06/02/1993 - Minutes JUN-. 9-93 WED 7.32 P. 01
•
NPO #3 MINUTES
June 2, 1993
1. Joint meeting with NPO #7 called to order at 7:08 p.m.
2. Liz Newton presented the proposed new land use notification
process. Discussion, questions and answers followed.
3 . Liz presented the CIT boundaries which will take effect on
July 1, 1993. Considerable discussion was held and several
suggestions were made regarding minor boundary changes and
structure which Liz will take back to staff.
4 . We were assured that any land use actions presently active
will be continued under the NPO format. CIT's should start
meetings in the fall, NPO' s will cease as of June 30.
S. Joint meeting adjourned and NPO #3 was called to order at
8:07 p.m.
6. Present-Porter, Bishop, Froude, Garner and Hansen. Excused-
Mortensen and Helm.
7. Minutes of May 5, 1993 approved.
8. Scatus report of Ames Orchard II. Revised plan has been
submitted showing one entrance to the subdivision at 121
Ave. and Gaarde St. NOTION: It was moved and seconded to
approve the new plan as presented. Four yes votes, one
abstention.
9. Hot'n Now update. Continued discussion of the neighborhood
Concerns were followed by the four MOTYONS listed below.
a. It was moved and seconded to appeal the Community
Development Directors interpretation of a major
modification. See attached letter from Ed Murphy.
b. It was moved and seconded to comprehensively deal
with the access issues involving Public Storage, Taco
Bell, Pietro's and Hot'n Now.
c. It was moved and seconded to form and subcommittee
of NPO #3 to pursue a major modification development
application (CDC 18.32.020 A. 4.1. ) and request a
waiver of fees.
d. It was moved and seconded to appoint Martha Bishop
as chairwoman of the subcommittee and to authorize her
to appoint members from the neighborhood and NPO #3 .
All four motions passed unanimously.
10. Meeting adjourned at 9 :05 p.m.
Re
Teclly submitted,
T,
x �
L la Garner
JUN- 9-93 WED 7:32 P. 02
May 27, 1993
CITY OF TIGA►RD
OREGON
Martha Bishop
10590 SW Cook Lane
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Mrs. Bishop:
Thank you for your recent letter. 1 appreciate your concern over the safety and livability
of your neighborhood, as well as your concern that the staff may be making discretionary
decisions where the Development Code gives staff no such discretion.
In the case of Hot'n Now and Taco Bell, the essence of your letter seems to be that the
staff approved a change in the proposed site plan which added a driveway connection
between Taco Bell and Hofn Now without determining that it was a"major modification".
A"major modification" determination would have required a new site development review
application and a new public notice of the decision with an opportunity for an appeal.
Although that would have been the situation had Hoen Now's site plan already been
approved or developed, it is not the situation in this case. Hot'n Now's plan had not yet
been finally approved at the time of the modifications. Therefore,the requirements of the
Community Development Code on major modifications (18.120.070.B) do not apply.
To review the background in more detail: Hot'n Now originally submitted plans showing
the restaurant site could only be accessed from a single driveway from SW Park Street.
Those plans were provided to the NPO,neighbors,and other reviewing agencies for review.
The Planning Division approved the Hot'n Now plans on November 11, 1992. NPO #3 filed
an appeal to the Planning Commission of that decision on November 20, 1992,
Subsequently,Taco Bell,the parent company for Hoen Now,submitted a Site Development
Review application for another restaurant on an adjacent site. That application was
submitted on December 2, 1992. The Taco Bell site plan included a driveway connection
to the Hot'n Now site. A small scale site plan was submitted showing both sites together.
From that point on, staff was very clear in our discussions with the NPO and neighbors
that the Hoen Now proposed development was being considered with alternative access
plans - the first plan with access to Park Street only, and the second plan with a possible
driveway connection to SW Pacific Highway through the proposed Taco Bell development
contingent upon the approval of the Taco Bell proposal. That is also how the Hot'n Now
development plan was presented to the Planning Commission by staff and the applicant's
representative at the appeal hearing on January 4, 1993. The tape recording of that
hearing and the overhead transparencies used by staff clearly indicate that both plans
were clearly presented to the Planning Commission at the hearing,
'?5 SW Nall Blvd., 11gard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) ARe.977)
JUN--9-93 WED 7:33
Martha Bishop
Page 2
May 27, 1993
Community Development Code Section 18.120.070 concerns major modifications to
approved development plans or existing development. This Section would require
submittal of a new Site Development Review application if a change was being made to
an approved plan for the proposed Hot'n Now, and if those changes met certain standards
of Section 18.120.070.8 which deal with the magnitude of the change, Staff found that the
submittal of an alternative design for the Hot'n Now site was proper since there was no
approved Site Development Plan at the time of the submittal and therefore Code Section
18.120.070 was not applicable. The Planning Division's approval of the original HoVn Now
site pian was under appeal at the time of submittal of the modifications and therefore
there was no valid approved development plan at that time. Opponents of the proposed
development were clearly aware of the alternative access plan through the Taco Bell site
prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the Hofn Now appeal. Upon your raising
this issue relative to the changes in the site plan to the Planning Commission at the
Commission's March 22, 1993 hearing, the Commissioners responded that they were fully
aware of the proposed Hot'n Now connection through the Taco Bell site when the
Commission heard the appeal on the Hofn Now development plan.
I have determined that the changes to the originally submitted site plan for the proposed
Hot'n Now development were properly submitted as a modification to an unapproved site
plan that was still under review. As such, the submittal does not fall under the scope of
Code Section 18,120.070 which relates to modifications to approved site plans or existing
development. I do not believe there has been anything improper about how this matter
has been handled. Staff was not using discretionary judgement or flaunting the codes.
Further, I do not believe that any person or group has been deprived of their rights to
review and comment on the proposed modification prior to a final decision being issued on
this application.
I hope this letter adequately clarifies the process and my reasoning based on the
Development Code provisions. I believe City staff has acted properly and professionally
in this regard. If you have any further questions regarding this issue, please contact me.
Sin rely,
EdMorph
Community Development Director
br/DiohopItr