Planning Commission Packet - 10/02/1973 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PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and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.
•
M e s.3 Saolca.
AGENDA
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting m October 2, 1973
Twality Junior High School m Lecture Room
14650 S.W. 97th Ave. , Tigard, Oregon
Study Session - 7:30 P.M.
No Public Hearing
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
30 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3.1 Regular Meeting of September 18, 1973
3.2 Study Session of September 25, 1973
4. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW
(Reconsideration of June 19, 1973 Planning Commission action)
4.1 Utility Equipment Company
Location: S.W. Hunziker Street, approximately 150 feet
east of the railroad crossing on Hunziker,
north side of street.
1. Staff Findings
2. Staff Recommendations
3. Commission Discussion and Action
5. MISCELLANEOUS
5.1 Summerfield m Request for conceptual approval; First
phase apartment development.
Location: East of existing gatehouse, between S.W.
Durham Road and S.W. Summerfield Drive
1. Staff Findings
2. Staff Recommendation
3. Commission Discussion and Action
5.2 Ash Avenue-Downtown Neighborhood Plan
Discussion of Planning Commission memorandum to Council
Commission Discussion and Action
5.3 Design Review - Discussion of Planning Commission
memorandum to Council
Commission Discussion and Action
6. ADJOURNMENT:
Page 2 - PC Agenda - 10-2-73
MINUTES
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting - October 2, 1973 ".
Twality Jr. High School-lecture room
14650 S.W. 97th Ave. , Tigard, Oregon
1. CALL TO ORDER
A. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M.
2. ROLL CALL
A. Present: Commissioners Ball, Barkhurst, Frazier,
Hartman, Lewis, Mickelson, Nicoll, Sakata,
Chairman Whittaker; Planning Director,
Wink Brooks; Associate Planner, Dick Bolen;
City Attorney; Fred Anderson
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. The minutes of the September 18, 1973meeting were
amended on page 4 to delete the sentence between
item 7 and 8 which reads Added by Planning Commission
and to add that Lewis' motion was seconded by Nicoll.
B. The minutes of the September 25, 1973 meeting were amended
on page 2 to add a fourth item under design review to
read as follows--Chairman Whittaker recommended that
an interim body be chosen to administer design review
until a design review board can be appointed.
C. The minutes of September 18, 1973 were also amended
on page 3 to show that Ball was not present when
iten 4 "Review of the Proposed Minor Change S.W.
Summerfield Drive-Design Standards" , was considered.
4. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW
4.1 Utility Equipment Company
Location : S.W. Hunziker Street, approximately 150
feet east of the railraod crossing on
Hunziker, north side of street.
1. Staff Findings ,
A. Brooks presented the staff findings which listed
the changes in the submitted revised site development •
plan.
■r
, 41111111.111111111.1111
I'
2. Staff Recommendation
A. Staff recommended approval of the requested
revisions with a list of five conditions.
3. Commission Discussion and Action
P . Whittaker asked what would be stored in the Ik
area on the plan designated for storage.
(11
B. Roy Oakes,pres,id.erit of Utility Equipment, stated
that customer vehicles in for repair or install-
a,tion of equipment would be stored in this area.
C. Whittaker asked if landscaping or fencing could F
be provided to screen the storage area. I.
D. Brooks stated that the location below grade
of Highway 217 makes it difficult to effectively f!.
screen any outside storage. In addition the
building will partially screen the view from
Hunziker Street.
4i
E. Whittaker questioned the width provided for
access to the site.
F. Brooks responded that the original plan showed ,
a 24 foot pavement width and the revised plan <{
provides 34 feet of pavement on 50 feet of
right-of-way.
G. Elickelson asked how many parking spaces would
be provided.
H. Brooks answered 24.
I. Barkhurst addressed staff recommended condition �!I
number 4 which states that, "The applicant shall
not remove additional trees without planning
staff approval. " He said that conditions such
as this one should be worded so that the applicant
understands that the staff does not have the
last word and the judgement of the Planning
Commission can be sought. He continued, saying
there is a possibility that the applicant and
staff could argue an issue with the Commission
having no knowledge of it.
C
Page 2 - PC Minutes - October 2, 1973
J. Barkhurst moved to approve the revised site
plan to include the following staff recommended
conditions:
1. That said approval supersedes the previous
Planning Commission action of June 19, 1973,
regarding subject site.
2. The applicant submit, for staff approval,
a landscape plan for a landscape island to
be located adjacent the northern most
driveway portion of the parking area. Said
landscaped island shall contain one deciduous
shade tree.
3. The applicant shall provide, for planning
staff approval, an irrigation plan or other
such assurance that water is available to
landscaped areas during periods of drought.
4. The applicant shall not remove additional
trees without planning staff approval.
5. That no additional access be provided to
Hunziker than that access drive shown on
subject site plan.
K. Hartman seconded and the motion passed by
unanimous vote.
5. MISCELLANEOUS
5.1 Summerfield-Request for conceptual approval; First
phase apartment development.
Location: East of existing gatehouse, between S.W.
Durham Road and S.W. Summerfield Drive.
1. Staff Findings
A. Brooks read the requirements of the Planned
Development Zone as they apply to apartment
development in the Summerfield project.
B. Brooks presented the applicant' s request;
approval of density, traffic circulation pattern,
driveway widths and parking ratio-so that
they may procede with working drawings.
Page 3 - PC Minutes - October 2, 1973
•
•
~ . � ___ __ _ ___ __ '� _ ,_ . _^_`__ �� �~_-_~ '`~ ~.~- _..^ ^' ��. . ,-~~` ~ ,- .
C. Ray Bartell, project architect, explained
the proposed apartment plan to the Planning
Commission
D. In response to a statement by Mr. Bartell that
the lake shown on the original Summerfield plan
had been removed, Ball asked if the density
Would there by be increased.
E. Bartell replied that the density remains the
same and with removal of the lake from the plan
it is possible to provide more space between
buildings.
F. Bartell explained that no access is provided
to Durham Road in that a site distance problem
on this portion of the road would result in
a potential traffic hazard if traffic were
allowed to intersect at this point. He also
pointed out that the age compisition of the
apartment occupants did not require access of
the type necessary in a development containing
a lower age group.
�
G. Brooks acknowledged the sight-distance situation
~� on Durham Road but stated his concern for access
by emergency vehicles and offered his recommend-
ation that access be provided from both Durham
Rodd and Summerfield Drive.
H. Hartman asked if access should not be provided
to th e single fam il y area to th e east?
I. Mr. Bartell replied that this would involve
mixing traffic for the rented and owned units
which is not considered desireable by the
Tualatin Development Company.
O. Hartman then suggested that access be provided
for emergency vehicles only, such as on a
sodded area with a sub-base capable of support-
ing fire apparatus.
K. Ball requested clarification concerning the
drainage problems which had been raised by
the staff.
xr
k -
_
Page 4 - PC Minutes - October 2, l973 �
•
L. Brooks replied that he had discussed this
with the Washington County Public Works
Department and they specified the need for a
drainage study and plan to deal with the
run off water flowing south from the site
which consists topographically of drainage
swail.
2. Staff Recommendation
A. Brooks recommended approval of the proposed
density, traffic circulation, driveway
widths and parking ratio and included a list
of 3 conditions.
3. Commission Discussion and Action
A. Lewis moved to approve the proposed plan
to include the following conditions:
j 1. That an access route be provided for
emergency use only to the apartment
project. The Planning Department shall
determine whether this route should be
provided to Summerfield Drive or Durham
Road and the P.W. Department shall approve
the construction flans for this route.
2. The applicant submit for staff approval
a proposal for drainage as related to
Durham Road.
3. The applicant revise the parking configur-
ation so that traffic will not back into
"main traffic; lane".
B. Nicoli seconded the motion.
mow. C. Ball asked if the Tualatin Rural Fire District
`•► ' had approved the driveway widths shown on the
Plan. Brooks stated that yes they had and
presented a letter from the Fire District.
D. The motioned passed by unanimous vote.
5.2 Tigard Polio Office Site Development Plan
location : The southwest corner of the interesection
of Burnham Street and Ash Ave.
1. Staff Findings
A. Brooks presented the proposed plan and
pointed out some possible deficiencies.
Page 5 - PC Minutes - October 2, 1973
•
' |
- B. BRll asked if there Was not a home on the
lot to the west of the site.
C. Brooks said there was but it was a non-con-
forming use being located in an industrial �
| '
zone.
D. Ball then asked why no landscaping is shown
on the mdet side of the fence.
E. Brooks stated that no room was available to
provide landscaping on the west oide. Of
the fence.
F° Ball then asked if the property owner to the
west had been contacted to see if he would
allow landscaping on his property where it
. ` l
abuts the fence.
G. Bruce Clark, Tigard City Administrator, replied
that this property owner had not been contacted.
' ^
H. Nicoli asked how long the poIioiamwmuld be using
this facility.
I. Mr. Clark said at least three years.
O. Whittaker stated his agreement with Ball
concern for protecting adjacent property owners.
K. Mr. Clark pointed out that in 1972 the Planning
Commission approved a Conditional Use and
Variance which would place a building directly
on this property ' s south boundary. He stated
that the fence is intended to be sightobscuring.
L. Ball said that, as stated in the staff findings,
the fence is to provide security for the patrol
cars not visual protection for the neighbors.
2, Staff Recommendation
A. Brooks reoommoDddd approval of the submitted
site plan.
3^ Commission Discussion and Action
A. Ball moved to approve the submitted site
plan with the condition that: '
I. The City negotiate with the property ~ `
owner to the west g means of o���urin
�:�� the site obscuring fence.
� / ^ - `
`' ..
' ` ^
Page 6 - PC Minutes - October 2, 1973
�� - -
^
�
' ` �' ` ^ ' '
' - '- ---'^~~^-- -- ~� .uw�|
� ^
B. Clark asked Ball what would occur if the
condition
can not be met. Ball that
o� e me said� ao �
it was the intention of his motion that the
staff would determine the measures necessary
to accomplish the objectives of the Condition
but the matter could be reconsidered by the
Planning Commission if the matter can not be
negotiated to the satisfaction of the City
of Tigard.
C. Nicoll asked if it were Ball' s intention that
{
tha City deal with the owner or renter of the •
property. Ball replied the owner. Nicoll
then seconded Ball's motion.
Do The motion passed by unanimous vote.
5. 3 Summerfield - Request to change the standards for
Summerfield Drive.
1. Staff Findings
A. Brooks presented the request, delineating the
changes being requested. Basically, these
changes amounted to elimination of the bicycle
poth adjacent to Summerfield Drive and the
reduction of sidewalk widths from 8 to 5 feet.
2. Staff Recommendation
A. The staff recommended disapproval of the applicant' s
request and suggested that the Planning Commission
grant authority to the Planning Director to
approve a revised submission. This to meet a ,
list of five standards included by staff with
the recommendation. In summary these standards
designated eight foot combined pedestrian-
bicycle
patho on both sides of Summerfield Drive
With dropped curbs at all intersections.
B. George Marshall, of the Tualatin Development
Company, stated his disagreement with the staff
•
recommendation. He said it was his belief that
pedestrian and bicycles should not be mixed.
That based upon the 36 foot width of Summerfield
Drive and the fact that there will be few cars
parked along this street, there is ample room
for bicycles to use the street.
ur�
Page 7 - pc minutes
•
C. Ball asked if one path could be designated
for bicycle use and the other for pedestrian
use.
D. Mr. Marshall said that people usually ignore
such signs and policing is difficult if not
impossible.
E. Hartman asked if a stripe identifying a
bicycle land could be put along one side of
Summerfield Drive.
F. Brooks said that this type of path does not
work well.
G. Whittaker asked Mr. marshal what the original
basis was for the 36 foot spine road and bicycle
path.
H. Mr. Marshall said that the spine road required
a greater width being the main traffic carrier 6
in the development.
1. Whittaker then pointed out that the bicycle
` path was a selling point used by Tualatin
Development Company when the zone change was
being considered.
J. Lewis asked Marshall why Tualatin Development
Company was deserting their original plan.
K. Marshall said that his company no longer
sees a need for a bicycle path.
3. Commission Discussion and Action
A. Lewis stated his disagreement with the staff
recommendation to put bike paths on both
sides of the street and suggested that Tualatin
Development Company stick with their original
plan.
B. Mickelson suggested that a five foot sidewalk
and 10 foot bike path be considered.
C. Ball moved that using the standards recommended
by the staff that an eight foot pedestrian path
be placed on one side of Summerfield Drive
and an eight foot bicycle path on the other.
Page 8 - PC Minutes - October 2, 1973
*„��~��°"'�^
°
D. Hartman seconded and the motion passed by a
,
maJ orit y vote with Barkhurst voting no.
if the vote �
E. Mr. Marshall asked
1 th t should have not
and been to approve or deny his request an if � I
he so chose could he continue with his original
l D Whittaker said the original plan could
p o ° if h
atill be followed e chose to withdraw
his request.
F. M1ckeloon asked if dropped curbs rba at inter-
sections would still be required if Tualatin
Deyolopment Company went with the originally
o said yes, according
approved plan. Broow '
to the revised State subdivision law.
tou Neighborhood 5°4 Ash Avenue-Downtown PlaO
Discussion of Planning Commission memorandum to Council
1. _Commission Discussion and Action
A Barkhurst said that in items #4 and where
A. ' �
the purchase of parks is discussed the word
��
acquisition should be used rather than purchase.
�~
B° Hartman pointed out that where the straightening
of Hall Boulevar d is r efered to in � the word-
ing should specify the curve south of Burnham
Street.
C.
�
C Ball stated that it would be useful if this
plan could be refered to as N. P.O. #1 rather
p� .
than the longer title.
D. Brooks said that he felt names were important
for neighborhood plans in order to foster
neighborhood identity. He therefore recommended
that this be called the Orchard Slope Neighbor-
hood Plan. He based this recommendation upon
N. P.O. critical of the present
statements by the ��
titIe for the neighborhood plan.
E. Bolen suggested that the plan be refered to ` � ]
as N. P.O. #1 with the title becoming a sub-
title ' ]
to describe the general location.
' -
Page 9 - PC Minutes - October 2, 1975
( (
5
,
5. 5 Design Review - Discussion of Planning Commission
memorandum to Council.
1. Commission Discussion and Action
)
A. Barkhurst noted his objection to references
in the report and model ordinance that the
Planning Commission should go beyond the
role of protecting the public and encourage v
good design in the community. He said that
this was not the role of the Commission and
the result would be to infringe upon individual
freedoms.
B. Ball said that Barkhurst has not spoken to my
report and does not point to an understanding
of what the charge of the Commission is.
ti
i
C. Barkhurst said that he is not opposed to the II
recommendation but to the wording.
D. Ball suggested that the function of the Sign ,
v
Board of Appeals be merged with the Design t
( Review Board. ,)
E. Whittaker suggested an interim method of
administering a design review ordinance until
the Design Review Board could be appointed.
This involved the Council selecting five
Planning Commissioners to serve as an interim
Design Review Board. .
t
F. Ball recommended that the cover letter to
Council point out that the landscape ordinance
would not be changed.
6. ADJOURNMENT: 10:50 P.M.
i
f
(:
Page 10 - PC Minutes - October 2, 1973
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
Site Development Plan Review
October 2, 1973
4.1 Utility Equipment Company
(Reconsideration of June 19, 1973 Planning Commission
Action)
Location: S.W. Hunziker Street, approximately 150
feet east of the railroad crossing on
Hunziker, north side of street
Staff Findings
1. The applicant has submitted a revised site and
landscaping plan for review by the Planning
Commission
2. The following changes have been made on the revised
plan.
o The parking area has been moved approximately
35 feet to the north in order to allow truck
maneuvering at the building loading docks on
the west side of the building.
o The storage and truck maneuvering areas to the
east and south sides of the building have been
substantially enlarged
o The entry drive has been constructed to a
large standard
o Landscaping has been provided on the western
edge of the parking area
o A chain link fence has been added around the
storage and truck maneuvering area.
3. The number of parking spaces remain the same, meeting
City off—street parking standards.
o The landscaped areas, within the designated
parking area, have been removed.
4. The previous Planning Commission action on June 19,
1973; approved the previous site and landscaping plan
with the following conditions:
o That the applicant shall provide (for Planning
Commission staff approval) an irrigation plan
or other such assurance that water is available
to landscaped areas during periods of drought.
o Applicant shall not remove additional trees without
approval from the planning staff.
o That no additional access be provided to Hunziker
than shown on the Site Plano
5. N o irrigation plan has been p rovided.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of the site and landscaping plan as submitted
with the following conditions:
1. That said approval supercedes the previous Planning
Commission action of June 19, 1973, regarding subject
site.
� .. 2. The applicant submit, for staff approval, a landscape
plan for a landscape island to be located adjacent
the northern most driveway portion of the parking
area. Said landscaped island shall contain one
deciduous shade tree.
3. The applicant shall provide9 for planning staff
approval, an irrigation plan or other such assurance
that water is available to landscaped areas during
periods of drought.
4. The applicant shall not remove additional trees without
planning staff approval.
5. That no additional access be •provided to Hunziker
than that access drive shown on subject site plan.
Page 2 - Staff Report - Utility Equipment - 10-2-73
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Planning Commission :'
x.;
DATE: Sept. 27, 1973 .
SUBJECT: Ash Avenue-Downtown Neighborhood Plan; Plan
Implementation Summary
For the past five months, the 'Ash Avenue-Downtown Neighborhood
Planning Organization has worked with the staff to establish
a detailed land use plan for their area. The Planning
Commission has now conducted two public hearings on the Plan
and after reviewing the resultant testimony and their own
deliberations, unanimously recommend to the City Council
adoption of the Ash Avenue-Downtown Neighborhood Plan.
Upon adoption by the City Council, it will serve as the City's Ii
m official land use policy for the subject area.
ii
During the Planning Commission's deliberations, it was noted
the Plan does not detail the specific planning "tools" necessary
to implement the Plan's proposals. The following is therefore
a recommendation by the Planning Commission that the City
Council consider the adoption of Plan implementation techniques
as defined below. Adoption, in principle, of these techniques FI
will provide a Plan implementation framework and policy within ,,,
which the Council can formulate a specific course of action Ii
to implement the Plan. The implementation techniques may
be described as follows: i1
1. Re-zoning: bringing the zoning map into conformity r
with the Plan's adopted land use categories. ,
a
2. Adoption of Ordinances
a. Highway Commercial Zone ■
■
b. Flood Plain and Fill Zone
c. Design Review Ordinance „'
d. Tree cutting ordinance
e. Planned Development-Incentive Zone is
(i.e. encourages developers to preserve
op.A-space through the allowance, of slightly
higher densities) 4
i'.
3. Adoption of a Street Policy, recognizing the
Plan's road proposals l'i
ti
k
, r
4. Purchase of additional park tamd ir, d construction
of bicycle pathways
r:
5. Purchase of additional road right-of-way to
facilitate traffic and bicycle circulation.
6. Requesting the State Highway Department widen
Hall Boulevard and straighten the curve between
S.W. Burnham and S.W. Commercial.
7. Request Washington County adopt the Neighborhood
Plan as the "definitive document" guiding all
land use decisions within the subject neighborhood.
8. Allocate funds for the construction of the Ash
Street bridge and the extension of Ash Street.
we the Planning Commission, are confident the Plan
presented to you is a carefully constructed document,
displaying maximum citizen involvement. We look forward
to its adoption and subsequent implementation. Thank
you for your consideration,
•
Et
'ty.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Planning Commission
DATE: September 28, 1973
SUBJECT: Report on Design Review Ordinance
Enclosed is a report made by Commissioner Robert Ball
to the Planning Commission, concerning the need for
design review within the City of Tigard. The Commission
has considered this report and the result is the enclosed
• recommended ordinance.
The ordinance is considered a conservative approach to design
review and is directed to the more flagrant abuses of the
public sense of taste and concern for the appearance of
_ this community. The Commission has assumed it is possible
to distinguish what 'the public taste is and to establish
a mechanism, design review, to protect this interest.
A parallel is the recent pornography issue with the Joy
, Theater, where the public taste or "sense of decency" was
made quite apparent.
The conservative nature of the recommended ordinance is
evidenced by the fact that any plan is considered approved,
unless four of the commission members vote to disapprove.
This voting structure will provide a safeguard for the devel-
oper, by requiring more than a majority of Design Commission
members to disapprove a plan.
In addition to adopting the submitted ordinance, the Planning
Commission is recommending that design review be merged
with the existing site development review ordinance and the
proposed Design Review Commission be the reviewing authority.
This would relieve the Planning Commission of part of their
increasing zoning work-load and relegate this specialized
function to a group of qualified design and construction
specialists. The Planning Commission would thereby have
more time to devote to planning issues.
The Planning Commission urges the City Council to adopt
the recommended ordinance and give the City, and thereby
I ~`, its citizens, the means of. assuring community attractiveness
C and desireability as a place to live. The Planning Commission
, is concerned there is an urgent need for a °aesign Review
Ordinance in a rapidly developing community such as Tigard.
•
pfd
'f,
Once developed, Tigard's ability to control community
,� appearance can only be regained through timee Lt shauld
r be noted that the communities of Beaverton, Tualatin and
;4'0 Wilsonville now have active design review boards.
•
3
1 1
,
{
r
i
T.IGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
It
Site Development Plan Review
October 2, 1973
4.2 City of Tigard - Police Office
(Late agenda addition)
Location: 9020 S.W. Burnham Street
}
Staff Findings
1. The applicant's proposal, as submitted,
meets the site and landscape standards set
forth in Chapters 18.52, 18.58, 18.60 and
18.64 of the Tigard Municipal Code.
2. The staff notes the following aesthetic and prac-
tical deficiencies in the applicant's proposal.
o No landscaping occurs along portions of
the site obscuring fence and proposed
office building.
° No hose bib exists on rear portion of
property.
3. The site obscuring security fence and number
of parking spaces are necessitated by potential
security problems related to attackatr on patrol
vehicles and personal vehicles of police depart-
ment employees.
4. The police office is proposed as an interim
facility, to be used until such time as
appropriate space is available in a centralized
City Hall facility.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of the site and landscaping plan as
submitted and dated October 2, 1973.
LI
i
1
1
k, TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION R
Staff Report .,
Miscellaneous
October 2, 1973 1''
5.1 Summerfield - Request for conceptual approal;
first phase apartment development
Location: East of existing gatehouse, between
S.W. Durham Road and S.W. Summerfield
Drive.
Staff Findings �!
1. Conditions attached to the "Summerfield"
Planned Development District, relating to
the first phase apartment development are
as follows:
(1) Prior to the issuance of any building permit
within the development, a site plan of the
entire development setting forth the site
development standards shall be submitted to
the Planning Commission. This plan shall include
but not be limited to landscaping, setbecks,
building heights, signs, streets, proposed
improvements, sidewalks, curbs, gutters,
parking, service and storage areas.
(3) Each phase of the development shall be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.
At the time of approval of such phase, the
densities and uses shall be approved. s
(5) The apartments in the project shall be developed
in accordance with A-2 standards unless other-
wise approved on a specific site plan by the
Planning Commission.
(6) The overall density of the development shall
be no greater than 6.25 dwellin., per acre units
greater dwelling
(1250 total units) with a total population not
to exceed 2400 persons.
2. The applicant requests approval of density, traffic
circulation pattern, driveway widths and parking
ratio so that they may precede with working drawings.
L2
3. The applicant's proposal includes all of phase
1 and a portion of phase 2 apartment development
as shown in exhibit "D" of the P-D District
approval. r
4. The lake indicated in exhibit "0" has been [1
'eliminated in the applicant's proposal.
5.
Density - The proposed density of 14.5 dwelling r'
units per acre conforms with previous information
submitted to the Planning Commission. `
?
6. Circulation and Driveway Widths, - The proposed ,,
traffic circulation pattern was reviewed by the la
Tualatin Fire District, the Washington County
Road Dept. , and the City's engineering staff. C.
All agencies expressed general approval of the 1.
proposal with the exception of the following: i'
• The City engineering staff was concerned
about the site access intersection with
S.W. Durham Road, feeling that complications I+
could arise from site distance and vehicle
storage problems
o Although not related to traffic circulation,
the Washington County Road Dept. was concerned
about drainage from the area of the proposed k
lake and how it would affect drainage capacity
along Durham Road. }
It should be noted site access occurs on Durham Road, `.
1,,,.where no access was shown in the approved P-0, �
. 1;
District approval. `.
The Planning staff, and the Tulatin Fire District
concurs, that two access points are desireable to ''
serve a site of this development magnitude. 1±
Driveway widths have been defined by the applicant
and the staff concurs with the applicant's proposal ,
except for backing movements from parking space along
the "main traffic land". 1
7. Parking Ratio - The applicant proposes 2.3 parking
spaces per dwelling unit. This is well above most [
parking standards for multi-family units and will
provide adequate off-street parking. The City of
Tigard's standard is 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling t
unit.
1
i
1
Ar
Page 2 - Staff Report - Miscellaneous • `
a
1
;
1
8. The proposed apartments will be constructed to
the standards provided by Fire Zone 2.
9. Section 18.24.040, Tigard Municipal Code reads
"where buildings are grouped as one project on
one tract of land, the minimum distance between
two buildings at any given point shall not be
less than the sum of the required side yards com-
puted separately for each building at that point.
There are several points on the proposed site plan
that do not meet this critera (Please not condition
#5 as stated in finding 1 of this report)
10. No building will be.";constructed over 2 stories
or 35 feet in height.
Staff Recommendations
Approval of the proposed density, traffic circulation,
drive-way widths and parking ratio with the following
conditions:
1. The applicant submit, for staff approval, a !'
detailed intersection plan for the apartment
drive access off Durham Road. Said plan to
consider site distance, storage capacity.
2. The applicant submit for staff approval a proposal
for drainage as related to Durham Road.
3. The applicant revise the parking configuration
so that traffic will not back into the 'hain
traffic lane!.
Page 3 - Staff Report - Miscellaneous
Air
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
Miscellaneous" Agenda Addition
October 2, 1973
5.2 Summerfield - Request for Minor Change in General
Development plan and program, in
Planned Development District; Standard!
Change-S.W. Summerfield Drive.
Location: North of S.W. Durham Road, east of
Pacific Highway.
Staff Findings
1. The applicant (Tualatin Development Co , Inc. )
has requested a change in the general development
plan and program approved by Council Ordinance
#73-5; This requested change involves a change
in standards for planting strips and a proposed
bicycle path and sidewalk along the edges of
Ar
S.W. Summerfield Drive. The applicant, proposes
to:
° Eliminate bicycle riding within the right
of-way adjacent S.W. Summerfield Drive. All
bicycle traffic must necessarily travel on
S.W. Summerfield Drive.
° Narrow sidewalk width south side of subject
street from 8 feet to 5 feet.
2. The staff has interpreted the applicant's request
as a minor change in the general development
plan and program, such changes to be approved by
the Planning Director, as per Section 18.56.150,
Tigard Municipal Code. Staff made a recommendation
to the Planning Commission at their September 25,1973
study session. Said recommendation was informally
approved by the Planning Commission. Said recommendation
was as follows:
That the proposed sidewalks on both sides
of S.W. Summerfield Drive be designated
bicycle pathways.
fr 0 That said bicycle pathways be not less than
IL
8 feet wide on both sides of S.W. Summerfield
Drive
° That drop curbs be provided at all intersections
of said bikeway with intersecting streets or
drives, or other such design accomplished that
will not cause a bicycle rider to dismount
when traveling from the bikeway across a
street or driveway.
3. The applicants have requested to be heard before
the Planning Commissionriconcerning their proposal.
4. The 1973 State Legislature passed and the governor
has signed S.B. 693, providing an amendment-to
Chapter 176 Oregon Revised Statutes. Said legislation
provides for "not less than two curb cuts or ramps
per lineal block to be located on or near the crosswalks
at intersections. Each curb cut or ramp shall be. . . .
so -constructed as to allow reasonable access to the
crosswalk for physically handicapped persons.
Standards set for curbs and ramps. ...shall apply
to all new curb construction and to all replacement
curbs constructed at any point in a block which
gives reasonable access to a crosswalk."
5. The public safety is a factor in any decision relating
to the subject proposal. Wherever possible, bicycle
traffic should be spearated from automobile traffic.
As an ideal, pedestrian traffic should be separated
from bicycle traffic, however, it is more appropriate
to mix bicycles and pedestrians then to mix bicycle
and automobile traffic. From a safety standpoint,
a pedestrian holds less chance of serious injury
from a bicyclist, than injuries sustainable by a
bicyclist from an automobile
Staff Recommendation
Disapproval of the applicants proposal. The Planning
Commission giving authority to the Planning Director
to approve a new submission by the applicant, meeting
the following standards:
o That the proposed sidewalks on both sides of
S.W. Summerfield Drive be designated bicycle
pathways.
• That said bicycle pathways be not less than 8 feet
in width on both sides of S.W. Summerfield Drive.
o That drop curbs and ramps be provided at all inter-
sections of said bikeway with intersecting streets
Page 2 - Staff Report - Miscellaneous 10-2-73
I
P
{a,
or drives, or other such design accomplished y
that will not cause a bicycle rider to dismount ,i
It when traveling from the bikeway across a street
or driveway. Said drop curbs and ramps shall
be a minimum of "30 inches wide of a slope I
not to exceed one inch rise per eight inch
run" as per Senate Bill 693. t
1
o The right-of-way width along S.W. Summerfield t
Drive shall not be less than 61 feet. A
minimum 3+ foot wide planting strip shall
be placed between the curb line of S.W.
Summerfield Drive and the proposed bicycle r
paths.
6'
o Landscaping as proposed on the applicant's proposal
received by the City September 17, 1973 shall be a
adhered to, said landscaping to continue the
full length of S.W. Summerfield Drive. f
€,
i'
Ita
1
Page 3 - Staff Report - Miscellaneous - 10-2-73