Planning Commission Packet - 11/06/1973 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PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and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.
_- ' . ` _ ` -
' ^ �
. .
-.a^-. .^-.^ � ` � ^ . ` �-� ` '
' `-.^-- - - • � --_ ___- -__ � _-�~_ -- __ _�__- —� - � ��
~ 5‘4 .�� '� '_�_
/ ' ' I
\. ' �`'
^
`
~
I
A,`' AGENDA
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting - November 6, 1973
Charles F. Tigard Grade School-Board Room
13137 S.W. Pacific Highway, Tigard, Oregon
il
Study Session - 7:30 P.M.
Public Hearing - 8 :00 P.M. I.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL fi
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES tl
3°1 Regular Meeting of October 16, 1973
3°2 Study Session of October 23, 1973 il
4° PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE
Ae=� 4.1 Conditional Use CU 16-73 (Miller) .
` � . ` ~
`~~ A request by Lee & Richard Miller to construct
an automotive repair shop in an M-4, Industrial
Park zone. The proposed building site is located
on the south side of Burnham Street, 125 feet
east of Ash Street. The site is adjacent the new
police office buiIding. The site comprises .40
acres. (Tax Map 2S1 2| D, Tax lot 2700\
.
Staff Findings
Testimony and Cross Examination
Staff Recommendation
Commission Discussion and Action
5^ PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE k
G^l Variance V5-73 (Ted Nelson Co. ) 1
, A request by the Ted Nelson Co. to construct an �
. addition to their existing building, said northerly
addition is proposed to have a 10 foot setback where
a 20 foot setback is required. The property is
zoned M-2, Gneral Industrial and is located at 14280
S.W. 72nd Avenue (Tax Map 38I 12A, tax lots 100 , 300
501, 201 and 200\
�
�_�
�� �
~— i
'
^
'�
' ' �
x' °
Staff Finding
IL, Testimony and Cross Examination
Staff Recommendation
Commission Discussion and Action
5. 2 Variance -V6-73 (Lee and Richard Miller)
A request by Lee and Richard MiLleir to locate an
automotive repair building on a property line
where a 20 foot side yard set back is required.
The property is zoned M-4, Industrial Park, comprises
. 40 acres and is located on the south side of
S.W. Burnham Street, 125 feet east of Ash Street.
The site is adjacent the new police office building.
(Tax Map 2S1 2AD, Tax Lot 2700)
Staff Finding
Testimony and Cross Examination
Staff Recommendation
Commission Discussion and Action
6. SUBDIVISIONS - Preliminary Plat Approval
6.1 Lake Terrace (Arrow Heating Co. )
Location : North of S.W. Walnut Street and 400
feet east of 121st, adjacent the Brookway
Subdivision
Staff Finding
Testimony
Staff Recommendation
Commission Discussion and Action
7. SUBDIVISIONS - Variance
7.1 "Summerfield" - Variance on paving width,
Location : From S.W. Durham Road 600 feet east of
Pacific Highway to S.W. 98thv 1100 feet
north of S.W. Durham Road.
Staff Finding `
Testimony
Staff Recommendation
Commission Discussion and Action
' -
Page 2 - PC Agenda - November 6, 1973
_-` -
\. _ 8. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW `
8~1 A 8, N International /
Location : S. E. corner of the intersection of
S.W. Pacific Highway and Garrett Street ' |
Staff Findings
Staff Recommendation
Commission Discussion and Action
8.2 Miller Automotive
` � ^
Location : South side of Burnham Street, I25 feet
east of Ash Street
Staff Findings
Staff Recommendation
Commission Discussion and Action
9. MISCELLANEOUS
9,1 Island Annexations
Staff Findings
Staff Recommendation
Commission Discussion and Action
9. 2 S.W. Summerfield Drive-Acceptance of Street Dedication
Staff Findings
Staff Recommendation
Commission Discussion and Action
10. OTHER BUSINESS
11. ADJOURNMENT
t ,
Page 3 - PC Aganda. - November 6, 1973
�~��-~~�-
^ ^
. .
=��
�
'`
~
MINUTES
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting - November 6, 1973
Tuality Jr. High School lecture room
14650 S.W. 97th Ave. , Tigard Oregon
` .
1. CALL TO ORDER
A. Themeetinguaa called to order at 7:40 P.M.
2. ROLL CALL
A. Present: Ball, Lewis, Hartman, Nicoli, Frazier,
Sakata, MickeIoon3 Chairman Whittaker;
Planning Director, Wink Brooks; City
Attorney, Fred Anderson
8 Absent: Barkhurst°
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. The minutes for the meetings of October 16, 1973
and October 23, 1973 were approved as submitted by
unanimous vote of the Commission present.
4. PUBLIC HEARING - Conditional Use
4.1 Conditional Use CU 16~73 (Miller)
A request by Lee & Richard Miller to construct
an automotive repair shop in an M-4, Industrial
Park zone. The proposed building site is located
on the south side of Burnham Street, I25 feet
east of Ash Street. The site is adjacent the new
police office building. The site comprises . 40
acres. (Tax Map 231 2AD^ Tax Lot 2700\
A. Mr. Nicoll stated he would abstain on this itam~
B. Mr. Ball stated that before the Planning Commission
could hear the request they had to determine if
the use was similar to those in an M-4 zone.
C. Mr. Brooks read the uses permitted outright and
the conditional uses in an M-4 zone.
D. Mr. Lewis moved to approve the use as a similar
/�� conditional use in an M-4 zone. Mr. Hartman
seconded and the motion passed by a majority
vote (Nicoll abstaining) -
' ^
,
'
'
,
(7. k_,-
,
fi
,
,
< ,
:
,
t
Staff Findings i
lit ..
. 1 ,
A. Brooks presented the staff findings
k
1,
Testimony and Cross Examination if
r
A. Proponents
i
1. Mr. Richard L. Miller, applicant, testified in
k
favor of the request. Mr. Miller stated his I
request was to build and operate an automobile i
repair shop. 1
1
2. Mr. Miller justified his request by responding
to the "Fasano" related questions. ,
1
3. Mrs. Sakata asked if the repairs would be on I,
the engines or body. 1
i'
4. Mr. Miller stated that it would be repair on i
engines and chassis. I:
,
5. Mr. Frazier asked what provision were made for
r,
storage. r,
C.,
6. Mr. Miller stated that there were 9 outside r
parking stalls and 6 inside stalls.
4
7. Mr. Lewis asked if any of the dismantled cars would
be outside.
1
:i.
d
S. Mr. Miller stated that the cars would be worked
on inside and that no partially dismantled ones
E
would be outside.
tl
9. Mr. Ball asked what kinds of lands the applicant 1:
looked for. i
1
t;
10. Mr. Miller stated any land that could be used r;
11:
'
for the request. 1
11. Mr. Ball asked what areas the applicant had
looked for land. ,
12. Mr. Miller stated Tigard because his business was
known in Tigard.
6
13. Mr. Brooks pointed out that there is an additional A
0,0 problem with storm drainage on the subject site. i
,
,
,
,
Page 2 — PC Minutes — 11-6-73 ,
2. Opponents
1. No one spoke in opposition to the request.
Staff Recommendation
A. The staff recommended approval based on the staff
findings and adding a fourth condition:
° That the applicant cooperate with adjacent
property owners to provide adequate storm
drainage.
B. Mr. Hartman asked if the storm drainage wouldn' t
be part of a local improvement district.
C. Mr. Brooks stated that an easement could be all
that was necessary .
D. Mr. Whittaker stated he didn' t feel that the storm
drainage problem needed to be discussed at that time.
E. Mr. Frazier asked if item three of the staff' s
findings still held.
F. Mr. Brooks stated no, it did not.
~~' G. The public hearing was closed.
Commission Discussion and Action
A. Mr. Lewis moved to approve the request with the
added staff condition related to drainage.
B. Mr. Brooks asked if the applicant had satisfactorily
met all the "Fasano" requirements.
C. Mr. Frazier seconded the motion. _ ^
D. Mr. Ball stated that he felt the applicant
had produced evidence that there is a community
need and that the applicant could not find proper
, |
Zoning and that the use adheres to the Community
Plan.
E. Mr. Whittaker asked what the Ash Avenue-Downtown
Plan showed. Mr. Brooks stated that the Ash
Avenue-Downtown Plen showed the subject area as
.
Industrial.
. `
Page 3 - PC Minutes - 11-6-73
' .
F. Mr. Hartman asked what zone the use is
''r � "
-° alIoued in.
G. Mr. Anderson stated in the M-2 and M~3 zone.
H. The motion was approved by majority vote (Commissioner
Nicoll abstaining) '
G. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE
5.1 Variance V5-73 (Ted Nelson Co. )
A request by the Ted Nelson Co. to construct an
addition to their existing building, said northerly
addition is proposed to have a 10 foot setback where
a 20 foot setback is required. The property is
zoned M-2, General Industrial and is located at 14280
S.W. 72nd Aveneu (Tax Map 2S1 12A, tax lots 100, 300,
301, 20I and 200\
Staff Findings
A. Brooks presented the relevant firdings of fact
and read the applicant ' s justification. Mr. Brooks
stated the staff had received all the material but
had no time to analyze it.
B. Mr. Whittaker stated that he would abstain but
would conduct the hearing unless there was an
objection.
Testimony & Cross Examination
A. Proponents
1. Mr. Rolland Rose' explained the history of
the company. He presented additional drawings
illustrating the proposed variance.
2. Mr. Rose' stated that the County had approved '^
the 10 foot variance in 1966 prior to annexation
3. Mr. Rose' explained that originally they had /
planned an extending a railroad spur from
Fought' s property but Fought had decided
against it.
4. Mr. Ball asked how the applicant would use
the Gerber easement on the northern edge of
the subject site.
5~ Mr. Rose' stated ingress only.
Page 4 - PC Minutes - I1-6_73
_
^.
' `
6. Mr. Ball asked about the door on the north
side of the proposed addition. Mr. Rose'
.`
stated that the doors would be used only
`
in case of an emergency. Mr. Rose' stated ' ' ^
that the applicant had received a letter
from Gerber requesting them not to use the
northern door~
7. Mr. Ball quoationedthenGrandfathern clause.
8° Mr. Rose' stated that a hardship was created when
they annexed to the City which requires a
larger setback.
.'
. ^ ^
9° Mr. Hartman asked about the next expansion. | `
Mr. Rose' stated he could not answer the
question.
10. Mr. Lewis asked about the 10 foot setback as to
whether it would be paved or not. �
Il" Mr. Rooe° stated that a greenway would be 3
feet wide and the rest sloped with no parking.
i .
12" Mr. Ball asked why the applicant didn' t expand
444.1 to the south instead of the north. Mr. Rose'
stated material flow would not allow it.
13. Mr. Lewis stated he knew that item 2 of the
staff findings was true because he was chairman
of the Washington County Planning Commission
at that time.
B. Opponents
1. No one spoke in opposition
Staff Recommendation
A. The staff recommended that the Planning Commission
make their decision based on section 18~ 76 of the
Tigard Municipal Code.
B. The public hearing was closed.
Page 5 - PC Minutes - 11-6-73
`
•
^ �•
^ i
Commission Discussion and Action
A. Mr. Nicoll asked what materials would be used for
construction.
B. Mr. Roses stated that the new building addition
would be the same type of construction as the
existing building.
C. Mr. Hartman stated he felt that the request met
the requirements of section 18.76 of the Tigard
°
Munioipel Code.
D. Sakata stated she disagreed because she felt
they could build to the south instead of the
north.
E. Lewis stated he believed the applicant had met
the requirements therefore he moved to approve the
request. Nicoli seconded.
F. Mr. Hartman asked about landscaping and Brooks
read the requirements.
G. Mr. Hartman asked if they would be able to meet
(-
\, the landscaping requirements. Mr. Brooks said
yes.
H. The motion was approved by a 4 to l vote
(Sakata voting no and Whittaker abstaining)
5~ 2 Variance V6-73 (Lee and Richard Miller)
` ^
A request by Lee and Richard Miller to locate an
automotive repair building on a property line
where a 20 foot side yard set back is required.
The property is zoned M 4, Industrial Park, comprises
. 40 acres and is located on the south side of
S.W. Burnham Street, 125 feet east of Ash Street.
The site is adjacent the new police office building.
(Tax Map 251 2AD, Tax Lot 2700)
Staff Findings
A. Brooks presented a history of the property and
pertinent facts relating to the request.
Testimony and Cross Examination
A. Proponents
I. No one spoke
y�� B. Opponents
~- 1. No one spoke
Page 6 - PC Minutes - 11-6-73
•
�
^ �
~~ `
Staff Recommendation
A. The staff recommended approval based on their . �
findings with one condition
B. Mr. Hartman questioned the reading of the 4th finding,
and whether in fact the variance requested is the
minimum as stated in the 10th finding"
C. Mr. Ball asked if the condition of the window was
m the Planning standpoint or police? Mr° Brooko
stated the police. ' 1
� )
Commission Discussion and Action
A. Mr. Hartman questioned the condition because
it was such a permanent nature.
B. Mr. Whittaker stated that a silkscreen operation had
]
been granted joint utilization a year ego.
N&� /
-�~
C. Mr. Hartman moved to approve the variance based on
the staff findings and Mr" Lewis seconded.
D. Mr~ Frazier stated finding four should be corrected
in that it should read 7 feet more than the existing
lot width instead of 5 feet.
. !
E. Mr. Frazier asked what physical shape the lot was in
when the applicant purchased it. Mr. Brooks stated
existing physical shape.
F. The motion passed by a unanimous vote with Nicoll
abstaining.
6° SUBDIVISIONS
6.1 Lake Terrace (Arrow HeatlngCo^ )
Location: North of S.W. Walnut Street and 400
feet east of 121ot, adjacent the Brookway
Subdivision.
Staff Findings
A. Brooks said that the staff has reviewed the preliminary 1
plat and it does comply with the conditions of the
subdivision variance as granted by the Planning ` •
• Commission.
^
` �
. '
x��
��� \`~�
Testimony and Cross Examination
A. Mr. MoMunagIe of Harris and MoMonagIe Engineering
k for the applicant t
spoke o e app tin o stating g that his firm
had revised the preliminary plat to include the
conditions epacifiied by the Planning Commission when
the street standard variance was approved.
Staff Recommendation
A. Brooks recommended approval of the Lake Terrace
preliminary plat as submitted.
Commission Discussion and Action
A. Lewis moved to approve the preliminary plat as
submitted. Nickelson seconded and the motion
passed by unanimous vote.
7. SUBDIVISIONS - VARIANCE
7.1 "Summerfield" - Variance on paving width,
S.W. Summerfield Drive
Location';; From S �° Durnham Road 600 feet east
.
� y of Pabific Highway to S.W. 98th, 1100 feet
north of S.W. Durnham Road.
Staff finding
.8, Brooks presented the staff findings, stating
that an unusual hardship would be placed upon the
applicant by not granting the request.
Testimony and Cross Examination
A. Mr. McMonagle spoke for the applicant stating
his justification for Summerfield Drive being
constructed to a 36 foot pavement width rather
than the standard 44 foot width. This was
predicated primarily upon the limited access
(4 driveways) which is allowed from adjacent
properties directly onto 8ummerfield Drive.
}
Staff Recommendation
A. Brooks recommended approval of the variance request.
Page 8 - PC Minutes - 1I-6~73
------
`
__-'
^ ��
' 0
k^~ x `
~ ,
"
Commission Discussion and Action
,e_
�- A. Lewis moved to approve the variance request
and Hartman seconded. The motion passed by
, unanimous voto^
1 8~ SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW
1 8°1 A & W International
i
Location: Southeast corner of the intersection of ,
S.W. Pacific Highway and Garrett Street. |
Staff Recommendation
A. The staff recommended approval of the site
~ development plan with one condition
Commission Discussion and Action
A. Lewis said that he was opposed to locating an
A & W restaurant on this site, but being as this
decision had been taken out of the Planning
Commissions hands, he would move to approve
, the site development plan with the one staff
\ �' condition.
B. Ball seconded the motion, stating his agreement with
_ Louis' s view of the issue. In addition, he requested
� staff to verify that the conditions required by
.
Council with the approval of this conditional use
would be met by the submitted site plan.
C. The motion passed with Hartman abstaining.
.
8. 2 Miller Automotive
.
Location : South side of Burnham Street, 125 feet
east of Ash Street.
.
Staff Findings
A. Brooks presented findings, pointing out that the
applicant had not submitted an irrigation plan and
recommending minor changes which would bring the
submitted site development plan into complete
conformance with the Site Development Plan Review
Ordinance.
`
� ~.�. '
�
Page 9 - PC Minutes - 11-6-73
^
L________
`
. ���`
•
•
- ���
^~
�~ ^~
! ]
' ~~
Commission Discussion and Action
A. Hartman moved to approve the site development
plan with staff recommended conditions. Lewis
seconded and the motion passed by unanimous vote.
9. MISCELLANEOUS
9°1 Island Annexations
• Location: Derry Dell: west side of S.W. Pacific Hwy.
between Park and Gaardo Streets.
Rolling Hills: both sides S.W. 72nd Ave.
Between Varnes and Cherry
Streets.
• Staff Report
A. Brooks showed the areas under consideration and
t related preaen d e findings.
[
Commission Discussion and Action
�
\ ^_
A. Whittaker said that he was encouraged that the
•
Council had chosen to take action to annex these
islands. He suggested that the Planning Commission
offer their approval of this action and encourage
the City Council to seek the annexation of other
areas which are nearly surrounded by the City
boundaries.
B. Discussion occured concerning Whittaker« o
suggestion relative to encouraging further
annexations. Ball stated his belief that it
would not make any difference what the Planning
Commission recommends either on this annexation
or ones the Planning Commission sees necessary.
In that the island annexations are the items of
odncorn at this time, the Planning Commission
should not aek the Council to consider other possible
annexations. He continued by stating that the
Commission' s charge was to consider land usa and
the political aspects of the annexation issue
should be left to the City Council.
C. Ball moved to adopt the staff findings striking
the last sentence of finding and recommending to the
" _
~�^ City Council that the annexation be pursued bafor'o
the Metropolitan Boundary Review Commission.
Commissioner Hartman seconded. The motion passed by
unanimous vote.
•
Page 10 PC Minutes - I1-6-73
`-- ''----�---~--^~-
' ' ^
� � l
. ,~
�~� 9. 2 S.W. Summerfield Drive-Acceptance of street right-of-way
- dedication.
Location: From S.W. Durham', Road 600 feet east of
Pacific Highway to S.U. 98th, 1100 feet
north of S.W. Durham Road.
Staff Findings
A. Brooks presented staff findings
Staff Recommendation
A. Brooks recommended that the Planning Commission
recommend to the City Council acceptance of the ~' �
deed of right-of-way dedication for Summerfield
drive with the following conditione�
1. That the minimum right-of-way width be 61 feet.
2. All access to Summerfield Drive shall be
restricted and dedicated to the public as
per approval by the City Attorney and Planning
Director.
�'�
`w-
Testimony
A. Mr. MoMonagIo the project engineer spoke for the
applicant stating the need for a 60 foot right-
of-way.
Ha said that phases I and II had already
been platted based upon a 60 foot width and that he
�
saw no reason to add u foot to each side of the
street right-of-way .
Commission Discussion and Action
A. Ball moved to table the item until staff has had
additional time to review and provide a recommendation.
'Hartman seconded. The motion passed by a majority
vote with Commissioners Lewis and Nicoll voting no.
10. OTHER BUSINESS
No other business was considered
11. ADJOURNMENT: I0:28 P.M.
Page 11- PC Minutes - 1I-6-73
- - -
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
November 6, 1973
Agenda Item 4.1
CU 16-73 (Miller)
Conditional Use
For property located in an M-4 Industrial Park
zone, on the south side of S.W. Burnham Streets
125 feet east of Ash Street. (Tax Map 251 2ADV
Tax Lot 2700)
Applicant
Lee and Richard Miller
.82.21122,21-211.4.121.
Conditional Use approval to construct an automotive
repair shop in an M-4, Industrial Park zone.
1122.1192222.22i2uati,
To construct a 6 bay automotive repair -hop. The
structure would include office space,
Staff Findings:
1. Section 18.52.020 (Tigard Municipal Code) does
not specifically state that automotive repair
shops are conditional uses, however said section
does provide that the Planning Commission may rule
on uses that are similar to other uses described
in said section. Automobile service stations,
machine and welding shops are such described uses.
2. The subject site is adjacent the following uses:
O southeastern side: D.W.D. construction--offices
and equipment storage
® southwestern side: City Sewerage Treatment Plant
0 nOrthwestern aide z City Police Offices
Rental Dwelling
Surrounding zoning on the southside of Burnham Street is
M4, Industrial Park, on the north side of Burnham zoning
is M-3, Light Industrial .
3. The City Council on July 10, 1972 gave conditional
use approval to a "silkscreen operation". Said
approval was based on the following conditions
That the building be located on the westerly
property line.
That the Planning Commission review and approve
a completed site development plan prior to issuance
of a building permit.
A permit was issued on the proposed "silkscreen
operation", but the structure was not built and
the conditional use expired July 109 1973.
4. S.W. Burham Street, adjacent subject prop.rty9
currently has a 40 foot right-of-way. Burnham
Street is described in the "Tigard Community
Plan" as a collector street with a minimum right-
of-way standard of 60 feet.
5. Increased traffic on S.W. Burnham Street caused by the
subject and other development, will 6. rdeoe:henoftuture
improvement of Burnham to City coll.ctor street stndards0
indicate any area for the provision of outdoor storage
of waste material9 such as discarded auto parts, drop
box, etc. Such outdoor storage, if viewed from adjacent
properties or public streets does mkt meet the intent
of development in an Industrial Park Zone.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of an automotive repair shop as a conditional use
in an M-49 Industrial Park zone, said approval based on a
finding by the Planning Commission that the subject use
is similar to other uses described in Section 18.52.020
(Tigard Municipal Code)
Said approval shall include the satisfaction of the
following conditions:
1. Dedication to the public of an additional 10 feet
of right-of-way along S.W. Burnham Street.
2. The property owner (a) shall agree to support the formation
of a local improvement district to bring S.W. Burnham St.
to City collector street standards.
3. The applicant shall provide a fenced area for the outdoor
storage of waste material commensurate with said applicants
needs. Drop boxes, if used, shall be placed out of view
of the public right-of-way.
Page 2 - Staff Report - Miller
a,
TIGARO PLANNING COMMISSION
116 Staff Report
November 6, 1973
Agenda Item 5. i
V 5-73 (Ted Nelson Co. )
Variance
For property located at 14280 S.W. 72nd Avenues
(Tax Map 251 12A9 Tax lots 1009 3009 3019 201 and 200)
AnalalEnt
Ted Nelson Company
icant°sRcqt
To construct an addition to an existing building9 said
northerly addition is proposed to have a 10 foot satback
where a 20 foot setback is required in an M-29 General
Industrial zone.
Staff Finding!
1. Applicant9s justification is stated as follows:
"Application for reduction of side yard setback
from 209-0" to 101-0" is requested because owner
originally located plant adjacent to north property
line with 101-0" side yard setback adjacent to 301-0"
access easement plus 159-0" utility easement all
determined in March 1967 in concurrence with Washington
County and prior to adoption of Tigard "Planning and
Zoning CodealOwner claims hardship because original
planning was done on this basis and his manufacturing
process requires a 609-0" wide bay. The fact that a
309-0" and 15' easement exists to the north reduces
the i pact of future building proximity to the north.
2. The applicant contends he entered into an agreement with
Washington County to construct his building to within
10 feet of his property line and that this was prior
to adoption of Tigard "Planning and Zoning Code". The
applicant has furnished no proof of this contention.
The City of Tigard adopted a joint City-County zoning
code in 1962.
3. The applicant states a 15 foot utility easement exists.
(I No proof of such easement has be furnished.
--....Tr,...",...":',.......... , -
,
i ( '
'
4. The applicant has not submitted a description of the problems
( inherent in the manufacturing process that describes his
hardship. 4
r
t
5. The subject property was annexed to the City of Tigard, I;
November 11, 1968. ,
6. Section 18.76.010 (Tigard Municipal Code) states
". . .the planning commission may authorize variances from
the requirements of this title where it can be shown -
that owing to special and unusual circumstances related 1,
p
to specific piece of property, the literal interpretation
of this title would cause an undue or unnecessary hard® '
ehiro. .. . In granting a variance the planning commission
may attach conditions which it finds necessary to protect cc
the best interests of the surrounding property or neigh-
borhood and to otherwise achieve the purposes of this
title".
,
i
In addition Section 18.76.020 (Tigard Municipal Code) i'
states that "no variance shall be granted by the planning I
commission unless it can be shown that all the following
conditions exist: j.
t
1‘
(1) Exception:I or extraordinary conditions applying
(
\._ to the property that do not apply generally to
other properties in the same zone or vicinity, !
'4
which conditions are a result of lot size or
shape, topography, or other circumstances over
which the applicant has no control; I:
(2) The variance is necessary for the preservation of
a property right of the applicant substantially the
same as is possessed by owners of other property in l'
the same zone or vicinity;
(3) The authorization of the variance shall not be
materially detrimental to the purposes of this title, !,
be injurious to property in the zone or vicinity
in which the property is located, or be otherwise t.'t,
detrimental to the objectives of any city development
t,
plan or policy;
,
(4) The variance requested is the minimum variance from 'f,4
the provisions and standards of this title which will
alleviate the hardship.
,
,
..„„
„...,
(1
p
i
Page 2 - Staff Report - Ted Nelson Coe t,
,
tr,
..i
..,
7. The staff does not have sufficient material to
k analyze the applicant's request and make a considered
recommendations
Staff Recommendation
Continue item to next hearings, enabling the applicant
to submit necessary documentation for review and andylsis
by the staff®
C
Page 3 Staff Report - Ted Nelson Co,
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
November 6, 1973
Agenda Item 5.2
V 6-73 (Lee and Richard Miller)
Variance
For property located on the south side of S.W. Burnham
Street, 125 feet east of Ash Street. The site is adjacent
the new police office building (Tax Map 2S1 2AD, Tax lot
2700)
Applicant
Lee and Richard Miller
Applicant°a Regue:t
To locate an auttmotive repair building on a property
line9 where a 20 foot side yard is required in an M-49 '+
Industrial Park zone.
Staff Findinga
1. The dimensions of the applicant's property are
69 x 250 feet.
2. Applicant's justific= tiono "The original parcel
of land was divided and the parcel is now too small
to comply with set back requirements without imposing '.
an undue hardship on builders."
3. The City Council on July 10, 1972 approved a building
for a silkscreen operation to be "located on the
westerly property line"
4. The proposed automotive repair structure must necessarily
have a rectangular configuration for efficient utilization
of the structure. The proposed structure measures 32' x
72' . The only possible way to construct such a building
on this property, to allow for vehicle maneuvering and
future expansion, would be to construct such a building
closer than 20 feet to the property line. A 32 foot
building, plus 24 feet for vehicular •atnneuvering, plus
a 20 foot side yard setback would require a 76 foot wide
tom; property. This is 5 feet more than the existing lot
width.
S. The new City police office is adjacent the westerly
portion of the subject site. The City would look
favorably upon a structure located on the westerly
property line without windows in the structure's
westerly side. The City feels such a structure
would provide additional security to the police office
site.
6. There are special and unusual circumstances affecting
the subject property and the literal interpretation of
this ordinance would cause an undue hardship.
7. The subjects request is the result of an unusual condition
that does not apply generally to other properties in the
same zone and vicinity. The condition is a result of
lot shape, over which the applicant has no control,
8. The variance is necessary for the preservation of the
applicant's property rights, substantially the s=me
as is possesed by owners of other property in the same
zone or vicinity.
9. The authorization of the variance is not materially
detrimental to the purposes of this title, be injurious
to property in the zone or vicinity in which th.; property
is located nor is the variance otherwise detrimental to
the objectives of any city development plan or policy.
10. The variance requested is th> minimum variance from the
provisions and standards of this title which will
alleviate the hardship.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of the applicant's request with the following
condition;
° No windows shall be placed in the proposed structure
that face directly onto the City's police office site,
Page 2 ® Staff Report - Miller Variance
TIGARD PALNNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
Subdivisions—Preliminary Plat Approval
November 69 1973
6.1 Lake T,-rrace (Arrow Heating Co. )
Location North of Walnut Street, approximately 400
feet west of S.W. 121st Avenue.
Staff Findings
1. The applicant submitted a revised preliminary
plat to the City October 29, 19730
2. The applicant has revised the preliminary plat
to conform to the Planning Commission's subdivision
variance action of October 169 1973.
3. The Planning Commission, according to Section 170161008
Tentative Approv:-:1 (Tigard Municipal 6717-71171,117617i--
ode """nay give
tentative approv. 1 of the preliminary plat as submitted
or at it may be modified or, if disapproved, shall express
its disapproval and its reasons therefore Approval of
the preliminary plat -hall indic= te the Planning Commission's
approval of the final plat provided there is no change
in the plan of subdivision as shown on the preliminary
plat and there is full compliance with all requirements
of this title. "
Staff Recommendation
Approval of the Lake Terrace Preliminary Plat received by
the City October 29, 1973.
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
Subdivisions - Variance an
November 6, 1973
7.1 "Summerfield"-Variance on paving width (S.W. Summerfield Dr. )
(Tualatin Development Co. )
Location z From S.W. Durham Road, 600 feet east of
Pacific Highway, to S.W. 98th, 1100 Feet
north of S.W. Durham Road
aaff_Lialiaaa
1. The subject variance is a unique situation in that
S.W. Summerfield Drive;„ the major spine road through the
Summerfield subdivision, is not being considered as
a part of each plat. Thus, the street must be accepted
by the City in a separate action. S.U. Su,imerfi=ld
Drive is constructed, with curbs and gutters, to a
paving width of 36 feet.
2. The planning staff (see attached memo) interprets
S.W. Summerfield Drive to serve a collector street
function and as such, unless approved through the
subdivision variance procedure, should be constructed
to City collector stre:t standards. These standards
require a 44 foot paving width on a 60 foot right-of
way.
3. The City Council on February 12, 1973 approved a P-D,
Planned Development District on the subject site.
Included in exhibit "D" of this approval is a street
section of the "spine road" or S.W. Summerfield Drive.
Said section describes a paving width of 36 feet on
a minimum 60 foot right-of-way.
4. The applicant, represented by Harris-McMonagle
Associates, has submitted a petition for variance.
Said applicant's petition is attached.
5. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting
the property; the variance is necessary for the preser-
vation of a and enjoyment of a substantial property
(I
right of the petitioner and extraordinary hardships
would result from strict compliance with these
regulations because of the special circumstances affect-
". ing the property. This is because the approved Planned
Development concept was based on a 36 foot wide central
collector street, landscaped for visual ammenity, with
all development reverse-fronting this facility. To
provide wider pavement along this facility would
damage the viability of the proposed pedestrian and
bicycle paths. The proposed street standard is
adequate to carry projected traffic and the granting
of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare. The proposed street is
entirely within property owned by the Tualatin
Development Co. and will not be injurious to other
property in the vicinity in which the property is
situated,
Staff Recommendation
Approval of the requested variance; a 36 foot paving width
where 44 feet is required.
5'
Page 2 ® Staff Report ® Summerfield ® paving width variance
' t-
R;, ;`, t k+. - � of .;F s
,451 FGt'
x'44',4'''-.,
k '4,',4 ,44..,, 4 .4.. 115''4
2 ,t,,y 37/�tf"+�tU ,y�k 1
vttr ,.,1,.k.,:.,,-.,,
'4'
t
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
t Staff Report
Site Development Plan Review .
November 6, 1973
8.1 A & W International
Location: S.E. corner of the intersection of
S.W. Pacific Highway and Garrett Street.
Staff Findings
1. Applicant proposes to remove 3 existing walnut
trees 12, 16 and 18 inches in diameter; and two +;
apple trees 10 and 14 inches in diameter.
2. The submitted site plan meets all requirements
(
of the off-street parking and access and egress
chapters of Tigard's Zoning Ordinance With the
exception of section 18.60.100 (Tigard Municipal
Code) Landscaping, screening requirements. This
section reads as follows: "off-street parking shall
be allowed in any yard setback, provided that the
first two feet in from the property line are
maintained in landscaping. . . .
The applicant' s southerly and easterly property
lines are not landscaped in the aforementioned
manner.
3. The applicant has submitted a landscape and site plan
of sufficient detail to meet the intent of submission
iro standards set forth in Chapter 18. 58 (Tigard Municipal
I Code)
i Staff Recommendation
Approval of the applicant' s landscape and site plan
with the following condition:
°d1 ° The applicant submit for staff approda1 a detailed
" landscape and irrigation plan for the 2 foot landscape
f'i,, ' requirement, as set forth in finding 2 of this staff
report.
{t4' 1' '4 tr=.,' "pig' 4' .,},'' ;:*
1 '�3 l r,''''' F A 31i i'.
. TIGARD PLANNI u COMMISSI t4 "
i4` Staff Report ,f "�
. x,., ` Site Development Plan Review ` ;E , I
,{ e' November 6, 1973 ,`!
8.2 Miller's Automotive
Location: South side of S.W. Burnham Street, 125
feet east of Ash Street
, Staff Findings:
1. The applicant has submitted a landscape and site
plan of sufficient detail to meet the intent of
submission standards set forth in Chapter 18.58
(Tigard Municipal Code) , with the exception of an
adequate irrigation plan.
2. The landscape area in the nortfisim corner of the
subject site appears to have insufficient plant
materials to provide living ground cover within
a reasonable period of' time.'
3. The applicant meets the off street parking and
access and egress provisions of the Tigard
Zoning Ordinance with the following exceptions:
0 entrance drive is 20 feet in width where
,__. 24 feet is required.
0 The relationship between parking stalls 3 and
4 should be redesigned to facilitate easier
maneuvering of vehicles.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of the applicant' s sits and landscape plan,
said approval subject to the applicant submitting
for staff approval a revised site plan reflecting the
following revisions;
O increased landscape detail of the northeastern
portion of the subject site,allowing for a living
groundcover within 5 years.
o access drive to be 24 feet in width.
o rear portion of parking area to be redesigned so
, as to allow easier maneuvering of vehicles;
landscaping plan to be revised in order to reflect
the redesigned parking area.
\ t-tc,..4.344....-4,..,,. vs4.--C415,e-q„, 1:1-4\(;)-el'r,A.,4 Lk,/.'.., "1"14-'i:f Coll•fr1.4-416341-1111-1/4'
,ct, r
.y S NC 1j !
q L X t. r ; kls t.'
,
S. The inclusion of the subject islands into the n
City of Tigard is a logical extension of City
boundaries and consequently City Services. Adequate
size sever lines are available to the Derry Dell area,
police protection is easily provided and planning
f services are already scheduled for the island areas.
The areas are developed to urban densities and they
are geographically and socially a part of the Tigard
Community. Street maintenance and street lighting ,
services could also be easily and logically extended to �.
these areas .
, Staff Recommendation
Based on the above findings, it is recommended the Planning
Commission pass to the City Council an affirmative recommendations'
for annexation of the Derry Dell and Rolling Hills islands.
it }j
page 2 - Island Annexations - staff report r'
Y
o
i
Its..
+.sW>•t' i , .s`s A
ri r>k"�+�ra� x}�d��" 4'.t ^ � � � t,d�t" 'yA. �++ w' re r.. �+
. R
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION f
s� . + Staff Report
November 6, 1973
9.2 S.W. Summerfield Drive-Acceptance of Street Right-of-way
Dedication.
Location: From S.W. Surham Road 600 feet east of ,
Highway to S.W. 98th, 1100 feet ;
Pacific Hig y
north of S.W. Durham Road. ,!
Staff Findin s '`
1. The City Council on February 12, 1973 approved
a P-D, Planned Development District on the subject
site. Included in exhibit "0" of said approval ,
is a street section of the "spine road" or S.W. '`
ii
Summerfield Drive. Said section describes a paving
width of 36 feet on a minimum 60 foot-of-way. ,.,
2. No portion of S.W. Summerfield Drive has been dedicated
by the platting procedure set forth in Title 17, Tigard
Municipal Code or Chapter 92, Oregon Revised Statutes
3. The Planning Commission on October 2, 1973 moved to
approve a change of standards relating to the construction
of improvements in the right-of-way for S.W. Summerfield
Drive. This action related to the width of bicycle
paths. The standards approved in said Planning Commission
action included the wording "the right-of-way width
along S.W. Summerfield Drive shall not be less than
61 feat. " The proposed deed of dedication provides for
a right-of-way width of 60 feet.
4. The City engineering staff has reviewed said deed of
dedication legal description for S.W. Summerfield Drive
and finds said description a true and accurate account
of the location of S.W. Summerfield Drive as proposed in
the approved Planned Development District.
Staff Recommendation
That the Planning Commission recommend, to the City
Council, acceptance of the deed of right-of-way dedication
for S.W. Summerfield Drive with the condition that the
minimum right-of-way width for S.W. Summerfield Drive be
61 feet.