The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Packet - 04/21/1984 POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm.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. AGENTIA TIGARD PI.ANNING COASI�IISSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARS� 21, 19$4 - 7:30 �'.M. FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - LGI Room 10865 S.Wa Walnut Tigard, Oregon 97223 1. Call to Order 2. Ro11 Call 3. Approve minutes from February 7, 19$4, meeting. 4. Planning Commission Communication • Review of Budget - Bob Jean 7:30 - 8:00 P.M. • Study Session with NPO's 8:�00 - 8:30 P.M. 5. PUBLIG HEAItINGS 5.1 VARIANCE V 1-$4 BOND PARK II and BOND PARK III NPO �k 5 5.2 PLANIVED DEVELOPMENT PD 1 -84 Rosebud Enterprises, Inc. NPO �� 7 5.3 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD 3-84 SUBDIVISION S 11-83 ZONE CHANGE ZC 2-84 VARIANCE V 6-83 Colony Creek Estates II, III, IV NPO �� 4 6. Other Business 7. Adj�urnment I I �0288Pdmj) � < TIC�ARD PLANNING COMIMISSI�N SPECIAL MEETING - FEBRUARY 21, 19$4 1. VicQ-President I�Ioen called the meeting to order at 7:40 P.M.. The meeting was helel at Fowler Jt�nior Hxgh School - LGI Room - 10865 SW Walnut, Ti.gard, �regon. 2� ROLL CALL; PRESENT: Vice President Moen, Commissioners Fyre, Owens, Peterson and Vanderwood. ASSENT: President Tepedino, Commissioners Butler, Edin, Leverett. STAFF: virector of Planning and Development Monahan (axrived 8c00 P.M) ; Associate Planner Keith Liden; Secretary Diane M. Jelderks. 3. Minutes from February 7, 1984, were consi�dered. Commissioner Owens requested that the first pa�agraph c�n page 4 be stricken, as this was not her intent, Also, the seconded paragraph under Commission Discussion and Action she asked the sentence be clarified that she does not support any development in the floodplain, not abutting the floodplain. Co�missioner Owens moved and Commission Peterson seconded to approved minutes as amended. Motian carxied unanimously by Commissioners present. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCIJSSIQN • Commissioner Owens staked she had received a letter from the Mayor regarding Hap�y Valley. City Administrator Bob Jean stated that the Attorney's office had clarified and this was an exaeption rather than a rule. • City Administrator Bob Jean Pre�sented a review of the budget needs far the 1984/85 budget year. Discussinn follr�wed. I NPU/PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION r Director of Planning and DeveLopment suggested each NPO come forward and address their concerns to the C�mmission. • Carolyn Eaden, 13645 Stevens Court, representing NPO �� 1, stated ihey wexe concerned with whex�:� downtown Tigard is going, especially the �r�a on Main Street by the post office. In the 0'Mara triangle whexe the large residential area is, khere are numerous coneerns regarding density. Another cancern is protecting khe residential area from commercial develo�ments. They have felt frusrration on who to add�ress their eoncerns to. They also felt they may need to organize their NPO better. r Director of Planning and Development y�dt��d no one was available from NPO �' 2. They did not have enough membzrs to be an active NPO and sta£f would be working at increasing their membership. • Bob Bledsoe, 11800 �W Walnut, N�0 �k 3 Chairman. The devel�pments they were concerned wxth were Fark Place, on 121st and Gaarde; and Park Square, on Pacific Highway and Park Street. They felt there were lots of deeision being made and set by staff and that more citizens needed more input, They felt the NPO needed to be notified sooner of projects and that a monthly report should be established showing status of developments. o LaValle Allen, 7450 SW Hermosa, NPO �� 4, otherwise know as the Terrific Tigard Triangle. This area is ready to explode. There is a LIll in the process. 'They were concerned that they hear about new developments in a timely manner. Also, that the established residential areas be proEected. • Debra Naubert, 14365 SW 80th Place, NPO �� 5, is concerned about the time response on developments. Not being able to have input prior to staff repoxts. They were concerned about the density in residential areas being compatible with existing areas. Discussion followed regarding NPO comments on the staff reports. � Phillip Pasteris, NPO �k 6 stated their area of concerns are Durham Road, with regard to weight limits and width of the street; possible overcrowding in the schools; traffic circulation for Hall Blvd. and McDonald St. improvements; that the scenic area (Little Bull Mtn. ) be preserved. Also, they would like a copy of their minutes ut into P the files reflecting their recommendation. � Yvonne Larson, 10730 SW Noxth Dakota, NPO �� 7. Their mai�l concern was that the upper limits for density seemed to be pushed. Also they were not able to receive staff assistance when they requested it. Another concern was the errors which resulted from the applicant supplying the names of surrounding property owners, resulting in notice not being delivered to correct addresses. Discussion fallowed regarding notification pr�cess. 5. PUBLIC HF.ARINGS Vice President Moen opened the public hearing by reading the procedures to be followed during the heari.ng. 5.1 VARIANCE V 1°84 BOND PARK II and III NPO �� 5 A request by Waverly Construction Co. for a variance to City stendards to allow sidewalks on only one side of the interior streets of Bond Park II and III. The applicant also request a variance from the setback standards for a R-12 zone to allow 18-foot garage setbacks, 1Q-foot street side ards 4-foot interior side ards and 1 - Y , y , 5 foot rear yards, • Associate Planner Liden made staff's recommendatxon to deny the proposed reduction in sidewalks, L-he 15-foot front yard, the 18-foot garage setback and the 4-foot side yard and to approve the 15-foot rear yard, 10-foot street side yard (applican� re�uired to meet vision clearance requirements in Section 18.102 of the B�velopment Code. ), �nd side yards of 5 feet rather than 4 feet. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 1984 Page 2 � _ _ _ _ • NPO/GCI COMMENTS - Debra Naube�t, NPO �k 5 Ghdirperson, stated the NPO was not aware of the variance requests when th:ey reviewed this a�p�ication and asked that it be tabled in order for the NPO to review. o APPLICANT'S PRESENTATIUN - Ryan 0'Brien, repiesenting Ken Waymire, agreed with staff's recommendation. They would rather have the four foot, but would settle fox five. Also, they felt the xeductiun of the sidewalk would make 'the project more desirable with less c�ment. � PUBLIC TESTIMONY s John Swartz, 15900 SW 76th, opposed application as it had not been , reviewed by the NPO and also because there was some problem regarding an agreement f�r an easement for sewer had not been fulfilled. • Dorothy Gage, 80Q0 SW 54th, Portland, Qr. , supported the NPO's request for postponement. She claimed that al'lowing these variances would increase the density and would reduce the value of her property. CROSS EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL • Commissioner Moen requested staff to outline what existing code requires, what applicant is requesting and staff's recommendation. ,� Required Requested Recommendation Front yard 20 15 denial Garage 20 18 denial Street side yard 20 10 approval Interior side yard 10 4 appr.ove 5 ft. Rear yard 20 15 approval. Sidewalks both sides one side denial • Qommissioner Moen asked staff what effect easement had on this application. Planning Director Monahan stated it had no effect. � Discussion followed regarding variances being requested are the same as want is allowed in an R 7 zone. Densiry is less than if they had developed as R-12. PNI3LIC HEARING CLQSED • Consensus of the Commission was to support staff's recommendation. Commission Vandexwooci espressed her concern for visual clearance on a 10 ft. street sideyard setback. Also she did not see the need ta reduce the rear yard setbacks. e Commissioner Owens moved and Commissioner Peterson seconded to deny the proposed reducti.on in sidewalks, the 15-foot front yard, the 18-foot garage setback, and the 4-foot side yard and to approve the 15-foot rear yard, 10-foot street side yard, and side yards of 5 feet rather Chan 4 feet. The applicant sha11 still be required to meet vision clearance requirements in Secticn 18.102 of the Development Gode. Motion carried by unanimous vote of Commissioners present. PLANNING COMMISSiON MINUTES February 21, 1984 Page 3 _- _ - _ -- --� _ _ _ _ _. _ . _ '�, 5.2 PLANNED DE�ELOPMENT PD 1-�4 Rosebud Fnter�rises, Inc. NPO �� 7 A reque�t far conceptua2 plan approval of a Planned Development for a 34 unit single £amiYy residential deve.lopment. • Associate Planner Liden made staff's recommendation for canceptual approval with conditi:ons. i NPO/CCI COMMENTS - Staff stated NPO �� 7 supported the applicant's request. • APPLIGANT'S PRESENTATION - Mel Stout, 262b SW Corbett, stated they had reaeived approval for :a Sensitive Lands Permit. They had held � �neig�borhood meetings, whi.ch they had no objections raised. They did not support condition number two. They felt since this was a planned development, and that the nature of a planned development allowed shifting of 'density, that they had met the inkent of the policy and would like consideration for that. Also a large portion of 'the project would be dedicated as open space. PUBLfiC TESTIMONY - No one appeared to sp�ak. CROSS EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL s Questions and discussion followed regarding the low elevation and the approved sensitive lands permits. PU�LIC HEARING CLOSEB � COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION �' The Coc�missioners supported staff condition number two, which would require the applican� �o comply with the City's density transition �rovi5ions. � The Commissioners were concerned with the elevation of lots 10 and 32. Commissioner Peterson was concerned that lot 1Q was being built with four ft. slopes on the sides of the tiouse. Further cliscussion on the sensitive l.ands per�nit. • Tony Righless, representing the a�plicant, reviewed the process and the items they had to address to obtain L-he sensitive lands �ermit approval. Further discussion. • Gommissioner Fyre moved and Commissioner Vanderwood seeonded to give conceptual approval fox PD 1-$4 with eonditions, modifying condition number two ' to include considexation of the lots on the sauthern boundary. l�otion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. PLANNING COMMISS:�OPI MINUTES February 21, 1984 Page 4 E : 5.3 ZONE CHANGE ZC 2-84, �LANNED DEVLLOPME�T PD 2-83, SJBDIVISION S 11-83, VARIANCE V 6°83, Col�ny Creek Est�tes II, III, IV NPO �� 5 A request for� a zone change from R-12 to R-12 FD Planned Deveiapment for a 2.49 ac�e parcel (2S1 12BB, 3700). F�r conceptual and detaile� plan approval of a Planned Development for all phases. ror grelimiiiary plat approval of a 67 1ot subdivisi�n, single family detached units (Phase II & �II). Also for a variance to allaw zero lot line construction in a R-12 zone (detached units), and to reduce khe front yard setbacks, i.e. , disfiance between the pr�perty line and the front o£ the garage from 20 feet to 18 feet. • Associate Planner Liden made staff's recommendation for denial of the variance and approval of the Zone Ch�nge ZC 2-84, Planned Development PD 2-83, and Subdivision S 11-83 with condition�. s NPO/CCI COMMENT5 - llebra Naubert, NPO �� 5 Chairperson stated the NPO had review this applica�ion carefully. They opposed approval of the variance for the reducti�n in front yard setbacks. They had concern for the struetures. T.hey felt the single oversize garages would increase the problem of cars parking on the streets. They were also concern with that the density might be to high for the area as well as the cost of the homes may have a impact on thP surrounding ne ighbo�r s. • Dave Evans, Representing Titan Properties, stated they would acceat denial of the variance. He was surprised the NPO was questioning the deYisity as the prope�ty is zon�d for multi-family and they are praposing high quality homes. He asked the Cammission accept staff's recommendation. • Debra Naubert added that NPO �� > had also met with them and agreed with their coneernse PUBLIC TESTItdONY s Jan Haskin, 14370 SW Hall questiqned why a road was bein,g proposed on her parents property. • David Evans stated that there would not be a thru street there unless the property �wner chase to to build one and that Frank Currie would make that determination. s Discussion followed regarding street patterns and access points. II • Commission Vanderwood questioned why they where allowing four plexes to abut single family res�dences. Discussion followed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PLANNING GOMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTIaN • Commissioner Vanderwood was concerned that policy 6.3.3 was being violated. She was concerned with lots 11 thru 14 and 64 thru 67. Discussion followed regarding density transition. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 21, 1984 Page 5 � _ _ _ _ --- - :; . � Discussi.on' fallowed x�egarding the construction and safety aspect of the cul-cle°sac., • Commissioner Vanderwood moved and Commissione� Fyre seconded to adopt staff'� finding �nd recommendaCion adding ,the following conditioz�s. 1. Developer wi`I1 delete one of the lots bet�ween lots 11 thru 14 based on the findin•g'khat it violates policy 603.3. 2. Developer will delete one of the lots between lots 64 thru b7 if 'staff determines that the abutting properky is an establislled area. 3. The Developer wi11 construct a permanent turnaronnd at the south ,I end of Fanno Creek Drive. 4. Staff will clarify the multi-family areas to ensur� compatibility matrix is met. - Motion carried unanimousiy by �Gommissioners present. 6. OTHER BUS'INESS • Workshop was schedule for April. 2nd, 1984, 7:OU to 11:00 P.M. . 8. Meeting Adjourned 13:00 midnight Uiane Mo Jelderks cretary ,ATTEST: �• �'�"°'�..�� ll�;�//Q�� Vice-President Donald Moen � (0327P) PLANNING COh4�fISSION MINUTES February 21, 1984 Page 6 • Biscussion followed regarding the construction and safety asp�ct of the cul-de-sac. • Commissioner Vanderwood moved and Gommissi.oner Fyre seconded to adopt staff's finding and r�commendation adding the following conditions. 1. neveloper will delete one of the 2ats between lots 11 thru 14 based on the finding that it violates policy 6.3.3. 2. Aeveloper will delete one of the l.ots between lots 64 thru 67 if ' staff determines that the abutting property is an established ares. �. The Developer' will construct a permanent turnaround at the south end; of Fanna Creek Drive. 4. Staff will clarify the multi°family areas to ensure compaCibility matrix is met. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. b. OTHER BUSINESS � ; � Workshop was schedule fox April 2nd, 1984, 7:0�0 to 11:00 P.M. . 8. Meeti;ng ,Adjourned 12:00 midnight . Diane M. .�elderks cretary ATTESTe ,,�• t�i��-+�..1,,� i�i�o+�...�. V'ice-President Donald Moen (0327P) P;�.,ANNTNG COMMISSZON MINUTES February 21, 1984 Page 6 X&%II�4�Z4�HXYX PLANNING COMMISSION ROLL CALL Frank Tepedino � `I� � �� John Butler � � ��-^' � ,�,-{� Phil Edin ivV ��v� Milton Fyre �`� Deane Leverett � ��'� Donald Moen ,✓L' � Bonnie Ownes _(U Dave Petersan -� Ch.ris Vanderwood � TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION TUE�DAY, FE�RUAI2Y 21, 1984, $;30 P.M. FOWI,ER JUNIOR HIGH Sf;H00L - LGI ROOM 10865 SW Walnut - Tigard, Or. PUBLIC HF.ARING ITEMS 5.1 VARIANCE V ]:-$4 BOND PA17K II and BOND PARK III NPO # S A request by Waverly Construction Co. for a varianoe to city standards to allow sidewalks on only ane side of the interios streets of Bond Park iI and III. The applicant also requests a variance from the setback standards for an R-13 zone Co allow 18 foot garage setbacks, 10 foot street side yard's, 4 foot interior side yards, and 1.5 foot rear yards. The property is designated medium density residential and is zoned R-12. Located at: Between SW 79th and SW 81st, north of Durham Road. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 12CC lots 100, 1900, 2000, and 2S1 12CD 1ot 1600). 5.2 PLANNED DEVELQPMENT PD 1 -84 Rosebud �nterprises, Inc. NPO ,� 7 A request for conceptual plan approval for 34 single family zero lot line dwelling units on 7.31 acres. The property is designated Medium Densiry 'Residential and Open Space. It is zoned R-7PD. Located at: SW 106th Ave and SW Black Diamond Way. (Washe Co. Tax Map 1S1 34AD lot 260D). S.3 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD 3-84 SUBDVISION S 11-83 ZONE CHANGF ZG 2-84 UARIANCE V 6-83 Colony Creek EStates II, III, IV NPO # 4 A req�sst by TiCan Properties for a zone change irom R-12 to R-Y2 Planned : Development (PD) for a 2.49 acre parcel. Als�, a request for a conceptual and dekaileci plan approval of a Planned Devel�pment as well as preliminary , plat approval on 15.27 acres. A variance to allow zero lot line construction in the R-12 zone, plus a reduckion in the gaxage �etback from • 20 to 18 feet. The propexty is designated medium density residential and is zoned R 7PD and R-12. Loc.ated at: SW Hall Blvd and SW Fanno Creek Drive (Wa. Co. Tax Map 2S1 12BB, lots 100, 101, 3400, 3601, 37U0 and 4300). � - =- - U[t l s!'-- ��— -- NOTIC�: A�L PERSONS DESIR�NG TO SPEAK AN �►NY ITEM MUST SI�N TEaEIx N�riF. and riate their address: on this sheete (Qlease Print your name) -�''� ITEIK/bESCRIPTION: �i� (�,,,.�!?� /fy'i°"/C' � �-_1J� ' �. � ;� �� . PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) Na , Add�ress and Af¢iliation � N me, Addre s a d Af�i.liation �� r �,� ��`� ��.. �� / 5!�t� �./P � �- F � a'�,�''' t�.�r� w't� 1`�`�� . ` t-•'��... � � ;� :�-'' .� ��t C ��1, , , �?� (��-� �,�.� �� s,� > . .K,�,-��.��,�.��.�.t�c_ �- .; c� �aa su� ,�"�f� : � r,3�V�-�� ...� � I � "" . � ��,� .� ,�. � �,�w,.�i�� ;� � t �w� "`,r i �� , / � /•�?,,� ,, ��.;� r ! '��a� �, ,�,�.j�. �-`�' C��1 ( ,r c� %"��: �' '7 � �.� '�� u ,, , � ' , , � �, , . ' � . L l t��: - __p� .�.,i��1_�� ------�-- ._ -f/'- Nt�TICE: �1LL PERSOIJS C�ESIR�NG '�O SPEAK ON ANY �TE41 MUST STGN THE�R rt�rr� and note their address on this sheet. (please Frint y'our name) IT�.M/b : RI�?TION:_ L.�''� f-°/J �--5�=,�-- �� 1 -- � ��' �� PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) Name, Address and Affiliation � Name, Address and Affil.iatian ��:� ��.�� r"1 �?� �� ",�.?�.',.,�:��"�'�" �,�;;t�„� `( " ;, � . � .. i i . . � � , . .U/�L:� �.-�--��4 / V�___ _ .,_---- L � [dOTl'CE; ALI, PLP�SONS I1F.ciIRiN�, Z`O SPE.F�I� ON AI3Y I'1`Ebi MUST SIGI�I T[•�I�IFt N71b1�' " and no�e their ad�ress on this sheet. (please Print your name) � ITEIMf�bESGRIP.TION: �� , �` S -- _ I� ll - � � 3 �. � f� � ,,.�''° • , �� `� , � I�U- PROPONENT (For) OPPQNENT (agai.nst) Name, Address and Affiliati�n � Name, Address and A��il.iation �� ;.�- �.'��,� �`��.,� t��`.��`��t� �;�� < �f�'"�'��'� - :; � . ,, _� , , ! i. �r.. �r' . . . . . MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ' FEBRUARY 16, 1984 T0: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning & Development �� SUBJECT: Planning Commission Workshop In January I met with you to discuss issues co:ncerning staff/cammission relations, expectations, and needs for change. We all agreed that given the recent addition of new staff, new commissioners, and an adopted plan, :it is necessary for us to conduct a work session. I would like to propose a few tentative time's for you to choose from so that I and my staff may begin to prepare for it. I am pro:posing either of the following dates and times. Saturday, March 17 from 9 A.�'. to 3 P.M. Monday, Mareh 19 from 7 P.M. to 11 P.I•I. . � Tuesday, March 20 fr.om 7 P.M. to 11 P.M. posss �Saturday, March 24 from 9 A.M. to 3 P.M. FY�2:E-(ylt�� Monday, April 2 from 7 P.M. to 11H P.M. � •��,;y�.... � � dC....��, �....w.w.,�.,�.�...J. �....J � ._ �..�.-..�. Please be prepared ko chaose from these d�tes or propose an alternati.ve at our Tuesday, February 21 Special Meeting. I am also suggesting the following areas for discussion at the meeting: 1. Roles/working relationship - role of the commissi,on, role of staff. What each should expect of and receive from the other. 2. Conduct of a pubiic heaxing - format, staff presentation, NPO xnput, application presentation. 3. Notice p�rocess and �the way t� deal with citizens who contend that they have not been notified properly. 4. Graphics and presentations - Commission and staff desires versus staff capabilities. S. Tigard's Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code. Clarification ofe a. Density transfer provisions/computations b. BuEfer matrix c. Planned developments .x , � PLANN7N� COMMISSION WORKSHOP FEBRUARY 17, 1984 PAGE 2 d. Sensitive lands e. Density transition 6. �indings - what is required in them particul�rly if the commission rejec,ts the staff recommendatian. 7. Agenda limitations, that is, when shouLd skaff call a second monthly meeting if a large number of applications are pending? $. How can sGaff reports be better prepared for Commission use? I would appreciate yoUr Choughts on thESe items and suggestions for other topics. Also, I would like to discuss whether or not you feel others should . a re resentat ive of an k Currie be invited to the workshop such as Bob Jean, Fr , P � the City Attorney s office, or others. If you cannot aGtend the Tuesday meeting, please exp�ess your preference and/or conflict on the proposed meeting dates to either my staff or your fellow Commissioners. (Wt3M:pm/0317P) -._ _ __ . ■ � � . .�n�� MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON T0; Planning Gommission February 16, 1984 FROM: Deputy Recorder, Loreert Wilson� Si7BJECT: Park Place/Bechtold Appeal Hearing Minutes I am forwarding a copy of the unofficial minutes from the above noted public heaxing held on 2-13-8�} by the City Council. The minutes will be officially appxoved on 2-27-84 by the Council, hawever, I wanted to give you as much advanc� notice as possible of the Council's position and concerns in this m r. atte lw/1249A � . -1 T I G A R D G I T Y C 0 U N C I ,L REGULAR MEETING MINUTEB - FEBRUARY 13, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL: Presenta Mayor Wilbur �isho�; Councilors: Tom Brian, Kenneth Sch.eckla, and Ima Scott; City Staff: Frank Currie, Director of Public Works; Bob Jean, Gity Administrator (arrived at 8c38 P.M.); Bi11 Monahan, Director of Planning & Development (arrived at 8:05 P.M. - left at 1Oc02 P.M.) ; Ed Sullivan, Legal Counsel; and I.nreen Wilson, Deputy City Recorder. 2. CALL TO STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS a. Deputy Recard:er a�vised Conncil of ehanges in the agenda, noting that the City Administratar would join the meeting about 8:30 P.M. arid requested item 17.1 be placed under Non-Agenda Items for discussion of a Sales Tax Update by the City Administrator. b. Mayor Bishop reqwested Happy Valley Board of Appeals Ruling be discussed as item 4k 17.2. c. Councilor Scott discussed with the Director of Public Works various street, lighting and improvemenC areas around the City. d. Mayor Bishop welcnmed City Attorney Ed Sullivan to the meeting noting that Mr. Sullivan is visiting on vacation from his sabbatical leave in Europe. 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA (2 minutes or less, please) a. Mr. Gary Ott, 9055 SW Edgewood, Acting Chairman for NPO ��1, requested Council keep on top of the health care facilities in residential zones which has been discussed recently. They are requesting that Co�ncil pass an ordinance if necessary to protect the rights of the individuals operating the businesses and also the residential zones. 4. EMPLOYEE REC�GNITION - 20 Year Pin - Doris Hartig a. Mayor Bishop read into the record a proclamation declari.ng February 7, 1984 as "Doris Hartig Day" as she has been with the City for 20 years. He also presented a gold key to Mrs. Hartig on behalf of the citizens and Gouncil. b. Mrs. Hartig expressed her appreciation. ! 5. AAA SAFFTX AWARD a. M1s. Mary Merit, representing AAA, presented Gouncil with a plaque noting a fatality free year for the City of Tigard and noted that the City started the Pedestrian Protection Program in 1974. RECESS: 7c54 P.M. PAGE i - COUNCTL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1984 : ----� 6. TURA BUSINESS MEETING a. Roll Callt Present: Agency Members Wilbur Bishop, Tom Brian, Kenneth Scheckla, and Ima Scott; City Staff: Frank Currie, Director of Public Works; Ed Sullivan, Legal Counsel; and Loreen Wilson, Deputy Gity Recorder. b. Deputy City Recorder advised the Agency Members that a report would be presented at the March 12, 1984 meeting concerning the procedure far TURA close out. c. Adjournment: 7s56 P.M. RECONVENE COUNCYL MEETING: 7t56 P.M. 7. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS REGARDING COUNCIL AND CITY OFFICERS SE�TIONS OF TMC a. ORDINANCE N0. 84-06 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AMENDING SECTION 2.04.020, CITY ADMINISTRATOR, AND SECTION 2.16.D20, MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE, ADDING PROVISIONS FOR THE APPOINTMENT AND REMOVAL OF THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE R�CORDER IN THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE AND DECLARING AH EMERGENCY. b. City Attorney stated that a new ordinance is submitted with the deletion of Section S which dealt with Council advisory role. c. City Attorney reported that the ordinance provides for a full 5 mernber Council to vote on appointment or removal of City Officers. d. Motion by Couneilor Brian, seconded by Mayor Bishop to adopt. Failed due to 2 - 2 vote of Council on motion. Councilors Scott and Scheckla voting Nay. �. Mayor Bishop noted this item would be continued. 8. TRANSFER OF CITY PROPERTY - 124TH AVENUE - PUBLIC HEARING a. Public Hearing Opened b. Director of Public Works gave summary of history noting there are three property owners invol.ved and that they would be assuming the tax burden of the parcels of land if the Council approves [he transfer. c. Public Testimony: No one appeared to speak. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ARRIVED: 8:05 P.M. d. Director of Public Works recommended approval of the transfer and authorization for the Mayor and Deputy Recorder to sign the Quit Claim Deeds Co f�rmalize the transfer. e. Public Hearing Closed PAGE 2 - COUNGIL MINUTES - FE$RUARY 13, 1984 � ------ -------- --- _ _ ---- f. Mot�on by Councilor Brian, secon�ed by Councilor Scheckla, to authorize the Mayor and Deputy City Recorder to sign the Quit �laim D�eds to trans€er City property Co private ownership. Approved by unanimous vote of Gouncil present. 9. THATCHER SIDEWALK REQUEST a. Director of Planning & Development summarized history and stated that Mr. Thatcher questions whether he can install a sidewalk alang his property an 98th Avenue and in Summerfield and also be annexed into the Summexfield Subdivision. b. Mr. Thatcher stated his property ends at the Summerf2eld Golf Course and he would be willing to install a sidewalk on his property and pay for Summerfield's portion of the sidewalk also if he could annex into the Summerfield Subdivision. c. Mr. Dave Atkinson, President of the Summerfield Civic Association, stated the Association feels a sidewalk is not necessary on 98th Avenue in that location. He read into the record a letter sent to Mr. Thatcher from the Civic �ssociation dated 2-9-83 stating they did n�t wish to have Mr. Thatcher annex his p�operty into the Summerfield Subdivision. CITY ADMINISTRATOR ARRIVED: 8:38 P.M. �. Discussion followed regarding City's policy on piecemeal sidewalk improvements. Consensus of Council was to not take action now and let the requirement stand for Mr. Thatcher to place sidewalk on his property according to City standards as required by the Building Division. 10. COOK LANE SEWER I.,ID PETITION a. Mayor Bishop stated he may be financially involved in this LID and would not be voting on the issue due to a possible coilflict of interest. b. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to table this item to the March 12, 1984 meeting. Approved by a 3 - 0 majority vote of Council present. Mayor Bishop abstaining. 11. UNCONCEALED WEAPONS PERMITS DzSCUSSION a. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scott to table item to a date uncertain per a request from Payless Security. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. PAGE 3 - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1984 12. DARTMOUTH STREET LID ENGINEER'S REPORT a. Mr. R. A. Wright, Project Consulting Engineer, synopsized the his�ory of the request and stated he had re�urned to the property owners to discuss the assessment method. General consensus of property owners was rer.eive� £or the proposal Mr. Wright drafted. Mr. Wright continued by noting that the cost estimate for the project is �1,�95,700 if the project is let for bid during the summer of 1984. He alsa stated that the proposed improvement includes construction of a 44-foot wide paved and curbed street within a 70-foot wide right-of-way extending approximately 3,250 feet fram SW 68th Avenue at its intersection with the new I-5 access ram� right-of-way to Pacific Highway a its intersection with SW 78th ment the ro'ect would rove J AAenue. In addition ta the street imp � P also include a 200-foot street stub for a future street extension to the south, traffic sugnal improvements on Pacific Highway, street lights, storm drains, waterlines, sanitary sewers, and other underground utilities as required to minimize future excavation within the pavement of Dartmouth Extension. The sidewalks would only be constructed adjacent to property that is already developed. I�x. Wright stressed tYnat this should be consadered only a street LID even though some sewer, water and sidewalk construction is proposed, the�e are only to miciimize future excavation of the street improvement area. b. City Attorney advised that the paragraph on page 5 of the report, dealing with Bancroft Financing, should be excluded from the report, as it is inconsistent with state law. c. Mayor Bishop stated he felt it only fair that the City participate in the LID if it is to be developed to major collector standards. , d. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scott to accept the Engineer's Report with the deletion of the Bancroft Financing paragraph on page 5 and direct staff to prepare a resolution to call for a public hearing. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. RECESS: 9:08 P.M. RECONVENE: 9:25 P.M. 13. PARK PLACE/BECHTOLD - APPEAL HEARING This was an "argument-types hearing only. The Council advised the ' audience that they would consider only the record before the Planning Commission and that no new testimony or evidence wo�ld be considered which was not in the record. a. Public Hearing Contxnued from 1-30-84 PAGE 4 - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 19$4 b. Legal Counsel stated a letter has been receive� Erom the appellant waiving the 120 day hearing limitation. He sCated the findings, as they stand, may be inadequate, however the Cauncil must apply the City standards Go the plax� presented and look close at the modifacations made ta the original application. The decision must be made by the Gouncil whether the pYan is so different from the original submission that it should be reconsidered by the Planning Commission. c. Director of Planning and Development spent time with the appellant and their attorney and thinks it is time to remahd the issue to the Planning Commission. d. Public Testimony: o Mr. Steve Janik, Attorney for Century 21, stated that they would request the issue be remanded to the Planning Commis'sion ' for further modification. o Bob Bledsoe, NPO #3 Chairman, stated they had no objection to the remand, however, requeste� direction be given t.o the Planning Commission regardi:ng street alignment, "T" intersection issues, and possible Murray Road extension questions addressed. o Director of Planning & bevelopmenC concurred that the Planning Commission was looking £ox directian from Council. o Mr. Ralph Flowers, 117th & Gaarde resident, stated he was against the Murray Blvd. extension and concerned that this development, as it is currently proposed, wrould encourage that extension. ' o Ms. Betty McKane, 13950 SW 121st Avenue, did not object to remanding back to Planning Commission. She expressed some of her concerns to Council regarding location of road being too close to her home and water table ramifications. e. Public Hearing Closed f. Council discussed the street alignment issues and Murray Blvd. I, extersion concerns. Councilor Scheckla also had co�ncerns that there was no mini-park area or street parking allowed and thaC Che street � width may hampe'r traffic movement. g. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to remand back to the Planning Commission with the following direction from Council, (noting that the Planning Commission and �pplicant consider Council's concerns in developing a new modified plan) : Gaarde should be designed to "minor coilector" standards and that it be aligned so as �o provide for a "T" intersection an� development to be in compliance with the Tigard Comprehensive Plan; the minor collector shauld be designed so as to discourage the use of Gaarde Street and the developmenG streets as an extension of Murray Blvd. ; the development be so designed as to meet the purpose of Planned PAGE 5 - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1984 � _ _ bevelopments as set our in TMC Section 18.80.010 (A) (1) - "To pzovide a means for creating planned �nvironments through the application of flexible stand,ards which a11ow for the application of new techniques and new technology in community develc�pment which will result in a superior living arrangement." h. Councilor Brian stated he yuestions whether this development, as currently proposed, results in a "superior living arrangement1°. He ►loted the streets were 24-foot wide and private with no curbs, no sidewalks, increased density of units designed for younger families, no street parking, no park/open space area, etc. H� also encouraged the applicant to consider these issues before making a modification , proposal to the Planning Cammission. i. Motion to remand with concerns was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. DTRECTOR QF PLANNING ANA DEVELOPMENT LEFT: 10:02 P.M. 14. POLICE DEPARTMENT ANNUAL REPORT a. Consensus of Council was to table iCem to a future meeting due to the late hour. RECESS COIINCIL MEETING: 10:05 P.M. 15. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council and Library Board went into Executive Session unc3er the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1)(e) regarding Real Property Tr�nsactions. RECONVEN� CQUNCIL MEETING: 1�0:55 F.M. 16. SPACE NEEDS ITI REPORT a. Mr. Dick Bendixsen gave an updated report stating that the Air King site has tentative negotiatians for $3.25 per square foot for 3 acres and the Sturgis site at $3.54 per square foot for 3.4 acres. He noted that the negotiati.ons do not need to be final and stressed the success of this issue is going to be encouraged by total Council commitment. b. Motion by Councilor Scott, seconded by Counc.ilor Brian, to accept the report by the subcommittee and assign Councilors Brian and Scheckla to continue negotiations on the Sturgis site and report back on 2/20/84 at a special Council meeting called at Tigard City HaII at 7:30 P.M. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. c. Councilor Scott stressed that nothing should be hidden but total costs should be shown to the citizens when a proposal is presented for voter approval. Councilor Brian stated that the subcommittee had done an excellent job in the one week they were given and expressed hi� appreciation. 17. RESOLUTION N0. 84-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL EXTENDING BUDGET COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS. PAGE 6 - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1984 �erm� of office are extended from December 31st to June 30 expiration dates to allow Committee Me�bers to serve through the budget process. a. Mot�on by Cauncilor Brian, seconded by Councilox Scott to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 18. APPROVE GOUNCIL MINUTES - Janu�r� lb, 23, 30 and February 6, 1984 a. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scott to approve. Approved by unan��ous vote of Couneil present. 19. APPROVE BRAMBLE BBND RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE BOND AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYUR AD DEPUTY REGORDER TO EXECUTEa a. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scott to approve and aut�orize execution by Mayor and Deputy Recorder. Appr�ved by unanimous vote of Council present. . RESOLUT N N . - A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD ITY UN L MAK N 2 U I O 0 8 1 1 C C O C I I G 4 APPOINTMENTS TO THE TIGARD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CO�MITTEE. The Committee recommen��d appoantment of John Skourtes and Robert Nunn. a. Councilor Scheckla qvestioned how Mr. Skourtes qualified for the 72nd Avenue area representative. Councilor Bxian stated Mr. Skourtes owned busine�s �roperty in the area. b. Councilors Scott and Scheckla stated they could not support either applicant for appointment. Mayor Bishop noted this item would be continued to a future meeting. 21e NON°AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff 21.1 City Administrator skated the League af Oregon Gities wishe5 input from cities if there is anything further they desire to add to the current Sales Tax iss,ues. � Consensus of Council was to not add anything further at this time. 2I.2 Mayor Bishop discussed an article he included in the Gouncil packets regarding Happy Valley's ruling by the Oregon Court of Appeals on the order of a plan mix of 50-50 far single-family and multi-family uniCs in the Citye �egal Counsel stated the Legislature has amended th� law and that khe article was not correct as it appe red in khe paper. , 22. ADJOURNMENT: 11:15 P.M. ATTEST: Deputy City Recozder - City of Tigard Mayor - Gity of Tigard �lw/0867A) PAGE 7 - COUNCIL MINU'TES - F�BRUARY 13, 1984 STAFF ��PORT AGENDA ITEM S.1 FEB�UARY 21, 1984 - 7:3q P.M. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSIQN F06TLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 1U8b5 5�W, WALNUT TIGARD, OR 97223 A. FINDING OF FACT 1. General InformaCion CASE: Variance V1-84 Bonci Park II and III REQUEST; A request by Waverly Construction Co. for a variance ta Gity standards to a11ow sidewalks on only one side of the interior streets of Bond Park II and III. The applicant also requests a variance from the setback standards for an R-12 zone to allow 18-foot garage setbacks, 10-foot street side yards, 4-foot interior side yards, and 15-foot rear yards. CJMPREHENSIVE PI.AN llESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential ZONING DESIGNAT:CONt R-12 RECOIKMENDATION: To deny the proposed reducti�n in sidewalks provided the 15-foot front yard, the 18-foot garage setback, and the 4-foot side yard and to approve the 15-foot rear yard, 10°£oot street side yard, and si�le yards of 5 feet rather than 4 feet. The appiicant shall still be required to meet vision clearance requirements in Section 18.102 of the Development Code. APP�.ICANT: Waverly Construction Co. OWNERt George & Barb Koch 10183 S.W. Riverwood 400 E. Division St. Tigard, OR 97223 Sherwood, OR 97140 LOCATION: Between S.W. 79th and 81st Avenue and norkh of S.W. Durham Road (Wash. Go. Tax Map 2S1 12CC, Tax Lots 1900, 2000 and part of 100). LOT AREA: 8.8$ acres NPO COMMENT: No written comments have been received from NPO �k5. 2. Background Bond Park I was approved by the Planning Commission for both a subdivision and planned development in 3uly, 1983. In conjunetion with the planned development ap�lication, variances were granted for the required setbacks of the A-12 zone allowing 4-foot side yards instead of STAFF REPORT - V1-84 - PAGE 1 � _ _ -- ----- 10 feet and 15-faot front yards where 2� f�et was requ�red. Variances to allow an 18-foot garage setback and the deletion of some sidewalks were denied. The rear yard requirement for the A-12 was 10 feet, On NovemUer 15, 19$3, the Commission approved a preliminary plat for Bond Park II (59°83) which consists of 24 single family lots. On January 3, 19$4, a modification of the pre�iminary plat was approved by the Commissian. Bond Park III just received Commission a�proval for a preliminary plat for 33 lots on February 7, 1984. The applicant is now applying far several varianees to the standards set forth in the Community Development Code. Listed below are the City standards and the requested variances. Required -setback (R-12) Proposed setback Front yard 70 feet 15 feet Distance to garage 70 feet 18 feet Street side yard 20 feet 10 feet Interior side yard 10 feet 4 feet Rear yard 20 feet 15 feet Also the applicank is pxoposing zo have a sidew�lk on only one side of the majority of the internal streets, Th� attac�ed map, provided by the ap�iicant, indicates the proposed sidewal.k locations for Bond Park II and III. '�he applicant indicates that a sidewalk on one side of the street will adequatel� handle pedes[rian traffic and that it wi11 result in a more aesthetically Pleasing atmosphere. Except €or the 4-foot side yard and "18-foot garage setback, all of the setbacks requesked are the same as those requi.xed in the R-7 zone, B. CQMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GOAE The Code provides for the Planning Director ta consider variance applications. However, this variance is intended to be considered in conjunction with the proposed subdivisions which are under the purvi2w of the Planning Commission. Section 18�134.050 of the Code lists the following cr9.teria for granting a variance. l. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the pu:rposes of this Code, be in confl.ict with thP policies of the Compreh�nsive Plan, to any other applicable policias and standa.x°ds; and to other properties in the same zaning district or vicinity; 2. There are special circumstances thak exist wltich are peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography ar other circunqstances over which the applicanC has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; 3. The use proposed will be the same �s permitted under this Code and City standaxds will be maintained to the greatest extenk that is reasonably possible, while permitting some economic use of the land; STAFF REPORT = V1-8'4 - PAGE 2 � 4. Existin� physical and �atural systems, such as 'but n�t limi,ted t� traffic, drainage, dramati� land forr�s or parks will not be � adversely affected any more than would occur if the dewelonment were locat�d as speci£ied in the Code; and 5. The hardship is not self-imposed and the vara.ance requested is the minimum-variance which would allevi:ate the h�udship. C. AGFNCX COMMENTS The Tualatiz� Rural Fire Protection District and the City Building Division have no objecti:ons to the request. The Engineering Division objects to the portian of the request relating to sidewalks. The Division has no objection t� the setback reductinns provided that proper visual clearac►ce at intersections is maintained. D. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to support the request ta eliminate some of the sidewalks over the objection of the Engineering Division. Also, a similar request for Bond Park I was d`enied. The lots in Bond Park II and III are relatively narrow (typically 50 feet) and 10-foot side yards will make placement of six►gle family residences ciifficu.lt. Four-foot side yards were �llowed in Band Park I, however, problems can arise sznce most utility easements are 5 feet in width. Because of the City's action on the first phase of Bond Park and the narrowaeess of the lots in Bond Park II and II:C, 5-foot side yards and 10-foot stre@t side yards appear to be appropriate. After initiating this project, the zone on the property was changed from A-12 to R-12. This also increased the rear yard requirement from 10 to 20 feet. The applicant is requesting rear yards of 15 feet as allowed in the R-7 zone, Given the circumstances relating to the City initiated zorce change, this variance appears to be justified. 1he lots in the development typically range from 90 to 120 feet in depth. There appears to be adequate space to meet bath the 20-foot front yard and 20-foot garag� setback without a reduction in the st$n.dards. This is especially true if the abo�� mentioned re�r yard variance is granted. Also, a reduction of the garage setback to 18°feet was denied in Bond Park I. E. RECOMMENDED MOTION Should the Planning Commission decide to adopt the staff recommendation, the following motion shc�uld be made: ST,;AFF REPORT - V1-84 - PAGE 3 � � .�. � .. ._. - ._. � . . . . ... . _�... . ... ... _ .... ._ ... . _ . ... ... .. . .. �:.:1 . . . . . . . � . � . . � . . . . .�;;� i °1Move to d�ny the proposed reduction in sidewal.ks pro�ided the 15-foot front yard, the 18-foot garage setback, and t�►e 4-fooe side yard and to -approve the 15-foot rear yard, 10-foot street side yard, and side yards of 5 feeG rather than 4 feet. The applacant shall still be required to meet vision clearance requirements in Section 18.102 of the Development Qode,�� -,,-..�-� . r.s�� y PREPARE BX: erth Liden � PPROVED BY: William A. Monah'an Associate Planner Director of Planning & Development � _ (KL:pm/0315P)) � STAFF REPORT ° 'V1--84 - PAGE 4 : � STArF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5.2 FEBRUA1tY 21, �984 - 7:30 P.M. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - LGI 10865 S.W. WALNUT TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FINDING OF FACT 1. General Information CASE: Planned Development PD 1-84 REQUEST: For conceptual plan approval of a Planned Development for a 34 unit single family residential develapment. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-7 (PD) RECOMMENDA�IOld: Approval subject to conditions. APPLICANT: David Evans & Assoc. Inc. OWNER: Rosebud Enterprises, Inc. 2626 S.W. Corbett Ave. 4209 S.W. Westdale Dr. Portland, OR 97201 Portland, �JR 97221 LOCATION: Northeast of the intersection of 106th Avenue and S.W. Diamond Way. LOT AREA: 7e31 acras NPn CQMMENT: No written comments from NPO ��7 have been received. 2. Background ",The Meadows", a 24--unit manufactures home development was proposed on this property but was denied by the City in 1982 (Case No. GPRPD 13-81). A sensitive l�nds application (M 1-84) for fill within the 100-year floodplain of Fanno creek was approved by the Hearings Officer on February 2, 1984 subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit an en�ineering plan to the City Er�gineer for npproval prior to the issuance of any permits. 2. All unused land�z remainzng in the lOOryear floadplain shall be dedicated to the public prior to tt�e issuance of any permits. The dedication document shaZl be recorded with Washington County after it is approved by the City. STAFF REPORT - PD 1-84 - PAGE 1 . 3• Positive footing d�ainage elevations t�� the 100year £lAOdplain elevation will be determined b the buildin , Y division at th $ e t�me of the issuance of buildxng �ermits. 4. The applicant shall construct a pedestrian/bicycle nathway that meets Public Works Department approval prior to issuance of building permits. � 3. Vicinity Information The site is located a�pr�oximxtely 6�0 feet north of North D�kota Street on S.W. 106th Avenue. Land to the north and east is desagnated for both Open Space and Light Yndustrial development while the applicable zone is I-L (Light Industrial). Fresently, this area is basically undeveloped. Single family residential development zoned R�-4.5 lies to the west and southwest. A parcel that is still under Washington County jurisdiction is immediately sauth. This area is designated Medium Density Residential and vaeant land abuts the subject property. 4. Site Information The subject property is vacant except for an abandoned sewage treatment plant building located near the �outhern property line. Tkie elevation of the property is 164 feet at �:he west boundary and slopes down to Fanno Creek which is approximately 153 feet in elevation. The property is generaYly £1at with slope variations betwee❑ 1% and I2%. The creek crosses the northeastern portion of the site. Fanno Creek and associated floodplain consumes the northeastern 3.15 acres of the site. The 100-year floadplain elevation icienti£ied in thr� CH2M Hill �tudy is 160.3 £eet. Because of the Creek and the floodplain, no development is propased east of the Creek. A row of trees are in place along the southern property line and these are intended to remain. The rest of the site is covered with grasses and brush. A landscaped buffer is proposed within the west side of the right-of-way for the 106th Avenue extension. Tkie applicant has not indicated how the maintenance of this vegetation will be accomplished. ! 5. Proposal Description The applicant intends to develop a 34-lot single famiiy project. Utilizing the provisions of the R°7 zonp and the Residential Density Transfer section (18.92.030), thi.s is tha number of units allowed on the buildable portion of the property. Alkhough a 0-faot side yard setback is proposed for the majority of the lo[s, a11 of the residex�ces wi.11 be detached. Street access will be provided by extending 1Qbth Avenue north ending with a cul-de-sac. Two other cul-rle-saes running east from 106th Avenue wi11 constitute the remainder of tlie street system» The right-of-way of STAFF REPnRT - PD 1-84 - PAGE 2 . � _ -- _ _ - — 106th Avenue will be adjacent to �he side or rear lot lines of properties in B1ack Bull Park to the wesf. A 5-foot high landseaped buffer is proposed within the west side of the street right'--of-way. ' The €loodplain area alo�sg Fanno Creek is to b� dedicsted to the public, The approved sensitive 1and.s application will allow for grading along the edge of the floodplain to allow for more efficient development of the Tand as well as the eonstruction of the bicycle/pedestrian path. B. APPLICA�LE PLANNING POLICIES 1. Comprehensive Plan Policies 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 7CHE AREA SUITABLE FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT; I, a. AREAS HAVING A HIGH SEASON�.L WATER TABLE WITHIN 0-24 INCHES OF THE SURFACE FOR THREE OR MORE WEEKS OF THE ! i YEAR; b. AREAS HAVING A SEVERE SOIL EROSION P07CENTIAL; i c. AREAS SUBJEGT TO SLUMPIAIG, EARTH SLIDES OR MOVEMENT; d. AREAS HAVING SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 25Y; OR e. AREAS HAVIIVG SEVERE WEAK FOUNDATION SOILS. The Fanno Creek floodplain covers the northeastern 3.15 acres of the property. This area will not be developad and will be. dedicated to the City as open spa�e. The 100-year floodpl.ain elevation officially recognized by th� City is 16Q.3 feet. The Building Division has noteci that flooding has been experienced in the adjacent Black Bull ParYc subdivision up to a�p�oximately 162 feet. The �ity can oniy require floor el�vations of 161.3 feet but it is recommended that the developQr exceed this minimum sCandardo �i.3.2 IN THE TZGARI� CONIMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TIiE CITY SHALL REQtlIRE A. DENSITY TRAN�ITION WHEREBY INCREASED RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES ARE AD3ACENT TO ESTABLISHED AREAS IN THE FOLIAWING MANNER; a. THE DENSITY WITHIN 100 FEET OF EACH PRQPEKTY LINE SHALL ;I�OT EXGEED 25� OVER THE DENSITY SHOWN ON TAE GOMPREHENSIVE PLAId FOR THE AD.TACEIVT LAND UNI,ESS THERE IS AN INTERVENING ROAI) (MAJOR CALLFCTOR OR ARTERIAL) IN WHICH CASE TRIS PROVISION SHALL NOT APPLX. b, WHERE THE PROPOSED DEVELO�MENT ABUTS AN EXISTING HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, THE HOUSING TYP�S SHALL BE GOMPATIBLE. FOR EXAMPLE: 1. TWO HOUSING UNITS WHICH ARE ATTACHED ARE �ONSIDERED COMPATIB�E WITH A DETACHED SINGLE FAMII,Y UtJIT; BUT ST�FF RE�PORT - PD 1-84 - PAGE 3 2. MORE THAN `TWO HOUSING i1NITS WHICH ARE ATTACHED ARE NQT CONSIDERED GOMPATIBLE WITH A SINGLE FAMILY L'ETACkIED UNIT. The subject property is adjacent to establashed residential areas to the west and south that are zoned for a maximum density of 4.5 unit� per acre. The allowable density within l00 feet of this existing development is 5.625 units per acre. Lots 1 through 6 are within a transition area on the souCh en.d of the property whieh has a density of 10.9 units per acre. This exceeds the permitted density and some adjustment�s will be necessary. 'Lots 18, 19, 28, 32, 33, and 34 are witLin the western transition area wiCh a density of 4.02 units per acre which meets the standard. ,6.3.3 IN ALL PHASES OF THE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS IN A RESIDENTTAL "ESTABI�ISHED AREA", A PRIMARY CONSIDERATION OF THE GITY SHALL BE T0 PRESERVE A�1� ENHANCE THE CHARAGTER OF THE ADJACENT ESTAB'I.ISHED AREAS. , Provided the row of lots on the south end of the projeet are redesigned to meet the above mentioned density requirements, the pxoposal should be compatible with the single family residenCial development nearby. 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 ALI,OWED WITHIN THE CITY) ; AND 3. STORM DRAINAGE. b. THE FACILITIES ARE: 1. CAPABLE OF ADEQUATELY SERVING ALL INTERVENING PROPERTIES AND TAE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT; AND 2. DESIGNED TO CITY STANDARDS. c. ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES TO BE PLACED UNDET�GROUND. The applicant is proposing to install public facilities in accordance with the planning policies and requirements set forth in the Community Development Code. No coneerns relating to service capacity have been submitted by the Tigard Water District or the Unified Sewerage Agency. Also, the subject property is within tk�e Tigard School District 23J. Thr.ee schools serve this area and their existing enrollment and capacity are shown below; STAFF REPORT - PD 1-84 - PAGE 4 . I School Name Capacity Enrallment Elementary Phil Lewis 441 448 Intermediate Fo�ler J.H. 1000 861 kligh Ti.gard H.S. 1450 1363 The District indicates that some adjustments may be neaessary to accommodate the elementary students but no serious problems are anticipated from this project. 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. Storm drainage will also be directed toward the Creek through a storm drainage system built to City standards. 7.6.1 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE AS A PRFCONDITION TO DEVELOPMENT THAT: a. THE DEVELrpMENT BE S'ERVED BY A WATER SYSTEM HAVING ADEQUATE WA'rER PRESSURE FOR FIRE PROTECTION PURPOSES; b. THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL NOT REDUCE THE WATER PRESSURE IN THE AREAS BELOW A LEVEL ADEQUATE FOR FIRE PROTECTION PURI'OSES; AND c. THE .APPI,iCABLE FIRE DISTRICT REVIEW ALL APPLICATIONS. The idashington County Fire Protection District has reviewed the application and has no objections. Access is to be provided by a system of publicly dedicated streets with right-of-way widths of 50 feet. 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 APPLIC,ABLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE PROVISIONS. The overall. density in the proposed development conforms with policies established in the Comprehensive Plan and 2oning Map. Horaever, as mentioned earlier, the densi.ty in khe south portian of the development exceeds what is permitted by the density transition requirement. 2o Community Development Code The applicant is requesting conceptual approval of a planned development and therefore the following section of the Code is applicable: STAFF REPORT - PD 1-84 - PAGE 5 _ _ ----- - -� 18.8Q.010 Purpose A. The purposes of the Planned Development overlay zone are: 1. To provide a means for creating planned environments through the application of flgxible standards which a11ow far the applicafiion of new techniques and of new technology in �omnsunity developm�nt which will result in a superior living arrangement; 2. To facilitate the efficient use of land; 3. �a pxomot� an economic arrangement of land uses, buildings, circulation systems, open space and utilities; 4, To pre�erve to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities through the use of a planning procec�L.�e that can relate the type and design of a development to a particular site; and 5. To encaurage development that recognizes the relationship between buildi.ngs„ their use, open space and accessways and thereby maximize� the opportucnities for innovative and diversified living environments. The proposed planned development will provide for the most efficient use of the property ��►ile avoiding any significant encroachment upon he Fanno Greek floodplain. C. CONCLUSIONS After reviewing the proposed Conceptual Plan, the staff £inds that the proposed development, as modified and conditioned below, conforms to all applicable Qomprehensive Plan policies and Commun.ity I?evelopment Code provisions. D. RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning staff recommend� conceptual approval of PD 1-84 subject to the following conditions; 1. �he applicant obtain Detailed P1an approval and Preliminary and Final Plat approval prior to development of the property. 2. The proposed lot configuration shall be modiEied i.n order to comply with the City's dera�ity transition provisions. '� 3. Clear provisions shall be made prior to Detailed P1an and - Subdivision approval to insure that the landscaped buffer along the west side of the property will be Che responsibility of the residents of the development and not the City. STAFF REPORT - PD 1-84 - PAGE 6 C 4. The conditions of app:roval �or Sen:sitive Lands Percnit M 1-84 shall lie met. / �� '� ? �`S /C��/ � PREPAR D BY: Keith Lr en APPROVED BY: William A, Manahan Associate Planner Director of Planning & Development (KL:pm/0316P)) 5TAFF REPORT - PD 1-54 - PAGE 7 ; � STAFF REPORT AGENllA ITEM 5.3 FEBRUARY 21, 1'984 - 7:�0 P.M. TIGARD FLA2�NING COMMISSTON FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - LEGTURE ROOM 10865 SW WALNUT STREET TIGARD, OR�GOIv 97223 A. EINDING OF FACT 1. General Tnformation �ASE: Zone Change ZC 2-84, P�.anned Development PD 2-83, Subdivision S 11-83, Variance V 6-53, Colony Creek Estate II, III, IV - NPO �k5 REQUEST: For a znne change f�com R-12 to R-12 Planned Development for a 2.49 acre parcel (2S1 12BB, 3700). For conceptual and � detailed plan approval of a Planned Development for all phases). For preliminary plat approval of a 67 lot subdivision, single family detached units (Phases II & III). Also for a variance to allow zero lot line constructian in an R-12 zone (detached units), and to reduce the €ront yard setback, i.e. , distance between th� properky line and the front of the garage from 20 feet to 18 feet. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential zONING DESIGNAlION: R-7 PD (12.78 acres) R-12 (2.49 acres) RECOMMEND,ATION: Based on information submitted by the applicant, staff°s analysis of applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies, Community De�relopment Code provisians and the field investigation, staff recommends approval of ZC 2-$4, PD 2-83, and S 11-83, and the requ.2st for zero 1ot li.�e construction in the R-12 zone subject to cunditions listed in this staff report. Staff rer_ommends d�ni�l of the variance f.or reduct�on of the front yard setbacks between the pro ert line and the P Y frant of Ghe garage from 20 feet to 18 feet. APPLTCANT: Ti.tan Praperties OWNER: Same 2201 tdE Cornell Raad klillsboro, Or 97123 LOCATTON: East of SW Ha21 Blvd. & west of SW Fanno Greek llrive (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 12BB, Tax Lots 1p0, 101, 340Q, 3601, 3700 and 4300). LOT AREA: 15.27 scres NP0 COMMENT; NPO �k5 reviewed the applicant's request at their regular meeting on January 18, 19$4 and discussed aeveral concerns with the appl�.cant. PUBLIC NOTICES MAILED. 84 notices were maiYed. STAFF REPORT - ZC 2-�4/PD 2-83/S 11-83/V 6-83 - PAGE 1 � _ .___--� 2. Background On march 21, 1978, the PI�Yining Conunission approved a preliminary plan and program for the Colony Creek Estate Phase I. On June 26, 1978, the City Gouncil approved a general plan for Phase I. (Ordinance No. 78-40). On June 20, 1978, the Planning Commission approved a preliminary plan for Golony Creek Estate Phase II and III. On �anuary 8, 1979, the City CQUncil approved a zon� change request from R-7 to R-7PD and approved a general plan £or Phase II and III for an 81 unit residential planned development. Also, the Gouncil approved a zone change request from R-7 to R 7PD for the subject property (2S1 12BB, Lots 100, 101, 3400, 36D1, 4300). (Ordinance No. 78-83). On March 3, 1981, the Planning Commission granted a one (1) year extension for development of Colony Creek Estates Phase II & III. In March, 1981, property changed hands and a new application for R-7PD general plan review was made for presentation to the Planning Commission. On May 5, 1981, the Planning Commission approved the preliminary plat for Phase II & TII with several conditions. On May 9, 1983, the City Council adopted the Comprehensive Plan Map designating the property medium density and the Interim Zoning Map designating the property R-7 (Lots 3400, 4300, and most of lot 101), R-7 PD (Lot 100 and some of lot 101), and R-12 (lot 3700). 3. Vicinity Information The site is located east of SW Hall Blvd. , narth of SW Bonita Road, �nd west o� SW Fanno Creek Drive. The surrounding land uses are as follows� To the north is phase I of Colony Cxeek Estates, developed as single-family detached and attache.d housing units. To the northeast is deaignated light industrial, and it is vacant. To the south is designated medium density residential, zoned R-12, and is developed as a � combination of single and multi°family residential. To the east is an , existing resid�ntial deve�opment know� as Waverly Meadows, developed as single family detached and attached housing units. Duplexes directly abut the p.roposed townhouse units (Phase IV). To the west is desi�nated low and medium density residential, znned R-4•.5 and R-7, and is developed as single famil� residential, however, the land zoned R-12 is vacant. 4. Site Infa�maCian The subject property is a 15.?. ,7 acre vacant parcel a�d it consists of six tax lots. Slopes on the ��ke are generally oriented toward east away from SW Ha11 Blvd. at a grade of epproximately two to five STAFF R�PORT - ZC 2-84/PD 2-83/S 11-83/V 6-�3 - PAGE 2 percent. The elevation at the southwest corner along Hall Blvd. is approximately 180 feet aloping to 150 feet near wherP proposed SW Fa�no Creek Drive meets the property boundary on t�e east. The slevation is appr�ximately 162 feet at the northeastern corner. The major phy,sical char�cteristic of the site is Fanno Creek which runs through the northwest corner of the site. In that area, the portion of the site below 140 feet eXevation is in the Fanno Creek floodplain (1.4 acres). Fanno Creek serves as the collector of storm drainage from this area. An additional drainageway traverses through the southeastern corner of t�e property. Some areas in both the northeast and southeast portions of the site contain slopes over 25�. No development is proposed for these are.as. Both these areas are to be dedicated to the City as open space. Soil types un the site appear to be silty clay loam and quatama loam of poor drainage. Floodii�g is frequent in the nartheast corner along Fanno Creek. This area is to be retained in natural form and dedicated to the City as open space. There is little erosion hazard on the site with the exception of the southeastern corner whe�e the erosion hazard is severe ' due to excessive slope (over 25%). This area is also to be retained in natural f.orm and dedicated to the City as open space. Vegetation growth on the site varies considerably. The central portion of the site is primarily a meadow with scattered coniferous trees with . „ tx tch from north to an average s�.ze of 18 in diameter. These trees s e southeast corner of site, and they divide the site ��5u�i1y in half. The applicant is proposing removal of about 29 trees fa� efficient lot configuration purposes. To the northeast is a dense woodland along the Fanna Creek which would be retai.ned as open space. The development has been designed to compliment existing adjacent land uses and physical c�onditions. Single-family, detached dwellings are planned for the southern and western partinns of the sitem Townhouse units are proposed for the northeast corner of the site adjacent to the proposed Fanno Creek open space areao The units wi11 be surrounded by open space on the north and west and Fanno Creek Drive on the south. Qn the east, the townhouse units will abut an open space. tract in Waverly • Meadaws which wil�. separate the proposed townhouse units fram th� existing multi-family attached units in Waverly Meadows. Several tract� are proposed in the development plan, most of which are reserved for access or open space. Txact "A" and Tract "C" are proposed 5 foot dedications to increase the right-of-way wi.dth of SW HaZI Blvd. , Tract "B" is proposed as a 30 foot wide private drivs to provide acce�s to adjacent proposQd dwelling units. Tract "D" is proposed to be txaded for temporary access ta Phase II of the development. By agreement with the owners of TL 102, the applicant would bxiild a temporary 26 foot wide paved roadway, as shown on the Conceptual Development Plan. Tract "D" would be traded to t'he owner of TL 102. The portion of the roadway through Lot 58 would be removpd upon completion of Phase II and III. Track "'E1i is pxoposed to provide access to "Mr. Cash's lot", TL 4400, 2S1, Section 12. Tract "F" is propos4d as a large open space area with access from Fanno Creek Drive. Tract "G" and "H" are proposed private drives to serve the adjacent proposed townhouse units. Tract "I" is proposed as a large apen space tract with access from Fanno Creek Drive and Tract "G". STAFF REPORT - ZC 2-84/PD 2-83/S 11-83/V 6-83 ° PAGE 3 -: __._ - -- - --� _ �� n �� rz �� Tracts .� , C , F , and T axe pro�osed to bP dedicated to the City of, Tigard. Tracks "B", "G1° and "H" wi11 be maintained by the homeowners' asscsci.ation. Tract 01F;" is propos�d to l�e sold ta Mr. Cash. B. APPLICABLE PLANNING POLICIES 1. Comprehensive Plan Folicies 2.2.1 THE CITY SHALL MAINTAIN AN ONGOING CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM AND SHALL A55UR� THAT CITTZENS WILL BE PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE INVOLVED IN ALL PHASES OF THE PLANNING PROCESS. Notices were sent to all property owners within 250 feet of this application. A notice was published in the Tigard Times on February 9, 1984. In addition, NPO �k5 has been notified of this application. 2.1.3 THE CITY SHALL ENSURE THAT INFORMATION ON LAND U5E PLANNTNG ISSUES IS AVAILABLE IN AN UNUERSTANDABLE FORM FOR ALL INTERESTED GITIZENS. All interested parties are given, at a minimum, 10 days to respond in writing to the applicatioil 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 S�lALL NOT ALLOW DEVE'LOPMENT IN AREAS HAV'LNG THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS EXCEPT WHERE IT CAN B� SHOWN THAT EST.ABLISHED AND PROVEN ENGINEERTNG TEGHNIQU�,S RELATED TO A SFECIFIC SITE PLAN WILL MAKE THE ARk,A SUITABLE FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: a. AREAS HAVING A HTGH SEAS�NAL WATER TABLE WITHIN 0°24 INCHES OF THE SURFACE FOR THREE OR MORE WEEKS OF THE YEAR; b. ARBAS HAVING A SEVERE SOIL EROSION POTENTZAL; c. AREAS SUBJECT TO SLUMPING, EAKTH SLIDES OA MOVEMENT; d. AREAS HAVING SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 25%; OR e. AREAS HA�ING SEVERE WEAK FOUNDATION SOILS. The subject property contains two areas with development limitations. One is the nartheastern coa•ner of the site where the Fanno Creek runs through, and the other area is the southeast corner with slope in excess of 25°6. Both of these areas are to be dedicated to the City and retained as open space. 6.1.1 THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR DIVERSITY OF HOUSING DENSITIES AND RESIDENTIAL TYPES AT VARIOU'S PRICE AND EZENT LEVELS. The planned development and subdivision of this property will provide varied hausing types, i.e. , 67 detached single family homes (majority wikh zero lot line construction on lots that range from 3,800 to 7,000 square feet) and 34 townhouses. STAF'F REPORT -- ZC 2-84/PD 2-83/S 11-83/V 6-83 - PAGE 4 � - �e net density in R-7 and R-12 zoning districts is about 8.7 units and L2 units per acre respectively (this includes density transfer from the unbuildable land in floadp'lain and land with slope in excess of 75�}. 6.3.2 IN THE TIGARD CUMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE A DENSITY TRANSITION WH.EREBY INCREASED RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES ARE ADJACENT TO ESTABLISHED AREAS IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: a. THE DENSITY WITHIN 100 FEET OF EACH PROPERTY L�NE SHALL NOT EXCEED 25°6 OVER THE DENSITY SHOWN ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE ADJACENT LAND UNLESS THERE I� AN INTERVENING ROAD (MAJOR COLLECTOR OR ARTERIAL) IN WHICH CASE THIS PROVISiON SHALL NOT APPLY. b. WHERE THE PROPOSED DEUELOPMENT ABUTS AN EXISTING HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, THE HOUSING TYPES SHALL BE COMPATIBLE. FOR EXAMPLE: 1. TW0 HOUSING UNITS WHICH ARE ATTACHED ARE CONSIDERED G�MPATIBLE WITH A DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY UNIT; BUT 2. MORE THAN TWO HOU5ING UNITS WHICH ARE ATTACHED ARE NOT CONSIDERED COMPATIBLE WITH A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED UNIT. The subject property is adjacent to establishecl areas to the north and easto The proposed density is similar to the exi.sting residential development to the north and east, i.e. , seven (7) units per acre. Proposed housing type� are also c�mpati�le with the existing residential developments, i.e. , detached single family homes Phase II to the north abutting Colony Creek Estate I, and townhauses Phase IV abutting duplex residences at Waveriy M.eadows to the east. 6.3.3 I13 ALL PHASES 0�' THE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS IN A RESIDENTIAL "ESTABLISHED �REA", A PRIMARY CONSIDERA.TION OF THE CITY SHA�,L BE TO �RESE1tVE AND ENHANCE THE CHARACTER OF THE ADJACEPIT ESTABLISHED AREAS. The purposed development will preserve the character �f the established areas by develaping compatible housing type to the north and east. 6.4.1 THfE CITx SHALL DESIGNATE RESIDENTIAL "DEVELOPING AREAS,'� (6JHIC�I ARE NOT AESIGNATED AS "ESTABLISHED AEZEAS") ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PI,AN MAF, ANlI ENCOURAGE �'LEXIBI�E AND EFFICIENT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THESE AREAS. The applicant is proposing to develop the subdivision as a Planned Development to allow more efficient use of land and more flexible deveLopment standard. Specifically, the applicant is requesting zero lot line construction and a reduction in the front yard setback, i.e. , the ctistance between the prop�erty line and the front of the garage, STAFF REPORT - ZC 2-84/FD 2-83/S 11-$3/V 6-83 - PAGE 5 7.1.2 THE CI'TY SHALL REQUIRE AS A PRECONDITION T� DEVELOPMENT APPRaVAL THATe a. DEVELOPMENT COINCIDE WITH THE AVAILABILITY OF ADEQUATE SERVICE CAFACITY INCLUUING: 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 IN'TERVENING PROPERTIES AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOI'MENT; AND 2. DESIGNED TO CITY STANDARDS. c. ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES TO BE PLACED UNDERGROUND. Ttie applicant is proposing to install public faciliti.es in accordance with plar►ning policies and requirements set forth in the Community Development Code. The territory is within the Tigard School District 23J. The following information w�as provided by the applicant. The three schools that serve this areas, their existing enrollment and capaciky are shown below: Type School Name Capacity Existing Enrollment Elementary Phi1 Lewis 441 446 Intermediate Twality 3r. High 950 822 High Tigard Senior High 1,450 1,371 The school district indicates that there is a potential for a space crunch at Phil Lewis and/or Durham eleme�rtary schools (depending on how many children will come from this development), Some boundary changes (in elementary school attendance) or relocation of some kindergarten students who would normally attend P.hil Lewis may be necessary to accommodate anticipated students from the subject property. 704.4 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE THAT ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT BE CONNECTED TO A SA.NITARY SEWER �ERVICE. The applicant is gxoposing to cannect to th� Fanno Creek interceptor sewer line via 8" sewer mains located adjacent to the site at Colony Creek Estate T� Storm drax.nage also will outlet into Fannn Greek through a formal. storm drainage system built to City standards. 7.6.1 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE AS A PRECONDITION TO DEVELOPMENT THAT: g. THE DEVELOPMENT $E SERVED BY A WATER SYSTEM HAVING ADEQUATE WATER PRE�SURE FOR FIRE PROTECTION PURPOSES; STAFF REPORT - ZC 2-84/PD 2-83/S 11-83/V 6-83 - PAGE 6 b, THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL NOT RE�u�E THE W�TER PRESSURE I� THE AREAS BELOW A LEVEL A�FQ�ATE FOR FIRE �ROTECTION PURPOSES; AND c. THE APPLIC,ABLE FIRE DISTRICT REVIEW ALL APPLICATIONS. A 6" water line will provide water services to the subject site. 'The Tualatin Rural Fire Protection Distr�ct has reviewed the project and approv�d it as acceptable for fire protectio� and acces� purposes. 8.1.3 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE AS A PRECONDITION TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL TI�AT: a. DEVELOPMENT ABUT A PUBLICLY DEDICATIED 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 CONSTRUCTYON OF THE STREETS, CURBS AND SIDEWALKS TO 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. Access is gained off SW Hall Blvd. via Colony Creek Court and SW Fanno Creek Drive from the northwest and off SW Bonita Road �ra.a SW Fanno Creek Drive from the southeast. (The applicant is pr.oposing to extend SW Fanno Creek Drive to the west and connect it to SW Colony Creek Gourt. ) The interior circulation is to 6e achie�ed via publi� streets with right-of-way widths of 50 feet. Also, there would be a 26 foot paved kemporary access onto SW �Iall t31vd. which would be closed physically within two years �rom the date of approval (the access would be closed by� tha construction of a house on lot 58 through which it runs). There are two aiternatives for alignment of SW Fanno Greek Drive to the south, bath of whi�� are acceptable to the City. The , adjoining property �o the south may be served by either ' alternative and both will remain available (please see the attached plans: sheet 3). 12.1.1 THE �zTY SHALL PROVTAE F�R HOUSING DENSITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITF�I t a. THE APFLICABLE PLAN POLICIES. b. THE t�PPLICABLE LOCATIONAL CRITEP.IA. c. THIE AFP'LICABLE COMMUNITY DEVELlJPMENT CODE PROVISIOI3S, STAFF RE�RT - ZC 2-84/PD 2-$3/S 11-83/V 6-83 ° PAGE 7 ' The density proposed in the dev�lopment conforms ta those establishec3 in the Comprehensive P1an policies, Plan Map and " Interim Zoning Map. 2. Tigard Community Develapment Code The appiicant is requesting for a concurrent Conceptual and Detailed Plan appxoval of a Planned Aevelopment. 18.80.010 Purpose A. rhe purposes of the Planned Development overlay zone are: 1. To provide a means for creating glanned envixonments through the application of flexible standards which allow for the application of new Cechniques and of new technology in community development which will. result in a superior living arrangement; 2. To facilitate the �fficient use of land; 3. To promote an economic arrangement of land uses, buildings, circulation systems, open space and utilities; 4. To preserve to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and amenii.ies through the use of a planning procedure that can relate the type and design of a develapment to a particular site; and 5. To encourage devel.opment that recognizes the relationship between Uuildings, their use, open space and accessways and thereby maximizes the opportunities for innovative and diversified living environments. T'he proposed planned development (on lands designated as 11Developing Areas") utilizes the flexibility of the PD zone to proeide a superior living environment by aonc�ntrating development on the most gentle terrain of the site. The single°family units are planned fpr the more flat areas of the site while the multz-famzly units (townhouses) are planned to be located near the Fanno Creek and proposed apen space. 18.80<100 Phased Development A. The Gommission shall approve a time schedule for developing I a site in phases, but in no case shall the total time period ' for all phases be greater than seven �7) years without reapplying for Conceptusl Development Plan review. B. The criteria for approving a phased Detail Development Plan proposal are that: 1. The public facilities sha11 be constructed in conjunction with or prior to each phase; and STAFF REPORT - ZC 2-84/PD 2-83jS 11°83/V 6-83 - PAGE 8 2. The development and occupa�cy of any phase sha'l1 not be dependent on the use or �emporary public facilities. A temporary public facility is any facility not constructed to ' the applicable City or district st�ndard. The applicant is proposing to somplete the Planned Development in three phases, with Phase iI and III as detached single-family units, and Phase IV as multi-famiky townhouse units. " 18.160.060 Approval Standaxds - Preliminary.Plat A. The Commission may approve, approve with conditions or deny a preliminary plat based on the fallowing approval criteria: 1. The proposed preliminary plat complies with the City's Comprehensive P1an, the applicable zone oxdinance and other applicable ordinanc�s and regulations; 2. The proposed plat name is not duplicative or otherwise satisfies the pravasions of ORS 92.090 (1); 3. The streets and roads are laid out so as ta conform to the plats of subdivisions and maps of major partitions already appro�ed by adjoi�ing property as to width, general direction and in all other respects unless the city determines it is in the public interest to modify the street or zoad pattern; 4. An explanation has been provisled for all commnn improvementse B. The C�ommission may attach such conditions as are necessary to carry out ttre comprehensive plan and �thcr applicable ordinances and regulations and may re�quire: 1. Reserve strips be granted to the City for the purpose of controlling access to adjoining undeveloped properties. The proposed preliminary plat complies with the Comprehensive Plan. The street system designed for kh� proposal conforms to the stre�et patterns of adjoining subdivasions, i.e. , Colony CrPek Estate I to the northwest, and Waverly Meadows to the east. 18.160.050 Phased Development A. The Commission may approv� a time schedule for developing a subdivision in phases, but in no case shall the actual construction time period for any phase be greater than 2 years without reapplying for a preliminary plat. B. The criteria for approving a phasen site development review proposal are: ' 1. The public facilities shall be schedu].ed to be constr.ucted in canjunction with or prior to each phase tc� assure provision of public facilities prior �o buil.ding orcupancy; STAFF REPQRT - ZC 2-84/PD 2-83'/S 11-83/V 6-83 - PAGE 9 _ _._ _ _ _ _ _ _ .. �. . � . � .. . . . 2, The de�►elopment and occupancy of any phase shall not be dependenk on €he use af .�.�emporary public facilities. ; ae lar puxposes �f this Se�tion, a temporary public facility is an interim fa�ility not constructed to the applbcable City or district standard. ;� - 3. The phased development shall not result in requiring the � Ci'ty or other property owners to con$truct public facilities that w�re required as a part of the approval o'f the greliminary plat. C. The ap�lication for phased development approval sha11 be heard concurrently with the preliminary plat application and th:e decision may be appealed in the same manner as the preliminary plat. The applicank i.s requeating preliminary plat approval for Phase II and III at this time. Phase IV consists of the proposed townhouses and requires a Site Design Review appxoval. 18.52.050 Aim�nsional Requirements. The minimum setback requirements for uses in the R-7 zone shall be: 1. The ,front yard setbaek shall be a minimum of 15 feet. 2. On corner and through lots, the minimum setback for each side facing a street shall be 10 feet, however, the provisions o-f Chapter 18.102 (VISUAL CLE,ARANCE) must be satisfied. 3. The side yard setback shall be a minimum of 5 feet except t�iis provision shall not apply to attached units an the lol- line on which the units are attached. 4. The xear yard setback shall be a minimum of 15 feet. 5. Where the side yard or rear yard of single family attached residential dwellings abut a more restrictive zoning district, such setbacks sha11 n�t be l.ess than 30 feet. 6. The distance between the propertq line and the front of the garage sha11 be a minimum of 20 feet. 18.54.050 D:imensional Re_guirements. The minimum setback requirements for uses in the R-12 zone shall be: 1. The front yard setback shall be a minimum of 20 feet. 2. On corner and through lots, the minimum setback for each side faci�ng a street shail b�e 20 £eet, however, the provisions of Chapter 1$.102 (VISCUAL CLEARANCE) must be satisfied. 3. The side yard setback shall be a minimum �f 10 feet. °,� STAFF REPORT - ZG 2-84/PD 2-83/S 11-83/V 6-83 - PAGE 10 ; ' ----- _—� 4, �.'he rear yard setback shall be a mini:xmum of 20 feet. 5. Where the side yard or rear yard of att:ach�d or multiple family dwellings abut a znure restrictivE zoning district, such setbacks shall not be less than 30 fe�t. 6. 't7ie distance between the property line ar�d the front of the �arage shall be a minimum of 20 feet. i � The applieant is requesting a variance approval for front yard . setback, i.e. , to red�uce the distance bek�ween the property line and the front of the garage from 20 f�et to 18 feet. Also, �he applicant is requesting a variance apprpval to allow zero lot line single family, detached dwelling units �aith zero and 10 feet sideyard setbacks in R-12 zoning district (sauthern portion of Phase III). Zero lot Yine construction in R 7 zoning district does not reyuire variance approval. 18.160.120 Critexia for Granting a Variance A. The Planning Commi�sion shall consider the application for an Varianee at the same meeting at which it considers the prelimir�ary plat. B. A variance may be approved, approved with conditions or denied pravided the Planning Commission finds; 1. There are spr�cial circumstances or conditions aPfecting the property which are unusual and peculiar to the land as compared to other lands similarly situated; 2. The vara.ance is necessary for the proper design or function of Lhe subdivision; 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrim;ental to the public heslth, safety and welfare ar injurious to the rights of other owners� of property; and 4. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right because of an extraordinary hardship which would result from strict compliance with the regulations of this ordinance. The lots in the development typically r�nge from 95 to 110 feet in depth. There appears ko be adequate space to meet both the 20-foot front yard and 20-foot garage setback without a reduction in th� standards. Tf the R-7 PD zoning approved by the Planning Commission in 1981 was still in effect, zero lnt line construction wauld be permitted. The City rezaned a �artion of th� property to R-12 in 1983. Although a more �ppropriate procedure to allow for the zero lot line construction would have been to change the zoning on the R-12 portion to R-1, staff can support the intent of . the variance request. The R-7 zoning does allow for zero lot line i construction and the appliaants intent is for uniformity throughout the project. STAFF REPQRT - ZC 2-$4/PD 2-83/S 13.-83/V 6-83 = PAG�, 11 � Al�o, the varia�ce approval to allow zero 'Lot line construction in R-12 is justified on the ground thar this portinn of the site ' (2.49 acres) is very similar xn charaeter and topography to ths remainder of the site. It is a portion of the site that �ould have access only through portions of the site zoned R-7PD, Zer� lot line dwelling units are allowed in R-7PD zonea. The area of the site zoned R-12 is comparatively sma11. The proposal allaws best design and markeCability for the development. Strict compliance with the regulations disallowing zero lot line units on the R-12 portion of the site would cause extraordinary hardship to the applicant by 1imiCa.ng clesign compatibility, efficient use of the land, and anticipated market demand. Based upon these circumstances, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow practical and complimentary development of the entire site. 18.148.03D Approval Criteria and Conditions A, The Planning Commission shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for a zero lot line developmemt based on findin�s that: 1. There shall be a 10 feet separation between each resident:ial dwelling �tructure or garage; 2. No residential dwelling shall be placed on a lot line which is cammon ko a lot line which is not a part of the overall devel�pment; 3. No structure st►all be placed on a lot line which is common to a public or 'private road right-of-way or easement line; 4. A five foot non-exclusive maintenance easement shall be delineated on the plan for each lot having a zero setback area. a. This easement shall be on the adjacent lot and shall describe the maintenance requirements for the z�ero Iot line wall or deed restrictions must be submitted with the preliminary plat which address the maintenance requirements for the zero setback wall of the detached dwellings. b. The easement shall be reeorded with Washington County and submitted to the City with the recorded final plat prior to the issuance of any building permits within the development. All lots in Phase II and III are to be zero lot line. The applicant has shown a minimum of 10 feet separation between each residential dwelling structure, and he has delineated five feet non-exclusive maxntenance easements on the Detailed Plan for lots with zero setback area. STAFF REPORT - ZC 2-84/PD 2-83/S 11-83/V 6-83 - PAGE 12 C, CONCLUSIOI�S .After reviewing the proposed Conceptual and Detazled Plans, the preliminary plat and a field investigation, staff finds that the proposed development cvnforms to all applicable Cnmprehensive Plan polic�es, Community De�velopment Code provisions, and it is compatible with the surrounding l,and uses. D. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends denial of the request for reduetion in the front y��.1 setbacks between the property and the front of Che garage from 2D feet to 18 feet. Staff recommends approval of the ZC 2-84, PD 2-83, S 11-83, and the request for zero lot line construction in an R-12 zone as proposed by the applicant with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall apply f.,or a Site Design Review pro�cess before any development can occur in Phase IV (townhouses). 2. The storm drainage plan sfi,all conform with the City's Master Drainage Plan, and be reviewed and approved by the City's EngiYleering Division. 3. Temporary access onto SW Hall Blvd. (west of the property) shall be removed within two years from the date of approval. 4. The applicant shall adhere to conditions that will be required by the State Highway Division regarding improvements to frontage and access onto Hall B�.vd. , 5. A non-remonstra�nce agreement for the future improvement on SW Hall ' Blvd. shall be made a part of the fYnal plat and become a part of ' each deed. 6. Seven (7) sets of plan-profile public improvement canstruction plans and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, stamp�d by a registered civil engineeY, detailing aZl proposed public improvements shail be submitted to the City's Engineering Division for review. 7. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not �ommence I until after th'e Engineeri.ng Division has issued approved public improvement plans. The Engineering Division will require posting of a 100% performance bond, the payment pf a permit fee, and the execution of a street opening permit or construction compliance agreement just prior to, or at the time of, its issuance of approved pu6lic improvemen� plans. 8. That �treet plugs be installed where necessary ta the approval of the City's Engineex�ing Division prior to issuance of permits. 9. That sidewalks be located adjacent to the curb. STAFF F�PORT - �C 2-84fPD 2-83/S 11-83/V 6-83 - PAGE X� � 10. That no parking sigii� b� installed on the west and south side of SW Faiino Creek Drive. 11. fihat centerl"ine shall be marked on SW Fanno Cxeek Drive, 13 feet ' off of north and east curbs. 12. A bus shelter shall be provided on SH1 Ha11 Blvd. with a bus turnout. A paved walkway sha11 be pro�ided east to SW Fanno Creek Drive. Plans to be submitted to Oregon Department of Transportation and Public Works Department for approval. 13. Provide a fire hydrant locate�i within 400 feet from all �ortions of the building. The hydrant shall be connected to an approved water supply and shall meet the miniarum fire fTow requirements. (UFC 10.3O1C) 14. Tracts "F" and "I" shall be dedicated to the City prior to the recording of the final plat with Washington County. 15. That trail� in Tracts "F" and "I" shall be built by the developers, and the cost shall be bonded with the public improvements. 16. That a covenant creating the Homeowner's Association be provided for the maia�tenance of the play structure on the north side of SW IFanno Creek Drive. The open space and play structure shall app�ear on the final plat. 17. A Homeowner's Agreement shall be filed with the City guaranteeing perpetual maintenance of all private roads including Tracts "A", "G", and "H" and the 40 foot private road serving the townhouses in Phase IV. 18. 18.148.030 Approval Conditions For Zero Lot Line B. The Planning Commission shall require the following conditions to be satisfied: 1. Deed restriction shall be recorded with Washington County which assure th�t; a. The 10 feet separation between the residential structures shall remain in perpetuity; b. The 10 feet separation between th� residential structures shall be maintained free from Any obstructians other than; (1) The eaves of the structure; (2) A chimney which may encrosch into the setback area by not more than 2 feet; STAFF REPORT - ZC 2-�4/PD 2-83/'S 11-83/V 6-83 � PAGE 14 I �3) A swimming pool; (4) Normal landscaping; ar . �5) A garden wall, or fence equippe:d with a gate for emergency acce5s and maintenance purpose:s; and 2. Eas�ments shall be granted where any portian of the sGructure or arc.hitectural feature projeats over a property line. 3. The `maximum lot co�erage for zero lot la.ne shall not exceEd � the maximum lot coverage for tihe base zone. 19. S�arvey Conditions: a. Sheet 2: "Vertica Datum" aha11 be Gity of Tigard datum (N,.G,S. 1929) City bench marks are available alon� Ha11 Br�a. , Bonita Road and Mc�?�nald Street. b. Sheet 5� All storm lines sha11 be placed in positions that do not interfere with centerline monumentation. c.. Sheet 7: 1. Compliance of ].8.160.160 (all) Exceptions: A) 18.160.160 A.2. - 5/8" X 30"" capped iron rods on surface of Fina1 Lift will be accepta�le. 1$ 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. A21 centerline monuments sha11 be pYaGed in a monument box canformin� to City standards, and the top of all monument bc�xes shall be sek at desi�n finish grade of said street or raadway. 3. The following centerline monumenks shall be set: a. All cente�line-centerline intersections. Intersections created with "collector" or other ! existing streets, shaTl be set when the centerline - alignment of said "collector" or other street has been established by or for the City; STA�F REPORT - ZC 2-84/PD 2-83/S 11-83/V 6-83 - PAGE 15 b. Genter of all cul-de-sacs; c. Cur�e points. Point of intersection (P.I.) when their pos�tion falls inside the limits of the pavement otherwise beginning and ending points (�.C. and E.C.). B. Basis of Bearing l. The plat shall be tied to a City of Tigard "Yrimary" or "Sec�ndary" control station if one exists within 1000 feer of the plat and th� bearings oriented thereon. 2. Tigaxd Grid coordinates for all established boundary points on tY►e plat shall be submitted to the City within 15 days of recording. 2) Compliance of 18.164.030 Sectinn H, "Intersection Angles." 18.164.030 Streets H. Intersection Angles. Streets shall be laid out so as to intersect at an angle as near to a right angle as practicable, except where topography requires a lesser angle, but in no case shall the angle be less than sixty degr�ees unless there is special intersection design; and l. Street �hall have at least 25 feet of tangent adjacent to the right-of-way intersection unless topography requires a lesser distance. 2. Intersections which are not at right angles shali have a minimum corner radius of 20 feet along the right-of-way lines of the acute angle. 3. Right-of-way lines dt intersection with artQrial streets shall have a corner radius of not less than 20 feet. 20. No changes or modification shall be made to a roved lans without PP P written a roval from the a ro i pp pp pr ate City department. 21. A "Recorded" mylar copy of final plat shall be submitted to the Gity within 15 days after recording. RECOMMENDED MOTION Should the Planning Commission adopt staff's findings and •recommendarians, the follawing motion may be made. "Move to approve as modified, with c4nditions, the applicant's request for ZC 2-84, PD 2-83, ' and S 11-83, and deny V 6-�3°1. 1 L�1/1/� / PKEP D BY: S. Ha' ' Pishvai A R VEA BY: William A. Monahan Assistant Planner Director of Planning & Elizabeth A. Newton Development Associate Planner (lw/0305P) STAFF 12EPORT - ZC 2-84/PD 2-83/S 11-83/V 6-83 - PAGE 16