Planning Commission Packet - 09/18/1973 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PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and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.
(. ,,
AGENDA
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting - September 18, 1973
Twality Jr. High School - Lecture Room
14650 S.W. 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon
Study Session - 7:30 P.M.
Public Hearing - 8:00 P.M.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3. 1 Regular Meeting of August 12, 1973
3. 2 Regular Meeting of September 4, 1973
4. PUBLIC HEARING - Ash Avenue - Downtown Neighborhood Plan
A public hearing on a proposed detailed neighborhood plan as
prepared by the Neighborhood Planning Organization and the
City planning staff,
Testimony
Staff Recommendation
Commission Discussion and Action
5. PUBLIC HEARING - Conditional Use
5.1 Conditional Use CU 13-73 (Chamberlain)
(Continued from August 7 , 1973 hearing)
An application by Arrow Heating Company for consideration
of duplex dwelling units as a conditional use in an R-15,
Single Family Residential zone. This proposal is located
north of Walnut Street and 400 feet east of 121st, adjacent
the Brookway Subdivision. The proposal comprises 2. 5 acres.
(Tax Map 2S1 388, Tax Lots 100, 200, and 300)
Staff Findings
Testimony and Cross Examination
Staff Recommendation
Commission Discussion and Action
lik
5. 2 Conditional Use Extension CU 12-72 (McClements)
(Continued from September 4, 1973 hearing)
A request by Tigard Gymnastic School, 9914 S.W. Tigard
Street, to extend their existing conditional use permit
for an additional four years. The existing permit
expires September 19, 1973. The existing use is located
in an M-4, Industrial Park zone.
Staff Findings
Testimony and Cross Examination
Staff Recommendation
Commission Discussion and Action
6. SUBDIVISIONS - Variance
6.1 Summerfield Phase II (Tualatin Development Corp. )
Location : Approximately 1000 feet north of
S.W. Durham Road between S.W. 100th and
S.W. 109th Avenues
Staff Findings
Testimony
Staff Recommendation
Commission Discussion and Action
7. SUBDIVISIONS - Preliminary Plat Approval
7. 1 Summerfield Phase II (Tualatin Development Corp. )
Location: Approximately 1000 feet north of
Durham Road between S.W. 100th and
S.W. 109th Avenues
Staff Findings
Testimony
Staff Recommendations
Commission Discussion and Action
8. SUBDIVISIONS - Minor Land Partitioning
8. 1 Eckmann Property
Location : Behind Eckmann Construction located at
9035 S.W. Burnham Street (Tax Map 2S1 2,
Tax Lot 1600)
Staff Findings
Testimony
Staff Recommendation
Commission Discussion and Action
Page 2 - PC Agenda - September 18, 1973 !f
! `
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW
9,1 Timber Operators Council
Location : 6955 S.W. Sandburg Street
Staff Findings
Staff Recommendations
Commission Discussion and Action
' ' |
9.2 Ralph Leber Company
Location: 6900 S.W. Sandburg Street-south side
of Sandburg, past Toro in old filbert
orchard
^ , Steff Findings
Staff Recommendation
Commission Discussion and Action
10. MISCELLANEOUS ^ `
10. 1 Temporary Use Permit
Rommel & Stahl' Office
` }
Location : � 1I315 S.W. Durham Road
Staff Findings
Staff Recommendation
Commission Discussion and Action
10° 2 Summerfield - Request for approval of Gatehouse uee
location: intersection of S.W. Durham Road
and S.W. Summerfield Drive.
Staff 'Findings
Staff Recommendation
Commission Discussion and Action
10. 3 Summerfield - Information relating to approval of
Minor Changes and portions of the /
Final Development Plan _end Program |
by the Planning Director
. .
` ~ ]
Page 3 - PC Agenda - September 18, 1973
. _
,
I , ..
t
,
,
„
,
.
,
t
41: 11. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW '1
f
Tigard Radiator t'
1
i'
Location: Behind Eckmann Construction located at
9035 S.W. Burnham Street (Tax Map 251 2,
Tax Lot 1600)
..,
Staff Findings
Staff Recommendation
Commission Discussion and Action
,
12. ADJOURNMENT: v
r
,,..
1.,
I-
i.
(
,
t-
t
C ‘,
i
t
ti-
4
,
',..
,
t
t'
!.
1.,
f
i
i
t
f
,
i
i
1
i
,
(: Page 4 - PC Agenda - September 18, 1973
t=;lam C'° � ..
MINUTES
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
September 18, 1973
Twality Jr. High School lecture room
14650 S.W. 97th Ave.
Tigard, Oregon
Study Session - 7:30 P.M.
Public Hearing m 800 P.M.
1. CALL TO ORDER I.
A. The meeting was called to order at 7830 P.M.
2. ROLL CALL ',
A. Presents Commissioners Ball, Barkhurst, Hartman,
Lewis, Frazier, 5akat. , Nicola, Nickelson;
Chairman Whittaker: Planning Director,
Wink Brooks; Associate Planner, Dick Bolen:
City Attorney, Fred Anderson
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3.1 The regular meeting of August 21, 1973
A. The minutes were approved as sub,.hitted
3.2 The regular meeting of September 49. 1973
A. The minutes were approved as subvitted.
4. PUBLIC HEARING m Ash Avenue-Downtown Neighborhood Plan
4. 1 A public hearing on a proposed detailed Neighborhood Plan
as prepared by the Neighborhood Planning Organization
and the City Planning Starr. E
1. Testimony
A. Dick Bolen and Cliff Ashley, the N.P.O. Chairman,
presented the neighborhood plan. Mr. Ashley described
how the citizen group was orignially formed and how
the group conducted it planning study. Mr. Bolen
presented the displayed plan map and described the
major proposals contained in the Plan.
B. Following presentation of the plan the staff and
members of the N. P.O. fielded questions from the
audience.
C. Mrs. Ray Rihalar expressed concern over the improvement
of Ash Avenue between Frewing and Garrett Streets. She
stated that this would increase traffic in front of her
home and be an undesirable result.
H ,
D. Robert Jones of Garrett Street expressed concern over
increased traffic on his street. He said in his opinion
h
the Plan was illprepared and illconceived.
E. Mr. Bobbit of Ash Ave. stated that the area shown for
commercial-industrial use is more appropriately an
office area.
F. Al Hill of King City stated that this is "a fantastic
plan, expecially the portion recommending redevelopment
of the Downtown. He encouraged the Planning Commission
to adopt it and put it into effect as soon as possible. "
G. Mrs. Parker asked whether the areas in the County would
have to be annexed for the Plan to work. Mr. Whittaker
replied that no, the County could implement those portions
under their jurisdication if they so chose.
H. Mrs. Eggeard of Frewing stated that the N.P.O. was given
a difficult task and she felt they had done a commendable
job.
2. Staff Recommendation
A. The staff recommended that the Neighborhood Plntn be
adopted based upon the fact the testimony offered
at the last two public hearings has pointed out no
major flaws or brought to light new areas for con-
( sideration. The problems which have been discussed
at these hearings have been considered in depth by
they N.P.O. and the City Planning Staff. It is believed
that the best of alternative solutions have been chosen.
3. Commission Discussion and Action
A. Ball stated that there were some specific items that
he would like to see included within the Neighborhood
Plan, but that these could be adopted as a separate
recommendation to the City Council and he therefore
felt that the plan should be adopted at this time.
B. Hartman moved that the Planning Commission recommend
to City Council that the Ash Avenue-Downtown Neighborhood
Plan be adopted as submitted. Mickelson seconded and
the motion passed by unanimous vote of the Commission
present.
5. PUBLIC HEARING - Conditional Use
6.1 Conditional Use CU 13-73 (Chamberlain)
((Continued from August 7, 1973 meeting)
Page 2 - PC Minutes - 9-18-73
•
An applicat1on by Arrow Heating Company Tor consideration
of duplex dwelling units as a conditional use in an R®15,
Single Family Residential zone. This proposal is located
north of Walnut Street and 400 feet east of 121st, adjacent (,
the Brookway Subdivision. The proposal comprises 2.5 acres.
(Tax Map 251 3BB, Tax Lots 100, 200, and 300)
1. Staff Findings
A. The staff presented a list of 13 findings which presented
facts relevant to the project as well as a history of
past Planning Commission action on this propo=al.
2. Testimony and Cross Examination
A. Joe Chamberlain presented his proposal to the Planning
Commission and answered a list of 7 "Fasano" questions
supplied by staff. (�
B. Ball questioned the staff about finding number 4 which
states that the density of development would be 2.7
units per acre. Mr. Brooks replied that the 2.7 applies
to the entire project considered by the applicant which
would include the single family as well as duplex units.
The density of the area under consideration was part
of the conditional use would be 6.4 units to the acre.
Ball asked Brooks if h. would like to revise finding
number 4 and Brooks -tated that yes he would.
Opponents
A. Mr. Crittenden . f 124th Street asked if the duplex
area would have acc:ss to 124th. Mr. Chamberlain
replied that no they would not.
3. Staff Recommendation
A. The staff recommended approval based upon the presented
findings and previous testimony and with a list of
7 conditions.
4. Commission Discussion and Action
A. Ball stated his disagreement with staff finding number
5 which states that the project "will not adversely
affect the predominantly single family character of
this neighborhood. " He stated that "Placing a cluster
of single family character of that neighborhood,
contrary to the community plan. On this bases I can
not vote for the request. "
B. Mr. Brooks responded that these duplexes would be
above average units and in his estimation would not
have a detrimental impact on the neighborhood.
C. Lewis moved to approve the requested conditional use
based upon staff findings and presented testimony
(I. and to include the following conditions.
Page 3 - PC Minutes - 9-18-73
_ ml•EmIPMMIMINIMM
1. Th e. applicant shall deeLai.e Atha City, sufficient
• land to provide a 30 foot right-of-way width from
the centerline of Walnut Street.
(re' 2. The applicant shall agree to support the formation
of a local improvement dieAtrict to bring S.W. Walnut
Street up to City collector street standards and
that the present property owner (s) shall execute
a recordable covenant herewith.
3. All lots for duplexes shall cover a minimum land
area of 8,000 square feet.
4. The site, landscaping and architectural plans of
the proposed duplex development shall be approved •
by the Planning Co ,mission.
5. All utilities shall be placed underground.
6. The applicant shall provide access to the subject
duplex lots meeting the standards of the City
Subdivision Ordinance, or as an alternate, may
attempt to vary said standards by filing petition
for variance as defined by Chapter 17.48 of the
Tigard Municipal Cod...
7. Vehicular maneuvering areas shall be located on
the duplex lots so that no backing movements are
made onto S.W. Walnut Street.
Added by Planning CoReission
8. That the final density for the applicants proposed
total 9.77 acre development shall not exceed
an overall density of 2.7 dwelling units per acre.
5.2 Conditional Use Extension CU 12-72 (McClements)
(Continued from Setpember 4, 1973 hearing)
A request by Tigard Gymnastic School, 9914 S.W. Tigard
Street, to extend their existing conditional use permit
for an additional four years. The existing permit
expires September 19, 1973. The existing use is located
in an M-4, Industrial Park zone.
10 Staff Findings
A. The staff presented the history of Planning Commission
action on this matter tnd pointed out that no problems
have occured since the original permit use granted one
year ago. However, the staff did express concern that
increased development is occuring in the area which
could be detrimental to the operation of a school of
this nature.
(re
Page 4 - PC Minutes - 9-18-73
•
2. Testimony \easd Cross Examination
A. Proponents
1. Mr. McClements represented himself and attempted
to answer the "Fasano" related questions supplied
him by staff.
B. Opponents
1. No one appeared to speak in opposition to the
request.
3. Staff Recommendation
A. Based upon staff findings and submitted testimony
the staff recommended extension of the conditional
use permit for additional 2 years.
4. Commission Discussion and Action
A. Barkhurst moved that based upon staff findings the
conditional use be extended for a two year period.
At the end of this time the Planning Commission will
again review the use to assure that it has remained
compatible with surrounding developments. Nicoli
seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote
of the Commission present.
6. SUBDIVISIONS - Variance
6.1 Summerfield Phase II (Tualatin Development Company)
Location. Approximately 1000 feet north of S.W.
', Durham Road between S.W. 100th and
S.W. 109th Ave.
1. Staff Findings
A. The staff presented findings which included a list
of those standards in the City's subdivision ordinance
which the applicant was requesting variance from.
B. Ball stated that he h=d been contacted previously in
the day by legal counsel for the applicant. He
supplied Mr. Nostal with information describing the
procedural history of the Summerfield project. This
included items such as staff raports9 minutes, and
memos from the City Administrator, City Attorney,
and Planning Director. He pointed out that Mr. Nostal
made no attempt to persuade him in any way and that
it was his feeling that his objectivity in this matter
had not been compromised. He therefore would not
refrain from voting but would invite any comment from
anyone on the Commission or any interested parties.
Page 5 - PC Minutes - 9-18-73
S „
•
C /—
2. Testimony and Cross Examination
A. Proponents
a. Mr. Nostal spoke for the applicant, beginning with
a statement of the extreme need by the Tualatin
Development Company for an immediate decision on
their request. Mr. Nostal spoke to several items
as summarized below:
1. The preliminary plat submitted tonight includes
several changes suggested by the staff from the
plat which was approved on August 21, 1973 and
which was subsentpu,ntly disapproved on September
4th. These (.. 1.nyes include the extension of
the previous dead end street in the northern
portion of the plat and greater pavement widths.
20 He took issue with the City Attorney's inter-
,
pretation of the subdivision ordinance stating
that in his opinion a large scale development
such as Summerfield is not required to seek
variances for departures from the ordinance
requirements.
•
3. That the Planned Development zone is intended
to encourge creation of innovative techiques
of land development resulting in a superior
living environment and greater economies of
development. T.D.C. is attzmpting to utilize
this intention fo the P-D zone in their
development and has be=an developing the project
as approved by the City of Tigard with the
P-D zone change. He pointed out that the
approval given at the time of the zone change
included a map, to scale, showing street widths
in the various portions of the project. He
cnncluc ' that approval, of the street width
at the , ie the zone was changed should imply
subsequt approval as each phase of development
is submitted.
4. That the Planning had no legal reason for its
action of September 4th reversing its approval
of the Summerfield Phase II preliminary plat
of August 21st.
5. That the 40 day period given the Planning
Commission for consideration of a preliminary
plat has passed an an extreme hardship has
been placed upon the applicant by the considerable
deliberations.
•
ge. Page 6 - PC Minutes - 9_18-73
(..... 4"
Iy
6. That the golf course has been installed
Avir according to the approval given with the
`-' P-D zone and to make major alterations now
would require changing its layout.
B. George Marshall of T.D.C. spoke, stating that he
and his company do not understand the otiticism '
now being directed to Phase II of the project.
They have come up to all of the requirements of
the original P-0 zone and have made improvements
according to staff suggestions. He said "We f
have gone the extra mile and do not understand C.
the present problems".
2. Opponents
A. There was no one present in opposition to
i
the request. f
3. Staff Recommendation Iii
A. Fred Anderson spoke to the legal points raisd by
Mr. Hostel which summarily stated that he did not 4i
concur with his interpretations of the Municipal li
Code and that he still find, it necessary for the
applicant to receive a variance for the departures
from the ordinance requirements included in the
submitted preliminary plat. J!
B. Mr. Anderson pointed out that the length of time
which has been involved in considering this proposal
has in part been th fault of the applicant. That
what has been described as a somewhat hasty decision
by the Planning Commission on August 21.-�t was at
the insistence =.nd pressure of Mr. Gorge Marshall
of T.D.C. Due to the illegalities resulting from
this decision, the Planning Commission found it J
necessary to reverse its position on Sept. 4th.
1
C. In response to Mr. Nostales statement that narrow
streets should be permitted to achieve the economies
spoken to in the P-D zone, Mr. Anderson stated that l
these economies should not be made at the expense of
the public safety and welfare.
D. Chairman Whittaker requested that the Planning
Commission direct their attention to the items at
hand and that any further debate on the merits of
previous action be curtailed. `'
ti
f`
Page 7 - PC Minutes m 9, 18-73
e,
E. Mr. Brooks recommended approval of the variance
with the exception that no variance from the stand-
ards of the subdivision ordinance be allowed for
streets with in the townhouse area.
4. Commission Discussion and Action
A. Lewis moved that all the requested variances
in the submitted preliminary plat be approved.
B. Barkhurst seconded.
C. Mr. Anderson stated that the findings providing
the bases for this motion must be stated.
D. Barkhurst said that the findings should include
George Marshall's letter submitted with the
variance application and testimony offered for the
applicant tonight.
E. Whittaker stated that due to testimony given
by the Fire Marehal, on S..pt;mber 4, 19730 he
is concerned that approval of the variancee;
could be adverse to the public safety.
F. Ball stated his agreement with Whittaker's
statement and added that the suggestion that parking
be permitted only on one side of the street is
to hope for a solution which probably will not
(e
come. However, based upon the testimony which has
been given the staff recommendation he will vote
according to the staff recommendation.
G. Lewis amended his motion to include the widening
of Greenleaf Terrace by 4 feet of paved are and
the radii of the two corners by 4 feet and to
include a request to the City Council to restrict
parking on one side of the street.
H. Frazier commented that he was concerned about
the public safety and felt that we should listen
to the experts, in this case the Fire Marshal,
when it comes to the needs for fighting fires.
I. Mr. Lewis's motion was put to a vote which resulted
in a tie and there by failed. Voting yes were
Lewis, Barkhurst, Hartman, Nicoli, Voting no were
Ball, Whittaker, Sakata, and Mickelson.
41L Page 8 - PC Minutes - 9-.18-73
J. Ball moved to approve the variance as recommended
by staff and provided that the conditions are met
under the variance section of the subdivision ordinance.
Hartman seconded.
K. This motion failed by a 7 to 2 vote, Ball and Hartman
voting yes.
L. Mr. Lewis moved to approve the variance with the
exception of 34 foot pavement widths in the 3 townhouse
areas specified by the staff. Nicoli seconded.
M. This motion paesed by a majority with Barkhurst,
Whittaker, and Mickalson voting no; Bally Hartman,
Lewis, Frazier, and Nicoll voting yes; and Sakata
abstaining.
7. SUBDIVISIONS - Preliminary Plat Approval
7.1 Summerfiedl Phase II (Tualatin Development Company)
Location: Approximately 1000 feet north of
Durham Road between S.W. 100th and
S.W. 109th Ayes.
1. Staff Findings
A. Mr. Brooks presented the staff findings.
2. Commission Discussion and Action
( A. Lewis moved to approve the preliminary plat and to
give the Planning Director authority to see that the
preliminary plat is resubmitted to reflect the
changes required by th:; previous variance approval.
Barkhurst seconded and the motion was approved by
a unanimous vote.
8. SUBDIVISIONS - Minor Land Partitioning
8.1 Eckmann Construction Property
Location: Behind Eckmann Construction located at
9035 S.W. Buenham Street (Tax Map 251 2,
Tax Lot 1600)
1. Staff Findings
A. Mr. Brooks presented the staff findings
2. Staff Recommendation
A. The staff recommended approval of the request
based upon two conditions
3. Commission Discussion and Action
A. Ball moved to approve the request based upon staff
findings and including the staff recommendations
that
Page 9 - PC Minutes - 9-18-73
. , 01•11•11111■11M
•
1. The` applicant shall submit, for-staff approval,
a legal document indicating the provision for
access by easement to the subject partitioning.
x 2. The applicant shall agree to support the
formation of a local improvement district to
bring S.W. Burnh.m Street up to City collector
street standards and that the present property
owner (s) shall execute recordable covenant
herewith.
B. The motion was seconded by Frazi.r and passed by a
majority vote with Barkhurst voting no.
9. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW
9.1 Timber Operators Council
Location: 6955 S.W. Sandburg Street
1. Staff Findings
A. Mr. Brooks pr.sented the staff findings
2. Staff Recommendation
A. The staff recommended approval of the site
development plan, ;=s submitted.
3. Commission Discussion and Action
A. Barkhurst moved to approve the plan based upon staff
findings and Hartman seconded. The motion passed
by a unanimous vote.
9.2 Ralph Leber Company
Location: 6900 S.W. Sandburg Street-south side of
Sandburg, past Toro and the old filbert
orchard.
1. Staff Findings
A. Mr. Brooks presented staff findings.
2. Staff Recommendation
A. Staff recommended approval of the site development
plan to include three conditions.
3. Commission Discussion and Action
A. Lewis moved that the submitted site plan be approved
and include the staff recommended conditions:
1. The applicant revise the site plan so as to
eliminate the possibility of truck maneuvering
within the public right-of-way.
Page 10 - PC Minutes - 9-18-73
�rtl
2. The applicant submit for staff approval, a
revised landscape plan showing specific land-
( soaping treatment for the following deficiencies:
A. Lack of planting along the end of the westerly
parking ;; rea.
B. Lack of planting along site obscuring fence
5 feet from easterly property line.
C. Lack of any specified landscape treatment on
rear portion of site.
3. The applicant submit for staff approval, assurance
that water will be available to plant materials
or other such assurance that plant materials will
survive periods of drought.
B. Nicoli seconded the motion and it passed by a majority
vote with the chairman voting no.
9.3 Tigard Radiator .
Loc: tiono Behind Eckmann Const. located at 9035
S.W. Burnham Street.
1. Staff Findings
A. Mr. Brooks presented the :-taff findings
2. Staff Recommendation
A. The staff recommended approval of the site
development plan with the inclusion of two
condition,.
3. Commission Discussion and Action
A. Ball moved that the site development plan be approved
to include the staff recommended conditions:
1. The applicant submit for staff approval a revised
landscape plan showing a specified landscaping
treatment for the strip of land located along the
southerly half of the northwestern property
boundary. Said revised plan to also indicate
appropriate living ground cover in the areas where
Pinus Conturta are proposed.
2. The applicant submit for staff approval assurance
that water will be available to plant materials
or other such assurance that all materials will
survive periods of drought.
s
Page 11 - PC Minutes - 9-18-73
Iff . _
41.7
C
B. The motion was seconded by Hartman and passed by
a unanimous vote.
9.4 Hulburt Steak House
Location: On Shady Lane Street next to the Shell Station.
1. Staff Findings
Ao Mr. Brooks presented the staff findings.
2. Staff Recommendation
A. The staff recommended that the site plan be approved
with the condition that an additional tree be placed
in the center of the parking lot.
3. Commission Discussion end Action
Ao Lewis moved to approve the site plan with the condition
that one parking space in the center of the parking
lot be removed to provide for a tree. Nicoli seconded
the motion and the vote was unanimous.
10. MISCELLANEOUS
10.1 Temporary Use Permit Rommel and Stahl Architects
Location: 11315 S.W. Durham Road.
1. St= f f Findings
A. Mr. Brooks presented the staff findings
2. Staff Recommendation
A. Staff recommended approval of the applicant°s
request.
3. Commission Discus=ion and Action
A. Lewis moved to approve the request and Ball
seconded. The vote was unanimous in favor of
the motion.
10.2 Summerfield: Request for approval of Gatehouse Use
Location: Intersection of S.W. Durham Road and
S.W. Suthmerfield Dr.
1. Staff findings
A. Mr. Brooks presented the staff findings.
2. Staff Recommendation
A. Staff recommended that the uses proposed by the
applicant be approved.
3. Commission Discussion and Action
A. Lewis moved to approve the request and Hartman
seconded. The motion was approved by a majority vote
with Ball abstaining.
•
10.3 Summerfiefda Information relating to the approval of
minor changes in a portion of the Fin.1
Development Plan and Program by the
Planning Director.
1,, Staff Findings
A. Mr. Brooks explained this item stating that the
Tualatin Development Co. has requested a change in
standards for S.W. Summerfield Dr. relating to
right-of-way, sidewalk and bike way widths.
2. Commission Discussion and Action
A. Whittaker stated that he would like a joint
session arranged between the Planning Commission
and City Council and Tualatin Development Co. to
discuss the continued development of the Summerfield
project.
B. Ball stated that he felt this matter was within the
purview of the Planning Director.
10.4 Summerfield; Changes in the Site Development Plan for
the Recreation Building
1. Staff Findings
A. Mr. Brooks stated that the changes suggested are
within his powers of approval as delineated in
the Planned Development Zone but he was bringing
these changes to the Planning Commissions attention
for any response they might have.
11
2. Commission Discussion and Action
A. The Planning Commissioners concurred with Mr. Brooks
decision on this matter and said that they had no
objections.
11. NON AGENDA ITEMS
1. Lewis moved that the Planning staff be instructed to revise
the Subdivision Ordinance to conforh to the intent of the
P-D zone in the zoning ordinance
•
2. Ball seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous
3. Staff requested that the Planning Commission instruct
them as to whether fees should be charged for a temporary
use application.
Page 13 - PC Minutes - 9-18-73
A. They pointed out that the Municipal Code does not
prescribe a fee for the temporary use but states
that the variance procedure and in other instances,
conditional use procedure, is to be used. Both
of these procedures have fees specified and the
staff recommended that the fee be. assessed according
to the proCedure used.
B. The Planning Commission concurred with staff and instructed
them to charge fees according to the procedure specified
in the Municipal Code.
12. ADJOURNMENT: 1:02 P.M.
C
Page 14 - PC Minutes - 9-1B-73
(i„„
I t
l TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
September 18, 1973
Agenda Item 4 •
Ash Avenue—Downtown Neighborhood Plan
The following is a staff recommendation concerning how the
Planning Commission should deal with the above titled plan.
At the September 4th hearing, the Planning Commission took
P 9� 9
testimony concerning the Neighborhood Plan. Prior to rendering
a. decision on the plan, the decision was made to take additional
testimony at the September 18 hearing. The staff feels theat
the submitted plan has been well received by the community and
no serious flaws were exposed by the people who testified. In
addition, the Commission itself voiced no major objections to
the Plan' s proposals. Therefore, the staff recommends that
the Planning Commission adopt the Plan at the September 18th
hearing, providing that the following events occur.
1. That the additional testimony offered does
not bring to light any flaws or major objections
which would require further consideration and
review.
2. That the Planning Commissioners give the Plan extensive
study, coming to the meeting prepared to recommend
changes where they deem necessary.
3. That any changes the Commission deems necessary can be •
accomplished without further, study and staff work.
The motion to adopt the Plan should include wording which would
enable the staff to clean up the preliminary draft from a
technical standpoint and produce a nearly finished product for
Council consideration.
If the Commission does not choose to adopt the Plan on the 18th, •
the staff recommends that further deliberations be made at the
September 25th study session. If this course of action is
necessary, it is hoped that the Commission will be able to adopt
the Plan at their first meeting in October. The staff and the
Neighborhood Planning Organization feel confident about this
plan and would like to see it approved by both the Planning
Commission and Council as expeditiously as possible.
{
II
ir
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
September 18, 1973
(Continued from August 7, 1973)
Agenda Item Sal
CU 1373
41
4'.
Conditional Use
For property located north of Walnut Street and 400 feet ,
east of S.W. 121st Avenue, adjacent the Brookway Subdivision.
Applicant
Arrow Heating Company
Applicant's Request
Conditional use approval to allow duplex dwelling units
in an R-159 single family residential zone.
Applicants Proposal
To subdivide 2.5 acres into 8 duplex lots in a total subdivision j
proposal that encompasses 9.77 acres and includes 10 lots
for single family residential development.
Existing Conditions
Surrounding Land Uses
1i.
A residential subdivision exists to the west, forested land
to the north and south and scattered residential and agricultural
uses to the east.
Surrounding zonings
R-7 zoning exists adjacent the south and west sides of the fi
site. Suburban Residential zoning exists adjacent the north fi
and northeastern portion of the site. A duplex conditional
use was approved on the south side of Walnut, adjacent the
fi
subject site, last April.
Access'
Public access to the site is provided by 580 feet of frontage
on S.W. Walnut Street and 570 feet of frontage on S.W. 124th
Avenue. The northerly portion of the site is adjacent an
unnamed creek indicated on the Tigard Community Plan as a
potential greenway area.
I',
i;
Utilities:
IL LY
Water is available from the Tigard Water District and 1
sewer service from the Unified Sewerage Agency. F
Revised Staff Findknas
1. The applicant has requeQted by letters application for
conditional use for a planned residential development on iI
9.77 acres be revised to include only a request for duplex
conditional use on 2.5 acres of the same development. I
2. The Planning Commission at its June 19s 1973 regular ;!
meeting tabled this agenda item to allow the applicant .
to confer with the staff and the City Attorney regarding
the requirements set' down by the Oregon Supreme Court in !,
the Fasano case. The applicant has conferred with the
staff and the City Attorney has written an opinion stating
that conditional use approvals must be based on findings
related to the "guideline-:. and procedural requirements" I.
of the Fasano Case. i
3. On August 7th the Planning Commission again tabled this
agenda item so "that the applicant may fully consider
his option; and and instruct the staff as to how he wishes
to proceed". The staff has been informed by the applicant
that he wishes to proceed as beforee with the same proposal.
4. The subject site is designated "Urban Low Density Residential"
"
of dwelling units per gross
Navin a maximum desnity f 4 dw
having Y 9 P 9
acre. The applic:=nt proposes a density of 2.7 units per
gro :, acre. The subject property is zoned R-15 allowing
the development of 28 dwelling units. The applicant pro-
poses 26 dwelling units. The staff finds the applicant's
proposal conforms with the density provisions of the
Tigard Community Plan and City of Tigard Zoning Ordinance.
5. The Tigard Community Plan states the following objectives:
I
Objective: To provide areas of the City having a predom-
inately single-family residential character.
The staff finds that this project will not adversely
affect the predominately single family character of this
neighborhood as it is Planning Commission policy to
allow duplex development only on arterial or collector
streets. This leaves the bulk of residentally zoned
land for single family development. The staff finds the
siting and landscaping for the proposed units to reflect
a single-family residential character rather than a
multi- family character.
Page 2 ® Staff Report ® Chamberlain - 9-18-73
Objectives To permit densities that will economically
support the cost of necessary public services and
and facilities, such as paved streets, pedestrian
ways, and utilities.
Staff finds the proposed density adequate to economically
support the cot of necessary public services, as the proposed
density closely conforms to the allowable density. Sewer and
water service is available adjacent the site. Streets and ,
access ways within the proposed development will be paved
at the owners expense the applicant has agreed to dedicate I
land sufficient to provide a 30 foot right-of-way width
from the center line of Walnut Street and to support a local 1
improvement district for the future improvement of Walnut
Street to City collector street standards.
Objectives To permit a variety of housing types to meet the r
needs of different family size and income.
The staff finds the applicant's proposal adds variety to the
City's housing stock, providing housing necessary to meet the
needs of family's with above average incomes. The applicant I,
has stated the proposed duplex units will cost approximately
$60,000 - $70,000 c,
1
6. The applicant's property is not suitable for the 1,
continuation of the City's proposed greenway system
as an existing dedicated right-of-way exists 800 feet
to the west. A continuation of the greenway system through
the applicants property would duplicate an existing facility
and provide the possibility of potential use conflicts
between the public and private landowners within the
proposed development. The terminus of the proposed route [
through applicants property and the route to the west
1
is in approximately the same general location, The 1,1
staff finds a greenway route through the applicant's f
property an unnecessary duplication of facilities. P
7e The applicant has satifactorily met all but one requirement
of the Fasano Case by proving conformance with the Tigard
Community Plan, community need, changes in condition,
I
lack of other zoned land for the proposed use and no
substantial effect on the surrounding community. f
Availability of public services is the only questionable
"Fasano" related area that affects the applicant's request.
This situation is due to the recently enacted sewer
moratorium and rationing of sewer permits. At the present
time adopted City policy statess L
le
illi. Page 3 - Staff Report - Chamberlain - 9-18-73 (
1
,
ff
Ez, i
Q ". . .That residential sewer permits be limited
to single family detached development"
° "No permits will be issued for construction in k
new subdivisions which were not of record as ,
of the date of the moratorium. However,
subdivisions presently being reviewed by the
City, will continue to be processed so that at
the time capacity becomes available, developers
will be able to proceed with construction. ',
This policy is only temporary until the Durham Sewerage f'
Treatment Plant is completed and its capacity available
for use. In as much as public funds have been committed 1
to construct the Durham Plant and that this facility is 4i,
to be completed within two years, the staff finds avail- 1'
ability of sewer service to be temporarily delayed, jj
Thus, it can be construed that the "Fasano" related fl
question of public services has been met except for the rl
matter of timing. Adequate public water, police, fire ,
and educational services are available to the subject
site. ''
9. The applicant proposes to underground all utilities.
Revised Recommendations
1
Based upon the above descriptions and findings, it is recom-
mended the applicant's request be approved with the following
conditions
1. The applicant shall dedicate to the City, sufficient land
to provide a 30 foot right-of-way width from the center-
line of Walnut Street.
2. The applicant shall agree to support the formation of
a local improvement district to bring S.W. Walnut Street
up to City collector street standards and that the present
property owner (s) shall execute a recordable covenant
herewith.
3. All lots for duplexes shall cover a minimum land area
of 8,000 square feet.
4. The site and landscaping plans of the proposed duplex
development shall be approved by the Planning Commission.
5. All utilities shall be placed underground. z
6. The applicant shall provide access to the subject duplex
lots meeting the standards of the City Subdivision Ordinance, ;{
Page 4 - Staff Report - Chamberlain ® 9-18-7
4
` or as an alternate, may attempt to vary said standards
by filing petition for variance as defined by Chapter
1.7.48 of the Tigard Municipal Code.
7e Vehicular maneuvering areas shall be located on the
duplex lots so that no backing movements are made
onto S.W. Walnut Steeetm
Page 5 - Staff Report - Chamberlain - 9-18-73
•
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
Y September 19, 1973
(Continued from September 4,
( P , 1 197 3)
Agenda Item 5.2
CU 12-72 (McCle.ent's-Tigard Gymnastic School)
Conditional Use°Extension
For property located in an M-4, Industrial Park
zone located at 9914 S.W. Tigard Street, in the
Tigard Industrial Park. (Ta)< Map 251 2BA, Tax Lot 300)
2plicant
Tigard Gymnastic School
Applicant ' s Request
Approval of a four year extension of a conditional
use permit granted for one year by the Planning
Commission on September 19, 1972.
Applicant ' s Proposal
To L,ontinue the present use until such time as the
applicant can construct a building specifically for
gymnastic school use.
Staff Findings
1 . Staff finds the Planning Commission at their
September 19, 1972 public hearing approved the
applicant ' s request +'or a "conditional use
permit to allow gymnastic ,r lasses on an 11-4,
Industrial Park parcel" with the following condition:
"That the conditional use permit shall be in
effect for one year, and then may be extended
with Planning Commission approval".
2. Staff finds that no complaints have been directed
to the City concerning the subject use.
3. Staff finds additional industrial and office'
developments are planned for the subject site.
These developments may affect the suitability of
the site for the subject use because of. increased
truck and other traffic to proposed adjacent `
buildings p
i<,
•
fj
4. Staff finds the applicant' s justification
as stated on the required application form
is as follows :
o "Present use for gymnastics instruction
has not created any problems and provides
adequate parking and off-street reduced
hazards to the students. Cost of building
preparation for painting and equipment
installation require additional amortisation
of the next 4 years. Require additional four
years of conditional use produce adequate
reserves for a building specifically designed �,.
for gymnastic instruction."
Staff Recommendations
Based upon the staff findings, the staff recommends tr
extension of the conditional use permit 'or an
additional two years. At the end of said two year
period, the Planning Commission shall again review
the applicant' s use for suitability in an r1-4,
Industrial Park zone , and if suitable, recommend
further extension of the conditional use.
}
r
_ s
t
Page 2 - Staff Report - Tigard Gymnastic School - September 4, 1973
•
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Sta `f Report
{
Subdivisions - Variance
September 18, 1973
6.1 Summerfield Phase II (Tualatin Development Corp. )
Location: Approximately 1000 feet north of
S.W. Durham Road, between S.W. 100th
and S.W. 109th Avenues
Staff Findings
•
1. The applicant (T.D.C. ) requests variances from
the standards eetforth in the subdivision ordinance
These variances are related to Chapter 17.28,
(Streets), Tigard Municipal Code, and are described
as follows.
Section 17.28.040 Minimum right-of-way and widths for
road surfacing
1. Right-of-way widths
° Single family areas-no variance
° Townhouse area-variance from a required
50 feet to 40 feet.
2. Street paving widths
o family Single area-variance g family riance Prom a required.. :
34 feet to 32 feet
° Townhouse areas-variance from a required 34
feet to 24 feet.
3. Cul-de-sac right-of-way widths
• S.W. Greenleaf Ct.-variance from a required
50 feet to 34 feet.
° S.W. Greenleaf Terrace-variance from a required
50 feet to 24 feet
o S.W. Highland Drive-variance from a required 50
feet to 40 feet
4. Cul-de-sac paving widths
° Single family area; lstub streets, variance from
a required 34 feet to 16 feet
o Single family area; east end Highland Drive-
variance from a required 34 feet to 31 feet.
° Townhouse area; S.W. Greenleaf Terrace.-variance
from a requimd 34 feet to 16 feet.
o Townhouse area; S.W. Greenleaf 'Ct.-variance
from a required 34 feet to 26 feet.
Section 17.28.060 AliQnuent�
1. Intersection offset be ween stub street on
S.W. Highland Drive and S.W. Gresnway-variance
from a required 100 foot offset to a 77 foot
offset.
Section 17.28.080 Int rsection Angles
1. Minimum intersection radius at the intersection
of S.W. Greenaway and S.W. Greenleaf Ct.--variance
from a required 20 foot radius to a 10 foot radius.
Section 17.28.130 Grades and Curves
1. S.W. Highland Drive; cu*ve a jjacent proposed lot
226-variance from a required 100 foot centerline
radius to an 85 foot radius
2. S.W. Highland Drive; curve adjacent proposed
lots 293-variance from a required 100 foot radius
to a 77 foot radius.
2. The applicant has submitted a petition for variance in
the form of a letter. This letter is dated and was
received September 13, 1973. A revised preliminary plat
was submitted with the letter.
3. The request for a variance from right-of-way and paving
width standards in the townhouse area is not justified.
The applicant proposes a 40 foot right-of-way width,
where 50 feet is required and 24 feet of paving, where
34 feet is required. Considering the higher density of
buildings, traffic anc `.popul,ation it is reasonable to
expect streets to at least meet standards for the
lower density single family areas.
In the townhouse area 69 dwelling units are located
along approximately 1130 feet of frontage, while in the
single family area 32 units are located along approximately
1180 feet of frontage. The density in the townhouse area
is approximately twice that of the single family area,
(113 people vs. 61 people at 1.92 people per dwelling
unit) and generates twice the traffic on streets that
are a lesser standard than the lower density single
family area.
Higher density development creates higher life loss
potentials during emergencies, thus every possible means
should be taken to maximize public safety in higher
density areas of the Summerfield Development. Wider streets
provide better access and maneuvering for emergency
vehicles, better fire break areas in case of fire and
increased traffic and pedestrian safety.
Page 2 - Subdivisions - Summerfield - 9-18-73
� I
" .
;y
(7 ,. _ 4* According to Chapter 17.48.020, Tigard Municipal , i,
Code, the planning 'commission, "in order for the F
property referred to in the petition to come within
the provisions of this chapter. . .shall. ..find the following r'
facts with respect thereto:
(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 of
the petitioner and extraordinary hardships would result
from strict compliance with these regulations because
of the special circumstances s
to
nces or conditions affecting
the property
(3) That the granting, of the variance will not bs
detrimental to the public health, safety, or - ;
welfare or injurious to other property in the
vicinity in which the property is situated."
f:"1
licatn has submitted a letter, referred to in '
S. The app a
fi4nding two, j
, as his justification that the findings required 9
by Section 17.40.020, Tigard Municipal Code, have been met. ",
This letter has been attached to the staff report for your
review. ,
Staff Recommendation
Approval of requested variances with the exception
that no variance from the standards of the subdivision
ordinance be allowed for streets within the townhouse area.
;i
is
.F
Page 3 - Subdivisions - Su�werfi•ld 9-18-73
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
Subdivisions ® Preliminary Plat approval
September 18, 1973
7.1 Summerfield Phase II (Tualatin Development Corp. )
Locations Approximately 1000 feet north of S.W. Durham
Road between S.W. 100th and 109th Avenue.
Staff Findings
1. The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat
and petition for variance on September 13, 1973.
2. The applicant's preliminary plat submission meets the
submission requirements set forth in Chapter 17.16 of
the Tigard Municipal Code.
3. As the preliminary plat varies from the standards
required by the City Subdivision Ordinance, approval
of the preliminary plat will directly relate to the
approval of variances requirested by the applicant.
4. The staff has made a recommendation to the Planning
Commission on those variances related to the subject
"Summerfield-Phase II" preliminary plat.
5. The subject preliminary plat meets all standards of ti
the subdivision ordinance, with the exception of
those defined in •defined in the variance procedure.
6. The Planning Commission, according to Section 17.16.100
Tentative Approval, Tigard Municipal Code,"may give
tentative approval of the preliminary plat as submitted
or as it may be modified or, if disapproved, shall
express its disapproval and its reasons therfor.
Approval of the preliminary plat shall indicate the
Planning Commission's approval of the final plat
provided there is no change in the plan of subdivision
as A hown on the preliminary plat and there is full
compliance with all requirements of this title."
The City Attorney has stated it is his opinion that the
preliminary plat must be approved, as presented, or
disapproved with stated reasons for such disapproval.
re°
Staff Recommendation
The Planning Commission flats two courses of action and
they are summarized as follows:
le If the staff recommendation for the subject variance
action is approved, the Planning Commission may elect
to disapprove the Preliminary plat or take no action
and request the applicant submit a modified preliminary
plat for later actions
The reason for this course of action is necessitated by the
fact that non-approval of any requested variance item has
been reflected on the preliminary plat will necessitate a
change in the preliminary pla„„„
20 If the Planning Commission elects to approve all
requested variances, then the Commission may take action
for approval.
Page 2 - Summerfield ® Staff Report 9-18-73
- • `
•
•
^~
` . �~
k �~ '
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
|
Subdivisions-Minor Land Partitioning
September 18, I973
8. 1 Eckmann Property
Location: Behind Eckmann Construction,
Located at 9035 S.W. Burnham Street
(Tax Map 2S1 2, Tax Lot 1600)
Staff Findings
1. The applicant proposes to divide his existing
~ 56 acre parcel into two lots to allow the
Ghoo
construction of a radiator shop.
2. The existing parcel is 217 feet by I12 feet with
the Eckmann Construction office on the westerly half.
3. The lot has access to Burnham Street by means of a
30 foot wide easement, extending across the adjacent
lot which is 170 feet deep. This easement is paved
and serves three businesses; Modern Plumbing,
�_ , �iI'a��- Automot�U� S�rv�oo' aOd [ch0ann Construotion. The
Zoning Ordinance (Section I8° 64°03O\ requires and
easement 30 feet wide with 24 feet of pavement width.
The applicant agrees to meet this standard.
� !
4. The proposed radiator shop will be on the eastern
boundary of the property/ one foot from the railroad
right-of-uayp as permitted by the Zoning Ordinance
(Section 18^ 48" 030" 4\
^ (
Staff Recommendation
� }
The staff recommends approval of the requested minor
land partitioning with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall submit, for staff approval, a legal
document (s) indicating the provision for access by
easement to the subject partitioning.
. 1
2. The applicant shall agree to support the formation of
. ' a local improvement district to bring S.W. Burnham '
Street up to City collector street standards and that
the present property owner (s) shall execute a recordable
covenant herewith.
���
^.' ��`
, `^ ' ^ '� ^�
� >'` � ��.-�'''�`�� (���' � � � ^�,��
~~_ ' . `
•
•
6.
� ~
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report !
Site Development Plan Review
September 18, 1973
(Continued from September 4, 1973\
' |
9.1 Timber Operators Council
Location: 6956 S.W. Sandburg Street.
Staff FindiOqB
1. The applicant has submitted landscape and site
plans sufficient to meet ths intent of submission
requirements set forth in Chapter 18. 58 of the
Tigard Municipal Code.
2. The applicant ' s submitted site plin meets the
requirements and standards set froth in Titles l7 and 18
of the Tigard Municipal Code. .�
3. The applicant, at the September 4th hearing submitted a
revised landscape plan. This plan, dated as revised
August 30, 1973, deletes retaining walls and plant
materials along the exterior portions of the property and
the building. Staff has reviewed the revised landscape
plan dated August 30, 1973 and finds said plan in con-
formance with the standards set forth in Title 18 of
the Tigard Municipal Code.
Staff Recommendation
----
1. Approval of th3 applicant' s landscape and site plan
as submitted by the applicant and officially received
by the City September 10, 1973.
9. 2 Ralph Leber Company
/ |
Location : 6900 S.W. Sandburg Street-south side of
Sandburg past Toro and in old Filbert orchard
Staff Findings
` ]
1. The applicant has submitted landscape and site plans
sufficient to meet the intent of submission requirements
set forth in Chapter 18. 68 of the Tigard Municipal Code.
2. The applicant ' s site plan indicates a truck maneuvering
area is proposed in the 20 foot landscaped front yard
���
as required by Section 18. 58.080 (2) , Tigard Municipal
�L ' Code. This truck loading and maneuvering area would
--�-��'�'
`
necessitate maneuvering within the public right-of-way.
. e.~ -
Sect�ion 18. 60.150 /a\ , �Tigard Municipal Code, states
"groups of two or more parking spaces shall be designed
and constructed so that no backing movements or other
maneuvering within a street Other than an alley will be
required. "
3. Th e applicant' s landouap e plan does
not comply with
h
section 18. 58° 080 (2) from the standpoint that "all
area not occupied by paved rmsdusyd, structures o r walk-
ways ueye
ahaII be landscaped. " All arede of the eito, as
indicated on the applicants landscape plan, are not given
a specified landscape treatment. Areas of special staff
concern are as follows:
o lack of planting along the end of westerly parking
area
° lack of planting along site obscuring fence five
feet from easterly property line.
» lack of any specified landscape treatment on rear
portion of stte.
"
4. The applicant has provided no assurance that plant
� materials will survive periods
of drought. No irrigation n
v= system or hose bibs are shown, the availability of which
would ensure landscaping maintenance and continued growth.
No statement has been made by a compotent landscape
specialist that all plant materials are drought resistant.
5. The applio' nt has been contacted and is aware of the
above findings.
Staff Recommendations
Approval of site and landscaping plans with the following
conditions : (
1. The applicant revise site plan so as to eliminate the
possibility of truck maneuvering within the public
right-of-way.
}
2^ The applicant submit for staff vol' a revised
landscape plan showing apeoifibd`'landaoaping treatment
for those items identified in finding three of this
staff report.
3. The applicant submit for staff ppOroVaI, assurance that
water will be available to plan materials or other such
assurance that plant materials will survive periods of
u��
��r drought. `_ ^
Page Site Development - Sept" 18^ 1973
_ /
•
9. 3 Tigard Radiator
Location: Behind Eckmann Construction; located at
9035 S.W. Burnham Street (Tax Map 2S1 2,
Tax Lot 1600)
Staff Findings
1. The applicant has submitted landscape and site plans
sufficient to meet the intent of submission requirements
set froth in Chapter 18. 58 of the Tigard Municipal Code. ff
III,
2. The landscape plan, as submitted, does not comply with
section 18. 58. 080 (s) from the standpoint that "all
areas not occupied by paved roadways, structures or
walkways shall be landscaped. " The area of concern
extends along the southerly half of the northwestern f
property boundary where strip is shwon with no specified
landscaping treatment.
3. The applicant's landscape plan shows significant areas
of barkdust in the areas where the tree Pinus Contorta
is proposed. The entent of the ordinance is to provide
"living ground cover in such areas. " !'
4. The submitted landscape plan provides no assurance that
plant materials will survive periods of drought. No
irrigation system or hose bibs are shown, the availability
of which would ensure landscaping maintenance and continued
healthy growth. No statement has been made by a competent
landscape specialist that all plan materials are drought
resistant.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of site and landscaping plans with the following
conditions
1. The applicant submit, for staff approval, a revised
landscape plan showing a specified landscaping treat-
ment for the strip of land located along the southerly
half of the northwestern property boundary. Said revised
plan to also indicate appropriate living groundcover in
the areas where Pinus Contorta are proposed.
2. The applicant submit for staff approval, assurance that
water will be available to plant materials or other
such assurance that materials will survive periods of
drought.
Page 3 - Site Development - Sept. 18, 1973
I 1: :(of
k i t 4 ---)1 :,,',,, ' „( k-,\ ,„.
Ft,• 'P4 rV� 1 s
fi
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION gm�z , .1 t � t;
Ar Staff Report ,)‹...13--' r'^
E
Miscellaneous
September 18, 1973
11,
10.1 Rommel and Stahl - Temporary Use Permit
a
Location: 11315 S.W. Durham Road ``''
Staff Findings
1. The Planning Commission, according to Section
18.80.020 of the Tigard Municipal Code, may issue
temporary use permits for six months following the
precedure for variance as set forth in Chapter 18.84,
Tigard Municipal Code.
is
2. The applicant requests the Planning Commission consider
the issuance of a temporary use permit for a period (.
of six months to allow a professional office uae.
in a P-D, Planned Development District. Rommel-Stahl,
Architects are the applicants.
3. The applicant's justification for a temporary use ui1
is as follows:
C "We are located in an existing residence at 11315 '
S.W. Durham Road which is in the "Summerfield"
project being developed & owned by our client t,'
Tualatin Development Co. We would like to use k:
this residence as a temporary office because of its ,
location to the project. This house will be raaoved
from its p, esent location in approximately 6 months, ,
according to the construction schedule, so the €,
property can be utilized for the purpose of its
existing P-D zoning." r
r
4. Applicants shall submit such evidence as may be t
required to enable the Planning Commission to make
a finding that one of more of several conditions
exist as stated in Section 18.80.030,Tigard Municipal t'
Code. ,.
5. The condition that best applies to the subject
case reads as follows:
i
y
1
,
1.
1
1
.-. Yr
ter T4
"That the pjlrpose for which the temporary use
or occupancy permit is, sought is compatible with
.:, and incident to the completion of the basic purpose
for which the land is being developed, and the
duration of such use is limited by the period of r
development, such as temporary sales office in a 'x
residential district." (Section 18.80.030 (5) r
Tigard Municipal Code.)
Staff Recommendation
Approval of the applicant's request r;
jj
10.2 Summerfield - Request for Approval of Gatehouse Use
I;
Staff Finding t;
L
1. The City Council's approval of the "Summerfield"
P-D included a condition that reads 'as follows: f`;
4. The uses proposed are appropriate to the project
as proposed by the developer and approved by the
City Council
Staff Recommendation
Approval of the uses as proposed by the applicant.
10.3 Summerfield - Information relating to approval of
Minor changes and portions of the Final
Development Plan and Program by the
Planning Director
Minor Changes
Tualatin Development Corporation has requested a
change in the standards for S.W. Summerfield Dr.
as described in their approved general development
plan ,And program. The requested changes relate to
right-of-way, sidewalk and bikeway widths. The staff
is currently studying the request and will bring
the matter before the Commission at their September 25th
study session.
Final Development Plan and Program
Tualatin Development Corp. has submitted their Final
Development Plan and Program for the proposed recreation
of detailed landscape and site plans. The submission
has been judged to be in „conformance with the general
development plan and program. Upon review by the
Commission and if the Commission hail no objections,
the staff recommends approval by thd Planning Director,
of the Final Plan and Program for the Summerfield
Recreation Center as submitted by ' oalatin Development
Corporation on September 10, 1973, with the exception
of that area within the right-of-way of S.W. Summerfield
Drive.
Page 3 - Miscellaneous - 9-18-73