Loading...
Planning Commission Packet - 03/19/1974 POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm.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",ENDA TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting, March 19, 1974 Twlity Jr. High School Lecture Room 14650 S.W. 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon PUBLIC HEARING 7:30 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3, APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3,1 Regular Meeting of February 19, 1974 3.2 Study Session of February 26, 1974 3.3 Regular Meeting of March 5, 1974 4. PUBLIC HEARING - Conditional Use 4.1 CU 5-74 (Columbia Pools & Recreation Company) A request by Columbia Pools Recreation Company for approval of outside display of prefabricated swimming pools. Subject site located at • 13015 S.W. Pacific Highway and comprising .56 acres. (Tax Map 2S1 2BD, Tax Lot 2900 & 3000). Staff Findings Testimony & Cross Examination Staff Recommendation Commission Discussion & Action 5. PUBLIC HEARING - Variance 5.1 V7-73 (Circle A-W Products Company) A request by Circle A-W Products Company to construct an addition to their existing building, said addition proposed to have a 12 foot rear yard setback where a 20 foot setback is required. The property is zoned M-2, General Industrial and is located at 13885 S.W. 72nd Avenue. (Tax Map 2S1 1DC, Tax Lot 1100). Staff Findings Testimony and Cross Examination Staff Recommendation Commission Discussion and Action 5.2 V 1-74 (R, A. Gray & Company) A request by R. A. Gray & Company to vary a required 50 foot side yard setback to a proposed 15 feet. The subject property is zoned M-4, Industrial Park and is adjacent an R-7, Single Family Residential zone. The property is located at 9920 S.W. Tigard Street. (Tax Map NI 2S1 2BA, Tax Lot 300). ___________,_____.____7 ~ Staff Findings Testimony & Cross Examination Staff Recommendation Commission Discussion and Action 6. SUBDIVISIONS - Variance 6.1 Englewood - Phase 1 (Commonwealth Properties) L(,c;ations South of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road and westerly of Fanno Creek. Staff Findings Applicant's Testimony Staff Recommendations Commission Discussion & Action 7. SUBDIVISIONS - Preliminary Plat Approval 7.1 Englewood - Phase 1 (Commonwealth Properties) Locations South of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road and Westerly of Fanno Creek. Staff Findings Staff Recommendations Commission Discussion and Action 8. SUBDIVISIONS - Minor Land Partitioning 8.1 Finke Property ( Locations 12535 S.W. Grant Street (Tax Map 2S1 2BB, Tax Lot 1800). Staff Recommendation Commission Discussion and Action 9. MISCELLANEOUS 9.1 M 4-74 Interpretation of Use; Swimming Pool Sales A request by Columbia Pools and Recreation Company to interpret swimming pool sales as a permitted use in a C-3, General Commercial zone. 10. OTHER BUSINESS LL. ADJOURNMENT PAGE 2 - COMMISSION AGENDA - MARCH 19, 1974 • MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting, March 19, 1974 Twality Jr. High School m Lecture Room 14650 S.W. 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon PUBLIC HEARING m 7:30 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER A. The meeting was called to order at 7:37 P.M. 2. ROLL CALL A. Present: Ball, Barkhurst, Frazier, Hansen, Mickelson, Nicoll Sakata, Hartman;, , Ha man Chairman Whittaker; Planning Brooks;g irecto D t r Brook, Assooiate Planner Bolen; City Attorney Anderson. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. The minutes of the February 19th and 26th, 1974 Planning Commission meetings were approved as submitted. 4. PUBLIC HEARING - Conditional Use 4.1 CU 5-74 (Columbia Pools and Recreation Company) A request by Columbia Pools Recreation Company for ap- proval of outside display of prefabricated swimming Dols. Subject Su t site located at 1 0 P J 3 15 S.W. Pacific Highway and comprising . 56 acres. (Tax Map 2S1 28D, Tax Lot 2900 and 3000) . A. Staff Findings 1. Brooks presented the staff findings relevant to this case. B. Testimony and Cross Examination 1. Proponents a. Ralph Long, the applicant, spoke in support of hie request. b. Chairman Whittaker asked him to address the list of Fasano related questions supplied him by the staff when application was made. 4,. C. Mr. Long said that he had replied to these ques- tions in writing with his application but would attempt to answer them for the Planning Commis- sion at this timed d. Whittaker proceeded to ask Mr. Long each ques- tion on the Fasano list, Mr. Long stated that he felt there was a need for swimming pool sales in the Tigard area based upon his four years experience in the business in Tigard. That he had looked at other sites for this use but this site was available, and that an adverse impact would not be created for adjoining properties. 2. Opponents a. No one appeared in opposition to the request. C. Staff Recommendation 1. Staff recommended approval of the request subject to the following conditions: a. The applicant submit a detailed site, landscape, irrigation fencing and lighting plan for the subject site. Said detailed plan shall be subject to review and shall be approved by the Site Development Plan and Design Review Board prior to commencement of construction of the subject pool display area. Said detailed plan shall address the following concerns: 1. The need for a site obscuring fence along the southeastern property line, 2. Description, spacing and size of plant mater- ials. 3. Irrigation method for bringing water to plant materials. 4. Fencing and landscape treatment of the display area immediately adjacent S.W. Pacific High- way and particularly the distance of the pro- posed cyclone fence from S.W. Pacific Highway. 5. The vehicular access and maneuvering area necessary to service the pool display area, 6. The type of lighting standard and level of illimination. PAGE 2 - COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 19, 1974 The Site Development Plan and Design Review Board shall review and approve said detailed plan with respect to the adequacy of said plan to protect the residential quality of the adjacent residences and the aesthetic impact of the pool display area as viewed from S.W. Pacific Highway, D. Commission Discussion & Action 1. Hartman said that on a conditional use application the requirements of the Fasano decision are not as strictly interpreted and it is therefore his opinion that the applicant has met the burden of proof as required by Fasano. He then moved to approve the request subject to the staff recommended conditions. Barkhurst seconded the motion. 2. Nicoli stated his objection to the item in the staff recommendation requiring a site obscuring fences He said this use is located on the highway and it does not seem necessary, to screen its view from adjoining businesses. 3. Nickelson replied to Nicoli that the staff recommen- dation for a site obscuring fence is only a suggestion to the Design Review Board and not a stated require- ment. 4. Ball said in that there is no evidence on public need presented by the applicant, this requirement has not been met. Also, the proof that other avail- able sites are not adequate or available has not been proven. He therefore stated his intent to vote against the motion. 5. Whittaker said because it has not been specified that the landscaping requirements of the Tigard Municipal Code must be met and there appears to be access dif- ficulties on the site plan, that he finds it neces- sary to vote against the motion. 6. Hartman stated his belief that the staff conditions do cover the concerns being voiced but amended his motion to include that the requirements of the Tigard Municipal Code will be met on the entire site by the applicant' s site development plan and said plan to be submitted to the Design Review Board. Barkhurst seconded this amended motion and it passed by a majority vote, with Ball and Sakata voting NAY. 5. PUBLIC HEARING - Variance 5.1 V-7-73 (Circle A-W Products Company) PAGE 3 - COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 19, 1974 . ` A request bv Circle A-U Products Company to construct ��' ^� ' ( an addition' to their existing building, said addition ' | �~ ropooed to have a 12 foot rear yard setback where a ` 1 ' ^ 20 foot setback is required" The property is zoned M-2y General Industrial and is located at I5885 S.W. 72nd Ave, (Tax Map 2Sl 1DC, Tax Lot llOO\ " U A. Staff Findings Brooks ted the staff findings le ant to this case. B. Testimony & Cross Examination l" Proponents a" Ron Loew, attorney for the applicant, spoke in support of the requested variance asking that it ' ' .'^ be granted for two possible reasons: l° That the hardship placed upon the appIi.cant' be recognized, and that the variance be grant- ed to remedy this situation; or 2" The variance be granted conditioned upon the applicant acquiring an easement upon the adjacent property which will guarantee a 40 k / foot b�ilding �re� erea ae �equired by the M-2 zone side-yard setback. b" Mr" Loew also stated that the building code required an additional set-back resulting from the requirements of the applicable fire zone. This requirement will be forty eight feet be- tuoan the Circle A-W Products building and any • future buildings which may be constructed on the adjacent property. C. Staff Recommendation l. Staff recommended approval of the request subject to the following condition: ^ � That the applicant obtain a minimum 28 foot easement . | on the property adjacent the subject setback area" Said easement shall preclude any building- construction within said 28 foot easement and shall be approved ` , | by the City Attorney. ' | A i D. Commission Discussion and Action l° Ball moved that the variance . eot by granted sub- ' �` � �_/ PAGE 4 ~ COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 19, 1974 t . ject to the staff recommended conditions, Hartman seconded and the motion passed by unanimous vote. 5.2 V 1-74 (R.A. Gray & Company) A request by R.A. Gray & Company to vary a required 50 foot side yard setback to a proposed 15 feet. The subject property is zoned 11-4, Industrial Park and is adjacent an R-7, Single Family Residential zone. The property is located at 9920 S.W. Tigard Street. (Tax Map 2S1 2BA, Tax Lot 300) . A. Staff Findings 1. Brooks presented the staff findings relevant to this case. B. Testimony & Cross Examination 1. Proponents a. Robert Gray spoke for the request stating that when his company began developing the property, they were not aware that a fifty foot setback would be required adjacent the residential zone. In that the comprehensive plan shows the eventual use of this property as industrial, his company is requesting that the normal 20 foot setback be permitted, rather than the 50 foot setback which is required when abutting a residential zone. b. Chairman Whittaker asked Mr. Gray what his com- pany 's intentions were to satisfy the require- ments of the original conditional use approval. ' c. Mr. Gray said that all of the conditional use requirementS have been met with the exception of some ground cover to be installed. d. Brooks said that some of the requirements of landscaping had not been met and that the City will request that these be completed or the landscape bond will be used to do so. e. Mr. Whittaker asked if the landscape plan had been approved for the project. f. Brooks said that he did not know if a final plan had been approved. PAGE 5 - COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 19, 1974 Mik I• (I St- ff Recommendation 1. Brooks stated that he had no staff recommendation to offer, but asked the Planning Commission to consider the four specific requirements set down by the Tigard Municipal Code for the granting of a variance to see if the applicant had met this test. D. Commission Discussion and Action 1. Ball said that the planning commission should not proceed on the basis that the adjacent property now zoned R-7, will be at some future time zoned M-4. The NPO #2 is working on a plan for this area and this may hamper their efforts if they choose to seek residential use for this property. "I am therefore opposed to granting this variance at this time, he 2. Hansen moved to accept the 20 foot variance request on the basis that the neighboring property owners do not object and the NPO #2 has shown this property for industrial use on their concept plan. Barkhurst 3. Hartman stated that the request does not meet the variance test provided by the TMC and stated his intention to vote against the motion. 4. Barkhurst said the hardship is that the applicant is not allowed the usual 20 foot side yard setback in the M-4 zone. This is a property right that other owners for the applicant. back set b r 5. Ball asked if the 50 foot oeao nt, when ~ '' ~�- _ - abutting a residential zone, does not always create . a hardship. 6. Barkhurst stated that a hardship is created in this case in that the Community Plan shows the abutting property for industrial use. , ° Whittaker said that based past - to meet conditions imposed by the Planning Commission and City Council for the development of this to� that -_ he was reluctant to vote for the variance. _ 8. Ball stated that his vote against the variance is + based upon previous failures to meet conditions PAGE 6 ~~ COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 19 I974 ` ^ upon the merits of this case alone. g, Ii stated his agreement with Ball and said that the timing is inappropriate ^' ' inapp riate and that possibly within a year after the neighborhood plan has been adopted the request would be more appropriate. IO, The commission voted on Mr. | oen's motion and it died by majority` a ma vote" ll. Barkhurst moved to table the request 'to allow the staff time to research the matter and recommend � conditions for the variance. oo l2° Hartman seconded and the motion passed by unanimous vote. 6.� SUBDIVISIONS - Variance ' 1 6°1 Englewood - Phase 1 (Commonwealth Properties) Location: South of S.W. ' Scholls Ferry Road and westerly of ` ` Fanno Creek A. postponed to the April 2nd Planning Commis- " Commis- sion meeting This item was poetpon� o o p to allow time for provision of public notice. 7. SUBDIVISIONS - Preliminary Plat Approval ~~ • 7^1 Englewood - Phase 1 (Commonwealth Properties) Location: South of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road and westerly of Fanno Creek A. This item was postponed to the April 2nd Planning Com- mission 0iaoion mao ti ng to allow time for provision of public ' notice for the related variance proceeding. 8* SUBDIVISIONS - Minor Land partitioning 8.1 Finke Property Location: 12535 S.W. Grant Street (Tax Map 251 288, Tax Lot '_ l8OO\" ' A. Staff Recommendation request subject � 1. Staff recommended to two conditions: a. That the property owner cause any lot oh the PAGE 7 COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1974 foot lot size. b. That the property owner dedicate an additional 5 feet of right-of-way parallel to and for the future improvement of S.W. Grant Street. B. Commission Discussion and Action 1e Hartman moved that the minor land partitioning be approved subject to the two staff recommended condi- tions and adding a third condition that the lot be properly surveyed. 2. Brooks asked the inclusion of a fourth condition that an easement be recorded guaranteeing access to the rear portion of the parcel, said easement document to be approved by the City Attorney. 3. Hartman agreed to include Brooks suggestion in his motion and Sakata seconded the entire motion. The motion passed by a majority vote with Barkhurst voting NAY. 9. MISCELLANEOUS 9,1 M 4-74 Interpretation of Use Swimming Pool Sales A request by Columbia Pools and Recreation Company to interpret swimming pool sales as a permitted use in a C-3, General Commercial zone. A. This item was moved to the first position on the agenda and preceded the Columbia Pools and Recreation Company ' s request for conditional use approval. B. Staff Findings 1. Brooks presented the staff findings relevant to this case. B. Testimony & Cross Examination 1. Mr. Ralph Long, the applicant, explained the intend- ed use of the property to the Planning Commission stating that he intended to use the office and warehouse space for retail swimming pool sales and the adjacent vacant lot for display of pools. C. Staff Recommendation 1. Staff recommended the interpretation of swimming PAGE 8 - ,COMMISSION MINUTES ® MARCH 19, 1974 Y pool sales as a conditional use in a C- 3, General Commercial zones Dm Commission Discussion & Action to Ball questioned Mr.. Brooks asking if he correctly understood his recommendation that swimming pool sales be considered similar to conditional uses in the C-3 zone, but not permitted uses. 2. Brooks said that he considered the use similar to conditional uses not outright permitted uses. 30 ' Hansen moved that retail swimming pool sales be con- sidered conditional itional uses allowed in the similar t o rd C-'3, General Commercial zone. Barkhurst seconded and the motion passed by unanimous vote. 10. ADJOURNMENT 10040 P.M. PAGE 9 -, COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 19, 1974 rd TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION staff Report March 19, 1974 Agenda Item 4.1 CU 5-74 (Columbia Pools & Recreation Company) Conditional Use For property located at 13015 S.W. Pacific Highway and comprising .56 acres (Tax Map 2S1 2BD, Tax Lots 2900 & 3000). Applicant i Columbia Pools & Recreation Company Applicant's Request Approval to construct an outdoor display of prefabricated swimming pools a conditional use in a C-3, General. Commercial zone. Applicant's Proposal i To construct a landscaped prefabricated swimming pool display area adjacent S.W. Pacific Highway. ,?taff Findings 1. See attached map for existing zoning and land use relationships. 2. The applicant has not submitted a response to the "Fasano" guidelines. 3. A retail carpet store is located on the subject site. The applicant proposes to occupy the structures now occupied by said carpet store. 4. The Tigard Community Plan designates the subject site for General Commercial use. The purpose of said designation being to "accomodate a range of retail and service commercial uses that benefit from a highway oriented location. The objectives, policies and standards of said designation are printed on pages 26 & 27 of the Tigard Community Plan. 5. The site is currently served by both sewer and water services. 6. Section 18.12.080 (b) (TMC) states "When permitted under the conditional use provisions of this title, all business, service, repair, processing, storage or merchandise display not conducted within an enclosed building may be required to be screened from the view of all adjacent properties by a focus obscuring the sight of normal adjacent pedestrian and vehicular traffic and/or by landscaping of such a height and density as may be prescribed by the planning commission." 7. The applicant has submitted a schematic site and landscape plan of the proposed pool display area. Said plan indicates a 6' chain link fence surround- ing the pool display area. Plant materials and sizes are not indicated nor method of irrigation indicated. The method of draining the three pools shown on the plan is not indicated. Landscaping treatment immediately adjacent SW Pacific Highway is not indiated. On-site vehicular access into the pool display ti Staff Report -2- CU 5-74 Item No. 4.1 March 19, 1974 area is not indicated. The'method of lighting the display area is not indicated. 8. Section 18.60.070 (TMC) states "except in connection with single family uses, all areas used for the standing or maneuvering of vehicles shall be improved according to the same specifications for city streets." Staff Recommendations Approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant submit a detailed site, landscape, irrigation fencing and lighting plan for the subject site. Said detailed plan shall be subject to review and shall be approved by the Site Development Plan and Design Review Board prior to commencement of construction of the subject pool display area. Said detailed plan shall address the following concerns: a. The need for a site obscuring fence along the southeastern property line. b. Description, spacing and size of plant materials. c. Irrigation method for bringing water to plant materials. d. Fencing and landscape treatment of the display area immediately adjacent S.W. Pacific Highway and particularly the distance of the proposed cyclone fence from S.W. Pacific Highway. e. The vehicular access and maneuvering area necessary to service the pool display area. f. The type of lighting standard and level of illumination. The Site Development Plan and Design Review Board shall review and approve said detailed plan with respect to the adequacy of said plan to protect the residential quality of the adjacent residences and the aesthetic impact of the pool display area as viewed from S.W. Pacific Highway. • TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report ".March;;, 19, 1974 Agenda Item 5.1 V 7-73 (Circle A-W) Variance For property located at 13885 S.W. 72nd Avenue. (Tax Map 2S1 1DC, Tax Lot 1100). Applicant Circle A-W Products Company Applicant's Request To construct an addition to an existing building, said addition proposed to have a 12 foot side yard setback where a 20 foot setback is required in an M-2, General Industrial zone. Staff Findings 1. Applicant's justification is stated as follows: "It is impossible to efficiently utilize the existing building and the proposed new building if we are required to provide 20 feet rear yard setback. However, we can meet all accepted fire protection measures and provide a safe building." 2. The applicant proposes a 48 foot easement on an adjacent tax lot, said easement restricting the further construction of structures upon the easement and providing a potential 60 foot separation between buildings. The applicant has furnished no easement documents for review by the planning staff and City Attorney. 3. The applicant has not submitted a description of the problems inherent in the manufacturing process that causes loss of efficiency inside the building and proves an undue hardship. 4. Section 18.76.010 (Tigard Municipal Code) states ". .. the planning . commission may authorize variances from the requirements of this title where it can be shown that, owing to special and unusual circumstances related to specific piece of property, the literal interpretation of this title would cause an undue or unnecessary hardship. ..In granting a variance the planning commission may attach conditions which it finds necessary to protect the best interests of the surrounding property or neighborhood and to otherwise achieve the purposes of this title". In addition Section 18.76.020 (Tigard Municipal Code) states that "no variance shall be granted by the planning commission unless it can be shown that all the following conditions exist: (1) Exceptional or extraordinary conditions applying to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, which conditions are a result of lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control; Staff Report -2- V 7-73 Item No. 5.1 March 19, 1974 • (2) The variance is necessary for the preservation of a property right of the applicant substantially the same as is possessed by owners of other property in the same zone or vicinity; . (3) The authorization of the variance shall not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title, be injurious to property in the zone or vicinity in which the property is located, or be otherwise detrimental to the objectives of any city development plan or policy; (4) The variance requested is the minimum variance from the provisions and standards of this title which will alleviate the hardship. 5. This agenda item was continued from the February 19, 1974 hearing and with- drawn by the applicant from the March 5, 1974 hearing to enable the applicant to submit necessary documentation for review and analysis by the staff. The applicant has stated necessary documentation will be submitted on Monday March 18, 1974 and has requested a place on the March 19, 1974. The staff will review said documentation prior to the March 19, 1974 hearing. Staff Recommendation Withheld pending applicant's presentation at the March 19, 1974 public hearing. • A TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report 4! March 19, 1974 Agenda Item 5.2 V 1-74 (R. A. Gray & Co. ) Variance For property located at 9920 S.W. Tigard Street. (Tax Map 2S1 2BA, Tax Lot 300) . Applicant R. A. Gray & Company Applicant's Request To vary a required 50 foot side yard setback to a proposed 15 feet. Applicant's Request To construct a warehouse structure on the subject property. Staff Findings 1. . Zoning, land use and site maps are attached for review as well as the applicant' s justification for a variance. 2. The subject site and the easterly adjacent property are designated General Industrial by the Tigard Community Plan, said plan stating this designation is "to provide locations for a wide range of industrial uses that are compatible with one another. " The plan also states an objective of the General Commercial designation is "to protect land designated for industry from encroachment by uses which are not compatible. " 3. Section 18.52.040 (2) (TMC) states that in the M-4, Industrial Park zones "the sideyard setback shall be twenty feet, except when abutting or across the street from a residential zone, a side yard setback of fifty feet shall be required. " 4. The minimum side yard setback now occurring on the site is 20 feet adjacent a County RU-4, Urban Residential District. 5. See Staff Report for Agenda Item 5. 1, finding 4, for a review of the Tigard Municipal Code section dealing with criteria for granting variances. Staff Recommendation Staff wishes to withhold recommendation so they may evaluate the testimony to be given at the public hearing. at 4 . ee .,TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report • 'March 19, 1974 ._ f: Agenda Item 8.1 MLP 1-74 (Finke Property) • Minor Land Partitionin For property located at 12535 S.W. Grant Street. (Tax Map 2S1 2BB, Tax Lot 1800). ; . Staff Findin s r(A 1. Tax Lot 1800, Tax Map 2S1 2BB, was created without approval of the Tigard ` Planning Commission as per Chapter 17.24, Tigard Municipal Code. 2. Tax Lot 1800 comprises .17 acres or approximately 6900 square feet. Single Family Residential with a minimum lot size 3. Tax Lot 1800 is zoned R-7, g y of 7500 square feet. 4. The Tigard Community Plan designates Tax Lot 1800 as an area suitable for k• "General Commercial" use. The schematic and unadopted Creenburg-Brookside, NPO #2 Plan designates Tax Lot 1800 for single family residential use. 5, Section 17.24.020 (TMC) states: ,; "A sketch map shall be submitted to the planning commission for review 4_' OIL and determination that the proposed minor land partition shall be consistent with the comprehensive development plan. If the proposal includes or should the planning commission require, the dedication of ,# land and easements for roads or streets, the proposal shall not be processed li as a minor land partition but may only be resubmitted pursuant to requirements of this title with respect to major land partition or 1 subdivision." {, 6. S.W. Grant Street abutts the subject Tax Lot 1800 & the original parcel fr, (Tax Lot 1801) and has a 40 foot right-of-way. The minimum right-of-way t, width described by the Tigard Community Plan is 50 feet for a local street. •_, S.W. Grant Street is currently designated a local street. , Staff Recommendation. ` Approval of the requested minor land partitioning subject to the following ,,f° conditions: j{} 1. That the property owner(s) cause any lot on the proposed partition to have a minimum 7500 square foot lot size. 1 2: That the property owner dedicate an additional 5 feet of right-of-way parallel to, and for the future improvement of, S.W. Grant Street. , .. �' �^ ..' NI''PI'lG lc;N LOIN!Y"6�NEG ON :..... �._ �•/ 1/4 NV/V4 SECTION 2 TES R I L/ W.M, .... 2.p;- r 1 •f,` _2S I 2B.■.., ..� 'T •ofi.,...'.''.. .. , 7 .,...., • ■ ..��yiN •.r ii or.. 300 200 .�.. ---- N,,. L .! r 72.4 402 20 �` ro 412 •:5Ac ll At .00 j 11 �� - 614 1 0 _ • U ° .• "'0 . ° • 471 ID I= K 2 1 R °CD -P b,l A 14 •I 15 4 4 104 1 — •::f 0. 2 �• `•404 '.��,,�aro 3 • Q 9 f.f•afw S ., 7 .., I •lrgO7 •,r •��' ryw»1 +fl. 11. I „'o / if 1. q 22• o. 408 1 n N • 406 ✓,i40 7 •111•0191r f ' ....A►!er . .__.__.,ey,4:•0:w n . ( ,/,'".'Moil.' ••,t,Al F? 7 H T 1 G A R r r V J L L E ,,.:. 832 S.[AC. •. •f• ••.. •1 900 .C/ s 828 �f 4. -r' 1 *' 827 ,, o J _r) I I J C) 1\/ • ... ..•nu•• \',r 4 6 829 •.0 . R300'i '( ° c ••�� rbr••r• ,°j .+ 14 244 pp 2 • c-Q_ t; y�°r,-211437- r A Leo 825 ,l a 7 ,, �� �;' '�) 1 iy SEE MAP •'' _ ;1 ) �-,.. ,_ `�a • 2 S 1 2 BA r \ X47° r~ ♦1M 19 1 ' b IN ITI LL{+pNT B14. t ♦ 9RfKtic510E PK 2 ` +/ lict 2 6 524 14',. 7724---V '''''',;•,..... ,•♦ / / d '�•tt f.°= t�sLta i 82h ■ 922 821 I S C''''',.„1 y+ / 1 \ 0\4 .2' .� 3 'o 2 8. 'IP 7, N`'�/` , 5 .•i i r[ um'VI •r'`O� ,.816 �I f°zi •`" r f, A `0 1¢ 7 J� . 801 •' �O • 1 �1..�!•,.` S .`/CJ71 „, `.. ,.' .f 820 ° ,,...// �• • .... eS Q., W 1 4''5; 817 .* •• /vs p\ 0 0 818'''''''''' , •• .. 1 .`.0, //o•-0 • ✓0 ,..,\` / 813 •x. •e /ir . 5{ Q „ 802+a A. 4- /.4i;, h/A. •o+ 1 q.' g12+3;� •�, �'�.i. 2+/�"•f.... 3 �.'• • ^�'•o d'`�4, 'IS c� \ 04 i 1 v 819 8 b' O� �C • 7/ C• 3i l ii•` A l :p^ (u .��. 2 e' /.. `° / e30p ib1. lSO './ Q 803°• ~ •°°� •:' / 810 ' �,' L i / +:t S•+ r 1 14 p ! +b• _ 5 �� i 909 r l o i •� + .1.,,°0 i.b•• ",r�,' ,ice •• , Q yU i'•'8.4.- 3 ••',. ....A oe �•b/'`` 4 '. _.'Cj(". — 1 804 • •' , '+ . �► // J� /��809 m .77/ S I•n y 2 °• I / 805 of • •.+�r0 �. 19 .3016.4°0 '�e• N✓ \Q. 1 Co' •,„,,. • Op ++' J + fib;,. ' ••• �+ 806`0•. Q e° •v.., ^12, \ • `I f Jr.. '.18 RI" / •O .\ Q 6 • \�V SEE MAP .�P, 251 28C IT �� • ~. SEE MAP / .,!% • i 2S t 28D .,•, . 211 33— • `' 2S 1 2 B• TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report March 19, 1974 Agenda Item 9.1 M4-74 (Interpretation of Use; Retail Swimming Pool Sales) Staff Findings 1. Section 18. 12. 030 (TMC) "Authorization of Similar Uses" states "The Planning Commission may rule that a use, not specifically named in the allowed uses of a zone, shall be in- cluded e allowed uses same eluded among h ses if the use is f the general type and is similar to the allowed uses. However, - this section does not authorize the inclusion of a use specifically listed in another zone. " 2. . Retail Swimming Pool Sales is not a specifically named use category within Title 18 of the Tigard Municipal Code. 3. The subject use necessitates outside display, a condition- al use within a C-3, General Commercial zone. Said outside display is similar to display of autos and trailers. "Automobile and trailer sales areas" are conditional uses within the C-3, General Commercial zone. Staff Recommendation Interpretation of Retail Swimming Pool Sales as a conditional use within a C-3, General Commercial zone.