Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PDR2000-00001
PPRZ0000Ooo ( 0 ,41111 .4.44.111, CITY OF TIGARD Community(Development - SFiapingA Better Community (: LAND USE PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION 1 120 DAYS=7/12/2000 FILE NO(S).: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(P01 2000-00001 SENSITIVE LAND REVIEW ESLR12000-00005 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT EMIS12000-00002 FILE TITLE: TRI-COUNTY CENTER-OPTION 1 APPLICANT: Ed Christensen OWNERS: Gordon R. Martin, Gordon S. Martin, Christensen Engineering and Sheila Martin 7150 SW Hampton, Suite 226 12265 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Owners of Additional MUE zoned lots: 01300 Michael F. Laurens 7315 SW Hermoso Way 01400 Gordon S. Martin 12265 SW 72ND Avenue 01401 Jason E. &Carolyn L. Philips 7355 SW Hermoso Way 01402 Rodney C. & Margaret Lyman 7395 SW Hermoso Way 01403 Mary Manley 7453 SW Hermoso Way 01404 Marvin Von Renchler 7475 SW Hermoso Way REQUEST: This is a request for a conceptual plan review as a Planned Development for the new construction of a 297,179 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; and a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership. A prior request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Water Resource Overlay District including fill and mitigation of a portion of the existing wetlands was granted on June 23, 1998 and became effective July 23, 1998 by Final Order of the. Tigard City Council; The 1998 City Council decision also included a Planned Development Review, Site Development Review and Lot Line Adjustment for a detailed plan for this site. However, this new proposal differs from the prior plan and therefore requires a new land use application and approval for a Planned Development, Sensitive Lands Review,and a Lot Line Adjustment. LOCATION: The site is located on the south side of SW Dartmouth Street and on the west side of SW 72nd Avenue and is east of State Highway 217. The site also includes the 6 lots along the north side of Hermoso Way. The site address is 12265 SW 72nd Avenue; WCTM 1 S136CD,Tax Lot 04200; 2S101 BA, Tax Lots 00100, 00101, 00300, 00400, 00401 and 00402; 2S101 AB, Tax Lots 01300, 01400, 01401, 01402, 01403, 01404. COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial and Mixed Use Employment. ZONE: C-G (PD)and MUE. APPLICABLE Community Development Code Chapters: 18.350, 18.360, 18.390, 18.410, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, REVIEW CRITERIA: 18.725, 18.730, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795, and 18.810: CIT AREA: East CIT FACILITATOR: List Available Upon Request DECISION MAKING BODY: , COMMENTS SENT: March 24, 2000 DUE: April 7,2000 ❑ STAFF DECISION DATE OF DECISION: ❑ HEARINGS OFFICER DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:00 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF HEARING: May15,2000 TIME: 7:30 ❑ CITY COUNCIL —_ DATE OF HEARING: TIME 7:30 PROJECT RELATED COMPONENTS AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING IN THE PLANNING DIVISION El VICINITY MAP ❑x NARRATIVE ❑x ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS El ARCHITECTUAL PLAN 0 SITE PLAN El LANDSCAPING PLAN El GRADING PLANS ID OTHER(MISC. INCLUDING GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND NOISE STUDY) STAFF CONTACT: Karen Perl Fox.Associate Planner (503) 639-4171 Ext. 315 i' Page l of l Scott: We looked over the plan; Brian Rager has also looked at it. Conceptually, it looks like it will satisfy the Planning Commission's condition of approval. Obviously, the whole plan will depend on meeting all the conditions of approval through a detailed review. Brian indicated that the connection to Hermoso is fine but will need an eyebrow corner. See Washington Co. standard M-405.5. In detailed review we will need to know more about • ho},'the street will function with the building entrance. I also wonder about the configuration for trucks leaving - tht western Dartmouth exit/entrance and conflict with customers. t" Dick Bewersdorff dick a(�ci.tigard >>> "Scott Franklin" <sfranklin @pacland.com> 04/24/02 04:46PM >>> Dick- As we discussed, attached is a of image of what we are proposing to do with our Hermosa Way street connection. As we've discussed, utilizing lot 4 as a connection to Hermosa is no longer an option. The Condition on the "2000" plan approval indicates that a minimum 24-ft wide private street connection to Hermosa must be provided. In order to accomplish this, we have moved the building north, and have provided a 30-ft wide connection in front of the store. To better identify this connection, we have provided a sidewalk along the east side of the drive, with patterned, textured concrete across the adjacent drive aisles. There will be a more significant concrete area on the store-side of this drive. We believe this approach satisfies the Condition of Approval. Please review and let's discuss at your earliest convenience. If I'm not available, please ask for Jim Towslee or Joe Geivett. Thanks, / Scott Franklin Pacific Land Design ph (503)659-9500 fax (503) 659-2227 <<tigrs2C24.tif>> file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}00005.HTM 4/25/02 • • Page 1 of 1 Dick- As we discussed, attached is a of image of what we are proposing to do with our Hermosa Way street connection. As we've discussed, utilizing lot 4 as a connection to Hermosa is no longer an option. The Condition on the "2000" plan approval indicates that a minimum 24-ft wide private street connection to Hermosa must be provided. In order to accomplish this, we have moved the building north, and have provided a 30-ft wide connection in front of the store. To better identify this connection, we have provided a sidewalk along the east side of the drive, with patterned, textured concrete across the adjacent drive aisles. There will be a more significant concrete area on the store-side of this drive. We believe this approach satisfies the Condition of Approval. Please review and let's discuss at your earliest convenience. If I'm not available, please ask for Jim Towslee or Joe Geivett. --ti Thanks, Scott Franklin Pacific Land Design ph (503) 659-9500 fax (503) 659-2227 <<tigrs2C24.tif5> file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}00005.HTM 4/25/02 ` . • Page 1 of 1 Dick- As we discussed, attached is a of image of what we are proposing to do with our Hermosa Way street connection. As we've discussed, utilizing lot 4 as a connection to Hermosa is no longer an option. The Condition on the "2000" plan approval indicates that a minimum 24-ft wide private street connection to Hermosa must be provided. In order to accomplish this, we have moved the building north, and have provided a 30-ft wide connection in front of the store. To better identify this connection, we have provided a sidewalk along the east side of the drive, with patterned, textured concrete across the adjacent drive aisles. There will be a more significant concrete area on the store-side of this drive. We believe this approach satisfies the Condition of Approval. Please review and let's discuss at your earliest convenience. If I'm not available, please ask for Jim Towslee or Joe Geivett. Thanks, Scott Franklin Pacific Land Design ph(503) 659-9500 fax (503) 659-2227 <<tigrs2C24.tif5> I 'Cb h►.a� ��c w�+�'Go►J drsi� 4,.../L,At,B �1N� R.67 'T l�tfl2AK., rfd l Cp ,,,,,, F �«� t C � TT' ' + cj� D��A�- N . • if-(24)Z- file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW)00005.HTM 4/25/02 • ..--; a)! ; J) co! 'a..! i LNIKANCL I / '■/ / 7./'' . (DRIVEWAY A) /,,,,, / ,,..—TRUCK ACCESS .. '/' „. 'I' - --. INGRESS/EGRESS '6•ETLAND/SIREAN AREA \///, 4 , . .. :!...ND i .• s........'".`:-..,:-..,.."..,...,...-5"" IA R r,i, / // ?t,,./.••••...,,....., .. s.w. -.. Pti‘INIIJ WALL 'WETLAND/STREAM AREA.---4---';;::...•.--,.... ''T 0)) 1 - ..,,,,--...---............ ' --: ... r il ).W/EliAtt:LNK FLALL ---,_,_,_77,-'!-'7 , --•-• ... TAltlItlr-.... ,,.4., ,,,.s• I..___BL,DG A , 1 I!I I/.771'."4. ---" " ic--4- if C.('/ • -Sr WALL ..„\\ . HOESIRIAlt ,.....,,... • 1 H I I H I I I .. ;. FAIN - CH®,,, , -2 WETLAND/STREA.M A ,' 1 L--11-1-1-11+-10( ----- J.,.:/r--------"--'7.---\ \I— • : \-1 H I I ' \.___. ••1>- -<1 LBLDO B _ •IIIIIIIIIIIF / ,I ,6 .., WES AREA 10E6 -5i ,_, P iii 1 ‘7.SCO ST IIIIII . ' , ® . 1-- '.. ® 1 . 1 t.. V 1 E= e .'121-- mil III® I II - - -1 l- a ® : 1 l . 11 - — I I . 11 Id® . , . __ __ WAS(GSM;Si•14S.S77 ER•MU //\ ' • H H I-1- .,_„ I .• / ® (..D . ‘ "'." _) . ilJtH II I LIIII 11 . . . :. ._ .... ,..., , :1: . ... s :1111=I-4-® Effl---FHI C:,• - - 17.-/-"'"/ .1'' ' 't'i // //' / //71 ' !ill -1]7-1-H-7. I I 71- .7 r." - • VZ :,/,,/,‘,1177,PTIOPOSED"//,,, ,, (10 . ,,,,,„ ,, /, EXPANSION' // I ,- t,•4,,, /f,', i, • • • , , - ' /--.,- ,,,,i,,, ,050./..CIFAIISCRI AREA•64.9,E 7 4/ , I ..7.: . /A / ,r•IRECR.Vat Bitt.Deo;0E4 7.955 ,- I/ A/ N't,—;I 1 1-111.iiTii.ii-i-liffn • 1111- ILY1""J-Lli'Ll11,DI (1 LullIfIIII11"11,-.,., 36-1/7 Z///././..-.94" ,--i-'/ ' ,:.:EXCE S P-1■PERTY 1 , 'r ■ ' n-r-rrcia-r3 : ; i,,,!trif /,'h'- -.---......„`",_-:"'-'7-, ,it,i'I'',','HOR'FUTU7'• g_/_„_XNN._Niaqk i r);0 . • , b-1/ , ---1:"'„ ..,' ---- , 0, ''iTil ri 1 il 1-1 1-11.-I' ‘E"'-1 I ,T=4 .1,.......j...„.- -. .„0 \ • ------' -- --, " "'''g',. :--1 -...:;' _._.-1 L ,.., •I ---------,,-----___ co--1-- c,)=-L-- !)----_1 , .1!" , ,,,, CV: _...,........,_ ....._,__i_____..,......L.I.,.-:,T'' *::.1.,,L ull::;: ::IC:-P':14: 1 ' s 7Lij I L:".".j ri I g, ,,,:,,',:. r 10, . ysf,,, _i;■1 r 1,..., !cn • -E.ttMELN WALL 6'sCREEN WI i • . :, ,0: • • 13. • . tO 7 ! (...)■ .5:. '"---- a)• . cri •co; . . . • 1.N IRANUL . / . • , v.<';',../(2 1 . . • , / (DRIVEWAY A) TRACK ACCESS :"/2 ___:----77I • WETLAND/STREAM AREA NGRESS/EGRESS 1111 . .. . .• • • .• ...z....::',.......,..0 A R.7.,, . . . W RETINIFIC IL S wEILAND/STREAM AREA---""--:..„:...!...... , "0 u , AA --j V CNAINLINK r1,11.1 . ..,. ' ' . , a ' BLDG A P,; WALL ' 11' ...... , 1 , IIII PEDESTRIAN -- PA1N • . 80 -•••••••..--. . .. 0 WETLAND/STREAM A ...-. 1111111110 ' -_ -----_,7-.-- \'',..., BLDG B :' 12,500 Sf '. \-->--- 1 "3 fft•1/15 r121111111111- r FTC•IP 250' . SEASONAL .ft. • • . ' S11ES NTEA r 11 I III ,ill ; 6 ' OUTDOCE r ' 0 H,. . _ i, .....___, .1 e ,` SO• r - b 11 -, 'I MAJOR RETAIL .. ' 0 - - - Li i UNPIN(VMS SE•IIO.S79 FrE.iA3 0 0 ■ 11:111: - : 32 . i L• I 1 • V ;,4 I \ • : . ,- :1X1,"1,g:.1111a I-1.1 1.1[CI i 1111 : ,C •?.? - c ,- . _ 1 c 0 0 _ . 1 .;'3‘ ,... .. 1 1 _ ,,,..-..-/-ir dr,/ / "Army, A ill_r.____ —___.„—• • e . , ;- V ./r -P-RO-POS-ED- --/ r— 27--, r_ !: :;,ioe A/EXPANSION / , I • 7g $ I , , /IPPOY'CrANSON AREA-54,1. , . • • ■ _ 1,... , /v''''''' '''''/7"*.'/,y"t/"/1'.''/9'") ,Z// 7ielii I'1 riffiiiiiiiii ® VIII . I ■;itililyi • ,/ ,0101E(S01,5 • . "I 11) -/-.• (-=‘,--4-1'- - - -/-,EXCE S P-IPERTY J?),... L.-3- • I', / , 4-----....„1-7,-,-----...."-....,• V 1. ,15. (yr IJJ I,)J„,:•..-, . , 4..1 ''' I --.." \L__,.' ,:...:-...‘ \-:-,------ -- 1 ,',•-0.::,:: 11c: .■-■.;-_-:1 1 ,■1■Ili■■,s,i He, 1 ,„,,.7g, ---0----1, -:, ' C , LIJILLI 1.LI -1 11-I-1.1.II IL'T'T 1 , s 1--' '- 1 ` -4 I CN: L ,/ C-•"-•"1 i _ , ...,,,, ........ r • 0■ , . . 6'SCREEN WALL i i . ' i(rjhj.i • i I 'Mt :Ot L. ..: I I • • A R=25' II R=36' - PAVEMENT LINE lll R=25' I R=25' 1 J 1 ill 1 I II 1 NOTE: VA IES EYEBROW CORNERS SHALL BE CERTIFIED FOR MIN. I SIGHT DISTANCE. EASEMENTS FOR SIGHT DISTANCE I MAY BE REQUIRED. I 1 1 I 1 1 _ - _ _ -- ' � R=55 I I I I - - - - .1R=55' II CCi I PAVEMENT LIME - - - 'PO I I R=55' MIN. FACE OF CURB I . r--- WASHINGTON COUNTY EYEBROW -- CORNER \,..9AND OF LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION !VISION DATE WASH. COUNTY NO. M-405.5 I125 • • • kw MA November 27, 2001 CITY OF TIGARD Mr. Gordon R. Martin OREGON PO Box 740 Gleneden Beach, OR 97388 RE: PD2000-00001 and PD2000-00002 Tri-County Retail Center approval extension request Dear Mr. Martin: This letter is in response to your request for a one-year extension to the approval of the Tri-County retail.center planned development decisions (PD2000-00001 and PD2000-00002). Your request has been approved based on the following findings of fact in consideration of the criteria of Tigard Development Code Section 18.350.030(C). 1. No changes are made on the original conceptual development plan as approved by the Commission. The approved conceptual plans have not been altered from those that were approved by the City Planning Commission. Any change to the Conceptual Plan that significantly alters the original plan shall be subject to review by the Planning Commission. 2. The applicant can show intent of initiating construction on the site within the one year extension period; and The applicant has submitted a letter indicating that he intends to initiate construction by the spring of 2002. 3. There have been no changes to the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and ordinance provisions on which the approval was based. There have been no changes to the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and ordinances that would affect this approval. This request has been approved. The applicant has until December 6, 2002 to have detailed plan approval and be in substantial conformance within the original decision. If you have any questions, call me at (503) 639-4171, ext. 388. Sincer ly, /tekpi z� Brad Kilby Associate Planner I:\curpin\brad\correspondence\tri county extension.doc c: PD2000-00001 Land use file PD2000-00002 Land use file 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard;OR 97223 (503)639-4171 TDD (503)684-2772 • • November 26, 2001 Mr. Brad Kilby Planning Department City of Tigard Tigard, Oregon Dear Brad: I am hereby requesting in writing as allowed and required by 18.350.030 (C.) for an extension period of one year for the approval period for City of Tigard File Numbers PD 2000-001 and PD 2000-002. These two numbers represent the two alternative plans approved with conditions on May 15, 2000 by the Tigard Planning commission for Tri- County Center. 1. I have not changed the conceptual plans as approved by the Commission. 2. I am presently working toward developing a detailed plan for review within the one year extension period. It is my intention to cause the detailed plan to be presented to the Planning Department in time to have it approved soon enough to commence construction next spring(the spring of 2002). 3. To my knowledge there have been no changes to the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and ordinance provisions on which the approval was based. Enclosed is my check for$300 to cover the $150 fee for each extension. Sincerely, Gordon R. Martin Owner r_ 6 - a G / 17/ 19 e 4a-A do a 4 c1 7 3 F • Receipt ##: 171uu1 uuuuuuuuuu'+o Date: 11/26/2001 T I D E M A R K COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC. Line Items: ' Case No Tran Code Description Revenue Account No. Amount Due PDR2000-00001 [LANDUS]Approved Extension 100-0000-438000 $150.00 PDR2000-00002 [LANDUS]Approved Extension 100-0000-438000 $150.00 Payments: Method Payer Bank No Acct Check No Confirm No. Amount Paid Check GORDON R. MARTIN 0 003012 0 $300.00 TOTAL AMOUNT PAID: $300.00 • .Patty Lunsford -Tri-County (1998 approv Page 1j From: Dick Bewersdorff To: Livingstonp @lanepowell.com Date: Monday, April 02, 2001 10:50:49 AM 'Subject: Tri-County (1998 approval) You requested information on the status of the 1998 Tri-County shopping center approval. Construction phases were started including wetland relocation, tree removal, grading and demolition permits for buildings on site. The City considers that construction is underway. Please be advised that plans for public facilities to meet conditions were submitted for review. Since the engineers involved will change, these will have to be resubmitted. Check with Brian Rager of the City Engineering staff. We are also aware that some of fill placed on the site will not meet code requirements and will have to be replaced. The Engineering department and Building Division are the proper staff people to contact regarding those matters. Dick Bewersdorff dick @ci.tigard • CC: Brian Rager; Patty Lunsford ea'S5- ' l 11/27/01 Activities for Case #: PDR2000-00001 2:10:58 PM Assigned Hold Updated Activity Description Date 1 Date 2 Date 3 To Done By Disp. Level By Updated Notes PDRC390 Approval extension granted 11/27/01 BK PLL APPR No Hold PLL 11/27/01 Approval extension has been granted until 12/6/2002. PDRA003 Pre-application meeting 11/3/99 KPF KPF DONE No Hold KPF 3/17/00 PDRA030 Planner assigned to case 2/4/00 KPF KPF DONE No Hold KPF 3/17/00 PDRA035 Case created 2/4/00 KPF KPF DONE No Hold KPF 3/17/00 PDRA020 Application acceptance date 3/15/00 KPF KPF DONE No Hold KPF 3/17/00 PDRB050 PC Hearing Date 10/2/00 KPF PLL DONE No Hold PLL 10/2/00 Hearing held 5/15/2000. Final Order No.2000-02 PC issued 5/19/00. • PDRC330 Appeal to City Council 9/29/00 DB KF DONE No Hold PLL 10/2/00 Appeal Withdrawn for 9/26/00 Hearing date after being set over from 7/25/00 and 9/12/00 Council agendas. PDRC350 PC Final Order ST APPR No Hold PLL 11/27/01 The Planning Commission decision was final on 5/19/00 and effective on 6/6/00. FO#2000-02. • • Page 1 of 1 • • ,_. 'Agenda Item No., 3. 1 Meeting of 10 2 4. O Q TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 • STUDY SESSION - Council members present: Mayor Griffith; Councilors Hunt, Moore, Patton (arrived at 7:04 p.m.), and Scheckla. City staff present: City Manager Bill Monahan, City Recorder Catherine Wheatley, Risk Manager Loreen Mills, and City Attorney Tim Ramis. > EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive'Session at 6:42 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (f) 8& (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt public records, and current and pending litigation issues. Executive Session adjourned at 7 p.m. and Council convened into Study Session. Councilor Patton arrived at 7:04 p.m. > Briefing on Solid Waste Franchise Challenges Administrative Analyst/Risk Manager Loreen Mills reviewed the court case wherein the United States District Court for the District of Oregon entered a permanent injunction in the case of AGG v. Washington County and the City of Beaverton that prevented either jurisdiction from regulating the price, route or service in the transportation of mixed solid waste or recyclables taken from a single commercial source to manufacturers, recycling facilities, or material recovery facilities. Staff and legal counsel, based on the outcome of the above case, believed it is prudent to refrain from enforcing this aspect of Tigard's franchise agreement with franchised haulers until the an appeal decision has been rendered. However, the City's obligation to achieve specified recycling levels is unchanged. Staff also recommended that the Council's current policy for solid waste management should still be enforced. The City has authority to regulate all other portions of the solid waste ordinance other than exempt loads. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 - PAGE 1 • • The AGG decision also found that the current franchise system has been a "barrier to entry" into the business of solid waste transportation. Staff has been working with other jurisdictions and interested parties to develop an ordinance and process to address the Court's injunction and preserve the City's ability to carry out its responsibility associated with meeting the State's requirement of an Integrated Soild Waste Management Plan. The City Council will consider a new permitting process at a public hearing. A review of this issue for the public will be conducted at the October 10, 2000, City Council business meeting. It is possible that solid waste rates will need to be raised. 1. BUSINESS MEETING Mayor Griffith called the business meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Council members present: Mayor Griffith; Councilors Hunt, Moore, Patton, and Scheckla. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA Mr. Jack Polans, 16000 SW Queen Victoria Way, King City, asked questions about cost impacts with regard to the public hearing for a Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change as requested by the applicant Community Partners for Affordable Housing. Mayor Griffith advised that this question should be asked during the public hearing. (See Item No. 10) Later in the meeting, applicant representative and legal counsel, Mr. Ed Sullivan advised that Executive Director for Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Sheila Fink, visited with Mr. Polans with regard to his questions. Mr. Polans then left the meeting. 3. PROCLAMATIONS: Mayor Griffith proclaimed the following; copies of the proclamations are on file with the City Recorder. a. Proclamation of Constitution Week b. Undoing Racism Day 4. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: - 4.1 Approve Council Minutes: June 13 (amended), August 14, August 15, August 22, and September 12 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 - PAGE 2 • • 4.2 Approve a Resolution in Support of Annexing Urban Reserve Areas 48 and 49 into Metro's Jurisdiction and Inclusion of These Areas into the Urban Growth Boundary — Resolution No. 00 - 58 4.3 Approve a Resolution Initiating the Vacation of an Approximately 4,611 Square Foot Portion of Public Right-of-Way Commonly Known as SW Naeve Street (VAC2000-00001) — Resolution No. 00 - 59 4.4 Adopt the Water Distribution System Hydraulic Study and Corresponding 20 Plus Year Water Capital Improvement Plan 4.5 Local Contract Review Board a. Reject All Bids Proposals for the Construction of Bonita Road Sanitary Sewer Improvements b. Award Construction of Wetland Mitigation at Fowler School Site, Summer Creek Site, and Fanno Creek. Site to Andersen Pacific Contractors, Inc. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present: Mayor Griffith - yes Councilor Hunt - yes Councilor Moore - yes Councilor Patton - yes Councilor Scheckla - yes 5. RECOGNITION OF RESIGNING LIBRARY BOARD AND BUDGET COMMITTEE MEMBERS Mayor Griffith acknowledged the contributions of the following Committee members and presented certificates and City of Tigard lapel pins: Library Committee: Lonn Hoklin Ken Toliver (was unable to attend) Budget Committee: Gene Farnstrom 6. UPDATE ON NEW TIGARD LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION Library Director Margaret Barnes reviewed the staff report. The New Library Construction Committee has met several times with BML Architects and the consultant Cynthia Ripley. The Committee has received the final draft of the "Needs COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 - PAGE 3 • • Analysis for the new Tigard Library." Programming and site selection are the next two areas of focus for the committee. A number of applications have been received from those interested serving on the New Library Construction Committee. Recommendations for appointment from the Mayor's Appointment Committee will be made in the next few weeks. 7. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION TO CONTINUE THE NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT INCENTIVE PROGRAM City Engineer Gus Duenas presented the staff report, which is on file in the City Recorder's office. After a brief discussion, there was a motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Resolution No. 00-60. . By this action, the City of Tigard will continue the Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Incentive Program for an additional two years (through October 12, 2002). The City Recorder read the following: RESOLUTION NO. 00-60 — A RESOLUTION CONTINUING THE NEIGHBORHOOD REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT INCENTIVE PROGRAM. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council.present: Mayor Griffith • - yes Councilor Hunt - yes Councilor Moore - yes Councilor Patton - yes Councilor Scheckla - yes 8. UPDATE ON THE TRANSPORTATION BOND AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT City Engineer Gus Duenas reviewed the staff report. He reviewed projects for the following: Proposed Transportation Bond (Measure 34-20 on the November 7, 2000 Ballot) • Gaarde Street— 99W to 121'Avenue • 121'Avenue — Walnut Street to North Dakota Street • Walnut Street— Tiedeman Avenue to 121'Avenue COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 - PAGE 4 • • • 121'Avenue — Gaarde Street to Walnut Street • 98th Avenue — Signalization at Durham Road • Fonner Street — Walnut Street to 115"' Avenue If after the above-listed projects have been completed and there are bond funds remaining, several alternative projects have been identified for funding. City Engineer Duenas then reviewed the status of the Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 2000-01. He highlighted the following: • Completion of the Walnut/Tiedeman Intersection Realignment and Signalization project. • Two Fanno Creek Trail projects were initiated. • Engineering Design for two projects is progressing: Gaarde Street (from Highway 99W to 121'Avenue) and Burnham Street. • Preventative maintenance projects are ongoing with slurry seal and pavement overlay work underway. 9. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION MODIFYING EXISTING FEE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY FOR BUILDING PERMITS AND COMMERCIAL MECHANICAL PERMITS Building Official Gary Lampella reviewed the staff report. Mr. Lampella advised that the proposed resolution modified existing building and mechanical fee schedules to comply with Senate Bill 512. After brief discussion, there was a motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Resolution No. 00-61, which modified the fee schedules to comply with Senate Bill 512. The City Recorder read the following: RESOLUTION NO. 00-61 — A RESOLUTION MODIFYING EXISTING FEE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY FOR BUILDING PERMITS AND COMMERCIAL MECHANICAL PERMITS The resolution passed by a unanimous vote of Council present: Mayor.Griffith • - yes Councilor Hunt - yes Councilor Moore - yes Councilor Patton - yes Councilor Scheckla - yes COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 - PAGE 5 • • • 10. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2000-00002, ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2000- 00001, AND VARIANCE (VAR) 2000-00014,17,18 8t 19 TO CONSTRUCT A 26 UNIT MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT The applicant, Community Partners for Affordable Housing, is requesting a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change from medium density residential (R- 12) to medium-high residential (R-40) and for a variance to the setbacks for the north and south sideyards, the rearyard setback, and a variance. to reduce the minimum parking requirement LOCATION: 11159 and 11165 SW Hall ZONE: R- 12 APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide planning goals: 1-19, Metro Functional Plan, Tigard Comprehensive Plan 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 7.1.2 (a&Tb), 8.1.1, 8.2.2, 9.1.3, 12.1.3; Community Development Code Chapters 18.390.060 (Type IV procedure), 18.380.030 (plan amendments) 18.370.10 (Variances) Mayor Griffith opened the public hearing. Councilor Scheckla advised that he made a site visit and walked the site in order to become familiarized with the area in question. Public Testimony: Proponents: V • Ed Sullivan, 222 SW Columbia, Portland OR 97201, legal counsel for the applicants.noted that because the Council had the full record before them, the applicant's presentation would be brief. He referred to his letter on file in the Council packet materials, which summarized the request before the City Council. Mr. Sullivan referred to the staff recommendation and the decision of the City Planning Commission and their support for approval, with one condition by the Planning Commission as noted in the Planning Commission minutes that each unit should be allocated one parking space. Mr. Sullivan then introduced Ms. Sheila Fink, Executive Director of Community Partners for Affordable Housing. • Sheila Fink, Executive Director of Community Partners for Affordable Housing, 9020 SW Burnham Road, Tigard OR 97223 advised she appreciated the support of the City of Tigard in the past. Ms.. Fink reviewed this 26-unit affordable housing project noting the great need for this type of housing in Tigard and metropolitan areas. She referred to the proximity of they proposed project insofar as it was close to jobs, transit, schools and parks. She said that CPAH had applied for a project for senior housing but was not successful in obtaining funding; however, CPAH was then awarded a grant for this HUD workforce project. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 - PAGE 6 • S The setbacks would allow for future expansion of Hall Boulevard. Ms. Fink asked that the Council act affirmatively on the project. In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Ms. Fink advised that CPAH would meet all requirements with regard to moving/removal of a house that now sits on the property. • Brad Simmons, Carelton Hart Architecture, 322 NW 8th Avenue, Portland OR 97209 advised that his firm worked on this project and works on many low- income housing developments. Mr. Simmons reviewed the plans showing the location of the site and he described the surrounding area. He also described the layout of the buildings within the project, which included a courtyard area, 26 units (1 studio and 7 4-bedroom units), 31 parking spaces. In response to a question from Councilor Moore, Mr. Simmons advised that this development would accommodate a potential future expansion of Hall Boulevard. Councilor Scheckla noted concerns with the reduced parking that was proposed. Mr. Simmons responded that the demographics show that residents of this type of low-income housing don't typically own that many cars. In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Mr`. Simmons advised that the project meets the requirements for handicapped parking spaces. Councilor Scheckla noted his concerns about setting precedent if this request were granted and asked for advice of legal counsel. City Attorney Tim Ramis responded that the Council would not be committing to future developments; that is, the Council has the power to evaluate development proposals and decide which ones to permit. • Ed Murphy, 9875 SW Murdock, Tigard OR, testified on behalf of the applicant. He advised that a site development review would occur later, as a separate process. Mr. Murphy referred to material from the applicant responding to issues raised by Ms. Trudy Knowles. Mr. Murphy read into the record a letter from Mr. Howard Stein, P.E., a transportation engineer, addressing the traffic impacts and parking. This letter, which states that there should be no. adverse.impacts, is on file with the City Recorder. Mr. Murphy noted that environmental impact issues were reviewed. No wetland or wildlife mitigation will be necessary for the site. Some trees will have to be COUNCIL.MEETING MINUTES — SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 - PAGE 7 • • removed; the number of trees will be increased by 12 over what is currently on the site. Mr. Murphy advised the applicant was agreeable to the condition on the variance request imposed by the Planning Commission and would note that one parking space would be allocated for each unit. He referred to the surrounding sites and the limited impact this development would have. Mr. Murphy reviewed the setback variances requested and how the project was designed to accommodate the area. Mr. Murphy noted that there may be a mistake in the Code with regard to the requirements in setbacks for property zoned R-7. Mr. Murphy requested favorable consideration by the City Council. Councilor Scheckla reviewed the tree replacement plan with Mr. Murphy and noted that the replacement trees would be smaller. • Angel Griffin, 5609 SE 66th Avenue, Portland OR 97206, testified as a proponent of the applicant's request. Ms. Griffin spoke of the benefits derived through the availability of low-income housing. She advised that she has seen a positive change in residents who had no experience with family or community oriented living situations. Low-income housing, such as Villa LaPaz offered an opportunity for stability. She asked for Council support of the project. Opponents: None. City Attorney Ramis commented on process. If the Council denied the proposal, staff would prepare the findings and final order. If the Council approved the proposal, then the applicant would prepare findings and final order. He noted that packet materials for the October 10, 2000, meeting were due tomorrow (September 27) at noon. The public hearing was closed. Councilor Hunt indicated that he supported the project. He noted the need for affordable housing and referred to the success of Villa LaPaz. Councilor Scheckla noted issues he had about approving this request citing the "upzoning" and the variance for setbacks. Councilor Scheckla noted concerns that others may request similar consideration from the City Council in the future if this proposal is approved. Councilor Patton advised that she was "100 percent" for the project noted she was an advocate for affordable housing. She noted her appreciation for the layout of the COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 - PAGE 8 • • project and the buffering from surrounding properties. She said she was not concerned with the parking variance requests or establishing a precedent. Councilor Patton reminded the Council that the City has been urging Ms. Fink to come forward with projects for affordable housing. If others are working on developing affordable housing projects, she said she would be glad to consider variances if it would bring affordable housing to the City. Councilor Moore noted that he thought this was a worthwhile project and he would support it. Mayor Griffith indicated that he, too, would support the project. He said he thought the location was ideally suited for this type of project. Staff recommendation: Approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone change, and approval of Variance Requests 1, 2 and 3, with Variance 4 approved with the condition suggested by the Planning Commission that the parking spaces be reduced from 46 to 31 and that the applicant provide on the tenant lease that one parking space will be allocated to each unit. Staff recommended approval of the applicant's request. Motion by Councilor Patton, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt the staff's recommendation. The motion was approved by a majority vote of Council: Mayor Griffith - yes Councilor Hunt - yes Councilor Moore - yes Councilor Patton - yes Councilor Scheckla - no An ordinance will be prepared for Council consideration on October 10, 2000. Item No. 11 withdrawn by applicant... 11. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - APPEAL OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02PC — TRI-COUNTY CENTER 12. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS • Councilor Hunt requested that the City Council revisit Council action with regard to traffic calming measures implemented on SW North Dakota Street and on Hawks Beard. After discussion, City Manager Monahan advised that staff would give a status report on how this review should be conducted. This information will COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 - PAGE 9 • be sent to the City Council in their weekly newsletter on Friday, September 29, 2000. • Councilor Moore, said he was a staunch supporter of the Council Groundrules and, because of this, he extended an apology to Councilor Scheckla advising he realized he had violated a Council Groundrule during a recent Council meeting discussion. Councilor Scheckla advised an apology wasn't necessary; he thanked Councilor Moore. 13. NON AGENDA ITEMS: None 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Canceled. 15. ADJOURNMENT: 9:17 p.m. ra-Wriz-A>Lt Attest: Catherine Wheatley, ity Reco er Ai OPAVVIrr or, ity o igar• Date: /v-024.1-o0 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 - PAGE 10 •' • • EXHIBIT D AMR • CITY OF TIGARD Community(Development Shaping Better Community CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO.2000-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION Case Numbers: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(PD)2000-00001/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR)2000-00005/LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT(MIS)2000-00002 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(PD)2000-00002/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2000-00004/LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT(MIS) 2000-00003 Case Name: TRI-COUNTY CENTER—OPTIONS 1 &2 Names of Owners: Michael F. Laurens, Gordon S. Martin, Gordon R. Martin. Sheila Martin. Jason E. & Carolyn L. Philips. Rodney C. & Margaret Lyman, Mary Manley and Marvin Von Renchler Name of Applicant: Christensen Engineering - Contact: Ed Christensen Address of Applicant: 7150 SW Hampton. Suite 226. Tigard. Oregon. 97223 Location of Property: The site is located on the south side of SW Dartmouth Street and on the west side of SW 72nd Avenue and is east of State Highway 217. The site also includes the 6 lots along the north side of Hermoso Way. The site address is 12265 SW 72"°Avenue Tax Map/Lot Nos.: WCTM 1 S136CD,Tax Lot 04200; 25101 BA,Tax Lots 00100, 00101. 00300. 00400. 00401 and 00402; 25101 AB, Tax Lots 01300, 01400, 01401, 01402, 01403 and 01404. Request: > A final order approving with conditions a land use application for a planned development/conceptual plan review for two alternative designs for new construction of a shopping center on a total site area of 27.33 acres. The approval includes a sensitive lands review and p a lot line adjustment. The commission held a public hearing to receive testimony on this application on May 15, 2000. The planning commission has based their decision on the facts, findings and conclusions described in further detail within this final order. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial and Mixed Use Employment. ZONE: C-G (PD) and MUE. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.350, 18.360, 18.390, 18.410, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.725, 18.730, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795, and 18.810. Action: > ❑ Approval as Requested © Approval with Conditions ❑ Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: © Owners of Record Within the Required Distance © Affected Government Agencies © The Affected Citizen Involvement Team Facilitator - © The Applicants and Owners The adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from the Planning Division/Community Development Department at the City of Tigard City Hall. Final Decision: THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON MAY 19, 2000 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE:ON UNE 6 2000 UN LESSANAPP EAL IS :FILED. Appeal: The decision of the Review Authority is final for purposes of appeal on the date that it is mailed. Any party with standing as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1. may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.390.040.G.2. of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the notice of the decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. ITHE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON JUNE 5, 2000. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division at (503) 639-4171. • D -R,1 0 "000 1 "` ..n';y P ,, NNING MISS I9N �' ':e A3p,za n g., O t TIGr�ACRoD f�;;5 4Y: OR HE� Y >0 EX p '_ Kornf t m y m u�nn"4 "4 � �a �? A FINAL ORDER APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS A LAND USE APPLICATION FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT/CONCEPTUAL PLAN REVIEW FOR TWO ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A SHOPPING CENTER ON A TOTAL SITE AREA OF 27.33 ACRES. THE APPROVAL INCLUDES A SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW AND A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT. THE COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THIS APPLICATION ON MAY IS, 2000. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS BASED THEIR DECISION ON THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS DESCRIBED IN FURTHER DETAIL WITHIN THIS FINAL ORDER. 120 DAYS = 7/12/2000 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY OPTION 1 FILE NOS.: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(PD) 2000-00001 (Type III Land Use Application) SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2000-00005 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 2000-00002 OPTION 2 FILE NOS.: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(PD) 2000-00002 (Type III Land Use Application) SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2000-00004 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 2000-00003 FILE TITLES: TRI-COUNTY CENTER - OPTIONS 1 & 2 APPLICANT: Ed Christensen OWNERS: Gordon R. Martin, Gordon S. Martin, Christensen Engineering and Sheila Martin 7150 SW Hampton, Suite 226 12265 SW 72nd Tigard, Oregon 97223 Tigard, Oregon 97223 OWNERS OF ADDITIONAL MUE ZONED LOTS: 01300 Michael F. Laurens 7315 SW Hermoso Way 01400 Gordon S. Martin 12265 SW 72nd 01401 Jason E. & Carolyn L. Philips 7355 SW Hermoso Way 01402 Rodney C. & Margaret Lyman 7395 SW Hermoso 01403 Mary Manley 7453 SW Hermoso Way 01404 Marvin Von Renchler 7475 SW Hermoso Way PROPOSAL: This is a request for a conceptual plan review for two alternative designs for new construction of a shopping center as a Planned Development on a total site area of 27.33 acres; and a lot line adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership. Option 1 is for the new construction of a 297,179 square foot building with gross leasable space of 307,419. Option 2 is for 330,312 square feet of building with gross leasable space of 340,552 square feet. A prior request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Water Resource Overlay District including fill and mitigation of a portion of the existing wetlands was granted on June 23, 1998 and became effective July 23, 1998 by final order of the Tigard City Council. Water Resources Overlay Review is not addressed in this report due to the 1998 decision to remove the wetland designation from the site. The 1998 City Council decision also included a Planned Development Review, Site Development . Review, Sensitive Lands Review, and a Lot line PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/M1S2000-00003 PAGE 1 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO.2000-02 PC . • , , M1 •- adjustment for a detailed plan for this site, however, this new proposal differs from the prior plan and, therefore, requires a new land use application and approval.for a Planned Development, Sensitive Lands Review, and a Lot Line Adjustment. Neither of the Options involves the detailed plan review step which will be submitted later. This will afford the applicant more flexibility as lease arrangement are finalized. LOCATION: The site is located on the south side of SW Dartmouth Street and on the west side of SW.72nd Avenue and is east of State Highway 217. The site also includes 6 lots along the north side of Hermoso Way. The site address is 12265 SW 72nd; WCTM 1 S 136CD, Tax Lot 04200; 2S 101 BA, Tax Lots 00100,. 00101, 00300; 00400, 00401 and 00402; 2S101AB, Tax Lots 01300, 01400, 01401, 01402, 01403, 01404. COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial and Mixed Use Employment. ZONE: C-G (PD) and MUE. • The General Commercial zoning district provides for the provision of a wide range of major retail goods and services. The Mixed Use Employment zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy 99), Highway 217 and 1-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. Although it is recognized that the automobile will accommodate the vast majority of trips to and within the Triangle, it is still important to 1) support alternative modes of transportation to the greatest extent possible; and 2) encourage a mix of uses to facilitate intra-district pedestrian and transit trips even for those who drive. The property is also designated with the following overlay districts: 1) The Planned Development Overlay; and the 2) Tigard Triangle Design Standards Overlay. The Planned Development Overlay was placed on the property to allow flexibility in development practices to permit more efficient use of the property. The Tigard Triangle Design Standards were adopted for all properties within the Triangle. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.350, 18.360, 18.390, 18.410, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.725, 18.730, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775,, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795, and 18.810. SECTION II. PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION Notice is hereby given;that:'the City of Tigard Planning Commission has APPROVED the proposal subject to certain conditions of approval. The findings and conclusions on which the report is based are noted within this final order. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 2 OF 59. TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO.2000-02 PC • CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL �` `i' IORry.� E SSU E OF _ E ti I 'ERMIT# E:- OL~`® ING�BOND.T O S HA #L- BE` �r ,' '+,F�;. «fJ�ac +�-ar. ;�,.,2 •:,.y,y ' r*t :..'?'$' '�+ +. "s `�_3' ?*, '�.'-`:..CL, y, ,.; . ., `wsx`,�, k SATISFIED (Unless otherwise noted the.staff-on act hall,_ Bnan ager, � 'sa aekzA.. s,m.m3a.•«saua,:3tar.. ! .4s. �'h !;4 � ,�� � �. . � - 3c 'a„, n,•.a+* „� `z V< Erig�neengDepartment(503) 639-4,17 ) � e 3 ..,16- 4 • \ • • • • • ,._• • : • • • • • \ . \ • • \ • • • 11 \ • 1. OVERALL CONDITION: The entire shopping center pproposal may be reviewed, at the applicant's option, by the Design Evaluation Team (DET) prior to detailed plan submittal in addition to the conditions listed below. After DET review, it is recommended that the applicant submit detailed plans for individual buildings as each building tenant is identified. 2. Prior to issuance of a site permit, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer for a revision to the current public improvement plans for this project to account for the improvements of SW Hermoso Way and any other changes to public improvements from what has already been approved by the City Engineer. 3. As a part of the public improvement plan submittal, the Engineering Department shall be provided with the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement (if one is required) and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example, specify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnership, LLC, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 4. The applicant must meet the conditions related to public improvements required in the SDR 98-0002 approval, unless otherwise modified in this report. 5. The construction plan revisions shall indicate that the applicant will construct a half-street improvement along the frontage of SW Hermoso Way in accordance with the Tigard Triangle Design Standards (TTDS). The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. City standard pavement section for a local commercial industrial street from curb to centerline equal to 17 feet (NOTE: the applicant may propose an alternate to rebuilding. the roadway section that will provide equivalent strength and design life); B. pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage; C. concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed; D. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or subsurface runoff; E. 6-foot concrete sidewalk; F. street trees behind the sidewalk spaced per TTDS requirements; G. streetlights as determined by the City Engineer; H. underground utilities; I. street signs (if applicable); J. driveway apron (if applicable); and K. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Hermoso Way in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 6. The applicant's construction plans shall continue to show a temporary asphalt walkway connection between the existing sidewalk in Dartmouth Street adjacent to the Costco parcel and the new sidewalk adjacent to this site. 7. The applicant shall enter into a street improvement agreement that obligates them to participate in the future widening of SW Dartmouth, east of SW 72nd Avenue to provide two (2) east bound travel lanes. The applicant's share of the improvements will be based on the length of a two (2) lane section needed to safely transition to one (1) lane eastbound based on recommendation from the Manual on Uniform Traffic control devices (MUTCD 1988 Edition). PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/M152000-00002 and P02000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 3 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC • • w 8. If a LID has not been formed to construct improvements in SW Dartmouth Street, as the applicant suggested in the narrative, the applicant shall provide all street improvements related to SW Dartmouth Street mentioned in this report as a part of this project. 9. All main line sanitary sewers in this site that serve more than one parcel shall be public lines designed and constructed to meet USA design and construction standards. 10. The applicant's construction plan shall continue to indicate that the applicant will extend an eight (8)-inch public sewer line southerly in SW 72nd Avenue as a part of the street improvements. The line shall be extended to the south property line. 11. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall pay the reimbursement fees of Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 15 for the following Tax Lots on SW Hermoso Way that were made a part of this project: • 2S1 01AB, #1300 • 2S1 01AB, #1401 • 2S1 01AB, #1403 • 2S1 01AB, #1404 • 2S1 01AB, #1400, and • 2S1 01AB, #1402. 12. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall provide an on-site detention plan for storm water runoff that complies with USA Design and Construction Standards. The plan shall be submitted as part of the site permit application and shall also be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department (Brian Rager). 13. The applicant shall submit a storm drainage plan to the City that clearly indicates how the storm water from this site will be conveyed to Red Rock Creek. If concentrated flows are proposed to convey across the adjacent property to the west, the applicant shall obtain a private storm drainage easement from that property owner prior to construction. 14. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the Tualatin Valley Water District for the proposed water connections and public water line work prior to issuance of the City's public improvement permit. The roadway cut and repair in SW Hermosa Way shall be inspected by the City of Tigard as part of their public improvement permit. 15. Prior to issuance of a site permit, the applicant shall provide a design for an on-site water quality facility as required by Unified Sewerage Agency Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7). Final plans and calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. In addition, a proposed maintenance plan shall be submitted along with the plans and calculations for review and approval. The applicant shall revise the current plan to ensure that 100% of the on-site storm water runoff will be treated. 16. Prior to issuance of a site permit, the applicant's geo-technical engineer shall submit a certification from the project geo-technical engineer that states that all grading work on the site has been inspected and complies with Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. 17. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to 'Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, February 1994." 18. The applicant shall obtain a new 1200-C General Permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act. Submit to the Planning Division (Karen Perl Fox, 639-4171, ext. 315) for review and approval: 19. All existing structures that will be in violation of required setbacks as a result of the Lot Line Adjustment shall be removed. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MI52000-00002 and PD2000-00002/5LR2000-00004/MI52000-00003 PAGE 4 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC • • • • 20. Prior to issuance of site and/or building permits the applicant shall be required to provide letters from DSL and US Army Corps of Engineers certifying that the wetland mitigation/rehabilitation is in compliance and that all permits are current_ 21. The applicant shall obtain verification that there is no floodplain on the development site through the US Army Corps of Engineers, and shall obtain reissuance of the Army Corps permits as stated in the 1998 decision. 22. The applicant shall verify that there will not be (and has not been since grading has begun on this project) any ground disturbance exceeding 10 cubic yards in the area of slopes exceeding 25%. 23. Construction fencing (4 foot high orange fencing) shall be installed and maintained during construction at the USA 15-foot setback buffer to off-site wetland areas to the west of the site. 24. Prior to issuance of a site permit, the applicant shall provide a mitigation deposit or bond with the City for the following trees 1) 992 caliper inches trees already removed 2) 1,666 caliper inches for trees proposed to be removed on the SW Hermoso Way lots, 3) 1,500 caliper inches for the Christmas trees. It is estimated that the combined total of 1) and 2) above will cost $199,350 figured at 1,825 2-inch trees (or 2,658 caliper inches) x $150 per tree, in addition to the cost of the Christmas tree mitigation. The applicant shall provide a bonified estimate for cost of the mitigation of all the trees including purchase price and value of labor to plant the trees for purposes of Staff making a final determination of the amount of the required mitigation deposit or bond: Staff Contact: Karen Pert Fox, Planning Division. Option 2 25. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall revise the plans and relocate the parking area near the bend of Hermoso Way outside of the areas which exceed 25% slopes, or address and meet the Sensitive Lands Review standards for any ground disturbance exceeding 10 cubic yards on lands sloped greater than 25%. Staff Contact: Karen Pert Fox, Planning Division. AS PART OF THE DETAILED PLAN SUBMITTAL, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED. Submit To The Planning Division (Karen Perl.Fox, 639-4171, Ext. 315) For Review And Approval: 26. The applicant shall revise the plans and provide landscaping, an arcade, or a hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path along SW Dartmouth Street between the structures and the wetlands/public street, or shall submit the alternative design proposal for front yard setback design in accordance with the Tigard Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030 to the Design Evaluation Team prior to detailed plan review submittal. 27. The applicant shall revise the plans and provide a walkway system to meet the requirements of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards in the detailed plan. Specifically, the applicant shall revise Pad C (Option 1) and Pad D and Major II (Option 2) walkways to connect with the public street. It is also recommended that the Major I Anchor in each plan have a walkway connection near the Hermoso.Way access. The applicant shall provide a continuous six (6)- foot-wide walkway using matching modular pavement materials. 28. When submitting the detailed plan for review, the applicant shall revise the plans and relocate or redesign the parking areas that front the public street on SW 72"d.Avenue and SW Hermoso Way so' that parking is limited to no more than 50% of the street frontage; and so that all parking on the street frontages is located behind a landscaped area constructed to L-1 standard with a minimum five (5)-foot depth, or equal to the building setback, whichever is greater. Interior side and rear yards shall be landscaped to a L-2 standard, except where a side yard abuts a public street, where it shall be landscaped to an L-1 standard. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with standards in accordance with the Tigard Triangle Site Design Standards as contained in Section 18.620.030.A.5. Alternatively, the applicant shall submit the alternative design proposal to the DET prior to detailed plan review submittal. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MI52000-00002 and PD2000-00002/5LR2000-00004/MI52000-00003 PAGE 5 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC • • 29. The applicant shall redesign the plans and elevations to include. a minimum' of 50% of windows, display areas or doorway openings on the street-facing elevations in accordance with Section 18.620.40.1, Ground floor windows or shall submit the alternative design ' proposed to the Design Evaluation Team who will then make recommendations to th Planning Commission. he Tigard Triangle Ground floor window standard Section 18. shall apply to all building elevations facing SW Dartmouth Street located(between n910 0 feet)from the wetland area, all building elevations within the 0-10 foot setback facing 72 Avenue and all building elevations within the 0-10 foot building setback, or required to be located within the 0-10 foot building setback (in accordance with Section 18.620.030.A.2). Up to 50% of the ground floor window requirement may be met on an adjoining elevation as long as all of the requirement is located on a building corner (this means the first bay of the corner on the side elevations in this case). No false windows are allowed for purposes of the meeting the Tigard Design Triangle Standard for Ground Floor Windows, Section 18.620.40 standard along 72 Avenue, and no more than 50% of the required ground floor windows shall be allowed to be false windows along SW Dartmouth and SW Hermoso Way. Alternatively, the applicant shall submit the alternative design proposal to the DET prior to detailed plan review submittal. 30. When the applicant submits the detailed plan for review, the applicant shall provide detailed plans, elevations, and specifications of all buildings indicating façade building materials, dimensions of any building off-sets, façade projections, and special design features that reflect the building's structural system to demonstrate compliance with Section 18.620.40.A.2, Building facades. No building façade shall extend for more than 300 feet without a pedestrian connection between or through the building whether on a public street or within the interior of the site. Alternatively, the applicant shall submit the alternative design proposal to the DET prior to detailed plan review submittal. 31. The applicant shall submit revised plans and elevations with the detailed plan review submission, and clearly indicate the locations of weather protection for pedestrians in accordance with Section 18.620.40.A.3, Weather protection. 32. The applicant shall indicate all materials to be used as exterior finish materials on each elevation in the detailed plan submission, in accordance with the Tigard Triangle Design criteria in Section 18.620.40, Building Materials. 33. The applicant shall revise the plans and designate areas on the Major Anchor Tenant Buildings where rooftop mechanical equipment will be installed to include a 20-foot minimum setback along the south and east building elevations of the Major Anchor Tenant Buildings. To allow the building itself to screen other rooftop equipment on the smaller pad buildings, no rooftop equipment shall be placed within 15 feet of an exterior wall on Pads A-E. 34. The applicant shall submit for review and approval with'the detailed plan submission a sign program that complies with the standards for the shopping center in accordance with Chapter 18.780, Signs for the General Commercial zoning district, and the Mixed Use Employment zoning district with any special limitations as required by the Tigard Triangle Design Standards in accordance with Section 18.620.050. 35. The applicant shall revise the plans in the detailed plandreview submission and provide the L-1 landscaping standard to screen the parking lot facing 72 Avenue to the south of Driveway D. 36. In order to meet the access standards in the detailed plan review process, the applicant shall submit detailed plans showing all dimensions of the access widths and minimum pavement widths and meet all criteria in accordance within the Tigard Triangle Standards, Sections 18.620.080 and Chapter 18.705. 37. In order to meet the access standards in the detailed plan review process, the applicant shall submit detailed plans showing all dimensions of the access widths and minimum pavement widths and meet all criteria in accordance within the Tigard Triangle Standards, Sections 18.620.080 and Chapter 18.705. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 6 OF 59 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC • • 38. The applicant shall provide a detailed lighting plan fr review during the detailed plan review process in accordance with CDC Section 18.705.030.F. 39. In the detailed plan review process, the applicant shall provide evidence that all crosswalks including the additional walkways which cross vehicle access driveways as required in this report shall be designed for pedestrian safety in accordance with the dimensional requirements of Section 18.705.030.F. All crosswalks as required shall be shown in the detailed plan. The site and landscape plans shall not require pedestrians to cross driveway aisles of more than 36 feet. Additional crosswalks may be required in the detailed plan review process. Applicant to provide detectable warnings at each entrance to the crossing at all accessible crosswalks. Applicant to record with the County and place on permanent file with the City, a crossover easement for the crosswalk which connects separate parcels. 40. The applicant shall bring the wetland mitigation/rehabilitation into compliance with all conditions and requirements of the Division of State Lands and the U.S Army Corps of Engineers ermits, and the applicant shall ensure that these permits are current or renewed. Due to the differences in the various permits regarding the amount of wetland acreage to be preserved, the amount of wetland acreage to be preserved will be .57 acres in conjunction with the U. S Army Corps Permit, which provides the greatest amount of wetland acreage to be preserved from the various permits. The applicant shall revise the plans to show location of biofiltration separated from wetland area as required under the DSL and US Army Corps permits. 41. The site plan shall provide 15-foot setback buffers in accordance with Unified Sewerage Agency standards (standards in place at the time of the 1998 land use application) to off-site wetlands areas to the west of this site. 42. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with Chapter 18.795 Visual clearance in the detailed plan review process, and shall revise the plans to indicate the visual clearance triangles on the plans. 43. As part of the detailed plan review submittal, the applicant shall revise the plans and elevations to provide sufficient screening of the rooftop mechanical equipment from the view of residences to the south. In addition, the rooftop mechanical equipment to serve the Major Anchor Tenants shall be designed to match the color of the rooftop. 44. As art of the detailed plan review submittal, the applicant shall revise the plans and elevations and screen the loading area for at least the length of the truck that would service this site at a height of a typical servicing vehicle. 45. Upon submission of the detailed plans for the plan review process, the applicant shall revise plans and provide a minimum 6-foot wall above the sidewalk along the north side of SW Hermoso Street, and a retaining wall to the south and west of the Major I building with a minimum 6-foot-high extension above the top of wall elevations shown in the drawing, and/or provide a method for completely screening the view of the residences to the south of the property from viewing the shopping center to the north. The applicant shall provide a continuous sound attenuation wall along the southern property line. 46. The detailed plan shall show the location of a minimum of 17 broad spreading street trees along SW 72' and 35 broad spreading Street trees along SW Dartmouth. 47. The detailed plan shall show the required buffer along the southern property line where the site is adjoining residential uses (southwestern and southeastern corners) in accordance with CDC Section 18.745.050.B. The landscape plan shall show detailed landscaping that fully complies with the applicable screening and buffering standards. The applicant shall revise the buffer at the south side of the parking lot, south of driveway D to provide buffering to meet the standards of Section 18.745.050.B. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/M1S2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/M1S2000-00003 PAGE 7 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC 48. The detailed plan shall include a landscape plan with specifications that provide sufficient detail to determine that the buffer to the southeast and southwest, meets the minimum requirements for Buffer Standard D. The detailed plan shall also show the location and final height of the proposed sound wall and additional screening mechanisms necessary to meet the screening requirements. 49. The applicant shall address all the criteria contained in Section 18.755.040.D, Waste Assessment Method and all other applicable criteria in Chapter 18.755, Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage. The applicant shall revise the plans and show trash enclosures for Major I, and placement of all locations of trash and recycling enclosures and provide a detail of the type of screening to be provided around these enclosures. - 50. Where drop-off grade separations greater than 30" occur, the applicant shall install a wall, railing, or other barrier which will prevent a slow-moving vehicle or driverless vehicle from escaping such area and which will prevent pedestrians from walking over drop-off edges. 51. The detailed plan shall show wheel stops where the parking is adjacent to landscaping or walkways. 52. The detailed plan shall show the location of all compact and standard spaces, as well as, the dimensions of each type of space (angled, standard, compact, ADA accessible) and the dimension of all interior drives and access aisles. 53. The detailed plan review shall show the location and number of bicycle racks proposed. The detailed plan shall also show the type of bicycle rack proposed and the design of the bicycle parking pad. The applicant shall provide an analysis for each building that shows the required bicycle parking spaces based on the square footage of the building. 54. The detailed plan shall show the location and dimensions of loading spaces adjacent to all buildings over 10,000 square feet. 55. The detailed plan shall show the location of the required number of van pool/carpool spaces based on the final number of parking spaces proposed. - 73. The applicant shall revise the plans and shall provide a public or private street connecting SW Dartmouth to Hermoso Way. The street, as distinguished from the term aisle, shall be a minimum 24 feet (24') from curb to curb. Option I Only 56. The applicant shall revise the plans to comply with the 0-foot building setback standards as contained in the Tigard Design Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030.A.2 for Pad E or shall submit the alternative design proposal for building setback to the Design Evaluation team in accordance with Section 18.620.090 prior to detailed plan review submittal. Option 2 Only 57. The applicant shall revise the plans along SW 72nd Avenue for building placement. The building pads shall cover at least 340 feet of frontage in accordance with Section 18.620.030. Option 2. Only 58. The applicant shall revise the plans to comply with the 0-foot building setback standards as contained in the Tigard Design Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030.A.2 for Major II-IV, or shall submit the alternative design proposal for building setback to the Design Evaluation team in accordance with Section 18.620.090 prior to detailed plan review submittal. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and P02000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 8 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC • • Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 318) for review. and approval: 59. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the construction plans for all traffic signals related to this project shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. The signals in question include: 1) SW Dartmouth Street/Driveway A, 2) SW Dartmouth Street/Driveway B, 3) SW Dartmouth Street/SW 72. Avenue, and 4) SW Dartmouth Street/SW 68 Parkway. The applicant shall provide traffic signals at Driveways A and B. These signals shall all be interconnected, along with the proposed traffic signal at the Costco south driveway. • •60. • Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain approval from OPOT for the signal work to be constructed at the intersection of SW Dartmouth Street/SW 68 Parkway. Construction at this intersection shall include any roadway improvements as required by ODOT to ensure adequate operation and vehicular storage. (Contact Joel McCarroll, Asst. District Manager, ODOT District 2A, 229-5002). • 61. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall submit a suite layout map showing the proposed suite numbers. The map should be submitted to Kit Church, Engineering Department. The address fee will then be calculated, which must be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the building permit. • Submit to the Planning Division (Karen Perl Fox, 639-4171, ext. 315) for review and approval: 62. All of the accesses on the site are considered to be joint accesses. Prior to issuance of building permits the applicant shall provide satisfactory legal evidence in the form of deeds, easements, • leases, or contracts to establish the joint access use; and copies of the deeds, easements, leases or contracts are placed on permanent file with the City. : • :•£, .•,✓:::Y4x*, >:U[ f� ���� ... GCONDITIONS•�S`HALL:',BE�'Si4T15 F., ;PRIO.R,TO a : f r , • f: .• THE.FINAL-BUILDING INSPECTLO•N=OF ANYg B ';°°= Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 318) for review and approval: 63. Prior to a final inspection, the applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW 72nd Avenue underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $27.50 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, the amount will be $18,700 and it shall be paid prior to a.final building inspection. 64. If the applicant's project obtains franchise utility service, from the existing overhead utility lines on SW Hermoso Way, they shall either place those lines under ground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. The fee for this frontage shall be $18,425 and shall be paid prior to final inspection. • 65. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall complete the required public improvements, obtain conditional acceptance from the City, and provide a one-year maintenance assurance for said improvements. • 66. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) mylars, and 2) a diskette of the as-builts in "DWG".format, if' available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable. Note: if the public improvement drawings were hand-drawn, then a diskette is not required. 67. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall complete construction of a'traffic signal at the intersection of SW 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street in accordance with City standards and as approved by the City Engineer. • PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/M152000-00003 PAGE 9 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO.2000-02 PC • • • • • • i • 68. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall complete construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of SW 68th Parkway andpSW.Dartmouth Street in accordance with ODOT and City standards. The east leg of the intersection consists of the 1-5 southbound ramp connections at the SW Haines Road Interchange. The 1-5 southbound ramp connections are parts of the State Highway System and under the jurisdiction of ODOT, and as such, the proposed traffic signal needs to be approved by the State Traffic Engineer prior to design and construction. Signal installation may require additional improvements as determined by the State Traffic Engineer. Fourteen-hour (6:00 am to 8:00 p.m. weekday) manual turning movement counts at the intersection will need to be provided to ODOT for the traffic signal warrant analysis. ODOT has provided copies of their signal warrant comparison worksheets for the applicant to use. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain ODOT permitsfapprovals for this signal work. 69. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have entered into a maintenance agreement with Stormwater . Management that indicates that Stormwater Management will provide for the annual maintenance of the StormFilter units proposed for this project. 70. To ensure compliance with Unified Sewerage Agency design and construction standards, the applicant shall employ the design engineer responsible for the design and specifications of the private water quality facilities -to perform construction and visual- observation of the water quality facilities for compliance with the design and specifications. These inspections shall be made at significant stages, and at completion of the construction. Prior to final building inspection, the design engineer shall provide the City of Tigard (Inspection Supervisor) with written confirmation that the water quality facilities are in compliance with the design and specifications: Staff Contact: Hap Watkins, Building Division. 71. Prior to final inspection, the applicant's geotechnical engineer shall submit a final report to the Building Division that indicates all grading work on this site was inspected by said eotechnical engineer and that it was completed in accordance with Appendix Chapter 33 of-he Uniform Building bode. . Submit to the Planning Division (Karen Pert Fox, 639-4171, ext. 315) for review and approval: 72. The applicant shall record the Lot Line Adjustment with Washington County within 1%z years from the date of approval. Extensions may be granted by the Director in certain cases, not to exceed one year in accordance with CDC Section 18.410.020.D. This approval shall lapse if the final recording is a departure from the approved plans. IN ADDITION THE APPL-1CANT SHOtJ;LD"BE,4AWARE OF THE FOLLOWIW ` - GENEKAL PROVISIONS, THIS IS-NOTxAN;EXCLUSIVE LIST t: All sign changes and additions shall be submitted as part of a separate sign permit application, and are not addressed in this report. No new signs shall be placed or altered prior to review and approval by the City in accordance with Chapter 1880 Signs. Signs which are placed on parking lots shall be designed and installed in accordance with Chapter 18.780. Section 18.725.020 requires compliance with applicable state and federal regulations pertaining to • noise, odor and discharge of matter into the atmosphere ground, sewer system or stream. All future tenants shall be in compliance with the Environmental Performance Standard as set forth in federal and state environmental laws, rules and regulations, and compliance is a continuing obligation of the property owner and operator. The applicant shall comply.with State and Federal regulations regarding archaeological artifacts. It is illegal to disturb archaeological sites or remove or alter certain archaeological objects on public or private land unless done by an archaeologist under a permit issued by the State Parks and Recreation Department. The'ap licant shall stop work immediately if an archaeological site or burial is encountered during construction (an expedited permit process is possible in this situation). Violation of the Indian Graves Protection Law is a Class C Felony. Contact the following in this order if resources are suspected 1) the nearest office of the State Police 2) the State Legislative Commission on Indian Services at the State Capitol, 503-986-1067 3) Oregon State Historic Preservation Office at 503-378-5001 in Salem, Oregon. Please also contact the Tigard Planning Division at 503-639-4171 should any archaeological resources be uncovered during the course of excavation. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/M152000-00003 PAGE 10 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC .' •\ • t t IS PROVc• E Ypr0 . ; ON S O 3z , }?gti 1.;w s c ti �Jrz, r* tS`r R +- 1r x� ;At XFFEG I,V E D tOF- LA ..„ ING MMISS ON' ,FIN ' Y4ORDER.k- °, SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: The majority of the proposed development site is currently zoned General Commercial with the southern portion of the site along the north side Hermosa Way zoned Mixed Use Employment. The subject site has been the focus of numerous concept plans and revisions. The scheme for the shopping center has evolved in response to market demands and additional Tigard Triangle area development and construction during the project's planning phases. The majority of the site is presently being graded under previous approvals. The remaining site includes nine (9) detached single-family residences and a mixture of related farming and other accessory structures. Much of the property contains a mixture of types and varieties of trees. The site also has a wetland's system which is currently being rehabilitated along SW Dartmouth Street, and a small portion along the central western property. corner and at the southwest coer of the site. This site generally slopes towards Highway 217 that that west of the property. Some 1.63 acres of the northern portion of the property along the SW Dartmouth Street.frontage is registered with the Washington County Tax Assessor as a "Christmas Tree Lot"; these trees have been removed with approved grading permits. Some portions of the property are designated as a "Small Woodlands" by the Assessor. There are also six lots in current residential use within the Hermosa Subdivision and along the southern boundary of the site which front SW Hermosa Way. This development site has been the subject of two prior development applications 1 A 342,500 square foot shopping center with office uses (SDR 94-0019, PDR 94-0002, SLR 94-00041 This application was approved by the Planning Commission and became effective on December 19, 1994 but expired on June 19, 1996 due to inactivity, and 2) A 330,895 square foot shopping center with commercial retail space to accommodate primarily large-scale retail. This application included removal of the Wetland designation"from the Ti and Comprehensive Plan (CPA 98-0002, SDR 98-0002, PDR 98-0001, SLR 98-0UO2, MIS 98-0004) and became effective July 23, 1998. Early construction phases have commenced under these land-use approvals including wetland relocation, tree removal and rough grading. Also, a subsequent Type I land use decision for tree removal of trees numbered 88-96 (on the 'I998 approved plans) was approved on 9/27/99. The current proposal is due to a revised configuration of Major I, to accommodate a new innant, the addition of a new access and egress on SW Hermosa Way, change of access locations on 72 Avenue, and the inclusions of additional lots along Hermosa Way.__ the 1998 land use decision included a concept and a detailed plan, and the current proposal differs in configuration from the 1998 detailed plan, a new land use application is required. The applicant has chosen-to submit only a concept plan at this stage, to allow for future flexibility in developing.a detailed plan at a future time. On Option 1, Majors I-IV on the 6/1/98 approved plans have been revised and combined into the proposed Major I, now rotated and separated from the other stores. On Option 2, Major I is now enlarged, rotated and separated from the other stores in this year 2000 scheme compared to the 1998 approval, however, Majors II-IV are included. Division of State Lands Permits and Army Corps of Engineers Permits were also obtained for the wetlands fill and mitigation concept, however, both agencies have commented that currently the project is not in compliance with the conditions in the permits. The primary issues relate to the amount and location of the rehabilitated wetlands, and some drainage issues. Vicinity Information: The subject property is located in a City of Tigard special design district area known as the Tigard Triangle, a regionally sicnificant 340 acre area bordered by SW Pacific Highway, a state highway to the north, Highway 217 toe west, and Interstate 5 to the east. The site is bounded to the north by SW Dartmouth Street and to the east by SW 72nd Avenue, both major collectors. The site includes seven (7) lots zoned General commercial and six (6) lots within the Hermosa Subdivision to the south which are developed with detached single-family residences and have a zoning designation of Mixed Use Employment (MUE). A Local Improvement district was formed among property owners on SW Dartmouth and as a result SW Dartmouth has been wide0ed. Adjacent property to the north is designated for General Commercial use. Along SW 72n and north of Dartmouth is the newly constructed Winco Foods Retail Center. The northwest corner of the site is adjacent to Costco, a large PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/5LR2000-00004/M152000-00003 PAGE 11 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC • • ' wholesale retailer. To the northeast of the site is roperty zoned General Commercial and farther northeast is property zoned Mixed Use Employment property To the east,,property is zoned Mixed Use Employment (currently vacant or developed w V detached single-family residences) and General Commercial. SW Elmhurst Street Ts into SW 72 Avenue from the east approximately 100 feet to the north of the southern pro ert line. To the south is SW Hermosa Way and residential property zoned Mixed Use F�snployment (MUE). SW Beveland Street is south of Hermosa Way and creates a traffic loop onto 72 Avenue. To the west of the site is a 7 acre wetland within an 11 acre parcel under Costco ownership. Site Information and Proposal Description: The project proposes approval of gross leasable commercial retail space of 307,419 sf for Option 1 and 340,552 sf for Option 2 as indicated on the plans summary data. The majority of the shopping center has been designed withran emphasis to accommodate larger scale d goods retailers. The applicant has proposed two (2) driveways to the site along the SW Dartmouth Street frontage, two (2) driveways on the SW 72nd Avenue frontage, and one (1) driveway along SW. Hermoso Way. In error, the applicant's narrative proposal description for Option 2 indicates a larger amount of gross leasable space which does not match the amount shown on the plans, therefore, this larger amount was disregarded for purposes of this review. It is also not clear why the gross leasable space amount exceeds the building- square footages as provided by the applicant. Option 1 The applicant has proposed to develop retail space within six (6) buildings that would likely contain one (1) Major Anchor Tenant and several smaller tenants. Option 2 The applicant proposes four (4) Major Anchor Tenants (3 are attached buildings) and five (5) smaller tenants in nine (9) buildings. On June 1, 1998, the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing and approved a similar proposal for this site subject to Conditions of Approval. At that hearing the Planning Commission expressed strong reservations with the project due to traffic impacts to SW Pacific Highway and unfunded regional transportation improvements listed within the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. On June 23, 1998, the City Council conducted a Public Hearing and expressed similar concerns. At that hearing the City Council approved the proposal because needed transportation improvements required regional transportation funding solutions and cannot be solved by any single applicant. SECTION IV. DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES, PERMITS AND USE Use Classification: Section 18.130.020 Lists the Use Categories. • The applicant is proposing to construct a shopping center to serve commercial retail tenants. This use is classified in Code Chapter 18.130 (Use Classifications) as General Retail. The site is located within the General-Commercial District. Table 18.520.1 lists General Retail as a permitted use in the C-G zone. The one exception is Animal Related General Retail which is not permitted. Summary Land Use Permits: Chapter 18.310 Defines the decision-making type to which the land-use application is assigned. This is a new construction proposal requiring Planned Development Review and is, therefore, defined as a Type Ill Application. Decision Making Procedures: Chapter 18.390 Describes the decision making procedures. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/M1S2000-00002 and P02000-00002/SLR2000-00004/M1S2000-00003 PAGE 12 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC • A'Planned Development Conceptual Plan is reviewed as Type III-PC, and a Planned Development Detailed Plan is reviewed as a Type II procedure in accordance with Section 18.350.030. Type III. procedures apply to quasi-judicial permits and actions that predominantly contain discretionary approval criteria. Type III actions are decided by either the Hearing's Officer (Type III-HO) or the Planning Commission (Type III-PC), with appeals to or review by the City Council. This application includes only a Conceptual Plan at this time. SECTION V. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS No neighborhood comments were provided. SECTION VI. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE CRITERIA A summary of the applicable criteria in this case in the Chapter order in which they are addressed in this report are as follows: . A. Zoning Districts 18.520 (Commercial Zoning Districts) B. Land Use Decisions 18.350(Planned Development) 18.390 (Impact Study Section 18.390.040) C. Land Divisions 18.410 Lot Line Adjustments) 18.420 (Partitions) D. . Community Plan Area Standards Tigard Triangle Design - E. Specific Development Standards 18.705 Access, Egress & Circulation) - 18.725 Environmental Performance Standards) 18.730 Exceptions to Development Standards) 18.745 Landscaping and Screening) 18.755 Mixed Solid Waste & Recyclable Storage) 18.765 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements) 18.775 Sensitive Lands) 18.780 Signs) 18.790 Tree Removal) 18.795 isual Clearance) F. Additional Planned Development Review Criteria from 18.350.100.3 G. Public Facility Concerns Street and Utility Improvement Standards 18.810 (Street and Utility Improvement Standards) The proposal contains no. elements related to the provisions of Code Chapters: 18.715 (Density Computations), 18.720 (Design Compatibility), 18.730.(Exceptions to Development Standards), 18.740 (Historic Overlay), 18.742 (Home Occupations), 18.750 (Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations), 18.760 Nonconforming Situations), 18.785 (Temporary Uses), 18.798 (Wireless Communication Facilities . These Chapters are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards. In addition, Section 8.430 (Subdivisions), is inapplicable. SECTION VII. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: A. ZONING DISTRICT Commercial Zoning District: Section 18.520.020 Lists the description of the Commercial Zoning Districts. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/5LR2000-00004/MI52000-00003 PAGE 13 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC • • • The majority of the site is located in the C-G zone: General-Commercial District. • A portion of the site along the southern boundary is located in the MUE zone; Mixed Use Employment District. • Planned Development Overlay: Section 18.350 This property was previously designated with a Planned Development Overlay. Tigard Triangle Design Overlay: Section 18.620 This site is located within the Tigard Triangle Design District. Development Standards: Section 18.520.040.B States that Development standards in commercial zoning districts are contained in Table 18.520.2 below: EXCERPT FROM C-G AND MUE/C-G STANDARDS.FROM TABLE 18.520.2 • DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN COMMERCIAL ZONES•W:K OT Y °,' 'Ei MS .'x ..,SCE IR ., gi ,. W , , ,AND LOYe,=G PRII,' ` .. Minimum Lot Size . None -Detached unit - - Boarding,lodging, rooming house - Minimum Lot Width 50 ft • Minimum Setbacks -Front yard • . Oft[6] -Side facing street.on corner&through lots[1] - -Side yard -Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district • 0/20 ft[3] -Rear yard - -Distance between front of garage&property line abutting a public or private street. • 0/20 ft[3]. • Maximum Height • 45 ft Maximum Site Coverage [2] . 85% Minimum Landscape Requirement 1 15% ]2]Includes all buildings and impervious surfaces • [3]No setback shall be required except 20 feet shall be required where the zone abuts a residential zoning district. • The parcel width standard.is addressed within the Lot Line Adjustment review portion of the staff report. The applicant proposes to landscape or provide wetlands mitigation areas for approximately 195,534 • square feet of the net site area of 25.70 acres of area. This equals 17% of the net site area and, therefore, complies with the 15% minimum non-impervious surface area requirement. . Setbacks: To the south, the site adjoins property that is designated as Mixed Use Employment that permits residential use. These properties are also developed with detached single-family residential uses, therefore, the 20-foot setback is found to be applicable at the rear yards along Hermosa;and at the•side yard of Pad E (Option 1) and Major IV (Option 2). The applicant has provided a minimum of a 60-foot setback rear yard setback with a minimum 40-foot setback (Option 1) and a minimum 70-foot setback . (Option 2) at the side yards abutting residential property at the southern end of the site, in compliance with this standard. Building Height: None of the proposed building elevations of the Major Anchor building (s) and Pads A-D (Option 1) and Pad A-E (Option 2) will exceed a height of 28 feet according to the concept plans and, therefore, are in compliance with the 45-foot maximum height restriction. • PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MI52000-00003 PAGE 14 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC • F • • • *PACT STUDY: SECTION 18.390 This Section requires that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standard, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of- way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Section 18.32.250 states that when a condition of approval requires the transfer to the public of an interest in real property, the approval authority shall adopt findings which support the conclusion that the interest in real property to be transferred is. roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. A traffic impact study, dated February 1998, was submitted with the 1998 SDR application, by Lancaster Engineering. The purpose of the study was to determine how the traffic in this area will increase when the new development begins operation and to determine impacts on vicinity intersections. The study analyzed the following intersections in the area: 1) SW 72nd Avenue/Highway 99W, 2) SW Dartmouth Street/Highway 99W, 3) SW Dartmouth Street/SW 72nd Avenue, and 4) SW Dartmouth Street/SW 68th Parkway. This traffic study was updated in December 1999 to consider a larger development (365,000 sf of retail vs. 307,419 sf for Option .1 and 330,312 sf for Option 2). Lancaster found that even with the larger development, the increase in traffic would yield the same results as what was found in the original study. The study assumed that 10% of the trips generated by this development would be pass-by trips, which are trips that were already on one (1) of the adjacent streets, like SW Dartmouth Street or SW 72nd Avenue, and were diverted into the shopping center. It was also assumed that 10% of the new trips would be diverted trips, which are trips that must leave their original direction of travel by an intermediate roadway (SW Dartmouth Street or SW 72nd Avenue) to visit the site. Diverted trips in this case would be trips that must leave their original direction on 99W to visit the site; once they leave the site, they would return to their original direction on 99W. Staff finds that both assumptions are reasonable. Based upon information used from TRIP GENERATION, Fifth Edition, Lancaster found that total new trips generated by the site would be 11,778 trips per day, with 262 new trips generated during the AM Peak Hour and 1,118 new trips generated during the PM Peak Hour. Lancaster also used an average 4% growth rate in traffic per year to help determine what the impact would be in the Year 2003, with the new site in place an operating. Using this information, Lancaster found that signals are warranted at the SW Dartmouth Street/SW 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street/SW 68th Parkway intersections. The applicant's plans indicate they will construct these signals as a part of their project. A Level of Service (LOS) analysis, using ODOT's SIGCAP software program was included in the study. SIGCAP defines LOS F as a saturation value of 1.02 or greater. The analysis found that in Year 2003, considering background traffic alone (no Tri-County), the intersections will function as follows: • Highway 99W/Dartmouth Street: LOS E with 93% saturation; • Highway 99W/SW 72nd Avenue: LOS D-E with 87% saturation; • Dartmouth Street/SW 72nd Avenue: LOS D-E with 89% saturation; • Dartmouth Street/SW 68th Parkway: LOS E with 93% saturation. When the proposed site trips are added to the Year 2003 background traffic, the intersections will function as follows: PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/M1S2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 15 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO.2000-02 PC • 0 ' . • Highway 99W/SW Dartmouth Street: LOS E-F with 98% saturation; • Highway 99W/SW 72nd Avenue: LOS D-E with 87% saturation; • Dartmouth Street/SW 72nd Avenue: LOS F . with 122% saturation; • Dartmouth Street/SW 68th Parkway: LOS F with 115% saturation. If traffic signals are installed by the applicant at Dartmouth/72nd and Dartmouth/68th, these intersections will operate at LOS C and B respectively. ODOT submitted comments to the City, dated April 20, 2000, regarding title latest options for this project. ODOT controls the intersection at SW Dartmouth Street/SW 68 • close to the I-5/Haines Road interchange. They have reviewed the applicant's traffi since it information and concur that a signal at this intersection is warranted and should be constructed by the applicant as a part of this project The study also analyzed the new driveways into the site and found that warrants will be met for both .. driveways on SW Dartmouth Street. However, Lancaster proposed to hold off on installing these signals until the development is fully constructed and under operation for a time. They suggested because of the close proximity of the driveways to the SW 72nd Avenue intersection, some queuinaggt may occur west of SW 72nd Avenue which would partially block the eastern driveway for part of each signal cycle. Lancaster recommended that traffic conditions could be monitored for a period of time by the City to determine if the signals should be installed. For SDR 98-0002, Staff found that concept acceptable and recommended the applicant provide financial assurance to cover the cost of design and construction of the two (2) additional traffic -- signals. This financial assurance would be held by the City for a period of five years (60 months) beyond the date of occupancy of the buildings. Then, the applicant would be required to provide follow-up signal warrant analyses every 12 months over that five-year period. If, during that 5-year period, signal warrants are met based upon actual traffic generated by the development, and if in the City Engineer's opinion signalization of one (1) or both of the driveways is within the public's best interest, then the applicant-would be required to design and construct the required signal(s) within 12 months of the City Engineer's direction. At the applicant's request, the Conditions of Approval that were related to the timing of the installation were modified in the 1998 decision. The Planning Commission recommended that-the applicant work with the City Engineer to determine signal timing within six (6) months of project app . recommended that the City Council revise this to-be six (6) months from the time of Building and/or Site Permit application. The condition was amended per Staffs recommendation. Since that time Costco Wholesale approached the City about installing a traffic signal at their south driveway Staff' ffi required both Costco and Tri-Count to coordinate a report to address signalization of the Costco driveway and the proposed Tri-County driveway signals. On February 24, 2000, Kittelson & Associates (under contract with Costco) submitted a traffic signal progression report to the City. They used data from Lancaster's December 1999 report to enable them to develop the progression report. The report shows queuing lengths based upon year. 2003 traffic, and indicates that all signalized intersections will, unction adequately, except for the eastbound through lane on SW :_ Dartmouth Street at SW 72 Avenue. The eastbound through lane queue will exceed the available storage length of 550 feet and will therefore back up in front-of Driveway B. It should be noted that Kittelson's report assumed one eastbound through lane at SW 72" Avenue, due to the lack of roadway width of Dartmouth Street east of 72" Avenue. Staff asked Kittelson whether or not the situation would be better or worse if a signal were not installed at Driveway B. Kittelson responded that it would be better to have a signal of that driveway because it will more efficiently manage all of the turning movements versus the unsignalized option. Staff supports installation of signals at both Driveways A and B, and does not recommend delaying the ij- installation, as was recommended in SDR 98-0002. These signals along with the signals at SW. Avenue, S 68 Parkway and the Costco south driveway, shall all b W W be interconnected. However, Staff is concerned about the inadequate storage length for the eastbound"through lane. The applicant's plan shows two eastbound through lanes on Dartmouth Street at 72" Avenue, and continued double eastbound lanes east of the intersection. The application does not indicate whether or not the applicant is willing to install those improvements. Kittelson indicated that in order to address the inadequate storage for the eastbound through movements at SW 72 Avenue two eastbound through lanes mustibe provided. And those eastbound lanes must be carried through the intersection to a point where they would be safely tapered down to just one lane. Staff concurs with that finding. After discussion by the Planning Commission it was decided that the applicant shall PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 16 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC . o • • • enter into a street improvementegreement that obligates them to participate in the future widening of SW Dartmouth, east of SW 72 Avenue to provide two (2) east bound travel lanes. The applicant's share of the improvements will be based on the length of a. two (2) lane section needed to safely transition to one_- (1) lane eastbound based on recommendation from the Manual on Uniform Traffic control devices MM�UTCD 1988 Edition). Rough Proportionality Analysis The Washington County Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) is a mitigation measure that is required at the time of development. Based on a transportation impact study prepared by Mr. David Larson for the A-Boy Expansion/Dolan II/Resolution 95-61, TIF's are expected to recapture 32% of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and Arterial Street system. Between July 1, 1999 and July 1, 2000 (fees are scheduled to go up after July 1, 2000) it is estimated that the applicant will be required to pay TIF's of approximately $715,870 (based on gross leasable space of 307,419 square feet for Option 1; and for Option 2, it is estimated that the applicant will be required to pay $793,030 (based on gross leasable space of 340,552). Specific future tenants could increase or decrease this total based on the tenant mixture. Option 1 Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 32% of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100% of this projects traffic impact is $2,237,375 ($715,870 divided by .32). The difference between the TIF paid, and the full impact, is considered the unmitigated impact on the street system. The unmitigated impact of this project on the transportation system is $1,521,505. Option 2 Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 32% of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100% of this projects traffic impact is $2,478,218 ($793,030 divided by .32). The difference between the TIF paid, and the full impact, is considered the unmitigated impact on the street system. The unmitigated impact of this project on the transportation system is $1,685,188. The applicant has committed to construct half-street improvements along the SW Dartmouth Street frontage and rebuild of the SW 72nd Avenue frontage with approximately a 3/4 street improvement. The applicant has committed to install traffic signals at the SW 72nd Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street intersection and at the SW 68th Parkway/SW Dartmouth Street intersection. Additionally, the applicant has committed to install traffic signals at both of the proposed SW Dartmouth Street driveways if warranted. The applicant valued the cost of all committed street improvements at $834,074 in the 1998 land use decision, though this figure may increase somewhat due to the recommendations in this report. Much of the proposed street improvement work allows for additional traffic capacity and is, therefore, eligible for a Transportation Impact Fee Credit (TIF). For this reason, the total value of the proposed street improvements, TIF Credits and any non TIF creditable work is estimated at $1,000,000. Because the total transportation impact is $2,237,375 (Option 1) or $2,478,218 (Option 2) the proposed street improvements are easily proportional to the impact of the development. Therefore, the applicant is paying only a portion of the projects impact on the transportation system. Planned Development: Section 18.350 allows the option for an applicant to create a more efficient, economically viable development that preserves natural land features while implementing the land use designation set forth for the property though the Comprehensive Plan. The Planned Development Review is a three (3) step process as follows: 1. Approval of a planned development overlay zone; 2. The second step is the approval of the planned development concept plan; and 3. Approval of a Detailed Development Plan is also required. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MI52000-00003 PAGE 17 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER . 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO.2000-02 PC • • • • Within 1-1/2 years after the date of Commission approval of the conceptual development plan, the owner shall prepare and file with the Director a detailed development plan. Action on the detailed development plan shall be ministerial and taken by the Director by means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040. Exceptions to Underlying Development Standards are contained in Section 18.350.080. Approval Criteria are contained in Section 18.350.100. The applicable criteria for the Planned Development Conceptual Plan in this report are as follows: A. Relationship to site development review. The provisions of Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review, are not applicable to Planned Development Reviews. The detailed i development plan review is intended to address the same type of-issues as the Site Development Review. B. Specific planned development approval criteria. The Commission shall make findings that the following criteria are satisfied When approving or approving with conditions, the concept plan. The Commission shall make findings that the criteria are not satisfied when denying an application. • 1. All the provisions of the land division provisions, Chapters 18.410, 18.420 and 18.430, shall be met; These are addressed under Chapter 18.410, Lot Line Adjustments, and 18.420, Land Partitions in this report. Chapter 18,430, Subdivisions is inapplicable as this is a commercial development. • 2. Except as noted, the provisions of the following chapters shall be 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 standards in the chapters listed in Subsection 3 be ow. The developer may choose to provide or the commission may require additional open space dedication and/or provision of additional amenities, landscaping or tree planting. Except where noted all criteria are applicable. a. Chapter 18.715, Density Computation and Limitations. This criteria is inapplicable as it applies only to residential development. b. Chapter 18.730, Exceptions to Development Standards; c. Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance Areas; d. Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening; _..e. Chapter 18.765, Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements; f. Chapter 18.705,Access, Egress and Circulation; and g. Chapter 18.780, Signs. Criteria b-g above are addressed under Section F. Specific Development Standards in this report. Additional Planned Development criteria as listed in Section 18.350.100.B.3 area addressed in Section G. of this report. 18.350.110 Shared Open Space Requirements for shared open space. Where the open space is designated on the plan as common open space the following applies: Open space is not designated on the plan as common open space, therefore, this criteria is inapplicable. P02000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 18 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC • • • • LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT - APPROVAL STANDARDS: Section.18.410.040 contains the following standards for approval of a Lot Line Adjustment request: Section 18.410.040 - Approval Criteria states that the Director shall approve or deny a request for a lot line adjustment in writing based on findings that the following criteria are satisfied: An additional parcel is not created by the lot line adjustment, and the existing parcel reduced in size by the adjustments is not reduced below the minimum lot size established by the zoning district; No new lots will be created as part of this adjustment; thirteen (13).lots exist and thirteen (13) lots will remain after the proposed adjustment. There is no minimum lot size for the C-G zone. The lots will be between 14,653 and 638,400 square feet after the adjustment. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. By reducing the lot size the lot or structures(s) on the lot will not be in violation of the site. development or zoning district regulations for that district; By reducing the size of the smaller lots and increasing the size of the larger lots, all existing tructures in violation of zoning district regulations will be conditioned to be removed. The applicant has noted on the plans that all structures are to be removed. The resulting parcels are in conformity with the dimensional standards of the zoning district, including: • The minimum width of the building envelope area shall meet the lot requirement of the applicable zoning district; • The lot area shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. In the case of a flag lot, the access way may not be included in the lot area calculation; • Each lot created through the partition process shall front a public right-of-way by at least 15 feet or have a legally recorded minimum 15-foot wide access easement; and • Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. There is no minimum lot size for the C-G zone. The smaller of the thirteen (13) lots is 14,653 square feet and has 100 feet of frontage onto Hermoso Street. The largest of the lots is 638,400 square feet with 900 feet of frontage onto SW Dartmouth and 650 feet onto Hermoso Street. Setbacks will be addressed during building approvals. All existing structures have been conditioned to be removed. The fire district may require the installation of a fire hydrant where the length of an access way would have a detrimental effect on fire-fighting capabilities. Through the building permit review process, fire hydrants will be reviewed for consistency with Uniform Fire Code standards, thereby, satisfying this criterion. Where a common drive is to be provided to serve more than one lot, a reciprocal easement which will ensure access and maintenance rights shall be recorded with the approved partition map. This criterion will be met because a shared access agreement will be provided. Any access way shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 18.705: Access, Egress, and Circulation. This standard is met through the existing access provided to these lots via their street frontage. Exemptions from dedications: A lot line adjustment is not considered a development action for purposes of determining whether floodplain, greenway, or right-of-way dedication is required. These lots are not within the floodplain, see Chapter 18.775, Sensitive Lands in this report. Therefore, this standard does not apply. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 19 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO.2000-02 PC • . . • Variances to development standards: An application for a variance to the standards prescribed in this chapter shall be made in accordance with Chapter 18.370, Variances and Adjustments. The applicant has not requested a variance or an adjustment with this application. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the Lot Line Adjustment criteria have not been met. If the applicant complies with the condition below, the standards shall be met. CONDITIONS: • All existing structures that will be in violation of required setbacks as a result of the Lot Line Adjustment shall be removed. • The applicant shall record the Lot Line Adjustment with Washington County within 1Yz years from the date of approval. Extensions may be granted by the Director in certain cases, not to exceed one year in accordance with CDC Section 18.410.020.D. This approval shall lapse if the final recording is a departure from the approved plans. D. COMMUNITY PLAN AREA STANDARDS TRIANGLE DESIGN STANDARDS: CHAPTER 18.620 Design standards for public .street improvements and for new development and renovation projects have been prepared for the Tigard Triangle. These design standards address several important guiding principals adopted for the Tigard Triangle, including creating a high-quality mixed use employment area, providing a convenient pedestrian and bikeway system within the Triangle, and utilizing streetscape to create a high quality image for the area. All new developments are expected to contribute to the character and quality of the area. In addition to meeting the design standards described below and other development standards required by the Development and Building Codes, developments will be required to dedicate and improve public streets, connect to public facilities such as sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage, and participate in funding future transportation and public improvement projects necessary within the Tigard Triangle. The following design standards apply to all development located within the Tigard Triangle. If a standard found in this section conflicts with another standard in the Development Code, standards in this section shall govern. Street.Connectivity: Section 18.620.020 All development must demonstrate how one (1) of the following standard options will be met. Variance of:these standards may be approved per the requirements of Chapter 18.370.010 where topography, barriers such as railroads or freeways, or environmental constraints such as major streams and rivers prevent street extensions and connections. Performance Option A. Local street spacing shall occur at intervals of no less than eight (8) street intersections per mile. B. The shortest vehicle trip over public streets from a local origin to a collector or greater. facility is no more than twice the straight-line distance. C. The shortest pedestrian trip on public right-of-way from a local origin to a collector or greater facility is no more than one and one-half the straight-line distance. As the length of SW Dartmouth Street is 4,100 lineal feet, approximately six to seven (actual figure is 6.2) intersections would be required to meet this standard. based on the fact that there are five (5) existing intersections on SW Dartmouth within the Tigard Triangle, this standard is not met without the extension of a street(s) through this site. The five (5) existing intersections include the SW P02000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 • PAGE 20 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO.2000-02 PC • • • Dartmouth Street at SW Pacific Highway, SW Dartmouth Street at SW 72nd Avenue, SW Dartmouth Street at SW 70th Avenue, SW Dartmouth Street at SW 69th Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street at I- 5. After discussion before the Planning Commission, the "planned" Backage Road at SW Dartmouth and the "planned" fly-over at SW Dartmouth to Hall Boulevard were eliminated from the intersection count as they were deemed unlikely to be built in the near future. As there are only five (5) out of six (6) required intersections on SW Dartmouth, an extension of a street through the Tri-County Shopping Center site from SW Dartmouth Street to SW Hermoso Way is required. As the length of SW 72nd Avenue through the Triangle is 4,400 lineal feet, approximately seven (actual figure is 6.6) intersections on SW 72nd Avenue are required through the Triangle. Including the intersections of SW 72nd Avenue at 2.17, SW 72nd Avenue at SW Hampton Street, SW 72nd Avenue at SW Gonzaga Street, SW 72nd Avenue at SW Beveland Street, SW 72nd Avenue at SW Hermosa Way, SW 72nd Avenue at SW Dartmoujh Street, SW 72nd Avenue at SW Clinton Street, SW 72nd Avenue at SW Baylor Street, SW 72n Avenue at the planned extension of SW Atlanta Street, and SW 72nd Avenue at SW Pacific Highway; a total of 10 intersections are existing, or planned and likely to be built within the Tigard Triangle. For this reason, an extension of a street through the Tri-County Shopping Center site from SW 72nd Avenue is not required. The shortest vehicle trip over public streets from a local origin to a collector or greater facility is no more than twice the straight-line distance standard, has been interpreted as the distance from a driveway entrance to a collector or larger classification street. In this case, the project meets this requirement because of frontage and proposed driveway access to two (2) Major Arterial streets, SW Dartmouth Street and SW 72nd Avenue. The shortest pedestrian trip standard has been interpreted to mean that a pedestrian should not have to travel more than one and one-half (1'/2) times the shortest straight line distance from the driveway entrance to the farthest proposed building entrance. The driveway is an appropriate point of measure in this case because four (4) of the five (5) driveways (Driveways A-D) intersect with streets designated as Major Arterials, SW 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street. For this reason, the driveway entrance would exceed the collector standard stated in the criteria. The fifth driveway is located on Hermosa Way, a local street, and, therefore, shall not be considered in this analysis. Option 1 • The furthest main entrance of Major Anchor I to SW 72nd Avenue appears to be the most appropriate distance to use to measure compliance with the standard. This distance is the furthest point a would have to walk from the public street into the site. A pedestrian would have a straight ne distance of 810 lineal feet if the applicant provided a walkway all the way to SW 72nd Avenue, as has been required. A distance of one and one-half (11/2) times the straight line path is 1,210 lineal feet. The actual distance as shown on the plans is 1,160 lineal feet, which meets this standard. Option 2 The furthest main entrance of Major Anchor I to SW 72nd Avenue appears to be the most appropriate distance to use.to measure compliance with the standard. This distance is the furthest point a Ppedestrian would have to walk from the public street into the site. A pedestrian.would have a straight ne distance of 980 feet if the applicant provided a walkway all the way to SW 72nd Avenue, as has been required. A distance of one and one-half (11/2) times the straight line path is 1,470 lineal feet. The actual distance provided is 1,115 lineal feet, which meets this standard. FINDING: This standard is not on SW Dartmouth and is met on 72nd Avenue. In order to meet the standards the applicant shall met the following condition: CONDITION:The applicant shall' revise the plans and shall provide a public or private street connecting SW Dartmouth to Hermoso Way. The street, as distinguished from the term aisle, shall be a minimum 24 feet (24') from curb to curb. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/M1S2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/5LR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 21 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC • • • • Site Design Standards: Section 18.620.030 All development must meet the following site design standards. If a parcel is one (1) acre or larger a phased development plan must be approved demonstrating how these standards for the overall parcel can be met. Variance to these standards may be granted if the criteria found in Section 18.370.010.C2, governing criteria for granting a variance, is satisfied. Building placement on Major and Minor Arterials and the street - Buildings shall occupy a minimum of 50% of all street frontages along Major and Minor Arterial Streets. Buildings shall be located at public street intersections on Major and Minor Arterial Streets. The site has approximately 680 feet of frontage on SW 72nd Avenue; and 50% of this frontage equals 340 lineal feet. Option 1 The applicant has proposed two (2) ads equivalent to 340 feet of length which meets the standard 50%for 50 of the site frontage on SW 72nd Avenue. The site has approximately 1,270 feet of frontage on SW Dartmouth Street; and 50% of this frontage equals 635 lineal feet. The applicant has proposed three (3) pads with a total building length of 582 lineal feet which does not meet the 50% street frontage standard. For this reason, the application as proposed does not comply with this standard. Option 2 • The applicant has proposed two (2) pads equivalent to 330 feet of length which does not meet the minimum 50% of the site frontage on SW 72nd Avenue. The site has approximately 1,270 feet of frontage on SW Dartmouth Street; and 50% of this frontage equals 635 lineal feet. The applicant has proposed four (4) pads with a total building length of 714.43 lineal feet which exceeds the minimum i 50% street frontage standard. The proposed plan is slightly below the minimum 50% along 72" Avenue. FINDING: Option 1 meets this standard while Option 2 does not meet the standard. In order for Option 2 to meet the standard', the applicant shall meet the following condition: CONDITION:For Option 2 only, the applicant shall revise the plans along SW 72"d Avenue for building placement. The building pads shall cover at least 340 feet of frontage in accordance with Section 18.620.030. Building. setback - The minimum building setback from public street rights-of-way or dedicated wetlands/buffers and other environmental features, shall be 0 feet; the maximum building setback shall be 10 feet. Pads A, B and C comply with this standard as they abut the wetlands mitigation area which fronts SW Dartmouth Street. Pads C and D comply with this standard on the SW 72nd Avenue frontage because they<are proposed to be built up to the street right-of-way. Pad E (Option 1 only) does not meet this criteria, as it is setback 45 feet from SW Hermosa Way. Slopes at the southeast corner of the site adjacent to Pad E are roughly 27 to 50%, therefore, a substantial amount of grading would be required to site Pad E closer to Hermosa Way and comply with this criteria. Option 2 Pads A, B, C and D comply with this standard as they abut the wetlands mitigation area which fronts SW Dartmouth Street. Pads .0 and D comply with this standard on the SW 72nd Avenue frontage because they are proposed to be built up to the street right-of-way. Majors II-IV do not meet this criteria, as setbacks range from the southwest corner of Major II at roughly 50 feet, to the southeast corner of Major IV at roughly 70 feet from Hermosa Way. . FINDING: As the Pad E (Option 1)_ and Majors II-IV (Option 2) do not meet the 0-foot building setback standard or the intent of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards, the applican shall meet the following conditions in order to satisfy this standard: PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 22 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO.2000-02 PC • • �� • CONDITIONS: Option 1 The applicant shall revise the plans to comply with the 0-foot building setback standards as contained in the Tigard Design Triangle Site Design Standards Section 18.620.030.A.2 for Pad E or shall submit the alternative design proposal for building setback to the Design Evaluation team in accordance with Section 18.620.090 prior to detailed plan review submittal. Option 2 • The applicant shall revise the plans to comply with the 0-foot building setback standards as contained in the Tigard Design Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030.A.2 for Major II-IV, or shall submit the alternative. design. proposal for building setback to the Design Evaluation team in accordance with Section 18.620.090 prior to detailed plan review submittal. Front yard setback design - Landscaping, an arcade, or a hard-surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path must be provided between a structure and a publia street or accessway. If a building abuts more than one (1) stpeet, the required improvements shall be provided on all streets. Landscaping shall be developed to an L-1 standard on public streets. Hard-surfaced areas shall be constructed with scored concrete or modular paving materials. Benches and other street furnishings are encouraged. These areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirement per Section 18.520.040B and Table 18.520.2. The applicant has proposed the L-1 landscape standard applies for all public frontages which include SW Dartmouth Street, SW 72nd Avenue, and Hermosa Way and L-2 standard along driveways. The applicant has proposed to construct Pads C and D (Option 1') Pads E and D (Option 2) up to the SW 72nd Avenue frontage right-of-way.. The parking area to the south of Driveway D will also have frontage on the SW 72nd Avenue right-of-way; and buffering and screening for this parking area is addressed under Chapter 18.745 in this report Topography in this area dictates that the parking will be below the rade of the street. Along the SW Dartmouth.Street frontage the applicant does not meet this standard due to the wetlands fill and mitigation proposed for this entire frontage, however, this wetland area does not preclude the applicant from meeting the standard. Street tree plantings shall comply with the Tigard Triangle Design Standards reviewed under Section 18.745.040 in this report. FINDING: This standard is not met. In order to meet this standard, the applicant shall meet the following condition: CONDITION:The applicant shall revise the plans and provide landscaping, an arcade, or a hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path along SW Dartmouth Street between the structures and the wetlands/public street, or shall submit the alternative design proposal for front yard setback design in accordance with the •Ti and Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030 to the Design Evaluation Team prior to detailed plan review submittal.. Walkway connection to building entrances - A walkway connection is required between the building s entrance and the public street or accessway providing access to the property. This walkway must be at least six (6) feet wide and be paved with scored concrete or modular paving materials. Building entrances at a corner near a public street intersection are encouraged. These areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirement per Section 18.520.040B and Table 18.520.2. Except for Pad C. (in Option 1) and Pad D and Major I I (in Option 2), a walkway system has been provided to each main entrance of the proposed pads from SW 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street. However, it is recommended that Major I in each plan have a walkway ccvnection to Hermosa Way near the Hermoso Way access; as the proposed walkway distance to 72 Avenue is roughly 980 feet in length in Option 1 and 940 feet in Option 2. The applicant proposed 6 feet wide walkways paved with concrete. The standard requires that the walkway system be paved with scored concrete or modular paving materials. The applicant shall provide a continuous six (6)-foot-wide walkway using matching modular pavement materials. FINDING: The walkway system does not meet this standard. In order to meet this standard, the applicant shall meet the following condition: PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/M152000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 23 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO.2000-02 PC • • . • CONDITION:The applicant shall revise the plans and provide a walkway system to meet the • requirements of the Tigard Triangle e Design Standards in the detailed plan. Specifically, • the applicant shall revise Pad C Option 1) and Pad D and Major II (Oppt�ion 2) walkways to connect with the public street. It is also recommended that.the Major I Anchor each plan have a walkway connection near the Hermoso Way access. The applicant shall provide a continuous six (6)-foot-wide walkway using matching modular pavement materials. Parking location and landscape design - Parking for buildings or phases adjacent to public street rights-of-way must be located-to the side or rear of newly constructed buildings. If located on the side, parking is limited to 50% of the street frontage and must be behind a landscaped area constructed to an L-1 Landscape standard. The minimum depth of the L-1 landscaped area is five feet or is equal to the building setback, whichever is greater. . Interior side and rear yards shall be landscaped to a L-2 Standard, except where a side yard abuts a public street, where it shall be landscaped to an L-1 Landscape Standard. See Diagram 2. The applicant has proposed to develop parking to the side of buildings directly adjacent to SW 72nd Avenue at Driveway U and at the southern end of the site to the east of Major 1 and west of Pad E (OptiOn 1)'or Major II (Option 2) along Hermoso Way. Building placement standards, and wetlands mitigation issues on the SW Dartmouth. Street frontage preclude placement of parking areas • immediately adjacent to the street. - FINDING: . The proposed plans in Option 1 and Option 2 do not meet this criteria as parking to the side of buildings exceeds 50% of the street frontage in some cases. This does not meet the intent of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. In order to meet this criteria, the applicant shall meet the following condition: CONDITION:When submitting the detailed plan for review, the applicant shall revise the plans and relocate or redesign the parking areas that front the public street on SW 72 Avenue and SW Hermoso Way so that parking is limited to no more than 50% of the street frontage; and so that all parking on the street frontages is located behind a landscaped area constructed to L-1 standard with a minimum five (5)-foot depth, or equal to the building setback, whichever is greater. Interior side and rear yards shall be landscaped to a L-2 standard, except where a side yard abuts a public street, where it shall be landscaped to an L-1 standard. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with standards in accordance with the Tigard Triangle Site Design Standards as contained in Section 18.620.030.A.5. Alternatively, the applicant shall submit the alternative design proposal to the DET prior to detailed plan review submittal. Building Design Standards: Section 18.620.40 (18.620.040) All non-residential buildings shall comply with the following design standards. Variance to these standards may be granted if the criteria found in Section 18.370.010, criteria for granting a variance, is satisfied. Ground floor windows - All street-facing elevations within the Building Setback (0 to 10 feet) along public streets shall include a minimum of 50% of the ground floor wall area with windows, display areas or doorway openings. The ground floor wall area shall be measured from three (3) feet above grade to nine (9) feet above grade the entire width of the street-facing elevation. The ground floor window requirement shall be met within the ground floor wall area and for glass doorway openings to ground level. Up to 50% of the ground floor window requirement may be met on an adjoining elevation as long as all of the requirement is located at a building corner. The building setback in accordance with Section 18.620.030.A.2, is the area between 0-10 feet from the public street right-of-ways or dedicated wetlands/buffers and other environmental features. Therefore, this standard applies to the north elevations of all the buildings along SW Dartmouth Street, in addition to all buildings required to be located between 0-10 feet along 72" Avenue and SW Hermoso Way. As essentially all of the buildings (in Option 1 and 2) are oriented with their front entries and primary windows to the interior of the site, and virtually no windows are shown to the street, this concept plan does not meet the criteria. During the pre-application conference with the applicant, the applicant discussed possibly meeting this standard with the use of false windows. It is PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MI52000-00003 PAGE 24 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC • •s ,•. • •\ • recommended that that no false windows be allowed for purposes of the meeting this standards along 72 Avenue, and that no more than 50% of the required windows be allowed to be false windows along SW Dartmouth and SW Hermoso, if the applicant is in fact intending to propose this as a solution to meet this standard. Option 1 . Based on the orientation of the buildings on this site, this standard applies to the north elevations of Pads A and B (facing Dartmouth), the north and eastnglevation of Pad C (corner of Dartmouth and 72"d Avenue), the east elevation of Pad D (facing 72 Avenue), and the south elevation of Pad E (facing Hermoso Way). Pad A does not meet this criteria as no north elevation-was_provided in the plans, therefore, it is assumed that no windows are proposed for the north elevation. Further, Pad A's front entry and main elevation is oriented to the south. Pad Pad B does not meet this criteria as there are no windows shown on the north elevations. Up to 50% of these windows can be made up from the windows on the side elevations at the corners of the building. Pad C does not meet this criteria as no windows are shown on the street facing elevations of this corner building, either on north or east elevations. On Pad C, 50% of the ground floor wall area of both the north and east elevations are required to have windows, display areas or doorway openings. Pad D does not meet this criteria as no windows are shown on the east elevation. Pad E does not meet this criteria as no windows are shown on the south elevation. Up to 50% of these street elevation windows can be made up from the windows on the side elevations at the corners of the building only. Option 2 . Based on the orientation of the buildings on this site, this standard applies to the north elevations of Pads A, B and C (facing Dartmouth), the north and east elevation of Pad D (corner of Dartmouth and 72"d Avenue), the east elevation of Pad D (facing 72 Avenue), and the south elevation of Majors II, III, and IV (facing Hermoso Way). Pad A does not meet this criteria as no windows are shown on the north elevation. Pad B does not meet this criteria as there are no windows shown on the north elevations. Up to 50% of these windows can be made up from the windows on the side elevations at the corners ofthe building. Pad C does not meet this criteria as no windows are shown on the street facing elevations of this corner building, either on north or east elevations. On Pad C, there is one bay shown with windows covering approximately 74 square feet between three to nine feet above grade. As Pad C is 123 feet in length, the required window area is 3,321 square feet; and while up to 50% of the windows are allowed to come from the side elevations at the corner bays, the glazing shown is far below the•standard. Further, Pad A, B and C's front entry and main elevations are oriented to the south, the main parking lot area at the interior of the site. 50% of the ground floor wall area of both the north and east elevations on Pad D are required to have windows, display areas or doorway openings. Pad D does not meet this criteria as no windows are shown on the north or east elevations (it appears as though Pad D east elevation is shown in error as Pad E east elevation, and that two Pad E east elevations are shown in error). Pad E does not meet this criteria as no windows are shown on the east elevation. Up to 50% of these street elevation windows can be made up from the windows on the side elevations at the corners of the building only. Majors II, Ill, and IV do not meet this criteria as no windows are shown on the south elevation or the side elevations (east or west). FINDING: This standard is not met for the conceptual plan and does not meet the intent of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. In order to meet this standard, the applicant shall meet the following condition: CONDITION:The applicant shall redesign the plans and elevations to include a minimum of 50% of windows, display areas or doorway openings on the street-facing elevations in accordance with Section 18.620.40.1, Ground floor windows or shall submit the alternative design proposed to the Design Evaluation Team who will then make recommendations to the Planning Commission. The Tigard. Triangle Ground floor window standard (Section 18.620.40) shall apply to all building elevations facing SW Dartmouth Street located between 0-10 feet frcpm the wetland area, all building elevations within the 0-10 foot setback facing 72" Avenue and all building elevations within the 0-10 foot building setback, or required to be located within the 0-10 foot building setback (in accordance with Section 18.620.030.A.2). Up to 50% of the ground floor window requirement may be met on an adjoining elevation as long as all of P02000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 25 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER- 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO.2000-02 PC • • the requirement is located on a building comer.(this means the first bay of the corner on the side elevations in this case). No false windows are allowed for purposes of the meeting the Tigard Design nTriangle Standard for Ground Floor Windows, Section 18.620.40 standard along 72 Avenue, and no more than 50% of the required ground floor windows shall be allowed to be false windows along SW Dartmouth and SW Hermoso Way. Alternatively, the applicant shall submit the alternative design proposal to the DET prior to detailed plan review submittal. Building facades - Facades that face a public street shall extend no more than 50-feet without providing at least one (1) of the following features: (a) a variation in building materials; (b) a building.off-set of at least 1-foot; (c) a wall area that is entirely separated from other wall are by a projection, such as an arcade; or (d) by another design features that reflect the buildi g's structural system. No building facade shall extend for more than 300 feet without a connection between or through the building. pedestrian Option 1 Based on the orientation of the buildings on this site, this standard applies to the north elevations of Pads A and B (facing Dartmouth), the north and east elevation of Pad C (corner of Dartmouth and 72nd Avenue), the east elevation of Pad D (facing 72' Avenue), the south elevation of Pad E (facing Hermoso Way), and the east elevation of Major I. Pad A does not meet this criteria as no north elevation was provided in the plans. Pad B's north elevation indicates a combination of split-face concrete and brick or false brick, therefore elevation meets the criteria in concept. Pad C's north and east elevations, and Pad D's' east elevation indicate bays, approximately 26 feet apart, separated by pilasters or columns. Though no information is provided regarding proposed depth of building off-set or change in materials, this criteria can be met conceptually. Pad E's south elevation shows two materials, split-face concrete block for the main façade and smooth concrete block for the accent bands, and therefore, can meet this standard conceptually. The east elevation of Major I indicates a combination of materials including glass block, and at least two different concrete surfaces, and therefore, can 'meet this standard conceptually. No building facade extends more than 300 feet without a pedestrian connection between or through the building except the west (service side) of Major 1. Option 2 Based on the orientation of the buildings on this site, this standard applies to the north elevations of Pads A, B, and C (facing Dartmouth), the north and egst elevation of Pad D (corner of Dartmouth and 72 Avenue), the east elevation of Pad D (facing 72 Avenue), and the south elevation of Majors II, -III, and IV, (facing Hermoso Way). The east elevation of Major 1 shall also meet this standard. Pads A and B's north elevations meet this standard conceptually as three different materials are indicated including split-face concrete masonry units, smooth concrete block and ultra block on the retaining wall:which adjoins the building's north facade. Pad's C's north elevation, and Pad D's north and east elevation do not specify different materials, however, it appears that different materials are intended or can be specified in the detailed plan. It is not clear what is intended for materials on the south elevation of Majors II-IV, however, different materials can be specified in the detail plan. No elevations were provided by the applicant for Major I of Option 2, therefore, this criteria is not met. No pedestrian connections are provided to meet the 300 feet standard on the south sides of Major II-IV, or the west side (service side) of Major I. FINDING: Pad A of Option 1 and Major 1 of Option 2 do not meet this criteria_ conceptually, as street facing building elevations were not provided by the applicant. Also, Majors II-IV of Option 2 do not meet this criteria. All other building elevations meet this standard conceptually. Majors II-IV (Option 2) does not meet the intent of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. In order to meet this standard, the applicant shall meet the following condition: PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MI52000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/M152000-00003 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER PAGE 26 OF 59 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC • • •CONDITION:When the applicant submits the detailed plan for review, the applicant shall provide detailed plans, elevations, and specifications of all buildings indicating facade building materials, dimensions of any building off-sets, facade projections, and special design features that reflect the building's structural system to demonstrate compliance with Section 18.620.40.A.2, Building facades. No building facade shall extend for more than 300 feet without a pedestrian connection between or through the building whether on a public street or within the interior of the site. Alternatively, the applicant shall submit the alternative design proposal to the DET prior to detailed plan review submittal. Weather protection - Weather protection for pedestrians, such as awnings, canopies, and arcades, shall be provided at building entrances. Weather protection is encouraged along building frontages abutting a public sidewalk or a hard-surfaced expansion of a sidewalk, and along building frontages between a building. entrance and a public street or accessway. Awnings and canopies shall not be back lit. The applicant's narrative states that a protected pedestrian pathway will be provided in front of and bordering the parking lot side of each structure, and that the pathway will be protected by extending building roofs, creating an arcade. The applicant has not shown on the plans and elevations how this • standard will be met at building-entrances, and the how the general intent of the criteria will be met along building frontages. FINDING: This criteria is not met, as the applicant has not demonstrated clearly, via the plans and elevations, weather protection for pedestrians at all building entrances, and how the applicant will meet the intent of this criteria along building frontages. CONDITION:The applicant shall submit revised plans and elevations with the detailed plan review submission, and clearly indicate the locations of weather protection for pedestrians in accordance with Section 18.620.40.A.3, Weather Protection. Building Materials - Plain concrete block, plain concrete, corrugated metal, plywood, sheet press board or vinyl siding may not be used as exterior finish materials. Foundation material may be plain concrete or plain concrete block where the foundation material is not revealed for more than 2 feet. Architectural elevations have been provided with a variety of finish design materials including smooth concrete block, split-face concrete masonry, ground face scored smooth block, synthetic stucco, ultra block for retaining walls, and standing seam metal roofs on building corner towers. The applicant's narrative states that foundation material will be plain concrete not revealed for more than two feet. FINDING: As no prohibited materials are proposed, this criteria is met in concept. To meet the criteria for the detailed review process, the applicant shall meet the following condition: CONDITION:The applicant shall indicate all materials to be used as exterior finish materials on each elevation in the detailed plan submission, in accordance with the Tigard Triangle Design criteria in Section 18.620.40, Building Materials. Roofs and roof lines - Except in the case of a building entrance feature, roofs shall be designed as an extension of the primary materials used for the building and should respect the building's structural system and architectural style. False fronts and false roofs are not permitted. The applicant has not proposed to use false fronts or false roofs as part of the building elevations. FINDING: This criterion is met conceptually. Roof-mounted equipment - All roof-mounted equipment must be screened from view from adjacent public streets. Satellite dishes and other communication equipment must be set • back or positioned on a roof so that exposure from adjacent public streets is minimized. Solar heating panels are exempt from this standard. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MI52000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/M152000-00003 PAGE 27 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC O.' I � •• The applicant has not adequately addressed how it will screen roof mounted equipment as discussed under Section 18.350.100.3 in this report under the additional Buffering and Screening standards. FINDING: This criterion is not met. In order to meet this criterion, the applicant shall meet the following condition: CONDITION The applicant shall revise the plans and designate areas on the Major Anchor Tenant Buildings where rooftop mechanical equipment will be installed to include a 20-foot minimum setback along the south and east building elevations of the Major Anchor Tenant Buildings. To allow the building itself to screen other rooftop equipment on the smaller pad buildings, no rooftop equipment shall be placed within 15 feet of an exterior wall on Pads A-E. Signs: Section 18.620.050 In addition to the requirements of Chapter 18.780 of the Development Code the standards as contained in Section 18.620.050 shall be met. FINDING: Signs have not been reviewed under this conceptual plan. In order to meet this standard,_the applicant must meet the following condition: CONDITION:The applicant shall submit for review and approval with the detailed plan submission a sign program that complies with the standards for the shopping center in accordance with Chapter 18.780, Signs for the General Commercial zoning district, and the Mixed Use Employment zoning district with any special limitations as required by the Tigard Triangle Design Standards in accordance with Section 18. 20.050. Landscaping And Screening: Section 18.620.070 Two (2) levels of landscaping and screening standards are applicable to the Tigard Triangle. The locations where the landscaping or screening is required and the depth of the landscapin or screening is defined within this section. These standards are minimum requirements. Higher standards may be substituted as long as all height limitations are met. L-1 Low Screen = For general landscaping of landscaped and screened areas within parking lots and along collectors and local streets, planting standards of Chapter 18.745 Landscaping. and Screening , shall apply. The L-1 standard applies to setbacks on Major and Minor Arterials. Where the setback is a minimum of 5 feet between the parking lot and a Major or Minor Arterial trees shall be planted at 31/2-inch caliper at a maximum of 28 feet on center. Shrubs shall be of a variety that will provided a 3-foot Iiigh screen and a 90% opacity within one (1) year. Groundcover plants must fully cover the remainder of landscape area within two (2) years. Any tree planted in excess of a 2 inch caliper shall be eligible for full mitigation credit. Southwest 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street are both designated as Major Arterials. SW Hermoso Way is a local street, and therefore, this criteria does not apply on Hermoso Way. Where the setback is.a minimum of 5 feet between the parking lot and a Major or Minor Arterial, trees sh�ld '/2 be planted at 3 -inch caliper, at a maximum of 28 feet-on center. The Parking lot fronting SW 72 Avenue to the south of Driveway D shall meet this standard. FINDING: This standard is not met. In order to meet the standard, the applicant shall meet the following condition: CONDITION: The applicant shall revise the plans in the detailed plan review ibmission and provide the L-1 landscaping standard to screen the parking lot facing 72 Avenue to the south of Driveway D. L-2 General Landscaping — For general landscaping of landscaped and screened areas within parking lots, local collectors and local streets planting standards of Chapter 18:745, Landscaping and Screening, shall apply. Trees shall be provided at a minimum of 2 and 1/2 inch caliper, at a maximum spacing.of 28 feet. Shrubs shall be of a size and quality to achieve the required landscaping or screening effect within two years. Any tree planted in excess of a 2 inch caliper shall be eligible for full mitigation credit. P02000-00001/SLR2000-00005/M1S2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/M1S2000-00003 PAGE 28 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC • This standard is addressed under Section 18.745.040, Street•Trees and portions of Chapter 18.745 in this report. Street and Accessway Standards: Section 18.620.080 Refers to Table 18.620.1 and accessway diagrams in this section. This section is incorporated and addressed under Section 18.810, Street and Utility Improvement Standards in this report. E. SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ACCESS, EGRESS, AND CIRCULATION: CHAPTER 18.705 - Commercial and industrial uses which require 0-99 parking spaces shall provide one (1) access with a minimum of 30 feet access width and minimum pavement width of 24 feet. Commercial and industrial uses which exceed 100 parking spaces shall provide two (2) parking.spaces with a minimum of 30 feet access width and minimum pavement width of 24 feet, or a minimum of one (1) access with a minimum access width of 50 feet and minimum pavement width of 40 feet. Section 18.705.030.0 provides for joint access. The ropposed access points into this project have not significantly changed from the 1998 version (SDR 98-0002). The development will have two (2) points of access on SW Dartmouth Street, with one (1) full access driveway opposite the existing entrance into the Winco Foods/Office Max site and one (1) full access driveway_approximately 600 feet further to the west. There will also be two (3) full access driveways onto SW 72nd Avenue. With this current option therrd is also a proposed full access onto SW Hermoso Way at the main horizontal curve west of SW 72 Avenue. The Hermoso Way access appears to have a minimum pavement width of 24 feet. FINDING: This standard has been met conceptually, however, the following condition shall be met in order to meet this condition in the detailed plan review process. CONDITION: In order to meet the access standards in the detailed plan review process, the applicant shall submit detailed plans showing all dimensions of the access widths and minimum pavement widths and meet all criteria in accordance within the Tigard Triangle Standards, Sections 18.620.080 and Chapter 18.705. Joint Access: Section 18.705.030.0 Owners of two or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may agree to utilize the same access and egress when the combined access and egress of both uses, structures, or parcels of land satisfies the combined requirements as designated in this title, provided: Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented in the form of deeds easements, leases, or contracts to establish the joint use; and Copies of the deeds, easements, leases or contracts are placed on permanent file: with the City.. Joint access standards are applicable as there are multiple buildings on multiple lots with multiple ownership on this site. Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented in the form of deeds, easements, leases, or contracts to establish the joint use; and copies of the deeds, easements, leases or contracts are placed on permanent file with the City. Walkway Location: Section 18.705.030.F On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards: Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing of • stairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and existing developments and neighboring developments; The City wide standard of four (4) feet of unobstructed walkway width does apply. The walkway overall width requirement is modified by the Tigard Triangle Design Standard that requires six (6) feet of total width, and the applicant has proposed to meet this standard. Walkway connections are addressed under Section 18.620.030.A.4, Walkway Connection to building entrances in the Tigard Triangle Design Standard Chapter of this report. P02000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/M152000-00003 PAGE 29 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC • • .' • Within all attached housing (except two-family dwellings) and multi-family developments, each residential dwelling shall be connected by walkway to the vehicular parking area, and common open space and recreation facilities; This criterion is not applicable as the property is in commercial use. Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots, such crossings shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety. Required walkways shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum 6-inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum 3-foot horizontal separation, except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 36- feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting.pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards; All crosswalks including the additional walkways which cross vehicle access driveways as required in this report shall be designed for pedestrian safety in accordance with the dimensional requirements of Section 18.705.030.F. All crosswalks as required shall be shown in the detailed plan. Additional crosswalks.-ma be required in the detailed plan review process. The site and landscape plans shall not require pedestrians to cross driveway aisles of more than 36 feet. Required walkways shall be paved with hard surfaced materials such as concrete, asphalt, stone, brick, etc. Walkways may be required to be lighted and/or signed as needed for safety purposes. Soft-surfaced public use pathways may be provided only if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways. The applicant has provided a conceptual photometric plan. Lighting proposed for the parking lot is mounted pole luminaire. Located at the western portion of the site to the west of Major 1 are shield pole mounted luminaire, at the streets are City of Tigard Standard Streetlight, and on the buildings are building mounted luminaire. The lighting plan will be reviewed in detail during the detailed plan review process. FINDING: This standard has been met conceptually, however, the following conditions shall be met in order to satisfy this condition in the detailed plan review process. CONDITIONS: • In order to meet the access standards in the detailed plan review process, the applicant shall submit detailed plans showing all dimensions of the access widths and minimum pavement widths and meet all criteria in accordance within the Tigard Triangle Standards, Sections 18.620.080 and Chapter 18.705. • The applicant shall provide a detailed lighting plan for review during the detailed plan review process in accordance with CDC Section 18.705.030.F. • In the detailed plan review process, the applicant shall provide evidence that all crosswalks including the additional walkways which cross vehicle access driveways as required in this report shall be designed for pedestrian safety in accordance with the dimensional requirements of Section 18.705.030.F. All crosswalks as required shall be shown in the detailed plan. The site and landscape plans shall not require pedestrians to cross driveway aisles of more than 36 feet. Additional crosswalks may be required in the detailed plan review process. Applicant to provide detectable warnings at each entrance to the crossing at all accessible crosswalks. Applicant to record with the County and place on permanent file with the City, a crossover easement for the crosswalk which connects separate parcels. • All of the accesses on the site are considered to be joint accesses. Prior to issuance of building permits the applicant shall provide satisfactory legal evidence in the form of deeds, easements, leases, or contracts to establish the joint access use; and copies of the deeds, easements, leases or contracts are placed on permanent file with the City. PD2000-00001/5LR2000-00005/MI52000-00002 and PD2000-00002/5LR2000-00004/MI52000-00003 PAGE 30 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO 2000-02 PC . • • • • Minimum Access requirements for commercial and industrial use: Section 18.705.030.1. Vehicle access egress and circulation for commercial and industrial.use shall not be less than as provided in 'fable 18.705.3. Vehicular access shall be provided to commercial or industrial uses and shall be located to within 50 feet of the primary ground floor entrances; additional requirements for truck traffic may be placed as conditions of site development. Option 1 The applicant proposes 1,475 arking spaces on the site, therefore, at least one access with a minimum 50-foot width and 40-toot pavement width is required, or two accesses with a minimum 30-foot width and 24-foot pavement width is required under the City of Tigard CDC.. The existing site has five accesses, and exceeds the minimum requirement for this standard. - FINDING: This standard is met conceptually. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: CHAPTER 18.725 Requires that federal and state environmental laws, rules and regulations be applied to development within the City of Tigard. Section 18.725.030 Performance Standards regulates: Noise, visible emissions, vibration and odors. This project is not currently in compliance with the Division of State Lands regarding the Wetland Mitigation/Wetland Rehabilitation, and may not be in compliance with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers according to letters from those agencies as addressed under Chapter 18.755,. Sensitive Lands in this report. Prior to issuance of site and/or building permits, the applicant shall be required to provide letters from DSL and US Army Corps of Engineers certifying that the wetland mitigation/rehabilitation is in compliance and that all permits are current. FINDING: This standard is not met. In order to meet this condition, the applicant shall meet the .following condition: CONDITION: Prior to issuance of site and/or building permits the applicant-shall be required to provide letters from DSL and US Army Corps of Engineers certifying that the wetland mitigation/rehabilitation is in compliance and that all permits are current. EXCEPTIONS TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: CHAPTER 18.730 No exceptions were requested by the applicant or indicated in the plans at this time. Therefore, this standard is inapplicable. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING: CHAPTER 18.745 Establishes standards for landscaping, buffering and screening to enhance the aesthetic environmental quality of the City. Street Trees: Section 18.745.040 Development projects with more than 100 feet of frontage along a street or private driveway plant street trees in accordance with Section 18.745.040.C. Section 18.745.040.0 provides specific requirements for tree spacing including: Landscaping in the front and exterior side yards shall include trees with a minimum caliper of two inches at four feet in height as specified in the requirements stated in Subsection 2 which includes the specific spacing of street trees by size of tree, small, medium or large. Except for signalized intersections as provided in Section 18.745.040.H, trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet from a street intersection, nor closer than two feet from private driveways (measured at the back edge of the sidewalk), fire hydrants or utility policies to maintain visual clearance; Section 18.745.040.G, Granting of Adjustments. Adjustments to the street tree requirements may be granted by the Director by means of a Type I procedure, as regulated in Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria in Section 18.370.020.C.4b • PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MI52000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 31 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC • • • • Option 1. • The property has approximately 680 feet of frontage on SW 72nd Avenue. The maximum street tree spacing on a Major Arterial Street within the Tigard Triangle is 28 feet. The applicant's plans show a total of 14, 3 1/2 caliper Little Linden street trees have been provided along SW 72'. Based on the requirement to plant these trees at 28 feet on center, the site.can accommodate an additional 3 trees along SW 72"d Avenue while continuing to stay outside of the vision clearance areas. The landscape plan shall be revised along the SW 72nd Avenue frontage to provide an additional three (3) Little Leaf Linden trees. The site has approximately 1,096 feet of frontage exclusive of driveway entrance areas on SW Dartmouth Street. The applicant has proposed to provide a total of 34, 3 and 1/2 inch Little Linden Street trees along this frontage at 28 feet on center. After consideration of the vision clearance areas, it appears that one (1) additional street tree can be added along-the SW Dartmouth Street frontage for a total of 35 Little Leif Linden trees. The Tigard Triangle Design Standards require street trees along Dartmouth and 72" Avenue to be broad spreading. Staff could not confirm that the species proposed met this criteria. As part of the detailed plan, the applicant shall submit evidence from a landscape architect, or standard accepted landscape resource manual that the species proposed is in fact broad spreading in nature or propose a variety of tree that meets the standard. • Option 2 The property has approximately 680 feet of frontage on SW 72nd Avenue. The maximum street tree spacing on a Major Arterial Street within the Tigard Triangle is 28 feet. The applicant's plans show a total of 20, 3 1/2 caliper Chancellor Linden street trees have been provided along SW 72 .",Based on the requirement to plant these trees at 28 feet on center, the proposed trees along SW 72 meet the requirement. The site has approximately 1,096 feet of frontage exclusive of driveway entrance areas on SW Dartmouth Street. The applicant has proposed to provide a total of 34, 3 and 1/2 inch Chancellor Linden Street trees along this frontage at 28 feet on center. After consideration of the vision clearance areas, it appears that one (1) additional street tree can be added along the SW Dartmouth Street frontage for a total of 35 Little leaf Linden trees. The Tigard Triangle Design Standards require street trees along Dartmouth and 72" Avenue to be broad spreading. Staff could not confirm that the species lproposed met this criteria. As part of the detailed plan, the applicant shall submit evidence from a andscape architect or standard accepted landscape resource manual that the species proposed is in fact broad spreading in nature or propose a variety of tree that meets the standard. CONDITION: The detailed plan shall show the location of a minimum of 17 broad spreading street trees along SW 72 and 35 broad spreading street trees along SW Dartmouth. Buffering and Screening: Section 18.745.050 Buffering and Screening: Section 18.745.050.A.2 Buffering and screening is required to reduce the impacts on adjacent uses which are of a different type in accordance with the matrices in this chapter (Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2). APPLICABLE SECTION OF BUFFER MATRIX TABLE 18.745.1 FOR C-G ZONE Commercial Zones EXISTING/ABUTTING USES (CC,CG,CP,CBD) Detached Single Units; Manufactured Units D Attached Single Units and Multifamily, D 1-5 Units, Duplexes Attached Single Units and Multifamily, D 5+Units Mobile Home Parks D Commercial Zones (CC, CG, CP, CBD) Neighborhood Commercial Zone(CN) A Mixed Use Employment Zone(MUE) A Light Industrial Zones (IP, IL) A Heavy Industrial Zone(IH) D Parking Lots -- Arterial Streets -- Note: See Table 18.745.2 for alternative combinations for meeting these screening requirements. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and P02000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 32 OF 59 • TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC • • • TABLE 18.7452 BUFFER COMBINATIONS FOR LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING j11 Options Width(feet) Trees Shrubs or Groundcover Screening _ (per linear feet of buffer) A — 10 — Lawn/living groundcover 10 20'min/30'max spacing Lawn/living groundcover B 1 10 Shrubs 4'hedges C 2 8 15'min/30'max spacing Shrubs 5'fence 3 6 Shrubs 6'wall 1 20 Shrubs 6'hedge D 2 15 10'min/20'max spacing Shrubs 6'fence 3 10 Shrubs _ 6'wall 1 30 10'.min/20'max spacing Shrubs 6'hedge or E 2 25 Shrubs 5'earthen berm F — 40 10'min/20'max spacing Shrubs 6'hedge,fence, [1] Buffers are not required between abutting uses that are of a different type when the uses are separated by a street as specified in Section 18.745.050 A2. [2] Adjustments from these requirements can be obtained;see Section 18.370.020 C4. Buffering and Screening Requirements: Section 18.745.050.B A buffer consists of an area within. a required setback adjacent to a property line and having a depth equal to the amount specified in the buffering and screening matrix and containing a length of the property line of the abutting use or uses. This criterion is not found to be applicable to this site to the north and west because there are no existing residential uses. To the east the property is adjoined by residential uses but because SW 72nd Avenue intervenes, screening but not buffenng would normally apply. However, because the Tigard Triangle Design Standards require that new building placement be within. 10 feet of the public right-of-way this standard is found to be superceded by the Tigard Triangle Design Standards in this case. Along the southern property line, the property is adjoined by residential uses across SW Hermoso Way and at the southeast and southwest corner of the property. Screening, not buffering is required to the south where the site is adjacent to SW Hermoso Way and screening and buffering is required at the southeastern and southwestern corners where the site adjoins detached single-family residential uses. The proposed buffer at the south side of the parking lot at the southeast corner of the site does not provide adequate buffering, in accordance with the standards. The applicant's narrative states that the proposed sound wall will adequately screen the project site from the adjacent residential uses, however staff could not determine from the landscape plan where the sound wall would be or how high. it would be. In any event, buffering and screening are required, not just screening. The applicant must revise the plan to provide buffering and screening at the southeast corner of the site in accordance with the standards of 18.745. The applicant has provided adequate buffer at the southwestern portion of the property. The site will be reviewed for detailed compliance with the landscaping and screening along the entire southern property line as part of the detailed plan review. CONDITION: The detailed plan shall show the required buffer along the southern property line where the site is adjoining residential uses (southwestern and southeastern corners) in accordance with CDC Section 18.745.050.B. The landscape plan shall show detailed landscaping that fully complies with the applicable screening and buffering standards. The applicant shall revise the buffer at the south side of the parking lot, south of driveway D to provide buffering to meet the standards of Section 18.745.050.B. Screening: Section 18.745.050.B.5 Where screening is required, the following standards shall apply in addition to those required for buffering:, 1) A hedge of narrow or broadleaf evergreen shrubs that will form a four (4) foot continuous screen of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 within two (2) years of planting, or; 2) An earthen berm planted with evergreen plant materials that will form a continuous screen of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 within two (2) years. The unplanted portion of the berm shall be planted in lawn, ground cover, or bark mulch, or; 3) A fence or wall of the height specified in Table 18.745.2, shall be constructed to provide a continuous sight obscuring screen. P02000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 33 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO.2000-02 PC • Screening is required along the southern property line. The applicant has stated that the proposed sound wall will effectively screens the property. The plans do not dearly show that the sound wall will screen the entire southern property line. The plans will be reviewed for full compliance as part of the detailed plan review. The applicant has been conditioned to provide adequate buffer as discussed previously which will provide room for the required screening planting,,wall or berm. FINDING: The Buffering and Screening standards are not met. However, the standards will be met if the following condition is met. CONDITION:The detailed plan shall include a landscape plan with specifications that provide sufficient detail to determine that the buffer to the southeast and southwest, meets the minimum requirements for Buffer Standard D. The detailed plan shall also show the . location and final height of the proposed. sound wall and additional screening mechanisms necessary to meet the screening requirements. Screening: Special Provisions: Section 18.745.050.E Requires the screening and landscaping of parking and loading areas. Landscaped parking areas shall'include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. Planting materials to be installed should achieve a relative balance between low lying and vertical shrubbery and trees. Trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas, and shall be equally distributed on the basis of one (1) tree for each seven (7) parking spaces in order to provide a canopy effect. The minimum dimension on the landscape islands shall be three-feet-wide and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb. Option 1 Based on the proposed design of the site the majority of the parking lot and service areas will be screened by the buildings themselves. Portions of,the parking lot along the SW Dartmouth Street frontage will not be screened by buildings, however, the proposed wetlands mitigation area along this frontage would provide a minimum of a 35-foot buffer between the parking lot and SW Dartmouth Street. The southeastern parking lot is adjacent to the SW 72nd Avenue. The landscape plan shows landscaping will be provided to screen the parking. The detailed plan review will insure that the landscaping proposed fully complies with the landscaping and screening requirement, however, the plan provided confirms that it conceptually can be met. The southern portion of the site will be screened as required by the buffering and screening requirements discussed previously in this report. A minimum of 211 parking lot trees will be required to serve the proposed 1,475 parking spaces.. Option 1 has 309 parkin lot 'trees proposed. Because 1,475 parking spaces are proposed this provides an average of one (1 parking lot tree for every 4.7 parking spaces. The site will be reviewed to ensure the trees are evenly ispersed at one (1) for every seven (7) spaces as part of the detailed plan review. Landscape islands through out the development have a width dimension of at least five (5) feet in compliance with the three (3)-foot minimum width standard. Option 2 Based on the proposed design of the site the majority of the parking lot and service areas will be screened by the buildings themselves. Portions of the parking lot along the SW Dartmouth Street frontage will not be screened by buildings, however, the proposed wetlands mitigation area along this frontage would provide a minimum of a 35-foot buffer between the parking lot and SW Dartmouth Street. The southern portion of the site will be screened as required by the buffering and screening requirements discussed previously in this report. A minimum of 222 parking lot trees will be required to serve the proposed 1,551 parking spaces. Option 2 has 278 parkin lot trees proposed. , Because 1,551 parking spaces are proposed this provides an average of one (1 parking lot tree for every 5.5 parking spaces. The site will be reviewed to insure the trees are evenly ispersed at one (1) for every seven (7) spaces as part of the detailed plan review. Landscape islands through out the development have a width dimension of at least five (5).feet in compliance with the three (3)-foot minimum width standard. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/M152000-00003 PAGE 34 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC ■• `t JVIIXED SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLABLES STORAGE: CHAPTER 18.755 This Chapter requires that new construction incorporates functional and adequate space for on- site storage and efficient collection of mixed solid waste and source separated recyclables prior to pick-up and removal by haulers. Section 18.755.040 requires that the applicant must choose one (1) of the following four (4) methods to demonstrate compliance: Minimum standards, Waste assessment, Comprehensive recycling plan, or Franchised hauler review. The applicant will have to submit evidence or a plan which indicates compliance with this section. Regardless of which method chosen, the applicant will have to submit a written sign-off from the franchise hauler regarding the facility location and compatibility. Minimum standards method, Section 18.755.040.C5.b (2) states that non-residential buildings shall provide shall provide a minimum storage area of 10 square feet plus 10 square feet/1000 square feet of GFA. - The applicant must choose one (1) of the following four (4) methods to demonstrate compliance: Minimum Standard, Waste Assessment, Comprehensive Recycling Plan, or Franchised Hauler Review and Sign-Off. The applicant will have to submit evidence or a plan which indicates compliance with this section. The applicant's narrative states that the developer has selected the waste assessment method, and will hold a pre-conference with the waste assessment provider and the City of Tigard in compliance with Section18.755.040. The applicant's plans show that a 10-foot by 20-foot screened trash enclosure will be provided for each of the proposed "Pads". The applicant has not shown trash enclosures for Major I. Therefore, the applicant shall submit a detailed plan showing placement of all locations of trash and recycling enclosures and provide a detail of the type of screening to be provided around these enclosures. FINDING: This criteria has been met for purposes of conceptual plan review only. In order to meet the criteria in the detailed plan review, the applicant shall meet the following condition: CONDITION: The applicant shall address all the criteria contained in Section 18.755.040.D, Waste Assessment Method and all other applicable criteria in Chapter 18.755, Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage. The applicant shall revise the plans and show trash enclosures for Major I, and placement of all locations of trash and recycling enclosures and provide a detail of the type of screening to be provided around these enclosures: OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS: CHAPTER 18.765 This Chapter is applicable for development projects when there is new construction, expansion of existing use, or change of use in accordance with Section 18.765.070 Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Requirements. General Provisions: Section 18.765.040 Access Drives: Section 18.765.040.B. Requires access to public streets from off-street parking as follows: Access drives from the street to off-street parking or loading areas shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic and provide maximum safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the site; The number and size of access drives shall be in accordance with the requirements of Chapter, 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; Access drives shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined through use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers on frontage not occupied by service drives; Access drives shall have a minimum vision clearance in accordance with Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance; These criteria are addressed under Chapter 18.705 in this report. Access drives shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface; and The proposed access drive is proposed to be improved with asphalt surface. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/M1S2000-00003 PAGE 35 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO.2000-02 PC • • Excluding single-family and duplex residences, except as provided by Subsection 18.810.030P, groups of two or more parking spaces shall be served by a service drive so that no backing movements or other maneuvering within a street or other public right-of-way will be required. All parking spaces are served by a service drive, therefore, this standard is met. Pedestrian Access: Section 18.705.040.F Pedestrian access through parking lots shall be provided in accordance with 18.705.030.F. Where a parking area or other vehicle area has a drop-off grade separation, the property owner shall install a wall, railing, or other barrier which will prevent a slow-moving vehicle or driverless vehicle from escaping such area and which will prevent pedestrians from walking over drop-off edges. This standard is addressed primarily under Section 18.705.030.F in this report. However, the following condition shall be met: CONDITION:Where drop-off grade separations greater than 30" vertical or exceeding 2:1 occur,the - applicant shall install a wall, railing, or other barrier which will prevent a slow-moving vehicle or driverless vehicle from escaping such area and which will prevent pedestrians from walking over drop-off edges. Parking Space Surfacing: Section 18.765.040.H Except for single-family and duplex residences, and for temporary uses or fleet storage areas as authorized in 18.765.040 H3 and 4, all areas used for the parking or storage or maneuvering of any vehicle, boat or trailer shall be improved with asphalt or concrete surfaces; The applicant's narrative indicates that the parking lot will be surfaced with an engineered asphalt and aggregate base. Parking Lot Striping: Section 18.765.040.1 Except for single-family and duplex residences, any area intended to be used to meet the off- street parking requirements as contained in this.chapter shall have all parking spaces clearly marked; and all interior drives and access aisles shall be clearly marked and signed to show direction of flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. This is a commercial development, therefore, this standard is applicable and shall be met through striping of parking spaces, directional signs, and painted signs in the access and drive aisles to show direction of flow as conditioned. . Option 1 The site plan submitted shows parking lot striping will be provided. Because all aisles are two-way, directional markings are not necessary. Option 2 The site plan submitted shows parking lot striping and directional markings. In addition, the narrative indicates that parking spaces and drive aisles will be marked. Wheel Stops: Section 18.765.040.J Requires that parking spaces along the boundaries of a parking lot or adjacent to interior landscaped areas or sidewalks shall be provided with a wheel stop at least four inches high located three feet back from the front of the parking stall. The front three feet of the parking stall may be concrete, asphalt or low lying landscape material that does not exceed the height of the wheel stop. This area cannot be calculated to meet landscaping or sidewalk requirements. The applicant's narrative indicates that wheel stops will be provided where parking is adjacent to landscaping and sidewalks, however, this is not shown on the site plan. This will be conditioned as part of the detailed plan review. P02000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and P02000-00002/SLR2000-000041M152000-00003 PAGE 36 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC • • • • • CONDITION:The detailed plan shall show wheel stops where the parking is adjacent to landscaping or walkways. Lighting: Section 18.765.040.L Lights provided to illuminate any public or private parking area or vehicle sales area shall be arranged to direct the light away from any adjacent residential district. The applicant has submitted a lighting plan that shows lighting will be generally directed away from residential uses. This will be reviewed further and conditioned as necessary as part of the detailed plan review. Signs: Section 18.765.040.M Signs which,are placed on parking tots shall be designed and installed in accordance with Chapter 18.780, Signs. No signs have been specifically proposed, however, the applicant's narrative indicates that all proposed signs will be in accordance with Chapter 18.780. This will be reviewed as part of the detailed plan and permitted through a separate sign permit process. Space and Aisle Dimensions: Section 18.765.040.N Except as modified for angled parking in Figures 18.765.1 and 18.765.2, the minimum dimensions for parking spaces are: • 8.5' x 18.5' for a standard space; • 7.5' x 16.5 for a compact spaces; and • As required by applicable State of Oregon and federal standards for designated disabled person parking spaces; • The width of each parking space includes a stripe which separates each space. Aisles accommodating two-way direction traffic, or allowing access from both ends, shall be 24 feet in.width. From Figure 18.765.1 Stall width dimensions may be distributed as follows: 50% standard spaces, 50%compact spaces. All compact spaces shall be labeled as such. A A Parking Angle B Stall Width 8 C Stall Depth(no bumper overhang) D Aisle Width Between Stall Lines(5) F o E Stall Width Parallel to Aisle 1 F Module Width(no bumper overhang) T G Bumper Overhang The applicant's narrative indicates that the standard parking spaces will be 8.5 x 18.5 and all angled parking will be in accordance with Section 18.765.1. The site plan shows no labeled compact spaces, however, some of the dimensions provided (9. x 15.5) indicate that there will be some compact parking. In addition, upon scaling the plans, the spaces appear to be 9 feet wide. The drive aisles for the 90 degree parking is no less than 24 feet. The applicant has not provided enough detail for staff to confirm that the angled parking, adjacent to Pad D meets the requirements of Section 18.765.1. Because the site may have up to 50% compact spaces and the applicant has provided spaces that are slightly larger than required, staff is comfortable that, upon detailed review, the parking can fully meet the dimensional standards: Parking will be reviewed and conditioned if necessary upon detailed review. P02000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 37 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC • CONDITION:The detailed plan shall show the location of all compact and standard spaces, as well as, the dimensions of each type of space (angled, standard, compact, ADA accessible) and the dimension of all interior drives and access aisles. Bicycle Parking Design Standards: Section 18.765.050 A minimum of two•bicycle parking rack spaces in any development. Bicycle parking areas shall be provided at locations within 50 feet of the primary entrances to structures; Bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas, or pedestrian ways. The development code requires .3 bicycle parking spaces per 1000 square feet. The applicant must meet the bicycle requirement for each building. Because this is a conceptual review only, the exact size and layout of each building may change from what is conceptually approved. Because of this compliance with the bicycle parking standards shall be deferred to detailed plan review. The applicant's plan shows the location and number of bicycle parking spaces throughout the development which indicates that, upon detailed plan review, the bicycle parking standards can be met. CONDITION:The detailed plan review shall show the location and number of bicycle racks proposed. • The detailed plan shall also show the type of bicycle rack proposed and the design of the bicycle parking pad. The applicant shall provide an analysis for each building that shows the required bicycle parking spaces based on the square footage of the building. Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking: Section 18.765.0701 Option 1 The applicant has proposed to provide 1,475 parking spaces. The code requires 3.7 parking spaces per 1000.square feet minimum and 5.1 per 1000 square feet maximum. Based on a building square footage of 297,179, the minimum parking for Option 1 is 1,099 and the maximum is 1,515. The applicant's proposal of 1,475 parking spaces meets this standard. The applicant has not specifically indicated that they will provide compact parking spaces, however, they are permitted up to 737. Option 2 The applicant has proposed to provide 1,498 parking spaces. The Code requires 3.7 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet minimum and 5.1 per 1,000 square feet maximum. Based on a building square footage of 330,312, the minimum parking for Option 2 is 1,222 and the maximum is 1,684. The applicant's proposal of 1,498 parking spaces meets this standard. , The applicant has not specifically indicated that they will provide compact parking spaces, however, they are permitted up to 749. Off-Street Loading Requirements: Section 18.765.080 Requires that commercial, industrial and institutional buildings or structures provide and maintain off-street loading and maneuvering space. A minimum of one (1) loading space is required for buildings with 10,000 gross square feet but less than 40,000 gross square feet. A minimum of two loading spaces is required for buildings with 40,000 gross square feet. Each loading berth shall be approved by the City Engineer as to design and location; each loading space shall have sufficient area for turning and maneuvering of vehicles on the site. At a f minimum the, the maneuvering length shall not be less that twice the overall length of the longest vehicle using the facility site; entrances and exits for the loading areas shall be provided at locations approved by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 18.710; screening for off- street loading facilities is required and shall be the same as screening for parking lots in accordance with Chapter 18.745. Option 1 This standard has been addressed on part of this site because Major I Anchor Tenant is provided with a grade separated loading dock. The applicant has stated that pads A-E are anticipated to load through the front doors with parking restricted during business hours so that delivery of goods does not interfere with general parking. This plan is not acceptable. The plan must be revised to provide for separate loading spaces for all pads over 10,000 square feet (Pad B, C, D, and E). In addition, because Pad B is over 40,000 square feet, 2 loading spaces are required. This standard is not applicable where no tenant . occupies a minimum of 10,000 square feet. P02000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004(MIS2000-00003 PAGE 38 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC • • • Option 2 This standard has been addressed on part of this site because each of the Major Anchor Tenants is lprovided with-a grade separated loading dock. The applicant has stated that pads A-D are anticipated to oad through the front doors with parking restricted dunng business hours so that delivery of goods does not interfere with general parking. The site plan shows 2 loading spaces will be rovided for Pad B and one loading space will be provided for Pad D. These spaces are basically standard automobile parking spaces. Due to the size of a parking space and the size of delivery trucks that may service this site the designated loading spaces do not appear adequate: The plan does not provide a loading space for Pads A and D. The plan must be revised to provide for separate loading spaces for all pads over 10,000 square feet (Pad A, B, and D). This standard is not applicable where no tenant occupies a minimum of 10,000 square feet. • CONDITION:The detailed plan shall show the location and dimensions of loading spaces adjacent to all buildings over 10,000 square feet. In compliance with Section 18.765.030.E arking lots that provide in excess of 20 preferential long term parking spaces shall provide at least 5% of these spaces as carpool/van pool parking spaces. Each of the proposed vanpool/carpool spaces are full size parking spaces. Each space shall have signage designated per Section 18.765.040N and shall be clearly designated for use only by vanpool/carpool users between the y y p e hours of 7:00 am and 5:30 PM Monday through Friday. Option 1 The applicant has not proposed long term parking spaces. The applicant shall designate 73 spaces as vanpool/carpool spaces. In terms of convenience, the applicant shall locate the 73 vanpool/carpool spaces as conveniently as possible to the main building entrance, after provision of handicapped accessible parking spaces. Option 2 The applicant has not proposed long term parking spaces. The applicant shall designate 74 spaces as vanpool/carpool spaces. In terms of convenience, the applicant shall locate the 74 vanpool/carpool spaces as conveniently as possible to the main building entrance, after provision of handicapped accessible parking spaces. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the conceptual plan does not meet all of the off-street parking and loading standards. Staff finds that it is possible for the applicant to meet all of the standards. Compliance with the standards will be fully reviewed as part of the detailed plan review CONDITION:The detailed plan shall show the location of the required number of van pool/carpool spaces based on the final number of parking spaces proposed. SENSITIVE LANDS: CHAPTER 18.775 Sensitive lands are lands potentially unsuitable for development because of their location within: the 100-year floodplain, natural drainageways, wetland areas which are regulated by other agencies including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Division of State Lands, or are designated as significant wetland on the Comprehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetland Map, and steep slopes of 25% or greater and unstable ground. A land use application is required for ground disturbances in sensitive lands areas. The site is designated as within the 100-year Floodplain on the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Map Floodplain Map. However, the 1998 land use decision regarding this site under CPA 98-0002 included a Sensitive Lands Review, SLR 98-0002 which considered the site to be outside of the 100-year floodplain. As the 1998 land use decision was approved by both the Planning Commission and City Council, this application is considered to have incorporated the prior decision regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the determination that the site is considered to be outside of the 100-year floodplain, provided that the applicant obtain verification of this through the US Army Corps of Engineers, and obtain reissuance of the Army Corps permits prior to issuance of a new grading permit. P02000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 39 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC • • The eastern portion of the site has slopes of 10% approximately. The existing grading plan shows one small area in the northwest quadrant of the site (a hole of approximately 80 feet x 80 feet) which has a slope of approximately 25%, and one small area at the southern end of the site just north of the bend at SW Hermoso Way which is approximately 28% sloped. The applicant has proposed to exchange fill on the steeper portion of the site to the flatter areas. The 1998 land use decision did not place any additional special conditions due to these sloped areas, however, the 1998 plans indicated a water quality pond and landscaping area just north of the bend at SW Hermoso Way rather than the parking area proposed in the current Option 2 plans. The parking area at this location in Option 1 appears to be outside of the area which exceeds 25% slopes, but this should be verified. • FINDING: These standards are not fully met. In order to meet the standards, the applicant shall meet the following conditions: CONDITIONS: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall meet the following conditions for both Options 1 and 2: • The applicant shall obtain verification that there is no floodplain on the development site through the US Army Corps of Engineers, and shall obtain reissuance of the Army Corps permits as stated in the 1998 decision. • The applicant shall verify that there will not be (and has not been since grading has begun on this project) any ground disturbance exceeding 10 cubic yards in the area of slopes exceeding 25%. CONDITION FOR OPTION 2 ONLY: • Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall revise the plans and relocate the parking area near the bend of Hermoso Way outside of the areas which exceed 25% slopes, or address and meet the Sensitive Lands Review standards for any ground disturbance exceeding 10 cubic yards on lands sloped greater than 25%. Jurisdictional wetlands. Landforms alterations or developments which are only within wetland areas that meet the jurisdictional requirements and permit criteria of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Division of State Lands, Unified Sewerage Agency, and/or other federal, state, or regional agencies do not require a sensitive lands permit. The City shall require that all necessary permits from other agencies are obtained. All other applicable City requirements must be satisfied, including sensitive lands permits for areas with the 100 year floodplain, slopes of 25% or greater or unstable ground, drainageways and wetlands which are not under state or federal jurisdiction. As a result of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA 98-0002, effective July 23, 1998, the wetlands designation was removed from the subject development site to allow the proposed fill and mitigation of 1.41. acres of wetlands of the total 1.96 wetlands that exist on this site. A remaining .55 acres of wetlands was not to be filled in the prior decision. This wetlands system is part of a larger system that exists within drainage areas leading to the 217 Freeway. A mitigation plan was required to re-establish the wetlands along the site's Dartmouth Street frontage and to function as a wetland with approximately the same area as the wetlands to be filled. The current wetlands and wetland mitigation is under the jurisdiction of the Division of State Lands and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. DSL has submitted a letter dated March 15, 2000 stating that the mitigation is not in compliance with conditions of Permit RF- 9256 (expiration date 6/14/98). Staff from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have also raised issues of non- compliance with conditions of Nationwide Permit No. 98-666 (expiration date 3/28/99). Staff found a discrepancy between the amount of fill approved under the City of Tigard approved decision (SLR 98-0002), and the amount of fill allowed under the DSL permit (loss of 1.55 wetland acres, and preservation of .41 acres of wetlands for a total of 2.0 original wetland acres ), and the U.S. Army Corps permit (loss of 1.16 acres wetland acres, and preservation of .57 acres of wetlands for a total 1.73 original wetland acres). PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/M1S2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 40 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC V 11111-‘ . . • FINDING: The criteria for Sensitive Lands Review in the current Community Development Code (effective 11/26198) are inapplicable as the prior decision CPA 8-0002/SLR 98-0002 (excluding the SDR/PDR/MIS)will be adopted and incorporated into this report. However, in addition to the conditions related to the Sensitive Lands Review in the 1998 decision, the following conditions shall be met to ensure compliance with that decision: CONDITIONS: • Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall bring the wetland mitigation/rehabilitation into compliance with all conditions and requirements of the Division of State Lands and the U.S Army Corps of Engineers permits, and the applicant shall ensure that these permits are current or renewed. Due to the differences in the various permits regarding the amount of wetland acreage to be preserved, the amount of wetland acreage to be preserved will be .57 acres in conjunction with the U. S Army Corps Permit, which provides the greatest amount of wetland acreage to be preserved from the various permits. The applicant shall revise the plans to. show location of biofiltration separated from wetland area as required under the DSL and US Army Corps permits. • The site plan shall provide 15-foot setback buffers in accordance with Unified Sewerage Agency standards (standards in place at the time of the 1998 land use application) to off-site wetlands areas to the west of this site. • Construction fencing (4 foot high orange fencing) shall be installed and maintained during construction at the USA 15-foot setback buffer to off-site wetland areas to the west of the site. V SIGNS: CHAPTER 18.780 This Chapter lists the type of allowable signs and sign area permitted in the C-G Zoning District. The applicant provided potential locations for entrance monument signs on SW Dartmouth Street and SW 72nd Avenue but did not provide any other details or a sign program. The applicant shall submit for review and approval a sign program that complies with the standards for a shopping center in the General Commercial Zoning District with any special limitations as required by the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. TREE REMOVAL: CHAPTER 18.790 A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided with a site development review application. The tree plan shall include identification of all existing trees, identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper, which trees are to be removed, protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. This criteria is addressed under the standards for Additional Planned Development Review standards, Section 18.350.100.3.a contained in Section 18.360.090.A.2 of this report. VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS: CHAPTER 18.795 The Chapter requires that a clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways or the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three (3) feet.in height. The code provides that obstructions that may be located in this area shall be visually clear between three (3) and eight (8) et in height (trees may be placed within this area provided that all branches below eight ) feet are removed). For arterial streets the visual clearance area shall not be less than 35 feet on each side of the intersection. For non-arterial streets 24 feet or more in width, a visual clearance area is the triangular area formed by the right-of-way or property lines along such lots and a straight line joining the right-of-way or property line at points which are 30 feet distance from the intersection of the right-of-way line and measured along such lines. See Figure 18.797.1 PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/M132000-00003 PAGE 41 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO 2000-02 PC • • _• �. ' • All of the access drives off of SW Dartmouth and 72nd Avenue shall have a visual clearance area of 35 feet on each side of the access drive intersection. The access drive off.of Hermosa Way shall have a visual clearance area of 30 feet on each side of the access drive. Upon review of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards, the Clear Vision standards is superceded by the Tigard Triangle Design standards such as building placement. The applicant has not indicated placement of buildings, structures or trees in the area of visual clearance. Entrance monument signs shall not be located in the area of visual clearance. FINDING: This standard is met for purposes of conceptual plan review only. In order to the meet this criteria in the detailed plan review, the applicant shall meet the following condition: CONDITION:The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with Chapter 18.795 Visual clearance in the detailed plan review process, and shall revise the plans to indicate the visual clearance triangles on the plans. - F. ADDITIONAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CRITERIA FROM SECTION 18.350.100.3: a. Relationship to the natural and physical environment: (1) The streets, buildings and other site elements shall be designed and located to preserve • the existing trees, topography and natural drainage to the greatest degree possible; The applicant has demonstrated in the prior 1998 land use application for this site (CPA 98-0002/PDR 98-0001/SDR 98-0002/MIS 98-0004) that, based on the intensity and type of proposed land use, that maintenance of the existing topography, wetlands system and vegetation is impossible while developing a single shopping center. Natural drainage has been partially preserved through the site and upstream and downstream of the site but within the property, the applicant has demonstrated that drainage will need to be altered to accommodate the proposed improvements and to treat storm water runoff within proposed on-site facilities. (2) Structures located on the site shall not be in areas subject to ground slumping and sliding; A new geo-technical report is required as a condition of this report, as Staff has concerns about questionable fill placed on the site. The geo-technical engineer shall certify_the grading work that has been done to date. In no case shall junk fill be placed or used on this site. This s andard has not been met. (3) There shall be adequate distance between on-site buildings and other on-site and off- - site buildings on adjoining properties to provide for adequate light and air circulation and for fire protection; There is adequate distance between on-site buildings. There are no buildings located immediately to the west of the site which is designated wetlands on the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. The site fronts Major Arterials to the north and east, and a local street to the south with residential property zoned MUE to the south. There are residential properties located to the immediate southwest of the site, and this distance was previously approved through the 1998 land use decision for this site. The development has been preliminarily reviewed for compliance with Fire and Life Safety Standards. Fire flow calculations fire hydrant locations and related standards will be reviewed again during the Building Permit Plan Check Review. See comments contained in this report by the Building Division and the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. Solar accessibility standards are not specifically applicable to commercial development elsewhere in the Development Code. Due to grading tree removal and the configuration of the pads on this site the proposed commercial structures would have solar access. No building has been designed to shade another building. This standard has been met. (4) The structures shall be oriented with consideration for the sun and wind directions, where possible; and P02000-00001/SLR2000-00005/M1S2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 42 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO.2000-02 PC ti . •. ' ' • i • Buildings are oriented around the perimeter of the site with the majority of the primary entrances to the interior of the site. Southwest winds may, pose a problem on Option 1 in particular as a large expanse of the southern portion of the site is open. On the other hand, south sun exposure is maximized by this same building arrangement. In Option 2, Majors II-IV provide a shield from southerly winds. The location of Major the largest building on the site on the western portion of the site in both Options 1 and 2 provides partial protection from southwesterly and northwesterly winds. (5) Trees preserved to the extent possible. Replacement of trees is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal. The applicant has proposed to remove existing trees on the site in order to accommodate the massive grading and fill work necessary to develop a shopping center on this site given its topography. Almost all of the frees on the site, except,for the trees on the SW Hermoso lots (MUE parcels have been removed under the 1998 land use decision (CPA 98-0002/ PDR 98-0001/SDRY8-0002/mis 98-0004), In addition a Type I Tree Removal Permit for the trees in the Sensitive Lands area numbered 88-96 (six-inch trees] in the arborist's tree identification plan were approved for removal on 9/27/99, and have subsequently been removed. A total of 53 trees with 992 caliper inches were identified in the 1998 decision as healthy non-exempt trees over 12 inches in diameter. Some 267 trees existed on the site, not including exempt Christmas trees, but many of the trees were also exempted under the Washington County Tax Assessor's "small woodlands" exem tion. A total of 1.62 acres of the site was exempt from tree mitigation for this reason in 1998. Because all of the healthy trees over 12 inches in diameter were proposed to be removed, the 1998 decision required that 100% of the caliper inches lost were required to be mitigated. Mitigation proposed in the 1998 decision included the upsizing,of landscape trees on the site to 3 and 1/2 inch from the minimum 2" required tree for 926 of the caliper inches. The remaining 66 caliper inches of mitigation were proposed to be planted off-site or a tree mitigation fee paid for the value of purchase and planting of trees. The applicant also proposed to plant some 1,500 caliper inches of existing Christmas trees at an off-site location, as a tree mitigation credit for a future development project. Also the applicant and City agreed that they may locate the existing Christmas trees on the property at off-site site City open space sites. As no evidence has been provided to Staff that the trees to be mitigated in the 1998 land use decision (that have already been removed) have been planted or a mitigation fee paid, a mitigation deposit or bond will be required as part of this report for the full extent of the value of purchase and planting of the 992 caliper inches of trees, and the value of the transplanting or purchase and planting of the 1,500 inches of Christmas trees. In addition the applicant now requests tree removal of all the trees on the MUE lots adjacent to SW Hermoso Way. the applicant states that there are 1 666 inches of trees in_ggood and fair condition on this new portion of the site required to be mitigated trees over 12 inches DBH). A tree removal and replacement plan by David Hunter, Consulting Arborist (ISA Certified Arborist #PN-1068) dated October 28, 1999 has been provided by the applicant as part of this land-use application. Further, the applicant requests a fee-in-lieu of planting for the required tree mitigation; and that the fee be paid directly to the Oregon Trout Organization, a group that the applicant stales has proposed the creation of ripanan and wetland enhancement areas within the Tualatin watershed, working from a fund of deposited mitigation monies which were required of certain development projects within the City of Tigard's jurisdiction. FINDING: This standard has not been met. In order to meet the standard the applicant shall meet the following conditions: CONDITIONS: Prior to issuance of a site permit, the applicant shall provide a mitigation deposit or bond with the City for the following trees 1) 992 caliper inches trees already removed 2) 1,666 caliper inches for trees proposed to be removed on the SW Hermoso Way lots, 3) 1,500 caliper inches for the Christmas trees. It is estimated that the combined total of 1) and 2) above will cost $199,350 figured at 1,825 2-inch trees (or 2,658 caliper inches) x $150 per tree, in addition to the cost of the Christmas tree mitigation. The applicant shall provide a bonified estimate for cost of the mitigation of all the trees including purchase price and value of labor to plant the trees for purposes of Staff making a final determination of the amount of the required mitigation depositor bond. Prior to issuance of a site permit, a new geo-technical report is required as a condition of this report, as Staff has concerns about questionable fill placed on the site. The geo-technical engineer shall certify the grading work that has been done to date. In no case shall junk fill be placed or used-on this site. b. Buffering, screening and compatibility between adjoining uses: P02000-00001/SLR2000-00005/M152000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 43 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO.2000-02 PC • • • • • (1) Buffering shall be.provided between different types of land uses e.g., between single- family and multi family residential, and residential and commercial uses; (2) In addition to the requirements of the buffer matrix (Table 18.745.1) the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy and extent of the buffer required under Chapter 18.745: (a) The purpose of the buffer, for example to decrease noise levels, absorb air pollution, filter dust, or to provide a visual barrier- b The size of the buffer needs in terms of width and height to achieve the purpose; c The direction(s) from which buffering is needed; d The required density of the buffering; and e Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile. (3) On-site screening from view from adjoining properties of such activities as service areas, storage areas, parking lots and mechanical devices on roof tops shall be provided and the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy of the type and extent of the screening: What needs to be screened; ((b) The direction from which it is needed; and C) Whether the screening needs to be year- round. Buffering and screening standards are addressed in part under Chapter 18.745 in this report. The site only adjoins residential uses to the south. The proposed grading plan shows that the west and east ends of the Major I Anchor Tenant Building would be roughly at grade with the existing residences. The finished pad elevations of Major Anchors IT-IV (Option 2) would be roughly 30 to 45 feet below the grade of the adjoining residences, and for Pad E (Option 1). The finished elevation of the rooftop of the buildings would-be about 20-25 feet below the elevation at eye level from the residences. The applicant proposes a 6-foot-high sound barrier wall (along the SW 1-lermoso Way) to screen the view of the residence at the southwest corner of the site from the center. The applicant agreed not to place rooftop equipment within the first 20 to 40 feet of the southern edge of these buildings in the 1998 land use decision. Because the roof top equipment would be seen by adjoining residences above, the applicant shall revise the plan to provide a building parapet height sufficient to screen the view of rooftop mechanical equipment from residences to the south. Service areas such as loading areas of Major I (Option 1 and 2) and Majors II-IV in (Option 2)_would be screened from view of the residences based on the proposed finished grades. A partial retaining wall is shown on the site plan to the south of Major I to provide for the truck servicing area. The applicant shall screen the loading area for at least the length of the truck that would service this site at a height of a typical servicing vehicle. This may be accomplished through a matching split face concrete block wall or other method as approved by the Planning Division. Based on the site development constraints and the higher street elevation of SW 72nd Avenue, it does not appear possible to entirely screen rooftop mechanical equipment to serve the Major Anchor Tenant Buildings as seen from SW 72nd Avenue. For this reason all rooftop mechanical equipment to serve the Major Anchor Tenants shall be designed to match the color of the rooftop. FINDING: This standard is not met. In order to meet this standard, the applicant shall meet the following conditions: CONDITIONS: As part of the detailed plan review submittal, the applicant shall revise the plans and elevations to provide a sufficient screening of the rooftop mechanical equipment from the view of the residences to the south. In addition, the rooftop mechanical equipment to serve the Major Anchor Tenants shall be designed to match the color of the rooftop. As part of the detailed plan review submittal, the applicant shall revise the plans and elevations and screen the loading area for at least the length of the truck that would service this site at a height of a typical servicing vehicle. c. Privacy and noise: Non-residential structures which abut existin residential dwellings shall be located on the site or be designed in a manner, to the maximum degree possible, to protect the private areas on the adjoining properties from view and noise; P02000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 44 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC • A noise study was provided with the 1998 land use application for this site that indicated that site improvements can comply with both Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) noise standards and Municipal Code standards. However, the Noise Study.assumes that the allowable noise levels pursuant to the Municipal Code standards are higher than were intended. The Municipal Code was revised in 1996 pursuant to Ordinance 96-06. The Ordinance is interpreted to have placed additional maximum noise standards. The applicant interpreted the table to mean that higher maximum noise levels were permitted. The applicant submitted an update to the February 16, 1998 noise study (submitted for the 1998 land-use decision). The u dated noise study is dated March 15, 2000 and was repared by Daly- Standlee & Associates, Inc. The noise study makes the following conclusion: "The results of our analysis show that both the City of Tigard noise ordinance and the Oregon DEQ noise regulation would be met at all residences located on SW Hermoso Street if the top of the false building wall proposed along.the north side of SW Hermoso Street was at least 6 feet above the sidewalk elevation and the retaining wall on the south property line west of the Major I building was constructed with a 6-foot-high extension above the top of wall elevations shown in the drawing. No other mitigation measures would be required to address traffic on the development site." The shopping center grading,plan partially addresses this issue because the majority of the site would be below grade of the adjoining residential structures. To comply,with applicable noise standards, the consulting engineer recommended sound barriers along a. portion of the southern property line. Because of screening and buffering standards, the applicant is required to construct a fence wall or berm with landscaping along, the entire southern property line where the site adjoins single-family residences. The site plan should also be revised to restrict the location of roof top mechanical equipment away from the southern portion of the Major Anchor Tenant Buildings. Additional screening and buffering measures are discussed elsewhere within this report. Because of the type of uses that are proposed and their orientation, maintenance of privacy within the rear yard of the adjoining homes is expected to be addressed through the construction of a continuous sound attenuation wall arong the southern property.line. FINDING: This criteria is not met. In order to meet the criteria, the applicant shall comply with the following condition: CONDITION: Upon submission of the detailed plans for the plan review process, the applicant shall. revise plans and provide a minimum 6-foot wall above the sidewalk along the north side of SW Hermoso Street, and a retaining wall to the south and west of the Major I building with a minimum 6-foot-hich extension above the top of wall elevations shown in the drawing, and/or provide a meFod for completely screening the view of the residences to the south of the property from viewing the shopping center-to the north. The applicant shall provide a continuous sound attenuation wall along the southern property line. d. Private outdoor area -- multi-family use: • This criterion is inapplicable as no multi-family use is proposed on this site. e. Shared outdoor recreation areas -- multi-family use: This criterion is inapplicable as no multi-family use is proposed on this site. f. Access and circulation: The number of allowed access points for a development shall be provided in Chapter 18.705; (1) The number of allowed access points for a development shall be provided in Chapter 18.705. (2) All circulation patterns within a development must be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles; and (3) Provisions shall be made for pedestrian and bicycle ways if such facilities are shown on an adopted plan. The applicant is proposing five (5j access points which comply with the standards of Chapter 18.705. This plan has been reviewed by Fire District staff and was generally found to comply with Uniform Fire Code standards. In the detailed plan review submittal, the applicant shall submit any necessary minor internal modifications. The City's adopted Park and Greenway Plan does not indicate the existence of Bicycle or Pedestrian Accessway through the site. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 45 OF 59 TR1-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO.2000-02 PC • The trash and recycling enclosure shall provide a minimum of 24 feet of dear width. The design of the proposed street improvements has been reviewed by the Engineering Department and the Fire District. The Engineering Department reviewed street improvement requirements in detail elsewhere within this report. Conditions of Approval are recommended to ensure compliance with the applicable street improvements standards. Bicyclists would likely either share the five (5) roposed commercial driveway improvements into the site or share pedestrian sidewalk improvements. The City's adopted Park and Trail Master Plan also does not currently designate a bicycle and/or pedestrian trail through this site. FINDING: This criteria is found to be met conceptually. g. Landscaping and open space: (1) Residential Development: In addition to the requirements of subparagraphs (4) and (5) of section a of this subsection, a minimum of 20 percent of the site shall be landscaped; (2) Commercial Development: A minimum of 15 percent of the site shall be landscaped'; and (3) Industrial Development: A minimum of 15 percent of the site shall be landscaped; Subsections-1 and 3 of this standard are not found to be applicable because the applicant has proposed a commercial development. Subsection 2 is found to be applicable and has been addressed in Section18.520.040.B in this report. h. Public transit: (1) Provisions for public transit may be required where the site abuts a public transit route. The required facilities shall be based on: a The location of other transit facilities in the area; and (b) The size and type of the proposed development. (2) The required facilities shall be limited to such facilities as: a A waiting shelter; b A turn-out area for loading and unloading; and c Hard surface paths connecting the development to the waiting area. SW Dartmouth Street and SW 72nd Avenue are not presently transit served facilities. The applicants show a possible location for a future transit stop on the site's northwestern SW Dartmouth Street • frontage should transit service 'be made available in this area. The City received no comments from Tri-met concerning this proposal. . FINDING: This criteria is met conceptually. Any revisions to the plans shall be submitted in the -detailed plan submission. i. Signs: . (1) In addition to the provisions of Chapter 18.780, Signs: (a) Location of all signs proposed for the development site; and (b) The signs shall not obscure vehicle driver's sight distance; As discussed in Chapter 18.780, Signs in this report, the applicant will need to develop a sign program for this center and shall be submitted with the detailed plan. j. Parking: • (1) All parking and loading areas shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.765; (2) Up to 50% of required off-street parking spaces for single-family attached dwellings may be provided on one or more common parking lots within the planned development as long as each single-family lot contains one off-street parking space. P02000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 46 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC ■ • • Parking standards are addressed under Chapter 18.765 in this report. k. Drainage: All drainage provisions shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.775, and the criteria in the adopted 1981 master drainage plan; Drainage standards are addressed under Section 18.810 in this report. I. Floodplain dedication: Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require consideration of the dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. This standard is addressed in part under Sensitive Lands, Chapter 18.775, in this report. The City has park system development fees in place to fund planned park improvements. Park system impact fees will be assessed for this development prior to the issuance of building permits. Because the 100-year floodplain elevation does not likely exist on this property dedication, of a portion of the property for development of a trail does not appear possible. FINDING: This standard has been met conceptually. G. PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS Street And Utility Improvements Standards (Section 18.810): Chapter. 18.810 provides construction standards for the implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. The applicable standards are addressed below: STREETS: Improvements: Section 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with the TDC standards. Section 18.810.030.A.2 states that any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the TDC. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030(E) contains typical ROW requirements for public streets. However, this site lies within the Tigard Triangle, which is - governed by TDC 18.620, the Tigard Triangle Design Standards (TTDS). Section 18.620.080 requires SW 72 Avenue (major arterial) to have a 92-foot right-of-way (ROW) width and a 66-foot paved width. SW Dartmouth Street (major arterial), west of SW 72 Avenue, shall have a 94-foot ROW width and an overall paved width of 66 feet. East/West local streets shall have a ROW width of 60 feet and a paved width of 34 feet. Other improvements required may include on- street parking, sidewalks and bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and street trees. The proposed development is bordered by SW 72nd Avenue on the east side, SW Dartmouth Street on the north side, and SW Hermoso Way (an east/west local street) on the south side. The proposed access points into this project have not significantly changed from the 1998 version (SDR 98-0002). The development will have two (2) points of access on SW Dartmouth Street, with one (1) full access driveway opposite the existing entrance into the Winco Foods/Office Max site, and one (1) full access driveway approximately 600 feet further to the west. There will also be two (2) full access driveways onto SW 72nd Avenue. With this current option, the�rr is also a proposed full access onto SW Hermoso Way at the main horizontal curve west of SW 72 Avenue. Proposed traffic signals and traffic impact study findings will be discussed later in this report. P02000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 47 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC Ank • . The following section will be a. discussion of the required and proposed transportation improvements for this project. It should be noted that the applicant has already submitted public improvement construction plans for the City Engineers approval, based upon the SDR 98-0002 approval. The City Engineer completed the review of those plans and is currently waiting for the applicant to'complete the required permit documents and pay a permit fee so the plans can be stamped and issued. These two new options will slightly change the public improvement requirements due to the increased area of the site adjacent to SW Hermoso Way. Staff has indicated to the applicant that the City could allow an amendment to the current public improvement plan to account for the additional improvements. SW 72"d Avenue Improvements The current ROW width along the frontage of this site is approximately 20 feet from centerline. The applicant, as a part of SDR 98-0002, completed a dedication to provide additional ROW to provide 47 feet from centerline which meets the TTDS standard. The applicant also dedicated a ROW radius at the corner of SW 72nd .Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street equal to 45 feet. No additional ROW dedication is required. At present, SW 72nd Avenue. is paved but is not J lly improved to the Triangle Standards. The current City--Engineer approved plan for the SW 72 Avenue improvements shows that a full-width improvement will be provided from SW Dartmouth Street to SW Elmhurst Street. The applicant showed this level of improvement on the plans for SDI d98-0002. Additional ROW was dedicated from the property owners on the east side of SW 72 Avenue to accommodate the proposed improvement. The current plans also show that the full-width improvement will be provided. The two (2)full-access driveways into the site from SW 72nd Avenue are in the same location as was shown on the plan for SDR 98-0002 and the City Engineer approved plan. They also appear to be designed to function adequately. The level of service (LOS) at these driveways is expected to be B or better, which is acceptable. The southern driveway is shown to be aligned with the centerline of SW Elmhurst Street, which will alleviate any left turning movement conflicts. SW Dartmouth Street Improvements The applicant previously completed a dedication of additional ROW to provide 47 feet from centerline to meet the I I DS standard. No additional ROW dedications are necessary. SW Dartmouth Street was improved with five lanes along most of the site frontage as a part of a LID, but is not fully improved with sidewalk and street trees as per the TTDS. The portion of the street west of proposed Driveway_A was not fully widened to five lanes. The applicant's plan and the City Engineer approved construction plans indicate they_will complete the improvements of SW Dartmouth Street along the site frontage as a part of this project to.provide the full 66-foot paved width across the frontage of the site. During the construction plan review, Staff noted that when the applicant completes their frontage improvements there will be a gap between the applicant's sidewalk and the existing sidewalk in front of Costco. The City Engineer's approved construction plans require the applicant to provide a temporary asphalt walkway connection between the two segments of sidewalk. The applicant's approved construction plans show this temporary connection, and should be included with the new In order to prevent unacceptable spillback in front of Driveway B, two eastbound through lanes are needed orlW Dartmouth Street east of SW 72 Avenue, and these lanes will need to be widened east of 72 Avenue to provide two eastbound lanes for a limited distance beyond the intersection. This issue is discussed in more detail under the Impact Study, Chapter 18.390 in this decision. The applicant made a statement in the narrative regarding the potential for these new improvements to be included in a future LID. The City has not received an application for a new LID on SW Dartmouth Street. If such an LID were applied for and then approved by the City Council prior to construction of this project, it is quite possible that the improvements described above would be included. SW Hermoso Way Improvements There is presently a 50-foot ROW on SW Hermoso Way. The applicant's plan indicates that they will dedicate an additional 5 feet of ROW to provide 30 feet from centerline to meet the TTDS. The street was improved when the original.Hermoso Park Subdivision was developed. The paved width is currently 28 feet curb-to-curb, which does not meet the TTDS. Therefore, the applicant will be required to widen the street and install sidewalk and street trees to meet the TTDS. The existing paved section of the street was originally constructed to handle typical residential traffic. Now that the Triangle is being redeveloped to more commercial uses, the type of traffic will be more intense. The PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 48 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC • • TTDS local street is to be designed to accommodate commercial traffic. The. City's public improvement design standards include a rock and pavement section for local commercial/industrial streets that will support commercial traffic. Therefore, the existing.roadway section will need to be completely reconstructed with the heavier roadway section, from centerline to the curb. As an alternate, the applicant's engineer could propose another option, such as an overlay, that would yield the same structural strength as the typical City standard section. Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed to meet City design standards and be located on both sides of arterial, collector and local residential streets. The applicant will be required to install concrete sidewalks adjacent to all three streets that will be improved as a part of this project. Sanitary Sewers: Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. Over-sizing: Section 18.810.090.0 states that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. There is an existing 8-inch public sewer main that is located in SW Dartmouth Street adjacent to this site. The applicant proposes to extend one line into the site to serve Pads A and B. This development will be broken up into multiple parcels, which will require that all sanitary sewer lines that serve multiple parcels within the development be built as public lines. • A new public sanitary sewer line was installed recently in SW Hermoso Way, as a part of Reimbursement District #15. All of the existing residential parcels abutting SW Hermoso Way were included in RD #15. This new site plan option includes six existing residential parcels on the north side of SW Hermoso Way: 2S1 01AB, #1300 . 2S1 01AB, #1401 . 2S1 01AB, #1403 2S1 01AB, #1404 2S1 01AB, #1400, and 2S1 01AB, #1402. None of these lots have connected to the sewer constructed through RD #15 or have paid the reimbursement fee. In addition, TMC 13.09.110.1.c requires the applicant for permit related to the property to pay the fee if there is "any alteration, modification or change in the use of real property, which increases the number of parking spaces required". Since this land use approval will involve these six lots, and since the modification will result in an increase in the number of parking spaces required, the applicant shall pay the reimbursement fees of RD #15 for these parcels prior to issuance of the site permit. Option 1 The applicant's in shows that a new public sanitary sewer line will be extended into the site from the public line in SW Hermoso Way. This line extension must be a public line and meet public standards. Option 2 The applicant's plan shows that a new public sanitary sewer line will be extended into the site from the public line in SW Hermoso Way to serve Majors II, III and IV, and Pads D and E. This line _extension must be a public line and meet public standards. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MI52000-00002 and PD2000-00002/5LR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 49 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO.2000-02 PC • • • • • The overall layout of the proposed public sewer lines appears to be acceptable, as all manholes will be located within paved parking or drive aisle areas. The final design of the public sewer lines shall be approved by the Engineering Department prior to construction. The City's Master Sanitary Sewer Plan indicates that a public sewer line should be extended southerly in SW 72nd Avenue from the main line in SW Dartmouth Street in order to serve parcels along 72nd Avenue and SW Elmhurst Street. The City's policy for new developments is that public sewer lines are to be extended to property boundaries to serve adjacent uphill unsewered properties. Since the applicant will be constructing new street improvemens in SW 72nd Avenue, and since there are unsewered properties uphill of this site on SW 72nd Avenue; the applicant should extend an 8-inch public sewer line in SW 72nd Avenue as a part of the street improvements. The City Engineer approved construction plans include the extension of this sewer line to the south boundary of this site. This new option will include the same condition. Storm Drainage: General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A states requires developers to make adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff. Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.0 states that a culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area,.whether inside or outside the development. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). The proposed site plan will effectively accommodate any upstream runoff that enters the site. Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City. Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval' of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage agency in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). In 1997, the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. Section V of that plan includes a recommendation that local governments institute a siormwater detention/effective impervious area reduction program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to the 25-year event. The City will require that all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious surfaces provide on-site detention facilities, unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek, the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detention. Option 1 _ The topography of this site falls primarily to the west toward Red Rock Creek. This new option indicates Thal all storm water will be collected and discharged at two points: one discharge point will be into the new wetland mitigation area, which has been graded already, at the northwest corner of the site. In addition, the DSL and US Army Corps of Engineers permits require a biofiltration area to be separated from the wetland area and located just to the south of the wetland area in the northwest corner of the site. The other discharge point is located near the southwest corner of the site. Most of the site drainage will be directed toward the northwest corner. It appears that the runoff from the Phase II Building and the parking area adjacent to the west side of that building will be directed to the southwest corner. Staff is concerned that the plan is unclear as to how the water will be conveyed from the site to the creek. It appears that the flow will be concentrated at both discharge points. Direct discharge onto the adjacent property without proper easements will not be permitted. • P02000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and P02000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 50 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC • . Option 2 • The topography of this site falls primarily to the west toward Red Rock Creek. This new option indicates that all storm water will be collected and discharged at two points: one discharge point will be into the new wetland mitigation area, which has been graded already, at the northwest corner of the site. In addition, the DSL and US Army Corps of Engineers permits require a biofiltration area to be separated from the wetland area and located just to the south of the wetland area in the northwest corner of the site. The other discharge point is located near the southwest corner of the site. Most of the site drainage will be directed toward the northwest corner. It appears that the runoff from Majors II, Ill and IV, and parking areas adjacent to these buildings, will be conveyed to the southwest corner discharge point. Staff is concerned that the plan is unclear as to how the water will be conveyed from the site to the creek. It appears that the flow will be concentrated at both discharge points. Direct discharge onto the adjacent property without proper easements will not be permitted. The applicant will now be required to provide on-site detention of the additional stormwater, as was described above. The 1998 plan did not provide for detention. Therefore, the applicant's storm drainage plan will need to be revised to provide for the on-site detention. Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways: Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or right-of-way. This is addressed under the Planned Development Section 18.350.100.3f, Access and Circulation. Cost of Construction: Section 18.810.110.B states that development .permits issued for planned unit developments, conditional use permits, subdivisions, and other developments which will principally benefit from such bikeways shall be conditioned to include the cost or construction of bikeway improvements. Minimum Width: Section 18.810.110.0 states that the minimum width for bikeways within the roadway is five feet per bicycle travel lane. Minimum width for two-way bikeways separated from the road is eight feet. Utilities: Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes , and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: • The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; • The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; • All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and • Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. Exception to Under-Grounding Requirement: Section 18.810.120.0 states that a developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of under-grounding in conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case-by-case basis. The most common, but not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for which under-grounding would result in the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/M1S2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 51 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC lb • r There are existing overhead utility.lines along the east side of SW 72nd Avenue. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $27.50 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. The frontage along this site is 680 lineal feet; therefore, the fee would be $18,700. There are also overhead utility lines adjacent to SW Hermoso Way. The site frontage along this street is approximately 670 lineal feet. If the applicant's site is, or will be, served from the utilities along SW Hermoso.Way, they must also address those existing lines. If they choose to pay the fee in-lieu, it will be $18,425. ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Fire and Life Safety: A more thorough review of fire and life safety issues will be conducted by the Building Division during the building permit plan review stage. Public Water System: This site falls within the service area of the Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD). There are existing public waterlines in SW Dartmouth Street, SW 72nd Avenue and SW Hermosa Way. The applicant's plan shows,connections to all existing water lines in order to adequately serve the site. The plan also indicates the applicant will pay for an upgrade of the existing water line in SW Hermosa Way to a 10- inch. The City will expect the applicant to coordinate with TVWD with respect to water service and public main construction requirements. No permits for public improvements will be issued by the City until a permit from TVWD is obtained by the applicant. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan shall be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Option 1 Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the USA Design Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. The applicant s plan indicates that one StormFilter unit will be placed near the northwest corner of the site to treat a large majority of the storm water runoff from the site. The narrative indicates that two such units will be placed on the site; the plan only shows one. The applicant's engineer submitted preliminary sizing calculations with the narrative to indicate the necessary size of both units. It appears that two StormFilter units would adequately treat the storm water runoff from this site. The applicant shall revise their plan to show the location of the other StormFilter unit, and ensure that 100% of the on-site storm water runoff will be treated by a water quality facility. Option 2 Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the USA Design Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. The applicant s plan indicates that two StormFilter units will be used to treat the runoff from this site. One unit will be placed near the northwest corner of the site to treat primarily the northern portion of the storm water runoff from the site. The other unit will be placed near the southwest corner of the site where it will treat the remaining portion of the runoff. Preliminary sizing calculations for these units were submitted by the applicant s engineer. The calculations indicate that the two StormFilter units will adequately treat the runoff from this site. P02000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 52 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO.2000-02 PC IP The StormFilter unit is manufactured by Stormwater Management, who offer their clients a maintenance agreement to ensure that the facility is properly maintained by Stormwater Management each year. The City is highly concerned that these units be properly maintained, and is not confident that the applicant will have the means or desire to keep them maintained. Therefore, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have entered into a maintenance agreement with Stormwater Management for maintenance of these facilities prior to final building inspection. To ensure compliance with Unified Sewerage Agency design and construction standards, the applicant shall employ the design engineer responsible for the design and specifications of the private water quality facilities to perform construction and visual observation of the water quality facilities for compliance with the design and specifications. These inspections shall be made at significant stages throughout the project and at completion of the construction. Prior to final building inspection, the design engineer shall provide the City of Tigard (Inspection Supervisor) with written confirmation that the water quality facilities are in compliance with the design and specifications. Grading and Erosion Control: USA Design and Construction Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface. water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per USA regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits.. The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb five or more acres of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with the site and/or building permit. . • The applicant submitted a letter from ADaPT Engineering, Inc., which addresses the additional properties included in this option, and speaks to the original geo-technical report in 1994. ADaPT ' states that they believe the soils in the additional property areas exhibit similar characteristics as what exist within the rest of the site. ADaPT also states that the conclusions and recommendations in the 1994 report can and should be applied to the additional properties. The applicant obtained limited site improvement permits for this project (SIT 98-00043 and SIT 1999- 00057) to allow diversion of the wetland channel at the north end of the site and rough grading of the site in limited areas. Staff is aware of questionable fill material that has been placed on this site. To Staffs knowledge, ADaPT or any other geo-technical engineer, has not provided certification for the fills that have been completed. The applicant is interested in pulling another limited site permit later this summer to include grading within the newly added parcels. Staff would support such a request provided a geo-technical engineer certify the work that has already been accomplished. Therefore, prior to issuance of a site permit, the applicant shall submit certification from the project geo-technical engineer that states that all grading work on the site has been inspected and complies with Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. In addition, prior to final inspection of the buildings on this site, the applicant's geo-technical engineer shall submit a final report in accordance with Appendix Chapter 33 that certifies all of the grading work for the site. That report shall be submitted to the Building Division (Hap Watkins). The applicant previously obtained the NPDES permit, but will need to modify that permit to account for the site plan revision. Address Assignments: The City of Tigard is responsible for assigning addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard and within the Urban Service Boundary (USB). An addressing fee in the amount of $30 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to issuance of building permits. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and P02000-00002/SLR2000-00004/M1S2000-00003 PAGE 53 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO.2000-02 PC i • • For multi-tenant buildings, one address number is assigned to the building and then all tenant spaces are given suite numbers. The owner or property manager is responsible tor assigning suite numbers for their tenants. This information must then be given to the City so that building permits for tenant improvements can be adequately tracked in the City's permit tracking system. Based upon the information provided by the applicant, this building will be a multi-tenant building. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall provide a suite layout map showing the proposed suite numbers. The addressing fee will then be calculated based upon the number of suites that must be addressed. In multi-level structures, ground level suites shall have numbers preceded by a "1", second level suites shall have numbers preceded by a "2", etc. SECTION VIII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Building Division has reviewed this application and has offered the following comments: 1) By code, 25 Accessible parking spaces are required. 2) The applicant needs to meet with Bob Poskin of the Building Division and the Fire Marshall on the hydrant locations. Those hydrants shown on both Options will not meet the required 250-foot distance to all portions of the buildings proposed. 3) The Building Division has recently sent a letter to the applicant, due to the concerns about junk fill on the site, requiring a new geo-technical report. The geo-technical report must provide recommendations for liquefaction. The Maintenance Services Department reviewed this application under the 1998 land use decision and commented concerning the proposed tree mitigation allowance for 1,500 caliper inches of Christmas trees that are to be relocated to City properties. The developer shall incur the cost of relocating and transplanting to be eligible for mitigation credit. City staff does not have proper equipment needed for this transplantation work, nor has the City budgeted resources for this work. The Police Department reviewed this application and has offered no comments or objections. The Long-Range Planning Division reviewed this application and has offered no comment or objections. SECTION IX. AGENCY COMMENTS Metro has reviewed this application and has the following comments: We understand that the City.of Tigard is in compliance with USA and that USA is substantially compliant with Title 3. See attached Title 3 map. Oregon Division of State Lands has reviewed this application and commented in their letter dated March 15, 2000 siting the project in non-compliance with wetland mitigation and rehabilitation as follows: This letter is a follow-up to a site inspection on March 14, 2000 of the development site to determine compliance with the permit conditions of RF-9256, issued to Mr. Gordon Martin. My inspection found the mitigation site to not be in compliance with Special Condition 7 of Attachment A. More specifically, the following needs to be done to bring the permit into compliance: 1 . Pad C needs to be moved 25 feet to the west from the existing location to facilitate the construction of the wetland rehabilitation area to the east. P02000-00001/SLR2000-00005/M1S2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 54 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC 0) • 2. Figure 2 of the permit drawings shows a wetland area, much larger than what was observed at the time of my inspection, between driveway A and driveway B. We realize all the grading has not been completed to date, but the wetland areas need considerably more excavation to comply with the permit conditions (see the attached Figure 2). 3. The area at the corner of 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth has been excavated beyond what was authorized. We recommend no further earthwork be done at this location and the north bank needs to be hydroseeded to prevent erosion and planted as specified in Condition 7 (c) of Attachment A, which should include a minimum of 20 evergreen trees. 4. Trees and shrubs should not be planted until excavation has been completed in the mitigation area between driveway A and B. However, trees and shrubs should be planted this spring as. specified in Figure 2 and Condition 7 (c) at the large Pond site north of Pad B, and on the north bank of the stream facing Pads E and F. • US Army Corps of Engineers has submitted a letter dated March 13, 2000 from Gerald Black which does not grant full compliance as follows: This letter is to indicate compliance of the new wetland boundary. This letter does not grant full compliance. As shown on the plans presented to me, the project's wetland boundary does not appear to have further encroached the wetland areas (mitigated and natural). However, full compliance is subject to a visual inspection of the site to be conducted in the future. Staff Response: Other recent communications between Jan Stuart of the Corps and Staff has indicated likely non-compliance with wetland mitigation and rehabilitation. The Oregon Department of Transportation has reviewed this application and has the following comments: ODOT Facilities: The proposed Tri-County Center development is located within the Tigard Triangle, that is bounded by Interstate 5, OR 217, and OR 99W. According to the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan, Interstate 5 has an Interstate level of importance. OR 217 and OR 99W are designated Freight routes and Statewide highways. While the site does not have direct access to state facilities, projected traffic impacts from the proposed development show that mobility on the highways will be affected. ODOT has an interest in ensuring that land uses are compatible with the safe and efficient functioning of the highways. Background: A slightly different version of this development was proposed and approved in 1998. P condition of approval required the applicant to construct a traffic signal at the intersection of SW 68 Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street. This intersection is part of the 1-5 southbound ramp terminals at the Hanes Street exit. The applicant's Engineer conducted a traffic signal study at this location that found a traffic signal would be warranted and would be necessary for maintaining acceptable operation of the intersection. ODOT supported this conclusion. ODOT previously indicated that additional analysis would be needed to determine if supplemental improvements would be necessary to address potential queuing deficiencies at the interchange ramps. _ Signalization of 68`h Parkway x Dartmouth Street The revised traffic impact analysis assumed that the differences in traffic impacts between the previous and current proposals would be insignificant. Therefore, ODOT will rely on the conclusions of the 2/98 study prepared by Lancaster Engineering. PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MI52000-00002 and PD2000-00002/5LR2000-00004/MI52000-00003 PAGE 55 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC • Please enter into the record ODOT comments dated May 12, 1998 (copy enclosed) that were . submitted to the City for. SDR 98-0002/PDR98-0001 review. Our review was based on the traffic study provided at that time, which is being referenced for the current proposal. Our previous comments are still valid. Therefore, ODOT recommends the following condition of approval: • The applicant shall construct a traffic signal at the intersection of SW 68th Parkway x Dartmouth Street. Constructions shall include any roadway improvements as required by ODOT to ensure adequate operation and vehicular storage. ODOT approval and permit are required for signal installation and any work in the state right-of-way. This improvement is necessary to provide mitigation for anticipated Tri-County Center site-generated traffic impacts to the 1-5 x Haines Road interchange ramps. This condition should be included for either Option 1 or Option 2. Without this mitigation, the application would fail to meet the City of Tigard Community Development Code (TCDC), Conceptual Development Plan, Approval Criteria. TCDC 18.350.100.B.1. incorporates requirements of the land division provisions; 18.420.050.A.2, states: There are adequate public facilities available to serve the proposal. ODOT Permit: ODOT signal review and permitting will be processed through our District 2A office. Contact: Joel MCCarroli, Assistant to District Manager, ODOT District 2A, 229-5002 for information. ODOT comments from letter dated May 12. 1998: .Upon careful review of the traffic report submitted by the applicant for a 330,895 square foot retail shoppin center at 72nd and Dartmouth Street, we have determined that the applicant cannot meet the policies of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the Hi hwa Objectives and Performance Criteria #4 and #5 (Volume 1, Table Ill-1, p. 1-2 an Transportation Policies 8.1.3 d. and e. (Volume 2i* Section I1, p.55) are not met. Highway Objective and Performance Criteria #4 is `to maintain a reasonable level of speed on principal and arterial routes during the peak hour" and Objective #5 is "to maintain a reasonable level of speed on principal and arterial routes during the off-peak periods." Transportation Policy 8.1.3 - The City shall Require as a Precondition to Development that: d. Individual developers participate in the improvement of existing street, curbs and sidewalks to the extent of the development's impacts; and e. Street improvements be made and street signs or signals'be provided when the development is found to create or intensify a traffic hazard. The traffic study shows that more than one-third (1/3) of the site generated trips are anticipated to access the site via the Highway 99W/SW Dartmouth Street intersection. Accordin_g to the Ore on Highway Plan, the operating standard for 99W is a level of service (LOS" D for signalized intersections which equates to a maximum volume to capacity ratio of 90/U. This intersection is currently operating at a LOS of D with a v/c of 83%. Without the proposed development, the intersection is expected to operate at a LOS of E with a v/c of 93% in the year 2003. A v/c ratio of 99% is operating at capacity and anything greater is considered to be failing. With the proposed development the intersection (including background traffic) is expected to be at a LOS of E with v/c of 99%. ObOT considers the expected increase in the v/c ratio a significant degradation of traffic conditions as compared to what currently exists as well as what would be expected in the year 2003 without the proposed development. The 99W/Dartmouth Street intersection is expected to be operating at capacity with.the proposed development. Under such circumstances, progression of traffic along the highway would be virtually impossible. Queuing and delays experienced on the highway and side streets would be expected to become severe. Motorists on the highway and side street would typically have to wait through a number of signal cycles to be served, resulting in long delays and excessive queuing. These conditions are expected to lead to erratic maneuvers by motorists (running red lights, drive on the shoulders, etc.), which could aggravate safety concerns at and near the intersection. It is ODOT's position that without the widening of 99W to six (6) lanes between 1-5 and Highway 217, that the development will intensify traffic on 99W and in particular, the intersection of SW Dartmouth Street. P02000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MI52000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/M1S2000-00003 PAGE 56 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC • If the City chooses to approve the proposed development, we recommend the following be included as Conditions of Approval: 1. The applicant be required to install a traffic signal at the intersections of SW 68th Parkway and SW Dartmouth Street. The intersection is currently controlled by an all-way stop. The east leg of the intersection consists of the 1-5 southbound ramp connections at the SW Haines Road Interchange. The 1-5 southbound ramp connections are parts of the State Highway System and under the jurisdiction of ODOT, and as such, the proposed traffic signal at this f P . P g Is in ersection needs to be approved by the State Traffic Engineer prior to design and construction. Signal installation may require additional improvements as determined by the State Traffic Engineer. Fourteen hour (6 a.m. to 8 m. weekdays) manual turn movement counts at the intersection will need to be provided to ODOT for the traffic signal warrant analysis. The format shown on the attached traffic signal warrant comparison worksheets should be used as part of the warrant analysis. 2. Queuing analyses should be performed for all approaches of the signalized intersections on Highway 99W to ensure that adequate stacking distance is provided for efficjent traffic operations. Queuing on the east approach to the intersection of Dartmouth and 68 Parkway should be examined as well to ensure that there is adequate storage distance available on the 1-5 southbound off-ramp to Dartmouth. Without adequate storage distance on the 1-5 southbound off-ramp, the traffic queue would cause significant impact to the freeway operations. 3. There is discussion in the report regarding an extension of SW Dartmouth Street west over Highway 217 and additional ramp connections to the highway. ODOT has reviewed and analyzed similar proposals in the past and has no evidence that there would be any improvement in level of service for 99W between Highway 217 and 1-5. ODOT will not allow additional access to Highway 217. 4. The traffic study kpdicates that twenty-five percent of the site-gened-ated trips are expected to travel on SW 72 Avenue north of SW Hampton Street. SW 72" Avenue at its intersection with SW Hampton St., the Highway 217 northbound and south ramp terminals should be included in the study area. * Note: Although the Comprehensive Plan Policies 8.1.3 d and e which ODOT cited are appropriate to address relative to this application, the applicant is unable by . themselves, to provide street improvements that would add lanes to 99W. While this improvement may be needed, widening 99W is a difficult multi- million dollar project that will impact dozens of existing businesses. Unified Sewerage Agency has reviewed the application and provided the following comments: Sanitary Sewer: The development should be provided with a means of disposal for sanitary sewer. The means of disposal should be in accordance with Unified Sewerage Agency's Design and Construction Standards. Engineer should verify that public sanitary sewer is available to uphill adjacent properties, or extend service as required by R & O. Storm Sewer: I he development should have access to public storm sewer. Engineer should verify that public storm sewer is available to up-hill adjacent roperties, or extend storm service as required by R&O. Hydraulic and hydrological analysis of storm conveyance system is necessary. If downstream storm conveyance does not have the capacity to convey the volume during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event, the applicant is responsible for mitigating flow. Water Quality: Developer should provide a water quality facility to treat the new impervious surface being constructed as part of this development. All impervious area is to be treated. P02000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 57 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO.2000-02 PC IIP • • , • • • SgnsitiveArea: A Sensitive Area" exists. Developer must preserve a corridor as described in the R&O separating the sensitive area from the impact of development. The creek wetland/sensitive area shall be identified on plans. Corridors are required on mitigated wetlands. A DSL/Corps of Engineers permit is required for any work in the creek or wetlands. Compliance with approved DSL/Corps permits will be required. Erosion Control: A joint 1200-C erosion control permit is required. The plans for the above noted project have been reviewed for conformance with the 1997 Edition of _._ the Uniform Fire Code, as amended by Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue and those portions of the Uniform Building Code Uniform Mechanical Code and other codes and standards as specifically referenced in the Fire Oode. The following conditions are attached to the above named project in order to achieve Fire District approval: Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue has reviewed the application and provided the following comments: ACCESS ROADS ADJACENT TO BUILDINGS: Access roadways shall not be closer than 20 feet to a structure unless topographical restrictions dictate the location. (UFC Sec. 902.2.1) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD EXCEPTION FOR AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER PROTECTION: When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, the requirements or fire apparatus access may be modified as approved by the Chief. (UFC Sec. 902.2.1 Exception 1) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD WIDTH AND VERTICAL CLEARANCE: Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet (15 feet for one or two dwelling units and out buildings), and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. (UFC. Sec 902.2.2.1) SURFACE AND LOAD CAPACITIES: Fire apparatus access roads shall be of an all-weather surface that is easily distinguishable from the surrounding area and is capable of supporting not less than 12,500 pounds point load (wheel load) and 50,000 pounds live load (gross vehicle weight). You may need to provide documentation from a registered engineer that the design will be capable of supporting such loading. Documentation from a registered engineer that the finished construction is in accordance with the approved plans or the requirements of the Fire Code may be requested. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2) TURNING RADIUS: The inside turning radius and outside turning radius shall be not less than 25 feet and 45 feet respectively, measured-from the same center point. (UFC Sec, 902.2.2.3) COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS — REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The required fire flow for a building shall not exceed 3,000 allons per minute (GPM) or the available GPM in the water delivery system at 20 psi, whichever is .less. •A worksheet for calculating the required fire flow is available from the Fire Marshal's Office. (UFC Sec. 903.3) COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS — FIRE HYDRANTS: Fire hydrants shall be located so that no portion of the exterior of a commercial building is more than 250 feet from a fire hydrant as measured in an approved manner around the outside of the structure and along the approved route of travel accessible to fire apparatus. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.1) EXCEPTIONS: (1) When such buildings are protected throughout with an approved automatic fire extinguishing system, the chief may allow variations up to a maximum of 500 feet, provided adequate protection is maintained. COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS — MINIMUM NUMBER OF FIRE HYDRANTS: The minimum number of fire hydrants for a building shall be based on the required fire flow prior to protection systems divided by 1500. If the answer is equal to or greater than x.5 he credit for number of hydrants shall be used. There shall not be less than 2 hydrants per building. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.1) FIRE HYDRANT DISTANCE FROM AN ACCESS ROAD: Fire hydrants shall be located not more than 15 feet from an approved fire apparatus access roadway. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.4) PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/M1S2000-00002 and PD2000=00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 58 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL.ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC REFLECTIVE HYDRANT MARKERS: Fire hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers. The markers shall be blue. They shall be located adjacent and to the side of the centerline of the access roadway that the fire hydrant is located on. In case that there is no center line, then assume a centerline, and place the reflectors accordingly. (UFC Sec. 901.4.3) FIRE HYDRANT / FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS: A fire hydrant shall be located within 70 feet of a fire department connection (FDC). Fire hydrants and FDC's shall be located on the same side of the fire apparatus access roadway. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.5) FDC locations shall be approved by the Chief. (1996 Oregon Structural Specialty Code, Sec 904.1.1) FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS ON BUILDINGS: Fire department connections shall not be located on the building that is being protected with the exception of Group R, Division 1 Occupancies not over 4 stories in height. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.5) ACCESS AND FIRE FIGHTING WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION: Approved fire apparatus access roadways and fire-fighting water supplies shall be installed and operational prior to stockpiling combustibles on-site or the commencement of combustible construction. (UFC Sec. 704) KNOX BOX: A Knox Box for building access is required for this building. Please contact the Fire Marshal's Office for an order form and instructions regarding installation and placement. (UFC Sec. 902.4) Portland General Electric.(PGE) was notified, however, no comments were provided. SECTION X. CONCLUSION It is further ordered that the applicant and the parties to these proceedings be notified of the entry of this order. PASSED: This 15t" day of May, 2000 by the City of Tigard Planning Commission. (Signature box below) Nick Wilson, Planning Commission Chair is\curpin\pd\karen\pd00-1&2.final.doc PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 and PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 PAGE 59 OF 59 TRI-COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER 5/15/2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02 PC V .... ..............--..-.4. ..........-.......-- • 1I ) a Stye DATd ,,\ ,;\ 1 M NATOCr.-rb►n4 TOTAL 9+i Mu IJq•7S s..�.r«�t)11�. T •O (►,eOt TO 1q,�OSO t-0-.OmCATI e) Mad(r-s — su(a..c a ao.c TOTAL OTC MCA 1,157 7S1 Sw•v,f«.}7,r Av. ^`v o // ••` t rlo(SneM.M.X Ars TOTA.S$. MCA 117.171 f.wn r«( /// \ -_" MOO 90C.ALld MOSS LLASM(t MCA 707.417 S....feat i/ `1` ••\ ® TI*CM.SNDMO CNO(MCS .Kates WgsM'C MCA 1711.055 Mow feat,1606 • f \`�• ,` © TWCAL 0(A9(aao9AG ACIUN.UMOSGV(MCA T22.141 Senn r«6 MIX ® R 9CNA. rartriO DATA I/ .R7{.Vp 1(NAA/I1000(m4NN .• ............44. ... f TANDA110 STNlS 1.433 SW. -•+F ••;l... HANDCAR STALLS 27 71M. ` • norm.VALS 1,473 51.4 / ..........:"1•1•0$,i,•+ rA,ev,e MTq 4.110 51.14/1000 Y QA _ .� MCC NmMS „IV aim — �1 PAD-A? ._....._.......11--------: .... MAX i lI 7600 7 U(1` ,I'I • 1 -11E11 —II] 11 1-4=1111111111111t10 ,•_- 0 Nit I . Is t_ .-..- ( II 1 -1`y _. I L . iii •11 i I I - I It JI1IfflhIL M MAJOR I I _ I I '1 M- 223,461 SF. I I ,I ..s l' $ i ' PHASE I . _ W -- , ---- it .. I -/' c,4$7ss S ) �1 - ICI I. I .- I I 1 pxa� ( w•MY 1. ' . I 110 v * _iIIilf fIIJIIfflfll IIIIIIIIff fflIIi I I y;,l -- s i -� W Efllllf IIiiIIIIIIIiIiIlIIIIffIIIIIi I - I z I . I .� • r,__ II I l PHASE 11 y® I . `_...- 1 1 11- I m I 1• (74.702 Sr.) J, 1 : i r . Iii : . • I 6 r 1 I "I Er 611.. r------7-- —� 'mill �_ )11 i 1 CITY OF T'GARD f TRI-COUNTY CENTER SITE PLAN (OPTION 1) (Map is not to scale) PD2000-00001/SLR2000-00005/MIS2000-00002 i : • • ^ \ • . a a - �� MW('XI(L p ..O rink ID WC.OiO 11-0.9 pmCAfM. 1.1/4'11 b+,r..all/+l• •It ,\ P �+ad.�a wlaa•t 1 • I "'•N ad mot.OUR DM 1r[I.t4 I,II)hf Dom on I.l))1..w WILD 00,4740 1103.1100NCADON) • \\‘‘,., ou r arm..••'Vee.n r41K•np•ep m•ta 1i4�11 f•...1�1 .?00 tdW.L MI(A )•p..tp)1w.Ial• f'MTM i 11*ex R�o..p anN11a R ICp�i�tVOi+#t ru Mew I ..r,.k.rim WOl�.V © r,e..v.N o+ana.aa •etwt t,.otri.•t/K.� Imam w..r-.na cilf,•• m7 ram to k fAfl2D1a e1L-emu E E • 1 I 1 ` , \ ►.sot.. •w 11‘04/1 COD tr n.. DoM WY! Ill••••. r I • _ ul l _ •fie Si . ,,� {•1!1• i y �. . "'C' till \u 1 1 •N 1 t . '1 1 ' 11' } �, _ 1 P� 1 r.A7: - .__L_ • -Ni 1 ..i r • • 1 44.01)9r. 1 I.. J ' PI•A I It•ra I w•ru • 1 • y c: 1 1. •-. _ 1i 1 1 . I . 1 1 11.14---- -1--.4. 13. 0 .I •..•••• ih .0.7,■o,••■,,.i.0-;s, 1;2 • 404. TO • , • "I r.: ' • i : I. ..." .. L i • • J :,•�i• ...41_,1%.40*l S •'1 1 'irk;, �•' L-•+••r I ' . 1 • •_ ;::4:.`.::`. :at:':i:A ' : : is ' '':" r, ' • : MAJOR I is ■ : 1•.: I R 140,082 SF, 1 . 1 : 1 • 7-:— . ' I1 t MAJOR II AWOR III MA)Oi& IN la-;. • ' •^ 111 - -a.-. - / 34,500 Sr, 3.,312 Sr. 35.400 Si'. 1 �lIA 1 t- I �.•• • :...1...... 1"...)9,ro n-I11M n-niro 1 1 _ ' . -----..1. -- --._-• ..) ••• :. ���r r .. . ,� •-.• I' _T `T' ter, _ ^_ 11 • ter_ CITY OF TIE AR D ot TRI-COUNTY CENTER • SITE PLAN N (OPTION 2) (Map is not to scale) • PD2000-00002/SLR2000-00004/MIS2000-00003 l' Y iLti111111 ST OIOO AINIC INPOIVAT10N svei{L ��� VICINITY MAP G40' A TRI-COUNTY CENTER 0 i. PD2000-00001 � ] ---� ST SLR2000-00005 ] OPTION 1 9999\14 ::' M182000-00002 _ ` PD2000-00002 ) 13 SUBJECT 1 ■■ 122111010°001. }MN 2 TAX LOTS 111111111 �--_ ..111111 . DARTMOUTH ST \\‘\\ \\- \k4,\4‘. \\S\ 44\\\,,\\\\\\. *I\\\\\\\\\\\N 1/4\\\\\. \.\\\\N\ \\NI I le \4\,\ \'\:N),‘ \\\\,,.4\N't4\1\„"Ns \��� fir— ST 7:111/ 200 400 600 AeI FRANKLIN I r.021eet . Nam eEVFLAND SST +l,�,iC 0), City of Tigard —. Inl00,3 lion on Isis map is for penuel location Doty eNM y — mould be verified vile IM Development Sanitise OMe�on. N U1th SW Hall m' Tigard.W 97217 •GONZAGA ST (SOS)879•N 71 ~ --._ ._J_.— ... MIp:�MHw.ci.Iipud.o:.us .__ 10/02/2000 • Activities for Case #: PDX2000-00001 11:25:18 AM Assigned Hold Updated Activity Description Date 1 Date 2 Date 3 To Done By Disp. Level By Updated Notes PDRA003 Pre-application meeting 11/03/1999 KPF KPF DONE No Hold KPF 03/17/2000 PDRA030 Planner assigned to case 02/04/2000 KPF KPF DONE No Hold KPF 03/17/2000 PDRA035 Case created 02/04/2000 KPF KPF DONE No Hold KPF 03/17/2000 PDRA020 Application acceptance date 03/15/2000 KPF KPF DONE No Hold KPF 03/17/2000 PDRB050 PC Hearing Date- 10/02/2000 KPF PLL DONE No Hold PLL 10/02/2000 Hearing held 5/15/2000. Final Order No.2000-02 PC issued 5/19/00. PDRC330 Appeal to City Council 09/29/2000 DB KF DONE No Hold PLL 10/02/2000 Appeal Withdrawn for 9/26/00 Hearing date after being set over from 7/25/00 and 9/12/00 IA Council agendas. • Page 1 of 1 i • }�):L:t (._ . • Agenda Item No. 4_ Meeting of 4 . 2!o 00 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 • STUDY SESSION Council President Moore called the Study Session to order at 6:35 p.m. Mayor-select Griffith and Councilors Hunt, Moore,Patton and Scheckla were present. > EXECUTIVE SESSION: Canceled. > Preview Update on the Long-term Water Supply(See Agenda Item No. 9) Public Works Director Wegner gave a brief overview on current status on securing a long-term water supply for the Tigard Water Service area. (Staff report on file with the Council meeting packet, Agenda Item No. 9.) Staff is continuing to work on three alternatives: 1. The Portland wholesale contract. 2. The Clackamas (South Fork)River Water Supply 3. The Joint Water Commission(Trask River/Hagg Lake Water Supply) Mr. Wegner advised another Council update on long-term water supply is scheduled for the workshop meeting of October 17, 2000. With regard to the Willamette River option, the City of Tigard has not been involved with any negotiations or work planned for using the Willamette River. The City of Wilsonville and the Tualatin Valley Water District are conducting this work. The City of Tigard does not have a contract to buy Willamette River Water. In response to a Council request for clarification, Mr. Wegner advised that the City of Tigard does blend water; that is, water from the various purchased sources (Portland, Lake Oswego, Joint Water Commission, and Tualatin Valley Water District) are blended by depositing into the reservoirs. Mr. Wegner explained this is a common practice for those cities that do not have a single-source water supply. In addition, he noted that the City of Portland also blends water during the summer months with 80% of the water from Bull Run and 20% from its well fields. ➢ Administrative Items and Agenda Review Tri-County Appeal Hearing City Manager Monahan noted that staff received a request from the legal counsel of the Tri-County project for a set over of the appeal public hearing to September 26, CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 - PAGE 1 • • • 2000. With the continuance of the hearing to September 26, 2000, it is likely that the final order would be scheduled for Council action on October 10, 2000. Councilor Scheckla advised that he had made a site visit to the Tri-County., In addition he requested advice on whether.or not he would be able to vote on this matter on October 10,2000, since he was going to be absent from the September 26, meeting. City Attorney Ramis advised Councilor Scheckla that it would be appropriate for him to vote on the final order on October 10 provided he reviewed the record from the September 26 meeting. TPOA Contract City Manager Monahan referred to the Tigard Police Officers Association contract that is on the Consent Agenda (Item No. 4.4). Both parties have agreed to delete "Addendum P'; therefore, if the City Council approves the contract, "Addendum I" will be removed. Proclamations Mayor-select Griffith advised that he has received requests to declare proclamations. After brief discussion, Council consensus was for Mr. Griffith to use his own judgment as to which proclamations he would proclaim for the City of Tigard. However, should Mr. Griffith want advice of the Council in a particular instance, the Council would be glad to assist. Conflict of Interest Waiver Request City Manager Monahan reported on a request received from Mamie Allen of the Preston Gates & Ellis Law firm. After discussion, the Council directed the City Manager to advise Ms. Allen that the City is willing to waive the conflict for representation in matters in any proceedings at the City level. The waiver does not extend to representation by this firm in any action at the Circuit Court level or with any other appellate proceedings. The Council also noted it would consider requests from the firm to represent VoiceStream with the City, however, such requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis. At 6:55 p.m. Council recessed and attended a reception to Welcome Mayor-select Jim Griffith. > RECEPTION—Mayor James (Jim) E. Griffith The business meeting convened at 7:30 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order- City Council& Local Contract Review Board CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—SEPTEMBER 12,2000 -PAGE 2 • • 1.2 Roll Call: Mayor-select Griffith and Councilors Hunt, Moore, Patton and Scheckla were present. 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications: Councilor Scheckla reported that the Community Development Block Grant Board would be meeting on September 13, 7 p.m., at King City. 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None. 2. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE: MAYOR JAMES E. "JIM" GRIFFITH a. Staff Introduction: City Manager Monahan introduced this item. He gave a brief summary of the appointment process for the interim Mayor position and the Council's selection of Jim Griffith to fill the Mayor's position until an election can be held in March 2001. b. Administer Oath of Office: City Attorney Tim Ramis administered the Oath of Office. c. Mayor Griffith Comments: Mayor Griffith commended the City Council noting that they had worked through difficult times during the illness and passing of Mayor Nicoli. The Mayor also spoke highly of the professionalism of the City Manager. and City staff. Mayor Griffith reflected that Mayor Jim Nicoli had "set the bar high" with his high energy and the programs he initiated for the City of Tigard. The Mayor said that he wants to"keep things moving." Tigard, advised Mayor Griffith, is now a destination community where people want to live. Along with the good, there are problems, including traffic and maintaining the integrity of neighborhoods. Mayor Griffith noted there are a number of positive activities that are being done by the City of Tigard. He said he would like an aggressive public relations effort where the City takes the time to let people know the good things that are happening. He concluded by saying that he recognized the value of volunteers and urged people • to come forward and volunteer their services. d. Councilor Hunt noted that the community and the City Council should extend to Council President Moore their thanks for a good job during his time as acting Mayor. Councilor Hunt noted that the Council was divided in their viewpoints and opinions on several issues over the last few months and complimented Council President Moore for the manner in which he responded. In addition, Councilor Hunt noted that Council President Moore took time away from vacation, driving back and forth from the beach, in order to be available for Council meetings during the selection process for the Interim Mayor. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —SEPTEMBER 12, 2000- PAGE 3 • • Council President Moore thanked Councilor Hunt for his comments, saying that it meant a lot to him. The Council recessed for a break at 8:43 p.m. and reconvened at 8:50 p.m. 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA(Two Minutes or Less, Please) Two visitors, Nancy Malik and Jeanne Holt advised they were present to comment on Agenda Item No. 10, in support of Sherrene Walker. Mayor Griffith requested that they speak during that agenda item. 4. CONSENT AGENDA: City Manager Monahan noted the change to Item No. 4.4, the TPOA agreement, whereby "Addendum I" shall be deleted. In addition, City Manager Monahan referred to a letter from Cary Holzworth in reference to Item No. 4.5; this letter adds further detail and clarifies an issue raised by Mr. Dan Quello. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt the Consent Agenda. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present; Mayor Griffith and Councilors Hunt, Moore, Patton, and Scheckla voted "yes." 4.1 Approve Council Minutes: July 11, 18, 25 and August 8, 2000 4.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda 4.3 Approve a Training Request for Detective Gary Wayt to Attend the Northwest Fraud Investigator's Association Training Conference 4.4 Adopt a New Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City and Tigard Police Officers Association(TPOA)—Resolution No. 00-54 4.5 Approve Budget Amendment #2 to Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Adopted Budget to Allow Payment of the Negotiated Salary Settlement with Tigard Police Officers Association—Resolution No. 00-55 4.6 Denying a Requested Zone Ordinance Amendment (ZOA 2000-00001) to Allow Outdoor Weddings and Bed and Breakfast Uses in Historic Overlay Zones — Resolution No. 00 - 56 4.7 Local Contract Review Board a. Reject All Bid Proposals for the Construction of Ash Avenue and Burnham Street Sanitary Sewer Improvements 5. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING COMPLETION OF THE TRANSPORTATION BOND TASK FORCE MISSION, DEACTIVATING THE TASK FORCE, AND COMMENDING THE TASK FORCE MEMBERS FOR A JOB WELL DONE a. Staff Report: Council President Brian Moore reviewed this agenda item and thanked the members of the Task Force for their hard work. Task Force members Mark CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—SEPTEMBER 12, 2000-PAGE 4 • • Padgett and Beverly Froude were present and the meeting. Ms. Froude thanked the City for allowing her to be involved. Mr. Padgett thanked the staff for their work and noted that the chairman of the Committee, Mr. Steve Clark, did an outstanding job. b. Council Consideration: Motion by Councilor Patton, seconded by Councilor Moore to adopt Resolution No. 00-57. The City Recorder read the following: RESOLUTION NO. 00-57. A RESOLUTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE COMPLETION OF THE TRANSPORTATION BOND TASK FORCE MISSION, TO DEACTIVATE THE TASK FORCE, AND TO COMMEND THE TASK FORCE FOR A JOB WELL DONE. • The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present; Mayor Griffith and Councilors Hunt,Moore,Patton, and Scheckla voted "yes." 6. BRIEFING ON STAFF PLANS FOR FOLLOW-UP TO THE OPINION POLL RESULTS a. Staff Report: Assistant to the City Manager Liz Newton introduced this agenda item. In August, Council received the results of the latest opinion polls. These polls were conducted to assist with the update effort of the City's vision, Tigard Beyond. Tomorrow Several staff members highlighted areas of the opinion poll results: • Library Director Margaret Barnes noted the poll results clearly reflected the popularity of the Library as a department of the City. As a result of the poll, expanding hours and electronic services are under consideration. • Police Chief Ron Goodpaster noted issues of speeding, especially near the high school and on Bull Mountain. Increased traffic enforcement efforts were implemented as a result. Chief Goodpaster noted that some surveys were received that advised of problems; however,no location was given. • • Public Works Director Ed Wegner noted that the surveys supported more trail systems; 8 more miles of pedestrian trails were developed in recent months. He also noted problems with illegal camping in parks were identified; his staff has been working with the Police Department to address this problem. • Community Development Director Hendryx advised that transit services were of concern. Of those who responded to the opinion poll, 71% said they do not use the bus system because it is not conveniently located to their place of residence or because the scheduling is not flexible enough. In addition, a need for internal CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —SEPTEMBER 12, 2000- PAGE 5 • • bus routes was identified especially to Washington Square, the Library and City Hall. Most of those who responded supported commuter rail. Mr. Hendryx advised that he would be meeting with Tri-Met officials in October to discuss a potential funding source for a"Welfare to Work"program. • Development Review Engineer Brian Rager noted the Engineering Department also received comments about concerns with speeding traffic. He referred to traffic calming measures, including speed humps and other alternatives to encourage traffic to slow down. He noted that speed humps are not always appropriate and reviewed criteria that must be considered. Mr. Rager noted the opinion poll results indicated that there is a need for more sidewalks and street lights; however, he advised that funding for these projects is not available for more than a few projects. • Assistant to the City Manager Liz Newton advised that there will be additional follow-up reporting the results of the Opinion Poll through an article in the October Cityscape. . In October, the citizen-based Vision Task Force will use the opinion poll results to guide their update to the vision goals and directions. By January 2001, the City Council will receive an updated vision document that will outline the action plan for the next few years. • In response to a question from Councilor Hunt, Community Development Director noted anonymous complaints,can be received and acted upon by the City with regard to Code Enforcement issues; however, it is preferred to obtain the identity of the complainant. City Attorney Tim Ramis advised that the City can attempt to honor a request for confidentiality, but due to laws that require disclosure in many circumstances,this information cannot always be protected. 7. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL,) APPEAL OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02PC —TRI-COUNTY CENTER Attorney Mark Whitlow asked that this agenda item be continued to September 26, 2000, to allow the applicant to replace the lead consultant and tow continue to work with staff to resolve issues. In response to an inquiry from Council Scheckla, who will not be present at the September 26, 2000, City Council meeting, Mr. Whitlow advised that he had no objection to Councilor Scheckla's participation in a decision on this matter at a later date. Mr. Whitlow noted that the applicant would toll the 120-day period until October 10, 2000. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Patton, to continue the Tri-County appeal hearing to September 26, 2000. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote; Mayor Griffith and Councilors Hunt, Moore,Patton, and Scheckla voted "yes." CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—SEPTEMBER 12, 2000-PAGE 6 • • ITEM ON APPEAL: At the May 15, 2000 public hearing, the Planning Commission approved, subject to conditions, a request for approval of conceptual plan review for two alternative designs for new construction of a shopping center as a Planned Development. OPTION 1: This is the proposed new construction of a 297,179 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area-of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Land Review. OPTION 2: This is the proposed new construction of a 330,312 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Lands Review. A prior request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Water Resource Overlay District including fill and mitigation of a portion of the existing wetlands was granted on June 23, 1998 and became effective July 23, 1998 by Final Order of the Tigard City Council. CONDITIONS BEING APPEALED: On June 5, 2000 the applicant filed an appeal of certain conditions of approval contained in the decision. The specific conditions appealed and items to which they are related are summarized as follows: Condition #1: Overall Condition related to the Design Evaluation Team Option; Condition #7: Street Improvements to include the future Widening of SW Dartmouth; Condition #22: Verification related to any ground disturbances in areas of steep slopes; Condition #25 - OPTION 2 ONLY: Relocation of parking area near the bend of SW Hermoso Way outside of area of steep slopes; Condition#26: Provide landscaping, an arcade or a hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path along SW Dartmouth Street between the structure and the wetlands/public street; Condition #56 - OPTION 1 ONLY: Comply with zero-foot building setback standards for Pad E; Condition #58 - OPTION 2 ONLY: Comply with zero-foot building setback standards for Major II-IV; and Condition #73: Provide a public or private street connecting SW Dartmouth Street to SW Hermoso Way. LOCATION: The site is located on the south side of SW Dartmouth Street and on the west side of SW 72"d Avenue and is east of State Highway 217. The site also includes 6 lots along the north side of Hermoso Way. The site address is 12265 SW 72"d; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot 04200; 2S101BA, Tax Lots 00100, 00101, 00300, 00400, 00401 and 00402; 2S101AB, Tax Lots 01300, 01400, 01401, 01402, 01403, 01404. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial and Mixed Use Employment. ZONING DESIGNATIONS: C-G (PD) and MUE. The General Commercial zoning district provides for the provision of a wide range of major retail goods and services. The Mixed Use Employment zoning district is designed to apply to .a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy 99), Highway 217 and I-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED: Community Development Code Chapters and Sections: 18.390, 18.390.050, 18.620, 18.620.020, 18.620.030, 18.620.040, 18.775, - 18.810, 18.810.030. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —SEPTEMBER 12, 2000- PAGE 7 • • 8. PUBLIC HEARING FOR RENAMING OF SW 129Th AVENUE,NORTH OF SW BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD, WITHIN THE WOODFORD ESTATES SUBDIVISION, AND RENAMING A PORTION OF SW 132ND. AVENUE FROM SW BENCHVIEW TERRACE TO A NEW STREET INTERSECTION ADJACENT TO THE QUAIL HOLLOW-WEST SUBDIVISION Mayor Griffith advised of a conflict of interest on this agenda item, noting that he was seated on the Planning Commission when the matter was before that body. He left the meeting. a. Open Public Hearing: Council President Moore opened the public hearing. b. Staff Report: Development Review Engineer Brian Rager gave the Staff Report. The recent upgrading of a minor collector roadway has necessitated the renaming of two existing roadway segments. c. Public Testimony: No one signed up to testify. d. Staff Recommendation: Mr. Rager noted that staff recommended that the Council approve the proposed ordinance, which would rename the street segments in question to "SW Greenfield Drive." e. Council Discussion, Questions, Comments: None. f. Close Public Hearing: Council President Moore closed the public hearing. g. Council Consideration: Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Patton to adopt Ordinance No. 00-27. The City Recorder read the following: ORDINANCE-NO. 00-27. AN ORDINANCE RENAMING SW 129Th AVENUE, NORTH OF SW BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD, WITHIN THE WOODFORD ESTATES SUBDIVISION, AND RENAMING A PORTION OF SW 132ND AVENUE FROM BENCHVIEW TERRACE TO A NEW STREET INTERSECTION ADJACENT TO THE QUAIL HOLLOW — WEST SUBDIVISION The ordinance was adopted by a unanimous vote of Council present; Councilors Hunt, Moore, Patton, and Scheckla voted "yes." (Mayor Griffith was not present having declared a conflict of interest.) 9. UPDATE: LONG-TERM WATER SUPPLY Public Works Director Wegner reviewed the alternatives under consideration for a long- term water supply(see notes from the Study Session portion of these minutes). In addition to the general information also presented during the Study Session, Mr. Wegner responded to a question from Councilor Patton that water rates had increased by CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —SEPTEMBER 12, 2000-PAGE 8 • • • 3 percent this summer. The consultant had recommended a 10 percent increase, but due to potential voter approval of an initiated ballot measure to be considered November 7, 2000, advice from legal counsel was followed and the increase was limited to 3 percent. Regardless of which option is selected,rates will need to be increased. In response to a question from Mayor Griffith, Mr. Wegner advised that a "long-term" contract meant at least 25 years with the City of Portland. With the Clackamas River or the Joint Water Commission option, the City of Tigard would be looking to obtain a partnership (ownership) in either of these two systems. Mr. Wegner said that the City is looking for both a primary and backup water supply sources. For each of the three options, there will be a withdrawal clause. Mr. Wegner reiterated (see Study Session notes) that the City of Tigard, since the voters approved the Charter amendment saying that the City of Tigard cannot use Willamette River water unless the voters approve, has not participated in developing that source nor have there been any contracts or plans to buy water from the Willamette River. In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Wegner and Mr. Ramis explained the City of Wilsonville's situation. The City of Wilsonville has practiced a couple of methods of water conservation for the last two years. In addition, because rapid growth would jeopardize water supply a "queuing" program, was devised whereby new developments would wait their turn before approvals were granted to assure a water supply would be available. 10. SURVEY AND DISCUSSION OF HOME OCCUPATION REGULATIONS a. Staff Report: Planning Manager Dick Bewersdorff gave the staff report. The issue before Council was "Should the Community Development Code be changed to allow an"educational exemption"or no limit to clients for piano instruction? Mr. Bewersdorff referred to a request brought forward by Ms. Sherrene Walker concerning restrictions on home occupations that would affect her piano instruction business. It was clarified that Ms. Walker lives outside the Tigard City limits in the Urban Services Area. The City of Tigard provides planning and development services to that area and Washington County has adopted Tigard Community Development Code (Title) for application to this area. However, any changes to the Tigard Code would also have to be approved by Washington County. The County Board of Commissioners must initiate changes to the Washington County Code. Washington County staff advised that they believed the Commissioners would be disinclined to assign this to the staff work program for consideration at this time. There was discussion noting that if property within the Urban Services were annexed, then the City of Tigard ordinance would apply. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —SEPTEMBER 12, 2000- PAGE 9 • • • Mr. Bewersdorff reviewed the timeline for consideration of an amendment to the . Community Development Code. A 45-day notice to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) is required. Two hearings are required, one by the Planning Commission and one by the City Council. Senior Current Planner Dick Bewersdorff reviewed a PowerPoint presentation on the regulations and the fees. The City of Tigard fees were established to cover the - cost of reviewing an application after study in 1996. Staff suggested that if the Council decides to make changes that they are limited because of traffic concerns and equity with other types of instruction. Mr. Bewersdorff indicated that City staff receives complaints from neighbors concerning home occupation activity. He noted the need to protect single-family residents. City Attorney Ramis advised that the Council has wide discretion in determining • whether it would like to amend the Code to allow this type of activity within the City of Tigard. He advised there are a lot of issues, including traffic impacts, that need to be evaluated. Councilor Patton advised that she would like to see the Council review the home occupation regulations contained in the Community Development Code. She noted the need to retain neighborhood livability; however she noted the community value of providing instruction such as musical lessons to children. She would like to have this matter be reviewed noting that, perhaps, approvals could be granted on a case- by-case basis. In addition, she noted later in the meeting, that the "bed and breakfast" use as recently reviewed during a Council public hearing could.also be incorporated in this review of home occupation regulations. Sherrene Walker, Nancy Malik, and Jeannie Holt presented arguments to allow educational instruction, such as piano instruction. Ms. Walker and Ms. Holt provided a written copy of their comments, which have been entered into the Council record. Several other written documents supporting Ms. Walker are on file with the Council record. Ms. Walker added that, while she did not write this in her letter, she would like to see the City of Tigard proceed with a review and amendment to the Development Code to allow educational instruction even if she, as a resident of the Urban Services Area, would not benefit. Councilor Patton urged people, as they worked through this issue, not to assume the City or the City Council has ulterior motives with regard to the regulations or fees charged. She advised that fees were assigned after a study of what it would take to recover costs. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—SEPTEMBER 12,2000-PAGE 10 • • Councilor Moore advised that a more appropriate time to give public testimony would be elsewhere in the process. There will be opportunities for public testimony before the Planning Commission and the City Council. Council and staff agreed that the Code Enforcement activity with regard to Ms. Walker's situation would not proceed until after the review and consideration of a potential code amendment was completed. Motion by Councilor Patton, seconded by Councilor Moore, to direct staff to go forward with an analysis of what is necessary to review the Home Occupation section of the Code, including the establishment of a Committee to assist with this review. In addition, the City will stay the proceedings with regard to the Code Enforcement measures for Ms. Walker's piano instruction business. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. • The meeting recessed at 10:02 p.m. and reconvened at 10:15 p.m. 11. CONSIDER CITY-COUNTY GOAL 5 PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT a. Staff Report: Community Development Director Jim Hendryx gave the staff report. The issue before the Council was "Should the City Enter into an agreement with Washington County to partner, along with other County jurisdictions, on the development of a Goal 5 stream protection program. Councilor Scheckla registered concerns about developing regulations that could be applied to all communities. b. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Hunt to authorize the City to enter into an agreement with Washington County to partner, along with the other County jurisdictions, on the development of a Goal 5 stream protection program. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote; Mayor Griffith and Councilors Hunt, Moore, Patton, and Scheckla voted "yes." 12. CONSIDER CITY-METRO FANNO CREEK PROPERTY INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR CITY MANAGEMENT OF A METRO-PURCHASED GREENSPACE PROPERTY (ELEVEN ACRES—ALONG FANNO CREEK BETWEEN HALL BOULEVARD AND BONITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS THE BROWN PROPERTY) a. Staff Report: Community Development Director Jim Hendryx gave the staff report. The issue before the Council was should the Council authorize the Mayor to sign an Intergovernmental Agreement with Metro for City management of Metro-purchased greenspace property? CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —SEPTEMBER 12, 2000- PAGE 11 b. Council Consideration: Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Hunt authorizing the Mayor to sign an Intergovernmental Agreement with Metro for City management of Metro-purchased greenspace property. In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Community Development Director Hendryx advised that no active park improvements could be sited on this property. Greenspace property can have a pathway (passive recreation). The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present; Mayor Griffith and Councilors Hunt, Moore,Patton, and Scheckla voted "yes." 13. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS Mayor Griffith reported on-a recent meeting with State Legislative representatives Eileen Qutub and Gene Derider. The purpose of their visit was to determine what issues were of importance to the City of Tigard. Traffic issues and potential solutions were discussed. If the City of Tigard would like to forward a legislative agenda, they would be happy to review. Councilor Scheckla advised that both he and Mayor Griffith attended a recent Washington County Coordinating Committee meeting where transportation issues (light rail, MSTIP) were discussed. Councilor Scheckla noted that the Tigard Central Business District Association (TCBDA) would be holding a meeting on September 13, 2000, at the Cyber Café for a social hour. Merchants and property owners were invited to discuss issues. TCBDA is planning several upcoming events including a sidewalk sale, a Halloween event, and Holiday Season event. Mayor Griffith advised he has been invited to attend a Chamber of Commerce Development • Committee meeting on September 26,2000. 14. NON AGENDA ITEMS: None. 15. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Canceled. 16. ADJOURNMENT: 10:27 p.m. Catizejta,t .•Attest: Catherine Wheatley,City Recorder ./ayor, City • ate: i_ //',' . !o _ o • I:\AD M\CAT HY\CCM\000912.0OC CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—SEPTEMBER 12,2000-PAGE 12 • (-L, ` • Agenda Item No. 4, Meeting of q . 2(o DO TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 • STUDY SESSION Council President Moore called the Study Session to order at 6:35 p.m. Mayor-select Griffith and Councilors Hunt,Moore, Patton and Scheckla were present. > EXECUTIVE SESSION: Canceled. > Preview Update on the Long-term Water Supply.(See Agenda Item No. 9) Public Works Director Wegner gave a brief overview on current status on securing a long-term water supply for the Tigard Water Service area. (Staff report on file with the Council meeting packet, Agenda Item No. 9.) Staff is continuing to work on three alternatives: 1. The Portland wholesale contract. 2. The Clackamas (South Fork)River Water Supply 3. The Joint Water Commission(Trask River/Hagg Lake Water Supply) Mr. Wegner advised another Council update on long-term water supply is scheduled for the workshop meeting of October 17,2000. With regard to the Willamette River option, the City of Tigard has not been involved with any negotiations or work planned for using the Willamette River. The City of Wilsonville and the Tualatin Valley Water District are conducting this work. The City of Tigard does not have a contract to buy Willamette River Water. In response to a Council request for clarification, Mr. Wegner advised that the City of Tigard does blend water; that is, water from the various purchased sources (Portland, Lake Oswego, Joint Water Commission, and Tualatin Valley Water District) are blended by depositing into the reservoirs. Mr. Wegner explained this is a common practice for those cities that do not have a single-source water supply. In addition, he noted that the City of Portland also blends water during the summer months with 80% of the water from Bull Run and 20% from its well fields. ➢ Administrative Items and Agenda Review . Tri-County Appeal Hearing City Manager Monahan noted that staff received a request from the legal counsel of the Tri-County project for a set over of the appeal public hearing to September 26, CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —SEPTEMBER 12, 2000- PAGE 1 • • 2000. With the continuance of the hearing to September 26, 2000, it is likely that the final order would be scheduled for Council action on October 10, 2000. Councilor Scheckla advised that he had made a site visit to the Tri-County. In addition he requested advice on whether or not he would be able to vote on this matter on October 10, 2000, since he was going to be absent from the September 26, meeting. City Attorney Ramis advised Councilor Scheckla that it would be appropriate for him to vote on the final order on October 10 provided he reviewed the record from the September 26 meeting. TPOA Contract City Manager Monahan referred to the Tigard Police Officers Association contract that is on the Consent Agenda (Item No. 4.4). Both parties have agreed to delete "Addendum P"; therefore, if the City Council approves the contract, "Addendum I" will be removed. Proclamations Mayor-select Griffith advised that he has received requests to declare proclamations. After brief discussion, Council consensus was for Mr. Griffith to use his own judgment as to which proclamations he would proclaim for the City of Tigard. However, should Mr. Griffith want advice of the Council in a particular instance, the Council would be glad to assist. Conflict of Interest Waiver Request City Manager Monahan reported on a request received from Mamie Allen of the Preston Gates & Ellis Law firm. After discussion, the Council directed the City Manager to advise Ms. Allen that the City is willing to waive the conflict for representation in matters in any proceedings at the City level. The waiver does not extend to representation by this firm in any action at the Circuit Court level or with any other appellate proceedings. The Council also noted it would consider requests from the firm to represent VoiceStream with the City, however, such r equests will be considered on a case-by-case basis. At 6:55 p.m. Council recessed and attended a reception to Welcome Mayor-select Jim Griffith. > RECEPTION—Mayor James(Jim) E. Griffith The business meeting convened at 7:30 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order-City Council &Local Contract Review Board CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—SEPTEMBER 12, 2000- PAGE 2 • • 1.2 Roll Call: Mayor-select Griffith and Councilors Hunt, Moore, Patton and Scheckla were present. 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications: Councilor Scheckla reported that the Community Development Block Grant Board would be meeting on September 13, 7 p.m., at King City. 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None. 2. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE: MAYOR JAMES E. "JIM"GRIFFITH a. Staff Introduction: City Manager Monahan introduced this item. He gave a brief summary of the appointment process for the interim Mayor position and the Council's selection of Jim Griffith to fill the Mayor's position until an election can be held in March 2001. b. Administer Oath of Office: City Attorney Tim Ramis administered the Oath of Office. c. Mayor Griffith Comments: Mayor Griffith commended the City Council noting that they had worked through difficult times during the illness and passing of Mayor Nicoli. The Mayor also spoke highly of the professionalism of the City Manager- . and City staff. Mayor Griffith reflected that Mayor Jim Nicoli had "set the bar high" with his high energy and the programs he initiated for the City of Tigard. The Mayor said that he wants to "keep things moving." Tigard, advised Mayor Griffith, is now a destination community where people want to live. Along with the good, there are problems, including traffic and maintaining the integrity of neighborhoods. Mayor Griffith noted there are a number of positive activities that are being done by the City of Tigard. He said he would like an aggressive public relations effort where the City takes the time to let people know the good things that are happening. He concluded by saying that he recognized the value of volunteers and urged people to come forward and volunteer their services. • d. Councilor Hunt noted that the community and the City Council should extend to Council President Moore their thanks for a good job during his time as acting Mayor. Councilor Hunt noted that the Council was divided in their viewpoints and opinions on several issues over the last few months and complimented Council President Moore for the manner in which he responded. In addition, Councilor Hunt noted that Council President Moore took time away from vacation, driving back and forth from the beach, in order to be available for Council meetings during the selection process for the Interim Mayor. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 - PAGE 3 • • Council President Moore thanked Councilor Hunt for his comments, saying that it meant a lot to him. The Council recessed for a break at 8:43 p.m. and reconvened at 8:50 p.m. 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA(Two Minutes or Less,Please) Two visitors, Nancy Malik and Jeanne Holt advised they were present to comment on Agenda Item No. 10, in support of Sherrene Walker. Mayor Griffith requested that they speak during that agenda item. 4. CONSENT AGENDA: City Manager Monahan noted the change to Item No. 4.4, the TPOA agreement, whereby "Addendum I" shall be deleted. In addition, City Manager Monahan referred to a letter from Cary Holzworth in reference to Item No. 4.5; this letter adds further detail and clarifies an issue raised by Mr. Dan Quello. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt the Consent Agenda. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present; Mayor Griffith and Councilors Hunt, Moore, Patton, and Scheckla voted "yes." 4.1 Approve Council Minutes: July 11, 18, 25 and August 8, 2000 4.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda 4.3 Approve a Training Request for Detective Gary Wayt to Attend the Northwest Fraud Investigator's Association Training Conference 4.4 Adopt a New Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City and Tigard Police Officers Association(TPOA)—Resolution No. 00 -54 4.5 Approve Budget Amendment #2 to Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Adopted Budget to Allow Payment of the Negotiated Salary Settlement with Tigard Police Officers Association—Resolution No. 00-55 4.6 Denying a Requested Zone Ordinance Amendment (ZOA 2000-00001) to Allow Outdoor Weddings and Bed and Breakfast Uses in Historic Overlay Zones — Resolution No. 00 - 56 4.7 Local Contract Review Board a. Reject All Bid Proposals for the Construction of Ash Avenue and Burnham Street Sanitary Sewer Improvements • 5. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING COMPLETION OF THE TRANSPORTATION BOND TASK FORCE MISSION, DEACTIVATING THE TASK FORCE, AND COMMENDING THE TASK FORCE MEMBERS FOR A JOB WELL DONE a. Staff Report: Council President Brian Moore reviewed this agenda item and thanked the members of the Task Force for their hard work. Task Force members Mark CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—SEPTEMBER 12, 2000- PAGE 4 • • • • Padgett and Beverly Froude were present and the meeting. Ms. Froude thanked the City for allowing her to be involved. Mr. Padgett thanked the staff for their work and noted that the chairman of the Committee, Mr. Steve Clark, did an outstanding job. b. Council Consideration: Motion by Councilor Patton, seconded by Councilor Moore to adopt Resolution No. 00-57. The City Recorder read the following: RESOLUTION NO. 00-57. A RESOLUTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE COMPLETION OF THE TRANSPORTATION BOND TASK FORCE MISSION, TO DEACTIVATE THE TASK FORCE, AND TO COMMEND THE TASK FORCE FOR A JOB WELL DONE. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present; Mayor Griffith and Councilors Hunt,Moore, Patton, and ScheeIda voted "yes." 6. BRIEFING ON STAFF PLANS FOR FOLLOW-UP TO THE OPINION POLL RESULTS a. Staff Report: Assistant to the City Manager Liz Newton introduced this agenda item. In August, Council received the results of the latest opinion polls. These polls were conducted to assist with the update effort of the City's vision, Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Several staff members highlighted areas of the opinion poll results: • Library Director Margaret Barnes noted the poll results clearly reflected the popularity of the Library as a department of the City. As a result of the poll, expanding hours and electronic services are under consideration. • Police Chief Ron Goodpaster noted issues of speeding, especially near the high school and on. Bull Mountain. Increased traffic enforcement efforts were implemented as a result. Chief Goodpaster noted that some surveys were received that advised of problems;however,no location was given. • Public Works Director Ed Wegner noted that the surveys supported more trail systems; 8 more miles of pedestrian trails were developed in recent months. He also noted problems with illegal camping in parks were identified; his staff has been working with the Police Department to address this problem. • Community Development Director Hendryx advised that transit services were of concern. Of those who responded to the opinion poll, 71% said they do not use the bus system because it is not conveniently located to their place of residence or because the scheduling is not flexible enough. In addition, a need for internal CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —SEPTEMBER 12, 2000- PAGE 5 • • bus routes was identified especially to Washington Square, the Library and City Hall: Most of those who responded supported commuter rail. Mr. Hendryx advised that he would be meeting with Tri-Met officials in October to discuss a potential funding source for a"Welfare to Work"program. • Development Review Engineer Brian Rager noted the Engineering Department also received comments about concerns with speeding traffic. He referred to traffic calming measures, including speed humps and other alternatives to encourage traffic to slow down. He noted that speed humps are not always appropriate and reviewed criteria that must be considered. Mr. Rager noted the opinion poll results indicated that there is a need for more sidewalks and street lights; however, he advised that funding for these projects is not available for more than.a few projects. • Assistant to the City Manager Liz Newton advised that there will be additional follow-up reporting the results of the Opinion Poll through an article in the October Cityscape. . In October, the citizen-based Vision Task Force will use the opinion poll results to guide their update to the vision goals and directions. By January 2001, the City Council will receive an updated vision document that will outline the action plan for the next few years. • In response to a question from Councilor Hunt, Community Development Director noted anonymous complaints can be received and acted upon by the City with regard to Code Enforcement issues; however, it is preferred to obtain the identity of the complainant. City Attorney Tim Ramis advised that the City can attempt to honor a request for confidentiality, but due to laws that require disclosure in many circumstances,this information cannot always be protected. 7. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) APPEAL OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02PC —TRI-COUNTY CENTER Attorney Mark Whitlow asked that this agenda item be continued to September 26, 2000, to allow the applicant to replace the lead consultant and tow continue to work with staff to resolve issues. In response to an inquiry from Council Scheckla, who will not be present at the September 26, 2000, City Council meeting, Mr. Whitlow advised that he had no objection to Councilor Scheckla's participation in a decision on this matter at a later date. Mr. Whitlow noted that the applicant would toll the 120-day period until October 10, 2000. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Patton, to continue the Tri-County appeal hearing to September 26, 2000. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote; Mayor Griffith and Councilors Hunt,Moore, Patton, and Scheckla voted "yes." CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—SEPTEMBER 12,2000-PAGE 6 • • ITEM ON APPEAL: At the May 15, 2000 public hearing, the Planning Commission approved, subject to conditions, a request for approval of conceptual plan review for two alternative designs for new construction of a shopping center as a Planned Development. OPTION 1: This is the proposed new construction of a 297,179 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Land Review. OPTION 2: This is the proposed new construction of a 330,312 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Lands Review. A prior request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Water Resource Overlay District including fill and mitigation of a portion of the existing wetlands was granted on June 23, 1998 and became effective July 23, 1998 by Final Order of the Tigard City Council. CONDITIONS BEING APPEALED: On June 5, 2000 the applicant filed an appeal of certain conditions of approval contained in the decision. The specific conditions appealed and items to which they are related are summarized as follows: Condition #1: Overall Condition related to the Design Evaluation Team Option; Condition #7: Street Improvements to include the future Widening of SW Dartmouth; Condition #22: Verification related to any ground disturbances in areas of steep slopes; Condition #25 - OPTION 2 ONLY: Relocation of parking area near the bend of SW Hermoso Way outside of area of steep slopes; Condition#26: Provide landscaping, an arcade or a hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path along SW Dartmouth Street between the structure and the wetlands/public street; Condition #56 - OPTION 1 ONLY: Comply with zero-foot building setback standards for Pad E; Condition #58 - OPTION 2 ONLY: Comply with zero-foot building setback standards for Major II IV; and Condition #73: Provide a public or private street connecting SW Dartmouth Street to SW Hermoso Way. LOCATION: The site is located on the south side of SW Dartmouth Street and on the west side of SW • 72"d Avenue and is east of State Highway 217. The site also includes 6 lots along the north side of Hermoso Way. The site address is 12265 SW 72"; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot 04200; 2S101BA, Tax Lots 00100, 00101, 00300, 00400, 00401 and 00402; 2S101AB, Tax Lots 01300, 01400, 01401, 01402, 01403, 01404. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial and Mixed Use Employment. ZONING DESIGNATIONS: C-G (PD) and MUE. The General Commercial zoning district provides for the provision of a wide range of major retail goods and services. The Mixed Use Employment zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy 99), Highway 217 and I-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED: Community Development Code Chapters and Sections: 18.390, 18.390.050, 18.620, 18.620.020, 18.620.030, 18.620.040, 18.775, 18.810, 18.810.030. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—SEPTEMBER 12, 2000- PAGE 7 • • 8. PUBLIC HEARING FOR RENAMING OF SW 129TH AVENUE,NORTH OF SW BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD, WITHIN THE WOODFORD ESTATES SUBDIVISION, AND RENAMING A PORTION OF SW 132ND AVENUE FROM SW BENCHVIEW TERRACE TO A NEW STREET INTERSECTION ADJACENT TO THE QUAIL HOLLOW-WEST SUBDIVISION Mayor Griffith advised of a conflict of interest on this agenda item, noting that he was seated on the Planning Commission when the matter was before that body. He left the meeting. a. Open Public Hearing: Council President Moore opened the public hearing. b. Staff Report: Development Review Engineer Brian Rager gave the Staff Report. The recent upgrading of a minor collector roadway has necessitated the renaming of two existing roadway segments. c. Public Testimony: No one signed up to testify. d. Staff Recommendation: Mr. Rager noted that staff recommended that the Council approve the proposed ordinance, which would rename the street segments in question to "SW Greenfield Drive." e. Council Discussion, Questions, Comments: None. f. Close Public Hearing: Council President Moore closed the public hearing. g. Council Consideration: Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Patton to adopt Ordinance No. 00-27. The City Recorder read the following: ORDINANCE-NO. 00-27. AN ORDINANCE RENAMING SW 129Th AVENUE, NORTH OF SW BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD, WITHIN THE WOODFORD ESTATES SUBDIVISION, AND RENAMING A PORTION OF SW 132ND AVENUE FROM BENCHVIEW TERRACE TO A NEW STREET INTERSECTION ADJACENT TO THE QUAIL HOLLOW — WEST SUBDIVISION The ordinance was adopted by a unanimous vote of Council present; Councilors Hunt, Moore, Patton, and Scheckla voted "yes." (Mayor Griffith was not present having declared a conflict of interest.) 9. UPDATE: LONG-TERM WATER SUPPLY Public Works Director Wegner reviewed the alternatives under consideration for a long- term water supply(see notes from the Study Session portion of these minutes). In addition to the general information also presented during the Study Session, Mr. Wegner responded to a question from Councilor Patton that water rates had increased by CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 -PAGE 8 • S 3 percent this summer. The consultant had recommended a 10 percent increase, but due to potential voter approval of an initiated ballot measure to be considered November 7, 2000, advice from legal counsel was followed and the increase was limited to 3 percent. Regardless of which option is selected, rates will need to be increased. In response to a question from Mayor Griffith, Mr. Wegner advised that a "long-term" contract meant at least 25 years with the City of Portland. With the Clackamas River or the Joint Water Commission option, the City of Tigard would be looking to obtain a partnership (ownership) in either of these two systems. Mr. Wegner said that the City is looking for both a primary and backup water supply sources. For each of the three options, there will be a withdrawal clause. Mr. Wegner reiterated (see Study Session notes) that the City of Tigard, since the voters approved the Charter amendment saying that the City of Tigard cannot use Willamette River water unless the voters approve, has not participated in developing that source nor have there been any contracts or plans to buy water from the Willamette River. In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Wegner and Mr. Ramis explained the City of Wilsonville's situation. The City of Wilsonville has practiced a couple of methods of water conservation for the last two years. In addition, because rapid growth would jeopardize water supply a "queuing" program, was devised whereby new developments would wait their turn before approvals were granted to assure a water supply would be available. 10. SURVEY AND DISCUSSION OF HOME OCCUPATION REGULATIONS a. Staff Report: Planning Manager Dick Bewersdorff gave the staff report. The issue before Council was "Should the Community Development Code be changed to allow an"educational exemption"or no limit to.clients for piano instruction? • Mr. Bewersdorff referred to a request brought forward by Ms. Sherrene Walker concerning restrictions on home occupations that would affect her piano instruction business. It was clarified that Ms. Walker lives outside the Tigard City limits in the Urban Services Area. The City of Tigard provides planning and development services to that area and Washington County has adopted Tigard Community Development Code (Title) for application to this area. However, any changes to the Tigard Code would also have to be approved by Washington County. The County Board of Commissioners must initiate changes to the Washington County Code. Washington County staff advised that they believed the Commissioners would be disinclined to assign this to the staff work program for consideration at this time. There was discussion noting that if property within the Urban Services were annexed, then the City of Tigard ordinance would apply. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 - PAGE 9 • • Mr. Bewersdorff reviewed the timeline for consideration of an amendment to the Community Development Code. A 45-day notice to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) is required. Two hearings are required, one by the Planning Commission and one by the City Council. Senior Current Planner Dick Bewersdorff reviewed a PowerPoint presentation on the regulations and the fees. The City of Tigard fees were established to cover the cost of reviewing an application after study in 1996. Staff suggested that if the Council decides to make changes that they are limited because of traffic concerns and equity with other types of instruction. Mr. Bewersdorff indicated that City staff receives complaints from neighbors concerning home occupation activity. He noted the need to protect single-family residents. City Attorney Ramis advised that the Council has wide discretion in determining whether it would like to amend the Code to allow this type of activity within the City of Tigard. He advised there are a lot of issues, including traffic impacts, that need to be evaluated. Councilor Patton advised that she would like to see the Council review the home occupation regulations contained in the Community Development Code. She noted the need to retain neighborhood livability; however she noted the community value of providing instruction such as musical lessons to children. She would like to have this matter be reviewed noting that, perhaps, approvals could be granted on a case- by-case basis. In addition, she noted later in the meeting, that the "bed and breakfast" use as recently reviewed during a Council public hearing could also be incorporated in this review of home occupation regulations. Sherrene Walker, Nancy Malik, and Jeannie Holt presented arguments to allow educational instruction, such as piano instruction. Ms. Walker and Ms. Holt provided a written copy of their comments, which have been entered into the Council record. Several other written documents supporting Ms. Walker are on file with the Council record. Ms. Walker added that, while she did not write this in her letter, she would like to see the City of Tigard proceed with a review and amendment to the Development Code to allow educational instruction even if she, as a resident of the Urban Services Area, would not benefit. Councilor Patton urged people, as they worked through this issue, not to assume the City or the City Council has ulterior motives with regard to the regulations or fees charged. She advised that fees were assigned after a study of what it would take to recover costs. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—SEPTEMBER 12,2000-PAGE 10 • • Councilor Moore advised that a more appropriate time to give public testimony would be elsewhere in the process. There will be opportunities for public testimony before the Planning Commission and the City Council. Council and staff agreed that the Code Enforcement activity with regard to Ms. Walker's situation would not proceed until after the review and consideration of a potential code amendment was completed. Motion by Councilor Patton, seconded by Councilor Moore, to direct staff to go forward with an analysis of what is necessary to review the Home Occupation section of the Code, including the establishment of a Committee to assist with this review. In addition, the City will stay the proceedings with regard to the Code Enforcement measures for Ms. Walker's piano instruction business. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. The meeting recessed at 10:02 p.m. and reconvened at 10:15 p.m. 11. CONSIDER CITY-COUNTY GOAL 5 PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT a. Staff Report: Community Development Director Jim Hendryx gave the staff report. The issue before the Council was "Should the City Enter into an agreement with Washington County to partner, along with other County jurisdictions, on the development of a Goal 5 stream protection program. Councilor Scheckla registered concerns about developing regulations that could be applied to all communities. b. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Hunt to authorize the City to enter into an agreement with Washington County to partner, along with the other County jurisdictions, on the development of a Goal 5 stream protection program. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote; Mayor Griffith and Councilors Hunt, Moore, Patton, and Scheckla voted "yes." 12. CONSIDER CITY-METRO FANNO CREEK PROPERTY INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR CITY MANAGEMENT OF A METRO-PURCHASED GREENSPACE PROPERTY(ELEVEN ACRES —ALONG FANNO CREEK BETWEEN HALL BOULEVARD AND BONITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS THE BROWN PROPERTY) a. Staff Report: Community Development Director Jim Hendryx gave the staff report. The issue before the Council was should the Council authorize the Mayor to sign an Intergovernmental Agreement with Metro for City management of Metro-purchased greenspce property? • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 - PAGE 11 • • • b. Council Consideration: Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Hunt authorizing the Mayor to sign an Intergovernmental Agreement with Metro for City management of Metro-purchased greenspace property. In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Community Development Director Hendryx advised that no active park improvements could be sited on this property. Greenspace property can have a pathway(passive recreation). The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present; Mayor Griffith and Councilors Hunt, Moore,Patton, and Scheckla voted "yes." 13. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS Mayor Griffith reported on a recent meeting with State Legislative representatives Eileen Qutub and Gene Derkler. The purpose of their visit was to determine what issues were of importance to the City of Tigard. Traffic issues and potential solutions were discussed. If the City of Tigard would like to forward a legislative agenda, they would be happy to review. Councilor Scheckla advised that both he and Mayor Griffith attended a recent Washington County Coordinating Committee meeting where transportation issues (light rail, MSTIP) were discussed. Councilor Scheckla noted that the Tigard Central Business District Association (TCBDA) . would be holding a meeting on September 13, 2000, at the Cyber Café for a social hour. Merchants and property owners were invited to discuss issues. TCBDA is planning several upcoming events including a sidewalk sale, a Halloween event, and Holiday Season event. Mayor Griffith advised he has been invited to attend a Chamber of Commerce Development Committee meeting on September 26, 2000. • 14. NON AGENDA ITEMS: None. 15. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Canceled. 16. ADJOURNMENT: 10:27 p.m. eatme A4,1„ Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder 'he ayor, City • sate: _ '_ ��, ;r - !o pp I:\ADM\CATHY\CCM\000912.DOC CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—SEPTEMBER 12,2000 -PAGE 12 5tF' Gb LWO17 14;.3J I-K I'LKK 1 N5 lLU 1 L LLI-' '(G'( GLLG I U ybts4'(L7'( • • ."CONFIDENTIAL PRIVILEGED PERKINS COTE LLP- PORTLAND FAX NUMBER: (503) 727-2222 SWITCHBOARD: (503) 727-2000 IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH THIS TRANSMISSION, PLEASE CALL: (503) 727-2000 • Addressee: City of Tigard FAX NO. 684-7297 (COMPANY) Tigard City Council Direct Dial 639-4171 (INDIVIDUAL) Addressee: City of Tigard Fax No. 684-7297 (COMPANY) Bill Monahan Direct Dial 63. 9-4171 (INDIVIDUAL) Addressee: Fax No. (541) 764-2512 (COMPANY) Cordon Martin Sr. • Direct Dial (541) 764-3100 (INDIVIDUAL) From: Mark D. Whitlow Date September 26. 2000 Cover Sheet& 2 page(s) Client Number 33181-0001 Return to Donna Fribera / 2095 / 1539A NAME EXT. OFFICE LOCATION Ongma •ocument s I .e: • sent to you ► i e ' in our d es MESSAGE: Attached is my letter and enclosure to Bill Monahan/City of Tigard. Sent By ❑Call Addressee to confirm they received this fax. This Fax contains confidential,privileged information intended only for the intended addressee. Do not read,copy or disseminate it unless you are the intended addressee. If you have received this Fax in error, please email it back to the sender at perkinscoic.com and delete it from your system or call us (collect) immediately at (503) 727-2000, and mail the original Fax to Perkins Coie LLP,1211 S.W.Fifth Avenue,Suite 1500,Portland,Oregon 97204-3715. (PA003688.374] 5th Lb L10IJC0 14:35 I-K 1-'JKK1N5 CUlt LLN 5103 '(L'( dGL IU Id2/12J3 • • PERKINS COTE LLP 1211 SOUTHWEST FIFTH AVENUE,SUITE 1500•PORTLAND.OREGON 97204-3715 TELEPHONE:503 727-2000•FACSIMILE:503 727-2222 • MARK D.WHITLOW (503)727.2073 whitmt peddnscoie.com September 26, 2000 BY FACSIMILE Bill Monahan City Manager City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Tri-County Appeal Dear Bill: Mr. Martin has elected to withdraw his appeal of the above matter. Enclosed is a copy of his correspondence requesting same. Thank you for your time and courtesies in this matter. 44ily o' s, Mark D. Whitlow MDW:djf - Enclosure cc: Gordon Martin Sr. [33181-0001/PA003699.957] ANCHORAGE BELLEVUE BOISE DENVER HONG KONG 1.05 ANGELES MENLO PARK OLYMPIA PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SPOKANE TAIPEI WASHINGTON.D.C. STRATEGIC ALLIANCE:RUSSELL&DUMODUN,VANCOUVER,CANADA SEP 26 2000 14:36 FR PERK 1NS LU1E LLP 503 727 222 Iu Sbts4r2yr P.03/03 . . 0_ • FAX MEMO Number Of Pages(2) Date: September 18, 2000 SC�}tr o- ,.-.c" .sc' :su,.<�..rse:x:tc �:";ao r:tg g o:r t.'ti. v. 'rs;� a-Zp r :A>e.t• rg�; ' v '^tF`. 11:. -j?`.: }'Y ' P.�w =S 4(" .ot e� g r ' E..�+`:.o:,..eri,'°�' 4. ►.tr.103 c•r+ ,:e� :15`A i t:,•2vez0 ; t� ::0V sw�">w��J t�5i:";t �rca t�� +�'9t tee �o �R�� r���y �d4 t S�srx a�•f( �,t.�i�^•� (t?tr..F<'+, d. "' e�.. a �'t dn3t^^ tn,e i r;, y ".i.,y t•. ,e 7'ctl i; 'r �'iY , b d °iv'tfct1:ti.{ � 4 /1 }•SY r .>J0f 1 : .Y!c �" tk;. d-9t^„l; 3 2 o ut.t'1, 4r+•A'441> t. Y ;c r.; sxv' it..Sxy .x<� L� . e Y .5i c trt #b'\tW,:..1 akkit`P.fgq Q1..4£tf {i'y , 8'^ ,t"i'�:P:^�.,f10.� 5 >,t:?;';�.=;eP -Rte'* tgo*...,t $`�o.v y 5�u}>4. ��.k$Y- I { � r�`k L.. ���'r 4 )� rat', tt �� �" .��.t £;%"ai:'�+:��i• {j**tt reds CY ����"`i �, t+.. .ny:)��,,�{�` Ruda K � $�``'' yi.&k6>.rRfxto gl t Y; r - e' t �'tF r0 M∎r:;10.4 A-.ilei'.ar�t the Z/z*r x le Y N.1:.. �tOc'i:1• � t P i�. i L^rJ�h.iy t't..R� t>f.° kF1 '4N`t� Jybi? T,.. .'>�• ,�. 1 k�t. '� t bZ>j J;` �a o�.fi416F6 Nk 4ot{ R:{:�:b• C..N„�tt it ^i & tt .. Ikf t' +,'Y r} ur^ri .t "i}` ,fit x 1. r;7.L{3i. �, 4,},tl,.5. tht�l..f.r u f 4�1'�, b1 r �r td.}'E1 r�rI� r.�f[ � s^3 7 t.lr �,�d i� $ FJ•'4T .3''' 7�'t ,rtF r. j ;.`ill sr,� � �7t,.: a Emit i 1i, f }' aArl Cdr�SE� Fi.K� k {{',�'i'�t14a t,l','r:YD ita ;;i:.✓1A.��`.rar fg.k. lt�isi x.l �(�a4'� ti� , . x v 1'Y t l > t y, L'e'...JJ M� +d,tt. t c R n f�x w o {'. w tea �'y`:i,���i k�� !•4.,,,�o>%p,�:i..t...�3y:.}:t'r;k�} :y'�R?`'G:.S'4J'F:'ty`r;�.�%.�a`>�.Jt{.;fit �. C"�,� .t x3i-Ca.�; rt +S7t��3fsk 9 °_ �lYri. �:"� c'�at, `: xbF41xI Il., i3<,�t tS ek ,.t al o� .i'�i . a r .s r)t• s)e .� S?1..4iid24FZ 1 sl:rna :.. x c tuE .t.o,.:..: -,}. . .:r. yzt'....5.•..ce....,:1:a)w .,�y, !>a y.:.:h•a rriJ�{�..Au.{ •:::x,,.n$tdoib .. :*.t urn: A ciiC.1 ..05:S s:.1s;,t6:4.Z.. Although I consider one of the conceptual plans which includes Hermoso Park Lots 3-7 to be superior to the detailed plan approved in 1998, its additional cost and the difficulties with simultaneously satisfying in a timely manner the various requirements of: (1) the City for"triangle" property, (2) the Hermosa Lots' owners, (3)lenders, and [most importantly] (4) potential retail tenants; have forced me to regretfully conclude on Friday that it would be financially imprudent for me to further pursue a development which includes these lots. In attempting to include these lots I have already invested well over a quarter of a million dollars for attorneys, engineers, architects, and significant option payments. Simply stated, there are too many individuals and entities "wanting things” without understanding that there is a limit to what a developer can provide and in this instance that they as a whole have exceeded that limit. The Hermosa Lots' Options To Purchase were not renewed on their September 15, 2000, expiration date. Included with this transmission is a 9/15/00 Memo to Jerzy Cach of Cash's Realty to this effect. I don't see any reason to spend further resources on the appeal of the conditions of the planning commission since I no longer have the right to buy the Hermosa Lots. I have read Karen Fox's July 12, 2000, staffs' recommendations. The City's "triangle" regulations have become too burdensome and ill advised to be implemented for large sites which can't easily be phased and which have multiple tenants. Please advise the City of the above. END SEP 18 2000 1008 541 764 2512 PAGE.01 ** TOTAL PAGE.03 ** WPM Revised 9/20/00 • r1y..R..:' ::� ft:.> ,;.a�°:-�:'��. 't "Mit tATIGARD;,GITY;CO,U�NCIL-' « '; °.r`Ai; ,;:�{ G'A3 ..m «0.:. �':a.�i:3vie°A.e'.>'� " ;:�,.�BUSINE�SS'�M�EE�TING.�; - ..: ;��.*�:�.;e_ __.. r=�..,t ;4 OF TIGARD r�*tnr a„' i SEPT:EMBERZ26; 2000:&>a3 6:3OPM CITY F TI k ) ;f v�y+t-;, 1l3>.1`2-5 WWHALL=:BL%D.,; 1=,' tTIGARD OREGO'N 972y23 °q . a .,;= ` : '4” gym PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present - by 7:1 5 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639- 4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). • SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA— SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 - PAGE 1 • • AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION > EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (f) (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt public records, and current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. > Briefing on Solid Waste-Franchise Challenges 7:30 PM 1 . BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council 81 Local Contract Review Board • 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications 1 .5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 7:35 PM 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 7:40 PM 3. PROCLAMATIONS: a. Proclaimation of Constitution Week 7:45 PM 4. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 4.1 Approve Council Minutes: June 13 (amended), August 14, August 15, August 22, and September 12 4.2 Approve a Resolution in Support of Annexing Urban Reserve Areas 48 and 49 into Metro's Jurisdiction and Inclusion of These Areas into the Urban Growth Boundary — Resolution No. 00 - COUNCIL AGENDA— SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 - PAGE 2 • • • 4.3 Approve a Resolution Initiating the Vacation of an Approximately 4,611 Square Foot Portion of Public Right-of-Way Commonly Known as SW Naeve Street (VAC2000-00001 ) — Resolution No. 00 - 4.4 Adopt the Water Distribution System Hydraulic Study and Corresponding 20 • Plus Year Water Capital Improvement Plan 4.5 Local Contract Review Board a. Reject All Bids Proposals for the Construction of Bonita Road Sanitary Sewer Improvements b. Award Construction of Wetland Mitigation at Fowler School Site, Summer Creek Site, and Fanno Creek Site to Andersen Pacific Contractors, Inc. • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 7:50 PM 5. RECOGNITION OF RESIGNING LIBRARY BOARD AND BUDGET COMMITTEE MEMBERS 7:55 PM . 6. UPDATE ON NEW TIGARD LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION a. Staff Report: Library Staff 8:00 PM 7. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION TO CONTINUE THE NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT INCENTIVE PROGRAM a. Staff Report: Engineering Staff b. Council Discussion, Questions, Comments c. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 00 - 8:10 PM 8. UPDATE ON THE TRANSPORTATION BOND AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT a. Staff Report: Engineering Staff 8:15 PM 9. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION MODIFYING EXISTING FEE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY FOR BUILDING PERMITS AND COMMERCIAL MECHANICAL PERMITS a. Staff Report: Community Development Staff b. Council Discussion, Questions, Comments c. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 00 - COUNCIL AGENDA— SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 - PAGE 3 • • 8:20 PM 10. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2000-00002, ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2000- 00001, AND VARIANCE (VAR) 2000-00014,17,18 & 19 TO CONSTRUCT A 26 UNIT MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT The applicant, Community Partners for Affordable Housing, is requesting a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change from medium density residential (R- 12) to medium-high residential (R-40) and for a variance to the setbacks for the north and south sideyards, the rearyard setback, and a variance to reduce the minimum parking requirement LOCATION: 11159 and 11165 SW Hall ZONE: R- 12 APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide planning goals: 1-19, Metro Functional Plan, Tigard Comprehensive Plan 1.1.2, 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 8.1.1, 8.2.2, 9.1.3, 12.1.3 Community Development Code Chapters 18.390.060 (Type procedure), 18.390.030 (plan amendments) 18.370 (Variances) a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges c. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony (Proponents, Opponents, Rebuttal) e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Questions g. Council Decision: Council motion to approve or reject the applicant's request for a comprehensive plan amendment, zone change, and variance to construct a 2.6 unit multi-family housing project. 9:00 PM 11. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - APPEAL OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02PC — TRI-COUNTY CENTER ITEM ON APPEAL: At the May 15, 2000 public hearing, the Planning Commission approved, subject to conditions, a request for approval of conceptual plan review for two alternative designs for new construction of a shopping center as a Planned Development. OPTION 1: This is the proposed new construction of a 297,179 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Land • Review. OPTION 2: This is the proposed new construction of a 330,312 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Lands Review. A prior request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Water Resource Overlay District including fill and mitigation of a portion of the COUNCIL AGENDA— SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 - PAGE 4 . • • existing wetlands was granted on June 23, 1998 and became effective July 23, 1998 by Final Order of the Tigard City Council. CONDITIONS BEING APPEALED: On June 5, 2000 the applicant filed an appeal of certain conditions of approval contained in the decision. The specific conditions appealed and items to which they are related are summarized as follows: Condition #1: Overall Condition related to the Design Evaluation Team Option; Condition #7: Street Improvements to include the future Widening of SW Dartmouth; Condition #22: Verification related to any ground disturbances in areas of steep slopes; Condition #25 - OPTION 2 ONLY: Relocation of parking area near the bend of SW Hermoso Way outside of area of steep slopes; Condition #26: Provide landscaping, an arcade or a hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path along SW Dartmouth Street between the structure and the wetlands/public street; Condition #56 - OPTION 1 ONLY Comply with zero-foot building setback standards for Pad E; Condition #58 - OPTION 2 ONLY: Comply with zero-foot building setback standards for Major II-1V; and Condition #73: Provide a public or private street connecting SW Dartmouth Street to SW Hermoso Way. LOCATION: The site is located on the south side of SW Dartmouth Street and on the west side of SW 72" Avenue and is east of State Highway 217. The site also includes 6 lots along the north side of Hermoso Way. The site address is 12265 SW 72"d; WCTM 1 Sl 36CD, Tax Lot 04200; 25101 BA, Tax Lots 00100, 00101, 00300, 00400, 00401 and 00402; 25101AB, Tax Lots 01300, 01400, 01401, 01402, 01403, 01404. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial and Mixed Use Employment. ZONING DESIGNATIONS: C-G (PD) and MUE. The General Commercial zoning district provides for the provision of a wide range of major retail goods and services. The Mixed Use Employment zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy 99), Highway 217 and 1-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED: Community Development Code Chapters and Sections: 18.390, 18.390.050, 18.620, 18.620.020, 18.620.030, 18.620.040, 18.775, 18.810, 18.810.030. a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges c. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony (Proponents, Opponents, Rebuttal) e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Discussion, Questions, Comments COUNCIL AGENDA— SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 - PAGE 5 • • g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 00 - 9:50 PM 12. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 9:55 PM 13. NON AGENDA ITEMS 10:00 PM 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (f) 8t (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt public records, and current and, pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. 10:05 PM 15. ADJOURNMENT I:\ADM\CATHY\CCA\000926.DOC COUNCIL AGENDA— SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 - PAGE 6 • r • • //eriu ryingt II IA CITY OF TIGARD FACT SHEET 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Contact: Karen Pen Fox, (503) 639-4171 AGENDA: September 26, 2000 TOPIC: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02PC - Tri-County Center. (Option 1) - Planned Development Review(PD) 2000-00001 Sensitive Lands Review(SLR) 2000-00005 Lot Line Adjustment(MIS) 2000-00002 (Option 2) - Planned Development Review (PD) 2000-00002 Sensitive Lands Review(SLR) 2000-00004 Lot Line Adjustment(MIS) 2000-00003 BACKGROUND: On July 25, 2000, at the request of the applicant's attorney, the City Council set over the public hearing on the appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC to a date certain of September 12, 2000. An additional request was made on September 12, 2000 by the applicant's attorney for an extension of the appeal hearing for two additional weeks to September 26, 2000. The 120-day rule was tolled to October 10, 2000. On May 15, 2000, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to receive testimony on two alternative conceptual plans for a shopping center on a 27.22 acre parcel, known as the Tri-County Center (case numbers listed above). A Final order was issued by the Planning Commission on May 19, 2000 approving with conditions the planned development/conceptual plan. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission decision on June 5, 2000. A summary of the specific conditions appealed, related criteria and staffs response are as follows: - ITEM ON APPEAL: At the May 15, 2000 public hearing, the Planning Commission approved, subject to conditions, a request for approval of conceptual plan review for two alternative designs for new construction of a shopping center as a Planned Development. • • OPTION 1: This is the proposed new construction of a 297,179 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Land Review. OPTION 2: This is the proposed new construction of a 330,312 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Lands Review. A prior request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the • Water Resource Overlay District including fill and mitigation of a portion of the existing wetlands was granted on June 23, 1998 and became effective July 23, 1998 by Final Order of the Tigard City Council. • CONDITIONS BEING APPEALED: On June 5, 2000 the applicant filed an appeal of certain conditions of approval contained in the decision. The specific conditions appealed and items to which they are related are summarized as follows: Condition#1 Overall Condition related to the Design Evaluation Team Option. Condition#7 Street Improvements to include the future widening of SW Dartmouth. Condition#22 Verification related to any ground disturbances in areas of steep slopes. Condition#25 OPTION 2 ONLY: Relocation of parking area near the bend of Hermoso Way outside of area of steep slopes. Condition#26 Provide landscaping, an arcade or a hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path along SW Dartmouth between the structure and the wetlands/public street. Condition#56 OPTION 1 ONLY: Comply with 0-foot building setback standards for Pad E. Condition#58 OPTION 2 ONLY: Comply with 0-foot building setback standards for Major II-IV. Condition#73 Provide a public or private street connecting SW Dartmouth St. to Hermoso Way. COST: N/A • • • AGENDA ITEM# FOR AGENDA OF 9.26.2000 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC/Tri-County Center Options 1 and 2 (Option 1: Planned Development (PD) 2000-00001/Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 2000-00005/Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 2000-00002; and Option 2: Planned Development (PD) 2000-00002/Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 2000-00004/Lot Line Adjustment(MIS)2000-00003). PREPARED BY: Karen Perl Fox DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL • An appeal of Planning Commission Final Order No. 2000-02 PC filed on June 5, 2000 by the applicant for Tri-County Center Options 1 &2 regarding certain conditions of approval. At the July 25, 2000 Council meeting, at the request of the applicant's attorney, the City Council set over the public hearing on the appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC to a date certain of September 12, 2000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council deny the appeal finding that the issues raised have not been substantiated or do not require a change in the language of the Conditions. INFORMATION SUMMARY At the July 25, 2000 Council meeting, at the request of the applicant's attorney, the City Council set over the public hearing on the appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC to a date certain of September 12, 2000. An additional request was made on September 12, 2000 by the applicant's attorney for an extension of the appeal hearing for two additional weeks to September 26, 2000. The 120-day rule was tolled to October 10, 2000. On May 15, 2000, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to receive testimony on two alternative conceptual plans for a shopping center on a 27.22 acre parcel, known as the Tri-County Center (case numbers listed above). A Final order was issued by the Planning Commission on May 19, 2000 approving with conditions the planned development/conceptual plan. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission decision on June 5, 2000. A summary of the specific conditions appealed, related criteria and staff's response are as follows: ITEM ON APPEAL: At the May 15, 2000 public hearing, the Planning Commission approved, subject to conditions, a request for approval of conceptual plan review for two alternative designs for new construction of a shopping center as a Planned Development. OPTION 1: This is the proposed new construction of a 297,179 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Land Review. r, • • OPTION 2: This is the proposed new construction of a 330,312 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Lands Review. CONDITIONS BEING APPEALED: On June 5, 2000 the applicant filed an appeal of certain conditions of approval contained in the decision. The specific conditions appealed and items to which they are related are summarized as follows: Condition#1 Overall Condition related to the Design Evaluation Team Option. Condition#7 Street Improvements to include the future widening of SW Dartmouth. Condition#22 Verification related to any ground disturbances in areas of steep slopes. Condition#25 OPTION 2 ONLY: Relocation of parking area near the bend of Hermoso Way outside of area of steep slopes. Condition#26 Provide landscaping, an arcade or a hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path along SW Dartmouth between the structure and the wetlands/public street. Condition#56 OPTION 1 ONLY: Comply with 0-foot building setback standards for Pad E. Condition#58 OPTION 2 ONLY: Comply with 0-foot building setback standards for Major II-IV. Condition#73 Provide a public or private street connecting SW Dartmouth St.to Hermoso Way. The staff response to each condition under appeal is included in the attached memorandum from Planning Staff to the City Council dated July 12, 2000. • Attachments: 7/12/2000 Staff Memo to the Council Exhibit"A"—7/11/2000 Letter from Brian Rager Exhibit`B"—6/26/2000 Letter from Jim Hendryx Exhibit"C"—5/15/2000 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Exhibit"D"—Planning Commission Final Order No. 2000-02 PC Exhibit"E"—Appeal Form&Related Materials Exhibit"F"— 120-Day Extension Letter from the Appellant OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY None FISCAL NOTES N/A I:\curpinVcaren\pd\pd2000-00001&2 summary3.doc 14-Sep-00/8:40 AM • • t� CITY OF TIGARD OREGON September 14, 2000 • Mark Whitlow Perkins Cole, LLP 1211 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1500 Portland, OR 97204-3715 Dear Mark: Bill Monahan asked that I send you a letter confirming that your request for the Tri-County appeal be held over to September 26, 2000. We also acknowledge receipt of your letter tolling the 120-day rule to October 10, 2000. Sincere) C L`r Richard H. Bewersdorff Planning Manager I:\curpin\diddletters\mark whitlow tri-county.doc c: PD2000-00001 Land use file PD2000-00002 Land use file 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503)639-4171 TDD(503)684-2772 PERKINS COIE LLP 1211 SOUTHWEST FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 1500• PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3715 TELEPHONE: 503 727-2000• FACSIMILE: 503 727-2222 MARK D.WHITLOW (503)727-2073 whitm@perkinscoie.com September 12, 2000 HAND DELIVERED Tigard City Council c/o Bill Monahan City Manager City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Tri-County Appeal Dear Mr. Monahan: This letter supplements our prior letters of September 5 and 6, 2000 regarding the above appeal. If the requested two week continuance of the appeal hearing is approved, the applicant/appellant will toll the 120-day rule from the date of the filing of the appeal until the next business meeting of the Council on October 10, 2000. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. • spectfull s bmitted, ark D. Whitlow MDW:djf cc: Tim Ramis, Esq. Gordon Martin Sr. [33 1 8 1-000 1/PA003698.614] • ANCHORAGE BELLEVUE BOISE DENVER HONG KONG LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK OLYMPIA PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SPOKANE TAIPEI WASHINGTON, D.C. STRATEGIC ALLIANCE: RUSSELL& DuMOULIN, VANCOUVER, CANADA TIGARD CI COUNCIL * £ /�� ill$,�� jIl;l\ ' BUSINESS MEETING �� ' t a: .- ''+� '--.• SEPTEMBERT 1i2, 20001 6 30 PM '. CITY OF TIGARD TIGARD;rCITY'HALL` - Wie ,11 $;W.tALL_BLV111 _;:' rrTIGARD y OREGON 9:722"3; ,-. - - : y"c ..ix t r t'x•..•.. a .!• `a2 .+¢ .± ,d, 1'2'Ste ':.+``'+}p-•. peg` 'ti.k..r•:f;'S".'E'{.'%{•. PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to-speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639- 4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA— SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 - PAGE 1 • AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION > EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e),.(f) & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt public records, and current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore those present may disclose nothing from this meeting. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. > Preview Update on the Long-term Water Supply (See Agenda Item No. 10) 7:00- 7:30 PM > RECEPTION — Mayor James (Jim) E. Griffith 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1 .4 Council Communications 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE: MAYOR JAMES E. "JIM" GRIFFITH a. Staff Introduction: City Manager Monahan b. Council Remarks c. Administer Oath of Office: City Attorney Ramis d. Mayor Griffith Comments 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 4. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 4.1 Approve Council Minutes: July 11, 18, 25 and August 8, 2000 COUNCIL AGENDA— SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 - PAGE 2 • • 4.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda 4.3 Approve a Training Request for Detective Gary Wayt to Attend the Northwest Fraud Investigator's Association Training Conference 4.4 Adopt a New Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City and the Tigard Police Officers Association (TPOA) — Resolution No. 00 - 4.5 Approve a Budget Amendment #2 to the Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Adopted Budget to Allow Payment of the Negotiated Salary Settlement with Tigard Police Officers Association — Resolution No. 00 - 4.6 Denying a Requested Zone Ordinance Amendment (ZOA 2000-00001 ) to Allow Outdoor Weddings and Bed and Breakfast Uses in Historic Overlay Zones — Resolution No. 00 - 4.7 Local Contract Review Board a. Reject All Bid Proposals for the Construction of_Ash Avenue and Burnham Street Sanitary Sewer Improvements • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 5. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING COMPLETION OF THE TRANSPORTATION BOND TASK FORCE MISSION, DEACTIVATING THE TASK FORCE, AND COMMENDING THE TASK FORCE MEMBERS FOR A JOB WELL DONE a. Staff Report: Engineering Department b. Council Discussion, Questions, Comments c. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 00 - 6. BRIEFING ON STAFF PLANS FOR FOLLOW-UP TO THE OPINION POLL RESULTS a. Staff Report: All Departments • 7. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) APPEAL OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02PC — TRI-COUNTY CENTER ITEM ON APPEAL: At the May 15, 2000 public hearing, the Planning Commission approved, subject to conditions, a request for approval of conceptual plan review for two alternative designs for new construction of a shopping center as a Planned Development. COUNCIL AGENDA— SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 - PAGE 3 • OPTION 1: This is the proposed new construction of a 297,179 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Land Review. OPTION 2: This is the proposed new construction of a 330,312 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Lands Review. A prior request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Water Resource Overlay District including fill and mitigation of a portion of the existing wetlands was granted on June 23, 1998 and became effective July 23, 1998 by Final Order of the Tigard City Council. CONDITIONS BEING APPEALED: On June 5, 2000 the applicant filed an appeal of certain conditions of approval contained in the decision. The specific conditions appealed and items to which they are related are summarized as follows: Condition #1: Overall Condition related to the Design Evaluation Team Option; Condition #7: Street Improvements to include the future Widening of SW Dartmouth; Condition #22: Verification related to any ground disturbances in areas of steep slopes; Condition #25 - OPTION 2 ONLY: Relocation of parking area near the bend of SW Hermoso Way outside of area of steep slopes; Condition #26: Provide landscaping, an arcade or a hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path along SW Dartmouth Street between the structure and the wetlands/public street; Condition #56 - OPTION 1 ONLY: Comply with zero-foot building setback standards for Pad E; Condition #58 - OPTION 2 ONLY: Comply with zero-foot building setback standards for Major II-1V; and Condition #73: Provide a public or private street connecting SW Dartmouth Street to SW Hermoso Way. LOCATION: The site is located on the south side of SW Dartmouth Street and on the west side of SW 72' Avenue and is east of State Highway 217. The site also includes 6 lots along the north side of Hermoso Way. The site address is 12265 SW 72"d; WCTM 151 36CD, Tax Lot 04200; 2S101 BA, Tax Lots 00100, 00101, 00300, 00400, 00401 and 00402; 2S 101 AB, Tax Lots 01300, 01400, 01401, 01402, 01403, 01404. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial and Mixed Use Employment. ZONING DESIGNATIONS: C-G (PD) and MUE. The General Commercial • zoning district provides for the provision of a wide range of major retail goods and services. The Mixed Use Employment zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy 99), Highway 217 and 1-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. COUNCIL AGENDA— SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 - PAGE 4 v • REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED: Community Development Code Chapters and Sections: 18.390, 18.390.050, 18.620, 18.620.020, 18.620.030, 18.620.040, 18.775, 18.810, 18.810.030. a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges c. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony (Proponents, Opponents, Rebuttal) e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Discussion, Questions, Comments g. Close Public Hearing h: Council Consideration: Resolution No. 00 - 8. PUBLIC HEARING FOR RENAMING OF SW 129w.AVENUE, NORTH OF SW BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD, WITHIN THE WOODFORD ESTATES SUBDIVISION, AND RENAMING A PORTION OF SW 132ND AVENUE FROM SW BENCHVIEW TERRACE TO A NEW STREET INTERSECTION ADJACENT TO THE QUAIL HOLLOW-WEST SUBDIVISION a. Open Public Hearing b. Staff Report: Engineering Department c. Public Testimony (Proponents, Opponents, Rebuttal) d. Staff Recommendation e. Council Discussion, Questions, Comments f. Close Public Hearing g. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 00 - 9. UPDATE: LONG-TERM WATER SUPPLY a. Staff Report: Public Works Department b. Council Discussion c. Direction to Staff: Advise whether staff should continue to work on the three water options, until such time as sufficient data is available to make a decision by Tigard and its integrated Water Board partners. 10. SURVEY AND DISCUSSION OF HOME OCCUPATION REGULATIONS a. Staff Report: Community Development Department b. Council Discussion, Questions, Comments c. Council Consideration: Direct on whether the notification and public hearing process should be started to consider whether the Development Code should be amended to consider an "educational exemption" or no limit to clients for piano instruction. COUNCIL AGENDA— SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 - PAGE 5 • • • ' 1 1. CONSIDER CITY-COUNTY GOAL 5 PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT a. Staff Report: Community Development Department b. Council Discussion, Questions, Comments c. Council Consideration: Motion stating whether the City should enter into an agreement with Washington County to partner, along with the other County jurisdictions, on the development of a Goal 5 stream protection program. 12. CONSIDER CITY-METRO FANNO CREEK PROPERTY INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR CITY MANAGEMENT OF A METRO-PURCHASED GREENSPACE PROPERTY (ELEVEN ACRES — ALONG FANNO CREEK BETWEEN HALL BOULEVARD AND BONITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS THE BROWN PROPERTY) a. Staff Report: Community Development Department - b. Council Discussion, Questions, Comments c. Council Consideration: Motion stating whether Council wishes to enter into the agreement, and if so, authorizing the Council President to sign the agreement. 13. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 14. NON AGENDA ITEMS 15. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (f) 81 (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt public records, and current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore those present may disclose nothing from this meeting. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. 16. ADJOURNMENT I:\AD M\CATHY\CCA\000912P.DOC COUNCIL AGENDA— SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 - PAGE 6 64 I CITY OF TIGARD FACT SHEET 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Contact: Karen Perl Fox, (503) 639-4171 AGENDA: September 12, 2000 TOPIC: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02PC - Tri-County Center. (Option 1) - Planned Development Review(PD) 2000-00001 Sensitive Lands Review(SLR) 2000-00005 Lot Line Adjustment(MIS)2000-00002 (Option 2) - Planned Development Review (PD) 2000-00002 Sensitive Lands Review(SLR)2000-00004 Lot Line Adjustment(MIS) 2000-00003 BACKGROUND: On July 25, 2000, at the request of the applicant's attorney, the City Council set over the public hearing on the appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC to a date certain of September 12, 2000. On May 15, 2000, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to receive testimony on two alternative conceptual plans for a shopping center on a 27.22 acre parcel, known as the Tri-County Center (case numbers listed above). A Final order was issued by the Planning Commission on May 19, 2000 approving with conditions the planned development/conceptual plan. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission decision on June 5, 2000. A summary of the specific conditions appealed, related criteria and staff's response are as follows: ITEM ON APPEAL: At the May 15, 2000 public hearing, the Planning Commission approved, subject to conditions, a request for approval of conceptual plan review for two alternative designs for new construction of a shopping center as a Planned Development. Y ' i • 1111 OPTION 1: This is the proposed new construction of a 297,179 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Land Review. OPTION 2: This is the proposed new construction of a 330,312 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Lands Review. A prior request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Water Resource Overlay District including fill and mitigation of a portion of the existing wetlands was granted on June 23, 1998 and became effective July 23, 1998 by Final Order of the Tigard City Council. CONDITIONS BEING APPEALED: On June 5, 2000 the applicant filed an appeal of certain conditions of approval contained in the decision. The specific conditions appealed and items to which they are related are summarized as follows: Condition#1 Overall Condition related to the Design Evaluation Team Option. Condition#7 Street Improvements to include the future widening of SW Dartmouth. Condition#22 Verification related to any ground disturbances in areas of steep slopes. Condition#25 OPTION 2 ONLY: Relocation of parking area near the bend of Hermoso Way outside of area of steep slopes. Condition#26 Provide landscaping, an arcade or a hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path along SW Dartmouth between the structure and the wetlands/public street. Condition#56 OPTION 1 ONLY: Comply with 0-foot building setback standards for Pad E. Condition#58 OPTION 2 ONLY: Comply with 0-foot building setback standards for Major II-IV. Condition#73 Provide a public or private street connecting SW Dartmouth St. to Hermoso Way. COST: N/A • • • AGENDA ITEM# FOR AGENDA OF 9.12.2000 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC/Tri-County Center Options 1 and 2 (Option 1: Planned Development (PD) 2000-00001/Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 2000-00005/Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 2000-00002; and Option 2: Planned Development (PD) 2000-00002/Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 2000- 00004/Lot Line Adjustment(MIS) 2000-00003). PREPARED BY: Karen Perl Fox DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL An appeal of Planning Commission Final Order No. 2000-02 PC filed on June 5, 2000 by the applicant for Tri-County Center Options 1 &2 regarding certain conditions of approval. At the July 25, 2000 Council meeting, at the request of the applicant's attorney, the City Council set over the public hearing on the appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC to a date certain of September 12, 2000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council deny the appeal finding that the issues raised have not been substantiated or do not require a change in the language of the Conditions. INFORMATION SUMMARY At the July 25, 2000 Council meeting, at the request of the applicant's attorney, the City Council set over the public hearing on the appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC to a date certain of September 12, 2000. On May 15, 2000, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to receive testimony on two alternative conceptual plans for a shopping center on a 27.22 acre parcel, known as the Tri-County Center (case numbers listed above). A Final order was issued by the Planning Commission on May 19, 2000 approving with conditions the planned development/conceptual plan. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission decision on June 5, 2000. A summary of the specific conditions appealed, related criteria and staff's response are as follows: ITEM ON APPEAL: At the May 15, 2000 public hearing, the Planning Commission approved, subject to conditions, a request for approval of conceptual plan review for two alternative designs for new construction of a shopping center as a Planned Development. OPTION 1: This is the proposed new construction of a 297,179 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Land Review. t • • OPTION 2: This is the proposed new construction of a 330,312 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Lands Review. CONDITIONS BEING APPEALED: On June 5, 2000 the applicant filed an appeal of certain conditions of approval contained in the decision. The specific conditions appealed and items to which they are related are summarized as follows: Condition#1 Overall Condition related to the Design Evaluation Team Option. Condition#7 Street Improvements to include the future widening of SW Dartmouth. Condition#22 Verification related to any ground disturbances in areas of steep slopes. Condition#25 OPTION 2 ONLY: Relocation of parking area near the bend of Hermoso Way outside of area of steep slopes. Condition#26 Provide landscaping, an arcade or a hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path along SW Dartmouth between the structure and the wetlands/public street. Condition#56 OPTION 1 ONLY: Comply with 0-foot building setback standards for Pad E. Condition#58 OPTION 2 ONLY: Comply with 0-foot building setback standards for Major II-IV. Condition#73 Provide a public or private street connecting SW Dartmouth St.to Hermoso Way. The staff response to each condition under appeal is included in the attached memorandum from Planning Staff to the City Council dated July 12, 2000. Attachments: 7/12/2000 Staff Memo to the Council Exhibit"A"—7/11/2000 Letter from Brian Rager Exhibit`B"—6/26/2000 Letter from Jim Hendryx Exhibit"C"—5/15/2000 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Exhibit"D"—Planning Commission Final Order No. 2000-02 PC Exhibit"E"—Appeal Form&Related Materials Exhibit"F"— 120-Day Extension Letter from the Appellant OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY • None FISCAL NOTES N/A I:\cirywide\sum\pd2000-00001&2 summary.doc 14-Aug-0O/2:27 PM • •\ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 00- A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE FINAL ORDER AND DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, TRI-COUNTY CENTER/OPTIONS 1 AND 2 (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) 2000-00001/SENSITIVE LAND (SLR) 2000-00005/LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 2000- 00002, AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) 2000-00002/SENSITIVE LAND (SLR) 2000- 00004/LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 2000-00003). WHEREAS, the applicant requested approval of a conceptual plan for two alternative designs for new construction of a shopping center as a Planned Development on a 27.33 acre site. Option 1 is the proposed new construction of a 297,179 square foot Shopping Center. Option 2 is the proposed new construction of a 330,312 square foot Shopping Center. Both alternatives included a request for a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Lands Review. WHEREAS, on May 15, 2000 the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing concerning the proposed shopping center and following discussion and the close of the public hearing, voted to approve the shopping center, subject to conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, on June 5, 2000 the appellants filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision appealing Conditions No. 1, 7, 22, 25, 26, 56, 58 and 73; and WHEREAS, the issues raised by the appellants are not substantiated or do not require a change in the language of the Condition; and WHEREAS, fmdings contained within the Planning Commission's decision (Final Order No. 2000-02 PC) and the conditions of approval will insure that all required permits and engineering review is obtained for this project prior to the beginning of any construction. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The City of Tigard hereby determines that the Planning_Commission's decision for approval is appropriate based on findings in the Planning Commission Final Order, the June 26, 2000 letter from the Director of Community Development regarding the wall along Hermoso Way, the July 12, 2000 Memorandum from Staff to City Council, the July 11, 2000 Memorandum from the City's Development Engineer regarding Condition #7, and the testimony provided at the July 25, 2000 City Council meeting, and hereby denies the appeal of Tri-County Center (Option 1 - Planned Development (PD) 2000-00001/Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 2000-00005/Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 2000-00002, and Option 2 - Planned Development (PD) 2000-00002/Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 2000- 00004/Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 2000-00003). RESOLUTION NO.00- is\citywide\res\tri-county.res Page 1 of 2 KPF-July 17,2000 • 1 PASSED: This day of 2000. Council President-City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder- City of Tigard • RESOLUTION NO.00- is\citywide\res\tri-county.res Page 2 of 2 KPF-July 17,2000 City of Tigard Community(Development gulping Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503)639-4171 Fax 684-7297 TO: City Council \ <b • FROM: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager Q 1'' DATE: September 8, 2000 SUBJECT: Tri-County Options 1 & 2 Appeal The Attorney for Tri-County Mark Whitlow, indicated Friday, September 8, 2000, that they now may want to proceed with the appeal on September 12, 2000. In case they do, they indicated three issues are of importance as follows: 1.) The requirement to participate in the widening of Dartmouth, east of 72nd Avenue. This is condition #7 and is covered on pages 2 and 3 of the Karen Fox memo to Council (the July 12, 2000 memo which is within the September 12, 2000 Agenda packet). 2.) The requirement for an arcade or hard surface between the structure and wetland or to submit design in accordance with the Tigard Triangle Standards. This is condition #26 and is covered on pages 4 and 5 of the Fox memo. 3.) The requirement for a public or private street connecting Dartmouth and Hermoso Way. This is condition #73 and is covered on pages 5, 6 and 7 of the Fox memo. I:\curpin\dick\memos\Tri-County Options 182 Appeal Memo.doc Agenda Item 4. • • Meeting TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 25, 2000 • STUDY SESSION > Meeting was called to order at 6:35p.m. by Council President Moore > Council Present: Council President Brian Moore, Councilors Paul Hunt, Joyce Patton, and Ken Scheckla. > Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Police Chief Ron Goodpaster; City Recorder Catherine Wheatley; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; City Attorney Tim Ramis; Human Resources Director Sandy Zodrow; Senior Analyst Sherrie Burbank > Review Council Groundrules Bill Monahan, City Manager, referenced the changes to the Council groundrules suggested by Councilor Patton. He mentioned that, while most communities placed the Visitors Agenda at the beginning of the meeting, many have discussed placing it at the end, in order to facilitate the meeting flow. He suggested that the Council hold the citizens to their allotted time under Visitors Agenda. If a citizen or a group of citizens raised an issue on which staff could report back later in that meeting, then the Council could add that item as a non-agenda item for discussion that evening or for scheduling on a future agenda following staff review. Councilor Scheckla suggested that, when possible, the appropriate staff person could talk with the citizen in the lobby, so as not to interrupt the flow of the meeting. Mr. Monahan indicated that occasionally that might be possible. He said that staff would bring back the groundrules with Councilor Patton's changes to the next meeting. > Review Benefit Recommendations from the Management Classification and Compensation Study (See Item 3.3 on the Consent Agenda) Sandy Zodrow, Human Resources Manager, noted the recommendations per Council direction. She confirmed to Councilor Scheckla that this was not part of the TPOA contract. The Council had no questions. > Ballot Title Language Tim Ramis, City Attorney, reported that he adjusted the ballot title language to comply with the word limitation. The Council had no questions. > Administrative Items The Council discussed the designation of athletic fields in honor of Jim and.Dave Nicoli. Mr. Monahan referenced the draft resolution, asking for Council feedback. Councilor Hunt questioned why"Addition"was in the suggested name"The Nicoli Brothers Athletic Field Addition." Mr. Monahan explained that he thought that would clarify the location of the fields in the Lamb-Gray addition to Cook Park. He noted that the Council had not liked the word"complex." Councilor Hunt suggested naming it"The Nicoli Brothers Athletic Fields." Council President Moore questioned "Nicoli Brothers," as there was a third brother. Councilor Patton suggested naming it the"Nicoli Athletic Fields", and then adding"Jim and Dave." The Council concurred with Councilor Patton's suggestion. The Council directed Mr. Monahan to return with the final resolution on August 8. Councilor Scheckla referenced the bond measure ballot title language. He asked why the interest amount of 5.1% was followed by a question mark. Mr. Ramis explained that the dollar amount of $20.836 million included the projected repayment estimate. However, this far in advance of selling the bonds, the bond consultants could not know what the actual interest rate of the repayment would CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —JULY 25, 2000 — Page 1 1 • • be. Since the public was entitled to know what interest rate the City used to calculate the repayment element of the bond (so they could decide whether or not it was a realistic rate compared to the interest rates at the time of the election and the probable actual interest rate they could end up paying), the City included the 5.1% figure it used, followed by a question mark in order to highlight that it was a preliminary and tentative interest rate. He emphasized that the language complied with the State statutory requirements. Mr. Monahan asked if the Council wanted him to notify the Nicoli family that the Nicoli Athletic Fields resolution was set for the August 8, 2000, meeting. The Council concurred with notifying the family. > Trust for Public Lands grants Mr. Monahan reported that the Trust for Public Land's grant applications with the State Park Department for the Bond and Stanley properties were not funding. He said that staff would find out who received grants. Councilor Hunt mentioned the $100,000 from the Parks Department that had been part of the same discussion. Mr. Monahan said that Council had not liked the option of deferring $100,000 worth of work on trails and setting that money aside for acquiring those properties. He explained that staff left the $100,000 in the budget for the trails, once the Council agreed that the Trust for Public Lands either provided the $150,000 for those properties or the City did not accept them. Councilor Scheckla asked what happened if the Trust for Public Lands returned to the Council. Mr. Monahan indicated that the Trust could very well return to the Council for support, as part of their job was going around the state, identifying properties qualifying for grants, and trying to garner local support. Councilor Scheckla discussed his annoyance with the Trust continually coming back for properties to which the Council has already said no. Council President Moore pointed out that, last time, the Trust's proposal involved no City funds, as the Trust was to supply the money to purchase the property and then donate the property to the City. Councilor Patton concurred that the Trust's mission was to keep coming back to jurisdictions with property acquisition suggestions. She spoke to the Council looking at the Trust's proposals on a case-by-case basis to see if there was any benefit potential to the City. > Home Occupation Permits Mr. Monahan reviewed the letter from Sherene Walker with respect to a home occupation Code violation that ensued when the City took over the service of the unincorporated area. He mentioned that Ms. Walker has been very cooperative and intended to present a proposal to the Council during Visitors Agenda about changing the requirements for home occupations such as a piano studio. Mr. Monahan recalled that Tigard implemented its home occupation regulations in 1983 and revised them significantly in 1989 in response to the home care for children issue. He noted that if the Council chose to change Tigard's regulations, the changes also had to be adopted at Washington County before they applied to Ms. Walker's property in unincorporated Washington County. > Quello Letter Councilor Scheckla asked if staff replied to the letter from Dan Quello. Mr. Monahan said that Mr. Quello converted his historic property to an event center, which he rented out for weddings. He noted that the City did not allow outdoor weddings or amplified sound in Mr. Quello's zone, and cited him upon neighbor complaints. He explained that Mr. Quello expressed his frustration with the lengthy Comprehensive Plan amendment process. He mentioned that Mr. Quello has been working with a professional planning consultant for six months. Mark Padgett, Planning Commission, clarified that the issue was a Zone Ordinance amendment CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —JULY 25, 2000—Page 2 • • to change what might or might not be allowed in historic overlay districts in the city. He explained that, although Mr. Quello put his property on the National Historic Register, he did not have an historic designation overlay on the property. > Agenda Review Mr. Monahan reported that staff has reached an agreement with the Tri-County applicants to set the appeal hearing over to September 12. He mentioned the possibility that staff and the applicant might work out the remaining staff concerns, and the applicant would drop the appeal. Mr. Monahan mentioned the update on the process to fill the position of mayor. Councilor Hunt asked how many people picked up packets for the Councilor positions. Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder, indicated that between six to eight people picked up packets; three people were circulating petitions. Council President Moore asked if anyone was interested in attending the dedication ceremony of the Tualatin Police Department on Friday, August 11, at 2:00 p.m.; he would be out of town. > Council President Moore adjourned the study session at 7:12 p.m.. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order- City Council & Local Contract Review Board " Council President Brian Moore called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. 1.2 Roll Call Councilors Paul Hunt, Council President Brian Moore, Joyce Patton and Ken Scheckla were present. 1.4 Council Communications: None 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA• • Sherene Walker, 14973 SW Rosario Lane Ms. Walker read from a letter. She reviewed the steps she took to obtain proper licensing of her piano teaching home business at the County when she moved into her home 10 years ago. She noted that the County referred her to the City but City could not sell her a permit because her property lay outside the city limits. She mentioned that she had had no complaints from neighbors in the past nine years. She indicated that two weeks ago she received notice from the City of a Code violation: she did not have a home occupancy permit for her music studio in her home. Ms. Walker stated that she paid the $883 plus mailing costs fee for the home occupancy permit, hoping to get an exception that would allow her to keep her current number of students and hours of teaching. She mentioned that she was the immediate past president of the Tualatin Valley District of Oregon Music Teachers Association. Ms.Walker reviewed her research on the requirements for home businesses by other jurisdictions in the area. She noted that the requirements ranged from nothing in Newberg to a$65 per year business license in Sherwood and a$25 one-time home occupancy permit. She said that every one of the six surrounding jurisdictions stated that they had no limit on the number of students allowed per day. She mentioned the City of Gresham's new home occupation ordinance, which addressed the real issue of parking (as opposed to the number of clients) by requiring two on-site parking spaces. She noted the West Linn exception for music teachers with respect to their limit of five clients per day. Ms. Walker described the minimal traffic accessing her business, noting that many students rode the bus, walked or rode bicycles to her home. She described how she structured her business to teach three long days per week from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. in order to accommodate the Tigard-Tualatin CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —JULY 25, 2000—Page 3 • • • School District school and after school activity times. She discussed the special events she held during the year, including piano parties and an adjudication hearing. Ms. Walker discussed the vested interest that the City of Tigard had in providing home-based musical education for its children, especially in light of the diminishing of the arts at the schools. She mentioned her concern that she and other music teachers would have to move from Tigard to other jurisdictions because of the inequity of costs and the limit on the number of students. She cited one teacher who has already moved to Sherwood for those reasons. Ms. Walker asked the Council to consider exempting music teachers from the costly home occupation permit, as other jurisdictions have done across the nation. She asked the Council to revisit the City's home business code and fees, as Gresham did, to develop a more equitable system. She reviewed the three changes she saw as necessary: to require only a business license, to adjust the time limit to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and to have no limit on the number of clients. She commented that she has not mentioned this situation to either her students or the district teachers, in order to avoid alarming them, but if necessary, she was certain that they would be willing to testify. She gave staff a copy of her research. Ms. Walker confirmed to Councilor Hunt that she paid $883 for a home occupation permit from the City, and that all the other jurisdictions had fees under$100. Ms. Walker confirmed to Council President Moore that Washington County had not mentioned any requirements for home occupations at the time she called them about a business license. She said that most recently, the County staff told her that she had asked the wrong question in 1991; she should have asked for a home business permit instead of a business license. She indicated that she had not been aware that the City had since taken over the responsibility for the urban services area. Councilor.Patton asked what triggered the citation. Ms. Walker reiterated that in the past 9.5 years she had had no complaints. She said that in the week before this happened, she had installed an air conditioner. A neighbor called the City to complain about the air conditioner, claimed that Ms. Walker's deck was too large, and asked if Ms. Walker's music studio business was legal. She noted that the City staff found that her deck was grandfathered in, as it was legally built in 1991 according to the Washington County standards. She observed that this did appear to be a vendetta on the part of the neighbor. She emphasized that a limit of six students per day severely restricted her business. • Ms. Walker concurred with Councilor Scheckla that the deck had nothing to do with her piano teaching business. She explained that she applied and paid for the$883 home occupancy permit within the 10 days listed on the citation in hopes that the Council would grant her the necessary variances to allow her to continue teaching. Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director; explained that the City did not have a business license; it had a business tax based on the number of employees. He reviewed the purpose and requirements of the two types of home occupancy permits. He noted the City Code limits intended to minimize the impact of small-scale businesses on the neighborhoods, referencing the limits on the number of clients and on the hours of operations in particular. Mr. Hendryx stated that the County established the one-time$883 permit fee, adopted by the City for the urban services area; the City's permit fee was $545 per the Council policy of some general fund subsidy of fees within the city. He pointed out that the Tigard Code was silent with respect to- the type of use; the limitations applied to all uses. He noted that traffic was an issue of concern in the neighborhoods. He described the procedure to change the Code, stating that staff could return with a report in 30 days. Mr. Hendryx explained to Councilor Scheckla that the State regulated home daycares, not the local jurisdictions. Mr. Hendryx mentioned another option of a community evaluation of the program, similar to what Gresham did. He suggested taking the question of whether the City could exempt particular uses or CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JULY 25, 2000—Page 4 • • S re-evaluate the whole program out to the community involvement teams (CITs) for input. Mr. Ramis concurred with the approach suggested by staff to review the Code. Mr. Hendryx indicated to Councilor Scheckla that the Council had the authority to waive or to reduce fees. He noted that the policy in the urban services area was that it was supposed to be fee neutral (the City not subsidizing the cost of processing applications in that area). He confirmed that Ms. Walker would have to pay the business tax annually but the home occupation permit was a one- time fee. Councilor Hunt suggested that the Council allow Ms. Walker to retain her students while the City was in the process of resolving this issue. Mr. Ramis indicated that it was not unusual for Oregon jurisdictions to refrain from enforcing a citation while the applicant was pursuing a regulatory solution. The Council agreed by consensus to allow Ms. Walker to continue her business until the Council had an opportunity to revisit the Code. Mr. Hendryx indicated that staff would return with a report in 30 days. - Councilor Patton commented that Ms. Walker's research indicated that other jurisdictions have been re-thinking their home occupation permits. She commented that, given the number of years since the City has looked at this issue, it would be prudent to look at it again. 3. CONSENT AGENDA -- Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Patton, to approve the Consent Agenda. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Council President Moore, Councilors Hunt, Patton and Scheckla voted "yes.") [4-0] 3.1 Approve Council Minutes of: May 23 and June 13, 2000 3.2 Approve Police Department Training Request: Criminal Intelligence Analysis Applications Course for Microcomputer Technician Brenda Abbott 3.3 Adopt Benefit Recommendations from Management Group Job Class and Compensation Study— Resolution No. 00-43 3.4 Local Contract Review Board: a. Approve Purchase of Five (5) Police Vehicles from Gresham Ford b. Award Contract for FY 2000-01 Pavement Major Maintenance Program-Slurry Seal to Asphalt Maintenance Associates,Inc. c. Award Contract for the Construction of Fanno Creek Trail — Segment 2 (Tigard Street/Fowler School Trail) to Andersen Pacific,Inc. 4. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) APPEAL OF FINAL- ORDER NO. 2000-02PC—TRI-COUNTY CENTER ITEM ON APPEAL: At the May 15, 2000 public hearing,the Planning Commission approved, subject to conditions, a request for approval of conceptual plan review for two alternative designs for new construction of a shopping center as a Planned Development. OPTION 1: This is the proposed new construction of a 297,179 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Land Review. OPTION 2: This is the proposed new construction of a 330,312 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Lands Review. A prior request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Water Resource Overlay District including fill and mitigation of a portion of the existing wetlands was granted on June 23, 1998 and became effective July 23, 1998 by Final Order of the Tigard City Council. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —JULY 25, 2000—Page 5 • • • CONDITIONS BEING APPEALED: On June 5, 2000 the applicant filed an appeal of certain conditions of approval contained in the decision. The specific conditions appealed and items to which they are related are summarized as follows: Condition#1: Overall Condition related to the Design Evaluation Team Option; Condition#7: Street Improvements to include the future Widening of SW Dartmouth; Condition#22: Verification related to any ground disturbances in areas of steep slopes; Condition#25 -OPTION 2 ONLY: Relocation of parking area near the bend of SW Hermoso Way outside of area of steep slopes; Condition #26: Provide landscaping, an arcade or a hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path along SW Dartmouth Street between the structure and the wetlands/public street; Condition #56 - OPTION 1 ONLY: Comply with zero-foot building setback standards for Pad E; Condition#58 - OPTION 2 ONLY: Comply with zero-foot building setback standards for Major II-IV; and Condition#73: Provide a public or private street connecting SW Dartmouth Street to SW Hermoso Way. LOCATION: The site is located on the south side of SW Dartmouth Street and on the west side of SW 72id Avenue and is east of State Highway 217. The site also includes 6 lots along the north side of Hermoso Way. The site address is 12265 SW 72nd; WCTM 1 S 136CD, Tax Lot 04200; 2S 101BA, Tax Lots 00100, 00101, 00300, 00400, 00401 and 00402; 2S 101AB, Tax Lots 01300,01400, 01401, 01402, 01403, 01404. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial and Mixed Use Employment. ZONING DESIGNATIONS: C-G(PD) and MUE. The General Commercial zoning district provides for the provision of a wide range of major retail goods and services. The Mixed Use Employment zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land with the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy 99), Highway 217 and I-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED: Community Development Code Chapters and Sections: 18.390, 18.390.050, 18.620, 18.620.020, 18.620.030, 18.620.040, 18.775, 18.810, 18.810.030. Mr. Monahan presented the applicant's request to postpone the hearing to the date certain of September 12, 2000. He noted that staff and the applicants were trying to work out the details, which might result in the applicants' dropping the appeal. He commented,that the waiver of the 120-day rule was in order. a. Council President Moore opened the public hearing and continued it to September 12, 2000. > The Council considered Agenda Item 6 at this time. 5. STAFF UPDATE: REGIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGY Mr. Hendryx stated that Sheila Greenlaw-Fink served on the Metro Affordable Housing Technical Advisory Committee looking at goals and strategies for affordable housing throughout the metropolitan region. He indicated that Ms. Fink would present an overview of the Committee's recommended strategies. Sheila Greenlaw-Fink, Community Partners for Affordable Housing, said that she served as non-profit affordable housing representative on HTAC (Housing Technical Advisory Committee). She mentioned the two years of work put in by the 28-member committee, composed of representatives from all facets of the housing industry. She noted that the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy Report was available in its entirety on the Web. She pointed out the largely voluntary approach of the Committee's recommendations. Ms. Fink reviewed the report's discussion of why affordable housing was as critical a piece of infrastructure to community quality of life as transportation and other infrastructure items were. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —JULY 25, 2000—Page 6 • • She referenced the historical data documenting what currently existed in affordable housing in the metro area. She referenced a report summarizing the Regional Affordable Housing strategy and defining what affordable housing was. She spoke to public policy addressing the needs of people (with incomes at 30% to 50% of the median income) for affordable housing, a sector seldom touched by the private market. Ms. Fink mentioned the frequent criticism of Washington County as promoting economic growth without the political will to address the housing issue, which economic growth substantially impacted. She noted the disproportionate distribution in the region, with most of the affordable housing in East Portland and Clackamas County and most of the jobs in Washington County. Ms. Fink emphasized the compromise nature of the report, noting the very divergent interests working on the strategies. She referenced a summary table listing the target number of affordable housing units assigned to each of the 24 jurisdictions. She pointed out that the 320 units assigned to Tigard represented only 10% of the estimated need to 2017. She commented that CPAH disagreed with the estimate, believing that Tigard had a 3,000 unit deficit in affordable housing at this time. Ms. Fink commented that the Committee agreed that it took political will and money to address the issue of affordable housing. She pointed out that the report listed possible strategies for use by jurisdictions in trying to reach the targets but did not mandate which strategies any jurisdiction had to use. She mentioned subsidies to keep rents at affordable levels for existing or new construction as a possible option for Tigard in reaching its target of 320 units by 2003. Ms. Fink reviewed the findings of the three subcommittees, which examined specific aspects of the affordable housing issue: Cost Reduction, Land Use and Regulations, and Regional Funding. She discussed the jobs/housing imbalance in greater detail. She argued that people not living in the community in which they worked affected the quality of life, citing a reduction in volunteerism. She reviewed the work Tigard has done to address the issue of affordable housing, including the adoption of property tax abatement and the development of the Housing Code. Ms. kink mentioned deferring SDCs and permit fees as a reasonable strategy for Tigard to consider. She commented that the high SDC fees in Washington County were a barrier to affordable housing, which was not cheap to build. Ms. Fink noted other regional issues discussed, such as local government/state coordination in funding and regulation, land costs and availability, offsite improvements,regional coordination and regional databases. She discussed the need for a certain level of flexibility in a jurisdiction's application of its Code, land use and zoning requirements.• She commented that without variances to most codes, affordable housing was not feasible. She described how low income families did not need the number of parking spaces mandated by the Code because many of the families did not own cars. Ms. Fink discussed the new funding climate with the decimation of HUD in the last decade. She mentioned the need for state subsidies and funding at the regional level. Ms. Fink asked the Council to adopt the Metro target of 320 units as a quantification of its own affordable housing goal. She indicated that reaching the goal required more than simply tax abatement, mentioning in particular reducing SDCs and increasing flexibility in the local regulatory environment. Councilor Hunt noted that Council three years ago had agreed to help CPAH with additional affordable housing projects, similar to the Villa La Paz project. He asked why CPAH never returned to Council to report on its other projects, given the Council's willingness to help. Ms. Fink noted that CPAH continued to do capital improvements at Villa La Paz and Hawthorne Villa. She described a third project undertaken by CPAH this year: the renovation of a four bedroom single family home to a five bedroom single family home to replace the four bedroom home destroyed when the shelter was built. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —JULY 25, 2000—Page 7 • Ms. Fink discussed a 44 unit senior housing project CPAH wanted to build on Hall Blvd. She said that they have over$3 million in funding commitments but they could not build the project under the current zoning without significant variances. She indicated that they were waiting on the outcome of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan, which zoned this property to something that they could use. She commented that there was very little appropriate buildable land left in the area, which forced them to this parcel. Councilor Hunt asked if the Council should consider the needed variances, if that was all that was holding up the project, and CPAH could lose its funding if it did not move forward soon. Council President Moore suggested scheduling a workshop discussion of the Council policy on fees, SDCs, and code provisions in light of the affordable housing issue. Councilor Hunt concurred. Councilor Scheckla contended that CPAH was in the predicament it was in because it purchased property within the area of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan(adopted but not implemented), when perhaps it should have looked elsewhere. He argued that making special accommodations for CPAH would open the floodgates to others wanting similar consideration. Ms. Fink disagreed. She held that a clear statement from Council that any action it took was to address the affordable housing issue would preclude setting a precedent for other types of development. Councilor Patton agreed with holding a study session focusing on the alternatives that the City could consider in addressing the affordable housing issue. 6. TIGARD CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ASSOCIATION(TCBDA) REQUESTS Tyler Ellensen, Tigard Central Business District Association President, reviewed the proposal TCBDA made last week for a downtown manager($30,000),an Oregon Downtown Development Association (ODDA) contract to develop an economic or business improvement district(EID, BID), and$3,360 for banners. He presented a sample of the banners. He reported that they proposed $22,500 for the downtown manager position for this fiscal year(nine-month contract)with the remainder to fall in the next fiscal year. He said that 100% of the ODDA expense would fall in this fiscal year. He noted the total expenditure as $35,860. He commented that the remaining balance of $14,600 (out of the$50,000) gave the Association some flexibility. Mr. Hendryx spoke to the need for a professional part-time downtown manager to implement the downtown plan, as the volunteer business owners have reached the limit on the amount of time they could volunteer. He reviewed the manager's proposed job duties, including membership, development of a funding mechanism, and promotion of the downtown. Councilor Scheckla asked what the Association's relationship was with the Chamber of Commerce with respect to the downtown manager and plan. Mr. Ellenson said that they were working in unison with the Chamber but they decided to keep things separate, as they did not want to use City funds to indirectly subsidize the Chamber's new building(the Chamber offered to rent the Association office space for the manager). He discussed the Chamber's offer to allow the Association to hire one of its employees to work on a part-time basis, doing multiple functions for the Association and the Chamber. He mentioned their conclusion that keeping the job duties separate would be difficult for one person. Mr. Ellenson confirmed to Councilor Scheckla that the$30,000 for the downtown manager covered a one-year period from the date of hire, not for the fiscal year. Mr. Monahan commented that during the nine months of this fiscal year, the downtown manager would work with ODDA on developing a permanent funding mechanism, such as an EID or BID. He said that the Association needed a commitment from the Council to provide additional funding in the next fiscal year, which was when the Association would make decisions with respect to long-term financing. He indicated that the Council was looking at about a 21-month commitment. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —JULY 25, 2000—Page 8 • , Mr. Monahan confirmed to Councilor Scheckla that a BID or EID required a vote of the people. He referenced Mr. Ellenson's comment last week that one of their goals was to reduce the City's contribution to one-third of the total financing needed. Mr. Hendryx reported that ODDA said that it typically took 12 to 18 months-to put together a successful BID, including the public process. Mr. Monahan explained to Councilor Scheckla that a BID or BID was not the same as the tax increment financing proposal defeated by the voters previously. Councilor Patton spoke to the Council continuing its support of the TCBDA's work, as they were doing a good job in improving the downtown area(a Council goal). The Council agreed by consensus to direct staff to set the funding in motion to finance the part-time downtown manager($22,500), the ODDA contract ($10,000), and the banners ($3,360) for a total of • $35,860 out of the$50,000 set aside for the Association. Mr. Ellenson stated that, per Councilor Scheckla's suggestion, they set a regular, formal meeting date for the second Monday of every month, 5:30 p.m. at the Recreation Building in the Main Street Apartments. 7. CONSIDERATION OF BALLOT TITLE - GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FOR FINANCING OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS Mr. Ramis stated that this amended ballot title complied with the statutory word limit. Motion by Councilor Patton, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Resolution 00-44. The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. RESOLUTION 00-44, A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE LANGUAGE OF THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BALLOT TITLE. • Motion passed by majority voice vote of the Council present. (Council President Moore, Councilors Hunt and Patton voted"yes." Councilor Scheckla voted"no.") [3-1] 8. UPDATE ON APPOINTMENT PROCESS FOR THE POSITION OF MAYOR Mr. Monahan reviewed the process and schedule to fill the interim mayor position that the Council decided on during its workshop session last week (See July 18, 2000, minutes). He noted the staff work done to advertise the position, including a cable television discussion he and Ms. Wheatley worked on with TVCA last week. He reviewed the qualification requirements for the interim mayor position. He commented that the post office assigned a Tigard address to properties outside the city limits; staff would verify whether an applicant lived within the city limits. Councilor Scheckla asked what happened if only a few applied and the Council did not find someone appropriate. Mr. Ramis said that the Charter gave the Council broad discretion, allowing them to re-solicit applications if necessary. Mr. Monahan commented that the Council could direct staff to modify the process at any time. He pointed out that this was a similar interview process to the one used in hiring city employees. Councilor Patton mentioned the Council's decision to allow the interim mayor to run for the permanent mayor seat. Mark Padgett suggested including a statement that the time a person served in an appointed capacity did not count against the term limits for either Councilor or Mayor. The Council considered Agenda Item 5 at this time. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —JULY 25, 2000—Page 9 0 • ' 9. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS: None. 10. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: None. . , 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Canceled. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 9:16 p.m. Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Rec•rder , i 4 A .4.�n1-/Al Vayor, Ci Of' > r• // Date. I c)'2000 !MOM\CATHY\CCM\000725.DOC . CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JULY 25, 2000—Page 10 • '' • • Agenda Item No. 4. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Meeting of 9-12 - b0 WORKSHOP MEETING • MEETING MINUTES - JULY 18, 2000 1. WORKSHOP MEETING • Call to Order Council President Brian Moore called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. • Roll Call Council Present: Council President Brian Moore, Councilors Joyce Patton, Ken Scheckla and Paul Hunt Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; City Attorney Tim Ramis; City Engineer Gus Duenas; City Recorder Catherine Wheatley • City Manager—Administrative Item Bill Monahan, City Manager, briefed the Council on the status of the Tri-County appeal. He explained that Tri-County submitted two applications with differences for the same development. He indicated that staff thought Tn-County would appeal both applications. There was a possibility that Tri-County might withdraw the appeal. He mentioned staff sending a letter to the applicants asking when the City should set a date for the appeal hearing • Council Communications Mr. Monahan confirmed to Councilor Hunt that the City was televising two Council meetings per month at this time. He explained that they would televise the study session eventually after staff and volunteers had been trained to use the equipment. • Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: Mr. Monahan said he would update the Council on the Joint Water Commission meeting, Mayor Lou Ogden's work on Goal 5, and the status of the Tri=County appeal. Councilor Hunt indicated that he had a non-agenda item. Councilor Scheckla indicated that he would send a letter to the Mayor of Tualatin expressing concerns with Mayor Ogden's remarks that he stated at Mayor Nicoli's memorial service. 2. PROGRESS REPORT: SUMMER CREEK WETLANDS ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Gus Duenas, City Engineer, gave a PowerPoint presentation on the status of the Summer Creek wetlands enhancement project in the Merestone area. He noted the agencies that staff met with at the February 8 meeting as part of devising an "approvable" concept plan. He mentioned the key points raised by the agencies: the water draining back to the creek after the high flows, and preventing the trapping of fish in ponds. Mr. Duenas reviewed the two options developed by their consultant, TetroTech. He pointed out that the temporary pond created by a storm"event drained back to the meandering creek, leaving the area dry during the summer months (Option 1). He stated that Option 1 was in compliance with the regulatory agencies requirements and most likely to be approved. Mr. Duenas said that the neighbors did not like Option 1, preferring some ponding in the area. He referenced Option 2 with some deeper areas for ponding. He explained how Option 2 might work, confirming to Councilor Hunt that the ponds would consist of stagnant water. He commented that he doubted that the regulatory agencies would approve Option 2, as it created ponds with the potential to trap fish. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —JULY 18, 2000 - PAGE 1 • • • Mr. Duenas explained to Councilor Scheckla that this was a joint effort by USA and the City, with USA providing input on the design and some funding for construction. He said that staff sent two options to the Corps of Engineers because the neighbors wanted another option. He confirmed that staff sent Optionl, knowing that it met the regulatory agencies' criteria, while sending Option 2 in a good faith effort for the neighbors, despite their suspicions that the agencies would reject Option 2. Mr. Duenas indicated to Councilor Patton that they had a timeline with the next steps dependent upon the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife's response (the agency whose lead the other agencies would follow). He mentioned their hope of a response within the next two to three weeks. Mr. Duenas indicated to Councilor Scheckla that he did not think they would make the construction season this year because of the process needed to achieve consensus between the agencies and the neighbors. He mentioned the need to get easements from the neighbors to construct Option 1. He said that if the neighbors objected to Option 1 and refused to provide the easements, then the City's options were to discuss the project concept more with the neighbors or redesign the project to eliminate the need for easements (which was not his preferred option because flipping the design to the other side would leave mud flats). Mr. Duenas confirmed to Councilor Hunt that, even if the City cancelled the project, it still met the regulatory requirements because they have removed the beaver dam. He indicated to Mr. Monahan that the City needed to keep the beaver dam cleared, even if the beaver returned to rebuild the dam. He discussed staffs long-range approach to use bond money to replace the existing culvert with a larger pipe in order to create an opening that would not be so easily blocked. Mr. Duenas commented that he thought Option 1 was attractive, mentioning that it did not create stagnant water and insect problems. He confirmed to Councilor Patton that under Option 1 the neighbors would not see any water for three months during the summer but it would fill up during the winter. Councilor Scheckla asked who maintained the right-of-way on 12151, noting the high weeds. Mr. Duenas indicated that it was the property owner's responsibility. Mr. Monahan concurred, commenting that the City as the property owner of the wetlands had responsibility for the area next to the wetlands. He.mentioned a staff meeting set for tomorrow to discuss the right-of-ways maintenance question. Council President Moore mentioned the Central Business District representative's question about the railroad maintenance. Mr. Duenas discussed the staff work with the railroad to reach an agreement on maintaining the track area. He said that the Council approved a project for replacement concrete panels, tentatively scheduled for the third week of August. He indicated that the railroad would handle the project and inform the City of its schedule. He indicated to Councilor Scheckla that the project required closure of the street. He said that once they had dates certain, they would inform the businesses in the area. 4. UPDATE: TIGARD CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ASSOCIATION Mr. Monahan explained that staff set $50,000 for this fiscal year in the Community Development Department budget for the Central Business District Association. He noted that they rolled the $25,000 remaining from last year's allocation into this year's allocation for a total of$50,000. Tyler Ellenson, Tigard Central Business District Association, presented a report on the TCBDA's activities. He explained that the TCBDA decided to table the Tigard Daze event until next year in order to allow sufficient time to plan the event in a professional manner, and to gain the cooperation of the local businesses for the use of their parking lot for a carnival. He mentioned to Councilor Scheckla that Rite Aid and Value Village had security concerns and complaints about the damage done to the asphalt parking lot by tent stakes. He spoke to starting earlier and resolving the businesses' objections. He indicated that they would probably schedule the event for the third week in August next year. Mr. Monahan reviewed the City's budget process for event applications, noting that the Council gave preliminary approval for funding in May. He indicated to Councilor Scheckla that it was up to CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —JULY 18, 2000 - PAGE 2 • • • the Council to decide whether the money for Tigard Daze came out of the$50,000 or out of the community events allocation. Mr. Ellenson mentioned their good fortune in obtaining the volunteer services of a Tigard resident event planner. He spoke to developing continuity in administering the event. Mr. Ellenson discussed the TCBDA's proposal to replace the deteriorating banners on Main Street with new and larger banners. He indicated that their intent was to promote downtown Tigard, as opposed to identifying individual businesses. He mentioned the $3,360 request for the banners. Mr. Ellenson discussed the proposal to hire a part-time Downtown Manager to help the Association achieve its goals of greater self-sufficiency and a more equal partnership with the City. He mentioned job duties involving developing a funding mechanism, membership, and marketing plans. He observed that the business owners did not have enough time to volunteer to get the Association really going. He noted their proposed $30,000 budget to cover salary and office expenses. He indicated to Councilor Scheckla that this part-time 20 hour a week position could grow into a full-time position over the.years as the organization became more established and they implemented the Economic Improvement District (EID) process. Councilor Scheckla asked if the TCBDA would be able to accomplish what it wanted to accomplish, given the increasing number of commercial developments in the area. Mr. Ellenson commented that they needed to work hard in the competitive marketplace to achieve their goals but they hoped to attract businesses back to the downtown and to build upon their existing foundation. He mentioned their frustration with the slow process and their desire to make something happen. Mr. Ellenson confirmed to Councilor Scheckla that providing sufficient parking was their top priority, agreeing that parking was a key issue in a viable downtown. He spoke to a downtown manager helping to find an answer to the parking issues more quickly than volunteers could. Councilor Hunt discussed his concern that the budget was low for obtaining a qualified person. Mr. Ellenson reviewed their options for obtaining a qualified person with an interest in the community who did not need a large income. He mentioned a lead from the Oregon Downtown Development Association of a gentleman doing this type of work in the Hollywood district who had some extra time. He noted the semi-retired folks in Summerfield. ' Mr. Ellenson commented that they knew that they had a low budget but they had to start somewhere. If their budget was not enough, then they needed to re-evaluate. He indicated that they did research the issue and work out the numbers. Mr. Monahan clarified that a 12 to 18 month process to implement an Economic or Business Improvement District meant a two-year funding cycle. He explained that these districts were funding mechanisms intended to create a cash flow to provide funding for the downtown manager and other activities, thus decreasing the City's contribution over time. Mr. Ellenson reiterated his goal to create a partnership with one-third of the funding coming from the community through special events, one-third from the City and one-third from the businesses. He confirmed to Councilor Patton that the successful downtowns had downtown managers to facilitate the program. Councilor Patton spoke to the City continuing to support the TCBDA through this interim process in obtaining its own funding as a means of maintaining the organization's momentum. She commented that the TCBDA's requests have been conservative, concurring with Councilor Hunt that the $30,000 request was very conservative. Mr. Ellenson noted that they knew that this was not their money; they tried to be specific about what they spent it on. He observed that their hearts were in making this work, and they would continue with it regardless of the Council's comments. Council President Moore asked what the process was for allocating the money, if the Council disagreed with the proposed dollar amount. Mr. Monahan reviewed the process. He mentioned the need to clarify at a regular meeting how the$50,000 would be used, noting that the Association's proposed expenditures were in the range of$43,000. Councilor Hunt discussed his concern about spending all the money in the first year, leaving the Association with nothing if something unexpected came up. He suggested funding the downtown CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—JULY 18, 2000 - PAGE 3 • • • manager over the banners, if they had to make a choice. Mr. Ellenson concurred that the downtown manager was a greater priority than the banners in making the organization self-sufficient. Mr. Monahan asked if the Association would pay out the $10,000 estimate for ODDA consulting over one or two years. Mr. Ellenson said that he needed to talk to ODDA about where they-were but he thought that $6,000 for the first year was a reasonable target number. He agreed with Mr. Monahan that, due to a manager probably not starting until September, they might need only $25,000 for the downtown manager, bringing their expenditures down to the $31,000 range. He concurred that, if necessary, they could revisit the banners later. Mr. Ellenson confirmed to Mr. Monahan that he would return next week to the Council's televised meeting to make another presentation as part of educating the public. Councilor Hunt asked Mr. Ellenson to bring back a proposal for a specific dollar amount, now that he has heard the Council's concerns. Mr. Ellenson said that they could break their proposal down on a fiscal year basis to clarify where and when the money might be spent. The Council agreed by consensus on the direction discussed. Council President Moore and Councilor Patton each supported implementing the banners. Councilor Scheckla suggested that the Association set up a regular meeting time, date and place so that interested citizens could drop in, as opposed to the Association's current practice of setting the next meeting date at the meeting. Councilor Hunt suggested setting audience participation rules. Mr. Ellenson indicated that the Association encouraged participation in the discussion by any visitors. A lady in the audience pointed out that, although the banners appeared to be a frivolous expenditure, they actually served as concrete evidence that the Association was doing something. She observed that all their work so far has been behind the scenes and invisible to the general public and • businesses. Council President Moore recessed the meeting for a break at 1:40 p.m. Council President Moore reconvened the meeting at 1:51 p.m. 4. DISCUSSION OF VACANCY IN THE POSITION OF MAYOR Tim Ramis, City Attorney, recalled the memo he reviewed last week on the rainbow of options available to the Council to fill the vacancy. Councilor Scheckla mentioned the editorial in the Oregonian. Council President Moore noted that Councilor Patton's remarks were misrepresented. Councilor Patton commented that, in her article, Emily Tsao accurately reported the discussion she had with her but the editorial took one comment that she made about there being too short a timeframe before the November election, and implied ulterior motives on the part of the Council. She indicated that while she found nothing wrong with the paper's opinion that they should hold an election, she did disapproved of the manner in which the paper went about relaying that opinion. , Councilor Scheckla recalled the process used when Mayor Bishop resigned and he filled in as Council President until the earliest election date when John Cook won the election. He confirmed that the Council operated with four members until the election. The Council discussed the option of appointing a sitting Councilor as an interim mayor, and what would happen with the Councilor vacancy. Mr. Ramis confirmed that legally the Council could appoint a sitting Councilor as interim mayor and then appoint a Councilor whose term was ending this year to fill the Councilor vacancy. He commented that the Charter language did not give direct answers on the various options of appointing a person to fill a vacancy until an election was held . He stated that, in his view, the Charter provided a general guideline that created a great deal of authority for the Council and gave it the freedom to interpret the language. He indicated his opinion that appointing a sitting Councilor as an interim and temporary mayor did not create a vacancy in that Councilor's position. Council President Moore reviewed the questions before the Council in this situation. He CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —JULY 18, 2000 - PAGE 4 • summarized the Council discussion as agreement on the need to hold an election, leaving open the questions of when to hold the election and who would be the interim mayor. Councilor Patton spoke in support of a March election over a November election in order to allow citizens sufficient time to consider running for the position. She said that she wanted a five-member Council. She indicated that she was willing to consider someone from the community as interim mayor, if the Councilors could not agree among themselves on an internal appointment. Councilor Hunt noted that Jack Schwab had been an excellent interim mayor the last time. There was brief discussion about Mr. Schwab. Council President Moore said that he supported either a March or a May election. He suggested soliciting that people be asked to submit letters of interest and then the Council conduct interviews, similar to the process used to fill the last Council seat vacancy when he was appointed to Council. Councilor Scheckla reiterated his concern_with losing continuity on the Council (especially with respect to water issues) if Councilor Hunt went off the Council. He suggested that appointing Councilor Patton as interim mayor and then appoint Councilor Hunt to fill her seat would maintain continuity. Councilor Patton commented that, while she appreciated the sentiment, that should she consider becoming mayor, she would prefer to obtain the position by election. The Council discussed the election date. Councilor Scheckla mentioned a March election. Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder, noted that the March election could cost the City $13,000 while the May primary election may be available at no cost to the cities. Council President Moore suggested waiting two months and saving the City $13,000. Councilor Patton concurred with Council President Moore. *Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Patton, to set the mayoral election date for May. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote of the Council present. (Council President Moore, Councilors Hunt, Patton and Scheckla voted"yes.") [4-0] *Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Patton, that the City Council appoint an interim mayor to fill the position until a May election. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote of the Council present. (Council President Moore, Councilors Hunt, Patton and Scheckla voted"yes.") [4-0] *Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Patton, to allow the interim mayor to run for the mayoral position in the May election. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote of the Council present. (Council President Moore, Councilors Hunt, Patton and Scheckla voted "yes.") [4-0] *(City Recorder's note: Subsequent to this meeting, it was determined that the only election available to the City at no cost is the General Election held in November during even-numbered years. After, conducting a telephone poll of the City Council members, the Council determined to proceed with a March election. This election would be to elect a Mayor to fulfill the remainder of Mayor Nicoli's term, which would expire on December 31, 2002.) CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —JULY 18, 2000 - PAGE 5 • • The Council discussed the process to use in selecting an interim mayor. Councilor Hunt suggested that the Councilors be allowed to contact anyone they wanted and to suggest that the person submit a letter of interest. The Council discussed who was eligible to vote and who was eligible to run in the mayoral election. Mr. Ramis advised the Council that the residents in recently annexed properties were eligible to vote, and in addition, registered voters in recently annexed areas would also be eligible to run for the office of Mayor. Council President Moore opened the meeting to questions from the audience. Council President Moore clarified for a gentleman that the Council has decided to hold an election for an elected mayor and also to select an interim mayor to fill the position until the election. He clarified that the interim mayor could run for office if he/she so chose. He indicated that the Council would ask people to submit their names as soon as it decided what process to use. He also noted that two Council seats are up for election this November. Mark Padgett recommended that the Council complete the interim mayor selection process by the August 28 filing deadline for the Council seat election in order to avoid.someone having to withdraw from the Council race because the Council appointed that person as interim mayor. Council President Moore concurred. The Council discussed possible venues to advertise for an interim mayor, including the newspapers, a brochure and the web page. Ms. Wheatley noted that the Cityscape was scheduled to go to press tomorrow. Mr. Monahan reviewed the process used in 1994 to fill the mayor vacancy when Mayor Edwards resigned, noting that it took approximately two months. He suggested an aggressive schedule so that the appointment would be made by August 22, 2000. The Council discussed Mr. Monahan's recommended process and decided to proceed as outlined by Mr. Monahan. The Council agreed to wait to see how many people applied before deciding how many applicants should be interviewed. Council President Moore suggested that the Mayor be sworn in at the first televised meeting in September, which would be September 12. Council President Moore mentioned an inquiry from Mike Lucas of the Tigard Times with respect to the process. Mr. Monahan said that he would talk to Mr. Lucas. Mr. Monahan posed the question of whether or not the interim mayor had to reside in the city for one year before taking office. Mr. Ramis pointed out that the title of the Charter section was "Qualifications of Officers," and did not address how an officer got to the position. The Council agreed on maintaining the one-year residency qualification. 5. DISCUSSION OF CRITERIA FOR CITY MANAGER'S REVIEW Mr. Ramis reviewed the Council's two options for developing criteria for the City Manager's review. He noted the statute language clearly stating that the Council could not invent the review criteria outside of the public process. He said that the Council could use the criteria existing in the City Manager's contract or determine the criteria at a public meeting at which it allowed the public an opportunity to comment. Councilor Hunt mentioned the Council's earlier discussion with respect to the review criteria. Mr. Monahan indicated that if the Council was ready to finish up his review this evening using the contract criteria, that was fine. Mr. Ramis advised the Council that if it wanted to hold the review in Executive Session, then it had to adhere to the contract criteria. He confirmed that the Council could hold a public hearing at a later date to develop additional criteria. The Council agreed by consensus to complete the City Manager's review tonight in Executive CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —JULY 18, 2000 - PAGE 6 • • • ' • Session, using the contract criteria, and to set a date for a public meeting to discuss the City Manager review criteria in the future. 6. UPDATE: 2000 COUNCIL GOALS The Council agreed by consensus that the quarterly staff report on the Council goals was well done. There were no questions. • 7. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Monahan explained that City staff set the USA agreement over for a second time in order to hear the other jurisdictions' concerns before requesting Council approval. 8. NON-AGENDA ITEMS • Joint Water Commission Mr. Monahan reviewed the memo reporting on the Joint Water Commission meeting that he and Ed Wegner attended last Friday. He mentioned the Hillsboro staff's recommendation that the Commission start providing water to Tigard as soon as they could work out the details, and that they start developing an intergovernmental agreement to provide water to Tigard on a longer-term basis. Mr. Monahan said that the City Attorney would work with the City to draft an agreement with the Hillsboro staff. He mentioned that the Commission would buy back whatever Tigard invested toward finding additional raw water sources, if the Commission could not find a water supply for Tigard to buy into. Councilor Hunt pointed out that the price of the Commission water was two-thirds the price of Portland water, thus enabling the City to build reserves toward a buy-in amount. He mentioned the probability of buying incrementally through the years, as opposed to one huge buy-in, which would save the City a significant amount in costs. Mr. Monahan reviewed the various cost elements contributing to the price, and concurred that the price looked very favorable. Mr. Monahan explained to Council President Moore that Portland assessed Tigard no penalty for purchasing a large amount of water from somewhere else. He mentioned their good fortune with Lake Oswego supplying 3.47 mgd to Tigard during May and June. He commented that he thought that Portland preferred that Tigard not buy a huge amount from them because they might not be able to supply it during peak times. • Goal 5 Compliance Mr. Monahan reported that Mayor Lou Ogden of Tualatin has been spearheading a Washington County cities' effort to reach a compromise with Metro with respect to the 200-foot stream buffers in Metro's draft proposal for Goal 5 compliance. He mentioned Tigard's objection to the Metro proposal on the premise that local governments should be able to create their own regulations. He said that Mayor Ogden has suggested that other Washington County cities look at Hillsboro's draft proposal to modify the Metro language and, if they liked it,join in a joint submittal of the Hillsboro package. He indicated that Tigard staff reported support for the proposal from the elected officials involved. Mr. Monahan stated that the Community Development Department's review of the Hillsboro proposal found it more similar to Tigard's regulations than to Metro's proposal. He reported that the City has been asked to provide a letter of support signed by the Council President, which Mayor Ogden would deliver to Metro through MPAC, asking for modified and less restrictive language than that proposed by Metro staff. He indicated to Councilor Scheckla that he would provide the Council with copies of the mocked up draft proposal. He mentioned how fast this matter was moving. He asked for authority to brief Council President Moore more thoroughly on the issues, and to send the letter. The Council agreed by consensus to direct staff to proceed as outlined by Mr. Monahan. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —JULY 18, 2000 - PAGE 7 • • • . • Status of Tri-County Appeal Mr. Monahan reported that staff needed to clarify status with the Tri-County attorney and engineer about a requested appeal hearing date and whether issues were being settled. • Cell Phones Councilor Hunt asked for a background report by the Police Chief on the use of cell phones while driving. He cited safety issues and also whether a ban on the use of cell phones while driving would be enforceable. Councilor Scheckla cautioned about such proposals and referred to the City of Portland ban on signs, for which they had to pay a $500,000 fine. Mr. Ramis explained that Portland failed to establish a record justifying the ban. Portland needed more than the opinion of the police department; it needed data to verify that there was a problem. Councilor Hunt suggested that this concern about signs should also be reviewed. Mr. Monahan mentioned that he scheduled a discussion of employee use of cell phones for the next Executive Staff meeting. He noted that they have not yet had an accident attributable to the use of a cell phone, but it was a concern. He indicated that he understood that Councilor Hunt was asking for information on whether or not to allow this use within the community. He said that staff would research the question and work with Chief Goodpaster to formulate a recommendation. Councilor Scheckla discussed his opinion that regulating cell phone use while driving infringed on people's rights. Councilor Patton indicated that she would like to hear more information, commenting that the dynamics of structuring a ban and enforcing it, and the question of people's civil rights, presented some hurdles. Councilor Scheckla pointed out that ladies driving while putting on their makeup presented a similar situation. He asked where they drew the line. Mr. Monahan said that he would ask Chief Goodpaster to get accident statistics. Mr. Monahan asked for clarification on the signs under discussion: were they the crawl signs, such as the new one at Walgreen's? Mr. Ramis explained that the controversial signs in Portland were the video board signs but the City ended up banning all signs with movement because the City Attorney's office indicated that they could not distinguish between time and temperature signs and the video board signs. Councilor Hunt advised that all he was asking for was Chief Goodpaster's review on whether this was an issue that the Council should consider. Mr. Monahan said that Chief Goodpaster could comment on whether the City has had a problem with its existing signs and look at the impacts of the new types of technology. 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 9:20 p.m.. under the provisions of ORS 192.660(1) (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt public records, current & pending litigation issues. Council President Moore reconvened the work session at 9:25 p.m. • Transportation Bond Mr. Ramis reported that the staff revision of the City Attorney's draft language for the ballot measure title for the transportation bond exceed the legal word limit. He noted that, instead of returning to his office for review, the ballot title went straight to the Council for adoption. He explained that the Council could re-adopt the ballot title, as edited by the City Attorney's office to meet the legal word limit, or he would send the edited title directly to the elections office. Council President Moore asked what happened if the Council voted 2 to 2, given the 3 to 2 vote last time. Mr. Ramis explained that, under the statute, he was obligated to send the amended ballot title CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —JULY 18, 2000 - PAGE 8 • • • to the elections office, regardless of Council action. He indicated that he preferred the Council to adopt the amended ballot title. Councilor Hunt pointed out that if the Council did not vote to adopt the amended ballot title, and the City Attorney sent it on, then the City Attorney was not acting under the wishes of the Council. Mr. Ramis concurred, commenting that he did not like the statute. He emphasized that the Council would be voting on the ballot title language only; the Council has already made the decision to put the measure on the ballot. Councilor Hunt characterized this as similar to the Atfalati resolution, reiterating his questions and concerns with respect to the legality of the County's action. Staff indicated that they could return with the amended ballot title at the July 25 meeting. Mr. Ramis confirmed that this was an ad ministerial task dealing solely with the language of the title, and required for compliance with statutory requirements. Councilor Hunt stated that he voted against the bond measure originally because of his displeasure with the total tax situation and his opposition to the Atfalati measure. He said that, having made his protest vote, he would vote in favor of changing the title. The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 9:35 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660(1) (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt public records, current & pending litigation issues. 9. ADJOURNMENT: 10:20 p.m. Oct:1_40u rie Ci Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City ' ecorder 4 .yor, Ci of ' ig. // Date: *' / a) o ( c CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —JULY 18, 2000 - PAGE 9 • 41), City of Tigard Community(Development Shaping Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503)639-4171 Fax 684-7297 TO: City Council FROM: Karen Fox, Associate Planner DATE: July 12, 2000 SUBJECT: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC -Tri-County Center CASE NOS.: (Option 1) - Planned Development Review (PD) 2000-00001 Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 2000-00005 Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 2000-00002 (Option 2) - Planned Development Review (PD)2000-00002 Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 2000-00004 Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 2000-00003 BACKGROUND: On May 15, 2000, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to receive testimony on two alternative conceptual plans for a shopping center on a 27.22 acre parcel, known as the Tri-County Center (case numbers listed above). A Final order was issued by the Planning Commission on May 19, 2000 approving with conditions the planned development/conceptual plan. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission decision on June 5, 2000. A summary of the specific conditions appealed, related criteria and staffs response are as follows: CONDITION #1: CHAPTER 18.620, TIGARD TRIANGLE DESIGN STANDARDS (AND SECTION 18.620.090) Overall Condition: The entire shopping center proposal may be reviewed, at the applicant's option, by the Design Evaluation Team (DET) prior to detailed plan submittal in addition to the conditions listed below. After DET review, it is recommended that the applicant submit detailed plans for individual buildings as each building tenant is identified. 9/12/00 City Council Public Hearing Staff Report Page 1 of 7 Re:Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC-Tri-County Center/Options 1 &2 •\ 1 Summary of Appellant's Statement: The applicant states that this condition was modified by the Planning Commission to make DET review optional rather than mandatory and is, therefore, a restatement of the code requirement and is extraneous. The applicant also stated concern that should the applicant choose to go through DET review, that the wording of the condition would require the applicant to fulfill all of the listed conditions in the final order. The applicant indicates that it was unclear whether the Planning Commission determined that certain of the applicable criteria are satisfied or not, making it impossible to know whether or not revised plans or DET review are required. The example cited was whether or not the proposed wall along Hermoso Way meets the definition for a "building" under the code and thus satisfies the zero to ten foot setback requirement in Conditions #56 and #58. Staff Response: Condition #1 was modified (from the Staff Report) by the Planning Commission to allow the applicant the option, rather than requirement, to go through the DET review prior to the detailed plan review. Typically, the detailed plan review process would occur prior to the conceptual plan review, however, the applicant did not elect to do this. • If the applicant elects to go through the DET review prior to submitting the detailed plan, the DET's recommendations would have to come before the Planning Commission, and all other procedure's under Section 18.620.090.D for the Design Evaluation Team Review Process would apply. The Planning Commission decision would be final unless appealed to the City Council. Staff Recommendation: As the DET review is optional, no action is necessary. CONDITION #7: CHAPTER 18.810 (AND SECTION 18.810.030) The applicant shall enter into a street improvement agreement that obligates them to participate in the future widening of SW Dartmouth, east of SW 72nd Avenue to provide two (2) east bound travel lanes. The applicant's share of the improvements will be based on the length of a two (2) lane section needed to safely transition to one (1) lane eastbound based on recommendation from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD 1988 Edition). Appellant's Statement: This condition requires the applicant to acquire land and undertake improvements that are not proportional to the impacts that will result from the proposed shopping center. The condition does not ensure that applicant will be required to only pay its share of the required improvements. Staff Response: A Rough Proportionality Analysis was included in the Staff Report and Final Order. For Option 1, the estimated full traffic impact is $2,237,375, and the unmitigated impact is estimated at $1,521,505. For Option 2, the estimated full traffic impact is $2,478,218, and the unmitigated impact is estimated at $1,685,188. 9/12/00 City Council Public Hearing Staff Report Page 2 of 7 Re:Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC-Tri-County Center/Options 1 &2 • I •1 • Much of the proposed street improvement work allows for additional traffic capacity and is, therefore, eligible for a Transportation Impact Fee Credit. The estimated value for the street improvements, TIF credits, and any non TIF creditable work as provided in the decision is roughly $1,000,000. Therefore, the applicant is paying only a portion of the projects impact on the transportation system. Additional comments are attached and provided by the City's Development Engineer, Brian Rager, regarding this issue (Exhibit "A"). Staff Recommendation: Uphold Condition #7. CONDITION #22 & #25: CHAPTER 18.775, SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW Condition #22: The applicant shall verify that there will not be (and has not been since grading has begun on this project) any ground disturbance exceeding 10 cubic yards in the area of slopes exceeding 25 percent. Condition #25 (Option 2 only): Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall revise the plans and relocate the parking area near the bend of Hermoso Way outside of the areas which exceed 25 percent slopes, or address and meet the Sensitive Lands Review standards for any ground disturbance exceeding 10 cubic yards on lands sloped greater than 25 percent. Appellant's Statement: These two conditions do not recognize the fact than many of the existing slopes on the site are the result of ongoing site work pursuant to previously-issued authorizations by the site. Applicant is willing to comply with this condition as it applies to naturally occurring sensitive areas, but not as it applies to all slopes on the property that exceed 25 percent. This condition should be modified accordingly. Staffs Response: This issue was discussed by the Planning Commission who consulted with staff during the May 15, 2000 hearing. Staff clarified, at that time, Condition #22 was simply asking for verification by the applicant that there will not be any ground disturbance in the area of slopes exceeding 25 percent (which existed prior to ground disturbance by the applicant on this site). Similarly, Condition #25 is referring to pre-ground disturbance slopes which exceed 25 percent. It was clarified at the hearing that the applicant's were being asked to provide verification via topographic evidence, and site history regarding whether, or not, there were slopes exceeding 25 percent from the time the applicant/owner began work on the site; and if so, whether the work exceeds 10 cubic yards on those portions of the site. Condition #25 is applicable in the case that there is ground disturbance exceeding 10 cubic yards on lands sloped greater than 25 percent (slopes that existed at the time that the applicant or owner began work on this site). Staff Recommendation: No action necessary. 9/12/00 City Council Public Hearing Staff Report Page 3 of 7 Re:Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC-Tri-County Center/Options 1 &2 • .l CONDITION #26: CHAPTER 18.620 (AND SECTION 18.620.030). The applicant shall revise the plans and provide landscaping, an arcade, or hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path along SW Dartmouth street between the structures and the wetlands/public street, or shall submit the alternative design proposal for front yard setback design in accordance with the Tigard Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030 to the Design Evaluation Team prior to detailed plan review submittal. Front Yard Setback Design: Section 18.620.030.A.3 Landscaping, and arcade or a hard-surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path must be provided between a structure and a public street or accessway. If a building abuts more than one street, the required improvements shall be provided on all streets. Landscaping shall be developed to an L-1 standard on public streets and an L-2 standard on accessways. Hard-surfaced areas shall be constructed with scored concrete or modular paving materials. Benches and other street furnishings are encouraged. These areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirement per Section 18.520.040B and Table 18.520.2. Summary of Appellant's Statement: The applicant states that due to the wetlands location between the structure and the public street, that code Section 18.620.030.A.3, Front yard setback design, is inapplicable. The applicant states that this code section does not require landscaping, or hard surfacing between a structure and a wetland, or a wetland and a public street. Staff Response: The applicant states that it meets the criterion from Section 18.620.030.A.2, Building setback, by counting the wetland (rather than a building) along SW Dartmouth, as the feature located between zero to ten feet from the public street right-of-way. The applicant concludes that Section 18.620.030.A.3, Front yard setback design is inapplicable. However, the fact that the wetland meets the criteria for Section 18.620.030.A.2 does not preclude that landscaping, an arcade, or a hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path shall be provided between the structure and the public street, in addition to the wetlands. The landscaping, arcade, or hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path is intended to meet the design principles as set forth in the Section 18.620.010, Purpose and Applicability, as follows: A. Design Principles. Design standards for public street improvements and for new development and renovation projects have been prepared for the Tigard Triangle. These design standards address several important guiding principals adopted for the Tigard Triangle, including creating a high quality mixed use employment area, providing a convenience pedestrian and bikeway system within the Triangle, and utilizing streetscape to create a high quality image for the area. The applicant's proposed conceptual building and site design along SW Dartmouth does not utilize the streetscape to create a high quality image for the area, as pedestrian friendly design features are not included in the design. In addition, the building's are oriented to the interior of the lot and away from the wetlands. Building facades were shown in the plans submitted with blank facades along SW Dartmouth Street. The addition of pedestrian friendly elements between the wetland and the building 9/12/00 City Council Public Hearing Staff Report Page 4 of 7 Re:Appeal of Final Order No.2000-02 PC-Tri-County Center/Options 1 &2 facades along SW Dartmouth, such as additional landscaping or an arcade along the perimeter of the building, would meet the code criterion under Section 18.620.030.A.3. At present, it is unclear how, or if, service access will be provided to the (rear) building facades and the south side of the wetlands which front SW Dartmouth. Staff is also concerned that without service or pedestrian access between the buildings and the wetlands, the wetlands will be negatively impacted. The wetlands have the potential to be an amenity to the streetscape and the shopping center. However, the current proposal does not utilize the streetscape to create a high quality image for the area as the buildings turn their backs on the streetscape, the site design lacks streetscape design features, and the wetlands are not utilized as a integral visual amenity in the streetscape design. Staff Recommendation: Uphold Condition #26. CONDITION#56 & #58: CHAPTER 18.620 (AND SECTION 18.620.030.A.2.) • Condition#56 (Option 1 only): The applicant shall revise the plans to comply with the 0-foot building setback standards as contained in the Tigard Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030.A.2 for Pad E or shall submit the alternative design proposal for building setback to the Design Evaluation Team in accordance with Section 18.620.090 prior to detailed plan review submittal. Condition #58 (Option 2 only): The applicant shall revise the plans to comply with the 0-foot building setback standards as contained in the Tigard Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030.A.2 for Majors II-IV or shall submit the alternative design proposal for building setback to the Design Evaluation Team in accordance with Section 18.620.090 prior to detailed plan review submittal. Building Setback: Section 18.620.030.A.2 The minimum building setback from public street rights-of-way or dedicated wetlands/buffers and other environmental features shall be 0 feet; the maximum building setback shall be 10 feet. Summary of Appellant's Statement: The applicant states that a sound wall is proposed along the entire length of the project boundary with Hermoso Street (Hermoso Way), and should satisfy the requirement for the zero to ten foot building setback from the public street. The applicant cites the definition for "building" from Chapter 18.120. The definition for building is "that which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner." Staff Response: It was not clear from the Planning Commission's hearing on May 15, 2000 whether or not a wall could be used as a substitute for a building to meet the Tigard Triangle Design Standard, Section 18.620.030.A.2 for building setback. The Director of Community Development, Jim Hendryx, provided a letter regarding this issue to the applicant dated June 26, 2000 which is included in Council's material packet (Exhibit "B"). The letter states that a wall can be used to meet the building location requirements of the TTDS, and advises that any such wall must meet the Building Design Standards 9/12/00 City Council Public Hearing Staff Report Page 5 of 7 Re:Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC-Tri-County Center/Options 1 &2 • 410 • of the Triangle. For example, the wall must include design features such as ground floor windows, display areas or door openings. The applicant will need to carefully review all the design criteria under Section 18.620.40 (18.620.040), and address and meet all of these criteria in the narrative application, and plans and elevations, in the detailed plan review process. Staff Recommendation: Uphold Condition #56 and #58. CONDITION #73: CHAPTER 18.620, SECTION 18.620.020 The applicant shall revise the plans and shall provide a public or private street connecting SW Dartmouth to Hermoso Way. The street, as distinguished from the term aisle, shall be a minimum 24 feet (24') from curb to curb. Summary of Appellant's Statement: The applicant concurs with the May 8, 2000 Staff Report which found that the street connectivity was satisfied via the eight intersections per mile option (Performance Option). The Staff Report included the planned intersection at SW Dartmouth Street and the Backage Road, and the intersection at SW Dartmouth at the planned fly over to SW Hall Boulevard in the count. Condition #73 requires the applicant to dedicate land for a street that will not be required when the planned connecting street to Dartmouth Street is completed. If only one of the two planned streets are constructed along Dartmouth, there will be the requisite six intersections without the street requirement of Condition #73. Further, Condition #73 imposes an exaction that is not proportional to the impacts that will result from the proposed shopping center. This condition takes an unnecessarily large percentage of the site area that is otherwise needed for development, landscaping, or open space. Requiring that a public or private street bisect the parking field of a commercial shopping center would create an unsafe environment for pedestrian movement over and across the area. Staff Response: The Planning Commission consulted with Staff during the May 15, 2000 hearing and discussed this issue at length at that time. Staff did not object to the addition of Condition #73 after considering the fact that the identified planned intersections are very unlikely to be built in the near future (next five years), and may never be built. As the length of SW Dartmouth is 4,100 lineal feet, approximately six to seven (actual figure is 6.2) intersections would be required to meet this standard. There are five (5) existing intersections on SW Dartmouth within the Tigard Triangle. The applicant raises the issue of Rough Proportionality in the requirement of the street connectivity, however, street connectivity is one of the guiding principles of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. Further, the applicant is given the option of providing a private street or public street. A private street street does not require dedication. Notwithstanding the fact that staff does not concur that the rough proportionality test applies in this case, the value of the connecting public street is approximately $184,000 (920 lineal feet x $200 per lineal feet). Therefore, the value of all public improvements, if the connecting street were added to the cost, would be approximately $1,130,000 (using the figures in the attached memo from the City's Development Engineer). The value of these improvements is still less than the unmitigated costs by approximately $555,000. 9/12/00 City Council Public Hearing Staff Report Page 6 of 7 Re:Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC-Tri-County Center/Options 1 &2 • • The applicant's argument that the connecting street would bisect the parking field (lot) does not hold up as it is premised on a shopping center design which is oriented toward the interior of the lot and away from the streetscape and pedestrian way. The applicant's statement that the connecting street would create an unsafe environment assumes no re-design of the site to appropriately and safely accommodate the. street. Some re-design of the site is anticipated due to this modification of the original plan. Staff Recommendation: Uphold Condition #73 Summary of Staff Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council deny the appeal finding that the issues raised have not been substantiated or do not require a change in the language of the Condition. EXHIBITS: Exhibit "A" — 7/11/2000 Letter from Brian Rager Exhibit "B" —6/26/2000 Letter from Jim Hendryx is\curpin\karen\pd001&2.cc.appeal.memo.doc • 9/12/00 City Council Public Hearing Staff Report Page 7 of 7 Re:Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC-Tri-County Center/Options 1 &2 • Aik • EXHIBIT A • MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON • DATE: July 11, 2000 • TO: Karen Fox, Associate Planner FROM: Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer RE: PDR 2000-00001, 2000-00002, Tri County Options 1 and 2 This memorandum is in response to the applicant's argument over Condition #7, which requires them to widen SW Dartmouth Street, east of SW 72"d Avenue. Right-of-Way Issue First of all, the applicant claims that they will have to purchase right-of-way (ROW) from the parcel at the southeast corner of SW Dartmouth Street/SW 72nd Avenue (2S1 01AB, Tax Lot 100). This is not true. As a part of the previous land use approval (SDR 98-00002), the applicant was able to obtain ROW on the east side of SW 72nd Avenue, adjacent to Tax Lot 100, to provide 46 feet from the centerline. In addition, a 45-foot ROW radius was dedicated at the intersection corner. Both dedications were completed and are illustrated on the most current tax assessors maps.. There is approximately 40 feet of ROW on SW Dartmouth Street adjacent to Tax Lot.100, and 30 feet of ROW on the north side of centerline, for a total ROW width of 70 feet (existing). The 40- foot width on the south side of centerline is sufficient to contain the improvements required in Condition #7. - One last point regarding this issue. On July 11, 2000, Staff met with Specht Development, who is interested in developing Tax Lot 100, and other parcels in the vicinity. Obviously, if that occurs, Specht would be required to dedicate ROW and construct street improvements to SW Dartmouth Street adjacent to Tax Lot 100 that include the improvements listed in Condition #7. But in the event the Tri County project moves forward before Specht, it stands to reason that Specht would be motivated to cooperate with the Tri County developer, especially if part of their future street improvements would be constructed for them. • • Value of Improvements Required The applicant asserts that the value of the street widening is over and above their impact on the transportation system. Staff has estimated the value of the street widening as follows: • Roadway Widening: $ 92,000.00 (conservative) • Wetland Issues (If any) $ 10,000.00 • Public Improvement Permit $ 4,500.00 (additional) • Subtotal $ 106,500.00 • Contingency @ 5% $ 5,325.00 • TOTAL $ 111,825.00 In the previous Staff Report, it was noted that the unmitigated impact of this development will be approximately $1,685,188.00. The applicant had given Staff an estimate of the cost of all public improvements (less the improvements described above) that would be tied to this project. The value of those improvements is $834,074.00. With the addition of the roadway widening east of SW 72nd Avenue, the total value of all public improvements would be approximately $946,000.00. The value of these improvements is still less than the unmitigated impact by approximately $739,000.00. Basically, in order for Staff to buy into any of the applicant's arguments, Staff would have to be convinced that the value of any unforseen issues would exceed $739,000. This is not likely. In summary, Staff is not convinced the applicant is powerless to construct the improvements described in Condition #7, as sufficient ROW already exists. Staff also disagrees that the value of these improvements exceeds the project impacts. iAeng%btianAcomments pdd•pd2000 00001-00002toncW7-ebuttal.doc • PAGE 2 • II EXHIBIT B • • CITY OF TIGARD June 26, 2000 OREGON Ed Christensen Christensen Engineering 7150 SW Hampton, Suite 226 Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Ed: There has been some confusion regarding whether a wall can substitute for building location relative to the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. I would like to assure you and your clients that a wall, indeed, can be used to meet the building location requirements of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. Please be advised that any such wall must meet the Building Design Standards of the Triangle. I hope this will clarify the City's position. Sincerely, j / /James N.P. Hendryx Director of Community Development I:\curpin\dick\Jetters\Christensen TTDS Ietter.doc c: PD2000-00001 Land use file PD2000-00002 Land use file 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503)639-4171 TDD (503)684-2772 • •1 p EXHIBIT C CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes May 15, 2000 1. CALL TO ORDER President Wilson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Wilson; Commissioners Anderson - (arrived late), Griffith, Mores, Olsen, Padgett, Scolar, and Topp Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Incalcaterra Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Karen Fox, Associate Planner; Augustin Duenas, City Engineer; Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer; Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary • 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS Dick Bewersdorff proposed some meeting dates to address a code amendment for an historic designation and a conditional use to allow weddings and other similar activities in a residential zone. It was decided that the matter would be heard on July 17th. Mr. Bewersdorff also advised that cameras were being installed so that all public meetings held in the Tigard Civic Center may be televised. Training is being offered to prepare Planning Commission members for televised meetings. 4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES Commissioner Griffith moved and Commissioner Padgett seconded the motion to approve the April 17, 2000, meeting minutes as submitted. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 5. PUBLIC HEARING • 5.1 2000-2001 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Augustin "Gus" Duenas discussed the process for determining capital improvement projects, funding sources, and the program areas and priorities. The PowerPoint presentation detailing each project is attached as Exhibit A. Program areas are: the street system; the storm drainage system; the park system; and the water system. Mr. Duenas detailed the priorities of each program area, upcoming projects, the fiscal 1999-2000 committed projects that are still to be completed, and funding of the projects. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May I5,2000-Page • • • Commissioner Topp asked about underground utilities, fiber optics, and cable that need to be installed in the street extensions and unpaved portions of the right-of-way. Mr. Duenas said the task force is working on coordinating those installations with the County so that underground work is done prior to paving. Commissioner Olsen commended the task force for its work on the traffic count, transportation bond, and Summerlake issues. Commissioner Padgett asked about the portable speed humps. Mr. Duenas said there is a process for rating the streets. President Wilson asked if a feasibility study of the Walnut/Hunziker connection should be looked at. Mr. Duenas said that was one of the recommendations in the transportation plan. Mr. Wilson commented that while this project may be expensive, it would be less. expensive than widening Hwy. 99W. A brief discussion was held regarding the public's frustration with Hwy. 99 traffic as opposed to the disruption that would be attendant upon such a project. The downtown redevelopment plan will be confronting this issue, and while it may be considered in long-term planning, it is not in the scope of this, CIP. It is recognized that something must be done to alleviate Hwy. 99 traffic. Commissioner Olsen moved to accept the 2000-2001 Capital Improvement Projects, with the revisions presented, and Commissioner Padgett seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. No one signed up to speak on this item. 5.2 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PD) 2000-00001/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2000-00005/LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 2000-00002 TRI-COUNTY CENTER—OPTION 1 PROPOSAL: This is a request for a conceptual plan review as a Planned Development for the new construction of a 297,179-square foot Shopping .Qenter on a total site area of 27.33 acres; .and a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership. A prior request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Water Resource Overlay District including fill and mitigation of a portion of the existing wetlands was granted on June 23, 1998 and became effective July 23, 1998 by Final Order of the Tigard City Council. The 1998 City Council decision also included a Planned Development Review, Site Development Review, and Lot Line Adjustment for a detailed plan for this site. However, this new proposal differs from the prior plan and, therefore, requires a new land use application and approval for a Planned Development, Sensitive Lands Review, and a Lot Line Adjustment. LOCATION: The site is located on the south side of SW Dartmouth Street and on the west side of SW 72"d PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May I S,2000-Page 2 • • • • Avenue and is east of State Highway 217. The site also includes the 6 lots along the north side of SW Hermosa Way. The site address is 12265 SW 72nd Avenue; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot 04200; 2S101BA, Tax Lots 00100, 00101, 00300, 00400, 00401 and 00402; 2S 101 AB, Tax Lots 01300, 01400, 01401, 01402, 01403, 01404. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial (C-G) and Mixed Use Employment (MUE). ZONING DESIGNATION: C-G (PD) and MUE. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.350, 18.360, 18.390, 18.410, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.725, 18.730, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795, and 18.810. STAFF REPORT Karen Fox presented the staff report on behalf of the City. Refer to Exhibit B for proposed changes to the staff report. She emphasized that this is a concept plan versus a detailed plan review. The two options are presented together, with the only difference being the square footage of the gross usable space and building area. Ms. Fox detailed the site location and particulars of the two options. The current plan differs from the prior-approved 1998 plan by including six lots on SW Hermosa Way to the southern portion of the site and adding a new access on Hermosa Way, and it presents different building configurations and locations. It has blank walls on three streets and most of the facades are below grade. The current proposal has gone through wetlands and water resources overlay review and the wetlands designation has been removed; however, a sensitive lands review is requested as the project is in noncompliance with the Division of State Lands regarding the wetlands infill location. Ms. Fox presented details on the areas where the plan options currently do not meet the Tigard Triangle design standards and criteria regarding building placement on arterials, building setbacks, walkway connections, parking locations, landscape requirements, and building design criteria 1, 2, 3, and 6. She also outlined changes/corrections to the staff report and recommendations. Because the standards are not met in concept, there is a basis for denying the proposal; however, based on alternative designs by the design evaluation team, staff recommends that overall conditions be imposed and that the applicant be required to go through the. design evaluation process. Staff recommends approval only after the conditions are met and a detailed plan is submitted. Dick Bewersdorff pointed out that this is a complicated project and both the planning staff and applicant struggled with the recommendations. There are conditions in the evaluation that will take care of the majority of the issues and the applicant would prefer not to go through the design evaluation team process. Brian Rager stated that as part of the 1998 approval, the applicant has already submitted construction plans for most of the public improvements that were conditioned for this project, has obtained plan approval from the Engineering PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 15,2000-Page 3 • • • Department for those plans, and has proceeded with the rough grading. To move forward with the proposed options, the applicant must amend those construction plans, which will be difficult. Mr. Rager discussed some of the issues that have been dealt with, such as signalization. There is a report from Kittleson & Associates for mitigation. The applicant has made improvements and provided for further recommended improvements in their plan, but there may be some misunderstandings regarding potential traffic impacts. Generally, there are no other changes in traffic impacts from the 1998 plan and the applicant has made some progress and only needs design approval from ODOT on the signalization at 68th and Dartmouth. There is also mention in the report for a reimbursement district for _ the sewer line put in on Hermosa Way, so the applicant will need to pay the assessments, and the report also requires clarification of the storm drainage and water quality design. It will not be difficult for the applicant to meet those standards. Additional grading has been requested and the Engineering Department is questioning some of the fill that they have put in, so has recommended a geotechnical engineer certification before any further grading is done. Commissioner Padgett asked if widening to two lanes and then narrowing back to one lane east of 72nd and Dartmouth is possible to do within the existing city right- of-way or whether it will require the purchase of private property by the applicant. Mr. Rager said that he believes it will require some acquisition of right-of-way by the applicant. The applicant has already acquired the right-of-way from the property owner in order to do full-street improvements on 72nd and there should be no problem acquiring it on Dartmouth. Commissioner Topp asked if the current project would be affected if the options presented are approved or not approved. Dick Bewersdorff said that construction has begun on the 1998 application that was approved. If either Option 1 or 2 is approved, then the applicant will have to meet the new conditions of approval, and if neither is approved, they will continue with the current project as approved in 1998. It wasn't known that there was a problem until the signal coordination report was done. President Wilson .expressed concern with staffs interpretation of the connectivity standards. Staff counted eight streets and seven intersections along Dartmouth, ` including the planned backage road and "flyover" of Hall Blvd. The connectivity standards says all development must demonstrate how certain conditions will be met as to design and performance, and he questions how it can be demonstrated that these planned streets will actually be built. Additionally, evaluation of Dartmouth Street and 72nd Avenue has been made, but not Hermosa Way, which would also apply to that standard. Mr. Wilson contends that a street is needed connecting Dartmouth to Hermosa. Everything has been provided for except connection and without it there is a huge amount of unmitigated traffic impact. Karen Fox and Dick Bewersdorff agreed that this was a good point. The concept that was utilized was the performance option distance between various frontages PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 15,2000-Page 4 • Ir on buildings to various driveways and this met the standard. President Wilson responded that he feels the whole spirit of connectivity is being violated here. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Ed Christensen, Christensen Engineering, said they felt they had presented a detailed, site friendly plan and had tried to work the pedestrian connectivity through the site as much as possible while meeting the.design standards. The plan was resubmitted in 1998 in order to meet the criteria and intent under Tigard Triangle design standards. The current options are requested due to changes in the retail community since 1998 requiring larger, more flexible retail sites. These two options - are presented as concept plans in order to provide for more flexibility in meeting the design standards and then detailed plans can be provided later. Mr. Christensen explained the various areas in which they felt the intent of the Triangle design standards had been met. He noted that it is not an easy process meeting all of the requirements. They do not feel there is a large difference between the options presented and what they are trying to achieve and what was approved in 1998. Option 2 differs from the 1998 plan by adding 1.5 acres. This will actually reduce the overall traffic impact that would result from future development of that land. It also differs by allowing the flexibility to move pad C, but does not change frontage along Dartmouth and 72"d as contended by staff. Working with staff, sidewalk overhangs and covered walkways were included in the overall length of buildings on both those frontages to meet that standard. There is more than adequate connectivity through the site for pedestrian and traffic movement. The performance option is also met for the number of access points onto Dartmouth Street, but not for the number of intersections along a section of Hermosa Way. However, existing intersections and driveways function at a level of service of A-B, bringing into question whether more connectors are necessary. Mr. Christensen also discussed topography and the various elevations of the shopping center, explaining the physical difficulties in meeting the connectivity criteria, ADA standards, and retail community standards due to grade levels. Slope issues raised by staff were actually stockpiled materials that staff did not realize were there. Fill concerns raised by staff have been tested by a geotechnical consultant and all meet or exceed the standards. Mr. Christensen stated that the concept plan allows for the needed flexibility to better implement a shopping center. He briefly discussed the tenancy issues and the need for flexibility. He said it is not possible to go through the design evaluation team process for each tenant space because that would be too time consuming and would result in construction not beginning this year because of the time needed to meet the current conditions of approval. The landscaping and other concept plans are detailed as previously submitted. They want to work with staff to remedy anything missed in the plans, but the DET process will considerably delay this development. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 15,2000- Page 5 • • President Wilson asked if the 1998 approved plan went through the DET process. Mr. Christensen responded that it did not, the plan was deemed to have met the design standards outright. Mr. Wilson stated that if the standards are not met, an applicant must go through the DET process. The Planning Commission does not have the authority to say that an applicant does not have to comply with the Code. Mr. Christensen stated that there is only one major issue of compliance, which is the façade along Hermosa Way. There only needs to be agreement that a wall with display windows constitutes a facade. The other items in the recommendation can be shown to be met. Dick Bewersdorff clarified a misunderstanding about the DET process. He said the applicant does not need to go through the process for each detailed plan for tenant spaces, only one time for the concept plan, and then each detailed plan goes through the review process with staff. Commissioner Padgett commented that the only disagreement with the conditions in the staff report that the Planning Commission has seen is a letter from Perkins Coie (Exhibit C). President Wilson pointed out that there are two major issues. One is meeting the Triangle design standards and the other is condition #1 requiring the DET process. The staff report, starting on page 20, sets out where staff feels the plan does not meet the standards. Those are DET issues and they can relax the standards to a degree. The other conditions are technical and not related to the DET process. Commissioner Topp added that the applicant must either demonstrate that they are in compliance with the standards or must go through the DET process. Mr. Christensen said that functionally this is the same plan as what was submitted and approved in 1998, except for the sound wall on Hermosa Way. He detailed the applicant's position on the conditions, as follows. Condition #1: Request that this.be removed. Condition #5: The'.applicant agrees with this condition and will comply. Condition #7: This was based on information not provided to them and they are unable to comply because it is not under their control. Condition #22: Request that this condition be removed. This was in regards to the 25% slopes along Hermosa Way, which was a stockpile from stripping the areas below for grading. This is not sensitive lands, it is under construction. Condition #23: Modify 4" fence to 4' fence. Condition #26: Request that this condition be removed because it is not necessary under the design standards for zero setback to the wetlands. Condition #27: There is no revision required. The requirements of pedestrian walkways are met. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 15,2000-Page 6 • • \ • 1 Condition #28: They agree with parking area redesign along 72nd Avenue. Along Hermosa Way, the wall would be acting as a facade, resulting in zero setback to the right-of-way, so no additional landscaping would be required along there. This is contingent upon approval of a wall versus a building. Commissioner Topp stated that he has trouble with the concept of a freestanding wall being the facade and resulting in a zero setback as opposed to a building wall. Mr. Christensen responded that it is allowable under the Triangle design standards. President Wilson said that was only if there was some topographical or similar constraint, and that is the way it has been interpreted in the DET meetings also. If there is some reason why it cannot be met, then an alternative is usually acceptable. Condition #29: They ask that this be removed because it requires going through the DET process for zero-to-10-foot setbacks, which they contend is met all around the site. There is some question about whether they are required to have 50% of the building fronting non-arterial streets. The design standards are not specific on this because they say arterial and collector streets, but not local streets. In addition, the condition says no false windows are allowed for the purposes .of meeting design standards, and that is not correct. The terms "false windows" and "display windows" are used interchangeably, and display windows are allowed and are currently being used. They ask that the whole condition be removed because it is unnecessary. The windows will be properly placed according to the standards. President Wilson advised that the staff report conditions simply recite parts of the code. If a condition cannot be met, then an alternative design proposal can be submitted to the DET prior to detailed plan review submittal. Because this is conceptual and the Planning Commission is not supplied with all of the details, either the standards must be met or the applicant must submit to the DET an alternative to meeting the standards. Staff does not have enough information from a conceptual plan in order to make an evaluation. Mr. Christensen replied that the standards will be met, they understand the criteria and the concept, and they simply want the flexibility to change the site in order to develop it. The staff report in condition #1 requires them to go to the DET. President Wilson said this was because staff saw some things in the plan that did not appear to comply with the standards. Instead of requiring them to go to the DET as a condition of approval, preferable language would be that when a detailed plan is provided, the applicant will comply with the entire letter of the Triangle standards. Mr. Christensen agreed and reiterated that the standards will be complied with in the detailed plans, if the issues regarding Hermosa Way can be taken care of here. Mr. Wilson said that may be the one issue that should go to the DET, and Mr. Christensen responded that the time involved in that process will considerably delay construction. Although they will still have to submit detailed plans and have a site design review, that is not required for a grading permit. They need to be able to do the grading during the summer months when the moisture content of the dirt is less. Commissioner Topp disagreed that this was the only issue to be resolved, there is also the disagreement with condition #29. Staff says false windows are not allowed and the applicant says they are allowed. Karen Fox replied that the plan showed PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May I5,2000-Page 7 • blank walls, not false or display windows, so staff assumed that they were proposing blank walls. If the applicant provides for display windows, then that meets the standards. Upon Commissioner Topp's inquiry about the purpose of the • windows, Ms. Fox quoted from the design principles in the Tigard Triangle standards that, in summary, says they are for aesthetic purposes. Display windows are an option listed in the standards and are acceptable. The conceptual plan submitted only showed blank walls, which would not meet the standards, and this was the reason for the condition. • Mr. Christensen said that the 1998 plan also omitted some details on the elevations, but it was noted that the applicant would meet the standards and this was sufficient to both the applicant and the Commission for approval of that plan. He then continued with detailing the applicant's position on the conditions: Condition #30: The criteria regarding building facades extending more than 300 feet has been met-..by adding entrances to the buildings at less than 300-foot intervals. Mr. Christensen explained the changes made to the 1998 plan to accomplish this. Condition #33: This is similar to a condition for the proposal in 1998. They do not • have the ability to hide the mechanical rooftop equipment because of the 35-foot elevation drop along Hermosa Way and 72'. This is alleviated by painting the equipment the same color as the roof. President Wilson commented that it is common to put screens around the equipment and agreed that this should not be an issue. Condition #35: A foot of landscaping was inadvertently omitted on the plan. This condition is met. Conditions #40 and #41: They have an existing permit with the Army Corps of Engineers and DSL that expired because the improvements were not complete, and have been advised that their request for a one-year extension will be granted. For condition #41, a 15-foot buffer is approved and in some cases had to mitigate the buffer off-site. They have submitted to staff documentation of that approval. Karen Fox indicated that she has not had time to verify the documentation. Condition #42: Visual clearance is not applicable to the design standards. Karen Fox explained that staff's reason for imposing this condition is due to a conflict in Tigard Triangle design standards and the city's code for visual clearance on a corner. She agrees with the applicant that there is no conflict as it applies in this case. After a brief discussion, it was determined that this is not an issue. Condition #50: They have no problem designing something to catch cars; however, they do not understand the definition of drop-off grade or separation. There is a distinction between the Uniform Building Code, which is applicable, and the Zoning Code that applies to anything that is not a building as far as drop-off is concerned. This could be considered a 4:1 slope. Mr. Christensen asked if this term is defined in the code. Karen Fox said there is no definition pertinent to this site; this was intended to relate specifically to the parking lot by driveway D next to 72"d. The PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 15,2000- Pagc 8 • • • UBC states that any drop-off greater than 30" requires a handrail. A 2:1 slope is the most common slope for development concerns. President Wilson said the applicant's concern is noted. Condition #56: They feel that the wall would suffice to meet this condition. Condition $57: This condition will be complied with. Condition #58: They feel that the wall along Hermosa Way with display windows would suffice. A break was convened at 10:00 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 10:07 p.m. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Barbara & Dan Bauer, 12335 SW 72"d, own two corner lots on 72nd & Hermosa. Their home and business is on 72"d where the five lanes will narrow down to two lanes. If that road goes through, it will be only eight feet from their home and will cut their business parking area down to 15 feet, causing delivery trucks to extend onto 72"d when unloading, which will put them out of business. There is no off- street parking. Other concerns are regarding run-off into the wall if the road is not put in, and the soil nails that will create problems for future development. President Wilson noted that the applicant will have to purchase right-of-way for the road and the Bauers, as the property owners, can negotiate these issues for that acquisition. Mr. Bauer is also concerned about the current traffic problem being exacerbated. Dave Cram, 800 NW 6th Ave. #206, Portland, OR 97205, signed up to speak but did not do so. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Olsen asked for clarification regarding the need to finish the grading this summer. It was pointed out that grading can be done according to the 1998 plan, but no further until the conditions are met for an approved option. President Wilson asked for clarification on how long the DET process takes. It was established that the process takes a minimum of six weeks. Commissioner Topp asked how the DET process affects the applicant's ability to begin grading. Mr. Bewersdorff said the DET meets with the applicant and then determines if the proposal conforms with the design standards. It is unsure how the 30-foot cut into the hill on Hermosa will be handled by the DET. There have been prior approvals where they have modified the standards due to topography. Commissioner Topp outlined the applicant's various options. Option 0 is to grade the entire site pursuant to the 1998 approval. With the proposed options 1 and 2, the access points and most of the parking are essentially the same, but there is a difference in the location of some of the buildings and the 30 feet of excavation PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 15,2000-Pagc 9 • • • • by Hermosa Way. He asked if there is a possibility of splitting the grading into phases where the portion in contention would be the last to be graded. President Wilson pointed out that grading has already begun, but to grade the proposed area the applicant must purchase the homes, and they don't want to do that unless they know they will get approval. Mr. Christensen stated that with the 1998 plan, they have a 28-foot cut at the back of the Hermosa lots. The option requires additional grading off-site and to do that they must submit and get approval of the improvement plans for Hermosa Way in order to get a grading permit. They cannot get the off-site improvement _ plans approved through the DET in timely fashion for grading on the site of the Hermosa Way lots during the summer months, which therefore nullifies the option. The street widening requires right-of-way acquisition, which cannot happen anytime soon. Commissioner Topp asked if it would benefit the applicant to proceed with grading three-fourths of the site while they go through the approval process for the part of Hermosa Way in contention. Mr. Christensen said the grading must be done in the summer because of moisture content in the dirt. Waiting for approval would defer a large amount of grading to after the summer months. Commissioner Topp said one of his concerns is the response from ODOT and the amount of traffic resulting from this plan. He asked what the reason is for the street improvement. President Wilson responded that this issue was addressed in 1998. At that time it was already zoned, and the zoning assumes a certain traffic generation. Once it is zoned, a project cannot be denied on that zoning short of a moratorium. The problem is that the zoning was a mistake because it was done under the assumption that numerous improvements would be in place that have not actually occurred. • Commissioner Topp said another concern is the letter from the attorneys, item #4 regarding condition #7. He agrees that a condition cannot be imposed if it is not under the applicant's control, but it is up to the applicant to show on the plans how the problem will be remedied, and now they contend that they cannot be required to do what is shown on the plans. President Wilson pointed out that staff cited the condition as a solution for the traffic problem. Mr. Topp feels the applicant should be required to provide a solution. The applicant's response is that the problem will resolve itself by people taking different traffic patterns in order to avoid that area. President Wilson said that that was the reason he was pushing for the connectivity, in order to give people more options. Karen Fox stated that staff has no objection to a connectivity recommendation by the Commission. Brian Rager added that a traffic study needs to be done. Commissioner Padgett pointed out that if people have a hard time getting onto and off of the property due to heavy traffic, then it is the property that will feel the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 15,2000-Page 10 gir negative results because people will not continue to go there. If the shopping center is willing to accept that, then that is their choice. A compromise may be to agree with the applicant that it is not right to force them to buy the property necessary for widening, but have the applicant sign a non-remonstrance for an LID for the widening of that street when the property across the street does develop. Mr. Rager said that is acceptable. They have a standard street improvement agreement that could also provide the flexibility that if the adjacent property does develop, the applicant is not precluded from participating in that: Commissioner Padgett added that this would continue to recognize that this development has a direct impact on that intersection and what happens across _ the intersection, and yet possibly eliminates the roadblock they have to making that happen. Mr. Christensen said that would be acceptable to them. Commissioner Padgett reiterated that if the main result of those lanes not being widened on 72nd is that people have trouble getting out of and therefore don't frequent that property, then the applicant is accepting that consequence. • Commissioner Topp asked why there would be a traffic backup as reported in the traffic study when there will be coordinated traffic signals. Mr. Bewersdorff explained how a build-up of traffic can occur and pointed out that it is a signal timing situation that will need to be worked out. A brief discussion was held on the future development and traffic problems of the area. Commissioner Padgett stated that when the area on the other side of 72nd is developed, the intent is to have the street wide enough to eliminate the traffic problems. President Wilson stated that the problem regarding Hermosa Way and the DET process still needed to be addressed. Commissioner Topp commented that if that problem can be.resolved and the applicant is willing to comply with the other conditions, then they will not have to go through the DET process. Condition #1 can be changed to require the applicant to either comply with the conditions OR go to the DET. President Wilson said he would like to know why staff made this an overall condition and then repeated the other problems individually. He thought there were quite a few unresolved issues. i Mr. Bewersdorff said it was done that way to provide the Commission the option of either having that overall condition or dealing with each one individually. Staff struggled with that because they were uncomfortable with trying to approve something on Hermosa Way that may not meet the intent of the Tigard Triangle design. In regard to building frontage and windows facing the street, Mr. Bewersdorff stated that the intent of the design standards is that this requirement applies to local streets as well as collectors and arterials. While the applicant is contending that these standards do not apply to this local access street, staff is saying that PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 15,2000-Page 1 I • • • they are applicable to local streets. Commissioner Padgett stated that he was on the task force and that staff is right, that was the intent. A discussion was held concerning the need to add another street to meet the connectivity standard. It was suggested that the addition of a private street could be added as a condition of approval. A private street would not be held to the standards for public streets, but width requirements could still be imposed for two-way traffic to ensure it is not simply an aisle. The discussion continued regarding street and accessway requirements, as well as setback requirements. The applicant contents they can't get the 0,-10' setback on Hermosa because of _ the slope. Ms. Fox said the current property is a 7-10% slope and the applicant is self-imposing the steep topography, and she feels it is not necessary to drop the building 30' below grade because it could be designed to be above grade and to front the street as is intended by the standards. This portion of the site (the Hermosa lots) is zoned MUE, which allows the same things as General Commercial plus some additional things. There are also practical considerations, such as servicing at the rear of the building. Since they have to have a building façade within 0-10' of Hermosa, the applicant is proposing a wall with false windows in order to qualify. Pursuant to the discussions, the following determinations were made: A compromise would be made on condition #7 regarding the traffic lanes, as discussed earlier. Approval can be granted by changing condition #1 to require the applicant to be in compliance with the design standards or, if they do not agree with or cannot conform with the standards, they would have to go through the DET process. This would be done by making condition #1 an option rather than mandatory. Condition#23 should be modified to provide for a 4-foot-high fence. Condition #22 should require that the applicant must verify the stockpiling from construction. ` A new condition should be required for the applicant to construct a 24-foot-wide private street connecting Dartmouth with Hermosa, in accordance with Section 18.620.020 for street connectivity. Condition #7 should require that the applicant enter into a street improvement agreement that obligates them to participate in the future widening of SW Dartmouth Street east of SW 72nd Avenue to provide two.eastbound travel lanes. This. presumes that the applicant would be joining in with development of adjacent property, so the intent of the condition is that the applicant's share will be based on the length of a two-lane section needed to safely transition to one lane eastbound, based on recommendations from the MUTCD. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 15,2000- Page 12 • • Condition #29 can be struck because the proposal provides for display windows and complies with the standards. Condition #43 should be modified to provide for sufficient screening to hide rooftop mechanical equipment.. • Condition #50 regarding the height requirement should be modified to provide for a railing where the drop off rate of separation is at least 30" or a 2:1 slope. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the request for Planned Development - Review (PD) 2000-00001/Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 2000-00005/Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 2000-00002; and Planned Development Review (PD) 2000- 00002/Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 2000-00004/Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 2000-00003, subject to the conditions of approval with changes, deletions, and modifications as discussed above and summarized as follows: Condition #1 is made optional by changing "shall" to "may, at the applicant's option,"; Condition #7 is changed to require that the applicant enter into a street improvement agreement that obligates them to participate in the future widening of SW Dartmouth Street east of SW 72nd Avenue to provide two eastbound travel lanes. The applicant's share will be based on the length of a two-lane section needed to safely transition to one lane eastbound based on recommendations from the MUTCD; Condition #23 is modified by changing the fence measurement from inches to feet (4" to 4'); Condition #43 is modified to reflect that the applicant shall provide sufficient screening to hide rooftop mechanical equipment; Condition #50 is modified so that where the vertical drop-off rate of separation is at least 30 inches or exceeds a 2:1 slope, the applicant shall install a guardrail or wall railing; and A new condition #73 is added to provide that the applicant shall provide a minimum 24' curb-to-curb public or private street connecting Dartmouth Street to Hermosa Way, distinguishing the term "street" from the term "aisle" as it is the intent that a street, not an aisle by which cars enter or depart parking spaces, shall be constructed. Commissioner Topp seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 15,2000- Page 13 • • • • , 5.3 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PD) 2000-00002/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2000-00004/LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 2000-00003 TRI-COUNTY CENTER— OPTION 2 PROPOSAL: This is a request for a conceptual plan review as a Planned Development for the new construction of a 330,312-square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; and a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership. A prior request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Water Resource Overlay District including fill and mitigation of a portion of the existing wetlands was granted on June 23, 1998 and became effective July 23, 1998 by Final Order of the Tigard City Council. The 1998 City Council decision also included a Planned Development Review, Site Development Review, and Lot Line Adjustment for a detailed plan for this site. However, this new proposal differs from the prior plan and, therefore, requires a new land use application and approval for a Planned Development, Sensitive Lands Review, and a Lot Line Adjustment. LOCATION: The site is located on the south side of SW Dartmouth Street and on the west side of SW 72nd Avenue and is east of State Highway 217. The site also includes the 6 lots along the north side of SW Hermosa Way. The site address is 12265 SW 72nd Avenue; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot 04200; 2S101BA, Tax Lots 00100, 00101, 00300, 00400, 00401 and 00402; 2S101AB, Tax • Lots 01300, 01400, 01401, 01402, 01403, 01404. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial (C-G) and Mixed Use Employment (MUE). ZONING DESIGNATION: C-G (PD) and MUE. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.350, 18.360, 18.390, 18.410, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.725, 18.730, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795, and 18.810. NOTE: This case was included with item #5.2 above. 6. OTHER BUSINESS None 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary ATTEST: President Nick Wilson PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 15,2000-Page 14 '` EXHIBIT D CITY OF TIGARD Community(Development Shaping Better Community CITY OF TIGARD • Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO.2000-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION Case Numbers: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(PD)2000-00001/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR)2000-00005/LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT(MIS)2000-00002 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(PD)2000-00002/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR)2000-00004/LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT(MIS)2000-00003 Case Name: TRI-COUNTY CENTER—OPTIONS 1 &2 Names of Owners: Michael F. Laurens. Gordon S. Martin.Gordon R. Martin, Sheila Martin.Jason E. & Carolyn L. Philips. Rodney C. & Margaret Lyman. Mary Manley. and Marvin Von Renchler Name of Applicant: Christensen Engineering- Contact: Ed Christensen Address of Applicant: 7150 SW Hampton. Suite 226.Tigard. Oregon. 97223 Location of Property: The site is located on the south side of SW Dartmouth Street and on the west side of SW 72nd Avenue and is east of State Highway 217. The site also includes the 6 lots along the north side of Hermoso Way. The site address is 12265 SW 72"°Avenue Tax Map/Lot Nos.: WCTM 1 S136CD. Tax Lot 04200; 2S101 BA.Tax Lots 00100.00101. 00300. 00400.00401 and 00402; 2S101 AB, Tax Lots 01300, 01400, 01401, 01402, 01403 and 01404. Request: ➢ A final order approving with conditions a land use application for a planned development/conceptual plan review for two alternative designs for new construction of a shopping center on a total site area of 27.33 acres. The approval includes a sensitive lands review and pa lot line adjustment. The commission held a public hearing to receive testimony on this application on May 15, 2000. The planning commission has based their decision on the facts, findings and conclusions described in further detail within this final order. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial and Mixed Use Employment. ZONE: C-G (PD) and MUE. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.350, 18.360, 18.390, 18.410, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.725, 18.730, 18.745, .18.755, 18.765, 18.775, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795,and 18.810. Action: > ❑ Approval as Requested © Approval with Conditions ❑ Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: • © Owners of Record Within the Required Distance © Affected Government Agencies E3 The Affected Citizen Involvement Team Facilitator © The Applicants and Owners The adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from the Planning Division/Community Development Department at the City of Tigard City Hall. Final Decision: THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON MAY 19, 2000 AND BECOMES IS" iEQ EFtECTI�E ON UN:E � ZOQ.4.:UNLESS ANAPPEAIR::....::::.::..:.........: ....................................... Appeal: The decision of the Review Authority is final for purposes of appeal on the date that it is mailed. Any party with standing as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1. may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.390.040.G.2. of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides.that a written appeal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the notice of the decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON JUNE 5, 2000. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division at (503) 639-4171. • EXHIBIT E APPEAL FILING FORM - 1�'i� FOR LAND USE DECISIONS TYPE II III CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223(503) 639-4171 FAX: (503) 684-7297 The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use Code, therefore, sets out specific requirements for filing appeals on certain land use decisions. The following form has been developed to assist you in filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper form. To determine what filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have regarding the appeal process, please contact the Planning Division or the City Recorder at the phone/fax listed at the top of this form. GENERAL INFORMATION :::::::::FOR;STAFF€€USEONLY .............. . Property Address/Location(s) and Name(s) of the Application Being r� Case No (s)' pQ U7b--QDVC1. Appealed: Tri-County Center Options / & 2; 't-r 2t 0. / .r'Ifs.)dA9o- .Case Name(s):,'tRI-eoj:&MI-rt l=ie. t;,701;3 SW 72nd & Dartmouth Receipt:No. How Do You Qualify As A Party?: Applicant Christensen Engineering Application:°Accepted'By';::.::':: o_.. . : Approved As'ToiForm:By Appellant's Address: 7150 SW Hampton, Suite 226 (ate: City/State: Ti ard, OR Zi P: 97223 y °,:.Derided AS..ToForm B , Day Phone Where You Can Be Reached:(503 ) 598-1866 {late Scheduled Date Decision Is To Be Final: 6-06-2000 Rev.a0/3re6. ...tacurptnunastersrappeai:doc-- Date Notice of Final Decision Was Given: 5-19-2000 Specific Grounds For Appeal or Review: REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS See Attached. ✓ Application Elements Submitted: ta Appeal Filing Form (completed) II Filing Fee(based on criteria below) > Director's Decision to Hearings Officer $ 250.00 > Expedited Review(deposit) $ 300.00 > Hearing Referee $ 500.00 RECEIVED PLANNING r. Planning Commission/Hearing's Ofcer to City Council $1,745.00 (+Transcript) JUN 0 5 2000 Signature(s) of A el nt(s): CITY OF TIGARD / APPEAL FILING FORM FOR LAND USE DECISIONS I:\curpin\rnasters\appeal (OVER FOR ADDITIONAL WRITING SPACE) PAGE 1 OF 1 • • RECEIVED PLANNING PERKINS COIE LLP JUN 14 2000 1211 SOUTHWEST FIFTH AVENUE,SUITE 1500•PORTLAND,OREGON 97204-3715 MARK D.WHITLOW TELEPHONE:503 727-2000• FACSIMILE:503 727-2222 CITY OF TIGARD (503)727-2073 whitm@perkinscoie.com • • June 13, 2000 • SENT VIA FACSIMILE AND MAIL Karen Fox City of Tigard • 13123 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02PC— Tri-County Center PD 2000-00001/SLR 2000-00005/MIS 2000-00002 PD 2000-00002/SLR 2000-0002/SLR 2000-0004/MIS 2000-00003 Dear Ms. Fox: In response to your transmittal letter of June 9, 2000 to Ed Christensen regarding the above, enclosed is a copy of the applicant's reissued statement of appeal covering both Options 1 and 2. The original will be mailed to you. Regarding the City Council appeal hearing, we wish to reiterate that the appeal is precautionary only. My prior letter transmitting the appeal (additional copy enclosed) requested that no action be taken on the appeal by the City. Accordingly, we would request that the appeal not be scheduled for hearing at this time. Once the. matter is calendared for hearing, it is problematic to reschedule it in the event that discussions with staff are yet ongoing regarding revised site plans and their compliance with applicable standards. The applicant is prepared to sign a further waiver which would toll the 120-day rule from the date of the filing of the appeal to such future date as the applicant would request that the City begin processing the appeal, in the event that the applicant and staff fail to reach agreement on the applicant's revised site plans. Thank you for your time and cooperation regarding this matter. Please call me with your questions or comments. • V- ruly yours, Mark D. Whitlow MDW:djf Enclosures cc: Dick Bewersdorff Clients Ed Christensen ANCHORAGE 13ELLEVUE I301SE DENVER HONG KONG LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK OLYMPIA PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEATFLE SPOKANE fAIPEl WASHINGTON, D.C. [3318I-0001/1'A003689.695j STRATEGIC ALLIANCE: RUSSELL& IMMOIILIN, VANCOUVER,CANADA • • PERKINS COTE LLP 1211 SOUTHWEST FIFTH AVENUE,SUITE 1500•PORTLAND,OREGON 97204-3715 TELEPHONE: 503 727-2000• FACSIMILE: 503 727-2222 ROGER A.ALFRED (503)727-2094 alfrr@perkinscoie.com DUPLICATION OF JUNE 5, 2000 LETTER June 13, 2000 SENT VIA MESSENGER Tigard City Council c/o Richard Bewersdorff Planning Director 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Notice of Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC Dear Mr. Bewersdorff: This office represents the applicant regarding the above. We submit this notice of appeal of the planning commission's final order numbered 2000-002 PC, dated May 19, 2000. The applicant has standing to appeal this decision to the city council pursuant to Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.390.040.G.1.a. In its final order, the planning commission approved with conditions the applications for a conceptual plan review of two alternative designs for construction of the Tri-County Center shopping center in the Tigard Triangle. The planning commission also approved, with conditions, a sensitive lands review and a lot line adjustment for both alternative designs The city file numbers for the Option 1 applications are PD 2000-001, SLR 2000-005 and MIS 2000-002; the numbers for the Option 2 applications are PD 2000-002, SLR 2000-004 and MIS 2000-003. As addressed in detail below, the applicant appeals the planning commission's imposition of the following conditions: 1, 7, 22, 25, 26, 56, 58, and 73. 1. Condition 1 "OVERALL CONDITION: The entire shopping center proposal may be reviewed, at the applicant's option, by the Design Evaluation Team (DET) prior to detailed plan submittal in addition to the conditions listed below. After DET review, it is recommended that the applicant submit detailed plans for individual buildings as each building tenant is identified." [33181-0001/PA003687.9961 ANCHORAGE BF LLEVUIE BOISE DENVER HONG KONG I.OS ANGELES MENLO PARK OLYMPIA PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SPOKANE TAIPEI WASILING"ION, D.C. SIRAI'I GIC ALLIANCE: RIISS1 I.1.& DNMO11LIN, VANCOUVER. CANADA • ' • Tigard City Council June 13, 2000 Page 2 This condition was rewritten by the planning commission during the May 15, 2000 public hearing in order to make DET review optional, rather than a mandatory condition. To the extent the condition requires the applicant to either comply with the applicable criteria or go through DET review, this condition merely restates the basic code requirement. However, as worded, the condition allows the applicant the option to submit the entire proposal to the DET for review prior to detailed plan submittal"in addition to the conditions listed below." Thus, if the applicant elects to undergo DET review, the condition also would require the applicant to fulfill all of the listed conditions in the final order. However, the individual conditions that address the planning commissions concerns regarding compliance with applicable design standards require either fulfillment of the conditions or submittal of alternative plans to the DET. Accordingly, condition number one is extraneous and should be removed. Moreover, it is unclear whether the planning commission determined that certain of the applicable criteria are satisfied or not, thus making it impossible for applicant to know whether or not revised plans or DET review are required. During the proceedings before the planning commission, applicant and his attorney described interpretations of the code that would result in findings that the proposed plan was in compliance with the criteria at issue. However, the planning commission's final order neither expressly accepts nor rejects the applicant's reading of the code. For example, it is unclear whether or not the planning commission determined that the zero to ten foot building setback is satisfied by the proposed sound wall along Hermoso Street. At the hearing, applicant argued that the proposed wall is a "building" within the code definition, and therefore the setback standard is met. The planning commission's final order does not accept or reject this assertion, but contains two conditions, numbered 56 and 58, that would require the applicant to revise the plans "to comply with the 0-foot building setback standards," or submit alternative plans to the DET for review. As described in more detail below regarding conditions 56 and 58, the code is clear that the definition of a "building" includes a wall, and therefore there is no need to either revise the plans or submit alternative plans to the DET, because the building setback standards are satisfied. Condition number one would require the applicant to fulfill all conditions, regardless of whether or not DET review is elected. Conditions 56 and 58 would require submittal of revised plans or DET review. Under the clear 133181-000 l/PA003687.996 6/13/00 i • , Tigard City Council June 13, 2000 Page 3 language of the applicable setback standards and the definition of"building," neither should be required. Because the individual conditions that address the planning commission's concerns regarding compliance with applicable design standards require either fulfillment of the conditions or submittal of alternative plans to the DET, condition number one is extraneous and should be removed. 2. Condition 7 "The applicant shall enter into a street improvement agreement that obligates them to participate in the future widening of SW Dartmouth, east of SW.72nd Avenue to provide two (2) east bound travel lanes. The applicant's share of the improvements will be based on the length of a two (2) lane section needed to safely transition to one (1) lane eastbound based on recommendation from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD 1988 Edition)." This condition requires applicant to acquire land and undertake improvements that are not proportional to the impacts that will result from the proposed shopping center. The condition does not ensure that applicant will be required to only pay its share of the required improvements. 3. Conditions 22 and 25 "The applicant shall verify that there will not be (and has not been since grading has begun on this project) any ground disturbance exceeding 10 cubic yards in the area of slopes exceeding 25%" "Option 2 — Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall revise the plans and relocate the parking area near the bend of Hermoso Way outside of the areas which exceed 25% slopes, or address and meet the Sensitive Lands Review standards for any ground disturbance exceeding 10 cubic yards on lands sloped greater than 25%." These two conditions do not recognize the fact that many of the existing slopes on the site are the result of ongoing site work pursuant to previously-issued authorizations by the city. Applicant is willing to comply with this condition as it [33181-0001/PA003687.996 6/13/00 i •. IIP Tigard City Council June 13, 2000 Page 4 applies to naturally occurring sensitive areas, but not as it applies to all slopes on the property that exceed 25%. This condition should be modified accordingly. 4. Condition 26 "The applicant shall revise the plans and provide landscaping, an arcade, or a hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path along SW Dartmouth Street between the structures and the wetlands/public street, or shall submit the alternative design proposal for front yard setback design in accordance with the Tigard Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030 to the Design Evaluation Team prior to detailed plan review submittal." This condition misconstrues the applicable criteria. The proposed structures along SW Dartmouth Street have a zero-foot setback from the wetlands that separate the structures from the right-of-way, as allowed by Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.620.030.A.2. Condition 26 would require the applicant to revise the plans to provide landscaping or hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path "between the structures and the wetlands/public street." First, because of the zero-foot setback, all that lies between the structures and the pedestrian path are the wetlands; therefore, code section 18.620.030.A.3 does not apply to this area. Further, Section 18.620.030.A.3 requires that "landscaping, an arcade, or a hard-surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path must be provided between a structure and a public street or accessway." This code section does not require landscaping or hard surfacing between a structure and a wetland, or a wetland and a public street. This condition misconstrues the applicable criteria, and should be removed. 5. Condition 56 (option 1 only) "The applicant shall revise the plans to comply with the 0-foot building setback standards as contained in the Tigard Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030.A.2 for Pad E or shall submit the alternative design proposal for building setback to the Design Evaluation Team in accordance with Section 18.620.090 prior to detailed plan review submittal." [33181-000 1/PA003687.9961 6/13/00 • • • Tigard City Council June 13, 2000 Pages The code section at issue, 18.620.030.A.2 establishes "the minimum building setback from public street rights-of-way" as zero feet, with a maximum of ten feet. Section 18.120.030.30 contains the following definition of"building" for purposes of the code: "That which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner." Option 1 includes a six to eight foot sound wall behind Pad E, along the entire length of the project boundary with Hermoso Street. This proposed edifice is clearly within the code definition of a "building." Because it is immediately adjacent to the Hermoso right-of-way, the zero to ten foot building setback requirement is satisfied, and this condition should be removed. 6. Condition 58 (option 2 only) .. "The applicant shall revise the plans to comply with the 0-foot building setback standards as contained in the Tigard Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030.A.2.for Majors II-IV, or shall submit the alternative design proposal for building setback to the Design Evaluation Team in accordance with Section 18.620.090 prior to detailed plan review submittal." The code section at issue, 18.620.030.A.2 establishes "the minimum building setback from public street rights-of-way" as zero feet, with a maximum of ten feet. • Section 18.120.030.30 contains the following definition of"building" for purposes of the code: "That which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner." Option 2 includes a six to eight foot sound wall behind Majors II-IV, along the entire length of the project boundary with Hermoso Street. This proposed edifice is clearly within the code definition of a "building." Because it is immediately adjacent to the Hermoso right-of-way, the zero to ten foot building setback requirement is satisfied, and this condition should be removed. 7. Condition 73. "The applicant shall revise the plans and shall provide a public or private street connecting SW Dartmouth to Hermoso Way. The street, [33181-0001/PA003687.996 i 6/13/00 • • Tigard City Council June 13, 2000 Page 6 as distinguished from the term aisle, shall be a minimum 24 feet(24') from curb to curb:" This condition addresses the street connectivity standards set forth in Section 18.620.020. The May 8, 2000 staff report prepared by city planning staff applied the street connectivity standards and concluded that "an extension of a street through the Tri-County Shopping Center site from SW Dartmouth Street is not required." Staff Report at 20. This is because, in making the requisite eight-intersections-per-mile calculation, staff correctly included planned intersections at SW Dartmouth Street and the Backage Road and at SW Dartmouth Street at the planned fly over to SW Hall • Blvd. The staff report submitted to the planning commission concluded that the street connectivity standards were satisfied, and the issue of noncompliance with Section 18.620.020 was raised for the first time by the planning commission at the May 15, 2000 hearing, after the public hearing was closed. Accordingly, applicant was precluded from commenting or objecting on the new public street requirement. Condition 73 requires applicant to dedicate land for a street that will not be required when planned connecting streets to Dartmouth Street are completed. As recognized in the staff report, six intersections along the length of Dartmouth Street are required to meet the connectivity standard of Section 18.620.020. There are currently five intersections along Dartmouth Street. Thus, even if only one of the two planned streets are constructed, there will be the requisite six intersections without the. street requirement of condition 73. • Further, condition 73 imposes an exaction that is not proportional to the impacts that will result from the proposed shopping center. Dartmouth Street is currently not compliant with the street connectivity standards, regardless of the proposed Tri-County Center. Imposition of this condition requires the applicant to pay for more than its proportional share of required improvements for street connectivity. The condition takes an unnecessarily large percentage of the site area that is otherwise needed for development, landscaping, or open space. Further, requiring that a public or private street bisect the parking field of a commercial shopping center would create an unsafe environment for pedestrian movement over and across the area. Drivers would be likely to use the road to cut through the parking area at unsafe speeds,jeopardizing the pedestrians moving from their cars to individual stores. [33181-0001/PA003687 9961 6/13/00 • • Tigard City Council June 13, 2000 Page 7 This standard should be removed. However, as an alternative, applicant would not object to a condition requiring a reasonably direct connection between Dartmouth Street and Hermoso, in the form of a drive aisle or other internal vehicular path. Conclusion The applicant requests that the city council revise the conditions imposed by the planning commission as set forth above. Ve truly yours, Roger A. Alfred RAA:raa cc: Gordon Martin • Ed Christensen [33181-0001/PA003687.996] 6/13/00 t d • EXHIBIT F• , r June 9, 2000 r#, To: City of Tigard Planning Division CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd. OREGON Tigard, Oregon 97223 Attn: Karen Fox RE VED PLANNING From: Ed Christensen JUN 1 4 Christensen Engineering 2000 7150 SW Hampton, Suite 226 CITY OF TIGARD Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: 60 Day Waiver of 120 Day Rule Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC —Tri-County Center PD 2000-00001/ SLR 2000-00005/MIS 2000-00002 PD 2000-00002/SLR 2000-00004/MIS 2000-00003 Dear Karen: This is a waiver providing an additional 60 day extension to the 120 day rule period for a total of 180 days. This would extend the period for appeal and final decision to September 10, 2000. This supercedes any previous waivers. Yours truly, - , !' Ed Christensen C: Roger Alfred/Mark Whitlow, Perkins, Coie, LLP 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 • 5tr 06 21300 11:13 FR PERKINS COIE LLP 503 727 2222 TO 96847297 P.131/132 • • CONFIDENTIAL 7 PRIVILEGED PERKINS COIE LLP- PORTLAND FAX NUMBER: (503) 727-2222 SWITCHBOARD: (503) 727-2000 IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH THIS TRANSMISSION, PLEASE CALL: (503) 727-2000 Addressee: City of Tigard FAX NO. 684-7297 (COMPANY) Tigard City Council Direct Dial 639=4171 (INDIVIDUAL) Addressee: City of Tigard Fax No. 684-7297 (COMPANY) Dick Bewersdorff Direct Dial 639-4171 (INDIVIDUAL) Addressee: Ramis Crew FAX NO. 243-2944 (COMPANY) Timothy V. Ramis Direct Dial 222-4402 (INDIVIDUAL) Addressee: Fax No. (5411 764-2512 (COMPANY) Gordon Martin Sr. Direct Dial (541) 764-3100 (INDIVIDUAL) Addressee: Preston Gates Fax No. 248-9085 (COMPANY) Stuart Brown Direct Dial 228-3200 (INDIVIDUAL) From: Mark D. Whitlow Date September 6, 2000 Cover Sheet& * page(s) Client Number 33181-0001 Return to Donna Friber. / 2095 / 1539A NAME EXT. OFFICE LOCATION Original document(s) will be: ■ sent to you /I1 held in our des MESSAGE: Attached is my letter of this date to Tigard City Council. Sent By ❑ Call Addressee to confirm they received this fax. This Fax contains confidential, privileged information intended only for the intended addressee. Do not read, copy or disseminate it unless you arc the intended addressee. If you have received this Fax in error, please email it back to the sender at perkinscoie.com and delete it from your system or call us (collect) immediately at (503) 727-2000, and mail the original Fax to Perkins Coic LLP,1211 S.W. Fifth Avenue,Suite 1500,Portland,Oregon 97204-3715. [PA003688.374) SEP 06 20140 11:13 FR PERKINS CO1E LLP 503 727 2222 TO 96847297 F'•02/02 • • PERKINS COIE LIP 1211 SOUTHWEST FIFTH AVENUE,SUITE 1500•PORTLAND.OREGON 97204-3715 TELEPWONE: 503 727-2000• FACSIMILE: 503 727-2222 MARK D.WHITLOW (503)727.2073 whitm@perkinscoie.com September 6, 2000 SENT VIA FACSIMILE Tigard City Council c/o Bill Monahan City Manager City of Tigard 13125 SW Flail Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Tri-County Appeal Dear Mr. Monahan: This letter supplements our prior letter of September 5, 2000 regarding the above appeal. if the requested two week continuance of the appeal hearing is approved, the applicant/appellant will toll the 120-day rule from the date of the filing of the appeal until September 26, 2000, the date of hearing. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. rR p ctfully suiimitted, htizi- Mark D. Whitlow MDW:djf cc: Tim Ramis, Esq. Gordon Martin Sr. • • (33181-0001/PA003698.199] ANCHORAGE HtLLEVUE BOISE DENVER HONG KONG LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK OLYMPIA PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SPOKANE TAIPEI WASHINGTON,D.G. ** TOTAL PAGE.02 ** SEP 05 2000 16:35 FR oRK I NS CO I E LLP 503 727 2222 T,6847297 P.02/02 PERKINS COIF LLP 121 I SOUTHWEST FIFTH AVENUE.SUITE 500•PORTLAND,ORECON 97204-37I5 TELEPHONE: 503 727-2000•FACSIMILE:503 727-2222 MARK D.WHJTLOw (503)727-2073 whitm@perkinsooie.com September 5, 2000 SENT VIA FACSIMILE Tigard City Council do Bill Monahan City Manager City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Tri-County Appeal Dear Mr. Monahan: This office represents Gordon Martin Sr., regarding the above appeal. Mr. Martin hereby requests that the appeal hearing be continued for two weeks until September 26, 2000. The additional time is needed to resolve a pending dispute with • Christensen Engineering or to obtain a substitute firm of consulting engineers. Christensen Engineering has been the named applicant and lead'consultant for the land use permitting work which has occurred for the Tri-County Center over the years. It will be difficult for Mr. Martin to proceed with the appeal without the aid and assistance of Mr. Christensen or a substitute consultant with respect to the issues raised by the appeal, especially the challenged conditions of approval requiring the imposition of a public or private street through the center and the widening of Dartmouth east of 72nd Avenue. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. spectfully Emitted, dt4t Mark D. Whitlow MDW:djf cc: Tim Ramis, Esq. Gordon Martin Sr. [331R I-0001/PA003693.843) ANCHORAGE BELLEVUE BOISE DENVER HONG KONG LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK OLYMPIA PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SPOKANE TAIPEI WASHINGTON.D.C. ** TOTAL PAGE.02 ** Division of State Lands Permit N RF-9256 Renewal 775 Summer Street NE • RECEIVED PLANNING Permit : Removal/Fill Salem, OR 97301-1279 Waterway: Red Rock Cr.Trib/Wetland ( 503-378-3805 AUG 01 2000 County: Washington Expiration Date: July 25, 2001 CITY OF TIGARD Corps No.: 94-996 GORDON MARTIN IS AUTHORIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORS 196.800 TO 196.990 TO PERFORM THE OPERATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ATTACHED COPY OF THE APPLICATION, SUBJECT TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS LISTED ON ATTACHMENT A AND TO THE FOLLOWING GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1. This permit does not authorize trespass on the lands of others. The permit holder shall obtain all necessary access permits or rights-of-way before entering lands owned by another. 2. This permit does not authorize any work that is not in compliance with local zoning or other local, state, or federal regulation pertaining to the operations authorized by this permit. The permit holder is responsible for obtaining the necessary approvals and permits before proceeding under this permit. 3. All work done under this permit must comply with Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 340; Standards of Quality for Public Waters of Oregon. Specific water quality provisions for this project are set forth on Attachment A. 4. Violations of the terms and conditions of this permit are subject to administrative and/or legal action which may result in revocation of the permit or damages. The permit holder is responsible for the activities of all contractors or other operators involved in work done at the site or under this permit. 5. A copy of the permit shall be available at the work site whenever operations authorized by the permit are being conducted. 6. Employees of the Division of State Lands and all duly authorized representatives of the Director shall be permitted access to the project area at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspecting work performed under this permit. 7. Any permit holder who objects to the conditions of this permit may request a hearing from the Director, in writing, within 10 days of the date this permit was issued. 8. In issuing this permit, the Division of State Lands makes no representation regarding the quality or adequacy of the permitted project design, materials, construction, or maintenance, except to approve the project's design and materials, as set forth in the permit application, as satisfying the resource protection, scenic, safety, recreation, and public access requirements of ORS Chapters 196, 390 and related administrative rules. 9. Permittee shall defend and hold harmless the State of Oregon, and its officers, agents, and employees from any claim, suit, or action for property damage or personal injury or death arising out of the design, material, construction, or maintenance of the permitted improvements. NOTICE: If removal is from state-owned submerged and submersible land, the applicant must comply with leasing and royalty provisions of ORS 274.530. If the project involves creation of new lands by filling on state- owned submerged or submersible lands, you must comply with ORS 274.905 - 274.940. This permit does not relieve the permittee of an obligation to secure appropriate leases from the Division of State Lands, to conduct activities on state-owned submerged or submersible lands. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in civil or criminal liability. For more information about these requirements, please contact the Division of State Lands, 378-3805. • Earle A. Johnson, Manager • Western Region Field Operations Oregon Division of State Lands _ • l July 25, 2000 Authorized ' 'r nat e Date Issued SalemI\FO\FormsWuthorization\Permit Face.doc e4w -T-Lraicp.,„J • • ATTACHMENT A Special Conditions for Material Removal/Fill Permit No. 9256 1. This permit authorizes the placement of up to 26,250 cubic yards of fill material and the removal of up to 30,975 cubic yards of material in Section 1, T2S, R1 W (Red Rock Creek Tributary/Wetland) for commercial development as outlined in the attached permit application, map and drawings. This permit also authorizes the removal of material necessary for wetland/stream creation as specified in special condition 7 below. 2. Turbidity shall not exceed 10% above natural stream turbidities as a result of the project. The turbidity standard may be exceeded for a limited duration, (per OAR 340-41) provided all practicable erosion control measures have been implemented as applicable, including, but not limited to: _ -use of filter bags, sediment fences, silt curtains, leave strips or berms, or other measures sufficient to prevent offsite movement of soil; -use of an impervious material to cover stockpiles when unattended or during a rain event; -waste materials and spoils shall be placed at an approved upland disposal site and not in any unauthorized wetland areas; -all areas of soil disturbance shall be seeded or otherwise revegetated with native species upon completion of construction to prevent subsequent.erosion. 3. Petroleum products, chemicals, or other deleterious materials shall not be allowed to enter the water. 4. Operation of equipment in the active flowing stream shall be between July 1 and September 30. 5. No fresh concrete shall come into contact with the active flowing stream. 6. Removal of existing woody vegetation shall be minimal. -Page 1- Attachment A • • RF-9256 Page 2 of 3 MITIGATION CONDITIONS 7. The following conditions apply to the replacement stream/wetland as described in the application and as depicted on Figures 2 through 4. a) The wetland shall be constructed prior to or concurrently with the construction project. b) The wetland shall be excavated or maintained as outlined on Figure 3 with slopes no steeper than 3:1. c) The shoreline of the wetland shall be seeded or planted with grass and/or legumes, native shrubs and trees as described in Figure 2 of the Landscape Plan. Trees and shrubs shall be of the species indicated with the addition of Black Twinberry (Lonicera involucrata), plantings shall be spaced a minimum of 6 feet O.C. with some clustering of vegetation. Following planting of the area, the vegetation shall be allowed to establish a natural character with minimal maintenance. The criteria for success shall be 80% survival for a period of five years. d) The issuance of this permit is conditional upon establishment of replacement wetlands of approximately 2.0 acres and the preservation of 0.41 acres of existing wetland for loss of 1.55 acres of wetland habitat. e) The newly created wetland and preserved wetland shall be fenced with a minimal four foot high vinyl coated fence to protect the area from human impacts. MONITORING CONDITIONS 8. To insure a successful habitat replacement the permittee shall, for a period of five years, maintain the wetland until vegetation has become established and the area is functioning as designed. 9. The applicant shall establish fixed photo points. Photos shall be taken annually from the established points for monitoring purposes. A photo shall be taken annually from the established points for monitoring purposes. A photo documentation report shall be submitted annually to the Division of State Lands for a period of five years after wetland construction. Attachment A RF-9256 Page 3 of 3 CONTINGENCY CONDITIONS 10.The Division of State Lands retains the authority to require appropriate corrective actions to the mitigation site in the event the newly created wetlands are not functioning as designed within a period of five years. 11.The Division of State Lands retains the authority to temporarily halt or modify the project in case of excessive turbidity or damage to natural resources. July 25, 2000 Fo\AttachmentAwest\RF Removal Fill Permits\RF-9256.doc • • Page 1 of 1 I spoke with mark Whitlow, attorney for the Center. He is faxing a letter to us this afternoon requesting that the appeal hearing be postponed to September 12. An extension of the 120 day limit will be included in the letter. We will forward this to Council with a memo explaining that the hearing next week won't be held. Please make arrangements to contact Ed Christienson at some point to see if some of the issues that he has been working on can be resolved short of having an appeal hearing. Bill Monahan City Manager (503)639-4171, ext 306 • bill@ci.tigard.or.us • • file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}00002.HTM 7/27/00 �� `TIGARD CITY CO NCIL Atb pi �rj I+\ BUSINESS I1EETING- . . W —=^° 6 ... ULY 5;2000 � ��6 0 04,71 CITY OF TIGARD ',TIGARD CITY HALL 113, 92 15 SW11AL BLED oi?IG RD OREGON PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639- 4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA— JULY 25, 2000 - PAGE 1 A ° w � • • AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING JULY 25, 2000 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION > EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (f) 8z (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt public records, and current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. > Review City Council Groundrules > Review Benefit Recommendations from the Management Classification and Compensation Study (See Item 3.3 on the Consent Agenda) 7:30 PM 1 . BUSINESS MEETING 1 .1 Call to Order - City Council 81 Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1 .3 Pledge of Allegiance 1 .4 Council Communications 1 .5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: May 23 and June 13, 2000 3.2 Approve Police Department Training Request: Criminal Intelligence Analysis Applications Course for Microcomputer Technician Brenda Abbott 3.3 Adopt Benefit Recommendations from Management Group Job Class and Compensation Study COUNCIL AGENDA— JULY 25, 2000 - PAGE 2 . • 3.4 Local Contract Review Board: a. Approve Purchase of Five (5) Police Vehicles from Gresham Ford b. Award Contract for FY 2000-01 Pavement Major Maintenance Program-Slurry Seal to Asphalt Maintenance Associates, Inc. c. Award Contract for the Construction of Fanno Creek Trail — Segment 2 (Tigard Street/Fowler School Trail) to Andersen Pacific, Inc. • Consent Agenda - Items Removed far Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 4. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) APPEAL OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2000-02PC — TRI-COUNTY CENTER. ITEM ON APPEAL: At the May 15, 2000 public hearing, the Planning Commission approved, subject to conditions, a request for approval of conceptual plan review for two alternative designs for new construction of a shopping center as a Planned Development. OPTION 1: This is the proposed new construction of a 297,179 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 2733 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Land Review. OPTION 2: This is the proposed new construction of a 330,312 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Lands Review. A prior request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Water Resource Overlay District including fill and mitigation of a portion of the existing wetlands was granted on June 23, 1998 and became effective July 23, 1998 by Final Order of the Tigard City Council. CONDITIONS BEING APPEALED: On June 5, 2000 the applicant filed an appeal of certain conditions of approval contained in the decision. The specific conditions appealed and items to which they are related are summarized as follows: Condition #1: Overall Condition related to the Design Evaluation Team Option; Condition #7: Street Improvements to include the future Widening of SW Dartmouth; Condition #22: Verification related to any ground disturbances in areas of steep slopes; COUNCIL AGENDA—JULY 25, 2000 - PAGE 3 • • • ` Condition #25 OPTION 2 ONLY: Relocation of parking area near the bend of SW Hermoso Way outside of area of steep slopes; Condition #26: Provide landscaping, an arcade or a hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path along SW Dartmouth Street between the structure and the wetlands/public street; Condition #56 - OPTION 1 ONLY: Comply with zero-foot building setback standards for Pad E; Condition #58 - OPTION 2 ONLY: Comply with zero-foot building setback standards for Major II-IV; and Condition #73: Provide a public or private street connecting SW Dartmouth Street to SW Hermoso Way. LOCATION: The site is located on the south side of SW Dartmouth Street and on the west side of SW 72" Avenue and is east of State Highway 217. The site also includes 6 lots along the north side of Hermoso Way. The site address is 12265 SW 72"d; WCTM 1 S 136CD, Tax Lot 04200; 25101 BA, Tax Lots 00100, 00101, 00300, 00400, 00401 and 00402; 2S 101 AB, Tax Lots 01300, 01400, 01401, 01402, 01403, 01404. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial and Mixed Use Employment. ZONING DESIGNATIONS: C-G (PD) and MUE. The General Commercial zoning district provides for the provision of a wide range of major retail goods and services. The Mixed Use Employment zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy 99), Highway 217 and 1-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED: Community Development Code Chapters and Sections: 18.390, 18.390.050, 18.620, 18.620.020, 18.620.030, 18.620.040, 18.775, 18.810, 18.810.030. a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges c. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony (Proponents, Opponents) e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Questions g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 00 - COUNCIL AGENDA— JULY 25, 2000 - PAGE 4 S # 5. STAFF UPDATE: REGIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGY a. Staff Report: Community Development Department 6. TIGARD CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ASSOCIATION (TCBDA) REQUESTS Staff Report: Community Development Department a. Staff Report: Community Development Department b. Council Discussion and Consideration of TCBDA Requests for Funding of a Business Manager and Downtown Banners 7. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 8. NON AGENDA ITEMS • 8.1 Discuss Naming Park for Jim and Dave Nicoli 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (f) 8t (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt public records, and current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information . discussed during this session. 10. ADJOURNMENT I:\ADM\CATHY\CCA\000725.DOC COUNCIL AGENDA— JULY 25, 2000 - PAGE 5 . , Aft ellgovi July 18, 2000 CtTY OF TIGARD • OREGON Mark Whitlow Perkins Coie, LLP 1211 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1500 Portland, Oregon 97204-3715 503-727-2000/503-727-2222 (fax) Sent by US Mail and Facsimile Re: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC/Tri-County Center Options 1 & 2 PD 2000-00001/SLR 2000-00005/MIS 2000-00002 and PD 2000-00002/SLR 2000-00004/MIS 2000-00003 Dear Mr. Whitlow: I have been asked by Bill Monahan, City Manager of Tigard, to respond to your letter of July 14, 2000 requesting a continuance in the hearing now.scheduled for July 25, 2000 before the City Council. Please provide, no later than July 20, 2000, the date upon which you will return from your time out of the country, and a date when you are available to attend a rescheduled hearing. If you intend to request a continuance before City Council you will need to provide a date when you are available to attend a rescheduled hearing. Currently, the applicant, Ed Christensen, has provided a 60-day waiver to the 120-day rule; and that puts the end date on September 10, 2000. Please note that I have contacted Ed Christensen by phone twice over the past few weeks to arrange a time to discuss issues and/or a time for a pre-application conference for the detailed plan review. I made these contacts in response to Mr. Christensen's request to move in this direction. On June 29, 2000, Mr. Christensen said he would like to come in with revised plans for a July 6, 2000 pre-application conference. However, he did not follow-up by applying for the pre-application conference, nor did he come in to meet with Staff. I also reminded Mr. Christensen at that time, to post notice of the hearing on the site at least ten business days prior to the hearing, and to provide an affidavit of posting concerning such notice; and he indicated that he would do so, not mentioning a request for a continuance to the hearing. On July 10, 2000, I spoke with Mr. Christensen and asked him if he intended to come in and meet with Staff, and he indicated that he intended to deal with the outstanding issues on the Tri-County Center through the upcoming appeal process. Therefore, I was surprised to see your letter of July 14, 2000 requesting a continuance in the City Council hearing now scheduled for July 25, 2000. 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503)639-4171 TDD (503)684-2772 -age o As the wall issue along Hermoso Way has been clarified via the letter of June 26, 2000 from Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, it is not clear which other issues you want to discuss at this time. Please provide me with a list of issues you would like to discuss, and two or three dates (Tuesdays or Thursday mornings) on which you are available to discuss these issues related to your revised site plans. As I have previously suggested, this would best be done by applying for a pre-application conference for the detailed plan review. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 503-639-4171, extension 315. Yours truly,lKa n Fox Associate Planner I:\curpin\karen\pd\PD00-1&2.1et2.doc c: Ed Christensen, Applicant Gordon Martin Jr., Owner Gordon Martin Sr., Owner Ramis, Crew, Corrigan & Bachrach, City Attorneys (Attn: Tim Ramis) Bill Monahan, City Manager Dick Bewersdorff, Current Planning Manager Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer Tigard City Council Tri County Center PD2000-1&2 Page 2 of 2 July 17, 2000 • CITY OF TIGARD .I,� �•i it Shaping A Better Community COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD,OREGON 91223 SHEET DATE: July 18, 2000 TIME: • TO: R_arrjis, Crew, Corrigan & Bachrach PHONE: Tv - 44-444.s FAX: 243-2944 FROM: Karen Peri Fox PHONE: (503) 639-4171 City of Tigard FAX (503) 684-7297 Planning Department RE: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC/Tri-County Center Options 1 & 2 C: Number of pages including cover sheet: 3 Please give me a call if you have any questions. Thank you. I:\CURPLN MASTERS\FAX.MST 07/18/00 15:25 T2503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD al 001 • • *** ACTIVITY REPORT *** *************************** TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO. 8363 CONNECTION TEL 2432944 CONNECTION ID START TIME 07/18 15:23 USAGE TIME 01'26 PAGES 3 RESULT OK 40I CITY OF TIGARD an�rti'+t�1z: S tgurg/7 aettcrCommurcrty COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD • TIGARD,OREGON 91223 . - � 6 -- I - DATE July 18, 2000 TIME TO Ra is, Crew, Corrigan & Bachrach PHONE : 714-14— /Ace's FAIL 243-2944 FBOM: Karen Perl Fox PHONE (503) 6394171 City of Tigard FAIL- (503) 684-7297 Planning Department BE Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC/Pi-County Center Options 1 & 2 t I[1mbor of pages Including cover sheet 3 . VAPAadalce• . ' • • CITY OF TIGARD � r '' Shaping(Better Community COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD,OREGON 91223 FAX X C SHEET X DATE July 18, 2000 TIME: TO: Ed Christensen PHONE: Christensen Engineering FAX: 620-1842 FROM: Karen Peri Fox PHONE: (503) 639-4171 City of Tigard FAX: (503) 684-7297 Planning Department RE Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC/Tri-County Center Options 1 & 2 C: Number of pages including cover sheet: 3 Please give me a call if you have any questions. Thank you. I:\CU RPLN\MASTERS\FAX.MST 07/18/00 15:28 $503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD a001 S ********************$**$*** *** ACTIVITY REPORT *** *************************** TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO. 8365 CONNECTION TEL 1 503 620 1842 CONNECTION ID START TIME 07/18 15:26 USAGE TIME 02'02 PAGES 3 RESULT OK API CITY OF TIGARD ;i ,v1), 5&WirigAdietUrCOPMWRIV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 13125 SW NALL BOULEVARD TIGARD,OREGON 91223 . 1 . ; 5, r _ wr; DATE: July 18, 2000 TIME TO; Ed Christensen PRONE Christensen Engineering FAL 620-1842 FROM Karen Perl Fox PHONE (503) 639-4171 City of Tigard FAIL (503) 684-7297 Planning Department HE Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC/Tri-County Center Options 1 & 2 C: 11Number of pages Including cover sheet 3 ` • • n.�iaiwdry�� f ll�l CITY OF TIGARD ShapingA Better Community COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 13125 SW NALL BOULEVARD TIGARD,OREGON 91223 FAX COVER SHEET DATE: July 18, 2000 TIME: TO: Gordon Martin, Sr. PHONE: Gordon Martin,"Jr. FAX: (541)764-2512 FROM: Karen Perl Fox PHONE: (503) 639-4171 City of Tigard FAX: (503) 684-7297 Planning Department RE: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC/Tri-County Center Options 1 & 2 C: Number of pages including cover sheet: 3 Please give me a call if you have any questions. Thank you. I:\CURPLN\MASTERS\FAX.MST 07/18/00 15:31 $503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD LA 001 • $$$ ACTIVITY REPORT $$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO. 8367 CONNECTION TEL 541 764 2512 CONNECTION ID Gordon R. Martin START TIME 07/18 15:30 USAGE TIME 01 '33 PAGES 3 RESULT OK CITY OF TIGARD J J Shaping)![Better Community COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD,OREGON 91223 7.- ' c c.. �r, .� " te.,.tg ol:�' � c I t' 1 S' t. _ - -- - ':; i<'"- + � �� r I.; _ DATE July 18, 2000 TIME TO: Gordon Martin, Sr. PHONE Gordon Martin, Jr. FAX; (541)764-2512 FROM Karen Perl Fox PHONE (503)639-4171 City of Tigard MX; (503) 684-7297 Planning Department NE Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC/Tri-County Center Options 1 & 2 C: Number of pages including cover sheet 3 JUL 18 2000 10 45 FR PERKINS COIE LLP 503 727 2222 TO 96847297 P.01/05 • CONFIDENTIAL HITRIVILEGED PERKINS COLE LLP- PORTLAND FAX NUMBER: (503) 727-2222 SWITCHBOARD: (503) 727-2000 IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH THIS TRANSMISSION, PLEASE CALL: (503) 727-2000 Addressee: City of Tigard Fax No. 684-7297 (COMPANY) Bill Monahan, City Manager Direct Dial 639-4171 (INDIVIDUAL) Addressee: Christensen Enaineerina FAX NO 598-1868 (COMPANY) Ed Christensen Direct Dial 598-1866 (INDIVIDUAL) Addressee: Fax No. 620-1842 (COMPANY) Mr. Gordon Martin Jr. Direct Dial 620-2477 (INDIVIDUAL) 1) 76 FaX No. 54 Addressee: l 764-2512 (COMPANY) Mr. Gordon Martin Sr. Direct Dial (541) 764-3100 (INDIVIDUAL) From: Mark D. Whitlow Date July 18, 2000 Cover Sheet & 4 page(s) Client Number 33181-0001 Return to Donna Fribery / 2095 / 1539A NAME EXT. OFFICE LOCATION Ongm: •ocument s .e: ■ sent to you 0 e d in our Ales MESSAGE: Attached is my letter and enclosures to the Tigard City Manager. Sent By ❑ Call Addressee to confirm they received this fax. • This Fax contains confidential, privileged information intended only for the intended addressee. Do not read,copy • or disseminate it unless you are the intended addressee. If you have received this Fax in error, please email it hack to the sender at perkinscoie.com and delete it from your system or call us (collect) immediately at (503) 727-2000, and mail the original Fax to Perkins Coie LLP, 1211 S.W.Fifth Avenue,Suite 1500,Portland,Oregon 97204-3715. 1PA003688.3741 JUL 18 2000 10:45 FR PERKINS COIE LLP 503 727 2222 TO 96847297 P.02/05 • S PERKINS COTE LLP July 18, 2000 SENT VIA FACSIMILE Dictated but not read TO: Bill Monahan, Tigard City Manager FROM: Mark Whitlow RE: Appeal of Tri-County Center Enclosed are copies of my correspondence to the City regarding the Tri-County Project Appeal. We had first asked that the appeal not be processed or scheduled for hearing and, finally, that the hearing be continued per the reasons stated in the letter. We would like your assistance in coordinating this early on so that we do not have to send a representative to the Council hearing, hopefully, on July 25, 2000, merely to ask for a continuance. I would like to talk with you later today. I will be in Washington County in hearings this morning. I will call you this afternoon. MDW:djf Enclosures cc: Gordon Martin, Sr. Gordon Martin, Jr. Ed Christensen • [33181.0001/PA003693.349] 7/18/00 JUL 18 2000 10:46 FR PERKINS COIE LLP 503 727 2222 TO 96847297 P.03/05 • • PERKINS COLE LLP 1211 SourHwESr FIFTH AvENUE,SUITE 1500• PORTLAND.OREGON 97204-3715 TELEPHONE; 503 727-2000•FACSIMILE: 503 727.2222 MARX D.WHITLOW COPY (503)727-2073 whi pakinscoie.com July 14, 2000 SEND' VIA FACSIMILE Tigard City Council City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Appeal of Tri-County Center—Options 1 & 2 Dear Members of the Council: This office represents Gordon S. Martin in the above matter. Request is made for a continuance in the hearing now scheduled for July 25, 2000. I will be out of the country and unavailable to attend the hearing. The Martins had previously requested that the appeal not be processed or set for public hearing, since the appeal was filed on a precautionary basis pending further discussions with staff. (See copy of my prior letters of June 5 and June 13, 2000 --attached.) Thank you for your attention to this matter. 47ZVE- Mark D. Whitlow MDW:djf cc: Richard Bewersdorff Tim Ramis, City Attorney Gordon S. Martin, Sr. Gordon S. Martin, Jr. • Ed Christensen [33181-000 UPA003693.087] - ANCHORAGE BELLEVU£ BOISE DENVER HONG KONG LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK OLYMPIA PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SPOKANE TAIPEI WASHINGTON. D.C. JUL 18 2000 10:46 FR PERKINS COIE LLP 503 727 2222 TO 96847297 P.04/05 _ - • • COPY PERKINS COLE LLP 1211 SOUTHWEST FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 1500-PORTLAND.OREGON 97204-3715 MARK D.W} TLOW TELEPHONE:503 727-2000•FACSIMILE: 503 727-2222 ($03)727-2073 whitm@perkinscoie.com June 13, 2000 • SENT VIA FACSIMILE AND MAIL Karen Fox City of Tigard 13123 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02PC — Tri-County Center PD 2000-00001/SLR 2000-00005/MIS 2000-00002 PD 2000-00002/SLR 2000-0002/SLR 2000-0004/MIS 2000-00003 Dear Ms. Fox: In response to your transmittal letter of June 9, 2000 to Ed Christensen regarding the above, enclosed is a copy of the applicant's reissued statement of appeal covering both Options 1 and 2. The original will be mailed to you. Regarding the City Council appeal hearing, we wish to reiterate that the appeal is precautionary only. My prior letter transmitting the appeal (additional copy enclosed) requested that no action be taken on the appeal by the City. Accordingly, we would request that the appeal not be scheduled for hearing at this time. Once the matter is calendared for hearing, it is problematic to reschedule it in the event that discussions with staff are yet ongoing regarding revised site plans and their compliance with applicable standards. The applicant is prepared to sign a further waiver which would toll the 120-day rule from the date of the filing of the appeal to such future date as the applicant would request that the City begin processing the . appeal, in the event that the applicant and staff fail to reach agreement on the applicant's revised site plans. Thank you for your time and cooperation regarding this matter. Please call me with your questions or comments. y yours, V , Mark D." /bitlow MDW:djf Enclosures cc: Dick Bewersdorff Clients —=. Ed Christensen --. ._ - _ _ ANCHORAGE BELLEVUE BOISE DENVER HONG LONG LOS ANGELES MENLO PARR OLYMPIA PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SPOKANE TAIPEI WASHINGTON.D.C. j33181-0001/PAD03689.6951 STRATEGIC ALLIANCE: RUSSELL&DUMODUN,VANCOUVER,CANADA JUL 1B 2000 10:47 FR PERKINS COIE LLP 503 727 2222 TO 96847297 P.05/05 + PERKINS COLE LLP 0 filI 1 SOUTHWEST FIFTH AVENUE.SUITE 1500•PORTLAND,OREGON 97204-3715 TELEPHONE:503 727-2000• FacsIbuLE: 503 727-2222 MARL D.WHITLOW (503)727-2073 whism gperkinscoie_com June 5, 2000 SENT VIA HAND DELIVERY Tigard City Council do Richard Bewersdorff Planning Director 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Notice of Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC Dear Mr. Bewersdorff: This office represents the applicant regarding the above. Enclosed is a completed Appeal Filing Form and check in the amount of$1,745 for the appeal fee. We submit this notice of appeal of the Planning Commission's final order numbered 2000-002 PC, dated May 19, 2000, on a precautionary basis only. The applicant intends to work with staff to submit revised site plans which the applicant believes would meet relevant standards without the need to go through the Design Evaluation Team. Pending that work, please do not process the appeal. After the applicant has received final City approval of its revised site plans, the applicant will dismiss the appeal and request a refund of its filing fee. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please call with your questions or comments. Mr Y Mark D. Whitlow MDW:djf Enclosures cc: Gordon Martin Ed Christensen (33181-0001/PA003688.651 J ANCMORcE BELLEVUE BOISE DENVER HONG KONG LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK OLYMPIA PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SPOKANE TAIPEI WASHINGTON,O.C. STRATEGIC ALLIANCE: RUSSELL&DuMODUN,VANCOUVER,CANADA JUL 14 2000 15 09 FR PERKINS COIE LLP 503 727 2222 TO 5331810001150368 P.01/04 • • I 'CONFIDENTIAL PRIVILEGED 1 PERKINS COLE LLP- PORTLAND FAX NUMBER: (503) 727-2222 SWITCHBOARD: (50 ) 727-2000 IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH THIS TRANSMISSION, PLEASE CALL: (503) 727-2000 Addressee: City of Tigard FAX NO. 684-7297 (COMPANY) Tigard City Council Direct Dial 639-4171 (INDIVIDUAL) Addressee: City of Tigard Fax No. 684-7297 (COMPANY) Dick Bewersdorff Direct Dial 639-4171 (INDIVIDUAL) Addressee: Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach LLPFAX NO. 243-2944 (COMPANY) Timothy V. Ramis Direct Dial 222-4402 (INDIVIDUAL) Addressee: Christensen Engineering FAX NO. 598-1868 (COMPANY) Ed Christensen Direct Dial 598-1866 (INDIVIDUAL) Addressee: Fax No. 620-1842 (COMPANY) Mr. Gordon Martin Jr. Direct Dial 620-2477 (INDIVIDUAL) Addressee: Fax No. (541) 764-2512 (COMPANY) Mr. Gordon Martin Sr. Direct Dial (541) 764-3100 (INDIVIDUAL) From: Mark D. Whitlow Date July 14, 2000 Cover Sheet & 3 page(s) Client Number 33181-0001 Return to Donna Friberq. / 2095 / 1539A NAME EXT. OFFICE LOCATION Original document(s) will be: ❑ sent to you held in our files MESSAGE: Attached is my letter and enclosures to the Tigard City Council. Sent By 0 Call Addressee to confirm they received this fax. This Fax contains confidential, privileged information intended only for the intended addressee. Do not read, copy or disseminate it unless you are the intended addressee. If you have received this Fax in error, please email it back to the sender at perkinscoie.com and delete it from your system or call us (collect) immediately at (503) 727-2000, and mail the original Fax to Perkins Coie LLP, 1211 S.W.Fifth Avenue,Suite 1500,Portland,Oregon 97204-3715, [PA003688.374) JUL 14 2000 15 09 FR PERKINS COIE LLP 503 727 2222 TO 5331810001150368 P.02/04 • • • PERKINS COLE LLP 12I I SoumwesT FIFTH AVENUE,SUITE 1500-PORTLAND,OREGON 97204-3715 TELEPHONE: 503 727.2000-FAcsIMILE: 503 727-2222 MARK D.WHITLOW (503)727-2073 whitm@perkinscoie.com July 14, 2000 SENT VIA FACSIMILE Tigard City Council City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Appeal of Tri-County Center—Options 1 & 2 Dear Members of the Council: This office represents Gordon S. Martin in the above matter. Request is made for a continuance in the hearing now scheduled for July 25, 2000. I will be out of the country and unavailable to attend the hearing. The Martins had previously requested that the appeal not be processed or set for public hearing, since the appeal was filed on a precautionary basis pending further discussions with staff. (See copy of my prior letters of June 5 and June 13, 2000—attached.) Thank you for your attention to this matter. ry truly yo s, fir'"( Mark D. Whitlow MDW:djf cc: Richard Bewersdorff Tim Ramis, City Attorney Gordon S. Martin, Sr. Gordon S. Martin, Jr. Ed Christensen [33151.0001/PA003693,087) ANCHORAGE BELLEVUE BOISE DENVER HONG KONG LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK OLYMPIA PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE 5POKANK TAIPEI WASHINGTON, D.C. JUL 14 2000 15 10 FR PERKINS COIE LLP 503 727 2222 TO 5331810001150368 P.03/04 4 PERKINS COLE LLP 121 1 SOUTHWEST FIFM AVENUE,SUITE 1500•PORTLAND,OREGON 97204-3715 MARX D.WHITLOW TELEPHONE: 503 727-2000•FACSIMILE: 503 727-2222 (503)727-2073 whitm@perkinscoie.com June 13, 2000 SENT VIA FACSIMILE AND MAIL Karen Fox City of Tigard 13123 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02PC— Tri-County Center PD 2000-00001/SLR 2000-00005/NIIS 2000-00002 PD 2000-00002/SLR 2000-0002/SLR 2000-0004/MIS 2000-00003 Dear Ms. Fox: In response to your transmittal letter of June 9, 2000 to Ed Christensen regarding the above, enclosed is a copy of the applicant's reissued statement of appeal covering both Options 1 and 2. The original will be mailed to you. Regarding the City Council appeal hearing, we wish to reiterate that the appeal is precautionary only. My prior letter transmitting the appeal (additional copy enclosed) requested that no action be taken on the appeal by the City. Accordingly, we would request that the appeal not be scheduled for hearing at this time. Once the matter is calendared for hearing, it is problematic to reschedule it in the event that discussions with staff are yet ongoing regarding revised site plans and their compliance with applicable standards. The applicant is prepared to sign a further waiver which would toll the 120-day rule from the date of the filing of the appeal to such future date as the applicant would request that the City begin processing the appeal, in the event that the applicant and staff fail to reach agreement on the applicant's revised site plans. Thank you for your time and cooperation regarding this matter. Please call me with your questions or comments. V y yours, Marghitlow MDW:djf Enclosures cc: Dick Bewersdorff Clients Ed-Christensen _ ANCHORAGE BELLEVUE BOISE DENVER HONG KONG LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK OLYMPIA PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SPOKANE TAIPEI WASHINGTON,D.C. f331NI-0001/ 4fla , so cot? S-i- r TI a iuu�r• onCGr., s_ �........... ...... ...... ___.._. JUL 14 2000 15:10 FR PERKINS COIE LLP 503 727 2222 TO 5331810001150368 P.04/04 • • PERKINS COLE LLP I21 I SOUTHWEST FIFTH AVENUE,SUITE 1500• PORTLAND,OREGON 97204.3715 TELEPHONE: 503 727-2000 FACSIMILE: 503 727-2222 MARX D.WHiM..OW (503)727-2073 whitm@peskinscoie.com June 5, 2000 SENT YL4 HAND DELIVERY Tigard City Council c/o Richard Bewersdorff Planning Director 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Notice of Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC Dear Mr. Bewersdorff: This office represents the applicant regarding the above. Enclosed is a completed Appeal Filing Form and check in the amount of$1,745 for the appeal fee. We submit this notice of appeal of the Planning Commission's final order numbered 2000-002 PC, dated May 19, 2000, on a precautionary basis only. The applicant intends to work with staff to submit revised site plans which the applicant believes would meet relevant standards without the need to go through the Design Evaluation Team. Pending that work, please do not process the appeal. After the applicant has received final City approval of its revised site plans, the applicant will dismiss the appeal and request a refund of its filing fee. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please call with your questions or comments. ,tulYY Mark D. Whitlow MDW:djf Enclosures cc: Gordon Martin Ed Christensen (33181-0001/PA003688.6511 ANCHORAGE BELLEVUE BOISE DENVER HONG KONG LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK OLYMPIA PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SPOKANE TAIPEI WASHINGTON,D.C. STRATEGIC ALLIANCE: RUSSELL&DuMODUN,VANCOUVER,CANADA •• CITY OF TIGARD FACT SHEET mE 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Contact: Karen Perl Fox, (503) 639-4171 AGENDA: July 25, 2000 TOPIC: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02PC - Tri-County Center. (Option 1) - Planned Development Review(PD) 2000-00001 Sensitive Lands Review(SLR) 2000-00005 Lot Line Adjustment(MIS)2000-00002 (Option 2) - Planned Development Review (PD) 2000-00002 Sensitive Lands Review(SLR) 2000-00004 Lot Line Adjustment(MIS)2000-00003 BACKGROUND: On May 15, 2000, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to receive testimony on two alternative conceptual plans for a shopping center on a 27.22 acre parcel, known as the Tri-County Center (case numbers listed above). A Final order was issued by the Planning Commission on May 19, 2000 approving with conditions the planned development/conceptual plan. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission decision on June 5, 2000. A summary of the specific conditions appealed, related criteria and staff's response are as follows: ITEM ON APPEAL: At the May 15, 2000 public hearing, the Planning Commission approved, subject to conditions, a request for approval of conceptual plan review for two alternative designs for new construction of a shopping center as a Planned Development. OPTION 1: This is the proposed new construction of a 297,179 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Land Review. • • OPTION 2: This is the proposed new construction of a 330,312 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Lands Review. A prior request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Water Resource Overlay District including fill and mitigation of a portion of the existing wetlands was granted on June 23, 1998 and became effective July 23, 1998 by Final Order of the Tigard City Council. CONDITIONS BEING APPEALED: On June 5, 2000 the applicant filed an appeal of certain conditions of approval contained in the decision. The specific conditions appealed and items to which they are related are summarized as follows: • Condition#1 Overall Condition related to the Design Evaluation Team Option. Condition#7 Street Improvements to include the future widening of SW Dartmouth. Condition#22 Verification related to any ground disturbances in areas of steep slopes. Condition#25 OPTION 2 ONLY: Relocation of parking area near the bend of Hermoso Way outside of area of steep slopes. Condition#26 Provide landscaping, an arcade or a hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path along SW Dartmouth between the structure and the wetlands/public street. Condition#56 OPTION 1 ONLY: Comply with 0-foot building setback standards for Pad E. Condition#58 OPTION 2 ONLY: Comply with 0-foot building setback standards for Major Condition#73 Provide a public or private street connecting SW Dartmouth St. to Hermoso Way. COST: N/A • • . Agenda Item No. Meeting of 7. a5. D C) NOTE: The Public Hearing on the Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02PC.— Tri-County may be set over. The applicant's legal counsel has inquired about a continuance. Staff is checking with the applicant to select potential dates so that Council may consider setting the hearing over to a date certain. JUL 14 2000 15:33 .FR fir INS CO I E LLP 503 727 2222 T0(1847297 P.02/04 PERKINS COLE w 1211 SoirmwEST FIFTH AVENUE,SUITE 1500.PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3715 TELEPHONE: 503 727.2000.FACSIMILE: 503 727-2222 MARK ll_WHITLOW (303)727-2073 whitm@perkinscoie.com July 14, 2000 SENT VIA FACSIMILE Tigard City Council City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. - Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Appeal of Tri-County Center— Options 1 & 2 Dear Members of the Council: This office represents Gordon S. Martin in the above matter. Request is made for a continuance in the hearing now scheduled for July 25, 2000. I will be out of the country and unavailable to attend the hearing. The Martins had previously requested that the appeal not be processed or set for public hearing, since the appeal was filed on a precautionary basis pending further discussions with staff. (See copy of my prior letters of June 5 and June 13, 2000 —attached.) Thank you for your attention to this matter. tnily yo Mark D. Whitlow MDW:djf cc: Richard Bewersdorff Tim Ramis, City Attorney Gordon S. Martin, Sr. Gordon S. Martin, Jr.• Ed Christensen [33181-0001/PA003693.087] ANCHORAGE BELLEVUE BOISE DENVER HONG KONG LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK OLYMPIA PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SPOKANE TAIPEI WASHINGTON, D.C. JUL 14 2000 15:33 FR L INS COIE LLP 503 727 2222 710,847297 P.03/04 PERKINS COIF LLP 1211 SOUTHWEST FIFTH AVENUE,SUITE 1500•PORTLAND,OREGON 97204-3715 MARK D.WHtn.ow TELEPHONE: 503 727-2000•FACSIMILE:503 727-2222 (503)727-2073 whitm@peckinscoie.com com June 13, 2000 SENT VIA FACSIMILE AND MAIL Karen Fox City of Tigard 13123 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02PC— Tri-County Center • PD 2000-00001/SLR 2000-00005/MIS 2000-00002 PD 2000-00002/SLR 2000-0002/SLR 2000-0004/MIS 2000-00003 Dear Ms. Fox: In response to your transmittal letter of June 9, 2000 to Ed Christensen regarding the above, enclosed is a copy of the applicant's reissued statement of appeal covering both Options 1 and 2. The original will be mailed to you. Regarding the City Council appeal hearing, we wish to reiterate that the appeal is precautionary only. My prior letter transmitting the appeal (additional copy enclosed) requested that no action be taken on the appeal by the City. Accordingly, we would request that the appeal not be scheduled for hearing at this time. Once the matter is calendared for hearing, it is problematic to reschedule it in the event that discussions with staff are yet ongoing regarding revised site plans and their compliance with applicable standards. The applicant is prepared to sign a further waiver which would toll the 120-day rule from the date of the filing of the appeal to such future date as the applicant would request that the City begin processing the appeal, in the event that the applicant and staff fail to reach agreement on the applicant's revised site plans. Thank you for your time and cooperation regarding this matter. Please call me with your questions or comments. 'fly yours, Mar&Whitlow MDW:djf Enclosures cc: Dick Bewersdorff Clients -.__..._.- Ed-Christensen ----- _ __ ANCHORAGE BELLEVUE BOISE DENVER HONG KONG LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK OLYMPIA PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SPOKANE TAIPEI WASHINGTON, D.C. 1111Rl.nnmlaonAa(2o iocl CTPATFGtr•II I•NCF• VIICCFI I E. M.unlltI VAItlr/1n1c0 WAIN• •# JUL 14 2000 15:34 FR ,INS COIE LLP 503 727 2222 T0484729? P.04/04 • ' J PERKINS COIE LLP 1211 SOUTHWEST FIFTH AVENUE,SUITE 1500•PORTLAND,OREGON 97204-3715 TELEPHONE: 503 727-2000•FAcSIMILE:503 727-2222 MARK D.w&TLOW (503)727-2073 whitm@perkinscoic.com June 5, 2000 SENT VIA HAND DELIVERY Tigard City Council do Richard Bewersdorff Planning Director 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Notice of Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC • Dear Mr. Bewersdorff: This office represents the applicant regarding the above. Enclosed is a completed Appeal Filing Form and check in the amount of$1,745 for the appeal fee. We submit this notice of appeal of the Planning Commission's final order numbered 2000-002 PC, dated May 19, 2000, on a precautionary basis only_ The applicant intends to work with staff to submit revised site plans which the applicant believes would meet relevant standards without the need to go through the Design Evaluation Team, Pending that work, please do not process the appeal. After the applicant has received final City approval of its revised site plans, the applicant will dismiss the appeal and request a refund of its filing fee_ Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please call with your questions or comments. irulY y Mark D. Whitlow MDW:djf Enclosures cc: Gordon Martin Ed Christensen [33181.0001/YA003688.651] ANCHORAGE BELLEVUE BOISE DENVER HONG KONG LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK OLYMPIA PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SPOKANE TAIPEI WASHINGTON,D.C. STRATEGIC ALLIANCE; RUSSELL&DuMODUN,VANCOUVER,CANADA ` . • AGENDA ITEM# FOR AGENDA OF 7-a5 QD CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC/Tri-County Center Options 1 and 2 (Option 1: Planned Development (PD) 2000-00001/Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 2000-00005/Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 2000-00002: and Option 2: Planned Development (PD) 2000-00002/Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 2000- 00004/Lot Line Adjustment(MIS)2000-00003). PREPARED BY: Karen Peri Fox DEPT HEAD OK R e CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL An appeal of Planning Commission Final Order No. 2000-02 PC filed on June 5, 2000 by the applicant for Tri-County Center Options 1 &2 regarding certain conditions of approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council deny the appeal finding that the issues raised have not been substantiated or do not require a change in the language of the Conditions. INFORMATION SUMMARY On May 15, 2000, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to receive testimony on two alternative conceptual plans for a shopping center on a 27.22 acre parcel, known as the Tri-County Center (case numbers listed above). A Final order was issued by the Planning Commission on May 19, 2000 approving with conditions the planned development/conceptual plan. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission decision on June 5, 2000. A summary of the specific conditions appealed, related criteria and staff's response are as follows: ITEM ON APPEAL: At the May 15, 2000 public hearing, the Planning Commission approved, subject to conditions, a request for approval of conceptual plan review for two alternative designs for new construction of a shopping center as a Planned Development. OPTION 1: This is the proposed new construction of a 297,179 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Land Review. OPTION 2: This is the proposed new construction of a 330,312 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and.Sensitive Lands Review. • • CONDITIONS BEING APPEALED: On June 5, 2000 the applicant filed an appeal of certain conditions of approval contained in the decision. The specific conditions appealed and items to which they are related are summarized as follows: Condition#1 Overall Condition related to the Design Evaluation Team Option. Condition#7 Street Improvements to include the future widening of SW Dartmouth. Condition#22 Verification related to any ground disturbances in areas of steep slopes. Condition#25 OPTION 2 ONLY: Relocation of parking area near the bend of Hermoso Way outside of area of steep slopes. Condition#26 Provide landscaping, an arcade or a hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path along SW Dartmouth between the structure and the wetlands/public street. Condition#56 OPTION 1 ONLY: Comply with 0-foot building setback standards for Pad E. Condition#58 OPTION 2 ONLY: Comply with 0-foot building setback standards for Major II-IV. Condition#73 Provide a public or private street connecting SW Dartmouth St. to Hermoso Way. The staff response to each condition under appeal is included in the attached memorandum from Planning Staff to the City Council dated July 12, 2000. Attachments: 7/12/2000 Staff Memo to the Council Exhibit"A"—7/11/2000 Letter from Brian Rager Exhibit`B"—6/26/2000 Letter from Jim Hendryx Exhibit"C"—5/15/2000 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Exhibit"D"—Planning Commission Final Order No. 2000-02 PC Exhibit"E"—Appeal Form&Related Materials Exhibit"F"— 120-Day Extension Letter from the Appellant OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY None FISCAL NOTES N/A I:\citywide\sum\pd2000-00001&2 summary.doc • • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 00- A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE FINAL ORDER AND DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, TRI-COUNTY CENTER/OPTIONS 1 AND 2 (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) 2000-00001/SENSITIVE LAND (SLR) 2000-00005/LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 2000- 00002, AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) 2000-00002/SENSITIVE LAND (SLR) 2000- 00004/LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 2000-00003). WHEREAS, the applicant requested approval of a conceptual plan for two alternative designs for new construction of a shopping center as a Planned Development on a 27.33 acre site. Option 1 is the proposed new construction of a 297,179 square foot Shopping Center. Option 2 is the proposed new construction of a 330,312 square foot Shopping Center. Both alternatives included a request for a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Lands Review. WHEREAS, on May 15, 2000 the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing concerning the proposed shopping center and following discussion and the close of the public hearing, voted to approve the shopping center, subject to conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, on June 5, 2000 the appellants filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision appealing Conditions No. 1, 7, 22, 25, 26, 56, 58 and 73; and WHEREAS, the issues raised by the appellants are not substantiated or do not require a change in the language of the Condition; and WHEREAS, findings contained within the Planning Commission's decision(Final Order No. 2000-02 PC) and the conditions of approval will insure that all required permits and engineering review is obtained for this project prior to the beginning of any construction. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The City of Tigard hereby determines that the Planning Commission's decision for approval is appropriate based on findings in the Planning Commission Final Order, the June 26, 2000 letter from the Director of Community Development regarding the wall along Hermoso Way, the July 12, 2000 Memorandum from Staff to City Council, the July 11, 2000 Memorandum from the City's Development Engineer regarding Condition #7, and the testimony provided at the July 25, 2000 City Council meeting, and hereby denies the appeal of Tri-County Center (Option 1 - Planned Development (PD) 2000-00001/Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 2000-00005/Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 2000-00002, and Option 2 - Planned Development (PD) 2000-00002/Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 2000- 00004/Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 2000-00003). RESOLUTION NO.00- is\citywide\res\tri-county.res Page 1 of 2 KPF-July 17,2000 • • PASSED: This day of 2000. Council President- City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder-City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO.00- is\citywide\res\iri-county.res Page 2 of 2 KPF-July 17,2000 • . City of Tigard Community Development Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503)639-4171 Fax 684-7297 TO: City Council FROM: Karen Fox, Associate Planner DATE: July 12, 2000 SUBJECT: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC -Tri-County Center CASE NOS.: (Option 1) - Planned Development Review (PD) 2000-00001 Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 2000-00005 Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 2000-00002 (Option 2) - Planned Development Review (PD) 2000-00002 Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 2000-00004 Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 2000-00003 BACKGROUND: On May 15, 2000, the Planning Commission held a Publi Hearing to receive testimony on two alternative conceptual plans for a shopping center on a 27.0 acre parcel, known as the Tri-County Center (case numbers listed above). A Final order was issued by the Planning Commission on May 19, 2000 approving with conditions the planned development/conceptual plan. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission decision on June 5, 2000. A summary of the specific conditions appealed, related criteria and staffs response are as follows: CONDITION #1: CHAPTER 18.620, TIGARD TRIANGLE DESIGN STANDARDS (AND SECTION 18.620.090) Overall Condition: The entire shopping center proposal may be reviewed, at the applicant's option, by the Design Evaluation Team (DET) prior to detailed plan submittal in addition to the conditions listed below. After DET review, it is recommended that the applicant submit detailed plans for individual buildings as each building tenant is identified. 7/25/00 City Council Public Hearing Staff Report Page 1 of 7 Re:Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC -Tri-County Center/Options 1 &2 Summary of Appellant's Statement: The applicant states that this condition was modified by the Planning Commission to make DET review optional rather than mandatory and is, therefore, a restatement of the code requirement and is extraneous. The applicant also stated concern that should the applicant choose to go through DET review, that the wording of the condition.would require the applicant to fulfill all of the listed conditions in the final order. The applicant indicates that it was unclear whether the Planning Commission determined that certain of the applicable criteria are satisfied or not, making it impossible to know whether or not revised plans or DET review are required. The example cited was whether or not the proposed wall along Hermoso Way meets the definition for a "building" under the code and thus satisfies the zero to ten foot setback requirement in Conditions #56 and #58. Staff Response: 9, Condition #1 was modified on the Staff Report) by the Planning Commission to allow the applicant the option, rath r-than irement, to go through the DET review prior to the detailed plan review. Typically, the d taile a review process would occur prior to the conceptual plan review, however, the applicant di no ect to do this. If the applicant elects to go through the DET review prior to submitting the detailed plan, the DET's recommendations would have to come before the Planning Commission, and all other procedure's under Section 18.620.090.D for the Design Evaluation Team Review Process would apply. The Planning Commission'decision would be final unless appealed to the City Council. Staff'Recommendation: As the DET review is optional, no action is necessary. • CONDITION #7: CHAPTER 18.810 (AND SECTION 18.810.030) The applicant shall enter into a street improvement agreement that obligates them to participate in the future widening of SW Dartmouth, east of SW 72nd Avenue to provide two (2) east bound travel lanes. The applicant's share of the improvements will be based on the length of a two (2) lane section needed to safely transition to one (1) lane eastbound based on recommendation from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD 1988 Edition). Appellant's Statement: This condition requires the applicant to acquire land and undertake improvements that are not proportional to the impacts that will result from the proposed shopping center. The condition does not ensure that applicant will be required to only pay its share of the required improvements. Staff Response: A Rough Proportionality Analysis was included in the Staff Report and Final Order. For Option 1, the. estimated full traffic impact is $2,237,375, and the unmitigated impact is estimated at $1,521,505. For Option 2, the estimated full traffic impact is $2,478,218, and the unmitigated impact is estimated at $1,685,188. 7/25/00 City Council Public Hearing Staff Report Page 2 of 7 Re:Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC-Tri-County Center/Options 1 &2 • • • Much of the proposed street improvement work allows for additional traffic capacity and is, therefore, eligible for a Transportation Impact Fee Credit. The estimated value for the street improvements, TIF credits, and any non TIF creditable work as provided in the decision is roughly $1,000,000. Therefore, the applicant is paying only a portion of the projects impact on the transportation system. • Additional comments are attached and provided by the City's Development Engineer, Brian Rager, regarding this issue (Exhibit "A"). Staff Recommendation: Uphold Condition #7. CONDITION #22.: CHAPTER 18.775, SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW Condition #22: The applicant shall verify that there will not.be (and has not been since grading has begun on this project) any ground disturbance exceeding 10 cubic yards in the area of slopes exceeding 25 percent. Condition #25 (Option 2 only): Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall revise the plans and relocate the parking area near the bend of Hermoso Way outside of the areas which exceed 25 percent slopes, or address and meet the Sensitive Lands Review standards for any ground disturbance exceeding 10 cubic yards on lands sloped greater than 25 percent. Appellant's Statement: These two conditions do not recognize the fact than many of the existing slopes on the site are the result of ongoing site work pursuant to previously-issued authorizations by the site. Applicant is willing to comply with this condition as it applies to naturally occurring sensitive areas, but not as it applies to all slopes on the property that exceed 25 percent. This condition should be modified accordingly. Staffs Response: This issue was discussed by the Planning Commission who consulted with staff during the May 15, 2000 hearing. Staff clarified, at that time, Condition #22 was simply asking for verification by the applicant that there will not be any ground disturbance in the area of slopes exceeding 25 percent (which existed prior to ground disturbance by the applicant on this site). Similarly, Condition #25 is referring to pre-ground disturbance slopes which exceed 25 percent. It was clarified at the hearing that the applicant's were being asked to provide verification via topographic evidence, and site history regarding whether, or not, there were slopes exceeding 25 percent from the time the applicant/owner began work on the site; and if so, whether the work exceeds 10 cubic yards on those portions of the site. Condition #25 is applicable in the case that there is ground disturbance exceeding 10 cubic yards on lands sloped greater than 25 percent (slopes that existed at the time that the applicant or owner began work on this site). Staff Recommendation: No action necessary. 7/25/00 City Council Public Hearing Staff Report Page 3 of 7 Re:Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC-Tri-County Center/Options 1 &2 • • CONDITION #26: CHAPTER 18.620 (AND SECTION 18.620.030). The applicant shall revise the plans and provide landscaping, an arcade, or hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path along SW Dartmouth street between the structures and the wetlands/public street, or shall submit the alternative design proposal for front yard setback design in accordance with the Tigard Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030 to the Design Evaluation Team prior to detailed plan review submittal. Front Yard Setback Design: Section 18.620.030.A.3 Landscaping, and arcade or a hard-surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path must be provided between a structure and a public street or accessway. If a building abuts more than one street, the required improvements shall be provided on all streets. Landscaping shall be developed to an L-1 standard on public streets and an L-2 standard on accessways. Hard-surfaced areas shall be constructed with scored concrete or modular paving materials. Benches and other street furnishings are encouraged. These areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirement per Section 18.520.040B and Table 18.520.2. Summary of Appellant's Statement: The applicant states that due to the wetlands location between the structure and the public street, that code Section 18.620.030.A.3, Front yard setback design, is inapplicable. The applicant states that this code section does not require landscaping, or hard surfacing between a structure and a wetland,. or a wetland and a public street. Staff Response: The applicant states that it meets the criterion from Section 18.620.030.A.2, Building setback, by counting the wetland (rather than a building) along SW Dartmouth, as the feature located between zero to ten feet from the public street right-of-way. The applicant concludes that Section 18.620.030.A.3, Front yard setback design is inapplicable. However, the fact that the wetland meets . the criteria for Section 18.620.030.A.2 does not preclude that landscaping, an arcade, or a hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path shall be provided between the structure and the public street, in addition to the wetlands. The landscaping, arcade, or hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path is intended to meet the design principles as set forth in the Section 18.620.010, Purpose and Applicability, as follows: A. Design Principles. Design standards for public street improvements and for new development and renovation projects have been prepared for the Tigard Triangle. These design standards address several important guiding principals adopted for the Tigard Triangle, including creating a high quality mixed use employment area, providing a convenience pedestrian and bikeway system within the Triangle, and utilizing streetscape to create a high quality image for the area. • The applicant's proposed conceptual building and site design along SW Dartmouth does not utilize the streetscape to create a high quality image for the area, as pedestrian friendly design features are not included in the design. In addition, the building's are oriented to the interior of the lot and away from the wetlands. Building facades were shown in the plans submitted with blank facades along SW Dartmouth Street. The addition of pedestrian friendly elements between the wetland and the building 7/25/00 City Council Public Hearing Staff Report Page 4 of 7 Re: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC -Tri-County Center/Options 1 &2 • • facades along SW Dartmouth, such as additional landscaping or an arcade along the perimeter of the building, would meet the code criterion under Section 18.620.030.A.3. At present, it is unclear how, or if, service access will be provided to the (rear) building facades and the south side of the wetlands which front SW Dartmouth. Staff is also concerned that without service or pedestrian access between the buildings and the wetlands, the wetlands will be negatively impacted. The wetlands have the potential to be an amenity to the streetscape and the shopping center. However, the current proposal does not utilize the streetscape to create a high quality image for the area as the buildings turn their backs on the streetscape, the site design lacks streetscape design features, and the wetlands are not utilized as a integral visual amenity in the streetscape design. Staff Recommendation: Uphold Condition #26. CONDITION #56 & #58: CHAPTER 18.620 (AND SECTION 18.620.030.A.2.) Condition#56 (Option 1 only): The applicant shall revise the plans to comply with the 0-foot building setback standards as contained in the Tigard Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030.A.2 for Pad E or shall submit the alternative design proposal for building setback to the Design Evaluation Team in accordance with Section 18.620.090 prior to detailed plan review submittal. Condition #58 (Option 2 only): The applicant shall revise the plans to comply with the 0-foot building setback standards as contained in the Tigard Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18:620.030.A.2 for Majors II-IV or shall submit the alternative design proposal for building setback to the Design Evaluation Team in accordance with Section 18.620.090 prior to detailed plan review submittal. Building Setback: Section 18.620.030.A.2 The minimum building setback from public street rights-of-way or dedicated wetlands/buffers and other environmental features shall be 0 feet; the maximum building setback shall be 10 feet. Summary of Appellant's Statement: The applicant states that a sound wall is proposed along the entire length of the project boundary with Hermoso Street (Hermoso Way), and should satisfy the requirement for the zero to ten foot building setback from the public street. The applicant cites the definition for "building" from Chapter 18.120. The definition for building is "that which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner." Staff Response: It was not clear from the Planning Commission's hearing on May 15, 2000 whether or not a wall could be used as a substitute for a building to meet the Tigard Triangle Design Standard, Section 18.620.030.A.2 for building setback. The Director of Community Development, Jim Hendryx, provided a letter regarding this issue to the applicant dated June 26, 2000 which is included in Council's material packet (Exhibit "B"). The letter states that a wall can be used to meet the building location requirements of the TTDS, and advises that any such wall must meet the Building Design Standards 7/25/00 City Council Public Hearing Staff Report Page 5 of 7 Re:Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC-Tri-County Center/Options 1 &2 of the Triangle. For example, the wall must include design features such as ground floor windows, display areas or door openings. The applicant will need to carefully review all the design criteria under Section 18.620.40 (18.620.040), and address and meet all of these criteria in the narrative application, and plans and elevations, in the detailed plan review process. Staff Recommendation: Uphold Condition #56 and #58. CONDITION #73: CHAPTER 18.620, SECTION 18.620.020 The applicant shall revise the plans and shall provide a public or private street connecting SW Dartmouth to Hermoso Way. The street, as distinguished from the term aisle, shall be a minimum 24 feet (24') from curb to curb. Summary of Appellant's Statement: The applicant concurs with the May 8, 2000 Staff Report which found that the street connectivity was satisfied via the eight intersections per mile option (Performance Option). The Staff Report included the planned intersection at SW Dartmouth Street and the Backage Road, and the intersection at SW Dartmouth at the planned fly over to SW Hall Boulevard in the count. Condition #73 requires the applicant to dedicate land for a street that will not be required when the planned connecting street to Dartmouth Street is completed. If only one of the two, planned streets are constructed along Dartmouth, there will be the requisite six intersections without the street requirement of Condition #73. Further, Condition #73 imposes an exaction that is not proportional to the impacts that will result from the proposed shopping center. This condition takes an unnecessarily large percentage of the site area that is otherwise needed for development, landscaping, or open space. Requiring that a public or private street bisect the parking field of a commercial shopping center would create an unsafe environment for pedestrian movement over and across the area. Staff Response: The Planning Commission consulted with Staff during the May 15, 2000 hearing and discussed this issue at length at that time. Staff did not object to the addition of Condition #73 after considering the fact that the identified planned intersections are very unlikely to be built in the near future (next five years), and may never be built. As the length of SW Dartmouth is 4,100 lineal feet, approximately six to seven (actual figure is 6.2) intersections would be required to meet this standard. There are five (5) existing intersections on SW Dartmouth within the Tigard Triangle. The applicant raises the issue of Rough Proportionality in the requirement of the street connectivity, however, street connectivity is one of the guiding principles of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. Further, the applicant is given the option of providing a private street or public street. A private street street does not require dedication. Notwithstanding the fact that staff does not concur that the rough proportionality test applies in this case, the value of the connecting public street is approximately $184,000 (920 lineal feet x $200 per lineal feet). Therefore, the value of all public improvements, if the connecting street were added to the cost, would be approximately $1,130,000 (using the figures in the attached memo from the City's Development Engineer). The value of these improvements is still less than the unmitigated costs by approximately $555,000. 7/25/00 City Council Public Hearing Staff Report Page 6 of 7 Re: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC-Tri-County Center/Options 1 &2 The applicant's argument that the connecting street would bisect the parking field (lot) does not hold up as it is premised on a shopping center design which is oriented toward the interior of the lot and away from the streetscape and pedestrian way. The applicant's statement that the connecting street would create an unsafe environment assumes no re-design of the site to appropriately and safely accommodate the street. Some re-design of the site is anticipated due to this modification of the original plan. Staff Recommendation: Uphold Condition #73 Summary of Staff Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council deny the appeal finding that the issues raised have not been substantiated or do not require.a change in the language of the Condition. EXHIBITS: Exhibit "A" — 7/11/2000 Letter from Brian Rager Exhibit "B" — 6/26/2000 Letter from Jim Hendryx is\curpin\karen\pd001&2.cc.appeal.memo.doc 7/25/00 City Council Public Hearing Staff Report Page 7 of 7 Re:Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC-Tri-County Center/Options 1 &2 • . • • • II EXHIBIT A MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON DATE: July 11, 2000 - TO: Karen Fox, Associate Planner FROM: Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer RE: PDR 2000-00001, 2000-00002, Tri County Options 1 and 2 This memorandum is in response to the applicant's argument over Condition #7, which requires them to widen SW Dartmouth Street, east of SW 72nd Avenue. Right-of-Way Issue First of all, the applicant claims that they will have to purchase right-of-way (ROW) from the parcel at the southeast corner of SW Dartmouth Street/SW 72nd Avenue (2S1 01AB, Tax Lot 100). This is not true. As apart of the previous land use approval (SDR 98-00002), the applicant was able to obtain ROW on the east side of SW 72nd Avenue, adjacent to Tax Lot 100, to provide 46 feet from the centerline. In addition, a 45-foot ROW radius was dedicated at the intersection corner. Both dedications were completed and are illustrated on the most current tax assessors maps. There is approximately 40 feet of ROW on SW Dartmouth Street adjacent to Tax Lot 100, and 30 feet of ROW on the north side of centerline, for a total ROW width of 70 feet (existing). The 40- foot width on the south side of centerline is sufficient to contain the improvements required in Condition #7. One last point regarding this issue. On July 11, 2000, Staff met with Specht Development, who is interested in developing Tax Lot 100, and other parcels in the vicinity. Obviously, if that occurs, Specht would be required to dedicate ROW and construct street improvements to SW Dartmouth Street adjacent to Tax Lot 100 that include the improvements listed in Condition #7. But in the event the Tri County project moves forward before Specht, it stands to reason that Specht would be motivated to cooperate with the Tri County developer, especially if part of their future street improvements would be constructed for them. • • Value of Improvements Required The applicant asserts that the value of the street widening is over and above their impact on the transportation system: Staff has estimated the value of the street widening as follows: • Roadway Widening: $ 92,000.00 (conservative) • Wetland Issues (If any) $ 10,000.00 • Public Improvement Permit $ 4,500.00 (additional) • Subtotal $ 106,500.00 • Contingency @ 5% $ 5,325.00 .s • TOTAL $ 111,825.00 In the previous Staff Report, it was noted that the unmitigated impact of this development will be approximately $1,685,188.00. The applicant had given Staff an estimate of the cost of all public improvements (less the improvements described above) that would be tied to this project. The value of those improvements is $834,074.00. With the addition of the roadway widening east of SW 72nd Avenue, the total value of all public improvements would be approximately $946,000.00. The value of these improvements is still less than the unmitigated impact by approximately $739,000.00. Basically, in order for Staff to buy into any of the applicant's arguments, Staff would have to be convinced that the value of any unforseen issues would exceed $739,000. This is not likely. . In summary, Staff is not convinced the applicant is powerless to construct the improvements described in Condition #7, as sufficient ROW already exists. Staff also disagrees that the value of these improvements exceeds the project impacts. ' i.1eng\brianAcommentsVdrSpdr 200400001-00002-cord#7-rebuttal.doc - • PAGE 2 . . Il EXHIBIT B • • � a• CITY OF TIGARD June 26, 2000 OREGON Ed Christensen Christensen Engineering 7150 SW Hampton, Suite 226 Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Ed: There has been some confusion regarding whether a wall can substitute for building location relative to the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. I would like to assure you and your clients that a wall, indeed, can be used to meet the building location requirements of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. Please be advised that any such wall must meet the Building Design Standards of the Triangle. I hope this will clarify the City's position. Sincerely, /fi'l'A •es N.P. Hendryx Director of Community Development I:\curpin\dick\letters\Christensen TTDS letter.doc c: PD2000-00001 Land use file PD2000-00002 Land use file 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503)639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 EXHIBIT C CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes • • May 15, 2000 1. CALL TO ORDER President Wilson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Wilson; Commissioners Anderson (arrived late), Griffith, Mores, Olsen, Padgett, Scolar, and Topp Commissioners•Absent: Commissioner Incalcaterra Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Karen Fox, Associate Planner; Augustin Duenas, City Engineer; Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer; Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS Dick Bewersdorff proposed some meeting dates to address a code amendment for an historic designation and a conditional use to allow weddings and other similar activities in a residential zone. It was decided that the matter would be heard on July 17th. Mr. Bewersdorff also advised that cameras were being installed so that all public meetings held in the Tigard Civic Center may be televised. Training is being offered to prepare Planning Commission members for televised meetings. 4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES Commissioner Griffith moved and Commissioner Padgett seconded the motion to approve the April 17, 2000, meeting minutes as submitted. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1 2000-2001 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Augustin "Gus" Duenas discussed the process for determining capital improvement projects, funding sources, and the program areas and priorities. The PowerPoint presentation detailing each project is attached as Exhibit A. Program areas are: the street system; the storm drainage system; the park system; and the water system. Mr. Duenas detailed the priorities of each program area, upcoming projects, the fiscal 1999-2000 committed projects that are still to be completed, and funding of the projects. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 15,2000- Page 1 • • Commissioner Topp asked about underground utilities, fiber optics, and cable that need to be installed in the street extensions and unpaved portions of the right-of-way. Mr. Duenas said the task force is working on coordinating those installations with the County so that underground work is done prior to paving. Commissioner Olsen commended the task force for its work on the traffic count, transportation bond, and Summerlake issues. Commissioner Padgett asked about the portable speed humps. Mr. Duenas said there is a process for rating the streets. President Wilson asked if a feasibility study of the Walnut/Hunziker connection should be looked at. Mr. Duenas said that was one of the recommendations in the transportation plan. Mr. Wilson commented that while this project may be expensive, it would be less expensive than widening Hwy. 99W. A brief discussion was held regarding the public's frustration with Hwy. 99 traffic as opposed to the disruption that would be attendant upon such a project. The downtown redevelopment plan will be confronting this issue, and while it may be considered in long-term planning, it is not in the scope of this CIP. It is recognized that something must be done to alleviate Hwy. 99 traffic. . Commissioner Olsen moved to accept the 2000-2001 Capital Improvement Projects, with the revisions presented, and Commissioner Padgett seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. No one signed up to speak on this item. 5.2 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PD) 2000-00001/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2000-00005/LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 2000-00002 TRI-COUNTY CENTER— OPTION 1 PROPOSAL: This is a request for a conceptual plan review as a Planned Development for the new construction of a 297,179-square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; and a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership. A prior request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Water Resource Overlay District including fill and mitigation of a portion of the existing wetlands was granted on June 23, 1998 and became effective July 23, 1998 by Final Order of the Tigard City Council. The 1998 City Council decision also included a Planned Development Review, Site Development Review, and Lot Line Adjustment for a detailed plan for this site. However, this new proposal differs from the prior plan and, therefore, requires a new land use application and approval for a Planned Development, Sensitive Lands Review, and a Lot Line Adjustment. LOCATION: The site is located on the south side of SW Dartmouth Street and on the west side of SW 72nd PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 15,2000- Page 2 • • • Avenue and is east of State Highway 217. The site also includes the 6 lots along the north side of SW Hermosa Way. The site address is 12265 SW 72"d Avenue; WCTM 1 S 136CD, Tax Lot 04200; 2S 101 BA, Tax Lots 00100, 00101, 00300, 00400, 00401 and 00402; 2S101AB, Tax Lots 01300, 01400, 01401, 01402, 01403, 01404. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial (C-G) and Mixed Use Employment (MUE). ZONING DESIGNATION: C-G (PD) and MUE. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.350, 18.360, 18.390, 18.410, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.725, 18.730, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795, and 18.810. STAFF REPORT Karen Fox presented the staff report on behalf of the City. Refer to Exhibit B for proposed changes to the staff report. She. emphasized that this is a concept plan versus a detailed plan review. The two options are presented together, with the only difference being the square footage of the gross usable space and building area. Ms. Fox detailed the site location and particulars of the two options. The current plan differs from the prior-approved 1998 plan by including six lots on SW Hermosa Way to the southern portion of the site and adding a new access on Hermosa Way, and it presents different building configurations and locations. It has blank walls on three streets and most of the facades are below grade. The current proposal has gone through wetlands and water resources overlay review and the wetlands designation has been removed; however, a sensitive lands review is requested as the project is in noncompliance with the Division of State Lands regarding the wetlands infill location. Ms. Fox presented details on the areas where the plan options currently do not meet the Tigard Triangle design standards and criteria regarding building placement on arterials, building setbacks, walkway connections, parking locations, landscape requirements, and building design criteria 1, 2, 3, and 6. She also outlined changes/corrections to the staff report and recommendations. Because the standards are not met in concept, there is a basis for denying the proposal; however, based on alternative designs by the design evaluation team, staff recommends that overall conditions be imposed and that the applicant be required to go through the design evaluation process. Staff recommends approval only after the conditions are met and a detailed plan is submitted. Dick Bewersdorff pointed out that this is a complicated project and both the planning staff and applicant struggled with the recommendations. There are conditions in the evaluation that will take care of the majority of the issues and the applicant would prefer not to go through the design evaluation team process. Brian Rager stated that as part of the 1998 approval, the applicant has already submitted construction plans for most of the public improvements that were conditioned for this project, has obtained plan approval from the Engineering PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 15,2000- Page 3 • • Department for those plans, and has proceeded with the rough grading. To move forward with the proposed options, the applicant must amend those construction plans, which will be difficult. Mr. Rager discussed some of the issues that have been dealt with, such as signalization. There is a report from Kittleson & Associates for mitigation. The applicant has made improvements and provided for further recommended improvements in their plan, but there may be some misunderstandings regarding potential traffic impacts. Generally, there are no other changes in traffic impacts from the 1998 plan and the applicant has made some progress and only needs design approval from ODOT on the signalization at 68th and Dartmouth. There is also mention in the report for a reimbursement district for the sewer line put in on Hermosa Way, so the applicant will need to pay the assessments, and the report also require s clarification of the storm drainage and water quality design. It will not be difficult for the applicant to meet those standards. Additional grading has been requested and the Engineering Department is questioning some of the fill that they have put in, so has recommended a geotechnical engineer certification before any further grading is done. Commissioner Padgett asked if widening to two lanes and then narrowing back to one lane east of 72nd and Dartmouth is possible to do within the existing city right- of-way or whether it will require the purchase of private property by the applicant. Mr. Rager said that he believes it will require some acquisition of right-of-way by the applicant. The applicant has already acquired the right-of-way from the property owner in order to do full-street improvements on 72nd and there should be no problem acquiring it on Dartmouth. Commissioner Topp asked if the current project would be affected if the options presented are approved or not approved. Dick Bewersdorff said that construction has begun on the 1998 application that was approved. If either Option 1 or 2 is approved, then the applicant will have to meet the new conditions of approval, and if neither is approved, they will continue with the current project as approved in 1998. It wasn't known that there was a problem until the signal coordination report was done. President Wilson expressed concern with staffs interpretation of the connectivity standards. Staff counted eight streets and seven intersections along Dartmouth, including the planned backage road and "flyover" of Hall Blvd. The connectivity standards says all development must demonstrate how certain conditions will be met as to design and performance, and he questions how it can be demonstrated that these planned streets will actually be built. Additionally, evaluation of Dartmouth Street and 72nd Avenue has been made, but not Hermosa Way, which would also apply to that standard. Mr. Wilson contends that a street is needed connecting Dartmouth to Hermosa. Everything has been provided for except connection and without it there is a huge amount of unmitigated traffic impact. Karen Fox and Dick Bewersdorff agreed that this was a good point. The concept that was utilized was the performance option distance between various frontages PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 15,2000-Page 4 • • on buildings to various driveways and this met the standard. President Wilson responded that he feels the whole spirit of connectivity is being violated here. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Ed Christensen, Christensen Engineering, said they felt they had presented a detailed, site friendly plan and had tried to work the pedestrian connectivity through the site as much as possible while meeting the design standards. The plan was resubmitted in 1998 in order to meet the criteria and intent under Tigard Triangle design standards. The current options are requested due to changes in the retail community since 1998 requiring larger, more flexible retail sites. These two options are presented as concept plans in order to provide for more flexibility in meeting the design standards and then detailed plans can be provided later. Mr. Christensen explained the various areas in which they felt the intent of the Triangle design standards had been met. He noted that it is not an easy process meeting all of the requirements. They do not feel there is a large difference between the options presented and what they are trying to achieve and what was approved in 1998. Option 2 differs from the 1998 plan by adding 1.5 acres. This will actually reduce the overall traffic impact that would result from future development of that land. It also differs by allowing the flexibility to move pad C, but does not change frontage along Dartmouth and 72nd as contended by staff. Working with staff, sidewalk overhangs and covered walkways were included in the overall length of buildings on both those frontages to meet that standard. There is more than adequate connectivity through the site for pedestrian and traffic movement. The performance option is also met for the number of access points onto Dartmouth Street, but not for the number of intersections along a section of Hermosa Way. However, existing intersections and driveways function at a level of service of A-B, bringing into question whether more connectors are necessary. Mr. Christensen also discussed topography and the various elevations of the shopping center, explaining the physical difficulties in meeting the connectivity criteria, ADA standards, and retail community standards due to grade levels. Slope issues raised by staff were actually stockpiled materials that staff did not realize were there. Fill concerns raised by staff have been tested by a geotechnical consultant and all meet or exceed the standards. Mr. Christensen stated that the concept plan allows for the needed flexibility to better implement a shopping center. He briefly discussed the tenancy issues and the need for flexibility. He said it is not possible to go through the design evaluation team process for each tenant space because that would be too time consuming and would result in construction not beginning this year because of the time needed to meet the current conditions of approval.. The landscaping and other concept plans are detailed as previously submitted. They want to work with staff to remedy anything missed in the plans, but the DET process will considerably delay this development. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 15,2000- Page 5 • • President Wilson asked if the 1998 approved plan went through the DET process. Mr. Christensen responded that it did not, the plan was deemed to have met the design standards outright. Mr. Wilson stated that if the standards are not met, an applicant must go through the DET process. The Planning Commission does not have the authority to say that an applicant does not have to comply with the Code. Mr. Christensen stated that there is only one major issue of compliance, which is the façade along Hermosa Way. There only needs to be agreement that a wall with display windows constitutes a façade. The other items in the recommendation can be shown to be met. Dick Bewersdorff clarified a misunderstanding about the DET process. He said the applicant does not need to go through the process for each detailed plan for tenant spaces, only one time for the concept plan, and then each detailed plan goes through the review process with staff. Commissioner Padgett commented that the only disagreement with the conditions in the staff report that the Planning Commission has seen is a letter from Perkins Coie (Exhibit C). President Wilson pointed out that there are two major issues. One is meeting the Triangle design standards and the other is condition #1 requiring the DET process. The staff report, starting on page 20, sets out where staff feels the plan does not meet the standards. Those are DET issues and they can relax the standards to a degree. The other conditions are technical and not related to the DET process. Commissioner Topp added that the applicant must either demonstrate that they are in compliance with the standards or must go through the DET process. Mr. Christensen said that functionally this is the same plan as what was submitted and approved in 1998, except for the sound wall on Hermosa Way. He detailed the applicant's position on the conditions, as follows. Condition #1: Request that this be removed. Condition #5: •The applicant agrees with this condition and will comply. Condition #7: This was based on information not provided to them and they are unable to comply because it is not under their control. Condition #22: Request that this condition be removed. This was in regards to the 25% slopes along Hermosa Way, which was a stockpile from stripping the areas below for grading. This is not sensitive lands, it is under construction. Condition #23: Modify 4" fence to 4' fence. Condition #26: Request that this condition be removed because it is not necessary under the design standards for zero setback to the wetlands. Condition #27: There is no revision required. The requirements of pedestrian walkways are met. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 15,2000-Pagc 6 • • . Condition #28: They agree with parking area redesign along 72nd Avenue. Along Hermosa Way, the wall would be acting as a facade, resulting in zero setback to the right-of-way, so no additional landscaping would be required along there. This is contingent upon approval of a wall versus a building. Commissioner Topp stated that he has trouble with the concept of a freestanding wall being the facade and resulting in a zero setback as opposed to a building wall. Mr. Christensen responded that it is allowable under the Triangle design standards. President Wilson said that was only if there was some topographical or similar constraint, and that is the way it has been interpreted in the DET meetings also. If there is some reason why it cannot be met, then an alternative is usually acceptable. Condition #29: They ask that this be removed because it requires going t hrough the DET process for zero-to-10-foot setbacks, which they contend is met all around the site. There is some question about whether they are required to have 50% of the building fronting non-arterial streets. The design standards are not specific on this because they say arterial and collector streets, but not local streets. In addition, the condition says no false windows are allowed for the purposes of meeting design standards, and that is not correct. The terms "false windows" and "display windows" are used interchangeably, and display windows are allowed and are currently being used. They ask that the whole condition be removed because it is unnecessary. The windows will be properly placed according to the standards. President Wilson advised that the staff report conditions simply recite parts of the code. If a condition cannot be met, then an alternative design proposal can be submitted to the DET prior to detailed plan review submittal. Because this is conceptual and the Planning Commission is not supplied with all of the details, either the standards must be met or the applicant must submit to the DET an alternative to meeting the standards. Staff does not have enough information from a conceptual plan in order to make an evaluation. Mr. Christensen replied that the standards will be met, they understand the criteria and the concept, and they simply want the flexibility to change the site in order to develop it. The staff report in condition #1 requires them to go to the DET. President Wilson said this was because staff saw some things in the plan that did not appear to comply with the standards. Instead of requiring them to go to the DET as a condition of approval, preferable language would be that when a detailed plan is provided, the applicant will comply with the entire letter of the Triangle standards. Mr. Christensen agreed and reiterated that the standards will be complied with in the detailed plans, if the issues regarding Hermosa Way can be taken care of here. Mr. Wilson said that may be the one issue that should go to the DET, and Mr. Christensen responded that the time involved in that process will considerably delay construction. Although they will still have to submit detailed plans and have a site design review, that is not required for a grading permit. They need to be able to do the grading during the summer months when the moisture content of the dirt is less. Commissioner Topp disagreed that this was the only issue to be resolved, there is also the disagreement with condition #29. Staff says false windows are not allowed and the applicant says they are allowed. Karen Fox replied that the plan showed PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 15,2000- Page 7 • • blank walls, not false or display windows, so staff assumed that they were proposing blank walls. If the applicant provides for display windows, then that meets the standards. Upon Commissioner Topp's inquiry about the purpose of the windows, Ms. Fox quoted from the design principles in the Tigard Triangle standards that, in summary, says they are for aesthetic purposes. Display windows are an option listed in the standards and are acceptable. The conceptual plan submitted only showed blank walls, which would not meet the standards, and this was the reason for the condition. • Mr. Christensen said that the 1998 plan also omitted some details on the elevations, but it was noted that the applicant would meet the standards and this was sufficient to both the applicant and the Commission for approval of that plan. He then continued with detailing the applicant's position on the conditions: Condition #30: The criteria regarding building facades extending more than 300 feet has been met by adding entrances to the buildings at less than 300-foot intervals. Mr. Christensen explained the changes made to the 1998 plan to accomplish this. Condition #33: This is similar to a condition for the proposal in 1998. They do not have the ability to hide the mechanical rooftop equipment because of the 35-foot elevation drop along Hermosa Way and 72" �. This is alleviated by painting the equipment the same color as the.roof. President Wilson commented that it is common to put screens around the equipment and agreed that this should not be an issue. Condition #35: A foot of landscaping was inadvertently omitted on the plan. This condition is met. Conditions #40 and #41: They have an existing permit with the Army Corps of Engineers and DSL that expired because the improvements were not complete, and have been advised that their request for a one-year extension will be granted. For condition #41, a 15-foot buffer is approved and in some cases had to mitigate the buffer off-site. They have submitted to staff documentation of that approval. Karen Fox indicated that she has not had time to verify the documentation. Condition #42: Visual clearance is not applicable to the design standards. Karen Fox explained that staffs reason for imposing this condition is due to a conflict in Tigard Triangle design standards and the city's code for visual clearance on a corner. She agrees with the applicant that there is no conflict as it applies in this case. After a brief discussion, it was determined that this is not an issue. Condition #50: They have no problem designing something to catch cars; however, they do not understand the definition of drop-off grade or separation. There is a distinction between the Uniform Building Code, which is applicable, and the Zoning Code that applies to anything that is not a building as far as drop-off is concerned. This could be considered a 4:1 slope. Mr. Christensen asked if this term is defined in the code. Karen Fox said there is no definition pertinent to this site; this was intended to relate specifically to the parking lot by driveway D next to 72"d. The PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May IS,2000-Page 8 • • UBC states that any drop-off greater than 30" requires a handrail. A 2:1 slope is the most common slope for development concerns. President Wilson said the applicant's concern is noted. Condition #56: They feel that the wall would suffice to meet this condition. Condition $57: This condition will be complied with. Condition #58: They feel that the wall along Hermosa Way with display windows would suffice. A break was convened at 10:00 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 10:07 p.m. • PUBLIC TESTIMONY Barbara & Dan Bauer, 12335 SW 72nd, own two corner lots on 72nd & Hermosa. Their home and business is on 72n1 where the five lanes will narrow down to two lanes. If that road goes through, it will be only eight feet from their home and will cut their business parking area down to 15 feet, causing delivery trucks to extend onto 72n1 when unloading, which will put them out of business. There is no off- street parking. Other concerns are regarding run-off into the wall if the road is not put in, and the soil nails that will create problems for future development. President Wilson noted that the applicant will have to purchase right-of-way for the road and the Bauers, as the property owners, can negotiate these issues for that acquisition. Mr. Bauer is also concerned about the current traffic problem being exacerbated. Dave Cram, 800 NW 6th Ave. #206, Portland, OR 97205, signed up to speak but did not do so. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Olsen asked for clarification regarding the need to finish the grading this summer. It was pointed out that grading can be done according .to the 1998 plan, but no further until the conditions are met for an approved option. President Wilson asked for clarification on how long the DET process takes. It was established that the process takes a minimum of six weeks. Commissioner Topp asked how the DET process affects the applicant's ability to begin grading. Mr. Bewersdorff said the DET meets with the applicant and then determines if the proposal conforms with the design standards. It is unsure how the 30-foot cut into the hill on Hermosa will be handled by the DET. There have been prior approvals where they have modified the standards due to topography. Commissioner Topp outlined the applicant's various options. Option 0 is to grade the entire site pursuant to the 1998 approval. With the proposed options 1 and 2, the access points and most of the parking are essentially the same, but there is a difference in the location of some of the buildings and the 30 feet of excavation • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 15,2000-Page 9 • • by Hermosa Way. He asked if there is a possibility of splitting the grading into phases where the portion in contention would be the last to be graded. President Wilson pointed out that grading has already begun, but to grade the proposed area the applicant must purchase the homes, and they don't want to do that unless they know they will get approval. Mr. Christensen stated that with the 1998 plan, they have a 28-foot cut at the back of the Hermosa lots. The option requires additional grading off-site and to do that they must submit and get approval of the improvement plans for Hermosa Way in order to get a grading permit. They cannot get the off-site improvement plans approved through the DET in timely fashion for grading on the site of the Hermosa Way lots during the summer months, which therefore nullifies the option. The street widening requires right-of-way acquisition, which cannot happen anytime soon. Commissioner Topp asked if it would benefit the applicant to proceed with grading three-fourths of the site while they go through the approval process for the part of Hermosa Way in contention. Mr. Christensen said the grading must be done in the summer because of moisture content in the dirt. Waiting for approval would defer a large amount of grading to after the summer months. Commissioner Topp said one of his concerns is the response from ODOT and the amount of traffic resulting from this plan. He asked what the reason is for the street improvement. President Wilson responded that this issue was addressed in 1998. At that time it was already zoned, and the zoning assumes a certain traffic generation. Once it is zoned, a project cannot be denied on that zoning short of a moratorium. The problem is that the zoning was a mistake because it was done under the assumption that numerous improvements would be in place that have not actually occurred. Commissioner Topp said another concern is the letter from the attorneys, item #4 regarding condition #7. He agrees that a condition cannot be imposed if it is not under the applicant's control, but it is up to the applicant to show on the plans how the problem will be remedied, and now they contend that they cannot be required to do what is shown on the plans. President Wilson pointed out that staff cited the condition as a solution for the traffic problem. Mr. Topp feels the applicant should be required to provide a solution. The applicant's response is that the problem will resolve itself by people taking different traffic patterns in order to avoid that area. President Wilson said that that was the reason he was pushing for the connectivity, in order to give people more options. Karen Fox stated that staff has no objection to a connectivity recommendation by the Commission. Brian Rager added that a traffic study needs to be done. Commissioner Padgett pointed out that if people have a hard time getting onto and off of the property due to heavy traffic, then it is the property that will feel the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 15,2000-Page 10 • • • negative results because people will not continue to go there. If the shopping center is willing to accept that, then that is their choice. A compromise may be to agree with the applicant that it is not right to force them to buy the property necessary for widening; but have the applicant sign a non-remonstrance for an LID for the widening of that street when the property across the street does develop. Mr. Rager said that is acceptable. They have a standard street improvement agreement that could also provide the flexibility that if the adjacent property does develop, the applicant is not precluded from participating in that. Commissioner Padgett added that this would continue to recognize that this development has a direct impact on that intersection and what happens across the intersection, and yet possibly eliminates the roadblock they have to making that happen. Mr. Christensen said that would be acceptable to them. Commissioner Padgett reiterated that if the main result of those lanes not being widened on 72nd is that people have trouble getting out of and therefore don't frequent that property, then the applicant is accepting that consequence. Commissioner Topp asked why there would be a traffic backup as reported in the traffic study when there will be coordinated traffic signals. Mr. Bewersdorff explained how a build-up of traffic can occur and pointed out that it is a signal timing situation that will need to be worked out. A brief discussion was held on the future development and traffic problems of the area. Commissioner Padgett stated that when the area on the other side of 72nd is developed, the intent is to have the street wide enough to eliminate the traffic problems. President Wilson stated that the problem regarding Hermosa Way and the DET process still needed to be addressed. Commissioner Topp commented that if that problem can be resolved and the applicant is willing to comply with the other conditions, then they will not have to go through the DET process. Condition #1 can be changed to require the applicant to either comply with the conditions OR go to the DET. President Wilson said he would like to know why staff made this an overall condition and then repeated the other problems individually. He thought there were quite a few unresolved issues. Mr. Bewersdorff said it was done that way to provide the Commission the option of either having that overall condition or dealing with each one individually. Staff struggled with that because they were uncomfortable with trying to approve something on Hermosa Way that may not meet the intent of the Tigard Triangle design. In regard to building frontage and windows facing the street, Mr. Bewersdorff stated that the intent of the design standards is that this requirement applies to local streets as well as collectors and arterials. While the applicant is contending that these standards do not apply to this local access street, staff is saying that PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 15,2000- Page 1 I • • • they are applicable to local streets. Commissioner Padgett stated that he was on the task force and that staff is right, that was the intent. A discussion was held concerning the need to add another street to meet the connectivity standard. It was suggested that the addition of a private street could be added as a condition of approval. A private street would not be held to the standards for public streets, but width requirements could still be imposed for two-way traffic to ensure it is not simply an aisle. The discussion continued regarding street and accessway requirements, as well as setback requirements. The applicant contents they can't get the 0'-10' setback on Hermosa because of the slope. Ms. Fox said the current property is a 7-10% slope and the applicant is self-imposing the steep topography, and she feels it is not necessary to drop the building 30' below grade because it could be designed to be above grade and to front the street as is intended by the standards. This portion of the site (the Hermosa lots) is zoned MUE, which allows the same things as General Commercial plus some additional things. There are also practical considerations, such as servicing at the rear of the building. Since they have to have a building façade within 0-10' of Hermosa, the applicant is proposing a wall with false windows in order to qualify. Pursuant to the discussions, the following determinations were made: A compromise would be made on condition #7 regarding the traffic lanes, as discussed earlier. Approval can be granted by changing condition #1 to require the applicant to be in compliance with the design standards or, if they do not agree with or cannot conform with the standards, they would have to go through the DET process. This would be done by making condition #1 an option rather than mandatory. Condition #23 should be modified to provide for a 4-foot-high fence. Condition #22 should require that the applicant must verify the stockpiling from construction. A new condition should be required for the applicant to construct a 24-foot-wide private street connecting Dartmouth with Hermosa, in accordance with Section 18.620.020 for street connectivity. Condition #7 should require that the applicant enter into a street improvement agreement that obligates them to participate in the future widening of SW Dartmouth Street east of SW 72nd Avenue to provide two eastbound travel lanes. This presumes that the applicant would be joining in with development of adjacent property, so the intent of the condition is that the applicant's share will be based on the length of a two-lane section needed to safely transition to one lane eastbound, based on recommendations from the MUTCD. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 15,2000-Page 12 • • Condition #29 can be struck because the proposal provides for display windows and complies with the standards. Condition #43 should be modified to provide for sufficient screening to hide rooftop mechanical equipment. • Condition #50 regarding the height requirement should be modified to provide for a railing where the drop off rate of separation is at least 30" or a 2:1 slope. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the request for Planned Development Review (PD) 2000-00001/Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 2000-00005/Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 2000-00002; and Planned Development Review (PD) 2000- 00002/Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 2000-00004/Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 2000-00003, subject to the conditions of approval with changes, deletions, and modifications as discussed above and summarized as follows: Condition #1 is made optional by changing "shall" to "may, at the applicant's option,"; Condition #7 is changed to require that the applicant enter into a street improvement agreement that obligates them to participate in the future widening of SW Dartmouth Street east of SW 72nd Avenue to provide two eastbound travel • lanes. The applicant's share will be based on the length of a two-lane section needed to safely transition to one lane eastbound based on recommendations from the MUTCD; Condition #23 is modified by changing the fence measurement from inches to feet (4" to 4'); Condition #43 is modified to reflect that the applicant shall provide sufficient screening to hide rooftop mechanical equipment; Condition #50 is modified so that where the vertical drop-off rate of separation is at least 30 inches or exceeds a 2:1 slope, the applicant shall install a guardrail or wall railing; and A new condition #73 is added to provide that the applicant shall provide a minimum 24' curb-to-curb public or private street connecting Dartmouth Street to Hermosa Way, distinguishing the term "street" from the term "aisle" as it is the intent that a street, not an aisle by which cars enter or depart parking spaces, shall be constructed. Commissioner Topp seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 15,2000-Page I3 • • 5.3 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PD) 2000-00002/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2000-00004/LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 2000-00003 TRI-COUNTY CENTER—OPTION 2 PROPOSAL: This is a request for a conceptual plan review as a Planned Development for the new construction of a 330,312-square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; and a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership. A prior request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Water Resource Overlay District including fill and mitigation of a portion of the existing wetlands was granted on June 23, 1998 and became effective July 23, 1998 by Final Order of the Tigard City Council. The 1998 City Council decision also included a Planned Development Review, Site Development Review, and Lot Line Adjustment for a detailed plan for this site. However, this new proposal differs from the prior plan and, therefore, requires a new land use application and approval for a Planned Development, Sensitive Lands Review, and a Lot Line Adjustment. LOCATION: The site is located on the south side of SW Dartmouth Street and on the west side of SW 72nd Avenue and is east of State Highway 217. The site also includes'the 6 lots along the north side of SW Hermosa Way. The site address is 12265 SW 72nd Avenue; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot 04200; 2S101BA, Tax Lots 00100, 00101, 00300, 00400, 00401 and 00402; 2S101AB, Tax Lots 01300, 01400, 01401, 01402, 01403, 01404. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial (C-G) and Mixed Use Employment (MUE). ZONING DESIGNATION: C-G (PD) and MUE. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.350, 18.360, 18.390, 18.410, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.725, 18.730, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795, and 18.810. NOTE: This case was included with item #5.2 above. 6. OTHER BUSINESS None 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary ATTEST: President Nick Wilson PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 15,2000-Page 14 • • Page 1of1 Talked to Gary and Ed; they would have to go back to the PC if they go DET. I suppose they could go DET for the detailed plan and then the PC but that would put them in a funny place given the questions about the concept plan; the other options are continue with the appeal (the sooner the better for Ed) or have Jim make a Director's Interpretation on the wall and code; for the latter they would like to come in early next week. Dick Bewersdorff dickci.tigard >>> Karen Fox 06/16/00 09:55AM >>> Mark Whitlow, the attorney Ed Christensen on the Tri-County Center project, forwarded a letter dated June 13, 2000 asking that we do not schedule the appeal, as they would like the time to try to resolve there issues with planning staff. I asked Mark if he knew when he would be in here with revised plans to discuss the issues, and he siad he had no idea. I told Mark that because he has not proposed any timeframe within which to meet with staff, we had to go ahead and schedule a hearing. I encouraged him to still go ahead and provide a proposed meeting time with staff. Ed Christensen did sign and return the fromal 60 day waiver to the 120 day rule. The latest correspondence related to the appeal is in a file on my desk for your reference while I am out next week. Apparently, Mark did not know that you had already talked with Nick Wilson, Chair of the Planning Commission, regarding the wall along Hermoso not qualifying as a building to meet.the 0-10 feet setback requirements of the TTDS. Mark said Ed Christensen had not relayed the information from your conversation with Mr. Wilson, but said he is having communication problems with his client so was not surprised. After discussing the options with Mark, he began to consider whether, in fact,the DET process might be their best options. I suggested that if he wants to go down this route, he should submit a Design Evaluation and Adjustment request and $1,000 deposit, and get off the agenda for the City Council as soon as possible. In order to submit a DEA at this point, must the applicant formally withdraw there appeal before City Council? Can you confirm through the Planning Commmission that the applicant can go through the DEA without go backing through the Planning Commission as per Overall Condition#1 in the Final Order 2000-002 PC? We did not get a firm legal opinion on this from Gary Firestone, though he raised some concerns about. We are already scheduled for the July 25, 2000 City council agenda. Please.let me know how you want to handle this. file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}00002.HTM 6/26/00 • • Page 1 of 1 Ed Christensen would like to discuss with you the possibility of getting a Director's Interpretation that the wall proposed on options 1&2 fullfills the triangle design standards. The other options for them are continue with the appeal (scheduled for July 25) or go to the DET(which would require then going back to the PC for blessing of the DET recommendation). They want to start work this summer and would like to have the Hermosa property included (therefore the need to resolve the wall); Ed indicated that they will go ahead with the 1998 approval if they can't make enough progress on options 182 but they really don't want to. Therefore, like you to schedule a time to meet. Dick Bewersdorff dickci.tigard file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}00001.HTM 6/26/00 •1 -4•A CITY OF TIGARD June 26, 2000 OREGON Ed Christensen Christensen Engineering 7150 SW Hampton, Suite 226 • Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Ed: There has been some confusion regarding whether a wall can substitute for building location relative to the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. I would like to assure you and your clients that a wall, indeed, can be used to meet the building location requirements of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. Please be advised that any such wall must meet the Building Design Standards of the Triangle. I hope this will clarify the City's position. Sincerely, James N.P. Hendryx Director of Community Development I:\curpin\dick\letters\Christensen TTDS letter.doc • c: PD2000-00001 Land use file PD2000-00002 Land use file • 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503)639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 -1•• • • SETTING THE STANDARD FOR SERVICE EXCELLENCE -ifs • Facsimile To: /o,er A/iect Gt)hi1/ Company: Pith<t a S ' co! / LLP Phone: -- 7a 7- goo 0 Fax: 5o5 , 717- azz - From: ,,` < Company: City of Tigard ex" ,3/ Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297 Date: 67/3/dd Pages including this page: c y COMMENTS: Pb ae 2 rev v td /rn PA-ea/ale() to at/a,.ke ci (,a a i d c% (.3 , 000 q .za)° (2(c�e<rs) . cfa44_ .rt—/ /Vd e %Acct 674;14 Lit a t ce 4 c o//'ae o! It<) ao v ecOetc d 7 2 1-cJ4 614 02 City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 ** PLEASE DELIVER THIS FAX IMMEDIATELY ** 06/13/00 11:55 $503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD Z001 • *************************** i *** ACTIVITY REPORT *** *************************** TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO. 7304 CONNECTION TEL 503 727 2222 CONNECTION ID START TINE 06/13 11:54 USAGE TIME 01'32 PAGES 4 RESULT OK */-0 �j J SETTING THE STANDARD FOR SERVICE EXCELLENCE Facsimile To: Ro,e Company: r. ,1d�.k GdhWW/�v Company: p14ACr K s co;e u-P Phone: 5 c) - 7a 7- goo v - Fax: 505 72 7_ Z z Z From: eaz, < Company: City of Tigard ext 3/ Phone: (503)639-4171 Fax: (503)684-7297 Date: a/i3/Oy Pages including this page: • COMMENTS: !'fr eat rev ntr/ /nearaiee) f aUfaci c/ (. � �-• peter eG/ ( '(efierci CfA k A • SETTING THE STANDARD FOR SERVICE EXCELLENCE Facsimile To: d eAr/57sew se Company: eh//'S 1eh S e 5/ Phone: 56 3- S y� - /8!a Fax: 5o3_ 5-5 br- /8CDtr From: ea - ,G- Company: City of Tigard Phone: (503)639-4171 ex¢ 3/S - Fax: (503)684-7297 Date: W/3 A U Pages including this page: -lie COMMENTS: 19 le re vow( in-7s-ecf���elr 1-0 a c'- c' e at teo1 dow /3 2000, City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 ** PLEASE DELIVER THIS FAX IMMEDIATELY ** 06/13/00 11:52 $503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD a001 • *************************** • *** ACTIVITY REPORT *** *************************** TRANSMISSION OK TX/R% NO. 7302 CONNECTION TEL 5981868 CONNECTION ID START TIME 06/13 11:50 USAGE TIME 02'18 PAGES 4 RESULT OK GZ1�; rjr;�� �'lill .J SETTING THE STANDARD FOR SERVICE EXCELLENCE Facsimile • To: cat G'6i,/5te.,1 se Company: G'P ils 7eh s e 5/A-46-7/ Phone: 563_ S wF - /S C' Fax: 7O 3 S� /geo g' From: ea4.4„,,, �o — Company: City of Tigard — Phone: (503)639-4171 of 2/ Fax: (503)684-7297 Date: f j3hi p Pages including this page: - C y COMMENTS: lea e� reg c d !tn rues cf;/c fie/ afif i--.G( 6e 1f _ .5 a?a led cJo/L i /3 dz O .►� mot' 5 0/0 OCR 6a June 13, 2000 , Ed Christensen CITY OF TIGARD Christensen Engineering OREGON 7150 SW Hampton, Suite 226 Portland, OR 97223 Sent by US Mail and Facsimile Re: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02PC —Tri-County Center Dear Ed: This letter is to confirm that your appeal has tentatively been scheduled with the City Council on July 25, 2000 at noon for a one to two hour time period. Please return the formal 60 day waiver form with your signature upon receipt of this letter if you have not already done so. Please confirm in writing immediately whether you will be proceeding with the appeal on both Option 1 and 2, or Option 2 only. I would appreciate a faxed copy confirming both today. Also, please mail, or bring in a hard copy of both items, as requested on June 9, 2000 with your original signature no later than June 15, 2000. Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. Yours truly, Karen Fox Associate Planner C: Roger Alfred/Mark Whitlow, Perkins, Coie, LLP Dick Bewersdorff Brian Rager Land Use Casefile No. PD 2000-00001/SLR 2000-00005/MIS 2000-00002 and PD 2000-00002/SLR 2000-00004/MIS 2000-00003 I:curpinkaren\pd\pd00-1&2.cc.doc 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223(503) 639-4171 TDD (503)684-2772 i _ n^•S` _ r, !�`a...H._r•- �.�'Yn4`. :`..,,:.. ram. _J!'s .:��'J.� Y?L:i'.mn•J• aSf - 't. _ �..,''Y•,,.�V• 14.E. +':QimS�'h':. ,,�; `.u+".U..h ��`t:}.5�`.=•'S� •�•,�`.wr:,li-i� '2�'�:`•'�' '» s! —2C�'."• ,c.�. •':2:i4� .�.5�-rt'• •ts.,.<�ry,'i': � :yn-:r-'..r...,�^ .? Y '4 ':Y,'•_igi.'� ._ ..f:a k:h�l. 1 i�2Yi•,Y:..i.}:), T':'.1' w4 i..lY:°_.. � •s '.Q � ,..�:•a>. ::•1.�.�'^.:.. -.r4 l r3.r ''� �..�l5sss,�` .�s. c�. , ..• v.�•. ':� -��:,-r v- ,=S:k.,.. �a-?.:i:t>rtj:ai.���r.Y_ T';" �'.-,-:iar i,� .,>.;H•«f', r+:i 1 :s" p t3 ._. .t:. • „ IY r ��x”: •1• 'S•tn ;,.. ��:'�;�..,;..�.�;c�}1:�•1.�.�'�.:::.-:•:`� `�). i.c !hkr . '4�z51t.{ itt•si,. r...�=- .tc�•r. ��: .. ..l 7..c•' _ 's.�.. Y {�c:r::..i•_. �.3�:t•..•.•,:n.;�!.�.y`: �;atY>,'t�'It�..r •iE., Y:; �• Yom' ,i.. _- _ ,f.r •rK•: ,':�: ..,�, tr''r,.r •.�..:�:"i.'::.•'.. r:�• '� :�TS.r1. .i��', .ti( .Ie,i r `.ice .f. -t• C 1{` i'� r .a:. .t. 'F:� rr.. • tt S:' •-iY ,at1 a - .r TFr ..h. �s` err` t' . - . • 't" 1i�: �''� -�'�.F•('.��=', ley: 5i • Request to Schedule - Council Agenda Item (File with City Recorder Cathy Wheatley) Meeting Date C,cr( aS (9-Co 0 Packet Material Due c \it(LI (2._ kJ oD w • Agenda Topic (please state as you want the title to appear on the agenda) Ti i - CcruAelzi C&vd e c APPe of f i vu Q Of& (Jo . a600-0).. PG C heck one: Executive Session D - Study Session D Business Meeting Consent Agenda D Workshop Meeting D Check if Applicable: Public Hearing Resolution D Ordinance D Council Motion Requested n Staff Report Required? Yes No Estimated Time Needed at Meeting: - 1.i4t4o.-- Staff Contact Person(s): $�Q(t,t•t fro A Presentation Format (XIP_r eCkeuv∎- Other Information: • JUN-13-2000 13 33 CHRISTENSEN ENG/DIKING P.01 • • HRISTENSEN NGINEERING, INC. PLANNERS, CIVIL ENGINEERS, AND SURVEYORS FAX DATE: 6/13/00 JO: 95-1-2.01 TO: Karen Fox FAX NUMBER: 684-7297 FROM: Ed Christensen RE: TCC NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: 2 MESSAGE: Karen -Per your fax today,I spoke with Mark Whitlow and he is sending you another copy of the letter of appeal for the two options. In addition,attached is the signed copy of your 60 day waiver. • - 3 P visimaimasiminamicimaavaimmaaasuaisal 7150 SW Hampton Street,Suite 226 Portland,Oregon 97223 Phone (503)598-1866 Fax(503)598-1868 JUN-13-2000 13:33 CHRISTENSEN ENG/VIKING P.02 June 9, 2000 /A& To: City of Tigard Planning Division . CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 OREGON Attn: Karen Fox From: Ed Christensen Christensen Engineering 7150 SW Hampton, Suite 226 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: 60 Day Waiver of 120 Day Rule Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC –Tri-County Center PD 2000-00001/SLR 2000-00005/MIS 2000-00002 PD 2000-00002/SLR 2000-00004/MIS 2000-00003 Dear Karen: This is a waiver providing an additional 60 day extension to the 120 day rule period for a total of 180 days. This would extend the period for appeal and final decision to September 10, 2000. This supercedes any previous waivers. Yours truly, —._.—_..._. _Ed Christensen_ ._ . .. C: Roger Alfred/Mark Whitlow, Perkins, Coie, LLP 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503)639-4171 TDD(503)684-2772 • TOTAL P.02 JUN 13 2000 17:09 FR PENS COIE LLP 503 727 2222 TO 96847297 P.01/09 CONFIDENTIAL Eli PRIVILEGED PERKINS COIF LLP- PORTLAND FAX NUMBER: (503) 727-2222 SWITCHBOARD: (503) 727-2000 IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH THIS TRANSMISSION, PLEASE CALL: (503) 727-2000 Addressee: City of Tigard FAX NO. 684-7297 (COMPANY) Karen Fox Direct Dial 639-4171 (INDIVIDUAL) Addressee: City of Tigard Fax No. 684-7297 (COMPANY) Dick Bewersdorff Direct Dial (INDIVIDUAL) Addressee: Christensen Engineering FAX NO. 598-1868 (COMPANY) Ed Christensen Direct Dial 598-1866 (INDIVIDUAL) Addressee: Fax No. 620-1842. (COMPANY) Mr. Gordon Martin Jr. Direct Dial 620-2477 (INDIVIDUAL) Addressee: Fax No. (541) 764-2512 (COMPANY) Mr. Gordon Martin Sr. Direct Dial (541) 7644100 (INDIVIDUAL) From: Mark D. Whitlow Date June 13, 2000 Cover Sheet& 8 page(s) Client Number 33181-0001 Return to bonna_Friberq / 2095 / 1539A NAME EX'T. OFFICE LOCATION Original document(s) will be: ❑ sent to you ® held in our files MESSAGE: Attached is my letter and enclosure to the City of Tigard. Sent By ❑ Call Addressee to confirm they received this fax. This Fax contains confidential, privileged information intended only for the intended addressee. Do not read, copy or disseminate it unless you are the intended addressee. If you have received this Fax in error, please email it back to the sender at perkinscoie.com and delete it from your system or call us (collect) immediately at (503) 727-2000, and mail the original Fax to Perkins Coie LLP,1211 S.W.Fifth Avenue,Suite 1500,Portland,Oregon 97204-3715. (PA003688.3741 JUN 13 2000 17 09 FR PONS COIE LLP 503 727 2222 TO 96847297 P.02/09 • PERKINS COIE LLP 1211 SOUTHWEST Fa-TN AVENUE. SUITE 1500•PoRTLAND, OREGON 97204-3715 MARK D.WmrLow TELEPHONE:503 727-2000-FACSIMILE; 503 727-2222 (503)727-2073 whitm@perkinscoie.com rkinscoie.com June 13, 2000 SENT VIA FACSIMILE AND MAIL Karen Fox City of Tigard 13123 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02PC—Tri•County Center PD 2000-00001/SLR 2000-00005/MIS 2000-00002 PD 2000-00002/SLR 2000-0002/SLR 2000-0004/MYS 2000-00003 Dear Ms. Fox: In response to your transmittal letter of June 9, 2000 to Ed Christensen regarding the above, enclosed is a copy of the applicant's reissued statement of appeal covering both Options 1 and 2. The original will be mailed to you. Regarding the City Council appeal hearing, we wish to reiterate that the appeal is precautionary only. My prior letter transmitting the appeal(additional copy enclosed)requested that no action be taken on the appeal by the City. Accordingly, we would request that the appeal not be scheduled for hearing at this time. Once the matter is calendared for hearing, it is problematic to reschedule it in the event that discussions with staff are yet ongoing regarding revised site plans and their compliance with applicable standards. The applicant is prepared to sign a further waiver which would toll the 120-day rule from the date of the filing of the appeal to such future date as the applicant would request that the City begin processing the appeal, in the event that the applicant and staff fail to reach agreement on the applicant's revised site plans. Thank you for your time and cooperation regarding this matter. Please call me with your questions or comments. AV y yours, Mark D. 'flow MDW:djf Enclosures cc: Dick Bewersdorff Clients - Ed-Christensen— --- --_ _-- ANCHORAGE BELLEVUE BOISE DENVER KONG KONG LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK OLYMPIA PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SPOKANE TAIPEI WASHINGTON,D.G. j33181-00o1/PA003689.6951 STRATEGIC ALLIANCE:RUSSELL&DOA vsnrrnrIVFD r►.L n. JUN 13 2000 17 10 FR PINS COIE LLP 503 727 2222 TO 96847297 P.03/09 • PERKINS COIE LLP 1211 SOUTHWEST FIFTH AVENUE.SUITE 1500• PORTLAND,OREGON 97204-3715. TELEPHONE:503 727-2000-FACSIMILE: 503 727-2222 ROGER A.ALFRED (503)727-2094 Slfrr@perkinscoie.com DUPLICATION OF JUNE 5, 2000 LETTER June 13, 2000 SENT VIA MESSENGER Tigard City Council c/o Richard Bewersdorff Planning Director 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Notice of Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC Dear Mr. Bewersdorff: This office represents the applicant regarding the above. We submit this notice of appeal of the planning commission's fmal order numbered 2000-002 PC, dated May 19, 2000. The applicant has standing to appeal this decision to the city council pursuant to Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.390.040.G.1.a. In its final order, the planning commission approved with conditions the applications for a conceptual plan review of two alternative designs for construction of the Tri-County Center shopping center in the Tigard Triangle. The planning commission also approved, with conditions, a sensitive lands review and a lot line adjustment for both alternative designs The city file numbers for the Option 1 applications are PD 2000-001, SLR 2000-005 and MIS 2000-002; the numbers for the Option 2 applications are PD 2000-002, SLR 2000-004 and MIS 2000-003. As addressed in detail below, the applicant appeals the planning commission's imposition of the following conditions: 1, 7, 22, 25, 26, 56, 58, and 73. 1. Condition 1 "OVERALL CONDITION: The entire shopping center proposal may be reviewed, at the applicant's option, by the Design Evaluation Team (DET) prior to detailed plan submittal in addition to the conditions listed below. After DET review, it is recommended that the applicant submit detailed plans for individual buildings as each building tenant is identified." [33181-0001/M00361379961 ANCHORAGE BELLEVUE BOISE DENVER HONG KONG LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK OLYMPIA PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SPOKANE TAIPEI WASHINGTON, D.C. STRATECK'ALLIANCE'RUSSELL.F.r.,unnt to JUN 13 2000 17: 10 FR PINS COIE LLP 503 727 2222 TO 96847297 P.04/09 • Tigard City Council June 13, 2000 Page 2 This condition was rewritten by the planning commission during the May 15, 2000 public hearing in order to make DET review optional, rather than a mandatory condition. To the extent the condition requires the applicant to either comply with the applicable criteria or go through DET review, this condition merely restates the basic code requirement. However, as worded, the condition allows the applicant the option to submit the entire proposal to the DET for review prior to detailed plan submittal "in addition to the conditions listed below." Thus, if the applicant elects to undergo DET review, the condition also would require the applicant to fulfill all of the listed conditions in the final order. However, the individual conditions that address the planning commissions concerns regarding compliance with applicable design standards require either fulfillment of the conditions or submittal of alternative plans to the DET. Accordingly, condition number one is extraneous and should be removed. Moreover, it is unclear whether the planning commission determined that certain of the applicable criteria are satisfied or not, thus making it impossible for applicant to know whether or not revised plans or DET review are required. During the proceedings before the planning commission, applicant and his attorney described interpretations of the code that would result in findings that the proposed plan was in compliance with the criteria at issue. However, the planning commission's final order neither expressly accepts nor rejects the applicant's reading of the code. For example, it is unclear whether or not the planning commission determined that the zero to ten foot building setback is satisfied by the proposed sound wall along Hermoso Street. At the hearing, applicant argued that the proposed wall is a "building" within the code definition, and therefore the setback standard is met. The planning commission's fmal order does not accept or reject this assertion, but contains two conditions, numbered 56 and 58, that would require the applicant to revise the plans "to comply with the 0-foot building setback standards," or submit alternative plans to the DET for review. As described in more detail below regarding conditions 56 and 58, the code is clear that the definition of a "building" includes a wall, and therefore there is no need to either revise the plans or submit alternative plans to the DET, because the building setback standards are satisfied. Condition number one would require the applicant to fulfill all conditions, regardless of whether or not DET review is elected. Conditions 56 and 58 would require submittal of revised plans or DET review. Under the clear • (331814001/PA003687.996) 6/13/00 JUN 13 2000 17:11 FR PINS COIE LLP 503 727 2222 TO 96847297 P.05i09 • Tigard City Council June 13, 2000 Page 3 language of the applicable setback standards and the definition of"building," neither should be required. Because the individual conditions that address the planning commission's concerns regarding compliance with applicable design standards require either fulfillment of the conditions or submittal of alternative plans to the DET, condition number one is extraneous and should be removed. 2. Condition 7 "The applicant shall enter into a street improvement agreement that obligates them to participate in the future widening of SW Dartmouth, east of SW 72'd Avenue to provide two (2) east bound travel lanes. The applicant's share of the improvements will be based on the length of a two (2) lane section needed to safely transition to one (1) lane eastbound based on recommendation from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD 1988 Edition)." This condition requires applicant to acquire land and undertake improvements that are not proportional to the impacts that will result from the proposed shopping center. The condition does not ensure that applicant will be required to only pay its share of the required improvements. 3. Conditions 22 and 25 "The applicant shall verify that there will not be (and has not been since grading has begun on this project) any ground disturbance exceeding 10 cubic yards in the area of slopes exceeding 25%" "Option,2—Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall revise the plans and relocate the parking area near the bend of Hermoso Way outside of the areas which exceed 25%slopes, or address and meet the Sensitive Lands Review standards for any ground disturbance exceeding 10 cubic yards on lands sloped greater than 25%." These two conditions do not recognize the fact that many of the existing slopes on the site are the result of ongoing site work pursuant to previously-issued authorizations by the city. Applicant is willing to comply with this condition as it 133181.0001/PA003687.996J 6113100 JUN 13 2000 17:11 FR PINS COIE LLP 503 727 2222 TO 96847297 P.06/09 • Tigard City Council June 13, 2000 Page 4 applies to naturally occurring sensitive areas, but not as it applies to all slopes on the property that exceed 25%. This condition should be modified accordingly. 4. Condition 26 "The applicant shall revise the plans and provide landscaping, an arcade, or a hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path along SW Dartmouth Street between the structures and the wetlands/public street, or shall submit the alternative design proposal for front yard setback design in accordance with the Tigard Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030 to the Design Evaluation Team prior to detailed plan review submittal." This condition misconstrues the applicable criteria. The proposed structures along SW Dartmouth Street have a zero-foot setback from the wetlands that separate the structures from the right-of-way, as allowed by Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.620.030.A.2. Condition 26 would require the applicant to revise the plans to provide landscaping or hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path "between the structures and the wetlands/public street." First, because of the zero-foot setback, all that lies between the structures and the pedestrian path are the wetlands; therefore, code section 18.620.030.A.3 does not apply to this area. Further, Section 18.620.030.A.3 requires that "landscaping, an arcade, or a hard-surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path must be provided between a structure and a public street or accessway." This code section does not require landscaping or hard surfacing between a structure and a wetland, or a wetland and a public street. This condition misconstrues the applicable criteria, and should be removed. 5. Condition 56 (option 1 only) "The applicant shall revise the plans to comply with the 0-foot building setback standards as contained in the Tigard Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030.A.2 for Pad E or shall submit the alternative design proposal for building setback to the Design Evaluation Team in accordance with Section 18.620.090 prior to detailed plan review submittal." [33181-0001/PA003687.9961 6/13/00 JUN 13 2000 17:12 FR P INS COIE LLP 503 727 2222 TO 96847297 P.07/09 • Tigard City Council June 13, 2000 Page 5 The code section at issue, 18.620.030.A.2 establishes "the minimum building setback from public street rights-of-way" as zero feet, with a maximum of ten feet. Section 18.120.030.30 contains the following definition of"building" for purposes of the code: "That which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner." Option 1 includes a six to eight foot sound wall behind Pad E, along the entire length of the project boundary with Hermoso Street. This proposed edifice is clearly within the code definition of a "building." Because it is immediately adjacent to the Hermoso right-of-way, the zero to ten foot building setback requirement is satisfied, and this condition should be removed. 6. Condition 58 (option 2 only) "The applicant shall revise the plans to comply with the 0-foot building setback standards as contained in the Tigard Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030.A.2 for Majors IT-IV, or chall submit the alternative design proposal for building setback to the Design Evaluation Team in accordance with Section 18.620.090 prior to detailed plan review submittal." The code section at issue, 18.620.030.A.2 establishes "the minimum building setback from public street rights-of-way" as zero feet, with a maximum of ten feet. Section 18.120.030.30 contains the following definition of"building" for purposes of the code: "That which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner." Option 2 includes a six to eight foot sound wall behind Majors II-IV, along the entire length of the project boundary with Hermoso Street. This proposed edifice is clearly within the code definition of a "building." Because it is immediately adjacent to the Hermoso right-of-way, the zero to ten foot building setback requirement is satisfied, and this condition should be removed. • 7. Condition 73. "The applicant shall revise the plans and shall provide a public or private street connecting SW Dartmouth to Hermoso Way. The street, 133181-0001/PA003687.9961 6/13/00 JUN 13 2000 17:13 FR PINS COIE LLP 503 727 2222 TO 96847297 P.08/09 III Tigard City Council June 13, 2000 Page 6 as distinguished from the term aisle, shall be a minimum 24 feet (24') from curb to curb." This condition addresses the street connectivity standards set forth in Section 18.620.020. The May 8, 2000 staff report prepared by city planning staff applied the street connectivity standards and concluded that "an extension of a street through the Tri-County Shopping Center site from SW Dartmouth Street is not required." Staff Report at 20. This is because, in making the requisite eight-intersections-per-mile calculation, staff correctly included planned intersections at SW Dartmouth Street and the Backage Road and at SW Dartmouth Street at the planned fly over to SW Hall Blvd. The staff report submitted to the planning commission concluded that the street connectivity standards were satisfied, and the issue of noncompliance with Section 18.620.020 was raised for the first time by the planning commission at the May 15, 2000 hearing, after the public hearing was closed. Accordingly, applicant was precluded from commenting or objecting on the new public street requirement. Condition 73 requires applicant to dedicate land for a street that will not be required when planned connecting streets to Dartmouth Street are completed. As recognized in the staff report, six intersections along the length of Dartmouth Street are required to meet the connectivity standard of Section 18.620.020. There are currently five intersections along Dartmouth Street. Thus, even if only one of the two planned streets are constructed, there will be the requisite six intersections without the street requirement of condition 73. Further, condition 73 imposes an exaction that is not proportional to the impacts that will result from the proposed shopping center. Dartmouth Street is currently not compliant with the street connectivity standards, regardless of the proposed Tri-County Center. Imposition of this condition requires the applicant to pay for more than its proportional share of required improvements for street connectivity. The condition takes an unnecessarily large percentage of the site area that is otherwise needed for development, landscaping, or open space. Further, requiring that a public or private street bisect the parking field of a commercial shopping center would create an unsafe environment for pedestrian movement over and across the area. Drivers'would be likely to use the road to cut through the parking area at unsafe speeds,jeopardizing the pedestrians moving from their cars to individual stores. [33181.0001/PA003687.996) 6/13100 JUN 13 2000 17:13 FR PERKINS COIE LLP 503 727 2222 TO 96847297 P.09/09 ! 0 Tigard City Council June 13, 2000 Page 7 This standard should be removed. However, as an alternative, applicant would not object to a condition requiring a reasonably direct connection between Dartmouth Street and Hermoso, in the form of a drive aisle or other internal vehicular path. Conclusion The applicant requests that the city council revise the conditions imposed by the planning commission as set forth above. Ve 24\ \i„. truly yours, Ifr Roger A. Alfred RAA:raa cc: Gordon Martin Ed Christensen 1331 81-0001/PA003 687,996) 6/13/00 „, • • _ • APPEAL FILING. FORM 517 t FOR LAND USE DECISIONS TYPE II Ili CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 FAX: (503) 684-7297 The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use Code, therefore, sets out specific requirements for filing appeals on certain land use decisions. The following form has been developed to assist you in filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper form. To determine what filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have regarding the appeal process, please contact the Planning Division or the City Recorder at the phone/fax listed at the top of this form. GENERAL INFORMATION ......FOR SThF:F US E ONLY . • Property Address/Location(s) and Name(s) of the Application Being Case:NQ€ 5 .-... Appealed: Tri-County Center Options / & 2; ase....ame s.::: k-cam: .: ev4isw . ...;,riuv 3 SW 72nd & Dartmouth Receipt Na:; ............. .......................... How Do You Qualify As A Party?: Applicant Christensen Engineering Application'ACCeDtedBar i Date::.::.::::°° • s{ ¢ ::::Approved:As To FormBy.. Appellant's Address: 7150 SW Hampton, Suite 226 Date: Zi , Ti ard OR City/State: p: 97223 jilDemed AsTo:FarmsBy _ 503 598-1866 Date_ ..... Day Phone Where You Can Be Reached:( ) Scheduled Date Decision Is To Be Final: 6-06-2000 Rev;€i{?Z3f.98; faitcurptnlmasters\appealdoc:: Date Notice of Final Decision Was Given: 5-19-2000 ti Specific Grounds For Appeal or Review: REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS See Attached. ✓ Application Elements Submitted: 0 Appeal Filing Form (completed) El Filing Fee(based on criteria below) > Director's Decision to Hearings Officer $ 250.00 > Expedited Review(deposit) $ 300.00 > Hearing Referee $ 500.00 RECEIVED PLANNING ➢ Planning Commission/Hearing's Officer to City Council $1,745.00 (+Transcript) JUN 0 5 2000 Signature(s) of A I nt(s): • CITY OF TIGARD APPEAL FILING FORM FOR LAND USE DECISIONS I:\curpin\masters\appeal (OVER FOR ADDITIONAL WRITING SPACE) PAGE 1 OF 1 • Customer Receipt CITY OF TIGARD Printed: 06/05/2000 16:31 User: front Station: 02 Operator: KJP Rcpt No: 0002712 Date: 06/05/2000 Customer No:000000 Amount Due: 1,745.00 Name: GORDON MARTIN Cash: 0.00 Address: 8565 SW BARBUR BLVD Check: 1,745.00 PORTLAND, OR 97219 N/A 0.00 Change: 0.00 Type Description Amount LANDUS Land Use Applications 1,745.00 L Ut- oor 7 L y.� • • RECEIVED PLANNING PERKINS COIE LLP JUN 14 2000 1211 SOUTHWEST FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 1500•PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3715 MARK D.WHITLOW TELEPHONE: 503 727-2000• FACSIMILE: 503 727-2222 CITY OF TIGARD (503)727-2073 whitin@perkinscoie.com June 13, 2000 SENT VIA FACSIMILE AND MAIL Karen Fox City of Tigard 13123 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02PC — Tri-County Center PD 2000-00001/SLR 2000-00005/MIS 2000-00002 PD 2000-00002/SLR 2000-0002/SLR 2000-0004/MIS 2000-00003 Dear Ms. Fox: In response to your transmittal letter of June 9, 2000 to Ed Christensen regarding the above, enclosed is a copy of the applicant's reissued statement of appeal covering both Options 1 and 2. The original will be mailed to you. Regarding the City Council appeal hearing, we wish to reiterate that the appeal is precautionary only. My prior letter transmitting the appeal (additional copy enclosed) requested that no action be taken on the appeal by the City. Accordingly, we would request that the appeal not be scheduled for hearing at this time. Once the matter is calendared for hearing, it is problematic to reschedule it in the event that discussions with staff are yet ongoing regarding revised site plans and their • compliance with applicable standards. The applicant is prepared to sign a further waiver which would toll the 120-day rule from the date of the filing of the appeal to such future date as the applicant would request that the City begin processing the appeal, in the event that the applicant and staff fail to reach agreement on the applicant's revised site plans. Thank you for your time and cooperation regarding this matter. Please call me with your questions or comments. V ly yours, Mark D. Whitlow MDW:djf Enclosures cc: Dick Bewersdorff Clients Ed-Christensen ANCHORAGE BELLEVUE BOISE DENVER HONG KONG LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK OLYMPIA PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SPOKANE TAIPEI WASHINGTON, D.C. [33181-0001/PA003689.695] STRATEGIC ALLIANCE: RUSSELL& DuMOULIN, VANCOUVER,CANADA • • • PERKINS COIE LLP 121 I SOUTHWEST FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 1500• PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3715 TELEPHONE: 503 727-2000 FACSIMILE: 503 727-2222 ROGER A.ALFRED (503)727-2094 alfrr@perkinscoie.com DUPLICATION OF JUNE 5, 2000 LETTER June 13, 2000 SENT VIA MESSENGER Tigard City Council c/o Richard Bewersdorff Planning Director 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Notice of Appeal of Final Order No. 2000-02 PC Dear Mr. Bewersdorff: This office represents the applicant regarding the above. We submit this notice of appeal of the planning commission's final order numbered 2000-002 PC, dated May 19, 2000. The applicant has standing to appeal this decision to the city council pursuant to Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.390.040.G.1.a. In its final order, the planning commission approved with conditions the applications for a conceptual plan review of two alternative designs for construction of the Tri-County Center shopping center in the Tigard Triangle. The planning commission also approved, with conditions, a sensitive lands review and a lot line adjustment for both alternative designs The city file numbers for the Option 1 applications are PD 2000-001, SLR 2000-005 and MIS 2000-002; the numbers for the Option 2 applications are PD 2000-002, SLR 2000-004 and MIS 2000-003. As addressed in detail below, the applicant appeals the planning commission's imposition of the following conditions: 1, 7, 22, 25, 26, 56, 58, and 73. 1. Condition 1 "OVERALL CONDITION: The entire shopping center proposal may be reviewed, at the applicant's option, by the Design Evaluation Team (DET) prior to detailed plan submittal in addition to the conditions listed below. After DET review, it is recommended that the applicant submit detailed plans for individual buildings as each building tenant is identified." [33181-0001/PA003687.996] ANCHORAGE BELLEVUE BOISE DENVER HONG KONG LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK OLYMPIA PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SPOKANE TAIPEI WASHINGTON, D.C. STRATEGIC ALLIANCE: RUSSELL& DuMOULIN, VANCOUVER, CANADA • • Tigard City Council June 13, 2000 Page 2 This condition was rewritten by the planning commission during the May 15, 2000 public hearing in order to make DET review optional, rather than a mandatory condition. To the extent the condition requires the applicant to either comply with the applicable criteria or go through DET review, this condition merely restates the basic code requirement. However, as worded, the condition allows the applicant the option to submit the entire proposal to the DET for review prior to detailed plan submittal "in addition to the conditions listed below." Thus, if the applicant elects to undergo DET review, the condition also would require the applicant to fulfill all of the listed conditions in the fmal order. However, the individual conditions that address the planning commissions concerns regarding compliance with applicable design standards require either fulfillment of the conditions or submittal of alternative plans to the DET. Accordingly, condition number one is extraneous and should be removed. Moreover, it is unclear whether the planning commission determined that certain of the applicable criteria are satisfied or not, thus making it impossible for applicant to know whether or not revised plans or DET review are required. During the proceedings before the planning commission, applicant and his attorney described interpretations of the code that would result in findings that the proposed plan was in compliance with the criteria at issue. However, the planning commission's final order neither expressly accepts nor rejects the applicant's reading of the code. For example, it is unclear whether or not the planning commission determined that the zero to ten foot building setback is satisfied by the proposed sound wall along Hermoso Street. At the hearing, applicant argued that the proposed wall is a "building" within the code definition, and therefore the setback standard is met. The planning commission's final order does not accept or reject this assertion, but contains two conditions, numbered 56 and 58, that would require the applicant to revise the plans "to comply with the 0-foot building setback standards," or submit alternative plans to the DET for review. As described in more detail below regarding conditions 56 and 58, the code is clear that the definition of a "building" includes a wall, and therefore there is no need to either revise the plans or submit alternative plans to the DET, because the building setback standards are satisfied. Condition number one would require the applicant to fulfill all conditions, regardless of whether or not DET review is elected. Conditions 56 and 58 would require submittal of revised plans or DET review. Under the clear [33181-0001/PA003687.996] 6/13/00 • • Tigard City Council June 13, 2000 Page 3 language of the applicable setback standards and the definition of"building," neither should be required. Because the individual conditions that address the planning commission's concerns regarding compliance with applicable design standards require either fulfillment of the conditions or submittal of alternative plans to the DET, condition number one is extraneous and should be removed. 2. Condition 7 "The applicant shall enter into a street improvement agreement that obligates them to participate in the future widening of SW Dartmouth, east of SW 72nd Avenue to provide two (2) east bound travel lanes. The applicant's share of the improvements will be based on the length of a , two (2) lane section needed to safely transition to one (1) lane eastbound based on recommendation from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD 1988 Edition)." This condition requires applicant to acquire land and undertake improvements that are not proportional to the impacts that will result from the proposed shopping center. The condition does not ensure that applicant will be required to only pay its share of the required improvements. 3. Conditions 22 and 25 "The applicant shall verify that there will not be (and has not been since grading has begun on this project) any ground disturbance exceeding 10 cubic yards in the area of slopes exceeding 25%" "Option 2 — Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall revise the plans and relocate the parking area near the bend of Hermoso Way outside of the areas which exceed 25% slopes, or address and meet the Sensitive Lands Review standards for any ground disturbance exceeding 10 cubic yards on lands sloped greater than 25%." These two conditions do not recognize the fact that many of the existing slopes on the site are the result of ongoing site work pursuant to previously-issued authorizations by the city. Applicant is willing to comply with this condition as it [33181-0001/PA003687.996] 6/13/00 • • Tigard City Council June 13, 2000 Page 4 applies to naturally occurring sensitive areas, but not as it applies to all slopes on the property that exceed 25%. This condition should be modified accordingly. 4. Condition 26 "The applicant shall revise the plans and provide landscaping, an arcade, or a hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path along SW Dartmouth Street between the structures and the wetlands/public street, or shall submit the alternative design proposal for front yard setback design in accordance with the Tigard Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030 to the Design Evaluation Team prior to detailed plan review submittal." This condition misconstrues the applicable criteria. The proposed structures along SW Dartmouth Street have a zero-foot setback from the wetlands that separate the structures from the right-of-way, as allowed by Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.620.030.A.2. Condition 26 would require the applicant to revise the plans to provide landscaping or hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path "between the structures and the wetlands/public street." First, because of the zero-foot setback, all that lies between the structures and the pedestrian path are the wetlands; therefore, code section 18.620.030.A.3 does not apply to this area. Further, Section 18.620.030.A.3 requires that "landscaping, an arcade, or a hard-surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path must be provided between a structure and a public street or accessway." This code section does not require landscaping or hard surfacing between a structure and a wetland, or a wetland and a public street. This condition misconstrues the applicable criteria, and should be removed. 5. Condition 56 (option 1 only) "The applicant shall revise the plans to comply with the 0-foot building setback standards as contained in the Tigard Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030.A.2 for Pad E or shall submit the alternative design proposal for building setback to the Design Evaluation Team in accordance with Section 18.620.090 prior to detailed plan review submittal." [33181-0001/PA003687.996] 6/13/00 • • Tigard City Council June 13, 2000 Page 5 The code section at issue, 18.620.030.A.2 establishes "the minimum building setback from public street rights-of-way" as zero feet, with a maximum of ten feet. Section 18.120.030.30 contains the following definition of"building" for purposes of the code: "That which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner." Option 1 includes a six to eight foot sound wall behind Pad E, along the entire length of the project boundary with Hermoso Street. This proposed edifice is clearly within the code definition of a "building." Because it is immediately adjacent to the Hermoso right-of-way, the zero to ten foot building setback requirement is satisfied, and this condition should be removed. 6. Condition 58 (option 2 only) "The applicant shall revise the plans to comply with the 0-foot building setback standards as contained in the Tigard Triangle Site Design Standards, Section 18.620.030.A.2 for Majors II-IV, or shall submit the alternative design proposal for building setback to the Design Evaluation Team in accordance with Section 18.620.090 prior to detailed plan review submittal." The code section at issue, 18.620.030.A.2 establishes "the minimum building setback from public street rights-of-way" as zero feet, with a maximum of ten feet. Section 18.120.030.30 contains the following definition of"building" for purposes of the code: "That which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner." Option 2 includes a six to eight foot sound wall behind Majors II-IV, along the entire length of the project boundary with Hermoso Street. This proposed edifice is clearly within the code definition of a "building." Because it is immediately adjacent to the Hermoso right-of-way, the zero to ten foot building setback requirement is satisfied, and this condition should be removed. 7. Condition 73. "The applicant shall revise the plans and shall provide a public or private street connecting SW Dartmouth to Hermoso Way. The street, [33181-0001/PA003687.9961 6/13/00 • • Tigard City Council June 13, 2000 Page 6 as distinguished from the term aisle, shall be a minimum 24 feet (24') from curb to curb." This condition addresses the street connectivity standards set forth in Section 18.620.020. The May 8, 2000 staff report prepared by city planning staff applied the street connectivity standards and concluded that "an extension of a street through the Tri-County Shopping Center site from SW Dartmouth Street is not required." Staff Report at 20. This is because, in making the requisite eight-intersections-per-mile calculation, staff correctly included planned intersections at SW Dartmouth Street and the Backage Road and at SW Dartmouth Street at the planned fly over to SW Hall Blvd. The staff report submitted to the planning commission concluded that the street connectivity standards were satisfied, and the issue of noncompliance with Section 18.620.020 was raised for the first time by the planning commission at the May 15, 2000 hearing, after the public hearing was closed. Accordingly, applicant was precluded from commenting or objecting on the new public street requirement. Condition 73 requires applicant to dedicate land for a street that will not be required when planned connecting streets to Dartmouth Street are completed. As recognized in the staff report, six intersections along the length of Dartmouth Street are required to meet the connectivity standard of Section 18.620.020. There are currently five intersections along Dartmouth Street. Thus, even if only one of the two planned streets are constructed, there will be the requisite six intersections without the street requirement of condition 73. Further, condition 73 imposes an exaction that is not proportional to the impacts that will result from the proposed shopping center. Dartmouth Street is currently not compliant with the street connectivity standards, regardless of the proposed Tri-County Center. Imposition of this condition requires the applicant to pay for more than its proportional share of required improvements for street connectivity. The condition takes an unnecessarily large percentage of the site area that is otherwise needed for development, landscaping, or open space. Further, requiring that a public or private street bisect the parking field of a commercial shopping center would create an unsafe environment for pedestrian movement over and across the area. Drivers would be likely to use the road to cut through the parking area at unsafe speeds,jeopardizing the pedestrians moving from their cars to individual stores. [33181-0001/PA003687.996] 6/13/00 • • Tigard City Council June 13, 2000 Page 7 This standard should be removed. However, as an alternative, applicant would not object to a condition requiring a reasonably direct connection between Dartmouth Street and Hermoso, in the form of a drive aisle or other internal vehicular path. Conclusion The applicant requests that the city council revise the conditions imposed by the planning commission as set forth above. Ve truly yours, Roger A. Alfred RAA:raa cc: Gordon Martin Ed Christensen [33181-0001/PA003687.996] 6/13/00 NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIEN R,VENDOR OR SELLER: THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT SHALL BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. 'j , !1, ;� CITY OF TIGARD Community cDeve(opment Shaping A Better Community PUBLIC NEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL,AT A MEETING ON TUESDAY, JULY 25. 2000 AT 7:30 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NOS.: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) 2000-00001 ] SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2000-00005 ] OPTION I LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 2000-00002 ] PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) 2000-00002 ] SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2000-00004 ] OPTION 2 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 2000-00003 ] FILE TITLE: APPEAL OF TRI-COUNTY CENTER - OPTIONS I & 2 APPLICANT: Ed Christensen OWNERS: Gordon R. Martin, Gordon S. Martin, Christensen Engineering and Sheila Martin 7150 SW Hampton, Suite 226 12265 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Owners of Additional MUE zoned lots: 01300 Michael F. Laurens 7315 SW Hermoso Way 01400 Gordon S. Martin 12265 SW 72ND Avenue 01401 Jason E. & Carolyn L. Philips 7355 SW Hermoso Way 01402 Rodney C. & Margaret Lyman 7395 SW Hermoso Way 01403 Mary Manley 7453 SW Hermoso Way 01404 Marvin Von Renchler 7475 SW Hermoso Way ITEM ON APPEAL: At the May 15, 2000 public hearing, the Planning Commission approved, subject to conditions, a request for approval of conceptual plan review for two alternative designs for new construction of a shopping center as a Planned Development. OPTION 1: This is the proposed new construction of a 297,179 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Land Review. OPTION 2: This is the proposed new construction of a 330,312 square foot Shopping Center on a total site area of 27.33 acres; a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels to accommodate future ownership, and Sensitive Lands Review. A prior request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Water Resource Overlay District including fill and mitigation of a portion of the existing wetlands was granted on June 23, 1998 and became effective July 23, 1998 by Final Order of the Tigard City Council. CONDITIONS BEING APPEALED: On June 5, 2000 the applicant filed an appeal of certain conditions of approval contained in the decision. The specific conditions appealed and items to which they are related are summarized as follows: Condition#1 Overall Condition related to the Design Evaluation Team Option. Condition#7 Street Improvements to include the future Widening of SW Dartmouth. Condition#22 Verification related to any ground disturbances in areas of steep slopes. Condition#25 OPTION 2 ONLY: Relocation of parking area near the bend of Hermoso Way outside of area of steep slopes. Condition#26 Provide landscaping, an arcade or a hard surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path along SW Dartmouth between the structure and the wetlands/public street. Condition#56 OPTION 1 ONLY: Comply with 0-foot building setback standards for Pad E. Condition#58 OPTION 2 ONLY: Comply with 0-foot building setback standards for Major II-IV. Condition#73 Provide a public or private street connecting SW Dartmouth St. to Hermoso Way. LOCATION: The site is located on the south side of SW Dartmouth Street and on the west side of SW 72nd Avenue and is east of State Highway 217. The site also includes 6 lots along the north side of Hermoso Way. The site address is 12265 SW 72nd; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot 04200; 2S101BA, Tax Lots 00100, 00101, 00300, 00400, 00401 and 00402; 2S101AB,Tax Lots 01300, 01400, 01401, 01402,01403, 01404. COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial (C-G)and Mixed Use Employment(MUE). ZONING DESIGNATIONS: C-G (PD)and MUE. The General Commercial zoning district provides for the provision of a wide range of major retail goods and services. The Mixed Use Employment zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy 99), Highway 217 and 1-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. REVIEW CRITERIA • lik- . BEING APPEALED: Community Development Code Sections: 18.390, 18.390.050, 18.620, 18.620.020, 18.620.030, 18.620.040, 18.775, 18.810, 18.810.030. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.390 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL. ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE CITY WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL (503) 639-4171, EXT. 320 (VOICE) OR (503) 684-2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS. ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE CITY COUNCIL MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENTS LESS THAN 7 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE, THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY MAY ALLOW A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING, SUBJECT TO ORS 215.428 OR 227.178. IF THERE IS NO CONTINUANCE GRANTED AT THE HEARING, ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. A REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN CAN BE MADE ONLY AT THE FIRST EVIDENTIARY HEARING (ORS 197.763(6). INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY COUNCIL WILL BE BASED UPON THE CRITERIA LISTED OR OTHER CRITERIA IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH THE PERSON BELIEVES TO APPLY TO THE DECISION. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR THE DEVELOPMENT CODE. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST, ACCOMPANIED BY STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY AND ALL PARTIES TO RESPOND PRECLUDES AN APPEAL, AND FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE CRITERION FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AT WHICH A COMMENT IS DIRECTED PRECLUDES AN APPEAL TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE. ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25 ) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS(250 PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER KAREN PERL FOX AT (503) 639-4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223. �om� - CITY of TIGARD —� ofoo...,Ic 1.,e...rio. P VICINITY MAP Ilk �� " TRI-COUNTY CENTER 0 - ---"II -�- P02000-00001 l ;49 N ;, ST SLR2000-00005 )OPTION I -- =,"111NI MIS2000-00002 l 13 SUBJECT = �� 3LR2000-00004 l OPTION 2 iiiii _ I MIS2000-00003 ]ST ■ lit lit,��, :11111 MI 11111111111 1 \�\\\\ `N DARTMOUTH ST 1 1410 \\\\ N 1 ��\ y 11.11110 ST ,1 la L. :t. . 11ni /�, o zoo .oa eoo n. .11 .. T MAW.' i I BEVEIq••. �MjNN 1111 __ _ � ■ RFVFI AND ST I a11ilil Ei CiryofTigard i i / mior,.,roe,on im. o Tiga.noaawwo.a win te1155W N.IBM GONZAGA S7 i i Td r • • V SETTING THE STANDARD FOR SERVICE EXCELLENCE Facsimile To: Nat' tohtyfrpo Company: YPitanr•S (o-ec_ 44_1 Phone: 7?7- 2 v' () Fax: 7 a 7- . 2_ From: .,�- v Company: City of Tigard Phone: (503)639-4171 Fax: (503)684-7297 Date: (%�60 Pages including this page: 8' COMMENTS: As (.7vt.) a-14" ('‘,,),0y er/2c-A-- / /t I afer- Pie o - vvoo z/3-AA ,16)490 -Q e N 1 s ?ODD-DODO3 . � � A t - ec,vtft r a.1-- ea 3/5 4 -k City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 ** PLEASE DELIVER THIS FAX IMMEDIATELY **