The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Packet - 07/08/1991 POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm.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. �� ` �� :_,_,.:J..�..�e...-i...-,.,.,....,Y.i.....�iu.t,..+»»e....-„G_...tz...,.k�..S.:�-,�..,.....�.,,�..w.�?_...,..�.�y+.-...�'.6-?..r:'�.,-:.-.".'�``_...._,..:.,��.st.z..�s...i... :' J ' ,.. u.....--.-.-+�-w.,..=�....w.._L....a'r..�z-`"'=-'"'..;��'�._+3....-."-.-:--t.a�v.... �S.o-;.�:,.+«.k. ��s--'w.v,.-.« �.. + a:. �� j;� �� . . � c��':�f :?I � 1 ,. � d TIGAR'D PLAT]�IING CONID��ION PM � JLTLY 8, 1�C:3�8 -TOWN HAL�' � ; 'i'YGARD ��.�TIGAR:�, UREGON � . 13125 SW�' � ; 1. CA1�,'i0 QRD�3;R '� 2, ROLL CALL ' ' � � �, APPItOVE�s '� � 1VGNit,'fNICA.�IONS , �� 4, p�1L�iING COM�'IISSION CO �. �,, �*�, �, PU$LIC�C* `,: 5.1 ELECTION OF PRESIDEIJ'� VARTANCE 91-0010 DOLAN � . � � ` REVIEW �DB g1-0U05 est to allow '�,� gITE DEVELOp'�. roval of a�ite Development Re�view r�waa made . (1�TP0 #1) An aP�of t�e director's app The apP = roaun��17�60.1y s�la�a�'e foot retail salea bu�di8g• � ,Z,�� on o£anspp wrnald incl ons to the site p consttuct� ,�clitions which ude some moclific�ti subjeet � certain ��£or�ariance aPPT�tO allow ��°o and ��e�t�r l�as denied the applicant's req } �for b�e path floodPlau�ani]er�►€�3�.,*.,�#he f1oo�P �t Code recluu'es d�di�ati�mf within t2ie 1t10 Y�' whereas the CommunitY iDevelopmn CBD-AA (Central . construction of the pathway► on of the�UY�e�p��' ZONE: and constructi �,p��TION: 12520 SW�S�� , �area to the City ea oveg'laY zone)• ment �� . Busines�Di��one with the Ac�tion Ar ApPgQVAL C�P�T� CO��'�� . (�yCTM 2S12AG,taxtot 700) APPLICABLE �� ' bers 18.32,18.66,18.$6�18.100,180102,18.1OB,la��eT114,�18.1�Plan- ��t�eParka �� ,� ��►P �� Master Plaia for Fanno Cteek Fark,and the City of T�gat 6. �� ' 7, ADJ4iJRNI'�fEN'� ;: � � i � � fi:; ' �;'.�.-.. . t�.�';�.'; i;'.:,:,�... . ��,,�:,: . . . i'�.1'�'�.�,:- . k.C. (. .` , , ��1 �' . � . . . . . . . ., k).� . .. : . � � .m.._ ^C c. � k_ �. � ,.,".�,+e;"'."'...�,+t.,-+r.-*F."^�•r��r"'✓""^""`li ,�-�+1�'p" T" t 1 � t `ti . , . .,.v...,�,.,--r_ .-.e ^^..N.'�„".'*'�."'"`-' . .. _ . _ ..r ; _, .r, ,�.,FI �_. ... .. ,.,. .�'� -- ° - - .,;w �....... . . ...... _....._.... .. ___ . _ _ _ __ _. . . . ,,, �; _ ,a ��, � �:_ � TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR N�EETING - JULY 8, 1991 1 . Vice President Fyre called �he meeting to order at 7:30 PM. The meeting was held at Tigard Civic Center - TOWN HALL - 13125 SW Ha11 Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. �. ROLL CALL: Fresent: Vice Presider�t Fyre; Commissioners Barber, Fessler, Moore, and Saxton. Absent: Co�nissioners Boone, Castiie, and Saporta. Staff: Senior Planner Dick Bewersdorff, City Attorney Jim Coleman, and Planning Canmission Secretary Ellen Fox. 3. APPROYAL 0� MYNUTES Commissioner Fessler moved a�d Commissioner Bar�ber seconded to approve the minutes of the previous meeting as corrected. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioneo^s present, with Co�nnissioners Fyre and Saxtan abstainingo 4. PLlINMING COI�MISSYON COM8�141MICATTON �; o Gommunity Involvetnent Coardinator Liz Newton introduced blendy Hawley who will be joining the Carimissian to f�ll the position vacated by Don Moen. She vrill be confirmed July 23rd at the City Cauncil Meeting. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1 5YlE DEVELQPMENT REVIEW SDR 91-0005 11ARIANCE VAR 91-0010 DOLAN/MENgEZ � . (NPO #1 ) An appeal of the Director's approval of a Site Developm�nt request to allow construction of an approximately 17,600 square foot retail sales building. The approval was rnade subject to cert�in conditions which would include some modifications to the site plan. The Director has denied the applicant's request for Variance approval to allow retention of area v�ithin the �00 year floodplain and area adjacent �o the f1oodplain for bike path construction and construction of the pathway whereas the Community Development Code requires dedication of this area to the City and construction of the pati� by the applicant. ZONE: CBD-AA (Central �usiness nistrict zone with the Action Area overlay zone). LOCATION: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC, tax lot 700) APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Commu�ity Development Code Chapters 18.32, 1$.66, ��.86, 18.i00, a8.i02, i8.�G6, i8.30�, 18.114, 18.12�, 1�0134; the Parks Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park, and the City of _ i rd Master Dra�na e P1an. T a g 9 k /. � {�� RLANN�I�NG CONd+1ISSTQN� MTNUTES - J��ULY 8, 1991 P{1C�E 1 �. �^ � r'� � � , , , , ,: �i� , , . .. �. , .. __ _ _ �, . . ; � �, �, Senior Plann�r Dick Bewersdorff reviewed the previous decisions made pertaining to this Site Development Review and Variance request. He discu�sed the conditions of approval , several of which the app1icant is objecting to. He said the condition requiring the dedication af pruperty within th�e Fanno Creek flaodplain for the purpose of co�structing a bike/pedestrian path was of major �oncern ta the applicant. He explained that the applicant did not intend to give th�s land witi��ut adequate compensation. H� discussed the condition of � approval requiring the r�moval of the sign on top of th� existing A-Boy � building. He said the applicant chara�terized the sign a� a wall sign installed on a parapet wall , but both the Planning Commission and City Counci� found the sign to be a roaf sign (SDR application in 1989). He s�id staff was recommending that the Cammission uphold the Director's decision. xi � APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION � o John Dolan, owner of the subject property and the A-Boy business, � explained he favored construction of a bike/pedestrian path, but he was opposed to dedicating some of his property without compensatian. He � said there were originally 12 conditions of approval , and now t�ere are 16 conditions. He objected to the City adding cond�tions beyond the original 12o Ne discussed the erosion control and Traffic Impact Fee � conditions. � o Cormnissioner Barber commented on the reasoning behir�d the Traffic Impact � Fee. There wa�s bri ef di scussi on about thi s i ssue. � o Commissioner Fessler requested clarification pertaining to th� sign � issue. She r�called from the previous hearing that the applicant agreed to ��kc ��n the �ign after the ne� building was constructed. There was ;a� discussion, with Mr, Do�an advising that he did not want t� take the r� sign down until the old building was demolished. 'z,t o Comm�ssioner Fyre a�ked Nir. Dolan about his consid�ration o� moving the � '� location of the building with regards �o the bike path. Mr. Dolan said h� was flexible about this issue, as long as he was �ustly compensa�ted ,:�� in return for the de�dicated 1and. x o C�rmnissianer Saxton asked how the value �f the land Eould be det+ermined ; sinee the land is a�ot buildable in the floodplain. Discussion follawed r� concernireg how to determine a fair price and how the 15 �eet of land ';� would affect building plans. �>> -� o Co�nissioner Moore suggested an easement for the bike path instead of � ; the C3ty buying �he property. 7here was discussion about the pros and ;� �on� Qf an �a�ement v�rsus a dedication, ,r� �� o Commissioner Barber sought clarification fram City Attorney Jim Coieman �':fi conc�rning the Planrring Caanission's role in deciding whether the City '�# can purchase the property for Fanno Park. Mr. Coleman advised thati the :� Can�ni ssion had no authority to carmit ta such a puv°chase. He di sGUSSed 'r� the variance process and standards for granting a Variance. ;;�� , f:� it (i� �� PLANNiNG COMN{'YSSI41d MINUTES - JULY 8, 1991 PAGE 2 �� .:._ ., .:., ._ _ . ._.,_..._ ___ . _ . . . _ __ _ _ _ . _.._ ... __... .._ _... .,�._. �.u...,w ,... ,,.w: . q �i ; �� , ��'{ �� -A PUBLIC TESTIMONY � � o Gary Ott, 9055 SW Edgewood Stre�et, Tigard, testifi�d in favor of staff's � ; rec am�endation to uphold the Director's decision. He nated that one of � the main issuea was the integrit�y of the Fanno Creek Park P1an, which he �� said was very important tu the livability of th� cormnunity. He pointed �r ' ou�t �the wild iife habitat, picnic area and natural setting avail able in !� the urban environment. He advised that NPO #1 and #2 were on record as �',� supporting the park linkage along Hall Street to Main Street, although �'� he� said ite was not speaking for the NPO. He spoke �bout other �'unctions � �he park provides, such as: twansporting storm wa�ter, removing �� pollutants from surface water, and as an impor°tant wetlands area. He �;x , , encouwaged the Commission ta uphold the Director°s decision. {�. � �� ` APPLICANT�S REBUTTAL � � o John Dolan stated he agreed with t4r, Ott about the importanc� of Fanno Creek Park to the community. N� did not agree, however, with the methad of obtaining land for �he park by tak9ng it wi�hout compensation. � , ; PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Commissioner Fessler discuss�ed the issue of d�edication of land for the bike path and crxnpranises which both parties have made. She sympathized with the applicant's �esire to be paid f�r the d�dicated land, but pointed ou� �he trade offs to be made. o Commissioner 5axton said he could s�emp�thize with the applicant wanting � to be paid for the dedicated 1and, but stated he agreed with the staff's recanmendation. o Commissioner Moore referred to the Develnpment Code and said he did not � find that the Cc�nmission had any latitude. There�ore, he favored r� upholding the Director's d�cis�on. �a �� ' o Co►nmissioner Barber agreed with Commiss�oner Moore regarding the �� authority or latitude a1lowed the Can�nission, and she was in favor of �� , following staff's recanmendation. �� I�! o Canmissioner Fyre discuss�d the Code requirements and said he favor�d iti 'I upholding the Dire�ctor's Decision. � ' r � o City Attorney Jim Colem�n saggested deleting Condit3on �9, the Traffic �'� , Ympact Fe�, from the conditions of approval , as it is a Ci�ty �� requirement. He said the applicant would not be relieved from paying F� the fee in the future, but it v�rould not be connected with �Ghis SDR or � Vari ance hear�ng. �;� •yr� !f� fQ>`fi 1'y{ �4� ba S�.. f �F t PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — JULY 8, 1991 FAGE 3 � : a � � , , � � � � � ��. � ; _._ _ _ _ ._ _... .. .._ .. ___... ., _ _ _ __. . __ _ _.� ..___.__._ .. _ V c p � � { �-� �•" * Co�nissioner Barber moved and Commissioner Saxton seconded to upho1d th� Director's decfision wh9ch approved SDR 91-0005, but with condition #9 deleted from the eonditio�s of approval , and to deny VAR 91-0010. � Motion carried by unanimous vote of Commissioners present. � :� � 6.0 OTI1�R � � 6.1 ELECTION OF PRESIDENT � � o Yice Pr�sident Fyre called for nnminations for President of the Planning ,,�� Co�anission to replace the positian vacated by Pr°esident Moen. � * Commissioner Barber nominated Commission�r Fyre. There were no other � nani nati ons. Yote was uroanimous to elect Milt Fyre as President of the Commission. � * Commissioner Fessler no�ninated Co�nissioner Barber as Vice President of the P1 anni ng Commi ssi on. Commissioner Saxton mov�d and Commissioner Fessler seconded to clmse the ' nominations. Mot�on carried unanimously by Canmissioners present. : Cc�mmissioners voted unanimously to elect Co►�nissioner Barber as Vice President af the Planning Carranission. ; � 6.2 �TH�R BUSINESS � 0 Camr�i si o r e �:� s ne F�ssl r su gested that the Conanission do somethin to thank 9 9 r: Don Moen officially for his years of service to the Canmission. � II: � There was discussion, with Ca�issioners deciding to buy a gavel and s� hade it engraved appropriately. Commissioner Barber volunteered to ; select the gift. � � r� � : � o Commissioner Moore brought up the issue of absenteeism of � Cam�issioners. Pwesident Fyre requested Secretary Fox to provide a copy � i of the ruleS of absenteeism for discussion at the next meeting. � 1'. AQJOl1RNNIE�lT - �:30 PM � Eller� P. Fox, Secretary ATl'EST: � � i t Fyr , d t � � PLANNING CONaIISSaON MIN�TES - JULY 8, 1991 PAGE 4 � � � � , , , _ � �#� . _ ....�...�.w�,��:�:�,�� -.�:�:.,��,.,�,,.:::.��.q�<.,�..�..�.�..�.. �,�,�,�k�,�.�.:..�.n ��;�_�._�.�.t:�...�..,,��.�,.�.�-U�.�,_��.�:....��:.,,.y:..r .._.µ_.... . ��_:__.. �..�,;,�,.�.� . ' .�.,,.�.�,,,;,:: �_ ��' PLANNING COMMISSION ROLL CALL HEARING DATE: l � STAItTING TIME: �L �� COMASISSIONERS �� DGINALD MOEPI ___�VI�A5TA BARBER _� HAROLD B. BOONE 1`� v J�S CASTILE � JUDX FESSL�;R �MTLT FYRE � k#RTAN MOORE �!y� HARItY SAPOR�A � � � '�Y` STAFF PRESl:NT: �� L �/e�, ��r�c �3.�,v�.s �� , ai/PC-ROLL '; :rCY" , � . � . � � � � � ":i f >' . . . . . . . . . � . . . � .�, �,,., :. ,,, , . . ... ... .. . .. . ' .. ��..i..+w'�i-+r. #wNti.i.r-»nn++H�.v...A-...... .. .. . -' .. .... . . , ,... . ... .. ,v_ , _ .._...._..._. ___. _____..... __ _._._..Ua ..,.._ ._,.... ..�,rM ��,., :_;:�.�.,��.��,.� �,,..,..__ _ ---_ �� '`r"f � � ' � T I GRRA PLl1NN ING COHlII S S IOII NOTICS: 7►LL PSRSOIiS nBSIRING TO SPF1�11C ON ]1NY �zS!! IiIIS? SYC�N THSIR lII!!� AND !i0'rS TBSIR € ;; 1�DDRBSS ON TAI3 SHBS�. (Please PRIN'.�) AGENDA ITEM: �� CASE NUMBER(S): SDR ql" ��0� VAIeqI"Dd)� ±�' OWNER/ APPLICANT: � ' b'� V1 e`Z - : LOCATION: I 2 5 20 �vtl M�i n �frP��" - - ."� �' NPO NUMBER: ��.._ DATB QF HEARI�IG �G�,I C�B�, � � Q I i . r s .'•"z ��`� � � �� t� � � �� ,�� . =a"� l �_ t .,�T�`i ��i:_ s x i rt. , .. . i:� . � r.... Dl ;. .�! .. . . . :...: . .. .J+Fw..�t:...n : ...«._.. ..,,... �..._.- �_... . . '. . . .... . . . . ==mxsaas�as��mazasae��sasaasms�saasxessaas�ma�aaa�:aaaa�sastmasa=mam�a�s�m=�sa=axma�� pRppONENT (For the propasal) OPPC9t�TENT (Aga�i.nst the propoeal) � sxasams —aca� asspsaaea�aass:rsasas:ssaxam��?r�#e��saxa:�= � �sx�x�r,rr.asnszssRt� ��7F47F�lit�c�¢itiaR�Fmis�4q a s U,� �r .11� i�F^n s r s�.: ' �[ a.a,.�� :t � , r� y �t��, x � .��.I.R�.�t�.�'.t��•.1±�.��1J�1� r,�7C�� 1`�I��' '� �� X � .._3. ,b...1:��'i3,_�s1K ��Wl.wSE_. �� h tl . :�- �� /fl �'�'�G s � fJri c?�I�LGQ �' � � � ' � �o .�� 0 � � � � �� - �' � � � � - �� I i � _ . . p �� u -'r ^�:�F F�= "°? '�t " _ ' , ... . .. . ._ - ., .> _ b . . � ':til � _. .5 ..,,;lc� � h. _, , ,. , .. . — —_ _ _ �,, , �-�, �� a�T�` 7�82 6'.O.BOX 370 PIiO&�E(503j 684-0350 ��g�� BEAVEfi;OM,OR€COP!9?075 �� IC� ��gS6�9� 3"�e fmflleae�r�ag�rs�-b�consit�e�.�#a��"� ' � � issio�cs�€ ; � � � ��ar.:ohee� �otir �e��$�99I�€'�•3�,.P�I;�it��gard. � a--:'�'�svn�riatt,I�1�5 �'4�,��1v�:;Tiga$�f,�egaaa �tta pc�b�im,c�eal ar��.��s� � Ci�y of Tig�d � �s�ss�-iE� '�e p��c�E�mg.�s��ii��€��rer v�� a � � ,��„,. PmOa �x 23397 � �uplica��ida ��.�.��h�r�Y��i$<�2 m��he'��rd�Vi�tc��+�e,�td �� es�i,��dure��a€��ia�r�ain��aa�as�a�a�..��u�'��.�€ ' � Tigard Or �37223 ��a��pr��c�'sp��z�s��,it�€€��P��t� g is�ta��e� era�tasa tt��u�iit��ti��a��t+�c�or��gt��v��:; �€�I�ic��csrr�sne�t�.�i�c3ixec%��r�ele�e��i�,��t��se�ttz�#h�t : ersc��€c�: i�� :�;g b�� . �a t�� :�,�y�r i at g31�J��' Ha1!��i:,�ga�d,f3reg�? _ a�r��,_ ��iR; A�FI�3e�V�� O� P�3�L.lCATIOiV � � ��_� �: ��' �� '` S�'ATE o� �B�E�O�, 3 ��14+��`�"4' � - , c��r�� o� w�s�i�a��o�, �ss_ ��-� ` : � �� ' �� o, Judith Koeh�.er a�a� , ��€.��t��€�s�'�� k� ��€��e�!€� �e�at�� being first tJza9y s�aorn, depase anc� sa�,iha�tr kh Ad�er�is'se�g �ues€�4�os��.Ce��t�Zt��s€�1;2ig ` �'�, � ��g�- ��'lm�s �. �� s7�'�t��,� . [�ir�ct�c, or h6s pri�c6pa@ c�e�k, ca�the � ba�g$�t� :'�� '� a ¢aevv�p�p�r o� gener�E c6rcaaia �a �s d�afiined 'sn ORS 'i�3.�1� �r r�i�tt�tli��t�Sit3��p� '��t��g3P�#��z_ �nd t93.o2Q; Pa�besshed �� ?garci ae; ��se ��p�a��s�q,� "�`�tc�.� , `��t�� ; ��i �fo d co �aad st t ¢ �ie��Ly��a�+�#��'�a�d�� t$�;; . �`':� �u��c �e��.ng-�t ��-�5 �are� ��r��t��€��€�ie�t�t� €� � �.. ar��€�a �.�� P1��"1��=. a �r6nt�d c��ay af which 8s here4o anr�sxe�, was �ub!'sshe� 's�a ?he 7-�--� �`�� '��.� ; eot��f�t�z�.� ,��'��i�t�;��:�� " ��`, en4ire oss�a�og s�6� s�ews�ap��cr �e success's�� and �t?��s�$'3e��sat�'�;��iC�t��e.��*,�r��g��F��:`., cotasecu46ve an the foliovrang assues: ��2,Q�� ,,�,��'��,�,}� '�'� � � �` $�-��i;�' Ju�e 27, 1991 �8 f�,��;� �$.�t1�,i�3��>�1G�,��s: ,��y��r��:��.. ��r��s��tiir��-�� .� u•.,::.��; .� e ��. - � � � ;��,�--- ��,-��,��:' � __ �a�bs�ri�� e3 sworn �e�o�e_r��,�iiis 27th clay of .It�ae 1�9b d 6��ta�y P�biic��r�e�go� RAj!�i098id'�66SS60P9 �X�DiP�S;� � � 99�� /— �r f . � � y.�y�.:u[� � . ,.��.a�Z�1�>�3'.rSG"'--a'�I r1..,..✓..tY3.L. ...JJ3.�. .J�C�+.�FhxC.Y.�.1v'._.£yl3eYSxtcu �::�, �.. .n�w:....r �.w. .. u �u:�� uyaa�� +:.:Y:s3ut.� ..ue.w ssl�.v..n �.i,.,._.5.�' ..:G..f:rv.4 ...:i:,�..�v,.s2...�. ...!lt:w,'�.:.+i:,-.i-..._X..�Fwi��.....u,....if�:�.u.u, ..w..ea.. ... ..,....�..,.,....,..ax S+,- ...X.,.,._.....US 'i^' �7`,. , � �; �Y.�� r ,; CTTY OF TaGARD PLANNTNG COMMISSION � FINAI� ORDER NO. 91--09 PC A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDTNGS �NTCDIRECTdR'S llESIGNEEEO(SDR DECISION OF THE COMt�iTJNIT� DEVEZO� 0005) AND VARIANCE (VAR 91-0010� RES2�STED BY JOSEPH NIENDEZ (JC1HN AND FRANCES DOLAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) . - �, The Tigard Planning Cammission has reviewe 99 he �he Cammission has on appeal, at a public hearing on JuIY $► and conclusions noted �;� based its decision on the fa�ts, findings, below. S��tM1i�A7�Y OF APPLIC�,TION REQUEST: a) Site Devel.opment Review approva? is rc:quested to allow construCtion of a 17,600 square foot retail sales building on a 1.67 a�re site; �) Variances are requested t� the following Gommunity Development Code requiremen'ts: i. Code Section 18.1.20.180oA.8 (Site Development Review ap�roval standards) which requires dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain where development is allowed adjacent to the 100-year fioodp�.�in. Ia� �ddition, this section requires that the dedication include area at a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway. Th� requirement of area for a pathkray as well as construation of the pathway is also made by Code Section 18.86.040.A.1.b (Ac�ian The ; overlay zone interim requirements) . � applicant requests that floodplain and pathway ,; areas not be required to be deda.eated and also � that pathway con�oval of the Site Devel pment condition af app Review raquest. r'� ii. Section 18.106.030.C.20 (minimum aff-street ��: a, parking rec�uirements) which r�quires provisinn '� of one off-street parking space for every 400 iu, �; square feet of �eneral retail sales area. � The applicant requests approval of a site plan °: that would provide a 39 parking space parking lot whereas 44 spaces would ��e r�quir�d for ,.:� the size of the praposed k�uildinq to be used ;, for gen�ral r�tail saleso -':; � PAGE 1 ,;� F�NA� ORDER. N0. 91-09 PC � ;T} �x�, f r� '�'1 d� � '7ro� + � �'� � .,. Mrt ,I 'f' �1: � .� .. '4""'s"""''Y"... f"' �� Y�� i � � � >,aw?......,'.,,,:.�.r-+m�+r.:��. ,�-.-:,.-f��-,""�"n" °r'„«.;.�.«,.r�+Y �m�*; ., �... ��,' �ti t�� 1`+, ?fi� ;4 , .i��., �.... .. .... . .t.----- - -— ' _.�.�.._�. _ . _,.,., . .-.:..:.. . � . �, .. .�..�_. ..:_. .: �..,._.._ .._ . .:....,n__.a,.. .,,, ..�.:.:W,. _.. _ ,� �_., ..., ,,,;:�, . ., �,,. �,�,�;,s, ._�,LL.�W� N.u�_.. ...� , � � . .. iii. Section 18.114.070.H (certain signs prohibited) whiah prohibits roof signs of any ( kind. The applicant requests that the City not require removal of a sign above the roof line of an existing building on the site as a �� conditi.on of approval af the current �� ' development application. The applicant �` characterizes the sign as a wall sigra built on I� �:3 a wall parapet. � APP�ICANT: Joseph R. Mendex, Attorney at Law � ' 131� SW 12th Avenue Portland, OR 97201 OWNER: John and Florence Dolan § 1919 NW 19th Avenue �� Portland, OR 97209 � ;� � LC�CATION: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC, TL 700) � E� ,' COMPREHENSIVE FLAN DESIGNATIUN: Central Business Distriat �',� ' �;>� ; �,t:: ZONE DESIGNATION: CBD�AA (Central Business District, �$;�� Action Area overlay �nne) �'�v� �,�z r;;� PRIGR BACKGI2�UN1> ;Y�� i'Ik'iR The property's �wners previously applied for Site Development �=�� Review approval for pians that are largely the same as the ��; plans that are presently under review. The applicant also "._-:�� requesteel a variance to t�e parking stanelard for general 4` �� retail sales to a11ow 39 park.�ng spac�s to �erve development '�� on the site whereas 44 spaces wauld normally b� �equired. The ;`';�� Site Development Review and the Variance requests were u';��c � :� � approved an July 10, 1989 by the Planning Director subject to �'�� 14 conditions. r�� ' �„�. �'+� I The applicant appealed the Direc�or's decision to the Plannirag r�� ,� Comnnission. The applicant raised concerns with five �;� conditions �� a�p�°�v�l �hat were imposed by the Director's �� decision, including conditions requiring floodplain and 2c� r„� greenway area deelication, construction of a bicycle/p�destriar� �� pathway within the greenway to be accomplished kry the ��'� ', applicant, and removal of a non-conforming �oof sign frnm an � ' existing building prior to the issuance of an occupancy per�mit ! for the new building. The Planning Commission upheld th� I Director�s decision, except that �he aondition requiring �� , removal of the roof sign was modifi�d to requi�e removal to �� ocaur within 45 days of th� issuance of the occupancy permit �5� (Final Order PC 89-25 dated December 7L5, 1989) . �;� � I FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PA�E 2 �� '�� `�� 1p".`jjSjSjjjtt ktfY��' C��. ,�:'� �f ::t .;5r ..r„ ... ....:. .. ....... . ,. ,i -�.:, : . ; .� m� �«• .;,_ ...... � ._ , , . i '{ � � . .�� . . ��-� , o .. :. � ... ". T'. ._ .'`.t... . n, ... .... . . . _— — — _ _ —' m . ,;, m�,:<., ..��_,.� .. m��•.,,. ..�._,.�:._.__ .�A .,...�.. x, _ �,. __. �_..1�,,,.il_,.v__, _.....� .....�.,.�. ��_._.__. .w . :w; ..��,�... ._. ...,� ,.�..,:�.._.4�.�.r� _ :y . �� ,_. . _.,.. .__w�, ,� �rT„� I �.- �..� G Th� applicant then appealed the Planning CoYamission'�s decision to the City Counail �hallenginc� the same five canditions. The City Council upheld the Planning C�mmission's decision, with on� modifiaation. The Council reassigned the responsibi�.ity for surveying and marking the floodplain area from the applicant to the City�s engineering/surveying department � 4 (Council Resolution 9a-07 elated February 5, �.990) . �� he applicant appealed the Council's decisa.on to the OreQon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) . On January 24, 1991, LUBA �' dsnied the appeal �hereby upholding the City°s decisian on this aaatter (LUBA Final Order and Opinion No. 90-029) . ��:� Prior to the above-d�escribed Site Developm�nt Review and Varianc� request, the only other City of Tigard land use or �� development actions directly related tn this parcel are a s�ries of notiaes regardinq nonconforming signs on the � property. Trao freestanding billboard signs and one large roof s�gn on the pxoperty have been considered nonconfor�ning as o� March 20, 1988, and property and business owners were notified ''� of tha.s prior �o that time. A voluntary compliance agreement { h.as been used to provide �ffected downtown properties an extension of time until a City Center Plan is adopted. The ;'''. vo2.tintary� compliance agreement sent to the owners of the subject parcel has never been sic�ned. The proper�y and busin�ss owners have been cited for the following noncon�ormitie�: :�``. ,� A. Roof sigri, a vivlation of Section 18.114.070eH; and <� ��;� ��;�. B. Two nonconforming, amortized biZlboards (illegal +r location� , violations of Code Section 18.114eA90.,A.4.a. �� x,�� ,.,,;: �; SITE TNFORNIA'I'ION AND PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION �;;� �� P�operties surrounding tk�e subject si�e are a�so zaned C�D-,d�A ��t Central Business District - Action Area �nd aontain a �� ys variety of commercial uses. Froperty immediately to the west �� ontains the Fanno Cre�ek flaodplain anci is designated in ��4 Ti ard's Com rehensive Plan to b� included as �`� g p par�t of the f;� City�s greenway/open space system. �',;� 4,� ��,�� The subject site is approximately 1.67 acres in size and is ��'�, bordered by Fanno Creek on the southw�ste�n side. The sit� �'� � 4':' includes a 9,700 square foot building and a par�ially paved �� parkinc� 1ot which have been in their present locations s�nce � � approxi�ately the la��ke 1940s. A frees�anding sign with a �� '� �.. readerboard stands along the Main Street frontage of th� �, ' praperty. 'I'�ao large billboards stand on or near the "� 'I property's northeastern bound�ry. �� 'i �� i �; � ti�,::i FTNAL ORDER �TO. 91-09 PC PAGE 3 �<� :� .-:y,' �,�l '� , . .. ,.. ....� �,._ . .. . , _... .. .._ .� , ,, ... . �..._.,. �}:...��. . ;�..... ,,.�.. �Lw..:;�a.. ._..,., �... -..........._.. _. _. _ ,., � . ' � l The property's owners plan to raze the existing str�ucture, currently used by A-Boy Electric and Plumbing Supply - a general retail sal.es us�, and to embark on a multi-phase redevelapment of the site. The building will be �azed in sections correspondinq to progress on the c�nstruction of the first phase of reclevelopment of the s�.te. The current proposal includes elevelopment of a �7,600 square foot, single- � story structure on the southwestern side of the site for relocation of the A-Boy Eleatria and Plumbing Supply operations. Th� plans also show an out].ine of � phase �wo � buildi.ng on the nor�heas�ern side of the site. No details have been provided for the building in phase tw�. A parking �.ot aontaining 39 parking spaces intended to servs the phase one building is proposed betwe�n the two phases. On� design�ted handiaapped parking space �nd a 3 bicycle raak are also prc�posec�. The site plan also indicates an are� f�r additional parking for pha$e two. The applicant requested variances to Commun.ity Developmen� �ode standards requi.ring dedication of area of the subjeat parcel that is within the 100 year floodplain of Fanno Creek and dedicata.an of additional area adj acent �o the 100 ysar ;: floodplain for a bi�ycle/pedestrian path, as well as the �eq�irement for construction of th� pathway in this area. In ';, adclition, the applioant requested a variance to the Code prohibition agai.nst roof signs. Through this request, the appliaant is r�ques�ing reconsideration o� the e�rlier City determination that an existing �ign on the present building on the site is a roo£ sign. The applicant also reque�ted reconsideration af an earlier Council dire�tive that would : require the �ign on th� existing building to be removed within 45 d�ys of occupancy of the proposed new building. In addition, staff al.sa considered a varian�� request previously made by the property's owners in 1989 for a reduation in parking spaces, even though �he applicant negleated to raise this issue with the current appliaation. �he parking variance aonsidered would allow 39 parking spaces to suffice for the proposed phase one deve3.opment wh�r�a� Community Development Code Section 18.106.030.C.20 requires one parking space for eve�y 500 square feet of building area for general re�ail sales, or in this case 44 spaces. The City a.s under no obligation to reconsider this varianae sinae the appl.icant failed to raise the issue wi�h the current application; however �he Co�missinn believes there is a need to reaonsider the variance for the City's own admini.strative purposes. The varianc� is reconsic�ered as part of the present appliaati�n so that there will not be diff�rent approvals raith different approval periods regarding this site and site plan. The previously approv�d varian�e related to parking was issued This a roval is 90, F br ua r 5 19 P the Cit Coun cil om Fe y ► b Y Y �� FINAL ORDER YJO. 91-'09 PC PAGE 4 ;;`.; :,'�;;.� ' � �; �. �., A`; ,,, �' . . ..��;., . ;:_ -_:-, �. :.; ,. .., 'f! .... . .. ... .. I 'e—.�Y �+.n_ ,_... v.-.[. � n.u.- <.rtr �m,^ . . � . .. s a � � � . ....i.�-.: _�..«.r._..,..�, ..: .. .. • . r .., (r':. e S_. '�:n'. � .. .... . __ _— •..,.� .,:,::. . :.:.s: .,�.:...::...a> ��_�..i,.:... .a:,a..:� >..-�.:...:_„ ...>.�_,....: _ ......_._...._ ...�.,�.... .,.« ..,,.�._.�xr_.�..,:-. >a.r.z.. ,�„er... �... .� _, .�k tia er ._,_ ..._._. .., , �. �� .,,...::.: ....+ ,; •.rr t rt�:s.0..�s-.'._S...u:�:3[L. '�-::., '�:.�c:.zt_..'..'h...t_.:._..:" - \ ' ��, : . valid for eighteen months from the date of issuance. Therefore, that appro�al is likely tn expixe be�'ore dev�lopment propased by the current appliaation can begin. Reconsideration and reapproval nf the parking variance at this time would reset the clock for that variance so that the vari.ance approval period would be concurrent with the approval period for the new �ite Development Review applica�ion. On May 24, T991, the Community Development Direatar's desic�nee approved the Site Development 12eview requ�st and the Variance related to parking. The approval was subject to 1.6 canditions. The oth�r variance r�quests wex�e denied. AGENCY AND I�TPO CONII►IENTS The City Buileling Division notes that a canopy and an 8-foot tall solid pbywood fence must be installed behinc� the sidewalk/pukrlia right-of-way alang SW Main Street (from the southwestcern property line to a minimtun o£ 20 fe�t beyond the new building) prior tc� start of constructian and must remain until all con��ruction is complete (Unifo�rm Building Cocle section 4407(c) . A demolition pernnit wi.11 be required for the removal af any or all of tYie existing building. The City Engineering Divisian has reviewed the proposal and ;�: has the following comments: A. Streets: �;' " The site fronts S.W. Main Street wha.ch is classified as ' a major coll.ector streete Main Street along the site�s ' frontage is fully developeei with curbs and sidewalks. A 1986 engineering study of the conditxon of S.W. Main '�` Street recommends that the pavement be comgletely F� � reconst�ucted and that the storm drainage system be replaced. It appears to kre impr�ctiaal to perform the propased reconstruction of Main Street in a piecemeal fashian c�n a lo�-by-lot basis; instead, the , r��uc�ion needs to �ccur in larger segm�nts beginning at Fanno Creek Bridge and working uphi2l. Therefore, we do not propose that any reconstruction of Main Street be required as a condition of approval o� this develo�amen� proposal. ' This developme�t should be required �to replace any ' existing sidewalks and curbs wha.ch are damaged or in poor ?� regair and to reconstrazct any existing curb auts whiah are being alaaa�don�d. � As �art of the Tigard Maj or Streets Transpor�ation Safety ! Improvement Bond, the City plans to replace the Main Street Bridge over Fanno Cr�ek. Th� bridge replacement FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 5 ° .` ;.:�: .�_,�,.., .�.r w<�,u��,.....�:;:t ..�,,.,�,� ,_. ,�,.�� vu_» �. . ,w.,,._.�__ �...�.. _ .._. ._ , ..,�,. ,� <,.��,.,w�.� ..___.._ _,_�.,._, ...T�_�_ ,.._..y _s�K.. .�.�.�w � ' t\• is scheduled to begin in June 1991. The bridge construction is expected to occur within the existing right-of-way and shnuld have little impact on the subj ect site. B. Sanitary 5�wer: There are two sanitary sewer truck lines that cross the site in existing easements. One line is 24 inches in diameter and the other is 60 inahes in diameter. The applicant has shown on the application plans the easement and location for the 24 inch lane but not the easement and location for the 60 inah line. Adciitionally, after reviewing the sanitary sewer system >�� plans on file in this office, it appear� that there maX k�e some mix°up as to wher� the sanitary sewer system is �,:' as �hown on the applicants submitted plax►�. Basically, it appears that the 24 inch line is within a 10 foot e�sement and goes along the front of �he proposed new ' builda.ng and di�terges to the east as you c�o south. The 60 inch ].ine is within a 3A foot easement and again is in �ront of the proposed new building but does not divexge - as fast to the east as you go south. Based on the plan � �` sul�mitted by the applicant and the "as-built01 plans for ;;+,*, botk� the sanitary sewer systems, it appears that the new buildin�g would be located ov�r °the eas�ment for the 6(D ir�ch line by approximately 6 to 8 feet at the approximate s;'' m�ddle of tl�e buildinc�. There�are, the applicant shnuld be required to stzbmit evidenc�. as to the act�al location , "' of the sanitary sewex lines and easements, and their relationship to the propos�ed building. If it is determined that th� submitted proposal £or the building does �ncroach upon the easement, the applicant should be req�ired to change the location of �.he building or the ��" design so that it dpes not encroach upon the easement or t.` to provide evidence that the Unif ied Sewerage .�gency does not obj ect to the er�croachment. '�:: C. Storm Sewer: _ The City's Master Drainage Plan reaommenc�s impravements to the Fanno Creek ahannel downstream €rom Main Street. The prop�sed chan�el improvements wauld include widening and slope stabilization. These improvements would mave the location o£ the top of bank approximately f ive feet closer to th� propo�ed building than the looation of the , existing tap of bank. Therefore, an adjustment of the �, building loaa��.ion will have to ocour in o�der to aecommodate the future City-initiated reloaation of �he � �' = floodplai� bank. This should be required on a revised ' � �ite plan. �n addi�ion, dedication of the land area on L �', I �, $; FINAL QRDER N0. 91-09 PC PAGE 6 � �..,� ��:� . k� y 1 ` �r" ,;::�;� � _ �,. ; „-�.�� <_;. , :..,. 7 ,.�� .. -�w ., ,..,,,;k� , �� - -.r-,..� r, �ti'2^'r;t*`T"f'` . . _.. .. , .. .'. ._ .. . , i E.7 '� __. . ..� . 4�- �_ this property below the elevation of the 100-year flaod should be required. The Unified Sewerage Agen:cy has established and the City has agreed to enforc� (resolution No. 90-43) Surface Water Management Regulations requiring the construction of on-sit� water quality facilities or fees in lieu mf their construction. Requiring surface water quality � facilities on small sites could result in numerous � facilities that could become a maa.ntenance burden to �he Citya Furthermore, the applicant has not pr�posed any such �acilities and tYaere a�e no natural depressions or other areas of this site that are particu]Lar1y suitable for water quality facilities. RegionaY faca.lities, funded by fees in lieu of construction �f smaller isolated facilities, would prc�vide the required treatment with improved reli�bility and less maintenance� C�nsequently a fee-in-lieu of the construction of an-site water quality facilities shouZd be assessed. D. Traffic Imga�t F�e Washington County has established and the City has agreed to enforce (Resolution No. 90-65) Traffic Impact Fees. The purpose of the fee is to ensur� that new development contributes to extra-capacity transportation improvements needec� to accommodate additiona� tra�ffic generated by such development. The applicant will be required t� pay the f ee. Based on the following information, the �STTMATED TIF for this develapment would be: i) Use: Retail �ales , 2) Land Use Categary: Business & Cammercial � s 3) Rate per trip: $�4.00 � � 4) ITE Category: 816 � � 5) Weekday average trip rat�: 53.21 per ToG.S.F. � � 6) Existing Square Footage: 9,720 approximately � . r k 7) Pro�osed Square Footage; 17,600 ; 8) TIF = 53.21 X (17.6 - 9.720) X $34.00 = $14,256.02 � NOTE: 'I'I3IS IS ONL�' AN ESTIMATE OF TH� APPLICABLE TIF FE�. THE �` ACTUAL FEE WILL �� CALCULATED AT T�ME OF BUII,DING PERMIT � APPLICATION. The actuai TTF will be based on the total square r FINAL ORDER NO. 91°09 PC P1�1GE 7 � � r i � _, ._ _. . . ,.,,. , , -, 1 �. , _ . < . , , , �,.. ; _,, .. ... __ _.. �.._.....,. ... . _ .. _.... ... . ..... ...... . .� �_ , .._, �,.,, ,_.,_.�,.., ,.. ___ �.,.: ,._. .. . ... �� ' ' �ls � � 4 1� C footaqe shown in the building plans, tr� trip rate in effect at the time Qf building permi� app].ication, and the fee rate in effect at that time. The City of Tigard Parks Departmex�t recammends that area adjacent to the floodplain should be required to be dedicated for pathway construction. � The Tualatin Valley Fir� and Resaue District notes that � automatic sprinkler proteotion or some other means of built-in fire protec�ion will be required. In addition, a fire hydrant must be provided within 500 feet o� all exterior portions of � the proposed structuyes, but not greatar than 70 feet from a fire department connection. Portland General E1�i and have na ob�ect ons tolitrict� have reviewed the propos No other comYnents were recei.ved. A1�il�LY5T5 AND CONCLiTSION � Sect�.on 18.1200180 lists the standards whereby the approvab authorit�r is to approve, approve with modi�ications or deny a r�quest for Site Develo�er�8��e Central BusinessdDis�rict� those contained in Chap the following seations of �he Tigard Community Development Code are also applicable: Chapter 18.86, Action Area�; Chapter 18.100, Landscaping and Sc�eening; Chapter 18.102� Visual Clearance Areas; Chap��r 18.106, Off-�treet Parking and I,oad�ng; Chapter 1,8.108, Aacess, Egress and Circulation; Chapter 18e17.�4, Sic�ns; Chapter 18.12Q, �ite Development Review; and Chapter 18.134, Variances. In�.ldrev�.e�t he proposaleinbl ght�of the Parks NdasterhP].an for � wi Fanno Creek Park• Cha ter 18.66: Central Business District Zone The applicant intends to construct a new and larger �tructure suited for general retail sal.es use. Such a use is pelcmitted outright in the CBD (Central Business District) zone. Therefore, the intended use is acceptable for this site. The CBD zoning district claes not require any minimum building setbaaks exce�t �hat a 30 font s�tbaak is required if any side of the property abuts a residential zoning distri.at. 8inc� none of the four sides of tY�e subjeat property abut a residential zaning district, no other lauil.ding setbacks are required. The proposed 16.5 building height is consistent :a PAGE 8 FIN1�L ORDER NO. 91°09 PC � t4 < , .�.�,.. ,.,,„�. �.:. ,.n,,..r .,i a�.,,._.,,� �s:�a;- r nn y „ � . : . . . . . ,^..r �-. _.... .,,, s , r 4.._:.:�..__._...�.f....;.�,-.2 �,...,..,_._-. . r - ::.: .: �{�;�� ..,�. �. : . - � �.�. �;:;�,�..�.:��:�. , . ` .'.i;:�.a..r..aSs4fF.el�.:4 .�.z+..i�l-.u�..1,.,._�i.�[tG'v. ...�mhxs.,,.u.,,�.,.�:....�.....�.e.. .........w-�.ee.v..��.,....:.,....�� .uu:�c�x�....i.b'J.uc:O':4Lax.r.u�:t+r�.a�.awsreu.�...�.:s.s.:umtlL'u"�."'._z^��.�i.i.auv�.;�:N..._ax��'.�IY � ..•. ...•. . C;s'i]S'.IY.�>uw_rt+ne {:::.: .�.1{',f . ♦ \•.. �, �,��M with the maximum 80 foot building heic�ht permitted in the zone. � In the CBD zaning district, maximum site coverage allowed is 85 peraent. Site caverage includes a11 structures and �mpervious surfaces such as parking, loading areas, sidewalks and pathway areas. A minimum of 15 percent of the site must be landscaped. These standards will be reviewed du�ing the discussion of landscaping and screeninq below. Cha�ter 3.8 86• Aation Area Overlay Zone � The ��AA�� portion of the s�ubj ect site�s zoning designation �t indicates that an additional "layer" of zoning regulations has been imposecl on thi:s p�°operty. The purpose af the Action Area � Overlay designatian is to implement the policies of the Tigard L'� Comprehensive Plan �or action areas which include provisions 'Y �or a mixture of intensiv� land use. Sinc� permitted uses in ``� the Action Area overlay zone mu�t be those specified ia� the underlying zoning district; in this �as�, the CBD zo�ne; this r�quirement has been met. �; Cnde Section 18.�6.040 con�tains interim standards which are to '; be addressed for new developments in the CBD-AA zone. These �i requir�ments are in�tended to provide for projected ;,:� transportation and public facility needs of the area. The ,,: C.�ty may attach conditions to any development rrJithin an action area prior to adoptian of the design plan to achieve the �� following objectives: „.' a. Th� development shall address transit usage by residents, employees, and �ustomers if the site is within 1/4 mile of a public transit line or transit stop. Specifia items to be addx°essed are as fflllowsa �� i. Orientation of �uildings and facilities towards � transit serviaes to rovide for direct P pede�trian access into the buil.ding(s) fro� transit lines or stops; ii. Minimizing transit/auto conflicts by providing dir�ct pedestrian access into tY�e buildings wi.th limitecl crossa.ngs in automobile circulation/�arkinc� areas. If pedestrian access crosses automobile ;; circulation/parking areas, paths shall �+e marked .;� for pedestrians; ; ; iii. Er�coura.ging transit-supportive usexs by limiting y'� �utomobile support services to collector and ;i arterial streets; and +: � � FTNAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 9 , �- � �-,�- s �--� �,: - i { �C � �; �a; 47� � ��' y 't— _�.'tl j � t; . �,�'� , ,. , . ,� „ , ,€�� . i�, ,,.4.'. � a. . .. .. , _ �.�_. ; � ....��....___.�� .u�..,.�,..�..�.�-..�.,�.�_.x.:ti,.�.�... �, .._.�_..,....v.._.��___ ...... .. .,,.. .,.4_,,,_x,;L,�.�, _; .,.,�.., ...�.�u<.uu_..u..� ,-,.W ,s=�1_._>�_ ..,__�.�� .>,�.,�,.��, . � � iv. Avoiding the oreation of small scattered parking areas by allowing adjacent development to use shared surface paxking, parking structur�s or under-structure parking; b. The development shall faci3.itate pedestrian/bicycle ciraulation if the site is located on a street with desiyraated bike pa�hs or adjacent to a designated greenway/open spaae/parka Specific items to be addressed are as follows: i. Provision of efficient, convenient and continuous pedestrian and bicycle transit circuZation systems, ; linking developnaents by requiring dedication and ��;. construction of pedestrian and bike paths identified in the comprehensive plan. If direat oonneations cannot be made, require that funds in i. the amount of the construction cost be deposited into an aC�:ount for the purpos� of constructing YJa'tt1S? ' ii. Separation o� auto and truck circulatzon activities ; �rom pedestrian areas; "j a.ii. Encouraginc� pedest�ian-ariented design by requirfng pedestrian walkways and stxe�t level windows along �i; all sides with publi� access into t�i� building; iv. Provision of bicycle p�rking as required under Subsection 18.106�020.P; and v. Ensure adequate ou�door lighting by lighting pedestrian walkways and auto circulation areas. c. Coordination of development vaithin the action area. �� Specific item� to be addressed are a� follows: �i i. Continuity and/or compatibili�y of landscaping, �` circulation, access, public facilities, and other 4 improvements. A�low required landscaping areas to be grouped together. Regulate shared access where appropriate. Prc�hibit lighting which shines on adjacent property; ii. Siting and orientatiQn of land use which consider� surrouriding land use, or an adopted plan. Scre�n loading areas and refuse dumpsters from view. ' Screen commercial, and in.dustrial use from single- family residential through landsaaping; and iii. Provision of frontage roads or �hared access where feasible. "�`� FINAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 10 :� �;� ! � ;..:�i ,� a v ^��,r )i } 1 i t n� . �,.. � . .._ � _. . _ . . S . ,. . ° _- _„_ . , _ r _ _ M(...a.v:"_.:.a�..�..u.31.::e:.....,. Je.�SC1::::1�.+vat .:_,::�r.x...!_�.:.arl.'.�.v4.x.�-�,t�':w�. ,. ._n...n.�.e..,.rw,.�,>...� ...._..�. „u.u_...:..,..v ......r�,..,.�:»s.v...0 . . ... .W:'trN..t'. . CJ...vC.�.L ....Y Km-u.,.. ...., nt3.JC.3�wYrot2 Y wx�x4c"tt ... . ._. u.t6.,...: f...r:.,,v:.- �;.: . . � � � �l� The submitted development proposal satisfies the above requirements for transit usage. Th.� subject site is within one quarter mile of several Tri--Met bus stops on Main Street and Paci�ic Highway. Th� site plan provides an on-site sidewalk providing a direct connecti,on betw�en the public sidewalk on Main Street with the entrana� to the proposed buildingF The proposed parking lot's relatively narrow width will rninimize pedestrian/vehicle conflicts because of the relatively short distance pedestrians must travel between their cars and the sid�walk and entrance to the building. '�he proposed development plan is reasonably coordinated with other developme�nt within the action area. The site '� ` �.mprovements wil.l be required to satis�y Code landscaping requirements as described below. Screening of the truck lcading area on th� soutMern portion of the building can be accomplishsd with either a fence or tall vegetation. Oratdoor lighting should be sgecificallgr addressed lay the applicant as to how it might be provided. These modifications or clarifiaation�s can be accomplished as minor amenc�ments to the site plan prior to building permit issuance. The proposal is consisltent with only some of the Aation Area over].ay zone requirements related to gedestrian �nd bicycle �ira�xlation, as d�scribecl below. Pedestrian areas are adequa�ely separated from vehicle circula�i.on areas by curbs and landscaped areas. The nc�rtheas�ern side of the building will ir�clude a pedestrian walkway and windows along the side of the building that will provide pedestrian access. Adequate lighting of the public and private sidewalks and the pa�king ].ot wi11 be provid�d by parking ar�ea lights and building mounted lights. TYae prAposed development would be provided with acl�quate bicycle parking as required by Cod� Seation 18.106.020.F rahach requires one bicycle rack parking space for every 15 auto spaces, or portion thereof. The site plan ; proposes a three-bicycle bike rack at the northeastern corner j of the building, ac�jacent to the public sidewalk. j Variance r�q�xested. The application includes a request for ; a varianc� f�om th� requir�ment of dediaation of adequate area for and aonstruction of a biaycle/pedestrian path along the ' site°s western side adjacent to Fanno Creek as well as � dedication of the floodplain axea on the site itself. Beeause the requirement for pathway area and construction is raised by Code Seation 18.86.040 separate from the requirement for , floodplain dedication and dedication of sufficient area for a '; pathway, the Commission will oonsider the requirement for " floodplain dedication separately later in thi� report. � A bicycle/pedestrian path is called for in this general � location in tY�e City of Tigard's Parks Master Plans (Murase �i and Assaciates, 1988) anci the Tigard Area Comprehensive � i� FIrTAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC P'�1GE 11 � t�.. �y r t'._ �` I S'. R!'R'Y .., i.. ,i. t � � , , . . . .1� .. . .. .., . . . r _ . �'�e r "�1� }t . _.�t .. . —_ � . , .: .: , �. - ;� , , . ., ,�, � . � ., ,.^ .. a , �x i _ '� , =:�z,. .. . ....:.. .... .: .. . <<,,:.. :__..,.. . .,. .> ..:� ,. ....�.._ _ ,.�.«.. , �u ....,..... . .,._a .. ,,,_... , , ...»,., „ ,,, . ,. ._w.�..�4u .. ,....,_..,.�.,_ �,� \� {� Pedestrian/Biaycl� pathway Plan 1974) . In addition, Comniunity ya� Development Code Section 18.120.180.A.8 requires tlaat where k� landfill and/or develnpment is allowed within or adjacent to ,; the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication u.� t. of suffici.ent open land area for greenway adjoining and within �;°,,� the floadplain in accordan�e with the adopted � pedestrian/bicycle plan. The proposed development site �� includ�s land wi.tY�.in the 100 year floodplain of Fanno Cre�k. �'� s;,� Se�tion 18.134.050 of the Code contains criteria whereby the �7'� decision-making author�.ty can approve, approve with � modifications or deny a varianae request: (1) The pro�osed varianae will not be matErially detrimental to the purpn�es of this Code, be in confliat with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, to any other applicable pol.icies of the Community Development Code, to � any other applicable policies and stand�rds, and to oth�r pxaperties in the same zoning district or vicinity. � (2) There are special circum�tances tha�t exist which are � peculfar to the lot size ox shape, topography or other � ? circ�nstances over `vhich the agglicant has no �on tro l, � � ancl which are not applicable to othe� properties in the same zoning district; �� (3) The use proposed will be the same as perYni�ted under this ��:� Code and City standards will �e maintained t� the �;� gr�ates�t extent possible, while permitting some economic �� use of the land; r``� ay!`a', k� (4) Existing pYaysiaal and natural systems, such as but nat ��,; limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms or ;��y� parks wi11 na� be adverse].y affeated any mare than would '"�F� occur if the development were located a5 specif ied in the !;� Code; and i-:� `;� (5) The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance �� requested is the minimum va�iance which would alleviate � the hardship. � �� A�nliaant's Variance Justification. The applicant has �� provided ithe following as a statement of justification that is intenaed to cover all of th� requested variances: The variance r�quested by the applicant should be allowed � ' as the condifiions and d�dication5 �equired by the �ity of ' Tigard violate the applicant's rights undex the Oregon �� and United Sta�� Constitutions. Specifically, the City's demand for deda.cation constitute �n urilawful , talting and violation of the Oregon Constitution, Article �� I � ' FINAL ORDFR NO. 91-09 �C PAGE 12 '`� �:� r`� �� , � � �:�,� �k I �j :I i Y ,. . : .�:ie; .......�..... .. .. . ...,. .........� ............ .. .�:_...... .... ..:.. .. �.n.... ..,..i .-. . . ..,-r.:, ��. i..:':�,. -..._ . _. _. �..�� ,y,� 'i ""� � ��'�' , .. . .. . . .... . . . .r.. . . .. , ... . .... ,. . . � .. _— J ,. �. . ...__ .. . . _...,.._ ..,..._... , ,,..,,,:. x... .,:. .._�.. �_, x,. ...... .,..r_ .�, . �.�> >... .. ., . .. .€� . • 1 �� , ��. �� 1, Sec�ion 18 and th� Fifth Amendment to the United � States constitution. �� The prc�posed varianae wi11 not materia�.ly be detrimental �� to the purposes of the title nor conflict with the policy �f�. of the comprehensive plan as no park exists at this time �� nor does the City have sufficient funding in which to �� create a park that the bicycle/pedestrian path is � �� theoretically going to be used to access. t,,�,� ��' There are special circumstances that exist which are �.� ; peculiar to the lot in that the building which the � applicant proposes to construct cannot b� erected without �� invadin the Cit �s �� g y proposed bicyale/p�destrian pa�h if ��t the land is dedicated. �� ` t:,� 1`�1�" The hardshi is not �elf-im osed bu� rather im osed b P P P Y �'� 4 the City�s dediaation and the variance requested is tk�e �� minimum variance which wcauld alleviate the hardship to z� the appliaant. � t. E� Analysis of Variance Request. The Comini�sion does n�t find � tt that th� requirements for dedication of the area adjac�nt to ��;;Y° the floodplain for greenway purposes and for construction of e a edestrian bic cle �� ` p / y gathway aonstitute a taking of the x� applicant�s property. Instead, the Commission find� that the ?�"-_� !-r':;� dedication and pathway construction are reasonably related to � �_:� the applicant's request to in�ensify the d�velopment of this �� site with a eneral retail sales use at first and other uses j''` �J , , �;'r�= to be added later. It is reasonabZe �o assume that customer� T;<,� ,y,. �, and employees of the future uses o� this site could utilize a u;,,:� pedes�rian/bicycle pathway adja.cent to this development for ;<�;� their transportation and recr�ational needs. In fact, the �:�:'��;� ; �; site plan has �rovid�d for bicycle parking in a rack in front =;�f of the �Oropnsed Iauilding ta pxovide fo� the needs of the F;� ' facility's customers and employees. It is resonable to expect ,,.�; I'� that �ome of the users of the bicycl� parking provided for by 'fG '! the site plan will use the pathway adj aaent to Fanno Creek i.f ;.�,�` �I it is constructed. In addition, the proposed expanded use of �;Y; !, this site is anticipated to generate additianal vehicular f�r� '� �;�_.� � traffic th�reby incxeasing congestion on nearby collector and �'>� ' h,�3. arterial streets. Creation of a aonvenient �afe ��'r� i pedestrian/biaycle patway systean as an alternative means of �� transportation could offset some of the traffic demand on �� these nearby streets and lessen the increase in t�affic �z" congestian. s� t. � Y,' [;:.Y �'iivll The Commission f�.nds that the r�quested vari�nce would �; E.�;, conflict with man_y Flan and Code ur oses. ; p p As already note�, '� the Code at Seation 18.].20.080vA.8 and many other xelat�d � sections (e.g. , Section 18.84.040.,A.7) require dedication of F� suffic�.ent area adjace�t to floodp�.ain areas for construction L: F�NAL ORDEIl NA. 91°09 PC PAGE 13 �'x� �� : ,;� �� ,..,.�, . ...,,. � ... . .... _,.... _... ,.., ,�, . �x .:., � .. � � �� f, . �,�� , .�:��„ .... . �:.-, ,,. ��:�� .,. . , '� ` . '�: ., _ _.... - „ :: . , , . , ; w;. , . ,, ... , . ,_. � r` , , <.. �..,.... ..� �.., . .. _ ___ __..._ , .... . .,.,. ,._,s.., _.. . ,.__p_. _...,,� .�,.,_a, _..,� .........�.��.M�........_ _�_ � �...�,a�. ,., .. _s�:u�. ..,. ,_�F,�_ .r .. _ �,`' � , of pedestrian/bicycle pathways. Volume 1 of the Comprehensive Plan at page� 256 through 258 provides a discussion of the , reasons far develapment of a Ci�tn-�i stematservings the varied of a multi-modal transportati Y needs of the City's citizens and businesses. This section essentially summarizes the findings of the adopted Tigard Area Comprehensive Pedestrian/Bicycle Pathway Plan. Comprehensive p].an V'alume 2 at Policy 8.4.1 ca11s for the City to require the dedication of area for and constructa.on of pedestrian/bicycle pathways as a condition a��e evel�dopted approval for areas identifiecl by pedestrian/bicycle plan. The Plan notes �hat as the city grows, more people may rely on the pathways for utilitarian as well as recreation�l purposes and that there is a ne�d to develop a safe and convenient pathcaay system. The pathway system along Fanno Cr�ek near the subject site is already par'�ly constructed in }aoth directions. The City is aatively pursuing land acquisition and park improvement planlicant�s �;�' Fanno Creek Park to th� south. Contxary to the app statement that ". . . no park exist� at this time nor does the City have suf�icient funding in which to create aopnrktQh�e the bicycle/pedestrian pathway is theoretically g g used to access," the City has established Fanno Creek park, aonstructed a pathway and other improvements in area to the �<' south, recently purchased 3.19 additional acres for pa�� "` expansion, and has s�t aside funds for a partial extension of the pathway in the s�ammer or fall of 1991. Tt is imperative that a continuc�us pathway be develoged in order for the paths �o functso�n alanned� for esectionV � ��he and safe system. Omitt�.ng P pathway system, as the variance wou�.d result in if approved, would �onflict with Plan purposes and result in an incomple�e � ', system that would not be e�ficient, conv�nient, or safe. The ��' requested varianoe therefore would conflict with the City's adopted p�licy of providing a continuous pathway system `;` intended to serve the genera�. public good and therefore fails to satisfy the f irst var.iance approval criterion. The Commission fails to find special circlxmstanc�iC nt h slno which are pecu liar to this site for which �the app roval of a control and therefore the second critiicantf stat s that the variance is not satisfied. The app inability to develop the propos ad bs i�dsnecialhcirc�nstanae the City's intended path�aay are P of the building dictating the need €or a varianae. The d�sxgn licant. The is completely und�� the control of the �pp applicant's engineer wa� apprisidco��ne conference with City for the pathway ait the pre-app staf£ prior to the ��1 hav d�signed the bui ding ith applicant's engineer coulcl respect to tl�e need for dedication for �he pathway. The k ' pAGE 14 FINAL ORDER IdCI. 91-09 FC z 4�� C � J:_ r i � 1: . ,.. �.. . .. . .-.-.:..+....-�>......• �-�-�.":-' ;,r: -� .,,,i - - .✓.:X«'4� �r 4 u.x._. 1._��.Si��. .0 . "_^ •:�i x .., h9• y. .�. v.��:., �..,..._......�...._. ......U....., :� ,.x...ae. k ,.��:..+...Jd.L, '��.�-., ,.._ ..:�� .. . .' -.�s_,x..� � ..�:_.w ..u,ssa x.:: �::.�....�:.r � . �.�....�,,.., �..._. _. �, __�.,. r.. . � . � , // � �W�,i�. \t_ ''� applfaant has not submitted any reasons suppor�ing why the same amount �f building square footage could not be provided on mu].tiple levels or why the propased square footage is needed. If the buildi.ng must e� other o pt ons maynexistefor and at the same square footag , , varying Code standards that would not have such a detrimental t effeet on p�lic purposes as the requested variance. The Commission finds that tl�e appliaant has not met the burden of proof regarding �pecia�. circumstances affe�ting this site related to the requested varianoe. The requested varianc� would not affect uses of th;e site permitted by the Code. The applicant has not addressed how City standards (i.e. , the conneation of the various pathway se ents) will be accamplished if the variance r',e�erio is � OVdl C ri iance a r approved. Therefore, the thircl var PP only partially satisfied. As noted above, approval of the variance request wotxld have an advers� effeat on the existing partially completed pathway sy'stem because a system cannot fully �unct�.on with missing pieces. If this pl.anned for section is omitted from the pathway sys�em, the system in this area will be m�ach less convenient and effici�nt. If the pedestrian and bicyal� tra�fic is �orced onto City stree�s at thi.s ed strian and pathway syste:m because of this missing section, p bieycle safety will be lessened. The fourth variance approval crit�rion is �h�refore not satisfied. As noted above, the applicant has not provided reasons why the buildinq must be constructed with the groposed �ootprint, square footage, or on a single level. Without suck� evidenae, � the C�mmission £inds no evidenae of hardship that would result ' if strict conagliance wi.th the Code dedication and pathway construction standards are required. Again, the Commission finds that the applicant has not satisfied the burden of proof xelated to the variance request» Without evidence af a � hard�hip, the �ifth variance approva�. criterion is not met. i: ;' The criteria for approval of a variance to t�.e Community Development Code requirement of dedication ofc sufficient area ` for and construction of a pedestrianlansycalli'�s�g hfor the �4 conformanc� with various adopted City p pathway are therefore not satisfied. The applicant has failed to provide adequate evidence or reasons addressing the criteria. The requ�st i� therefore denfed. The applicant wi11 be required to dedicate are� 15 feet in depth from the east bank of Fanno Greek and will be required to con�truct an 8 foot wicle pedestrian/biayc].e pathway in this area. The footprint and possibly the design af the proposed building '; will need to be revised to comply witYa this requirement. '�+ PAGE 15 � FTNAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC � � :, ,� ,� � � ,_.,�,.,-„ - � � - ,, . - ..�� .r_ ..,r _.v. ., , ,: ..�_�.�.�._r__�..J..�,,,-�..,�,�_.„��.,.,.,,.� .,..�-,-�,,�-�-;:��:,��, �,-.�-.., �. : _ _ � , ' �- � F"�, r;r 'yt � Chap�sr 18 102° Landscapinct and Screenin #� Although not noted in the submittal for the cuxrent 2�pplicatian, the applicant previously has requested that in return for dedicatic�n o� property along Fanno Creek, other � landscaping standards should be waived. The Commissi�on will consider an exception from the minimum landscaped site area on the net s�.te after required dedications beaause this decisinn rej eots the appliaant's v�riance r�quests from f loodplain and ' pathway d�dication requirements. The Planning Commission finds that the City has previously allowed the inclusion af dedicated �loodplain/park land for e ur ose of calculating required lanclscapec� area fo n��is �Gh e �. P 'at P ro ri a pro�ect s. Such an allowance is also pp P �f instance. The site plan does not note the amount landscaped area that v�rould be provided on the net site after flood lain and pathway area d�dications, but the pla area or P that 21 peraent of the gross site would be landscape natural area. This percentage is consistent with the 15 percent minimum landscaped area standard of the CBD zoning district as w�ll as with Section 18.120.1.70.E 'which allows the direator to grant an excepti�h�� the verall lar�dscaped plan requirements upon a finding ,� pxovides for at least 20 peraen� of the gross s�ite to be �.andsaaped. u� �� The City Co�.nail decid�d, with regard to the earlier Site ,;� D�velop�►ent lteview request for this sxte, that the City would ,;,; '�: b� responsible for lan�s�aping and scr�ening the area between ,� the recyu�.red pedestri.an/bicycle path and the proposed ��,r � � building. The Commision will hold with the Council's earla.�r r� deci.sion regarding this axea and therefore will not r�ev�.ew the `A� applicant�s �landscaping plans for this area adjacent to the � futu�e pathway and Fanno Creek. Th� provision of a landscaped t�. buffer by' the City along the east edge of ar�a required to be �a dedicated for pathwa� purposes is justified because the >� maintenance of this area will be the Cityps responsibility and �� the future sto�a o r rem val nof exi t ng�veget tion,will cause the destr�c�io � Code Section 18.1.00.030.A r�quires that all develop�aeent projec�s fronting on a public or private street provide 5treet ,I trees s�aced between 20 and 40 feet, depending on the matttr� size of the tree�. The �ite plan praposes only one flow�ring ; pear tree along the site's Main Street frontage. The proposed flowering pear tree would be loaated in a planter on t�e wes� side of the entrance ciriveway to the parking lot. Because the proposed building wou7.d abut �he public sidewalk further west fr om the driveway, no additional trees can be located weatlnf � the driveway. The City will be res�ponsible for landsc p g w�st of the proposed building. This area should include a FINAL QRDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 16 n�- r _. . , . ... . r _ �.,.,.,,_-_..��,.,�;. „ _ ,. _,.. ..,� ,�.. ..... ___ .__....�-- ' ... ._.�...�.,. ri.�__i4 1..,�iWJ I' _ .�.....ssK��iW .el._:rt...J+]h 1 '= ,.....:�:: xtr.......�a.r nr.._t._.,�•cr � �� street tre� or two. A�proximately 8� feet to the �ast of �he proposed driveway is not shown �o include any landscaping, builciing, or paving. The lan�dscaping plan will need to be revised to include additis�nal street trees consistent with the size and spacing standards of section 18.100.035. Chatiter 18 1A2• Vision Clearance Seatior� 18.102.020 requires that clear vi�ion be maintained �etween 3 and 8 feet above grade at the interseatians of all �treets and driveway�. The flowerin plant�d im�edia�ely to the west of the propo ed c�rive ay nsed not be relocated out of this area as long as branches below i; eight �eet in height are kept trimmed. In addition, bushes ' planted adj acent to the tree must be kept trixnmed to below t;hree feet in height. C a ter 18 106• Off-street Parking and �oadina Variance to Minimum Parkinqr Standard The applicant prca oses to construct 35 standard 90-de ree p Q parking spaaes. Community De�relopment Code Section 18.106.030.C.20 requires that 1 parking sp�ce be provicie for every 400 square faet of k�uildinc� area. The��fore, 44 parking spaces would be rpquired for the proposed 17,600 square foot general retail sales building. As previausly noted, the applicant neglect�d to request a variance �o this �' parking star�dard with the current xeque�t. `a However, the di�ector ar�d the Planning Commission hacl �, `. previously �pproved such a request f�r the earlier application F' utilizing the same si�e plan. The Commission� will consider a "' variance t� the minim�n parking standard with the �urrent �'-�� applicati�on in arder to affirm the e�rlier variance appraval ;� and to m�aka its period of a � �� pproval concurrent with the kf approval period for the current Site Development Review ��'�a �:.� applicatiQr�. The fnllowing findings relata.ve to the variance �� approval ariteria (Cod� Section 18.134.050) are essentially �;:� the same as previously adopted by the Planning Commission and " City Council with regard to the earlier application affecting �� this site. �� Special circumstanaes exist which are �� and praposal. The a licant P�culiar to this �fte � PP proposes to construct this pro ect �� in �two phases: �the first pha�e consis�s of construction of � the new building on the southwestern portion of the praperty. � The �xisting building wauld then be demol.ished. The applicant � hopes to attract a complimentary business(es) to build on th� ; northern portion of th�e lot as part of Phase 2. Should aeldi�tional parking be found to be necess�ry in the future, �he � applica�nt sugge�t� that a shared parking arrangement coul$ be worked out with the adjacent s�ructure. � F�NAL ORDER NO. 9T-09 PC PAGE 17 1, !� � ,: ��.� - , . s ", � _ - - , , , ,.��n � - ,- , � ` , � , � ,: ,: s. .: �� +`� .._ . ,�.. , . . ,�. , < .I, ,.�' ..,.,.�i... ,,.-....n�..,�.,,._ u,r=�J.:.: d..u.�a.. .,..,,� ._ .. ...... _..:...o -�.r.. ...... .v..., � . .��..i .,i �....x........_Fk.....n..,. .._... . . .�..sw..,, ,. .... 1 .._,....__ ,, , C �,�' The appliaant points out that t;�e A-Boy stare does a�cst attract '�browser or w3ndow shoppers", in that the business aonstitutes a retail/wholesale type of business which sells bulky merahandise. The latter fact results in the attraction af customers who d�cide in advance of trav2l that a praduct is needed and who travel to a specific destination ta obtain that product. Th� appliaant ha5 st�ated that the existing store rare].y has more than six or eight vehi.cles at any one ti.me. The Commission notes that einployees of the business wi].l also ree�uire parking spaces and perhaps delivery trucks will need to gark and unload on the pro�erty; however, it is cl�ar that the existing store use should not need 44 parking spa�es. The City agrees tha� the present use is similar to a "general r�tail sa].es, bulky merchandise"' use. If the City were to employ the parking standard used for retail sales business�s which sell bulky merchandise, namely 1 space for every 10Q0 ssyuare feet of gross floor area but not less than 10 spaces, it is clear that the proposed 39 spaces are we11 within City parking requirements. Although the �zse of the building may later change, alternatives are avai].able in conjunction with the future phase of construction on this property. If a new use, whirh has a higY�er parking demand, occupies the bui3.ding, a new s�.te development review and evaluation of parking would b� , requirede The i�sue of parking space numbers wi11 also ?ae evaluated as part of the site developaaent review for phase t�ro of this developme�ta Th� use will be the same as permi�t�d by City r�gulations and existing physical and natural systems will not be affeated bgr this proposal. Therefore, tl'ae Commission finds that the variance relatecl to paxking is ju�tifi�d. Other barkina standards. The Cod� requires one �ecure bicycle parking space for every 15 required automobile spaa�s. Im `` this case a minimum of three bicycle parking spaces are needed. The site plan indicates a pxoposed location for a 3 space bike rack. This standard is therefore satisfied. The site plan does not p�ovide for an appropriate number of designated handicapped parking �paces as required by the Oregor� Revised 5tatut�s (2 required; 1 proposed) , although the 1 space proposed would satisfy City of Tigard Coa�munity Dev�lopment Cade standards as currently written. The site plan will therefare need to be revised to add one additional designated handicapped parking space. The Co�►unity Development Code will need to be revised to reflec�t this more ,I stringent standard that took ef�ect on September 1, 1990. � Code Section 18.106.020.M r�quires parking lot landscaping in , accordance wi�h �� requirements of Chapter 18.100. That chag�er requires the pravision of trees in the area of a ! � ' FINAL ORDER NPJ. 91-09 PC PAGE 18 �' h {�;.i� �� 4i T -f...+T c- .. ... .z._. . _._._. �m--. �-«..� _ . ... . _ _ .�.-- � .. .. , . , 4� .�.,� � � ' .._ :. f . ,.� ,�. - '= i0 ,.. � . . .��,. .-�.. . ,. .�, ,., . . : . ��. . :.' . . . . .:.�, ';A .... . .. � � . �P parking lot at a minimum ratio of 1 t�ee per 7 parking spaces. Th� site plan proposes 7 tree� in landscaped islands within and adjacent to the 39 spa�e parking lot. This standard i� therefore satisfied. Code Section 18.�06.080.A requi�es at least one off-street lo�ding space for commercial uses havi�g more than 10�A00 square feet of floar area. The site plan proposes a loading area on the south side of the p�nposed building. This standard is therefor� satisfied. However, the loading space will n�ed to be provided with adequate screening from views from neighboring parcels as has previously bee de�cribed. , � �ha�ter 18 1A8• Access, Earess and Circulation Code Section 18.108.40.0 requires that vehicular access be i provided to commercial and industryal us�s within 50 feet of the primary ground floor entrances to the building. The ! proposed parking 1ot i� immedia�ely adjacent to the proposed building sntran.oe. Code Section 180108.50.A requires walkways �onn�cting grauncl floor entrances o�' commercial buildings with adjacent public streets. The site plan proposes a sidewalk along the front of the building connecting to the public sidewa�.k along Main Street. Code Section 18.108.80.A requix°es a minimum of one 24-foot wide access driveway to a paxking lot of this size serving a commercial use. On� 36-foat wide ; driveway `aould connect the propo�ed pax�king lot with Main Street. The proposed access and circulation pattern should grovide adequate and safe access for the proposed use. There�ore, �he Cc�de's requirements for access and circulation have been satisfied. Chapter 18.114: Sxgns The appliaant has proposed no r�ew signage in con�unction with R this applieation. The existing freestanding sign wi.11 apparently be removed. All new wa�.l and freestanding signs must be �eviewed by the Planning Division prior to their erection fox� co�formity with th� City Sign Code. The two bil].board sign� and roof sign are in direct conflict with Code �ection 18.120.1�0, which requi�es that the approval Qf a S�te Development Review be conditioned on the proposal's ability to comply wi�h a11 other applicable provisions of the Code, inaluda.ng sign re�ulations of Chap�er 18.114. Code SeGtion 18.114,070.I�i prohibits roof signs of a�l type�. Code �ection 18.114.090.A.1.a.i.1 permits bill.board� in certain zoning distr�cts only; the CBD zone is not one of the listed zones. The prior Commission and City Counci]. reviews affecting this site have determined that the billboards and the sir�n atop the existing A-Boy building are nonconforming signs that have gone beyond the 10-year amor�ization period FINAL ORDE�2 NO. 91-09 PC PAGE �.9 .� , ,�, , . ...:�.._. __ ...�..,�. _,.. �_._ . . . . . . ; „ . „ , . ; , ,. , . .. : .., . . .( . E �-i! F � . ,.:., ( ' �',.. .,.i..,,::,. u;g _..,...y:m. .a..:.,... � � ... a..., m..._..t.a. ,.,7 ,. „ ..�.,r,oM,.,.�_.._�. � � . ,�st',... ' � � ad�pted by the City Council in 1978 and thus were required to . be removed. ��deration of sian varianae. The appli�ant has requested a variance to the roof siqn prohibition of 5eatna�� 18.114.07'O.I�. The app1icant requests that the City require removal of a sign above the roc�f line of an existing building on the site as a aondition of approval of the current development application. The appliaant characteri�o�cilsand as a wa11 sign built on a parapet Wconsid�r dc the sign and , � Plar�ning Commi�sion previously ��e applicant has determined that the �ign was a roof sign. not submitted a variance justification sta�em�icantesubmitted addressing the sign sit�.ation, nor ha�s the app any evidence related to why the sign on the existing building The previously quoted justifiaation is not a roof s�.gn• licant (paqe 12 of this report) stat�ment subinitted by the app is all that was sulamitted in r�on was°incomplete without�a the applicant that the applica statement of reasons suppo�ting the variance requests, Since the applicant's Statement °�ionu and lcon�tru�ti n Gissues addressing the pathway dediaa only, and since the Cammission is unaware of ��Y�hlbiti n�on in suQport of th� requested variance to the p roof signs, the Commission has no alternative but to concux with the Co�nission and Council's earlier determi.andlthatha.t the sa.gn on the existing building is a roof S�-� of the new mus� be removed within 45 days of the occ�pancy building. No variance request has been received with reqard t� the billboard si.gns �ne��e aing iCat on dec sions affect ng this site� earl.ier developm aren�y does not contes� removal of the The applicant app roval. billboard signs as a cc�ndition of develapment app Compliance with a b Secti n 18.120.180 wo�ld en�ailVCO plete Code as required y of the building removal of these signs prior to occupancy proposed as �hase one of the redewelopa�ent of the site. Cha ter 18.120: Site Develo ment Review Code Section 1.$.120.].80.A.8 requine�r adj cent to the��.001 and/or develcapanent is allowes 11 hrequire the dedication of year floodpl�in, the City suf f icient open land ax�� f°� grnceWa�w th ln the and a pted �,�e fl.00dplain in accorda dealt with pedestrian/bicycl.e plar�. This order has already the question o� dedic�ti�he cQnstruction of the pathway as it pathway construction and relates to the provisions c•� the Action Area �l�a t's request this point, the report �aill aonsider the app y;;: PAGE 20 � FTNAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC �f:� ,;�, �� ,; � . - < < , m.. - � _... �3: ...r,_�. ,,.-..�,.._ ,�..w.,� .. , _ - -- ,,,._ . .. � r....lin2_ u...:t,:,,...n�...._..�..:..�,.,.:.._.. � ' >. ,�.'::.�� s<_:v..... .. :..�.0 .,u.....,.�-:':... � ' �. ;':"1 uirement to dedicate portions of the site within from the req the 100--year floodplain of Fanno licant s �r5tatement ato� management purposes. The app ' Jus��;on for Vara.anae (page 14 of this xeport) does not directly address storm 5��ents 1 llsted� ab ve as�comments provides the general intended to app1Y to all of the variance requests. The Commiss ion doa��a w�'lthin thehf loodplai e of Fanno sCreek d e d i c a t i o n o f t h e u r o s e s c o n s�i t utes for �,torm water managem�nt and greenw a s ead, the Commission a t a k i n g' of the applicant's prope�ty. f inc�s that the required dediaation wou l dt e usage oflth�.slsite � to the applicant s request to intensify thereby inor�asing the site�s impervxou� area. The increased impervious suxface �ou�l�d �he�P te to�F nnorCreek he The Fanno starm water runoff fr Cr�ek draina�e basin has exae si�if cantli ncreas� ain�str am the past 30 years cau�ing flows aft�r periods of precipitation. The antici�p�at�n increased stox�m water flow fa na te basin7 aan only add to tla.e already strained creek and dr 9 publ.ic neeel to managB c�u �the Progosed de elopment1 sl storm drainage purposes. drainage would add �ain e the Commission �f nds��that the Fanno Creek floodp . requirement of dedicat��t,s plan to�ntens fy devel pment on i� related �n the appli the site• The P�.anning Co�onraission finds that the requested variance would conflict with many Plan and Code purposes �nd pol�c��i and therefore is not with the first ��e heCode�a at aSection criteria. As already noted, g,�ction t g.g,12U.080.A.8 and many other related sections esg. o �g.g4.040.A.7) require de�liaation of f loodplainto allow for � on�.y for construction of pathways, but primarily public management ofinen�eCo p ehensive P1ana1'olicyt3�2•4 which i Cod� s��tions imple requires dedication Vo��1 �o ea fl the Plan at Secti n 130 2 year floodplas.n. lating developm�nt discusses the City's obj�ctives in ragu within and adjacent�o��pea�Pp�o��rties.t�Volume One�ofsthe the pul,lic and �o � es 1�2 and 193 provides a discussion Comprehensive Plan at pag wide of the rA�.��s f e��t sys�e�nt Vo umeCOne�ofa the Plan also storm water manag roduced by CH2Ni cites the Master Drainaae Plan for the City p Hi 11 Inc. in 19�1 f or a �urther ��araia�g� system arid f or publia management of the storm wa of Fanna measure� intended to increase the flow efficiency Cr�ek and other drainage ahannels in the city. PAGE 21 „ FINAL ORDER IdO. 91-09 PC � �,� _ ,.,...:, � _. _.. _._ _,. _. ._. _ _. . -�; �,-.-m , , _.�.��r. �, . _ ;.: .,�; � � .� _ _ __.._. . _._., .v...., , ,.._ ._ . ._�... ___ ,u�_ ._.�....... ....... __ _ ...._..__... _. �, ,. ;::_,.._�. . ,,.,,.�_,. .,. ...::...,. � �..., � �' As noted by '�he Engineering Divisiort, the Master Drainaae Plan recommends improvements to the Fanno Creek channel downstream from the Main �treet bridge. Proposed channel improvements would include chan�n�1 widening and s�.oge staba.li�ation. These improvements would move the lnaation di the top of bank approztimately five feet closer to the proposed building than the loaati�n of the existing top of bank. In order to accomplish thes� public improvements related to increasing the �].ow efficiency of Fanno Creek, dedication of the area of the subjeat site within the 100-year floodplain and also the adjacent five feet is imperative. Not requirin rovalGa as the this area as a condition of development app applicant�s variance proposal requests, would clearly conflict with purposes and policies of the Compr�i�ensive Plan, Community Development Code, and the City's Master Drainaae P1 an. The Commission fails to find special oircumstar�c�es that exist which are peculiar to this site over which the applicant has no contro7. that relate to the vari.ance request. The applicant states that the inability to develog the proposed building without invading the Ci�y's intended pathway area is � special circumstance dictating the need for a varianae. The Commission does not see how this statement rela�es to any diffiaulties involved in the �pplicant's ability to dedicate area within th� 100-year floodplain of Fanno Creek. '�he applicant's statemen� refers only to land outside of the 100- year flaodplain. The reques� there�ore f�ils to satisfy the s�cond of the variance approval criteria. '�he requested variance to amit f�.00dplain dedication wou].d not affect passible uses permitted by the Code for this propertY• Dedication of the portion of the propert� within the 100-year floodplain of Fanno Creek w�uld not be expeated to diminish �h� usability or value of the property beca�use the 100-year ; floodplain area is virtually unusable eiue to the year-round wat�r £lowr of th� Cr�ek withirn a well defined narrow channel. The applicant has not addre�sed how City standards (i.e. , management of the interconnected storm water drai�oved a d an can be accom�lis he d i f t h e variance re quest is app important piece of the Fanno Cre�k s�ream channel is not available for public improvements to expand the channel the called fc�r by the City's Master Drainaae Pl.an. Again, I appli�ant fails to mee� the burden of proaf relative to the vara.ance criteria. The thixd variance approval ariterion is not satisfied. If the area within the 100-year floodplain is not dedicated as th� variance application reque5ts, the �xistirag storYn water drainage system would be affected beaause addi�ional �� starmwater runof� resulting f.rom aelditional development, both f�om the subject site and elsewhere within the Fanno Cree}c � PAGE �2 � FINAL ORDER N0. 91-09 FC � ;� `'l _ �-:: �� . � l ..:' ,�.t.�.��.. ,..�_.,a�.__,k._..`�i,u U,..?,....,,Ja_ r x......... ... ..�,�� ..a..,._ ,. .C.. _..,,, ..,, ar.rn,. .�r .�. .,. ,..,�.�.�s,�._..__ -.,�w ..,. .� , ... . � ,.:.:.�... ,..., ., ....._:� ,,.�.,�, _ ; _ ._ . - 1 . �i 'X, � � drainage basin, is expected to increase flow within the creek and a rise in the 100 year flood elevation without the public°s ability to make channel modific�tions in this area to , offset the increase in stream flow. If ded�.cation i.s required as speaified by the Code, the channel of Fanno Creek in this area could be zmproved by public agencies as called for by the Master Araina.,ge Plan. These channel improvements, here and el.sewhere along the creek, would be expec�ted to improve the channel's ability to trans�i� stormwater f�.ows thereby reducing the 100 year flood elevation and reducing the poss�ibility of floodwater d�amages and threa�s to public safety�. Because the requested variance would therefore have an adverse effect upon an important phy�ical system, the request is n�t consistent with the fourth variance approval criterion. � The P7.anna.ng Commission finds that the appliaant has failed to ' state what hardship would exist rel.ated to the requirement for floodplain dedication sinae this floodplain area is not buildable land under the City's regulations because the land in question within the floodplain is primarily the actual ,; stream chann�l of Fanno Creek. Therefore, the Commission is � �' ixnable ta find that the applicant's request would be the �� ' minimum variance which wauld relieve an uncer�tain hardship. �, The fifth variance approval cri�erion is th�refore not met. �� ,� The applicant's reque�t for a variance f�om the floodplain k ., dedication requirement of Community Development Cod� Section ��, p orted b ade uate �locumentation �- 18.120.080.A.8 is not su p !� q �Y�. addressing the varianc� appraval criteria. The v�rianoe ,.� request �s therefore denied. i�"� i�1�+� i�S; Additionally, the Engineering Division has noted that an :" adjust�nen�t of the proposed building's locatior� will n��d to be �.� �.�; made in order t4 accoznmodate the pathway and the future City- 4,,� initiated relocation o� the floodplain bank as we11 as to avoid confliats wa.th exist�ng sewers passing through the site. t;� This shoul.d be accomplished on a revised site �lan that will �� need to be largely consistent with the site plan and �,� 1�ndscapxng plans that have been reviewed or else a new Site g„� ;:� Development Review appli.cation will be necessar�. Th� � Commission aalls to the app�.icant's attention the prov��ions �� of Code Sections 180120.070 and .080 which limit the degree of g� modification from an approved site plan that may be reviewed � by the clirector without a new ap�la.aation becaming necessary. � Master Plan for �'anno CrPek Park Fanno Cre�k Park is a oommwnity park ].ocated along Fanno Creek betwe�n Main Street and SW Hall Boulevard in th� C�ntral Business District. The site 1a.es within the 100-year floodplain and immediately abuts the subj�ct property along FINAL ORDER I�O. 91-09 PC PAGE 23 _. _. . . . ._. _ .. .�,-�- �. .. . . � .: � � .,., �: � � ,, ,...,� '.�.� ,.,. . ___ . ..._.. .,_.. . . _.. : ...._ _ . _ _ . .. :_.._ . . . ,:.�,:,...,, �> . �. .� .. .,.. ...,,,.r, _..� .��....1.,_... ,. .�.. .�,��......_- _. j _ ; . � �% its southwestern property line. I� is hoped that the entire park will eventualYy contain �5 acres. The dedication of the lancY area within the 100�year floodp�ain and the eventual construction of a pathway in that area on the subject pxoperty nt with th� Cit °s park plans for the area. 's aonsiste Y i In the City's Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park, it is stated that Fanno Creek Park is intendecl to become the focal point for community, cultural, civzc and recreational activities. A paved urban plaza, an amphi�theater, an English water garden, pathways, a tea house, a man-made enlargement of the existing pond, as well as preserved natural areas are all components fc�reseen for� thi� ar�a. The propos�d devel4pment prese r;.yy under revi�w will abut this planned community park, and at its closest point, would be no more t�an eight feet from t:he outer boundary af the 7.00-year floo3plain. The Engineer�.�.ng Division has stated that the proposed structure should b^� ?t least 10 feet away from the r�loca�ed euter bank in order to accom�noc�a'te an eight faot wide path�r�tay and the planned reconstruc�ion ef the storm drainage channel along the flood pla.in. This indicat�es that an adjustmen� to the placement of the building on the site will be necessary in order to adequately accomm.odate the path ancl veget�tive soreening up ta the relocated bank of the storm drainage channel. VI� CONCLIISION AND �.2.ECOl�Il�iENDA�.'I:ON The Planning Commission concludes that t1�e pr�posed development, with modifications, will promote the general welfare of the City � and will not be si�nificantly detrimental nor injurious to �.•, surroundi.ng land uses, provided development that ocaurs complies �<r, with applicable local state and feder�.l laws. To that end, the �:? Commission unanimously upholds the May 24, 1991 decision of the 9` Community Development Director's designee apgrc�ving Site Develnpment Review SDR 91-0005 and a Variance allowing 39 �arking ��;1 spaces to suff�ce whereas 44 parking spaces would normally be 6�� reguired for a general retail u�e. TYae Commission also unanimously �%q �j_,�I uphvlds the denial of th�e remainder of Variance VAR 91-001Q upon � fin�ing that the applicant failed to show that �he Variance reque�t �� satisfied the variance approval criteria. ?� I The Commission's approval of SDR 91-0005 is sul�ject to the �; following conditions of approval: �'. iTAiLESS O`1�lERWI513 NO'1'ELl� THE �'OLLR2WTI�G CONDITIONS SHFiLL BE 1�lET PRYOR �� TO IS�IIANCE OI�' ��ILDING PERMI'TS: �� 1. The applican�t sha11 ded�cate to the City as Greenway all portions of the sit� that fall within the ea�isting 100- FZNAL ORDER NO. 91-09 PC PAGE 24 t €� � :� � _ �,.„ _ . r F �,� � �--. : - . . �., _. -_ _ ' :;�, . �.:,�.t_,,::�,Fa� __...:�� .�._�..:�..::.�_<��,�,�_��..n,�:__, .�.�.,.,.. .. ,�___._ . .��rM�,x�.. :.vW....�_��,_�:.....�.��w�:��w.��,.��.u...�:�,r��...�..�v<,�.��rt.�_:,..��_.n-..�:�.�.,�.��,. ' �., ��} . year f looelplain (i.e. , al�. portions of the property b�low elevation 150.0) and al1 property 15 feet above (to the east of) the 150.0 foot floodglain boundary. A monumented boundary survey showing all new title lines, , prepared by a registered professional land surveyor, shall be submitted ta the City for review and approval prior to recording. The buxlding shall be d�signed �o as ', not to in�rude into the greenway area. STAFF CGNTACT: I Chris Davies, Engineering Division. 2. The applicant shal.l obtain written approval from Unified ; Sewerage Agency of Washington County for conneation to - th� t7nified Sewerage Agency trunk line prior to issuanae of aPpblio improvement permit. A copy of the permit sha11 be submitted to the City of Tigard En�gineering {' Department. STAFF CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Division. i � 3. The agplic�ant shall submit a r�vised site plan showing: 1) building plans which show the progosed design and �; location of outdoor lighting and rooft�,g mechanical eqtaipment; 2) the ].ocation and screening of the trash , disposal a�ea; 3) the re�.ocation of the phase one ' ` buil.ding outside of the greenway area and out of conflict � with existing sanitary �ewer easements; and 4) a minimum �'`:: of two appropriately located designated hanclicapped accessible paxking spaces. STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer, , Planning Diva.sion. 4. The appliaant sl�all submit a revised landscaping plan I showing: 1) scre�ning for the trash dispasal area; and I 2) the installation of street tre�s along the Main Street !, frontage o� the site to the east of the proposed driveway. For purposes of calculating the r�q�ired � , landscaped area (15�) , the dedicate� lanc� noted in ,' r Condition No. 1. above may be includ�d. The City shall be responsible for landscaping the land dedicated to the public. STAF'F CONTACT: Ron Bunch, Planning Division. �o The City Engineering Division sha11 locate and clearly mark the 100-year £].00dplain boundary prior to �' comaaencement of construetion. Floodpl.ain boundary markers shall be mai.ntained �throughout the period of constructione STAF�' CONTACTa Chri� Davies, Engin�ering Divisiona � 6. A demo].ition permit shall. be obtained prior to demolitian or xems�val of any structux°es on the site. The applicant sh�all noti.fy Northwest Natural Gas pri�r to demolitian, STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division. �::� PAGE 25 ;x� FTNAL O�2DER N0. 91-09 PC �;� �� ,i �;,ay,,; � Y:l'�j � . . . .. ,. �t '.. .' � � : . . . � . ,§...-w�-....'w.-r.�-r..�...-v.n-...f.f...e��-.-a�n.......,w ��.u.......nr-.-..�.:.»_w..-�v.�.....-....�.r��.......�:r.........�........�.._:....s..«.� ._..e..r........�..._....��...._....... ._........_...... . . . .. .. . �" '_� .a:�a:.:a.,._+.'.tr:x�:u..r,...i_u�c:•..:s..„%3.'G,_Yx::t.:t_ .u:t:�-:�ev:�:nw.w.n..�r�uu+.�-a.�....uv .-v.x-uuv..s.zA�.w'k.4......+.vat� ��-=Y.�Lt.+"_:i��l.u»4.+ai...vY^.^l.�n`{+ vL.;i�:..i.r "`�u1.��... �.�"5�..: • .......,............_......._. ...�.......,wu. ....�. .«a, v..a.„ ,....,ew.,�.._....a.:f�h` . �; \_,.` 7. The applicant shall install an 8-foot tall solid plywood fence behind the sidewalk/puk�lic right-of-way along 5W Main 5treet (from the southwestern property line to a : minimum of 20 feet b�yond the new building to the northeast) prior to �tart of aonstruation and must remain until all aonstruction is comglete (Uniform Building Code sectiQn 4407(c) . STAFF' CONTACT: Brad Roast, Builcling Division. �. As part of the impr�vement plans the applican� shall submit details and calculations tha� show t�ie change in the amount of impervious surface area c�eat�d b� this ' deve].opme�nt. Yn addrtion, the fee-in�lieu for water �. quality shall be paid. STAFF CONTACT: Chris Aavies, Engine�rinc� Division. �,, �: 9. An erosion contro7. pl.an shal.l b� provided as part af the improvement drawings. '�he plan shall conform to "Erosi.on ' ' Control Plans - T@ChI11C�1 �uidance Handbook, November � F� 1989." � :. 4 7.0. The applicant shall submit evidence that the proposed builc�ing does not encroaah upon the �anitary sewer F '' easements that cross the pa�cel or, alternately, submit i ;° evidence tl�at the Unif ied Sewerage Agency does not obj ect ai�:' to any proposed encroachment. STAFF CONTACT: Chris �� Davies, Engineering Divisic�n. IINI,ESS OT�ERWISE NO'I'ED, THE FOLIA�TING CONDITIONS SHALL BE . i; ��Z'��ul�'��D ��R `� IS�TJA�� OI+' AY�T �G°iJP'ANCY PERFII'i'Y , 11. All landscaping materia�.s and other propased sit� improvements noted in Conditions 3e and 4 shall be �� installed or financiaily assured prior to aacupancy of ,¢Y"+.i'�� any structure. STAFE CONTACT: Jerry Offer, Planning ' h Division. 12. All n�w signage must receive approval by the Planning �ivisian prior to being erected. STAFF CQNTACT: Ron Pomeroy, Planning Division. 13. The two nonconformi.ng, amortized billbo�rd signs and suppart struatures shall be comple�ely �emoved from the property prior to occupancy of phase one of this developaaent UR the applicant sha11 submit any applicable legal document which prohibits their removal. STAFF CONTACT: Ron PomerQy, Planning Division. 14. A� a condition of the occupancy permit, the apglicant shal� be required �o �replace any poxtions of the existing sidewa�.Jc along Main S�t�eet whioh are damaged or in pon� I �epair ancl to reconstruct any existing curb cuts �hich ,F.� PA6E 26 � FINAL ORUER NO. 91-09 PC �:;., :,;i :� _:;� �� s,., �r; � � � �� : � ;. . .. . . .�5.k r t'�u�j ��;:.+..�.i..u� �!;;uy � t ': <:, t ., , w....,,..c. ..W., y__,.. .,,.�.A�a..�.,..�.v.�....�...�...._:�aaw-_+:w,:..�...W..,,.. ._._.,...w.�..y.�..,,.,..��,._.�.m�a.�,s�rrr.�saz�a:cua�s aa.�c.�.ro,�..ww_u:�.,�ee,�rtxiw.,�'ii�.,m.,m,.e,w..�.,....,.w�.�w.....�...,.m,.m_ � �� i � �- � . . . - � � � . i a�e being ab�nd'oned. �rior �o any work }aeing started ! w�thin the piiblic Right-of-Way the applicant sha1� Qbt�in � a Street Openinr� permit from tk�e �nginesring Department. { STAFF GON�'ACT: Chris D�vies, Engi�eering Division. � `+ 15. TYae �xista.ng roof sign sha11 be permariently r�nioved from ;; the subject prop�rty within 45 days o� the issuance of k the OccupanCy Permit for the new building. 5TAFF ', CONTACT: Ron Pomeroy, Planning Di�vision. ,' '.L'HIS APPROVAL SHALL �E VAL�D FdR TsIGHTEEN (18) 1rIONTHS FROM THE ' DATE �9F THE FIN;AL DSC�SION. 1� 5 The Pla�xning �ommiss3.on's deeisiqn eliminates cor�dition of approval ; �9 of the D�reato�'s designee's decision. That condition stated r that a Tra�f�ic Tmp�ct Fee was required to be paid upon issuance of �� a building permit for �he proposed building on the site. While the � Commi.ss�ion daes not €ind th�t this statement �egarding �he Traffic a Impact �"te needs to be a Gondition of �pprov�al of the agplication, � this action does not �relieve the appliaant o� �he re�ponsibility of � compliance with Was�ington County Ordinance 3'79 related to the county-wide Traffi� Impact Fee prQgram. G � � � � It is �urth�er ordered that th� applicant be nQtified of the entry � of this order. � � pASSED: This � day o� July, 1991, by the Planning Comm��sion of �a tYae City of Tic�ard. ii $ -5 i_; � � i �yre, � Tiga�d P1 Co ission � { '} jo/nol.an.F'o ;; ,x ;, � � ? , i ::; � � : �'INAT� ORDER NO. 91-09 �� PAGE 27 :.Y.,. ,--. ; � .-e w»n-�-- -,- � x � �,-�, ,� -�, -�-�-� e s } k ,: h � ',2 �..z i _ � a t ^^—r r,a� v.,, r ._ . . ,.i _r. , , ..� . �. . . 1 , . �q_,. r.. :'.�>! . ,. _. , . a _.,, �.;.� __ f., '�� { , �°.� �..., _;� f...�<�� .�...,.,. �,.�� _ __...... ....:..... .. ..r._.., �._.... �,.�....,..,� �.._. , �, ._.. ,. ._.._..E.,. .. . ..,�.�� .__ . _�pt�..,...�_. � a....�as � �`' AGENDA ITEM 5.2 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON T0: Planning Commission ' FROM: Offer, Associate Planner DATE: ne 27, 1991 SUBJECT: �ppet�l of Director's D�:cision for Reclevelopment of the A-Boy Site dn Main Street - SDR 91-0005, VAR 91-0010 Summarv On May 24, 1991, the designee of the Community Development Director apprt�ved a Site D�velopment Review app7!.ication for redevelopment af the A-Boy property at 12520 SW Main Street sn�bject t� sixte�n conditions. Those conditions will require modification of the site plan prior to the is�uance of a building permit. The decision also denied requ�sts for variances from Code standards requiring dedication of axea� within and adjacent �o the Fanno Creek £loodplain, construction of a bicycle/pedestrian path, and removal ,, of a raaf sign from an existing building on the site. The owners of the property, John T. and Frances Dolan, have appe�led the decision through their attorney�, Joseph Mendez. The appellant�s appeal form and st�tement, the Direetor's deci�ion, �nd the site and landscaping p�.ans are attached for �our r�viewo Th� appellants claim that the Comprehensive Plan and Community ' Development Code requirements for dedication of portions o£ the site that fall within the 100 year floodplain of �annc� Creek and � property wi�hin 15 feet east of the top of the bank of the creek constitutes a taking nf the appellant's property without _ compensation �,n v�iolation of the State of Oregon Constitution and �he United States Constitution. The Director's decisioa�, at pages 11-13 and 18-20, provides staf£'s rationale for elenying the appellant°s requests for va�ciances from the dedication requ.irements i.mposed by the Plan and Community Development Code. In summary, the Director found that the requirement far dedication of area within th� floodplain far pubAic stormwater drainage purposes is r�asonably related �o the proposed development's i.mpacts upon the publi� storm water draa.nag� syst�m. The Director found that the � requirement for dedication of land adjacent to the floodplain and construction of a pedestrian and bicycle pathway is rease�nably � related to the propo�ed development's impact� on the public tran�portation sy�tem. This system not only includes roadways, but also sidewalks and pathways that s�rve as alternative ; transpartation route� to crowded roads. ':3 �i' �1 � � `� ,':;"""„�.-,n„n"'.-..'�.- ....._.. ,..i^.-:,... lli r'T;,-�':""it(e ! , ,. . .. ,� , -., , .� a"Y �r.u;,.G.'� ( '�� , � � �- � ,� �� .. <: _ .. .. :, , ,,, �: � ��. , �� , ' ' �,� ..��,.,...�.:aw.�sy..,s_�:�.�=�.Y.�.�..�_....��..�.:.'�::.�.:......, ..�J.�".�i.�,:=v�.wz�...�,.��.�,.��,,..,.,.. � . '. -.--.—....w�...�...v�.a...e....wmm�e. _.u.,n.,1`sA..t�' 1.^.":i'1.1. ..3�1:�G'�:L._,�..'6?:T:L'.C.'e��_..�'.'.G/.Y13TC.�,T�..i:AtX£x�:.u.r m�s�svaiai . uu:�.rrs....xr.�+t^x.. . W�»�'.+ �. ��4 . , '-; The appellants also are a �alin the se ' Traffic I� act Fee Pp g �ix��1ent for payment of a , P , prior �o the issuance of a buildinq permit, The : appe�lants allege that because �he Traffic Impact Fee fss not uniEormly a�iplie.d to all. commercial landowners in the City, the �t fess ��e ur�con�t�.tutional. The Engineering Department, at page 6 ; of the D�,rector�� decision, notes that Washington County ' establ3:shed the county-wide Traffic Impact Fee program in order to ' as�ure that new dsvelopments con�ribute to extra-capacity � tran�sportation improvements needed to accammodate additional ,� traffia generateci by the new deyelopments. The County adopted this ' p�ogram �.n respons�e to a popular vote of the eitizens of ` Washingt.on Cou�nty. The Traffic Impac� F�e requirement is n:ot a ' standard of the Comm�unity Develapment Code and therefare is not an ;i issue that i,s appeal�ble to the P].anning Cammi�sion. � The a � ppellants also allege �hat the condition of approval requiring , removal of the �ign on top of the existing A-Boy building i� also � an unlawful taking without comp�nsatian in violatiQn o� t�e U.S. , and Oregon c:anstituti�ns. Staff finds that no takinq exists sinee i the required removal of th�, sign from the raof would not confiscate ��y property from the agplicants. In addition, th� City would not proF�ibit xelo�at.ion of this sign to another portion of the �ite as long as t�he r�elocatio�n conformed with City eign regulation standard�. The appellants al�o state �hat the sign is wrongly characterized as a roa� sign and in�tead ahould be chaxacteriz�d as a wall sign instalied on a parapet wail. The Planninq Commissi�n and City Counc3l previously canssidex:d this same argument with regard to this sigr� through the r�views af the prior A-�oy Site Development R�view applicati.or� xn 19g9. Both tY�e Commis�ian and Council founci the sign to be a roof sign. The current appli�ation contained no additional information with regard to the sign. Th�r�for�, the Director was unable to find any r�ason to differ with the Commission and Counc3.l�s earlier determinations on this s�me issue. � No additional information with rec�ard to the comstruction of this sign or the alleged parape� wall have been submitted with this appeal. Recoaamenda�ti:on �; , � St�ff recommends that the Commission uphold the Director's clecis ion. JO/A-Boy Meano 'r' � �, r �i5 � �� , s�;r r w—r,.;�- -_• �,3—Y;. _-,-.ri,„,�.,.�,._,.�,,, r�.,.. . ., - — -- — .,-�. Yi �., _ . .. ..�.......-.. .. ....,..,... ..�.,.. .,..,� ..�, �,.,_,.... �.�..,...�.,�.�.......__...,. .......___....,_. .-- `' �"oi;i3i91 11:2@ �503_684 7297 C I TY OF T 1 GARD f�j 002 � +�,> LANp USE DECI3ION APP�AL FI�ING FORM Thc (:i ty �F Tigard supports l'ht; c;.I(.1 L��e's rig��L- to p�r�icip�►l:� 1n lncal governmenh. Tigarci's Land Use C��de L-her�Porp s��ts uut specifiG r�aquzrement� �ur ;� riling app�als ��n cert�.in land usa decisiuns. ��FT�� 1'he fc�l luwing furm f�as beeri dev�a luped t�� f�.J d I J L' y��t.t in f�,ling an Zppe�1 of � land �l::e deci.,i�an in proper (��E(�� for•m. T�) del;ermine what filirig fn�=s will k�� r•E!c�uired or to answer' �ny que�stions yuu hsave re��r•ding the ap�eal pracpss, pleas� conL•act the Planning Dxvision or th� Cit:y ReCOrd�r at 639--4271 . x. APf�I..ICATION SEING Af�P�Al.EO: Jol�n, T. and ��.o�ence Ao�;an�' �L?R 9X-0005 Variance Var 91-00].0 - �. HOW DO YOU QUAIZFY !i5 A PARTY:___Land owner s��_ ; _..... __. -- - — — ____�- _ 3. SP�CIF7;C GROUNOS FOR APPCFiL OR REVTEW:_ TheR, otice of Decision filed by �;. the Director imposes conditions an,r1 dedications which violate the Appl.icants' r°�c hts_ and .constitute. an. unlawful takinq ur�der' ��„��,,,,�o�,� itution, Article 1 , 5ection 18 a�the Fifth� _„ Amendment to the nited States�_Con,stitution. Specificallya _ A) ��_21, Cor�dition 1,�_bf the Director'� Decision requires �': the App�.icant dedicate to the City,. without compensation, all �ortions of the_site that fall within the existing 100-ve�r flaod�in and all propert�l5 feet above� (to the eas�. of) the � 150.� foat floodplain boundaxv. (See attached Exhibit A.) 4. SCHEDUl.6D OATE DECYSION IS 70 BE FINAL:T� S .�� 5. QA7E NOTICE QF FZN 0 nS G:CVFN: J/a y L�� I 6. SXGtUA7URC(� �. eph �I ez, Attorney for Applicants : �t-x-�ac-xaa�c��a��c-��-xae��t-x�t-x-k-x-�t�x x��x•�x-�-x��-x-x-��c�x-x•x��c•x x��s�Z�-x�►c-x-��c-x x x•��c-x ��c-x x•rt x x x•x x•x•x�x!x�x x x•x x x x _, FOR OFFICE USE bNLY: Rec2ived By:C- G(� l� �ate: ��3�( Ti.me: `( �' `°'`'y; Ap�arov�d Aa l"o Form Ry: �. f.U�.�_.�L�'�:�-._.�..,...._ L�f�e,.SLa...�ate:�� G' �1'ime: �h� ,; � !�� ,;;� Oen1ed A� To (�urm fly: �� ,�� Oate: Time:�� Rec;eipt; No. �Amount: I';%" �63(-9(�(9(—X X jf-lf-!(-3f�E-•K�(I(%N-X X-K-jE•K�'1(�I(3E�k'X 9f-3(XiH(3E�(a(-!(t(-Xal-jE9(-X X9(X•�(�•X•�•�-lfif�•9E•iE•ifd4�3f-)F?(•iE X•if•N-aE�3E�)W)(,K•!(if x�ifri(X�S-lEiFiFiE ��;'�J :�s' i!i",` ftt°.� : } 'y , '� . ' ., �., ., .. ,. :: � -� .re -� � - �� - �� .�-�,.un�a�aw.�au':�..�,e,cu.�.TSU.�:c:s.,.:.u�.r�:.��::�m�� m.,s...�.,.,_,��.�,e. �,.il�....�:.::ia. . 4u'�;:�,. .�a.w.e:...1a..a....�.'"e� ..,,.,.!�.,..:.z5•3�...... ...�u:ld..�+t.'c:�..mua��.,.....+,�....,o,..V.,........,�., ov�u,�..c.,�.n...» � . .. . ... . . � . . - . . � _ � � . . � . . . . . . . . � �r . � � . � . � . ' �� :� � � � � � � �� . EXHIBIT A The Di:rectar further requires 'the Applicants �o incur the expenses ` % � associated wi�h surveying the proper�y it dPman.ds be dedicated• �_� �) A];1 o�her coriditions listed by the Dir��tor in his Decisian wh,i�h reference the unl�wful taking as d�scribed in .�.) above are �, ' } appe�Ted for` the reaSOns stated above; C) Page 22, Condition 9, . <� - �' , of tk�,e D'i�ector's becision requi�es Applicants to pay the Traf�ic � ; , Iinpaict Fees gri:or to �he issuance of a Builr3ing Permi:t. The �i r ,,..` Traffic Impact F�es are not unifoxmly applied ta commexcial ; lanc�ownexs in the Cit�r o� Ti.gard and are' therefore ` 4'' �� un�onstit�tional. Zmposing taxation characterized as "Fees" an ` �' �� Applicants based on their decisi.on to devel:op the subject praperty '�; �i when there �re other properties sunila�ly situated which do not pay � the refexenced ��ac is illegal; and D) �age 23, Conda.tian 16, of �� ` the Directar'S D�cisi,on incorrectllr refers to an "existing roof � , .. sign. " No such sign exists on the Applicant�' property. A wa�.l � sign which was ancl is in campliance with the City ordiaances does �,� ' exist �on Appl.i.can.ts' pr.operty. Re+quiring the removal of the :aall w�u1 takin w ithout com ensa tion in si constitutes an unla �r P � _ i�'i viola,tion of the Oregan and U.S. Consti�utiorr. ':� ; { :; � , .: :. � . . . ,' . . � . !�, � � � . . . � � - > t . � � . - . .. . . � ' . . . . t � . -. .. � . �� 41�. t . . .. . . . � . 4 it � .. � � .�)`'.. . I � � ;� ra�r '^'" '�^""m" 't^''" f"'...�-.�`�.�.,�..`� .'..`. i �m.:�[ 1 � . �, ' � _a � � t k � t � C; a v E , �r � � '� }, � i� ,' ,.�� ...,., , i , ., , . , > .. .,�� ,. �;:�,:''s�y :.; ,::- ,�,, , � t _ _ . .. . . _ ?., - ; ,_ �„ �.��:�,�y�,.,..��_:��-ti._.�.:u�:U�-.�.,�...,,�,..�...,;..m........ -w...�...,�.�..,�._....�....�_.w.._ ..�.�s.��._.�,�.�.�..�..�„_,.,_.�.�.LU....,��.�.�.s.�..�_.�M�xF_..��,�_,...�,u......�.. .....,.. . ,�,_,�,,��u� � � � .. . ^�� .;�1 ` � : �� ti CITY OB TIGARD NOTIC� AF D�CISION SITB DEVBI.OPI�NT R�VIBW SDR 91-000� ,, �gl�Cg yp�R 91-0010 A-BOY/DOLAN 2 ' ; S�R7[ OF �►PPLICATION .` 53.te Development Review approval is requeated to a�1ow h ItEQUEST: $) �e foot retail sales building on i conetruction of a 17,600 �qu a 1.fi7 acre sit�e; �� t�ariancee are requested to the following Con�nannity Devel.op�nent Coda requiremente: i. Code Seetian 18.120.180.A.8 �Site Developin�nt Review approval standardQ) which requirea dedication af sufficient opea land ar�a for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain where devel.opment is allow�d adjacen� to the �00-year floodplain. In 'additfon, this aection requires that the sledication include �rea at a suitable elavation for the construction of a gedeetrian/bic3�cle pathway. The requfremen'c of area for a pathway as well as construction o£ the pathway is al�o made b� Code Sectioa 18.86.040.A.1�b The ��ppli�nt overlay zone interi�on requirements)• areas nat be requests that floodplain and pathway athway required to be dedicated and alao that p constsuction not be required as a cands.��an o£ approval of the Site Developaaent Review request. ii. Seetion 18.106.030.C.20 (min3.mum off-street parking requiremen�ts) which requires provis�e fBB�e�°f fgerieral parki:nq space foz every 400 equ retail sales area• The applican�t requesta app�oval� of a s3.te plan that wauld provi.de a 39 paxking spaae i parking lot whereas 44 apaces woulsi b� required fc�r �he r size ot the proposed building to be used far general k retail sales. i� " � iii. Sec�t�ion 18.114.070.� (certain signa prohibited) licant �' prohibits roof signs o� any kind. The app `;;�, requesta that the City not require removal of a sign � abov� the roof line of an existing builciing on the aite as a condition o£ approval of the curr�nt development �? application. The app�icant ch�racterizes the sign ae a `'� wall aign built on a wall paraPet- :�t � .� Joaeph R. Mendez, Attorney at Law P�PLIGANT: 1318 SW 12�h Avenue �' Pdrt�.and, OR 97201 ,� . ;� K � ;;� '� :'i�� . � � . � � .t� �'.. . � �� . - � � . . � �� ',i.'. '.. { �''' ;,�; �d ._.'_.�.��.�....,..�-,,..,�,---.—'"^n.,tr:.�'-,-,.,++w-,'7p *mie ,.y�'y�"_'a'ri ';r h �,... _ ..�.� . . . . _ .�� __ �tl �„�:. �� '�.�Y� :E � .s , . ' � -., ... , ...., _......_ . ..... . _ ... ...�, ..... _ . ... "' � �) �l � � OWl�lt: John and Florence Dolan �919 NW 19th Avenue Portland, OR 97209 LOCATION: 12520 SW Main Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC, TL 700) 'COMPREHENSIVB PLAN DESZGNATION: Central Business District I ZONIs riSSIGNATION: CBD-AA (Central Bueiness Diatriat, F�ction Area overlay zone) BA4:RGROU�ID The property's ownera pr�viously applied far Site Development Review apprr,�al for plana that are largely the eame as the plans that are presently under review. The applicant also requested a nariance to the . standard for eneral r�tail eales ta allow 39 parking apaces to parking 9 • serve dene3.opment on the etite whereas 44 apaces r�vould axnrmally be requixed. The Site Development Review and ths Variance requeats were approved on July 10, 19�9 by the Planning Director subject to 14 • conditions. - The applicant appealed the Director's decision to the Planning Commi.saion. The app].icant raiaed concerns with five condi.txone of approval that were i.mposed by the Director's deci�ic�n, including conditiona reqixiring floodplain and greenway area dedication, aonatruction of a bicycle/pedestr�Lan pathwagr within the gre�nway to be accomplished by the applicant, and removal of a non-conforming roof sign from an existing building prior to the isauance of an occupancy permit for the new buildi.ng. The Pl�nning Commissi.on upheld the Director's deai�ion, except that the condition requiring removal uf the roof sign was modifi�d to require removal ta occur within 45 days of the issuance af the occupancy permit (Final Order PC 89-25 datec3 DeceTnber 15, 1989). . 'The applicant �then appealed the Planning Cotp�mission'e decision to the City Ceunail challengi.ng the same five conditfons. The City Council upheld the s � Planning Cocamission's deciaion, with one modification. The Council i: reasa.igned the reapons�ibility for surveyinq and mar7cing the floodplain ) area fr4m the appliaant to the City'� engineering/surveying depar�men� � (Council Resolutian 1�-07 dated February 5, 1990). � The applicant appea3ed the Council's decision to the Oregon Land Uae Board � of Appealg (LU�1�). On January 24, 1991, Y,UBA denied the appeal. thereby upholding ths Ci.�g's decision on thia matter (LUBA Fina1 Oxder and 4pinion i Na. 90-029). � � Prior to the above-deacribed Site Development Review and Variance request, � �ha only other City of Tigard land use or development actions dir�ectly ; related to thia parcel are a seriee af notices regarding non�onforming i gigna on the praperty. Two freestanding billboard signs and one large � roof sign on the property have been aansidered nonconfarming as of March ; �0, 1988, and property and businees owners weYe notified of this prior to ; I NOT'ICE OF D$CISION - SDR 91-0005/VAR 9�.-U010: - A-BOY'/DOLAN 2 Pl�1GE Z j _ �_. _._,. ........ . .... . .. .... .. .,, ::,.., ,,.. _. _. �.,��:„ ,., �.._:� ..�..,_ ,... . , . �,�} � � . that time. A voluntaxy complianc� agreement has been used to provide �,' affected downtown prcPert�e8 an ex�gneion of time until a City Cent�r Plara , is �dopted. The 9oluntary compl.iance agreement sent ta the owners of the �'� Bubject parcel has ne�ver been si9ned. The property and bu�iness owners � �'�. '�� have been cited for the following nonconformities: �� s`'i g, Roof sign. a violatioa� of Section 18.114.070.H; and ,� , amortized billboards (illegal location), �<;� g, Two nonconforming, ��:� �,y. violations of Cc�de Section 18.114.090.A.4.a. �+� ��' W i`` SITE INFORMATION AI�D PROPOuAL DESCRIPTION t;; t�. Central �< Properti�s suXrounding the subject site are also zoned CBD-AA ( !� Buaine�s Dist�ict - Action Area) and conta3n a variety of comanercia� usea. f o rt iaar►ediately to the weet contain� the Fanno Creek floodplain hQ �F� Pr pe Y � �= is designated in T3gard's ComPrehensive PZan to be inaluded as..part of t � City'e greenway/oP�n space system. s r The subject site is approximately 1.67 acrea in size and is bordered by � Fanno Creek on the southwestern side. The site includes a 9,?00 s�uare P ; k foot building and a partially paved parking lot which haee been in their i , present loaations since apgroximately the late 1940s. A freestanding aign with a zeaderboard stands along the Main Street frontage os tnortheast rn ' 2'wo larg� billboards �tand on or near th� prope�rty � boundary. The propertX's owners plan to raze the existing structure, currently used by A-Boy Slectric and Plumbing Supply - a general retail sales use, and to embark on a multi-phase redevelopment o� the site. The building wi�l be � � razed in sections cnrresponding to progress on the construction of the � irst hase of redevelopment of the site. The current proposa]. includhs� Il f p development of a � 1°7,600 square foot, single-atory structure on t sauthweatern side of the site for reTocation af the A-Boy Llectric and P].umbing Supply operations. The plans also show an o�tline of a phase two � ', building on the northeastern side of the site. No details havs been '� ' provisied for the buildi.ng in phase two. �$ A parking lat resaataining 39 pazking sp�ces intended to sexve th� phase one }� building is proposed between the two pbas�s. One designated handicapped � parking space and a 3 bicycle rack are also proposed. The si.te plan also � ; �� indicates an area for additional parking for phaee two. L� The applicant requests variances to Cammunity Developa�ent Code etandarde , � requiring dedication of area of the aubject pareel that is within the 100 �? year floodplain of Fanno Creek and dedication of additianal area adjacent � � to the 100 year floodplain for a bicycle/pedestrian path, as well as the �� requirement for co�ystruction Qf the pathway in this are�. In addition, �� the applicant rec�,uesta a variance to the Code prohs.bition againet roof �� signs. Throug�. this request, the applicant is requesting reconsideration �� of thQ earlier City determination that an existing sign on the present �( NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-0014 - A-BOY/DOL21N Z PAGE 3 + fi�. G;�. t:� �:.s� �'� �. � � . .. . . ... ..... ...:. vF.. ,,. . :: �_ ._ . . . _�,. . ._. , �; .� .�� ,,. ,,: , ; . .. .._.�.� . ..:. _.. ;. . ., .�..,.��a ....r_W:�i. .t.._._.�.z� �. ..t-;�,�v:.............�.-a-. .,....,..-�.�„ , . ,..uw,... .. ...,.,........_,._.._,�...�.,..,..,.W_...w_.._. ..._...___ _...._... • �� ' �� buildinq on the site is a roof eiqn. The applicant a].so requests reconsideration of an eariier Council directive that would require the eign on the existing building to be removed wi.thin 45 days of occupancy of � the propoaed new building. {�'� E;;; ; �:� In addition, staff will reconsider the variance requeat preniously made by (4� the property•s ownera in 1989 for a reduction in parking spaces, even � though the ap�xlicant neglected to raise this issue with the current � ��'� appliaation. The variance considered would a11ow 39 parking spacee to G;� suffice for the proposed phaee one development whereas Community ��;� Development Code Section 18.106.030.C.20 �equires one parking apaoe for � � every 50Q square fset of building area for qsneral retail ealea, or �rs �'�' thie case 44 spaces. The City is under no obligation to reconaider this .�; �� variance since the applicant failed to raise the iesue with the current �� application; however staff believea there is a need to reeonsider the ��' �.;# ' variance for the �ity�s own administrative purpoaes. The variance is i#� � b�ing reconsidered as part of the preaent application so ttsat there will ��`,. not be different agpravals with different approval perioda regarding this �`�` site and site plan. The previausly appxoned variance rela�ed to garking �'�`�: F:; was i.asued by the City Council on February 5, 1990. This agproval is i:�` vaYid for eighteen rnonths from the date of iseuance. .�herefore, that ' �"ti` approval is likely to expire before development proposed by �he current �':�;: i:„ applicata.on can beqin. Reaonsideration and reapproval of the parking �;� varianoe at this tfine would reset the clock for that variance �o tl�at the �� variance approval period would be concurrent with the appraval period for § the new Site Development Review application. AGENCSC AND NPO COr'1MENTS The City Building Divisi�n nc�tea that a canopy and an 8-�foot tall sol.id plywood fence must be installed behind the aidewalk/public right-of-way along SW Main Street (from the �outhwestern property line to a minim�xm of 20 feet beyond the new building) prior to start of conetruction anci muet � remain'un�i1 alI con�truction is aomplete (IIniform Building Code section 4407(c), A demolition permit will be required for the removal. of any or � all of the existing building. � , The City ]Engineering Divisi.on has reviewed the proposal anc3 has the I, � � following commenta: , . A. Streete: � ' � '� The site fronts S.W. Main Street which is classifieri as a major � collector street. Main Street along the site's frontage is fully � developed with aurbs and sidewalks. � �� , A 1986 engineering �tudy of the condition of S.W. Main Street � recommende that the pavement be comple��ly recor►atruc�ed and that �°� t•� the storm draina e s stem be re laced. It a ars to be im ractical ��' ' 9 Y P PP� P � �: to perform the proposed reconetruation of Main Str�et in a piecemeal � fashinn on a lot-by-lot basis; inetead, the reconstruoti.on needs to �� occur in larqer aegments beginning at Fanno Creek Bridge and working �� ' NOTIGE OF DECISION - SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-0010. - A-BOY/DOI.�1N 2 PAGE 4 �;� � . . �'�,_.�.j � '- � . !V�a�' ; ?� � �,::�t` �•..-�re- -. .,..m .n. r...R'n e�rcr ""^t'^'*!r:'.f �. �,.. .. ...� .. . .,... . ..... _-- F _ _ � � _ �' ,.;- , ;; r �,-' .,�;-:' �t , ...� . •.�,---� :- , . , .. .� .. .,_t '"'` ....��:,�_,,..,�.� ��..�.:.:. ..__,._;� .._. ,,_.,... ,. .._ �_�..._, .,�.�,vw.�Y�.___.. .... ...... �a_....._ . _....._ .� ._.._._._..�_._... . ,.. _ ...__ .. _ _ __. __. _ . _..�...., .�.� •.� �I I � � �� I uphill. Therefore, we do not propoee that any reconstruction of Main 3treet be required se a c:ondition of approval of this developanen� praposal. This development should be required ta replace any existing � aidewalks and cur.ba which are damaged or in poor repair and to reconstruct any existing curb cuta which are being abandoned. Aa part of the Tigard Major Streets Tran�p�r�ation Safety Ia�rovement Bond, the City plans to replace the Main Street Bridge over Faaano Creek. The bridge replacement is scheduled to begin in June 1991. The bridge construction is expected to occur w3.thin the existing right-of-way and should have little impact on the subject ( aite. B. Sanitary Sewer: There are two sar��.tary sewer truck lin�s that cross the site in existing easemnents. One line is 24 inche� in dianaeter and the other ia 60 inches in diameter. The applicant ha.s shawn on the application plans the easemen� and location fnr the_24 inch lise but not the easement and location for th� 60 inch line. - Additionally, after reviewing the sanitary sewer system plans on file in thia office, it appears tha� there may be some mix-up as to where the sanitary sewer syatem is as �laown on the applicants submitted pZans. B�sical�.y, it appears that the 24 inch line s.s raithin a 10 foot easement and goea al�ng the f�ont of the praposed n�w building and d3.verges �o the east as you go south. The 60 inch line i.s within a 30 foot easement and again is in front o£ the praposed new buildirag but does nat diverge as fast to �he eas� ae you go south. Based on the �Slan submit�ed by the applicant and the "as-built" plans for both the sanitary sewer systems, it appears �� " that-tlie fiew building would be l:ocated over the easement for the 60 inch line by approxi.mately 6 to � fee� at the approximate middle of the buil.ding. Therefore, the applicant should be r�quired to submi� evidence as to the actual location of the sanitar�,► sewer lines and easements, and their relationship to the proposed build3.ng. If it is determined that th� submitted proposal for the build3.ng does encroach upon the easement, the applicant should be required to change the location of the building or the design so that it doea not encroach upon the easement or to provide evidence that the Unified Sewerage Agency does not object to the encroachment. C. S�orm Sewer: The City�e Master Drainage P]lan recommends improvements to the Fanno Creek ahannel downstream from Main Street. The proposed channel improvements would include wi.dening and slope gtabilization. These impronements would move the location of the top of bank apgroximately five feet closer to the propos�d building than the location of the existing top of bank. Therefare, �n adjustment of �� NOTI�E OF DECISIOt3 - SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-0010 - A-BOY/DOLAN Z PAGI� 5 � ; ti � ��. l : � ' i��`"e .,..u._..... _�.�,v...s....S.�..s..,....s.w ' � . . . . %ej.. %,:, ` - ...:. ,....: u'..L.;_+..1'l.'a�.1.v+1.2z.,u�R�.� ...uuus:.y. � '... , +.uwm.........w..ra�.�..........._. ....._««......�a.�....�...».�..+�...n..buic�--a.a.vuc.vu.u+m��.v.:s.`YtM^��.:�C:_xu.s.'.�triw ,.wau.+.uxss.rtse�xn�,ecv....s.u-w.....�a............u�.w..�.. «......._ ' �' J ' / ' t_ �� .,�;5,�,.. . the buildinq location will �ave to occur in order �o accommodate the � future City-initiated r�location of the floodplain bank. This s&ould be r�quired on a reviaed eite plan. In addition, dedf.c�tion of the land atea on this property below the elevation of the 1n0- gea� flood should be required. The� Unified Sewerage Agenay has eatablished and the City has agreed to enforce (resolution l�o. 90-43) Surface Water Management Regulations requiring the �onetruction of on-eite water quality facilities or fees in lieu of �heir construction. Requiring surface water quality facili.ties an amall sites cuuld result in nwaerou� faaiZitiea that could become a maintenance burden to the City. Furthermore, the appli.cant has not propoeed any such faciliti�a and i there are no natural depreeaions or other areae of this aite that ,`� are particularly �auitable for water quality facilities. Regional facilitiea, funded by £ees in lieu of constructian of smaller � i:salated �acilitiea, wauld provide the required treatment with �I improved reliability and less main�enance. Consecluently a fee-in- �;; lieu of the conetruction of on-site water quality facilitiea shc�uld be assessed, t':� D. Traffic Impaat Fee � - '`` Wa�hington County has establir�hed and the City hae agreed to enforae ' (Aesolution No. 90-65) Traffic Im act Fees. The ur '� p P poae of the fes is t� enaure that new development contributes to extra-capaci.ty = tranepc,rtation improvements needed to accommodate additiox►al traffic � generated by auch develo Fxaent. The applicant will be required to pay the feeo ' Based on the following information, the ES�IMATED TIF for thie development would be: 1} Uaea �Retail Sales 2) Land 'Use Category; Businees & �ommexcial �) Rate per trip: $34.00 4) ITE Category: 816 5) ' Weekday average trip rate: 53,2]. per T.G.S.F. �) Existing Square Footage: 9,7�p approximately 7) Proposed Square Footage: 17,60Q 8) TIF = 53.21 % (1?.6 - 9.720) X $34.00 = $14,256.02 "- NOTEs THIS IS ONLY AN �STIMATL OF TEiE APpLICABLE TIF FEE. TFIE ACTUAL FEL �1�LL 8$ CALC31IaATED AT TIME OF BDILDING PERMIT APPLICATYOPI. The ac�ual TIF will be based on the total square footage shown in the building plans� the NOTICE UF DLCYSYON - SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-OQ1Q - A-BOY�nOLAN 2 P.AGE 6 � . A � ^ r� �. { ( 1 � _ � --fi `5 ' rtS �'�'�:"f"E`�t �'. I? 1 ' .:; .:: -- k { J4 I ' C.. �_��+1 r c , r ., t :' ,1 , ,. ., ...�_ ! �. ,...:�. Y,\��4.. 5 ., t � . . ....r,., .., . __ - ---- � . ,;� ' '�. ..._ .. _ ��: s , ,. . . „ . . ., .:-. � � �� , trip rat�e in effeet at the tiape of building pes°�ait application, and �he fee rate in effect at that time. �' The Cit� of Tigard Parks Department recnmmends that area adjacent t� th� � ,;`� <,;� floodplain shouZd be required to be dedicated for pathway construction. � ` �� , The Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue Distric:t notes that automatic E� sprinkler protection or some other means of built-in fire protection w311 �'� be required. In addition, a fire hydrant must be pravided within 500 feet � of all exterior portiona of the proposed structurea, but not greater than ;;� 70 fee� from a fire depaxtment connection. �'�; S Portland General Electric and the Ti.gard Water District, have reviewed the � �''��, pxoposal and hane no objectiona �o it. x �;, �� No other cott�ents were received. P�� ANALYSIS 1�ND COY�ICLUSION •- �� .r Section 18.120�180 lists the atandarcis whereby tha Director is to approve, C' ` approve with modificationa or deny a recyuest for Site De�el.opment Review approval. In addition to those contained in Chapter 18.66, �entral Busir►eas District, the following sections of the Tigard Community Development code are also applicable: Chapter 1a.86, Acti�on Areas; Ch�pter. 18.100, Landscaping and Scr�Pning� Chapter 18.102, Viaual Clearance Axeas; Chapter 18.106, Of£-stree� Parkinv and Loading; Chapter 1�.10�, �cceas, Egress and Circulation; Chapter it3.114, Signs; Chapter 18.120, Site Development Review; and Cha�ter 18.134, Varianc�s. In add��ion tn all of the above approval criteriao this repor� will review t�e propogal in light o£ the Parke Aiaster Plan for Fanno Creek Park., Chapter 18 66: Centr�l �usineas District Zone .. ....... __. . i Th+e applicant intenda to construct a new and larger structure suited for general retail sales use. Such a use ia permitted outright in thg CBD (Central Bueiness District) zone. Tlaerefore, the intended use is acceptable for this site. The CBD zoning district doea not require any minia�um building setback� except that a 30 foot setback is required if any side of the property abute a reeidential zoning distr3.ct. Since none of the four efdea of the subject property abut a residential zoning cii.atrict, no othex buiiding aetbacks are required. The prope�sed 16.5 build�.ng height is consiatent with the maximum 80 font building heignt permitted in the zone. In the CBD zoning distr3.ct, maximum aite coverage allowed i� 85 peraent. Site coverage includea all etructures and i.mpervious surfaces such as parking, loading ar�as, sidewalks and pathway areas. A minimum of 15 ; percent of tt►e site muat be landscaped. These standardg will be reviewed during the discuasion of landscaping and screening below. IJOTICE OF DECISION - SDA 91-0005/VAR 91-OO1Q - A-BOY/DOLAN 2 PAGE 7 _ __....___.�. ..___., . __ ,.., ,,_,>.,. T.�...-., ,_..,;, --•..----,...-�-,-.-,. x»,, e,u..�,...:.�3..ro}.+....u::.ry.sc_?.u.'�.a..��:_..w,.i,�µ+.�s4.:��....s.,�a..r.�=`�`._..�t..._..,.a:'2'alvu:rew+vsr.�x �a4:u.�.a.,..e..:.Y..�...,�......:��......�,..,,,�,..�...ax,u_�w...re.__f:.�ace��-m4:�.MS::c,r:�Lj.�us�x.�t.n,...uvuu:n ••••..:.W:crs,�ri-�s:rxnvs.�nv�,v.e.+xn:....�.arv�w,.,...n.. �� '�� t Ctia»��r 18.86:_ Action Area Overlav Zone ' t ` The �AA" portion of the sub}ect aite'e zoninq deetgnatir�n indicatea that s an aldditfonal "layer" of zoning regulatione haa b�en ianpoaed on this . property. The purpose of the Action Area Overlay deeignation. is to , implement tkie golicies �f the Tigard Comprehenaive P1an for action areas •; which inel,ud�e provisiona for a raixture of intensive I.and use. Since permitted uses in the Action Area overlay zon� mus� be those specified in i the underly3.ng z�nir►g dietric�; in this case, the CBD zone; this ' requireaaent has been met. Code Section �.8.86.040 contains interira standards whioh are to b� ; ,,.-:• - ;; addressed for new devexopments in the CBD-�A zor�e. These requirements are � ,intended �o provide for projected transportation and public facility needs � of the area. The City may attach conditions to any developme�t within an � action area prior �o adopi:ion of the design plan to achieve the folloraing abjectives: � � � a. The development shall addr�ss transit nsage by residents, employeea, I ; and caetome�s if the si,te is within 1/4 mile of a public traneit , ;3 line or transit atop. �pecific it�aae to be addr.esaed axe as '�I ' follows: I � i. Orientation of bui.ldings and facilit3es toraaxds transit II, ; servi.ces to provide for direc� pedestri.�n accea� into the �� building(s) from transit lines or stops; ' � I � ii. Mi.nimizing traneit/auto conflicte by providing direct ' pedeatrian accesa into the buildings with limit�ed eroseings in i � automobile circulation/parD:ing areae. If pedestrian access ', ;} crosaea automobil� circul�.tion/parking areas, paths �hall be marked for pedestrians; I ii3:�: Encouraging transi�-auppartive users by limiting auto�aoba.le I �+upport serv3.ces to colleetor and a�erial atreete; and � � . i.n. Avoi:ding the creation of small scattered par&ing areae by i' alYowing adjacent development to us� shared surfaag parking, � p�rking etructure� or under-�tructure parking; b. The development shall facilitate pedeatrian/bicxale circulation if �he eite i.s located on a e�reet with designated bike paths or adjacent to a designated greenway/open space/park, 5peaific items , � to be ads3reg�ed are as tollows: '� �: '' i. Provision of �fficient, con�en3.ent and eontinuoue pedestrian ,E < arid bicycZe transit ci�culation systema, linking dev�lopmenta .x by requ�.ri:ng dedication and conetrue�ion of pedestrian and ; bike Qaths identifieel in the comprehensiv� plan. =f direct ' cnnne�ti.ona cannot be made, require that funda in the amount � of the const�s�uct3on co�t be deposited into an accaunt for the � purpose of canstructing path�; � " NOSPYCI� OF DBCISZON - SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-0010, - A-BOY/DOLAN 2 PAGE 8 ��"'� , .��"�'. "�` .. ., __ .,r ,. n' .. rn�ro,r ;�, � r t, '"t+-� "'".� . ,'.� .. r , . '�. .... ��_ _ _ ,.. —� . . . . . . s .. ..... __lt , y..t _ . . ,. , ww�..�. =.��-,vY ,�..�� _..,_w,��.,�,�.��,��W�.�.�� v. : �� ._,.._._ _. , .�� ti � ' , �,b ii. Separation of auto and truck circulation activitie� fro�n pedestrian areaa; iiie B�couraging pedestrian-oriented deei a b re irin walkways and etreet level winclowe a ong all sides with pusogic acceae into the building; t iv• Proviaion of biaycle parking as required under �ubsec�cion 18.106.020.P; and n• Ensure adequate outdoor lighting by lighting pedestrian walkways and auto circulation areas. C• Coordination of develo�xnent within the action area. Specific items to be adciressed are ag folZows: �• Cont.ir�uity and/or Gompatibility of landscaping, circulation, access, public facilities, and other improvemen�s. Al1ow required landscap3.ne� areas to be grouped together. Regulate shared access whexe approprfateo Prohibit 13.ghting which shines on adjacent property; . ii. Siting and ori�ntation of land use whfah cAnsiders aurrounding land use, or an adopted plano 5creen loadingr areas and refuse dumpsters from view. Screen commercial, and induatrial use from s.ingle-famil,y residential through landscaping; �d iii. Provision of frontage roads oz shared acc�ss where feasibZe, The submitted develokment proposal eatisfi�s the aboye requirements �or traneit usage. The subject site is within oaae quarte� mile of several Tri0lytet bua stopa on Main Street and Pacific H3.ghway. The site plan grov3.des an on-ei.te si.dewalk providing a direct conmmection betweer� the pul�lic �idewalk on Main Street with the entrance to the proposed building. The proposed parking lo�°s re.latively narrow width will minimize pedestrian/vehicle confliets becauae of the relatively shoxt distance pedestrians must travel b�tween their cars and the eidewalk and entrance to the buildinq. �he propose3 d�velopment plan is rea�onably coordinated with other development within the action area. Th� site irupro�er�ents will be required to satisfy c;ode landscaping requirecpents ae described below. Screening of the truck loading area on the southern bui�d.ing can be acGOmplish�d wxth either a fence or ta1 lveye�t�nne outdmor lighting should be epecifically �ddreaeed by the �pplicant as to how it might be provided. Theee modifications or clarifications can be accompli.shed as minor a�aend�ents to the eita plan prior to bwilding peripit issuance. � The progoeal ia consistent r,aith only same of �he Action Ar�a ove�lay zone requirements related to pedestrfan and bic c � below. Pedeatrian ar�ae are ade 1' le circulation, as descritaefl �� ' quately aeparated from venicle circulatfon NQTTC� OF DECISION — SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-0010-- A—BOY/DOLAN 2 PAGF� 9 �.: ;�;. c� & � r :,. °-- ,. .n. � � v, ,c•�r� .-� c-�: =.: '�,. . '. .. _ -- -- � r r ' 4 A �1 S "r- �'' ""y ;�7� r c^ r t t� ri f � . . � l , . � � :. .1 , � , i. ., ,.'. ,.�„; S: .�, . ,� ,_ 3!.1.., � ..�._.. ., . . .. ,. . - ._ __ —^_.��. - �' . . . ,...- ,. i . _ .�a, , . . ,,a.t.✓ ,� . , � . � .. . - , r ,,,: ., . __ . .. .,. . . . ,. t . ..,_,,.,:Q. �r.�.. ,.�'..�:s.�,...d�-'.,..�....�... '�-._�,...e.. �.v... . .,.._:�...�. .....<........... ...:..._..._._...._. . . ._..... .. ..,.....,__....,........... .._... ...,..�,.r ... ,,.«.��.H-.v._,.., .... ... ..�..,_.... __n.-...... ..._.._.._.._.____ ... . . �� A� areas by curbs and landsaaped areas. The northeastern eide of the buildir.y will inclnde a pedestrian walkwag and windowe along the side of the building that will provide pedeatrian access. Adequate lighting of the public and private sidewalks and the parking ].ot will be provided by pa�king area lighta and bui.lding mounted lighta. The proposed development would be prov3.ded with adequate bicycle parkiag ae required by Code Section 28.106e020.P which requires one bicy�le rack parking space for every 15 auto spaces, or portion thereof. The site plan propasses a three- biaycle bik�e rac}�. at the northeastern corner of the building, adjacen�t to th,e publ.ic sidewalk. Variance reeduested. The application includ.es a requeet for a �ariance from the requirement of dedicatian of adequate area for and construction of a bicycle/pedestrian path alonq the site's western side adjacent to Fanno Creek as well as dedication of tl�e floodplain area on tlae site i�self. Because the requirement for pathway area and construction is raised by Code Section 18.86.040 separate from the requirement for floodplain dedication and dedication of sufficient area for--a pathway, staff will consider the requirement for floodplain dedi.cation s�parately later in this report. � : A bicgcle/pedest�ian path ie called for in this general location in the - Ci�y of Tigard's Parks Master Plans (Muraee and Associates, I988) and the Tigard Area Comprehenaive Pedestrian/Bicya].e Pathway Plan 1974). In � addition, Community Development Code Section 18.120.ISO.A.a requirea that �j`,'` where landfill and/or develapment is allawed wi�hin or adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City sha5.1 require the cledica�ion of suf�i.cient open 3.and area f�r greenway adjoining and within the floodplain in accmrdance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle plan. The proposed development site includes land within the 100 year floadplain of Fanno Creek. Section 18a134.050 of the Code contains crit�ria whereby the Direetor can ��' approve, approve with modifications or deny a variance request: (1) The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental �o the purpoaes of this Code, be in conflict raith the pola.cies of the Comprehensive Plan, to any other applicable policies of the Community Development Code, to any other applicabZe poii�zeg and standards, and to othex propertiee in the aame zaning district or viainity. (2) There are special circumatances �hat exist which are peculiar to the lot size or slaape, topography or oth�r circumstances over which the appl3.caaxt has no control, and which are not applicable to other propesties in t➢�e same zoning diatrict; i (�) The u�e propoged will be ths same as perm3.tted under thi.s Code and I Gity atandards will be maintained to the grea�est extent possible, i while permitting some economic use of the land; ,i[�; NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 91-OOQ5/VAR 91-OOlU - A-BOY/DOLAN 2 PAGE 10 � ;;.;> t:�:;;` . ;t�r! • :�;;t' �::'`f �`, � ' ---.___.�.._�_� .-,._,u._ ...,_.._.�.�.,m ..,,..-.�,-., m......._. . ,..: ...__:; �.�,�- � -r,� �'i ... .,:, � _. ... , , , � .' , ., _ __.... _ ._ __. .._..� .._ , �,_.._a ._�.. .�_..., _�..... .� _ , : . . �-� �;+� �e}� $xisting physical aad natuxa�l syst�ms, such as but not limited to txaffic, dxainage, dramatic land fornas or parks will not k►e adversel,y affected any n►ore than would occur if the development were located as specifi.ed in the Code; and (5) The harc�ahip is not self-impoalleviatehthe hardship ��ated ia the k miniunurn variance which would � A licant's V�riance Justification. The applicant has provided the following as a statement af juatification that is intended to cover all of th� requested variances: • • . The variance requeated by the applicant should be allowed as the conditians and dedi�ations required by the City of Tigard violat� the applicant's rights under the Oree�on and United States Constitutions. 3pecifically, the City'e demand for dedication conatitu�te an unlawful Sg�on 18 nand t e Fifth Amendtr►�t to�the Constitution, Article 1, United Statea Conatitution. The proposed variance will not m�.terially be detr olical of the ,;` purposes of the titl� nor conflict with the p Y comprehensive p].an as no park exista at this ti.me nor�d k 9tha� Cthe a' have suff3.cient funding in which to �rea�e a p " bicycle/pedestrian path ia theoretically going to be us�d to accesa. �:!�. There are speaial circumstanees that exiat which are peculiar to the lot in that the building which the applicant proposes to construct cannot be erected without invad�ng the City's proposed bicycle/pedeatrian path if the land is dedicated. The hardahip ia not aelf-im�sed but rather imposed by the ^ity'a dedication and the variance requested is the minimum variance which " would�alleviate the hardship to the applicant. �',,`. Staff Analveie of Variance Recauest. Staff does not find that the • rec�uirements for dedication of the area adjacent to the floodplain for _ greenway gurposes and tor conatruc�ion of a pedestin teadCyataff afind constitute a taking 0f �he appliaant s property. that the ded3.cation and pathway construction are reasonably reYatec� to the applicant's requeat to intsnsify the development of this site with a general retail aales use, at first, and other uses to be added later. It ia reasonable to asaume that customers and employeea of the futu�e uses� of this site could utilize a pedestrian/bicycle pathway adjacent to thia developm�nt for their transportation and recreational needa. In faot, the site plan hao gro�ided for bicycl� parking in a rack in front of the propoaed building to provi.de for the needs of the facility's cuetomers and employees, It is reaonable to expect that some o�E the usere of the bicycle parking provided for by the site plan will use the pathway adjacent to Fanna Creek if it is constructed. In addition, the praposed expanded use of this sits is anticipated to generate additianal vehicular � traffic thereby inareasinq aongestion on nearby cnllector and arterial � � ' PAGE 11 ... ;' NO`�ZCE 9F DECISION - SDR 91�0005/VAR 91-�OO1Q - A-BOY/DOLAN 2 � , hi' � � t, ��'t; �`;_,�,; ia � , . __ ,' �.�.� �_— ,.,, ._.,_.rr.,.--,—.- , _ _.�. � , .. .. . ,._....,_ .,. �,.,...., . ...,. .».... ....w..�....�.__._.,___. . . _ . ...e.....,.,v�.i:..�u..., �'� ...k �..�.'�i u.... �a�::.,.. .:.��.:.... ... .... ......w....... . . . . ..,... ..__...e. ... . �- .. � `� �� ; � atreets. Creativn of a convenient, safe pedeatrian/bicycle patv�ray ayst�m � as an alternative aae�ns of transportation could offset some af the traffic ��. demand on these nearby streets anc� leeeen the increass in traffia �� congestfon. �`K� �'„ Staff finds that tkae requested variance would conflict with many Plan and ��! Code purposes. As already noted, the Code at Secta.on 18.120.OSO.A.8 and �;� many other related sections (e.g., SecLion 18.84.040.A.7) require �� dedication of sufficient area adjacent to floodplain areas for r�� ;�, cnnstruction of pedeatrian/bicycle pathway�s. Volume 1 of the � Comprehensive Plan a� pages 256 through 258 provides a discussion of the reasons for development of a City-wide pathway system as part �f a multi- �� madal �ransportation syatem serving the varie�l needa of the City's �, citizens and busineases. Thf.s secti.on essentially aummari.zes the findings �' of the adopted Tigard �rea Comprehensive pedeatrian/Bicycle Pathway Plan. 3, : Camprehensive Plan Volume 2 at Policy 8.4.1 calls for the City to require �� the dedication of area for and aonstruct3.on of pedestrian/bicycle pathways � as a condition of development approval for areas identified by-the adopted pedeatrian/bicycle plan. The P3.an notes that as the city grows, more people may rely on the pathways for utilitarian as well as recreational purposes and that there is a need to develop a safe and conve:�ient pathway system. The pathway system along Fanno Creek near �he subject site is already partly constructed in both directions. The City is actively pursuing land acquiai.tion and park improvement planning far Fanno Cr�ek ' park to the south. Contrary to the applicant's statement that ".•• ne f park exists at this time nor does th�e City have suffiaient funding i� � which to create a park that the bicycle/pedestrian pathway is theoretically going to be used to access," the City has e�tablished Fanno Creek park, constructed a pathway and other improvements in area to the south, recently purchased 3.19 additional aares for park expansiona and has set aside funds for a partial �xtension af the pathway in the summer r or fa7.1 of 1991. �. It is imperative �hat a continuoue pathway be developed in order for the = paths to £unction as an efficient, convenient, and safQ system. Omitting � a planned for section of the pathway eysi:em, as the variance would seault �� in if approved, wauld conflic� with Flan purposes and result in an inaomplete aystem �hat would not be efficient, convenient, or safe. The � requested variance ther�fere �*^L�� cAaa�l�,�t wi.th the City's adopted policy �� of providing a aontinuous pathway system intended to serve the general � public good and therefore fails to satisfy ttxe firs� varianc� approval { � criterion. Staff fails to find speaial circumetances that exiat whieh are peculiar ta this site for which the applicant has no control and therefore the second criterion for approval of a variance ie not satiafied. The applicant statea that the inability to develop the propoaecd building without �.nvading the City's intend�d pathway area is a apecial circumatance # dicta�ting the need for a variance. The design o£ the bui3.di.ng is �� completely under the contrnl of the applicant. The applicant's engine�sr ,� was appriaed of the need to provide area for the pa�hway at the pre- y applica�ion conference with City sta�f prior to the submittal of the �ite NO°PICE OF D�CISION - SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-OQ10• - R�-BOY/DOLAN 2 PAGE 12 „� � _ � u_z�� .��..�,= --,�.,.,_ .$:�.w��u_ �.:�,�„�L.�.u.�.�w....�.... w _._.- . ..�.�.Wa. �.:�..,ll-,z�,�<— ,,,.��..� ...�,_,�. a�,._� .,:,� .�_<...�. , �._.�:_w — x_u�..__.�.w ....._._:� ...� .�_U��_ . • • - � � .,,� ,�1 C�a �_�� plan. Th� applicant°s engineer could have deeigned the building wi�th res ct to the need for dedication for the pathway. ahe applicant h�ae �� ;� . � the same amount of building qa submitted any reasons eupporti.ng why footage could not be provided on multiple l�vels or why the proposed �; �quare footage is needed. If the building must be develop�+d on a aingle `[!�� 1,eve2 and at the �acne square footage, other aptiona may exiet for varyin9 I� �- Code standarda that would not have snch a i�c�ehas nat met th� burden �� ' purposes as the requeated variance. The app ,� of praof regarding epecial circumstanc�s affecting tha.a eite related to � the requested variance. h ' �� i The reqciested variance would not affect uaes of the site pera►i�ted by the � Code. The applicant has not address�ed how City standards (i.e.n the �� ' connection of the various pathway aegments) will be accomplished if the , variance request ia approned. Therefore, the third variance approval � criterion fe only partially satisfied. � ; As noted above, approval of the variance request would Yeave� an adverse � �; effect on the existing partially aompleted pathway syetem becauae a syatem , ; cannot fully �unctian with missinq pieces. If thi� plannsd for gection is �` y omitted from the pathraay system, the aystem fn this area viill be much ].ess } ,. �� convenient and efficient. If the gedestrian and bicycbe traffic is forced , onto Ci•ty atreet� at this point in the pathwaY sYetem because of this �;� missing section, pedestrian and bicycle safety will be lesaen�d. The ��`, fourth variance approval criterion is therefore not satisfied. �� , � A� noted above, the �pplicant has not pravided reasons why the building � must be con�tructed with the proposed footprint, square footage, or on a �+ single level. Without such evidenGe, staff find�he Codee dedication�ancb �� ' that would result if strict compliance with pathway conStructioa� atandards ar� required. Ag�in, the applicant ha� not met the applicant's burden of proof related to the variance request. �� Without evidence of a hardship, the fifth variance approval criterion is �� not met. The criteria fQr approval of a variance to the Communi.ty Development Code ; , requirement af dedaca�ion of sufficient area for and cane�ruction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway in conformanae wi.th varioua adopted Ci�y plans calling f�r the pathway are therefore not satiefied. The appl.icant has €ail�d ta grovi,dehere oree denied Ce Tk�er app].i.cant willnb� �r Qui ed ito The request is t dedicate area 15 feet in depth from the eaat bank of Fanno Cxeek and will be required to comatruct an 8 foat wide pedestrian/bicycle pathway in this �rea. �he footprint and possibly the design of the progosed building will ne�d to be revised to comply with this requiremento Cha�er 18 102• Landscanina and Screenina Al�hough not noted in the suba�i.ttal for the current apgslication, the appl.icant previousl.y h�s requestecl that in return for dedication of property al�ng Fanno Creek, other landscaping s�andarda �hould �e wai.ved. Staff will aonaider an exception from the minimum landscaged site area on NpTICL pF DECISTOtd - SDR 91-0005/VAIt 91-0010' - A-BOY/DOLAN 2 PACE 13 "^F '1�T1 'S -,} !� � ..� ��.�, � ' I [�i' $ �'jP .F 1 � . �.....--.- M n. ^ -i . ' � � . � .-i L .i) r � 3-, F.i; 1 : ,k 1 � � � �, r - .'�. , .i - . �' -.`. . 's�. ` .'zr . _ . -- t � y 4. I! . ... . . . . . .. ..� . . . � .. . . ____V� -_ — . , � . .. .__... ., , .,�. .ti�.�., .... .._._. �.,,....� _,�N...w_._.__.._. _. ..____ � _. z_�....._.v��_, .z.,. .�..�., . ., ,,.,:.. . _ :w....,. , .,.,._.�,.w... ... _...__ _ _. . .. . � . � ' �� he net eite after required dedications laecau�e this deciaion rejects the applicant's variance requeats from floodplain and pathway dedication requirementa. Staff finds that the City h�e previously allowed the inclueion of ded3.cated floodplain/park lar►d for the purpose of calculating required landscaped area for other projects. Such an allowance is also apQropriate y in this instance. The site plan doea not note the amount of landscaped � area that would be provided on the net site after floodglain and pathway area dedications, but the plan no�es that 21 percent of the gross site ; vrould be landscaped area or natural area. This percentage is conaistent '; with the 15 percent minimum landscaped area atandard of the CBD zoning district as well as with Section 18.120.170.E which allows the director to grant an exception to the minimum landscaped ar�a requirements upon a finding that the overall landscaped plan provides for at least 20 percent of the gross site to be landscaped. The �,ity Cauncil decided, with regard to the earlier Site Development Review request for this eite, that the City would be responsible for 3.andsca�ing and screening the area between the required pedestrian/bicycle path and the proposed building. Staff will hold wit�i the Council'a� earlier decision regardang this area and therefor� will not review the applicant'e landscaping plan� for this area adjacent to the future pathway and Fanna Creek. The provision of a landacaged buffer by the Gity alang the ea�t edge of area required to be dedicated for pathway purposes is juetifisd because the maintenance of this area will b�e the Citp's respone3.bi7.ity and the future stc►ra► drainage and pathway a.mpr�vemen�a will cauae the destruction or removal of existing vegetation. • Code Section 18.100.030.A require� that all development projects f�onting on a public or private street provide street trees spaced betvreen 20 and 40 fee�, depending on the mature size of the trees. The aite plan gropoees only one flowering �pear tree along the site'a Main Street frontage. The pzoposed flowering pear tree would be looated in a planter � on the west side af the entrance driv�way to the parking 1c�t. Because the proposed builda.ng would abut t�n� p�blic sidewalk further west fro�s► the dr3veway, no additional trees can be located west of the driv�way. The City will be reeponsible for landscaping west of the proposed building. This area should include a street tree or two. Approximately 85 feet to � the east of the propoaed driv�way is not ahown to include any landscapinq, � building, or paving. The landac�ping plan w5.11 need to be revised to ' include additional street trees consistent with the aize and spacing � standards af Section 18.100.035. � s Chauter 18 102• Vi�ion Clearance � Section 18.102.020 requires that clear vision be mair►tained between 3 and 8 feet above grade at the a.nter�ections of all streets and driveways. The flower3.ng pear tree intended to be planted immediately to the west of the propased driveway need not be relocated� ou� c�iE �his area as long as ! branch�s below eight feet in height ar� kep� trimmed�-: �Yn addition, buehes NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-0010 - A-BOY/DOLAN 2 PAGE 14� , -.._.-,.�... ��r>T -,F,-• -=,rr.,..-•� .,�-,` � r �,,,� i--�- .r, - - � � �V� �^� planted adjacent to the txee must be kept trimmed to below three feet in heigh�. Chapter 18.106: Off-atreet Parkinq and Loadincr variance to Minimum ParkinQ Standard. The applicant proposes to con�struat 39 atandard 90�degree par;ti.ng spaces. Communi�y Development Code Section 18.106.030.C.2Q requirea that 1 parking space. be provide for every 400 square fee� of building area. Therefore, 44 parking apaces would be I required for the prop�sed. 17,600 square foot general retail sales . ' building. As previausly noted, the applicant neglected to xec�uest a variance to this parking standard with the current request. However, the director and the Flanniag Commies.ion had previousl�p approved such a requ�st for the earlier application utiliz3.ng the same site plan. Staff will consider a variance to the minimum parkiag etandard with the current applicatioa in order to a£firm the earlier varianc� approval �and to make " it� period of approval cancurrent with the approva]. period for the current Site Development Review applicatian. The £ollowing finsiinge relative to the variance approval criteria (Code Section 18.134.050) -are essen�ially �he same as adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council. Special circumstances ex£st which are �eculiar to this site and proposal. The applicant propoaes to conetruct this project in two phases: the first phase consists of construction of the new building on the southwestern ;;', portion of tlae prop�rty. The exiating buildiag would then be demolished. The appl3.cant hopea to attract a complunentary business(ea) to build on the northern portion af the lot as part of Phas� 2. Should additional parking be found to be necessary in the future, the applicant suggeste that a ahared parking arraixg�mment could be worked out with the adjacent structure. The applicant points out that the A-Boy store does not at�raat "brows�r-or window shoppere", in that the buaineas conatitutes a retail/wholesa3.e type of business whi�h sell.s.bulky merchandise. The lat�er fact results in the �� attraction of austomera who decide in advance af travel that a product is needed �nd who travel to a epecific deatinatinn to obtain that product. The applicant has stated that the existing atore rarely has more than six or eir�ht vehicles at any one time. Staff notes that employees of the busis�eas will a�.so require parking apaces and perhape delivery trucks will need to park and unload on th� property; however, it is clear that the existing atore �xse should not meed 44 parking apacea. The City agrees that the preeent uee is similar to a "general xetail eales, bulky merchandise" use. If the City were to employ the parking standard uaed for retai]. salee businesses which sell bulky merchandise, namelgr 1 space for every 1000 square feet of gross floor area but not leas than 10 spacea, it is alear that the proposed 39 spaces are well within City parking requirementa. Although the use of the building may later change, alternatives are available in conjunotion with the future phase of construction on this NOTICE QF BECISION - SDR 91-0005/VF,R 91-0010' - A-BOY'/DOLAN 2 PAGE 15 '4� ,Yt , �`�.� �s I �� ;r ,_... _ _ ._ .. _. . . ......... .._.,. _ __ __.. .,, tY�:r. � , � ;. � �,, � �� .:� property. If a new use, which hae a hi.gher parking clemand, accupies �he b�ilding, a new site development review aud evaluatian of parking would be required. The iesue of parking apace nwnbers will also be evaluated as paxt of iche site developraent review for phase two of thi� development. The use wil.l be the same as pertnitte@ by City regulations and existing phyaical and natural systems will not be affected by thig propnsal. Thereforeo staff finds that the variance related to parkinq is justifi.ed. Other parkinct atandarde. The Code requirea ane secure bicycle parking epac�s for every 15 requir�d automobile epacea. In tY�is ca$e� a minimum of three bicycle parking apacee are needed. The ai�te plan indicates a groposea location for a 3 space bike rack. This standard ia therefore satisfied. The site plan does not provide for an appropriate number of designated handicapped parking spaces as required by the Oregon Revised Statutes (2 requiredp 1 groposed), al�hough the 1 �pace proposed would sa�isfy City of Tigard Community Develo�raent Co3e atandards as currently written. Tlxe site plan will therefore need to be revised to add one additional designated handicapped parking spac�. The Cocqpnunity Developaent Code will need to be revised to reflect this rnore stringent standard that took effect on September l, 1990. CodE Section 18.106.020.M requires parking lot landsaaping in accordance with the requirements of Chapter x8.100. That chapter requirss the provision of trees in the area of a parking lot at a mini.mum ratio of 1 tree p�er 7 parking spaces. Th� eite plan proposes 7 trees in landscaged ialanda withi.n and adjacen�k ta the 39 space parking lot. This standard ia therefore satisfied. Code Section 18.106.080.A requixes at least ane off-street loadir�g apace for aammercial uses havi.ng more than 10,000 square feet of floor areao The site plan proposes a loading area os the south sid� of the propos�d building. This standard is th�refore aatisfie@. However, the laading space will need to be provided with adequate screening from views from neighboring parc�ls as has previously bee described. Chapter 18.108: Access, Ectrese and Circulation Code Section 18.108.40.0 rec;uires that vehicular access be provided to commercial ancl in�dustrial usee within 50 feet of the pri.mary ground floor entrances to the building. The propc�sed parking Yot is immediately adjacent to the proppsed building entrance. Cod� Section 18.108.50.A requires walkways conneating ground floor entranc�s of commercial. buildix�gs with adjacent �ublic atreets. The site pl.an propc�ses a aidewalk ' along th� front of th� building cmnnecting ta the public sidewalk along � Main Street. Code Section 18.108.80.A requires a mini:mum of one 24-foat wide accees driveway to a parking lot of this �ize �erving a commercial � uee. One 36-foot wide dxiveway would conneat the proposed parking 1ot �; ; with Main Streete The praposed access and airculation pattern should � ' provide adequate and sa�e access for the pxopos�ed use. Therefore, the �� Code's requirements for accese and circulatic�n have been satisfied. �� ; NOTI�CF OF DSCISION � SDR 91-0005/'VAR 91-0010 - A-BOY/DOLAN 2 PAGE 16 �� , �� : �': f -„-. . . . ____ • � _, ...._ . ._t.,. , .,,.�. .__.. _._ , ,_., _._ __._, .. . .„, . . , , �',. ..,, ' . _ ._ , .t�r �;� � ?��,. � . _ �.. ,� — -- ...._.f_i.:k.�.... 1,:�: ... ,:�.....�.. .. ,,.:..�.,. . . . _ . _.. .. . . .,..,............. ........ ..............0............_ . ..._........... ..,_...._ . • k . . �-�� .� � � fi� � ; Chauter 1�.114: Si4ne � : k� The applicant has proposed no new signage in conjunction with this a4` app2.ication. The exiating freestanding sign will apparently be removed. �� f;� A�1 new wall and freestanding aigns must be reviewed by the Planning ,! r canformit with the Cit Si ,� Code. �°' Division rio.� to their erection fa y Y 9 P ; ; �4`�. The two billboard signs and roof aign are in direct conflict with Cod� '� I'X Section 18.120.180r which requires that the approval of a Site Development 3� Review be conditioned on tlxe proposal's ab3.Zity to comply with all �ther �°�' applicable provieiona of the Code, including sign �egulationa of Chapter �`�, 16.114. Code Section 18.114.070.H prohibits roof signs of all types. �; �ode Section 18.114.690.A.l.a.i.l permit� bi�lbaards in certain zoning ��' di�tricts only; the CBD zone is not one o€ the listed zones. The � Commission and Citg� Council, in their prior reviews affecting this �ite, ��f have determined that the billboarda and the sign atop the existing �i-Boy �'' building are nonconforroing signs that have gane beyond the 10-year � amortizati�n period adopted by the City Couna3l in 1978 and thua were � required to be removed. " - Consideration of sian variance. The applicant has reque�ted a variance to the roof sign prohibition af Section 18,114v070.H. The applicant rec;uests that the City no� r�quire removal of a sign above the xoof line of an existing building on the site a� a condi�ion of approval of the cuXrent development applicaiia�n. The appli�cant characterizes the sign as a wall sign built on a parapet wall. The City Council and Planning Commission previoua].y conaidered the sign and determined that the sign was a raof aic�n. The applicant has not submitted a variance juatification statement � specifically addressing the sign situatiAn, nor has the applf.aant submitted any evidence related to why the eign on Ghe existing building is not a roof �ign. �he greviously quot�d juatification �tatement submitted by the ap�lican�t (page 12 ot this report) is all tha��w�s submitted in response to �he staff notifying the applican� that the application was incomplete without a statement of seasons �upporting the variance requests. Since the applieant's Statement of Juatification is clearly � addr�essing the pathway dedication and canstructinn issue� only, and since staff is unaware of any o�her reasons in support pf the requested variance s. to the prohibition on: roof signs, staff has no alternative but to concur f with the Commiaeion and Council's �arlier determination that the aign on � �I the ex3.ating building �s a roof sign and that it muat be removed within 45 }�S�, I days of the occ�*pancy of �he new building. �; � i� f,r No varianae request has been receiveri with regard to the billboard signa � needing to be removed as was reqraired by the earlier development a� application deciaions affecting this eite. �he applicant apparently does � � f� not cnntest removal of the billboard signs as a condition of development �n approval. Compliance with all requirements of the Community Development s� Code as required by Section 1�.120.180 would entail complete re�oval af �� ,t� these aigns prior to occupancy of the building proposed as phase one of �� the r�development of the site. � y^� NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 91--0005/VAR 91-0010 - A-BOY/DOLAN 2 PAGE 17 � ��:', �r,� '�; kY ti� €' 4 � .,_.., .. _ .. , _. ....> o-.,,,, .� ,.... _ .. � . .., . ... . .. . ___ -- - I ..� , . . � �� - �_.� . . "..iJ \ � � Chavter 18.120• Site Develonment Review Code Section 18.120.180.A.8 requires that where landfill and/or denelopment ia allowed within or adjacent to the 1Q0-year floodp�ain, the City ahall require the dedication of sufficient open land area far greenway adjoining ana within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle plan. This repart has already d�alt with the queetian of dedication of area out�ide the floodplain for pathway construction and the construction of the pathway as it relates to the provisians of the Action Area overlay zone. At thia point, the report will considez the applicant's requeat from the requirement to dedicate portions of the site within the 100-year fioo�Plain of Fanno Creek for etorm water management purpases. The apgl�.cant•e 5tat�ment of Justification for Variance (page 14 of thia report) doee not directly addreas storm water drainage concerns but instead provides the general �tatements listed above as commen�a intended to apply to all of the variance requests. . S�aff does x�ot find �hat the requireraents for dedicatian of the area �rithin the floodplain of Fanno Creek for sta.rm water ma.nagement and greenway purpoaes constitutes a taking of the applican�t•s praperty. Instead, staiff finda that the required dedication wou].d be reasonably related to the appli.cant°s request to intenai£y the usage of this site thereby increasing the s.i•te•s ,impervbous area. The increased i.mpervious surfece would be expected to increase the amount of storm water runoff ? from �he site to Fanno Creek. The Fanna Cr�ek drainage basin has experienced ragid urbanization over the past 30 years caueing a significant increase in stream flowa after periods of precipitation. The antic.ipated increased storm water flow from the svbject property to an already strained creeDc and drainage baefn ca�a only add to the public aeed to manage the etream channel and floodplain for drainage purposes. Becauae the pro�ased development's atorm drainage would add to �khe need for public management of the Fanno Creek floodplain, staff finde ttxat the requirement af dedicatian of the floodplain area on the eite is reiated to the applicant•s plan to intensify d�:v��opment on the aite. Staff finda tha� the reque�ted variance would conflict witM many Pian and Code purposes and policiea and therefore ie not with the first of the � variance approval criteria. Aa alr�ady noted, the Code at Section 18.120,080.A.8 and many o�her related sections (e.q,, Section 18.84.040.Ae7) require dedic�ation of floodplain areas, not only for construction af pathways, but primaril�► ta allow for public apariaqem�nt of the sto,rm water drainage system. These Code sections implecpent Comprehen�ive Plan Policy 3.2.4 which requirea dedication of al.l undeveloped land within the lOp-.y�a� floedplain. Volume Two of ths Plan �{ at Section 3.2 discusses the City�e objectives in regulating develo �` within and adjacent to floodplain areas to avoid hazards to the �ent � to downstream properties. Volume One of the Comprehensive Plan at ipaqes 192 and 199 provide� a diecussion of the xeaeona for dsvE3.o ,� coordinated City-wide storm water management system. Volume Onen of the � �lan al.so cites the Master Drainaere Plan for the City produced by CH2M � NOTICE OF AECiSIOId - SDR 91-0045/VAR 91-QO10 - A-B(ly/DOLAN 2 � PAGE 18 k� . k�' G'r: `,z:: � ' _ _ry, . ;., �,r �.-, _ ,�� > , �_- .-�. . .�:i'�:..i...l..:�L-. ��, :�.:.a..,...a .._..e::s�_'�..w..�.a.a.�=.--.:.�. ✓u..-...� .� ,.a..,,.,..�. ... . ............ ....�,.�...... ... ....n................ ... �.�.a._..,.. ,.n..,.... ............................... ..�..v....�.....v.. . ....,...........�...............«............_._ . • � • • • � � �' Hill Inc. in 1981 for a further discu�sion of th� neerl for public management of the sto�n water dxafnage sy�tem and for measurea intended to inGrease the flow efficiency of Fa�na Cree�C and other drainage ehannel� in the city. As noted by the $ngineering Divi�ion, the Master Arainaae Plan recoaamends impravements to the Fann.o Creek channel down�tream fram the Main Street bridge. Proposed chann�l improvementa would include channel widening and slope stabilization. These improvements would move the location of the top of bank approximately five f�et cLosex to the proposed building than ;; the location of the existing top o£ bank. In arder to accompliah these publi� improvements related to increasing th� flow efficiency�af Fanno Creek, dedication of the area of the subject aite within the 100-yeax floodplain and also the adjacent five feet is imperative. Not reguiring dedicat3.on of this area as a aondition of c3@velopment approval, as the �; app�icant'a varianc� propoeal requeats, would clearl.y conflict with _ purposes and policies of the Comprehens3.ve Plan, Community Aevel.opmen� `z' Code, and the City'o Master DrainaQe Plan. "° Staff faile to find special circumstance� that exist whiah are peculia.r to this site over which the applicant ha� no aontrol that relate to th� variance request. The applicant states that the inability to develop the propoged building without invading the City's intended pathway area ie a special circumstance dictating the need for a vari�nce. Staff does not �ee how this statement relates to any ciifficulties involved in the applicant°s �k+ility to dedicate area within the 1Q0--ysar floodplaira of `�'` Fanno Creek. The applicant's stat�ment refers only to land out�sid� of the 4`".: 100-year floodplainv The requeat there£ore fails to eatisfy the second o i�he variance approval criteria. The requested variance to onit floodplain cledication would not affect poesible uses permitted by the Code for this groperty. Dedication of the poz�fan of the property within the 100-year floodplaiz� of Fanno Creek wou]:d not be�expected to diminiah the usability or value of the property becaus� the 100-year flaodplain area is virtually unusable due to �.he �; year-round wat�r flow of the Creek within a well definer€ narrow channels The applicant ha� nat addressed how City standarda (i.e., man�agement af the interconnected storm water drainage system) can be accomplished if the variance rec�uest i� aggroved and an i.mpor�ant piece of the Fanno Creek stream Ghannel ia not available for public improvements to expand the channel a� called for by the City's Master Drainaae Plan. Again, the applicant fails to meet the burden of proof relative to the variance crit�ria. The third variance approval criterion is not satisfied. If the area wi�hin the 100-year floodplain is no� dedicated as the variance applieation requests, the exieting storm water drainage system would be affected because additi.onal etorn►wat�r runoff reaulting �ram additional development, both from the �ubject site and elsewhere with3.n the Fanno Creek drainage basino ie expe�ted to increase flaw within th� are�k and a rise in the 100 year flood elevation without the public's a�iility to make channel modificationa in this area to offset the increase F NOTICE OF IIEGISTON - SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-0010� - A-BOY/DOLAN � PAGE 19 x':,�;< ;�;`'�i; w<� ��::g �!;�r;' . � �. �:', � � , �`, `i, ,i , , i�. ,.... , ... �_.,' �� ;., �� .�� i.n stream �low. If ded�.cation is required as apecified by the Code, the channel af Fanno Creek in this axea could be improvecD by public agencies ae called £or by the Master Drainaae Plan. Theee channel im�rovementer here and el.�e6vhere along the creek, would be expected to improee the channel's ability to transmit stozymaater flows thereby reducing the 100 year flood el.evation and reducing the poBSibility af floodwater damages and threats to puk�lic safety. Because the request�d variance would thersfore hane an adverse effect upon an important phyaical syetem, the requeat is not consistent with the fourth variance approval criterion, Staff finds that the applicant hae fa3.led to state what hardship would exiat related to the requirement for flondplain dedication since this �` floodplain area is not buildable land under the C3.�y's regulations because the land in question within the floodplafn is primarily the actual stream channel of Fanno Creek. Therefore, staff is unals�e tc� find that the applicant'e regue�t would b�e the mxnimum variance which would rel.�eve an uncertain hardship. The fiftla varianae approval criterion is th�refore not met. The applicant's request for a variance from the floodplaS.n dedication requirement of Community Development Code Sectinn 18.120.080.A.8 is rxot supparted by adequate documentatian addreseing �he variance approval criteri.a. The variance request is therefore denied. Additi.onally, the Fngineering Division has noted that an adju�tment of the praposed building's location Hrill need to rie raad� in order to accommodate � the pathway and the futur� Ci�y-initiated relocation of the flaodplain �!,: bank a� well as to avoid ce�nflicts with existing sewers passing throuqh �+::'' the ait�. This ahould be accomplished on a revised site plan that will need to be largely coneistent with the site pZan ar�d landscaping plans that� have been xeviewed or elae a new Site Development Review application will be nec�ssary. Staff ca3.ls to the applicant's attention the provisiona of Code Sections 18.120.070 and .080 which limit the degree of modification from an approved site plan that may be reviewed �by �the ; director without a new application becoming necessary. �;;:: Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park Fanno Creek Park is a community park located along Fanno Creek between Main Street and SW Hall Boulevard in the Central Business Distriat. The site 1fe� within the 100-year floodplain and immediately abuts the sub�ect property along its sou�hweatern property line. It is hoped ttxat the entire park will eventually contain 35 acrea. The dedication of the land area withia the 100-year £loodplain and the eventual conatruction of a pathway in that area on the subject property is cansistent with the Citq's park plana for the area. In the City's Mast�r Plan for Fanno Creek Park, it is stated that Fanno Creek Park is intended �o become the focal point for comr�►unity, cultural, civic and recreational activities. A paved urban plaza, an amphitheater, an English wrater garden, pathwayea a t�a hous�e, a man-made enlargement of � NUTICE OF DECISION - 5DR 91-0005/1TAR 91-0010 - A-BOY/DOI,�fN 2 PAGE 20 >:<� t%�? ,;j ,#�=;� :tx'� �`+ - ... � .,,,... . ,�n , _ .k. r ` _� r , ; , � , , ` > � � 3 � , ,; �_: ,, : r . � - . ..:, - .. r ....:• ��.� , �:,._..;_ .... , . . ,.v.t::'. c t�.i.�. 4<.�.'.::;,j.l .., ' � • / � �� the exis�ing pond, ae well as preserved natural areas are all componemts for�aeen for this area. The proposed develapment prea�ntly undex review will abut this planned counmunity park, and at its closest laoint, would be no more than eight feet from the outer boundary pf the 100-year floodplain. The Engineering � Division has atated that the proposed atructure sho:�ld be at least 10 feet j away from the relacated outer bank in order to accommodate an eight foat " �'. wide patlaway and the planned reconstru�ction of the atorm drainage c:hannel i'; along the flo�d plain. This indicates that an adjustment to the placement ��y �;: of the buil.ding on the si�e wi11 be necessary in order to adequately ;,;:, accoapmodate the path and vegetative screening up to the relocated bank of �s� the storm drainag� channel. � �� b'Y � �,4. DIRECTOR'S DECI5I01�T i�` ��. The Community Development Director approves SDR 91.-0005 subject to the � fulfilLnent of the following conditions. The Direator denies the requested variance� attached to this application, i7ariance VAR 91-0010. UNLESS O'PHERWSSE NOTED, THE FOLLOWING COND�TIONS SHALL BE IiET PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERM2TS: 1. The applicant shall dedicate to the City as Greenway all portiona of � the sit� that fall with�.n the exi�ting 100-year floodplain (i.e., all portiona of the property below elevation 150.0j and all property 15 f�eet abovQ (to the eas� of) the 15G.0 foot floodplain boundary. A monumented boundary survey showing all new title lines, prepared i by a reg.istered profeesional land surveyor, ahall be submi.�t�d to the City for review and approval prior to recording. The building ehall be desi.gned so as not to intrude into the qreenway area. STAF'F CONTACT: Chr.is Davies, Engineering Division. � ' 2. The applicant shaTl obtain written approval from Unified S�w�rage � , Agency of Washington County for connection to the Unified Sewerage � � Agency trunk line prior to issuance of aPpblic improvement permit. � A copy nf the permit shal,l be submitted to the City of Tigard Engineering Depax�ment. ' STAFF CGNTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Division. � � 3. The applicant shall aubmit a revised site plan showing: J.) building , plans whiah ahow the proposed design and location of outdoor ': i lighting and rovftop meahanical equipment; �) the loca�ion and � 'I screening of the trash dieposal area; 3) the relocatian of the phase i one building outside of the greenraay area and out of conflict with � existi.ng sanitary sewer eat�ements; and 4) a minimum of two ¢� ! appropriately located designated handicapped aoce�eible parking � ', apaces. STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offe�, Planning Division. , � I 4. Th� applican� ahall submit a revised landscaping plan ehowzng: 1) � I s c r e e n i n g f o r t h e t r a s h d i s p o s a l a r e�; a n d 2) t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n o f t i� ' ,i NOTICE QF DECTSTON - SAR 4I-0005/VAR 9].-0020 -- A-BnY/DOx,AN 2 PAGE 21 ��A '. . fi;} �� `'� �� 'I �,x ii � �:.ij m,.- -._ ,� ........ ......„�.,_. ' � , . .,-�:, .-,.-,..,:n ..,..��.�: .;.,.—. ,"" -.--.*.^--rr-.� �'. ..; ._ . .. .. . ..-�-�.,.,..,,,:,.,. -..-... _... ,:.. :, „ �: <w.:� .�,�_�. � �, ,,�., , � � _,�,�..�.. �r�w��._.�x_a.,::�� .,,_...�:_ �M.:.�,..� + • , �� ,,p � street trees along the Main Street frontage �# tb�e efte to the east of the propoa�ed driveway. For pur��a�,� �f ��lcu:��ting tha required land�caped area (15$), the dedica��rl lsnd ixoted fn Condition No. 1. �° above may be included. The City ehall be responeib].e for �i` landecaping the lana dedicated to the gub�ic. STAFP' CO1�iTACT: Ron �' Bunch, Planr.ing Division. � �',, 5. The City Eng3:neerine� Diviafon shall �ocate anrl clearly mark the 100- �� Ye� �].QAdplain bounsdary prior to commenc�nent of con�t�re�ic�n. Floodplain boundarg► markezs ahall be maintained throughout the ��i periAd of construction. STAFF CONTACT: Chris Daviee, Sngineering '`�3 Division. �'' �� 6. A demolition permit shall be obtained prior to demolition or removal ��' : of any structurea on the ai��. The applicant shall notify Idorthweat k� ' Natural Gas prior to demolition. STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, ;� ; Building Diviaion. '4 �. � ��- 7. The applicant shall install an 8-foot tall solid plywood fence ' behind the eid�walk/public right-of-way along SW Main Street (from &a';� the 'sou�hFrestern property line to a minimum oE 20 feet b�yond the � t! new building to the northeast) prior to start of construction and 5' must r�main until all conetruction is complete (Uniform Building Code �ection 4407�c). STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Bui].cling �iviaion. 8. As part of the improvement plans the applicant shall eubmit detaila and cglculatic�n� that show the change in the amount of impervious surface area created by thie development. In addition, tYxe fee-in- lieu for water quality shall be paid. STAFF GANTACT: Chris Davies, Engineering Divieion. � � 9, The applicant ahall pa� the �raffic Impact Fees pr.ior to the � isauance of a Building Pereqit. The actual TIF will be based on the total grass equare f�otage sh�wm in the final appxoved design and I'� the trip rate in effect at �k�e time of Building Permit application. , ' STAFF CONTACT: Chri� Davies, Engineering Division. t I r: 10. An eroeion control plan shall be provided as part of the improvement �� drawir►gs� The plan shall conform to "Erosion Control Plans - �� Technical Guidance Handbook, November 1989." �,, I 1=y 11. The appliaant shall submit evidence tktat the propoaecl building does � not encroach upon the sanitary sewer easements that �ross the parcel ` or, altsrnately, submit evidence that the Onified �ewerage Agency �' doea not object �o any proposed encroachmento STAFF CONTACT: Chria �� Davies, Tsngineering� Division. ��r.� �� UNLESS i)THERw1ISI� NO°PED, T� FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALZ. BE SATISFSED PE2IOR �°�` TO ISSOANCE OF AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT: �� r� � NOTYCE OF AECISION - SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-0010 - A-BOY/DOLAN 2 PAGE 22 '� . t:' ;:� t�2 �� . 2 ..:1 9:. , l ..; �n.�� , �� '. . . .i . • �. Y .. ..� , , .. _ i ._ _ — �e�� ' i� �� i., ,� �� ; t,� z .—r— � r,� t �;v-� ��.,� , �r3.�.�nui_:�.......v.s;,..,s,u:�, �.�:��:......��.->.............�. ,,_._.e:�s�.<. ,.,..,...,...,......_......... . _:....._....,.:...,..>,...,��............._.:•;:,.:,,,�:.....�....-�ew<x,ti��....�...��.._.�,�w.,,w.._n,..,.:....,,� .,.,�m.cx_��..�,�a=..«w�w,,......,.o.....,..,...,....._ . � . .�� .�� S h � 12. Al1 landecaping materiala and other proposed site improvep�nta noted e 3.n Conditione 3. and 4 ahall be inetalled or financially assured � prior to ocaup�ncy ot any etreicture. STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer, { � �� Planning Division. �,� 33. All new signage muat receive approval by the Planning D�.vision prior �i� '; to being erected. 5TAFF CONTACT: Ron Pomeroy, Planning Div�.aion. � � �� r,', � 14. The two nonconfox�ming, amortized tsill.board signs �nd support �� struatures �ha11 be com�le��ly removed from the progerty pr�or to � occupancy of phase one of this d�velopment OR the applicant shall k ? submit any applicabl� legal document which prohibite thei.r removal. r `' STAF'F CONTACT: Ron Poroexoy, Planning Divi�ion. 15. As a condition of the occu�ancy permit, the �pplicant sha].l be required to replace any portions of the existing aidewalk along Main S�reet vahich are damag�d or in poor repair and to reconstruct any existi.ng curb cuts which are being abandaned. Prior to any work being started withi.n the public Right-of-Way the agplicant sha�l obtain a Street Opening permit from the Engineering Department. STAFF CONTACT: Chrig Davies, Engineering Division. _ �: �: 16. The exs.sting roof sign ehall bs permanently removed from the aubject x" progerty within 45 days of the issuance of the Occupancy Permit for the new builc�ing. STAFF CONTACT: Yton Pomeray, Planning Division. TIiIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR ETGHTSEN (18) MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF' THE FINAL BECISION. DECISION AND APPBAI. PROCEDLiRE ;` sted at Cit Hall � l. Notice: Notice was gubli�hed in the newspa�►er, po y and mailerl to: �' - � X The applicant and owners a� X Ov�ners of record within the �equired distance � X The affected Nea.ghborhQOd Planning Organization X Affected governmenfi agenci�s ± �. 2. Final Decision: THE I3ECISION SHALL BE FINAL ONV 4l. J UNLESS �� AN APPEAL IS FILED BY 3:30 P.M. ON THAT DAY. � 3, Apue�l: An� party to the decision may apgeal this deciaion in � accordance with Section 18.32.Z90(A) and Section 18.32.370 c�� the � Community DeveloLxaent Gode which provid�s that a written appeal must � be f3.led with the City Recorder within 10 days after notice bs gi.ven and sent. Appeal €ee schedule and forma are available a�t Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. �� 4. Questions: If you have question�, please call C3.ty of Tigard � Planning Department, Cit�r of Tigarr3 Citg Hal.l, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., �igard, �regon. NOTICE OF DEGISION - SDR 91-0005/VAR 91-0010 - A-BOYI�OLAN 2 PAGE 23 J ;`; : ,,, �:� . `'� �� . .�`, . . ' S , � . , ,.n.` . , . -- ''� "ax.d — — L�..u:..&i:. ......�..,.�_., �_,,..�w�,....�..a.�.,.:..ca:�.xmc,am.....�.:��.i......,.d.,...u,.e_....�.�,�.... ...,,.....�......,.....,.�..,.,.y,...,.�h,s.�..Up��.�5,._„v_r_..�,.�..�..�,a.:..,.m,�....,..,,.....�..,s...�.....u.,....m....r.�._,,,..,,�..�.�.............�.._,........_..._t.._....,_ . • . • �.�� .� .S`��o75/�/ APPROV'ED BY: D�.ck Bewe�e ff DATS Senior Planner br/SDR89-].3.ka �-. ��'. !°" �; , f� C� 1-- � � � �� ,- �; � . � s;. . �: : � I ':,:I _;i NQTIGE OF DECISION — SUR 9�—U005/�iAR 91-0010 — A—BOY/DOL4,N 2 PAGL 24 ; ,I �si i� ; rr--- � , �-�„- ri n � --.�- .,�., - _ � � � � r � „ . .. . . . . ,,. � . .,. _.:.i� �.�.,_.� _ � .. �. ..��:. � �'.�. . . .. ,_., _ � � ? ;� � � �t.� .,�f. .Y .�,'J. �t,tr- �-1�.�.,.J � ., �� o�� , � � � �►�•� � 3.� � � f I� �, � ♦1� . � � ' �`�► ��i � � � - .� ' � � ' ♦ � �` � � � ♦ . • o . I� ■ 1 �� i �i � � • ` � � ) ' �.. . �� i � ,�� ► ��. '��` '�� • �♦ � a � r ► , -�' � � * � ♦ _ I •� ♦ s� .1 , , �, �► � ♦ ` ' �,�, � , r► r� �► � �� ?�� « . _, - � �� '�i�.1��•v �'� .r ,��"'► . �� .� �� • , � �'� -o �:° � �� C _ � . ��_ � J■■ �► �� I ��` � � � •,� -� �� . � �� - �0 � � �� ■��.,.� -- _111 �1�� .. .� `��i�� III,��ill�li�a�■ �� 1� � ..-.� ♦ .�.. Itr .. ... 111.. ..�: � , ,� � � t s i ��, �,..a'a�"'i?w.,.--...uW�E,...,.......w.:,:tS:...+.�L::::.'Sa..a,:2waesu.wause.u,«.«sa.v..�w�e+�..s.:w�...:'w...i .,,.�_,�.��.�.�..�,.rn..�nsvm�.-u,.�m_mar�4- w........y,�rcrxsuc.�>;��a.s�nv��w. `�� .-W..u.,s.``.......m.:.•--. " "4 Hv,�+n:�m��iuuo.m � � � � ��'� �� KNAPPENBERCER & I�AENDEz JOSEPH Rs MEND� A`TTORNEYS AT lA1N FETER MILLER ALLAN�KNAPPEN�ERGER HbNEY,MN�1 HQUSE OF COUNSEI. 1318 S.W.12r►+AvE. POA7�nND,OREGON 97201-3367 FAx (503)294-0442 (503)2944317 � � March 12, 1991 JerrX Offer � 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. i P.O. Bo� 23397 . Tigard., Oregon 97223 �' ,:1; Re: Johri and Florence Dolan Si.te Development Review Appl.icatian D�ar Mr. dffere ' Please find enclosed herewi.th the Site Devei,apment Review �� Application, Applic�nt's Statement and Attachment A. ��,�' In the event� there is any problem with either the va�iance � dacuments, attachments or time lima.tations, please rrotify my office �.mmedia-tely. ;;� Thank you for your coope�cation and consideration in this matt�r. Very truly yours, KNAPPEp1$ ME EZ / os . d � � JRM.s P �n�a . ccs John Do1an 'I � � ?� `�.1 ;, � '�a :.,� 3 ' �� r ,., �PPL!C A-�l1 fiS �uSMI 77�-(.,_ �;a � '�:' �-.;Kw ,.ti ��--'', �� F �-r�r-� r-w �,. � . � �� :} ,� ' �� . .._ .. ,."x R ��'� . ,_ _. ..,° . ,., i. .. � � - — rW `°� � �.,<' . � ,� ,.. � �t ,�� i� •. ,�� .:r "'"?1 F.».0 i.i�:. s ` i.::_,_ i r �' �'�"`�� .,F"t��"`� . . , . � , ,� . „ � . ,. . .. . . }`� ;. � r� �; � > ' �_ .: . ... �tC�7.+a+lY'LL3_....�Y"+'�...:�.�L+YLi?':'.�'�W:ti.....i5:3v.��+::.�Ji:C'.�."C.�^L^✓�'::V:.�:�rtS.RirY%i�_Y:kS_,�a'�y �vww J+�+.�u..n�...:.a...u..I��+—.�C.:.'k`.'�i'i1...v...+L_—.-+.ui5+!uu....a::v"L.�1.1::.-.alut.S.JS.+.uvs..uuw:u, -.m .� � �i �: � 4 APPLZCANT'S STATENiEPIT ��e applicant is requesting variances with regard are feet dedicat,ions required which comprise approximately 7,000 sclu a ' or ten percent (10�) of the sub�ect parCel. V�riances regarding = the dedication of a11 portions of the p�oper�y below �he elevation , # ,, ' of 150 feet 'that fall wa.thin the existing 100 year floodp�ain and f a11 prope�ty fi�teen (15) feet above, to the east of 150 foot floodplain boundary which is intended to be used as � ' pedestrfa�n/bike Qa�h. In addition, the City has inapprogriately � charaCterixed an e.xisting sign as a roof sigri. The applicant requests that the �wall sign nat be xeq�irec� to be removed v�ri:thin the �or.ty=f�.ve day period set forth in the I3otice of Fin►al Order by City �ouncil wha.ch becarne final on February 5, 1990. ��. "�' � 1991. , �� , �; DATED th�:� 7_°°_' day of /r7 � 1 �� d�� ,ORENCE DqLAN � r � �; �� ¢ �g -:' � ( +1 � � � . . }'��, i '. ... , �. , �_ . � _ , ._ _ M^"�. C .sn-'+-�^ „^-;� r ;:,?'"""'{ -'i-` .� �a t' � uwu�:tJtY�.v�.--+�+Jt.t,u.:'+.J�..:i'U.,`1�?:•�,�.,.i.w".!}"�,.'t„-v'.w.1s:11:J16bSiC "fYV4Aa'_^.�'�u.�1�3�:sGita:_u:zJ:++.nu�u..»�e.rn.q � � ��.� �"! �cva+v+:�wss%iY.v�s�3W�r^.a:`.`R..'wirs.:u'.—.n5d.vx:t[�h1qLC:L�"u=..Ji"...�CV�.....gu,v..aazv.txaavax.re^mc�Ge.cnnu.�..vabmv�r " w.�..,.,..�.u..,.,,...�.,�.w.Md� ♦ .�� • ��rJ w�� . .. ATTACHI�iENT A The p�operty owner/deed holder is requesting approval of the variances listed belosa as consistent wi�th section 18.134 et Seq. of tlae code as follows: 1. V'ari,ance from the condition requiring dedication to the City as greenway� a11 portions of the cite that €all within the existing 100 year floedpl,aa:n �i..e. all portions of the property belbw e�:evation 150.0) and all praperty 15 f�et a�c�v� (t� �he �ast of; the 1-50.Q faot flqod plain boundary. 2, Variance from the condition requiring d�dicata,on of that portic�n of Petitioner's progerty for the purposes of a bike patl�. 3, Variance and th� requirement that the "xoaf sign" that the owner/deed holder ma�.ntains is not a "roof sign" and �hould be accurately characterized as a "wal.l sir�n" be removed within 45 days of occupancy of the new huilding. � : :;; .. ' . . . . ' . �'�.ii . . . ' � � . `:��'• I , , . . ' . .. _.. . _ S' � � � � � .. . � .. � .rz' .. � . . .. . . .. �� , � },� .. . .. . , � � .� . � . ��, , ,, . . ... � . _.. .. . .: . � „�`.�"".�. .., "�' �"'" ""=:7..r,.,"",F,,'_" .��..�.». �'^�.^','.'�'P..t� ,..f;...-,.-..- ;k.'�..«;�,,..-,.�-...,..�,.w...,� _ . ,, _ ' „� ; , , ��:: ,,� ;' > . , __.��. ..��tw_�,_,� ..�.��..:�s..:;�.�,u,.�.n.�.:.�,,,.�,t�,�..�. _ ��,.��.� `„l x_� ,aRr.�:�,�..�.�.�„�,,.�,�.o_�,.,.....�.�.n.....,.�,.W_. ' �� KNAPPENBERGER & MEfVDE� JOSEPH R.MENDE� ATTORNEYS AT LAW PETER MILLER ALI.AN F.KNAPPENBERGER HONEYMAN HOUSE OF COUNSEL 1318 S.W. 12TM AVE. — PORTLAND,OREQON J?2Q�-��7 FAX (503)294-0442 (503)294-4317 March 28, 1991 Jerry o€fer RECEIVED PlANNING 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Plan�ing Dep�,. �.o. soX 2��397 MAR 2 8 1991 Ti:gard, Oregon 97223 ;! 'i Re: John and Florence Da�.an Site Development Review Application Dear Mr. Offer: � Please find enclased �pplicant's Stat�ment of Justification ., f�r Variance, Construction Cost �s�i.mate and 15 copies of the site � plans. .°; ��;K If �ou have any ques�ions or concexns regarding the above, '�' please feel free to contact me. Thank you for �aur ��operation and consideration i.n this matter. :g,; -' �7ery truly yours, �': �; �; KNAPPENBER NDEZ ,� 4� � � o � R. M ez l JRM:sp Enc. i� � S s` f i —r-r -a ,w.:, ,..,�_�:. ,, :,,.. �..:.��—.,,......_..:.�.�;.: . �: � . ,. - [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing]