LUBA1995-011 - Marcott Holdings
O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW
CORRIGAN & BACHRACH
JEFF H. BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE
THEODORE W. BAIRD 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street 181 N. Grant, State 202
PAMELA J. BEERY Portland, Oregon 97209 Canby, Oregon 97013
MARK L. BUSCH TELEPHONE: (503) 222-4402 TELEPHONE (503) 266-1149
DOMINIC G. COLLETTA" FAX: (503) 243-2944
CHARLES E. CORRIGAN'
STEPHEN F. CREW VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON OFFICE
GARY F. FIRESTONE' First Independent Place
WILLIAM E. GAAR PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE 1220 Main Street, Suite S70
G. FRANK HAMMOND' Vancouver, Washington 98660-2964
MALCOLM JOHNSON' TELEPHONE (360) 699-7287
MARK P. O'DONNELL FAX (360) 696-2051
TIMOTHY V. RAMIS July 31, 1995
WILLIAM J. STALNAKER
TY K. WYMAN M. COLEMAN
1995 SAN J. WLDDER
AU G i sPECLAL COUNSEL
• ALSO ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN WASHINGTON
AISO ADMITMD TO PRACTICE IN CALIFORNIA ttt p-~,
William A. Monahan
City Administrator
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
Re: LUBA Cases - Status
Dear Bill:
Last week LUBA requested an extension for issuing the final order in Gensman v. City of
Tigard and Marcott Holdings, Inc. v. City of Tigard. I accepted the extension request. The
final order for Gensman v. City of Tigard will be issued on August 10 and the final order for
Marcott Holdings, Inc. v. City of Tigard on August 28.
If you have any questions regarding these cases, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
~2cc✓
Pamela J. Beery
PJB/ach
P1b\ach\90024\meapda.Lne3
a
BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF OREGON
MARCOTT HOLDINGS, INC. )
Petitioner, ) LUBA NO. 95-011
• vs. ) Index and Record
CITY OF TIGARD, )
Respondent, )
•
i Y
ALBERTSON'S/DUNCOMBE
CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0003/SDR 93-0014/
CUP 93-0002/MLP 93-0013
CITY OF TIGARD RECORD
FOR LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS (LUBA NO. 95-011)
I, Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder for the City of Tigard, certify that the contents
within are a true copy of the Record.
` Catherine Wheatley, Tigard City Record
Date: February 15. 1995
Certified to be a True Copy of
Original on file
gy:
'City Recorder -
ity of rigard
Date: a C15
i
s
• TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Statement Certifying the Record of Proceeding i
Table of Contents ..........................................ii-vii
Exhibit No. Page
VOLUME ONE (Dec. 27 and Dec. 13, 1994
Council Meetings)
I Affidavit of Mailing; notice of final 1-52
order by City Council - Albertsons, Inc.;
CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0003/SDR 93-0014/
CUP 93-0002/MLP 93-0013; Ordinance
No. 94-27.
II Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - 53-63
December 27, 1994
III City Council Agenda - December 27, 1994 64-67
IV Council Agenda Item Summary - 68-69
• December 27, 1994
V Council Transcript of Public Hearing - 70-147
December 13, 1994
VI Council Meeting Minutes-December 13, 1994 148-169
VII Council Agenda - December 13, 1994 170-174
VIII Testimony Sign-In Sheets Public Hearing- 175-176
December 13, 1994
IX Council Agenda Summary-December 13, 1994 177-216
X Affidavit of Mailing - Notice of Public 217-228
Hearing; Tigard City Council Public
Hearing-December 13, 1994
XI Applicants revised Submittal (beginning 229-389
with letter dated September 30, 1994 from
John W. Shonkwiler, P.C. Attorney at Law)
XII Site Plan Map 390
XIII Landscape Plan Map 391
ii
•
• Exhibit No. Page
Volume One (Continued)
XIV Letter Dated November 3, 1994 to Mark 392-398
Roberts, City of Tigard, from Bill Gross
XV Letter Dated December 13, 1994 to Tigard 399-400
City Council from Scott Russell
XVI WPS Memorandum Dated December 12, 1994 401-411
to the Honorable Mayor and Members of the
Tigard City Council from Greg Winterowd,
Consultant Planner
XVII Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 18.61 with 412-427
notations written by Mr. Greg Winterowd
and reviewed with City Council on
December 13, 1994
XVIII Map From Mr. Greg Winterowd, Entitled 428
"Russell Apartment Site"
XIX Page Entitled "Principle Grounds for 429
Denial of Albertson's Application"
• Submitted by Mr. Ed Sullivan
December 13, 1994
XX Map From Pam Garcia, Received During 430
Public Testimony on December 13, 1994
XXI Memorandum Dated August 9, 1994 to 431
Castle Hill Home Owners from Home Owners
of Castle Hill Interim Board, Presented
by Mr. John Shonkwiler, During Rebuttal
on December 13, 1994
VOLUME TWO (November 7, 1994 Planning
Commission Meeting)
XXII Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 432-443
1994
XXIII Testimony Sign-In Sheet Planning 444
Commission Hearing - November 7, 1994
XXIV "Before the Planning Commission of the 445-472
City of Tigard - Findings, Conclusions
and Order; Submitted to Planning Commission"
•iii
Exhibit No. Paae
• Volume Two (Continued)
XXV Staff Report to the Planning Commission; 473-499
Hearing Date November 7, 1994
XXVI Information submitted by opponent on 500-512
November 7, 1994 to the Planning Com-
mission; Page 1) "Presentation to the
Planning Commission City of Tigard,
Oregon - November 7, 1994
XXVII Memorandum Dated November 4, 1994 to 513-516
Tigard Planning Council Member and
City Council Members from Bert Hambleton,
President of Hambleton Resources
XXVIII "Before the Planning Commission of the 517-566
City of Tigard" (memorandum of Marcott
Holdings Ltd.; November 7, 1994)
XXIX Letter Dated November 3, 1994 to Mark 567-571
Roberts, City of Tigard from Bill Gross
XXX Information Submitted by Opposition for 572-588
Dec. 14, 1993 - WPS - Winterowd Planning
Services; Land Use Report and Appeal
• XXI Information Submitted by Opposition 589-601
for December 14, 1993; "Before the City
Council of The City of Tigard" - File Nos.
CPA 93-0009, ZON 93-003, SDR 93-0014,
CUP 93-002, MLP 93-013
XXXII Additional Information Submitted Prior 602-634
to the November 7, 1994 Planning
Commission Hearing Including Letter
Dated August 22, 1994 to Dick
Bewersdorff, Planning Director from
John W. Shonkwiler, P.C., Attorney at
Law; Albertson's Application History
XXXIII Staff Report to the Planning Commission; 635-669
(revised as per the November 15, 1993
hearing); dated November 16, 1993
XXXIV Staff Report to the Planning commission 670-701
- Nov. 15, 1993; Dated Nov. 8, 1993
XXXV Traffic Impact Study Supplemental 702-847
Information; Tigard Albertson's;
Kittleson and Associates, Inc.-Dec. 1993
iv
• Exhibit No. Paae
VOLUME TWO (Continued)
XXXVI Affidavit of Mailing - Notice of Public 848-858
Public Hearing for the Tigard Planning
Commission Hearing for November 7, 1994
VOLUME THREE (Jan. 25, 1994 Council
Meeting)
XXXVII Council Minutes - January 25, 1994 859-866
XXXVIII Council Agenda - January 25, 1994 867-870
XXXIX Council Agenda Item Summary for Agenda 871-913
of January 25, 1994
Written Testimony for the Albertson's 914-1278
Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the
January 25, 1994 Hearing; Listing of
15 Items Received for this Public Hearing
XL Memorandum Dated January 19, 1994 1278-1282
From Ed Murphy to Pat Reilly
• XLI Traffic Impact Study - Tigard 1283-1328
Albertson's - Kittleson and Associ-
ates, Inc. - August 1993
XLII Maps:
Preliminary Partition Plat 1329
Exterior Elevations 1329.1
Architectural Treatments 1329.2
Site Plan 1330
Preliminary Landscape Plan 1330.1
Preliminary Grading Plan 1330.2
XLIII Albertson's Inc. Applicant's Statement 1331-1415
VOLUME FOUR (Dec. 14, 1993 Council
Meeting)
XLIV Council Meeting Minutes Dec. 14, 1993 1416-1426
XLV Testimony Sign-In Sheet - Dec. 14, 1993 1424-1426
XLVI City Council Agenda - December 14, 1993 1427-1429
• v
• Volume Four (Continued
XLVII Council Agenda Summary - Dec. 14, 1993 1430-1472
XLVIII Traffic Impact Study on Tigard 1473-1519
Albertson's Kittleson & Associates, Inc.
August, 1993
XLIX Albertson's Inc. Applicant's Statement 1520-1603
L Market Area Evaluation Tigard, Oregon 1604-1612
Prepared by Columbia Research
Associates, Inc. Supermarket Consultants
(dated November 11, 1991)
LI Winterowd Planning Services; Land Use 1613-1629
Report and Appeal
LII Letter Dated December 14, 1993 to City 1630
Council From Cal Woolery
LIII Staff Report Submitted on December 14, 1631-1637
1993 by Ed Sullivan During Public
Testimony (report dated July 12, 1983)
Additional Information In The File for the
• Public Hearing Record Submitted to City
Council Includes the Following:
LXIX Memorandum From Jerry Offer 1638-1641
Development Review Planner to
Katy Dorsett, NPO 7 Secretary,
Dated October 18, 1991
"Before the City Council of the 1642-1654
City of Tigard" - File No. CPA
93-009, ZON 93-003, SDR 93-0014,
CUP 93-002, and MLP 93-013
LX Affidavit of Mailing - Notice of Public 1655-1662
Hearing for Tigard City Council Hearing
of December 14, 1993
VOLUME FIVE (Nov. 15, 1993 Planning Commission
Meeting)
LXI Tigard Planning Commission Minutes, 1663-1667
November 15, 1993
vi
•
• Volume Five (Continued)
LXII Planning Commission Sign-In Sheet 1668
November 15, 1993
LXIII Staff Report to the Planning Commission 1669
LXIX Letter Dated September 15, 1993 to 1700-1706
Randy Wooley, PE Traffic Engineer
City of Tigard from Kittleson and
Associates
LXX Albertson's Inc. Applicant Statement 1707-1916
LXXI Traffic Impact Study, Tigard 1917-1961
Albertson's - Kittleson and Associates,
Inc. August, 1993.
LXXII Affidavit of Mailing - Notice of 1962-1969
Public Hearing - November 15, 1993
Planning Commission
Addendum:
The following, on file at Tigard City Hall,
• are over-sized drawings or maps viewed by
Council at their December 13, 1994 Meeting:
• Site Plan (Drawing)
• Lighting Plan (Drawing)
• Perspective (Drawing)
• Perspective (Drawing)
• Northview/Walnut Apartments
300 Units Apartment Complex - Site Plan
& Elevation
• vii
Yu -P .
✓t,n.i, e
/9
d
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Washington
City of Tigard )
I, a-k'
rre' hereby certify:
Please Print
That I am a ~•Gy~~-(~ for the City of Tigard, Oregon.
That I served notice of the Tigard City Council M04; ce or
Ce 6n.- ~~14 g3•cW11 ~n1 3•voo3 S ~}3_ov/q ~
GcLp 93. vovZ,//r) LP g3.0013
of which the attached is a copy (Marked Exhibit A) upon each of the following named
persons on the v day of 'J_>G9rh b4M 19 by mailing to each of
them at the address shown on the :attached list (Marked Exhibit B), said notice is hereto
attached, and deposited in the United States Mail on the .30'21day ofd,
19 postage prepaid.
Prepared Notice
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of tc 19.
OFFICIAL SEAL 1y
M.JOANN HAYS
NOTARYPUBLIC•OREGON Notary Public (,6f Oregon
COMMISSION N0.006513 My Commission Expires: 1'1A0~. I 1
MY COMMISSION EXPIP.ES MAY 5, 1995
h:\1ogin\oathy\afofmaI1
LUBA NO. 95-011
Exhibit No. _
Page No. I
CITY OF TIGARD
Washington County, Oregon
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER - BY CITY COUNCIL
1. Concerning Case Number(s):CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0003/SDR 93-0014/
CUP 93-0002/MLP 93-0013
2. Name of Owner: Margery Crist
Name of Applicant: Albertson's Inc.
3. Address 17001 NE San Rafael City Portland State OR Zip 97230
4. Address of Property: Southeast and northeast quadrants of the
intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Walnut Street.
Tax Map and Lot No(s).: 2S1 4BB, tax lots 100 and 200
5. Request: A request for the following development approvals: 1)
Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change approval to redesignate
approximately eight acres of a 12 acre parcel from Medium-
High Density Residential to Community Commercial on tax lot
200 and to redesignate an approximately 6.93 acre parcel
from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High Density
Residential on tax lot 100. Zone changes accompanying the
above plan changes includes a zone change from R-25 (PD)
.(Residential, 25 units/acre, Planned Development) to C-C
(Community Commercial) and C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to
R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre); 2) Site Development
Review approval to allow the construction of a 40,000
square foot grocery store and three smaller tenant pads of
1,200, 2,400, and 5,950 square feet adioining the anchor
. tenant pad. The applicant also proposes two 4,000 square
foot stand alone tenant pads. 3) Minor Land Partition
approval to divide the 12 acre parcel into two parcels of
approximately eight acres and four acres each. APPLICABLE
APPROVAL CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 6 9
10, 11, 13 and 14; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1,
1.1.2, 4.1.1, 4.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.4.1, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1,
7.4.4, 7.5.2, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 8.2.1, 8.2.2, 8.4.1,
9.1.3, 12.1.1, 12.2, 12.2.1, and 12.2.4; Community
Development Code Chapters 18.22, 18.32, 18.56, 18.60,
18.61, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114,
18.120, 18.130, 18.162, and 18.164.
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 Affected governmental agencies
8. Final Decision: THE DECISION WAS SIGNED ON 101 )an I /;r[ AND
BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON i 5n u a n [e- o r, (y~. 641_cj4
The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of conditions.can
be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 T.4
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.
r
9. QUESTIONS: If you have any questions, please call the Tigard City
Recorder at 639-4171. LUBA NO.95-011
Exhibit No.
Page No. r2 _
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 94- Q r]
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT REQUESTED BY
ALBERTSON'S INCORPORATED (CPA 93-0009 AND ZON 93-0003).
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
from Medium-High Density Residential to redesignate approximately 8
acres of a 11.95 acre parcel from Medium-High Density Residential to
Community Commercial and a Comprehensive Plan approval to redesignate a
6.93 acre parcel from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High Density
Residential. The applicant's request also includes accompanying Zone*
Changes which propose to redesignate the property from R-12(PD) and R-
25(PD) (Residential, 12/25 units per acre, Planned Development) to C-C
(Community Commercial) and C-N (Neighborhood-Commercial) to R-25
Residential, 25 units per acre).
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The proposal is consistent with all relevant criteria based
upon the facts, findings and conclusions, noted in the attached final
order, additional findings and vicinity maps identified as Exhibits A,
B, C-1 and C-2;
SECTION 2: The City Council concurs with the Planning Commission and
staff recommendations and approves the request to redesignate the
parcels illustrated on the attached maps (Exhibits C-1 and C-2) with
Comprehensive Plan designations of Community Commercial and Medium-High
Density Residential.
SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective at the time of issuance of
building or development permits. If development does not occur, this
ordinance shall not become effective because the Community Commercial
Zoning District provisions require concurrent review of the site plan.
PASSED: By I'Y1Nur,4_L4 vote of all Council members resent
after being r ad by number and title only, this Z~'1 day
of Z~e Cevin,bx,- 1994.
Catherine Wheatley, City Reco' er
APPROVED : This 7.- day of 1994 .
Jprin Schwartz, Mayor
LUBA NO. 95-011
Exhibit No.
Page No.
Approved as to form:
Ci y A torney
Date
LUBA NO.95-011
ORDINANCE No. 94-c;)-/ Exhibit No.
Page 2 Page No.
EXHIBIT "A"
CITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
FINAL ORDER
A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WITH REGARD TO AN
APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, SITE
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND MINOR LAND PARTITION APPLICATIONS REQUESTED
BY ALBERTSON'S INCORPORATED.
The Tigard City Council reviewed the application below at a public
hearing on December '13, 1994. The City Council approves the
request. The Council has based its decision on the facts, findings
and conclusions noted below.
A. FACTS
1. General Information
Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 93-0009
Zone Change ZON 93-0003
Site Development Review SDR 93-0014
Minor Land Partition MLP 93-0013
A request for the following development approvals:
1) Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change to redesignate
approximately 8 acres of a 11.95 acre parcel from Medium-High
Density Residential to Community Commercial and a
Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change approval to redesignate a
6.93 acre parcel from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High
Density Residential. Proposed Zone Changes accompanying the
above plan changes includes request for a zone change from R-
12 (PD) and R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre, Planned
Development) to C-C (Community Commercial) and C-N
(Neighborhood Commercial) to R-25 (Residential, 25
units/acre);
2) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of
a 40,000 square foot Albertson's Grocery Store and three
smaller tenant pads of 5,950, 2,400 and 1,200 square feet.
The applicant has also proposed two 4,000 square foot retail
pads.
3) Minor Land Partition approval to divide an 11.95 acre parcel
into two parcels of approximately 8 acres and 3.95 acres each.
Applicant: Albertson's, Inc. (Don Duncombe)
17001 NE San Rafael
Portland, OR 97230
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14.- ALBERTSON'S -.PAGE 1
LUBA NO. W-011
Exhibit NO. J-
Page NO. __-T--.
Agent: John Shonkwiler, P.C.
. Attorney at Law
4040 Douglas Way
PO Box 1568
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
Owner: Margery Crist, et. al.
Route 1, Box 792
Beaverton, OR 97007
Location: Southeast and northeast quadrants of the intersection
of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Walnut Street. (WCTM
2S1 4BB, tax lots 100 and 200).
Applicable Review Criteria:
Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14;
Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 4.1.1, 4.2.1,
6.1.1, 6.4.1, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.2, 7.6.1,
8.1.1, 8.1.3, 8.2.2, 8.4.1, 9.1.3, 12.1.1., 12.2, and
12.2.1 and 12.2.4; and
Community Development Code Chapters 18.22, 18.32,
18.56,18.60, 18.61, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.108,
18.114, 18.120, 18.130, 18.162, and 18.164.
• 2. Backaround Information
An area that included the subject property was annexed to the
City of Tigard on June 12, 1983. In August 1983, the City
approved a variety of plan and zone designations for the area,
including Medium-High Density Residential (R-20, now R-25
zone), Medium Density Residential (R-12 zone), and
Neighborhood Commercial (C-N zone).
The City subsequently approved the relocation of the C-N
designation in a number of locations in the vicinity between
1983 and 1986 (Case files CPA 18-83/AC 14-83, CPA 4-85/ZC 4-
85, CPA 1-86/ZC 3-86). The current C-N designation is located
on Tax Lot 100. A complete summary of past City actions
pertaining to the amendments to the size and location of the
N-C designation is presented in the staff report for an
earlier Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposed by Albertson's
for this property (Case File CPA 91-0003/ZCA 91-0006).
A number of single family and multi-family residential
developments have been proposed for all or a portion of the
subject property between 1986 and 1990 (Case Files SDR 4-86,
S 87-04/V 87-04, S 87-07, SUB 90-04/ZON 90-04/ZON 90-04/VAR
90-08). Development has recently occurred following the
approval of Castle Hill Subdivision.
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSbN_S -.PAGE 2
.
LUBA NO. 95-011
Exhibit No.
Page No.
In 1991, Albertsons applied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
and Zone Change (CPA 91-0003/ZCA 91-0006) to establish an
eight acre Commercial General (C-G) site on Tax Lot 200. The
request also involved the redesignation of the existing C-N
site on Tax Lot 100 to Medium-High Residential (R-25). A
final decision by the City Council was stayed at the request
of the applicant.
Following this application, the City considered including a
new Community Commercial zoning designation as part of the
Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code. After a
lengthy review, the City adopted the Community Commercial
designation in December 1992.
On November 15, 1993 the Planning Commission recommended that
the City Council approve the application with the inclusion of
conditions for an automobile access driveway to SW Northview
Drive, a pedestrian staircase to SW Northview Drive,
conceptual building design details which are consistent with
the grocery store design. The Planning Commission also
recommended that an access plan for the 3.95 acre parcel south
of the site and an improved interior parking lot pedestrian
pathway system.
On January 25, 1994 the City Council remanded the application
back to the Planning Commission due to concerns related to
property owner notification, the findings within the staff
report and the appropriateness of proposed development within
the Community Commercial Zoning District.
The applicant has made the following revisions to the proposal
as a result of concerns raised at neighborhood meetings and
issues raised by the City Council at the January 25, 1994
Public Hearing:
• The proposed commercial uses on the pads oppposite to the
Albertsons pad have been modififed. The gas station and
Shari's uses have been eliminated as prospective tenants. The
pads are shown as 4,000 square foot retail sites.
• A new brick wall has been proposed along portions of the
proposed eight acre parcel's property frontage on SW Northview
Drive.
• The staircase entrance from SW Northview Drive has been
modified to include a series of 90 degree turns to obscure the
staircase entrance.
• The applicant has agreed not to develop the site with tenants
which would have 24-hour commercial operations due to
potential impacts to adjoining residential areas.
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 ALBERTSON=S -.PAGE 3
LUBA NO. 95-011
Exhibit No. _ T
Page No.
• The applicant revised the site plan to provide a separate
staircase from SW Northview Drive to the grocery store
building and separated pedestrian pathways for internal
circulation between all buildings and through the center of
the parking lot.
• The site has been posted with a sign showing the proposed site
development plan for the shopping center.
• The applicant has also discussed dedication of the multi-
family area south of the Albertson's site to the Castle Hill
Neighborhood Association for future development as a
neighborhood open space area.
• The applicant has provided a history of the application, a
synopsis of the changes which have been made to the plan, a
security lighting plan, a noise study and conceptual plans for
Albertson's store, the site plan, the wall proposed along SW
Northview Drive.
On November 7, 1994 the Planning Commission recommended that
the City Council approve the application without the inclusion
of conditions for an automobile access driveway to SW
Northview Drive. A portion of the Commission felt that the
Council should consider provision of a one-way drive way which
allows ingress but not egress onto SW Northview Drive. The
Commission felt that the improved interior parking lot
pedestrian pathway system was sufficient as proposed.
The staff recommendation is still to provide additional
pedestrian connections into the site along the southerly and
northerly driveways from SW Scholls Ferry. It is also
recommended that a driveway be provided into the site from
one of three potential locations along SW Northview Drive in
order to avoid turning conflicts to and from SW Walnut Street.
The applicant has prepared proposed findings which reflect the
Planning Commission recommendation. It is recommended that
the applicant prepare detailed findings which address the
Council's decision which would be incorporated into a final
order.
3. Vicinitv Information
Single family residential development in the Castle Hill
Subdivision lies to the east and south. To the northeast is
the Cotswald Subdivision which is of a similar character and
density. A day school is on the west side of SW Scholls Ferry
Road. A few large lot single family residences also exist to
the north, south and west of the subject area. A quarry
operated by Morse Brothers Inc. is located to the southwest,
across SW Scholls Ferry Road.
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'.S ---PAGE 4
LUBA NO. 95-011
Exhibit No. _':E--
Page No.
R-25(PD) zoning surrounds the parcel currently designated C-N.
The area south of the proposed C-C designation is zoned R-
12(PD) and R-25(PD). The area across SW Scholls Ferry Road
from this area is zoned by the City of Beaverton as R-2
(multi-family, 2,000 square feet lot area/unit). The average
allowable density within a 1/2 mile radius of the site is
approximately 15 units per acre.
Other commercial sites within the general vicinity of the
proposal include:
Murray Hill Shopping Center located approximately 3/4 mile
north on Murray Boulevard;
Greenway Town Center Shopping Center located approximately 1-
1/4 mile east on Scholls Ferry Road;
Washington Square located approximately 2-1/2 miles east; and
Several commercial centers along Pacific Highway, including
the Tigard Central Business District, located approximately
two miles to the southeast.
4. Site Information
There are two properties involved in this application. Tax
Lot 100 is 6.93 acres in size, zoned C-N, and located on the
northeast corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and Walnut Street.
This parcel is a vacant, grassy field with a relatively
moderate grade.
Tax Lot 200 is 11.95 acres in size, zoned R-12(PD) and R-
25(PD), and located on the southeast corner of SW Scholls
Ferry Road and Walnut Street. This property is also a vacant,
grassy field, but it slopes significantly downward away from
the Castle Hill Subdivision to Scholls Ferry Road.
5. Proposal Description
The applicant has submitted a packet of materials which
describe the various facets of the application. The applicant
has also provided an update to the previous traffic studies
conducted in August and December of 1993, a noise impact study
and a security lighting plan has also been provided.
The application includes the following four separate
components:
a. CPA 93-0009/ZCA 93-0003
A proposed change of the C-N designation on Tax Lot 100 to R-
25, and change the R-12(PD) and R-25(PD) designation for 8
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSOIV'.S --PAGE 5
LUBA NO. 95-011
Exhibit No.
Page No.
acres of Tax Lot 200 to C-C, leaving the remaining land use
designations on the property as they are (see Exhibit A).
This change is proposed to be consistent with the requirements
associated with the City's C-C designation and the obligations
of the City to maintain an adequate inventory of multi-family
residential land.
b. SDR 93-0014
The applicant proposes to develop a shopping center with a
total of 57,550 square feet of floor space. This space
includes a 40,000 square foot grocery store, 9,550 square feet
of additional commercial space adjacent to the grocery store
and two separate pad sites totalling 8,000 square feet,(see
Exhibit B). The applicant has provided preliminary site,
grading, utility, and landscaping plans. Conceptual building
elevations providing detail of proposed design features for
the Albertson's have also been provided.
A 40,000 square foot Albertson's Grocery Store and 9,550
square feet of commercial space are proposed for the southern
portion of the site. A truck access and loading area is
proposed along the south side of the building. The southern
and eastern portions of the site are proposed to be graded
extensively and the south side of the main building would have
a floor elevation that is 8 to 24 feet below the existing
grade. .
A freestanding tenant pad site is proposed towards the
southeast corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Walnut
Street, a second freestanding pad is intended for the
southwest corner of SW Walnut Street and SW Northview Drive.
The applicant has revised the application to indicate both
pads are intended to be developed with retail uses. The
applicant has withdrawn the conditional use permit portion of
this application.
The applicant has not submitted development plans for any of
the residential areas on the subject properties.
In addition to the specific uses shown on the site plan and
referred to in the applicant's statement, approval of other
uses is requested. This is because all tenants of the center
have not been committed. It is also expected that tenants
will change over time. The additional uses which may be
located at the site and are permitted in the C-C zone for
which the applicant requests approval are:
Animal sales and services;
Consumer repair services;
Convenience sales and personal services;
. Children's day care;
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14.- ALBERTSON'.S --PAGE 6
LUBA NO. 95-011
Exhibit No.
Page No. t
Eating and drinking facilities;
General retail sales (less than 10,000 square feet;
General offices (medical, dental, financial, insurance, real
estate, professional and administrative services); and
Indoor participant sports and recreation.
Three driveways are proposed on SW Scholls Ferry Road and one
driveway is shown on SW Walnut Street. Internal sidewalks are
shown immediately adjacent to the commercial buildings.
Sidewalks link the two pad sites with the public sidewalks on
the perimeter of the project, a sidewalk and staircase
connections are proposed between the grocery store and SW
Northview Drive.
C. MLP 93-0013
The applicant wishes to create a separate 8 acre parcel for
the shopping center. The other 3.95 acre parcel is intended
for future residential development. The applicant has also
discussed the option of dedicating this parcel to the
Castlehill Homeowners Association (see Exhibit C-2).
6. Agency and Neighborhood Comments
The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal and
offers the following comments:
Findings
1. ACCESS
The proposed site plan shows driveway access to SW Scholls
Ferry Road and SW Walnut Street, but no driveway access to SW
Northview Drive. This application, as previously reviewed by
the Engineering Department, recommends a driveway connection
to SW Northview Drive. Although the recent public discussion
has indicated that the present property owners in the adjacent
subdivision, object to a driveway from SW Northview Drive, the
department continues to recommend vehicular, pedestrian, and
bicycle access to SW Northview Drive.
It is our opinion that a driveway to the site could be
designed to satisfy the concerns expressed by the property
owners and provide the recommended access. The driveway
location has several options that include the following:
The entrance could be located opposite SW Stardust Lane, with
a curvilinear ramp, and avoid the objection relating to the-
light from cars exiting toward the new residences. The main
building would have to be moved to the west approximately
seven feet.
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'.S ---PAGE 7
LUBA NO.95-011
Exhibit No.
Page No. 11
_
A driveway could be constructed through the proposed green
space south of the commercial center. The driveway would
connect to SW Northview Drive at a location south of SW
Stardust Lane. It could connect to the commercial center
parking lot either at a location along the east side of the
Albertson's store, or at a location near Store "C". If the
green space area is dedicated to the homeowners' association,
as proposed by the applicant, the neighborhood could control
the use of the driveway.
A driveway could be constructed directly from the parking lot
to SW Northview Drive, with screening provided between the
driveway and the nearby homes.
Because the C-C zoning is intended to serve the immediate
neighborhoods rather than regional customers, the proposed
retail center can be expected to draw many of its customers
from the adjoining Castle Hill subdivision (64 lots), the
proposed Castle Hill No. 2 subdivision (123 lots), and the
adjoining residential areas. While we hope that many of these
customers will walk or bike to the center, we can expect that
many will drive. Trips for major grocery purchases are likely
to be made by car even though customers may live quite close
to the center. If the center is intended to serve the
neighborhood, it should have a more convenient access to the
neighborhood.
SW Walnut Street is a Major Collector Street and as shown on
the Comprehensive Plan, is designated to be extended westward
to connect with SW Murray Boulevard by intersecting with old
Scholls Ferry Road to the north. At present, the connection
between SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue towards the
subject properties is under construction and will be open this
fall. As the area continues to develop, SW Walnut Street will
carry substantial traffic volumes, similar to the traffic
volumes on SW Durham Road in the vicinity of an existing
Albertson's store. In order to protect the safety and
capacity of SW Walnut Street, it is desirable to eliminate
traffic and turning movements on SW Walnut Street where
possible.
A direct driveway from SW Northview Drive will provide a
convenient connection for the local residents as Northview
Drive is the principal access for the adjoining subdivisions.
The direct driveway would preclude the use of SW Walnut Street
to access the site, and reduce left-turn movements.
In some neighborhoods, direct access to retail facilities is
resisted due to a concern that direct access will lead to
additional traffic in the neighborhood. This does not appear
to be a problem in this instance. The proposed alignment of SW
Northview Drive and the connecting streets of Castle Hill No.
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14.- ALBERTSON'.S -..PAGE 8
LUBA NO. 95-011
Exhibit No.
Page No. ~q
2 discourage the use of the street for any through traffic.
SW Walnut Street will remain the most direct access for the
traffic generated from outside the immediate neighborhood.
For these reasons, we reiterate our recommendation that the
center be required to provide a driveway access to SW
Northview Drive.
2. STREETS
The site is located between SW Northview Drive and SW Scholls
Ferry Road south of SW Walnut Street. SW Walnut Street and SW
Northview Drive are City streets. These streets were
previously dedicated and fully improved in conjunction with
the Castle Hill subdivision, with exception of the sidewalk on
SW Northview Drive. A traffic study has been submitted by the
applicant that indicates that the existing improvements on SW
Walnut Street and SW Northview Drive can adequately
accommodate the traffic expected from the proposed
development.
SW Scholls Ferry Road is a Washington County major collector
and is classified as a City arterial. Improvement standards
for Washington County major collector include 37 feet of
right-of-way from centerline, 21 feet of pavement from
centerline along with curb and sidewalk. Currently, the
frontage is improved with 14 feet of pavement without curbs or
drainage. The required 37 feet of right-of-way appears to
exist but should be confirmed.
Washington County has not requested any change to the existing
improvements but has recommended that a non-remonstrance
agreement be accepted. However, the Engineering Department
recommends that full half-street improvements be constructed.
In regards to the four acre site contiguous to the proposed
commercial center, it is recommended that the applicant
provide for the construction of the frontage improvements on
both SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Northview Drive, inasmuch as
this property is a part of the development application and
there is no further development proposed for the 4 acre site.
The proposed grading of the commercial development
incorporates substantial cuts, fills and slope construction.
The applicant should be required to perform all grading in
accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 70 of the
Uniform Building Code.
3. SANITARY SEWER
The applicant is proposing to connect to an existing eight
inch public sanitary sewer within SW Scholls Ferry Road. The
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'_S -.PAGE 9
LUBA NO. WwMl
Exhibit No. T_
Page No. 1-23
line is operated by the City of Beaverton. The applicant
. should show evidence that the City of Beaverton has reviewed
and accepted this proposal and that any special requirements
of the City of Beaverton have been met. The final design and
alignment of the sewer shall be reviewed and approved by the
City of Tigard Engineering Department.
4. STORM SEWER '
The applicant proposes to collect run-off into a private storm
sewer and discharge it to an existing box culvert in SW
Scholls Ferry.
The Unified Sewerage Agency has established and the City has
agreed to enforce (Resolution and Order No. 91-47) surface
water management regulations requiring the construction of on
site water quality facilities or fee in lieu of their
construction. The applicant is proposing to satisfy this
requirement by constructing an-on-site water quality facility
along the SW Scholls Ferry frontage. The facility should be
privately owned and maintained.
The Public Works Department provided no comments or objection to
the request.
The Building Division provided no comment or objection to the
request.
The City of Beaverton provided no comment or objection to the
request.
Washington County's Department of Land Use and Transportation
indicates that an access report must be prepared by the applicant.
The applicant has been advised and the Department estimates that an
additional response regarding access will be available soon. The
Department also has the following comments:
This proposal includes a partition request with both parcels
having frontage on SW Scholls Ferry Road. As proposed, Parcel
1 (8.00 acres) will be zoned commercial and contain an
Albertsons Store and several associated commercial businesses
(restaurant, video store, etc.) and Parcel 2 (3.95 acres) will
be zoned multi-family residential. The proposal does not
contain any specific development plans for Parcel 2. All of
the conditions of approval outlined in this report pertain to
both parcels (i.e., sidewalks, waiver, etc.). Since Parcel 2
does not include a request for access to SW Scholls Ferry
Road, specific access related issues for this parcel are not
reviewed at this time. The County may deny a separate access
to Parcel 2 from SW Scholls Ferry Road and require shared
access with the shopping center or access only from SW
Northview Drive.
SW Scholls Ferry Road is designated as a major-collector on
the County Transportation Plan. Resolution and Order (R&O)
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93• LUBA NO. W-011 - PAGE 10
Exhibit No. 'I
Page No.
86-95 and the Community Development Code limit access to 100
feet. The proposed access points meet the spacing
requirements. However, there are significant safety concerns
dealing with access to the site from SW Scholls Ferry Road,
primarily concerning left turn stacking queues. Since these
issues cannot be determined until the County Traffic Analyst
has completed his report, this letter does not approve any
access to SW Scholls Ferry Road at this time. The County
Traffic Analyst's access report will determine the appropriate
number and spacing for access points to the site.
Resolution and Order 86-95 also requires a minimum 450 feet of
sight distance at the proposed access location. This site has
over 700 feet of frontage and sight distance can be obtained
or is acceptable at several possible access locations. As
discussed above, specific access points for this site will be
determined as a part of the Traffic Analyst's review. There
are a couple of vertical curves along the frontage which limit
sight distance in some locations, particularly at the
northeast end of the site. The applicant will be required to
provide certification of sight distance by a registered
profe.ssional engineer for all access locations prior to
occupancy.
A traffic analysis for this development proposal is being
performed by the County Traffic Analyst, whose findings and
recommendations will be forwarded to the City at the time of
completion of the review. This review and the recommended
conditions of approval which will be developed as a part of
that review are required by Resolution and Order 86-95 and
Section 501.5.2.B. of the Community Development Code.
The Tigard Water Department states that although the agency does
not have any objections to the proposal, it should be noted that:
All exterior portions of the buildings must be within 250 feet
of a fire hydrant ;
Backflow prevention devices (minimum of double check valve
assembly) will be required on all water services; and
The agency will require proper line protection for automatic
fire sprinkler systems.
Washington County Fire District requested that a meeting with the
applicant's engineer to discuss access requirements to hydrant
locations and fire flow. In a phone conversation with Gene
Birchill of the District, concern was expressed regarding the
provision of future access to the proposed 3.95 acre parcel.
Portland General Electric has no objections to the application.
School District #48 (Beaverton) states that the proposed zone
changes and development will not have a student impact__on the
District.
LUBA NO. 95-011
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-1, EXh-M No. T PAGE 11
Page No. 15
The neighborhood reviewed the proposal on July 30, 1993, and notes
from the meeting have been submitted by the applicant as an
exhibit. Issues raised included buffering, views, traffic, truck
deliveries, multi-family development on the proposed 3.95 acre
parcel, and 24 hour operations on the site. At the conclusion of
the meeting the group suggested four changes:
a. A brick fence (4 or 5 feet high) should be constructed along
SW Northview Drive with landscaping. The fence could extend
up to or just past the proposed pathway leading to the
shopping center.
b. A small gas station should not be included.
C. Require by covenants and restrictions that tenants maintain
property so as not to have litter, teenage loitering, etc.
d. Allow weekend or evening use of portions of the site and
parking area for special neighborhood functions and
activities.
The applicant conducted an additional neighborhood meeting on
August 8, 1994 prior to submittal of the current proposal. The
issues which were reviewed included the following:
a. An old NPO vote for the site had recommended approval of a gas
station at the site.
b. Concerns were raised about traffic, noise, lights and safety
for pedestrians. Issues about ecology of a gas station use if
the site was later abandoned.
C. All attendees were opposed to a gas station use.
d. The attendees felt that the corner of SW 135th and SW Scholls
Ferry Road was more appropriate for a gas station.
e. The participants felt that the staircase proposed from SW
Northview Drive was a good idea and a proper location.
f. The participants felt that a no "parking area" should be
designated along SW Northview Drive adjoining the staircase
entrance location(s).
g. The participants were opposed to the SW Northview Drive
driveway connection from the site.
h. The participants were opposed to 24-hour operation of
businesses at the facility due to potential issues with noise,
light, vandalism and theft.
i Participants raised concerns over parking lot lighting due to
added light glare impact to adjoining residential areas.
j. Participants raised concerns over the landscaping shown along
F_NAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-1 LUBA NO. 9"11 PAGE 12
Exhibit No.
Page No. 116
SW Northview Drive and requested that a brick wall be
constructed along SW Northview Drive.
k. Participants raised concerns over what would be built on the
3.95 acre multiple family site to the south of the proposed
Albertson's site. The participants preferred that the site be
set aside for common open space area.
1. The proposed uses on site were discussed and were thought to
be appropriate with the exception of the gas station and the
Shari's uses.
M. Concern was expressed over the SW Murray Boulevard extension
from Beaverton to SW Walnut Street. The consensus of the
participants was not that this application generated the need
for the connection but a general concern that the street would
greatly increase traffic in the area.
n. The participants discussed the appearance of the building
design and thought the type of design used at the Albertson's
located at Durham and Pacific Highway would be preferred.
o. The participants discussed the overall site design and were in
favor of the grading plan which was proposed due to the
ability of the slope to mitigate the noise caused by trucks
and the types of uses proposed. The participants felt that
commercial zoning at this site made more sense than on the
north side of SW Walnut where it is presently located.
p. A vote was taken of the site plan which approved the site plan
32-1 as proposed with the staircase and walkway changes which
had been to the previous plan. The participants preferred
that the site plan not include direct access to SW Northview
Drive as was previously approved by the Planning Commission.
No other comments have been received.
B. MAJOR ISSUES
This section of the report provides an overview and evaluation
of the major issues pertaining to the four parts of the
application. Findings and conclusions regarding the
applicable criteria are found in Exhibit B.
1. Combrehensive Plan and Zone Chancre
a. Commercial Neighborhood (C-N) to Medium-High Residential
(R-25).
As noted earlier in this report, the C-N designation has been
moved several times since 1983. Before it was applied to Tax
Lot 100, this property was designated R-25. In order to meet
the applicable locational criteria in the'Comprehensive Plan,
the C-N designation must be changed in order to have
commercial use (C-C) on only one quadrant of an intersection.
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 LUBA NO. 95-011 PAGE 13
Exhibit No. T_
Page No. 11
_
Also, this redesignation to R-25 helps offset the loss of R-25
• zoning caused by the proposed C-C designation.
b. Medium-High Residential (R-25PD) to Community Commercial
(C-C).
Compliance with the locational criteria for the C-C
designation, the Metropolitan Housing Rule, and compatibility
with the surrounding residential areas is of key importance.
The locational criteria are satisfied as described in the
draft findings and conclusions (Exhibit C).
The proposal will result in a net loss of 1.07 acres of R-25
land, for an impact of 26 units. The City's inventory shows
that presently there are 1,305 acres of developable
residential land with a total potential of 13,478 dwelling
units. This yields an average allowable density of 10.328
units per acre. The Housing Rule has a minimum requirement of
10 units per acre. This change will have a minimal impact
that results in 1,304 developable acres, 13,452 potential
units, and an average possible density of 10.315 units per
acre.
The remainder of Tax Lot 200 approximately 3.95 acres has been
discussed as being developed by property owners within the
area for common open space use. Limitations to development of
. this area for multiple family uses would further decrease the
total density of 10.27 dwelling units per acre for the
remaining 1,300 developable acres of residential land.
Annexation of areas such as the Walnut Island in the future is
also expected to further decrease residential density of the
City to point below 10 units per acre. This would mean that
other properties now zoned for low density residential use
would need to be rezoned for higher density residential.
Due to the neighborhood's proximity to Summerlake Park, it's
approximate 27 acre size at completion and the cost of
developing new park improvements, it is recommended that
future park funding in the area concentrate on completing the
improvement of Summerlake Park rather than developing the
proposed 3.95 acre "remainder parcel" as a City park.
Redesignation to C-C requires that the necessary development
applications be processed with the Comprehensive Plan and
zoning amendments. Compatibility issues are addressed using
the applicable code criteria.
2. Site Development Review for the Shoooincr Center
There are several issues relating to the development of the
site that are of special importance. The following
. highlighted sections represent concerns reviewed within the
previous staff report and how this current proposal addresses
the previous recommendations:
LU BA NO.95-011
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93- Exhibit No. :L - PAGE 14
Page No. 1-
a. Vehicular Access
The applicant proposes four driveways to serve the project.
A fifth driveway onto SW Northview .1s suggested by the
Engineering Department to provide more convenient access
between the center the adjoining residential area, and to
reduce the number of turning movements in and out of the SW
Walnut Street driveway and SW Northview Drive. This will
reduce potential congestion on SW Walnut, and due to the
design of the streets in Castle Hill subdivision, through
traffic is not anticipated as a result of this additional
driveway.
Although development is not currently contemplated for the
proposed 3.95 acre parcel, access should be considered now.
This parcel has a limited frontage on SW Scholls Ferry Road.
This situation will be complicated further by Washington
County driveway spacing standards. The options for driveway
access (multi-family development), public street access
(single family development), and emergency access should all
be considered before the site plan, shopping center access,
and partition plans are finalized. The proposed site plan
provides the same design as reviewed previously by the
Planning Commission as it relates to driveway locations and
numbers of driveways. It is recommended that an additional
driveway be provided from SW Northview Drive into the site.
Due to the length of,property frontage on SW Northview Drive
and the design of the center it appears that there are three
potential driveway locations. The applicant may provide
shared access with the vacant 3.95 acre parcel to the south.
A driveway which intersects with SW Stardust Lane or at a
location towards the intersection of SW Walnut Street south of
the corner pad.
If either the second or third options are utilized
construction of a driveway along the southern property towards
SW Scholls Ferry Road should be considered to allow for future
access between the 3.95 acre parcel and the Albertson's site
without the use of adjoining streets.
b. Pedestrian and Bicycle Access
The proposed internal system of sidewalks does not connect all
destinations on the site or with surrounding public streets
and sidewalks. The following improvements should be provided:
Provide a sidewalk along one side of the eastern and western
driveways on SW Scholls Ferry Road, and the SW Walnut Street
driveway. An improved system of sidewalks have been provided
internally into the center as a part of this revised design.
A sidewalk has been proposed into the site from SW Scholls
Ferry Road along the center driveway. Additional sidewalks
are recommended along both of the other two driveways from SW
Scholls Ferry Road.
LUBA NO- 9"11
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-: Exhibit Np. - PAGE 15
page No.
An additional sidewalk connection is recommended along the SW
Walnut Street driveway onto the site. An additional sidewalk
is also recommended from SW Walnut Street to the 4,000 square
foot pad at the corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Walnut
Street.
Provide an internal system of sidewalks that connects these
driveway entrances, the pad sites, and the main building in a
safe and convenient manner. It is recommended that additional
sidewalks be provided into the site. Each of the driveway
entrances into the site should provide sidewalks into the site
to create an integrated system of internal connections
designed for exclusive use by pedestrians.
Where walkways cross paved surfaces the use of durable, low
maintenance materials designed to be visually distinguishable
from the paved surfaces shall be provided as required by the
CC zone. It is suggested that the walkway material match or
compliment other commonly used materials throughout the site.
It is also recommended that the six parking spaces shown along
the SW Walnut Street driveway into the site be replaced with
a walkway and a wider landscaped parkway type major entrance
to the site. This change would eliminate traffic conflicts
and allow for an additional pedestrian walkway to be developed
which aligns with the walkway shown to the Albertson's store
entrance.
Amend the design of the proposed sidewalk to SW Northview
Drive so that it connects with Northview at its intersection
with SW Stardust Lane to enhance convenience to the
neighborhood and to encourage proper pedestrian crossings at
the intersection rather that at mid-block. This may require
a switchback as well as an amendment to the grading plan and
the parking layout near the sidewalk. The applicant addressed
this concern by providing pedestrian connections into the
site. It is again recommended that the applicant provide a
driveway into the site from SW Northview Drive. The driveway
location can take place in either of the following locations:
1) a shared driveway for both the Albertson's site and the
3.95 acre multiple-family property, 2) alongside the
Albertson's store ending at an intersection with SW Stardust
Lane or, 3) towards the corner of SW Walnut and SW Northview
Drive south of the proposed freestanding pad site.
Two of the handicapped parking spaces near the front of the
grocery store should be moved to be adjacent to the building
so that crossing the driveway will not be necessary to reach
the entrance. The applicant has not amended the site plan to
reflect this concern. It is recommended that this revision be
incorporated into the site plan due to address store access
concerns.
C. Landscaping
LUBA NO.95-011
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-: EX 1bit N0.3.._- - PAGE 16
Page NO.
The conceptual landscaping plan appears to be consistent with
the landscaping and buffering standards in the code. More
detail is necessary prior to final development approval to
ensure that specific code provisions are satisfied. If
approved, further review of final landscape plans would be
conducted through the building permit plan check. It is
recommended that the final landscape plan provide a minimum of
35% canopy coverage over the parking stalls.
d. Noise
The issue of noise impact needs further evaluation. While the
loading area is well below grade and it will be visually
screened, potential noise from loading operations and rooftop
equipment must be carefully reviewed and appropriate
mitigation measures taken. Sound barriers, location and type
of equipment, and hours of equipment operation should all be
considered. The applicant provided a noise study addressing
the expected noise generators from the site and their impacts
to adjoining residential areas.
Based on the noise background measurements at adjoining
residential areas, the site improvements as proposed are
expected to meet or exceed all applicable noise criteria if an
evaporative condenser cooling unit is constructed within the
mezanine level of the Albertson's store rather than an air
cooled, roof mounted unit (TMC 7.40.130-210) and Code
criteria.
e. Design
The C-C provisions in Chapter 18.61 include design guidelines
pertaining to design and architectural details. The only
conceptual building design which has been provided to date is
for the grocery store. It is not clear how the appearance of
the remaining structures will relate to each other in terms of
design.
3. Conditional Use Requests
a. Service Station
While a service station may be appropriate on this site, the
applicant has not provided sufficient information to justify
an approval of this use. The applicant has withdrawn the
request for consideration of a conditional use permit for a
gas station on the site. Approval of the applications under
review does not permit development of a service station on the
site. At a later date the applicant may request conditional
use permit review for a range of uses which are conditionally
permitted within the Community Commercial Zone. The
Development Code requires a public hearing before the
Hearing's Officer for review of all conditional use permit
requests.
LUBA NO.95-011
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-1,ExhibR No.PAGE 17
Page No.
b. 24 Hour Operation of the Grocery Store
A primary purpose of the C-C designation is to provide
convenient commercial services in residential areas while
maintaining a compatible relationship between uses. Many of
the evaluation criteria noted in this report are intended to
achieve this result.
Evening operations are usually problematic because of noise,
lights, and traffic. Due to the orientation of the grocery
store, the distance of the store entrance from nearby
residential properties, and the buffering provided by the
grading and landscaping, a 24 hour operation appears to be
appropriate. Chapter 18.130, Conditional Use. has general
criteria that have been addressed by the applicant (or will be
as required by the recommended conditions of approval). There
are no specific review criteria in Chapter 18.130 for 24 hour
operation. The applicant has also withdrawn their request to
operate the Albertson's on a 24-hour basis due to concerns
raised by the neighborhood. The CC Zone restricts all
commercial businesses from operating after 11:00 pm or earlier
than 6:00 am without prior approval of a conditional use
permit to do so.
A security lighting plan has been provided by the applicant
which proposes to use lighting fixtures of 25 feet in height
as measured from the site's finish grade elevations. Based on
the proposed grading plan for the site and the proposed
screening measures 'to be employed between adjoining
residential areas, light generated by these fixtures is not
expected to overlap into neighboring residential areas.
The lighting fixture specifications provided by the applicant
did not clearly indicate that the fixtures would use light cut
off shields to prevent spillover onto other properties. It is
recommended that these fixtures use this design feature to
further minimize light splash as required by the CC Zoning
District.
4. Minor Land Partition
This portion of the application is consistent with the
dimensional requirements for the R-25 and C-C designations.
The only issue related to the partition is future access as
discussed above. The recommended conditions include provision
for street improvements along the street frontages of both
parcels.
C. RECOIL MMMATIONS
The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission
• forward a recommendation for approval to the City Council for
CPA 93-0009/ZCA 93-0009, SDR 93-0014, and MLP 93-0013 subject
to the following conditions. Unless otherwise noted, all
conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of building
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 WlbitNo. -011 PAGE 18
E~ib
Page NO.
permits.
1. Approve CPA 93-0009/ZCA93-0009 to change the Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning designations on Tax Lot 100 from Neighborhood
Commercial (C-N) to Medium-High Residential/Planned
Development (R-25PD), and to change the Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning designation for 8 acres of Tax Lot 200 from Medium and
Medium-High Residential/ Planned Development R-25 to Community
Commercial (C-C).
The Comprehensive Plan and zoning map amendments shall be
finalized at the time a building or other development permit
(e.g., grading) is issued.
2. Approve the Site Development portion of the application with
the following conditions:
a. A revised site plan shall be submitted for approval which
includes the following modifications:
1. A walkway system which has sidewalks along each of the
SW Scholls Ferry Road driveways shall be provided.
Differing walkway materials shall be used to designate
walkway areas. Bicycle racks shall be provided within
or near the columned facade area in front of the
grocery store structure.
2. A staircase sidewalk from the grocery store shall
connect with--SW Northview Drive.
3. Two of the proposed handicapped parking spaces in
front of the grocery store shall be moved to be
adjacent to the building.
4. The applicant shall supply details concerning the
screening of all mechanical equipment to be used on
the perimeter of the building or on the roof.
5. All cooling units shall be as specified within the
noise study dated September 29, 1994. The study
recommended the use of quieter evaporative condensers
located within the mezanine level of the store rather
than air cooled condenser units located on the roof.
6. A detailed landscaping plan shall be provided showing
the size and species of landscaping material to be
used throughout the development. The landscaping
shall achieve a minimum of 3511 canopy coverage at
maturity over the parking stall areas.
7. Building design details shall be provided for the
entire development. Of key importance will be
consistent size and scale of buildings and signs. The
applicant shall create a sign program for the center
identifying the size, location and design~of 'all
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-1 LUBA NO. 95-011 - PAGE 19
Exhibit No.
Page No.
freestanding and wall signage.
8. All lighting fixtures shall use cut-off shields to
prevent the spillover of light to adjoining
properties.
9. If either driveway design is utilized which would
intersect with SW Stardust Lane or south of the corner
pad towards SW Walnut Street, construction of a
driveway along the southern property towards SW
Scholls Ferry Road should be considered to allow for
future access between the 3.95 acre parcel and the
Albertson's site.
STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division.
b. Two (2) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile
construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary
review to the Engineering Department. Seven (7) sets of
approved drawings and one (1) itemized construction cost
estimate, all prepared by a Professional Engineer, shall be
submitted for final review and approval (NOTE: these plans are
in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division
and should only include sheets relevant to public
improvements. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering
Department.
C. Building permits will not be issued and construction of
proposed public improvements shall not commence until after
the Engineering Department has reviewed and approved the
public improvement plans and a street opening permit or
construction compliance agreement has been executed. A 100
percent performance assurance or letter of commitment, a
developer-engineer agreement, the payment of a permit fee and
a sign installation/streetlight fee are required. STAFF
CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering Department.
d. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along
the SW Scholls Ferry Road frontage to increase the right-of-
way to 37 feet from the centerline. If the existing right-of-
way is has been dedicated to the required width, the applicant
shall submit survey and title information to confirm. The
description of any additional right-of-way shall be tied to
the existing right-of-way centerline. For additional
information contact Washington County Survey Division.
e. Standard half-street improvements, including concrete
sidewalk, driveway apron, curb, asphaltic concrete pavement,
sanitary sewer, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground
utilities shall be installed along the SW Scholls Ferry Road
frontage, including the frontage of all parcels within the
minor land partition. Improvements along SW Scholls Ferry
Road shall be designed and constructed to Washington County
Uniform Road Improvement Design Standards and shall conform to
the alignment of existing adjacent improvements or to an
LUBA No. 9"11
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-1-ExhjbkNo. Z PAGE 20
Page No. A_
alignment approved by the Washington County Engineering
Department. For additional information contact Washington
County Engineering Department.
f. The applicant shall obtain a facility permit from the
Department of Land Use and Transportation of Washington
County, to perform work within the right-of-way of SW Scholls
Ferry Road. A copy of this permit shall be provided to the
City Engineering Department prior to issuance of a Public
Improvement Permit.
g. Standard half-street improvements, including concrete
sidewalk, driveway apron, streetlights, and underground
utilities shall be installed along the SW Northview Drive and
"Green Space" frontage of SW Northview Drive. Improvements
shall be designed and constructed to local street standards
and shall conform to the alignment of existing adjacent
improvements or to an alignment approved by the Engineering
Department. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering
Department.
h. The applicant shall submit sanitary sewer plans to the City of
Beaverton for their approval. The plans shall also be
submitted for the review and approval of the City of Tigard
Engineering Department. A copy of the approved plans shall be
provided to the City of Tigard prior to the construction of
any public improvements.
i. The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility
as established under the guidelines of Unified Sewerage Agency
Resolution and Order No. 91-47. Submitted design information
shall include an operation and maintenance plan. STAFF
CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Department.
j. The applicant shall demonstrate that storm drainage runoff can
be discharged into the existing drainageways without
significantly impacting properties downstream. STAFF CONTACT:
Greg Berry, Engineering Department.
k. The proposed privately operated and maintained sanitary sewer
and storm drainage system plan-profile details shall be
provided as part of the public improvement plans. STAFF
CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering Department.
1. The applicant shall obtain a "Joint Permit" from the City of
Tigard. This permit shall meet the requirements of the NPDES
and Tualatin Basin Erosion Control Program. STAFF CONTACT:
Michael Anderson, Engineering Department.
M. A grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and
proposed contours. A soils report shall be provided detailing
. the soil compaction requirements. Staff Contact: Michael
Anderson, Engineering Department.
n. The applicant shall provide a geo-technical report that
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 LUBA NO. 9"11 PAGE 21
Exhibit No.
Page No.
addresses the slope stability adjacent to SW Northview Drive
• and the overall grading conditions of the proposed
development, in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 70
of the Uniform Building Code. STAFF CONTACT: Michael
Anderson, Engineering Department.
o. The applicant shall underground the existing overhead
facilities along each frontage or pay the fee in-lieu of
undergrounding. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering
Department.
p. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the
public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to
"Erosion Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, November
1989. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering
Department.
q. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and
parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. All
construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-site or
within the SW Northview Drive and SW Walnut Street right-of-
way. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted
to park on the adjoining residentail public streets.
Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor
or subcontractor involved in the construction of the site
improvements or buildings proposed by this application, and
shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees
S associated with the project. STAFF CONTACT: Michael
Anderson, Engineering Department.
r. As a further condition of approval, duly given prior notice (s)
and a scheduled public hearing(s) shall be given for any
discretionary decision to allow change(s) in the approved
application, such as for any discretionary decision to allow
change(s) in the approved application, such as for future
construction of an automobile access from the site to
Northview Drive, or changes outside mere compliance with
mandatory code provisions and regulations affecting compliance
with any condition of approval identified herein. STAFF
CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division.
S. The applicant and all tenants of the shopping center shall
restrict the use of mechanical parking lot sweepers, auxilary
generators, truck-loading activities and other similar
excessive noise generating activities to the hours of
operation from 6:00 a.m. to 11 p.m. daily. STAFF CONTACT:
Mark Roberts, Planning Division.
t. Windows shall be included in the grocery store facade facing
SW Walnut Street by including at least one window in each bay
of the columned facade area (constituting not less than a
total of four windows). STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts,
Planning Division.
U. The applicant shall provide a covered walkway in feon n-of the
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 LUBA NO. Noll PAGE 22
Exhibit No. 1.
Page No.~
grocery store, and in particular the entrance way; and the
columned facade area may be used to serve this purpose. STAFF
CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division.
V. The applicant shall maintain a minimum of a five-foot wide
unobstructed walkway area in front of the grocery store that
is free of display materials or other pedestrian obstructions.
STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division.
W. The driveway entrance at the southwestern corner of the site
along SW Scholls Ferry Road shall be moved approximately
eighteen feet to the south to comply with Washington County
standards for driveway alignments with the proposed driveway
access across from SW Scholls Ferry Road to the west. STAFF
CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division.
X. In the future the applicant may be required to provide an
automobile driveway, in accordance with the design
specifications of the City's Engineering Department, for
access to and from the parking lot to Northview Drive, as
follows:
1. The future driveway would be located south of the building
pad situated near the intersection of SW Walnut Street and
Northview Drive.
2. The applicant will provide the City with a permanent
easement for such ingress and egress prior to occupancy.
3. The applicant will be responsible for payment of costs of
construction of such driveway, if and when it is required
to be constructed.
4. The City may elect to require construction of such driveway
access after duly providing notice to all landowners within
250 feet of the site and conducting a scheduled public
h e a r i n g f o r s u c h d e c i s i o n.
3. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements:
A. Three copies of the partition plat prepared by a land
surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or
narrative.
B. The partition plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to
the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes
(ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard.
C. Copy of boundary survey
STAFF CONTACT: John Hadley, Engineering Department.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S) SHOULD BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO FINAL
OCCUPANCY PERMIT: _
LUBA NO.95-011
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-1~ Exh[bitNo.._ - PAGE 23
Page No.
4. Provide the Engineering Department with a recorded mylar copy
of the final survey; or if not recorded with Washington County
but has been approved by the City of Tigard the applicant
shall have 30 days after recording with Washington County to
submit the copy.
D. DECISION
The City Council approves the requested Comprehensive Plan
Amendment for Washington County Tax Map properties 2S1 4BB,
tax lots 00100 and 00200 from Neighborhood Commercial and
Medium-High Density Residential to Medium-High Density
Residential and Community Commercial respectively. The City
Council also approves the accompanying Zone Change request,
Site Development Review and Minor Land Partition. The City
Council finds that the change will promote the general welfare
of the City and will not be significantly detrimental or
injurious to surrounding land uses.
It is further ordered that the applicant and parties to these
proceedings be notified of the entry of this order.
i LUBA NO. W-011
Exhibit No. 2_
Page No.
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 24
EXHIBIT "B"
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The applicants have presented a report entitled Albertson's.
Inc. Application for Site Development Plan. Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and Zoning Amendments for Community Commercial
(hereafter referred to as the applicant's statement) that
addresses the Statewide Planning Goals, the Tigard
Comprehensive Plan policies, and the Community Development
Code provisions that are applicable to the request. The
applicant has also submitted a traffic study and supplement
prepared by Kittelson and Associates, Inc. in support of the
application.
Staff finds that the following Statewide Planning Goals, City
of Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies, and Tigard Community
Development Code chapters are applicable to the request:
Applicable Review Criteria:
Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14;
Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 4.1.1, 4.2.1, 6.1.1,
6.4.1, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.2, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3,
8.2.2, 8.4.1, 9.1.3, 12.1.1(3), 12.2.1(4) 12.2 and 12.2.4; and
•
Community Development Code Chapters 18.22, 18.32, 18.56,
18.60, 18.61, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120,
18.130, 18.162, and 18.164.
1. Statewide Plannina Goals and Related Plan Policies
The Planning Division concludes that the proposal complies
with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Comprehensive
Plan policies based upon the following findings:
a. Goal 1 (Citizen Involvement) and Policy 2.1.1 are satisfied
because the City has adopted a citizen involvement program
including review of all land use and development applications
by nearby property owners and residents.
Notice was provided by the applicant for the neighborhood
meeting which was conducted August 4, 1994. Notice is also
provided of public hearings before the Planning Commission and
City Council. At each public hearing the opportunity will be
provided public input concerning this proposal.
Policy 2.1.3 is satisfied because information regarding the
new C-C designation was explained to the public at numerous
public forums. In addition, notices and information about
this proposal has been provided so that the basic planning
issues are understood by the public. Comments received have
been included in the staff report and applicant's statement.
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-: LUBA NO. 9"11, _ PAGE 25
Exhibit No.
Page No.
In addition, all public notice requirements related to this
application have been satisfied.
b. Goal 2 (Land Use Planning), Policy 1.1.1, and the quasi-
judicial plan and zone change approval standards of Code
Section 18.22.040 are satisfied. because the City has applied
all applicable Statewide Planning Goals through the City's
acknowledged Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code
requirements to the review of this proposal, as described in
this report. The City of Tigard has notified other affected
units of government including the City of Beaverton,
Washington County, the Oregon Department of Transportation,
and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
of the proposal. Service and utility providing agencies have
also been notified of the proposal.
Policy 1.1.2 requires that the Comprehensive Plan and each of
its elements shall be opened for review by the Metropolitan
Service District or its successor on an annual basis, and may
be amended or revised. Implementation Strategy 2 of this
policy requires that the City review Quasi-Judicial Amendments
in accordance with the standards set forth in the Chapter
18.22 of the Community Development Code. These standards have
been reviewed within the applicants statement.
C. Goal 6 (Air/Water Quality) is satisfied because that proposed
C-C zone and the surrounding residential properties will
result in fewer and shorter automobile trips to obtain
commercial goods and services. The proposed center, as
designed and conditioned, will provide for ease of access to
the surrounding neighborhoods. This in turn will help satisfy
Policy 4.1.1 by reducing potential air quality impacts from
the new residents and their automobiles.
Also, Policy 4.2.1 will be satisfied through the development
review and building permit processes at which time a
development proposal for this site must be shown to comply
with applicable federal, state, and regional water quality
requirements including preparation and implementation of a
non-point source pollution control plan in compliance with the
Oregon Environmental Quality Commission's temporary rules for
the Tualatin River Basin. The proposed redesignation would
not by itself affect compliance with this plan policy.
d. Policy 4.3.1 and related TMC Sections 7.40.130-210 have been
satisfied as demonstrated by a noise study which identified,
evaluated, and mitigated noise impacts as required by the
conditions of approval. If approved this policy will be
further implemented through the building permit plan check
process in which landscaping and proposed site improvements
will be reviewed to minimize noise impacts on neighboring land
uses.
• e. Goal 9 (Economy of the State) is satisfied because the
proposed redesignation would increase the City's ir;ventory of
developable commercial land, thereby increasing employment
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 LUBA NO. 95-011- PAGE 26
Exhibit No. S
Page No. 31)
opportunities in the City.
The proposal is consistent with Policy 5.4 because the
proposed C-C designation will maintain a compatible
relationship with nearby residential properties as required by
the Community Development Code standards. In addition, the
site is physically separated from residential uses by streets
on three sides of the property and a steep slope to the south.
A commercial service center of modest size has been
contemplated for this area since the 1983 adoption of the Bull
Mountain Community Plan. The proposed C-C designation will
replace the C-N designation and therefore, no encroachment
into a residential area will result.
f. Goal 10 (Housing) as well as Policy 6.1.1 are satisfied
because the proposal will result in a loss of 1.07 acres of R-
25 land and a net residential opportunity of 26 units. As
discussed in Section B. "Major Issues", this change by itself
has an insignificant impact on the City's ability to comply
with the Metropolitan Housing Rule.
The average potential density of the undeveloped residential
land in the City has historically varied as land was developed
and as Comprehensive Plan Amendments were approved. This
represents a reduction in the amount of developable
residential land in the City of only 0.070.
Policy 6.4.1 requires that the City designate developing areas
which are not designated as established areas on the
Comprehensive Plan Map and encourage flexible efficient
development within these areas. This area is currently a
developing area. The applicant is requesting Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning changes which allow greater flexiblity in
developing commercial uses to provide more types of goods and
services than the present Neighborhood Commercial designation
on the adjoining corner would permit. This change is will
reduce impacts to the transportation system by reducing the
length of travel required by residents to access other area
grocery and commercial shopping centers.
Policy 6.6.1 can be satisfied because the proposed design and
related conditions of approval are intended to provide
buffering and visual separation between the center and nearby
residential neighborhoods. As noted in this report, specific
landscaping noise mitigation measures must be provided to
ensure that this policy and related Code and TMC provisions
are met.
g. Goal 11 (Public Facilities and Services) and Policies 7.1.2,
7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.2, and 7.6.1, are satisfied because adequate
public service and educational capacities are available to
serve future development of this site, under. either the
existing or proposed Plan and zoning designations.= Extension
of necessary public facilities to serve the site are the
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 LUBA NO. 95-011 'AGE 27
Exhibit No.
Page No. Vt)
responsibility of the developer, at the time of site
development. The City of Tigard notifies applicable public
and private utility providers of pending development
applications. No adverse comments were received from service
providers, with respect to the current application.
h. Goal 12 !(Transportation) and Policy 8.1.1 are satisfied
because the proposed redesignation would not be expected to
result in unsuitable or unsafe levels of traffic on SW Walnut
Street or Scholls Ferry Road. Although commercial development
of this site might be expected to result in some increase in
total traffic on these roads adjacent to the site as compared
to what would be expected under the current designations, the
impact on the city-wide or regional transportation systems
will be beneficial through providing commercial opportunities
closer to adjoining residential areas than is currently
available. Therefore, a net reduction in total system traffic
is anticipated.
Policy 8.1.3 will be satisfied as a condition of development
approval under either the existing or proposed plan and zoning
designations. Completion of necessary street improvements
along the site' s frontages will be required to be installed by
the developer at the time of development. The Engineering
Division and Washington County will review final development
plans for the site with regard to necessary road improvements
adjacent to the site and on other affected roadways.
Policy 8.1.2 calls for the City to provide for safe and
efficient management of the transportation planning process
within the City and the metropolitan area through cooperation
with other federal, state, regional and local jurisdictions.
The City has provided copies of the appliction to other
affected agencies for review and comment.
Policy 8.2.2 calls for placing intensive land uses, such as
commercial and multi-family, in locations that can be served
by transit. Though Tri-Met service does not presently serve
the immediate area, an extension of service along SW Scholls
Ferry Road appears very likely.
Policy 8.4.1 states that the City shall locate bicycle and
pedestrian corridors in a manner which provides for pedestrian
and bicycle users, safe and convenient movement in all parts
of the City, by developing the pathway system shown on the
adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan. The site does not adjoin a
designated pedesterian/bikeway corridor area. The development
proposes to provide sidewalks along each property frontage.
The provisions of the Transportation Planning Rule are not
applicable to this application because it was submitted for
review prior to adoption of these rule changes. The applicant
has addressed transit and pedestrian orientation requirements
throught the development of a walkway system from adjoining
streets into the site. The applicant has.proposed=to -provide
a potential bus turnout location on SW Scholls Ferry Road near
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 LUf3A NO. 95-011 PAGE 28
Exhlbft No. 1
Pace No. i/1
the intersection of SW Walnut Street in anticipation of future
transit service along SW Scholls Ferry Road.
i. Goal 13 (Energy Conservation) and Policies 9.1.3 which
encourage energy conservation through design and construction.
Because of the sites location and ability to provide greater
numbers of services an expected reduction in the number and
length of automobile trips to existing commercial areas, the
amount of energy consumed by area residents to commercial
services will be less. Through application of current
building code requirements during the building permit review
process all new construction on the site will be developed in
an energy efficient manner.
j. Policy 12.2 identifies types of commercial zoning districts.
This policy sets the following general requirements: 1) That
uses within each district shall be planned at a scale which
relates to its location, site and type of stores to the trade
area to be served. The scale of development has been reviewed
as it relates to surrounding land uses and the site's existing
proposed topography and appears compatible with adjoining
residential areas as reviewed within this report. 2) That
surrounding residential uses be protected from any possible
adverse effects in terms of loss of privacy, noise, lights and
glare. The applicant has addressed design aspects of the
proposal as it relates to these issues. 3) That commercial
centers be asthetically attractive and landscaped. The
applicant has provided conceptual design details for the
center which have been reviewed against the applicable
standards elsewhere within this report as it relates to
building and site improvement asthetics and landscaping. 4)
That ingress and egress points not create traffic congestion
and hazard. The design of the site has been reviewed
elsewhere within this report as it relates to connectivity
with adjoining rights-of-way and neighboring properties. 5)
That vehicle trips be reduced both in length and total number.
Reduction in vehicular trips has been addressed elsewhere in
this report in terms of length and number. 6) This portion
of the policy states that the Central Business District is not
included in the locational criteria because there is only one
Central Business District within Tigard. This does not apply
to this application because it is not within the Central
Business District.
k. The locational criteria for Medium-High Residential (R-25)
specified in Policy 12.1.1 (3) are met for the following
reasons:
(1) The parcels intended for the R-25 designation are vacant
and are not committed to low density development. Since 1983,
these properties have been designated for multi-family and
commercial use. Prior to being designated C-N, Tax Lot 100
was designated R-25.
(2) The two areas intended for R-25 densitv are well buffered
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-1 LUBA NO. 9"11 PAGE 29
Exhibit No.
Page No.
or separated from single family residential neighborhoods.
Tax Lot 100 abuts R-25 zoning to the north and east. The area
north is undeveloped and the eastern property line is bordered
by Cotswald Subdivision. Because of the properties size and
lack of physical constraints, adequate buffering can be
provided along the property boundaries.
The R-25 area south of the center will be adjacent to R-25 and
R-12 zoned areas that developed as single family
neighborhoods. This 3.95 acre parcel will provide a
transition between the single family development and the
shopping center.
(3) Both proposed R-25 parcels have direct access from major
collectors streets.
(4) The properties have a moderate grade and do not appear to
have any development limitations due to natural features of
Code requirements.
(5) As noted in this report, existing facilities have
adequate capacity to serve the development.
(6) The property is approximately 1/2 mile from the nearest
Tri-Met route. This bus stop is served by Tri-Met bus line
#62. However, SW Scholls Ferry Road and Walnut Street are
logical routes for expansion in the future as the area grows
and the demand for bus service increases.
(7) The two proposed R-25 areas will have excellent access to
shopping.
(8) When the residential properties develop, common and/or
private open space will be required as a condition of
development.
1. The locational criteria for Community Commercial uses
specified in Policy 12.2.1 (4) are satisfied for the following
reasons:
(1) The density within the 1/2 mile trade area averages over
8 units per acre. Supporting information is supplied in the
applicant's statement and in the staff report information on
file as part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to create the
C-C designation.
(2) The proposed center and its components all meet the
maximum gross floor area standards of 100,000 square feet
total, 40,000 for grocery stores, 10,000 square feet for
general retail, and 5,000 square feet for other uses.
(3) The proposed commercial designation will apply to only
the southeast corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and Walnut
Street. -
LUBA NO.95-011
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-,Exhibit No. : - PAGE 30
Page No. _
(4) The site is over 1/2 mile from any other commercial
retail land use designations.
(5) The site is located at the intersection of two major
collector streets. The traffic analysis presented by
Kittelson and Associates and the subsequent evaluation by the
Engineering Division ;and Washington County indicate that no
adverse traffic impacts will result.
(6) The commercial site is eight acres which coincides with
the maximum allowable size for a Community Commercial center.
(7) Design issues, such as vehicular access, pedestrian and
bicyclist access, coordinated development, local street
connections between the commercial use and the neighborhood,
lighting, and noise, have all been addressed using the
applicable Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code
policies and standards.
2. Communitv Development Code
a. Chapter 18.22
In order to approve a quasi-judicial amendment to the Plan and
zoning maps, the City must also find that there is evidence of
a change in the neighborhood or community which affects the
parcel. Alternatively, the City must find that there has been
a mistake or inconsistency with regard to the original
designation of the parcel (Comprehensive Plan, Volume 2,
Policy 1.1.1, Implementation Strategy 2; Community Development
Code Section 18.22.040(A).
The applicant's statement (pages 5 through 9) addresses these
considerations. The staff concurs with the basic analysis
presented by the applicant.
b. Chapter 18.56 - R-25 Multiple-Family Residential
At this time, no development is proposed for Tax Lot 100 or
the proposed 3.95 acre parcel south of the shopping center.
Both parcels meet the dimensional requirements of the R-25
zone (Section 18.56.050) and it appears that both parcels can
be suitably developed in the future.
C. Chapter 18.61 - C-C Community Commercial
Section 18.61.030 is satisfied because the uses proposed by
the applicant are permitted with the exception of the service
station and 24 hour grocery store operation which are subject
to conditional use approval criteria (Chapter 18.130). The
proposed improvements for the site can accommodate all of the
permitted uses shown on the site plan and proposed as
alternate tenants in the center.
Section 18.61.45 is satisfied because all primary commercial
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-1• LUBA NO. 95-011 PAGE 31
Exhibit No.
Page No. -
activities shall be conducted inside; all uses, except for the
grocery and video stores will be less than the 5,000 square
foot maximum; and any outdoor displays and open air dining
shall be conducted within the limits of this section.
Section 18.61.050 is satisfied because the proposed center
meets all applicable standards for lot size and dimensions,
setbacks, lot coverage, building height, and landscaped area.
Section 18.61.055 contains a number of design guidelines and
standards for C-C development. The basic design concepts
presented by the applicant are generally consistent with these
Code provisions. In some cases design concepts need to be
amended and in others more detailed information needs to be
provided (as conditions of approval) to ensure compliance with
this Code section.
Section 18.61.055 A. 1. contains building design guidelines
which have been partially satisfied. The applicant has
provided a proposed design for the grocery store, but not for
the remaining 9,550 square feet of retail space adjacent to it
or for the two building pad sites.
Also, the grocery will have blank walls facing SW Northview
Drive. However, this building elevations will be screened
from view by landscaping and should result in a pleasing
appearance.
Section 18.61.055 A. 2. discourages loading areas that face
toward residential uses. The proposed loading area abuts an
undeveloped residential parcel and is near Castle Hill
Subdivision. Because of the proposed grading of the site, the
loading area will be approximately 24 feet below the existing
grade. This design serves to mitigate noise impacts to
adjoining residential areas along with landscaping and
screening will provide a satisfactory visual buffer.
Section 18.61.055 B. 1. requires internal walkways to
facilitate pedestrian circulation on the site. The site plan
shows sidewalks in the vicinity of the building locations and
one walkway to SW Northview Drive. This Code section can be
satisfied if additional walkways are provided as recommended
in the conditions of approval.
Section 18.61.055 B. 2. can be satisfied with the submission
of additional information regarding, mechanical equipment,
refuse and recycling containers, bicycle parking,
pedestrian/vehicular conflicts, landscaping, screening, and
special site features (e.g., walls) as required in the
conditions of approval.
d. Chapter 18.100 - Landscaping and Screening
The provisions of this Chapter can be satisfied provided the
conditions of approval are met. The conceptual plan is found
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93- LUBA NO. 95-011 - PAGE 32
Exhibit No. T
Pane No. y#'
to be consistent with the criteria in this Chapter, but the
details need to be confirmed prior to issuance of development
permits.
Section 18.100.030 - 040 requires street trees as part of new
commercial development. The landscaping plan submitted
indicates that street trees will be planted with 40 foot ,
spacing. A list of trees to be used is provided, but the tree
to be used is not identified. With 40 foot spacing, the
street trees will need to have a mature height of 40+ feet.
Section 18.100.070 - 080 requires screening between different
uses, such as commercial and residential. The proposed
landscaping plan includes vegetative screening that is
consistent with the standards of these sections. Only more
detailed information regarding the size and species of
plantings, as required in the conditions of approval is needed
to ensure compliance.
Section 18.100.090 pertains to fences and walls. The
applicant has proposed the construction of a wall along a
portion of 'the perimeter of the development. A conceptual
elevation plan for a portion of this wall along SW Northview
Drive has been included in the application. The applicant has
provided the wall to address specific neighborhood concerns
due to potential site impacts. Using walls as a unifying
design element is encouraged by Chapter 18.100 and the C-C
Zone.
Section 18.100.110 requires screening for parking and loading
areas. The landscaping plan satisfies the relevant
requirements for landscaped islands in the parking area and
the number of trees in the parking area. However, in order to
accommodate the pedestrian walkways noted elsewhere in this
report, some of the landscaped features will have to be
modified.
Section 18.100.130 contains a buffer matrix that prescribes
the minimum width and type of buffer required in different
circumstances. The applicants proposed minimum buffer area of
20 feet with vegetative screening meets or exceeds the
standards for commercial development and parking lots which
abut residential uses.
e. Chapter 18.102 - Visual Clearance Areas
All intersections meet the visual clearance provisions of this
Chapter.
f. Chapter 18.106 - Off-Street and Loading Requirements
Although the exact number of required. parking spaces in
Section 18.106.030 cannot be determined because all of the
tenants have not been identified, the applicant's estimate of
255 required spaces is reasonable. A total of 293 spaces are
5-011
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93 LEUBA UBA No.
. 91 - PAGE 33
No. 1:
Page No. Ito
provided.
• Section 18.106.050 describes the dimensional standards for
parking areas.-'All of these requirements for parking spaces
and aisle widths are met or exceeded, as shown on the site
plan.
i
g. Chapter 18.108 - Access, Egress, and Circulation
The number and dimensions of the proposed driveways meet the
provisions of this Chapter.
Section 18.108.060 discourages direct access onto arterial and
collector streets. While the number of driveways for the
commercial development appears justified (pending Washington
County's final analysis and recommendations), based on the
traffic study and the findings of the Engineering Department,
the future access for the proposed 3.95 acre parcel must be
addressed as noted in this report.
h. Chapter 18.114 - Signs
The plans submitted by the applicant indicate one freestanding
sign along the SW Scholls Ferry Road frontage, as allowed by
Section 18.114.130 E. A sign drawing has been submitted
without dimensions. Sign permits shall be required as a
condition of approval to ensure compliance with Code standards
for the C-C Zone.
i. Chapter 18.120 - Site Development Review
The relevant design standards in Section 18.120. 180 A. have
been addressed elsewhere in this report, with the exception of
noise (18.180.180 A. 5.). As discussed earlier, the loading
area on the south side of the grocery store is visually
screened from adjoining residential properties. However,
noise from truck traffic, trash collection and compacting, and
rooftop equipment has proven to be a source of conflict
between commercial and residential uses.
Sufficient information has been provided to address the
expected major noise generators on site. The applicant should
comply with the recommendations made within the accoustical
engineer's report as addressed previously within this report.
Based on this study it appears that the site improvements can
be modified to comply with the applicable Development Code
criteria for mitigation of noise.
j. Chapter 18.162 - Major and Minor Land Partitioning
The proposed partition complies with all of the dimensional
requirements of the C-C and R-25 zones, and the requirements
of this Chapter shall be satisfied by the conditions of
approval. _
LUBA NO. 95-011
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93- ExhIbitNo._T PAGE 34
Page No.
k. Chapter 18.164 - Street and Utility Improvement Standards
These shall be satisfied as required by the City Engineering
Department and the Washington County Department of Land Use
and Transportation.
LUBA NO. 95-011
Exhibit NO. I
Page NO.
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 35
~~y~ iT C -1
r.
.~l
lid
.1 x
. - •f • :'fi'r, .a
to
dd.
i
02
10 k2v
x
AO.
093-0003 `vgpN joo3
r Z 001.4.
P l.. A SyR #93- -0013 Pa90
P 1,.. C.~
,~~v-11B
~¢E
c
r,.w.
R' 1Z ~ ~ .e~11~ r
to C 4, r
Zs
V c r.
i
sow
t • t
t
r~
CASE go.
C4A 93_0009 t.ujok
Q~~ 1r Z01994-000311~bb
~R X93" p 013 Page I
M Alp
EX
ALBERTSONS - CPA 93-0009 PAM GARCIA
MURRAY HILL THRIFTWAY STORE
14550 SW TEAL BLVD
BEAVERTON OR 97005
OWNER/RESIDENT J. VAN PERRE
14306 SW WINDSONG CT 14237 SW WINDSONG CT
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
SCOTT RUSSELL CRAIG WYLY
31291 RAYMOND CREEK 14317 SW WINDS= CT
SCAPPOOSE OR 97056 TIGARD OR 97223
JOHN SHONKWILER BILL GROSS
13425 SW 72ND AVE 11035 SW 135TH
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
DON DUNCOMBE MARGERY CRIST
17001 NE SAN RAFAEL RT. 1 BOX 792
PORTLAND OR 97230 BEAVERTON OR 97007
MARTHA & JOHN BOESEN DAVID JOHNSON
14301 SW WINDSONG CT 14341 SW WINDSONG CT
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
KEVIN WHITE
14056 SW CHEHALEM CT
TIGARD OR 97223
GREG WINTEROWD
700 N HAYDEN ISLAND DR
PORTLAND OR 97217
SULLIVAN LUBA NO. 95-017
L00 US BANCOPRS TOWER Exhibit No.
111 SW FIFTH Page No.
PORTLAND OR 97204-3688
ERNIE PLATT DAVID S WILLIAMS
ED HOWDEN 7610 SW HAZELFERN 14143 SW STARDUST LANE
11829 SW MORNING HILL DR TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
TIGARD OR 97223
0
LANNY & BARBARA COLLINS NORM BRANDVOLD
14158 SW NORTHVIEW DR 13775 SW OLD SCHOLLS TERRY LINDSTROM
TIGARD OR 97223 FERRY ROAD 14194 SW NORTHVIEW
BEAVERTON OR 97008 TIGARD OR 97223
CINDY CHRISTENSEN TROY CHRISTIANSON ELAYNE O'BRIEN
14293 SW WINDSONG 14133 SW LIDEN DRIVE 14051 SW LIDEN DRIVE
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
ANTHONY BONFORTE
NANCY RHODES 14676 SW OSPREY #413
13994 SW CHEHALEM CT BEAVERTON OR 97007
TIGARD OR 97223
LUBA NO. 95-011
.Exhibit No. T_
Page No.
Council Agenda Item
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 27, 1994
• Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Schwartz.
1. ROLL CALL
Council Present: Mayor John Schwartz; Councilors Wendi Conover Hawley, Paul
Hunt, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. Staff Present: Bill Monahan, City
Administrator; Dick Bewersdorlf, Senior Planner; Jim Coleman, Legal Counsel;
Paul DeBruyn, Network System Administrator; Loreen Edin, Risk Manager; and
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder.
STUDY SESSION
• Agenda Review:
Computer Systems Report:
City Administrator Monahan introduced Loreen Edin and Paul DeBruyn, the
new Network Systems Manager.
Ms. Edin, Risk Manager, managed the network system for an interim period.
She reviewed the history of the computer usage in the City of Tigard noting
that in 1979/80 most work was completed by typewriters or hand drawings.
Presently, almost everything is done by computers on a daily basis.
Computers, during the period of the FTE cap, have allowed the staff to do
more. She advised the network system has 180 work stations.
Ms. Edin reviewed the need to update the computer technology; the City's
system was "aging." She noted needs in the Police Department and
Maintenance Service citing areas where new technology would be useful.
When the Computer Systems Manager left the City last March, a review of
the system was conducted. It was decided that there was a need to
determine how computers should be used and for a long-range plan of how
to utilize the system in the future.
Ms. Edin distributed the technology philosophy statement (on file with the
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 27, 1994 - PAGE 1
LUBA NO. 95-011
Exhibit No. _
Page No.. 3
Council packet material). She noted that the City's core group members
• did an excellent job of keeping the computer system going between the
departure of the former network manager and the arrival of Mr. DeBruyn .
Ms. Edin introduced Mr. DeBruyn to the Council.
Mr. DeBruyn reviewed the Information Systems Network. (For an outline,
please see the Council Packet material which is entitled, "City of Tigard
Information Systems Network," dated December 27, 1994.) It was noted
that the updating of the system would be done in stages. Software was
reaching the end of its life and there was need for regional information
sharing with Metro and the County.
Mr. DeBnryn noted there was a need to get into the "windows environment"
noting that DOS is a "dying breed." In response to concerns by Councilor
Scheckla with regard to updating the system, Mr. DeBruyn advised that
there would always be a means of interfacing new and old systems. In
addition, the Internet will be of great benefit in the future.
Mr. DeBnryn advised that there may be 486 machines available that the City
could purchase on close out offerings as other companies are upgrading.
Mayor Schwartz questioned the advisability of buying 486, noting that
buying "last year's model" may not be the way to go (i.e., new machines are
"Pentiums"). Mr. DeBruyn advised that the Pentium 60 was the machine
for 95/96; however, he said the 486 models should do well also for the City.
It was estimated that. upgrades would amount to about $200,000 on a
department to department basis over the next two years. It was also
anticipated that they will need to add a computer technician to the staff next
year.
Mayor-elect Nicoli noted that, in his business, he buys some new equipment
every year. It appears to make sense to start replacing one-third of the
equipment every year.
In response to a question from Councilor Hunt, it was noted that the Tigard
Water District had primarily 486 machines and newer equipment at the time
the water operations were phased in to the City of Tigard.
There was discussion on the maintenance and replacement of equipment
every three to five years. It was noted that many of the software programs
were "canned" with the Network Systems Manager advising that many of the
"canned" programs were altered for the City's use. .
During discussion, it was also brought out that a contract with a company
(AIS) was used to assist with the computer system in the interim period
• CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 27, 1994 - PAGE 2
LUBA NO. 95-!0111
Exh6bR No. sr
Page No. _
during the interim between system managers.
Mr. DeBruyn, in response to a question from Councilor Hunt, noted that
figures were being pulled together for presentation to the Council (Budget
Committee).
Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at
7:21 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss
labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation
issues.
Council reconvened into regular session: 7:49 p.m.
BUSINESS MEETING
1. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS AND REQUESTS FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
City Administrator Monahan requested a non-agenda item: Agenda Item
No. 9 concerning the purchase of four 1995 police vehicles.
3. VISITOR'S AGENDA:
• Jack Polaris, 16000 S.W. Queen Victoria, King City, Oregon 97224, testified
with regard to a proposed shopping center adjacent to Highway 99 and
across from Fling City. Mr. Polaris advised that he had heard the Safeway
Headquarters are conducting another marketing analysis; they may not
want to move into this area. He questioned whether the Council was aware
of this.
City Administrator Monahan advised that the City does become involved in
the details with regard to which tenant will actually occupy a development
during the preliminary stages. At the present time, there is no application
on file for this development; however, there have been some
predevelopment meetings for this site.
Mayor Schwartz advised that it is the City's practice to require an applicant
to go through certain steps before going through the expense of processing
an application.
With regard to questions posed by Mr. Polaris for Agenda Item No. 5,
Mayor Schwartz asked that Mr. Polaris hold comments until that agenda
item is reviewed.
i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 27, 1994 - PAGE 3
LUBA NO.95-011-
Exhibit No.
Page No. ___,S
3
Mr. Polaris referred to a regional water supply study. Mr. Polaris also asked
about a recent law suit for $2 million filed with reference to the Dolan matter.
Mr. Polaris was advised that the City's insurance carrier is reviewing the
issue.
• Mr. Stan Wood, 16224 S.W. 116th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, 97224,
questioned the Council with regard to their motives and representation of
their constituents when they extended the time for retirement benefits to City
employees recently. Mr. Wood also inquired as to financial support
received by the City Council. Mr. Wood referenced possible recall action
of the Council.
Mayor Schwartz and the Council members reviewed with Mr. Wood their
recent action and explained their rationale for this action. It was noted the
Council had held a lengthy discussion about the effects of Measure 8 on
the employees and the desire of the City Council to follow the direction
mandated by the voters. The voters of Tigard and Washington County
supported Measure 8. Mayor Schwartz noted the City of Tigard did not
give a 6 percent pay increase to City employees as had other jurisdictions
in the Metro area.
Mayor Schwartz and Councilors reviewed, at Mr. Wood's request, financial
information. Councilors advised they had either received small donations
or had paid for their own campaigns with their own money. Mayor
Schwartz advised he was a retired government employee under the PERS
system.
Council advised Mr. Wood that their decision with regard to this matter was
recorded on audio tape. This tape was available at the library.
3. CONSENT AGENDA:
There were questions on Consent Agenda Item 3.2 with regard to the TVCA
Contract for cable coverage of Council meetings. City Administrator Monahan
explained two meetings a month are now scheduled for cable coverage.
Mayor-elect Nicoli noted that he had suggested that a built-in camera system. be
looked into. City Administrator acknowledged that staff would be reviewing costs.
Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to approve the Consent
Agenda:
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 27, 1994 - PAGE 4
LUBA NO. 95-011
Exhlbft No.
Page No.
3.1 Approve Council Minutes - November 15, 1994
3.2 Authorize City Administrator to Sign TVCA Contract for Cable Coverage of
Council Meetings
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor
Schwartz and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.")
4. CONTINUATION OF COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT/CPA 93-0009 ZONE CHANGE/ZON 93-0003 SITE
DEVELOPMENT REVIEWISDR 93-0014 CONDITIONAL USE/CUP 9340002
MINOR LAND PARTITION/MLP 93-0013 ALBERTSON'S/DUNCOMBE
LOCATION: Southeast and northeast quadrants of the intersection of SW Scholls
Ferry Road and SW Walnut Street. (WCTM 2S1 41313, tax lots 100 and 200). A
request for the following development approvals: 1) Comprehensive Plan and
Zone Change approval to redesignate approximately eight acres of a 12 acre
parcel from Medium-High Density Residential to Community Commercial on tax lot
200 and to redesignate an approximately, 6.93 acre parcel from Neighborhood
Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential on tax lot 100. Zone changes
accompanying the above plan changes includes a zone change from R-12 (PD)
and R-25 (PD) (Residential, 12 to 25 units/acre, Planned Development) to C-C
(Community Commercial) and C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-25
(Residential, 25 units/acre); 2) Site Development Review approval to allow the
construction of a 40,000 anchor tenant pad including a 40,000 square foot grocery
store and three smaller tenant pads of 1,200, 2,400, and 5,950 square feet
adjoining the anchor tenant pad. The applicant also proposes two 4,000 square
foot stand alone tenant pads. 3) Minor Land Partition approval to divide the 12
acre parcel into two parcels of approximately eight acres and four acres each.
APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11,
13 and 14; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 4.1.1, 4.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.4.1,
6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.2, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 8.2.1, 8.2.2, 8.4.1, 9.1.3, 12.1.1,
12.2, 12.2.1, and 12.2.4; Community Development Code Chapters 18.22, 18.32,
18.56,18.60,18.61, 18.98, 18.100,18.102, 18.106,18.108, 18.114,18.120, 18.130,
18.162, and 18.164. ZONE: The existing Neighborhood Commercial zone permits
a range of convenience goods and services which are purchased at least weekly.
Typical uses would include convenience sales and personal services, children's
day care, financial, insurance and real estate services, food and beverage retail
sales, etc. Neighborhood Commercial centers have a 5,000 square foot lot
minimum.
The proposed Community Commercial zone permits a range of convenience
goods and services which are designed to serve the regular needs of residents of
nearby residential neighborhoods. Community Commercial centers typically range
in size from a minimum of two acres to eight acres. In terms of square footage
these centers range from 30,000 to 100,000 square feet.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 27, 1994 - PAGE 5
LUBA NO. 95-011
Exhibit No. _
Page No.
The existing R-25 (PD) zone permits a range of single-family attached, low and
medium rise multiple-family residential units, for medium-high residential
development. The R-25 zone permits residential densities up to 25 units per acre.
The Planned Development zoning district overlay is designed to encourage
properties to be developed as a single unit in terms of design, access, etc.
a. Senior Planner Bewersdorff review the staff report. During the
December 13, 1994 public hearing, the Council approved the Albertson's
application subject to additional conditions of approval which were brought
back for review by the Council in order to address issues raised during the
hearing. Seven additional conditions of approval have been added to
address these concerns. (For a summary of these conditions of approval,
see the Staff Report on file with the Council packet material.)
Staff recommended approval of the Final Order with the revised conditions
of approval.
b. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to adopt
Ordinance No. 9427.
ORDINANCE NO. 9427 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP
AMENDMENT AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT REQUESTED BY
ALBERTSON'S INCORPORATED (CPA 93-0009 AND ZON 93-0003)
The motion was approved by a majority vote of Council present. (Mayor
Schwartz and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, and Rohlf voted "yes°; Councilor
Scheckla voted "no.")
5. COUNCIL DISCUSSION (CONSIDERATION: CRIME BILL FEDERAL GRANT
REQUEST (Set over from December 13, 1994, Council Meeting)
Staff Report: Police Chief Ron Goodpaster reviewed the Staff Report and his
memorandum which was attached to the Staff Report. The request was for an
application for funding for two police officers under the Federal C.O.P.S. grant
program. If authorized, the City would need to approve funding to cover the costs
of two officers after the C.O.P.S. $75,000 per officer ran out, which would be in the
17th month of their employment. In addition to the salary and benefits, $15,000
would be needed to pay for uniforms, to cover overtime, and to provide training
and materials. Total cost to the City for each, if they were hired July 1, 1995,
would be $285,022 through the new tax base to June 30, 2001.
The purpose of the two officers would be to have at least one officer assigned
inside of Washington Square during open hours to handle calls and complaints
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 27, 1994 - PAGE 6
LUBA NO.9"llI
Exhlbit No.
Page No.
and to assist the Square security staff. These officers would also provide
information, answer questions, and assist the general public with issues, concerns
or questions regarding police services to Tigard. They would also be able to
answer and assist the general citizenry with questions regarding the City of Tigard.
This would be consistent with the community policing program effort now
underway in the City of Tigard.
Chief Goodpaster described the Washington Square security and the fact that the
five anchor stores do not contribute to Washington Square Security costs. (They
have their own security.) The security at Washington Square is there only for the
purpose of protecting the Square property and not to follow up on shop lifting or
abandoned auto complaints.
It was noted that the deadline for submitting the grant request is December 31,
1994. By February 1, 1995, the City would know whether or not these officers are
funded.
In response to questions from Council, Chief Goodpaster noted that these two
officers could not be used supplant Square Security. Discussion followed on
financing these officers and what this would mean in future years with regard to
expense to the City of Tigard. After three years, the City would decide whether or
not to continue this program for extra security at Washington Square. It was noted
that approximately 21 percent of the Department's time is devoted to Washington
Square activity.
There was discussion as to whether or not the Square could be asked to
contribute to the extra law enforcement costs that are attributable to them.
Councilor Rohlf noted the need to track, over the next two or three years, the
activity and do some comparisons to determine the value of the program.
Councilor Hunt advised of concerns he had with administering the police program
throughout the coming years. There was reference to the °supplanting clause" in
the grant program which restricts the City from substituting these resources for
programs already funded. It was pointed out that the City has not formally put
their program in place; this should not bind the City at this time.
Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve the
application and submit a request for funding of two police officers under the
Federal C.O.P.S. Grant Program.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor
Schwartz and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted. "yes.")
Mr. Jack Polaris requested to comment on this item. Mayor Schwartz responded
. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 27, 1994 - PAGE 7
LUBA NO. 95-011
Exhlbit No.
Page No. 6
to questions, noting that the City has identified where these police officers could
be used. These police officers could be elsewhere in the City if they were needed.
Mr. Stan Wood also commented. It was explained to Mr. Wood that when the tax
base increase proposal was developed, the City's needs for five years were
identified. The Federal Grant would enable the City to address some of the police
problems at Washington Square. The City is in need of new officers; the new tax
base does not start until July 1996. If the grant is approved, the City will be able
to hire officers more quickly.
6. COUNCIL DISCUSSION /CONSIDERATION: COMMITTEE REAPPOINTMENT
GUIDELINES (Continuation of Council discussion from the December 13, 1994
meeting.)
• Budget Committee Reappointment
City Administrator Monahan noted that when the City Council considered
the reappointment of Mr. Floyd Bergmann, there were two Councilors who
were in favor of the reappointment and two who were opposed. It was
suggested that the Council might want to consider this item when there was
a full Council present. It was noted that the Cityscape has advertised a
possible opening for Budget Committee.
Councilor Hunt advised that his recollection on direction with regard to
proceeding with the reappointment was different. He thought the Budget
Committee appointment was not going to be brought up until after it was
determined whether there were persons interested in filling this position.
After brief discussion, it was determined that the Council would make a
decision once it was known whether there were people interested in serving
on the Budget Committee. Council consensus was to delay this item for
consideration; it was rescheduled for the Council Agenda of January 24,
1995.
7. CABLE TV FRANCHISE ORDINANCE PROPOSAL
• Legal Counsel Jim Coleman reviewed the Staff Report noting the proposal
was similar to agreements between Washington County and Beaverton. In
response to questions from Council, it was noted that citizens would be
able to received coverage of Council meetings on TCI.
Legal Counsel recommended that the City Council approve the ordinance
to update the code and direct staff to enter into negotiations with TCI
Cablevision of Oregon, Inc., for a franchise to serve newly annexed areas
of Tigard.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 27, 1994 - PAGE 8
LUBA NO. 95-011
Exhibit No. _
Page No. fn b
• Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt
Ordinance No. 94-29.
ORDINANCE NO. 9429 - AN ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD,
OREGON, REPEALING CHAPTER 5.12 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND
ADDING A NEW CHAPTER TO PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT IN
GRANTING OF FRANCHISES FORTHE CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE,
AND OPERATION OF CABLE COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor
Schwartz and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.")
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS REPORT/UPDATE
• City Administrator Monahan reviewed his unfinished business status report
wrth the City Council. There was brief discussion on several items with it
being noted that the Council's training/goal setting date would 'be
February 4, 1995.
9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
• Council considered an item which would allow employees to pay their
contribution to their retirement with pre-tax dollars. Staff advised that this
would represent no cost to the City.
Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt
Resolution No. 94-60.
RESOLUTION NO. 94-60 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON, MAKING EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTIONS NOT
SUBJECT TO STATE AND FEDERAL WITHHOLDING.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor
Schwartz and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.")
• Police vehicles - Chief of Police Ron Goodpaster described for Council the
reason why staff was recommending the purchase of four police vehicles.
He noted that the total bid cost of the four vehicles was $78,836.49 which
was $10,512.49 over the budgeted dollar amount. Mr. Goodpaster advised
that the City could purchase a Ford package within budget; however, going
to a different brand of vehicle would cause significant problems with parts
and repair and training of mechanics.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 27, 1994 - PAGE 9
LUBA N0.95-011
Exhibit No.
Page No.
Staff recommended approval of the purchase of four 1995 Chevy Caprices
for full-size police vehicles. It was noted that the dollar amount for the
purchase of these four police vehicles was available in the police budget as
identified in the Staff Report.
Mayor Schwartz disagreed with the rationale that the purchase of a Ford
package would cause problems with the maintenance because of parts and
training. The Mayor said he could support the request for purchase due to
safety concerns with police officers driving different vehicles (reference
familiarity of vehicles which would be beneficial during a high-speed chase.)
There was brief discussion on this proposal and the safety factors.
Councilors indicated they would support the request.
Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve the
bid award of $78,836.49 for the purchase of four 1995 Chevy Caprice full-
size police vehicles.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor
Schwartz and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.")
• Councilor Hawley noted that she requested the Council consider a call up
for review the Martin/Tri-County Center Application (SDR 94-0019/Planned
Development Review PDR 94-0002/Sensitive Lands Review SLR 94-0004).
Councilor Hawley advised she would like to hear the presentation by the
applicant to determine if the proposal fit with the vision of the Triangle Area.
Also, to be reviewed would be the buffering between this area and adjacent
single-family residential area. Parking was another area cited for review.
Councilor Hunt asked how a call up would tie-in with the review of the
Tigard Triangle. City Administrator Monahan noted that the application
must be reviewed within a 120-day time frame. If called up, it should be
reviewed as soon as possible.
Mayor Schwartz agreed with Councilor Hawley. He also noted concerns
with wetland relocation, a fir grove, and the unique piece of land.
Council was advised that they must review the application under the criteria
in place at the time the application was filed.
Consensus of City Council was to call this issue up for review.
Mayor Schwartz advised that there may be a possibility that the Council would
reconvene into open session. The Council would meet in Executive Session; an
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 27, 1994 - PAGE 10
LUBA NO.95-011
Exhlbit No.
Page No.
announcement would be made as soon as possible as to whether the Council
would reconvene into Open Session.
10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at
9:50 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor
relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues.
- Mayor Schwartz announced in Open Session, at 10:02 p.m., that the open session
was adjourned; Council would continue to meet in Executive Session under the
provisions noted in No. 10 above.
11. ADJOURNMENT: 11 p.m.
Gtr
Attest: atherine Wheatley, City Recorder
y r, City of Tigard
Date: I~QS
=n1227.94
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 27, 1994 - PAGE 11
LUBA NO. 95-011
Exhibit No. ~T _
Page No.
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
- -
PUBLIC NOTICE. Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the
appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor
at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's 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.
Times noted are estimated: it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be
present by 7.15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items
can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m.
Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should
be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting.
Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices
for the Deaf).
Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services:
• Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing
impairments, and
• Qualified bilingual interpreters.
Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to
allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on
the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above:
639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deao.
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 27, 1994 - PAGE 1 LIZA NO. 95-011
ExhIbift No.
Page No. C~ _
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
DECEMBER 27, 1994
AGENDA
• STUDY MEETING
Computer Systems Report
• Computer Services Manager Paul DeBruyn
Executive Session: The Tigard City Council may 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.
Agenda Review
Administrative Update: Topics may include report of water issues,
upcoming events, scheduling, and current events of interest to the City.)
1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 PM)
1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board
1.2 Roll Call
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports
1.5 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 - November 15, 1994
3.2 Authorize City Administrtor to Sign TVCA Contract for Cable Coverage of
Council Meetings
4. CONTINUATION OF COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT/CPA 93-0009 ZONE CHANGE/ZON 93-0003 SITE
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW/SDR 93-0014 CONDITIONAL USE/CUP 93-0002
MINOR LAND PARTITION/MLP 93-0013 ALBERTSON'S/DUNCOMBE
LOCATION: Southeast and northeast quadrants of the intersection of SW Scholls
Ferry Road and SW Walnut Street. (WCTM 2S1 4136, tax lots 100 and 200). A
request for the following development approvals:. 1) Comprehensive Plan and
Zone Change approval to redesignate approximately eight acres of a 12 acre
parcel from Medium-High Density Residential to Community Commercial on tax lot
200 and to redesignate an approximately 6.93 acre parcel from Neighborhood
Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential on tax lot 100. Zone changes
COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 27, 1994 - PAGE 2 LUBA NO. 95-011
Exhibit No.
Page No. _
accompanying the above plan changes includes a zone change from R-12 (PD)
and R-25 (PD) (Residential, 12 to 25 units/acre, Planned Development) to C-C
(Community Commercial) and C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-25
(Residential, 25 units/acre); 2) Site Development Review approval to allow the
construction of a 40,000 anchor tenant pad including a 40,000 square foot grocery
store and three smaller tenant pads of 1,200, 2,400, and 5,950 square feet
adjoining the anchor tenant pad. The applicant also proposes two 4,000 square
foot stand alone tenant pads. 3) Minor Land Partition approval to divide the 12
acre parcel into two parcels of approximately eight acres and four acres each.
APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11,
13 and 14; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 4.1.1, 4.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.4.1,
6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.2, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 8.2.1, 8.2.2, 8.4.1, 9.1.3, 12.1.1,
12.2, 12.2.1, and 12.2.4; Community Development Code Chapters 18.22, 18.32,
18.56, 18.60, 18.61, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.130,
18.162, and 18.164. ZONE: The existing Neighborhood Commercial zone permits
a range of convenience goods and services which are purchased at least weekly.
Typical uses would include convenience sales and personal services, children's
day care, financial, insurance and real estate services, food and beverage retail
sales, etc. Neighborhood Commercial centers have a 5,000 square foot lot
minimum.
The proposed Community Commercial zone permits a range of convenience
goods and services which are designed to serve the regular needs of residents of
nearby residential neighborhoods. Community Commercial centers typically range
in size from a minimum of two acres to eight acres. In terms of square footage
these centers range from 30,000 to 100,000 square feet.
The existing R-25 (PD) zone permits a range of single-family attached, low and
medium rise multiple-family residential units, for medium-high residential
development. The R-25 zone permits residential densities up to 25 units per acre.
The Planned Development zoning district overlay is designed to encourage
properties to be developed as a single unit in terms of design, access, etc.
a. Staff Review
b. Council Questions
C. Council Consideration: Ordinance (Findings) - Ordinance No. 94-
5. COUNCIL DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION: CRIME BILL FEDERAL GRANT
REQUEST (Set over from December 13, 1994, Council Meeting)
Staff Report: Ron Goodpaster
6. COUNCIL DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION: COMMITTEE REAPPOINTMENT
GUIDELINES (Continuation of Council discussion from the December 13,
1994 meeting.)
• Budget Committee Reappointment - Resolution No. 947_
i COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 27, 1994 - PAGE 3 LAJBA NO. 9"11.
Editk No. =
Page No. 6
• 7. CABLE TV FRANCHISE ORDINANCE PROPOSAL
• Legal Counsel Jim Coleman
• Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 94-
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS REPORT/UPDATE
• City Administrator Monahan
9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
10. 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.
11. ADJOURNMENT
ccal227.94
•
COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 27, 1994 - PAGE 4
WBA NO. 0411
WIN No. =
Page No. 60 -7
~l
• AGENDA ITEM #
For Agenda of December 27, 1994
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Comprehensive Plan Man Amendment CPA 93-0009, Zone
Chancre, ZON 93-0003
PREPARED BY: Roberts DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the City Council adopt the added conditions of approval in order to
revise the final order as directed during the motion to approve this
application at the December 13, 1994 Public Hearing?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the revised final order subject
to the added conditions of approval.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
uring the December 13th Public Hearing the Council approved the Albertson's
pplication subject to additional conditions of approval which were to be
brought back for review by the Council in order to address issues raised
during the Public Hearing.
An additional seven conditions of approval have been added to address these
concerns:
1. A Public Hearing is required similar to the zone change process required
within the Community Commercial Zoning District is required prior to a
modification.to the approved site plan to add an automobile access from
the site onto SW Northview Drive.
2. All facilities maintenance and loading activities shall take place after
6:00 a.m. and before 11:00 p.m..
3. Windows shall be included in the grocery store facade facing SW Walnut
Street. A minimum of four windows shall be provided bewtween each
columned facade area.
4. A covered walkway area in front of the grocery store is required.
5. A minimum of five feet of unobstructed walkway area shall be provided in
front of the store which is free of display materials or other pedestrian
obstructions.
. The southerly driveway onto Old Scholls Ferry Road shall be.moved
approximately 18 feet to the south for an improved driveway.alignment
LUBA NO.-g"'
Exhibft NO-
Page NO.
i with the multiple family project proposed to the west of the site.
The applicant has been required to provide the City with a permanent
easement for the Northview Driveway. Notice of the public hearing would
be provided prior to approval of construction of the driveway connection.
The condition also requires that the applicant pay for all future
driveway construction activities.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Approve the attached final order with the revised conditions of
approval.
2. Modify the revised conditions, adopt the modified final order and direct
staff to prepare a final order as revised.
FISCAL NOTES
No direct fiscal impacts.
LUBA NO. 95-9I.
F.XhWR NO.._~
Page NO.
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
TRANSCRIPT
of Public Hearing
CPA93-009/ZON 93-003/SDR 93-0014/
CUP 93-002/MLP 93-0013
Mayor John Schwartz, Councilors Wendi Conover Hawley, Paul Hunt, Bob Rohlf, and
Ken Scheckla were present. Staff present included Dick Bewersdorff, Senior
Planner; Mark Roberts, Associate Planner; Randy Wooley, City Engineer; Bill
Monahan, City Administrator; Pam Beery, Legal Counsel; Ed Wegner, Maintenance
Services Director, and Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder.
Mayor Schwartz: Comprehensive Plan Amendment/CPA 93-0009 Zone Change/ZON 93-
0003 Site Development Review/SDR 93-0014 Conditional Use/CUP
93-0002 Minor Land Partition/MLP 93-0013 Albertson's/Duncombe
LOCATION: Southeast and northeast quadrants of the
intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Walnut Street. A
request for the following development approvals: 1)
Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change approval to redesignate
approximately eight acres of a 12 acre parcel from Medium-
High Density Residential to Community Commercial on tax lot
200 and to redesignate an approximately 6.93 acre parcel from
Neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential on
tax lot 100. =Zone changes accompanying the above plan
includes a zone change from R-12 and R-25 (Residential, 12 to
25 units/acre, Planned Development) to Community Commercial
and Neighborhood Commercial to R-25 (Residential, 25
units/acre); 2) Site Development Review to allow the
construction of a 40,000 anchor tenant pad including a 40,000
square foot grocery store and three smaller tenant pads of
1,200, 2,400, and 4,950 square feet adjoining the anchor
tenant pad. The applicant also proposes two 4,000 square
foot stand alone tenant pads. 3) Minor Land Partition
approval to divide the 12 acre parcel into two parcels of
approximately eight acres and four acres each. The
applicable approval criteria is the Statewide Planing Goals
1, 2, 6, 9, 11, 13 and 1 4; Comprehensive Plan Policies
1.1.1, 1.1.2, 4.1.1, 4.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.4.1, 6.6.1, 7.1.2,
7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.2, (We'll get through this eventually)
7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 8.2.1, 8.2.2, 8.4.1, 9.1.3, 12.1.1,
12.2, 12.2.1, and 12.2.4, Community Development Code Chapters
18.22, 18.32, 18.56, 18.60, 18.61, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102,
18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.130, 18.162, and 18.164.
The existing Neighborhood Commercial zone permits a large, a
range of convenient goods and services which are purchased at
least weekly. Typical uses would include convenience sales
and personal services, children's day care center, financial,
insurance and real estate services, food and beverage retail
sales, etc. Neighborhood Commercial centers have a 5,000
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 1
WBA NO. 9"11
E)dit t No. V_
Page No.. -70
square foot lot minimum.
We'll open the public hearing. Is there any declarations or
challenges? Does any member of the Council wish to report an
ex parte contact? Or information gained outside the hearing,
including any site visits? Have all members familiarized
themselves with the application? Are there any challenges
from the audience pertaining to the Council's jurisdiction to
hear this matter or is there a challenge on the participation
of any member on the Council?
Coun. Hunt: I have visited the site twice.
Mayor Schwartz: Before and again yesterday? Any other? We have the staff
report and, also for those wishing to testify, please be
aware that failure to raise an issue with sufficient
specifics to afford the Council and parties an opportunity to
respond to the issue will preclude an appeal to the Land Use
Board of Appeals on this issue. Testimony and evidence must
be directed towards the criteria that staff has described or
other criteria in the plan or land use regulation which you
believe apply to the decision.
Mr. Bewersdorff: As you know, this proposal was before you previously. It was
remanded back to the Planning Commission. The Planning
Commission has reviewed the application at a public hearing.
Made a recommendation. Mark Roberts will go through the
major issues of the, of the report. Again. Randy Wooley and
I are here also to, to answer questions. We have some
concerns. Our major change from the Planning Commission's
recommendation is... There are some concern on staff that it
is necessary to have an access off of Northview Drive. And
you may want to respond to that or you may want to ask
questions regarding that.
Mr. Roberts: Again I'd like to review this look over this. The zone
change and Comprehensive Plan amendments before you deal with
the properties at the corner of the northeast... southeast
corners of both Scholls Perry Road and SW Walnut Street. On
the northeast corner, the applicant has proposed to
redesignate the site from neighborhood commercial R-25. At
the southeast corner, they propose to redesignate the site
from R-25 (PD) and R-12 (PD) - this area here - to Community
Commercial. The applicant has also requested accompanying
site development review and minor land partition approvals...
which involve site... This southeast corner. As mentioned,
the application involves a 40,000 square foot Albertson's.
The adjoining tenant pads in this area here. Tenant pads
proposed to be 5950 square feet, 2,400 square feet, and 1200
square feet. Two detached 4000 square foot pads have also
been proposed at either corner here at SW Walnut and Scholls.
and at SW Walnut and Northview Drive.-
LUBA NO. °95411
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 2 EXibit No.V - _
Page No. _
On January 25, the City Council remanded this application to
the Planning Commission due to concerns related to property
owner notification, the findings in the staff report, the
appropriateness of the proposed development in the C-C zone.
To address these concerns, public hearing notices provided
for tonight's hearing to property owners within 250 feet of
the affected properties and to those who signed in at
previous neighborhood meetings and public hearings. The
applicant has addressed neighborhood impacts in the following
manner.. Lighting and noise studies were conducted for the
proposed development. Based on the topography of the site,
security lighting isn't expected to create excessive glare or
spill over into the adjoining neighborhood. An added
condition of approval was to then incorporate cut off shields
on all the security lighting to reduce spill over further.
This is a requirement of the Community Commercial district.
A noise study was also prepared which indicates the site
would comply with applicable noise criteria with the use of a
mezzanine level evaporator air conditioner rather than a roof
mounted air cooling unit. This has also been required as a
condition of approval.
The applicant has addressed neighborhood concerns to
(inaudible) provision of a brick wall along the Albertson's
site frontage on portions of Northview Drive. That's
illustrated in the... this drawing here. The wall along
Northview Drive is proposed in portions... Northview Drive
frontage where a line of sight and clearance would still be
maintained. The purpose of the wall, in part, is to address
impacts from the side and provide further attenuation, sound
attenuation, mitigation of commercial impacts on the
adjoining residential area.
The Planning Commission recommended approval at its November
7th hearing. At that hearing, the Commission modified the
staff recommendation to delete any requirement for a driveway
on to the site from Northview Drive. Staff again recommends
that a driveway be provided at one of three locations along
Northview Drive. Point those out. Feel that a driveway
could be accommodated on to the site... The location in this
area which would provide for shared access to both the
Albertson's site and the local family site. Driveway might
lie along the property, wind and come out towards the Scholls
Ferry Road entrances, southerly Schools Ferry Road entrance.
The driveway might also be constructed or could be
constructed to align with the SW Stardust Lane street.
Basically aligning with Stardust Lane street would expect to
address community concerns with headlights, engine noise,
etc., from cars (inaudible) to make this grade up the hill.
Third possible location for a driveway could take place north
of the Albertson's site to this pad building. Locations
within this area.
LUBA NO. 9"11
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 3 E)dtW No.
Page No. 7
Staff recommendation for this driveway is basically we were
expecting that there would be no significant extra traffic
generated on Northview. This additional driveway would
essentially reduce turning conflicts on Walnut Street.
Walnut Street is designated as a major collector on the
Comprehensive Transportation Plan map. Staff recommends
approval of the aforementioned applications subject to the
findings contained within the draft final order and
accompanying findings. The applicant has also prepared
findings to address additional... additional issues raised
by opponents of the application. I'd also like to mention
that the conditional use permit request has been dropped from
the application. One of the ways in which the applicant is
trying to address neighborhood concerns is deletion of
conditional use permit request for a gas station or service
station use and for 24 hour operation of the Albertson's
store. The Community Commercial zone restricts use
operations between the hours of 11 and 6. So unless a later
conditional use permit comes in, for operation during those
hours, all uses on the site would be restricted..Could not
operate between the hours of 11 and 6. And that's all I
have. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have.
Mayor Schwartz: I've got one question. Give me a little bit clearer reason
why staff is recommending an access on Northview Drive. You
stated earlier that there wouldn't be any significant
• increase in traffic on Northview Drive with a driveway. And
so then, what:.'s the purpose of the driveway? I mean, what
does it accomplish?
Mr. Wooley: Maybe I can answer that, Mr. Mayor, since it was the
Engineering Department's recommendation. I think we had two
concerns. One of them is that the C-C zoning is supposed to
serve the smaller neighborhood. And we thought that the
neighborhood ought to have access to the site as, as part of
the concept. The other and greater concern is that
throughout Tigard we're having problems with overloaded
collector streets. And part of that reason is that you need
to use the collector streets or arterials even to make short
trips in town. We have a lot of shopping centers where you
can only access them, for instance, from Pacific Highway.
And even if you live next door, if you want to drive there,
you have to get out on the main road. And our concern is to
protect Walnut Street from those turning movements of traffic
coming out of this neighborhood, making a left turn on to
Walnut and another left turn back into the shopping center or
right turns coming out. I might very briefly put up an
overhead that shows the neighborhood and illustrate that a
little better.
The site is here. The dotted street is the new Walnut
Street that's under construction right now and about to be
opened. Northview Drive is here where we're talking about
LUBA NO.05_ I I
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 4 EXh(N NO.
Page No. _
the driveways. And you can see... Mark's drawing showed the
Castle Hill subdivision that exists today. This drawing
also shows the additional lots that are being built there to
the east. And in this area over here, Castle Hill 3 is
proposed, and that would have additional lots there too.
But no additional accesses to Walnut Street. So we see a
significant neighborhood there that present potentially needs
to come to this center or want to come to this center. And
we'd rather not see those trips come out onto Walnut just to
make a one block trip and turn back in. The neighborhood, I
believe, is concerned that just the opposite'll happen, that
we'll open up a short cut route for other traffic through
that neighborhood. Which is another concern that we hear
around Tigard from time to time, about cut through traffic.
And I can understand that concern. We think that's not an
issue here just because of the layout of the streets. But
once Walnut Street is opened, that it'll provide more direct
route for that through traffic and it won't be that
attractive to go through the neighborhood. Now they suggest
that maybe people go through the shopping center to bypass
the future signal at Scholls and Walnut. I can see that
potential but I think it would be more of the Castle Hill
traffic because they use Northview anyway to do that. So
that, that was our thinking in recommending that there should
be a driveway.
Mayor Schwartz: Okay. Thank you.
(inaudible)
Coun. Hawley: Would this driveway that would be proposed access for the
neighborhood itself which... I agree philosophically with the
concept of access for the neighborhood in commercial...
Community Commercial zoning. I wonder if there is a way to
make the driveway small? I mean, is there a standard that
allows us to you know, make it less attractive for huge
amounts of traffic?
Mr. Wooley: That's, that's one of the reasons that we suggested that the
location. There was some options for it. As I understand
Albertson's proposal, the property to the south of the site
is to be dedicated as a greenspace, potentially to the
neighborhood. If the driveway were through that area there
would be some potential for the neighborhood to control that,
perhaps closing it at night or some other way. There are
certainly ways to make the driveways narrower, I guess, or
design them with, with islands, that type of thing to reduce
speeds. Probably doesn't do a whole lot to reduce how many
people use it. But there are things that could be done to
discourage it from being a speedway.
Coun. Hawley: Thank you.
LUBA NO_ %-011.
E~d~ibitNo.
Page _ PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 5 .No No.
Coun. Hunt: Mr. Mayor, I have a number of questions but if its all right
I'd rather wait until after the other people made their
presentation because maybe part of them will be answered
then, and save time.
Mayor Schwartz: Any other questions of staff at this time?
Coun. Scheckla: No. I feel like Paul. I'll wait and see what comes out of
the testimony.
Mayor Schwartz: Okay, we'll go to the public testimony. And we'll do the
proponents' side first. And when you come forward. would you
please give your name and address for the record? Scott
Russell.
Mr. Russell: My name is Scott Russell. Mayor, if it would be possible, i
was wondering if I could change positions with the
applicant's counsel. I feel that we can probably cut the
amount of comments down that way so that there'll be less
repetition. Is that possible?
Mayor Schwartz: Now, to do what now? You want....
Mr. Russell: Change positions for speaking with the applicant's
legal counsel, Mr. Shonkwiler. So he speaks now and I could
speak later. I think it would shorten up the comments.
Mayor Schwartz: Okay. That's:.John Shonkwiler you're talking about?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mayor Schwartz: You want to speak after him?
Mr. Russell: Yes.
Mayor Schwartz: Oh, yeah. I don't see that's a problem. No. he wants...
(inaudible female voice)
Mayor Schwartz: Right. Well, he doesn't have to. That's, that's fine,
Scott. We can... we'll go to the next one and then I'll call
you up right after he speaks. Ed Howden.
Mr. Howden: Ed Howden. 11829 SW Morninghill Drive. Where I live will be
about three blocks from where the store will be, and
hopefully it will be. Thank you very much.
Coun. Hawley: Thank you for that short testimony.
Mayor Schwartz: Okay, the applicant there. John Shonk....
Mr. Shonkwiler: Shonkwiler.
LUBA NO: 95-011
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 6 Exhibit No.
Page No.
Mayor Schwartz: Shonkwiler. Couldn't read this.
Mr. Shonkwiler: I apologize. My testimony will be a little bit longer than
that. My name is John Shonkwiler. My address is 13425 SW
72nd here in Tigard, 97223. And I'm here on behalf of
Albertson's. Also with me tonight is Don Duncan, an officer
of Albertson's, Norm Shone, the architect on the project, and
Philip Worth from Kittelson Associates, the traffic
engineers, to answer any questions you might have. To go
through a little background about the project. We started
this back in August of 1991. Quite a long time ago and our
application at that time was for a zone change similar to
this to general commercial. And, in the alternative, asking
the City to adopt a C-C, Community Commercial, zone, since
you didn't have a mid-range commercial zone. That finally
wound its way up to the City Council and you the Council
at that time agreed to adopt, go through the process of
adopting the C-C zoning and put our application on hold while
you did so. And eventually, as you know, the City adopted
the C-C zone. We modified our application, eliminated the
general commercial request and just straight C-C zoning for
the property. And went that through, and went to the
Planning Commission. Planning Commission approved it. Came
back to you guys and you remanded it back. And the principle
reason was because the Castle Hill subdivision had fully
developed out enough that the lots could be sold and there
was a big rush of sales going on right about that time. A
lot of people-felt that they got left out of the process.
And you asked us to go back and talk to the neighborhood
people and to meet with them and to and in essence give
everybody an opportunity to restart this with the Planning
Commission. And the... we did that. You also had some
concern about us providing notice to other Castle Hill people
would be greater than the 250 feet minimum in the ordinance.
And we did that. We doubled it and did our notice outside
the entire area, over 500 feet, and brought everybody in that
we could. After our meeting with the neighborhood people,
and I testified to this at the Planning Commission level, and
I believe a copy of their decision was submitted to you in
the record. But essentially the Castle Hill Neighborhood
Association held a vote on the application. Sent a, sent a
survey out and the results came back that 81% favored our
application, 6% felt that they needed more information to
make a decision. So I think we've made great grounds in
trying to address their concerns. And we've made numerous
changes in the application down through the, frankly down
through the years, responding to the various neighborhood
concerns. Including things that are outside of the
application process. Posting special signs on the property
that they wanted showing how the site is laid out so that new
lot owners wouldn't be surprised when they came.
Now dealing with the nature of the application.. The staff
LUBA NO. 9"11
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 7 Exhibit No.
Page No. _ tv
has pointed out... basically what we're doing is flip
flopping the zone in a, in a generalized fashion. North of
Walnut is the existing neighborhood commercial zone which is
6.93 acres. And we're asking that that be changed to multi-
family. The multi-family south of Walnut, in essence, be
placed north of Walnut and the commercial be put south of
Walnut. And the question might be raised why are, why are we
doing it that way. Principally because when we started this
process, the city.planners, the people in the neighborhood,
they all put forward the idea with us that that was the
appropriate place to have a commercial development would be
south of Walnut. The, the 6.93 acres north of Walnut is an
odd shape... it's a pie shaped, very n arrow, very long piece
of property and it's, it's down at the bottom of the hill,
and effectively everyone recognized there's no way to develop
that property and adequately buffer the activity on that site
from the surrounding property. It's just too narrow. It's,
it's too exposed, it just doesn't work. And by moving the
commercial to the south of Walnut, it enabled us then to have
a more, a broader piece of property to work with. We could
provide a better buffering area all the way around the site.
And principally following advice from the neighborhood, we
agreed to excavate the site down so that we could tuck the
larger building into the steep hillside at the southern end
of the property after it's been excavated. And that way all
of the residential area would look out over the site and with
the landscaping that we would put in, essentially we were
trying to achieve a, a screening of the activity. All of
which you couldn't do with the commercial on the north side
of Walnut.
Now staff has described pretty much what the sizes and, and
the uses that we're proposing for the site. I would like to
point out that ultimately the City's C-C zone calls for 20%
landscaping. And what we're providing because of the way
we're utilizing the site and trying to deal with all the
neighboring requests, we ended up with approximately 30%
landscaping. And so that accounts for these wider areas than
you probably normally see for a shopping center. The
ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan require that we, to
provide for this change, that we meet one of three possible
items in the ordinance. Inconsistency with the plan,
possible mistake in the past in the original planning and
change in the neighborhood. We have addressed all of that in
our application. We think that we meet all three of those,
even though all we have to do is meet one of those
requirements to justify the change. And I think the data in
the application speaks to all of those items fairly well.
Now dealing with the locational criteria. And I won't go in
gross detail through the whole thing. I think it would be
best for time to deal with the highlights. The first item
here is the trade area which is one and a half mile radius.
LUBA NO. 95-011
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 8 EXh1bit No.
Page 'No.
The projected population for this area within a mile and a
half radius is over 19,000 people. In perspective, a 40.000
square foot grocery store, and there's all this data in the
record from previous proceedings, identify that the market
area for 40,000 square foot grocery is 8,400 people. So, in
essence, there's going to be over double the amount of
population in this area for a 40,000 square foot grocery
store. All that evidence is in the record. It was before
the Planning Commission. They reviewed that. And, and
essentially they agreed and the neighbors that came in and
testified agreed that a 40,000 square foot grocery store in
this location is appropriate. It meets what's needed in the
neighborhood and it's not out of, out of place. It's not
oversized. And the total square footage for the site is
57,550 square feet. The C-C zone allows up to 100,000 square
feet. So effectively we're in a mid-range area. We're 57.5%
of what the zone would allow in effect... little over half.
That again is a result of neighborhood input. We eliminated
some uses. One of them is, as you may recall through the
entire process of this, we eliminated 35,000 square foot drug
store facility in there as well. But you can see the end
result is, out of all the compromises that have been done. I
think everybody in the neighborhood, I think most, if not
all, would agree, as well as us, that we've come up with a,
an overall plan that works well for the neighborhood and
works well for the City as well as works for us. And it is a
mid-sized compatible arrangement for the neighborhood.
Now I'd like to address some of the aspects of the site.
Again this is Scholls Ferry Road here to the west. And this
is Walnut generally here to the north. And Northview Drive
along the east side of the property. As I pointed out before
the, the property slopes like this towards the corner here of
Scholls Perry Road and Walnut. And we're proposing to
excavate the site down so that this building sets down to the
point approximately 28 feet so that the corner of this
property, of the building here, is equivalent with the
elevation to where the top of the cut is. So with the
landscaping density put in here, that, that'll screen out the
views into the site. Also this large building here, along
with this.steep slope back here creates kind of a cavern or
a, or a, a canyon through here where we will then have our
trucks enter at this point. It creates this opportunity that
we can screen all that and buffer all that from surrounding
areas. The trucks will come in here. This is their turn
around. And all of their noise and activity will be down
below grade, basically out of sight and well buffered from
the surrounding neighborhood. That was another high priority
criteria in the design of the neighborhood inputted into this
process. Originally we had our building this way, facing
Scholls. And so we turned it around and broke it up. The
neighborhood also didn't want to have-a single large
building. And so, as was pointed out, we broke this up and
LUBA NO.05-011
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 9 EXhibR No.~
Page No.
we tried to change the facade and bend this around so that it
appears to be a complex of buildings rather than just one
solid building. Now, in addition we're providing a mini-park
here on the corner of Scholls Ferry Road and SW Walnut.
That's also in the, in the C-C zoning ordinance. This'll be
a brick walkway throughout that mini-park area. The pad that
we're providing here... what we intend to have there is a sit
down upper scale restaurant. And we feel that's very
compatible with the mini-park arrangement. There are a lot
of uses that might conflict with a mini-park, but I think a
sit down restaurant will work well. And also at the center
of that is another sort of mini-park inside of that. And
it's a circular area with a circle bench for seating and a
feature, such as a little garden and statue or something in
the center there. And this'll also act as a focal point.
The neighborhood wanted an area that they could go to and
have meetings if, if they wanted to. In the future, it also
to support if mass transit comes to the site or a bus
pull up lane for the turnout lane here along Scholls. This
makes an excellent area for seating and waiting for future
bus activity.
Now we are also providing sidewalks along Scholls Ferry Road.
along Walnut, and all the way up Northview Drive. To deal
with the pedestrian and bicycle activity, it's important to
look at where the points of access for that are. And so in
that realm, to the west we have what will be multi-family, a
mixture of multi-family all through this area here, and
that's basically in the Beaverton area. This is Morris
Brothers quarry over here. And that's going to be converted
relatively soon in the future. This back here is of course
to remain the multi family designation that it has now.
Behind that is single family residential that swings down
this way along the east side of Northview Drive. And then to
the north is the proposed multi-family. Further to the north
is a mixture of single family and multi-family swinging out
this way. For the points of access then. This'll be a
lighted or a controlled intersection. And for the multi-
family coming from the west, people would be crossing to this
intersection here, to this corner. From here they could take
the sidewalks into the site to this pad, cross to this
interior sidewalk and go up to this pad. Or they can go up
Scholls Ferry and take this sidewalk in. To this pad down
here, they would go this way or they could go interior to
here. Coming from the multi-family and the activity to this
site, this will be the, the most appropriate intersection for
access. Because of the narrowness of this lot and the fact
that you'd have stacking distance here, it's not likely that
the City, in fact I believe they stated this in prior
hearings, they wouldn't really want to have an access to this
multifamily site up here. So people most appropriately
would be entering the site to this corner, crossing the
street here and that would be a, a designated area for
LUBA NO. 9"11
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 10 Exhibit No.
Page No..~
pedestrian crossing. From here again, they can follow the
sidewalk to get to the various pads. This is a ramp that
goes over this way to the grocery store and the larger
complex. This provides as access for handicapped access, for
people with strollers and children. For people on the east
side Northview Drive, single family residential, they can
come down the sidewalk. We have provided a staircase as well
as the ramp, and that's depicted on this map or this drawing.
Now the staff originally had recommended that we provide this
sidewalk entrance further in alignment here with the
intersection of the street. We, at the Planning Commission,
came forward and I believe the neighbors in the Castle Hill
area agreed with us, and ultimately the planning staff agreed
with us, that it would be probably a better planning approach
to leave the design as we have it. Because to extend it
down into this area. This is supposed to be very dense
vegetation along here to act as screening. And that wouldn't
provide a good security area because people would be passing
right through that and would be too screened. Also it would
kind of defeat the purpose of the screening by breaking it
up. So it was felt being here at the top of the stairs, you
can see all the way down. This would be a lighted stair, so
is all of the... the sidewalks would be these low standard
lighting arrangements including the ramp. People could see
completely down and they would know what they were
approaching. So that would be a better design. Also in
response to the neighborhood association, originally we just
had this opening go straight down. But they thought it would
be better to have this do a 90 degree turn and wall off here
so you just don't see directly down in the side but you can
take a few steps and see the whole staircase then after you
get through that turn. So that's the way this is laid out
here. That basically is the pedestrian and bicycle access
system. It works very well with the overall site.
Now we would like to be able to come here tonight and say,
Oh, we've got this particular user for this site, this
particular user for this site, and so forth. We've tried but
we've been unable to do that. And the basic reason is, is
without getting some sort of approval from the City, because
this is a major rezoning and all that, it's too speculative
for people to come in and sign up at this time. Particularly
because, frankly the word's out. Thriftway has been opposing
us for a long time. We've gone through a lot of extra
numerous hearings and people have indicated to us they know
they're in the wings there for, for appealing and all that
and they're going to wait and see until something is finally
accomplished here. But we think from the market studies
we've done these are the most likely candidates, is a sit
down restaurant for here, probably a video store for here, a
specialty apparel shop and maybe an ice cream parlor. And
this pad could most likely be either a small retail or an
office building of some sort. Now, this is the only tall
LUBA NO. 0"11
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 11 ExhlbR No.
Page No.
building on the site. These are designated in the plan to be
one and half story with slanted roofing so that they are more
compatible with like a single family dwelling design in the
area.
Now going to that... let me put this up. The design of the
Albertson's store, since we're the anchor and that's the key
for the shopping center anyway. Once you have the anchor in,
it's much easier, and that's established, to bring in the
other users. That's the standard in the market place. In
response to the neighborhood and the, the ordinance, they
wanted to have an upscale looking project with upscale
materials. And so we're using brick block and brick
materials with formal columns. They wanted to have slanted
roofing wherever we could on the facade of the structures, as
well with the pads out front. So we're providing that. And
we're also taking the facade and shifting parts in and
shifting parts out so it breaks up the line. Doesn't look
just like a flat solid wall building. This... those basic
components will be applied throughout this entire building in
both of the pads. They'll follow that same pattern for each
of them. Same basic color scheme, same basic materials, same
basic designs. So, this is the style that's carried out
throughout. And we received very favorable comments from the
neighborhood for that. In addition, we're providing a brick
wall all the way along Northview Drive. Again at the request
of the neighbors. That'll run from the entire length of the
site on Northview Drive and then it'll be an ornamental wall
for each of the entrance ways, on both sides of the entrance
ways along Scholls Perry Road and Walnut. The brick walls
depicted in this drawing you can see by the entrance by
the way that it's very visible. I don't think it matters
much where it's located because it will be noticed ...but
we're going to have it specially lighted and it sticks out
from the wall alignment. So that'll be very clear and very
easy to find for accessing. The idea of the brick wall and
the idea of providing very dense Douglas fir and evergreen
trees, particularly in these areas, is to match the
characteristics that are in the neighborhood. We had a lot
of discussion with all these various neighborhood meetings.
To be quite candid, we've had probably 15 to 20 neighborhood
meetings throughout this process since we made the final
formal application. And the only characteristics that people
felt were in the neighborhood that were common that they
wanted to carry forward to this site was the planting of
Douglas fir on the site and to try to use the brick walls and
brick appointments in the building as much as possible, and
the slanted roofs, rather than just straight flat roofs for a
facade. And so we've incorporated those in site. And in the
documents that are previously in the record you'll see
photographs throughout the neighborhood showing those types
• of characteristics. The neighborhood-is a mix of multi-
family buildings - some are large, some are smaller, and
LUBA NO. 9"11
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 12 EXhibit No.
Page No.
single family dwellings.
Now one other feature here is the remaining four acre parcel
in the back. We're not asking for any change on that. That
will remain, in essence, a multifamily. Albertson's does
not own that. We have talked with the neighborhood. The
neighborhood is, has a distinct interest in acquiring that
from the owners, and if they want to come forward later with
a change in something. In other words, if they want to
propose doing something other that's not allowed in the
oridinance or in the Comprehensive Plan, then they'd have to
make their applications, just change of ownership issue
there.
Now, the issue of lighting came up at numerous times
throughout this process. We've tried to solve that by
remembering that we're going to provide shielding around
all of the lighting. Yes, we have a, a lighting display
here. What I want to show with this is. There was concern
that we might have lighting that would go off site.
Man: Can you put it up where we can see it please?
Mr. Shonkwiler: Oh, I'm sorry. There was concern originally from the
neighborhood association that we might be providing a
lighting plan that might shine-offsite. And we've. I believe
we've solved that very well. And, in fact, the members of
the neighborhood that came before the Planning Commission
seemed to indicate that they were satisfied with our
approach. Basically this lighting plan as you can see
doesn't have any light go off site. In fact, because of our
landscaping areas are so broad, in many cases the lighting
doesn't even cover the entire landscaping area... around the
site. In addition, because of the site is excavated down, so
are the light standards. They are going to be lower. This
drawing here shows the heighth of where the light standard
would be with the shielding around it. You can see there
would be not light that you would be able to see directly.
And the lighting study indicates, that was submitted
previously, in the record that, in fact, the street lighting
that's on Northview Drive will actually have more candlewatt
effect in that area than our site would have on the
neighboring properties. Also, in the record, going back to
January 14th, we have an exhibit "C" that shows the kind of
screening that we're going to have for the refuge facilities
containers around the site and also for the screening on top
of the buildings. In relationship to that originally, we
were going to have the air conditioning units and those
things up on top of the grocery store. There was some
concern that those are the major noise generator in a
grocery store. And so we've converted that. Taken those off
of there and we're going to switch to; admittedly, a much
more expensive piece of equipment, an evaporator-condenser
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT— DECEMBER 13, 1994 -PAGE I LUBA Exhlbit NO. 95-011
No.
Page No.
but I think that that works out to everybody's best
interests, and that'll go behind the building. And it will
also be screened. The advantage of that is in effect it
produces less noise than the existing background noise of the
site before there was even any development on the site. So
that seems to satisfy all of those situations. And I think
we've met all of the requirements in the ordinance. We've
tried as hard as we could to accommodate everybody's interest
at the site, including all of the neighbors. There were a
lot of mixed views when we first started this, and I think
we've come a long way in trying to satisfy everybody's
concern.
Now, as to the conditions of approval. I've already talked
about a lot of the sidewalk ones. I would like to address
one more item on the pedestrian access. Originally the staff
before the Planning Commission, had recommended that.we place
a (tape turned)
Mr. Shonkwiler: that that would not a good planning point to do that
because this is not a logical access for people to cross the
street. It wouldn't be a controlled access. It wouldn't be
a good place for a pedestrian access. Down here at this
intersection and at this lighted intersection would be the
best places for people crossing. And there might be a
liability problem to have people crossing streets where you
really don't want them crossing the street. And since we
provided a sidewalk up this way, a sidewalk up this way. and
crossing, we felt that was a better design than what we have
here, and ultimately the Planning Commission agreed with us.
The other, the other condition of approval. The Planning
Commission basically agreed with our development proposal.
And that has to do with the road access from our site to
Northview Drive. I think this is a key one. And I said to
the Planning Commission. It's true that Albertson's in one
sense. it will make no difference to their application
whether it's required or not. From the standpoint of whether
we're going to do the project or not. Or whether we meet the
ordinance requirements or not. But we feel very strongly
that the neighborhood association and the members of the
neighborhood are... if I can say this about anything about
people being completely, a hundred percent locked in one
position, that's that. They, they absolutely do not want to
see an access off of Northview Drive into our... a driveway
access off of Northview Drive into our site. And I think thev
have the more persuasive reasoning. The reasoning works this
way. Staff has pointed out. There's one policy that the City
has. And that policy is that you don't want to jeopardize
traffic impacts on a 'major collector like Walnut. That's one
policy that's i n the plan. There's a what appears here
0 to be a conflicting policy, and it's-a specific policy
that's in the C-C ordinance and the Comp Plan provisions for
LUBA
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13. 1994 - PAGE It ExhlbNO. 95-01 7
xhibit No~==
Page No.
C-C. And that is that the site is supposed to seek to
enhance pedestrian access and bicycle access. By providing
a, an additional automobile driveway access, on one hand that
would be discouraging pedestrian access and pedestrian.
bicycle access. So it appears that you've got conflicting
provisions. But I think what came out before the Planning
Commission is the testimony was that, and I think that this
is true. That human nature is that . provided an access
here... What's going to happen when this light turns red here
and it starts getting stacked up, people are going to see
that, they know about that being there. They're going to
come up here, cut through, it's a nice straight shot. You
can go out this way, you can go out this way. If this
light's red that means you can go through here and go on.
It's going to be too easy to do and unfortunetly people do
that. Even if you put a sign that this is one way going this
way, people still ignore that if they think they can beat the
light. You see it all the time. And from Albertson's point
of view, we don't want to provide a parking lot that becomes
a secondary street. That's not what parking lots are
designed for. We don't want to face liability problems of
somebody being hit because somebody speeding through here
still trying to take advantage of a red light on the Walnut
and Scholls. And what I would point out here is the amount
of traffic coming down Northview Drive that would turn in
here instead of turning onto Walnut - and that's the. the
concern is additional turning movements down here that
are being saved by turning in here are probably going to be
wiped out by the number of people cheating and cutting
through. So the policy that's trying to be protective by the
City, the traffic is actually is being (inaudible) by the
design itself, of providing an access here. Providing
another access up next to the grocery store building is
really not physically feasible. That's approximately a 20 to
28 foot drop there in a short span and it's not realistic.
What the staff has proposed is an assurance that there'd be a
as a third-alternative a cut in the driveway on
Northview Drive for allowing a possible access into the four
acre site south of our site, the multi-family site. and Then
eventually a mutual access off of Scholls Perry Road at the
west end of the four acre site. I don't see that there's been
a lot of objection to that. That, that i s a possibility. I
would point out that that would really be up to the
neighborhood association and how they feel about it. As far
as providing a joint access at that end, I think that's
already a condition of approval. Joint access on to, on to
Scholls Perry Road up there where our trucks would be
entering to serve the other site, and we don't' have any
problem with that.
Now, it was pointed out by the staff, the evolution of this
is we do not have a, a gas station proposal for conditional
use in this application. That was originally proposed to us
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - 'DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 15 LUBA NO. 95-01
EXh1bit No.
Page No.
by the old NPO, (inaudible) some members in that. We felt
obligated to bring that forward. We're happy to get rid of
that. The neighborhood association doesn't want that. I
don't think it's feasible anyway. I don't think a gas
station company wants to be there anyhow. And also 24 hour
service is not part of the application.
Now, finally, the last subject I'd like to talk about here
deals with what was said before the Planning Commission in
this last hearing. I, I feel the need to at least bring this
up with you. Thriftway came in and raised a cloud or a smoke
screen, what I would call. They started talking about this
four acre site in the back and said "My gosh, you're, you're
proposing turning that, transferring that over to the
neighborhood association. Therefore you must come in with an
application to show what the possible uses will be on that
property, and that jeopardizes-the whole plan. Well. that's
simply not true. That's not the law, that's not the
practicalities here. If we turn the ownership over to the
neighborhood association, that's their business what they
want to do with it. If they want to do anything that violates
the existing zoning, then they are going to have to come in
and seek a plan. They may do that in the years to come.
They may never do that. It's just like any other ownership
change. Whether it's to the west of us, the Morris Brothers,
if they change their ownership, it'd be the same
circumstance. So that's a smokescreen. That, in essence, is
a smokescreen, by them. Also with that four acre parcel they
made the assertion, and I'm sure they are going to make it
again, that somehow we came out, Albertson's, and blackmailed
the neighborhood into coming to be in favor of our
application by threatening to put multi-family on that
property. As I said before the Planning Commission, that's
an incredibly novel argument, that we'd be threatening to do
what would be legally allowable right now. How can we be
threatening that? And they also said that we were
threatening to make it low income housing. Well, that's
absurd. That never, we never did those kinds of things. We
never even talked about. Albertson's doesn't even own that.
And the, the only reason why there was a plan drawing for
that was because a year ago. Thriftway came before you folks
and said "Gosh, that four acre parcel in the back. They're
carving that off. They haven't proved that that is feasible
to be developed because of its shape and configuration.
Therefore, the City shouldn't be able to approve our,
Albertson's, application." And so the Chris family who owns
that property. They submitted back in July or, pardon me,
January 14th of 1994, this .year... almost a year ago. In
response to Thriftway, they submitted a plan of which
Thriftway spent a lot of talk, time talking about...
Essentially it's this plan a little modified recently.
• And... or... a month or so later. But in effect, that plan
was to show that it is in fact feasible to develop that
LUBA NO.95-011
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 -PAGE 16 E7d11b1t NO~
Page No.
property by our cutting off and creating that four acre
parcel in the back. That isn't going to harm any future
planning for that site. And that it is accessible and shows
how you can get, you could get access, vehicle access from
Northview Drive and vehicle access from Scholls Ferry Road.
So there's kind of an hypocrisy going on in the smokescreen
they raised saying that we were making all these threats and
they are simply not true. And what's important to you, I
think, is that the people in the neighborhood came forward
and they said they never heard any threats from us. They
never heard anybody talking about low income housing on
there. This is bogus. It was not true. And the Planning
Commission saw, saw through that smokescreen. They saw what
the truth was. And I would ask that you, you bear that in
mind when you hear these statements when they come up again.
And I'm sure they probably will.
And finally, I think that the end result of all this is that
we have worked very hard to come up with a plan that works
well for everyone here involved. And I, and I hope you will
see that. I hope you will pay particular attention to the
comments from the neighbors as to an access off the Northview
Drive. That's very important to them. And I think it's good
planning not to have one in to the site. I think it causes
too many problems for the very few benefits, questionable
benefits, that might occur. And as a result I would ask that
you approve what the Planning Commission approved on this.
They looked at this very thoroughly. They spent a lot of
time analyzing it. I would ask that you would approve
precisely what they approved. And other than that I would
reserve, I would hope that if there's any new issues raised.
that I could submit a revised proposed findings to address
any new issues that might be raised. Any questions?
Coun. Hunt: I have a couple. You will not be excavating up (inaudible)
where Northrup and Walnut come together, is that correct?
It'll be about the same elevation it is no w? My question is
what are you going to do on the lighting there? You told us
what you're going to do on the lighting where it's going to
be set down lower where you're excavating, but what are you
going to do to keep the lighting from the neighbors on
Northrup?
Mr. Shonkwiler: Okay. On, on, Northview Drive, in the intersection there.
there will be street... there's already street lighting. And
Coun. Hunt: But I mean from your pad. Goes in there on that corner.
Mr. Shonkwiler: Are you talking about here?
Coun. Hunt: Yes. That'll have lighting there. What's going to screen
that from poking into the people, residents there?
95-0~
LUBA NO.
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 17 Exhibit No.
Page No.
Mr. Shonkwiler: Also in response to what the neighborhood was discussing with
us. What we tried to do was to... one is the street
lighting... one is there's a lot of landscaping expanse here.
And the street lighting is shielded and the shielded lighting
directs that it doesn't go off site. You can see that
from... I'm sorry. You can see that from this alignment
here. That it actually leaves a s pace between where the
lighting ends and where the street starts. All the way up to
this point. Now, the other thing we're doing is we've tried
to align, and we're promising to do this, align all the trees
along here in such a way, the houses are already in place.
And we put our lighting standards in, like here and here...
We're going to line this trees up in such a way that they
also act as a block to where these houses are located. And,
and we can triangle those fairly well from each of those up
here. And that's depicted up here too where we tried to show
that we're going to put a tree in front of there, in front of
each of those standards.
Coun. Hunt: I have one other question. One exhibit here says
"internal sidewalks are shown immediately adjacent to the
commercial buildings." When you go to Albertson's store now
on, on 99 and Durham, the, what I thought was a sidewalk is a
display rack. It's full of Christmas trees now. In the
summertime it's full of plants to be sold. You cannot walk
around Albertson's store without going out into the street.
I asked our administrator whether we could force Albertson's.
not the current administrator - the previous one - whether we
could force Albertson's to make that a sidewalk. And he
said, no, it does not show in the plan that it was designated
as a sidewalk. Now I guess I have to ask this of the
planners. Does this definetly say those are sidewalks so
that we can enforce them not using them for extra display
space?
Mr. Bewersdorff: Well, the application does not specifically designated
those sidewalks in the front of the Albertson's store
exclusively for sidewalk use.
Coun. Hunt: I would ask before I would vote I would say that they
had to be because I wouldn't want to see another situation
the same as they currently have on their, on the one down
there where you cannot walk around the store without going
out in the street.
Mr. Shonkwiler: If I may make a comment about that. This'll be a wider area
than, than the, from the building out to the edge of the
walkway here, is wider than at the other facility.
Coun. Hunt: Why can't part of it though be designated a sidewalk? I
don't care how wide it is. You can still stash stuff on it.
-Mr. Shonkwiler: Well, what I'm saying is that possibly to be a.solution to
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 -PAGE 18 LUBA NO. 95-M
Exhibit No.
Page No. _
what you're asking for is you could make a condition of
approval. I think the sidewalk size required is five feet
wide, is that correct in the ordinance? And we're like...
gosh, I think we're about triple that in here. You could
designate that, that at least a ten foot area of the sidewalk
or something like that pass around the building and
whatever extra
Coun. Hunt: That's what I'll be requesting.
Mr. Shonkwiler: And I think that would work if you maintain what you wanted
for the minimum size of the sidewalk. Any other questions?
Coun. Rohlf: I have a couple questions. The landscaping that's going to
go around the block. Is the landscaping that shows then
going to immediately block the light or will it have to grow
up to be able to...
Mr. Shonkwiler: No. Particularly, particularly the density that we're going
to be putting around the site, but particularly behind this
building to help obscure the major building. Those are all
going to be almost mature trees that we're putting in there
in one sense. And the ordinance, the city ordinance requires
certain sizes for street trees (inaudible). And yeah. we're
going to be putting in large trees.
Coun. Rohlf: Okay. Is there any reason why a driveway couldn't be added
later along this, along the street? Rather than putting it
in now? Is there a design reason why? If there is a need at
some future time to have a driveway?
Mr. Shonkwiler: The way the site is designed right now, the only time that
that... I mean the only place that that would work would be
in this spot. Because this is about a six to eight foot rise
here. When you get up here, you're getting closer to like a
20 foot rise and that's not feasibly possible.
Coun. Rohlf: But it still is an option to do that at some point in time if
that's what....
Mr. Shonkwiler: I suppose. I, it really.., let me put it this way. I support
the neighborhood group in, in their opposition to that. If.
if you were interested in that, I think that's a question I
think you should raise with them. From qy point of view I'd
rather stay with our support for what they want on that
driveway. I still think it's not a good planning idea.
Coun. Rohlf: Well, the point I'm making is that we could probably could
with the design as it is, but if later the city engineer
comes to us and says here's a demonstrable problem. We've
got to do something about this, we still have an option open
at some future point.
LUBA NO. -O
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 19 Exhibit No.
Page No.
. Mr. Shonkwiler: Well, yeah. In a technical sense the layout is, is such that
that physically could be done.
Coun. Rohlf: All right. You mentioned that there was a potential for a bus
turnout there besides the park. Would that carve into the
park if a turnout is...
Mr. Shonkwiler: No, that... we, we have to provide turnout lanes as part of
the development design and that would be a good bus turnout.
Coun. Rohlf: Okay. Last question. The brick wall that's going around one
side there. Looks like it's a standing invitation to
graffiti artists. Who's going to take responsibility for
cleaning the graffiti when it, when it appears on the street
side?
Mr. Shonkwiler: Essentially this is our site. And we're going to be taking
responsibility. And we also are going to be having CC and
R's for all of the users in our site to make sure that the
site is maintained. So the answer is we'll be responsible
for that - Albertson's. This discussion has come up with the
neighborhood, and, you have to recall that, if you've seen
the site, that the Castle Hill subdivision has a brick wall
all the way up Northview Drive on the other side. So far.
and this is wood, nobody's had any problem with the brick
wall along there. And I think the, the answer has always
• been to take care of those things as they happen so it
doesn't become an invitation to other people having the same
idea.
Coun. Rohlf: That's all I have.
Coun. Hunt: I have one other question. Sorry. You alluded to this and I
want to clarify in my own mind. and that is the C-C says that
you, the hours are from 6 in the morning to 11 in the
evening.
Mr. Shonkwiler: Uh-uh.
Coun. Hunt: And you'd withdrawn a request for longer.
Mr. Shonkwiler: Correct.
Coun. Hunt: Is that the hours now that would operate, I mean the way
you're requesting it? Oh, thank you.
Mr. Shonkwiler: Normal day hours.
Coun. Scheckla: If I may, when you have delivery and and garbage pickup
and that, will they be happening later at night when you have
your trucks come in and whereabouts will that be in the
• people that live in that area?
WBA NOA"11
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 20 EXhjbft No
Page No.
4
Mr. Shonkwiler: Okay.
Coun. Scheckla: That hasn't been addressed yet, I don't believe.
Mr. Shonkwiler: This is one of the reasons why this design was one that was
proposed favorably from the neighborhood. from the various
neighborhoods, as we were going through the process of
redesigning the site and changing things around. By having
the trucks come in at this entrance. They're not cutting
through any parking lot area. They're passing through the
backside of the site. This is basically the most... site,
spot that's farthest away from impacts on surrounding
neighborhoods. You have to remember this slopes up high up
here. Residential's up here and away from Scholls Perry
Road. This slopes down that way and has a, a changing effect
from activity here. So trucks would come in here. again this
becomes like a canyon back here that buffers surrounding
residential properties. The building blocks it for
residential this way so the noise of trucks turning around
and unloading and loading is pretty well minimized... by the
actual design of the site. And as for the timing of these
things, they are, again, during the davlight times. riot late
at night... not after our hours of operation. And most of
the trucks come in in the morning when people are getting up
and going off to work anyway.
Coun. Scheckla: One other thing, will there be any noxious odors from your
garbage or whatever. Because we, we had a problem a couple
years, several years back.... with a grocery market that went
in and residential was right behind the area. And thev had a
restaurant and during the night there was a lot of very bad
odors, and there was nothing we were able to do after it went
in.
Mr. Shonkwiler: That very subject came up during all of this, these years of
dealing with this. There was concern some people didn't,
were afraid that there might be a Chinese restaurant in there
and those odors carry more than others and, and so forth.
And, as we said, this, for the odor point of view in the
types of uses, none of the uses are odor generators. And,
and theoretically, the sit down enclosed restaurant will be
the kind that won't create any problems. It's also the
fartherest away from the residential locations. Also all of
the, by ordinance requirements, all of the containers have to
be closed up and have lids on them and all that. And we're
having daily pickups. so there shouldn't be any problem.
Coun. Scheckla: Thank you.
Mayor Schwartz: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Shonkwiler: Thank you.
LUBA NO.9"11.
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 21 Exhlblt No.
Page No.
Mayor Schwartz: As we've been out here for .just over two hours, so I think
we're going to take a five minute break.
Council meeting recessed 9:35 p.m.
Council meeting reconvened 9:47 p.m.
Mayor Schwartz: Okay, if we could continue with the public hearing. We're
still on the public testimony and the proponents. And now I
guess, Scott Russell, are you...?
Mr. Russell: My name is Scott Russell. My address is 31291 Raymond Creek
Road in Scappose, Oregon. I thank .you, Mayor and Councilors.
for this opportunity to speak to you. And I also want to
thank Mr. Bewersdorff, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Wooley and his
staff, Wooley and his staff, for their guidance and help over
the last several years. I could say it's good to be here
again but.... I do enjoy the personalities. I didn't
need, need the glasses when we started this process.
Coun. Hawley: I see you're not on crutches any longer too, so
congratulations.
Mr. Russell: Perhaps I'll have a toupee the next time around. In anv
event, our family has owned and. and farmed land in this area
since the early '60s. As I said, this.... my testimony will
be cut quite a bit shorter because of Mr. Shonkwiler's
remarks. But:_... I believe that when this application was
remanded to City Council that they gave clear instructions to
the applicant to work with the neighbors. And as mentioned.
we have had several meetings with the neighbors. We've met
on site. Our first meeting we had over 70 people in the
immediate Castle Hill area attending that meeting. And we
proceeded to discuss the issues and get better understanding
of, of what happened, of what the proposal was and what they
wanted. We also met... we expanded the, the required 250
foot distance to 500 feet. That meeting was at the Tigard
Senior Citizens' building. And we presented this to CIT for
the second time. And I'd like to point out that through
this process, I've been attending CIT meetings. In fact I've
missed two CIT meetings since it's inception. And prior to
that, most of the NPO I attended up... since 1991. I say
that because I bring many of the concerns that are applicable
from the CIT and NPO meetings to the meetings that we've had.
I think the results of the meetings are evident in the, the
changes that have been made to this plan, to the comfort
the neighbors have with it. I mentioned here many of these
things that, that Mr. Shonkwiler mentioned. And I would also
endorse the concept of not having the access on to Northview
Loop in meeting with the desires of the neighborhood.
One of the other things that these meetings had
• representation from, not only the Castle Hill neighbors
LUBA NO. 95-Ml
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 22 MIM No.
Page No.
and, and Albertson's, but also of Matrix Development who is
developed the current housing in this area, as well as...
I, I represented our family in this. And there's.a survey...
it was mentioned a survey of the... by the officers of Castle
Hill Homeowners, showed an excess of 807 of those responding
to their survey in favor of the Albertson's proposal. I
hesitate to speak about the opposition from the Marcotte/
Thrifty... Thriftway contingent but I feel... I guess perhaps
I feel defensive about all the work and progress that has
been made with the neighbors by their objections. I know
that part of the,.having this remanded was in response to
the Thriftway/Marcotte folks not knowing about the
Planning Commission meeting prior to last December Council
meeting. They've had many opposition to the C-C zone
provisions. They've been involved in this, in the C-C zone
development and many of you have been, who have been
through this process have heard those roadblocks have
been thrown into this in order to make this an unworkable
zone. I think that the. the final zone is , the final...
language of the zone is very workable. And I'm not going to
go through and try to address the, the shotgun of reasons why
we should change this store and all that, but I would like to
respond to a comment at the last... Planning Commission
meeting... when the layouts were brought out and I was
accused of threatening the neighbors with some alternate
planning. There's 17 members of my family involved in
ownership of this land. And we tried to let you talk with
one person and I 'm trying to represent them. There's some
of the members in my family that don't have quite as much
faith in the process as I do. and are quite interested in the
alternatives to what we can do with this land which we've
been sitting on for several years. So.we went through pre-app
process to look at some of the alternatives, and, and those
are what are in front of you. I think that the Thriftwav
the attitude can be best summed up by Pam Garcia's quote at
the December 14 City Council meeting, when she was asked by a
member of the Council about what kind of a store would she
support, which she replied "I don't want any grocery store
there." Again, at the November '94 Planning Commission,
Miss Garcia again stated that this store will "severely
impact our family business." This attitude reminds me of
the movie industry when the videos came out. And there was
an incredible cry of how the movie theaters were going to go
away. That the competition from the videos were going to
kill them. I don't think the movie theater business has ever
been any better than it has since then. I would, I would
encourage them to let the, let competition work. My
conclusion is that... I feel that the C-C zone fills the need
to provide services to a growing community.
When we started this project, people asked why build a
grocery store clear out there? And now if you've driven out
Scholls Perry, there's enough housing on past.-it to support
LUBA NO 9"11
PUBLIC"HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 23`ElddbK NO.
Page No, - VP
• a grocery store as it is. Secondly, the planned development
that was attached to this piece of property of ours... has
attached with it a requirement that a major collector be
constructed. This major collector has no access to any
single family residence. It's a. it's an albatross from the
standpoint of developing the land and it's one of the reasons
this land hasn't been developed for so long. So, this road
is nearly completed, and, at not a cost to the City. It is
not a cost to the State. In effect, we the landowners. took
the hit for the road. And I would like to see the project
finished up at this point. And the last item I have is
that... that Albertson's, Matrix.Development. the Castle Hill
neighbors have worked together to create a, a commercial
center that will benefit this community as a whole. I feel
that this plan not only complies with the guidelines and the
rules of the C-C zone, but I think it exemplifies the spirit
of the community cooperation. Thank you very much. I'd be
happy to answer any questions.
Mayor Schwartz: Any questions? Okay, Scott.
Mr. Russell: Thank you.
Mayor Schwartz: Ernie Platt?
Mr. Platt: Good evening. Ernie Platt, Vice President of Matrix
Development. 7160 Hazelfern Road, Tigard. I am here in
support of this application and merely want to reinforce and
reiterate the involvement that the neighbors and that
Albertson's have'had in the evolution of the plan you see
before you. Matrix Development began purchasing land from
Scott Russell and his family several years ago in full
anticipation that we would be the developers of the
residential portions and that there would be neighborhood
commercial facilities at the Scholls Perry/Walnut
intersection. We've expected it. We've indicated it was
going to be there. It's been a very long time in coming.
The housing is well on it's way. The first phase of Castle
Hill is completed, totally built out. 64 lots. Phase 2. the.
the site improvements, are being completed right as we speak.
And home construction is set to begin in that area, and then
there'll be a third phase. We simply fully expected this
would be neighborhood commercial, and are here in full
support of the process and would like to see it get on with
it. If there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer.
Mayor Schwartz: Okay, thank you. Don Duncombe.
Mr. Duncombe: My name is Don Duncombe. My address is 17001 NE San Rafael.
Portland, Oregon 97230. I am the real estate manager for
Albertson's and I was involved from the very beginning in
this project. In fact it was not even a road or a house out
there when we started talking. It was strictly bare land.
. LUBA NO.9"11
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 24 Exhjbit No-~
Page No.
Since that time, I think I raised my family and they've gone
to college and graduated and got married and I have
grandchildren now. That's a slight exaggeration, it's not
quite that bad but it seems like that. I don't . want to
take anymore time. Most of the things have been said. I
would just like to have the opportunity for rebuttal if
necessary. I had some things I wanted to say about Marcotte
Thriftway but that would be classless of me and I'll hold my
comments until later. I do appreciate Mr. Hunt mentioning
our sidewalk at our one store and I'll take care of that
tomorrow morning. I also want to talk about our dumpster, or
garbage. Everything we have will be internally fed so people
can't get to it from the outside. It will be-locked and
sealed so that there will not be any odors. We have garbage
disposals to take care of the liquid type of garbage. So
there would, there should not be any odors whatsoever coming
from our store.
We have had many, many meetings with the neighborhood. And
it's been spelled out previously, over 80% of them now
support this project which I think... speaks well for the
project itself. There were a number of people in the
congregation or the audience before we began. It looks like
they started to go home because of the time. But I would
like to be able to answer any questions that you may have of
Albertson's or me and I would like to be able to rebut
anything that it necessary at the end. if I may. Thank you.
Mayor Schwartz: Any questions?
Coun. Hunt: I have one on here, and that is unfortunetl.y you've get
two Exhibit "A"s here. And I looked at the wrong Exhibit
"A". So there's a lot more detailed thing but it. it says in
here that the... "applicant has also discussed dedication of
multifamily area south Albertson's site, the Castle Hill
Neighborhood Association for further development as a
neighborhood open space." What happened on that?
Mr. Duncombe: We will live up to that commitment. If the neighborhood
wants that property, we will dedicate it to them for whatever
purpose they would like.
Coun. Hunt: Is that... here it says they discussed and that's, that was
my thing-that bothered me a little bit. There was no,
there's no commitment in there. That was the only thing that
I
Mr. Duncombe: There, there, there is not a written commitment anywhere. But
I will go on record as saying -w e will live up to any
commitment that we did make with the neighborhood in order to
do that:
Mr. Shonkwiler: John Shonkwiler, for the record. If I can clarify one thing.
LUBA NO.9"l
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 25 Exhibit No.
Page No.
• You will have people from the neighborhood come and you can
ask them the question directly but essentially they're
forming, they're having a new election for members after the
first of the year and they didn't want to go forward with
any, anything more committed to that until they've completed
their elections. The people that are officials of the newly
formed non-profit corporation are appointed members in the
neighborhood from the original developer and they didn't feel
comfortable with making a long term tie up at this time.
Coun. Hunt: Thank you.
Mr. Duncombe: Anything else?
Mayor Schwartz: No. Thank you.
Mr. Duncombe: Thank you.
Mayor Schwartz: David Williams.
Mr. Williams: My name is David Williams. I live. at 14143 Stardust Lane.
I'm here on behalf of myself and hopefully some of my
neighbors to speak for Albertson's proposal. Throughout the
course of the 18 to 19 months I've lived in Castle-Hill. this
has been something that's been on all of our minds.
Throughout the process. I have to say that Albertson's has
been more than gracious. They've worked with us, they've
listened to us, they've been very open to change plans which
I imagine has cost them a lot of time and money. Again. I
say I'm in favor of the program. My only concern is an
access on Northview. Living on Stardust Lane, we have seven
homes. In this seven homes, we have nine children. Young
children who like to play in their front yards. Living on a
hill quite often balls roll out in the street. The children
run out in the street. It's a quiet neighborhood. There's
no reason for them not to play in the street. If you put an
access on Northview, there is no doubt in my mind, people
will be using the street to cut through our neighborhood.
You will have a situation where.there will be strangers in
the neighborhood who aren't aware of many young children in
the neighborhood, who are in a hurry to get through the
neighborhood to get wherever they have to, including
Albertson's. You will have a possible liability situation
because of pedestrians getting struck by cars. So from
purely a safety standpoint I.would say, an access on
Northview-is not a good idea. From a traffic standpoint. I
think the staff recommendation is very naive. When you look
at the neighborhood, you look at the surrounding towns. You
might disagree with my opinion but I think there's a lot of
people in this room who will agree that the easiest way to
get around this area is to avoid the major roads. Scholls
0 Ferry, 135th. It's much easier to cut through neighborhoods
to get where you want to go around here because of the
PUBLIC HEARING'TRANSCRIPT DECEMBER 13,'1994 - PAGE 26 LUM NO. 95-011
Exhibit No. :M:
Page No. - 95-
congestion. If you provide an access onto Northview, people
are going to do what they do everywhere else. They're going
to cut through our neighborhood to get where they want to go.
We don't want these people in our neighborhood. We want a
quiet neighborhood, we want a, we want a quiet traffic
pattern, we want our children to be able to enjoy the
neighborhood, we don't want parents worrying about what's
going on. So w e want you to consider that and hopefully
there will be other people who will speak from the
neighborhood tonight who will also recommend no driveway
.access to the property. We are in favor, as Albertson's has
recommended, of .having pedestrian access to stairs. They
have worked closely with us. Most, if not all of us, are
very happy with that. Most of us enjoy the idea of being
able to walk to the store as opposed to having drive
to...being able, you know... have to drive to a store.
Anybody have any questions? Let's get it over with. Thank
you.
Mayor Schwartz: Lanny Collins.
Mr. Collins: My name's Lanny Collins. I live at 14158 SW Northview which
is at the corner of Windsong Court and Northview. I have
come to this process relatively lately. I moved in to Castle
Hill in March of this year. I have appreciated the process
and the discussion with Albertson's and Scott Russell. And
as I look at the plans which they presented, if that were to
be realized, it seems to me it would fit into our
neighborhood nicely. I also look beyond that down the road
and have mixed feelings from the standpoint of seeing 10,000
cars coming down. It's going to impact my residence. But in
the interests of time, I 'd like to make just two points
relative to the entrance off of Northview. And I'm wondering
if we can have the overhead back. Yes. My first point has
to do with the traffic coming up Walnut. And if there
were an entrance here, what I would see happening would be
that they would slow at this point if they wanted to make
this access and turn left in. Now my coming from my
residence here to turn right into Scholls, I'm going to
constantly have to deal with these people wanting to turn
here. As opposed to if they go on down here to the highway
and then turn (inaudible). And so it does not seem to me to
be advantageous to help my driving if we have an entrance
here where these people are going to be backing my turning
coming out there . My second point is, and this is somewhat
larger, and it deals with a development which has not come
before the Council yet. And so we don't' know how that's
-going to turn out. But we have Hillshire Woods down in this
area. 107 homes. With potentially a connection to Windsong
Court. And if we have an entrance-here, I can see all this
traffic plus some from Bull Mountain, when they want to come
to Albertson's,.coming down this-to get in to Albertson's.
And that seems to me to be a significant impact. Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 27 LUBA NO. 95-011
Exfilbit No. o
Page No.
• very much.
Mayor Schwartz: Barbara Collins.
Mrs. Collins: Hi, my name is Barbara Collins. And I live with Lanny
Collins on 14158 SW Northview Drive. I want to express my
thanks and support to the Albertson's people, and Scott
Russell and that whole g roup for their complete willingness
to work with us. I've never been through this type of
procedure. In fact, this is the first time I've ever been to
any kind of Planning Councils or City Council meetings or
anything, and it's been a real eye opener. And it's been
really nice to have these people be so willing to change
their plans and work with us and really ask us what we want.
and react to what we suggest. And that's been very
refreshing. My main concern again is with the entrance on
Northview. Albertson's doesn't want it. And the
neighborhood doesn't want it. And the only people that seem
to wanted it so far have been the planners. And I don't
understand why they want it. It doesn't seem like a good idea
to me. I think it would definetly attract the. affect the
traffic on Northview. And I personally would be much more
wiling to drive an extra block if I was going to drive to the
store. Living within three blocks of it, I know I would
walk. Which is the whole idea of having this community sort
of relationship with the neighborhood and the store. But if
I was'to drive, I would, I would definetly want to drive
round and take one of the main entrances, rather than having
a lot of other traffic impacting our neighborhood. I also
feel like major thoroughfares are there for that purpose.
Which is to be a major thoroughfare and to encourage traffic
to go through residential areas, as the gentleman before us
spoke. I think that people will do that even though probably
they shouldn't and they wouldn't want it through their own
neighborhoods but I think that people being people, they want
to find the short cut and I think that they probably will try
to do that. The last point I want to make was that I've
only lived in this neighborhood nine months. We moved from a
very busy street over in Raleigh Hills area. And one of the
things that attracted us to this neighborhood-was that it was
so quiet and it felt safe walking on the street. and it was
fun to see kids playing on the street and being safe. And
last week when we had our first snowfall, we were sitting in
the house waiting for the snow because it was being
announced, it's coming, it's coming. And we were sitting
there and all of a sudden we could laughing and screaming and
giggling. And we want outside to look. And there must have
been 20 people from the neighborhood. Everybody came out and
they were playing in the snow right in the middle of the
street. And there was.no traffic and it was like, Wow, this
is so neat. This is what a neighborhood's like. And
everybody comes out and just plays together and has a good
time. And there's no worry about cars coming through. And
_ -'PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 28 WBA NO. 95-017
ExhW NO.
Page No.
we do have a large number of children and grandchildren in
the neighborhood, and I just want to make sure we can
continue to have a safe, fun place to live. Thank you.
Mayor Schwartz: Norm Ramboldt. Terry Lindstrom.
Mr. Lindstrom: My name's Terry Lindstrom. I'm a Castle Hill homeowner at
14194 Northview Drive. I moved in to my home about 18 months
ago, was one of the first people to move into the area. With
the knowledge that there's a zoning change proposal and
application by Albertson's at the time. I was in favor of it
at that time and I'm even more in favor of it now. For
several reasons. First, I think that Albertson's and a small
three to four store complex is a good use of the land
compared to the other options, such as high density
apartments. There's plenty of apartments, I think, already
in the area off Scholls and Murray Boulevard. I think that
it's better than more houses, which would be directly
abutting or directly off of Scholls Ferry which, I, I
personally wouldn't want to live off of Scholls.Ferry. And
I'm not sure many other people would. Secondly. I think that
the plans that you've seen from an architectural standpoint
and the landscaping plans are a good fit into the area, into
the community. Albertson's representatives have gone to
great lengths with all, during all the meetings to present
their plans. They've made several changes... that, that we
wanted them to make. And I think from an aesthetic
standpoint this will enhance the area as much as anvthing
could. Third, I think that there is, as pointed before.
there's tremendous amount of growth in the area. And I think
that another store is needed or will soon be needed. Since
I've lived there 18 months, there's been three new housing
developments off of Scholls. There's a new proposed, I think
it's Wilshire or something, 107 homes, just to the west of
Castle Hill. I think at, when the rock quarry loses their
lease, I understand there's going to be a proposed apartment
complex going in there. So there's a tremendous amount of
growth. Fourth, and, kind of along similar lines, is
competition is good. And the main opposition here obviously
is, is Thriftway. And I think everyone knows why they're
opposing this. It's common sense and I don't think it really
needs to be stated, but I think that the degree of the
opposition is really very unfortunate, that they've gone to
the, to the length that they have opposed this.
Now turning to the debate over the possible driveway. I'm
very, very much opposed to that for several reasons. One, it
brings additional traffic in to the residential area which
just isn't necessary. Just simply isn't necessary. To me, it
raises several safety concerns. To me. a father of a six
year old daughter and an eight year old daughter, I just
. don't want more traffic brought into,'onto Northview Drive
where I live. Kids, there's a lot of kids around the area.
WBA NO.95-M l
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 29 EXMft NO.
Page NO..~
Kids are rollerblading. skateboarding, riding their bikes,
and I just don't think it's safe. Contrary to what the staff
mentioned earlier. I think that a driveway off Northview
really complicates the traffic pattern for several reasons.
And if I can just go up here and show you. First, what was
pointed out by Lanny earlier. You have all of these homes
over here. I think it's Morning Hill and, and or this is
Morning.. I don't know what the names are, it doesn't matter.
But you have all these homes coming. coming off of 135th,
going into the Walnut that's going to be connecting it. If
there's an exit, if there's an entrance in to the Albertson's
complex here, they're making an unnecessary left hand turn to
get into the complex. Where they can just go here and get
into the complex. Go straight and get into the complex here.
So in other words, you're making essentially two options for
drivers coming from over here which feeds from a, a large
area, making a left hand turn here, potential traffic
problems. And also here. So why not just make one left hand
.turn? Secondly, excuse me. I think that there's - going to
this drawing here - somehow, it doesn't matter. But if
there's three entrances into the parking lot. I think that it
just makes for more congestion and more potential problems in
the parking lot. You, you already have one off here. off
Walnut. You have one here off of Scholls. And, and I just
think, in addition to the problems that were already stated.
people cutting through the parking lot. I just think that
. having that, a driveway off of Northview just because there's
a street there doesn't' make a whole lot of sense. Also, if
you have a driveway off of Northview, there's a sidewalk
going in here off of, on Northview. Kids, adults, are going
to be walking on the driveway, or on that sidewalk. You're
going to have a driveway going across the sidewalk and
there's potential problems there. And then last, not least-.
is that if you have a driveway off of Northview, it cuts into
the aesthetics of the landscape. And I think that.is a big,
is a big issue for me. And, finally, I would just like to
publically thank Scott Russell. representing the land ovniers.
and Don Duncombe representing Albertson's. who have just gone
to.. have been tremendous during this whole, whole process.
They've met with us several times. They've listened, they've
made changes that we wanted them to make, and again, contrary
to what was said at the Planning Commission meeting which I
was at, they have never made any kind of threatening remarks
to us at all. They have never held out any promises that we
don't think that they can keep. And I've been to every, I
think, every neighborhood meeting. Never seen any kind of
things like that done. So... and I think that they've worked
with the Castle Hill Homeowners with the most integrity.
Thank you.
Mayor Schwartz: Cindy Christensen.
Ms. Christensen: Cindy Christensen, 14293 SW Windsong Court. By.some of the
WBA-HO. 9"
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 30 EXt" Nal
Page No. 01 C/
comments that you had made at the very early part of all
this, I got the feeling that you had got my letter. Because
you had, you had addressed everything that I had said in my
letter. One of the things... I... living on Windsong Court,
my living area of my house will overlook the Albertson's
store. And I feel that the Albertson's people have put
together a plan that... it's not going to obstruct my view,
it's not going to make it ugly for me to look at from a
higher'level. And, they lust, they've just really been good
working with all areas around the subdivision. Regarding the
access off of Northview, once again, like the other people
here, it really seems like a bad idea. And I hope that you
folks will also see it that way. Thanks.
Mayor Schwartz: Troy Christensen.
Mr. Christensen: My name's Troy Christensen. I live at 14133 SW Liden Drive.
And I'm a homeowner in the Castle Hill development. I'd like
to first address the fact that Councilman Hunt has been out
and seen the property. Because there's been some times that,
at, at different meetings, where some of the roads have been
said that like Scholls Ferry Road. for example, has been
referred to as Old Scholls Ferry by some of the planners and
kind of makes you a little bit nervous when, you know, the
roads aren't even right and they're suggesting that we put a
driveway in the particular area, that maybe somebody should
go out there and look at what we're talking about. I'm, I'm
definetly opposed to a driveway on Northview. Councilman
Rohlf, he brought up something that I thought about just
today, and I mean, it was amazing that he came up with it
just right off his... rather than put it in now, if. if, in a
worse case scenario, we put that in later rather than just
forcing the issue, putting it in . It's always able to undo.
you know, and. and tear up the sidewalk to do that. If I can
show you what I think might happen here is... My home's right
here so I'm basically five doors away from where this is
going to be. They proposed putting a driveway here in the
past. Well, they're going to sink the store about 20 feet.
So you're going to have a pretty steep driveway right there.
I, you know, I don't care what you do, you're going to have a
real steep driveway because they want to hide the store which
everybody's in favor of. If we put one here, you've got
about two houses here. Well, basically all these cars come
out of here, and You're going to have a line up. So you're
not going to be able to use that very readily. They've
talked about putting a one way going in and not coming out. I
think it's better just to leave it as it is. If, if you look
at how most people every, everybody shops, most people in
our neighborhood, I think, work, both people work in the
family. When we come home, we won't be making a left turn
into Albertson's. Most-people-shop when they come home from
work, and, you know, and nobody knows-what they want to eat
until they're done working. So you're going to be making a
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 31 WBA NO'
ExdUbft No.
Page No.
turn from Scholls Ferry into the Albertson's, and then going,
making a right turn back into your, to your own, you know.
home. So, I, I think that.. I have three children and you
know, I have real concerns about them playing on the street,
and you know, it's something that's, that I think most
everybody is, that's the biggest concern of the homeowners
right now. I've been to a lot of the meetings. And I think
that's the number one priority. Two, is Albertson's, I
think, has been, gone way above what any one would have
expected. When I first moved in there a year ago, everyone
said you're dealing with a big corporation, you know, be
careful.... well, you know, after speaking with Don
Duncombe, I mean, there's very few people that I would just
say that, I trust him at his word. And everything he's said
has, has been as he told us, and within a week, the threat
that we got as homeowners from Albertson's, that everybody
talks about for that extra area was a threat to donate the
land as a park t o us. And I mean, if that's the biggest
threat that we can get from them, I'm pretty tore up about
it. So. I, I would just like to say that, that, you know.
they've gone above and beyond, every, everything we've asked
them they have tried to accommodate. You know, if, if the
Council let them. And, as far as I think everybody knows
that Thriftway, they sent out things to the homeowners
without anybody's name on, who gave you this. And it was on
my door as well as everybody in the neighborhood's that said.
you know, this is going to happen. this is going to happen.
Well, I think mainly it's an economic type thing with them.
and I.mean, that's, that's to be expected but, you know, it
is America, and they should be able to compete freely with
them. If there's any questions... like I said, I appreciate
people going out and looking at the land. Cause there's a lot
of there's a lot at stake here. And a lot at stake for
the City, I think. There's a lot of business that, that's
going to be brought into the City by it. So. Thank you.
Mayor Schwartz: Thank you. Okay, that concludes the proponents. And we'll
move on to the opponents. The first one is Ex... lean
O'Brien. Elayne. Oh, that's a "y".
Ms. O'Brien: First of all, I want to thank the Mayor and the Council for
allowing us to speak. And I want to make it clear that I'm
speaking for myself. I am a member of the interim board for
the Castle Hill development. Forgot to tell you. My name is
Elayne O'Brien at 14051 SW Liden Drive. And I just want to
make it clear that I'm not speaking as a temporary board
member when I speak to you tonight. In fact, we.have not
been elected, we have been appointed. So for any member of
this group to be giving out information, is really not in
their right to do so. As far as 80% of the people being in
favor of this proposal, I would like to see something in
writing that shows me that that's a fact. We sent out a
questionnaire early on just asking what are your preferences
WBA NO.95-011
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 32 EAU* No.~
Page No.
in regard to apartment versus a store, etc. I believe. and I
don't have those figures. I think we got 35 responses. Well.
maybe 80% of those. I don't know where that figure came
from. When I moved into the Castle Hill development, I was
told that there would be a small strip type mall down on
Scholls Ferry which would be a convenience grocery store.
barber shop, hair dresser, etc. and I had no problem with
that. And then when I heard that this Council was in fact
weighing a new'.designation called "neighborhood commercial
I envisioned again a small strip in a park like setting with
small convenient stores, with maybe a footpath coming down
from the development. I also envisioned nothing more than an
entrance and.an exit off of Scholls Ferry Road. When the
Albertson's proposal came forth and I learned that it's a
40,000 square foot building, I said to myself, can this just
be going to serve the immediate neighborhood? I also had in
my mind the fact that, within a mile, in two different
directions, we have access to two different stores and large
regular commercial developments. There will be, as I
understand. three or four stores more here. I think my real
concern is five entrance and exits, and. of course I'm
adamantly opposed to an entrance from Northview anyway you
want to put it along there. Because it will in fact simply
provide a route for people to get away from going on Beef
Bend Road, and if you are among those who travel Beef Bend
Road at peak hours, you can't do it. So you're going to go
anyway you can to avoid it. I would like to point out that,
we have a main street there that people can use. And I
certainly don't think that they have to go, or that they
can't go two blocks out of their way to use that main street.
We are... basically it's a young neighborhood. I'm the
exception. And there are lots of young children playing in
those streets. I don't think we need to have that kind of
threat to their safety. And it simply tells me when you talk
about an entrance on Northview that you're inviting traffic
from Bull Mountain and anywhere over in that area to come
through there for, whether it's the purpose of going to the
store or it's the purpose of going to work or whatever. I
think that would definetly be a handicap for our
neighborhood. I come from New York, upstate New York, where
I was a counselor for 20 years. So I am not new to this
process. I am new to your designations, your zoning, and how
you do business. In New'York, where I come from, with a
little country road like Scholls is at this time. a two lane
road, a proposal such as this Albertson's would never have
gotten off first base. And we can rationalize by experts
telling us that this is not a traffic hazard. But anyone of
us can look at that, who lives over there and drives over
there regularly. it is a traffic hazard now. So this gives
me great concern. I, I understand what the neighborhood
commercial criteria is. But I guess I really.have to say
• should it be refined? What.is the-difference between this
and a regular commercial area? Should it perhaps be scaled
WBA N0.-95.011
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 33 EXhibit No.
Page NO. Jba
• down to suit the name "neighborhood commercial"? I would
since this will be the first attempt at. at relating this
neighborhood commercial to a development. I would like to
honestly urge you to give it careful consideration as to the
criteria and see if you feel real comfortable with it. This
is your first step. You establish this. It's not easy to
change. I appreciate talking with you and I hope you will
give this consideration. Thank you very much.
Mayor Schwartz: Nancy Rhodes.
Ms. Rhodes: My name is Nancy Rhodes. I live at 13994 SW Chehalem. I also
am an appointed member of the interim board of Castle Hill
Homeowners Association. And I'm here to speak on my own
behalf tonight. I'm not representing the Homeowners
Association in any way. Excuse me. I wanted to just add my
little two cents into this little conversation and sinc, just
point out what I'm seeing all along here. And that is that
here we have a Community Commercial designation that is a new
step for Tigard. And I don't know if you've noticed what's
been happening but in all of our conversations with
Albertson's, we have been slowing adding one more wall or
barrier to separate our community from the shopping center
area. So basically what we're telling you is that we will
put up with that grocery store but we don't want to see it.
we don't want to hear it, and, you know, we don't want the
traffic. So, I don't know. maybe this is something that you
need to consider. Maybe this proposal as it is know is a
little bit too large. Maybe a small, smaller scaled down
version would be the way to go. I understand, you know, that
this is smaller than your general commercial designation.
And it is larger than your neighborhood commercial but I
think that you're kind of defeating the purpose and the
spirit of it by just allowing us to go and do exactly what
we're doing, and that is saying we don't want to see it. we
don't want to hear it, you know, but maybe we'll use it.
And, I just kind of wanted to just add that two little cents
in, and that's all I wanted to say. Thank you.
Mayor Schwartz: Anthony Bonforte.
Mr. Bonforte: My name is Anthony Bonforte. My address is 14675 SW Osprey
Drive, Apartment 413 in Beaverton, 97007. I'm a development
consultant. I'm developing a site in Beaverton across
Scholls Perry Road. And I am listed... as an opponent of the
project on a very minor technicality. The... I have
presented my plans to Albertson's representatives through the
city staff. Because of constraints on the proposed apartment
development across the street, because of the grades. we ask
that Albertson's move their southwestern most driveway to the
southwest by approximately 18 feet.
•
WBA NO.9~5-11 -
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 34 EndU* NO..J_
page NO.
Coun. Hawley: Could you please point that out on the map?
Mr. Bonforte: Yes. This driveway here.
Coun. Hawley: And which way did you want to move it?
Mr. Bonforte: We asked them to move this 18 feet to the southwest. This
direction. Closer to the property line.
Coun. Hawley: 18 feet to the property line? I mean. (inaudible)
Mr. Bonforte: I would like to make it approximately 18 feet, closer to the
property line. I have a map which show that. I have
provided staff, I have provided (inaudible) this meeting.
Show council. The problem we have across the street is, this
is a very steep slope...
Mayor Schwartz: Could you turn a little bit closer? Maybe stand right...
Mr. Bonforte: I'm sorry?
Mayor Schwartz: Come closer and stand right between us so we can all see your
stand right out there so we can all see your map a little
bit clearer. Can you see that okay?
Mr. Bonforte: After several-attempts to try to locate the driveway on the
opposite side, to relocate that driveway. If we relocate the
driveway into-this new apartment development, we'd have to
either move into the trees and destroy more of the few trees
left on the site. When we move it further to the east, I'll
call it, more the other direction. because streets runs
at an angle. We run into too much grade that requires a
substantial amount of fill. By the time we can make it back
to the existing grades, we will have lost ability to
(inaudible). Our request of change to Albertson's was not
over anything we believe to be a slight improvement in their
parking d rive alignment. Whereas to leave it where it is it
would, becomes a severe damage to the use of our site. I
have discussed this with Albertson's representative and the
city staff. It is my belief city staff is in support of our
position. Albertson's has not opposed our position.
Mayor Schwartz: Have not opposed it?
Mr. Bonforte: Not opposed it. I'll be able to answer any questions. We
ask this be... be included as a condition of approval for
their proposal.
Mayor Schwartz: Okay, but you're actually not opposing the development
itself.
Mr. Bonforte: I'm not opposing the development itself.
LUBA NO.95-011
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 35 ExfflbR No. -
Page No. ~b~
Coun. Hawley: Would you please explain to me a gain why it's important that
those line up? Just briefly.
Mr. Bonforte: From the County standpoint. it is important that there not be
too many access points to Scholls.
Coun. Hawley: It's the County that's requesting you to do this.
Mr. Bonforte: The County wants these... wants as few as possible. and where
they're where two opposing driveways are close, it's
always best that they be directly opposite one another so
that traffic facing each other across Scholls, drivers will
understand who's first and which way the other driver's
going. It becomes dangerously confusing if they're slightly
offset.
Coun. Hawley: So that, so you're requesting this basically because of the
compliance with County standards.
Mr. Bonforte: Compliance with County standards and the all practical
safety issues in terms of (inaudible)
Coun. Hawley: Thank you.
Coun. Hunt: Mayor?
Mayor Schwartz: Yes.
Coun. Scheckla: Have you brought this map up before the Planning Commission
and the other, at the other meetings before? Or is this the
first time you're showing this?
Mr. Bonforte: This is the first time we've been showing the public.
Coun. Scheckla: Why, why didn't you bring that up before?
Mr. Bonforte: This was not brought to our attention until the last few
weeks. The owners of this property became owners of it in the
City of Beaverton during the summer. We were not (inaudible)
notices because of the lateness of the purchase.
Coun. Scheckla: Thank you.
Mayor Schwartz: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Bonforte: We weren't known to the City of Tigard as owners.
Mayor Schwartz: Okay. Ed Sullivan and... I can't make out this name.
Mr. Winterowd: Gene Winterowd.
Mayor Schwartz: Pardon?
LUBA NO.- 9"11
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 36 MIN No.
Page No.
Mr. Sullivan: Good evening. Mayor Schwartz. members of the Council. I'm Ed
Sullivan. My office address is 111 SW Fifth, Suite 3200.
Portland, 97204. I represent Marcotte Holdings which owns
the Thriftway stores in the vicinity of the proposed plan
amendment changes. With me in the audience to my left is.
Pam Garcia, an officer in Marcotte who will speak to her
company's concerns with this application. and to my right is
Greg Winterowd, professional land use planner who has
participated in these proceedings before the Planning
Commission and Council and who will speak to the design and
planning issues here.
Among the three of us, and others, we have spent many hours
examining this application in its various iterations as well
as its supporting materials. We have attempted to set forth
in some detail our concerns. And I've placed in the record
of the Planning Commission a memorandum which I hope Council
has hada chance to review. And, I won't go over all the
points made in that memorandum in my oral remarks tonight.
Instead, I will concentrate on a few points which we believe
are of great importance to the Council in its own evaluation
of this application. Suffice it to say, that for the reasons
given in our materials before the Planing Commission. the
memorandum and other materials, and those-materials before
Council tonight and in its previous review of this
application, we believe this application to be fatally flawed
and not being able to withstand close scrutiny by the Council
nor the Land-Use Board of Appeals. On the other hand, there
are many reasons from those same materials which justify
denial of the application. A Council denial of this
application would be upheld if appealed. This case is not
about pretty pictures. It's not about arrangements with
neighbors. It's about compliance with the City's and the
State's standards. It's significant that this application.
which Council considers tonight, is a plan amendment. That
means that the applicant must show not only that this
amendment meets the statewide planning goals and the
unamended portions of the city's plan. but also must show
that the current allocation of land for residential and
various commercial uses is incorrect. Amending the plan is
like amending the constitution. It should be difficult and
done only after a great deal of analysis and forethought. We
believe that that kind of examination did not take place at
the Planning Commission level. And that instead of dealing
with the goals and the City's plan and code provisions, most
of the Planning Commission discussion focused on the
vehicular issue of Northview. Although this was an important
issue, the discussion of that issue diverted attention away
from the other major issues in this case. including the
building.orientation towards the street and the neighborhood,
the bicycle and pedestrian accessibility. the scale of
development and the market area. We doubt that your staff
had the time or the resources to expend on this application.
LUBA NO.95-011
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 37 Exhibit No.
Page No. 106
And we know that the Planning Commission did not review the
extensive materials we submitted. We ask the Council to
consider these materials and to deny the application. Now in
the last two years in which I've been associated with these
proceedings, I have heard Council, but not the Planning
Commission, talk about the difficulties created by mega
stores, both to their immediate neighbors. to the travelling
public and to other commercial uses. There are certainly
horror stories which have motivated the Council and previous
councils to adopt and apply the kind of Community Commercial
plan district and zoning regulations that it did.
Particularly concerns over the size and scale of the
development, and the requirement that the entire design be
complete before Council approval occurred. As I said Mr.
Winterowd will handle the design and locational issues during
his comments. One issue however, that bears special mention
at this juncture is the Transportation Planning Rule. which
speaks to making commercial.areas more accessible to
pedestrians, cyclists and those other than motorists.
Regrettably. this proposal is just another big box commercial
development which serves the auto and is contrary to both the
City's policies as well as those of the State.
Let me begin if I may, as I did with the Planning Commission
last month. With what the Council said, as it remanded this
case last January. The Council noted that a great deal of
information had been received at the Council level. and that
most affected=-persons, including us, were not aware of the
Planning Commission's hearing of this case. There was also a
good deal of concern at the Council level on in both
December of 1993 and January of this year that the design
submitted by the applicant did not meet the Council's
expectations for Community Commercial development. There was
a great deal of focussed discussion at the Council level. at
those times, over the design of the project. That was for
the Planning Commission to consider. said the Council. In
fact, there was discussion in the remand over a new design of
this project. In response, the applicant made a few cosmetic
changes in the design of the project. By rearranging the
pads, proposing a new wall and staircase, and proposing
Indus... internal pedestrian ways. However. Mr. Winterowd
will tell you, the basic design issues which involve the
vision of the Community Commercial zone which was established
by the Council after lengthy hearings. that a request be
designed for and have a scale befitting the nearby
neighborhoods it served, and that it be complete and that it
be well-designed. These issues have not been dealt with.
The proposal remains an auto-oriented big box which draws
from beyond the immediate neighborhoods. The anchor store is
the maximum size allowed as is the site size. It would still
be in the midst of an excavated.hole, resulting from the
removal of 100,000 cubic yards of soil from the site, causing
the noise from that-hole to-reverberate every.time a truck is
LUBA NO.95-011
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13. 1994 - PAGE 38 EXNibit No. 71r
Page No. /O
unloaded or a generator switched on. The marketing report
that we submitted to the Planing Commission indicates that
this is not in fact a neighborhood oriented center. That
distinction is crucial for the Council. It's crucial for us
as well. Because we are affected by the size and the
orientation of the anchor grocery store. I might also
mention that there is a difference in neighborhood
participation in these proceedings. Council may re call a
year ago that there was substantial neighborhood concern and
opposition to this request. Although it is not shown in the
summary of meetings or meeting with .the neighbors prepared by
the applicant, it is clear that the landowner with the
knowledge, and I assume the consent of the applicant. told
the neighbors three things. The first is that if this
proposal did not go through, they could expect to see dense
and low income housing on the residentially zoned areas of
the property. There was a pre-application conference. It
was done by one of the owners of the property and it shows -
Mr. Winterowd will.pull out a a very dense unlandscaped
and. I assume, low in come project. This wasn't just an idle
threat. There was a pre-application held on this issue. And
it was done to deal with the neighbors and make them fearful.
The second was that if the proposal did go through. the
neighbors could expect a dedication of the multi-family
residential area to the south for a park or other open space.
The third was that a plan brought before the neighbors to the
effect that the multiple family area north of Walnut would be
developed as a walled single family project. Before the
Planing Commission, the applicant didn't deny that the threat
was made. Rather it attributed it to the land owner.
However, the threat was made.in the presence of the applicant
who did not seem to and did not seem to catch the
applicant unaware. The park donation is not part of this
application and does not appear to be coordinated with the
City. -There may be a side arrangement with the neighbors.
but that is not before the Council. Nevertheless these
statements may explain the composition of the persons
testifying in the current round of hearings as opposed to
those hearings last year.
There's another set of issues which concern us and those
relate to.the commercial use of, of one portion of the
property that it's designated, was designated and is
currently designated for, and the other-commercial use which
is proposed. As Council knows the current designation on one
portion of the property is neighborhood commercial. This
designation came about from .a much smaller designation that
was on the site when Washington County zoned the property
seven years ago before annexation. The Washington County
designation was limited to no more than four acres. The
corresponding city designation limited neighborhood
commercial designations to two acres.- By probably the
rearrangement of Walnut Street, the size has grown to 6.93
LUBA NO.9"11
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 39 EXhibft No.
Page No.
acres without any official action by the City. The applicant
proposes to change the location of this neighborhood
commercial land to another portion of the site and to
increase its size to eight acres. Finally that eight acres
is proposed not to be neighborhood commercial but to be
community commercial. a much more intense designation. These
are not equivalent designations but two very different types
of commercial uses. Similarly the residential designations
existing and proposed are not equivalent, and seem to involve
a different area then that which was, which was considered by
the Council a year ago. I have before me. and I think you
have in your files, the four notices for the Planning
Commission and City Council last year and this. I have
before me the 1993 notices. If you look at the designation
of the shape at the southern end here. and compare that to
the one here, which was done for the Planning Commission in
this case, it appears to have changed. And then to look at
the notice for this Council's proceedings. looking at it a
gain at the very southern part. There's an issue here as to
what portion of the property we're talking about. I'd like
Mr. Winterowd to speak briefly to the design and the
locational issues.
Mr. Winterowd: Okay. What I'd like to do is to focus the Council's
attention on the actual wording that is in t he C-C district.
When we spoke to the Planning Commission, we went to some
length and gave our interpretation of those standards. We
provided those standards in written form. As Mr. Sullivan:
said, Planning Commission did not review the materials we
presented. They did act that night. The Council explicitly
asked that the Planning Commission look at the spirit. the
vision, that was expressed in C-C district. I will quote
Councilor Hawley. "We of the Council need to give the
Planning Commission a little bit of direction as to what
we're going to expect from them. I'm concerned about the
design requirements as part of the Code and also about the
size of the store. What we need to do is to speak in more
general terms and say we're interested in maintaining the
vision the Code was originally intended to promote."
Councilor Schwartz said similar things. He talked about the
size of the development, the road systems, pedestrian ways
and asked that the entire document be sent back to the
Planning Commission. The application that you have before
you, there's been a great deal of discussion about the
changes that have been made to that. If you go to page 5 of
this document. of the memorandum that was just submitted. I
carefully reviewed the. the plans that Albertson's had a year
ago and the ones they have today. And here are the long and
short of-the-changes made in the last year, not made over a
four period when they originally applied for general
commercial which is a totally different.district, but when
they applied for community commercial. First of all they
told us a year.ago what the uses would be at the-two pads. A
LUBA NO.95-011
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 40 Exh(bit Nom
Page No. ivy
. Shari's and a gas station. Now they don't know. Not only do
they not know, they can't tell us what the design is going to
look like with any particularity, which is a requirement of
your Code. They agreed to construct a brick wall separating
the neighborhood, hiding the Albertson's from the
neighborhood. The essence of the Community Commercial
district is that you integrate community development,
Community Commercial development with the neighborhood, not
that you separate it by walls and, and vegetation and a hole
in the ground. They made a slight modification to the
stairway along Northview. They put a zig zag on it. They
proposed a five foot walkway across a 465 foot parking area
from Walnut through a double row of parked cars and called
that pedestrian access. And finally they removed vehicular
access to Northview contrary to staff's recommendations.
Those are the changes. There were no other significant
changes beyond that. And we submit to you that they did not
look seriously at the vision expressed in this zone nor they
have.looked at the obligatory. the mandatory standards in the
Code. This document, the colored document that has fuschia
and green - that's my attempt at Christmas colors - has in
the red, clearly marked, the standard and in the green,
clearly marked, our response to that. The Community
Commercial zone talks about convenient shopping facilities.
much as the woman who spoke earlier talked about her
expectations. It's to provide for the regular needs of
residents of nearby residential neighborhoods. We showed you
a year ago and have evidence today that this pro.iect will
draw from at least five miles away. This is not immediate
residential neighborhoods. The gross floor area and acreage
can be between 30 and 100,000 square feet and 2 and 8 acres.
They're using the entire eight a cres. They don't-' need to
do that. There are ways to reduce the size of this
development. Certainly within the Council's power. When the
Planning Commission reviewed this application, two of the
Commissioners said that they view this as a regional facility
but that the zoning allowed up to.eight acres and 40,000
square foot, therefore they'd approve it. It wasn't as if
they all agreed this was the optimum size. They merely felt
that it,-it was allowed by the zone. In our view, you
clearly have the authority to limit the size of that
development based on its market area. Said... goes on to say
You "should not contribute to a commercial development
pattern." I would ask the Council to consider any
development that has a shopping, that has a store. grocery
store and pads. and ask how this in its basic outline is
different than the, than any other Albertson's. or Safeway or
Thriftway, built in the last 10 years in this metropolitan
area. The difference is they were all built in general
commercial zones, not in Community Commercial zones where you
have much, much tougher standards. The service area is
intended to be limited to a mile and a half from the site.
Again we have evidence that shows it's clearly-..more that
LUBA NO. 1
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 41 Exhibit No.!V-
Page No. //O
that, in the five mile range.
An issue that was brought up by Cal Woolery at the last
Council meeting a year ago was that the intersection you have
now is, will be a key intersection when Walnut goes through.
In Cal's view, based on his consideration of the history.
there was supposed to be a full intersection. In other
words, Murray Hill was supposed to extend on north before
there was a shopping center approved at this location. Going
to the next page. The Code is crystal clear in saying that
you must. at the time of zone change approval. conform with
the site and building design standard contained in this
section at the same time and a part of approval of the zone
change to the community commercial. When you're doing that.
it's important to look at possible access limitations. What
we see in this proposal is three access points to Scholls
Ferry Road. One to the neighborhood. That tells me, as does
the fact that they have 50 more parking spaces than the
minimum required, that tells me that they're oriented towards
the travelling public, not to the neighborhood in particular.
The Code talks about limiting parking s paces, not having
more spaces than the minimum required. It also talks about
site design guidelines and I would submit to that's how you
would interpret what the vision is in the plan by applying
those guidelines, not, not systematically ignoring them as
Albertson's has done. And also applying the mandatory
standards. And above all, the development's supposed to
promote pedestrian and bicycle friendly development.
In the same purpose section, it goes on to say - we're on
page "C" now - that "Community Commercial site will be
developed as one unit with coordinated access, circulation.
building design, signage and landscaping." We don't know
what the buildings are going to look like on the pads. We do
not know what the buildings are going to look like except for
the Albertson's. We do not know what the signage looks.
looks like except for one Albertson's sign, the size of which
was not indicated. There is no signage plan. This
application on its face we believe cannot be approved. And
it requires that, in some cases. individual parcels can be
coordinated and independently through the development review
process. This is being proposed as one parcel, not
individual parcels. So that exemption does not apply in this
case. Again it talks about limiting the number of driveways
to adjacent streets. And again we have three driveways to
Scholls Perry. I would like to submit into the record
tonight a copy of a traffic report, dated April 7, 1994. that
was prepared by Washington County for this application. What
that traffic report says is that the driveway along Schools
Ferry closest, closest to Walnut Street should not be
allowed. It should not be allowed because there are queuing
problems in the right turn lane as you turn on to Wal, Walnut
Street in the future. And so that driveway should>be closed.
LUBA NO.95-011
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 42 Exhibit No.
Page No..
I'm not sure why this appl... why this was not mentioned by
the applicants. We received it only today based on a call
to the County. And it seems though that it effects the
entire design of the project. It also calls into the
question to applicant's claim that people will cut through a
project to that driveway when the driveway is not even going
to be allowed.
Last line in the purpose section talks about the district's
primary neighborhood orientation rather than to the
travelling public. That is not a matter entirely of
interpretation. Pretty clear language. And again based on
the market analysis we've done, which is Pam from Thriftwav,
from Marcotte, will tell you. is consistent with the market
analysis that she has done, that her corporation has done.
That will be drawing from a much larger area. Under
procedures, it states, this is 61.020 p. D. "It is required
that a request to rezone a parcel to the C-C zoning district
be accompanied by a site development review application or
conditional use application." There is no conditional use.
Which includes a review of the proposed development's
consistent with the site, building and site design guidelines
and standards of 18.61.055. Now those standards have
specific application requirements. You're supposed to have
detailed landscape plans, detailed lighting plans. which thev
now have, detailed signage plans, detailed building plans,
none of which h ave been provided. If you have a situation
where you have the two pads out in front and you don't know
what they're going to look like, and in order to know what
they're going... to approve the zone change, you have to know
what they're going to look like and approve that design. You
no longer, you can't approve the buildings in the front. All
you could possibly approve is the Albertson's which would no
longer be on a corner. It's sort of a logical consistency
problem. Which frankly the applicant's have skirted over.
Which we have tried to bring home time and time again without
success to date. The Code talks specifically about looking
at which of the site and building guidelines. Guidelines are
no t mandatory. Your Code says they are strongly
recommended, they're not mandatory. But which of those
should apply. In the staff report. Planning Commission's
actions and Albertson's actions, there's no decision like
that. This applies, this doesn't. This.. in fact there were
statements in the staff report that it sort of complies with
some of these standards. And we would submit to you that its'
.important the Council make a conscious choice. If they're
going to reject a guideline, thev look at it and say no we
don't want to apply this one because. It goes on to say "any
major modification to-an approved site plan." realizing we
.don't' have the basis to approve a site plan, "must go
through a separate process," the same process as a zone
change. That means, to my reading, when they come in to tell
you what the padlis going to be, you're looking at another
LUBA NO. 9"11
PUBLIC HEARING "TRANSCRIPT -:DECEMBER '13, 1994 PAGE 43 EXhiblt No. Z_ _
Page No. ~a
. zone change because they haven't told you what the design
should be. There's an answer to this dilemma. If you had a.
a truly neighborhood oriented Community Commercial program,
you would have an integrated design plan. You would not have
a standard strip mall operation with a large store and two
pads up in the front. Be.. and you would be able to say. yes
with some certainty. Here's the kind of design that we have
in mind..One of the things that we did in our proposal was
not to say no, this is no good. We said. yes, and there's
some designs that could work. And so I've also presented to
you a three page document which was presented to the Planning
Commission. which shows, which first gives a critique...
Coun. Hawley: (inaudible)
Mr. Winterowd: No, it w as presented to the Planning Commission. Yes. As.
as all the information that was presented to you tonight. The
doc, document first gives critique of the existing proposal
in terms of the code. And then it goes on to say. but what
if you wanted to do a neighborhood commercial that was
oriented? What might that look like? And so we did a design
showing how the multiple family development. the land that is
now R-25, could develop consistent with the code and without
being a horrible threat to the neighborhood and how you could
have a neighborhood commercial development across the street
that need not horribly impact the existing residential. You
could have a grocery store that fronted the street. that
people could walk to and a small scale neighborhood oriented
commercial development on the existing commercial site. You
don't want to do that. you could also go across the street
and do a development with a 30,000 square foot, that's what
we're showing - grocery story with supporting commercial with
pedestrian orientation with an integrated design. Arid I
believe that's much more what, what this code had in mind.
Going on to p. E. Ed i s whispering to me to go faster. I'm
not quite sure how to get through these standards and draw -
them to your attention without going through them one by one.
We have an issue with the size of the store. WE've talked
about that. We think it should be reduced. WE would accept
a reduced size of 30,000 cause we think that's what the
market area supports. If... for general retail sales.
Albertson's said tonight that they propose to have a building
that is over 5,000 s quare feet for a video store.
Alber.tson's calling a video store a general retail sales.
There's another section of the Code that is... other retail
sales like video stores, like shoe stores. like any specialty
item store that is limited to 5,000. They are hoping that
you will pass that over and allow a store that is clearly a
specialty shop to have more than 5.000 square feet. We think
that's a clear violation of the Code. We brought this up to
. the Council a year ago. And nothing.has changed on
Albertson's part in that regard. We have a concern on 6. that
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 44 MIN0. 95-011
E~dtbit No.
Page No. ZZ _
uses operating before 6 a.m. or after 11 p.m. unless extended
hours have been specifically permitted as an outright use
through the establishment of the zoning of this site. We have
a concern because the staff report at one point seems to
approve 24 hours operation. And yet the applicant has
withdrawn the conditional use permit. We're concerned this
might be a loop hole to allow it. I don't think that's
Albertson's intent but we'd like to hear from staff that's
also not their intent, to make that clear.
The next page on p. P. Now we get to design guidelines. It
says "The design.guidelines is strongly encouraged and the
conditions of approval may be attached to implement those
guidelines." There have been no conditions of approval
attached to this development to implement guidelines. and as
I will show in a moment, they haven't even met the mandatory
standards. But let's go through the guidelines. There's
sup, supposed to be elements such special architectural
details, distinctive color schemes, special art and other
features. What Albertson's on three out of the four sites is
a two toned windowless walls, that in my view are as
obstructive to any kind of interacting with the neighborhood
as you could possibly have. It's a big box. In the front
they have a standard, lego design that you see on most new
Albertson's. It's not something that's been specially done
for this community district. It's their standard design. I
fail to see what is unique about this from an architectural
standpoint. It says "All buildings within a multi-building
complex should achieve a unity of design through the use of
similar architectural elements such as roof form. exterior
building materials, colors and window patterns." Again we
don't know the shape or the uses of the pads or the adjacent
buildings. We haven't seen pictures of what those'll like...
would be like. All we have seen is a picture of a pad. It
doesn't seem to comply with the unity of theme requirements
in this code.
Next page. "Similar design elements such as surface
materials, color, roof treatments, windows and doors, on all
sides of the building to achieve a unity of design."
Albertson's has one door and no windows at all. We don't'
know what the other buildings are going to look like. If you
think of a Blockbuster video store, that's what they proposed
last year, that's all windows, which would hardly achieve a
unity of design with a windowless box. "The side of the
building which face towards a public street" - Albertson's
has three such frontages - "should include public entrances
to the building and windows to provide visual access to the
activity within the building." This requirement was entirely
ignored. "The sides of a building which towards an adjoining
property but not toward a public street should include
elements such as windows. doors, color, texture. landscape
and a wall treatment to provide visual interest and prevent
LUBA NO. 95411
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 45 EXh1bit No.=_
Page No.
the development of a long continuous blank wall."
Albertson's is a long continuing... continuous blank wall
hidden by landscaping.
General site design guidelines. Loading areas should not be
located on the side of a building which faces towards a
residential use. We don't know. Is this going to be a
:green space or residential use? Since it's zoned
residential, as Albertson's said earlier, we need to assume
that this is a residential use.
A year ago we testified that the shape of the land to the
south, the 3.95 acres, would be very, very difficult to
develop as multiple family. And that the likelihood of it
developing in theses circumstances was low. Why is it
important to develop.. that it develop as multi-family?
Because the whole concept of Community Commercial depends
upon a shopping center that is surrounded by higher density
uses which encourage people to walk. That is the intent of
the Code. Albertson's. the property owner, not Albertson's.
asked that a development be proposed with that area showing
that I was wrong. What you're looking at now. Councilor
Hawley, is a development proposal that has no setbacks. Your
code requires anywhere from 10 t o 30 feet setbacks multiple
family development. This has two feet in one area, zero feet
right adjacent to the back of the Albertson's. In other
words, the apartment windows would look down on the
compactor. And would hear the noise and the lights and they
are telling you that they are somehow putting it in the back
away from residential areas. They are putting them away from
existing residential areas and dumping all of the impacts on
the future multiple family, should it.ever occur. And this is
the type of. I believe, shoddy work that was presented to the
neighborhood to explain what might happen in their
neighborhood. But it flat out does not comply with the Code.
Going on to the next page. We're beginning to develop a
theme here, a theme of non-compliance. The following
mandatory standards. "Walkways, eight feet minimum width,
shall be provided from the public sidewalk or right of way to
the buildings." Now if you look at Albertson's plan, from
Walnut Street, they have one walkway that is again. 465 feet
from Walnut to the front door of Albertson's. That walkway
goes through a double row of parking spaces. It is five
feet, not eight feet wide. And I asked you who would walk on
that walkway. If you came from any of the entry points that
Mr. Shonkwiler showed, people will not walk out of direction
to go through a walkway that-goes between a double row of
cars. They will cut through the parking lot which is exactly
.what the neighbor..Xommunity Commercial is supposed to stop.
Long walks across huge parking lots. This parking lot is 300
spaces. It's not an enjoyable convenient walk.. The walkway
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 46 LUBA NO. lk
Exhibit MD.
Page No.
is supposed to connect with focal points. There are no focal
points to this strip commercial mall. There's an Albertson's
and two pads. There is no focal point. The supposed to
connect focal points like pedestrian. like transit stops and
street crossings. The transit stop, we know that is very
likely, the staff report says so, that there will be a bus
serving both Walnut and Scholls Perry in the future. If
there is no design for a transit stop and if there were a
design for a transit stop at the place that Mr Shonkwiler
said, the transit would be. it would be 640 feet via their
pathway system to the front door of Albertson Is. Carrying a
load of groceries, that's kind of a long walk. The idea is
that you should locate the building close to the transit
stop. the main building, not 640 feet away through a
circuitous walk-through aparking lot. And you're supposed
to have five foot walkways at a minimum to connect with other
walkways on adjoining properties. There is no walkway
connection to the multiple family land to the south. There
is a 24 step way from the bottom of the hole to the top to
get to the neighborhood. And there is no effective walkway
system from Albertson's to any of the multiple family
surrounding. Because again. the Albertson's is located at
the back of a. of a large parking lot. It doesn't encourage
pedestrian travel.
Page "I". "Walkways shall be provided along the full len--th
of the building on any side which provides building access to
the public where public parking is available to provide safe
and comfortable pedestrian access to the buildings as a
shell." Albertson's gets out of this one though, by putting
no doors on the sides of the buildings. Therefore no
sidewalks. But the intent is there be doors and windows and
sidewalks, not that they avoid this through, through, I'll
use a term Mr. Shonkwiler used, smoke and mirrors. "On the
side of the building which provide public access into the
building, the walkways shall be wide enough to allow for
sidewalk seating areas as well as pedestrian travel." The
Code envisage, envisages places where people can sit out
comfortably in front of building, have a cup of coffee. have
a doughnut. One does not want to sit out between a
windowless wall and a 300.space parking place. That's not an
enjoyable place to s it. Again it defeats the intent of the
code. "Weather protection on the walkway should be provided
at a minimum at the entrance area. and if appropriate. along
the entire walkway." I don't see any weather protection on
that walkway. I see no weather protection on any walkway in
this proposal. "Walkway surfaces for walking... for walkways
crossing parking areas shall be designed to be visually
distinguishable from driving areas." Again we have the five
foot walkway between the double row o f parking. Doesn't do
much good to use pavers on that. You can't even see it.
It's sitting by the cars. The idea is-that most of the way
you have separate walkways.Most of the way, as a future
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 47 LUBA NO. 95-077
Exhibit No.
Page No.
. standard says, It will be separated by landscaping. And for
those small portions where you cross a driveway. as opposed
to a whole parking lot, at that point, that's where you want
to have the pavers to distinguish . It would do little good
in this design to have pavers-between a double rosy of
parking. I'm almost done.
"Mechanical equipment needs to be designed in advance. and
refuges, containers, etc. need to be screened." Albertson's
has shown how they'll do that for their store but not for the
rest of the development. We have no idea of what the rest of
the development is going to look like. "Bicycle racks shall
be provided on site." And it's strongly encouraged that
they be covered. Where are the bicycle racks? They're
supposed to be for, for the entire development. Imagine.
riding a bicycle to this development. Would you go down a
150 foot rampway? Let's hope there's no one, you know. in a
wheelchair on that rampway when you're doing that. It's a
great place for skateboards. How do you get in? You must "go
across on Walnut, cut across a 300 space parking lot and
compete with the cars. That's the design. And. and,.and.
and saying otherwise, doesn't get you where you want to go.
It's not a bicycle friendly development. "Parking areas
shall be designed to minimize conflicts between pedestrian
and vehicular movements." Minimize conflicts. You don't
minimize conflicts by making people walk across a 300 park.
space parking lot. "Parking area landscaping shall be used
to define and:.separate define and separate parking,
access and pedestrian areas." Look at their plan. That
simply has not occurred. Everywhere you see a walkway, it is
along the parking lot or through it without separation. And
they simply have failed to meet this mandatory standard.
"The landscape design shall include plantings which emphasize
the major points of.pedestrian and vehicular access to and
within the site." Again there are no major points of
pedestrian access cause most people will get there by car.
And most people will not choose to walk. In the, in the case
-where they have put a landscaping, etc., as was testified
earlier, it's been designed to separate, to hide. to keep out
of the view and out of hearing of the neighborhood, not to
integrate it with the neighborhood.
And multiple building complexes, page L. "Buildings shall be
located to facilitate safe and comfortable pedestrian
movement between buildings." Again the pads separated by the
big building, that's not
(tape turned)
safe and comfortable movement between buildings by any
standard. I:have reviewed this proposal with several people
who are familiar with the state of the art design for
pedestrian transit friendly. "They laughed at the picture. It
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 48 LUBA NO. 95-01
EXhibit No.
Page No. /17
is not even close. The design... the person that prepared
this has won national awards in that type of design, and
designed the transit stations for Tri-met light rail on the
east side. He knows what he's talking about. He was
dumbfounded that they would submit this as a pedestrian
friendly design. "On sites which are adjacent to other
properties within the Community Commercial district, building
locations shall be chosen to facilitate the pedestrian and
vehicular connections to buildings on those adjacent
properties. Consideration should be given to locating
buildings close to the public street with entrances to the
buildings from the public sidewalk with no intervening
parking or driving area. Corner locations are particularly
appropriate for this." We have a corner location. The
Albertson's again is in the back of the lot. That's the main
building. What uses are you likely to get in the front two
pads? You already know. You're likely to get a "an upscale
restaurant." That could be a Denny's as well as anything
else. So people who are driving will drive to Denny's. They
usually don't walk to Denny's. In fact, they'll probably
drive from Denny's. rather than cross the parking lot if they
eat first and shop later. What's the other uses likely to
be? In the transportation study which we submitted, the use
that Washington County looked at as the most likely was a
fast food restaurant. Fast food restaurants tend to cater to
people in cars. And that's how Washington County ran their
numbers in transportation. If you look at those pads and
think of other developments in the City of Tis,ard or anywhere
else, that's typically what you get. A Shari's and a Burger
King. I submit that's quite likely what you'll get in this
situation also. I don't think Albertson's told that to the
neighbors. Finally "opportunities shall be found for safe.
convenient and pleasant pedestrian connections to existing or
proposed transit facilities." We have a proposed transiL
facility. Again walking 460 feet a cross a parking lot is
not pleasant, safe or convenient. "Where needed shelters and
layover areas for transit vehicles shall be incorporated in
the site development." There are no even proposals for how
that might occur. And finally, "All signage standards, all
signage shall be an integral part of the architectural
design." Mr. Shonkwiler, that is not a guideline, that's a
mandatory standard. That has not been met. We have no idea
what the signs will look, how, look like. How can we
determine whether they will be an integral part of the
architectural design? We can't. I have a few more comments
and then, then I will end.
There was, there was a comment made about, about Albertson's
being afraid of competition. The essence of competition and
the essence of adaptation, if you are a corporation. is that
you can adapt to regulatory change. In the State of Oregon.
we have the Oregon Transportation Rule; in the City of Tigard
we have the C-C zoning district. I mean. ALbertson's as a
LUBA NO.95-011
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13,1994 - PAGE 49 Exhlb1t No.,-V:
Page No. I.I
corporation has not adapted to these standards. In fact. t
hey have ignored them in most cases. And it's our belief
that if indeed, Albertson's could meet your standards, then
they would be entitled to the zone change and plan amendment.
but they can't and that's why we're recommending, re
commending that this application be denied.
There was discussion of a sound study. We have reviewed the
sound study. Sound study looked at the nearest single family
houses from the Albertson's side. There are existing single
family houses as shown on that design, on Windsong to the
south and also Stardust and Northview on the east. The sound
study did not look at the apartment development. which I have
shown you today. They didn't ask the question. if those
apartments go in, the nearest single family house is about
200 feet away. As shown on their design. the nearest
multiple family unit is 20 feet away from the turn around
area for the trucks. The study did not look at the noise
from the trucks coming and going. It only looked at the
noise from the trucks' refrigeration units. The study
assumed that the condenser, even the modified condenser, in
the building would be put on low all the time in the evening
hours. In the summer it gets warmer. You're likely to have
the condenser go on high. Same time. 5 in the morning.when
the trucks are coming in unloading and their refrigerator
units are on. And the condenser's going. All of.. and this
also compactor that i s used 40 times a day according to that
study. Now if you were living in that multiple family unit.
and had-your window.open on a hot summer night. that's not
going to be a nice place to live. Basically Albertson's.
through their design, has postponed the problem and dumped it
on future low income or apartment dwellers. And made a deal
with the neighbors.
In summary. what we have seen in this application in the last
year is Albertson's making a great deal of deals with the
neighbors, in order to get their development approved.
Hiding their development from the neighbors. What they have
f ailed utterly to do is to meet the standards of this Code.
to meet the vision of the Code or to follow the direction
given by this Council to go back and look at the basic desi,.:ii
of the project. That's all I have to say.
Mr. Sullivan: Mayor, a couple of comments on what was said in the
applicant's and allies' presentation. First it was said that
the neighborhood may want to acquire the parcel to the south.
and may ask for a later change. I would point out that, if
we're talking about recreational space, that this does not
require a zone change, does not require a plan amendment.
All it would require is a conditional use permit under
18.56:040. And further, if the open space were seen as
accessory to the Castle Hill development, it wouldn't need
any zoning approval at all. 'You would lose that land a
LUBA N6.9"11
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 50 EXhIbit No. _
Page No. I/
available to multi-family residential.
Point out also that when the representation was made that
we're only going to operate within certain hours. Council
needs to both make the question and get the answer, does that
mean when the store is open or does that mean after or before
store hours when deliveries are made, when the generators
have to operate, when other noises are given off by the
store., This Council has seen grave problems between
commercial uses, particularly with stores, grocery stores and
their neighborhood adjacent. And this is asking for another
one of those difficulties.
On the park issue, Mr. Duncombe said that the park. that
Albertson's would abide the neighbors' wishes. I understand
those wishes to be that the land will riot be developed as
residential and that it will be part of Castle Hill's open
space. That representation forms a part of this application.
That also then requires the Council to look at the lost
residential density that follows. I think what this case
comes down to a set of comments made by two of the
supporters. That "this is a good use as opposed to high
density and it's better than more houses." That's really riot
the issue before the Council in deciding whether or not this
plan amendment and zone change ought to.be allowed. It raises
more problems than it solves.
Mayor Schwartz and members of the Council, the COuncinl is
faced tonight with a proposal which is unresponsive to the
standards that the Council has previously adopted and what it
had asked the Planning Commission to consider. The proposal
is based on part on a threat and a promise. The matter of
low income housing or multi-family housing or a promised park
really don't have anything to do with the land use issues or
the standards before you tonight. If they had anything to do
with this case, they would be before you tonight. They're
not. The applicant did not present, and the Planning
Commission did not-recommend a use which fits within what the
Council has adopted as it's Community Commercial criteria.
The applicant did not present and:the Planning Commission did
not recommend a proposal which responded to the Council's
concerns and did not deal with the Council's articulated
vision of the Community Commercial designation. This Council
requested the Planning Commission to apply that vision. The
Planning Commission did not.take the time to review this
application carefully nor to review our written case.
Instead the Commission busied itself mostly with the
Northview.issue rather than such things as whether the
transportation planning rule applied. Rather than.whether
this was an.auto-oriented big box-shopping-center exceeding
the scope of the Community-Commercial designation, and
whether-the neighborhood commercial designation could be
flipped and exchanged with a:larger Community Commercial
LUBA Na. -95-077
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - '.DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 51 Exhibit No.
Page No. I=
• designation. The issues in this case are serious ones. This
is the first time the Council has applied the community
council... Community Commercial designation. Tigard has come
a long way from the mega stores along highways, a long way
from its city center. Council has carefully considered the
means to assure that its City Center remains viable while
still allowing the commercial needs of neighborhoods to be
met. We ask you to uphold those policies by denying this
application. And let me distribute to Council the, the
principle reasons which Council should use in denying this
application. I'll give a copy to Mr. Shonkwiler as w ell.
There are three sets of reasons given here. First of all,
this is a plan amendment. A very serious kind of change that
is requested. And it requires ad hoc rethinking on both the
City's plan - how this all meshes together. how the
commercial and the residential land allocations occur - as
well as conformity to state law. This is not a simply
conditional use permit where all the planning was done
previously and you have that document as the basis for your
regulation. You're being asked tonight to change the
constitution of the City. State law includes applicable
goals and rules, including the transportation planning rule.
City plan considerations include considerations of the effect
of the redesignation on both residential and commercial land
allocations. Second set of reasons is that this is the same
. big box oriented mall the Council remanded to the Planning
Commission for redesign. There's been very little that's
changed. Thi's is not neighborhood oriented. By its size and
location, it is intended for the region rather than the
surrounding or nearby residential neighborhoods. It's out of
scale. as our testimony shows which is consistent with that
of the applicant.. A 30.000 square foot store is .justified.
not a 40. It violates the Transportation Planning Rule by
its building orientation, accesses and hostility to
pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit. It's incomplete
for all those reasons that Mr. Winterowd gave you, and I've
listed. And the details are left by way of conditions for
some future time when the public does not have the
opportunity to participate. And the third basic reason is
that the basic land use issues which the Council included in
the Community Commercial designation have not been adevuately
addressed. There isn't a fit with the City's commercial land
allocations. Because of the flipping and the change of
designation and the increase in the Community Commercial
size. Because of the effect on the surrounding residential
uses, that are unresolved by the design issue, access as
well. And by the effect on potential residential uses.
particularly the PD area. -Which is designated next to the
site by the designations of the redesignated park. For all
those reasons we ask you to deny this application and we
think we've given you the reasons. particularly in the. the
last handout. Ms. Garcia will also take amoment and we'll
be finished. Questions?
LUBA NG M-011
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 52 Exhlbit No.-
Page No. --!-1--
Mayor Schwartz: Questions?
Mr. Sullivan: Thank you. Pam Garcia.
Ms. Garcia: My name's Pam Garcia. Address is 14555 SW Teal Boulevard.
I'm an officer of Marcotte Holdings who is the owner of the
Murray Hill store. And I would like to simply address one
issue and that is the area of the.size and scope of this
development and give some facts to support that statement-.
That this... or the statement that this, this the size
and scale of this development is beyond the scope of the one
and a half miles radius that it is intended to reach. From
your Code. from the Code that's just been reviewed in detail.
it states that the development should generally access within
a one and a half mile radius of the development. Just a
couple of facts. Hand this to This.. since it is our
understanding that all of the evidence that's been submitted
up to date is in the record, this is not new evidence. I'm
just bringing you that to bring to your attention tonight.
This is a good illustration that shows that in fact the
development that's proposed which is the big large black dot
to the right side of the map, it is in fact extending well
beyond one and half miles. The red line. the red line
indicates a, a... the draw from a 20.000 square foot store,
the green line from a 35.000 square foot store and the black
line from a 50,000 square foot store. So obviously with
40,000 it would be just beyond the green line. And a few
facts to supporting fact, is that in testimony by
Albertson's, they stated that there were approximately 19.000
people in the one, in the one and a half mile radius
surrounding the development. Our marketing study would
concur with that. They also stated that they needed about
8400 people to support a supermarket of this size. And our
marketing study would concur with that. However, they came
to a quick conclusion then that that would be plenty of
people, 19,000 - to allow them to sustain and to. to get the
8400 people that they needed in order to sustain their
supermarket. However, they're making an assumption there
that they are going to, they're going to be able to achieve
close to 507 market share. I respect the Albertson's
organization but there are two other major supermarkets in
the area, and the marketing study which we have submitted
into the record. I don't know if you've had a chance to
review by Hamilton Resources... goes into quite some detail
in expounding upon what size of store would actually only
reach within a one and a half.mile radius. And if you. if you
work through these numbers, they come to the conclusion that
the market share of each of the three stores in the area will
be approximately 31%. If that's the case. then they will
only.have about 6300 customers, if they are. if they're
reaching the 3 1% of the one and a half mile radius. Where
are the additional 2000 customers going to come from? Well,
that is beyond the one and a half mile radius.. They will not
LUBA NO.-~~
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 53 Exhibit No.'0
Page No.
achieve over... close to 50% of market share of the 19.000
customers in the one and a half mile radius. They know that.
And they know that they are going to have to reach well
beyond. They're simply trying to use a little bit of mirrors
in making the assumption that you will buy the fact that they
can get 8400, 8400 of the 19,000 people in the district.
The last thing.I'd like to say is that over the eight years
that we've been involved in the area, there has been plenty
of competition that's come to the area. Cub. Costco. Food
Connection. And you haven't seen our family up here. The
only reason that we're expending significant time and money
in following this application is that we believe through the
advice of our advisors, and we believe this confidently. that
the application is fatally flawed. And that there are plenty
of reasons as Greg has given you to deny this application.
Sure, we're all tired and it would be a lot easier to just
let it go, and say, sure, planning staff has done a thorough
job and I know they spent time, but with due respect, I
believe that our counselors have spent many, many, many more
hours. You just went thorough a long analysis of all of the
fact& and all of the reasons why we are asking you to deny
this application. And we believe it's justified. Not just
simply to stifle some competition but because they need to
play by the rules. And I believe that we've illustrated that
while they have gone through a nice design:review with the
neighbors, and they have been talking with the neighbors and
met some of the desires of the neighborhood, the fact is that
they're not meeting the laws that you're here to uphold. And
we ask you to do that and to deny this application.
Mr. Sullivan: Okay. Are there any questions before we sit down. Thank you.
Coun. Hawley: Yes, I do have one question. And I hope it's not obvious and
I'm just missing something. But why wasn't this information
submitted earlier? You just gave us this much information.
Why didn't we have it earlier?
Mr. Winterowd: Than tonight?
Coun. Hawley: Than this evening.
Mr. Winterowd: Well, first of all what you have is a summary that were all
presented to the Planning Commission. Frankly, the Planning
Commission looked me in the eye and said that's just a matter
of interpretation. I didn't want this Council to do the same
thing. So I simply copied what was in your Code and
annotated it with the types of phrases that were giving to
the Planning Commission. The information that Pam presented
was given to you...
Coun. Hawley: I know I've had this before.
LUBA NO. S"I1
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 -.PAGE 54 Exhlbit No.
Page No. ~1
Mr. Winterowd: Right, and also we did not have the benefit of responding to
the draft approval-from the staff. And we didn't, we had to
have time to respond to the staff report before we gave our
final word on this tonight, and, and, it took, well, you have
before you, some time to put together. But it was done in an
effort to summarize and.make clear our arguments, not to
befuddle you with a lot of new information. It's a valid
question. But all of the stuff is in earlier documents that
were presented to the Planning Commission, so they were in
the record. We're not presenting new things.
Mayor Schwartz: Other questions? Okay. Bill Gross.
Mr. Gross: Bill Gross. I reside at 11035 SW 135th in Tigard. I don't
know whether I'm for or against this proposal, but I do know
I have the right to know whether this amendment. one of Lhe
many actions in this complex multi-action proposal, the plan
map amendment to Community Commercial is anticipated to
create traffic congestion or traffic safety problems. based
on the traffic generating characteristics of the most
intensive uses allowed in the C-C zone. This is a locational
criteria that's, that is found in the Comprehensive Plan
policy 12.2.1. And dealing with locational criteria and
dealing with access. It's incumbent upon the applicant to
provide this analysis, and it hasn't been forthcoming for the
last year and a half. And, and I don't know how .the Council
can go forward without that analysis being done. The traffic
analysis that's been done to date has simply been done on
Albertson's proposal which shows grocery store and at one
time showed a gas station, and a Shari's. Now perhaps
that is going to be no longer a gas station but perhaps it's
going to be now a fast food with a drive through window. But
the problem is that it's a... the traffic analysis is
based on a site development proposal today which can change
next month. It can change next year. The majority of the
hearings on the proposal have dealt with the site development
review and not with the plan map amendment. And before you
can make any decision on the site development plan and the.
the proposal as a whole, the locational criteria for the
underlying plan map amendment has to be considered. The
staff had never waived this requirement. and have never
in.memoranda to the Planning Commission or the Council in
staff report explained why this locational criteria ought to
be waived. And, and until that, that traffic analysis based
on the most intensive uses allowed in C-C zone is, is done.
it really isn't possible to.go forward and:.make any findings
or any decision on all of the applications that are
consolidated into this one proposal. If. if.it's possible.for
the City Engineer or the applicants-' professional traffic
engineer to explain how the traffic analysis..has-been done -to
date can satisfy the locational criteria for the plan map
:amendment, then it is possible for the Council to..go forward
and make a decision. So until that time, I oppose the
WBA NO. 9"11
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 -PAGE 551
j(
Page No. loll
application. And it has to do, it doesn't have anything to
do-with Albertson's. doesn't h ave anything to do with site
development. It has to do with traffic congestion and safety
on the traffic system in our neighborhood. And that's all I
have to say. And... however I do invoke my right to request
that the record remain open for at least seven, seven days.
Mayor Schwartz: Pardon? Repeat that, I couldn't understand .you.
Mr. Gross: I invoke my right to request that the record remain open for
at least seven days.
Mayor Schwartz: Any questions? Okay. That concludes the public testimony.
It's a quarter to twelve. And we're going to take a few
minute break before we get into some rebuttal which there
will probably be a.lot of that..
Council meeting recessed: 11:46 p.m.
Council meeting reconvened: 11:57 p.m.
Mr. Shonkwiler: (inaudible) hour and I'll try to be as fast as I can with
this. So if I"m a little brash in my comments, it's because
I'm speeding through. The first thing I'd like to point out
is Albertson's seems to assume a lot of things here and I
think you should question those assumptions. The first
assumption is that the only residential area that you need to
think about in this application is the Castle Hill
residential area in Northview. They talk about that from
pedestrian. pedestrian access. for vehicular access, all of
that. For instance, they. they question our addressing
crossing Scholls Ferry Road for pedestrians and crossing
Walnut and bicycles crossing Walnut. Why would we do that?
Well, that's on the other side of the streets are where the
multi-family densities are. Of course we're going to address
that because that's where the pedestrian traffic comes from.
But they would chose to ignore all of these things because
they pick and.chose the areas that they want to talk about
and try to think that the whole application is in error by
ignoring the fact that we have addressed the real areas of
concern. The same thing goes for the idea that when they're
talking about how this design works and what people will be
coming to and doing. They assume that the grocery store is
the absolute, the only use that's on the site. Of course.
people are coming-to the site for the other uses as well. So
not everybody is crossing from the fartherest corner of the
property to the corner that are coming to the site. They are
coming for other uses as well and they will be coming to
other locations as well. So that again is an assumption that
they're miscoloring here. And also. they're... Greg
Winterowd's assumption in all of his comments, it was really
clear there. He assumes there's only'.one sidewalk on-the
whole site and that's the one that goes through the middle of
WBA NO. 95-011
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 56 EXhlbit NO.
Page No.
the parking lot. He ignores virtually all the other ways to
get to all the other buildings and assume that everybody's
going through there and he says just because this goes
between, rows of parking in the middle of a parking lot.
therefore it's not pedestrian friendly. And that bicycles
shouldn't go there and therefore the entire site isn't
friendly to bicycles. Again that's a complete misassumption
with what the design actually does. Because-he wants to pick
to certain spot and say that that means the whole thing's
wrong. And he.misconstrues what that use is for. Also you've
heard them raise numerous times tonight various other issues.
things that are not in the application. Things like 24 hour
service. There isn't 24 hour service. They keep trying; to
raise it up as if it's an issue. It isn't an issue. A
drive-through window. Our drive-through accesses for like
banks and restaurants. That's not in the application. We'd
have to come back for a conditional use to have drive-
throughs. It has nothing to do with transportation. It has
nothing to do with traffic.. It has nothing to do with
pedestrian access. It's a bogus issue. Also fast food
restaurants. We stated that what we're seeking is a sit down
upscale restaurant. Nobody has ever proposed a fast food
restaurant or drive through window for a fast food
restaurant, so again these are things are not in the
application. Again, numerous times during their testimony.
they talked about low income housing. Nobody's... that's not
part of the application. Again it's this continuous bogus
issue. And I=think we see where this item of low income
housing rumor comes from. It doesn't come from the
neighbors. It doesn't come from the applicant. It doesn't
come from the land owner. It comes solely from Thriftway.
And that goes back to that blackmail issue that we talked
about at the end of my presentation. That you'd be hearing
that from them because at the Planning Commission. that was
the main thrust of their presentation before the Planning
Commission. They're sticking to that strategy, even though
everybody else has told you that's been participating in this
process, it's bogus. It didn't exist. IT's strictly a
smokescreen Thriftway has raised here.
Now on to these other issues - was trying to be quick here.
The Transportation Rule. It's been first off. the
Transportation Rule doesn't come into being imposed until
1995. And our application was reviewed and all this is long
before that. But, i.n addition. we've submitted back in
January 14 of 1994, almost a year ago, a revised
transportation plan and we had.an update -just recently within
the last couple of months. All of which address factors that.
.showed that the Transportation Rule..would be satisfied
anyway. And we meet that criteria. There were other
transportation questions that were raised. One was thev
submitted a letter from Washington-County. As if this is
great new news. I don't have the exhibit number here, but
WBA NO. 9"11
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE !EXhH)K NO-::V,'
Page No. a t
that was already in the record a long time ago, almost a year
ago. And we addressed that in the revised transportation
study and our comments at that time as well as the update.
And basically it boils down to this. Washington County had
first thought that there would be a problem with that
entrance and basically there isn't because we're only going
to have a right in and right out. It won't create a queuing
problem with a right in and a right out, and the plan shows
that its only a right in and a right out. So that again is
one of these smokescreens, related out of. out of context.
And the there's another transportation issue. Oh. the
party who owns the property across the street, and wants to
do an alignment with our entrance and wants our entrance
moved over a little bit to the south. I did talk to him.
We've looked at it and we don't see any problem with that.
and we told the city staff with that. In fact. a condition
of approval proposed by the Planning Commission was that if,
there is to be an access for the (inaudible), the parcel of
us, to Scholls Ferry Road in the future, that they wanted as
a condition of approval that we would provide a unified
access. And that would work even better that way. By moving
it over a little closer to the boundary, it makes the unified
access better. So we don't have any problem with that.
Another issue here. I hate to get into this because to me,
to me, it's mostly irrelevant. But anyway, Thriftway came in
and said Gosh, we want to redesign this whole thing and we
want to throw-all the development to the corner of Scholls
Ferry Road and Walnut. Now this is really interesting
because a year ago they said Gosh, we've Albertson's has
oriented this whole project the wrong way and we think it
should be oriented to Northview Drive. So from a year ago
till now, suddenly they leap 180 degrees and they're pushing
it somewhere else on the property. They... in other words.
completely conflicting planning approaches here. But the
point about it is they want to concentrate it there on the
corner and, and they're, they're all worried about the
impacts on neighboring multi-family for what we're proposing
but they, in their plan, if you look carefully, stick the
multi-family right immediately next to the commercial with no
buffering, no anything. All the impacts would be immediately
direct. It isn't even beginning to be a thought out plan. But
when you look at that plan carefully, you suddenly realize
what they're really after is reducing the size of the grocery
store to a point that no one would make one at that size. And
that goes back to Pam Garcia's map that she submitted. If
you look at that carefully, you will look at the one and a
half mile radius and you'll see that the only thing under her
map that she would allow from a market standpoint would be a
20,000 square foot grocery store. That'd be the maximum
allowed. I would point out a couple things. One, is you
-have tons of evidence from Albertson's into the record that
shows that market analysis establishes that a .one and a half
LUBA NW 954111
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 58 EXh1bft N0.1
Page No. 1 ~'I
mile radius market area would support a 40,000 square foot
grocery store, even a much larger one. That the density is
the issue actually, not the distance but the amount of people
in the area and that we're almost double what 40,000 grocerv
store would support. But also, the city adopted the C-C
zoning, and did an analysis and a finding as part of it...
and Thriftway was there and presented all their evidence and
you determined in there that a one and a half mile trade area
would support a 40,000 square foot grocery store. You made a
legislative determination of that and what's interesting is
Thriftway didn't appeal that. They could have, if they were
really serious in saying that a one and a.half mile radius
could only support a maximum of 20.000 square foot grocery
store, they could have appealed that to LUBA and challenged
it. With all the evidence they already had in the record.
but they didn't' do that. I submit to you that that issue 's
gone. They waived it.
Now, go on to the question of. mega stores. Mr. Sullivan
keeps referring to everything as a mega store. That's
greater than 40,000 square feet. I would point out a couple
of, in saying there's a whole bunch of horror stories related
to that. I'd point out that his client has a 43,000 square
foot grocery store so I assume that's a horror story mega
store and I assume that everything he says that's a problem
with traffic in the massive five mile area drawing for all
the clients, also applies to that store. If that's the case.
then why do they have a competition problem? If they have
that broad of a market area. So there's gross
inconsistencies with what they're saying for us, for what
applies to them. Also, they talk about the Washington County
neighborhood commercial, assuming that that's the same kind
of neighborhood commercial that the city had here. Those are
two entirely different zones. That goes back to the original
mistake here. The Washington County's neighborhood
commercial is equivalent almost to your community commercial.
It would have allowed a grocery store of up to-50,00 square
feet. an area of, of 10 acres for development site'. So it's
more similar to your Community Commercial. I. I think it's
confusing there. and Mr. Winterowd talks about. well, gee
you'll never find a 40.000 square foot grocery store
anywhere, except in a general commercial. Gosh, all of
Washington County's neighborhood commercial allows a 40,000
square foot grocery store. I don't know where he's been
looking but it's not in the same county that this city's in.
Oh another issue here is they're talking about the planning
concept. And I, I have to point this out to you. I think
that this site is perfectly suited. I think that when you
.adopted the C-C zoning and in your, and in that process you
identified-four potential sites that would be workable for C-
C, and that this was the prime site. And there.was only two
LUBA NO: 95-W 1
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 59 B MU* NO.=: - -
Page NO.12
_
that was in the city and this was one of them. And the why
this is the prime site, cause this is the one surrounded by
the most density and it's center located for all of that
surrounding density. That's a real key issue. It's a key
issue for locating the C-C zone. It's a key issue for it's
effect on transportation Rule application as Mr. Sullivan so
favorite subject to raise here,.because by centering it in
where the highest density is.in this area, you are
encouraging pedestrian access and the elimination of the
short and long term traffic trips to other grocery stores
-farther away or other shopping center farther away. So it
works real w ell, and I think that the plan that we've
proposed and it's location works for dealing with both
pedestrian access , and eliminating or lowering vehicle
trips.
They had so many issues that they raised. This is kind of a
shot gun, I think. I do think it's a waste of time talking
about each of them because the record is covered with tons of
evidence showing that we do satisfy all of the requirements
of the Code. But I would like to point some last things
here. Mr. Gross talked about the traffic study analysis.
Well it was, in fact, the traffic study analysis in January
14, 1994 is additional evidence submitted almost a year ago.
Was on a worst case scenario. Covered the most traffic
. impacts for the usage of the site. We've met it. We've meL
the requirements and they found what's important here is that
we're well within the traffic capacities for the network out
there. It's not close. We're talking level of service B and
C. And almost all cases, particularly near the site and as
well as offsite critical intersections. So again this is a
bogus issue that's being raised. I believe that's all of it.
The rest of it I don't' think is really worthy of comment.
Unless you have some further questions.
Mayor Schwartz: Questions from Council?
Coun. Hawley: Are there one of the testifiers, or one of the opponents
questioned your veracity in terms of 80% of the neighborhood
being in favor. Could you answer how you came....?
Mr. Shonkwiler: Expound on that. Right. What I read into the record was a
letter that, that was also referred to by several of the
neighborhood members at the Planning Commission hearing. SO
it's not just me saying that. You'll notice that from here
comments she did admit LhaL a survey did go out and that
responses did come back. And. and in my comments, Chat's
what I was talking about. I talked about that it was a
survey and 81% came-out in-favor. And I think that of 81% in
favor and 6 noncommitted, that would leave 13% opposed. I
think you heard from-two of, two people .that are compri... or
• consist of that 13% total.
LUBA NO 95-071
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 60' NO.
Page No. ►a 9
Coun. Rohlf: Try to clarify how many responses came back. I think she
said 35.
Mr. Shonkwiler: Tell you the truth, I don't remember but it is in the record
because Oh, that's the survey. I. I suppose we could
submit in the record since the opponents have submitted
Coun. Hawley: Thank you.
Mr. Shonkwiler: a lot of information in the record. So I will submit the
response on the survey. I can't remember if it was Caitlin
White in the.Planning Commission hearing or someone else but
somebody did talk about the responses and the number of
responses and I just don't have it off the top of my head but
it is in the record.
Coun. Hawley: I guess my next question has to do with a difficult question.
It's.like the chicken and the egg. Do you have a commitment
from the video store for that end of the building?
Mr. Shonkwiler: We have people that are interested in doing it.
Coun. Hawley: Pending the...
Mr. Shonkwiler: But we have not been able to get anybody to pre-commit...
Coun. Hawley: Pending the Code... pending the. the application, I
understand.
Mr. Shonkwiler: And that goes back to what I was talking about the chicken
and the egg. Part of that question of why the egg is here.
instead of the chicken. is partially because of Thriftwav out
there creating this.onus that there's never going to be a
quick decision on this thing and it has been that way for the
last three years.
Coun. Hawley: Uh-Uh.
Mr. Shonkwiler: And then they come back and say, oh gosh, they haven't got a
commitment.
Coun. Hawley: Um-Uh.
Mr. Shonkwiler: You know, self created by them...
Coun. Hawley: Okay. Is, is there a way in your opinion to preclude certain
.uses, even though they are allowed by the Code on this
particular plan? I mean, is there some kind of an assurance,
written assurance or something like that you could include
that says there won't be a gas station there? Or that
you know, I'm just wondering how to answer the concerns about
promises made and not kept later regarding.the proposed plan
and your .intentions at this point.
WBA NO.95-011
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 61 EXhlbit No.
Page No. ).30
Mr. Shonkwiler: I would, first off on that issue of promises made. I would
submit to you that you heard from the people in the
neighborhood. And they said that every promise we've made,
we've kept. And the only people that are raising that issue
are the people who are really afraid of us only from a
competition point of view and that 's Thriftway. Anybod.v
else that has an interest in any of the promises or any of
the commitments, all those people know that we're honest and
we..meet our commitments and we have been meeting our
commitments and we will meet.our commitments. So I think
that answers the question initially. As to limiting the use.
One, if the City as a condition of approval wants to make a
decision as part of this decision saying that this shopping
center will not allow a gas station in the future. I think
you have. the authority to do that under the statute, or under
the Code. I would also submit that for us to even submit a
change in the future, of a change of use like that, we'd have
to come back before you anyway. The Code is written. it
won't be just before the Planning Commission or just before a
hearings officer. The whole thing has to come back before
the City Council and you'd still get to be able to decide It.
So I don't' think there's a fear that the City could have.
Coun. Hawley: Regarding a couple of design issues. I recognize that
it's... with the plan, the layout the way it is, it's silly
to, to ask you put windows on either side, the backside of
the building or the side of the building where it's 28 feet
deep, where there's landscaping there. I. I would be... I
don't' know...
Mr. Shonkwiler: I felt that I wanted to comment about that.
Coun. Hawley: Please do.
Mr. Shonkwiler: Skipping through so fast. I find it really interesting that
Mr. Winterowd would say that we should have windows on the
backside of the buildings and on the side of the grocery
store. That's the only one he was really worried about was
the grocery store. We do have windows across the front. And
that's where the people are. And the question becomes why
would we have windows on the back and on the side where we
have a steep slope going up that absolutely nobody can see in
and nobody can see anything out? And when he said abuttiri--
neighbors, such as a multi-family in..the back, the truth is
we-'re not abutting it on a level. We're a butting it
underneath it.
Coun. Hunt: Do you have windows other than the doors?
Mr.. Shonkwiler: Yes. There'll be some.windows along .in that facade area.
Coun. Rohlf: I was going to say from your plan, then it looks like
there...
LUBA NO. 9"11
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 62 Ekftjt No.
Page No. '
Mr. Shonkwiler: Yeah, there is some in the facade area. As you do with
almost all the grocery stores. And, of course, the other
buildings are more prone to have more windows than a grocery
store does. It's the way these are traditionally made. And
I, I submit to you, if you go look at Thriftway, my gosh, up
there on Murray Hill, they don't' have windows in the back
and they don't have windows in the side. Again, this
hypocrisy coming through.
Coun. Hawley: Well, they're probably not in C-C zoning either. I mean, to
their credit. You know, you can't... that's anyway... I 'm
just wondering if this
Mr. Shonkwiler: We have...
Coun. Hawley: I don't know if this question goes to staff or to you so I
guess .maybe I'll just say it right now.
(tape turned)
Coun. Hawley: building plan to go back and say there are windows on the
front of it. It's hard for me to see where the windows are.
Mr. Shonkwiler: Yeah. This. that's one's... we have other boards that have
been submitting evidence in the past in the trial
proceedings. And we had, there are profiles of the. that
building on all four sides that were already submitted in the
record. And you can see where...
Coun. Hawley: Where the windows are designated.
Mr. Shonkwiler: Yeah.
Coun. Hawley: You can see those, and..
Mr. Shonkwiler: And these two drawings, the one you pointed to and this one
up here, we brought in to give a depiction from a view of
what it looks like built out with the landscaping and all
that. Because the other drawings don't show the landscaping
and how it relates to the building and the excavation and how
it relates to the building.
Coun. Hawley: Okay.
Mr. Shonkwiler: Oh. and by the way, I'm offended by the comment that we're
.building something in a hole. I... we went to a lot of
trouble to make what people wanted for a planning design for
this and I think that that's a verbal characterization that
they just want to use.
Coun. Hawley: Understood. -I have one more question and it's probably just
because I'm not familiar with the sidewalk between the
parking spaces. Is five feet:physically.enough--room, when
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13. 1994 - PAGE 6:LU13A No. 95.011
Exhibit No.
Page No.
. the cars pull all the way and they
Mr. Shonkwiler: The Planning Commission..
Coun. Hawley: I mean is there room to walk between the car fronts?
Mr. Shonkwiler: The Planning Commission addressed that. And as part of their
conditions of approval, are... that has to be wide enough
that we still exceed five feet when the car bumpers come up.
Coun. Hawley: Oh, okay.
Mr. Shonkwiler: That was part of it that it'd be widened to meet that. And
we said, that's, that's appropriate thing to do.
Coun. Hawley: Okay.
Mr. Shonkwiler: And that's also raised and separated so it won't be bumping
up on it.
Coun. Hawley: And just a point of information. Are you bricking; that or
something? To change color?
Mr. Shonkwiler: It's going to be different with a different.. As the code
requires, it'll be done with a different material, as will
all of the pathways going through the parking lot, and
they'll also be separately marked.
Coun. Hawley: Oh, okay.
Coun. Rohlf: Are the sidewalks elevated or just marked?
Mr. Shonkwiler: That one going through the parking lot there will be. The
other ones going through the parking lot are ones cars are
going over, so those won't be elevated. But this one in
between the rows will be elevated, and that's an added safety
feature.
Coun. Hunt: Are those also going to be bicycle paths too? Or do you
have..?
Mr. Shonkwiler: Well,
Coun. Hunt: I just want to know what you have in the way of bicycles.
Mr. Shonkwiler: Okay. As I pointed out, Mr. Winterowd would have you believe
there's only one pathway.
Coun. Hunt: No. I had that before you ever spoke.
Mr. Shonkwiler: But if you're talking about riding a bicycle from a multi-
family over here in the residential district, you're going to
be entering at this corner. And if you want_to go to the
PUBLIC 'HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER.13, 1994 - PAGE 64 LUBA NO. 95-0
Exhibit No.
Page No. _L
grocery store, why would you go all the way over here, swing
like this, swing like this and go through. when the easiest
way is to go straight up this sidewalk and down the ramp
right over here. He completely ignored that. Same thing
goes for these people over here. They come right through
here for the bicycles. It goes this way, and straight across
the parking lot, (inaudible) He completely ignores that.
Coun. Hunt: Buto:you-are the sidewalks are the bicycle paths too
then.
Mr. Shonkwiler: The sidewalks... some. of the interior. We have multiple
interior walkways. As you can see here, and many of those
then can cross the, the parking lot area and all of those
work real well from the stand point of safety. And also the
interiors would work as well, I would submit to you.
Mayor Schwartz: Excuse me, Council. Let me get us back on track. Are you
complete with your rebuttal?
Mr. Shonkwiler: I guess.
Mayor Schwartz: Okay. Now we'll go on to staff recommendations and then
we'll go to Council questions. Then we'll (inaudible)
Coun.- Hawley: Will we be able to (inaudible)
Mayor Schwartz: Sure. You get to-Council questions. you can ask anybody
anything. Staff recommendation.
Mr. Bewersdorff: You hear a lot about people coming to your house and the
Code. Our recommendation is they met the requirements. YOU
have the enviable task of interpreting what you think was in
the C-C zone and how this proposal meets it. Our
recommendation's for approval.
Mayor Schwartz: Okay, now. Council.questions.
Coun. Hawley: I have one more question. At least one more. How can we
determine the effectiveness of the landscaping? It's been
alluded to the fact that it will help to reduce the noise?
Is there a standard for evaluation of that ?
Mr. Roberts: Again, the site design itself... excavation of the fill...
is, provides in our opinion, the major noise mitigation. And
with the landscaping, the walls, the structures themselves
and their orientation to adjoining residential areas in some
cases, provide further mitigation. The applicant discussed
the.trees themselves are being design to provide light glare
mitigation.
Coun. Hawley: My, my concern was that.somebody said-that the landscaping
was -either .there--or-=there: and would not be effective :reducing
LUBA NO: 95-011
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER'13. 1994 - PAGE 65 EXh1bit NO. - -
Page No. _1 F
noise. So I just wondered if anybody else picked up on that
. So never mind. I'm wondering, I guess maybe for the
record, I'd like a response on the question "Does hours of
operation include generators and trucks?"
Mr. Bewersdorff: It has not thus far been interpreted that way. You certainly
can put conditions that would..say so.
Coun. Hawley: And then I guess another concern that I just want addressed
is. without a certain design, we have a picture of the store
itself with the brick and stuff along the outside. We have
no drawings of the other pads for obvious reasons because
they don't have commitments from anybody. Does the Code
protect us. in staff's opinion, and, and will it be able to
carry out the concept that there will be sort of in kind
in terms of design standards? I know they have to meet the
code standards but will we end up with three dis... different
buildings?
Mr. Bewersdorff: The applicant has presented the other uses on the other pads
will be designed in a similar manner to the building, the
major building, which is the Albertson store. We'll have to
review at the time when those applications come through.
Coun. Hawley: And that's something that would automatically be checked
because it's part of this application? Is it like almost a
condition of the approval or something?
Mr. Bewersdorff: Yes. If there's any changes, some of those changes have to go
back through the zone change process which would be reviewed
by the Planning Commission.
Coun. Hawley: Which is what Mr. Shonkwiler was referring to before.
Mr. Bewersdorff: Yes.
Coun. Hawley: Okay. I'm done for now.
Coun. Rohlf: I have a question. It's been hinted at that our city staff
didn't have enough time or possibly the expertise to properly
review the documents and make proper findings in this case.
In your opinion, has everything been reviewed from both sides
and given the proper respect due to the.documentation?
Mr. Bewersdorff: We think so.
Coun. Rohlf: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Bewersdorff: That doesn't mean that it wouldn't, it would always withhold,
you know, a challenge based on.legal challenge. But given an
interpretation, and that's basically up the Council to
.interpret what it wanted and what it desired out:of the
Community Commercial, we think that this has been a
LUBA NO.-95-011
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 66 Exhibit No.
Page No. 1.,
• reasonable attempt at meeting those requirements.
Coun. Rohlf: And it's essentially our act of adopting that gives flesh to
the bones of this skeleton.
Mayor Schwartz: Any other questions?
Coun. Hunt: I have a couple. I'm still not satisfied with the answer I
got on the bicycle if only for this reason. One of the main
emphasis now is to get 'em off the, out of the cars and on
the bicycles and they... walking. Do you feel comfortable
that the, that there is enough provision made to take care of
bicycle-traffic in this?
Mr. Roberts: Note in the conditions of approval that were stip... you }lave
deleted some sidewalk connections from Walnut because of
conflicts but we're s till asking for sidewalk connections
from each of the driveways, from Scholls Ferry. Those
connections, connections from a sidewalk proposed around the
three sides. of the proposal, the wrap proposal of... they
would feel that they have provided a sufficient number of
bicycle/pedestrian connections. Within the staff report
again, we're asking for a driveway
(tape blank)
Ms. Beery: now you maybe not legal precedential value but certainly
the staff would be guided by what you've done in this case.
I'm sure. And their pre-application conferences with
developers and until we get achange from you, I think we'll
probably act on that basis.
Mayor Schwartz: Any other questions? We'll close the public hearing.
Considerations.
Coun. Rohlf: Mayor, could I point of order.
Mayor Schwartz: Yes.
Coun. Rohlf: Can councilors who've been through this whole process speak
first so that we can get the benefit of their input?
Mayor Schwartz: Sure, we certainly can. Want me to go first? I'm the
oldest.
Coun. Hawley: I'll defer to you.
Mayor Schwartz: Well, I think,:.you know, from my perspective. I need to go
back and take a look at when we developed this zone. And
there's been a lot of argument tonight about a 40,000 square
foot building is too.big. Too big of a grocery store for
that area. When we went through that.-process, I always
considered the Battle of the Stores. And, you-know. it got,
LUBA NO.95-011
"PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 67 EXh1b1t NO.--IV--
Page No. 13
I think it was probably... I was irritated, not only with
Thriftway. I was irritated with Albertson's. I was irritated
with the whole process and Safeway and anybody else that was
involved at that time. But if I recall correctly, and I
can't remember the exact square footage. but it seems to me
that'Thriftway liked to build around 30.000 square foot. 30
to 40.000 square foot stores. Albertson's likes 50 or
60,000, 50 to.60,000. Safeway was in there and I can't
remember what all the ones that we've looked at. But we
thought, well we want to build, we want this zone.. this
Community Commercial zone, but we don't want to exclude... we
didn't' want to exclude any store from being able to compete
or would prohibit any type of a, you know, from any store
from being able to build and get into a Community Commercial.
So we sort of split the difference and that's where 40.000
square feet came from. It w as a good happy medium. And
that's where we got, that's where we got it. When I go back
and I look at this, and I can't remember how many years ago
that this first came through, it came through and it came
before Council,and it was at that time NPO - whatever the NPO
was in that area - Kellrory... I believe was the one because
he was, 'I think he was the chairman at that time and
testified before Council that the NPO recommended approval.
And that was a lot of the same arguments that we've got here
tonight between the two grocery chains. I don't recall
exactly what happened that that was given back. NO. I take
that back. I think that drug on through the process on that.
That when it came to Council, the NPO recommended approval
but there, by that time, the development had started in there
and we were flooded with a whole bunch of residents, brand
new residents, you know, that said that they, you know. they
didn't have any input, that their real estate people didn't
tell 'em there was going to be commercial development coming
in and etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. And it was at that
point that we thought, well, let's take it back, send it back
to the Planning Commission. Let's go through the process
again so even those new residents, even have been dragging on
f r abouta year, had an opportunity. And this goes back. So
I think we've come full circle on it. We're back here again.
Albertson's has met one of the reasons why it was sent
back also because of the concerns of the neighborhood. And I
think Albert's was told at-that time. that you need to go
back and work with the neighbors because they. it's a
community neighbor. it's a community neighborhood, you know.
store, and you gotta, and this, and the citizens that live
near there, you have to be satisfied with what they're having
cause it is for them. So we've gone back through the process
again and we're back.here. From my own perspective, I think
that has been met. I think there's been some changes.
Obviously I know the big opposition at that time was the gas
stations . I think it was in opposition. The entrance on to
• the side street which.has.been.eliminated. And so I think
that it's been worked with the. neighborhood. Obviously by
LUBA NM 95-011
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13. 1994 - PAGE 68 Ed11bft No.
Page. No.
the testimony tonight there is a, a lot of support- from the
neighborhood. Which to me is just a complete turn around
from what it was last- time it was in here. And I can't see
delaying this decision any longer. As being involved in the
development in that Code, it meets. from uxy perspective, it
meets what was, what we developed as Community Commercial. I
think, I think everybody probably has their own perspective
of what their little neighborhood store should look like.
That from Heidi's on up to whatever. You. know. I think it so
it's what, you know, what your own personal likes are and
needs are. But as far as I'm concerned it falls within the
development and guidelines that we had decided on when we had
put together the Community Commercial code. At sometimes I
wonder why we ever did that for all the headaches it's caused
over the last couple years. Even had a Community Commercial
code designation. But from my perspective, it meets it. I
think, the Albertson's has done what, you know, what they
were-told to do. That they had to sell the community on
their proposal and obviously it's been taken care of. As far
as it meeting the Code, I, I feel it meets. meets the intent
of the Code.
.Paul, I guess you're the next one up.
Coun. Hunt: I was when I was elected two years ago. I came d own to
observe the meetings to try to getup to. speed a little bit.
That was just the time they were . their last meeting of
the year. They held a meeting they weren't going to have.
They held one in December just so that they could vote on
this particular Code, on the thing. And as John says, the
biggest contention on there was the size of the building. And
I've already asked Bill if we can bring that up again about
March or April and talk about it again. and bring it up.
Coun. Hawley: For old times' sake?
Coun. Hunt: Because, no. I personally feel that this is not a community
store. Personally, as John says, you all have our own
opinion of what a community store is. I don't think 40.000
square feet is a community store. This isn't a whole lot
different, what it is 4 or 500 feet less than the store, the
.one down on Durham and 99 and that certainly isn't a
community store. My personal thinking it isn't.
(inaudible)
Coun. Hunt: Okay. When I went out to look at the site yesterday. I was
against the proposal, because looking at the. the ground. And
not knowing they were going to excavate that much-dirt.
There were so many things on this plan that, as far as I was
concerned didn't meet the code on it. And there are, there
are a lot of things in the Code that they say you should do
but it doesn't say you have to do.. In other words, it says
LUBA NO. W-011
PUBLIC HEARING 'TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 69 EXh1blt No. .
Page No., JA 72
.
• you should not have the but I have before.. the opponents
brought up these things. I have copies of the Code that I
already made and some of the things they're bringing up now.
Because I was objecting to them also before I realized
exactly what they were doing. One of those is that your
loading.platform should not be facing the, the residential
area... But with this one set down the way it is. I can't see
.where a loading platform is going .to bother anybody there.
They are going to be buffered off. I still have a little bit
of concern on the windows because it does say that... It. it
says in there that you are not this should not be a strip
mall type of building. I consider the other one out there a
strip type and this really in my opinion, isn't a bit
.different. They've got the little pads out t here, they've
got the store curves around, bolding of the store on one side
that curves around. I can't see a bit of difference in the
design very truthfully and the one there as far as it being a
strip mall. The only difference I can see is they did do a
little bit of dressing up the front of it so it isn't exacLly
square on the front, the roof look... excuse me, the roof
line is a little bit different. So, I haven't mixed
reaction on the thing. I, I think that they.. the thing that
impressed me as much as anything else was John said earlier,
was the fact that of the people that were here, there were
nine people that were in favor o f the store and two against
it. And I haven't seen a.project before.when there was
opposition to it that that was overwhelmingly that many of
the immediate-:neighborhood in that was backing it. So I
think Albertson's have done a. good job of trying to to
get what the neighborhood wants. I, I feel that they're
abiding by the letter of the law. I'm not sure they are the
spirit of it, in some cases, becauseI still think that it
a lot of them are questionable whether it is a community
store or whether it is not. But I can support it the way it
is now.
Coun. Hawley: Well. I started with this Community Commercial back when I
was on NPO 5. Many years ago. And the, the rumblings came
down from Council and Planning Commission that they wanted
some input on a new zoning. And we looked at Community
Commercial and recognized that there possibly was a need for
this, this intermediate commercial zoning . And then I was
appointed to Planning Commission where we did actually. did
some_wordsmithing and some actual design standard creation
with, of course the help of, the help of staff and lots of
discussion about what we would envision for there, for a
Community Commercial concept. And we recognized that it
wasn't supposed to orient to the neighborhood like a
neighborhood store would do. That this wasn't quite supposed
to draw as many people to it as a large Payless/Albertson's
combination or, or Thriftway/something else combination would
do, and, and... I have to agree with Councilor Schwartz and
Councilor Hunt with... there was a great deal.of
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 .PAGE 70 LUBA N0.95-01
ExhibR No.
Page No.
consternation about the argument between the store size. And
frankly.I think it was nearly scrapped a couple of times
because we were stuck on that point. And as soon as the
suggestion was made to scrap the concept, then we found a way
to get off the point. You know what I mean? And I, and I...
so there was an impetus there that was able to push us over
the hump, and I believe. still very strongly that the
.Community Commercial does have a place in our Code and that
it does serve a purpose. And, and I recognize now that with
perhaps the original vision for Community Commercial was for
it to be oriented more towards a community in particular.
that the standards that we set up in that Code, a 40.000
square foot store. all the standards have allowed us to
create this particular plan. I would like to see more
windows in this particular store. I. I like the fact that
there are columns in the front and I do believe that it looks
different than the one on 99. The sloped roof and I liked
those design features. That's my professionalism coming out.
I, I do feel however that, the-precedent of allowing the
only reluctance I have at approving this this evening at this
point is that it can be literally interpreted that it doesn't
meet some of the Code provisions, in terms of design. And
I'm, my only concern at this point is that I don't want to
limit myself later and say, well, just because I approved
this for Albertson's doesn't mean that I want to waive any
window requirements for the next people that come along.
That's my only reluctance at this point. I am prepared
however to approve the plan but I. I agree that there should
be a little bit more conditioning. And I don't know exactly
.how to do it. I would like to see something written that
says the, the other two pads won't be what can I say?
won't be a gas station or... I mean I understand that you'll
have to come through again if you change your idea. And I
understand all of that but I don't want to leave a
vulnerability for you to be able to do that with a change in
Council or with a change in whatever. I, I just would feel a
little more secure if we could condition it along those
lines. I don't know exactly how to do that.
At this point my concerns have been answered regarding
pedestrian access, but in the future I would like to reserve
the opportunity to be more strict with that. Because I
recognize that size store needs. automobile traffic to support
it, and frankly I know that not everybody on a winter's day
that lives within two blocks of that is going to go do their.
their weekly grocery shopping with a basket. They're going
to take their car so they don't get wet going home and all of
that. So there has to be parking spaces included and so I
can't. I can't really see that argument as discrediting the
whole project, that there's, that it's auto-oriented. It has
to be in our society today. So; while I do want to uphold an
increasing-amount of the vision that I held for Community
.Commercial, at this po int, I think it's a good start. I'm
LUBA NO.95-01
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 71 Exfifbft No.
Page No. / IVO
• especially pleased that.. I remember how.disappointed
Albertson's was when we remanded them back to the Planning
Commission. As a matter of fact, I knew it was right on the
edge of them not coming back because they were so frustrated
with the process. And I'm glad that they came back. I'm glad
that t here was a much work done with the neighborhood. Arid
frankly, I mas the brunt of a lot of anger from the
neighborhood because I expected them to come up.with logical
arguments and they were talking with emotions. And one lady
really took me to task in public about requiring that of her,
and it was my:first public encounter with an irate citizen on
television. And, and frankly this neighborhood is not the
same neighborhood.. I mean, I don't... what happened over
there? Where are those people that were so adamantly opposed
to this? I'm frankly astounded that that hasn't materialized
in some way. So, I believe that Albertson's did comply
with the intent of our request for them to come back to us
with a different kind of proposal and with a different kind
of attitude in.working with the community. I believe that
they have responded to the community. Nobody who testified
this evening said Albertson's did not respond to our requests
for buffering. Albertson's did not respond to our requests
for noise abatement. Albertson's did not respond to... I
mean they... it appears to me that there has been response to
the issues that we were concerned about when we remanded
this. So. just let me check here for a second. And I think
another thing that it's important to say is that I believe
that they have proven that the Comp Plan amendment criteria
have been met. I believe that there has been a change of
circumstance in that area. And the others. I don't know
whether there was a mistake made in the beginning but there,
but there certainly has been a strong, and obviously dramatic
change in circumstance regarding that area, just in bolding
alone. I don't know what else to say for you, Bob, but...
that's kind of my history there.
Mayor Schwartz: Okay. Bob.
Coun. Rohlf: Well, it seems like in this case at least the proof of the
pudding is in the eating and interpreting our Code.
Essentially is going to happen by our application of that
Code. Which, while I respect Mr. Winterowd's expertise, I
guess it, it really isn't applicable because there's no
precedent laid out for this. I do appreciate the fact that
we have neighborhood involvement and that this design has
evolved from a box store to something visually more
appealing. I wish the designers of this had designed Cub and
Costco.
Coun. Hawley: Yes. That'd be wonderful.
Coun. Rohlf: I.particularly.like the vegetation around this. It, it shows
that you can mix commercial and natural features and come up
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 72 LUBA NO. 95-011
Exhibit No..
Page No. _L1~
with a product that works for everybody. I also find it
particularly significant that it's a, it's a major competitor
of yours that's bringing the action to try to stop you.
It's, it's interesting that it's masked in the.guise of, of a
concern about the impacts of your store on, on a
neighborhood. But I just think it's, it'.s ugly competition.
I think it's real ironic that's a Beaverton store truing to
keep a Tigard store from getting a start. I guess I would
have expected Howard's to be here, and, frankly of the
competition, I'd be more concerned about Howard's because
nice small neighborhood store. But I don't see them here
complaining about this. And essentially if this is the
kind of development the community code brings up or the
Community Commercial brings up, then I'm going to be
supportive of it.
Mayor Schwartz: Councilor Scheckla.
Coun. Scheckla: My concern I have here on this is the overall picture on
here. We don't know.... if you option here, we got to be a
fortuneteller. And I'd think when they bring this in, they
should have had the whole plan there so we knew what it was.
That bothers me. I can't support it that way. I just can't.
Coun. Hawley: (.inaudible)
Mayor Schwartz: I guess I can respond to that. I can understand and... where
Albertson's says they can't... you know, when you get
something that's dragging on for three years, whether it be
.an Appleby's, a Shari's, or a Burger King... you know. I
couldn't see any business you know, locking themselves into
something that's gone through this much, you know, this much
of a problem. I think the thing that you've got to remember
here is they just can't throw anything in there. It's got to
come back. They gotta submit plans and go through a process
before they can, before they can put anything on those pads.
Coun. Scheckla: But in the same token, it's just likely a grocery market. If
you have competition, you can't deny anybody else whose
coming in. I 'd like.to know what it is before we allow it
to see if it'll work out. For all I know,...-they could... put
one of these places where they have the, the video thing up
here in the old restaurant was upon the hill. And then what
do you do about that?
Coun. Hawley: I'.m sure the Council would condition of (.inaudible)
Coun. Scheckla: Well. you know, we're not saying whatever hey, you never
.know what...
Mayor Schwartz: Ken, Ken. You could, you could, you could allow this right
now with... with an Appleby's restaurant on that pad. That
doesn't mean that six months later that they won't go out of
_ PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT ---DECEMBER 13, 1994 -PAGE 73 -LUBA NO. 95-011
Exhibit No.-~Vr_,.
Page No.
business and you would... who knows what.. apply to use that
space?
Coun. Scheckla: Well, whatever goes in here, how do we know how many parking
places they'll need for whatever business they have?
Mayor Schwartz: You've got the parking. The, the parking is there.
Coun. Hawley: That's the only parking that you're going to have.
Mayor Schwartz: That's the only parking that you're going to have.
Coun. Hunt: When they apply for it, they have to justify it at that time
they have enough parking or we can deny it if they don't
have.
Coun. Scheckla: Well, I'm just letting you know what my concerns are.
Coun. Hawley: Well, and I, I'll say I share that concern to a certain
extent and.I would still like to know i f there's a way to
condition it. I don't know, maybe it's a moot point.
Because they have to come through. but if somebody would just
tell me it's a moot point.
Mayor Schwartz: Let me, let me ask Council on that. There's a couple things
that was talked about was a conditioning of a... if the
driveway ever would need to go through.
Coun. Hawley: And easement conditions.
Mayor Schwartz: Some kind of an easement condition. was. was one concern. Can
we condition... Can't here be a condition of no I think a
gas station was a real concern.
(inaudible)
Coun. Hawley: Is fast food defined in our code?
(inaudible)
Coun. Hawley: Drive-through. Is drive-through we're concerned about?
Ms. Beery: There is a list of uses within the applicant's proposed final
order on page, beginning on page 6 that talks a bout their
request for approval tonight. "Being animal sales and
services, consumer repair services. convenience sales and
personal services, children's day care, eating and drinking
facilities, general retail sales, general offices and indoor
participant sports and recreation. So my opinion is if we
stick, anything off that list would have to come back for a
modification. If you're comfortable with that list.
Coun. Hunt: Well, that eating... was that eating establishment be
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 -PAGE 74 LUBA NO. 9 EXhibit No.
Rage No. I Y3
considered drive through?
Woman: Are drive-throughs a conditional use? They're not?
Coun. Rohlf: Their, their plan does not show a drive-through, so I
wouldn't.....that would be something different.
Coun. Hawley: That would have to be redrawn, and would have to go through
the process again for that... a drive-through.
Ms. Beery: That's my belief. Yes. Even if your Code doesn't
specifically say that.
(inaudible)
Coun. Hunt: And it would take a conditional use. So that satisfies me.
Coun. Rohlf: Is there conditioning?
Coun. Hunt: The way the thing, the application is...
Coun. Hawley: It's not laid out as a drive through now...
Mayor Schwartz: Is there any other concerns other than just a driveway then
that we brought up?
Coun. Rohlf: I would like to be sure that we have a public. hearing so that
the neighborhood could be involved if that decision has to be
made in the future.
Coun. Hawley: Public hearing on the question of whether the driveway should
be...
Coun. Rohlf: Right.
Mayor Schwartz: Right.
Coun. Hawley: Okay.
Coun. Hunt: I'm still getting back on the fact I want to make sure the
staff makes sure that this is a sidewalk in front of there
and not a, another loading zone. a display area.
Coun. Hawley: Shall we condition it?
Mayor Schwartz: Well-, I think I think you had mentioned that you could
make that as a condition, that you h ave to maintain a
minimum five foot or whatever it is... walkway.
-Ms. Beery: Uh-uh. Is that the Council's... well, you can make it as part
of the motion. I think what we're going to propose as staff
is that we be.ailowed to bring back the final decision. so
that'll give us time to work on the additional-findings and
LUBA NO.* 9"11
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 75 EXhIbIt No.
Page No.
. also to word the conditions so we don't have to do it
tonight. But as long as we have your intent, we can do that.
Mayor Schwartz: Okay, so we won't need a motion tonight. All we need is just
a consensus and a direction.
Ms. Beery: I would, I would assume you're going to make a motion tonighL
and indicate what the conditions are and then we'll come back
with the order that embodies your action at the next meeting.
Coun. Hunt: Have we found the best thing to do before.. of course you put
the wrong date on it but Bill wrote our motion for us a nd
then we read it.. That, that might be better if you did on
this one.
Mr. Monahan: Pam knows her dates better than I do.
Coun. Hunt: So we get the... all the bases covered correctly.
Ms. Beery: That's fine., Are there other conditions that you're
concerned about?
Coun. Rohlf: I don't think so.
Coun. Hunt: I think you got'em.
. Mr. Bewersdorff: Would the Council care to add the condition raised by Tony
Bonforte concerning the 18 foot
Coun. Hunt: Oh, yes.
Mr. Bewersdorff: switch towards the southern property line?
Coun. Hunt: Yeah, yeah. I think that should be part of the condition of
that.. the (inaudible) southwest driveway, I believe
southwest?
Mr. Bewersdorff: On Scholls.
Coun. Hunt: The southwest driveway on Scholls
Coun. Hawley: Comply with Washington County standards
Coun. Hunt: Comply with Washington County standards and alignment for an
offsetting driveway.
Coun. Hawley: Is that what we need to do to accomplish that? Is that the
right verbiage to use?
Coun. Rohlf: Depends on which driveway's there first.
. Mr. Bewersdorff: Basically looking with the final design, that the driveways
oppose each other. The project in Beaverton and the project
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 76LUBA NO. 95-011
Exhibit No. _
Page No.
here in Tigard.
Coun. Hawley: I want to be sure that we're not leaving the other project
person out of the loop. If... As Councilor Rohlf just said.
this driveway goes in first, will he have to align to ours or
can we make it a flexible thing somehow in our condition?
Because that's what he was asking for was some flexibility of
the location of that so he wouldn't have to take out trees.
Mayor Schwartz: Well, he was asking to move the driveway approximately 18
feet to the west. Pardon? On your lot, yeah.
(inaudible)
Mayor Schwartz: So just make that as a condition. Move that south. southwest
.driveway 18 feet west, closer to the property line.
Ms. Beery: Mr. Mayor, on the form of the motion that you're looking for.
You're looking for a motion of approval for Comprehensive
Plan map (inaudible)
Mayor Schwartz: Approval of Ordinance 94...
Ms. Beery: Not (inaudible) Thank you.
Low voice discussion by staff near an open mike.
Ms. Beery: I think I've come up with a draft motion. The consensus of
staff, Mr. Mayor, is that we'd rather not have an approval of
this ordinance. We'd rather have a motion for approval of
the, of the Comp Plan amendment, the zone change, the CUP and
the Site Development Review. And then it starts below...
Coun. Hawley: I can make a motion.
Mayor Schwartz: Want to make a motion?
Coun. Hawley: Okay. Mr. Mayor, I move for approval of CPA 93-0009/2CA, oh
ZCA/93-0003/CUP 93-0002 and SDR 93-0014 subject to the staff
providing corrected findings and conditions proposed... wait-
a minute. Subject to the staff providing corrected findings
to the ordinance number 94...
Mayor Schwartz: 94-27
Coun. Hawley: 27, and conditions-proposed by the staff and the following
.additional conditions: 1) an access off Northview Drive is
not required at the time of site development but can be
.required at a later date based on the traffic engineer's
recommendation...
Ms. Beery: And apublic hearing. LUBA NO. 9S0 1
Exhibit No.
Page No. q 6.
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 77
Coun. Rohlf: And a public hearing.
Coun. Hawley: Provided that a public hearing is included in that process:
Number.2, the sidewalk area in front of the store shall be
kept free of merchandise so as to provide a minimum of five
feet of clear walkway, and 3) the driveway on the southwest
corner of the property shall be moved approximately 18 feet
to the south.
Mayor Schwartz: There's a motion. Is there a second?
Coun. Rohlf: Second.
Mayor Schwartz: There's a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye?
Ms. Beery: Mr. Mayor, before we get the, get the vote, I think that the
CUP has been deleted, so just to make that technical
correction. I wrote the..wrong.number down. But the intent
of what you're trying to adopt. I think is very clear. I
just want to make that correction for the (inaudible)
Coun. Hawley: Then I'd like to amend my motion to delete CUP.
Ms. Beery: Yes.
Coun. Rohlf: Second.
Ms. Beery: Thank you.
Mayor Schwartz: Okay, all those in favor say aye.
Mayor Schwartz, Councilors Hawley, Hunt and Rohlf voted _yes.
Mayor Schwartz: Opposed?
Coun. Scheckla: No.
Mayor Schwartz: Four ayes, one no. That concludes agenda item 5.
LUBA NO.95-011
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 78 Exhibit No. -
Page No. 1 y 1
Council Agenda Item
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994
• Meeting was called to order at 6:40 p.m. by Mayor Schwartz.
1. ROLL CALL
Council Present: Mayor John Schwartz; Councilors Wendi Conover Hawley, Paul
Hunt, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. Staff Present: Bill Monahan, City
Administrator; Pam Beery, Legal Counsel; Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner; Mark
Roberts, Associate Planner; Ed Wegner, Maintenance Services Director; Catherine
Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer.
STUDY SESSION
• Agenda Review:
- City Administrator Monahan noted one item to be added to "Non Agenda" -
- Report on the 1993 and 1994 League of Oregon Cities Award of
Excellence.
City Administrator Monahan referred to Agenda Item 7.1 - Budget
Committee Reappointment. Floyd Bergmann and Phil Westover have been
contacted with regard to some concerns with past attendance. Both Mr.
Bergmann and Mr. Westover indicated they would like to continue serving
on the Budget Committee.
After brief discussion, Council consensus was to set over consideration of
the Budget Committee reappointments to December 27, 1994.
Discussion was held on the Tree Task Force. There has been information
out in the community that the City Council would be considering the tree
ordinance on December 13. Council discussed concern with the
communications that have been sent out with regard to the process on the
tree ordinance.
Council briefly discussed Task Force membership; Legal Counsel Beery
advised that it was within the Council's discretion as to who should serve
on the Task Force.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 1
W BA NO.95-0 1.
Exhibit NO.
Page No.
- Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session
at 6:55 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to
discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending
litigation issues.
Council reconvened into regular session: 7:35 p.m.
BUSINESS MEETING
1. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS:
Councilor Hunt advised that the Homeless Task Force emergency, bad-
weather shelter had opened at the Water Building.
It was announced that there would be some discussion on the tree
ordinance (process concerns). (See Visitor's Agenda)
Non-Agenda:
• - City Administrator Monahan reported to Council receipt of two awards from
the League of Oregon Cities:
a) 1993 Cities Award for Excellence Program - Third Place Award in the
Over 25,00 Population Category for "Operation Slowdown."
b) 1994 Cities Award for Excellence Program - Honorable Mention in
the Over 25,00 Population Category for "Volunteer Video Production
Team."
3. VISITOR'S AGENDA:
• Terry Moore, Metro Councilor, presented to the City Council on behalf of
Metro an award which was given to Metro. Councilor Moore advised that
she wanted to share the award with the cities in the area and presented to
the Council a framed certificate entitled, "Partners for Livable Communities."
Mayor Schwartz thanked Councilor Moore noting that she would end her
term as Councilor at the end of 1994 and wished her luck in the future.
• John LeCavalier, P.O. Box 25835, Portland, Oregon, 97225, (Fans of Fanno
Creek) testified with regard to the tree ordinance. He noted it was essential
for public input to remain in the process as the City reviews proposals for
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 2 LUBA NO. 95-017
Exhibit No. -
q
Page No. 114
a tree ordinance. Mr. LeCavalier noted several issues including what was
at stake with regard to the total watershed.
• Martha Bishop, 10590 S.W. Cook Lane, Tigard, Oregon noted problems
with erosion on Bull Mountain citing issues with clear cutting and the
development off Beef Bend Road. (Ms. Bishop also referred to the Aspen
Ridge Subdivision.) She advised of concerns of King City residents with
regard to devlopment activity above them.
Ms. Bishop also referred to issues with regard to CIT Central and South
and the Tree Task Force.
• Christy Herr, 11386 S.W. Ironwood Loop, Tigard, Oregon, read testimony.
(See letter dated December 13, 1994, regarding "Administrative Process.")
Ms. Herr's testimony outlined concerns with the tree ordinance and the task
force.
• Carol Krieger, 11910 S.W. Greenburg Road, Tigard, Oregon, referred to
information which may have been incorrect with regard to the tree
ordinance process. She noted that there is a need for an answer that could
be relied upon (tree regulations), and this answer can only come from the
City Council.
• Nancy Tracy, 7310 S.W. Pine, Metzger, Oregon, testified with regard to the
economic activity which is causing consumption of the environment. She
noted the benefits of trees to people and the environment. Ms. Tracy
distributed to the City Council a pamphlet entitled "World Scientists'
Warning to Humanity." (This pamphlet is on file with the Council packet
material.)
• Curtis Herr, 11386 S.W. Ironwood Loop, Tigard, Oregon, testified with
regard to the proposed tree ordinance and requested clarification whether
the public will be able to testify when Council deliberates over an upcoming
ordinance proposal.
He advised he would not want an ordinance to be passed without any
public input.
Council Discussion on the Tree Ordinance and Task Force Process followed:
Mayor Schwartz called for Council discussion on the tree ordinance
process. He noted that the Council formed a Task Force to attempt
to define "developed properties." The Task Force was also asked
to determine whether a compromise could be reached with regard to
L- UBA NO. 95-011
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 3 Exhibit No-.'
Page No. 0
concerns noted for property rights and environmental issues. In the
interim (until recommendations were received by the Task Force),
staff was directed by the Council to bring back an ordinance to
regulate developable land only. Recommendations as to whether or
not residential property should be regulated, and to what extent,
would be determined with input from the Task Force.
Senior Planner Bewersdorff advised that it is staffs recommendation
to receive public testimony on any ordinance proposal.
Discussion followed with regard to instructions to the Task Force.
Mayor Schwartz noted that the Task Force could amend any
ordinance adopted by the Council or suggest a substitute ordinance.
Councilor Hunt referred to the great amount of public input which has
been received to date.
Councilor Hawley noted the Council was not averse to protecting
trees, but wanted to do so in a "balanced way.' She said she hoped
that the Task Force could recommend a definition of a "developable:
lot. She encouraged the people on the Task Force to "stick with it.
She also advised that compromise will be necessary. Councilor
Hawley said the Task Force may want to consider designation of
historic trees.
Councilor Hawley agreed to be the Council Liaison member to the
Task Force.
There was further discussion on the process which had followed to
date, including a recent flyer which had been circulated as an insert
to the "Oregonian" newspaper.
(Note: Council also received the following with regard to the tree
ordinance and/or the Task Force:
- A communication dated December 13, 1994, from Sally
Christensen, 15685 S.W. 76th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, 97224.
- A letter dated December 12, 1994, from Irma Butterfield, 8770
S.W. Mountainview Lane, Tigard, Oregon 97224.
A letter dated December 7, 1994, from several members of the
Tree Task Force.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 4
LUBA NO. 95-011
Exhibit No.
Page No. ~.L
- A page entitled "Tigard Tree Ordinance -December 7, 1994 -with
no author name on it was received.
All of the above-mentioned letters are on file with the Council packet
material.)
3. CONSENT AGENDA:
Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to approve the Consent
Agenda as follows:
3.1 Receive and file:
a. Council Calendar
b. Tentative Agenda
C. Canvass of Votes - For the Candidates and Measure Relating to the
General Election (Tigard Issues) on November 8, 1994
3.2 Initiate Vacation Proceedings for Two 15-Foot Wide Public Storm Drainage
Easements Located Between Lot #35 and Lot #36, and Between Lot #27
and Lot #28 in Waverly Estates Subdivision - Resolution No. 94-57
3.3 Appoint New Planning Commission Members Shel Scolar and Jim Griffith -
Resolution No. 94-58
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor
Schwartz and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.")
4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 94-0005 ZONE CHANGE ZON
94-0004 RIPLEY'S - LOCATION: 14180 SW Pacific Highway (WCTM 2S1 10AA,
tax lot 401). To amend the Comprehensive Plan Map from Medium Density
residential to General Commercial and a zoning change from R-12 (Residential,
12 units acre) to C-G (General Commercial). APPLICABLE APPROVAL
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.22, 18.32, 18.54;
Comprehensive Plan Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 12.
ZONE: R-12 (Multiple-Family Residential) The properties existing in the R-12
zone allows single-family residential units, duplex residential units, multiple-family
residential units, residential care facilities, mobile home parks and subdivisions,
public support services, residential treatment homes, manufactured homes, family
day care, home occupations, and temporary uses among other uses. The
proposed C-G (General Commercial) zone provides sites for the provision of major
retail goods and services, business, and professional services.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 5 LUBA.NO. 11
Exhibit No.SU-
Page No. 1
•
a. Public hearing was opened.
b. Declarations or Challenges
No members of Council reported any ex parte contact or information
gained outside the hearing, including any site visits.
Council members indicated that they familiarized themselves with the
application.
There were no challenges from the audience pertaining to the
Council's jurisdiction to hear this matter nor was there a challenge to
the participation of any member of the Council.
C. Staff Report: Community Development Department
Associate Planner Roberts summarized the Staff Report (on file with the
Council packet material.) In addition, he utilized two overhead projector
pages which 1) depicted existing zoning and 2) represented an aerial map
of the subject area. (Copies of material reviewed is also on file as "hard
copies" in the Council packet.)
Mr. Roberts referred to a traffic study, noting that City staff and the Oregon
. Department of Transportation staff concurred with the findings of the traffic
study.
Staff recommended Council approval based on the findings contained in the
Final Order as presented in the Council packet.
In response to questions from Mayor Schwartz, Associate Planner Roberts
advised that some displacement of density would occur as a result of the
zone change request. The residential units lost (for density requirements)
would come out of the reserve. Tigard will be at 10.3 units per acre.
d. Public Testimony:
Mayor Schwartz read the following:
For all those wishing to testify, please be aware that failure to raise
an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the Council and parties an
opportunity to respond to the issue will preclude an appeal to the
Land Use Board of Appeals on this issue. Testimony and evidence
must be directed toward the criteria that staff will describe or other
criteria in the plan or land use regulation which you believe apply to
the decision.
LUBA NO.95-011
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 6 IExhlbit-No. vSM_
Page No. I !U
- Applicant
- Michael Robinson, 900 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Portland, Oregon,
97204, and Mr. Dave Ripley, 14170 S.W. Pacific Highway, Tigard,
Oregon 97224, testified before City Council.
Mr. Robinson noted the staff and Planning Commission
recommendation for approval. He advised that there were no
adverse comments from the neighborhood meeting. In response
to a question from Councilor Scheckla, he noted that this would be
a two-story building. There was discussion of other two-story
buildings which were also in the vicinity.
e. Staff Recommendation: Approval of application.
f. Public hearing was closed.
h. Council Consideration:
Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to adopt
Ordinance No. 94-26.
ORDINANCE NO. 94-26 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS
AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT REQUESTED BY .
DAVE RIPLEY (CPA 94-0005, ZON 94-0007).
The motion was approved a unanimous vote of Council present.
(Mayor Schwartz and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla
voted "yes.")
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/CPA 93-0009 ZONE CHANGE/ZON 93-
0003 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW/SDR 93-0014 CONDITIONAL USE/CUP
93-0002 MINOR LAND PARTITION/MLP 93-0013 ALBERTSON'S/DUNCOMBE -
LOCATION: Southeast and northeast quadrants of the intersection of SW Scholls
Ferry Road and SW Walnut Street. (WCTM 2S1 4BB, tax lots 100 and 200). A
request for the following development approvals: 1) Comprehensive Plan and
Zone Change approval to redesignate approximately eight acres of a 12 acre
parcel from Medium-High Density Residential to Community Commercial on tax lot
200 and to redesignate an approximately 6.93 acre parcel from Neighborhood
Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential on tax lot 100. Zone changes
accompanying the above plan changes includes a zone change from R-12 (PD)
and R-25 (PD) (Residential, 12 to 25 units/acre, Planned Development) to C-C
LUBA NO. 77
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 7 Exh1b1tNo.
Page No.
(Community Commercial) and C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-25
(Residential, 25 units/acre); 2) Site Development Review approval to allow the
construction of a 40,000 anchor tenant pad including a 40,000 square foot grocery
store and three smaller tenant pads of 1,200, 2,400, and 5,950 square feet
adjoining the anchor tenant pad. The applicant also proposes two 4,000 square
foot stand alone tenant pads. 3) Minor Land Partition approval to divide the 12
acre parcel into two parcels of approximately eight acres and four acres each.
APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 6, 9, 10,
11, 13 and 14; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 4.1.1, 4.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.4.1,
6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.2, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 8.2.1, 8.2.2, 8.4.1, 9.1.3, 12. 1. 1,
12.2, 12.2.1, and 12.2.4; Community Development Code Chapters 18.22, 18.32,
18.56, 18.60, 18.61, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120,
18.130, 18.162, and 18.164. ZONE: The existing Neighborhood Commercial zone
permits a range of convenience goods and services which are purchased at least
weekly. Typical uses would include convenience sales and personal services,
children's day care, financial, insurance and real estate services, food and
beverage retail sales, etc. Neighborhood Commercial centers have a 5,000 square
foot lot minimum.
The proposed Community Commercial zone permits a range of convenience goods
and services which are designed to serve the regular needs of residents of nearby
residential neighborhoods. Community Commercial centers typically range in size
from a minimum of two acres to eight acres. In terms of square footage these
centers range from 30,000 to 100,000 square feet.
The existing R-25 (PD) zone permits a range of single-family attached, low and
medium rise multiple-family residential units, for medium-high residential
development. The R-25 zone permits residential densities up to 25 units per acre.
The Planned Development zoning district overlay is designed to encourage
properties to be developed as a single unit in terms of design, access, etc.
a. Public hearing was opened.
b. Declarations or challenges:
- Mayor Schwartz asked: Do any members of Council wish to report any ex
parte contact or information gained outside the hearing, including any site
visits? Councilor Hunt advised he visited the site twice; once when the
issue was reviewed by the City Council previously and yesterday.
- Council members indicated that they familiarized themselves with the
application.
- There were no challenges from the audience pertaining to the Council's
jurisdiction to hear this matter nor was there a challenge to the participation
of any member of the Council.
LUBA .NO.95-0 .
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 8 Exhibit NO.
Page NO.
c. Staff Report: Community Development Department (Senior Planner
Bewersdorff and Associate Planner Roberts].
Synopsis of staff report Council was advised of staff concerns with an
access off of Northview Drive.
Several overhead pages were reviewed (hard copies on file with the Council
packet material).
Staff reviewed the history of the application, including the previous application.
Staff recommended that a driveway access to S.W. Northview Drive be
provided to reduce turning movement conflicts on S.W. Walnut Street which
is designated a Major Collector Street. It was noted that the Planning
Commission revised the staff recommendation by recommending approval of
the application without requiring the applicant to modify the site plan to provide
a driveway access to S.W. Northview Drive.
Council discussed and asked questions on the following issues:
• Reviewed restrictions of hours of operation for this type of use.
• Discussed the recommendation with regard to the access on Northview
Drive. City Engineer Wooley reviewed the concerns of the Engineering
Department noting that adequate access to the site to serve the
neighborhood should be provided. He also noted problems with overloaded
collector streets throughout Tigard. Another driveway connection would
protect Walnut Street from turning movements.
• It was noted that the neighborhood was concerned about cut-through traffic;
however, the City Engineer said that he did not think that this would
become an issue once the Walnut extension was opened. Discussion
followed concerning this access. It was suggested that the driveway, if
constructed, could be made narrow to reduce speeds.
Public Testimony:
For all those wishing to testify, please be aware that failure to raise an issue
with sufficient specificity to afford the Council and parties an opportunity to
respond to the issue will preclude an appeal to the Land Use Board of
Appeals on this issue. Testimony and evidence must be directed toward
the criteria that staff will describe or other criteria in the plan or land use
regulation which you believe apply to the decision.
LUBA NO.9W11
_
Exhibit NO.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 9 Page NO. _15-(d
Proponents:
- Scott Russell was called upon; however, he requested that the legal
counsel for the applicant speak first.
- Ed Howden, 11829 S.W. Morning Hill Drive, Tigard, Oregon, advised he
would like to have the store built.
Applicant:
John W. Shonkwiler, 113425 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, 97223,
testified as legal counsel on behalf of Albertson's. Mr. Shonkwiler reviewed
the history of this issue with City Council, including the zoning on this
property.
Mr. Shonkwiler reviewed the notice to the neighborhood and the materials
submitted to the City Council. He advised that over 80% of the
neighborhood favored the application. He also noted that special signs on
the property were posted with regard to this proposal.
He referred to the "flip flopping" of the zone change request. He advised
the north side of Walnut was preferable to the south side for this
development.
Mr. Shonkwiler advised that the Community Commercial zone calls for 20%
landscaping; they will do 30%.
He noted he believed that this request met all three criteria for a change in
zoning. He reviewed the locational criteria, noting the trade area and why
he believed that this size of grocery store was appropriate.
Mr. Shonkwiler referred to the site plan, noting that truck noise would be
mitigated because they would enter below the grade of the adjacent
neighborhood. Mr. Shonkwiler referred to the efforts made on behalf of the
neighbors to make this plan so that it was agreeable to them. He described
the surrounding area and points of access, including pedestrian and bicycle
plans. He described the design of the store, noting that it would be
constructed with "upscale materials."
Mr.. Shonkwiler advised that 15 to 20 neighborhood meetings had been
held. He referred to a 4-acre parcel to the rear of the property where no
request for a zone change was needed. The neighborhood would like to
acquire this property.
• LUBA NO.9" 1
t
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 10 Page No.
Page No.
i
Mr. Shonkwiler described shielding from the lights from the development
and referred to a °lighting plan." The light standards would lower in height.
Noise abatement was also reviewed.
Mr. Shonkwiler advised the applicant had met all the requirements of the
ordinance and has tried to satisfy any concerns presented by the neighbors.
Mr. Shonkwiler reviewed pedestrian access throughout the site.
He noted that the Planning Commission ultimately agreed with the
applicant's proposal.
With regard to the Northview Drive access, Mr. Shonkwiler advised it would
not make a difference to the development whether or not the driveway was
required; however, members of the neighborhood do not want this access.
Concerns with such an access included the apprehension that this would
make it easy for people to use it as a cut-through or to make the parking
lot a secondary street.
Mr. Shonkwiler then reviewed the evolution of the development proposal.
He advised there was no longer a gas station as was originally proposed
and 24-hour services were also not part of the application.
Mr. Shonkwiler referred to claims made by the opponents to this
development that the property owners were threatening to place multi-family
(as was legally allowable) on the site or also threatening to construct low-
income housing. Mr. Shonkwiler advised that this was not true.
Mr. Shonkwiler asked the Council to approve what the Planning
Commission recommended for approval.
There was a period of questions and answers between Mr. Shonkwiler and
the Council clarifying issues concerning lighting, landscaping and sidewalks.
Councilor Rohlf questioned whether the driveway issue could be decided at
a later time. The driveway access, he suggested, could be reserved and,
if it was determined that this Northview entrance was necessary or if there
were other problems, the driveway could be constructed later.
In response to concerns about graffiti on the brick walls, Mr. Shonkwiler
advised that it would be Albertson's responsibility to maintain the wall.
Discussion followed on the operation of the development, including
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 11
LUBA -NO.95-011
Exhibit No.1
Page No. i
deliveries, garbage pick up, and hours of operation. Mr. Shonkwiler advised
that his client -plans to mitigate these concerns. Noxious odors were
discussed. Mr. Shonkwiler noted that garbage containers would have
closed lids; there will be a daily pick-up of garbage.
Council meeting recessed: 9:35 p.m.
Council meeting reconvened: 9:47 p.m.
Proponents:
- Scott Russell, 31291 Raymond, Scappoose, Oregon, distributed an outline
of his testimony. (This outline is on file with the Council packet material.)
Mr. Russell requested favorable consideration and asked Council to let
competition work.
- Ernie Platt, 7610 S.W. Hazelfern, Tigard, Oregon 97223, advised he was
in support of the development. He referred to the involvement of the
neighbors. Mr. Platt advised he has expected this property to develop
commercially and described the surrounding development activity.
- Don Duncombe, 17001 N.E. San Rafael, Portland, Oregon 97230, advised
he was the Real Estate Manager for Albertson's. Mr. Duncombe requested
an opportunity for rebuttal, if necessary.
With regard to concerns expressed earlier by Councilor Hunt with the
sidewalks being covered with merchandise at the Albertson's stores, he
advised he would take care of existing problems with the Albertson's off
Durham Road "tomorrow morning."
Mr. Duncombe advised that there should not be any odors coming from the
Albertson's store. Mr. Duncombe noted the many meetings that had been
held with the neighbors. In response to a question from Councilor Hunt, Mr.
Duncombe advised that open space, adjacent to the development could be
dedicated to the neighbors for whatever purpose they would desire. Mr.
Shonkwiler noted that the transfer of this property would take place after the
election of new neighborhood association officers.
David S. Williams, 14143 S.W. Stardust Lane, Tigard, Oregon 97223,
advised that, throughout the process, Albertson's has worked with the
neighbors and they have agreed to conditions which, he advised, cost them
money. He said he does not want an access on Northview Drive noting
that this would offer a way for traffic to cut through the neighborhood this
would be detrimental. He said he would favor a pedestrian access,
however.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 12LUBA NO. 95-011
Exhibit No. _
Page No.
- Lanny Collins, 14158 S.W. Northview Drive, Tigard, Oregon, advised he
moved into the Castle Hill development last March. He said he has
appreciated the process and if these plans were realized, this development
would appear to fit in nicely. He noted concerns with a Northview entrance.
He also noted that the Hillshire Woods development could potentially
connect to this area; this would cause a significant impact.
Barbara Collins, 14158 S.W. Northview Drive, Tigard, Oregon, noted the
willingness of the Albertson's representatives to work with the
neighborhood. She advised of her concerns and objections to a Northview
Drive access. She said she has lived in the neighborhood for nine months
and was attracted to the area because it was so quiet. She noted her
appreciation of "no traffic" and advised there were a large number of
children in this neighborhood.
Terry Lindstrom, 14194 S.W. Northview Drive, Tigard, Oregon 97223,
advised that she moved into her home 18 months ago with the knowledge
of the zone change proposal. She advised she was in favor of it then and
was even more in favor or the proposal now. She noted that the plans for
architecture and landscaping would be a good fit for the community. She
said that another store was needed in the area because of growth. She
noted that competition is good. She advised that it was unfortunate that
Thriftway opposed the development to the degree that it had.
Ms. Lindstrom was opposed to the Northview driveway because of safety
concerns and referred to the many children in the area. She said the
driveway would complicate traffic patterns and suggested that there should
be only one left-turn into the development off of Walnut Street. Three
entrances into the parking lot would mean more congestion and problems.
In addition, the driveway would be across the sidewalk which would cause
additional problems. The driveway would be detrimental to aesthetics.
Ms. Lindstrom thanked Don Duncombe for his work. In addition, she said
that the property owners had never made any threatening comments to the
neighbors with regard to other developments which could be built on the
property.
- Cindy Christensen, 14293 S.W. Windsong, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, testified
in support of the development. She advised that her living room would
overlook the property; she did not think this would obstruct her view or "be
ugly to look at."
- Troy Christiansen, 14133 S.W. Liden Drive, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, advised
that, as Councilor Rohlf suggested, that he would rather that the Northview
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 13 LUBA NO. 95-011
Exhibit NorV -
Page No. C0
Drive access be reserved and not constructed now. Later, if it was
determined that it was needed, the access could be built. He noted he
would like to have this development; it would be convenient for the
neighbors.
Albertson's, he advised, is going beyond what was expected. Mr.
Christiansen said that he trusted Mr. Duncombe. He also noted that
Albertson's plan to donate land as a park. He advised that Albertson's had
gone "above and beyond" in trying to accommodate the neighbors. He said
that Thriftway's objections were due to economics.
Opponents:
Elayne O'Brien, 14051 S.W. Liden Drive, Tigard, Oregon, advised she was
a member of the Castle Hill Neighborhood Association but was speaking on
her own behalf. With regard to the claim that 80% of the neighbors were
in favor of this development, Ms. O'Brien said that she would like to see
something in writing to support this. She noted that when she moved to
Castle Hill, she was told a small neighborhood commercial development
was slated for the area. She recounted her knowledge of the history of the
area and her concerns with a 40,000 square foot grocery store which was
planned to serve just the neighborhood. She was concerned with the
number of entrances and exits to the development and was adamantly
opposed to the Northview Drive access. She said this development would
add to traffic hazard concerns.
Ms. O'Brien advised she had lived in New York she referred to zoning
designations which were used there for neighborhood development. She
suggested the neighborhood commercial designation be scaled down
careful consideration should be given to criteria.
• Nancy Rhodes, 13994 S.W. Chehalem Court, Tigard, Oregon 97223,
advised she was a member of the Castle Hill Homeowners' Association but
was speaking on her own behalf. She noted problems with the community
commercial. This would be one more barrier separating the community.
She did not want to see, hear, or put up with more traffic and suggested a
smaller, scaled-down version of development would be better.
• Anthony Bonforte, 14675 S.W. Osprey, #413, Beaverton, Oregon 97007,
testified with regard to his development which is being constructed across
Scholls Ferry Road from the proposed development now under review. He
requested that the driveway opposite to his development be relocated to the
southwest by approximately 18 feet closer to the property line. He
described problems with the location of the driveway for his development.
LUBA NO.95-011
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 14 Exhibit No. fqr_
Page No. _...L_(9L_
He said that he had discussed this request with.. Albertson's and staff;
Albertson's was not opposed. He asked that the driveway relocation be
included as a condition of approval. He advised that the County wants as
few access points as possible on Scholls Ferry Road and it would be better
to have driveways directly oppose one another.
Mr. Bonforte said that he had not testified previously with this request,
because they were not notified. The owners recently purchased the
property and, therefore, were missed on the notification list.
• Mr. Ed Sullivan, 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 3200, Portland, Oregon
97204 and Mr. Greg Winterowd offered testimony, summarized as follows:
Mr. Winterowd noted problems of compliance with City and State standards
for the Plan Amendment request. He advised that he did not feel the
Planning Commission examined the materials submitted as testimony for
this development. He described the difficulties that would be created by a
"mega store." He also noted that there were Transportation Rule concerns.
Mr. Winterowd distributed several items during his..testimony:
• Memorandum to the Honorable Mayor and Members of the Tigard City
Council from Greg Winterowd, Consultant, dated December 12, 1994.
• A copy of Tigard- Municipal Code Chapter 18.61 (C-C: Community
Commercial District) with comments written by Mr. Winterowd throughout.
Mr. Winterowd reviewed these comments with the City Council.
• Site Plan Evaluation Map
• Pedestrian-Oriented Development Sites Based on Current Zoning Map.
• Pedestrian-Oriented Mix-.Use Development Site Map
• Map referencing Off-Street Parking and Schedule of Units by Land
Development Consultants, Inc. with a notation that it was "Submitted by
Winterowd, 12/13/94; Re: Res. use.
All of the above documents are on file with the Council packet.
Mr. Winterowd also referred to the threat of low-income, dense development
during a preapplication conference. He advised that the applicant has
made cosmetic changes only to their proposal. He was concerned that
design did not meet the Council's expectation of a Community Commercial
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 15
L"UBA NO. 95-011
Exhibit No.%%
Page No. ► !o9
development. Mr. Winterowd then detailed his written testimony at length,
reviewing TMC Chapter 18.61 with the City Council.
Mr. Winterowd also referred to concerns with traffic and a Washington
County study which noted traffic problems.
Mr. Winterowd advised that Community Commercial depends on high-
density residential. He advised that Albertson's ignored standards for
transportation. He recommended that the application be denied; the
application has not met Code standards.
Mr. Sullivan then testified. (An outline was submitted to the City Council:
'Principal Grounds for Denial of Albertson's Application;' this outline is on
file with the Council packet material.)
Mr. Sullivan noted concerns with the neighborhood's acquisition of the
parcel to the south. He referred to a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Sullivan
advised that the land was not developed. He suggested that lost residential
density should be considered.
He advised that determination for operation of hours needed to be clarified;
i.e., what might be occurring after open hours of the stores.
Mr. Sullivan said the application was based on a 'threat and a promise.'
The applicant did not present, and the Planning Commission did not
recommend, a development in response to the Council's view (the
articulated version) of a Community-Commercial development. He noted
the seriousness of this decision as a first-time use in the Community-
Commercial Zone. He asked the Council to uphold the policies of the City
and deny the application.
Pam Garcia, 14555 S.W. Teal Boulevard, Beaverton, Oregon, testified that
the proposed development would draw a market beyond the 1.5 mile radius
that it was intended to reach. Ms. Garcia distributed a map to illustrate her
testimony with regard to market. She reviewed assumptions for market
share. She advised that there was plenty of competition in the area. She
said that believed that the application was flawed.
Ms. Garcia said that a denial request was justified insofar as the applicant
needed to 'play by the rules' and in this instance, they were not meeting
the laws.
In response to a question by Councilor Hawley, Ms. Garcia advised that she
did not have the opportunity to respond what wasprepared by staff. She
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 16
LUBA NO.9 11
Exhibit No.
Page No. ~Sei_
said that all information presented is included in earlier documentation.
• Bill Gross, 11035 S.W. 135th, Tigard, Oregon 97223, advised that the
applicant must provide analysis with regard to locational criteria and
anticipated traffic congestion. He suggested that this could not go further
without analysis being done. He advised that the site proposal could
change. He said staff has not presented information as to why locational
criteria should be waived.
(There was a request that the record remain open for at least seven days to provide
additional information.)
Council meeting recessed: 11:46 p.m.
Council meeting reconvened: 11:57 p.m.
Rebuttal:
• Mr. John Shonkwiler addressed the following points during rebuttal:
- Pedestrian access
- Walnut Street concerns
- Access points
- No 24-hour operation
- No drive-through use (noting a Conditional Use permit would be required
if a drive-through use was requested)
- Restaurant would not be "fast food"; rather, it would be a "sit-down"
restaurant
- Low-income housing is not part of the application the reference to low-
income housing comes solely from the Thriftway representatives
- All factors of the Transportation Rule, effective in 1995, will be satisfied
- Referred to a letter from Washington County which addressed concerns
noted by the opponents. Concerns by Washington County were
addressed in revised studies.
- No problem in aligning the driveway with the property owner across
Scholls Ferry Road (reference Anthony Bonforte's testimony above).
- Referred to Thriftway's suggestion that the size of the grocery store be
reduced with reference to market draw he said density of development
should be considered more important, not distance.
- Thriftway did not appeal the decision by the Council with regard to the
1.5 mile radius.
- Referred to the "mega store" mentioned by Mr. Sullivan and advised that
Mr. Sullivan's client has a 43,000 square foot store.
- Washington County has neighborhood-commercial zoning which allows
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 17 LUBA NO. 95-011
Exhibit NO.-:Z__
Page No.
a store up to 40,000 square feet.
- Referred to the planning concept for which he believed the site was
"perfectly suited" because of density and the encouragement of
pedestrian access
- Referred to Mr. Gross' testimony with regard to the traffic study noting
that the development was well within the realm of meeting requirements.
- In response to a question from Councilor Hawley regarding statement
that 80% of the neighbors were in favor of this development, Mr.
Shonkwiler distributed a memorandum from the Homeowners of Castle
Hill Interim Board to Castle Hill Homeowners dated August 9, 1994, with
regard to a survey of homeowners. (This information is on file with the
Council packet material.)
- With regard to Councilor Hawley's question as to whether there was any
way to preclude certain uses, Mr. Shonkwiler advised that every promise
made has been kept. He noted Conditions of Approval would not allow
a gas station; if a gas station was wanted later, then the request must
come back to the City Council.
Discussion followed on the building plan and the design of pathways in
relationship to parking.
e. Staff Recommendation was for approval subject to findings contained in the
draft final order. The applicant, it was noted, had also prepared findings to
address additional issues.
f. Council questions and discussion:
In response to a question from Councilor Hawley regarding whether
landscaping would, in fact, mitigate noise, Associate Planner Roberts reviewed
the site design plans. These plans included excavation, walls, building
orientation and plant materials.
Senior Planner Bewersdorff, in response to Councilor Hawley noted that the
hours of operation could be conditioned to include deliveries and trucks.
In response to a question from Councilor Hawley, Senior Planner Bewersdorff
noted that other uses and pads would be similar to Albertson's. If changes
were wanted, these would also have to go through a review.
There was discussion about provisions for bicycle and pedestrian access.
Associate Planner Roberts described the proposal.
There was discussion about traffic on Scholls Ferry Road. The City Engineer
noted that another signal would be needed at Walnut and Scholls Ferry Road.
L-UBA NO.9 ~ 1
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 18 M1bR NO.
Page NO. Z&67
There was discussion on the proposed findings and whether or not additional
information was needed.
Council discussed access points. Councilor Rohlf suggested that if a proposal
for an access on Northview Drive was requested at a later time, that a public
hearing be required.
g. Public hearing was closed.
h. Council consideration:
• Mayor Schwartz reviewed the history of the Community Commercial zone
and the disagreements over store size. He noted the efforts to reach a
"happy medium" and the resulting Community-Commercial criteria. He
advised that the NPO recommended approval of the Community-
Commercial Code criteria. He also advised that this issue was sent through
the process again to address the concerns of the neighborhood. He noted
that there have been some changes from the first time this was reviewed
by the City Council.
Mayor referred to the support offered by the neighborhood; this appeared
to be a complete turnaround from the neighborhoods' stance for the
previous application. He advised that the application appears to meet
requirements for the Community-Commercial zoning. Albertson's has done
what they were told to do; the application meets the intent of the Code.
• Councilor Hunt expressed concerns also referring to earlier Council review
of this issue. Specific concerns by Councilor Hunt included the location of
the loading platform, design requirements for windows, and design criteria
so that this would not be a "strip mall" type of building. Councilor Hunt
noted design change differences appear to be that of "dressing up" the front
and the roof line is different.
Councilor Hunt said that Albertson's has done a good job in addressing
neighborhood concerns. He said that they have abided by the letter of the
law, but was not sure about the spirit. He said he would support the
proposal as now presented.
• Councilor Hawley recounted her experience with the Community
Commercial zoning, advising that this was first brought to her attention as
an NPO 5 member. She recalled the discussion of what was envisioned for
a Community-Commercial area. She noted that she would prefer more
windows and design features. She referred to this decision being the first
(precedence) for Community-Commercial. She said that she would not
want this interpretation of the Code to limit requirements for windows or
LUBA NO. 95-011
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 19 Exhibit.No.~r
Page No.
design elements. She wanted written assurance with regard to usage for
the other two pads (i.e., gas station). She said she would like to see more
strict pedestrian access requirements and said the proposed development
was "auto-oriented."
Councilor Hawley said that this was a good start with Community
Commercial Development. She noted that people who were at one time
adamantly opposed to the development were now not present at the
meeting. She said that it appeared that Albertson's had responded to the
community and the criteria have been met including a dramatic change in
circumstance.
• Councilor Rohlf referred to the interpretation of the code and precedent-
setting concerns. He noted the neighborhood involvement appeared to be
good. He advised that he liked the presentation with regard to landscaping.
Councilor Rohlf noted that it was significant to him that a major competitor
(opponent) was requesting that the development be stopped masked in the
guise of impacts on the neighborhood. He noted that the Thriftway store
was a Beaverton Store and that the Howard's Grocery Store (also nearby)
representatives were not at the meeting.
Councilor Rohlf advised that he could support this kind of development for
Community-Commercial.
• Councilor Scheckla noted concerns that the whole plan was not before the
City Council. He wanted more definitive plans with regard to uses within
the development. He advised he could not support this application without
this information.
Mayor Schwartz responded that plans could not be made more definite
because this issue has been "dragging on" for three years. It was possible
that the developer could not get businesses to commit so far out into the
future.
• Discussion followed on the elements of the plan, including the fact that a
drive-through use would require a Conditional Use approval.
Councilor Rohlf again noted that he would like to see a public hearing be
required if a driveway off of Northview should be determined to be needed.
Also of concern was that sidewalks not be used for display of merchandise;
that there be minimum of five feet of walkway in front of the stores.
In addition, there was the concern that the 18-foot movement of the
-LUBA NO.95-011
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 20 Exhibit No.-Vf_
Page No. 167
driveway to the southwest off of Scholls Ferr y Road be done to comply with
Washington County's standards as was requested in previous testimony
(Bonaforte).
Staff advised that the findings could be revised to reflect the above notation.
• Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve CPA
93-0009, ZON 93-0003, SDR 93-0014, subject to the staff providing
corrected findings to the proposed ordinance for the conditions proposed by
staff and the following additional conditions:
1. An access off Northview Drive is not required at the time of site
development, but can be required at a later date based on the traffic
engineer's recommendation and a public hearing.
2. The sidewalk area in front of the store shall be kept free of
merchandise so as to provide a minimum of five-feet of clear
walkway.
3. The driveway on the southwest corner of the property shall be
moved approximately 18 feet to the south.
The motion was approved by a majority vote of Council present. (Mayor
Schwartz and Councilors Hawley, Hunt and Rohlf voted "yes"; Councilor
Scheckla voted "No.")
6. COUNCIL DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION: CRIME BILL FEDERAL GRANT
REQUEST (Set Over from the November 29, 1994 Council Meeting)
This item was set over to December 27, 1994.
7. COUNCIL DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION: COMMITTEE REAPPOINTMENT
GUIDELINES (Continuation of Council discussion of November 29, 1994)
7.1 Budget Committee Reappointment
This item was set over to December 27, 1994.
7.2 Planning Commission Reappointments - Resolution No. 94-59
RESOLUTION NO. 94-59 - A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY
COUNCIL MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve
Resolution No. 94-59.
LUBA NO. 95-011
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 21 Exhibit_ Nom
Page No.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor
Schwartz and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.")
8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE CURRENT
EDITION OF THE STATE ONE- AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLING CODE
• Staff Report: City Administrator Monahan summarized the Staff Report which
is on file with the Council packet material.
After brief discussion, Council considered the proposed ordinance.
Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Hawley to adopt the
proposed ordinance.
ORDINANCE NO. 94-28 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT THE CURRENT EDITION OF THE
STATE ONE AND TWO FAMILY DWELLING CODE AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor
Schwartz and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.")
9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS (See above notation - Item No. 1)
10. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at
1:11 a.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor
relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues.
11. ADJOURNMENT: 1:42 a.m.
C w
Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Re order
r, City of Tigard
6~~ Date:
0=1213.94
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 22
LUBA No. 9"11
Exhibit .No:~
Page No ~p
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
PUBLIC NOTICE. Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the
appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor
at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's 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.
Times noted are estimated: it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be
present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items
can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m-
Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should
be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting.
Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (fDD - Telecommunications Devices
for the Deao.
Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services:
• Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing
impairments, and
• Qualified bilingual interpreters.
Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to
allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on
the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above:
639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Dean.
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
LUBA NO. 11
COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 1 Exhibit No.
Page No. wrl~
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 13, 1994
AGENDA
• STUDY MEETING:
Executive Session: The Tigard City Council may 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.
Agenda Review
Administrative Update: Topics may include report of water issues,
upcoming events, scheduling, and current events of interest to the City.)
1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 P.M.)
1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board
1.2 Roll Call
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports
1.5 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 Receive and file:
a. Council Calendar
b. Tentative Agenda
C. Canvass of Votes - For the Candidates and Measure Relating to the
General Election (Tigard Issues) on November 8, 1994
3.2 Initiate Vacation Proceedings for Two 15-Foot Wide Public Storm Drainage
Easements Located Between Lot #35 and Lot #36, and Between Lot #27
and Lot #28 in Waverly Estates Subdivision - Resolution No. 94-_ .
3.3 Appoint New Planning Commission Members Shel Scolar and Jim Griffith -
Resolution No. 94-
LUBA NO: 95-51.
COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 2 Exhibit No -l+-
. Page No. I
4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 94-0005 ZONE CHANGE ZON
94-0004 RIPLEY'S LOCATION: 14180 SW Pacific Highway (WCTM 2S1 10AA,
• tax lot 401). To amend the Comprehensive Plan Map from Medium Density
residential to General Commercial and a zoning change from R-12 (Residential, 12
units acre) to C-G (General Commercial). APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA:
Community Development Code Chapters 18.22,18.32,18.54; Comprehensive Plan
Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 12.
ZONE: R-12 (Multiple-Family Residential) The properties existing in the R-12 zone
allows single-family residential units, duplex residential units, multiple-family
residential units, residential care facilities, mobile home parks and subdivisions,
public support services, residential treatment homes, manufactured homes, family
day care, home occupations, and temporary uses among other uses. The
proposed C-G (General Commercial) zone provides sites for the provision of major
retail goods and services, business, and professional services.
a. Open Public Hearing
b. Declarations or Challenges
C. Staff Report - Community Development Department
d. Public Testimony
- Applicant
- Proponents
- Opponents
- Rebuttal
e. Staff Recommendation
f. Council Questions
g. Close Public Hearing
h. Council Consideration:- Ordinance No. 94-
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/CPA 93-0009 ZONE CHANGE/ZON
93-0003 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW/SDR 93-0014 CONDITIONAL
USE/CUP 93-0002 MINOR LAND PARTITION/MLP 93-0013
ALBERTSON'S/DUNCOMBE LOCATION: Southeast and northeast quadrants
of the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Walnut Street. (WCTM 2S1
4613, tax lots 100 and 200). A request for the following development approvals:
1) Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change approval to redesignate approximately
eight acres of a 12 acre parcel from Medium-High Density Residential to
Community Commercial on tax lot 200 and to redesignate an approximately 6.93
acre parcel from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential
on tax lot 100. Zone changes accompanying the above plan changes includes a
zone change from R-12 (PD) and R-25 (PD) (Residential, 12 to 25 units/acre,
Planned Development) to C-C (Community Commercial) and C-N (Neighborhood
Commercial) to R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre); 2) Site Development Review
approval to allow the construction of a 40,000 anchor tenant pad including a
40,000 square foot grocery store and three smaller tenant pads of 1,200, 2,400,
and 5,950 square feet adjoining the anchor tenant pad. The applicant also
proposes two 4,000 square foot stand alone tenant pads. 3) Minor Land Partition
COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 3 _LUBA NO.95-011
Exhibit No.
Page No:
approval to divide the 12 acre parcel into two parcels of approximately eight acres
and four acres each. APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Statewide Planning
Goals 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 4.1.1,
4.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.4.1, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.2, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 8.2.1, 8.2.2,
8.4.1, 9.1.3, 12.1.1, 12.2, 12.2.1, and 12.2.4; Community Development Code
Chapters 18.22, 18.32, 18.56, 18.60, 18.61, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108,
18.114, 18.120, 18.130, 18.162, and 18.164. ZONE: The existing Neighborhood
Commercial zone permits a range of convenience goods and services which are
purchased at least weekly. Typical uses would include convenience sales and
personal services, children's day care, financial, insurance and real estate services,
food and beverage retail sales, etc. Neighborhood Commercial centers have a
5,000 square foot lot minimum.
The proposed Community Commercial zone permits a range of convenience
goods and services which are designed to serve the regular needs of residents of
nearby residential neighborhoods. Community Commercial centers typically range
in size from a minimum of two acres to eight acres. In terms of square footage
these centers range from 30,000 to 100,000 square feet.
The existing R-25 (PD) zone permits a range of single-family attached, low and
medium rise multiple-family residential units, for medium-high residential
development. The R-25 zone permits residential densities up to 25 units per acre.
The Planned Development zoning district overlay is designed to encourage
properties to be developed as a single unit in terms of design, access, etc.
a. Open Public Hearing
b. Declarations or Challenges
C. Staff Report - Community Development Department
d. Public Testimony
- Applicant
- Proponents
- Opponents
- Rebuttal
e. Staff Recommendation
f. Council Questions
g. Close Public Hearing
h. Council Consideration - Ordinance No. 94-_
6. COUNCIL DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION: CRIME BILL FEDERAL GRANT
REQUEST (Set Over from the November 29, 1994 Council Meeting)
• Staff Report: Chief Ron Goodpaster
LUBA N0.95-011
COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 4 Exhibit No. YAL
Page No. ~3_
7. COUNCIL DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION: COMMITTEE REAPPOINTMENT
GUIDELINES (Continuation of Council discussion of November 29, 1994)
• Staff Report: Community Relations Coordinator Newton
• Council Discussion: Guidelines for Reappointment
• Council Consideration:
7.1 Budget Committee Reappointment - Resolution No. 94-
7.2 Planning Commission Reappointments - Resolution No. 94--
8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE CURRENT
EDITION OF THE STATE ONE- AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLING CODE
• Staff Report: City Administrator Monahan
• Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 94-
9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may 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.
11. ADJOURNMENT
oca1212.s4
LUBA NO. 95-011
COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 5 Exhibit No.
Page No. ~1y___
Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount
f time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair
ay further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to
supplement oral testimony.
AGENDA, ITEM-NO ' 5 ' DATE; : Deoembera3 .199 #
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/CPA 93-0009 ZONE CHANGE/ZON 93-0003 SITE
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW/SDR 93-0014 CONDITIONAL USE/CUP 93-0002 MINOR LAND
PARTITION/MLP 93-0013 ALBERTSON'S/DUNCOMBE LOCATION: Southeast and northeast
quadrants of the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Walnut Street. (WCTM 2S1 41313, tax
lots 100 and 200). A request for the following development approvals: 1) Comprehensive Plan and
Zone Change approval to redesignate approximately eight acres of a 12 acre parcel from Medium-High
Density Residential to Community Commercial on tax lot 200 and to redesignate an approximately 6.93
acre parcel from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential on tax lot 100. Zone
changes accompanying the above plan changes includes a zone change from R-12 (PD) and R-25 (PD)
(Residential, 12 to 25 units/acre, Planned Development) to C-C (Community Commercial) and C-N
(Neighborhood Commercial) to R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre); 2) Site Development Review approval
to allow the construction of a 40,000 anchor tenant pad including a 40,000 square foot grocery store
and three smaller tenant pads of 1,200, 2,400, and 5,950 square feet adjoining the anchor tenant pad.
The applicant also proposes two 4,000 square foot stand alone tenant pads. 3) Minor Land Partition
gpproval to divide the 12 acre parcel into two parcels of approximately eight acres and four acres each.
PPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14;
Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 4.1.1, 4.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.4.1, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.2,
7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 8.2.1, 8.2.2, 8.4.1, 9.1.3, 12.1.1, 12.2, 12.2.1, and 12.2.4; Community Development
Code Chapters 18.22,18.32,18.56,18.60,18.61,18.98,18.100,18.102,18.106,18.108,18.114,18.120,
18.130, 18.162, and 18.164. ZONE: The existing Neighborhood Commercial zone permits a range of
convenience goods and services which are purchased at least weekly. Typical uses would include
convenience sales and personal services, children's day care, financial, insurance and real estate
services, food and beverage retail sales, etc. Neighborhood Commercial centers have a 5,000 square
foot lot minimum.
The proposed Community Commercial zone permits a range of convenience goods and services
which are designed to serve the regular needs of residents of nearby residential neighborhoods.
Community Commercial centers typically range in size from a minimum of two acres to eight
acres. In terms of square footage these centers range from 30,000 to 100,000 square feet.
The existing R-25 (PD) zone permits a range of single-family attached, low and medium rise
multiple-family residential units, for medium-high residential development. The R-25 zone permits
residential densities up to 25 units per acre. The Planned Development zoning district overlay
is designed to encourage properties to be developed as a single unit in terms of design, access,
etc.
PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS
LUBA NO~ 95-0
Exhibit No.
Page No.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5
PLEASE PRINT
*Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against)
Nam e Name
S G L~ S LL ~ ~ /
lo~ Address Address
till
Name
61-Lil A[ _ & ti 41,01des
Address Address
_q 7 Z, 3
Namee
Name rr~~
Jo/vv~. W,
Address Q7~~3 Address
_aq)L_5 Z A 1146?-5' IbL-) tv -crLy 14H/3. T~44^Z-143 9.7vo?
- Name
O~, 70 S (IV
Address Address
Nan Name
o I eu 3 e ✓
Address Address
20 U) 5,9 Li R+1* et e41' qq?3v <<lSSS S~ 1-c fv~
Nam `
~v10 S. WLLt-t4.- S J
Tess _.T l L jp-q Address
L() Sw ~ e2h~Sf l,/ 17
ow
Name Name
N u l.,o kLr.v
Address Address
Name Name
Address Address
l `1l ~ ~ ~w loth-`►'~u11-J I t<k✓d
Name Name
Worm 5ra ncl v 6U
Address 97CL'fS Address
/377 Sl~~ 1~,~~c~~s~r ~eaverTr
Name Name
_ fer L1'~st~o~
Address
4,1411.4 S4j q-4Z z3 Address
e ^ ~ Name
Address Address
2~3 lG_r~
no ychris~and WBA NO. 95-011
ExhlbR No.
I (33 ~t,~ l~ clen L7 r gd~c1 Page No. -11, -
AGENDA ITEM #
• For Agenda of December 13. 1994
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment CPA 93-0009, Zone
Change, ZON 93-0003
PREPARED BY: Roberts DEPT HEAD OK g)~~ CITY ADMIN OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the City Council approve a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to
redesignate approximately eight acres of a 11.95 acre parcel from Medium-
High Density Residential to Community Commercial and a Comprehensive Plan
approval to redesignate a 6.93 acre parcel from Neighborhood Commercial to
Medium-High Density Residential? The request includes accompanying Zone
Changes which propose to redesignate the property from R-12(PD) and R-
25(PD) (Residential, 12/25 units per acre, Planned Development) to C-C
(Community Commercial) and C-N (Neighborhood-Commercial) to R-25
(Residential, 25 units per acre).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
*Staff recommends that the City :Council approve Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment 94-0005 and Zone Change 94-0006.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The request concerns the land use designation of property on both the
southeast and northeast corners of the intersection of SW Walnut Street and
SW Scholls Ferry Road. The applicant also requested Site Development
Review and Minor Land Partition approval for a 40,000 square foot
Albertson's Grocery Store, three tenant pads of 5,950, 2,400 and 1,200
square feet and two detached 4,000 square foot pads.
On January 25, 1994 the City Council remanded this application back to the
Planning Commission due to concerns related to property owner notification,
the findings within the staff report and the appropriateness of the
proposed development within the Community Commercial Zoning District.
The applicant modified their request in response to these concerns by
deleting the conditional use requests for a service station use and 24-hour
operation of the Albertson's Store. The applicant also addressed impacts
on adjoining residences by proposing to construct a brick wall along the
property frontage on SW Northview Drive. Due to the impacts identified
within a required noise study the applicant has proposed to use a quieter
evaporative cooler mounted inside the store rather than a standard air cooled
condenser unit mounted on the roof.
To address property owner notification issues, the Public Hearing Notice has
LUBA NO. 95-011
Exhibit No.~_r__
Page No.. 11-7
,been provided to property owners within 250 feet of the affected properties
and to those who signed in at previous neighborhood meetings and public
hearings.
Prior to the Planning Commission review of this request, Mr. Bill Gross
expressed concern with the amount and type of information provided within the
Public Hearing notice. The City Attorney determined that the notice for the
Planning Commission Hearing did not appear to be fatally flawed. Additional
information concerning the type of uses which are permitted within each zone
was included within the notice for this meeting. The applicant has also
reviewed the public hearing notice for compliance with legal requirements.
After extensive public testimony the Planning Commission recommended approval
at its November 7, 1994 meeting. The proposed ordinance includes provisions
in Section 3 that make the Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change effective at
the time of issuance of building or development permits. If development does
not occur, the plan and zone changes would not be effective because the
Council adopted Community Commercial Development Code provisions that call
for concurrent review of the site plan.
Due to neighborhood concerns the Planning Commission revised the staff
recommendation by approving the application without requiring the applicant
to modify the site plan to provide a driveway access to SW Northview Drive.
The Commission expressed some support for a one way, in only driveway from SW
Northview Drive. Staff recommends that this driveway be provided at one of
three locations to reduce turning movement conflicts on SW Walnut Street
which is designated a Major Collector Street. A driveway can be provided
onto SW Northview without creating significant through traffic or light and
noise impacts on adjoining residences. The proposed final order, ordinance
addditional findings, the site and vicinity maps, the applicant's submittal
which includes draft findings and the letter by Mr. Bill Gross are attached.
The minutes of the November 7, 1994 Planning Commission will be available at
the meeting.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Approve the attached ordinance, thereby approving the requested
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zoning Map Change by adopting the
staff report as findings in support of the decision.
2. Modify the approval and direct staff to prepare a revised ordinance and
findings as necessary.
3. Deny'the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zoning Map Change.
FISCAL NOTES
No direct fiscal impacts.
LUBA NO. 95-011.-
Exhibit No.
Page No. -L-2-&_
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 94-
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT REQUESTED BY
ALBERTSON'S INCORPORATED (CPA 93-0009 AND ZON 93-0003).
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
from Medium-High Density Residential to redesignate approximately 8
acres of a 11.95 acre parcel from Medium-High Density Residential to
Community Commercial and a Comprehensive Plan approval to redesignate a
6.93 acre parcel from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High Density
Residential. The applicant's request also includes accompanying Zone
Changes which propose to redesignate the property from R-12(PD) and R-
25(PD) (Residential, 12/25 units per acre, Planned Development) to C-C
(Community Commercial) and C-N (Neighborhood-Commercial) to R-25
Residential, 25 units per acre).
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The proposal is consistent with all relevant criteria based
upon the facts, findings and conclusions, noted in the attached final
order, additional findings and vicinity maps identified as Exhibits A,
B, C-1 and C-2;
SECTION 2: The City Council concurs with the Planning Commission and
staff recommendations and approves the request to redesignate the
parcels illustrated on the attached maps (Exhibits C-1 and C-2) with
Comprehensive Plan designations of Community Commercial and Medium-High
Density Residential.
SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective at the time of issuance of
building or development permits. If development does not occur, this
ordinance shall not become effective because the Community Commercial
Zoning District provisions require concurrent review of the site plan.
PASSED: By vote of all Council members present
after being read by number and title only, this day
of 1994.
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED: This day of 1994.
John Schwartz, Mayor
L.UBA N0.95-01 t
E)ddbit No.
Page NO. :6
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Date
LWBA NO. 9"l1
ORDINANCE No. 94- E]dlM NO.
Page 2 Page NO. b
EXHIBIT "A"
CITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
FINAL ORDER
A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WITH REGARD TO AN
APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, SITE
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND MINOR LAND PARTITION APPLICATIONS REQUESTED
BY ALBERTSON'S INCORPORATED.
The Tigard City Council reviewed the application below at a public
hearing on December 13, 1994. The City Council approves the
request.. The Council has based its decision on the facts, findings
and conclusions noted below.
A. FACTS
1. General Information
Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 93-0009
Zone Change ZON 93-0003
Site Development Review SDR 93-0014
Minor Land Partition MLP 93-0013
A request for the following development approvals:
• 1) Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change to redesignate
approximately 8 acres of a 11.95 acre parcel from Medium-High
Density Residential to Community Commercial and a
Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change approval to redesignate a
6.93 acre parcel from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High
Density Residential. Proposed Zone Changes accompanying the
above plan changes includes request for a zone change from R-
12 (PD) and R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre, Planned
Development) to C-C (Community Commercial) and C-N
(Neighborhood Commercial) to R-25 (Residential, 25
units/acre);
2) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of
a 40,000 square foot Albertson's Grocery Store and three
smaller tenant pads of 5,950, 2,400 and 1,200 square feet.
The applicant has also proposed two 4,000 square foot retail
pads.
3) Minor Land Partition approval to divide an 11.95 acre parcel
into two parcels of approximately 8 acres and 3.95 acres each.
Applicant: Albertson's, Inc. (Don Duncombe)
17001 NE San Rafael
Portland, OR 97230
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S --PAGE 1
LUBA NO.95-011
Editlt No.'
Page No. 1.W
Agent: John Shonkwiler, P.C.
Attorney at Law
4040 Douglas Way
PO Box 1568
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
Owner: Margery Crist, et. al.
Route 1, Box 792
Beaverton, OR 97007
Location: Southeast and northeast quadrants of the intersection
of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Walnut Street. (WCTM
2S1 4BB, tax lots 100 and 200).
Applicable Review Criteria:
Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14;
Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 4.1.1, 4.2.1,
6.1.1, 6.4.1, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.2, 7.6.1,
8.1.1, 8.1.3, 8.2.2, 8.4.1, 9.1.3, 12.1.1., 12.2, and
12.2.1 and 12.2.4; and
Community Development Code Chapters 18.22, 18.32,
18.56,18.60, 18.61, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.108,
18.114, 18.120, 18.130, 18.162, and 18.164.
2. Backctround Information
An area that included the subject property was annexed to the
City of Tigard on June 12, 1983. In August 1983, the City
approved a variety of plan and zone designations for the area,
including Medium-High Density Residential (R-20, now R-25
zone), Medium Density Residential (R-12 zone), and
Neighborhood Commercial (C-N zone).
The City subsequently approved the relocation of the C-N
designation in a number of locations in the vicinity between
1983 and 1986 (Case files CPA 18-83/AC 14-83, CPA 4785/ZC 4-
85, CPA 1-86/ZC 3-86). The current C-N designation is located
on Tax Lot 100. A complete summary of past City actions
pertaining to the amendments to the size and location of the
N-C designation is presented in the staff report for an
earlier Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposed by Albertson's
for this property (Case.File CPA 91-0003/ZCA 91-0006).
A number of single family and multi-family residential
developments have been proposed for all or a portion of the
subject property between 1986 and 1990 (Case Files SDR 4-86,
S 87-04/V 87-04, S 87-07, SUB 90-04/ZON 90-04/ZON 90-04/VAR
90-08). Development has recently occurred following the
approval of Castle Hill Subdivision.
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S -.PAGE 2
LUBA NO. 95-011
MIN NO-7:m_
Page No. M) _
In 1991, Albertsons applied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
and Zone Change (CPA 91-0003/ZCA 91-0006) to establish an
eight acre Commercial General (C-G) site on Tax Lot 200. The
request also involved the redesignation of the existing C-N
site on Tax Lot 100 to Medium-High Residential (R-25). A
final decision by the City Council was stayed at the request
of the applicant.
Following this application, the City considered including a
new Community Commercial zoning designation as part of the
Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code. After a
lengthy review, the City adopted the Community Commercial
designation in December 1992.
On November 15, 1993 the Planning Commission recommended that
the City Council approve the application with the inclusion of
conditions for an automobile access driveway to SW Northview
Drive, a pedestrian staircase to SW Northview Drive,
conceptual building design details which are consistent with
the grocery store design. The Planning Commission also
recommended that an access plan for the 3.95 acre parcel south
of the site and an improved interior parking lot pedestrian
pathway system.
On January 25, 1994 the City Council remanded the application
back to the Planning Commission due to concerns related to
property owner notification, the findings within the staff
report and the appropriateness of proposed development within
the Community Commercial Zoning District.
The applicant has made the following revisions to the proposal
as a result of concerns raised at neighborhood meetings and
issues raised by the City Council at the January 25, 1994
Public Hearing:
• The proposed commercial uses on the pads oppposite to the
Albertsons pad have been modififed. The gas station and
Shari's uses have been eliminated as prospective tenants. The
pads are shown as 4,000 square foot retail sites.
• A new brick wall has been proposed along portions of the
proposed eight acre parcel's property frontage on SW Northview
Drive.
• The staircase entrance from SW Northview Drive has been
modified to include a series of 90 degree turns to obscure the
staircase entrance.
• The applicant has agreed not to develop the site with tenants
which would have 24-hour commercial operations due to
potential impacts to adjoining residential areas.
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S -.PAGE 3
LUBA NO.95-011
EXhW No. ~
Page No. 1 k3
• The applicant revised the site plan to provide a separate
staircase from SW Northview Drive to the grocery store
building and separated pedestrian pathways for internal
circulation between all buildings and through the center of
the parking lot.
• The site has been posted with a sign showing the proposed site
development plan for the shopping center.
• The applicant has also discussed dedication of the multi-
family area south of the Albertson's site to the Castle Hill
Neighborhood Association for future development as a
neighborhood open space area.
• The applicant has provided a history of the application, a
synopsis of the changes which have been made to the plan, a
security lighting plan, a noise study and conceptual plans for
Albertson's store, the site plan, the wall proposed along SW
Northview Drive.
On November 7, 1994 the Planning Commission recommended that
the City Council approve the application without the inclusion
of conditions for an automobile access driveway to SW
Northview Drive. A portion of the Commission felt that the
Council should consider provision of a one-way drive way which
allows ingress but not egress onto SW Northview Drive. The
Commission felt that the improved interior parking lot
pedestrian pathway system was sufficient as proposed.
The staff recommendation is still to provide additional
pedestrian connections into the site along the southerly and
northerly driveways from SW Scholls Ferry. It is also
recommended that a driveway be provided into the site from
one of three potential locations along SW Northview Drive in
order to avoid turning conflicts to and from SW Walnut Street.
The applicant has prepared proposed findings which reflect the
Planning Commission recommendation. It is recommended that
the applicant prepare detailed findings which address the
Council's decision which would be incorporated into a final
order.
3. Vicinity Information
Single family residential development in the Castle Hill
Subdivision lies to the east and south. To the northeast is
the Cotswald Subdivision which is of a similar character and
density. A day school is on the west side of SW Scholls Ferry
Road. A few large lot single family residences also exist to
the north, south and west of the subject area. A quarry
operated by Morse Brothers Inc. is located to the southwest,
across SW Scholls Ferry Road.
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S -.PAGE 4
LUBA NO. 9"11
EXNA NoZ=_
page No. _Lh~
• R-25(PD) zoning surrounds the parcel currently designated C-N.
The area south of the proposed C-C designation is zoned R-
12(PD) and R-25(PD). The area across SW Scholls Ferry Road
from this area is zoned by the City of Beaverton as R-2
(multi-family, 2,000 square feet lot area/unit). The average
allowable density within a 1/2 mile radius of the site is
approximately 15 units per acre.
Other commercial sites within the general vicinity of the
proposal include:
Murray Hill Shopping Center located approximately 3/4 mile
north on Murray Boulevard;
Greenway Town Center Shopping Center located approximately 1-
1/4 mile east on Scholls Ferry Road;
Washington Square located approximately 2-1/2 miles east; and
Several commercial centers along Pacific Highway, including
the Tigard Central Business District, located approximately
two miles to the southeast.
4. Site Information
There are two properties involved in this application. Tax
. Lot 100 is 6.93 acres in size, zoned C-N, and located on the
northeast corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and Walnut Street.
This parcel is a vacant, grassy field with a relatively
moderate grade.
Tax Lot 200 is 11.95 acres in size, zoned R-12(PD) and R-
25(PD), and located on the southeast corner of SW Scholls
Ferry Road and Walnut Street. This property is also a vacant,
grassy field, but it slopes significantly downward away from
the Castle Hill Subdivision to Scholls Ferry Road.
5. Proposal Description
The applicant has submitted a packet of materials which
describe the various facets of the application. The applicant
has also provided an update to the previous traffic studies
conducted in August and December of 1993, a noise impact study
and a security lighting plan has also been provided.
The application includes the following four separate
components:
a. CPA 93-0009/ZCA 93-0003
A proposed change of the C-N designation on Tax Lot 100 to R-
25, and change the R-12(PD) and R-25(PD). designation for 8
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'$ -.PAGE 5
WBA NO. 95-011
Exhibit No. -
Page No. I K
acres of Tax Lot 200 to C-C, leaving the remaining land use
designations on the property as they are (see Exhibit A).
This change is proposed to be consistent with the requirements
associated with the City's C-C designation and the obligations
of the City to maintain an adequate inventory of multi-family
residential land.
b. SDR 93-0014
The applicant proposes to develop a shopping center with a
total of 57,550 square feet of floor space. This space
includes a 40,000 square foot grocery store, 9,550 square feet
of additional commercial space adjacent to the grocery store
and two separate pad sites totalling 8,000 square feet, (see
Exhibit B). The applicant has provided preliminary site,
grading, utility, and landscaping plans. Conceptual building
elevations providing detail of proposed design features for
the Albertson's have also been provided.
A 40,000 square foot Albertson's Grocery Store and 9,550
square feet of commercial space are proposed for the southern
portion of the site. A truck access and loading area is
proposed along the south side of the building. The southern
and eastern portions of the site are proposed to be graded
extensively and the south side of the main building would have
a floor elevation that is 8 to 24 feet below the existing
grade.
A freestanding tenant pad site is proposed towards the
southeast corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Walnut
Street, a second freestanding pad is intended for the
southwest corner of SW Walnut Street and SW Northview Drive.
The applicant has revised the application to indicate both
pads are intended to be developed with retail uses. The
applicant has withdrawn the conditional use permit portion of
this application.
The applicant has not submitted development plans for any of
the residential areas on the subject properties.
In addition to the specific uses shown on the site plan and
referred to in the applicant's statement, approval of other
uses is requested. This is because all tenants of the center
have not been committed. It is also expected that tenants
will change over time. The additional uses which may be
located at the site and are permitted in the C-C zone for
which the applicant requests approval are:
Animal sales and services;
Consumer repair services;
Convenience sales and personal services;
Children's day care;
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'$ -.PAGE 6
LUBA NO. 95-011
Exhibit No:-
Page No. KrLy
Eating and drinking facilities;
General retail sales (less than 10,000 square feet;
General offices (medical, dental, financial, insurance, real
estate, professional and administrative services); and
Indoor participant sports and recreation.
Three driveways are proposed on SW Scholls Ferry Road and one
driveway is shown on SW Walnut Street. Internal sidewalks are
shown immediately adjacent to the commercial buildings.
Sidewalks link the two pad sites with the public sidewalks on
the perimeter of the project, a sidewalk and staircase
connections are proposed between the grocery store and SW
Northview Drive.
C. MLP 93-0013
The applicant wishes to create a separate 8 acre parcel for
the shopping center. The other 3.95 acre parcel is intended
for future residential development. The applicant has also
discussed the option of dedicating this parcel to the
Castlehill Homeowners Association (see Exhibit A).
6. Agency and Neighborhood Comments
The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal and
offers the following comments:
Findinas•
1. ACCESS
The proposed site plan shows driveway access to SW Scholls
Ferry Road and SW Walnut Street, but no driveway access to SW
Northview Drive. This application, as previously reviewed by
the Engineering Department, recommends a driveway connection
to SW Northview Drive. Although the recent public discussion
has indicated that the present property owners in the adjacent
subdivision, object to a driveway from SW Northview Drive, the
department continues to recommend vehicular, pedestrian, and
bicycle access to SW Northview Drive.
It is our opinion that a driveway to the site could be
designed to satisfy the concerns expressed by the property
owners and provide the recommended access. The driveway
location has several options that include the following:
The entrance could be located opposite SW Stardust Lane, with
a curvilinear ramp, and avoid the objection relating to the
light from cars exiting toward the new residences. The main
building would have to be moved to the west approximately
seven feet.
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S -.PAGE 7
LUBA NO. 95-011
ExhlbR No--__J_X_
Page No. ~F~Z
. A driveway could be constructed through the proposed green
space south of the commercial center. The driveway would
connect to SW Northview Drive at a location south of SW
Stardust Lane. It could connect to the commercial center
parking lot either at a location along the east side of the
Albertson's store, or at a location near Store "C". If the
green space area is dedicated to the homeowners' association,
as proposed by the applicant, the neighborhood could control
the use of the driveway.
A driveway could be constructed directly from the parking lot
to SW Northview Drive, with screening provided between the
driveway and the nearby homes.
Because the C-C zoning is intended to serve the immediate
neighborhoods rather than regional customers, the proposed
retail center can be expected to draw many of its customers
from the adjoining Castle Hill subdivision (64 lots), the
proposed Castle Hill No. 2 subdivision (123 lots), and the
adjoining residential areas. While we hope that many of these
customers will walk or bike.to the center, we can expect that
many will drive. Trips for major grocery purchases are likely
to be made by car even though customers may live quite close
to the center. If the center is intended to serve the
neighborhood, it should have a more convenient access to the
neighborhood.
SW Walnut Street is a Major Collector Street and as shown on
the Comprehensive Plan, is designated to be extended westward
to connect with SW Murray Boulevard by intersecting with Old
Scholls Ferry Road to the north. At present, the connection
between SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue towards the
subject properties is under construction and will be open this
fall. As the area continues to develop, SW Walnut Street will
carry substantial traffic volumes, similar to the traffic
volumes on SW Durham Road in the vicinity of an existing
Albertson's store. In order to protect the safety and
capacity of SW Walnut Street, it is desirable to eliminate
traffic and turning movements on SW Walnut Street where
possible.
A direct driveway from SW Northview Drive will provide a
convenient connection for the local residents as Northview
Drive is the principal access for the adjoining subdivisions.
The direct driveway would preclude the use of SW Walnut Street
to access the site, and reduce left-turn movements.
In some neighborhoods, direct access to retail facilities is
resisted due to a concern that direct access will lead to
additional traffic in the neighborhood. This does not appear
to be a problem in this instance. The proposed alignment of SW
Northview Drive and the connecting streets of Castle Hill No.
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'_S -_-PAGE 8
LUBA NO.-95-011
Exhlbit No. J,
Page No. 1 Srk
2 discourage the use of the street for any through traffic.
SW Walnut Street will remain the most direct access for the
traffic generated from outside the immediate neighborhood.
For these reasons, we reiterate our recommendation that the
center be required to provide a driveway access to SW
Northview Drive.
2. STREETS
The site is located between SW Northview Drive and SW Scholls
Ferry Road south of SW Walnut Street. SW Walnut Street and SW
Northview Drive are City streets. These streets were
previously dedicated and fully improved in conjunction with
the Castle Hill subdivision, with exception of the sidewalk on
SW Northview Drive. A traffic study has been submitted by the
applicant that indicates that the existing improvements on SW
Walnut Street and SW Northview Drive can adequately
accommodate the traffic expected from the proposed
development.
SW Scholls Ferry Road is a Washington County major collector
and is classified as a City arterial. Improvement standards
for Washington County major collector include 37 feet of
right-of-way from centerline, 21 feet of pavement from
centerline along with curb and sidewalk. Currently, the
frontage is improved with 14 feet of pavement without curbs or
drainage. The required 37 feet of right-of-way appears to
exist but should be confirmed.
Washington County has not requested any change to the existing
improvements but has recommended that a non-remonstrance
agreement be accepted. However, the Engineering Department
recommends that full half-street improvements be constructed.
In regards to the four acre site contiguous to the proposed
commercial center, it is recommended that the applicant
provide for the construction of the frontage improvements on
both SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Northview Drive, inasmuch as
this property is a part of the development application and
there is no further development proposed for the 4 acre site.
The proposed grading of the commercial development
incorporates substantial cuts, fills and slope construction.
The applicant should be required to perform all grading in
accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 70 of the
Uniform Building Code.
3. SANITARY SEWER
The applicant is proposing to connect to an existing eight
inch public sanitary sewer within SW Scholls Ferry Road. The
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S -.PAGE 9
LUBA NO. 95-Ml
Exhibft No-.:!X-
Page No.
Page
line is operated by the City of Beaverton. The applicant
should show evidence that the City of Beaverton has reviewed
and accepted this proposal and that any special requirements
of the City of Beaverton have been met. The final design and
alignment of the sewer shall be reviewed and approved by the
City of Tigard Engineering Department.
4. STORM SEWER
The applicant proposes to collect run-off into a private storm
sewer and discharge it to an existing box culvert in SW
Scholls Ferry.
The Unified Sewerage Agency has established and the City has
agreed to enforce (Resolution and Order No. 91-47) surface
water management regulations requiring the construction of on
site water quality facilities or fee in lieu of their
construction. The applicant is proposing to satisfy this
requirement by constructing an on-site water quality facility
along the SW Scholls Ferry frontage. The facility should be
privately owned and maintained.
The Public Works Department provided no comments or objection to
the request.
The Building Division provided no comment or objection to the
request.
The City of Beaverton provided no comment or objection to the
request.
Washington County's Department of Land Use and Transportation
indicates that an access report must be prepared by the applicant.
The applicant has been advised and the Department estimates that an
additional response regarding access will be available soon. The
Department also has the following comments:
This proposal includes a partition request with both parcels
having frontage on SW Scholls Ferry Road. As proposed, Parcel
1 (8.00 acres) will be zoned commercial and contain an
Albertsons Store and several associated commercial businesses
(restaurant, video store, etc.) and Parcel 2 (3.95 acres) will
be zoned multi-family residential. The proposal does not
contain any specific development plans for Parcel 2. All of
the conditions of approval outlined in this report pertain to
both parcels (i.e., sidewalks, waiver, etc.). Since Parcel 2
does not include a request for access to SW Scholls Ferry
Road, specific access related issues for this parcel are not
reviewed at this time. The County may deny a separate access
to Parcel 2 from SW Scholls Ferry Road and require shared
access with the shopping center or access only from SW r
Northview Drive.
w
SW Scholls Ferry Road is designated as.a major collector on •
the County Transportation Plan. Resolution and Order (R&O) O Z p
Z~Z
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 10 m r~ 0
~~IL
86-95 and the Community Development Code limit access to 100
feet. The proposed access points meet the spacing
requirements. However, there are significant safety concerns
dealing with access to the site from SW Scholls Ferry Road,
primarily concerning left turn stacking queues. Since these
issues cannot be determined until the County Traffic Analyst
has completed his report, this letter does not approve any
access to SW Scholls Ferry Road at this time. The County
Traffic Analyst's access report will determine the appropriate
number and spacing for access points to the site.
Resolution and Order 86-95 also requires a minimum 450 feet of
sight distance at the proposed access location. This site has
over 700 feet of frontage and sight distance can be obtained
or is acceptable at several possible access locations. As
discussed above, specific access points for this site will be
determined as a part of the Traffic Analyst's review. There
are a couple of vertical curves along the frontage which limit
sight distance in some locations, particularly at the
northeast end of the site. The applicant will be required to
provide certification of sight distance by a registered
professional engineer for all access locations prior to
occupancy.
A traffic analysis for this development proposal is being
performed by the County Traffic Analyst, whose findings and
recommendations will be forwarded to the City at the time of
completion of the review. This review and the recommended
conditions of approval which will be developed as a part of
that review are required by Resolution and Order 86-95 and
Section 501.5.2.B. of the Community Development Code.
The Tigard Water Department states that although the agency does
not have any objections to the proposal, it should be noted that:
All exterior portions of the buildings must be within 250 feet
of a fire hydrant ;
Backflow prevention devices (minimum of double check valve
assembly) will be required on all water services; and
The agency will require proper line protection for automatic
fire sprinkler systems.
Washington County Fire District requested that a meeting with the
applicant's engineer to discuss access requirements to hydrant
locations and fire flow. In a phone conversation with Gene
Birchill of the District, concern was expressed regarding the
provision of future access to the proposed 3.95 acre parcel.
T
Portland General Electric has no objections to the application.
School District #48 (Beaverton) states that the proposed zone •
changes and development will not have a student impact on the 0 Z C.
District. Z :M-Z
aa®
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 11 r
~~IL
The neighborhood reviewed the proposal on July 30, 1993, and notes
from the meeting have been submitted by the applicant as an
exhibit. Issues raised included buffering, views, traffic, truck
deliveries, multi-family development on the proposed 3.95 acre
parcel, and 24 hour operations on the site. At the conclusion of
the meeting the group suggested four changes:
a. A brick fence (4 or 5 feet high) should be constructed along
SW Northview Drive with landscaping. The fence could extend
up to or just past the proposed pathway leading to the
shopping center.
b. A small gas station should not be included.
C. Require by covenants and restrictions that tenants maintain
property so as not to have litter, teenage loitering, etc.
d. Allow weekend or evening use of portions of the site and
parking area for special neighborhood functions and
activities.
The applicant conducted an additional neighborhood meeting on
August 8, 1994 prior to submittal of the current proposal. The
issues which were reviewed included the following:
a. An old NPO vote for the site had recommended approval of a gas
station at the site.
b. Concerns were raised about traffic, noise, lights and safety
for pedestrians. Issues about ecology of a gas station use if
the site was later abandoned.
C. All attendees were opposed to a gas station use.
d. The attendees felt that the corner of SW 135th and SW Scholls
Ferry Road was more appropriate for a gas station.
e. The participants felt that the staircase proposed from SW
Northview Drive was a good idea and a proper location.
f. The participants felt that a no "parking area" should be
designated along SW Northview Drive adjoining the staircase
entrance location(s).
g. The participants were opposed to the SW Northview Drive
driveway connection from the site.
h. The participants were opposed to 24-hour operation of
businesses at the facility due to potential issues with noise,
light, vandalism and theft.
T
i. Participants raised concerns over parking.lot lighting due to
added light glare impact to adjoining residential areas. H~ft
~
j. Participants raised concerns over the landscaping shown along ZZ.. O
r- Z.
:2. 0
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 12 ' E
co
J G.
SW Northview Drive and requested that a brick wall be
constructed along SW Northview Drive.
k. Participants raised concerns over what would be built on the
3.95 acre multiple family site to the south of the proposed
Albertson's site. The participants preferred that the site be
set aside for common open space area.
1. The proposed uses on site were discussed and were thought to
be appropriate with the exception of the gas station and the
Shari's uses.
M. Concern was expressed over the SW Murray Boulevard extension
from Beaverton to SW Walnut Street. The consensus of the
participants was not that this application generated the need
for the connection but a general concern that the street would
greatly increase traffic in the area.
n. The participants discussed the appearance of the building
design and thought the type of design used at the Albertson's
located at Durham and Pacific Highway would be preferred.
o. The participants discussed the overall site design and were in
favor of the grading plan which was proposed due to the
ability of the slope to mitigate the noise caused by trucks
and the types of uses proposed. The participants felt that
commercial zoning at this site made more sense than on the
north side of SW Walnut where it is presently located.
P. A vote was taken of the site plan which approved the site plan
32-1 as proposed with the staircase and walkway changes which
had been to the previous plan. The participants preferred
that the site plan not include direct access to SW Northview
Drive as was previously approved by the Planning Commission.
No other comments have been received.
B. MAJOR ISSUES
This section of the report provides an overview and evaluation
of the major issues pertaining to the four parts of the
application. Findings and conclusions regarding the
applicable criteria are found in Exhibit B.
1. Comprehensive Plan and Zone Chancre
a. Commercial Neighborhood (C-N) to Medium-High Residential
(R-25).
As noted earlier in this report, the C-N designation has been
moved several times since 1983. Before it was applied to Tax r
Lot 100, this property was designated R-25. In order to meet
the applicable locational criteria in the Comprehensive Plan,
the C-N designation must be changed in order: to. have . •
commercial use (C-C) on only one quadrant of an intersection. O Z C;
Z~Z
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 13 m 0
08
Also,. this redesignation to R-25 helps offset the loss of R-25
zoning caused by the proposed C-C designation.
b. Medium-High Residential (R-25PD) to Community Commercial
(C-C).
Compliance with the locational criteria for the C-C
designation, the Metropolitan Housing Rule, and compatibility
with the surrounding residential areas is of key importance.
The locational criteria are satisfied as described in the
draft findings and conclusions (Exhibit C).
The proposal will result in a net loss of 1.07 acres of R-25
land, for an impact of 26 units. The City's inventory shows
that presently there are 1,305 acres of developable
residential land with a total potential of 13,478 dwelling
units. This yields an average allowable density of 10.328
units per acre. The Housing Rule has a minimum requirement of
10 units per acre. This change will have a minimal impact
that results in 1,304 developable acres, 13,452 potential
units, and an average possible density of 10.315 units per
acre.
The remainder of Tax Lot 200 approximately 3.95 acres has been
discussed as being developed by property owners within the
area for common open space use. Limitations to development of
this area for multiple family uses would further decrease the
total density of 10.27 dwelling units per acre for the
remaining 1,300 developable acres of residential land.
Annexation of areas such as the Walnut Island in the future is
also expected to further decrease residential density of the
City to point below 10 units per acre. This would mean that
other properties now zoned for low density residential use
would need to be rezoned for higher density residential.
Due to the neighborhood's proximity to Summerlake Park, it's
approximate 27 acre size at completion and the cost of
developing new park improvements, it is recommended that
future park funding in the area concentrate on completing the
improvement of Summerlake Park rather than developing the
proposed 3.95 acre "remainder parcel" as a City park.
Redesignation to C-C requires that the necessary development
applications be processed with the Comprehensive Plan and
zoning amendments. Compatibility issues are addressed using
the applicable code criteria.
2. Site Development Review for the Shopping Center
There are several issues relating to the development of the T,
site that are of special importance. The following
highlighted sections represent concerns reviewed within the
previous staff report and how this current proposal addresses v)
a 01
the previous recommendations. _ O
Z C
- aaZ
_m
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 14 J C.
a. Vehicular Access
The applicant proposes four driveways to serve the project.
A fifth driveway onto SW Northview is suggested by the
Engineering Department to provide more convenient access
between the center the adjoining residential area, and to
reduce the number of turning movements in and out of the SW
Walnut Street driveway and SW Northview Drive. This will
reduce potential congestion on SW Walnut, and due to the
design of the streets in Castle Hill subdivision, through
traffic is not anticipated as a result of this additional
driveway.
Although development is not currently contemplated for the
proposed 3.95 acre parcel, access should be considered now.
This parcel has a limited frontage on SW Scholls Ferry Road.
This situation will be complicated further by Washington
County driveway spacing standards. The options for driveway
access (multi-family development), public street access
(single family development), and emergency access should all
be considered before the site plan, shopping center access,
and partition plans are finalized. The proposed site plan
provides the same design as reviewed previously by the
Planning Commission as it relates to driveway locations and
numbers of driveways. It is recommended that an additional
driveway be provided from SW Northview Drive into the site.
Due to the length of property frontage on SW Northview Drive
and the design of the center it appears that there are three
potential driveway locations. The applicant may provide
shared access with the vacant 3.95 acre parcel to the south.
A driveway which intersects with SW Stardust Lane or at a
location towards the intersection of SW Walnut Street south of
the corner pad.
If either the second or third options are utilized
construction of a driveway along the southern property towards
SW Scholls Ferry Road should be considered to allow for future
access between the 3.95 acre parcel and the Albertson's site
without the use of adjoining streets.
b. Pedestrian and Bicycle Access
The proposed internal system of sidewalks does not connect all
destinations on the site or with surrounding public streets
and sidewalks. The following improvements should be provided:
Provide a sidewalk along one side of the eastern and western
driveways on SW Scholls Ferry Road, and the SW Walnut Street
driveway. An improved system of sidewalks have been provided
internally into the center as a part of this revised design.
A sidewalk has been proposed into the site from SW Scholls
Ferry Road along the center driveway. Additional sidewalks
are recommended along both of the other. two driveways from SW
Scholls Ferry Road. p Z-
O
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 15 --Cc
o.
An additional sidewalk connection is recommended along the SW
• Walnut Street driveway onto the site. An additional sidewalk
is also recommended from SW Walnut Street to the 4,000 square
foot pad at the corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Walnut
Street.
Provide an internal system of sidewalks that connects these
driveway entrances, the pad sites, and the main building in a
safe and convenient manner. It is recommended that additional
sidewalks be provided into the site. Each of the driveway
entrances into the site should provide sidewalks into the site
to create an integrated system of internal connections
designed for exclusive use by pedestrians.
Where walkways cross paved surfaces the use of durable, low
maintenance materials designed to be visually distinguishable
from the paved surfaces shall be provided as required by the
CC zone. It is suggested that the walkway material match or
compliment other commonly used materials throughout the site.
It is also recommended that the six parking spaces shown along
the SW Walnut Street driveway into the site be replaced with
a walkway and a wider landscaped parkway type major entrance
to the site. This change would eliminate traffic conflicts
and allow for an additional pedestrian walkway to be developed
which aligns with the walkway shown to the Albertson's store
entrance.
Amend the design of the proposed sidewalk to SW Northview
Drive so that it connects with Northview at its intersection
with SW Stardust Lane to enhance convenience to the
neighborhood and to encourage proper pedestrian crossings at
the intersection rather that at mid-block. This may require
a switchback as well as an amendment to the grading plan and
the parking layout near the sidewalk. The applicant addressed
this concern by providing pedestrian connections into the
site. It is again recommended that the applicant provide a
driveway into the site from SW Northview Drive. The driveway
location can take place in either of the following locations:
1) a shared driveway for both the Albertson's site and the
3.95 acre multiple-family property, 2) alongside the
Albertson's store ending at an intersection with SW Stardust
Lane or, 3) towards the corner of SW Walnut and SW Northview
Drive south of the proposed freestanding pad site.
Two of the handicapped parking spaces near the front of the
grocery store should be moved to be adjacent to the building
so that crossing the driveway will not be necessary to reach
the entrance. The applicant has not amended the site plan to
reflect this concern. It is recommended that this revision be
incorporated into the site plan due to address store access
concerns. r
C. Landscaping IM
.
0 Z 0
Z~
a,p ~
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 16 Z
~~a
The conceptual landscaping plan appears to be consistent with
the landscaping and buffering standards in the code. More
detail is necessary prior to final development approval to
ensure that specific code provisions are satisfied. If
approved, further review of final landscape plans would be
conducted through the building permit plan check. It is
recommended that the final landscape plan provide a minimum of
35% canopy coverage over the parking stalls.
d. Noise
The issue of noise impact needs further evaluation. While the
loading area is well below grade and it will be visually
screened, potential noise from loading operations and rooftop
equipment must be carefully reviewed and appropriate
mitigation measures taken. Sound barriers, location and type
of equipment, and hours of equipment operation should all be
considered. The applicant provided a noise study addressing
the expected noise generators from the site and their impacts
to adjoining residential areas.
Based on the noise background measurements at adjoining
residential areas, the site improvements as proposed are
expected to meet or exceed all applicable noise criteria if an
evaporative condenser cooling unit is constructed within the
mezanine level of the Albertson's store rather than an air
cooled, roof mounted unit (TMC 7.40.130-210) and Code
criteria.
e. Design
The C-C provisions in Chapter 18.61 include design guidelines
pertaining to design and architectural details. The only
conceptual building design which has been provided to date is
for the grocery store. It is not clear how the appearance of
the remaining structures will relate to each other in terms of
design.
3. Conditional Use Requests
a. Service Station
While a service station may be appropriate on this site, the
applicant has not provided sufficient information to justify
an approval of this use. The applicant has withdrawn the
request for consideration of a conditional use permit for a
gas station on the site. Approval of the applications under
review does not permit development of a service station on the
site. At a later date the applicant may request conditional
use permit review for a range of uses which are conditionally
permitted within the Community Commercial Zone. The r
• Development Code requires a public hearing before the r
Hearing's Officer for review of all conditional use permit
requests. _ o
O Z..o
Z Z
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 17 m 4
.J CL
b. 24 Hour Operation of the Grocery Store
A primary purpose of the C-C designation is to provide
convenient commercial services in residential areas while
maintaining a compatible relationship between uses. Many of
the evaluation criteria noted in this report are intended to
achieve this result.
Evening operations are usually problematic because of noise,
lights, and traffic. Due to the orientation of the grocery
store, the distance of the store entrance from nearby
residential properties, and the buffering provided by the
grading and landscaping, a 24 hour operation appears to be
appropriate. Chapter 18.130, Conditional Use has general
criteria that have been addressed by the applicant (or will be
as required by the recommended conditions of approval). There
are no specific review criteria in Chapter 18.130 for 24 hour
operation. The applicant has also withdrawn their request to
operate the Albertson's on a 24-hour basis due to concerns
raised by the neighborhood. The CC Zone restricts all
commercial businesses from operating after 11:00 pm or earlier
than 6:00 am without prior approval of a conditional use
permit to do so.
A security lighting plan has been provided by the applicant
which proposes to use lighting fixtures of 25 feet in height
as measured from the site's finish grade elevations. Based on
the proposed grading. plan for the site and the proposed
screening measures to be employed between adjoining
residential areas, light generated by these fixtures is not
expected to overlap into neighboring residential areas.
The lighting fixture specifications provided by the applicant
did not clearly indicate that the fixtures would use light cut
off shields to prevent spillover onto other properties. It is
recommended that these fixtures use this design feature to
further minimize light splash as required by the CC Zoning
District.
4. Minor Land Partition
This portion of the application is consistent with the
dimensional requirements for the R-25 and C-C designations.
The only issue related to the partition is future access as
discussed above. The recommended conditions include provision
for street improvements along the street frontages of both
parcels.
C. RECOMMENDATIONS
r
The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission ~j
0 forward a recommendation for approval to the City Council fora
a C)
CPA 93-0009/ZCA 93-0009, SDR 93-0014, and MLP 93-0013 subject Q
Z
to the following conditions. Unless otherwise noted, all-Z A2Z
conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of building m a
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 18 J 0.
permits.
1. Approve CPA 93-0009/ZCA93-0009 to change the Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning designations on Tax Lot 100 from Neighborhood
Commercial (C-N) to Medium-High Residential/Planned
Development (R-25PD), and to change the Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning designation for 8 acres of Tax Lot 200 from Medium and
Medium-High Residential/ Planned Development R-25 to Community
Commercial (C-C).
The Comprehensive Plan and zoning map amendments shall be
finalized at the time a building or other development permit
(e.g., grading) is issued.
2. Approve the Site Development portion of the application with
the following conditions:
a. A revised site plan shall be submitted for approval which
includes the following modifications:
1. A walkway system which has sidewalks along each of the
SW Scholls Ferry Road driveways shall be provided.
Differing walkway materials be used to designate
walkway areas.
2. A sidewalk/stairway from the grocery store shall
connect with SW Northview Drive.
3. The applicant shall modify the site and landscape plan
to delete the six parking spaces proposed along the SW
Walnut Street Driveway into the site. The area shown
with these six parking spaces shall be landscaped to
form a wider parkway entrance to the site.
4. Two of the proposed handicapped parking spaces in
front of the grocery store shall be moved to be
adjacent to the building.
5. The applicant shall supply details concerning the
screening of all mechanical equipment to be used on
the perimeter of the building or on the roof.
6. All cooling units shall be as specified within the
noise study dated September 29, 1994. The study
recommended the use of quieter evaporative condensers
located within the mezanine level of the store rather
than air cooled condenser units located on the roof.
7. A detailed landscaping plan shall be provided showing
the size and species of landscaping material to be
used throughout the development. The landscaping
shall achieve a minimum of 3501 canopy coverage at
maturity over the parking stall areas.
a C
8. Conceptual building design details shall be provided Z Z
Z
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 19 ' a c
J ~ d
for the entire development. Of key importance will be
consistent size and scale of buildings and signs. The
applicant shall create a sign program for the center
identifying the size, location and design of all
freestanding and wall signage.
9. All lighting fixtures shall use cut-off shields to
prevent the spillover of light to adjoining
properties.
10. If either driveway design is utilized which would
intersect with SW Stardust Lane or south of the corner
pad towards SW Walnut Street, construction of a
driveway along the southern property towards SW
Scholls Ferry Road should be considered to allow for
future access between the 3.95 acre parcel and the
Albertson's site.
11. The applicant shall prepare detailed findings
concerning the City Council decision concerning this
application for incorporation into the final order.
STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division.
3. The site plan shall be revised to provide for driveway access
to SW Northview Drive in a location as approved by the City
Engineer. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering
Department.
4. Two (2) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile
construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary
review to the Engineering Department. Seven (7) sets of
approved drawings and one (1) itemized construction cost
estimate, all prepared by a Professional Engineer, shall be
submitted for final review and approval (NOTE : these plans are
in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division
and should only include sheets relevant to public
improvements. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering
Department.
5. Building permits will not be issued and construction of
proposed public improvements shall not commence until after
the Engineering Department has reviewed and approved the
public improvement plans and a street opening permit or
construction compliance agreement has been executed. A 100
percent performance assurance or letter of commitment, a
developer-engineer agreement, the payment of a permit fee and
a sign installation/streetlight fee are required. STAFF
CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering Department.
6. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along T X
the SW Scholls Ferry Road frontage to increase the right-of-
way to 37 feet from the centerline. If the existing right-of-
0
way is has been dedicated to the required width, the :applicant OZ O
shall submit survey and title information to confirm. The Z Z
Qam
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 20
.J O.
• description of any additional right-of-way shall be tied to
the existing right-of-way centerline. For additional
information contact Washington County Survey Division.
7. Standard half-street improvements, including concrete
sidewalk, driveway apron, curb, asphaltic concrete pavement,
sanitary sewer, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground
utilities shall be installed along the SW Scholls Ferry Road
frontage, including the frontage of all parcels within the
minor land partition. Improvements along SW Scholls Ferry
Road shall be designed and constructed to Washington County
Uniform Road Improvement Design Standards and shall conform to
the alignment of existing adjacent improvements or to an
alignment approved by the Washington County Engineering
Department. For additional information contact Washington
County Engineering Department.
8. The applicant shall obtain a facility permit from the
Department of Land Use and Transportation of Washington
County, to perform work within the right-of-way of SW Scholls
Ferry Road. A copy of this permit shall be provided to the
City Engineering Department prior to issuance of a Public
Improvement Permit.
9. Standard half-street improvements, including concrete
sidewalk, driveway apron, streetlights, and underground
utilities shall be installed along the SW Northview Drive and
"Green Space" frontage of SW Northview Drive. Improvements
shall be designed and constructed to local street standards
and shall conform to the alignment of existing adjacent
improvements or to an alignment approved by the Engineering
Department. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering
Department.
10. The applicant shall submit sanitary sewer plans to the City of
Beaverton for their approval. The plans shall also be
submitted for the review and approval of the City of Tigard
Engineering Department. A copy of the approved plans shall be
provided to the City of Tigard prior to the construction of
any public improvements.
11. The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility
as established under the guidelines of Unified Sewerage Agency
Resolution and Order No. 91-47. Submitted design information
shall include an operation and maintenance plan. STAFF
CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Department.
12. The applicant shall demonstrate that storm drainage runoff can
be discharged into the existing drainageways without
significantly impacting properties downstream. STAFF CONTACT: r
Greg Berry, Engineering Department. 0
• 13. The proposed privately operated and maintained sanitary sewer
and storm drainage system plan-profile details :shall be C Z
provided as part of the public improvement plans. STAFF Z a--Z
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 21 0.
CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering Department.
14. The applicant shall obtain a "Joint Permit" from the City of
Tigard. This permit shall meet the requirements of the NPDES
and Tualatin Basin Erosion Control Program. STAFF CONTACT:
Michael Anderson, Engineering Department.
15. A grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and
proposed contours. A soils report shall be provided detailing
the soil compaction requirements. Staff Contact: Michael
Anderson, Engineering Department.
16. The applicant shall provide a geo-technical report that
addresses the slope stability adjacent to SW Northview Drive
and the overall grading conditions of the proposed
development, in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 70
of the Uniform Building Code. STAFF CONTACT: Michael
Anderson, Engineering Department.
17. The applicant shall underground the existing overhead
facilities along each frontage or pay the fee in-lieu of
undergrounding. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering
Department.
18. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the
public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to
"Erosion Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, November
1989. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering
Department.
19. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and
parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. All
construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-site or
within the SW Northview Drive and SW Walnut Street right-of-
way. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted
to park on the adjoining residentail public streets.
Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor
or subcontractor involved in the construction of the site
improvements or buildings proposed by this application, and
shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees
associated with the project. STAFF CONTACT: Michael
Anderson, Engineering Department.
20. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements:
A. Three copies of the partition plat prepared by a land
surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or
narrative.
B. The partition plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to
the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes
(ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard.
C. Copy of boundary survey _ • O
zZ d
. Q= Z
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 22 J a
STAFF CONTACT: John Hadley, Engineering Department.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITION (S) SHOULD BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO FINAL
OCCUPANCY PERMIT:
21. Provide the Engineering Department with a recorded mylar copy
of the final survey; or if not recorded with Washington County
but has been approved by the City of Tigard the applicant
shall have 30 days after recording with Washington County to
submit the copy.
D. DECISION
The City Council approves the requested Comprehensive Plan
Amendment for Washington County Tax Map properties 2S1 4BB,
tax lots 00100 and 00200 from Neighborhood Commercial and
Medium-High Density Residential to Medium-High Density
Residential and Community Commercial respectively. The City
Council also approves the accompanying Zone Change request,
Site Development Review and Minor Land Partition. The City
Council finds that the change will promote the general welfare
of the City and will not be significantly detrimental or
injurious to surrounding land uses.
It is further ordered that the applicant and parties to these
proceedings be notified of the entry of this order.
LUBA NO. 95-011
Exhibit No..I._
Page' No. -PO
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 23
EXHIBIT "B"
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The applicants have presented a report entitled Albertson's,
Inc. Application for Site Development Plan, Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and Zoning Amendments for Community Commercial
(hereafter referred to as the applicant's statement) that
addresses the Statewide Planning Goals, the Tigard
Comprehensive Plan policies, and the Community Development
Code provisions that are applicable to the request. The
applicant has also submitted a traffic study and supplement
prepared by Kittelson and Associates, Inc. in support of the
application.
Staff finds that the following Statewide Planning Goals, City
of Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies, and Tigard Community
Development Code chapters are applicable to the request:
Applicable Review Criteria:
Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14;
Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 4.1.1, 4.2.1, 6.1.1,
6.4.1, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.2, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3,
8.2.2, 8.4.1, 9.1.3, 12.1.1(3), 12.2.1(4) 12.2 and 12.2.4; and
Community Development Code Chapters 18.22, 18.32, 18.56,
18.60, 18.61, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120,
18.130, 18.162, and 18.164.
1. Statewide Planning Goals and Related Plan Policies
The Planning Division concludes that the proposal complies
with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Comprehensive
Plan policies based upon the following findings:
a. Goal 1 (Citizen Involvement) and Policy 2.1.1 are satisfied
because the City has adopted a citizen involvement program
including review of all land use and development applications
by nearby property owners and residents.
Notice was provided by the applicant for the neighborhood
meeting which was conducted August 4, 1994. Notice is also
provided of public hearings before the Planning Commission and
City Council. At each public hearing the opportunity will be
provided public input concerning this proposal.
Policy 2.1.3 is satisfied because information regarding the r
new C-C designation was explained to the public at numerous r c
public forums. In addition, notices and information about
this proposal has been provided so that the basic planning o> •
issues are understood by the public. Comments received have O Z C
been included in the staff report and applicant's statement. Z Z
Qam
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON' S - PAGE 24
J IL
In addition, all public notice requirements related to this
application have been satisfied.
b. Goal 2 (Land Use Planning), Policy 1.1.1, and the quasi-
judicial plan and zone change approval standards of Code
Section 18.22.040 are satisfied because the City has applied
all applicable Statewide Planning Goals through the City's
acknowledged Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code
requirements to the review of this proposal, as described in
this report. The City of Tigard has notified other affected
units of government including the City of Beaverton,
Washington County, the Oregon Department of Transportation,
and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
of the proposal. Service and utility providing agencies have
also been notified of the proposal.
Policy 1.1.2 requires that the Comprehensive Plan and each of
its elements shall be opened for review by the Metropolitan
Service District or its successor on an annual basis, and may
be amended or revised. Implementation Strategy 2 of this
policy requires that the City review Quasi-Judicial Amendments
in accordance with the standards set forth in the Chapter
18.22 of the Community Development Code. These standards have
been reviewed within the applicants statement.
C. Goal 6 (Air/Water Quality) is satisfied because that proposed
C-C zone and the surrounding residential properties will
result in fewer and shorter automobile trips to obtain
commercial goods and services. The proposed center, as
designed and conditioned, will provide for ease of access to
the surrounding neighborhoods. This in turn will help satisfy
Policy 4.1.1 by reducing potential air quality impacts from
the new residents and their automobiles.
Also, Policy 4.2.1 will be satisfied through the development
review and building permit processes at which time a
development proposal for this site must be shown to comply
with applicable federal, state, and regional water quality
requirements including preparation and implementation of a
non-point source pollution control plan in compliance with the
Oregon Environmental Quality Commission's temporary rules for
the Tualatin River Basin. The proposed redesignation would
not by itself affect compliance with this plan policy.
d. Policy 4.3.1 and related TMC Sections 7.40.130-210 have been
satisfied as demonstrated by a noise study which identified,
evaluated, and mitigated noise impacts as required by the
conditions of approval. If approved this policy will be
further implemented through the building permit plan check
process in which landscaping and proposed site improvements
will be reviewed to minimize noise impacts on neighboring landr
uses. Q
• e. Goal 9 (Economy of the State) is satisfied because the p
proposed redesignation would increase the City's inventory of Z Z p
developable commercial land, thereby increasing employment Z a
a
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 250 2
opportunities in the City.
The proposal is consistent with Policy 5.4 because the
proposed C-C designation will maintain a compatible
relationship with nearby residential properties as required by
the Community Development Code standards. In addition, the
site is physically separated from residential uses by streets
on three sides of the property and a steep slope to the south.
A commercial service center of modest size has been
contemplated for this area since the 1983 adoption of the Bull
Mountain Community Plan. The proposed C-C designation will
replace the C-N designation and therefore, no encroachment
into a residential area will result.
f. Goal 10 (Housing) as well as Policy 6.1.1 are satisfied
because the proposal will result in a loss of 1.07 acres of R-
25 land and a net residential opportunity of 26 units. As
discussed in Section B. "Major Issues", this change by itself
has an insignificant impact on the City's ability to comply
with the Metropolitan Housing Rule.
The average potential density of the undeveloped residential
land in the City has historically varied as land was developed
and as Comprehensive Plan Amendments were approved. This
represents a reduction in the amount of developable
residential land in the City of only 0.070.
Policy 6.4.1 requires that the City designate developing areas
which are not designated as established areas on the
Comprehensive Plan Map and encourage flexible efficient
development within these areas. This area is currently a
developing area. The applicant is requesting Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning changes which allow greater flexiblity in
developing commercial uses to provide more types of goods and
services than the present Neighborhood Commercial designation
on the adjoining corner would permit. This change is will
reduce impacts to the transportation system by reducing the
length of travel required by residents to access other area
grocery and commercial shopping centers.
Policy 6.6.1 can be satisfied because the proposed design and
related conditions of approval are intended to provide
buffering and visual separation between the center and nearby
residential neighborhoods. As noted in this report, specific
landscaping noise mitigation measures must be provided to
ensure that this policy and related Code and TMC provisions
are met.
g. Goal it (Public Facilities and Services) and Policies 7.1.2,
7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.2, and 7.6.1, are satisfied because adequate
public service and educational capacities are available to
serve future development of this site, under either the
existing or proposed Plan and zoning designations. :Extension p Z..0
of necessary public facilities to serve the site are the Z = Z
4.00
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 26 {
~~IL
responsibility of the developer, at the time of site-
development. The City of Tigard notifies applicable public
and private utility providers of pending development
applications. No adverse comments were received from service
providers with respect to the current application.
h. Goal 12 (Transportation) and Policy 8.1.1 are satisfied
because the proposed redesignation would not be expected to
result in unsuitable or unsafe levels of traffic on SW Walnut
Street or Scholls Ferry Road. Although commercial development
of this site might be expected to result in some increase in
total traffic on these roads adjacent to the site as compared
to what would be expected under the current designations, the
impact on the city-wide or regional transportation systems
will be beneficial through providing commercial opportunities
closer to adjoining residential areas than is currently
available. Therefore, a net reduction in total system traffic
is anticipated.
Policy 8.1.3 will be satisfied as a condition of development
approval under either the existing or proposed plan and zoning
designations. Completion of necessary street improvements
along the site's frontages will be required to be installed by
the developer at the time of development. The Engineering
Division and Washington County will review final development
plans for the site with regard to necessary road improvements
adjacent to the site and on other affected roadways.
Policy 8.1.2 calls for the City to provide for safe and
efficient management of the transportation planning process
within the City and the metropolitan area through cooperation
with other federal, state, regional and local jurisdictions.
The City has provided copies of the appliction to other
affected agencies for review and comment.
Policy 8.2.2 calls for placing intensive land uses, such as
commercial and multi-family, in locations that can be served
by transit. Though Tri-Met service does not presently serve
the immediate area, an extension of service along SW Scholls
Ferry Road appears very likely.
Policy 8.4.1 states that the City shall locate bicycle and
pedestrian corridors in a manner which provides for pedestrian
and bicycle users, safe and convenient movement in all parts
of the City, by developing the pathway system shown on the
adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan. The site does not adjoin a
designated pedesterian/bikeway corridor area. The development
proposes to provide sidewalks along each property frontage.
The provisions of the Transportation Planning Rule are not
applicable to this application because it was submitted for r X
review prior to adoption of these rule changes. The applicant
0 has addressed transit and pedestrian orientation requirements
throught the development of a walkway system from adjoining •
streets into the site. The applicant has proposed to provide O Z p
a potential bus turnout location on SW Scholls Ferry Road near ZZ a -Z
m
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 27 n M
the intersection of SW Walnut Street in anticipation of future
transit service along SW Scholls Ferry Road.
i. Goal 13 (Energy Conservation) and Policies 9.1.3 which
encourage energy conservation through design and construction.
Because of the sites location and ability to provide greater
numbers of services an expected reduction in the number and
length of automobile trips to existing commercial areas, the
amount of energy consumed by area residents to commercial
services will be less. Through application of current
building code requirements during the building permit review
process all new construction on the site will be developed in
an energy efficient manner.
j. Policy 12.2 identifies types of commercial zoning districts.
This policy sets the following general requirements: 1) That
uses within each district shall be planned at a scale which
relates to its location, site and type of stores to the trade
area to be served. The scale of development has been reviewed
as it relates to surrounding land uses and the site' s existing
proposed topography and appears compatible with adjoining
residential areas as reviewed within this report. 2) That
surrounding residential uses be protected from any possible
adverse effects in terms of loss of privacy, noise, lights and
glare. The applicant has addressed design aspects of the
proposal as it relates to these issues. 3) That commercial
centers be asthetically attractive and landscaped. The
applicant has provided conceptual design details for the
center which have been reviewed against the applicable
standards elsewhere within this report as it relates to
building and site improvement asthetics and landscaping. 4)
That ingress and egress points not create traffic congestion
and hazard. The design of the site has been reviewed
elsewhere within this report as it relates to connectivity
with adjoining rights-of-way and neighboring properties. 5)
That vehicle trips be reduced both in length and total number.
Reduction in vehicular trips has been addressed elsewhere in
this report in terms of length and number. 6) This portion
of the policy states that the Central Business District is not
included in the locational criteria because there is only one
Central Business District within Tigard. This does not apply
to this application because it is not within the Central
Business District.
k. The locational criteria for Medium-High Residential (R-25)
specified in Policy 12.1.1 (3) are met for the following
reasons:
(1) The parcels intended for the R-25 designation are vacant
and are not committed to low density development. Since 1983, r,
these properties have been designated for multi-family and
commercial use. Prior to being designated C-N, Tax Lot 100
was designated R-25. a
' G
(2) The two areas intended for R-25 density are well buffered Z r Z
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 28 {a C
~a
or separated from single family residential neighborhoods.
Tax Lot 100 abuts R-25 zoning to the north and east. The area
north is undeveloped and the eastern property line is bordered
by Cotswald Subdivision. Because of the properties size and
lack of physical constraints, adequate buffering can be
provided along the property boundaries.
The R-25 area south of the center will be adjacent to R-25 and
R-12 zoned areas that developed as single family
neighborhoods. This 3.95 acre parcel will provide a
transition between the single family development and the
shopping center.
(3) Both proposed R-25 parcels have direct access from major
collectors streets.
(4) The properties have a moderate grade and do not appear to
have any development limitations due to natural features of
Code requirements.
(5) As noted in this report, existing facilities have
adequate capacity to serve the development.
(6) The property is approximately 1/2 mile from the nearest
Tri-Met route. This bus stop is served by Tri-Met bus line
#62. However, SW Scholls Ferry Road and Walnut Street are
• logical routes for expansion in the future as the area grows
and the demand for bus service increases.
(7) The two proposed R-25 areas will have excellent access to
shopping.
(8) When the residential properties develop, common and/or
private open space will be required as a condition of
development.
1. The locational criteria for Community Commercial uses
specified in Policy 12.2.1 (4) are satisfied for the following
reasons:
(1) The density within the 1/2 mile trade area averages over
8 units per acre. Supporting information is supplied in the
applicant's statement and in the staff report information on
file as part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to create the
C-C designation.
(2) The proposed center and its components all meet the
maximum gross floor area standards of 100,000 square feet
total, 40,000 for grocery stores, 10,000 square feet for
general retail, and 5,000 square feet for other uses.
r
0 (3) The proposed commercial designation-will apply to only x
the southeast corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and Walnut
Street. _ p
O Z..p
Z=Z
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 29 m a.0
J ~ d
(4) The site is over 1/2 mile from any other commercial
retail land use designations.
(5) The site is located at the intersection of two major
collector streets. The traffic analysis presented by
Kittelson and Associates and the subsequent evaluation by the
Engineering Division and Washington County indicate that no
adverse traffic impacts will result.
(6) The commercial site is eight acres which coincides with
the maximum allowable size for a Community Commercial center.
(7) Design issues, such as vehicular access, pedestrian and
bicyclist access, coordinated development, local street
connections between the commercial use and the neighborhood,
lighting, and noise, have all been addressed using the
applicable Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code
policies and standards.
2. Community Development Code
a. Chapter 18.22
In order to approve a quasi-judicial amendment to the Plan and
zoning maps, the City must also find that there is evidence of
a change in the neighborhood or community which affects the
parcel. Alternatively, the City must find that there has been
a mistake or inconsistency with regard to the original
designation of the parcel (Comprehensive Plan, Volume 2,
Policy 1.1.1, Implementation Strategy 2; Community Development
Code Section 18.22.040(A).
The applicant's statement (pages 5 through 9) addresses these
considerations. The staff concurs with the basic analysis
presented by the applicant.
b. Chapter 18.56 - R-25 Multiple-Family Residential
At this time, no development is proposed for Tax Lot 100 or
the proposed 3.95 acre parcel south of the shopping center.
Both parcels meet the dimensional requirements of the R-25
zone (Section 18.56.050) and it appears that both parcels can
be suitably developed in the future.
C. Chapter 18.61 - C-C Community Commercial
Section 18.61.030 is satisfied because the uses proposed by
the applicant are permitted with the exception of the service
station and 24 hour grocery store operation which are subject
to conditional use approval criteria (Chapter 18.130). The
proposed improvements for the site can accommodate all of the
permitted uses shown on the site plan and proposed as
alternate tenants in the center.
Section 18.61.45 is satisfied because all primary commercial p Z
O
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 30 m a
J u7 A
activities shall be conducted inside; all uses, except for the
grocery and video stores will be less than the 5,000 square
foot maximum; and any outdoor displays and open air dining
shall be conducted within the limits of this section.
Section 18.61.050 is satisfied because the proposed center
meets all applicable standards for lot size and dimensions,
setbacks, lot coverage, building height, and landscaped area.
Section 18.61.055 contains a number of design guidelines and
standards for C-C development. The basic design concepts
presented by the applicant are generally consistent with these
Code provisions. In some cases design concepts need to be
amended and in others more detailed information needs to be
provided (as conditions of approval) to ensure compliance with
this Code section.
Section 18.61.055 A. 1. contains building design guidelines
which have been partially satisfied. The applicant has
provided a proposed design for the grocery store, but not for
the remaining 9,550 square feet of retail space adjacent to it
or for the two building pad sites.
Also, the grocery will have blank walls facing SW Northview
Drive. However, this building elevations will be screened
from view by landscaping and should result in a pleasing
appearance.
Section 18.61.055 A. 2. discourages loading areas that face
toward residential uses. The proposed loading area abuts an
undeveloped residential parcel and is near Castle Hill
Subdivision. Because of the proposed grading of the site, the
loading area will be approximately 24 feet below the existing
grade. This design serves to mitigate noise impacts to
adjoining residential areas along with landscaping and
screening will provide a satisfactory visual buffer.
Section 18.61.055 B. 1. requires internal walkways to
facilitate pedestrian circulation on the site. The site plan
shows sidewalks in the vicinity of the building locations and
one walkway to SW Northview Drive. This Code section can be
satisfied if additional walkways are provided as recommended
in the conditions of approval.
Section 18.61.055 B. 2. can be satisfied with the submission
of additional information regarding, mechanical equipment,
refuse and recycling containers, bicycle parking,
pedestrian/vehicular conflicts, landscaping, screening, and
special site features (e.g., walls) as required in the
conditions of approval. r
rX!
d. Chapter 18.100 - Landscaping and Screening ~j
The provisions of this Chapter can be satisfied provided the O Z •
conditions of approval are met. The conceptual plan is found Z
- Qom
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 31 m
J a
to be consistent with the criteria in this Chapter, but the
details need to be confirmed prior to issuance of development
permits.
Section 18.100.030 - 040 requires street trees as part of new
commercial development. The landscaping plan submitted
indicates that street trees will be planted with 40 foot
spacing. A list of trees to be used is provided, but the tree
to be used is not identified. With 40 foot spacing, the
street trees will need to have a mature height of 40+ feet.
Section 18.100.070 - 080 requires screening between different
uses, such as commercial and residential. The proposed
landscaping plan includes vegetative screening that is
consistent with the standards of these sections. Only more
detailed information regarding the size and species of
plantings, as required in the conditions of approval is needed
to ensure compliance.
Section 18.100.090 pertains to fences and walls. The
applicant has proposed the construction of a wall along a
portion of the perimeter of the development. A conceptual
elevation plan for a portion of this wall along SW Northview
Drive has been included in the application. The applicant has
provided the wall to address specific neighborhood concerns
due to potential site impacts. Using walls as a unifying
design element is encouraged by Chapter 18.100 and the C-C
Zone.
Section 18.100.110 requires screening for parking and loading
areas. The landscaping plan satisfies the relevant
requirements for landscaped islands in the parking area and
the number of trees in the parking area. However, in order to
accommodate the pedestrian walkways noted elsewhere in this
report, some of the landscaped features will have to be
modified.
Section 18.100.130 contains a buffer matrix that prescribes
the minimum width and type of buffer required in different
circumstances. The applicants proposed minimum buffer area of
20 feet with vegetative screening meets or exceeds the
standards for commercial development and parking lots which
abut residential uses.
e. Chapter 18.102 - Visual Clearance Areas
All intersections meet the visual clearance provisions of this
Chapter.
f. Chapter 18.106 - Off-Street and Loading Requirements
Although the exact number of required. parking spaces in
Section 18.106.030 cannot be determined because all of the
tenants have not been identified, the applicant's estimate of d
255 required spaces is reasonable. A total of 293 spaces are OZ d
ZZSX
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 32 - O
J O.
provided.
Section 18.106.050 describes the dimensional standards for
parking areas. All of these requirements for parking spaces
and aisle widths are met or exceeded, as shown on the site
plan.
g. Chapter 18.108 - Access, Egress, and Circulation
The number and dimensions of the proposed driveways meet the
provisions of this Chapter.
Section 18.108.060 discourages direct access onto arterial and
collector streets. While the number of driveways for the
commercial development appears. justified (pending Washington
County's final analysis and recommendations), based on the
traffic study and the findings of the Engineering Department,
the future access for the proposed 3.95 acre parcel must be
addressed as noted in this report.
h. Chapter 18.114 - Signs
The plans submitted by the applicant indicate one freestanding
sign along the SW Scholls Ferry Road frontage, as allowed by
Section 18.114.130 E. A sign drawing has been submitted
without dimensions. Sign permits shall be required as a
condition of approval to ensure compliance with Code standards
for the C-C Zone.
i. Chapter 18.120 - Site Development Review
The relevant design standards in Section 18.120. 180 A. have
been addressed elsewhere in this report, with the exception of
noise (18.180.180 A. 5.). As discussed earlier, the loading
area on the south side of the grocery store is visually
screened from adjoining residential properties. However,
noise from truck traffic, trash collection and compacting, and
rooftop equipment has proven to be a source of conflict
between commercial and residential uses.
Sufficient information has been provided to address the
expected major noise generators on site. The applicant should
comply with the recommendations made within the accoustical
engineer's report as addressed previously within this report.
Based on this study it appears that the site improvements can
be modified to comply with the applicable Development Code
criteria for mitigation of noise.
j. Chapter 18.162 - Major and Minor Land Partitioning
rx~
The proposed partition complies with all of the dimensional -
requirements of the C-C and R-25 zones, and the requirements CD
0 of this Chapter shall be satisfied by the conditions of p Z approval. Z=9
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 33J a
k. Chapter 18.164 - Street and Utility Improvement Standards
These shall be satisfied as required by the City Engineering
Department and the Washington County Department of Land Use
and Transportation.
LUBA NO- g~-011
Exhibit No.
Page No.
FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 34
EXgIBI`r-C 1
s -
.,fit 1 t , _ . ~
46
46
14
106
i
i
~iAS' -0009
I N 094-000'3 4 ~.UB bVt 0C
F'1- yo g~0'
'T A sDR f&93-001.3 page Nom.
p LO
Ap p
~X~t1B
r;XtitBIT C-2
& r
. a
R--
us
4,4
wwwwmww~ 3
g-12 PD
r 12
to C
y r
OV
Y
y4
" cc
Q
FE32~ ~
l
rTj
y$L
Soso
CASE tAO •
CPA # -oO 9 LUBA NO. 95
VI C ZON #9494 p014 ~
~ Ap SDR #93- ,~bft No. 4
1-i1131T RI P #93-0013 page No- --V
E
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
I
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Washington ) ss.
City of Tigard )
I,- .~►nlnlCe being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath
depose and say: (Please print)
That I am a►VUi for
The City of Tig rd, Oregon.
V ----That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR:
That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR:
City of Tigard Planning Director
Tigard Planning Commission
Tigard Hearings Officer
✓Tigard City Council
A copy (Public Hearing Notice/Notice of Decision) of which is attached (Marked
Exhibit •A') was mailed to each named persons at the••11addre s shown on the
attached list marked exhibit •B' on the Jib*`- day of l~lt°.wl 199Y,
said notice NOTICE OF DECISION as hereto attached, was posted on an appropriate
bulletin board on the day bf , 19 and deposited
in the United States Mail on the I "A day of jokTrAut4ur 19
postage prepaid.
&AjAA-k, N l,AkJU'l.&Lr(,-
Prepared Notice
Sub ibed and sworn/affirmed before me on the day of JICRA"r^'
19~.
OFF!CiAL BE'
s i3tAf. ?~l.^£C
(sXd1 kQ?ARY s't13UC clGOid TARY PUBLIC qrP EGON
y iC eOMM SS10:+t mo.OC8977 My Commission Tres : S^
h ` t v'l!~7t$S[l?ttl E..PiRES 4F9T. 1, 19"
~ C ~A a3-o~1 A-1~4~s
LUBA NO. 1
Exh[bit No.
Page No. 1
r__ P
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
TUESDAY, December 13, 1994 , AT 7:30 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC
CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BLVD., TIGARD, OREGON, WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING
APPLICATION AT A PUBLIC HEARING THAT WAS CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 14, 1993:
FILE NO: CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0003/SDR 93-0014/MLP 93-0013
FILE TITLE: Albertson's Inc./Duncombe
APPLICANT: Albertson's Inc. OWNER: Margery Crist
17001 NE San Rafael Rt. 1 Box 792
Portland, OR 97230 Beaverton, OR 97007
REQUEST: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/CPA 93-0009 ZONE CHANGE/ZON 93-0003
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW/SDR 93-0014 CONDITIONAL USE/CUP 93-0002 MINOR LAND
PARTITION/MLP 93-0013 ALBERTSON'S/DUNCOMBE A request for the following
development approvals: 1) Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change approval to
redesignate approximately eight acres of a 12 acre parcel from Medium-High
Density Residential to Community Commercial on tax lot 200 and to redesignate
an approximately 6.93 acre parcel from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High
Density Residential on tax lot 100. Zone changes accompanying the above plan
changes includes a zone change from R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre,
Planned Development) to C-C (Community Commercial) and C-N (Neighborhood
Commercial) to R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre); 2) Site Development Review
approval to allow the construction of a 40,000 anchor tenant pad including a
40,000 square foot grocery store and three smaller tenant pads of 1,200,
2,400, and 5,950 square feet adjoining the anchor tenant pad. The applicant
also proposes two 4,000 square foot stand alone tenant pads. 3) Minor Land
Partition approval to divide the 12 acre parcel into two parcels of
approximately eight acres and four acres each.
LOCATION: Southeast and northeast quadrants of the intersection of SW Scholls
Ferry Road and SW Walnut Street. (WCTM 2S1 4BB, tax lots 100 and 200)
APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13
and 14; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 4.1.1, 4.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.4.1,
6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.2, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 8.2.1, 8.2.2, 8.4.1,
9.1.3, 12.1.1, 12.2, 12.2.1, and 12.2.4; Community Development Code Chapters
18.22, 18.32, 18.56, 18.60, 18.61, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108,
18.114, 18.120, 18.130, 18.162, and 18.164.
ZONE: The existing Neighborhood Commercial zone permits a range of
convenience goods and services which are purchased at least weekly. Typical
uses would include convenience sales and personal services, children's day
care, financial, insurance and real estate services, food and beverage retail
sales, etc. Neighborhood Commercial centers have a 5,000 square foot lot
minimum.
LUBA NO. M-011
Exhibit No. :A. - -
Page No. I X
The proposed Community Commercial zone permits a range of convenience goods
and services which are designed to serve the regular needs of residents of
nearby residential neighborhoods. Community Commercial centers typically
range in size from a minimum of two acres to eight acres. In terms of square
footage these centers range from 30,000 to 100,000 square feet.
The existing R-25 (PD) zone permits a range of single-family attached, low and
medium rise multiple-family residential units, for medium-high residential
development. The R-25 zone permits residential densities up to 25 units per
acre. The Planned Development zoning district overlay is designed to
encourage properties to be developed as a single unit in terms of design,
access, etc.
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.
ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING.
THE CITY WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE
INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL
639-4171, EXT. 356 (VOICE) OR 684-2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR
THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS.
ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO
IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED
AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECEIVE A
STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER; OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING; AND
INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE CITY COUNCIL MAY CONTINUE THE
PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, OR CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. IF A PERSON SUBMITS
EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT TO THE APPLICATION AFTER November 23, 1994, ANY PARTY IS
ENTITLED TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING. IF THERE IS NO CONTINUANCE
GRANTED AT THE HEARING, ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST THAT THE
RECORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST-SEVEN DAYS AFTER THE HEARING.
INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE
REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY
COUNCIL WILL BE BASED UPON THESE CRITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE
HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN
SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED.
FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE, OR FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE WITH SUFFICIENT
SPECIFICITY SO AS TO PROVIDE THE CITY, APPLICANT, OR OTHER PARTIES TO THE
APPLICATION WITH A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND, WILL PRECLUDE APPEAL ON
SAID ISSUE TO THE STATE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS (LUBA).
ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE
FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TEN CENTS PER PAGE.
AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE
AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TEN CENTS
PER PAGE.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY RECORDER OR STAFF PLANNER
Mark Roberts AT 639-4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BLVD., TIGARD,
OREGON 97223.
LUBA NO. W-011
Exhibit NO.
Page No.
i
. +'sE
R
CSI
N
e
PD)
00,
T
FERN
LUBA NO. 95-011
Exhibit No.-;K--
Page No.
IS133OC-00400 IS133CO00203
HHOPFER. MARLIN H 3 MARILYN D RAK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
14190 SW SCROLLS FY RD 14780 SW OSPREY OR SUITE 275
OrARD. OR. 97223 BEAVERTON. OR. 97007
IS133CO-06M 1S133CD- 8
YEU NG. ALFRED AND MARIA COLEMAN. TIMOTHY J 3 ROLAND W
42-70-147TH ST 13865 SW CRIST CT
R JSHM% MY. 11355 TIGARD. OR. 97223
1S133004MW 2S1048D4X=
LABORS LARRY DTINE A CR9ST.IMARGEiY F7JOHW R TRUSTEES
12027 SW W03ON AVE 159ri0 SW DEERCREST LN ,
TIGARO.OR 97223 BEAVERTON.OR. 971007
2SI04BA-014W 2SI04BA-OISW
SHABASH£VICH(. MARATMNA FATEHL AMIR M 3 CAROL L
13856 SW HNDON CT : 13SM SW H IDDN CT
tlGARD.OR. 97223 TIGARD. OR.97223
t
2SI04BA-MOM 2SI04BA-01700
ODELL. ROBERT M JR CLARK SUSAN L
13892 SW H IDON CT 13918 SW HIINDON CT
7IGARD.OR.97223 TIGARD.Oft. 972?3
2S1O4844n= 2S104BA42000
DRAGk R08ERT FXATHLFEN L STEELE. GEORGE E A PATRICIA R
13901 SW H IDON CT 13869 SW HOUM CT
TIGARD.OFIL 97223 TIGARD. OR.972Zi
2SI04BA CMCD 2S104BA40=
PIAONF- CK13ALY O BERGAND OLDHAM INVESTL*3 TS
225 STANFORD LANE 4035 DOUGLAS WAY
SEAL BEACH. CA. 90740 LAKE OSWEGO. OR. 971005
2S1048A4Z= 2SI04BA40M
RICKAM DAVID MMARGARET S KIC*IER. ROBERT L 3 MARILYN D
12061 SW WILTON AVE 13874 SW CRIST CT
TIGARD.OR. 97224 nGARD. OR;4T223
2S104BA402M 2S104BA42T00
SMS-1- . STEPHEN EEAND LEANNE R PHILLIPS. JOHN F M: KRISTL A
TM6 SW CR9ST CT 10275 SW GULL PL
TIGARD. OR.97223 BEAVERTOK OK 97007
0Lm"=TawS ~HARINGTONrCLAYTONC. _ LUBA NO. 9 11
u194 SW NORTHVIEW 14182 SW NORTIMEW DR Exhibit No..
7IGARD.OR.97223 TIGARD.OR.TrT123 Page No.
2SI04BB-OOS 0 2SI04BB40600
UPADHYAY, SATtSH AND SARA! DENG WING SONG AND YI UN
14170 SW NORTHVIEW OR _14215 SW WINDSONG CT
,CARD, OR, 97224 TIGARD. OR. 97223
2S1048500700 2S104BB-00800
VANPERE, U JR. KIM. JACOB CHANG AND MIJA
142378W WINDSONG CT 14269 SW WWDSONG CT
T IGARD. OR. 97223 TIGARD.-OR. 97223
2S104884X0900 2SIO48841000
CHRISIENSEN. LARRY LAND CINDY M BOESEN. JOHN EDWARD AND MARTHA K
142M SW WWDSONG CT 14301 SW WINDSONG CT
TIGARD.OR. 97223 TIGARD. OR. 97723
2S104B6-011Q0 2SI048B.01200
BERG. WILLIAM A JR AND MARY B WYLY. CRAIG W
14300 SW WINDSONG CT 32293 SW LAKE OR.
TIGARD. OR.97223 WMSONVRM OR.971070
251048641300 2510488.01400
WHIT JOW. EDWARD L KAY. DAVID M. AND JACOUIE K
16646 SW AMY LANE 147165 SW OSPREY DR.
BEAVEITMK OR. 97007 BEAVERTON. OR.97007
tOf8801500 2SIO488-016W
JOHMM DAVID AND CHERYL BRIDGMAN. HAROLD AND JOAN
14341 SW WINDSONG CT 6317 SW 188tH CT
TIGARD. OR. 97224 ALOHA„ OR. 97007
?51048841700 2510488.01OW
MILLER, ELIaBETH C. TUTHILL. WALTER C. AND AGNES H.
5863 BAYPOINT DR 14306 SW WINDSONG CT
LAKE OSWEGO. OR. 97035 TIGARD. OR. 97223
251048841900 251048802000
CROWLEY. PATRICK J. AND AMY JO PERKINS. PAUL H. AND SUSAN M.
14294 SW WINDSONG CT 14268 SW WINDSONG CT
TIGARD. OR. 97225 TIGARD. OR. 97223
?510488802100 2SI04BS 02200
DUTHIE. JILL K ESCHENBACHER. BRUCE A. AND CAROL
14232 SW WINDSONG CT 14210 SW WINDSONG CT
TIGARD. op. 97223 TIGARD. OR. 97223
C C,~°~00 2S10488-~00 LUBA NO. 95-011
JOHN H COLLINS. LANNY LAND BARBARA G
u196 SW WINDSONG CT 14158 SW NORTHMEW DR Exhibit NO..
TK.ARD. OR, 97223 TIC%ARD, OR. 97723 Page No. ;211
2SI04884329DO 251048802800
PEST. WILLIAM G III AND L NHEM. PHANN J. AND ALISHA M.
1A134 SW NORTHVIEW OR 14107 SW NORTHVIEW OR
ORD. OR. 97223 TIGARD. OR. 97223
25104884)2900 _ 2SI0488 XMW
PBMCA. DAVID L AND FRANCES E. ROBERTSON. GEORGE J. AND DOMINIC
14119 SW NORTFMEW DR 14121 SW NORTHMEW OR
TIGARD.OR.97223 TIGARD. OR. 97223
2510488-3100 2510488033D0
O'DIERND. MICHAEL P. XRUEGER-PEEKS. CHANEL
14133 SW NORTHVIEW DR 14145 SW NORTHVIEW DRIVE
TIGARD.(R. 97223 TIGARD. OR. 97223
251048803300 25104BB43400
FREELAND. PALE G. AND SHERRY A. CAPJ4Wn % LINDA L
14154 SW NORTHVIEW DRIVE 14184 SW STARDUST LN
TGARD.OR. 97223 TIGARD. OR. 97223
251048803500 2S104BS4XX 0
SW STEVE S. AND JANET H. GEARHART. THOMAS M. AND LORETTA
9940 SW STEEPLECHASE CIRCLE 1412D SW 1 IDEN OR
BEAVERTOI.OR. 97005 TIGARD. OR. 97223
?51048843800 2S104BS• 03900
USHU GUANO AND WU. XU -MONICA GEARHART. JOHN J & TRACY M
14092 SW LEEN DR 14085 SW LIDEN OR
TICARD. OR. 97223 TIGARD. OR. 97223
2SI04BB4046M ZS104BB-047100
MORRIS. CAROL H WHITE, KEVIN M & KIMBERLY S
14092 SW CHEMEM COURT 14056 SW CHEHALEM CT
TIGARD. OR. 97223 TIGARD. OR. 97223
2510488x4900 2510488-04900
DWAU- GREGORY N. AND CAROL AW RHODES. DANIEL R. AND NANCY M
14990 SW TELWR_IDE TERR. _ 13994 SW CHEHALEM CT
BEAVERTON. OR. 97007 TIGARD. OR. 97223
25104884)MW 2SI04BSOSIOO
WXTEROFF. THOMAS J AND ANNETTE HANSEN. MICHAEL P.AND LINDA M.
13983 SW CHENALEM CT 13997 SW CHEHALE 4 CT
TIGARD. OR. 97223 TIGARD. OR. 97223
25104884)5500
GARRISON. DAVID A. AND AMY E. RUULMAN. CI4RIS W & SHANNON L : LUBA NO. 95-011
14049 SW CHE}ALEM CT 14077 SW CHEt1ALFM Cr EX MIt No. n~
TIGARD.OR.97223 TIGARD.OR.97273 Page No. aa3
2SI04BB45600 2SI04BB405700
LAM. TODD V AND SUSAN R. HOLTON. KENNETH D. AND EMILU O
14093 SW CHEHALEM CT 14115 SW CHEHALEM CT
~.OR.97223 TIGARD. OR. 97223
2S10488458W 2S104BB-09900
MATRIX DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VIRGiUO. DOMINIC VIC
7160 SW HAZELFERN RD 14172 SW CHEHALEM CT
TIGARD. OR. 97123 TIGARD. OR. 97223
2SUW884WW 2510488-06100
106 DANNY DANH-M MICHAL ET. JOHN J
1415 SW CHEHALEM CT 14140 SW CHEHALEM CT
TIGaARD.OR.97223 TIGARD. OR. 97223
2S104OB46M 251048806300
HONG. UEN B. AND HO. TRAN B. WICKENS CONST. INC
14133 SW OM Sr 18317 SW FALLAMN LOOP
T1CAR0.00. 97223 ALOHA. OR 92007
2810488406400 2510488-065W
WILL LAMS. DAVID S. AND DUWNA L GREEN. CATHY AND AARON C.
14143 SIN STARDUST LANE 14161 SW STARDUST LANE
TTGARD.OR.97223 TIGARD. OR. 97223
1aAWIAS19. GREG T; HOO KENNETH G OREGON
2SS104BB07100 imR7007
SW 72ND 1100 FERRY RD
TIGARD.OR.97223 2S104864D7300 2SI04SC-00900
CIABAD L UBAVITCH OF OREGON LUKER. DARLENE
14355 SW SCHOLLS FERRY RD 14285 SW FERN
BEAVERTON.OR. 97007 TIGARD. OR.97223
2S1O50000200 2S1O50001300
MORSE BROS. INC EVANS. ROBERT V
PO BOX 7 12745 NE MORRIS ST
LEBANOI4.OR. 97355 PORTLAND. OR. 97230
2S1O900.01401
CHURCHILL. MARGARET A
14664 SW SCHOl1S FERRY RD
BEAVERTON. OR, 97007
LUBA No. W-011
Exhibit No.
Page No.
1S1320040300 1S133CC-00300
COMPREHENSIVE OEV. CO. IN CLARK GEORGE V AND MARGUERITE A
201 MERCHANT STREET 381 OAK LEAF DRIVE
AgQTY FINANCIAL TOWER #904 EUGENE. OR 97404
WNOLULU, HI 96813
IS133CO.086W 2SI04EW01806
BROOKS. TOBY AND MOHR. JAMES BROW JR AND
22M PAR LANE 8811 13923 SW HINDON COURT
WILOUGHBYHILLS. OH 4!094 TIGARD.ORI97223
2S104BA-02400 2570488•024W
ANDERSON. RICK D AND CAROL D CHO. JOSEPH MID SOOK
12049 SW WILTON AVE 14174 SW WINDSONG DR.
T1GAI ID. OR 97723 TIGARD. OR 97223
25104884KOW 25104884)5=
MANSOUR. BARRY AND LYNN A ALAINF- TREVOR AND SUSAN E
14104 SW UDEN DR. 11778 SW SWE DON LOOP
T IGARD. OR 97223 TIGARD. OR 97223
25104BB 05400 25104884)6SW
TRECKER. TED J A T ILLEY. BRUCE L& KERI A AND
14061 SW CHEHAL EM CT 14189 SW STARDUST LN
11GARD. OR 97223 TIGARD. OR 97223
1010480.01000
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC
121 SW SALMON
A DEPARTMENT
PORTLAND. OR 972D4
LUBA No. W-011
Exhibit No.
Page No.
KITTELSON & ASSOC INC MARY BONSER
610 SW ALDER S-700 12125 SW ANN PL
PORTLAND OR 97205 TIGARD OR 97223
MARGERY GRIST STAN & LINDA MUNRO
RT 1 BOX 792' 10155 SW EXMOOR PL
BEAVERTON ORi 97223 BEAVERTON OR 97005
CAL WOOLERY JOHN C ROBERTS
12356 SW 132ND 11847 SW 125TH CT
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
BILL GROSS CIT - WEST LAND USE SUBCOMMITTEE
11035 SW 135TH AS FOLLOWS:
TIGARD OR 97223
JODY & LARRY WESTERMAN ABDULLAH ALKADI
13665 SW FERN ST 11905 SW 125TH CT
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
ScRAIG PETRIE BEVERLY FROUDE
9600 SW CAPITOL HWY 12200 SW BULL MT RD
PORTLAND OR 97219 TIGARD OR 97224
DON DUMOOMBE CH ISTY HERR
ALBERTSONS INC 11386 SW IRONWOOD LOOP
17001 NE SAN RAFAEL TIGARD OR 97223
PORTLAND OR 97230
JOHN D GRIESBAUM
BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO
2025 FIRST AVE
SEATTLE WA 98121
ED HO WDEN
JERRY R PATE 11829 SW MORNING HILL
SHARI'S MANAGEMENT CORP TIGARD OR 97223
8205 SW CRFFEKGIDE PL
BEAVERTON OR 97005-7112
0 *TEN N W GEIGER KATHIE KALLIO
2014 SW WILTONi AVE 12940 SW GLACIER LILY. : LUBA NO. W-011
TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223
Exhibit No.;
Page No.~
LINDA MASTERS
15120 SW 141ST
TIGARD OR 97224 _
BONNE & JIM ROACH ED SULLIVAN
14947 SW TEWKESBURY pRES'I~ON THORGRIMSON SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS
TIGARD OR 97224 111 SW FIFTH AVE
PORTLAND. OR 97204-3688
SCOTT RUSSELL JO@I Sjjlot TILm r P.C.
31291 RAYMOND CREEK RD 4040 DOUGLAS WAY
SCAPPOOSE OR 97056 PO BOX 1568
LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035
BARBARA SATTLER GARRY P MCMURRY
11245 SW MORGEN CT ONE SW COLUMBIA ST
TIGARD OR 97223 PORTLAND-:OR 97258
KATHY SMITH MATT MARCOTT
11645 SW CLOUD CT 14555 SW TEAL
TIGARD OR 97224 BEAVERTON OR 97007
SULFFRIDGE
15949 SW 146TH
TIGARD OR 97224
CLARK G ZELLER
13290 SW SHORE DR
TIGARD OR 97223
END LIST FOR CIT - WEST
CARLEEN PAGNI KIM KNOX
WINTElZOWD PLANNING SERVICES TRI-MET TECHNICAL SERVICES DIVISION
700 NORTH HAYDEN ISLAND DR 710 NE HOLLADAY ST
PORTLAND OR 97217 PORTLAND OR 97232
s ELAYNE O'BRIEN
14051 SW LIDEN ST : LUBA N;0. W.011
TIGARD OR 97223 EXhlbR NO.
Page No.
KATHY BURKE
3157 SW RIDGE DR
PORTLAND OR 97219
PAM GARCIA
MURRAY HILL THRIE'IWAY STORE
14550 SW TEAL BLVD
BEAvERTON OR 97005
TROY & CINDY CHRISTIANSEN
14133 SW LIDEN CT
TIGARD OR 97223
MARIA YEUNG/ROSE CHfM
13887 SW CRIST CT
TIGARD OR 97223
Wm WIL TERO II?
700 NORTH HAYDEN ISLAND DR
PORTLAND OR 97217
MARLIN HOPFER
8924 SE ALDER
PORTLAND OR 97216
SCOTT VAN DYKE _
14116 SW NORTHVIEW DR
TIGARD OR 97223
KATHLEEN & DON BROWN
13590 SW WALNUT
TIGARD OR 97223
0 LUBA NO. 95-011
Exhibit No:~_
Page No.?~.
APPLICAN'T'S REVISED SUBMITTAL
JOHN W. SHONKWILER, P. C.
Attorney at Law
13425 SW 72nd Avenue
Tigard, Oregon 97223
fax: 684-8971
624-0917
September 30, 1994
Attn: Mark Roberts
Assistant Planner
City of Tigard Planning Department
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Re: Albertson's Application - Planning Commission Submittal
Dear Mark:
Pursuant to your August 26, 1994, letter requesting
additional information for the prospective Planning Commission
hearing on November 7, 1994, enclosed are the following (in
twenty sets of copies):
1. Narrative on changes made in the application as a
result of public hearings and neighborhood meetings.
2. Complete set of plans for the development proposal.
3. Brief synopsis of project history.
4. Updated traffic study.
5. Noise study.
6. Security lighting plan.
Please call if you have any questions and thank you for your
cooperation.
qS erely,
W. Shonkwiler
LUBA NO. 1
cd Exhibit No.
Page No.
1 -
I i 1.1 Igo
1 w
.,tl'f._ ,'clf\ Cf`.\r'r... esq.:. ^A • \ \~t~`.~C~ i .
A
At RERTSUf6 _I1_l_L ! I..L.
PAO FA.
I,j
tn`1"tt -
•+1 c
I/
r••.~ A PROJECT FOR A COMMERCIAL PROJECT AT
S.W. SCNOLLS FERRY RD. ANO S.W. WALNUT ST.
^Albertsms
:SO PARKaNTER eLw. TIGARD
ROSE. IDAN() OREGON
SITE PLAN
Z Z i
• 00
. •i
b
°i / }.1 _ ~y P~ ,f-!:..ir,': ~I.y,,.ij.Sl••.. ,~f•:.• ;~i ~'l~ a',. +1~
I~'...Ifl.. ;{~:%:jr~~ ~y~~'. r:': Li_ •ff ATE I`~'~'~ /..L~rl~~ 1, ~~`~.~'1f1,",.
MEM
~j
71
/ l
.
•i .
,c`Ib
' it M i -•♦-.„'"r, j ~".,R. c+` ~ ~ `y..
ALI:
r , Y. ~vj•/ AY
17
/
17
O
'~1l i ` F:. .P~'„•~`.' •r, CJs-:u r rI'1r~ •'••%.L;;
,d• ' d:• ~ ' a ~JY~a e. .C.-i ~ - '4'`~" :±d:Y~('~~T~-' rt ,..j - i i~ ~ i'1t_' E ' .
rlj ,•.,n.•. n}' ;,rCJ'lrlJ' './7'h'T, r~ .~i~yn~_'' "1 'Gf-a.
=q " ~~'*`~r~! ~ r fti . L.Y-' M l~,r, t -r, ~ ~ ~ , r • : j~ ; r"•
'1 ' j • ~I~ r .Af.V ;5 • rr•~y ~Y ? r:,~.y1..1•t~~ 7•
7 - t N
NEE
I ~I r
1 v•1
• oho
CHANGES MADE IN THE ALBERTSON'S APPLICATION
RESULTING FROM COMMENTS AT PUBLIC HEARING
AND NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS
The original Albertson's Application called for a single
building located upon a moderately-excavated site with the
building facing Scholls Ferry Road. The building included a
50,000 square-foot grocery store and a 35,000 square-foot drug
store. The single building also had a flat front facade and
roof, and was located toward the eastern boundary (backed up
against Northview Drive with the truck loading-dock along
Northview Drive) about in the middle of the property along that
eastern boundary. As a direct result of the neighborhood input
and public hearing recommendations, the Application has undergone
the following changes:
(1) Flip-Flop Zones. The current commercial location north
of Walnut was "flip-flopped" with the current multi-
family zoning south of Walnut to provide a better
planning location for the commercial use to lessen
adverse impacts on the neighborhood.
(2) 35,000 Square-foot Drug Store Eliminated. The 35,000
square-foot drug store use was eliminated and replaced
with a mixture of commercial uses totalling 17,550
square feet (an approximate reduction of 50%).
(3) Break Up of Single Building. The single building
design was broken up into three buildings.
(4) Loading Dock and Truck Entrance. Isolation of loading
dock and truck entrance by placing their function in a
buffered "valley" between a steep slope at the end of
the property and the back of the large grocery store
building.
(5) Modified Building Facades. The facade of the grocery
store was altered to include sloped roofs, brick
appointments and formal columns.
(6) Alteration of the Design of Largest Building. The
larger building (which includes the grocery store) was
modified to make it appear as several smaller buildings
aligned together by angling a portion of the building
and altering the placement of spaces.
(7) Re-orientation of Buildings. The orientation of
buildings was changed from facing Scholls Ferry Road to
facing Walnut. The larger structure was also placed at
the southern end of the property. _
Page 1 - APPLICATION CHANGES MADE FROM PUBLIC HEARINGS LUBA NO. 95-011
IT S\AELEATS0\APP CM:G) Exhibit NO.
Page No.
(8) Excavation. The site is now to be dramatically
excavated to lower the shopping center well below the
grade of Northview Drive, and to allow the grocery
store structure (largest building) to be at or below
grade at its south end. Combined with grade level
landscaping of trees and buses, the shopping center
will generally be below line-of-sisht and obscured by
landscaping.
(9) Commercial Uses. Inclusion of proposed video store,
"sit-down" restaurant, ice cream parlor and small gas
station.
(10) Commercial Uses Revised. Elimination of "Shari's" as
the restaurant and elimination of the gas station.
(11) New Brick Wall. Inclusion of a brick fence-wall
running along Northview Drive.
(12) Modification of Staircase Entrance. Modification of
the Northview Drive fence, by a series of 900 turns, to
obscure the staircase entrance.
(13) No 24-hour Operations. Agreement not to have 24-hour
commercial operations.
(14) Modification of Pedestrian Accesses. Inclusion of
pedestrian staircase from Northview Drive to the
grocery store building; and separated pedestrian
pathways for internal circulation, including between
all buildings and through the center of the parking
lot.
(15) Signs Posted. Posting of large signs upon the property
showing the proposed site development plan for the "CC"
shopping center since January of 1994.
Page 2 - APPLICATION CHANGES MADE FROM PUBLIC HEARINGS LUBA NO. 9"11
fT4S\AE:.£RTSO\AF7 CFC ; Exhibit No.
Page No..~
t'~L-cj LG C
CP'3~
ol-r
v •
Lam" ~4~'~ J
AAA,
cxr~
V~ /►'tl.n r, ~
USA 00-
-Z : i;m{n~ No.1
page No. .
~HtBCf Of
PAGS
Ile
~
czv~
.
jcr7
194
-if
1.U8A 140'
io"l
page No.~
v~
3
_ v S
q-
2
6-0 cad cr7/
LUBA NO. 95-011 -
Exhibit No.,,
Page No._
CrI,
/ ~,Q,.P~-
-
L00, ~-L
, X
LUBA NO. 95-011 Exhibit No._~_
Page No.
LUBA NO. 95-011 Exhibft No. l(~ a-Mo~ ~l1
Page No.
zel~
✓ t
a o
I _
'7 C-
ceoll~
c. _ Chi-~v~v~1Q - S,,- 1acv-6t 4~ - , o ; -
LUBA NO. 95417 ~,csyy~►~►,~-~C~- ; ~a~~,?,~`.~ ~ ~y~,~ Lt- -
Exhibit No. '
Page No. .'iy o
~s,~~.~lv G~yr~a~ .~%r►~wn G~ .
r
L J
•
Al~
LUBA NO. W-011
Exhibit NO
Page NO. 4 krO,J GL
0 _
,
2t~tr-O~ -Y,
40f
Q~r-GLc.,n Lei-r~'t •iy~ -
11 ~ -
LUBA HO.95-0
Exhlbtt No L-
Page No•~ ~✓1-f~d J1`'Lc~~G`
-l _
- ~rt - - jam -
6
4~ L T
C. 'lam "ILIC
LUBA No nl~¢-c- `
r.Mib _
3y
Page NO. U
~a
o o
• r y o
o
- - -L-7
LUBA NO. 95-011
EXMW No. T~
Page No. _
ALBERTSON'S APPLICATION HISTORY
The following is a synopsis of the Albertson's application
history including public hearings and neighborhood meetings.
1. July 11, 1991 - Albertson's pre-application conference
with city planning department. City planner suggested the
N.C. zone be "flipped" with the multi-family residential
zone south of Walnut.
2. August 15, 1991 - Albertson's, Inc., filed an
application for a comprehensive plan and zone change seeking
approval for a 50,000 square-foot grocery store and a 35,000
square-foot drug store. The application sought a General
Commercial (CG) zoning, and in the alternative, city
adoption of a new intermediate commercial zone - "Community
Commercial."
3. In 1991 - After Planning Commission recommendation for
a new Community Commercial zone, the City Council held its
public hearing on the Albertson's application and decided to
stay the quasi-judicial application pending City initiation
and ultimate adoption of new legislation creating "Community
Commercial" zoning and plan amendments.
4. December 15, 1992 - After multiple public hearings
before both the Planning Commission and the City Council,
the City Council unanimously adopted the new "Community
Commercial (CC)" comprehensive plan and zoning code
amendments.
5. January G, 1993 - Albertson's revised its development
plans and presented them to the neighborhood association
meeting of NPO-7. Members of NPO-7 made several suggestions
for the design and uses in the proposed shopping center:
a. Supported an exchange of locations for the commercial
use from the north side of Walnut to the south side of
Walnut.
b. Supported excavating the site to lower the shopping
center in order to lessen adverse impacts on the
neighborhood.
c. Incorporating a sloping partial roof on the grocery
store structure so that it does not have a "flat wall"
front facade.
LUBA NO. 95-071
Exhibft NO. _
_
Page No. 34.5
Page 1 - APPLICATION HISTORY
t.r.•sv:~arrs::...-- liar,
d. Incorporating a brick or brick-like appointment in the
building designs and brick entry walls for the parking
lot.
e. Divide the single building into three structures.
f. In addition to the 40,000 square-foot grocery store,
other possible uses suggested were: "sit down"
restaurant, laundry, child care and a gas station.
6. February 3, 1993 - Albertson's revised its development
plans to incorporate NPO-71s prior suggestions and resubmitted
them to NPO-7 for review.- The NPO-7 supported the exchange of
"flip-flop" of zones, conversion of 'INC" to "CC", size of the
grocery store, eight-acre "CC" site and the site development
plan. The choice of brick and brick-like appointments to the
building facades was acceptable. NPO-7 members also expressed
their preference for placement of columns in the grocery store
entry facade and a desire to see a pictorial rendering of the
grocery store.
7. March 23, 1993 - Pre-application conference with city
planning covering changes in comprehensive plan and zoning, and
requirements for a community commercial shopping center. The
pre-application conference staff notes are attached to the
Albertson's Applicant's Statement for "CC" zoning as Exhibit "H."
8. Julv 30, 1993 - Prior to Albertson's refiling or re-
initiating its current application, NPO-7 was disbanded by the
city and a new CIT had not yet been formed. Albertson's met with
the neighbors within 300 feet of the project site (in accordance
with the city's new ordinance requiring notice to property within
at least 250 feet) on July 30, 1993. Neighbors raised the
following concerns at the meeting: that they just recently
bought their property and had not been informed of the proposed
community commercial shopping center prior to the purchase;
concern that the shopping center buildings would "stick up" and
block their views of the valley if the site is not excavated to
lower it below Northview Drive; concern about traffic on Scholls
Ferry Road, multi-family development of approximately four-acre
site south of the shopping center, and that the proposed
restaurant should be more "upscale" than a "Shari's." Suggested
changes or additions included: a brick wall along Northview
Drive, deletion of the proposed conditional use for a. gas
station, requirement that tenants maintain property (through
covenants, conditions and restrictions) as not to have litter or
teenage littering; and the shopping center allow weekend or
evening use of the site or parking area for special neighborhood
0 functions.
WBA NO. O"iI
Exhibit No. kr~_ -
Page No. 3qb
Pace 2 - APPLICATION HISTORY
I WS\i.:~:?.T51:\A?? H:S-;
9. Aucust 14, 1993 - Albertson's filed its application for
Community Commercial zoning on eight acres south of Walnut,
relocation of multi-family residential zoning to north of Walnut,
and approval of a shopping center site development plan.
10. November 15, 1993 - Planning Commission hearing on the
Albertson's application. Issues raised during the hearing
included: modifications needed in site-development plan that
would address better pedestrian access, such as inclusion of a
staircase from Northview Drive and marked or separated pedestrian
pathways through the parking lot between building locations; need
for an access plan for the approximately four-acre multi-family
residential property located to the south of the site;
inappropriateness of a gas station use at this site; and need for
an automobile driveway access from Northview Drive near the
Northview-Walnut intersection. After deliberation, the Planning
Commission voted unanimously to recommend the City Council
approve the Application, without the gas station use for pad "D;"
with the inclusion of conditions for an automobile access
driveway to Northview Drive, pedestrian staircase to Northview
Drive, submittal of conceptual building design details for the
other buildings that are consistent with the grocery store
design, access plan for the approximate four-acre parcel south of
the site and an improved interior parking lot pedestrian pathway
system.
11. January 3. 1994 - The newly-formed West CIT held a
meeting to review the Albertson's application. The issues raised
at that time were as follows: nature of CC zone, history of NC
zone at site, and effective market area for the CC zone; concerns
about the public notification process (250 feet from site) may
have missed new property purchasers in Castlehill Subdivision
and, therefore, there is a need for a project sign posted on
property; future of Murray Boulevard expansion to Walnut; future
development around site (multi-family residential to south and
quarry property to west); and completion of Walnut to 135th.
Members expressed concern that the Albertson's application had
digressed into a discussion of "Grocery Store Wars." Then,
issues were raised directly related to the application and
included: Dislike for the automobile access to Northview Drive;
question about how signs would look and extent of lighting;
dislike for 24-hour operation for restaurant and favor for
extended grocery store hours of operation; concern about
possible increased noise and traffic; questions about type of
building materials to be used and type of roofing; and discussion
about uses including disfavor of gas station, favor of 40,000
square-foot grocery store, video store size and landscaping
composition and location. No vote on the application or
potential modifications was taken by the CIT.
LUBA NU. 9"11
Exhibit No.?a7_
Pace 3 - APPLICATION HISTORY Page No.,3q
12. January 25, 1994 - City Council hearing on the
Albertson's application. City Council voted to remand the
application review back to the Planning Commission due to recent
property owners in Castlehill not being notified in time to
testify before the Planning Commission; and the Planning
Commission findings did not address or adequately provide the
City Council with an evaluation of its vision for the new CC
zone, location and size, pedestrian enhancement policies, and
application of design standards and guidelines. City Council
indicated that they also wanted the notice area for the remanded
Planning Commission hearing to be beyond the minimum of 250 feet
and left the determination of the exact increased distance to the
discretion of the City Planning Director.
13. June 20, 1994 - Albertson's met with Castlehill
Neighborhood Association members and discussed the site size,
location and shopping center design. Favorable responses were
raised by members as to the proposed "CC" zoning size, location
and design. Castlehill members requested that landowners and
Albertson's cooperate to have the approximately four-acre multi-
family site located south of the Albertson's project be donated
to the Castlehill Neighborhood Association as additional common
area. Landowners and Albertson's agreed to get together and
explore the acquisition-donation feasibility.
14. July 6, 1994 - Albertson's meeting with Castlehill
Neighborhood Association members. Members discussed support for
proposed Albertson's project design and uses. Albertson's and
landowners discussed their willingness to proceed with possible
donation of the southern four acres adjacent to Albertson's
project to the Castlehill Neighborhood Association as additional
common area. Members discussed concerns and options for funding
maintenance of additional common area.
15. August 4, 1994 - Duly noticed neighborhood meeting
(ordinance required notice to owners and occupiers of land within
250 feet of site) held at City Senior Center to discuss the
Albertson's application. Notice was actually sent to landowners
and occupiers within 500 feet of the site (double the ordinance
requirement). After Albertson's presentation of the proposed
Community Commercial zoning and site plan for a shopping center,
the landowners voted on the following issues:
a. Proposed gas station - unanimously opposed.
b. Proposed staircase - unanimously in favor. Comment
about concern about parking along Northview Drive and
that City should post "No Parking" signs.
c. Automobile access to Northview Drive from Albertson's
parking lot - Unanimously opposed LUBA NU. 95-071
Exhibit No.
Page 4 - APPLICATION HISTORY Page No. F<
d. 24-hour operations - no vote because Albertson's agreed
not to request 24-hour operation.
e. Shari's restaurant - consensus was that Albertson's
should select a different restaurant company or use for
the corner pad.
f. Donation of multi-family land south of Albertson's site
to Castlehill Neighborhood Association common area -
unanimously in favor.
g. Vote to approve the Albertson's proposed CC zone,
shopping center design, proposed uses and sizes--32
votes in favor of approval, 1 vote in opposition.
h. In addition, the president of the Matrix Company that
is developing the Castlehill Subdivision expressed his
agreement with the neighborhood association members
that the property located immediately south of the
Albertson's site should become common area for the
Association. He stated that the new common area would
be a better use of the land and enhance his company's
investment in the Castlehill Subdivision. He then
stated that Matrix was willing to donate $20,000 to the
Castlehill Neighborhood Association for maintenance of
the donated land-.
[Minutes of the meeting are attached hereto as Exhibit
((A ]
16. August 22. 1994 - Albertson's provides city with copies
of revised application plans reflecting recommended changes of
the neighborhoods, and requested scheduling of the Planning
Commission hearing for the remand of the Application.
LuBA NO. 95-011
Exhlbit No.
Page No.
Page 5 - APPLICATION HISTORY
D KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
n TRANSPORTATION PLANNING/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
{ \ 610 S.W ALDER. SUITE 700 • PORTLAND. OR 97205 (503) 228.5230 FAX (503) 273.8169
September 28, 1994
Project Number: 1050.00 RECEIVE[
SEP 3 0 1994
Mark Roberts, Assistant Planner
City of Tigard Mph OREGON
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OreLon 97223
RE: Alberlsons Application - Planning Commissio/1 Hearing Submittal
Dear Mr. Roberts:
This letter is being provided at your request for the purpose of providing an update to the Traffic
unpaei ruiaipos Repurt on tiie piupubcd Tiaa,<d Albettsonh, conducted by Kittelsun im'
Associates and submitted for review in August 1993.
A review of the August and December 1993 report submitted to the City of Tigard regarding this
proposed development indicates the following, with regard to the site plan and study assumptions:
• Modifications to the site plan will not impact the nature, volume, and/or movement of
traffic to and from the proposed development over what was originally estimated.
• Development, construction, and occupancy of the site will not occur in the calendar year
1994 as assumed in the study, but is expected to occur in the calendar year 1995, if
approved.
• In-process developments, identified by the City as a required element of consideration for
the study, have generally followed the timelines of development and have, therefore, been
accounted for in the traffic volumes estimated to represent the full buildout condition.
• The only identifiable difference for traffic conditions would be the additional one year
gro\~th in background traffic from year 1994 to year 1995. This background growth is
estim:acd to be slightly less than 2r/-t based upon weighted average measured growth rates
for the City of Tigard. City of Beaverton, and Washington County.
As indicated in Table 5 (Pa-c '_'S) of the December 1993 report, the key study area intersections
would experience good LOS C or better at the signalized intersections and LOS D at the
unsignalized intersections during the weekdav p.m. peak hour, at the time of full build-out a- '
occupancy ( 1994). These LOS grades are well within the City's minimum acceptable standards
• for signalized (LOS D) and unsienalized (LOS E) intersections.
LU13A NO. W411
E idbit NO. _
Page NO.
BELLEVUE PORTLAND SACRAMENTO
Mark Roberts
September 28. 1994 Tigard Albertsons
Page 2
The additional 2 percent growth in background traffic from year 1994 to year 1995 is
insignificant when compared against daily fluctuations in p.m. peak hour volumes ranging from
5 to 10 percent. None the less, the additional 2 percent increase would not effect the LOS grade
of any intersection in the study area.
Therefore, it is concluded that the condition represented in the December 1993 Traffic Impact
Analysis Report on the Tigard Albertsons adequately reports conditions at the time of full
buildout and occupancy and indicates the adequacy of the transportation system to facilitate this
development.
Should you have additional questions regarding this analysis which I may be able to address,
please call nee at 228-5230. Thank you for this opportunity to respond to your concerns.
Sincerely,
ark A. Vandehey, P.E.
Traffic Engineer
H:IPROJFI LE\ 105(i~')40928NI R.LTR
LUBA NO. W411
Exhibit No.X Page NO.
Musil Perkowitz Ruth
A• v:^'e:cc•a r•o•e!! :-a: Cc--,
September 29, 1994
Mr. Mark Roberts
Assistant Planer
Principals:
City of Tigard M. Lawrence Kisi;. AIA
13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Simon Perkwi!z. AiA. PE
Tigard, OR 97223 Seven J. RL!~. A!
A550Cime5
RE. • Environmental Noise Study Th-EDdn Cr:
Albertson Grocery &a~h Store K"B'A! :
o Preta^.2:
Walnut and Scholls Ferry Kenneth W. SrcJse
Tigard, OR. Ted T. Ycshir4.
Dear Mr. Roberts:
This letter is provided as an attachment to the Environmental Noise Study
generated by Daly-Standlee and Associates (study dated 9/29/94).
It is Alberston's intent to design their refrigeration and air conditioning
systems to utilize the quieter evaporative condenser units. This design
will mean quieter store operation and no roof mounted condenser units.
If you have any questions regarding this project or our design intent,
please contact me.
Sincerely,
MPR AAr,~hitects
Norman L. Sh n
Project Manage
cc: Jim Moore - Albertsons
Don Duncombe - Aibertsons
John Shonkwiler
File . LUBA NO. 95-011
Exhibit No. XT
Page No.
c .1 c
,
ENGINEERS
September 29, 1994 Daly Standlee & Associates, Inc.
4900 SW GiMith Drive
Suite 216
Beaverton Oregon 97005
(503) 64644:0
Musil Perkowitz Ruth Fa. (503) 646 3385
9150 SW Pioneer Court, Suite T
Wilsonville, Oregon 97070
Attn: Mr. Norman Schoen, Architect
Re: Albertson's Grocery Store on Walnut Street, Tigard, Oregon File: 195941
Environmental Noise Study
At your request, Daly-Standlee & Associates, Inc. conducted a study to determine the
environmental noise that would be generated by the Albertson Grocery Store proposed at the
intersection of SW Walnut Street and SW Scholls Ferry Road in Tigard, Oregon. Additionally,
we determined if the noise radiating from the new store would meet or exceed the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality noise. regulations per the request of the City of Tigard
Planning Department. This letter is intended to document the findings of the study.
In conducting the environmental noise study, four noise sources were addressed that will be
associated with the new store. The sources were: 1) refrigeration and HVAC condenser units
proposed for the store, 2) a compactor unit proposed to be located at the rear of the store, 3)
trailer mounted refrigeration equipment that will be present at times at the store loading dock
and 4) customer vehicle traffic that will enter and leave the parking lot of the store. The noise
that will radiate from the refrigeration and HVAC condensers, the compactor and the trailer
mounted refrigeration equipment was predicted using a computer program called "Noisecalc".
Noisecalc is a noise modeling program developed in 1985 by Mr. Daniel Driscoll while he was
employed with the New York State Department of Public Service to assist .in the prediction of
sound transmission in the environment. The program has the ability to include sound attenuation
by the atmosphere and by the terrain. Traffic generated noise was predicted using a highway
noise model based on the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) model for predicting traffic
noise.
An analysis was conducted for the sound that would radiate from two different types of
condenser units. First an analysis was conducted assuming the condensers were air cooled
condensers located near the center of roof along the south wall. Second an analysis was
conducted assuming a single evaporative condenser was located on the mezzanine level inside
the store and the air from the condenser exhausted out the roof near the south wall. The results
of the analysis showed the noise radiating from the roof mounted air cooled condensers would
be approximately 57 dBA at the nearest residence east of the store and approximately 57 dBA r
at the nearest residence south of the store. The noise level radiating from the evaporative
condenser unit was predicted to be 40 dBA at the nearest residence east of the store with the
condenser fan operating at high speed and 32 dBA with the fan operating at low speed: -At the Z Z o
nearest residence south of the store, the sound level from the evaporative condenser was Z
. m a 'vs
195941-1.1et 1 J o-
Albertson Grocery Store Noise Study
September 29, 1994
predicted to be approximately 35 dBA with the fan operating at high speed and 27 dBA with the
fan operating at low speed.
The noise radiating from the compactor unit was predicted to be 39 dBA at the nearest residence
east of the store and 35 dBA at the nearest residence south of the store. The noise radiating
from the trailer mounted refrigeration equipment was predicted to be approximately 37 dBA at
the nearest residence east of the store and approximately 49 dBA at the nearest residence south
of the store.
The proposed store will be located on a previously unused commercial site. The DEQ noise
regulations require that the new store on a previously unused site not produce noise that exceeds
the maximum allowable hourly statistical sound levels for commercial and industrial noise
sources nor increases the existing hourly L10 or L50 noise levels at any noise sensitive receiver
by more than 10 dBA. The hourly L10 and L50 noise levels are defined as that level equalled
or exceeded 10% and 50% of an hour respectively.
To assist in evaluating the noise levels of the equipment at the proposed store, sound
measurements were made in the vicinity of the nearest home located east of the proposed store .
site and the nearest home located south of the store site. The sound measurements were made
between 1 a.m. and 3 a.m. and between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. the morning of September 23,
1994. The 1 a.m. to 3 a.m. measurements were made to provide a baseline set of data for late
night and early morning noise at the store. The 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. measurements were made to
provide a baseline set of data for general day time and early evening hours.
Note was made during the sound measurement periods that the existing noise in the vicinity of
the residences was a result mainly of traffic on Old Scholls Ferry Road (to the north of the site)
during late night hours. During daytime hours, the noise was mainly a result of traffic on
Scholls Ferry Road, construction equipment located at a new housing development east of the
store site and quarry activity at Progress Quarry.
LUt3A NU. Vb-Ull
Exhibit No.'r
Page No. 35
195941-1.1et 2
Albertson Grocery Store Noise Study
. September 29, 1994
The results of the sound measurements indicated the existing hourly L10 and L50 sound levels
in the area of the residences are:
Existing Noise Levels
Measurement "Daytime" (lam - "Nighttime" (10pm - "Latenight" (lam - 5
Location lOpm) Hourly lam & 5am - lam) am) Hourly Statistical
Statistical Sound Hourly Statistical Sound Level (dBA)#
Level (dBA)* Sound Level WBA) +
L10 L50 L10 L50 L10 L50
East 52 45 45 39 38 33
Residences
South 47 44 48 39 39 34
Residences
* Based on sound levels measured between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on September 23, 1994.
+ Based on sound levels measured between 1 a.m. and 2 a.m. on September 23, 1994.
# Based on sound levels measured between 2 a.m. and 3 a.m. on September 23, 1994.
In evaluating the noise that will radiate from the proposed Albertson store site, we have to
consider the times when the noise sources will be radiating noise. Albertson's mechanical
engineering firm (McKellip Engineering, P.A.) said that if the air cooled condensers were used
at the store, the refrigeration condenser fans would operate continuously all hours of the day and
the HVAC condensers would most likely operate more than 30 minutes of each hour of the day.
Therefore, the noise from the air cooled condensers would always be present. If the evaporative
condenser was used, the fan on the condenser would operate continuously throughout the day
but the fan" would be a two speed fan and during late night hours, the fan would most likely
operate at low speed.
According to information you supplied, the compactor would be used approximately 40 times
throughout the day. Each time the compactor is used, noise will radiate from the store for only
a couple of minutes. You indicated trucks could be present at the loading dock between 5:30
a.m. and 4 p.m. You said there would be approximately 10 trucks per week with trailer
mounted refrigeration equipment at the store. Typically, the trucks would be present at the store
for 30 minutes to 45 minutes at a time.
For the worst "latenight" noise hour 0 a.m. to 5 a.m.), we assumed the store refrigeration and
HVAC condensers and the compactor would be radiating noise from the store. For the worst
"nighttime" noise hours (10 p.m. to 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. to 7 a.m.) we assumed the refrigeration
and HVAC condensers, the compactor and the trailer mounted refrigeration equipment would
be radiating noise from the store (actually the trucks are only expected during the 5:30.a.m. to
7 a.m. part of the "nighttime" period). For the worst "daytime" noise hour, we assumed the
LUBA NO. 95-011
195941-I.let 3 Exhibit No.
Page No..
Albertson Grocery Store Noise Study
September 29, 1994
store refrigeration and HVAC condensers, the compactor and a trailer mounted refrigeration
equipment would radiate noise from the store.
The results of the analysis shows that during the "latenight" time period, the DEQ allowable
noise levels will be exceeded at residences east and south of the store if the roof mounted air
cooled condensers are used at the store. However, if the evaporative condenser system is used
at the store, the DEQ noise regulations will be met during the "latenight" time period. During
the "nighttime" time period, the DEQ noise regulations will be exceeded at the east and south
residences if the roof mounted air cooled condensers are used at the store. If the evaporative
condenser is used instead of the air cooled condensers, the DEQ noise regulations will be met
at both the east and south residences. During the daytime hours, the DEQ noise regulations will
be exceeded if the roof mounted air cooled condensers are used at the store. If the evaporative
condensers are used, the DEQ noise regulations will be met.
Traffic noise was considered separately from the noise radiating from the store because generally
the noise caused by traffic will affect residences along the major roads in the area and the store
equipment will affect only those residences near the store. The analysis results showed that the
traffic generated by the shopping center will cause an increase in the peak traffic hour sound
levels by approximately 1 dBA at residences along Scholls Ferry Road and there will be virtually
no change at residences along Walnut Street. Along Northview Drive there will also be no
change in the peak traffic hour sound levels. During off-peak daytime traffic hours we expect
a 2 dBA increase in the hourly noise levels on Scholls Ferry Road. On Northview Drive and
Walnut Street, we expect a 3 dBA increase in the off-peak daytime noise levels. In all cases,
the increase in traffic noise will be well within the 10 dBA allowed by the DEQ noise
regulations.
In summary, if an evaporative condenser instead of roof mounted air cooled condensers is used
for refrigeration and HVAC equipment at the store, the noise radiating from the new Mbertson's
store will meet all DEQ noise regulations. The fact the site will be graded to allow the store
to be set into the hillside helps control noise radiating from sources such as the compactor, the
loading dock and traffic in the parking lot.
I hope this information will help you in developing the Albertson's site. If you have any
questions concerning the information, please feel free to call.
Sincerely,
Daly-Standlee & Associates, Inc.
Ke a G. Standlee, P.E.
LUMA NU. y5-U7 I
Exhibit No. XZ
Page No. _
195941-1.let 4
- - 1- - - - - - - 1
LL J)
ri/+~r
.fi B 1 \ .
FURM. CSWMN nPACF. 1,J
r Ymwa to
ALtlENTSON!' , vfF W._
-
PAD M
--6 ' ~ RDCi
Fum.
rM
_.N j. cw
A PFDJECT FOR A COMAEP IAL PRQECT AT
r" 6W. 8CHOLL3 FUMY RD. AND BW.WM.MIT 6T.
^AUmwftms
~D p• MPAFOQ[; EXYD TIGARD
oom CM)a ~
Z
Z OREGON
0 Z C
For. (3 6442
w , LIGHTING PLAN
Viiusil Perkowitz Ruth
A• A,:r::E_:ura °rc!ess•o-.a' Cc!.
ArCh~I2C?utE
Pianoing
• September 29, 1994
Mr. Mark Roberts
Assistant Planner
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Prin
re
Tigard OR 97223 w :
M. laxrence t!esf?. A;F.
$iG:o^ PE A'n. PE
RE• Security Lighting Plan SlevE J. Prr. AA
• Albertson Grocery Store
Walnut and Scholls Ferry
Tigard, OR E a ^L , C
Dear Mr. Roberts: yet r3'-"
Please find enclosed the lighting plan for the above project. A detail of the site
light fixture has been provided too.
The lighting plan is designed to provide a safe level of lighting on site while not
impacting the adjoining residential areas. This is accomplished by using a low
mounted (25'-0") fixture. The lighting pattern (highlighted in yellow) shows a safe
level of lighting up to the property line. This site provides the following light levels:
1. A minimum 2-foot candles maintained at grade level for all vehicle and pedestrian
entrances on site, at on-site vehicle intersections and at Albertson store entrances.
2. A minimum 1-foot candle maintained at grade level.
These light levels are safe and could be called an "industry standard". If there are any
questions regarding the above please contact me.
Sincerely,
loo chit u
L. h en
Pyoject Manager
cc: Jim Moore - Alberstons
Don Duncombe - Aibertsons
John Shonkwiler WBA NO. 95-011
File Exddb[t No. Y.C.
- Page No.1;~5g
411~ 4L
SERIES PSSS STRAIGHT SQUARE STEEL POLES.
Nominal Pole Pole Bolt Anchorage Max Max s9
'A' CATALOG NUMBER Mounting Shaft Size Shaft Circle Size wt. EPA Wt.
Ht. (FT) (I N) Guage (IN! (IN) (1-81 (S¢ FU (LB)
PSSS410.11 1•! 1[-) 10 4 11 9.0 Y x 24 400 26.5 94
PSSS4 t 2-11 1 1") 12 4 11 9.0 Y x 24 400 20.8 108
PSSS414.1 1 14 4 11 9.0 Y x 24 400 16.5 t 21
PSSS416.11 (*1 16 4 11 9.0 Y x 24 400 13.1 134
PSSS418-11 18 4 11 9,0 Y x 24 400 10.3 148
PSSS4 20.11 1 20 4 -11 9.0 Y x 24 400 8.0 161
PSSS422.11 V*) 22 4 11 9.0 Y x 24 400 7.4 174
PSSS424-11 1[' 1 24 4 11 9.0 Y x 24 400 6.1 187
PSSS426.11 V)(-) 26 < 11 9.0 Y x 24 400 4,8 200
PSSS420.7 I 20 4 7 9.0 is x 24 400 13.7 229
PSSS4 22.7 (*1 V*) 1 22 4 7 1 90 Y x 24 400 10.0 1 245
PSSS424-7 (•I (•'1 24 e , 7 ' 9.0 Y x 24 400 8,6 270
PSSS426.7 (•1 ("1 I 26 - < _ I 7 9.0 Y. x 24 400 6.G I 298
PSSS516 7 I")1c ` - .11.5, 450 i tE.t !
PSSS51F."7 I') i•'1 16' ` - - - 11 r'' S. > 30 I 450 15
PSS852G-? 1.11••1-- - ^ - - - - 11 5; ? > JO
PSSS522.7 ) ?7 I ~5 - 7 t t 5; a 30 <„0 , C
PSSS524•7 1•) 1''i j--24
7 ' 11.51 S: > 30 1 450 11 0 1 31E
PSSS526 7 1 l") ?6 - __S - t t 5 I 1 > 3G ' 400 10 _
PSSS5?E 7 (•1 I••1 ?E _ - 7 1 . I a 3c,
Psss53 7(•1(••I _ 3G I- - 2C• 400 - -E--
f i PSSS-,-r 7: 3 11.`.
PS5639.3 I•) 1••) ( 3C• ! , i1 ~t t > 36 r.nr-. 1G r
l S
i
PSSSGI' 1 1• ' i . 3G I 5r,'r - I .
PSS56C(3 t • I - C 1 5 - 1 > 35 <SO
l C) FINISH Irt~CE) Fe: !.sec.,.. i. :rntharn:. (DBE) For Dart. B(orv.
urethanc;(BLE) For Serr,r Glr:; ::"~r.t: F. .uc:tlane, (P) For Pr(nte finish. (G) for G-a:va:,
ized.
1 ("I TENON. .(2) For 23/8- 00. (3; l-o: 2 7:6•' O.D. (35) For 11... O.D. l4) [c.- 4"
0. D.
BC Ease Cover SPECIFICATIONS
i ;
1 ! ANCPOR EOLT~
r- :,C r:, :?:•ifLtC ~tpn-: a CGn:,7rr;:C.-. (i.l:;lr;, r:;,,
carl- bn S tC.e! 11:.. 1: r•.-r. r,: r t:.., ; lelr: S:rertCih C'
( perly stied anct:R' I ohs .rC'• v..;r• t..0 if ! fr):r'.y)lw! ::r:r! Still,;...r
i s!t; 1): f1Jlt;::tri(•(; u, e'Crr(1....,. r-.. :r i~:.i
ANCHOR BASE 1hh ;:r:(:' ..r•:r(,;:rr! hint sUU('lur,:! Utr.llrly ht•: ;(ri;(~(;
carbon steel plate ih.;: n),•, a •r: :1; ntrnnn-,flt yrt•ld St(Cngttl 4)1 36.OOJ I•s'
anchor base telescopes the poit shat and is e)rcumlerent)ally welded tot) and bottorn
POLE SHAFT The pole slta'1 is one piece construction, being fabricated from a t•:eld-
able grade carbon steel structural tubing v:h(ch has a uniform wall thickness of .120- (11
ga.). .188" (7 ga.)• or .250" Q oa ) The pole shaft material shall conform to ASTM
A-500 Grade B will, a minimum yield strength of 46,000 psi or. when noted. TT-70 with
a minimum yield stienath of 70.000 psi. The pole shaft has a full length longitudinal
resistance weld and is uniformly square (n C(oss-section with flat sides, small corner radii
and ex'eelteni lorsrOna' proper},.:
HANDHOLE . A r.Ctanau!s( rerr,toiced ltandhol., ha.•rnq a nominal 2..x5•. inside
Opening and located 1• above the base, is standard on all poles un)ess othet%vise specified
L-7I
C•~~ /'-1 LIGHTING SYSTEMS. INC. LUBA N0.95-017
O'
EXhlbit No. )C---
Page No. -ASgI
.APPLICANT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF TIGARD
Comprehensive Plan Amendment )
CPA 93-0009; Zone Change ZON 93-0003; ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
Site Development Review SDR 93-0014; ) AND ORDER
Minor Land Partition MLP 93-0013 )
Albertson's Application )
An application for a comprehensive plan amendment, zone
change, site development review and minor land partition to allow
a "Community Commercial" designation and a shopping center at the
southeast and northeast quadrants of the intersection of SW
Scholls Ferry Road and SW Walnut Street in Tigard was reviewed at
a public hearing duly noticed and held at 7:30 p.m. on November
7, 1994, at a regular commission session at City Hall. At the
session, persons desiring to speak were heard, written
statements, evidence and objections were considered, and the
commission made a decision to recommend approval of all the
applications to the City Council, in accordance with the
following Findings, Conclusions and Order.
1. GENERAL INFORMATION AND FACTS
A. Application
Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 98\3-0009
Zone Change ZON 98-0003
Site Development Review SCR 93-0014
Minor Land Partition MLP 93-0013
A request for the following development approvals:
1) Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change to redesignate
approximately 8 acres of a 12-acre parcel from Medium-
High Density Residential to Community Commercial and a
Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change approval to
redesignate a 6.93-acre parcel from Neighborhood
Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential. Zone
changes accompanying the above plan changes includes a
zone change from R-12(PD) and R-25(PD) (Residential,
12/25 units/acre, Planned Development) to C-C (Community
Commercial) and C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-25(PD)
(Residential, 25 units/acre, Planned Development);
2) Site Development Review approval to allow the
construction of a 40,000 square foot Albertson's Grocery
Store and three smaller tenant pads of 5,950, 2,400 and
1,200 square feet. The applicant has also proposed two
4,000 square foot retail pads.
3) Minor Land Partition approval to divide an 11.95-
acre parcel into two-parcels of approximately 8 acres and
1 LUtiA NV. VO-U7I
Exhibit No. KZ7
Page No. 31n O
3.95 acres each.
Applicant: Albertson's Inc.
(Don Duncombe)
17001 NE San Rafael
Portland, OR 97230
Agent: John Shonkwiler, P.C.
Attorney at Law
13425 SW 72nd Avenue
Tigard, OR 97223
Owner: Margery Crist, et. al.
Route 1, Box 792
Beaverton, OR 97007
Location: Southeast and northeast quadrants of the
intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and
SW Walnut Street. (WCTM 2S1 4BB, tax
lots 100 and 200).
Applicable Review Criteria:
Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14,
Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 4.1.1, 4.2.1,
6.1.1, 6.4.1, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.2, 7.6.1,
8.1.1, 8.1.3, 8._2.2, 8.4.1, 9.1.3, 12.1.1, 12.2, 12.2.1
and 12.2.4; and
Community Development Code Chapters 18.22, 18.32, 18.56,
18.60, 18.61, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.108, 18.114,
18.120, 18.130, 18.162, and 18.164.
B. Background Information
An area that included the subject property was annexed to
the City of Tigard on June 12, 19983. In August, 1983,
the City approved a variety of plan and zone designations
for the area, including Medium-High Density Residential
(R-20, now R-25 zone), Medium Density Residential (R-12
zone), and Neighborhood Commercial (C-N zone).
The City subsequently approved the relocation of the C-N
designation in a number of locations in the vicinity
between 1983 and 1986 (Case files CPA 18-83/AC 14-83, CPA
4-85/ZC 4-85, CPA 1-86/ZC 3-86). The current C-N
designation is located on Tax Lot 100 and comprises 6.93
acres. A complete summary of past City actions
pertaining to the amendments to the size and location of
the N-C designation is presented in the staff report for
18 an earlier Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposed by
2 Lue3E4- nu.- yoiu I I
Exhibit No. _Y
Page No. 3 2
Albertson's for this property (Case File CPA 91-0003/ZCA
91-0006).
A number of single-family and multi-family residential
developments have been proposed for all or a portion of
the subject property between 1986 and 1990 (Case Files
SDR 4-86, S 87-04/V 87-04, S 87-07, SUB 90-04/ZON 90-
04/ZON 90-04/VAR 90-08). Development has recently
occurred following the approval of Castle Hill
Subdivision.
In 1991, Albertson's applied for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and Zone Change (CPA 91-0003/ZCA 91-0006) to
establish an eight-acre Commercial General (C-G) site on
Tax Lot 200. The request also involved the redesignation
of the existing C-N site on Tax Lot 100 to Medium-High
Residential (R-25). A final decision by the City Council
has been stayed at the request of the applicant.
Following this application, the City considered including
a new Community Commercial zoning designation as part of
the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code.
After a lengthy review, the City adopted the Community
Commercial designation in December, 1992.
On November 15, 1993, the Planning Commission recommended
that the City Council approve the application with the
inclusion of conditions for an automobile access to
driveway to SW Northview Drive, a pedestrian staircase to
SW Northview Drive, conceptual building design details
which are consistent with the grocery store design. The
Planning Commission also recommended that an access plan
for the approximate four-acre parcel south of the site
and an improved interior parking lot pedestrian pathway
system.
On January 25, 1994, the City Council remanded the
application back to the Planning Commission due to
concerns related to property owner notification, the
findings within the staff report and the appropriateness
of proposed development within the Community Commercial
Zoning District.
The applicant has made the following revisions to the
proposal as a result of concerns raised at neighborhood
meetings and issues raised by the City Council at the
January 25, 1994, Public Hearing.
* The proposed commercial uses on the pads opposite
to the Albertson's pad have-been modified.- The gas
station and Shari's uses have been eliminated as
prospective tenants. The pads-are shown as 4,000
3 LUBA NO. 9"11..
Exhibit No. V7_
Page No. 13 (0 a
• square-foot retail sites.
* A new brick wall has been proposed along portions
of the proposed eight-acre parcel's property
frontage on SW Northview Drive.
* The applicant has agreed not to develop the site
with tenants which would have 24-hour commercial
operations due to potential impacts to adjoining
residential areas.
* The applicant revised the site plan to provide a
separate staircase from SW Northview Drive to the
grocery store buildings and separated pedestrian
pathways for internal circulation between all
buildings and through the center of the parking
lot.
* The staircase entrance from SW Northview Drive has
been modified to include a series of 90-degree
turns to obscure the staircase entrance.
* The site has been posted with signs showing the
proposed site-development plan for the shopping
center.
* The applicant has also discussed dedication of the
multi-family area south of the Albertson's site to
the Castle Hill Neighborhood Association.
* The applicant has provided Applicant's Additional
Testimony and Evidence (dated January 14, 1994), a
history of the application, a synopsis of the
changes which have been made to the plan, a
security-lighting plan, a noise study and
conceptual plans for Albertson's store, the site
plan and the wall proposed along SW Northview
Drive.
C. Vicinity Information
Single-family residential development in the Castle Hill
Subdivision lies to the east and south. To the northeast
is the Cotswald Subdivision which is of a similar
character and density. A day school is on the west side
of SW Scholls Ferry Road. A few large-lot single-family
residences also exist to the north, south and west of the
subject area. A quarry operated by Morse Brothers Inc.
is located to the southwest, across SW Scholls Ferry
Road.
R-25(PD) zoning surrounds the parcel currently designated
4 _
LUt$A KU. W*-Ull
Exhibit No.
Page No.
C-N. The area south of the proposed C-C designation is
zoned R-12(PD) and R-25(PD). The area across SW Scholls
Ferry Road from this area is zoned by the City of
Beaverton as R-2 (multi-family, 2,000 square feet lot
area/unit). The average allowable density within a 1/2
mile radius of the site is approximately 15 units per
acre.
Other commercial sites within the general vicinity of the
proposal include:
Murray Hill Shopping Center located approximately
3/4 mile north on Murray Boulevard;
Greenway Town Center Shopping Center located
approximately 1-1/4 mile east on Scholls Ferry
Road;
- Washington Square located approximately 2-1/2 miles
east; and
Several commercial centers along Pacific Highway,
including the Tigard Central Business District,
located approximately two miles to the southeast.
D. Site Information
There are two properties involved in this application.
Tax Lot 100 is 6.93 acres in size, zoned C-N and located
on the northeast corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and
Walnut Street. This parcel is a vacant, grassy field
with a relatively moderate grade.
Tax Lot 200 is 11.95 acres in size, zoned R-12 (PD) and R-
25 (PD) , and located on the southeast corner of SW Scholls
Ferry Road and Walnut Street. This property is also a
vacant, grassy field, but it slopes significantly
downward toward from the Castle Hill Subdivision to
Scholls Ferry Road.
E. Proposal Description
The applicant has submitted a packet of materials which
describe the various facts of the application. The
applicant has also provided an update to the previous
traffic studies conducted in August and December of 1993,
a noise impact study and a security lighting plan has
also been provided.
The application includes the following four separate
components:
LUBA NO. 9"11.--
5 Exhibit No.
Page No.
1. CPA 93-0009
2. ZCA 93-0003
Change the C-N designation on Tax Lot 100 to R-25,
and change the R-25(PD) designation for 8 acres of
Tax Lot 200 to C-C, leaving the remaining land use
designations on the property as they are (see
Exhibit A). This change is proposed to be
consistent with the requirements associated with
the City's C-C designation and the obligations of
the City to maintain an adequate inventory of
multi-family residential land.
3. SDR 93-0014
The applicant proposes to develop a shopping center
with a total of 657.550 square feet of floor space.
This space includes a 40,000 square-foot grocery
store, 9,550 square feet of additional commercial
space adjacent to the grocery store and two
separate pad sites totalling 8,000 square feet (see
Exhibit B). The applicant has provided preliminary
site, grading, utility, and landscaping plans.
Conceptual building elevations providing detail of
proposed design features for the Albertson's have
also been provided.
A 40,00 square-foot Albertson's Grocery Store and
9,550 square feet of commercial space are proposed
for the southern portion of the site. A truck
access and loading area is proposed along the south
side of the building. The southern and eastern
portions of the site are proposed to be graded
extensively and the south side of the main building
would have a floor elevation that is 8 to 24 feet
below the existing grade.
A free-standing tenant pad site is proposed towards
the southeast corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and
SW Walnut Street, a second free-standing pad is
intended for the southwest corner of SW Walnut
Street and SW Northview Drive. The applicant has
revised the application to indicate both pads are
intended to be developed with retail or office
uses. The applicant has withdrawn the conditional
use permit portion of this application for a gas
station and 24-hour service.
In addition to the specific uses shown on the site
plan and referred to in the applicant's statement,
approval of other uses is requested. This is
6 LUBA NU. 95-011
Exhibit No.
Page No. 3lv 5
because all tenants of the center have not been
committed. It is also expected that tenants will
change over time. The additional uses which may be
located at the site and are permitted in the; C-C
zone for which the applicant requests approval are:
- Animal sales and services;
- Consumer repair services;
- Convenience sales and personal services;
- Children's day care;
- Eating and drinking facilities;
- General retail sales (less than 10,000 square
feet;
- General offices (medical, dental, financial,
insurance, real estate, professional and
administrative services); and
- Indoor participant sports and recreation.
Three driveways are proposed on SW Scholls Ferry
Road and one driveway is shown on SW Walnut Street.
Internal sidewalks are shown immediately adjacent
to the commercial buildings. Sidewalks link the
two pad sites with the public sidewalks on the
perimeter of the project, a sidewalk and staircase
connections are proposed between the grocery store
and SW Northview Drive. An internal sidewalk
traverses the parking lot generally north-south.
4. MLP 93-0013
The applicant wishes to create a separate 8-acre
parcel for the shopping center. The other 3.95-
acre parcel is intended for future residential
development. The applicant has also discussed the
option of dedicating this parcel to the Castle Hill
Homeowners Association. This parcel will have
R-12(PD) and R-25(PD) zoning designations (see
Exhibit A).
II. ANALYSIS
The applicants have presented a report entitled Albertson's
Inc. Application for Site Development Plan, Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and Zoning Amendments for Community
Commercial (hereafter referred to as the applicant's statement)
that addresses the Statewide Planning Goals, the Tigard
Comprehensive Plan policies, and the Community Development
Code provisions that are applicable to the request. The
applicant has also submitted Applicant's Additional Testimony
and Evidence (dated January 14, 1994), a traffic study and
supplement prepared by Kittelson and Associates, Inc., in
• support of the application.
LUBA NO. 95=011
7 Exhibit NO.1C,~=
Page No. 3 Co
Applicable Review Criteria:
• Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14;
Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 4.1.1, 4.2.1, 6.1.1,
6.4.1, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.2, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3,
8.2.2, 8.4.1, 9.1.3, 12.1.1, 12.2, and 12.2.1 and 12.2.4; and
Community Development Code Chapters 18.22, 18.32, 18.56,
18.60, 18.61, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120,
18.130, 18.162, and 18.164.
A. Statewide Planning Goals and Related Plan Policies
The Planning Division concludes that the proposal
complies with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals and
Comprehensive Plan policies based upon the following
findings:
1. Goal 1 (Citizen Involvement) and Policy 2.1.1 are
satisfied because the City has adopted a citizen
involvement program including review of all land
use and development applications by nearby property
owners and residents.
The original application was filed July 11, 1991.
That application was reviewed by the Planning
Commission and ultimately tabled by the City
Council pending the review and adoption of a new
"Community Commercial" zone and plan amendment.
After notices provided, the applicant held public
meetings with then active NPO-7 on January 6, 1993.
Thereafter, the applicant met with the neighbors on
July 30, 1993, in accordance with the City's new
code provisions. Since the application was re-
filed on August 14, 1993, notices have been
provided for and a Planning Commission hearing was
held on November 15, 1993. On January 3, 1994, the
newly-formed CIT West held a public meeting to
review the applicant's proposals. Thereafter,
notice was provided for and a City Council public
hearing was held on January 25, 1994, resulting in
a remand to the Planning commission for a further
consideration.
Notice covering an area twice the size required by
the code was provided by the applicant for the
neighborhood meeting which was conducted August 4,
1994. Notice is also provided of public hearings
before the Planning Commission and City Council.
At each public hearing the opportunity will be
provided public input concerning this proposal.
8 LUBA NO.-9".11 _ .
E,xhibft No' '/-T
-
Page mo.
Policy 2.1.3 is satisfied because information
regarding the new C-C designation was explained to
the public at numerous public forums. In addition,
notices and information about this proposal have
been provided so that the basic planning issues are
understood by the public. Comments received have
been included in the staff report and applicant's
statement. In addition, all public notice
requirements related to this application have been
satisfied.
2. Goal 2 (Land Use Planning), Policy 1.1.1, and the
quasi-judicial plan and zone change approval
standards of Code Section 18.22.040 are satisfied
because the City has applied all applicable
Statewide Planning Goals through the City's
acknowledged Comprehensive Plan and Community
Development Code requirements to the review of this
proposal, as described in this report. The City of
Tigard has notified other affected units of
government including the City of Beaverton,
Washington County, the Oregon Department of
Transportation, and the Oregon Department of Land
Conservation and Development of the proposal.
Service and utility providing agencies have also
been notified of the proposal.
The City adopted the new "Community Commercial"
plan and zoning amendments in December of 1992 in
recognition that the City has a need for mid-range
commercial centers focused in residential
neighborhood areas. Presently, there are no areas
within the City that are actually zoned "Community
Commercial" to satisfy this need.
The 1/2-mile radius neighborhood which includes the
subject property consists of approximately 14,300
people and is projected to increase to 19,200
people by 1995. There are no existing or
designated commercial facilities in this area to
serve this large of a trade area. A neighborhood
commercial (C-N) is currently located at Walnut and
Scholls Ferry Road, but the C-N district can only
serve a maximum of 5,000 people in a one-half mile
radius area. A general commercial district
includes location criteria and permitted uses that
would make it inappropriate for a residential
neighborhood.
There are four potential sites that were identified
in the City Planning staff's inventory that satisfy
all the location criteria for siting of a C-C zone.
g LUBA NO. 95-011
Exhibit No. Y17
- -
Page No. I
The applicant's site is the prime site located
generally in the center of the four sites. The
applicant's site is one of only two sites that are
actually inside the City to serve immediate City
needs for C-C zoning functions. The applicant's
site also possesses the highest planning and built-
out densities within 1/2 mile of all sites. As all
other potential sites are either 5011 or 2011 less in
planned density that the Application site, the
applicant's site best satisfies the location and
trade area density requirements of C-C zoning.
Centering the location takes best advantage of
encouraging. pedestrian and bicycle or
transportation alternatives, and diminishes the
need for cross-town or cross-area automobile
traffic to and from the shopping center.
Finally, the other two sites (at Sunrise Lane and
the intersection of old and new Scholls Ferry
Roads) are outside the City and cannot readily
provide immediate C-C functions for the City. The
fourth site at 135th and Scholls Ferry has severe
development restrictions due to existing wetlands.
Policy 1.1.2 requires that the Comprehensive Plan
and each of its elements shall be opened for review
by the Metropolitan Service District or its
successor on an annual basis, and may be amended or
revised. Implementation Strategy 2 of this policy
requires that the City review Quasi-Judicial
Amendments in accordance with the standards set
forth in the Chapter 18.22 of the Community
Development Code. These standards have been
reviewed within the applicant's statement.
3. Goal 6 (Air/Water Quality) is satisfied because
that proposed C-C zone and the surrounding
residential properties will result in fewer and
shorter automobile trips to obtain commercial goods
and services. The proposed center, as designed and
conditioned, will provide for ease of access to the
surrounding neighborhoods. This in turn will help
satisfy Policy 4.1.1 by reducing potential air
quality impacts from the new residents and their
automobiles.
The proposed plan places the C-C zone within a
highly dense planned residential area (15 units per
acre) to enhance the opportunity for walking or
bicycling to and from the proposed shopping center.
Walkways, bicycling pathways, a ramp and a
staircase are provided to -these neighboring
10 WBA NO.95-011 _
Exhibit No.X-72_
Page No.
• residential densities.
Also, Policy 4.2.1 will be satisfied through the
development review and building permit processes at
which time a development proposal for this site
must be shown to comply with applicable federal,
state, and regional water quality requirements
including preparation and implementation of a non-
point source pollution control plan in compliance
with the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission's
temporary rules for the Tualatin River Basin.
Applicant's submittals relating to these
requirements establish the feasibility of the
applicant's ultimate compliance. The proposed
redesignation would not by itself affect compliance
with this plan policy.
4. Policy 4.3.1 and related TMC Sections 7.40.130-210
have been satisfied as demonstrated by a noise
study which identified, evaluated, and mitigated
noise impacts as required by the conditions of
approval. If approved, this policy will be further
implemented through the building permit plan check
process in which landscaping and proposed site
improvements will be reviewed to minimize noise
impacts on neighboring land uses.
5. Goal 9 (Economy of the State) is satisfied because
the proposed redesignation would increase the
City's inventory of developable commercial land,
thereby increasing employment opportunities in the
city.
The proposal is consistent with Policy 5.4 because
the proposed C-C designation will maintain a
compatible relationship with nearby residential
properties as required by the Community Development
Code standards. In addition, the site is
physically separated from residential uses by
streets on three sides of the property and a steep
slope to the south.
A commercial service center of modest size has been
contemplated for this area since the 1983 adoption
of the Bull Mountain Community Plan. The proposed
C-C designation will replace the C-N designation
and therefore, no encroachment into a residential
area will result.
6. Goal 10 (Housing) as well as Policy 6.1.1 are
satisfied because the proposal will result in a
loss of 1.07 acres of R-25 land and a net
11 LUBANO.W411
Ex1dbft No. XZ;_
Page No. 3 -7
. residential opportunity of 26 units. The City's
inventory shows that presently there are 1,305
acres of developable residential land with a total
potential of 13,478 dwelling units. This yields an
average allowable density of 10.328 units per acre.
The Housing Rule has a minimum requirement of 10
unit per acre. This change will have a minimal
impact that results in 1,304 developable acres, 13,
452 potential units, and an average possible
density of 10.315 units per acre. As a result,
this change by itself has an insignificant impact
on the City's ability to comply with the
Metropolitan Housing Rule and multi-family density
availability.
The average potential density of the undeveloped
residential land in the City has historically
varied as land was developed and as Comprehensive
Plan Amendments were approved. This represents a
reduction in the amount of developable residential
land in the City of only 0.070.
Policy 6.4.1 requires that the City designate
developing areas which are not designated as
established areas on the Comprehensive Plan Map and
encourages flexible efficient development within
these areas. This area is currently a developing
area. The applicant is requesting Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning changes which allow greater
flexibility in developing commercial uses to
provide more type of goods and services than the
present Neighborhood Commercial designation on the
adjoining corner would permit. This change is
expected to reduce impacts to the transportation
system by reducing the length of travel required by
residents to access other area grocery and
commercial shopping centers.
Policy 6.6.1 can be satisfied because the proposed
design and related conditions of approval are
intended to provide excellent buffering and visual
separation between the center and nearby
residential neighborhoods. As noted in this
report, specific landscaping noise mitigation
measures must be provided to ensure that this
policy and related Code and TMC provisions are met.
7. Goal 11 (Public Facilities and Services) and
Policies 7.1.12, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.2 and 7.6.1, are
satisfied because adequate public service and
educational capacities are available to serve
• future development of this site, under either the
12 LUBA NO. 95-011 Exhibit No. Vr,-
Page No. 3n
existing or proposed Plan and zoning designations.
Extension of necessary public facilities to serve
the site are the responsibility of the developer,
at the time of site development. The City of
Tigard notifies applicable public and private
utility providers of pending development
applications. No adverse comments were received
from service providers with respect to the current
application.
8. Goal 12 (Transportation), the transportation rule
(OAR 660, Div. 12), and Policy 8.1.1 are satisfied
because the proposed redesignation would not be
expected to result in unsuitable or unsafe levels
of traffic on SW Walnut Street or Scholls Ferry
Road. Although commercial development of this site
might be expected to result in some increase in
total traffic on these roads adjacent to the site
as compared to what would be expected under the
current designations, the impact on the city-wide
or regional transportation systems should be
beneficial through providing commercial
opportunities closer to adjoining residential areas
than is currently available. Therefore, a net
reduction in total system traffic is anticipated
and supported by the traffic studies.
Policy 8.1..3 will be satisfied as a condition of
development approval under either the existing or
proposed plan and zoning designations. Completion
of necessary street improvements along the site's
frontages will be required to be installed by the
developer at the time of development. The
Engineering Division and Washington County will
review final development plans for the site with
regard to necessary road improvements adjacent to
the site and on other affected roadways.
Policy 8.1.2 calls for the City to provide for safe
and efficient management of the transportation
planning process within the City and the
metropolitan area through cooperation with other
federal, state, regional and local jurisdictions.
The City has provided copies of the application to
other affect agencies for review and comment.
Policy 8.2.2 calls for placing intensive land uses,
such as commercial and multi-family, in locations
that can be served by transit. Though Tri-Met
service does not presently serve the immediate
area, an extension of service along SW Scholls
Ferry Road appears very likely. Adequate bus stop
LUBA NU. Vb-U7 7
13 Exhibit No.k_IL-
Page No. 3~`7
locations can be accommodated within the right-of-
way of the Scholls Ferry Road proposed twin lanes
near Walnut Street as identified by the applicant.
Policy 8.4.1 states that the City shall locate
bicycle and pedestrian corridors in a manner which
provides for pedestrian and bicycle users, safe and
convenient movement in all parts of the City, by
developing the pathway system shown on the adopted
pedestrian/bikeway plan. The site does not adjoin
a designated pedestrian/bikeway corridor area. The
development proposes to provide sidewalks for each
property frontage. Adequate alternative modes of
transportation are provided for in the site plan
and addressed in the traffic studies. Access
analysis is set forth in the traffic report and
Washington County responses establishing
feasibility. The proposed sidewalks, pathways,
ramps and staircases link the site with surrounding
residential designations (Castle Hill to the east,
multi-family to the north and south, and
residential to the west) which include the focus
points of pedestrian and bicycle activity at
Northview Drive and Walnut Street intersection,
Walnut Street and Scholls Ferry Road intersection,
Northview Drive and Stardust intersection and along
Scholls Ferry Road from the south. Access and
developable capability of the 3.95-acre multi-
family parcel to the south is identified in
Applicant's Additional Testimony and Evidence and
Exhibit "J" thereto.
9. Goal 13 (Energy Conservation) and Policies 9.1.3
which encourage energy conservation through design
and construction. Because of the sites location
and ability to provide greater numbers of services,
an expected reduction in the number and length of
automobile trips to existing commercial areas, the
amount of energy consumed by area residents to
commercial services is expected to be less.
Through application of current building code
requirements during the building permit review
process, all new construction on the site will be
developed in an energy-efficient manner.
10. Policy 12.2 identifies types of commercial zoning
districts. This policy sets the following general
requirements: 1) That uses within each district
shall be planned at a scale which relates to its
location, site and type of stores to the trade area
to be served. The scale of development, including
the specific sizes of the proposed uses, has been
14 LUl3A NU. yU7 7
Exhibit No. k
_
Page No. 213
reviewed as it relates to surrounding land uses and
the site's existing proposed topography and appears
compatible with adjoining residential areas and
comparable commercial centers in the metropolitan
area, as reviewed within this report and
Applicant's Additional Testimony and Evidence. 2)
That surrounding residential uses be protected from
any possible adverse effects in terms of loss of
privacy, noise, lights and glare. The applicant
has addressed design aspects of the proposal as it
relates to these issues. 3) That commercial
centers be aesthetically attractive and landscaped.
The applicant has provided conceptual design
details for the center which have been reviewed
against the applicable standards elsewhere within
this report as it relates to buildings and site
improvement aesthetics and landscaping. 4) That
ingress and egress points not create traffic
congestion and hazard. The design of the site has
been reviewed elsewhere within this report as it
relates to connectivity with adjoining rights-of-
way and neighboring properties. 5) That vehicle
trips be reduced both in length and total number.
Reduction in vehicular trips has been addressed
elsewhere in this report in terms of length and
number. 6) This portion of the policy states that
• the Central Business District is not included in
the location criteria because there is only one
Central business District within Tigard. This does
not apply to this application because it is not
within the Central Business District. The code and
comprehensive plan requirements (5.1.3-5.1.5)
related to the Central Business District and the
community Commercial District have designated trade
area size, limitations on uses and/or one-have-mile
separation requirements of this C-C district, and
the-districts are meant to be independent of each
other and no comparative effects analysis is
required for location of Community Commercial
districts.
11. The location criteria for Medium-High Residential
(R-25) specified in Policy 12.1.1 (3) are met for
the following reasons:
(a) The parcels intended for the R-25 designation
are vacant and are not committed to low-
density development. Since 1983, these
properties have been designated for multi-
family and commercial use. Prior to being
designated C-N, Tax Lot 100 was designated
R-25.
LUt3A NV. Jb-V77
15 ExhIbK No. Z
Page No. _3
(b) The two areas intended for R-25 density are
well-buffered or separated from single-family
residential neighborhoods. Tax Lot 100 abuts
R-25 zoning to the north and east. The area
north is undeveloped and the eastern property
line is bordered by Cotswald Subdivision.
Because of the properties size and lack of
physical constraints, adequate buffering can
be provided along the property boundaries.
The R-25 area south of the center will be
adjacent to r-25 and R-12 zoned areas that
developed as single-family neighborhoods.
This 3.95-acre parcel will provide a
transition between the single-family
development and the shopping center.
(c) Both proposed R-25 parcels have direct access
from major collectors streets.
(d) The properties have a moderate grade and do
not appear to have any development limitations
due to natural features of Code requirements.
(e) As noted in this report, existing facilities
have adequate capacity to serve the
development.
(f) The property is approximately 1/2 mile from
the nearest Tri-Met route. This bus stop is
served by Tri-Met bus line #62. However, SW
Scholls Ferry Road and Walnut Street are
logical routes for expansion in the future as
the area grows and the demand for bus service
increases.
Bus stops can be accommodated within the
right-of-way of Scholls Ferry Road at the
proposed twin lanes near SW Walnut Street.
The adjacent mini-park at the corner with its
bench facilities and direct access to the
pedestrian and bicycle network at the site
will provide a proper and feasible location
for the bus stop when it becomes necessary.
(g) The two proposed R-25 areas will have
excellent access to shopping.
(h) When the residential properties develop,
common and/or private open space will be
required as a condition of development.
LUBA NO. 95-011
16 Exhibit No.
Page No. 7S
12. The location criteria for Community Commercial uses
specified in Policy 12.2.1 (4) are satisfied for
the following reasons:
(a) The density within the 1/2 mile trade area
averages over 8 units per acre. Supporting
information is supplied in the applicant's
statement and in the staff report information
on file as part of the comprehensive Plan
Amendment to create the C-C designation.
(b) The proposed center and its components all
meet the maximum gross floor area standards of
100,000 square feet total, 40,000 for grocery
stores, 10,000 square feet for general retail,
and 5,000 square feet for other uses.
(c) The proposed commercial designation will apply
to only the southeast corner of SW Scholls
Ferry Road and Walnut Street.
(d) The site is over 1/2 mile from any other
commercial retail land use designations.
(e) The site is located at the intersection of two
major collector streets. The traffic analysis
presented by Kittelson and Associates and the
subsequent evaluation by the Engineering
Division and Washington County indicate that
no adverse traffic impacts will result.
(f) The commercial site is eight acres which
coincides with the maximum allowable size for
a Community Commercial center.
(g) Design issues, such as vehicular access,
pedestrian and bicyclist access, coordinated
development, local street connections between
the commercial use and the neighborhood,
lighting, and noise, have all been addressed
using the applicable Comprehensive Plan and
Community Development Code policies and
standards.
B. Community Development Code
1. Chapter 18.22
In order to approve a quasi-judicial amendment to
the Plan and zoning maps, the City must also find
that there is evidence of a change in the
neighborhood or community which affects the parcel.
17 LUBA NO.95-011=
Exhibit No. Y,r
Page No. 3'7(0
Alternatively, the City must find that there has
been a mistake or inconsistency with regard to the
original designation of the parcel (Comprehensive
Plan, Volume 2, Policy 1.1.1, Implementation
Strategy 2; Community Development Code Section
18.22.040(A).
The applicant's statement (pages 5 through 9)
addresses and satisfies these considerations.
2. Chapter 18.56 - R-25 Multiple-Family Residential
At this time, no development is proposed for Tax
Lot 100 or the proposed 3.95-acre parcel south of
the shopping center. Both parcels meet the
dimensional requirements of the R-25 zone (Section
18.56.050) and it appears that both parcels can
have adequate access and be suitably developed in
the future.
The neighboring homeowners association has
indicated a desire to have the 3.95 acres developed
as a park some time in the future. However, that
issue is not before us in this application and a
change in zoning would require a separate
application, public hearing and compliance with all
• applicable code and comprehensive plan
requirements.
3. Chapter 18.61 - C-C Community Commercial
Section 18.61.030 is satisfied because the uses
proposed by the applicant are permitted. The
40,000 square-foot grocery store and related uses
are necessary for the size of population in the
trade area. The 5,950 square-foot general retail
sales unit may include a video store. The City's
interpretation of "general retail sales" includes
the types of sales activities identified in
Applicant's Additional Testimony and Evidence
Exhibit "F". The proposed improvements for the
site can accommodate all of the permitted uses
shown on the site plan and proposed as alternate
tenants in the center.
Section 18.61.45 is satisfied because all primary
commercial activities shall be conducted inside;
all uses, except for the grocery and video stores
will be less than the 5,000 square-foot maximum;
and any outdoor displays and open-air dining shall
be conducted within the limits of this section.
18 LUDA NU. JD-U71
Exhibit No. Yr- -
Page No. 3~1
Section 18.61.050 is satisfied because the proposed
center meets all applicable standards for lot size
and dimensions, setbacks, lot coverage, building
height, and landscaped area.
Section 18.61.055 contains a number of design
guidelines and standards for C-C development. The
basic design concepts presented by the applicant
are consistent with these Code provisions. In some
cases design concepts need to be amended and in
others more detailed information needs to be
provided (as conditions of approval) to ensure
compliance with this Code section. The design
guidelines are not mandatory, but intended to be
discretionary. The identified examples in the
guidelines are intended only as suggestions and are
not intended as a requirement unless otherwise
specified by the City upon review. Since the
applicant has generally complied with the
guidelines as described herein, none are deemed
necessary to become mandatory.
Section 18.61.055 A. 1. contains building
design guidelines which have been generally
satisfied. The applicant has provided a
proposed design for the grocery store, but no
for the remaining 9,550 square feet of retail
space:. adjacent to it or for the two building
pad sites.
Also, the grocery will have blank walls facing
SW Northview Drive. However, this building
elevation will be screened from view by the
site excavated below street grade for almost
the height of the building and by landscaping,
and should result in a pleasing appearance.
Section 18.61.055 A. @. discourages loading
areas that face toward residential uses. The
proposed loading area abuts an undeveloped
residential parcel and is near Castle Hill
Subdivision. Because of the proposed grading
of the site, the loading area will be
approximately 24 feet below the existing
grade. This design serves to mitigate noise
impacts to adjoining residential areas along
with landscaping and screening will provide a
satisfactory visual buffer.
Section 18.61.055 B. 1. requires internal
walkways to facilitate pedestrian circulation
on the site. The site plan shows sidewalks in
19 LUBA NU: 95-111
Exhibit No.
Page No.
the vicinity of the building locations and two
walkways to SW Northview Drive. This Code
section will be satisfied by the additional
walkways as required in the conditions of
approval. Modification of the site plan to
accommodate these requirements is practical
and feasible for the overall project design.
Section 18.61.055 B. @. will be satisfied with
the submission of additional information
regarding mechanical equipment, refuse and
recycling containers, bicycle parking,
pedestrian/vehicular conflicts, landscaping,
screening, and special site features (e.g.,
walls) as required in the conditions of
approval. These submittals are additional
design details that are feasible for the
applicant to satisfy and be accommodated in
the existing site plan (see Applicant's
Additional Testimony and Evidence, and revised
site plan).
4. Chapter 18.100 - Landscaping and Screening
The provisions of this Chapter are satisfied
provided the conditions of approval are met. The
conceptual plan is found to be consistent with the
criteria in this Chapter, but the details need to
be confirmed prior to issuance of development
permits.
Section 18.100.030 - 040 requires street trees
as part of new commercial development. The
landscaping plan submitted indicates that
street trees will be planted with 40-foot
spacing. A list of trees to be used is
provided, but the tree to be used is not
identified. With 40-foot spacing, the street
trees will need to have a mature height of 40+
feet.
Section 18.100.070 - 080 requires screening
between different uses, such as commercial and
residential. The proposed landscaping plan
includes vegetative screening that is
consistent with the standards of these
sections. only more detailed information
regarding the size and species of plantings,
as required in the conditions of approval is
needed to ensure compliance.
- Section 18.100.090 pertains to fences and
20 LU13A 110.-9"11
Exhibit Nose
page NO.
walls. The applicant has proposed the
construction of a wall along a portion of the
perimeter of the development. A conceptual
elevation plan for a portion of this wall
along SW Northview Drive has been included in
the application. The applicant has provided
the wall to address specific neighborhood
concerns due to potential site impacts. Using
walls as a unifying design element is
encouraged by Chapter 18.100 and the C-C zone.
- Section 18.100.110 requires screening for
parking and loading areas. The landscaping
plan satisfies the relevant requirements for
landscaped islands in the parking area and the
number of trees in the parking area. However,
in order to accommodate the pedestrian
walkways noted elsewhere in this report, some
of the landscaped features will have to be
modified.
- Section 18.100.130 contains a buffer matrix
that prescribes the minimum width and type of
buffer required in different circumstances.
The proposed minimum buffer area of 20 feet
with vegetative screening meets or exceeds the
standards for commercial development and
parking lots which abut residential uses.
5. Chapter 18.102 - Visual clearance Areas
All intersections meet the visual clearance
provisions of this Chapter.
6. Chapter 18.106 - Off-Street and Loading
Requirements
Although the exact number of required parking
spaces in Section 18.106.030 cannot be determined
because all of the tenants have not been
identified, the applicant's estimate of 255
required spaces is reasonable. A total of 293
spaces are provided. The loss of six parking
spaces near the Walnut Street driveway for walkway
will not conflict with the applicant's
requirements.
Section 18.106.050 describes the .dimensional
standards for parking areas. All of these
requirements for parking spaces and aisle widths
are met or exceeded, as shown on the site plan.
LUBA NO. 95-011
21 Exhibit No. Xr,'
Page No. 3 90
7. Chapter 18.108 - Access, Egress, and Circulation
The number and dimensions of the proposed driveways
meet the provisions of this Chapter.
Section 18.108.060 discourages direct access onto
arterial and collector streets. The number of
driveways for the commercial development appears
justified (pending Washington County's final
analysis and recommendations). The future access
for the proposed 3.95-acre parcel has been
adequately addressed in the Applicant's Additional
Testimony and Evidence.
8. Chapter 18.114 - Signs
The plans submitted by the applicant indicate one
free-standing sign along the SW Scholls Ferry Road
frontage, as allowed by Section 18.114.130 E. A
sign drawing has been submitted without dimensions.
Sign permits shall be required as a condition of
approval to ensure compliance with Code standards
for the C-C zone.
9'. Chapter 18.120 - Site Development Review
. The relevant design standards in Section 18.120.180
A. have been addressed elsewhere in this report,
with the exception of noise (18.180.180 A. o.). As
discussed earlier, the loading area on the south
side of the grocery store is visually screened from
adjoining residential properties. However, noise
from truck traffic, trash collection and
compacting, and rooftop equipment has proven to be
a source of conflict between commercial and
residential uses.
Sufficient information has been provided to address
the expected major noise generators on site. The
applicant should comply with the recommendations
made within the acoustical engineer's report as
addressed previously within this report. Based on
this study it appears that the site improvements
can comply with the applicable Development code
criteria for mitigation of noise.
10. Chapter 18.162 - Major and Minor Land Partitioning
The proposed partition complies with all of the
dimensional requirements of the C-C and R-25 zones,
and the requirements of this Chapter shall be
satisfied by the conditions of approval.
2 2 LUBA NO. 95-011
Exhibit No.\P
Page No. ' _
11. Chapter 18.164 - Street and Utility Improvement
Standards
These shall be satisfied as required by the City
Engineering Department and the Washington County
Department of Land Use and Transportation.
III. CONCLUSIONS
With the identified conditions of approval, the application
meets the requirements of the applicable Statewide Planning Goals,
Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development code
provisions. The application satisfies the standards of CDC 18.22
in that it is consistent with the applicable plan policies and code
provisions and the applicant has submitted sufficient reliable
evidence of a change in the neighborhood or community, mistake and
inconsistency in the existing comprehensive plan and zoning maps
and text. The conditions of approval require certain changes or
additional detail for the approval. Related decisions of the City
staff may be appealed under 18.32.110 and 290 for a public hearing
and interested parties are entitled to notice of the decisions (so
as to perfect an appeal) when requested under 18.32.120 (a) (1) (E) .
The C-N designation has been moved several times since 1983,
with the final location north of Walnut Street and east of Scholls
Ferry Road. By prior order of the City Council and the final
location of Walnut Street, the C-N zoned property comprises 6.93
acres. The redesignation,of this site from C-N to R-25 helps to
offset the loss of R-25 zoning caused by the proposed C-C
designation, and returns the property to its earlier R-25
designation.
The proposed 8-acre site for the C-C designation provides a
better location for commercial development due to its physical
characteristics and proximaties. It enables the development to be
excavated below adjacent residential grades to help mask the larger
commercial building and parking lot behind graded slopes and
extensive landscaping, thus diminishing adverse impacts of noise,
light, activity, traffic and the different adjacent use. It also
provides a more practical lot-size and shape, better access,
transition of uses and centering of commercial for the area.
Some questions were raised regarding the proposals effect on
housing requirements. The net loss in zoning designated for
housing by the proposal will be a maximum potential of 26 units.
With this housing reduction the City's allowable housing density
will be 10.315 units per acre which is still above the minimum of
10 units per acre for the City under* the Housing Rule. The
redesignation of the approximately 7 acres of C-N property as R-25
will retain the bulk of the multi-family housing previously located
on the proposed C-C lands, in the same area of the City to satisfy
. the sub-regional needs. The loss of 26 multi-family units will not
23 LUBA NO. 95-011 _
Exhibit No. Xr-
Page No. 9'A
cause the City to fail to meet any overall requirements for
providing availability of multi-family housing or specifically
Medium High density residential.
The immediate neighborhood association has expressed a desire
to acquire ownership of the southern 3.95-acre parcel designed for
multi-family dwellings. Applicants are, however, seeking to retain
the multi-family (R-25 PD) designation on this property. The issue
of acquisition is not a matter to be considered as part of
reviewing the approval standards for this application. Any future
zoning and/or comprehensive plan changes proposed for this 3.95-
acre property will subject to a separate application and public
hearing process.
Questions were raised regarding the possible need for a
vehicular access (fifth driveway) from the shopping center to SW
Northview Drive. Support for the additional driveway access
included more convenient vehicular access to Castle Hill area,
reduction of turning movements at Walnut Street access and
Northview Drive intersection with Walnut Street. Contrary
arguments included the additional driveway would conflict with the
C-C policy of encouraging pedestrian and bicycle use over vehicular
use, allow drivers to by-pass the traffic light at Walnut and
Scholis Ferry Road by cutting through the shopping center parking
lot (eliminating any expected reduction in turning movements), and
increase in noise and vehicular headlight interference with single-
family residences along Northview Drive. On balance, the adverse
impacts outweigh the advantages for an additional access; and
therefore, no vehicular access driveway should be approved to
Northview Drive.
Access and development feasibility questions were raised as to
the 3.95-acre multi-family property to the south of the proposed
shopping center. The proposed access and development site plan
submitted on behalf of the land's owner (Applicant's Additional
Testimony and Evidence, Exhibit J) identifies that the site can
feasibly accommodate adequate access and development that is
compatible with nearby uses and facilities.
Many more questions were raised concerning the application of
approval standards and proposed design. Applicant has adequately
addressed these concerns in Applicant's Additional Testimony and
Evidence (January 14, 1994) and the subsequent submittals. In
addition, applicant has modified the application to eliminate any
request or reference to allowing a gas station use or 24-hour
operating hours. In addition, plan policies 5.1.3 and 11.1 were
raised as being potentially applicable to the application. These
provisions relate to considerations regarding the Central Business
District, and are not applicable to this application for. Community
Commercial plan and zoning designation and placement. Similarly,
policy 8.2.1 regarding coordination with Tri-Met is not applicable
as Tri-Met has no current or projected expansion plan for the
24 LUBA NO. 95-011
Exhibit No. X
Page No. 583
application area. Evidence of policy 8.2.1.(a) through (d) must
all exist before the overall policy applies. In this instance, the
requirement of 8.2.1.(a) is not present. Code provisions 18.60 for
Neighborhood Commercial and 18.80 for overlay designations, also do
not apply. The existing N-C district and PD designation are being
eliminated by the proposal. Code sections 18.60 and 18.80 are
intended to address and apply standards for when a N-C or overlay
site is to be developed as such. As the proposal does not request
the N-C or overlay designations, the provisions do not apply to the
application's approval.
IV. DECISION AND ORDER
Approval of an order by the Planning Commission to forward a
recommendation for approval to the City Council for CPA 93-0009/ZCA
93-0009, SDR 93-0014, and MLP 93-0013 subject to the following
conditions. Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be
satisfied prior to issuance of building permits.
1. Approve CPA 93-0009/ZCA 93-0009 to change the
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations on Tax Lot 100
from Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) to Medium-High
Residential/Planned Development (R-25 PD), and to change
the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designation for 8 acres
of Tax Lot 200 from Medium and Medium-High
Residential/Planned Development (R-12 PD and R-25 PD) to
Community Commercial (C-C).
The Comprehensive Plan and zoning map amendments shall be
finalized at the time a building or other development
permit (e.g., grading) is issued.
2. Approve the site Development portion of the application
with the following conditions:
a. A revised site plan shall be submitted for approval
which includes the following modifications:
1. A walkway system which has sidewalks along
each of the SW Scholls Ferry Road driveways.
2. A sidewalk from the grocery store shall
connect near SW Northview Drive.
3. Two of the proposed handicapped parking spaces
in front of the grocery store shall be moved
to be adjacent to the building.
4. The applicant shall supply details concerning
the screening of all mechanical equipment to
be used on the perimeter of the building or on
the roof.
LUBA NO. 95-011
25 Exhibit No.
Page No.
S. All cooling units shall be as specified within
the noise study dated September 29, 1994. The
study recommended the use of quieter
evaporative condensers located within the
mezzanine level of the store rather than air-
cooled condenser units located on the roof.
6. A detailed landscaping plan shall be provided
showing the size and species of landscaping
material to be used throughout the
development.
7. Building design details shall be provided for
the entire development. Of key importance
will be consistent size and scale of buildings
and signs. The applicant shall create a sign
program for the center identifying the size,
location and design of all free-standing and
wall signage.
8. All lighting fixtures shall use cut-off
shields to prevent the spill-over of light to
adjoining properties.
9. The southern property towards SW Scholls Ferry
Road should be considered to allow for future
access between the 3.95-acre parcel and the
Albertson's site.
STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division.
b. Two (2) sets of detailed public improvement plans
and profile construction drawings shall be
submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering
Department. Seven (7) sets of approved drawings
and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate,
all prepared by a Professional Engineer, shall be
submitted for final review and approval (NOTE:
these plans are in addition to any drawings
required by the Building Division and should only
include sheets relevant to public improvements.
STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering Department.
C. Building permits will not be issued and
construction of proposed public improvements shall
not commence until after the Engineering Department
has reviewed and approved the public improvement
plans and a street opening permit or construction
compliance agreement has been executed. A 100 per
cent performance assurance or letter of commitment,
a developer-engineer agreement, the payment of a
26 -
L.Ul3A MU. JO-V7 7
Exhibit No. I
Page No. ,3 5
permit fee and a sign installation/streetlight fee
are required.
d. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the
Public along the SW Scholls Ferry Road frontage to
increase the right-of-way to 37 feet from the
centerline. If the existing right-of-way has been
dedicated to the required width, the applicant
shall submit survey and title information to
confirm. The description of any additional right-
of-way shall be tied to the existing right-of-way
centerline. For additional information contact
Washington County Survey Division.
e. Standard half-street improvements, including
concrete sidewalk, driveway apron, curb, asphaltic
concrete pavement, sanitary sewer, storm drainage,
streetlights, and underground utilities shall be
installed along the SW Scholls Ferry Road frontage,
including the frontage of all parcels within the
minor land partition. Improvements along SW
Scholls Ferry Road shall be designed and
constructed to Washington County Uniform Road
Improvement Design Standards and shall conform to
the alignment of existing adjacent improvements or
to an alignment approved by the Washington County
• Engineering Department. For additional information
contact Washington County Engineering Department.
f. The applicant shall obtain a facility permit from
the Department of Land Use and Transportation of
Washington County, to perform work within the
right-of-way of SW Scholls Ferry Road. A copy of
this permit shall be provided to the City
Engineering Department prior to issuance of a
Public Improvement Permit.
g. Standard half-street improvements, including
concrete sidewalk, driveway apron, streetlights,
and underground utilities shall be installed along
the SW Northview Drive and "Green Space" frontage
of SW Northview Drive. Improvements shall be
designed and constructed to local street standards
and shall conform to the alignment of existing
adjacent improvements or to an alignment approved
by the Engineering Department. STAFF CONTACT:
Michael Anderson, Engineering Department.
h. The applicant shall submit sanitary sewer plans to
the City of Beaverton for their approval. The
plans shall also be submitted for the review and
• approval of the City of -Tigard Engineering
27 -
t-uesw nv: ya-v
Exhibit No. =G
Page No.
Department. A copy of the approved plans shall be
provided to the City of Tigard prior to the
construction of any public improvements.
i. The applicant shall provide an on-site water
quality facility as established under the
guidelines of Unified Sewerage Agency Resolution
and Order No. 91-47. Submitted design information
shall include an operation and maintenance plan.
STAFF CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Department.
j. The applicant shall demonstrate that storm drainage
runoff can be discharged into the existing drainage
ways without significantly impacting properties
downstream. STAFF CONTACT: Greg , Berry,
Engineering Department.
k. The proposed privately -operated and maintained
sanitary sewer and storm drainage system plan-
profile details shall be provided as part of the
public improvement plans. STAFF CONTACT: Michael
Anderson, Engineering Department.
1. The applicant shall obtain a "Joint Permit" from
the City of Tigard. This permit shall meet the
requirements of the NPDES and Tualatin Basin
Erosion Control Program. STAFF CONTACT: Michael
Anderson, Engineering Department.
M. A grading plan shall be submitted showing the
existing and proposed contours. A soils report
shall be provided detailing the soil compaction
requirements. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson,
Engineering Department.
n. The applicant shall provide a geo-technical report
that addresses the slope stability adjacent to SW
Northview Drive and the overall grading conditions
of the proposed development, in accordance with the
requirements of Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building
Code. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson,
Engineering Department.
o. The applicant shall underground the existing
overhead facilities along each frontage or pay the
fee in lieu of undergrounding. STAFF CONTACT:
Michael Anderson, Engineering Department.
P. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part
of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall
conform to "Erosion Control Plans - Technical
Guidance Handbook, November, 1989. STAFF CONTACT:
28 LUBA NO.95-011_. .
Exhibit No. Y
Page No.
Michael Anderson, Engineering Department.
q. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle
access and parking plan for approval by the City
Engineer. All construction vehicle parking shall
be provided on-site or within the SW Northview
Drive and SW Walnut Street right-of-way. No
construction vehicles or equipment will be
permitted to park on the adjoining residential
public streets. Construction vehicles include the
vehicles of any contractor or sub-contractor
involved in the construction of the site
improvements or buildings proposed by this
application, and shall include the vehicles of all
suppliers and employees associated with the
project. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson,
Engineering Department.
3. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements.
a. Three copies of the partition plat prepared by a
land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and
necessary data or narrative.
b. The partition plat and data or narrative shall be
drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the
Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington
County, and by the City of Tigard.
C. Copy of boundary survey
STAFF CONTACT: John Hadley, Engineering Department.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S) SHOULD BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO FINAL
OCCUPANCY PERMIT:
4. Provide the Engineering Department with a recorded mylar
copy of the final survey; or if not recorded with
Washington County but has been approved by the City of
Tigard the applicant shall have 30 days after recording
with Washington County to submit the copy.
LUBA NO. 95-011
29
Exhibit No. x~
Page No.
DATED this day of November, 1994.
Chairman
Tigard Planning Commission
November 7, 1994 Commission
Session
LUBA NO. 95-011
Exhibit No. c
3 ° Page No.
i
i
I
f
PR J
T T R e . j-- SIGN
TREES
PEDESTRIAN
ACCESS
l "
. ,
. . LANDSCAPE
FEATURE AN n ~i~~~
. ~ ~ .
~ ~ .
,
a r,~
1
0
TIPICAL EVERGREEN
SCFEEN
t f
i~ -
VEGETATIVE
SLOPE PLANTING FUTURE GREEN SPAC ~
;0= k a
I ~
- ~.Y~ f
T
.e
:
~~F
I ~ i
7 ~ 1
~i r
1
- i
r
i
i' ~
t'r.
I
i
A.I ~771N r l 1 1 1 1 1 1 U i~ 4~ J
_
•
j
4 F • 0 000 S t ~ .r
0 0
~ i
v~
i'i i
a iii it i ~ ~ ■ tL ~i! !~i l r - ~ ~ ~ ~ i
■L ~+ti
PARKIN TR E . H N Y LOCUST G
L~
R..
~J
1-
P i ~1
TR T TR R OAK S EE E E i_ ~ ~
i
u
r
P IMAM TR F OW RING P AR SEC ~ A 1
e i y f~
A NT TR CN RRY GW00 AN P UM E 0 D L C ' TYPI A
V R R EN .EEG E E .S
SCREEN 11 _r
I ! F JI'~
• NIF R R NIN TR GLAS FI AN DAR CO E SC EE G EE DOU R CE SI i 1 • i
~ / I
l ■ i
s
~ ~ ~ t~ ~ I-~ AN R~ N V ~RU D ADO I3S ~
t
i
1 r, ■
' LAWN
. _ _ s L L r LL
ai
_ 7
, -~J .
s 3 = ~ ~
~ s s - -
v~ ~J-
~
V - - o - - - i .
i _
1` ~i~
I
'~M ~ 1~ }
-lip ~ - i i
~L
~ f_
- i -
s rag , ~~z _ _ - -
. _ ry ~ t M 4 \ ~ J. M.. - _ i r
{ _ uY ~ . r~+:~ r~ of ~ ;,r _ ~ Y,J. ~~y~~ ~ ~ . s,+.. x~s ~'h J Y - l~(mf~ P~~,E~r ~r Y~~, _ _ ~J,r~1~srY +j ~ s~' r'K~Y` .1 ~ ~.Nn'f+r`~t. ~ ~_,~,r *1F'h~{ alp - r~ o; v y i
r { iPJ - ~ n f ~ w t
pus
1 3
1
L~_ .
r ~ il, ' ~
• i
f _ } ~ ~ ~
--r.
_ _
_