Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Planning Commission Packet - 12/06/1983
POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm.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 DECEMBER 6, 1983 - 7:30 P.M. FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - LGI ROOM 10865 SW WALNUT STREET, TIGARD, OREGON 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVE MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 15, 1983 MEETING 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION o Police Department Presentation 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 SUBDIVISION PLANNED DEVELOPMENT S 8-83 PD Century 21 Homes NPO #3 5.2 SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 5-83 Chalet Restaurant and Bakery NPO #4 5.3 NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION APPOINTMrNT FOR NPO #6 • TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting - December 6, 1983. - 7:30 P.M. 1. Vice President Moen, called the meeting to order at 7:38 P.M. The meeting was held at Fowler Junior High School - LGI Room - 10865 SW Walnut, Tigard, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: Vice President Moen, Commissioners Butler, Edin, Fyre, Leverett, Vanderwood, & Owens (arriving at 7:52 P.M.). Absent: President Tepedino,(one vacant position). Staff: Associate Planner Steve Skorney; Director of Planning and Development Bill Monahan; Assistant Secretary Colleen Heard. 3. Minutes from November 15, 1983, were considered. Commissioner Edin moved to approve and Commissioner Fyre seconded to accept the minutes as submitted. The motion carried vote by unanimous o to of members P resent. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION o Present was Captain Kelly Jennings, and Sergeant Chuck Martin from the Police Department to present a report on Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. o Sergeant Chuck Martin discussed how crimes happen by saying that burglars use buffers and any form of shade area. This allows the burglar to get away easy with no one seeing the robbery taking place. Sergeant Martin also showed slides of different buffers that a burglar uses. He was saying that overgrown bikepaths, overgrown walkpaths, and houses that have a lot of bushes or that are fenced in are what the burglar is looking for when robbing a place or when wanting to rob you. He also handed out to all of the Commissioners a report on What is CPTED? COMMISSIONER OWENS ARRIVED AT 7:52 P.M. Vice President Moen asked if Staff had anything to bring to the Commissioners attention. o Director of Planning and Development Bill Monahan, brought to the Commissioners attention a letter received from Ryan O'Brian about the 135th Annexation Area. He would like to move the Neighborhood Commercial Area from the lower level to the upper level. The only reason Bill Monahan brought it to the Commissioners attention is because they would like the o.k. to put it on the January Agenda. Bill Monahan asked for a motion to put it on the agenda, and Commissioner Moen motioned and Commissioner Edin seconded. The vote was unanimous of the Commissioners present. 5. PUBLIC HEARING o Vice President Moen opened the public hearings by reading the procedures to be followed during the hearing. Planning Commission Minutes - December 6, 1983 1 PUBLIC TESTIMONY No one appeared to speak. CROSS EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL • Discussion followed regarding the need for the height of the sign to be 30 ft. • Commissioner Owens questioned if the picture showing the new sign had been done to scale. The applicant stated that it was. • Commissioner Edin questioned the ownership of the vacant land between the highway and the Motel. Mr Lee stated that the land was owned by the state and added to his visual problem. Further discussion followed. • Director of Planning and Development stated that staff would have no problem with a 22 to 30 ft. sign as long as the need is met with the minimum height necessary. Further discussion regarding height. • President Tepedino was concerned because the Commission had denied a similiar request for a Shell Service Station on Greenburg Road and 217. Discussion followed as to how that request was different. • Commissioner Butler asked the applicant if they had done precise measurements to assure that 30 ft. was the minimum they required. Bob Fulton, sign representative, stated they had used a fiberglass pole and tape measure to determine that they needed the 30 feet. • Further discussion followed regarding the size and height of the sign. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION • Commissioner Edin expressed his concern for approval. He felt it conflicted with the recommendation for denial of the next sign code exception on the agenda. • Commissioner Owens, Leverett and Moen favored the size and height of the sign proposed by the applicant. • Commissioner Fyre felt a 24' height might be sufficient. • Chairman Tepedino felt because of the safety issue the sign should be approved. • Commission Moen moved and Commissioner Owens seconded to approve Sign Code Exception SCE 3-83 with the following conditions. 1. The applicant shall remove the two existing signs. 2. The sign height shall not be greater than 30 feet. 3. Maximum area for the sign will be no more than 100 sq. ft. , with the major sign being no more than 90 sq. ft. . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 15, 1983 Page 2 1 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 5.1 Century 21 S 8-83 P.D. It was tabled from the last meeting, so Vice President Moen, asked staff to review the staff report again. Assistant Planner Steve Skorney reviewed the staff report to the Commissioners and Public. Associate Planner Skorney also reviewed the conclusions and the Planning Department findings. Staff recommended approval, with conditions of the applicant's ' request for conceptual and detailed planned development approval and preliminary plat approval of Phase I of S 8-83 PD. o NPO/CCI COMMENTS o Bob Bledsoe 11800 SW Walnut, NPO #3. He stated that the concern of the NPO was that the Development Code says a single family dwelling is one detached residence placed on one lot. He said that the NPO cannot understand why the Planning Department is approving this proposal. o Planning Director Bill Monahan, said the code concerning Planned Development speaks to the minimum land area per dwelling unit, irregardless of ownership patterns. o Vice President Moen, asked if the land is going to be common land or not? o Director Bill Monahan said that is what the applicant wanted. He also said that the applicant himself should speak. Applicants Presentation: Bob Miller, Century 21 Properties. He explained that what Century 21 Properties wanted is to put 43 units on 47.8 acres of land or they would even settle for 43 units on 9 acres of land. He also said that it would be o.k. if they only approved Phase I of the plan. He also mentioned that the "T" intersection presented to Larry Rice from the County and Frank Currie, Director of Public Works would be o.k. He also addressed the problem about how the Fire Department was to respond to a fire in that area. He said that they can come in on one of the roads that are roped off to get to the fire. He also commented on who was going to take care of the common land. He said that the Neighborhood Association, made up of the people who live there, would be responsible for it. o Commissioner Edin asked Bob Miller about concerns on policing the property. o Bob Miller said that the Home OWfi..6 will do their own policing around the area, but Century 21 is willing to let the City patrol the area even though it is private property. o Larry Rice, Washington County. He said that the County was in favor of the plan and they gave their o.k. to go ahead. Planning Commission Minutes - December 6, 1983 2 o Commissioner Edin asked Larry Rice if the "T" is good to have at the west end of the road. o Ralph Flowers 11700 SW Gaarde. He explained that his concern was if you let the development happen the traffic on Gaarde and 121st will became extra heavy and that the light on Gaarde and 99 is already a death trap and he said it will be worse if you put up a stop sign or improve the road. o Carl Landstrom 12000 SW Gaarde. He wanted to let the Commissioners know that his house is only 20 feet from the road and that he was afraid that the traffic will get worse than it is now. o Lou Ann Mortensen 11160 SW Fonner NPO #3 She asked Bob Miller if the Home Owners Association will have to file with the Oregon State Real Estate Board. She also asked what would happen if the Home Owners Association doesn't remain in existance. She was upset that Larry Rice left before any one could question him on what he commented on. o Bob Miller responded by saying that yes it will be filed with the Oregon State Real Estate Board. He responded to the second question by saying that the Home Owners Association will always exist if there are people living on the property. o Lou Ann Mortensen asked what is going to happen with the traffic on Pacific Highway. o Director Bill Monahan said that he and Frank Currie have discussed that problem and there will be no answer for at least a year or so. o Commissioner Butler asked if there will be three lanes of traffic and how will they go. o Assistant Planner Skorney said that 2 lanes will be travel lanes and 1 will be a turning lane. o Judy Fessler 11180 SW Fonner She asked if there will be a half-street improvement or a full street improvement on Gaarde? Will the right-of-way on Gaarde be upgraded? o Assistant Planner Skorney said that the only thing to be done is the sidewalks on the Park Place side. The right-of-way will be upgraded to the standerds on the Park Place side. Lengthly Discussion followed. o Betty McCain 13950 SW 121st Her concern was that if they put road improvements on Gaarde that it will only be 11 inches from her house. She also said that she has trouble already with the traffic, if the development is approved she will have more. Planning Commission Minutes - December 6, 1983 3 o Eldon. Hodapp 11460 S.W. Gaarde His concern was that if they widen Gaarde that the natural springs will be all messed up. He also was concerned that if an accident happened on Gaarde who will be the one to respond, the County or the City Police Department. Judy Hodapp 11460 SW Gaarde She wanted to explain that the traffic on Gaarde is already bad and if more is put onto it there will be more accidents than there are now. o Commissioner Edin said that he understands and that it will be considered. BREAK 9:45 P.M. CONVENED 9:50 P.M. CROSS EXAMINATION: o Bob Bledsoe 11800 S.W. Fonner NPO #3 He would like the County to agree to an alignment for the Gaarde St. extension that indirectly connects to the 121st and Gaarde intersection. He asked if there will be a continuous curb to Gaarde St. after the improvements are made. o Bob Miller Century 21 Properties He explained that there will be 25 ft. of street on 121st on the property owners side and only 20 ft. on the development side. He said that will be the same for Gaarde St. He also asked that the 200 street improvement be restricted because he doesn't think that it is fair now because the city has no idea at all what is being talked about. As the property is developed the developer will be placing storm drains and sewer drains. If they hit anyones spring they will find where it is and fix it. o Assistant Planner Steve Skorney told Bob Miller that the 200ft. improvement is standard for that kind of subdivision. o Lyall Turnball 11735 SW Gaarde Asked if Frank Currie said that there is anything to be done to the County side of Gaarde Street. o Bob Miller said that he did not remember that. o Mr. Turnball said no he was talking about street improvements. And then Mr. Currie said only if you have an LID. o Ted Dunfill 8895 SW Edgewood What he wanted to know was if they do street improvements to part of the street at a later date won't there have to be more work done to the other streets. Planning Commission Minutes - December 6, 1983 4 o Commissioner Edin answered his question by saying yes it does open the door for the other streets to be improved. o Betty McCain then. said that they will be violating both the City and County setback ordinances, and once those ordinances are violated who is going to buy the property. o Director Bill Monahan said that there is really no answer for that because it all depends where the house is located. The conflict is from the house to the right-of-way. He also said the problem isn't being created now, that it already exists. o Commissioner Edin asked Betty McCain if she heard the answer Mr. Miller gave about the natural springs and drains. o Betty McCain said that she understands, but she is not sure that what Mr. Miller is proposing will be the answer. o Commissioner Edin told her that no one there is an engineer and that they rely on staff and staff does not know. o Commissioner Moen had a question for the applicant. Who is going to do the maintenance on that street and how can the city be assured that it will be maintained properly? He also wanted to know how the police are going to control the parking on the one side of the street. o Bob Miller said the Home Owners Association will have the responsibility to maintain the property. He said that on a private drive no one else has to let the police on, but they are willing to work with staff and come up with an answer. o Commissioner Owens asked the applicant why he asked for a private road instead of public ones. o Bob Miller responded that it will take away from the land and the land itself is only 300 ft. wide. o Commissioner Owens asked if the project is approved tonight how will the applicant address the issue of the problem with the different number of units that the staff has put in the report. o Assistant Planner Skorney said that it was for a decision on Phase I not on the plat. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 10:35 P.M. o Commissioner Owens said that the road condition is a major issue but that is not what the Commission is approving. She also said to look at it another way the improvements will in the long run be safer than worse. She also said that traffic will increase on Gaarde regardless of what the Commission decides on this property. ' o Commissioner Butler said that he has never seen a maintenance overlay like this one before. He also was wondering why the Gaarde, Pacific Highway problem was not regarded in the plans. Also, he would like more on the drainage systems. Planning Commission Minutes - December 6, 1983 5 o Commissioner Edin would like it noted how he would like to see the staff report changed to conceptual detail review of Phase I only, not Phase II. He would like to have the City Council consider approving the private streets and enforce the parking. o Commissioner Edin said then the Commissions' hands are tied to do anything about the 70 ft. right-of-way. Do we or don't we have anything we can do about the right-of-way? o Director Bill Monahan said that no you can't do anything about it because the Commission can not violate the Urban Planning Area Agreement. o Commissioner Edin said that the location of the street is a really big problem. He said that putting the "T" in at 121st is not the most safe thing to do. He was thinking about putting the "T" in the other end of Phase I, maybe at the end of the street making cars either go left or right in Phase II. Commissioner Edin thinks this is the way Council and the neighbors would like it as it wouldn't be a straight away shot. o Commissioner Vanderwood would agree with Commissioner Edin about the street. She has some concerns about #5, she said that she has never seen anything like this before. She also said that 200 ft. improvement will increase traffic speed more than it is now. o Bob Miller said that with this condition he can see that people are going to speed up on the 400 ft. improvement and said that cars will drive faster than now. o Commissioner Frye major concern is with the traffic pattern, he doesn't like the cars having a straight shot on Gaarde. He also said that he does like the offset running into 121st. Having the "T" on the other side would be good. He said that maybe between 121st and 99 a stop sign could be put in. It is a lot of density for a zone that is single family. So he would not approve this unless it has an indirect connection. o Commissioner Leverett said item #5 show that we have an engineering problem and it has to be worked out and that the 200 ft. is not worded well. o Commissioner Moen comment was that we are here to talk about the development and we have done that, we have only talked about the street problems. He is in favor of staffs' recommendations and prefers the "T" to Gaarde. Two problems by putting a "T" on the top, one is not to put the "T" in without some input from engineering. The second one is that 121st is not good because he doesn't think the people would be very well served. He asked the applicant if they plan on having any parking around the development. o Bob Miller stated that they plan on having parking on one side and have enough room for a walkway on the right-of-way. o Commissioner Edin thinks putting private drives on this big of a development is wrong. Planning Commission Minutes - December 6, 1983 6 o Commissioner Owens would like to know what Commissioner Moens' feelings on density are. o Commissioner Moen said that we are not here to redesign the plan. o Commissioner Edin motioned to approve Conceptual Phase I with conditions. To add and correct staffs' conditions. The first addition would be Gaarde Street be extended as shown on the plans an additional 300 ft. northwest from where it deadends now. With other proposed streets to be constructed to make a "T" intersection at that spot. He left in item #5, because he would like to see that street improved. Commissioner Owens seconded the motion. The motion was denied with the vote 5 to 2. o Discussion followed regarding the density problem. o Commissioner Butler said that it is inappropriate for this density. Phase I could have been added only, not both Phase I and Phase II. o Commissioner Moen asked staff how much of the density transfer is in Phase I. o Director Bill Monahan said that about 5 units. o Discussion followed among the Commissioners and Staff. o Commissioner Butler motioned to deny development S 8-83. Commissioner Eyre seconded the motion. o Discussion about the motion followed. o Motion was approved by 4 to 3 vote. o Director Bill Monahan asked for the findings. Findings are: Incomplete and inaccurate information. Private Streets inappropriate. Deny transfer to Phase I was inapproriate without see the plats. 5.2 Sign Code Exception SCE 5-83 Chalet Restaurant and Bakery NPO #4 o Commissioner Moen, said that the applicant had to leave and that he would like it tabled until the next meeting. o Commissioner Fyre motion to have it tabled until January's meeting. Commissioner Owens seconded. Unanimous vote of Commissioners present. Planning Commission Minutes - December 6, 1983 7 6.3 NPO #6 Appointment Doug Vezina o Director Bill Monahan said that it was an appointment for NPO #6 and that he and Commissioner Vanderwood interviewed Mr. Vezina and recommended that his application be approved by the Planning Commission and be forwarded to the City Council. o NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Commissioner Owens made a motion that it be forward to City Council and Commissioner Vanderwood seconded. o Unanimous vote of Commissioners present. ADJOURNMENT 11:35 P.M. J. ss_stant Se! -tary, Colleen Heard Vice President, Moen (0243P) Planning Commission Minutes - December 6, 1983 8 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 1983 7:30 P.M. FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - LGI ROOM 10865 SW WALNUT STREET, TIGARD, OREGON PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 SUBDIVISION PLANNED DEVELOPMENT S 8-83 PD Century 21 Homes NPO #3 A request for a conceptual and detailed plan approval of a Planned Development, and preliminary plat approval. The property is designated Low Density Residential and is zoned R-7 PD. Located at: 13900 SW 121st Ave. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 3CC p Lot 401 and 2S1 4 Lot 1400). 5.2 SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 5-83 CHALET RESTAURANT & BAKERY A request for installation of a 100-square foot, per face, free- standing sign at 11680 SW Pacific Highway. 5-3 NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION APPOINTMENT FOR NPO #6 (EAN:pm/0229P) NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME • and note their address on this sheet. (Please Print your name) ITEM/bESCRIPTION: 14 / 4 lt L AJVHED DEVELO / e ' ` 8-63 Pp Ili A , A .../ PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation kid 5 "S f✓`f� r� /7-19 61 (G4� ,,� 1 ./�' f � .s' c > t Se.. � � GZ r,-/r' , .J �� 5 / i ,Q�ce Q ((70a5Gy / e ,. 0 c f.. C ( �. a;-t sZ / c 'l o ;1\4 J e L6C4C/ 9 5 /112 / `'�'Le. • • NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME and note their address on this sheet. (Please Print your name) ITEM/bESCRIPTION 5'• Z Si&s C4041‘ Foxe 4T144104 .�C.,6 S- 83 e dut#a .. y ?C11 4111111 44 PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation 1. `•: A /f l l /2' '' / 7 t i'' ,/_erg 7—' /AIL,. I I I ,. - NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME and note their address on this sheet. (Please Print your name) ITEM/bESCRIPTION jU�rl tv43go-tN4dici Ma ., 11111. PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation • W H A T• I S C P T ED ? CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN Prepared by: Insurance Information Institute 110 William Street New York, New York 10038 (212) 669-9200 • • - 1 - You may have heard about how color can affect mood. Armed with such insight, decorators of offices, hospitals and even homes create environments; if they can' t assure that we' ll feel bold, or happy, or tranquil or whatever, at least we get a boost in the right direction. Architects, engineers and even landscape and interior designers • also can play an important role in crime prevention. Neighborhoods h sical structures can be designed to inhibit with their individual g physical crime. How? By increasing the time it takes to commit crimes. By reducing the criminals ' avenues of escape. And in many other ways. The concept called, "Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design" or CPTED, is another way neighborhoods can help control ,their vulnerability to crime. In fact, CPTED uses design to create a stronger sense of, "This is my neighborhood; these are my neighbors; f this is- my space." Such neighborhood concern itself inhibits criminal activity. It encourages "self-policing. " When someone thinks of a space as his "territory, " he takes responsibility for it. He watches it. He takes care of it. He protects it. All this activity gives intruders a clear "stay out" signal. Good design also insures that public spaces, such as streets, elevators, parks and others, are kept in view of interested neighbors as they go about their everyday activity. • CPTED calls for site design that enhances natural surveillance and promotes the feeling that, "This is my territory. " The specifics of CPTED can get technical. So we've selected some common sense examples CPTED guidelines devised by architect Oscar Newman (originator of the "defensible space" concept) . - 2 - • Guidelines Explanation * Building height should be related to the primary users of the structure - e.g. walk-ups are ideal for families with children; high rise elevator buildings for working couples and the retired elderly. • All plantings should be trimmed so as to enhance visibility of landscaped . areas. •� These design elements enhance * Constructed barriers, in public are-as, such as opaque walls, natural surveillence -- the should be no higher than 3 feet. ability of those living or * Cars, when parked, should be working in, or just visiting visible from windows of buildings to which they an area to see what' s going on belong. around them while conducting * Play and sitting areas should be visible from the their personal business. buildings they serve. * Pedestrian pathways should 0 have no blind turns or corners. * Main building entrances • should face street. • Windows of most-used rooms, such as kitchens and dens should face the street. • Exteriors should be well lit with bulbs mounted at least 12 feet above the ground. * Assigned spaces should be Symbolic barriers both aid defined by symbolic barriers such as, low shrubs, changes natural surveillance and increase in texture or color, posts. the sense that, "This is my • territory. " 3 • * All spaces should be assigned to a building unit These features enhance or subdivision. the sense of territoriality. * Through traffic should be restricted in building sites. * Public streets should be This increases the sense of incorporated into building sites. neigborhood and opportunities for surveillance by passers-by. Applications CPTED 'has been extensively researched and applied in a variety of settings nationwide: public housing, commercial tracts, middle class neighborhoods, schools and mass transit. Out of these experiences, a number of instructive case studies have emerged. CPTED in a Commercial Settin• - Portland, Ore.on The Union Avenue corridor, a commercial strip 50 blocks long and 4 blocks wide, faced deterioration and an increase in crime during the late 1960 ' s and early 1970' s. Local business people felt that the .high crime rate was the greatest obstacle to the success of their businesses. In 1974 , the area was selected by the Westinghouse National Issues -Center to be the site of the CPTED demonstration project. The prevalent crimes were assault, robbery, purse-snatching and burglary. Some of the CPTED objectives were • - 4 - -- reduce opportunities for crime -- reduce fear of crime -- increase neighborhood identity -- make the area more accessible by • improving public transportation ' encourage citizens to report crime The CPTED redevelopment plan obtained $4 .5 million in city funds to construct a center strip, four-lane avenue with off-street parking. Portland' s bus authority built specially designed bus shelters featuring high visibility and good lighting. Security surveys were conducted and followed up with individual businesses. By 1977, 55% were in compliance with the recommendations. Crime on Union Avenue had declined by 61% . Existing businesses have been renovating their facilities and new businesses are moving to Union Avenue. CPTED is achieving its goals. CPTED in a Residential Setting - Hartford, Connecticut Between 1973 and 1976 , the Hartford neighborhood known as North Asylum Hill became an area in transition. It showed increases each year in burglary and robbery that ranged from 89% to 145%. Fear of crime rose sharply as well. Then, from 1976-1977 , those crime rates, • along with their attendant fear, dropped precipitously. Burglaries declined by 42% in 1977 , and robberies by nearly 28% . The 15 square • U block neighborhood began to turn around even though at the same time, it served as a major commuters ' route and sat close to the center of a deteriorating city. The catalyst was a defensible space project coordinated by the Y P P � by Hartford Institute for Criminal and Social Justice under a Federal • grant. The project had many elements. The most controversial was proposed street changes. Streets were narrowed and blocked in order to cut down traffic, make them less accessible to burglars, and limit - _ J escape routes. Here' s how that was done: attractive redwood planters filled with shrubs and trees defined cul-de-sacs. Residents' yards were fenced in. The final modifications, amounting to about $100 per house, narrowed six streets, changed seven to cul-de-sacs, and ■ re-routed traffic on two. The purpose of the changes was to better define the neighborhood' s boundaries and increase opportunities for neighbors to know each other by making more use of yards, sidewalks and parks. This would in turn increase their surveillance of the area and thereby reduce crime. As a result, streets have become quieter and safer for children, the parks enjoy more use, and prostitutes have been driven from the center of the neighborhood. (For one thing, it' s now difficult for men looking for a pick-up to cruise the area without attracting attention. ) More importantly, neighbors are now more likely than • before to have routine arrangements for watching each other' s homes. There are caveats, however, At least at first, merchants were afraid the new street arrangements would cut down access to their ■ 6 - stores. By 1979 , the initial opposition had shifted. Most merchants accepted the changes. The fact that the changes are still there bears that out. The merchants were in a position to kill the project. Merchants had overestimated business losses. The researchers could not separate the impact of the recession from the defensible space project. Police were concerned that the area would be more difficult to patrol. This turned out to be a non-issue. The streets were designed so that any emergency vehicle could freely pass. Anyone contemplating similar design changes should be prepared to address these concerns. OPTED in a Mixed Use Area - Denver, Colorado The Capitol Hill section of Denver includes only 2% of the city' s land area and 8% of its residents. But, at one time it accounted for 25% of its rapes, 21% of its robberies, and high percentages of other crimes. The area had earlier been lit only by street lamps located at the corners of 600 foot long blocks . What little light they gave off was diffused by tall trees lining the sidewalks. Very pretty, but very dangerous for the many people who used the area at night. Denver' s CPTED project focused on enhanced lighting for the area. It placed 30 foot lights at mid-block and on corners. The large ' concentration of older people and young, mobile residents living on Capitol Hill felt safer. Some even reported going out more at night. The most dramatic result, however, was the decrease in violent crime. The additional light afforded greater potential for surveillance, making possible another crime prevention measure: a new motorcycle police patrol. - 7 - While there is no clear relationship between street lighting and the actual incidence of crime, there is a clear connection between better lighting and feelings of safety. When people feel safer, they use the streets more. When streets are used more by peaceable residents, they're used less by predatory criminals. Policy Options CPTED is a crime prevention strategy that does not rely for its effectiveness on expensive expansions of criminal justice operations. However, like those programs, it is part of a mosaic that contributes to a safe environment. The implementation of defensible space projects should be preceded by consultation with, and consensus among: urban planners, neighborhood residents and merchants, elected officials, law • enforcement personnel, behavioral scientists, architects, real estate interests.. Special attention should be paid to fire services, which will have "competing" requirements. The intersts of crime prevention, in limiting entry and exit from structures, and inhibiting the free flow of vehicular traffic, run counter to fire safety principles. (Research is needed to learn how best to blend the safety priorities of crime prevention and fire safety. ) (For real estate brokers, the defensible space concept should be of special interest. It' s a great selling point for property! ) Specific strategies should be directed at specific crime targets in specific neighborhoods. Perhaps a school requires less after-hours light to divert vandals, while an isolated store needs more traffic to 8 increase the number of "eyes on the street. " Mass transit systems can contribute better visibility in waiting areas, while banks can contribute mechanisms for reducing the need to carry cash. Insurance companies and loan associations can provide incentives for their clients to better secure their homes. In short, CPTED is, a team effort that is not dependent on any one group of experts. It is augmented and supported by many diverse sectors of a city's life. • • • • { • - 9 Bibliograpi Dennis Dingemans, et. al. Defensible Space in Suburban Townhouse -Design. (Davis, CA: Institute of Governmental Affairs Research Report No. 33) , 1976 Richard Gardner. Design for Safe Neighborhood (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office) , 1978 Brian Hollander. Reducing • Residential Crime and Fear -- The Hartford, Neighborhood Crime Prevention Program (Hartford, Conn: Hartford Institute of Criminal & Social Justice) , 1980 Jane Jacobs. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. (New York: Vintage Books) , 1961 *T.R. Kohn & S.S. Hoover. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (Arlington, VA: Westinghouse National Issues Center) , 1978 *Nations Cities. Special Report. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (Washington, DC: National. League of Cities) , Dec. 1977 t Oscar Newman. Defensible Space (New York: Collin Books) , 1973 & Steven Johnston. Model Security Code for Residential Areas (853 Broadway, NY, NY 10003 : Institute for Community Design Analysis) , 1974 Design Guidelines for Creating Defensible Space (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office) , 1976 Community of Interest (New York: . Anchor Books) , 1981 Factors Influencing Crime and Instability in Urban Housing Development (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office) , 1980 • * Items marked with an asterisk are for reader' s with limited time who wish a quick overview of CPTED techniques. • • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff .4L DATE: December 6, 1983 SUBJECT: Park Place S 8-83 PD At the Planning Commission meeting of November 15, 1983, the request of Century 21 Properties Inc. for approval of the Park Place development was postponed to allow the applicant to meet with the City, County and affected property owners to resolve the Gaarde Street extension issue. A meeting was held on Wednesday, November 23, at 9:00 A.M. at City Hall. In attendance were Tigard Planning Director William Monahan, Tigard Public Works Director Frank Currie, Washington County Public Works Director Larry Rice, support staff from the City and County, NPO #3 representative Bob Bledsoe, CPO #4 representative Beverly Froude, property owners Althea Rodde and Gordon Moore, and Century 21 Properties Engineer Robert Miller. It was agreed that SW Gaarde Street would be extended to the northwest corner of Phase I of the Park Place development. Gaarde Street would not encroach more than five feet onto Althea Rodde's property. Larry Rice stated that Gaarde Street would not be a major thoroughfare. Gaarde Street will be built to collector street standards. This will mean two travel lanes and one center turn lane. Traffic speed is a maximum 35 mph. Rice said that the County does not currently have a program to pay for the Gaarde Street extension into the County. If surrounding property owners wish to develop and need to extend Gaarde Street to gain access, they will have to pay for the extension. Rice concluded that the County is concerned with the future residential use in that area and must supply a road to handle the projected housing density. The City and County agreed that Gaarde Street is not the Murray Road extension. Frank Currie said that the agreed upon alignment is in accordance with the City's transportation plan which suggests a series of indirect minor collector connections between Murray Boulevard and Gaarde Street. A follow-up Town Hall meeting was held on Monday, November 28th, at 7:30 P.M. at Fowler Junior High School. Robert Miller explained the new alignment for the Gaarde Street extension. In attendance were Frank Currie, Bill Monahan, and Steve Skorney from the City and approximately 25 property owners from the Bull Mountain and Gaarde Street neighborhoods. After the conclusion of the Town Hall meeting, Planning Commissioner Phil Edin requested that Miller design an alternative alignment for the Gaarde Street extension. This alternative would not connect at the intersection of SW 121st and Gaarde, but would follow the northerly boundary of the proposed project and form a "T" intersection at SW 121st. This alternative is for discussion purposes only. The Commissioners are reminded that the Planning staff is recommending approval of the previously submitted Park Place project with the street alignment that was agreed upon at the November 23rd meeting. SS:lw/0236P STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5.1 DECEMBER 6, 1983 7:30 P.M. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL LECTURE ROOM 10865 SW WALNUT STREET, TIGARD, OREGON A. FINDING OF FACT 1. General Information CASE: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT S 8-83 PD (Park Place) NPO #3 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting conceptual and detailed plan approval of a planned development and preliminary plat approval of Phase I, consisting of 43 units. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-7 (PD) RECOMMENDATION: Based on information submitted by the applicant, staff's review of applicable Comprehensive Plan policies, zoning code provisions, and field investigation, staff recommends approval of S 8-83 PD, subject to the conditions listed in this staff report. APPLICANT: Century 21 Homes Inc. OWNER: Same 7412 SW Beaverton-Hillsdale Hwy. Portland, Oregon 97225 LOCATION: 13900 SW 121st Avenue (Wash Co. Tax Map 2S1 3CC, Tax Lot 401 and 2S1 4 Tax Lot 1400). LOT AREA: 47.81 Acres NPO COMMENT: NPO #3 has responded in writing to this application request. PUBLIC NOTICES MAILED: Seventeen notices were mailed. One written comment has been received at the writing of this report. 2. Background No previous actions on this property. 3. Vicinity Information The surrounding land uses are as follows: To the north is designated low density residential, unincorporated and undeveloped at the present time. To the south is designated low density residential, zoned R-20 and undeveloped at the present time. To the east is designated low density residential, unincorporated and developed as single family residences. To the west is unincorporated land which is outside of the City's urban growth boundary. 4. Site Information Slopes on the site are generally oriented east to northeast, with some interruptions due to stream dissection. The slope range is from 5 to over 25%, the steepest areas occurring along the two stream incisions. For the purposes of this analysis, the slopes are divided into 5 categories: 0-10% 9.5 acres, 10-15% 10.5 acres, 15-20% 13.5 acres, 20-25% 9.5 acres, and over 25% 5 acres. The degree of difficulty, cost, and risk of development rises proportionately as the slopes increase over about 15%. Soils on the site appear to be silts and clayey silts of moderate to poor drainage. Depth to bedrock is undetermined, but it is probably near the surface in the higher portion of the site, while fairly deep in the lower areas. There is evidence of soil creep, stream undercutting of slopes, and small surface landslides on the property. These occurrences are not uncommon in this type of terrain, but nevertheless should be investigated carefully before development occurs. Potential problems observed in the field are evidenced by: leaning and bent trees, erosion of the base of the ravines, broken, warped topography, and escarpments where some shallow slides probably occurred. While the upper portions of the slopes, ridges and terraces appear to be safe for development, the lower slopes and drainages should be investigated further if any changes are done to these areas. Specifically, steep road cuts, removal of vegetation and increased storm water flows into the ravines could create future problems, which can be avoided by undertaking a more detailed geologic investigation at the appropriate time. Surface drainage is directed into two large ravines, both of which originate uphill of the land being considered. The first of these occurs in the extreme western portion of the site. Direction of the drainage is to the east. Consequently, a deep ravine creates a formidable divide between the northwest and southwest portions of the property. This ravine merges with the second drainageway, and even deeper and larger ravine that orients northerly and effectively divides the entire property into east and west halves. This second drainage appears to be spring fed from further up on Bull Mountain, and may be perennial. A long, broad ridgeline parallels the larger ravine, causing surface drainage in much of the eastern portion of the property to move east-northeast. Other land forms on the site include a small, sloping terrace in the northeast quadrant, a surface depression created by a man-made STAFF REPORT - S 8-83 PD - PAGE 2 excavation and dam along the large ravine, and a second, larger terrace in the southeast quadrant. In summary, th east facing slopes and ravines are the most significant topographic features of the site. Vegetation growth on the site varies considerably. First, the southeast portion of the site is primarily a meadow with scattered trees, including filbert, hickory, fir and cedar. Generally this area has an open character. Adjacent to this area to the west is an old, neglected filbert orchard. To the north of the orchard is a pasture area, open except for another, smaller orchard and a stand of large, handsome douglas fir. To the west, a dense woodland of Western Chinkapin, Red Alder, Bigleaf Maple, Douglas Fir, Cherry, and Cedar stretches south to north along both sides of the large ravine, and up slope into the southwest quadrant of the site. These trees are important in that they divide the site visually in half, in addition to their value in stabilizing the steep slopes along the ravine. The northwest portion of the property is a large meadow, with a few scattered trees. It is surrounded by woods on all sides, although the woods immediately to the west (off the subject property) are more brush than forest. B. APPLICABLE PLANNING POLICIES 1. Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1 THE CITY SHALL MAINTAIN AN ONGOING CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM AND SHALL ASSURE THAT CITIZENS WILL BE PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE INVOLVED IN ALL PHASES OF THE PLANNING PROCESS. Notices are sent to all property owners within 250 feet of this application. A notice was published in the Tigard Times on November 3, 1983. NPO #3 was notified of this application. 2.1.3 THE CITY SHALL ENSURE THAT INFORMATION ON LAND USE PLANNING ISSUES IS AVAILABLE IN AN UNDERSTANDABLE FORM FOR ALL INTERESTED CITIZENS. All interested parties are given, at a minimum, 10 days to respond in writing to the application and request under consideration and are encouraged to do so. The Planning staff is available to address any specific questions concerning the application or the application process. 3.1.1 THE CITY SHALL NOT ALLOW DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS HAVING THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS EXCEPT WHERE IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT ESTABLISHED AND PROVEN ENGINEERING TECHNIQUES RELATED TO A SPECIFIC SITE PLAN WILL MAKE THE AREA SUITABLE FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: STAFF REPORT - S 8-83 PD - PAGE 3 a. AREAS HAVING A HIGH SEASONAL WATER TABLE WITHIN 0-24 INCHES OF THE SURFACE FOR THREE OR MORE WEEKS OF THE YEAR; b. AREAS HAVING A SEVERE SOIL EROSION POTENTIAL; c. AREAS SUBJECT TO SLUMPING, EARTH SLIDES OR MOVEMENT; d. AREAS HAVING SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 25%; OR e. AREAS HAVING SEVERE WEAK FOUNDATION SOILS. 6.1.1 THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR DIVERSITY OF HOUSING DENSITIES AND RESIDENTIAL TYPES AT VARIOUS PRICE AND RENT LEVELS. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 3. The Tigard Community Development Code, through the Planned Development process, shall establish a procedure to allow • properties exhibiting physical constraint characteristics, e.g. , steep slopes or floodplains, to develop with density transfers allowable on the site. No more than 25% of the dwellings may be transferred. 5. The City shall encourage housing development to occur, to the greatest extent possible, on designated buildable lands in areas where public facilities and services can be readily extended to those lands. 6.4.1 THE CITY SHALL DESIGNATE RESIDENTIAL "DEVELOPING AREAS," (WHICH ARE NOT DESIGNATED AS "ESTABLISHED AREAS") ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP, AND ENCOURAGE FLEXIBLE AND EFFICIENT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THESE AREAS. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 3. Within the Planned Development section of the Tigard Community Development Code: a. Development will be prohibited on lands not classified as developable as defined in OAR 660-07-140; b. Twenty-five percent of the number of units which could be accommodated on the undevelopable land may be transferred and placed on the developable land; however c. The transfer of the density shall be limited by 125% of the top of the range of the residential plan classification on the developable portions of the site. 4. The Tigard Community Development Code shall also provide for a Planned Development process which encourages innovative design, more efficient use of land, energy efficiency and more flexible development standards. STAFF REPORT - S 8-83 PD - PAGE 4 7.1.2 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE AS A PRE-CONDITION TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL THAT: a. DEVELOPMENT COINCIDE WITH THE AVAILABILITY OF ADEQUATE SERVICE CAPACITY INCLUDING: 1. PUBLIC WATER; 2. PUBLIC SEWER (NEW DEVELOPMENT ON SEPTIC TANKS SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE CITY); AND 3. STORM DRAINAGE. b. THE FACILITIES ARE: 1. CAPABLE OF ADEQUATELY SERVING ALL INTERVENING PROPERTIES AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT; AND 2. DESIGNED TO CITY STANDARDS. c. ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES TO BE PLACED UNDERGROUND. 7.2.1 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE AS A PRE-CONDITION TO DEVELOPMENT THAT: a. A SITE DEVELOPMENT STUDY BE SUBMITTED FOR DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS SUBJECT TO POOR DRAINAGE, GROUND INSTABILITY OR FLOODING WHICH SHOWS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS SAFE AND WILL NOT CREATE ADVERSE OFFSITE IMPACTS; b. NATURAL DRAINAGE WAYS BE MAINTAINED UNLESS SUBMITTED STUDIES SHOW THAT ALTERNATIVE DRAINAGE SOLUTIONS CAN SOLVE ON-SITE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS AND WILL ASSURE NO ADVERSE OFFSITE IMPACTS; c. ALL DRAINAGE CAN BE HANDLED ON-SITE OR THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION WHICH WILL NOT INCREASE OFFSITE IMPACT; d. THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION AS ESTABLISHED BY THE 1981 FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY CONDUCTED BY THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS BE PROTECTED; AND e. EROSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES BE INCLUDED AS A PART OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. 7.4.4 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE THAT ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT BE CONNECTED TO A SANITARY SEWER SERVICE. 7.6.1 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE AS A PRE-CONDITION TO DEVELOPMENT THAT: a. THE DEVELOPMENT BE SERVED BY A WATER SYSTEM HAVING ADEQUATE WATER PRESSURE FOR FIRE PROTECTION PURPOSES; b. THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL NOT REDUCE THE WATER PRESSURE IN THE AREA BELOW A LEVEL ADEQUATE FOR FIRE PROTECTION PURPOSES; AND c. THE APPLICABLE FIRE DISTRICT REVIEW OF ALL APPLICATIONS. STAFF REPORT - S 8-83 PD PAGE 5 8.1.3 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE AS A PRE-CONDITION TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL THAT: a. DEVELOPMENT ABUT A PUBLICLY DEDICATED STREET OR HAVE ADEQUATE ACCESS APPROVED BY THE APPROPRIATE APPROVAL AUTHORTTY b. STREET RIGHT-OF--WAY BE DEDICATED WHERE THE STREET IS SUBSTANDARD IN WIDTH; c. THE DEVELOPER COMMIT TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STREETS, CURBS AND SIDEWALKS TO THE CITY STANDARDS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT; d. INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPERS PARTICIPATE IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF EXISTING STREETS, CURBS AND SIDEWALKS TO THE EXTENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT'S IMPACTS; e- STREET IMPROVEMENTS BE MADE AND STREET SIGNS OR SIGNALS BE PROVIDED WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT IS FOUND TO CREATE OR INTENSIFY A TRAFFIC HAZARD. f. TRANSIT STOPS, BUS TURNOUT LANES AND SHELTERS BE PROVIDED WHEN THE PROPOSED USE IS OF A TYPE WHICH GENERATES TRANSIT RIDERSHIP; g. PARKING SPACES BE SET ASIDE AND MARKED FOR CARS OPERATED BY DISABLED PERSONS AND THAT THE SPACES BE LOCATED AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO THE ENTRANCE DESIGNED FOR DISABLED PERSONS; AND h. LAND BE DEDICATED TO IMPLEMENT THE BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADOPTED PLAN. 11.3.1 THE CITY SHALL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING WHEN PREPARING STREET IMPROVEMENTS PLANS THAT AFFECT SW 121ST AVENUE OR GAARDE STREET. a. THE IMPACT ON THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AND THE ALTERNATIVES WHICH HAVE THE MINIMUM ADVERSE EFFECT IN TERMS OF: 1. REDUCING THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE DWELLING AND THE STREET; AND 2. NOISE IMPACTS. • b. THE EFFECT THE IMPROVEMENT WILL HAVE ON THE TRAFFIC FLOW AND THE POSSIBLE NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON OTHER STREET INTERSECTIONS. c. MINIMIZING THE USE OF THESE STREETS AS PART OF THE ARTERIAL SYSTEM FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC. STAFF REPORT S 8-83 PD PAGE 6 11.3.2 THE CITY OF TIGARD SHALL WORK WITH OTHER GOVERNMENTAL BODIES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ARTERIAL ROUTE CONNECTION FROM MURRAY BOULEVARD OR SCROLLS FERRY ROAD TO PACIFIC HIGHWAY. THIS ARTERIAL ROUTE SHOULD BE LOCATED WEST OF BULL MOUNTAIN, AND SHOULD NOT UTILIZE ROADS WHICH PASS 'THROUGH EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AREAS WITHIN TIGARD. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 1. SW Gaarde Street and SW 121st Avenue (between Gaarde and Walnut) shall develop as two-land roads with pedestrian-bicycle paths, restricted parking and left turning lanes as needed at congested intersections. 2. The undeveloped land along SW 121st Avenue (south of Walnut) shall be planned for development in accordance with the locational criteria policies that apply to locating medium and higher densities close to arterials and in accordance with the policies for "Established" and "Developing" areas. 3. The Tigard Community Development Code shall require site development review for any development other than a single or two family structure. The site development review shall include review of street right-of-way and pavement location. C. TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE. 18.56.010 Purpose. The purpose of the planned development district is to allow the Planning Commission and the City Council the opportunity to review large and complex developments within this community. This designation is used to protect sensitive land areas, ensure reasonable conformance to the standards established in the underlying zones, address major transportation difficulties and allow a degree of flexibility not usually associated with development. In most cases where sensitive lands, open space, or park areas are included within a development, that development, whether commercial, industrial, or residential, shall be reviewed as a planned development district. This designation may be applied to both permitted uses and conditional uses in all zones. (Ord. 80-94 Section 1 (part), 1980). 18.56.021 Conceptual review. (a) The Planning Commission shall review the conceptual development plan and report and may act to grant conceptual approval, approval with conditions or modifications, or denial. Such action shall be based on the Comprehensive Plan, the standards of this title, and other regulations, and the suitability of the proposed development in relation to the existing character of the area. (b) Approval in principle of the conceptual development plan and report shall be limited to the conceptual acceptability of the land uses proposed and their interrelationships, and shall not be construed to endorse precise location of uses or engineering feasibility. The Planning Commission may require the development of other information STAFF REPORT - S 8-83 PD - PAGE 7 ' y than that specified in Section 18.56.030 to be submitted with the general development plan and report. However, the applicant should be as specific as possible concerning such issues as floodplain use, traffic circulation patterns, and density calculations, etc. The more accurate the proposal, the easier it will be for the Planning Commission to render a decision. In many cases, the conceptual and detailed development plan review process can be accomplished at hearing. (c) No appeal of a denial of a conceptual development plan and report shall be allowed. The intent of the conceptual review is to ascertain staff, Planning Commission, and affected citizens' concerns relative to a particular project. The applicant's responsibility is to address these concerns prior to a rehearing of the conceptual development plan before the Planning Commission. (Ord. 80-94 Section 1 (part), 1980). 18.56.030 Detailed development plan and report. (a) Upon receipt of an application for a detailed plan and report review, the payment of the appropriate fee, and the submission of all appropriate supporting documents, the Planning Director shall initiate a review of the detailed plan and report. Particular attention shall be paid to the issues developed as a result of the conceptual development plan and report review. If significant differences arise, the Planning Director may schedule study sessions with the Planning Commission and the applicant to resolve the issues prior to a public hearing. Thereafter, if the Planning Director of Planning Commission agree, the applicant shall proceed to a detailed plan hearing. (b) The detailed development plan and report shall consist of final plans showing the project as it will be constructed. All material which accompanied the conceptual development plan and report shall be updated to reflect the conditions, concerns, and changes brought about by the preliminary review approval. All deviations or variances from the standards prescribed by this title in and in particular, in specific terms, all deviations or variances from the standards and specifications and requirements of Title 17 of this code, which are being proposed to be varied from, shall be addressed in writing with a showing that the public health, safety and welfare will be best served by such proposal. (Ord. 81-19 Section 1 (part), 1981; Ord. 80-94 Section 1 (part), 1980.) D. CONCLUSIONS 1. Staff Comments There are approximately 47.81 total acres on the site; of which 42.81 acres are buildable and 5 acres are unbuildable (slopes in excess of 25%). The buildable land will allow 193 dwelling units, 43 in Phase I and 150 in Phase II. Twenty-five percent of the number of units which could be accommodated on the undevelopable land may be transferred and placed on the developable land, not to exceed 125% of the allowed density on the developable portions of the site. A density transfer of 5 units can occur. With the density transfer the entire project can accommodate 198 dwelling units. STAFF REPORT - S 8-83 PD PAGE 8 Y M The applicant proposes 215 units for the site and identifies no sensitive land forms within the project no slopes over 25%. There are no steep slopes in Phase I but Phase II has more slopes over 25% than any similar size area in the City of Tigard. The extent and location of steep sloped areas needs to be confirmed by a registered engineer, when applying for preliminary plat approval of Stage II. The application specifies attached units in Phase II. Attached dwelling units are allowed only as a conditional use in an R-7 zone. The Public Works Department reviewed the project and finds the sanitary sewer and storm drainage plan acceptable. However, the Department found the public street plan for the site not designed to City standards. 121st Avenue should be designed for 60 feet of right-of-way and 44 feet of pavement. Also, no provisions were made for bicycle paths on the extension of Gaarde Street. The Public Works Department found the V-notch private streets inadequately designed. They would like to see the load design of the private streets engineered to City standards. The dwelling units within Phase I will be served primarily by the private loop streets. There will be accesses onto the loops from public streets. The loop streets will be one-way with parking only allowed on one side of the street. The Tigard Police will only go onto the private streets to answer a call. The City Council would have to adopt an ordinance allowing the police to enter private streets to issue traffic/parking citiations. The Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District has reviewed the project and approves of the development with conditions which have been made a part of staff's recommendation. F. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of S 8-83 PD with the following conditions: 1. Seven (7) sets of plan-profile public improvement construction plans and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by a registered civil engineer, detailing all proposed public improvements shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Division for review. 2. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Division has issued approved public improvement plans. The Engineering Division will require posting of a 100% performance bond, the payment of a permit fee and a sign installation/streetlight deposit. Also, the execution of a street opening permit or construction compliance agreement just prior to, or at the time of, its issuance of approved public improvement plans. 3. The final subdivision plat shall be recorded with Washington County prior to the issuance of any Building Permits. STAFF REPORT - S 8-83 PD - PAGE 9 o- 4. No changes or modifications shall be made to approved plans without written approval from the appropriate City department. 5. The applicant must improve the existing right-of-way 200' north and east of the intersection of SW 121st and Gaarde to City interim standards. 6. Half street improvements shall be made to SW 121st Avenue where it fronts the applicant's project. 7. All on-site streets, curbs, and sidewalks shall be constructed to City standards. 8. If the 24 foot wide private streets are made one-way, parking will only be allowed on one side of the street. 9. Hydrants are to be located at the intersection of Questor and Gaarde and at the intersections of Gaarde and the private streets. (Hydrants shall be approved by the Tigard Water District). 10. The applicant must provide bicycle lanes on the Gaarde Street extension within the project boundaries. 11. Phase II of the project, when submitted for Preliminary Plat Approval, must include a School Impact Statement that has been reviewed by the appropriate school district official. 12. An additional five feet of set back plus the required twenty feet must be maintained on either side of the Gaarde Street extension. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Should the Planning Commission adopt staff's recommendation, the following motion may be made: "Move to approve, with conditions, the applicant's request for conceptual and detailed planned development approval and preliminary plat approval of Phase I of S 8-83 PD. " PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY: Steve Skorney, Wi ism A. nahan, Assistant Planner Director of Planning & Development SS:lw/0235P STAFF REPORT - S 8-83 PD - PAGE 10 ell''' - iI 1 ' it ' 1 1;-' y q 11 r. a (' A - t _. 3 i I� so d 7 f. 't. y 0 4. , � , i .../ / 4r-_.ter \ j " ` L � � f i r I < ------,---, z , r N.s34i M r a` _ _ , _. _ P ARK PLACE P s 1 24n s t , 24'! r-f`�1 1 =—T_.. i ; LL77 \29 - 19 1 I . j ?I, F t .. I ! S' t , -_ 1 t i •,. t),II I 1011e) 118 '- � x 1 �` i Q Q �' rS_Gn9 4-",,,-...,..5.....?, _ - = AARD� F 0 LI 1' i m E P >. x AGENDA ITEM 5.1 MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT --- SUBJECT: SIGN; CODE EXCEPTION SCE 5-83 Chalet Restaurant and Bakery Attached is a staff report concerning a request for a Sign Code Exception to allow Ramsey Sign, Inc. to install a 100 square foot free-standing sign (to replace an existing 171 square foot sign) at the Chalet Restaurant and Bakery, 11680 SW Pacific Highway. This item was to be heard at the December 6, 1983 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant requested that it be held over to a date certain. Since the December hearing, the applicant contacted the Planning Department and asked to be heard at the January 3, 1984 Planning Commission Meeting. SK:dmj • (0251P) C STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5.2 December 6, 1983 - 7:30 P.M. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - LGI ROOM 10865 S.W. WALNUT, TIGARD, OREGON A. FINDING OF FACT 1. General Information CASE: Sign Code Exception SCE 5-83 NPO #4 REQUEST: For a Sign Code Exception to allow installation of a 100 square foot per face free-standing sign (to replace an existing 9' x 19' sign). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONING DESIGNATION: C-G RECOMMENDATION: Based on information submitted by the applicant, staff's review of applicable municipal code provisions, and field investigation, staff recommends denial of SCE 5-83. APPLICANT: Ramsy Signs, Inc. OWNER: Chalet Restaurant & Bakery 4835 NE Pacific 11680 SW Pacific Hwy. Portland, OR 97213 Tigard, OR 97201 LOCATION: 11680 SW Pacific Highway NPO COMMENT: NPO #4 has not responded in writing to this application request. _: 2. Background There is no record on the existing sign in the City's Building Department. B. STAFF ANALYSIS AND REVIEW The Tigard Municipal Code allows for exception to the sign code as follows: 18 114.140 Exceptions A. The Commission or, on review, the Council may grant exceptions to the requirements of this Chapter, when the applicant demonstrates that, owing to special or unusual circumstances relating to the design, structure, or placement of the sign in relation to other l structures or land uses or the natural features of the land, the literal interpretation of this Chapter would interfere with the communicative function of the sign without corresponding public benefit. 18.114.130 Zonin: District Re:ulations C. Commercial Zones. No sign shall be permitted in a C-G and CBD except for the following: 1. Free-standing signs. a. Free-standing signs shall have certain limitations and conditions when permitted on properties zoned commercial and industrial. 1) One multifaced, free-standing sign identifying the principal goods, products, facilities or services available on the premises, shall be permitted on the premises, subject to conditions and limitations as stated herein. 2) A readerboard assembly may be an integral part of the free-standing sign. b. Area Limits. The maximum square footage of signs shall be 70 square feet per face or a total of 140 square feet for all sign faces. No part of any free-standing sign shall extend over a property line into public right-of-way space. c. Area Limit Increases. The sign area may be increased one square foot for each lineal foot the sign is moved back from the front property line the sign is adjacent to. If the street is curbed and paved the measurement may be taken from a point which is 15 feet from the pavement. This increase in sign area is limited to a maximum of 9U. s,quare, feet per face ,or,_,a,,,-total, of 180 square feet for all faces. d. Height Limits. Free-standing signs located next to the public right-of-way shall not exceed 20 feet in N height. Height may be increased one foot in height for each 10 feet of setback from the property line or a point 15 feet from the edge of pavement whichever is less to a maximum of 22 feet in height. C. STAFF COMMENTS The exceptions from the sign- code regulations for the proposed sign are: height and total sign area. PAGE 2 - STAFF REPORT - SCE 5-83 r The Chalet Restaurant sign is currently 40 feet in height. This is 18 feet over the maximum allowable height for a free-standing sign in a C-G zone located next to a public right-of-way. The applicant would like to replace the existing sign with a sign 24' 2" in height. The proposed sign is in excess of the maximum allowable height of 22 feet. Total area of the proposed sign is 200 square feet which is 20 square feet in excess of the maximum allowable total area of 180 square feet. The applicant has not provided reasonable justification for a sign code exception. Based on a field investigation, staff suggests that if the proposed sign is permitted, the maximum height and total area should be 22 feet and 180 square feet respectively. This height would allow visibility for traffic from either direction. The Planning _Commission, should_also weigh the ^benefits''to the"community when allowing the additional sign against the effect on the intent of the S-ign Code provisions. Staff feels that the proposed sign adversely affects the intent and purpose of the Sign Code provisions set forth in Tigard's Community Development Code. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of SCE 5-83. However, the location of proposed sign P P as shown g on the plan submitted muted by the applicant justifies that the applicant be allowed maximum height and total area which are 22 feet and 180 square feet respectively (sign is proposed to be installed about 20 feet back from the public right-of-way). 1 PREPARED BY: S. €iamid Pishva a /2 (/ APPR.VED B : William A. Monahan Assistant Planner Director of Planning Development (SHP:pm/0233P) PAGE 3 - STAFF REPORT - SCE 5-83 o Commissioner Owens would like to know what Commissioner Moens' feelings on density are. o Commissioner Moen said that we are not here to redesign the plan. o Commissioner Edin motioned to approve Conceptual Phase I with conditions. To add and correct staffs' conditions. The first addition would be Gaarde Street be extended as shown on the plans an additional 300 ft. northwest from where it deadends now. With other proposed streets to be constructed to make a "T" intersection at that spot. He left in item #5, because he would like to see that street improved. Commissioner Owens seconded the motion. The motion was denied with the vote 5 to 2. `� o Discussion followed regarding the density problem. o Commissioner Butler said that it is inappropriate for this density. Phase I could have been added only, not both Phase Land Phase II. o Commissioner Moen asked staff how much of the density transfer is in Phase I. o Director Bill Monahan said that about 5 units. o Discussion followed among the Commissioners and Staff. o Commissioner Butler motioned to deny development S 8-83. Commissioner Fyre seconded the motion. o Discussion about the motion. followed. o Motion was denied by 4 to 3 vote. o Director Bill Monahan asked for the findings. Findings are: Incomplete and inaccurate information. Private, StreetLY inappropriate. ~' �Y Deny-transfer to Phase I was-inapproriate without see-the plats. 6.2 Sign Code Exception SCE 5-83 Chalet Restaurant and Bakery NPO #4 o Commissioner Moen, said that the applicant had to leave and that he would like it tabled until the next meeting. o Commissioner Fyre motion to have it tabled until January's meeting. Commissioner Owens seconded. Unanimous vote of Commissioners present. Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 1983 7 j. //6 ro cif IC "'way / yeti fr •sc .)pf 40 CZ1 CHALET R f I)/if NT 1 . . • . • • A ' •I'•■ , . C D - . ,• ' .., . . . . , • ...... • ( • . . •:‘',6:.f,-',.- . .• . . , . :.- .•,... ....,, :. .....- ' ..,.. '-- , ,.. .., .-,- 0,4.■; „, ••, .: 61:•;'11 ''-%1'..1';';',-•.4..:.--'-"1-r.:4''''-•'.;'..:44;t.t.ts'Ost-0-.!.../1 •:l'"'t. • - • • '• • '6.' . .:••:-.1.,: '...-.,2',..!•-•:. 'L.'. ,- :'-;.,...',•...?4, :"),. -Err.‘ . • • e.• . $' ' • • • 43-4.4 •t401 : , ,• - ':.:.•',• . ,...;i■'110; , ,. • 4.- • . ., . .... . • . • •'. .'-0 .0 S • . '.24ACJ • • • ?:•..,..•..".:, '''‘'/:••••$T.. RE-Et .V3. - .•,.' . • • ...-: ...t. •••• ,. ,it .. :. . :• N • . .I.• • , ..: , ,..... •.< .. . . • It • —1400— - - ., . .. .4.5AO. ... "":' .,• ..',- , ..,.. t . . .04;Ad. is 0 ..•0, • : 4'21:%..7g.IS t°. • % 1, . C.0 / 1: ;.' •- `.. . .. •. ' . •. ... .•• !. ;40 • •. % 1, • to el • . _ ' % -4 . ir • • % : 's 400,700,200,SOO,1600 A-I,-• ; ., • ,CAI4CELLE0.-2AX-4.3TS ? ..-.4:,,..,•, • tr. .... . •• — • 0.!,..• • . • • 0. . . '• A.500 . .0 ... .-1- .44. ..: • • • . . . .: . • . .......: .:',I 4-....s.,„4,-- _y,.., • . t. . ';.6.1".04 %%447 . . • lb. $.. I/ ;.•' le. . 1 .s ' (I' . ." i* 4 '•• . " . • • .. . , . _ _ 0 ' • i. • .. . , ••. . ••• -..g S....:.- ----..1 h.--,....-,,....„,,,- .••• •,...Y•'"' .. 7 ,:--,-, •' % •.,;•-•,- . .... ,. . . - •o . .. •: , .• ' :;'' ' ' --.s ., ...:,.:-. .,;(........,:.,', :•!'• :." , ' . ` -- ":•- . .".'.' • • . • - - •- •• .•:..., --" .'•.1;•7',i,27::-.:-'•.•:•4 . ...,:.' r':.. :. ;.• . •A •' . . ,...,„ ... . "',-, ':.-,o : .--, .'...-,% . •:.; - -'''' 2''-' -,4*.ww.M; •. -ik..*-•*!:. •,•, ••.)•• . - .:0•; •• •••.•.' • • „, - . ---• • :::41-..4.0-- .-!"--, • •,,,•-• • ...... •.. • ..,,..;, Kel,...•••• . •„..,:.,.,..••:.s.-:•'••• -4,, '1`-. :',:, '-''-':4 - ' . ,-t:44,'. - :••I''''''Ci' '•••• "".7.icl'- f ',. ic,-.4-• -..: ..:,., .-...-3...-. ..• • 0. 0 ...• ... .••. . •• b b s.. • . rf, '''' '''''' .:`•• '••-• • • -.,••• •,iss .•:,...• ... . .... . - . ••,k..,...:-s..., .., ••...:.. •,:..;. :;,, 2-.... ...--As..**:•:1•;A:,i 4:4..s:-.... '"1...es•^‘• .4• :".' • 's'''• .: '• •.'' .••''''-ii,::, -3:'..I. ;:' ••••••'.'' V.....:::.;,-.,'•.:•;',....:-.,"' •r. "'!Y. e".•,,,, tilt!'...'.'"•- • : , • .: • .,:? •-;•,‘$1, ,-:,:• .' ..r.,.•!;.' •••.•ti.c.:.:-...• •,..:•••:.,'" ,'••••5.)?. ; s•-•••4 4..."'' ti".•.e•' I.,,,. j•P.41"V■0 'lie'ir•*-• ••',.• •.• '. •' . ...* .•...i".:.••• .1.•! ;:':'.:..' ••:.•''•••:' '..filtnb74.#■;•• •4 ''....• ... i••••. • ••:•'', ' ,..i.:::;ii..z...e.N., ,,... .v% .-.4........ „•,.• .,...... •,7.... 7,.; . .V:1:r;•.: . .''..:ii: .....li.'''Ar. Yzitt:b:01;i4",,......:-*.t::..-70-",•?.','• • ti,'"4t!t . , . ,. . .. • • • .•:',..k,":,........ ...,.. ,...„?....• , . ,... ..,.......,..4 ,....f 150.1 ., •t•,.. :••••••.. . „ ..t. ,..,_... ov - ,,,,,s.• ..e.4.......,.., , ..,.„ • ......e.u.n.- ...-•?..,^ s • . --:- _s: _ ,- ..,,•;.,,: .3.- .•s ?•-• ..:7`4:7.- .4 . :",.1!•:. • .4.• A-7,.......4..,' ‘,1.2 7 ,0,••:•. ...44 r'-;:,4yr:eve' ',..;',.;.Y.• ••••4... • On A ..4t,tt. .7.. -T.,,,? ,;.*,:-..,:.,*.;At ,,.;:j.:,....,„;;,441.4.2,-„;:,:kt,t..:::•,:: .-•---7■4ct ...‘u,....,„,„; :. .• •...,;,„-.::,...,•.; ,• :.......';:•........ - .', •,, ...,4. :ifvf..--s- v '' ' :-!4•-:z".•,./.,. f -. .?••••:- .qvp• A•••••'.1i-!-?::;-A.,4411". •-••,?4•.•••:,... • • '•••• .....v ',.. vs -.'..ks 4:''?'%' -.-.%*',15: •''• •Is...t0'`,0'•4*.i,:15.1'..-.. .•-•e::'''!^;•:• .:I.4. :,,,,,,,,V4-; lkie:::•:•"4*•'ZZ: . , '. 'Ir4',1•,::. • ,4,-,.:1',1'.•%.if. -f -,:e...,„,„. .,,,st --v •- ••,•?., .1.4•: -.—....t.I.pf.1, ,-.- ,...-.. • •:,?,.•.,f1.-,Cl'ex, N. .. ..,...5.,•••,,.. , ;• •:•••••,,,eA •V•t-4.4'1.11'4', ...:-°:1'7:: ,, 4, -r :; ........v, -6..., t ,':, ;.•:.,• '310 ',:.. •' :•'.. ;;:':... . .,• ■•■• '",7, n:9,••••:......,1014.,:••,:.,,,,:. .‘s--•..,;;Tasitat , i:k , • • ,,, ,N••.1t;',..t'4'44," ..'‘.•-lia..?),,+: •;•••: -..• 1.• .' '. ...• • •. .:vc•...1"......*•:- -,•• .• .— .. tri .... ......„. „,.....,,,E.:,..; . ...,,, .„....„.„.....„, ., .„,...„... .......... . .. ......„.:,, ......,, . •: • .• • ....„:„..,•,.„ . , ..,.. .., , ,... •••:. •,:. ....„ • ...,4 ,,,,.. ;•, . ,• ...,.. .. t,,,,,t,044,,,,,,,:• ...e,,,,:...., ... . ,,.k..„..,...:.....: ..:•,-,..v .„,„4,...., . ,....ipt:iiii•!,,,,,,",,,,,w,,,,, ,,,,,t,,,,,:. , . . _.. .....- .;.....i.,..,-..,,:'::: ,I: :...' •:-... ...,,, .y.;•'•*e.1;J:.% sk :FIZt1-1/4"-- i •■••:'44,-.'i,•••_:-4,0-...; •4, IL'i•le.' . -"; ,- •q-t.,. of ,, V•••f.:•-,-i•...• '. 4' “.',..?...',.4.e. ...Al.:IL:TS: -,:...4r,:,20:.•;, . • ' ,,.: '.•._;i1,:i...• '1,11,;ilt 41.?.• .': ',".•:.• ,.., ••••Alt '''Z',..:•> .4 •.44.7,..;4:4Pr. •• ...,:f,...:'&1,t,..':•:.'.•;1.2.•:,,J•.:.,:*A'410,L,...1.:•.;:-. ‘0114., i • . ' . , •A:ak;•:.t•''•-•• •::. • '•• ::+d"....'',..r• fi 14 ••••••• ".6,4,••.,,e, .414.;:..,.,..:,....•••,1...., • -.,..• —7::••••••••,V(..." •-...k. .v.',,,:‘•••.'... :.,•.; ,.. . ••••.. ''.-:'•:,'**i."1* -!!1'.`4.•• '• ••• '.•.-.C.'••:',1 '• 1. its-:t641 : - •-:"'-''' '•::":•:il• ,•': • ;, 34 .v7":,•;-•-;-*.. 4. . '", • --: '-::-1:e"ri:':*-••-•-r • tioilso '- - . t-:'''' ''''s 26° 4 . ' - • . .i. .........,,•„--,—.. ; - '..' •• 'ARE 1 •ij....,...16)*•, ' •.. • ...• ' - •.•'.•'7 y•• ' • N.* • • ' i ;, : 176.3 • •'• : .•,,,;,.. .....5; ...24,a 0 ..•,.. z ...., 1,610e. a,„, i.iiiiEsppiiiiiiti4 4i,,,.,,. ..toejl .4efitots .44..,r,, - - .,,tEt),:tt. .■• ,t5,410104.4... .,.,t__wrmi,.1,,,,_,,•_,..„,,,,,,_•ki..,„,:tst„; ,,,,-, ,,,,,.,••' 7 i....y..._...c..4c,"•:-. *117...1.1.. ••-• .... -_-_, • •••••,',-."1:if -, ,•!r • .-,....100 ,,...:.,:',...24•44,,_.....-.,,,,,.....-4:4••,-,4•10. ",-•-• "-- c'... • .2002 _.„,......w.:.74-....:......),„..2-. N.-, ,...,..,-.,. • •— . •. ••• : ---:.,•:--•-. . - , • • ..• - • • - 200.1 -• • :- - -,. •4 .:- • •7. •' 1.004c •..: . ••• iento.e. . • . ••••- ' .•:'''. '• . ''''' -::•'", ''....''' . .,..„ •,.... -- .• stE-..M.AP.':. •••,...j•:....• ... , • • -.:*... :I •4•,tq,40:•7';'t ;.:••••• , . ,.••,.i.,.,:.<:..: .. ..:••••••••:•,.!...,,,..7,,..i..:. ... :p . .-. .. ... -.. 4.." ....... .-! . 4?-",:.- .:''' .; 7.-...':•--A,- -.4.,, at -. -. ...---.....--- . "..1..-0'4.2 `.....i:. 7 -. :••• ..- . ;., t. •• . . ,•• I S13611C:.: •"• * .:.4,--,• ...-..- .1., ,. 1.r'•:i':,;•.: .. -748'•,,.: .'...•-.;$:'':''`:• '• 4...:t. :,it *' ' 0 . .■.; !.ei, '.' • t.-•,* • e g • • :0 . • • -.,•cce:•. ••••,•• • .4• . . • • . • ,.4.111.117041.14....*:.: •••• . • ' - . • • .: • • ... ' .. ' / 7 - . ...,..::........ , . • ... . . . • .... . . -... , . ...•, • r•" . • 208.71 •.• . -.: . • ' . i . . • • •, 0 -- ......... -.... -.... ' • • • .2000 ‘ , .• , e v, 9.57Ae. . . I • . • • • , . • 1 \ , . .. _ • • STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5.2 December 6, 1983 - 7:30 P.M. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - LGI ROOM 10865 S. J. WALNUT, TIGARD, OREGON A. FINDING OF FACT 1. General Information CASE: Sign Code Exception SCE 5-83 NPO #4 REQUEST: For a Sign Code Exception to allow installation of a 100 square foot per face free-standing sign (to replace an existing 9' x 19' sign). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONING DESIGNATION: C-G RECOMMENDATION: Based on information submitted by the applicant, staff's review of applicable municipal code provisions, and field investigation, staff recommends denial of SCE 5-83. APPLICANT: Ramsy Signs, Inc. OWNER: Chalet Restaurant & Bakery 4835 NE Pacific 11680 SW Pacific Hwy. Portland, OR 97213 Tigard, OR 97201 LOCATION: 11680 SW Pacific Highway NPO COMMENT: NPO #4 has not responded in writing to this application request. 2. Background There is no record on the existing sign in the City's Building Department. B. STAFF ANALYSIS AND REVIEW The Tigard Municipal Code allows for exception to the sign code as follows: 18.114.140 Exceptions A. The Commission or, on review, the Council may grant exceptions to the requirements of this Chapter, when the applicant demonstrates that, owing to special or unusual circumstances relating to the design, structure, or placement of the sign in relation to other • structures or land uses or the natural features of the land, the literal interpretation of this Chapter would interfere with the communicative function of the sign without corresponding public benefit. 18.114.130 Zoning District Regulations C. Commercial Zones. No sign shall be permitted in a C-G and CBD except for the following: 1. Free-standing signs. a. Free-standing signs shall have certain limitations and conditions when permitted on properties zoned commercial and industrial. 1) One multifaced, free-standing sign identifying the principal goods, products, facilities or services available on the premises, shall be permitted on the premises, subject to conditions and limitations as stated herein. 2) A readerboard assembly may be an integral part of the free-standing sign. b. Area Limits. The maximum square footage of signs shall be 70 square feet per face or a total of 140 square feet for all sign faces. No part of any free-standing sign shall extend over a property line into public right-of-way space. c. Area Limit Increases. The sign area may be increased one square foot for each lineal foot the sign is moved back from the front property line the sign is adjacent to. If the street is curbed and paved the measurement may be taken from a point which is 15 feet from the pavement. This increase in sign area is limited to a maximum of 90 square feet per face or a total of 180 square feet for all faces. d. Height Limits. Free-standing signs located next to the public right-of-way shall not exceed 20 feet in height. Height may be increased one foot in height for each 10 feet of setback from the property line or a point 15 feet from the edge of pavement whichever is less to a maximum of 22 feet in height. C. STAFF COMMENTS The exceptions from the sign code regulations for the proposed sign are: height and total sign area. PAGE 2 - STAFF REPORT - SCE 5-83 The Chalet Restaurant sign is currently 40 feet in height. This is 18 feet over the maximum allowable height for a free-standing sign in a C-G zone located next to a public right-of-way. The applicant would like to replace the existing sign with a sign 24' 2" in height. The proposed sign is in excess of the maximum allowable height of 22 feet. Total area of the proposed sign is 200 square feet which is 20 square feet in excess of the maximum allowable total area of 180 square feet. The applicant has not provided reasonable justification for a sign code exception. Based on a field investigation, staff suggests that if the proposed sign is permitted, the maximum height and total area should be 22 feet and 180 square feet respectively. This height would allow visibility for traffic from either direction. The Planning Commission should, also weigh the benefits to the community when allowing the additional sign against the effect on the intent of the Sign Code provisions. Staff feels that the proposed sign adversely affects the intent and purpose of the Sign Code provisions set forth in Tigard's Community Development Code. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of SCE 5-83. However, the location of proposed sign as shown on the plan submitted by the applicant justifies that the applicant be allowed maximum height and total area which are 22 feet and 180 square feet respectively (sign is proposed to be installed about 20 feet back from the public right-of-way). PREPARED BY: S. Hamid Pishvaie APPROVED BY: William A. Monahan Assistant Planner Director of Planning & Development (SHP:pm/0233P) PAGE 3 -- STAFF REPORT SCE 5-83 [/c r o w, r. CIF IC Hi wsy 4 ' , / 0° o I' .h. 4 /001 --�► CHALET RFs 'AVANT tsz41 l • • • •• : s'At'1 SI �0 � •:.,.. �d� / VSLALEi 1 � . 0 r� ./ry r t A ; :NN • • :1 L)K• r n' 1."bti ` '; 7 1� : 01� ��' ..ST RE E .A, ^ Y o • `^4+ .14AC• • • —, 4. ' l SE COR 7' 1s eE.L.KEA !• 'I.{TO . 1' 471 1 i , °140.0 c M- 7-I r�Ac. f / •'Q dAo r + a • 7,.:• • • { II e •' `� ° • •CANCELLED TAX .LOTS ' °. a 400,750,500,800,1000 A 1,^; ���y�o ' ' w 1$00 .• • 1 ' • • , . Y:1'60 0c; k 1 • 1 t \ < • .h'tiM �i yyY YY., µ rf a yD�.f .a.t! r - • O O Y tit .. �� • ∎:1• :>t t X 4^r M• y . •1 s G\Y�7 Y •4 'y i� { & r id ,, - ° .. ' .. ;it�Y1 q 1' y V. 1..�1700, . � � e - � 7 �� % ' r y �C.. • wt, "'.a , } y . Ph , a ' . ° . ' 150�' , i, 4c f i+ ���s>4 1 ,� ..-2,i(!",•2;•..' * T 1 ∎ f••••:.••• . i ,, i ' .7*". l ',B F*.i:f Sa 7∎. ' ' ' 4 it..9.' R 'k 4`Y V ' .tt' 5' , r te; ,t 'ar r 1 T M N ,t'''.*:',....;`'. t+ .j801 1-A ,,-...,-'.1.-1.•_,'.q a.- r ,... l � g1-' r t,T�,,+:t i 'c,' " ' � �• �z yi; i k• • • ;'{ n 5; W •. d.44. 1 yi/,, t > r4 •� 1 • `"C 4' n 1�r Nr �.4 { h!4 a` �« y� 0. 7 9 •.ti .+ r, : <Ci L 477::; r . ; g s.r� A�s fli + o J>' t' D ? ,, '� i M'' yfu � R « 4w+ 's� t �^ 4,.WJ1i- t {rt; � t 5 °,S5 a�E I75,a • f i` . � _ 5 Q Y' {ir r D 2a/ 0 d2SS/S3 ro..,.,, rl 125+ .;;. •• • •, •2100 $ 50 R. 204.71 12805 •2002 ast4�E ' ?cO4c /Gb�4c �� `;'.� ._ S6 MAP,' o IS1.360'C t +: N / • • • • • ��. / • s t • 205.71 • I ' • - s X000 sax • ■ 9..574c. / , •i • • • • Agenda Item 5.3 MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAT S 9-83 Waverly Construction Company requests a modification of the street alignment in the approved preliminary plat, Bond Park II. The new street pattern would allow access to the future proposal for Bond Park III subdivision. Attached is the staff report for Bond Park II as approved at the November 15, 1983 Planning Commission meeting. No changes have been made to the number of approved lots. The following conditions were requested by the City Surveyor to be included in the approval of the modification of preliminary plat S 9-83: 1. Compliance with section 18.160.160 and 18.160.190 of the Tigard Community Development Code. An option to requirement 18.160.160 (A)(2) is to set monuments at surface of final lift, eliminating the monument box. 18.160.160 Monumentation, Basis of Bearing Requirements and Acceptance of Improvements A. Monumentation 1. In accordance with ORS 92.060 subsection (2), the centerlines of all street and roadway right-of-ways shall be monumented before the City shall accept a street improvement. 2. All centerline monuments shall be placed in a monument box conforming to City standards, and the top of all monument boxes shall be set at design finish grade of said street or roadway. 3. The following centerline monuments shall be set: a. All centerline-centerline intersections. Intersections created with "collector" or other existing streets, shall be set when the centerline alignment of said "collector" or other street has been established by or for the City; b. Center of all cul-de-sacs; c. Curve points. Point of intersection (P.I.) when their position falls inside the limits of the pavement otherwise beginning and ending points (B.C. and E.C.). B. Basis of Bearing 1. The plat shall be tied to a City of Tigard "Primary" or "Secondary" control station if one exists within 1000 feet of the plat and the bearings oriented thereon. 2. Tigard Grid coordinates for all established boundary points on the plat shall be submitted to the City within 15 days of recording. 18.160.190 Filing and Recording A. Within 60 days of the City review and approval, the applicant shall submit the final plat to the County for signatures of County officials as required by ORS Chapter 92 and 18.160.150. B. Upon final recording with the County, the applicant shall submit to the City a Mylar Copy of the recorded plat. • STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEMS 5.4 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15, 1983 7:30 P.M. FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - LGI ROOM 10865 S.W. Walnut - Tigard, Oregon A. FINDING OF FACT ' 1. General Information CASE: Subdivision S-9-83 Bond Park # 2 NPO # 5 REQUEST: For preliminary plat approval of a 24 lol: single family detached subdivision. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: A-12 RECOMMENDATION: Based on information submitted by the applicant, staff's review of applicable Comprehensive Plan policies, zoning code provisions, and field investigation, staff recommends approval of the modification of S 9-83 subject to the conditions listed in this staff report. APPLICANT: Waverly Construction Co. OWNER: Frces Tousey 11903 Broadacres NE 14660 SW 89th Ave. Hubbard, Oregon 97032 Tigard, Or. 97223 LOCATION: SW 79th off Durham Road (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 12CD lot 1600) AREA: 3.75 acres NPO COMMENT: NPO # 5 has not responded in writing to this application request. PUBLIC NOTICES MAILED: Fourteen notices were mailed. No written comments have been received at the writing of this report. 2. Background On July 12, 1983, the Planning Commission approved Bond Park # 1 • subdivision. 3. Vicinity Information The surrounding area is developed as large lot single family residential. To the east, across SW 79th, a 24 lot residential subdivision is being constructed at this time (Bond Park # 1). 4. Site Information The site is vacant, wooded and bisected by a drainage swale. B. APPLICABLE PLANNING POLICIES 1. Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1 THE CITY SHALL MAINTAIN AN ONGOING CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM AND SHALL ASSURE THAT CITIZENS WILL BE PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE INVOLVED IN ALL PHASES OF THE PLANNING PROCESS. All owners of record within 250 feet of this site received notice of the hearing in the mail. A public notice was printed in the Tigard Times on November 3, 1983. In addition, NPO # 5 was notified of the application. 2.1.3 THE CITY SHALL ENSURE THAT INFORMTION ON LAND USE PLANNING ISSUES IS AVAILABLE IN AN UNDERSTANDABLE FORM FOR ALL INTERESTED CITIZENS. All interested parties are given 10 days at a minimum to comment on land use planning issues and are encouraged to do so. The planning staff is available on a regular basis to answer any questions on specific applications. 6.1.1 THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR DIVERSITY OF HOUSING DENSITIES AND RESIDENTIAL TYPES AT VARIOUS PRICE AND RENT LEVELS. The subdivision of this property will provide 24 single family lots that range from 4300 to 5500 square feet. The applicant states that by utilizing the site at this density (6.40 units per acre), it will be possible to provide affordable housing. 7.1.2 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE AS A PRECONDITION TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL THAT: a. DEVELOPMENT COINCIDE WITH THE AVAILABILITY OF ADEQUATE SERVICE CAPACITY INCLUDING: 1. PUBLIC WATER; 2. PUBLIC SEWER (NEW DEVELOPMENT ON SEPTIC TANKS SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE CITY) ; AND 3. STORM DRAINAGE. b. THE FACILITIES ARE: 1. CAPABLE OF ADEQUATELY SERVING ALL INTERVENING PROPERTIES AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT; AND 2. DESIGNED TO CITY STANDARDS. c. ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES TO BE PLACED UNDERGROUND. The applicant is proposing to install public facilities in accordance with planning policies and City ordinances. STAFF REPORT S 9-83 Page 2 Al 7.4.4 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE THAT ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT BE CONNECTED TO A SANITARY SEWER SERVICE. The applicant is proposing to connect to the Fanno Creek interceptor sewer line. 7.6.1 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE AS A PRECONDITION TO DEVELOPMENT THAT: a. THE DEVELOPMENT BE SERVED BY A WATER SYSTEM HAVING ADEQUATE WATER PRESSURE FOR FIRE PROTECTION PURPOSES; b. THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL NOT REDUCE THE WATER PRESSURE IN THE AREA BELOW A LEVEL ADEQUATE FOR FIRE PROTECTION PURPOSES: AND c. THE APPLICABLE FIRE DISTRICT REVIEW OF ALL APPLICATIONS. The Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District has been notified of the project, but has not submitted any written comments. 8.1.3 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE AS A PRECONDITION TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL THAT: a. DEVELOPMENT ABUT A PUBLICLY DEDICATED STREET OR HAVE ADEQUATE ACCESS APPROVED BY THE APPROPRIATE APPROVAL AUTHORITY; b. STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY BE DEDICATED WHERE THE STREET IS SUBSTANDARD IN WIDTH; c. THE DEVELOPER COMMIT TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STREETS, CURBS AND SIDEWALKS TO THE CITY STANDARDS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT; d. INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPERS PARTICIPATE IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF EXISTING STREETS, CURBS AND SIDEWALKS TO THE EXTENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT'S IMPACTS; e. TRANSIT STOPS, BUS TURNOUT LANES AND SHELTERS BE PROVIDED WHEN THE PROPOSED USE IS OF A TYPE WHICH GENERATES TRANSIT RIDERSHIP; NG SPACES BE SET ASIDE AND MARKED FOR CARS OPERATED BY RKI , f. PA DISABLED PERSONS AND THAT THE SPACES BE LOCATED AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO THE ENTRANCE DESIGNED FOR DISABLED PERSONS; AND g. LAND BE DEDICATED TO IMPLEMENT THE BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADOPTED PLAN. The applicant is proposing to improve S.W. 76th and S.W. 79th Streets to approved City standards. S.W. Bond Street will be constructed to City standards. STAFF REPORT 5 9-83 Page 3 12. 1.1 THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE FOR HOUSING DENSITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH: a. THE APPLICABLE PLAN POLICIES. b. THE APPLICABLE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA. c. THE APPLICABLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE PROVISIONS. The density proposed in the development conforms to those set in the new adopted Comprehensive Plan policies, plan map and interim zoning map. 12.5.1 THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE FOR THE LOCATION OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES IN A MANNER WHICH ACCORDS WITH: a. THE APPLICABLE POLICIES IN THIS PLAN; b. THE LOCATIONAL. CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE SCALE AND STANDARDS OF THE USE. 1. SITE CHARACTERISTICS a. THE USE SHALL BE ALLOWED PROVIDED: (1) THE UNIQUE NATURAL FEATURES, IF ANY, CAN BE INCORPORATED INTO THE DESIGN OF THE FACILITIES OR ARRANGEMENT OF LAND USES. The applicant's proposal conforms to all applicable planning policies and locational criteria. C. TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE PROVISIONS SUBDIVISION 17.16.100 Tentative Approval. Within sixty days of the date of df submission of the preliminary plat the Planning Commission will review the plan reports of the agencies listed in Section 17.16.090 and may given tentative approval of the preliminary plat as submitted or may modify the plat or, if disapproved, shall express the Planning Commission's disapproval and reasons thereof. No tentative plan for a proposed subdivision and no tentative plan for a major partition shall be approved unless: 1. Streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivision maps or major partition already approved for adjoining property as to width, general direction and in all other respects, unless the City determines it to be in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern. 2. Streets and roads held for private use are clearly indicated on the tentative plan and all reservations or restrictions relating to such private roads and streets are set forth thereon. 3. The tentative plan complies with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable zoning regulations of the City then in effect. STAFF REPORT S 9-83 Page 4 • 4. No tentative plat of a subdivision or map of a major partition shall be approved unless there will exist adequate quantity and quality of water and an adequate sewage disposal system to support the proposed use of the land described in the proposed plat. D. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of S 9-83 with the following conditions: 1. Seven (7) sets of plan-profile public improvement construction plans and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by a registered civil engineer, detailing all proposed public improvements shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Division for review. 2. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Division has issued approved public improvement plans. The Engineering Division will require posting of a 100% performance bond, the payment of a permit fee and a sign installation/streetlight deposit. Also, the execution of a street . compliance agreement just prior to, or opening permit or construction p g J at the time of, it 's issuance of approved public improvement plans. 3. Public sewer lines shall be extended to the project boundaries in all directions. 4. The final subdivision plat shall be recorded with Washington County prior to the issuance of any Building Permits. 5. No changes or modifications shall be made to approved plans without written approval from the appropriate City department. 6. The applicant shall improve SW 79th Ave beyond the project boundary to Durham using City Interim Standards. RECOMMENDED MOTION Should the Planning Commission adopt staff's recommendation, the following motion may be made: "Move to approve, with conditions, the applicant's request for a Preliminary Plat of Bond Park # 2 (S 9-83) , a 24 lot subdivision." PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY: Steve Skorney, William A. Monahan, Assistant Planner Director of Planning and Development STAFF REPORT S 9-83 Page 5 COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION o Commissioner Edin moved and Commission Leverett seconded to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 17-83, from low to medium density; and approval of the Zone Change ZC 13-83 to become effective upon Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The motion was approved by unamious vote of the Commissioners present. 5.4 SUBDIVISION S 9-83 Bond Park # 2 NPO # 5 o Assistant Planner Skorney made staff's recommendation for approval with conditions. o NPO/CCI COMMENTS - No one appeared to speak. o APPLICANT"S PEESNTATION - Bill McMonagle, 8905 SW Commercial, stated they had reviewed the staff report and had no roblems. They y w ere available to answer any questions. PUBLIC TF; TIMONY o No one appeared to speak. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION o Commissioner Butler was concerned that there was no school impact statement submitted with the application. The applicant stated they had contacted the school and that they had no problems with the proposed development. o Commissioner Owens moved and Commissioner Moen seconded to approve Subdivision S 9-83, with conditions, the app1J ant's request for a Preliminary Plat of Bond Park # 2, a 24 lot subdivision. The motion was approved by majority vote of Commissioners present, Commissioner Butler voting Q. 5.5 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT S 8-83 PD Park Place/Century 21 Homes NPO # 3 o A request for conceptual and detailed plan approval of a Planned Development consisting of 215 single family•units. o Assistant Planner Skorney made staff's recommendation for approval of the conceptual and detailed plan with conditions. They are also asking for preliminary plat approval, however staff had not responded in the staff report to that issue. Also, staff had received a call from Washington County requesting that the application be tabled until the alignment for Gaarde Road could be agreed upon between the City and Washington County. The Public Works Director also supported a continuance. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 15, 1983 Page 5 W 2000 200 1900 .94 AG. 188 AC. 188 AC. z (A l Q Q i4 N 13 H 1800 .25 Ac. 1,: 1- ,„ 1 o. 1801 N et E '-^ .7/Ac. oo- - 8 • 330.02' 530.02' ' 1600 17e AC.00 300 o 188 AC. 584 AC. o = _02 ��\ u2 o v. 12 , 1500 11 c4 . .r /./0 O AC T� . 4- . 23-7 s.,..... . v N` 530.50' __A ...ma. ••••••■■ •■••••• mo....., + • 1400 600 • 188 AC. 188 AC. , Y• 0 N v. 5 6 t� • C 330.97' ♦ . *5.4. 165.49 .3°� 1200 R R 1000 • .88 AC. 5.00 AC. I -0 1100 "Po -o 54 AC. N N — _ .-. _ N N 4 �— 3 GI U 3 40' �/�.: NtS.fA' N f 165.we YO l, 200,54 TERM. [Cq �3.un Yitrini cTrco1 - y, __ MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development DATE: November 22, 1983 SUBJECT: NPO Application of Doug Vezina Doug Vezina of 8855 SW Scheckla Drive has applied for membership in NPO #6. The Review Committee met on October 31 , 1983, interviewed Mr. Vezina, and determined that his application should be forwarded to the Planning Commission with a favorable recommendation. If Mr. Vezina's application is approved, it will cause the representation on the NPO's to be as follows: NPO # 1 6 #2 4 #3 7 #4 12 #5 8 #6 9 #7 9 Staff recommendation - Based on the Review Committee's interview of Mr. Vezina, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward his application for membership in NPO #6 to the City Council. y N P O• A P P L I C A T I O N QUESTION; What are NPO's? ANSWER: The function of each NPO is to be involved in all phases of the Comprehensive Planning process and the implementation of those plans; to review City plans; policies, projects or other actions affecting the livability of the neighborhood, including, but not limited to, land use, zoning, housing, community, facilities, human resources, social and recreational programs, traffic and transportation, environ- mental quality, open space and parks; to participate in the process of determining City priorities for capital improvements and development of specific project plans; to keep the neighborhood informed; to seek neighborhood opinion on issues brought before them; to represent the views of the neighborhood in matters of extra neighborhood importance. PLEASE COMPLETE THE QUESTIONS BELOW NAb 006 V Q. Z I OA ADDRESS q cg:D5 S hecl TIGAL-I TELEPHONE NUMBER (Bus.) C40'"1014- (Res.) (U`3`r -3f1 5 PRESENT OCCUPATION u ° • —S . T FIRM NAME OILL)e.elS — CAD e 01 to - F1 ifl c t_r-re_A S HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM?_3 t/7 ci R IS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA? ti d HAVE YOU BEEN INVOLVED WITH MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS BEFORE? 13O IF YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR INVOLVEMENT: • WHAT DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN OFFER AS A MEMBER OF AN NPO? (4. iner`r1,Qer7, �= any N Po 1 A.."111 ,bn n a 3v_am.) °Cv iloil c i c -Gi vu� ,1-1AckoD l IV� V 23An) AcAN00 Poetic 1 4 � 1DC�s Rom /'n OersiJ , v- ia -P,111 Corn To )6T-E l H wre F Ir111 a IF & IS - ��1jk TAA,1 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: UME./J b��FSiUT/rJ0-_I l+t 20Q)6)c • L LQ�15i1ZATF 15:-H-o£1Zs-,N!? 14)-+!,Url IIJtit f 416-0 .6E-Ei-C.l. c2F OOA Ec'T!!lI . t cl�i� KEP lns�i F= y r)1=oP,)IcO OF R IC ()OWN) .-1,(..).D t1( vllif,w6 F'5i1?-1 • ,4..k-i.,1 ► ,r (4. -tE ;/-ivy r/1-1L-43 Lone,- rE/2/)) O onskol-,;Ces jr THF: DAYTIME TELEPHONE NUMBER 640 '" !C 14- �C1�S�LVL% /1�!aY-I,VC� PPccc.��� 3/19.1R0 .r1 �f 1 ap _ e • • �i 4l f( yi • dEgfteneNto WSIBINEDIEM • • a •, III i.. 0• W4 �nvyy e Seri li1N • • AGENDA r TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 1983 - 7:30 P.M. FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - LGI ROOM 10865 SW WALNUT STREET, TIGARD, OREGON 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVE MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 15, 1983 MEETING 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION o Police Department Presentation 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 SUBDIVISION PLANNED DEVELOPMENT S 8-83 PD Century 21 Homes NPO #3 5.2 SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 5-83 Chalet Restaurant and Bakery NPO #4 5.3 NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION APPOINTMENT FOR NPO #6 61C aue2 03 0 1. Pa 4 • •\ , " 1 v TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 1983 - 7:30 P.M. FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - LGI ROOM 10865 SW WALNUT STREET, TIGARD, OREGON PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 SUBDIVISION PLANNED DEVELOPMENT S 8-83 PD Century 21 Homes NPO #3 A request for a conceptual and detailed plan approval of a Planned Development, and preliminary plat approval. The property is designated Low Density Residential and is zoned R-7 PD. Located at: 13900 SW 121st Ave. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 281 3CC, Lot 401 and 281 4 Lot 1400). 5.2 SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 5-83 CHALET RESTAURANT & BAKERY A request for installation of a 100-square foot, per face, free- standing sign at 11680 SW Pacific Highway. 5-3 NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION APPOINTMENT FOR NPO #6 • (EAN:pm/0229P) OVV 0 Lu , • q MEMORANDUM , TO: Planning Commissp FROM: Planning Staff DATE: December 6, 1983 SUBJECT: Park Place S 5-53 PD At the Planning Commission meeting of November 15, 1983, the request of Century 21 Properties Inc. for approval of the Park Place development was postponed to allow the applicant to meet with the City, County and affected property owners to resolve the Gaarde Street extension issue. 1, e A meeting was held on Wednesday, November 23, at 9:00 A.M. at City Hall. In attendance were Tigard Planning Director William Monahan, Tigard Public Works (t Director Frank Currie, Washington County Public Works Director Larry Rice, support staff from the City and County, NPO #3 representative Bob Bledsoe, CPO #4 representative Beverly Froude, property owners Althea Rodde and Gordon Moore, and Century 21 Properties Engineer Robert Miller. It was agreed that SW Gaarde Street would be extended to the northwest corner of Phase I of the Park Place development. Gaarde Street would not encroach more than five feet onto Althea Rodde's property. _,.•. Larry Rice stated that Gaarde Street would not be a major thoroughfare. Gaarde Street will be built to collector street standards. This will mean two travel lanes and one center turn lane. Traffic speed is a maximum 35 mph. Rice said that the County does not currently have a program to pay for the e Gaarde Street extension into the County. If surrounding property owners wish to develop and need to extend Gaarde Street to gain access, they will have to pay for the extension. x Rice concluded that the County is concerned with the future residential use in that area and must supply a road to handle the projected housing density. The City and County agreed that Gearde Street is not the Murray Road extension. Frank Currie said that the agreed upon alignment is in accordance with the City's transportation plan which suggests a series of indirect minor collector ', connections between Murray Boulevard and Gaarde Street. ,1 t A follow-up Town Hall meeting was held on Monday, November 28th, at 7:30 P.M. at Fowler Junior High School. Robert Miller explained the new alignment for the Gaarde Street extension. In attendance were Frank Currie, Bill Monahan, and Steve Skorney from the City and approximately 25 property owners from the Bull Mountain and Gaarde Street neighborhoods. After the conclusion of the Town Hall meeting, Planning Commissioner Phil Edin i requested that Miller design an alternative alignment for the Gaarde Street CD extension. This alternative would not connect at the intersection of SW 121st and Gaarde, but would follow the northerly boundary of the proposed project and form a "T" intersection at SW 121st. This alternative is for discussion purposes only. The Commissioners are reminded that the Planning staff is recommending approval of the previously submitted Park Place project with the street alignment that was agreed upon at the November 23rd meeting. SS:lw/0236P • 1• STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5.1 DECEMBER 6, 1983 - 7:30 P.M. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION , ' FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL LECTURE ROOM 10865 SW WALNUT STREET, TIGARD, OREGON A. FINDING OF FACT 1. General Information CASE: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT S 8-83 PD (Park Place) NPO #3 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting conceptual and detailed plan approval of a planned development and preliminary plat approval of Phase I, consisting of 43 units. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-7 (PD) RECOMMENDATION: Based on information submitted by the applicant, staff's review of applicable Comprehensive Plan policies, zoning code provisions, and field • investigation, staff recommends approval of S 8-83 PD, subject to the conditions listed in this staff report. APPLICANT: Century 21 Homes Inc. OWNER: Same 7412 SW Beaverton-Hillsdale Hwy. Portland, Oregon 97225 r LOCATION: 13900 SW 121st Avenue (Wash Co. Tax Map 281 3CC, Tax Lot 401 and 2S1 4 Tax It 1400). LOT AREA: 47.81 Acres NPO COMMENT: NPO #3 has responded in writing to this application request. ' PUBLIC NOTICES MAILED: Seventeen notices were mailed. One written comment has been received at the writing of this ita report. 2. Background 03 CD e No previous actions on this property. 3. Vicinity Information The surrounding land uses are as follows: To the north is designated low density residential, unincorporated and undeveloped at the present time. ,; 11, 4110 To the south is designated low density residential, zoned R-20 and undeveloped at the present time. To the east is designated low density residential, unincorporated and developed as single family residences. To the west is unincorporated land which is outside of the City's urban growth boundary. 4. Site Information I ' Slopes on the site are generally oriented east to northeast, with some interruptions due to stream dissection. The slope range is from 5 to over 25%, the steepest areas occurring along the two stream incisions. For the purposes of this analysis, the slopes are divided into 5 categories: 0-10% 9.5 acres, 10-15% 10.5 acres, 15-20% 13.5 acres, 20-25% 9.5 acres, and over 25% 5 acres. The degree of difficulty, cost, and risk of development rises proportionately as the slopes increase over about 152. Soils on the site appear to he silts and clayey silts of moderate to poor drainage. Depth to bedrock is undetermined, but it is probably near the surface in the higher portion of the site, while fairly deep in the lower areas. There is evidence of soil creep, stream undercutting of slopes, and small surface landslides on the property. These occurrences are not uncommon in this type of terrain, but nevertheless should be investigated carefully before development occurs. Potential problems observed in the field are evidenced by: leaning and bent trees, erosion of the base of the ravines, broken, warped topography, and escarpments where some shallow slides 4probably occurred. While the upper portions of the slopes, ridges and terraces appear to be safe for development, the lower slopes and drainages should be investigated further if any changes are done to these areas. Specifically, steep road cuts, removal of vegetation and increased storm water flows into the ravines could create future problems, which can be avoided by undertaking a more detailed geologic investigation at the appropriate time. Surface drainage is directed into two large ravines, both of which originate uphill of the land beijig considered. The first of these occurs in the extreme western portion of the site. Direction of the drainage is to the east. Consequently, a deep ravine creates a formidable divide between the northwest and southwest portions of the property. This ravine merges with the second drainageway, and even deeper and larger ravine that orients northerly and effectively divides the entire property into east and west halves. This second drainage appears to be spring fed from further up on Bull Mountain, and may be perennial. A long, broad ridgeline parallels the larger ravine, causing surface drainage in much of the eastern portion of the property to move east-northeast. Other land forms on the site include a small, sloping terrace in the northeast quadrant, a surface depression created by a man-made It STAFF REPORT - S 8-83 PD - PAGE 2 , 4 0 4111 a excavation and dam along the large ravine, and a second, larger terrace in the southeast quadrant. In summary, th east facing slopes and ravines are the most significant topographic features of the site. Vegetation growth on the site varies considerably. First, the southeast portion of the site is primarily a meadow with scattered trees, including filbert, hickory, fir and cedar. Generally this area has an open character. Adjacent to this area to the west is an old, neglected filbert orchard. To the north of the orchard is a pasture area, open except for another, smaller orchard and a stand of large, handsome douglas fir. To the west, a dense woodland of Western Chinkapin, Red Alder, Bigleaf Maple, Douglas Fir, Cherry, and Cedar stretches south to north along both sides of the large ravine, and up slope into the southwest quadrant of the site. These trees are important in" that they divide the site visually in half, in addition to their value in stabilizing the steep ° slopes along the ravine. The northwest portion of the property is a large meadow, with a few scattered trees. It is surrounded by woods on sides, although the woods immediately to the west (off the subject property) are more brush than forest. B. APPLICABLE PLANNING POLICIES 1. c2apjr2h±pliyo2_Planrolicies 2.1.1 THE CITY SHALL MAINTAIN AN ONGOING CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM AND SHALL ASSURE THAT CITIZENS WILL BE PROVIDED AN ° OPPORTUNITY TO BE INVOLVED IN ALL PHASES OF THE PLANNING PROCESS. Notices are sent to all property owners within 250 feet of this application. A notice was published in the Tigard Times on November 3, 1983. NPO #3 was notified of this application. 2.1.3 THE CITY SHALL ENSURE THAT INFORMATION ON LAND USE PLANNING ISSUES IS AVAILABLE IN AN UNDERSTANDABLE FORM FOR ALL INTERESTED CITIZENS. All interested parties are given, at a minimum, 10 days to respond in writing to the application and request under consideration and are encouraged to do so. The Planning staff is available to address any specific questions concerning the application or the application process. ) LU 3.1.1 THE CITY SHALL NOT ALLOW DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS HAVING THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS EXCEPT WHERE IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT ESTABLISHED AND PROVEN ENGINEERING TECHNIQUES RELATED TO A SPECIFIC SITE PLAN WILL MAKE THE AREA SUITABLE FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: STAFF REPORT - S 8-83 PD - PAGE 3 n % 4110 . 4110 , a. AREAS HAVING A HIGH SEASONAL WATER TABLE WITHIN 0-24 INCHES OF THE SURFACE FOR THREE OR MORE WEEKS OF THE YEAR; b. AREAS HAVING A SEVERE SOIL EROSION POTENTIAL; c AREAS SUBJECT TO SLUMPING, EARTH SLIDES OR MOVEMENT; d. AREAS HAVING SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 25%; OR 4 % c e. AREAS HAVING SEVERE WEAK FOUNDATION SOILS. 64.1 THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR DIVERSITY OF HOUSING DENSITIES AND RESIDENTIAL TYPES AT VARIOUS PRICE AND RENT LEVELS. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 3. The Tigard Community Development Code, through the Planned Development process, shall establish a procedure to allow properties exhibiting physical constraint characteristics, e.g. , steep slopes or floodplains, to develop with density transfers allowable on the site. No more than 25% of the dwellings may be transferred. 5. The City shall encourage housing development to occur, to the greatest extent possible, on designated buildable lands in areas where public facilities and services can be readily extended to those lands. 6.4.1 THE CITY SHALL DESIGNATE RESIDENTIAL "DEVELOPING AREAS," (WHICH ARE NOT DESIGNATED AS "ESTABLISHED AREAS") ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP, AND ENCOURAGE FLEXIBLE AND EFFICIENT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THESE AREAS. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 3. Within the Planned Development section of the Tigard Community ir Development bode: a. Development will be prohibited on lands not classified as developable as defined in OAR 660-07-140; b. TWent -fdest.. . of the number of units which could be OT) accommodated on the undevelopable land may be transferred and placed on the developable land; however -J ;, c. The transfer of the density shall be lim4ded_by I25Z of the top of the range of the residential plan classification on the developable portions of the site. 4. The Tigard Community Development Code shall also provide for a Planned Development process which encourages innovative design, more efficient use of land, energy efficiency and more flexible development standards. STAFF REPORT - S 8-83 PD - PAGE 4 4 7.1.2 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE AS A PRE-CONDITION TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL THAT: a. DEVELOPMENT COINCIDE WITH THE AVAILABILITY OF ADEQUATE SERVICE CAPACITY INCLUDING: 1. PUBLIC WATER; 2. PUBLIC SEWER (NEW DEVELOPMENT ON SEPTIC TANKS SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE CITY); AND 3. STORM DRAINAGE. b. THE FACILITIES ARE: 1. CAPABLE OF ADEQUATELY SERVING ALL INTERVENING PROPERTIES AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT; AND 2. DESIGNED TO CITY STANDARDS. c. ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES TO BE PLACED UNDERGROUND. 7.2.E THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE AS A PRE-CONDITION TO DEVELOPMENT THAT: a. A SITE DEVELOPMENT STUDY BE SUBMITTED FOR DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS SUBJECT TO POOR DRAINAGE, GROUND INSTABILITY OR FLOODING WHICH SHOWS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS SAFE AND WILL NOT CREATE ADVERSE OFFSITE IMPACTS; b. NATURAL DRAINAGE WAYS BE MAINTAINED UNLESS SUBMITTED STUDIES SHOW THAT ALTERNATIVE DRAINAGE SOLUTIONS CAN SOLVE ON-SITE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS AND WILL ASSURE NO ADVERSE OFFSITE IMPACTS; c. ALL DRAINAGE CAN BE HANDLED ON-SITE OR THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION WHICH .WILL NOT INCREASE OFFSITE IMPACT; d. THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION AS ESTABLISHED BY THE 1981 FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY CONDUCTED BY THE U.S.. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS BE PROTECTED; AND e. EROSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES BE INCLUDED AS A PART OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. 7.4.4 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE THAT ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT BE CONNECTED TO A SANITARY SEWER SERVICE. 7.6.1 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE AS A PRE-CONDITION TO DEVELOPMENT THAT: a. THE DEVELOPMENT BE SERVED BY A WATER SYSTEM HAVING ADEQUATE WATER PRESSURE FOR FIRE PROTECTION PURPOSES; b. THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL NOT REDUCE THE WATER PRESSURE IN THE AREA BELOW A LEVEL ADEQUATE FOR FIRE PROTECTION PURPOSES; AND c. THE APPLICABLE FIRE DISTRICT REVIEW OF ALL APPLICATIONS. STAFF REPORT - S 8-83 PD - PAGE 5 8.1.3 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE AS A PRE-CONDITION TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL THAT: a. DEVELOPMENT ABUT ' PUBLICLY DEDICATED STREET OR HAVE ADEQUATE ACCESS APPROVED BY THE - APPROPRIATE APPROVAL AUTHORITY; b. STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY BE DEDICATED WHERE THE STREET IS SUBSTANDARD IN WIDTH.; c. THE DEVELOPER COMMIT TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STREETS, CURBS AND SIDEWALKS TO THE CITY STANDARDS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT; ' d. INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPERS PARTICIPATE IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF EXISTING STREETS, CURBS AND SIDEWALKS TO THE EXTENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT'S IMPACTS; e. STREET IMPROVEMENTS BE MADE AND STREET SIGNS OR SIGNALS BE PROVIDED WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT IS FOUND TO CREATE OR INTENSIFY A TRAFFIC HAZARD. f. TRANSIT STOPS, BUS TURNOUT LANES AND SHELTERS BE PROVIDED WHEN THE PROPOSED USE IS OF A TYPE WHICH GENERATES TRANSIT RIDERSHIP; g. PARKING SPACES BE SET ASIDE AND MARKED FOR CARS OPERATED BY DISABLED PERSONS AND THAT THE SPACES BE LOCATED AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO THE ENTRANCE DESIGNED FOR DISABLED PERSONS; AND h. LAND BE DEDICATED TO IMPLEMENT THE BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADOPTED PLAN. 11.3.1 THE CITY SHALL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING WHEN PREPARING STREET ��- IMPROVEMENTS PLANS THAT AFFECT SW 121ST AVENUE OR GAARDE STREET. a. THE IMPACT ON THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AND THE ALTERNATIVES WHICH HAVE THE MINIMUM ADVERSE EFFECT IN TERMS OF: 1. REDUCING THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE DWELLING AND THE STREET; AND 2. NOISE IMPACTS. b. THE EFFECT THE IMPROVEMENT WILL HAVE ON THE TRAFFIC FLOW AND THE POSSIBLE NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON OTHER STREET INTERSECTIONS. c. MINIMIZING THE USE OF THESE STREETS AS PART OF THE ARTERIAL SYSTEM FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC. STAFF REPORT - S 8-83 PD - PAGE 6 O olio 11.3.2 THE CITY OF TIGARD SHALL WORK WITH OTHER GOVERNMENTAL BODIES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ARTERIAL ROUTE CONNECTION FROM MURRAY BOULEVARD OR SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD TO PACIFIC HIGHWAY. THIS ARTERIAL ROUTE SHOULD BE LOCATED WEST OF BULL MOUNTAIN, AND SHOULD NOT UTILIZE ROADS WHICH PASS THROUGH EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AREAS WITHIN TIGARD. s ,. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 1. SW Gaarde Street and SW 121st Avenue (between Gaarde and Walnut) shall develop as two-land roads with pedestrian-bicycle paths, restricted parking and left turning lanes as needed at congested intersections. 2. The undeveloped land along SW 121st Avenue (south of Walnut) shall be planne& for development in accordance with the locational criteria policies that apply to locating medium and higher densities close to arterials and in accordance with the policies e- 'o for "Established" and "Developing" areas. 3. The Tigard Community Development Code shall require site development review for any development other than a single or two family structure. The site colkelopment review shall include review of street right-of-way and pavement location. C. TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE. 18.56.010 _Dipose. The purpose of the planned development district is to allow the Planning Commission and the City Council the opportunity to review large and complex developments within this community. This designation is used to protect sensitive land areas, ensure reasonable conformance to the standards established in the underlying zones, address major transportation difficulties and allow a degree of "." flexibility not usually associated with development. In most cases where sensitive lands, open space, or park areas are included within a development, that development, whether commercial, industrial, or residential, shall be reviewed as a planned development district. This designation may be applied to both permitted uses and conditional uses in all zones. (Ord. 80-94 Section 1 (part), 1980). fle 18.56.021 CotIddtpuIlldreview. (a) The naming Commission shall review Od the conceptual development plan and report and may act to grant conceptual approval, approval with conditions or modifications, or denial. Such action shall be based on the Comprehensive Plan, the .71 standards of this title, and other regulations, and the dhitability of ea the proposed development in relation to the existing character of the Wtep CD area. (b) Approval in principle of the conceptual development plan and report shall be limited to the conceptual acceptability of the land uses proposed and their interrelationships, and shall not be construed to endorse precise location of uses or engineering feasibility. The Planning Commission may require the development of other information . ' STAFF REPORT - S 8-83 PD - PAGE 7 1110 4110 than that specified in Section 18.56.030 to be submitted with the general development plan and report. However, the applicant should be as specific as possible concerning such issues as floodplain use, traffic circulation patterns, and density calculations, etc. The more accurate the proposal, the easier it will be for the Planning Cmamission to render a decision. In many cases, the conceptual and detailed development plan review process can be accomplished at one hearing. (c) No appeal of a denial of a conceptual development plan and report - shall be allowed. The intent of the conceptual review is to ascertain staff, Planning Commission, and affected citizens' concerns relative to h's ' a particular project. The applicant's responsibility is to address these concerns prior to a rehearing of the conceptual development plan before the Planning Ommmission. (Ord. 80-94 Section 1 (part), 1980). A 18.56.030 Detailed development plutelltr1-12011 . (a) Upon receipt of an application for a detailed plan and report review, the payment of the appropriate fee, and the submission of all appropriate supporting documents, the Planning Director shall initiate a review of the detailed • plan and report. Particular attention shall be paid to the issues developed as a result of the conceptual development plan and report review. If significant differences arise, the Planning Director may schedule study sessions with the Planning Commission and the applicant to resolve the issues prior to a public hearing. Thereafter, if the Planning Director of Planning Commission agree, the applicant shall proceed to a detailed plan hearing. (b) The detailed development plan and report shall consist of final plans showing the project as it will be constructed. All material which accompanied the conceptual development plan and report shall be updated to reflect the conditions, concerns, and changes brought about by the te preliminary review approval. All deviations or variances from the standards prescribed by this title in and in particular, in specific terms, all deviations or variances from the standards and specifications and requirements of Title 17 of this code, which are being proposed to be varied from, shall be addressed in writing with a showing that the public health, safety and welfare will be best served by such proposal. (Ord. 81-19 Section 1 (part), 1981; Ord. 80-94 Section 1 (part), 1980. ) D. CONCLUSIONS 1. Staff Comments There are approximately 47.81 total acres on the site; of which 42.81 acres are buildable and 5 acres are unbuildable (slopes in excess of 25%). The buildable land will allow 193 dwelling units, 43 in Phase I and 150 in Phase II. Twenty-five percent of the number of units which could be accommodated on the undevelopable land may be transferred and placed on the developable land, not to exceed 125% of the allowed density on the • developable portions of the site. A density transfer of 5 units can occur. With the density transfer the entire project can accommodate 198 dwelling units. STAFF REPORT - S 8-83 PD - PAGE 8 a 410 4110 The applicant proposes 215 units for the site and identifies no sensitive land forms within the project - no slopes over 25%. There are no steep slopes in Phase I but Phase II has more slopes over 25% than any similar size area in the City of Tigard. The extent and location of steep sloped areas needs to be confirmed by a registered engineer, when applying for preliminary plat approval of Stage II. The application specifies attached units in Phase II. Attached dwelling units are allowed only as a conditional use in an R-7 zone. The Public Works Department reviewed the proJect and finds the sanitary sewer and storm drainage plan acceptable. However, the Department found the public street plan for the site not designed to City standards. 121st Avenue should be designed for 60 feet of right-of-way and 44 feet of pavement. Also, no provisions were made for bicycle paths on the 3 extension of Gaarde Street. The Public Works Department found the V°-notch private streets inadequately designed. They would like to see the load design of the private streets engineered to City standards. The dwelling units within Phase I will be served primarily by the private loop streets. There will be accesses onto the loops from public streets. The loop streets will be one-way with parking only allowed on one side of the street. The Tigard Police will only go onto the private streets to answer a call. The City Council would have to adopt an ordinance allowing the police to enter private streets to issue traffic/parking citiations. The Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District has reviewed the project and approves of the development with conditions which have been made a part of staff's recommendation. F. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of S 8-83 PD with the following conditions: 1. Seven (7) sets of plan-profile public improvement construction plans and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by a registered civil engineer, detailing all proposed public improvements shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Division for review. 2. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Division has issued approved public improvement plans. The Engineering Division will require posting of a 100% performance bond, the payment of a permit fee and a sign installation/streetlight deposit. Also, the execution of a street opening permit or construction compliance agreement just prior to, or at the time of, its issuance of approved public improvement plans. 3. The final subdivision plat shall be recorded with Washington County prior to the issuance of any Building Permits. STAFF REPORT -° S 8-83 PD - PAGE 9 • 4. No changes or modifications shall be made to approved plans without written approval from the appropriate City department. 5. The applicant must improve the existing right-of-way 200' north and east of the intersection of SW 121st and Caarde to City interim standards. 6. Half street improvements shall be made to SW 121st Avenue where it fronts the applicant's project. 7. All on-site streets, curbs, and sidewalks shall be constructed to City standards. 8. If the 24 foot wide private streets are made one-way, parking will only be allowed on one side of the street. • 9. Hydrants are to be located at the intersection of Questor and Caarde and at the intersections of Gaarde end the private • • streets. (Hydrants shall be approved by the Tigard Water District). 10. The applicant must provide bicycle lanes on the Gaarde Street extension within the project boundaries. 11. Phase II of the project, when submitted for Preliminary Plat Approval, must include a School Impact Statement that has been reviewed by the appropriate school district official. 12. An additional five feet of set back plus the required twenty feet must be maintained on either side of the Gaarde Street extension. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Should the Planning Commission adopt staff's recommendation, the following motion may be made: "Move to approve, with conditions, the applicant's request for conceptual and detailed planned development approval and preliminary plat approval of Phase I of S 8-83 PD. " PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY: w` Y 'K" ' /2/4. 44 4....e' Wi' gam E1.4� ilg� Steve Skorney, Assistant Planner Director of Planning & Development SS:lw/0235P STAFF REPORT - S 8-83 PD - PAGE 10 STAFF REPORT ' . AGENDA ITEM 5.2 December 6, 1983 - 7:30 P.M. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION afp FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - LGI ROOM 10865 S.W. WALNUT, TIGARD, OREGON A. FINDING OF FACT 1. General Information - -= CASE:, Sign Code Exception SCE 5-83 NPO #4 REQUEST: For a Sign Code Exception to allow installation of a 100 square foot per face free-standing sign (to replace an existing 9' x 19' sign). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONING DESIGNATION: C-G RECOMMENDATION: Based on information submitted by the applicant, staff's review of applicable municipal code provisions, and field investigation, staff recommends denial of SCE 5-83. APPLICANT: Ramsy Signs, Inc. OWNER: Chalet Restaurant & Bakery 4835 NE Pacific 11680 SW Pacific Hwy. Portland, OR 97213 Tigard, OR 97201 LOCATION: 11680 SW Pacific Highway NPO COMMENT: NPO #4 has not responded in writing to this application request. 2. Background There is no record on the existing sign in the City's Building Department. 01. B. STAFF ANALYSIS AND REVIEW The Tigard Municipal Code allows for exception to the sign code as 55 follows: 3 , LU 18.114.140 Exceptions A. The Commission or, on review, the Council may grant exceptions to the requirements of this Chapter, when the applicant demonstrates that, owing to special or unusual circumstances relating to the design, structure, or placement of the sign in relation to other • structures or land uses or the natural features of the land, the literal interpretation of this Chapter would interfere with the communicative function of the sign without corresponding public benefit. 18.114.130 Zoning District Regulations C. Commercial Zones. No sign shall be permitted in a C-G and CBD except for the following: 1. Free-stendin j ns. • a. Free-standing signs shall have certain limitations and conditions when permitted on properties zoned commercial and industrial. 1) One multifaced, free-standing sign identifying the principal goods, products, facilities or services available on the premises, shall be permitted on the premises, subject to conditions and limitations as stated herein. 1 2) A readerboard assembly mA, be an integral part 1 of the free-standing sign. b. Area Limits. The maximum square footage of signs shall be 70 square feet per face or a total of 140 square feet for all sign faces. No part of any free-standing sign shall extend over a property line into public right-of-way space. 4 c. Area Limit Increases. The sign area may be increased one square foot for each lineal foot the sign is moved back from the front property line the sign is adjacent to. If the street is curbed and paved the measurement may be taken from a point which is 15 feet from the pavement. This increase in sign area is limited to a maximum of 90 square feet per face or a total of 180 square feet for all faces. d. Height Limits. Free-standing signs located next to the public right-of--way shall not Axceed 20 feet in height. Height may be increased one foot in height for each 10 feet of setback from the property line or a point 15 feet from the edge of pavement whichever is less to a maximum of 22 feet in height. C. STAFF COMMENTS The exceptions from the sign code regulations for the proposed sign are: height and total sign area. PAGE 2 - STAFF REPORT - SCE 5-83 II! . . _ • • , . The Chalet Restaurant sign is currently 40 feet in height. This is 18 feet over the maximum allowable height for a free-standing sign in a C-G zone located next to a public right-of-way. The applicant would like to replace the existing sign with a sign 24' 2" in height. The proposed , sign is in excess of the maximum allowable height of 22 feet. Total area of the proposed sign is 200 square feet which is 20 square feet in excess of the maximum allowable total area of 180 square feet. The applicant has not provided reasonable justification for a sign code exception. Based on a field investigation, staff suggests that if the proposed sign is permitted, the maximum height and total area should be 22 feet and 180 square feet respectively. This height would allow visibility for traffic from either direction. The PlanningsCommission should also weigh the benefits to the community when allowing the additional sign against the effect on the intent of the Sign Code provisions. Staff feels that the proposed sign adversely affects the intent and purpose of the Sign Code provisions set forth in Tigard's Community Development Code. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of SCE 5-83. However, the location of proposed sign as shown on the plan submitted by the applicant justifies that the applicant be allowed maximum height and total area which are 22 feet and 180 square feet respectively (sign is proposed to be installed about 20 feet back from the public right-of-way). /2/c/ vf.e' es -0 3 PREPARED BY: S. Hamid Pishvaie APPROTED B. : William A. Monahan Assistant Planner Director of Planning & Development (SHP:pm/0233P) • PAGE 3 - STAFF REPORT - SCE 5-83 am-- , / /1' as off.W1 " C'/F/ C diway K C I ' / CHALET ESDA A kir a" I � I 1 :Ii 5 � I 14 • Pic 0.W ppr� t .' •iq t'' i it 1„e4kd.-,,, r. • .,.114,4,...-.4.,.„ t?..,r;}�. .e.!'',44•?.:.." t ,� .p,.,'i�' 0 .01 tl ,• ! '42.4.-1.1.. ••e>t4 1 7 r f /•, r c.: • y • `.,..,,t t..... or grh :• 1 to t .11, r,•"e":.*." e r •1• ��'� 17 X11 e' ' T t ro'..4P• ,{ . aX' � e 14.0(1, • IPA:TO 1,� 47� i ;•} ..••°•w ''rg, • i 9C CON { ;: idea. { •••• :�4OO° A n; .— oraL<xL* N• &a' . 0., Q ,.a r ® CANCELLED AX LOTS :s 7; 400,14®,390,900,1860 A.1, ,° , Gm . e °.41t41.. 99 oI0. -',-..i`,..., •-:'. p's.v... .,1.V.! , o ` .. �j per„ P.• • 'gin'. Y -r4:.�. , • ``. ."•q 4 q ` & • a. a t• e b q • r ; 4 .�t �uaY li 1,1;00�'�'. aY 6S r' 11��Y°r, ^,q( ~ ; rt; i •Y {9+s^i• :_ . n "•s{. �z;, t p,,r,4 •i'r 4 Y7 . i �s '�4#, '1�tdi a t`ya} 'N�,rt r\ t .„..„,0...,...„ '' • ."%.,.:•.,-i;:,,/, ... ` Y • y :\�'`.1 bt. ,ht6 c ` Y r a P J) a•,, Y _ap,c.....4, 1, Y(t u .a 4 d 'V.'ta .nr . r ! \,� 2 ..99.44c • t a i .-- st ..ue . a v ° ;. ";r ,t �r 'Y' ,r,,,,y• ! tb.i *, 4001 s ,i n . ‘,.::4..'"I'''',;'..4: - 1 r r y tw7ttfe i v "r • • •a•'''''''...*'.5-'-:',4 , t o''..-.4.4,2a s N•,,•r,,i•v• .. ' .'',4 E' qm y. Ctit kt .'i r:7• .p • - "p 1, •rT y� •„ p'h.• g ..../,„..T,,,,......, 1 :?,..;we., M` �k 'M '''. �'S� . ((y . tt h..4 G e ..4 kit u ‘‘':4-, '7',..';'''''''''•..�;• c e { 1,, ie'K .' 4 P , .1:,. ;,yo '. trp F, • a o- °'1164 4 !Y I. 12 81®61 0 Jr3S`.. 9og8>s 176 5 %.4 l � 'iQCZ a�'�Dlal �4a�t tz a,0a . °. / + dt a. . `.• $ 4m !a636D C 0 t� a Y�41°t�• P }'1 ,4°t t XoEt,Y1 @i � _ o� 34.2 __—_. • ' '.e' S?x7.4 '. • .., ±._ • '4: MEMORANDUM • TO: Members of the Planning Commission A 0 0 1/74174"-.'i FROM William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development DATE: December 2, 1983 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan/Planning Commission Workshop A copy of the printed Comprehensive Plan as submitted to LCDC is enclosed I; for your use. We have already found a few typographical errors which we will be compiling in the form of an errata sheet. You will be receiving a complete list of corrections in the near future. I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that the City Council would like to hold its annual workshop with the Commissioners, on Monday, December 19, 1983 at 7:30P.M. at Fowler Junior High. I have been assured it will be the first order of business on the agenda' proceeding the Planning Department annual report. I encourage you to attend in order that we might discuss where we go from here now that the Plan is adopted. The Commission is the city advisory body responsible for the implementation of the plan, You also may wish to become involved with annexation policy as well as economic development. I would like to have the Commission and Council discuss their respective roles and give staff some direction of how each body wises to be involved in the activities. ird 4110 1110 • MEMORANDUM TO Members of the Planning Commission FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development ( � DATE: November 22, 1983 SUBJECT: NPO Application of Doug Vezina 4' Doug Vezina of 8855 SW Scheckla Drive has applied for membership in NPO #6. The Review Committee met 'on October 31 , 1983, interviewed Mr. Vezina, and determined that his application should be forwarded to the Planning Commission with a favorable recommendation. If Mr. Vezina's application is approved, it will cause the representation on the NPO's to be as follows: NPO #1 6 #2 4 #3 7 #4 12 #5 8 #6 9 #7 9 Staff recommendation - Based on the Review Committee's interview of Mr. Vezina, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward his application for membership in NPO #6 to the City Council. b Ea .d1 1" • Y 14, )0(t-& . 0 0 j„ N P O A P P L I C A T I O N QUESTION: What are NPO's? ANSWER: The function of each NPO is to be involved in all phases of the Comprehensive Planning process and the implementation of those plans; to review City plans; policies, projects or other actions affecting the livability of the neighborhood, including, but not limited to land use zoning, housing, community, facilities, human resources, social and recreational programs, traffic and transportation, environ- mental quality, open space and parks; to participate in the process of determining City priorities for capital improvements and development of specific project plans; to keep the neighborhood informed; to seek ' neighborhood opinion on issues brought before them; to represent the views of the neighborhood in matters of extra neighborhood importance. 1 A.y, PLEASE COMPLETE THE QUESTIONS BELOW (; ADDRESS 9,< 5'' Sc.heciu4,`)d�. 3 • N A btE �)L V��.-J�G�... - a r T I G O _ a >,'. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Bus.) C040-104 (Res.) ()3 " .'1Ib ,• PRESENT OCCUPATION - " ° ► 1 1litkY'9l FIRM NAME DLO 4 .4� _ (��e.1Jtt.)(-- C'-1a,c-r..-ri. ►<a ' HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM? 3 '/7 C IS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA? or) " HAVE YOU BEEN INVOLVED WITH MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS BEFORE?.__.1. IF YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR INVOLVEMENT: r WHAT DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN OFFER AS A MEMBER OF AN NPO? (-4'•) e4 fY'tl<�'Y 8f-,2„ ^� �` - Pi " ece.1 e IUC.L�P ` ■►M�.. 1 tit CAL t^. G 9 11Lts`3_± (akiS8 ry , A o1,2�t TAE a C AD/K1 "q'6,404 ZEttata. r1 Itt 0/( t , .1:._t eed 1 1.31.--_P' 111 corn on r i 'E To DE c., l f 4 a s a'r$ ' .n - I H ff __K--. l m -rAk.k ,3 1 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: W e`'Q..- `10-` 1 )_" 2eA_AL• 11C,A. i tl ' 1.I_'(±' !E 144!a1:_111/. �016P' 0/6"ti i'.(-✓ T �( e1i'21� 'il n, ,:1:, E s? ZES'T1Vt (-I rlljP l)') 6,5,11•- r)r-7>�?stIEQ 0E- 1b&1c Cam' "OO . A)aiv(LL PAT-3 PQ. --5,NE i1R 1) 2.40 ° lw-?t-% • ;4. •k-o' ` . ';o- -4- i riE ;�/4UYfT"!T11- 3 t1.zLNyr l,/60 001 ti:'C'PS OF F DAYTIME TELEPHONE NUMBER (per I C `-1 - Deci-.,,,C`>l% /)}AiFldUC-,- Pi?cc c•-.`.., 1/1 2/cn ,dam r:r. ce R ` . riot .a" • • • • BY RNM... .. .DATE..1.1-- 9-8 31J111JscT 1..A.:'.K...?'LA CF. P:: . .. SHEET No. OF CHKO. BY .DATE ... . ,.. I EY..12E. I.G..Liii.'.ii...a.EE.... JOIN NO. t I1'TERECT?ON AT 121st .. ... . • 1 P9 1 1 I .. n • I I r-1S —I-4 ,-41— ' C.),) .1 I ,p -a -Q , ti ,i. „ L._rk)._ 1�.-__. —Q- - Imp I fi\-) i r—Cu Lo] n } I P. O +- FwAY -0 1 i • , //,(N-3/'1 . 1 I / /N4)....______ w • ', 1 / •-•(....) , , rd. 'Li.-.--, 1 I -:. . 1 ,1 ni i 1 _.c.;:.\ ri i . .(fy. s_t(ai '. 1: - N\ <W b- --- - -I- <4. -o I __-• \ , 1 • ,, f . I .9 I ti is,&/. k1 � i1_ , 1 i � p xp D j • I_/ ---.-/ 1 N lk ,�VII 1 1 I - I _ a� ! All nF I .I 0 0 eri v —; �> i.' Vii; ►•1 ' , / � • • C r W1 y LI, f ! I t.l .-._. I 1 ct.....N.I._\.)1 1 •I 1 jv 4 Q., J ft Ix a 0 ` S /� irsr Is p o....... ... . . • _ .,-:,.:a. a „n: . Cm III 1 111111111 Iilllllll lii�jiiii 111111111 IIIIIIIII 111111111 li�l I 1 dill fin) Inl IIII Ilu 1111 lilt flll lui Inl Ilil I I L.E�ilelL.lYYSTRIP 1 1 1 1 I I I I I ( I I I�III IIIr'�I►IIIIIIIUIilmin ijliilililiilill nlliIIIIIIIIIiuilllnllnifiii'ij�ullnuliniliullIiIilluili liliiiiiuliiiijilil'uiijiiilliinlnill IOww.1a e b 10 1I 12 13 14 ■ IQ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 27 28 29 30 I1 11 ,. 1” 2" ,.. .1 . i'1 of 8 MONI • $Oz ot • • : • _ 1iEM�41lMMMy � W'wYfMMwWwMwe r.n.WW+•4 .. ••• • .- ....t - a - - _ _ _eyy. !4M`+ is.n �Lxapf • a, t+w+ �4 r- -,..ac .�.+ t`. .L. f.:MAWw+..:.rMri'+M .�prl.•M�MN •„,,,,, k-Attt • • N . • . •. ,, . - I , , . . . . . . , ,',•:'W',', , „ ,.. \ ° . . -- ,,, ‘.,, ., „ . '-7- .. '', . ..„.„ . N . • ---• „„___,„.. „.„.. ' . N Vg , i• — „. ,,, ,g.1( „. i ,,,,,,,,„ , \\. . ,..,. zim \ !I pl t -,'.,, ..• :.. • \ ,:.,..,,, . t, ) \„. ' i , .. , / v,,I.„, , ' . ...., -..... ...,,, \‘‘., , • .. 11, „.. . . . \ K1 •-•... ',",, 77)41 . 4 _ A. - • .•,• I In ___, 4/ \ .."' V./1;::.:.:/;. ,.../:: N.,/ 4, i V/ 7'.^;:,!-".;/,`/.2 • -----. . I i 'k",P ..., i . .. ..„. , N.,„ \ 1 ,,,' v.- ..•. -,'.,',..-,' .. 3 ..Ital■ . .^., \ 1.5.VA . ,...."- .7 . ,, ,,Pii•7„, ‘kt . .• , • ' / / Is(''' . . ...' i .7.7..'..., . , j „, ....„_•.§..k.‘4,■ii?..,„, • .-- , r )i ---Lt------ ,, r ,.. ...., ..,„,„:„..„.........,.. ....„. .. .. ..... ..,:,_„ .„, ,, .. , " r .., , ,------ , , - . . . ,, ., i / ,, , ., .7 „, , , 0 s \ 1,/ ' \ ' ._,,,"*.z),--.„....—... .„,,,r ..,......... ■ • ', ''''' '''' k. I • .;^"'''' ''' •*". ' \ ' j[ 4 .....,:=.."--Z- , i IlleeD e . . . ,/• ,. O% . • % .% I ' % %, \ 1 '.1 % ‘ 1 \ .1 . ' ' ' \ % ..% ' \ / i . . , ....-m."-., 1 . 1 ., • \\ \ 1 \ , .., ■,,,, , \, „,, 1', . , 't i '' '''s 1 3 4) ''.**-- '''''''' ', ''''' ' • • .., Ak i#X. , _ 0044.M‘L'f•''-':"=`:7: ;;;7'... '' -'-'••'"°- , • ; I k‘ 1 ' ) 'i • t. t N. N. 1 — , ,, , , ‘,.,, t\s, i / \ , ; , . , . . . . ‘ .,:,, t'',,,,, " • \y/ ;„\.&,„ „,' ' ev , 1 • \ ---- . ....., :,„ . • .,„ • , 1 . 4.---' '-,--- .., t \ , . ,0' .t., ,‘ ,. fj ' , . I . .. , i \ \/ / , : ,, -' -, , I„ k. ‘ , \ A. i ‘ s , ., „ • ,, i . N ./•„?, i ' ••\',.\„ ..".'. ''' ",,,,,„ ;),t. ' ' \\ '' • , . ; i I I .7' ,' '74, \/ \ N t .7. / 1 / • \ \ i '',,t \ 7 ,: e • , • / 1.,,::1 / / A /1 i , 3*4'Q - -''''• '-'\.. . \ \ I .1 ! I i. 4 ; / i ,•••„-. • ... . ., . , 0 il ,./ / • i 1 \ . , • \ i 1 , a I / , / `■ ', \ . i ., t • : I , / . \ / 1 . N \ I i . 1 \ ■ .., \ \ ' , 1. '`. t' 1. ,,, k, .. t • t . . • i 6,0 / • ' , ' ' • , i ; A • , 1. 7-07-.44. A,.ic 1-4,.:' , - -••i• 4 \ . \ \ . i / I 1 i , , 1 ' t., ' i t 'O. , . ' . .. . . • \ . I , , , . ,5 Er V,,,eld'• 4 404 DE 30 E3- 1 Zi tr za Pr' 7—Er-A4. ed,Niy5 /74,0,1e•,... ,. . 2,45- PN A s i 1 +3 L/",//7 . ••-A.Tikx .A.,,,,,,r•fl.,,,,,,,c , • . I , '•■, \,,,, \I v, , • I ., .,,,, . , : \ , , i — i .. .., A., , , ,' .t.I../ f / ; ‘ \ / .- , . , \ , 04..P.N.a i AN; so,A40,17-4 4,,,, i4,Pr - (4 8, 49'6,, ;, 7 , 1 ' •:„'„ \ t - i 7. i ,. , ,. . I ROA 4 twA)' V i•-A i,A:/r,..v 5 r7f:O.'' 5,- ow PH A P f 17 ./ 1 , 5 hEr Aiie 0004A. 1,•a,rS No fir N . , A „ ,1 . 0 PE./ 5 A n',f,, . •I ) .''' \ '''. ' : . . i' • • ■ : \\t , 9 -, ; .,, - i.0 r 1' ;47 9 e g.t A /i'.5-4'0, ,.... ) AI 1 ii, g) 1 ' ' , , 1 I f. i i' \ - i ' 1 , i, -re) 4- *E'EN 5 11 A', M a d.. aid...,8-',,,,,','... - ):'. '.?„ ' IN1 „ . . . , ..ai, i j .. ,, a . , . r ,,. , I N, r • i , . , 0 ,” 0 , , #0,' f / \ 0 ., tt , ,. ,, i ,,,„ \ , i , I* • tif. eAl". ko ,.... „, m .1 " . ' # ' , , 'A , . I I I, I. A* , ..., ,,,,, A PEE'i ow'NA NY PI AA PoR , \, 1 . . c I( 10.4ts 4 rleit \. ,) „e i, ,. i „„ T , . , s , , „ . / , .,,,,,,,, , ir,, : 0 0 t i In r , i . / ...„ I r ' i ,,,, , i iii: ot ,, \ 411 ; f ,.,,,„. PARK PL .,tC E \ I i I , ,,,, I . :•;.4', ilt, 6+,• , / it Is. r ,/ k / , • ....\\ \ . t ts7 ti I 1 1 / ,, i; 4 1 -91 , \ ply , i , \ \ No I i , / 1 1 i \ tt.1 1 '-' I 1 --1 rfrA4,.,:xtiA:400010 137:Aerbk,•op„lie*,esr 9yrigt 1.:A4E/yr : . : I / ' / L.% ' CENTURY' 21 pRoPERTIES /NC ,, il / .. i i 1 \ \ i. #' \' 1 ; i I i.; i i s , , .., i •i i I ,1 / :'' , „ . , I I 1 \ , el / /2N1 ,, „? .........— i,,t):1 !.-- Th, 1 1,::3 L-1 , I , ,-; i f/ ' / I / /I : ' .5/.,,,rE //z, ,,,,,,,z OFAVEPTON-4414,490A4E NiEtlw Ay \ '\ ' /I i 1 ' PORN ARO, OREGON 972 25 ..„ / 1 ' '\ . • — i ©k' '4.$'' . 1 ..,.. 11 ‘ 4 I \ \ \ Cri\i' L.n- i iC;ARD ' • . I 4 II \ , „.. ., „ t 1 g \ L 4 it.; 1 / \ , , I € ....„.) 1 ; ' , „ . , 1 I - ° i r"'LANNING DEPT. . ' ( :\ I. / I / / . .---- .,. A i / • •AO' ! ' A • 1 ' ,‘ - ,... / ; .' 1 ,97 i / . \ ,. fow,NsEstc..,c3firrATAx4A44p22.55/ ;.cc„,i57,.. m % i , , , ,• , . . • , / , .., ): • , / , . .„,,li.--..... . ---”' , N 00 0 1 OS, i /.//1 8 i! i / \ f-,,,ti4,...a- -- , , ir,,7,-,-74-4- - :,,-' ---- WASNINGrapi couNTY oREOON VISTA 0 i . ‘ 1 . E , „.•• i C, .1 +. ffiC:C H 7 0 L D 'N., 5 1 ' . \, 1. / if i / ' \ \ ,.-, ' --- • 1 .....----- 1 -., ,/"\ . .,.. **‘\,0 '*". vi rbekf aZs I 4-1 : ./ / , ‘‘'. ' 1 •..t,,, 1 ''..:‘'!:1: ' ' 4 - •,,, ,.- 3 ,„„ , /> • ii,; , \ t \ / . „ - ,-,-- ,.......„ ..,„. - . , 1. I .!'-----;' ''..•f: / . , 1 4' — 1 :r.,:1/47., 17...- • -„ 1,ite.,N „„:„,,,„ —L ' '\ e , \ '•, ,....... \ ,. „6.....,,,, 0 e,Lgt -c 1 ,.. ',„: c'", / 1 ,„ .. / - _ a 0 . .. v , 1--------1 ,, .•••.„ •_.....,, i• , „. ..., \ 1N i ......--" -----„- 04„.1* - eit"4-', Sti ' i • :'ii 'Al' . . . „.., / ,,; ,,,, \\,.'-. . i,..,. i`u LI %.'.., .„,s irt,,,,„...r .; 4t, ,..,,,, ...,, !......., i ''',, . ^N. '. 1' II f i • ,. f .'(,k, pi) vitt. , va- _ r 8 , ., „ . N.LzA. ‘'N 1 , s Not^ N''"-,.... N \ Zo I I 1,,,V, i 3 -. ...., i . , •-•\,,,,, 7,, •, , . - k -.. ',. 7.0 ,,,,, Teo ' '"' i -- , , ,t, t,t . - ' N „ i , ': , i _, , „.„- 9 . -„,,. k:1 i. L..;,,.. ....... o4 .., / --iir , --, .• ., , l'Av 4o" 40 a L s .,„ ik, . \•,•,. • \ „.., , i • ,,.1,1 ,„ , 1 0 -\\ ."-L, --N.„ • - 6 ' ' I • ,-.'-• 116%%74.446‘ \ \ ,,, ''', --„, ” ' ‘, k. \ / , .. .,, \t\4114 .... • c5 , GI \ „ • 1 , . • /' : , --• •• "Nss,, • %,,,,.. .4\‘ ,**,.k \ \ \ • • ••••••,• / : ,••,. ,_ . .„... • - • .,.. vs, , ' i / i Illipv - ..,..\ 0 ii.5 ' \V ‘ .., • • tm...•r la: \"17,.„: • • i , - , ,, '„:,, . 4,IP--, \ P% \ • ' I • / at ! 1 / „. . • , „-..., 1 1 t„..‘-::‘, •',' 7 /61 , f•--:••,•;-.. - [;,,,1 (.1 !-- "-- „, , „ . '-•-•,,, . -\ • . .,,, - , ,, -- ,, • - • - •,„• \ .., ' ! - --1/ 4 ■;‘,":1 aS1 r‘ . , .•.•:• ..,„,,,, • \ , •. •,.. .. - \ \ - I i• ; .' ! I‘X i . N., . \ . , -''' .1......:41:1; \ v‘', 1 , 1.2: ,,....1 i : ,,,•• ,,,,,,, , ,;,,,4 .,,,,, v•• ,,,,,. ,, , ........... ...., ,,, .4 , • . It 1 12.-;:,..:,,,.:' „.., alak..IMP 111111111!<■er iii, -cl • i / ..., „..„ • :„..... „„. ft'', .l'I'' i %) 4... . , ...7 . - I : ‘ '0:1:', 3 . : VVC , • .., , ,,„,, -_ ....,'-.”, ..,',:,,,. ,,„,,, ::-..‹,,,...,„„ .4•:: # f ;„:,,,s,,,;r!,, ,■,‘' ,f -..,;) ■ /3 , . . ■'., „ $‘ ,...,,., . 1 ,,,,t !:,', ' liA.,,, 1 1 ':: .'' ' .......„ r t IN I ,., , „,_ , ••• „. ,, . .. ,, ,., „ „„, „„ • „, , , „ . . ,....... „,:,,, ,- • -- .„ , ,,e,44,t•x--,„„„,,• " .„„t,,,,,,,,,,, ,), ,,, ,, , . • , ,,„,,,,,,,,,„,„„,„„ „„,-,,„), „,„ „ , , , „ „„,, rt „ „, , , ,‘„,,,,, • ‘,,,. A „ ,i , 4. ,:i: . is t , ', 03 .'„,„;',:", ; „ • Ak"5 ' Akt 0-- ' - , 4 . fred, .-., A N '- t . ' „ A: ,„ ; „. . „,„, ' . 4 ' AAAC, 4'0 0 ^-, I., 1)„, „ . I ---,1 , •,,,,,,:' . , „,„__, A\ ttn"X• ‘I' !. ,-;,),' ng A - tk°kk. IkA kkikk„\-0"0, 1,„ 1, tAkkkke ,i„„ $ 0,, ''i , A : , 'A• %OA ■ kkk„t ,. ' %trk kk k kk„A k r%t r k t kkktrtk kk A k k%kk„3„„„k%:%040Vg*kg;;%443rkkkkkkr%kk%:'''k%kkk kkkktk k r%"k kr tkt t'ki.' Nkk k k‘kkk kr rkkkk kkAk,,i''''q rig krrkt % Agg, Okg „ ' r k ' %t tt t krkkr k kila AP%Vikk%N.:r. , ,' 11101114 k • „ 1 krOM 9 4 .. . . . R . • , ,t't cktt 2 A , „ • , ..„. , - A ,. . - - - , . . . . , • ' , , . ' ',.iniiikkAngto,0 t•0$,AntnA, ,,„„.ikkal , . .,„ I k . I . t.'1....1".1."1"" ""r ilivili'111111111111filitrifirlillItill I 1 I — - 1 . 1 111 .i1111111 1 iilffifillipmplinpuirripmriptiliiiliti 2„4„4„,„, ti 12 13 14 1 `, 18 I 1 8 1 42' " 6" I'''' 1 23 24 25 28 27 28 29 30 ...„„ F J ' msomirismoistemstenE magmatinemaxami I , ,i , i ...1„.. /" 2" sompowlesz k . •-t% 4.-.-,..R.:, •••,,,,,,,-.0e . . „••• , .