Planning Commission Packet - 07/15/1975 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PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and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.
POOR QUALITY RECORD
PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and
put on microfilm. The following document is a copy of the
microfilm record converted back to digital. If you have questions
please contact City of Tigard Records Department.
�
AGENDA
Tigard Planning Commission '
�"F July 15; 1975 - 7:30 p.m.
Twality J�anior High School �•- L�cture Room
14650 SW 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. MINUTES: June 17, 1975 and July �y 19'75
4. COMMUNTCATIONS
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5.1 Comprehensive Plan Revision CPR 2-75 (Old Fowler Site/
School Distriet 23-J)
A request for an amen:dment to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan
(N.P.O. #1 Plan) to change the lan:d use designation of a
portion of the Old Fowler High School site on SW Scof�ins
St, from '�open s�ace" to ��retail commerci.al'�.
A. Staff Report
B. Public Testimony
�r C. Staff Recommendation
D. Commission Discussion and Action
6. Preliminary Plan and Program Review (Wes�ridge Pa.rk/Richard Smith)
A request for concept review of preliminary plan and program for
a proposed commercial and residential planned development at SW
72nd Ave. and Hunziker St.
7. OTHER BUSINESS
8. ADJOURNMENT i
�
I
�
,
1
�
�
i
�
�
I,
� ;:
. ti�,
� , ,� ��: �����.�'.a.a-�.,� (1�?��t�.,'
, �
�_- ° '
�
c
�Y' MYNUTES
Tigard Planning Cornmission
July l5, 1975 - Regular Nlee�ing
Twality Junior High Scho�l - Lecture Room
14650 S. W. 97th Ave�.ue, Tigard, Oregon
�
1. CALL TO ORDER: Act�ng Chairman Porter called the me�tin� �o '
order at 7:35 p.m. '
I
2. ROLL CALL: Nicol.i, Sakat�., Smelser, Popp, Porter, Wakem were I
present; sta�'f, Powell
3. APPROVAL OF MTNUTES: m�.nutes of Ju1y l, 1975 were read.
Arnendments were rec�mmended to a�enda itern
5.2, paragraph (C) , under ��mot�,an to
approve", conditi�n #2, the hours o� oper�
�tion approved were st�ted as �sOb a:m.
to 8c00 p.m. This should be oorrected to
r�ad E�:00 a.m, to 9;00 �.m�
Agend� item 5.3, �'�.rst su'b-��ra�raph ��ter
'�continued f'r�om Jun� 17, 1975", Sak�ta ex-
�,_ cused herself fram this i.tem statin� �ha�
she had had previous con�act. �,
Also �.tem 5.3, a statem�nt by �'orter, page I
4, '�Cha3.rman �'or-�er 3.nd�,oat�d th�t hc� �e�.t
unconvinced nf the adverse imp�ct o�` �the
pro�ect�� ahould be correc�ed tn read,
Chairman Porter indicated he had mixed
feelin�s".
An item ahou].d be added �ol�.owing agend�i
item 5.2 to indic�t� tha�t C�mmissioner
Hansen had arri�red l�te. '
Motion td approve the mir�utes a� amend�d
(Wakem) .
Adap�ed unanim�us�.y.
4. COMMUNZCATIONS
4.1 Sta�f t�ansmit-ted a le�tter to the Commissinn from th�
Council dated J�urae �.7, 1975, requ�st�.ng th� plann�.ng
Commission to recammend a representative to �ei^�re es ��.-
ternate on �the Site Develapment Flan and Des�.�n Rev�ew �
� Board. ,
Acting Chai�an Porter declared nomina�iona open.
�
Popp nomxnated Sakata. �
�
�
i
�t
�
..,_, --_ _. _ �
.. .. � �., ,
�,: �
o There being n.o further nominations, popp mo•ved th�
nominations be closed and a unanimous ballot be ca�ta
� �
o Approved unanimously. �
o Porter directed staff to prepare a letter to Council, �
i
4.2 Staff transmitted a �equest by the City Administrator that �
he be delegated the authority to approve temporary uses �
up to 60 days and in cases of emergencies.
I
o Porter asked if the Administrator�s approval of a 60 ;
day permit restricted the Commission's ability to �
review or in�tercede in the matter. f
i
o Sta.ff indicated the wording of the code was unclear, but j
that it appeared the Commission could not revoke the ti
permit once given. ,
a Popp moved to approve 60 day and emergenc�r delegation !
of temporary use permi�t authority subject to Plannin.g ;
Commission review. �
I
o Seconded (Saka�ta)
� o Question called (Wakem)
o Moti.on approved
o Sta�'f was direct�d to provide whatever notification of
the Planni�g Commission action necessary. �
5. PUBLIC HEAR2NGS
5.1 Comprehensive Plan Revision - CPR 2-75 (Old Fowler site)
A request for an amendment to the Tigard Cnmprehensive Plan
(N.P.Oo #1 Plan) to change the �and use designation of a
portion of the old Fowler Jr. High School site on SW
Scoffins St. from "open �pace�� to ��retail commercial" .
A. Staff Report: Read by Powell.
B. Public Testimony
o Bob Greenwood, Administrative Assistant9 Tiga:�d
School District 23-J, t�stified in �a�ror o�' the
School District's request.
� o No one testified against.
C. Staff Recommendation: Approval of the recommen.da�ion
to the City Council that reta�l cornmeraial u�e be
designated for the rear portion of the old Fowler
PC Minutes - July 15, 1975 - page 2
�'. . . _.. .. _ . . . . . ... . .... .. .._ . . . _. ..: , ..,, . ;,. ., . ,._.. ._. _ .r . . „.,�.
' �. �_-
�f*
High School site and that appropria�ce �i;�°o�ri,��.o��
for adequ�te sight screening be retained adjacent
the multi-famil.y residential areas to the :�°��r of
the site,
D. Commission Discussion and Action
o Motion fo� approval (Popp) of the recommend�tion
to the City Council based on findings that the
site has always been zoned C-3, that i�t would be
an unjust penalty to designate a parcel fa�
public open space and then not to acquire it;
that the planned open space use is not possible
to implement; and that the Tigard Community Plan
provides for adequate open space elsewhere in
the area.
o Motion seconded (Nicol.i) .
o Wakem bxought up the insufficienc� o� discussion
with respect to the community impact of and the
community need for the proposed redesigna•tion
as opposed to that presen-�ly designated and asked
what criteria .znight be used for such a decision.
'�°�- o Nicoli indicated he felt there was ample open
space designated on the plan without r.°etaining
the designation on the Fowler site.
o Wakem asked how buf�ering could be accomplished
; between the proposed retaxl commercial area and
the the exis-�ing a�ar�ments.
o Smelser said that he thought it was more appropri-
ate to let the developer apply for such a change
in designation and that the Planning Commission
could deal with him with �espect to buffering.
o Porter asked staff what was meant by screening
in staff's recommendation.
o Staff responded that language shoul.d be inse.rted
in the text requiring buffering between retail
commercia�. and apartment resi.d�nt�.al sit�s and
that staff's opinion was that a substantiaJ.
landscape screen would seem appropriate.
o Nicbli said he felt �he apartm�n�ts �o �he reax� '�
we�e '�chicken coops" anyway and th��t they them- �i
selves were a buffer between the cotnmercial �nd i
� manufacturi.ng areas and ��iat they did not need '
a buff�r.
o Porter recognized Mayor Bishop who •te���ified a.n
PC Minutes - Ju�.y �5, 1975 - page 3
,
.. , „ � ..._
�.,.
�,.
fa�ror o� �he recommendat�.on i.n.d.�r,�t:,r�� �t���.� :�.�
�°�1�t of�ice commercial s�ace w�,� �.��c��d �and th�°t
open space, although needed a�.so, was hz�h:L;�
questionable here as �he land w�a� too �xpensi.veo
� o Por�er ind�.ca�ed he differecl wi�h N�co1.i and said
he �'e1.t there was a need tn inc�.ude language to
enable broad bu�`�e��.ng and scre�r�in� requ�.�°�-
men�ts in the plan or specifical7.y �t� ,requ�.re
mor� adeg,ua�e bu�'�ering or screening o� t�is
par��icu�.ar sa.�e.
o Wa�Zem said �ie felt the P�,anning Cnmmi�sion could
levy specific l�ndsc�pir�g anci sc��eer�ing rec�uix�e-
m�nt� but that he wou,ld feel more �orn�ortable
deal.i,ng with the u�-�imate user o� �he p�op�rty�
o Question was called.
o Motion (for a recommendation) fa�.led fdr �.�ck o�'
a ma�ority - voting in .favor we�e Nicol.i Po ,
� �P
Porter; in opposition, Smelser, Sakata, W�akemr
6. PR.ELZM2NARY PLAN A�tD PROGRAN! REVTEW' (Westridge Park/Rich�xd Smi,th)
�� At the applican�t's r�q�zes�, �his item was dro�ped ��rorn the agenda,
7. OTHER BUS�NESS
• 7.1 Di.scussion of Sign Code Amenc�men�
` o Po�ter asked a�ta�f �'or a di�cuss�.r�n of wher� the st�,�f
was at with re5pect to signs a�d revis�.�n o� �he sa�gn
cade e S-�aff resp�nded t�a� �.� had been s-�udying �he
matter and had r�nt come to �he paint of writ3.r�g a
draft proposal for submission to �the Cnmmission, bu�
tha� it w�s aware of several. areas af de�'ic�.ency in
the present sign code, as well as the r�eed to si.m��.�.£y
and provide addi�i.onal criter3.a and, perfr��mance stan-
dardso
o Saka�a sai.d she fe7.� that en�'orcement of the s�ign �c�d�
was of ex�r°eme impor�tan�e.
o Po�te� ask�d if sta�'�' had c��ve7�op�d ��°i���°ia fo�° the
Design Revie�w H�ard �o consider s�.�s.
o Staf�' respor�d�d th�t �,t h�d not f�.n�,�he�d �..�t� wor�;k �r�
th�.s item and th�t the D�sign Review Board had nd°�
� ye�t rec�ived st�ff's repo�t wi�h respe�t tc� those
cr�ter�.a.
o Smel�er indica�ed �th�t he had h�ad some experie�i�e �w�°�h
signs and sign coc�es and h� �Eelt tha� �1�. sign� �l�n��,d
come be�'o�e the Deaign Rev^iew �o�rd.
PC M3,nutes � July �5, �975 -� �age 4 '
� _ _ . ... ., __ . :-,. . . .
i
� ��w ��
�VOTIC� dF Pt1BLIC HEARTNG
CTTY OF TIGARD PLA�INING COMMISSI��J
�lotic� �s hereby givQn that public Y�earings will b� held by the
Planni�ng Comm�ssion a�' t,�e City of Tigard ir� the Twe�.ity .Tunior
High School Lecture Room, 14�i50 S'�l 97th Avenue, Tigard, aregon.
S�id hearings wil]. dccur r�n Ju].y 15, 1975, a►� 7:30 p.m, and wi1:1 '
c�ncern the Sollowing:
�i an applicgti.on by Washin�ton Coun.ty Sahool i�l.strict
23-J �'or an �mendment to the �'�ggrd Comprehensive Plar�
(N.P.O. #1 Plan) to change the lan� use de�ignati.on of
a portioz� o�' tkie "Old Fowler Junior Hi,�h Schoal" site on
SW Scof�'ins St, �'rom '�,o�e�n syace+� to �►retafl co�meraial��.
(Part o� ta;c lot 900, WasFiingtan Couz�ty�x—Mep�� 1�a`)
o a request '�y R1cY�ard C. Smit2a for Goneept review af a
grellminar}r plen and grogram for a propr�sed commescial
and residential planned d�v�lopmen� at 5'W �2nd Ave.
I� and Hun�iker �t. (part of tax lnt 10Q, �ash. Cty. ta� I
�
m�g 251 1DB).
�:
end b��h�ard�aving an int�rest .in �hese matters ar� ir�vtted to a'ttend j!
�I' 1I
3
�
;
,,
� ;i
I
�i
,,I
Fttblish TT s'-1�-�7 l R 75
;�I
,
� � � � ���
,_ � � � ��
, ��I
;;
;�'
� ;�3i
;__;
� . 7�1
uy . � . — �• ��F4:al
:
V"ti. �. ... . _. _. . .. ._. .. . ._.. . . . . . _. � . . . . � . . . _. ��-�. . ._ .. . `... _ ,�.�.'�
_..�._ . , . . . � -.,,.�. ...... . .... ..... .�� .I.. ,� .,� . . . .. . _ . . ..,. .. _.,..... .. . . , , .. . -�/ , ...�
. . . . . . � . . .
STAFF REPORT
Tigard Planning Commission
�:,- July 15, 1975
Agenda Item 5.1
CPR 2-75 (Old Fowler Site/School District 23-J)
Comprehensive Plan Revision
A request by the School District to amend the Tigard Comprehen- '
sive Plan (N.P.O. #1 P1an) to change the �and use designation
o.f a portion of the O�d Fowler High School site on SW Scoffins
St. from �'Open Space" to ��Retail-Commercial". '
Staff Findings
1. The map and text of the N.P.O, #1 Plan describ the rear
portion of the "Old Fowler�" site as a design element of a
civic center proposal for the "(Jld Fowler" site which has
been rejected by the city.
2. The intent of the N.P.O, was noi; to ��reserve�� this space
for par,k purposes so much as it was to provide for a
public open space adjacent the area seen most appropriate
for civic center deve�opment.
� . 3. The "open space" identified on the map is, in. fact, presently
open space, being the playing field of the Old Fowler Jr.
High School.
4. Eventual improvement of the downtown area, as proposed in
the text of the N.P.O. Plan, anticipatea extensive, rather
than intensive, redevelopment (pp25-27, N.P.O. #� Plan,
Revised Draft) , designed to rehabilitate rather than re-
develop.
5. It may well be premature, then, to speak specifical�y of
any site for a public open space, even though the concept
of such a space is an important �ar�t c�f the N.P;O. ':s plan,
� ` :
�
--,-�-.�. , ,
,, . � _. ,.. . ,.. '
� � i
I
STAFF REPORT - Continued '
Tigard Planning Commission
July 15, 7-975 i
�:� �
Agenda Item 5.1 '
CPR 2-75 (Old Fowler Site)
,
�
,
Staff��Findin�s Continued �
6. The applicant's request is to amend the designation �
of this area to reflect a retail-commercial use. �
7. The adjacent land uses projected are urban medium density �
residential on the east and south and retail commerc,ial on �
the north and west.
,
J
8. Top,ography and development patterns on the area re�ate the �
site more toward the adjacent residential uses than toward ;
the adjacerit commercial. �
. � �
g. While staff cannot identify an overriding cornmunity need for �
a large park or public open space in this location, par-
ticular attention should be given to adequate buffering ��
ensuring the com atibility of retail commercial and urban i.
medium density residential. i;
ii
�,�_,
�
i
t',
�1
�;
�i
t;
�
!1
n
�
� � � �� ��I
,
�,.
t
t
$
�,
�
�'; I
�
I
PC Staff Report - 7��-��75 - page 2 ,
�
` I
�
�
_
� . _
.
_ _ ,
, _ ,..
,
�
. ,_ .. .. .
�._�.: --
' � ._.
� .
;
STAFF REPORT
Tigard Planning Commission
July L5, 1975
Agenda Item 6
Preliminary Plan & Program Coneept Review
of a proposed commercial and residential Planned Development. Westridge
Park, to be developed by Richard C. Smith at S. �1. 72nd Ave, and Hunziker
Street.
Staff Findings
1. To staffs knowledge, efforts to develop this site date from 1971 when
a proposal to the county for A-2 zonin� was turned down.
2. The current proposal provides for fourteen (14) ciuplexes totaling
twenty eight dwelling units plus a small affice building on a single
three and a half, (3z) acre site.
3. Assuming that a reasonable allocation of land to the of£ice building
, is 6,000 square feet, and the density allowable in this underlying
zone is 1 unit per 7500 square £eet (net), the number of dwelling
units al].owable is 16.6.
4. CommerciaJ_ and community service uses are allowable in a residential
� planned development only when designed to serve the development of
which they are a part. Community service uses m�, if it is especially
found desirable by the Planning Commission, �erve the adjacent area.
5. The minimum site size for a Planned Development is 4 acres unless
determined that a smaller site is justified due to problems of topography,
unique character, landscaping virtttes or its existence as an isolated
problem area. This site has been previously considered appropriate for
a planned unit appraach and that approach, as we11 as single family
f development (R-7) were once recommended to the applicant (Letter:
February 18, 1971) by the city.
6. Tigard code speaks to the issue of minimum Lot size and allows variance �
of lot size in a planned development. Staff has not determined - �
whether a developer can build such a project without platting 1ots. �
It appears at this point that a duplex in an R-7 zone, even if a i
Planned Development, must be on a single 'lot.
7, Vehicular access must be available to any residence in Tigard within
fifty (50) feet of the ground floor entrances. Wal.kways providing to
several dwelLing units shown exceed more than double this.
8. No �rovision has been made for recreation space. Staff feels that this
proposed project is in fact a multi-family project and should conform
to section 18.48.040 dealing with required open space and recreation
� areas.
�1_. �
9. Parking requirement for this project computed at 1'� spaces per
dwelling unit and an estimated 9 spaces (4-I-2+3) would be 51
� parking spaces, or 6 more than provided.
10. The 20 foot roadway coul.d be permitted under Tigard Planned
Development ordinance as a variance of the subdivision code. However
staff would point out that a�ry parking on the access dxives as proposed
would prevent emergency access and since the drives are private, the
city cannot enforce parking restrictiox�s.
11. Pedestrian access through the project seems circuitous and discontinuous
with respect to expected pedestrian circulation.
12. Access point on Hunziker or 72nd cannot be determined from the
applicants presentation. Staff cannot therefore evaluate this aspect
of the proposed Planned Development .
13. Topography and/or lay of the land cannot be evaluated, nor can the
relationship of the structures within the project to those outside
(adjacent).
_ 14. Applicant's program submission addresses none of the required items.
15. Mixture of residential and commercial uses in one integrated project
is, or can be, a highly efficient and beneficial aspect of planned
community development. In this case, staff fails to see the
relationship of the two uses excepting a potential conflict in
� mutual use of residential access and parking,
� �'�
-�,�,-_..� , . . _
. ..":. /� <T..:.�...�C"'St C/�1 !Cc'(.�[r�c.lJ�� `�Gi�Cc.N�c,� d-'..'i a� � ( 1 C\ec.��-.t �`��A-r.-t c.t t���i �r �.�u�-t.,�in•t��5 S r ���,r . .
,.J /
(--W i : ��-cx � . .,,
,s., � �.
��.��� � �����P�( �� ,r � r 7�.
PROPOSEb CRITERIA FOR DESIGN REVIEW (Ch. 18.59)'
�. l. Buildings and structures on the subject site shall present a
finished appearance to a11 streets and �;o areas of public
access or view.
2. Architectural style ari.d scale of structures, signs and landscaping
will be appropriate to the use .intended and be compatib�.e with
existing surrounding development and with the intent and standards
set forth in the Tigard Community Plan and any specific plans
promulgated for neighborhood, district or area.
3. OVera�l design of the project as well as the architectural
design of structural components and lan�l.t��aping will reflect
and be compatible with the site topography and adjacent terrain.
� 4. External m�chanical and electrica� apparatus and other elements j
of functional design will be integrated into the design treat- '
ment of the site and/or building. {
;
5. Design and placement of luminaires, directional signs, identifi-
a si ermit wi�� be I'
cation signs and all signs requiring gn p ;
integrated into the design theme of site and building in such ;
� a way as to complement the aesthetic quality as well as the �
utility of the site and its situ�tion. �
6. No sign need be so large, so high or placed in such a way that
it competes with or overpowers other elements of site and '
building design. '
��
7. Signs will not be placed in any location where interference
with scenic vistas will result.
o E1
8. Signs wi11 not be so placed as to interfere with vision of �
or draw attention from traffic signs or signals, or road
hazards.
;
, 9. Sign area, letter height and sign placement x�ill be rel.ated F
to tra�fic speed and vol.ume and to the capacity arid classification =
of the adjacent street. The shape, colors, letter style and �
size(s) sha�1 be considered with respect to their appropriateness
to the site and situation, their aesthetic quality, legibility,
and informational value. � �
,i
f(� . ,�4���/�'! p� S� 'f�� ��Y- �r.t r�(C�i�t Gt !�1 pC c'Ss��Tu:]"1 t'l� IJGl'v i`Li�r C C': C�� S?zt,c{C�c�C[S �
� � / �/ f /
C>.�. C�r�r�����v- I� l � � /� ds� S''t'vP�eY" c.�,fuf/l� occc �l sf-u��c1c�..�c�s �C(�r ���
�
(
, �-t���.� lu,�e� ��a �F�`��:C ��r�(.�--, ���o v,��;����v��� o.f �'�.� /�: ����� <i�7«,��.��.
� :