Resolution No. 96-09 ET �
CITY OF TIGARD,OREGON
RESOLUTION NO.98-C rl
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF A FINAL ORDER UPON CITY COUNCIL REVIEW
OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW!PLANNED DEVELOPMENT/MINOR LAND PARTITION ,
APPLICATION(SDR95-0019/PDR95-0008/MLP95-0012)FUTURE SHOP/CHRISTENSEN. r
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission reviewed this case at its meeting of December 4, 1995
and January 8,1995;and
�k
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved the application subject to certain conditions of
approval(Planning Commission Final Order 96-01 PC);and
WHEREAS, the City Council voted to call the development up for Council review at its January
23,1996 meeting;and aR;
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed plans and findings at a public hearing on February 13,
1996.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: City Council upholds " .
..the Planning .Commission's decision approving Site Development Review / Planned
Development Review/ Minor Land Partition (SDR95-0019/PDR95-0008/MLP95-0012). The
Planning Commission Final Order 96-01 is attached as exhibit A.
PASSED: This day of .1996.
a�
May - ty of Tigard
1
ATTEST:
City Recorder-City of Tigard
gTO
u"
RESOLUTION No.98-
Page 1ti
z �
EXHIBIT A
MY OF MGARD
CITY OF TE D
Washington County,Oregon
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO 96-0001 PC q BY THE PLANNING COMMSSION
CO IMCASENIMI RM-strMDEVELOPAONTREVIEW(SDR)ssmta PwawennevecoPKEWe�eW(aa23
95-0048 and MINOR LAND P ON(MMP)9soort
j OFOWNER: Waremart Inc.
OFAAFlICAN, Future Shop,Atte:Rozanne Ki Mn
OFAMC9A. Suite 1400-1111 West Geord.St. 6173E Vancouver 57.07E British Columbia ZIP. WE 4M3 ,
00'PROP&M.. E-side of SW Dartmouth St and S of Pacific H Cl7Y•Tigard SfAM�2M 97223
TAX S L"NOfS1.: WCTM ISI 36CD,Tax Lot MW ¢;,
Renaeat: D A request for the faltmving development applications:
1.) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a 40,000
foot`future sho general retail buil .
square P�9 building and a 9,550 square foot
general retail
2.) Manned Development Review,
3.) Mmor Land Partition approval to partition one(1)parcel of appre dmatety
4.99 acres into two(2)Parcels of approximately 4.27 and.72 acres.
Zane: General Commercial,Planned Development(C-G(PD)- COMPREHENSM PLAN DEMIGNATION
General (C-G). APPLICABLEAPPROVALCRM11UL Community Code
Chapters 18.62, 18.80, 18,84, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106. 18.108,18.114,18.116, 18.120, 18-162 and
18.164.
1Action: D ❑Approval as requested ®Approval with cond'nions G Denial
Nonce: Notice was published in the newspaper,posted at City Hall and mailed to:.:
® Owners of record within the required distance ® Affected governmental agencies
t ® The affected Citizen Involvement Team Facilitator ® The applicant and owner(s)
Flisin ton: -
THE DECISION SDAI.&BE FUM ON 1ANUARY 46.199G UNLESS AN APFEAL IS FILED. .
The adopted findings of fact,decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from the City of [
Tigard Planning Department,Tigard City Hall,13125 SW Hall Boulevard,Tigard,Oregon 97223,
F
Ao I: An to the decision may
� Y Party y appeal this decision in accordance with 18.32.290(B)and Section
18.32.370,which provides that a written appeal may be filed within ten(10)days after notice is
# given and sent The appeal may be submitted on City forms and must be accompanied by the
appeal fee(s)of$315.00 plus transcript costs,not in excess of$500.00.
,.�. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING OF AN APPEAL IS 3:30 p AL ON ZAMIARy 48.1996.
p Questions:- If you have any questions,please call the City of Tigard Planning Department at(503)639.4171:.
aaame +suis roman n ponce orrnaar,oeraza po.«aivcmrm mnnnrne i
iwceca�er� pp1
t
'103$1011
51 1
CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL ORDER NO.: 96-01 IAC
� � K
A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A .
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW,PLANNED DEVELOPMENT,AND MINOR LAND PARTITION. '
L APPLICATION SUMMARY
ARV ++
r is
CASES: FILE NAME, FUTURE SHOPICHRiST NS N
Site Development Review SDR 95-0019 a s
Planned Development Review PDR 95.0008 t a
114
g Minor Land Partition MLP 95-0012
PROPOSAL: The applicant requests the following development al2plication K
1.) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction
of a 40,000 square foot'future shop"general retail building
and a 9,550 square foot general retail building;
2.) Planned Development Review; r
;b 3.) Minor Land Partition approval to partition one (1)parcel ofF
approximately 4.99 acres into two(2)parcels of approximately 3
4.27 and.72 acres.
APPLICANT: (Future Shop(Rozanne Kipnes)
Suite 1400-1111 West Georgia St
Vancouver,British Columbia VIBE 4M3
PROJECT
t MANAGER: Ed Christensen
7000 SW Hampton Street,Suite 220
Portland,OR 97223
COMPREHENSIVE ,
PLAN
DESIGNATION: General Commercial(C-G). ,
ZONING ,
DESIGNATION: General Commercial,Planned Development-C-G(PD).
LOCATION: East side of SW Dartmouth Street and south of SW Pacific Highway
(VVCTM 1S1 36CD,tax lot 2000).
APPLICABLE ;.
7 ..„ ':.EVIEW
y CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.62,18.80,18.100.
18.102,18.106,18.108,18.114,18.116,18.120,18.162 and 18.164:
_ DECISION:
APPROVED,subject to the following conditions
r
C F41Y,02�RN08G-0PC SORffiOp 6POR&moi iAP 95-W2 itRtaE9� PA l
777
II DECISION
y Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission has approved the proposal subject
to certain conditions. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are
noted in Sections IV.and V.of this report.
s.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
e
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED OR FINANCIALLY SECURED
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS.
41,s
1. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the public along the SW Dartmouth
Street frontage to increase the right-of-way to a minimum of 47 feet from
centerline. The description shalt be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The a
dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the
Engineering Department. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering
Department_ ,
2. Standard half-street improvements,including concrete sidewalk,driveway apron,
curb, portland cement concrete pavement, storm drainage, street lights, and
underground utilities shall be installed along the SW Dartmouth Street frontage to
widen the pavement to 33 feet from centerline,as measured to the curb face.
Improvements shall be designed and constructed to conform with the street
standards as established by the Dartmouth LID,or to an alignment approved by
the Engineering Department. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering
Department. �
3. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of SW n
Atlanta Street to increase the right-of-way to 25 feet from the centerline:-The n
dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the
Engineering Department STAFF CONTACT. Diane Jelderks, Engineering
Department(639-4171)
Two 2 sets of tailed til._ improvement plans and
( ) profile construction s�
drawings shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering Depad i lent.
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(639-
4171).
1 5. An aareement shall be provided. in a form approved by the E' nec4ny
Department, that provides access between SW Dartmouth Street and the
properties to the north of the applicant's,site(tax lots 1S1 36 CD 1700,1601 and
1501). STAFF CONTACT: Greg Berry,Engineering Department(63914171).
aer�am�se.m_:�a+Fe sae as-w�avoix escmm�a�v aswizmrunxxes�ie.w�sxFrrsF.e vnr�z i
ask
k �
6. A joint use and maintenance agreement shall be executed and recorded on City
standard forms for all common driveways for the parcels resulting from the
partition. The agreement shall be referenced on and become part of all applicable
parcel deeds. The agreement shall be approved by the Engineering Department
prior to recording. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering Department
(63913171).
,
. Design details and calculations for the water quality treatment facility shall be
submitted to and approved by the Engineering Department. STAFF CONTACT: y sy
Greg Berry,Engineering Department(639-4171).
8. An agreement shall be executed,on forms provided by the City,which waives the ¢ k
property owner's right to oppose or remonstrate against a future local improvement
`3 district formed to install a traffic signal or otherwise improve SW Dartmouth Street,
STAFF CONTACT: Diane Jelderks,Engineering Department(639.4171).
Y r
9. An agreement shall be executed,on forms provided by the City,which waives the
property owner's right to oppose or remonstrate against a future local improvement w c
district formed to improve SW Atlanta Street to local street standards. STAFF k
CONTACT: Diane Jelderks,Engineering Department(639-4171).
u
10. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements:
A. Three(3)copies of the partition plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to 3x
practice in Oregon,and necessary data or narrative. i
a 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. The street dedications for SW Dartmouth Street and SW Atlantic Street
shall be made on the partition plat. '
STAFF CONTACT: John Hadley,Engineering Department(639-4171).
ISM
11. Revised site and landscaping plans shall be submitted for review by the Planning
Division. Staff Contact Will DAndrea. The revised plans shall include the
' following:
A Continuation of landscaping provided with the Cub Foods approval and
compliance with landscaping standards —" accordance with the
Landscaping Development Standards forthe Dartmouth Street
extension.
B. Parking area located in front of pad"A"to comply with the one(1)tree
per seven (7) parking spars requirement: Continuation of the
landscape frontage in front of Cub Foods with formal street trees and
parking lot bier plantings.
C FxLLLOFppi NO.'S60PC SGt 85aCi4F+IXi afar0. Z➢ >oFlIM1A£51gF�ST£lJ'..EN PAC£J ,,.:
{
C. One (1) additional accessible parking space,for a total of seven (7)
spaces.
i w �
D. Relocation of the building to allow a 25 foot Atlanta Street right-of-way.
E. A plan which shows compliance with Community Development Code i
Chapter 18.116, Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage_ The a +ak
applicant shall choose one (1) of the following four (4) methods to
demonstrate compliance: Minimum Standard, Waste Assessment,
Comprehensive Recycling Pian or Franchised Hauler Review and Sign-
off. The applicant shall also obtain from the disposal hauler a written
sign-off on the location of,and the compatibility of facilities.
F. An exterior lighting plan shall be submitted to the Police Department for
review and approval. Staff Contact: Kelley Jennings,Police Department z
(639-4171) I �
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR da
TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
1. Provide the Engineering Department with a recorded mylar copy of the finalsw
survey;or if not recorded with Washington County but has been approved by the
City of'i agard the applicant shall have 30 days after recording with Washington
' County to submit the copy.
2. All site improvements shall be installed as per the approved revised site plans. i
THIS APPROVAL IS VALID IF EXERCISED WITHIN EIGHTEEN w x�
MONTHS OF THE DATE OF THE FINAL DECISION.
Ill. BACKGROUN12 INFORMATION
Property History-
No development arY„rations were found to have been filed with the City.
v�
Mirinity InfoEmation-
The site is located east of SW Pacific Highway on SW Dartmouth Street Surrounding properties
are zoned C-G(General Commercial).The Cub Foods shopping center is located on the property }
to the east,Costco is located to the south,and Tigard AG III Theaters is located to the north-
Property
orth Property to the east is currently developed with Doughty's TV and Appliance Store,American
Legion Hall,and a Spunky's Restaurant The Spunky's site had a development approval to
remove the existing structure and construct a Burgerville drive-through Restaurant r ,
Y
G FllNL OrmER'U PC ffiLOieR1R H:QLP 9iWt3af(JRJRE5�1 PAGE
.� Site Information and Proposal Description:
.,„✓ The 4.99 acre,vacant site has frontage on SW Dartmouth Street. The site slopes pes an average 5
a grade from the northwest comer with an elevation of 204 feet,to the southern tip at Red Rock
Creek at an elevation of 165 feet. The centerline of Red Rock Creek is the eastern boundary line
of the property. There are 1.06 acres of wetland on this site.
The applicant requests approval to construct a 40.000 square foot'Future Shop'retail building
with a 9,550 square foot pad'A'. The proposal includes 233 parking spaces,two(2)access k
drives onto SW Dartmouth and a future Atlanta Street extension along the north property line.
The proposed plan will require the filling in of.177 acres of wetland. The applicant has applied for
and has received a Division of State Lands Mt I/Mitigation Permit. A Minor Land Partition has also
been requested in order to provide a parcel for the pad'A.
IV APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA
i
Compliance_ with Community Development Code Sections* r'
Use Classification: The applicant is proposing to build a retail sales store. This use is classified
in Code Section 18.42(Use Classifications)as General Retail Sales. Code section 18.62.030
General Retail Sales is a permitted use in the C-G zone.
Minimum Lot Area: Section 18.62050 states that the minimum lot width shall be 50 feet for
parcels in the C-G zoning district There is no minimum lot sae requirement The site has
an average lot width of 260 feet,exceeding the minimum lot width standard. Developments
within the C-G zone are required to provide a minimum of 15%landscaping..The applicant
is proposing to provide approximately 27% landscaping, thereby satisfying.the minimum
landscape criteria-
Setback
riteria:Se ,k : Section 18.62050 states that there is no front yard or side yard sathack lz „y r
the street No side and rear vard setb---ck staij be required except 20 feet shall be required
") wile-a C-G abuts a residential zoning district The site does not abut a residential zon„g t
district.The maximum iauilding height is 45 feet. The applicant is proposing a building of 42 feet,
under the maximum allowed.
Section 18.120.180(A)(1)(Site Development Review-Approval Standards)requires that
t development.proposal be found to be consistent with the various standards of the
;i Community Development Code. The applicable criteria in this case are chapters 18.80,18.84,
.18.100,18.102,18.106.18.108,18.114,18.120,and 18.164. These chapters are also listed as
- approval standards for a Planned Development Review application under Section 98.80.120.2.
The proposars consistency with these Cotte Chapters is reviewed in the following sections. :The
proposal.contains no elements related to the provisions of Code Chapters 18.92 (Density
Computations). 18.94 (Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations), .18.98 .(Building Height
m..-., Limitations: Exceptions).or 18.144(Accessory Use and Structures)which are also listed under
Section 18.120.180A.1. .These Chapters are,therefore,found to be inapplicable as approval
standards.
crani oar�cao_ssoa vc srn ssmiaQoa�.00mnan gaoixocvrur:¢st+or��s�sE. v:..�s r .:,
Code Section 18.120.180.A.2 provides other Site Development Review approval standards
not necessarily covered by the provisions of the previously listed sections. These other
standards are addressed immediately below. The proposal contains no elements related to the
provisions of 18.120.180.3(Exterior Elevations),18.120.180.5(Privacy and Noise),18.120.180.6
(Private Outdoor Areas: Residential Use), 18.120.180.7 (Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas:
Residential Use),18.120.180.8(100-year floodplain),16.120.180.9(Demarcation of Spaces),and
are therefore found to be inapplicable as approval standards.
a
Relationship 12 the Natural and Phvsiral Environment: Section 18.120.180.2 states that
buildings shall be located to preserve existing trees,topography,and natural drainage and r .
that trees having a six(6)inch caliper or greater shall be preserved or replaced by new }
plantings of equal character. The site will require an extensive amount of regrading in order to
accommodate the proposed building and parking area. Surface water runoff from impervious
surface will be collected into a storm drainage system. This system will provide that the existing
i wetland will not be impacted by water runoff. The applicant has received a Division of State
Lands Fill/Mitigation Permit. DSL states that the issuance of this permit is conditional upon
S{ establishment of replacement wetlands of approximately.56 acres and.23 acres off-site for buffer
replacement,for loss of approximately.18 acres of wetland habitat. In obtaining this permit,the
applicant had to satisfy Unified Sewerage Agency(USA)mncems regarding the provision of a 25 `
foot wetlands buffer. Staff has discussed this issue with USA and confirmed that the applicant's
proposal would be acceptable provided buffer mitigation was included in the DSL permit. USA's
comments are included as an attachment to the DSL permit.Generally speaking,the proposal
would fill in wetland area and provide a 25 foot buffer. The applicant is then proposing to enhance
the buffer area to such a great extent that it will eventually become a wetland area itself. Again,
this proposal is acceptable to Unified Sewerage Agency and regulations conceming the provision
g of a wetland buffer.
1 Buffering Screening and Compatibility between adioinina uses:Section 18.120.108A(A) a
states that buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses. This proposal
does not abut a use whidi requires a buffer as required in the Buffer Matrix(18.100.130). : 4
-
Section 18.120.108.4(B)states that on-sitescreening from view of adjoining properties of
i :such things as service and storage areas,.parking lots,and mechanical devices on roof
' .tops shall be provided. The plans show the provision of landscaping which is intended to
provide screening in accordance with this section.
I Crime Prevention and Safety:Section 18.120.108.10 requires that exterior lighting levels be
sekected and the angles shall be oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime and shall be
placed in areas having heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic.This section shall be satisfied as
the applicant shall submit exterior lighting plans to be reviewed and approved by the City of Tigard
Police Department
Planned DeveloommV Section 18.80.120 identifies approval criteria for a planned
development site plan. Section 18.80.120.A.2 lists other code sections which are
,! essentially the same approval standards as 18.120.180 (Site Development Review).
Section 18.80.120.A.3.a states that site elements shall be designed and located to preserve
the existing trees,topography,and natural drainage to the greatest degree possible. As
discussed above,this section is satisfied as the applicant has received a DSL filVmitigation permit.
P.C.FeaSL OROQt N0..:9"+UI PC SIXS�19r+OR��lAP 95ro12aFUtlAa£SHOP+G 6tLL^+iENSEN PAGE6 ..,..
(
Section 18.80.120.A.3.b provides standards relative to buffering and screcning a proposed
development site from surrounding uses and streets. As stated previously,this site does not
abut a use which requires buffering and screening. Sections 18.80.120.A.3.c,.d,and.e refer to
residential developments and,as such,are not applicable. Section 18.80.120.A 3.f,.g,.i,.j,.k are
'^--F essentially references to the requirements of other code sections dealing with access.
l landscaping,signs,parking and drainage,and are addressed in the sections below. Section
f 18.80.120.A.3.1 is not applicable as the site is not within a floodplain.
Section 18.80.120.A.3.h allows the approval authority to require the developer to provide
facilities relative to public transit needs such as bus tum-outs or shelters,if the proposed
# development abuts a transit route. Southwest Dartmouth Street is not currently served by
Tri-Met bus service. Tri-Met has not requested the provision of any transit related
facilities. Therefore,no transit related facilities will be required as conditions of approval.
• i
Chanter 18.84.015(C) states that landform alterations or developments which are only [
within wetland areas that meet the jurisdictional requirements and permit criteria of the
U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Division of State Lands,Unified Sewerage Agency,and/or
other Federal,State,or Regional agencies do not require a sensitive lands permit The
City shall require that all necessary permits from other agencies are obtained. All other
applicable City requirements must be satisfied,including sensitive land permits for areas
within 100-year floodplain,slopes of 25%or greater,or unstable ground,drainageways,
and wetlands which are not under State or Federal jurisdiction. The applicant has applied
for,and has received,a fill/mitigation permit through the Division of State Lands. Therefore,a
sensitive lands permit will not be required as pan of this application.
Landscaping Plan: Section 18.100.015 requires that the applicant submit a landscaping
plan. This requirement is partially satisfied as the applicant has submitted a conceptual plan
' indicating the number,type and location of trees and shrubs.
Street Trees: Section 18.100.033 states that all development projects fronting on a public ,
street shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with section 18.100.035.
Section 18.100.035 requires that street trees be spaced between 20 and 40 feet apart ig
depending on the size classification of the tree at maturity(small,medium or large). While
the landscape plan is conceptual in nature,the applicant states on sheet 4 that the Dartmouth '`
_ Streetscape provides a continuation of the landscape frontage in front of Cub Foods with formal
street trees anpp- -..g:at b_ r plantings. A detailed landscape plan would have to be provided
..ff._fe
{ for review for a continuation of landscaping provided wiii, ttk. Cub Foods approval, and
.compliance with.landscaping standards in accordance with the Landscaping Development
Standards for the Dartmouth Street extension.
i
Screening,Special Provisions: Section 38.100.110M requires the screening of parking
and loading areas. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which
1 effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. Planting materials to be installed
i should achieve a relative balance between low lying and vertical shrubbery and trees.
'Trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas,and shall be equally
i distributed on the basis of one(1)tree for each seven (7) parking.spaces in order to
3 'provide a canopy effect The minimum dimension on the landscape islands shall be three
(3)feet and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of
wheel guard or curb. The site plan partially complies with the parking lot tree requirements. The
parking located in front of pad'A'does not comply with the one(1)tree per seven(7)parking
spaces requirement. While the landscape plan is conceptual in nature,the applicant states on
sheet 4 that the Dartmouth Streetscope provides a continuation of the landscape frontage in front
of Cub Foods with formal street trees and parking lot buffer plantings.A final plan would have to
be submitted for review for compliance with this section.
<. v.c.rauioanen n,o_:�a+x s�caoiav�osa�.san�ao+�ervnrr.�saovais,srsr:N cote:
Usual Ctearence Areas: Section 18.102 requires that a clear vision area shall be
maintained on the comers of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways or the
intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A clear vision area shall contain no
`'�•-' -:vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, or temporary or permanent obstruction
exceeding three(3)feet in height The code provides that obstructions which may be
located in this area shalt be visually clear between three(3),and eight(6)feet in height
(trees may be placed within this area provided all branches below eight (8) feet are
removed). A visual clearance area is the triangular area formed by measuring a 30 foot
distance along the street right-of-way and the driveway and then connecting these two 30
foot distance points with a straight line. A revised,detailed landscape plan will have to be
I submitted for review for compliance with this section.
Minimum Off-Street Parkins: Section 18.106.030(6)(20) requires a minimum of one (1)
j parking space per 400 square feet of gross floor area for General Retail Sales. The 40,000 +
3 square foot Future Shop building requires 100 parking spaces. The proposed 9,550 square foot
pad'A'requires 24 parking spaces. The total required number of parking spaces is,therefore,
124 parking spaces. The proposed site plan shows the provision of 233 parking spaces, '
exceeding this requirement.
The Americans with Disabiiili Act(ADA,which became effective on January 26,1992,
requires seven(7)disabled parking spaces if 201 to 300 parking spaces are provided. This
section is partially satisfied as the proposed site plan shows the provision of six(6)disabled
person parking spaces. A revised plan shall be submitted which provides for an additional one(1)
parking space,thereby,satisfying this requirement
"
Bicycle Parkin : Section 18.106.020(P) requires one(1)bicycle parking rack space for
each 15 vehicular parking spaces in any development Bicycle parking areas shall not be
located within parking aisles,landscape ,
f areasor pedestrian ways. Fifteen (15)bicycle
parking spaces will be required for this development The proposal indicates the provision of
sixteen(16)bicycle parking spaces,thereby,satisfying this requirement. F
b
Off--Stmt oadtng *oaz,: Section 18.106.080 requires that every commercial or r
industrial use having floor area of 10,000 square feet or more,shall have at least one(1)
off-street loading space on site. The proposal shows the provision of one(1)loading space, '
thereby,satisfying this requirement
Acces;:i-Section 18.108.080 requires that commercial and industrial uses which require
more than 100 parking spaces provide two(2)accesses with a minimum width of 30 feet
and a minimum pavement width of 24 feet The preliminary site plan shows the provision of
'`? iwv(v access drives.with an additional future access to the proposed Atlanta Street extension.
EEEI The two(2) drives are shown to have a_y widths of 24 feet, thereby, satisfying this
requirement
.The Atlanta Street connection is in response to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map.
Note#5 of that plan states that it is a study area to determine the alignment of a minor cOtlector
I street connecting 68th Parkway near Red Rock Creek with the Dartmouth Street extension: and
with Hampton Street at 72ayd Avenue with the Dartmouth Street extension within the westerly
portion of the Tigard Triangle. The DKS plan has shown that a need exists for a common access
along the north property line of the subject property. It recommends joint use circulation due to
.area vdde circulation needs, existing/proposed driveway locations,and Pacific Highway access
changes.
,� r•.c cv+a�anaEa r+a:tea,ac swx as-m,sroa n-mma¢v asmu=amnes��icus�+ssyy,
�r
c The applicant's submittal shows a future Atlanta Street connection that is 32 feet wide. The
proposal also included that the City maintain this street. City standards for a local commercial
street call for 34 feet of roadway width,within a 50 foot right-of-way. The proposed 32 foot width
did not meet City standards for a public street. The proposed plan has been modified in that the "
E �, .applicant is now requesting(see letter dated December 20th)than the City accept a dedication of
their half of a 50 foot right-of-way. It is also their intent to construct a half street improvement
within the 50 foot right-of-way prior to the occupancy of the Burgerville restaurant. In order to
Provide a 25 foot right-of-way on the subject property,a revised plan shall be submitted which
relocates the building such that the increased width of Atlanta Street can be accommodated.
While the applicant has decided to provide a public street width which meets City standards and
relocate the building slightly to accommodate that additional width,the Engineering Departments'
comments related to access to Burgerville have yet to be addressed. The concerns expressed by
the Engineering Department are found in section V below.The main concern is that a previous
Planning Commission approval of the Burgerville site has required that the only long-term,left-turn 4
access to/from the Burgerville site will be through the joint accesses across the subject site,and
that the proposed site layout will provide a rather circuitous route for the proposed joint access
drives,and especially for the Burgerville site. The City Engineer has contacted Burgerville. They P `'
have stated that they do not plan on attending the hearing to lodge a formal objection but that they k
do not support the site layout.
Walkways: Section 18.108.050(A)requires that a walkway be extended from theg round
floor entrance of the structure to the street which provides the required ingress and
egress. Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots,such
._ crossings shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety. Required walkways shall "
be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum six(6)
inch vertical separation(curbed)or a minimum three(3)foot horizontal separation,except
that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 36
feet if appropriate landscaping,pavement markings,or contrasting pavement materials are
used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four (4) feet in width, exclusive of vehicle
overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches,bicycle racks,and sign posts,
and shall be in compliance with ADA standards. The plan shows pedestrian connections to
SW Dartmouth Street,thereby,satisfying this criteria. '
f $!on5:.Section 18.114.130(C)lists the type of allowable signs and sign area permitted in
the C-G zone. All signs shall be approved through the Sign Permit process as administered by {
the Planning Division. ere €
- Mixed Solid Waste andRecyQkWes Storaggt: Section 18.116 requires that new
construction incorporates functional and adequate space for on-site storage and efficient
collection of mixed solid waste and source separated Recyclables prior to pick-up and
removal by haulers. .The applicant must choose one(1)of the following four(4)methods to
demonstrate compliance: Minimum Standard, Waste Assessment, Comprehensive Recycling
Plan,or Franchised Hauler Review and Sign-Off. The applicant will have to submit evidence or a
plan which indicates compliance with this section. Regardless of which method chosen, the
applicant will have to submit a written sign-off from the franchise hauler regarding the facility
location and compatibility.
MINOR LAND PARTITION-EmAingc 't B mmendatiana:
The applicant is proposing to partition the approximately 4.99 acre parcel into two (2)
parcels of approximately 4.27 and.72 arses to split the two(2)building site into separate
parcels.
Y PC FiNat.OROERNO _M+Dt PC SOR 954Of9,pOR 9SOWetM1nLP 9SO�t,. FUTURE SHOp,LHRiSTENSENi.
PAGE 4
.. .<.....arm �
i"
zar t
� i
hu
Section 18,162.040 contains the following general approval criteria fora Minor
Land Partition:
t j �
1. The proposal conforms with the City's Comprehensive Plan- N
2. The proposed partition complies with all statutory and ordinance r'
requirements and regulations; t k
w
1 3. Adequate public facilities are available to serve the proposal;
' 4. All proposed lots conform to the size and dimensional requirements of this
title;andx =
5. All proposed improvements meet City and applicable agency standards
(Ord.89-06;Ord.83-52).
9 x, -4g
The proposal conforms with the City's comprehensive plan in that the newly created lot
s will continue to allow for commercial development This proposal,therefore, is not in
conflict with
Comprehensive Plan
partition complies with GeneralCommercial
statutory al and ordinance requirements Land regulationstsas s
p ry
� demonstrated both by the analysis presented within thisQadministrative decision and by
j this application and review process. Adequate public facilities are available to serve the
proposal.
k¢k¢S Section 18A 62.050 contains the following special provisions for lots created
through the Partition Process:
1. Lot Width: The minimum width of the building envelope area shall meet the
lot requirement of the applicable zoning district
2. Lot Area: The lot area shall be as required by the applicable zoning district
In the case of a flag lot,the accessway may not be included in the lot area
calculation.
3. Lot Frontage* Each lot created through the partition process shall front a
public right-of-way by at least 15 feet or have a legally recorded minimum 15
foot wide access easement
z3
4• - Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district Y x ,
5. Front Yard Determination for Flava t t When the partitioned Sot is a flag tot,
the developer may determine the location of the front yard,provided
thatno
side yard is less than 10 feet Structures shall generally be located so as to
maximize separation from existing structures.
6. Screeninq on FlagLots-'A screen shall be provided along the property tine
Of a lot of record where the paved drive in an accessway is located within ten
feet of an abutting lot in accordance with Sections 18.100.080 and
18.100.090. Scrr,>ning may also be required to maintnin privacy for abutting
lots and to provide usable outdoor recreation areas for proposed
development
P P` 0.'Wa<t1fJ PC SDA flSdCf9iDRKaOP1dG4P 8SOOt FlAI.A£SADP.GR^TpY$EN
PAGE
I
F
7. c—Protection The fire district may require the installation of a fire hydrant
era the langth of ail accessway would have a detrimental effect on fire
fighting capabilities.
a. Reciprocal Easements: Where a common drive is to be provided to serve
more than one(1)lot,a reciprocal easement which will ensure access and
maintenance rights shall be recorded with the approved partition map.
y Fh
i
9. Accessway: Any accessway shall comply with the standards set forth in
Chapter 18.108,Access,Egress,and Circulation.
10. Floodplain: Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent k
to the one-hundred-year floodplain,the City shall require the dedication of
sufficient open land area for areenway adiolndng and wit,in the floodplain. n
This area shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction of
a pedestrianibicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the
adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway pian.
Criteria 1 is satisfied as the proposed lot widths are approximately 100 and 260 feet, y
exceeding the minimum 50 foot lot width requirement in the C-G zone. There is no
minimum lot size requirement,thereby,satisfying criteria 2. Criteria 3 is satisfied as the
proposed lots have approximately 260 and 360 feet of frontage on SW Dartmouth Street, f
thereby,exceeding the 25 foot frontage requirement
Criteria 4 is satisfied as there are not applicable setbacks on this property_ Criteria 5 and
6 are not applicable because neither lot is a flag lot. Fire hydrants shall be consistent with
- Uniform Fre Cade standards,thereby,satisfying Criteria 7- Criteria 8 shall be satisfied as
a reciprocal access easement shall be recorded. As indicated on the site plan,Criteria 9
is satisfied. Criteria 10 is not applicable as these lots are not within the floodplain.
�r
lf- �TH_Eg,STAFF CO(UiP4REtdTS (,: .
Publ:cFacildyConcemc_;(Engineering.Depart ent—omments) r
Sections 18.164 030(E)(Va) (Streets),:18.164.090 (Sanitary Sewer), and 18.164 100
(Storm.Drains)shall be satisfied as spec`fiieci below: :x
;d
Streets-
DARTMOUTH STREET
The appiica,,t proposes w widen Dartmouth Street along the development frontage to
provide a 5-lane street. A 5-lane section for Dartmouth is consistent with all recent traffic
studies and should be approved. Additional right-of-way will be required to accommodate
tfi2 street widening..
,� I P.C.PdY.L Ofi0ER N0:960f PC ARffiAJ19Pd295.POLtB/SHPSGWI2>FViUfi£`.iIOPC3R'SSFlSF.N PRGEtt
tk!�E to..} �P
The proposed widening does not include the crossing of Red Rock Creek. Other recent
developments in the area have not been required to widen at the creek. However,they
have been required to sign a waiver of remonstrance against a future local improvement
district to complete improvements on Dartmouth Street. A similar waiver should be
required for any development of the subject site.
H�a
"ATLANTA STREET" Y
The City's Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map includes Note 5 which defines a
study area in the Triangle. Among other things, Note 5 creates a "Study area to
determine the alignment of a minor collector street connecting 68th Parkway near Red £
Rock Creek with the Dartmouth Street extension...:' In recent planning for the Triangle,it 3 x
has been assumed that any such street would actually connect to 68th at existing Atlanta U>
Street.
In the past,the City has taken the position that a developer of property subject to a
Transportation Plan study area has three(3)options: t x
1. Wait for the City to complete needed transportation studies and adopt more
definitive transportation plans;or
2. Show that the proposed development does not preclude any reasonable study
options;or
3. Complete additional study work to show that the proposed development is
consistent with the best transportation plan for the area. _ 1
In the current application, the applicant has effectively chosen a combination of these
options. The applicant relies on the 1994"Dartmouth Street Concept Plan"completed by
DKS Associates for the City. Using the DKS report,the applicant attempts to show that
the proposed development will allow for imDlementation of a!`dote 5 street connection in �
the future.
The DKS report suggests that a roadway connection is needed to provide access both to
the subject parcel,and to the adjoining parcels to the north. However,DKS suggests that
the connection could be provided with joint-use private driveways rather than the full a
collector street roadway described in Note 5. DKS suggests a private driveway along the
north edge of the subject parcel and having a minimum width of 32 feet. Because this
drive ray will inte sect Dartmouth close to Pacific Highway, in an area where Dartmouth
traffic queues for the traffic signal, DKS recommends that left turns be prohibited at
Dartmouth. To provide for left turns,DKS recommends a joint-use agreement to allow
traffic to/from the parcels to the north to use the internal driveways on the subject parcel
The applicant has basically followed the DKS suggestions but with an amendment that
ccnflicts Witch City standards. instead of a private driveway,the applicant is proposing a
future public street along the north edge of the parcel but with the street built to driveway
standards. The proposed building location would not accommodate a public street to
commercial area standards in accordance with Community Development Code Chapter
-18.164.030-E:
cNau axon ro pox cc saa esw�swa
�4n4'LLP95W�3eFUMi�StgP/O47�}ENSF PAC£t2 7 ,,• . •'�
� s
r
ti
In addition,the proposed site layout will provide a rather circuitous route for the proposed Pill
joint access drives, especially for the Burgerville,site(formerly Spunky s)at the comer of
Dartmouth and Pacific Highway. Previous Planning Commission approval of the
Burgerville site has required That u`e only long-term, tet tum ac ess tolfrom the
Burgerville site will be through the joint accesses across the subject site.
It appears to us that additional work is needed to achieve a site plan that adequately t s
:9 addresses both Note 5,and City development standards. Therefore,we recommend that " K M
the proposal be denied until these issues can be resolved.
1 e`''' ,�
We are open to meeting with the applicants representatives to discuss potential options
for a solution. We agree that use of the DKS report is a reasonable way to address the
,5 Note 5 requirements. However,additional work is required to identify an adequate plan_
(Note:The Planning commission found that the route was not too circuitous so as to y
jusitfy relocating the proposed building.The Commission found that the curcuRous nature
. was not unlike other commercial centers in the way the traffic flow functions. Further,
Future Shop agreed to let traffic pass through their property.)
R zza
SanitaryS r (iffifl
va
,v Service is provided by a public sanitary sewer within SW Dartmouth Street. This line has k§
sufficient capacity to serve this development and no public sewer extensions are required_ ,
j Storm Drainage: a
On-site runoff will be collected into a private storm drain that will discharge to a proposed h
stone water quality treatment facility.
.Wetlands-
The applicant has submitted a wetlands delineation study and has shown the wetlands
on the site plan. Unified Sewerage Agency Resolution and Order 91.47 at 6.08.3 Viz'
requires that there be a 25 foot wide undisturbed corridor along the wetlands. The
submitted site pian does not meet this requirement accordingty,the requested approval
`. should be denied for this reason as well. j
j (Note:As previously discussed,the applicant has received a Division of State Lands
Permit which has addressed the buffer concerns.)
Additional Staff^omments•
The City of Tigard Pol. Department states that the applicant shall submit�x�..o
lighting plans for the exterior of the building and the parking area.
ut Ar2ENCY COMM TS
The Unified Sewerage Agency has reviewed this proposal and has offered the
fallowing comments
a vc.rew.m�sz+w._as.os rc scn�m awax uscaa+�-P asm a=nm..:EsaPmwsree+so+ ^� a..
a.
ss The following comment was returned to the Division of State Lands on October 26,1995
from Unified Sewerage Agency related to the subject proposal. All three 3
9 9 �T 1 P P (3)proposed �
options have an impact on Red Rock Creek.Options one(1)and two(2)do not provide
on site mitigation for impact to wetland/sensitive area,do not provide the required 25 foot
undisturbed corridor between the development and the sensitive area,and do not provide
for the required water quality facility. Option three(3)shows on site mitigation and water
quality but does not provide the required 25 foot corridor and has a roof over the wetland
x mitigation site and water quality facility(pad A).
s*; a
1xnpgq
*Note: Pad"A",if it is necessary to the development,could be placed over the parting
lot,thereby,allowing the wetland mitigation and water quality facility to function normally.
Unified
d.ifiedSewerage Agency can not approve this project until the above problems areres �
General Telephone and Electronics has reviewed this proposal and has offered the
following comments:
Developer to place conduit to GTE's specifications. i t
City of Tigard Maintenance Services Division, City of Tigard Building Division,
Tualatin Valley Water District, Unified Sewerage Agency, Tualatin Valley Fire
District, and Portland General Electric have reviewed this application and have
offered no comments or objections. No other comments have been received. 11,s
It is further ordered that the applicant and the parties to these proceedings
be notified of the entry of this order.
PASSED: This %y3�day of January, 1996 by the Planning Commission of the City of
Tigard,Oregon.
j Mignat b bc!vwl
Nick Wilson,Chair
City of Tigard Planning Commission
�' .c rau amvx r+o sc-os xc soHgca avert nn�sioc,cwusrera�u vrc�,a
T7
c?
ol
}sy
FUTURE SHOP!
{
1,I
*jE'�
T
f �
iEf
'EFifCL
—
PAD "A.,
51
Is
l/•- it 1 ..�4§,��ka:,4"
rti i
ro
... ..Q.�
CASE NO.
PLOT P L Sm-9s--001995-OWS/mr--95--W
EXHIBIT MAP
TURE S
Lt
F-
t
n
G� CL 4c x
alM
k
r�
h CASE:SOR95-0019/PDR95-0006
vici� C
MY MAP j� MLP95-0012
ivorE MAP IS NOT To SALE y 1 S136CD-02000
E �