The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Packet - 12/04/1979 POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm.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 All TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION '. December 4, 1979 7:30 p.m. FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL LECTURE ROOM 10865 SW Walnut Street - Tigard 1. Open Meeting: 2. Roll Call: 3. Approval Of Minutes From Previous Meeting(s) : 4. Planning Commission Communication: 5. Public Hearings: A. Staff Report B. Applicant's Presentation C. Public Testimony 1. Proponent's 2. Opponent's 3. Cross-Examination D. Staff Recommendations E. Commission Discussion & Action 5.1 SUBDIVISION 6-79 (Golf Creek Estates) 5.2 ZONE CHANGE ZC 36-79 (Girod Property) 5.3 ZONE CHANGE ZC 36-77 (Western Racquet Club) 5.4 CONDITIONAL USE CU 25-79 (Roger Belanich/gea Galley Restaurant) 5.5 VARIANCE V 8-79 (Peterson/McDonald) 5.6 VARIANCE V 9-79 (John H. Rooney) 6. Old Business: 7. New Business: 8. Other Business: 9. Adjournment ti 1 MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION December. 4, 1979 °° 7:30 p.m. Fowler Junior High School - Lecture Room 10865 S. W. Walnut St. - Tigard, Oregon The meeting was OPENED at 7:35 p.m. by Vice President Speaker, who acted as President throughout the meeting in the absence of President Tepedino. ROLL CALL: Present: Bonn, Funk, Herron, Kolleas, Smith, Speaker Absent: Helmer, Popp, Tepedino Staff: Howard, Selby The MINUTES of the November 13 meeting were approved as submitted, upon motion made, seconded, and unanimously carried. There were no Planning Commission COMMUNICATIONS. The President at 7:40 opened the PUBLIC HEARINGS portion of the meeting, reading the usual notice of authority for and procedure to be followed in the meeting. 5.1 SUBDIVISION 6-79 (Golf Creek Estates) NPO #6 A request by Mr. Michael D. Elton to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission on September 18, 1979 for denial of his subdivision request on a 2.83 acre parcel located at the Southwest corner of S.W. 108th and S.W. Durham Road. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 251 15A, Tax Lot 1500) Howard read the STAFF REPORT and RECOMMENDATIONS. The APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION was made by Joe Walsh of Waker Assoc- iates, Inc. of Beaverton. He reviewed the various proposals for development of the site which so far have not been approved by the Planning Commission. He submitted a photocopy of an undated petition signed by many of the surrounding landowners approving the single- family development presently proposed. He suggested the sensitive lands ordinance should not apply because the original application was submitted shortly before the present ordinance was passed. He stated their desire to get the engineering work done and the plot recorded, with the stipu- lation that building permits would be issued when the sewer became available, estimated roughly at one and on¢-.half years from now. The President inquired the date of the petition submitted, since it contained the names of the adjoining landowners who, under date of October 17, submitted a letter in opposition to the development. Mr. Lamkin, the adjoining landowner, speaking from the audience, stated • MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION December 4, 1979 Page 2 that subsequent to the sending of the letter a different plan for development of their property had been suggested, and that they now approved the request. PUBLIC TESTIMONY in favor of the request was given by -- *** James Lamkin, 10960 S. W. Durham Road, the adjoining property owner on the west, who upon questioning by the President stated his willingness, when his property is developed, to dedicate the other half of 110th Avenue and thus gain access to his future development. *** Mr .. M. Brewer, 16185 S. W. 108th, who commended the lower density development, and expressed her conviction the drainageway should be owned and cared for by the individual landowners. *** Mrs. Waneta N. Chamberlin, 16720 S. W. 108th, who circulated the petition submitted. She asserted there was virtually 100 per cent neighborhood approval of the present proposal for this site. There was no public testimony in opposition. CROSS EXAMINATION AND mum: Selby of Staff clarified by referring to the City Code an apparent misconception of Waker Associates with respect to the Planning Commission approval required in the event building permits are not issued within twelve months. According to the Code, another hearing will be required on this same issue if sewer is not available within approximately twelve months. He estimated daily traffic volume on the half street, and called attention to the parking problem for visitors of the six residences facing 110th while it is a half street. In discussion with Mr. Walsh he explained the meaning and reason for the one-year rule on development of a subdivision. Mr. Waker of Waker Associates, Inc. stated he felt the issue of timing of sewer availability was beside the point, indicating a desire to get approval here so improvements can be put in in order that when the sewer is available, home building can commence. Funk inquired about the turn-around at the end of the proposed half street, particularly with reference to use by emergency vehicles. There was discussion with the Waker people about the possibility of using Lot 6 as off-street parking. They indicated a desire to work with the adjoining landowner if the Commission chose to condition parking on Lot 6, for instance, suggesting the possibility of development of the adjoining property within the time frame of development of the applicant's property. Howard of Staff discussed the sensitive lands issue, expressing a strong desire on the part of the City to be able to deal with only one entity with respect to proper maintenance of the drainageway. He cited other developments along Durham Road that have been severely restricted in their access to it. He did not feel this development justified MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION December y., 1979 ; " Page 3 another access to this arterial road. Mr. Waker responded to the open space issue, and argued that the island between the two drainageways should not be denied access to Durham, since such access is essential for the development of the properties. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION: Smith felt the issue of the requirement for another hearing, if substantial construction cannot be started within a year, should not be an issue for the Commission at this time, since the applicant is aware of the problems which might arise at a future hearing with a different Commission. He discissed with Staff the issue of sensitive lands and the governing ordinances. It was determined that the present ordinance would call for no different physical handling of the drainageway by the developer than he now proposes. Smith asked the City's desire for this drainageway--whether outright dedication or some alternative. Howard stated he would like to see a .homeowners association responsible for the maintenance of the open. space in accordance with a deed restriction. Funk expressed more concern for the availability of parking than for the access on Durham, since this appears to be the only practical access to these properties. Bonn's concern had already been addressed. Herron :xplored the parking and emergency vehicle situation on 110th with btaff. Speaker inquired about adequacy of access to Durham via a 17—foot—wide pavement, and whether the developer is required to provide half—street improvements along Durham (he is not, .according to the present proposal.) Mrs. Kolleas expressed concern about the 17—foot—wide street. Smith raised the question of how access might be provided other than via Durham. Speaker and Staff discussed possible alternatives with the aid of a large aerial photograph of the area. It was pointed out the drainageways can be more easily crossed with culverts farther south, while still allowing access to all properties on Durham. It was agreed this might not be ideal, but neither is the topography of the area. Smith stated he does not dislike the proposal, but felt the limita- tion of access to Durham Road was very important. He thereupon MOVED for denial of Subdivision S 6..79, p p based on the fact the proposed subdivi- sion jj accesses via 110th onto Durham Road. This is considered undesirable because of the policy established by the City to limit access onto this road. The motion, which was seconded by Kolleas, carried with Funk voting no. 5.2 ZONE CHANGE ZC 36-79 (Girod Property) ' NPO #1 A request by Mrs. 'Pauline Girod for a zone change from City of Tigard C-3 "General Commercial" to City of Tigard A-2 "Multi—family" on a .41 acre parcel located at 9960 SW ' Frewing. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 2CB, Tax Lot 3300) Howard read the STAFF REPORT and RECOMMENDATIONS. MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION December 4, 1979 Page- IF Bert Girod, son of the owner, made the APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION. He had nothing further to add to the Staff Findings and Recommendations. There was no PUBLIC TESTIMONY on this matter. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION: Mrs. Herron expressed concern about the access from Frewing onto Pacific Highway. Staff expressed the opinion this would be alleviated in past by the forthcoming signal- ization of Pacific Highway, and by the completion at some future time of the Ash Street extension. Smith inquired about the area indicated in the flood. plain. Staff explained this is considered fully in the development pm nt plan and presented no problems® Bonn MOVED approval of Zone Change AC 36-79 based on Staff Findings and Recommendations. The motion carried unanimously. 5.3 ZONE CHANGE ZC 36-77 (Western Racquet Club) NPO #5 A request by Western Racquet Club to extend a Planned Develop- ment District on 20.75 acres off S. W. Garden Place 150 feet south of Pacific Highway. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2Sl 1BB, Tax Lots 200, 300, 800, 1100, 1101 and 1200) Since no one in the audience appeared to be interested in testify- ing for or against this item, the reading of the STAFF REPORT and RECOMMENDATIONS was dispensed with. Ronald G. Moore, the owner, had nothing to add to the Staff Report as the APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION„ He concurred with the Staff Recommenda- tions. There was no PUBLIC TESTIMONY as such. Smith inquired about the floodplain. Selby responded, giving a brief history of the action taken at hearings before previous Commissions. He asserted that floodplain considerations were adequately addressed and conditioned in the previous hearings, and that a site inspection showed nothing to prompt further concern with respect to sensitive lands issues, Speaker inquired whether compliance with the present sensitive lands ordinance would entail any physical site changes from what is required under the previous approval. Howard said not, but that if there were any changes of significance in: t.he plan requested by the applicant, he would then have to have another hearing before the Commission, at which time full compliance with the current sensitive lands ordinance would be mandated. Speaker inquired about the drainage, which was an expressed concern of Commissioner Popp, who was unable to be present. Howard affirmed this is adequately conditioned, and added MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION December 4, 1979 } Page 5 that the drainage of this and surrounding properties will be dealt with as a package when development commences. Ivan Jack, 12330 S.W. Knoll Drive, inquired what was contemplated in the development. As an adjoining resident he is interested, partic- ularly in the height of the buildings to be built. He was assured the warehouse buildings, which he would overlook, would be only approxi- mately 20 feet high. Selby outlined on a large plan the various elements contemplated. The plans for noise abatement were explained. Mr. Jack asked for restriction of night truck traffic in the area. Mike Duyn, realtor representing Bruce Hosford, the applicant, explained their intention was to have a multiple.-business type of park, in which the traffic would be largely light trucks and vans rather than the larger vehicles. Selby offered Staff Recommendation 7 as follows: "That truck traffic between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. to the site be prohibited." He explained enforcement would be on a misdemeanor basis on complaint of citizens. COMMISSION ACTION: Smith MOVED for approval of Zone Change ZC 36-77 based on Staff Findings and Recommendations, including Recommendation 7 prohibiting night—time truck traffic. Bonn seconded the motion, which k` - carried unanimously. The President at 9:25 declared a five—minute recess. 5.4 CONDITIONAL USE CU 25-79 (Roger Belanich/Sea Galley Restaurant) NPO #2 A request by Roger Belanich for a Conditional Use to operate a restaurant in a C-3 Zone at the Northwest corner of Cascade Avenue and Greenburg Road. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 1S1 35B, Tax Lot 1301) The STAFF REPORT and RECOMMENDATIONS were read by Howard. The APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION was made by William Blue, architect, 408 S. W. Second Avenue, Portland. He concurred with the Staff Findings, stating that the plan submitted is preliminary at this time. Virgil Russell of Seattle, representing the Sea Galley Restaurants, explained the family type of operation his company conducts. Staff inquired if a liquor license would be applied for. The response was a hard liquor license has already been applied for. Bonn inquired whether there would be access through the Mobil station. Staff explained the whole access situation is tentative, and Will be worked out with the applicant. MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION December 4, 1979 Page 6 • COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION: Kolleas expressed concern over the traffic problems which would be heightened by the traffic generated by a popular restaurant. Howard explained factors affecting possible future changes in traffic patterns in the area, predicting substantial development in the foreseeable future. Funk inquired the volume of business and traffic anticipated. Smith objected to the access through the Mobil station, to which Staff concurred. Speaker raised the question of emergency vehicle access, which is provided for by entrance from two streets. Smith MOVED for approval of Conditional Use CU 25-79 based on Staff Findings and Recommendations, with the addition of a Recommenda- tion 8 as follows: That no ingress or egress be permitted from the site onto S. W. Greenburg Road. Bonn seconded the motion, which carried, with Kolleas voting no and Funk abstaining. 5.5 VARIANCE V 8-79 (Peterson/McDonald) NPO #5 A request by Carter Case for a side yard variance of the setback requirements in the M-3 Zone "Light Industrial" on two parcels located at 15835 and 15895 S. W. 72nd. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 251 12D, Tax Lots 2400 & 2500) The President ascertained there was no one in the audience who wished to present testimony in opposition to this item. Therefore the reading by Howard of the STAFF REPORT was limited to the RECOMMENDATIONS portion only. An addition Howard specified to Recommendation 1 is that the owners sign the petition for a Local Improvement District which is now circulating in the area. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATIONS were made very briefly by Rose Petersen and Lynn McDonald, owners of the properties involved, both of whom agreed with the Staff Findings and Recommendations. There was no PUBLIC TESTIMONY. However, Susan Knowland asked for a clarification of the "no occupancy" recommendation, fearing that she would no longer be permitted to live in the house on the property. She was assured this clause had nothing to do with the continuation of occupancy of her residence. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION: Smith MOVED approval of Variance V 8-79 based on Staff Findings and Recommendations, including the addition to Recommendation 1 that the applicants must sign the LID petition now circulating for the area. The motion was seconded by Kolleas. Funk inquired as to the location of the house on the property, and as to the separateness of the ownerships and the impact on the build- ings to he constructed. The motion then carried unanimously. w , MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION December 4, 1979 Page 7 5.6 VARIANCE V 9-79 (John H. Rooney) NPO #7 A request by John H. Rooney for a Variance from rear yard set back requirement in a 2-7 "Single—Family Residential" Zone located at 12185 S. W. 126th. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 kAA, Tax Lot 3000) Since only the applicant remained in the audience, the reading of the STAFF REPORT was omitted. Howard read the brief STAFF RECOMMENDATION for approval. John Rooney, the owner, made the APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION, in which he clarified the amount of the variance requested—roughly a triangle six feet by two feet. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION: Bonn MOVED approval of Variance V 9-79 based on Staff Findings and Recommendation. The motion was seconded by Kolleas and passed unanimously. There was no OLD BUSINESS to consider. NEW BUSINESS: k *** Selby explained the appeal of the Studio Estates Subdivision by three citizens, who appeal an approval of a subdivision by the Planning Director on a parcel on Durham Road near 92nd Avenue. *** Bonn inquired about the tearing up of Gaarde Street by the Water District. Howard explained the new procedures which have come as a result of this situation—the Water District must now secure a permit for every operation involving tearing up of City streets. *** Speaker asked Howard why he recommended approval of Mrs. Burnham's appeal to the City Council for three duplexes, contrary, to the decision on two occasions when the matter was heard before the Commission. Howard explained his conviction that we are going to have , to live on smaller lots, and clarified what he perceives as unexpressed 1 motivation of some who objected to Mrs. Burham°s requests and other requests we have heard recently. This developed into a rather wide- ranging philosophical discussion of the problems of and proper function of the Planning Commission. Staff explained problems they have with proponents and opponents of requests. There was a discussion of density, and the propriety of the Commission doing what it can and should do to promote higher densities where practical. The problem created by the lack of positive direction from the City Council on these matters was also discussed. It was felt a consensus of the Commission on some of these matters should be sought at a time when more Commission members are present. The President ADJOURNED the meeting at 10,40 p.m. t�i'k' • "PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN-UP SHEET" NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME ON THE APPROPRIATE SIGN-UP SHEET(S) , LOCATED AT THE BACK OF THE ROOM. PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK WILL THEN BE CALLED FORWARD BY THE CHAIR TO SPEAK ON INDICATED ITEM(S) . AGENDA ITEM: 5• REFERENCE: u 2,6.-71. DATE: /2 dd ), NAME ADDRESS • AGENDA ITEM: S REFERENCE: v OP-29 DATE: NAME ADDRESS 91A1#45049 Ird&D. al Res,* ahr.sen 10s46 SW ase dierme Lane pidied o/ AGENDA ITEM: S• G REFERENCE: v im/-� DATE: / 4/7q NAME ADDRESS i " tII t� a' "PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN-UP SHEET" NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME ON THE APPROPRIATE SIGN-UP SHEET(S) , LOCATED AT THE BACK OF THE ROOM. PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK WILL THEN BE CALLED FORWARD BY THE CHAIR TO SPEAK ON INDICATED ITEM(S) . AGENDA ITEM: S / REFERENCE: S 6 -7q' DATE: /Z f�/7�j NAME ADDRESS L ca. WP►LSW (with p►tlot.) 11 ®etc? S.W• ALL* ' • .11 .4.44,416A-...A / 1/rt.:rig/1/ r ^.4 A AI" • AGENDA ITEM: .5• 7i REFERENCE: "';29 DATE: //2--A�/� NAME ADDRESS i �. AGENDA ITEM: S' 3 REFERENCE: 2( 36;-7,7 DATE: NAME ADDRESS ,,Y, • PUBLIC NOTICE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION December 4, 1979 - 7:30 p.m. FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL LECTURE ROOM 10865 SW Walnut Street - Tigard 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 SUBDIVISION 6-79 (Golf Creek Estates) NPO #6 A request by Mr. Michael D. Elton to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission on September 18, 1979 for denial of his subdivision request on a 2.83 acre parcel located at the Southwest corner of S.W. 108th and S.W. Durham Road. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 15A,• Tax Lot 1500) • 5.2 ZONE CHANGE ZC 36-79 (Girod Property) NPO #1 A request by Mrs. Pauline Girod for a zone change from City of Tigard C-3 "General Commercial" to City of Tigard A-2 "Multi-family" on a .41 acre parcel located at 9960 SW Frewing. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 2CB, Tax Lot 3300) 5.3 ZONE CHANGE ZC 36-77 (Western Racquet Club) NPO #5 A request by Western Racquet Club to extend a Planned Development District on 20.75 acres.Off S.W. Garden Place 150 feet south of Pacific Highway (Wash Co. Tax Map 2S1 1BB, Tax Lots 200, 300, 800, 1100, 1101 and 1200) 5.4 CONDITIONAL USE CU 25-79 (Roger Belanich/Sea Galley Restaurant) NPO #2 A request by Roger Belanich for a Conditional Use to operate a restaurant in a C-3 Zone at the Northwest corner of Cascade Avenue and Greenburg Road. Wash. Co. Tax Map lSl 35B, Tax Lot 1301) 5.5 VARIANCE V 8-79 (Peterson/McDonald) NPO #5 A request by Carter Case, for a side yard variance of the set back requirements in the M-3 Zone "Light Industrial" on two parcels located at 15835 and 15895 S.W. 72nd. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 12D, Tax Lots 2400 & 2500) 5.6 VARIANCE V 9-79 (John H. Rooney) NPO #7 A request by John H. Rooney for a Variance fom rear yard set back requirement in a R-7 "Single-Family Residential" Zone located at 12185 S.W. 126th. 'Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 4AA, Tax Lot 3000) TT Publish November 21 and November 23, 1979 11/19/79 vmc STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5.1 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION December 4, 1979 - 7:30 p.m. FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH - Lecture Room 10865 SW Walnut Street, Tigard, OR DOCKET: SUBDIVISION S 6-79 (Golf Creek Estates, Ref. ZC 16-78, CU 18-78 & CU 1-79) APPLICANT: Mr. Michael Elton OWNER: Same 500 NE Multnomah, Suite 380 Portland, Oregon 97232 APPLICATION DATE: May 11, 1979 SITE LOCATION: Southwest corner of SW Durham Road and SW 108th Street (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 15A, Tax Lot 1500) REQUEST: To subdivide a 2.83 acre parcel into 11 lots in a R-7 "Single-Family Residential" Zone. PREVIOUS ACTION: On September 5, 1978, the Planning Commission approved the applicant's request to zone the subject site from Washington County RS-1 to City R-7. (See Ordinance 78-66) . However, they denied the Conditional Use request for permission to construct and operate a retirement center. (See Exhibit "A") . '{ On March 6, 1979, the Planning Commission denied a second Conditional Use request by the owner to construct duplex units on the 2.83 acre parcel. (See Exhibit "B") . On July 17, 1979, the Planning Director denied the owner's request to sub- divide the parcel into 11 single-family units. (See Exhibit "C") . On September 18, 1979, the Planning Commission heard an appeal by the owner's representative and moved for continuation of the Planning Director's denial with special conditions; there be a waiver of fee for the next request and the Staff work with applicant to resolve Code violations. (See Exhibit "D") . Since the September meeting, there have been several letters to and from the owner's representative (Waker Associates and two letters of opposition by surrounding landowners. (See Exhibits "E-1 and E-2") . The owner's representative appeared before the City Council on October 8, 1979, requesting that they extend the appeal deadline on the decision by the Planning Commission of September 18, 1979. (See attached Minutes dated October 8, 1979) . • I.i ry j 1 1 I STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5.1 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION December 4, 1979 Page 2 On November 13, 1979, the owner's representative appeared before the Planning Commission with a letter dated November 9, 1979, requesting a hearing before the Commission. The Commission granted the request. (See Exhibit "F" and "G") . I. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The subject site is zoned R-7 "Single-Family Residential" and is designated R-5 "Single-Family Residential" on the NPO #6 Plan with specification that cluster housing be encouraged in respect to the sensitive lands conditions and significant vegetation along SW Durham Road. 2. Throughout the prolonged review of this request, the following issues have been present: a) the duplex request was denied based on "change of character" of the area, and b) that a Planned Development designation on this particular parcel would be appropriate (see Exhibit "B"), and c) that sewer service will not be available to this site for approximately two years, and d) that direct access onto SW Durham Road off the west side of the parcel is questionable due to heavy traffic on an unimproved arterial and off-setting intersection, and e) the proposed plat would create a temporary half-street consisting of seventeen feet of paving, • 334 feet long. The entrance is off SW Durham on the west side and would extend south through Tax Lots 1600 and 1300 in the future. The owners of these Lots and Lots 1501 and 1400 have written letters of opposition. (See Exhibits "E-1 and E-2") , and f) in May 1979, the City Council adopted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment identifying certain Tax Lots to become R-5 "Single-Family Residential" with 5,000 square foot lots. The purpose of this descrimination was to create lots available for moderate income financing, lots appropriate in size to develop on sensitive land areas and higher density locations near community services. 3. The preliminary plat before you is not the original plan which the Planning Director denied. However, Proposal "B" is acceptable since the Code violation along the western side of the site has been eliminated. 4. In review of Proposal "B", the following Code violations and planning concepts exist: a) Eight of the eleven properties' lot lines encroach down to the creek bed. Furthermore, there is no proposal indicating that each individual lot will be restricted from developing the sensitive lands portion. { This drainage way is a critical water course for the Summerfield drainage and therefore, must be left in a natural state to prevent interruption. For this reason, the Planning Staff feels that Section 18.56.015 be enforced to require the owner to apply for ('{ Planned Development Designation on the property which can adequately deal with the drainage condition. Ej 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5.1 T'IGARD PLANNING COMMISSION December 4, 1979 Page 3 b) The owner proposes to create a half-street along the western portion of the site identified as 110th. Section 17.28.100 states that half-streets are possible while not generally acceptable. The Planning Staff feels- that the temporary condition of the half-street is not practical since opposition to the future of the street has been expressed. Furthermore, the temporary street width will be 17 feet wide which will restrict traffic circulation. SW Durham Road daily travel is up to 5,600 trips per day between SW Pacific Highway and Tigard High School. This amount is above the road capacity by 2,000 trips. The future trips are estimated to reach 10,000. Therefore, opening additional off-set intersection on to SW Durham should be carefully considered. II. CONCLUSIONARY FINDINGS: 1. Proposal "B" has eliminated the Code violation of the original plan. However, several Planning concepts are being ignored which are supported by the Tigard Municipal Code. The Planned Development Designation, Sensitive Lands Ordinance, the creation of half-street and lack of sewer availability are concerns of the Planning Staff. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the subdivision request based on the following findings: 1. The proposed 110th is opposed by the surrounding property owners which indicates that the resistence may prolong or eliminate any future possibility of the street being completed. 2. Sewer will not be available to the site for at least a year and a half. Therefore, this subdivision approval will have expired and a new hearing will be required. a 3. The proposed lot extensions into the drainageway requires a Planned Development Designation. 4. This site has been redesignated on the Comprehensive Plan to accomodate the need for moderate income housing and to avoid encroachment into ': sensitive land areas. GENERAL STATEMENT: Staff feels that there is an appropriate method of developing this site which { IL has not been fully explored. The Comprehensive Plan, Sensitive Lands and Planned ; Development Ordinances support the feasibility of this site to be developed as r'. clustered housing totally on the east side of the drainageway with two story }.! dwelling units. Twelve dwelling units would be the permitted density. 4s if . 0 STAFF REPORT S AGENDA 5.1 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION December 4, 1979 Page 4 The opposition to this type of development has come from some land owners living south of the site. Their opinion is that clustered housing would not be in keeping with the character of the area. This statement is true. The City Council has adopted amendments to the Comprehensive Plan which effectively begins to change the character of this area. Lots fronting on the south side of SW Durham, 200 feet in depth between Pacific Highway and Tigard High School are designated to develop a density of 6 dwelling units per gross acre with clustered housing type. This type of development will buffer single-family units from SW Durham. It will also provide low cost housing and allow lot locations to avoid sensitive land areas. Finally, the major issue here is approving a plan to develop this site which will best serve the community and provide a needed housing type. PREPARED BY N SELBY, APPROVED BY ALD OWARD, sociate City Planner Plan g Director vine } TRANSCRIPT - TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION, December 4, 1979, Fowler Junior High School, SUBDIVISION S 6-79 (Golf Creek Estates) denial appeal A request by Mr. Michael D. Elton to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission on September 18, 1979 for denial of his subdivision request on a 2.83 acre parcel located at the southwest corner of S.W. 108th and S.W. Durham Road. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 15A, Tax Lot 1500) . PRESENT AT TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 4, 1979: Bonn, Funk, Herron, Kolleas, Smith, Speaker, Howard, Selby ABSENT: Helmer, Popp Tepedino AGENDA 5.1 Howard began with the Staff Report. (Please see attached) SPEAKER: Thank you Staff. Does the applicant want to make his presentation Y IMP P now? Joe Walsh of Waker Associates, Inc. of Beaverton: WALSH: My name is Joe Walsh. 11080 SW Allen Blvd. I'm with Waker Associates and we are representing Michael Elton, the property developer. I might say this is our third go-around on this site. Two previous proposals were turned down by the surrounding property owners and our present proposal has, has the support of the majority of the surrounding property owners that you can see on that map behind you which is in green. There is a letter that the league has submitted to, with the property owner's names which are indicated on that map there. They, their main SELBY: Excuse me. Is the signatures of the people that's WALSH: Right 4 SELBY: Would you pass that down? WALSH: Their opposition has been that they want to keep the density down. I believe this proposal we have before you with 11 units has done that and allows us to develop this site with the least impact of the area. We do have all our lots within code right now. The half street which we propose is allowed in the ordinance with the Planning Commission approval, that is shown that the surrounding area can be developed by the extension of the other 4 half of the street. There is also a map behind you which shows possible future developments. It doesn't mean that the road is going to be exactly the way it is shown on this map. It is possible, future development of the surrounding site which is adjacent to the property. We have talked to that property owner and he has given us an indication that he has approved of this SW 110th street location on Durham Road. We do have a letter from gr the City Engineer stating, or the Public Works Director, stating that this half street, the location that we have it, is of the best location within this little island area, and that future development of this site is best appropriate with this location. This, there is a point brought out that this I • S 6-79, Golf Creek Estates denial appeal Transcript P. 2 of the, if the sewer line is brought up in a year and a half or so, it will be past it's time period. Well, the Ordinance states that the final plat must be submitted and not recorded or approved within a year's time and we can submit the plat and when the sewer is available, then we will record and all our lots fully buildable. Our lot extension to the drainage way, I was looking into the Sensitive Lands Ordinance, and I didn't find anything in that Ordinance stating that we cannot have lots in the sensitive lands areas. We cannot build in there, which we are not going to. We provided an open space easement. Note that the open space easement shall remain in natural topography condition. No private storm culvert excavation or fill shall be constructed in the open space easement unless cleared by the City Engineer. I believe that we have adequately provided for the open space in this area. That there's no reason why we shouldnt (inaudible) into it. We not going to build into it, it's just a matter that this area would be left up to the maintenance of the individual property owners which there's 8 of them backing up into the drainage area and nothing has been brought up in the Sensitive Lands Ordinance. This, our, just a matter of timing, our application, our original application of the site, preceded the Ordinance for the sensitive lands by a week or two and I believe the, although we were in sensitive lands, it may not apply to this proposal. As per our application, although we're not, I think, we're abiding by all the intent of the Ordinance. I think that it should not apply in this case. We have as far as the sewer timing goes, we would like to be able to go in there and do !' all our engineering work and platting and have a stipulation that once the sewer does, is into construction that you may get Building Permits at that !' time. In other words, start (inaudible) again because the sewer line brought up at that time to service these sites. Until (inaudible). L half of the timing at all in this case. I think this is one of the better proposals on the site that have been presented and it's, has the support of the majority of the property owners and I believe that, it would be in the best interest to approve this plat. SPEAKER: Mr. Walsh, you present a photocopy of a petition in support of Mr. Elton's present subdivision plan. Can you tell me approximately the date of this? is. WALSH: It will be presented legally. (I SPEAKER: All right, but I want to know the date. c`. SOMEONE IN AUDIENCE: It was just before the last meeting that we were M'•`'. heard. WALSH: I believe it was November 13th. SAME PERSON FROM AUDIENCE: About 3 weeks ago. SPEAKER: In our packages is a letter to the City from Mr. and Mrs. Lampkin, whose names also appear here. In the letter they say, in reference to your 3f letter dated October 1, 1979 Golf Creek Estates Proposals. We are opposed to the plan as presented. We own 2 acres of Tax Lot 1600 and 3 acres of Tax Lot 1300 which adjoin. We feel the plans do not allow us to develop our property to its full potential. Now, I bring this up because part of the p resentation of Staff was that the, the nei g hbors, or the neighbor o pposed, opposed the, it. Can you accress that? I S 6-79, Golf Creek Estates denial appeal Transcript P. 3 WALSH: Ok. That letter was LAMPKIN: May I address that please? I am a neighbor to the west that owns 5 acres, Ken Lampkin 10960 Durham Road. That letter has nothing to do with opposing the development of Golf Creek Estates. It had to do with the proposed running of 110th down the middle, you might say, of my property and then . crossing it twice with two 50 foot side roads. That is what I complained about. Mr. Howard knows that. I do definitely approve of Golf Creek Estates Subdivision and I informed him that I do. That letter is erroneous as far as saying that we don't want this in there. SPEAKER: I think there is an issue there that we will have to address later. WALSH: I might just say that That letter was written on the previous map that sits behind you on the possible future extension. At the time we came up with a, the map for the surrounding area, we were, itwas our understanding that both those tax lots were under separate ownership, so we had a concept of streets running through the property and since then we found out that they belonged to both the same property owner and a better, more logical extension of 110th Avenue was developed and that's what this map here is, relates to and Mr. Lampkin's letter related to an earlier map which divided his land up with more streets and less lots. I think that his disapproval is on this map here. (inaudible) SPEAKER: Ok. Thank you. There is a sign-up sheet at the table in the back. Anyone who wishes to speak should sign on that. Now, we will hear the proponent's of this proposal. Will you please come forward to the microphone. Are there, is there anybody speaking in favor of this? LAMPKIN: There agin, is it necessary that I SPEAKER: Come on down here please. LAMPKIN: Chairman, My name is James Lampkin 10960 SW Durham Road, and I am very much in favor of the Golf Creek Estates Subdivision. We own the 5 acres adjoining on the west. I said earlier there was a different plan going up which I didn't approve of. Subsequently, it has been changed and I do approve of it very much. SPEAKER: The Staff based part of its, don't go away, based part of it's objection to this, as that 25 foot street on west side, which assumes, hopefully, that 25 foot would be dedicated from your property. Is that right? LAMPKIN: Yes. SPEAKER: How do you feel about that? LAMPKIN: That would be fine. At this time, as still County property and that will be the access, and this would be my idea also of coming into this property and a previous plan was to come down there and cross entirely across the property with a 50 foot wide road depth onto the property on the west of ours, go down that and come back across with another 50 foot wide road bed. This left a little planning in the middle for lots. And this is what I objected to it, but now it is gone, I do favor, the road bed down the west side and come in across the property in the back with a cul-de-sac or something like that, leaves it all open for development. (inaudible) to the west which is just fine with me. S 6-79, Golf Creek Estates denial appeal Transcript P. 4 (' SPEAKER: In other words, you are not oppsed to, should we say committing 1: ' development, full development of that 110th? L' i LAMPKIN: At this time, our property is not in the City of Tigard, it is in the f ' County, so it can't be developed as a 110th Street. I am in favor of the (inaudible) being developed, and at such a time, or when we do develop 4' I as a subdivision, then that's just fine, I'll join to it and add my 25 feet is as access. :. SPEAKER: Ok. Thank you. Are there any other proponents? Those in favor of this? BREWER: My name is Mrs. Brewer. We own the property south of the Golf ` j Creek Estates. South and a wee bit southeast too across the creek on the southeast on the east side of the creek which is south and we are in favor of the Golf Creek Estates. We think that it will not be as crowded as some of the apartments or duplex that at first were proposed, the nursing home. We would like to keep it at low density. Not so, we think that the creek should belong to the homeowners. Since we pay for it and pay taxes 1 on it. I believe that the creek should belong to the people who buy the property. We are in favor of the Golf Creek Estates and much favor of 11 lots and having 2 or 300 people on those two acres like it could have on other place. SPEAKER: Thank you. What was your name again. BREWER: Brewer, B-R-E-W-E-R. SPEAKER: Thank you. Another proponent? CHAMBERLIN: Yes sir, I am Waneta Chamberlin, 16720 SW 108th Avenue. And I am the lady that took up this petition and the only reason you don't have ' more than 23 people because I only had 1 evening and I, everybody I stopped r'. at signed it. They were very much in favor of the way it is now, in fact, they said they would have it no other way and as you remember, well, others ? have called me since, that I didn't get to and they're very much in favor of it and I think you'll be getting letters from them, and as you remember, te I fought like heck and so did everybody else with Mr. Elton, why don't you vl put in the nursing home or the poor kids need, you know, type thing and I 1' have two petitions here and I have presented them to you people. I mean L F you're pulling out what you want to pull out, but if you look farther, you'd see that I have one here with 100% signed, because I had a couple of days to go, and says that we do not want a park now or in the future, you know, or anything, we don't want a open greenway for the public to use, to come in. ';,' We want the people to take care of their own property, the people that own }., it. We feel that they are alot more capable than turning the public in and expecting the City to take care of it and the tax payers to come across with funds to do so, cause we know how this works. And you know too. And, so, I'; we are all in favor of the plan Mr. Elton has out now with the 75 x 100 lots f and with the 8 people coming down to the Sierra Creek Course not wrecking j,, the Creek or using it unwisel Y. but, you know, and taking care of maintaining L it themselves and owning it. I mean, Mr. Elton owns his property. He `' Ifi bought it. And he is entitled to sell it, I mean no one can take this from hom. You know, it's not for sale at any price. He doesn't want to K. 1: a S 6-79, Golf Creek Estates denial appeal Transcript P. 5 sell it, he just bought it to make use of it for himself. And the fact that kr somebody would like to have it and it is not for sale this doesn't mean they can come in and take it anyway under any circumstances, I mean this is against the law, we all know this. You can't take a man's property if he doesn't want to sell it. That's all about what I have to say. Thank you. SPEAKER: Thank you Mrs. Chamberlin. Are there any other proponents? F Opponents? There's opportunity now for cross examination if anybody wants to SELBY: Commissioner Speaker: SPEAKER: Yes. SELBY: The Staff has some statements to make in rebuttal basically to the applicant's statement. One on the issue that if the preliminary plat is not acted upon as far as construction and he can't get any Building Permits until the sewer is in, then he has to come here within a year's time. His I! statement was that the Code stated that the final plat is drawn up within 12 months. The Section of the Code that the representative was speaking from 17.20.010. And he stated part of the Code. Not the full paragraph. Part he spoke of was that within 12 months after tenative approval of preliminary ti plat subdivider shall cause a subdivision or any part thereof to be surveyed jl in a final plat prepared in conformance with the preliminary plat is tenta- tively approved. That's the part he spoke of. The part he didn't state, is the one of the same chapter and paragraph, that Staff means by, is that if F the subdivider wishes to proceed with, in the subdivision after the expiration of the 12 month period following a tentative approval of the preliminary plat by the Planning Commission, he must resubmit his preliminary plat to the h' Planning Commission and make any revisions considered necessary to meet changes. This is based on the,fact that we feel that the sewer will not be in that area between 18 months to 24 months. At this time, the trunk line the U.S.A. has, just passed through the Cook Park and is on its way up along the river bank to this parcel. There is an agreement that it will stop short of that site and within one year after that location TDC is to come down across Durham to the south and connect to it. These are the contracts that are I' elect to the subcontractor who is doing the engineering and the work on the sewer. It's our understanding and communications to them that this hook-up , by contract will probably not take place anthing short of a year and a half F and that's why were making this statement. So that's one part of the Code that we feel if you give approval now as being somewhat redundant. Of course, 1 that doesn't speak of the merit of the subdivision. Do you have some other 1 point SPEAKER: Now, if I understand you, Staff, should we approve this tonight, we would still, if your concept of the timing on the sewers is correct, we would still have to have another hearing on this? ti SELBY: On this same issue, yes. 1 SPEAKER: On the same issue. SELBY: Another point is that the letter on October 1 that went out to the surrounding neighbors explaining the proposed half street and its future possible extension was the only plan that was the plan that the Staff had S 6-79, Golf Creek Estates denial appeal Transcript P. 6 at the time it reviewed and denied the subdivision and now the applicant is coming in with a second alternative plan to a street that we have not reviewed because it was not the plans as submitted to us with the application. So, we recognize that the developer and his representative may have made peace with the neighbors by coming up with a second alternative road as far as future extensions of it, and, therefore, that nullifies the documentation that we used. But our presentation of concerns for it not being a practical (' half street is still alive in that if you'll consider that the cross street as you, the cross section of the road that's on your plan, it shows 17 feet of pavement. Imagine that you have an average of 8 to 10 trips per day out of each unit, that's the average trips out of 6. That's minimum around 38 to 48 cars going in two directions on the 17 that gives them about 81 feet apiece to travel on. And each lot is required to have a parking space on their own individual sites about 2. The garage, parking the car in the garage conceivably, and on the driveway. This would prohibit them this width of street any on-street parking which of course we could prohibit, off-street parking, or on-street parking, say, there's no on-street parking. But where would the people then visiting these 6 lots park? They can't park down on Durham because there is no improvements along there for that and even if there were, that's an arterial and a very dangerous place to be parking a car and then walking up back to the potential site of visitation. Therefore, • we contend that this in an intrum period, we don't know how long that will be, is a very bad idea for traffic circulation and perimeter traffic. SPEAKER: Thank you Staff. Anything. . . . yes, Mr. Walsh do you want to rebut. . WALSH: You might say we can record the plat within one year. You can get all our recording and surveying work done and get the plat to the City, and get recorded within one year. HOWARD: That's not the point. p�. WALSH: We may not be able to build all our lots within one year. i`' SELBY: That's not the point. Yes, we know that you can get the final plat in. The Code doesn't mean if you get it recorded and you get it to the County. The issue is, that you must have a subdivirsion in whole or in part or else you have to come back at the preliminary plan level. O.K.? That's what it says. It's not the issue on whether or not you get the final plat recorded. Let me read that section again. Is it necessary or do you. . .O.K.? SPEAKER: Well, if I understand it correctly, what, what it means is that regardless of how many plats have been filed, they can't build in accordance with what the planning commission has approved unless they start within a year. Is that right? SELBY: That's correct. If the subdivider wishes to proceed with the subdivision, proceed with the subdivision, what would that indicate to you? • WALSH: That means proceed with the final plat. I�a SELBY: Well, it doesn't say final plat. It says proceed with the subdivision. A subdivision has been determined in the past by this Planning Commission has been significant improvements on the site. That's a subdivision, not the final plat. The subdivision is subdividing that land. After the expiration of the 12 month period, following the tenative approval of 6 S 6-79, Golf Creek Estates denial appeal Transcript P. 7 of preliminary plat by Planning Commission, he must resubmit his preliminary plat. So you've got the final plat recorded by the County, but you have not proceeded with the subdivision physically, and therefore, there might be; the reason for this chapter, the intent is that there might have been some physical differences made on that land, or around it that might prohibit the previously approved preliminary plat. It's a re-hearing for that purpose. WAKE R: Mr. Chairman, my name is Richard Waker of Waker Associates and I would just like to suggest that this is really not an issue. If, the sewer is there, first of all, we don't know what TDC's plans are to build a sewer, although we certainly assume, given all the flack they've had over the operations of that system, that they're going to discharge that obligation at the lowest possible cost, which means they're going to spend the money sooner rather than later bause costs are going up. This Planning Commission has absolutely no risk involved if they favor the subdivision and if the sewer is there, will help improvements. We are here, we are having a hearing. I don't see why that's an issue. If the subdivision has met all the requirements, the risk is upon the developer to build the improvements or not in anticipation of the sewer construction. City has no risk whatsoever. If we are unfortunate enough to have to come back here one more time for another hearing, I surely will be as unhappy about it as you are, but I don't see why that's an issue. We can build the improvements, We can record the plat in the time frame that has been presented to you. TDC chooses not to build a sewer line for 4 years, I think it would be a rather foolish move for us to go ahead and spend the money, but they're going to move ahead on it. We will have the opportunity to get in there on the same time frame and build on improvements in the order of fashion, so I don't really see that this, I don't quite understand what the Staff is trying to get at here. SPEAKER: Thank you Mr. Waker. WALSH: May I also say that half street have been approved before the issue about off-street parking, or parking, like, I was wondering if that's ever been a condition before? We've submit half street improvements. In this case, here, we do have indication that the property owner to the west is willing to go along when he develops to give the rest. We see no problems with this case here. We have 6 lots, we'll be using this, this street here with maybe 60, turns out about 60 trips per day. We believe this is we do provide for a turnaround at the end, that we do meet with the fire marhall's approval. Can I answer any other questions? SPEAKER: Anyother questions from commissioners? O.K. Thank you. FUNK: Excuse me a minute. Question for (inaudible) turnaround for emergency vehicles at 110th? WALSH: Yeah. That will be temporary until the half street, the rest of the half street is provided for. FUNK: Where are you going to take that area, out of Lot #6? WALSH: It would be the last lot. FUNK: That would be paved then for a turnaround? ! - 4mmmemmmimm S.6;79,6-79, Golf Creek Estates denial appeal Transcript N P , a, 41r WALSH: It doesn't necessarily have to be paved, just a hard surface that the fire truck would be able to move in. is FUNK: It comes up to mind that you would consider, there again, could take Lot #6 and reserve it for off-street parking in addition to the emergency vehicles turnaround (inaudible) . WALSH: In addition to off-street parking? FUNK: Well, the area of the lot doesn't satisfy the (inaudible) requirement 'til such time as it is applicable. l' WALSH: I believe the lot sits there. Since we have our easement behind it, we have our building enveiope for that site is probably at its minimum now, within an acre, acre and a half, I don't think we could get our off-street parking in is there. Off-street parking (inaudible) i. FUNK: As I said (inaudible) I say you can get off-street parking on it. 'i 1. WALSH: (inaudible) 90 foot depth lot plus we have a FUNK: Your're not going to try to put a structure on that lot besides emergency turnaround? WALSH OR WAKER: No, No. The structure wouldn't be there. That location of that turnaround I;I has to be keptopen for emergency vehicles (inaudible) . i' FUNK: No. I'm saying in addition to the turnaround area would accomodate off- street street parking besides that WALSH: I don't think you could do that. FUNK: Thank you. Tc HERRON: I have a question sir. 1. WAVER: I'm sorry, I heard the question differently. You asked whether or not there'd be a house constructed on lot 6? 1.1 FUNK: Yes. WAKER: Alright, then the answer ' g , yes there would. FUNK: In addition to the turnaround? WAKER: Yes (inaudible) FUNK: My question was then, could you do without the house for the period of time to accomodate off-street parking? WAKER: I don't know the answer to that. Why don't you, if you wish to approve the subdivision put that condition on there and we'll try and live with it. S 6-79, Golf Crees Estates denial appeal Transcript P. 9 FUNK: All right. 4irWAXER: Certainly, we're not going to build all these houses next summer. Seems to me we heard the joint property owner has some interest in developing his property so maybe the time frame in development, get the rest of that street, or get more enough of it to build a wider street. We'd like to have the opportunity to work with that condition not just be turned down because we're not sure. SPEAKER: Thank you. I close the public hearing and we go into a commission discussion and action. Commissioners? HOWARD: Sir? Staff would like to make a couple of comments. SPEAKER: 0. K. Staff. WAXER: Mr. Chairman, if Staff is going to make more comments, we would appreciate the public hearing be kept open so that we may have our opportunity also. SPEAKER: O.K. This has been the realm of the cross examination and rebuttal. Go ahead Staff. HOWARD: Well, it's our feelings in developing the Sensitive Lands Ordinance, although your applicant in this particular case doesn't think he comes under it, the whole attitude expressed by the Planning Commission or by the City Council in adoption of that was to protect these drainage areas. In this particular case we asked that, that land not be dedicated to the City, but that the homeowners agreement be formed so that we would in time deal with one person for the maintenance of that area. If it is allowed to be platted as shown, and the responsibility is borned by the individual property owner, it's a good collection place for old tires and beer cans. And that's one of the things that we try to get away from when we devised the Sensitive Lands Ordinance, was that these areas be maintained. We discussed that. City Council discussed that. Staff reacted to it in this particular situation. The applicant in this situation chose not to. That's one. Number two is that Durham Road, although the City does not control it yet, is a limited access road and the Council has been very protective of Durham in not allowing access or new roads to connect onto it. Kneeland Estates, 97 units, O.K. We combined, we combined, Pick's Landing and Grimstad, we're going to combine Knouse, we're going to combine TDC next door. There will be limited access on Durham Road. Now with that in mind, it doesn't seem quite smart to me to create an immediate access for this particular development. When we discussed it last time, and you upheld the denial that I made, one of your directive was, directives were to go back to the applicant and have them submit to us a plan showing the general transportation in the area. . All right, they did. I sent that plan to all the neighbors in the area, and they objected. For obvious reasons. It cut into their plans, or into their lots if they should develop at a later date. Now, the applicant comes back with a plan that he has sold to the property owners which is a different plan. (TAPE ENDED AND TURNED OVER) the City Council dictates as the Planning Director for Tigard. Now that's all that this Staff report reflects. SPEAKER: Mr. Waker? S 6-79, Golf Creek Estates denial appeal Transcript . P. 10 WAKER: Now I suppose it's my turn, Mr. Chairman. And I would say that we believe that overdoing fully meets the intent of the protection of the open space in this particular area and we have provided on the plat for an open space easement and is very clearly spelled out, and that's to remain in its natural area in its natural state and there are no plans to touch that. I think it should be left in its natural state. Might say the Planning Director in a letter to us indicated that he didn't think it ought to be left in its natural state but we ought to clear and landscape it and improve it for the enjoyment of Golf Creek Estates. We don't want to do that. The neighborhood doesn't want to do that. They don't want to mess around with the open space. They want to leave it exactly the way it is and this is the best darn way to do it. There's just no other way to do it. Now, the question of Durham Road being limited access. We have no problem of the concept of Durham Road being limited access. Nobody has ever said that somebody can't have access to the property on Durham Road. If you look on the topo map right above City Staff on your left, you can see that that particular area is an island where there's two open space drainageways going up to Durham Road. The only alternative to putting a street on Durham Road is to cross one of these drainageways which is much more obviously in violation of the intent of preservation of open space than providing this (inaudible) . We've provided a plan which showed how we could access this little island area and unfortunately, we showed we went too far, we showed a shadow, a concept of how somebody's property could be developed because we thought there were two property owners in there and that they both needed to have public (inaudible) . The property owner turned out to own both parcels and didn't care for our plan which is most understandable. But he did not object, and you heard him say, didn't object to the concept of bringing the street up there. Public Works Department thinks it's the best place to have an access. I submit, that you cannot simply deny somebody the right to L access to the property. That's not the intent of limited access. That's no access at all. We found a good place to access it. It compatibly serves both the properties in the area. There isn't any other reasonable alternative without crossing one of your drainage ways which I think Mr. Howard will agree is the worst condition than having a street access on Durham Road. I think that, that, Mr. Howard is quite correct when he used the word dictate on numeral occasions. Somebody's trying to dictate to us exactly how we ought to use the property. I think the role of Planning Commission ought to be able to be looked at reasonable ways to develop property in the framework of what City wants to see. I believe we've done that to the satisfaction of everybody but Planning Director. And I do not, I submit that maybe we can never satisfy Planning Director in this issue, but I don't think that's the issue. I think we've satisfied all the problems in the area and I think we're deserving of your support in being permitted to develop this property in accordance with this plan and I think the neighbors support that and I just don't know. I wouldn't be back here if I didn't believe that this was the proper way to do things. We don't know of any other way of doing them and we would appreciate your support in this matter. And if there's more comments and questions from the Planning Staff, I would also like the right to reserve the right to discuss those comments once more. It is very unfair for the Planning Department to make comments after the fact that (inaudible) . SPEAKER: I think one of the things that the Planning Staff objects to, and 1 kind of share the objection, is something is given to them, it's.given to us and then something else is tossed in for us to act on. IC • S 6-79, Golf Creek Estates denial appeal Transcript P. 11 WAKER: We have not changed our plan. You asked that we take a look and we agreed and we met with the Planning Director on what the impact of having this access on the west would be on the adjoining properties. We did that. We did not commit the City to adjoining a particular, to adopt a particular, the dark stuff is the important things. We showed some light. I don't know what that has to do with it. I mean, I think it's a red herron. We showed that this is an island, there's other reasonable way to do it. We did, we tried to show a pattern that could work in the future on that property belt. That property owner is here. He's interested in developing. The property has no problem with the concept of the road there. He may choose to have a different pattern all together. I don't think it has, you know, what those shadow lines on paper have anything to do with this application. We showed that this is the access that needs to be used to service this piece of property and can be compatible to the property next door. I don't know what else we can show. Now, I don't think were, you know, were not trying to, we submitted this plan a long time ago. You know, we've been trying to get this over with just as perhaps you'd like us to get it over with and we can't deal with one new question each time we come here and I don't, I hadn't heard anything about whether 60 trips per day on a 2 lane road which might have parking on it is going to be a major hazard or not. It's the first I've heard of that and we had to turn around (inaudible) trips. I'm sure there's other questions that we answered or asked rather, and I'd like to see an end to it. I think we have a good plan and we're not going to apologize to anybody for that plan. We think it does what we think the City would like to see done. What the neighbors would like to see done. And that's, well, that's the way I feel about it. I can't help it. SPEAKER: Anything else under cross examination and/or rebuttal? If not, I will close the public hearing and it's open for discussion of the commission. Commissioners? SMITH: Let's start off with this, this situation of what happens if you don't do anything with the subdivision for one year. In the past, there's been enough question that the Commission has interpreted that just as long as I've been on the Commission. That (inaudible) physical activity on the job site and, but I strongly feel that if the applicant is aware of this problem and we should take a chance that he may in fact go through the process and have the committee go through the process again, incur those costs plus the possibility that, there could be a different Planning Commission with different ideas at that time. If they're willing to take that risk, I really don't think that we should, you know, turn down their request based on that fact. So I just think it's just a case of them being aware of that. That they could be in that position. But that's not relevant to the question here, of, of whether or not the subdivision is acceptable. Now, I had much problem with the application to Sensitive Lands Ordinance. The question was brought up that something about the extent that this application recording prior to the final, to the final appeal that, Aldie can you enlighten us a little on whether in fact this legally applies or is this just simply a decision of the Commission at this time, or where do we stand on that? HOWARD: Well, we had a Sensitive Lands Ordinance previous to the new one. SMITH: Previous to this application here? HOWARD: Sure. There's been a Sensitive Ordinance in effect in the City for two, three years. So, at that particular time, it would have depended on your, your, you know, your response to what we had in place at that time. S 6-79, Golf Creek Estates denial appeal Transcript K" P. 12 F' SMITH: O.K. Thank you. I guess the question I come up with; is this application here in fact the equivalent to a new application, or is it an extension of an old application? F HOWARD: Extension of an old application. The applicant's admitted that. SMITH: And at the, at the time of the old application was a (inaudible) Sensitive jM1 Lands Ordinance in effect? HOWARD: I don't know. . .. SELBY: I'll research the adopted date. ?' SMITH: Apparently, though,l.there's one question I would ask, is if we were to demand compliance with the present Sensitive Lands Ordinance, what difference would it make in his physical arrangements for the properties? Would he develop it any differently? HOWARD: Not in relations to the Sensitive Lands. No. i ki SMITH: In other words, whether it's under the old one, or whether it's under the present one, it would not, it would not affect this development. HOWARD: Apparently he was under the present one. The date is, what SELBY: May 21. HOWARD: May 21? 1J SMITH: That was my next question. Apparently then, it's really just a question of a means by which we protect that drainageway more so than any case (inaudible) It has to be protected and that's essentially so. r3 HOWARD: That's right. And you know that from the, you know, the past that we've Via; asked for an outright dedication. You know, long before we had the actual Sensitive Lands Ordinance. SMITH: All right, then I think my feelings about it is this, That in general, we are looking for dedications of these lands subject to the City. That's a question for you Aldie. SPEAKER: Well, I don't think that is even contemplated or desired or requested in this meeting. SMITH: That's my question to you, Aldie. Is it, is it Staff's position that you'd like to see this drainageway dedicated or otherwise managed differently than what ( ,± their proposing? HOWARD: Yes. And I explained that. I'd like to see a homeowner's agreement for the maintenance of that drainage area. Now, we've done that before. It worked successfully. We've dealt with one group. O.K. , one person and that's the home- owner's association, rather than in this case 11 different property owners. Some fellow says, I'd like to just maintain that immaculately, then the next guy says, :' I'm not gonna touch it. And then you have a difficulty, because it is then two property owners going at it. And it's always the fella that complains about, wish that guy would take care of his property, that calls us. And we cannot do anything to enforce maintenance of that area then. �wi w S 6-79, Golf Creek Estates denial appeal Transcript P. 13 • SMITH: O.K. and if you have a property homeowners organization, to what extent does that leave a, that type of problem. HOWARD: Well, it is then the homeowners responsibility. It becomes a deed restriction that they shall join and maintain that greenway for each property. And, so then, they form the association and put in 20 dollars a year or something, and they use that money to maintain the greenway, or maintain the drainageway. SMITH: O.K., but the actual way in which it is maintained is still a decision of the homeowners association? HOWARD: It is, unless it becomes a nuisance in which the City abates that nuisance. SPEAKER: I'm curious. How would you enforce abatement of a nuisance on the part of a, I would say, a rather emorphis homeowners association? HOWARD: Issue it a citation. It, being the homeowner's association. . .for nuisance abatement of the greenway. SPEAKER: O.K. SMITH: I may have some comments later. SPEAKER: Mr. Funk? FUNK: Well, I sure contest to the Durham Road being a highly traffic area, but I'd have to concur that there's not much other way to develop this thing without, without creating a road or a cul-de-sac. I don't think that access onto Durham Road bothers me much. I think if we were to approve this thing now, I'd like to take care of that off-,street parking with the use of Lot #6. I think you're talking about that. Find out whether that's applicable. It's up to them. I'm a little concerned about the lots being reduced in size much by the open space easement. The way I compute through, these lots has come down 3 or 4,000 square foot. I question whether you could get a good livable home on 3, 4,000 square foot. I don't think that other than those 2 or 3 problems, I've (inaudible SPEAKER: Mr. Bonn? Commissioner Bonn? BONN: Any questions I have at the moment have been answered. SPEAKER: Commissioner Herron? HERRON: My concern, and that has been discussec3, is the off-street parking on 110th and also the turnaround and wondering if this is adequate for emergency vehicles if more than one were coming in with the turnaround there if there would be room. SPEAKER: Staff can you address that? SELBY: What was the question please? HOWARD: We were talking. C S 6-79, Golf Creek Estates denial appeal Transcript P. 14 HERRON: I was concerned about the parking on 110th. Also the turnaround for emergency vehicles and if more than one emergency vehicle were to come in there, would there be room for them to take care of whatever they needed to do? HOWARD: Well, apparently the applicant's instructed the fire department and they j think it is appropriate. SELBY: Well, let me answer that. I mean, that's true, they have the hammerhead fii that allows a 60' in depth for a turnaround. That's one vehicle at one time given i? the straight and narrow road of about 300' in deep. Tat would be one vehicle that can turnaround at one time, and the other vehicle would have to back out. In f other words, you wouldn't expect two trucks to get too far up the throat of the , road that one couldn't back out. Secondly, about the off-street y, parking; I don't know. That is something I don't have the answers to. i,. SPEAKER: Staff' SELBY: O.K. If the 60 foot hammerhead also meets the requirement of the fire t> 1�. department, it's not their most wanted type turnaround, but it is workable. SPEAKER: Yeah, what I'm wondering i$ Staff; would you want to comment on the approach to as busy a road as Durham is from a 17 foot strip pavement. It seems to me that would create some problems. SELBY: Well, in the interim of Durham Road being the vertical, differences being changed and the widening, the depth of the width of the dedication that the k'! applicant would do on Durham would allow some kind of a :_deceleration lane for R`E any vehicle westbound, to turn into the site. Also, any vehicle leaving the site on the west side going eastbound would have the acceleration lane to turn into, from. However, there's no refuge like that for any car coming on the speed of Durham eastbound into the site nor to the left hand turn of that vehicle out of 110th onto Durham, so there is that problem there. It's prohibited. SPEAKER: As I read this, I do not see that we are requiring this developer to develop half street improvements on Durham, Is that right? SELBY: Well, there's two points to that. One, we're denying it so we don't have any recommendations of any action to the land. Secondly, his Zone Change required a dedication, and if you chose tonight to approve the plat, I can write up some conditions that would require fulfillment of those improvements. SPEAKER: Commissioner Herron, does that take care of your concern? HERRON: Yes sir. SPEAKER: Commissioner Kolleas? KOLLEAS: Well, this 17 foot wide street's what I was concerned about (inaudible) I don't like it. 1 SPEAKER: I share your complaints. FUNK: Why do we say 17 feet of pavement. Are we talking about the sidewalk on one side and. .. . v' SELBY: That's correct. They've done the standard half street cross section. 17 feet of paving, curb and easement and utilities going in a 5 foot sidewalk next to the property line. +, S 6-79, Golf Creek Estates denial appeal Transcript P. 15 SPEAKER: Doug, do you have anything else? ASV It SMITH: Well, I, this problem with an access to Durham Road. Looking at the topography of land, there does appear to be somewhat of an island there in terms of parts of the property line between two drainage easements and, Aldie, what would your, what would you propose as future access to those parcels if we don't allow access to Durham Road at that point? • HOWARD: Well, I think it's a continuation of the same thing that we've tried through Picks and Kneeland Estates. And, that is come out at an intersection where you, in this case, you don't have any come into Summerfield, but you would have a road midway between Durham and the river and make the connections there and come out on 108th and. . . what's the next one further down? SELBY: 113th. HOWARD: 113th. SMITH: I think at Pick's Landing we were involved with two parcels of land. Right? And two developers who cooperated. In this particular case, (inaudible) looking at three and we're looking at three parcels in that so called island we've been talking about, but from there to the access between 108th and 113th, if you're looking at least one more, possible four, maybe even five people which would essentially would have to cooperate in order to produce that type of draining, or is that reasonable? HOWARD: Yes. I think that's reasonable, given that once the sewer line comes up to service Summerfield and annexation will follow. And as annexation follows, development follows. SELBY: Another way of looking at this, is if it's not feasible to assume that they'll ever cooperate on that expectation, why is it feasible to create a half street expecting someone to cooperate in the future on that, where you've already placedin half it and now you're assuming that he'll cooerate. SMITH: The point there is that the other property owner involved in a half street improvement is here and I think as essentially on notice, that if we approve this, he has essentially committed himself for that. Because if he comes in for development, he's stuck with that, at that point. ki HOWARD: That's correct. SMITH: He's had his public hearing opportunity to, to be in opposition to that. So, I don't think that's quite the same thing. SELBY: I see. (. SPEAKER: In that connection, Staff, (shuffling around and commotion, but no one speaks for a few moments) . There's Durham. This is a draw that goes through the applicant's property. And here is another draw which is another dip in Durham. Do you believe that this sort of triangle here could be adequately served from somewhere, somewhere down here without having problems in crossing the draw? C ■ S 6-79, Golf Creek Estates denial appeal Transcript P. 16 HOWARD: Yes Sir. Well. There's quite a difference now in here, in your drainage iir way. This comes from the pond from Summerfield (inaudible) through here. This, you can see of the development of the apartments, there is 1, very little water that domes down, so there is a possibility to bring in develop- ment something like this. O.K. And then you pick it up. You can cross this usually easily (inaudible) similar to what we're doing with Picks and Knouse. ■% SPEAKER: Now, in a previous hearing, or in the material for a previous hearing, you indicated that crossing, to have the developer provide a crossing of that `.;II g H was impractical. I did not raise question at that time, but I am now. Why is that impractical? HOWARD: Because it's so deep. SPEAKER: Because it's so deep. Where, as you feel, that down here that would not apply? j. SELBY: Yes, you can tell by topography that the difference HOWARD: Very shallow on the other side. #! SELBY: Of the use of the drainageway i e u o e dra riageway ( naudible) more intense on this level than over here. SPEAKER: In other words, you could approach it from SELBY: . . . . here, over here. SPEAKER: From, from over here? SELBY: It's still a problem. It's not desirable, but it's more possible than the other thing. '+ SPEAKER: We don't have an awful lot of choice in the topography. HOWARD: Right. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I don't really dislike the proposal, but the problem that we're up against is essentially that if we have then maintained a policy of whether to access to Durham Road, I think that's a precedent that we have set, and I am not too sure that at this time we should be deviating from it. It seems to me . that the applicant presently has some cooperation from one property owner and I think he has the future possiblity of getting cooperation from one more property owner, and I think he would, he would have the additional access more likely to 108th or 113th. But, I think we're going to get into a problem here, if particularly the City Council is fairly hardnosed on limited accesses onto Durham Road because quite possibly we could approve it and then have City Council require equal hearing Council level. #(( HOWARD: Well, sir, I can only say that we have gone to great length to limit access to Durham Road. And, that's as the Council directed. • S 6-79, Golf Creek Estates denial appeal Transcript P. 17 LAMPKIN: May I say, I have lived there over 20 years and that limited access as you say is the only access to that island. I'll take that back. There's another road further to the east where Mr. Labhon has always had the orchard there. So there has them, two accesses on the south side of Durham to that island. There always has been. I've lived there over 20 ' ' y years and I've never had an accident in or out of that driveway which would be quite close to where that road is. Right next to it. You can see; no problem. But, as far as coming in anyplace else from the south, that's the only access onto Durham to that island '' if you will look at it. It's deep canyon, you might say on either side, east or west. They join together and run south. If you're going to access it from the south, you'd have to cross one or the other, or the main one, for the only (' access is off of Durham to that piece of property. ?1' SPEAKER: Thank you. si SMITH: Mr. Chairman?, (inaudible) SPEAKER: O.K. }?, cr' FUNK: I think I might like to say that, that I don't think we should here and try to second guess the City Council. I'd rather see us improve this situation. They feel they take a hardnosed standing on it. Least we reflected what we felt here tonight. t' SMITH: Let me explain. I'm going to move for denial based primarily on the =' access question. And if it, if the motion should carry, I would propose that applicant take this to City Council and in which case the City Council overrides us, then I'm quite satisfied with that output. And, if they don't; let's say they do override us, I don't have any real problems with the remaining design of the subdivision. A little bit of question about the protection of the easement, but I don't think that's as serious as other ones we've dealt with. And, just to get along with this, I move for denial based on the fact that the subdivision accesses onto Durham Road and an area which I would be undesirable due to the desired limited access on Durham. F• SPEAKER: Is there a second to that motion? KOLLEAS: Seconded. e-, SPEAKER: Seconded by Mrs. Kolleas. Discussion? All in favor of the motion for denial based primarily on the access question, that your speaking, Doug, 1' of 110th, proposed 110th. °' SMITH: Yes, Proposed 110th access onto Durham. SPEAKER: All in favor of that motion say Aye COMMISSIONERS: Aye SPEAKER: Opposed No. COMMISSIONERS: No. SPEAKER: You were the only denial, the only no? O.K. the motion carried for denial and the applicant has the opportunity to appeal to City Council. i STAFF REPORT TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION lir AGENDA 5.2 { December 4, 1979 - 7:00 P.M. Fowler Junior High, Lecture Room 10865 SW Walnut Street, Tigard, OR 11 DOCKET: ZONE CHANGE ZC 36-79 (Girod Property) ' APPLICANT: Ms. Pauline Girod OWNER: Same t'` 11390 SW 92nd i'' Tigard, OR APPLICATION DATE: October 29, 1979 I SITE f LOCATION: 9960 SW Frewing (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 2CB, Tax Lot 3300) `: REQUEST: For a zone change from City of Tigard C-3 "General Commercial" to A-2 "Multi-family" on the .27 acre parcel. I. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The site is presently zoned C-3 "General Commercial" and is designated A-2 "Multi-family Residential? on the NPO #1 Plan. 2. The applicant wishes to zone the site in accordance with the Comprehensive (> Plan in compliance with Section 18.24 (Multi-family Residential Zone) of the Tigard Municipal Code (see exhibit "A" and attached site plan) . 3. Applicable policies of the NPO #1 Plan: 1` t,. i' . Policy #8, Page 18 - "Density" ;', . Policies #9 & #10, page 18 "Public Improvements" r`' . Policies #12 & #13, page 18 - "Site Improvements" 4. There is a single-family unit on the northwest corner of the site. The top- 1, ography slopes from west to east at an approximate eleven percent. There i; is a drainage area on the southeast corner of the property. The surrounding I land uses are apartments to the east and north across SW Frewing. To the west are the Mr. C. 's. Camera Company and the Pizza Merchant Commercial buildings fronting SW Pacific Highway. To the south is a vacant parcel ,_:; designated to be multi-family. iE 5. Access to the site will be off SW Frewing. SW Frewing is a City street IR having 40 feet of right-of-way with approximately 20 feet of paving and ";," no curb or sidewalk. The street is designated on the NPO #1 Plan as a k` local street. There is a street light located on the northwest corner ''` t of the site. iy 1. STAFF REPORT TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION lir AGENDA 5.2 December 4, 1979 Page 2 6. Sewer and water are :presently on the site off SW Frewing and capacity for additional apartment units is available. 7. The applicant proposes to partition the parcel into two lots. The duplex will have approximately nine thousand square feet and the western lot will have approximately 7,110 square feet. The square footage and number of units are in keeping with Section 18.24.030 lot requirements of the Tigard Municipal Code. II. CONCLUSIONARY FINDINGS: t 1. The zone change request to "A-2" is in keeping with the NPO #1 Plan. 2. The proposed density is within the permitted amount for the multi-family designation. A minor land partition is required. r 7 3. SW Frewing is in need of five additional feet of dedication along the frontage of the subject site with half-street improvements. t 4. In accordance with Section 18.56.015 (b), the Planning Commission must find y that since the proposal is not needed to carry out the purpose of open space, the Planning Commission may exempt the Planned Development designation requirement. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends exemption of the Planned Development Designation Requirement and I approval of the Zone Change subject to the following Conditions: T 1. That the applicant dedicate five feet of right-of-way with half-street im- , provements along SW Frewing to local street standards prior to issuance of a building permit. '3 2. No occupancy permits shall be issued until all conditions placed upon this i1 development by the City of Tigard have been satisfied and inspections i} verifying this have been carried out by the appropriate department. .': f 3. No changes will be made to approved plans or specifications unless formal application is made to the appropriate City department and changes are app roved by that dep artment. Application for changes will. be made in ' writing and shall include applicable drawings. ,,. 4. Construction plans on all public right-of-ways shall be submitted and ap- r' proved by the Public Work's Director prior to commencement of work. 5. Public water service and sanitary service shall be installed to this site prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 1 , ?S yl P y d STAFF REPORT TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 5.2 December 4, 1979 Page 3 6. All existing or proposed utilities shall be placed underground. Street lighting installations shall be approved by the Public Work's Director. 7. That the owner receive site design approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. That the drainageway be kept in its natural state and that the owner clean out all dead or dying vegetation and perform whatever improvements are requested by the Public Works Director to insure proper working order of the drainage area prior to issuance of building permits. 9. No Minor Land Partitions shall be made in reference to this project unless formal application is made to the City of Tigard Planning Department and the Minor Land Partition is approved and recorded. C • ‘c, /Prepared y Ken Selby Approved by S` Howard Associate City Planner Planning Di 4101r pip STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5.3 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION December 4, 1979 - 7:30 P.M. Fowler Junior High - Lecture Room 10865 SW Walnut Street, Tigard, OR DOCKET: Zone Change ZC 36-77 "Park 217 Business Center" APPLICANT: Mr. Bruce E. Hosford OWNER: Mr. Ronald G. Moore % Trammell Crow Company % Western Racquet Club 7110 S.W. Fir Loop 8785 SW Beaverton-Hillsdale Hwy. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Portland, OR 97225 APPLICATION DATE: October 23, 1979 SITE LOCATION: S.W. Garden Place, 150' south of Pacific Highway and adjacent east of S.W. Hall Blvd. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 1BB, Tax Lots 200, 300, 800, 1100, 1101, & 1200) . REQUEST: For a one year extension of the Planned Development District on the 20.75 acre site zoned "General Commercial" and "Light Industrial" and for a waiver of the requirement to comply with the newly adopted "Sensitive Lands Ordinance." c PREVIOUS %, ACTION: On November 27, 1978, the City Council approved the owner's request for a combination racquet ball club and "light industrial" complex as a Planned Development (see Exhibit "A") . The first hearing for this proposal was by the Planning Commission on June 20, 1978 (see Staff Report "Exhibit "B") . I. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The subject site is zoned C-3 and M-3 Planned Development and is designated "General Commercial" and "Light Industrial" on the NPO #5 Plan. 2. The applicant and owner are requesting a one year extension of the Planned Development District in accordance with Section 18.56.170 of the Tigard Municipal Code which states: "If substantial construction or development has not taken place within one year from the date of approval of the general development plan and program, the Planning Commission shall review the district at a public hearing to determine whether or not its continuation in whole or in part is in the public interest, and if found not to be, shall recommend to the City Council that the Planned'Development District on the property be removed. The City Council, at the request of the applicant, may grant an extension of time if justifiable'f Furthermore, the applicant requests that the requirement to comply with the present Sensitive Lands Ordinance be waivered since the existing proposal has been designed to comply with the previous Flood Plain Ordinance (see Exhibits "C" and "D"). I I STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5.3 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION r December 4, 1979 ZC 36-77 Page 2 I 3. The attached site plan indicates that the development of the site by the applicant will be the same as originally approved by the Planning Commission. However, the applicant has expressed the possibility of making major changes in the future. He has been advised that such changes will require a hearing before the Planning Commission and an amendment to Ordinance 78-77. 4. In inspecting this site and surrounding area, it has been found that there have been no significant changes in the area which might prevent the con- tinuation of this project. 5. There has been some input by neighbors from the residential area to the southeast of one site who expressed a concern that the truck traffic might be a noise nuisance. Therefore, they request that a condition be placed on this application to eliminate excessive noise. II. CONCLUSIONARY FINDINGS: 1. The request to extend the proposed plan continues ;to be in conformance with the comprehensive plan and zone designation. h 2. A condition to reduce and prohibit noise from the site in the residential neighborhood should be applied. 3. The conditions previously required, continue to be valid. 0 4. A waiver of the Sensitive Lands Ordinance compliance is feasible since the project has been adequately conditioned to preserve the floodplain area by r'` the previous ordinance. 1` l- III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: f Staff recommends that the Planning Commission move to continue the Planned Develop- ment District in whole and that the plan be subject to the previous floodplain ordinance requirements with the following conditions: F' k,' 1. That all the conditions of Ordinance 78-77 be met. I' 2. No Occupancy Permits shall be issued until all conditions placed upon this E` development by the City of Tigard have been satisfied and inspections I'', verifying this have been carried out by the appropriate department. is ir 3. No changes will be made to approved plans or specifications unless formal application is made to the appropriate City department and changes are ap- proved by that department. Application for changes will be made in writing and shall include applicable drawings. Fs' Y STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5.3 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION tDecember 4, 1979 • ZC 36-77 Page 3 4. Public water service and sanitary service shall be installed to this site prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 5. All existing or proposed utilities shall be placed underground. Street lighting installations shall be approved by the Public Works' Director. 6. That the southeast portion of the site be landscaped to eliminate noise from traffic movement on the subject site. Written by Ke Selby Reviewed by 4,,, . .e, 'e Howard Associate Plan er Planning Dir= ,r ( • iti4mR4V CITY OF TIGARD i t P.O. Box23397 12420 S.W. Main Tigard,Oregon 97223 November 30,, 1978 Ronald G. Moore Western Racquet Club 1023 Lund Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 RE: ZC 36-77 Dear Mr. Moore: Enclosed is a copy of Ordinance No. 78-77 which was approved by the Tigard City Council at their regular meeting of November 27, 1978. Your request was approved with the following conditions as set forth in the enclosed ordinance. 1 . That all buildings, building locations, landscaping, ped- estrian access, vehicular access to parking areas (to include driveway widths) and signing be subject to design review. 2 . That a dedicated street, built to commercial street standards with 36 feet of pavement , 5 foot sidewalks on one side of the street (location of sidewalks to be determined during design review) be provided through the property from Hall Blvd. to Pacific Highway via Garden Place and the applicant pe- tition to the City Council to vacate the remaining portion of S.W. Garden Place. 3 . That a: left turn refuge lane, to include striping be provided along the Hall Blvd. frontage and that a half street improve- ment (to include curbs and sidewalks)also be provided along the Hall Blvd. frontage. All improvements to be subject to State Highway Department approval . 4. That no parking be allowed along Hall Blvd. from Pacific Hwy. to SW Knoll Drive. This will require a no parking ordinance via City Council action. 5. That no left turn occur from Garden Place into the westbound Pacific Highway traffic and that approach street improvements to Garden Place from Pacific Highway be provided per State Highway Department requirements . 6. That the construction and site drainage plans with retention pond illustration be approved by the Engineering and Building Departments prior to issuance of permits. 7 . That soil compaction tests and soil analysis report of the site be received and approved by the Engineering and Building Dept . prior to plan check approval (especially in regard to develop- ment of the flood plain) . 8. If the Planning Commission chooses to locate the alignment on Hunziker at a future date, then a street plug must be located at the end of Hunziker on the property line. Also, public road ' °age 2 ZC 36-77 from Hall Blvd. through to Hunziker alignment should be stand- ard to local collector 50 feet right-of-way with 34 feet of paving. 9. Due to the heavy vehicle use, the cross section view of the onsite roads must be improved to 8" - 31 and 3/4" asphalt (com- mercial street standard) . 10. The proposed service alley must be marked "one way" traffic. 11 . Remove the proposed medium on the east side of the egress area from the service alley. �!I 12. Service alley must be a minimum of 34 feet wide, paved with egress and access being 34 feet. 13 . If improvement for parking lot on flood plain is approved, the elevation must not be altered. Improvement to "Flood Plain District Standards" must be met prior to building department issuance of permits. 14 . Driveway aprons must be shown as approved by Engineering Department prior to final plat approval. 15 . Access road from 99W must be dedicated to the city with min- imum paving of 34 feet . �I If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me or the Planning Department . Sincerely, 4(XL 52,/alel`' jl oris artig City Recorder DH/pjr Encl. NOTE:. The following acknowledgment must be received by the City of Tigard within fourteen (14) days of your receipt of this letter. Failure to return this acknowledgment may result in action by the City of Tigard. I hereby acknowledge this letter documenting the action of the Tigard City Council. I. have received and read this letter and I agree to the decision here documented and to abide by any terms and/or conditions attached. fS\/1/19() Signature cc: Lakeside Development Co. 7P Date` • STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5 . 1 Tigard Planning Commission • June 20, 1978 Fowler Junior High - Lecture Room 10565 S .W. Walnut St . - Tigard, Oregon Docket : Zone Change ZC 36-77 Request : For a general plan and program review for a Commercial/ Industrial Planned Development in a C-3 "General Commercial" and M-3 "Light Industrial" zones of parcels totalling 20. 135 acres. Location : Southwest Garden Place and Pacific Highway between Hall Blvd. and Highway 217 (Wash. Co . Tax Map 2S1 1BB, Tax Lots 200, 300, 800, 1100, 1101 and 1200) . Applicant : Western Racquet Clubs, Inc. I . Findings of Fact : 1 . The site is designated "Retail Commercial" in the northern portion of the site and "light industrial" in the southern portion on the NPO #5 Plan and currently zoned C-3 Retail • Commercial and M-3 Light Industrial . 2 . The applicant is requesting general plan and program review 1 of a two pha-se commercial/commercial professional/industrial planned development on parcels totalling 20. 135 acres in accordance with Section 18. 56 .030 of the Tigard Municipal Code. • 3. Section 18. 56 .010 of the Tigard Municipal Code states that : Purpose. The purpose of the planned development district is tea provide opportunities to create more desirable environments through the application of flexible and diversified Zand development standards under a comprehensive plan and program professionally prepared. The planned development district is intended to be used to encourage the application of new • techniques and new technology to community development which will result in •superior Living or development arrangements with lasting values. It is further intended to achieve economies in /and development, maintenance, street systems, and utility networks while providing building groupings for • privacy, usable and attractive open spaces, safe circulation, and ;general well-.being of the inhabitants. 4. Applicable policies from the NPO 5 Plan are as follows: Policy 20: In the interest of safety and efficiency, the number of highway access points must be kept to a . minimum. Wherever possible, businesses on Pacific 11 ' STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5. 1 June 20, 1978 Page 2 Highway should be clustered and share common parking • facilities and driveways. As new development occurs, the number of access points should not exceed the number necessary for proper on-site traffic circulation and, where possible, should be combined with access to adjacent businesses. Policy 25: Limit the amount of commercial development to occur in the industrial area, allowing only some growth of existing retail and service commercial in the area. 5. Applicable policies from the Environmental Design and Open Space Plan : Policy 3: The City shall restrict alteration of natural drainageways unless it can be demonstrated that the . benefits are greater than the detrimental effects. Other jurisdictions in the Fanno Creek Basin shall be encouraged to do the same. Policy 5: The City shall adopt an ordinance to regulate the removal and/or replacement of existing natural vegetation in designated areas (flood plains, drainages s, areas of high visibility, unique habitats or rare species). Significant trees or stands of timber shall also be protected. Policy 6: Require a site development report (e. g. , hydrology, soils, geology) for major projects in designated areas and a statement reflecting methods to be used to minimize the run-off erosion impact of the development on the surrounding area and downstream properties. Policy 7: Retain the ZOO year flood plain of Fanno Creek, its tributaries, and the Tualatin River as an open preserve (Greenway) . The greenway shall be established as the backbone of open space n ,� the en p p network and, when a direct public benefit can be derived, i. e. , when adjacent residential development, the greenway should be developed for passive recreation and pedestrian/bike travel. • 6. On November 1 , 1977 the Tigard Planning Commission approved a preliminary plan and program for this site subject to the following conditions : 1 . That preliminary approval only be given to the general con- cept of the PD. , 2. That 'approval of location and intensity of use must await submission of more detailed plans to include traffic and flood plain studies . STAFF REPORT ty .` AGENDA 5. 1 • June 20, 1978 Page 3 f . 3. The applicant must be prepared to show that, by encroaching into the flood plain, the fill will neither decrease the amount of storage capacity nor increase the run-off from the site. 4. A flood plain fill permit application be submitted. • 5. A minor land partition application be made for Tax Lot 400 (Tax Map 231 'BB) . 6. That a drainage plan be submitted for approval (to pay particular attention to the effect on adjacent sites) . II . Staff Observations and Findings : 1. The proposed development is being planned in two phases. The first phase will consist of ground re arat.ion a P P and the construction of 69,232 square feet of commercial office and recreation facilities. Phase II will be the construction of a light industrial complex consisting of eight (8) buildings totalling 115,200 square feet of gross floor area. • • . 2. The site slopes from the north to the south, dropping from approximately 210 feet MSL at Pacific Highway to 150 feet MSL at the south property line . Considerable earth fill has taken place on the upper portion of the site , resulting in a tier effect. The applicant envisions locating the commercial offices and recreation facility on the newly created fills. The southern portion of the site is relatively flat and contains a pond. Red Rock Creek, which flows out of the northeast and passes under Highway 217, continues through the southeast portion of the parcel and serves as the primary source of water for the pond. Crystal Lake, which was ' formerly in the southeastern corner of the site, has been graded over. • 3. The site is surrounded on the east by Highway 217; to the south by industrial development and single family residential (southwest) ; to the west and across Hall Boulevard are apartments; and to the north retail stores, a service station, and Pacific Highway. 4 . The applicant has essentially incorporated into his general plan and program the conditions of preliminary approval . Based on the revised site plan , conditions 3, 4 and 5 have ' become moot points for the following reasons: a. Although a portion of the site does fall with the 100 year flood plain (note : new elevations for the 100 year flood t plain have been recently calculated by the U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers as of April 1978) no building encroachment is being proposed within the flood plain and subsequently . there would not be a need for a flood plain fill permit . L./ . . . _ _ . , . . _ • ,A; c . STAFF REPORT • AGENDA 5. 1 June 20 , 1978 ( Page 4 b. Tax Lot 400 which was proposed to serve as an overflow parking lot for the recreational and commercial areas has been eliminated as part of the total project area and the parking demands for these uses are to be accommodate on the remaining portion of the site as submitted in • the general site plan . . 5. The revised site plan reflects a change in both the building dimensions and location of the commercial (recreational facilities) and commercial professional offices. The • applicant has grouped the recreational facilities and profession: offices by "stacking" the office space (three stories) on to of the recreational facilities (racquetball and tennis courts) . The result is a net increase of 8220 square feet in office space but a reduction of 20,600 square feet of recreation area for a total reduction of 12, 380 square feet in building area. • • The industrial buildings proposed in Phase II are the same in number (eight) proposed on the preliminary plan, but have been clustered and serviced with a loop driveway. No encroachment into the flood plain, would result based on the building locations as submitted . • * 6. A traffic impact study for the site has been conducted by Carl Buttke, P.E. Consulting Engineer and reviewed by the State Highway Department. • Mr. Buttke ' s conclusions were the following: 4 a. A left turn refuge on Hall Blvd. should be provided (this • would require no parking on one side of the street) and a restriping of Hall Blvd. • The state concurs with Mr. Buttke's recommendation but feel no parking should be provided on both sides of Hall Blvd. from Pacific Highway to Knoll Street_ b. That left turns be prohibited from Garden Place to the westbound Pacific Highway traffic. c. That when Phase IT. is developed a third access be provided from the southeastern corner of the parcel onto Eunziker Street . , .. An access agreement between the subject parcel and the abutting parcels to the south for access/egress onto Hunziker Street is recorded with the deeds of those • parcels . The agreement provides for a 60 foot easement ( a that would be dedicated for street right-of-way purposes at such time as it is deemed necessary by the County or City. A portion of this easement between the Tigard Distribution Center and Partex has been paved but is without curbs and sidewalks . . - ' :STAFF STAFF REPORT ' 'AGENDA 5. 1 • June 20, 1078 0 Page 5 • • 7. The applicant is proposing that Garden Place from Pacific • .• Highway to the south end of the recreational facilities • remain as a dedicated right-of-way. But that the remaining portion of S.W. Garden Place be vacated and access from Hall Blvd. and Hunziker Street servicing the industrial properties be developed on easements. _ a;. The Engineering Department has reviewed this proposal and • made the following excepiton to the applicant 's proposal: - • t' That a dedicated public street be .developed to commercial street standards ( this could be 36 feet of pavement and a sidewalk on one side of the street) from the Hall Blvd. access along the north property line to the Pacific Hwy. access access/egress (via Garden Place) . This way there would be a continuous public street provided for access to the recreation facilities and commercial professional offices. F 8. Code Deviations : q The required total parking spaces for all uses in the develop- ment would be 316 . The applicant is p roviding for 310. Since peak hours of the proposed uses do not coincide with , If each other a ;shared parking arrangement is being proposed. The applicant has stated "that the total amount .of spaces is reduced but more efficiently utilized over the hours of a day" . . Access to the parking lots are proposed to narrow to 20 feet . Code requirement is 30 feet with 24 foot pavement surfacing. The height of the combined office and recreation area will be five stories, but less than 75 feet. Height maximum in a C-3 zone are 3 stories or 35 feet which • ever is less. 7 However the Planning Commission can grant approval for - t` structures up to a heights of 75 feet. The impacts of a building of this height on surrounding land uses should be negligible, in that the topography is such E,, that the main exposure this complex will have will occuxr f.,• along only the Highway 217 frontage. #• 9. A methodogy for providing storm water detention has been ' submitted with the applicant ' s narrative program. k 10. Fifty percent of the site is to be open space and landscaping; ' the light industrial buildings will cover 13% of the site; ( and the recreation and office building 8%. The remaining 29- k ' of the site will be used for streets, roads, parking and truck. ;h service areas. . Pil' ; , STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5. 1 • June 20, 1978 • Page 6 III . Conclusionary •Findings: • 1 . The general plan submission has incorporated the objectives of the planned development district by providing for grouping of buildings intermix with "usable and attractive" open space . while providing for a traffic circulation pattern designed to move efficiently and safely both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. • 2. There will be no enroachment into the 100 year flood plain. 3. Access has been provided onto Hunziker Street for the industrial traffic anticipated to be generated by this • development . This third access/egress will help to lessen the traffic impacts on Hall Blvd. and Pacific Highway. However, staff concurs with the Engineering Department that a dedicated public right-of-way should exist through the site from Hall Blvd. to Pacific Highway . IV. Staff Recommendations : Based on Findings of fact and conclusionary findings staff • recommends approval of the general plan and program subject to the following conditions : 1 . That all buildings , building locations , landscaping, pedestrian access, vehicular access to parking areas (to include driveway widths) and signing be subject to design review. 2. That a dedicated street , built to commercial street standards with 36 feet of pavement , 5 foot sidewalks on one side of the street (location of sidewalks to be determined during design review) be provided through the property from Hall .Blvd. to Pacific Highway via Garden Place and that the applicant petition to the City Council to vacate the remaining portion of S .W. Garden Place. 3. That a left turn refuge lane, to include striping be provided along the Hall Blvd. frontage and that a half street j improvement ( to include curbs and sidewalks) also be provided along the Hall Blvd. frontage. All improvements to be subject to State Highway Department approval. 4 . That no parking be allowed along Hall Blvd . from Pacific: - "• `r Highway to S .W. Knoll Drive . This will require a no parking •1 ordinance via City Council action . • 5. That no left turns occur from Garden Place into the westbound Pacific Highway traffic and that approach street improvemen" to Garden Place from Pacific Highway be provided per State Highway Department requirements . 4,e at ^ xAl3rr ` TRAMMI LL CROW COMPANY 7110 S.W.FIR LOOP TIGARD.OREGON 97223 r" 15031639-9434 October 23, 1979 Mr. Aldie Howard 1 Planning Director City of Tigard 12420 S.W. Main Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Zone Change 36-77 WESTERN RACQUET CLUB, INC. 12140 S.W. Hall Blvd. & Tigard Road (Also known as Park 217 Business Center) Dear Aldie: Pursuant to our recent conversations concerning this project, please accept this letter as a written reau , t_ fc�r a twelve month h extension to th Planned e existing Development Z,wone approval, which is currently in force for the project. Our records indicate that this Planned Development Zone will expire in November, 1979. We respectfully request an extension of this Planned Development Zone to November, 1980. During our telephone conversations and subsequent conferences, we also discussed the procedures by which we could revise the approved Planned Development General Plan. You stated that any major changes would result in a new general •lan a••roval 1775g7-Than a revision to t e genera p an approval. Since the project was presented prior to the passage of the "Sensitive Lands Ordinance" and since the anticipated changes to the approved general plan are minor in nature in relationship to the general building type and general building use of the site, we ask that a determination be made as to whether the "Sensitive Lands Ordinance" will have to be complied with as part of the revision or new general plana removal. continued. . . C • Mr. Aldie Howard October 23, 1979 Page Two • It is our hope that the proposed revision or new general plan approval (which we may present) can be evaluated without • compliance with the "Sensitive Lands Ordinance" since the issues of flood plain and other specific areas that may fall under the "Sensitive Lands Ordinance" were addressed in the previous PUD submittals. Any subsequent changes to those sensitive areas which we may propose as part of our revision would be handled and evaluated under the same criteria as the "Sensitive Lands Ordinance." We would appreciate an early determination on these matters so we can plan our time and prepare accordingly. We appreciate the cooperation you have extended to us to date on this project. Very truly yours, II TRAMMELL CROW/COMPANY ! dr,„ / • c I Bruce E. Hos ord Partner BEH/ddl cc: R. Saito i Q°r 100 < ' 4r , • %OW. 8785 S W.Beaverton-Hillsdale Hwy. Portland,Oregon 97225 503/297-3723 }t' .}IF' ffi l' #i ! Tigard Planning Commission City of Tigard • 12420 S. W. Main Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 Subject: Construction Time Period - Extension It Park 217 Business Center Commercial-Industrial Planned Development ►1,± Dear Commissioners : '' This letter shall serve as our formal request for a one-year extension of the approval .of the general ,, development plan and program for the above -project - --- • - - -- if' lt in accordance with Section 18. 56 . 170 of the Tigard 1c:, Zoning Code. The Commercial-Industrial Planned Development was approved by City Council Ordinance q. No. 78-44 on July 24 , 1978 , and amended by City Council Ordinance No. 78-77 on November 27, 1978. iN approval on November 27, 1978 , we have 1"t Since final a PP '"' been working with our consultants and various fi- 4, nancing institutions to finalize detail design of ti, structures and site improvements . Due to financing f'` restrictions , we were not able to begin construction 1 on the project during the summer months of 1979 . We ,, ; are now investigating alternative methods to allow , ', . construction to begin in the spring of 1980 , and respectfully request your consideration of a time extension for substantial construction to take place. 1 We continue to be of the opinion that a Planned De- ;{ velopment approach is appropriate for the site and, therefore, it serves the interest of both the City 1a i of Tigard and our development group to allow an i ''. extension for the period requested. Sincerely, ' h'•,• . WESTERN RACQUET CLUBS, INC. f;*,' pi�s t;' /S Af 1 , C� �Q /v ! t,, (i4)„..4 ald G. More �' � ��7� IV a I 1 Mr-s TO PACIFIC SKY r- '. e 4 a� !►� I✓��i - f� i1 i4 y,� ►, y IP . tik, ;ill,: fit ..;.:.1 AI :',7„;L=4,1 ''.... I .��a ilk`�"� 'vb� Rai sf�+c ;`, � �1 - .„,-, .�m , ate f.,.,,k :....,....„.. \\,,,\,, , ,......>„:„..„--.0,„ „I,. ..,ttA esa,t, , �+ -_ ,n 4 4, 4,R-. a ire+;•._)1, . ,r,.--..--r;-;-- It. ji/ a`� ■ 6�te r t 1 a. ' I fib, , �` .iY �/it1 A 440 V. `-+ # �r�1P ~ p� '�. -MioUIT T N ,�'.' il %.4*i„' 4 113 •�. � [ ,.: t ae.yK .,\ K 1> �4 ts^ ry° '� ;I«' C f"�+i {��`I` � t. illUCkateYKE`' 1 \\'1 p r'y . O n fi _• ya I _ D3 .1. .• I (:”. +c - _ �' 1 ;;...•-. 4•J i. � ,�2S�,.. ,o s�. {. 1�.,- �� .. 47 Ih-_•-,r-`^�� = 4' _i -�:•4 ' '..... .!'="A .a, -i-- .:_.x -...:://,-....§L- ..,tv 2,-- ..---,-.- !,-,S-&--__V 'VI`4, ./Z) • ---',tsts-e' - --141 •-' ', *Pt%°16‘ . ,4",""'. - '1 — ' 't- :.---••• -- 411A\ .thf tfr - 'k' / •itil. 4 ' ' q IV •''' ' A... ---- ,i, . ,,, l• .. •.,„,•,.... ••.• .. - r.,- . ... .%•,40,v, ,,-,.-„,i, _. __ s.:•,„,, -- .,:?,• / iki , , -4T'' ,m;i17' •)- ' • ',', l'I> �" b• . 44'10 t • ria -15 C ;. /.. ; / ' _ , •• )-mod_ ytfr ` ' • : • r 1f}▪ •l I = 11E1 411E4 • -44%* ), PARK ' 17 BUSINESS CENTER TO 21KER . ' A TIGARD,OREGON • NORTH _'A !GENERAL D V LO " PLN i ` I STAFF REPORT AQENDA 5.4 lir TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION December 4, 1979 - 7:30 P.M. Fowler Junior High - Lecture Room 10865 SW Walnut Street, Tigard DOCKET: Conditional Use CU 25-79 "Sea Galley Restaurant" APPLICANT: Sea Galley Stores, Inc. OWNER: Mr. Roger W. Belanich 7036 220th S.W . 2330 43rd Avenue East Mountlake Terrace, Wash. 98043 Seattle, Wash. 98112 Mr. Robert M. Kruz, Vice Pres. APPLICATION DATE: November 19, 1979 SITE LOCATION: Northwest corner of S.W. Cascade Avenue and S.W. Greenburg road behind the Mobile Service Station (Wash. County Tax Map 1S1 35B, Tax Lot 1301). REQUEST: For a Conditional Use to operate a restaurant in a C-3 "General Com- mercial" zone on a 1.23 acre parcel. ir PREVIOUS ACTION: On February 20, 1979, the Planning Commission granted a request by Avis for a conditional use to operate a vehicle rental facility on the subject site. Since then, Avis has withdrawn their offer to proceed with the plan (see exhibit "A"). I. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The site is designated "Retail Commercial" on the NPO #2 Plan Map and cur- rently zoned C-3 "General Commercial." 2. The applicant requests a Conditional Use in conformance with Section 18.28.020 (31) .of the Tigard Municipal Code. 3. The site layout and general description of the use is explained in Exhibit "B" and the attached site plan. pp: 4. The site is relatively flat and below grade of S.W. Greenburg Road. Sur- rounding land uses are storage and warehouse facilities to the north, The National Heinicke Company industry to the south across S.W. Cascade Avenue; P Y Y Franz Bakery shop to the west and Swift Mart to the east across S.W. Green- burg Road (See Exhibit "C"). E` 5. Metzger sanitary sewer service is available off S.W. Greenburg Road from an existing eight inch line. Metzger water service is also available to the site. i 7 STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5.4 ,� TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION December 4, 1979 - 7:30 P.M. Fowler Junior High - Lecture Room 10865 SW Walnut Street, Tigard, OR Page 2 - CU 25-79 6. Access to and from the site will be from S.W. Cascade Avenue and the frontage Road on the northeast. A mutual ingress/egress easement exists between the Mobile Service Station and the subject site to the east off S.W. Greenburg Road. The frontage road is the jurisdiction of the State Highway Department. S.W. Cascade and Greenburg are County roads. 7. Southwest Greenburg is designated as an arterial street north of S.W. North Dakota Street requiring 80-120' of right-of-way. There is currently adequate right-of-way to meet these standards. Southwest Cascade Avenue is designated as a collector Street. There currently exists the necessary 60 feet of right- of-way. l II. CONSLUSIONARY FINDINGS: 1 1. The proposed restaurant is permitted as a Conditional Use of the "General I Commercial" zone. Of the surrounding shops, market,offices and light industry, t this will be the only dining facility. L. 2. The 89 parking spaces exceed the required amount. However, some adjustment to location and size of the spaces may be required in Site Design Review to ' provide better site traffic circulation. I 3. Ingress and egress from the mutual easement off S.W. Greenburg Road should be restricted. 4. The required right-of-way dedication with improvements should be constructed along the frontage of S.W. Cascade Avenue and the frontage road prior to the operation of the restaurant. li III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ('I, r'. Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use request subject to the following ,. conditions: Z, fa 1. That the owner receive Site Design Approval prior to issuance of the Building tr` Permit. The Site Design approval should consider landscaping, parking, access tz widths, locations and traffic movement. 2. That the owner dedicate the required right-of-way and improve S.W. Cascade t to a collector street standard to the approval of the Public Works Director prior to issuance of the Building Permit. F il 3. That the owners dedicate the required right-of-way and improve the frontage ' road as needed and required by the Public Works Director. is 1 is i STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5.4 "~ TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION CU 25-79 Page 3 4. No Occupancy Permits shall be issued until all conditions placed upon this development by the City of Tigard have been satisfied and inspections verify ing this have been carried out by the appropriate department. 5. No changes will be made to approved plans or specifications unless formal application is made to the appropriate City department and changes are approved by that department. Application for changes will be made in writing and shall include applicable drawings. 6. Public water service and sanitary service shall be installed to this site prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 7. All existing or proposed utilities shall be placed underground. Street lighting installations shall be approved by the Public Work's Director. Written by Selby Reviewed by A® : Howard Associate P1 ner Planning Dir js titi� S it STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5.5 4 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION December 4, 1979 - 7:30 P.M. Fowler Junior High - Lecture Room 10865 SW Walnut Street, Tigard, Oregon DOCKET: Variance V8-79 (Peterson/McDonald, Re: V8-77) APPLICANT: Carter Case Architects OWNER: Tax Lot 2500 4724 SW Macadam Mr. McDonald Portland, OR 97201 8340 SW Ross Tigard, OR 97223 APPLICATION DATE: October 27, 1979 Tax Lot 2400 Mr. Peterson 10240 SW Hawthorne Portland, OR 97225 SITE LOCATION: 15835 and 15855 SW 72nd (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 12D; Tax Lots 2400 & 2500) REQUEST: For a variance of the sideyard setback requirements in an M-3 "Light Industrial" zone on a 2.09 acre parcel. PREVIOUS ACTION: On October 3, 1978, the owner of Tax Lot 2400 requested a variance for the year and side yard setback requirements. The Planning Commission denied the request since the owner of Tax Lot 2500 adjacent north of the subject site would be limited to the buildable area he would have and that other alternatives for Lot 2400 have not been fully explored (see exhibit "A") . GENERAL STATEMENT: Owners of Tax Lots 2400 and 2500 have mutually agreed to seek zero lot line set backs on the sideyard to permit each lot on an individual basis to utilize the sites to a higher and best use. This action is in keeping with the general intent of the Planning Commission at the October 3, 1978 meeting. I. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The sites are zoned and designated on the NPO #5 Plan as "Light Industrial" M-3. 2. Section 18.48.040 of the Tigard Municipal Code requires that the setbacks for rear and sideyard be 20 feet. 3. The applicants are requesting zero sideyard setback requirements due to the narrow longated shape of the properties limiting the development of the property to develop to its best potential and to allow easier truck ( maneuvering on site. (see attached site plan and letter dated October 24, 1979) . STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5.5 1 ' TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION December 4, 1979, 7:30 P.M. Page 2 4. Section 18.76.010 of the Tigard Municipal Code authorizes the Planning Com- mission to grant variances from the requirements of Title 18, where it can be shown that, owing to special and unusual circumstances related to a specific piece of property, the literal interpretation of this title would cause an undue or unnecessary hardship. 5. Section 18.76.020 of the Tigard Municipal Code states that: "No variance shall be granted by the Planning Commission unless it can be shown that all of the following conditions exist: (1) Exceptional or extraordinary conditions applying to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, which conditions are a result of lot size or shape, top- ography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control. (2) The variance is necessary for the preservation of a property right of the applicant substantially the same as is possessed by owners of other property in the same zone or vicinity. (3) The authorization of the variance shall not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title, be injurious to property in the zone or vicinity in which the property is located or other wise detrimental to the objectives of any city development plan or policy. (4) The variance requested is the minimum variance from the provisions and standards of this title which will alleviate the hardship." 6. Tax Lot has one single family house with six large trees on the southern property line and the site is relatively flat. Tax Lot 2500 has a single family unit with four large trees on the last side and the topography is flat. The sites are surrounded by the Rocket gas station on the east across 72nd; the vacant lots to the south are planned to be developed into retail commercial, offices and warehouses. The parcel to the west is the Lyle Moving & Storage; to the north is a 27,600 square foot lot with a vacant house and is zoned M-3. 7. Sewer and water are available to the sites off SW 72nd. 8. SW 72nd is a City street designated by NPO #5 Plan to be a collector street with 60 feet of right-of-way. 72nd is in substandard condition with no sidewalks or curbs. STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5.5 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION December 4, 1979 Page 3 II. CONSLUSIONARY FINDINGS: 1. Staff feels that the property owners application is in keeping with the four variance conditions as required. in Section 18.76.020. The proposed construction of the two seperate industrial buildings on a zero sideyard setback is the best plan for the given lot size circumstance. The design will provide maximum distance between the side and rear property lines and give additional space to Lot 2600 for its future industrial construction. 2. All the lots in this area were previously developed as single family. The comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances have changed this to light industrial. Therefore, the land use must comply to stricter setback requirements. This creates a hardship on individual lots. A favorable method to comply with the industrial zone and make the lots useable in this zone is to abutt the buildings together. 3. All other code requirements are met and the variance will not create any adverse condition on any surrounding property. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance subject to the following conditions. 1. That the owners dedicate ten feet of right-of-way along the frontage of SW 72nd with half street improvements to collector street standard. The construction must be completed or bonded and approved by the Public Works Director prior to issuance of building permits. 2. That the owners receive Site Design Approval prior to issuance of building permits. 3. An emergency access shall be created at the west end of the sites between the two properties to -the approval of the Fire Marshall prior to Site Design approval. The emergency access may be chained, but the travelway must be accessible to fire vehicles. 4. No Occupancy Permits shall be issued until all conditions placed upon this development by the City of Tigard have been satisfied and inspections verifying this have been carried out by the appropriate department. 5. No changes will be made to approved plans or specifications unless formal application is made to the appropriate City department and changes are approved by that department. Application for changes will be made in writing and shall include applicable drawings. STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5.5 lit TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION December 4, 1979 s Page 4 6. Public water service and sanitary service shall be installed to this site prior to the issuance of a building permit. 7. All existing or proposed utilities shall be placed underground. Street lighting installations shall be approved by the Public Work's Director., y¢ F 1 Written S Ken Selby Reviewed by:ill Howard Associate Planner Planning Dir . pip STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5.6 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION December 4, 1979 - 7:30 p.m. FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH - Lecture Room 10865 SW Walnut Street, Tigard, OR DOCKET: VARIANCE V 9-79 (Residence Lot 36 of the Bellwood I Subdivision) APPLICANT: Mr. John Rooney OWNER: Same 12185 SW 126th Tigard, Oregon 97223 APPLICATION DATE: October 31, 1979 SITE LOCATION: 12185 SW 126th (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 4AA, Tax Lot 3,000) REQUEST: For a variance of two feet from the required rear yard set back of 15 feet in a R-7 "Single-Family Residential" Zone on an approximate 8,156 square foot lot. PREVIOUS ACTION: On August 20, 1968, the Planning Commission approved a zone change request from Washington County S-R to City of Tigard R-7PD on a 50 acre site which included the subject site as a future subdivision lot. (See Exhibit "A") I. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The site is zoned and designated R-7 "Single-Family Residential" on the NPO #7 Plan. 2. The owner is requesting a variance of two feet from the required 15 foot rear yard set back (Section 18.20.090 of the Tigard Municipal Code) from the house to the property line. (See attached site plan and Exhibit "B") 3. Section 17.10.020 of the Tigard Municipal Code states that: A variance from the standards of this title shall not be granted by the Planning Commission unless the Commission finds from the facts presented at the hearing all of the following: 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property which are unusual and peculiar to the lands or development of the project involved as compared to other lands similarly situated; 2. That the variance sought is necessary and the minimum required for the preservation and protection of a substantial property interest of the petitioner to the degree that extraordinary hardship would result from strict compliance to the particular subdivision, major or minor partitioning involved; 3. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, but will be consistent therewith and shall not be injurious to the rights to other property owners in the near iI STAFF REPORT 4 AGENDA 5.6 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION ` . December 4, 1979 Page 2 vicinity nor constitute a departure from or be in violation of the . Comprehensive Plan of the City of Tigard; 4. That the applicant's proposal for variance in a subdivision or major or minor land partitioning conforms to and is consistent with all other regulatory requirements of this Title and Title 18 of this Code, that adequate provision is made for traffic circulation, recreation, open spaces and similar factors, and that variance sought has been considered by other public agencies concerned with fire protection sewer, water and other utilities, as well as environmental factors, and the written comments of such regulatory bodies as applicable is submitted as part of the record. 4. The Staff finds that the request is in keeping with the findings of the variance for the following reasons: a. Of the seventy-three lots in the subdivision, there are ten which were created in a pie shape including the subject site. (See Exhibit "C") . Therefore, these lots have peculiar circumstances from the majority in that the location, size and shape of this house and accessories are limited. All single-family units (� in this subdivision have the right to apply for building permits to i.� add to the unit. However, the subject site addition is restricted due to the shape of the lot. b. The proposed addition to the unit is 35 feet long and 10 feet wide. '' Of the 35 feet only 6 feet will encroach beyond the 15 foot rear yard set back on the northwest corner. Therefore, the request to preserve the right of the owner to expand the building is minimum. c. In observation of the area and subject site, it appears that the granting rantin of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or restrict the rights of the surrounding property owners. d. All other Code requirements are met and this variance will not create any other code violation. II. CONCLUSIONARY FINDINGS: 1. The proposed building addition is designed in such a way that violates the set back rule by a fraction of the total distance. No surrounding neighbor will be adversely affected and the addition will not be a visual nuisence. 2. The Bellwood I Subdivision did not restrict any property owner from i: requesting lot variances. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends a o • of the variance. ;`/,, Prepared by Ken Selby Assoc. City Planner Approved, by Aldie Howard, Planning Director j ,.. i _ • 1 ,I III • ( 2Y 6141..BLT 411-" I 4f 1 August 25, 1963 I 4 f Mr. Q.B. Griffon P.O. Box 23573 Tigard, Oregon 97223 I j Dear Mr. Oriffen: c i JJi This is to officially notify you that your request for ` i a zone change-con`iii t3.oriai use from • aehi_gtoi Ccu I' -i S-R e..o R-7-r_annel `yes .y .a was approved 2.•L.c- P Planning & Zoning Commission on August 23, 1'68, th the following conditions ions s , i.. I ' II , i 3 L...;) 1) lfiat the preliminary Plat dated August, 1969 be j accented with the e xcc:ration that the lots shown n il as 2S through 34 be developed as garden apartments instead of the area labeled lot 21. 2) That public access to the park be guaranteed to r` the City on the existing road easterly along the sub-divisici n to S.W. Walnut Street until such time \'1/ that this road is improved. At this tme public f :x access shall be made by the developer, meeting the f approval of the City Staff. �; Li 3) That the park land be donated to the City as l' shown on the preliminary plat, but also including lot 21. 4) That the park land be cleared of brush by the developers and the area in the vicinity of lot 21 be leveled during development of the surrounding it lots and graded as shown in the attached City plan's for improvement by the develo er dated August 15, 1968. 5) That improvements be made to the park as shown in the City's plans dated August 15, 1953. Playground equipment meeting City approval to be installed by the developer nad his cost not to exceed $1,500. L Page 1. . . . I P i' i1ii 1 Page 2 . 1 6) That the public walkways be lighted with low wattage . . lamps and paved 6 fest in width with concrete and planted 2 feet on each side with low-growing shrubbery-- plans for both to be aproved by the City Staff. 7) That the major arterials in the development (123th and 127th) be planted with trees (one per lot, 11/2" caliper, Cleveland Norway Mane or equivalent) along the entire length within the development. i 2) That t street right-of-way be improved to City i _ a standards as designated in the sub--division f ordinance neluditig asohal t, curbs, sidewalks, i t�fl i street lights, and underground utilities, with e,;ce! Lion that the cul-de-sac street width may be 23ft. 9) That 'h- ze III of the de 'elopment wil' be open for , review as to density prior to improvement of ' ha, F; H H area. ti l I The Tigard C i ty C _nei l w ell set the date for _ _�� r ` , '...l public hoari ng or the cone change. You will be n'`'.fi ed [ of thi s ('are. f: , �1 If you have any questions co:tzar inw this matter, __ I . lea e feel to call.. ;i l Sincerely e r1 ,i(l .ily ,vie i l Planning Administrator EW/ieo • 9• :r . -• . .-.. i, [ 1 e ; ( ( ■a `',"':, • D C $ al2eigir4 1T. 13 6 t s, ' v ,`,-i'or.rii...'7,-iori City of Tic”f::::.,d. , '' e the ?:- -.1 i cai-it'3 reni) ctfi...:1171- request s zoning variance to allow us to ,...on•-,tru,ct s small ...-.)o,--tion. of :::. :r-;pone c' ar'clitiori to our home, (Lot -6 Bell–ood, .",ashington County, Orr.-p.;-',n ) * The v.-1-1,-,ncJ 4 ::, neccen:ary due to the odd hsi.le of the exi:tinq lot and th t-)1em,..nt o' the structure. The -tfuctur .. —s •."- con ,trut-d so the back well - as not para lel to the rear lot line. v3ria.nce the house -- ;talr.:1 have to --e b". 1.71t --..ith the south ,rd t- arinz down to el -ht ft in width. _)ucli an a dl tion -,;ouli d r3etr-,ct from the f. xi 'tin conce,)t of the -,,..)'(‘division. The r-..-,t-)0,-; -_( variance is nr---,ded to allow cl -nL.,e-_-., in the * C' house 7' C tin 't '. '''' rn.Py intertain more than two -)eop: e. Thepreeent dr :-,i,---n is such e cannot intertain for friends or business , a-, -.oci-7:tes -- i ell my employment r.-;cuires. ,.-..-.-3 such this creates both r);=-rsonnrl and fin:-.ncial herds ips . i --hr -)r000:-.'e(9 variance will not cause injury to the ric?;11+:.-' of * th- oth7r 4r,ro'-)erty o'-ne,,s. Thc-',. a: licrint 1-, -:-. contecte,l, the oT,Trii,rs of the surrounding nro,)erty, revie••Ted the e tire )roposed plan and h -1.re 5:i-ne-, their afl;trov:-.11 . This is on the -tte.lc;:)--;(.1 sheet. ( 1 ti Ii 0 • - , 1 * „ ,,, ••'''''''.,”•••,•'''''' .• ..,,,,-,,,,,,,..xypk+r,,,,,,,,,,,,,Onrom«,Ftm,,,,,It'• ■,`,0`,,■•. •• , f .40* ,. gt■ttippligt,10,Al” - L ,. ,:f,•'___-::_l_.__L-1.2....,__ ___ ___1 ( 4 4 I We , the undersigned, have no objections to Mr. and Mrs. John H. Rooney's purposed addition of Lot 36 f (Bellwood Addition) . NAME LOT # _____62.(.2______ ,J A 2 6 / t'LJ.� o /11 • , ,__,.,1\,,v, '?..),(,:dfoci ,,,,fc,2 ... . ,,,,....-4... 3 5.- . '` , r 6 � a 30 ,, V" 2-he IoCT "C1r • ° 900 0 a. 4. .. 75 1 5. ..., a. . 100 • 75' I`~ --s I 75 n a N d 48' 7.a" W TS I 8100 4' 8200 lv 7400 7500 7000 7700 7800 7900 8000 N 3 I ° °o °° 105 5 °- 0 104 'p °n' ° 111 ° 410 `� 109 °ot 108 g r07 _ 106 _ a 103 7s • 25 13 - 7. 7s 75 r " go mat ° -�° 1 p N�•98°48 4 w �1a°o�y° ~ CANOE' t• KATHERINE�7 i� G e\ STREET *03 4_so o 08300 2 IoI T s�., ._� 90 °40.8 4 a 75 75 65 L i Iu 10 102 vi ° -7= 10 50 10 6700 N' //Is. p N ni ',..0 6900 6800 6700 6600 98 8600 9 a� •s s9.1>, z 67 W O 3 w 54.26 8400 .5.,_ •c 89 RR " s It9a •� °'1r\I 6b o r` n) -'c`!° 100 Z ''' 8500 ''? I J J _.J J f .._.J _ N 88° -.8'40"N 99 m - O o'� 10 I ,- N 8'E° 48' 4"W o en o -a•' I 'c g 8800 O a 10 p m 75 I' '5 3 Z v 97 °' 9 5 8s°17'40"E� INIT( .L PT ' \ 6200 p 6300 o 6400 N 6500 - et 47 101.56 75.7z , 'n N 107.32 �� 'pi 38 .i OZ r0 " Y �a-a`,..0 �i< Op O° 86 w - N 83°42 JO' W 3100 �1vT�� :. 83 00 84 c� $5 - a w a 8900 Cu a, 3200 0 "s\ Z Z _ k) " A, �� 3 5 o-, 3 4 65.33 75 60.76 °1 m 96 a a 9 1:4 a82 3=a _ N .93° 48' 40.E ,W �� 'r 3000 r .0� A,? t •N 'C y Z as 7 .0 I.n c.' WILLS 2 PLACE 40.42 oa'.� ��. r u7 / N :'7047 40•.,y • 403 00�`- 1 'S 's2 9000 / S x� �z -t • °3300 `,:1 ;5• Lz 1 70.45 89.75 L h to r-. m 33 o°/ '%".' �5 lo 5500 95 W,, • 79-i9 14 , ' �1 Co. \... N 5600 76 �} 100 2900 s� n R-5o 88.38•1p tea. " 14 55°t7 a0"W p �° 77 � -=°° 9100 CO 37 •tib' 3 400 u, 4 s , N 4��7'�4'V`"w� a 0397 A. C' =•13 32 A 4,,� w�1 D 5400 J 94 V3 119.56 r 6 g3 vt_+ !` ` Nee°I710'w r: /• Q 11o.aa • '' 58C0 z 5700 °e 75 n N• 10 2800 8 wee°17'40'w Z. ;''' u,�0 CO 1 0 9200 38 va wo �, a 3500 a 79 78 a; 93 Nee°!7' 0"W '31.61 , t;t��• a 31 tom as 5300 z S 7 0 h ` 61.51 70.00 1..t UJ , ^t `° N 77°8 �" w 74 h j;i• 0047 40,.E U 2600 2700 ° c a 10.00 135 Cc ^J ,- �''' 00n:° 0° r. 088 17'd0W c. • 1500 4,00 • • ' .CO° ; O e 3600 T _ ° 2 50 0 s o 39 a 30 1 O t1 C.'Y •"O.-y I ./ O 2400 , 41 a N O . O �O ? a O , ^- = I0 ;l p87 O n s..^.1. 15• 0 75.31 0 56.94 )-62 FI.17 `''' ids R.897.56 1.00 7R AC N STREET h - S77.47e0"4YS KAREN N89'4743w31�.00 �. O 2300 O .y1�. • •��r531 IO N8 °2'22,8. 30.27 48.69 Z8?S 59.00\ 79.22 •4i Q • 413.00 55.l0 ' 19.14 75.00 ,� ;,. v87'24 °�2 72 1c 7o.a� 1'0.89 3800 n -„ 3700 7 U W 4 •:n N . G'ovI ,� t70a ' ,QO o� 0 4200 1 0 �0 g ; o3StJ0 a 28 a .▪+ �. . � °0 2200 q. 24 (/ 25 ° " .N� 2� ° % 8 29 ° N 0 O x R rS ^_, 71 ; ° as 74.3s 74.33 ,,' ° z 72•- '0 ,N71p0 00 ; A 'O� N>7oe740 o ..32.23 62 45 z .N86°27'22..� •N 8J°24,y6..e• 48,�ti rti _ 7'Ft>4O..N 100.00 w O"W 10400. 6--"d_°.7 22 E 1~ i7Gvl7. °, 7 � rn 4309 12,29 lam' S' °I 2 100 L C a r n ° ` 7 a m 23 4000 Cr-)J V N ® Ci ' 1 N77°aj.;7„•.7-----�1.''... . e.,„... -ry Z. O'QOO - 41 .;r't}yu.L J..+..,.1'i ,..y..c-'.y-i4,-..Y:-rOvAa '" .F'7.,Z '•r. s' a �t j,ir R ?''.'.,ti✓n '+' _ ; i 'ti`t.:f`l • ,_ e'�,'F �:..,4 ,.'�'r` ?,..-.',,,:4:„i„.;