Planning Commission Packet - 04/15/1975 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PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and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.
w. ,,. �µ, �.,� '��G' �
AGENDA
,�� Tigard Planning Cornmission
April 15, 1975 - 7;30 pemo
Twality Junior I�igh Sch�c�l - Lec��;ure Rcc�m .
1.4650 S. W. 97th Avenue, Tigar°d9 O:�egc�n:
i
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3� APPROVAL OF MINUT�S
March 4, 1975 - Regular Meeting
March 18, 1975 - Regizlar Mee-Eing
April 1, 1975 - Regular Meeting
4. PUBLIC HEARING
��.1 Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZOA 1-75 �
Continuation of April ls� Hearing considering amendments tabled
to this meeting.
A. Amendment of Sec.tion 18o20a030 (Lot RequirPments in an
R-7 Zone)
�"" 1. Public Testimony
2. Commission Discus�ion and Ar.tion
$. Amendment to Cho 18040, Comme�°cia�.--Px°ofes�ional Zone,
Secti�ns e011 , (�onditional U;�es) and o070 (Signs)
l0 1'ublic Testimony
2, Commission D�.scu�sien an;� A*��::i�-�i
C. Amendment to Cho 18 0 48 Ligh�t ..in��•:..a.�t�r•i a�.. Z�zr�e y Se^tio.r�.
.020 (Conditional U�es)
1. Staff Report
2. Public Testimony
3. Staff Recommendation
4. Commission Discussiox� �.nd Ac�t�o�. .
4,2 Zoning Map Amendment ZC 3-75 (Schul�t�/�Ha,w�s, St. C:1a:�,r�,
Mille�, Cook & Tollen)
�..:,
� i
�
�.,. t
Request to amend�the Tigar,d Zoning Map from L°ounty RU-4 (Ft-7)
Single Family Res�.dential zone to Tigard C-P, Commercia7.-Pro- {
fessional zone at 12755 S. W. 67th Avenue. N.
� 3 ,
A. Staff Findings
B, Public Testimony ! '
�I
C. Staff Recommendation
,
D. Commission Discussion and Act�.on
4.3 Conditional Use CU 7-75 (Randall Construction Co. )
A request to allow multiple conditional uses in an M-4,
Industrial Park zone, at 8900 SW Burnham St. ( "Security
Storage'�) !
q
A. Staf� Findings
B. Public Testimony
C. Staff Recommendation
D. Commission Discussion and Acta.on ;'
;.
4.4 Conditional Use CU 8-75 (S & S Garden Service, Inc. ) '
��
A request to allow a garden supply and landscape contractor's r'
�- office and outside storage and sales in a C-3, General Commercia7.
Zone at 12535 SW Main St.
A. Staff Findings
B. Public Testimony
C. Staff Recommendation ;
D. Commission Discussion and Action
4.5 Variance V4-75 (Ted Foster)
A request to allow an exception (variance) to Ch. 18.20.U�0 TMC
(setba.cks in the R-7 zone) to allow an 11 foot rear yard in �r�.
R-7 zone at 12555 SW Braokside Court.
A. Staff Findings
B. Public Testimony
C. Staff Recommendation
D. Commission Discus�sion and Action
�
PC Agenda - April 15, 1975 - p8ge z :
y tl . . � . . . � ;
' . � �.., � . � � �u� . . �I'�
5. SUBDZVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROV.AL S 2-74 (Way 'Lee/Alpk�ia '�
�gineering) ,
��
�, A request for amendment of an approved preliminary plat to in-
clude exceptions to (variance) Ch. 17.28, TMC, (streets and
sidewalks) in the Way Lee Subdivision on SW Pae�fic Hwy. at
69th Avenueo
Aa Staff Report
B. Pub�.ic Testimony
C. Staff Recommendation
D. Commission Diucussion and Action �
`a '� '''; ��'}",
6. MINOR LAND PARTITION MLP 2-75 (Ashbrook Farm/Chas. Pe�erson)
�� �,_
A request for partitioning of lot 22, Ashbrook Farm, at 11090
SW 95th.
7. O�HER BUSIIJESS
8. ADJOURNMENT
� �..
�
� PC Agenda - April 15, 1975 - page 3
( ��� �n
N4 �§, ;
�' MINUTES
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
April 15, 1975
Twality Jun�.or High School - Lecture Room
14650 SW 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meetir►g was called to order at 7:40 p.m:
2, ROLL CALL
Present: Ball, Hartman, Popp, Sakata, Wakem, Chairman Whittaker;.
Staffs Powell, City Attorney Anderson
3. APPROVAL UF MINUTES
p, March 4, 1975 minutes were approved a�� read.
B. March L8, 1975 minutes were amended to show that in item 4.3 the mo�tion
was made on the basig of a finding that a hard$hip was exiating.
C. Apr3.1 1, 1975 minutes amended to show that Commissioc�er Ball and
Commiasioner Wakem abstained from voting or participating on the
�' C-P sign code matter.
° Whittaker asked that zoning ordinance amendmenta be ta�b�ed� for Cl�e
May 6 hearing.
° Staff brought up Che matter of determination of similar use of .a
cabinet s�op in a C-3 Zone.
° Commission resplved to adopt a eabiaet shop in a C�3 zone 4s a
similar use. Motion for the resolution (Popp), seconded (Har�na�►),
unanimously caxried.
4. �UBLIC HEART.NG
4.1 Item was deleted from the agenda per the Chairaun's ins.�:�r.uctions above,
4.2 Zoning Amendment ZC 3�75 (Schultz/Hawes, St. C�air, �iller, C�ok and :
� Tolen)
A request to amend the Tigard zoning map from county R0•4 os our R+�7y ;
single £amily residen�ial zone, to Tigard CommerciaL•Profe,�aianal,
C-P, a� 12755 SW 67th Avenue,
A. Staff Finditags
� The staf� report was r�ad by Powell �see attache�i). �•
B, Public Testimony
` 1. Applicant, Terry Talen, indicr�ed the purpo;�e of th�e zoa�
�. ��
w:�,�r•g�Y is to ;�.eu�.lcrp a c.onune'.�..�ia1 b•�.i1.r�9.�ng, I'h,r-.. prope:�-ty is
� �, �^, ��i,at.E �c��r the �rs� intended. T:he project ca�.forms ta tlze
PP�' P
T�ri.�:ngle a�nd the Comm:unity pl.ans and is compati1��.e with the
e�cisting development ar�und it,
2, C�mmi,ss3.on Gross E�cami;nationo
° Bal..l asked t1�e applicant about his project's relationship to
th.e. Comp�ehensive PLan about pre-leasing agreements that had
bPen made and what demand the applicar�t anticipated for hi�
p�rojecto
° To1en indicatied that the project reLated more closely to the
Triangle Flan than the Comprehensive Plan but regarded the
Triangle Plan �s an extension of the Comprehensi,ve Plan. He
said that they intended to pre-lease, but would build whether
pre.-leasing arrangements were made or not. He indieated he
felt that demand was hi:gh for a particular kind of pxoject
s�uch as his, but acknowledged that demand for certain kinds of
office space was 1ow as indicated in the market place.
° Popp asked about parking - how many parking spaces would be pro-
vided a�nd whether it would be sufficient for the building's sq.
footagP and employment.
° Talen replied that he felt it would be and that the Commission
�._ 1�ad the power to restri.ct the use of his site if Me did nat have
suffi.cie.nt pa�rking a�yway.
3a Testim�r�.y Opposedo
Tl�erp was no opposing testimony. '
�
�, S taf f Recs�mmenda tion i
APPROVAL with conditi.ons thato
�.� Apgli�i.a�nt pravi.de cur.bs and si�e�walks c�n. his f�rontage on Hampton
St., a�.nd o�i �?th to the •rorth side af his most northerly parking ,�
i
7.ot entra�ncee �
;
2, St�r�et surfa�.e be pravide�i to match existi g up to new curb +
line based on 34 fto stxeat widt��� �A� s�r`°�S , '
�"'�+�
3o Applicant has agree,d that a no�n�•.remonstranee agreement be executed
allowing the •value of street improvecnents be aeau�r:ea from futurF�
LeI.nD.s,
4� The px�oposed building site and parking c.onfigu�'ation be arranged :
�I' ,�s to accomodate. fut.ure str.eet alig�nmez�ts and vacations.
� �, Camcnis�i��n, Dise.ussion and Act.io�n
`C�k±�e Cammission brY.ef1,� �i.scussed parking on th� site and the futt��e of
the `Tx.ia�gle. P1.ar� i��. tlaat vicinity.
PC Minut.es - Apri.l 15, 1975 - page 2 :
, .�iot.i.c��, t.c� APFR��:; {?�ic.ol.i), s�ubje�:,•t t,o st��f roz����tians (a1�ov��niPntioned);
a�.�c�nde.� (B�.1S:)� 'un�nimousl.y carr,iedo
4�3 COND�:TxONAL USE CU 7='75 (Randall Co�struction Co�)
��r
A requ.est t.a aLlows
` Ao Autnm.�hile service station to incl,ude the automotive related
ser.vi�.es of auto repai�ing, customizing and zestoring, body
and fender wo�°k, painting and upholstery.
;; '
B� Fu�n�.tuxe max�ufac.turing to include combined assembly, ware-
housi.n.g a�?d dis�ribution pLus the refurbishing of used stock.
Ge Mach�ne shop, wel.ding s.hop and contractor°s office
' De Tc�oZ and hardware manu;facture
" E, Waret�ousing and whoLesale dis�ributi�on
a11 of whie,'h are conditio�.s�l�,y pexmitted in an M-4 zonte, at 8900 SW
� I�u:���am St�, an existing project k�own as "Security Starage".
A� Staff Findings
Powell. read the staff report (see attached).
B, P�blic Testimony
( le Appl.ican�,°s �r.ep�es�entative, Steve Mosinski, read a letter in
`` �-esponse to the guidelines after Fasano (see letter attached).
2, Gommission Gross Examinationo
° Commissioner Ball. asked if the units were ventilated or sir
con.di.tioned� asked abaut stor.m dzainag� and asked 3f a11
units had ga:r��ge doorse
� ° Applica�nt •�esp�nded th�t ihzv werE: not. air conditioned, that
sto�z�. d�:aiz�ag� had been pr.ov7de�1 for. and that a11 units did
h�ve ga�age doors� i
° Pox�te.� asked t.he si�e of r.:h.e uni,ts o
" T1�e appl�:cant responded that 'chE� a�.aits were about 900 sq,
fto
. ° Ha��..�ain offPr,ed th� observa�:i.on that fihe existin� canditional
�sse fo�r #:he sto��ag� coulrl be :resc:i.nded if, in the Plaz�.nir�g
Ccsmmiss�.a��.°s view� that use h.ad b�cozn.e a �:roblem.
° PopP as'ked t,he a'Ppl.icant w�?at t.hey we•re inte�zding to do. .
° App'li.���t�. res�ostd�d t;h:at they in.tenrl�:c't Co 1.ease_ the units
• i�rt Bu�i9.cli��a.g "G'B for busi,neases a�:d c�nt3.nue rhe storage
�, . in the o�,?�e� twce,
PG Mita+��,es � Apr�il 15, 1.975 � p�.ge, 3
, , -:. .:_ _... . :._..__ _ .: . _._ :_ .. _
�
, �
° :��1�asked t�ae appl.i.ca;n•t if tihe �errns'�•vf 4h�ir tenancy was �
by the mo�ntn or long texm leaseo -i�
� 1
° A�plicant responded that generally they were by the month �,
ten$ncies.
� � ��
C<
° Bal.l asked t:hen 3.f there was a possibility of 60 conditional ''
use applicatio�ns per month if the p�oject were ta continue F'
on a case-by�case basis. �
R
. . . . . .�.k��.
° Applicant responded that there was that possibili�.y.
f
3. Upposing Testimony: `
i��
$
None
G. Staff Recommendationa
APPROVAL of the following requested conditionally allowable activities: u,'
1. minor auto repair (involving exchange or i,nstall�tion of par�s �;
only), customizing and restoration (including auto body work, ;�'
painting only as incidental and related to above)
2. upholstering (commercial and automotive)
3o furniture manufacturing and re£urbishing !�
`,
4. machine shop, welding shop '
1;�
€3.
,
5. contractor°s office ����
� .
6. tool and hardware manufacture ;E
�
�� 7. storage (in units A & B) 1�:
�;:
{';
In addition to the permitted uses al�lowed in an Irl-4 zone, providing ;;,
that the f'ollowing conditions are. sati.sfied wi�h respect to all ��
activities allowed on the site� �:'.
r�;�,
1. Each proposed eccupant and/a�r activi�y shal� be subject t.o �;
P1.anning Director's �pproval. � ;
F>;�
2. T�.e project will be resubmitted to t�he Tigard Design Review ,i�
Bc�ard for design approval, £ollowing xedesign ot access and '�
parki�ng, inclus3,�n of a solid was�.e cc�llection area or dumns ��.
for site conforming to code and a suitable sign scheme and i>
landscape plan. Thi,s sha11 be accomplished before further ' �
occupancy permits may be granC�d. '
��
�.
3. Th� maximum employee/flo�or ar.ea ration shall be ox�e (1) �;I
employee per 600 sq. ft. of net floox area pe� individual 1.�.1
establishment. '`
�;
41.
�Xi
� �' . . . . . ��.
PC Minutes � April 15, 1975 - page 4 �,
,
■� _.
' �,.. �;m,�
4�. No one estab7.ishment sha11 lease or occupy less than 7,50U
sq, fte of contiguous floor space.
�,,: 5. AI1 partitions, fire walls and exposed framin�g shall be
brought up to minimum building and fire code requiremen,ts.
6, Storage only will be permitted in buildings '�A" and "B".
7o No retail sal,es or cirop-in custqmer service or pick-up '
and delivery excepti,ng tk►at purely inc3dent�l to a per-
mitted or conditional use for which approval has been
secured,
; 8o No commercial vehicles shall be stored or pa�ked ove�night
on the siteo
9. No outside storage of materials, vehicles� wast� products,
or debris shall be permitted. ,
L0. No corrosive chemical fumes, opaque smoke, noxious vapors
or exhaust gases Will be emitted frot►1 any act�vity on the
site.
11. Noise generated on site wi11 confo�rcn strictly to "Quiek
Zone" standards promul,gated by the SCate of Oregon EQC�
12. No more than one nameplate of less than 10 sq. ft. mounted
flat on the building wall above tk�e window line w�ll be
� permitted for each enterprise.
D. Gommission Discussion and Action
° The Commission discussed the perfarmance standards recomnended by
staff and the possible ramifications of "Secuxity Storage" be-
cpming a "mini-industrial park".
° Motio�n to table (Ball) on the basis that the Commission needed �,
further time to consider the staff recommendat3.ons. �
�
° Seconded (Hartman) �
4
Cammission Discussion of the Motion on the Floor: �
'r
° Whittakex commented on the question o� occupa�cy of the units.
° Nicoli indicated his opposition to the project on the basis of �
of inadequate parking.
o �I
Sakat� was opposed on the basis of a fire problem. �
° Porter wanted to know how the question of future tenaneies could "
be handled administxatively.
� . ° Hartman voiced his concern that permitted uSes b� contro�],ed in
this project, as �ae�.l. as eondi.�i.anr��. uses and ielt Lh� proppsa�.
RC Minutes - April L5, 1975 - page 5
� . . : ._.. .,'
, r-_
� .� __,._.:. .._. ,
.. . . . . . . . .. .. . � . �, . . ..� . . . . ' , .. . . .. . . . I
. ' \.. . . . . . �.�Y � � � .�
wouTd give the Commission a "hai►d1e" on obnoxious permititeci
uses �s well, as o� conditioMal uses,
�" ° Bgll obsexved that ev�n a permitted use may nok be a�.lawed when
the project had been approved as a cc►nditia�al u,sef
° City Attorney Anderson respos�cled t�hat l�e felt this was not the
case. The presence of an exi,stix�� co�}dit3onal u,se did �so� 3m-
peach the applicant's inherent percn3.ssion to insta�.l. a use
percnitted out�.ight under the zoming eode.
° Question was called.
° Commi$sion vote was un�nimous to table to �he next regu�:ar
meeting (May 6, 1975).
4.4 CONDTTIQNAL USE CU 8-75 (S & S Gard�n Servic�, T�e.)
A request to allow a garden suppl,y and Landscap� �antracGox's pffice and
qutside storage and sales in a G-3, Ges�eral Co�rmier�ial zone, a� 1253�
SW Main St. '
A. Staff Findings
See sGaff repo�t attached.
.
B. Public Testimony
�- 1. A Licant
PP
° Ernie Whi,k.e, owner of the subjeet parcel�. testi�'ied �n favor,
described the premises involved. He further indicated that
the applicant had impxoved th� appeaxanc� and use of the
property ar�d he felt 'the use was a benefit �o Main Stf and
that there was a public d�mand foa thg services of�ered. �j
�
° Jerry Cach, neighboring busi�.essm�n, �est�.fied in ��vor of
the applicatipn, indicating that he agpx'eaiated the im*
provement of the adjacen� site.
2. Qpposing Testimony
Npne �
C. S�aff Recommendation
�
APPAOVAL o� a conditiqnal use permit to op�rate a gax�den supp],y �
store and a landscape contxacto�'s office and shop, inc�.uding out-
$�.de storage and sales and all.owir�g an �xception to on•site pa�king
standards �.n ihe zoni,ng eode,
D. Commission Discussion and Action
� ° Pc��P o�served tYtat the neighborhood dici ����tit f,a:n CMe X�se:
described.
PC Minutes - April 15, 1975 - page 6
�.. . . � . . . ; .. , ; .. ,-:-.� �. -��::5� „�..: ... �w„_:�...�;
�.. . , .._.
' � �. �:...
° Porter asked i£ outside storage would be r� pxoblem.
° Nicoli sai:d he fel� there was no space there for storage of !
�, equipment. �
° Motion (Wakem), seconded (Popp) �or APPROVAL per staff recommer�dation
with the additional condition t}�at no ou.tside storage of other than
plant mater�.als and normal garden supplies be allowed.
r
° APPROVED unani,mously �
k
4.5 VARIANCE V4-75 (Ted Foste�)
E
,.
A rsquest to allow an exceptian to CMapter 18.204060, Tigaxd Mulnicipal ;
Code, allowing an 11 ft. rear yard in a1n R-7 zone at 12��5 SW Broak- �!
� sid�e Court. I��
�:
A. Staff Findings �.
' �i
;,
Staff report (attaehed) was read by Powe11, �
B. Publ�.c Testimony
1. Mr. Foster t�stified in his own behal,£ observing that his request ,
would make no hardship on ad,jacent propexty owners; that the re- �'
quest was necessary to preserve hi$ right to use the property; �,�
that the variance was necessary because of the unusua�, long and i;
narrow shape of his lot and that the reques.t was the minimum ��
�_ variance that he could ask in order ta e�able him to use his lot. �
2. Opposing Testimony
Noi1e
C. Staff Recommendatian �;
�i
APPROVAL �';:
t�°.
D. Commission Discussion and Actlon €
�;
Motion (Ball) to approve; seconded (Hartman) '`
I''
Approved unanimously G
5. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL - S 2-74 (Way Lee/Alpha Engineering) �f
�
A request for an amendment of an approved preliminaxy plat to inc�.ude ex+ f�`
ceptions to Ghapter 17.28, Tigard Muni,�ipa1 Cqde, (st�eet� and sidew�alks), in �t�
the Way Lee subdivision on SW Pacific Hwy. at 69th Av�. '
,A. Staff Report �
�;1:
Read by Powe�l (see attached). �;
4.
�
�C Minutes - April 15, 1975 - page 7 ``
��
s
\ �
. . . ,,, .:.....
�..,
Bo Public Test.imony
�3 L: Tom Amburg, representing the applicant, testified in favor af
" the proposed ame�ndment citing the need for additional spaee
an the two lots created by the cr�eation of SW 69th Ave. He
spec�,f�.ed that the applicant i�tended to conform to all City
codes and that the 60 ft. stxeet standard? which had been asked
in the origin�l appli�atio�n, was due to a misund�rstandi�g of
the applicable s�reet standard.
2. No one spoke in oppc�sition.
C. Staff Recommendation
APFROVAL subject to conditions:
1. allow a 60 f t. right-o£-way for SW 69th fQr 1p0 ft. ��om
the curb line of SW Pacific Hwy.
2. require a 5 f t. minimum sidewa].k or� each sid� of 69�h
' adjacent to the edge of the rigt�t-of�way
3. Allow a 34 ft. paved (curb-to-curb) roadw�y with �►4 fk.
paved (curb-to-curb) for the first 100 ft. from the SW
Pacific Hwy. curbline. I
I
4. Conform with rema�,ning conditions of the previous Planning ' '�
Commission appxoval (through traffic i.n parking areas to
� facilitate emergency vehicle access, pavement of proposed
street to the furtTnermost driveway access with a bond poSt�d
to ensure completion when appropriate, and required par-
ticipation in the cost o£ signalizing SW 69�� i��Qrsection
at SW Pacific Ehvy.).
a
5. Street lights shall be prov3ded ko City standards for a `
commercial street.
,'
6. Water pressure and volume must be sufficient to provide £ul.l �
I
fire flow. i
' 7. Storm drainage be provided for per City eode. iI���
I
D. Commission Discussion and Action
° Mo�ion to approve (Popp); seconded (Hartman), subject to staff �
conditions.
° Ball observed that he would like to see positive landscape
measures taken with respect to site dgvelopment.
° Hansen observed that the app�.icant's p�oposal seemed �easonable,
but he felt that the sidewalks were adequate.
� ° Wh3ttaker asked tha� the sidewal�C.s he pl.ace�l acl jacent ta �he
property lines.
PC N�inutes - Apr31 15, 1975 - page 8
�"� .. . . _... , . . .. . _ . ..:. . ... _ _ . . . . .. . � .. . . . :__... . . � .,,_, . ._ , .. � ,:�....... i, ,:..<,.". ._,...,.:.,_.. ....:�.....,.,�..-.�.___.
� � �Y
° 5taff �bserved that was i�ncluded in the stat�' recommendations.
..r... . . . . . . �
�r�:
° Ba1�1 asked tlaat st7ceet trees be included at a speeific interval,
.for example, 40 ft. on ce�ter,
° Whitt•ak�r said there were design problems in t�e cuxvature of
t'he roadway which should be �ddressed in the design of ad,ja�ent
landscaping and sidewalk provis3.on.
° A motion to amend the previous motion (Hartman) to apply site 'I
desigs� review to that are�a between the property li�e �n�d the
cuxb lines of 'SW 69�h St. �'�qu�.ring the appli�ant to pxovide
sidewalks and landscaping to conform to the topography wi�M tk�e ,
intent that �he developer prov�de landscapi�g in the areas
between the sidewalk and the curb line allow�ng adequate space
for a street tree planting and a pler�sar�t pedeskrian e�viron-
ment.
° Moti.on seconded (popp) to amend.
° carried unanimously.
° Motion to amend condition l of the staff request�d conditiQns
(allow a 6D ft. right-of-way �or SW 69th for l0U ft, from the
curb line of SW Pacific Hwy.) (Popp), seconded (Hartman) to
add "for 100 ft-� �xcept �s spproved by Public Works Dept. from
the cvrb line of SW Paci£ie Hwy."
� ° Amendment carried unan�.mously. '
° Origii�al motion to approve called to question, carr�,ed unani-
mously.
6. . MINUR LAND PARTITION - MLP 2-75 (Ashbrook Farm/Char�.es Petersen)
A request £or partitioni�g of lot 22 Ashbrook Farm at 11090 SW 95th.
° Motion to table (Ball), seconded (Porter), finding that the applicant was
not present to testi�y on his own behalf; approved unt►nimous�y.
7. OTHER BUSINESS
None
8. ADJOURNMENT
The meet3.ng was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
��,
PC Minutes - Apri1 15, 1975 - page 9
��..�:_ .__�..__� .. ,. �_.: _�__..'�..... ...::.. ...:�._ ..�...:.. .. . ... .: . .:_.-�,.. _ .__..:: . .�_.�._k. .., . .__ . _...._... ...._ .�._ _ . .__.__ ,_. _�_ ,�. ___�._.___.._
' �.., • '. � �ti.:v.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSTON
Notice is hereby given that public hearings will be lield by the Planning '
. Commission of the City of Tigard in the Tcaality Junior High School Lecture �'
Room, 14650 SW 97th Ave., Ti$ard, Oregon. Said hearings will occur on '
' April 15� 1975, at 8s00 p.m. and wi11 concern the foll'owing: • '
° An application by Hawes, St. Clair' et al to amend, the Tigard �
2oning Map fxom Couaty RU-4 zone 'to Tigard C-P (commercial-pro- ' '
fessional) zone at 12755 SW 67th Avenue (tax lots 1100 and 1200�
� Wash. Co, tax map 2S1 LAD) �
° A request by Randall Construction Co., Inc. to allow auto service,
• auto repair, auto body shop, auto painting and upholstering, fur- j
� niture manufacturzng (to include combined assembly� warehousing, . �
and retail sales plus the refurbishing of used s�ock), machine �,
shop, �welding shop� contractor�s office, tool and hardware manu- :�
facture, warehousing and wholesale distribution in an M-4, In-
dustrial Park zone. Site is a� 5.56 acre parcel at 8�00 SW 4
Burnham St. and is now known as "Security Storage". (Tax lots �
2200 and 2300, Wash. Co, tax map 2S1 2AD). I
a
° A request by S & S Garden Service, Inc. to allow a garden supply '
and landscape contractor's of£ice and outside storage and sales
. in a C-3 general .commercial zone. Site is an existing building
and yard at 12535 SW Main St. (tax lot 2000 and 2100, Wash. Co. .
Tax Map 2S1 2AB).: '
� A request by Ted Foster to grant a variance of
ch 18.20.060 (4) to allow an 11 foot rear yarcl
� in an R-7 zone, at 12555 SW Brookside Court. .
(Tax Lot 104, Washing�on Co. - Tax Map # �
2S1 2BC) � '
° A 'request by Alpha Engineering for reconsideration of a preliminary
plat including� variance of Ch. 17.28 Tigard Code (streets and .
! • . sidewalks for the Wa Lee subdivision_ on SW. Pacific �-- � � -
) Y HwY• a t�-_ ..__. . .
, 69th Ave. (south side). (tax lot 6501, Wash. Co. tax map 151-36AD).
° A �request by Chas. W. Peterson for minor land partitioning of a
' portion of lot 22, Ashbrook Farm, on SW 95th Ave. (tax lot 1400,
Wash. Co. tax map 1S1 35A).
All persons having an interest in tY►ese matters axe invited to attend and
be heard. '
.
Publish Tigard Times
.
�,.... .. . ., . .._ . .. .,.. .
._. .., . _.,_ „. . . .. ..... ... . .. .. . ..,.,. . .� , . ....., ...._. . , . , -�
• �� � �-�,:w � �. ..� �.,,._ �> .�.w �.�: . .�_.._ � � .,,. . ,, .. _._. �.. � ... ._.
�; t�emorandum '`
�...
_ r �T�: Tigard Planning Commission � �- 7S
Y From: Staff
�,y,: Sub jec�tz "Cabinet shop'� in a C-3 zone �
Date: Apri1 15, 1975
1. An initial contact has been made by a person wanting to operate
a cabinet shop on SW Pacific Hwy. ,
` 2. 11Cabin:Pt snops" as� such are not addressed in the Ti�ard zoning
code; how�ver, plumbing� elect'rical or general contractor�s and
shop are conditionally allowed in a C-3 zone. No other zone
appears as appropriate for this use, particularly at the
scale that is intended.
3. "Cabinet shops�� under the ��lashington County zoning code would` �
be either their '�B-4" or �'MA-1" zones which are similar to
our C-3 and M-4 in intensity and are frequently arterial or
'"strip" zones.
4. A cabi.net shop, although "ligh�t manufacturing'► by technical
' � definition, shares an affinity for an arterial location witT�i �
lawnmower s�ops, ].umber yards, auto sales, a�pliance stores,
furniture stores, auto parts, caterers, feed stores, garden . �
shops, print shops, hardw3re stores, some other contractors �
offices and shops and restaurants.
�..:' �
5. There is a great difference between different '�cab�.net shops"
due primarily to scale. �'he "mom and pop" cabinet shop is a
great deal different from a manufacturing cabinet woi^ks;
however, differentiating them in a zoning cod� would requzre
a per�ormance standard related to the size, scale or employ-
ment of the enterprise. •
6. In the event that �he commission finds that a cabinet shop is !
like or similar to a contractors' office and shop, staff would �
suggest that a performance standard be app].ied to the aonditinnal �
use provision in the code to limit the scale of enterprise to �
those compatible with a t�usiness district or strip. �
4
1
(
. �f
i
f
• ,`
I
�
' i
f
. i
�
. .... ._ . _.. . .. . . ... . . .. . . . ..... . ..._. , .., ,....�.r ._....
�� .. � . .. � . .. _ _ - -
_ �
'
, ;
.
. � � . � . � . � �(/ ���/�r .
� . . . �...� . � �,..� . .
Memorandwn
,��-
�„ , To: F�anning Commiss�,on
Fram: Staff
Su'b�ect: Amendment of Ck�. 18.40.070 (Signs in the Commercial-- '
Professional Zone) - Stal'f Proposal #2 j
Dat�s Apri� �.0, 197�
_ �
Objectives:
1) �0 laosen the restrictions in the zoning code on signs 3n �
the C-P zone to allow more innovative and effec�ive methads �
of signing consiste�t with good design and the special needs g
of intra-metropalitan office districts.
2) to provide for the special needs of large sc�le Commercial- �
Professional Planned Devel.opment Districts with respect �
to direc�iona� signing particularly. �
�
; 3) to strengthen design control over signs in the C-p zone �,
� � � � � � ��;
P��sent qrdinanc:e Provisions: � • . a;
�,
18. 4O .OZ0 Signs. (a) There shall be not more than one �'
��; square foo"t.�of sign.. area for each one hu�ndred sc�uare feet of
f.loor area within the building. The total area of such a '
' sign shall �'not e�xceed fift�een square feet. � .
i
• � (b) No sign shall project above the roof line or �xtend ;�
over a publi� sidewalk., or �right-of-way. All faces of signs . �
' ' shall be paralle.l to the face of the bui,lding. upon which the
sign is located and to. which the sign pertains. �
(c) Signs may not be painted, pasted or similarl.y posted ��
directly on the surface of any wal1. ' • s�
. (d) . The sign may he �lighted wit� indirect lightfng. No
� neori (exposed •tubing) , plastic (interiar illumination) , blink- �'
er flashin or animated si ns shall� be ermitted. £�
� (e) " No 'billboards or, gincidental use signs" shall be `�j
� permitted. . . . . � • • . � . �
' (f), Free-stani3ing signs stiall not be permitteci in park- � ' �
ing lots or in other areas directly rPlated to pub�.�.� access '
" or to, vision from the street. (Ord. 70-4b S4, Exhibit A �.�
(part) , 1970; Ord: 70-32 5156-7, 1970j .
` �
� �
I
i
i
;
;
�
� ;
�
� : � �`, _ � .
p � �.1 . .. . � . . . .
. . . f. f�� . .
Pro '�sed Revisions: �`y
P _:
;
�.8.40.070 5i�ns.
��y ,
(1) ExceptAng Pro�ects Approved Under Provisions of Ch. -18.56: ',
�
a. No change.
b. Na ehan�e. :
c. Signs may be painted or otherwise applied directly to �
a w�,1� providing such s3gn is an integra�, part of �
building desig,n and approva�, is obtained for such sign �
fram the Design Review Board,
d. No chan�e. ,
e. No change.
f. Free-standing signs designating a partieular pro�ect
,,
,
;
site or building may bP permitted in l.ieu of bu�.lding
, mounted' signs sub�ect to spec�fic approval by the
' Design Review Board. '
(2) Signs in a Planned Development District (under provisions ;,
af Ch. 18.56) for the specific purpose of site identifi�cation, '
building identification, �enant identiFication and traffic
direction may be permitted in such Planned Development
District as approved .in the General Plan (Section 18.56.030�
sub�ect ta Design Review Board approval, providin�, that an
inte�rated sign theme is carried out compatib3e with the
, overall development and 'consisten� with the approued
General P�.an and Program.
�
�
;
;
;
.
;I�
;
_�
�
�
_. _ _ . _ _
'' , � ��� F
� Y��a r'�'�� �� ' E
� � �
�� ..
�
�
TIGARD PLANNING CONIIrtISSION ��
Staff Report ;
�� Age�nda Item 4.2 ���
c
�
2C 3-75 �
i;
Zone Change �
of a 1/2 acre parcel located on the northwest corner of SW 67th and
Hampton (tax lots 1100 and 1200, Wash. Co. tax:�tnap lSL lAD) F'
r
r.
Applicants �'
���
t
Hawes, St. C1air, Miller, Cook & Tollen, optional purchasers for Randy and j
Karen Schultz, owners
Applicants' Request
�
u
Approval of a zone change from Wash. Co. RU-4, single family residential (similar j.
to Tigard R-7) to Tigard C-P (Commercial-Professional)
Ap�licants' Proposal
to construct a 6000 sq. ft. office building with parking
�;
Staff Findin s
g
i;
1. This site has recently been approved for annexation to Tigard by the �'
��- Metropolitan Boundary Review Commission. �'
2. The Tigard Community Plan identifies this area as "commercial-residential"
and the Tigard Triangle Plan more specifical�.y recommends office park
development.
3. Streets adjacent to the parcel are SW 67th Ave. (60 f t. R/W, unimproved
gravel) and SW Hampton St. (60 ft. R/W, paved center strip). Neither
street is identified on the Tigard Community Plan or in the Tigard ��
Triangle Plan as collector or arterial streets. The "Tziangla Plan" `'
recommends vacation of both the portion of Hampton adjacent the site ;.
and all of 67th. The intent is to provide large planned developments '
(on super blocks) rather than cutting the area up with a gridiron street
pattern and single, isolated developments. k
4. Parcelization of the four blocks bounded by Hampton, 68th, Franklin,
and 66th shows som� assemblage of potential commercial parcels has al-
ready occurred. Assembly of parcels of such size or configuration as
to afford a11 the present lands to the center of the "super block" (those ;
that front 67th) access to either 66th or 68th seems unlikely,however. `
Staff feels that an option should be left available for internal cir- t
culation along present street rights-of-way. Future development could �
be either as a loop o£f 66th (Gonzaga-67th-Hampton) or as cul-de�sacs ;.
off 68th, 66th and/or off Franklin. Certainly 67th should not remain E
a "through" street, nor should Hampton.
� (
!
1.
i.
I
, �
,
� '
� � _ t��...
�'�Y 5. Sewer is available approximately 100� from the S. W. corner of the
site.
�
6. Public water mains are to be bid soon for 67th.
7. Surraunding present land use is predominantly residential to the '
north east and west of the site but is a arentl bein held
� PP Y g
specu.latively in anticipation of commercial development. Land use
to the south of th
e site is recent commercial office development.
Staff Recommendation
to be advised after close of public hearing
�I.
�LL
�
�
PC Staff Report - Apri1 15, 1975 - page 2
� - , .. :,� . ._._ _. ;,
. � V Y��„ �'w, . . .
ZC 3-75 (Schultz/Hawes, St. Clair et al)
� � Apri1 15, 1975
i
�
Staff ltecommendation �
_ �
�
,
i
APPROVAL with eonditions that; �
l. Applicant provide curbs and sidewalks on his frontage on Hampton !
Street and on 67th to the north side of his mo:st northerly parking �
� �� � � � 1�ot entrance. � � ;
� !
2. Street surface to match existing be provided up to new curb line �
(based on 34' street width). s
�
�
3. Applicant has agreed that a non-remonstrance agr.eement be executed i
allowing the value of street improvements be deducted from future {
L. I, D. �
I.
in site and arkin confi. uration be arranged ;
� That ro osed :build g S
+. g P
P P �
as to accomodate future street alignments and vacations. ;�
i
�
i,
�' �
, �,
�f
i?
Fi
41.
1
hi
E
��
�
C
�'
�I
6
�:
�
$F
}#
}(V
i
�(
I
1
{
�,.
�.� . , . . _ ___
4 tF
` "�....
\.
Staff Report
T2GARD PLANNI?�TG COMMISSION
� ; April 15, 1975
Agenda Item 4.3
CU 7-75 (Security Storage)
Conditional Use
an a 5.56 acre M-4 zoned site presently developed in "mini-
warehouses" known as 91Security Storage" at 8g00 SW Burnham %
St. (tax lots 2200 & 2300, Wash. Co. tax map 2S1 2AD) '
i
i
Applicant '�
i
�
Randall Construction Co. �
Applicant's Request ;
,
i
to allow: �
;
��A. Automobile service station to include the automotive related �
services of auto repairing, customizing and restoring, body �
�
and fender work, painting and uph:olstery. z
x
B. Furniture manufacturing to include combined assembly, ware- �
housing and distribution p.lus the refurbishing of used �;:
�r stock.
C. Machine shop, welding shop and cont�ractor's office.
D. Tool and hardware manufacture �
E. Warehousing and wholesale distribution. " t
f�,
'f
all of which are conditionally permitted in an M-4 zone. _�
1-
t
Applicant's Proposal ;
To 1.eas'e the larger spaces developed for "mini-warehouses" ;;�
in the development as commercial-industrial spaces to small '
;.
businesses, particular�y crafts. '
i
Staff Findings ;
1. Present land use of the site is predominant�y storage, �
although several small enterprises that are permi�ted uses
in an M-4 zone have already loca�ted in the project, E
�
2. Surrounding land use is mixed light and medium industrial. �
3. The area is identified in N. P. 0. #1 Plan as Commercial- �
� Industrial. �
� `
!
;
�
i
� , .�_ ��_
�
�'�.. `°�:�
4. Compatibility of different activities within this project
�� is more a function of the scale of operations, the traffic
� generation potential and nuisances such as noise and air
pollution createc�. of and by each en.terprise, than it is
re�.ated to specific activities. Retail sales other than
those incidental to a light manufacturing enterprise clear-
ly woul.d require more parking and would generate more
traffic than can be provided for on the site. SVholesale
distribution or freight breakdown activities are not com-
patible with the traffic generation of the project.
Businesses which provide customer service of a drop-in
nature would similarly be inappropriate here. High em-
ployee/floor area ratios wou.ld similarly overtax the
traffic handling capability of the project and the parking
space available.
5. Compatibility of building occupancy classification under
provisions of the uniform building code is a problem the
building department has already encountered with respect
to this project.
6. There are no adequate provisions on the site for solid
waste disposal.
7. Site design with respect to parking, access, landscaping
and screening is not acceptable for commercial-+industrial
use but is, in staff's opinion, remediable by a combination
�LL. of strict performance �tandards and �ome site re-design.
8. Buildings "A" and "B" provide no sanitary facilities, in-
suf.ficient parking and are not appropriate for commercial
or industrial use.
9. Any free-standing pro ecting signs or other rojecting
building accessories �mechanical units, etc.�} would en-
croach on necessary access and maneuvering space.
10. Flat mounted signs, rooftop signs, win.dow signs al�owable �,
under the Sign Code could be an aesthetic problem. Visual �
display or advertising on this site is inappropriate to
the uses allowable.
11. The state o� Ore�on ���luiet Area�� designation a�.�.ows noise �
; levels compatible with the intended uses of this site. �
- Staff Recommendation �
i
,
to be given af'ter completion of testimony and close of 3
public hearing '
�
;
i
. +
� ;
�:'
I
PC Staff Report - April 1.5, 1975 - item 4.3 - page 2
� , .
_
�/ ����,
, , (I1�
Staff Reeommendations: CU 7-75 `�
Appra'val of the foll.owing request�d conditiana�ly a�.lowable activi-
Y ties:
�
1. minor auto repair (involving exchange or installation of
parts an.ly) , cus�omizing and restoration (includin� auto
bodywQrk, painting nn�.y as incidental and related to above)
2. upholstering (commercial and automotive�
3. furniture manufacturing and refurbishing
4, mach�.ne shop, welding shop
5. �ontractars offiGe '
6, toal and hardware manufacture �
i
7. storage (in units A & B) !
�
�
In aaa�.t�.on t� the p�ermitted uses a�llawed in an M-4 zone, providi.rzg t
that the following conditions are satisfied with respect to all.
activities a1l.owed on the site.
�., Eaeh proposed occupant and/or activity shal.l be subject
tn planning directox�'s approval.
2. The pro�ect will be .resubmitted to the Tigard Design ,;
`��. Revisw Baard for design approval following redesign of �
access and parkin.g, i.nclusion of a salid waste collecta.on �
area ar dumps for site conformin:g to aode and a suitable
sign scheme and l.andscape p1an. This �ha1.1. be accomp�.ished
before fur�her accupancy perma,ts may be granted.
{i
3. The maxi.mum em�loy�e/floor area ra.tion shall be 1. empl.oyee s;!
per 6�0 sq. ft, o.f net floor area per a.nd.ividual �stablish-
ment. ;�`
;�
4. Na one establishment sha7.1 1.ease or occupy less than i5oo
sq. ft. af cantiguous floor space. '°
5. AJ.1. par�titions, fire walls and ex��osed �raming sha�.l be
brought up to mina.mum -building and f�re code requirements. �
�;
6. Storage only will be permitted in buildings "A" and ��B��.
;'.
7. �Vo reta9.1 sa�.es or drop-in customer service or pick-up
a�d deli.very �xcepting that pure�.y i.ncidental to a per- ,�
mitted �r conditinnal. use for whzch �pproval has been ;F�
secured. ;�
�3, No commercial vehicles sha11. b� stored or parked �ver- '�
nig�t on the site. �
�'
�= �. TJa �u�siae ��c��a�� c�f rr�a���i.a�.�R vehicles, waste praducts, �
�
�
i�'
;�
�
� � �
� �. .
Ur debris shal�. be permit�ed.
�.0 N'o co o ' h mica fum a a ue smoke noxious va ors
I . rr sxve c e 1 es, , p
P q
ar exhaust gases will be emitted from any activity an the
site.
1�. Noise generated on s,ite will oonform stri.ctly t� ��Quiet
Zone" standards promulgated by the State of Oregon EQC.
12. Na more than ane nameplate of �.ess than 10 sq. ft. mounted
flat on the building wall above th� window line will be
permit�ed for each enterprise.
�
1
CU 7-75 Staff Re�ommendations - 4/15/75 - page 2
�
.� _ _ : , -
_ _ _
t i
�...
Staff Report
�. Tigard Planning Commission
(�t'
April 15, 1975
Agenda Item 4.4
CU 8-75
Conditional Use
on a portion of a C-3 zoned site previously unused between a
retail, commercial building and a commercial/storage building
at 12533 S. W. Main Street( (tax lots (part of) 2D00 & 2100,
tax map 2S1-2AB) ) .
Applicant
S & S Garden Service, Inc.
Applicant's Request '
�
approval of a garden supp�y shop, landscape contractor's office,
nursery and outside storage and sales area as conditional uses '
;
� in the C-3 zone j
;
i
A�licant's Proposal �
� s
to operate a service center for landscape supplies and services
Staff Findiri�s
l. A garden supply store is a conditional use in C-4 and C-3
zones.
2. A landscape nursery is a permitted use in "R" and "A" zones, ;
but is not included in permitted or conditional uses in
any ��C�� zone. e
3. "Plumbin�, electrical or general contractor and shop" is a z
conditionally allowable use in a C-3 zone as is outside
storage and sales. i
�
$
4. All services are available and currently supplied to site. �
5. Site is located between a laundry and of�ices on the north �
:
east and a storage warehouse and contractor's office on i
the south wes�, with SW Pacific Hwy. R/W behind and Main
St. in front. Compatibility of the garden supply and
other activities with adjacent land uses appears to be
adequate.
6. On site outside stoxage of bulk materials and/or heavy
�
�
�
� �
..._.�--,.� , .. .
�,, `i.�..
equipment and commercial vehicles is not in chara�ter with
v� the general area, nor does there appear to be adequate
��� space for that purpose.
7. The proposed use conforms to the Tigard Community P1an.
8. The proposed use is a betterment of an ignored and unused
area left over between two unlikely neighbors,
9. Off-street loading and unloading and employee parking is
possible on site; however, it appears unlikPly that off-
street customer parking can be provided.
Staff Recommendation
To bs advised at close of public hearing.
�'; .
�. �
PC Staff Report - April 15, �.975 - item 4.4 - page 2
� �
Staff Report
Tigard Planning Commission
April 15, 1975
� Agenda Item 4.5
V 4-75
Varianc�
on an R-7 single family site at 12555 SW Brookside Court
(tax lot 104, Wash. Co. tax map 2S1 2BC)
Applicant
Ted Foster
Applicant's Request
to 'be allowed a variance of the required 15 ft. rear yard to
11 ft.
Applicant's Proposal
to build an addition on his house I
Staff Findin�s
�` �. The proposed addition will not cause an unusually close
'�- building separation nor adversely affect rear or side
yards or adjacent single family homes.
2. The site is of unusual configuration due to its long axis
on SW Brookside Ct. being its front and due to its corner
location. Tigard Code requires that the setback from any
street on a �orner lot be 20 ft. , the same as the front
yard requirement.
3. Planning Commission must find all conditions of Section
18.76.020, TMC, to exist in order to approva a variance.
4. Staff sees no adverse impact on adjacent properties or on
the community from approval of this request.
Staff Recommendation
to be given following close o�' public hearing
i
i
�
i
..� , . . .
. , . . . , . . . . _ . . . II,
i
_.. . .. . . . . . .. . . . ... . . .. . ._ .. .. . .. . . . .. . . ... . .... .. .. .. ... . . .. ... . .... _ .... .. . .:.ii
�
G.
. . w. ._ . yC . . F;;
P
� �, t,
`4..
F
Staff Report �
TXGARD PLANNING COMMISSION f
� �;
� Apr�.l 15, 1975 � _'.
�4.genda Item 5 s
f;
S 2-74 j;
,..
SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAI� AND VARTANCE i'
of a 6.9 acre site at 6gth and Pacific Hwy. (tax lot 6501, �'
tax ma� 151-36AD} ''
�
;i
APPLICANT ��
Alpha Ehgineering for Way Lee, owner `
APPLICANT'S REQUEST i
approval of a 50 foot street right-of-way, and 4 ft. sidewalks
in a previously approved ma�or �.and partition for three
cc�mmercial sites
Staff Findin,�s
1. Approval of a "Major Land Partitioning" was gr�nted by i
,;., tYie Planning Comznission at its October 15, 1974, meeting �
4:; sub�ect to the following conditions: I
a. Access to the White property be protected by means
of a reserve strip to be held by �he City along this
portion of the pr�pos�d dedicated street. In addition,
a reserve strip wi�.l be provided at the terminus of
ths proposed right-of-way.
b. Parking areas must be desi�ed to facilitate turn-
1
around movements, especially for emergen,cy vehicles. �
c. The property line be eliminated between "lot 1, block
1t° and ��lot 2, block 1".
d. Paving of the proposed street be extended to the end
o�' the nearest driveway and a bond be filed with the
City in suffi.ci.ent amount to ensure construction of
the remainder of the street.
e. Participation be required in the cost of placing a
traffic light at the intersection of SW 69th Avenue
and Pacific Highway,
2. The preliminary plat thus approved included a 3�' paved
street in a 60' r,�ght-of-way with no parking to be
� �'" allowed on the street.
��
�_ __
.t :
�x �t.•^
.:,' �;.,.�
3. The minimum sidewalk wa.dth g�nerally cons�.dered appropriate
in a commercial district is five f�et.
q
4. Commercial tra�fic �equires at least �.0 �t. travel lanes
with J�2 ft. preferred p�.us a minimum 2 ft. "shy `distdnce��
to the curb when no parking i,s alloweda A curve adds
about 2 ft. (depending on �he radius) to the street width
required, In order to allow p�ssage of emergency vehicles
and or bicycles in the street margin, a safety marg3n should
be ad�.ed to the 2' �0shy distance'� rf 2 to 3 feet. If a '
street were to accomodate commercial traffic wi.thout par�king
and provide for emergency vehicles and a curve, then a;
rninimum of 16 feet and an optimum of 18 feet would be in-
dicated from the curb .to centerline or a 32-34 ft. street.
By this rationale, if no parking is to be allowed, this
portion of 69th could appropriately be built to a 34 ft.
cux�b-curb width with a 44 ft. curb to curb width (to
accamodate a left turn channel,) �or 100 'ft. from the
intersection wi�h PaciFie Hwy.
5. Right-of-way width is generally predicated an the w�dth of
the street to be provided. In cases whexe a stree�t may
require widening or reconstruct�.on in tk�e future, t�e
appropriate policy is to require a R/W width adequate for
t'uture needs, In this case, staff :does nat feel that it �
is likely that there would be widening. The 50 ft, right- �
of-way width would then be approp��ate for a11 of the �
propased street except the first 100 ft. from its inter- !
� � sec�ion w3.th Pacific Highway. Staff notes that anly- 40'
`�`� of that 100 ft. �alls within the sub�ect site.
6. The present and praposed land use o� the site, the land
areas and division, and the use and proposed future uses
of l�nd ad�acent or near the s3.te has remained unchanged
sirace the Planning Commission heard the ma�or land par-
titioning in October, 1974,
7. No provision far stre�t �.ighting, fire hydrant location or
storm drainage is shown on praposed p1at.
8. Applicant°'s statement of need and hardship included in
attached letter.
Staff Recommendations
to be advised �oll.owing close of public hearing a
i
�
,
� �
�
FC Staff Report - Apr�.l 15, 1975 - pa�� 2 - item 5
,
� °� —- .�__ '�-
, , _ , _..
. :, . : _ :
�:�'��1���
�: �.. �
Staff Reaommenciations S 2-74 �i
�
A praval of submitte�: preli.ttrinary plat amended to: �:: . �,
�.,� P
�
�.. a�.low a 60 ft. right-of-way for SW 69th for 1.00 ft. from �
the curb line of SW Pacific Hwy. �
2. require a 5 ft. minimum sidewalk on each side af 69th i;
ad�acent to the edge of the right-of-way ;
aved curb-ta-curb) a�oadway wi.th 44 ft. ��
3. allow a 34 foot p ( �
paved (curt�-to-curb) for the first 100 ft, from the SW ,,
Pacific Hwy. curbline �
,,
4. conform with remain.�ng conditions of the previous Planni.ng 3;
Commission approval (throu�h traffic in parking areas tn �`
� facilitate emergency vehic�.e access, pavement af propo3ed '?.
street to the furthermost driveway access with a bond ��
posted to ensure completion when appropriate, and required �'
participation in the cost of signalizing SW b9th inter- Y
sec�ion at SW Pacific Hwy) . f±
5. Street lights shall be provided to City standards for a ''.
commercial street. �
�
6. Water pressure and volume must be sufficient to prov�.de '
fu1.1 fire flow �
�,
��° 7. Storm drainage be provided for per City code. q
r;
�,'
�:
f
' +�
,.
t
,.
,,
�;
,:
�
?
�,
��
�,
F
�
f
�
i
1
f
;
i
�
..
� , ,
.
,
�'k_ Memorandum `"�F;
T�; Tigard Plan:ning Commissian
�r, Froms Staff
Sub��ct: '�Cabinet shap" in a C-3 zone
Date: April 15� 1975
�.. An initial contact has been made by a person wanting to operate ;
a cabinet shop on SW Pacific Hwy. �
2. "Cabinet shops'' as���such are not addressed in the Tigard zoning �
co�.e; however, plumbing, elec�trical or general contractors and �
shop are conditional].y allowed in a C-3 zone. Na other zon� �
appears as appr�priate fc�r this use�, particularly at the
scale that is intended.
3. ��Cabinet shops" under the Washingtorz County zonin� code wauld '
be either their ��B-4" or "MAdl" z�nes wriich are simil�r to �
our C-3 �iad M-4 in intensity anrd are frequent;ly arteria�. or �
"strip n zones. �
4. A cabinet shap, although f�light manufacturing�' by technicaZ, �'
definition, shares an a�fini,ty for an arterial location with �
lawnmower shops, lumber yards, auto �ales, appliance s�ares, �
furniture stores, �uto parts, caterers, feed stores, garden E
shops, print shops, hardware stare�, some other contractors �'
� of�fices and shaps and r�st�urants. i
5, There is a great difference bstween di�ferent '�cabinet shops"
c�ue primarily to scal�. The �'mom anci pop" cabine� shop is a
great deal different from a manufac�uring cabi.net works;
howPVer, differen�iating them in a zoning code wauld require ,,��
a p�rformance standard related to the size, scale ar employ- �
m�n� of �t2�e enterpra.se. '�
�:
6. In the event that the comm�.ssion finds t�iat a cabinet shop is i,
like or si.m�.l.ar to a contractors' office and shop, staff would t
suggest that a per�ormance standard be applied to the cond3.tit�fial ;
use provision in the aode to �.imit the scale of enterprise to ,:
those compatible with a business distr�ct �r strip.
�
;.
4
1,
r
�
r
�
�
� E
�
�
,
3
s
,
�
i
�
�:, �
� � ;
i
_ ;
I
�
� _ �i —