The URL can be used to link to this page

ZC7-75 POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm. The following document is a copy of the microfilm record converted back to digital. If you have questions please contact City of Tigard Records Department. ' ' p'�; ...:..��ik,.«.._..._.,,,,.-,.......,, .............. „„„ ...,,,.-M. ,..s1 .. 1. ra:r+,r••.riapyw��JO+.:w'nr�,,:r-,arNra•�.'r'�raurw-+m��u rnx.yur•rr„w.d�,,:awarYrnv.s rGrM1r.YWyv.tduA ru'a,m•n�:rMa ha••r ' r ,, , r•, " � S't r`'� H1�,!'75-' ''i" d +'�1x r`"c 7'� 't�rl,.t, }' M�.*I !-ar�5ta;':`.VE^•:t Y:,":d9.'1'CY'z s"3.1 .. "x :H�' r'rw..A».1•.:C.;.;R:r:z„!;:,vFcu;.dw-. '�•-:d..i .! �,.a. � kJir?'t,�r,�rfr.�'- '7,c. �,°Jy,l ,-ti�?:r�«r••4,.51'�nM1-�i.'wriic::�r`4i±�',' 'a�'1 b,4�yb; �A 400 SMITH P.D. - WESTRIDGE PARK ' Zone Change (ZC 7-75) Hu iker & 72nd • • • • • • • If } i1' _ . . • . , • . , . , .. , . , . , .. . . , ,. ,.: September 4, 1975 . ,. , . . . _ Mr. Don C. Johnson, A.I.A. , , W.S.S 124th 6075 .. Beaverton, Oregon 97005 , ., ,... Reference: File Westridge Park - 72nd & nutziker Dear Mr. Johrtsorit Please be advised that the Tigard Planning Commission, at their August 19, 1975, regular meeting, tabled your request for review Of the preliminary plan and program for subject prodject. This was in response to your request to consider the plan submitted to staff as void. Please note that your resubmittal should he presented to the • Planning Office b.() later than two (2) weeks prior to the scheduled ,. , Planning Commission mooting at 'which you wish to b hoard. This : , ..y will enable staff sufficient time to review your presentation. _ • „ • If you need additional itformation or as please do not hesitate to call this office at 659-4171. ,• I Sincerely, ... . , Jerald M. Powell , Assod. All? ■ - Associate Planner H .'. aMPtpt , , • . . , . , ... i , i ;,,i,,. 4 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISS�'z (/ AGENDA "`'' August 19, 1975 - 7:30 p.m. ' Twality Junior High School - Lecture Room 14650 S. W. 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 1. CALL TO ORDER • r . 2. ROLL CALL 3. MINUTES: July 22, 1975 (study session); August 5, 1975 (regular meeting) 4. COMMUNICATIONS 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS ' 5.1 ZONE CHANGE ZC 9-75 (Chamberlain) An amendment to the zoning map of the City of Tigard, initiated by the Tigard Planning Commission., reclassifying certain lands owned by Joseph Chamberlain and Arrow Heating Co. on SW Walnut St, , from R-15 to R-7, Single Family Residential; lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 16, 17 and lB of the Lake Terrace Subdivision. 5.2 NON-CONFORMING USE NCU 1-75 (Farmcraft Chemicals) An amendment to the Tigard Zoning Ordinance of 1970, clarifying the rights of certain land owners with regard to properties, the use of which has become characterized as a conditional Use after the date of the commencement.of such use. 5.3 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 4-75 (General Provisions, regarding conditional use status) 6. SUBDIVISIONS: Muttley's Addition (south of SW Tigard St. ) 1 A proposal by Herb Morissette.,, Builders, to subdivide four existing lots south of SW Tigard St. and directly west of SW 113th. 7, PRELIMINARY PLAN AND PROGRAM REVIEW: (Westridge Park) SW 72nd and Hunziker) request for concept t review of preliminary .. lan and program for a „�d,,� A re for p the p proposed commercial and residential planned development at SW 72nd Ave. and Hunziker St. 8. OTHER BUSINESS 9. ADJOURNMENT 1 , . ,. I . ( fqINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1975 TWALITY JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL , J . CALL TO ORDER: Meeting was called to order at 8:40 P.M. by Chairman t • Hartman. , , 2. ROLL CALL: Members present were Hartman, Hanson, Nicoli, Smelser and Wakem. Staff present, Powell. , APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of July 22 8( August 5 approved as submitted. C , . 4. COMMUNICATIONS: \\ Chairman Hartman read a letter from Dr, Jack W. Letch to the Tigard Planning Commission referring to the hearing on the Neighborhood Planning Organization #3 Plan. (Letter attached) . 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS . . 5.1 Zone Change ZC 9-75 (Chamberlain) An amendthent to the zoning map of the City of Tigard, initiated by the Tigard Planning Commission, reclassifying certain land owned by Joseph Chamberlain and Arrow Heating Company on S.W. Walnut Street, from R-15 to R-7, Single Family Residential; Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the Lake Terrace Subdivision. A. Staff Report: Staff Report was read by Powell. B. rublic Testimony , . Mr. Chamberlain testified in his own behalf. i . • Mr. Fieber, a 1Jeighborhood resident, queried Chamberlain about his intent to resubdivide. Mr. Chamberlain indicated 1 that resubdivision would not be neoessPry. . Chairman Hartman asked Mr. Chamberlain about lot sizes. ' Mr. Chamberlain reponded that they ran from 5,000 square feet to 9500 square feet. . . Mrs. Utz asked Mr. Chamberlain about his intentions to build duplexes. . . Mr. Chamberlain responded that he did not now intend to build duplexes on the lots but had decided to build dingle family homes instead. C. Staff Aocommendation , . Staff recommended approval. , D. Commission Discussion and Action . Motion for approval (Hanson) , seoonded (Natoli) . , , , , .3 ) . Discussion-by the Commission centered(n conformance with. the Comprehensive Plan and the question of spot zoning. . It was determined by the Commission that this would not be spot zoning and that the requested zoning did conform with the Comprehensive Plan. O Question was called (Smelser) O Motion to approve carried (unanimously) . 5,2 Non-Conforming Use NCU 1-75 (Farmcraft Chemicals) An amendment to the Tigard Zoning Ordinance of 1970 clarifying the rights of certain land owners with respect to properties, the use of which has become characterized as a conditional use after the date of commencement of such use, A. Staff Report The staff report was read by Powell. • Chairman Hartman asked staff if the square footage - indicated on the plans in the Commissionts possession was accurate saying that the 1300 square foot mentioned in the staff report seemed in error, . Discussion revealed that the square footage of the addition should be 1710 square feet for a 14% increase in size. • Staff amended the staff report accordingly. B. Public Testimony • Mr. Eagleson testified in his own behalf. C. Staff Recommendation • Staff Recommended 4z,pprove1 subject to design review approval. • D. Commission Discussion and Action Motion to approve the applioantts request (Hanson), with staff reoommended condition. . Seconded (Smelser) . Question (Wakem) • Motion to approve was carried (unanimously) . Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZOA 4-75 Concerning conditional use status of a previously permitted use after a zone change. PAM 2 - PC MINUTES - =UST 19, 197 1 Amendment to the ( gard Zoning Ordinance of /0 clarifying the rights of certain land owners with regard to properties, use of which has become characterized as a conditional use after the date of commencement of such use. [ A. Staff Report O The staff requested the Planning Commission disregard the printed staff report and substituted a verbal staff report clarifying the proposed ordinance as proposed by Mr. Bailey, the City Attorney. °S. Public Testimomy: (See verbatim transcript attached) Co Staff Recommendation . Based on the finding that the public 's right to respond in betterment of a previous error or oversight in zoning or to respond to a change in circumstances in the neighborhood require that the City be able to exercise, through its police power, a change in site controls on not only future development but on expansion of existing development and based on the finding that the rights of no one owner of land within a particular zone ought to be superior to the rights of any other owner in he same zone: Staff recommends approval of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment as worded by Mr. Bailey with the clear intent to making said permitted use a permitted use under the development restrictions of the new zone o code not the Old zone or code. D. . ommission Discussion and Action • It was suggrsted that the matter be tabled pending further discussion in a study session (Smelser and Wakem) . o Chairman Hartman indicated that he felt that the Bailey version of the ordinance may be too restrictive that the modification suggested by Mr. Al,derson may be overly permissive. • Wakem moved to table. Motion died for lack of second. 0 Motion to approve nailey amendment (Hanson) . . Seconded by Nicoli. . Motion to amend Hanson motion (Hartman) to include a request of the City Attorney that he clarify the wording in the pro- , posed ordinance to identify whether the rights of the proper ' ty owner to continue developing or redevelop his site are those in the zone previously held or in the new zone. . Seconded (Hansen) PAM PC MINUTES - August 19 1975 • Nicoli indicated his agreement with the amendment. (No vote was necessary due to approval of the previous motion's proponents) . . Question called on the motion as amended. , . Motion passed 3 to 2 (Wakem and Smelser voting no) . . Hansen asked the Chairman to request a memorandum from the staff explaining why it took so long ±G-1, this or- dinance amendment to get from City Council to tne Planning Commission. . Staff indicated that the memorandum would be available at the next Planning Commission meeting. 6 SUBDIVISIONS 6,1 (As indicated on the agenda, this matter had been withdrawn by the applicant, to be resubmitted for the next Planning Commission meeting) . 7. PRELIMINARY PLAN AND PROGRAM REVIEW: (Westridge Park, SW 72nd and Hunziker) . A request for concept review of the preliminary plan and program for a proposed commercial and residential planned development at SW 72nd and Hunziker St. . Don Johnson, architect or the development, asked to be recognized by the Chairman before the staff report was read. Mr. Johnson offered a statement that the applicant had reconsidered his development plan and that the plan submitted to staff was now void. Mr Johnson went on to • say that they felt that townhouses or a similar medium density multiple development would be in the better public interest and would constitute a better develop- , ment of the site, Motion to table the item until Mr. Johnson and Nr. Smith resubmitted their development plan (Hartman) . . Seconded (Wakem) . . Motion approved unanimously. 8. OTHER nusimss . Chairman Hartman brought up the topic of duplexes on R-7 lots. He requested that the staff look into development of an increased lot size requirement for duplexes in single family residential ,?.,,nes. Lot sizes of 10,000 sq. ft. in an R-7 zone, 200000 sq. ft. in an vo Minutes - August 19, 1975 - page 4 4 C R-15 zone and 30,000 sq0 ft0 in an R-30 zone were suggested. A percentage increase in site size for all residential zones was also suggested as an altenative. • . It was pointed out by staff that while this would help • in the scale of a duplex to its neighborhood, frequently duplexes are sited on lots that are undesirable for single family development'and are therefore especially undesirable for two family development. In staff's experience, the real problem is frequently poor sub- dividing practice and layout. Further discussion dealt with the difficulties that may be encountered by a builder in a poorly designed • subdivision and of what future Planning Commission policies may be with respect to these problems. 9. ADJOURNMENT: 10:30 p.m. ° to • pc! Mihute8 - August 19v 1975 - page 5 PUBLIC TESTIMONY - Fred Anderson August 19, 1975 Planning Commission Meeting Item 5°3 - Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZOA 4-75 "The pre-existing outright permitted use rendered conditional in the sense that the map or text was changed continues as an outright per- mitted use. Now the question is -- is it an outright permitted use 7 in the pre-existing zone or is it an outright use in the new zone. My opinion is that it is an outright permitted use in the old zone, as of the old zone, and Ill tell you why. I think we are talking here about what the courts have called a vested right. And I point to the leading case of Oregon called Clackamas County v. Holmes; What I term in the vernacular, the chicken foundry case. In that case, some people who were in the chicken processing business bought a very large tract of land in the unincorporated area of Clackamas County, in about 1965. These dates are approximate. They built a road into it. They dug a well and went for water much greater than what you would need for pasture. They did a number of other things 0 in furtherance of their original intention which they proved to establish a cnicken processing plant on this land. They spent between 30 end 40 thousand dollars on these improvements. Seven years later they went to the County to get a building permit, but the County re- fused them on the grounds that in the interim the land had been zoned incompatibly with their objective. In other words, what they want to do is not a permitted use. They poured their footings for their building, nonetheless, on legal advice. A restraining order was served on them, restraining them from proceeding by the Circuit Court. The matter wont to trial. The Circuit Court hold against them. It went to tb-e Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, as I recall, went against them. It went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed on the grounds that, which I think are of some interest here, inasmuch as they had spent considerable money for the purpose of using this land for a use that was outright authorized when they bought the land and did these improving steps, they had accomplished a vested right and they had a right to do it aril, continue to do it end operate their plant, construct their plant build their plant- and ise it and ' they did, They did those things; the Court upheld their right to do it. Now let's analogize between that and the situation herie. In Tigard we have two aspects of this matter, both of whicii have been worked quite recently. I am really here in behalf of Great Western Chemical Corporation, whose lands between the two railroads out here t ward Progress had been developed, landscaped. They spent s=etning over a million dollars. They have an area yet to be developedo In ether words, they are progressively developding their Iand. Now the NPO #2 purported to change this classification of this land from M-3 to M-4. Their use by that maneuver is defined in the M-4 as a con- ditional use category and they have this million or more dollars invested. Now, if they were to ask for a e..oAd..ttlonal use for chemi cals and so forth, everybody'd be up in arms. Certainly not going to let that happen. Now let's take the other case, recently the City Council saw fit to change many of the categories of uses out- . right along Pacific Highway west from outright to conditional. There again many of the uses that they changed are in being" restaurants. Here again are vested rights and by the narrow view, if the narrow view were compatible here, these uses would be precluded except upon. an application to the Planning Commission. Now, of course, planners seem to think that there is nothing to getting a conditional use permit when you want one. I have observed both in this room and elsewhere that conditional use is granted like other things are granted, depending upon how much public pressure, how much the .outcry is and how the politics are, rather than by the merits. So it is a real threat to an owner confronted 'with this situation. My thinking has been and is that this matter before you now is aligned with this right theory as much as anything else. Now you could say, but what about changing something to the extent that it's a non-con- , forming used In other words, you change the zone so that use is not permitted there at all Conditional relevance: You got a non-con- forming use in theory; In practice, as in the Holmes case, you do not. You have vested right to continue that use. It's* non-conforming you might say. You call it what you want to. My point is: there is a right to continue the thing you had in mind in the first place -- develop that property. I think you have to keep the thing in proper perspective. I recommend that this wording (indicating Bailey's wording) or similar wording be adopted by City Council by ordinance as a prt of the 1970 toning ordinance of Tigard in order to save the City a lot of money and not get involved in arguments about this things Because I think on the Holmes case the City is vulnerable if it doesn't adopt this view. I could suggest some other wording, but I don't want to con- fuse the situation., I agree with Jerry that perhaps expanding it with the optional additional phraseology might be going some distance, but certainly his basic phraseology here is well justified under tht.,. circumstances(Jerry) You suggested that the rj. .hts of the landowner uncle )- L orevts zoning be retained, Do you mean to include the rig lec setbacks, • land coverage, parking space requirements, (Prod) If I understand you, you are asking me on the point t: 1,9 ;. if tire he a • difference between those elements within a previou n npw znne • where you find a piece of property, which elemeats a!)ply7 (Jerry) am asking if you are suggesting that all cf the nttribli+ the • previous tone be broUght forward with• the permission for the use as page 2 - public testimony - pc meeting 8/19/75 • 4 an outright use (Fred) • Yes, I would sy this, that keeping the matter in proper perspective, where a person had a piece of land and had started to carry out a certain objective, one that they can prove; and that objective does not comport with the setbacks of a new zone that they may be put in; and failure to comport with that would defeat their right to the use of the land to attain their objective, I say the setbacks must yield. IflraLM: inliges(LiiprtaM1=111XehrrnPol= :la=ny=1:1Z qhe element of contravening the whole zoning philosphy. Now I would go one step further and say that where the setback and other elements are compatible with the objective, I would say otherwise. So I say that you have to keep these things in perspective. Does that answer your question? (Jerry) Doesn't your suggestion give the owner of such a piece of land superior rights to develop that land than is common to others in that zone? (Fred) That is, not developed? (Jerry) Developed or undeveloped -- It gives it a peculiar set of rights that inhere only because of previous use, real or anticipated. (Fred) Yes, but what better reason is there than the man who has already dedi- cated his lifetime b.nd his wealth to it. We have to keep in mind that there is a constitution in this country too that says no man's property shall be taken without just compensation0 That is part of the same regimen and zoning has come as close to be an arbitra* goqie-nment as there is, but it is supposed to he to the benent of srerybuya Yet tolhreerretahreeolo::::: to it and this 1s one of thi0 4xid hts is noi just Oregon. You will find the vested right tneorT :* g w2.despread you have to meet certain guid1ine Now, in our context here, I consider (this request) a tha vostO right more than anything else (Jerry) Would you say that the vested right theory v r -1"ht 7e:,1 are advancing, is universally accepted land usg, 180 I.:. Jr ...i,yq? (Fred) Not universally, I don't think they have that th ,18(t r40 (aerry) Universal in Oregon page public testis - pc meeting 8/19;75 4 1 (Fred) Well, I would say that the Holmes case is the law in Oregano You only have one Supreme Court. (Jerry) The notion that a nrightli under zoning at a. particular point in time is a vested right at a future point in time is the law? (Fred) Yes. I think the Holmes case is very much alike in the way we zone. (Jerry) No, I asked if the vested rights .theory. . . (Fred) It is not a theory! Would you allow that the Supreme Court case is the law in Oregon? (Jerry) Wait a minute ! You called it a vested right theory! (Fred) Sure, but it is the law. The law is what the Supreme Court says is the law. Until the case is reversed, it is the law. As much as if you had read it in the 1975 version of the legislative inactments. (Don from Crestview) I did not come here to speak, but this aroused my curiosity. I would like to know in a hypothetical situation what wAld happen if a property owner ItAll owned a parcel of ground an .et about improving it for a junk yard and property owner IV, set about improving (lets assume both these hypothetical development situations were permitted under the existing zone) the adjoining piece of property for regi- , dential use, neither one knowing what the other ( ne had in rnim ,, 1 P at some point in time the 5e sites become zoned resltiaj9 t1-1 t that this man had spent some money to develop a j,:al 7aro going to give him a vested right to go ahead with hi pryer so than the guy who poured some money in his prooerty for hi How would that shake down in your ,Ipinion. (Fred) Well, I see them as comparable We have junk yards side,, Nobody can close them down because most cf thew re pr nonconforming o So I would say the term junk yard of vernacular. It is a deprecating to and some of tn'tItt. de " d Again' looking at the thing from the standpoint og prrvam'', can conceive of a situation where the so-oalleel. junft, wc117r4 hs a vested right and I think, ( on) What about the person who had put an equal amount of mory inho page L. - public testimony - pc meeting 8/19/75 • development for a residential purpose? (Fred) I think that is true too, I think he ould have a vested right. (Hartman) The existence of a junk yard would preclude the existence of the resi- dential area and make it less desirable. But still the fact that the junk yard was there and was a permitted use when it was established would mean that it would be allowed to continue as a permitted use as long as it remained in business, If it went out of business and remained out of business for a set length of time, it could not be re-established, (Smelser)•• I think the situation that the staff is trying to address here is where property has been developed or is intended to be developed for a , ry J specific use -- doe.ts that mean that forever more, regardless of change of zone, that property can continue to expand for that intended use? (Jerry) It seems to me that the application of the vested rights principle in this particular issue that is before the Planning Commission almost precludes the public's right to better previous errors, oversights or even changes in circumstances which the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon has specifically said must be recognized (by subsequent actions) . (Fred) I don feel that there is anything alien between the Holmes case and anything the court has said since, In fact, the Holmes case only came down in '74, And if I am not wrong, it probably followed Fasano. Fasano came down in '73. (Hartman) I would like to hear what alternate wording yep). Mo- 'rornsPd for this (Fred) Well, I am hesitant because I hope that you jective be attained, How you get tlr,eie is perl'aps read to you what I have here: ' Wherever a previously outright permitt,t1 use oategpr' relegated to the conditional use groupinb n rie 8t1 - zone or another zone all wholly or parilially deve,301 . r )p- erties then in outright use status in any strin aLi retain all the incidents of pre-existing oilt,,z!gr.4' fioation applicable to such property inC.:.udin to expand, alter t change the extent of area or use for existing use purpozed page 5 - public testimony - pc meeting 8/19) 4 I k , I have another one Property wholly or partially developed and in use in any zone for any outright permitted purpose for that zone when such use purpose is reclassified in the same zone or a different zone to a conditional category shall retain all use rights previously available to such property under its outright use category pre-existing the reclassification so long as sucth pre-existing use continues including the right to expand, alter, or change the extent of area or use of such pre-existing use purpose. Now, I think that all I have done there is maybe use more zonirw jargon than perhaps Joe Bailey did, I would rather sae you rec, dmend his because Council has copies. It is already submitted in writing. My purpose is to get the job done and not to argue about the words. I felt or thought that maybe the Planning Ftaff would find fault with Joe 's wording, so I had an alternative to offer. (Hartman.) I am not sure that I am completely clear on everything that the pro- posed ordinance implies. Where this ordinance states uthe owner of the land shall have all of the rights he would have had had the use remained a permitted use in the new zoneu. That seems to me to be ambiguous on these matters of setbacks and landscape. There is a difference between had the use remained_a_pgsmitted use in the new zone or uhad the land remained under the revious_12nIne, and that seems to me to be the crux of the matter right there. (Fred) Well, I d4-lussed the staff's proposal he with Dick Bolen. didn't ditAuss it with Jerry. And I think that there is ambiguity in the proposed change. If you intend that the property rezoneL would have all the elements of outright zoning in the new zone, that night so severely restrict the owner that he couldn't use it for :t&r14A purpose. I am suggesting to you that the proper appoach to permit the, what I chose to call elements .)f to remain applicable to the property -- a propePty 4:sha(- partially developed for a given continuous, purpose -- a - necessarily zoned for any use that it might have beer us,v-1 down the scale 20 or 30 uses -- but for that pre-eqA5VxJ, 1 4t1 6 (Hartman) For the pre-existing purpose it will remain in the pre-f.tx -1,,, in effect. (Fred) 1 Well, yes, it will remain in the pre-existing zone +%Yr 1+4.71 established use6 • public testimony - page 6 - pc meeting 8/19/75 • , (Hartman) And that seems to me the point that is not clear is the way this is written right here. The way this ordinam,e is written it seems to me that it remains a permitted use in the new zone and what you are saying is that it should remain a permitted use in the previous zone according to the rules of the pious zone. (Fred) This is what I am suggesting (Hartman) Which is quite a different kettle of fish. (Craig Eagleson) If I understand this correctly, this (ordinance) doesn't forbid a chemical company from expanding its business operation; however, it can't expand its business premises based upon the code of 20 years ago. It will be allowed to expand under a conditional use permit • according to today 's code, under which the building will have to conform to architectural design, landscaping and so forth. This doesn't mean that the company will not be able to continue in business. Right? (Hartman) (Under the proposed amendment) , Farmcraft Chemicals would be allowed to expand their building without the 20 percent limitation, It vould be allowed to expand as though it were a permitted use in the zone it is in right now, but would still have to conform to whatever set- 1 back and landscaping rules are embodied in the new zoning. Isn't that correct, Jerry'? Whereas tne way Mr, Anderson sees it it should be set up so that he would be bound by the setback rules and so on of the previous zone rather than of the zone he is in now. (Fred) Well, I didn't exactly c6ay t1 On that where adhering to the si-t .,-0 ,t changed would intefere with o: wouL'J feat rit* n owner may prove, then I ay the Ae*a:k.$ hav- y' TL! ,, I . - are compatible (with the intetded .1z0 ther t 4 But what we art basically ta:'Wng about 1E4 T's" • basic I think you,ve got to keep in mf.,a, the • can the property owner use that pfropety rc- a parp ;s,,- t% aL L - prove, and I say REat, as a part of his ov,-. .A. p1 - * 1 build Rome in a day. You donvt build a plaAJ.. : , * • objective in a day, If, in the poce,6s of progress of the building the City changes its tue he mt *ot • some protection u For instance, I could be buJiHirg the rafters up for a 2 story and you all of e I- have a single story there. Sei, what I mean. Sam,, • page 7 - public testimony - p . meeting 8/19/75 (Hartman) (i( I don't think that is reaching too far because Tigard does have rules against a 3 story house. (Fred) I only have 2 in my case. (Hartman) Yes, I know, but the analogy is there; at a point in time in the past Tigard changed its rule to disallow three story houses. (Fred) If the three story had the rafters up. . . (Hartman) They would be entitled to finish it, but the guy that bought the lot next door couldn't build a three story house. (Craig Eagleson) I have seen incidents where some guy has sat out on a corner of a street with a little grocery store on an acre of land. Through the years built up around him are beautiful residential homes. And all of a sudden he, thinks he has a good thing there so he decides to build a supermarket which, as anybody can see, would not be in the right location for a supermarket. But if I understand Mr. Anderson's proposal, he would be allowed to go ahead and build a supermarket there because he has been in business there as a grocery store. (Fred) You misunderstand. I did not say that. (Hartman) • I don't think that would be unless he had, as time wen tinued adding to his store, making it larger and altering (Craig) His intentions were: he was in business and he wantsid to (Fred) No, now wait aiminute. You're engrafting upon the wh(13 .- ) - new element: was this intention (and intentions arE4 extra words) , was this intention a harbored intention a!!1 effect by plans at the time he started a grocery stcPe (Craig) Yes, because he purchased an acre of ground or 5 erres page 8 - pqblic testimony - pc meeting 6/19/75 11. (Fred) • Make it five acres and I could buy the supermarket theory. All these things are subject to the facts that pertain to them. You change these facts and you are changing the theology. In the chicken case you remember tile facts - and, they are established facts. The courts sb found that they had done this, this and this in a continuing chain of events to accotplish that. O.K. Now many businesses, like you said, would be the same way. They don't Oust come into being. Let's take I . Washington Square. They are still building, aren't they? That is all under one ownership, isnit it? Yes, it is, and so they have a laid out plan which is given effect year by year over 10, 20, 30 years. Now you saw off the thing in the middle. That is what I am talking about. Public Hearing Closed. • • page 9 - public teat ony - pc meeting 8/19/75 1.11•1111j • •. a 61:4b9'`' STAFF REPORT Tigard Planning Commission '�" p August 19, 1975 Agenda Item 7 Preliminary Plan & Program Concept Review of a proposed commercial and residential Planned Development. Westridge Park, to be developed by Richard C. Smith at S. W. 72nd Ave. and Hunziker Street. Staff Findings - I. To staffs knowledge, efforts to develop ,this. site. date, from 1971 when,- , a proposal to the county for A-2 zoning was turned down. 2. The current proposal provides for fourteen (14) duplexes totaling twenty eight dwelling, units plus a small office building on a single three and a half, (311) acre site. 3. Assuming that a reasonable allocation of land to the office building • is 6,000 square feet, and the density allowable in this underlying zone is 1 unit per ,7500 square feet (net), the number of dwelling units- allowable is 16.6..t, 4. Commercial and community service uses are allowable in a residential planned development only when designed to serve the development of which they are a part. ' they p' Community service uses may., if it is especially found desirable by the Planning Commission, serve the adjacent area. 5. The minimum site size for a Planned Development is 4 acres unless determined that a smaller site is justified due to problems of topography, ^ unique character, landscaping virtues or its existence as an isolated problem area. • p planned This site has been previously considered appropriate for and. that approach, applicant Let a lanned un t approach pproach, as well as single family development (R-7) were once recommended. to the app ` (Letter: February 18, 1971) by the city. ' 6. Tigard code speaks to the issue of minimum lot size and allows variance of lot site in a planned development. Staff has not determined. developer can build such aep project without platting lots. pP this build h a pr Itea appears at point that a d ec +� •' Planned Develo P duplex in an Il�-7 zone; even if a Development, must be on a single lot. 7. Vehicular access must be available to any residence in Tigard within fifty (50) feet of the ground floor entrances. Walkways providing to g� � y ��. : g several dwelling units shown exceed more than double this 4 8. •loo provision has been made- for recreation space:- • Staff, feels that this .. proposed ro, el f'; is in fact a multi'-,fa nily pro j ect; and shouldy conform to section i8. .5.040 dealing .With requrrgd ripen ,space and rec.�eatione l lM► sreas. Z Y 4 • • 9. Parking requitement for this project computed at 1.11 spaces per dwelling unit and an estimated 9 spaces (4+2+3) would be 51 parking spaces, or 6 more than provided. 10. The 20 foot roadway could be permitted under Tigard Planned Development ordinance as a variance of the subdivision code. However staff would point out that any parking on the access drives as proposed would prevent emergency access and since the drives are priva6ai, the city cannot enforce parking restrictions. 11. Pedestrian access through the project seems circuitous and discontinuous with respect to expected pedestrian circulation. 12. Access point on Hunziker or 72nd cannot be determined from the applicants presentation. Staff cannot therefore evaluate this aspect of the proposed Planned, Development . 13. Topography and/or lay of the land cannot be evaluated, nor can the • relationship of the structures within the project to those outside (adjacent). 14. Applicant's program submission addresses none of the required items. • 15. Mixture of residential and commercial uses in one integrated project, . is, or can be, a highly efficient and beneficial aspect of planned comMunity development4wIn this staff fails, the , _J.. • relationship of the to uses excepting. a potential. conflict ,in mutual use of residential access and parking.' • 1 4 AGENDA Tigard Planning Commission ' I C: July 15; 1975 - 7:30 p.m. Twality Junior High School - Lecture Room 14650 SW 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. MINUTES: June 17, 1975 and July 1, 1975 4. COMMUNICATIONS 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 Comprehensive. Plan Revision CPR 2-75 (Old Fowler Site/ School District 23-J) A request for an amendment to the Tigard Comprbhensive Plan (N.P.O. #1 Plan) to change the land use designation of a portion of the Old Fowler High School site on SW Scoffins St. from "open space" to "retail commercial". A. Staff Report B. Public Testimony ,- C. Staff Recommendation D. Commission DiscUssion and Action 6. ' Preliminary Plan and Program Review (Wetridge Park/Richard SMith) A request for concept review of preliminary plan and program for a proposed commercial and residential planned development at SW 72nd Ave. and Hunziker St. 7. OTHER BUSINESS 8. ADjOURNMENT ( . , • STAFF REPORT Tigard Planning Commission July 15, 1975 . Agenda Item 6 Preliminary Plan & Program Concept Review of a proposed commercial and residential Planned Development. Weste Park, to be developed by Richard C. Smith at S. W. 72nd Ave.. and Hunziker Street. Staff Findings s 1. To staffs knowledge, efforts to develop this, site date from 1971 when, a proposal to the county for A-2 zoning was turned down. 2. The current proposal provides for fourteen (14) duplexes totaling twenty eight dwelling units plus a small office building on a single three and a half, (31) acre site. 3. Assuming that a reasonable allocation of land to the office building is 6,000 square feet, and the density allowable in this underlying zone is 1 unit per ,7500 square feet (net), the number of dwelling i.ini tsi allowable is 16.6•. 4. Commercial and community service uses are allowable in a residential p . planned development only when designed to serve the development of which they are a part. Community service, uses mater, if it is especially found desirable by the Planning Commission, serve the adjacent area. 5. The minimum site size for a Planned. Development is 4 acres unless determined that a smaller site is justified due to problems of topography, unique character, landscaping virtues or its existence as an isolated problem area. This site has been previously considered appropriate for a planned unit approach and that approach, as well as single family development n8 (11-7 were seretonnce recommended to the applicant (Letter: February by city. • 6. Tigard code speaks to the issue of minimum lot site and allows variance of lot size in a planned development. Staff has not determined Nether a developer can build such a projet a � t without platting lots, appears It Planned rn Development,emus ttbeton ausi�glenlot. R-1 zone, even if a 7 fifty (50) feet of the ground floor entrances., Wal hway s�providitgin . Vehicular access must be available to any residence in ' • g y providing ng to several dwelling units shown exceed more that, double this. 8. No provision has been made for recreation space: Staff feels that this . proposed a t' f � r j e td should conform to section lB48.040 dealing With open ,space and recreation . areas. ry: 9. Parking requirement for this project computed at. 1-' spaces per dwelling unit and an estimated 9 spaces (4+2+3) would be 51 parking spaces, or 6 more than provided. 10. The 20 foot roadway could be permitted under Tigard Planned Development ordinance as a variance of the subdivision code. However staff would point out that any parking on the access drives as proposed would prevent emergency access and since the drives are private, the city cannot enforce parking restrictions. 11. Pedestrian access through the project seems circuitous and discontinuous o with respect to expected pedestrian circulation. • 12. Access point on Hunziket or 72nd cannot be determined from the applicants presentation. Staff cannot therefore evaluate this aspect of the proposed Planned Development . 13. Topography and/or lay of° the land cannot be evaluated, nor can the relationship of the structures within the project to those outside (adjacent). 14. Applicant's program submission addresses none of the required items. 15. Mixture of residential and commercial Uses in one integrated project is, or can be, a highly efficient and beneficial aspect of planned community development. I.In this case.,• staff fails to see the .,,.. relationship of the two uses excepting a potential. conflict ,.in, mutual use of residential access and parking. . i • 4 ..„ „ . . .., . ,. . ., . , • ., . , . • , , , ‘t4te,...-'', „ 1.. e-111 . . .. .,, -r 0-".;: ..I., t':. .-•,' .,- .0 .. . . ',1. .'t:.i. 44,1. ( .. (7.7, . . 1 ?Vi(i't.. 4 'C' * ' .. 011kt.; ,!,?,■. i,,,,,,,*, c: '''''''"C!.:*. . ' •,,.0,,_v A...r. -•„Lc/ ,,,,......, . ,•. A • • 4. .. It '* / * ni ' . •,. , . . '• . \ r ■ • 1.11 .... .'..'••4 ■ ■ ... .. .• . AI. . . , . , , „ ?9,6„,,N.,„, 45104... ___,. 40.• , ( . . , '1V<V%. 4k. : .. .. APTS. 1 . .,,,i,„ ,,, . . . . . i,,,, %4) . ,,, .,. „ 61 . •- 4s,s:N..., . . , „ , ... ,,,. ,.... . . H • 44 1741640, I'\\\* . • • .;. 7.8 I • \ ,. , . , • . .. ' ' . • \ . N, : , . . ' . i '' . . 300 ‘ . . • t .'CITY ' . . . . ” " ;•..1:.:.V.,..::.'5,S.:s.,::$•,;. . ,,,.:.;,,...::,•,::‘,..........,..s...,,:•:::.• A . •••,.,,'...•.,.,.„.•,„.,.,,, ,- eirIS .r _.........,,,,k;v:§:::„..x,..k.stz:,tA:;:th:i.4. ........ ....::::0...t„tir..z.:,.::, 0., . , . TIGARD CITY Limrrs 4 — 0:i§l'..%. -4, .k ',.a:,px4..z,- %., . ics•ki, ' ...__ . I • . " :,'4‘.4:.,•:.,4.uk..4,:.z......:NA.. ..:4*x,A!,,s,kzX.1,$...:1‘\\,kk,,4kot%‘ 1A1 '000 ..0...,... ..::.i,....v4v4.0N:.:,..4,...x4.,-44:4:v.4::...s...::,..s.vbs\-.-, tte• ' . 7".4 . . , -• 4 .: .43.4.A.4,0 4.4:,...„..,q4.4,..........,:.:,..v,,,,r,..s,,,sr....:,.k,,,,„\. h . 40i),.. • . ,..,..,....,..,...:.........:,,,.0%.,,•, ,%::*.sft,............,.,.,...5..b.,,,. • • 1 . Zik.VW.:Z.0.$.0R.N3 :4*.......:$.....,':,..iii... .......g'.......\\ \ 4 . ';:..VA:*'....e...N.: Z,V.....V.4.,4:::e0110.::::•,\I\\.k \ ‘ i... . . ,,,,,,,,,,,. .., .......ft .,Y.'q v. :'''. ,%'•''.'. X...Z4'%* \ . ‘ . . , ' --.1....„.• - . ::....M::::::kt,.,..,,,N..4A,„1,N:.kZ.:z:4.$:.,'.::::.:.;*..A.':V4. ,_.k\. , N. ..00,..:$::,....K.Ovv.....:4'.::::V...0:.YA......*.:..s..:.41.q..1..\..,§.,. \ . E: :' it‘ i 1 sh.o...,..:.....%,.N.A., , .; • ••• •,:.\\,z:N•....A.. v %, A ifYib_ ,,... *"...Z§.05.:.:',.iR.::::::e.t.:.ek.>. :',"S:::,:•'•) :Z‘ i..kk, l'i. 710 .. A::::::::::::.;A:•.:A.\\‘‘,..::A..A'....,o...:$:.•'AV.;:Ak•FSFa.N.:.%'.'N,\\%\.'p.:..,..,:.:.......::, S. s 1 , I .. •••••0.s•,*•,:,••••,•:••••.:':,ta...:.•:•••••••••:,S•el:•?•••••••,•••,4%;•:::*,5%;:••••••y•;*,....V.,%.,0•:••••.%1%,•%•1*.:.1,0•?:06.::::*;.•,• % . . .. . , la ‘ I . , •:::::::.*.‘,,..;::*,*:•••••0•'•,,,,,V",:•+••••••1•So',.•••••,••••••••••■•:•••-,4%,•••••\,.,,%*••••1.*-••••\,t%.•••%••+A ....:k.,:•:•:::.:::,,,V,.!••••+:..0::0*•:,,,,,:•••••••%.*:*••••••*•\••••.•••••••,••••••••::10,,,,:•.W.,•:••:,*.•:`•:,:•••••••w*•,0.:,"•,:•:•••:-:0• ••:•;••;....:•:.:....::::::::;•••,....,-:•.•••••••;•*0.:,S.,.%?.,...v.•••.•,:.**%,.,,,••;;;;Ao..,....,,...,•;:,*.........NF...:•,.............sz:•..........„„..,A.A.N....;•„%A. , t I 5.'„•11::i".:•*•,•.,":•\.::::::1...N••'::: ::::•:::*Z:•••::•••/••••:::::•Z*:'*:••:•:••*.i',..,CXV:r: :\;*•*.•+,":.*'*•.,•*:*•:V::*•'*•:•••.*•'::•i**, -:.%*.4::::::::":NF..4.::::*k4:::::::**4::::g*::§%::•::::::*:*:•••*•:•:%:**.k14'4*%:::.:•%:••:tv•:*•:*.*Ak*.•:::::::*Z$:•:"•:: (‘JI : " ... • .' . . ..... .J7311,4.7.1 . • ,.. • ••• .. 1,..576,..,...........d.,..i....,... . [,.. . I 4 . . . • . . : .. . u) .. .. . .. . „ • • . . . . . . . , . .. . W. VARNS • ST, o to ittiN ,., . . . . . to . • . , . . . . . . I-. : .: , 0 . •,23 • :: . •>. , o CITY ' , . , . , • ' . • >, . . , ,., >,... ,... cr . ,..._ , . ..... #.:,,,., ,„„ • . Li.' 4— • ................,.. .................. • , ..- . . ':.I ..._,-,......r- ,.. • . .. . . . ..: 1 l' ... \.. . .. f 16,..........11 N .„...........„...„ , . , i . . • i . . ,. , .. . .. . . .. SCALE I .,tt 200 N i . , ' . , 1 . t • 1 ■,/ ZONE CHANGE - CONDITIONAL USE - VARIANCE - TEMPORARY USE - NON-CONFORMING • USE REQUESTS • APPLICATION File # Fee Roc'd. 11P.5-0.00 Tigard Planning Commission 639-4171 12420 SW Main St. , Tigard, Oregon 97223 Receipt Date Rec'd.2-3--? S- PLEASE PRINT IN INK OR TYPE Action RequestedIl=chcauj...9a_k_elana. • 646-3608 Applicant's Name, Richard P.Smith Phone 646-11RA Applicant's Address 3432 SW 126th Ave. — 7717g) city (state)29E577- . Owner's Nameaanurimervf. Cot ie owner) Phone Owner's Address Somo (street) (city) (stat67-7757- Applicant is Owner Contract Purchaser Developer x Agent Other x Proo. of R-M Day. Co. -) ) Owner Recognition of , eri--44-povelopment orp. / / Pr"' signatur- o owne s Person responsible for application • 0 F4x6-'t PROPERTY INVOLVtD: Tax Map #_252_2_0_Tax Lot(s) /6'0 Addre$8____FILLluodront of St/ Huhziktr ohd 72hd • Existing Buildings (# and type) Current Current Utile, Vhoolli__ Applicant's Applicant's Proposed Zoning pq (elmasuLD4utioomoht) Proposed Use, ImN_Alliwzliy_ta,,,La,j,t101 SUBMISSION REOUlAtMENTS: Report 4-'"FasariouRequireMents -Legal Desoription Vicinity Map L—Tax Map k' Site Development Plan Site Plan • A 7 I 7eeee Taideetawee eawaftaftv 06 Obte9da WASHINGTON COUNTY OFFICE title Instlreace escrows 12012 S.W. Canyon Road / Beaverton, Oregon 97005 Z. ED Phone 646-8181 • JUN 1 2 1975 CITY OF TIGARD Order No. 328025 June 10, 1975 City of Tigard Tigard City Hall Tigard, Oregon 97223 Gentlemen: We are prepared to issue Title Insurance Policy covering: See EXHIBIT "A" attached: Showing title on June 4, 1975, at 5:00 P.M. vested in R,-M DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION an Oregon corporation an estabein fee simple subject to the usual printed exceptions, and 1. 1971-72 taxes, $486.79 and interest unpaid. 1972-73 taxes, $536.13 and interest unpaid. 1973-74 taxes, $556.27 and interest unpaid. 1974-75 taxes, $606.32 and interest unpaid. (A-21118,-0100) . 2. Tigard City Liens, if any. 3. Statutory powers and assessments of Unified Sewerage Agency. 4. Limited access as Set forth in deed from John P. Brock et ux, to the State of Oregon, by and through its State Highway Commission, recorded Tune 17, 1965 in Book 557 page 123, and corrected by deed recorded July 8# 1966 in Book 607 page 224, Washington County Records, over and across the herein described property, which provides that no right or easement of right of access, to, from or across the State Highway, other than expressly provided for, shall attach to the abutting property. MULTNOMAH COUNTY OPPIICE CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFrIcg$ 212t AVOILM/POPTIANU,ONE0oN 91/04 11241th 5trIttr/C511WON dItYi bOte$ON 94 N. rAl tIltttitAg 00,P400,045GON 9101 01-16Nt//2,301 01401,14 658.b/43 PI4oNt t$65466.5 Order No. 328025 - Page 2 5. Easement, including the terms and provisions thereof, for water pipeline, granted to Metzger Water District by instrument recorded auly 16, 1970 in Book 786 page 523, and also recorded • April 1, 1969 in Book 738 page 52, Washington County Records. 6. Easement , including the terms and provisions thereof, for Septic tank and drain field and sewer system, as disclosed in deed from John Brock et ux, to Harry L. •Metzger et ux, recorded February 7, 1966 in Book 587 page 229, Washington County Records. (Affects a strip 18 feet by 108 feet running along that portion of the South line adjacent to Lot 1, Rolling HMO) . TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON Washington County Office 1/0.1,1Y017:1 4/,,e7 4 toW“` fr-v" Michael Sh6herd MS:BS cc Mr. Richard R. Smith -J, • * 11" Order No. 328025 ,„ EXHIBIT "A" • A parcel of land located in Section 1, Township 2 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, more particularly ' described as follows: Beginning at a 2-indh iron pipe marking the initial point of ROLLING HILLS, which is North 01°04'30" East 1901.68 feet and North 88°49' West 30.00 feet from the Southeast corner of W. W. Graham Donation 1, Land Claim No 39, and running thence North 89°00'02" West 22.53 feet to a point, being the true point of beginning of the tract herein described; thence North 0°59'58" East 38.95 feet to a point; thence North 60°36'21" West 10980 feet to a point on the Westerly right of way of the State Highway; thence North 32°48'35" West 321.58 feet along said right of way to a one-half inch iron rod; thence North 89°16' • 21" West 300.8/ feet to an iron rod on the East line of the N. Gerlach • property as described in Deed Book 320, page 563, Records of Washington County; thence South 0°43 '39" West along said East line and said East • line extended Southerly, to a point on the North line of ROLLING HILLS; thence South 89°0002" East along said North line to the true point of beginning. 4 A '0 . , .. , . '. 111his sketch .is for location purposes c'. ' '' ''-- ' : -- "- - " . ••••••• iiNGTON COUNTY OREGON ;,' only and no liability is assumed for , I any, triations determined by sty *ey. , • .. . S CAL 1 : I 00' . 1 ITLe INSURANCE COMPANY OF ORE6, 4 , ,} - 4,4 646-8181. , .... i N SCALE MAP NO 7: ) / / •I, N.--.......„...„....47...... ...t \ . ,.. N, / . - cbc/v \ NA4I c 6,4 OA, ' ) RCY ' 4)- - ' ' '4. '. ,,,..4),7°' / SEE MAP N :1,8 , ,/0.141.6 ' ; . 2 S _1 ( — ---, , / TAX _ ' .._______...-- yN. , 4 . , . C.R. 245 STREET , _ :Ns ..... -,7 /i /6,_ _. ........ .... ,., _ ........ ... _ _ _______ ....... 660 ). • II,. 00 NN/ x 4& .. . I , ... ■ V. S, ‘,,,,..N. .' 1 .. . .. WI • , 100 ' 791Y--,it p 4,51Ac. NNN'NN Z &) \ M q./ \ •• Q) 0 4 *) X > — •'sr- ---- 0) . , )4 ks t0 fIC 0 ,..-* S. p, 101A , . ..,,-. A t`6 / Y. , 9.- . , 0-''- \-4:- ,. H . 4 0 v , 0 A \ f■ . r' ea'ts Ircir 0, ,......" \ ,• , 49.A igt 501 lir H \ A t'l 4'; U'' • ''' ■ • . . 103.27 ) , 1 0 \ . ! / ( , r. , .• \\,,, <4 Kk n I N.- I SEE M I 4 8 ,, cOR PETER HALTER : `‘-'-i• • , , ti ,' t hiet I 40 10 A T ' INITIAL POINT:• '. •-;- - , . , , u„." ..;, ,,, ,AFii,t, go, 25 1 705 7 04 703 702 701 ., 6 L 5 :: i 4 t, j\j 3 C:1) 2 I I K _ , • 6 I 3 a.4 51 125.991 12 5 99' 123. 08' c ts C.I 2 1 ' 125.991 * 125,15' j ' t NS STREET ; ;. ,i. - . 1,, ;91 9.16 1 — 12'3,43' 11,-)g I 2 a 431 ,.„ I 2S 43' 8990054 165' ,ito tit4 1 It.1,4w 44, 4 14 1:4,0‘,.1; 11141,,,t 4 4itti * 7 Pilit ,7.40.8 Qt 14 t.,1 'ft,7 049 , i it,.k +4, 4, 4,1,74 0 I ...„.........„. r■ b i + T A.. • Don C Johnson, AlA & Associates architect/planner June 2, 1975 Subject: WESTRIDGE PARK - a Planned Development (P-D) located at SW corner of Hwy 217 and. Hunziker Road . To: Tigard Planning Commission: The following data describes a request for approval of a Preliminary Planned Development District for Westridge Park, a housing and office development. This proposal will require • { `, a zoning map amendment for this specific use . A similiar proposal was presented to and approved by the City ' Pl anni Ag Commission last year. The 1974 proposal indicated all housing emits located around the perimiter of the site with no consiieration given to the existing roadway west of the site. We have conferred with staff and revised the site plan to correct the deficiency. Your favorable endorsement of this proposal will assure a quality development that wi1 '' be a credit to the neighborhood (` and community. • • eicerely, DON C. JOHNSON , A. I .A. DJ/zj • • • ffi • 50a — e4e i 99/ 60/5 S.W. 124 ',A BeaVe�`tnhy ,oregori g/005 , 1,. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 1 . The purpose of this proposed zone change is to provide a Planned Development District (P-D) consisting .of duplex type housing units with a small professional 4 office building . ng . 2. rfgard s Comprehensive Plan indicates a Land Use of ,, , Urban Low Density Residential . This was probably determined by the existing residential character of the area but does not reflect the existence of an •. apartment development northwest of the subject site . ° The residential character of this proposal will be insured by the construction of single story structures using residential type materials and colors . By preserving a residential character to this development there Will be no conflict with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan or its goals . 3. The proposed zone change fulfills a need for a choice "., in the housing market that i s between Urban. Low Density and Urban Medium Density Residential as defined in the Comprehensive Plan . The subject site is a transitional �. location between the two aforementioned residential land use ,types and justifies special colisi.deration of the following: (a) The frontage along Hun iker Road and the interchange with Highway 217 does not make the site suitable for 1 4 Page 2. • an expansion of the existing residential style. • • (b) The extension of the roadway west of the site would eliminate the privacy this neighborhood currently enjoys . Provisions will be made to provide emergency vehicle access only' to this roadway to assure adequate emergency vehicle access • (c) The configuration of the site 's eastern boundary does not lend itself to an efficient typical y,. development. This P-D permits a complete economical utilization of the site area , a factor . that must be considered due to the limited amount of available land resulting from County planning . The resulting reduction in land cost per unit will make economical housings available to the citizens . 1". 4. Conditions have changed since the Tigard Community Plan was prepared: (a) Land Use in Washington County has been significantly altered with the zoning of specific ars,is for . u 11, de'vel opment . This has increased the cost of buildable land and when combined with climbing construction costs it is di ff icul t' to provide housing at a reasonable cost. One method that Will assist in reducing these .costs is to fully utilize existing land areas where all services are readily available. This will also assist in reducing the Page 3 r k 4 ' 1 tax costs of maintenance to existing property' owners . , N: (b) Inadequate sewage treatment plants have been a major deterrent to development in the past and is no longer a factor. The Unified Sewage Agency will I, be completing the regional treatment plant in the near future. 5. Other areas with zoning that would allow this proposed use will be used for the maximum density allowed, 12 units ' . per acre, Urban Medium Density. The density of this P-D is about 8 units per acre and its actual use relates more closely to the Urban Low Density zone. 6. The following usual impact elements will have a minimal effect on adjoining properties: (a) Noise, traffic and children These will be directly comparable to or less than that found on existing land uses , (b) Setbacks . These will be the same as though houses , were constructed on the site refer to site plan . (c) Design . Scale, materials, colors and height of structures will be similiar to existing residences . 7. No new public services or roadways will be required by this proposal that will cause financial hardship to the residents of adjoining property. The advantage of fully utilizin... existing g faci 17ties is to reduce, the cost of these to the entire nic n i ty. _' i�wiir�.'M+��_�fl!R•'MR!"}r7S <-� -.- « - . _ . n f , f1F, f.,`. .4W..1.1♦/v,.' • 0 aY...A.K..». ,,. , , )A'rE. ,.'.,14'+7. • ' SusJECTw.,teaI' r1.��^.t..,. . s r ; ,') "�� ' r:;'-,r r .y • U ■ A r • • , . _'' + x.+•»•xw.�.K,+..[,.,.,.y�ya._ w.+ r 1 I << , ,i: i �i ,i; M .? y ;�' n,. s �- 0 a r , (11 fi r x E }4M , s y 1, r, :! , a.j. 1, _..,.. . , : .. .‘,.' .. .., — ..., ..17,..j , ,L:,, , 1 I. , Afre11 t 'rf.,* ......w,i..M +i'Mfz_A�wwlx ... ;i,» ii , ,, ¢1 a' It I ` I I t 4. ' fM Qy ,..I « r I IR , 4, I 1.127 v1.10 -"Poe-k' °Cap �,� f� —vt 1 V1.1 ci t • cr '5W co. --vvkt- r's'?a ),.: , A ri,;yi ry-7..„, --ref ti . ........ 1 M q * 7i6 /- o ,N,41-- -s.'" r( - -s. ,1,14s 0.A. A-» r -. -�,�� '.A :( ,fir t .0 -- " � ., .:, ,...,,,,,,, ,M e i i. A m rypi.--yr rl C.a:... 1 r •-,01:21, .i i 1A\3. 7-7 ,,,:' -'7 07 - - Z%1-1;1 `C%7i 1 " \)•1i\cam,Y�i 'i,i;,(•'', ,....' . ... . V h , Vtg Ire_ei - ...-.4 ...,_ . ..,.. . _ . . V5" A ... ‘7:7■/)./. . QL%ilk, .„ e,VN,i.AkC..-etAt ‘7)6kr: .... . — „. :... , .. /1 .ftvIregw, '. 44,......,,,k,tev ketf)....-„,, &,1.,,..ek..4. .C..4".t.,i4, ,0 , . ' .,.`", ,' ,',,:l? ,, .. " i 1. ,... , ? 0;■,'‘".tifr'.. !.11 . ,Ne.L." ,.. -a... 4, -4-. , , --, ,,,t,;-‘, ,,,L-,. --,,‘'' ,,,, :...-,,,, - „ ,.„..:44.,.... ,.... ..,,, , „ ,,.. .„, „ . ,', .i • . • ,.. i-- ' 1 ' " -171A e..- C;,-Itt-■.- '""\"`ea-cl AC c.,0,,t5 • .,* -, ...„t-y -e-0,, ,,,, ,,,,,, 4 _, ,_ ,.. . ., ... I . .c(4,"A- ) . t?5L.L.,* c.•.-.- '-'e. ,v.,1 0',- Cak,i, i-A.. eol-o evoko pi t‘.;„1,R..:0,...5H._ ' . , . . —„, .„...• ,,. v A-L4-, ;\r,/ C. Lk)AAAZ:'...re.....-, .I.Vt. '- 1 A -, A --- 1 4..if Pt< A-1,4 c-A-0 • iek.e.... 4v ' ; c2 • v•-o ?.e.u.,4, ..,. i • , v i•,, • , ea-to% ,.,t--,- p44for.,.., ,eA ■.:-.,-,' 0 e..,-(-. v e.4 4;, i vtl t.e., -- d..‘4A. 1 (x •.,:..,. ,...:,, ,..-vv, _. 4 1,k9,4 .) ,.. '- . %A:oh.o4.4 , : e, „1„, t,‘AI, AZ- 4..-',00.4 A.:N,,,,,i . , .5..,: /-.1,.6-0\ A -,,,L2e4._ . ,—0, , - . ' , . : ,w....i. :.. .,,,,,tt. : c e,..c„,..k. s'...-0, ., \4 .1,-,:r ,...47-14ijeett-4Xn4Z, i .. .el e..4;t....5 ,`I At i '.,• ,.1 ., , , , ,:: ‘).\,1., :.,et,i:::A- •t\.0-0... ...—(A., A., • ..,, :::„..•,„::.1 i' ' ....t. ,1'e,..... _.. .,'v LW, t .•i ,),A t- ,k, i ., - ,,• ::,, t--,1 )--• c -v v,-..r..... e.-.(,,,,u- .).0..t' ,1 so. , , e,, --V-kfAc,t-1,, „ ...e1„. .,-4.g • 14.,:,.‹..,..1:,..,-- t• - LA ■.*•. 0_ • ,..-_.• A.....4 ...Q._ , ,, ..,4•44t.,to vs.4„7si,.....%,.. . .., A..,;;' 4 4:": .0.$1.,, ',1,0.0.,, i,s,-,.._ . .-- ,..--,. -..---,414,,,-4:3. --A) . , 4 1 :1 t er . .6-1/4- Vi+.,,?%; , ...i.e:■V'■i ,,e-4- 3P « ''' • ,11 51rer, C.,i . ■.#0 1:2) 142,,e'• 41.....‘4,. '..ttlt ' .. A A5' ..'. ;*.'71'i'et,.-(44!,,,. :k. ':1--,.,4. ,,, -,'''. 'c* ,'' 0.- 1-.? t't' ,. -*• „„,V 0 ,... , , - !c•I'l ,- .. c-a- ' . t i vi: ,A:-1'-■.!, 74.; !" 4'..'.., 4,,,J., 4 .,,e.,6; „ 1.14,4A,sas„.,,',..\t,ife,.4,,,.. +0 , . .._ , , 4,0,0,,,,,e.id '4 0.44.k7 :it,3 A.L4,,, 44—e +4'4 .,.,,o km'A., 0,-,11,,.,. g' , i ,..,. '4 ' '-- .--, - ' I , ,.. tS4.4)..,:v...cs „,‘ \04,-, , : . ,.ui.,1 e" , . , _p,,,,,,r : • 0-- 3 ao ,....,, ..„....,, - ,,. 40''''''' '6'4*--e-LA' ' c;04.4A..C71.*i.e'. L ( _ • ,. , , , • ,,a', irSi , , , °,3'eZ"'"" ' eL•' C5'''' SAI1/4114ZA' ., .(')_ ,s,-,*". . • :' -.., .,(4,v-0,.. , „ "tV ' . , 0 e e.4t,o;•4., .,., , , , 1 4 '*'' H ,.. ,, . . , „ ■ • . - .. . : 4. ■ - . ,„ „ . , t r ' . { JAN , 2 1912 d 0 , f' kt • ? A ,{ yi �r"$?,, ,T,„CE f ' Notice is hereby given that the Washington County Planning Commission at its meeting of 7:30 P.M. on Wednesday, the 26th day of January, 1972 in Room 206 of the Washington County roiirt-he une,, n t1 lshoro, Oregon tall consider the application: } OF: R.&.M. Development Corporation 8200 SW 19th Portia d, Oregon FOR: Zone Change (Item No. 72-37-Z) From: R-7, Single Family Residential To : A-1 Loy Density Multi-Family and HZ", Site plan Review District. LOCATION: On the west side of SW 72nd Avenue approximately 115 feet north of SW Varns Street, east of Tigard in Section 1D1 , T2S, R1W. I: { . i } Any persons having. interest in this Matter are invited to attend and be heard. 1 . t. V .s - 4; . r !i �► � — 1. i1 �. '1. . „ ,iit,{ • . m 3 . . . . ,,,„.. . . � . 1 . . ..,• \ .... , ,.... Q4%` ,.. '--»Ρ „. .... .., ,,I• 1 SW Y�1 I wr.� ,a�A h�� • , .f■1 1- M+^r ,�+r w...w� .wow �r� .�� I ''))yy 1• h -n., r t .. ■ A1111 iU›_....1Y H , APTS. H •• • 300.875 • „ +. ,,��:.'. 7 �� T � G A � D � ..•, ,, ,, ;,t�t,:;.5?•;:•:•• ;5;: �• t4�t•; �40�;,�. . . .. .,.. .,.,, . ,, r..... � ! ,fit.4.L51 ti tt'•''t1,14•'•5t4.�+•••••'r4'''4'ti•••••'t'•'••t•''• ,' .., .Ir ....,,,,; .- r, .. �... ., ;v,.•. ; �,t 5,�5? : tit;,'•;,+•':ti..?.....t:5:•.'t. ;;+. 1r5;�;4K•4\;4,t}�'? t +t,•+k +�•+4�54•t LIMITS M I "l' S ,.�:.':.1 +;, 55t,5�?';:4 1,:::.4�4�;:,1.�5 . .,s+1'' 145..;141.5t;.,. i.�:yitii,.;:;;t4??54�.4;ttt.tit'. . •..,:.....5•' V.... 555?':++�t . v+4 l+s I 4t1•''S1 4+:4;5 5,.: t?.;6•+^ti 5'1 4'5:.x.1 ;k't:%,,,, t 55,5,t?5 t.g.' 445 ti . 'f� '++�54:+54C�;,?4++?5++'��t:�i1l'•;:'•;tt�ti�:t4i��':'•4't45'•5�5;45�':;., +.:'• +' +. 5,; 5': 11:'.4+^ >r� ,�. ��??iiJ�1�ti.;i+;•+5��t�it�55;•5;.;:i•�5�:�• 4+4i;�;45v5• • 5�; t• t 5'• ti••', (0 ,5 i '.:'+i:ti• is .;..�.:.4:: s, .�5�. V • i44 44ti55s�'S 5 55*\ 't4�\5+x ›• — — — . . •-•.:N t:5:t ,4,•' VAC A N T :;?tt ,,4ti: +:;a r G `t: :411,5: t —w w 5 5??t•'it455 ,5'•t�5�?.�5��'ty5'4S �t �„' • ,�?••.: ...... s r- 515.t 5;::.ye..t•t ::%.•-•,...-‘,.......v...%s4 H OU vC. ;.4:45....0 ...ti ..,it• : N., ._ . ii.;i4: 5':'�. ti+5•.,�,5;,,,t, •t1:+�•5'?i5t•:t ':4445i'''s5 4%t��,;. :ti .,...,5•i? •'Sr1:4;:..... ;54;'S .,,,ti:+1 i;45ti5�4t i w 1...,ut ti itiS?.ti:445 +';s•:"'45+: 4 t 4+1,4•�' ; ti+:y: • : • ', 5.. •.0.:45•. ,...,N:•sti;.;�;4,..... .\ 5 s•t; i ;+5th 1?;•;:tisi �' :?:s+:5• t,.;;t;5i�•t?:;�s;;?;55i� s4••5•ri�54:t; 4s 4,'�: t+:; 5 5::,;;;;,,,.t t ,5;, •1 5414 t:; t 5'�;s;,:ti; .?t •1.4.1i':+++:+•+•;4?,.. • t•:;;. t�•;•. 5•.s t 4:1?ti; 1 ... •'+?• t,.,t1.+ti•.,'!+++•;+4+. .... 4v:.;•••�4+5•':'... •:•.4'y '?'151,45 :+5 s 't 4i??t•'• 1.....k4,.A.. t't' +'',..?ti:4...:�5y:t .0,... :+4+l4 t;r15..s,v .f) . t?;• + :t ; i.. 5 ti...,:..,,4'';1 +4..:.t+:+•?:4•` ...:,,5+'i s :,ass ?4 4 1 iti s• +^ ::ti5 1+V•••:,i i;: : 5: 5 5+l+•5 tys' 'i t:•''414N:t'Ss 5 In i - i ':�4: �i?55. ;..'�•,+1; :5+'+?:?1:;y45? :titi;:�ti:�•4:•.•4 5:5..t4ti•;•4145•s:'•?�.41' � :i:::: .,,...:4 41:5;5 4':•?.•.:,...w w.441, :.:• .v.As't4:41..;AV....• ivAv. . .ti 4..;, tt..5y:ti 44:s :+5+1 .a,44:..;: 5x.,:,.;4 55;.,5;4 44;14 t... ,Q! 5 titi5�. � �,•4 : .ti. t 11s•,';. ,5;. 5 is t;, t.4t. �5':�Met'rSd':'•° t_.Y.sl t5!:4, _. r..Iw��+++w�«.�J,//a�.�Sk+�►,.w. u+ CY!V' •do �,,. 1 S.W. ' YARNS STREE 4 Nbi 1 ,. 3 'eC rnP tl } r 1 1)' • ZONE CHANCE It � 7 .. ,• 1 1• 1 Magil arta of coriidertitiori iZ ($ite ploo review fist ict) I Oe . SCALE 0 Rolling Hills 1 & 2 - Washington County \ SUBJECT: Notice of Public Hearing regarding Zone change . on Brock Property on S. W. Hunziker TO All hourieholders in above areas FROM: Allan Popp, Don Phillips, George Maleta,- Ray Eme, , William Perry, Hugh Rader, Albert Abe, William Bieker, B. F. Shearer, Jr. , Ron Christenson, R. W. Dachlin, David Reece, Prank Herbst, Jim Powell, Ray PirkI DATE: February 19 1971 •• 10 Copy of official notice received by those having common boundries. "Notice is hereby given that the Washington County Planning Commission at its meeting of 7:30 P.M. on Wednesday the 20 day of February, 1971, in Room 206 of the Washington County Courthouse, Hillsboro, Oregon will .4 consider the application: Of John BroOk, 2216 N. B0 49°9 Portland, Ore. For Zone Change (Item No. 71-54-Z) From: R-7, Single Family Residential District To: A-25 Apartment Residential Distriot Location West side of S. W. Hunziker Street ad 72nd Ave. in Section 1DB, T259 R1W • Any persons having interest in this matter are invited to attend and be heard. " 2. The above notice is called to your attention because in the opinion of the above neighbors the requested change Will cause additiohal depreciation to the single family residential proprties. We collectively urge and encourage you and others of your household to attend the Planning CommisSion meeting Wednesday, Feb. 24th at Hillsboro, Washington County Court,- house. Please note time and place and attend. 30 In addition, a petition is being prepared to further register the opposition of the neighbor &ood to the change0 Mr0 William Perry or others will pli7=15-lecyl.or4r above your signature. Its important We take this step along With attendance, Feb. 24th. , • A 101 Rolling Hills 1 & 2 - Washington County Zone Change9 Brock Property February 19, 1971 Page 2 40 Attached you will find a copy of a letter written by the City of Tigard Planning Commission stating their opposition to this change of zone and also making a proposal for an accept- \ able use within the present zone status (R-7) . We are encour- aged by the City of Tigard, s action and urge you to study their letter carefully. Your interest in the above matter is needed if we are to register our concern for maintaining this area as R-7. • • f' 1110 #i D O.ION.` CITY CAF TIGARD 111 I • P. O. Box 23557 12420 S. W. Main Tigard, Oregon 97223 February 18, 1971 7r4 .l . Washington County Planning Commission County Courthouse 4: Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 ' Re: 71-54-2 John Brock I ` ,a$ Gentlemen: . ' It has come to our attention that public hearing item 71-54-RZ is a request for a change of Zone classification from R-7, Single Family Residential to A-2, Mu1t,1,,mfamily Residential for ' property described as tax lot 100 on tax map 2S1 1DB (on Hunziker near 72nd) . The subject parcel and the adjoining Rolling Hills Subdivision combine to form an unincorporated island---,an Island de_signated for Medium Density Residential development in the Tigard Prelim- inary Community Plano The Medium density designation allows a maximum. of 5 dwelling units per gross acre, which is equal in * allowable density to, the existing ta-7 Zoning. Under A�2 Zoning the subject site could be developed with ,. , • ',. • approximately under the Medium Density 17 dwelling u a_ 100 apartment units. A maximum of units could be developed y Residential designation- If developed under City Plann ed Development • , . zohing the site could support 19 residential units. The existing apartment. complex rt plex located to the weS no t f the o � subject site does hot co e o nform to the Tigard Preliminary Oot mUn ty �, Plan. It was dev l pe prior to the initiation of the Community. .' i planning process. The Tigard City Staff recommends two alternatives `for,.developmenui .. ' of the site 1. Subdivision under existing 1-7 Zonings 2. Development udder city P4), planned Development Zoning • • 71-54-7 -2- ecbruary 189 1971 • John Brock The P-D„ Planned Development District would be desirable for both • the developer and nearby residents in order to provide a compli- mentary transition of land use from multi-family to single family. The P-D would also reduce site improvement costs through possible clustering and open space reservation, and provide a desirable site plan review procedure not available under R-7 subdivision standards or A-2 '20ning standards. It could allow for extension of Crestview Street with additional single family lots and provide for duplex development along Hunziker0 lt is therefore reeommended that the current request be denied. The City of Tigard appreciates your consideration and involvement in the County-wide cooperative planning process. Sincerely, . /1411)?.. /130.111-6/00 Ray Rangila y City Planner RR:fs • • a 1 `,a,, _� r , , 1r 11 , 4 NO ICE OF PLI .; LICHEA :.:•-4. 1::,. .,: , 1, -;. .., . , . .. Y ' . • Notice is hereby given that the Washington County Planning .' Commission at it6 meeting of 7:30 P.M, on Wednesday the 24th . d • day of February, 1971, in Room 206 of the Washington County ;` Courthouse, Hillsboro, Oregon will consider the application: • } OF: John Brock 2216 NE 49th ,+ Portland, Oregon FOR: Zone. Change (Item No. 71-54-2) From: R-7, Single Family Resident:'; it Dis tx;is . To : A'2, Apartment Residential Dist, LOCATION: West side of SW Hunz ikcr Street at the interims H section of SW funtiker Street and SW 72nd Avenue in Section IN, T28, RIW: ',1. • ll, Any fiersonA 1,61x .rtp; i� t-}.roka :L 1 t-11;i.s filit�t:c i' Ake : t�,vLtea to ntteiad J. • And be hearth I/ xR, •. . . .. .., •• ,.... . . .. •, . • . , • .. . • ' . ., • ' - . , „„....-;• a, w4 ' • ,; ,,,.. ,. '!, ' f...'-',.. ..,.; ,..„ •-e, ,''..)..,.. ,,•:..'„,. ,O-, :,,,,:1.:',.4,,,. ,4,.. ,„,k, .t.„f ,.., ,!.,.:r.......;:.. 4, .'2'... -i, , Irt :,., ..',,;,.i. • . . ..-..;,.0/ . ., , ,,, . •.-. 1" .. . . • . , r e, . . . .. . .. . ... .. , "..'42amesiumegree S W ,.,,,_-' •••• . , .. . • i ..., .. ..••sh . , ''''■T': iyi•'°\..s. , . . . ' 1 \ iSkk 4u• .. . . . . ,. , : APTS. '..f',. • . A, .1 •"T•v.s7N:l4;,■.''' \ '441.0''" , . . , \' . .., . . 0 7Y4t4'ipN•. ii.9‘,.. . H k.004", I s,•,„;,...., , . • m 44 .,...._..,. \ •t , ,,...,, - , \ ... ‘ .. CITY . , . . , 4,.„--.•,..•-•,...4.:—.,-,....—:.. azaa ,••••., L.,;,,,4,.,..'1'.'..*:,,',0:Z:",',::..' 'S:$P.•:V.::t... *,.,N4."•::"'4:::**:N''.. ,r)k . .. •'''' kst::**,:',A3:.0Mk*„\,..li:*.4k\'.ICA tak N TIGARD CITY LIMITS I ..,,,,•,...s.•,\„:::::::6,..:::%•::::Z•%•,:Ni.".:;•::::'..:•:::',\%::,:..0,*.:,:,;,:e.,•No,N,\\\,,,t,.\-,..4et _ 0•,,15.,1 '/6i ., , .,:e...•••AS.,:iS:%,vs•*::,..Y.,•:•...0$:*::.4.4,:::.1.Nrk\:v-...6.N• cIwkii .. . . . „ . . • I • : :::A:::‘:::•::Z:Z.;•,:::::::,::::• :•:1/41.0:::::;:,:;:x.::::,:sv,•;: ..A.., . . . . ,, ,:„....:,..::...„:„.....:...,„0..„..........:::,..,%,....,;„....,:,.\:........„.,,,,,:k,::,...,.., •, ,,,0.1t , •. . I :.;,*:...0.%::::.:.:.s........:..v..:*,..:::::,.........N..........vs,,,,N,..6,0,1,..A•y..:\\.:,...,... .\\.\\.T \ ci . . ..• . .11 ' "....‘"?....'''''.:1:::%'•:1;\\**.\''SVC:‘.§%S\\*\'':".:...V.11::"\AVS"'..A.i'‘\-...\'%•ViZA\\\\*X:\,. "\. .'"' '''' ..•^•••".• ::::1":140:S.*:/\.".''..1/4.A..10.11:0...k:*..."\kt\V:a\%%:%\ \r%• \ - , ...,,I.,%.0....eil,.:::::•:,:,.\k,‘„,„,\%'......,\:.,...\§:,.....,\:N.\'‘,110:40....,A.,\.\, %:1/4„., \ . c 1110. I i — • .*.\\•\:.:-:,::•:,.x.:':,‘\.:•-,.i.l.:,:\0,:\.•*.ys%6',\' ‘0:%\‘‘\ •., ' . . .:4::::,,•,...,:,:v.............s,,,v,:,;„\f%\s,1.,:,...,;,:,:,...„....,..1.....+1..3,,,,..,;\0...,..,,:.,,•;‘,...,,,;;,. \ ...,6, ‘ '.' .,. . S,• .1 1 ::A... ......t::•:::§AN.,VV,Z.::.:Z...:N.:0::::::::S.::::•k::■ikk k:.\VN:\•%4V1*.It V•kV'. \,.., 4.511' ir- V..60......%.••••■,\AN..1%%,....0.%*..‘\. , . . . . i , I :•::::.0:4;;;;41.0:•:::.,1.0: 4'.1:•.4A,,,,...\•.••••:‘,......%...\\A',.6*v•,.Ao•A•.\\:.A . 400•\••.•)A,N*A1:::%%.‘:.0.•::•:.:A.0:■.,..,Ay..ViV..:•.1..,10:::vtA......\vA.,AN.,%;.N.AN.,,v.%. N. . . ..,....10,..,.............0....v...............00.-0,0.,...0,....,..-,-..%. ..-,....-..: A'AA' , , . ov....*,.....................0...0...................v. .............,...... ,F..:..:....,,\.ss....,:.,..0.4....,,...............,...N.:.:0„..0.-T "%... ,.. . 5 I *S.,::•••••::•:**::•g'..•S'i.e:AVAA:;::%,:1,:k:1/4::,••0::::::::::%:,....SgA,*.: :•:•:•:•:•:•:::•$*414.. °C) , , 1:::::::::A:::.:,:::::::•::::,.*:,*‘:•NV.::::::::::::10:::**:•:::.0: :.•;:•:;:,A.V.4,•:%I.::::::.*:•:•:::: **X\**,*,' •....•..,.,:.•.;.:r.,...,....0,::.:,...:0.,::0......:).A..s.:,.......s.......,...04..;;;,§0%,•,;....A.....:;.;,,.„:,..:.‘,...,,g.tt:A..w..:0.0.\14....,.... :S::::'Z.:::'::4'::'::::::.:•':::::.':'::':':.•:':F:::S'::::::''k:'::::.:•:::.:S:.:0.'.:•:::;.'::N,%:::q§:',.\.:A,Zk,,\'':;':•:::n:M'k•*:",.,',:,,:'Z:,,v::%::s*A. .4.4 : i ...,.....0...........A..........,.,...v........s.......A.„,....y............v.v....,..........-:0.0,0,...., -.,.....A.,,.....,..:,...,v,...2.:.,:,....,,,,,,,,,,:„:,., • " . . • • .4..0. 5 7 0 1 . . .., •. . • .. . . , . , ., 'Kt)• , . _ . . , .... .. . . ST _';,9 . • -- •• t.•... . w , , -,..›. .;,,zr • > , ,..:0 .- • • . . ' W • - r ' CITY ... ......_ r.............,...-.—........., • • . . • .) 4 . 1,0.......'..'....'""""..'"...."'''".".""'"......"...... .. . ' , . ■ . ■ ■ • >‘. , . IX ... . . i'.0,'',.,:•,,,, r„,,;,,,,ii.,1 Cn . ' W , . )..............,.......,......-.-- , * ' , ....... . (f) ... . . ., . . , CI)I... • . „....,„,,,,......... • ,,0 • ' . . . ZO N8 CHANGE item No. 71- 54 Z N ,., area of con-siderorwtion I .,,..., ,......,0, from R-7 to t& 2 ,,......_. SCALE I -'r- 200 .' f . , ,,,. Y i !( 'MN . f0 ij ., * itli ,411. a (2.- „..0,,,,,,,, .,• rpM f'+ tl w, t . , 0 ke4w) () 2 0 %;11. ' ,,,. ti 'i 1 1 _ k K � t :::74;14.'..': :, ' , tY4.001 10 . J 0 .,, 1 R >L F a h ',Ii ii. , , � \*.e* ,j4,.. t ,, 1 ?AI r , A . ' N'• .,,P VI V . t; , r r. AR_.°,T, �yt4 �t L{ i� 1 L') ( 1 �,( ,•6yu...y 1 r W. '�"1, r �}{t L• 4• • t \•�{.fFl,,.}y I;„ .' " fi P'at.,, w,' {'' ■ ,� "� r ,A��J t�, ��-',r3�, � ,•t ✓w��.",il`! +'` r f'd+rr, '�, .drt , 1 N'N''• ..' r s ,....,,,..4,„, ''1 �J V hr.'. w u• h , ,, .. , ry'} ;ti+�,, ero 1 sty+ "w`11 '`i< '.1;' ' S;S M _ hY i k {y "^i ,c.i,,r ` i yam'' ' 1�.• 1 � tJ,t i ' Y , rAAiteirl, ti .Hk :90 r. S�, a t .'Ili,,, i it 5 7 y r CI k'•'.,'' r. g^. M ' 'Lr•tl ! 1•t y 1'.. +akt'ei j `-c, Lr ift ? r i J 1? t.', 1,,. 1' ', ri k''- i Y:S l, anT,u + e ' i.+'''''',,.. , . 1A � i •A) ,, . ,,,4,,,,,,,,,,„:,„,,,,,,,, . ,,„,4144,. ,,,...,:.,•,..,,c.r ,i _ .„ y f , ...,.....si.,,,,,,, / '/ H ., * , . , .0,, ;,.,,,, ,I. 1.y,:, 444' z it °;t••:'-.• t ? . •{0 ,1. i. , 1 1 Y "'''''°"V`'''''''' t L 'rr'. I'.1 r. ••• ' , •i.�ei f,',"•:`,,,'',1'n r.�*. i+'• { - R f • x 1 iR t r ., „yf,r F .t ` ., 1 cry OtttetitietitlitAI vCy ,•• i e Bt 's„'+t +4, + e>, ; A x n 4th „yy„a, t N,' red A '..14f.0''''"�f.ti %. lyV trr ' r ' , to . .�• E 'i ' ; 6. T' y y,•Y,,�i N r'-r y# /tn"{fx' i .11i'i ^ r tr Ai r' ir"n"r+�"�YtlLb't:1�[.� " "iz5 ra,is'1. '•'+, , (f c ,,^ ,w'a:,',:1 tz ' `y 7.', . • i , 6�t a , . � , I r , + , K. d N 10, M , a t +t, ,.,L` ! 9 t ` �.r r , w v: ''''''''..• " v : Ir,.4'''' [ "r '''.I.N ;w-" � 11.My e�, "" 'cs 1•r,t ',p,,:t 'µnu�a M;:,i t ,r lrt're G�G!�,�;!��,{ •;,":t • tt'k , IR . . , .. . ., " • . , . . ' , , •• • . • ' I ' . , . .., . ■, ■ .,. L t,,,`,,, , ' k * J„ , , ■•.',1,, t yw .,0s. . . , „ 1.13 1'','' J •Q i."411 - . ,..,. . . ...0 . ... te\ 0 1•113 1 `., .'". , „, • 1.4e " . . .— , . , IA . . . (..,-* 4 0 „.... 1 *.F,St.i. ■ ''.1,'S, 'I.,' , Iti D.,,,, 4's • f ..,..4, ,,e (....," 'C>e ,,,,,, ' ,..1 ,1•,,L, , ..,,,:-"' '. ,A.t. ,. ' •.e . ''',. '.;',:'' & 4,..."' ,;.1 .4. ' '''•,`, ........... \t.... . ,•,,,I,.„;.,,.1. . ; 4,.,,,t, -.)-: . , 7 ,..„,,,,i„:...-2,, 4.4 ' ;. '.0 r., _ ,.■'.,',., . V\ ,I ,,,',,,, ' ,, ,,,,... i." ‘...,7 •, , \NJ \ .,,., ... ,../..,...,. ., ,c,,,,,:,.,,..,,,, .'A4:I .:4,,,,, ' .,',,''',- ofi ' • ,,, ' . . ''i lid j . ,,,, • . , 4 4 I • At' . ,.•a 0 i •7' . (.I • . . . 0:: b ' ' * •,..'.' 'C,f '':.7: ' .. ..1.' , A ill • i + ,../' * . ,.!.''. ne....... .''.„. . W ' 1:,,,,:.,,,, /..,i'' ea- c4 . ., ,",,..,,r 4.'11 i p,rt F; ',. „ ;t.::'' ", i',......k.t.,F,i,' , & ',.,, 1 :'s, ,r,';•::,4 1'0'...4',., il i.,,,,,,,• . 4 . .''"P'AtVc1:".r4; 4 k p-‘'.4...... • .'.1 '•. ','s ;...)' O' • ,. • , , , ' -,1-... *,,..;v. •:,‘ . '..ti,v........:.,..i., 2 1..\-) 0 .,. ...,..k...,..;,„,. :,:,,,,,,..., :,,,....:,,,,,,,,,,,tr•ys.,1 i. •, ' 't • • ',. • •,•):,,.:.'',,, ,'. ,..'', . ». '. .,4 " 1 .,•,' . t',,,a''1., 'ti,•,,41 ',.,,„*....1 ,,,'., . , ,. `4:;■,44,,,Y.'1 'i''''nOt kiii , 1 , ,. . . .. .iik,,... . .. ,.... ,.. .. , .1104.....iiii..,......v....,,,,sr.........., , , I al' ' ■ . .//21 , i -.4. 1404 ) W 4 1 . , , tr 1 . ,• Nil . , 010, i ( fx . . * i 0 t ' *, . . I • • . , . . ' * i i*4 1 • ' •■ i t 1 . . •.. .. , ,,.i 4,,t ...tormontottoormot. g 1 " . 1 1 1 I (---- , • y 1 1 9 t , . 40.0. 40)1... . •, 1 , ■(.. ' 1 " . 11 L ,,„,°,,,,,,7, .,, ,,,,, ,,,.,,,,,,„. , ..,,r,. ' '' ' J,,' * ',..I,,',,r - , , ' ,Y II, ',ikOot,,g1 4',4!*1,,/\14P;.,,71,th4V.Oft.4,..:;,-,r5,,,,,..,:,,,.;.:,,, ,„ '.„-. 144,,,,,,;),:ilo' _1 A ,. ,, ,,,,‘..i.', ,,:,,...,%;'...,, , 41),t-tutegok6MV,,,, ,,.!i.''',Y, . r.-.' .t .....' ,i. --,, .-,,, .t',,, e ' ,-...-.,,kg-r, - -,...,-,-- -,.._,,,r-r,■•■ ,,,.• , ., ' 401011111111111111111111111111111