03/17/1993 - Packet AGENDA
NPO #3 MEETING
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 1993 - 7.00 P.M.
TIGARD CITY HALL ,
13125 SW HALL BLVD.
TIGARD, OREGON
City of Tigard
JOINT MEETING WITH NPO #7, 5 & 6 FOR THE FOLLOWING_
• Status of Tigard - Tualatin School District
Tigard- Tualatin School District Board member, Pat Biggs
• Proposed Amendments to Planned Development Provisions of Tigard
Community Development Code 18.80 - Dick Bewersdorff
JOINT MEETING WITH NPO #7 TO DISCUSS STREETS, BIKES, TRANSIT AND
PEDESTRIAN ACCESSIBILITY- Carol Landsman, Senior Planner
ADJOURN TO REGULAR MEETING
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: PORTER BISHOP FROUDE
GARNER HANSEN HELM
MORTENSEN
3. Approve Minutes from February 3, February 17 and March 3, 1993 meetings
(attached).
4. SUB 93-00021ZON 93-000111VAR 93-0004 AMES
A zoning map change from R-2 to R 3.5 for a 12.68 parcel, Subdivision preliminary
plat approval is requested to divide the 12.68 acre parcel into 29 lots ranging in size
from approximately 13,000 to 22,000 square feet, Subdivision Variance approval is
requested to the following street improvement standards:
a. A loop street with a 40 foot wide right-of-way and 28 foot pavement
width is proposed where Code Section 18.164.030.E requires a 50 foot
wide right-of-way and 34 foot pavement width.
b. Streets within the development are proposed without curbs whereas
Code Section 18.164.030N requires concrete vertical curbs.
C. Streets within the development are proposed without sidewalks where
Code Section 18.164.070A.1 requires sidewalks on both sides of
residential streets.
5. SDR 92-0021 RUBLE/PDG TACO BELL
Discussion of appeal to be presented at Planning Commission on March 22, 1993.
6. Review Notices of Decision received.
7. Other Business.
8. Adjournment
TO ENSURE A QUORUM TO CONDUCT BUSINESS, PLEASE CALL LIZ NEWFON AT
639-4171, EXTENSION 308 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND
h:\1ogin\jo\npo3-a
{ FEB-04-1993 10:42 FROM fE COMM&INDUST PROGRAMS TO • 96847297 P.02iO3
NPO #3 MIN ES
February 3, 1993
1. Joint meeting with NPO #7 called to order at 7: 00 p.m.
2. Herman Porter introduced the item of interest, the Gaarde St.
extension. Three proposals will go to City Council on
February 9, 1993 . They are the staff recommendation referred
to as "The Report" , which connects Gaarde to Walnut
approximately 300' east of 132 Ave. , the NPO #3
recommendation, connecting to 132 Ave. at Benchview, and the
NPO #7 compromise, which connects to 132 Av. south of Walnut.
3 . Staff still favors and recommends "The Report" option. It has
no steep grades, but will take two homes and per study will
carry about 10, 000 cars per day. NPO #3 option would curve
around the steep grades and carry about 5, 000 cars per day_
The NPO 47 option has not been computer analyzed, but it is
felt it would fall between the other two.
4 . A11 int'erPPt'Pd par.tips art=. Enc-oiirageci to attend the, City
Council meeting on February 9, 1993 ,
S . Joint meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
6 . NPO #3 called to order at 7:45 p.m. Present: Bishop, Froude,
Garner, Hansen, Mortensen, Porter_ Excused: Helm_
7. Minutes approved as written.
8 . Randy Wooley gave an update on Hot n'Now. The application has
been approved with the enforceable right turn only exit sign.
They may now proceed with building permit applications,
9 . Randy Wooley stated that Taco Bell has submitted an
application and it is being proeeascd. However, the process
is on hold while ODOT negotiates access for them from the
Pietro's driveway. ODOT prefers a shared access from the
Pictro'o drive and through the back of Hot n'Now onto Park St.
10 . Considerable discussion followed with approximately 40
neighbors expressing concern for the children using Park and
Watkins Streets to walk to both C.F. Tigard and Fowler
schools . Also, there is concern about safety on Highway 99
with stacking and turning across traffic.
11. Liz Newton encouraged everyone to write letters to the staff
and Planning Commission regarding their concerns about Taco
Bell during this comment period_ In the letter, request a
copy of the staff decision. All concerns must be expressed
before approval is given to the application. The NPO can
appeal on behalf of the neighborhood at no cost, citizens can
also appeal for a fee.
FEB-04-1993 10:43 FROM,6E COMM&INDUST PROGRAMS TO • 9Ge47297 P.03iO3
12 . Randy Wooley gave a brief overview of how street work is
prioritized using the Planners and the Comprehensive Plan.
The city wants sidewalks, funding is the issue. He suggested
that interested parties write a letter to him expressing their
desire to start a process of having city funds made available
for sidewalks on collector streets that serve children walking
to schools.
13 . MOTION: NPO #3 recommends to City Council that traffic safety
studies be done on any commercial development that will have
ingress and egress to and from a residential collector. NPO
#3 members passed the motion unanimously. Forty interested
citizens attending also voted unanimously in favor of the
motion.
14. MOTION: Request that the City of Tigard put a priority on
construction of sidewalks or asphalt paths and schedule them
in priority order based on safety needs with school areas
given the highest priority. Also put crosswalk and crosswalk
warning signs near schools. NPO #3 members passed the motion
unanimously, forty interested citizens also voted unanimously
in favor of the motion.
15. Seafirst/Gramor - MOTION: As an NPO that borders Highway 99w,
and in light of the concerns about traffic that is currently
generated by the Hollywood Video strip mall and future traffic
impact created by Hot n'Now and Taco Bell, we ask that a
traffic impact and management study be made for Main St. ,
Johnson St. and Ash St . We ask that this study cover both
external and internal traffic the development will create.
Make the results known to NPO #3 . Pawed unanimously.
16. Gaarde St. extension - MOTION: If the Report or the NPO #7
option is adopted, NPO #3 requests that a condition be placed
that the new street will not be completed until the arterial
on the west side of Bull Mountain is completed. This would
fit with the inter urban agreement regarding the extension of
Murray Rd. Passed unanimously.
17. MeeLlily adjourned aL 9 :20 p.w-
Respectfully submitted,
Lila Garner
r FEB-18-1993 11:07 FRO#GE COMM&INDUST PROGRAMS TO • 96847297 P.02
NPO #3 MINMES
February 17, 1993
1. A special meeting was called to prepare an appeal of the
Notice of Decision, Site Development Review SDR 92-0021 .
2 . Present - Bishop, Froude, Garner, Helm, Mortensen, Porter.
Absent - Hansen.
Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m.
3 . It was noted that the report title refers to the SDR as Taco
Time (Ruble) and in most places of the body, but occasionally
as Taco Bell. We assume that the development is to be a Taco
Bell as we had previously been informed.
4 . MOTION: NPO #3 asks for an appeal of the Notice of Decision
of SDR 92-0021 Ruble/PDG (Taco Time) (Taco Bell?) to satisfy
the concerns of the residents of NPO #3 as follows:
a. Approved and legal permits for shared access of the
driveway between tax lot 1800 and 1804 are filed and available
to the NPO before beginning development_
b. The information regarding Hot'n Now stated that it is to
be drive thru only, no inside seating, there should not be
shared parking for Taco Bell. Reter to the last paragraph of
page 2 regarding six parking spaces to be partially located on
lot 1900 . This does not follow the original specifications of
the Hot'n Now development.
c. Page 4, item C (ODOT comments) states that a traffic study
May be required. NPO #3 requests that the traffic study must
be required.
d. Page 9, Code Section 18 . 106.060 .A - NPO #3 asks for a
clarification regarding possible site modifications and a
requirement that tax lot 1900 cannot be used to accommodate
the needs of tax lot 1804 _ Using tax lot 1900 for stacking to
lot 1804 is unacceptable to NPO #3 .
e. Page 9 , Chapter 18. 108 - in light of the statement that
"Adequate access to the site would be provided by the
combination of the shared driveway from SW Pacific Highway and
the gonnegtion to SW Park Street to the north through the
approved Hot'n Now development" , NPO #3 asks that a center
turn lane be established on SW Park St. This request
coordinates with the last sentence on page 12, item 7
regarding maintaining "existing levels of traffic safety" on
SW Park St.
f. Page 12, item 7 - states that the applicant shall provide
a traffic study. NPO #3 asks that this traffic study by the
applicant be required, complete and presented to our NPO
before final approval is given to the development .
g. NPO ##3 asks for a waiver of the appeal fee.
Motion passed unanimously.
FEB-18-1993 11:07 FROM PGE COMM&INDUST PROGRAMS TO 96847297 P.03
5. Other business - MOTION: NPO #3 asks that all NPO's be invited
and have an agenda jr-em on r.he March, 1993 City Council
special worksession to discuss the functioning of the NPO' s.
Motion passed unanimously.
6. Meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lila Garner
f
MAR-04-1993 08:34 FRO*E COMM&INDUST PROGRAMS TO • 96847297 P.02i02
NPO #3 MINUTES
March 3, 1993
1. A special meeting was called to discuss the Notice of
Amended Decision for the Site Development Review SDR 92-
0021, 12uhIP/PTX; (Taco Bell) .
2 . Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m.
3 . Present - Bishop, Froude, Garner, Hansen, Helm, Mortensen,
Porter.
4. MOTION: NPO #3 amends the appeal request of February 17,
1993 to drop items A through D of point 4 in the February
17th minutes_ NPO #3 will carry forward the request to
appeal items E & F of point 4. Passed unanimously.
5_ It is understood that the appeal of the Taco Bcll
development is to be on the March 22, 1993 Planning
Commission meeting.
6 . Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
I
Respectfully submitted,
Vila Garner
I
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: NPO's 3 ,5,6,&7
FROM: Dick Bewersdorff
DATE: February 19, 1993
SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments to Planned Development Provisions of
T.D.C. (18.80)
On March 17, 1993 , we will be having a joint meeting with above
listed NPO's to discuss proposed changes to the City's planned
development procedures. Attached is a copy of a report and
ordinance language reviewed by the Planning Commission on January
25, 1993 . After NPO review, the Commission will hold another
public hearing and then make a recommendation to the City Council.
The proposal attempts to provide flexibility for both the
Commission and developer to negotiate better development design.
Also included is a proposal to consider removing the PD overlay
designation from properties in six areas. Based on testimony
regarding the necessity for the designation in these six areas, the
Commission will determine which, if any, to remove.
AGENDA ITEM 5.3
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner
DATE: December 9, 1992
SUBJECT: Planned Development Provisions of T.D.C.
One of the projects on staff's task list is a review of the
Development Code's Planned Development procedures. The following
briefly describes the existing Planned Development process and
provides some suggested changes and draft ordinance provisions for
your review. A memo similar to this was reviewed by the Planning
Commission in September. The next step in the review requires that
the Commission hold a public hearing on the draft ordinance
provisions and the accompanying zone changes and then make a
recommendation to the City Council.
The material included in this packet provides background
information, a brief analysis of the existing Planned Development
regulations, a summary of recommendations, results of the initial
Planning Commission review, maps indicating areas where the PD
designation would be removed and proposed new code language. No
comments were received from the NPO's on a similar memo sent
October 29, 1992.
Background
The City of Tigard's Planned Development provisions (Chapter 18.80)
of the development code act as a "floating" zone that can be
applied to property to encourage planned environments through the
use of flexible standards.
The existing ordinance has three elements of the approval process:
approval of the overlay zone, approval of the concept plan and
approval of the detailed plan. Planned developments are processed
in the same manner as a zone change with approval after a hearing
by the Planning Commission. The concept plan is approved at the
same time as the zone change. The detailed plan is reviewed by the
Community Development Director.
Planned Developments are allowed on all lands shown on the
comprehensive plan map as "Developing Areas" . The development code
indicates that planned developments shall not be allowed in
0
residential zones designated as "Established Areas" unless the
Planning Commission can find that:
1. Development in accordance with the provisions of the
"Established Area" would:
o result in an inefficient use of land;
o result in removing significant natural features; or
o result in a change of the character of the area
surrounding a significant historic feature or building;
2 . The planned development approach is the most feasible method
of developing the area; and
3. The site is of a size and shape that the compatibility
provisions of Chapter 18.92 (Density Computations) can be met.
Planned Developments in the City of Tigard allow uses of the
underlying zone. The existing provisions do not allow mixture of
uses from other zones. Some development codes allow mixing of
single family, multi-family and commercial uses.
The City has also chosen to predesignate certain sites with the PD
designation to require special review by the Planning Commission.
Examples include the Triangle commercial area and the general
commercial area along the east side of Highway 99, north of the
-Albertson's shopping center.
Analysis
While the intent of the PD provisions is to provide flexibility and
innovation, in reality, the provisions only provide for a Planning
' Commission hearing and the ability to average lot sizes. Other
i than these provisions, PD's add little that cannot already be done
by conventional development according to existing code standards.
PD's are still required to meet ordinance standards for off-street
parking, density, access, signs, setbacks, etc. Section 18.80. 190
allows the Planning Commission to grant minor (10%) exceptions to
yard, parking and signs requirements but this type of structure
(limited exception process) tends to stifle innovation. Planned
developments can be more innovative if not required to follow more
than the minimum of specific standards. In addition, by placing
the PD designation on selected properties, the City can actually
slow the development process without significant gain.
PD ordinances can provide other benefits not now listed in the
Tigard code to encourage innovative development. These include
density bonuses, mixed uses, greater provision of open space as
well as the potential to negotiate trade-offs.
The majority of the existing PD designations listed on the zoning
map are the result developers wishing to utilize the lot size
averaging provisions. Some of the predesignated designations may
in fact complicate and inhibit development. These are shown on
attached maps and include:
1. Pacific Highway C-G zone between Durham and Naeve
2. Old Seafirst property CBD-PD zone between Main/Pacific Highway
intersection and Ash
3. R-12 PD between Ash and Hill Streets
4. Tigard Triangle CG-PD
5. R-12 PD Omara and Hall
6. R-7 PD 79th Avenue
All other PD designations on the zoning map appear to be the result
of developer requests and have approved plans or relate to
protection of specific resource such as the Little Bull Mountain
trees.
Summary of Recommendations
Since existing PD regulations do relatively little to enhance
development practices, in some ways inhibit development, and other
code standards provide adequate protection, the following code
changes are suggested (proposed code language attached) :
o Remove the PD designation from all properties in the areas
listed above. This would require zone changes for the areas
listed. Properties with designation required by the
Comprehensive Plan and those parcels developed under PD
approved plans would retain a PD designation.
o Add a new provision under Section 18.92 to allow lot area to
be averaged in any subdivision processed under 18. 160 as long
as the average lot size equals the density provided for in the
underlying zone.
o Add provisions in the PD ordinance to provide the mixing of
uses -- single family, duplex and multifamily dwellings as
well as accessory services and commercial uses directly
serving the PD in residential zones; and limited multifamily
(25 percent of gross floor area) in commercial zones at R-40
standards. (Section 18.80.070)
o Consider using code standards for PD's as guidelines for
determining alternatives or tradeoffs except those relating to
perimeter treatment and density. (Revise 18.80. 120 Approval
Standards and 18.80. 190 Exceptions to Underlying Zone. . . . )
If the same standards that apply to conventional development
apply to PD's, there is little reason to use the PD process.
o Consider allowing residential density bonuses up to 10 percent
if a developer uses the PD approach and provides amenities
such as open space.
o Indicate flexibility for negotiated tradeoffs--such relaxation
of zoning standards and possibly added density for
landscaping, open space, public use etc.
o Delete Section 18.80.060 (Planned Development Allowed and
Disallowed) . This is the section that relates to established
and developing areas. Restricting the use of the PD process
by these definitions has no practical purpose and with the
criteria it is not difficult to justify the use in established
areas.
o Delete Section 18.80.90 Applicability of Site Development
Review Chapter entirely since the PD process provides detailed
plans equal to those of site development review.
o Add new descriptive and site plan submittal requirements as
part of the conceptual plan submittal.
o Revise the conceptual plan and detailed plan submittal
requirements to clearly differentiate between the two.
o Require conceptual plan submittals to include conceptual
guidelines for such things as building heights, sizes, areas,
roof shapes, exterior materials, and types of parking areas;
and architectural drawings showing typical elevations and
floor plans as part of the detailed development plan
submittal.
Initial Planning Commission Review
In its initial review of the Planned Development suggestions, the
Planning Commission expressed the need to look at the level of
detail required for concept plan approval, the need for mixing uses
with restrictions to address the needs of the immediate community
and clarification of how design criteria would be applied.
In regard to the level of detail of plan submittals, there are two
basic means of addressing the issue. One concept is to get much of
the detail up front so that those reviewing the plans (P.C. ,
neighborhoods, and staff) can be assured that final plans will not
vary significantly from what is approved. The final plan is to
wrap up the design specifics and not to reopen negotiations and
policy considerations. The other method is approve only general
design concepts with a second round of detailed review at a later
stage. This can reduce initial design costs but can also string
out the development approval process much longer and add costs in
that way. It many times requires the final detailed plans as a
third step. Because the proposed changes involve the type of
Tanned development that allows the applicant to
P P PP propose mixed uses
and design flexibility, the applicant should be required to
identify all uses in various locations and specify all regulatory
development standards--yards, height, project density, housing
types, lot coverage, building coverage, etc. in the initial review.
This is also consistent with existing practice and proposals made
for revising the PD process over the last five years.
Mixing of uses implies that uses within a development can be
satisfactorily mixed and compatible with proper design. Safeguards
can be negotiated or can be conditioned through the review process.
Design elements and layout are left to the applicant who must
convince the public and Planning Commission of the merits of his
proposal in exchange for flexibility and limited density bonuses.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the
City Council that: ( 1) the provisions in Exhibit "A" and (2) zone
changes to remove the PD designation from the six areas listed in
this memo be approved. ' r
1 , ILI
j
1 R- 7
DO
�r
2 fI f y
6 i
N
tx)
Njcot 'w
i
MIN
CAone
•: �� � ♦1�
-gas
MI.■11�
■ . l3Elli��
nil
APson Ism.. �
�fl■ ALL- `� �f� �.�
_ - ■� ■ .. 'I� • •l • ■tom
■
t
` L\•b Z6 ` ♦ T�`
_ _ T
s a
V
J HF--i �� • !�►
I� w � f 1 (� ✓ \
- MITER fA - 5 a.
1 -
LW-
:♦ � 1.-� � � ��: 1 ' ' �-� I � �' � '' I �.
Fl
- -'
1• ` � � �
r i � 1-air
l
I
rel.. � ► ' "• �
�IIS► �� �`��y.-i��= ,
1�1� ■a Its►�� ��i
III �r . � ,� •.� ��
i:no
SOME
V JM
oil
WA
ISO
111► . :C C 111 �rVow
for-lilyy
�.. ,i���l ■ :� y i 11 ■�iLl SII f
gongs
�;:�/Iu � 11 =� Intl 1 ■■ , �Y
� �11111 �/ ► ► �I�I.��.hllll �
\ r
■� ml .���� ��17 ■■■ 7 i■ i
EXHIBIT "A"
18.66.070 Permitted Uses
A. 3. Residential Use Types
[e. All lands bounded by Fanno Creek, Hall
Boulevard, Omara, Ash Avenue and Hill Street
within the CBD shall be designated R-12 PD and
shall be developed as planned developments in
conformance with the R-12 district standards. ]
e. [f. ] Children's day care;
f. [g. ] Family day care;
g_[h. ] Residential care facility
[18.80.060 Planned Development Allowed and Disallowed
i
A. A planned development shall be allowed on all lands shown
on the comprehensive plan map as "Developing Area. (See
Section 18.138.030. )
B. A planned development shall not be allowed in residential
zones located in areas designated as "Established Areas"
on the comprehensive plan map except, the Commission may
approve a planned development within an " Established
Area" where the Commission finds:
1. Development of the land ina ccordance with the
provisions of the "Established Area" would:
a. Result in an inefficient use of land;
b. Result in removing significant natural
features; or
C. Result in a change of the character of the
area surrounding a significant historic
feature or building; ]
18.80.070 Applicability and Allowed Uses
A. In all residential zones, planned development approval
permits the mixture of uses subject to the density
provisions of the underlying zone and the density bonus
provisions of 18.80.120 A.2.a. . The following uses are
allowed with planned development approval: [In addition
to the use allowed outright in an underlying residential
zone the following uses are allowed outright where all
other applicable standards are met: ]
1. All uses allowed outright in the underlying zone;
2. Single family detached and attached residential
units;
3. Duplex residential units;
4. Multi-family residential units;
5. Manufactured homes;
6. Accessory services and commercial uses directly
serving the planned development only and which are
customary or associated with, but clearly
incidental to the residential uses permitted in the
zone;
Community building;
8. [2. ] Indoor recreation facility; athletic club, fitness
center, racquetball court, swimming pool, tennis
court, or similar use;
9. [3 . ] Outdoor recreation facility, golf course, golf
driving range, swimming pool, tennis court, or
similar use; and
I
10. [4. ] Recreational vehicle storage area.
B. In all commercial zones, planned development approval
permits the uses permitted outright in the underlying
zone and, in addition, a maximum of 25 percent of the
total gross floor area may be used for multi-family
dwellings in those commercial zones that do not list
multi-family dwellings as an outright use. [In all
commercial and industrial planned developments the uses
permitted outright shall comply with the underlying
zoning district. ]
C. In all industrial planned developments the uses permitted
outright shall comply with the underlying zoning
district.
18.80.080 Applicability of the Base Zone Provisions
[B. All other provisions of the base zone shall apply except
as modified by this chapter. ]
[18.80.090 Applicability of Site Development Review Chapter
A. The provisions of Chapter 18.120 shall apply to all uses
except as provided by Section 18.120.020. (Ord. 89-06;
Ord. 83-52) ]
18.80.90f100] Phased Development
18.80. 100f110] Application, Submission Requirements: Conceptual
Development Plan
A. 4. A legal description of the total site proposed for
development, including a statement of present and
proposed ownership and present and proposed zoning;
5. A statement of planning objectives to be achieved
by the planned development through the particular
approach proposed by the applicant. This statement
should include a description of the character of
the proposed development and the rationale behind
the assumptions and choices made by the applicant;
6.— A development schedule indicating the approximate
dates when construction of the planned development
or stages of the planned development can be
expected to begin and be completed;
7. A statement of the applicant's intentions with
regard to the future selling or leasing of all or
portions of the planned development such as land
areas, dwelling units,etc. ;
8. Quantitative data for the following: total number
and type of dwelling units; parcel size; proposed
lot coverage of buildings and structures; gross and
net residential densities; total amount of open
space; total amount of nonresidential construction
including a separate figure for commercial or
institutional facilities; and other studies as
required by the review authority such as
transportation or traffic studies, economic
feasibility studies or market analysis and public
utility plans;
C. The conceptual development plan, data, and narrative
shall include the following:
1. Existing site conditions, 18.80.120[130] ;
2. A site plan [concept] , Section 18.80.130 [150] ;
3 . A general grading and drainage concept plan; [A
grading concept, Section 18.80.160; ]
4 . A general landscape plan indicating materials and
plants
used for all open space areas- [A landscape
concept, Section 18.80.170; ]
• i
5. Conceptual guidelines for structures including
building height, sizes, areas, roof shapes,
exterior materials and types of parking areas; [A
sign concept, Section 18.80.180; ] and
6. A copy of all existing or proposed restrictions or
covenants. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52)
18.80.110[120] Approval Standards
A. The Commission shall make findings that the following
criteria are satisfied when approving or approving with
conditions[ , ] the concept plan. [or] The Commission shall
make findings that the criteria are not satisfied when
denying an application.
2. Except as noted, [T]the provisions of the following
chapters shall be [met] utilized as guidelines. A
planned development need not meet these
requirements where a development plan provides
alternative designs and methods, if acceptable to
the Commission, that promote the purpose of this
section. In each case, the applicant must provide
findings to justify the modification of the
following standards. The developer may choose to
provide or the Commission may require additional
open space dedication, provision of additional
amenities, additional landscaping or tree planting
in return for modification of the following
standards.
a. Chapter 18.92, Density Computation and
Limitation; Density shall, unless as
authorized below, be governed by the density
of the underlying zone. The Commission may
further authorize a density bonus not to
exceed ten (10) percent for open space,
character, identity and architectural and site
variation incorporated in the development.
These factors must make a substantial
contribution to objectives of the planned
development. The degree of distinctiveness
and the desirable variation achieved shall
govern the amount of density increase which
the Commission may approve according to the
following:
1. A maximum of three (3 ) percent is allowed
for the provision of undeveloped common
open space;
2. A maximum of three (3 ) percent is allowed
for landscaping, street scape, oven
spaces and plazas , the use of existing
landscape and vegetation, pedestrian way
treatment and recreational areas.
3. A maximum of three (3) percent is allowed
for visual focal points, use of existing
Physical factors such as topography.
view, sun and wind orientation,
circulation pattern , physical
environment, variation in building_
setbacks and building grouping.
4. A maximum of three (3 ) percent for street
section, architectural style, harmonious
use of materials, parking areas broken by
landscape features and varied use of
housing types.
j_ Chapter 18.88 Solar Access Requirements;
18.80.120[130] Site Conditions
A. The site analysis shall include:
1. A vicinity map showing the location of the property
in relation to adjacent properties, road,
pedestrian ways and bikeways, transit stops, and
utility locations [access] ;
5. The location of [Potential] natural hazard areas
including:
a. Floodplain areas (100-year floodplain and
flooding) ;
f. Slopes in excess of 25 percent;
18.80.130 Site Plan
A. The proposed site plan shall be at the same scale as the
site analysis and shall include the following
information:
1. The proposed site and surrounding properties;
2. Contour line intervals (see Section 18.80.120 A. 3) ;
3 . The location, dimensions and names of all:
a. Existing and platted streets and other public
ways and easements on the site and on
adjoining properties; and
b. Proposed streets or other public ways and
easements on the site.
4. The location and dimensions of:
a. The entrances and exits on the site:
b. The parking and circulation areas;
C. Loading and service areas;
d. Pedestrian and bicycle circulation;
e. Outdoor common areas; and
f. Utilities.
5. The location, dimensions and setback distances of
all:
a. Existing structures, improvements and
utilities which are located on adjacent
Property within 25 feet of the site and are
permanent in nature.
b. Proposed structures, improvements and
utilities on the site.
6. The location of areas to be landscaped;
7. The location and type of outdoor lighting with
special consideration to crime prevention
i techniques;
8. The location of mailboxes;
9. The locations of proposed utility lines; and
10. The location of all structures and their
orientation.
18.80.150 Detailed Development Plan Submission Requirements:
A. The site plan shall be at the same scale as the site plan
for the conceptual plans [as the site conditions, ] and
shall show the following:
1.
B. [18.80.160] Grading and Drainage Plan
[A. ] The grading and drainage plan shall be at the same
scale as the site plan [site conditions] and shall
include the following:
1.
C. Architectural Drawings
1. The site plan proposal shall include:
a. Floor plans indicating the square footage of
all structures proposed for use on-site; and
b. Typical elevation drawings of each structure.
r D. [18.80.170] The Landscape Plan
i
1.
E. [18.80.180] Sign Drawings
[A. Specify location and size. ]
1. Dimensions of all signs proposed for the
development site; and
2. A site plan for freestanding signs showing
location; and
1. Diagrams showing the dimensions of all wall signs;
[18.80.190 Exceptions to Underlying Zone, Yard, Parking, and
Sign Provisions and the Landscaping Provisions] Section
deleted in its entirety
18.80. 160[200] Shared Open Space
r
18.92.040 Lot Area Averaging
A. For any land division processed under Chapter
18.160 , lot size may be averaged to allow lots
less than the minimum lot size allowed by the
underlying zone as long as the average lot
area for all lots and private open space is
not less than that allowed by the underlying
zone. No lot area shall be less than 80
percent of the minimum lot size allowed in the
zone.
MAR-08-1993 08:01 FROM PGE COMM&INDUST PROGRAMS TO 96847297 P.01iO3
B-ao iia
PGE 2157(Nov 89)
Portland General Electric Company
121 SW Salmon Street, Portland Oregon 97204
FAX COVER SHEET Fill Out Form Cornpletelyl
Date. -
To
At
Verification hone FAX No.
From A& Phone
Number of Pages (including cover sheet)
Remarks
-
�J �U
MAP.-08-1993 08:01 FROM PGE COMM&INDUST PROGRHMS TO 96847297 P.02iO3
• •
MEMORANDUM
March 5, 1993
To: LiZ Newton
From: Lila Carncr
Subject: Explanation of amended appeal sent to the City of
Tigard in NPO #3 minutes dated March 3, 1993
1. NPO #3 will not pursue Concern A because:
- page 5, item 3c in the Notice of Amended Decision states
that "the amended decision will require the applicant to
submit copies of the access permit, casements, and traffic
study for NPO 3 review and comment at least two weeks prior
to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed
development" .
- page 14, item c3 , "The applicant shall submit a copy of
the easements for NPO 3 review and comment at least two
weeks prior to the issuance of a building permit for the
proposed development" .
- page 14, item c5, "The applicant shall submit a copy of
Llle access permit for NPO review and comment at least two
weeks prior to the issuance of a building permit for the
proposed development" .
- Lhe key statement in our decision to no longer pursue
Concern A is on page 14, item c3 , "Joint use and maintenance
agreements (easements) shall be executed and recorded. . . . . "
Also, "The dyreemeaLs shall be referenced on and become part
of all applicable parcel deeds" .
2 . NPO #3 will not pursue Conc;erii B because:
- page 11, Chapter 18. 106, since minimum code required
parking spaces are being provided on each lot we felt that
we cannot influence at change to this concern_
3 . NPO #3 will not pursue Concern C because:
- our request that the applicant be required to provide a
report done by a traffic engineer of the volume and impact
of additional traffic on the streets adjoining the
development and submitted to us two weeks prior to issuance
of a building permit that is stated in several places in the
Notice of Amended Decision appears to satisfy this concern.
4 . NPO #3 will not pursue Concern D because:
- the 8 .5 X 11 inch version of the revised site plan that
was submiLLed Lo the Nk0 on March 3, 1993, showing the
stacking design for about 10 vehicles on the east and south
of the Taco Bell building appears to be acceptable.
S . NPO ##3 will continue the appeal of Concern E because:
- the issue of sharing the Park St . ingress/egress to be
_ MAR-08-1993 08:02 FROM PGE COMM&INDUST PROGRAMS TO 96847297 P.03iO3
used by both Hot'n Now and Taco Bell continues to be of
great concern to the neighborhood. We wish to appeal and
receive some firm decisions regarding a center turn lane on
Park St. and other possible street improvements . As has
been stated on several occasions, the concern by the
neighborhood for the safety of our children walking to
school as well as all pedestrians walking on Park St . to
destinations near the highway cannot be underestimated.
G. NPO #3 will continue the appeal of Concern B because:
- we want the now required traffic study to describe what
off site improvements will be made_