Loading...
Planning Commission Packet - 08/21/1973 POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm. The following document is a copy of the microfilm record converted back to digital. If you have questions please contact City of Tigard Records Department. POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm. The following document is a copy of the microfilm record converted back to digital. If you have questions please contact City of Tigard Records Department. i . . . r , _.;:;;.. >;:. _ _ . . � f'� . _. , _ __ _ _ _....., _.. _ __ . ;.. ..,: l ` �_ �.. � ��� �'a�� �►�r� ���z�a�r R��ul,a��° ����x� � �ea��� �1.9 �.9'i� 3'r�].ity �7�. H3� S��a��.-���� ��an �46� $.W. �'��� 1���,��, ��.��., ��e�maa St�sly 3�s��,�ttn �- 7e� PbMb l�.t'b�,ic Ii�°�.� m �:� �'.�Ib l.o C1� � 6��F�Et �. R�� �T� J a �k'�3��� �F' I�X�La7�� � i 3.1. R�gaxi.7�,�;�° I��t�xag �� �Lez�.�p �`Ts �97� �� 3.� ����° ,1����g ��' �,aa���o 7, ��73 4. P�SI�I� �11� • ���.��.e�a� �s� �ol, c�c��,�i�x�1. �b�� � �.�+�-7� ���� A �°c�ag�a��� ��r W�J Wo �� � ����xc�� �, a�°�ar �v���. � � ffi���a°� G9�' �� ��'�$. � �D����� b63�.�g ��,'�i� �L^a � � �e.�9 �ffi��. � ���1°�'�.mh.a. �A� �,�71°��'r�� (�Bll �i� �Q9bA'��6 8�.4�) �� ►So{�o ���°.�.�'dbe.° �!' �i�gkita�y �.an � lira� �3� �.�)o �'a�3�i� I�i�s�y'w s itat��r�s���t�a+a� �: , T�.$33 �'•W• 69�b� 3`$���o '.['� Bit� ��E�t;r�e��3 6s9 �t��8� (°d'�17& M�6p ! ].5�, 3�, '�at I��s 6� �el 6�1.) � �; �'��e►f'�' ��irags �` °���imo�ay e�ad �x°�ss �m�t�,�a� �`. �'t�� ��c�xada��.o�n �I Q;o�n�,ssiox� Dis�ussioaa �as1 ,A���a�ra � �� 5• Pt�IeTC I�A�tTI�G - �t°�x°y t�s� {:; �rl. ��,°�E°y' �86�"�' .�..'13 �In�l�2•�$`�Yl, � � $�� ,� Z°�C�'l,�S'� �b,y j�10����8'�E3 �ttlld3�y ���'�fl d�,'� � .ga�1. ��'.Ot3 a4'�'i.� '�f�� �o ��ra���,�e � use a pma°t�,'�le �f'�i�� ��z° ei�Eat �aath�so �� ti �: �� � �. �7, �� (' �_,. : _ _ . _ � ,, _ , ; _ ,,. .. . , _,_ _, _ . .._. _ ...:.. ,:_ _, _ _ . ... . .,:. , . � ,. k ' i . �.. �' { i � . , � �l �'��'�' ��xa�.�s ; °.�st��„y � ��s� ��un�.�►����s ` i S�F' A����a��'��,��. E � C���.s�3�� I�i��a�as�.�xa �acl ����.�� , 6o C� Ptd6T�� ��I� � , 7 o SU�I�IV��Y�r&S e ��.�a�,,a� �].�t �px��. 7.1. Srn������,�1 PI��� �I ( ��n �tr�sbo�aa$ C��ac°�����a, . aeCD(°�b'�'e�.29ffi°s �7'7�91�.�`�({�.�.� �.�� �"��`�'i �E"�'i�8 ��' �o�o ��311°�11Td �GA�. �'�td��ffi SojA1• ��'�71 ��. �"o�• �.�Q$i�'Ji �W�'31kY�eo �Xl�'i�'g"�.1Cq ►�"'�i�"$p ���CY?Y"� � � ��.°'��.331�3 �o �t�7J6�+ ��'d�db"a7adli a d�eb'fld7 �o tl"r"De �. �a�, �g�� ��.� ���� &%Y°��'e�.�$�o U"t�°,EE�J �o�. ���� �uc�W� i ��� ��������a� E ' '�`"' ��a� ' � � aa ��. �a � ���ss .l�is� �� co �i. A� � I �o� �L'1���, ���p�Xl� �SD� ��'��.�?xa �:�°�c�$b�.r� '18�b�.Ias�, �a�8't�.xa�; ��'ty �. �(��1s�.Egg �.�'�, ��c�ss �a� B� S'���`�➢ �� ��s'� ��' I��.a� �$��'to S�,a.�'�' ��ot�a����.�a� Co��,ssion �is�uss�.�aa a,..nd �l�t�� 8.3 s��. ��l Cor.��z�t+�r ��' �.���a^�n� I��t3.on: �.��5 S,Wo P��3.�'�.� ��.�a�,y st� Re�aa���.�n C�is�iora Di��e�ssioa� e� �,��offi 9. ADJ'OVRt�1V°�' � Pa� 2 - PC Agerade� �' ALS���'i �.9 1973 �,.._..._,. . -. _._ . . _ _ , _ ' . �.. .. . _ , < F, �.;:. `a. , . . .a.:." . .. ,� I�INUT.ES �t TIGNRD PLANNING COI�f�ISS50N August 21, 1973 Twality Jr, High School -- lecture raot� 14650 S,W. 97th Ave. 1.. CAL.L TCJ ORD�R ; A. The meeting wa5 cal.led to order at 8 :30 Po�le � Proceeding �he Public hearing � study �essinn , ' �� was held which began at 7 :30 Pef�. � 2. ROLL CALL � A. � (�resent. Commissioners Ba�khurst, Lewis, Nicoli, S�kata, (�ickelson; Chairman Whittaker; � Planning Director, Wink Bz�ooks; Assc�ciate � Plannex�, Dick Bolen ! �. Absent; Cor�m�.ssioners Bal.l., Har�L-man and F�aizer � ; 3. STLIDY SESSl'ON j i 3.1. General Tel.ephone 5ite Pl,an ! Ao Staff present�ci the submitted site p'lan anr� � recommended approval with cond�tior�s which inaluded �� addi�ional 1.andscaping �s required by the Site Develo�ment; Rev.��w O�dinance. 8, Darrel 8akex of Gene:�al Te.lephane was present , and stated that his company cauld comply with � recommended staff changes. ; i � C. Lewis moved to a�prove the ss.te plan with staff � recommended conditions and Barkhurst secondecl. ' The motion passed by._unanimous vo�a of the Commissioh ? present. ' ! � 3. 2 Kim' s Furni.ture Site Development Plan � i , i A. Staff presented the submi.tted site developrnent ! plan and recommended approval with the condition that plant types, plant sizes and spacing be speci.fied and t�,hat Norway I�aple replace the Uine (�aple in the ax�ea shown in paving stones. B. Barkhurst moved ta approve the submitted site plan with staff recammended conditians. Lewzs seconded and the motion passed by unanimous vote of `the Commission presente � ,,.: .,. ..,�.__. ..... ..,._ . ': '� ' �,,.a 4�..Y � 3.3 Puget Die Cast Site Devslopmen� P1an I i A, Staff x�ecommended disapproval of the submitted ! site devel.opment �lan based upon findings which � concluded that th� appl.ic�nt had not me�t the � suhm�.ssa�on re uisements of the Sit9 DevAlo ment � a� q p , Plan RPVZew Ordinance. ' I B. I�s. Uan T'hiel of Puget D.ie Cast prasented his j comp�ny ' s intent�.ons for development of the � � site and requ�stecl ..' th�t the Planning Cammzssion I approve the plan to a11ow a building permit for the.ir next an�icipated Axpans.iane j C. Nicol.i sta�ed �hat he was concerned that the � Pl�nning Comm�.ssion a.s doing wc�•rk more a�ppropriately i done by st�ffm He stated, "All they want .is a � building pe�mit and t�hey shoul.dn' s have to come back eve�y two weeks a�ttempting ta get approval. " l i D. Whit�aker stated that the submit•ted site plan is � not detail.ed enough and does not meet th� minimum � ordinance req��iraments. � � Ee Lewis said that he dep'lares regulations �th:i.ch makes it nearly impossible for developers to i �,_ carry out their business and sai.d, "We are going off on a tangent. �' F. Lewis moved to approve the subm�.tted site plan with the condition� -�hate lo Deciduous shade �trees be p�ov.�ded and an I, additional tree be pl.aced one-hundre�d feet ' nor�th of the south proper�y line. � � � 2. The type and spacing of ivy to be pl.anted in � the 20 foot l.andscaped area adjac�nt the street ` right-of-way be specified. � 3m The assurance �� maintenance of the plant � material� be Provided. g k � 4. That the l�ading berth area be defined, � 5. That the amount of area paving be defined. 6. That the treatment of �he employees court yard ' be mor� detailed. Nicoli seconded the motion and it passed by a majority vote with the Chairman uoting nay. �` F�age 2 - pC I�inutes - August 21, 1973 ��._: ._ .. _. . _ __ _ .. , . , .,_ �_. .._ . ..._M ,. �:,; �,�, k 4. APPROUAL. OF� �IINUT'ES �'t A, The m�.nutes fo� �he •regul,a� ��c��ing for July 17, 1973 were appr�ved �s subrnitted� The m.�nutes for the �egular meeting of Augus�; 7, 1.9'73 we�e nc�t submitted, �he staff stating they would be su�mz.t�teci pr.io� tc� the segula� meeting of Sept�mber 4, 1.973 � s 5. PUBL�C HEARI'NG § i: 5.1 Conditional Use CU 14�73 (Lee) J; A request by Wav Wm Lee to construct a mo�crr ho�,el to a �, heigh� of 75 feetm The psoposed building s�.te is in a C�-3, �, Gene�al Cnmmerca:a'1 zone 1.o�ated on 'the south side of S,W. {� Pacific Highway a.n a l�ne wi�;h SoWo Pacifi.c Ha.ghway' s � in�erse�tion wi.th SeWo 69•th �i�rest� T'he site camprises � 5. 9 acres. (T'ax map 1S1 3bAD, Tax L.ots C500 �nd 6501.) �� J� I! Staff Findings ii ji Ae The staff p�es�nted fi.ndinc�s �nd presented thsee � documents suhmitted by the appl�.cant for Pl.anning �� Commi��ion review� These wer.e; 1. A 24-�page i' docum�n� entitlad "Fe�sib.ility 5�tudy for a 232 unit �� motor mo��1,� Bl,ach�.y , Lo�ch, Stenberg, Ar^hitects, �1 2. f�relim�.na�y �ite �57�� anri �rchitect;u��l e�.evata.ons �" dated Octc�b�r 3, 1.972� 3e Lett�r �lated August 15� 1972 ' relata.ng answ��s '�o '�he ��Fasano Decis�.on"o B. 7f�e staf�F stated �;ha� �he apPl.icant ° s proposal is important to �he commun.�ty �dent�.ty of Tiyard because ofits size �nci proposed locat.�on at a ,� majo� ent�ance to t:he C.�.tyo �i°he s�taff also stated �; that the applicant has not clearly demonstra��d the k affect of his ?5 foat k�uil.ding up�n .adjac�nt or proximitaus praperties. Thi� would include view a.mpai.rment and the poss.�bi,lity of' zoof views of �he pro�osed prc�ject from adjacent or proximitous f propert.iese � � `festimony and Cross Examination { a , A. Proponents f ; � 7.. RobErt Losch spc�ke as t�te arch�,tect for the project� He sta�ed th�t the proposed bui,lding would not have an adverse affect upon surrounding prop�rties either. by substantially obst�cue��.ng views or casting shadows ahd �`ha� it was in basic cc�nFormance With the �djaceht land 4�ses. � . Page 3 ��C��I�inuites - August 21,, 1973 , ,, :�,'' � _ ... _ . � �; . �,_ �..., �'. � �? 2e Lewis questioned f�r. Losch as to what port�.on � � of�he 75 feet would be abave the road level �`: at Pacifi,c H.�ghw�y. I�`Irs Losch answered that 50 feet will be above the rdad levela ��' 3. Lucy I�aye�nik of 16790 SoWs 173rd spoke for the ;. p�o jec� st;at.ing that it x�epresents �Lhe type of '� devel,opmen�; neecJed in Tigard. She stated that E;, she owns the property across the s�t�°pet on the northPas� co�cner of 69th ancl Pacific H.�ghway �+ and �hi.s project would have no det�imental `"� aff'ect upon he� p�operty. �� �:. �:;. B. Opponents l. I��. H£n�y White nf 1.1.150 SeWm Pacific Highway ;`{� i� spoke s�at�.ng that he was not for �r �gains� (:?," the pro ject until. he is prov.�deci with morA t i, information abaut it. He added that the p.roject �` would not obs�ruct vi,ew from h.is p�operty. �'I �.!� Staff Recommendation r' �'�"I �.'I Ae Staff recommended the applicant' s request be approved at sucr7 •t;ime as the P].anning Comm�.ss:�on �� approves the applicantes site development p1.an. ��; �,,. In addition, as part of the submitted mater.ial with the s.�te developtnen-L- plan �he applicant shall submit a visual. a.mpact anal,ysis of the �roposed project. CnmRi.ission Discussion and Action �` t'� Ao Lewis moved that the vasiance for the 75 feet be (.'� appzaved wi�h staff recommendations and Nicoli �:� seconded. �' �;: ��: Ba Barkhurst suggested an additi.onal condition be included �; that signs not be permitted on the proposed tower. �' t,. �i`; Co Lewi.s amended his motion to include the condit,ion �: that no wall sa.gns o•r identification be above the 35 �' f'oot level. Nicoli reaffirmed his second. `jt' P,. Q, f�r. Brooks stated that the staff recommendation �' provides that actual approval of the 75 foot '� vara.ance wi1.1 come concur.rently with the approval � of the site developmen�t planv He asked I�r. Lewis s' if this wex�e the �.nt�nt of hi.s motion. Lewis � Page 4 — PC I�inutes — August 21, 1973 �"E . .. . . . ... ,. . .. . . . .. .. .. . .... ..... .. , ., . 4,- �.,, sta�ed that no it was not and �ha�� he w.�shed to , �,. further amend hzs mo�a.on ta del.ete tha�t ortion I � of the st;aff recortatnendat.�.on whirh defers approval � of the 75 foot variance to site development pl.an revie4t consideration. Nicoli once again secnnded and the motion, as a,t�ended, passed by a ma jari.ty voi�e with Sakata abstaining. 6. PUBLZC HEARTNG - Tempar.ary Use � 5a1 Temporary Use CU 15-73 (Lamb-Westan) A request by Lamb-Weston Inco , :1.ocated at 6600 SeW. Hampton 5treet, to con�tin��e �to use a portabl.e off.i.ce for e:rght� monthsa Staff F'indings Av The staff presented a lis�t of fiv� findings whi.ch essentially stated that the x�equPS�t confo.rm to �equi�ements of �he zoning o�dinance and the precee�ing six months h�s resul,ted in no complaints from surrounding property owne�s concern.inq the use of a portable office on the L�mb-Westara S�.te. Testimony dnd Cross Examination � Ae Proponents 1.. No one was p:cesent to speak f'or the applicant, . Bm Opponents 1e No one was present a.n opposition to the request, Staff Recommendatic�ns R. T'he staff recomrnended �pproval of the request based upon staff findings. Commis�ion Discussion and Action A, Barkhurst moved that the request be approved based upon staff findings 2 and 4. Lewis secorlded and 'the motion passed by a major.�ty vote with Whittaker abstaining� 6. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Ae T'he public hearing wa5 closed at 9t30 Pa(�. � Page 5 - PC f�inutes - August 21, 1973 , ; ` �.. �,,�� � � • � , 7e SUBDZV2SIONS - Pre�.iminary Pla� Appcoval ' �..' I 7el Summerfield F�hase I2 ('T'ual,a�in D�vel,opment Corpo ) �, L.aca�ion� App�ox�.ma�te.l.y 100Q fee� north of SmWe Durhar� Road between S,W� 100th and SoWm 109�h Avenues� Am (��. B�ooks stated that, "time has not allowed a fu11 analysis of ��he pr.ela.m�.nary plate A full report� w�.11 be forthcotna.hg and recommendation made at the Sept. 4, 1973 Planning Comm�.ssion meeting. " Bs Whittaker asked when the plat was subrnitted and f�r. Brooks s°epl.ied approximatel.y 1.0 days agoe Ce George �la�sha.1, Tu�latin Devel.opment Corp. , spoke stating that he did not feEl that he had gatten adequa�� coopera� tion of the staff' towarcis �eviPwing the plat� D. Whittaker stated that he did not s�e how the P1�anning Commission coul.d proceed without staff recommandati.�ns. He stated that withou•t r�commendations the Planni.ng Cornmission was put at a c�isadvantage and he the:refore saw it very difficul.t for the Planning Comm�..ss.ion to arrive at a deci.sion at th�.s time.r He also stated � - recognition of the disadvantages c:ceated fo•r th� appl.icant and sa�d that his was �ls� a pri,mary conside,r.at�.ono E, Lewis stated that he saw na reason why the P1.anning Commi�sion cc�uld nat app�ove the prelimina�y plat �t th�.s t�.me. F� Barkhu�st moved to approve tho preliminary �lat applyir�g the conditions from the Planned Development zone. Lewis seconded and the vote was 3 to 1 with Wh�ttaker voting no and Sakata and �lickels�n absta.�nirig. 8. SITE DEUELOPMENT PLAN REUI�W 8.1 Standard Oil Cor�pany of California A. Location: 13?_35 S�We Paca.fic Highway Ba Staff recommended approval of the submi�ted site plan with the conditions �hat; artifical �urf not be used, �he bermed aroas be deleted, and trees be provided at 70 feet on center in parking areas. I � :� Page 6 - PC �linutes - Augus� 21, 1973 � . \ � � a ' r�.:. � �k,._,� . r� v ( s � { C. E1don Foster spoke as the rep�esentative for � '°-• Standa�d Oil Company. D. Ba�khurst moved to approve the subrnitted site plan with staff recotnmendatiohs, excluding those delet�.ng the be�ms and artific�:a1 turf, I�icke.lson sec�nded and thP motion passed by unanimous va�teo 8. 2 Tigard Water D�.str.�ct Ae Staff �cecor�mended that the subm.�tted site plan il be d.isapproved .�.n that i� does not ad�qua�gl.y � meet the submissa.�n requirements of the site j development re.�.vew ord�.nance. ', B. Bob Santee spoke as the �epresenta�i.vp of the �, Tigard Water D,�st�ict, � C. Barkhur�t moved to approve the suk�tni���ed. si�e, plan ' subject to staff' s �'inal approval of the landscape plan� L�wis seconded ar�d iche motion passed by � unani.mous vote of the Commission pres�ntm � � 90 R�JOURNI�ENTm ]..1 :45 Paf�a ' _ i :.��- y � � � � ] i � � � Page 7 - PC �linutes - August 21, 1973 � ,,"�..., � � . � �� � � � � � � � �� �� �,�M����� �' �� �.: �,;�„ ,,-� . . .. � ::r<`c�+ ti,"ttk' K""`mr. . ;hs _ .... ..�.. _ . . . � � �xraY:wYx M. .. .. . . . . . . _ �'�;,:�� . �... �� . �,- '1°]�6�L� �'.��r �°�i1+�Il�!'I.�r32C�I�T a�s�� R��� A�s�t �,� 1,�'�� � . ���ffie.�6 db��� �sd6 � . �t� 1,�+-7� {���) �x�3�t�.+�z��, Us� ', Fox° �b���'��' �,���d �.� �, �m�9 C���a�. C'i���°�'i�. ��E�n�a �E� °�1C� i s��x�� s�� �f�.W. �����'�,c� �Iig�t�� �a� � 1,3.� r�°��a �.W. 6��a i �����q ��a� 1��a �� ���� ��e ��s ��� � ���L) ` A��2�.�,�t ! i . eAU�� 77 a �� � � ��1 ��;�4Ln1��E9 �$�'u��i��`�'. � �'a��a���e���. v��� ����°��. °�� �.�.c�� °��i� ��x�����n���c�s� ��' � x����° �� �a.ey���. �� � irn���� ��' `�� �'���;. A ,�n`�°s�P�����» � ��s���x�� � �;�gt�� ��c��°�� �� ���a t�°�ai�° �i°���. �and �a����ra��r�a� ���a°���° �n � O ���°� s3,�,�. � ������9 �,��� �d bve�.�� s�� s�� �,s� ixa�.�u�.��l �; �n ��s p�c��s�,a � �' � S'��° �ix�d�.xa�s � � �.. ��'�' �'�nd� �t�� �5 �'��'� �.s °�� �a�,ane� la�il.�g h�igka� �l.o�e�l i, �,an � �•�, ���t°asl. �����, ���a� �;tka �ta,� �����at��r� t�� B°bu�].dirag � 2�iglnts ir� ��a� ��rac� m�,� 'b� ��a�a����c� �� �► �ncli�i�r►a3. us� t� � � taa�a�.�� ��ait��d lk���� ��' 'j� ���� p�°�eri�d �t��t °� t�`G�a]. �'1�ox° f �a°e� �� �� 3auil.c�.xa� d�� ��t ����s� �tka� a�� requi�°�miera� oi °�he �car� � �nd ����d�dl t�� 3a� x�s�.��at��. ��s �1.1 ��ds �k�ll I�s�+e a �inia�um � d�p�k� ��' x�� ��ss °�I�xa �ra���l� tI� hei,�� �� �h� p��a�ipsl s°�ru��u�e.°t � (���a. ������. ��y s��t��n �.�.��.��) I { `�e r�°� �'�1'�fi 'tl]�L'�O '�� SE�:�b�� .6°'� 6�,`�V� �.S IIt�'$'r �YT 8, 1°@Ci�d�L�$�.�. °d+�L3� �Sd, j '�'e�`�'r I�SD $�klb �QbA�6E°?9EqE4T�YY�`i5 ��8'�'i �,Xl t� �°��9 '�dl��°�. �""iOg'19�8X°6o°�.�. Stc�Xb�• ? � I I �, , '�,: �: �. ��':� �'ixa�.s ��� �,����tag � ���� �.�.7�y �l� ��aa����a'r�. ��� � � ���x° ��' °�� �'�.� M��.��.�. ��, �� �1�a�.�ag ���a�s���ra i�n ��a�ia� �p��� ��' � ����s���a'� a�sc� �0�y �c���a� �� ��.�i�� �� °t14n� as��►��;�sans �aai �`���s �a�����;� s�����.c��. �.�n �3��.� �°���.�e ��la,�� �asz�:����s ���a� �a�c�c�ss�°y �� g�°���� °�� ��s� �.����°�s°ts ��' �Y�� s�°�e:�a��ng �u���� ��° a���.�1����nd ��° ��,�;� �s a ���o �� � (C'�9+3a�s.`��.�1'Y� �"� �,XlR3�.�A1��e a��e �,�.�9��.�.�Efl�tj �� @����� �� �l�'��C� ��' � ��t�.��.�,�s '���e�s� �� �1bs�x°�u����aa �� �r�c�w ��° ��.u��i�tta ���' �,it�a� �� 1': ��L7L° '�.1� �6�,��G��B`�i �3C°Q9���'v�fe e e�Il�. 75°�({]�6����'.�"!1`�°i$ 6�.Q�'�° �d�l4��1 �4�' �'b$�iL3aL°�' � ���°���aa� ��° a��� s�.1� �� ��.��d. �y �k� �s�aarn�x� ����,ssia�a� �i � . ��,d.. ��$ (f:���.��.�II�$ �.�1�����8� � �, 1: 4�. � s���' �`�s �� ����,�.c�xa� 2�s �u�a�3,���� ��� �r�a�a��� ��� Y ����� �mo��s����. ����ra �� �c°�: �sc��°�'��ai �s �'o�7L��a�e ��, �� ,: � �a���*���aa;� 3��� ���mm� �a����.��1 00����'���1��' ��a�� �`. �°°°��S° � '�� �,1E�,°� �9`$i�YN .�'�i�'�,g ��,��,1�'y �`a,�i6°.�13y S'�J2��lJi��"�➢ ,�',°t��s�,`��c�'l��Q � ��°��,�s����� ��.•t�� �].� ��. ����.���°�u�s°�. �����.c��a� ,� r� �, a�,'��1�. �e�b���1���° �i� �90�f ��C�fl��'g �.•�S�p S��'$x�c�$°�g �+�°c�,..°3�5�6`���`��o � �`1����.4 �S`���. A�u �i �.a�� ��a �9�� 1��.���n�g €�s��;�°s `� `�� °0'�"�Y��oo sl��is�e��ana 1������/p ��,c�h� �°�c�axl��a��� ,�rc:���°�s. �� � s� � �. � s����' �'�.zn�� �h� ���11���'s �:2�����. �� �� ����s�� �c� °��n� �¢�a�a��� �,�an���� ��' �'�.���1 '��c�a��c� �� �� s���r� �� �h� ���a���� ������ ��1 ��s �.������ �� � as�,��� �a�°����� �c� �k�� ����ra S��ffi � ����r���d s��°a���� s�aa��. �� ��.�,���a� �� �;p��°��� ��. �ffi�as � � `��an��'�� °�� �b� �ci�sa���� m�' �,°�,g��°�. �s � ��ta�na��.�y. E� �'3 6. �'�� �'���s �� �p��.�c�xn� �� s�,`���.���d � �,���c��° dl����. ����� �.r�s �97� ,3 �: �ra°�.���a� �»�r �k� ���3�.�.�'�°s ��,J�°��c��°1���� $3��1yy ���y S��rl���gy a 1 Aar��.����s. �.s ����e� ����s � q�,������as r���ss��I �d s���.s�'y .I xa �k� �g,�a�a°��ra�s �� �lk� 00�'���°8 a�����.��. ��'`� ��.nds �tka� aa�s�r� ' �� �}��s� �cx��°���aas ��s��.s�����a°�9 v�.�l� �� s�����a�3.�xn �� �}� g,u�s��.o�a � ��: a01�°� ������ �.371. �u� �a°��s�d a���l��xnea�$ �� �ra �c1���a�� �Z�°���a°�$�s ii e�d. �ar, �►d.�j���an� xa�:��n��r����,s°0. � �°�� �'i.r�ds �1� �pp�ia�°� �$ , r�t ���a°:l�r d��,s����� �� e�'�'��� �� b�fi.s 7� ��t ?auil�aa� u�a� �.� , �d������ ��° p�;�a�i.��,�c��z� ;pa°��a°t��sa °.�s �ail.d �.n�.u� �.��r �.�aix^m�aa�t ���: �a�d °�� �ss�'��i�,�.��r �� ���' �c�tas ��' �k+� �ax°a��s�d �a���c�� �'�°� �d����a�� # ,:; �� ���L�ni�a�e pr������s o a� � F. S't'i��� ���.°��'E�.�6'�'i�L��'1S �,; 9'� S��'� a����a�s �Yne �a�a�,3�a��s ���z�s� b� ��a�x°���d e�t su,�k.a �ia� �s �� i�k� p].�arbi.aa� ��.ss3�xa ���x°a�'sy�s �k� �g,p�.�,�a.�'s s�.te cl����pm�rn'� �a�ra �, as x°�q�a3.a°�c1 by �hs�'t�� ��r5$ c��' �3ie ��,�;�d lMtax�.��.�a� ��. 11�s � �eix°� � i. P�g� `�' • S'�'i�l�'�' ���YS9Y""�'i � ti11t�,Y �1� � �bagLlB't �y �.��:� ,; �; � . . . .. . . �. . � . . .. . .. � � . . . .. �....a . � � ^ . . . „( . . !{Y' � . . . . . Vf V.�� f� , `�,�.�'�.�. �.'. �� �3� sit� s7.��r��.���r�� �:L�>n. ���r��w ��r�$s t7ti� ��a��,�.���,� �Y�,l, ���ot�;al.�sh ��� �'s51��.o�ai;n� �,�c��s. 1. � �p�7��.��� ci���,� �ka� �Z�°���s� e�� ���� ��1.���n� �'� Fd���.�w �� p���,�d iax ������^ 7�8a�� ��' �la� �ig�^d k��.��;�7L C��1�� s}a�l�. �u�»�ai� a �is�. i��� �,;�s�.s ��° ��is° p���se�. �x°�,����. �Oi� v�e�. �,y�i� s� ��n�,e��� r� su�y a�' �i�w i�,aai��a� ��� ���ea��,������� �. �s� �h�s� �a����tti�s �� �?� n��� �� S.Wa Pa,�ific �i.��y ll���z�g ��;��rs ��� �k� s�����t ��.��. �id �is�, �x�l,�s�s s1�.�1,7, ���s��� ��s�3.a�ag g�°,��s �a� ������r�t ��° ������d ������s ��n� ���e ��� �'��si'��,ey ia��.u� ���s���l�s ��°2�ffi �� ������1 ��°�����;�s me�r �� �����asl �,���i��n w�' �}a� pra���ed '�� �'�� s����a�;x°�o � s'i��':�° ,�':i�t.s . �h�.s �°���x���a�� 00�a���s�'y �� ��°��� ��� �;��� �a���°c�s�� �� �3� stia°�9t���it�a� �;3���yoo. ���.c�. ��.��� �sx��ays�� W�d.�. � c��gksi�]'��i �a �ci�,��.�r� �'���� �;�: �&�� ����a°c�� ��° �,s�a�a�a°�� �2� �� s�,�� �s�l�pm�n`� ��a . L s �d3� g�`l�(� �����j�' �Pi �C�75lS15� E!�$�� �� �L�:q(� �.�5 lN�,.�s�"yi ��l bA�� RAQ�dbdLlAdl,�� b6D ld� 7� ���� �k��, �� ���c��d �1� s��c� ����°��c� �s �xaai:�����3 i�n °�k�� �p�a����a�BS �ub�r��s��.�� �aa����,c�� 00:�'��a��,`���.�� ��a��.�r ��� �� IAa��°� d�tb��° �A.���'.L°V o .�f:2�' 14�1��Wl�Q� �idL��'4 �(��.�s�Ga� �,� tfo��8.l.Y.B NLHy(�.��9t d.S �$�ps"c9�.in��t���' �'�a� s�l��' ��'�'�a � ��, i �. '�3�� ����,��f�'� ���� ���,c����� ��a� .�xba�issi�� a��s� ��� t�c� � �a�,�t�,�°�� ��.sa� �.'�,c�� �,n����.s, t� tau3l.�,aa� �s�.� �ra� �a����xa�e � ; I �„ �� 3 - 8t�° 1��� - ��� I� � �w����: �.e �973 . r■.r �.,_> �a � ; �'�G� �� C��u���� :�P�' R��� ,At���� �1, ].9°�� i ; Agencl�s It��a �.b � C�J �.�-7� ��b-W�s��a�� � , I � , Gonrii��3e�r�, �3s� � , , � ���° ������� �����d �� 66�(,D �oW. a�t,��� 5����. I � ���$ �, i � i�n'b-W����a�, ��.�o � � 'N llppl��t�aat'� �� � � '� �a�a����a�� � �a�� � ���b�L� s��'�'��� f��° � �a�,�i�� ��.�� �a �..: �rs�ffi �����e �l�pA���'y �'a°����1 �� ��������� �x ���'��� ��1������a �� ��ic�i�° �a��t�,�g k►ui�.d�ira� ���c �..�1. �l:l���s�� �� ����� �a���i �'�� � ���1� �'��.�c�o = i; � �, 5ta�� �°i�.� � �I �.. T� �'�aag �Y��n�.ss�.c�a� ���a��°d�i.x�, t� S���Y�:on J.Sa€�.4� �� �1a� � T3.�x°d A�u�ai�i�, ��, ��' �Lssu� �����► us� �aw��:�� for a N ];�aa�er ��z°i�d tka� 6 n���tkas t'��.��vira� t3a� px��ed�°� ���° � ��srad��ie�a�. �s� �s s�� �'���n � ��pt.�� 18.�4, Ti�� M�aia�� ( � ���. � 2. 7Cka� s��' �'ixad.s ��'� '�k� �x°�.��n� �pp��raa. �'o� ��n�a°�►a°y usa �f � �k� s�b���t ���bl� ��i��� w�►s g�'�n 1D,y tta� ��.tyr Adrn3.r���t�;°�►to�° � on �°�b�:°°u��' 239 �9`73� � �$ Pa���.it �.lY. ���a� A��ust 23, �97�• �. T'� s��JP f';�.nds °tY�°� aes�mb•id��t;ora, arac. rsas na�a;� su'bs'�►ntit�l ,p�s�°��s °���°d ��ns��ix��ion e»�''ra�e� �t'icse s�a�C�e and �av�t x°���i�d si� ! det�s�a�pna��st �al� approe�,l ��nr `tl� p1�a�aing �eam�q�.ss�aaa �a�° t�i�° � w�t'�.� �dd�.���n �ar��seb�.. � ` , .. . _. r ..,_ , -__� . . _ , ,. �., :.. . � �€. 7C�� s�f'� ��.n�s ��� � ��a�l�ir��s �� b��� �'i3.�a� ��kn �� �it��r ��a���a�aa�� ��� s�a'b��c�� �a���.� �3'��.�� �a� �1�� s��d a���'i�� is �t �.���d i�a �a ��°�� �Il�� 'sa��,d. ��aa�']L3�� 'wi�kn �,�1������ px°���i�s. S. �h� s�':� �'�ian�s � ra��°�����,� �xa ���;r° ���aaa�°��.�an �sd. b�ai�.�3.ra.� ��r�a��s �.s �a�ra�l,y iffi ���'��t o �,s s�.°����.��n �y ��'�'��� �� � �ma�s���a��i�a� ���ai�g a��' �ka� ��pl�.��'s �a��sa�. �ts� �a�����aa�� �d.di�issxa�,�. ��'f'�.�� s�a�,��. 6, �a� s�f�' ����s �k� �p�1,ic�°� 1�� s�� ��la��.t�c3 ��is�'��t,m�^�r �v�.d.�ra�� �.11�8�° ���'`�+��$A �67aa�D e��y °��.�,z°G�. �:flEIl�.6'.°�.�D�. �°i68S�y '�°i�� �� �D�" fl�SBI°8�3 �i' �� ��r�s�.��.��s �����. �� �2a�.s s����,�aa � pa°�s��a�e �.s a���i��z�t tnus� lb� ar�� lb����°� � �����a�� us� �a°�:i� m�,�r bc� ��p�a��d. �tr�� �3�:��am�rad���.�n ��� z���e�axd$ ��h� ��a��,�.�,ra°�"s ��,u�s� '�� �reaa�.�d �aa����. a�ac��a ��.rn� �� �Ya� ��apl3�xn� su'bm�.�� s�s��.s��,���x°y ���xn�� ��� mu� ��° �rc� �� �h� ��a�.°�i�a�s �c�� �ma��a �.x� �����.�a� �,�.�.�,�9 �3,�z°� d�a�.c��,�;a�.,l ��� k�s ��aa n��e ��' ��a� ��y��L��°� ��a sub�n�.� �u�a c��r�d�a�c��9 °��an �� s�,�� ��a��»a�ls ���s�'� ��' ��� ��',��.�.�an�s r���a�s� b�sc�d �� �. ��,xaa�.r�s r��n�r��c� �g �9 �d 6 �� s����d �xn ��s x���o � i �� I I ���� O . � d��ld � �� !!� W • W .6/ l� . page 2 s�a�' �� � ,� o�a A �s 21, 973 , � I'' I ..-4�- ....,u':�.�..�.e_..�.:�: ,rs..,.,-�::..r. .0 ... r'..�:.I ��� .�.. �,:.vs,.. , x ,._, .a.[r. .,. .. ._,�i.,.. . .... ..i, ... u.�.,.u�.�eu...........1 ., �.r.. r �L#. .. ��.,:�,r> ., �n...:..,.. � ., :�. .� .-. .... .. ..w:. ' �:�.<�:, �.:. � .tk+i.L�....�a.N...A+e�1'� �4 . .. . .. � � . �.. . . . . �� � ... � . � . . . . �� .. � � �6� �bVFOdY� ��8'db'f�����aq.. . . . . . � �Yqf�� d��� ..� .�ia0.Y�u��i� ��� ����vQA� . �Ll�Ll6`�'i �.� �.g�� .� � . . ���2� .��`r8lE�.7fxL � . � . � � � . . .. $Umm�x��e�.�. E'�,5� �� (`�.'u�71.�$�al I������� ��•) P��m13.�a�a°�r P].�t !��'�1 Fo� ].6� pz��s�d. ],��s 1���d. ��a����°��y 1.�0 ��� ���s ��' S.W. 1�°ffi�aa �d '���ta�� �.W. ,l�.A�J� �d S•W. 1.09�Im ��ms��� ',!A lp�i� °19���ra ���L�pmen� ������r� ,l��,.�,c�'�°s �3�c����� ��.� — ���°��I, �s�' � ��°��,�.����y ��� �xn��xa�.xbg �,6� �.���. ���s �� �.aa�3.u� �����d. s�.� �'���' a�tr�l�.� � ��aa•t,�.l �v,���s�s. �,' T�t,e�ina ��'� ��� °b'� �'��'9 �`$ � s7�.��c���s�b� �� $k� ��.�.� ��at$8�1offiy '��� a��'1��T ��' °�� S�a°�'�.��d �� F�°��.�.�3.r�� �51��. � ���L3.�a�'s �ubmi;ss�,m� �s �'e��l. � `b� ��'���.�a�� a°����aa� �afix�.�a�n ��.3��i�aa � s �1 a� .������° ���� �t°(����1) �ex�°� � �� ����.��� ��'iz�.zap �se si�i�i�3�r��3�g. 'd"� s���' �.s �aa�°xa�x����r �°+evi��riaa� °� a°e�ris�cl pr�s�,im�a�►x°� �p];at subm3t�ed ix� �,sp�ffi�� t,o ��ie �'��'�s 3�t��. T� �e zaat a1l�taed a �u1:1 �►nalysi� o�' tlk� �x°elimi.ra�x°y ���. A f'�7�. a°�p�� ta�..'9.3; �� �e�z°����ning a z°��t�e�atic�� �� .�tY ��'ie�c� s���'i��116d�'� +1'y �.J 0� ��°�'�e � . S� ��i°.CJl�as.�e'��.OIl �'�'i$� �°@C�1181lBbiCls '�$D,.� '�'e�S �.t'i4.'1'� '�'i� $� �'�A��7L° 14� �.�� �Y°�• � , � t. ,t'. ; ,. ... . . �. . , ... .,.�.. .. ... . . . r �.�. , �,_.. . ...., , ."� +_'.' h �, .,.n � ..3r. 'i L , ,. � � �.� � �� .. .r'.'13ti �.�:�X^_...• ':�T , . ' . � . ,. . . �:� �. �� I • TIGARD PLANNING COM�IISSION � �. ._; Staf f Report ' Site Development Plan Review August 21 , 1973 i 8. 1 Puget Die Casting Locationt 744Q S.W. Bonita Road 's � Staff Findings: � 1 . 1'his site de�elopment plan reuiew item has been � a source �f cohfusion tp the s�aff and applicant } as related to the Tigard City Code. As can be ; �een in Fred Anderson's memorandum of July 24, 1973 5 entitled "Landscaping Requiremerrts-Front 5pace Set- `; back�F�arking Area--f�-2 and 1�-� Zones'�, the `� planning Com'mission must take into account the standards of the Site De:velo ment Plan R�view P section of the Tigard Municipal Code. This must bo done even if a parking lot has been constructed in accordance with ano�her section of the Code. Apparently this interpretation has not been made `� � , clear to applicants in the pas�t, �thus they have, like ���-- ' Puget Die Casting, been paving to within 2 fe�t of their front property lines. The staff Peels that �ome compramise is in order ,' for each cas� and in this case the staff recommend the applicant landscape a 7 foot fr�nt yard. This �; has been complied with. However, at the August ?th G' �� planning Commissioh metting, it was felt by some 1' planning commission members that the twen�ty font �, landscaped front yard should be required in those areas not already paved. The ap:plicant has agreed i' to comply with this requost. � ,. 2. Since the August 7th Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has submitted two revised site j developmer�t plans. The first plan had several � deficiencies relating to lack of adherence to ; landscaping and parking requirements and standards. � ' The staff felt the applicant? s firs�t revised site development plan was inadequate. The staff also s felt that to discuss the matter further wi�h applicant would be counter-productive at this time � and suggested the applicant submit a 2nd revi�ed i landscape and site plan. This 2nd p;1an woul.d � relate direct,ly to the adjacent public rights-� 1 �, of-way and the immediately proposed and existing ; structures. Fu�ure expansio:n woul'd be ' preceded � by add'itional site design zeview `on the remainder of' the site. The staff feels ;that' the. projected immedxate expansion is relatively sma11 in oomparison ,� .r, . . , . . . ._ . _...... _. . . . . . � ... . _. ,„ .. .< � — �,. .a.,,.,. , , .:. w.. .� ,. .. _..._y.� ., ,. .. . . _ . �, _ , . . � __ ,.. � ,.. . ::' �, ��� to site size and feels landscaping adjacent to � ,�. public rights-of-way is an appropriate are� of concern at this t.ime. 3. Staff finds the applicant has su6mitted a � revised landscape and site plan that directs itself to landscaping a.long S.W. Bo;nita Road and S,W„ 74th Avenue. This revised landscape and site plan � is dated August 20, 1973. � , � 4. The staff finds that the applicant' s submission � dated August 20, 1973 does nat meet the submission � requirements set forth in Section 18. 58. 030 (c) I of` the Tigard �Iunicipal Code, spECif'ically � relating �o �'the location and design of landscaped � areas, the varieties and sizes of trees and plant materials to be planted on the site, otNer � pertinent landscape features and irrigation systems � requirecJ to maintain trees and plant materials". � In other words , tree and groundcover species � should be delineated, spacing a� thes� plant � materials should be d�fined, and some assurance � be given by a competent land5cape prafessional � that p�.ant materials will survive and maintain } their health during periods of d�ought. � � 5. A specific staff critique of the August 20, 1973 applicant's submission defines �he following prablem ��eeas. o Is the western-most parking area to be paved? i; If it is to be used for parking, then th� City �� requires paving. k' o What is the landscaping treatmEn� proposed for � , �: the area designated "employee courtyard?" ' �: �, o The lawn area adjacent S.W. 74th should have �' one additional tree placed in this lawn area, � approximately 100 feet north of t•he south property line and in line with other •trees � proposed along S.W. 74th Avenue. � � Staff Recommendati�n E The staff recammends disapproval of the site and � ].andseaping plan as submittPd. The staff suggests � the applicant resubmit new plans relating to the ; standards and policies set forth in the Tigard � Community Plan and �Iuniciqal Code. The hew plan � � , shall be rel:ated only to landscaping around the ': existing and immediate structures and related to the public riqhts-�r�f-way. The applicant should Page 2 - Staff Report - Puget Die Casting :. ._ _ - ,,,..�.- . . ,,,,., . . .::„>. }h �i � �(� `�4...: � I' � �' 1' �r� address hirnself, in his revised submission, to �� -� those problem areas as delineated by the staff I; in the above findings. �i � r; 8. 2 General Telephone Company � �"� �.; �., L�cation: Directing behind existing City Hall j'i parking lot, access on Burnham Street, � 340 east of I�ain Street. z; Staff Findinqs : � 10 Staff finds the applicant has submitted a landscape and site plan sufficient to " _dt the intent of. submission standards set forth in Chapter 18. 58 i, of the Tigard �lunicipal Code. 2. The staff has reviewed the appli.cant' s submission �' receivad by the City August 2Q, 1973 and finds '` the following deficiencies. o Landscaping along the northeastern side of the ;il subject site is non-existant for a distance of i apprax.imately 94 feet. The applicant proposal �;� to landscape on adjac�nt property in lieu of the ; � aforementioned area. The staff feels this proposal ��', is inappropriate from an a�esthetic and legal t standpoint. Landsc�ping on adjacent property leaves unanswered the question of what happens to unlandscaped 94 foot, 7 foot wide strip. Wou1d �„ it be paved. It would also be diff'icult to enforce '� maintenance of landscaping on property not owned i by the applicant. �� �; o No assurance that plant materials will remain �'� healthy and survive periods of drought has been Er �, submitted by the applicant. I f' o No provision has been made for pedestrians �o � gain acc�ss to the City Hall parking lot along 1 the western boundary of the subject site. t t � Staff Recommendations: i:� �' Staff recommends approval of the site and lahdscaping plans as submitted by the applicant and reviewed by � the City on Augu�t 20, 1973. This approval is Subject �� to the following canditions; �� 1 . Th� applicant sh�ll submit a revised site and 1and- � scaping plan, indicating the following: o A landscaping plan of the appz�oximately 94' x 7' strip in the northern corner of the subject site. Page 3 - Staff Report _. _ . � r.... .. .. _ , __ . , ,. . :� ,�� ; �_ � � . .. ._ _ .. ° � , �.. ��4� �' o removal of one parkin� space or re-dimensioning �''j of proposed parking spaces t� allow �edestrians � ��r� passage between cars onto a paved walkway that ��j would provide access �Lo the City Hall parking �'I lot. � . 2. The applicant sha11 submit such assurance, by a professional landscape specialist, that the �'. proposed plant materials will remain healthiy and i= survive periods of drought without irrigation. f., ;�. 8. 3 Standard Oil Comp�ny [; ,�;'; Location : 13235 S.W. Pacific Highway ��; i:;; Staff Findinqs: �,.,, - �,. .i 1 . Staff finds the applicant has submitted a land- ` scape and site plan sufficient to me�t the intent '`` of submission standards set forth in Chapter 18. 58 ` of the Tigard (�unicipal Code. ' � C;i 2. 5taff finds the applicant proposes the use of "artifical :; turf". The staff feels that living plant materials ,' uphold the intent of the Tigard (�unicipal Code to �; ���� <� b�autify the community. The staff feels that t:' �,�. "artificial turf�' is sometimes appropriate, but ;-; only where high pedestrian traffic volume would �;� kill natural gr�sses. Appropriate areas would be 'i in areas such as bus stops, adjacent public foun�ains, � or use on athletic fields. �'. ,' 3. Staff finds the applicant does not meet the f:`;. requirement for tree and shrub plantings at 70 feet �'' on c�nter each wa•y within parkin areas. i' 18. 58. 060) g ���C Section t,; �,: ,-;, !,;� 4. Staff finds that earth mounds, as proposed by the F,; applicant, are not psactical for landscaping. Water f"; h� quickly runs off these mounds creating desert �'.�. conditions at the top and swamp conditions at the i::+ bottom, with erosion .on the mound slopes. Staff ' finds landscape maintenance a continuing problem �`� on small s�al.e mounds as proposed by the applicant, �' �,,;;, < Staff Recommendations: �'' 1=r ;�' Staff recommends app�oval of the site and landscape ��; plan as submitted by the applicant with the following ��` conditions: �"� � ' ` Page 4 - Staff Report ,� . . � „...,,,� , , � .. lt��x,� � � .. 1 . That the applicant submit for staff approval �'� a revised landscape plan to include the �"� " following items: � • �_ Elimination of proposed earth rnounds and ' � �� '�artificial turf". Areas covered by artificial turf to be r��laced by natural shrub materials such as �zeleas, compact oregon grape, rhodod- endrons, etc. o AdcJitinn of a 10 font by 20 foat planting area, located approximately 20 feet north of the site' s existing structures. This planting area shall includ� appropriate shruL�s and groundcover and 2 medium size deriduous shade trees. This requirement shall fulfill the requirement described in finding three of' this staff repc�rt. 8. 4 Tigard Watei Uistrict Location : S.W. Canterbuxy home, adjacent existing reser.voirs on Little Bull I�ount�in b�tween S.W. 106th and S.W. 103�d. Staf f Find:inqs : m 1 . The applicant has submittec� a �erspective sketch ���' of their praposed landscaping. The staff finds the applicant' s sketch does not meet the sub- mission requirements set forth in Section 18. 58. 03� of the Tig�rd f�unicipal Code. This includes the submission of an adequate landscaping plan, relating landscaping to adjacent uses. 2. Staff finds the existirig site has been recPntly ai�r�exed t� the City. 7he site retains the Washington County zoning, R-7 Single Family Residential. The existing use was granted through a conditional use approval granted by Washington County in 1969. 7he County ' s policy permits expansion of conditional uses without reapplication for a conditional use. Staff Recommendatinn i� 5taff recommends denial of the applicants �equest for ' j Site Developmerit Plan Review approval and requests l the applicant submit a detailed landscape plan sensitive � to the surrounding residential use. Staff' alsa reques�t � the applicant submit a letter to the Planning Commis�ion, � detailing the intended use of the shop addition. i � Page 5' - Staff Report ��..' �x.: ,. ; 8. 5 Kim' s Furni�ure , . ��i , ' . Location: Site of old I�cClung' s Furniture,• 12215 S.W. I�ain Street Staff Findingst 1 . Staff finds the appiica�t has submit,ted a landscape and site plan of sufficient detail to meet the intent of submission s�andards '; set forth in Chapter 18.5'8 of the Tigard I�unicipal Code, except for the following ; o spacing and size of proposed plant materials. 2. StafF finds the following plant material changes are necessary to provide additiona'1 shade to parking customers and to soften the vis:ual mass ' � of the adjacent structure. � o planter on southern end of parking spaces adjacent the building to contain a Honey Locust and tfie p.lanter on the northern end af the same parking area to contain a Narway rlaple. I, ' Staff Recommendations: ,, I� �^`l� StafP recommends approval of the applicant' s landscape and site plan with the following conditions; 1 . The applican� submit a revised landscape plan indicating spacing and size of psoposed plant materials and also reflecting those changss in plant materials as stated in finding #2 of this staf'f report. � � � , � , � '� � 1 �M�x�} � . . . . _ .. . . . � � . . . .. . . .. . . . '�. i Page �6 -�, Staff Report . .. ,.._„ �.�,�_, _. . ..::...�. :, .�...�... ., _- . �,n �'S � Y ' ��F ,�;3 1.� Qn e� `��C "d�.'+r. ���` £,��Y ��,�'�` �,�+ �; `a�mw��� � fi�'�i^�-�a,^ `�.': �`�: r"�, ��K' `��'„��,t�',d$"`� �' � ,Y��e A.nK��M{yxn� R1F' '�=� �1E�IORANDUI� TO • City of Tigard planning Commiss.ion FRfJ1�: Wink Brooks, Planning Director SUBJECTo Staff o�inion P1>anning Commission action on Summerfield Phase 11 , preliminary plat -. DATE: August 31 , 1973 Beca.use of the situation that occurred regarding Summerfield 's preliminary plat apqroval: at the August 7th hearinq, I feel it neces�ary to expl�in iny p�sition on the matter. It is my opinion that the action taken by the pla�t�ing commission on August 7th, regarding Summerfield Phase TI ,was not based on adequate findings. Ifi i,ha ,commis�ion' s decision were to be challenged in a court of law, it is my opinion the decision would b� considered invalid. The City A�ttorney advzsed the Commissian that a variance procedure must be ��, followed when deviatit�g (even in a Planned Devel.opment) from the standasds set forth in the subdivision ordinanc�. 7o give the Gammission a legal overview of the subjec� prob.lem, I would liG�e to rela�e the following corres�ondence from Fred Anderson and Derryck Dittman. �' . the following comments are given on the general application of �this Chapter (Subciivision Chapter 17 and the Tig,�rd �lunicipal Gode) to the "Summerfield Planned Development'� project: (1 ) Three predominant basic aspects of the matter should be em.phasized: (a) From the standpoint` of constitutional � cohcepts, the applic�tion of different standards, requirements and variances cannot be rationally imposed �n the basis of the size of the project, favoring or disfavoring the largs development ar the small development under similar circumstances. (b) All citizens, corporate and otherwise, are entitled to equal protection of the laws, whether procedural safeguards, economic o.ppantunities or the conferring of special privileges is involved. � , � � '�. ' �" k�.� �, , i> j, (c) The basis for zoning and subdivision rules � are founded on the promotion of' the public health, , safety and general welfare, and these considerations i have equal application to the large-scale development � as to a smaller undertaking. (2) It is our outlook that the three sections of ' Chapter 17. 48 of the Tigard I�unicipal Code must be applied 4 in series and not as three alternatives with respect to all � land use classifications, planned de�relopment and otherwise, ; I and the standards of Title 17 of' the Tigard (�unicipal Code ` ' apply with respect to all lands within the City. Adopting the foregoing as a premise, w� quote from Section 17. 48. 010, in pertinent part: ' The standards and requirements of these regulations may be moc�ified . . . . provided the modificata.ons are not detrimental to the public health, safety � and welfare and provided the planninq commission determines that there is adequate public spaoe and improvements for circulation, l.ight, air, service ne�ds of the developed tract and its zelation to adjacent areas. . . . . ' and from Section 17.48. 020 : �F�. � . , . . . . in order for the property . . . .ta come within the provisions of this Chapter it sha11 be necessary . that the Planning commission shall find the following ,;;,; facts: ;� �'(1 ) That there are special circumstances or � conditions afFecting the property. ��(2) That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property ,! right. . . . .and extraor�linary hardship would result � { from strict compliance. . . . . . "(3) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or - welfare, or injurious to other property in the " vicinity. . . . " It is to ba noted that the criteria required under � ' 17. 48. 010 is concerned primarily with the impact upon the M;,; public interest, whereas 17. 48.020 prescribes psocedural �,F; requirements not only to protect the applicant' s economic , ,.. interests but as well the public health, safety and welfare, t < or injury to other property in the vicinity, and au�horizes ` ; the imposition of conditions to accomplish such objectives. ; ; � Sectioh 17.48. 030 requires adherence to the objectives ��; of Title 17 and makes mandatory a written record of finclings s-.a of fact to support the avtion taken and the conditions, if any, f�' imposed. �"� �� �' page 2 . � . _ , _ , . _ ,. _ ; _.� r Y . ' 1 � � � � � . �� � ��., �� All three of the foregoing sections of' Chapter � 17. 48 under the heading "Variances" must be read together and y �� applied in i:he total context; that is, ' � ,; (a) �lodifications of standards may be author- � ized in a large-scale development provided the public iriterest eriteria of Section 17. 48.010 are not �' , imp�ired, but subject to compliance with the require- # ments of' hot,h Section 17.48. 020 and 17.48.030. �� F� f: (b� Developments other than "large-scale'� in � like manner may be accorded similar consideration, :' provided that the procedural requiremen�ts are met and �'' r„ the findings with respect to special circumstances, ' _ conditions, hardshi.ps and public interest support the ;� action taken, as required by Seation 17. 48. 020 and ,�, 17. 48. D30. '; ;: In summary then, all variances under Title 17, whether , involving large-scale development or otherwise, must be �: processed in like manner, and a procedural opportunity affi`orded to '�adjacent areas" , and "�ther property in the vicinity in which the property is situated" , to be informed �! and ob 'ect to the s ecial treatment or priveleges sought, I��� J p ;� and any determination of the applicatian shall be founded `; on the �rescribed criteria and dacumented in w•ritten findings ;i � which clearly support the final determination. Anything less " �„; is��go�ernmen� by whim" and opens the daor for favoritism anci �; negates the "Equal rights and pr�.veleges" and'�equal protection � of the law" guaranteed to all persons. " F"rom a procedural standpoint, the petition For variance from i,� subdivision standards should be submitted concurrentl.y or �,;+ prior to the submission of the preliminary plat. This has ; not been accomplished by the applicant, and the Commission ��,", should be remi.nded that the applicant a�gued against #;, submission of the variance petition at the August 7th heasing: In essence, the applicant asked the Commission to ignoa�e the `! advice of couns�l. For the aforementioned reasons it is my opinion that the planning commission should reconsider their August 7th action regarding Summerfield Phase II and request the applicant submit �` a variance petition for those items on the preliminary plat �" not conforming to those standards set forth in the subdivision ;: ordinance. Upon the submission of the variance petition, and '' a staff analysis of the petition, the planning commission will ;; have a legal basi� for either approving or dehying the vaziation ; in stanciards. � � � i �; �: � � �: � � � �