Loading...
Planning Commission Packet - 11/10/1981 POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm. The following document is a copy of the microfilm record converted back to digital. If you have questions please contact City of Tigard Records Department. AGENDA TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 1981, 7:30 P.M. FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - Lecture Room 10865 SW WALNUT STREET - Tigard, Oregon 1. Open Meeting 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes From Previous Meeting 4. Planning Commission Communication 5. Public Hearing 5.1 CPR 14-81 Dr. Roberts - NPO #7 5.2 CPR 15-81 Summerlake II •- NPO #7 M-6 Summerlake II NPO #7 5.3 CU 14-81 Kevin O'Brien - NPO #1 5.4 V 10-81 National Safety/Skourtes NPO #5 6. New Business 7. Other Business 7.1 NPO Memberships Change in NPO #4 - Addition to NPO #6 - Application to NPO #3 8. Adjournment STUDY SESSION A. Administrative Procedures - Ed Sullivan. B. Floodway Ordinance - Bring Flood Insurance Maps & Study C. Draft Noise Ordinance D. Discussion of City Staff Changes - Bob Jean IIMIIII"Mllilhdllil"glliaIIIIIIIIII"lrnll"IMIMIIIIIIIMITIFMiliaaiiia17 MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION November 10, 1981 Fowler Junior High - Lecture Room 10865 SW Walnut St. , Tigard, OR President Tepedino called the meeting to order at 7:35. ROLL CALL: Present: Bonn, Christen, Herron, Kolleas, Moen, Owens, Speaker, Tepedino Excused: Helmer Staff: Planning Director Currie; Associate Planner Newton; Ken Elliott of City Counsel; late in the meeting, Bob Jean, City Administrator The MINUTES of the October 6 meeting were considered. On MOTION by Kolleas, seconded by Bonn, they were approved as submitted. There were no COMMUNICATIONS to the Planning Commission or its members not treated in other agenda items. The President opened the PUBLIC HEARING by reading the usual statement of authority for and procedure to be followed in the meeting. 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION CPR 1 -81 DR. ALVA L. ROBERTS NPO #7 A request by Dr. Alva Roberts for a Comprehensive Plan Revision from. A-12 (Multi-Family Residential) to CP (Commercial- Professional) on 1.05 acres, located at 12520 S.W. Scholia Ferry Road Wash. County Tax Map 1S1 33AD Tax Lot 2500. I. Newton read the STAFF REPORT and RECOMMENDATION. The APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION was made by the applicant, Dr. Alva L. Roberts, Jr. , 12805 SW Trigger Drive, Beaverton. He stated the increase in his practice made moving to a larger facility advis- able, and the site behind his present office is available and apparently well suited to his needs. He will provide pavement (at this time not to city standards) to assure a professional appearance to his establishment. He is mid way between two points from which sewer might serve his location, but sewer will have to await development of intervening properties and may be deferred for some time. There was no 'PUBLIC TESTIMONY. CROSS-EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL: Bonn inquired as to the surrounding zoning. - Newton stated it is CP immediately to the east of this site Moen felt the request -to be in order because of that zoning, and asked about possible conditions. Bonn agreed, as did Owens. Christen asked about how to assuathe applicant Would eventually pay for the street. 1 MINUTES TIGARD_'PLANNING COMMISSION November 10, 1981 Page 2 Curry proposed a nonremonstrance agreement. Speaker inquired if what the applicant spent on the street would be recoverable. Currie said no, on the basis that what he would put in now to make the site present- able would be far from city street standards. Bonn MOVED approval of CPR 14-81, based on the findings in the staff report, with conditions that a nonremonstrance agreement be secured on future street improvements; that agreement be secured to dedicate necessary right-of-way for the road; that the septic system be approved by the Washington County Department of Sanitation prior to issuance of occupancy permits; that the site be connected to sewer when available. The motion was seconded. Currie suggested the inclusion of the standard conditions and one that is not standard, which is that he apply for conditional use for a veterinary office. There insued discussion on the necessity of the conditional use application. It was agreed after the minutes of the April, 1979 Planning Com- mission hearing on Dr. Roberts were read by staff that the code had been amended to include veterinary offices as a conditional use in the C-P zone, and that it would be necessary for Roberts to request conditional use. Possible procedures were discussed, including continuing the request to allow the applicant to include the request for conditional use. The motion on the floor then failed, 5 to 3. Speaker thereupon MOVED continuance of CPR 1 -81 to allow applicant and staff to work out conditions they feel are appropriate, and to allow the applicant to request conditional use, with the fee to be waived for the conditional use, and that the item be placed first on the agenda of the December meeting. The motion was seconded by Bonn and carried unanimously. The President declared a five-minute recess. 5.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION CPR 1 -81 AND SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT M-6-81 AMART DEVELOPMENT COMPANY NPO #7 A request by Amart Development Company for a Comprehensive Plan Revision from 11 .7 Single Family Residential to A-12 Multi-Family Residential; and application to address issue of Sensitive lands in Summerlake Phase II (Washington County Tax Map 1S1 33D Tax Lot 100.) Newton read the STAFF REPORT and RECOMMENDATION, illustrating various points on the wall map. She explained staff's concerns, and suggested the Commission might wish to recommend a resubmission at a lower density, perhaps to R-5 standards instead of A-12. The APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION was made by Mal Stout of Benkendorf Associates, 620 SW Fifth—Avenue, Portland. He opened with the request z MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION November 10, 1981 Page 3 that the written presentation be entered as part of the record of this hearing. (See the copyright notice on the sheet of tables following page 86.) He stated that since the first phase of Summerlake was started the company has contributed improvements worth over one-half million dollars, including 17 acres for park and park improvements, trunk sewer line, etc. Their request for changes in Phase II are occasioned by (1) real changes since 1977 in the housing industry, (2) increasing pressure from Metro and LCDC to increase density, and (3) unanimous direction by the City Council to the developer of an • adjacent property to increase his density beyond his request. • Stout detailed negotiations with the previous planning director which prompted the nature of this request. He described the physical characteristicts and uses of neighboring properties, and showed drawings of the types of units proposed, and a few slides of actual units in other nearby projects, and clustered units in California. He emphasized that all of the units.would be for individual ownership, and stated the density would be 9.27 units per acre. He stated the density proposed is acceptable because of the large amount of open area in the vicinity. He discussed for the benefit of the audience other material in their printed presentation on the access to the site and the proposed street system, the school situation, Carl Buttke's traffic analysis, compliance with LCDC goals, and approval from the fire marshall. He introduced Phil Millard, President of Lutz Development Company, 8925 SW Beaverton Highway, Portland. Mr. Millard discussed the real estate market in some depth. As a builder-developer he stated their task was to provide "affordable housing" for the acknowledged large market for new housing within the guidelines established in the area. Their proposal represents their effort as developers to meet this public need. PUBLIC TESTIMONY, almost all in opposition, was presented by: *** K. J. Won of Ginther Engineering, Beaverton, representing Wedgewood Homes, who is the developer of the development to the southwest of the Summer Lake site. He took a neutral position. He felt what is proposed is a major change, to which they have no objec- tion, but that if this proposal is approved, they would like to have similar consideration and action on their development. He submitted a letter from Wedgewood Homes expressing their concerns. Mr. Won was followed by several Katherine Street residents who presented well-cordinated arguments in opposition: *** Bruce Parker, 12705 SW Katherineafelt that one week prior notification was inadequate for those in opposition to prepare a proper case against an applicant possessing the resources of Amart Development. MINUTES TI GARD PLANNING COMMISSION November 10, 1981 Page 4 He asked those in the audience who are not speaking but who are opposed to the proposal to stand. Perhaps two score did so. He expressed the conviction the developer is unable to sell 7,000 square foot lots in todays market, but that this situation would change "in the immediate future." He urged the commission to resist the pressure under these conditions for higher density, stating the developer had not made a case for the drastic change of the comprehensive plan. *** James Nicole, 12750 SW Katherine, read from the 1978 staff report on the Bellwood Park subdivision in which it was found that 128th, then designated as a local street, was already used over capacity. While it is now designated, as a collector, the level of traffic remains and will increase with the development proposed. He felt the proposal is insensitive to goals in the NPO #7 plan. Another concern was the ability of Fanno Creek to absorb the additional water from the imperme- able surfaces in the development. *** Mark Zimel, 12925 SW Katherine, whose property adjoins the development, credited the Lutz Company with quality developments. He recognized Carl Buttke as an expert in his business, but raised the 'II question whether the traffic proposed on 128th is usual or unusual--a question which had not been addressed. He suggested that if the fore- cast of more people living in smaller units is correct, then the Beaverton School District's estimate of school population based on fewer children in the smaller units could be incorrect, because the smaller units could be housing a more representative element of the population with the normal ratio of school children. This, he felt, would overburden the school capacity in either Beaverton or Tigard. While he approves Art Lutz's developments, he noted there is no assurance that Art Lutz would actually develop the site if the density were increased. He felt the present high interest rates will change, so that people generally will be able to purchase normal size homes on 7,000 square foot lots. *** H. Kay Capron, 12770 SW Marie Court, felt that this proposal materially reduces the options available to those who want single family homes on standard lots. She expressed concern for the increased traffic through their established residential area, increased crime rate, and the change in the land use from what people expected when they bought their homes in the area. She did not feel it desirable to have all types of dwellings in every neighborhood. She urged a change in the proposed traffic flow, should this applicant submit a request for lower density. *** Ron Wagner, 12645 SW Katherine, read a paragraph from an article about increase in density in Beaverton which raised the ques- tion of "public need" of condominiums and other high-density land uses. ***., Nancy Campbell, 12790 SW Katherine, opposed the development from the traffic standpoint. She told of her bad experience in another locality with private streets. She outlined possible difficulties With MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION November 10, 1981 Page 5 the development should the Lutz organization have to abandon it only partly finished. She wants to keep the neighborhood single family. *** Alan Patterson, 11605 SW Manzanita Street, stated he owns property just east of the site. When he developed the eastern portion of his property it was suggested that he not cross the sensitive lands to reach the western portion, but that instead access be gained through Summer Lake II. The street plan proposed does not do this. There was no CROSS-EXAMINATION or REBUTTAL testimony offered. COMMISSION DECISION AND ACTION: Herron expressed concern for the traffic situation, especially with respect to school children, and felt higher density is out of place at this location. Kolleas disapproved the higher density in the middle of a single family area. Speaker explored with Mr. Patterson the previous arrangements for access to his property (which are apparently a matter of public record). He could not approve the density requested, but expressed a desire to see a small example at least of the cluster housing, which is new to this area and needs to have some examples to show that the concept does work well. He questioned the accuracy of the statement that there were no adjustments to standards being asked for in the proposal. He inquired the school district situation and the prospect of getting it changed. It was pointed out the request for change would have to come from the residents, but Commissioner Moen stated a number of people have bought in the area because they wanted to be in the Beaverton school district. He considered it an emotional issue with little prospect for change in the foreseeable future. Owens reported the NPO #7 plan did not contemplate densities of this magnitude, nor were the roads planned for the traffic which would be generated. Bonn felt the increase of density from about 160 to 400 units would have an adverse impact on the highway system. Moen commended the applicant on his professional presentation, and the opponents on the well-considered presentation they made. He felt the developer had an obligation to protect the neighborhood as contemplated in the comprehensive plan, and expressed the opinion that the high interest rates are not In adequate reason for changing density in this location. Tepedino, while recognizing Tigard's obligation to provide a range of housing, felt that the policy issues of established neigh- borhoods and traffic generation involved carried greater weight. Ken Elliott of the city attorney's staff discussed the LCDC goals, which had been well addressed by the applicant in his written presentation. Moen MOVED denial of CPR 15-81 and 111111110, based on staff findings, conclusions and recommendations, and on the evidence presented during the meeting. The motion was seconded by Kolleas and carried unanimously. MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION November 10, 1981 Page 6 5.2B SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT M 6-81, AMART DEVELOPMENT COMPANY NPO #7 Newton explained the requirements with respect to the sensitive lands in the development, which require an application in a case such as this, even though no sensitive lands will be built upon. There was some discussion as to the desirable handling of the matter. Moen MOVED for continuance of Sensitive Lands Permit M 6-81. The motion was seconded by Bonn and carried unanimously. 5.3 CONDITIONAL USE CU 14-81, KEVIN O'BRIEN NPO #1 A request by Kevin O'Brien for a Conditional Use to permit construction of a duplex located at 104th and SW McDonald. (Wash. County Tax Map 2S1 2CC Tax Lot 3300.) Newton read the STAFF REPORT through the STAFF RECOMMENDATION (but not the recommended conditions). The APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION was made by Kevin O'Brien, 21559 SW 99th Avenue, Tualatin. He questioned Condition 1 of the recommended conditions on the basis that it differed from the conditions placed on the minor land partition, which allowed a less restrictive time frame for the drainage plan. He stated he has no plans for building at the present time, and hence the requirement for site design review seems unnecessary. PUBLIC TESTIMONY was presented by **ar Phil Westover, 10340 SW Hillview, who favored the application because he considered development is inevitable. However he expressed concern about the eventual appearance of the site, which now has a house which has been moved in setting on blocks. His principal concern Was for the drainage problem, which he explained at some length. He questioned what his responsibility is to improve drainage of his property, and means of financing such improvements. CROSS-EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL: Mr. Westover questioned Mr. O'Brien as to how much longer the house on blocks would remain in that status. O'Brien related the recent history of the lot and the house moved onto it, which will be set on a foundation as soon as the conditional use permit is obtained. Currie explained the arrangements between the mover of the building and the city, and the time frame within which certain actions must be taken. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION: After a little further discussion of the drainage problem and the 14-day time limit in Condition #1, Bonn MOVED approval of Conditional Use CU 14-81, based on staff findings, conclusions and recommendations, with modification of Condition #1 to 30 days, and with the addition of ',prior to issuance of building permits" to Condition No 2. The motion Was seconded by Moen and carried unanimously. MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION November 10, 1981 Page 7 5.4 VARIANCE V 10-81, NATIONAL SAFETY COMPANY NPO #5 A request by National Safety Company for a variance to side yard set back from 20 feet to 10 feet along S.W. 74th Avenue. (Washington County Tax Map 2S1 12A Railroad Right-of-way.) Newton read the STAFF REPORT and RECOMMENDATION. The APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION was made by John Skourtes, 1701 SW Weir Road, Beaverton. He asked for clarification of the no additional material paragraph, given by the President. After establishing the exact location and setting of the property, Skourtes stated his assump- tion the staff had no quarrel with the first three qualifications for a variance on this property, and concentrated his presentation on the hardship aspect. He felt the setback ordinances are applicable more particularly to the ordinary rectangular lot, which this is not. He called attention to the statement in his October 27 letter that mortgage companies will not lend money on'speck warehouse only 30 feet wide because it is not functional for ordinary warehouse purposes. He pointed to the railroad track bordering 74th to the south of this parcel, and the Mercer Steel yard farther south. He stated ' The realities of the market place proves the hardship." He declared that by the time the LID, sewer and water connections had been paid for, the cost would be such that a 30 foot building would not provide enough square footage to come out economically. .Tie pointed out this building would be for investment, and on that basis he felt the unecon- omic aspects of the possible 30 foot building had been proved by the actions of mortgage lenders. He described difficulties with shrubs along steel buildings because of reflection off the wall. There was no PUBLIC TESTIMONY. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION: Owens got clarification about Skourtes' building nearby between the two railroad tracks. Tepedino suggested that while the applicant asserts a less-than-4O foot ware- house is not economically feasible, he has not demonstrated that another type of building only 30 feet wide could indeed go in there. He challenged the meeting of variance qualification No. 1. speaker questioned staff whether the owner, Burlington Northern Railroad, had signed this request. (Apparently they did.) Currie • pointed out this is not a specific lot, but rather a portion of the Burlington Northern right-of-way which would require a minor land partition to make a lot. Upon a question from Bonn about the 40 foot right-of-way on 74th, Currie explained the thinking behind keeping 74th at that point only 4C feet wide. Tepedino again brought up the "exceptional or extraordinary conditions". Currie explained these conditions applied to the property, which is in this case exceptional and extraordinary in shape, and that Tepedino's line of argument was better related to the fourth or minimum variance from standards require- ment. MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION November 10, 7981 Page 8 There was discussion of number of access points onto 74th. Currie suggested the Public Works Director had aut otity to grant additional access points if conditions warranted. Speaker felt that perhaps mini.-storage space might be a use to which the property could be put without a variance.iance He then MOVED for denial of Variance V 10-81 based on staff findings, conclusions and the recommendation for denial based on the finding that the applicant had not shown that a smaller "+ building couleMee built on the site. The motion was seconded by Kolleas and carried seven to one, with Christen voting no. OTHER BUSINESS: A memo on NPO changes was considered. Bonn MOVED acceptance of the three NPO appointments ppointments listed'in the memo of November 6 prom the Associate Planner. The motion was seconded by Kolleas and carried unanitously. It was mentioned.that' a president of the commission should be elected to take office for the year beginning January 1, and that this should be part of the order of bus-.xess at the December meeting. Bob Jean, City Administrator, discussed procedures and time constraints on the urban renewal agency if advantage is to be taken of the increment financing mechanism in 1982. After considerable discussion it was agreed the Planning Commission would attend the City Council meeting on November 23, which will include a town hall type of meeting on the urban renewal issue. Jean outlined his concept of the role of the Planning Commission under the new administrative procedures, and the advisability of conducting a sort of "crash course" for the Commission by the League of Oregon City or other educative organization. The aim is to have the Commission begin work on the comprehensive plan early in 1982. The object will be to pull together or blend the seven NPO plans covering seven separate areas into one integrated plan for the whole city. Currie mentioned the flood plain issue, which needs action in December in order to have Council act on it by the deadline, February 1. The need to consider the draft of administrative procedures was men- tioned. Jean suggested Speaker and Ken Elliott confer on the latter's comments on these so a second revised draft could be considered by the Commission. In order. to take care of these extra items and still hold the December meeting open for a known heavy agenda, it was agreed a special meeting of tho Commission should be held Tuesday, December 1. The President declared the meeting ADJOURNED at 11:!4:0. .... .0. . - . , PLANNING COMMISSION ROLL CALL MEETING 10 5 1 ()ie? Date /OA 4 Frank Type ino '1./// /., Clifford Spe er I/ . / WO 1t13 4291( /V0 Don Moen Geraldine Kolleas 7 AT 0 ____ Mark Christen /6 0 Susan Herron V /'r-0 Richard Helmer_______ -J------- Lf/41 Bonnie Owens__/ Roy Bonn '7------ 61/4/1) 1 i 1 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, '1981 - 7:30 P.M Fowler Junior High School - Lecture Room 10865 S.W. Walnut Street, Tigard PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 Comprehensive Plan Revision CPR 14-81 Dr. Alva L. Roberts NPO # 7 A request by Dr. Alva Roberts for a Comprehensive Plan Revision from A-12 (Multi-Family Residential) to CP (Commercial-Professional on 1.05 acres, located at 12520 S.W. Scholls Ferry Rd. Washington County Tax Map 1S1 33AD Tax Lot 2500. 5.2 Comprehensive Plan Revision CPR 15-81, Conditional Use CU 15-81 and Sensitive Lands Premit M-6-81 Amart Development Comeau NPO # 7 A request by Amart Development Company for a Comprehensive Plan Revision from R-7 Single Family Residential to A-12 Multi-Family Residential; an application to address issue of Sensitive lands in Summerlake Phase II (Washington County Tax Map 1S1 33D Tax Lot 100.) 5.3 Conditional Use CU-14-81, Kevin O'Brien NPO #1 A request by Kevin O'Brien for a Conditional Use to permit construction of a duplex located at 104th and S.W. McDonald. (Washington County Tax Map 2S1 2CC Tax Lot 3300. 5.4 Variance V 10-81, National Safety Company NPO # 5 A request by National Safety Company for a variance to side yard set back from 20 feet to 10 feet along S.W. 74th Avenue. (Washington County Tax Map 2S1 12A Railroad Right-of-way). "PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN-UP SHEET" NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME AND NOTE TRE'IR ADDRESS ON THIS SHEET. AGENDA ITEM: ; ACTION REFERENCE: (. f R / (� ! . ccQV'CJ Po 7,4 E ADDRESS ' ie saw . im AGENDA ITEM: ACTION REFERENCE �P '' w L NAME ADDRESS `' r a'. � �r C i ( K. /jWdw y 6ikrctd�t�- c.uCr��� INN r v$� u7 ti T�od5 .Uri c< /"ter/er /2 7 5 :t / / 2s e//v Cam' ST 776. X4'1 /e ,It• ' T• sf/: 11 `] �/ t� 9 'lam Y1� tk C/l t7�I �� V ri. �/_v �l�Q T(' E, v1 _ / / / 77O S . Ara iiz� /At eU'c-r ,1"\ Or�i.,. _�,�.,,, �,. "` _..._.a t a',,6, y '4.r; ��t'. :r ,; _:<.y,_.,•te\/ J / AGENDA ITEM: . �� ACTION REFERENCE: / - f `� -"S I Q( f (312 r NAME ADDRESS /o / /1 '72,}1,4 fie / Cr' / / / 1Y°V I :I' L"'"- "rd LAI 1+11-1-V \ 7 d277bC/6 ‹ 4 ......:✓:tn. ,w+..•.n•,....:,.........•.:. .::..,.i.:,:. ... :..................yw:....w.:.w.....» ,...w.n.um a>'.yu.,u» ...,;. ,,.:me'rY.,9asvk.v, .••,:...:...—.::-Jw.r.. ._.. .»...Sn. .....,u au', .. s. iJ. "PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN—UP SHEET" NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME AND NOTE THEIR ADDRESS ON THIS SHEET. AGENDA ITEM: e,' ACTION REFERENCE: GI [ NAME ADDRESS 1 AGENDA ITEM: ACTION REFERENCE: NAME ADDRESS • AGENDA ITEM: ACTION REFERENCE: • NAME • ADDRESS • "PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN-UP SHEET" I NOTICE ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME AND NOTE THEIR DRESS ON THIS SHEET. . - €5 I AGENDA ITEM: a ACTION REFERENCE: r V`1t,,e/� -2„9..„ , p 1N.ME ADDRESS ` C I . �/211-44,/211-44,1 I / c / l� S J //�/(/ /24, (-51G'rz/L2/1/ • AGENDA ITEM: • ACTION REFERENCE: NAME ADDRESS AGENDA ITEM: ACTION REFERENCE: NAME ADDRESS • STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5.1 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION November 10, 1981, 7:30 P.M. FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 10865 SW Walnut, Tigard, Oregon DOCKET: Comprehensive Plan Revision - CPR 14-81 .(Vincent Olson) PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: Published under Planning Commission agenda in the Tigard Times October 29, 1981 and November 5, 1981. Notices mailed to surrounding property owners on October 1981. APPLICANT: Dr. Alva L. Roberts, Jr. 12805 SW Trigger Drive Beaverton, Oregon 97005 OWNER: Vincent Olsen 12520 SW Scholls Ferry Road Tigard, Oregon 97223 REQUEST: For a Comprehensive Plan Revision from A-12 Multi Family Residential to CP Commercial Professional on 1.05 acres. APPLICATION DATE: October 16, 1981 SITE LOCATION: 12520 SW Scholls Ferry Road (Wash. Co. Tax Map 1S1 33A1), Tax Lot 2500) FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The NPO #7 Plan Map and the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan designate the site as Urban Medium Density. 2. The applicant currently operates a small animal hospital on the property north of this site. It is the applicant's intention to expand his business to the proposed site. There is an existing building on the subject site. The applicant does not intend to remodel either building at this time. 3. Currently the subject parcel is accessed by an unimproved private road from S.W. Scholls Ferry Road. The applicant does not address any improvement to the access in this proposal. 4 . The site is not served with sewer at the present time. 5. NPO #7 Policies applicable to this site are as follows: Policy 17: Development shall coincide with the provision of public streets, water and sewerage facilities. These facilities shall be (a) capable of adequately serving all intervening properties as well as the proposed development and (b) designed to meet City or County standards. 6. The Commercial Development section of the NPO #7 Plan speaks to two categories of commercial development all to be located along Scholls Ferry Road. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The parcel seems better suited to the NPO #7 designation of Multi-Family than to the proposed Commercial Professional designation. The Multi-Family designation buffers the existing Commercial Professional use on Scholls Ferry from the Single Family designation to the South. 2. There is no sewer service to the site. 3. The applicant has not addressed the issue of access to the site. The subject site should be served with a public street. ALTERNATIVES: 1. The Planning Commission could de•ry the request as proposed, 2. The Planning Commission could approve the request as proposed within the following conditions: A. A traffic, plan showing public street improvements to the existing unimproved right-of-way presently serving the site shall be submitted and approved by the City of Tigard Engineering Division, prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit. B. The site shall be connected to City sewer prior to the issuance of Occupancy Permits. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of this request based on findings as follows: 1. The NPO #7 Plan clearly speaks to the development of commercial uses along Scholls Ferry Road. The existing Multi-Family designation is intended as a buffer between the commercial development on Scholls Ferry Road and the Urban Low Density to the South. Further, a traffic plan showing how the property could be served with a public street South from Scholls Ferry Road should be a condition of any development on this site. • w' � p Approved G�'Frank A C Brie Prepared by: El' abeth A. ewt n Approved by: Frank A. C rie Associate Planner Planning Director /br Staff Report Agenda 5.2 Tigard Planning Commission November 10, ;1981 7:30 Fowler Junior High Lecture Room 10856 SW Walnut, Tigard, DOCKET: Comprehensive Plan Revision, CPR 15-81 (Summerlake II) PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: Notice published in Tigard Times October 29, 1981 and November 5, 1981. Notice was mailed to surrounding property, owners within 300 feet on October 30, 1981. APPLICANT: AMART Development Company 8925 SW Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway Portland, Oregon 97225 OWNER: Same APPLICATION DATE: October 23, 1981 SITE LOCATION: North of SW Katherine between SW 126th and SW 128th (Washington County Tax Map 1S1 33D Tax Lot 100) . REQUEST: For a Comprehensive Plan Change from R-7 Urban Low Density to A-l2 PD Urban Medium Density Development and for a preliminary Plan Review. PREVIOUS ACTION: Reference ZC 28-77, S8-778, SDR 36-79 FINDINGS: 1. The site is designated Urban Low Density on the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Map and NPO #7 Plan Map. 2. The applicant proposes a Planned Development District with Single Family Attached Units, Single Family Cluster Units and Townhouse Condominiums. 3 The NPO #7 Plan Map designates this site for Urban Low Density, approximately four single family units per acre. 4. The surrounding land uses include single family homes to the south; Mary Woodard Elementary School and the Greenway to the east; Summerlake Park to the north; and single family and proposed multi-family to the west. 5. Presently, SW 128th dead .ends at the site on the southern boundary and SW Falcon Rise Drive dead ends on the western boundary. Both of these streets are designated as local streets on the NPO #7 plan. 6. There is a sewer line running north/south through the property. 7. Although Mary Woodard School is in the Tigard School District and iS located immediately west of the property, elementary school children would attend school in the Beaverton School District. 8. Policies from the NPO #7 Plan applicable to this request are: policy 6. The single family character of the area designated on the Plan Map as Urban Low Density is viewed as a positive asset to be retained. Projects proposed for this area must be judged according to affects upon this character. Policy 7. Within the Urban Low Density residential area, allow duplexes on lots less appropriate for single family homes to include locations at street intersections, adjacent Major thoroughfares, and as buffers between multi-family and single family areas. Policy 8. When developments are proposed in the Urban Low density area for sites which include identified natural features worthy of preservation, the planned development concept shall be utilized if the Planning Commission determines it the best method for preservation. 9. Goals from the NPO #7 applicable to this request are as follows: 2. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the established character of existing neighborhoods and seeks to preserve and enhance existing neighborhood values. Future development proposals should be sensitive to the concern of citizens for their own immediate environment as well as to the well-being of the citizens as a whole. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant proposes an increase in density from 4 single family units per acre to approximately 12 units per acre. Given the surrounding land uses and the existing street network, staff feels this increase in density is inappropriate. 2. In locating multi-family development, NPO Policy identifies appropriate sites as those which are located in close proximity to schools, shopping, jobs and recreation. An adequate street network to serve the density of a multi-family development is also a concern. 3. Although the proposed project is located adjacent to a Tigard School District elementary school, the children residing in the proposed development would not attend this school. The residents of this proposal are in the Beaverton School District. The elementary school serving this site is 2-3 miles away, north of Scholls Ferry toad. 4. The street pattern for this development is a concern. There are only two local capacity streets which presently dead end at the south and west boundaries to serve the site. The construction of 130th as a manor collector through the site would help alleviate potential traffic problems. However, the extension of 130th from the north connecting to SW 128th at the southern boundary is the only through street proposed for this project. ALTERNATIVES: 1. The Planning Commission could deny the request as proposed. 2. The Planning Commission could deny the request as proposed and approve a lower density. 3. The Planning Commission could approve the request as proposed. 4. The Planning Commission could approve the request as proposed with conditions. RECOMMENDATION: : Staff recommends denial of CPR 15-81 and denial of Preliminary Plan Review based on findings, as follows: The request violates Policy #6 and Goal #2 of the NPO #7 Plan in that approval of this proposal would considerably alter the single family character of the existing neighborhood. Staff further recommends that the Planning Commission consider a request for Urban Low Density at R-5 standards upon re-submittal of a proposal bpi the 'applicant. Prepared by: . ® ■�7i �i. / 7 Approved by`: Eliz. •-th A. Newt' Frank A. Currie As •ciate Planner Planning Director STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5.28 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 1981 7:30 P.M. FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 10865 SW Walnut Street, Tigard No submission of additional material by applicant shall be made at this Public Hearing unless the applicant is requested to do so. Should this occur, unrequested, the item will be tabled until the following hearing. DOCKET: Sensitive Lands Permit, M 6-81 PUBLIC INFORMATION: Published under Planning Commission Agenda in the Tigard Times October 29, 1981 and November 5, 1981. Notices mailed to surrounding Ii property owners on October 26, 1981. APPLICANT: Amart Development Company, 8925 SW Beaverton Hillsdale Highway, Portland, Oregon 97225 OWNER: Same APPLICATION DATE: October 26, 1981 LOCATION: North of SW Katherine Street between SW 126th and SW 128th (Washington County Tax Map 151 33D, Tax Lot 100) REQUEST: A Sensitive Lands Permit Application PREVIOUS ACTION: Reference ZC 28-77, S 8-78, SDR 36-79 FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Chapter 18.57 of the Tigard Municipal Code requires a Sensitive Lands Permit application for all development on property where there are sensitive lands areas. 2. A portion of the applicant's site lies within the 100 year floodplain. The applicant has agreed to dedicate all lands within the 100 year floodplain to the City of Tigard. 3. The applicant is not proposing any development within the 100 year floodplain. CONCLUSIONS: 1. Since the applicant proposes no development within the 100 year floodplain, there will be no adverse affect on sensitive lands. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of M 6-81 based on findings as follows: 1. The applicant does not intend to develop any portion of the 100 year floodplain and has agreed to dedicated all lands within the 100 year floodplain to the City of Tigard. Staff recommends the following condition be attached to M 6-81: • • Page 2 Staff Report Age,6:da 5.2B 11-10-81 `Planning Commission Meeting 1 • 1. Any development proposed on this site should have the Planned Development Designation so that any changes in the Sensitive Lands Area can be monitored by the Planning Commission: A a .. _ . . g . . ., :, , (44 zce,,,rr,c, , , ,. Prepa ed by: Elizebathon A proved by: Frank A. Currie Associate Planner Planning Director EAN:lw l il '.4 3 • IIIII""ajillnillinlilliaillnigilliMMIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIMT Staff Report Agenda Item 5.3 Tigard Planning Commission November 10, 1981 - 7:30 PM Fowler Junior High School 10865 SW Walnut Street, Tigard DOCKET: Conditional Use, CU 14-81 (Kevin O'Brien) NPO #1 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: Published under Planning Commission Agenda in the Tigard Times, October 29 and November 5, 1981. Notices mailed to surrounding property owners within 100 feet on October 26, 1981. APPLICANT: Kevin J. and Patricia A. O'Brien OWNER: Same 21559 SW 99th Ave. Tualatin, Oregon 97062 APPLICATION DATE: October 6, 1981 SITE LOCATION: Northeast corner of SW 104th and SW McDonald '(Washington County Map 2S1 2CC Tax Lot 3300 Parcel 1) . REQUEST: For a conditional use in an R-7 "Single Family Residential Zone" to construct a duplex on a 10,110 square foot lot. PREVIOUS ACTION: Reference MLP 5-81, TU 4-81 FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The site is zoned R-7 and designated as Single Family Residential on the Comprehensive Plan Map and NPO #1 Plan. 2. The Tigard Municipal Code allows duplexes on 10,000 square foot lots in the R-7 Zone (Reference Code Section 18.20.020) . 3. Applicable policies from the NPO #1 Plan are as follows: Policy 7: Within the urban low density residential area, allow duplexes on lots less appropriate for single family homes to include locations at street intersections and as buffers between multi-family and single family areas. 4. Presently, SW 104th Avenue is unimproved in front of the site. SW McDonald is paved but has no curbs or sidewalks. 5. The site is part of a drainageway and a small stream runs through the property. Site drainage will have to be addressed prior to the issuance of building permits. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proposed duplexes-are allowed as a conditional use in an R-7 zone. 2. Improvements are needed to SW 104th Avenue and SW McDonald to acceptable city standards. 3. A site drainage plan should be submitted to address the drainage problems on the site. ALTERNATIVES: 1. The Planning Commission could deny the request. 2. The Planning Commission could approve the request as submitted. 3. The Planning Commission could approve the request as submitted with conditions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ' Staff recommends approval of CU 14-81 based on findings as follows: 1. The Tigard Municipal Code allows duplexes on 10.000 square foot lots in an R-7 zone. 2. The R-7 Single Family Residential Designation of the property is in conformance with the NPO #1 Plan. Staff recommends the following conditions be attached to approval of CU .14-81: 1. The Conditional Use approval will be valid only if a Site Drainage Plan has been submitted and approved ny the City of Tigard Engineering Division within 14 days of the Planning Commission's approval of this request. 2. The applicant shall apply for Site Design Review for the duplex. 3. All applicable conditions of MLP 5-81 must be met prior to the issuance of building permits as listed below: a. Half street improvements to local street standards shall be made to SW 104th Avenue. b. A bond for half street improvements shall be posted by the property owner with the City of Tigard for 100% of the cost of the half street improvements. c. A non-remonstrance agreement shall be signed and recorded with Washington County against the future improvement of SW McDonald. d. An Additional (5') five feet of R.O.W. along SW McDonald shall be dedicated to the City for the future improvement of the street. A metes and bounds legal description and map shall accompany the dedication of the 5' R.O.W. and shall be prepared by a registered engineer or land surveyor. Prepared by _ * l mem • Al Approved b lr;both A. Newt.. y,., 4,./. ,/,4(4.44„:,' '-/Lr.. .... yank A. Currie Associate Planner Planning Director • STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5 .4 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 1981 7 :30 pm FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 10865 SW WALNUT STREET, TIGARD No submission of additional material by applicant shall be made at this Public Hearing unless the applicant is requested to do so. Should this occur, unrequested, the item will be tabled until the following Hearing. DOCKET: Variance, V 10-81 (John Skourtes) NPO# 5 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: Notice published under Planning Commission Agenda in the Tigard Times on October 29, 1981 and November 10, 1981 . Notices mailed to surrounding property owners within 100 feet on October 30, 1981 . APPLICANT: John Skourtes OWNER: Burlington Northern R. R. 17010 SW Weir Road Beaverton, Oregon 97007 REQUEST: For a variance from the sideyard setback requirements from 20 feet to 10 feet in an M-3 light industrial zone. LOCATION: S.E. corner of S .W. Bonita Road and SW 74th Avenue (Washington County Tax Map 2S1 12A - Railroad Right of Way) . FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 . The applicant is proposing to construct a 6,000 square foot metal warehouse on the site. 2 . The applicant is proposing access to the site from S.W. 74th Avenue. At present, there is a Local Improvement District being formed for the improvement of S. W. 74th Avenue. 3 . The Tigard Municipal Code, Section 18.76.020 states : "No variance shall be granted by the Planning Commission unless it can be shown that all of the following conditions exist. a) 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, topography, or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control ; STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5.5 Page 2 b) The variance is necessary for the preservation of a property right of the applicant substan- tially the same as possessed by owners of other property in the same zone or vicinity; c) The authorization of the variance shall not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title, be injurious to property in the zone or vicinity in which the property is located, or be otherwise detrimental to the objectives of any city development plan or policy; d) The variance requested is the minimum from the provisions and standards of this title which will alleviate the hardship. " 4 . The property in question is actually a portion of the railroad right of way and not a legal tax lot. CONCLUSIONS: 1. Improvements are needed to S.W. 74th Avenue. 2 . The applicant does not meet all the criteria established for granting a variance. Specifically, the applicant does not meet condition Number 4. The applicant could construct s smaller building on the site and therefore, maintain the required setbacks . 3 . The applicant feels that a smaller building would not be economically feasible for his purposes. ALTERNATIVES: 1 . The Planning Commission could approve the request as submitted. 2. The Planning Commission could approve the request as submitted with conditions . 3. The Planning Commission could deny the request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of Variance V10-81 based on findings as follows : 1. The applicant does not meet the required criteria established for granting a variance in that a smaller building could be constructed on the site. The question is whether a 40 foot building is the smallest building that is economically feasible on the site."f/� `"''ice . .„ ,„, % 4 - Prepa ed by Eaizabe h A. Newton' Approved by ank' . Currie O'DONNELL, RHOADES, GERBER DATE: October 7, 1981 SULLIVAN & RAMIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW TO Elizabeth Ann Newton, Assistant 4727 N.W. HOYT STREET PORTLAND, OREGON 97209 Planner (503) 222-4402 FROM: Corinne C. Sherton RE: Environmental Standards Provision to be Added to the City' s Industrial Zone Districts The wording proposed for the new environmental stan- dards subsection of the "Additional Requirements" section of the City's M2, M3 and M4 (industrial) zone districts, as set out in your August 20, 1981 letter to Maggie Conley, meets the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 6. (Air, Water and Land Resources Quality) I have attached to this memo a copy of your August 20th letter and attachments, as you requested. • -------1 r , . _,ice 111, Ci1Y OF lila-ARID WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON August 20, 1981 Maggie Conley Land Use Coordinator _ Department of Environmental Quality 522 S.W. 5th Ave. Box 1760 Portland, Oregon 97207 Dear Ms. Conley: Enclosed is proposed wording for the City of Tigard Zoning Code relative to compliance with DEQ noise standards. This section will be inserted into the industrial zone sections (N2, M3 and M4) as an "Additional Requirement". I have attached copies of the "Additional Requirements" section of each chapter of the code where this section will appear. The proposed wording for noise compliance is as follows: • "All uses in an (M3) (M4) (M2) zone shall comply with environmental standards as adopted by the State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality for air, land, noise and water. If it is deemed necessary by the Planning Director or his agent, evidence of compliance with DEQ standards for air, land noise or water may be required. Evidence shall be in the form of a letter or copy of a permit from the regulatory agency." I would appreciate any comments or concerns you have on this as soon as possible. The Planning Commission and City Council will be re- viewing this item in September. Sincerely, ei f G4 ` "pAJ v s Eliabeth Ann Newton Assistant Planner EAN:dmj • ______________i 12420 S.W. MAIN P.O. BOX 23397 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171 18.44.050--18.48.010 a rear yard setback of forty feet shall be required; (4) Setbacks are not required when side or rear prop- erty lines abut a railroad right-of-way. (Ord. 70-32 5160--4, 1970) . _ 18. 44.050 Building height. Except as otherwise provided in Section 18 .12.110, no building in the M-2 zone shall exceed a height of three stories or thirty-five feet whichever is less. (Ord. 70-32 S160-5, 1970) . 18.44.060 Additional requirements. Additional require- ments applicable to the M-2 zone include but are not limited to the following: (1) Off-street parking and loading, see Chapter 18.60; (2) Access and egress, see Chapter 18.64; (3) Enclosure and screening required, see Section 18- .12.080; (4) Signs, advertising signs and sign structures shall be subject to the conditions, limitations, prohibitions and requirements of Title 16, to which particular reference is made; (6) Nuisances prohibited, see Section 18.12.070. (Ord. 78-32 (part) , 1978; Ord. 71-4 57 (part) , 1971; Ord. 70-32 §160-6 1970) . C 7 ) (add e Virarl kwitt P s-f an d s � Chapter 18.48 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE (M-3) * Sections: 18.48.010 Permitted uses. ' 18.48.020 Conditional uses . 18. 48.030 Lot requirements. 18.48.040 Setback requirements. 18.48.050 Building height. 18.48.060 . Additional requirements. 18.48.010 Permitted uses. No building structures or land shall be used, and no building or structure shall here- after be erected, enlarged or altered in the M-3 zone, except for the following uses: ( 1) Assembly of electrical appliances, electronic in- struments and devices, radios , phonographs, television, in- cluding the manufacture of small parts only; * For sign regulations, see Chapters 16 . 36 and 16 .40 of this code. 279 (Tigard 7/15/78) 18.52.090 landscaping plan, waste disposal fields and other construc- tion features on the property; and all buildings, streets, alleys , highways, streams and other topographical features outside of the property for one hundred feet from all prop- erty lines; (2) A description of the industrial operations pro- posed in sufficient detail to indicate the effects of those operations in producing traffic congestion, noise, toxic or noxious matter, vibrations , odors, heat, .glare, air pollution, wastes and other objectionable effects; (3) Engineering and architectural plans for the treatment and disposal of sewage and industrial wastes and any on-site disposal of wastes; (4) Engineering and architectural plans for handling of any excess traffic congestion, noise, glare, air pollu tion, fire hazard or safety hazard; (5) Designation of the fuel proposed to be used and any necessary architectural and engineering plans for con- trolling smoke or particulate matter; (6) The proposed number of shifts to be worked and the maximum number of employees on each shift. (b) If found necessary and upon request of the city, information sufficient to determine the degree of compliance with the standards of this title shall be furnished by the industry. Such request may include a requirement for con- tinuous records of operations likely to violate the standards, for periodic checks to assure maintenance of standards, or for special surveys in the event it appears a violation is in progress. (Ord. 70-32 S180-8, 1970) . 18. 52.090 Additional requirements. Additional require- ments applicable to the M-4 zone include but are not limited to the following: (1) Off-street parking and loading,, see Chapter 18.60; (2) Access and egress, see Chapter 18.64;. (3) Enclosure and screening required, see Section 18- .12.080; (4) Signs , . advertising signs and sign structures shall be subject to the conditions, limitations , prohibitions and requirements of Title 16, to which particular reference is made; (6) Nuisances prohibited, see Section 18. 12.070 . (Ord. 78-32 (part) , 1978; Ord. 71-4 §7 (part) , 1971; Ord. 70-32 §180-9, 1970) . CT) Ladd Zvif IMe , 4d s 5G r' • • • 285 (Ticiarri 1 c i-tax • 18 . 48.030--18.48.060 ro � (7) Railroad right-of-way; (8) Any business, service, processing, storage or dis- play essential or incidental to any permitted use in the M-3 zone and not conducted entirely within an enclosed building; (9) Garden supply store when in conjunction with a landscape contractor's office. (Ord. 76-46 §4 (part) , 1976; Ord. 70-32 §170-2, 1970) . 18.48.030 Lot requirements. In the M-3 zone the lot requirements shall be as follows: (1) The minimum lot area shall be six thousand square _ feet. (2) The minimum lot width shall be sixty feet. (3) No maximum lot coverage shall be required. (Ord. 70-32 §170-3, 1970) . 18.48.040 Setback requirements. Except as may other- wise be provided in Section 18.12.100, the setbacks for non- residential uses in the M-3 zone shall be as follows: (1) The front yard setback shall be thirty feet. (2) The side yard setback shall be twenty feet, except when abutting or across the .street from a residential zone g , a side yard of forty feet shall be required. (3) The rear yard setback shall be twenty feet, except . when abutting or across the street from a residential zone, a rear yard setback of forty feet shall be required. (4) Setbacks are not required when side or rear prop- erty lines abut a railroad right-of-way. (Ord. 70-32 §170-4, 1970) . 18. 48.050 Building height. Except as otherwise pro- vided in Section 18.12.110, no building in the M-3 zone shall exceed a height of three stories or thirty-five feet which- ever is less. (Ord. 70-32 5170-5, 1970) . 18. 48 .060 Additional requirements. Additional require- ments applicable to the M--3 zone include but are not limited to the following: (1) Off-street parking and loading, see Chapter 18.60; (2) Access and egress , see Chapter 18.64; (3) Enclosure and screening required, see Section 18- .12.080; (4) Signs, advertising signs and sign structures shall be subject to the conditions, limitations, prohibitions and requirements of Title 16 , to which particular reference is made; (6) Nuisances prohibited, see Section 18 .12 .070. (ord. 78-32 (part) , 1978; Ord. 71-4 S7 (part) , 1971; Ord. 70-32 §170-6, 1970) . ca) (MJ e, 't vi wkadaP Atladdfas 281 (Tigard 7/15/78) 11-6-81 MEMORANDUM a'p To: Planning Commission From: .Asso6iate Planner li Subject: NPO Changes 0 Though, NPO #3 is not active at this time we have received an application for membership from LuAnne Mortensen. 0 On NPO #4 Chet Larter resigned and Mr. David Brooks has applied for membership. • NPO #6 wants to add Faith Holmes to their membership roster. ". ,...