Planning Commission Packet - 03/16/1976 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PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and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
March 16, 1976 - 7:30 p.m.
Twality Jr. High School - lecture room
14650 SW 97th Ave. , Tigard, Or. 97223
1. CALL TO ORDER:
2. ROLL CALL:
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 2, 1976
4. COMMUNICATIONS:
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
5.1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CU 10-76 (Scherr)
A request by Michael Scherr for permission to operate a
billiard parlor and equipment sales establishment at
12760 SW Pacific Hwy.
(continued from March 2, 1976)
5.2 ZONE CHANGE ZC 8-75 (N.P.O. #3)
Request for approval of rezoning of lands within the
boundaries of "NPO #3 Plan for Derry Dell - Foot of
Bull Mountain Area" to conform with the adopted Compre-
hensive Plan, as amended. r
5.3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CU 11-76 (Tigard Community Youth Services)
A request by Tigard Community Youth Services, Inc. to oper- k
ate a youth counseling center in a C-3 (general commercial) a
zone at 13400 SW Pacific Hwy. (Wash. Co. tax map 2S1 2CC, }
tax lot 100) . r'.
hi
5.4 VARIANCE V2-76 (Hakola)
A request by Jerry Hakola to grant an exception to the
Tigard Municipal Code Secti:on 18.30.040 - Front Yard Set-
back Requirements and Section 18.60.120 - Minimum Space
Requirements for Off-Street Parking in a C-3M zone (general `
commercial Main St. ) at 12380 SW Main St. (Wash. Co. tax it
map 2S1 2AB, tax lot 4000) . ;
5.5 VARIANCE V 3-76 (Bishop)
i`
A request by Wilbur Bishop to grant an exception to the
TMC, Section 18.30.040 - Front Yard Setback Requirements
in a C-3M (general commercial Main St. ) zone at 12294-96
Main St. (Wash. Co. tax map 2S1 2CC, tax lot 100) . {t.L
El
f
4
I
.ti
page 2
PC Agenda
March 16, 1976
k
5.6 SIGN CODE REVISION SCR 1-76
A proposal to amend the Tigard Sign Code (Ch. 16, TMC) to
establish free-standing sign size standards according to
traffic speed and number of travel lanes and to eliminate
free-standing sign size restrictions based on lot frontage;
also, to reduce the maximum permissible height to 25 ft.
5.7 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 2-76
A proposed amendment of the Tigard Zoning Code, amending
Chapter 18.20 to include a new zoning classification for
3 dwelling. units per acre (R-10) .
n
6. OTHER BUSINESS:
7. ADJOURNMENT:
MINUTES ' _.
C +;
Tigard Planning Co mission
March 16, 1976 - 7:30 p.m.
Twality Junior High School - lecture room
14650 SW 97th Ave. , Tigard, Oregon
1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. by
Commissioner Popp in the absence of Chairman Porter.
2. ROLL CALL: Present: Moore, Nicoll, Popp, Sakata, Wakem, Goldbach;
staff: Bolen and Laws
Absent: Porter and Ems
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of 3/2/76 were approved as read.
4. COMMUNICATIONS: None.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5.1 CONDITIONAL USE CU 10-76 (Scherr)
A request by Michael Scherr for permission to operate a
billiard parlor and equipment sales establishment at 12760
SW Pacific Hwy.
(continued from March 2, 1976, meeting)
kY A. Staff Report: read by Bolen - reiteration of the staff
findings of the 3/2/76 meeting
B. Applicant Presentation:
o Mr. Scherr stated that he had made a parking lot
survey at the hours of 12:00, 3:00 and 6:30 p.m.
at which time he stated that at no time was there
fewer than 30 vacant spaces during the weekdays
and during the weekend there were a minimum of 15
spaces available.
o Mr. Jim Sutton, speaking on behalf of Mr. Scherr,
pointed out to the Commission that an additional 14
spaces were available on the adjoining tax lot for
the proposed use.
C. Public Testimony: None.
D. Staff Recommendation: DENIAL, based on findings stated
in the staff recommendation of
3/2/76.
E. Rebuttal:
o Sutton stated that with the additional 14 parking
,; stalls sufficient parking needs would be met for
the proposed facility.
page 2
PC Minutes
March 16, 1976
x
F. Commission Discussion and Action:
o Nicoli stated that he felt that staff was saying
that any owner of the subject property could not use
the site because there would be insufficient parking
to meet the off-street parking requirements of the
Code.
o Sakata stated that the proposed use would generate
more parking needs than were available on the site.
o Wakem asked staff that, given the 14 additional parking I�,
spaces, how much short would off-street parking needs
be?
o Popp stated that, upon his observation of this site,
he saw that at no time would there be a parking
problem and that he could not deny a request based
on lack of parking.
o Nicoli moved for approval on the findings that there
was a community need, that sufficient parking existed
on the site, that no adverse traffic effects would'Lbe
created on Pacific Hwy. and that the applicant had
shown that there were no other suitable sites available
to operate his business.
o Seconded (Popp) .
o Motion failed by a 4-2 count - Nicoll and. Popp, aye;
Sakata, Goldbach, Wakem and Moore, no.
o Mr. Scherr was informed of his right to appeal the
Planning Commission decision to :e City Council.
5.2 ZONE CHANGE ZC 8-75 (NPO #3) f
Request for approval of rezoning of lands within the boundaries ..
of NPO #2 Plan for Derry Dell-Foot of Bull Mountain Area, to
conform with the adopted Comprehensive Plan, as amended. f/
A. Staff Report: read by Bolen. Bolen gave a brief explanation
of the intent of the zoning proposals to
bring lands into conformance with the rt:..
adopted NPO #3 land use plan.
B. Public Testimony
o Attorney Lou Fasano speaking on behalf of property
•
owner Don Pollock, stated that his client had not e..
received notice of the rezoning hearing.
tea,
_ A1111,11.111111.11
{
page 3
PC Minutes
March 16, 1976
o Wakem asked Fasano if his client was opposed to the
rezoning.
o Fasano responded affirmatively, because his client
was losing a unit per acre under the proposed re-
zoning and it becomes a matter of economics.
C. Staff Recommendation
o Staff recommended APPROVAL on the condition that the
rezoning not be sent along to the City Council until
an R-10 zone has been acted upon by the Planning
Commission.
o Nicoli recommended tabling this item.
o Sakata motioned to postpone until the Commission can
act on the R-10 zoning ordinance amendment.
o Seconded (Nicoli) .
o Approved unanimously.
5.3 CONDITIONAL USE CU 11-76 (Tigard Community Youth Services)
A request by Tigard Community Youth Services, Inc. to oper-
ate a youth counseling center in a C-3 (general commercial)
zone at 13400 SW Pacific Hwy. (Wash. Co. tax map 2Sl 2CC,
tax lot 100) .
A. Staff Report: read by Laws.
B. Applicant Presentation
o Pat Furrer, attorney for the applicant, presented
the request for the youth counseling center, pointing
out the established community need for such a facility.
o Mike Pieracci, counselor for the proposed center,
stated the program hours of operation would be from
noon until 8:00 p.m.
C. Public. Testimony
o Larry Shannon, the Board Chairman of the Tigard Youth
Services, thanked the people of Tigard for their
assistance in the proposed youth counseling center.
0
D. Staff Recommendation: APPROVAL with the following conditions:
1. That a conditional use permit be granted for a
period of one (1) year. •
1
page 4 tY ..
PC Minutes
3/16/76
2. That if the applicant desires an extension of the
permit at the end of the 1 year limit, the site
would be subject to full site improvements, to
include landscaping and paved parking areas to be
approved by the Design Review Board.
E. Rebuttal: None.
F. Commission Discussion and Action
o Nicoli stated that he disagreed with staff's one
year conditional use proposal on the basis that it
would be dictating the Commission's action at which
time this conditional use proposal would be subject
to review and subsequent renewal.
• o Wakem moved for approval with staff recommendations.
o Nicoli seconded.
o Unanimously approved.
5.4 VARIANCE V 2-76 (Hakola)
A request by Jerry Hakola to grant an exception to the TMC
Section 18.30.040 - Front Yard Setback Requirements and
Section 18.60.120 - Minimum Space Requirements for Off-
street Parking in a C-3M (General Commercial Main St. ) zone
at 12380 SW Main St. (Wash. Co. tax map 2S1 2AB, tax lot 4000) .
o Mr. Nicoli excused himself from sitting in on this item,
stating that he had had exparte contact with the applicant.
A. Staff Report: read by Bolen.
B. Applicant Presentation
o Charlotte Olson, designer for the proposed project,
stated the reasons for the variance request and
answered verbally the hardship questions as they
pertained to Section 18.76.020 of the TMC.
C. Public Testimony: None.
D. Staff Recommendation: APPROVAL, subject to the condition
that, contingent upon the construction of a municipal
parking lot on the present feed store property at
Main and Tigard Streets, Mr. Hakola would agree to
provide his share of the construction costs of such
a project. His share of the cost would be for the
construction of 4 parking stalls.
L,.
IE page 5 ,;
PC Minutes
3/16/76
` E. Rebuttal
o Staff read into the record a letter from Charles
McClure; (Main St. property owner) in favor of the
proposed project. In addition to Mr. McClure's
approval, staff informed the Commission that Mr.
Ralph Peters (Main St. property owner) had stated
his approval of the project as well,
F. Commission Discussion and Action
o Wakem made a motion for approval of the front yard
setback variance of 2i ft. , waivering the parking
g P g
lot requirements and subject to the condition as
stated by staff.
o Seconded (Moore) .
o Unanimously approved.
5.5 VARIANCE V 3-76 (Bishop)
A request by Wilbur Bishop to grant an exception to the
Tigard Municipal Code, Section 18.30.040 - Front Yard Set-
back Requirements in a C-3M zone (general commercial Main
4 St. ) , located at 12296 SW Main St. (Wash. Co. tax map
2S1 2AA, tax lot 5000).
A. Staff Report: read by Bolen
B. Applicant Presentation:
o Tom Whittaker, architect for the project, commented
on items in the staff report and stated the intent
of the variance, mentioning the reasons 'for' the"
hardships on the subject property. He further stated
that there was room to maneuver cars in the area
shown on the submitted site plan without backing out
onto Main St. This would require, however, approxi-
mately 4 maneuvers to accomplish the turn. Whittaker
further stated that this was a request for a setback
variance and not a parking variance, although a problem
with parking does exist: t
o Wilbur Bishop, the applicant, explained to the Com- '"
missioners the setbacks from the property lines to
the existing buildings (both Bishop's property and
Washington Federal Savings & Loan) .
C. Public Testimony
o Staff read into the record a letter from Charles
I
L
(1 page 6 �u
PC Minutes
3/16/76
k McClure (Main St. property owner) stating his
approval of the proposed project.
D. Staff Recommendation: APPROVAL
E. Rebuttal: None
F. Commission Discussion and Action
o Wakem moved for approval of the variance to encroach
82 ft. into the right-of-way on the basis that the
proposed project was highly desirable.
o Seconded (Sakata) .
o Unanimously approved.
5. 6 SIGN CODE REVISION SCR 1-76
A proposal to amend the Tigard Sign Code (Chapter 16, TMC)
to establish free-standing sign size standards according
to traffic speed and number of travel lanes and to eliminate
free-standing sign size restrictions based on lot frontage;
also to reduce the maximum permissible height to 25 ft.
A. Staff Report
o Bolen explained to the Commissioners the intent of
the proposed revisions as they pertain to:
1. free-standing signs
2. wall signs
3. signing in shopping centers and commercial plazas
4. window display signs
5. awning, canopy and marque signs
6. incidental signs
B. Public Testimony: None
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommended that the comments made by the Com-
missioners during the course of discussion on the sign
code be taken and incorporated within a redrafting of
the sign code.
D. Rebuttal: None
E. Commission Discussion and Action
page 7
PC Minutes
3/16/76
o Sakata motioned to continue the hearing on the sign
code revision at a later Planning Commission hearing.
o Seconded (Goldbach) .
o Unanimously approved.
5.7 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 2-76
A proposed amendment of the Tigard Zoning Code to amend
chapter 18.20 to include a new zoning classification for
3 dwelling units per acre (R-10) .
Staff informed the Commission that a public hearing notice
had not been given in the local newspaper and therefore
should not be heard at this time and that this item should
be heard concurrently with the NPO #3 rezoning at the next
Planning Commission meeting of 4/6/76.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
6.1 CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW CU 21-75
Conditional use review of Georgia-Pacific Corporation's
( bake-out oven.
o Laws informed the Commission that a condition of the
permit for a bake-out oven on the Georgia-Pacific site
was that it be subject to review within 90 days after
operation had begun. Providing that no deleterious
effects had been generated from the use of this oven,
the conditional use permit would remain in effect.
o The Commission chose to postpone action on this matter
until Commissioner Ems was present to comment on this
item.
7. ADJOURNMENT: 11:00 p.m.
Ii
FF6
�4
(4!
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the
Planning Commission of the City of Tigard in the Twality Junior
High School Lecture Room, 14650 SW 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon.
Said meeting will occur on February 3, 1976, at 7:30 p.m. and
will concern the following:
o A request by Steven Jewell to operate a self-defense
studio in a C-3 zone, General Commercial, at 12961 SW
Pacific Hwy. (Wash. Co. tax map 2S1 2BD, tax lot 2600) .
All persons having an interest in these matters are invited to
attend and be heard.
Publish TT 1/22/76 and 1/29/76
, .
, .
, _
4r .op . .
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
a
A request by R. A. Gray to construct a professional office building
in a C-3 zone at 13170 SW Pacific Highway (Wash. Co. tax map 2S1
2CB, tax lot 2300)
Run Tigard Times January 15, 1976, along with public notices already
submitted for publication on January 8 and 15, 1976.
i
i
1
i
6
<
I
1
R
1
r
_,
: olt
' NOTE TO PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
FOR THE MARCH 16, 1976, MEETING, PLEASE BRING A COPY OF THE
STAFF REPORTS YOU RECEIVED AT THE MARCH 2, 1976, MEETING FOR THE
FOLLOWING ITEMS:
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CU 10-76 (Scherr)
(billiard parlor and equipment sales establishment)
2. SIGN CODE REVISION SCR 1-76
(a proposal to amend the Tigard Sign Code, Chapter
16, TMC)
Both of the above-mentioned items were continued from the';last.
meeting.
Please note that staff reports for agenda items 5.3 (Conditional
use permit CU 11-76) and item 5.7 (Zoning Ordinance Amendment
ZOA 2-76) will be passed out at the meeting on Tuesday evening.
F
r
n
1
if I fu'i
5
, ,
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by
the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard in the Twality
Junior High School Lecture Room, 14650 SW 97th Avenue, Tigard,
Oregon. Said meeting will occur on March 2, 1976, at 7:30 p.m.
and will concern the following:
A request by Benol, Inc. for a variance front yard setback
requirements for additions to the Safeway Building (Tigard
Shopping Plaza) at 250 Tigard Plaza. (Wash. Co. tax map
1S1 35DD, tax lot 2100) .
All persons having an interest in the matter are invited to
attend and be heard.
•
Publish TT 2/26/76
_ ______ , - 44•111■11=111111
. . ■
.. .. .
.,,..
STAFF REPORT
Tigard Planning Commission
,t
k March 16, 1976
Agenda Item 5.2
ZC 8-75 (N.P.O. #3 - Rezoning)
Applicant
City of Tigard
Applicant's Request ,
The City of Tigard proposes changing the zoning within the
limits of N.P.O. #3 Plan.
Staff Findings
1. The proposed changes in zone are necessary to bring the
zoning map into conformance with the N.P.O. #3 Plan.
2. The proposed rezonings are proposed only for those proper-
ties which meet two conditions:
a. Their current zoning conflicts with the adopted land
use plan.
,
g‘,.. b. The existing zoning will allow a more intense use of
the land than provided for in the adopted plan.
The effect of the above statement is that the staff is
recommending that the Planning Commission rezone where
necessary to protect the adopted plan. For instance, a
piece of R-7 (single family residential) property planned ,
1 for 3 dwelling units per acre must be rezoned R-10. Con- ,
versely, a piece of R-7 (single family residential) property i
i
planned for eventual apartment development may remain zoned 1
R-7 without endangering the Plan. In fact, property pro-
posed to be zoned to a more intense land use must be evalu-
ated to ascertain if the "timing" is right for development i
of the subject property. For example, is it adequately i
served by public facilities and streets? Does a community i
need exist, etc. ? i
3. The proposed rezonings are grouped below according to the
;
current zone and the zone being proposed to replace it; f
t
a. R-7 to R-10 -- These properties consist of the single
family portion of the Neighborhood. The lot sizes
4
in this area vary greatly with development which pre- i
ceeded sewer service being on 15,000 sq. ft. and
larger lots and sewered development being on 7,000 t
to 9,000 sq. ft. lots.
(
'
k
I
A
page 2
PC Staff Report
March 16, 1976
Item 5.2
b. A-2 to C-3 This change affects the two properties
at Park and Pacific Hwy. These parcels are vacant
and zoned C-3 for a depth of 200 feet back from
Pacific Hwy. and the remainder is presently zoned
Z-2. The N.P.O. #3 Plan proposes zoning the entire
parcels, in addition to a long narrow parcel fronting
Park St. , as C-3, general commercial.
Staff Recommendation
To be advised following public testimony
';i
-,•» ,
•
.R... 7 to R -Io ( regi, Ih a.t /
•
..... ..__._ .. i .(iul GCf �.�� li-1%c .ta i •,` \ I i
: ■ 4 mop 41 ii di f INIIIIIIII: 1196.1 lita ;... IN1 MIN NZ 3110 "lar• 0.' `--
®® � �®M��• ∎i,p� raft . .i Ue° �" IN 1 2• t, 'fir, �►, • �`
.r. ®,f�l ■®o prn �81IL? t ffi �°°s° � ..g ae" %®p� C,Rp:uu�`�� „.',','•'-'•:‘,, a,,�®®1%�I
® t .'� IItiIiir
� R. d 4F�th b S `B.R xr�,a�f. ''••4'0k � n`�4h•,s■
4 a :,�w a ..* AS. d� ` ^C,� l� �t ...4, ��§ke�,��'{ .,fin y#,, c ty, re}?�u }t k a 5 • ,•�'a aPii' ', l ax E k e -1 a,o?r-�.�4 9 ed) e- ! d r .,.•'ti r IA c1 f{[5$9 ki'I, t- r{ ,t,,
i1a G � dt w �,ti StL 3CE v' f° rnyif9vr� a�1 S ( n
;.!..0;-',/1;;-`141.,. M,;,. .• 3,,,,„,,,,, xt^C ,00 1,, 4' ",',c I-t ,,, 3..0-4y a n. iII67 3a' , ®�
i _ ,j. A'' i 4 r° d lery .1 �ii aw' `;1'.,p. ”' r,,i. n ¢ '',71-'11' -Ir`t` ''._ n. 1®
t �.i { r y tr �< < .�: ,� ���
} i ? r . tad t i ;.t f4,. I r ` ii2`-A -61;;'' 7,Si nlz ;R.t+ '6 L!i* 0' •
e ,* r r k , ` 1 /4k, '.� `rr v1pptt ` p a•,,,.°&t;isa ....a G \t, •0 •1
r /q ��e S „juza 's't Ia ' , e, s. 'k2'�"r ff.�• ® '•
/ate` '- Y�`�.IC�ffij' E � '...+'t}u4�S'I I�
_ 7 * ., ,,kf 4 a'' :x i' ' • p za,of dm°�: "}'
'' - RV ayi S b i In ' t y y °s<m 1 #isa , t,:1 7 ,,...� vg � 1''P IR"'':.., �' \�, \
GHBORHO• .tli' '' !i' h .— r.�..4T N" ' S 5 j A :.x4 as 1;/;:'. ,y# '. ,t..c; i ° - '®. I.. I.®�Y,41
F,' •dr4"+. vhl rW w 't d a " °± ..:+:•:•:•'.:4!:•).oo f,1 � .�..♦I�.
4 144‘..-
44a...- .. s:iL. Ti 8 fi4:�44 0 m&a'...s'4,w".,-k1 1"""' 4b � : ® � PT
ir.PIM t
RESIDE �'t�ra '1` �, , b / , I MOM
® .. .--_,�,,' €2,q " . P d tai ti Mil c8 ,4 k 4�'crfdck .1 "4- I :.• � ��■
11011/1511011111 Le. ow_
°, 124 .1 j∎ II , '- — ® ..■
1 . . ' l� - r t l,yti' f 4 • ' .w.w+ r t'7'I mm.
' , ,,,,, ,,,, #a ,t,:, E-E.1:1; , __, , cl- ilS" 111 VIII".0111111 , ,•
•
i • I
IL
,
STAFF REPORT
Tigard Planning Commission
March 16, 1976
Agenda Item 5.3
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CU 11-76
A request by Tigard Community Youth Services, Inc. to operate
a youth counseling center in a C-3 (general commercial) zone
at 13400 SW Pacific Hwy. (Wash. Co. tax map 2S1 2CC, tax lot 100) .
APPLICANT
Tigard Community Youth Services, Inc. , a non-profit civic
organization, is proposing to provide youth guidance and
counseling services to youths in the community.
STAFF FINDINGS
1. The subject site fronts along SW Pacific Hwy. to the north;
single family dwelling units are located on both, the east
and west sides of the building and a natural drainage field
lies to the rear and south of the parcel.
2. The applicant has indicated in his narrative statement that
he proposes to operate the youth counseling center on a "by
appointment" and/or "drop-in" basis. Staff has been advised
that no more than 12 youths at any one time are expected to
use the services provided by the center.
3. Off-street parking requirements for a professional office
in a C-3 zone, as defined in section 18.60.120, item 5,
paragraph (c) , is 1 space/500 sq. ft. plus 1 space/12
employees plus 1 space/establishment. The applicant's
site plan indicates 5 parking spaces. This would meet code
requirements; however, the existing parking is presently a
combination of gravel and sod and the Tigard Municipal Code
requires that all parking and maneuvering areas be paved.
4. NPO #1 Plan states, "The use of commercial-professional
buildings on this portion of Pacific Hwy. would provide
a qualitative break in the strip development and minimize
the attraction of additional traffic to the highway. "
5. The intersection of SW Pacific Hwy. and the frontage road
which provides vehicular access to the subject site is
slated to be corrected under the proposals stated in the
NPO #1 Plan Text and Map. Presently an awkward and hazard-
ous traffic condition exists at this access point to the
highway.
6. The applicant's response to the "Fasano" requirements are
attached.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
to be advised
l
TIGARD COMMUNITY YOUTH SERVICES, INC.
•
Application for Conditional Use Permit
1. Nature of the proposal and reason for requesting the
•
particular action.
Applicant is a non-profit corporation which is funded by
individual and organizational contributions with at present
one full time Washington County juvenile counselor whose services
are paid for by the Washington County Juvenile Department. The
applicant proposes to operate a by appointment and/or drop in
youth counseling center to serve the young adult population of
the Tigard community. Counseling services will be provided
and full time adult supervision will be supplied.
The counseling center will be an origin point for community
youth involvement projects, the site of the kids for hire program
and it is anticipated that possibly the big brother-big sister
program will be coordinated from the site.
I
Only limited recreation use will be made of the site.
Applicant 's reason for requestng this particular action of ti
the City of Tigard is more fully explained in the applicant' s
statement of need for this particular type of facility in the
Tigard community. It is felt it is sufficient to say that the
Tigard School District, Washington County. Juvenile Department and
the Tigard Police Department feel a definite need for counseling
• y
_l_
;3
':, facilities in the community for young adults which are separate
and apart from Tigard Schools.
2. How the proposed use is in conformance with Tigard' s
comprehensive plan.
The present zone for the area is C--3, general commercial
and the comprehensive plan adopted by NPO plan no. 1 indicates
that this particular property should be for office space as
opposed to other general highway commercial uses. Thus this
use would be in conformance with the comprehensive plan.
3. Community need and/or public benefit derived from the proposed
action.
The need for a counseling oriented program in Tigard can
be supported by the fact that police, school and juvenile
department officials are in support of this project. Washington
County Juvenile Department is willing to spend $11, 000 per
year in salary and fringe benefits in order to have this prevention
program operating. The school district realizes that its own
counseling programs are not sufficient to meet the need. The
police department has recently assigned one full time officer
to deal solely with a juvenile diversion program.
A confidential statement from the school district estimates
that 60-68 students dropped out of our secondary system last year.
Tigard police made 331 criminal arrests of juveniles in 1974.
This combined with 48' traffic offenses and criminal arrests of
Tigard, youth by other law enforcement agencies place the
_2_
d ( � ..
estimated total at. over 400 juvenile offenses. Well over one
offense per day by Tigard youth.
4 . Any changes or environmental, economic or social conditions
and/or changes and availability of public services or access
and/or any other aspect of community development directly affectinr
the subject site that would justify the requested action.
Applicant ' s proposed use of the subject property would
provide a facility in the Tigard area for free, convenient, out
of school counseling for young adults. This type of service
has never been available in the Tigard community and would be of
substantial benefit to the Tigard community.
5. Why the proposed location for your proposed land use is more
suitable that other locations in the city.
The site is generally centrally located with available public
transportation between the high school and junior highs in the
area where the youth it will serve are attending school. Also
it is not directly on a highway, rather fronting on an access
road to the highway so that any youths with their own transportation
will have minimal exposure to the highway.
6. The impact or effect of the proposed development use or
activity will have on adjacent sites, occupants or activities
and on the immediate neighborhood.
There will be constant on site adult supervision and only
limited recreational activities on site and the impace and effect
1 will be minimal on the surrounding area.
1, `
7. The types of public services necessitated by your proposed
development and the impact that your project may have on public .
services.
71
Present facility is sufficient and has adequate public
services at the present time and the impact would be minimal.
It is not anticipated that the need for community services would be
any greater than that of any other professional office building E�
or public facility.
i1
iy
fa
■
fr
1
}
•
}j?
I`.
1n
Sj
p'
m.
•
Vl .C ( NlT )1 Map.
C
CONDITIOWL USE _
(cuil %•
37 \. ,.• C S.13,715 a° SU1 v
424c / g,
? 1700 '
c 30 AC. �\ ,72 •»s'.t.,;:..., jj666y11
A 0
8
�m• h \
SP9 13W \\y.
,,,,,,%.',%2,,, ,,,'"; i , r /,...�, iri / .r..,.. -
t i .,t. .i,,,,,,., i./r:i/ .i ,6
D ° 71 94 ! O
64+6 __... I' 6?c. n,h 3503
iY— _— __ i,,o— ' ,>� 2200 " 26A
' -1900 0 -21, _ ,4,- G 3$� —
°o .274 c. °' a �•a .
° Q� 9
�4 C\ 2 6
N139°064 100 SB1oq-• 33.1L- n 35 02
2100
,3&4C,
.174c. ` Q• �h �s 52,0Q gl�°
h , 1 `z6,,1 C°�o 1
h•0, 22000 �� A/'3o-y9 5d 3 r2,,
w s
�' .86AC �, s4;t o y°r° ,sc,�
,• 1= 3 sae,n 2e.n6 w o Fs
G)• (C.S No. 12,175) a300 Ab, _ '
5 5600
v o' TR,A"(1
/1 4, '°. '''c-', , 5400 t s, (:),-N.,,1iill1/
/r,6 f// .. ,t
•
V m \ 6\ dll,
h 10 Q s '-,:c4 5 1/// °°
N /,48Ac. v. 5500 / qqr,0�62 .
5UB5EC ////l
z `�/ A` 3(J9
•a e I "� � ap�°� >°1
.,' V ! 1 ,� 10 a � 8 .
ron t.S 12,175) A‘• ,t7°
�• 9 Nom, ,
° 200
h /.40A ,` 308
t, y
°2 ° O , ,
ob > r J
.' ° 311 a °
\°.
nt ` N t 10 V".
500 ^' da.
/} 4,/9Ac. 3° N T 312 M. e a' 1
A'•.
61'
f
STAFF REPORT
Tigard Planning Commission
March 16, 1976
VARIANCE V 2-76
Agenda Item 5.4
Variance
A request by Jerry Hakola for an exception to the Tigard
Zoning Code requirements for front yard setback and off-
street parking on Main Street for a commercial building.
Staff Findings
1. Applicant is the owner of an existing building on the site,
which presently violates both code sections requested varied,
but is legal because of grandfather rights.
2. The front building line of adjacent parcels establishes the
existing front setback at the front property line.
3. There is no off-street parking available for the applicant's
building at present, although there is off-street parking
available behind his site for the Town Tavern next door.
(Previous owners of the Town. Tavern allowed Mr. Hakola's
customers to use the lot, but wouldn't agree to a parking
easement) .
4. Applicant has not submitted a statement of hardship. The
Commission must be sure to obtain findings of hardship
from his testimony per section 18.76.020.
5.' This-. lot was created to City ado p tion of zonin g
standards.
Staff Recommendation
b
To be advised.
411 .1.1.11.17
l C I ri Ty MAr .
0
1
v7 VARIANCE
1
KNNNN,. .,, :" 544..• ---5,_/ 3600 � A. ,pp" \ \
i
/ e 5?`0), 4100 i�
/ + ,C ,TO Ac y
\\�/ a) s° `- Ii
P0'
^P. , 1
20 Or° p 1`1'� \2"'
Si
? F sP ,r / 3�•, o n•
5 400 A-1 \ •S, ;C'' pJ° dE/ J r''• 900 %' '°"' ;,
. '�� ' 50100 .454c. ei,/ i
.04,7 c. 4•
/ rr•y tiei L/ J>
Di) 'v ' ' = w 2Oc k ,, 3 �?a X 001•
/ = ''fir• s a. ,� i.
J00 °_�_ e,
4, ,,S, 3 ,, J / /
1 ., > =_.. ,. J0c -. �9 S' '� °N°4)4901 sv /•
00 2� a`' t!!tP ' 50 �O A� 2 °o-``4 ,/84c. J%,\
3200 �,'� ,11`&"U_00 �p r' s /
` 1i' 300 F tS` C.S. No. t29Sf. °
'4 o 3-'1' '' fjJ °024c c / /
3100 o g1`j1 (Oir Cost z, '• /BAC. <s° O�y ,O ?oa �o`P 8CJ0 , �, �
xJ b �O ,l(1 34/136 ��}I.00 �0 .`. CE• , ) ��"t/ .6✓r'Ac `y4 /c� d•°
��5 )11'.1 1 Re 9c. .o °�� C'T I l T/ 4 ,
1i,. • 4 300 `ka 90 h, \\O C' C> ``;
> ----;..-111. t 62\7�'\3.464c . o�0 ..\ .'Z?.Z° o \ 4) /
/11�1_I L 44 q0 s, Tv -=-7
�f , • 3O`° ' 5300 \ J / or //
P�/ lO c. s° F �./
t� i A4500 �� °sF f>°�by� 2.33Ac.. o 4 °
i
• y .294c s h` 4, . 7'' o `' ) ! ° I f
57 '4e0 0 4J 51`-7 F, S- 1
43n0'%,'° °J° F , J J
! Qo l
/9 A c, c'iy 3p� % q. 1 �� �aa A�
��'%r ` s Esc c �,� \I ,ror ya 47i
. Al 9;' pp F `�
)
�• J ,,. 5000 J\ ^ F - b��Y/ }f,
F
3.3. /d!C • '•J ebb i1 6J ?l �4 / °\7.,,
t °' DI°C"? ' j• ''b " J200 p,
/Ts:c. `
\ ?iAC
�
of
� es 2 \ab 0)l // •u .0 E
E - \� • c \\:\ i, \
N t
q° SEE MAP
•
o
�� 251. 24D
/ ' ,
w r I
STAFF REPORT
Tigard Planning Commission
March 16, 1976
V 3-76 (Bishop/front yard)
Agenda Item 5.5
VARIANCE
A request by Wilbur Bishop for an exception to the Tigard zoning
code to allow a reduced front yard setback.
STAFF FINDINGS
1. Applicant's front lot line is approximately 8' behind the
edge of the sidewalk -- which is customarily the front lot
line.
The front yard setback is measured from the property line
(lot line) . The result is that the applicant has a front
yard (from edge of sidewalk to front of building) of some 18'
instead of the customary 10' .
2. The primary purposes of a setback these days is to provide
adequate visual space adjacent the street, for adequate
light, air and open space, and to prevent one structure
from visually "blanketing" or hiding another.
3. Tigard code (section 18.30.040 and 18.12.050) requires a
10' setback, but does permit a 2' projection into the front j'
yard area: .
4. The "building line" in this area is established principally s
by the front wall of the savings and loan building adjacent
(particularly since it is the only building adjacent) . The
savings and loan building apparently conforms to the setback
regulation subject of this request.
5. The particular proposal does not provide for adequate parking.
The applicant has obtained rights to an easement in the rail- '
road right-of-way (for an unspecified length of time) for his
off-street parking; however, the long, narrow configuration of 1
the parking easement does not allow enough room to turn !
around, creating a problem with people attempting backing
movements into the street. The only solutions staff sees to
that problem is for an exit to be provided at the rear of the r'.
parking area, or for a "turn-around" area to be "notched-in"
to the building site.
;r
6. This parcel predates the City's zoning ordinance and at the '
time of its creation the City code requirements were not in
existence. The adoption of the City's zoning ordinance with F'
( its parking and setback requirements therefore created certain
1'
Ci,
21
v
. .
page 2 L"
PC Staff Repor17-
3/16/76
item 5.5
hardships for small parcels such as this.
7. Applicant's statement of hardship is attached; please
refer to section 18.76.020 TMC.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
To be advised
Ii
P
I.1,
. ,
_ . ,
j
S
�..
Purpose of the Requested Variance: •
1. This is a request to vary the required front yard 10° setback
to a 1 ' -6" setback. Such a variance would not be detrimental to
the purposes of the zoning ordinance, nor to the adjacent properties.
If the variance request is granted, the feasibility of developing
the property as anticipated would be greatly enhanced.
2. The site in question is extremely small and difficult to develop.
There is an 8'-6"' strip of land between the sidewalk and the property
line which could be utilitzed as a partial substitute for the re-
quired 10' setback. If the variance were not allowed, the required
distance from the sidewalk to the building would be 18'-6". This
is a tremendous amount of land to set aside for such a small site,
(almost 1/3 of the site) .
3. Although some other properties in the vicinity have the same
requirements, neither the savings and loan or the market on this
side of Main Street are faced with the size restriction of this
site. The variance requested will, if granted, enable an attractive
development of the property.
4. This variance would not be detrimental or contrary to the pur-
pose of the zoning ordinance. In fact, it would enable the owner
to upgrade the property to enhance the City' s desired improved
appearance of Main Street. The one problem created by virtue of
the granting of the variance is that the freestanding savings and
loan sign may not be as visible to northbound traffic. However,
the view of the building sign would not be obstructed.
5. In light of the 8'-6" strip between the sidewalk and the property
line, this request would seem to be in keeping with the intent of
the zoning setback requirement. Because of the small size of the
site, the variance requested is necessary.
• . .
. .
/
1
. 1.;
1 1
,7
(
/
. .
. .v
1 . . •
II
•-. • , „
1
I/
NI-
I tli I..
s . 1:
.
0
ki.
tl.
..... 1
k . ..
5 W G ONI M •I'''
. .
r .6c.i_< L/N '.' f■
. . . .
! . . . . i ■--.. .1 1
401-06 --
1 I
— --- 11...=.11 ima' 111:
1 I _, __.L_____r
•
. -_____.-4 .pc...ale-fr.-lap - . •
,.. ... .
_...
I'.
....
. ,
. ..
. . .. .
•
. . - ..
, • . ,
. . . ..
. .
.. • .
' • . • . . .
. •. .
.. . , . .
. . ,
.. •.t. . ' . .
. . ,
. . . .
•
. . . r.
. '.
V
. . .. . ,. . ...... .. .
. ... I C.I H.1.1" 1" .-: M A Ic . .. . _
_ ila 1.001 . .,. .... ..--.. . , ..‘.
. .. if
(4,.... .
. .
• '. . '
. '
, , • . - - tl,
. ,.
. ,
, .
. . . .
. .
. . • .• • .
. .
. . .
• . . ,
. . '
. .