The URL can be used to link to this page

LUBA1990-092 - John Dolan and Florence Dolan a=+ V`' t BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON 2 JOHN T. DOLAN and FLORENCE DOLAN, ) 3 ) Petitioners, ) LUBA NO. 90-092 4 ) V. ) STIPULATED MOTION FOR 5 ) EXTENSION OF CITY OF TIGARD, ) TIME FOR FILING 6 ) RESPONDENT'S BRIEF Respondent. ) 7 ) 8 9 The PETITION FOR REVIEW in this case was served on May 7, 10 1990, pursuant to the Board's Order dated April 9, 1990, granting 11 the Petitioner's a thirty-one (31) day extension of time. An Order 12 Extending the Period of Time for Respondent to file its briefs, 13 based on a motion by Respondent, dated May 14, 1990, was signed by • Corinne C. Sherton, Chief Referee on May 16, 1990. 15 The parties hereto stipulate that the Respondent should be 16 granted a Motion for an Extension of Time to file its brief which 17 is currently due on June 29, 1990 to a date certain of September 18 28, 1990. The parties have entered into a settlement posture and 19 will require time in which to bring the proposal before the City 20 of Tigard. 21 DATED this day of June, 1990. 22 Respectfully submitted 23 24 JOSEPH R. MENDEZ, OSB #82333 Of Attorneys for Petitioner 25 1 - STIPULATED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING 4f RESPONDENT'S BRIEF (C:\WP50\P1eadings\JRM\Dolan.102} KNAPPENBERGER & MENDEF ATTORNEYS AT LAW HONEYMAN HOUSE 1318 S.W.12TH AvE. PORTLAND, OREGON 97201-3367 (503) 294-0442 • IT IS SO STIPULATED. 2 3 JOSEPH R. MENDEZ, OSB #82333 PHILIP GRILLO, OSB #85220 Of Attorneys for Petitioner Of Attorneys for Respondent 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 • 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pa e 2 - STIPULATED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING RESPONDENT'S BRIEF (C:\WP50\Pleadings\JRM\Dolan.102) KNAPPENBERGER & MENDEZ ATTORNEYS AT LAW HONEVMAN HOUSE 1318 S.W.12TH AVE. PORTLAND. OREGON 97201.3367 (503) 294-0442 t • O'DONNELL, RAMIS, ELLIOTT & CREW JEFF H. BACHRAC H ATTORNEYS AT LAW CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE CHARLES E. CORRIGAN• BALLOW & WRIGHT BUILDING 181 N. Grant, Suite 202 STEPHEN F. CREW Canby, Oregon 97013 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street (503) 266.1149 KENNETH ELLIOTT Portland, Oregon 97209 KENNETH H H. . FOX (503) 222402 GRILLO REESE P P. E. HASTINGS FAX (503) 243-2944 GARY M. GEORGEFF• EESE ROBERT J. McGAUGHEY• MARK P. WILLIAM A. O'DON NNELL PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE Special Counsel DENNIS M. PATERSON 111 TIMOTHY V. RAMIS SHEILA C. RIDGWAY* WILLIAM J. STALNAKER 'Also Admitted to Practice in State of Washington May 14, 1990 Ms. Angie Crosby Administrative stant Land Use Bo of Appeals Suite 22 , 100 High St., SE Sale OR 97310 /Re: John T. and Florence Dolan vs. City of Tigard, LUBA No. 90-029 • Dear Ms. Crosby: Enclosed please find an original and one copy of the Motion for Extension of Time for Filing Respondent's Brief, along with the Certificate of Filing and Certificate of Service. Upon filing, please complete the enclosed reply postcard and return same to our office. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, O'DONNELL, RAMIS, ELLIOTT & CREW Lori Foster Secretary to Phillip E. Grillo /if Enclosur peg\tigard ba.It3 cc: athy Wheatley • • 1 BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS 2 OF THE STATE OF OREGON JOHN T. DOLAN and FLORENCE DOLAN, ) LUBA No. 90-029 4 Petitioners. ) MOTION FOR EXTENSION 5 vs. ) OF TIME FOR FILING RESPONDENT'S BRIEF 6 CITY OF TIGARD, ) 7 Respondent. ) 8 9 The Petition for Review in this case was served on May 7, 10 1990, pursuant to the Board's order dated April 9, 1990, granting 11 the petitioners a 31-day extension of time. 12 Respondent, City of Tigard, hereby requests an equal extension 13 of time of 31 days from May 29, 1990 to June 29, 1990. It was the N . z 14 understanding of the parties at the time that petitioners were 15 granted their extension, that the respondent would be afforded a 16 similar extension of time. 17 This is the first request for an extension of time by the 18 respondent. This extension of time will accommodate potential 19 settlement discussions and will accommodate the schedule of the 20 respondent's attorney of record, Phillip E. Grillo, who will be out 21 22 2,03 24 25 • 26 Page 1 - MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING RESPONDENT'S BRIEF • • • 1 of town from May 23 through May 29, 1990. Opposing counsel has 2 previously agreed to this request for extension of time. 3 DATED this day of May, 1990. 4 Respectfully submitted, 5 O'DONNELL, RAMIS, ELLIOTT & CREW 6 7 By Phillip . Grillo, OSB #8220 8 Of Atto neys for Respondent 9 10 11 12 J R 13 ~ N 14 LL 3 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 • 26 pa9\ti9ard\dolan.mo1 Page 2 - MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING RESPONDENT'S BRIEF .y ` • 1 CERTIFICATE OF FILING 2 I hereby certify that on a 1990, I filed the original 'of this MOTION FOR EXTEN ION OF TIME FOR FILING 3 RESPONDENT'S BRIEF, together with one copy, with the Land Use Board of Appeals, Suite 220, 100 High Street SE, Salem, Oregon 97310, by 4 first class mail. 5 DATED this day of , 1990 l 6 ~ . 1 7 Phillip E. Grillo, OSB #85220 of Attorneys for Respondent 8 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 10 I hereby certify that on Fr lr , 1990, I served a 11 true and correct copy of this MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING RESPONDENT'S BRIEF by first class mail on the following 12 Person: k~ 13 Joseph R. Mendez Attorney at Law NJ 14 Honeyman House _ 1318 S.W. 12th Ave. 15 Portland, OR 97201-3n3367 16 DATED this day of NA , -1990. 17 18 P1 1 1i E. Grillo, OSB #85220 of Attorneys for Respondent 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 • 26 CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE 4 ~ ` AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) Catherine Wheatley hereby certify: (Please Print) That I ram a _ City Recorder _for the City of Tigard, Oregon. That I served notice of the Tigard City Council record for Land Use Board of Appeals Case No. 90-029 (Dolan V. City of Tigard) of which the attached is a copy (Marked Exhibit A) upon each of the following named persons on the 15th day of March 19 90 , by mailing to each of them at the address shown on the attached list (Marked Exhibit B), said notice is hereto attached, and desposited in the United States Mail on the 15th day of March 19. 90 postage prepaid. Prepared Notice Subscribed and sworn to before me this AT-day of - 19~. Notary Public of Oregon My Commission Expires: a ed Notice/Delivered to Post Office Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 19 14 Notary Public of Oregon My Commission Expires: D J ID=IT "An Mailing contained all documents as noted in the attached Table of Contents concerning the City of Tigard Land Use Board of Appeals Filing (Dolan v. City of Tigard; MBA No. 90-029). -u 1 f" _ 1 s _ c: trr ~rw ~ H I ~~`f s j;? n Ej 'ET, W O~ H W V) i ~!"~{ff~r ~rf! W W M W vJ W U2 rf, otS Q' x fl - ' N H H ylrl:ff' : W ..aWH[- PUW WO I rt a m U] a w r r r s`j= ':rf%f w H x o ff a rn 04 0 .44 O W W. G4 H O H L- x x o U9PCI U) 0) Ow W>-q z H A w E-H W x x ' frnr ar 'rrf;!'I W Z w 3 Z H U] U) 0 O U] W z U] -:4 u H :0 H O W WM H Z, •7 x r;Jf.lrinrif:;r..fx' h P4 O W CO H d H A W ZE-40 n0 U)A~O~ f ^j a4~xc-0.i~~7c-U] j r ,,ssffi _ • I 1 ~i t . • - rrrJr- _ r; s" ^ O'DONNELL, RAMIS, ELLIOTT & CREW JEFF H. BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE 181 N. Grant, Suite 202 CHARLES E. CORRIGAN• BALLOW & WRIGHT BUILDING 81 Oregon 97013 STEPHEN F. CREW 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street (503) regon 1149 266- KENNETH M. ELLIOTT Portland, Oregon 97209 KENNETH H. FOX (503) 222.4402 PHILLIP E. GRILLO FAX (503) 243-2944 GARY M. GEORGEFF' REESE P. HASTINGS ROBERT J. McGAUGHEY• WILLIAM A. MONAHAN PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE Special Counsel MARK P.O'DONNELL DENNIS M. PATERSON 111 TIMOTHY V. RAMIS SHEILA C. RIDGWAY* WILLIAM J. STALNAKER 'Also Admitted to Practice in State of Washington February 26, 1990 Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder City of Tigard P.O.Box 23397 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Dolan v City of Tigard LUBA No. 90-029 Dear Cathy: Enclosed please find a copy of the Notice of Intent to Appeal filed by John T. Dolan and Florence Dolan pertaining to SDR 89-13/V 89-21. Please prepare the record for submittal to LUBA. The record is due 21 days after the service of the notice--March 16, 1990. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, OIDONNELL, RAMIS/,ELLIOTT CREW William A. Monahan c WAM/gaj FE2 V UZ324a 4 jl Enclosure WAM\TIGARD\WHEATLEY.LT1 .V FEB 26 19VO Land Use Board of Appeals O-DONNELL.RAMIS. NE4~NOR 100 HIGH STREET SE, SUITE 220, SALEM, OREGON 97310 PHONE (503) 373-1265 February 23, 1990 Timothy V. Ramis City Attorney O'Donnell, Ramis, Elliott & Crew 1727 NW Hoyt Street Portland, OR 97209 RE: Dolan v. City of Tigard LUBA No. 90-029 Dear Mr. Ramis: This is to advise you that a Notice of Intent to Appeal has been filed in the above matter and that Section 661-10-015 of the Board's Procedural Rules requires that service be made upon the respondent within 21 days after the date of the land use decision being appealed. The record is to be prepared by respondent and transmitted to the Board within 21 days of the date of such service. Very truly yours, 4agierosby Administrative Assistant cc: Joseph R. Mendez BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS FEB 26 1990 2 OF THE STATE OF OREGON O'DONNELL.RAMIS, 3 JOHN T. DOLAN and FLORENCE DOLAN ) 4 Petitioners, ) LUBA NO. 5 ) VS. ) 6 CITY OF TIGARD, ) Respondent. ) s ) 9 10 NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL 11 1. 12 Notice is hereby given that Petitioners intend to appeal 13 that land-use decision of Respondent entitled Notice of Final Order 0 By City Council, which became final on February 5, 1990, which 15 involves a site development review appeal of tax map and lot number 16 2S1 2AC, Tax Lot 700, commonly referred to as 12520_S:W. Main 17 Street, regarding the reconstruction of a general retail sales 18 facility, A-BOY ELECTRIC PLUMBING & SUPPLY, with a new 17,600 19 square foot building on a 1.67 acre parcel, subject to fourteen 20 (14) conditions. A copy of said Notice of Final Order is attached 21 hereto, marked as "Exhibit A" and incorporated herein by this 22 reference. 23 24 25 Se 1 - NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL (C:\WP50\Pleadings\JRM\ABoy.100} KNAPPENBERGER & MENDED TR' '-CO UE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1- _ HONEym^N House Attorney; for: 1318 S.W. 127H Ave, / PORTLAND. OREGON 97201.3367 II. 2 Petitioners, JOHN T. DOLAN and FLORENCE DOLAN are 3 represented by: Joseph R. Mendez, of Knappenberger & Mendez, 4 Attorneys at Law, Honeyman House, 1318 S.W. Twelfth Avenue, 5 Portland, Oregon 97201-3367, telephone (503/294-0442). 6 Respondent, CITY OF TIGARD, has as its mailing address 7 and telephone number: 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, 8 Tigard, Oregon 97223, telephone (503/639-4171); and has, as its 9 legal counsel: Timothy V. Ramis, O'Donnell, Ramis, et al., 10 Attorneys at Law, 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street, Portland, Oregon 97209. III. 12 Applicant, ALBERT R. KENNEY, JR., Engineer, was 13 represented in the proceeding below by Joseph R. Mendez, of Knappenberger & Mendez, Attorneys at Law, Honeyman House, 15 1318 S.W. Twelfth Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97201-3367, telephone 16 (503/294-0442). 17 Other persons mailed written notice of the land-use 18 decision by CITY OF TIGARD, as indicated by its records in this 19 matter, include: JOHN T. DOLAN and FLORENCE DOLAN, 405 S.E. 20 Brooklyn, Portland, Oregon 97202. 21 NOTICE: 22 Anyone designated in Paragraph III of this Notice who 23 desires to participate as a party in this case before the Land Use 24 25 2 - NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL {C:\WP50\Pleadinge\JRH\ABoy.100} KNAPPENBERGER & MENDEZ ATTORNEYS AT LAW HONEYMAN HOUSE 1318 S.W. 12TH AVE PORTLAND. OREGON 97201-3367 1• Board of Appeals must file with the Board a Motion to Intervene in 2 this proceeding as required by OAR 661-10-050. 3 4 KNAPPENBERGER & MENDEZ 5 6 BY: 7 JOS P MEND , B #82333 A ey for tioners 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 - NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL {C:\WP50\Pleadings\JRK\ABoy.100} KNAPPENBERGER & MENDEZ ATTORNEYS AT LAW HONEY-N HOUSE 1318 S.W 12TH AvE PORTLAND. OREGON 97201.3367 k CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon • NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER - BY CITY COUNCIL 1. Concerning Case Number(s): SDR 89-13/V 89-21 2. Name of Owner: John T. & Florence Dolan Name of Applicant: Albert R. Kenney Jr. 3. Address 9500 SW Barbur Blvd. City Portland State OR Zip 97206 4. Address of Property: 12520 SW Hain Street Tax Hap and Lot No(s).: 2S1 2AC, tax lot 700 5. Request: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPEAL SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN NPO #1 An appeal of a Planning Commission 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. 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, (Signs). ZONE: CBD-AA (Central Business District - Action Areal. 6. Action: Approval as requested Approval with conditions X Denial - uheld Planning Commission decision with amendment asnoted in Resolution No. 90-07 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 affected Neighborhood Planning Organization X Affected governmental agencies approved 8. Final Decision: THE DECISION WAS ftCNED ON 2/5/90 , AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON 2/5/90 The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of conditions can be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. A review of this decision may be obtained by filing a notice of intent with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) according to their procedures. 9. QUESTIONS: If you have any questions, please call the Tigard City Recorder at 639-4171. bkm/SDR89-13.BKH ExtuBiTA - l F G CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON • RESOLUTION NO. 90-07 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 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 December 5, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Commission upheld the Director's decision with modifications to the original conditions of approval (Final Order No. 89-25 PC); and WHEREAS, this matter came before the City Council at its meeting of February 5, 1990, upon the request of the applicant; and WHEREAS, the Council reviewed the evidence related to the applicant's appeal and modified Condition No. 5. of Planning Commission Final Order No. 89-25 PC so that the City's engineer/surveyor shall be responsible for the locating 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 Commission decision is upheld, as amended, based upon the facts, findings, and conclusions noted in Planning Commission Final Order No. 89-25 (Exhibit "A"). The Council further orders that the City Recorder send a copy of this final order to the applicant as a notice of the final decis n in this matter. J41 PASSED: This day of Februa , 990. a1d Edwards, or City of and ATTEST: Tigard City Recorder DOLANRES/kl RESOLUTION NO. 90-07 PAGE 1 FXHISIT CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION k FINAL ORDER NO. 89--7-5-PC 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 (V 89-21) TO THE REQUIRED PARKING STANDARD FOR GENERAL RETAIL SALES TO ALLOW 39 PARKING SPACES WHERE 44 ARE REQUIRED (DOLAN). 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. 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 6.e. Foster Road Portland, OR 97206 LOCATION: 12520 SW Hain Street (WCTH 2S1 2AC, TL 700) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Central Business District ZONE DESIGNATION: CBD-AA (Central Business District, Action Area) 2. Background 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 property have been considered nonconforming as of March 20, 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 properties an extension of time until a City Center Plan is adopted. The voluntary compliance agreement was never signed. The property and business owners have been cited for the following nonconformities: 1. Roof sign, a violation of Section 18.114.070.H; and FINAL ORDER 89- L5 PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 1 EXHIBIT 4 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 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 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 present location since approximately the late 1940s. A freestanding sign with a readerboard stands along the Hain Street frontage of the property. Two large billboardsi 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-Boy Electric 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. 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. 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 has an existing 4-inch steel main 14 feet north of the centerline on SW Main Street and a service line to 12520 SW Hain Street_ The Company will require notification prior to demolition. FINAL ORDER 89-2-S PC - SDR-89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 2 ~ EXHIBIT • - i The Consolidated Rural 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 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 to.a 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. 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 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 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 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 reconstruction of main Street be required as a condition of this 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 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 slopes toward Fanno Creek; therefore adequate storm drainage is available. FINAL ORDER 89-1.~!L_PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOI.AN - PAGE 3 EXHISIT -s 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 closer to the proposed i building than the location of the existing top of bank. I 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 aind the proposed building. Typically, new developments along Fanno 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 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 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 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 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 18.100, 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, this order will review the proposal in light of the Parks Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park and the natural resources element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. FINAL ORDER 89- 2~ PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 4 EXHIBIT A ` i - 1 f 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 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 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 district, 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 will be analyzed during a discussion of landscaping and screening below. I 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 are intended to serve the 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: a. The development shall address transit usage by residents, employees, and customers 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 building(s) from transit lines or stops; ii_ Minimizing transit/auto conflicts by providing direct 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 collector and arterial streets; and FINAL ORDER 89-7,5 PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 5 iv. Avoiding the creation of small scattered parking areas by • 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 greenway/open space/park. Specific 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 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 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 adopted plan. Screen loading areas and refuse dumpsters from view. Screen commercial, and industrial use from single-family residential through landscaping; and iii. Provision of frontage roads or shared access where feasible. The submitted development 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. Outdoor FINAL ORDER 89-7-!b, PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 6 FXHiBIT A ' g i 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 along Fanno 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 trees in the parking lot and along the street frontage. The commission finds that the City has allowed the inclusion of dedicated flood plain/par)c 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 improvements will cause the destruction or removal of vegetation planted 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 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 it is in a vision clearance area, this type of tree may grow to a mature height of 15-25 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 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 in this report. The Code requires one secure bicycle parking space for every 15 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 design should also be submitted to the Planning Division for review prior to its installation. Access, Egress and Circulation The requirements of the Access, Egress and Circulation have been satisfied. FINAL ORDER 89- 7~5 PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 7 EXHIBIT ~ 'g - Signs 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 conformity with the City Sign Code. 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 proposal's ability to comply1with 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 Development Review Code Section 18.120.180.A.8 requires that where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle plan. A path is also required as part of the Action Area Overlay • designation (Section 18.86.040.A.l.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 future City-initiated relocation of the floodplain bank. This should be required on a revised site plan. 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 FINAL ORDER 89-1-5 PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 8 EMOBIT -10 t 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, Z= 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 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 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 attract "browser or window • shoppers", in that the business constitutes a retail/wholesale type of business which sells bulky merchandise. The latter fact results in the 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 vehicles at any one time. Staff notes that employees 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 the existing store use will not need 44 parking 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 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 39 spaces are 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 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-_Z!?~_PC - SDR 89-13/v 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 9 EXHIBIT A "/I Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park . Fanno Creek Park is a community park located along Fanno Creek between Main Street and SW Hall 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 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 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 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 floodplain. 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 pathway and the planned reconstruction of the storm drainage channel along the flood plain. This indicates that an adjustment to the placement of the building on the site would be necessary in order to adequately accommodate the path and vegetative screening up 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: UNLESS OTHREMUSE NOTED, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL HE HET PRIOR TO 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 floodplain boundary. A 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 so as not to intrude into the greenway area. STAFF 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 CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Division; 639-4171. FINAL ORDER 89- 2S~ PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 10 EXHIBIT ~'Iv ~i 3. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing: 1) building 1 .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 spaces. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden, Planning Division, 639- 4171. i 4. The applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan showing: 1) , screening for the trash disposal area; 2) the installation of 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 (158), 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 applicant=a 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 prior to demolition. STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division, 639-4171. 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 section 4407(c). STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division. UNLESS OTHMMISE NOTED, THE FOLLOWING CPNDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT: 8. All landscaping materials and other proposed site improvements noted in Conditions 3. and 4. shall be installed or financially assured prior to occupancy of any structure. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden,. Planning Division. 9. All new signage must receive approval by the Planning Division prior to erection of the signage. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden, Planning Division. 10. The two nonconforming, amortized billboard signs and support structures shall be completely removed from the property prior to • occupancy of phase one of this development OR the applicant shall FINAL ORDER 89-.I'> PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 11 *Amendment'per Council action (Resolution No. 90-07) on 2/5/90 C. Wheatley, City Recorder , EXHIBIT A 'I3 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 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 5rom the subject property within 45 days of the issuance of the occupancy Permit for the new building. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden, Planning Division. THIS APPROVAL 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 of the entry of this final order. PASSED: This /day of December, 1989, by the Planning Commission of the City f ~:igard. Milton Fyre, esident • Tigard Plann ng Commission br/SDR89-13.ks1 FINAL ORDER 89- GJ PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 12 EXHIBIT A ~4' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL I hereby certify that on February 23, 1990, I served a 3 true and correct copy of this NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL on all 4 persons listed in Paragraphs II and III of this Notice, pursuant 5 to OAR 661-10-015(2) by first-class mail. 6 7 DATED: February 23, 1990. JOS H MENDEZ OSB 333 8 At o y for P it ers 9 10 11 12 13 • 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE KNAPPENBERGER He MENDER ATTORNEYS AT LAW HONEYMAN HOUSE 1318 S.W 12TH AvE. PORTLAND. OREGON 97201-3367 15(111 294-044? CITY OF TIFA RD OREGON March 15, 1990 Ms. Angie Crosby Acbdnistrative Assistant land Use Board of Appeals 100 High Street SE, Suite 220 Salem, OR 97310 Re: Dolan v. City of Tigard LUBA No. 90-029 Dear Ms. Crosby: • Enclosed please find the record for the above-referenced case. If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Catherine Wheatley City Recorder c: Phil Grillo Joseph R. Mendez 13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 i BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON JOHN T. DOLAN AND FLORENCE DOLAN ) • Petitioners ) VS. ) LUBA No. 90-092 CITY OF TIGARD, ) Respondent. ) SITE DEVE DEMENT REVIEW 89-13 VARIANCE V 89-21 APPLICANT: ALERT R. KE99 Y, JR. OMER: JOHN T. AND FlaUNCE DOLAN I, Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder for the City of Tigard, Oregon, certify that the contents within are a true copy of the record. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder Date • TABLE OF CONTENTS s Page Statement Certifying the Record of Proceeding as a True Copy i Table of Contents ii-iv Exhibit No. 1 Affidavit of Mailing - Notice of 1-16 Final Order - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 2 Agenda of 2/5/90 City Council Meeting 17-18 3 Testimony Sign-In Sheet for 2/5/90 19 City Council Meeting 4 Meeting Minutes for 2/5/90 City Council 20-27 Meeting 5 Tigard City Council Resolution No. 28-40 90-07 • 6 City of Tigard Agenda Summary for City 41-73 Council Meeting of 2/5/90 with Related Material 7 Affidavit of Publication - List of 74 Selected Agenda Items for 2/5/90 City Council Meeting 8 1/24/90 Memorandum from Keith Liden to 75-76 Ed Murphy 9 Affidavit of Mailing - Notice of Public 77-80 Hearing (Council 2/5/90) 10 Land Use Decision Appeal with Related 81-99 Material 11 12/28/89 Memorandum from Phil Grillo, to 100-101 Jerry Offer 12 12/27/89 Letter from Joseph Mendez to 102-104 City of Tigard 13 Affidavit.of Mailing - Notice of Decision . 105-119 of the Tigard Planning Commission J ii 40 14 Notations dated 12/18 120 • 15 City of Tigard Planning Commission Final 121-132 Order No. 89-25 PC 16 Transcript - Planning Commission Meeting of 133-148 12/5/89 17 Planning Commission Minutes 12/5/89 149-154 18 11/28/89 Memorandum from Keith Liden to 155-157 Planning Commission 19 Miscellaneous Drawings (2) 158-159 20 Affidavit of Mailing - Notice of Public 160-163 Hearing (Planning Commission 12/5/89) 21 Affidavit of Publication - Tigard Planning 164 Commission Hearing (12/5/89) 22 Notations dated 11/16/89 165 23 11/7/89 Letter from Keith S. Liden to 166-167 John Dolan • 24 11/1/89 Letter from John Dolan to Ed Murphy 168 25 Copy of Address Information - 11/89 169 26 9/28/89 Memorandum from Keith to Liz 170-171 27 Facsimile Transmittal Copy dated 9/12 from 172-174 Keith Liden to Phil Grillo Containing Letter Dated 9/8/89 from Keith S. Liden to John T. Dolan 28 Affidavit of Publication - Tigard Planning 175-176 Commission Hearing (9/5/89). Note: Planning Commission meeting for 9/5/89 was cancelled. 29 Transcript for Planning Commission Regular 177-200 Meeting of 8/8/89 30 Tigard Planning Commission Regular Meeting 201-204 Minutes for 8/8/89 31 7/28/89 Memiorandum from Deborah Stuart to 205-221 Planning omission (with attachments) 32 Mean (not dated) from. Ed to Keith 222 • iii 33 7/19/89 Memorandum from Cathy Wheatley to Keith 223-226 • Liden Appeal of Director's Decision Attached 34 Affidavit of Mailing - Notice of Decision - 227-242 City of Tigard Planning Director 35 Affidavit of Mailing - Notice of Public Hearing 243-246 for Tigard Planning Ccm ission (8/8/89) 36 6/22/89 Memorandum from Randy Wooley to Jerry 247-249 Offer 37 5/9/89 Letter from Albert R. Kenney, Jr. PE to 250 City of Tigard Ccmmiunity Development 38 Site Development Review Application 251-252 39 Copy of Newspaper Publication 253 40 Tax Lot Information 254-256 41 Request for Comments (7 forms) 257-263 42 Request for Conmients (Master form) 264-266 43 Copy of Site Plan 267 • 44 Property Tax Statements Marked "Received 268-269 5/18/89" 45 Proposal Description 270 46 5/3/89 Letter from John T. Dolan to City of 271 Tigard 47 5/3/89 Letter from Daniel J. Dolan to Albert R. 272 Kenney, Jr. 48 Miscellaneous - Product Specifications 273-275 49 Miscellaneous - Vicinity Map 276 50 City of Tigard - Ccrmnuzity Development Depart- 277-285 ment - Pre-Application Checklist 51 Miscellaneous - Vicinity Map 286 52 5/19/86 Letter from William A. Monahan to 287-288 John Dolan 53 Maps (In separate file folder.) Dolan Also available for review are tape iv recordings of the proceedings of the 2/5/90 Council meeting. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING • STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, Catherine Wheatley hereby certify: (Please Print) That I am a City Recorder for the City of Tigard, Oregon. That I served notice of the Tigard City Council Notice of Final Order - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 of which the attached is a copy (Marked Exhibit A) upon each of the following named persons on the 9th day of February , 1990 , by mailing to each of them at the address shown on the attached list (Marked Exhibit B), said notice is hereto attached, and desposited in the United States Mail on the 9th day of Februrary 19 90 postage prepaid. Prepared Notice Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 19~. Notary lic of Oregon My Com • ssion Expires: -C1 3 ailed Notice/Delivered to Post Office Subscribed and sworn to before me this -°~day of 19 gC7. Qzm, Notar Public of Oregon _ My C&dmission Expires: LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # I ~~ch j bid 14 CITY OF TIGARD • Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER - BY CITY COUNCIL 1. Concerning Case Number(s): SDR 89-13/V 89-21 2. Name of Owner: John T. & Florence Dolan Name of Applicant: _Albert R. Renner Jr. 3. Address 9500 SW Barbur Blvd. City Portland State OR Zip 97206 .4. Address. of Property: 12520 SW Main Street Tax Map and Lot No(s).: 2S1 2AC, tax lot 700 54 Request: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPEAL SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN NPO #1 An appeal of a Planning Commission 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. 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, (Signs). ZONE: CBD-AA (Central • Business District - Action Area). 6. Action: Approval as requested Approval with conditions X Denial - uheld Planning Commission decision with amendment asnoted in Resolution No. 90-07 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 affected Neighborhood Planning Organization X Affected governmental agencies approved 8. Final Decision: THE DECISION WAS 3YGNED ON 2/5/90 , AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON 2/5/90 The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of conditions can be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. A review of this decision may be obtained by filing a notice of intent with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) according to their procedures. 9. QUESTIONS: If you have any questions, please call the Tigard City Recorder at 639-4171. bkm/SDR89-13.BKM • LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE jV CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON • RESOLUTION NO. 90-07 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 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 December 5, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Commission upheld the Director's decision with modifications to the original conditions of approval (Final Order No. 89-25 PC); and WHEREAS, this matter came before the City Council at its meeting of February 5, 1990, upon the request of the applicant; and WHEREAS, the Council reviewed the evidence related to the applicant's appeal and modified Condition No. 5. of Planning Commission Final Order No. 89-25 PC so that the City's engineer/surveyor shall be responsible for the locating 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 Commission decision is upheld, as amended, based upon the facts, findings, and conclusions noted in Planning Commission Final Order No. 89-25 (Exhibit "A"). The Council further orders that the City Recorder send a copy of this final order to the applicant as a notice of the final decis' n in this matter. -1411 PASSED: This day of Februa , 990. ald Edwards, ayor City of and ATTEST: Tigard City Recorder DOLANRES/kl RESOLUTION NO. 90-07 PAGE 1 LUBA FILING - CITY OF "fIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE N CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 89-_ PC 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 (V 89-21) TO THE REQUIRED PARKING STANDARD FOR GENERAL RETAIL SALES TO ALLOW 39 PARKING SPACES WHERE 44 ARE REQUIRED (DOLAN). 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. 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 LOCATION: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC, TL 700) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Central Business District ZONE DESIGNATION: CBD-AA (Central Business District, Action Area) 2. Background 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 property have been considered nonconforming as of March 20, 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 properties an extension of time until a City Center Plan is adopted. The voluntary compliance agreement was never signed. The property and business owners have been cited for the following nonconformities: 1. Roof sign, a violation of Section 18.114.070.H; and • FINAL ORDER 89-Z5 PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 1 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE 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 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 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 present location since approximately the late 1940s. 'A freestanding sign with 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 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 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. 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. 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 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. • FINAL ORDER 89- ZS PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 2 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # 1 PAGE # S The Consolidated Rural 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 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 to.a 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. 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 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 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 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 reconstruction of Main Street be required as a condition of this 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 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 slopes toward Fanno Creek; therefore adequate storm drainage is available. FINAL ORDER 89-1.~t_PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 3 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # j PAGE # n 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 closer to the proposed building than the location of the existing top of bank. 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 acid the proposed building. Typically, new developments along Fanno 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 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 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 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 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 18.100, 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, this order will review the proposal in light of the Parks Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park and the natural resources element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. FINAL ORDER 89- 25 PC - SDR 89-13/V 69-21 DOLAN - PAGE A LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # I PAGE # 71 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 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 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 district, 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 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 are intended to serve the 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: a. The development shall address transit usage by residents, employees, and customers 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 building(s) from transit lines or stops; ii. Minimizing transit/auto conflicts by providing direct 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 collector and arterial streets; and FINAL ORDER 89-7,S PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 5 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE # iv_ Avoiding the creation of small scattered parking areas by • 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 greenway/open space/park. Specific 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 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 • 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 adopted plan. Screen loading areas and refuse dumpsters from view. Screen commercial, and industrial use from single-family residential through landscaping; and iii. Provision of frontage roads or shared access where feasible- The submitted development 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. Outdoor • FINAL ORDER 89- PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 6 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # 9 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 along Fanno 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 trees in the parking lot and along the street frontage. The Commission 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 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 improvements will cause the destruction or removal of vegetation planted 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 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 it is in a vision clearance area, this type of tree may grow to a mature height of 15-25 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 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 in this report. The Code requires one secure bicycle parking space for every 15 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 design should also be submitted to the Planning Division for review prior to its installation. Access, Egress and Circulation The requirements of the Access, Egress and Circulation have been satisfied. • FINAL ORDER 89- ZSS PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 7 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARU EXHIBIT # PAGE # I C) I • Si ns 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 conformity with the City Sign Code. 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 proposal's ability to comply with 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 Development Review Code Section 18.120.180.A.8 requires that where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle plan. A path is also required as part of the Action Area Overlay • designation (Section 18.86.040.A.l.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 future City-initiated relocation of the floodplain bank. This should be required on a revised site plan. 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 • FINAL ORDER 89- Z:~ PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAQE 8 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # 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 were located as specified in the Code; and (S) 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 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 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 attract "browser or window shoppers", in that the business constitutes a retail/wholesale type of • business which sells bulky merchandise. The latter fact results in the 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 vehicles at any one time. Staff notes that employees 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 the existing store use will not need 44 parking 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 for retail sales businesses- which sell bulky merchandise, namely 1 space for every 1000 square feet of gross floor area but not lead than 10 spaces, it is clear that the proposed 39 spaces are 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 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-_Zj&C - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 9 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # o~- Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park • Fanno Creek Park is a community park located along Fanno Creek between Main Street and SW Hall 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 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 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 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 floodplain. 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 pathway and the planned reconstruction of the storm drainage channel along the flood plain. This indicates that an adjustment to the placement of the building on the site would be necessary in order to adequately • accommodate the path and vegetative screening up 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: UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO 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 floodplain boundary. A 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 so as not to intrude into the greenway area. STAFF 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 CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Division; 639-4171_ FINAL ORDER 89- Z5 PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 10 • / LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # / r i 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 spaces. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden, Planning Division, 639- 4171. 4. The applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan showing: 1) screening for the trash disposal area; 2) the installation of 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 appb:$astLs 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 prior to demolition. STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division, 639-4171. 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 section 4407(c). STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE FOLLOWING CPNDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT: 8. All landscaping materials and other proposed site improvements noted in Conditions 3. and 4. shall be installed or financially assured prior to occupancy of any structure. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden, Planning Division. 9. All new signage must receive .approval by the Planning Division prior to erection of the signage. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden, Planning Division. 10. The two nonconforming, amortized billboard signs and support structures shall be completely removed from the property prior to occupancy of phase one of this development OR the applicant shall • FINAL ORDER 89-7-") PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 11 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD *Amendment'per Council action (Resolution No. 90-07) on 2J` EXHIBIT # PAGE # . C. Wheatley, City Recorder AA1) 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 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 the new building. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden, Planning Division. THIS APPROVAL 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 of the entry of this final order. PASSED: This / S day of December, 1989, by the Planning Commission of the City f igard. Milton Fyre, esident Tigard Plann ng Commission br/SDR89-13.ksl FINAL ORDER 89- LJ PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 12 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # J H ( FINAL ORDER SDR 89-13/V 894 Cxhib4 DOLAN/A-BOY JOHN T. & FLORENCE DOLAN ' 4025 SE BROOKLYN ST TIGARD, OR 97202 ALBERT R. KENNEY, JR. 9500 SW BARBUR BLVD S-111 PORTLAND, OR 97219 JOSEPH MENDEZ ATTORNEY AT LAW 1318 SW 12TH PORTLAND OR 97201-3367 i LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT.# j PAGE # is Z 5/mar c~ • TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an REGULAR MEETING AGENDA agenda item should sign on the appropriate FEBRUARY 5, 1990 5:30 PM sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, TIGARD CIVIC CENTER ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's TIGARD, OREGON 972223 Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. o WORKSHOP DISCUSSION WITH METZGER WATER DISTRICT (5:30 p.m.) o STUDY SESSION (6:30 p.m.) - Agenda Review 1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 p.m.) 1.1 Call to order - City Council and Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Pledge of Allegiance 1.3 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. • Motion to: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: Dec. 4, 11, 20, 1989 & Jan. 8, 1990 3.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar 3.3 Local Contract Review Board: Authorization of Consultant Contract for the Lincoln Street/Locust Street Local Improvement District 3.4 Approve Lien Search Fee - Resolution No. 90- 4. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING - SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOT-AN An 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 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 S.W. Main Street (WCIM 2S1 2AC, Lot 700) o Public Hearing Opened o Declarations or Challenges o Summation by Community Development Staff o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination o Recommendation by Community Development Staff o Council Questions or Comments o Public Hearing Closed o Consideration by Council • COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 5, 1990 - PAGE 1 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # Z PAGE # 1-7 • 5. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE CU 87-03 MINOR LAND PARTITION MLP 87- 09 ROBERT WYATT (TEXACO) NPO #3 A request for a six-month extension of an approval period for a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a vehicle fuel and convenience sales business on property zoned C-G (General Commercial). Also for a Minor Land Partition to divide this 1.54 acre parcel into two parcels of 38,468 and 28,532 sq. ft. each. ZONE: C-G (General Commercial) LOCATION: 11290 S.W. Bull Mountain Road (WCIM 2S1 10AC, Tax Lot 1100) o Public Hearing to be Continued to February 19, 1990 6. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff 7. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 8. ADJOURNMENT cca205 • • COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 5, 1990 - PAGE 2 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # o? PAGE # ) DATE 2/5/90 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) PERSONS WILL BE ALLOWED 10 MINUTES FOR PRESENTATIONS. • Item Description: AGENDA-ITEM NO. 4 -'-APPEAL-- PUBLIC HEARING - SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR 89-13/ V 89-21) DOLAN Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation Jo 6e 4 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # `1 311 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEEMIG MDR= - FEBRUARY 5, 1990 1. 1CM CALL: Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors: Carolyn Eadon, Valerie Johnson and Joe Kasten. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Ken Elliott, Legal Counsel; Kith Liden, Senior Planner; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Liz Newton, Community Involvement Coordinator; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. 2. WCURS" DISCOSSION - METZG It UATE R DISTRICT The following persons from the Metzger Water District met with Council: Jesse Lowman, Administrator; Ray Pirkl, Board Chair; and Board members Gus Anderson, Dick Holmes, and Norm Staat. Mr. Lowman advised that he and the Board wanted to share with the Tigard City Council their philosophy on formation of a regional water authority. To accommodate continued growth, it has become apparent to the Metzger Water District and the Wolf Creek Water District that a regionalized approach would be necessary to hold the line on costs and avoid duplication of services. The two agencies passed a resolution a year ago to study the feasibility of a regional water agency and have • urged other districts to join them. Water resource management will become more difficult and costly, according to Mr. Lowman. Areas affected include storm drainage, sewage treatment, drinking water, and irrigation. The target date for water authority formation is July 1, 1990. To date, no other districts have opted to join. Water resource rights was another area of concern. Mr. Lowman advised that establishment of regional water rights would assure equal access to everyone as the population in the area continues to grow. Pipelines which were planned to accormiodate growth through 2005 have almost reached capacity. After discussion, Mayor Edwards requested that Council continue to receive information on the regional water authority formation effort. 3. AGENDA REVDW a. City Engineer advised there may be a petition filed with regard to a request for street closure on S.W. North Dakota street. Council had heard this issue about a year ago; several temporary measures were put into place. The area NPO should also review to determine impact to other neighbors. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 5 1990 - PA(-,P 1 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT y PAGE 0 1P Q1) • b. Finance Director reviewed Consent Agenda Item .4 concerning a lien search fee resolution. He advised a lien docket was now being maintained; approximately 25-30 searches per week were being performed. Fees were in line with costs. C. Review of Public Hearing Process - Dolan Appeal Legal Counsel affirmed that the hearing would be limited to items of record; that is, no new testimony should be accepted. d. City Administrator reviewed a proposal for the Washington County Cooperative Library Service (WCCLS) reimbursement schedule which has been altered to reflect a compromise for Tigard's concerns with the proposed formula. The new schedule has not yet been approved by the Board. e. City Administrator updated council on the President's Parkway Urban Renewal effort. Consultants have reviewed the report and more work is necessary. Other issues include pulling together loose ends with the number of agencies affected by the wetlands proposal. Also, the school relocation issue remains; the school district must be assured that a site has been located. f. Councilor Kasten noted the 11/20 City newsletter was not delivered until 11/29. • Councilor Kasten was advised that if the urban renewal issue fails at the election, then taxpayer dollars would not be at risk. City Engineer advised Councilor Kasten that the catchbasin near the National Guard Armory parking lot would be going out to bid. 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA a. Mayor welcomed Boy Scout Troop No. 799 of Templeton Elementary School. The ,Scouts attending the meeting were earning their citizenship badge. b. Joy Henkle, Chairperson of the Third Annual Fanno Creek Conference invited City Council to attend at the Tigard High School Cafeteria, beginning at 8:30 a.m., on February 24, 1990. C. Troy Canaday presented a petition from the Anton Park neighborhood requesting time on City Council's agenda to consider at least a temporary closure of S.W. North Dakota. 4. OONSENr AGENDA 4.1 Approve Council Minutes: Dec. 4, 11, 20, 1989 & Jan. 8, 1990 4.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar 4.3 Local Contract Review Board: Authorization of Consultant Contract for the Lincoln Street/Locust Street Local Improvement District 4.4 Approve Lien Search Fee - Resolution No. 90-06 • Council Meeting Recap - February 5, 1990 - Page 2 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT L.~ PAGE ft `I 5. APPEAL POBUC HEARUC - SITE DE.VEEOPMEIU RFVIM (SUR 89-13/V 89-21 DDIAN • An 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 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 S.W. Main Street (WCIM 2S1 2AC, Lot 700) a. Public Hearing was opened. b. There were no declarations or challenges. C. Senior Planner Liden advised the proposal was originally approved by the Planning Director subject to conditions. This decision was appealed to the Planning Commission. The Commission approved the decision as well and, primarily upheld the Planning Director's decision. The Planning Coirnni.ssion reduced the number of Conditions of Approval from 14 to 12. The applicant has appealed the Planning Commission Decision due to a disagreement over some of the Conditions of Approval. The areas of disagreement related to the following four basic areas: 1. Land dedication requirements along Fanno Creek. 2. Code requirement for landscaped islands in the parking lot. 3. Stipulation that applicant was to pay engineering and survey • costs for area to be dedicated. 4. Removal of nonconforming signs (3 signs). Senior Planner noted packet information included: A January 24, 1990, memorandum to Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; a draft resolution to uphold the Planning Commission Decision; a copy of the appeal letter submitted by the applicant; Planning Co mission minutes and transcripts from the August and December hearings; and a copy of the site plan proposed by the applicant. d. Legal Counsel reviewed that the hearing would be on the record noting there had been two Planning Commission hearings. Members of Council had been provided full transcripts of the two hearings. Council hearing would be limited to the applicant's appeal and the grounds of appeal stated in the letter from the applicant to the Council. No new evidence would be considered. e. Public Testimony: o Joseph Mendez, Attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Dan Dolan, 1318 S.W. 12th Avenue, Portland, Oregon, testified he was appearing on behalf of the Dolans in their process of exhausting administrative remedies on the way to seeking judicial relief. He noted the subject property was located at 12520 S.W. Main Street, Tigard, Oregon. • Council Meeting Recap - February 5, 1990 - Page 3 I LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE f t Mr. Mendez's testimony is sLmuTarized 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 cotmmxnity and business area, the Planning Commission was holding up approval until Mr. and Mrs. Dolan dedicate, without cation, all portions of the site that fall within the 100-year flood plain plus fifteen feet. The additional fifteen feet would be for a bicycle path to a park which does not exist. The Dolans were being denied development of the entire parcel until they give the City the 15 feet of land which belongs to them. The action proposed 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 land. Mr. Dolan was willing to waive his argument on landscaped islands. • When the signs were erected, they were in compliance with City ordinances. Their position was that the signs were conforming. The signs have become an integral part to A-Boy's business in that area they were recognized by the public and by the patrons of the business; the signs, therefore, constitute a business asset. If the City deems the signs to be nonconforming, this should be handled through a separate procedure, not as part of the development permit process. Summary remarks: The Planning Cc mnission's Final Order violates Mr. and Mrs. Dolan's Constitutional rights; specifically, the U.S. Constitution Fifth Amendment and the . Constitution of Oregon, Article I, Section 18. The demands of "gifts" to the City were no more than the City holding up the permit process; holding the Dolan's riot to build on their property for ransom until the City was given what it wants. e. Mayor called for response from staff: Comtmmity Development Director advised that the dedication of the bicycle path was being treated similarly to a right-of-way dedication. For such dedication, a developer must dedicate right-of-moray, survey the riot-of-way, and then improve the _ street in accordance with the development process. The idea • of a pedestrian path was articulated in a design plan, parks Council Meeting Recap - February 5, 1990 - Page 4 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE plan, and downtown development plan. Therefore, it appeared clear that the intent was to eventually have a trail along Fanno Creek and it was appropriate to take steps to assure that land be made available. Trail construction was not a requirement at this time. community Development Director advised that the staff agreed, while this would be unusual, that the city would survey the land to be dedicated in an attempt to reach a compromise. The signs were nonconforming. C.onminity Development Director advised it had been standard practice that, at the time of development permit issuance, illegal signs were addressed. Community Development Director noted staff was recommP.nding the appeal be denied. Mayor asked, and Senior Planner Liden confirmed, that a 10- year amortization period had been extended to businesses to 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 opportunity to sign a voluntary compliance agreement stipulating how nonconforming signs would be removed or modified to conform. The City was asking for Voluntary Compliance Agreements in the downtown 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 Commission. Legal Counsel responded to a request from Councilor Johnson to explain the City's land dedication policy. Community Development Director's analogy to right-of-way dedication was accurate. Local governments have long been given the 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 governmental purposes. In the case before City Council, there was a requirement for a 15-foot dedication which goes beyond the floodplain because of the topography of the property. City Legal Counsel added that this was not a condition unique to this property; other commercial property owners, in redeveloping their property along Fanno Creek, have been • Council Meeting Recap - February 5, 1990 - Page 5 _ i LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # c= • 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 reconunendation provided two or three conditions to modify the impact which could potentially arise from the "taking" being argued by the appellant. Even if this area was not dedicated to the City, 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 clarification on several issues including 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 applicant's attorney noted they were waiving the appeal of the • landscaped islands issue. Mr. Elliott said he wanted to make 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 "a taking" in violation of the Constitution. It was clarified that all four issues, noted in previous testimony, were maintained for this hearing. 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 Cannnission's final opinion was for 15 feet. i. Councilor Johnson asked if the landscaped islands were necessary in order to meet percentages of landscaped area required by the Code. Senior Planner advised that landscaped islands, with trees, were required in and around parking areas at a ratio of one tree per seven parking spaces. There were a number of ways this requirement could be achieved. The landscaped islands would be counted towards the landscaped area requirement of 15 percent. j. Mr. Mendez referred to City Legal Counsel's notation that Mr. Dolan had been given credit for a portion of the landscaping • Council Meeting Recap - February 5, 1990 - Page 6 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE # • requirement; he advised there was a big difference between landscaping requirements and having land taken. Mr. Mendez thought the "Nolan" case would support Mr. Dolan's position that this was a taking for which there must be compensation. (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 for this property, in his opinion, would have nothing to do with the land dedication requirements. With regard to the surveying costs, he said he did not receive word in writing as to whether or not the City would pay for these costs. Mr. Dolan argued against the process noting conditions should be complied with prior to receipt of an occupancy permit rather than before being given a permit to build. With regard to the signs, Mr. Dolan said he disagreed that they were non-conforming. He said he does not believe the one sign was a roof-top sign as it was mounted on the parapet wall. He advised he has a sign permit on file from 1970 at 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 notified of the change in the Sign Code. Mr. Dolan advised the taking of this property was a violation of his constitutional rights. k. Public Hearing was closed. 1. In response to a question from Councilor Johnson, Senior Planner advised, in Condition No. 12 of the Planning Commission Final Order, that the roof sign was to be permanently removed from the subject property within 45 days of the issuance of the Occupancy Permit. m. Council discussion followed. Legal Counsel advised, if Council determined that the survey costs should be paid by the City, then the resolution should be modified reflecting this point of the applicant's appeal was sustained. Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to amend Condition No. 5 of the Planning Commission Decision to read as follows: The City's engineer/surveyor shall locate and clearly mark the 100-year floodplain boundary prior to Council Meeting Recap - February 5, 1990 - Page 7 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # t of construction. Floodplain boundary • markers shall be maintained throughout the period of construction. STAFF CONTACT: Jon Feigion, Engineering Division. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. n. RESOLUTION NO. 90-07 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 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. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 6. PUBLIC HEUUM - ODMITIONAL USE CU 87-03 NLCNOR LAND PAM=ON MLP 87- 09 ROBERT WYATT (ZENACO) NPO #`3 A request for a six-month extension of an approval period for a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a vehicle fuel and convenience sales business on property zoned C-G (General Commercial). Also for a Minor Land Partition to divide this 1.54 acre parcel into two parcels of 38,468 and 28,532 sq. ft. each. Mayor declared the public hearing was opened and would be continued to the February 19, 1990, Council meeting. 7. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: None. 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Cancelled 9. ADJCURRMERr: 8:37 p.m. Catherine Wheatley, City R rder jA- Gerald R. yor Date: 3 O ccm25 Council Meeting Recap - February 5, 1990 - Page 8 LUBA FILING --CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 90-07 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 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 December 5, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Commission upheld the Director's decision with modifications to the original conditions of approval (Final Order No. 89-25 PC); and WHEREAS, this matter came before the City Council at its meeting of February 5, 1990, upon the request of the applicant; and WHEREAS, the Council reviewed the evidence related to the applicant's appeal and modified Condition No. 5. of Planning Commission Final Order No. 89-25 PC so that the City's engineer/surveyor shall be responsible for the locating 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 Commission decision is upheld, as amended, based upon the facts, findings, and conclusions noted in Planning Commission Final Order No. 89-25 (Exhibit "A"). 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 Februar , 990. /,a ~G ald .Edwards, Mayor _i City of and ATTEST: Tigard City Recorder DOLANRES/kl • RESOLUTION NO. 90-07 PAGE 1 LUBA FILING CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT ~i PAGE H 1 • CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 89-_2!i_PC 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 (V 89-21) TO THE REQUIRED PARKING STANDARD FOR GENERAL RETAIL SALES TO ALLOW 39 PARKING SPACES WHERE 44 ARE REQUIRED (DOLAN). { 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. 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 LOCATION: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC, TL 700) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Central Business District ZONE DESIGNATION: CBD-AA (Central Business District, Action Area) 2. Background 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 property have been considered nonconforming as of March 20, 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 properties an extension of time until a City Center Plan is adopted. The voluntary compliance agreement was never signed. The property and business owners have been cited for the following nonconformities: 1. Roof sign, a violation of Section 18.114.070.H; and LUBA FILING CITY OF TIGARD • FINAL ORDER 89-[-5 PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 1 EXHIBIT # 5 RAGE # ~-X'~l 1 1 f-k 1 ~ 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 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 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 present location since approximately the late 19409. 'A freestanding sign with 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 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 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. 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. 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 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. • FINAL ORDER 89- 2-5 PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 2 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT N PAGE ft 0 The Consolidated Rural 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 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 to.a 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. 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 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 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 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 reconstruction of Main Street be required as a condition of this 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 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 slopes toward Fanno Creek; therefore adequate storm drainage is available- FINAL ORDER 89--4") PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 3 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # : 3 1 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 closer to the proposed -building than the location of the existing top of bank. 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 ahd the proposed building. Typically, new developments along Fanno 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 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 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 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 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 18.100, 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, this order will review the proposal in light of the Parks Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park and the natural resources element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. FINAL ORDER 89- 25 PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 4 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGRRD EXHIBIT fl PAGE # 1 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 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 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 district, 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 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 are intended to serve the 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: a. The development shall address transit usage by residents, employees, and customers 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 building(s) from transit lines or stops; ii. Minimizing transit/auto conflicts by providing direct 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 collector and arterial streets; and FINAL ORDER 89-7-'> PC - SDR 89-13/v 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 5 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT N PAGE # 1 iv. Avoiding the creation of small scattered parking areas by 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 greenway/open space/park. Specific 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 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 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 adopted plan. Screen loading areas and refuse dumpsters from view. Screen commercial, and industrial use from single-family residential through landscaping; and iii. Provision of frontage roads or shared access where feasible. The submitted development 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. Outdoor FINAL ORDER 89- PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 6 LUBA FILING -CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE It 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 along Fanno 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 trees in the parking lot and along the street frontage. The Commission 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 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 improvements will cause the destruction or removal of vegetation planted 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 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 it is in a vision clearance area, this type of tree may grow to a mature height of 15-25 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 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 in this report. The Code requires one secure bicycle parking space for every 15 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 design should also be submitted to the Planning Division for review prior to its installation. Access, Egress and Circulation The requirements of the Access, Egress and Circulation have been satisfied. • FINAL ORDER 89- 75 PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 7 LUtSfi r1LI.tUIi - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # • Signs 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 conformity with the City Sign Code. 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 proposal's ability to comply with 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 Development Review Code Section 18.120.180.A.8 requires that where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle plan. A path is also required as part of the Action Area overlay designation (Section 18.86.040.A.l.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 future City-initiated relocation of the floodplain bank. This should be required on a revised site plan. 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 FINAL ORDER 89- 5 PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 8 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # r,~ 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 developmenti 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 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 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 attract "browser or window shoppers", in that the business constitutes a -retail/wholesale type of business which sells bulky merchandise. The latter fact results in the 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 vehicles at any one time. Staff notes that employees 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 the existing store use will not need 44 parking 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 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 39 spaces are 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 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- 7K PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 9 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT 9 PAGE Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park • Fanno Creek Park is a community park located along Fanno Creek between Main Street and SW Hall 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 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 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 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 floodplain. 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 pathway and the planned reconstruction of the storm drainage channel along the flood plain. This indicates that an adjustment to the placement of the building on the site would be necessary in order to adequately • accommodate the path and vegetative screening up 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: UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO 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 floodplain boundary. A 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 so as not to intrude into the greenway area. STAFF 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 CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Division, 639-4171. • FINAL ORDER 89- Z`J PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 10 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT ft PAGE # 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 spaces. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden, Planning Division, 639- 4171. 4. The applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan showing: 1) screening for the trash disposal area; 2) the installation of 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 appl~eaab=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 prior to demolition. STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division, 639-4171. 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 section 4407(c). STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE FOLLOWING CPNDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT: B. All landscaping materials and other proposed site improvements noted in Conditions 3. and 4. shall be installed or financially assured prior to occupancy of any structure. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden, Planning Division. 9. All new signage must receive approval by the Planning Division prior to erection of the signage. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden, Planning Division. 10. The two nonconforming, amortized billboard signs and support structures shall be completely removed from the property prior to occupancy of phase one of this development OR the applicant shall . FINAL ORDER 89-;-) PC - SDR 89-13/v 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 11 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # *Amendment per Council action (Resolution No. 90-07) on 2/ PAGE # =>`'1 C. Wheatley, City Recorder t,t' 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 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 firom the subject property within 45 days of the issuance of the Occupancy Permit for the new building. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden, Planning Division. THIS APPROVAL 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 of the entry of this final order. PASSED: This /Z day of December, 1989, by the Planning Commission of the City Milton Fyre, esident Tigard Plann ng Commission br/SDR89-13.ks1 FINAL ORDER 89- 25 PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 12 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # 'l 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 SDR 89-13J~Z 89- approval subject to conditions 21 Dolan % - 111, 1,11: 11V PREPARED BY: Keith Liden DEPT HEAD OK. CITY ADMIN OR REQUESTED BY: ! 1 i POLICY ISSUE Should the City Council uphold the Planning Commission decision and conditions of approval for the redevelopment of the A-Boy property on Main Street? INFORMATION SUMMARY 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-Boy Electric and Plumbing Supply. A new 17,600 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 approved subject to the satisfaction of 12 conditions. • The applicant appealed the decision to the Commission because of an objection to several conditions. Attached is a staff memo reviewing the appeal request, a draft resolution to uphold the Planning Commission decision, the Commission's final order (89-25 PC), the applicant's appeal, the Commission transcripts and minutes for the Commission hearings on August 8, 1989 and December 5, 1989, and the proposed site plan. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve the attached resolution to uphold the Commission decision 2. Modify and approve the attached resolution FISCAL IMPACT SUGGESTED ACTION Approve the resolution. DOLAN2/kl LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # 11': KNAPPENBERGER & MENDEZ • JOSEPH R. MENDEZ ATTORNEYS AT LAW PETER MILLER ALLAN F. KNAPPENBERGER HONEYMAN HOUSE OF COUNSEL 1318 S.W. 12TH AvE. PORTLAND. OREGON 97201-3367 FAX (503) 294-0442 (503) 294-4317 December 27, 1989 City of Tigard Community Development P.O. Box 23397 - Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re:- Application Being Appealed: John T. and Florence Dolan SDR89-13/V 89-21 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 of the complete transcript of the hearings and a copy of the minutes from all relevant proceedings which resulted in the Planning Commission's approval with conditions of the above- referenced application. This request is made consistent with Section 18.32.330A of the Community Development Code for Tigard, Oregon. Consistent with Section 18.32.330B the appellate will assume responsibility to satisfy all dosts 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 Joseph R. Mendez, attorney for John T. and Florence Dolan, at the telephone number listed above. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation and consideration in this matter. Very truly yours, KNAPP ER EZ Jo a R: Men ez JRM:sp Enc. cc: John T. Dolan Florence Dolan • LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # Lt 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. 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 Order in the above referenced matter be reviewed by the City Council regarding the conditional approval of the reconstruction 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 enumerated in the Final Order. Zone: CBD-AA (Central Business District - Action Area). A copy of the Notice of Final Order - By Planning Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Final Order") is attached hereto .marked as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The applicant qualifies as a party by being the owner and the real party in interest intending to develop the parcel. 7. Specific grounds for the appeal for review are: a) Paragraph 1, page 10 Final Order. The decision demands John T. and Florence Dolan (hereinafter referred to as 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 100-year floodplain and in addition the Final Order demands Dolan surrender 15 feet above (to the east of the floodplain boundary. This demand by the Planning Commission constitutes an unlawful taking 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 1, Section 18. b) Paragraph 4, page 11 Final Order. That portion of. Paragraph 4, subnumbered 3) which requires Dolan to construct landscaped islands in the parking lot and plant trees in the islands is of first impression to the 1 - NOTICE OF APPEAL OF FINAL ORDER OF DIRECTOR LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # ~f 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 since the City would be the beneficiary of the dedication. 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. 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 for which Dolan must be compensated beyond the mere approval of their application. The signage issue of a separate building 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. b) Date decision scheduled to be final:. 12/28/89. DATED this p?7t' day of 1989. KNAPPENBh'RGER ME EZ y- , J E R. !NDD , 05R--#82333 torney or hn T. and rence Do ZI Z-7 td-1 Y6 RECEIVED BY: DATE: TIME. APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: DATE: TIME: -DENIED AS TO FORM BY: DATE: TIME: NOTICES OF FURTHER ACTION AND HEARING DATES SHOULD BE SENT TO: Mr. John Dolan Mr. Joseph R. Mendez, Esq. Globe Lighting Supply The Honeyman House 1919 -N.W. 19th Avenue 1318 S.W. 12th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97219 Portland, Oregon 97201 • 2 - NOTICE OF APPEAL OF FINAL ORDER OF DIRECTO" TUBA FILING -:CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # 414 • TIGARD PLAUENING CO?DC SSION REGULAR MMMMG - AUGUST 8, 1989 1. President Moen called the meeting to order at 7:32 PH. 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. 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 HTSUTS,S Commissioner Pyre moved and Commissioner Barber seconded to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried by majority of commissioners present- Commissioner Rosborough abstained. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION CDHMUNICATION • o President Moen stated he had received a letter of appreciation from the Fountains Condominiums; minutes from the June.lst meeting regarding the I-5/Kruse Way improvements; and a Metro newsletter. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPEAL SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN/A-BOY NPO 41 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 Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC lot 700)_ Senior Planner Liden reviewed the conditions that were being appealed by the applicant. Staff felt that the conditions were appropriate. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Commissioner Newton arrived 7:45 PM. o Joseph R_ Mendez, 715 SW Morrison # 500, Portland, Or_,97205, Attorney for A-Boy, referenced sections in the Code which they were appealing- He stated that the land being required for dedication would encroach into the building that they are proposing for construction. He opposed PLANNING COM1iISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 8, 1989 - PAGE 1 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # %r PAGE # ~4-i Q J . conditions 1, 6, and 9 which involve taking land without compensation- He objected toysigning 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 injure their business. Discussion followed with 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 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, 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 conversationbr with William Monahan regarding he City purchasing a portion of their property for park use. Now, the City is taking the land, requiring them to do the surveying, as well as designing the path. She felt this requirement was unreasonable and unfair. PUBLIC TEST19ONY o No one appeared to speak. o Lengthy discussion followed regarding the time frame for•remova3L of the roof/wall sign, the billboard signs, dedication of the additional 15 feet above the flood plain, the Drainage Master Plan, improvements to Fanno Creek (widening of the flood channel), location and width of the bikepath, location of the building, allowing construction in the flood plain, landscaping/buffering abutting the park, the City's right to require dedication of land, and signing of a non-remonstrance agreement- 0 Phil Grillo, City Attorney, reviewed legal aspect of requirements for dedication (taking of land) and signing of non-remonstrance agreements. REBUTTAL o Joseph Mendez stated that it is impossible to move the proposed building because of a sewer easement 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 the City to determine if a variable amount of dedication between •10 and 20 feet could be worked out for construction of the bikepath. They still oppose taking of land without compensation and signing of a non- remonstrance agreement. Discussion followed regarding width of the bikepath, the Fanno Creek Park Plan, location of the building, and possible solutions to the problem. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 8 1989 - PAGE LUBA FILING -.CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE =J t PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o commissioner Peterson supported 39 parking spaces, did not support signing a non-remonstrance agreement if curb and sidewalk 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. 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. o Commissioner Fyre favored the bikepath but did not* feel there was enough information to determine the location. He favored requiring a non- remonstrance. 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, 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 non-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 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 Review 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 variation of 10 to 20 feet for constructing a bikepath_ If an agreement cannot be worked out then the application will come back to the Planning Commission. o Phil Grillo, Legal Counsel, suggested that a time frame be given to work out a compromise. Discussion followed * Commissioner Castile withdrew is motion- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 8, 1989 - PAGE 3 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT It PAGE 9 Lf * Commissioner Fyre moved and Commissioner Castile seconded to approve SDR.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 Commission •on September 5th. Motion carried by majority of Commissioners present. Commissioner Peterson voting no. 5.2 SUBDIVISION S 89-06 KRESSLEY/CONSULTING ENGI2~21NG SERVICES NPO #8 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 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 by the Commission in June, 1989. The applicant is requesting to add one additional parcel. He reviewed the proposal and made staff's recommendation for approval 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 issued if any more trees are removed without a permit. Senior Planner Liden read a letter into the record from Charles W. McCart .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 Harty Bosner, 2058 SW Spruce, Portland, OR 97214, stated that he did not feel that he had violated the previous final order regarding tree cutting. He explained that he had been clearing the site of blackberry vines, small 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 6 inches in diameter at the four foot height- PUBLIC TESTIMONY o David Saul, 10205 SW 70th, Tigard, 97223, was concerned that the issue regarding survey/property lines had not been resolved, that the additional 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 approval- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 8, 1989 - PAGE 4 LUtSH FILING - CITY OF TIGFlRD EXHIBIT # ~O PAGE # L TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - AUGUST 8, 1989 5.1 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPEAL, SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN/A-BOY NPO #1 Liden: This first item is an appeal of a Site Development Review Approval and Variance Approval for A-Boy property on Main Street and it's for a retail building of over 1700, 17,000 square feet in size and also for a variance to allow 39 parking spaces where the code requires 44. 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. Condition No. 1 requires dedication of the 100-year flood plain along Fanno Creek along with an additional 15 feet. Condition No. 3 requires that a non-remonstrance agreement be signed for future improvements on Main Street. Condition No. 9 requires that a paved pedestrian path be provided along Fanno Creek. And Conditions 12 and 13 require removal of non-conforming signs that are on the property. There are presently two billboard signs and 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 Tigard Comprehensive Plan, the Tigard Park Plan, the Master Drainage Plan for the City, as well as the .Community Develop Code. In you 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 City Attorney's office and Phil can also answer any questions particularly, obviously, those of a legal nature. And I guess with that I'll close and see if there are any questions. I think everything's pretty well explained in the packet. Moen: Any questions, Commissioners? I have a questions, as far as the appeal process. What happens. Is there appeal beyond this? Liden: After the Commission decision, the City Council would have to call up the decision. Yours would be final, unless the Council on its motion called it up for review. Moen: Okay. Could we have the applicant's presentation, please. Mendez: Good evening. My name's Joseph Mendez. I'm an attorney. I represent A-Boy and Mr. and Mrs. Dolan. Initially, in order to protect my clients' rights on appeal, I'd like to address the • issues and, in particular, the criterion that's required by the Community Development Code. The issue with regards to the flood LUBA FILING -CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT fl PAGE # 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 sign a remonstrance, a non-remonstrance agreement, is, I don't find that addressed in the code; however, I think there not only united states constitutional entitlements, but also Oregon constitutional entitlements which prevent a government authority from requiring you to sign an agreement whereby you waive your objection to further government action. I'd also like to incorporate, by reference, the items set forth in the the appeal, and in doing that specifically address the 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 plain, the 100-year flood plain land. In addition to that, 15 feet which in, which is on top of the flood plain, which encroaches into his building site. So what you're basically telling him by requiring him to meet these commitments is that you're not 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. It's unconstitutional to take a man's land without paying him its market value. And that's the • basis for our appeal on item 1, item 6... Is this conditions number you're referring to? Mendez: Yes, sir, I'm sorry. Conditions No. 1, 6, and 9 of the Staff report on pages 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 land, you're requiring him to seal his fate in the future against all future, all government action in front of his building. You're saying, "You're waiving your constitutional rights. For you to have the right to develop the land you own, not only are you, are we going to take this land, a certain portion of land from you, not only are we not going to pay you for it, but you're not going to have the right to object to any further government activity which takes place in front of your land. Specifically, that's the right to object to the formation of a future local improvement district or similar device to reconstruct Main Street. For the purpose of constructing. Mendez: Right. Again something that's fundamentally wrong. A right that's constitutionally guaranteed, which you're asking him to waive. The non-conforming billboards, there's a long-standing issue with LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # G regards to those billboards. Whether or not we have a roof billboard, which we maintain we don't. The City maintains we do. The billboards have been there. When they were put up, they were in conformance with City ordinance. They should be grandfathered in for that purpose. The fact that you want to take that away jeopardizes and injures the business which Mr. Dolan is maintaining in the City of Tigard, which brings in hundreds of thousands of dollars. Brings people dawn 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 major draw. Not only injures him, it injures the entire business community. were asking that that condition be waived. Would you, I'd care to entertain questions, if you have, have any for me. 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 signage that has been on that property for quite some time. And if I understand that this proposal that 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 which the building is associated with. Is that correct? Mendez: That's correct. Okay. And what the City has asked you to do, if I understand, is that the new signage that you would have would conform to current City standards is that, and that's what you're objecting to. 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 there. We cannot... Okay. Mendez: That's that's, there, there, there's, it, they won't be simultaneous. We won't be, put one building up and the other come down. On so as long as... sign. We can cancel the contract when we put the new building in there. But we're powerless to take down that sign, now the Planning Commissioner has to deal directly with Moen?: We'll give you a chance to address those questions when you testify. Okay, do we have some other questions for this gentleman, Commissioners? I have a question pertaining to the street, but, ah, that's for Staff. Shall I wait, ah. Moen: Ya. Anything further? LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # j I have one question which may be relevant. Moen: Yes, ma'am. Was, what was the reason that the voluntary compliance agreement regarding the signs was not forwarded to the city? Mendez: I'm sorry, I don't understand the question, maybe I didn't hear it? What was the reason that the voluntary compliance agreement regarding the signs was not completed and forwarded to the City? Mendez: I'm, I'm afraid I can't answer that question, who Moen: He's signed up to testify here. I think he can... Dan Dolan: I'm not going to testify, but I'll answer if you like. 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. Mendez: Thank you. Moen: Okay, is there anyone here from the NPO to speak on this issue? Moen: Okay. Ah, we have two other, let's move on to the public hearing portion of the meeting. Ah, I... Moen: Yes? I was signed up. Moen: I'm going to get to you, I think. Oh, okay. Moen: We have two people, we have three people signed up in opposition. I assume that's in opposition to the decision. Dan Dolan is the first person signed. You signed up as an opposition. I assume you're in favor of the proposal, so... Dan Dolan: My name's Dan Dolan, with A-Boy Supply Canipany. Moen: Okay. • Dan Dolan: First I want to read letter: A-Boy Supply Conpany brings LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # y PAGE # » approximately one-half million people a year into downtown Tigard. The people who shop at A-Boy are primarily homeowners and small contractors. A small contractor usually brings or sends in the homeowner to select merchandise. Many customers are building or repairing their own home. These people are hard working, industrious and self-reliant with a large investment in the community. I would think that they are just the type of people to be attracted to downtown Tigard. A-Boy Supply Company has been advertising downtown Tigard with their ads for twenty years. During this time, we have developed an excellent reputation. Every year our sales have increased significantly. When and if we are allowed to build a new and much larger store on our property, we expect to double the number of of employees and improve the Main Street view. Our plan calls for us to move 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 property and build a new larger building with small shops on the site. Secondly, I think, I don't know if all of you have seen the issue of where our, um, the creek boundary is in relation to our building. Do you have a map there to look at? 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 further in. For scale this little jut that comes in, where it comes in, that's twenty feet there. Okay, so you can kind of see how much land, this goes above and beyond the flood plain, that'll be taken out of our building. And I'm not sure if we can build right up to that or not. But I thought maybe I'd add that. Any questions? Moen: Yes, we need it for the record. If you want a copy of it back. Dan Dolan: I don't need a copy back. copy of that letter. Dan Dolan: Oh, this other letter? Dan Dolan: Oh. Did you want an answer to your other question about... Yes. Dan Dolan: Um.... Let us read that. Moen: Our opponent, can you, why don't you read it to us so we all know LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE # • what it is? What do we have here. Moen: Okay. Is this part of our packet here? Keith, this a letter to you. Liden: No, I don't think so. This is a separate issue. I don't know anything about that. What was your question you had? I 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 record. 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. Keith S. Liden, Senior Planner of City of Tigard. It's signed by John Dolan, property owner, President at A-Boy: "Mr. Liden, 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, I have not received it. In response to your letter, I can assure you that we have a legal wall sign on the front of your, our building. When we purchased this property in 1970, there was a feed and seed hay store with a warehouse and old sheds on this site. The main building was an old corrugated iron-sided warehouse with a small retail store next to it and an old open shed on the far west side. Soon 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 of them. It was extended against the front wall of the warehouse building. Here the parapet wall was about two feet below the top of the roof. The wall was built to hide the unsightly roof lines and enhance the appearance of the building giving the three buildings the appearance of one. After the parapet wall was built, we cut out letters and attached them to the part of the west side wall to make our sign. From this brief history, you can plainly see that we have no roof sign and whatever ordinances you mentioned, do not apply to our wall sign. The billboard sign you mentioned in your letter as being an illegal, in an illegal location belongs to Ackerly Communications, Inc., 715 NE Everett Street, Portland, Oregon, 97232. I suggest you contact them if there are any other questions regarding this sign. Sincerely yours John T. Dolan. • Moen: Is the billboard sign that was referenced there, is that on your LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # = • property. Yeah, there's a, there's two signs. There's a, the one she was asking about is a sign on our building which.is our wall, on the wall. It says "A-Boy West." The other signs are on the a, guess it be eastern edge of our building. And they're Ackerly signs. Their bill, what we call billboards. Any other questions? Ah, I don't think so. Not right now. Bill, I'm confused now on the signs. What do you want to do? Do you want to keep the signs up until your new building is opened, 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 of the permit was that, that, a, as a, um, what do you call it when you get a permit to... Occupancy... Dan Dolan: Occupancy permit, that we have to tear down the other sign. Which would leave us in one building with no sign and maybe a sign on the new building. But we didn't want, we want to have a sign at all times in the business that we're doing business in. But you don't have to tear it down until you get occupancy permit? That's when you'd have everything moved over there, right? Dan Dolan: Yes. We'd have to tear it down, the sign on our existing building, in order to get an occupancy permit on the new building. And a, if they could work out a time schedule where we could, you know, the whole thing is going to come down. But, a.... Well if you, if you had thirty days after you opened your new building or something... Dan Dolan: Well I'm sure something like that could be worked out, but, but we don't want to be in business without a sign for one day. I think can appreciate that, we just, I think we're just a little unclear as to what you're asking for. What we have is a problem in timing with the sign question. You don't have any problem, I assume, with your new building needing a new sign code once the Dan Dolan: I don't think there's any problem Once you've moved out of the old building. LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE # Dan Dolan: We're not gonna, we're not going to put the same sign on the new building. No. Dan Dolan: We're going to comply 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 That should be fine. Dan Dolan: Yeah, I would say that's... We can take the sign down almost immediately. Building we have to get our permits and things. before we can tear that down. Ninety days... I had one other question that might have some bearing here. Okay we have, we have concern with billboards and then the signs, and those are primarily a matter of timing in terms of shifting from one to the other. That's one question. He has a non- remonstrance agreement which is a basic question as to whether you feel it's, you folks feel it's proper and right. We can discuss that. We'll discuss that. Then back to the flood plain issue you have what the Staff is asking us to do, what they have said, if I understand it right, is that they wish for you to dedicate the flood plain to the City and secondly dedicate up to 15 feet from the current flood plain to, I believe, Staff may help me with this, 15 feet from the current flood plain to where they might locate a building. Is that right? Yes. Okay. For the purposes of us, in effect a setback or whether it's be a dedication or a setback. We can talk about. You're asking for a dedication, is that right? Well there isn't a setback requirement, so the building can be on the property line. So there, therein lies the rub. Okay. One, one, other question that relates in, we in effect are hearing the whole case. We're looking at the points you've raised, but we also need some, I'd like some information on the whole situation. One of the things that was mentioned in here was the concern that the City had in that this building would be located nearby the, um, future park that we envision for the downtown area. There is LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # 6 PAGE # ti} some concern about screening, or the way that this building might appear towards that park, particularly the back end of commercial 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 the Staff is put, the Staff has put... Dan Dolan: landscaping back in the back side, and I think... The Staff has put quite a few restrictions, in terms 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 in lieu of, possibly in lieu of some of that landscaping. That's just my, 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 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 I know that it's planned that, um, what you see is what we have planned. And we've got landscaping and trees behind here. We 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 my question is 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 ha mner something out. But, ah... Probably not. Dan Dolan: Okay. We need, we need, excuse me Mr. Dolan, we need a copy of the other letter that you read. If you'd like a copy back we can get you one. Dan Dolan: I don't think so. do you need a copy of that? . • Thank you. The other party signed up to speak is Sarah Dolan LUtSH FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE 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 Monahan 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 plans, changing his plans. You were to survey it, you didn't. In his mind, 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 well as the U. S. Constitution deny you that right. You cannot take property away without compensation. You not only want him 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, I guess I'm just here to vent my frustration with the whole process. I was a political science major in college and I find that what you are requiring of him to do is not only unconstitutional, but it's also unreasonable; and that I think you should look at it a • 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 your backyard or a quarter of it because we're going to put in a park potentially. We haven't designed it, we don't have any money yet, but we want you to give us your property just, you know, it's not only unconstitutional, it's unfair. And, um, I guess that's what I have to say. Are there any questions? Thank you. 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? I have some questions of Staff and counsel that I'd like to get in I think that's appropriate. I'd like to hear from and then... the applicant rebuts. Okay. That's fine. We'll give them a chance to do that. Do you • want the Staff first, or the counsel, or both. Staff. LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT ft PAGE 11 • Okay- I guess a general question with regard to the signage. A, the way the conditions are written, would the applicant have to go without signage for a period of time? Liden: Well I think that would depend a little bit on the timing of how they get the store stocked up and so on. I mean they could receive the occupancy permit without any inventory in the store and then have a lag period of course while they move from one building to the other. If, you know, typically we have conditions of approval subject to receiving something from the City, as opposed to releasing all permits and having to go back 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. What, ah, why are we, why are we requesting that 15 foot dedication above the flood plain; and is this consistent with other similar applications? Liden: Well, this, this case is a little bit unusual from others that the Commission has recently reviewed. There are two reasons that • 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 be made along Fanno Creek, so that as we get more development, and additional storm runoff, that we don't experience in flood levels as time goes on. Essentially the advice that we've received from engineers that have studied this is that if we do nothing in Fanno Creek and allow development as it is happening right now, that flood levels will rise over time. So in order to combat this, the storm drainage master plan indicates prescribes improvements along Fanno Creek that need to be done with 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 channel, but the flood channel, to aocommodate more water going through in the area of the bridge. And the Engineering 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, I, presumably it'd be five feet or some other similar distance on the other side of the creek. In effect, five feet in addition to what, where the flood plain is now? • Liden: That's correct. That's correct. We have a situation with a creek and then a bank and then a level area where the Dolan 's are LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE • preparing to build the building. And so Engineering is saying that we have to go over five feet to accommodate this additional flood flow. And this is the... Five feet beyond the flood plain? Maybe I can try to scribble something on the board here Got a situation sort of like this. And the storm drainage master plan is saying that in order to accomrcdate 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, and the curve 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 path, which 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, but then in order to have enough level area we'd have to have another ten feet here, and go up this way and have the path right here. Or we would just excavate the bank five feet and Just have a path here. Actually we're talking 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 I don't follow there, Keith, is that sometimes, you know many times the bike paths that we build in the greenways in the City are in the flood plain. Ah, and if you're building a bike path in the flood plain, let's say you 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... Well you've got, what appears in your sketch, and I know that doesn't necessarily have bearing in fact, but what appears in 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 waterway would give you 10 feet to build the bike path on. Granted it would be flooded when it floods, but so would the whole park so... (end of first side) and ask him to sign, or require him to sign a non- remonstrance agreement. The non-remonstrance agreement is, a, 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 Citv Puts LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT ft ; PAGE L' • 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 development, they will be asked, required to sign a non-remonstrance agreement if it's a project 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 number one is there, should there be a bike path there? Okay? Number two, should there be allowance for the master drainage plan? Okay. I wonder, and then the third question is I guess we have to decide whether we feel we have enough information to lay the ground work for the Engineering Staff and the developer to 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 think we've got two parties here that I, I guess I'd to say could come up with a solution to it, although it would appear to me, I guess I'm a little disappointed in both Staff and the developer that we haven't had a solution 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, it'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 to be at above hundred-year flood plain level at street level 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. Engineering is perfectly capable of handling that. So I guess my suggestion would be that we some language that requires that the, that the City and the developer come up with a plan there. Now one of the things we could do is request the developer to, I'd like to throw this out for some discussion, request that the developer show how he can accommodate the bike path and the requirement for the flood plain. And if he can show that he can do that and the buffering in X amount of feet, that's how much we have. Well I think one of the things you're, if I can kind of narrow the issues down a little bit, I agree with that. I think everyone is on board for the five feet. Is that, is that correct? Well whatever it is, I think the Staff has suggested five feet is the question. But the question is enough land to take care of the master flood plan. Is that what you're saying? And it's been suggested that five feet is a safe number. We can accept that or if the developer can show can it could be less than that, • I'm sure that's a possibility, too. I guess the question is do we have to, do we have to cover the master drainage plan and do we have to cover the bike path? Maybe we c-an c ret a consensus. LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # j • 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, I'm open to putting it into their mutual hands if... Moen: Well, let's hear some other comments. Comments? Well, I agree, I mean I think they ought to have, they need the five feet, I guess, if that's what's in the master plan. I think the bike path has to be there, whether it's in the, whether it's in the flood plain or up above, I think there's room to... The point is it can't be in the flood way. It can be in the flood 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 think 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. Castile: I'd like to see us go ahead and approve it, based on the fact of 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 Engineering, it comes back to us, and we'll make the decision. Moen: I think that's fine. Do you want to make a motion? Castile: Make a motion a, great. Well it's piecemeal this thing. That the parking spaces are okay. Motion that the non-remonstrive agreement be signed. Give them 45 days after occupancy for having the signs dawn. That's all signs? Castile: All signs. Including the Ackerly ones. Castile: Include, all signs. Except for the ones that are on the new building and have permits. Ah, then an agreement be made that they have between, the City will gain between 10 and 20 feet to install, or to have bike path put in. And they will install the bike path, and if that can't be worked out with Engineering, then the deals off on, on the whole proposal. So that it would, it • would come back to, come back to us. LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT H PAGE # • You mean you would want all those things changed. Castile: No I, I, it wouldn't... You mean just the ten, the five feet the ten feet, you know just boundary on it. Castile: Yeah, if they can't, if they can't work it out with the 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 the building or I would assume they're going to have, they're just 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 it in order to get the bike path in there. Moen: As far as constructing the bike path, though, you're going to leave that in the hands of the developer? Castile: Yes. Yes. Moen: Okay. Grillo: In order to try and protect, ah, both parties' interests, and facilitate that they can come to some sort of terms, I suggest perhaps that with regard to this bike path issue that, ah, the commission consider, ah, 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.. 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 review. I suggest that maybe you give some specific time period for the two parties essentially to work out a compromise. If that falls through then it seems to me what you're left with is the 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 counsel decides to call it up. Grillo: That how that provision has generally been interpreted. That's correct. Which they do on occasion if they feel that they want to see it. But it's at their prerogative. Grillo: That's right. We need to write a decision that did give a certain... • Open end? LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE • Grillo: ...period of time for the, for this compromise to be worked out. It would be an issue as to when your decision was final. There could be an argument that your decision was final as of the date your order was issued and mailed. And then not knowing whether they would be able to work out a compromise, 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 the appeal to counsel is in both parties to keep a definitive time period as to when your decision actually becomes final- Okay. Let 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 "all property that the additional property the fifteen feet would, could be reduced if it can be shown to the Engineering Department that the bike path and the, and the other drainage... the drainage, and the buffering. . can be accommodated with less to Engineering's satisfaction. That way we have a final decision. We've met the requirements. If they can satisfy Engineering that it, that it, that they can show this can be done, ah, then we have our compromise. If they can't, then we don't have a compromise, in which case, I'm afraid, the thing, it basically lapses. Grillo: The only issue there is when does your decision become final. Does it became final if and when a ampromise is reached, or does it become final when, ah, when your decision... Is made here. Grillo: ...signed by the decision makers. It becomes... Oh, you mean in terms, in terms of appeal. Grillo: Which would you suggest is more appropriate? Grillo: Well, I would suggest that... ...or more fair to both parties. Grillo: I think, I think unless you set out a specific period of time in which this oampromise can be worked out and specificallv sav in LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT H PAGE ft ; ~ • your motion that this decision does not became final until X period of time, which is the period of time that you intent to have the compromise worked out. Otherwise your decision, I believe, will became final for appellate purposes, 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 it to Council not knowing whether a compromise has been reached between the parties. I understand what you're saying. Let me ask you turn that around just a little bit. It would seem to me that, and you tell me if I'm wrong, that since really there is no right of appeal by the, by the, by our code to Council automatically. That I don't know there really is a time limit for appeal because any appeal would have to be taken up as a request to Council to call it up. And I imagine they could do that at any time. If... Council has to call it up, I believe it's within 10 days, of the date your decision becomes final. Ten days? Twenty-one? I don't know. The decision's final. There's already, they've already gone through a ten-day appeal period. They have, the next step would be the appeal Okay- But I guess I'm trying to see if it hurts anyone to make this 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 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 Commission Decision and I believe the trigger period is ten days. We don't put on the contact It's not ten days. Grillo: Here's what I'm saying is if council decides to call... Moen: If it's, if you, if counsel feels it's more appropriate to put a • time limit on it, what's an appropriate time limit? Thirty days? LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # co PAGE # • staff, is that something that you feel that, you, you, I'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: Okay, I'll withdraw then. Moen: Okay. Milt do you want to take a crack at it? Fyre: Let's see, I've gone through the hearing, 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 will stay in. Seven, I believe is okay. Eight, I believe is okay. Nine we need to modify. Ten looks okay. Now eleven, I'm not sure. We need to change one of these to add a 45-day grace period. That's number 12. Fyre: Okay 11's okay. Twelve we need to change for a 45 day. 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. Pyre: Okay. That'll apply to all of them? You mention, item 12 mentions non-conforming billboards. Does it also refer to the wall sign or roof sign as however... Existing roof sign is down at the bottom, it's number 14. Fyre: Okay. So we need the same condition on 14? The 45 days? Forty-five days after occupancy. • Pyre: Forty-five days after occupancy. Okay all those stay the same. Let's go back to number one and see if we can put some wording LUBA FILING.- CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE • there. The intent is to have the applicant and the Engineering Department reach agreement on varying the 15 feet. To accommodate, to accommodate both the, ah... Fyre: ...drainage and bike path. The drainage and a 8-foot bike path requirement. And buffering. Fyre: And buffering. Three things. Fyre: With consideration given to trying to fit that in without moving, without requiring the building to be moved. So our direction would be to try and be as flexible as possible to, if 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 8? Number 9. The, that the applicant and the City Engineers came to agreement on the width of the paved pathway through their, how should we word that? Grillo: As is required in the public safety. Well I guess the question is does it have to be 8-foot wide? Should we give the Engineering latitude to decide how wide it needs to be? Given considerations in public safety. Fyre: okay, consideration to public safety, plus a less than 8-foot wide... I wouldn't say, I'd just leave it. Let's see 8-foot wide. Eight-foot wide paved pathway shall be installed by the applicant. I would say a paved, just strike the 118-foot." A paved pathway shall be installed by the applicant through the greenway per Engineering requirements, per Staff Engineering requirements. Do you need to take out the "constructed to City standards?" City standard is 8 feet. Moen: I don't think that the City standards is what the Engineering decides they are. • Fyre: Uh-huh (yes). Moen: In a bike path aren't they? Is there a ,hi i char] -,t-andard for LUBA FILING,- CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE fi t • bike path? Liden: I'm not sure if they're in our code or not. Fyre: Then we'll put "as required by City Erxgineer." And I guess that's it. Okay Castille: Thirty days. Fyre: Oh. Yeah, you got to have 30 days. Oh. Forty-five. No, the 30 days is the... Oh. One and nine will be subject to this. Fyre: That agreement must be reached with the City on conditions 1 and 9 wihtin 30 days. Within 30 days of today. Okay- Fyre: And that we request the City to be as flexible as possible as possible in accommodating... Well, that's just a direction, that doesn't have to be part of the motion. Fyre: Okay. Okay we'll leave that out of the motion, then.' Agreement must be reached by the City Engineering and, and, ah... Fyre: Applicant. Applicant within 30 days. Fyre: Within 30 days. LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE H Of the final order, of signing of the final order. Fyre: Okay. Do we have to state that if these, if the agreement is not reached... Grillo: I would suggest two things. That you indicate what their decision is in the event that no mutually agree, agreeable ccupromise 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. Okay. I would think that the two things... Fyre: You want me to try that? I would think that if condition number 1 can't be met, or an agreement can't be reached, that condition nix 1 will revert back to its original wording. As does condition number 8. If I may interject, that means no, there's no reason for the Staff to negotiate. Why can't we have it come back to you guys for some final decision. Otherwise the Staff can say, "I'm sorry." Commissioner can say, "I'm sorry, we can have it all our • way, all we have to do is wait out these 30 days." Fyre: 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. Pyre: Okay what would be the best way just to word that in 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 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. So I guess, in order to accommodate his concerns, I suggest that, ah, you consider having the decision become final in 30 days, with the knowledge that your decision, you can reconsider your decision as to this condition within that period of time, since your decision was not final. Liden: We won't meet now probably for another 30 days. So make it 35 or 40 days. • Forty days? Grillo: You can vote to reconsider your decision and schedule it for vour LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # 6h PAGE # "'i • next, the next time we meet. In other words, ah... 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 come 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 ask the applicant, you know another way we can do this, and why we asked the question if you guys were in a rush, 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... We can do that if we can't reach a negotiated... Yeah, and if that's the case, we could just change the motion. And since you've heard what we had to say, we can hold this over for a final decision. Yeah... I have a suggestion. • In the event the parties can't resolve it. Probably be a good idea to give you a shot at, at getting an agreement with Staff because you could get out a solution quicker. Right- Okay. Let's, go ahead. If the, if we can get them, if they can have a decision, if they can come to an agreement, we'd like to just clear it off the boards and go on, right? Fire: Well, can we just schedule this for a hearing again, just in case a final decision, just in case they can't reach agreement with the City. I think we ought to schedule it for... Grillo: You could continue the public hearing. Well we could. Grillo: be giving direction to the City. • There's only one issue that we're talking about, that is what LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # _i • this, we can make a decision on. all the other points really, I think, tonight. Grillo: Just isolate the bike path issue. And we can isolate the bike path issue. And my coimnent 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 evidence. Okay? But I think that time, to be fair to everyone, probably should be not, probably should be 60 days 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 every other month. So it's either going to be the first meeting in September or the first meeting in October. And I would suggest to first meeting in October. Good. That gives everybody emphasis to get Final.decision on everything but the bike path? Let's vote on it? • Well we have a final decision on the bike path, too. It's just that if they can solve their differences then within 30 days, the decision's final. It becomes effective then. If they can't, that portion of the decision reverts back to us on the first meeting of October. Fyre: I'd like to do it sooner, if we can. I hate to hold them up. If we could do it in September. When is the first meeting in September? That's less than 30 days from now. Let's do it anyway. Yeah, that's probably, I'd feel a little be less, I think, what is it, 5th? I don't have my calendar with me but I think it's September 5th. Okay whatever you want. Your, it's your motion. Go for it. Ask them what they want. Fyre: What would you prefer? Since we're operating so informally here. Probably would have preferred not to come here tonight. • Prefer not to be here. LUBA FILING,- CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # C: PAGE # Mendez: I think the September meeting would be satisfactory for us. You got it. Fyre: Okay. September meeting. Has the motion been seconded? So we have... Jelderks: Who seconded? Castile: I Will. Jelderks: Okay- Okay. To 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 agreement within, work to have an agreement on the above proposal within 30 days, and that, should that agreement occur, that this final decision will become effective at that point of the agreement. Okay. And within 30 days from tonight. Okay. And in the meantime, we'll go ahead and sign a final order based on that so that it's all set and when they sign it goes "should that agreement be unable to be reached that the issue of the bike path and its location... size. ...and size and a dedication" those, that specific issue would be reheard or the hearing would be reopened on that point on the first meeting in September. Okay? Okay. Moen: All those, ah, we have a motion before us that's been made and seconded. All those in favor of the motion as made and seconded signify by saying, "Aye." Barber, Castile, Fyre, Newton, Rosborough: Aye. Moen: Opposed? Peterson: Nay. Moen: Okay. Do you have that duly recorded? Jelderks: Yes. Moen: Okay. The motion carries. We will have a break between now and we'll re-open the hearing at 10:00. LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # i PAGE # ' i D A E N January 23, 1990 1. Budget/Goals 2. Council after-action 1/22/90 3. Interns for Summer 4. Street Vacation Policy in Triangle 5. Trammel Crow - Tenant Improvement Permits Urban Renewal 6. After Council Retreat 7. Training Requests 8. Council Timelines • 9. Other Business 10. Adjourn • LUBA FILING,- CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT 0 v PAGE _J TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal 7_6473 P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 I Legal Notice Advertising • • City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice PO Box 23397 • Tigard, OR 9 7 2 2 3 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit I AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ) 1, Linda L. Maris being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tigard Times a newspaper of general circ defined i ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at *My T i g a r in the aforTlipf orA?p~isJatFij~V lqpg a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for 1 successive and consecutive in the following issues: February 1, 1990 Subscribed and swot to before me this February 8 , 1 9 9 0 Notary Public for Oregon My Commiss Expires: 6 / 3 / 9 3 AFFIDAVIT , s _ ] I~A ends items are TublisheI fo ouc oanailon:' ormatioiandullageaFlas""'iuaybe°obtairied~ mthe~Ci . ~i?der,; 31`ZS''S:W ~ oule* calling:: t,•l63 . .1 ,w . -IM r,`~° 3125fSW:'H' O~ ~,ORI"sG0 ` ' - ~;~~::~Z ~u veI en a ew SDR~ =13 9'21)` irk,,:*1. • ~ Y~w ~ 4U1~~ . ti . = CO ~1?~►"~«:v[ittatx_ OTathC` ' gr ~ ,St.'~OCBI " Y ~Yemea -ars ~;ti°:-- a on i ie• ns' f ORS 92:660. 1 DI!S L'JBA FILING CITY OF TIGARD 90M 0g' IN- EXHIBIT # :*TT6473'. 'Patilisli`'Feb 1990^ n'" PAGE # ~l t.fg~~~~ t r 4~,J Jtk ~rpWY` r}/~ ~y!~j~ • MEMORANDUM TO: Ed Murphy, Community Development, Dept. Director FROM: Keith Liden, Senior Planner E►`L RE: 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 flood plain and that suitable room be provided for a pedestrian/bicycle path. Because of the narrow width of the 100 year flood plain, the location of the Main Street bridge, and the storm drainage improvements required by the City's Master Drainage Plan, this dedication requirement is considered the minimum necessary to accommodate these improvements. • City legal counsel indicated at the Planning Commission hearing that the City's dedication requirements where constitutional and although not totally conclusive, the existing case law supports this position. The City Attorney can further address this issue at the Council hearing. 2. Condition 4. - Landscaped islands The applicant states that landscaped islands and trees were not addressed in the original Director's decision and therefore it is not appropriate for the Commission to require them in Condition 4.. These landscaping features were not listed as part of the conditions for the Director's decision because the applicant's site plan indicated the number of landscaped islands and trees as required by the Code. During the Commission hearing, the applicant stated that he did not want to install the landscaped islands and trees. The Commission found that this Code standard should not be waived and as a result Condition 4. of the Commission's order specifies that these landscaping features be provided. 3. Condition 5. - Survey expenses The applicant states that the City should bear the cost of surveying the 100 year flood plain boundary. The staff and applicant have discussed the survey costs associated with this condition and Condition 1.. The • staff agreed to accomplish the survey work because of the additional dedication outside of the 100 year flood plain that applied in this LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE 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, the owners of nonconforming signs in the downtown were allowed to keep these signs if they signed a voluntary compliance agreement to remove or modify them at a later date to conform with City Code. The applicant has refused to sign such an agreement. When approving a site Development Review application, the City must consider the approval standards in Section 18.120.180 of the Code. This section requires compliance with the provisions of the Sign Code (Chapter 18.114). DOLAN2/kl • LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # ~ I/(Io i~r•.~a • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, 1~)nyAAl -P_ tAUk,1 r1 Y being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say: (Please prJi~nt\)_ That I am aV\ t~l1lCQ~S IS~ for The City of Tigard, Oregon. 1-"~ That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR: That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: City of Tigard Planning Director Tigard Planning$Commission 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 persons at the address shown on the attached list marked exhibit "B" on the 6 -Ir- day of • said notice NOTICE OF DECISION as hereto attached, was posted on an appropriate bulletin board on the day of MA , 19 ; and deposited in the United States Mail on the I(fi- day of , 19 U postage prepaid. Signature Person who posted on Bulletin Board (For Decision Only) CL2%~ 14 Cersonerson who delivered to POST OFFICE Subscribed and sworn/affirm to me on the day of 19 I Al/h, ; 11.'1 ' 07 • j.; : • ;OTARY P OF O "Cl '0 My Commission Expires: bkm/AFFIDAV.BRM LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # -1-1 • 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 CITY COUNCIL, AT ITS MEETING ON MONDAY, February 5, 1990, 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: 1 FILE TITLE: Dolan/A-Boy 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 An appeal of a Planning Commission 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. 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, (Signs). ZONE: CBD-AA (Central Business District - Action Area). LOCATION: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC 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 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 THE RECORD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY RECORDER OR PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT 639-4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BLVD., TIGARD, OREGON 97223. • bkm/SDR89-13.BKM LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # ~i~ i Sti 4 r \ = wwozon PL- ST pAK01A .ORTH 0 ss ~ a s S!+• s, t o \ j a LlEwts sT. r ~ ~ S.W. TAM E A C~ ~ w TwMGELA a . t l r y o t `'moo { .w. ~ ~ ss- c • R sw rc.oa' . ~ 1}- s„ 2 1 KK«ER,E sr. cc«r~ Sw + ' ti . 34 35 ri°~;o + r 1+ yr s M. Af ? S+w E + os , MW ~ 4r co r~ y r .mot' ~~f u +*a+, C,C r'+ ~i oo. « t i 1 l sT' y r~ ~ tea. a 0 v s~ \ *fT qi (GARD Cll.. SCHOOL yt" t i St. -~Sr- T~s R TYfT R + TIGARD > cr. \4 ry 4~ C1VIC CENTER ti N 1 s s o s+ TIGAft0 - LUBA FILING -CITY OF TIGARD t, EXHIBIT # C00% LM aT, ap. PAGE ~ ri^~° OaMw _ ~ a La SDR 89-13/V 89-21 1100 5000 DOLAN/A-BOY. i. OTTO SORG i MARGARET MCDAID BY FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF OR. 9225 SW BURNHAM ST PO BOX 2971 TIGARD, OR 97223 PORTLAND, OR 97208 I ' & FLORENCE DOLAN 1200 5100 7344 SE FOSTER i SEAFIRST REAL ESTAT GROUP D.A. & DORRIS CORDI PORTLAND, OR 97206 101 SW MAIN ST #1520 c/o RICHARD & BARBARA DRINKWATEF PORTLAND, OR 97204 9205 SW BURNHAM i PORTLAND, OR 97206 800 5200 ALBERT R. KENNEY, JR. 9500 SW BARBUR KEEN BLVD S-111 MICHAEL HEUVELHORST FURER SCOTT REAL ESTATE PORTLAND, OR 97219 c/o GEORGE S. KADEY JR. PARTNERSHIP 12551 SW-MAIN ST 9185 SW BURNHAM ST TIGARD; OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 DAN GOTT 900 13230 SW HILL CT EUGENE & VIVIAN DAVIS TIGARD, OR 97223 4550 SW LOMBARD BEAVERTON,,OR 97005 500 2000 CHARLES & ARLIE WOODARD LOTTI ALEX/HANS FINKE PO BOX 23303 PO BOX 23562 TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97562 600 2200 & HOBART VERMILYE GERALD &'JOAN CACH Of72 SW CAPITOL HWY 15170 SW SUNRISE LN PORTLAND, OR 97219 TIGARD, OR 97223 300 2400 JOHN & FLORENCE DOLAN DONALD & SHIRLEY HANSON 4025 SE BROOKLYN ST PO BOX 12 PORTLAND, OR 97202 WEB, OR 97067 200 2402 PAGE N. STEVENS WILLIAM & AUDREY BURTON/DANIEL 9180 SW BURNHAM RD & MIRIAM BERTULEIT 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 PORTLAND, OR 97219 4900 MARY ANN DREESZEN 13200 SW HOWARD DR TIGARD, OR 97223 1101 4800 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD JOUN & LOIS GULLEY GTE OF THE NORTHWEST EXHIBIT # 9 14095 SW HARGIS RD PO BOX 1003 PAGE # BEAVERTON, OR 97208 EVERETT, WA 98201 J /3 ~o LAND USE DECISION APPEAL FILING FORM • The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use Code therefore sets out specific requirements for filing appeals on certain land use decisions. CITYOF TIGAND The following form has been developed to assist you in OREGON filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper form. To determine what filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have regarding the appeal process, please contact the Planning Division or the City Recorder at 639-4171. 1. APPLICATION BEING APPEALED: SDR 89-13/V 89-21; John T. & Florence Dolan (owner);' Albert R. Kenney, Jr. (applicant) 2.. HOW DO NOU QUALIFY AS A PARTY: See attached Notice of Appeal (Item No. 6) 3. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW: See attached Notice of Appeal (Item No. 7) • 4. SCHEDULED DATE DECISION IS TO BE FINAL: December 28, 1989 5. DATE NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION WAS GIVEN: December 18, 1989 6. SIGNATURE(S): See attached Notice of Appeal x-x-~ /~t~t x-xFOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Received By: Yl Date: Ialol lgq Time: L'13~rn, I D:yDa ~h _ Approved As To Form. By: lI ail Date: -1 3 Time: Denied.As To Form By: Date- Time: • Receipt No. C~0)oto(oSI Amount. Ub x~~HH~-x LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # 13125 SVV Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171- PAGE # I KNAPPENBERGER & MENDEZ • JOSEPH R. MENDEZ ATTORNEYS AT LAW PETER MILLER ALLAN F. KNAPPENBERGER HONEYMAN HOUSE OF COUNSEL 1318 S. W. 12TH AVE. PORTLAND. OREGON 97201-3367 FAX (503) 294-0442 (503) 294-4317 December 27, 1989 City of Tigard Community Development P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Application Being Appealed: John T. and Florence Dolan SDR89-13/V 89-21 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 of the complete transcript of the hearings and a copy of the minutes from all relevant proceedings which resulted in the Planning Commission's approval with conditions of the above- referenced application. This request is made consistent with • Section 18.32.330A of the Community Development Code for Tigard, Oregon. Consistent with Section 18.32.330B the appellate will assume responsibility to satisfy all 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 Joseph R. Mendez, attorney for John T. and Florence Dolan, at the telephone number listed above. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation and consideration in this matter. Very truly yours, KNAPP ER EZ Jo a R. Men ez JRM:sp Enc. cc: John T. Dolan Florence Dolan • LUBA FILING - ~ITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # 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. 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 Order in the above referenced matter be reviewed by the City Council regarding the conditional approval of the reconstruction 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 enumerated in the Final Order. Zone: CBD-AA (Central Business District - Action Area). A copy of the Notice of Final Order - By Planning Commission (hereinafter • referred to as the "Final Order") is attached hereto marked as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The applicant qualifies as a party by being the owner and the real party in interest intending to develop the parcel. 7. Specific grounds for the appeal for review are: a) Paragraph 1, page 10 Final Order. The decision demands John T. and Florence Dolan (hereinafter referred to as 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 100-year floodplain and in addition the Final Order demands Dolan surrender 15 feet above (to the east of the floodplain boundary. This demand by the Planning Commission constitutes an unlawful taking 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 1, Section 18. b) Paragraph 4, page 11 Final Order. That portion of Paragraph 4, subnumbered 3) which requires Dolan to construct landscaped islands in the parking lot and plant trees in the islands is of first impression to the • 1 - NOTICE OF APPEAL OF FINAL ORDER OF DIRECTO LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE i applicant. This condition was not included in the previous decision and was not included in Dolan Is 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 since the City would be the beneficiary of the dedication. 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. 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 for which Dolan must be compensated beyond the mere approval of their application. The signage issue of a separate building 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. b) Date decision scheduled to be final: 12/28/89. DATED this o?7t' day of 1989. KNAPPENB RGER ~A-I-ME EZ By: 82333 . and rRECEIVED BY: DATE: ?j J E !DAT;E:/ ;/TIME: APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: DENIED AS TO FORM BY: DATE: TIME: NOTICES OF FURTHER ACTION AND HEARING DATES SHOULD BE SENT TO: Mr. John Dolan Mr. Joseph R. Mendez, Esq. Globe Lighting Supply The Honeyman House 1919 N.W. 19th Avenue 1318 S.W. 12th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97219 Portland, Oregon 97201 2 - NOTICE OF APPEAL OF FINAL ORDER OF DIRECTOR LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE N is CITY OF TIGARD Washington County,.Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER - BY PLANNING COMC SION 1. Concerning Case Number(s): SDR 89=13/V 89-21 2. Name of Owner: John T. & Florence Dolan Name of Applicant: Albert R. Kenney, Jr. 3. Address 9500 SW Barbur Blvd. City Portland State OR Zip 97206 4. Address of Property: 12520 SW Main Street Tax Map and Lot No(s).: _2S1 2AC, tax lot 700 .5. Request: 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). 6. Action: Approval as requested Approval with conditions Denial 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 affected Neighborhood Planning Organization X Affected governmental agencies 8. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON 12-Ld - SI UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of conditions can be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. 9. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision 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. c The deadline for filing of an appeal is 10. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Department, 639-4171. bkm/SDR89-13.BKM LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # L~ PAGE # • CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 89- 25 PC 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 (V 89-21) TO THE REQUIRED PARKING STANDARD FOR GENERAL RETAIL SALES TO ALLOW 39 PARKING SPACES WHERE 44 ARE REQUIRED (DOLAN). 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. 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 LOCATION: 12520.SW Main Street (WCTM 2Si 2AC, TL 700) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Central Business District ZONE DESIGNATION: CBD-AA (Central Business District, Action Area) 2. Background 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 property have been considered nonconforming as of March 20, 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. properties an extension of time until a City Center Plan is adopted. The voluntary compliance agreement was never signed. The property and business owners have been cited for the following nonconformities: 1. Roof sign, a violation of Section 18.114.070.H; and S ~ FINAL ORDER 89- G5 PC - SDR 89-13!v 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE I LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # rP ~ 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 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 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 present location since approximately the late 1940s. A freestanding sign with 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 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 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. 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. 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 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. FINAL ORDER 89-2.5 PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 2 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # J D PAGE # q,'~ . The Consolidated Rural 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 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 to a 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. 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 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 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 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 reconstruction of Main Street be required as a condition of this 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 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 slopes toward Fanno Creek; therefore adequate storm drainage is available. FIVAL ORDER 89-_ PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE I.UBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # l C) p ~ ~ PAGE # r"ef iCr'F1_ k°.l4:: ~ :~3 G d 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 closer to the proposed building than the location of the existing top of bank. 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 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 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 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 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 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 18.100, 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, this order will review the proposal in light of the Parks Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park and the natural resources element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. FINAL ORDER 89- Zb PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 4 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # A _t - PAGE # EXHIBIT 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 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 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 district, 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 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 are intended to serve the 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: a'. The development shall address transit usage by residents, employees, and customers 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 building(s) from transit lines or stops; ii. Minimizing transit/auto conflicts by providing direct 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 collector and arterial streets; and i • FINAL ORDER 89-ZS PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 5 LutsR FILING - CITY OF TIGARO EXHIBIT # 1 Q PAGE # , iv. Avoiding the creation of small scattered parking areas by 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 greenway/open space/park. Specific 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 o 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. 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 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 adopted plan. Screen loading areas and refuse dumpsters from view. Screen commercial, and industrial use from single-family residential through landscaping; and iii. Provision of frontage roads or shared access where feasible. The submitted development 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. Outdoor 9- 2-a PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 6 FINAL ORDER 89-2-a' wn» r1LIDJU - t;11Y OV TIGARD EXHIBIT It )(l PAGE # - I ~'T'r"• 1 1106 CTI Tnft- • 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 along Fanno 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 trees in the parking lot and along the street frontage. The Commission 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 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 improvements will cause the destruction or removal of vegetation planted 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 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 it is in a vision clearance area, this type of tree 'may grow to a mature height of 15-25 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 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 in this report. The Code requires one secure bicycle parking space for every 15 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 design should also be submitted to the Planning Division for review prior to its installation. Access, Egress and Circulation The requirements of the Access, Egress and Circulation have been satisfied. • FINAL ORDER 89-7-S ~ PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 7 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT ,1 PAGE N `'4 Sig_ • 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 conformity with the City Sign Code. 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 proposal's ability to comply with 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 Development Review Code Section 18.120.180.A.8 requires that where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the 100-year f1dodplaim, the City* shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle plan. A path is also required as part of the Action Area Overlay designation .(Section 18.86.040.A.l.b.1). 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 future City-initiated relocation of the floodplain bank. This should be required on a revised site plan.. 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 applichble 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 • FINAL ORDER 89-2_!~_PC - SUR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 8 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # EXHIBIT 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 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 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 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 attract "browser or window shoppers", in that the business constitutes a retail/wholesale type of • business which sells bulky merchandise. The latter fact results in the 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 vehicles at any one time. Staff notes that employees 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 the existing store use will not need 44 parking 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 for retail sales businesses which sell bulky merchandise, namely I space for every 1000 square feet of gross floor .area but not less than 10 spaces, it is clear that the proposed 39 spaces are 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 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 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 9 LUBA FILING.- CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # r PAGE # ` Master Plan for Fanno creek Park • Fanno Creek Park is a community park located along Fanno Creek between Main Street and SW Hall 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 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 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 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 floodplain. 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 pathway and.the planned reconstruction of the storm drainage channel along the flood plain. This indicates that 'an adjustment to the placement of the building on the site would be necessary in order to adequately accommodate"the -path and vegetative screening up 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: UNLESS OTHSRWISE- NOTED, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE HET PRIOR TO 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 floodplain' boundary. A 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 so as not to intrude into the greenway area. STAFF 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 CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Division, 639-4171. FINAL ORDER 89- 2!5' PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 10 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT r-su5i€&~ PAGE 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 spaces. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden, Planning Division, 639- 4171. 4. The applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan showing: 1) screening for the trash disposal area; 2) the installation of 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. 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 prior to demolition. STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building • Division, 639-4171. 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 section 4407(c). STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division. UNLESS OTHERWISS NOTED, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT: 8. All landscaping materials and other proposed site improvements noted in Conditions 3. and 4. shall be installed or financially assured prior to occupancy of any structure. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden, Planning Division. 9. All new signage must receive approval by the Planning Division prior to erection of the•,:signage. STAFF - CONTACT: Keith Liden, Planning Division. 1 The two nonconforming, amortized billboard signs and support structures shall be completely removed from the property prior to occupancy of phase one of this development OR the applicant shall FINAL ORDER 89-7,5 PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 11 • LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # F-XHIBIT /~y~/ PAGE # 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 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. n 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 APPROVAL 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 of the entry of this final order. PASSED: This /day of December, 1989, by the Planning Commission of the City f ~~Igard. Milton Fyre, esident Tigard Plann ng Commission • br/SDR89-13.ks1 FINAL ORDER 89- L5 PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 12 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD•' EXHIBIT # Q PAGE # . ;.,i ~,t~,:~.t.t rr e'•52 '.r tt. r. `.t:. ;:1'L'1...., • ~ : n ++Ya y Y'LYYPPPY Y➢➢IIL r .rr Ii :r (9 t- 'r."".•~ -'I _ ( •I' ~a=fr~a.., Yat,M"r o . .-_...•.....,.,:C"'~ ' y,"' It '`:f:. t!J I I I i; I t ' .a r- ( a....,.•r.' ~+Y••• rte. st't' ff' 4L. ,LI w» wvxG~rr?x fIF>ru~ 7tt^irr: u. 1 'ter. _ 1~rA7fftJJ•` t.'..~.f: 17 ( C7 ::'::r,Nµ r^^^` "v 7»x 'r rrtt i":' jrJr7f :f: ~rl.'.:•~.:'..,...~J. 'f.7~Jt~J•rJ'f.S.•.. J;~r :•:;~r"~'7""':i z xr"', ~~,'s, ?ivirr 1'; ' ~ I "'::ry rrt,,,,,'«",,,"^~''=:•'.: ifr'r,'7.?%::.~. _'`l.: .,rrcrr:,:!!llf.~:::?!f; ! • .t I l~ =^.6'.:J I 1 :rSs'7...~••.'.•.«:: i:::ra'.`.^^^^^.~ I~ 0^'^•..'•'~! f X..r: ~:'j":.^';!:•fi~i' i"j IJ T i ;u. Ysrf r v_::~M_ M y r:" I ill - _ ' _ . i~' f' r 1 I rfJYr; rJ f : -J !.L I LL i lA m .•`.'r'...y., •:i 'G "Jf•` ":ji tit. --~yy;rsrta,, . i.Y l ! a ~ """"'r~~'^~' is f i • T. LIJ I 'r - . is^ w- I II•I (1; fl. rr~ W I W rrf'rlFriitij:: JI I .F' lTI LLI J rfrJ' I W li: 4L I V-- 11: ti •r. J st~% G rxi I U ft -L•x_.. OF t'AY'.T_N %iEL N'•_.: 00106651 CHECK AMOUNT v 500.00 "DAME: A-BOY SUPPLY Cul` PP ; P!_, CASH AMOUNT . OiD ADDRESS: 1919 W.W. 19TH AVENUE PAYMENT DATE . 12-2q-B? PORTLAND, OP 9720-z- BLOCK NO/Wo: R,URPOSE OR PAYMENT AMOUNT PAID PURPOSE O PPYMENT AMOUNT PAID CUSTOMER DEPOSIT' 5500.00 WDR 24-13iV 89--21 APPEAL) x - THANK-YOU ~uj i'1:~.:: .iY:'FLT.r:x.:~'•sR:ti'..:+:'.:4i~:.>: o..i"'.:J.,:.i.__.. ~ _ _ - - J - 0 in Oak ON" Qt.. kx N TOTAL-AM JN14PAID. - - N l~r P ~ ty~ r rc? r t, r Y r A e 4 Y!i1xds 4 Li rZ? s ,Y-= f , }4< '{th L t 4's- n , Xr",~ s~~ {,sr• ec ~ t q, s~.-- y,. L, t r.. d° ~ cln t'~"YY>'=" lY, ~ V~@:1"•Ia SSG .~h'~s [i,,•u'.r Z ~qq,~,,,, r ~',2•~f /t .s } .43 ,~qt`.~~A a . ~Y x ~..y 's~ rp~',' ~ gag-wig `s y f rt~^ ' ~ 'a ft~,~ r~xtf tv- Jf ad ~Y, ~ 1' gF 00 r,11 F # }i ° ? •2i ?zr'?i?}? ` ss;f,ii; i??~j: 'f ?ij'':,. , •_c,4;~ j : i' i ?`i , ,"?j #i` ? ;;3 ? ; : i;j? `:;;,?:;.i}, ?i# }i#, 's:' ;.k,. : ~}~,=}?,it{~}}}~ ? t2} } '``':;?i: ~~YY ` # ? # # ' ?fir,, h # ~1 i ,1• NIS, #`33 ??::.i 3 ??£ff,}}R~~R1}~:?:?:,#i d # ? } # ~~f~`~ ??.?,'7~ . ?;2 'Y` ' } } , .tiro ~ i3?ii~` ,#+,,,titiii ??r,?i~i''33 ;~i~~ z ~ i}: i,? i}~::}: , • ? 3 ' ~'z? r }'L"UBA'=. • FILING`'==:-'CI-TY OFTIGFl.RQr`. - jj~~ ?,~r ? 'fi?' , r. L `jj• ? PAGE - , . iir rr?+''~, ,•r, '~'`r,,`;?;rj , ,,;,r;.;,;::`,'?3 • +,+r ~ 'j`,• z 'j~2•`?j, } j,r , , , ,..,~i. z; i , • Q j owl W i•ti NO" rr?: Y, 9 T H U 1 4 4 1 O F? 1=-:& C 5@ Z:2 4 3 2 9 4 4 P_ 0:2 _ `t,• O'DONNELL. RAM1S. ELLIOTT & CREW ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. 140YT STREET PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 (5031 222-4402 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT OATS December 28,.'1-989 PAGE # L TO Jerry Offer, City of Tigard FROM Phil Grillo, City Attorney's Office.. Re A-Boy Appeal to Council You have asked for a legal opinion on the following issue: Question- After a Director's decision involving site design review has • been appealed to the Planning Commission, can a party appeal the Planning Commission's decision to Council, or is the appeal strictly to LUBA? Answer: The appeal is to Council. Explanation Over the past months, there has been some confusion over the specific wording in the Tigard Municipal code regarding appeals- The Code is quite confusing, particularly with regard to the appeals process, and staff and the city attorney's office are in the process of reviewing these provisions and proposing needed changes. Historically, staff has taken-the position that parties to a Director's decision have a one-step appeal process to the Planning Commission. Once the Planning commission has decided, staff has treated that decision as final and not appealable to Council. Their position is supportable by certain language in the Code. - Under TMC § 18.32.310(A), director's decisions can be appealed to the Planning Commission for review. Section • 18.32.310(A) states that, once a director's decision is appealed to the "appropriate approval authority," that decision "shall be final." However, a further reading of the Code expressly provides that a director's decision, after an appeal, to the Planning • Commission, may be appealed to Council. <i4,"r3 Memo re A-Boy Appeal to Council December 28, 1989 age 2 TMC § 18.32.310(B) provides: "Airy decision made by any other approval authority under subsections 18,32.090(B) or LCA may be reviewed by the Council (Emphasis added.) TMC § 18.32.090(C), referred to above, lists different types of Planning Commission decisions. Included in that list is: 115) An appeal of a decision made by the director under subsection 18.32.310(A) of this section; . . . In my opinion, § 18.32.310(B) and § 18.32.090(C)(5) expressly provide a party with the ability to appeal a Director's decision froln Planning Commission to City Council. The use of the term "final" as it appears in TMC § 18.32.310(A) is not controlling. The term "final decision" is a legal term of art. The usual meaning of the term "final" or "final order" is an agency action expressed in writing that does not preclude further agency consideration on the matter. Therefore, the use of the • term "final" in our ordinance does not, in and of itself, preclude further action by the City Council. In summary, in cases such as this where the code expressly provides parties with an appeal to Council, a party is entitled to exercise that right. The language in § 18.32.310(A), which suggests that Planning commission's decisions "shall be final," is not controlling. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. These Code provisions are currently under review by staff and city attorney's office. PEG:gaj PEG\T1GAR0\A-S0Y.NF1/Saj LOBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE t KNAPPENBERGER & MENDEZ JOSEPt1 R. MENDEZ ATTORNEYS AT LAW PETER MILLER ALLAN F KNAPPENBERGER HONEYMAN HOUSE OF COUNSEL 1318 SW 12TH AVE. - PORTLAND. OREGON 97201-3367 FAX (503) 294-0442 (503) 294-4317 December 27, 1989 City of Tigard Community Development P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re:- Application Being Appealed: John T. and Florence Dolan SDR89-13/V 89-21 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 of the complete transcript of the hearings and a copy of the minutes from all relevant proceedings which resulted in the Planning Commission's approval with conditions of the above- referenced application. This request is made consistent with • Section 18.32.330A of the Community Development Code for Tigard, Oregon. Consistent with Section 18.32.330B the- appellate will assume responsibility to satisfy all dosts 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 Joseph R. Mendez, attorney for John T. and- Florence Dolan, at the telephone number listed above. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation and consideration in this matter. Very truly yours, KNAPP ER EZ Jo a R: Men ez JRM:sp Enc. cc: John T. Dolan • Florence Dolan LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # J~; NOTICE OF APPEAL OF FINAL ORDER OF DIRECTOR 1. Concerning case number:. SDR 89-131v 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 2AC, 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 conditional approval of the reconstruction 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 enumerated in the Final Order. Zone: CBD-AA (Central Business District - Action Area). A copy of the Notice of Final Order - By Planning Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Final Order") is attached hereto • marked as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The applicant qualifies as a party by being the owner and the real party in interest intending to develop the parcel. 7. Specific grounds for the appeal for review are: a) Paragraph 1, page 10 Final Order. The decision demands John T. and Florence Dolan (hereinafter referred to as 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 100-year floodplain and in addition the Final Order demands Dolan surrender 15 feet above (to the east of the floodplain boundary. This demand by the Planning Commission constitutes an unlawful taking 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 1, Section 18. b) Paragraph 4, page 11 Final Order. That portion of. Paragraph 4, subnumbered 3) which requires Dolan to construct landscaped islands in the parking lot and plant trees in the islands is of first impression to the • 1 - NOTICE OF APPEAL OF FINAL ORDER OF DIRECTOR LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT % PAGE It 1 l ~ 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 S, 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. 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. 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 for which Dolan must be compensated beyond the mere approval of their application. The signage issue of a separate building 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. b) Date decision scheduled to be final: 12/28/89. DATED this o?7t' day of 1989. KNAPPENBRRGER ME EZ J E R. ND , O 82333 torneys or hn T. and rence Do J zla~ td-1 U6 RECEIVED BY: y(~ DATE: f}~ TIME: APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: DATE: TIME: -DENIED AS TO FORM BY: DATE: TIME: NOTICES OF FURTHER ACTION AND HEARING DATES SHOULD BE SENT TO: Mr. John Dolan Mr. Joseph R. Mendez, Esq. Globe Lighting Supply The Honeyman House 1919 -N.W. 19th Avenue 1318 S.W. 12th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97219 Portland, Oregon 97201 • 2 - NOTICE OF APPEAL OF FINAL ORDER OF DIRECTOR L.VUH Y1L1Nb - UlIY Uh -1 IGARD EXHIBIT # i PAGE It r (~L/ AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) If &VItIP, M,uI k&1J- J , being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say: (Please print) That I am a V_l• ( 7rC\~Qs~ for The City of Tigard, Oregon. . That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC.HEARING FOR: 'That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: City of Tigard Planning Director __,,~--Tigard Planning Commission 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 persons at a addres shown on the attached list marked exhibit "B".on the ~t~` day of 190 1 * , said notice NOTICE OF DECISION as hereto A= , was posted on an appropriate • bulletin board on the ~6day of , 19 and deposited in the United States Mail on the day of J 4 0 Inn 6010 19 postage prepaid. Signature Person who posted on Bulletin Board (For Decision Only) Person who delivered POST OFFICE Subscribed and sworn/affirm to me on the ~9 - day of , 19 9 NOTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON My commission Expires: bkm/AFFIDAV.BKM LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # 13 PAGE # 1 Cir- CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER - BY. PLANT XNG COAMSSION 1. Concerning Case.Number(s): SDR 89=13/V 89-21 2. Name of Owner: John T. & Florence Dolan Name of Applicant: Albert R. Kenney, Jr. .3. Address 9500 SW Barbur Blvd. City Portland State OR Zip 97206 4.. Address of Property: 12520 SW Main Street Tax Map and Lot No(s).:. 2S1 2AC, tax lot 700 5.. Request: 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). • 6. Action: Approval as requested Approval with conditions Denial 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 affected Neighborhood Planning Organization X Affected governmental agencies ,J/ X~iyn 8. Final Decision: THE DECISION SEMLL BE FINAL ON UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of conditions can be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. 9. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision 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. The deadline for filing of an appeal is 1Z 10. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard • Planning Department, 639-4171. bkm/SDR89-13.BKM LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXIiIBIT It PAGE # ) • CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 89-_25 PC 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 (V 89-21) TO THE REQUIRED PARKING STANDARD FOR GENERAL RETAIL SALES TO ALLOW 39 PARKING SPACES WHERE 44 ARE REQUIRED (DOLAN). 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. 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 LOCATION: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC, TL 700) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Central Business District ZONE DESIGNATION: CBD-AA (Central Business District, Action Area) 2. Background 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 property have been considered nonconforming as of March 20, 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 properties an extension of time until a City Center Plan is adopted. The voluntary compliance agreement was never signed. The property and business owners have been cited for the following nonconformities: 1. Roof sign, a violation of Section 18.114.070.H; and • FINAL ORDER 89-Z5 PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 1 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # } PAGE # J 01 Y 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 ; 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 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 present .location since approximately the late 1940x. A freestanding sign with 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 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 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. 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. 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 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. FINAL ORDER 89- 25 PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 2 LUBA FILING CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT N 1 PAGE ti I The Consolidated Rural 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 required. Portland General. Electric, -..the .Tigard.Water District,; have reviewed ---the proposal and : have- no objections.. tof 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 to.a 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. 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 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 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 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 reconstruction of Main Street be required as a condition of this 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 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 slopes toward Fanno Creek; therefore adequate storm drainage is available. FINAL ORDER 89-1.~t__PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 3 • LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # C' 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 y stabilization. -`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. e. If apedestrian 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 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 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 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 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 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 18.100, 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, this order will review the proposal in light of the Parks Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park and the natural resources element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. FINAL ORDER 89- 25 PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 4 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # 1) G 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 CBD (Central Business District, Action Area) zone and therefore the use is acceptable for this site. _ j 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 district, 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 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 are intended to serve the 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: a. The development shall address transit usage by residents, employees, and customers 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 building(s) from transit lines or stops; ii. Minimizing transit/auto conflicts by providing direct 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 collector and arterial streets; and i . FINAL ORDER 89-ZS PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 5 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # iv. Avoiding the creation of small scattered parking areas by • ' 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 greenway/open space/park. Specific 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 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 r. 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 adopted plan. Screen loading areas and refuse dumpsters from view. Screen commercial, and industrial use from single-family residential through landscaping; and iii. Provision of frontage roads or shared access where feasible. The submitted development 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. Outdoor FINAL ORDER 89- ~ PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 6 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # 13 PAGE # 1 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 along Fanno 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 Louth sides, and trees in the parking lot and along the street frontage. The Commission 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 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 improvements will. cause the destruction or removal of vegetation planted 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 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 it is in a vision clearance area, this type of tree may grow to a mature height of 15-25 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 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 in this report. The Code requires one secure bicycle parking space for every 15 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 design should also be submitted to the Planning Division for review prior to its installation. Access, Egress and Circulation The requirements of the Access, Egress and Circulation have been satisfied. FINAL ORDER 89- PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 7 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT ) PAGE # ) 1 =5 signs • 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 conformity with the'City Sign Code. 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 proposal's ability to comply4with 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 Development Review Code Section 18.120.180.A.8 requires that where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle plan. A path is also required as part of the Action Area Overlay designation (Section 18.86.040.A.l.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 future City-initiated relocation of the floodplain bank. This should be required on a revised site plan. 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 FINAL ORDER 89- PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # 1 PAGE # 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{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 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 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 attract "browser or window shoppers", in that the business constitutes a retail/wholesale type of . business which sells bulky merchandise. The latter fact results in the 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 vehicles at any one time. Staff notes that employees 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 the existing store use will not need 44 parking 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 for retail sales businesses which sell bulky merchandise, namely 2 space for every 1000 square feet of gross floor area but not less than 10 spaces, it is clear that the proposed 39 spaces are 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 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- 2- PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 9 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # j PAGE # i :Master Plan for Fanno.-Creek Park • . ; } i:..•,_"_'.. 4 it ~ : Fanno Creek Park is a community park located along Fanno Creek between Main -Street % and; SW; Hall-Boulevard in. the; Central Business,,,District. rThe site. lies ::within the.i 100-year-. floodplain;' and;,,,immediately;..~abuts the : subject..; property along its. southwestern property, line. It Js;hoped ;that,the entire park will eventually contain 35 acres. The dedication of the land area- within fthe.-100-year • floodplain 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. 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 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 floodplain. 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 pathway and the planned reconstruction of the storm drainage channel along the flood plain. This indicates that an adjustment to the placement of the building on the site would be necessary in order to adequately accommodate the path and vegetative screening up 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: UNLESS OTBE%iiISE NOTED, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO 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 floodplain boundary. A 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 so as not to intrude into the greenway area. STAFF 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 CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Division, 639-4171. FINAL ORDER 89- Z~ PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 10 . LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD j EXHIBIT # PAGE 0 i l 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 spaces. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden, Planning Division, 639- 4171. 1 4. The applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan showing: 1) screening for the trash disposal area; 2) the installation of 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. 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 prior to demolition. STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division, 639-4171. 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 section 4407(c). STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT: 8. All landscaping materials and other proposed site improvements noted in Conditions 3. and 4. shall be installed or financially assured prior to occupancy of any structure. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden, Planning Division. 9. All new signage must receive approval by the Planning Division prior. to erection of the signage. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden, Planning Division. 10. The two nonconforming, amortized billboard signs and support structures shall be completely removed from the property prior to occupancy of phase one of this development OR the applicant shall FINAL ORDER 89-V') PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 11 ~vnn r1~ t~uu - l y 1 J Vr I -LUHKU EXHIBIT ):3 PAGE 1 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 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 the new building. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden, Planning Division. THIS APPROVAL 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 of the entry of this final order. PASSED: This /Z S day of December, 1989, by the Planning Commission of the City f igard. Milton Fyre, esl. Tigard Plann ng Commission • br/SDR89-13.ks1 FINAL ORDER 89- GJ PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 12 LUis NV ' - Ui i Y OF '1 IGAkO H h 1Ll EXHIBIT PAGE # I - -::i li N_ s` v I'~. T7 LL- L-e-il - --I-- . -Nom`'--- ( ?_F i? li.C:_\ _i: • it( _ 1 _ r • W -?,l t ( -t.-~.•:: UC k t7 sY... -5S' +^'f. Y s? f, ErF _'•t J.:u 3' s ^.:d'e 5:,•-F-. a " ,~=:~.f-~.":r• .a :i5:-ze.'^hi., c: ? -.:ii: _ni+: x :~f=:,,y.•,°E:.`~ ' s.~- f~ _ ~~J<i%~'i, <ra`` -i:$:~;.'. .~~rr ff K` ~ L~. ) '~2r. v 4s'~,'`~'. a. da ,a z n r~1 't N%. ss v `t~r'. 't-;`..~~y*++~'-_e'.•_: 3•F.~ ~ ~ ~ - ~j' 7 rp ~?ly:'4>L~`TE:~ x . ? ~~.t'~`"!s t'~a~.~...~r .7.-~"`y '%;`i+r E' >>-'~S'f" < " YM 4 ~F`3„ , ~ : ~'f ±+}'~'w?;a:a.ytFit°"~-nx'~k., • sc#~i»_ T x. [ t• t .rUey~1;: ~y '~F-` ~,..y e'y5t ~ ofs-~ .L ~:.-a=4-iF 3.."!" ✓<=~~>`C."~ >'s.~''.C~+` 11~. F~ NOt } ' . .3*tx _ ~3~!n :a " 3 c 4.•Y' ,'Y 'g<-'s :y " t c +?~h.:•i' 7 Jf R. 'i.. ~:r:; s-`~`~= ~M • rtMEMO : vmlei i .y,~ -r r.~ 3}:. SS 1 ._.t}[ -:A~:,~. '.~i'}I>?--c'K--:5.4:'i <,t`s-:A,;--tf't.. s4'a.+~I•.~ 3".1,'+Y T.,t11... _ +~&`~..ns.-?+`. ~ti b> ~ ~ ~ i e -f. 'r r,.yyi, t+'' v `n sr .y;. al'+..~iy. 3 c t- ~ ' ;y. _ g,r ~ r~7 j a Yf. <'i ~ •A~j '~'t.Y" fir' ~6 } .Yii'~f a J .tG., ~ ii, a, .F T rr~n a f .s~t .t }"•;-S• \e ;.+•o,.....• ~ -i~ .'y'~e[x,r r'~"`~f.8. v-.Qd~.t ~ F v` 'R ~r Y ~ r ~ r yb ~r ~e J•. ~'y~f .,tf ~ r~_ s.. ~y x> kS' -a t4iG~ '9''"f•^r . s wq ~ 6 k ~a-G r~"'~ , ~ } ~ F 'H•- ; , t f. ~v rt. ':~'~yu: ~~~Ar "'~~,s:. ~~~•~f r ~s :CUBA FILING CITY OF:~7"IGARp`-~ < f - a.. I~ ~ jj. T Y xT..a'/eM :'c ~ .F- ? .-yC ~'°~~C _ T~j'.{ .+t3' y. - 1 X t '+.7'_Y T` 'i, "ty :e ~{J L .EXfIIBl~ jj r...I ~ 4f-.Y'• T' ~_7 f ~.~L"`:! 5''Yn s < t'. " l °$v yf t:!T n+„ - r. f „ t r J~~ r. ? I z PAGE . kf„e s q > fit.? r L.. •'E - ' - . CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 89-_25_PC 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 (V 89-21) TO THE REQUIRED PARKING STANDARD FOR GENERAL RETAIL SALES TO ALLOW 39 PARKING SPACES WHERE 44 ARE REQUIRED (DOLAN). 4 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. 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 LOCATION: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC, TL 700) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Central Business District ZONE DESIGNATION: CBD-AA (Central Business District, Action Area) 2. Background 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 property have been considered nonconforming as of March 20, 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 properties an extension of time until a City Center Plan is adopted. The voluntary compliance agreement was never signed. The property and business -owners have been cited for the following nonconformities: 1. Roof sign, a violation of Section 18.114.070.H; and • FINAL ORDER 89-i_5 PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 1 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # ! 5 PAGE # I i 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 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 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 present location since approximately the late 1940s. "A freestanding sign with 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 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 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. 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. 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 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- FINAL ORDER 89- 25 PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 2 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # 1 PAGE # J a The Consolidated Rural 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 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 to.a 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. 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 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 -.engineering study of the condition of Main Street recommends that the pavement be completely reconstructed and that the storm drainage system be replaced. i It 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 Bridge and working uphill. Therefore, we do not propose that any reconstruction of Main Street be required as a condition of this 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 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 slopes toward - Fanno Creek; therefore adequate storm drainage is available. • FINAL ORDER 89-11~t_PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 3 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # ) PAGE # a 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 closer to the proposed building than the location of the existing top of bank. 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 clad the proposed building. Typically, new developments along Fanno 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 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 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 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 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 18.100, 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, this order will review the proposal in light of the Parks Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park and the natural resources element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. . FINAL ORDER 89- T PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 4 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # _ S PAGE # rs f - i 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 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 setback requirement if any side of the property abuts a residential zoning district. Since none of the four sides 'of theyproperty abut a residential zoning district, no other building setbacks are required. In the CBD-AA zoning district, 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 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 are intended to serve the 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: a. The development shall address. transit usage by residents, employees, and customers 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 building(s) from transit lines or stops; ii. Minimizing transit/auto conflicts by providing direct 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-support ive users by limiting automobile support services to collector and arterial streets; and FINAL ORDER 89-7-5 PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 5 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # ) S PAGE # / iv. Avoiding the creation of small scattered parking areas by 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 greenway/open space/park. Specific 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 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 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 adopted plan. Screen loading areas and refuse dumpsters from view. Screen commercial, and industrial use from single-family residential through landscaping; and iii. Provision of frontage roads or shared access where feasible. The submitted development 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. Outdoor • FINAL ORDER 89-7-(3 PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 6 LUBA.FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # I, i= 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 along Fanno Creek, all other landscaping standards should be waived. These waivers primarily involve use of the dedicated area to meet the landscaped area requirement (158 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 that 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 improvements will cause the destruction or removal of vegetation planted 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 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 it is in a vision clearance area, this type of tree may grow to a mature height of 15-25 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 .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 in this report. The Code requires one secure bicycle parking space for every 15 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 design should also be submitted to the Planning Division for review prior to its installation. Access, Egress and Circulation The requirements of the Access, Egress and Circulation have been satisfied.. FINAL ORDER 89- -713 / PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 7 • LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # r 1, Signs 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 conformity with the City Sign Code. 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 proposal's ability to comply-'with 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 Development Review Code Section 18.120.180.A.8 requires that where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle plan. A path is also required as part of the Action Area Overlay designation (Section 18.86.040.A.l.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 future City-initiated relocation of the floodplain bank. This should be required on a revised site plan. 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 i FINAL ORDER 89-,-PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 8 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # ) PAGE # J rr 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 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 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 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 attract "browser or window shoppers", in that the business constitutes a retail/wholesale type of business which sells bulky merchandise. The latter fact results in the 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 vehicles at any one time. Staff notes that employees 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 the existing store use will not need 44 parking 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 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 39 spaces are 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 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-.T PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 9 j LUBA-FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT 0 PAGE N -Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park • Fanno Creek Park is a community park located along Fanno.Creek between Main Street and SW Hall 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 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 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 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 floodplain. 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 pathway and the planned reconstruction of the storm drainage channel- along the flood plain. This indicates that an adjustment to the placement of the building on the site would be necessary in order to adequately accommodate the path and vegetative screening up 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: UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALT BE MET PRIOR TO 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 floodplain boundary.. A. 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 so as not to intrude into the greenway area. STAFF 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 CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Division; 639-4171. FINAL ORDER 89-2< PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 10 LUGH r1L1NU - Ul I Y OF I16fIND EXHIBIT- # PAGE # ) n 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 spaces- STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden, Planning Division, 639- 4171. 4 4. The applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan showing: 1) screening for the trash disposal area; 2) the installation of 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- 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 prior to demolition. STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division, 639-4171. 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 section 4407(c). STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division. UNLESS GrBERWISS NOTED, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT: 8. All landscaping materials and other proposed site improvements noted in Conditions 3. and 4. shall be installed or financially assured prior to occupancy of any structure. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden, Planning Division. 9. All new signage must receive approval by the Planning Division prior to erection of the signage. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden, Planning Division. 10. The two nonconforming, amortized billboard signs, and support structures-- shall be completely removed from the property prior to ..Occupancy of. phase one, of this development OR the applicant shall FINAL ORDER 89- 3`:) PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN - PAGE 11 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT-# PAGE 11 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 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 brom the subject property within 45 days of the issuance of the Occupancy Permit for the new building. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden, Planning Division. THIS APPROVAL 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 of the entry of this final order. PASSED: This / S day of December, 1989, by the Planning Commission of the City f igard. Milton Fyre, esident Tigard Plann ng Commission • br/SDR89-13.ksl FINAL.ORDER 89- GJ PC - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN = PAGE 12 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TI:GARD EXHIBIT # ) .7 PAGE # • 5.2- SITE DEVE[APMENT REVIEW APPEAL SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN NPO #1 Laden: Okay, this next item involves Dolan, Mr. Dolan Is 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 eventually remove the existing A-Boy building. The Site Development Review Proposal was approved subject to the satisfaction of fourteen conditions by the Planning Director; and then that decision was appealed by the applicant because of an objection to the contents of a number of, a number of the conditions, including dedication of the 100-year flood plain and an additional 18 feet to the east to the top of the bank of Fanno Creek; a non-remonstrance 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 Fanno Creek; ah, the removal of two non-conforming billboard signs that are on the property; and finally the removal of a non- conforming roof sign that's on the existing A-Boy building. The Commission reviewed the application and upheld the Director's decision, with a couple modifications. One was to try to work out some alternate arrangement on the dedication of property • along Fanno Creek to see if the city could get by with a little less property and accommodate the storm drainage improvements that are proposed as well as the pedestrian bike path along that side. And, ah, condition number 9 was modified to require that the City Engineer work out an agreement on the design of the paved pathway, and that if an agreement couldn't be reached, that the item should be brought back to the Council in, excuse me, the Commission in September. Although it wasn't part of the final motion, the Commission did seem to favor and amendment to another 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 operational at the new site before the other sign was taken down. Since the hearing Staff's reviewed these issues that have been raised by the applicant, we've talked about them a number of different times and, ah, in the memo that I have in the packet I indicate what types of issues that we've discussed with the applicant and the types of amendments that the Staff is willing to propose to the original decision. I'd just like to go through those briefly. After reviewing this with the applicant and also our Staff on the conditions of approval and the items that are being contended were recommending the following amendments: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 1 LUBA•FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # 1 PAGE # 1 3 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, and that that requirement should be retained. As far as the non-remonstrance agreement is 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 Community Development Director, we decided that a non-remonstrance agreement would be inappropriate at this time. And we feel that some other method other than a local improvement district would really be required when 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 very nearby for the storm drainage improvement. So we're recommending that the construction of the bike path condition be deleted. As far as the billboard signs are concerned, ah, it is not the Staff's intention to, to have 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 come down if we can receive a copy of the contract showing that the applicant is required to leave those billboard signs. So then presumably, at some future time, we will work with the sign company as far as those signs are concerned. We feel that the roof sign issue on the existing A-Boy building was settled in concept, at least, based on the discussion of the Planning Commission allowing the sign to stay after the occupancy permit was granted, as opposed to being a condition of the occupancy permit. One other thing that was discussed was landscaping of the dedicated area. And as we understand it the applicant is willing to dedicate that area if the City is willing to take responsibility for landscaping of that area. That that area could be used towards meeting the 15% landscaped area requirement in the code. And finally the applicant also is interested in a waiver of some of the other landscaping requirements, including street trees and trees in the parking area. The Staff is recommending that we go along with the wishes of the applicant as far as landscaping of the dedicated area, and using part of the plant, dedicated area to count towards to 15 % landscaping requirement; but we do feel that other landscaping requirements, such as trees in the 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 packet you do have a copy of the PIANNING COMMSSION MEETING - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 2 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # )~c PAGE # J • Staff decision, a copy of the minutes from the previous Planning Commission meeting when we discussed this. And we xeroxed a copy of the site plan that was considered at that meeting. Fyre: Any questions? Thanks Keith. Is anyone here from the NPO wishing to speak? If not we'll hear from the applicant, John Dolan. Dolan: Oh, we're a lot closer than we were last time I was 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 not dedicate that land to City unless they get something in return as, as a landscaping deal. Now there's been a Supreme Court decision that says like in recent, recent case there was, um, what's the name of that, Nollen, yeah, Nollen with 2 "L"s. They, the case came to the Supreme Court and they decided there, and you probably 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 property for it. The only thing that you really can ask me is to do something that, that you need to do in order to give me a permit. If I'm causing extra traffic, or something, or if I have to do this, or put in a road, or, to, if I live out in the sticks, and do something like that that pertains to the property itself. That you cannot, and I'm not going to give you any property for nothing. Now if you want that property, I'll trade you a landscaping deal for it and it won't cost you any money. Fyre: 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 buy the property from me. They got to have it for the, I know they need it for the park, the property and I'll sell it to them. And then I'll put in the landscaping according to code. It's one thing or the other, but I'm not going to give you something for nothing. It isn't, it doesn't make sense. Why should one person have to pay for something that benefits the whole City. Is that fair that I should do that? This is America. You can't take things from me without paying for them. That's about all I have to say. Fyre: Is that the only, the only... Dolan: Ah, we're agreeing on most the other things, I mean, there's a lot, there's, I don't agree on the sign; but to build another building, I got to tear everything down anyhow. And the sign has to come down. So, I mean those things will work out. The only thing really that we're apart on is, is this one I'm telling you • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETTING - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 3 LUBA.FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT #t PAGE N ` • 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 me, it only helps everybody in the City that uses that. So let's get together and, and do the American thing and if you got, if you're right, you're right. And I'm right, and I'm going to stick to my guns to over there. Fyre: go 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 trees and something out front. Dolan: I... It'd look like 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 some street trees in there. Dolan: I, most shopping centers, a lot of them 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 want to say, 1 want to trade you for that. And then what I think I need to make the property presentable, I'll put in. But I... I think that's what they're asking. Dolan: I mean, but all I want to do is give you that 6,000 or 7,000 feet of land, but I'm not going to give it to you for nothing. We want, we'll talk about it and, and make a trade. But aren't you seeing... (tape ended) Dolan: ...is, you've got it earmarked for the park, and you don't have 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 this and get out of the rut. We've all, the other things that were bothering me already, I think, have been resolved. And the signs, it's not a, they keep calling it a roof sign. It's not a roof sign, it's a wall sign. It's right on the front wall of the building. And it's not illegal, and a permit was granted when we • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 4 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # 7 4% PAGE # I~ 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. 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'll get that out of there after we get our, our... Fyre: Okay, what, let me see if I can get this clear. What you're objecting to is the 15-foot dedication? Is that? Dolan: I'm not, there's more than 15 feet involved. That's just part of 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. Dolan: No. There's, there's the 15 foot is 250 foot long. So, I mean, you have 15 feet times 250 foot. And then you have, besides that you've 'got some stuff in the river. I've got like a riverfront property. It's, be a nice property if it, the City didn't want it you could develop that property to its best usage and take advantage of the creek there and have a nice different type of deal, but I never taken that idea seriously myself because it's for the public good and they, they have to have it for the, to get an entrance to their property. I've even gone so far, one of my, way saying that we'd sell the more property I'd just build where we are there, and something like that if I wanted to. We could work out a deal, flexible. But this is what they came back with, what you have there. And I think that, that's what should be done. Because I think everybody knows that, that I know what's going on and it's right. It's just, too. When you want to buy something, you have to pay for it. And if you don't pay for it in cash, you can pay for it in something of equal value. Fyre: Any questions? 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 and then you'll have a chance to rebut. Dolan: All right, fine. Fyre: Cause there's nobody signed up to speak in opposition. Staff, could you please clarify the dedication issue here if you could? Liden: Um, in what respect? Fyre: Exactly what we're talking about in terms of Mr. Dolan's objection. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 5 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # (o PAGE # ) `7 Liden: Okay, maybe I'll see if we have a up here. Fyre: Okay. Aden: I don't have the property memorized, 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 improvements that, the storm drainage improvements that need to be made in this area, and the addition of a bike and pedestrian path, there is a need to come out to this line to accommodate both of those. Part of it's going to involve some excavation 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 the main park area to the south. What the code allows in the central business district, it does allow normally that you can, in other situations, that you can at least be eligible to look at developing in the flood plain area, if you can show that you're not going cause a rise in flood elevations elsewhere. Now this 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, 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 an issue. And we're saying in this area of the City 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 plain 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 we've had paths constructed usually as part of residential developments and so on, the flood plain area is wide enough, there's plenty of room within the flood plain to put the path and 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 path. So the reason that the Staff is recommending 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 outside of or above and beyond the typical requirement of the 100-year flood plain. So that's why we are recommending that this area can still be used to be counted towards meeting the landscaped area requirement of 150 of the entire site. As • opposed to giving the dedication and then saying well okay now PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - DDCEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 6 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # 1 is PAGE # i i i you need to meet the 150 And then... Fyre: Can you.back- up Keith, I didn't quite, I'm missing something here on this' this landscape requirement that you're. Liden: Well code. is saying that if you have on this site that 150 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 which essentially is going to be landscaped or left in its natural condition. And then you'd be saying okay 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 feeling that he's getting caught a little bit in a double whammy here. We're taking this and saying okay now where's your 15% landscaping? Would have had plenty of land if we didn't require the dedication. Fyre: Right. Liden: Now, as. far as meeting the landscaping requirements, it's our feeling that the applicant to benefit the town.on the landscaped area, but that at least in the parking area street trees and so on, that those amenities still should be required. 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 the trees in them. That can really be basically the extent of the landscaping. And that would satisfy the, as you've got it proposed, all the landscaping requirements? When you take into consideration the 15-foot strip. Pretty close. Liden: Cause then, also we're recommending that; as part of this park the City's going to be involved in doing some landscaping anyway. And after the construction of the storm drainage improvement, whatever landscaping is put in would be taken out. We'd be starting over anyway. City will do it? Liden: Right. City will maintain it after... Liden: Right. And we would be responsible for maintenance after dedication anyway. Fyre: So you're essentially dropping the bulk of the landscaping PLANNING COMMISSION MEFTING - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 7 LUBA'FYLING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # I9 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. I also agreed, besides doing this, to give them some footage around here so they could landscape it, give it landscaping where you put some trees in so you wouldn't be seeing it from the park which they will have dawn here. That width I would dedicate also. It would be probably 5 to 10 feet or something like that. 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 requirement. Fyre: To, ah, just street trees? Liden: Street trees and those other things are provided in some small landscaped islands. I would guess that the lengthy area here after dedication would probably be less than 10%, M. Fyre: Okay. Any questions? 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. Fyre: Any other questions? Thank you. Mr. Dolan would you like to say a few concluding things? Dolan: Well there isn't much more, I think I've said what I want to say. The landscaping on the rear of the lot by the, that land there I think is important to shield the building, the back of the building and also anything else from the park that you'll have dawn below. That's why that was my idea is to give them that because. So we'll have 7,000 feet actually would be 10% or more of the landscaping right there. And this I think would be somewhat of a price, it would benefit the City probably more than it would me. I think if I sold the property to the City and used that same money to landscape it, I would make lot more money that way. It wouldn't cost the value of the land that I would dedicate to the City. Is that clear? Fyre: I guess we could look at it a couple ways. Dolan: Take 7,000 feet of that property and say we had a value of $10 a PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 8 TUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT j to PAGE # 1 q 0 i 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..... Fyre:- Sure you could look at it a number of ways. Dolan: That's a roughly, those figures, but I mean it's, it's apparent that the City would get a good deal. on it. Fyre: 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, that would be involved in it. Fyre: 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 need the money for construction. Okay. Dolan: I would sooner let the City take it. In other words, if I do sell it for a profit, I'll have to pay taxes on the profit. This is true. Dolan: And, and you know other things. It isn't all profit. Right. Okay. Dolan: But so it's 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 nothing. They want, they say, "Dedicate this." First of all they want to say, "Give us this property, build a road on it ???,11 and these other things and I mean.. But that isn't the case now. Dolan: Well, now, since last time, they've withdrawn the demand that I build the road on it. But still they, they're telling me, "You dedicate this property, do this other thing." And it's my PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 9 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # ) I property, and to get a permit, there's no reason why I have to give them that property. That's not my idea, that's the Supreme Court. That's the way things work. 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? Uh-huh (yes). 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 150 landscaping. The code says that. They aren't taking anything from you, that's in the code, everybody has to do it. Dolan: Okay. Fyre: Okay. Now what we're doing here, it appears to me what's happening here is the landscape requirement is being reduced... Dolan: Well, not really what he's saying. You must remember this: he's saying we're going to take your land and give you credit for landscaping. But if I keep the land myself, I could still get the landscaping credit for that. Pyre: 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. Dolan: Yes, but I, I mean that would be it. 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. Pyre: May very well be. I'm not sure. Dolan: It, it makes sense. Fyre: But, but the issue, you ]mow, I don't want to get off onto a broader issue, but the issue of dedication is something that's, that's done and it's applied in all municipalities, and the, the • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 10 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXI4IBIT # r PAGE # y a • 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. Fyre: Sure that's debatable whether it does or not, but I guess what we have to decide here is, is what needs to be done. Any other questions? Mr. Dolan, I have one question. What the Staff has proposed you 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 enough in your mind to be a fair trade, what is a fair trade? Dolan: Well, they, the best way would be then to do it would be, say, that I'll sell you that property and then, then we can do it normally without any trades. It's you know, I'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 make a trade. I, I would come out in the long run better financially but it might be a little more work for me. I'm getting so old 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 that we're going to have to do, since you, you haven't quite reached agreement with the Staff, is we're going to have to decide how to proceed with this agreement. Dolan: Yeah, you got to remember... Fyre: 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 argument. Other, the other thing I'm offering you an alternative instead of buying the land, to give me that landscape, landscaping credit and get my building up. All I'm doing is asking for a trade. You got to give me something if I give you something. Nothing's for nothing. Fyre: Right. Are you saying you wouldn't want to put any landscaping on your building then? Dolan: I wouldn't, I don't want to have that requirement. I, I'm not PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - DDCEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 11 LUBA.FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # ~(o PAGE # I y 3 saying I won't put any, but I, 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 same latitude in the types of plants? I mean, 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 part. I think you're close. 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... Dolan: I'm willing to do, I'll do what I have to do. I'll put sprinklers in the other parts. So there isn't going to be any problem there. Fyre: Okay, our, how's your time line? Are you 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. A couple weeks, another couple 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... Fyre: Okay, let's, ah, let's close public hearing and get on with it. Mr. Leverett? Leverett: Well, I, I'm opposed to negotiating out this landscaping, cause I think that's a, we're trying to make Tigard look half way decent. I think the landscaping isn't, shouldn't be to give him the opportunity to do what he wants to do. You know, it could look like Toys R Us, or something like that. And I don't think we want that. I think that we should table it and let him try to work it out. Fyre: That we should? PLANNING CONMIISSION MEETING - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 12 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # Leverett: I think we should table it. • Fyre: Mr.:.Castile? Castile: I thinkwe 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 nothing. And I think the trees, whatever, whatever his design with the Staff we can have it worked out. Fyre: You're in favor of going with the Staff recce mnendation? Castile: Yes. Fyre: Commissioner Barber? Barber: I would agree with going with the Staff recommendation. Fyre: Commissioner Rosborough? Rosborough: I would agree with Commissioners 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 wants to do it and what the Staff is proposing. I think it's, I think it's very close the way it is. Fyre: Commissioner Fessler? Fessler: I agree. I think that Staff and Mr. Dolan are getting closer. And I think it would be probably to, they've been working with this longer than we've been able to, and I think they're just about there. Fyre: Commissioner Saporta, do I hear a motion? Saporta: Ah, sure. Sure. I move that we approve Staff's recommendations as amended. Is that right? Fyre: Is that correct? Well let's you, I guess approve or mandate the original Director's decision with the changes to the conditions that I have noted in my memo. That sounds good. Fyre: Do we hear a second? Castile: I'll second it. Fyre: It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor signify by • PLANNING M IISSION MEETING - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 13 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # /(G PAGE # I ~I S • All saying, "Aye." Commissioners: Aye. Fyre: This motion carries.. 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/BMRPC125.90 N:\WORD\COMIDEV • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 14 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT 16 PAGE H I ` ~O • MEMORANDUM .TO: Ed Murphy, Community Development Dept. Director FROM: Keith Liden, Senior Planner RE: 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 flood plain and that suitable room be provided for a pedestrian/bicycle path. Because of the narrow width of the 100 year flood plain, the location of the Main Street bridge, and the storm drainage improvements required by the City's Master Drainage Plan, this dedication requirement is considered the minimum necessary to accommodate these improvements. • City legal counsel indicated at the Planning Commission hearing that the City's dedication requirements where constitutional and although not totally conclusive, the existing case law supports this position. The City Attorney can further address this issue at the council hearing. 2. Condition 4. - Landscaped islands The applicant states that landscaped islands and trees were not addressed in the original Director's decision and therefore it is not appropriate for the Commission to require them in Condition 4.. These landscaping features were not listed as part of the conditions for the Director's decision because the applicant's site plan indicated the number of landscaped islands and trees as required by the Code. During the Commission hearing, the applicant stated that he did not want to install the landscaped islands and trees. The Commission found that this Code standard should not be waived and as a result Condition 4. of the Commission's order specifies that these landscaping features be provided. 3. Condition 5. - Survey expenses The applicant states that the City should bear the cost of surveying the 100 year flood plain boundary. The staff and applicant have discussed the survey costs associated with this condition and condition 1.. The staff agreed to accomplish the survey work because of the additional dedication outside of the 100 year flood plain that applied in this LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # 1 PAGE # -1 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 acondition 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, the owners of nonconforming signs in the downtown were allowed to keep these signs if they signed a voluntary compliance agreement to remove or modify them at a later date to conform with City Code. The applicant has refused to sign such an agreement. When approving a Site Development Review application, the City must consider the approval standards in Section 18.120.180 of the Code. This section requires compliance with the provisions of the Sign Code (Chapter 18.114).. DOLAN2/kl • LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE # )C~~ • SIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION , REGULAR METING - DECEMBER 5,.-1989 1_ Vice President Fyre.called the meeting, to order=at 7:30 PM..: The meeting was held at the' Tigard Civic. Center,.' TOWN HALL =.13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: Vice President Pyre; Commissioners Barber, Castile, Fessler, -Leverett, Rosborough, and Saporta. Absent: Commissioners Moen and Peterson. Staff: Senior Planner Keith Liden; Building Official Brad Roast (left 9:00 p.m.); Planning Secretary Diane M. Jelderks. 3_ APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner 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 Tri-Met is considering for locating a park and ride. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 MISCELLANEOUS M 89-20 MANUFACTURED HOME AT SW COOK LANE NPO #3 A request for review of the Director's interpretation of Chapters 18.26 and 18.94 of the Community Development Code pertaining to manufactured and mobile homes. Senior Planner Liden reviewed information enclosed in the Commission's packet and the sequence of events resulting 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 (UBC). After reviewing 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, UBC, & HUD (Housing and Urban Development), the ability to move the manufactured home, tie down requirements for mobil/manufactured homes, and the different types of foundations which could be-used. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 5, 1989 pArR I LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # ) rs • APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o Herman. Porter, Chairperson for NPO # 3, speaking-for. Don Moonier, who was 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 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, 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 single family lots. o Mr. Clyde 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 down. o David Nicoli, 14180 SW 141st Avenue, Tigard, OR 97223, stated that he had sold the property to Mr. Johnson and is here to support him. He added that 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. REBUTTAL o Herman Porter stated he had nothing further to add. The main issue is the interpretation of the meaning of the law. He requested that the Commission find that the Planning Department made an error in its interpretation- 0 Discussion followed regarding restrictions/covenants in the neighborhood, whether the UBC allowed for alternative designs, and whether there was an oversight in the Code. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Commissioners Leverett, Castile, Barber, Rosborough, and Saporta favored 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 COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAC,R 7 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # 1- PAGE # ) C i • o Commissioner Fessler felt the definition for manufactured/mobile homes needed to be refined. She supported the appeal. o• .Vice President Pyre 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. * 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 prepare the final order for Vice President Pyre to sign. Motion carried by majority of Commissioners present. Commissioners Pyre and Fessler voting no. 5.2 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPEAL SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN NPO #1 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 foot building on a 1.67 acre parcel subject 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. (WCTM 2S1 2AC, tax lot 700) • o Senior Planner Liden reviewed the issues regarding the application and the amendments to the proposed conditions. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o John Dolan, 4025 SE Brooklyn St., Portland, OR, stated that they had worked out most of their concerns with staff except for the dedication of the land. He stated he would not dedicate land to the City for nothing. He would prefer to be paid money, however, he would be willing to accept eliminating the requirement for landscaping. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o No one appeared to testify. o Discussion followed regarding area to be dedicated, area to be landscaped, and the percentage of landscaping credit that the City would give A-Boy. REBUTTAL o Mr. Dolan stated that he would earn more money if he sold the land to the City and used the money to landscape his site- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 3 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # • PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o The majority of :Commissioners supported staff's recommendation and conditions. Commissioner Leverett felt the application should.be tabled to allow the applicant and City to work out the landscaping issue. * 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. 5.3 SUBDIVISION S 89-10 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD 89-03 STEPHENSON/BEACON HOMES NPO #6 A request for approval of an 18 lot subdivision planned development on a 3.18 acre site. The lots will vary in 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 2.5:1. ZONE: R-7 (PD) (Residential, 7 units/acre, Planned Development) LOCATION: southeast corner of SW 98th Avenue and SW Sattler Street (WCTM 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 Dalbey, 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 lots and both parties are over 55 years old. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Howard Graham, 9410 SW Lakeside Drive, a member of the Summerfield Board, representing citizens in the area (approximately 25) were opposed to the lots accessing onto Lakeside Drive. He felt the lots should be annexed to Summerfield so they would have to abide by Summerfield's rules; however, that would take a 75 percent vote and he doubted if they could get it at this time. • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 4 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # -7 PAGE # I 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 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 subdivision be.designed to access onto Sattler Road. RHBUTTAL 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 a public- street and they are not asking for anything unusual. He added that they had requested annexation into Summerfield, but Summerfield had rejected these lots. Discussion followed on why Summerfield had rejected these lots. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Consensus of the Commission was for approval of the subdivision. * commissioner Barber moved and Commissioner Saporta seconded to approve PD 89-03, S 89-10, and V 89-30 subject to staff's conditions; and for staff to prepare the final order for vice President Fyre to sign. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. 5.4 SUBDIVISION S 89-12 VARIANCE V 89-29 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD 89--05 ZONE CHANGE ZC 89-09 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT M 89-21 FYRB NPO # 3 A request for approval of an application to subdivide a 5 acre parcel into 18 lots. A zone change is requested to apply the planned 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 allow a 28 foot wide public street where 34 feet is required; 2) 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 allow a 75 foot curve radius where a 100 foot radius is required. ZONE: R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) LOCATION: SW 121st Avenue at Tippitt Place (WCTM 2S1 3BC, tax lots 1100, 1300, & 6100) THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED TO DECEPffiER 19TH PLANNING commiSSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 5 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE # ) S 3 6. omm BUSINESS o There was no other business. 7. ADJOURNMENT - -10:30 PM OAM Diane M. Jelde s Secretary ATTEST: Milton Fyre, Vice President dj/pcml2-5 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DBCSMBER 5, 1989 PAGE 6 LU8A FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT H PAGE H it . AGENDA ITEM 5.2 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission ~f FROM: Keith Liden, Senior Planner RE: Appeal of SDR 89-13/V 89-21 Dolan 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-Boy Electric and Plumbing Supply. A new 17,600 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 approved subject to the satisfaction of 14 conditions. The. applicant appealed the decision to the Commission because of an objection 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 roof sign on the existing building. The Commission approved the application subject to the conditions imposed by the Director's decision with the following revisions: 1. Condition 1. be modified the require the applicant and City Engineer to work out an agreement, being as flexible as possible, to vary the 15 foot dedication to the east of the top of bank to accommodate the drainage improvements, pathway, and buffering without requiring" the building being moved. 2. Condition 9. be modified to require the applicant and City engineer to work out an agreement on the design of the paved pathway, giving consideration to public safety. 3. If an agreement' cannot be reached, the application: -will be, brought. before the Commission on September 5, 1989. • Although this issue. was not part of the final motion, the Commission appeared LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # 1~ PAGE 0 15 E l • 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. 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 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 responsible for all.the installation and maintenance of the landscaped area to the west and south of the proposed building. In addition, the applicant would like to have other landscaping requirements waived, such 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 a • separate issue. A-Boy is bound by contract to keep the sign.. There is no objection if the City can get the sign company 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 top of bank is the minimum necessary to install the storm drainage improvements (5 feet) and the pedestrian/bike path (10 feet) and should be retained. 2. Although the staff does not agree with the assertion that the non remonstrance .agreement is illegal, the entire street improvement issue for Main Street has been reevaluated and it is recommended 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.) should be deleted. 4. If a copy 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 occupancy should be dropped.. Removal of'. . • the billboard signs may still be tied to the expiration of the lease (if such a provision exists). LUBA FILING - CITY OF_ TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # 1Sln 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. 6. If 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 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 and parking 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 site plan. • DOLAN/kl _ LUBA FILING - CITY Of TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE ft E i FINAL ORDER DOLAN' : SDR . 89=13/V 89-21 P 1, _:lt`!11 °f t ~ t. r s t y-• r J4! t5t T i f. ` r 3 t} `s A: t - /.2, } 1 Y ' t } t_ 1 S l . ALBERT R } KENNEY; .TR z E ~t~ f k { ..r { 'rz;~ } L rte 1} 1Ye E 1 Y f; t + . 5111 1 9.}-Y 4N f +r e ~fi *'S 5j Y, } 1 }2'i 9500 SW' BARBUFt'. BLVD • f i `✓t' rs ~s ys J{.- t ~ ~i~,}t~ .3'A'... ~t cyPORTLANDr OR "r 97219 „1 • ~ } ; ~ s ' t r. ~t ~1 4~j JOHN DOLAN 4025 SE BROOKLYN ST PORTLAND,.OR 97202 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE It i 1 T 1G •4 2 r~ ST ~ ' AI N' .ST • f ISO, 24 .11j 0 I so•yo 1 ~ r• Z AN N W L3 le- L O - • k~ 7) 4 , ~ '1t ~t 5~ ~r~y~c,?{ti ' r :'t't rtl~~tl~~ii ~',~~il S'y pr"•>. y y x ~•,Y j KJtM t':1 tle'1 ftisyt:;djy'~~5~7~~~~ 7f~ti , efr':: FL C0 1 v,,, +1 f ~4r'1i % ' 1y~ / Yrr 7 r rG~iS ~+J t ~~A t(l I Ty3 "r•.J.~} V 'try f. 1 fy ijt' ' • ')c ''fi'r: `fiC f: 150. '.t C .ti 't~ ~,AN.) ~ rr r !}r;•t s' N{ r, 4~ ~ r tJ ,iii ;.~eL~~p'' .P.. ~'f ~ ~r,~ x fr v X` m w 9 N n 7 rr rR t L , ~ . ! I . f t'd+f"4tY } ~ti~~tr'Jt~~<1~,~,; 7rt, ~+y ~ A , t l tr r ,a t ~ Sfxt fdY~~~ 4 ~l, ~ ~"•y . ~ ~ '1 Ep . ~ ~i : ctr!~• o ~ ,r 1 ~ ~ Y:, ? I 4r 7 t, +y~.,t A y .fit ^/7T ft'~c,Y,a'"~„.,.~'? 'f '`'f'+ n' 1 t ~Ly~ t .tt 4y }i~t~ t t ..~r 1i• lJ .•,t~ty M1y~~~~S~~Y~'y ?tiy!•TM `~7. `ti ~:J,~ t 4Ar W5 IY~SV+ i.. +tttj\\~, 5 i t'f ` I i t 7 K ^ c; t ibb~~ XR fPI1r,~~i~r a~fjso. ea,. :P t it•~ 'k'~ i~~~Il i'~ra~ Sy ~"tin'4fi~,~~1',~`1 YM;y n' Ntf ~.~r 2s ~.~r rt •1FV~ i TUBA FILING CITY OF : ,~4.~ :-f...`•.:,•r+:~ ~~pxk.::>;~::;': .n- y~ EXHIBIT # 7IGARD • :f', ~~fiai~, AGE ' 7 1 rill O• S 2 (2 i M.) -77i h c !S`,r rZ .'+'l,'1y~•r• y. 7 :,.A' la.. T y '•''r s _a: •.~r•; i• 'fir r., s1p y~,. .•i ± 4"•. a; '4'C:y .>y,t.; '~2:rl ti." iy` I ~T?••rr~ F'\•f'.' i:.,., Win. f ~ ~ . ~ •y' ~ , YARD Demo G►-~T i /t~• ~JiNC, CyNL..~' ,;;~i'.rV:jl I w r J t'~.rrt 47 M= rr= -.r.. lj. • . ' .r •:'w., 1ti••.q'f1Y: •,•Y.i~l'r't:• ' . F • V'~•ft'.T~T--^~. ~ :1~~),, ,uli.+ZJ .y.(, 4 y~.witi~,~i;:,~.,,. •:.,:ti '~i ri..~ ' r.4 ~ . nJ ~ :j . rr~ Ir ~ ~ a+ r / 1 ; H ~.:~n~y'' ~f i ~ r.'. ij'` e.y. ;~.'~y . • r x : ~,"•ti. . :i:~++r•t!1. 1.+ ~ ~ , ! Y)p tf'4 ~ 1 ~ ~'~Y k7s ~t} 5 r ' c ~+,,.•~r.••:°,".~~ i r ~\i R,t. ~,Kg~r~• is '1 i i l i ~ ~ r✓, IL 4 `r AtLt~ a- t` l y 1 : ~ • 'fig r? 1.~; 1•''.~c`Y::•ti,.~ tai.., 1'.• .FAl ,rgybj; ~a~~.y~,. f 1 ryf o t} 1 'i•. '.)~1~ r .r: ,~"•';:(.r~•,. i tf'~N~liq`7i~.1,i,( ~~~?zrq , :`n•, ,'1.'i" "it::~: ,y `^i,. e } r ~ ';L'Lr~y}t~~ I ~ r! ! 1 t~r~,~,HrA. K,~rr ~',•j!+'Y'',''. ~J~~~~' `ya'IV4!;`'' t~ ~ 1 \ ~ • ' ~ _ E ~ 4 ~ t Z rt try ~t' ,{t 'jS'~~Tf 4.~••-*'~3 • :i:'Y..` r f _.....V..~1~ hkv;^ .'trrJ 1; ti 'y JS;'~•7x s d'F `1Vr ~41y ~ ~ C r . V+~ I ' (,y~•i f r ~ }rk +1~4~G 1'•`ib y,,~,~ t rye' . ~ ~ : S a ~r~~r ~ry 4 1 rrt;r i ;`~t`rC~iFi'~;'~',:.~I'r~ 1 t a67 1-,S1 t•'T'f a 1° 1 ~ SS ltt~~V}l/"/i' ,r ,SLe.Y,,'~+,q ~ ~ ~r ~1~.~. y \ r ,n rS ~ y`'i`• +~s~4 ` v \~t•.' ~'%°'Y'r~:11.t4 r<S 1!..~. r% d6 , , ~ f ~Ja ~Y 1 r. IUBA ~ILItUG ;CITY ' EXHIBIT # 1 CF; ?'IGARp f j • i C AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING • STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) 4 - (fin I, ~ - y\vv// C, , being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say: (Please print)) AY21 / That I am a ~ ( ,'f' (`SC41JI ~ for The City of Tigard, Oregon. L /That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR: That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: City of Tigard Planning Director Tigard Planning commission 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 persops at the addres shown on he attached list marked exhibit "B" on the day of GV~ r 19 ~ , said notice NOTICE OF DECISION as heret~ f~ tached, was posted on an appropriate • bulletin board on the day of !v! 19, ; and deposited in the United States Mail on the Z7~ day of 19 postage prepaid. A Signature Person who posted on Bulletin Board (For Decision Only) Person who delivered to POST OFFICE Subscribed and sworn/affirm to me on the day of ~j NOTARY PUBLIC OF OREGO My Commission Expires: • bkm/AFFIDAV.BKM i LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # D PAGE It 1 o • 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: 1 FILE TITLE: Dolan/A-Boy 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 • 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 2S1 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 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 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 CODE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AT WHICH A COMMENT IS DIRECTED PRECLUDES AN APPEAL BASED ON THAT CRITERION. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT 639-4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BLVD., OR CONTACT YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION (NPO) # 1 CHAIRPERSON: Dan Gott PHONE NUMBER: 639-3065 • bkm/SDR89-13.BKM LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT-// PAGE # 1 62I a 'A w. « J~ \ ASE ~~-~"~^(t: ~ fOMM[A )t• { } w tAr t0 t, F ( , W D N r : ~ Sw 101} A W ! tnp •~G. ~ 73 g i '1 16 wA llt N) ~ ~ O ` i tYt r 4 r S ~ \ S• a p ~ . g ~Jt j s , 4 'tt $ In ~ /i ~ r w O9 Yap sT ~ l O f Y tr~ A AYt. A l f r ~ ` l~~ AYE rt Y'LI ,1 J.♦ •Y pit N+ ^ o.~ glei s (ci^pp ccF<t a .Y L♦ ♦ 1r Chh aO (NCO }.w. 9[Ai i,Y[ \ F. t,. V► y q a AVE. 911 AY ! s Zed " T Vol 0- Il ppJ{ .r C n J~ , Y / „i CYt A AY a y a LILAC [ AY ' ells ►V Y i ,Yy ta'~ ,R4 ~'tCf. ~ M to AYE N ALL Op ❑ i, ,,,•s 14 M pro • La^ ar\\p + ~~sD ~q sw Ars ^aJ ' + n ~ H m ~ v N 1~5 1 G7 m n O Y S# N Ln a« i a La l e / AN r }LVO N N ~ 1ra /p r / O y ; 4 'r / L {p fl i0 Li3UU DENNIS C_ & LYNNE M_ THOMPSON 3523 S.W. 62ND DR. SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOldn/A-Boy PORTLAND, OREGON 97219 1100 4900 WHN T. & FLORENCE DOLAN OTTO SORG MARY ANN H. DREESZEN 7344 SE FOSTER BY FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF OREGON 13200 S.W. HOWARD DR. PORTLAND, OR 97206 P_0. 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, OREGON 97204 P.O. BOX 1003 EVERETT, WASHONGTON 98201 DAN GOTT 800 5000 13230 SW HILL CT MICHAEL J. HEUVELHORST MARGARET MC DAID TIGARD, OR 97223 % GEORGE S. KADEY JR_ 9225 S.W_ BURNHAM ST. 12551 S.W. MAIN ST. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 500 900 CHARLES'L. & ARLIE C. WOODARD EUGENE L_ & VIVIAN DAVIS P_0_ BOX 23303 4550 S.W_ LOMBARD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97005 600 5100 2000 D A & DORRIS N_ CORDI BART P_ & JEAN VERMILYE ALEX, LOTTI & HANS CHRISTIAN °s RICHARD L. & BARBRA J. 272 S.W..CAPITAL HWY- FINKE DRINKWATER PORTLAND, OREGON 97219 P.O. BOX 23562 9205 S_W_ BURNHAM TIGARD, OREGON 97562 PORTLAND, OREGON 97206 300 JOHN T. & FLORENCE DOLAN 4025 S.E. BROOKLYN ST_ PORTLAND, OREGON 97202 5200 200 2200 FURER SCOTT REAL ESTATE PARTNERS3 PAGE N. STEVENS GERALD C. d JOAN L. CACH 9185 S_W. BURNHAM RD. 9180 S_W_ BURNHAM RD_ 15170 S_W. SUNRISE LANE TIGARD, OREGON 97223 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 202 2400 SOUTHWEST PORTLAND PARTNERSHIP DONALD E. & SHIRLEY HANSON 2121 N. COLUMBIA BLVD_ P.O_ BOX 12 PORTLAND, OREGON 97217 WEMME, OREGON 97067 203 i CITY OF TIGARD i 00. BOX 23397 420 S.W_ MAIN TIGARD, OREGON 97223 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD I 1101 2402 EXHI8IT cam? WILLIAM H- & AUDREY BURTON PAGE ft / (p ?j JOHN R_ & LOIS GULLEY 14095 S.W_ HAP.GIS RD. DANIEL & MIRIAM BERTULEIT ° BEAVERTON, OREGON 97208 ^MARVIN R_ &_KATHRYN ANKELE TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice 7 - 6 4 2 3 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising * City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice P.O. Box 23397 • Tigard, OR 9 7 2 2 3 • ❑ Duplicate 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 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 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICA- person or by letter-precludes an appeal,. and failure to:specifysthe criterion.. from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at. which STATE OF OREGON, )Ss. a comment is directed precludes an appeal based on'that criterion. further COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss' information may be obtained from the Planning Division at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 6394171..:-... 1 , A l i ce MW -den being first duly sworn, depose and say that PUBLIC HEARINGS Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tic MISCELLANEOUS M=89-20•MANUFACTURED HOME AT SW a newspaper of general circulation defii cook LANE NPO #3 A request for a review of a~Director 'santerpreta-;' and 193.020; published at Tigary tion of Chapters-18.26 and-.18.94, of the.Community.Deyelopinent.Code aforesaid county and state; that the pertainingto manufactured and mobile homes • p" Hearings SITE:DEVELOP1vIENT REVIEW APPEAL SDR 89 13/V 89 21 a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, DOLAN NPO #1 An appeal of a Director's decision tojapprove theie- One construction of a general retail sales facility,A-BoyP~uinbide, entire issue of said newspaper for Al andSupply, with'a new'17,600 square foot buiiding;oncarl':67acre~parcel " and in the following issues: :subjecrto 14 conditionsr The'decision included.approvaLio,a Variance re-+- "quest to allow 39 parking spaces instead of 44 as required by t}e Code. November 22, 1989 Zone: CBD-AA (Central Business District =Acti6ifAl(Sa) LOCATION: ; 12520 SW Main St. (WCTM 2S12AC, tax.lot700)_` _7. SUBDMSION S_89-10'P1kgr D DEVE);OPMENT PD 89=03::: tr,' STEPHENSON/BEACON:HOMES NPO, #6 A request for;approval'of an 18 lot subdivision and planned development on a 3.18 acre sit he'iots. t ~ ; •will vary~n-°size from approxuriateIy 5,280 to~11330'sgiiaie feet."-ZONE:'`' R-7 (PD) (Resrdentral„7,.unrts/acre, Planned Deyelopment)'LOCATION Subscribed and +swornoe me this p Southeast'corner'of SW 98th Avenue an d~$W,~aftlerStr&i <2S 11 CA'"~taifi0t'300) `SUBDIVISIONS 89 12'VARIA ICE ,V.- -29-'LANNED,DEVB `OP=~; `I 3. 89 fi~D 89-US ZONE GErZC 89-09 EOT 'E Ab7CJST" " Not M 892 1 'YRETTPO, \ reg6es" for pprov l• 'f3anapppl,~cation' _V 6 - ~,ioYsubdrvide a5 acre. " I rni~l8.lotsAlso iequ ted a'planned 3 -9-93 _ w-pa h AFFIDAVIT Yn 9 ed'and a®rr iance`to the glit~f=wjy: ~In o eon y l.' ' uested: 16- .31 .ih ~U` o a zorie-:cha ige~ s,r eq apy e.ptanried a elopmet.0ver-- to the no rty.•YAotiine adl ' ustni aitv'' y"• "h`'~4 J r dnt pP ae eci7o ad- 'utathe bounaanes_of<the-sr[.a~. e;onwhich 1fie;~SoG`divrsronwr7~e; oca"e. #NE-',;d:5;(Resrdentral'4:5tnits/acre),I `ATIQI~fi X21 yenne 1 aa. IPPett`P CTM'2S1 BC; taxlot 00) riTT6423 `~Aiblisli'i~(ovember 2, 19 8 9 { I. z • LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # Gi PAGE # I 'r 4 f` - t ot-~ -~_.L~fl_` fJULLPS- '~i~i_JiL l`J__•'~c-.t~__/~~ - 1 ~Crs~ _~?~.Si-I-.L~~ - is 1?t/(7 !:1 f!! LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT' # - PAGE # I(o~ is 1 November 7,.1989 CITY OF T1~A RD John Dolan,'President A Boy Supply Co• OREGON 1919.N.W: 19th Street Portland, OR 97209 RE: A-Boy development Case No. SDR 89-13 Dear Mr. Dolan: We apologize .for the delay in reviewing your proposals relating to the conditions of approval which the staff recommended to the Planning Commission on August '8, 1989. The. issues that you raised at our meeting in September and the subsequent phone conversation with Liz Newton consist of the following: 1. The 15. foot setback from the existing top of the Fanno Creek bank will require that the building size be reduced by approximately 6 feet. 2. The non-remonstrance agreement for future Main Street improvements is not proper and is illegal- 3. The billboard signs and their removal should be a separate issue. A-Boy is bound by contract to keep the sign. There is no objection if the 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 purchased, not condemned. The park dedication requirement is illegal. You indicated a willingness to consider the sale or dedication of a 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 building. These items have been reviewed by our staff and we are prepared to recommend the following to the Planning Commission: 1. The 15 foot setback from the existing top of bank is the minimum necessary to install the storm drainage improvements (5 feet) and the pedestrian/bike path (10 feet) and should be retained- 2. Although we do not agree with your assertion that the non-remonstrance agreement is illegal, the entire street improvement issue for Main Street has been reevaluated and staff will recommend that this condition not be imposed. is 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 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # 13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503)639-4171- PAGE # 1 (o r • to. remove 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). .4. 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. 5. If the 15 foot area noted in item 1. above is dedicated, the staff would recommend that the landscaping installation and maintenance be the -responsibility of the City for any dedicated land to the south and west of the proposed building. I have scheduled this case to be brought before the Planning Commission on December 5, 1989 at 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 received. Please contact this office if you wish to discuss these or other items prior to the Planning Commission hearing on December 5th. It would be our preference that we"can reach agreement on as many issues as possible before the Commission review. You will receive a hearing notice and a copy of the 'revised staff recommendation prior to the hearing. • Since el , ed., I Keith S. Liden Senior Planner c: Ed Murphy • DOLAN/kl LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # a 3 PAGE • t I A-BOY SU9.JLY CO. 1919 N.W. NINETEENTH ST. • PORTLAND. OR 97209 • (503) 225-9009 • RECEIVED NOV 02 1999 Comman6a p saes- November 1, 1989 Attn: 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 (Friday) or the following Monday. I have not heard from him since. that meeting. I talked to Liz Newton on the telephone on 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 last 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 illegal and unfair conditions you have placed on my application for a permit to build. I need an answer now so that I can proceed. Sincerely, v' John Dolan President and Founder A-Boy Supply • LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT N PAGE # J lG 53 nr% TIF44 Hall Blv • 23397 ion 97223 4900 MARY ANN H. DREESZEN \ 4 13200 S.W. HOWARD DR. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 III: 00 51f.'"11071 FWD -T`I:ML EXPD DREES7_E N I MARY ANN 0900 SW 120TH TUALATIN OR 97062 RETURN TO SENDER r rIG" RD i-loll Blv r~ < 23397 ion 97223 6 UAL 203 CITY OF TIGARD P.O. BOX 23397 12420 S.W. MAIN TIGARD, OREGON 97223 ~ J 1 2 S •2f~s: I„~,~,:II„ii ~2 ;2,.• il,l„I,,,I„I,I~,I,f„If,L„if [ : } : ~~}~=:j;lif~7F2 ;.22,1:2:: ~`}i,,.ti;a•-. ::;};i;}f'~;i `211i3~3a ~"~i221; ~i:y:1;;211i%a - :%f) <t,i t,f;. 3•f . ~2•., •`~:ia,- `-<•c• t ~ :•q+;•a-c;c•.;. , r,:;:::• . 1 1t 2 . S `:a}`` 4 a, ,"i`h ^t\'`tir C 't.~,'<,~~~[:.•tS ; . Z':}~,''~:;:~:,.~ ~2 a a 2 . } `2 ,`2`itii` •,`,`a 2`2:2: t a.~ m 22~ . \ a`\\`` ;212.2:, t 2 `22 •t .'~21 ti: y ,,2+ } f af~ t 2`212 , iti```•``22` 1 2 ~ 22 , 1`2 a !<f} iii 72f<~< . } }•.ti~?.~ti ti ~ ~ '22~ ~ .~"'ti'~ t`ti'\ f :~2 `\\ti\`i`. ` t. ti 4 ` ~ ``2`~``ti`3`} ` `a4` `,`,..a 2•;:;2,:`2}2.::•:`:;;.,...2.: <hf<:2:2}<<•. rf<<{ < ``ti `tiii :,~`2`•-~ 22 + \ a • '%ti.,,i``2 :,``\'fi'` ` ti' +:g2ti• :~2,~• ~::22C::jaa T sfr,.} n ;r.f a \ ;;2ti•.a : {'a` ~\,a~~.i,., ``\\-~~.,22~ ' ` ti~.,.f\ a `a. \`•\~i,a~ 1 22`ti~`.t. 222 2`,v.4\it;:+,,,i.w\22::,2;:;:;:ti•';:`: f<1`s, S a ff.f`~~• .~~•:1`~-~`,~~~, ti `t,.i,~::~`~ ~2•`:`: ~~`t. •~,```.~ti`.`: ; : ~ ~ :•:':•:•.':-:`:ti•:`:•::•:•:•:':`:':':}`'`:`:`::`-' •<}.<<ilifif; t}.} ,,~~,`,;~2~;\~;~~•~~ \\ati ;:'ti . ~,ti,+ ; 2,~,,`.;.~2,,; .2..,a~,,~ .,i;a~\~ ; ;22.2,x, : , ,<,f, f3`2•,sfa , '`222?,`.+:`,+iti`2`2•:•:;2>2`2+;:::22~:~::;:;:.:.~:• :::::.:::::::::::::;:;:;:;:::;:::22}:22 • 2 a ri f`}` 222+ .F: ,'s'• `tit: 222•: 2,5 } } 22: 2 1': GARD FILING CITY OF TI UB L A EXHIBIT 5 PAGE y # 1 • MEMO TO: Liz FROM: Keith RE: Dolan property DATE: 9/28/89 On 9/21/89, I discussed the conditions of approval for SDR 89-13 with John and Dan 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 approx. 61. 2. The non-remonstrance agreement for future Main St. improvements is not proper and is illegal. 3. The billboard signs and their removal should be a separate issue. He says he is bound by contract to keep the sign. He doesn't care if the City can get the sign company (Ackerly?) to remove. 4. He contends that the roof sign is legal and should be allowed to remain until the entire building is removed. I believe the amended condition suggested by the PC addresses this issue (see minutes). 5. The land needed for park, path, and flood improvements should be • purchased, not condemned. They feel that this dedication requirement is illegal. John did indicate a willingness to consider selling a portion of the property or dedicate a portion (I assume a smaller area). The dedication option would require, in his view, that the City be responsible for all or the landscaping to the west and south of the proposed building. I said we would get back to him. Please call John D. and see how serious he is regarding his offers. v. fi ~e r t ^ ` - 1 i4W r DOLAN/kl ` Vft << SSU:Nw t2S~trnS;~~~~v~ rrv,A Pab CAOVIM(e?6\~ ~6, pq r-?"Vrtv..~, LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # Q VI ~Z PAGE # 1-70 'Row ,qlw Z~2 U.n. C, A5 LINE g" WATER MAIN - TELEPHCINf-((. DU)---, 12" C.5.P 17/ L Q. `n .i ~xc 5'~ 1 T ~ > cam; \ ?S ~ H (0 G7 9 T VI''~ l~~ CITY OF T I GA RD FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL NOTICE OREGON DATE: 7 TO : CO. /DEPT.: r FAX 1 FROM: DEPT- PHONE 639-4171 SUBJECT: ' S • MESSAGE: ~C 4 G /Z X dy/a- &h, hL j j Lca&~ o - Page 1 of Our facsimile telephone number is (503) 684-7297 This number is to be used for business transmission only and is not available for advertising purposes. Should you have any difficulties with this transmission, please call (503) 639-4171 m:\offsvcs\fax i LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hail Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503)639-4171- EXHIBIT # a-7 PAGE # . ) -1,;~ 3 • September 8, 1989 CITY OF TINA RD OREGON John 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: As you recall, the Planning Commission upheld the Director's decision in the above case with the exception of the issue relating to the 15 foot setback requirement. The Commission directed representatives of A-Boy and the City to see if a mutually acceptable solution could be found to accommodate the storm drainage improvements along Fanno Creek, the pedestrian path, and the new building and parking area. The Planning and Engineering staff has reviewed the proposal in light of the Commission'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 be reduced would be through the use of a retaining wall. Because of its size and proximity to 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 place, as described in Condition number 9. of the Director's decision, the staff recommends that this condition for pathway construction be deleted. The City would be responsible for the storm drainage and pathway improvements at a later 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 to work with applicant and U.S.A. to possibly allow some moderate encroachment into the utility easement that lies directly in front of the proposed building. Any encroachment would probably require a special building foundation design to provide for excavation for future sewer repairs. 4. For the purposes of calculating the 15% landscaped area requirement for the CBD (Central Business District) zone, the land within the dedicated • 15 foot setback area may be included with the exception of the paved path. LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT #i PAGE H 3 13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503)639-4171-! 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 project to begin in the near future. Since ely, ' Keith S. Liden Senior Planner c: Randy Wooley Greg Berry Albert Kenney Ed Murphy I • * Commissioner Fyre moved and Commissioner Castile seconded to approve SDR 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 Commission on September 5th. Motion carried by majority of Commissioners present. Commissioner.Peterson voting no. SDR 89-13/kl i LUBA'FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # i -74 i TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice 7-6343 ' BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising RECEIVED • City of Tigard ❑ Tearsheet Notice P. 0. Box 23397 AUG 3 O 1989 Tigard, OR 97223 ❑ Duplicate Affidavit CItY OF ?iURD AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLI T D~ . STATE OF OREGON, ) ~;x C~ 1 I OF / ~~/`i itL~ =F s f t COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss- Dortha Marty OREGOAIa= 1, L k-, fy . Y E 9 'ii yr being first duly sworn, depose and sa t ` "`im°'ssi ~ ;fie following:willbe;considered by the Tigazd Planning;C~'nLssiotion • Director, or his principal clerk, of the 'Sept'ember-5, 1989, at 730 PM at the Tigard Civic Centers'ownIiall„ a newspaper of general circulation as a 13125"SWijliH Blvd,aTig' ..,,Oregon. Both:pubhc gral and,vmuentes ~ and 193.020; published at T~ ~ y y~ ~ ,.Jb pubhc;hdaring.on this:matter will be conductgd in?; afor a•dl coun and state, t the acc u ~ ordance v~nth the Hiles of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard' MunicipalCode i c Ie a r i n gr 1an n i n g M. tiru es andapr oceddres o 'j*. Planning Commission: Fail s etolaise an: i Jan f a printed copy of which is hereto annexE ssuesn~person°or by lett0' ecludes an appeal; and failure-to spec the Or. xion from the'CommumtyDevelopment Code or Compreheclswe Plan 1 entire issue of said newspaper for which a comment~is jJ ted' recludes'. an "ase~~orit thaP peg consecutive in the following issues: ; ''~nteri9nurthea~u~fonnattonamay be obtau";from the PJanngavon j ate 1S; B1vd Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling, 639-4 7.. August 24, 1989 iTE E +1?MENT REvIEw-. APPS' ~SDR 3 1' :0 1 per`"aPi of a Du~ecto; decuwnto~,,approv ction. S..constru,er`aY reta~l`sales"facrlity, A'-tioylectn Plu bang and (2;".SuPly w. 1 a"n6w-17,600 squarie foot biuldinga 16~,~ cre p~ar~c,,e uubci Z=-=- sjecCtd i4 c ndit~ons" he dec>sion mclud~d~pproval fo-adal ante req mow: z -41 c ;b~!►the'CodZo to,a` 11ow9,,Parkuig7s~pa~ces tuisfead :ofa44s requiied" n Subscribed and sworn to efore me this`t~`CBD=1Aa(Central?Business Dislrict'`SAchonlArea) ocaaon. 2520sSWd Maui St (W~CTM 2S142AG IoL 700) z r}st~3~ y e1j y'1,T6343::,Publish August 24;'.1989 Notary Public for Oregon . My Commission E Tres: 6/9/93 AFFIDAVIT v~ J C LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # a g PAGE # I 1 S • PLACE UNDER CITY OF TIGARD LOGO The following will be considered by the Tigard Planning Commission on September 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 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 specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171. PUBLIC HEARINGS 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 Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC lot 700). • F A X T R A N S M f T T A L M E M O TO: k NO. OF DEPT. i rte... _ FAX {t: 41-26-31133 PAGES FROM: PHONE: CO: FAX N: S 729 7 Poswt'bra t trans ittal memo 7671 TT PUBLISH 8/24/89 • dj/SDR89-13.BKM LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT LZ PAGE 0 ) • TIGARD PIANNING CCMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - AUGUST 8, 1989 5.1-SITE DEVFLOPMWr REVIEW APPEAL SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLAN/A-BOY.NPO #1 Liden: This first item is an appeal of a Site Development Review Approval and Variance Approval for A-Boy property on Main Street and it's for a retail building of over 1700, 17,000 square feet in size and also for a variance to allow 39 parking spaces.where the code requires 44. 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. Condition No. 1 requires dedication of the 100 year flood plain along Fanno Creek along with an additional- 15 feet. Condition No. 3 requires that a non-remonstrance agreement be signed for future improvements on Main Street. Condition No. 9 -requires that a paved pedestrian path be provided along Fanno Creek. And Conditions 12 and 13 require removal of non-conforming signs that are on the property. There are presently two billboard signs and 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 Tigard Comprehensive Plan, the Tigard Park Plan, the Master • Drainage Plan for the City, as well as the Community Develop Code. In you 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 City Attorney's office and Phil can also answer any questions particularly, obviously, those of a legal nature. And I guess with that I'll close and see if there are any questions. I think everything's pretty well explained in the packet. Moen: Any questions, Commissioners? I have a questions, as far as the appeal process. What happens. Is there appeal beyond this? Liden: After the Commission decision, the City Council would have to call up the decision. Yours would be final, unless the Council on its motion called it up for review. Moen: Okay. Could we have the applicant's presentation, please. Mendez: Good evening. My name's Joseph Mendez. I'm an attorney. I represent A-Boy and Mr. and Mrs. Dolan. Initially, in order to protect my clients' rights on appeal, I'd like to address the • issues and, in particular, the criterion that's required by the Community Development Code. The issue with regards to the flood LUBA•FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # 1G' PAGE 0 I Jl y are td the 'Pa pa~cdt mark 3 nforod"19 tha j:he toY Tlneyced agr t is~ I d cationI ion 1gArd,the. rev' agre n ere not plain, crlt 18 .-1-14-. . I the Oregon in a va also r esnance' thy. code-; omentsr t a~o_ itY D63 sign thata onetient a 9 Y~, waive your find tes oonsttt ch pzev ,berekY It don ted ~_s VI only 'taent1tl~ an agr tuti° ~ Y°u to si the oye ac~iOn` set forth he jte s. ess the from reD fuser 9e~e, ~ically adder lops objet inc°rp°r! doing that sk~DOW to delicate, ~d also like to , and in for foray him sate, we're I the the appeal beix~ asks we re word d his own issue that what that Ile we b us~igh e °f d fl In o land- whY t p f e p ty, d n t WVDW f or e '100-yh °n so What gyve await lie givea ~ plain, j:h is in, ea site- dies t give awaYt f 1s feetvbtich to -O his beilding' him wilding' pr° motion to endoach x~N~,~ old Y lic a~And lain, l oing or flood plain basica}Whi -1 that You're Ito Put a t par 1, for eta Y°u r is is intex'tiO ch we d°n ave paY Y to take CcamiI we eve an land, were not 5° tltional t"ati s tlne ana Ilse its .3!~ MId beca asem ent ~t~e it, wro'_ ` its ,r flue- e ,ire go f~a~ bila wi pay jr q .b t,' 1'i itela 6 • . - And at's t is land 1 tA- basis for °a'r appea You, re ref ring 6 , 9 of to staf f and nbey IS this c°nd~-tlo~ cond1-tl°"Is NO - 1 ~ dies I,.m sorry 12 • _ance agreen'Ex" op his to , sir yes I M,de2 : rep°rt on pages 11 that of the non for W. D°lthane future a ain~3 e, tha in Ord fate in his or nd issu r~3lire, al his t of • 1, Y°`, ing him to saction in f i yon tutiOnal r ofts t only are 0~ re re~'lr t con stn , ,and ard land ► you e r all qov ee landY°, p° i°bni~t Y°~' + r t fut~ ,you r youu' tre sa o av oinrJ° take of q°anto Y aYOXI ny foh Sp~i f ie Y 1 You, are no 9 on1Y~ zght to ohte f Your lan f a future ltd from Y°u' to have In formation to .Ze stru ovx3 es place tre ion ct not act gets whit' t~to ob7eat to jar device that' S t r d ~iCt or ski rovem~' A i~ r i9ht street - of constr Cting - tally wrong • him to goy the pie thing that's fc-'%jcch You're asking teed, R,,,bt- Agats11Y g'~aran issue with Mendez: thats th~ de's a 1°-s GITY of TIC Lt~BA FILING - . LI waive on-cOnfo~~ bii EXHIBIT # `fie n p AGE # regards to those billboard. Whether or not we have a roof billboard, which we maintain we don't. The City maintains we do. The billboards have been there. Mien they were put up, they were in conformance with City ordinance. 'They should be grandfathered in for that purpose. The fact that you want to take that away . jeopardizes and injures the business which- Mr. Dolan is maintaining in the City of Tigard, which brings in hundreds of thousands of dollars. Brings people down to that area and benefits that business cc mrnmity probably more than any other business in that area. And you're asking him to take down the major draw. Not only injures him, it injures the entire business commpity. We're asking that that condition. be waived. Would you, I'd care to entertain questions, if you have, have any for me. 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 signage that has been on that property for quite some time. And if I understand that this proposal that 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 which the building is associated with. Is that correct? Mendez: That's correct. • Okay. And what the City has asked you to do, if I understand, is that the new signage that you would have would conform to current City standards is that, and that's what you're objecting to. 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 there. We cannot... Okay. Mendez: That's that's, there, there, there's, it, they won't be simultaneous. We won't be, put one building up and the other come down. On so as long as... sign. We can cancel the contract when we put the new building in there. But we're powerless to take down that sign, now the Planning Commissioner has to deal directly with Moen?: We'll give you a chance to address those questions when you testify. Okay, do we have some other questions for this gentleman, Commissioners? I have a question pertaining to the street, but, ah, that's for Staff. Shall I wait, ah. Moen: Ya. Anything further? LUBA FILING = CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT q PAGE # I have one question which may be relevant. Moen: Yes, ma'am. Was, what was the reason that the voluntar y coWliance . agreement regarding the signs was not forwarded to the city? Mendez: I'm sorry, I don't understand the question, maybe I didn't hear it? Drat was the reason that the voluntary ccupliance agreement regarding the signs was not completed and forwarded to-the City? Mendez: I'm, I'm afraid I can't answer that question, who Moen: He's signed up to testify here. I think he can... Dan Dolan: I'm not going to testify, but I'11.answer if.. you like. 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. Mendez: Thank you. • Moen: Okay, is there anyone here from the NPO to speak on this issue? Moen: Okay. Ah, we have two other, let's move on to the public hearing portion of the meeting. Ah, I... Moen: Yes? I was signed up. Moen: I'm going to get to you, I think- Oh, okay. Moen: We have two people, we have three people signed up in opposition. I assume that's in opposition to the decision. Dan Dolan is the first person signed. You signed up as an opposition. I assume you're in favor of the proposal, so... Dan Dolan: My name's Dan Dolan, with A-Boy Supply Company. Moen: Okay. Dan Dolan: First I want to read letter: A-Boy SLmnly Ccmwanv brings LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT q PAGE J • approximately one-half million people a year into downtown Tigard. The people who shop at A-Boy are primarily homeowners and small- contractors. A small contractor. usually brings or .sends.in the homeowner to select merchandise., 'Many custcmers are building or repairing their cam home. _ These. people. are hard working, industrious and self-reliant with a large investment in the community. I would think that they are just the type of people to be attracted to downtown Tigard. A-Boy Supply Company has been advertising downtown Tigard with their ads for twenty years. During this time, we have developed an excellent reputation. Every year our sales have increased significantly. vben and if we are allowed to build a new and much larger store on our property, we expect to double the number of of employees and improve the Main Street view. Our plan calls for us to move 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 property and build a new larger building with small shops on the site. Secondly, I think, I don't know if all of you have seen the issue of where our, um, the creek bury is in relation to our building. Do you have a map there to look at? 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 further in. For scale this little jut that comes in, where it. comes in, that's twenty feet there. Okay, so you can kind of see haw much land, this goes above and beyond the flood plain, that'll be taken out of our building. And I'm not sure if we can build right up to that or not. But I thought maybe I'd add that. Any questions? Moen: Yes, we need it for the record. If you want a copy of it back. Dan Dolan: I don't need a copy back. copy of that letter. Dan Dolan: Oh, this other letter? Dan Dolan: Oh. Did you want an answer to your other question about... Yes. Dan Dolan: Um,...- Let us read that. Moen: Our opponent, can you, why don't you read it to us so we all know LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE # ) what it is? What do we have here. Moen: Okay. Is this part of our packet. here? Keith, this a letter to You- Liden: No, I don't think so. This is a separate issue. I don't }mow anything about that. What was your question you had? I was wondering was for not having filed and ccupleted that voluntary couplianc7e form with regard to the signs. Liden: Well this, this letter here explained that. Moen: Okay, why don't you read it for the record. 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. Keith S. Liden, Senior Planner-of City of Tigard. It's signed by John Dolan, property owner-, president at A-Boy: "Mr. Liden, Ireceived 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, I have not received it. In response to your letter, I can assure you that we have a legal wall sign on the front of your, our building. When we purchased this property in 1970, there was a feed and seed hay store with a warehouse and old sheds on this site. The main building was an old corrugated iron-sided warehouse with a small retail store next to it and an old open shed on the far west side. Soon 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 of them. It was extended against the front wall of the warehouse building. Here the parapet wall was about two feet below the top of the roof. The wall was built to hide the unsightly roof lines and enhance the appearance of the building giving the three buildings the appearance of one. After the parapet wall-was. built, we cut out letters and attached them to the part of the west side wall to make our sign. From this brief history, you can plainly see that we have no roof sign and whatever ordinances you mentioned, do not apply to our wall sign. The billboard sign you mentioned in your letter as being an illegal, in an illegal location belongs to Ackerly Communications, Inc., 715 NE Everett Street, Portland, Oregon, 97232. I suggest you contact them if there are any other questions regarding this sign. Sincerely yours John T. • Dolan. Moen: Is the billboard sign that was referenced there, is that on your LUBA A-FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE it f". property. Yeah, there's a, there 's two signs. There's a, the one she was asking about is a sign on our building which is our wall, on the wall. It says "A-Boy West." The other signs are on the a, guess it be. eastern edge of: our building. And they're Ackerly signs. Their bill, what we call billboards. Any other questions? - Ah, I don't think so. Not right now. Bill, I'm confused now on the signs. Mat do you want to do? Do you want to keep the signs up until your new building is opened, and then tear the signs dawn? 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 of the permit was that, that, a, as a, um, what do you call it when you get a permit to... Occupancy... Dan Dolan: Occupancy permit, that we have to tear down the other sign. Which would leave us in one building with no sign and maybe a sign on the new building. But we didn't want, we want to have a sign at all times in the business that we're doing business in. But you don't have to tear it down until you get occupancy permit? That's when you'd have everything moved over there, right? Dan Dolan: Yes. We'd have to tear it down, the sign on our existing building, in order to get an occupancy permit on the new building. And a, if they could work out a time schedule where we could, you know, the whole thing is going to come down. But, a.... Well if you, if you had thirty days after you opened your new building or something... Dan Dolan: Well I'm sure something like that could be worked out, but, but we don't want to be in business without a sign for one day. I think can appreciate that, we just, I think we're just a little unclear as to what you're asking for. What we have is a problem in timing with the sign question. You don't have any problem, I assume, with your new building needing a new sign code once the Dan Dolan: I don't think there's any problem Once you've moved out of the old building... LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # `7 PAGE # I ' . Dan Dolan:. We're not gonna, we're not going to put the same sign on the-new building. No. Dan Dolan: We're going to cawly 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 o=4mncy permit's issued? Is that good enough? Dan Dolan: I would, a That should be fine. Dan Dolan: Yeah, I would say that's... We can take the sign dawn almost immediately. Building we have to get our permits and things before we can tear that down. Ninety days... I had one other question that might have some bearing here. Okay we have, we have concern with billboards and then the signs, and those are primarily a matter of timing in terms of shifting from one to the other. That's one question. He has a non- remonstrance agreement which is a basic question as to whether you feel it's, you folks feel it's proper and riot. We can discuss that. We'll discuss that. Then back to the flood plain issue you have what the Staff is asking us to do, what they have said, if I understand it right, is that they wish for you to dedicate the flood plain to the City and secondly dedicate up to 15 feet from the current flood plain to, I believe, Staff may help me with this, 15 feet from the current flood plain to where they might locate a building. Is that right? Yes. Okay. For the purposes of us, in effect a setback or whether it's be a dedication or a setback. We can talk about. You're asking for a dedication, is that riot? Well there isn't a setback requirement, so the building can be on the property line. So there, therein lies the rub. Okay. One, one other question that relates in, we in effect are hearing the whole case. We're looking at the points you've raised, but we also need some, I'd like some information on the whole situation. One of the things that was mentioned in here was the concern that the City had in that this building would be located nearby the, um, future park that we envision for the downtown area. There is LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT N PAGE N f 71. • some concern about screening, or the way that this building might appear towards that park, particularly the back end of commercial... 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 the Staff is put, the Staff has put... Dan Dolan: landscaping back in the back side, and I think... The Staff has put quite a few restrictions, in terms 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 in lieu of, possibly in lieu of some of that landscaping.. That's just my, 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 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 I know that it's planned that, um, what you see is what we have planned. And we've got landscaping and trees behind here. We 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 my question is 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 hammer something out. But, ah... Probably not. Dan Dolan: okay. We need, we need, excuse me Mr. Dolan, we need a copy of the other letter that you read. If you'd like a copy back we can get you one. Dan Dolan: I don't think so. do you need a copy of that? Thank you. The other party signed up to sneak is Sarah Dolan. LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE N % 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 prcperty'between:the -flood; flood. plain and 15 feet above the flood plain with, um, Phil Monahan 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 plans, changing his plans. You were to survey it, you didn't. In his mind, 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 well as the U. S. Constitution deny you that right. -You cannot take property away without campensation.. You not only want him 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, I guess I'm. just here to vent my frustration with the whole process. I was a political science major in college and I find that what you are requiring of him to do is not only unconstitutional, but it's also unreasonable; and that I think you should look at it a 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 your backyard or a quarter of it because we're going to put in a park potentially. We haven't designed it, we don't have any money yet, but we want you to give us your property just, you know, it's not only unconstitutional, it's unfair. And, um, I guess that's what I have to say. Are there any questions? Thank you. 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? I have some questions of Staff and counsel that I'd like to get in I think that's appropriate. I'd like to hear from and then... the applicant rebuts. Okay. That's fine. We'll give them a chance to do that. Do you want the Staff first, or the counsel, or both. Staff. LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT. # C1 PAGE # / (0 Okay. I guess a general question with regard to the signage. A, the way the conditions are written, would the applicant have to go without signage for a period of time? Liden: Well I think that would depend a little bit on the timing of how they get the store stocked up and so on. I mean they could receive the occupancy permit without any inventory in the store and then have a lag period of course while they move from one building to the- other. If, you know, typically we have conditions of approval subject to receiving something from the City, as opposed to releasing all permits and having to go back 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. What, ah, why are we, why are we requesting that 15 foot dedication above the flood plain; and is this consistent with other similar applications? Liden: Well, this, this case is a little bit unusual from others that the Commission has recently reviewed. There are two reasons that • 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 be made along Fanno creek, so that as we get more development, and additional storm runoff, that we don't experience in flood levels as time goes on. Essentially the advice that we've received from engineers that have studied this is that if we do nothing in Fanno Creek and allow development as it is happening right now, that flood levels will rise over time. So in order to combat this, the storm drainage master plan indicates prescribes improvements along Fanno Creek that need to be done with 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 channel, but the flood channel, to accommodate more water going through in the area of the bridge. And the Engineering 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, I, presumably it'd be five feet or some other similar distance on the other side of the creek. In effect, five feet in addition to what, where the flood plain is now? Liden: That's correct. That's correct. We have a situation with a creek and then a bank and then a level area where the Dolan 's are LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT H q PAGE # ! % preparing to build the building. And so Engineering is saying that we have to go over five feet to accommodate this additional flood flow. And this is the... Five feet beyond the flood-plain? . Maybe I can try to scribble something on the board here Got a situation sort of like this. And the storm drainage master plan is saying that in order to acccmmodate 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. Men, see this isn't drawn very well, and the curve 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 path, which 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, but then in order to have enough level area we'd have to have another ten feet here, and go up this way and have the path right here. or we would just excavate the bank five feet and just have a path here. Actually we're talking 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 I don't follow there, Keith, is that sometimes, you know many times the bike paths that we build in the greenways in the city are in the flood plain. Ah, and if you're building a bike path in the flood plain, let's say you 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... Well you've got, what appears in your sketch, and I know that doesn't necessarily have bearing in fact, but what appears in 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 waterway would give you 10 feet to build the bike path on. Granted it would be flooded when it floods, but so would the whole park so... (end of first side) and ask him to sign, or require him to sign a non- remonstrance agreement. The non-remonstrance agreement is, a, 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 LUBA-FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT #'a PAGE # r' . 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 development, they will. be. asked, required to sign a non-remonstrance agreement if it's a project 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 number one is there, should there be a bike path there? Okay? Number two, should there be allowance for the master drainage plan? Okay. I wonder, and then the third question is I guess we have to decide whether we feel we have enough information to lay the ground work for the Engineering Staff and the developer to cane 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 think we've got two parties here that I, I guess I'd to say could cane up with a solution to it, although it would appear to me, I guess I'm a little disappointed in both Staff and the developer that we haven't had a solution 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, it'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 to be at above hundred-year flood plain level at street level. 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. Engineering is perfectly capable of handling that. So I guess my suggestion would be that we some language that requires that the, that the City and the developer come up with a plan there. Now one of the things we could do is request the developer to, I'd like to throw this out for some discussion, request that the developer show how-he can accommodate the bike path and the requirement for the flood plain. And if he can show that he can do that and the buffering in X amount of feet, that's how much we have. Well I think one of the things you're, if I can kind of narrow the issues down a little bit, I agree with that. I think everyone is on board for the five feet. Is that, is that correct? Well whatever it is, I think the Staff has suggested five feet is the question. But the question is enough land to take care of the master flood plan. Is that what you're saying? And it's been suggested that five feet is a safe number. We can accept that or if the developer can show can it could be less than that, I'm sure that's a possibility, too. I guess the question is do we have to, do we have to cover the master drainage plan and do we have to cover the bike path? Maybe we can get a consensus. LUBA -FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # % `i "i • 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, I'm open to putting it into their mutual hands . if... Moen: Well, let's hear scene other ccamnents. ComTents? Well, I agree, I mean I think they aught to have, they need the five feet, I guess, if that's what's in the master plan. I think the bike path has to be there, whether it's in the, whether it's in the flood plain or up above, I think there's roan to... The point is it can't be in the flood way. It can be in the flood 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 think 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. Castile:. I'd like to see us go ahead. and. approve it, based on the fact of 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 Engineering, it comes back to us, and we'll make the decision. Moen: I think that's fine. Do you want.to make a motion? Castile: Make a motion a, great. Well it's piecemeal this thing. That the parking spaces are okay. Motion that the non-remonstrive agreement be signed. Give them 45 days after occupancy for having the signs down. That's all signs? Castile: All signs. Including the Ackerly ones. Castile: Include, all signs. Except for the ones that are on the new building and have permits. Ah, then an agreement be made that they have between, the City will gain between 10 and 20 feet to install, or to have bike path put in. And they will install the bike path, and if that can't be worked out with Engineering, then the deals off on, on the whole proposal. So that it would, it • would come back to, come back to us. LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # ' r. You mean you would grant all those things changed- Castile: No I, I, it wouldn't... You mean just the ten, the five feet the ten feet, you know just boundary on it. Castile: Yeah, if they can't, if they can't work it out with the Engineering on the ten to narrow it dawn to a ten-foot area, in certain areas, then they're either going to decrease the size of the building or I would assume they're going to have, they're just going to have to work that out with a gineering 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 it in order to get the bike path in there. Moen: As far as constructintj the bike path, though, you're going to leave that in the hands of the developer? Castile: Yes. Yes. Moen: Okay. Grillo: In order to try and protect, ah, both parties' interests, and facilitate that they can come to some sort of terms, I suggest • perhaps that with regard to this bike path issue that, ah, the commission consider, ah, 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 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 review. I suggest that maybe you give some specific time period for the two parties essentially to work out a compromise. If that falls through then it seems to me what you're left with is. the 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 counsel decides to call it up. Grillo: That how that provision has generally been interpreted. That's correct. Which they do on occasion if they feel that they want to see it. But it's at their prerogative. Grillo: That's right. We need to write a decision that did give a certain... • Open end? LUBA FILING - CITY. OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # I I Grillo: ...period of time for the, for.this- compromise to be worked out. • It would be an issue as to when your decision was final. There could be an argument that your decision was.final as of the date your order was issued and mailed:.. And then not knowing. whether they would be able to work . out a o~ar~se- counsel wouldn't know whether to call the matter up`cr,not. And-the time period It seems to me that that's at least that issue in terms: of a,. of the appeal to counsel is in both parties to keep a definitive time period as to when your decision actually becomes final. Okay. Let me make this suggestion. Sure. -Ihe 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 "all property . - that the additional property the fifteen feet would, could be reduced if it can be shaven to the Engineering Department. that the bike path and the, and the other drainage... the drainage, and the buffering. • can be accommodated with less to Engineering's satisfaction.° That way we have a final decision. We've met the requirements.. If they can satisfy Engineering that it, that it, that they can show this can be done, ah, then we have our compromise. If they can't, then we don't have a compromise, in which case, I'm afraid, the thing, it basically lapses. Grillo: The only issue there is. when does your decision became final. Does it become final if and when a compromise is reached, or does it become final when, ah, when your decision... Is made here. Grillo: ...signed by the decision makers. It becomes... Ch, you mean in terms, in terms of appeal. Grillo: Which would you suggest is more appropriate? Grillo: Well, I would suggest that... ...or more fair to both parties. • Grillo: I think, I think unless you set out a specific period of time in which this compromise can be worked out and specifically say in LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # / your motion that this decision does not become final until x • period of time, which is the period of time that you intent to have the compromise worked out. Otherwise your decision, I believe, will become final for appellate purposes, 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 it to Council not ]mowing whether a compromise has been reached between the parties. I understand what you're saying. Let me ask you turn that around just a little bit. It would seem to me that, and you tell me if I'm wrong, that since really there is no right of appeal by the, by the, by our code to Council automatically. That I don't know there really is a time limit for appeal because any appeal would have to be taken up as a request to Council to call it up. And I imagine they could do that at. any time. If... Council has to call it up, I believe it's within 10 days, of-the date your decision berms final. Ten days? Twenty-one? I don't know. • The decision's final. There's already, they've already gone. through a ten-day appeal period. They have, the next step would be the appeal Okay- But I guess I'm trying to see if it hurts anyone to make this 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 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 Commission Decision and I believe the trigger period is ten days. We don't put on the contact It's not ten days. Grillo: Here's what I'm saying is if Council decides to call... Moen: If it's, if you, if counsel feels it's more appropriate to put a time limit on it, what's an appropriate time limit? Thirty • days? LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # n ~f PAGE , Staff, is that something. that you feel that you, you, I'm sure you.people have both hashed this thing out before. Thirty days.. • :.,would semen to be reasonable...With that fit, would You like to._ - rephrase your motion? Castile: Swnebody else take ;'stab,-at it: so modified. Moen: Well, you want to withdraw and let someone else take a, I thin it's appropriate that you withdraw it. Castile: Okay, I'll withdraw then. Moen: Okay.. Milt do you want to take a crack at it? Fyre: Let's see, I've gone through the hearing, I've looked at the condition, help me out as we go through these. Moen: Milt, speak up a little bit. Fyre: Let's coarse 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 will stay in. Seven, I believe is okay. Eight, I believe is okay. Nine we need to • modify. Ten looks okay. Now eleven, I'm not sure. We need to change one of these to add a 45-day grace period. That's number 12. Fyre: Okay 11's okay. Twelve we need to change for a 45 day. Now would the 45-day period apply only to the sign on the building, or would it also apply to the Ackerly? Riot here. So we're going to let the Ackerly sign stay up until, until 45 days. Fyre: Okay. That'll apply to all of them? You mention, item 12 mentions non-conforming billboards. Does it also refer to the wall sign or roof sign as however... Existing roof sign is down at the bottom, it's number 14. Fyre: Okay. So we need the same condition on 14? The 45 days? Forty-five days after occupancy. • Fyre: Forty-five days after occupancy. Okay all those stay the same. Let's go back to number one and see if we can put some wording LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # L~ 17 PAGE # ) there. The intent is to have the applicant and the Engineering • Department reach agreement on varying. the 15 feet. Tlo accommodate, to accommodate both the,.ah:.. Fyre: ..drainage and bike path. The drainage and a 8-foot bike path requirement. And buffering. Fyre: And buffering. Three things. Fyre: With consideration given to trying to fit that in without moving, without requiring the building to be moved. So our direction would be to try and be as flexible as possible to,. if 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 8? Numbex 9. The, that the applicant and the City Engineers cane to agreement on the width of the paved pathway through their, how should we word that? • Grillo: As is required in the public.safety. Well I guess the question is does. it have to be 8-foot wide? Should we give the Engineering latitude to decide how wide- it needs to be? Given considerations in public safety. Fyre: Okay, consideration to public safety, plus a less than 8-foot wide... I wouldn't say, I'd just leave it. Let's see 8-foot wide. Eight-foot wide paved pathway shall be installed by the applicant. I would say a paved, just strike the "8-foot." A paved pathway shall be installed by the applicant through the greenway per Engineering requirements, per Staff Engineering requirements- Do you need to take out the "constructed to City standards?" City standard is 8 feet. Moen: I don't think that the City standards is what the Engineering decides they are. Fyre: Uh-huh (yes). • Moen: In a bike path aren't they? Is there a published standard for LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # v PAGE # ! P . bike path' Laden: -I'm not sure if they're. in our code or not. Fyne: Men we 11 put as required , by City Engineer. And I guess :that's it. Okay Castille: n rty days. Fyre: Oh. Yeah, you got to have 30 days. Oh. Forty-five. No, the 30 days is the... Oh. • One and nine will be subject to this. Fyre: That agreement must be reached with the City on conditions 1 and 9 wihtin 30 days. Within 30 days of today. Okay. Fyre: And that we request the City to be as flexible as. possible as possible in acoonnnodating... Well, that's just a direction, that doesn't have to be part of the motion. Fyre: Okay. Okay we'll leave that out of the motion, then. Agreement must be reached by the City Engineering and, and, ah... Fyre: Applicant. Applicant within 30 days. Fyre: Within 30 days. Huh? LUBA FILING - _CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # C~ i i • Of the final order, of signing of the final order. Fyre: Okay. Do we have to state that if these, if the agreement is not reached... Grillo: I would suggest two things. That you indicate what their decision is in the event that no nnrtually 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. Okay. I would think that the two things... Fyre: You want me to try that? I would think that if -condition 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 8. If I may interject, that means no, there's no reason for the Staff to negotiate. Why can't we have it come back to you guys for some final decision. Otherwise the Staff can say, "I'm sorry." Commissioner can say, "I'm sorry; we can have it all our • way, all we have to do is wait out these 30 days." Fyre: 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. Fyre: Okay what would be the best way just to word that in 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 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. So I guess, in order to accormmdate his concerns, I suggest that, ah, you consider having the decision became final in 30 days, with the knowledge that your decision, you can reconsider your decision as to this condition within that period of time, since your decision was not final. Liden: We won't meet now probably for another 30 days. So make it 35 or 40 days. Forty days? Grillo: You can vote to reconsider your decision and schedule it for your LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # t - i next, the next time we meet.. In other words, ah.... :.Well;' we, could have done that and not gone through all this Grillo : I . mean T .a with I 'mean ' if want 9r~ you_.. -agree.- Yom= Y carne:. to scene final. determinations; : my'; advice to you is that you make : it .'at scene time, specific. If . : you'~.want to . rehear this matter, that I think. is clearly the other way to go. Let me just ask the applicant, you know another way we can do this, and why we asked the question if you guys were in a rush, is because we needed more information. Now what you're suggesting is that you want it to carne back to us for final decision. And... We can do that if we can't reach a negotiated.-.. Yeah,. and- if that's the case, we could just change the motion. And since you've heard what we had to say,. we can hold this over for a final decision. Yeah... I have a suggestion. • In the event the parties can't resolve it. Probably be a good idea to give you a shot at, at getting an agreement with Staff because you could get out a solution quicker. Right. Okay. Let's, go ahead. If the, if we can get them, if they can have a decision, if they can came to an agreement, we'd like to just clear it off the boards and go on, right? Fyre: Well, can we just schedule this for a hearing again, just in case a final decision, just in case they can't reach agreement with the city. I think we ought to schedule it for... Grillo: You could continue the public hearing. Well we could. Grillo: be giving direction to the City. There's only one issue that we're talking about, that is what LUBA. FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # err PAGE # } this, we can make a decision on. all the other points really, I think, tonight. Grillo: Just isolate. the bike path issue. 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 evidence. Okay? But I think that time, to be fair to everyone, probably should be not, probably should be 60 days 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 every other month. So it's either going to be the first meeting in September or the first meeting in October. And I would suggest to first meeting in October: Good. That gives everybody emphasis to get Final decision on everything but the bike path? Let's vote on it? • well we have a final decision on the bike path, too. It's just that if they can solve their differences then within 30 days, the decision's final. It becomes effective then. If they can't, that portion of the decision reverts back to us on the first meeting of October. Fyre: I'd like to do it sooner, if we can. I hate to hold them up. If we could do it in September. When is the first meeting in September? That's less than 30 days from now. Let's do it anyway. Yeah, that's probably, I'd feel a little be less, I think, what is it, 5th? I don't have my calendar with me but I think it's September 5th. Okay whatever you want. Your, it's your motion. Go for it. Ask them what they want. Fyre: What would you prefer? Since we're operating so informally here. Probably would have preferred not to come here tonight. Prefer not to be here. LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # a C? PAGE # ) ` . Mendez: I think the September meeting would be satisfactory for us. . .777. . You it:` • Fyre: Okay. September meeting; Has the motion been seconded? So we have... Jelderks: Valo seconded? Castile: I Will. Jelderks: Okay. Okay. To 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 agreement within, work to have an agreement on the above proposal within 30 days, and that, should that agreement o=x, that this final decision will become effective at that point of the agreement. Okay? And within 30 days from tonight. Okay. And in the meantime, we'll go ahead and sign a final order based on that so that it's all set and when they sign it goes "should that agreement be unable to be reached that the issue of the bike path and its location... size. ...and size and a dedication" those, that specific issue would be reheard or the hearing would be reopened on that point on the first meeting in September. Okay. Okay. Moen: All those, ah, we have a motion before us that's been made and seconded. All those in favor of the motion as made and seconded signify by saying, "Aye." Barber, Castile, Fyre, Newton, Rosborough: Aye. Moen: Opposed? Peterson: Nay. Moen: Okay. Do you have that duly recorded? Jelderks: Yes. Moen: Okay. The motion carries. we will have a break between now and we'll re-open the hearing at 10:00. LUBA FILING - CITY OF TTGARD EXHIBIT # J x' G PAGE it TIGARD PLANNING COM21ISSX0ff REGULAR MEETING - AUGUST 8, 1989 1. President Moen called the meeting to order at 7:32 PH. The meeting was held at the Tigard Civic Center - TOWN HALL - 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. 2_ ROLL CELL: Present: President Moen; Commissioiners Barber, Castile, Fyre, Newton (arrived 7:45 PH), Peterson, and Rosborough. Absent: Commissioners Leverett and Saporta. Staff: Senior Planner Keith Liden; Legal Counsel Phil Grillo (for item 5_1); Planning Secretary Diane M_ Jelderks_ 3- APPFWVAL OF ICCRU33M - Commissioner Pyre moved and commissioner Barber seconded to approve the minutes. as submitted. Motion carried by majority of Commissioners present. Commissioner Rosborough abstained. 4_ PLANNING COMMISSION COM UNICBTION • o President Moen stated he -had'received a letter of appreciation from the Fountains Condominiums; minutes from the June.lst meeting regarding the I-5/Kruse Way improvements; and a Metro newsletter. 5- PUBLIC HEARINGS 5_1 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPEAL SDR 89-13/V 89-21 DOLBN/A-BOY 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 Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC lot 700). Senior Planner Liden reviewed the conditions that were being appealed. by the applicant- Staff felt that the conditions were appropriate. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Commissioner Newton arrived 7:45 PM- 0 Joseph R_ Mendez, 715 SW Morrison 1 500, Portland, Or_,97205, Attorney for A-Boy, referenced sections in the Code which they,- wereappealing.. He stated that the land being required for dedication would* encroach into_ the building that they are proposing for construction— He. opposed PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 8, 1989 - PAGH LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT 3 O PAGE # S conditions 1, 6, and 9 which involve taking 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 injure their .business. Discussion followed.with 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 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. 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 William Monahan regarding he City purchasing a portion of their property for park use. Now, the City is taking the land, requiring them to do the surveying, as well as designing the path. She felt this requirement was unreasonable and unfair. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o No one appeared to speak. • o Lengthy discussion followed regarding the time frame for•remova]L of the roof/wall sign, the billboard signs,-dedication of the additional 15 feet above the flood plain, the Drainage Master Plan, improvements to Fanno Creek (widening of the flood channel), location and width of the bikepath, location of the building, allowing construction in the flood plain, 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 Attorney, reviewed legal aspect of requirements for dedication (taking of land) and signing of non-remonstrance agreements. REBUTTAL o Joseph Mendez stated .that it is impossible to move the proposed building because of a sewer easement in front of the proposed building. They were never informed during the pre-appli-cation process that they would be required to dedicate an additional 15 feet. They are willing to work with the City to determine if a variable amount of dedication between -10 and 20 feet could be worked out for construction of the bikepath_ They still oppose taking of land without compensation and signing of a non- remonstrance agreement. Discussion followed regarding width of the bikepath, the Fanno Creek Park Plan, location of the building, and possible solutions to the problem- . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 8, 1989 - PAGE LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # -10 PAGE # 119, O-;t - PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Commissioner Peterson supported 39 parking spaces, did not support signing a non-remonstrance agreement if curb and sidewalk 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. 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. o Commissioner Fyre favored the bikepath but did not'-feel there was enough information to determine the location. He 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 requiring a non- remonstrance agreement, and felt there was not enough information to determine the. location of the blkepath. 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 non-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 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 Review 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 variation of 10 to 20 feet for constructing a bikepath_ If an agreement cannot be worked out then the application will come back to the Planning Commission. o Phil Grillo, Legal Counsel, suggested that a time frame be given to work out a compromise- Discussion followed * Commissioner Castile withdrew is motion-. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 8, 1989 - PACE 3 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # 3 O PAGE p * Commissioner Fyre moved and Commissioner Castile seconded to approve SDR-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 Commission - on September 5th. Motion carried by majority of Commissioners present. Commissioner Peterson voting no. 5.2 SUBDIVISION S 89-06 ARESSLEY/CONSULTING ENGINEERING S RVICBS NPO #8 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 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 (WCTH 1S1 36AA, tax lot 800) Senior Planner Liden explained that the application had been approved by the Commission in June, 1989. The applicant is requesting to add one additional parcel. He reviewed the proposal and made staff's . recommendation for approval 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 issued if any more trees are removed without a permit. Senior Planner Liden read a letter into the record from Charles W. McCart 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. He explained that he had been clearing the site of blackberry vines, small 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 6 inches in diameter at the four foot height- PUBLIC TESTIMONY o David Saul, 10205 SW 70th, Tigard, 97223, was concerned that the issue regarding survey/property lines had not been resolved, that the additional 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 approval PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 8, 1989 - PAGE 4 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARO EXHIBIT # _i_>0 PAGE # o AGENDA ITEM 5.1 • CITY OF TIGARD MEMMANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Deborah Stuart, Assistant Planne 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. A new 17,600 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 approved subject to the satisfaction of 14 conditions. The applicant is appealing the conditions which require him to dedicate 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 nonconforming, amortized billboards and one • roof sign. Attached are a copy of the staff report, the applicant's appeal form and statement, site plan and vicinity map. LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD • EXHIBIT # 3 1 PAGE # a D CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF DECISION SITE DEVEMPMSNT RKVIBW/VARIANCE - SDR 89-13/V, 89-21 John T:'Zand 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 parking spaces where 44 are required. Location: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTH 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 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 property have been considered nonconforming as of March 20, 1988, 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 18.114.070.H; and 2. Two nonconforming, amortized billboards (illegal location), violations of Code Section 18.114.090.A.4.a. 2. 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. STAFF REPORT - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 - DOLAN - PAGE 1 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # (j lD . 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 present location since approximately the late 1940s. A freestanding sign with a readerboard stands along the Main Street frontage of the 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 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 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 in that they wish to provide 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. 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 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. The Consolidated Rural 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 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 to a 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. STAFF REPORT - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 - DOLAN - PAGE 2 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARO EXHIBIT_ # 31 PAGE # 77~ • The City Engineering Division-has. reviewed the proposal and.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 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 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 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 reconstruction of Main Street be required as a condition of this 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 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 slopes toward Fanno 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 proposed j' 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. 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 greenway to protect the flood plain and to provide for the park pathway system. STAFF REPORT - SDR 89-13/v 89-21 - DOLAN - PAGE 3 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # 0 PAGE # r Sl 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 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 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 18.100, 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 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 is presently occupied by a general retail sales use but was never reviewed by the City for compliance with City development regulations. A general retail sales 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 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 to be met. In the CBD-AA zoning district, maximum site coverage regulations allow up to 85 percent of the site to be covered with a • STAFF REPORT - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 - DOLAN - PAGE 4 LUBA FILING CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT-ft J- i PAGE # 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'.; I' The "AA" portion 'of the subject ?siteIs 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 are intended 'to serve the 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: a. The development shall address transit usage by residents, employees, and customers 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 building(s) from transit lines or stops; ii. Minimizing transit/auto conflicts by providing direct 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 collector and arterial streets; and iv. Avoiding the creation of small scattered parking areas by 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 greenway/open space/park. Specific items to be addressed are as follows: STAFF REPORT - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 - DOLAN - PAGE 5 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT. # '2- PAGE # i 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 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 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 adopted plan. Screen loading areas and refuse dumpsters from view. Screen commercial, and industrial use from single-family residential through landscaping; and iii. Provision of frontage roads or shared access where feasible. The submitted development 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. Outdoor lighting should be specifically addressed by the applicant as to how it might be provided. STAFF REPORT - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 - DOLAN - PAGE 6 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE - r 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 ~ t''f.! proposed .landscaping plan shows one. street tree along the; SW Main Street. -,frontage-where three to four are required depending upon ihe.•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 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 Fanno 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 be screened. 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 it is in a vision clearance area, this type of tree may grow to a mature height of 15 - 25 feet. So long as none of- the branches • extend below eight feet in height, staff does not think the tree will 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 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 in this report. The Code requires one secure bicycle parking space for every 15 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 hdw many spaces will be provided. The bicycle rack design should also be submitted to the Planning Division for review prior to its installation. Access, Egress and Circulation The requirements of the Access, Egress and Circulation have been satisfied. STAFF REPORT - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 - DOLAN - PACE 7 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT . PAGE It _ ,,71 Signs 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. The two freestanding billboard signs and one large roof 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 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 18.120.180, 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 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 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 Development Review Code Section 18.120.180.A.8 requires that where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the 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/ bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle plan. A path is also required as part of the Action Area Overlay designation (Section 18.86.040.A.l.b.i). Therefore, dedication of the land area on this property below the elevation of the 100-year floodplain 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 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 ona revised site plan. STAFF REPORT - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 - DOLAN - PAGE 8 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # 1~. PAGE Parking Variance i 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 approve-'with modifications or deny a variance request. They can approve 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 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 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 "browser or window shoppers", in that the business constitutes a retail/wholesale type of business which sells bulky merchandise. The latter fact results in the 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 vehicles at any one time. Staff notes that employees of the business will also require parking spaces and perhaps delivery trucks will need • STAFF REPORT - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 - DOLAN - PAGE 9 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT- # PAGE # 1 to park and unload on the property; however it is clear that the existing store use will not need 44 parking spaces. The City agrees that the present use is similar to a "general retail sales, bulky s 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. 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 existing 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 community park located along Fanno Creek between Main Street and SW Hall 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 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 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 100-year floodplain. The Engineering Division has indicated that the proposed structure should be at least 10 feet away from the relocated outer bank in order to accommodate an eight foot wide pathway and the planned reconstruction of the storm drainage channel along the floodplain. This indicates that an adjustment to the placement of the building structure on the site would be necessary in order to adequately accommodate the path and vegetative screening up to the relocated bank of the storm drainage channel. STAFF REPORT - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 - DOLAN - PAGE 10 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT W PAGE # a i VW & C. DECISION ~KV 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 conditions: ' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED,.'; TSB FOLLOWING `.CONDITIONS SHALL, -BB -MET PRIOR rv ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: Q The applicant shall dedicate to the City as greenway all portions o$ 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 floodplain boundary.:/A monument boundary survey showing all new title lines, prepared by a RR 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). 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 CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Division (639-4171). 3 iAn 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, 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 of the phase one building outside of the greenway area; and 5) a minimum of 39 parking spaces. STAFF CONTACT: Deborah Stuart, Planning 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 southwestern property line; 2) screening for the trash disposal area; and 3) 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 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 (639-4171). 44; < • STAFF REPORT - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 - DOLAN - PAGE 11 " LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT- ZI PAGE U )r0 7. A demolition permit shall be obtained prior to demolition or removal of any structures on the site. The applicant shall notify Northwest • 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(c). STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division (639- 4171). 39 An eight-foot wide paved pathway shall be installed by the applicant through the greenway. Plans 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 r~ pathways must be graded and revegetated to facilitate mowing and .y vehicular access. STAFF CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Division 4M (639-4171). 4~ THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF AN a OCCUPANCY PERMIT: 10. All landscaping materials and other proposed site improvements shall be installed or financially assured prior to occupancy of any 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.). WrjAgAgS 13. 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). 14. The existing roof sign shall be permanently removed from the subject propertyt l -N THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR EIGHTEEN (18) MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF o THE FINAL DECISION NOTED BELOW. r, • STAFF REPORT - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 - DOLAN - PAGE 12 ~1'( V LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT 3 PAGE 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 given and sent. Appeal fee schedule and forms are available at Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. The deadline for filing of an appeal is 3:30 p.m. July 201 1989 4. Questions: If you have questions, please call City of Tigard Planning Department, City of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. yuzlzz e~g - "Aoz~ REPARED BY: Deborah Stuart, Asst. Planner DATE APPROVED BY: Keith S. Liden, Senior Planner DATE STAFF REPORT - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 - DOLAN - PAGE 13 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE 0 'Q 1 `7, . r•~+..r 9? tb S w' ~7b LL o CP H 3 AV V.0 W l U- m V) d 3AV H106 m-,- T -1 N '3Ab 1 J NI I '►b• J J~~ 110 Is Is M'S 3Ad 1116 M'S 3 q~ 1 of c'd, ~y1 u / 3AV P Z6 'M'S, '3Ad Pun ' M S ~v=~J ~ oJ2~~ y Zed' • C7 J U 1 s s W W y• 3 _ '3Ad 41 b6 M'S 3z 1 N G~ J ;ilN H 1 46 x 'M's N a Y `C N F1 / N -.M►z- 3 Ab 419 6 M'S l 07 / 17i _S; 09.44 $5e~3 6"'.4 7297 CITY OF T I CARD C j i~02 LAND USF DECISION APPEAL FILING FORM The., - City of Tigard;;=:supf~urts the citizen's r iyht to participate;- din Ioc~zl,:yuvcrnmcnl': - :Tigar-Ws Land Use c Curie= -therc~fuce - nets^ut spe•:ifis :.requirements fir' CIOf .T1,~~ filirr3.appeals on certain ldrui use da!- isions. OREGON fhe following form has het-,r► devs~lop!td -Lo assist you in filing an appeal of larid use dot: i::ion in proper form. To dotor-mine what filing fee: will be required or to .,nswc~r any quo-tinny you have regarding the app.:al pr•,-tr_c!ss, Nle•3xue corit-.Act the Planning Division or the Ci t v RecQrJer at 63q 4171. 1. APPLICATION BEING APPEAL FO: John T. and Florence Dolan, SDR 89-13/V 89-21 A-Boy Electric Plumbing and Supply Bldg. - 2. ItOW DO YOU QUALIFY AS A PARTY: -___,Applicant 3. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW- The Planning Directors 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 as Dolan) to dedicate a substantial portion of their property to-the City as greenway, i.e., all-portions of the site that fall within the existing 100-year floodplain and in-addition the Director demands Dolan surrender 15 feet above (to the east of) --continued on attached sheet-- 41- SCHMULED DATE DFCI'1-I0N IS TO BE FINAL: 7-20-89 5. DATE NOTICE OF FINAL. DICI° ON W 7-11-89 date 7-10-89 ose R. Me dez Attor for John T. and Florence Dolan kkk kkkaxi(-kxx k-k itNxkkkxNXHNNw x xxkkxxkxxY-xxkxxkx-kxxx-xx-xxxxxx-xxxxx-x-K-X-xx)+XXX-x FOR OFFXCF. US LY : Itec e i v y : ate : _ f in!e /Y1 Approved As To Form By:_ ~ - Date Tiiu(,"W- qU) Denied As To Form B Date: T" k H ire-iFit 9t x •x i(x x k x x x X-k N k x x -x k k x x• ii x-x x it x x x-x x x k x• N k -h-k k~! ~ k k x-x x-x-h x• 1w74846A rPC~~ ~a 35W D/1 ~~~1 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD U~✓ EXHIBIT ?,I PAGE # '1312'j SW Hatt Blvd.. P.O. Box 23397. figo(d. oegon 97223 (503)639-4171--' i 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 JI 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. 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 for which Dolan must be compensated beyond the mere approval of their application. LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # _ I PAGE # memo • keith: As per our discussion on A-Boy, I understand that you and someone representing A-Boy will meet to discuss whether or not the city can live with less than the required 15, setback from the top of the streambank, and still accomodate future storm 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. It appears to me that we would not want to require the actual 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 city may want to consider alternative construction materials, other than asphalt, for this section of the Fanno Creek trail system. Perhaps you and the applicant and the Planning Commission can re-consider this pedestrian path requirement along with the 15• setback requirement. Keep me posted. Ed cc. Randy Wooley, fyi • LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # _a PAGE # a MEMORANDUM • CITY OF TIGARD, ORBOON T0: Keith Liden - Respond _ BY FRCI: Cathy Wheatley rlr' For Your Information DATE: July 19, 1989 -Sign and Return SUBJBCT: Appeal of Director's Decision SDR 89-13/V - John T. and Florence Dolan; A-Boy Electric Plumbing and Supply Bldg. Attached is the Appeal for the above-captioned which we discussed earlier today. I advised the Applicant's representative the tentative date for hearing before the Planning Ccmmission would be August 8th. cw • • LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT# PAGE # _s~ f, Vr: 'sr; rr% I 'ri f" r ( 1- t r i 1 i • r~ • ,F =rM r'1 7 p- - ' .1 f 'rr T. r •r I C7 f I 1 i }x.,rr f I i7' 1 rr' ( .1 ;tr i rrtF`: ~r'r: r f' r r% I T'• l I T!r 1 :f I .i -1`i J= r tr.. ' l -n - T I h~ it ~1r 7 - T i' ( 1 'i I -•i 1 1 1 T r- a f I ~ i I .I 7 I i-1 'f f I lrs.r " - f. i rT rf i • t r >r 7. _ r• _ r r p :s i' 'T'• , =r' 7~1 !r rllf~ f i i ~r ~w u .~.f f7 rf ff I I~ rr,r .4. ~ l 'Wr. I -r I ~i H I. :.1 I ! 11. - r- f I 1- r : 77 f f " - I r...r ( ti l 1 I' f T: j i 1 1 I rr ^tr .ff : I x :r : 1 .r r f. I .L• f. { 1 i_ ,f. ( .t -I J`'..^' J T Fri I .T . I T 'r 1 Iy l-, 1 t.. r r' %T TI x' f,. r: C. fi r' f t,. 'f J ! i irfl - IJ l f I r. _ j. f. I l •n T .l.J . 1 - r 'tr 1• :fl 1 I T• !.T .7 1 r •:lrf 1 f m rI f: i - ( , r U3 r~r x C t.' r .r i rI I ' M co .ff W x . t' 1 T _ 1 H I t' . 1 11 -1 H ! ~f di i' 1 r - 1 ! I ~I I Z I rrt:, ~i e t. 1 :rr ; f.~ 7''• 1- W I 1-, ( "=f I .f r. r+ _I N 'f t~. J - TI ( ' H _%rs -i :x. I-' I n :':v. . s s r.~ J r f Ln 71 ; tl G7 - r: I 1 h : ~ i - r f J -1 ^:'J 0, - f f "r F t- v rr ~r rr, rr -rr. rj . ( 07,17/"3 i c`Se 44 'a50?(" `4 7297 CITY OF T t GARD / 16002 L_ANR USE DECISION APPEAL FILING FORM The City of Tigard suppurts- the citizen's r-iyht to participate - in local guvernment. Tigar•d's Lend Use TIIFARD S Code therefore sets out sptaciFic requirements. for- C ITYOFi filing appeals on certain land use decisions. OREGON fhe following form has boon developed to assist you in filing an appeal or a land use decision in proper form. To determine what- filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have rogarding the appeal process, N1Nase contact the Planning Division or the City ReCt,rder- at 639 4171 . 1. APPLICATION BEING APPEALTO: John T. and Florence Dolan, SDR 89-13/V 89-21 - _ A-Boy Electric Plumbing and Supply-Bldg _ 2. HOW DO YOU QUALIFY AS A PARTY : Applicant 3. SPECIFIC GROUNM FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW: The Planning Directors 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 as Dolan) to dedicate a substantial portion of their property to the City as greenway, i.e., all portions of the site that fall within the existing 100-year floodplain and in addition the Director demands Dolan surrender 15 feet above (to the east of) --continued on attached sheet-- 4. SCHEDULED DAl"E OE CI'-ION IS TO BE FINAL: 7-20-89 5. DATE NOTICE OF FINAL 0ECIv' ON W G [ 7-11-89 da~te~ 7-10-89 6. SIGNAIURI'(0). ose R. Me dez Attor for John T. and Florence Dolan ifk9fX3tKl1~(x)(k~(K X-X )(XXWMXXXXMXNn X XXxMX-XmX*X)(X-XXX)*M.XXXX-X.XXXXXX*KX-k-xX*X- X-X*X*X-M FOR OFFICE US LY: Receiv Y: rime • Approved As To Form By: --Date?Tune Denied As To Form By Date: LvaH _riL1NG - C:1 rY OF TIGARD )l iHt•X•it •X it •k-)(X X X X k X X-it ►4 3t K k-X X k X Xii X-X k it X X-N-X ~(-k ~f M-X kX-X ie it kX ~l XaF ~(-X-X• / EXHIBIT # 3 lw/4e46A ~`P ~a 3 S~ On 7// ~j PAGE # . 13125 SW Hall Nvd.. P.O. Sox 23397, fiigard• aegore 97223 (503)639-4171- _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 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 • with city ordinances at the time of 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. LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT-# 3 PAGE # ` AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss_ City of Tigard ) I, MI le, IV 1,(k,`kWt&' being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say_ Please Print That I am a ( A CX _jA55L a+n - for The City of Tigard, Oregon. That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING for: L---'That I served NOTICE OF DECISION for: amity of Tigard Planning Director Tigard Planning Commission 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 persons at the address shown on the attached list marked exhibit "B° on the t()TD--~ day of J 19 Dq • said notice NOTICE OF DECISION as hereto attached, was posted oa an appropriate bulletin board on the (0~h day of c ~L , 19 b i ; and deposited in the United States Mail on the day of , postage prepaid. M ture Person who posted on Bulletin Board (For Decision Only) ersou who delivered to POST OFFICE Subscribed and sworn/affirm to before me on the day of , 19~ • ` My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON 0257P/0006P LUBA FILING - CITY.OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # .3t./ PAGE # 4-:<~'? . CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF DECISION • SITE DEVELOPHENT. RE{T1 W/VARIANCB sDR.89-13/V 89-w-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 parking spaces where 44 are required. Location: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 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 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 property have been considered nonconforming as of March 20, 1988, 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 18.114.070.H; and 2. Two nonconforming, amortized billboards (illegal location), violations of Code section 18.114.090.A.4.a. 2. 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. • STAFF REPORT - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 - DOLAN - PAGE 1 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD u EXHIBIT-It' PAGE # a a • 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 present location since approximately the late 1940s. A freestanding sign with a readerboard stands along the Main Street frontage of the 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 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 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 in that they wish to provide 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. 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 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. The Consolidated Rural 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 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 to a 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. • STAFF REPORT - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 - DOLAN - PAGE 2 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # _ `i PAGE # Q^~ Q, , The~city, :Enginearing'Division has reviewed.the proposal and has the following. comments:,; .Street is , ~ a" major collector. street . and is currently fully € " t :developed .with 'curbs and sidewalks:.-:A.. plan developed' earlier i 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 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 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 reconstruction of Main Street be required as a condition of this 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 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 slopes toward Fanno 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 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. 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 greenway to protect the flood plain and to provide for the park pathway system. . STAFF REPORT - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 - DOLAN - PAGE 3 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT" Y PAGE # oZ 3 D 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 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 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 18.100, 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 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 is presently occupied by a general retail sales use but was never reviewed by the City for compliance with City development regulations. A general retail sales 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 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 to be met. In the CBD-AA zoning district, maximum site coverage regulations allow up to 85 percent of the site to be covered with a STAFF REPORT - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 - DOLAN - PAGE4 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # tf- PAGE # structure(s).-.,,and impervious- surfaces such as parking, loading and ' pathway areas..--This will be analyzed during adiscussion 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 are intended to serve the 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: a. The development shall address transit usage by residents, employees, and customers 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 building(s) from transit lines or stops; ii. Minimizing transit/auto conflicts by providing direct 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 collector and arterial streets; and iv. Avoiding the creation of small scattered parking areas by 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 greenway/open space/park. Specific items to be addressed are as follows: STAFF REPORT - SDR 89-13/v 89-21 - DOLAN - PAGE 5 LUBA FILING _ CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT - #r PAGE N • i. Provision of efficient, convenient and continuous pedestrian and bicycle transit circulation systems, linking developments by requiring dedication and fi 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. 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 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 adopted plan. Screen loading areas and refuse dumpsters from view. Screen commercial, and industrial use from single-family residential through landscaping; and iii. Provision of frontage roads or shared access where feasible. The submitted development 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. Outdoor lighting should be specifically addressed by the applicant as to how it might be provided. STAFF REPORT - SDR 89-13/v 89-21 - DOLAN - PAGE 6 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE # 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 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 Fanno 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 be screened. 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 it is in a vision clearance area, this type of tree may grow • to a mature height of 15 - 25 feet. So long as none of the branches extend below eight feet in height, staff does not think the tree will 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 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 in this report. The Code requires one secure bicycle parking space for every 15 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 design should also be submitted to the Planning Division for review prior to its installation. Access, Egress and Circulation The requirements of the Access, Egress and Circulation have been satisfied. STAFF REPORT - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 - DOLAN - PAGE 7 LUBA-FILING = EXHIBIT CITY OF TIGARD PAGE , Signs 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. The two. freestanding billboard signs and one large roof 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 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 18.120.180, 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 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 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 Development Review Code Section 18.120.180.A.8 requires that where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the 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/ bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle plan. A path is also required as part of the Action Area Overlay designation (Section 18.86.040.A.l.b.i). Therefore, dedication of the land area on this property below the elevation of the 100-year floodplain 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 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. STAFF REPORT - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 - DOLAN - PAGE 8 LUBA.FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT J i PAGE # % Parkina 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 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 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 "browser or window shoppers", in that the business constitutes a retail/wholesale type of business which sells bulky merchandise. The latter fact results in the 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 vehicles at any one time. Staff notes that employees of the business will also require parking spaces and perhaps delivery trucks will need . STAFF REPORT - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 - DOLAN - PAGE 9 LUBA-FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # a>,W~ PAGE a I to park and unload on the property; however it is clear that the existing store use will not need 44 parking 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 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. 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 existing 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 community park located along Fanno Creek between Main Street and SW Hall 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 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 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 100-year floodplain. The Engineering Division has indicated that the proposed structure should be at least 10 feet away from the relocated outer bank in order to accommodate an eight foot wide pathway and the planned reconstruction of the storm drainage channel along the floodplain. This indicates that an adjustment to the placement of the building structure on the site would be necessary in order to adequately accommodate the path and vegetative screening up to the relocated bank of the storm drainage channel. STAFF REPORT - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 - DOLAN - PAGE 10 I LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # ( PAGE 1_7 I a • 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 conditions: UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE HET PRIOR TO 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 floodplain boundary. A 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 so as not to intrude into the greenway area. STAFF 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 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 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 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 spaces. STAFF CONTACT: Deborah Stuart, Planning 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 southwestern property line; 2) screening for the trash disposal area; and 3) 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 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 (639-4171). STAFF REPORT - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 - DOLAN - PAGE 11 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # =.r; PAGE # ?Z 7. A demolition permit shall be obtained prior to demolition or removal of any structures on the site. The applicant shall notify Northwest Natural Gas prior to demolition. STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division (639-4171). a 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(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 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 revegetated to facilitate mowing and vehicular access. STAFF CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Division (639-4171). THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT: 10. All landscaping materials and other proposed site improvements shall be installed or financially assured prior to occupancy of any • 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 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). 14. The existing roof sign shall be permanently removed from the subject property. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR EIGHTEEN (18) MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE FINAL DECISION NOTED BELOW. STAFF REPORT - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 - DOLAN - PAGE 12 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE Cl • 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 7/2 189 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 given and sent. Appeal fee schedule and forms are available at Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. The deadline for filing of an appeal is 3:30 p.m. July 20, 1989 4. Questions: If you.have questions, please call City of Tigard Planning Department, City of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. 7lzello? REPARED BY: Deborah Stuart, Asst. Planner DATE APPROVED BY: Keith S. Liden, Senior Planner DATE • STAFF REPORT - SDR 89-13/V 89-21 - DOLAN - PAGE 13 LUBA-FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT c,' PAGE L 2800 DENNIS C. &'LYN'NE M. THOMPSON } 523 S.W. 62ND DR. SDR 89-13/V 89-21 Dolan/A-Boy PORTLAND, OREGON 97219 *JOHN 1100 4900 T. & FLORENCE DOLAN OTTO SORG MARY ANN H. 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, OREGON 97204 P.O. BOX 1003 EVERETT, WASHONGTON 98201 DAN GOTT 800 5000 13230 SW HILL CT MICHAEL J. HEUVELHORST MARGARET MC DAID TIGARD, OR 97223 % GEORGE S. KADEY JR. 9225 S.W. BURNHAM ST. 12551 S.W. MAIN ST. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 500 900 CHARLES 1. & ARLIE C. WOODARD EUGENE L. & VIVIAN DAVIS P.O. BOX 23303 4550 S.W. LOMBARD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97005 600 5100 2000 D A & DORRIS N. CORDI BART P. & JEAN VERMILYE ALEX, LOTTI & HANS CHRISTIAN *1272 S.W..CAPITAL HWY. FINKE % RICHARD L. & BARBRA J. DRINKWATER PORTLAND, OREGON 97219 P.O. BOX 23562 92005 5 S .W. . BU BURNHAM TIGARD, OREGON 97562 PORTLAND, OREGON 97206 300 JOHN T. & FLORENCE DOLAN 4025 S.E. BROOKLYN ST. PORTLAND, OREGON 97202 200 2200 5200 FURER SCOTT REAL ESTATE PARTNERSH PAGE N. STEVENS GERALD C. JOAN L. CACH 9185 S.W. BURNHAM RD. 9180 S.W. BURNHAM RD. 15170 S.W. SUNRISE LANE TIGARD, OREGON 97223 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 202 2400 SOUTHWEST PORTLAND PARTNERSHIP DONALD E. & SHIRLEY HANSON 2121 N. COLUMBIA BLVD. P.O. BOX 12 PORTLAND, OREGON 97217 WEMME, OREGON 97067 203 CITY OF TIGARD 2 0 O_ BOX 23397 420 S.W. MAIN TIGARD, OREGON 97223 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD 2402 EXHIBIT # 27 Lj 1101 WILLIAM H. & AUDREY BURTON PAGE # x.U JOHN R_ & LOIS GULLEY 14095 S.W. HARGIS RD_ DANIEL & MIRIAM BERTULEIT BEAVERTON, OREGON 97208 % MARVIN R. & KATHRYN ANKELE 1?511 S.W. MATN ST. i S.M. S - n Sr fLMOSC ~ ~ P STRECT < i pPFOTA I w o S.M. I »ON'M ~i 4 .l P SA O P w ~ P ~J > ~ t s > O r ; L V i • ~ t P a l~S ~ \~v cr Cf. sT~ ST. t .w TWA P j < t 9 S roto ; w = 5 y ® P r J 9e 2 1 sr. reAOO~' jt crwq 99 SM. FATiCFK SE 7T ~+G ♦ W SAIL y 34 35 3 2 ; : e`er ac' a WOODARO sZ s qtr S.w, yMLE ~ys ERIC V. r s~ co ; s 0 3 ~ ~ - JQVM OM ~ +t-9C ? a ~ < •w .to u w ar 3W aF 0 ~6 a4~ - ~L~t •T1 Y, ` a, 1 Y 4 c ,tPt M/IM aJ' ~ e a~ 4'P4 e y~4 tf•Y St- ~ V aTw;sw ~ 'W / 34`' ( TtGARD one s a s, ' a CIVIC CENTER +Y TIGARD , ° P GP 9 TIGARD FILING - CIS OF o.RP LUBA ~S aT f .;J EXHIBIT # owe' PAGE # c ~ coox oa- s=e- a ` ' 6 ` OP T S~ `4\ a~ c P /\C AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss- City of Tigard ) KLdk trx being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say: Please Print) That I am aW a6 As-&-~6.t1lJ► "--tu 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 Planning Director --Tigard Planning Commission 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 persons at the. address shown on.the attached list marked exhibit `B" on the day, of -j 19 . • said notice NOTICE OF DECISION as hereto attached, was posted on :an appropriate bulletin board on the day of t') A , 19 ; and deposited in the United States Mail on the day of , 19$1 , postage prepaid- KJ A Signature Person who posted on Bulletin Board (For Decision Only). f 9.~ P son who delivered to POST OFFICE J Subscribed and sworn/affirm to before me on the day of , • NOTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON _ Ciy Commission Expires. 0257P/0006P LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE # 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, Auctust S. 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: 1 FILE TITLE: Dolan/A-Boy 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 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 2S1 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 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 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 CODE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AT WHICH A COMMENT IS DIRECTED PRECLUDES AN APPEAL BASED ON THAT CRITERION. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT 639-4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BLVD., OR CONTACT YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION (NPO) $ 1 • CHAIRPERSON: Dan Gott PHONE NUMBER: 639-3065 bkm/SDR89-13. BKM LUbH VILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT %j PAGE U 1 IIf1A 1-TI Tn/~ ~r„. w^ D°r n 98th AVG ci S •W a q ~F ~ v ~ try ~ N 95TH r Z SA AV N 94 th 95 -t cn SW Oh m v ~ ~ ~ Ifi ~ /,C~, ~ ~ ~ v C~2 2nd AViC. O.~ S . W. 9 A 92nd v E 9 ~o S .W• S. 91 st N ti ELF g l st AVE. 9 W gist AVE r S .W I LtNC L ~VF 90TH 'Cl y~ sw. acs f ~ S'j• ` AV E A a\ ..C7 L MT r - ~xx -n too h .O o yy ~Sti , rd ~ ~~vv-wv _ LLSUV DENNIS C. &.LYNNE M. THOMPSON 523 S.W_ 62ND DR. SDR 89-13/V 89-21 Dolan/A-Boy PORTLAND, OREGON 97219 • 1100 4900 *OHN T. & FLORENCE DOLAN OTTO SORG MARY ANN H. 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, OREGON 97204 P.O. BOX 1003 EVERETT, WASHONGTON 98201 DAN GOTT 800 5000 13230 SW HILL CT MICHAEL J. HEUVELHORST MARGARET MC DAID TIGARD,"OR 97223 % GEORGE S. KADEY JR. 9225 S.W. BURNHAM ST. 12551 S.W. MAIN ST. TIGARD, OREGON 97223• TIGARD, OREGON 97223 500 900 CHARLES-L. & ARLIE C. WOODARD EUGENE L. & VIVIAN DAVIS P.O. BOX 23303 4550 S.W. LOMBARD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97005 600 5100 + 2000 D A & DORRIS N. CORDI *BART P_ & JEAN VERMILYE ALEX, LOTTI & HANS CHRISTIAN RICHARD L. & BARBRA J. 272 S_W..CAPITAL HWY_ ~ FINKE DRINKWATER PORTLAND, OREGON 97219 P.O. BOX 23562 9205 S.W. BURNHAM TIGARD, OREGON 97562 PORTLAND, OREGON 97206 300 JOHN T. & FLORENCE DOLAN 4025 S.E. BROOKLYN ST. PORTLAND, OREGON 97202 5200 200 2200 FURER SCOTT REAL ESTATE PARTNERS1 PAGE N. STEVENS GERALD C. &f JOAN L. CACH 9185 S.W. BURNHAM RD. 9180 S.W. BURNHAM RD_ 15170 S.W. SUNRISE LANE TIGARD, OREGON 97223 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 202 2400 SOUTHWEST PORTLAND PARTNERSHIP DONALD E. & SHIRLEY HANSON 2121 N. COLUMBIA BLVD. P.O. BOX 12 PORTLAND, OREGON 97217 WEMME, OREGON 97067 203 CITY OF TIGARD 2 00. BOX 23397 420 S.W. MAIN TIGARD, OREGON 97223 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD 1101 2402 EXHIBIT # JOHN R. & LOIS GULLEY WILLIAM H. & AUDREY BURTON PAGE # 14095 S.J. HARGIS RD. DANIEL & MIRIAM BERTULEIT BEAVERTON, OREGON 97208 MARVIN R_ & KATHRYN ANKELE l71 11 c r.r MATM Cr - MBMORANDiT~i CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO:. Jerry Offer FROM: Randy Wooley,-City Engine DATE: June 22, 1989 SUBJECT: SDR 89-13/V 89-21 Dolan/A-Boy Comments The applicant proposes to construct a new building and remove the existing structure on the A-Boy site. The site fronts on Main street and is bordered on the west by Fanno Creek. The applicant has submitted plans showing the existing topography, the proposed development, the storm drainage plan, and a landscape plan. Findings 1. 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 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 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 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 reconstruction of Main Street be required as a condition of this 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. 2. 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 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. • ENGINEERING COMMENTS - DOLAN/A-BOY SDR 89-13/V 89-21 PAGE 1 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # (D PAGE # 4 7 • 3. The site slopes toward Fanno Creek; therefore adequate storm drainage is available. 4.' 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 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 top of bank and the proposed building. Typically, new developments along Fanno Creek are required to dedicate greenway to protect the flood plain and to provide for the park pathway system. 6. 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. 7. 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. 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 within 15 feet of the flood plain. A monument9dboundary 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 so as not to intrude into the greenway area. STAFF CONTACT: Jon Feigion. 2. As 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 cuts which are being abandoned. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman. 3. 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 CONTACT: Greg Berry. • ENGINSMRING COMMENTS - DOLAN/A-BOY SDR 89-13/V 89-21 PAGE 2 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # -D)6 PAGE # CQ y 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 9 device formed to reconstruct Main Street.' STAFF CONTACT: Jon Feigion. dj/SDR89-13.RW • ENGINEERING COMMENTS - DOLAN/A-BOY SDR 89-13/V 89-21 PAGE 3 1 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # _3(a PAGE # a- ALBERT R. KENNEY,,Jf CONSULTING ENGINEER 9500 SW BARBUR BLVD • SUITE 111 • PORTLAND, OR 97219 • 503/244-9811 • FAX 244-9817 f :'J CITY OF TIGARD 05-09-89 COMMUNITY DEVELOPEMENT Job #88037 PO BOX 23397 TIGARD, OR 97223 Attention: JERRY OFFER Re: A-BOY EXPANSION/ REPLACEMENT (SDR 89-13) Dear Mr Offer; I am writing to you at the request of John Dolan owner of A-Boy and the property at 12520 SW Main st. Desiring to refurbish, upgrade and enlarge this facility the Dolans 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, & limitations. Since the store does not attract "browsers & window shoppers", their merchandise is bulky, and a large percentage of the floor area is devoted to racking / display their parking needs are modest. The existing facility of 9700 sq ft rarely has more than six or eight vehicles on site at any one time. A vehicle/sq ft ratio for the new building would be similar and even an anticipated growth of sales greater than the ratios of the new/exist'g sq footage would result in vehicle counts far less than that proposed. As a combined retail-wholesale "destination" type of business they hope to attract similar/complemenatary business(es) to the site. (future phase(s)) Should add'1 building(s) be built and a need be felt for more parking the contiguous parcel (TL 400) is owned by the Dolans and is to made available for 35-40 additional spaces. It is this writers and the owners request that the parking requirement for this building be set at no greater than 1/600 sq ft (30 sp) as this ratio more accuratly reflects the needs and reality of the project. If you have any questions or desire additional information do not hesitate to contact me. Respectfully, Albert R..Kenney, Jr. PE ARK:a cc: file, Dolan LUBA FILING -'CITY OF TIGARD LICENSED IN: CALIFORNIA • COLORADO • IDAHO • MONTANA • NEVADA • OREGON • WASHINGTON • WYOMI EXHIBIT # 37 PAGE # S O = =CITY®F'I6ARD ®RE60NT -:a {,.:,.t~_> 3i z►~~~=s t r2.~Yia..'~•L-:.} " ?t?.. J;.Ie . ~ 2'3'rS`i t r `~ir.K. .t" r1 - " iii-..^,J". e'. ..,"J .r. ~._.`s ! ".r't •k ;xi r5: ' - _ i'6C .tom SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION CITY OF TIGARD, 13125 SW Hall, PO Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 - (503) 639-4171 FOR STAFF USE ONLY CASE. NO. • ? b OTHER CASE NO•S: RECEIPT NO. . ' APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY: DATE:_ 1. GENERAL INFORMATION Application elements submitted: PROPERTY ADDRESS/LOCATION l/ (A) Application form (1) MAW ST; T/ A p V (B) Owner's signature/written TAR MAP AND TAX LOT NO.- T 1-- 7 00 authorization 21- 2 -/A C (C) Title transfer instrument (1) ITE SIZE Ot.-AN~ VAD) Assessor's map (1) PROPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDER* iON" T F:)--Ofe-HNC9* E) Plot plan (pre-app checklist) ADDRESS 7 aj 4 4- S e FOST.r rL PHONE ~ 2 S- 9G~ 9 ✓(F) Applicant's statement CITY POr~T ~.N Ofd ZIP 9720 eo (pre-app checklist) APPLICANT* vA"E5 f.0 1!~LC/VNf- 3/ J/Z' P~ ✓(G) List of property owners and ADDRESS 1506 SfU PHONE 1044c~~,9~i 1. addresses within 250 feet (1) CITY F(,--,112, r--/ ,g11J,D Or- ZIP (H) Filing fee 31 S~ ) *When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a leasee in possession with written authorization DATE DETEWNED TO BE COMPLETE: from the owner or an agent of the owner with written authorization. The owner(s) must sign this application in the space provided on page two or FINAL DECISION DEADLINE: submit a written authorization with this application. COMP. PLAN/ZONE DESIGNATION: 2. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The owners of record of the subject property / request site development review approval to N.P.O. Number: allow n~P!A[~t-iC►•»' ofx19T~1.1C> Approval Date: SALES F-Aco.►TY w(TN A LA(~~~~- • BJ t ~O I'J Gi Final Approval Date: Plar-aing LUBA FILING -CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # 3S PAGE # Eng? n;--ering - 4524P/13: _ Revd 5/37 / „ 3. List. any variance, conditional }use, sensitive lands, or other land use ,actions rt to' be considered.as part of this application VA1Z.I~NC REQyE91-~17 ` Fon:' P/~►(Z2+tv4 - RE© kF.:tvT AC!-t~~?~x rx~ , Y ~Y `~r L:. ;•T ~..~r~zr ~ y~Ryy«zz'~. j ~~t 3:LN t ; ~ -~~f.~"'"'~~ 4. Applicants :To have a complete application. you will need to submit attachments described in :the`. "attached information `sheet `at the time you submit 'this kapplication. 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',r: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. All of the-above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, may be revoked if it is found ttkat'.any such statements are false. D. The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. DATED this day of Y 19~ • . QED PRaF~s SIGNATURES of each owner (eg. husband and wife) of th , Itn► 6566 (KSL:pm/0524P) LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # 3 PAGE # July 6 , 1989 sr C - S.W. THORN sr. a SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 89-03 BROWN%SHAW NPO # 5 The Subser and sworn to efore me this. Director has approved subject to conditions a request for Site Development Review approval to construct a 25,000 sq. ft. warehouse. ZONE: I-P (Indus- trial Park) LOCATION: 7455 S.W. Bonita Road, (WCTM 2S1 12AB, TL 1500) 1 My Commission Expires: 9/20/92 l AFFIDAVIT ~o J m v z , a J cRFfi¢ u \ f SITE. „ FNIHO \ J o 4, S.w wEAVEk J P. sw " war . i KROESE. o / L P M ~ J t o -l K FT 1 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 89-13 VARIANCE V 89-21 DOLAN/A- I BOY NPO #1 For approval to reconstruct a general retail sales facility, A- i 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 Main Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC, tax lot 700) t4 9 SITE a OG SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 89-15 BUILDING STRUCTURES, INC. NPO # 2 The Director has approved subject to conditions a request to allow construction of an auto service facility 5120 square feet in size. ZONE Northern S/: C-G (General Commercial), southern.%: R-12 (Resi denfml,12 units/acre). LOCATION: 9730 SW Shady Lane (WCTM 1SI 35BD, tax lot 800) l . S.w f SHamr: lN` 4y OLVO. L 9Y c fir, e LUBA FILING CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # ~NOR7H oAKOTA` ' PAGE # MINOR LAND PARTTI ION MLP 89-10`McOUARY NPO # 5 The Director Map 2812 AC 500.. ' - Woodard, . Charles L.: and Arlie C P.0. Box 23303 Tigard, Or. 97223 600 Vermilye, Hobart P. Jean 11272 S.W. Capital Hwy. Portland, Or. 97219 400 John T. & Florence T. Dolan 7344 S.E ter Rd. Portl , Or. 97206 300 John T. Dolan & Florence 4025 S.E. Brooklyn St. Portland, Or. 97202 200 Stevens, Page N. ;9180 S.W. Burnham Rd • Tigard, Or. 97223 202 Southwest Portland Partnership 2121 N. Columbia Blvd. Portland, Or. 97217 203 City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 12420 S.W. Main Tigard, Or. 97223 1101 Gulley, John R. Lois I 14095 S.W. Hargis Rd. Beaverton, Or. 97005 1100 Sorg, Otto By First Interstate Bank of Oregon N A P.O. Box 2971 Portland, Or. 97208 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # 1200 - Seafirst Real. Estate. Group . 101 S.W.-Main #1520 Portland, Or. 97204 800 Heuvelhorst, Michael J. % Kadey, George S. Jr. 12551 S.W. Main St. Tigard, Or. 97223 900 Davis, Eugene L. Vivian 4550 S.W. Lombard Beaverton, Or. 97005 Map 251/2AB 2000 Finke, Alex and Lotti and Hans Christian 7-100 P.O. Box 23562 Tigard, Or. 97562 d Lotti and Hans Christian • 2jDQ Finke, e<562 P.O. Box Tig ar Or562 2-200 Cach, Gerald C. Joan L. 15170 S.W. Sunrise Ln. Tigard, Or. 97223 2400 Hanson; Donald E. Shirley 2300 P.O. Box 12 1N61 Wemme, Or 97067 -2389 Hans Don E. Shirley P.O. Bo We Or. 97 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # t4(' PAGE # S S I 2402''. Burton, William H./ Audrey Bertuleit, Daniel / Miriam % Ankele, Marvin R.`/ Kathryn 12511 S.W. Main St. Tigard, Or. 97223 124IIT Hanson, nald E. Shirley P.O. Bo 12 Wemme, Or 7067 2800 Thompson, Dennis C. Lynne-.M. 9523 S.W. 62nd Dr. Portland Or. 97219 4900 Dreeszen, Mary Ann H. 13200 S.W. Howard Dr. Tigard, Or. 97223 4800 General Telephone,Company of the Northwest P.O. Box 1003 Everett, Wa. 98201 5000 McDaid, Margaret 9225 S.W. Burnham St. Tigard, Or. 97223 5100 Cordi, D A Dorris N. % Drinkwater, Richard L and Barbra J. 9205 S.W. Burnham Portland, Or. 97206 5200 Furrer & Scott Real Estate Partnership 9185 S. W. Burnham Rd Tigard, Or. 97223 • LUBA FILING CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # y Q PAGE # as (n REQUEST FOR COMFITS • TO:1( 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 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 9, 1989.. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you 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 this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, PO Box 23397, 13125 SW 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. >J= x Written comments: Ti-\ i c- S o i~ PL v ~y~~D ~rNC~ 1-i T ~E .rnJ ST/'\ LLr- z) H1 N1z.) 0~,\\/ft 2ow, Soc.. ~'~-1 f~- rv T,dE NN< I~ll~►N ~TRE1-r ~t r.tolZ T- S TAfZT • _Go Jv S ~ ~ C_T / V A N U r R r- /9 / n/ y~v T/ ~ si ~ L Gno\/ SS/< VG 3-/ 4c>^/ /S LILrF P-3~ S~=cTJc~J ~J~O7(C) i Name of Person Commenting: Phone Number: J bkm/SDR89-13.BKM LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD _ o r o T S ° EXHIBIT PAGE # - `"7 RECEIVED F:.'r"!MG MAY 31 1989 REQUEST FOR COMMSHTS T0: ~ l al(' to( 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 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 9, 1989. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond bV 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 this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, PO Box 23397, 13125 SW 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: Phone Number: • bkm/SDR89-13.BKM LUBA FILING CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT it ~'1 I PAGE # `~/,q~, ~~I /y► . ~RE-~,QII.Eo,S'T FOR COKKKNTS • TO: 1"V"~ ll V~(/~ (J~:GV~ uC~7~y (e 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 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 9, 1989. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond bV 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 this matter,. contact the Tigard Planning Department, PO Box 23397, 13125 SW 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:\ Vy~UC Phone Number: bkm/SDR89-13.BKM LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # y PAGE # S 9 ~I . REQUEST FOR SITS C( TO: LJ'tN 1 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 information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information. available to our staff, a report prepared and a decision will be rendered on the ` CONSOUDATED FIRE AND RESCUE If you wish to comment on this .application, we Washington County Fue District No. 1 1989. You may use the space provided below o: City of Beaverton Fire Department return your comments. If you are unable to resX toy Tualatin Fue District phone the staff contact noted below with you - FIRE MARSHALS OFFICE comments in we'iting as soon as possible. If yot e.•~ro. - an.m - rw+yay,..~„„. _ Sn.w,,,_ T9„,,_ ru~.~ .mya„ Cmy this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Depart cr* ca„y - W Gene Birchill Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE: 639-4171. Deputy Fue ttAarsBirc ns Examiner • 6-2502 STAFF CONTACT: Viola Goodwin (503) 52 4755 S.W. Griffith Drive P.O. Box 4755 Beaverton. Oregon 97076 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. n X Written Comments: F t G~ Fc, G 7 C J ~v ~fi lei S Name of Person Commenting: Z-4y1J<_ ) 1 Irk (--f- 1 G Phone Number: L - &0 bkm/SDR89-13.BKM LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # 441 PAGE # Q 16 D RECEIVED PUNNING JUN 51989 f~REQUEST FOR OOMMUM • TO: S`~ 0.C CL~i 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 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 9, 1989. You may use the space provided below or attach a sepatate letter to return your comments. If you 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 this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, PO Box 23397, 13125 SW 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: Nl~kJA"rCAC, U/4S ~i<45 Qn J A61 /YT u rz .Jov C en ~c~c.s~. on 5 t i A-fa. 14 a-1? C~ Sev-uccc 4) 12,5-zr) jccl G(Ie 14,11 ,11 j-eye,.-c /,a~rfiCc~tiCV* n v o r 4c Gee- .z-, p Name of Person Commenting: Phone Number : S7 'L-, bkm/SDR89-13.BKM LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # I JUN 13 1989 WN • REQUEST FOR OOM UMS TO: 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 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 9, 1989. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return. your comments. If you 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 this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, PO Box 23397, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE: 639-4171. • STAFF CONTACT: Viola Goodwin PLEASCK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and-ham o sections to it. C Qwt LE/l~ Please contact of our office. Please refer to the encllosedr letter. n Written Comments: Ic~G ~y~ Sf l~~W~L~ d/V I- AN-0S~P,-- /'Z,41/ COOL D ~GOGIC 1// w OF ~f1ST ,00t,11W % ~F~XZ A 'ON-,Oj ZW AI Zie SSA O(& D 1-14 Ve So VA40 67r -,4e 66-Wl ve FE~yG INS NOS ~Sl~O r~✓/1~, .960121 KC-19 FM Goi AFf,ER a,LD 97-ogE tS .00wN? Name of Person Commenting : ~7 E~'` t QC s Phone Number: (o JI? l bkm/SDR89-13.BKM LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # 4) PAGE # (o • REQUEST FOR CONS TO:.. v 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 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 9, 1989. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you 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 this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, PO Box 23397, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE: 639-4171. i 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: f Phone Number: ~ b]an/SDR89-13. BKM LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # 7t PAGE # a (p Y _ Slav/~s~( { RRQDBST FOR COMROMTS TO:YX hT ITGC ~/~Q 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 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 9, 1989. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you 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 this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, PO Box 23397, 13125 SW ; 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: Phone Number: bkm/SDR89-13.BKM LUBA F - 1LING CITY OF TIGf1RD EXHIBIT # l~Z PAGE # L, y . NOTIFICATION' LIST FOR ALL APPLICATIONS 1...: NPO No.:..' CPO No. 1 2. CITY DEPARTMENTS W V Building InsPector/Brad R.~ W Parks & Recreation Board/Curtis S. City Recorder Police Engineering/Gary A. Other 3. SPECIAL DISTRICTS Fire District School Dist. No. 48 (Beaverton) (pick-up box bldg.) Joy Pahl PO Box 200 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. Other 4. AFFECTED JURISDICTIONS • 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 lst Ave. Portland, OR 97201-5398 City of Beaverton % Jim Hendryx PO Box 4755 - 4755 SW Griffith Beaverton, Olt 97076 State Highway Division Other Lee Gunderson PO Box 565 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD Beaverton, OR 97075 EXHIBIT # L) _~;L cat (c 7. SPECIAL AGENCIES PAGE # V/General Telephone Portland General Electric Ed Wilmott Jim Johnson 12460 SW Main Portland General Electric Tigard, OR 97223 14655 SW Old Scholls Ferry Beaverton, OR 97007 _ZNorthwest Natural Gas Metropolitan Area Communications Ronald D. Polvi PE, PLS Twin Oaks Technology Center 220 NW Second Ave. 1815 NW 169th Place, S-6020 Portland, OR 97209 Beaverton, OR 97006-4886 Pacific Northwest Bell Other (0257P/0006P) 1 5. STATE AGENCIES )i _ _ T • Aeronautics Div. (ODOT) "__M DOGAMI i 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 Corps of Engineers Other Post Office 0257P/0006P • LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT y of PAGE i U to co Y• is VI / ~ . r -1 (A '`Ti Z / N 1a 10 - ~ ' •~~f~~\\ 111 ~ p 1 / 1 ` m 1I • Z h. ~ ti'' k~ii;?~a' ~~X;.;!n~ ;t; ~t~';~' 4.k,'• ~ j In I , • :5.~~• ; i « ~+!'1~7{ ~~Y.r' , c,'i'+i 1 Y°'. '•nT"(' 4_. - O L ~ ~ ' ~ r<~'1i..•}..krc~.:•. p~ .1.~ i''~'rp a•' S p to . f • ,,w ~i a Sy~~ "s .,F.;.•r~ L/~ • ; ~Ji,,~.. ~i y„~ r~{f~' ' "t}• _'r) 1 5V~• _ N • ~ i ' :r^ ~ • I •%li~:'i . ,1Y•~~i,. ii i•i • ~Y • r ili5~~ ~Fiipl'jl 'Ff~ ~ I ~ , 1 1 1 0'. a`• ~J ~ r,:~: • yam.: 3 1 ~ } II •f'~+tC• , IL. rJ':;R'~:Il+t!'~i" ~1 1 it s`'c '-i',` o' h, f:,.,.. 1 v :a= -iw ul t _ 1.,r~ , __.--'-mac' . ~ - I i` t~'I it 1 :I' II I t,...:.. { ~I •:s..' Dili 1 'i,;, .ti •:<•'.11 ' 1 ^iirtki~S'eh;.~;•;~Y,c1~Ei 1 . ''f., tf~ riy~~F Z~f•e ~•1.'' •r_ ^ }II )C c ~ ~I 1 1 r ' a _ ~ Fes, N , s . - r II 1~1 n1 z1 z rrn mH~ i DI Z I I • i 1 O CV Q H Oregon Property Code Area x. Aii0 1 .4.t.:k ~ ,3 1E7500 U. y.. 9 4 6 0 0 O June 30,1989 Property Description (Tax Lot Number) BUILDING*: ` 94fi06^,,..••.,••.:; ' S ~k z1+ r~- WASH. C3. Map Number Parcel Special M EXEMPTION * 262100 V Township Range Section 1l4 1116 Interest P A Net Assessed Value 25Z,10,0a Ht Tax Rate Each $1000 '7c21'1 • REAL 2S12AC 00700 1„ t 26 30 Acres Class Sub-Class Pull Number Property Taxes iz''~ . #,'ti;.,. T .li,. 6368.17 Property Taxes 0 201 t : ; • N• Current Taxes Levied By Tax Rate Tax Amount .j Taxpayer WASH GTON~°C 95: 773.67 S, H :other PTLO,:CO.MM.:COL.t~ii:;co.it.x,::>~ri,z: ~92~0 240.95 m co Ld Than ORT OF POR.T , .39 ^Fy 102.38 J W a Owner METRO ..SERY,.DT.. ~~..34;9.. 90.08 WASH CO ESO...;:, 68.38 " DOLAN. JOhN T SCN DIST 's23 ~zsT':`.lb4b.: 3789.73 4025 SE BROOKLYN TIGARD .WD :;;:Spct,'~y15 T`4 38.58 PORTLAND OR 97202 NIF SAGE AGY,,•,..36 93.94 TUALATIN RFPD 2.49 652.31 CITY-T.IGARID 518.15 ; 1*67AC _ r;r r,r~ nr:e,•~;-{u }a„::autny •:12520.,SW.:)<AIN , :.,'•,r •,•,'„~.c~v!+...~ ;=r,;:~t't.sv+~t:;:•:t*.rsi,~ A-BOY WEST ttttttttttitti♦ii4iiiiitttt •r.-•, CO 3 9 9 8 4 7/11/84 Property Tax Totals 1 6368.17 4 Interest Included 11 15 88 Delinquent Taxes Tax Year Amount s ; Foreclosure proceedings will be P s 4 started after July 15 on real CS ,.y,. 1~,,• L property accounts with an unpaid A N . j . balance for any tax year marked T 6 368 7 1 Total Taxes and Assessments with an asterisk . PLEASE A 55E ENT AND X Qiscount Allowed * Pay By Pay One of These Amounts MAKE P 0 BOX 3587 FULL -3-/ 191.05 11'1°'88 6177012 PAYMENT PORTLAND. OREGON 97298 TO: (!03) 648-8741 2/3.2% 84.91 11-15-88 4160.51 Tax [)iscJlnt. Total 1/3 • None 11" 1.5a 8 8 2122.73 Checr, Cash Change *READ PAYMENT INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE 1988-89 I' 3N Ca W ASH INTr G so:s aos inev.~a~ SAVE THIS PART FOR YOUR RECORDS TRANSM=TTAt_ • Date: 05-15-89 Job no: 88037 TO: TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPEMENT Attn: JERRY OFFER PO BOX 23397 TIGARD OR 97223 Re: A-BOY SDR-89-13 ENCLOSED: 1) copy tax statement showing ownership • via [X] Mail [ j Messenger [ j Cab ( ] Com Carrier [ ] other [ ] for your information. [ ] for your records. [X] for your use. [ ] for action [ ] no action reqd [ ] per your request [ ] no response reqd. [x] please call (if a question) [ ] for approval. [ ] written response please [ ] for comment. [ ] URGENT! COMMENTS: Copy to: file, REPLY TO: Albert R. Kenney, Jr. P.E. CONSULTING ENGINEER 9500 S. W. BARBUR BLVD #111 Portland, OR 97219 (503) 244-9811 FAX (503) 244-9817. ' LUBA FILING - ITY OF TIGARD. EXHIBIT # PAGE # Sf.3 q 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 0& Portland, OR 97219 Portland, OR 9721.9- REQUEST: 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 would be required. LOCATION: 12520 SW Main St. (WCTM 2S1 2AC TL #700) ZONING DESIGNATION: CBD (Central Business District) • COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: CBD NPO NO: 1 CHAIRPERSON: Dan Gott PHONE: 639-3065, 625-2560 _X STAFF DECISION PLANNING COMMISION DATE TIME HEARINGS OFFICER DATE TIME CITY COUNCIL DATE TIME R REQUEST FOR COMMENTS see attached list) RETURN BY ATTACHMENTS: X VICINITY MAP X LANDSCAPING PLAN X NARRATIVE R ARCHITECTURAL PLAN X SITE PLAN * NPO, Bldg, Library, Ping STAFF CONTACT PERSON: Jerry Offer A)- PREPARE FOR PLANNER APPROVAL: ADVERTISEMENT - TIMES OREGONIAN To Be Determined ' NOTICE TO PROPERTY -OWNERS TO BE MAILED LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE OF _APPLICATION` 77/ . ; NOTICE TO DLCD =ATTACHMENTS: y-` s LUBA_FILING =CITY !OF TIGARD i EXHIBIT 1: PAGE # 7 O t t May 3, 1989 • John T. Dolan 4025 SE Brooklyn St. Portland OR 97202 City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. P.O. Box 23397 Tigard OR 97223 Dear Sirs; The purpose of this letter is to authorize Mr Albert R. Kenney to act in my behalf to apply for a building permit, any neceesary variances, and go through the design review process. My property is located at 12525 SW Main Street in downtown Tigard. If there is any questions or problems please give me a call at my office at 225-9009. Sincerely yours, • ohn T. Dolan LUBA FILING - CITY OF:TIGARO I EXHIBIT.# ' PAGE # a~ ti A-BOTSUP~--LY CO. 1919 N.W. NINETEENTH ST. • PORTLANO, OR 97209 • [503] 225-9009 • May 3, 1989 Albert R. Kenney, Jr. Consulting Engineer 9500 SW Barbur Blvd. Suit 111 Portland OR 97219 Dear Al, Enclosed is a letter to authorize you to apply for the building permit in Tigard. I also am enclosing a check to the City of Tigard for $315.00 to cover the initial permit fee. If you have any questions please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely yours, x" Dan J. Dolan Secretary-Treasurer • LUBA FILING - CITY OF.TIGARD - EXHIBIT:# 7 PAGE # a`1 a r SILHOUETTE SAR Series 175 watts to 400 watts High Pressure Sodium Metal Halide nul Listed for o Wet Locations EPA = 1.0 PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS O CONSTRUCTION ❑ INSTALLATION Precision die-cast aluminum housing. One- Available in several distinct mounting TENON MOUNT: Architectural bronze painted piece construction eliminates the threat of arrangements to meet a variety of applications. extruded aluminum tenon. 4" round accessory leaking. Fnished in Ouraplex II" architectural adapts to 2" (2%" OD) x 4" tenons normally bronze polyester powder for superior resistance MOUNTING ARM: Extruded aluminum mounting • arm features ample splice chamber permitting found on existing 4" and 6" round or square against the elements. One-piece die-cast the use of 600C wire. (150°C wire must be used poles, (see accessories). aluminum lens frame with integral hinges held fastened with captive stainless steel hardware. when splices are made internally in the fixture). ❑ LAMP Heat and shock resistant tempered glass lens is Arms are factory installed on the fixture to speed (Not supplied). Clear mogul base as specified. permanently sealed to lens frame via liquid field installation and are available in two styles, silicone. Lens frame assembly is seated to round pole mount and square pole mount (see housing via continuous neoprene rubber ordering information). gasketing. Premium porcelain socket equipped with vibration proof "lamp-grip" shelf with reinforced center contact for positive ft. O OPTICS One-piece hydroformed Alzak® reflector for consistent performance. Hinged reflector assembly swings down for easy access to ballast compartment Reflector system precisely designed for IES Type III cutoff. Superior control places only 19% of right on house side to minimize trespass and 49% on street side for superior efficieniby. 6" O BALLAST HPF-CWA ballast or equivalent mounted to integral heat-sink for maximum heat dtssiparon to outside ambient . e" JLL ' ` Item No.:~. n . _ • E LUBA FILING - CITY-OF TIGARD `Y z ,1'. A'~i' 1= r_- • f ~i EXHIBIT # Lit' -;yam: f . PAGE ri • ~'~~IG COMB6-ff )I EFFFCTIVE:.hru PUMP «CL....A March 31, 1989 • FIXTURE SELECTION POLE TYPE PACKAGE PRICE Ideal for Pathway/ SBR033NLXL Landscape Lighting. SSS4-42" high, 4" Sq. 1 75 An effective alternative SBR053NLXL SQUARE STEEL. to bollards. SBR073NLXL SBR103NLXL SSS12..-12' high, 4" sq. $260 Ideal for lower mounting SBR153NLXL SQUARE STRAIGHT STEEL height application when "human scale" Is part of the design critera. All fixtures suppliod with clear, medium base tamps and equipped with NPF Reactor ballast for 120V input only. SSS18-18' high, 4" sq. $425 SAR253LXF SQUARE STRAIGHT STEEL SAR403LXF SSS20-20' high, 4" sq. Ideal for roadway and SAR173MAF .;SQUARE STRAIGHT,.STEEL $450 parking lot lighting. SAR253MAF "M-0: 111=A r SSS25--25' high, 4" sq. 405 SQUARE STRAIGHT STEEL SAR1003LXF SSS30-30' high, 5" S ideal for roadway and SAR1003MAF SQUARE STRAIGHT STEEL q' $750 parking lot lighting. - SAR1000MAF LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD i.. EXHIBIT # _ _ , VOLTAGE: indicate desired voltage-120V. 208V, 240V; P PAGE. # W w- u/s.. 4 ..'i ties....: r,:'f~v:. ,ya. •f!. ;i,.;, I pe; n;== PACKAGE PR/CE Includes:'" Pole and single head fixture delivered. For prices on multiple head_fiztu~es, contact Sales dept:` i Kf.~' by d'Sl d- ri:' r ORDERING INSTRl1CT10NS_~ Select fixture and order by using CatalogNo..w.~ J: 2. Select desired pole and order by using Catalog NO., All poles are predrilled for twin and plugged to ease Installation. All poles are rated for a maximum 80 mph wind with a 1.3 gust factor. All poles are shipped complete with base cover, anchor bolls and template. CC'O_'71 _a0 T11C 0 - AX !~A??..235taC~4 P. 03 Catalog No.O Catalog No.O I.E.S. W/Arm for sq. pole W/Arm for 4" rd. pole Watts Lamp Base Class HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM SAR203LXF SAF1203LXC 200 Et 8, Clear Mogul III Medium • SAR253LXF SAR253LXC 250 E18, Clear Mogul III Medium SAR403LXF SAR403LXC 400 E1 B Clear Mogul III Medium METAL HALIDE SAR173MAF SAR173MAC 175 828, Clear Mogul flu Medium SAR253MAF SAR253MAC 250 B28, Clear Mogul 111 Medium SAR403MAF SAR403MAC 400 B37, Clear Mogul III Medium ORotating cast mourding plate on end of arm field converts unit from round to square or square to round pole mounting. 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 polycarbonate shield protects floodlight from rocks, air-gun pellets, or other FUSING: Fusing protects HID circuitry in pole mounted installations. It is suggested that missiles. Free air-flow between lens and fuses are mounted within pole base for accessibility and ease of maintenance. visor prevents destructive or "browning" For 120V and 277V Single fusing ...............................................-FS effect of heat build-up SAFLV For 208V, 240V and 480V. Double fusing .........................................FFS TENON MOUNT: (2%" OD) PHOTOCONTROL: Factory-installed plug-in twist-to-lock dusk-to-dawn control (P400 One Arm SARTM100 Series) meets EEt-NEMA standards. Temperature range minus 50°17 to plus 150°F. Two Arms at 90° SARTM090 Built-in time delay eliminates off-and-on cycling due to momentary light flashes. Control Two Arms at 1800 SARTM160 matches specified fixture voltage rating .........................................-TLR/PC Three Arms at 120° SARTM300 PHOTOCONTROL: (Button Type) factory installed in housing back ..................PC8 Four Arms at 90° SARTM400 PHOTOMETRICS ntla kt°nl dlstanp/mounting t.s td mi. Istsrsl 4lstsrwaft fandrlg M1pM 2 2 c 1 _ 1! f to F o to s zg o s~ 1 2 2 s l( 2 ' .s • s e a CONVERSION TABLE e. ' g for di fferent mounting heights s. a z c o, z a. s . a z t o l z a. CAT. NO.: SAR403LXF 15' 2.77 30 69 CAT. NO. SAR403MAF ITLREPOAT:29514 `{.20"=" 1:56'; 35 .51 ITL REPORT. 29515 LAMP: 40OW high pressure sodium. 25' 1.00 40' .39 LAMP: 40OW metal halide, dear . 34000 dear. 50000 lumens lumens REFLECTOR: Specular Attac® one- REFLECTOF Altali cue piece mulfi-faceted hydroform piece mutli..tacded hydrdgm.r MOUNTING HEIGHT: 25', Tilt Angle 0° MOUNTING HEIGHT; 25' Tilt Angle IES CLASS: Type III cut-off. medium IIES CI.ASS:,Type 111 aft off rnednim CONVERSION FOR WATTAGE CONVERSION FOR WATTAGE: 20OW HPS multiply by .44.250W HPS 175W H multiply by .39.250W MH multiply by S5 rmAtiply by 57 SUGGESTED SPECIFICATIONS Fahae shad be outdoor weatherproof area fighter sealed and held in place with relafner dips. One rebcatable to hang securely on ether 18" we of the sharp cutoff hfminaire, for MD. lamps Housing and a tnrded soft comered mountng arm with access luminafre to optimize servicinq lens frame shad each be one piece corrosion resistant door to splicing clamber will be ikcuded with Fodue shad be equipped with deduce, glazed die-cast aluminum with radlused edges andcorners, each lumina'se. porcelain lamp socket with nickel plated, vibration- The low EPA of 1.0 lumina'tre shad be (mished in The mounting arm construction shall allow for proof -tamp W. screw shed and sprvg-badW Duraplex If- dark bronze polyester powder. Fature searing kaniaire on a square or round pole, all center contact Sockets in high pressure sodium units shad be furnished with an ideWal constant wattage mou ifrg hardware shad be hidden inside the arm. shad be pulse-rated for 4 KV. high power factor ballast (type CWA). mounted to Mamting arraigemerts of one, two, three or bur way Distrbktion shad be Type 3 medium as cassTied by due-cast housing for heat dissipatiorx shelf be possible. Two unique reflectors are avaifabl% IES with no trespass house side distribution slowing Lens frame shad be one piece corrosion resistant . one for NO pressue sodium and one for metal only 11170% of output on the house tide and 49.1996:. - die oast ahm im m with integral tinges and radased halide lamps. output on the street side when using 400 waft high conkers held by two captive stainless steel fasteners. The hydrdorrn reflector shad be one place rthudi r. :pressure sodcum souces. GT29%efficient Lens frame will provide instant equal pressure an the : ' faceted f h18h PuUY. atuminun wdfk spealar Afral~ Photometric vahres sled to provided by an neoprene gasket sealing the optical chamber from rain.: "finish and shad be hinged at the 14' end of thhe' Independent tesrng laboratory. Specify W Cat. W.'-' dust and insects. Frame will retain an optic* dear. ; lumhinake and held u806ve with two 1 /4 him fastenersti' (spea7y) w+ (heat and import resistant tempered glass lur>SS silicone' Reflector assembly shall be removeable and ' H3WP a Division of LyteBrands LUBA FILING- ' !CITY OF TIGARD G'EKY* rECOwwn'y 2345 VAUXHALL ROAD; UNION. NJ 07083 ❑ 201-5 EXHIBIT # "1 n 1 °°OCgiber1 PAGE # oZ S i i OA- 0 gSO taY`• ti rj g,W. ~ N Z ~ d• I2hP~ -t Z O r T H I v, 95 r z I S.W. - ~ 94th pVE• S'W. g3rc -s N SW A. , h m P ~ 4 Q Z co Z r t itt f , .4 m P fi ~to~ W• 92nd AVE. 92nd AVE 'Q o S .W. l .~1~► ' , Cy W 91 st CT. ` 4~y ;`,4LF AVE. 1st AVE S' 1 '92~~ ~ AVE • AVE • r t.INC L 90TH SW. ` N • C0 lp f S ~ tAI Y A AV E r c tT1 ~ 9 - rD ~a 5 L6 . a qsy rd 1• S to f f 1/0 Chi Date :5-7 CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY 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: ;.H Application form (1 copy) v8) Owner's signature/written authorization © Title transfer instrument Assessor's map ,,,E7 Plot or site plan [ate t,F) Applicant's statementt"S.eca7i%) List of property owners & addresses within 250 feet v~ Filing fee ) _ [ 5e -c 17e : dl e hl.:. SPECIFIC MATERIALS A) Site Information showing (No. of copies): Vicinity Map Site size & dimensions • al'- Contour lines (2 ft at 0-16% or 5 ft for grades > 10%) t4-y Drainage patterns, courses, and ponds [l1/' 5) Locations of natural hazard areas including: Floodplain areas CL]/ b) Slopes in excess of 25% c) Unstable ground C ] d) Areas with high seasonal water table [ ] e) Areas with severe soil erosion potential [ ] f) Areas having severely-weak foundation soils [ ] 6) Location of resource areas as shown on the Comprehensive Map inventory including: a) Wildlife habitats [ ] b) Wetlands C 7) Other site features: a) Rock outcroppings [ ] b) Trees with 6" + caliper measured 4 feet from ground level [ ] tof_ Location of existing structures and their uses [ 9) Location and type of on and-off-site noise sources [ ] Location of existing utilities and easements [t- ~Y1) Location of existing dedicated right-of-Ways B) ,Site Development Plan showing (No. of copies' /0 1). The proposed site and..surrounding properties [ a~ t tZT Contour line intervals [ a~ • 3) The location,.dimensions and names of all: Existing & platted streets,& other public ways and easements on the sits:and.:nn =Ai^in4 r properties LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD APPLICATION CHECKLIST - Page 1 EXHIBIT # t5 C) PAGE # b) fl oposed streets or other public ys & easements on the site. C ] c) Alternative routes of dead end or proposed streets that require future extension [ ] 4) The location and dimension of: .L,4) Entrances and exits on the site [ a' Lb r' Parking and circulation areas M- Loading and services areas C~ ;,xo Pedestrian and bicycle circulation e) Outdoor common areas, C f) Above ground utilities C~ 5) The location, dimensions & setback distances of all: L,a) Existing permanent structures, improvements, utilities and easements which are located on the site and on adjacent property within 25 feet of the site C y fib) Proposed structures, improvements,. utilities and easements on the site 6) Storm drainage facilitie f ds~dnstr-eam-eond-i•t-ions Cv]~ 7) Sanitary sewer facilities -y- The location of areas to be landscaped L9~-" The location and type of outdoor lighting considering crime prevention techniques 10) T oxes [ L14- The location of all structures and their orientation [`V 12) Existing or proposed sewer reimbursement agreements [ ] C) Grading Plan (No. of copies ) [ ] 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 place-indicating general contour lines, slope ratios and soil-stabilization-proposals, and time of year it is proposed to be done. C 2) A statement from a registered engineer supported by data factual substantiating: a) Subsurface exploration and-geotechnical engineering report [ ] b) The validity of sanitary sewer and storm drainage service c) That all problems will be mitigated and how they will be mitigated [ 7 0) Architectural Drawings (No. of copies [ The ite development plan proposal shall include: 1 "Floor plans indicating-the square footage of all structures proposed for use on-site; and [v!' 12' Typical elevation drawings of each structure. [tY i? E) Landscape Plan (No... of. copies 1~ ` Jv The landscape .plan shall. be - drawn- at the -,same---scale of the site analysis Plaii'or a'la er" scale If nece's-s'ary' and shall indicate:. 1) Description of -.the. irrigation -system where applicable [ ] i 2) .Location and:-height offences, buffers--and screenings [ ] APPLICATION CHECKLIST - Page 2 LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT PAGE # ( } 3) Locatl of terraces, decks, shelters,( _ay areas and common open spaces [ ] Location, type, size and species of existing and proposed plant materials. [V]im The landscape plan shall include a narrative which addresses: 1) Soil conditions. [ ] 2) Erosion control measures that will be used. [ ] LF)) Sign Drawings 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) Traffic generation estimate [ ] H) Preliminary partition or lot line adjustment map showing (No. of Copies 1) The owner of the subject parcel [ ] 2) The owner's authorized agent [ ] 3) The map scale, (20,50,100 or 200 feet=l), inch north arrow and date [ ] 4) Description of parcel location and boundaries [ ] 5) Location, width and names of streets, easements and other public ways within and adjacent to the parcel [ ] 6 Location of all permanent buildings on and within 25 feet of all property lines [ ] 7) Location and width of all water courses [ ] 8) Location of any trees with 6" or greater caliper at • 4 feet above ground level [ ] 9). All slopes greater than 25% [ ] 10) Location of existing utilities and utility easements [ ] 11) For major land partition which creates a public street: a) The proposed right-of-way location and width [ ] b) A scaled cross-section of the proposed street plus any reserve strip [ ] 12) Any applicable deed restrictions [ ] 13) Evidence that land partition will not preclude efficient future land division where applicable [ ] I) Subdivision Preliminary Plat Map and data showing(No. of Copies 1) Scale equaling 30,50,100 or 200 feet to the inch and limited to one phase per sheet [ ] 2) The proposed name of the subdivision [ ] 3) Vicinity map showing property's relationship to arterial and collector streets [ ] 4) Names, -addresses and telephone numbers of the owner developer, engineer, surveyer, designer, as applicable[ ] 5) Date of application [ ] 6) Boundary lines of tract to be subdivided [ ] 7) Names of adjacent subdivision or names of recorded owners of adjoining parcels of unsubdivided_ land [ ] 8) Contour lines related to a City-established bench-. mark at 2-foot intervals for 0-10% grades greater than 10% [ ] LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD APPLICATION CHECKLIST - Page 3 EXHIBIT # _ a PAGE # a J 9) The ! pose, location, type and size i all of the following (within and adjacent to the proposed subdivision): [ ] a) Public and private right-of-ways and easements [ ] . b) Public and private sanitary and storm sewer lines [ ] c) •Domestic water mains including fire hydrants [ ] d) Major power telephone transmission lines (50,000 volts or greater) [ ] 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 [ ] 11) Plan of the proposed water distribution system, showing pipe sizes and the location of valves and fire hydrants. C ] 12) Approximate centerline profiles showing the finished grade of all streets including street extensions for a reasonable distance beyond the limits of the proposed subdivision. C ] 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 ways C ] 16) The proposed lot configurations, approximate lot dimensions and lot numbers. Where losts are to be used for purposes other than residential, it shall be indicated upon such lots [ ] 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 [ ] 18) The existing uses of the property, including the location of all structures-and the present uses of the structures, and a statement of which structures are to remain after platting [ ] 19) Supplemental information including: a) Proposed deed restrictions (if any) [ ] b) Proof of property ownership [ ] c) . A proposed plan for provision of subdivision improvements [ ] 20) Existing natural features including rock out- croppings, wetlands and marsh areas. [ ] 21) If any of the foregoing information cannot practicably be shown on the preliminary plat, it shall be incorporated into a narrative and submitted with the application. C ] J) Other Information C ] (2362P/0028P) LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD APPLICATION CHECKLIST - Page 4 EXHIBIT # PAGE # _12S ;a i ~ l • N®TIFICATION LIST FOR ALL APPLICATIONS 1. ~NPO No. (2 copies) CPO No. 2. CITY DEPARTMENTS ~ r-I IA---~K ~~-~'••lTt=~ Building Inspector/Brad R. Parks & Recreation Board/Curtis S. City Recorder Police Engineering/Gary A. Other 3. SPECIAL DISTRICTS V-_'Fire District School Dist. No. 48 (Beaverton) (pick-up box bldg.) Joy Pahl PO Box 200 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 JURISDICTIONS 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 State Highway Division Other Lee Gunderson PO Box 565 ! LUSA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD i+ Beaverton, OR 97075 EXHIBIT # PAGE # 7. SPECIAL AGENCIES i, General Telephone L" Portland General Electric M e c h ry B av rto Brian Moore 415 iWiq' Portland General Electric _ Bob Olsen 97005 14655 SW Old Scholls Ferry 12460 SW Main 97223 Beaverton, OR 97007 Northwest Natural Gas Metropolitan Area Communications Ronald D. Polvi PE, PLS Twin Oaks Technology Center 220 NW Second Ave. 1815 NW 169th Place, S-6020 Portland, OR 97209 Beaverton, OR 97006-4886 Pacific Northwest Bell Other r-c7o/nnn4ol fa-9!891 5. STATE AGENCIES Aeronautics Div. (ODOT) DOGAMI • Engineer Division of State Lands Board of Health Commerce Dept. - M.H. Park Fish & Wildlife Parks & Rec_rea. Div. (ODOT) LCDC Subdivision Supervisor PUC Dept. of Energy Fire Marshall Dept. of Environ. Quality Other 6. FEDERAL AGENCIES Corps of Engineers Other Post Office 7. OTHER • Southern Pacific Transportation Company Duane M. Forney, PLS - Project Engineer 800 NW 6th Avenue, Room 324, Union Station Portland, OR 97209 0257P/0006P t LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # PAGE # I CIRCULATE. BR J H W A =~/Rc ~O Staff Review C F As, (7,- . J~, CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PRE-APPLICATION CHECKLIST Date f /io2/ 1. APPLICANT oy 2. PROPERTY LOCATION / -l Address 1411411v Tax Map/Tax Lot 3. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION/NECESSARY APPLICATION(S) Sire . I/~GGu%~JENT /C~~ Gv /l1Fi;; ~l1C_'- ( ~ ~.1~^=L' [lJt'!.. ~ rv~~rr-.i % i' ° uq f i Ct o~ G.C-. ~ (Ell N i r f G~ ~ YID ' Yl ~ S~ t'l C,~:. ~R 1 jG~ C! :~1n-~.c ~1 4. USE 1 v Existing Adjacent Property I • north V/4 Ear oa 5 south Se 411, 5 J- S t east FamkAo Cveek- Pork west V,o V110U5 cowl ate e IBC I a I.L jE 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION. ~2`1fY~/ ~(,~5ihe5S ✓/~5fr~c~ .6. ZONING DESIGNATION Cab 7.. NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION NO. CHAIRPERSON PIK (63065 PHONE to ar -;U-66 8. CODE REQUIREMENTS Minimum lot size/width /10 j' ,h l hum size- or- W!d 01- Setbacks: front corner 0 side rear a~ Special setbacks:- '-streets- established areas s' lower intensity zones- 7 :-.wetlands.-, flag lot"' accessory structures zero lot line ! 4 14aximum lot coverage SS~o LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD i.' EXHIBIT # _ 150 Maximum building height p~ 70 t PAGE # x-1-7 I vi v 4 ~ . o Special height _imits flag lot other. 3 Density calculation O V v` l o Density transition d Landscaping: minimum % of lot area ~j r Street Trees . R J Buffer Areas c~ Parking Areas fr { ~t'v ! - iii S Visual clearance :,I,--Parking and loading ~ ~~,'Q~t:. ~C-~y ~-;;Fs':a ~%JC: r,• ~i `)02C 1)(.' `~Giit!C,• rl.i : I /I/G'vL/r ~C(C1< ~:-QC !i' i J / .i Access and circulation i~rJV,~' G r' N4-(k J;r.F, r .iYrtLfI JS v'! l - t i, 'l rl:.. 20 / Signs °VV,: Gr;1.'r} 9. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS (See application checklist for specific items) Sensitive lands: floodplain drainageway - >25% slope. Wetlands v~ Open space Historic overlay o treet improvements/connections/bikeways Cyt~_ /Fq.ll b~i°'C • f Right-of-way dedication OTC Sanitar~j Sewer improvement COLTned Cyl Sliliq 5Ati17t4,V se~A Gh S C;.O h-~Ca Gf` Co N n E L fi o K ! vt ►'hLc~ i t `l T- 4 Storm Sewer improvements s~ y~1 GL(t.gP~ ~0 &th11.0 t1K , ~S~ ~ ~ eh~r~y di5i~a~ol~s Gl'I~ du~TU~~ c Improvement Agreement Permit; Bonds; Fees Other agency permits - . 10. PROCEDURE j Administrative staff review V/ Public Hearing/Hearings Officer Public Hearing/Planning Commission The --Administrative'."..-decision or. -Public Hearing 'shall occur approximately 30 days after a complete application is filed. A •10-day appeal period follows all decision- - • (0573P/0022P) LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # 0 PAGE I 1561.7 N 32°55 E TO T2 S R I W W.M. N.£. CORN EROF THE RE I /4 SECTION 2 - - SOUTH 112 OF JOHN HIpC/1N 0.Lt.37µ05T NORTHERLY CORNER Of Q0 V, _ = wO JWRNHAM TRACT. WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON `eJ ~aP:~ z` SCALE I"= 100/ 500 / C o ao -3 Ac r . 600 ~ `ta0 Y~ J \ 6 _l /Ac. o 04L ~z 25e y 6 700 gym= a 5° a~ .1~ 'ate so s-'`~ - 1,67Ac •a a y.~o5 3 400 -e _ w / e w ¢3Ac. e- e 00 r ,x}wo JP w0 S y- a 800 9~ } 300 --56k C. &Ac. ,r ~a2~e 6~z Y , a 4 ~o 200 1C. y* F s0 2- 9!1lC. ~ f e 4a3~ 1101 / • 5s6' v? 55` \ 63 Ac G/ Z wit o i ie /(c.S. No.U945 ) 2 1100 . 68 Ac r p J f 30 V Tg F >t) 0 ~6 F ~ti fry 0 ~I P X v 3 F 203 1.71 Ac. bo ,y- 1 to o`t, ti . 6 2200 ea 015 380 Ac. 201 LUBA FILING -CITY OF TIGARD / -47Ac. EXHIBIT # -0 a ~3 5 4 PAGE # b •t IS6t.T 4 N.E. 0C(y T Z S R SOUTH HiC(UN Qo.<Q`p~ RO gURNHt S .E i/4 SECT. 2 _ NORME ~W 1I4 RHtNGTON COUNTY OREGON z Wp 500 S C ALE 100, . "o :'ao _54A / h ~ G00 J t Ac..°o Qom, -4700 X~ ` yea y e 1.67Ac. •43AC. 90 q 0 800 r 1. & y • 2ZAC. hR' d'i~s',~ <wt ytRh 9006°.+~,• e6 / ti .iZAC- s° 3° k '~T • 4 5 A,y;L • \\9' 4 1101 .S.No320511 yy! 63 Ac o ? / J \ `R C g.1401945) 4 q / 1200_. N\ A/ y/ !•45AG ~ 1100 H ~ r•; . 66 AC s ~3 't` 66 10 rdc °OV G. pj s9 .~.h f 9 90 9g °Jo - ' - ~ 203 ..:w 1.71 AC- J°J B R~ d` 9 ~ 3Q m O / A 1R 2.3m*74 2200 e e~y6 3.80 Ac. a~ TY OF TIGARD 0 0 201 y! LUBA FILING - CI t 47AC• EXNIBIT # o~~ w = PAGE ~f W i0 .t• °O/ R~• / 441 May 19, 1986 CITYOF I'67ARD OREGON 25 Years of S&W ce 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 a dedication of Greenway. 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 - 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 several buildings in the area. The City Engineer has also advised me that there is a need for delineation of the channel 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 which 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 commitments. Perhaps our first course of action would be to have you informally discuss the issue further with my Engineering Services Manager, Randy Clarno, to see if the information we presently have available can help to delineate a proper boundary. It is possible that a major undertaking could be avoided. Sincere / William A. Monahan, Director, Community Development (WAM:br/2534P) V LUBA FILING - CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT # SL PAGE # > -7 13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 \ P,d 1 f o v o v e f \ i. r ~ • ~ ~ Poved k Y ! Paved co o ` t Poved r co . I Coo ❑ ce r , • C ,t • 1 O Poved 45 8 Pork,ng ❑ - ~ - ~ x151.2 ; f fJ t:C x i N r 4 i. 152.3 X G MIA wAy C I Q ` - LUBA FILING -CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT Porkin PAGE # c~ `7Z 150 156 2X N r5? i..-- _ Y ~w x _ ~ , . - - - - ~ ~ . ' BENCH AWRK. ` ` s CITY Of TIGARD /NDEX N0. iJl ~ ~ - _ . BRASS D /SX /N S /DEWAI K NW CORNER TIGARD ST. , AND AG4 I N ST. EL EI/A T ION: Isl. 9J' . d j _ o ~ ~ ~ ~ - N~ . 1 ,e c ,~~0 e a 1 e.~ e . ? oa N5 ~ 190. JP RIM , r,,,,.._ t - ~ , • f rro - -r-- t _ - e s c ' J r d ' ~ (~1 - pR l0 ..0... , y,.~-...." . ' ~ V , ~ ~ - - t'N'ALK . CAE1'E S!D Q ~ ~ ~ tnl ~ . ~ - - . , 1 ~ . rn p ~ ~ ~ ~ a. o ~ ~ ~ I ► - ~ . as ~ - 9' S' t / ~ ~~j A ~ 1 ~ 7 ~ 0~ 9 1 ~ r + ~ - i i. ~ ~ 3D. e0 ~ $ ~ ~0 . tR , o. ~ ~ ~ i - } ~ ~ ~ t, \ 0, ! 0 Z h ~ i a - ~ - . ~ - . h ~ 0• 1 ~ y 1 . ~h ~ ~ 1 ~ 01 ~I '0 1, - ~ t ~ r ~ - 00 ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~.1 0 , ~ ~h ~ ~ . ~ s _ ~ . . . (C ` \ z ~ ' ib 'Z r 10.9D ' ° r - ► \ ~ 1 r'v CG \ ~ 1 f . 1 r• . ~ o'~ \ i 1 r+ 0 ~ c~ \ EXI ST I~ EX/ST/M6 8t//~A/N6 - - - \ 1 0 r ~ 1~ h ~ 1 0 ~ 1 ~ ~ \ ~ ~1 . - 1 ti~ ~rpGE \ f rso, lD 'G wry .r N. t ~ wr r$, ~ ldl.'I! R1Af \ r . ~ 1 ! Vie. ~o ~ ~ 6 \ \ ~ p• ~ ~ . ' - ~ •w iii.. h \ 0 1 1 0 ~ • ' • ~ \ ~ 4 1 ' ! r 0:w :y - ' r m 1~ , \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fi \ ~o i g ~ , TAP Af' RAN S Aed 1 K ~ ` ~ ~ ' • ~ ( t~► ~ . , • ° ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 1 4 TD►~ A+~' BANK ~ V i 1 . t♦t~y ~ a ~ I \1 _ O . ~ : ~0 ~ \ I 0 . ~ ~ REG STE ER D ~ ~ _ ti ti 1 ' ~ ~ ~ 0. ~ ~ . ~ PR4FESSIONA~. _ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ 1 4 l~re. 9D ► ~ ~ ~ b I A . ~ . LAND SURV~YC~R. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - . - 0 ~5 30 wlda e~mDnent t a r _ 1 l a ~ sewer tasament . I ` I YEAR i I Oa 9i~ P , ti i 990 Q T11 , o ~ ft Oqp Pt A/ N l t _ ~~'L £i~. ~ I30. 0' iee. eDt i ~ )AMEN D. WEDDLE - ~ ~ - ti I h ~ ~ ~ 879 ~ - . ,i ~ ~ ~ / 1 o t - i w 1 i I 0 i ~ - ~ ~ i ( 0 ~ .Pro ert ' / !fn ~ .see IRf g desc ;s a /Rf P r e , q~ Jfne D8/ survey no 9th ui7 ~ ~ ~ ~ t I i .r ! J sn, eo ins: rD` --o~ pp i° ~ ~ ,yi Isl. s! R/M Prnpertl line ``b IJ9.7/lf N. ir~ 0 . A~ a lJe. eo • 4 1~ L J j; I/ y l j rJ I- i t ,k • • ~-3 w.ww. ...~,...~..p.r.+.~..wr.+...+rr... • - ~ ~ • Ate ~ C~►~►~ . ,T y ' , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ r ~ Av~"; :Ti's .•w„ t . ~YR > ,ai.' >ty ...4~ ~ , ' W,, y leiy~ . , '!~C ~ ys f j iii -re+~, t, f t A . ~..7° +i 3: ~ p+ d•a , ~ ~ ~ K•r',. 'x t t. t';n. ',.hS ~5~.~. aa.~~~a ~}'tt.y, '•q„ Tt .il:a ~~{{,CA.' di!`~ ,'K .~•'f.~ S, r~~ s?;f:~ r'M;r .'+y;:. ' +d - ~ r - a•~' •+,i3 .7 rit r:!~4 .'k A. t 1y •i~~.r' 4t? E*.w ~rM~p%;^3` af,Fe ~,'§'~T./ x $ n,!.y~~~ :~'sa y,'t;'•. s .r° ,i' h ,i 'v' ~ t. ~r i,. e, y a`' ~ F "T ry .r'"~_n 7 1 ''S a 1 ~ ~ . 1 . ~ ~4' ' a: 1a,. n `"i, :I,~•~~. . eiF~ `1...! y1~ ♦ vl ~i r' y..:i.n ~S - ~ ,a' 4 ~.v~, c~ .,r. ~.9, a5„~ • a'~' V',, n,•+f . ~`'t~ k~'~.r..Y.i~?'." . y ra ~+i•, . s' ~ :~:9, < F+ ro'r'~',,:~ ,i.,f or 4. ,!.'C>4" ' W.4 ' f ~.d a,, rr. r„+ nr",r- 4S . ,l,. .,l.~ f M * 1~ rh'~; '4 .l.;` ,`,s, f. 'tt.'.•,: .`,A.t ~-1 ,.S .t, yR f✓ ~ 4 ~.)2_ `Y,~tt L•i~.s""~s.T'y':.-..JFiw d' t ' ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ' ' - , .5, ~ 9~x.t w: ti a' • ~ a; :`ti F' : v,Y; ;i'ti•,,. . fi ,,ir."r^~^. .:i",:tt' ~i. ;'yd ..:4«"e ~ , e".~,~.- . '1 ' :'y'a,r `y ' s.•a, ny~"`: prt . • f.` ~ , p_y ,x i M'"''.-0r' ~ `r,~ .7 gt~: 1±. +.dtl stn r:~~:+ n w t'~e 8,.}-.i.~v. ,A: L~~,. v?+ w='# -?°.'•g."~~+`t >i;4 i' .q "r• ~ ~ <y ~ "~rD•a •3s,^q~~~"~r,d~+~~"''w•~3ti~►'r,9*Fo~e~: • _~'k~~ ~'r? ,A.,ja'• a ~•~+(.h.M.d t''hr7+~ ' ~ t ~ ~ • - ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d'? ~trmx.'i Cj}•."!+. 'air'YS ^ ~ i'•~':'"r;,~aL .hS' `t ~ ~j ~ `Y'~~r'~ ~ ~YnI ~ • y ~ j` ; ~ S , _ , r ~ ~ ~ ~ w J rt•,' .q +cr,„ ~.v..~ ;L~k~.. x Gt."?+'~M'"~'a ~,;r~r;; ~v• ^i'f t,"~rY ~ . " y;,.kJs`~' "r';a, ; "r,, .,},,,yi r ~ " ,r' ~ ' . ~ ,F L ~ . , ~~7s ~"~'Y .y ^S•i•., .^s ~ a~ii~.s .`rr:. ..y";,,•'~t 's.. ',a+ y. x ..y_y,' '4'~'°°'r' !~",t i_ • ~ ~ ~ . r r ,t ~ !'~:♦1k {.'~'i Y 4 f p I ' .+'w, , 4 'FI_ ' T tn,.~ ~ ~.~,~h. ,''Y~ `~~Kl~ ~ ~r~},,.Y~WI~" T~ i~v ~^'k~..? N ~ Y. ~ e : Y ' e r» , a r? r,'MD'; , iY' .p .rh. k 3„ k', fT a t , t y shy".'%.: ; ,`5S~}#*0}:4 . Y s x' 4 r7A +t'."{:+vfi '.'ar:= ti'9orr ti'; tC V` .4~~ R .4 'M4+°Y" .tpu W'~%".t ` 'y,,,,,, y}~ ..tH•~i 'r` Y ~X' f. ..ts. ' 1 r ~ . ~ i.. 'a.^a ~~a;a .,~.;D « fi;♦y't'f~~' eY.~l+~/!~~ . 51 + °i ~ ;tf ~7^f.. },'r .t ,hr q~t2" .a~. ab1G`,v ° y. ~ e~.,i ~ ff!kE .q . ~i1Mx ~,"'i/~Ml~~~' it 'iM < ~':rSi'i,~~ Y y r: 1 fry 'ar.`. -p ~ , ~ #~tiar Y.r+".d, r.,7'' t. ,~k,. ~rr ,'~;v, ,A. .•b.6~ '~Vrh ".-0.; •1~;~' ~a^,:r p~•;g .3L , _ ' • 1: ~ r ! '.t ° ~ t ~ .D' ~ "p" • rt ° ,4.,. D f,. a ~ Sr ~ 1, ~'A ' ;tM~ D ~ '"„M~w'i•Y:Y'y, r' ~ a.~sy..•~y . ! + . 'A D , ~ i . a.. k.• ,,tip . ,",R": a . , a. r, ..r, : : r.'ti , i ^ ♦ ~ ~ ~ F . " .M.', ~.y :.'D" r`~h'~ ~p.?VP.. 9:•tMx..~. +~yr.'_ '~~.~.R/,. ~r,'^5y y ~~p.d~ry y t~'.« .N. ''TY IA"'",~,r f~.Rp}3 ~.y fit.'-,,}" a~1~ Y~". h~ A' ? TD'S) '[S' :"~';^p, pMS :~t!~n.~~. ~~2x yy,'2~ Ms t, ,'9' . t'p 17 i4 :v~j,, , 7 ~ ,d ~ ` "f s'r • ~ ~ 5 ~a 5X p 7 .+~.:{.1.aJ'a dad. a~.,w+7{•n!°j) Ffk, i"3~" .tM; ~},y Y~ or,r• 5,,. ~.•,,r a, r T.f~ ,+.y .~d. .r r t ,x. ~^.?ii,r+" '+"•~C as s•sf+y'.'.` ytl'~...ar "::r +ri n M~ ti D ,1•' a~ h.. p ,i " M ' ~ . 1~ , ' ' M1 ~ ~ 4, ' 1 ( a n, ♦ . a " ~=:~z'~' ,:~.~:~.,.::~~~~.."~,~~.~ue~~u,._:~~:cen:~ir~:~•~,}:1~:~xist~.n~~oondix~ons;µ.and,,d~,mans•ions~ i F,.~.~ ~ rq 5 ~ p . . . ~ ~ . ' Y~.- t Y SZR.~M~ s. 1 C~ ~ ' ~ ~ 811 pQ~ « t Y 3 ~ tg. i.r, ~ ' ' ~ t.'S"Y' ~ > i! r ~ .Q~ ~ n. ! , b. ~ 1.t 1ea9F'. • 4KI S ~'~?e 1~ "y~, i Yy ' ~ ~ i 1 fir:., r .~F• •~~.J°' t', ~k r►4:.. ~ ~ r•' r" i ,a ` t k', „4~-, . t I_ N`'• ;tp~., ~.J,•~ ',~r.~ -l~.t`~.~~.AA~+ - 3 ~t rr i i ~ ~ 1 Yv y 'Jbyt~Nayt, ,74.7~t~q'. .^:T ~,',~*.'r ! Z. . ♦ (*~yty{;,, F'413 •Ye '74siY a.'.'y'" ' 'St/y r. 'I~. ;'l''~ yy~,"1h , t"~ v l~j.'~4Sy- • ~ e ~ ~ r'~;i Y~ yk~'r. ~F~''S' •`r ,°4, C,r:t,"~a +1 `S~ti Fire T > p 5f 't~. ~,.w ,r, ;,r %`7'"ti-►.+ .-:qr,'r.. 'F,,..F;Qr'r.N wir,;i'`k•.,,•r.a, ' dd»~., yyW. ~ 7 iV~'~1~• r Y,,~'o '~P ~ ~>~••:K.'C"'.IE .rw' y ~ y j~+.iF '•':'an{,.1•,~."fie `'•^k "r i.'~+ ♦l ' . w T f il;!'';~~. .aq,'t~r'i.~ i-~, 'tYt ^.'rS~r ~ ,ry ~,k".Y? 't .Wyt` ,rA .t, ,•~'{iC ll ,ray,, T ;Y''w, r .%R,:.i.,~iv~'~v.y~, •~ne"~.. } N'i~ i:,r.,<. q•~~ rf,~ ,i;;~ - ' ,,..+r" ,i ~ ~ ' Ax y'A,~i?9; ?t,1ti~t, + 44, '1: ,t ~s~th?;+:7'+t' f ~ f ! 'e ~ rt.~~ ` ~~ik J,~ ` ♦ t! 'Yh'.+.nN •11~•t y~: r .E.+yf~ 1, :1. Jam{ +Yjf(M , 0 - 51-~~j 4~'F~Y• ~;i('r1 ^ "'a.'.3'~~I~'r~: r!'~ ~ •~~x;M,1I 4p r,y'{Yd . ' 1 / r. tv4,.,N ~ Y•"": ..v*~ t, q .r,v; •t, i.i~ ~y .M ^ ii ni+!'iw'.,~~.;.a ' to r;.J~ L- a~.,A _ . - i ~ + ~ Y~ +4.11 ~ ~;~,Y ~ .M' i .4., ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ • ~ - ~ ~~nY„ Z~' ~ . ~'p(_ ~'.+Ji i,I'~1 t "':i .M~: i~yp F, ~ t . ^y.r.~ J !e J ,tt3i rM ,,~g~',~i ",~Z"a^Y ST' ~".~k 1r . +eYSry, ~++7~ r'r V'. • 2 '~'A~•: y,~}t.rs~h ~ ?!`y,i1F~•+, : 1.. ~ i~;qt $ v,;4~t ,h~g.,~ 4, ,t~^, ,Jl;ry" ~n} . a; , L1 c 0 . if ;;a' . . ~ Y.t~- ~.~~T. r ~ , ~ ;.,..i , 1 • l / •-f- -1 f~ r ~ 1 r~~;. 'T?^ .so ~ t ~ ' • 1 ~ . ~ ~ tip, ~ `~3'~s~,.`;t. ~i . i , ' ~ ,Y n , ~ ~ '~N"+• T.1. ~~l{n~at 1tk.~ 1'~~'Tf,~1 ~ ~r < ' ~ ~ ~ - .,,,,...:-„ram ' a°r,,', r ~,4a • y ' f • • ~ ~ ~ ` tip''' t„ , ' r; ~ . , , r~ _ - t . ~ o I, ' , . , , ~ ~ ~,~,b ~ ~ ~ ' ~t' Cv ' , f f 1+' .r r x,+, L TMs,, ' 'J'~ ` . 4 • ~ Y~YIY {yJ~_/. .Mr rr I i• 5 Yi,1 ~'i~ . ~ t - ~ t~~t~( .w~ j~,.y ~1-•y,'. ? • , ."i~,i ~ ^`a ~ y:.'t Y.~;. ,j • . . - ~ ~ .t • Litt, R' rI~.~F. r~' 'Y'~.~'' h' ~ ~t~y~Yyty • ~ ~ ~ Y w•,' ~J~fi qt', `.ar T i." !l ~n.~+c A,'(~ ? ~'~t.i:,Y~ ;jy a It J'- F. ^Ff .4,.. v, . ~ P •4 'N YYt.... 4 ' . ♦ ! :ti.~ ~k . _ i ' ~ ~ ~ ' 1. ~ , a ~ ~ • ' ;•r. • ..'!yY,r ~l}C. iP', iY. lla., 1 ti,, f r„" r • , v . • ~ a , F t. r ' ~ ~ t ~ ~ , . , .y. 'n.. Y ',t r Z ~ v. ' r . ` 1rIYr l ,1F ' N ; I - ' } , yew fl ~e~ f, ~ •al " } ' 4 mow..-+ 3L n3' ~II ?4 ~ a e . • '~t. f~~' x ~'a a 't'~ ~ ~ a. , " 'I r ~r~p kk A 5 I / d,~~ • ~ ~ ' { R~. ~ r t MN 4 F , t' . ! Ii.w;7h►. _ y.. . a .r a _p v ..n ;+.".:z3: 1~R.`a fij~i•: ~'.1'",~ a: ; '...rl ft.aat;..s^.R7-si7'is4A`:T+F~ ?".#tiAaT'i A" '.41t'I~>4f*Mdf~1h_A ;;RAF'I.tM`.F:lf"~1dr*° •[A'I'F 1.1 Y)l4i:4 .Aftrz2,-, 1t!l: -ST C~ . 5 ply V IN . Z J o 00 6 Q A sc~. ~vra a r UR /AL.. 1 a 360 G.1'~ N T 1-1 T L T 0 L:O A " SC= 10~ W s A C~ r ` 4„ 1'` > { 'j Y. , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M1 ~ r 1.: , Y` • 'v a ' '~15 f'ry%r~4'+ ' ♦ 'l'• ,'1s. tiy,.~r . J, n , _ _ _ N: • I1y ^ • - h 1 r. i' •(,y'1 Ir t• J :i .,r- ,h• 'i, :A ?+,~y`'. .1.: r , ,r,-~ :fit'.. .rV r' - , ~ W ~ y"•~+.~. r: 1 'c a ~ - r r' ".st n f. t J's..;r' r '•?':•r,~;; ti_ I i 47 y t ~ 3I~1 r , L'S m''•F b t,• v,.i Y..1. 'i~•. v" .,Y 'K'} ~ J'. .A,; .4 f t • ' v ' ~ ~ ~ • ~ d¢ P"` 1 ,.1. ,t, r'' t`, t,~'.. ~ .~l.;~t 54~,. ~,i'~+.~h. ,+e t• r» ..rA.A 't :r. ',t,', .A. ''r S~J4.. 4`'~~. e v ,`f~ r r. ,p.•s, •rtr , , rs . r.wr~. "it~_` .:ie ~+9~^-t ( .'"A+::i~~..: .,~e4's**' w ; ,~•~',dfit t r}s4 t~a. }.7', hi3k .,srq`,~~,,. +JS ;k' t r s ~ ; r • r ~ •jt . ~ J ~r ;r 4„ .',r ,r , .•t.1itiA.'iht~wa, 2litLi.~,~J'r.:L4Lt-.. w-t.. •,.i.: .....+_..-~..'a,.'~'tk4".nr.. _ ..w.i..:.-J.~J.~.,~. »t• . .,.11, » . « : n,... .,a a.~_^°.,. • i r ~ _ , . r, • . ~ r' r ' tj k" ' 1 tst l y,: ws,.; F r, i+, ''k~.. ~ , i i 4 ~ i. 1, .a'. i' .i"~ WI i ~ 4 P t . ' k .1'. ,C v ' "t'! {t~ .x..„ : k'. Y oµ.:,.. it r i' 4 . r , F 1 Y @ w1 k c Y,' '3 l . f . a`' k.: w e r , Q r s' . n . S S , ~v • a ~ sal ~ „n^ r r. ~ . t t .d 1 - ..C rk A ~ i ~ of ,t . t w t' 4 >St ' a" t ~ n, r, !y e~. r! s 4.t ;.*ri 9 .4 (J t.; ~ .~i~ tn,sx . a.. ~ 4. "~.i~ .i f Ta I ..s ;fir. .1 . r ~ z R: a,''a: , rA , ~ . w + y• ~ rt.~ ~ ~.H. 5' •x. t t. . r r , i; l r, a; 'r" A s 5, • ~ e , .~14 . ',tq ''F.r ',t. .'n'-' r , . t b- f~C,. e .y r v. A „~,Y.~rr.r ; ~ ~4' 4 . 1. ?n I~ f t' i rk y.. p t' ~ v, . . f , • , r r ..r.. ' ~ a. .y inn rY v . r A. .,a u .t< r a . r r y--. i.. 1 x ~ r . ~ „yr 'r : r a . a l1 .r . A1. vP M~ y`f'. Al . A. . • r.. FAT Y`~.'.... .t .,i if ° 3~ r~.w.:er.-......~..r~., ~..,~.~...wwa~ww~.rssr+wwwr I a ~ y t - - - n,~ _..~.~,~.ts LbLl~1Z.Yb2.1~. !(~ua~>Lf1cl.EEtL' i f -Cd~x ~ / ~~I {ir~; ~~Gl.ION ILa LSL.2'~~ ~0.r:1M ~~aYj.ia~' Lo wls L. 'C??IO W r1~ t _ _ r~rrd,o~ . ~ Co-ror.~~S-~`- Pne~.~E-fi i t 3 I~Loaixus Di~~:c a - t i i 1 , ~ 3 ,bUa.us RuP.~a 3W ~ o i ~ T~ u~v pucr -ra ~ _ ~ F. R 1 ~ JK - _~-~-a , C41.c~EA~l1S f~EU1~E~•!S ~ ~~+1~Tj~~ ~ ~ . r.u5 r ~o~p _ ` 'i 1 ~r ~ PYrbc~-~a. ~Ru~~~ t~~~~.;c•' ~ ti ~ `2 ~~r~nco~ tNn 'Q.~.' ~~l -i- ~r . i~ i ~ i ~ ZT~►,~10 F+~"G° it 1 L ~~i ~r.o d ~ ~ 1 5 ~a~5~~ u~Y~ V ~ ►~LZ ,tom „r - I I ~"~5- . . ' ~ ! '~~5 ~ ry 2~.1GO5O.- °J ALIJUS ~t1.8r~ ~.fpN,S. _ . ~ ' t 3. ~ ~ s i 3 f~rcGa~-ruc I i5 ~ _~04 _c..,r~.:us l~ ~ P'~'~::1:.-'~'~inJ-frb:~~o _ ,f-~- ~ ~ 12 aux. L p 1 ---STaI.~~.l~~-Er.~ t 2~~iLcc~e~s DrzurLee~.~s s 3 F-ldlov~~cus t~~I.oR ~ 1~~~s.+v . v~ _ _ `-:k'13GOSb ~ . ~ - Z~.~G~:.. '~'D.l~l IDES. ~ / t , 1-IF t` ~ ~ i L 1~ '.T _ _ , . ~i, i . . _ _ _ r µU.1 r L ~ EYE uD U I~ L~ Lli L4 ~i b Q f 1 n r E S ~S 5- 1 1. f , 1 _t~'f 1 /~ti✓~ A /7 1 ! 7 +G~ R 49L.-71 Z2, ai=r i - rl i i. AMML- p 1 ./f - l - r aM. .a 'd y .'s i , ~i r ~ t.; .4xsi ~,i. i d . 1" .r;q. yy . r' 'x~ + a` 'r r' •t' ~ ,.S ~i. ,r s'•~~ "'ha K. 4i ti. .f -o-.t i~ .'}a,~ s r;~. F`' } c. t t r "a. 'm , ~ r •=t ~ • d. ' q . c. •1 ~ a` r ~^i ~ : 1' kM 'Z' w . r, a ~ h44' , , r t... 'SI' t. r r'; 4 ~ ~ ~e- ,f:%• sly ~i r. ~ r . X ~ 1. , w~'r ~ ,7, Fi TM •4, S 1 ♦Y:i° d.~ ~~,.i 4 .4°+•.}.p nt` t„ ~f '.'.t ~4 ;.'r.,, y t , . tr .w . ~ 9'. (l" e 4 .t . M r ~a `h ► 4 '~F Y ` 4.. A4 f' ~ r ~k > ' 51 . .rY'r R' ~J•~ ~ . ..J` d. Y... . r! ~dj 1• .ts 1♦ .fir 4~E l~. l`'n..1~ ~Y. •.13 . k'w~~x-il 'k•, ,'t" 7" r~... R," r~ • "q ' ' • x 7^ a 0.w. R ~I" 4 +L.' x f!`~;~9, 1 ~'w. 7~" A•• ~ d. 'Y, 't •+~i' i sr '..,~c ~a .Y,'•r aE ..v.r ^t 'stl`.. "Ss l' ri~.r.s.~Y, .d+ k. ~ - , t , 1 "Y~, .9. . f ,t dry, . ~ e ' , 1, y _ 'r ,i • • , ~ ~ ~ ,1 R ~ ~ v ~~~y . ' ~ " r f ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t , "1~ ri:. w r~ 1 ~ ha r{,ir. '1 .t• , ~ i~ E ,34K~`.~Y{ . ~ ~ . - 1 R ~ ~ s . ~ ~ W4+ Ill • ,,1- 7 ~ ,.1 1 1rt C, .i~.' ~ '1. ~ ~ ~ I'..T '!a u• sv t ~y{w~ti~F,, .+r :w+\. ~ yy Y J!~ 1, , ~ , ~ , , ~ t( 1• .r R if R„t' ;R .4. M S 1 \ ~ " ~ f ~ "i'/, kM4•~Rt~T~'.~~ u t; } ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,r~ ~,.r i~... /y p,r,+ui y'ye':~t~v't4~. i.~~~ +i. "x .i.",' ~fi' k ` R ~ ~ ~ . r r f 1' R ~ . . . l + . 4 R ~ + " f' t f } . R 1 . i ~i .n ~ _ ' • v4". ~ ~ k. .tr .f,.. ~ .y f,%`t . ,ac. l~kR''!`Ir f, ' ~ r.'a:'r ••t: ' f t+ • ~R~ ~ k it } i • ' ~ t ~ a * .1 a,` .ter., ~ .i ~ ° ~ _ < A ~ ~ Y , i / `A . , ! , y'R ' ~ 1"V ' ~ t' ~ R, ' ` J ~ '4 ~F ~/Ili~. ~I/R ~ MMIr• ~Ir. ~r• 1r11•ti ~ >1~•r ~A ~r .11.1r~1 ~ .'err *~rM. y ~A ~ 11~t , ~ ~ I.~ r/Mi. r~ r~• rA ~A I•Ir~l N~ Y~~ A~ rl~ ~Y. M~~ ~I~ Y~ WYY ~A~ ~ " ~ ~ I • s • . , •Y • ' e ~ ~ . , ~ / ' 1 l • ~ ~ V V~IV /r' Vo I I i , ~R • 0 h ~ . ~ v~ • ~ 4 ~ . ~ 1 . - .t 1. , ' ~ 1 • 7 4 ~ WAY [3 tl i~ Il. j 3 ' ~ . 5 x 5 x Ga.t~. l~~Q. •M.... l0 0► \ W x 1 x/ C~~S~' ~ n1.A~t'~.. , f ~ ~ , . . . ~t,o,c., W . , ~ i a:~ ~ 8 3 ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , r.. , ~.rt ' o t W , --1. ......E ' ! . 4 a . . ..r' ^4 R ~ ' • r. • 4 . ~ ~ 1 ~ , ' s ~ ' i~ ~ fJ 3 ~ • ~X5 co x i6 ~ . x , _ - ~l~ ~ . ' ~ S ~ { Y . R • ~ \ , G ' s ~x lz W 5 „ ' . , , , . , 4 ~ • ~ v' ' - • \ , , .q-. ,~A. WAY ~ P \ ~ . , . " ~ , • ~ 1 I ~ ~ • , ~ ~ -4 W ~ ~ GaN , F~' ~ ~ ' " .N ~ . ' ~ , . . r ' " ~ Ir R' ~ ~ ~ , , ' L ~ ~i~ , ~ ~ 1. , . 1. ~ ~ • , ~ • i tr ' 1 .r~r wrr wrwr 111 ~ ~ _rw~ .rw~~ rnw~R ~ ~ y,r.+ a~w~~ rrw.w I.ww.~r w~ ~ I ~ ` ..+,~y. ' ~ A~ r ..y .~I.Y.I ~IW . . iY ~ ~ .rT y~Y ♦ M, ~ '.i .+r.' ,iR ~ .J Ml~- " ~ , i + 1, ; ~ ~ + • ' ~ , .r.....wu.. .....R.....-- a v.d:...n.. ...r....~., , ,...r....y.+ -.wr.~r... - ~.Lr+.~•..-, ''q ..r.w.r+... ~ ~ ~ ~ r..r..~.~.r' . w..,q.~+.:.I!np+.+ . M rr .w-+-1;- , r.. 11r ..-._.7 r T -.1 n F. I a,,'' ttip ,r I,t t. 1' a', h• i L• Itt , Y. f..s V,1 , j a,.a w r r' , i, A `I+ ,yt, ",t i,f I r.} 'r}s ' .h ,:t C~ ,.f~` .Y}r'4 ict "ly.. t + ' r ` i t ' " a , , . t' i'• ~ t • t,' . ' '}7 ''x ' "L , ' J : •I , • .i .t i t'J ` h sry'93A'Y 5 1 . 4' r'S s 4 .K 'Y'{T'4 ~ 3tc~` r.s ."i ~'7z"°f. i'µi~.: '~`'r:..~ec:+FLf ..kaC.~;4~t :7 'j..n ,Y`; 1..s?w,6*t3i~:r. . . a~. , r a If i gg .f ' • clip C Cr , . l Oat •:i 1 • M1A, i' ~ ,i ; . „ 1 , a• 1' N ' 1 ' 1t ' . i I k ,~M 'Mh' f rk - ,i~, 'i~ k' ' , i ✓ § ti `."°'1~'S . :1,; '.'fi'r KK A f' -A > v -rP ` 'i' ^F'. ''.S tc` ALL. .iF ~!y~G,~.~,'_., . ; r'._ ;•.e~ ~ i' :tr _V / " Y k'.a 1 r4'' 6,',Y''F•+" aH 9-`~' ''1 '.t Q ..r• .I'S, It w, ~ rx 1a ~",~1 Y'F'''_s,, .r',_x T: 'R~ .~a-.., _°t ate. S~ .r. ..s ~w r.~t.-.~~C,~~'+t`.•'~~" cbi _,.:~k`' .Y,.r a3,. ~gtti-'w«" '3a ''a r A L 1 9'i VY" a ,t , 't* '-'r, Pe . ,v. ,y ri 5 T" N, '.A k n . 1 ' '"e k., rJ" 'a r' • t ) r' is J " ""1 Y' 1 I. :i.' . ( . r r, r{ a 's k' - r~ •~f ~ ~ z [N''r µ'a...{ ?f3'.a ~«ti e,~s ~ ~ s ~ ~ r^ a 4J. 4 , , 'r•.'" 1,,'o`w, Yf°r .r 4, ,.I . "[X `Y;. .t+:. ,z. v` *11 . .r . r ' t- i' t ' RaA s 'y viii. ~~~•ry:+• L.[Y Iw x~+~~« a ~i t: «G~`.~.r ~y='` ~ -.:f •.X qr > c:' tai 41 ,t. .r t' 4. ''i Y v'+'.a" ;ti 1'- a,t 4' _ try - ' 4 Yr' ' kst.: r i, ,i ;.'a d' f r . r* l ,rot, " ' fr`' . t wi Ut 4 t Pi l' . i ' 4 , ep'',n b 1 , 4 R' ' "rf FI ° ' P} s'' A. 1 't. is,Y s' 't , f `.i Ar t'i 1. .1•t` . .r = J t' t i .s` i f: . f s'k i ' }•1 , Mr* A"' '4,"'a .i. s. i•`'+ v'ai"A :L2 r~.,, P" J • r t4. i 1 , M '1 • r ^'pr li' . t"^ C ,p, •n. t: , .iir• 't. :r ' ,r F' jr ,i• R ' 'sr" '{t•, I 1b A, I" 'c' w "t, k+ ,1,. >t 'a,' 't.•, t,t i., ! t , ~ ~ _ r t err .t.,. . , ~ ' A `i , '4 _ ''1 ,.e'. to ,`T',4 ',4 wr' 'F+« + , 'r' l;A ',t' `i' Y• i` e` , if 't'- r' 1 ,i` 4' I. .s' v. •k' r. F. .04 i_' sr, + `.i". t i r.~_, ,4 r t 'f,' 1. n.f ,b' i. ~h a s •3'. ` r 'V flr • I r 5' i "t;"' I ' . e , . ..a" t B' , 'rf'y Fe -t F•e ^,1 r ' "A a6 a4 t • • - s . ,'t . 1 mot' Z 'S'am' r `f 54)YJ '1 r,l .te , t' r ,r,; .IF . e, t,. rt , 'jt`r' ''tL,• '_r^~, .l ,Ft` ~ " '7't, ,ti ,i. - 5 C 1 z ! ' f, .y 'l,..I ,r,r ,1 ,P+f `r =t; 1 :i, I FS.' , d~ ' ' '4' t 1 nt',*, r. , 1, ,i L~ "i' s~ } , , 1' "',a ~ 11 i " c 6i, F ,`r. •i! - t t4~ v ,1' . "'o r, r', •4s "k .r r.. I ,r t .'.rs w' i : et' e, ,t. / y i .'s' - ' -,).4 r .2" 'd:4'1' .i,„'~ S , ,a. d' .,t, , a' ,I a' T°~ i, ~z. "4' it ,'F ;#a ''rN•:1 t.,r..i Y1',. 1 .'I ,'+'t s t Ar. ° r 'Y ''Y ,M- 'NM1 rb;r 4 i V*". r ,k ~ ,l ~1', • w~' ' W o.r:'° ~t 'D V' Y r: ++t:'+~ ' +.rA, e:,, •y`f, a r .Y ~ • _ r '4 a .t h. { '1 ,'1 .t' F. 6. tx v4a 1« / 1, r e rl 'F'," U f \ lm~ / T .'•R' •aft Y>w • <4. 4V. 4A' tx °.4, 'ry' i't, : wo" r `1: t„~ , , " A,; • .P " , 4 !a ._pW,,r % . ~+§.a t -4, 4 1 .N. ~%'l ` .,\i ,i 4);~~ t 'r r r w r + "t, ',r''° 3, ,`•n' S, r t', Y4, "i+. / t L~ # A Iq : . . b . . 0 , . . I . . Ix . 1 S. ti," 4 .t" :~i ,1' ' , Pk s• '4; ,4, :,y., `n3'}'a ,.s,~,~~'; '.t .r '-:+r i.,;•r r}ir:,i: }r~,,ti~i^} :•.4.§r°, r,,,P , t 0 -0 N Y f° , i a° 4+ 'M a •t + .,J, - . 't k';' , •T., tI.`,. , .,t ,a 1', i 'fit. 'm•ws :1 w. I „ a >4-r. .w .v I, e.. ,r A. I',.}. Yr', t ''y"i •ta;. wt v 1{ ,,I. ..,,y,r "t, I4 :y , a+w 4'tA k'f1,r' - " d;f:,r"« i i *ai + i `i '4°h , 1' § ~ 11 •t r e i• .e, 2. 14 +t,. d.' yY ,,'^a: i. , w1 ti; ..•r "Jr+.v4 ,d J<. t+,, a' A 4 '.t "P., k: ?r'~° ;t i.' ta'~.+ A'.il .°a• r' I. • „Y ci j 'rj„'r i, "fj; ~,}'w i ,r''„fC'I ,a ~i e1 tF ' k ,K. .t• y." T. +'`;,,'.t T.'4. ~"F~ RRrsi'-lt. r+ +"1 +Y a• "ll f, 1 " r"t •.V 'Yk♦ , i 4 r s', ii ,r&. '"'ke"~ ,r.••..' I , t' 'r § .,V / , ' * H. Y NEYx kr a 7r t'''h , ,4' r. • P' r:ti~ t! RT ' - ki J ' rf, t tlt Yi' i5 ' S'" i. 'h.'.i'v,,s p i t , ,i. . ..1 .r ' t.'^I'~ t• .1. ¢ Y. 'f' •3 k~Y*+ , 4A- . iret r ` .,i>" yil„;k Z 'it 1 t, 'a}° t^ i' "'+I' w.d' 003 • p + ,la' . x , . lt " y,,," , :'r + A ' t :a 'C+, , 0. F 11 , . '1y I l~ .t?t)•'~ '•rt' r ii r'a' 4.t4ki't' f. [f . { m ^ 'r•.',„z, .11 , t^ t . '9' b.' 1. _ h , .9 F. t . i'±••c f - 1 1~. • C. S`i " . 4' d `4 1 .r, :•'f'Y, . trr' i- , 'i' M .,,e .r.Y.i,. F 6." ..fj1,. r. Sri °•t1'r; I t ! r y a nr', r, uJ' 1i ' _ Y `4 4` r ,'!N , ~ , 11 - ~ P Q `t I , °S " 't. ~'t' l ip' " a1 > jt` :1'+ y.. yy' - > eY•t'a'i JI"C' ' ' ' , , " , " . - ~ _L" , 1, 1~,, - - - " f: ~ , I 'o , !TIN ~ , I ~ ~ - - V, - , t•`®cqr/'1; F„ i } ' •y• %r x. •r r i, Y- A. „4 ,,~L , - v N i L,k",•ie+.i tM. i'4t^ ^,R'`f~.'i ilrr.; .r1. .4, _ `'t~G . , - ~ g 4,' "r: r•, 1 :lii: ' ' •Y+r`W ,,t ~ , "i. ~ , W ~ ER,,~ r j 'w,. :.4„ _S r':. :q~, . " .,E , - . . - "A - 1 ~ - . . ~ . , ~ ' i r +f ~4 •,c i -s. , , 1,` , .h.r L ,j t, `t Y, j,,` 't°" .i~`4. -arr., i ~J ,r,+ ; ,•h , , T st : ~ l.' ,y,,,l; a rt ' t' :t'a "r'., ,1 . i. •;I'~h,,.+; s - tt':ii,+, r. r r, 11, ^ " Y' r w. + f• t' ,i _ i ~ t•,r { 7 ,a'r t"S'4,:' 'Y.+ '.a: n 'YY.^# I Y ,rt N. Sf,• 4`. . T~ ,qtr. vn tw P .14 : ~ e x r „ t t^. et , : ` i "t ~ A , ~ 4. , , 1 . , , . - l , ~r'l . . 'f 'it , f ''S IIi; " a b' 'f ri X +f rA, hi ^ b r', ' , ^ 1r , N'. .!»t, a 1 rl t. 8 .rb. V' `''Y .'e { aP' 'Y,' Y, .1' , s ,t,' h' 7'. r `k .l It i'?a.? I k , r^ r ,:a , :b ° f. > h % 'S t 4 • 7 1f, ,a a . i' 1+ , y Pv s t k' 'r a • r' ' L 2 r 4 r 7 4`'+^a I'', - ,r PRO ,~4, ,ar e x^ ,r„r x.I . ` .r Yvr ,^Ii a c t 1 r,ti w, a + =K'' `r~ •t r 7 `t' i ''r'°' ' 1 ~ i " . . t , 1 ,i,,a . + ` } ,iii' < r'' L . , j L t ~lt_. a ' . R ' ;7 'r Y ',F rA i ^ P'', rh i. rr Y, y p4; + w , ~a. s 1 w1 1+ Y ' .Y t' ` ° t Y= y- t ! ~~/L ' ) .:F w• L'. i '.7 1` , r ♦ / , + r `•.."1.. 5 5 'y ";r ~V { ~ f" _ :i i, - ~ x., 'd n At al w. '9 .t 4. '1,Y,. r,pl Ln • .*S . AP, f ,.i]'t .,4 { i tn :'^nY --11% - + o 4 a Y , a . Yl? if" 1, v N' - 1 / r t' r r N 4'^. R ..4`, 4w ~I , h+~a +NPf'Z•, }r.. yy 't.'° ' t is . i.rY L' -t n •I•"t ,C i V~Q~, " • a {y ` k qtr,. h I ' 4 d w "r -Is + 7 s J ;4 § y 1..t i , j "r• 4' .1 f Y k ! i eRl; I t tit s 't ~i , '•1: ` r'' v, l ' 9 r . C'- fa , L. YY "f i ` r r t ~ R_;to +r " a'; of : Ird 'i. . _ Q , r. i~,A r ~y,,! ; I'i Y i.. •i. Y' c f aJ 't. air ;41 .,r~ r. , S', 4• ! ,y - 4` a' .s' ti't ' I ' s ' l . I g` ( 2 .t' r YMlln+MM+~A "f" . .u" S, ;tYl i lr r ~ r ~ , O 1 w.' r $ Sxf "rAS s' eta .t' _ .t = ~ ro^,'.- b . • 1 r . r '.ia. 'I( ~ 1, r a,' i 1, f °IE t .r',' „wTr f •x. '.Y "`,44 7 .t,• n v »l, s axf r _ 1 ' w ` 'r 4 ' i k R 1' •F ''t t S afw•" . r y/ } y. r ` 'n r p rT ~ 1' K~ ~ ,r ~ti r ' V t tI .w. ~a 'X l 1 w.' .t , i ' S~' x .z' Y q. i" - ~ ~ . I j 4~ 7! , - - I ' - k ~ ' 5 3 9 r . k ' 1' r' N` Y- 1* ti w•(µ \Ip. •1' 'Y 4 6? a it 7 , , •f' 6 ~ LIP 'OP P , r >~r» a° t- 'rt' * ry as g a,~ P' 4 .kt, ~ .A. , t + 1 ti ' 041 , r 4 , f r~;,"'.1-:1 I i .s { try '.eC•. 'S 6 ` + x r ~ _ •)rr • , , ~ fw '.+.I 3'N.. u}`~2. ..5 @ t ""~•i ~ r } r _ •rp'.,~tn 1 v1' T x 1n a ra ,t t YC V•, A-'. y .i* 't, r4, pr' 1' Ir p1 t , 5 - , J 'k ' . 33 ',A 11 1,, i 4 L 'da ';7:, 4•' v. k•.,•y., t r r -,s 14v '•k'' % i t''t, t : f t ' ' 4 .1+ j' t, ,1l, r•a ~ '4r t . ~ - ~ V~ 9.4 . I t ; . ~6 ° f. .1 "1 4'M '.Y . Y , z i.' ~ , r .a't k 'k'^ Nx. r f, t' I .1 k W :Y ,z f,. j, r iA .M" r r N i . 'Y L S M' r 4 i ,'`a , , ,4, 4~ . , t' ,.,t, a. • ~ r • . ~ : 5 ~ . , - 1 " 5 I ~ ~ ~1 ' t Y ' . ~ 1 r r f 5 i • r 'S 5 1 H « ~ 4 . . r ~ •W ' t y - ! 5 4'~ o ~ r',"i s, i 1. . 4.~ ,r i• , r7• ~~'S ~+5 !'x`§f r ' f' L.- r4 3P "O': y . ' y . ~:n / ' 4y ' t 4#.!* fir' < ` r P Ws v ,t- y J • t x 1 Y ' , ^ f` . ,i ' A Y:1 ar r t 7i y W j' . ~5•' Jy.Y `f. gin' 1.,5 1 I fir' f. :.F" V '1 + . iia sl~ Y. 4r }r i ~ ^ Y. i- Ai "Y 4 , ! Y: . V ' f { ~t ±'1 't {4 • t Y~ 'v1i yt. ,.Ft ~A 16, -V A'„ ,.4'"er'a \ /1Y 1. - •.,v ) •~+1.. t . , '1. ,M`.' . ' rY y, ,p', 'S f .e. p r} N ~k b i M 1' I 1\ ~ ' `t ' a 'Y~,' I. d a ~ , a i , ' e" Y ~ • `y1 [ t J"+r}' - _iv o r ` ,y t~' t ,j i r » a,. 5 s "r ~ ,1 l' f . , 4 t' tii.' • t ' 1 i.a y' r, ` t ' _ n Y W, ~11 `i "I, t 4". °ir. 1A r. - l ' k'at n J}..' t, t i ' r' , f 1 r.1, ..,1;, Y, t, .'ij,;i * , v I. ' P±? ~wr ' U • " J ''f• v'{„ 1, 't• ^ A , a'Jf r . r ♦ Y ~ t • P . 1 'f r r'k i .,R. +e, YI ,.R..'A k~ '"1" . >t V111, I P .y, I 4 A •i" I,Y "r a :t ..^,Y v MP „A ^'Y 'r 4 ,',r, `.y ,.t 'i, 4 - 't~,, {Sa , y,' i 4 .Y r :q '•4' .'s' n yt,. i, ; I1,; : rt .S•", v • , 4Y,+ r . ~i r., . r 'rl .1 1~ u r f' '4 t . ,r- . - Yd , 1 - OREGON BLUE PPoHT CO. ` r t t. , . rA1 k.. r9' a, ~ ' , ` ` . . .r ! + n` ✓ + `t da. t~ # ` f, 5 ;a1y .'r F. .t, , r. t' P~ , • Y F ra .r 4p.!' 11 'Si r~;1 tP rr'rV ) rV 1' !w+`... .N' wy, lr' yqj r+`W1+. .h' % I . ` • § ,t' r + , a .y. °%.i, w», Y ti' "t' "k..rr\,..; "'rr"" ',r, r+ ♦ - 'M' d., ",f" 4+ x ' r t.t ,4 a' I 'r r' ~ItY, x. .d 't .;3 ',s"%;} w ,g x A. a+! } T6 , +1 '1. ~ l t' f, 3v t' + i < + r 'c ' • -1 I w, C, f . r ^1 i r ct Y 6 ' Y ~ e tt ''r f t ~'9'• :v .r ,7 a t3lsi':Y' i { , 4"' y~ 1./£'tt "ir`f a ,i:• • r'..'~•j" 1 T•' vt' or 'P y ~l q s4, . rF= i'' .:-I". `'ta'r (t ''Y*,. k' 06+ :r 7 w. iS Yi1:' -'f.1 S tL' , • , 'r, ~ ,s .~4 r ° r' ";t' r :~5r• "k• "`y+, ".~.ri)rt.:. .+,4 S " 1 r+Fi • w ~sy r,•" f i• "A• a it }°'Y1 r,: ±'a,' 1'-~<i •"~~4 ~~'i''~'fd5 - _ _ . , - . _ _ _ . . i t~.....__ _._..,.r. .51,x.5 W•~.. , _ .•i _..Y _ . a , ~ . r - _ - . _ _i. s. t.e _ ...r,..r . . ' 1. r , i s', Nt' ,F -L' _ t"~. 'a` r' r ~.1a i.' t~ .,*x a 4 g i~S'" "'t a v . i .',+5,'- X, X ,M 1'- . ' , YA T'.%- Y .'F' S." . r • vaa;k yy v'r~. y,'r . hrP, ''r F 8 ,.A4 r r ~i , i 74' a t`. j,.. P': - t I{, t '1•, M,.'', i!' 1., Y ) , ~'r 'Y[s ! 4 F' v f ~ "fit , ~ r '1 ' , r r a k •f' 'r ir•' v ' 7.''.r' --t5 4 t 7;A aim - . _ , v J t, L ~ ._,~.~''...t t". "11 rr'`' .'ra,i:..t' -.`e . ,u _ , ,FA r g•... ~Y„1!~':i~ -1 , ~l a Ia-'V.~" .i i i, L, J.r ,J:' wi f,. .1' ~ t1' r ".R! ...+'a.. +:1 . t 1 ! ~k• Y AJ. •>w-~I{~".. _cwl±i . k.w'~,i:Yt' ~ ',ti3~ .a~.;.~e~~~?.•, I _ tla. ~ '`i4c .~i~+ P >•n 1Y r • r v, T~'4Yn, rf. ..1,r4.~, , ! '{fi11' _ , {ar,~T:t.T ~ ~ ! ~'a^ ~ ~c ~ ~A ~ e'} <f. ,a.. r: ~ V' ry, w,:,~+• ~r. .r , ~ r • , , Y ! ! r . i P - • ~ M. ~ . ~ _S L ~ ~ ' _ ' ~ ~ „ ~ , ~ 7 u ~ • r 1 71~ i X74, ~~1 e . R« - w_.... ~ .Y . ' ' + t ..4 ~ r .m P,,' a t, • , b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ 7 , • . ~r: ' , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .J ~ ~ Y L " '7 "i~:. ~r^' 1 fiat D~n: ~ `4t< . t'~: q X,,~',' ,s lr „e.~r.r it `r r t f.' fs w4 „«'t'•a Y,fA. Nry ,i J ~ '7 1y ,kt J ~ ~'L1''dyyi.+ - ~ ~ . i is R . - ! ~ .w '1. ~:^z~ ~1 p. .r ,r~'i; ~,1- :.jr ~ ~ n\•~ ,T,M.: K. v J.~ .Y• ~ ' •4'. ~ y' `t' ..f. :aw:. .'1 ty""y; er~~liu.,++•~'.~.~,~-J,..r1'ASn+wiw:vat'dY1.:), l.K~+acr^hil"Y i~~k. «rr rl+}A ..Y.v~MR+'; vSAa.'i1.iu~in?^~e~':Y«M . 11 ~ ' - ~ ; ~ { ,I fll~ ill;+~++ i~ ! ;~I ~I ,1. ~ r~ { 1 I r i ~i~' ! ~ y -J% t^i nY'1 .a~ r M ~ ry i } li j ~ ~ 1 jIii i 1 ~ ~ S I { ~J S' .,J^• r.~ y/' 4• ia. r~ ' •{17 I!~ ii 3, I Olt, ~ ~ I Ci ~ ~''1 a .r ;4, ;t '1~ "4~'J ~"0~ 'j,J f~+l 1 f~li f1~~ µ . li+,~l~ ~'1 r'' 1. ~,;1 t`•~ '~y r,.l. J',~, t'H 'r' .~:q ,..r , ~ f [ y t 'r ~ „ ~ 11 tt l ~1~ ~ +/~'1 1 ~ ,"t#.t S • +l ,3 , { w'.7 i {I A ~ I 1 1 W ~ -i' ~ Y' ~~1 . 4{i I} 1 I !1ej q 41 y flli ' ti+ t tr i• y ~I 1 i i i . ~ , - ~ - III 111 ~ ff ~ ~f ~ ~ ; r~~y .4 ~nr (tj 1 stt I ~ 1 t -~i 'S„ ~ J ~A,~_ !w ~ n r. is • . ~ 1 (~+S~~ll ~ lt1 1 ~y j 1 1 w^s ~ '~'y ~N:s'ti'. - _ ^2~ ~2~' ..~C'~ •,~ry~n, yf{•~., "•l Ili I ~Y 1 ..;i. . I,~Y ~1i i ti Y ~ , 1 'v' ~ . - ~ ~ t~;1 1 .1 . t f r ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ j ,f. r, ;I 3 } ~ ~ t ' ~ .I~.~~! ! I II !I~ 7~ ~ ~ i r r v / r~: - ~ y ~ ~ ~,`A .:4.r-J' f, '.X. -li~~ ...R: 1}~ of i+1 ' w ~ r . r1 . ' ~ ~.,z. t - ~ ',f~ ,-1„rr'~ ~ :.o'a'r, t'" , , , •I - } • ~ r„ , v. e r + ~ '4 ` P~ i - ' ''h~; • ^ ! , t ° ~ ~ .r;1 .:t f . r Af. a 't' qf`~'~.711' 4 • ~ ~ • ' +4 . D v ~TT~ Dp ~wx8 C R , ~ ^ 1 ri ! " 1 ~ ~ ' - ti. „ . 4.0 o•cP ~A.W Y , - - ° ~ ~ 'f . - ~ ~ , IT ~ r r ~ X14 ~ + . - ~ ~ s1u R A. 'n$ ! . 1 ~ 1 , 4 + ~ ~ 4 „ ' , ~ { . ~ - ^ . . . . . . r 1. / ! ~ ~ a , ~ I.. , ~ . ' 7 . n . .~1. - _ .1, 1' ~ ~ ; . ~ 1 ~ ~ J. F~- + 1 1 1, ~ CM U • ~ I. ^ • 1 , - P. . ~ ~ . t. ~P i ' • 1 1 . ; ~4~ . .r • , i ^ . { . « . , ....,.•.....n. , . .,.w~ . . ~w , . ~ J.T.' a L. - = I . I I ~ ~ T", . , I I ~ ~ , , t~, - . . , . , - ~ - I , " " . . , r 1 i. / ,M . a. ',1 tI, `if ---f xt tart'. , ,a3: !r 4 , R ;y 10, it ,1• ,5` - c'• i44 Y9 .x 'B1 A - _ c• p4 I. ! k4 4'u " r• '.,ri7. .2' :c' .r . -t w " r , rd vr# , c « . J., r '''i ; ~'r. , i" x+1 gi'.,., r-a a ' S. ` R 1 t'• .tom i4 e . ' ~,'r ",r ; "t1 tl Fre„ - f", a .k• x 1 ' , f t a is ~ ~ °as r ..=-,»w r: - i . . i x3 4 ~a f; t.y.P ~R i y.+~ tea, .+.xk• - - ~ . a - :.H4 i.. p ' - - - , 'Pr'' 7i P, a. at, + l.;,f,r., , 83, rl xvr.' y, s I . , - , , - z , ! 'r ,d I- ".f* Y 4kiA' 7~ 5'. :t." .7'ri'' a- a, 1~?'tt "x 'v. . 1 y n, b tt ^.5,,. t. ,f• ? A .t' ~4:, b ,`r r , r , fd', , -a 1 i'r'rt ° (``a a,Mr :,t"f•, 15'' S#}• GI~, J'~;{ a`• l .`-~,r :,t, , t^..4... . r wt 1, ± I„ K. 't !h . F 1 " ; t" I s ,b ' " - ' ' d• . t 1aT:, a . r . '7'' . r 1r.. - . " q, ' - , , , _ •y„ , ,°w~ r,t i. •"i" r 5 v 1, ''`A, " A ' + frog .t "t a •z. a , `r • : : . , , . I .f.,, a ' rt i "1''t .'h f t14 ,.h - ..I 1 . j" , - , < . • , , ' e `tom *Yy n'.~ 7. 1Y„ " r.,p' t y • • i . xt t ri'•t '>y'i.,.t .Y"',- t~ t. .S .S. ,,,P Yt, 4 N ! d,. y' , r PjrF yf : ` ~w. it., 3 ` .a ~t r - , t' .k r t Mtr a54'd'r(,'", r.! rJa, {,r .,<fl(Y / t,''I 4,*1`.,T a;,l rl!`'r4 I I LBERT, K'ENNEY-.j . P . . I : , E~:., 'i .4,~:,"tom, `;W y+ l.4"i', „ r ,li. ~`•a° . ; - ,:,.1-,, I . I . - . I . . ~ --A --k - . R , i . t A,i ! , - : , , 5 , ( i Y ^t,. ii.t,-;,y,r,t t, fr 'C, Ft;r ,g E3 RA"N . ~ -1 . I I ~,EEP . - INER.'~ ~ : 1~ .11.1- 1. .1 ~ I ~ ~ - . . . . I'll I -C~&,--~TJNG- ~ . .1 - - f a :i4 7: "'Y r Y'.;X, .2 t`k i' 2,.t y.~r .,w i•, ' 'tY f i ' ' r ) ;'p,t ,A r^- a~ .,•ra '"Y"t`.M1` ,1- "j.'ytfr t , d • R 1 , , . ~ . . . I o ~ ,'Zz~~..~ . #r 5 1 r t~~ ' -1 2- - y, 1. ,av 1 n , " . /.J' r y t'.}.. er ; , ~V F . y-, ` ? µ ,v' -4, ,t 4 { . ~ X.,' •'t, , _.k.'",'* r - t, t. , I I , P. . , - . " I ~ - : i - . ~ ; t'.. . - 11 1. n i5, P~;,i. 'Z. Y` :'Sir' ' r ,i• rn" GINS / ~ 1 ; . . . - - , I -1. 1~ - --.1: . 11~P'y . . ^ ~ .1 , t v 66 + y' Grp + . ; , '11~~ . 1;1 , . 'Ir"--, t . a?rt: .ir 9..,: N i „ r ' r f,S 9 d a. ; I . I - , ~ , . - 12,1 . "O -~C- R .G, . 1 ( f r r: ,r'r , i '•iit .i _"~,I .'3,! ~.r, rrl,. ttI .t~, ~,M1. t'~"'_ I . " . 1'.-,"' ' t + ~ - f, l r . > , + r ,d •.r ~'!,x ` Sr .d,.,p a^.* s.; ,3- ' ri ,3 ty` y,f, Y,,t % ; •i.,„ 'e 'r; ej' r,.' { • ^ t , .,s - , ar ri" A: ,t~ 3.'.,i.,t'e . l ,a b * f o{',' r• , r r. %I . - .L,r: i" 5)M. °'~,rd .rta wi»:r; ,fit;` ,y.5,`r,'ii'~.t~ i'° ,k7.~".yc ~n 4.. r' b• . . t. ` • 't' ''i' ,h sr :^3~, ^,iwd+~5 •i :'Y :y"r k y :,4 ;t4` r rr~..,' • • S' `'a .1,~<"tt,.:.` 1 t-- . i, 'S~ a-" Iy, t+: ' Q C)",, + ' 5.. t 1 c y, P+IR r 1 P, ientti..~~1e.rMt'•.~~, r,~„, y: . ri . . " ,•;t _ .5 ..t t ,•b V ./M` 1r' e. d .}k:„n: '::ttitp,,. .r ,i~aM 3i ^.}.;F•,°+"„ ` wi , t . 1 , 1 'f !~VA", .ti lli i' .r,;<, . `r, .{Yq . r5s, "t J, . J, k , S. - 1 - 1 ~ r r ^ r1 eYf~ is +'r X/y 4.. i 5r ` b,. S ,'4', ,i Fit.. 11 •ai =r8 1` °"4D y V'A' J w1. y 7. ( ay •"T' u YM Y' ,`F"°', ri. of t ' , } ! r ` { tm ;.fir„S, 1 _ t Cr . t .'f, rv. .a•. ✓ i r V-1 'a• f'° „4.;: r „ by ro• A e 'ri' i' t , i ' , 'r.w• 'r„ b' '7 k^ .c.. , aN, •.-t r i, • 1 ,a' r y.,, t. 1, t' ~i+ c,• • t .Ji, j,` •i ` *`'r, v : y , it s er J.1' ' i e : •t r'• A 't r .4.: w11 , Li { : i ~r e } '1 4 ° y a j} ' j: r 5A• r s'r ~4 w :a `t ' b . P t . . I 4 ' a.3. 1 l f ` r^y ~ , dc . S a.= iK, •'f n,!ti<a hr'. . , Pi a'L 3 t _ 5 n' ! 17 F e ^ f A r l 't, rFB Y r' 7 ` 7 i 3 .i; '''t' ',i±^ - .i ail':' ,t, - ,t n. , r•r' ' , r ' f ' ` r r f ` . r r : ' - 'P,` _ . . K 1 . r f,Y b(r, ' . w,a I - 4 #'a`: ; 'r , e. 1 4 r{" S• t' r!, S , i i' ' • ti K~ x 4.r, hf x•,` '•;j'rv R ' lp?,t:3" 'e ,7,r•` 1 { ,1••,P. * r` - ,t u.,.,,. .3}" ' r - s. ,f rf , ) Rk. S x. r !;."-A .i r,,* ds t txy t'~ r.ti ;t~ y+r y ' ; ° v' Ih:': :Te' d" j : , Id ' '7•' t „ •#r:,,., Yt, e~•"• 'M'< r°Yi• 1t•M, ' .I '<'b'` ,1, rYpr~ , Ir,r ' d. a~ , S:`' "++r W'a •;w • p, - K" I ,4# a' L' f "r 1 . t, s YVi 7.r . , . s 's ' A•• ' 7 " ' 1M1'tYW . r r r" ~ :1 ' ti.: a,,R e, °Sra "..r,, r(' .•b ••,r ! JI`. .e "T.b t. y 'P'n . a 'S ^ » OREGON BLUE PAWT 00. ; r ~ 1 ~ t ~ V t A 5 ~ 'X~. I~t~ i ~{~F)"r •'f •7 rha. ~ , « 1 r i ' •^.1.'~ i, F' ~ rlf~.4'!'„ :!`w'i', .r r~•I,a""!~'`~as.~.r+A'. jr , . , p . 1.:,'ir•... aid' y `,C° , a ° S r a. :i` s .'t e a < } ' , t r k r^! ^ t ' y i . R ~1 Fr. ..Py i,~ F." .r7~ ."Xi.), v a y,. , ,o- nl tY►e. '5 Y r V. i,,.!`I. S `r .:.~..-i t#''; • ! i._ ,w. 1'i ~i` r :3: , x•. S 4?~.. A~...Wf' ~ .eiz~'is.'3~ .^$:'<.i `.r' C~,: S"''_s. ....i.. }_.1 c, r.e •'t4. .4 .F.a ^I C 7 ~ 1 ~ P... ..^yP' ,5, T y: ♦t.,,, - i~,. rC~,a. Kam. ry. /.s q.. .}F. aT ry. y .l X' q; j a .!1, a..+ ti~ a8. ..b ..i ~t t,. 's ~+R~ a r... 1 ..y. '.1 , .T. t-, i. 1 .4 ,fir. ~y. r. R, It. , r a '1 wr 't 1 a ~ '1'' :a e , t'. .'v' ~ m k'.. a N,. J ~ . rf:• ~~I '~F' der •o'..'.. c C ' , >z;` a a'!+~ f 4 ~ J ~ ~ £ "r ,R, ,s ,,s:, wig *a µr',y 4 "r~, ~ n ~ , ^ F t- y. ^d . t'' a. ark w E^ ~ i •1 ~ ~J a~ :i..'yr~ ~Y ~ n".?+ ~i Y. .~Jo `,A .It. :Y,'a 7. i• .1' •~'~d' z-'SI _,~.1Lf.v`+ ' + . z 11 { ~ ~ , - ! y-•. i ,r' f. ~ .9 .~v " ' a:~l rt '#k. A w Ii . r/4/ ~ ~W~ 3 , rh. a . 4, sa,'ryvR.~.: '.3 lu IAJ ~S.C~ x~ D . Gr U'f'r ~ ~ { r. ~,1n i ~ - '1^ t.. k .3+~~ y, T r~, t. ,`i".~ r i' 4r'r•4"~~`t; I , ~ .ye - ~ a' ,1'- ~ ,~r 't.~,.' .I,;t, rt.. +4. 1 t ~ .-j" «:jk ,',Sr~° " ~ ~ l' i~ ,a. ~.r i., _ w. .a,: .+,~k,~r "L".,h~~m,+ ry. 'r: +k'1"^' '~~A~b;. a1,~ A-, a. •»kt~yN,.. :N.a . r ~ ' . , « 1 ' .1`>t s','.-'d, a J tu. k 1~, .3;,+ y- '+Yt ~ , - , i 1, 'i 'F, ' 3` . ' ' y,. r ~ ~ _ - t r 1 Sit 2 1. s - ; ~ Sr: ; • y.. ~y ~ 4 1 1 ~ Y w l ' ^ i,d t ~ It`t~ '~k. 41.9•t ~ ~ vY. ,c'fi3 t- • - . , ~ ~4t~9. N.W., ~ ~ 1} ~ . , 1, ~ s , ! ' i ~ +'t ~S ' .9 , 'r - ~t 'ice A--". • ~ 1 .t to 1 ,S . • ' « qty k, ~4.{' " el w+;k,r s _ - , + `~f♦'1'r f)Y,, w,~~ :k II! ~ a r ,tit- •'Ki i, IF 9 i ~ 3 r+ ` •r x a._ .i- t 'w ~ - Y; ~ u 1 n r r, 1. ^VI"- ~ • ~ 1 ~ . .,~..a~ , r:a , . - r- « ' ~ , • , • , •{t , _ y ' 3,{ ~s.. I /i ~ , ' , v r r , 5 _ ~ 4 . , :n.~ 1 - CIS . + tr . 1 s r 4 „ r . t h 4_ ~I ~ t37C ' , 8,y ,92~ , , , SAM 5~A'r W - « k' ri' , F 4 - ; z, ~ t,, , ~ , ,-3 ~L.- - A5 K , .r~~t~~ x" . i Got ~,W ~ p,. • , . , x"I v.~,x . ' ~51~~'~ i f`'~.A~'~.,~ ~ ` 4~ V 1, 5 `T , r 'r ' , ~ t 1+ r c ` _ , • 4 ~ „i ' , ( z '•.1 f_ ~ , . .g r. ~ ~ . b 8 " ` . , , i' --GAM t ,r ~ F4A~ N . " l~-D , - . - - S - ~ , i`- _ w J~~•t MJ►M.1~'fr.~jf~,,z: r; f ('I C ' A F , , .i `x 1,~• •4 'y .'s } ~.e•/ jl+ ~r ;i ,;t in i" _'e.' .t Y F. r. 7" r~ f» ;x a 'i 1 ;~T Ff Z, ieY d 1.74• e' d ,Y rr 'y':.• s'' '7• Y. , „ ° t , ;4. r f} b, _ / f r V l.~ 71 1, > 1 t} _ ,r4 p''S' 5 a • - ~ "4 .'s v.N...' .F .r,^d':.,, rr 'y ; 'ry '6 4 •sa ~dv ` t t o 40 r'. s'y R ~~~~e t*,4~:.f• " as ~e - b C+ ~:1 1. ~ i.-,1. t~ 4~. .r' T, i „t~1 .5. a4r°r~ j:=L" ,•a .•a, F ,F .7•Ti. ~1'...~°-,, _ 3. ='J ~{r y 3 r' a r i` Ilk F•! ^1 •5 1, , 'h 'tb 1. .•,Y• Yih ti "sN!"" r i Vhf 'h .,5 ~4• pF ! , '(r t ~k. t ,i' 'i t• a b • ' , 5 i ~ 8 C, M U WALL' /z 15A5 f t' jr I 1-- of` 'i+,,l y u 41- J fill I-11 I r -19 - 401L t , , . . y . t/ . + ' ref °;d ,t} Pt','~•-., ~ ' + ° _ - - • 't~+ ~ ~ i i. t ~ - 4 + i i,` rfr' 'i aY,t' +t' ,eY..• `~4 + ,rC ',i, :?~w,~r''x'r'~ • t ,i t 4 tT r•'1' +,,ry.,' , i•R. :e, is ~ i ..d J „ r.S f t. S~ e*, r, t'R ~ ~~~Y^~: 'y'Y~",~~;: i+`4'+rl ~`uA 1. Cr kl"~ i S'~+•Y .~r'^~`4~~"kr ' ' .e' _ ! + .Yl• to .t' ~ p L. g•'r~ ~~'t a'., f', Y • yi. a' r ,ty r Y ~ .q,,ti 'p. ,i,.,t ,'i~.~' ' fr }•t1 r ~ , ~ + , ~ Y• !t _ •S . Y~ .rt ~x~.'~y',1; t i 1 a.R 'ti=;r 'x "M ~.Y, ,~,i. '+^•L*p'~w r. - , r a ..r. 4•i.'~y. .41+,,,,,,,~{,.. bt cif ii. T...+. .il~ r 'g? r y,~~ ' ~ . r - r .'i .k. , dY,`+r„' 'h r 4 tr•, M ty~',~; qyF . 7 a wo" `r y'• r ,f - - + - _ SY 1.w •9,:,.. .4 ,Y 5 4-47 E..i +,e; t'e ,.r, ,'sh 'e «%r•,+., •>it/ ,n~•y t. ' Y, 1 +i'. • f , .a `T''`r' % . H J~M.~.~~ . .`Ftr ywA ! 4' .t ~'.A. u , OREGON BLUE PRINT CQ x , t ' i ',5 '4 r'%' Y .i s 4 mod. .r' ..i^1" x' °'V a"W `rr w`~"}}.~p:S ~.~,y :Z; ~,h .~'d'. S t +r:'+•'' .t' ,t3,. ,!fit ~i'.rin % ,1• 4" Y r I , f f rr•.r . ?:I, c} F.+. 5,"°7+~!' '~7r .Tv 'ig~..;y..J,Hr r"k u,.~e r r 7 - a i. y~, t.'. x A; ,S ~4 ~t .'Y~:, r• M•k"'.1~1. 1~ p!?•' Tr I+ *+4 :Y k: ":r~ii "w ° e'f R. ,j: .v ~ ~r' 4' ~7; v r i~ °'i ~'"ti i. .y + .X ,~i:,~.'r,. r~ r.•~~+.Y y~r"l'4.t ' t. '4 .r .rl a,,T el,, Vqd' :r , , 's' ,.f' r Jrr: A~Y~ x •V. .f', mi f . , 1r • . 'S. ."t 43'.... .t,`. ` yi , . t'' . r.a` spy e. / . K y •~i + t,. ..i t*. sy. ..r..' ~ _..~"ic"~.t'.„. %...w., .1Ca ._s`.i'd...... ~,J:; ,y :,`si:se+.r-.u,~ ~'~..:x ::..o..,._.i,r.1':'\:':,.'.i~.:6Y...~.':dsa'irt_.V ~:.d:e„ iw.~.~'d '~g}, { ~•s•,," s5 k. 5~,;~"~ -4'„#~i ,,?'.s~~ ,f, .•►34~i.. Jv.~ d.....Edlir~J.{.u~aa._~i^'a1'3~~._..~.e...Sl.~..w,., . . - , } t~' _ 3a ri !rk ,a Y - ` ) i° :0;4 r" ti i•i a tv%p' .r,eg , ' r t s , . !r, , ~ R. yt ' Jn YA 1, ♦ N P' w,. L V x s. , ~+K. y r r.. { ^:'6;,.: , ^'+C".' , t d 6.. f Ci : 1 C= .rt ti E t ..h n; ,,l. t .YF t {r •2Y" ''iP- $P, A tf- .A a! ~4. ~ 'Nn I .'i'.i 1tlr'F •tY ~F P, ~~i k r',:.a,'g:, i' ,.t: 's~~' r+' r ! i+h^. „y' .ti~.~!!~, ~'P i. M'i "Y,:i '~kt'j; a P 7~ i"~.`,.i .G' '~d~«~ y t ~'e~. .4. fy ,.~,+,r f• iTM x~e. ;.y~,r y tw . G + P., k ' ~ ~ . • ~i yr • Y4 i P `N2f re rT'!r a ! 3 r~ t .$sv r r`Y' .S C e' .t v' 1~ ~Ya. `f a s T":'a tr ~'`'l. {1R "v ~ H '.7•" t: ,r' [ :f'~1 9 a.~••r ••r' d ~s'~ ~ s: `,tn' t^~ }5•:t. ,~.P .f. .s, ~1j~ •`k! ',I''w.i, 'e t wd '+*:9 P :~y rA t, ,n" x'lr?,. ,r' ~1,'4:~: .;w.., r, r' 1 , , 'N' 41 fA y • 4 Y AS•` ..Y e~, 'r +r}`t s , '2 rr. d f ' ^`~«m'rA ~ t . s.° «t+^'. :s~^ ~ >.5.~` ` ~f. i ~ ~ t~' :kN ` . r.~ 5 . ii N}~ ' 1 ~ t Y' ~ ~ !i . K' : t"i0 u.~•~f h (f ~ d .1'r rP. t •t'.• ~".T : r ~ag ~dM ~ik!' i i. , ♦ :P t f ,~,r~. ..5 `".1 .t"~ .i .r .t. w 1Y w?~2r wY.,t M' 17/'M1.. i' y; t'+, r, y~. y'\$ y,~: t Pq. , `,~''~-,1. _yM ~F .Y L' rl~ 1 .~i •i.~ fp- ,~'`'Q". ~ `;yl", {t. e t, r`$+:~±~,. }p~~` i. YC^, ; ,4 t. r „ v . •r»oA..,1 1' 4\.~ , FF< r.A ro.i v lr•''•.:4^ Y ~-'Yt~r ~'fe . • y.t' .,y .l tJ«tij ~ J 1 f ;'S*.. .Y R,` ~f:r 't ~ r .f .~'f r r F i+•. i .'1' f'ri~ '.',.T ~ A r 1, . . • - s r u . ) t, 4' e: ' .'s. E. .':.~e .'a.,.'. t~ hx re.i 'l 1. .,.i .'S.. .°`:,,Na y'1 s.i:d. X9: .r. . - . y ~ ~ - ~ ~ '3 •t`,. '~,l ~ .1`f ,r~ i t y', y."r ,tq 1 r' ~,F` R^ ~ '}~.i. ' " ~ ud` i ' , • , . t:ri' ~ , r t f .x~.,1^'N rb'e ti• ,p"r, ' , ~ r .r r , ~ ' ' ♦ , L ' : + , 4 T `r tl: rr"? y t , f . ~ ~ • ' i t,.t. ~ r '?'.t 4, 'h ' ~ } i. a ?3 ~qf air 7.~~ .a u.g, g: g`, et,4..+ r . , vzJ.'` 'r 4 ;,"f, {a.'.1! ;fix , r Y' ' Abr7• a ~+~.~~~.~(~'R~' < •.t,♦ . i • r ~ ' •Y J!.' .r. .r . ~ I r 'r 7.. t. ,,4a '~1t^S Yr i.4. •.I. cJr . s '"'1 r F .t', f ° . . r ' - . • ~ ~ - ~ ~ - ~ ~ "a. '1 y ' j''' ~ r. ~ 1 . ' rr i r ll".. ~ 9 N:~Sf - R' ~ r ' 4 ~ t - t, ' ~ - A t, x t_-t;y j4•,. _r ~ ~ } .w 1 ',1 ' ...~l,e~,t,. V! V!"7~I...~•~V~•M"' 1• r~~~-w - i . r ` ~ ~ ~ ~ f ' x•t ry.~~. , r "fir: lr'+ ' M1 , rt",1 .aI' d , r •r 1; . 7 . a t _1 Y ti r, _ _ W s" - t ` k ~ V' ' a" t;+, 1, . ~ ' _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' r . ~ ,'e: • ia'a , r ' t i,t 5 r ! •F•'3'.J : A , A 1 • . ~ , , 3 , , t ~ ~ r . y'~` aC}` r 'ft4.' w,: .i';'twreY~,A.~xa.ax$st:•;, :M • t .a , 1 a e n R ry _ . ` °y t; + i"qtr R'~ '~t`,1~~~ •!,~?i r~. f. 4, I ~ ` . ~ 's" r t.. y..1 .a~ 'a!, .'x rri: 9,y ' f ~ . .r' ~ ~t '.1, a `t ^'y' . .t' R~r'y{ re .L 5 4~^'s .It. A ,rr AN F / f r •r ' 1 r~ ~ ' w,Yr,,.~•'~••r'•"`" , ' , F ~ ,f.. ~ ` ~ J, \ Ya' f,• N ~i tr4 J ' 'i~ i~"~a ~ ~ ~ x. ~.-owe""' tv .1 , t • h' , r . r ~ti r . t T.3., L~. .1 ,.r...+.-r,.!.`~"""" ~ A., yr .r t, " ~ A 1R~r' rs, ,,.t. C?LY,S ~ r , . ' , ' ^ w~,,.rw+r"r.'. ,."rrM+"' ..A}. ~ 4. f , `I ~ , t 1 ~ ,rho' r 1, + t, n Y. 5 3 ,=r, ti ~,',i e,.~` , .t , A .t Mfr ~ ..2xq ~ ~ ~ .i ~ . ' ' ' '•1 , " e I` ~ ' 'r. 'fir 1. ar G hl~ r. , ~f r . , ~ `t ~ , a .e.' , ' s GQL, GAP , ~ ~ ` ' ~ ° ~ • ~ _ . f ~ ' . ' . - ~ ~ - ~ • , .3 . ' ! f 'I r . , , t t~ t .•i w e , } ~ ~ , • • t n _ a , ' t' r ~ , 4 ~ ~ , 't, ,fir. x:.r1 yri, A i,t,,+.,i..l,q..: ;~.n,..,e a. 1. 'r. ~ , >l .r •y~ ye•, % ,t rJ', ,~.,t g ttr .T a) A ' 'r <:cN. q.. r . ~s j{: 'S.. •V 'q.. ti t' -':3a,`, "v 'f,~'s,.. it, Y., a•. ,•1' ,s .,r4 'tk', i`, ~,i.•., •L ie ~',t,r` ''w.rr + rs. R 't .ea YRrr "c,. ~ r` ' ~ per,, r z y. 4a; `,,+iS . r g" ..w .A. , Y' ! s, i 4 r ',r'od' ; lx•nr,^ a. '%~,';<+'>,t. a'1: a t? bb' x•' +,r.• , ! ."4. r f->'d `,1:.> ~iry'1~t'r t!{, y'~,. •kd~t,R .4 ,a / , ? o . ~ 5 S• i>s :~f v ors ~s '•IL ~i d~ a` s>" t~~t't~: f.~}Y • ~ w.~+ r e: t''"' tY.., r ~ t .s' J 't'' 'r TM ~•,et;",:.t* Irv v`v~±' ~,4.S`r` r:;'.,i, ? :.~,.,;,o",Y.~ ';r g. '%i*~v'^ . r:`' ',d .,gt..r~l. ; ,'a`e~~.lY a#:" 4: ..t~'. _ f•:'i ' ,1,, 'i~v w• 'r v .i t 'rr K C ~ .f }r.~+ l'~, r, i'k,r '4 ,'ti,r~ ~ w~' a.' 'r~~ _ 'i' , ;yf. " w ' i~ "f .:y y , = 1 i~ } ty , 5' d 'rr r ~ eY 'g, , _ . w 4 a . a,. w ynra , ~ a ~t ,t,: . , r r i' , - G M U . 3.}; wr "t i ` ,x a ~ 'n t'"' r, •,iwx .ei r ~,a;7 .,n , ;i •~`~,3 ,f v .A Ss' 7~ r ~r.• ~r', 'fir ~i y?`~ •ry •,,,~t^~'l`~ it wt }#M.:.s r2.', 1', ~sr ,F, te.~~;,a +'I ,'q3t p"f;r~`rtf~~t`;e~'}~,~r'y5 M=ry,.i~~~~~.i''•3•:t ~.'.y'. r+J'~+r~ (r .r "g ' - 4 ~ t 't' . i. ,~f 4 .e. .4 `YM.. ,~yt r r' j., ~ a ,y ""'ai "~T a~ ^.q >~.:rt•.o.} i. a,te` 'rSr tS ; t' 11" ~",+"S,y 'gtl'h, _P.., ~1.,`y'. My::,~ ~S*. ,A ,.Y. t"i 9 sS', j'e~•,r x,,,. y, rf~'"ca,'- a ~.!~1'~ "'t n.'r 1' A,t . 'M - e "'J` ~tr A w I "Yh+, ~rl• t,Y, r ' ` r, ~ r•+,w~, ..•y~"~7.q , x 1, r x. +f ~Vr~ ~ Y ' f •~r 5 „j~ ~ rr t~.- ~ s ~q„~i), ,:se- + r' ray J ,si'", r~. , yy - +l' .a" Vii''-' }ar r"3a•311'i',a,.C' w+~:~ i'J~ k4*:.~~~'''.~. `'A r•~..a, "r, }~f'~'•`i`4,,• •}'h'' ~ ,:,f .,~I' ~ F4 ^'q!S;4` ,rr'e`» ' ,N , ~ w ! , ' ~'~"1 3. S' ,t Wf ,r `1'1Mi" rr is ,zyr rA'd °t'i",e, ,f:, a^,rr er "a r r, u t t'' i t, "y, .i,"er.1+•kq, 7 iY f `s.~ ,M1 {P .7` s . / ~ t ''e': ti N,YW -'r"'.,.. r~~. a ' r #.}a~ C ~y , P +I'ti ~'J~' v.4 ..+A.,: .1., ~ ~ ~h''~ • ~ ' ~ 1I t r i{., <r~q;,,":~ q~.!,x, ",,~,.v'',q~~~~,+r.' ,+f"„ "'r~:•gl:'1"." .4, h. '$~;e,~u'R4, P A4C'a,r+ .r ixw , r ULI.• t " (/J'+~ 1 ri, s k.iJ„4'x ~ *S y~.,~ lf. 7y~~ ii .p.e.>,~. 7 rlt Gr'4i3,^,~1 ~f' r, a'" 5er r' t ~+`1• i r 1M' I~ . ~ ~ « .tr,,, 'a'rc- ~ r.r f, {4'". , / ~ }''r , t' „ v 's ~ ~r1 'a~ ~ " } 1 of , 4. i' f ~~'dt.kt5 q . ry. a ~jr,k. 1 rwRY. et~~ r.f P~eF ~g~ rjo- •a', 'y,+i ,zr . a 4, ,~,i'a ~,r+, ~d'~,X k i. `t;M';-Nrl `i ~r~,. ~~';.~4', '."~y n~, y ~7`, ~44F1 1'a~`, ~t~ ' ~,w.. y,u ~ ~t'~„4~, b,fisa`' ~ " ~ sr ~ wg t: °i°~~ ''w ,4', 6 k.`y..~K', ,ix~d rsy ~vt 'r^'t I I~ 'A4~~ffr •s r! yr ldr. '.3"..~ .q~t t.ra ,1 , ~~S a'1:•.. .r »a, 1. 1R1 v'',:, .pt'~:~7;4'°,~>~ s 1' Ct;~ `.e sit i'Yr d ;ae.:r~ ti~:Y,4t ~t.,'`:~Q r, 4i,a,t'`,t~,,}~,:r L+a ":att„y,rx a, tr•a' ~ S , .r. : a4' 4 .°i g ~wr t !hf) T. 1., wE 1 .q. •~l t'a I,, i' ♦k,etrKaS't ""''e? .rr'.rr+.rr,~i. . J;' ~a t F frt ka. l"r:x '°i'a'x ^ {i~ rt, r •,4 t'4n'w. .~5, ! , - - .1 rt~~"~g.• .•1 •,rt" ~,.w. 1>" ;W; .+4a ~t :y" P'. ~'i.ro a'4~'* ~4, C• .n"'~ .I t''~ , 3.,~ -_i' ~.Yr', t. s, ,.r^,t f.',y:. ti;,« ;'rt'"h.,`~, r."k'-' :i•; "'l.'~w•, t,• ~1 'i•:'~i~','y~,,~ ~ , / t "f ~ r 4', T' 1 Af w a tt"., ? .a (,t'Y1 ~ q~~„ pa yr 0 r , / . "k. 71i.a . 4 t 3 ~/''~r} `1J H ~ 'lar. "t q 'tee,. iTM~1~~='Y' M '..a.,• ,,r" w I~",'"; h-,~ 'rs #.`'wt)Z^ Y" iy,'•.4~p',e, ' .t r a .j5 l 43., fi•-. r~l .+ri 5~ rA .,jr ',y ?,~',-~rv r.i, t .:;qy r.":,rr^. ay5 xy',, . } k' {vr ~;,-,r,l ~'k " 't. ti.ga M. I ~")~.1, R ~ ' ,:t1,~ ~r}t't r ~`,~t. ~t ,.t {e~, r! ~ ' yr~y// t: 3' r,• r~ .t'•'l~s /iY•.. „s~; Y'~,1, is.t+'"tk r.ra Rlaj ry.:i.a r~~!` w,fw,...+..+,~~.+ ,w 4~Y'~{ •r { `y'Y` 1k} • j.+»,:•, t?'''pi5-, rr~ k'"""a,.~ir, ` __.-.r-.-. ~ a . y;,t' ~ 7"`i k ;R, ,I>. ;t'.! , ;T~ ~ t..,. i4,~,'jc~`.;, .?.'NS ~ i ~a'Y e ^ ~ ~ ~ - ~ r R ,i ,A• 'g,~v. t ,,~tli/krr 1~~~+~~ .r J.yr. rt .Sr: sea'' t r:, T, ~ v M~. F~j~{~~~~,~~//'~'~+ ~M►, Te', .a ~ .:4.' iv, . r.~t 5 r'" ` r~'{ , r~ '>r `:t.:, ' I ,'F• 'G': . . ' ~T.", 'va., , e y' ~ • , r" '4, u' a R: r ~ , r r,• r r ' , ~ru,` c v ..rr tsri" 1 ,t y.. ~ t v~•r ~'''n7~'n a;' are: fy a .!ti r r+~.r,/,4 a Y' *:rti Y*, r~ytt+; "v sr?(d~~':,xKg +''t}E".t~,}ti 'r. i • r r. • r*:t~ .r. ~"R ,a:•,ay vr., 'y ,'~`,i t.i a, i ~ - r~4+ 3:r ..3 .t° ,1 'r'•+; •t r,, g vr,~-t,;.4; res.., .e s'~g. AtgJ>;, :.S'' y ri a: ~I-.f•;~^~, ~i fk 3. .~raj.~ '1,~`fG4`~ ; ti rre`~. s e •7r .,4: u, ,{;~1+ :`4. +94; +3- .S r13 ~t t~ 1 NYC, r,i~^ i.. 'Y r. ~ ` ~w. ~n.~..+, , Q N p ~~A M . tt~J .-gin ~ lr ~ - ~ - '3 ~d;l, 'y.r. ~ ~ # ~,t~ / 'a r r.' ~ E ,3:,+,~ i~o~"~"` ~ :'~k,i' Via.. ~ r y ~ w ~ ji.. y: l ale '.a 't + ' 'st t~ +~3.~t .'~,',,~.>ti' ^ „ r.'at" ' i ' U ~ _ ~Y~a J~ w'' y`'.•,C;r• "Y,• ~sd',~ ':C<i:~r` r... ~tr'fr..;.: ~,i ttA`I ",}'y,.'ry. '","•t 1 V ~ J ..g '11;, .A~,' ~ r'~ ~ r .4 , .w ^'4'Ya: z. i'Y', .r"'s., ,Jf• yQj ~ , M t } s ♦ ~ r i 5r r •e. .i''.'' T4 t ~ t 1.{ ;yJ,!~`~~,rtx,, r ~ I rr"1 % ~f j~ c ~ / . •v.'tr C ',re.<' ql r.A , 1. "W~ s: x4„rY'ka r '`qr ,.L'+~: ts'•'.'-'*~ "k" "q"; 4°' ~ _ J ~ r I~ T►l'~~~J'111! ~f'1~ W 3 I- •r x,zry;.~.,'•,~'< ,x4 • r~ti,~` 'Y4f'"~f t~4rig `'~b•~~"r~'~i. ' R 1~ ••t,. r r..a~'?`ts {,ti rie'e~ Y':r5<rt.►"~a,~t trs Auto„~:, nr~', •rx'.✓n• I j ,.P''• i',x .At rill Sv, y ~,i '.Vlry.• Y~ { f.":r,i,%e ,i .,.L , `T IGI.. s'? ,S' 7b .lam. ~ -t:: G'. :-t ,:n~• •~pt.a:?W'{e4, ,f ..v '.`.4,'•"-.;~s'~ti; : ~C,. LL F~'G o , _ ~e '4 ~ ~i~,t4' .3K'.~` N' ~'~Y'~ ~ q`~ .3'~" _ .1'.:"ta-r f`'„~.o-;~ y:, ~f " :'R+.1,. a• „t;{;. ,a'. ~i,,t~,;.l ' i, .Yn c4~' j' ~.1 %•!:`y;^ 1 a.J ,r • li " , i.•r'. Ai T , ^#yt~ ,;.~1 .'t: is ~F` "+'x'} . J~:,~. ?.4?''-a`y `,jl', t . t : ~~>r' r . : s , at' ,1 wW"'" ".~,f'+ t:7 e Y r ' `^kr s t' } h_.::, rr 'i ~ ,'r", ' . ~ ~t p1,. 'r. : ,t ,3.~~ z','<; .t". w,aa.t' p r, n+►'= ' ~ ' n' rCi.`,.. ° rte' y„''..'t - t + .41` a`: e+ y 'd.' ,.A' b"":. VI •a1. 1 ,e ' . ai,' S si r ; 4 . i~~.; . r7 ~„j ' ' ",y,ik" ;:p, Via..'.` ° Y, .•cl x', f,. j,, e ";v, 1r,...X b',ts xY~~•.%ti it pi .tr .e". t' kp~ ,r}~ 'ii, .i: r ~ tir 'r'• skL .~~.ar~r4 p` 'r~~ ',a y. v'1' :1h .db t,: r, " 'r-> tt //_~r f~,'~ :titerY'' f 'y` , i i..._~C'', ar. iL ',f. i. .,5 t k i - 'X'~j 'ty, yr 4 e..~ t 't...' n'n •1%"' aP, .jy S:,` `A '4 r ' - - ~,j 't/ t r. tai ;t'~: -i f••M;; fii yY,.' . ft ;,a. .l.t t+.x ,`(y, "y Crt ' ~ ,t, I. .La ,z 1 ` •a: g''r' °;b 1Mti I ,~t sC. o: t'} ~g~ , .d ,i. r' u'~~ Y~4' .;ya ' . } t, tq 4, rid a•, re r fa fd .:,'.i yrr. r al •.i ..'~{'•.7`" iA~1~ " ',f• 'd,es. tl r r, t,. ~~::4 e'.1 .•sn y'1,, 3.'i, ;a 1, .7' ! y'f!~.. ' fg y, t.• a" / t ' g ~~{J~";~ti. 4 >r .r~ ~ •"44 „~I 'fi'r;<!".lt` C,•r•'i~r" ''~'w ;,t 'srr ^,rf, .1 "`l '.1•,tte .~•n'.f " ' '"~'+r.+.. 'y' Y t `i • Mj r M: ~'e~.6",r•~~ :,r' 4''`~, 3 t">•.. ' . •r` ,.r .1 r e, `.1, e.a t ,S ,~R+.. .r ".a [ +i` ,.rr }r " r s Ty ' r:: ' .>r z ~a y ...f ,r dr t q. I,.{ , , ~ f M'xl~~;~' rtw, "y,~r, II *'t;p Jty ~.,r . '?y-r a f 'r',j•'~ 4. s. .s'i 'F >"K y:e..i^n:t,r. ir~ Mi' .Z'. ts,'x;w nl~ ~ ••r ~~k'` '3 •ar<. ' , .:Ar :'af..., a it.3 jy4,, y., rt` a~•, .4` a,~;}; ~•M _y M: .3 1~A~ '.r a ~,:~,ti •f: M-, r"/, tx'+• 4twy' fir' . r ' I a. :T,.,~ :Y c`.~s„r r'r 'i~ i < •111 ".ri - a+. ~ ' C .t 1 a . e 'g a,~rt" p . 4a ~ ~ e s5 r J y 4~ r ~ t... ~ ~ i<. .'I. tr g4'7a •y.. .a+., C, Rr".r :.q•;vH►n 4C'.. ~i~' • 4 1 w / ~ r a'if S ' f.~~t'i•'L:t r~M"k';w„'Y''k` W7''!.'~W}7jV~7~f 4 a, 4~ y t•!~ ' '~..'3 `r: 5.,,.,'r', f~ i4. r iv r i4,M ~~Y1r a ,^~<v •1*,~,'u 41 .M y ,Y A' :rt y° `r; '.,f;,;..:.~qi r a' w'r.;i..a,++ ,K,., 't(" t. 'ac,~'y:~t~, r.• ~ a. " ° :+F + ' { ` at I 3".~ ! , t' 1 R Yr~ r r' h .y'j ' 1 .;.r, ,'.a a'i a 1 Rf"jyY `,t' 4, a :i^, ~'r,'3," ~<t•.'✓ 1 4d• l ,4' x x'414 a % ~ :Y"' 'i'.i. , •t,4 :r,'~','y. . w. r ,.1'g, y~ s t~•' ' ~~{..vK:~l~.t`:s~,:~'y:~~•Yti.~~c+.''~ib.aw', .,..aa' i:S.r.N. r ~ ~ - L•''..... t , ,r,. @:~.•. v. ':i.'tcitu.,ta~ar•,n ....:+.:,.~r..iNlra► ~ ` y ~ ~ • 4 t A tnt;a ' ~ e T~J.~E 'e 5 '~`y jY~q .l:: ~°,r. a, . •i, r •i '.55h E' :tw, k t. Sw .a5 ti ; °A „ ~ ' i r , . t , i ~ l' 4' t , •,'P, ^ 4. 4 ♦ . ~4y5,• « 4 N Y~ •P ~ ~-rv t a. , 1 t t.~ 6 :y .t y 'i~ t ' :t , '4•rt` j.1"_tS q. ~t§ry' `'j' ~ s 'f , ~ :.S ',t' ~ ' 'r •r, .r -.l' ~i'r.. ''t', +t°~:c1'" ti~i`vr g•stp '4`r4: :t`:r`~r,'. r'4e! ~t'.i "}Y ~ w', • 1c" i , lC~ .'h,^ `t•,-' .4 s~ ' s' rt`•• r' J w ,g' ,I„ r •e-• ~ P~" '~t'. .J' i a>, v 1' 'fit ' , § ' hJ-'# ('F -,1 ,t 'i; • F . : t " . ij. v7 h, .P• •4i .I ~ 1 ',4,' i4 ry. .Yt A; Y+ 6 ' r.7 D'* ty , •t r ~ 1, '4' 1 4 }n r 3 GOLIJM 5 K x r b N , -,f , r nH ,4 '`a' kr'-, •r< !r`'I •1~ ~-•r ,s'.'-r;' 'r a 's. i s. r 4 t r~ :t, , ~a a ~ -k, d~ 'r!yra ;r ale". L ai ~ ! `sr P 'Y 1• 1r • R9 ~ a „'7 „ j 4 ~ r'.l i 'r'i~• ,'SF'r ' 1,. Y•. i , ti 'ii"' ,'tr ~ N ~ ti r j i' .4' a, , a..• .r: 1" V ,,~,'d r r y}r 'x 1, 5 ti ~ ~ r tr'' ' *r ~ . r k ` C , ' i ~ s : µx t ~ w ~ F §t ' , e' .a , t•"L, a, t i ,k .i1 ,3 ,is"^ ,k, ,r ! t -w Ar 1 i "t' r . 'r f b r ' r R "r. A a t i• f e• A t+ w 4 4 e~+" a".~'• , , .s rw~, 1 3' `"4r x•.,^r. w y'. .f~ ••r n " x 1o X .3A'5f PLAlt`,, s' t ~ Rt ~ ~ ii CC' \ a > _ I`~ .t'd Ni° t 4t" ~ "•.R 't` t'°°' rn'a"." " . ~ 'yf J~ q r.. •3 ,r 'rt ~t. is"~~ ,a,• ,t~;r, e rai:., .a.t `,yg•, A 03.2 a d Z C-H tAAY (I. P) (F 8 0. C. fA " • • r , , ~ re t , r •1 ` 1,13'• •i fit, d I,r . :t'~ i ,`;'•k' ,t.p'~. 'j. ;r~ .w f''iri6 'E:( t. .,1g .4: ialf r-, .ia; ,.i, rrw• v"4 R.. ~ , , f' r.. .r, a, .I, vr. ..!i: .t,.e'.+, ;6^',.{ ^t.. - . ~ P _ W. I RI;PT- f 1 CONICI o4/ 11~ r `s 1 i P ,Yf OREGON BLUE PRIM CO ~ y ~ t ~t, ~ 'i ;a-1.p .CHI fir' a-'tir .y. r'11, ~~f: t' ",~°r ~I +`~P,~J' .1.'S,y~,. , " ~ r~ 7 ~ ~ il, < . ~a. t• 1 r r.+ H1`.w ti.-. of s.J.'•~'., ' . r F - r y=„ k, .~""r 1.. ,!'i. ,°I S" , f , .d`, ..t~Y~"; Ta g".41,,.,'<r ,i ..i .s~ ~wY s. + 4 r r r f ♦ r r •.'t Er' n z i _ ' a . .u ' k `r R1~ . y`C ~ A.. .J ♦,{A d "Y1 "7 t .'4 ~ ' 3 } ~ f ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' y 1 , ,gyp^x«r~ ~ i'J ~ ! ~ r t' «3. «.,y w~.~' ~ ~ r. s~ y , ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~ j. ~ ~ A~_ ~ . • .~P, wr~ `i w. wy, ',,w.., y 'r.~~4 S,~ ' r ~ ' « w ' - i20~_O'I 20~.0~~ 20'-0'' 2o~-oa 2a~^p~~ . i. 1 I'~ T t - 4 1 O r~ I'- 6~~wi~e GoN'C ~(G• ~ ' I -r~~s wa~~ o I) 1 L~ 0 f d- C 4'-8'~ 5~ x ~2'~~` FI'C~ . W/(7~ 4 ~A. WAY 60f r 1. - f G . I W~ 10'~ x 10"x%~ (~ASfi PLA-r6. F~ o - m ~ ~ - - _ - - . . _..1 L _J L _1 _ ( Q ' ( Q ~ ' 3 S~x 5' X ~6 GOL. L . I1 W I D~E~.J GOIJ'C F'fC~ , '(o , #4 ~A. WAY gam' (TYP a i ~ I ~'i~YP. ~xGEPf W+-IC.K~ NorE►7~. ' I WILL. CALL , F r~ II I - - - ~ - - _-i~- _ _ Z-- - -_--?~~o?- ---r asp..-- ANIL- I, I . ~ M ~ 1 ~ _ - -r 1. c L r---- 1 } r r ~ ' 4; a O'D R" p a I e . 4 e , v 244-1, ALBERT.R,,KENN~d t Y tt, 244-9811 -,F ~AX s Y , 244-981• EY CONSULTING EER/R-ANNER ENGIN ale n ~ i ~ ♦ ~ ~ ' , rf>' . '0 L' } ~Y t sot( Cb, y y ` ; Y e LOP A y 1 , , . ♦ Fy, 1. 1. ~,r ~ 1~ ' ~ } ` ~y... S' ONEGGINBL:JEPW4IG(1 ~ r OU n /A/v~s f .r 1.A a t.l•, , i.r ~ , ~ {y ~ h a r ~ 4~' •4 ~ ' 'C.~~ ~ t. , Y 'v. I w , i, ~ ~ . , ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ i s F ~ i s , + ' ~ ~ ~ ~ . f , I ~ ~ ~ ~ , e ~ ~ - ~ ,S ~ a .P t , ` ~ " ~ ' ~ ~ ~ a $ L " ~ , .Y r Lf l ~ry l b 'Y ~ , 1 ~ G ? F ' ! A n .1 ~ 1,y ~ . 3 . ~ ~Y' ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ',}.'~i~, rri Rr ,ICE ..w • + r ~ ♦ +I a .I s.. ♦.w. lR ~ r l.c RvweY'. Hn~.a.IF•v.~.. g.. ~a _r.-e.3.,~ ~,..~_z.. .i, i y ~ ~ t tti :it,~~~tl'i iy~~~ ~t~i44 } Y~ ~ 1~ ~ ' ~ ~ ,~~x ~'7~',j 1 ~~.2i~' .tIt'~~~ (~1 S} eft a- .'i~)~I`a} 'f~',I~ai4' ` If~~'71'~41'r~;i ~ II i ~Il~if: ki~l(li':~ ~7 ',1 tl ~'i~ :1,1~1~ iii leaf }t}~ ~ ~i~ ~~i~~I~Mii, 'h :1,~; lilt ~i'r ~ II~~ Y{ I N I M ( .f 141 .,r ,i y,~'F' ;~i~., }a ~~I ,a ~t 1 , P d' f! I ~z'~ t II ~ ail ~~J I~ I~ ~ ! j ~ it i ~ J 1 ~ ~t ~~~11r~E d~~ ~f. ~~'r+ ~~~~)fl':lil ~li i.i~~, ~~~~7 ~~}iil~ r ' ~11~''f~ii~~t;i!i~11. '~i~i,l,~ 't"~~ii~~.~",~ ~ ~ n~ `I f ' 1• ~I ~i ICI ~~'~If 11 ~f I}~f~ ' ~ Ili ~ i• i o t C r $ 1 V{ t., 4 I~i1f{II! i+ f Slti,~~fll~ Is,, ' ~ ~ R C ~,Ifl.ll 111 I!~' ~ ; +',+li' l;ltf•~~" f ~tt( ~f+ , M } f Iil « "'i{~~I ~~1}}i full I~11if ~I ,~~A' t"11 l~~44it{fl ' ~I, i ill.. '1; r'• II't i I f ~i 1 f t ,f, I~I f"~I t,fS ~ ~ I~~,i ''ii' ~~f„I~, ~ ~ w ~ , '~..I' ~ ~ , , .I i ~ ! i { f' ~ I~ ~ " r ~ " ~ I ~+..I r~ ~ I ,i ~ ~ i I i I+. ; I,~,~~,I~,~ ,~tt ! N I ~ f fj . f ,~r~~ ; , 'i . , ~ I f I , . I i 1 I ' f t I ~ ( , ~ 3:x.7.,... y"""" 1 I I I Ir I ~ I~ M i ~ 1 .,,t ,,gip; l , 1. t 4 , i I~ I ~,r ~.~ftr,. f ~ ^ ~9 L ~ ~I .I f I.~ 1,., I, f^, : i rp I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~,f ~ i,.,l ~ ~ ^,ii{3 ~ # . f{ ~ ~ ,il { 1 i ~ !.'.t ~ 1,. ~f~t~l I . ~i ~f ~ ~ ~ r'f ';li.f ~ I+..~~ (I I ~ r~~ r , i f~l !fpii iItl f ± I ~ li~ f ~ . . I~ ~ ~ E . ~I , ~ 1 L I, . , I k f ",r . 11l~p ~li,~ I I ' ii I (I t~ ~ i j ~ ~ I a.~ i, i ~ I I, _ t i ~ ~ ; ■ { 4~ ~ _ ~t t i r t i`~ ~ . u 1 f~ f~ W I~ D U ~'r~ Q G C R M ~ xg N D " _ . _ _ - _ _ . r ~ _ I ~t E k r~ G L1 WALK W 5 . 8 ~ . _ _ `s } . _.w_ S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a . _ I ' ~ , ~ , ~ ^ t ~.-4 ~ ; 4 ti r 1 . V " f~ y~ r r- B 1 1 t t ■ I f i3 4 ' } i I k' ' Moo1°N. 5 C r? U 7 ,i_ r' f~ ~ P 5. r" 1 I~ i f - G I . mot-- - ~i r i i_ a 'r A _ i/ V Yom'" i f ~ • r S C 3 a 03) 244-9811 FAX 17 R'KfrcNNEYiJR PE' CCNSULTING ENGINEER/FtMNER, 1 OLAW n. PATE . H.-ri M C;r A' U 1. L C r -f~~OY,-. 51 Q 0 I 1 JOB NO.3?.R. ~I 0 ~l JON 5 VA q `~r r SHEET NO. 1 OREGON BLUE PRWT 00 • - ` ~ t.., r ~ ~ - " ~ ' , ' ~ ~ n { .P.~'.. t. t kf ^ ~ ~ w ~ 'N : 5 , .k 4. . k 'V. t . ~a, rl ~ ;k ~ ' ` t1y { r ' ~ f. '1. ~ t r y ~v'1 " s , ''.'t '1 ~ t ~ { r ~ v. , rid 'v^y, 9 }.l'a ~ i J' e r ~'t s.f,a `~a .t ~ s~,. - f k. r ~ w r , nt ,.'l,' I•'•;ry«ti.i a I ~y ~ ~ - sa. r ~ b'- _ : - t - F CoNTNuouS l3ox'Gu~fT~R _ 12'_.._ ; • ~ 6~~1 ~'S- 2 + - ' , ~ _ r • , _ _ ' PtLASYER ' i Q U5'f'aGpVGR` . SUAI-.N.W, 2X~-CJ":2'-:o!j,o;~c.. ' . 2~t 4...5'~i.iD. UAI~L. 1 ` i ~ 4 _ ~ ~I - - - ~ : ~ ~ ~ - s- ~ ~ i 2.1 _ 1 - /4..~ 15'- 4'~ _ - • ~ `71MF: GLl37G 5y8'x 3-0%~ G~L6;{eJ~?c~~tLONCj ~~~AM~SEAT W~ 5CA?' P Cam:" ' Cz)3f4~M.6. i ('~l~A'S"~E~fC .i "~X S~~x/b T5 GoL' W~ ~O'Ix ~0' C~AS~ ('~AT~ ~r ~9 ~ 4' A ~ .-J . g~~ n. c, EN. WAY' . 3 • 5 _ o , o'~ ~~N. FAR. = ' i i i lO CAp F1..ASHI►JG 5 2x 8 f'~. n~fE r -CAN'!: ~ FLA~iN~NC~ ~ ' y y 16~-a'I ' r ' 1 r lit x 3 1 w ~4 GvuJMN l 5AO17~.~. C~ Ca~UM~! . cvN'( Top ~ f3of-CoM 3 1 X 5 X God.. W ~ r 5 .r I~ z 1► ~ x IU /z a ~3A5C ns.AfL J T 2 RON'f'(D6I. GLAZfd) J 1 i s i , -rriIGKL`N SLAr3 EDGE W~'ri.JKtI (503) 244- 4• 5Q- x 1 F'f 8 G W JRM' PE R. KENNEYj 24 RI~Iu ALBErRwl CONSULTING ENGINEER/PLANNER , #4 ,W~ tf. aT: 45LA5 W1 MOIS"rilftE-BARRIFlt 's O f ~IYe~L~/ ~ i ~<Ix~ Nolef , J OHW D OLA - - - h -i,-- r-aol k]A' 1~~c i OWCoON tIN PPoNTCO „ lY,n a. ,r .a M s w1 ; ~ •6.. k.«a.. i .r. .1 wl~"Y,. .J M ..A.hl.a f''k .JdW a.. ~.\.+hi Y.e'y.W ~a..la1LYO.il~al .'~sirSYu,.i+rt.wn...z s. .d+. S.4f L i ~ 6 1 i y~; . ~,1J,. CI.A S .A' RQO~I.i~i ~ . 5 G~ , o . - ~ {I ~ 5 ~ - . ~ , ~}2 U G(~ PL`f W ~.SN 8 Gr , . . ~ r ~ M . t I'~ ~ . x L. ~I _ ,i 1 / p - x 3 ~ C~ 8 _ _.w - - _.r._.. ' o . ~i TD P ~5 -A ~ c`~Na~Y ~ ~ Y . . r ~.1 ~ - - ~ 1 X~ , 2 t ~ i K,o'` e / 6r 2 x ~ - . ~V J 5 1 ~~{y ' l ~ G ~ i r V V V 1 Z X K ~ ~ 1 r ~.,~~1 ~ ,1 I x T o W 19 5~A1" 1 Cad, GAP ~ ' _ j 3 t 3 ~ ~ 1 ^ ~ r'"' , y a ~ I f F r w . ~ ~ J i ~ e"' .b ~ A . k ~ ~ ~ e 1 FM rrrC~ I ~ ~Ir~!'i y r ~ r ~ R~ ~ ~ 1 J v F,. . G~ r i i tt; r t~Np SAM ~ ~ ~ ~ , t3 ~ L. E ~ ~ 3 ' ~ } ~ ~ , ~ ~ t6 r" ~ ~ , . , . t i 2 ~NAI IZI~ N 5 t, A C~ W 3 ~ r ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~r . ~ ,~t r ~ ~ • ~ ~e ~ of ~ F~~~ N Tip Z ~ a . , . 5 AR~., ~ ~ ` N MCA . ~ ~ , ~ ~ p ~ ~ / r ~ ~ ~ t M ~ 3 r ~-a ~ ~ _ ~ r f'. ~r~ r . ~A . . A X 3 Golru~1N ~ x tb T5 0 x 10 x /2 13A5f- F LA-ra w AMCHOR OOLr:5 ~t C~ 8 o. c. r-A CH i 4AY 1"~ p 5©3 244 i ; A RT,.RKENN Y-jRn CO~&LTING'ENGNEERPLANNER CoN~, r00""ri M4~ -.O,L,AN r~ r ti GIN D ~ Q . r. • D ~ 1. f haw ` ,r „ M1 p r onzooH r , J 1 < Cy V, L -A ~f tt, A !...(J PI~AIL lk~ oHeCPCA f Lit PHrq? CC ' , . ! ~ .a .w ,r .w .X.~. ,,~,-w .~.e. x ~ .W_ i., i... i.:.a ..a.~~.. n...'.. ~ a..~., ;M~ .,'...r~.:~"rw