b) P..ara ra h 4, page 11 Final Order: That portion of I I I , , eyed 3) which requires Dolan to con Paragraph 4 � subnui�tb . parking landscaped islands in thc. arl�g and plant s•�ruct landsca e�i: �slanit sx ,got, and - . the islands is of first impression to frees in the 1 - NOTICE OF APPS OF FINAL '`ORDER OF DIRECTOR i iR��TC� I • I u ✓ 1v s s" applicant. This condition was not included in the previous decision and was not included in'Dolan's initial appeal. This requirement is not uniform in its application by the City Planner and constitutes an unlawful taking by this governmental agency. c) paragraph 5, page 11 Final Order. Requires that Dolan at Dolan's expense survey and mark the land they are required to deed to the City. This expense should be born by the City sine. the City would be beneficiary. of the dedication d) Paragraph 16, Page 11 and Paragraph 12, p ''Je ' 12 Final Order. The Planning Commission requires Dolan to remove certain signage prior to the occupancy phase of the development. The signage referred to by the Director was erected by Dolan with the permission oaf the City and in conformance with city ordinances at the time of construction. The signage is integral to Dolan's business and its required removal constitutes itutes an unlawful nlawful taking for wh ich Dola n must be compensated beyond the mere a roval of their application. The signage issue o a separate builaing is improperly addressed by the Planning Commission in this application process and should be struck from the Final Order. 8. a) Date decision was filed= 12/18/89 n scheduled to be final 12/28/8 ' b) Date decision . DATED this 7 ' day of 1989 . XNAPPENBERGE ::'" ME re E J i y '82333 �� torneys :or . .hn T. and •reiice Do RECEIVED BY: JD r;(,,� DATE: •75- ,. AP.44OVED AS TO FORM. BY: DATE: TIME: _ DENIED AS TO FORM BY: DATE: / / TIME: NOTICES OF FURTHER4ikCTION AND HEARING DATES SHOULD BE SEI1T TO: Er. John Dolan Mr. Joseph R. Mendez : Esq. Glo be I:i g.,htirg Sg Ppl. y The HoneYman House 1919 .W. 19th Avenue 1318 S.W. 12th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97 • ; ��,g - 219 Portland, Oregon 91201 ° 2 - NOTICE OF APPEAL Or FINAL ORDER. OF DIRECTOR • • N� • 4..,,..{.i I+uoJ+R,M.tI..-M.L... .w Mx.l... w4..,. rl.+. . . aa:..m..-a.......•..-.rlen. I .4' M P CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 90-07 OF N • IN THE APPEAL OF TAE PLANNING OM .MISS ON FDECISION TO APPROVE A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DEVELOPMENTREVIEW ' AND VARIANCE APPLICATION (SDR 89013/V 89-21) PROPO SED BY JOHN AND FLORENCE ,. DOLAN. ' pp.. to the Planning by applicant for further consideration;n ors a appealed he Plannin Commission b the PP Director's decision and I • WHEREAS, a I) reviewed the case at its reviev is meet3.ngs ,of August 8, 1989 and WHEREAS, the :Comm December 5, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Commission upheld the Director's de cision with modfioataons to the original conditions of approval (Final Order No. 39-25 PC); and S, City at its Meeting of February 5, WHEREAS, this matter came before the C�.t Council 1990, upon the request of the a PPl ic ant. a n d ,. WHEREAS, the Council reviewed the evidence related to the applicant's appeal No.. of Planning Commission Final Order No. 89-25 PC o and modified Condition r 5: so engineer/surveyor that the City's engneer/surveyor shall be responsible for. the Iodating and marking of the 100 year flood plain rather than the applicant. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the requested appeal is DENIED and the Planning Comfiission decision is upheld, as amended, based upon the facts, findings, and concltasione noted in Planning Commission Final Order No. 89-25 (Exhibit "A°). the City Recorder a Co of this final The C©unca.l further orders that th City er send py . . the applicant as a notice order to oticp of the final d ecs.s n in this matter. • PP PASSED: This day of Februar 1990. p t / aid �� Edwards r a' or � : Y City of •ard I ATTEST: I � Tigard dit Redordet I b LANRES/. l RESOLUTION NCI 50-o7 PAGE 1 • . • I r f.. •,t.:�1.. _tn.. nJ++. r.Nu 411..,....1 .I«.., +..-.J.•:f ,.J• 4':I. H,9x« .w l..-. ..„,1H� 7 .I..w, - ..fain.. +.,.w4•t4... .wL.. 1. .. i ,.sac.. .w..r .a_.-. y,...... J 1 4 I a . CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 89--_2„ FC A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WHICH APPROVES AN APPLICATION , FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, (SDR 89-13) APPROVAL TO RECONSTRUCT A GENERAL RETAIL SALES FACILITY WIT H A NEW (V 89-21 TO THE RE UIRED PARKING STANDARD FOR GENERAL RETAIL SALES� A VARIANCE TO ALLOW 39 �.7,600 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING, PLUS PARKING SPACES WHERE 44 ARE REQUIRED (DOLAN) 4 { The Tigard Planning Commission reviewed the above f application at Public ac f .- . hearing on December 5, 1989. The Commission based, its decision upon the facts, findings, and conclusions noted below: 1 A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Site Development Review SDR. 89-13 and Variance V 89-21. REQUEST: Pb; construct a 17,600 square foot retail sales building and a variance to allow 39 parking spaces where) 44 are required. APPLICANT: John and Florence Dolan OWNER: Sadie . WN 7344 s.e. Foster Road Portland, OR 97206 LOCATION: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC, TL 700 ILOC d COMP REHENS IVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Central Business' District - ( Disti.�ict, Action Area) ZONE DESIGNATION: CBD AA (Central Business 2. Bac]rg_round • No previous applications have been reviewed by the City with respect to the subject site. Two freestanding billboard Signs and one large roof „ sign on the i e pproperty py a have been considered nonconforming as of March 20, 1988, and thin prior to that time. ard compliance a been used owners were. notified of � voluntary reEYnent has: b �ised � ' :d A Y p � to provide affects of time until a Cit. Center Plan is +ertYes an eaten Y ' downtown r� �a.on P p , .. adopted. The voluntary compliance agreement was never signed) .• The property and business owners have been ;cltted for the following . norconfonites z • 1. Roof sig n r a violation o f Section ''°76•14;Mo nd FINAL ORD �. , r, �', '� PC - $DR Sg-13 V,X39 21 DtaLAN .; p.. Va '% rjr s • II I .v...:...1.+—...........•-.. Ia i..a.....,.. ....,......:..,:.r ...M..•.+.:.,-. U..A:i:...,...+i.+.......-.:_:.I r, r.:..:.wl wd,_...... ....W-.i•„i.r,.._.«.n..:L1.W.,..ru M... .I.4..... 1 y+ y r , 2. ” Two nonconforming, amortized billboards (illegal location), violations of Code Section 18.114 090.A.4.a. The Director issued a decision approving this proposal subject' to 14 conditions. The applicant aPPealed this decision to the Commission due to `objections over 5 of these conditions. , 3. Vicinity Information Propex, ,tes immediately in all directions are also zoned and developed cap- (Central Business District Action Area). Property immediately y Fanno Creek floodplain and is tel to the west contains the designated in Tigardes Community Plan to be included as part of the City's greeenway/open space system. 4. Site Information and Proposal po The subject site is approximately 1.67 acres in size and is bordered by Fanno Creek on the s square foot building and partially Paved parking lot which h.. is a 97 in i. .n side. r p g h hoe been 'in, its present C location since approximately the late 1940s. A freestanding sign with a readerboard erboard s an a along the Street frontage e of the; property- Two large ballboxrds i which are s ubject to the City's sign amortization program, stand on or near the property's northeasterly boundary. The PP existing raze the existin g structure, currently used by A-Boy Electric c and Plumbing Supply, a general retail sales use The site will then be developed for a larger, 17,600 square foot structure better suited to the nature'of the business. The applicant is also requesting a Variance to City parking , requirements for general retail sales businesses to provide only 39 parking spaces when the community Development Code requires 44 spaces. 5'A Rcrency aatd NPO Comments Neigh following Neighborhood comments: nOrganization #1 has reviewed the proposal and " The tree near the sidewalk on the proposed landscape plan could block the view of eastbound traffic. Also, the thel air conditioner `should be provided itl noise/sound screening- Finally. t he NPC concern a fence be constructed on the site after the�eacieting building has been removed. ' NorthweSt Natural Gas has re proposal s that it has viewed the. ro dal and state • .� Main Street and a Service y ,; Centerline on SW existing 4-inch ste line to 12520 SW Main Street.1 main 14 feet north of the Cen The Company any an exis wi'lll require notification rIor to de P y , notification p � demolition. • 1INAL ORDER 89- d SDR 89-1.1/11 89-21 UDt V - 'pAGt 2 The Consolidated Rural Fire District notes that h t fire flow re irements exceed 3000 gallons per minute. Automatic sprinkler protection P prote or come oth..r means` of built-in fire protection will he required. Portland General Electric, the Tigard Water District, have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. The City Building Division states that an 8-foot tall solid plywood fence must be installed behind the sidewalk/public right-of-way along SW' Main Street (from the southwestern property line toga minimum of 20 • , feet beyond the new building) prior to start of construction and must remain until all, construction is complete (Uniform Building Code section 4407(c). A demolition permit will be required for the removal of any or all of the existing building. The City Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal :and has the following comments: a. M ain Street is a J o collector ector st and ' currently fully developed with curbs and sidewalks. A plan de veloped earlier •. this year by the City Center Plan Task Force calls for • reconstruction of Main Street. However, lan has not yet ' P Y been formally ado p ted by the City and design details are not yet available. The im r.ovement P s proposed by the City Center Plan Task Force can all be accomplished within the existing 80 foot tight-of-way. b• a rec1986 engineeri study the condition of Main Street engineering g Y the pavement be completely reconstructed and that the storm drainage system be replaced. It appears to be impractidal to perform PP � p ,p the proposed reconstruction of Main Street in reconstruction i pjecemeal fashion r in lot-by- Lot basis; instead, the reconstruction needs to occur a � n larger... .. segments beginning at Fanno Creek Bride and working Therefore, we do not Propose that any reconstruction of main �, Bridge P y ruction o�E Main street be required quired a.s a condition of this development proposal. t . replace any existing . sidewalks which are damaged P required to elo went should e�rr in fired to 00 This development g Poor repair wand to reconstruct any existing curb cuts which are being abandoned b. As pert of the Tigard Major j or '" Transportation, . sty streets safety Improvement Bond, the City plans to replace the Main Street Bridge over Vanno' Creek. The bridge replacement is tentatively scheduled to occur in l990, The brid g e constru�t ion is ekpect ed f . to occur Within the existing right-of-way and Should have little impact on the subject site. c. The s as a site slopes toward Fanno Creek; therefore adequate storm drainage n r FINAL ORDER PC Sb t 89-1 /V 89--21 DOLAN - PACE 3 .. } d. The City's Master Drainage Plan recommends improvements to the Fanno Creek channel downstream from Main Street. The proposed channel improvements would include widening and , slope stabilization. These improvement would move the location of the top of bank approximately five feet P closer to the ro aed "� P P� 1 building than the locat ion of the existing top o f bank. e. If a pedestrian and bicycle pathway is to be prcavided along on Fanno , Creek as proposed by the Parks Master Plan, a minimum of ten feet . will be needed between the future ure top of bank and the proposed building. TYpicail Yr new developments along Fanno creek are required to dedicate greenway to protect tie flood plain and to provide for the park Pathway system. if. Two sanitary sewer trunk lines cross the i, ite in an existing . 2 4 inches i • easement. One line is� 'n diameter.` and the other is 60 inches in diameter. Therefore, adequate sanitary sewer service {•' , is readily available. The new building ha,z been designed to stay clear of the existing sanitary sewer easement. g. • applicant h�,,�� r p qu egted' a Variance on the , parking requirements, arguing that thn proposed usage of the building generates little parking demand. However, it is possible that '. • the usage of the building will change in future years. It appearu that there is adequate room on the site to provide parking in accordance with the standard Code requirements. In fact, the applicant indicates an intention to provide additional '., perking,in the futrxre. Therefore, we recommend that the variance be denied. other comments were received. No of B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION Section 18.120.1 80 lists the standards Whereby the Commission is to approve, approve with modifications or deHy the request for site '" development review approval. In addition to those contained in Chapter 18.0 6, Central business District, the following sections of the Tigard Community Developpment code are also sa applicable: Chapter 18,80, A ction Areas; Chapter 18.100, !Land scapang and Screening; � , Chapter 18.102 Visual Clearance Areas. Chapter 18.106' ,; Off-street Parking and Loading, Chapter 18:108, Access, ogress and chapter Circulation; Chapter 18.114� Si ns• 1E .120; Site Development Review; ,.. and 7 Chapter 18.134, Variances. In addition to all of the j approval csa.te,�x.a, thy..,{ order will tier review the proposal in light of the, Parks caster Plan for Fah no Park ,�t�o ,Greek. revs. and the natural resources element of the City's Ciompreh�essiVe Plan: FINAL ORbHR 89_2.L) PC SDR 89-13/V 89-21 T50L AID - PAGE 4 ff � Permitted Use in the Central Business District The applicant intends to construct a new and larger structure suited for a general retail sales use. Such a use is permitted outright in the CBI) (Central Business District, Action Area) zone and therefore the use is acceptable for this site. Any use in the CBD•-AA zoning district must meet a 30 foot building setback requirement if any side of y the property abuts a residential zoning district. Since none of the four sides of t,he4property abut a residential zoning district, no other building setbacks are required. In the CBD-•,AA zoning district,ce v maximum s ite coverage g e xe � at ions allow up to 85 percent of the site to be covered with structures and impervious surfaces such as parking, loading, and pathway areas. This will be analyzed during a :iiscussion of landscaping and screening . # below Action Area Overly . '. , . The "an" portion of subject zoni n g designation indicates s t hat additional "layer" of zonin g regulations has been imposed on this property. The purpose of the Action Area Overlay designation is to impl emerit the policies of the Tigard `Comprehensive Plan for action areas which include provisions for a mixture of intensive land use. specified permitted uses in the Action Area Overlay zone must be those Since e p • y ig g , in , this requirement has been met. D ' � underlying zoning district �.n this case, the CB for interim standards which are to be Code Section 18.86.040 contains • are for new developments in the CBD AA zone. These reguireMents addressed ff re intended to serve the use and to rovide for P projected public facility needs of the area. The City may attach conditions to any f. development within, an action area prior to adoption of the design plan to achieve the following objectives: development shall address transit usage by, residents, �. C e, a. eme].odeer to and custotrt� p Y .rs if the site is within 1/4 mile of a public transit line or transit stop. Specific items to be addressed are as follows: i. Orientation of buildings and facilities towards transit services to provide for direct: pedestrian access into the I' building(s) from transit lines or stops; ii. minimizing transit/auto by providing. direct r pedestrian access, into the buildings with lim ted crossings in automobile circulation/parking areas. If pedestrian ri_an access P arkin g areas paths crosses automobile circulation/parking' s shall be marked for pedestrians; P � iii. Encouraging transit.-supportive users by limiting automobile support services to collector and arterial streets; and FINAL ORD ;R 89-2-S.5 PC SD.R 89-13/V 89-21 DOL 7',N -- PAGE 5 ti li . .14...«....w...1 .r,..:...-.««........: Iw•i.•.....d .a......:iwr. a ...._-M, _..•.......... ....:', ....,.::.:.«-......•_.. ,.... ..i.,.. „1 .•... ...ASS N KO iv. Avoiding the creation of small scattered parking areas by allowing adjacent development to use shared surface parking, parking structure s or under-structure parking; b. The development shall, facilitate pedestrian/bicycle circulation iL the site is located on a street with designated bike paths or adjacent to a designated greenway/open space/park. specific items to be addressed are as follows: r • i ` • of r • tn pe provision of efficient convenient and continuous and bicyclef transit circulation systems, linking d evel opments by requiring dedication and construction of pedestrian and bike paths identified in the comprehensive plan. If direct connections cannot be made, require that funds in the amount of the construction onstrucconstruction cost be deposited into an account for the purpose of constructing paths; ii. Separation of auto and truck circulation activities from, pedestrian areas; iii. Encouraging pedestrian-oriented design by requiring pedestrian walkways and street level windows along all sides with public access into the building; . iv. Provision of basycle parking as required under Subsection a S ' 18.106.020.P; and v Ensure adequate outdoor lighting by lighting pedestrian walkways and auto circulation areas. c. Coordination of development within the action area. specific items t) be addressed are as follows: i. Continuity and/or compatibility of landscaping, circulation;; access, public facilities, and other improvements. Alloy required landscaping areas to be grouped together. Regulate pP shared access where appropriate.ropriate. Prohibit lighting which ,,• shines on adjacent property; ii. Siting and orientation of land use which considers surrounding e adopted areasu and �fuse duttzpSters fro v�w Plan, Screen loading s� . Screen Icotttsnercial, and industrial use from single-family residential through landscaping; and ill. Provision of frontage roada or shared access whew: feasible. `" The submitted development proposal satisfies the above requirements for transit usage, pedestrian/bicycle circulation and coordination of this plan witr;s the action area- Screening of the 'truck loading area can be accomplished with either a fence or tall vegetation, Outdoor FINAL ORDER 89-- PC - SDR 89-13/'V 59-21 ba i PAGE 6 I I • I 1 l$ ...:.. '.....;...:,. a ..... .w..«x..r.n ., •..'.a •• .....r. ,.......,; ........... ..w .•..... ....r.... .•..•....... .....,....iu,. ..........,_ •.......,........ x...w..,.u .,.... n, :.... .. . .> . .,.. .,.... ..,,„... . . . . 4 lighting should be specifically addressed by the appl,i.cant as to how it might be provided. Landscaping and Screening' The applicant has requested that in return for the dedication of property r{ • along Fanny Creek, all other landscaping standards should be waived. These .. waivers primarily involve use of the dedicated area to meet the landscaped' , area requirement (15% in this case), provision by the City of the ' ' landscaping and buffering for the building on the west and south sides, and a ' trees in the parking lot and along the street frontage. The Commission ,r finds that the City has allowed the inclusion of dedicated flood plain/park` land for the purpose of calculating required landscaped area for other • projects -;end such an allowance is appropriate in this instance. The provision of a landscaped buffer, by the City, along the east;,, edge of the ' dedicated area is justified because the maintenance of this area will be the City's responsibility and the future storm drainage and pathway improvements will cause the destruction or removal of vegetation planted now. 4 The Commission finds that the waiver of other landscaping requirements for . the project are not warranted and that the applicant should submit an amended landscaping plan which is consis e:tt with Code standards with '' exception to the items noted above. Vision Qlearance The or raxrtenta a s � � go to the south of tae Proposed drivewa y neednat' be relocated out this J� area because although it is in a vision clearance area, this type of tree may grow to a mature height of 1525 feet,, so long as none of the branches extend below eight'' feet in height, this tree, or similar type, will not pose a vision clearance problem. Off-street Parking and Loading The applicant proposes to construct 39 standard 90-degree parking spaces, one of which will be for handicapped customers. The spaces meet the - requirements off-site parking. Five landscape islands are also dimensional re Lrement�i for o shown, A discussion of the Variance requested pertaining to parking Space number follows later in this report The Code requires one secute bicycle parking space for every 15 required y automobile spaces. In this case,- a minimum of two bicycle parking spaces are needed. The site p lan indicates a proposed location for the bike: rack but does hot indiCate how many' Spaces will be provided. The bicycle rack design shoi.l.d also be Submitted to the Planning Di:'isi ont. for review prior • to its installation. a Access; Egress an Circulation The requirements of the, Access, Egress and Circulation have been satisfied. ?It AL ORDER 89-isr PC 8DR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAI - PACE , Q. -,\\ a a • Sicgns The applicant has . ro. sed no new signage in conjunction with this PP P � application. The existing freestanding sign will,be removed. All new wall ' and ''freestanding signs must be reviewed by the Planning Division prior to „ '.• their erection for conformity with the City Sign Code. billboard sine and roof sign are in direct conflict with Code The two' b i 1 g . ' Section 18.120.1.80, which requires that the approval of a Site Development Review be conditioned on the proposal's ability to comply with all other 1. applicable provisions of the Code, including the Sign Code in Chapter g nonconforming, amortized-signs. Since neither the 18.114. These signs are n<�nconforma.n , property, business fawner or sign owner signed a voluntary compliance ' agreement with the City, their removal should be required as a condition to al • • f this approval- Compliance would include complete removal of the signs. The applicant indicates that he is subject to a contractual agreement with the sign company and is not able to order the the billboard • � removal.. of bil signs. x. . Site Development Review i• 8 requires that where . .•on 18.12t3.180 �,, landfill and/or development I ' • Code Section is allowed adjacent 100-year s allowed within -�scent to the 140- ear the City shall . require the dedication of Sufficient open land area for greenway, adjoining and within the ° flood lain in accordance with the adopted e pede strian /bicycle plan. A path is als o re qu ired as Part of the Action Area Overlay designation (Section 18.86.040.A l..bei). Therefore, dedication of the land area on this property below the elevation of the 100-year floodplain should are iild be a condition to any appx.ov�,�. to this application. Division j adjustment of the building The Engineering to occur has in noted location, will have occur in order to accommodate the pathway and the future City--initiated relocation of the floodplain bank. This should be required on a revised site plan. ' Park.i.nc _Variance The applicant is requesting apprQvall of a Variance to allow only 39 parking y, spaces where 44 spaces are required by the Code section 18.134.050 of the Code, Contains criteria is wh Director can ,_�� Lter� whereby the approve, approve with modifications or deny a variance request. They are: (1) The proposed variance w11 not be materially detrimental to the P detrimental purposes of this Code, be in conflict with the policies of the comprehensive plan, to any other applicable paiidies of the Commt nity other �,; licable Policies and standards, and development Cade� to any vtl� �'pp Po rict . . � � or ��ii�icinity„ �: , to other properties in the dame Zoning dust a . (2) There are dpec.ial circa nietances that e ast p f , �. ; liar to the 1 f � r which are ecu lot site or shaped topography or other earcumstances Over which the ,,r FINAL ORDEIR 85-Z5' PC - SIR 85-15/V 85--21 DCLA” PAOE !l 4 y}t a J applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other • properties in the same zoning district; ' (3) The use e r_ 0 s �d . , P � will be the same as permitted under °this Code and " City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent possible, while permitting' some economic use of the land; (4) Existing physical and natural systems, I ^ y ems, such as but not 1` • traffic, drainage, dramatic land limited to traefte, dr forms or parks will not be adversely any more than would occur ri s specified in the Code; and r if the developmetd were located as (5) The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Special circumstances exist which, are peculiar to this lot. The applicant P of, construction of the p � � phases: the first phase consists Pro Poses ses to construct this ro'ect in two has ro building the southwestern portion of the he new property. The existing building would then be demolished. The applicant hopes to attract a complimentary business(es) to build on the norther required, P se 2. Should additional Portion £ the lot as art of Phase a,bnal, arkin be rtic;n � northern P g the applicant suggests that a shared parking-arrangement could be worked out with the adjacent structure. Moreover, the applicant's own tax lot 400 to the southeast, might ht also cr parking Purposes. . g be used for arkin g pu The applicant points out that the store does not attract "browser or window in shoppers", , that the business constitutes a re+;ai]./whbhaale y merchandise. The latter fact type of YP . business s w a.ch sells bulky merch � , t results in the advance of travel that needed�and travels to customers who de tat a product is a specific 1 destination. y The fact that the existing store rarely.. has .The. applicant cites the one time. staff g notes that employees e than six or eight vehicles a{. any '' • of the business will also require parking p t perhaps delivery need to park a arka.n spaces and . P Per � p . _ unload on y liowe�rer, it deliver tricks will, ne the rQ � and e i is clear that the g store use will not he exi.s �a.n st e� parking la City The . a tees t hat the present use a... s similar to a 'genera7 reLaisal es, bulky merchandise" uee, If the City were to I , • employ the parking standard a. nda, rd use d for retail sales businesses e sses whic h sel l ll bulky merchandise, namely l space for every lOQO Square feet of gross floor but not less han10sp a es it is clear that the proposed 39 Spades well within cit� rn g lu�rements. r(, '• , : : g ' available the uise of the building may later Change alternatives are , , phase . . in conjunction with the future hase of construction on this ,h ' property.... I f a n - . new use which has a higher' g , , buildin a new site development review and evaluation ofa naap es the Of� The Issue of parking space number will also be evaluated ad p: rt - required.z T parking would part f the site development review for Phase 2 of this development. C Permitted by . ' y regulations P� r The use same as ermined b C�,t re latta.ons and existing l�, sica 9 P Y l .and. wall. be the natUral s stems.. will not be affected ted by this proposal. Comm!g5 an finds that the variance re' est Therefore, the I Condition a. noted below. is ;utiied subject to FINAL O DEg 89_ p C - SU.R 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN' PAGE 9 I' . f.,n� . '14t1/4 • A 1 t Y ! ) A ••� • r Master Plain for Farm() Creek Park. Fanno Creek Park is a community park located along Fanno Creek between , r e weep Ma�.n Street and SW Hall Boulevard in the Central" Business District. The site • lies Within the 100-year floodplain and immediately. abuts the Y subject property along its southwestern property line. It is hoped that the entire park will eventually contain 35 acres. The dedication of the land area r floodplain lain an within the 100-ye4a p and the eventual construction of a pathway in that area on the subject property is consistent with the :City's park plans for the area. : In the City's master plan for Fanno Creek Park, it is stated that Fanno Creek Park is intended to become the focal point for community,, cultural, civic and recreational activities. A paved urban plaza, an amphitheater, . an English water and g en, pathways, a tea house, a man-made enlargement of the existing pond, as well as preserved natural areas are all. components foreseen for this area. g.• r The proposed development presently under review will abut this planned community park, and at its closest point, would be no more than eight feet from the outer boundary of the 100-year flood lain.. y p The Engineering Division has stated that the proposed structure should be at least 10 feet away from the relocated outer bank in order to accommodate an eight foot wide t pathway and the planned reconstruction wide pa y of the storm drainage chancel along the flood, plain. This indicates that an adjustment t' •' 7 to the placement of the building on the site would be necessary in order to adeguatFrly accommodate the path and vegetative screenin g u p to the relocated bank of the storm drainage channel. C. DECISION The Planning Commission. approves SDR 89-13 and V 89-21 subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions: ISSUANCE �BY7CDI��IDILRF�II Fi?I�tY6`i'xt�G C°NxD]C9CYE�Pa5 SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO • 1. The a City as Creenway all portions of ' Y applicant shall dedicate to the Cxt the site that fall within the existing 100-year flood lain p (i.e., all p property elevation 150.0) and all onions of the below feet above (to of) � pr�;sperty 15 monuirit boundary survey snowing 150.0 `ri boundary. �; d foot f i.00dplag , p 'p . .� a registered , ng all new ta.t].+e lines, r�. aced b -surveyor, A Y . . . the City for review wind Qas��va,l land recording. ` d surveyor shall be submitted to th designed so as not to intrude into the greenway�ar�e building shall Te approval Prior to g Jon Peigion Engineering Y , 44 171; CONTACT: g y area. STAFF C.o D�vx sign Er39--4 • 2. The a licant shall obtain written,pp � M d i f ied Sewerage Q n approval from Unified Agency of Washington County fOr donnedtion to the Unified Sewerage Agency r line prior to issuance of a B d il di n Pernit. STAFF CONTA Greg Berry Bn ineerah g D ivis ion 88 9-4 17 1 1' . FINAL ORDER 89-7 If PC -- Sd�R, 89-�y3f'CT 89-21 DOLAN PAGE 10 c Y ,r"YC r I G n ' y 3 The applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing: 1) building plans which show the proposed design and location of outdoor lighting and rooftop mechanical equipment; 2) the provision of at least two secure bicycle parking spaces -- the rack design shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval; 3) the location and screening' of the trash disposal area; 4) the relocation of the phase one building outside of the greenway area; and 5) a minimum of 39 parking 'spaoes. STAFF CONTACT: Keith tiden, Planning Division, 639- 4171. 4. The applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan showing; 1) .1 screening for the trash disposal area; 2) the installation of I street trees along the Main Street frontage; and 3) the provision of trees " within landscaped islands in the parking lot at a ratio of one tree per seven parking spaces. For, the purposes of calculating the . required landscaped area (15%), the dedicated land noted in Condition No. 1. above may be included. The City shall be responsible for landscaping the land dedicated to the public• STAFF CONTACT• Keith Liden, Planning Division. • • *City's 5. The p 'ts.$•9 engineer/surveyor shall locate and clearly mark the 100-year floodplain boundary prior to commencement of construdtion. • Flood plain boundary markers shall be maintained throughout the period • of construction. S1.1.21,1:'P CONTACT: Jon Peigionr Engineering Division. • of any structures.t shall be obtained prior to demolition or removal �. A demolition rms_ sha on the site. The applicant Shall notify Northwest Natural Gas prior to demolition STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building g . Division, 539-4171: 7. The pp install an 8-foot tall solid plywood fence behind ; the sidewalk/public right-of-way along SW Main Street (from the southwestern property line to Y a minimum of 20 feet beyond the new � I p Fe Y Y building to the northeast) prior to start of construction and must remain until all construction id complete (Uniform Building Code section 4407(o). STAFF CONTACT: brad Roast? Build n Division. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTTED, THE FOLLOWING (NDITIONS SBALt BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT 8, in Conditions 3 Proposed ,, p. i i._ nts noted All landscaping Materials and other site im roveme y installed or f inarloxaily assured p occupancy Y AFF C NTA ra,o:b= to of s.n structure. ST and 4. shall be s,nstaZl . CONTACT:CT: Rei.th La den; Planning Division; 9. All new signage niuet receive approval by the Planning Division prior to s'e ct ion of the signage. STAFF COVT�c�. Keith Liden, Planning Division. •, } nconformingr amortized billboard sins and support .�1�: The two r�o _ g ppbrt structures shall be completely removed from the property prior to rec�avad fra p Y pI p the applicant shall occupancy of phase one of thin develb meat OB FINAL ORDER 89-x1) Pc - SDR B 9--.. 13/V 89., -21 bOLAN PAGB 11. *Amendment per Council action, (Reaoluti,on Noe 90-07) on 2//90 C. liheatlei, City Laoorder {.y ,`' A , • submit any applicable legal document which prohibits their removal. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden, Planning Division. 11. As a condition of the occupancy permit,, the applicant shall be e_. lace any portions of the exiting o required to r p Po g 3.dewal4� along Main L . Street which are damaged or in poor repair aid to reconstruct any existing curb cuts which are being abandoned. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering Division, 639-4171. 12 The existing ino a d g shall be e pe rnan permanently removed from the subject • i property 5 days of th e issuance of the Occupancy •Kermt for the new building. STAFF CONTACT: Keith, Liden, Planning Division. • THIS ]8) MONTHS FROM THE D OF IS APPROVAL Rav�L s VALID D �o R EIG EEH ( FINAL DECISION NOTED BELOW,. It is further ordered that the applic ant be notified of the entry of this final order. • $989 by the Planning Commission of 1 the ,5 _ Ada of December, �' PASSED: This/4/ .�11 � City f igard Milton re esident , Tigard Plann ng Commission br/SDR89-13.]ks L T I ' Ii �.' 89-21 DOLAN IMG8 F'INAL t:FDtR� $9-=�.�� PC SDR >�9 �.3�V` ` Y p u• - I • • .. tea ,..,...,+, .M ...... .!-4., .. ...».. .,, ...._. ...a... . w.i»..-..,..«,...,.. ...-.. ....,,t.,.u.,_a. i pl • TY NC (0 iliI.�SSXON ' REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 8, 1989 the meeting to order at 7:32 PM. The 'meeting was • 1. President Moen called th g held at the Tigard Civic Center TOWN PALL - 33125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Orego n. , { 2 RotT. .L: Present: President Moen; commissioners Barber, Castile, Fy rt, Newton (arrived 7:45 PM), Peterson/texson, 'and Rosborough. 1i Absent: Commissioners gioners Ce4er ett and Saporta. Staff: Senior Planner Keith Liden; Legal Counse?' Phil i Grillo (for item 5.1); Planning Secretary Diane M. Jolderks 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Commiasione Pyre moved and Commissioner Barber seconded to approve the ' • minutes as submitted. Motion �Y majority of Commxssi' onere present. Commissioner Rosbor oug h abstaa . ' ! 4. PLANNxNG COMMISSION Mia•mc .rioN letter of appreciation from the ' :• o President Moen stated he had received a let pp � regarding the Fountains Condominiums;ents nand a Dietrotnewirsletter 1st meeting Y-5/Kruse. Way improvements; 5. )flBL)X BEI RINGS 5.1 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPEAL SDR. 89--13/V 89-21 l� of a ' ]�7�N ._., deciei.on t o a rove the re-construction D�.rectox` s Pp ,1�-�][34D7� MPS gen general retail sales facility, A-boy Electric Plumbing and Supply appeal �,• � � subject to la Frith new 17,600 S qt are foot building on a 1.67 acre parcel 3 4 conditions. The decision included approval t request' to allot to a Variance Zone: parking spaces instead of 44 as required ortheJ 5�e. Main CBD-AA 39 ar��a.n s aces �: (Central Fiueiness District - Action Area). L treet C WCT ( X 2S1 2AC lot 700). I reviewed the conditions that Were being appealed by Senior Planner Liden rev j the applicant. Staff felt that the conditions were appropriate. APPLICf2 NT°S PRESENTATION Commidsioner Ne rton arrived 7:45 PM - o Joseph A. Mendez, 716 SW Mort icon 4 500, , ,97205, Attar�riy fo Y r - Portland, Or r r � � h they were appealing. e .Port .' Y r the Code uihir �1.�Bo referenced sections stated that the land being required for encroach into ons in t t for dedication would ericro the building that they are proposing for constrUation. 1 e' opposed I"LA.'Tt UN0 (...1)111.8.iSSXO MINT:I i 1 - AUGTfST E° .1959 PAiGH 1 }} � 1 ,/J v 4TH conditions 1, 6, and. 9 which involve taping land without compensation. Be objected to signing a non-remonsst•rance agreement because it gives away their guaranteed constitutional rights. The condition regarding the billboard signs is beyond their control because the sign 1s owned by Ackerly. The roof/wall sign s constructed• in conformance with the .i n wa existing Code at` that time• and to remove it prior to demolition of the t, existing building would injure their :business Discussion followed with ,I the Commission regarding the signs. 0 Dan Dolan, 4524 NE Davis r' Portland., f7213, read a letter from John Dolan, . their President of A.-Boy, :3tating the importance and need for t , facility. Be,read a second letter dated April 4, 1988, regarding the sign r, I mp agreement- Discussion followed regarding removal, of the � and compliance a signs, location of the building, bicycle/pedestrian path, and'buffering. . . 0 Sarah Dolan, 2410 SW 17th Ave, Portland, OR , speaking in behalf of her • father opposed the taking of the additional 15 feet. She stated that they . had previous conversationS with William Monahan regarding he City property y park Now, the City' is .. purchasing a portion of their ro rt for lsr usae. taking the land, requiring them td do the surveying, as well as designing' path. he felt this requirement r' the ' S ent was unreasonable and unfa 'UBLIC TESTA? o No one appeared to speak. O Lengthy discussion f ollowed regarding the time f rame for •removal of the roof/wall sign, the billboard signs, dedication Of the additional 15 feet improvements . • .. .M Vie, t, , above the flood plain, the Drainage usher Plan, ��hvof the ba.l,. ram() � . Creek widena.n of the flood channel), location and location of the building, allowing construction in the flood plain, � g landscaping/buffering g g sp City's right to require' abutting the park, the dedication of land, and signing of a non-remonstrance agreement. O Phil Grillo, City Attorney, reviewed legal aspect of requirements s or dedication (takx n g of land) and signing of non-remonstrance agreements. ' y . REBUTTAL p po.: gt h Mendez stated that it is impossible possible to move the Pro Posed bui.ldin because of a sewer easemea, in front of the proposed building. They were , never informed during the ,pre-application process that they would be required to dedicate an additional 15 feet. They are willing to work with y y , o determine if a variable atoitht of dedication betw�'eeh '10 i2 the Cn..�C. F" and 20 feet could be worked out for construction of the bikepatha They k h pe eatio0 and signing of a non- "• sti.l.l. oppose taking of land without corn ns -` g regarding L, of th,: agreement. Da,r�cszr3s�.an followed rec arda.a� width a bike ath 1 the ranno Creek Park Plan, location of the building, and �• remonstrance P � possible solutions to the problem PLANNXNG IcOxSS]COf`1 HIND S - AUGUST 8, 1989 PAGB 2 , t , i • • • a , commissioner Peterson supported 39 parking spaces, did not support signing a non-remonstrance agreement if alk repairs were done, removal of signs should be done in 30 days, agreed 5 feet is necessary, however, there is not sufficient information to require an additional 10 feet for the 'bikepath, and the 'bikepath should be constructed by the Developer. + 0 Commissioner Barber supported removal of 'signs within'30 to 60 days, did not support requirement for a non-remonstrance, supported the 5 foot • ' dedication for work in the flood plain, dedication of greenway, construction of the bikepath, and .surveying as required by the Code. the bikepath ath but did not feel there was enough th .�k Commissioner re. favored p o ' commmaaaea. Pyre information to determine the location. Be favored requiring a non- , remonstrance. 0 commissioner Rosborough supported 39 parking spaces, .agreed signs should be removed within 30 to 60 days, did not support requi..ri g a non- remonstrance agreement, and felt there was not enough information to determine the•location of the bikepath. . . inner Castile felt that m if7�ing the 15 feet requirement to a O Comxmmi, s bikepath. variation of '10 to 20 feet would work for a b�.3ce a - requirement 30 on r onatra.uce o Commissioner Newton favored the be removed within day's,rton-reran that. all signs Should the for a g 5 feet without a problem, variable agreement, ov`ed 3 to ' that building could be m and a war dedication would work for the bikepath. o Moen had no problem with the dedication�. , ;and favored the Co `catzon tnagreement- ` re q iretuertt for a non remonstrancze He felt the City and applicant could work out the problem with the bikepath. Discussion followed regarding the Master Drainage Plan and the bikepath. * Commissioner Castile moved to a rove Site Development Review SDH. 89-13 . and �7'ariance 'V 89-21 for 39 p approve parking spaces.aces. Require e the non-remonstrance a re V .. Signed. Remove all signs 45 days after eammox cupancy- g g �`� teguiren Engineering and the applicant to work out agreement rat for a variation of 10 to 20 feet for cons ructing a bikepath. If an agreement canrilot be woke t then the a�' plocation will come back to g` Worked -v+..� k��' o the Plaarnxn.t.r� • Cbmm .s/8011: frame be given to work a time fr suggested t�ma�. 9 o Phil Grillo Legal Counsel, m��ic�ge out a compromise. Disc'l scion followed * commissioner cam the withdrew is motion. PLANgfl4c CO#MISSXON Nx fl r S - A000 T 8, 1989 PAGE 3 L • • * Commissioner Py re mo ved and Commissioner erCastile seconded to approve SDR 89-13 aiid 89-21 with staff's . Modifying condition • number one to require the applicant and city Engineer to work out an agreement, M being as flexible as possible, to vary the 15 feet to accommodate both drainage improvements, bikepath, and buffering without .requiring the building to be moved. Modifying condition number nine requiring the applicant and City Engineer-to work out an agreement on a paved bikepath, . giving consideration to public safety. This order will become -final 30 days from August, 8, 1989. If an agreement cannot be reached between, the City Engineer and the applicant then the application will be brought back before the Planning Commission, on September 5th. Motion carried by majority of Commissioners present:, Commissioner Peterson voting no. _ 5.2 SUBDIVISION S 89-06 ERESS' Y f ?N SUL ENGINEERING ES NP'R # H For approval to amend the Preliminary p lat for the Previously approved d subdivision S 9 0 to provide . an additional lot by changing the ' configuration of lots 1, 2, and 3 to create four lots The new lots will range in size from 9,215 to 34,250 square feet and the subdivision will contain a total of 7 lots. ZONE: R-4.5 (,Residential, 4.5 units/acre) LOCATION: 7017 SW Mapleleaf (WCTM 1S1 36AA, tax lot 800) Senior Planner Liden explained that the application had been approved y h - • the Corn,ssion in June, 1989. The applicant is requesting to add one pp � • Parcel. reviewed with � �, , . condition number 14- recommendat ion• He r i a'�� eat to�modif 1 cond made sta l4 o • additional as�a result of approval problem g Y pP with trees being cut on the sate, staff tion He added, has modified condition number 11 to enable a civil' �..nfract3.ons cxta and summons to be issued if any more treed► are removed without a permit. Senior Planner Liden read a letter into the record from Charles W. McCart • expressing their concerns and objections. and Richard Toman a Ak'''L`CANT°S PRESENTATION Y , o John Godsey, 12655 SW Center, Beaverton, 0P., 97005, concurred with staff's recommendation and modifications to condition 14. He asked that the Commission approve the proposal as recommended by staff. o Marty Bosner1 2058 SW Spruce, Portland, OR 97214, stated that he did not tree Cutting. feel had previous final order regarding � g• eel that he had violated the ng the site of blackberry vines, small a He explained trees, and underbrush; he been removed a couple of red cedar trees where foundations were going to be placed, but did not feel these trees were larger than 6 inches in diameter at the four foot height. PUBLIC TESTIhON't 1• ' 1 g d that the issue o David Saul, 10205 5W 78th, Tigard, 97223 was concerned the regarA,ting survey/property lines had not been resolved, that the lot would create more traffic congestion, and that the filling proposed by the applicant would create a drainage problem- He felt that a parking restriction On Locust Street should be added as a condition of a pp rov al- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AVGOST 8, 1989 - PACE 4 • TIG\PD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR NEFrING AUGUST 8 0 1989 ' 5.1 SITE DEVELOPMENT RE'VTIEW APPEAL SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN/A-BOY NPO #1 Liden: This first item is an appeal of a Site Development Review p p Approval and variance �I.p rova 1 for A:-.-Boy pr o p? Y on Main Street and it's for a retail building of over 1700, 17,000 square feet in " allow 39 parking spaces where to size and also for a variance t ... the code moires 44e This was approved subject to 14 conditions; and the applicant has appealed this decision based on ' . a disagreement over 5 of the conditions listed in the Staff decision. C,.edition No. 1 requires dedication of the °,��, ec�{u.�-z' e 1o0--year flood plain. along Fanno Creek along with an additional 15 feet. Condition No. non-remonstrance agreement be signed for future improvements on nMain Street. Condition No. 9 requires A , . that a paved pedestrian path be provided along Fanno Creek. And r' %). . Conditions 12 and. 13 require removal of non-conforming signs that " . presently d signs and are on the propes~�ty. There are presentl two billboard one roof 'sign on the,property. !: We have reviewed the appeal by the applicant and feel that all the conditions are clearly called for in the provisions in the r i clearly gar Comp �.ve Tigard k Plan the Master ?i d evens Plan, the rd P�: _ , he Ti a Plan t Drainage Plan for the City, as well as 'die Ccrranun ty Develop Code. In you a packet you have a copy of Deborah Stuart's" memo summarizing what has occurred to date, a copy of the decision, a copy of the applicant's appeal letter, and also a site plan of the proposed development. We also have Phil Grillo from the C �� Attorne s office and Phil' 'can also answer an questions articularl obviousl those of a legal �' y • I �l c7Lose and see if' tl� a�,�, ire. And. Z gusss y , p � �a na. witr that ' -S any questions. • I e p, pa e� s pretty well 1 thinly ev aired in the cket Moen: Any questions, Cantu i8sioners? 7??: 1 have a questions, as far as the appeal process. What happens. Is there ??? appeal beyond this? E' Laden. After the CommisSion decision, the -Ci ty Council woUbdi have to call the decision. Yo ca up Yours would be final, unless the Council on its rnot ,on 'called it up for review. Moen: Okay. Could 'we have the applicant s presentation, please. Mendez: Good evening. My name's Joseph 'M ndez, I'M an attorney. I represent A-Bcoy and Mr: and Mrs. Dolan. Initially, in order to protect imy clientsi rights on appeal, Itd like to address the issues and, in partidular, the criterion that s required by the 4' e10 regards to the f l Community Development pment Cade. The iSsUe with r r •r • r......w...r...r....—.....,.r..-J..G.,r..—nr.v, nm.n..r:.ti JL al:.:..a!aa .J..1+.n.4 I',yw..tra. ...M r.Ylw. ub.>. ... - r x♦ .r.H4A'a..a J4.—S.tw U • ' I plain, dedication, the boundary marking, and the pathway are addressed in criterion 18.120. The non-conforming billboard issue is addressed in 18.114.; And the required agreement that Dolan that non-remonstrance agreement, is, I sign a retnonstranco, a non-remonstr don't find that addressed in the code; however, I think there not. Jn only United States constitutional entitlements, but also Oregon constitutional entitlements which prevent a gove..rnm?.• t authority , • from requiring you to sign an agreement whereby you waive your objection to further government action. I° �` P ce the items set forth also t� by referen d al.�o like to incorporate 1 and • doing that specifically r address the ' a a�n the `the appeal, .frig ' issue that what is being asked for for Mr.. Dolan to develop his property', property that he owns, we're asking him to dedicate, give away, I don't know why we use the word dedicate, we're asking that he give away,`; for the right of developing his own property, give away a flood lain the 100-year flood plain land. I addition to that 15 feet which in which ' ear In � � is on top of the e r flood plan, which encroaches into his building site. So what you're, basically telling him by requiring him to meet these commitments is that you're no f going to build your building, ••' because we have an intention to put a park or a public access easement through your land, which we don't have funded yet. And we're going to take it, and we're not going to pay You for it. And that's fundamentally wrong Its unconstitutional to take a t d A� i • main°s land� wi`thou in nitn fits mar?tet value. And that. s the basis for our appeal on item 1`: item 6 Paying per' .. � 'f . i ° 7??: this conditions number you're referring ;to., ' Is th Mendez: Yes, sir, I'm sorry. Conditions 'No. 1, 6, and 9 of the Staff report ,pages, II. re rt ors e..., 11 and 12. The second issue, that of the non-remonstrance agreement, ladies and gentlemen, you`require, in order for Mr*. Dolan to develop his e land, you're requirixzg him to seal' his fate in the future against all government t ac m' ton in front of his ild ing: I. , s • Yol:l°r`eU saYingf Y'�'. 14You'; e Waiving Your c'onsti'thtioi al ri is. For you u to have the right to develop the land you own, not only are. you, are we going to ta}e this land, a certain portion of land t. from Your ot onl , are we n go' to you for it but you re " .` � of � object�o any further not Y going to have the right to obj a y government activity which takes place in front of your land Specifically, �Y . that's the right to object to . h formation of a future' local tai ' r }e ..:... ..,.x. .. .... ...........:.: ...n...wl.... ..n.Lt..::»..{w».:Al..w. ,F:-...... .I w..4..,,...... a ... r - r.✓:.IMr.I•r«..Ln.Lll,nr A i y j!4 rE gards to those billboards. Whether or not we have a roof • billboard, which we maintain we don't. ' they were put they were The City malrita,ins we do. The billboards have been ;there. �When`th y p up, Y, in conformance with City ordinance. _ They should be grandfathered for that purpose. The fact tha t you want to take that away t jeopardizes and. injures the business which Mr. Dolan is €` ` City hundreds of E • ":. ma�.r:tainix�g in the City of Tigard, which brzrigs in thousands of dollars. Brings people down to that area and benefits that business community probably more than any other business in that area. And you're asking him to take down the C major draw. Not only �.njures hint, it injures the entire business . oomm*Iunity. We're asking that that condition be waived. Would You, I'd care to entertain questions, if you have, have any';for me. J, , ???: Let me ask a question. Mike, one question I have first to know, I have some others`, but with respect to the non-conforming billboards, ah, that you can, there are some billboards that, or I signage that has been on that property for quite so:11e time. And if�understand that I this proposal 'tr xt the City is asking the developer to do is you know, if I understand it right, you'd planned to destroy the current building and the current signage ' ng is associated ? which the build i� a.ssoc7 ated with,' Is that correct. Meriden: That's correct. ???• what the City asked you to do, if I understand, is ; . . y And wha. a e that�u would s . Okay. that th.. new sign g y u:ld have would conform to current' City standards is that, and-that's what you're ob'ect to. Y 7 � Mendez: What we're objecting to, I'm not sure. Are we planning on taking, the building down at the same time we put the new one up? ???; Well, there's going to be a time lag ttlere. We cannot. . . ?. Okay. Mendez', That's that's, there, there, there's, it, they won't be simialtaneeus We won't be, put one building up and the other code Idown. On so as :long as ???: ??? sign. We can cancel the contract when we put the new build in there. But we re erless to take down that sign, ing ' p� �' now the Planning Commissioner has to deal directly with ??? We'll give y o� a chance to address those questions tio•ns When you testify. Oka � do We "lave some other questions for this -' I gent en .n, ( ri ssiohet8? ???: ;I have a; question per ail rxJ to the street, but, ah, that's for Staff. Shall I wait, ah. Moen: Ya, ArlYthing further? 1 . • �r I r I ` .l n, -J'r..5 _ • r.Jd. .fur _ .. ...L,_ ...4.M - •t I I I have one question which may be relevant. Moen: Yes, ma'apt. ??: Was, what was the reason that the voluntary compliance Hance a e Etnent cam ' regarding the signs was not forwarded to the city? Mendez: I'm sorry, I don't understand the question, maybe I dic?.n't hear it? agreement w, What was voluntary compliance a �ee I.. •. the reason that the vol regarding the signs was not completed and forwarded to tie Cit ? camp• " City? Mendez: I'm, I'n1 afraid I can°t answer that question, who ... : Moen: He's signed up to testify h e re. I think he can. . . • Dan Dolan: I'm not o' testify, ', to� going t l.esta.f but I'll answer if you like. g � y i yo Mendez: Dan Dolan is scheduled to testify. And he, ah, he may have the ' answer to that question for you. ,' Moen: Oh, okay. Any other, questions right now. Okay. Thank you very much, sir. Mendel: Thank you. 1 Moen: Okay, is there anyone bete from the NPO to speak on this issue? ??? ??? Moen Okay'. Ah, we have two other, let's move on to the public hearing 1 portion of the Meeting. .???y ,h, I. .. Moen: yes? • ???: I was signed up. ' Moen: d ' • ' T. m going to get to you, I think. ??'?: Oh, dkay. Moen: We have two people, we have three people signed uP in opposition n. I assume that's in opposition to the decision. Dan Dolan is the t r yg signed ppo i y I I .. first person signed. You si ec� � as an o sition I assume You're in favor of the proposal, so.. Dan Dolan: My M,• name's Dan Dolan, with .A-Boytpply Camlaexiy. ,Moen. Okay. ; . ' • Dan Dolan: First I want to read letter l k-Boy Supply Company brings I I II I C P' .-..+u....-m.—• .....«nnA.«..,....J.Flrl u....:J.-1. +.w.n:.:. •._.-.i.....J....: ............. ww..h.r».......✓. .r.A,_A..,.w_w :.r.-.•..n. .1 ...r.. r..n.-..a i«....._, .. r • � downtown t own . to d r a ea • '� approx.�mately one-half million people Y ; people who shop at A are primarily homeowners ' ; '' . Tigard. The �eop p '• '' and small contractors. A small contractor usually brings or sends in. the homeowner to select rrie.rchanclise. Many customers are Many � . building or repairing their own homie. These people are hard I • working, industrious and self-reliant with a large investment f ' the co mluni ty. I would thin that they'are just the type people to be attracted to downtown Tigard. A:Boy Supply Company has been advertising downtown Tigard with their ads for`twenty : 4 years. Durlrzg this time, wea ped excellerit. §, ec . . have developed an , .reputation. Every year our sales have increased significantly, ch larger store mu "'; - When and if we are allowed to, build a new and g ' on our, property,E y, we e spy to double the number f employees . and improve the Lein Street view. Our plan calls for us to move I into a new 17,000 foot building on the west side of the property ' and then demolish the present store, on the east side of the `. new larger building with small shops on • property and build a ne arg site, j Secondly, 'I think, I don't know if all of you .have seen the issue of where our, urn, the creek boundary is in relation to our building. LIo you have a map there to look at? A ??? Well, let me show you what we have here. • Dan Dolan: I just wanted to make sure that you can see where the edge of the • flood plain is in relation to out building. If they take 15 feet furtlier ira. For scale this little jut that comes in, where it �• Okay, so you can kind of see • �`n` that's feet there. �, • comes that s twenty .. .above: �beyond the flood. plain;... how much land, this g i that'll be taken out of our building. And I'm not sure if we can not. But I thought nta' ' . build right up to that or Y . . �e I_d add that. �,,, • . Y questions? ?? . 1 ye., we need it for the record. If you want a copy of it ba . r� � MUeiy. Dan Dolan I don't need a copy back. ???' ??? copy of that letter. ' , ` Dan Dolar� Oh, this other letter. Oan Dolztril oh. Did you want an'answer to your other queetion about. . . ??•?: yes. ,• • i'.Dan Dolan: Um,4 4 N' i ??? Let us read that Our o Went, you why don't you read' it to us so we all �r�r pp° � Moen; I . r I i what it is? ??? What do we have here • I � Moen: Okay. Is this of our here? Keith, this a let ter to , .. you. • Liden: No, I dont think so. This is a separate issue. T "don't know r . don't � . . anything about that. { ??? What was your question you had? was wondering was for not having filed and completed that voluntary compliance form with regard to the signs Liden: Well this, this letter here explained that. Moen: Okay, why don't you read it for the rer..,ord. That would be, if you wouldn't ;mind. That's so that we can all understand and answer. Dan Dolan: Okay. This letter is dated April 20, 1988. It's address to Mr. , of City of Tigard. It's signed' by Kea.t�a. S> Liden, Senior Planner o t• John Dolan, property owner, President at A:-Boy: Laden I received your letter dated March 25, 1988. If you or your staff recently, or really sent a previous letter, as you have referenced in this letter, T have not received it. In pa your assure you that we have a legal • wall sign t on the front of your, our building. When we purchased y, •. this property. zn. 197 ; there was a fL�1. and seed ha store.' with a warehouse and old sheds on this site. building ,eras an this s The �maan bu. ga small retail store an old open on the far w S old corrugated iron-sided warehouse with a smal est side. soon next to it and .pen. after the purchase, we rebuilt the structure into our present A- Boy store. In the process, we built a parapet wall directly .`: above the outside walls between the overhang and the roof of the two smaller: buildings both on the west and south sides ide bof l them.. It was extended against the front wall of the warehouse ` g + top of the I, about two feet below' the Here the parapet: wall was abo roof. The wall was built to hide the unsightly roof lines d g y ._ the^building giving the three buildings parapet ., , the appearance a.E one. I�fte�. the wall.. was built we cut enhance the appearance of out letters and attached, them to the part of the west side wall sign. you plainly see have io roof Sign whatev er ordinances y - to ttiake our s Front this brief ha.5to ou can • - � oi� mentioned, do not eap l to our sign, g you rnenti.oned pP��' Wall sa. r1. The billboard sign in your letter as being an illegal, in an illegal location _ y C y ns, Inc., 715 I E`iterett Street, .. belongs to Ac��..r� �'omlm�.cat�.o I suggest you contact them if there are Portland, Oregon, 97232 gg Y; y y any ' this sign. Sincerely ours Jahn. 'l i Orr other questions regarding th Dolan, 7.;'? Moen: Is the billboard sign that was referenced there, is that on your " I . �, • I .. property. Yeah, there's a, there's two signs. There's a, the ' one she was aslking about is a sign on our azildi ng which is our . on the wall. It says °°A-Boy West.'' The other sic,ins are on wall Y the a, guess it be eastern edge of our bui.1ding.' And they're Ac cerly signs. Their bill, what we call billboards. Any other . questions? t ' ??; Ah, I don't think so. Not right now. ???: Bill, I'm confuse-d now on the signs. What do you want to do? Do l •. you keep s.gns until your new building is l opened, 1 ou want to kee the �i , up y � � and then tear the signs down? Dan Dolan: Yeah., we, well. .. ???; ??? Dan Dolan: I don't have it in front of me, but the way the wording of the, of that one condition pea: s that, a, as 'a, um, of the permit was that- that •; what do you call it when you get a perndt ???. Occupancy.. . Dan • Dolan: Occupancy permit, that we have to tear down the other sign. leave us in one building with no sign and maybe a • • Which then • ' have a �. doing business in • ; • •new building. But didn't +fit, �we wane tcarizav in. , ding sign at all times in the business doing ., ???. But you don't have to tear it down until you get occupancy . ' you'd have eve ing moved over there, permit? That's when have right? Dan Dolan: Yes. We'd have to tear it down, the sign on our existing buildings is order to get an occupy na hedu�e where we new zilding. .And a, if they could work to came down. • could, you lnow, the whole thing is going But, a . • ??? Well if you, if you had th y da y s after You opened Your new building or s ae'tlhang. . Dan Dolan: Well I'm sure something like that could be worked out, but, kilt we don't want to be in business without a sign for one day. � ??1, think . .. :.. just, were just a little . . . , . . � I` can apprc�'iate�that, we `'u:�t l think. we unclear as to what you're asking for. ???i s Problem in ti with' the sign question. You don�t have an Y' Problem, assume, with Your n ew building needing a new sign code once the .. . :, Dan Dolan! I don't think there i s any problem ??? • r , ?fl. once you&ve moved out of the old building.. • i. .. ..... i....... ..i,i. . . .. a,.t, a i.. x N r G • ° ' sign on the new ; Dan Dolan: we're not gonna, wa re not going to ' e same gn building, ???: No Dan Dolan: We're going to costly with the codes. ??? But you want, you want to have that while you're making the move. Dan Dolan: Yes. We. . . ??? Is 90 days after occupancy Permit's issued? Is that good enough? Dan Dolan: I would, a , o . ???: That should be fine. Dan Dolan Yeah, I would say;that°s„. ???: We take the sign down almost immediately. Building we have . , . . Wow can tak gn ge. p- ang to get our erm�..t�� and th s before we can. tear that down. ! Ninety, days... ??? I had one other question that might have some bearing h ea.:e. Okay E. ;: . •"� we have, we have Concern with billboards and then the signs, and those are rimaril a matter of t` in terms of shifting from ,•.�•” p � ° one question. He has non- � :� ; one to the other. That's n qu a :. remonstrance agreement which is a basic question as to whether You feel it' ' . ' ` Y '� y folks feel its :proper and right.. We can s You discuss that. w'e'll discuss that. Then back to the, flood plain issue you have what the staff is asking us to do, what they have saide if stand it right, is that they wish for you to dedicate the floc lain to the city and secondly dedicate up to 15 feet from the current flood . , p lain to, I believe, Staff y help me with this, 15 feet from the nt f lood plain to they Might locate a building. Is that right? s ???• Yes. ???: tkaack or whether it's be ardedication or a setback. effect talk about. You're i asking for a dedication, Is that right? ???: Well -here isn't a setback requirement, so the building can be on the property line ???N ??? So there, therein lies the rub. Okay. One, one other -j question that relates in, we in effect are hearing the whole case. We'r'e looking at ,the po ints ou ve raised, but we also ale s�.t`uc�,t�.,a y yry y • need some, Y d like some information on the ��h of the things that was mentioned in here was the concerti that the . u' city had in that this building would be located nearby the, um, future park that we envision for the downtown area. There is • • • 4 \ ♦ 1 .. - . ..1 a...«n aaia......... ...._:.. ^- .—r...w.i.r. ..r.4._++.+.r I ...«.0..1+.__1:_- n... _..., rt: c.n «r.e .. x♦_. 1 some concern about screening, or the ;. � ng, e cagy that this building appear''towards that park, particularly the back end of coitattercx.al buildings are not necessarily the most aesthetic, and I 'guess >�. this is just a, I was curious about what your intentions were in terms of the design of the building and the fact, I don't know what, either th e Staff is put, the Staff has put.. . a ' Dan Dolan: ??? landscaping back in the back side, and I 'think..: 4 ???: The Staff., quite a few rests. ff has put ��' coons in tins of ' landscaping, and I guess my question revolved around sort of what kind of facade and that sort of thing you were expecting on there p o landscaping. ' in lieu f possibly in lieu of some of that landsca just , just a question. Dan Dolan: i mean, I'm not sure what you're asking. ???: Well, if you're going to build a building that's plain cement block in the back there then it's probably appropriate for Staff , to ask for a lot of trees or buffering and that sort of thing. I s ,� was just curious a what you, what your intent was, in terms of the back part of the building. Dan Dolan: Well, you know, there's no park there now, but T know that it's planned that, uxu, what you see is what we have planned. And we've got landscaping and trees behind here haven't, a, .. really, I didn't know of any requirements of putting any facade • back there. ???: There really isn't, but there is requirements of buff, there is, the City can require you to do buffering. I guess .�T question is a more related to a, whether there was any possible trade offs ; ,;. there. But that's an issue that we can discuss later. Dan Dolan: Well, I'm sure that trade-offs are possible ?? I withdraw the question, I guess: [Dan Dolan: I mean I don't know if this is the place to haimner something out. y Probably not. Dan Dolan: Okay. ??• ??.J l I, ♦ ??? letter we need, excuse me Mr: ,Dolan, we need a copy of the �, . . � We need other letter 'mat you read. If you'd like a copy back we can t get you one: Dan Dolan: I don't think so. ??? do you need a copy of that? other any sided izp to speak. is Sarah Dolan: 7?'�� ink yOL7.. 7:he O er +-41 Sarah Dolan: Hello, I'm Sarah Dolan. I work in my 'father's business also, as does =my brother. And, um, I guess I'm speaking on my father°s behalf also. He is a little frustrated in that he has discussed this property between the flood, flood plain and 15 feet above the flood plain with, um, Phil Monohan from early in 1986. I don't know if you're familiar with this history or not- But he has been more than willing to discuss purchasing moving, um, his ? r. plans, changing his plans. You were to survey it, you didn't. In his ndnd, you kind of dropped the ball, and he went on the plan his building and has spent a lot of money on architectural `" drawings, planning it, and is ready to go, um, on this building. ' And in his mind now you are pulling, now you are telling him that no, we want you to do the surveying, we want you to give the •-' property to us, though, .both the Oregon State Constitution as , i 4`; well as the U. S. Constitution deny you that right, You. cannot ( ., take property away without Lion. You not only want `him • p ply Y' cone to survey, you want him to put in the path, design it, have, go ' through this ,approval process, and then meanwhile our business, which'has a potential of doubling, you know, we're losing revenue every day we can't build this building. And ;I just, 1 guess I'm . just here tovent � frustratz oi� with - . u e a •+ the whole rocess z was a • just t • 1 po - college and l find that what yo ar p li�t�_cal science rna�or in cc� requiring of him to do is not only unconstitutional, but it's I, also unreasonable; and that I the you should look at it a j little more carefully and think about him as an individual Just like if you were to have property and we were to say I want half ' of our ba or a quarter of it because we're going to put in a park potentially.ly. We i haven't designed it, we don t have :any we want you to give us your p y money.. yet, but w �.o perty j ust, you know, it's' 's not only unconstitutional, it's unfair. And, um, I guess that's what I have to say. Are there any questions? ` *:. ???! Thank you. 4 Sarah Dolan: You're Welcome. Thank you. Moen: That concludes those wishing to speak on this issue, . Commissioners, do you have any questions of Staff or any of the speakers? - - -?-2,- . T have some questions of Staff and counsel that I'd like to get 1 , { ???w r ??.?:t I think that's appropriate. s , ?'?h 1'a 'dike to hear from ??7 and thee... ??? ??? the applicant rebuts. ???b Okay, That's fine, We'll give them a chance to do that. Do you want the Staff first; or the CoUttSel, or both. ???: ??? Staff. ??? • • { okay. ???: I guess a general question with regard to the signage. A) the d way the conditions are written, would the applicant have to go without signage for a Period of time? Liden: well think that would depend a little bit on the timing of had they get the store stocked up and so on. I mean they could receive the occupancy Permit without array inventory in the store and then have a lag period of course utile `they move from one building to the other. If, you xnow, typically we have 4.'', conditions of approval subject to receiving something from the City, as opposed to releasing all permits s and having to go back I and try and enforce something that's just the usual procedure. •° If it would help the applicant to have a lag period of 'thirty days, or something, to get occupancy permit, get fully established in the new building and then take the sign down, I ` really don't have any Problem with that, if that would help. ??7• What, ahr, why are we, why are we requesting that 15 foot • consistent with ' • , , dedication above the flood plain, and is this consist • 1 other similar applications? Lidentl bit n. Well, - this, this case is a J��.•ttl the Commission has recently reviewed. `I•heze care two reasons that others that y ,N T r .,�^ i. �i the staff has for the additional 15 feet. One is the City's drainage master plan, which outlines the types of improvements that need to he made along Fanrto creek so that as we get more I` development, and additional storm runoff, that we don't experience a n flood levels as time goes on. Essentially` the a. ° �! have studied this advice that we've received from engineers that .hav ,rag , Creek allow development ads gnat if we do rtoth�. in �'anno Creep and allo,� as k; Y right now that flood levels ;,. ��-� r s rise over time. So in order to cc �t this, the storm drainage e master plan �,t is ha 1 will rids ^°•��,'' indicates Prescribes imProVements along Fado Creek that need to be done the idea of keeping flood levels the same as they are now, That, in this location includes some widening of the flood channel if you will, not the normal everyday stream hannsl., but the flood channel, to accommodate more water going through in the area of the bridge. And the tnginee4 ring Division has calculated that that would amount to five feet from the center of the creek to the center Of the Dolan property ??? on both sides? Liden. ` , Well x presumably it o d be five feet or some other similar { distance on the other 'side of the creed:. r ??? where t} flood plain i.,• ° is now? to what� In effect f��v�. feet in addition That,s correct We have a Liden: 'Shat°s correct. YI situation with a creek and then a bank and then a level area where the Dolan's are a • f r. • re i to build the build' . And so ineer±ng is saying that we have to o go over five feet to accommodate this additional flood flow. ???: And this is the... ?? Five feet beyond the flood plain? � I ???: Maybe I can try to scribble something on the board here ???. Got ' .. of And the storm drainage master a situation sort -of like this. , plan is saying that in order to accommodate the flood flow which will rise to about this level, there needs to be some `additional excavation that takes place that will amount to five over what there is now the top bank. Then, see this isn't drawn very well, ' N• and the carve might be a little bit closer to this. And then the other ten feet, is for`??? bike path, stressed both in the Tigard Park Plan and then also the code for the downtown area. The bike k, path, whiff is eight, eight feet wide and then typically put inside of ten-foot wide areas so you have a little room on either, , side of the pavement. ??? engineering choice was to either put the path near the creek,eek, but then in order to have enough level , , area wed have to have another ten feet here, and go up this way w and have the path right here. Or we would just excavate the bark five feet and just have a path here. Actually we're talking s about the Staff Report is to have the path, up here with an excavation of this area of the bank. ???• I guess the one thing that :C don't follow there, Keith, is that • sometimes, you know ivany tithes the ,bike �� that pa at we build in the greeenways in the City are in the flood plain. Ah, and if you're building a bike path in the flood plain, let. s say yotii r remove that five feet you're talking about to take care of the flood plain capacity. What prevents you from building the bike path in that, in effect flat area right above the five. Rather than going, encroaching on the property another ten feet. ,' Liden: Well, this ah, by being just ah, you're not moving' the five feet as part of the. , , ???: you've. g `, appears your I know that of what a s in our sketch and oesn't necessarily have be` in fact, but what appears in Well \ ' � Y Wig' ° . your sketch, you ve got on the lower five, where 'you've got the five feet there, well that five feet plus another five feet towards the waterwa would r the y g' you when it fl� s-the bike give �ou �.� feet to build path. on. `ranted' it would be flooded but so '' f Would the whole park so.. 1 • • (end of first .deb ???:` .i.. and ask hilit to sign, or recce-e hilt to sign a non-- • non-remonstrance agreement is, a, rembnsiran,Ce aY eettcent The �ron� the city's way, and you mentioned that, you know, maybe he's the only one that's; has signed that. Well Unless, if the City puts Y , together an LID, their going to have to have a lot more sign that, too, before anything happens, and. they'll have to sign up. If there's more developments they will be asked, required to sign ;''• a non-remonstrance agreement if it s a project t that we can°t develop right' at that time. It's not an unusual thing. And I think it's, it's appropriate. The signs, thirty, sixty days is fine Thirty nine parking spaces I can live with whatever. Getting back to the bike path, though, how do we accomplish that? And do it in a timely manner that I think we have to decide ' n umber one is there, should there be a bike path there? Okay? Number two, should there be allowance for the master drainage plan? Okay. �ronder w , and then the third question is I guess we T es I. have to decide whether we feel we have enough information' to lay r ' the ground work for the Engineering Staff and the developer to s come up with a solution to this problem; or we feel we have to have the information brought to us and we'll figure out a solution to it. Now, I, I thinly we've got two parties he that E.. I, I guess I'd to say could come up with a solution to it, althou g h it would to me I gu ess I'm a little disappoin ted in both Staff and the developer that we haven't had a solution j before we got here. Maybe we just needed to answer the questions "does there have to be a bike path there?" Once 'that's decided, then maybe the answer will come out. I don't think that we have to, i i'S pretty obvious that from our little sketch there, and that S not necessarily the way it really .is, that bike path could be somewhat below hundred- year flood plain. level. It probably has lever :. harms to be at above hundred-year plain level at street when it, when it enters into the Main Street area because we have ' a safety problem in terms of the, you know, how steep it is and : is some kid going to fall off his bicycle into the deep creek and a bunch of other things. There's some safety considerations I , Engineering is perfectly capable of handling that. So I guess my E .... suggestion ??? language with �. �-� ion would be that we ??? some �. �a e that requires that the, that the City and the developer come up with a plan there. ' � to, i, �7aw one of the things we could coo is request the devel� o }' t t I'd like to throw this out for some discussion, request that the developer show haw r he can accommodate the bike path and the And if he can show that he can requirement for the flood plain, ", ,. ' !, Y do that and the buffering in X amount -of feet, that's how much we hare. well I thinit one of the this you'r , ' °w 77? e �f 1 can kind of n� the i ssues dowr a lattle bi , Z a es wi th that. I i:h. everyone is on board for time five feet. Is that, is that , corleot? .. , Staff has suggested five feet is '.r ???� Well whatever it is I tliir� tY�e the estion. But the estion is enou g h land to take car;e of the master flood plan. Is that what you r re saying? Aid it's been suggested that five feet is a safe num .r We can accept " that or if the develope.r cari show carp_it could be ,less than that, rim sure that's a PoSsibility, too, I guess the question :Ls do we have tb, do we have to cover the master drainage plan arnd do we have to cover the bike 'path? Maybe we can get a c,,onsensu 5: { :.cW.r !•,..r„.., _n..,l..::.... •..,,....—.,• w..».: .._..:� .,. n... .Hw,.. .... . vt». ..•1_ wv i + •I. l• , • ???,: I guess I feel like we have to cover the drainage. The bike path, I feel like it would be nice to :have more information, But, you know, : 'm open to putting it into their mutual hands if , • moan: Well, let's hear some other comments. comments? ???: Well, I agree, I mean I think they ought to have, they need the five feet, gu ess, if that's s wha t' plan. think , the bike path has to there,, whether it a s the, vlhetxxer it's I I ,_' in the flood plain or up above, I. think there's room to.. . ' ???: The point is it can't be in the flood ray. It can be in the p in ro d.floo plain but it can't be in the flood way. And if the flood way is, which is the deep channel. The flood way is, is there. ?? Is that correct? Is the flood way? ???: If the flood way is right up tight to the flood plain.. . ??? Well the flood way and the flood plain are almost the same thing In this case, I guess ???: I thinly you brought up another point. It may very well may not be possible to put one here from the safety standpoint. You know, maybe going out over the edge of 12 feet of water. .,w Castile: I'd like to see Us go ahead and approve it, based on'Ithe fact, of g pp� o i . them working a deal with Engineering• that would allow for the bike path to go in And if they're'not able to work it out with F.ngineerinzg, it comes back to us and we'll make the decision Moen I think that's fine. Do you watt to make a motion? Castile: Make a motion a, great. Well it's piecemeal this thing. That the parking spaces are okay e Motion that the non-remonstrive agreement be signed. Give them 45 days after occupancy for having the sigma' down 7??: That's all signs Castile: All signs ??? Including the Acke •ly ones.. � Castile: Include, all signs. kept for the ones that are on the new �.nt be made that building and have pp.,a�►a.,ts. Ah P then an .ac�r they have between, the City will gain between 10 and 20 feet to `, install, or to have hike path put in. And they will inStall l the ,,a bike path� and if that can't be worked out with g'71.f"leex"]..�`']g', then the deals off on, on the whole proposal. So that it would, it would come back to, come back to us. • • I . • i • ..,,.._,.. .-.-. N.,. ...._. r, ....... .-... ..... _......-,..,._.,....... _.,...... ...L.,f. .41.,_.µL., ....._.. .•w.. • ' ???: You mean you would want all those: things changed. Castile: No I, I, it wouldn't»'.o - ???: You mean just the ten, the five feet feet, you know just r the ten fie , y boundary on it. , Castile: Yeah, if they can't, if they can't work it out with the ;y. / Engineering on the ten to narrow it`down to a ten-foot area, in certain areas, then they're either going to decrease the size of 1�.: the building or I would assume they're going to have, they're Mast going to have to work, that out with Engineering to be able . to use the ten feet and if they can t, then they re going to have ' , to decrease the size of the building. And I think that Engineering, if they'll take a look at that, they may be able to, }, to manipulate±e it in order to ` p � ' get the bike path in there. I : Moen: As far as constructing the bike path, though, you're going to leave that in the hand of the developer? Castile: Yes. Yes, Mon: Okay. Grillo: In order to try and protect, ah, both t parties' interests, and .• ;., facilitate that they can came , . y to some sort of terms, I suggest .' . perhaps that with regard to this bike path issue that, ah, the ccrrrmcission consider, ah, w , , providing a Certain 'amount of time for :,,., the applicant and the City's Engineering Department to work out a compromise within some guidelines as you suggested. So that r � 9 there's some time frame that a final decision might be able to,be reached from. Otherwise, ah, it's very difficult to try and ` determine when decision is final for the applicants' purposes or for counsel's purposes, if they wish to follow the matter up for „' you're for the review. I suggest that maybe you give some specific time period . that fal two parties essentially to tor. out a compromise. If ' the s through, then it seems to me what y e left with is - ; prior decision of the director. And that that decision could be appealed by means of the code to counsel. By counsel code. ;�?'? Well really if I understand the code, our decision on this issue is the final decision unless the coUnse , r • ,� call it up. .. a el decide. to �� Grillo That hoW that provision has generally been in. terpret e d» That's coa~reot • .' r - ???: Which they do on occasion if they feel that they want C to see it, i3ut it's at their prerogative, Grillo: That's right, We need to write a decision that did give a ce►.~ta . . ?? Open end? i . • Grillo: 'period of time for the, for this compromise to be worked out. e It would be an issue as to when your decision was final. There could be an argument tha t your decision was final as of the date your 'led. And then not knowing whether our order was issued and r�.a. they would be able to work out a cscarylrontise, counsel wouldn't know whether to call the matter up or not.;' And the time period. It seems to me that that's at least that issue in terms of a, of "E} the appeal to counsel is in both par ieS to keep a definitive ' tine period as to when your decision actually becomes final. • ° ?? Okay. Zit, me make this suggestion. ??? Sure. ??? : The decision here specifically calls for, I believe, a dedication . of all property within the hundred-year 'flood plain, plus all property fifteen above the 150-foot flood plain boundary, which is where we got into trouble in the first place. •It 'would seem to me that maybe we're making this more complicated than it needs to be. I would think we could pass a resolution that says that we would amend condition 1 to say 'gall property that the ` additional property the fifteen feet would, could" be reduced if 4 it can be shown to the Engineering Department that the bike path and the, and the Other drainage. . ???: the drainage, and the buffering ???a can be aaodated, with less to Engineering's satisfaction. That way we have a final decision. We've met the requirements.y equa.i'men If they can satisfy Engineering that it, that it, that they can 1�' a 1 , ' ` e show Y I � case, they compromise, in which P ' aw this can be dGnt? ah theh. we have our cc�t r can , then we don't have a , ich , I, m afraid, the thing, it basically lapses. Grillo. The only issue there is when does your decision become final, ttes it become final an tt become if when n a coritpromise is reached, or does when, h, when your decision,, . . ??,, Is made here. ' ' kf Grillo: . . si` n e d by the decii sion rakers. It becomes. . . ??? Oh, you mean in terms, in terms of appeal. • Grillo ?r? Which would you suggest is more appropriate? Grillo: well I would suggest Well, ggest ��,.at• . r r rt:for more fair to both pa4!L»ies p Grillo: '.. you set out a specific period of time in I think e I think unless obi � � � � , which this coxnpromtt.se can be worked out and specifically say s I I ;, • your motion that this decision does not become final until X period of time, which is the r ..iriod of time that you intent to have the compromise worked out. otherwise Y our decision ` believe, final for appellate purposes, bel�.eve will become find ah, once it's reduced to writing after this hearing. Then you're going to, then both sides are going to lose the ability to take l it to Council not knowing whether a compromise has been reached between the parties. ???: I understand what You°'re saying. Let me as k yo. you turn that, arouncl u' just a little bit It would seem to that,, and You:tell me if hr I'm wrong, that since really there is no right of appeal by the, I by the, by our code to Council automatically. That I don't know f Ui. there really is a time limit for appeal because any appeal would `!4 have to be taken up as a request to Council to call it up And I GI imagine they could do that at, any time. If. . . { ??? Council has to call it up, I 2lieve it's within t0 days, of the date your decision becomes f'. 1 ??? Ten days? T?? Twenty-one? ?T?: I don"t ]now. already,???s The decision's final. There's early, they've already gone � �� through a ten-day appeal period. They here, the next step would be the ??? appeal ???. ???: Okay. ???: But, I guess T'm trying to see if it hurts anyone to make this r z, decision final. Because that way as soon as they reach a compromise, if they do, they can go ahead and proceed. ???: There's two ??? here. One is, what the code I believe calls a .ya. review, and another ??? is what the code call appeal. The appeal, once your decision, becomes final, ??? Right. ???: However, there is provision in your code that allows Council to • ` review the Planning Ccimission Decision and I believe the trigger , period is ten days a "h •• ?.? We don't pUt o n the ??? cont-..ac-t ??? It's not ten rays a„fi, Grillo: Here's what T'm sayx .y a • is if Council decides to troll. . Moen: If its if you i f counsel feels its more appropriate to ut p a time , .aCh' , Y e time l�tut iirut On 'it, What's b ' �'. an a ro riot I , 1 �l 'h• yr- N p • r.a...-:. wi✓... ..r.,,.... n�l.,r. . -._. .n... , i qty r . N • l. Staff, is that something that you feel that, you, you, l m sure , you 'people have both hashed this thing out before. Thirty days . would, seem to be reasonable. With that input, would you like to rephrase your motion? Castile: Somebody else take 'a stab at it. ??? So modified. . �.� Moen: Well, you want to withdraw and let someone else take a, I think it's appropriate that you withdraw it. • Castile: Oly, I'll withdraw then. Cash ,: Moen: Okay. Milt do you want to take a crack at it? r , Ficrr'e: Let''s see, I've gone through the hearing,r. I've looked at the condition, help me out as we go through these. Moen: Milt, speak up a little bit. Fyre: Let's come back to condition number 1; but number 2 looks okay. - Number 3 looks okay.`' That's a non--remonstrance agreement. At least for this motion we'll leave number three in. Number 4 will stay in. Number 5 will stay .in. Number 6 y , Seven, , I wi11. sta a believe is okay. Eight, I believe is okay. Nine we Sneed to . modify. Ten looks okay. ' We need to Now eleven, I m not sure. change one of these to add a 45-day grace period. ?7? That's number 12' " Fyr okay 11'S okay. Twelve we need to change for a 45 day• e. r ??? NOW would the 45-day period apply only to the sign on the building, or would it also apply to the Ackerly? ??? Right here. ???: So we're going to let the Ackerly sign stay up until, until 45 days Okay. That 11 apply to all of them: Fyne: I y ' p}? � � ??? you mention, item 12 Mentions non-cotifordng billiards. Does it also refer to the wall sign or roof sign as however,- . ?? moisting roof sign i s down at the bottom, it's number 14, e: Okay . So we need the same condition ors. 14? Tine e 45 days? • ???: Forty_five days after occupancy. Fyr.e t Forty-five days after occupancy. Okay all thoc,. . stay the Same. Let's go bath to number one and see if we care put some Wording • .. I tr - :.",+_ na .,.>. r ....I...u..k'.. ..- -. .,...H .•....,.. .a..,tea .._, there. The intent is to have the applicant and the Engineering the - , Department reach agreement on varying �` ,. 15 feet. yy i ' ??? to accorrmtodate both the rah... To accan�amodate, t , Fyre: drainage and bike path.; The drainage and a 8-foot bike path regquiremen I • ???: And buffering Tyre: And buffering. • ???: `:Three things., i . Fyre: With consideration given to trying, to fit that in without So our nx�ving, without requiring the boil. . to be zr�o possible'to, if I ,I ding direction would be to try and be as f le. ble as po , they they have ??? to the 'bank. ??? With the goal of not moving the building. Fyre: Right the goal, okay. Now, which other one did we need to get on? Number 87 Number 94 The, that: the applicant and the City [ • a Engineers come to agreement on the width of the paved pathway through their, how should we word that? • • Grllo As is required d in the public safety. ??? Well I guess the gueeti.on is does it have to b o Joe 8-foot wide? I Should we give the Engineering latitude to decide how wide it needs to be? l • ?? Given considerations in public: safety. 2 Fyre: okay, consideration to public safety, plus a less than 8-foot wide.: ■ ??? L wouldn't say, I'd just leave it. LLet's see 8-foot wide. Ij F tight-foot wide paved pathway sh all bP installed alled.. 'y t he ■ a app would say a ved Just S�� . t. A paved pathway shall be installed the app licant through the gre enwa y in Gequ1reYetts, per Staff "• emer±s. City standards?" ti�, 8 feat. y Staidard iS . �� ,ruct ed to i Do ou need to take out the const- Moen I don 't think that the City standards is what the 'Engi leer`s ng I' deoidee they are. I ; Fire; Uh-huh (yes) ' ... Mapn Zn a bike az en t the y? Is there a published ublished standard for I , II I n 1 , ..::.4 Nx..Jw --w....t.M+-....+ •-.w... ....4: ... . ,.. s.-PS..- ... ..-u...J 4:...0 .t..,e aiJm_ U..u...,..u.._:... bike path? • • Liden: I'in not sure if they're in our code or no t» Fyne: Then we 11 put "as required by City Engineer." And I guess • okay � Castil le: Thirty days. • Oh. , ???: Yeah, you got to have 30 days. ??? ??? Oh.. For•ty-five. ???: , . . . I Nb, the 30 days is the... r o ???: One and nine will be subject to this. • and P� o I ti ns co�xli. Fyre: That agreement must be reached with the City on 9 wihtin 30 days. Within.n 30 days of today. ???: Okay. 4 r .� Fyre: that we request the City to be as flexible as possible as possible in acco modating. » . I � , - 9'P'2' Well that's 'lust a direction, that doesn't have to be part o I' x the motion. I• °e: Okay. Okay well leave that out of the motion, thered ???r Ac rec tent imust be reached, by the City Engmeer:hK and, and, 11 ??fir Applicant within 30 dsiys. Fyre: Within 30 days. I !I • • »J .xL+„r.-+... ra4w.,,x,W:r.. _._. wMt«. A..J.•T... I ' 1 f r � .r I ???: 7?? Y Y . : Of the final order, of of the final order. s o I signing .Fyre: Okay. Do we have state that if these, if the agreement is not . ' tost reached.. •Grillo: suggest �� That you indicate what their , I would su est two things. decision is in the event that no mutually agree, agreeable compromise can be reached. So that it's clear what remains of that condition. And secondly, you state whether your intent is that this decision become final in 30 days, or whether your decision is final ??? I think''that's the key issue and focus. , YYY : Okay. I would think that the two things.. Fyre: You want me to try that? I would think that if conditio n number 1 can't be met:, or an agreement can't be reached that condition number 1 will revert back to its original wording. As does condition number $ s??: If I may 'interject, that means ho, there's no reason for the staff to negotiate. Why can't we have Y to You guys otiate e it come back. gu for some final decision. Otherwise Staff can s y, "I'm the i ry Commissioner can say, a'I'am sorry we can have it all our way, r0 days. wa all wait out these 3 we have �. do is y�• I f' Pyre: That's fine with me• ???: I'm not saying that shows bad faith or not fair dealings,' it's just no incentive to arrive at an agreement, . F Yre Oka Y what w ould the best wa y just to w o rd that in n as a , contingency'? "If agreement can't be reached within 30 days. . . . . • If your decision is not final for 30 days, you can reconsider your decision within that period of time So, it seems to me e that preserves then, the notions of that there is some motivation for City, too. They have to -deal with this knowing that your decision can be reconsidered if, in fact, there's really been no movement on the issue„ guess, in order to acc on tiodate his sue: So I ess a.a - Concerns, I suggest that, ah, you consider having the decision become final in 30 days, with~ ;th knowledge that your decision/ , '.� the you Can reconsider your decision as to this condition within that period of time, since your decision was not final• E; Linen: We won't meet now probably for another 30 days. " ???! So take it 35 or 40 days° . al I ' f ? lL Y Y Forty days? II rl. I I Grillo You can vote to reconsider your decision and schedule it for your I I ;; , • �. P ,....«.«. w.A., «.......w ,x...» -'Aar.rear. w.x....1M..;M-..A._.....:1.»:'.+..•r. .c .i.::.. P { other worms ah. • next the next t�.me we meet. In , ??? Well, ,we could have done that and not gone through all this. Grillo: I.mean I agree with you. I agree with you. I mean if you want cones to some final determinations, my advice to you is that you make it at some 'time specific. If you want to rehear this matter, that I think is clearly the other way to go. ???: Let me just cask the applicant, you know another way we can do this, and why we asked the question if you guys were in a rush, • Q is because we needed more! information. Now what you're suggesting is that you want it to come back to us for final decision. And. . . ' ??l: do that if we can't reach a negotiated. . . We can � ??? yeah and if that's the case, we could just change the motion. had to say, we can hold this over e heard what we ha . And since you„ v Yr for a final decision. , Yeah... ??? I have a suggestion. ???I. In the event the parties can't resolve it. ' ???: Probably be a good idea to give you a shot at, at I'getting an � agreement with Staff because you could get out a solution quicker, y. id 1eL i ??? Right. ???: Okay.day.' Let's, go ahead. I I ??? If the, if we Cate g et them if they can have a decision, if they ? We'd just it off the can come to an agreeme..nt, we like to ust C1 boazc�s and go on, right. ryte: Well Can we just sche4ule this for a hearing again, just in case �r � they g�� i a , just in case tl�P can't reach., agreement with final decision i the City. ??? I think we ought to schedule it for. . . _ L Grillo could continue the public you soul puh hearing. rJ:eaL••�yj�j�+.��• ???: Well we could, i Grillo ??,7 be giving direction to the City. �.I r . ???p There's only one issue that we're taking about, that is v)hat I I ' _ I ti. I I 1.1/ r ,,i- .xtrKl:, r ♦,l I. ..,+J... I.,_ .I,. 4x„r .. J .LI.k , ' I this, we can make a decision on all the other points really, I . .; think, tonight. Grillo: Just isolate the bike path issue. ??sl': And we can isolate the bike path issue. And my comment is that I think we should give the City and the Engineering 30 days to solve the Problem- If the problem is not solved, then we schedule a date certain to rehear that portion of the issue with new Oka Y?evidence. ' y7 But I think that time, to be fair to everyone probaloly sh ould be not probably should be 60 day s from now not 30 days. That gives them enough time to get their decision made. It buys us enough time to have it back here. The only reason I don't say 45 is that we don't always have a meeting month. So it's either o. to be the first l meeting other ' going • in September or the first meeting in October. • ???: I would suggest to first meeting in October. . . . • . And. . ???:' Good. L; I ???: That gives everybody emphasis to get ???: Final decision on everything but the bike path?h.? Let's vote on • it? { . I Well we have a final decision on the bike path.,' too• It's just I , that if they can solve their differences then within 30 days, the decisions final. It becomes' effective then. If they can't, � . that portion of the decision reverts to us on the first meeting of October. 11'yre I'd like to do it sooner, if we can. l hate to hold them. up. If , ' we could do it in Sept. when is the first meeting in September:' That's les • 30 days s than 3d da s from now ,?7,7. •' . • : . Let's do it anyway. • I L . , that s Probably I d. feel a little be less, I think, what 77?a little it, 5th? p don't have, my calendar with me but I think it's September 5th.. Okay whatever You.. want. Your, it's Your 'motion. CLI� f or 7??: Ask than what they want. Fyre ''hat would you prefer? Since we're operating `'so informally here .?. .? . Probably would have preferred not to come here tonight, I , ??? Defer not to be here. 14: J I 111 } ' 1. ... ti,A.rA. s.1,...uN.k.I. ...4„, -• , f,. .V..uY.j..:....xw .... ..,1.«..1.«N.1cr..JiJ. Mendez: I think the Septet meeting would be satisfactory for Lls. ???• You g of it. dire: Okay.' September meeting. ???: Ias the mot ion been seconded? ???; So we have. .. , Jelderks: Who seconded? Castile: I will. t relderks: Okay ??: okay. 'lb be, to be clear on this, on this last point, before we vote • . Is that we would have, ah, we would request that the City . Engineering and the applicant have an a gr have an agreement on the above proposal eeittent within work, ork to p posal withers 30 days, and that, should b that agreement occur, that this final decision will become effective at that point of the agreement. Okay? And within 30 days from tonight. P y in the ��i,��e, we 11 go ahead and sign a final order gh �2ka And based on that so that it's all set and when Zey sign it goes "should that a :" greemA...xit be unable to be reached that the issue of the bike path and its location. • • • size° and cation" those, that specific issue w . . . . �. size and a dedication" would be reheard tyr the hearing would be reopened on that ... . point on the ' first meeting Se p�ember. okay Okay Moen: All those, ah, we have a motion before us that's been made and 1: seconded. All those in favor of the motion as made and seconded signify by saying, "A y e." rber, Castij,e Fyre, Newtorlf Ro�boro U g : Aye. r, Moen: sed? Peterson: NaY • ,, Moen .. .. Oka, Do y» You have that duly redorded.? c`elderks Yes. Moen.o Okay° The motion carries. We will have a break between now and we'll reopen the h.earinq at lo:O0 j s4,%;,s r.7C • 1 , • • • • January 23, 1990 1. Budget/Goals t 2. Council after-action 1/22/90 • 3. Interns for Summer • 4. Street Vacation Policy in Triangle • ti. 5. Trammel Crow I - Tenant Improvement Permits - Urban Renewal I 1 6. After Council Retreat I b . 7. Training Requests quests 8. 1 Council Timelines • 1 I I •. 9. Other Business I I • • •I. 1,0. Adjourn I I I , i 1 � 1 I � 1 II + I I , I rr } I I� • I i I 1 .� - .,....:1'f,!...1,..,.4..... _..;.1«._...Y..a.,,.�,....,,:..:....... ...:,...,.4<,.: ..__:. ....,.. ..,......_ .M:. .. ::a Gig, M.• ,w ...aNl. ,....+.., :.r. ... i.W.mw.in:i ... t r I TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING --. DECEMBER 5, 1989 1. Vice President Fyre called -the meeting to order at 7:30 PM. The meeting g er - TOWN HALL -- 13125 SW Ball Boulevard,, was meld at the Tigard Civic Cent • Tigard, Oregon. . 2. ROLL C iLL: Present: vice President Fyre; Commissioners Barber, . Castile, Fessler, Leverett, Rosborough, and Saporta. Absent: Commissioners Moen and Peterson. staff: Senior Planner Keith Liden; Building Official Brad 11.0ast left 9•00 p.m.); Plannin g Secretary Diane Je'lderks. Commissioner Rosborough moved and Commissioner Barber seoonded to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried by majority of Commissioners present. Commissioner Leverett and Saporta abstained. • • 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION o Senior Planner Liden reviewed sites that Tr -Met is considering for locating a park and ride. y 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1 NPO 45 q a.1. M�:;;OBLI„2�Ef)QS M 89-�-20 MANUFACTURED l�CyMBr AT SW COOK LANE A.' request w of the Director's interpretation to of manufactured 18.28 re est far review and 18.94 Of the ComMunity De'elopment Code pertaining ufactured and mobile homes. ': Senior Planner Liden reviewed s.tif:ormata.on enclosed in the Commission s packet and the sequence of events resulting in the issuance of Permits- The main issue zs r does the manufactured home comply with the Community p . en C� y m building Code (UBC) After . issue the Director d reviewing meet code CDC and the Uniform D�vel 4 - determined that permitting the Uring tk�e etermiried t manufactured home was consistent with the CDC and the UBC Discussion followrd between Senior Planner Laden; Building Official Brad Roast, and the Planning Commission regarding the definition for mobil and manufactured homes, the standard in the CDC, UBC, HUD s and requirements ( g lopnient) �t. y Urban neve the ability to move the maY�ufacttired i home, tie do�v �ousa,n a�ad and, fhe different - for mobil/manufactured homes n requirements f types of foundations which could be used. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER ' .. • ` A Imo' ^ • APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o Herman Porter, Chairperson for NPO # 3 s akin for. Don � pe g' Don Moonier, who was ' • . unable to attend, stated, that the manufactured home does not meet the 1.1BC. Also, he had been a member of NPO`3 when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted and it was not the understanding of the NPO that manufactured/mobile homes 0. ' would be permitted on single family lots. The NPO would have opposed if , they knew this was the intent of the ;Code. He felt the Planning Department had made a mistake and if mobile/manufacturing homes are permitted on single family lots then the Code needed to be changed. He did not feel that Mr. Johnson's foundation meets the requirement for manufactured homes. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Wilbur Bishop, 10590 SW Cook Lane, Tigard, 97223, had staff read his Lane ri and OR 9? letter supporting Mr. oonier's position i tion regarding the manufactured home. added that the concrete foundation for the garage is well� 4 ].1. done, the driveway has been paved, and Mr. Johnson has done a nice job on the lawn. disagreed with Senior Planner 'Liden regarding .the` i He ntent of the Code. He stated that in 1983/84 it was the intent of the Code to accommodate mobile/manufactured homes in mobile home parks not on single family lots. o Mr. Cl1'de Johnson, 10675 SW Cook Lane, Tigard, OR 97223, owner of the manufactured home stated that the salesman had not Placed the ordered as , requested which is why the porch is like it is. He will be installing a porch roof when the weather is nicer. He described the type of foundation' used and explained that the manufactured home does not need to be tied o David Nicoll, 14180 SW 141st Avenue, Tigard, OR 97223, stated that he had sold housepcanbeymowedandtheQSPwer is here to support' , him. He added that , a.nnufact well _ any home. The manufactured home is �,ell kept and is as nice as any other home ted like an othex. ho � 'on that �. cannec street. Some of those homes do not have paved driveways. REBUTTAL o Herman Porter stated he had nothing further to add. The main issue is, the g tqu e sted that the s:s ion xhte,rpretata.on of the meaning of the law. 13e requested �. ' tnmi 9 Department ` interpretation. find that the Plannin De artmelnh made an error in its, ` cuss' 1. tl the neighborhood, �` / o ' Dys - ioii followed regarding r�stra.cta.ons covenants in th whether the IBC allowed for alternative designs, and whether there was an oversight in the Code. PUBLIC SING CLOSED o , Commis lone �.. . ... :. .. orough, and Saporta rs Leverett, Barber, P + Director's They fa,.vored upholding the� , a.ra,ter interpretation= �e�"did. feel the Code needed to be looked at as it is ambiguous, in .terms of manufactured and Mobile''homes. PL NNYNG Co HXSSIO FE C��BH� 5 � 9 PAG • • ,I , • o Commissioner Fessler felt the definition for manufactured/mobile homes needed to be r efined. She supported the appeal. o Vice President Fyre had also been a member of the NPO and stated it was not the intent of the Code to allow manufactured/mobile homes on single family lots. He felt since the home had been placed on the site, Mr. Johnson needed to be made whole or be compensated for removing the 'home: moved and Commissioner Rosborough seconded to uphold Leverett m g • Commiss�.oner Lever. the Director's::interpretation of tile 18.26 and 18.94, file number M 89-20 ( ; and for staff to prepare the final order for Vice President Fyre to sign. Motion carried majority o rst y of Commissioners present. Commissioners ers Fyre and Fessler voting no 5.2 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPEAL SDR 89--13/'W 89-21 DOLAN NPO #1 ` pp construction of a N ,... An appeal , of a Director's decision to approve the . general retail sales facility, A.-boy Electric Plumbing and Supply, with a �. new 17,600 square foot building on a 1.67 acre parcel subjeOt to 14! - conditions. The decision included approval of a Variance request to allow 39 parking spaces instead, of 44 as required by the Code. Zone: CBD-AA '(Central Business District - Action Area). LOCATION: 12520 SW Main St. 2S1 2AC, tax lot 700 ' . (WCTM r._ 700) o Senior Planner Liden reviewed the issues regarding the application and the amendments to the proposed conditions. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION ° v John Dolan, 4025 SE Brooklyn St., Portland, OR, stated that they had worked • staff except for the dedication of the out most of their concerns with staf land. He stated he would not dedicate land to the City for nothing. He would prefer to he •paid money, however, he would be willing to accept eliminating the requirement for landscaping. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o No one appeared to testify i followed regarding area to be dedicated, area to be landscaped, and t i o Discussion he percentage of landodaping credit that the City would give A--Boy; atE1��TTx� � ' l o Mk*r. Dolan stated that he would earn more Money if 'Ihe sold th e land to the City and used the money to landscape his site. • PLANNING COt 1SSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 5, 1983 PAGE 3 • • i I I I L.. • I I I 17 ri PUBLIC HEARING cLC3BD 0 The ma'orit of Commissioners supported 7 Y pported staff's recommendation and { conditions. Commissioner Leverett felt the application should be tabled to t* all ow the applicant and City to work out the landscaping issue. • • $k ii * Commissioner Saporta moved and Commissioner Castile seconded to approve SDR 89-13 and V 89-13 per staff's recommendation and amended conditions and for staff to prepare the final, order for Vice President Pyre to sign. , , Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. �',' n ' 5.3 SUBDIVISION S 89 10 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD 89-03 ��]BP�3SPpS�`°�/B>�ACfdNI' , HOMES NP°O #S A request for approval of an 18 lot subdiv..lion planned 1 development on a 3.18 acre site. The lots will vary '.n size from approximately 5,280 to 11,330 square feet. Also requested is a variance to allow three of the lots to be created to have lot depth to width ratios of 4:1 whereas the Code Permits a maximum depth to width ratio of 2.51,1. ZONE: R-7 (PD) (Residential, 7 units acre. Planned Development) LOCATION: :'' ... southeast corner of SW 98th Avenue and SW Sattl.er,Street (WCTI'.f 2S1 11CA, tax lot 300). Senior Planner Liden reviewed the proposal and made staff's recommendation for, approval with 20 conditions. Discussion followed regarding street frontages and size of lots. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o Don Fournier, Alpha Engineering, 1750 SW Skyline # 19, Portland, 97221, agreed With staff's recommendation and conditions. o Kurt Da].bey, Beacon Homes, PO Box 1368, Beaverton, OR 97005, explained that the lot depth ratio was designed to have the smaller lots abutting Summerfield keeping in characteristic with the area. • o Pete Kusyk,, President, Mariner Homes, stated that they already have two people interested in purchasing the smaller tots and both parties are over 55 years old? • PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Howard Graham, 9410 SW Lakeside Drive, a member of representing citizens � pp Y i.eld' Boas-d, '. r the .�urnnieri� lots acces9in " onto Lakeside Drive. He felt the lots should be annexed to Sutnmerfield; So they would have to abide by ummerfield''s rules; however, r that would take a 75 percent vote and he doubted if they could get it at this time. PLANNING ING COMMIS$ION ,MINDTBB DECEMBER MBER 5• 1989 PAGE 4 • i t • l' '1 4 `-:w.,...aw...........a:+;_........._.:i._...,.«u...,....:.... .......:. .. ...»..,...,.. .r„ .. .....__w-w ,........;. .....4.._..,w..,. .....,„..;.«,.,.. w .:,a., .. _ a,.... -.1 f. • o Keith Phelps, 9450 SW Lakeside Drive, Tigard, also representing the • neighborhood group, opposed the addition of three new lots accesses onto Lakeside Drive. Currently, the street is congested with heavy vehicle and 1; golf cart traffic as well as residents -walking and jogging. o Dick Lawrence, 9500 SW Lakeside Drive, Tigard, agreed with Mr. Phelps regarding the traffic congestion and felt it would `be unsafe to allow three more driveway to access onto Lakeside Drive. He suggested that the • F N s C1, . s�xbdi.vi i. n be designed to;.access onto Sattler Road. • irr," • o 'Kurt Dalbey, stated that they have looked at alternative designs and there is not another way to access these lots. He stated that Lakeside Drive is ' y • public' street and they are not asking unusual. He added a .�.ng for .anything. i that they had requested annexation into Summerfield, but Summerfield had "' ,• - rejected these. lots. °.)Discussion followed on Why ::Bummerfield had rejected J these lots. PUBLIC HEARING cLoSED pP subdivision. 1 t. o Consensus of the Commission was for a• royal of the subdivy CommisSioner Barber moved and Commissioner Saporta seconded to ' approve * arb PD 89-03, S 89.10 and V 89-30 subject to staff's conditions; and for staff prepare r Vioe President Pyre to sign. ,Motion to tt�.e final order fo carried unanimously by Commissioners present 5.4 SUBDIVISION S 89-12 VARIANT V 89-29 PLANNED D :VELOP.k 1T PD 89-05 ZONE CHANGE ZC 89-09 LOT LINE ADJusTMENT H 89--21 17YRE NPO # 3 A request for approval of an application qu dap '' � acr+� parcel into: td apply the 1 to subdivide a 5 • 18 lots. A zone change is requested pp Y panned development., overlay zone to the property- A lot line adjustment approval is requested to adjust the boundaries of the site on which the subdivision will be located. Several variances to Code standards are also requested: 1) to a public feet qu• , 2)allow `a 28 foot wide , ubla w �;treet Where 34 feed, is re .red• � to allow a 42 foot wide right-of-way where 50 feet is required; 3) to allow a 1000 foot long cul-de-sac whereas 400 feet is the maximum allowed; 4) to permit a hammerhead turnaround where a circular turnaround is required; 5) to allow sidewalk on one -side of a street only whereas both sides are normally required to have sidewalks; and 6) to allowsa curve 4r5dius where a 100 foot radius is required. Z (Residential, ac7re) un its, LOCATION: SW 121st Avenue a Tippitt Place (WOTM 2S1 38C, tax lots 1100, 1300, & 6100) THIS ITEM w'AS POSTPONED TO DECEMBER 19TH P1ADrCd3 COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5 1989 PAGE 9 , ; . ) ' g 1 V M • • 6. OTHER BUSINESS' • • o There was no other bu,sines_ • • 7.' ADJOURNMENT -- •10:30 PM • ✓ , el de r Secretary i.�ine .M • • ATTEST: Milton Fyre r Vice President • • dj/pom12�-5 • r III 111 i i .. is p• V99 PJGI31111IIEV0 (011,,14ISSICIIN MINUTES -= DECEMBER r, 1989 PAGE 6 i, • e I ii ' .,W.,. .,.:..M V ms.µ, a .._.. .• ., .A.-M _.,.xa.J.. .« I v.., L _ ..M., r u.. .««Mri. r Y ' t i 5°2 SIT`E DEVELOPMENT PEVIEW(APPEAL SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN NPO #1 I I Liden: Okay, this next item involves Dolan, Mr° Dolan's A:-Boy Electric and Plumbing Supply on Main Street, and as you might recall, the Planning Commission reviewed this on an appeal from a Director's decision back in August. And the proposal is to create a new building of approximately 17,600 square feet, ah, on the 1°67 acre site, and then to eventual]y remove the existing A-Boy building ' The Site Development Review Proposal was approved subject to the . of fourteen conditions by the Planning Director;, and I . then`that decision was appealed by the applicant because of an objection to the contents of a number of, a I.number of the conditions, including dedication of the 100-year flood plain and • I top an additional f the bank of Fanno d�.t�o';na,l 1R feet I to the east to the t Creek; a non-remonstrance rance agreement that was required relating to future street improvements on Main Street; the provision of a paved pathway within the dedicated area adjacent to the 'ai,o Creek•are the removal of two non nni.nc� of d signs bear c�.onfo billboard that are on the property; and finally the removal, of a non- conforming roof sign that's on the e stir g A-Boy I building. ' I The Commission reviewed the application and upheld the Director's decision, with a couple modifications° p One was to ff' to work out some alternate arrangement on the dedication of property along Farm() creel'' to see if the city get by with a g `ty could et w,° little property the storm drainage improvements .., less ro and a that are proposed as we as the pedestrian bile pa th along that g side. And, ah, condition` numbPc y was modified to require e that the City r n Engineer wo rk out an agreement on the design .of the paved pathway, and that if an agreement couldn't be reached, that gr, the item should be brought back to the Cotanci l in, ' P_xcus: me, the September. motion, the Commission did seem to favor and amendment to final nmu.ssion in 5ep Although p the . .. another ' <, y ming condition that would delay the removal of the non-conforming roof sign on the existing building... until 45 days after occupancy of the new building. 'Cause the proposal is that A-Boy would move into the new building, and idea was that then You could get occupancy permit, have 45 days to fully move in and be p o Pxational at the new site before the other sign was taken dawn. � ; Since the hearing* Staff°s reviewed these issues that have been raised by the applicant, we've talked about them a number of different tines and, ah, in the memo that 1: have in the packet z dicate what tY r � ., � th the s of issues that �e ve d�.Sc�ussed w�: applicant and the t ypeI s of amendments that the St-aff is willing tpr pose to the o ri g inal decision, I d just 1�e to g o through *. those briefly. After reviewing this with the applicant and also our Staff on the con,ditions of approval and the items that are being contended were reccmmendinq the following amendments. PLANNING CO SSION "'rii\TG -- D ECENBIIZ 5, 1985 PAGE 1 I 9 . rY , r _ •. ' . , ( .. i 1 1. • .„ 5 First, we are saying that the, after looking at the 15-foot setback from the existing top of bank really is the minimum that's going to be needed to accommodate the storm drainage improvement and the eventual construction of that pedestrian;path: and bike path, an that`that requirement far as the nonremonsirance _ .should bP retained. As be agreement . s concerned for future improvements on Main Street, we don't agree with the applicant's - contention that it's illegal. However, after reviewing this further with the Engineering Staff and the 'Coituuunity Development Director, we decided that a non-remonstrance agreement would be inappropriate at this ti me. And we feel that some other method. . other than a local improvement district 'would really be required then Main Street is upgraded. Because the construction to accommodate storm drainage along • Fanno creek would follow sometime later, and is not a requirement of the applicant, it was felt that because everything was going to be in such close Proximity that it would be unwise to do the, ' or construct the bike path/pedestrian path at this time, and that it followed that with construction v nearby storm e�y for the s . r� drainage _mpi avemernt e So we're recommendin g that the ., - path condition be deleted. construction, of the bake tYx condit�o billboard signs are concerned, ah it is not the As far as the bl . ' Staff's intention to, to'hive the applicant stuck between a rock and a hard place, if there, if he does have a contract which �, obligates him to keep those billboard signs, So we're suggesting ' ` ' there that the signs not be required to came down if we can copy of in the applicant is required to leave those lbillr.�oard showing that t •= signs. So then presumably, at some future time, we will work with the sign com gn mpany as far as - those signs are concerned. We feel that the roof sign issue onl the existing A,Boy building was settled in concept, at least, based on the discussion of the Planning p d .ing Commission allowing thy_ sign to stay after the occupancy permit was granted, as opposed: to being a condition of the occupancy permit . dedicated �• that discussed . . p_. g �' ' One other thing that was discussed was landscaping of the ed area. And aS we understand it the applicant is ;willing • to dedicate that area if the City is willing to take {r, res i Could be used _. ,landscaping of that_. That that area pcnsik ility for andsca o area,. meeting the 15% landscaped area a .requirement • in the code. And finally the applicant also is interested in a er of s .. ping equ' ��iv some of the other ;.landsca r �a.ements, including , street trees and trees in the parking; area. The Staff is i . recending that we go along with the wishes of the applicant as far. as landscaping of the dedicated area, and using �. plant, of the p dedicated area to count towards' per' � , .P . �, 15 ,°lazxca r ix:ement but we do feel that other sc un toga_ds p , as trees-in the . ._ lands.�apang r.equ yseme�rzts, parking area, street trees should still be a requirement of the development. So i' think with that I'll close just to mention that in your pad cet you do have a .Copy 'of the PLANNING ECE BER 5 1989 PAGE 2 Ix�1IVl"�G CO�1�tISSIO�' LING - D A { F , J I i it ;• ry Y 1 • { r • Staff decision, a copy of the minutes from the previous Planning' of Commission meeting� when was �.d we oxed. a copy en we discussed this. And ire x r plan that was considered at that meeting. Pyre: Any questions? Thanks Keith. Is anyone here from the 1gP0 wishing to speak? Lf not we'll hear from the appplicant, John . Dolan'. Dolan: r Oh we're e a lot l closer than we were last.attuneIwas here. But there's still, some things that have to be resolved. One of them is, I don't Object to landscaping that area, I'll do that, fine. But I'll' dedicate that land �.ty unless they get Something ll rat �d to C in return as, as a landscaping deal: Now there's been a Supreme Court decision ??? that says lake in recent, recent case there was . . um, what's's tie name of .. that, Nolleti ea h No1 ]e n with 2 "LPs. They, the case care to the Sup r eme Court and they decided there, and you probabl y already know it, if you talked to the attorney, but that you cannot compel me to give you something unless it pertains to the permit. They're two different things. The permit is not, should be granted' to me on it's own rights, not demanding that I give you, ah, substantial amount of properly for it. The onl thin( y really can ask me is to do for that, that you need to do in order to give me ` . Y � g y g a permit- . ., ° , ,. g, this, or something, or if I have to do If I m causing extra traffic, or ' r put i n a road, or to, if I live out in the sticks, and do something like that that pertains to the property itself. ,' That you �ca.rinot, and ,T'm not going to give you any pro for y nothing. Now if you want that ro �t- , I°11 trade You a p pei wy y landscaping. deal for it and it won't cost you any money. Pyre: You're objecting to the dedication of the. Dolan: Yes. I mean I'm willing to make a deal with, with you, which I set forth, and, and in lieu of landscaping give you, dedicate that 5 feet to the City of Tigard ??? Otherwise, they can burr p o from me. y got for the, I know they N it the r petty The ot~ to have � , need it for the park, the property and I'll sell it to them, And I then I'll put in the landscaping according to code. It's one thing or the other, i but I'm not going to give you something for, nothing. It isn't, it doesn't make sense. Why should one person hav to pay f som ethn that This the whole Is that I should do that? I'his is America. you can't take ' things from The without paying for 'them. That's about all I have to say. Fyrei Is that the only, the only.. : Dolan: Ah, we're agreeing on most the other things, I Lean, there's a lot, there's I don't agree on the sign* but to build another s , - w g� build�.n I got to tear e�erytlwng:down anyhow. And the sign has to come down. So, I mean those things will work out., The only thing really 1 � wet re s, is this one I i m telling you . ly •t�-iat 'we re apart on �. PLANNING COMIA.ISSION MEETING DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE n u i • now. And I think if you look it up, you'll see that I'm right, that you know, what's right is right. Is it morally right that I - should ??? full price of the improvement that doesn t help rre, it only helps everybody in the City that uses that. So let's get Y American thing and if You got, if you're • do the'Am Y and, and d g together an rig ht, Y ou°re right. And I'm right, and I m going to stick to my guns to over there. ?? ? ` Tyre; . . , g o ahead. • What I understand them saying is that you can use this property as part of your 15% of your landscaping, but you certainly wouldn't want to build a nice building and not put some street t trees and something out front. Dolan: I. : . ??? It'd look lake the other plumbing store up there. Dolan: That's true. I don't know how they get away with it. They don't, don't even, they pulled the slats out of their fence. • ?? Anyway, you, you would, you would certainly want to have softie street trees in there. . Dolan: 1, most shopping centex s! a lot of than don't have, have that ��• • much. I would want it to look right; ???: Right. Dolan: But I don't want to say that somebody telling how to do this. I y Y hat And then what I ' -~ • , , say, 1 want to trade You for presentable, I1'11 put in. But want, to think I need to make the property presen r I.r . ???' I think that's what they're asking. Dolan: I mean, but all I want to do is give you that 6 p•000 or 7,000 feet of land, but I'm not oing to give it to you for nothing. We g • want, we'l1 talk about it and, and make. a trade. ???: But aren't you seeing.. . � e.,.nd et(tape ended) ♦ • • r Dolan. � you've got it earmarked for the par k, and you don't have ve , it. And I'm,; I don't want it, if you, for you, if you want it. But I don't want to give it to you for nothing. So all I say is, is all you have to do is make the deal and we can go,ahead, on W the this tut. e°ve; all, . �other things that get the oth were bothering me already, been resolves , x . t et out of the this and ,� g I thir�� have ,lie signs, it's not a, they keep call' it a roof sign. Its not a w o sign, it's ai wall sign. right on the front wall of the roof sign. It's ri buald7n g: And it s not illegal a permit was granted when we 1JLAI\TINTING COMNLESSION'' ji' INC - DBCEEffiER 5, 1989 PACE 4 • 1. ..{f ....,..;... ,..,..•.., ,..y�• 1 «..r a .w ' ,..-,.,..« .x+,.....iuM a..u....... ..,.....mid ....•,..w,w-..i..,,.. w. :. ..,..,, ::...... ..::.... ... .. .......m« ..R. ,:I ....J..vl-+k. k.Lwa..._.« put it up and there's never been anything said about it until recently. And, but 'it's not going to do me any good on that building.l But if I tear it down and I move into the other , building, so it has to come down, so the deal we made, that you • • presented last time is alright. I will tear that down, you know, a month or two after we get in at the latest. We'11 get that out of there after we I'get our, our. . . 1 " _e: Okay, what, let me see if I can get this clear. What you're • � Y • obi ecta ng to is the 15-foot dedication? Is that? • • Dolan:an: I'm not there's more 1 5 f eet involved. T hat 1 s � ast pert a it. That's above the flood plain. What they have asked from me was about 6 to 7,000 feet of land. Fyre: In the flood plain. I I • Dolan: N ' ' , I No. There's there's 15 foot is 250 foot long. So mean, you have 15 feet times 250 foot. And then you have, besides that got I've got like a riverfront ' • you�ve of some stuff in the'...:river. property. It's, be a nice property if it, the City didn't want ' I it you could develop; that property to its best usage and take�' advantage of the:creek there and have a nice different type of ,d eal but never tak en that idea seriously m y .P� if because it's for the public good and they, they b ve to have : • it for the, to get an entrance to their property. I've even gone so far, one of myr way saying we'd ,e more property o I'd just build . where we are ther and somethix like that if wanted to. We , could work out a deal, flexible. But this is what they came back with, you think that, that's what shoUJ.d have r be done. Because I think ea bod'.. knows' that, that I know e�-"Y Y r what's going, on and it's right. It's just, too. When you want to buy so uething, You have to pay for it. And if you don't pay for it in cash, you can pay for it in g of equal value: somptha.n o ,. Fyre: Any gtestions? Okay, you'll, you'll get another chance. ,! Dolan: All right. What does that mean? Fyre: Well I wanted to ask a couple questions of Staff L and then you'l l have a chance to rebut. r . Dolan: All right, fine. •• , Fyr e Cause thn:e i s nobody Signed up to speak in oppoSition. S tat f r could you please clarify the dedication issue here if you could? tiden: Um, in what respect? • ' gyre, E acthy what we're talking about in t'ermS of 4t Dolan's objection. , co)MMISSION D8c 4B] 5, 1989 'AG"E 5 ]I I 1 r LI I k'. Liden: Okay, maybe I'll see if we have a ??? up here. Fyre: Okay. pro memor • Liden: ??? I' don't have the peaty 'zed, but anyway we've 'got Main Street, the bridge and I don't know if this is the right �. , � shape. We've got an area that's in the flood plain. Then we've • also got this additional area 15 feet, it's outside of' the flood plain. And the Staff is saying that between the flood im ro , p ;. storm drainage improvements that need to • vemerYts that., the st be made this area, and pedestrian , the addition of a bike and ... path, there is a need to come out to this line to acco tuaodate ' g g excavation both of those. dart of its oin to involve some exCavat right along the edge of the flood plain to widen this area out so we can accommodate the flow of water in a flood condition adequately, and then the remaining 10 feet, there abouts would be for an 8--foot wide pathway to get into park the o trie main k area to south What the code allows in the central business district, it 7 does allow normally that you can, in other situations, that you a; can at least be eligible to look at developing in the flood. plain W 'Q area, if you can show that you're not going cause a in flood elevations elsewhere. Now. ttzis case, since we're. at a critical place where the flood plain is relatively narrow, we've got a ' bridge immediately upstream, and so forth, it's been concluded by a study that was done a number of years ago.by CH2 M:.Hill that this stretch of the river has to actually be widened to accommodate flood flows adequately. So if there was a proposal that came in said we want to fill to the center of the creek, a ' we'd say, "Well, you can't do that because then that, according to the study's going to make that flood water go up. So the applicant's not propoSing 'to build in here, so that's not really And we're saying in this area �. . an issue, ea of the Ci that If you're not going to use that area that if you, and as a condition of development that you should dedicate the 100-year flood plain. Now one thing that's unique about this was that since the flood p la .n area is so narrow and we're also trying to get a pathway (� through there, we're actually looking at land that's outside of ?' the 100-year flood plain to accommodate the path. Typically when d paths constructed usually art of residential developments b elo ents and so on, the flood plain area is wide enough, there's plenty of room within the flood plain to put the path and A not, and not look at the land outside of or above the 100-year flood plain, So this is a somewhat unique situation because the flood plain is so narrow and we don't have the space down here'to put the path1 So the reason that the Staff is rer ommendirlg some flexibility` is because we do see the existence of a unique situation that we're, we're looking for dedication of land that's outs ide of or above and beyond the typical requirement of the y pl So that's why we are recommending.. d 100-Year flood lin.. en ng that a this area can still be used to be Counted towards meeting the landscaped area requlirement of 15% of the entire site,s a opposed to giving the dedication and then saying well okay now ' � PLANNING GJNIINLSST OW ME rINN DE E BED 5'r• 1989 PAGE 6 0 • ( . , you need to meet the 15% ??? .And ahem... ' Fyre: Can you back up Keith, I didn't quite, I'n missing something here on this, this landscape r irement that ou're D Y L"idea: Well code is saying that if You have on this site that 15% of 1.67 acres needs to be landscaped. Now if we have the dedication take Place, then it's;down to, say an acre. Then we d be saying 1/4 acre of the remainder has to be landscaped. So that he dedicates this alcci essentially is going to landscaped or left in its natural Andthen ou d be saying g oka Y now that we've taken this part, we want 15% on what s left. And since we're having the requirement of 15 feet additional outside • of the flood plain, it's our feeU.ing that he' getting caught a , little bit in 'a double wharrm-ry here. We're taking this and saying okay now /here's your 15% landscaping? Would' have had plenty of land if we didn't 1:ec cthe dedication. Fyre: RighE , t Liden: Now, as far as meeting the landscaping requizenents it s our , feeling that the applicant to benefit the torn on the landscaped area, but that at least in the parking area street trees and so on, that those amenities still should be rimed. As far as space is concerned, the landscaped area we're talking about to have some trees in the parking area and the street trees is really quite minimal. just have some islands, small islands with 4 the trees in them. That can really be basically the extent of the landscapinng, ???b An dt, would sat isfY t you've e ras g'of+.it p proposed, all the landscaping g r�uilenents? Wh en you take into eo nsideration the 15-foot strip. Pretty ???: y close. Laden: Cause then, also we're recommending that, e,s4, part of this park the City's going to be in doing Some landsca i axe Y g g e p . zovement And after the cc�nstrizct�.on of , the storm drainage :imp , whatever landscay . is put in would be taken out. We'd be p� p starving over anyway. 7?? City will do it? Liden: Right. ??'?: city will maintain it after. .. Liden: Right. And we would be responsible for maintenance' after dedication anyway. F .re: You're landsca 0 essentall" dr oppzng the bulk of the p S Y PLAN+ET DECEMBER 5 1989 PAGE 7 1 . I u ::.:. ..,.. .:., ...,.. ,'a ,.. ::,. ..,.....; .,,.. :. •....,., _........ ...... ..... ..•. .. .,_..,,. ...,.:.. ....,. ....... ..,. ,. ......, ,...,.. ,. ... ,.. _,.. , ,. ,., ,..,, ..,,,, ., ,., ., a.. • requirements in return for dedication of the flood plain an additional 8 feet? Fifteen Fyre Fifteen. ' Dolan There's one other point here that I might point out. 1 also agreed, besides doing this, to give them some footage around here 'so the y could landscape it, g ive it landscaping�ng where you put some trees in so you wouldn a t be seeing it from the park which they will have down here. That width I would dedicate also. It , probably something like that. would be robabl 5 to 10 feet or someth' Fyre Okay. Any questions on what's going on here? We're asking for 15 additional feet of dedication and reducing the landscape requirements, dramatically. Is that,a good characterization. Liden: Well I'd say reducing, for the remainder that's left we'd be reducing the landscaped area r • eq,zix`ement. Fyre:' To, ah, just street trees? Liden: Street trees and those other things are provided in some small landscaped islands. Y after i would guess that the lengthy area here': dedication would probably ,be less than 10%, ???. Fyre: Okay. Any questions? ,, '7. . .7'7 • If the numbers meant anything, you were looking at about 11,000. . square feet of landscaped area And if he's giving 7,000, so ' there's 3, 4,000 feet left of landscaping to go Fyr'e: Any other questions? Thank you. Mr. Dolan would you like to say a few concluding things? 4 Dolan: 't much more I think I' Well there isn The landscaping on the rear of the lot by I want to say. r I've said p g y th. , that land there I • think is i shield the build` ing f the back of the building and anything to else from _ � � the park that you'll have down below. That's wh y was my that id ea is to give them that because. 80 we'll have 7,000 feet actually would be 10% or more landsca ' of the ' • p1-�' tight there. this. :i somewhat of a rice it would benefit And thi I `thau�c would the C.�ty probably. more than it would 'me I think if I sold the ro t, to the City-_ and p- may Ty to landsca Would make lot more Used that same morie - y pe it, I w none that wa It woul f , would dedicate to the City. Is that clear: and that I�' y' do t cost the value of the 1 mss: I guess we could look at it a cou p le ways. Take 7,000 feet of that . ro -t and -y value of $10 Dolan: � p� a we had a vat " y s � oa ' P L A f r}G o SSION 'TNG DEcBi BER 5 198 PAGE 8 r. • i al' ',r c foot, would be $70,000. And say the landscaping for the whole thing for my site without take the 7, I wouldn't need as much • landscaping after I sold ''that, but say. Then say you got 15, 20,000 for landscaping, that would be a benefit? the City of $50,000. Faire: Sure you could look at it a number of ways. Dolan: That's a roughly, those figures, but I mean o it s, its apparent • that the City would get a good deal on it. Pyre: I guess you could. .. Dolan: , Aside from that, my own costs now, taken that I have to redesign the building and all this other additional cost should be taken into consideration, too. If we do get to a cash settlement on this deal, �t.that would be involved in Tyre. Any questions?.. ???: At this point it appears you would probably like the money, you would like the City to buy the property from you, or are you still open . . •? Dolan: It don't make any difference. I don't heed the money for construction. ??• okay. I would sooner let the City take i t. In other words, if I do Dolan: let tY sell it for a profit,+ it p �.t, 111 have to ��y:.taxes on the' :. profit. ??» This is true. � Dolan: It And, and you know other things. isn't all profit, r ???: Right. Okay. Dolan: But so it e better both ways for a trade. • ?? Mr. Dolan, what exactly is it that you disagree with? Dolan: Well, I don't, I, I refuse to give that property. to the City for. + • r��l�. ' r , e say,�' City They want, they y . .y, "Dedicate this." First of all they .x nothing. y want to say, °'Gage us this property, Wild 'a road on it Y , ??? and these other things and I mean, : ??? But that isn't the case now. r, Dolan! Well, now, since last time' the they've withdrawn the demand that I build the road on it. But still the y� they're telling ine "You + h r dedicate this property` do this ot=her thing Avid its my PLANDTING COMMISSION- ..,.MEMDTG DL IBB R 5, 1989 PA B • F i ad: • \ ..r.6+.M,r r. .av rvr..r.,.i.. 1 Jx,.+µwry...4..+..AI......4.r..»:..J.;r. r »:,.. r _. ,.L. .«.... .L. ..u..., uJ,,.nr.n. ....,.M. . i .r....4.—«r✓...W..r r r , property, and to get a permit, there's no reason why I have, to ive them'that ro . That's not idea, that's the Supreme give p key �' Court That's the way things %ark G ???: No, it was, it was the court's idea for that particular case. Dolan: Well, it's, it's only been a couple years ago and I can, ah, I surely don't have it with me, but I sure could give you the. . . ???: I have it, thank you Dolan: Do you have it? r r r Dol• ???: th-huh (yes) ' r Fyre: What's happening here is it appears that let's say, for instance, the City didn't want to build a bike path along there. The regulation or the code says you have to provide 15% landscaping. The code says that. They aren't taking anything from you, that's in the code, everybody has to do it. Dolan: Okay. Pyre: Okay. Now what we're doing here, it appears to me what's happening here is the landscape :requirement is being reduced. . . 1 Well, he's Dolan: , .not really what he's saying. You must remember this: to take your land and give you credit for self credit saying: we're going g g keep y my g still get landscaping. Burt. if I kee the land I could s the landscaping credit for that. Fyre I don't. Dolan: I mean I put the landscaping there, I mean I can still.. . Fyre You'd have to put it there, right. Bolan. Yes but I', I mean that would be it. . r Fyre: And that would be it, but there would be a cost associated with it. Dolan: There would be a cost, but it would be a lot less to landscape the land than to buy the land or the land value. � r PYr.e: Y very Ha well be. It m not sure. Dolan: It, it mares sense: Fyre: But, but the issue, you know? I don't want to get off onto a "; broadet issue, but the issue of dedication is something that's, that t s' done and it's applied in all m nioipal ties, and the, the pp PLANNING CONMISSION DECEM8IIR 5, 1989 i'AE 10 r,�.r Nollen case was somewhat, somewhat unique,and specific and may or . may not apply to this one. Dolan: It it applies. I went into that pretty but there's even people that like to see test case of that. x e: Sure that's debatable whether it does or not, but I guess that we have to decide here is, is what needs to be done. Any other questions? ??? ' , proposed You has ro ed •:' . . , b have one, question. _What the Staff p po y Mr. Dolan, I hav seem to still be hesitant to. .. Dolan: Well ??? ??? agree to there. I think you said it's getting closer than we were, but when you talk about a fair trade, it this isn't far enou g h in your mind to be a fair trade, what is a fair trade? • Dolan: Well y the the best way would be then to do it would be, say, r r that 1°11 sell you that property and then, then we can do it normally without any trades. It's you know, m kind of a horse trader, have always been that way and I thought if trade on something, else. But it's like it's to the City's benefit to male a trade. I, I would come out in the long run better financially but �t might be a little more work for me. I'm getting so old I i the less I get that better is getting that landscaping in: Fyre: Okay, any other questions? Or want to share? Okay, what I guess th at we're going to have to do, since You, You' haven't quite reached agreement with i the Staff, i8 we're going to have ',to decide how to Proceed with:`this agreement. Dolan: Yeah, You g g ot to remember.. . Y FiYr'e: Can you give us any help here? Dolan: Well I can tell you one thing, if, if I don't build on there, you'd have to buy that land. anyhow, wouldn!t you? So, if we can't do one way, let's just buy the land and we won't have any ent. the other thing I'm offering you an alternative Other thing eve instead of buying the land to give me that landscaPei landscaping credit and get d:b ti up' All I'm doing is asking i for a trade. You got to give me something if I give you something. Nothing's for nothing. • tyre: Right. • p .. y ??? Are you saying you wou�ldn't want to put an y landsca ing an Your building then? Dolan: I wouldn't, I don't want to have that regU reixient: I, I'm not PLATINIi G COIF" SSIc T MGEI'IN DECEMI3Ert 5, 1989 PAGE 1 • "i i. I. >ra.:x.x.: .w ata..ai...a1..+'.L:J w..•+.wr..z.r r.V. 4 . saying won't Put an Y but If there's going to be, you got it where you have some of these islands and stuff, I know I have to put some there. But one thing I do, I hate to have say you need this kind of a thing and I like some other kind of a plant there and all this other stuff involved with it? • ??? Mr. Liden, is some, there some latitude in the types of plants? I Lean, it appears that Mr. Dolan, that something could be, worked out. It sounds like he maybe has accepted the fact that he wants to do landscaping within the island par : . ?:'?: I think you're close. I ???: yeah, I think you're close. Dolan: Yeah, I think we're, there'd be a little of that but, ah, . .. • ?• 15 12 1/2 . 4 . r I'm Dolan: I m willin g to do, Ill, do what I p parts. So there isn't going to be any have to do. sprinklers in the; other ;,• problem there. ???, g �' any tee: Okay, 'our, how's your time line? Are Y ou in a rush to get this thing going? Or you want another couple weeks to work this out with Staff? Shall we reach a conclusion here tonight? . Dolan: That wouldn't be too bad- I'm getting kind of antsy about it. It's, ah you know it's kind of dragging. r Y r gga�g• A couple w�Gl�.S, ` . 4 another cou p le weeks isn't going to be too much. Probably... ?? Do you want us to approve it as this way, or do you want a couple more weeks to Work it out? Dolan: We, I can, if we can work something out, I don't like to Come • back to, to, you know, all this hassle with you fellows again. I've been through it once. But if We can work something out and I don't have to come back here. . . Pyre: okay, let's, ah, let's close public hear. get w and et an with it. ° . mt. Leverett? r eV � i think that's a We're ed to negotiating out this landscaping, cause.::t 1 erg Gael I, 7�m Opposed to it1,ake Tigard look half way d e cent. I think the landscaa iSn't, , _ - ping �_sn t shouldn't be g� opportunit to do what he 'wants to do to it him the I To Ys R Us or Something like You ,know, it Could look , like T , that And T ion t think we `• want that. I think that we should table it and let him try to • work it out: Fyre: That de should? P L�SG 'C4M1q:L55I0 N MEZ;f ING D • ` r 1 , 1 � �� .1:.,e .a.a ..,. ... ri . •.. ...aw ..,,..... ,•, .,. ..M., , ..,.w..., .,.., .,,nw... ,r .,.... . ...„....�., r...a.,,., .,a, •.. ro .., .• ,, ..,,.., ,.,...... Leverett: I think we bould table it. Y . Fyre: Nit. Castile:' Castile: I think we should, I, I'd just go for going with the Staff recommendation and, cause I think they're that close to within 3, , 4,000 feet landscaping and that's nothi..ng. And I think the trees, whatever, whatever his design with the Staff we can have it worked out. z : ' favor of o'n w�'th the Staff recommendation? Fyne. You're in favor � g �. g �, Castile Yes. FYre: Commissionea: Barber? B:a ' • ber: I would aaree with going with the Staff reCommendatioh I � �"Yx' l e: Commissioner Rosborough'? Rosborough I would agree with Conanissioners Castile and Barber. I think if the, if we, you know, went with the Staff recommendation and the two sides got together, I think it's going to be awful darn close to being there, I think with the way Mr- Dolan has said he w�k':it.s E to do it and what the Staff is proposing. I think it's, I think it's very close the way it is. Fyre: Com►tu.ssioner Fess?er? Tessler: T agree. I think that Staff and VC'''. Dolan are getting closer. i hin c it would be probably to, they 'v been works g with -� ' e this longer than we've been able to and I think they're just r' about there. ?? Fyre: Commissioner Saporta, do I hear a motion? Saporta x, sure. that move that we approve Staff's recommendations �,� Sure as amended. Is that r.ight. Fyre: Is that correct? Well let's you I gue.s5 approve or mandate the original Director's de dsioh With the changes ev to the conditions that have n o ted in memo I ???. That sounds good. Fyre Do we hear a second? Castile: I'll second it It It's moved and seoonded� All in favor si if-y by , Fire: Fr NINE COl!7MISSION I a + mC DECITIBFR 5, 1989 FACE 1"� • P if u .. { «,,.'-,...-,,.,:�-+o..w,.+....«_.....,..�.awf....."�a.-.._...,_.. .... ....... :.... .,W,;r.,.�, ... ..:. ..,f._....._.F. ..,..f..._wa.M• ,,.,, ..,..' r,..�... ,e;;.......a.0.-.,«....r�...-+° twA+.. ,. saying, "Aye.1! • All Corllilu.ss.:1,oners: Ave " Fyre: This motion Carries . I Liden: You might want to add that we'll prepare a final order for your • signature. Fyre: Okay. Final order will be prepared for my signature. of/BM'ci.25.90 I I N. \WCJM\COMDEV • • . I , I I I L I I III i i it I , 1)L7,NNI:LTC COI/I1kLC5810N 1��1S1\10 b E� � 1989 I F AC4B 14 I , I , k0V- ^ •W f M •� r • , , r i x I r ,1 II ,..,.,Lr"„..n.f.,.-.. ..nr,.',•.n.'..... .,>n„k•, .,-—ii..,4,-. - -,,...,-u.,...4,.„+s...-;»-,•.-I.I,.x..11a,.. .. I, X11-' 7, ..,.rIG IN I b JAL.t%. ,g 1!, `412.. r 4P A,I NI ST �1,0,{ r _ .wr __,.__.. lour ISO.G (tZi�-1) . r-15 I Z 14 .rr ;lf;,V1! :}, t'' i N, •:.:'ti. t l•r l r .�M , •fbr�J+)�J 1.1k1? r. ! 1'r = °i:r L,rr-�?}r t c+• y' . r -t 5.F • - �I �t� r. •r 1 yt ..,....,,,,,,,.,(!.,..z* -----'”' 1r �h .: - !,' 1+1 1, ,•,-•','''''..' .r,cL c L1(l-1 T ,, , t ,�• . , .� --. . .-. , , U5'G • 5 r '.\\ f , I 1 I `:' •; ,.;, .1 ----- \olcb '4 y •r. r + Tc,F, �aAr,1Imo•• t Z'-' !♦ •;.; -.rte r`„.1 ..,1,"4 1:2:,,L pC.rj •i• ? ,..4. , 1r ' rq�� r�y +K�•)r � r. i T •,I"I N F t. r-•L •V 15 2,5 Q �,ax a,x; _.� r h'»'Tt O�1 t» .t,r�' 1.1{40�j ��i J1. ..„1,,,,„,,,,...11,,‘.1,.,..,.:‘,1.,,,,,1 r h :y tl`s. .d,Prv�yl,+r, '.tilt•';,'` .i'.il r. I'G©.1 C , V. / �\ .,� r t;z?1'�,. � `r• • FLOOD '• ,, RLAI(\. \ _r ot-,--- i It `' \� , � ; � 0 y• y jj . �) v . t' I r t . tP jt t• r. a •... 1 ,L^r 1,. 6 1504 ,// �•:�,�:;••5 • ,,,y- '�Y,�' • °�; !r a ..1.'....--`r_•_� .I:w... •I y.�: .. _ +w ./ , .„. 4 { r ��tr ljo .p 1 it • • x ;•.,..,.•••!•:/,`.•.;••.w� 4; �� 1\,,,1 • .` ; [ T IS`-rA.—r`I<-`i”t G�, is a • ... ., ... �.,,,. . ,•.,.:.• ...:�.,•.•.,; �,.....I,,.._.•.. .._ ... ,,..., ' ,. . _. . ,,., 4444 .... , „ w, ., � ..,• . ........... • .. • � . .,_. ..., ......u.. , .. .,.. ,.. ,... . • y D' , 6! iY ;tir '� f ,i I s o.s 2. ((Z:,►*1) 1 ct•G (3) • ----' 3�7 rbr,s„ Ji { ----------"/' 1�t! � •y}�,�"ti t j:,/,:.1'''.7::'''','...,: f c ,{'r�Sra•i. f ` .,�. 1 , I I i l7.'.'',uV,:tP fir•(l f 4 ;'-;.,,::'''..:.%.;•.,',,, 1;;;;',iy�••k `':'.1'-:.:, ,-. �•• 1:":,'.....:� .r. 1 J ,•1• I.. !r fS 7 �•�,yt�'K"1.� x ,.:t.t ( t .. � ;" 1. 1 • J'',,:'i rl t1.1Jt.:-.•t•;t,f*T:t(• • ,•:, • j t\� y+• I 1r i z / f kl;i,•,`,�•5:i;^�yg 43-t• o''''',.:.' i:�� .1;... t a t•�-t 4, 1 r t'i, I `f.•�C � Zari Ct' I'N j d.,.r r��4r,r 1 c, .,',,,or, -� t , rn.,' xr t� ,. '" -.-1-'''it 1:3'L1f,-,1-1r ! / 1 i�P..;r`.:.. _ i a Cr') . 4. 1.• (- x 1.".:-;.,..- yeti • a �._--- — , 1 1 I 1 ,:,.,1,..,,,,:..., :."".V$ 1.,..' r.mil,/ :I r \�,+...1 I I J ( t l •�AAA `vv�.�\ �,, ST.� rUt- fJG�, .,� ( .+'.a:t al :;`,.1'>..4,,..,;1•4";:.., 1 Amitiiiiili A ---1 =5,4..-,-(11,..1P:', ...,:,?:,.,.;,...,,•t / ! ,� I w.. •�� • a T . l• -- ^._.-•••�_•'^~'•�-._...— y �- LI ...� ....,,i.:,..., My, � r� • � YrITrA- 1 I I, ,••`M 1.. • \ r• CIr' ,fit I. 1 ,,' , '.1 t .,..,4: .,,..,:„..,.';? t . ( .,6 c_<,, 1 r ' 1 e.5 0 • r, rh• ,4-1,r' .y,,. ..:'•-::r^- t+w ` ' { t 1 h t •` ' t';.•:_ Y .bM it ,r„ 4 ( , t S 41 J �I 1 t,:;t•,41.r1ir/1t�a14c.5,�I?-1*�l7 . •i : 1 I , 1 ,, '.e?,,`"?r4r F 1- x ,f",.ir��,,'t•4 t Yi'r51=�,i' vi:: r i it i ''*4••••1 t f ,'ff" •- .. lW 1,f. !■ t!�4- .r. r YS x Y r.,ri;ify rrC�S'- 4• rt t. +'�., �l r --' w t i! _ ..., a ar ,�'. fir. .. •y' '4 1 � aN a.r--�"'— .��""'"r� li, a r r �, y t • 1. .,1. .YYY1 '•1V x , t+ �" • 1,'.� rxlt;,`, •taw tits .x ryl ! i tmo. i t a 1 �gI � s t•c��1 � +.�'...,^...�.�,�.-....� t i ■� , ,y� * :>t-,.» Ir?a.' f� ''.'icf I t 4+ ti?'+ 47. +njf y I /.,',17.4'1.41":' I ••I ^ ," t .��•, � r , rr,,•] i tj y� a• ` `}.,ilT ,7F C-' ..V it r T jam• y , y^,-1 i w.- { .r I r is ,I Y I ,ri wrr. 4 . } r LAND USE DECISION APPEAL FILING FORM citizen's right to d of Tigard supports //iliunrllllp�� 1 The I participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use for �" • • (;ode ' therefore sets out specific requirements F TI�� fi Lang appeals on certain land use decisions- . �� yy The following form has been developed to assist you in OREGON appeal of a land use decision in proper . ry , filing an aPp �. To determine what filing fees will bl required . form. or to answer any questions you have regarding the Please contact the Planning, Division appeal process, or the Ci t y Recorder at 639-4171. I • r� ' 1. APPLICATION BEING APPEALED: SDR 89-13/V 89-21, John T. & Florence , Dol an (owner); Albert R. Kenne y, Jr. (applicant) QUALIFY AS A PARTY; See attached Notice of Appeal (Item 2. HOW DO YOU Q ,,%% II ,^y � See attached Notice of Appeal - 3. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW., (Item No 7) -__-µ— • • �: IS TO DE FINAL., December 28r 1989.. ,� ..._. 4, SCHEDULED DATE DECISION I. ., ~ I.iNAL DEC' WAS CIVET . December 18, 1989» �. DATE NOTICE OF DECISION _ , ..�...._ 6. SICNATUIE(S) ± See attached Notice of Appeal ..�..�..:,y.. ,t.1• . 4(.X •1)..3(.•-4.(.. x-X•)c,�X-X��Icy( “�4t•�-X-��-x�x��' � Date 1 l , Received D F R OFFICE USE ONLY• I B y -€ Uh Aap�oVed As To Fat"ir1 � D�.� Id A s To i=o r�m r3 ! ��x�.. ,.,. a rti i>, .r„_,.• �.,�" ' Otp s. ;� tZ �4 x p t No. C� _ __ _ -- •. x x x it KX it t ft t It t �c ie x�t st )t)t-(.)c .t•(- 4t-4t.X,R. 40.-x t:u -�c 4( k4 t k 1 4(4(-u X•) 44 4t.t x X• R X i<.5c'4 x.4� �r 9�- �I 7�; 003, b3 � of 97223 ) • e n 13125 SW Nall BIvci„P�O,Bc�3t 23397+ g errd Ur I °'s r i/'1. 4 y 4• .rrxMSn.rr,4+y..,.r.:N r..4in. .-fir+: .xA..»..>•r.,vN...r..r._.,.. .-,.4.v..'.:.-n 1...l:ru... '..,.I A.;:.,r...1 "..i.I..._.max... a....,.»t.r '.....1:.w«f.l.....::.:»tJ..r._.w.++..:+........s-n.M1+.:rtJ..«I..aw .J'r+ - _il«:G. ..._ Fr, . KNAPPENBERGER & MENDE L ATTbRNEYS AT LAW PETER MILLER • JOSEPH R.EUIENDE� ALLAN F.KNAPPENBERGER HONEYMAN HOUSE L OF COUNSEL 1318 S.W. 12TH AVE. — PORTLAND,OREGON 97201-3367 FAx ' (503)294-0442 (503)294- X317 December 27, 1989 City of Tigard i'. o unit:..:. Development C mm Y p P.O.I Box 23397 - Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Application Being Appealed: John T. and Florence Dolan . , SDR89-13/V 09--21 To Whom It May Concern: . Please accept this correspondence as a formal request to provide each City Council member and the applicant herein, a copy complete transcript of the'. hearin s and a co of the of the oom g copy p P ' minutes from all relevant proceedings which resulted in the Planning Commission's approval. with This request uest conditions consistent with above- referenced application. q •C Section 18.32.330A of the Community nxt Development mint Code for Tigard, ;, , .• .3 . appellate will Consistent with Section 10 �2 330B ' the a ellat Oregon. Cons ume responsibility p �,ons` .lbility to satisfy all oasts inc.urred for the preparation of the transcript at a rate of actual cost ;xp to if of the costs for any amount incurred and. one-half 1 A A �.reld otrer $500.00. s as a � . any s result of this re uest the l ease�cortct Joseph R. Mendez, attorney for John T. and � p rlorence Dolan, at the telephone number listed above. IL, Thank you for your anticipated cooperation and consideration in this matter. Very truly Yours, R J07• R Men'ez JRNI:sr) Enc FI cc: John Ta Dolan Florence Bolan I I . L I • NOTICE OF'APPEAL OF FINAL ORDER OF DIRECTOR 1. Concerning case number: SDR 89-13/V 89-21. 2. a) Name of owner: John T. and Florence Dolan. . b) Name of applicant: Albert R. Kenney, Jr 3. Address: 9500 S.W. Boulevard, Portland, Oregon, 97206.' -7 4. a) Address of property: 12520 S.W. Main Street. b) Tax Map and Lot No(s) . 2S1 2AC, tax lot 700. 5. Request: Applicant requests the Planning Commission's Final • w s: L Order ten. the above referenced matter be revzewed bv the Cit.,' Council regarding the conditional approval of the reconstruction of a general retail sales facility, �.-�Bo y Electric Plumbing and Supply/, with a new 17,600 square foot building on a 1.67 acre parcel subject to 14 conditions enumerated in the Final Order. (Central Business District r- Action7Area A copy of the Notice of CBD--AA Final Order By Planning Coltutlission (hereinafter • referred to as the urinal Order is attached hereto , marked, as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. a applicant qualifies as a Party by being the owner and nd the . real party in interest intending to develo p the parcel. 7. Specific grounds for the appeal for review are: a) Paragraph 1, page 10 Final Order. decision demands . John T. and Florence Dolan (hereinafter referred to as The dec:�aa.o Dolan) dedicate a substantial portion of their property to the City as greenway, i.e. , all portions of the site that fall within the existing y ear flood lain and in a.n 100-Year addition the surrender 15 feet .Final Order demands Dolan sutra the p This above (to �.he east. of the flood lain boundary, demand b y the Planning Commission constitutes an unlawful te king of a citizen°s private property in, violation of the Constitution of the United States Fifth Amendment and in violation of the Constitution of Oregon Article I, Section 18. Paragraph 4/- p a g e....11 Fin'al Order. That portion of Paragraph 4 subnumbered 3) which re quites Dolan to construct landscaped islands in the parking lot and plant trees in the islands is of first impression. : � to the tre 1 - NOTICE OP APPDAIJ OF FINAL ORDER OF DIRECTOR M , / " i ' Y P. applicant. This condition was not included in the previous decision and was not included in Dolan's initial appeal. This re qu i,•r ement is not uniform orm in its a pp lication by the C ity Planner and constitutes an unlawful taking by this governmental agency. ' C) Paragraph 5, page 11. Final Order Requires that Dolan at Dolan's expense survey and mark the land they are required to deed to the City. This expense should be �. born by the City since the City would be the beneficiary of the dedication. • • I : d) Paragraph 16, page 11 and Paragraph 12, page 12 Final , Order. The Planning Commission requires Dolan to remove • certain signage prior to the occupancy phase of the development. g y . erected b . Dolan with the Of the City and in to by the Director w► .s conformance with city ordinances at the ° time by permission Y • city a o f construction. The signage is integral to Dolan's '' business and its required removal constitutes an unlawful taking for which Dolan must be compensated beyond the mere approval of their application. The signage issue ti of a separate building is improperly addressed by the Plannin g Commission in this application p rocess and ' P should be struck from the Final Order. 8. a) Date decision was filed: 12/18/89. b) Date decision scheduled to be final 12/28/89. DATED this oc f day of / •p. � 1989 , a �' KNAPPENBHRCER Y' MEy, aE Jiir. R. . ND r 0 . 82333 g -tor. or .hn T. and ■rence Do a ° ....... j RECEIVED BY: � �! DATE: ._ � TIME: � •, . { • APPROVED AS TO FOR BY: DATE / / TIME: DATE • DENIED AS TO FOB BY: / OF NOTICES �' . . . ' IJRTI1ER ACTION AND BEARING DATES` SHOULD BE SENT TO: � M . John Dolan Mr. Joseph R. Mendez, Esq. Olobe Lighting Supply 19th Avenue 1318 Lone- an douse Supply The � ym. . . N.W. S.W. ' th Avenue 1919 �1`: 1 Portland, Oregon 97219 Portland, Oregon 97201 2 - NOTICE OF APPEAL OF FINAL ORDER OF DIRECTOR. " i '� T HlJ 1 .4, 4. 1 ORE iC� f5 Ca 4 : ' 44 �"`.. O2 I( NP or O'DONNELL. RAMlS. ELLIOTT 8: CREW ftTToRr Y, AT LAIC • 1727 N.W.'HOYT ST■EE pOR7LANo.OREGO• 9/209 (S031222,44102 OA�e. Deceinbaer 28,` 1.589 TO Jerry Offer, City of Tigard FRO Philri11o, City Attorney's office. b Rg Az ig Ap_peaa. to Counc•i1. You have asked for a legal opinion on the following iatue a After a Director's decision involving site design review has been appealed to the Planning Commission/ can a party appeal the Planning Commission's on.'s d cision to council/1, or is the appeal. strictly to LUBA? Answer: gg The appeal is to Council. Y „Mp1anat for Over tha past 'c here has been some confusion over the specific wording inmthe Tigard Municipal l code regarding appeals The Code is .ite confutin g particularly- with regard to the appeals process, and staff and the city attorney's office are in the process of reviewing these pt visions and proposing needed ohatiges H y” ista�rgcal:� , staff has taken the position that. Parties to a ._. .. Director't decision have a one-step appeal pp' Process Planning Commission. Once the Planning Comm ission has deoided, a _ _ staff has treated that decision as final and not, appealable to • Their p s by . ge ih Council. it as�.ta.on �.� s�appo�`i.a'bl.e b certain language . :'''' the Code. Under THC 18, 32. 310(A) ; direotor+s decisions can be appealed to the Planning CohlMisslon for, review, Section 1 b r J 2. .31.0(A) states that, once a director's decision is appealed to the 'aapPropriate approval authority 'c that decision 'tshall he final . fi However; a further reading of the Code expressiy Provides that a direotc r tr s decision,. after an appeal. to the Planning may be appealed r ..5,,i,21/41,... ,?4,_Con�ttt�,son m to Council t.-,, it , , ,. zf , , r ' • :.1+-.,..I1,.. ...,.,.N..W+...... .4...w.»I..r-i,....1.-.. k.w.-.Jw .,N...c...l.l...r, r.+4....1IL'..+wr...+.....+. . , ..rA.Al..:n+.::1 f" ly u l i Memo re A -Boy Appeal tOCour1C7.l December 28, 198 9 • provides " h Pi g or made by any cothex approval 4 authority under subsections.. reviewed ono ,t i mazy be bY' the Council „ . ; (t .phasic 'added •'. lists different tykes to above, " TMC fi a.32.a9mt referred tYnc].�xd�c� in that list i�- of Planning• Co ission iecisions "5 appeal of a decision made by the director under subsection 18.32.33 0(A) of this • . section; opinion, 18.3 2 310(B) 18.32.090(0) (5) . r ,� and � �a�. a � .r��t�ax' In provide a party with the ability to app expressly �► decision from Planning �syon to City Council. The use of , xs n® o a appears n TMC §the t�; f��1�,� as it �<p]� 1t3.a .3 la1 terms of art. controlling. The term "final decision is the term "final,' or "final order" is an The. u�u��. meaning of preclude further that does not p �a �;��c�" action express;ac� ,�n writing the use of the • "the matter. Therefore, agency consideration 0x1 t.,.h��a'd�oes neat, in atii"►t1. of itself, terms "f na .o in our ordinance y�, y further action by y pre��.aade the ��,t C s zn summary in cases su ch c as this where re the :Code expressly re i es parties with an appeal t o Ceun oil# a party is entitled p e that right. The language �.rhach suggests that Planning ni � ComMisSxoin' 4eC]s 1cIY5 shad l be iS not controlling. If you have e additional questions or c oncerti please a4b X' n hesitate to contact itie A TheSd Cede pto i siors are currentiy by attc�role "S cuff ice, • s b. staff and city Y �and�� re View • I . PEG\r1GAkD1\A-SaY.ME1/gai „ R • • • • • „ W W V. J.w 4:r 4 ,. W, ,•4 w w wr+w Lr a.,,�.0 w i4-ya>c W M'w W W Kl�.r w-4'4 w w 4^W rr . r 1 vu . .: •�..f. 'r�i'"l.L�r' : ".°,.. -yi;. „ A ' ,.My,G.:,,, �” "."�"' �! 1 y ♦ •-,.i... ,. _ ,.«r.-a,we...-• •, i.,.+Y�� ,�- „ . ,. •. ,�, .. ,. . 4:'Y- .• • • • • • I � x"w••M v,a_:.y;•�.,.'Ja,r�,w 1+.,4u m'�.w W w',�-w r .�+r.�..r o,rr.w1.. w •4"k.w,u..„.-, M.w•V-r.v ,W-..wow M W 4 w M W+Y.,.wti u.4a it .e•;�I..a+r-aw',. w Wv.y, x ,.' u:r,.w�.e'G:�:. W .v.a: h...,.,,. M•.�;, • � At Hy ti w fir' • 1 .„ , . ,��af�l��'�'��4`� �� t�+.�� ,� ,. ... a .,_, w•., � '� , ... • .,..,u.,..,,+�-.,a»w......a- .r,.... n...e n...,.rr.: ,..oN..:-i..s-....�-_ak ,. ,.. ws MI "' +, e-.,, .�...,.i-ve., v.. �1I. • .� ,- .:.,u,....a„ ,rw... ,.w..r a. wo.»uui«+.w t«,w O , '' w w •;..„..•, ,•,.,r.+,, w.,..:Y. ,»,,...,...,.,r,,. W.,,,,.,.„+, ✓,.. .«.. ..,. e, mow.»,..r-.r.,. .,, ,u.. E.; ' ,"u”' °" n 1"vr" N hu'°'.. j«na ,rf" rJ,.M, f =wed, W , .a. ..„..z. ,.r.., .r m. „rt,..wir r ra: •aw.,.,.,.rw ♦s.x..:..,..+....u...ui.,.....i,.,..,w......,,u.,<. y, ,_. � ,.1,.n .n r,a.x ,.,....r.,w a.-.,�. ,,.,r, ,,,.w ..,-...,as a .,.-,.„✓n,..u, , I � • di4-.” • 1 • • TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 5, 1989 , 1. Vice President Pyre called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM. The meeting g was held at the Tigard Civic center - TOWN HALL - 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. 9' m g 2. ROLL CALL:. Present: 'Vice Preside n t Eyre; Commissioners Barber,Castile, Fessler, Leverett, Rosborough, and Saporta. Absent: Commissioners Moen and Peterson. Staff: Senior Planner Keith Li.den; Building Official Erad Roast (left 9:00 p.m.); Planning Secretary Diane ' M. aeldecks. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Coflumilasioner Rosborough moved_ and Commissioner Barber seconded to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried by majority of Commissioners present. Commissioner, Leverett and Saporta abstained. 4. PLANNING cOMMISSION COMMUNICATION o Senior Planner Liden reviewed sites that at Tri-Met _ is considering for . locating a park and ride. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 MISCELLANEOUS N 89-20 MANUFACTURED HOME AT SW COOK LANE NPO #3 A request for review of the Director's interpretation of Chapters /8.26 and 18.94 of the ComMunity Development Code P ertainin g to manufactured and mobile homes. Senior Planner Liden reviewed information enclosed in the Commission's packet and the sequence of events resuli'ing in the issuance of permits. The main issue is, does the manufactured home comply with the Community . Development code (CDC) and the Uniform Building Code (UsC). After the issue the Director determined that permitting the manufactured home was consistent with the CDC and the UBC Discussion followrd between Senior Planner Liden, Building Official Brad Roast, and the Planning Commission regarding the definition for mobil and manufactured homes, the standards and requirements in the CDC, U1 C, HUD (Housing and Urban Development), the ability to move the manufactured hope, tie down requirements for mobil/manufactured homes, and the different types of foundations which could be used. PLANNING COMMIS... N MINUTES DE E. AE ER 5, 19$9 PAGE 1 • o i APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION O Herman Porter, Chairperson for NPO # speaking for Don Moonier, who was � P s P �' r unable to attend, stated that the manufactured home does not meet the UBC. Also, he had been a member of NPO 3 when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted and it was not the understanding of the NPO that manufactured/mobile homes would be permitted on single family lots. The NPO would have opposed if they knew this was the intent of the Code. He felt the Planning Department had ad made a mistake and if mobile/manufacturing homes are permitted on single family lots then the Code needed to be changed. He did not feel that Mr. Johnson's foundation meets the requirement for manufactured homes. PUBLIC TESTIMONY 0 Wilbur Bishop, 10590 -STWl Cook; Lane,, Tigard, OR 97223, had staff read his letter supporting Mr. Moonier's position regarding the manufactured home. He added that the concrete foundation for the garage is well done, the driveway has been paved, and Mr. Johnson has done a nice job on the lawn. . He disagreed with Senior Planner Liden regarding the intent of the Code. He, stated that in 1983/84 it was the intent of the Code to accommodate mobile/manufactured homes in mobile home parks not on dingle family lots. .: 0 Mr, ).yde Johnson, 10675 SW Cook Lane, Tigard, OR 97223, owner of the manufactured home stated that the salesman had not placed the ordered as requested which is why the porch 'is, like it is. He will be installing a . porch orch roof t when the weather is nicer. He described the type of foundation s used and explained that the manufactured home does not need, to be tied clown a David Nicol.i, ; 14180 S117 141st Avenue, Tigard, OR 97223, stated that he had sold the property to Mr. Johnson and is here to support him. He added thae: any house can be moved and the sewer is connected like any other home. The manufactured home is well kept and is as nice as any other home on that - street. Some of those homes do not have paved driveWays. REHUT7AL nothing further to add. The main issue is the o Herman Porter stated he had notha. y interpretation i _ _ d 1esiozi find that i M i the CCafi�tr►. r in its interpr, the Planning Department- made' an erro. gt:pst?� that t station. o the meaning of the law. I e rP o Discussion followed regarding restrictions/covenants in the neighborhood, , whether. the UBC allowed fox' alternative seatg ns' and wheth er there was an oversight in the Codes PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED - + ix ..favored o Commissioners Leverett, rastii].e, Barber, Rosborough, and Saporta fa ' upholding the Director's interpretation. They did feel the Code needed to be looked at as it is ambiguous in terms of manufactured and mobile homes PLANNING [O 1 TSSIoN miNuTLS - fEegggLR 5, 1089 PAGL 2 y . w • 0 Commissioner Fessler felt the definition for manufactured/mobile homed needed to be refined. She supported the appeal. o Vice'President Fyre had also been a member of the NPO and stated it was not the intent of the Code to allow manufactured/mobile homes on single family lots He felt since the home had, been placed on the site, )4r. Johnson needed to be made whole or be compensated for removing the home. • * Commissioner Leverett moved and Commissioner Rosborough seconded to uphold the Director's interpretation of tile 18.26 and 18.94, file number M 89-20 and for staff to ry Fyre to sign. xpre� re the f Comm asi onersr prei�erst er�x.s�lent.iss�ioners Fyre n' . Motion carra.ed by majority of Comm and Fesaler voting, no. ' J 5.2 SITE DEVELOPMENT RRV1E;'1 APPEAL SDR 89-13/V 89-'21 OoLAN NPO #> n An appeal of a Director's decision to approve the construction of a general retail sales facility, A-boy Electric Plumbing and Supply, with`a new 17,600 square ,, of acre parcel subject to 14 The e foot- buildin on a r on inc�lded f a Variance request to allow conditions. 7�he decisi 39 parking spaces instead of 44 as required by the Code4 Zone: CBD-AA Central : Business Dist rict Action Area). LOCATION:' 12520 SW Alain St. (WCTM , 0' 25�. 2s;►� tax lot 70 TM o Senior Planner Liden reviewed the issues regarding the application and the amendments to the proposed conditions. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o Dolan, 4025 SE Brooklyn, Portland, OR, stated that they had worked out m John rookl n St most of their concerns with staff except for the dedication of the land. He Stated dedicate land'to the City for nothing. He would prefer to be would money,d however he would be ww.illin to accept t • P �' however, g P eliminating the requirement for landscaping. . PUBLIC hC'8sTimoa' o No one appeared to testify. o, Discussion followed regarding area to be dedicated, area to be landscaped, Percentage g ndsdapirig credit that, the,City would give .A-Toy. and the ercex�ta a of la RRB ATE, o Mr. Dolan stated that he woi:ld .e y if sold the land to the earn More move ��.f he City and used the money to landscape his site. PLANNINO COMM15SI 5, 1959 p'. ,r �� MINUTES _ Di�ciai��. ' NCH 3 • ,rFS ,.. ..,... , .r. In:... ,u•rr .rn.r.. ..... ,r r r.. _..... .......... _. .r. .. .t1 r.... .,... .,.,.. .e. ..1 I.. x.....,.. 7,bi'� x ,.,.x ;... .. xw ,n•m...,.r.,ne r .,xn,. e,v.,..,r H _ ti r }r 4 i I • • l PUBLIC REARING CLOSE o The majority of Commissioners supported staff's s recommendation t i on I cf b and 1 conditions. Commissioner Leverett felt the application should be tabled conditions. Caxnmi�xs�o to t allow the applicant and City to work out the landscaping issue. .,. mtnies' and Commis { * go sinner Castile seconded ; to approve Co loner Sa rta moved SDR 89,-13 and V 89-13 per staff's recommendation and amended conditions; 1 ` and for staff' to prepare the final order for vice president Eyre to sign. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. 5 SDtx Yd51®N S 89-10 PIS DEVELOPMENT PD 89-03 STSPHENSON/SEAGbN � . � A request for approval of an 18 lot subdivision planned development tuent,% on a 3.18 acre site. The lots will >vary in size from , approximately 5,2 0 to 11,330 square feet. Also requested is a variance to f, allow three of the lots to be created to have lot depth to width ratios of 4:i. whereas the Code permits a maximum depth to width ratio of 2.5:1. . ZONE: Y-7 (PD) (Reside ntial, 7 units/acre, Planned Development) LOCATION: ,k southeast corner of SW 98, th Avenue and SW Battler Street WCTM 2S1 1 1CA r ,tax' lot 300). ( , , Senior planner Liden reviewed the ro osal and made staff's recommendation p P . : for approval with 20 conditions. Discussion followed regarding street frontages and size of lots. APPLICANT'S Pk€SENTATION o Don Fournier, Alpha Engineering, 1750 SW Skyl,l,:tae # 19, Portland, 97221.E agreed with staff's recommendation and conditions. o the lot depth Bacon Homes, PO Box 1368, Beaverton, OR 97005, explained that ratio was designed to have the smaller lots abutting Summer_field keeping in Characteristic with the area, o Pete ICusyk, President, Mariner Homes, stated that they already have two '• people interested in purchasing the smaller lots and both parties are over 55 years old. PDBLIC TESTIMONY , o Howard Graham, 9410 SW Lakeside Drive, a member of the Summerf!e1d Board, representing citizens in the area (approximately 25) were opposed to the " • lots a scessing onto Lakeside Drive. He felt the lots should be annexed. to Summerfield so they would have' to abide by Stimmerfield's rules, howelrer, ' , that would take a 75 percent vote and he doubted if they could get it at t this time. F]C 1sINING Ci:�O 1ISSIoN MINUTES DEcE•1113Ma 5, 1989 PAGE j - { • _ _ ti o Keith Phelps, 9450 SW Lakeside Drive, Tigard, also representing the . opposed the addition of three new onto neighborhood group, app ew lots accessed i.. Lakeside Drive. Currently, the street is congested with heavy vehicle and golf cart traffic as well els residuants walking and jogging. is 0 Dick Lawrence, 9500 SW Lakeside Drive, Tigard, agreed with 4r. Phelps ° • regarding the traffic congestion and felt it would be unsafe to allow {., p three more driveway to access onto Lakeside Drive. He suggested that thr , access onto Sattler Road. subdivision be designed to a ,. . REBUTTAL 0 Kurt Dalbey, states;, that they have looked at alternative designs and there fi access these lo that Lakeside' Drive not another way to lots. stated t asking for He y g anything unusual. Dry added i� no •• a public- street and they are not a but Summearf�ield dha that they had requested annexation into Summerfield, but d rejected these lots. Discussion followed on why Summerfield rejected Discussion hae1, rejected followed y these lots. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED' o Consensus of the Commission was for approval of the subdivisions ,4 m ^ * Commissioner Barber moved and Commissioner Saporta seconded to approve 9 subject to staff's conditions; and for staff PD 89-03, S 89-10, and V 89-30 sub` . to prepare the final order:.:. for Vice President F y re to sign- Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. VARIANCE a9--05 89-21 PYRE NPO # �r4; suRDrc��z�N S 89-12 �•�RZ�tc� V ;�9�� s PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD st for a rov LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT YC�I��CHANGE �Cpp ov an application to subdivide a 5 acre parcel into Are a apply p lots. A gone change is requested to a 1' the tanned development overlay 1 j the approval is requested a property.� - site on w adjustment F � overlay done to the 1..he lot .fine. ad hick �.he gubdvris�.on Will be to adjust the boundaries located. Se `era1 variances to Code standards are also requested: J.) to .�.. f public 34 feet is required; 2) to allow a allow a 28 foot wide ublic �i.reet where 3 42 foot wide right-of-way where 50 feet is 'required; 3) to allow s. 1000 long ,. 4) to permit foot .:.ton cul-de-sac sac whereas 400 feet circular the turnaround allowed;1 a s.equa,red; 5) to : a hammerhead turnaround de of a street only whereas bo h' Sides are normal allow sidewalk normally � required to have sidewalks; and 6) to allow a 75 foot curve radius Where a ,, l00 foot radius is required. ZONE: R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) V, LOCATION: SW 121st Avenue at Tippitt Place (WCTM 2s1 380, tax lots 1100, 1300; & 6100 THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED TO DEER 19TH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 1989 11/11/13 5 • • • 6. OTHER BUSINESS o There was no other business. 7. ADJOURNMENT - 10:30 PM Diane M. Je1de• = . Secretary A`STES'Ta Milton Pyre, Vice President • I , d /pcml2-5 a . y _ I . PLAttYAG QUMMISSICN MINUTES DE r 8, 1 X9 lPAgB 6 , I r , • s ti . AGENDA ITEM 5.2 #, . .,�,. `Y `p A .,...''"i. .tom.4X54,-'t t° c MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning commission (4 ''''''''''..-- 'a n Senior Planner ' FROM: Keith �,lae 4 RE: Appeal of SDR 89-13/V; 89-21 Dolan DATE: November 28,, 1989 On August appeal general 8, 1989, the Commission cewiegP ales facility, A-Boy to a ro�re- -the_;re-construction a an a,retail s ctis� .. pp w for Electric and Plumbing foot building is planned f. • El Supply. A new 17,6tJ0 square fo 1.67 acre A,-Boy site. The decision included • construction ' on the existing y approval to a Variance re Thee st to allow 39 parkin g s p acs in stead of 44 as required b the Code. The site development review proposal was approved ed ' asubject to the satisfaction of 14 conditions. ` objection . an { because of The applicant app � Baled the decision to the Comm,.ssion. b�ca to following conditions: 1. Dedication of the 100 year flood plain and an additional 15 feet east of the top of bank. 3. Non-remonstrance agreement relating to future street improvements on Main Street. 9. Provision of a paved pathway within the dedicated area noted in ' . Condition 1. 12. Removal of two nonconforming billboard signs. 14. Removal of the nonconforming xovf sign on the existing building. ° The Commission app roved the application subject to the conditions imposed by the Director's decision with the following revisions: c . applicant and City Engineer to work out an agreement, 1. Condition 1� be modified bein being require as fle�.ible as possible, to vary the, 15 foot ded ication to the east of the top of bank to accommodate the d drainage i p rova rnents r pathway, and buffering without` requiring g the building being moved. : 2. Condition 9 be Modified to require the applicant and City engineer to work out an a design agreement on the deal n of the Paved pathway, giving consideration to public Safety. 3. If an agreement cannot be reached, the a plidation will be brought i before the Commission on September 5, 1989. Although this issu Part f the 'final moti , Commission appeared e� was not art o "Motion? ;the Coi�ma.ssi J .. . to favor the amendment of Condition 14. to require removal of the roof sign 45 days after the issuance of the occupancy permit for the new building. Since this hearing, the staff has reviewed the issues raised by the applicant and the Commission and has discussed them with the applicant on several • occasions o The applicant raises several concerns regarding the conditions of ` approval for the project: 1. The 15 foot setback (Condition 1.) from the existing top of the Fanno Creek bank will require that the building size be reduced by approximately 6 feet. 2. The land needed for park, path, and flood improvements (Condition 1.) should be purchased, not condemned. The park dedication requirement is illegal. The applicant indicated a willingness to co nsider the sale or dedication of a portion of the property. This dedication option, as far would as the applicant is concerned, .could recfuire that the City be , responsible for all the landscaped n . In the land proposed 9 addition, area to the Vest and south of the�o ro oaedabua.ld maintenance of t the s waived,applicant like to have other landscaping regr.� .remeiat 'vedd ,such as the nminimum • '� landscaped area (15%), street trees, and trees in the parking lot. 3. The non-remonstrance agreement for future Main Street improvements g Btr (Condition 3.) is not proper and is illegal. 1 , 4. The billboard signs and their removal (Conditional 12. ) should be a p A-Boy is bound by contract to keep the si.c,i. separate issue.: y y. no objection if the city can get the sign company to remove them. There �. 3 y g g P y 5. The roof sign is legal and should be allowed to remain until the entire building is removed (Condition 14. ) . These items have been reviewed by the staff and the following amendments are Proposed: . he minimum the 1. The 15- foot setback from the existing ,to p of bank is necessary' to install the storm drainag e improvements rovements (5 feet) and the P Pedestrian/bike path (10 feet) and should be retained. I!; 2. Although agree street improvement the - non- thou f does .not a ree with the assertion eerncinstra oee agreement is illegal, the entire streets n ptovement issue for Main Street has been reevaluated . ' and it is x'eCommended that this condition be deleted 8 Because of the storm drainage improvements which will occur in the future, the construction of the pathway would be premature at this time and this condition (#9. ) should be deleted. 4. If a dopy of a contract, which prohibits' the applicant to order the ,. _ signs, provided, the requirement to remove removal of the. billboard sx rid is ,Quid these signs as a condition of 'occupancy should be dropped, Removal of ,. the billboard signs may still be tied to the expiration of the lease (if such a provision exists) . 0 • w ra.iJ:JNY.L.F-IrTW •+'::A..J.n.r.....•...:.wa.Lf w..w./.+:..'..r...M....-.�a+.:uninM?u..—'.i._.:. .,. ..F.,,.. ... .. ,» .. a,. ,- u-....:.ire.• .,fin 5. The roof sign issue was settled in concept at ,,`'he August Commission r bearing with the Commission's allowance to keep the sign for 45 days following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new building.. The staff concurs with this approach. • 6. If y the 100 year flood plain and the 15 foot area noted in item 1. above - is dedicated, the staff agrees that the landscaping installation and maintenance could be the responsibility of the City for any dedicated 0 land to the south and west of the proposed building. The maintenance of other landscaping on the site should be the owner' s responsibility. • Regarding the waiver of other landscaping requirements, the staff is recommends the dedicated area be considered towards satisfying the rndscapin area g lt hstandard, but that all other requirements, such as R p street trees and parking lot landscaping, be provided. , The staff will be prepared to discuss these issu; further with the applicant and the Commission at the hearing. Attached is a copy of the Director's decision, the Commission minutes, and the �J • Site plan. I ! • I I' 1.�• , y, l I , I I ; r ' I t I I I boLAN/kll ° I I : :. ,.:..., . ::;,,.,... .•. ...•,... .;,:.. uJ,,. ,.. ...,•... ......,•. .. ••..,•, .,, ..,., ..•..,.n ..... ..... , .._-:.•......, a ..._ fir 4 F . . • , • :, ti ' � ". ! `,.....- .�. it, it . .A''',,,,•t,,".‘,//.7 :",*`1.. 9,,4,,.,..: ,,, , lc-• • ' ,./s/t}p4 1'0,'•S•,lrrr ,( S 'rr�i 1 ;t"* .r......*•'• 1 ;t ,`f•f r y '��I}t�;,Y�r t`a,f��ti•G ,4 ^r'•� �+, • e Y+ •+� rS ''1'�r+?"s'� 1�".1�frl ■,. / � t• ;;...„47•,,,,,',.•:•••,•)..-;,,,., err ,,, t'(••, t. .mss+ • _ r �f }M rt ^•�11 t > . r(tt C: +r .„ � ' I�Z i ` .. 1�”'t; :: i�•r F.f rJ (•,,Tyra." \ '.0 1 r 1 '''I YYr 1,t• Y..+ f •k'jr 1 e r , .r Ij*+ ,>. t ! :f f �J to t trr ' ` •, 1 1 r z tttyi+„ r. �X ry 'ri r4�6,.'. p • r j' • it ,. �;kdr,;l ` ;e t f , I • 1 ,��i,t ••rya�,,.',, _( • ,l 1 ' ).,-,•',l r ','5 •1 f ''r;. e r, r lil Fja tl .' « , k ) f'A 7 'c " .• I Y ,f ;,r, ; pr-,f/',• ir*,,,,edS)�:'8,1,'..,G...t J e u 1 I-r'+,�r;�t 6 j•,1 y �R tY� ,>,2 "t4 S yv i t(. a ` �-,-• .. — I -v , `,&.iw Kj `'i t` )t,.:',..f,L;nEa,t{fr,:' Y�y l . V t. . ...,,,,,..k..,,,,,,.....*,, .f� � r � a .;.,(.7,,... ( ^^" .' - I,„ y . + h 4r. .„.tv,µ ,c,.,+ n,,.,_,- t t,Uo `-„,tij y ,. f t, �+y y ;1 ,.•Y/.k4' -y--.""•. rt`� 1/ y4, .. � � r '1rlt i�'K+w�'-ti s 111 1r r>) 1� j, ' ' + ,r�.Y”�T' l�•,f-. ,`•'^d r Y yJIrJMi�f „ 35, w. I � 1 ,J.+.✓ 3 •+.•..' + .--- .'•1+ hr' 1 ---- Y „,-----. - "r _ f r rI/••' .r+r• ' t . \ s._.,,,, li ,, { •,,,,.. 1 r{ ZV,i i ,",,,P _., . , , i ‘ ....,.._,—...„------ii----- , , . , 4I , - ( , 1 ,r . , • . . .�---� (..,) l i 's': t"o ^,,... i. '.�•.s 3^w ih.rs.s.��', j,d J1 t•:3�.13�r.,'i.s�'✓i »t " �1 ,T�. "' � tb+ •JJ � • t s : '-',--N.--1...'-',--N.--1'-',--N.--1 : .W1t „�1 sj;C r'Jw.nr7+ � .`— "»✓". �s ' _',,"1''' .. .4 ' t r 1 P� {t� t t. I>� , • /�4 �,�• • . 1'•� y t r s"'; r Jr:v .t .y.F � /�,» /, • i • • � } ra .. :•3''' ' r/ Y.,t'tx t 4 A ytiK'. J 4 ..'r ^ •i. •,. •1 f ..,1.�•-".,C5 1 r ,// -N t ri t,lt. ,[, � r. ..,a•i rtji4 � � 1 , r,, J ' � t yr f,y;t•.t '�,:",',4 f•,'t.,, r.✓� / 1. "�,. , {3 (r),,`� 4, ,•�t{�i i •;,,,','',!,1..•;• arof1;I �i7�r' \ Y• e 1•••,,',.. . \ � 4 .r • 1 r •tom c�. '.• s -...-+•- r.----"..;--7`,....,,:,,,,,i'..!,�r ri 1 /,r1 s ,. ..\r. "A F„ 1 alt t A ' t : I , f • .t. { ''-.7',,z A 'f:',": f � r.w} 1+t i �1 "y ./ i it ,k y t i;ri,+a+. ; ; _ • ,n 1 �s t . • r 1•7 r' * • r ' ' : ,'::' •,•1' , : „' ' ' \ , il: : '',, 1: :' :. , \ , \ : • 1 ,' .p "x,ti},i.. S t 4 .h1 ,J;�f '”, . Lrl ., s \\\ t 'f$ s�iii Jr. • ! I r s. 7� a•''+t t r�ti :i,7.,...,.,-:.,, { 1, 1 . ,•,' . , -i '..;',..;' ',',';;,f..1;,',.;,,:t"■.. • ' ,' , ' ' ,.' . l'' ', ,V ,., '-'1,._' ' 'i'''';':'''''''..,,"•:•.'kt-..ollit,').'4'..,",.dtt' ' ' '' tt''1 'I ____,-,--t '' t • .L+i t a,+ ' i I (t '''',A„ u r,I r.t l il,ti.'. ',t I '. Y t. t 5 ---J.',i,`,.."„‘.1.4:.;,, : i F I' h ' O R1 • ' r V ' 3 ' ' +4`: ;a s 'Ar:, a: •' —** 1 a r;A+„ '.4', .. i a . } a o s •t,( ;• { x 1 � t;'' fgt+ s t t{i■ v � s�y +t,iyt, K� •, +R ", 1 tti: '1';',t1',." ij' .'t -1- JI ., i M4}� lr:.aJt s�A 1 • ,, ' +ri' rta t •1 *'.I j'r i r4.rtrf ', '•1•'�.1 r •t'"i { I ra fi.C:r r w'•, '', .," .,.,,p.s y;�'L 3 r • . a x,t �4 it t i if . . '. .. ' ' , , ' ' ' ...--------"-- ' 1 , \ ,' , 1 , ' \ . ;;•, ' . ' ¢ r ' i !♦ LLI11 ., ... jw••-.... a 1i t r l ' tw'+ ''J' ',! ,3 }nLr J k i,,4!1' s ,» 1 ''.' r ' .. ■, •rrt r";;:',y 5•t,3!'l ry.' t < rYw {{v 4,1.,: ' a. f R s ,.r is' A;I + r1F « ,--y. 7 •y s�ds... ,,, r J r '4, s I'�sYf+Pr�'.i F.2.'1 s i .r.54''x 1 e l I t X 1 K-"-,• y , •.� V ... -- may,,,,,-. ,•r, I 4 ,i' , •;-. ,, ..._:. ..•..----.--:*7-- 1 ,' ' ' 'F- .,,iii ,, , , , , , 1 f., • , ,0 :,, • , , -1 , --tr -,',› (:) r,, , H . , rte._ \ -, x • I , �.._.. r ._..^"».•. " .r 5 t J " } {,•'♦t ni • ,,,,�„".'.� te r .••,,"""' ' � r r♦. •t`i C !4.�{'Z�� ; iU ',,I.� r ,. t i ', t ','.,...i4';';t ', w� » 1 r•y .`f`:+-4,!,.••k„"-...,. J=1 :i i :: .' X1M iu.R.‘1 1 1, r .4 4'a ,,''r�y•; [ '''***''''l#' 7,i�j•,,�•N :.:'4'7,:‘'.:1.• +l4+<0'4,.:,:- , 1�' ,y:'»r, t +tr'",�, '°�4�4*•• t ,. f µ ''I+Y.l° 3„"i,. i.•• t'AYt d J Ys ....,:-..,..7.:...., J f �t � • .'• `; • ..+..I,.u,..r«...,M...r-i-.,.,-..«...::..n,,......_:;—,:.,,-+w,,..,o,M::.-...w m.,..r:.,1.,.wr+,sure-_«h.....,w..,,.....,;u..i u.r.w.-.:w.:.--,..,._..,__._..."emu:.-.:..•-.,..+..1:,.....-.n..-:.-ti«...,++...,,-:wr..i.,-...,;+....,..u,.r..,w..«..lo.no.u...-,.wLi:,4.M kw..:f»r..w....«..wM.»,.,I,..,w......,.l-wl.—..+..G..,:.aL1�J r<=7.,;i.u.6a,au..,.uz..,..r:+ t44, •, 'S 1':C.' 1 ,� i Vi+ rr n F .P r,y,••i 1l. `' '.,* "t :.,:t.)P a*.m .%', i:• '�,• , +• ,s,. 7 'l" '1� 4".';.' 1 4P!��• .,tG..l it ��.'s 7'.,:.i.•P' R`r.4.•{ti+'i""} •'" •� �l+ii 1 ( •V^ ■ 4 r �i "`; /Its r ihP� ua. M.J1�4'?r� :r^,1•: r" 1•I. '1's rt4'• ..": 1 1• i U' 'r`.•� 'i rs r i ',n••P t;::';'•: r . • r • • ' s.rl+•T 4rn y, .:��-... .. ..wr, + .:..0 va4 w'-:-µ,=yd •...rJ 4•u.u5�nya a • •....M.:,._,V.,a WNraM.•�.. .. e-. ,» r r •w w.e xai l.wir.4-...A.s4k.:':�!J,w�l.t%. J I .SS'wRx.} j, 1��. !rL 'r,\]. t t rr r a, ' -+ ✓ h 1 r tcrn97��. 1 � r+' '. �. :,j'� r tl.l�r 1;7 :°fir ( ,�J rt ,,..;1:-1.,,, ".may �1 I \ / r• • t1 .s'1v Q t • • I . c , • ' • • • ` ..tom^^'"""_" "'.......�"'r'•w �'l1. .. - . �, I � • • w ' \ %.,!".,. , .K 5 • yrr� t • t ,tf [w J r a n r , t ..Y TX . 7-'' 1 '''''''■ , *$,'''' '''-'..v",..0;,„!,,,i4i.t:ft:,#,*it,,.,.1',..:4,„Ac.,OAT, iz..f,r.;i:#1-' . ,.. ., ,., {r � i fi! L ' Yt t� 3�.v'Y'a{ ••y `,.., ;11;t"t.w3-;�'K 'Fy. ..:?..'11•11.4.4,:��t��y:•a.Itjtk h��y(t'1'li�t d5 'y''C +r ''`, Z '" .r'. 1 ��t��k� il'*Yt �} ;N f' � it ':if,' if l , ! 4`R Zxr. N 4 "i r ;` r ).+(rr yu 'FrY t ,. i' 1 1,i xt%N�{{�1ti�'� ru r y�rr .44741:;'; �tir,v;, r.z, r• , ", s {+ 'c. ',•,,,,, .r 7# ,4 '8✓.u. i' •� 1. r i j l.a�j�"��;1?�'4y,+�� 4r1� d'��'7- t�- ,�• tft'��{�S'�•a4,,ti �r�t�f,a A{�, , ` �.I �, n I R Y. Y r 3 a.. L' r 5i +t r k • ' f t'b r,+ . , r?li l ......?'1', �'''F ,iFA 4'Cw.r? J4''f �C'•'t J .r f y fw1t r•{Cil,4,' a t'11.. p/�rr. � f 4 ,,�� r � Alr ,. , V.,r L, „ 'J. It.'''» re4,tl�gy .yX..if,, by., . 54 ■I• I.. 14';'.."11.'1141,) '''14,11.,-4,1111'.'-, ' •t t '�4' '''l t`:� kr„+..r�"'' 1*'{f'i'cr l■ I i�i� 1I ab'ti r, Sh"'i F,t .;#'u, "S1yrIl:1i,+j q.:• I"Ih” "1 P9r w n'.!vrh i,.'.7'y ,� I r . r � [ y: ' 1: r: r > 1 �'.• . 4.." ih,.rlo rr Y• r.. Y�. •tY Ir A,i1 s +rt{ -H{�s°f'7� '{ ;ry�* �, .rrr+ r+ a i i w b � �c w t ,�+ e. h1 + l�'�i�� a'r�il�i+,;i r s µ. s ,y. q ..I "14,44'i?'...F�:'''','F'...4.,,;iq f+n` "l':ra, i1Yk"+rira••. 1 A �'t A r�F nte� : dye• ay rj`l.a• �• t�A., si.A I I w �„ Nat •7Y6 f ^ �'t 2.J r r .SC•t. •'�,° .4 P r t. A,i 7+ 'w'w J... d M'.. ,,,.4.„,k»s{.),.. ., � r ��"� -1.15 Ly ` 4.a•N J,. r i TIGhRD PLANNING C'MMI'asIQN REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 8, 1989 r• 1. President Moen called the meeting to order at 7:32 PM. The meeting was , - Boulevard, held at the Tigard Civic g Center TOWN HALL �• 13125 SW Hall Tigard, Oregon. ers Barber, Castile, • 2. ROLL ��: Present; President Moen; �'om�aa.ssion ,► � Pyre, Newton (arrived 7:45 PM), Peterson, and Rosborough. { ` Abs Commissioners Leverett and Saporta. . Staff. senior planner Keith Iid en• Legal Counsel Phil Grillo (for item 501); Planning Secretary Diane M. elderks. . . Off' ] JUJTBS - .. �w i1t�iRIV 7�3iD : Commissioner re moved and Commissioner `.Barber seconded to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried by majority of Commissioners p :resent. Commissioner Rosborough abstainede 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION o president Moen stated he had received a letter of appreciation from the • regarding the domin.n.ums, minutes from the June Y Fountains Cctn wsl a 1st meeting g g Y p I-•S/Kruse Wa -im rovements, and a Metro ne PUBLIC BEARINGS 5.1 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPEAL SDD R 89-13/V 89-21 ?C f/A BOY NPO #1 � An appeal of a Director' s decision El FtL approve the re--construction of a -+ �" and Su l y, with a • general retail sales facility, .A y' g PP � ti is 'Plum1�,�.n an .. g a .ante l Subject to 14 nevi 1 i re foot building on a. 1 67 acre arcs conditions. TheadeciBion included approval to! a Variance request to allow n spaces in • of 44 as required b the Code. • , . 9 spaces instead 'qu' by tl . Zone: CSD-AA , 39 axki y � 12520 SW. Main Street (central Business District Action Area). Location: 1252 . (WCTM 251 2AC lot 700). Senior Planner Liden reviewed the conditions that were being appealed by the applicant. Staff fel t that the conditions were appro priate: �.. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Commissioner er Newton arrived 7:45 PM: P ° , �': `n the Code which they were appealing. He o Joseph h R. Mendez, 715 SW Morrison # 500, Portland Cyr ,97205, Attorne for A-Boy, refereric�etl sections i state d that the Land; being required for ce di cati bn would encroach into the building that they are proposing for cofst.ruction4, He opposed y 4 AUGUST $ 1989 PAGE 1 Oi�i JMTNS 1�U , I�fMYSSI PLANNING c� 4 p\ i 4 1 ♦ i • compensation. . orn naa 9 which involve, taking land withoti.t c pe 1 conditaans 1, 6, <and• it He objected to signing a non-remonstrance agreement because it gives away their . guaranteed constitutional rights. The condition regarding the '' billboard signs is beyond their control because the sign is owned by g Ackerly. The roof wall Digit f was constructed• in conformance with the existing Code at that ti.me- and to remove it prior to demolition of the • existing building would injure their business. Discussion followed .with g 9n the•C�oismmie®ion regarding the signs. • o Dan Dolan, 4524 NE Davis, Portland, 97213, read a letter from .John Dolan, President of A-Bo stating the importance and need for expanding din g their facilit y. He I re ad a second letter dated April 4, 1988, regarding g t 9 and c fiance agreement. ii®cusaiun followed re g arding removal of the signs, location of the building, bicycle/pedestrian path, and bnfferisag. o Sarah Dolan, 2410 SW 17th Ave, Portland, Ca t„ speaking in behalf of her father opposed the taking of the additional 15 feet. She stated that they conversations with William Monahan regarding he City had previous ing portion p pe y park Now, City r•chaB:�.n a rta.on of their ro, rt for ark use.' . suave. '�n as well as designing purchasing taking the lard, requiring them to do the y 9'. • g the path. She felt this requirement was unreasonable and unfair. 1 , PUBLIC TESTIMONY • 0 No one appeared to speak. o • o Lengthy disc ussion followed regarding the time frame for of ► roof/wall sign, the billboard signs, ded ication of the additional 15 feet • above the flood plain, the Drainage Master Plan, improvements to Fanno Creek ��ws.cen3.ng of the flood channel), location and width.of the bikepath, , • ' iocat .on of the b ua'ldL n�` allowin g construction n rhe flood ad pisin, , landscaping/buffering abutting the Park, the City's right to require dedication of land, and signing of a nonrenonstrance agreement. o Phil Grillo, City. Attorney', reviewed legal requirements for dedication (taking of land) and ri nxxg non-r trance reeenant�. JRLBUTT T. ph Mendez. stated that It is impossible to the proposed building o Jose .:_ of the proposed building. They were because of a sewer easement in front � P po informed P that they would be pre-application icatxon roc ' 4 .ate an additional They are • ess t_ha ..♦ never ed to dedicate�,�irLrx the re--a l�ta' feet willing to work y :. variable amount``of dedication 9 required at♦a.on bet�aeon with the �it�,i' to determine if a c and 2.. out for construction of the bikepath. They G feet could be worked ;• out cotx[ nsation and signing of a bi�Z pp taking h Pe 9 g - a not){ remonstrance o ce agreement. land followed regarding width of the 9 Greek park plan, location of aremon�strance a r I I 1 .' ti}�epath� the Fannq i and M, ' the building,,. possible solutions to the problem, 1, I , pLAgNiNd oMMISSIoN miNnTES AUGUST' 80 19139 1 ♦ I , I 4) ,,., .i:. ...,.r , .._., -...., :... .:.. .. ....., i... .._i. ...e,." ....... .... , .....i.. ..c ....-... t., .... J .., v ......r ♦...r.♦. n.. ..ivx .,i..c n.,r... .. ♦..♦, ., ...n♦iu. .u,...cur , 1 S , . yy • r...I6M ..u.. ,. - r.a.x..,..". ,—....a A««...... —.u:.mi::.x.,....:F,4.:_, .sa> ,., , - .. �a t4 F • • • • .,.r puBLic Innut,ING CLOSED • a Commissioner Peterson supported 39 parking spaces, did not support signing a nor -remonstrance agreement if curb and sidewalk repairs were done, removal of signs Ishould be done in 30 days, agreed 5 feet in'necessary, however, there is not sufficient information to require an additional 10 HeeevQi�a r�the. bikep „ and the bikepatha -should be constructed by the . feet atl� pe 0 Commissioner a Hrbe r sou reed removal of signs gns within 3C to 60 days, did . not se,Y requirement non-renmonetrance, supported the 5 foot , I�port � i.�:esnent fc�r a dedication for work in the flood plain, dedication of greenway, p netruction of the bikepath, and surveying as required by the Code. co 0 Commissioner Pyre favored the bikepath but did not feel there was enough 9 , information to determine the location. He favored requiring a non- n rem^.,, trance. o Commissioner Rosborough supported 39 parking spaces, ,agreed signs should be removed l within 30 to 60 days, did not €support requliring a non'-- remonstrance agreement, and felt there was not enough information to determine the location of the bikepath. o Commissioner Castile felt that modifying the 15 feet requirement to a variation of 10 to 20 feet would work for a bikepath. o Commissioner Newton favored the requirement for a noon-remonstrance agreement, that all signs Should be removed within 30 days, that the building could be moved 3 to 5 feet without a problem, and a variable dedication would work for the bikepath, o Commissioner Moen had no problem with the dedication 1on and favored the requirement for a non-remonstrance agreement. He felt the city and applicant could Work out the problem with the bikepath. Discussion - g bike a th. • followed regarding the Master Drainage Plan and the p * Commissioner Castile moved to approve Site Development Review TThy ew �L 89-13 and Variance V 89-21 for 39 parking spates. Require the non-remonstrance . agreement to be signed. Remdve all signs 45 days after occupancy.. Require engineering and the applicant to work out an agreement for a variation of 10 to 20 feet;,for constructing a bikepath. .. _ 4 11cat s� an agreement, cannot be worked out then the app. ° ion will , k to the Planning � I come back Comm.ission o Phil C ril lo r Legal Goa e. l, Suggested that 'a time frame be e glven to work out a compromise. nisCUssion followed , Commissioner Cos t1.le withdrew it� d h r is m off: a.on, II PLANNING COMMISSION IIHurJ S -- AUGUST 8, 1989 i-- ?Acg 3 � ' a • , * commissioner Eyre moved and Commissioner Castile seconded to approve SDR 89-13 and V 89-21 with staff's conditions. Modifying condition number r applicant City Engineer to work out an agreement, to require the p one � P ��i being as flexible Possible,e aB to vary the 15 feet to accommodate both � drainage improvement., ikepath, and buffering without .requiring the building to be moved. Modifying condition number nine requiring th e applicant and City Engineer-to work out an agreement on a paved bikepath, • giving consideration to public safety. This order will become 'final 30 days from August 8, 1989. If an agreement cannot be reached between the City Engineer and the applicant then the application will be brought back before the Planning Commission on September 5th. Motion carried by w majority of commissioners present. commissioner Peterson voting no. s EY C NStiL iG`,ENiGi G SERVICES #8 7�SI4JYd'' a 89-06 KT�SSI. � sl approved approval to amend the preliminary plat for the previously p i' 5.2 r Ql�ll For app lot by©changing � the subdivision S 89-06 to provide an additional l • ' - configuration of lots 1, 2, and 3 to create four lots. The new lots will range in size from 9,215 to 34,250 square feet and the subdivision will contain a total of 7 lots. ZONE: A-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 • , units/acre) LOCATION:° 7017 SW Ma pleleaf (W'CTM 1S1 36AA, tax lot 800) Senior Planner Liden explained that the application had been approved by ' the Onnrcaissian in June, 1989. The applicant is arequesting nvade staff's one # the propo l ' m additional parce]�d He reviewed request to modify condition recommendation for approval proval with a requ y number 14 p trees on n being staff' problem t on the site r d He added, as a result of a to�enablea c vil infr actions citation , has modified condition number 11 and summons to be imsued if any more trees are removed without • Senior planner Liden read a letter into the record from Charl es W. ,and, Richard Toman expressing their concerns and ob ject� ions- APPLICANT'S a L PAESENTATIoN y ter, `Beaverton, OR, w97095, concurred with staff's o John Godse , 12655 sW center, is 14. ;.. - recommendation and modifications to condition 14 8 asked that the �I ed by Sta, Commission approve the proposal as recommend _ .., ,.. 2 p i, cutting.id not -.. „. o tart 8o3ner, I( • Marty t�58+ SW Spruce, Portland. Oft X7214, Stated that tree e Bid feel .hat had violated the. previous final Site order regarding He e* planed that clearing i blackberry vines, small p at he had been clearin the s • ,. p ackb and underbrush;y v to off red cedar trees where i,� trees, he a1.�sv removed a couple o ' foundations were going to be placed, t did not feel these trees were b� larger than 6 inches in diameter at the four foot height: PUBLIC TESTIMONY r o Tigard • " erned that the issue ert lines not been resolved, o David Saul, 10205 5[�7C "hr 37�z3, Was rt�ai additional regarding t�tir .: ... :. t� .. �di�e�n� vey'�pro�a � and that..the filling pr cnn estx.on an at the a lot would create more traffic to the a. licant would create parking h PP site a drainage problem.� approval.Izat a arka.ri r as a condition felt �f apprc�r ], restriction on tcacust Street should be added a c edition PLANN1'G CO;MlMISSIoN mina ES �,,�ZC=175 -` 8, 1989 FAO] 4 • -= v - r '• .. to AGENDA ITEM 5.2 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Keith Liden, Senior Planner RE: Appeal of SDR 89-13/V 89-21 Dolan a DATE= November 28, 1989 On August 8, 1989, the Commission reviewed an appeal of a Director's decision '.. to approve the re-construction of a general retail sales' facility, A-,4210y Electric`I and Plumbing Supply. A new 17,800 square foot building is planned for construction on the existing 1.67 acre A-Boy site. The decision included approval to a Variance request to allow 39 parking spaces 'instead, of 44 as required by the Code. The site development review proposal was approvQd ' • subject to the satisfaction of 14 conditions. . The applicant appealed decision to the Commission because of an objection the a lcarit a Baled the decia to following conditions: 1. Dedicatiou of the 100 year flood plain and an additional 15 feet east of the top of bank. 3. Non-remonstrance agreement relating to future street impro7ements on Main Street 9. Provision of a paved pathway within the dedicated area noted in Condition 1. . 12. Removal of two nonconforming billboard signs. 14. Removal of the nonconforming roof sign on the existing building. The Commission a r•ovred the application" subject to the conditions imposed by PP'�- 7 ,,' the rirector,s decision with the following revisions: 1. Condition 1. be mradified the require the applicant and City Enginefo work out an agreement, being as flexible as possible, to vary this. s:5 • foot dedidation to the east of the top of bank to accommiodate. the drainage improvements, pathway, and bufiering without requiring the building being moved. • 2=. Condition 9. be modified to regt i:re the applicant and City engineer to work out an agreement on the design of he paved pathway, giving c6,1sideration to public Safety. , 3. If an agreement cannot be reached, the application will he brought f Y before' the Commission on September 5, 1989. Although this issue was not part of the final motion, the Commission appeared ' I L M I dip .. .n..... i ..i .. ..r .,t .1 n .,. ... . a ur... ar. • r o • • a " _ to favor the amendment of Condition 14. to require removal of the roof sign 45 days after the issuance of the occupancy permit for the, new building. '' ••.; Since this hearing, the staff has reviewed the issues raised by the applicant and the Commission and has discussed them with the applicant on several 1 ' •., occasions. The applicant raises several concerns regarding the conditions of N approval for the project. ' 4. 1. The 15 foot setback (Condition 1.) from the existing top, of the Fanno o Creek bank will require that the building size be reduced by approximately 6 feet. t ,.1'ax,; 2. The land needed for park, path, and flood improvements t an (Condition 1.) should be purchased, not condemned. The park dedication requirement is illegal. The applicant indicated a willingness to consider the sale or • dedication of a portion of the property. This dedication option, as far as the applicant is concerned, would require that the City be landscaped r.' • responsible for In addition, area to the west and south of the proposedabu ilding, of the Lion, the l' ' applicant would like ke to have other landscaping requirements waived, such , P ( ) as the minimum landscaped area 15� � street trees, and trees in the parking lot. 3. The non-remonstrance agreement for future Main Street improvements (Condition 3.) is not proper and is illegal. 4. The billboard signs and their removal (Conditional 12.)+ should be is a , .. p y by keep the sign. There is no objection if the City can get the sign company se state issue. A-Boy is bound b contras., to if ny to remove them. 5. The roof Sign is legal and should be allowed to remain until the entire building is removed (Condition 14.) . These items have been reviewed by the staff and the following amendments are proposed: 1. The 15 foot setback from the existing improvements top of bank is the minimit necessary to. �nstall the storm drainage (5 feet) and the pedestrian/bike path (10 feet) and should be retained. 1•: • 2. agreement is illegal,e with the assertion that the nonce g . -• • �" Although emonstrancee staff does not afire the. entire street improvement issue for Main Street has been reevaluated and it is a ecomn'tended that this condition be deleted. 3. Because of the storm drainage improvements Which will occur in the future, the construction of the pathway would be premature at this time and this condition (#9. ) shosald be deleted. 4° If a dopy of a contract, which prohibits the applicant to order the °;, . removal of the billboard signs, is provided, the requirement to remove ' ° • these signs as a condition of oocupancy should be dropped; Removal of the billboard signs may still be tied to the expiration of the lease (if such a provision exists) : • t, X, ; , 5. The roof sign -issue was settled in concept at the August Commission hearing with the Commission's allowance to keep the sign for 45 days . following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new ; building. The staff concurs with this approach. j 6. If the 1 00 year flood plain and the 15 foot area noted in item 1. above •.4. is dedicated, the staff agrees that the landscaping installation and maintenance could be the responsibility of the City for any dedicated ' . land to the south and west of the proposed building. The maintenance of other landscaping on the site should be the owner's responsibility. Regarding the. waiver of other landscaping requirements, the staff recommends that the dedicated area be considered towards satisfying the landscaping area standard, but that all other requirements, such as street trees a nd parkirg lot landscaping, be provided. The staff will be prepared to discuss these issues further with the applicant • and the Commission at the hearing. Attached is a copy of the Director's decision, the Commission minutes, and the • r . I70tFiNik,i I I • I I „ I .e may. ' • .. i ' ... • .. � �•.. t •' y� • ?i („,„ • ',,,, TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING .- AUGUST 8, 1989 1 President Moan called the meeting to order at 7:32 PM. The meeting was , •, held at the Tigard Civic Center - TOWN HALL - 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. • 2. ROLL : Present: President Moen; Commissioners Barber, Castile, Fyre, Newton (arrived 7:45 PM), Peterson, and ' Rosborough. l Absent: Commissioners Leverett and Saporta. • Liden; Legal Counsel Phil • Staff:� Senior Planner YCe�.tkt Ls.den Grillo (for iten 5.1); Planning Secretary Diane M. Jelderks . 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner gyre moved and Commiss oner' Barber seconded to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried by majority of Commissioners I ',,) present. Commissioner Rosborough abstained. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION o President Moen stated he had received a letter of appreciation from the ° Fountains CondoMiniums; minutes from the June let meeting regarding the I-5/Kruse Way improvements; and a Metro newsletter. • 5. PUBLIC BEARINGS 5.1 SITE DEVELOPMENT VIEW APPEAL SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLT / IA-BOY NPO #1 An appeal of a Director's decision to approve the re-"construction of a general retail sales facility, A-boy Electric Pltu b og and Supply, with a ,'."` new 17,600 square foot building on a 1.67 acre parcel subject to 14 / conditions. The decision included approval to a Variance request to allow 39 parking spaces intAtead of 44 as required by the Code. Zone: CBD-AA (Central Business District -" Action Area) . Location: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 251 2AC lot 700) . ' Senior Planner conditions being appealed by dr Liden reviewed the cond�.ts.oxr~s th the applicant. Staff felt that the conditions were appropriate. that were APPLICANT,,S pglIB Ti `.:'ION Commissioner Newton arrived 7:45 PM. " o Joseph h R. Mendez 715 SW Morrison i # S00' Portland, °t•1972°5' Attorney for A_Boy, referenced sections in the Code Which they were appealing. He stated that the land being x`e gsa.recl for dedication, would ezacroach, into the building that they are proposing for construction. He opposed PLANING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 8, 1989 -- PAGE 1 r � conditions 1, 6, and 9 -whi ch involve land without compensation. . He objected to signing a non-remonstrance agreement because it gives away their guaranteed constitutional rights. The condition regarding the : billboard signs is beyond their control because the sign is owned by Ackerly. The roof/wall sign was constructed in conformance with the existing Code at that time° and to remove it prior to demolition of the existing building would in ju re their business. Discussion followed wit h the Commission regarding the signs. + ; o, Dan Dolan, 4524 NE Davis, Portland, 97213, read a letter from John Dolan, President of A-boy, `stating the importance and need for expanding their • free - • facility. He read a second letter dated April 4, 1988, regarding the sign and compliance agreement. Discussion followed regarding removal of the ,• signs, location of the building, bicycle/pedestrian path, and buffering. 0 Sarah Dolan, Portland, OR., speaking in behalf of her lan, 241.0 SW 17th Ave, ]�o � ,. father opposed the taking of the additional 15 feet. She stated that they had previous conversation6 with William Monahan regarding he City k ` purchasing a portion of their property for park use, Now, the City is ;p taking the land, requiring them to do the surveying, as well as designing' : . .' the Path. she f elt This requirement was unreasonable and unfair. r • PUBLIC TESTIMONY o 10 one appeared to speak. 0 Lengthy discussion folioWed regarding the time frame for removal of the ' roof/wall sign, the billboard signs, dedication of the additional 15 feet c ': above the flood plain, the Drainage Master Clan, improvements to w �'�nno Creek (widening of the flood channel), Iodation and width of th ' bikepath, •, location of the building, allowing construction in the flood plain, landscaping/bOffering abutting the Park, the Cit y's right to re quire I : dedication of land, and signing of a non-remonstrance agreement. ca Phil Grillo, City Attorney, reviewed legal aspect of requirements for ',wx dedication (taking of land) and signing of non-remonstrance agreements. N. p proposed building 1111 REBUTTAL o Joseph Mendez stated that it is impossible to move the because of 'a sewer easement in front of the proposed building. They were never nformed during the pre-application process that they Would be required qu`red to., dedicate an additional 15 feet. They are willing to work m variable amount of dedication between •1a j,. with the city to determine if a �'al.r and 20 feet could he worked out for construction of the bikepath. They still oppose taking of land without compensation and signing of a non remonstrance .. e y a agreement. followed of the building, and ahe i p' 9 regarding bikepath, the Fanno Creek Park Plan, g, nd possible solutions to the problem. PLANNING d D l,ssxoH miguTT5 - AUGUST 8y 1989 PAGE • r U p� �pyA �re �•��q • �11�81�i✓ � G �RJwa7NJIII/ 0 commissioner Peterson supported 3g parking spaces, did not su rt signing ]�� p 9 p g •; g sidewalk repairs were done, a n�xn-r�tssn®netrance . agreement if curb and removal of signs should be done in 30 days, agreed 5 feet is necessary, r however, there is not sufficient information to require an additional 10 feet for the bikepath, and the bikepath should be constructed by the . . Developer. 0 Commissioner Barber supported removal of signs within 30 to 60 days, did not support requirement for a non-remonstrance, supported the 9 foot dedication, for work in the flood plain, dedicatici s of greenway, • , : construction of the`bikepath, and -surveying as required by the Code. o commissioner gyre favored the bikepath but did not feel there was enough information to determine the location. He favored requiring a non- - remonstrance. ' •. 0 Comml.srsiover Rosborough supported 39 parking spaces, agreed signs should be removed within 30 to 60 days, did not support requiring a non- remonstrance agreement, and felt there was not enough information to, determine the location of the bikepath: Castile felt that modifying the 15 feet reciuireitent, to a '' 0 �Comtnissionea. Ca ` variation of 10 to 20 feet would work for a bikepath. • o Commissioner Newton qu• . i non-remonstrance agreement, that all signs should be removed within ns3 days, that the g � g bui - .- • 'l�.in could be Moved 3 to 5 et without a problem, and a variable 9 P dedication would work for the bikepath. 0 Commissioner Moen had no Poroblem with the dedication and favored the 1 . requirement for a non-remonstrance agreement. He felt' the City and ' applicant work out hE problem with the bikePath• Das cuesion •, followed re ard3ng the Master raina e Plan and the bikepath. Commissioner Castile moved to approve Site Devel o ment Review SDR 89-13 `, and Variance V 89-21 for 39 parking spaces. Require the non-remonstrance agreement to be signed. Retrieve all signs 45 days after occupancy. Require Engineering Pp� work out an agreet�,tent for a and the a l.ioa.nt to variation of 10 to 20 feet for constructing a bikepath. If an agreement ` then the application will come back to the Planning � e Plai�ni.n Commission: cannot be worked out the l e tat ;a time frame be o Phil Grillo, Legal �ount�el, suggested h m am work given to w out a compromise. Disdusdion followed ' commissioner Castile withdrew is emotion. INC CSI'MissION ' �: p,�I��dP �' MINUTES - AUGUST gy 1989 PHGE 3 • • • `ems e. rM+'"�r �•/ ', • * Commissioner Fyae moved and Commissioner Castile seconded to approve SDR 89-13 and V 89-21 with staff's conditions. Modifying condition nuunber '. one to require the applicant and City Engineer to work out an agreement, • being as flexible as possible, to vary the 15 feet to accommodate both drainage improvements, bikepath, and buffering without .requiring the building to be moved. modifying condition number nine requiring the applicant and City Engineer-to work out an agreement on a paved bikepath, . giving consideration to public safety. This order will become 'final 30 • da y s from Au gu st B, 1989. If an agreement cannot be reached between the Cit y En g ineer and the applicant then the applicalonwill be brought back before the Planning Commission on September 5the lotion c arried by majority of p°o mmissioners present. Commissioner Peterson voting no. 5.2 SUBDIVISION S 89-06 SSLYBY/CO1 SULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES NPO #8 i For approval to amend the preliminary plat for the previously approved " , subdivision S 89-06 to provide an additional lot by changing the configuration of lots 1, 2, and 3 to create four lots. The new lots will range in size from 90215 to 34,250 square feet and the subdivision will contain a total of 7 lots. ZONE: R-4-5 (Residential, 4.5 ': units/acre) LOCATION: 7017 SW Mapleleaf (WCTM 1S1 36AA, tax lot Boo) Senior Planner Liden explained that the application had been approved by • the Commission in 1989.June, a p applicant requesting to add one addi tional parcel. He reviewed proposal and made staff's ' recommendation for a pp roval with a request to modify condition number 14. ' He added, as a result of a problem with trees being cut on the site, staff has modified condition number 11 to enable a civil infractions citation and summons to be ieee.16d if any more trees are removed without a permit. Senior Planner Liden rmad a letter into the record 'oitl Charles W. McCart p rd � and Richard Toman expressing their concerns and objections. APPLICANT°S PRESENTATION , • o John Godsey, 12655 SW center, Beaverton, OR, 97005, concurred with staff's recommendation, and modifications to condition 14. He asked that the . Commission approve the proposal as recommended by staff . o Marty Bosner, 2058 SW Spruce, Portland, OR 97214, stated that he did not feel that he had violated the previous final order regarding tree cutting. Be explained clearing erry vines smal]. lainPd that he had been clearin the site taf. blac trees, and underbrush; he also removed a couple of red cedar trees where foundations were going to be placed, but did not feel these trees were larger than.,5 inches in diameter at the four foot height PUBLIC TESTIMONY } o David Saul, 10205 SW 10th, Tigerc.4, 97223, wad concerned that the issue regarding survey/property r e - ` resolved, that the additional lot would create Mote afficcong bestion,Band that the filling proposed by pp drainage .,.roblem Be felt that approval,+ng � .. create a drains the applicant weals added as+a Condition� at a aria. �r restriction on Locust Street should be PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -- AUGUST 8, 1989 -- PAGE �' . 4 k e I . ■ a yy Iy 47#44lll(mg ,0\, _m 1989 November 7, 09 r CITYOF TIGT4RD " . John Dolan/ President REGON A Boy.'Supply Co. 1919 N.W. 19th Street Portland, OR 97209 RE: A-Boy development Case No. spa 09-13' Dear Mr. Dolan: po�. delay your proposals relating to the We apologize for Bela in reviewing conditions of approval which the staff recommended to the Planning Commission oon kx.August d u st g 1909. The issues that you raised at our meeting in September and the subsequent phone conversation with Liz Newton consist of the following: The 15 foot setback from the existing top of the Fanno Creek bank will „ l. •, raxx.cnatel 6 feet. .: ,`. require that the building size be reduced by app y 2. The non-remonstrance agreement provementa 9:s s ement for future Hain Street uri not proper and £8 illegal. 3. The billboard signs and their removal should be a separate, issue. A .B©y f the I : • is bound by corxtra�.:t to keep the sign. There is no objection i City can get the sign company (Ackerly?) to remove them. •.. 4. The roof sign is legal and should be allowed to remain until the entire building is removed. 5 The land needed for park, path, and flood improvements should be r is illegal. 1 p dedication requirement y indicated a willingness The to�consdider the sale or dedication of a ' � • : �ou� n g portion of the property. Your dedication option would require that the City be responsible for all the installation and maintenance of the landscaped area to the west and south of the proposed t:.ouildin These items have been reviewed by our staff and we are prepared to recommend. the following to the Planning Commission: , .+ g top minimum the e�a.st�.n to of bank is the m 1. The 15 foot. setback from t feet) and the necessary to install the storm drainage improvements (5 f pedestrian/bike path (10 ft�et and ehoul d be retained g on_re nstrande with your assertion that the no mo 2 Although We is Dille agree the entire street improvement is Main agreemerit 9 condition . ; . , this ecommend that slue fO ditox� street has been reevaluated and. staff will r not be imposed. 3 If a copy of a contract, which prohibits you as the property owner to order the removal of the billboard signs, is provided, the requirement ' " , •. 13125 SW Mall Blvd,,P,OA 130x 23397,Tigard,Oregon 97223 (503)639.4171 -- • • f 1 (j w ' tr to remove these signs as a condition of occup ancy should be dropped. Removal of the billboard signs may still be tied to the expiration of the lease (if such a provision exists). 4. The roof sign iss4Je was August r 3 �.s settled in. concept at the �ugu,�i. commission hearing with the Commission's allowance to keep the sign for 45 days- following "I,the issuanc0 of a certificate of occupancy for the new building 5. If the 15 foot area noted in item 14 above is dedicated, the staff would recommend that the landscaping installation' and maintenance be the `responsibility i of the City for any dedicated land to the south and west of the proposed builyd.ing. • ' I have scheduled this case to be brought before the Planning Commission on • December 5, 1989 .et 7:30 p.m.. The CommiSsion will then review the case and .;;: make a decision based ,upon your comments, the staff recommendation, and other testimony testilmony received. Please contact this office` if you wish to discuss these or other items prior to the Planning COmmiSsi hearing on December 5th. It would be our preference that we can reach agreement� on as many' issues as possible before the Commission will receive a hearing notice and a copy of the revised staff re to the hearin g- - x 'or t review. You wal7L recs�z�snendata..on, Prior g: ' S .r±ce,el ,' a, • y Leith S. Liden Senior Planner • et Ed Murphy 1r • I i I r . , .. ;-,.-... .-.,....,....:;,............ .....,-:,,._,. :-.w...v.-...w,...,.:..,..,_w.......;..:.-r-....,a .,r:r.,... .......n.,:.:,.,.. .,>.u.w-...........-"--_.,..ia...b..i.uat......•..r.:.+....J.,,,.,-.,, aH.n,.a..««,..4.:;u.w.»,-.,�;'cJ•.d.-....,,...i»,S-w„li,.:w....•.:.w.,......•:,,»«.«....o.,.,. ,...•.r1«r.. .-.a!.,. r ;! , ''If SLIFt,,dLY u ,, A-B ,'. i li 1919 N.VV NINETEENTH ST. 0 F0RTL_A6.10, OR 97209 • (E03) 225-9009 111,5p. • b • NOV Q9 t 0 November 1 , 1989 . I . Attu,: Ed Murphy I am writing to you because it appears that all I get is the run around from you and your staff. I met with Keith Liden on ;• ., Sept. 21 , 1989 and he promised to get back to me the next day have not hear from him (:�r�.day) ; or the following Mc��nday. I hav na c� since that meeting. I talked to Liz Newton 'l on the telephone on it Oct. 19, 1989, and the next day. She said you would have a ., proposal for me early the next week and I have not heard from you �, • . either. I have., been trying to deal with you people for the la st 4. or 5 years going back to Bill Monahan' time. I am now fed up , with these stalling tactics. I now demand that you either approve or deny my appeal on the. • • Y placed a `Lication illegal and unfair conditions You-have laud on my gip. for a permit to build. I need an answer now ., so that I can • proceed. • • Sincerely, • r w - 1+r-,.1'«�w-� z,,, , tr"°' J0��17,Dalan Pr sident an , d Pounder ABoy Supply a • • r } i r , r b F t� rf r i • ' a I r,L,,..�,.. ..".... ti- r„,„.m,im:•;!'•r.r l::.............»:i ,M. Mk •,al....L • • MEMO . '.• TO: Liz . : L. . : FROM: Keith RE: Dolan property 1. DATE: 9/25/89 • II I , On 9/21/89, I discussed the conditions of approval for 8DR 89-13 with John and , ban Dolan. Their primary concerns regarding the appealed staff decision are: 1. The 15' setback from the eXisting top of the Fanno Cr. bank will require that the building size, be reduced by 2. The non-...remonstrance agreement for future Main St. improvements is not ' proper and is illegal. p a y I %/• l 3. The billboard rd signs and their removal should be a separate issue. Ike 1' : says he is bound by contract to keep the sign. He doesn't tare if the 1 ' I I City can get sig n company (ACkerly?) to remove. 4. He contends that the roof sign is lE:tgal and should be allowed to remain unti ' the entire , • a.re building is removed. X believe the amended condition suggested by the PG addresses this issue (see minutes). yr.. . 5. y needed for 5 The land ne park, path, and, flood improvements should be purchased, not condemned. They feel 'that this dedication requirement is illegalA . r L John did indicate a willingness ,to consider selling a . : ,• or dedicate �3 portion of the property assume a Smaller area) . a Portion (� The dedication option would re ire in his view, that '' landscaping r ' for ri to the west and- south of the proposed building. , � a e Vitt be responsible 11 or the . _ P p � ld . �' I' said we would get back'..to 1 ' ,' g imp Please cal]. John D. and see how serious he is regarding his offers.;. da,a ♦ VV---". F1 N,j RA r!41 r .. ( 4 11 I', -y'� p K, fl,.rn�" 11 ':J f, m"., ,su�"•' ( 44 j• gg 18 ... . Y•�lN, 1 I , I P 1 I' ';• Y y4 ' ,4,+� , ,r ' '' r, h 46'. '1 ,a y •la S 9 S 9+ berryk n olt ,N`` ..: `y 1.N'7 C.' ai 1 1 p e.' S '7 1 I v - P I 4 a n r •n Ik n "'� a ,M.1 � � �., r ^r.� 4�. ,w n r _ r I x, • I 1 I • • ,ASR - '•' ,e i i e, a .. • ' . .' o- � 1 -1 - 8'. ‘v A T€2 MA i NJ-"--.. ` TEL€PHCm (G DU)----, 1 '• lc 12"C S.f? lu� --�� '. ,.. - \\ • - _ , -- _ 1 ,f 1 1 j : / ' ///`- . ....\.. i _, / ,__.._ ) 1--_ . • ``.' ``� __ c.— - I - .. _ i..-„ ••... -.:-..- / /t ,../ - i,_ N c'R� i `fj f� ji *� 1 J U? j1 f /A,,-.- ti-/ 7� ,_ (f_f ' { Y %,,f() . i 1,1't7' ! -- r f r t 6 / \`�.,'` o • /! [ �� iVV `.--- \ V- I I.•'. / 'i''''-'''.- --'? .14,11-iitii-t-t,. .4; i ri \\0\\ i --'"'--------...__-,,,,,._,,_ I ' , s . :'-' - I. (-I- '1- 1T:11 //'-`? C e 7/ ''--- \k J'-\ I I! °': ; i''''-- ' ',.,;;,....tts............_.... / \j Mfr- f I ' �� !If t[ , I, �. f ' ' - - - / , ... - , ..._ ,.. ...,,, , _____________________-- .,,,.../., ,.. i . / ,...} ' t t ° t �____________0,- - - i / -: Z4 C_5.P SE fE1 -1 522-C ' Z f Cam. . a I { • it rTT t ' I .,i«.. .:-,1:. .1.1x.4.. .. .. •. . . ,»...... .:A «. .a :Xy � 1 1 r" I I I . AGENDA ITEM 5.1 ' CI°.9YOFTIED I • • TO: Planning Commisaion �1: •,, FROM: Deborah Stuart Assista•at F l anise � ' L RE Appeal of SDR 89-13/V 89-21 • .' DATE: July 28, 1989 On August 8, 1989, the Planning Commission will review an appeal of a Director's decision to approve the re-construction of a general retail sales facility, A-Boy Electric and Plumbing Supply.. 7 600 ,s are i, building g pPWy foot D7axi . A new 1 he dec' , on on the existing 1,67 acre aA-Bo site. T.,. ision �s� planned for constructs y ' 0 included approval to a Variance request to allow 39 parking spaces instead of 'y, � � approved ., 44 as required by the Code. The site development review pr�opcsal was app • •`, subject to the satisfaction of 14 con, itions e The applicant is appealing the conditions which require him to dedicate land to the City for greenway/open space purposes and the condition(6) which require signs", which staff interprets to mean the one ,, . the rern.oval. of "certain requiring permanent removal of two nonconforming,. ctized billboard s and one roof sign Attached are a copy p nt's appeal form and ` of the staff report, the appl�.ca statement, site plan and vicinity map. ,,, ` 4:'++4'.t.'. f i\i':':i'',S i . wt p ° F � 1 v, e p. ti,• .., 1 .W.,�I 4P" �\I k "\..) - t''1.�, , 't (,.. l JA`'1,z5t:n, i8. ,rt C �Ir ✓re+v. ,y�, ' 4.tio 1 0,0,y ', 1 f w+. r4 I k''1,1:4't 1 1,, a Ili'r, :.Y!X �i:,„,, �F V,,,. ... , ./ �•: *,4,,,',,,,,,,,,,j "`}4'.P+''rr{,''�:1,,,,,,,i,,,it,, c%r vf JC r,4`n 1�,� /,,J,e, ,.. ." .j Xy 'a Ir , ,rt. it 1wM eIMw 1"�t ,,,,) r��”d''`° !'+y�i a ''6• b . l'P , 1 II , CITY 01? TIGA]EtD JWOTICE of DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW/V"A IANCE SDR. 89-13/11 89-21 m John T. and Florence Dolan APPLICATION: For approval to re-construct a general retail sales facility, A- t Boy Electric P:,imbing and Supply, with a new 17,600 square foot building. Also ted is a Variance to the required arkin standard for general retail requested P g sales to allow 39 parking spaces where 44 are required. Location: 12520 Surd Main Street (WCTM 2 S 1 2AC lot 700) ••. Planning Director,s designee for the • is hereby that the lannin k. a DECISION: Notice. Y given of T:$j srd has APPROVED the above requests subject to certain conditions. 1 The f nd,l,r l�s and concl,uSions on which the decision is based are noted below. u A. FINDING OF FACT 1. Background No previous applications have been reviewed by the Planning Division with respect to the subject site. Two freestanding billboard signs and one large roof sign on the ,w • have been considered nonconforming as of March 20, 1988, and 1 � property roert and busraess owneryy were notified of this prior to that property y • time. A voluntary compliance agreement was mailed to provide affected aow>•ttown properties an extension of time until a City p The voluntary complianceeagreement was never P .•: �Cent�r Plan is adopted. � signed. The City has not yet adopted a City n. The property and business owners have been cited for the following ; 1, nonconformities o 1. Roof sign, a violation of Section 18.114.070.H; and 2. Two nonconforming, amortized billboards (illegal location) • violations of Code Section 18.114.090.A.4.as i 2. Vicinity Information ;,: L rw•, properties imMediately in all directions are also toned and developed GBD-AA (Central' B'us'. Area). and rty r� tal.ns�tkies Fenno �Action �� I?roe Im ediate west oon °reek flood Plain w on+d is i g nated inoTi and s Community Plan to be included as Part the slo s g g' �` City's greenway/open space system. .,... • y ,STAFF REPORT - SDR 89� 3 'V 89.21 bOLAN - PAGI • • 1 ' I 9 r f •' r -+ , - . I _ ~ II . , w..' I - + is I, a , _ I, • • i r 3. Site Information and Proposal tfS The subject site is approximately 1.67 acres in size and is bordered • pr by Fanno Creek on the southwestern side. There is a 9700 square foot building and partially paved parking lot which has been in its present location since approximately the late 1940s. AA freestanding I sign with a readerboard stands along the Main Street frontage of the t • _ property. Two large, amortized billboards stand on or near the property's northeasterly property line. + to raze the existing structure, { , . . • s wish t • 5 currently . � ..... The . applicant ructure, currentl used by A-Boy Electric and Plumbing Supply, a general sales use •ll then be developed for a larger,a117 6001 square foot The site will 9 structure better suited to the nature of the business. • • The applicant is also requesting a Variance to City parking 1 requirements for general retail sales businesses in that they wish , °, to provide only 39 parking spaces when the Commu, .ty Development >. Code requires 44 spaces 4. Agency and NPO Comments Nei ghhbb orhoad Planning Organization #1 has reviewed the proposal and has the following comments: • The tree near the sidewalk on the proposed landscape plan could 1 block the view of eastbound traffic. Also, the air conditioner should be provided with noise/sound screen°ping. Finally,,, the NPO expressed concern that a fence be constructed on the site after the existing building has been removed. Northwest Natural Gas has reviewed the proposal and states that it main 14 feet north of the centerline on SW in existing Street andn�a Service •n Street. The � • , .•, a line 'to 12520 SW Mai company will require notification prior to demolition,` • ) The Consolidated Rural Fire District notes thfire r flow requi'..'ements exceed 3000 gallons per minute. sprinkler inkler protection or some other means of built-in fire protection will be Ya. required. Portland General: Electric, the Tigard Water bistrict, have reviewed the propoaai and have no objections to it City Building Division states that an 8 foot tall solid plywood *,7' fence muht be installed behind the sidewalk/public right-of-way ; of- r 3.er to start to a • along SW Main Street (from the property feet beyond the new southwestern building) ppotort line,art of .' m>rna.mum of 20 Y �' ti construction and must remain until all construction is complete (Uniform Building 440/(c). A demolition permit will be . Y '"ton ldin Code section ti . : clia.ired for the removal of any or all of the ecisting building. STAVE' REPORT - 8DR 89-13/V 89-21 DO - PAGE 2 • • e I µ o 4 0.. iv „ J . .,• The city Engineering Division has reviewed thelproposal and has the 4 following comments: . a. Main Street is a major collector street and is currently fully p plan p • elo ed earlier developed with curbs and sidewalks. A lan dev this year by the City Center Plan Task Force calls for reconstruction of Main Street. However, this plan has not yet been formally adopted by the City and design details are not yet �. available. The improvements proposed by the city Center Plan , Task Force can all be accomplished within the existing 80 foot right-of-way. A 1986 engina ring study of the condition of Main Street. recommends that the pavement be completely reconstructed and ; • that the storm drainage system Le replaced. It appears to bo impractical to perform the proposed meal fashion on a lot- ,. t iece reconstruction of Main Scree in a p y.- instead, reconstruction needs to occur in T b lot basis; instead the rerartstz larger segments beginning at Fanno Creek Bridge and working _ . uphill. Therefore, we do not propose that any reconstruction of Main Street be required as a condition, of thins development proposal . This development should be required to replace any existing sidewalks which are damaged or in poor repair and to reconstruct any existing curb cuts which are being abandoned.' b. As part of the Tigard Major Streets Transportation Safety Improvement. Bond, the City plans to replace the Main Street Bridge over Fanno Creek. The bridge replacement is tentatively f' scheduled to occur in 1990. The bridge construction is expected to occur within the existing right-of-way and should have little impact on the subject site. C. drama g to islava P s�Yr�bled Fanno Creek; therefore adequate storm d. The City'e Master brainage Plan recommends nprciveinents' to the e Fanno creek channel downstream from Main Street. The p ro p osed channel im P rovements would include widening and slope p• ements would move the location of ` the top of bank approximately stabzli.�ation: These � rev p PP y five feet closer to the proposed building than the location oi' the existing top of bank. , pedestrian and bicycle athw s •Master Plan•r a �aiiXfgmiairl©of e. If a ped y P y p g Fanno Creek ad proposed by the Parks M , . ten feet will be needed bet#, an the futura top of bank and the proposed building: Typical., new developments along Fanno Creek are required to dedicate greenway to protect the flood . plain and to provide 'for the the pathway system. L I M TA p RgpOR : - son 89_13/v. 89_21 DoL 1►N PAGE A '. .. ..d.. .. .:...:.. .....: ... ........ :... ...x.i.• .... .i..., . .. .... ....:._ ....... .....,. . ... ...•r. .•r. ,..ii .............. .. ,....e. .•...•. .•.,..v 1. .•.... . .-........, ...L... S 1 - r w f. Two sanitary sewer trunk lines cross the site in an existing .. easement. one line is 24 inches in diameter and the other. is :60 inches in diameter. Therefore, adequate sanitary sewer service iEt readily available. The new building has been designed :to stay clear of the existing sanitary sewer easement. g. The applicant has requested a Variance on the parking requirements, arguing that the proposed usage of the building , generates little parking demand. However, it is possible that the usage of the building will change in future years° it appears that there is adequate room on the site to provide parking in accordance with the standard Code requirements In fact, the applicant indicates an intention to provide additional parking in the future, Therefore, we recommend that the variance be denied. No other comments were received. B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION' Section 18.120.180 the standards whereby the Director is to aPProve, approve with modifications or deny a request for site development review pp In addition to those contained in Chapter 18. p ev 18.66, Central Business Di approval. � r sections of the Ti: Community Development Code are District, the lc wince• Tigard Fp able. Chapter 18.86, Action Areas; chapter 18.10 0 Landscaping lng n d Screening; Chapter 18.102, VSUalAe arance Areas; Cha p ter 18,106 Off-street Parking and Loading, Chapter 18.108, Access, Egress and Cir r g culation; Chapter 18.114, Signs; Chapter 18.120, Site Development Review; and Chapter 18.134, Variances i In the light pP v`al criteria, staff wil discuss ad Lta.on to all of the abcave a ro reek Park an the atuxallresc�urces el ement ai th Master Plan for �'anno Creek and a e City's Comprehensive Plan Permitted Use in the Central Business District The applicant intends to construct a new and larger structure suited for a general retail sales use. The site is presently occupied by a general retail il. sales use but city was never reviewed by the pity for compliance With development ._. g � u P outright: in the A. eneral. �retail sales use is ermined'.. CBD tCentral Business District, Action`Area zone and therefore the use is acceptable for this site. Any use in the CBD-AA ' zonin g district mudt meet a 30 foot building setback, re , requirement if any side of the property abuts a residential ._ y zoning district. Since son p e of the faur sided of the pro arty abut a residential zoning distrIct, to be met, .. xxi the. CBLi�1�A no zoning other building setbaCk requirements have sing distr .ot, maid.ttium Site coverage regulations allow up' to 85 percent of the site to be covered with a STAFF REPORT - SDR 89-13/v 89-21 - AOLAN - PAgn r k i I i1 I , : tip fi .1, • structure(s) and impervious surfaces such as parking, loading and pathway areas. This will be analyzed during a discussion of landscaping • and screening below• ..;' , Action Area Overlay The "AA" portion of the subject site's zoning designation indicates that an additional "layer" of zoning regulations has been imposed on this property. The purpose of the Action Area Overlay designation is to implement the policies of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan for action areas which include provisions for a mixture of intensive land use. Since Permitted' uses in the Action, Area Overlay zone must be those specified �' •. in the underlying zoning district, in this case, the CBI:), this a: requirement has been mete • tandaurd�'I which are to be • CBD-AA Code Section 18.86.040 contains interim s addressed P is ddressPd for new developments in the zone. These re irecnen .• are intended to serve the use and to provide for projected public facility needs of the area. The City ma y attach conditions to any development within an action area prior to adoption of the design plan to achieve the following objectives= fi . a transit usage by residents, ' Aol a. The development shall address g y employees, and customers if the site is within 1/4 mile of a public blic c transit line or transit stop. Specific items to be addressed are as follows: � : ;! i Orientation of buildings and facilities towards transit services to provide for direct pedestrian I access into the building(s) from transit lines or stops; ' ii. Minimizing transit,/auto conflicts by providing' direct Pedestrian access in to the buildings uildings with limited crossings in automobile circulation/p arkin g areas. 1 pedestrian access cross es automobile 11,, circulation/parking` areas, paths shall be marked for pedestrians; iii. Encouraging transit-supportive users by limiting obile support ser 'tce autoin s to collector a nd arterial streets; and iv. Avoiding`the creation of sma ll s catt parking by allowing adjacent t P t to use shared surface parking, parking structures Or under-structure parking; b, The developneat shall facilitate pedestrian/bicycle c....i rc ulation° '. if the site is located on a street with designated bike Paths or adjacent to a designated greenWay/open space/park. Specific ii...eltts to be addressed are as, follows. BTAF' PEPORt - 8DR 39•'13/V 89-'21 bOLAN -- PACE • 1 II , i. Provision of efficient, convenient and continuous pedestrian and bicycle transit- circulation systems, linking developments by 1 requiring dedication and :' pedestrian_. ike paths identified �;'• construction I of estrian and m rehensive plan. If direct connections .,. in the cop P I cannot be made, require that funds in the amount of p the construction cost be deposited i nto an account for the purpose of constructing paths; ii. Separation of auto and truck circulation activities from pedestrian areas; iii. Encouraging pedestrian-oriented design) by requiring , pedestrian walkways and street level windows along all • . sides with public access into the building; iv. Provision of bicycle parking as required under • Subsection 18.106.020.P; and A v. Ensure adequate outdoor lighting by lighting Pedestrian walkways tand auto circulation areas. I p • within the action area. specific` items c�� Coordination of development wa. h�. p • to be addressed are as follows: i. continuity and/or l compatibility of landscaping, • circulation, access, public facilities, and other improvements. Allow required landscaping areas to be g rou p ed to g ether. Regulate shared access where appropra.ate . Prohibit lighting which shines on adjacent property; ii. Siting and orientation of land use which considers surrounding land use, or an adopted plain Screen '. r loading areas and r efuse dum ps eers from view. Screen ' commerdal, and industr ial use from single-family residential through landscaping; and iii. Provision of frontage " roads or shared acdess Where feasible. The submitted' development .proposal sa• the above requir or g7 . p Y p pax^ 1, sati.s�fles t� esrlenf this is f fih g y transit else e, pedestrian,/bie ole cirdulatiori and coordination o is plan with the action area. Sereen.ing' of• the truck loading area Can be r' adcomplished With either a fence or tall vegetation. Outdoor lighting should be specifically addressed by the applicant as to how it might be Provided. STAFF REPolit SDR • • n m....nr ......rn... ...A...,,.,.. r......«..,•., .,.r.:... ........ .,..r.r .. ....:. ,•u,....., «.,. .r., n....n.... ,...e..r «...., a.... ....>. ,.r,,.. ...., r•..,......, r n .. .,. ...I.. ...... .. ..,,...,.,... •..,,. .. ...,„....• .. .I ,r.. .,... ... y Landscaping and Screening Section 18.100.030 of the Code requires that street trees, be planted on ' properties with a public street frontage of at least 100 feet. The proposed landscaping plan shows one street tree along the SW Main Street frontage where three to four are required depending upon the mature size of the selected species. Staff recommends requiring the provision of street trees on a revised landscaping plan_ The applicant proposes to cover approximately 21 percent of the site with natural or man-made landscaping. This satisfies the minimum landscaping requirement of 15 percent in the CBD-AA zone. Staff also has aesthetic concerns about the rear of a commercial g fronting be the City's focal point and community buil�3in frontin o n what is to center. It appears that the Proposed posed landscaping for the west side of the building will not provide sufficient screening from Fanno Creek. This aspect of p should be amended to provide e unproved screening of the 16-foot high wall„ The site plan does not indicate where the business' dumpster will be located. Staff notes that this area must also be screened.. •sion Clearance � I • , The ornamental pear tree intended to go immediately to the south of the proposed driveway need not be relocated out of this area because although it is in a vision clearance area, this type of tree may grow heightto a mature 15 - 25 long as none of the branches .. extend below eight feet in height feet. staff f does not think the tree will pose a vision clearance problem" I , Off-street Parking and Loading The applicant proposes to construct 39 standard 90--degree parking spaces, one of wh aces, o irh will be for handicapped customers. The spaces meet the dimensional requirements for off-site parking. Five' landscape parking . lat 'n this report.requesteci . islands are also shown. A discussion of the variance space number follows er i• pertaining to parking, pace, The Cade requires one secure bicycle parking space for every 15 re quired I automobile Spaces. In this case, a minimum of two bicycle parking spaces are needed. The site p lan indicates a proposed iodation for the bike I . rack but does not indicate hàw many spaces will be provided. The bicycle r design should also be submitted t o the Pl anning Division for review iew priortats anstallaton Access F g r es! acid Circu .ation The I r e q. i remcn�s o f the Access j Egress and d Circulati Qn have been ' satisfied. STS REPORT T ST)Z 89-i3A' ' 80-2i DOLA3►N' . Pi= 7 • I I I . I 1 • tea•.., ._..:.a ._w ;. R. .,,u f , • A Signs L The applicant has proposed no new signage in conjunction with thin t' • appli.cati.on. The .existing freestanding sign will be removed. All new wall and freestanding signs must be reviewed by the Planning Division to their erection for conformance with the City Sign Code. The two freestanding billboard signs and one large rose sign have been considered nonconforming as of March 20, 1988, and property and business owners were notified of this prior" to that time Once the existing building has been razed, staff assumes that the roof sign will also be permanently removed from the site; re-erection of this nonconforming City Sign sign would be illegal under the provisi ons of the ity Sign. Code. The site plan is unclear as to the fate of the two billboard signs. The two billboard signs are in direct conflict with Code Section 18,120.180, which requires that the approval of a Site Development proposal's comply all other • Review be conditioned on the ro osa:L s abilii to com y faith a1 1 applicable provisions of the Code, including the Sign Code in Chapter The two billboard signs are nonconforming, amortized , freestanding signs. Since neither the property, business owner or sign owner signed a voluntary compliance agreement with the City, thereby remove these signs, full compliance �. affording them a grace period �.o remo • signs should be with the prova. ons, for. g L this approval. Compliance ns shounclnde ' to required as a condition noncranfo PF amort�. p r rin signs. complete rPaval of both • Site. Development Review ++�° and/or .' d.e to the landfill l / Code Section 18 120 180 A 8 requires that where is allowed within or j e 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/ b:icycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted path is also required as part of the Action p .rian/`b�.cycle plan....,A pa pedestrian/bicycle ' Area overla y designation (Section on 1 8.-Six 4 , l•b.i .). Therefore, 1 dedication of the land area on this p ro err below t he elevation of the 100-year f ioodplain+ and construction on to an approval e of ' be a emnd�.�. c�.s,l ,a,ey r ae construction of a bicycle pathway Sh. to this application. w the engineering Division an adjustment Of the building Y ..had, noted to accommodate the pathway and the 1;�.►oa.tLOn will. have to occur in future City-initiated relocation of the floodplain bank. ThLs should be required on a re ver sed site� P lari. a • P STAFT' REPORT .-' S -. - PAGE 8 • • •� 89-21 DtDJG,Fl�' L��,�t S� 1.3�'V" ' • r Parking l Variance `! The applicant is requesting approval of a Variance to allow only 39 r parking spaces where 44 spaces are required by the Code. Section 18.134.050 of the Code contains criteria whereby the Director • can approve, approve with modifications or deny a variance request. They are: (1) The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Code, be in conflict with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, to any other applicable policies of the Community Development Code, to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity. (2) There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar pe topography other circumstances over to the lot size or shape, to a rap y or o•th h which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; (3) The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this Code and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent ' possible, while permitting some economic use of the land; (4) Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms or parks will not be g p adversely affected any more than would occur if the development • were located as specified in the Code; and (5) The hardship 10 not self-imposed and the variance requested is e► the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Special circumstances exist which are peculiar to this lot. The applicant proposes to Construct this project in two phases: the first phase consists of construction of the new building on the southwestern ' portion of the property. The existing building would then be demolished._ The applicant hopes to attract a complimentary business(es) to build on the northern portion of the lot as part of phase 2, Should additional • ' parking be required, the applicant Suggests that a Shared parking arrangement could be worked out with the adjacent structure. Moreover, the applicants own tax lot 400 to the southeast, which might also be ., used for parking purposes. The applicant points out that the store does not attract "browner or window shoPPers°, in that the business ccanstitutes a retail/wholesale t:... a of business which bulky r fact results in the attraction of customers lwhomd decide in advance of travel that a product: is needed and travels to a Specific destination. The applicant cites the fact that the existing Store rarely has more than six or eight vehicles at any one times Staff notes that employees of the business will also require parking spaces and perhaps delivery trucks will need SA F ' ]E EPit)1.T sr 12 89-413/sr 89-21 .. p)OrtAINT I , r to park and unload on the he ro erty• however p it is clear that the existing store use will not need 44 arki g J ! ng spaces. The City agrees that the present use is similar to a "general retail sales, bulky merchandise" use. If the City were to employ the parking standard used naerc o e for retail sales businesses which sell bulky merchandise, namely 1 space for every 1000 square feet of gross floor area but not less than 10 ' spaces, it • clear that t P ` '� the proposed 33 spaces is well within city �`,. ... parking requirements Although the use of the building may later change, alternatives are available in conjunction with the future phase of construction on this I f a new use, property. ' which has a higher parking demand, occupies 'tl.s building, a new site development review and evaluation of parking would be required. The issue of parking space number will also be evaluated` as :, The f the site development `review for phase 2 of this development. . use will be the same as permitted by City regulations and existing r physical and natural. systems will not be affected by this proposal. ` Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variance request subject to . one condition which is noted below. ; 1 r Master Plan for panne' Creek Park 1 , Fanno Creek Park is a community park located along Fanno Creek between Main Street and SW Hail Boulevard in the Central Business District. The 4. site lies within the immediately h 100-year floodplain and �.mmc.diately abuts the subject property along its southwestern property line. It is`hoped that the entire park wi]l eventually contain 35 acres. The dedicatio n of the land area within the 100-Year f l oodp lain and con struction of a pathway in that area on the subject property is consistent city's ', ' • with the , p�.lr}c plans for the area. In the City's Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park, it is stated that Fanno Creek Park ` is inte nded to become the focal i al pbnt for community, . . a' cultural, civic and recreational activities. A paved urban' plaza, an !` amphitheater, an.English water garden, pathways, a tea house, a man-made enlargement of the existing pond, as Well as preserved natural areas are all components foreseen for this area. .the rosed development rent p ly under review will immediately abut ' • y the outskirts of this planned community park, and at its cl osest point, f ould be more than eight feet from'the boundary of the 100-year g g i outer bour.�dar . Division h�.S indicated �that the proposed i r p e �n ineera.n structure should be at least 10 feet away from the relocated outer bank N in order to accommodate reconstruction econ �� ps,t and the • 2,.. ._ J an eight foot Wide hway planned struction of the storm drainage channel along :• p , This g g t-.helaod {.a�1Lll 1" indicates that an adjustment to the lacement of the building structure . ry i I on the site would be necess�l in o i adeclua�:�*lY accoatiimoclate the Path and vegetative $0reen:a:' " �"^' 'dig Up to the re order tb relocated bank of the. stoma a drainage charne1 w Ka°Jf.AI1'F` REPORT �-- S�1k2 B��g3/'�' �3'�-21 - 'DCfZ� � PAGE 3.0 , i , i i C. )ECISION ,,� k i A The Director...s designee for the City of Tigard hereby approves SDR 89--x' � i 13 and V 89-21 subject to the .fulfillment of the following low in j g conditions: M� ��p ASS OTBERWI SE NOTED, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO ". �� P ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: a a 1. The a d licant s `� W ha1.l d edicate �" PP to th e City as greenway all portions of, c, � (•,Ili t the site that fall within the existing 100-year floodplain (i.e.,• 10''19 f all Portions of the Property below elevation 150.0) "� � �✓ p Y � and all proper_ty� ,; �' �, ,�,� , �,, 15 feet above to the east of) the 150.0 foot floodplain boundary-. s;A "� ‘,.V4' monument boundary survey showing all neW title lines, prepared by a 1 f Via, . registered professional land surveyor, shall be submitted to the City ' \ •• for review and approval riot to recording- he building PP p g. lding shall be `1 designed so as, not to intrude into the greenway area. STAFF CONTACT: r Jon Feigion, Engineering Division (639-4171). 7 2 The ap plicant shall obtain . Agency written�tte' n a pprova from Unified Sewerage of Washington an Gaunt y for connection to the Unified Sewerage Agency trunk line prior to issuance • of a building ' permit. STAFF CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Division (639-4171) a 3.1 An agreement shall be executed by the applicant, on forms provided b the City which waives the property Y ' "`� • • Y whi i F pertx owner's s, right to ' oppose or remonstrate against ,the formation of a future Local Improvement ilar device' formed < • District or similar to reconstruct Main Street. ' STAFF . CONTACT: Jon Feigion Engineering Division, (639-4171). 4. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing: 1) building plans which show the proposed design and location of outdoor lighting and rooftop mechanical equipment; 2) the provision of at Y P g spaces .h rack design shall be • submitted to the Planning Division for -- e r least two secure bicycle ark�.n s ace location and screeni.n g ,rprevi.ew and approval; 3) the g' of the trash disposal area; 4) the relocation of the phase one building outside of the greenway area; and 5) a •minimum of 39 parkin spaces. STAFF CONTACT: Debora parking P h Stuart, Planning Division (639-4171)- 6. . revised landscaping plan showing: 1) } n g applicant shall submit a re vegetative screening along the entire length of . ..� g g f the site's rear or i . . southwestern property` line; 2) screening for the trash disposal area; ' and 3) the installation of street trees along, the fain Street frontage. STAFF CONTACT: Deborah Stuart, Planning D iviSi.on (639- 4111 p ,. en ine PP �, g er�`�urveyor shall locate and 'mark the 100-Year y ar�flc�bdplain boundary prior to commencement f�a ol The a e c nstrur�tion. 1 . , Floodplain boundary shall be niainta g period markers f construction. STAFF bc�unida nnar of CC)NTAGT. Jon Feigion, Engineering�hD r • ' �' 'rr'ision (6394171), g ! STAFF REPORT SD14. 89-13/V L39-21 DotAE -` PAGE i1 '. • w. P • • * 7- A demolition permit shall be obtained prior to demolition or removal E, of any structures on the site. The applicant shall notify Northwest C Natural Gas prior to demolition. STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building �' • Division (639-4171). 8. The applicant shall install an 8-foot tall solid, plywood fence behind the sidewalk/public right-of-way along SW Main Street (from ' '• ° the southwestern property line to a minimum of 20 feet beyond the new ' : ' building to the northeast) prior to start of construction and must remain until all construction is complete (Uniform Building Code section 4407(0) . STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division (639- 4171) . • ,•,9}. An eight-foot wide paved pathway shall be installed by the applicant 1 1 through the greenwayr Plans for path construction and location shall u be submitted for review and approval. to the Engineering Division. The ' { path must be constructed to City standards. Areas adjacent to .the ,,t,� i . pathways must be graded and revegetated to facilitate mowing and ! vehicular access. STAFF CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Division 0 (639-4171)r ' +' y 1 K FOLLOWING CONDITIONS CL2NS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE JF AN f OCCUPANCY PERMIT: i• 10. All landscaping materials and other proposed site improvements shall t • be installed or financially assured y prior to occupancy of any . structure. STAFF CONTACT: Deborah Stuart, Planning Division (635- 4171). 11. All new signage must receive approval by the planning Division prior Cr t erection o f the signage. STAFF CONTACT:r Deborah Stuart, Planning Division (639-4171) 12. The two nonconforming, amortized billboards and support structures shall h p property Y' prior to occupancy of v ® ert riot t phase one of this developm x1E o STAFF CONTACT: Keith Planning Laden p g Division (639-4171). ;/(4,). 14 4 r , ( 13° As a condition of the occupancy permit, the applicant shall be �� existing Street which are Gdama damaged or in as the exa.s•Lin sidewalk along Main required replace any Portions g � . poor repair and to reconstruct t any • � . a g s{.ru being abandoned. t existing c. , cuts which are bey in ab John curb ST AF f�1 �yf�} nedr S,C.A�l.' C�N./.�lri rI ° Hagman, Engineering Division, (639-4171). 14. The existing roof sign shall be permanently removed from the subject ' properficyy 1 r)a�y. �i,• • �'' # ", r �,"TH r APPROVAL SHALL BE vALIb EIGHTEEN FROM THE' DATE OF r�A THE FIk PL asxOr NOTED BELOW. t # .• 'A 9f )4x'' • ' 8TAFP REPORT SDR 89 'v $ � r ..AN PAgg 12 L • • • ,r, D. PROCEDURE 1. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Half. , and mailed to: ,/ • X The applicant yid owners 1 pA X Owners of record within the required distance .. 'X The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization n X Affected government agencies 2. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON 7/20/89 UNLESS AN . APPEAL IS FILED. 3. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.82.290(A) and Section 18.32.370 of the Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal must be filed with the City Recorder within 10 days after notice is given and sent. Appeal fee schedule and forms are available at Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall B vd., Tigard,: Oregon. • The deadline for filing of an appeal is 3:30 p.m. July 20f 1989 ; 4. Ouestions: If You have questions, please call City of Tigard ,` Planning Department* City of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.e Tigard, Oregon. REPARED BY: Deborah Stuart, Asst. Planner DATE APPROVED BY: Keith S. Liden, Senior Planner DATE • • . n I ; STS' REPO RT -= SDI, Sy�l3d� 89-�7 - D?�N � P PAGE 13 • • • 1., tierV''`7" 14 I ,L.--j � f, wY ,.�. I DAKOTA sTR�.w ' ,RTH 1 �cn ,,J I III II_i 111 Z iii i FQ 1 _ . Q -- j -a- 4 S.W -� cr. ! !VY. LEWIS L w TN — 1001 c III/ . w,' .:Jf/: H SM. TANGELA i LI c,1 iiril- .w, ry. 1 ONIDON- gi II -I—. J V ', r \\\s . S.W .--i <4R p `�` 8 ' AGO re V' Qj , Q w � �� `•�� !! ,,,,,,,,,,,,...,( ....,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,-....,,...„ �^f r iiiir4.40*,_4 , . ,. . , , . , • Y . 0 . ._‘<c.,,, ., , 4. IA'4. y ,; • _ i r. , __(.4,(t•ti N , . r •. it' - p am r 's' fe'\,,•\\\) , r 4.7.��r a I • � (:17.,I7/:,„ I c";;;a 44 c),, 6x,,4 7197 , LAND usr DEC1:i1GN APPEAL F'X j'..: h()?M // ,`' .,u )Ut t 1, ' citizon 5 r.t a'f The City Tigard � tiEt to , Ati� ,� par`i:icApate in local quverr►ni� rtt, Tigard' s L fd Us@ f Code t:herefur•e sett Ispo,,.iE ic requirements for CITYOF 1 f`iI,lo ap )ea1s on cert4,1in 1dr►rd ua:,L, dc)r:i5 iorr OREGON h • a , 1 form h,.r1 1)(!t ri cic.�vi'loPod i.C)' , CI►� f y .�s,�j,3t You in f 111rtq &An app•:a.t t)f ,4 lMr►d 11:;a doci;.Icon in proper, form►. To dethr►r►ioe what ri 1 into fees gill IJ0 roquir`od ��, • or tc� ,an5wt'r' ,any c.1ci(,%1;inn:, yi.:t+ iav r''t>'jard i ng tilt" apf)oal Procc}:iS , plo,.-.;t: ► or►14Aat I;h4i Planning Division s k ',r' thhc Ci .y h't;e,,,,rd.ier at, 6 ( ) fli7i , t• APEPLICATION IUE•:.CiVc riPPE Ei1 Ft) John T. and Florence _Dolan, , SDR 89-.13/' 89-21 -. and y Bldg A'-Boy Electric. :PlumbrYc� 5uppl . _ ._ -- ,� ' 2 {IOW D4 YOU QUALIFY AS A PA CY Applicant . ......................................,1 ..� . _._,.,_.._,,�_...'_._. .._ -.,_..,_..._ �'he". Director ,_.�,� f 3, SPECIFIC GROUNDS F01 APPEAL OR RLVI,:W.,_,_._ _, Planning 21i.. ,.._ • designee places oppressive conditions on the approval of the applicant' s application Specifically:f1 cally ( ,) Paragraph :, page 3•'1 Staff Report. The Director hereinafter referred to T. and Florence Dolan (hereinafter demands John as Dol-an) to dedicate a substantial pcSrt .on of their*3)roPerLY � to the City as reenwa7, i.e. , all portions of the site that ' . 108- ear floodplan and in addition r fall within the existing -�-.'.. the Director demands Dolan surrender 15 feet above a,to the east of) '. .et•�• --continued on att,ached she 4. 4CHEriUL_EE7 DATE OECX:IOaN Is TO BE FINAL: 2-20-8 9 __. ..._,_. ._:.�.____ • • '• 5, DATE 4\1OT'YCE ol` FINAL i)1`.C1:4 . ,+ 7-11-89 date . , .------- t ose I R.. Me dez Attar for John T. and Florence nolarl vl it,4. ,H.K.44•►c�•it4�U tl }(-rt I ft$ ►1 i H u 1t (M)�it,; x x) w it H H i id+(y.it#ri) u hi:it• >{ it• -H44 f&M 44 K it•#'•id,(>t 8,it•it-1di4 it Et•�1 i4 kd-ri . ov ( ,ri) ► 1 a4�° rillio•16;zL •t . . ' w Appro d As To f k)r•tit By / ' bottled As l a {•»drtri by. C�at: 1. . • 3t.1.k•h'#ad.)4 4�0(4 ii>' k li it it*44 Et li t R° it x ri 81;(44 1t K i. ii ti•ii i k Ef t i+bl'•ik?i=1 44)t-ii 14-Ei-�i�M�it.i 3t'1 i!1c } 1 /446 ii c.•G .) 3 -c.+? `7// / c 4171 _.• ri 7 2L4 (603)(1139- - ^h r • �, I ., .»a._ ww.. .u,. ..1-+a...... - d�„.r.---¢"....u.a.•ur... a..t+«,.-::+1,_,..„my-.,o / the floodplain boundry. This demand by the Director constitutes an unlawful taking of a citizen's private property in violation of the Constitution of the United States 5th Amendment and in violation of the Constitution of Oregon Article 1, Section 18. (B) Paragraph 3 , pane 11 Staff Report . The Director illegally demands Dolan r inquish their Constitutional ` rights to oppose or remonstrate against the formation of a , Local Improvement District or similar device formed in the o future to reconstruct Main Street. This demand by the Director is illegal and violates Dolan's Constitutional guarantees under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and in violation of the Constitution of Oregon Article le Sections 1 and 8 . (C) Paragraph 9, page 12 Staff Report . The Director requires an eight-foot wide paved pathway be installed by ” Jo Dolan through the greenway. This demand is appealed for ' the reasons set forth in Paragraph (A) above. • (D) Paragraph 12 and Paragraph 14, page 12 Staff report. The Director requires Dolan to remove certain signage .prior to the occupancy phase of the development . r a The signage '' referred to by the Director was erected by with the isseen. of the city and i Dolan 'W �, in conformance pern° • , with city ordinances at the time of construction. The signage is integral to Dolan's business and its required taking -� removal. constitutes an unlawful t,akin for which Dolan must be compensated beyond the mer e approval of their application' • • r .e • , Y • s 1w • May 19, 1986 CITYOFTI1RD F OREGON 25 Years of Sendce 1961-1986 Mr. John Dolan • 524 N. Tillamook Portland, Oregon 97227 Reference: A-Boy Dear John: Thank you for meeting with me at the A-Boy site on May 12 to discuss the , City's 'request for & dedication of Oreenway.I I discussed the matter further ' with my Engineering Services staff on Tuesday. it seems that the survey work ' which would be required to delineate the top of the slope would take a substantial amount of survey work 1 - ''perhaps as much as 40 hours using a two-man crew. The reason for the ` extensive work is the need ' for tying in references to s everal buildings n gs in the area. ' The City Engineer has also advised there is a need for delineation of . the channel y g me that Cher improvements necessary in the area., This compounds the problem and the amount of work necessary. I'm not sure where that leaves us except that it seems like the information wh ich you and I need for discussions of the greenway dedication may not be available in a timely manner. Scheduling of . the survey crew and the City Engineer review time cannot be done at this time due to other coma itmenrs s Perhaps our first course of action would be to have you informally discuss the ' issue further with my Engineering Services Manager, Randy Clarao, to 'see if . the information we presently Ihave available can help to delineate a proper boundary.y. It is possible that a maj or undertaking could be avoided S iricere , I Wi1 liaui A. Monahan, Director r; Community Development (WAm.br/2534P) I , 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,P O.t3ox 23397,Tlgard,Oregon 97223 (503)63.9x4•71 , I •Y f • d r Jj � • • v r :( , fI„�� a/ a, ) (,, 1 a ..x � s' , Paved ”` y ' Parl-, ing t Paved'' 1 1 I �' I ® • 1 GBH t1 a i ° .— S-'-'----W-;-- Y._ # • •i I 8 Barking l ,,_,,,j Y 1` J 1 a �.y r : H ' ■ 8 i52.3 r �rt --- - -i ,,.,-----; / x },)1(., ( • ., . , w f, 1 . . •.....„ ( 1 Ill gi 4*I'll 11,1114 1 ._ 1,0- � . :1/ 11/ !� ',7�// ( ) 1 .14.1/ . , 1 /. w __, KIf , /,,,. 4/ 1 ,w Y �‘ 0 ' *'':\`',,,,,,., .. r, pnrklti�x' ... axe \1' ' , • 7'' /'°. f' I ': j ,,a+ .You• .w,"i_"w`""^„- «n .w.w »+.- �I E.' r la ,, nom Lwi• .a.N. .. ti ».0 a.., rw w.rwk _w swea,uz,uu, «.s. ?' .. .' AGENDA ITEM 5.1 • I , ICITY OF TIGARD - I To: Planning commission FROM: Deborah Stuart, Assistant Planne I • RE: Appeal of SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DATE: July 28, 1989 • 1 of a review an appeal , On August $, 1989, the Planning Commission gill, p� Director's decision to approve the re-construction of a ;general retail `sales y y y g Supply. new 17,6of3' square foot building facile: • . Su l o �. n planned - existing 1.67 acre., A-Boy site. The decision is lanncc! for construction on the ex facility, A-Boy Electric and P u a.n to a Variance request to allow 39 parking spaces instead of PTP p included e approval � proposal approved 44 as r� z, e�.� by the.... Code. The site•-� Y development .ect to t1:�e satisfaction of 14 ;conditions. re�r�ev� aal' .ass a rove ro subject • The applicant is appealing thn conditions which require him to dedicate land to pp FP the City for greenwaY/open space purposes and the condition(s) which require the removal of "certain signs', which staff interprets to mean the one • �=Pr� requiring l permanent removal of two nonconforming, amortized billboards and one emov ' roof sign. Attached are a dopy of the staff: report, the applicant's appeal form and statement, site plan and vicinity map. • I , • I i j I ;rM r 0• •ti ^ a c CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW/VARIANCE SDR 89-1.3/v' 89-21 - t John T. and Florence Dolan APPLICATIC?N: For approval' to re-construct a general retail sales facility, A- 1 Boy Electric Plumbing and Supply, with a new 17,600 square foot building. Also requested is a Variance to the required parking standard for general retail sales to allow 39 parking spaces where 44 are required. Location: 12520 SW gain • Street cwcTm 2S1 `2AC lot 700) DECISION- Notice is hereby given that the Planning Director's designee for the City of Tigard has APPROVED the above requests subject to certain conditions. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted below. A. FINDING OP FACT • 1. . Background No previous applications have been reviewed by the Planning t subject site. respect., t n `the e .on_Nith >~ 7 Division P g signs and one large roof sign on the Two freestanding billboard aa. ne an g property have been considered nonconforming as of March 20,, 1988, 1 and property and business owners were notified of this prior to that time. A voluntary compliance agreement was mailed to provide affected downtown properties an extension of time until a City Center Plan is adopted. The voluntary compliance agreement was never signed. The City has not yet adopted a city Center Plan. The -property and business owners have been cited for the following nonconformities: 1. Roof sign, a violation of Section i 18.114.0/0.H,, and 2. Two nonconforming, amortized billboards (illegal locatIon)t violations of Code Section 18.114.090.A.4.a. , • 2. Vicinity Information fro pertieS immediately• in all directions are also Zoned and developed C8D-AA (Central Business bietrict - Action Area). ProPerty y contains the Fenno Creek flood pl i and id the designated inoTi as d's Commanit Plan to be included as p g a y' dit 's reer fay, o en apace sYstem. 8 11/V 89-21 D+OLN' PAGE 1 R�' �D� 9 STAFF R.� 7 • • • i 4 n S Information and Proposal 1 3. Site is approximately 1.67 acres in size and is bordered The subject site i pp are foot by Fanno Creek on the southwestern side. There is a 9 o been in its Y Paved parking lot which building and partially) p t location since approximately the late 1940s. A freestanding present a readerboard stands along the Main Street frontage of the o sign with near the property. Two large, amortized billboards stand on, or nea • at' property's northeasterly property line. structure, currently used . The a licants wish to raze the existing retair sales use. B Supply, a general • , • by A-Boy Electric and Plumbing Supp are foot ��;, ;��,600 squ The site will. then be developed for a larger, 4 structure better suited to the nature of the business. The •app licant • also requesting a Variance to City parking ` general retail sales businesses in that they wish requirements for g � n to provide only 39 parking spaces when the Community Development p Code requires 44 spaces } 4., Agency and NPO Comments • ' �o osal and I Neighborhood Planning Organization #1 has reviewed the p p. has the following comments. r • Ban could The tree sidewalk proposed landscape plan } e near the sideway on the conditioner � • block the view of eastbound traffic. Also, the air should be provided with noise/sound screening. Finally, the NPO expressed concern that a fence be constructed on the site after • p the existing building has been removed. Northwest Natural Gas has reviewed the proposal and states that it has an existing 4-inch steel main 14 feet north of the centerline on Street and a service • _ SW Main line to 12520 SW Main Street. The , y ," company will require notification prior to demolition. The Consolidated Rural Fire District notes that fire flow , r qu iremPn exceed 300 gallons Per minute. Automatic sprinkler to protection or some other means of built--in fire protection will be . required. ,' - Tigard Water District, have reviewed Portland General. Electric, the �. the pr4po sal and have no objections to it. • The City Building Division states that an 8-foot tall solid plywood :right of-way fence must be installed behind the sidewalk/public along 5t4 Main street (from Property' line to a om the soot• a g . .: Prior to start of 1 um of 20 feet beyond the new building) p minim► . �s complete •I cozastr� cton and mu�#t remain until all construrtx.on P' A demolition permit will be �Tn" . Building Code section 4407(o). • orm B • - red for the removal of any or all of the existing building. � ' if reclua: 11 STAFF REPORT - sun $9--13tV 89--21 - po% ! '• PAGE 2 \ 1 L - . r• • a The City Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal and has the following comments: a. Main Street is a major collector street and is currently iiully developed with curbs and sidewalks. A plan devO1oped earlier this Year by the City Center Plan Task Force calls, for reconstruction of Main Street. However, this plan has not yet y design details Yet been formally adopted by the city and d � s are not e available. The improvements proposed by the City Center Plan Task Force can all be accomplished within. the existing 80 foot right-of-way. A 1986 engineering study of the condition of Main Street • recommends that the pavement be completely reconstructed and that the storm drainage system be replaced. It appears to be impractical to perform the proposed , . reconstruction ion of Mazn Street in a piecemeal fashion on a lot- by--lot basis; instead, the reconstruction needs to occur in larger segments beginning at Fanno Creek Bridge and working uphill. Therefore, we do not propose that any reconstruction of Math Street be required , as a condition of this development proposal k ' This development should be required to replace an y existing sidewalks which are damaged or in poor repair and to reconstruct any existing curb cuts which are being abandoned- . b. As part of the Tigard Major Streets Transportation Safety Improvement Bond, the City plans to replace the Main Street Bridge TeF C � h_ r g �p cement is tentatively scheduled to occur 1990. The bridge construction ie expected to occur within the existing right-of-way and should have little impact on the subject -site C. The site slopes toward Fanno Creek; therefore adequate storm drainage is available - d. ° g ends improvements to the d> The C :t s Master Drainage Plan recommends i The proposed kzannel. downstream from main street. T channel ee improvements would include widening and slope stabilization. These improvements would move the iodation of the top of banit approximately five feet closer to the proposed bui lding" t han the location Of the existing top of bank. e If a pedestrian and bicycle pathway is to be provided along ° Fanno Creek ad proposed by` the Parks Master plan, a ltini ntum of , _ . of the ten feet w£11. be needed between . .call:.., new development' e to o bank and `c en the fut-iir along Fanno proposed Building Typ. yt '.� a;L �., to deda.Cate reer�.way to protect the'' flood plain and to 12rovide for the park pathway ays •e t- Creek are required p STAFF REPORT sBR 89-13/v 80-21 bOz AN - PAGE 3 I I • • f . f. Two sanitary sewer trunk lines cross the site in an existing ' easement. One line is 24 inches in diameter and the other is 60 inches in diameter. Therefore, adequate sanitary sewer service ; is readily available. The new building has been designed to stay clear of the existing sanitary sewer easement. g. The applicant has requested a Variance on the parking h requirements, arguing that the proposed usage of the building generates little parking demand. However, it is possible that the usage of the building will change in future years. It appears that there is adequate room on the site to provide parking in accordance with the standard Code requirements. In fact, the applicant indicates an intention to provide additional. parking in the future.. Therefore, we recommend that the variance be denied. No other comments were received. r B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION Section 18.120.180 lists the standards whereby the Director is to approve, approve with modifications or deny a request for site development review approval. In addition to those contained in Chapter 18.66, Central Business District, the following sections of the Tigard ,.. • CommunitY y Development Code are also applicable: Chapter 18.86 r Action n� Areas; Chapter 18.100, Landscaping and Screening; Chapter 18.102, Visual Clearance Areas; Chapter. 18.106, Off-•street Parking and Loading; Chapter 18.108, Access, Egress and Circulation; chapter> 18.114, Signs; Chapter 18.120, Site Development Review; and Chapter 18.134, Variances. In addition to all of the above approval criteria, staff will discuss N the proposal in light of the Parks Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park and the natural resources element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Permitted Use in the 'Central Business District , The applicant intends to construct a new and larger structure suited for a general retail sales use. The site in presently occupied by a general retail sales use but was never reviewed by the City for compliance with City develo pm ent regulations. A g eneral retail sales use is permitted' outright in the cBD (Central Business District, Action Area) zone and therefore the use is acceptable abl¢.' 'for th3.a site. An'+y use in the CB D-AA zoning district must meet a 30 foot building setback requirement if any side of the property abuts a residential zoning district Since none of the four sides of the property abut a residential zoning district, no other building setback requirements have 1 to be met. In the C8D_Ah zoning' d.i ss t. ri ct, m..ax..i..num s.x t e covei ..... ag regulations allow tip to 85 percent of the site to he covered with a STAFF' REPORT --- SDR 8g--1 /'V 89p-21.: DOLAN -• PAGE • , 1 • structure..(s) and Impervious surfaces such as Parking, loading and pathway areas. This will be analyzed during a discussion of landscaping and screening below. Action Area Overlay The "AA" portion of the subject site's zoning designation indicates that "layer" been imposed on r .. �.k�at an additional . Layer of zoning regulations has bee this property. The purpose of the Action,Area Overlay designation is to ampleMent the policies of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan for action areas which include provisions for a mixture of intensive land use. Since permitted uses in the Action Area Overlay zone must be those specified zoning district, in this case, the CBD, this in the `underlying Ong e • requirement has been met. • code Section 18.86.040 contains interim standards which are to be developments in the CBD-AA zone. These requirements sea for new, d in nts addressed p e p vide for projected public are intended to serve the use and to provide facility needs of the area. The City may attach conditions to any development within an action area prior to adoption of the design plan to achieve the following objectives: a. The development shall address transit usage by residents, employees, mile of a and customers if the site is within 1/4 ,: , • p ublic transit line or transit st op. Specific items to be addressed are as follows: • ' ' 5 towards ` buildings and facilities t i. Orientation of }aui•ld Provide for direct ' Pedestrian transit services to p P access into the building(s) from transit lines or •: stops; • • , conflicts by providing direct Ls:« Minimizing transit/auto co pedestrian access into the buildings with limited • crossings in automobile circulation/parking areas. If pedestrian access drosses automobile • circulation/p arkin g areas, paths shall be marked for • pedestrians; iii. Encouraging transit-supportive users by limiting ,j automobile support services to collector and arterial streets; and • iv. Av ol d'i n.. g the creation of small all scattered Parking areas by a.r.lowing adjacent development to Use shared surface parking, parking structures or under--structure • pc,rking; e, t' anb s. "'ol e circulation • ,. .. Shall facilitate des si / o �nt b. The devel pm ]� � gn `s y paths or • � the site 5_.s located fed reenwa with deli at•c.d bike r if dip adjacent tO a designa on a g reef y/open space ark.. Specific '• items to be addressed are as follows: STAFF EEPOR± -- SDR 89-13M 89-21 DO'LAN FAGY r r . • • Provision of efficient convenient and contin L1GL1 i. : pedestrian and bicycle transit circulation systems, linking developments by requiring dedication and , construction of pedestrian and bike paths identified • in the comprehensive plan. If direct connections cannot be made, require that funds in the amount of the construction cost be deposited into an account for the purpose of constructing paths; ii paration of auto and truck circulation activities . � separation from pedestrian areas; iii. Encouraging pedestrian-oriented design', by requiring • pedestrian walkways and street level windows along all sides with public access into the building; iv. Provision of bicycle parking as required under Subsection:on 18..106.020.P; and v. Ensure adequate outdoor lighting by, lighting, pedestrian walkways and auto circulation areas. C. coordination of development within the action area. Specific items to be addressed are as follows a.. Continuity and/or compatibility of landscaping, circulation, access, public facilities, and other • improvements. allow w required landscaping areas to be grouped together. Regulate shared access where • appropriate Prohibit lighting which shines on adjacent property; ii. Siting and orientation of land use which considers surrounding land use, or an adopted plan. Screen loading areas and refuse dilimPsters1 from view. Screen commercial, and industrial use from single-fa 1,1y residential through landscaping; and . . g s or access where �.a.a:. P'a�a��.8a.on of frontage roa , d feasible. Thensubm submitted development proposal satisfies the above requirements for transit y circulation and coordination of this P. usage, P desrian/bi screening of the trick loading area can .be Tara with the action area. S accomplished with either a fence or tall vegetation. Outdoor lighting should be 6PecificallY addre{lsed by the applicant as to how it might be provided. •FF �1 Split 89-13/V 89-21 - DOI ^ PAGE 6 , • . . .,,L.:{1 L... ...• ....w ..4.. „_J,.., .rv....e ..Y .M. v.... .r.w ...a)u..+-.1 v _ „ i . aM 1. C • Landscaping and Screening' Section 18.100.030 of the Code requires that street trees be planted on ' / ' properties with a public street frontage of at least 100 feet. The Plan shows one street tree along the SW Main Street proposed landscaping p g . , frontage where three to four are required depending upon the mature size of the selected species. Staff recommends requiring the provision of street trees on a revised landscaping plan. The applicant proposes to cover, approximately 21 percent of the site with n,3tural or man-made landscaping. This satisfies the minimum landscaping requirement of 15 percent in the 050-AA zone. �. Staff also has aesthetic concerns about the rear of a commercial t' building fronting on what is to be the City's focal point and community center. It appears that the proposed landscaping for the west side of the building, will not provide sufficient screening from F'anno Creek. ' This 'aspect of the plan should be amended to provide improved screening of the 16-foot high wall. The site' plan does not indicate where the business dumpster will be located. Staff notes that this area must also 1y �..p be screened. ti Vision clearance d' The ornametal pear tree intended to go immediately to the south of the pro'bosed driveway need not be relocated out of this area because although it is in a vision clearance area, this type of tree may grow height feet � staff does not think the branches to a, mature hei ht of 15 25 feet. So long as none of t extend below eight feet, in height, st tree will e tr pose clearance problem. 1. ea ose,a vision cl • Off-street Parking and Loading The applicant proposes to construct 39 standard 90-degree Parking p , handicapped customers. The spaces meet s aces one of which well. be for tan the dimensional requirements for off-site parking. Five landscape islands are also shown. A discussion of the Variance requested pertaining to parking space number follows later his report ' s later �.n thiS code requires one secure bicycle parking space for every 15 required automobi7„ m aces» In this ' Minimum case, a of two bicycle parking spaces , are cxeedec a The site . l indicates a proposed l�ocatibrk for the bike race but does not indicate ate how m plan �.ndx also be submitted :. Provided, The bicycle . rack design should a � � Planning � an spa►cthew PZan�a.n �llxva:siora far review prior to its installation. , ,Access, Egress and dirdu. atio Laequirementa of the Access E ress and Circulation have b ,, 9 . been The e satisfied, STAFF ARM -, I bOtANN -� PAGE 7 i Signs • • ' • The applicant has proposed no new signage in conjunction with h this s application. The existing freestanding sign will be removed. All new wall and freestanding signs must be reviewed by the Planning Division ' P rior to t heir erection for co nformance with the City Sign Cod e. The 4 freestanding billboard signs and one large roof sign have been two fr g . considered;nonconforming as of March 20, 1988, and property and business owners were notified of this prior to that time. Once the existing building has been razed, staff assumes that the roof sign will also be permanently removed from the site; re-erection of this nonconforming ' roof sign would be illegal under the provisions of the' City Sign Code. , The site plan is unclear as to-the fate of the two billboard signs. two billboard signs are in direct conflict with Code Section . 18.120.1801, which requires that the approval of a :Site Development Review be conditioned on the proposal's ability to comply with all other . applicable provisions of the Codes including the Sign n Code in Chapter 18.114. The trio billboard signs are nonconforming, amortized freestanding signs. Since neither the property, business owner or sign •, owner signed a voluntary compliance agreement with the City, thereby •. • affording them a grace period to remove these signs full compliance with the provisions for nonconforming, amortized signs should be required as a condition, to this approval. Compliance would include complete removal of both signs. • Site Revi.eV7 Code Section 18.120.180.A.8 requires that where 1..ndfill and/or allowed within or adjacent to' th 100-Y ear is al within we 1Qt7- ear floadplain, the City a shall require the dedication�y c,�u• _ of sufficient open land area for I• reenwa adjoining an P v pedestrian/ • flood plain. This area shall include p .. s suitable elevation a.on for and within the fl . portions at a � construction of a p , p the construe bicycle pathway within the f lood lain in accordance with the adopted i y plan. path is also required as part of the Action pedestra aza/bic cle tan. 1 a P 9 8.86.040.A.. . • Area overlay designation (Section 1 1• b��). Therefore, dedication of the land area On this property below the elevation of the 0•- mar flood Plain n and Construe �.on- of, or the financial assurance of y p. co bicycle pathway condition to any approval 10 aon of c b�. cYe y shouil.d be a to th��a licatio g ng eering Division has noted that an adjustment of the building he location will have to occur in order to a ay and the ' oca�` order P .. rcomtnodate the pathway should be y=� 1 future city-initiated relocation of the floodplain bank. Th�,a required on°a revised site plan: STS REpOR.'T' 8Dt 89 -1.8/V 89=2: - DOS - PAGE 8 } qq1 , a' , Parking Variance The applicant is requesting approval of a Variance to allow only 39 parking spaces where 44 spaces are required by the Code. Section 18.134.050 of the Code contains criteria whereby the Director can approve, approve with modifications or deny a variance request. They are: (1) The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Code, be in conflict with the policies of the Comprehensive' Plan, to any other applicable policies of the Community Development Code, to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district or • vicinity. (2) There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar ' to the lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable • to other properties in, the same zoning district; (3) The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this Code and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent possible, while permitting some economic use of the land; ,.' (4) Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development N were located as specified in the Code; and (5) The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. f ' Special circumstances exist which are peculiar to this lot. The applicant proposes to construct this project in two phases: the first ' phase consists of const�Puction of the new building on the southwestern ' portion of the property. The existing building would then be derroli_shed. The applicant hopes to attract a complimentary business(es) to build on the northern portion of the lot as part of phase 2. Should additional parking be required, the applicant suggests that a shared parking arrangeMent could be worked out with the adjacent structure. Moreover, ,.. the applicants own tax lot 400 to the southeast, which might also be used for rkin A purposes.P' g p po ses. The applicant points out that, the store does not attract "browser or window shoppers", in that the business constitutes a retail/wholesale t ype of business which ich sells bul ky.. merchandise. The latter fact results in the attraction of customers who deoide in advance of travel that 'a • product is needed and travels to a specific destination: The applicant cites the fact that the existing store rarely has more than six or eight vehicles{ at any one time. Staff notes that employees of the ''business will also require parking spaces and perhaps delivery trucks will need STIR REPOILT SDR 09•--i3/V 89--21 DO -•- PAGE 9 ... „ to park and unload on the property, however it is clear that the L . existing store use will not need 44 parking spaces. T h e City t y ag rees that the present use is similar to a "general retail sales, bulky t• merchandise" use. If the City were to employ the parking ;standard used for retail' sales businesses which sell bulky merchandise, namely 1 space for every 1000 square feet of gross floor area but not less than 10 spaces, it pp P it is clear that the proposed 33 spaces is well within. City i! i ' parking requirements. Although the use of the building may later change, alternatives are available in conjunction with the future phase of construction on this . ' property. If a new use, which has a higher parking demand, occupies the building, a new site development review and evaluation of parking would I be required. The issue of parking space number will also be evaluated as a ' part of the site development review for phase 2 of this development. The use will be the same as permitted by City regulations and existing °i will by P Pg physical • , l�. and natural systems will not be affected b this ro sal � ' . : Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variance request '`subject to one condition which is noted below. i' , Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park Fanno Creek Park is a community park located along Fanno Creek between Main site lies �� and a.a�umeciiatel � abut . The Street and Boulevard in the Central Business District.s the '' site lien within the 100 year floodplain y i subject property along its southwestern property line. It is hoped that the entire park will eventually contain 35 acres- The dedication of the ; . land area, within the 100-year floodplain and construction of a pathway in that area on the subject property is consistent with the City's park • i. plans for the area. In the City's Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park, it is stated that Fanno Creek Park is intended focal Point d urban community,• become the cultural, civic and nrecreational activities. A pave. plaza* an M house, a man--made I. t amphitheater, an-English water garden), Pathways, 1a tea hour , P rgerient of the existing pond, as well as preserved natural areas are enla . all components foreseen for this area. The proposed development presently under review will immediately abut the outskirts of this planned.. community Park, and at its closest point, would be no more than eight feet from the outer boundary of the 100--year flood lain. The Engineering Division has indicated that the proposed structure should be at least 10 feet away f:•=,bm the relocated outer bank is in order to accommodate ark eight foot wide pathway and the planned g along . . P reconstruction of the' storm drainage channel aloe the flood lain. This ; • t to the lacement' of the building structure indicates that an, adjustment P accommodate the � on the site would be necessary in order to ,adequately a he path and vegetative screening up to the relodated bank of the storm drainage channel. STA'F'F' ]EtSPoRT -- SISR 89-13/V 89-21 PACE 10 R'M. A O' • C. DECISION The Director's designee for the City of Tigard hereby approves SDR 89- 13 and V 89-21 subject to the fulfillment of the following owing conditions: '1r3ERWISE NOTED THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL PRIOR " �) UNLESS OZ v �L 8� MET P , ISSUANCE OF (BUILDING PERMITS: 1. The applicant shall dedicate to the City as greenway all portions, of the site that fall within the existing 100-year floodplain (i.e., all portions of the property below elevation 150.0) and all property 15 feet above (to the east of) the 150.0 foot floodplas.n boundary. A P monument boundary survey showing all new title lines, pry aced b y a registered professional land surveyor, shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to recording. The building shall be designed so as not to intrude` into the greenway area STAFF CONTACT: Jon Feigion, Engineering Division (639-4171). pP approval from �. ed Sewerage 2. The applicant shall obtain written a roval, from t�n�.i.°i Agency of Washington County for connection to the Unified Sewerage Agency trunk line priori to issuance of a •building permit. STAFF CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Division (839-4171). ' I agreement by applicant,, . 3. An g ent sYaa.11 be-executed b the a li.cant on forms provided by F . the City, which waives the property owner's right to oppose or remonstrate against the formation of a future Local Improvement j, 1 District or similar device formed to reconstruct Main Street. STAFF CONTACT: Jon Feigion, Engineering Division, 639-4171 kr Plans which show the ,site plan showing: 1) building 4. The applicant shall submit a revised s P proposed design and location of, outdoor lighting and rooftop mechanical equipment; 2) the provision of at ■ least two secure bicycle parking spaces the rack design shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval; 3) the location and Screening of the trash disposal area; 4) the reldcation of the phase one building outside of the greenway area; and 5) a minimum of 39 parking spaces;, STAFF CONTACT: Deborah Stuart, Planning 41!. " Division (639-41/1) . y..; 5. The applicant shall submit a revised applicant revised landscaping plan showing: 1) vegetative screening along the entire length of the site's rear or southwestern property p screening � disposal arr�a, and 3 ) the o along 2) screenin for the trash cA3.s 3) ns�t�all.ata.ora Of street trees a�.on the ,Main. Street 1 frontage» S TAFF CONTACT: Deborah Stuart, Planning Da rA sion G39- 4171). , g 1 6. The applicant's erg i.n�er/surve or shall locate and clean mark the 100--year floodplain bouindary prior to commencement.,of construction. Floodplain boundary markers shall be maintained throughout the period of construCt&ori STAFF CONTACT: Jon Feigiont Engineering D;Vi lion (639--4171) STAFF REPORT - 89-'3.3/V 89-21 -. zzoLAPi - t'AI*E 11 i a _e o i o 7. A demolition permit shall be obtained prior to demolition or removal , of any structures on the site. The applicant shall notify Northwest ! J. _ Natural Gas prior to demolition. STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division (639-4171). 8.' The applicant shall install an 8�-foot tall solid plywood fence behind I`the sidewalk/public g Street (from 4 ublic ri ht-af-way along SW S Main e the l southwestern property line to a, minimum of 20 feet beyond the new • building to the northeast) prior to start of construction and must '. remain until all construction is complete (Uniform Building Code section 44(+7(c). STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division (639- 4171). 9. An eight-foot wide paved pathway shall be installed by the applicant through the greenway. Plans for path constructiani and location shal • The �� .� review and approval to the Engineering Division. be submitted for r P)`' y Areas adjacent to the path must be constructed raded and City to facilitate mowing and pathways must be graded, Greg Berry, Engineering Division vehicular access. STAFF CONTACT: Gre Berr (639--4171) TER FOYLO'a1NG CONDITIONS SHALL BE S.A.TISFIED, PRIOR TO ISSUANCE G Art t '' oceuvA.Nc 10. All landscaping materials and other proposed site improvements shall be anstd l l ed or financially 1 prior to, occupancy of any P structure. STAFF CONTACT: Deborah Stuart, Planning Division> (639-- 4171)a 11. All new signage Must receive approval b the Planning Division prior r _ PP y to erection of the signage. STAFF CONTACT; Deborah stuart, planning Division (639--4171) • g support ant e 12. The two nonc4nforniir�. , rz� ert P,. the x� and prior to occu ruct�re of a,{morti•�ed, billboards shall be completely removed from th property y p Phase r�n� of this develo p nent. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden, Planning Division (639-4171 • py applicant shall be ` condition of the occu an<. permit, the a pli 13. A� a con required to replace any portions of the existing sidewalk along Main damaged or in r re air and to reconstruct any are P� �' Street which ' existing curb cuts which `are being abandoned. STAFF CON 'ohn Hagman,mari, Engineering Division 639.- 4171 l be permanently removed from the stsbjeet . roof sign shall p 14 The existing r gn property. THIS AP SHALL BE VALID FOR EIG (18) MO >P1 TEE DATE OF { THE.. F IFAT 7 DECISION NOTED BELOW, b I .. STAFF REPORT T -- SDR 85-13/v B0-21 - DOLAN - PAGE 12 • • . .9F� �t • • D. PROCEDURE • 1. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: X The applicant and owners ; ,. X Owners of record within the required distance X The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization X Affected government agencies 2. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON 7/20/89 UNLESS AN • APPEAL IS`FILED. . 3. Appeal: Any party to 'the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.370 of the Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal must be filed with the City Recorder,within 10 days after notice is ? and forms are available �, sent. `Appeal � at Tigard City Hall �peal fee schedule a given and y se g , Hall Blvd., Tigard, Orelgon,I 25 SW Ha: I , l • The deadline for filing of an 'appeal is 330 p.m.. (July 20, 1989 4.• uestions: If you have questions, please call City of Tigard ,, i Planning Department, City of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall B lvd.,, Tigard, Oregon. 4( ,diry __,7../.49. /7, REPARED BY Deborah Stuart, Ll Asst Planner DA ! J✓/e q DATE ' .,,, , i,...,,,44 / ,,,,,,7 APPROVED 7 D HY. Keat S S. Liden, Senior Planner DATE I , . I • u I I I i • {{ I. I . 1 , I SI r I ', STAPP REPORT SDR 85-13/'V 89-21 --4 DOLL - PAGE 13 • I • ,c v t '.,..1- .t. .N'' ' - { -**'..-----1 '.. 1-'.: — — I T� . : R D/ KCZA - 1, n I v _ ---- _ i #® [ z MINN ). _ .'t , li ,g, NNW 1 . ill 411 MINIX _ , R - �, cri m -� I I-- I SW. -' S.W. LEWIS ,LN.1 . cT I l by try - > IIII W �. . _ 1 r,1;r ---' . (.., pii, ANGEA T, � I 0., it) . iii 1,011 iji- )) k s.w. TANGELT1t,, i iiti. RIB cs,) IP' ‘,..„p ,___ . u, S.'itY. 1111 w '`�• T ' r hh,,,,, 5(. L r ONDGN ill i ,,a 9 ■ I _ s.w 7-.3 • . NN, c_iv rkt-ii.,4ifip, ,i,e, - k< '''4.,....,p,...,,,.......,,,,,,,,,, , " � yY iii..fifir• .. " ----, ,. is'ci, :41110.c.,,,x,.'`.„, itlit,, 4.,,,,p, , is 4 .,,, .4... -0, ,.., ( ti... 0 i., 400'' 6'1' 4'-1/1\ % 4- * CZ s4' ~ ''' #40 : I . -01 4',7-. -hf) , r , 07v17/'''ti '0c1.44 13;0') 6A1 Il 29 C 1 ' l Ut. l..i.(jf1!\U '�C1.,vvG • LAND llsi DECISION APPEAL FILING 1-0RM 41 XVIII f i upl ter t th Y, c 1:ir.c�11' s t•iyht: to he C.xt of T ar ° Participate in )ocA•a1 f Ig•ar k' s l_ nd Use code therc:fore arts out U pta.•a t )c r'olu a r ement s for cirfiroF T1 R.!) fi1it`i9 appeals on cerl.rairt land :at;o OREGON rho following form rmm f1.: i F)( r! do v 1 opPd l.c r s q£s t you iT1 , j 1 in otn appeal or ,d 1 nirli 11` 40 t�111'1 Y 1 l)rt )rl pro )4't• a ,a =cr m, Tu .o4Co r n rnt_ wh it � fees will k? rc quired `�•,, c to ,Answer AtiV k uo,it lr)r'ft you hAvo r'�jt rdincj t ht., appoaI pr )c;cY`15, lalc?,;a yl: conlocl trte Ploninci Division •tv F'c:r_ r'�9�:r .tt. ()-it 1i 1 71 , I . AFPI)LXCATION f►1'.YN4. A1'1)LL Ft) John rr, and Florence Dolan . , SDI 8 9-1 3/V 8 9-21 _._._._ ..,._ .._. ... .._...•.�,_ .._ A—Boy Electric Plumbing and Supply Bldg. 2, UOW DO VOL) OtIrLIF Y wit- A PAR fY; licant ' • 34 SPECIFIC GROUNDS FoN APPEAt, OR RE:V7E10,1' Planning rr�'lE' Da.rectors designee places oppressive conditions on the approval of the applicant's application specifically:`ly . • (A) Paragraph 1 page 11 Staff Report The Director demands John T. and Florence Dolan (hereinafter referred to as Dolan) to dedicate a substantial portion of their_ property • to the City as green'w' all portions of the site that fall within the existing 100-year f�oodpla�n and in . addition " e the Director demands Dolan surrender 15 feet above (to the east of) --continued on attached sheet-- • 'y 4. SCl-3tOtli_ED DATE C)ECIS.:ON IS TO BE FINAL 7-20--89 r, FINAL N W �r 7: .1 89 date 7-10-89 5 DATE N{��'1:C� OF F'i Nf�l. l7ECx:c tJ _...._.__..._...��__.,._.._�..__.�..._... *,_...., 6 ETC\1AiUt ° — _._ _� _ 1 ,_ .� � ._. € rence Dolan ..-••--- ' ose; R. �Ie c�e� At�oi for Jain � anal Flc >.r jl J r #,444 14.4.34)t•3t•-)4. k.k K )f•14. i41t!t K 4')411)4 k it k i1!e K N)s X N M N)t 44 k A K H)d h)(4.14 K k N-)d 404 K N K44 k)4 44 K)i^K#•M.143i 41 t•fr kii p ' • OR OFFICE us' •LY Etc^e i u y C t2.,.)h 4-1ef, aZ "a r �,9�� y a - ✓'� • Approii d As o r+r4�e t1y _ , .sd►. ..rQ :�:, .' w • Donned As To E orm By I a ~Tx 4,rt► • 3;4 130t434 11414?4 g 1N k if-XpK N 34.•;C <11)47), 4)t•i K /4404 14-111 4t4 A•44 k l 1, f•k3E9(3i•?4 4414(146 rec- ` , c9 36" pal 7/ 1312b s Hall Blvd.,..P.Q.Box 2397,T'4ciciv 1,r re go`, (5°3)63°-4171 . A • the floodplain boundry. This demand by the Director constitutes an unlawful taking of a citizen's private property in; violation of the Constitution of the United States 5th Amendment and in violation of the Constitution of Oregon Article 1, Section 18. (B) Paragraph 3 , page 1 Staff Report . The Director illegally demands Dolan relinquish their Constitutional rights to oppose or. remonstrate against the formation of a Local Improvement District or similar. device formed in the future to reconstruct Main Street. This demand by the Director is illegal and violates Dolan's Constitutional guarantees under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and in violation of the Constitution of Oregon Article 1, Sections 1 and 8. (C) Paragraph 9, page 12 Staff Report . The Director requires an eight-foot wide paved pathway be installed by Dolan through the greenway. This demand is appealed for the reasons set forth in `paragraph (A) above . (D) paragraph 12 and Paragraph 14 , page "12 Staff A report. The Director requires Dolan to remove certain signage prior to the occupancy phase of the development. The signage referred to by the Director was erected by Dolan with the permission of the City and in conformance . i with city ordinances at the time of construction. Thy signage is integral to Dolan's business and its required removal constitutes an unlawful taking for which Dolan must g • be compensated beyond the mere a pp roval of their application. • • I I ..n_J:. ....:.....:n _.,...,...'. ...J:w..._,_ ..... u.r..-:..+ _....,.......w.J, n....r...«v ..,u:.....rn.. l :: ..A .A! • `I"1 ' , September B 1989 §//1/1 CITYOFTIGARD OREGON John T. Dolan 7344 S.E. Poster Road Portland OR 97206 RE: A-Boy'expansion (File 'No. SDR; 89-13) 12520 S.W. Main Street Dear Mr. Dolan: As you recall, the planning exception Coen upheld s the Director' decision in the above case with the f then l issue relating to the 15 foot setback requirement. The 'Commission directed representatives of A-Boy and the City to see if a mutually ac Q P l e 1 l found to accommodate the storm drainage utproveAEntB along Fanno Creek,ek, the pe destrian path, and the new building and parking area. The Pt nnin g and Engineering s reviewed the proposal in light of the Commission's directive and we have the fo1]owirg comdente 1. The required 15 foot setback from the existing top of bank appears to be the minimum mount of area. necessary to accommodate the sterna drainage e' improvements (approximately a 5 foot widening of the flood channel) and the pedestrian and bicycle path (8 feet wide with space for (it railing along the bank). The only way this space requirement could be reduced would be through the use of a retaining wall. r tecauae of its size and proximity to the proposed building, this option would probably be prohibitively expensive. ° 1 2. Because the construction of the storm drainage improvements will be more difficult or expensive with the pathway in place, as described in Condition number 9. of the Director's decision, the staff recommends that this condition fcr pathway construction be deleted. The City would be responsible for the Storm drainage and pathway improvements at a later dates 3. It appears that the building footprint and landscaping design could be modified to accommodate the 15 foot setback. Also, the staff is willing to work with applicant and t'.5.A. to possibly allow some moderate encroachment into the ' ' a.ty easement that lies directly in 'front of the proposed building. Any enc r..oachment w auld probably require a special building foundation design y to provide for earuavation for fu"hire. sewer repairs. 4. For the purposes of Calculating the 15% landscaped area requirement for the CCBD (Central Business District) `Lone, the land within the dedicated 15 foot setback area may included with the exception of the paved path. J ! Y 13125 SW Hall t3Ivd„P,O,Box 23397,Tigard,Oregon 97223 (503)639-4171 ri A . • Please review these comments or other possible . s anti contact me to discuss these o options further. it is my hope that we can reach a mutually acceptable compromise which allows your project to begin in the near future. Since ely, Keith S. Liden Senior Planner • c: Randy Wooley Greg Berry Albert Kenney I I Ed MUrPhY I r I , � r � I F I • • : ' r • • SDR 89.1 /kl . . • • • , %iif/ll1.4llil11llll1' G 'r CITYOFTIFARD FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL NOTICE • FROM: X&iYi L/i &vu • SUBJECT Odd' • MESSAGE: r . ' f..�cfi.. ., �.,� .vir�•.r' �J�j� " t f ' •.. N Page 1 or } f I Our facsimile telphone number is w w : . : . . : ♦ w ♦ a (503) 684=7297 number is µto be used for business bra smissii n only'anal is not available for advertising purtioses: r , Should you. have' any d S �.ffou3t�.ewtli this tra.nsmiis4�iraz i please call. :,• . r • b I • b':♦.• •,+...b i s b (503) 63.9. 41./1 s mb otfsve fade • 181258W R0.Box 23397,Tlgdre',Carer on 97223 (503)639-417 , _ • , September 8, 1989 k �lp •�\ t t CITYOFTIGARD ' OREGON Jahn T. .Dolan 7344 S.E. Foster Road Portland OR 97206 ' RE: A-Boy expansion (File No. SDR 89-13) 12520 S.W. Main Street Dear Mr. Dolan: f you recall, the Planning, `ng Commission upheld the Director's decision in the above case with the exception $ relating o - foot setback requirement. The Commission directed representatives ofA Bo� and the City see if a mutually acceptable solution could be found, to accommodate the storm drainage improvements` along Fanrto Creek,, the pedestrian path, and the new building and parking area. �. CommiPlanning and Engineering staff has reviewed the proposal in light of the s ion's directive and we have the following comments: 1. The required 15 foot setback from the existing top of bank appears to be the minimum amount of area necessary to accommodate the storm drainage improvements (approximately a 5 foot widening of the flood channel) and the pedestrian and bicycle path (8 feet wide with space for a railing along the bank) . The only way this space requirement could he reduced 0 would be through the Use of a retaining wall. 3ecause of its size and Proximity ''co the proposed building, this option would probably be prohibitively expensive 2 Because the construction of the storm drainage improvements will be more difficult or expensive with the pathway in d place, as described in� � condition pathway construction be deleted: The Cit° would �.hatgthis Gonda. i n for the s decision the staff recommend be responsible for the Storm drainage and pathway improvements at a ; s lat er date. 3. It appears that the building footprint and .landscaping design could be modified to accommodate the 15 foot setback: Also, the staff is willing n to work with applicant and U.S:A: to possibly allow some moderate encroachment into the utility easement that lies directly in front of Proposed o � g Any p y y require a require the buiLdin l�.n +encroac�encroachment would r Probably special building foundation design to Provide for excavation for future sewer repairs. • 4. For the purposes of Calc ula tin g the 15% landsca ped area re quirement for the CBD (Central BUlneSs 'District) zone, the land within the dedicated .. 15 foot Se� the exception paved y p of the '�Ustc� area may be a:ncluded with path. 13125 SW Hall Blvd,P O.Oox 23397,11 ard,Orsooh 97223 (503)639-4171 � t , Please review these comments and contact me to discuss these or other possible options further. It is my hope that we can reach a mutually acceptable compromise which allows your to begin in the near future. . ' Since ely, .Keith S. Liden Senior Planner • c Randy Wooley Greg Berry Albert Kenney • • • • Kd Murphy I�If, . . . ,4 •. or other possible ' : Please review these comments and contact me to discuss these ,. P]le that we :.can :reach a mutually acceptable '' options further. It is my hope • ,� near future. ; . p your project to begin in the n compromise which allows y b Since ely, 1 Keith S. Li.denl Senior planner • I I . c. Randy ioo le Y ' 1 Greg Berry ` Albert Kenner Ed Mu by LI I I 1 . * Co mmie sionex pyre moved and commissioner Castile seconded to approve SDI 89-13 and V�89-21 with staff„s conditions. Modifying condition number _ . one to (require lica.at,the applicant and pp Gity Engineer to work out an agreement, being he flexible as possible, to vary the 15 feet to accommodate both "”` - drainag b kepath, and buffering without requiring the •� • building to be moved. Modifying c drainage a^mprovemPnts� y. g ion number nine requiring the • applicant a nd City gn ine er to work out an agreement bikepath, giving coneideration to public safety. This order w�13 be;®m final 30 days from August 8j 1059. If an agreement cannot be reached between the • City. Engineer and the applicant then the application Will be brought back P7�the before Planning commission on September 5th. Motion carried by { majority of Commissioners present. Camxniesioner Peterson voting no. , i I I , I • sDR 89--13/k1. • • L • TIGARD 'PLANNING COMMISSION ' REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 8, 1989 1. President Moen called the meeting to order at 7:32 PM. The meeting was held at the Tigard Civic Center -• TOWN HALL -- 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: President Moen; Commissioners Barber, Castile, Fyre,: Newton (arrived 7:45 PM), Peterson, and Rosborough. r` Absent: Commissioners Leverett and Saporta. Staff Senior Planner Keith Liden; Legal Counsel Phil Grillo (for item 5.1) Planning Secretary Diane M ' Jelderks,' 3. APPROVAL OF TES MIN Commissioner Pyre moved and Commissioner Barber seconded to approve the minutes , as submitted. Motion carried by majority of Commissioners present. Commissioner Rosborough h abstained. g 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION o President Moen stated he had received a letter of appreciation: from the Foux� Condominiums;Condomniums; minutes from the June 1st meetin g regarding the I.5/Kruse Way improvements; and a Metro newsletter. rl; 5. PUBLIC BEARINGS 5.1 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPEAL SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN/A-BOY NPO # An appeal of a Director's decision to approve the re-construction of a general retail salee facility, Amboy Electric Plumbing and Supply, with a new 17,600 square foot building on a 1.67 adre parcel subject to 14 conditions The decision included approval to a Variance request to allow 39 parking spaces instead of 44 as required by the Code Zone: CBD- . Central ei r d Bu �ne District Action .Area) Location: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 2S1 2A l ot 700). •j Senior Planner slide a reviewed the conditions that were being appealed by the applicant. Staff felt that the conditions were appropriate. APPLITI d S PRESENTATION Commissioner Newton arrived 7:45 PM. o Joseph R. Mendez, 715 SW Morrison # 500, Portland, Cdr.,97205,, Attorney for _soy, sections in the code which they were ere appeal, i ng. He stated that the land hen required for dedication would encroach into . the building that they are proposing for construction. He opposed PLANNING dOMMISSION NINthELS = A 'dUSt 8 i 1989 PAGE 1 y' II I , l o i conditions 1, 6, and 9 which involve taking land without compensation. He c'bjected to signing a non-remonstrance agreement because it gives away 1 their guaranteed constitutional rights. The condition regarding the billboard signs is beyond their control because the sign is owned by Ackerl.y. The roof/wall sign was constructed in conformance with the existing code at that time remove demolition o time .emove it prior to of the ) and to existing building would injure their business. Discussion followed`with the Commission regarding the signs. o Dan Dolan, 4524 NE Davis, Portland, 97213, read a letter ola . . , letter from John Dolan, President of A-Boy, stating the importance and need for expanding their s lit read eagreement. p 4, 1988, regarding sign and compliance Di cussioz followed regarding removal of the f , signs, location of the building, bicycle/pedestrian path, and buffering. o Sarah Dolan, 2410 SW 17th Ave, Portland, OR., speaking in behalf of her father opposed the taking of the additional 15 feet. She stated that they had previous conversations with previ.o th William Monahan regarding ,he C",i•ty purchasing a portion of their property for park uee. Now, the City is ' . taking the land, requiring them to do the surveying, as well as designing . the path. She f this was unreasonable unfair.felt t..,_e reguirement wa able and. un , .-. PUBLIC TESTIMONY l • o' No one appeared to speak. O Lengthy discussion followed regarding pgardirig th® time frathe for removal of the roof/wall Sign, the billboard digne, dedication of the additional 15 feet above the flood plain, the Drainage Master Plan, irprov'ements to Fanno • Gr'eek. (widening of the flood channel),, c location and©nstructi.on in the flood( g 'of t location of the building, g P , landscaping/buffering abutting the park,, the City's right to require dedication of land, and signing of a non-remonstrance agreement. • o Phil Grillo, City Attorne t reviewed legal as ect of requirements for !' dedication (taking of land) and signing of non�remonstraince agreementsa REBUTTAL <. ed. that it i S impossible to move this Proposed building g o Jose h Hendez Stated building. They Were beoauee of a sewer easement in front of the proposed din g. The never informed during the re-a p iraixo n P rocess that they would be i� required to dedicate an additional 15 feet. They are willing to work with the City to determine if a variable amount of dedication between io and 20 feet could be worked out for construction of the bikepath. They Still o pp ose taking n g of lan d without compensation and signing of a nn- remondtrande agreement. Diacuesion followed regarding width of the bikepath, the Fanno Creek Park Plan, iodation of the building, and i + possible solutions to the problem. PLANNING INC COM ISSICN MINUTES =- AUGUST 8, 1989 ..: PAGE 2 I �> • i i e - .w.iunt.r,„•++<.:n-+ t....�r».M.3.....t..r.J{.w.A.. (a- :.. .0 ....... r...x. a-N..n.crnNJi s..r.m...rrn.ao-..'IrL«,....r.:. � ..... 4a-.-.w.mw.r—•-+._..u.;1 h«.avMW.rw.::+Mr.u4iL+-+F=.Ir.-' ♦t..... .».. k.....v. .H.1w ru«r-wl+...,,, s.'w.u•.. ti i I • PUBLIC HEARING,CLOSED o Commissioner Pe terson supported 39 parking spaces, did not support signing a on--remonstrance agreement if curs and sidewalk repairs were done, removal of signs should be done in 30 days agreed 5, g feet is necessary, `cia however, there is not sufficient information to require an additional 10 • feet for the bikepath, and the bikepath should be constructed by the Developer. �.' o Commissioner Barber supported removal of signs within 30 to 60 days, did not support requirement.. for a non-remonstrance, supported the 5 foot dedication for work in the flood plain, dedication of greenway, construction of the bikepath, and surveying as required by the Code. a r u 0 Commissioner F'yre favored the bikepath but did not feel there was enough information to determine the location. He favored requiring a non- ' o Commissioner Rosborough supported 39 parking spaces, agreed signs should • be removed within 30 to 60 days, did not support requiring a non- ' remonstrance agreement,a reement, and felt there was not enough information to . . determine the location of the bikepath. o Commissioner Castile felt that modifying the 15 feet requirement to a � I variation of 10 to 20 feet would work for a bikepath. F o► er Newton favored the requirement for a non rem agreement, that all signs should non-remonstrance onstra.nce h ag , +g be removed within 30 days, that the building could be move 3 w and a variable dedication would work for 4theobikepath. p feet without a roblemr• a I , o Comniesioner" Moen had no problem with the dedication and favored the requirement for a non-remonstrance agreement. He felt the City and • applicant could work out the problem with the bikepath. Discussion followed regarding the Master Drainage Plan and the bikepath. Commissioner Castile moved to approve Site Development R,eView SDR 89-13 and Variance V 89,-21 for 39 parking `spaces. Require the non-remonstrance agreement to be signed. Remove all signs 45 days after: occupancy. Require Engineering and the applicant to work out an agreement for a. 3r.,w-,:ation of 10 to 20 feet constructing g p g eet for oortstruc4a.n a bike Path- If an a reement cannot be Worked pp, come back to the Planning out then the application will Commission. II o Phil ,. h�l Ci Ali o,' Legal Counsel; suggested that a time frame be given to work out a comprcnise. Discussion followed Commissioner Castile.'withdrea is motion PLANNING COMMItSION 14,114UTES .- AUGUST ak 11589 PAGE • ' I • I, I I I s( • Y • J / I ,x' • * Commissioner gyre moved and Commissioner Castile seconded to approve ' SPP. 89-13 and V 89-21 with staff's conditions. Modifying condition number one to require the applicant and City Engineer to work out an agreement, being as flexible as possible, to vary the 15 feet to accommodate both drainage improvements, bikepath, and buffering without requiring the building to be moved. Modifying condition number nine requiring the '. applicant and City Engineer to work out an agreement on a paved bikepath, giving consideration to public safety. This order will become final 30 days from August 8, 1989. If an agreement cannot be reached between the City Engineer and the applicant then the application will be brought back .' before ,the Planning September 5th. Motion carried by Commission on ae temb, majority of Commissioners present. Commissioner Peterson voting no. 5.2 SUBDIVISION S 89-06 RRESSLRIt'/CONS®IaT'ING ENGINEERING SERVICES NPO #8 For approval to amend the preliminary p lat for the previously approved subdivision S 89-06 to pt4a'iide an additional lot by changing the configuration of lots 1, 2, and 3 to create four lots. The new lots will range in size from 9,215 to 34,250 square feet and the subdivision ', • will contain a total of 7 lots. ZONE: R-4.5 Residential, 4.5 01... SW 1a leleaf (WCTM 151 36AA, tax lot • units/acre) _ LOCATION: ? 7 p � 800) • Senior Planner Liden explained that the application had been approved by the Commiss�a.on in June, 1989. The applicant is requesting to add one additional parcel. He reviewed the proposal and made staff's . '. r, recommendation for approval with. a request quest to modify u ondition number 14. . being cut on the site, staff has modified condition number 11 to enable a c problem with trees bea. He added, as a result of a roblem w civil infractions citation , issued and if y . record from Charles W McCart Liden rea.d a letter More the r are removed without a W.Permit. and Richard Toman expressing their concerns and, objections. APPLI CANT S PRESENTATION I d with staff's o John Godsey, 12655 SW Center, Beaverton, OR, 97005, con�:urx°e :a asked that the r recommendation and Modifications to condition 14. He a�tic Commission approve the proposal as recommended by staff. o Marty Rosner, 2058 SW Spruce, he did not feel that he had violated the previous final order regarding tree cutting. explained He . clearing the Site of blackberry vines, Small trees► and underbrush;a he been olremoved a couple of red cedar trees where foundations' were going to be laced but did not feel these trees were . g . g p s larger than 6 inches in diameter at the four foot height. ' 6 , PUBLIC TESTIMONY .y a David Saul; 10205 SW 70th, Tigard, 97223; h issue was concerned that the ro ;ardin survey r resolved, that the additional t'1• u d create traffic and rthat vthe filling proposed by 1Qf� would crea 9 , the applicant would create a drainage problem. He felt that a parking restriction on Locust Street should be added as a condition of approval. - AUGUST 8 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8, 1989 -» PAGE 4 1 Cl , 1 �n • • r � , • 0 Kerrie Standlee, 10285 SW 70th, Tigard, 97223, owner of lot 1000, was not opposed to the proposal, he was concerned because there are discrepancies of 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 feet between his property and the developing property and has not been contacted regarding this issue. He felt that Locust Street should be widened to normal City standards which would eliminate any Parking Problems. o Patricia: Saul, 10205 SW 70th, Tigard, 97223, was concerned that the j abutting driveway would be permitted to use gravel and the impact that ' property. rd the area was to be used as a r 1 kin lot and was concerned that had heard - would have on her She h ;� parking g - a drainage problem would be created which would impact her property. f REBUTTAL >:' o John Godsey, stated that the initial boundary survey had discovered some • problems with encroachment of abutting property owners. They would make - 9 encroachments and allow the abutting property owners to retain thisr property. He did not feel the addition of one lot changed the capability of the street to handle the capacity and there is no need to restrict parking. There should not be a drainage problem, especially 4' since the Saul's property is at a higher elevation. Density of the " proposal is still well below Code. The driveway would be constructed to City standard, which he believes is a hard surface, and they would not be ; using the area as a parking lot. 0 Discussion followed regarding buffering. Senior Planner Liden stated that the property has a 25 foot frontage, which does not fit the definition of , a flag lot even though the lot has the appearance Of a flag lot. Discussion followed regarding the width of Locust Street and the width of driveways for flag lots. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 0 Consensus of C:onntuL ✓ion was for approval of the application with the condition that if any more trees are removed a citation will be issued. Commissioner Newton and Peterson felt that there should be a condition . ' 6 requiring screenin7/buf fering for the long driveways. President Moen felt • the condition for trees should state tha` the approval would be null and void if any trees over six inched in d aMeter are cut without a perrttit4 Discussion followed regarding modifying the condition for tree cutting. * Cotsiissioner Peterson Moved and Commissioner Hosborough second to approve Subdivision S 894-05 and V'at iance V 89-18 Modifying condition_n htmber 11 to •include appropriate language concerning the fu.tttre removal of any trees " including penalties/fines involved. Revise condition number- 14 to read that ie applicant shall provide for a turnaroUnd and any necessary easements for emergency vehicles at the eastern end of SW Losur4t Street at or near the vicinity of lots 2 and 7. Plans for the turnaround shall be s submitted to the Engineering Division and Fire District for approval: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -- AUGUST 8., 1989 PAGE 5 4. Also, add a condition requiring buffering/screening. Discussion followed If regarding the need and Code requirements for buffering/screening. Commissioner Peterson modified his motion to eliminate the condition for buffering/screen. Commissioner Rosborough agreed to the deletion. Motion carried by majority of Commissioners present. Commissioner Newton • voting no. • 5.3 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIElw APPEAL SDR 89-08 GULLING FIRS NPO: # 3 An appeal of a Director 's decision to approve subject to conditions a Site Development Review proposal to construct' a 12 unit apartment complex and associated site improvements. ZONE: R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre). LOCATION: 8385 SW Durham Road (WCTM 2S1 12CC, tax lot 1400) . Senior Planner Liden reviewed the Director's decision explaining that the applicant is requesting a condition to sign a non-remonstrance agreement in l ieu of the condition requiring half-street lf-street un p r, ovenen t s. He reviewed the information submitted explaining staff s ratio for recommending that the a p licant be required to complete half-stre et i m p rovement s. API'LIG IT S PRESENTATION O Ken Paulsen, 5638 SW Haines St., Architect for. Chuck Coiling reviewed several projects he had completed in Tigard. He explained that they are only onl asking consideration for th p. ements. He felt that the half-street im roar . al hardship on the owner and to require, • the requirement is a undue financial this property owner to take on the responsibility of forming, a LID is . excessive. He stated that he did not know of any objection by the community to their signing a non•-remonstrance agreement. o Chuck Coiling, 10185 SW View Terraces Tigard, they are not trying to avoid their responsibilities, heyOonly want that treatment. y ag He felt improvements to Durham Road should be a coordinated effort and not piecemeal piTBL/c !TEST NY O No one appeared to speak. 0 Di.scussa.on followed between staff and the Commission regarding changes made in the Code and the type of improvements that would be required. PUBLIC BEARING CLOSED o Commissioner Castile stated that due to a conflict he would not be voting on this item. • hers felt that requiring the applicant to o The majority' of the Gomiti►io�li.o felt � g construct half-street improvements or to initiate a ;LID io an unfair burden and that Sec � 164 03 0 A l c. (..., ) . ..pp..a.,.. . .. t sUfof i lient to t,ion 18,. _.° va a ears to be cur► ��. allow the applicant to sign a none remonstrance agreemen . sioner Newton Was Undecided 1PLAN NING comMissioN MXNuTEs - AOCUST 8 1989 - PA(E S ry 4 • i p 4 gyp+ A I ` 11 Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Barber seconded to approve • SDR 89-08 waiving the requirement for half street improvements and •v requiring that a non-remonstrance agreement be signed. Finding for ' granting the approval is based on Section 18.154.030 A.1.c. (vi) . Motion ` carried by majority of Commissioners present. Commissioner 'Newton voting ' no and Commissioner Castile abstaining, `' BUSINESS SS 6 Y l PROPOSED VACATION OF, A PORTI©N OF SW. 95TH AvENf1E ,•.,. I .; . Senior Planner Liden reviewed the proposal and made staff's recommendation a . for denial. Discussion followed regarding staff's recommendation for • denial. Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Fyre seconded to forward a oust ,. • unanimously City uz� carried b. y recommendation far denial to C�.ty Council. Motion by • by Commissioners present. 7. ADJOURNMENT - 11:45 pm I � a Je Diane M. lderks, Secretary ` X31"'TEST: & • r' A Donald Moen Prsltident .. d j/PCM-8-8 r u j I I I ,� PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1~ AQCFuST 8, 1989 - PAG1 7 , 1 I ; W. w J4,.s r..M-•-.rvr.«. 'rt.Al..,w:....kik,-- ..1-.. ..uI..J.... .+•.'rf..4.:.,L:..Ff .%.... :A•.J ,.,.4,:w+ .. ..:}x..._ii4.w. -w4.+•n..hl..r%w..«...1.r4...1-:1::..NJ.0.Lrt:. «U.Jm:FI.. ...,t'.4.: ,,:U.r..Nr.x.,..+ .n,.µu...tn. 1..,.-eJ,,..L,:A .. w,A.,.!•+p,. (` memo { keith: As per our discussion on Ao-Hoy, I understand that you and someone representing y � the streambank,live still than the ;; required setback from the top of , with ll accomodate Are o��ew�ll��meet to discuss whether P or not the ca. can live future storni drainage work and a pedestrian path. I understand that if we do not reach an agreement, this issue will be back in front of the Planning Commission at their Sept. 5th meeting. I .. It appears to me that we would not want to require the adtual construction of the pedestrian pathway right now, since the ,storm water channelization project is not yet designed, and may interfere with anything done now. In addition, the path goes no-Where now, and may not for several years. And finally, the 4y - , other than city may want this section of alternative trail sa.stem�ai.erals asphalt, fort is y Perhaps you and the applicant and the Planning Commission can re-consider this pP g pedestrian path requirement along with the 15 setback requirement. Keep me posted. Ea �" cc. Randy Worley,,, fyi II I I} } • I I I AGENDA ITEM 5.1 CITy OF TLG ,a) MEMORANDad TO: Planning Commission h; : tort Assistant r} o FROM: Deborah S a , Planne • RE: Appeal of SDR 89-13/V 09-27 DATE: July 2£3, 1989 On August 8, 19,..z 9, the ,planning Commi.ssa.on will review an appeal of a b • Director's decision to approve the re-construction of a general retail sales facility, A-soy Electric and Plumbing Supply. A new 17,600 square foot building is planned for construction on the existing 1.67 acre A-Soy site. The decision st to allow a:ncluded approval to a Variance request '39 parting spaces instead of � � pp 44 as required by the Code. The site development review proposal was approved t' A •' subject to the j satisfaction of 14 conditions. The applicant is appealing the conditions which require him to dedidate land to the City for greenway/open space purposes and the condition(s) Which require the removal of certain signs", which staff interprets to mean the one requiring permanent removal of two nonconformingr amortized aicds and. one sign. �zclort~iz�.d billboards s , L roof si n. Attached are a copy of the staff report, the applicant's appel form and statement site plan and vieyn_. i t Ma , ( • I 4', r I 1 • • CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF DECISIOIN SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW/VARIAN 89-21 SDR 89-13/V John To and Florence Dolan approval to re-construct a general retail sales facility, A- . APPI.°LC�TIOIQ: For approva • new 17 600 square foot building. Also ' F3oy Electric Plumbing and Supply, with, a ne , � • requested is, a Variance to the required parking standard for general retail sales to allow 39 packing spaces where 44 are required. Location: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 251 2A lot 700) . D ECISION: Notice is hereby given that the Planning Director's designee for the City of Tigard has APPROVED the above requests subject to certain conditions. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted below. A. FINDING OF FACT 1. Background ,- • No previous applications have been reviewed by the Planning Division with respect to the subject site. g • and one large roof sign o 19 the freestanding- billboard signs Two g property have been considered nonconforming as of March , 88, and property and business owners' that business mailed to provide p" p Y p •: were notifi�ci. of this prior to �ide time. A voluntary compliance agreement was mail affected downtown properties an extension of time until a City Center Plan is adopted. The voluntary compliance agreement was never. I signed. The City has not yet adopted a City Center Plan. The property and business Owners have been cited for following business r t�Ye folio , p p .� :. nonconformitiea z l Roof sign, a violation of Section 18.1/4.070.B; and „, 2. Two nonconforming, amo. ` boards (illegal lcidation), ° of Code Section rta.zed k��l�-�.A.4�a violations on 1.8.114.09 rn 2. Vicinity Information •, P + tely in all zoned and 1 d,].,�'eCt].C9nY� are also �o es ,.mmed�.a � Proper t, developed CBD--1 (Central Business District �- Action Area). y immediately to the 'west contains the Fanno Creek floodplain and is L, g ' . y plan to be included ae part of the desi Hated in Z�.gard s Community city°s greenway/open spade systet. STAF1F` REPORT - 8Dlt 89-13tit 89-- 1 - DD -•• PAGE 1 • 11 • • • " r f 3. Site Information and Proposal • The subject site is approximately 1..67 acres in size and is bordered by Fanno Creek on the southwestern side. There is a 9700 square foot building and partially paved parking lot which has been in its • p resent location sinn ce approximately the late 1940s. A freestanding sign with a readerboard stands along the Main Street frontage of the u property. Two large, amortized billboards stand on or near the property's northeasterly property line. The applicants wish to raze the existing structure, currently used r. • by A-Boy Electric and plumbing Supply, a general retail sales use. The site will then be developed for a larger, 17,600 square foot g � structure better suited to the nature of the business. The a pplicant is also requesting a Varian ce to City parking ■ requirements for general retail sales businesses, in that they wish to pzovide only 39 parking spaces when the Community 'Development Code, requires 44 spaces. 4. Agency and NPO Comments Neighborhood Planning Organization #1 has reviewed the proposal and has the following comments • The tree near the sidewalk on the proposed landscape plan could block the view of eastbound traffic. air Also, the. air conditioner should be provided with noise/sound screening Finally, the NPO expressed concern that a fence be constructed on the site after ' . the existing building has been removed. Northwest Natural Gas has reviewed the proposal and states that it • r�ort-h �,. p hay# an existing 4-inch steel main 14 feet north of the centerline on SW ,Main Street and a service line to 12520 SW Main Street, The company will require notification prior to demolition. The Consolidated aural Fire District notes that fire flow requirements exceed 3000 gallons per minute. Automatic sprinkler protection or some other means of built-in fire protection will be regc,tireda Portland Gene ral Electric, the Tigard Water District, have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it Diision state:, that an 8-foot tall solid plywood • ' fence 1tmust building be g • (from behind southwesternl��pro Property right-of-Way line to a along SW' Main Street minimum of 20 feet beyond the new building) p rio t to sta. rt of const rt t on and must remain n tit�l all conatrxcti on is complete (Uniform Building Code section 4 407 c). • A demolition permit will be . . required for the removal of any or all of the existing biia.lding _ t STAFF PEPOET -- SDR .. . • ` ,r w • The City Engineering Division has reviewed t:e proposal an has the following comments: • ' a. Main Street is a major collector street and is currently fully developed with curbs and sidewalks. A plan developed earlier this year by the City Center Plan Task Force calls for reconstruction of Main Street. However, this plan has not yet Y adopted by City design details are not yet . been tormall ado ted b the Cit and des available. The improvements proposed by the City Center Plan A Task Farce can all be accomplished within the. existing 80 foot right-of-way. e , A 1986 engineering study of the co ndition of )Main Street recommends that the pavement be completely reconstructed and pp � that the storm drainage system be replaced. It appears to be impractical to perform the proposed i e reconstruction fashion on a l nsitruct�.on of Main Street in a piecemeal ot- by-lot basis; instead, the reconstruction needs to occur in larger segments beginning at Fanno Creek Bridge and working uphill. Therefore, we do not propose that any reconstruction of 4. Main Street be required as a condition of this development propo'sa10 be required to replace any existing a' This development should sidewalks which are damaged or in poor rep ai.r and to reconstruct �� . g p p onstruct • any existing curb cuts which are being abandoned. b. As part of the Tigard H jor Streets Transportation Safety ' Improvement Bond, the City plans to replace the Main Street Bridge over Dianne Creek. The bridge<replacement is tentatively scheduled to occur in 1990. The bridge construction is expected to occur within the existing right-of-way and should have little impact on the subject site. C. The site Sloped toward Panne Creek; therefore adequate storm drainage is available • d. The city's Master: Drainage Plan recommends improvements to the Fanno Creek channel downstream from Main Street The proposes channel, improvements, would include widening and slope stabilization. These improvements would move the location of the top of bank approximately five feet o" ser to the proposed building lOcation of the existing top of!banks i+ e. �.n g than the a pedestrian and bicycle Pathway is to be provided along Fanno creek as proposed by the Parka Master `Plan, a minimum of ten feet will be needed between the future top of bank and the " n proposed building,, Typ�.call.y; new along P'anno Creek are required to dedicate greenway to protect the flood plain and to provide for the park pathway systeM. STAFF RgFonT SDR 89-13/v 89-.21 DOLAN PAGE 3 • • • • • • a , f. Two sanitary sewer trunk lines cross the site in an existing easement ; One line is 24 inches in diameter and the other. is 60 inches in diameter. Therefore, adequate sanitary sewer service f is readily available. The new building has, been designed to stay clear of the existing sanitary sewer easement. {' g. The applicant has requested a Variance on the parking requirements, arguing that the proposed usage of the building 1 generates little parking demand. However, it is possible that the usage of the building will change in future years. It ry • appears that there is adequate room on the site to provide parking in accordance with the standard Code requirements. In ' fact, the applicant indicates an inten tion to Provide additional parking i n the future. Therefore, we recommend that the variance be denied. No other comments were received, B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION Section 18.120.180 lists the standards whereby the Director is to approve, approve with modifications or deny a request for site development review approval. In addition to those contained in Chapter 18.66, Central Business District, the following sections of the Tigard • Community Development Code are also applicable: Chapter 18.86, Action Areas; chapter 18.1000 Landscaping and Screening; Chapter, 18.102, Visual. Clearance. Areas; Chapter 18•1060 Off-street Parking and Loading; Chapter 18.108, Access, Egress and Circulation; Chapter 18.114, Signs; Chapter 18.120, Site Development Review; and Chapter 18.134, Variances. In addition to all of the above approval criteria, staff will discuss the proposal in light of the Parks Laster Plan for 'anno Creek Park and the natural resources element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Permitted Use in the central ,Business District • The applicant intends to construct a new and larger structure suited for f / a general retail sales use The Site is presently occupied by a general retail sales use but was nt:ver review•nd by the City for compliance with retail k city use is permitted j outright e a in the CBD Central 8usinessDistrict, sales' Area Zone and therefore the use is acceptable for this site. b the !C An HD meet a 30 foot Any use in AA zoning district musfoot. . :building -� setback requirement if any side of the, property abuts a residential g y» dt. Sande none of the four sides of wherequirements property a have dstr�. resid . en�.,n.al. zoning da.stra.ot, no other building setback et zoning district, maximtm site be Covered w h coverage to be m In the can-AA regu.iations allow up to 85 percent oil the site to b a STAFF REPORT DR 89-13/V 89.21 DCOL N PACF • . 1 • ■ t . • structure(s) and impervious surfaces such as parking, loading and pathway areas. This will be analyzed during a discussion of landscaping and screening below. Action Area Overlay. The "AA" portion: of the subject site°s zoning designation indicates that an additional "layer" of zoning regulations has been imposed on " ' this property. The purpose of the Action Area Overlay designation is, to implement the policies of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan for action areas , which include provisions for a mixture of intensive land use. Since permitted uses in the Action Area Overlay zone must be those specified ;. in the underlying zoning district, in this case, the CBD, this requirement has been met. Code Section 18.86.040 contains interim standards which are to be addressed for new developments in the CBD-AA zone. These requirements a and to provide for projected public facility needs of t .rare. intended to serve area. The City may attach conditions to any development p raor to adoption n of the design Plan to achieve the following objectives: a. The development shall address transit, usage by residents, employees. and customers within 1/4 mile of a public transit line or transit fi and customers. if the site is wa. ' nsa�t stop. Specific items ' to be p S Pca.f is it .• addressed are as follows: t. i. Orientation of buildings and facilities towards transit services to provide for direct pedestrian access into the building(s) from transit lines or stops; ii Minimizing transit/auto conflicts by providing ;;direct Pedestrian access into the buildings with limited crossin g s in automobile circulation/Parking areas. If pedestrian adcess crosses automobile circulation/parking areas, p aths shall be mar ked for pedestrians, iii Encouraging transit-s u pp or•tive users by limiting pP , automobile Support services to collector and arterial . ^ streets; and iv: Avoiding the creation of staall scattered parking areas blr,allowing adjacent development to use shared surface Parking,g� p s or under-�ztruct.�re I , rkin Parking structure parking; king; b The development shal' , facilitate pedestrian/bicycle oirctalation if the site is locati d on a etreet with designated bike paths or • adjacent to a designated gree y/op� pace/park, Specific 1. enls to be addressed nwa follows: © en s" adjacent are a•s -fo�.lows I • STAFF REPORT SDR 89--13/V 89x-21 - DOLAN - PACE 5 I I •I .. i e• » Provision of efficient, convenient and continuous pedestrian and bicycle transit circulation systems, linkin g developments lopments by requiring dedication and construction of pedestrian and bike paths identified 4 n plan. If direct connections in the c.�m rehensive lan cannot be made, require that funds in the amount of construction cost be deposited into an account for the p the purpose of constructing paths; circulation activities ii. Separation of auto and truck cx.L from pedestrian areas; t iii. Encourag in g p edestrian-oriented design by requiring g pedestrian walkways and street level windows along all • s sLde with public access into the building; iv. Provision of bicy le parking as required under S±lhlection 18.106.020,P; and v» Ensure adequate outdoor lighting by lighting pedestrian walkways and auto circulation areas. c. Coordination of development within the action area- Specific items to be addressed am as follows i. Continuity and/or compatibility of landscaping, circulation, Access, public facilities, and other improvements. AlloW required landscaping areas to be grouped together. Regulate shated access where I A ..ing which shines on appropriates Prohibit lighting �, , adjacent property; ii. Siting and orientation of land use which considers Surrounding land use, or an adopted plan. Screen loading areas and refuse dum p stern from view. screen commercial, and industrial use from Single-family residential through landscaping; and . iii. Provision of frontage roads or shared access where erred feasible The submitted development proposal satisfies the aboVe reguirements for transit usage, pedestrian/bicycle circulation and coordination of this p p lan y1..th the action area. Screening' of the truck loading area can be ,� with getation r lighting accomplished wi• either a fence or tall ve t3tit+doo should be spedifidally addressed by the applicant as to how it might be provided ' STAFF'F' i C' SDR, 89-13/V 39-21 DOLAN - PAGE 6 { 1 n b • Landscaping and Screening, Section 18.100.030 of the Code requires that street trees be planted on 1 ' properties with a public street frontage of at least 100 feet. The proposed landscaping p lan shows one street tree along the S W Main Street frontage where three to four are required depending upon the mature size • of the selected species. Staff recommends requiring the provision of street trees on a revised landscaping p lan. The applica nt proposes to cover approximately 21 percent of the site with natural or man-made r landscaping. This` satisfies the minimum landscaping :requirement of 15 • percent in the CBD--AA zone. Staff also has aesthetic concerns about the rear of a commercial f building fronting on what is to be the City's foca], point and community , . c enter. It appears that the proposed landscaping for the west side of the building will not provide sufficient screening from Fanno Creek. • This aspect of the plan should provide Improved screening aspect the P d be amended to rovide ' of the 16-foot high wall, The site plan does not indicate where the business' `dumps ter will be located. Staff notes that this area must also ? be screened. Vision Clearance Pear go y to the south of the The ornamental e drivewaar need not be relocated eout eof this area because proposed driveway although it is in a vision clearance area; this type of tree may grow •g - So long as none of the branches � to r a mature height feet in height,et;ta f does not think the tree will extend below' eight �g � P ose a vision clearance problem. Off-Street Parking and Loadiing The applicant proposes to construct 35 standard 90-degree parking aces one of which will be for handicapped P P P which will � pp customers. The spaces meet spaces, the dimensional requirements for off--site parking. Five landscape i islands are also shown. A discussion of the Variance requested ,► Pertaining to parking"s ace number follows later in this repo `t» The Code requires one secure bicycle parking space for ;ve ry 15 required automobile spaces. In this case, a minimum of two bicycle parking spaces are needed. The Site plan indicates a proposed iodation for the bike 1 µ . indicate how mart - spades will be pr�vided. The bicycle rack designes, ould also be submitted to the Planning DiviSion design shoal ' . .. review sa.on for prior to its installation. ° AccQ�#s; Ecress and Circulation The requirements o o g. sS and Circulation have been the Access Ere satisfied. ats stfxed» S• REPORT SDR �- Dares y PAGE I The applicant has proposed no new signage in conjunction with this application. The existing freestanding sign will be removed. All new , wall and freestanding signs must be reviewed by the Planning Division prior to their erection for conformance with the City Sign Code. t � The two freestanding billboard signs and one large roof sign have been considered nonconforming as of Mar ch 20, 1988, and Property and business owners were notified of this prior to that time. Once the existing building has been razed, staff assumes that the roof sign will also be permanently removed from site re-erection of this nonconforming fix' roof sign would be illegal under the provisions of the Cit y Sign Code. plan site lan is unclear as to the fate of the tw o billboard signs. The two billboard signs are in direct conflict with Code Section 4' 18.120.180, which requires that the approval of a Site Development Review be conditioned proposal's bilit to corn i with all other Review on the ro osal s a y p. �' applicable provisions of the Code, including the Sign Code in Chapter 18.114. The two billboard signs are nonconforming, amortized 3 I ' freestanding signs. Since neither the property, business owner or sign owner signed 'a voluntary compliance agreement with the City, thereby affording them a grace period to remove these signs, full compliance provisions onconformin an ortized 1 . g, signs should be with the iovisa.ons for nonconforming. ' required as a condition to this approval.P royal. Compliance would include complete removal of both_signs. , " Site Development Review 0 Code Section 18.120.180.A.8 requires that where landfill and/or development a , p n, ,djac.ent to `the 100-year area for a.r'a allowed within or adjacent open�land�ar la,�. City shall require the dedication of the � greenway 'adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include Portions for the construction pedestrian/ struota.an of a edest.ra �. w bidycle pathway within the elevation f loodplain in acccardaxice With the adopted pe y plan. required as part of the Action ' destra.an/lai.o cle lan. A path is also re ,p dedi designation below the elevation of the dedication of the land area on this property 8. �d 0�4.A.1.b.i Therefore, r Overlay esi na ion 100-year flovdplalin and construction of, or the financial assurance of construction of a bicycle pathway should be a condition to any approval to this application. The Engineering Division has noted that an adju the building r • st�cierit of I . location will have to occur in order to accommodate the pathway and the f utUre City ° the p �. should be t initiated relocation 'of i$ap I flood Plain bank. This required on a revised site plan. STAFF REPORT' - SDR , f it '' .. ..., ,' ... ', :. '�,J• _ r is .a I ,:a . • of (• 1. Parking Variance The applicant is requesting approval of a Variance to allow only 33 'F parking spaces where 44 spaces are required by the Code. Section 18.134.050 of the Code contains criteria whereby the Director can approve, approve with modifications or deny a variance request. They are: (1) The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the ? purposes Code, be in conflict with the policies of the f this Cod ur os�s o Comprehensive Plan, to any other applicable policies of the Community Development Code, to any other sta dards, and tootherro pert es inthe same zoning policies zonin district or vicinity. >; (2) There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other roperties in the same zoning di , p p g strict- (3) The use proposed will be the same as permitted tinder this Code , and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent possible, while permitting some economic use of the land; (4) Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development were located as specified in the Code; and ' (5) The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is ' the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Special circumstances exist which are peculiar to this lot. The , • phase consists construction of the new ebuildin w on the outhwestern f applicant proposes project phases: p� construction building turn portion of the property. The existing building would then be demolished The applicant hopes to attract a complimentary business(es) to build on the northern portion of the lot as part of phase 2. Should additional parking be required, the applicant suggests that a shared parking I ,. arrangement could be worked, out with the adjacent structure. Moreover, the applicants own tax lot 400 to the southeast, Which might also be r 1. • used for parking purposes. The applicant points out that the store does not attract "browser or window shoppers", in that the business constitutes a retail/wholesale type of business which Sells bulky 'merchandise. The latter fact results I in tlk: : attraction of customers who decide in advance of travel that a product is needed and travels to a specific destination. The applicant ' cites the fact that ,the existing store rarely has more than six or eight ' J, vehicles at any one time. staff notes that employees of the :bttsiness will also require parking spaces an d perhaps delivery trucks will need 8T1.FF RI POIt SDR 89-13/V 89--21 - DOLAN PAGg • to park and unload on the property; however it is clear that the f will r The City agrees that l existing store use will not need 44 parking a spaces. T ff ;P . . _ i l sales, bulky l . the present. use is similar. to a "general retail . ` merchandise" use. If the City were to employ the parking standard used '', for retail sales businesses which sell bulky merchandise, namely 1 space for every 1000 square feet of gross floor area but not less than 10 spaces, it is clear that the proposed 33 spaces is well within City „'. parking requirements. I Although the use of the building may later change, alternatives are j construction on this available a.n, conjunction with the future phase of i'. property. If a new use, which has a higher parking demand, occupies the f 4 .• ' building, a new site development review and evaluation of parking would •• . parteof required. The iss ue of p arkin g space number will also b e evaluated as part of the •' site development review for phase. 2 of this development. The use will be the same as permitted by City regulations and existing •. ; physical and natur al systems will not be affected by this proposal. � . Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variance request subject to one condition which is noted below. , Master Plan for Fanno Creek Parc C ° Fanno Creek Park is a community park located along Fanno Creek between I,. Main Street and SW Hal/ Boulevard in the Central Business District. The site lies within the 100-year.. floodplain and immediately abuts the. subject property along its southwestern property line. It is hoped that ' the entire park will eventually contain 35 acres. The dedication of the land area within the 100-year floodplain and construction of a pathway in that area on the subject property is consistent with the City's park 4 plans for the area. i• , In the City's Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park, it is stated that Panno ` Creek Park ].s intended to become the focal point for community, • cultural, civic and recreational activities. A paved urban plaza, an amphitheater, an-English water garden, pathways, a tea house, a man-made enlargement of the existing pond, as well as preserved natural areas are all components foreseen for this area The proposed development presently under review will immediately abut the outskirts of this planned community park, and at its closest point, would be no more than eight feet from the outer boundary of the 1O0-,year • that the proposed floodplain. Engineering The be at least 10 feet away from the relocated should planned oc.ated out�r bank in order to accommodate an eight foot wide pathway and the l • • I reconstruction of the astornt drainage channel along the floodplain. This .ndicatee that an adjustment to the placement of the building structure on the site would be neoeesary in order to adequately accouttodate the path and vegetative screening Up to the relocated bank of the storm drainage channel. 8TAk.F 1113P014.T - Snit 59=-13/v 869.y21 - 001A1111 - PAGE 10 • • � r i I , 4 , . • • h I _,. L N u a C. DECISION ;.. The Director's designee for the City of Tigard hereby approves SDR 89- ,41 13 and V 89-21 subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions: UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR To ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: A . 1. The applicant shall dedicate to the City as greenway all portions of the site that fall within the existing 100-year floodplain (i.e.,a all portions of the property below elevation 150.0) and all property 15 feet above (to the east of) the 150.0 foot floodplain boundary. t monument boundary survey showing all new title lines, prepared by a registered professional land surveyor, shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to recording. The building shall be designed g •.• n ned so as not to intrude into the reenwa y area.. ST AFF CONTACT Jon Feigion, Engineering Division (639-4171) 2. The applicant shall obtain written approval from Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County for connection to the Unified Sewerage .: Agency trunk line prior to issuance of a building permit. STAFF I CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Division (639--4171) 3. An agreement shall be executed by the applicant, on forms provided by the City, which waives the property owner's. right to oppose or ' remonstrate against the formation of a future Local Improvement District or similar device formed to reconstruct Main Street. STAFF CONTACT: Jon k'eigion, Engineering Division, (639-4171) 4. The applicant Shall submit a revised site plan showing: 1) building ' plans which show the proposed design and location of outdoor lighting and rooftop mechanical equipment; 2) the provision of at least two secure bicycle parking spaces -- the rack design shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval; 3) the ,, location and screening of the trash disposal area; 4) the relocation phase building the greenway al.7ea and 5) a minimum of 39 Parking bus.ldin outside of of the base one P g p rah Stuart, Planning din Spaces.. S'�AFF CONTACT: Deborah . Division (639-4171). 5. The applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan showing 1) vegetative screening along the entire length of the site's rear or r property r"y 2) g trash disposal area; andth3) a the installation of street trees along the Main, Street frontage. STAFF CONTACT: Deborah Stuart, Planning Division; (639- 4171), 6. The applicant's engineer/surveyor shall locate and clearly mark the ' �-u 170 y ear flood p lain boundary p rio r to commencement of construction. ^ ' Floodplain boundary markers shall be maintained throughout the period of Construction. STAFF CONTACT: ton Feigion, Engineering Division (639-4171). TAE ' ;REPORT -- SDR 89-13/V 439-21 - IDOtA - PAGE 3.1 • + �Y .... ..... ,,, ,.. ., ..., , l .r . 7. A demolition permit shall be obtained prior to demolition or removal structures on the site. The applicant shall noti • PP notify Northwest , of any t Natural Gas Prior to demolition. STAMP CON - p F CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building �� ' .. Division (639--4171;'. �. 5 � r 1 8: The applicant shall install an 8-foot tall solid plywood fence - .. behind the sidewalk/public right-of-way along SW Main Street (from the southwestern property, line to a minimum of 20 feet beycnd the new building to the northeast) prior to start of construction and must i, f remain until all construction is complete (Uniform Building Code section 4407(c) . STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division (639- C 4171) m 9 An eight-foot wide paved pathway shall be installed by the applicant • through the greenway. Plans for path construction and location shall t be submitted for review and approval to the Engineering Division. The path must be constructed to City standards: Areas adjacent to the ' pathways must be graded and revegetated to facilitate mowing and ° P � g �` g Vehicular access. STAFF CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Division p, ' (639-4171). ; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL SB SATISFIED PRIOR TO IS'SUAN'CE OF AN oCCUPANCY PERMIT.. r 10. All landscaping materials and other proposed site improvements shall ancially assured Prior to occupancy of any be installed or fin ,, structure. STAFF CONTACT: Deborah. Stuart, Planning Division (639-- 4171). 11. All new signage must receive approval by the Planning Division prior `� to erection of the signage. STAFF CONTACT: Deborah Stuart, Planning Division (639-4171) 12 The two nonconforming, amortized billboards and support structures shall be completely reMoved from the property prior to occupancy of phase one of this development. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden, Planning) Division (639-4171). 13. As a condition of the occupancy permit, the applicant shall be' f required to replace any portions of the existing sidewalk along Main , Street Which are damaged or in poor repair and to reconstruct any exta.s tins curb outs which are being abandoned. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman: Engineering Division (639-4171) . 'u. 14« The e2tisting roof sign shall be permanently removed from the Subject , property. t; 8HALL ng VALID '''OR EIGIITEE (18) .PIONTES PEON THE DATE E OF THE FINAL 'DBCXSXOU ROTED BE . STAFF REPORT -- SIC)1 8g-13/8` 1:49-21 - DDS - PAGE 3,2' ' I fr r. J 'n r • D, PROCEDURE .• 1. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, pasted at City Hall: I • and mailed to: • a �n The applicant and owners • owners of record within the required distance X The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization I • X Affected government agencies 2. Final Decision. THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON 7/20/89 UNLESS AN 1, APPEAL IS FILED. ,.•,� 3. Appeal: Any party to the decision ma y appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.52.370 of the Community nevelopment Code which provides that a written appeal. .; must be filed with the City Recorder.within 10 days after notice is given and sent- Appeal fee schedule and forms are available at Tigard City Ball, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. deadline for filing of an a .al is 3:30 p.m. JUly 20, 1989 The d 'T 4 pP�' � 4. Questions: If you have questions, please call City of Tigard Planning Department, City of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon • `•; REPARED BY: Deborah Stuart, Asst. Planner DATE etif APPROVED BY: Keith S. Liden, Senior Planner DATE h. •• a STAPP REPORT BDR 80-13/V 89-21 DO - PAS • w n i ' . i i [ T ___ !SS '' DAKOTA ` vi STF# _ n i r RYA . , 1- - r ----.... _ w , 1 x �, a cr N' mil w t 1 _ •. 1 - I LEWIS_ N r 'ANGELA T 1 . - • , i A- v —1 ',',r'i',L_,t._.___ -- ,\,, . ,_.._ , „, illINI fri i I ,-•--•1 s w t . � M ► . 4 .4'4'10. , ,...a .. -.--1 —I s..,„, :-. . ,,,,,,,.,, ,..,...._ill 111 11111 , .s..,,i,,, —J. '" — \\,,\, P► ''--..„, ''" ii,L4Ir ,...N4 tik 4 g . '4,?t) —*`,0-...,.,, `97.' '14P ‘NciC). 1. 4 V■,,,,S, ....." „,, ,11„ -,...-4,.,„,..(:) 1111, ...- i ,' 9 9 144 * -...... c .,..- . "ii-4 441111, • i � cry ss K�b C. sop ,•. , , % . -- ct sNli- • . < 65-, J' r ' 717,;,c; 441 1T503 0A4 '7297 c I TY OF T I CARD Q`!t.102 4' LAND Usr DECIsioN APPEAL FILING f-()FtY`i The C:i.ty Of Tigard ::uppurt.,) tHiN c iti ' n' s tight to Participate in lo al c;juvor'rinl:rnt, T igar•d' s land OS coda therefore se' s out spge cl` is requirement's for C1TYOF TI filin9 ap peais on certain land u:; OREGON rhe following form b i bo vol ped' to fas.liat you in' filing can appeal or 1r,r►d use doe i l;it>ri in proper form. To dNtorwino what fi 1 in47 fees will be required or to {answq,r• ,tray g00%tInnt, you h ve roijording the appeal pr+5cpss, Cor,i,.tet L•i•iN f>ltaririiny Division or the City Recorder at 64 9 /i171 , , 1. Afai�L'I;CArf 1;c�N IsEING ,'iPPLA1 F()• John T. and Florence Dolan, •' S D k 89-13/v $9 ''1 �...... .. . .._.__.....� ...�......_...._.�.:._,�...__�..,..:..�..r«...4 -�.._.' • 2 Y and Supply Bldg. - � A-Boy Electric Plumbing an • 2, HOW DO YOU QUALIFY At A PAR CY AEp L,icant ...� _ - —' • RU\r1 :W The Flanr�in Directors 3, SPECIFIC (; OtJNi�t FOR hF�' f designee _places oppressive conditions on the approval of the applicant's application. Specifically ' (A) Paragraph 1 , page 11 Staff Report. The Director demands John T. and Florence Dolan (hereinafter referred to rr _... ._._ as Dolan) to dedicate a, substantial portion of their property_ , to ,the City as greenway, i.e. , all portions of the site that ara.�..�... -. fall within the existing 100-year f loodplain and in addition • the Director demands Dolan surrender 15 feet above (to the east of)T • .• +w.a.�wi.rr.w.w.+rrwrw r's.w•«w,r.....r'i+iw,ni_.._wu.r:rr.,,Yn..,•r.+_ •pro �•_.._+�,rr_,.:«".w�1.i+.,rwN.i+�w N.+e+Y-.••--.rw.wlwJ..1N .w_-wxr.. ,r-.....«w._:..' 1: P -continued on attached sheet-- 1 4, SeilE.:OULED DATE D CXt ION is TO BF. FINAL 7-2O.89 5, DATE No"fiC1. 01" FINAL 1) •CIe'ON W C. F 7.71.1-8 9 date de Attor•-.y for John T amid Florence Dolan r.. - L.L.« .. . _ H^w« ..,-+ _• ...n _ •. 44.11 tt 4 31.31#1••}r•H•-1t•311t M ,R44. rf X N H>Z 11 K>f x N 1<►t k 'N M 31 X R X A M 11X4!)4/4)t M N 3011411 M?t}1, id'>11F?t ti t#1F K W1t?t N•1y'Y{ l X t•if 1 Vt t ! Oit or I u us LY; Roc iv y Wh 41, i:e' ii of T a 1r►K,:/a 4 4 . I1Tipi"4Vayc1 As To f't,1t"1r1 By;..C., , .pa„ar C? t. '? T'a,►t3�. , � +4r, Oortiod As lo 1"orrri 119 • #i314f'3' .3 1 R 34.11111#3 144- i'.341.61, �.K I1�11-N t �lt��k� >E 1 t N 1{ 1 t w.i,t+t Lw x 4t 4 lw/4El46A re ' 190 of) `7,// eis, 13126 SW Holt i3f�r1.r P.0 ,Box 23397,Tigard Ore fort c?7223 (60+3;?G�3 7 .. „ 1'y„SW { 1 , 4 : a r r , � r the floodplain boundry. This demand by the Director , •• constitutes an unlawful taking of a citizen's private property in violation of the Constitution of the United States 5th Amendment and in violation of the Constitution tI . of Oregon Article 1, Section 18. r (B) para raph 3 , page 1 Staff Re port . The Director tor illegally demands Dolan relinquish thei r Constitutional .• rights to oppose or remonstrate against the formation of a formed in the Local Improvement District or similar de�r,�e.e �'o ,future to reconstruct Main Street. This demand by the fir. Director lis 'illegal and violates Dolan's Constitutional ,. First Amendment of the Constitution of guarantees under the �' ; the United States and in violation of the Constitution of Oregon Article 1, Sections 1 and 8 .1 • I . (C) Paragraph 9, page 12 S t aff Report . The Director requires an eight-foot wide pav¢d pathway be installed by Dolan through the greenway. This demand is appealed for the reasons set forth in paragraph (A) above . r' (D) Paragraph 12 and Paragraph 14 , page 12 Staff . , repot. . The Director requires Dolan to remove certain signage prior to the occupancy phase of the development The signage referred to by the Director was erected by le Dolan +with the permission of the City and in conformance with city ordinances at the time of construction. The signage is integral to Dolan l's business and its required removal constitutes an un laWf ul taking for which Dolan must compensated beyond the mere approval of their 1 be cca �'' application. • • r • , ♦ I ri • r � • • r r • • ■ • . I • • REQUEST FOR COMMENTS . TO: i DATE- FROM: Tigard Planning Department RE: SDR 89-13/V 89-21 Dolan/A-Boy, For Site Development Review approval to . • allow replacement of an existing sales facility, the A-Boy Electric and plumbing Supply building, with a n ew facility.. Also requested is a . Variance to the required parking standard for 'general retail sales I (one space per 400 sq. ft. of gross floor area) to allow 39 parking spaces where 44 spaces could be required. ZONE: CBD (Central Business • District) LOCATION: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 2S1` 2AC, tax lot 700) 4 Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From , information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available tr; ' our staff, a report and recommendation will be , prepared and >a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. Y comment your June 9, If You wyish to comme on this application, xaee trot cn•�ss 1989. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to . r return your comments. If you are unable to res and by the above ' Y Y P - r please phone` the staff contact_ noted below with your comments and confirm your • comments in writing as soon aS possible. If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, PO Box' 23397, 13125 B Hall, Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE: 639-4171. STAFF'CONTACT: Viola_Goodwin PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. • Written Comments: ,.. Name of Person commenting g /� phone Number: 2?). bicm/SD,R89--13.BX M e � K1 y II 1 rP RAVI)B . CITY OF TIC , OREGON �. TO: Jerry Offer FROM: Randy Wooley, City Engine DATE: June 22, 1989 ,)/"I' ; SUBJECT: SDR 89-13/V 89-21 Dolan/A-Boy Ii t comments The u applicant on the A-Boy The site fronts on Main Street and the existing to • c structure ant proposes to construct a new building �o and remove the bordered on . y the `pest by Fanno Creek. The applicant has submitted plans showing the 1 ' existing topography, the proposed development, the storm drainage plan, and a landscape plan. 1. Findings 4 1, Min Street is a major collector street and is currently fully developed ` with curbs and sidewalks w A plan developed earlier this year by the City ' Center Plan Task Force calls for reconstruction of Main Street. However,- this plan has not yet been formally adopted by the City and design details ' are not yet available. The improvements proposed by the City Center Plan Task Force can all be accomplished within the existing 80 foot right-of . way. y mmends that engineering study of the condition of Main Street recd the pavement be completely reconstructed and that the storm drainage system be replaced. Tt appears to be impractical to perform the proposed reconstruction of Main Street in a piecemeal fashion on a lot-by-lot basis; instead, the reconstruction needs to occur in larger segments, beginning at Fanno Creek " 9 uphill.Bridge and workin u hill. Therefore, we do not propose that any ` e' reconstruction of Main Street be required as a condition of this ' development) proposal. ' This development should be required to replace any existing sidewalks which I .j are damaged or in poor repair r -arid to reconstruct an y existing exista�n curb cuts .•.. which are being abandoned. 2. As p art of the Tigard Major Streets Trans ortatioi� Safet y xmpi�ovement Bond, ' the City plans to replace the Main Street Bridge over Fanno Creek. The bridge replaceMent id tentatively scheduled to occur in 1990. The bridge ' construction is expected to occur within the existing right-of-Way and should have little impact on the subject site. ENOTgEERING CoMMENTS - DOt /AWUOY SE R 89,-,.13/V 89-21 PAGB 1 , Y . • Rid • • ,' h 3. The site slopes toward Fenno Creek; therefore adequate storm drainage is available. ; 4. The City's Master Drainage Plan recommends improvements to the Fenno Creek channel downstream from Main, Street. The proposed channel improvements ' would include widening and slope stabilization,. TheSe improvements Would move the location of the top of bank approximately five feet closer to the ' proposed building than the location of the existing top of bank. 5. If a pedestrian and bicycle pathway is to be provided along Fanno Creek as proposed by the Parks Master Plan, a minimum of ten feet will be needed between the future to of bank and the building. Typically, : ,p proposed bu�.ldi g yp�.ca l.ly, new • developments along Fenno Creek are required to dedicate greenway to protect the flood plain and to provide for the park pathway system. 6. Twoes is inches trunk lines cross the site in an existing easement. one Y r ." r�. diameter cross the other is 60 inches in diameter. :.. . • w1 y available. The new Therefore, adequate san�.ta�. sewer service �e readil avail easement.ihas been designed to stay clear of the exiting sanitary sewer ., •, 7. The applicant licantM has requested usage of the building he parking requirements, g g re .rem arguing A that the ro ease a variance on t Pnerate�-1! little Parking �• generates p :'.• demand. However, it is poesible that usage building will change in future years. It appears that there is adequate room on the site to provide parking in accordance with the standard Code requirements. In fact, the applicant indicates an intention to provide additional parking in the future. Therefore, we recommend that the variance he denied. Conditions. 1. The applicant shall dedicate to the City as greenway all portions of the site that fall within the existing 100 year flood plain (i.e., all portions of the property below elevation 150.0) and all property � feet of the flood plain. A monumen boundar y survey showing all new title lines, prepared by a registered professional land surveyor, shall be submitted to 1 the City for review and approval; prior to recording. The building shall be designed so as not to intrude into the greenway area. STAFF' CONTACT Jon Feigion. 2. Its a condition of the building permit, the applicant shall be required to • replace any portion of the existing sidewalk along Main Street which are damaged or in poor repair and to reconstruct any existing curb cute which are being abandoned. STAFF CONTACT: Joha Hagman. 3. The applicant shall obtain written approval from Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington county for connection to the Unified sewerage Agency teen n ' line prior to issuance of a building permit. STAFF CONTACT: Greg Berry. Cz a C M!NTS w bOL AN/A-. 'y SDR 9�•13/V1 89-'21 PAG1 •v 1 ' o •.I • .- .,-.,:a.: «.+..,.,..:,_. .0,� .�,:-: ♦...:.. a .��.,,-„�-'.,...:„.m,.,....»,.«-.,, ...,.,_:.,...�.♦....».µ, „.-....,.,..,...,,�.,.«u.:....�......•r;a....,».,.,...,,,m,�..,...d,.-:."-..,,.. ...a♦.4.::.... .+ _ . • 4. An agreement shall be executed by the applicant, on forms provided by the :-.• City, which waives the property owner's right to oppose or remonstrate against the formation of a future Local. Improvement District or similar device formed to reconstruct Main Street. STAFF CONTACT: Jon Feigion.. f Y I i • d j/SDR89-13.RW L . • L I I I , • • • • I , I , I ' 89 1i.:.. ��-l3 '�Y - • TS - A- '� 8D. 89-21 pAlGE 3 � I I , L, I - I • Kr i1:;_ i f • •.:q w a..«.....,.ter.. .... .._....... ,».. ..._ JUi 13 198 w i. SST FOR CO:MONTS A . ` DATE: 30 v . 1' M TO: t y l FROM: Tigard Planning Department 1 RE: SDR 89,-13/V 89-21 1)01an/A-Boy For Site Development Review approval to allow replacement of an existing saleo facility, the A- B ry E��tedy� and . l plumbing Supply building, with a new facility. Also requested a . . { Variance to the required parking standard for general retail sales (one ,. space per 400 sC ,. ft. of gros8 floor area)' to allow 39 parking spaces . (where 44 spaces could be required. ZONE: CBD (Central Business ; l District) LOCATION: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC, tax lot 700) l • P Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review, From 1 a information supplied by various de p arttentc and agenc ies and from other Y information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, we need Your comments by June 3, nqpp y You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to , return your comments. If you are unable to .re pond by the above date, please it " , phone the staff your comments and confirm Your . p of f contact. noted below with a�.tr cailnrnent co t' .,�, g you have any questions regarding , comments in writing as soon as possible. If y Y this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, PO Box 23397, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE: 639.4171. • STAFF CONTACT: Viol Goodwin PEASE nEC]K THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: ' .. (../ We have reviewed the proposal and•havE -A,A6" "3 ations to it. 0' 'e9 4A Please contact of our offit e. please refer to the enclosed letter. p. Written cotinments _.471-40 1 b p r ..,,/,-- ,...... , 13 ,,, ,...........,. .,...,,,,, , , /cy.4/1/ ci..0 Z. /34,1( Ze.e IZZ i_g_ 64/ C 1"". ','14.5,r 0 1,1f/&fr 0(/C'''ll64+1-“,/' ‘'it ' ' if I- /4FF " ! row 4 L NP . __At 0 c_.,, l__, -..,1,42ia Name o. Person colt'imeritin9p 0.i y Phone ddumber '` _ . bkm/SDR89-13 4 BKM A r o a PI, x (,,,,,, L , RECEIVEA Fialt1111116 • JUN 51989 REQuEsT FOR P•ommEw.F5 ,• • . TO I C •J j DATE: ,4 30 1989 ti dU ^ FROM: Tigard Planning Department RE: SDR 89-13/V 89-21 Dolan/A.-.Boy For Site Development Review approval to allow replacement of an existing sales facie,`ty, the A--Boy Electric and a . � Plumbing Supply buildin g, with a new faci.Licy. Also A reqxeated is a ., Variance to the . required parking standard for general retail sales (one space p er 400 s q t. of gross floor area) to allow 39 P arking spaces where 44 spaces could be required. ZONE: CBD (Central Business '' >~ ` District) LOCATION: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTm 251 2AC, tax lot 700) Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From . information supplied by various dept 'tmenta and agencies and from information available to our staff, t report and recommendation will be prepared decision a on the D in the near ar futur • If You wish to comment on this aPP licaton° aeaeed your comments by June 9, p letter to N 199. You md, use the s ace ro provided be�.ow or at�.ach a oe mate. P P return your comments. If�rou are unable to respond' by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding 4 ' th�.•s matter, contact the Tigard Planning, Department, PO Box 23397, 13125 SW -, e , Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE: 639-4171. STAFF CONTACT: Viola Goodwin . • r PLEASE C I3EfK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: : tl• • We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. ; r Please refer to the enclosed letter. j , rd M Written Comments CA "1 trz C. C ' r.. e 1 • ,..1, e7.7 II I el /, -. 01'. . 1/ Vi-g.,,ki.' _ ("Pivt. .....)1 - 04.-' 4-i et 6.t**'° Cl''..... ' 1 , 5 L:�4,, �0 t 7 � �.� . r � �.r Pt 4(..,1 e... et.1 P t l I fttot 1 ee ��c ' �w �r't�,�•.. � .. ..' Name of Person Commenting: 4 r � �""`' , n' Phone. Nuthber't d' "' bkm/8DR89 x-1.3.J3 • I i I , • • • RIVEIRST FOR COMMITS vie b((-(f I DATE: May 30. 1989 FRO} : Tigard Planning Department RE: SbR 89-13/V 89-21 Dolan/A-Boy For Site Development Review approval to 4 allow replacement of an existing ,sales facility, the A-Boy Electric and Plumbing Supply building, with a new facility. Also requested is a Variance to the required parking standard for general eral retail sales (one a s p ace r 400 ft. of g ros� floor area) to a llow 39parking spaces where 44.. spa ces could be required. ZONE: CBD. (Central Hiusiness, D . 1=rict) LOCATION: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC, tax lot 700) • Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From 'information supplied by various d.epartmcrits and agencies and " from other • information available to our staff, a report •"' • prepared and a decision will be rendered on the °-- CONSOLIDATED FIRE AND RESCUE If you wish to comment on this .application, we ` j� '� Washington County Fire District No. 1989. You may use the space f CitY of Beaverton Fire Department egiN return your:comments. If you areaunabl btu rest io/ Tualatin Fire District phone the staff contact noted belOW with ' FIRE MARSHALS OFFICE ' .0 f of Beaverton Du a comments �.n welting $I+FFi p you g as soon as possible. y ��m IGnDCih ••R,verDroVe-Shenvaod•- Tiywd--TrJdaBn» this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Depart wtao„"ire Clacka�nh8 county"WaalrnDton Cwmly Hall Blvd., Tigard , OR 97223. PHONE: 639-4171. Gene 8irchilf 71. Deputy Fire Marshal/Plans Examiner (503)526-2502 STAFF CONTACT: _Viola Goodwin 4755 S,W,GrINlih Drlvo PD.Box 4765 Boavorton,Aragon 97076 • °r PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: we have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. • Please contact of our office. flf Please refer to the enclosed letter. X Written Comments 1 `. 1 f� .. t- G% ) c? 1. �`►'. �� : �c ~ • 3ien� x �►' t •' �� `� '� (D7--rte'--,ter ) C._-�. ••"� /� 'tr -'`` . Pp, „, 6 7i4 ,7.s- 0 �� L - r�.•c �-- i' r.s, _ . 7 sir �'�i:,1 �- r�1 • Y lame of Person Cornmeriting: - ( C Gam, Phone Nuxnber. )' , bkni f SDRA9-1Z4 1BKN • . ; ♦{1111 - 1 , )a i , UEST ]E'OR �C�S TO: DATE: May 30 r :1989 FROM: Tigard Planning Department RE: SDR 89-13/V 89-21 Dolan/A--Boy For Site Development Review approval to allow replacement of an existing sales facility, the A--Boy Electric and g, with a new facility. Also requested is 7 Variance to the required parking standard for general retail sales Variance din Plumbing Supply building,g � P 5 g retail (one space per 400 sq. ft. of gross floor area) to allow 39 parking spaces where 44 spaces could be required. ZONE: CBD (Central Business District) LOCATION: 12520 SW lain Street (WCTM 2S1 C, tax lot 700) 2A Attached is the Site' Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. 6 If you wish to comment on this application,on, we need your� PPlicati Y cosmm�ents by June 9 'd 1989. You may use the space provided below or attach 'a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable 3,;o respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted below w* h your comments and confirm your g possible. If you have any g'tiestions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Plan comments in writing as soon as ossibl�r. o g Planning nin Departments PO Box 23397, 13125 SW Hall Blvd,, Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE: 539-4171. STAFF CONTACT: Viola Goodwin 1 PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: i proposal Objections�' We have reviewed the ro osal and have no ob'QCtians tca it Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter Written Comments • li . fr w Name of Person commenting "4 .� ' 4 P: e Nii►nl er: .hon biim SAR89-13.8Rr, 1 A ! • 1 r r S 1 1 R • • ,,. -nx«yi„.. —a—n- x.i.r,«...n ,n_, ':•,....M.a..1 ,...»....:.•.....«.ra.i.s„+4.«a.I.x,....K, ...«ax..., ,. aw•,u RECEIVED r"R''�►N MAY 311989 ARQAIST' F R S ' • To: t l Gi if tGrC_�___ DATE: May 30, 1989 _ FROM: Tigard! Planning Department ;;' . RE: SDR 89-13/V 89-21 Dolan/A-Boy For Site Development Review approval to allow replacement of an existing sales; facility, the A-Boy Electric and Plumbing Supply building, with a new facility. Also requested is a ' variance to the required parking standard for general. retail sales (one space per 400 sq. ft. of gross floor area) to allow 39 parking spaces where 44 spaces could be required. ZONE: CBD (Central Business ,,' District) LOCATION: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC, tax lot 700) Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From inform by information supplied b. various departments and agencies and from other 1 ` information available to will staff, a report and recommendation will be + thE. a decision >w�.11 b�.' rendered proposal osa.l xn the near future. If Prepared ou wish to comment on this a lication, ,we 'need your comments b and be dared nn the ri n you application, by June 9, 1989. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to retur n your comments. If 3r u are nable to re pond by the above date, please 1 • phone the staff contact noted below with yciur comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any 'questions regarding a this matter,, contact the Tigard Planning Department PO Box 23397, 13125 SW 1''. Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE: 639 4171. l STAFF CONTACT: Viola Goodwin PLEASE C f ]FIEC�C THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it Please contact of our office. t° Please refer to the enclosed letter: I., Written Comments i a - Name of Person Commenting: • Phcrrtie Number bkm/SDR89-18.BK m • y 1 W,T x Ir4� ' 1 i 1 • 1 Woe J . i I ■ • . REQUEST Or.)14EIDixS ' "O: Y DATE_ May 30 1989 I.; • . FROM: Tigard Planning Department ar ment' i; .. . 1 RE: SDR 89.-13/V 89-21 Dolan/A-..Boy For Site Developm ent ent Revs.ew approval `to 1- allow replacement: of an existing sales facility, the ,A-Boy Electric and Plumbing Supply building, with a new, facility. also requested is a Variance to the required parking standard for general retail sales (one . space per 400 sq. ft. •. of gross floor area) to allow 39 parking "spaces ,a. • where 44 Spaces could be required. ZONE: C BD (Central Business District) LOCATION. 12520 SW Nt'a1n Street (WCTM 251 2AC, tax lot 700) Attached is the Site Plan and, applicant's statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from Other . information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. ., If you wish to comment on this application, we need your comments by June 99, .' 1989. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments please 1! y If you ar.a unable to res3t�ond by ;the above dates ga phone the staff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your g posse' y y questions regarding . � possible. If Yon have an 9 g � in writing as soon 'as this niatter, the Tip. ard' Planning Department, comments . der contact t g g p sent, PO Bow 23397.,.. 13125 5 Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE: 639-4171. CONTACT: Viola Goodwin STAFF PLEASE CaEC:K THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY We have reviewed the ro osal and have no objections to it. P P Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written Comments Y y,. 1+f.,:w. .&21,e. `L µ i" i41:‹,' ."" �rl l Y " � ,t".e•jk 1 1� 1 „"\`w,J, • "�, r�rS 4 a 1 • y r» t f r l""`/t,+`1 r+ , z, :.r "�4 ' :r" M 1 AFL, *e;", V i Y8 r"t � • i,,..:t., r ;ti' tea. i`N ""` "'1a,. 1' �' ✓ u - w ^1 I � t r � ^,r1✓' ..A I "� '- :I I ,...... .,___,_,....,,,,_____________,:r____,- 4 ,. _+ M""_h y .0..,.0.. r+4>44w1u" $ 1,::1'k EN'1 1 S ,w' ✓/a r2^ r,,,,z _I_-_(.,.', 1-+ ,,S. 7"—"J.') w 1 Name of Person Commenting . ' �,„. `'- c, 0, ',hone Number: u //,' bit ri/sDR89 13.1BKN lI ._..._;.... . .++:., .._....... ...,.»...,.. ..,..,..-_..<:.,,,».,•_.- «gas i .,.. k^ PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION FILE NO: SDR 89-13, V 89-21 FILE TITLE: DOLAN/A-BOY APPLICANT: Albert R. Kenney, Jr. OWNER: John T. and Florence Dolan 9500 SW Barbur Blvd., Ste. 111 7344 SE Foster 066 Portland, OR 97219 Portland, OR 97Si - REQUEST: For Site Development Review approval to allow replacement of an existing sales facility, the A-Boy Electric and Plumbing Supply building, with anew facility. Also requested is a Variance to the required parking standard for general retail sales (one space per 400 sq. ft. of gross floor area) to , allow 39 parking spaces where 44 spaces would be required. . Syt I .. LOCATION: 12520 SW Main St. (WCTM 2S1 2AC TL #700) ZONING DESIGNATIOb: CBD (Central Business District) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: CBD NPO NO 1 CHAIRPERSON: Dan Gott PHONE: 639-306.5, 625.2560 ,.X STAFF DEC/SION PLANNING COMMISION DATE / / TIME F'L DATE ..._. / / TIME : HEARINGS OFFICER DAVE CITY COUNCIL DATE / / TIME fi X BEQUEST FOR COMMENTS see attached list) RETURN BY / ATTACHMENTS: X VICINITY MAP X LANDSCAPING PLAN is' X NARRATIVE X ARCHITECTURAL PLAN D ~� I, X SITE PLAN * NPO, Bldg, Library, Ping STAFF CONTACT PERSON: +Terry Offer /i^ ' ' e L; r r-7( PREPARE FOR PLANNER APPROVAL: RTISEMENT TT. . _._ AI��VE - TIMES / / OREGON:'CAN �/ / To $e Determined. a, NOTICE TO PROPERTY... RS OWNERS BWE ERS xO BE MAILED / / LETTER' OF ALOE . :_ _ . .. .—. ,r._. ._,..� r"d --_, ACCEPTANCE OF APPLICATION NOTICE To DLCD - ATTACHMENTS: J a w J w , 111 n w Y . LW }IFarh. 0. +I1aaau� ' I u�w) { �1 +-f= � . A-�BOY P LY CAD. '1919 N.W NINETEENTH ST. • PORTLAND, OR 97209 • CO3)5 225--9009 pr' may 3, 1989 Albert R. Kenney, Jr. Consulting Engineer 9500 SW Barbur Blvd Suit 111 Portland OR 97219 ' • Qs d is :a 1 e � `a letter to authorize you to apply for the ,, permit in Tigard. T also am enclosing ' a check' t building g - to the City of Tigard .u,dp1 for $3l5,00 to cover the initial permit fee. • If you have any questions`Tease feel free to iv �; emeacall . ‘ Sincerely yours eel � • r • Dan J. Dolan Secretar -Tre asu�'�: . . I Y r • ' I ...w..,.:.t. u..-..ti., ��:�:..u..,.l..•. .. ..».14 •.. x»�....,. +.aa., ,.4 x�.e4...�i....,., ,,,�dt' ..,_ .,♦. n -... ... ..a+•..w....��h,: �y. y, May 3 1989 r ° • John T. Dolan 4025 SE Brooklyn St, 1', Portland OR 9720 , City of Tigard 5, 13125 S W Hall Blvd P,0, Box 23397 Tigard R I I k Dear Sirs; The purpose of this letter is to authorize Kr Albert R. Kenney to at in my behalf to apply for a building permit, any neoeesaty variances, and go through the design review process. y property is ii 5 SW Nairn Street in downtown Tigard. � located at 1�5� ;. If there is any questions or problems please give me a call at I` itt3r office at 225,-'9009, %. Sincerely yours, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,) r • r • - o an T, Dolan ( ' II . 4 I Ij!• f • li • . Y .. `✓�.` • �.•.• ..u,..,. ..,/,,,,,,,_.,.�.. n ruY n ...� • .i,,,, .n:. m.:t ... a r.x.• .xi.�,.. .. ,......�.«�. ._:�•.. :. • v �r :.•:... .. .•. ..�.r.. ,.,...•.. .n .... ,....nn..... xyy; I ...�.J4w.. ..:F�J..+.. ,•N..a..,AG.�.,a.:-:.:.k.-.b.._.tmrvs:.4 a w,..,a«... _ -I <d.W.�:.. ' ..wi).l.....a..<,..,. .n,.0«. .,.4,...:...•_a:....,-“,.+::..., -1.; .,,r..1„..•1..4.:.,+...+.„.-,..K.;:.w ,�:v ...,._..-,..L1 14 +....:.. a... 4+ 1 i �i ,.. f aflR` ,,. • ' ■-■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ .._._� lima , .+ ;au •Raa.ij.M.R* ,flhiI.iiiI - , • 1111111111111111111 NM NNE §11 MN i ' IIIiIbi , !PT�; ®® ® A� �er��s ■ ■r■ ■ I �, . ■I■■ ■ ® ■ P 175 watts to 400 watts I' 111 11 d ~ Y ■®■ High Pressure Sodium ■ . ® ®■■ ,. -,p1:0-'?4',..,).:,::,14''''''',; ■■® Metal Halide � - .1 o r•illilil '11 , ■■t k . . , liWtCons iiIiIiiiIIiiii!iiIiiiiiii SPA=1;Q . . PRODUCT PCIFICATIN O • 0 CONSTRUCTION 0 INSTALLATION several distinct mounting TENON MOUNT.Architectural bronze painted Precision iece construction eliminates tes the threat of arraingements to meet a variety of a iicat a p housing. g ions, extruded aluminum tenon.4”round accessory ° uded aluminum mounting ii p leaking. P G ARM; adapts 2" ' normally F, Y pP bronze polyester ter i powder for superior resistance 'oda is tci 2 (��/® OD)x 4"tenons YM Y p p arm features Exlr g g square i features ample splice chamber permitting against the elements.One-piece die-east use of 60°C wire.(150°C wire must be used poles,(see accessories), 1' the h found on existing and 6 round or aluminum lens frame with integral hinges held ' t • fastened with captive stainless steal hardware, when splices are made internally in the fixture), '' 0 LAMP ' Holat and shook resistant tempered glass ten's Is Arms are factory installed on the fiXture)e speed (Not supplied).Clear mogul base as specified. field Installation and are available in two:styles, permanently sealed to lens frame via liquid, round oie mount and acre pole mount,(see silicone;Lens frame assembly is sealed to p q p housing via continuous neoprene rubber ordering inlormafi } gesketing,Premium porcelain socket equipped . With vibration proof''tamp-grip"shell With 1 reinforced center for positive fit, �------- l 5 ter contact O OPTICS --w. - • , One-p iece hydroformed Alzak'refleator for' . consistent performance,Hinged reflector 111g I i assembly swings down for easy access 1 r ' ballast compartment,Reflector system precisely designed for IES'T'ype Iii cutoff.Superior control places only 1'9%of light on house side to p on street side for „ �w;, . minimize trespass and 49/° superior efficiency, 0 BALLAST HPFF-GWA ballast or equivalent Mounted to i -- integral heat-sink for maximum heal dissipation • to outside am lent. • ' 'tern to NO Bulletin 0836 :,,v ..,ux... a ..do.... :.d a+ ..•;....ill. • .':r.a. •:.,,.,,e.. ;:...:• ,.,..,.. ,• ...,., al v.n......n. •,.,.•.,.... .,..,...•..a•,»r.. ...,.,. , v,,.. .......... ........, ....... .... sy r .n N ,, .::i:::. .F q• _a., �..« .,.....-.,,,.a..m4'I._. rt. �,. .u.�_ _.A-i.'..s:,..u...,.r.....,., ,r. - . FROM MGENLYTE LOL KLP, 2.21.1939 91-.3'7''''''' P .3 - A 4" March 31 d 1989 r ,t .t�• ,r a,�Ir i i FIXTURE SELECTION . POLE TYPE 1, PACKAGE PRICE Ideal for Pathway/ . SI3RO33NLXL l aI ay/ � 42" i ° 4°° Landscape Lighting, 4 h gh, q. . , SRRO53NLXL SQUARE BTEL. $174- , An effective i&ter'h&title' 3 to bollards, 1 BR073NLXL .+ BRIO3NLXL SS S12-12° high, 4" sq. Ideal for lower mounting ' . • ' SQUAcIE STRAIGHT STEEL height application when R P�L.XL "human scale"Is part ' . • of Ella design criterai, M ' All fixtures suppliod with clear, rnedtuirn base lamps and equipped wIth NPF Reactor ballast for i DV inpt.it only. , $425 425. 1 1 SQUARE STRAIGHT STEEL . . -• IdIR��l��F' '' t� . . . $AR4O3LXF � i $S S20-201 Hight 4, SC1. $450 ideal for road,vay and ' • SM4I73MAF $iQUARE TRAIGHT STEEL Parxrng lot lighting, AR2S3NA , ,,,.' „4' : Sw r�5 2 5` high, 4" sq, $495 ' , SQUARE STRAIGHT STEEL. 0 f , . AR1003LXF , AR �o F $750 30 8g, high, 5" sq. Ill I for roadway and nd r, parking'ink' i�t liglting- " SQUARE SrOAIGHT STEEL , A141OO MA , • VC�LYAOE Indiaete desired vOita je-1'20V, 206V, 240V,277V or 4tcV,. I�` i. PA 1<A E PFI E jrhtIudes, . Pole and single head fixture delivcrf dr For rites on r„uItl le head fixtures, cotitact Sales De t, p ,h • p� � rr��rh INSTRUCTIONS �.. I A V� ' �WL� • t Select fixture acid order by ualricji C tai'g NO, t 2, Select desired pole and corder by using Catalog No. � � i ,4//pales are predell.led'for twig and pluggi7(;i, t4 61166 it slaifatiort 1 1 4 0 All poles ei.e rated for maximum 90 mph world with a 19 gust factor, All pales are shipped oorrnPlete with Lase cover, ,anchor bolts and terrnplate, , r u FEE-21 9 11-1E 8 34;3 ' 50322 5 o4 Pi 3•• • 1 i • - a : ' ' CIII®ERIII G GUIDE -' Catalog No,® Catalog No,CO 4I I.E:S, • W/Arm for sq.pole W/Arm for 4"rd:pole Watts Lamp Base Class "' HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM SAR203LXF SAR263LXC 200 El 8,Clear Mogul Ill Medium SAR253LXF SAR253LXC 250 El 8,Clear Mogul III Medium SAR403 XF SAR403LXC 400 E18�Clear Mc ul III Medium METAL HALIDE SAR173MAF SAR173MAC. 175 B28,, Clear Mogul II!Medium SAR253MAF SAR253MAC 250 B28,Clear Mogul III Medium SAR403MAF SAR403MAC 400 B37,Clear Mogul III Medium .., °Rotating cast mounting plate on end of arm field converts unit from round to square or square to round pole mounting. P' OPTIONS ' ACCESSORIES,' The following factory installed options are available for all items listed on this page.To order,add Cat,No. appropriate suffix to Catalog No LEXAN VISOR:Clear breakproof Suffix from rocks,air-gun pellets,or'other of carbonate shield protects floodlight FUSING:Fusing protects HID circuitry in pole mounted installations.It is suggested that 9 p (Uses are mounted within pole base for accessibility and ease of maintenance, visor prevents destructive or" Ions and missiles,Free air-flow For 120V and 277V Single fusing, •,,,, ,,,••,, ,,,,, . '-FS ei, p five or"browning" ~ For 208V,240V and 480V,Double fusing ...,. effect of heat build-up .... .,. .SAFLV TOCONTROL Factory-installed plug-in twist-to-lock ( •••. -FFS TENON .......(2s/g"OD), Series)meets EEI-NEMA standards,Temperature range minus 50°F to control 150°F, two Arm •..,, ,. SARTMO90 PHO One s ds.Te 50°F to plus 150°F, Arms at 90° ....,. ...., SARTM09C6 a Built-In time delay eliminates off-and-on cycling due to momentary light flashes.Control Two Arms at 180°. SARTM180 matches specified fixture voltage rating ..,•..:. ..........,.-TLR/PC Three Arms at 120°... , .•... SARTM300 PHOTOCONTROL:(Button Type)factory installed In housing back ,,.......•...„.......•.. -PCB Four Arms at 90° ..,, .. SARTiM400 • • . '1P110TOMETRIC . . . Z ratio:Inter IstanncelmountIng height ratio:telrsrel dielranca 'moUnllna height ° origlg.i1;112441k 1111 . 0 AfilErgillh.-11 r 1;..! 3 simum■ m CONVERSION TABLE IPuIi ' ,� m. for different mounting heights — ■®►v�r.._,..�..e�■ �N ■ -al d5 4 3 2 1' U 1' 2 3 4 5 A4 3 2 i D 1 2' 3 4 ?r CAT.NO,:SAR405LXF 15' 2,77 , 30' .69 CAT.NO,SAR4O8MAF' • ITL REPORT:20514 20' 1,56, `35' 51 ITL REPORT:29515 '� LAMP:400W high pressure sodium, ' ' 400W metal halide,clear,34000 clear,50000 lumens 25 1:00 40 .39 lumens , REFLECTOR:Specular Alzace one- REFLECTOR:Specular Alzak,0 one- piece multi-faceted hydroform piece multl-faceted hydroform MOUNTING HEIGHT:25',Tilt Angle 0° MOUNTING HEIGHT;25',Tilt Angle 0° ' ' IES CLASS:Type Ill out-off;medium IES CLASS:Type III out-elf,medium CONVERSION FOR WATTAGE: CONVERSION FOR WATTAGE: 200W HPS multiply by 44,250W HPS multiply by,55 p Y Y 175W H I mulHply'by,39,250W MI-I multiply by.57 SUGGESTED • weatherproof area ll hter hang e�w • Fiklupre shall be outdoor weather) g sealed and held ih place With retainer clips.One telecatable to hen securely on either i p”slue of the s , lens frame shall each be one RI piece corrosion g and door l ed soft'cornered mounting arm with access luminaire to optimize servicing, die-cast aluminum luminaire, Inulm Twit for RID,lamps,Housing and extruded s o splicing chamber Will be included with g each luminaire, porcelain lamp socet iith nickel plated,vibration- n g „ aeon• The low E f uA,of 10 lurriinalre shall be ft hd•corners, sac m h radlused edges a ached t � Fixture shall be equipped with deluxe,glazed , "lamp-grip",p and p 9 coed � rlatre on a s uare or round pole,all c n The mounting q p center contact.Sockets : buraplex fl dark bronze polyester powder.Fixture securing lumin arrnconsiruction shall allow for proof lam rl ,s g p shell s tin to � I pulse-rated e§sure sodium units shall be furnished With an integral constant wattage kets in high r g g mounting hardware shall be hidden inside the arm. shall be else-fated for 4 kV, high power factor ballast(type CWA mounted to s of one two,three or four way Distribution shall be Type 3 medium as classified by g p f housing for heal dls5i anon g 4 die-cast g p , shall be possible Two unique reflectors are available, IES With no trespass house side distribution allowing f Yp ) Mounting arrangerneht Lens frame shall be one place corrosion resistant one for high pressure sodium and one for metal only 18,/00A,of cUtput oh the house side and 49.19% die cast aluminum with Integral hinges and radlused halide lams, output t side When using 400 Watt high corners held b two captive stainless steel lasterters. The hydroform oform reflector shall be one piece multi- pressure ns Y p hdtur`n sources) � • e sires 0 ourcea,G7,t30 to of flcierlt. 4 , Lens frame will provide constant equal pressure on the faceted,high purity,aluminum with specular AlzakW Photometric values shalt be Provided by an Neoprene gasket sealing the optical chamber from rain, finish end shall be hinged at the 14"and of the independent testing laboratory.Specify kLP Cat,No, dust and intents.Frame will retain an optically near, luminaire and held captive with two 1/4"turn fasteners, (specify), heal and impact resistant tempered glass lens,silicone, Reflector assembly shall be removeable and.' UIVISion of LyteSrands a°/40 1.6 company 2345 VAUXHALL ROAD,UNION,NJ 07083 0 201.964-7000 obecem(br teas 1 ' �.... ..,.� ».-...:. _�a .. w,...:..4.�w._,...G.-. x ..,,..w.l _L.. �.�....�,..+..«..«+:a .«....•..,- .,M,�.. ..I.W.0.. ..W.,u..,.,: � . _ _ ..... ,. I. NORTH DAKOTA IIIII'". N --I I.L - 4TLJ 1. f z L ' -- - io 1 1 W Liii aill .J4 x ,, i . , ,. I I ‘ --1 1 „ -,11, in milt ....__T i.I ',I— .. im v 0) N., , d` N , rj � � — '' ■$.,$ _ 4 '-----•---,...s...._____"--'-----.---__-_,,-___,..____7:1.. In , L$J 1 '' • NU 4 1 x . i r S.V►f. , ;'' i S.VS. L.EW LN r • y,r yi { / I AA 4 ----I [ ..., . 0, ,,, .. - , 4 ii .. ' MIL 0 . rANGELA illi if t , bi . -'� C . 1111 x, 0 ONDaN ® a C � r \\\\\ r^ r • , ''''...,,,,'''^-:,,0 , CENt4Z.,:, AL ,'N.f,. V- f Gd 'i^ , , Csr)41, ,c,,i. . . - 4' 41140, ,' W -.'-• ,,.._,-.'---,..,,,,,,`"---1'?0,/,4 44ittoppaL-„,,ir c.,...‘'‘.....' w/ - , .N;� `; ,ev. \ , 0 A,to\ sl‘5>■ ) `\,$).‘. t,,,,:t4 s 4-,,.,,, ' . , . , ,,, t, .iik, '.. . 0.- \)/\ + , i (/‘ 1- N N le ti..cd) ; * it• • 0 • , '' -,..,.;,/4000, .-Z) 4 *,...--,. '' i \ ., itS), . i >,•,,, , , ,,.. S'i.` f,,,,-boy . . ''" - Oregon Property Code Area Account Number T I Assessed Value Last Year This Year taxesf r i itll �S ia year 02,3-74 461734 A y #o xA; `O _167530: 1L750fl June 3a 1989' Property Description(Tax Lot Number) BUILD 1N6 :9 94600 14 ASH. C0., Map Number Parcel- O EXEM:'T U x Special..M Township Flange Section 114. 1116 interest A Net Assessed Value REAL - _. - --, z�-�!=� :1z _4-- 1,Z C 0 0 70 0 ._. t Fax Rsate Each_$1 goo iv ,-, s,c,1, e4 ti •. -� _ Acres I.Class Sut)-Class Pull Number -�- Property?Taxes' `' '=- � -r_: ��:-,.J�-t'� ' —!3�8 0 3� Property Taxes I - - 3 201 ,- =rOf Current Taxes Levied By Tax Rate Tax Amount Taxpayer WASHINGTON--CO•. _ a .95 773.67 Than` PORT CONK .:COQ ,;: ._ -. :-...92 -,- 240.95 OR'T OF PORT t_y .3� 102.38 { _ , Owner METRO SERV DT .34 WASH Cf) ESD .26 - 68.38 t OCLAN JOHN T CN OIST -#23 -?,'--7---.:.-.'-1-,-'-1,4-,.46 _ 3789.73-- 4OZ5 SE BROOKLYN TIGARD We -.� ,:, t5 38.58 - PORTLAND OR 97202 NIT SWGE AGY .- 436 l 93.94 - a TUALATIN RFPD 2.49 652.31 CITY—TI:GARD Y . {_ _44 9D 518. 15 i 1.:67AC - :_$2520,:.5'1,-'AIN _. A'90 Y WEST 'a -: " ++++f$4°� ++.4#fi+4.+4, -i$+ +4++ - Ca 3 9-9 84' 7/11J 8.4 Property Tax Totals 6 3 6 8.17 Interest Included 11 15 8 5 Delinquent Taxes -."-f------- Tax Year Amount s s - - g l Foreclosure proceedings will be ti ES started after July 15 on real C € t -._ - property accounts with an unpaid A E - LN _ balance for any tax year marked. I with an asterisk(*')- Total Taxes and Assessments 6368.17 8. t. <• PLEASE - .-- fl li XA !pie Discount Allowed* Pay Eby Pay One of These Amounts • MAKE R 0 aflx 3587 FULL.-37 _ 191.O'5 11s15�8$ t 6177.12 -. PAYMENT PORTLAND. ORE-GUN` 97218_ ° r TO: (507-) 648°6741 2/3-2% 844:91 11°15-88 4160.54 i Tax Discllnt. !Total -113 None [ Check Cash (Change I*READ PAYMENT INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE it '4. AS .TN&TGN C33 198-8-89 1 4 I. L , _..„___::_ ....". . �. �_ ,t-, z Q f - t5O.`5u-OQa =Rev.3i SAVE THIS PART FOR YOUR RECORDS --- 4`.�, i t +,.,.......1 ..., ,,,..,-, .,„„._.:..,..M.i.,..4 r._...a.,.._.;+:...:-_,w...r.»;..,.....u.._.-:....._.,k..;:::....,...w-..,:.n.?,.-.a......w k......x..._,..„,:..y..+ ,.«w-,..,_....a,+..w,..9,=+t,.IL7+A-.. ,.u,l.•.w wu,:.....w...l.,._,G'-,i_a..a..x,.• ..a..-,,., .w.c...,..0 y.uwb;w w.�.;.+»A N.rwi.w,...,... w.n ?,u * s, ' ,,,,,it.'--- Pate: 05-15 39 ;�� t33037 TO: TIGARD COMMUNITY, DEVELOPEMENT Attn : JERRY OFFER Pb BOX 23397 TIGARD OR 97223 Re: A-B Y bR-B9--13 ENCLOSED: _ h ` 1 ) tax statement snowing Ownership - e 1 t via [X] Mail [ ] Messenger,,,,, [ ] Cab , [ ,],,Corn Carrier [ ]; other [ l for your information [ ] for your records. ' [X] for; your use [ ] for action , ' [ ] ' no action regd [ ] per your request ] ,no 'response regd.,.' [X] ' please call (if ''a question) µ . . [ ] for approval [ ] written response please C ] for comment.'-':.',' 1[ ] URGENT i ' ' • ' COMMENTS: C0 py t b -a.l Alberrt R. Kenn Y Tt�. oy j ,+fir. ,P,E. • C4N SUL'TINC 'ENItiEER 9500 L S 4 W. �BARBUR :BLVD '#1'11' Portland, OR R 3721 g 503) 244-9811 . FAX (503) 244 -9817 I I; 4 ' w n a i ,� . Fi ..-.•1»l+rJ'.4J.. �. W..k�11... �...^w4.s 1 r I� 1 da;'W 1/4 NE 1/4 SECTION` 2 r ' 0 n • Glob J MI«'CV, ", . <, HICKLIN , WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON o��.c= . NORTHE; , �.t.a,'�� .. p 6uRNHr• .• S C A L E 1 = I 00 `e�a�' z is , ii ° O .3"A c. pA , •r ,A an 700 n g� a'� ' ,, �' ,/ a G67A C. 'ta 1'S "''.400, $ �A\\ oAa 43A I.1 .` .+?0 % a v ` 9f, ` 0,b ke" n .12 Ac. ' .. , / W , 00 f4', ' ' tiI , t3A' Sgb` 9�o i w' ``g ,• n *1 g0 5 .r C 1 (C•..,.Na:ic't76) � 1001 . � ,�,,,� 55 .63 Ac o / c 0. ; = . • \ . ^(C•S:N o.11945) 'Ib. \�� 1200.,. ** \ 11 46'6Ac . 11 . o FL r A 2 • F �'}�•�'• i �• � LF f7 • r4 • . , \ • 2200 ' a r • ,y : • �Sp 'J 2 1 N' I 4�7 f+W. 4 ; a , a , w . . . • - ..Jl.: ,.... .. ,-, a c-.A.« ,.,h.w...a... .,.L ,..IIrxW..+u...+,.,.-.w ..,«.Jr .rv4 w,.,, •1� w..r• ` CIRCULATE; i Staff � r e W RC /'DS 0 R c1 6, rr, ' ' .. ...42/ • Ur L? , 6 E$'e '�"S I T CITY OF TIGARD • • l GARD ,COMMUNITY; DEVELOPMENT DEPAa7TM IIT , PRE-APPLICATION CHECKLIST a 1 Date /,71.2„' if 7l q 1. APPLICANT ► P µal — ' 2. PROPERTY LOCATION I x , Address 4/, r-7'. ( ' 0 (')/7-6',..) 1 Tax Map/Tax Lot '5 i raw /6/* 7oo, 3 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION/NECESSARY' APPLICATIONS) a'51r.E.b5 ''4. P/1 '' /t "V/l> G }' •. ` .) } 61! ° VIOV'iwit '4 a, -11-'ta eef t i rr c .it a v'kt ct � ' ` " ,c.4,, 4°� ( ,,, •,, + k w , , a Existing ,t .i° .. ,�'i;+` � r '� , , / .r' Adjacent Property north _ t Vt,'C e. 11'4rie if e',-I L.., !'',, ,,.., south Ltry'4' '' 1 t. w» . easy _" . _ 'ciit,'.LI ' ' West , tea U`,. . f i `J a,1Ai, '- '°i Cr, I y , 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION (:° r , . .. ..,:t ., __' 71://"i"C; • 6. ZONING DESIGNATION .,....._...i,,,,, .., . ' _ 7 NaEIGNB ORtIOO C PLANNING �RGANI�ATI0� NO. C4.tAIRPERSt3111Cf PHONE ,..1r -,P 6"c' • , 8 CODE RE9UIREi ENTS Minimum lot size width µ Se backs froth 4,"�^ , . .,ab rear �tv�wrer s'de �� Special setbacks: streets _,M�,._ established areas Jr)r er intensity zortea tio!e{: and s v 4 ' flac3 lot " H1 accessory 5ttf'uctures zero lot Brie •"' ax titum lot corre rage , 6 i aximutn b1i,iding height , „,,,e, > ,:n \4 II r r. • v ,•,,'s 4 �; Special. height ,.ti,.i.mits flag lot oth ,w° ''''''s,:,-.1 Density calculation ` • 9 d , „ '' ' Density transition - ,• P Landscaping: minimum % of lot area f r ' . •c ,,a. •• ` , 0 .c , Street Trees .._.'.�," ,, ,-41,-.,�v,� y Buffer Areas i i .''.. J \\\ Parking Areas / t ;, ,: "I/ / ,eyNa " 1ii e4 p lfLtfi tz^ 1; , , visual clearance w sF;J p0Ce 1"OV Bier , / Fu,5• avr i/e a /A4�dir ,, . . ,��ark i ng and loading P Ufa.: . pe t` , td ,. t�,ac M / hi 8 ret; Jac /j it i9 , 4' 5 i Access and circulation , MIr'M;I 4•t!e �� 4f Gdetl G'i e` i7 die , ', ' 6,•e4 61,:t ,'tit 1.4v', -Cf�'ot , /)r'. .1rt diotl.s b""bx:at' PI, ✓ a/l H )h,/jt;`/.0,a/ 1'iiM;/ 1 J[,' e c,rit<! 'frig/ 11, signs 't`d ti VIA i"u e',./ (4,4/ C✓ U' "t,..,,5-to No,i„ ^""C P`t,t i:? '' 6! "t pr°a 9. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS (See application checklist for specific items) P Sensitive lands: •floodplain drainageway ~_ X25% sloped ' • Wetlands 'e"/ , 6F{1 " . 0/+4a 4 t~`4 tit~ft,tdIWe7. ( 1\..` Open space " --, 1 �` c'`` 'am, Historic overlay - rz Street Atrmprovein ntst/connections/.lbikeu4ta as � rf.ii,111 _t .t'. 14 ° �. , hi. ht-of a dedication 6t< ,c-,1‘),(,,,,,•. r \' Sanitary, Sewer improvemertt ,Ct1 ft(1.T /C `� i� e 1�2,,",k '" r ofrt ‘y^{ w i;'r COf !5'' .1�L" 4 Y e,.,('.i4 k i 6. D 1 6)1 k, ,'a. v , °A r,:r'1�^"' b 4 h f p' y -{,uU"h�-:.`°, t� � ' ,7 rw+ '�' Storm Sewer improvements. �.. 1E ' V'et t 11;,1 e (,.., ` , C tl't'''r6t, att-`4,j,g,„.k..1(7'V (1,'I''` t", i,l'i..-'('ail � Fees s „w .___ ` - Improvement Agreement Permit; Bonds;; IF , c, r • Other agency permits , ,W, .., 10, OOCOUR t P Administrative. staff off ^:view r Public Hearing/clearings Officer i Public Hearing/Planhing Comm scion The Administrative .decision or Public Nearing shall occur approi .imately 30 days after a complete application is filed. H b +40-day appeal period fo1lo 1s all decisions.' 0 (0573p/0022p) , f r .1 f M••. +-�:.:.:........., : : � ..._ w. ..v:.._: ..«. .... a.._.,r,es......L-..v.,'..0 v..... M.:::.:..-..."«..m...r.:...._..:. .n • .rLi. .r-u.:.:. .nit.l:r..l.-:....nN-[. ..S-.. - J♦ _ _ .+ . -. .—J- ........«« A«...r.ri./ ur uJ..-:.. •n�+.W:..:.. 11.v.....:A.✓.r ..+?F.-.5 - e:.la Vj ' .y {14,,,,,,,„, staff /Q . . ,. _Date � k CITY OF TIGARO l, COMMUNI TY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPLICATION CHECKLIST The items on the checklist below are required for the successful completion' of ,', Your application submission requirements. This checklist identifies what is , required to be submitted with your application. This sheet MUST be brought and submitted with all other materials at the time you , submit your ' application. See your application" for further explanation of these items or . , call Planning at 639-4171. ITEMS TO BE` . BASIC MATERIALS INCLUDED: : 'fr� Application form (1 copy) [-i • y1 ) Owner's signature/wri.tten authorization Title transfer instrument [*-.""' ktf5. Assessor°s map 1 [,'" Plot or site plan [ 1.,F.-) Applicant's s tatp ment�Se� ) � [ .� : ; t.( List of property owners & addresses within 250 feet [ J--''� r ) Filing fee ($, 3/5- ) [4-),.-'�"' , ,.,o (l SPECIFIC MATERIALS Information showin (No. of copies jj_): [ 1.3----* A) Site Vicinity !'�a�s, ,,[ I 1,21 2 dimensions [L}- ' „" ' contour ft at 0-�10� or 5 ft grades 10%) [ '"- . � r Drainage patterns, courses, and ponds [(3.,..----'' .: ,, 5) Locations o'a' natural hazard areas including: '' t Floodplain areas Cry . b) Slopes in excess of 25% i c) Uns table ground T [ : d) Areas with high seasonal water table [ e) Areas with severe soil erosion potential t ' f) Areas having severely weak foundation souls ' ] 6) Location of resource areas as shown on the Comprehensive 1,, Map inventory including: a) Wildlife habitats [ 1 , b) Wetlands [ 3 • 7) other site features: • a) Rock outcroppings [' ] b) Trees with 6" + caliper measured 4 feet from ground level C ] - g structures acrd their uses I�' ,, ,,, '" Location of eitz.s��in 'struct 1 9) Location and type of on and ()ft-site noise sources vi.''Q) Location of existing utilities and easements E►,,,,I.,.' ; 44) Location of existing dedicated right-of-ways [1. ` D) 4ite'. Clevelobment Plan showing (No, of co ies / : ,,w,. 1) The proposed site and surrounding properties [1]..'— L- Contour line intervals (1 3) The location d i.mens iohs `and name dine interr�a t .. ,. , • Lg/ Existing & platted streets & other public ways avid easements on the site and on adjoining C a 1 '` .... properties A0PLICATION "CHECKLIST Page 1 4 p w 1, u- «,.v,w ..,n.u;,.xb-.rx....r+:A::; „+,.ru..«;w.»..........«4..;.,...,:..•-a1::::,..tx..ta.. ,!_ b) oposed streets or other public s & easements' on the site, [ ] c) Alternative routes of dead end or proposed streets that require future extension [ ] 4) The location and dimension of: ° ) Entrances and exits on the site [1..3-- g [1..;].."' T Lb)- Parkin and circulation areas tom—" Loading and services areas CL- - Pedestrian and bicycle circulation [ �» e) Outdoor common areas, [ ] f) Above ground utilities [ . 5) The location, dimensions & setback distances of all: ' 1.-a) Existing permanent structures, improvements, utilities and easements which are located oh` the site and on adjacent property within 25 feet of the site Lb) Proposed structures, improvements,. utilities and easements on the site 6) Storm dra ,na e facilxtie g � l�s -of d, as,tr=eam—eond44jens 7) Sanitary sewer facilities [ The location of areas to be landscaped [,,, • The • location and t ype of outdoor or l i htin g considering crime techniques 10) T.he...,Locr at i.Gn f ,mailbvx,l,s C Ltt), The location of all structures and their orientation 12) Existing o r Proposed sewer reimburspme n t agreements (C C r] C) GradinPlan (No, of copies ) C The site development plan shall include a grading plan at `'; the same scale as the site analysis drawings and shall contain the following information; 1) The location and extent to which grading will •take lace'. indicating and s6il, stabilzatiohl contour ,, slope oantour lines p ratios � pr posals, and time of year it is proposed to be done. [ .] 2) A statement from a registered engineer supported by data factual s ubst..:ant iating: a) Subsurface exp loration and nd g ec techrica l engineering report C b) The validity of sanitary sewer 'and storm .drainage service ,proposals [ c), That all problems will be mitigated and how they will be mitigated [ ] fit 0) Architectural Drawing! __ ng„•, (Noy of �capies ): [, The site development plan proposal shall include • r1'-' ' Floor plans indicating the square footage of all structures proposed for Use on—sit; st e, and � � 12) Typical elevation drawings of each structure, E) Landscape Plan (Nor of copies / ): The landscape plan shall be drawn at the same scale of the g y I+ P y and shall site anal s�.s lan or a l.ar er• scale �.f necessary Indicate! 1) Description of the irrigation system where applicable [ 1 2) Location and height of fences, buffers and screenings [ ] APPLICATION CHECKLIST Page 2 , Ili 3) Locat of terraces, decks, shelters, ', ,ray areas 4,% and common open spaces [ ] vAl Location, type, size and species of existing and ' '' - proposed plant materials. B,‘„?....'"*" The landscape plan shall include a narrative which addresses: 1) Soil conditions. [ 2) Erosion control measures that will be used, [ ] '.>~,, 'r F S ign Dra win s Sign drawings shall be submitted in accordance with Chapter 18.114 of the Code as Part of Site Development, Review or prior to obtaining` a Building Permit to construct the sign. [ . G) Traff�c qt.Ineration estimate C1 H) Preliminary artition or- of l 1 t line adjustment map showing No, of Copies t of owner 1) The. the subject a ] Parcel C 2) The owner's s aut ) horzed a n e t C ] 3) The reap scale, (20,50,100 or 200 feet=l), inch north arrow and date C1 4) Description of parcel location and boundries [ ] 5) Location, width and names of streets, easements and other public ways within and adjacent to the parcel C ] 6) Location of ) all permanent buildings on and within 25 feet of all property lines [ v 7) Location and width of all water courses C a ) Location of any trees with 6" or greater caliper at 4 feet above ground level [ ] 9). All slopes greater than 25% C ] ',?'-` , 10) Location of existing utilities and utility easements [ ]' 11) For Major land partition Which creates a public street: ' a) The roe [ ]' proposed right—of—way location and width b) A scaled cross-section of the proposed street' plus any reserve strip j [ ] 12) Any applicable deed restrictions C 13) Evidence' that land partition will not preclude efficient future land division where applicable t ] I) Subdivision Preliminar Plat Ma. and data x �a�showing(No: of Copies ): 1) Scale equaling ng 30,50,100 o^ 200 fe et t o the inch and limited to one phase ..per sheet [ ] o- 2) The proposed name of the subdivision C 3 3) Vicinity map showing property's relationship to arterial and collector streets [ ] 4) Names, "addresses and telephone numbers of the owner developers engineer, surveyer, designer, as applicable[ 1 5) Date of application [ ] 6) Boundary l i ne s of tract to be s ubda v add . 7) Naves of adjacent subdivision or names of recorded owners of adjoining parcels of unsubdivided land t 1 8) Contour lines related to a City- established' bench - ' • mark at 2-foot intervals for 0-10% grades greater than 10 C ] V APPLICATION CHECftIST `— Page 3 % • U - .4hws,.,.u. r..« z..t'.a ,w,++.».•,.u...n..-«4.4.r ..nA♦n.Nd..n .4p r 9) The `7 pose, location, type and size cf >all of the 4 ' ), foll6wing (within and adjacent to the proposed , subdivision): C a) Public and private right—of—ways and casements C b) Public and private sanitary and storm sewer lines [ ] c) ,Domestic water mains including fire hydrants y [ ] d) Major power telephone transmission linos - (50,000 volts or greater) C ] . e) Watercourses [ ] . f) Deed reservations for parks, open space, pathways and other land encumbrances [ ] 10) Approximate' plan and profiles of proposed. sanitary and storm sewers with grades and pipe sizes indicated C 7 . 11) Plan of the Proposed water distribution stem, s ) p p system. pipe sizes and the, location of valves and fire hydrants. [ ] 12) Approximate profiles '� n,roximate centerline rofiles showin the finished 4 . grade of all streets including street extensions for a reasonable distance beyond the limits of the proposed subdivision. C3 13) Scaled cross sections of proposed street right—of—way; [ ] 14) The location of all areas subject to inundation or storm water overflow C ] � . 15) Location, width and direction of flow of all water- courses and drainage was' ] 16) The proposed lot configurations, approximate lot� dimensions and lot numbers. Where lasts are to be 1' used for ,purposes other than residential, it shall be } indicated upon such lots C r 17) The location of all trees with a diameter 6 inches or greater measured at 4 feet, above ground level, and the location of proposed tree plantings, if any C n 18) The existing uses of the property including the y g I ' • location of all structures, and the present uses of the structures, and a statement of which structures are to remain after platting C 3 19) Supplemental information including a) Proposed deed restrictions (if' any) [ b) Proof of property owwnership [ ] c) A proposed plan for provision of subdivision improvements C 20) 'xisting natural features including rock out— crpppings, wetlands and marsh areas.• 21) If any of the foregoing information cannot practicably I be shown on the preliminary plat, it shall be 1 incorporated into a narrative and submitted with the p. applicati • on. C. ] � h G I ., J) other Information [ ] : I 1 ,. u i ^ 2362 P/00280) f; r. f I S II ti I a I I APPLICATION cHECKLIST — Rage 4 I r I ,r fj 4 , , ... ..,..:.. .........::.- ,.M w•..4......{..,....,.._.w..xW,....J...N.0.:...➢.v xxr....m.,-'+'rA..w.,J.v...`,:u.+wa. ,v...'r......A..i]i:....- _ _ u k ...,«J-r+•i:. .,.«r-»...w:su.4a.-...,.:.:-..a..-.•r....,,..._«. ,r.,_._.;,.0..w.. W,�.. :, _..,.:.,:.,w.^......�u.uu: • N TIFICATION LIST FOR ALL APPLICATIONS V 1. NPO No,. (2', copies) _ CPO No. .. r , CITY �.r. • MEN.fS • APT 2.d 2 C_TY DEP building Inspector/Brad R. Parks & Recreation Board/Curtis S. ,City Recorder Police V Engineering/Gary A. _ Other . 3. SPECIAL DISTRICTS • Fire District School Dist. No. 48 (Beaverton) (Pick--up box bldg.) Joy Pahl PO Box 200 A.. Tigard` W.D Beaverton, OR 97075 8841 SW Commercial School Dist. -No. 23J (Tigard) Tigard, OR. 97223 13137 SW,Pacific Hwy. . Tigard, OR 97223 Metzger W.D. 6501 SW Taylors Ferry Rd. Tigard, OR 97223 Other 4. AFFECTED 31UR.ISDICTIONS Wash. Co. Land Use & Transp. Boundary Commission 150 N.. First Ave. 320 SW Stark Room 530 Hillsboro, OR 97124 Hillsboro,' OR 97124 Brent Curtis Kevin Martin METRO Joann Rice 2000 SW 1st Ave. Portland OR 97201-5398 • City of Beaverton % Jim Hendryx • PO Box 4755 - 4755 SW Griffith Beaverton, OR 97076 r State Highway Division Other Lee Gundersoti PO Box 565 Beaverton, OR 97075 7. SPECIAL AGENCIES 1.,.//'General Telephone Portland General Electric 3 Mc 1i ay/\B' av rt . Brian Moore 15 6 ' �,.,•.. Portland General Electric • Bob Olsen 97005 14655 SW Old, Scholis Perry • 12460 SW Main 97223 Beaverton; OR 97007 Northwest. Natural Gae Metro olitan Area Communications p ati.on.s . { Ronald D. Po1vi PE PLS Twin Oafs Tec�Technology Ger 220 NW second Ave, 1815 MW 169th Place, 8-6020 Portland, OR 97209 Beaverton, OR 97006-4886 r Pacific Northwest Bell I Other' (025.7P/0006P) (R--2/89) a ..i.wJ.i ++++444.4.4++.,00+++++++0,44.4.:w«.w,a. 0A.411,.0 7w;n:404 1,0a. 5. STATE AGENCIES E Aeronautics Div. (ODOT) DOGAMI Engineer Division of State Lands Board of Health Commerce Dept. M.H. Park Fish & Wildlife Parks & Recrea. Div. (ODOT) LCDC Subdivision Supervisor Puc Dept. of Energy Fire Marshall Dept. of Environ. Quality Other 6. FEDERAL AGENCIES ? ' Other e Corps of Engineers h r ;. •• Post Office c 7. OTHER Southern Pacific Transportation Company . L ' Duane M. Forney, PLS Project Engineer 800 NW 6th Avenue, Room 324, Union Station Portland . ' OR 97209 0257P/0006p •i; �r7� ,'1 ' ALBERT R.KENNEY a 7 19 9m0 SW{�raE9�tJR BI VD"S{,J{•t'G ill�PC)R'�LAhlb.OR>`i � 503/244.1811 A PAX 2449S1? • , � u.»,.,. _ ..f_.. - n..,•G.4.�.w ..,,..G.,.��2....�1!.. ...11... .,..r.,U:+.:+1.-0.tp..M+....H.:a ...�, � I' � ' • •....,»..:_. ..a..�..i♦...+. �:u.... :,rw ........:. s..-n.»»w An.rt,.�v».. I.,.An.l.,,'k n.0 ...-+ wn..;: ...w,„,.+V«.rw /w»o,....a..:.AGt,i._ ,._». ._ .r.�...«... i•.Ta'L�%y+.:l. • '.. ' .:: ' /1;1"l''''' ';'''1 .7 4 C , • ., , t. 1 t, ,, R • •.; . , ..,i v. 1/4 NE 1/4' TICS W 1561.7 N 3Z 55 E WASHINGTON COUNTY O RE GON .4•c. sNo.F. CORNER OF THE �� ti a•'S�tEt��a"G ='_ .�.tINO1CKR uTNTUH N t1/OL2.Y LCoCFOR,3,7 +MR ON S T OF C/ LE 1 11 i Q J o � I a SURNHAM TRACT • �I a 0 z .34 o •: \ Op\ 4. t kr I it ,� Sa A _� •• so \ 4 ,,,,,,,,,,".',.6•,°' ,�t' •,°' X51 • •4� .c 4,.. \ sa •, r p� .4340.1 ' 4340. .� 4 ��?�'p 6/x`1'' �• II • s �� p 7 I rt, \' \• ,'' .� /1': 6 OQ e� (C,,S.No11945) >: N I ✓ I •` 'dt.4c AiPa ' : J • •• '' gad 1\`�i'' 0 • k v OHO 2200 ij) i _ I C .,.' o ��,,,• , •� I .