The URL can be used to link to this page

S 6-79 POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm.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. • • • ,4�M?!;�It-r'c4{ t ;r x. ;I .0 t- S Sak w u„ „ .., t......,...,.,;.L : ;," "..':::a::<�...:.k;.u:.�t,.. r.�_ L :. c'o ,a,r-1 .,�7:`.�N}r } ..uc.,. �i:G.( F• ,.,. I:I� �C: RE: CU 1779, zc 16-78, CU. 18-78 GOLF' CREEK ESTATES S 6-79 ' SW corner, of Durham Rd.& SW 108th i- • • • ter. a0 a • u ' , a • it ♦W iy`✓ • I• I • • j 1 1 i . P P rr �.• it i y ee • . , . . . , .,; '-1-v, "A 1: I '' • SS , , . . SUBDIVISION FILE CONTENTS •■ ALSO ,a . SEE /4 /774, gagqg .______ LEFT SIDE RIGHT SIDE --------- __, 4.1............. Assessor' s Map Maps/Preliminary Plat Notificatioh Legal Description/Deed ---- • v/Surrounding Property Notice ,..— Letter of Authorization ..., ..", - , v/Affidavit of Mailing 17 Copies of Correspondence with Applicant Agency/NPO Notice _,....Public Input , Affidavit of Publication Agency/NPO Comments . g /71 j 12-4-767 Articles/Notices from TT Staff Report(s)–Date(s) 1-2-Ye) , VApplication/Narrative /Minutes of Meetings Planning Commission-Date 1F43'74i Final Action Notice 0-54.4q 1 -1 -ge , Raymb4't4 con apprd gee.4 56-71 v.' Ctty. Council–Date 41-.22-ge I --2F-gd --- and z,-6,-igsla at,8ie. Alieeitt4tie-r Resolution No, Date • SePt 2 ,Mge. ____ _ I " Ordinance No.2111_ u-ae /6-15-10 BUT TH-15 'MED ,,. 1/Corrc.,,spondence After ,et,A.*- - v fibrrespz)neni.. eivLee, a-. inter cici,t.,74--e-trzle._ SUMMARY / . Approved fr Denied — No. of Lots A , NO, of Phases .-- Special Setbacks Am7tri _ Plat Recording Name . Book/Page No. & bate Additional Phases Recorded _________________ (Date) (book/Page No.) -,, (bate) (Book/Page No. ) • . KL/bjt(06160) '-` l' ' '4 A.,' ' ' . ' .... . S . _ A., ■ 1 fr, - -4, , K CIVIL ENGINEERING "s, PLANNING•SURVEYING in . December 29 , 1981 56107 City Council City of Tigard Tigard, Oregon 91223 - Attn: Frank Currie Re: Golf Creek Estates, Sanitary Sewer GENTLEMEN: As the owner/engineer for Golf Creek Estates, a subdivision in the City of Tigard, we are becomming quite concerned about the lack of progress on the Summerfiold Trunk Sewer. This sewer passes thru this subdivision and because it has not been completed, does not allow approval of the final plat or construction plans. The City and USA hold a contract with the Tualatin Development Company to complete the construction of the sewer by September 1981. This construction has not yet been started and has already caused us _ to request an extension on our preliminary plat approval. If this sewer is not completed during the Spring of 1982 , we may have to request further extensions of the preliminary plAt which will catle us to ensure additional expenses since it will need to go back thru the planning processes. Further delays will also increase the con- struChion costs for our improvements. • , We wish to begin construction of our subdivision during the Summer of 1982, thus, sewer line will need to be completed during , . 160, ' the Spring of 1982 so we can still get all necessary approvals, etc. We strongly urge that you 1,mpel Taaletin Development Company to fulfill their contractual obligations tu the City and USA and, expedite the completion of the sewer construction. . 1 ! Your prompt response to this matter would be greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, 4, 17$ • WAILER ASSOCIATES , INC. a„iLiezzla DA8tnIf Dan,Isp A. Sh , r,od„ P.E, ; Eligine0 nr 4 CG. 0°1 Siegel INO $ Goldsmith, Siegel, 0114l, ael wrier Engel & Littlefield • Unified Sewerage Agency Attn: Gary 'Kramer 11080 S.W. ALLEN BLVD, / SUITE 100 DEAVEATON, OP,EGON Q7005 I (503) 643-0410 ' _ •_ • • '. • .• 2,tt A CIVIL ENGINMING • • NAfraii KF v•R PLANNING.SURVEYING • • Associates inc.Ince • • December 29 , 1981 56107 Board of Directors , , Unified Sewerage Agency • 150 N. First, Room 302 Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 Attn: Gary Kramer Re: Goit Creek E. tates, Sanitary Sewer GENTLEMEN: As the owner/engineer for Golf Creek Estates, a subdivision in H . the City of Tigard, we are becomming quite concerned about the lack of progress on the Summerfield Trunk Sewer. This sewer passes thru this subdivision and, because it has not been completed, does not allow approval of the final plat or construction plans. • The City and USA hold a contract with the Tuaatin Development Company to complete the construction of the sewer by September 1981. This constructionhas Aot yet been started and has already caused us • to request an extension on our preliminary plat approval. If this sewer is not completed during the Spring of 1982, we may have to request further extensions of the preliminary plat which will cause us to encure additional expenses since it will need to go back thru the planning processes. Further delays will also increase the con- struction costs for our improvements. We wish to begin construction of our subdivision dw:ing the Summer of 1982, thus, the sewer line will need to be completed during % the Spring of 1982 so we can still get all necessary approvals, etc. • We strongly urge that you impel Tualatin Development Company to fulfill their contractual obligations to the City and USA an , expedite • the completion of the sewer construction. Your prompt response to this matter would be greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, • WAKER ASSOCIATES, INC. "iel74/ DAS:nif Danie S er, ,s- * .E. ; Engineer for do: Sol Siegel 4:,"?../, )17": • Goldsmith, Siegel, ciael Fatah, Engel & Littlefield City of Tigard Attn: Prank Currie 11080 54W ALLEN tiLVD. / SUITE 100 / tiEAVERTON, OREGON 9700 / (50W 643-9410 ' , rr y M 4_1 . .t a 4t. r,, .x�� :t.:,..A�..i.,:,--,w-,�i :, - ....»-,w .� Yw »ewuYr+♦SY�.hY1i�.L.r.wr.. ".wY,s.y,N.. .r.v:Yi w.on::uiuf... ,,. ' ..+. ,.-.-.:,-,,....;4..:,- 1.„---..,e.,._�..1..h:._..:4.�:...»r-:.... u "�( «v •:--;,'',.',.:„^,-,:-.::a,.-. .J r..., .F'.>•.L.M4rYaaN,"L'J3:4Yr!w.ria i 'J14w+v�UU..uW4 aAY+V.... vrur',. �..AW l . \rLMa}swry,ydy,�.IrY.PaM�Yr ,,,,, • CI f .. 'TF AltD A August 10, 1981 WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON Joe Walsh N Planning Director Waker and Associates 11080 S.W. Allen Blvd. Suite 100 Beaverton, Oregon 97005 Dear Mr. Walsh: The Planning Commission at their regular meeting held on August 4th, 1981 agreed to grant Golf Creek Estates' a one (1) year rqf extension to August 4, 1982. . Sincerely, •g, .1 •ie . Howard P fling Director y e 0 n r. t i fd + 1 1.1 ' ■ III hY 12420 S,W: MAIN R.O. BOX 23397 TIOARD OREGON 972 p�f�� f n ,j 1'n :i. .ui" 2W�' 1'ili fJ7"�1'1 f 1 c.." . ti4wrWrp�arrtu, 'z..;yr•. ._. 1 r '� T.J.. '. Vii.,,_ ...'. -. •m,,n:^,r- , .., .., ... „ ....,.,. <cs c�elmeaame wr.•ertlOY.a;,.Jw.' .y � Y _I` ik Af IIIA ill( , .L....,,«..4_,.,.,..«,-.-,s..-,—...a...,,...,+«...LS.,--w.-- ,, - ,,...,.—.,»._..»F.... .,...:.,....._...............--2...... i,..—.,..,:'„.,,w,,....--.. _. ...«..—•»... • lV 1 ys , , Lt.11:: .,,in .— i A PLANNING.SURVEYING a • i')e ., 40r I Iv ��'.'.. I Ceu a • KA?r, t t i a July 27, 1981 56107 Tigard Planning Commission ''',• . ./ 1 i ,�. � ' City of Tigard µ�. � �.. , ' 12420 S.W. Main i ;I i�. . ,,e Tigard, Oregon 97223 a �',:, RE:: Golf f Creek Estates iniii r1,.4� i `� , 1 Dear Commission Members: On behalf of our client, Michael Elton, we are requesting an ' i nd.efi nate extension of the preliminary plat approval fFr cur . subdivision called Golf Creek Estates. This extension is being requested because the Summerfield sanitary sewer trunk line is not available to the site. The City of Tigard and Tualatin Development ' Company had an agreervnt that T.D.C. would construct the Summerfield. trunk by September, 181 . If this trunkline is not in by this date then the preliminary plat approval for—Golf Creek Estates may lapse. The final plat and improvement plans for Golf Creek Estates have ,,c. been prepared (see attachet.) for approval , but the City of Tigard will not approve the. plans until 1 the sewer line is available to the site. Therefore, we again request that you approve the extension of the preliminary plat approval until such time that sanitary 'sz sewer service is available to the site. Thank you. . Very truly yours, W KER ASSOC TES„ INC. ' , n„ P e , oe Walsh, lanning Director 1' cc : Mike Elton , i / 1,(.,„ ,-. i ',i i„.„ ",...:-:.-7,. .',, ' — . i a ?il 6 I 11080 SA/.. ALLEN D / E BLVD. MATE 100 / DEAVEMON, OIRE OM 97005 / (50 )643.Q410 .asr. u .F « -y "1 , • � � `�:w ,yz �- !as• .cmvw. .,r.r�„t " , .Ws: < c�' � H h •' i ' l .. - p " �'+III ...,,,•„ M '( t' 6s�..:..,.., '/ 1 .tr „�A tw smY wr. u° ..w::..;J. .,:.:.r.».Lkra,w=:,-.-;./-:.....:.1:...- l.i:.4:.:....;.•:.Ll_:......:" w....,..,.....,.......-...-...-..r.•....w.1..•..:.:a._..,.,.i, t • k �, �� . �1 .....,..i..,. 't..N,,;..�,U 4'�:iCrt ,::�r,-«.a_.=l ry.•_1 r:...�m x».._.'.,_...-...... ^ '_^`_,r�L >wilo-A4*„.„1„:,,,., ,,'Y .kf - f D i }w4} ' A °s;,,e 11,,,,...0,-" ref ihh , --A,,"∎.+u' t, ',. l w .tin - uy J��wwv 1 @m,.JL nu,-_ -,s�• er sf.�utw.eawsut..,r.W.Cw.aul.rw.�wwi�►...,.•»ww:wr tir..J, ' ! w I . 254/47 K x 1 ,, • - - r 'YAa J .. * ' CITYOF Tlazi RD . i„. 'WASH NGTON COUNTY,OP;EGON ° June 10, 1981 . �t , tr Q J .45,.E . 1 WAKER ASSOCIATES, INC. 11080 SW Allen Blvd.,; Su. 100 - 0 Beaverton, OR 97005 u " I t y w o Attn: Dan Sherwood . r �, Dear Mr. Sherwood: ;,;. G • This is sent to confirm'our telephone conversation o.E June 8, 1981 regarding !, . I the status of :olf'Creek Estates Subdivision. We cannot process the prliminary r' construction plans ''until such time as the 'receiving'+ sanitary sewerage main-' t is i, line actually exists; even though, upon cursory review, your submittal looks . approlmble. The problem is that if we approved your plans and proceed to file the (required) construction cowpliance agreement and performance bond, to facilitate recording of the final plat, lot sales could occur without positive assurance of an ability to serve prospective ownerships with sanitary sewerage facilities. Theref,7lre, since we cannot, provide such assurance since a 'receiving line' its P none istant and, since we have no guarantee that such will in fact exist, we ^' ' cannot, process said construction plans. JAlso, please be aware of the city's ordinance regarding time-limit-of-appovel of subdivision preliminary plats and time extensions thereinregard. I have enclosed a copy which may be of use to you. ' w Yours trul ` itA te Ift4 .4. John 8 Hagman Supt. Engr. Division r 4r r JSH:pjr • 1nelosure 1, r �' J • li - P .14"i,, 'i 1/4...,,,_,,,,* 12420 BM, MAIN E',O. BOX 23397 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 Pi-{t 639-4171 _ .•.... ,,,r . , , ., , i .k t, • ,- , , Ca) Motion Motion made by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilman Cook to ',- approve and authorize Mayor and City Recorder pro-tem to sign, . ' Approved by unanimous vote of Council present ., . , I 8. RESOLUTION No. 80-89 RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING , , 1 ! THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN 72ndr . 4 AVENUE BUSINESS CENTER (VARNS PARK) SUBDIVISIO!;." i i', ; (a) Motion made by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilman Cook to• . adopt. t i \ : Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. . . . • I k 4,1 ORDINANCE No, 80-81 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO ) 1 . . 4;•;•',4 ................... 3-- AppLIGATIoN FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE 1970 MAP OF VI , 1.I- gi) .' , THE CITY OF TIGARD AND FIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE ill ' .1c GOLF CREEK ESTATES r 4 ,‘ , ' • ' (a) Motion made by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilman Cook to 4 , ''' 1, remove from table from the September 22, 1980, meeting. i Approved by unanimous vote of Council present --4,4 • " I 1 ' '1,1 1 •; , P (b) Legal Counsel explained what changes had been made in the Ordi.-:3#4 by removing conditions #5 ,11, and 20 and replacing them with coc4 i1 I ; , , ,„ dition #18. Legal Counsel recommended approval "7,14 , , iti -e- , s A (c) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Scheckla i .„.,.,- , Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. ilt 1 .,. . , ,, IPA. , 'L •i 10. ORDINANCE O. 80-82 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 7. 40 OF THE TIG.,'Y , . 1 ----- MUNICIPAL CODES ADDING PROVISIONS RELATING TO t'!i, ' - s r' GREENWAYS. --•''' II, . .. ' 'I * (a) Legal Counsel asked that agenda item #I2 be heard at this tirne ;, i because it relates so close to thr previous Ordinance, since , 1 'i i deals with greenways, gi! 1 • ekh - , I 1 f (b) Councilman Brian asked the. I:$1,,inning Director if he was satigi# with the way this Ordinance handled sensitive lands . Plannims ,7p Director stated that he was satisfied. d t-a 1 (c) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to .1.e. _ -• ,•;. 1 i i adopt. I H 1.,,, 0 , - ; : , ; Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 4), 11. ORDINANCE No 80-83 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 9.04 OF THE TIC ,4 ' • . ;,. •,,,,,I I • . i 1 1 MUNICIPAL CODES RELATING TO EFFICIENT RESERVA ;11 TION OF PUBLIC PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES.z, FOR GROUP ACTIVITIES AND FIXING AN EFrECTIVL1 ir ,' * I I (a) Public Works Director explained the changes made by this Ordiii Section 3:; (d) regarding reserving fields through the Tiggril, , ,v Field Use Committee is a new swtion. Section 4: (3) $2.0.00 ,i' ` 1 1 charge for cleaning of barbecue grates because :: additional i costs ncurred, by the City becttuse of abuse or excessive cle,k w , , up repair. 1 ,.t. 1 COUNCIL MINUTES, October 3,3, 1. 80, r . . ,r .' . ,,,,, , -.. . • .4 4 . ■ . ., ■ r .t.... . , . .■■ ... ,4. 0 ., e .0 a. A l. .64 MI.1.6,. 1 h 4. . t f . .\ t. . ,... " e ' . 1 - , - 4. 7 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON . . . 0 ORDINANCE NO. 80-ffit 11 , . AN INANCE ADOPTING F,NDINGS WITH RESPECT TO AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT b -,,.. HE 19 70 MAP OF THE PITY OF TIGARD AND FIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. •;, .(i)Liii CREEK ESTATES ' hANUIIC7....DEFAITTigg; REFERENCE INFORMATION: ..._, Tax Map 2S1 15A, Tax Lot 1500, tP,04ro-fearAddreTg—gattthwest -corner of SW 108th .'" and SW Durham Road, File NumbeiS S 6-79 and ZCPD 25-80, Present Zoning ,• •• Designation R-7 "Single Family' kett'derrtke•1444,21,one.,,V9aged•'to R-5PD "Single . fl , Family Residential Planned Development District, Applicant Mt. Michael lton •; , 1 , AMFAC MORTO.GE CORPORATION ...... _____ 1 :- ' • ' •- • • ,., 1- , , , THE CITY OF TIC RD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS . . . SECTION 1 Finding that the lands hereinafter described are now classified - •j , as R:-.5PD "Single Family Residential Planned Development District, and further findings that pursuant toprocedures, hearing held by the Tigard i •, 1 Planning Commission on September 2, 1980. All interested persons were afforded an opportunity to be heard at this public hearing and thereafter the Planning . _ .. CommisSin filed its report with the City Recorder, a copy hereto attached :,0 ? and k.), roference made a part of. The Council adopts the following substantive .. finding : .'..,. A. That this application is in conformance with the R-5PD "Single ramily Residential Planned Development District designation on , - _ the NPO. #6 Plan which is a pOxtion of the adopted Tigard Comprehensive 4 . • , Plan, and 8. That the proposed zoning is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood , as determined by the Tigard Planning Commission. J 1 ' . SECTICN 2: Therefore, pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 18.88 of the • Tigard Municipal Code, this request for an amendment to the ZOne * Map cf the City of Tigard is hereby approved subject to provisions of Chapter 18.20 i of tne Tigard MbniCipal code as embodied ir adopted Exhibits "A", "B", / j., and "C" attached and made a part of thi.s Ordinance. The zoning designation l • of the stb-ject property is hereby changed to R- PD "Single Family Residential • ) Planned Development District". • I, • Exhibit "A": Legal Dqscription, Exhibit "B": 4- Tax Map, Exhibit "C": .. Staff Report •), And further subjqlot to the following conditions: i . _ 1. Proprty be developed as a Planned DeVelopment 'District. • ORDINANCE 80- , S 6,49 ZCPD 25-80 ,, . , 'N,, , — .•4 • . \ I II ,� y, . r .., w.,V,. r,. . .., ,:. +Ye.-Y........ .....=..r.0 ...y.....,r,,.,.me,.n,w.r...w.Y YNww...,,.•Y.rM.YwY,.e...va..✓.V.w.N+.,.,r.uA4,M*+..' s«,r.,..w.rb.Wu.w.mw:.,.n.t.rYwll,r rwY+.nw•Maw.w'a.w.Hr..a,LLUVN4n....+Yr.iMawfu,wr,_.+rr..w. • • 2. Sewer easement be granted to Unified Sewerage Agency or City of Tigard to allow construction of sanitary line through this parcel. 3. Twenty-five (25) feet right-of-way be dedicated on entire north property �{ line on Durham Road, plus an aeditional fifteen (15) foot slope easement adjacent to the south line of the forty-five (45) foot half right-of-way of SW Durham Road and within the limits of the one-hundred (100) foot . drainageway easement Five (5) feet be dedicated on 108th, Avenue on entire eastern property line. ` r 4. Non-remonstrance agreements be made a por . on of the final plat and y this. condition be made part of each deed for SW Durham Road. 5. Drainageway be cleared of all noxious veg' atioc and dead material "• under the direction of the Public Works Director. e 5. Half-street improvements shall be made on 108th Avenue prior to the ;, issuance of Building Permits. 7. A temporary access to Durham Road shall be allowed until property to the south and west develops to alio'r; future access to SW 113th Avenue. 4 , ` - ' 8. "Temporary turnaround easement" -'e ga;anted to the City. Easement to be terminated when temporary access to Durham Road is terminated. 9. Street plug to be installed on half-street shown on plan -is 110th Avenue. Street improvements to be made on right-of-way to include curbs, gutters, f storm drains, sidewalks, and paying. Cul-de-sac (one-half) to be installed at Lot #2 just south of Durham Road. Temporary access to be approved by Public Works Director. A cash bond sufficient to vacate the easement, restore, and landscape the access area according to the specifications, and plans to be submitted with half-street improvement plans shall be provided. 10. A restriction shall appear as a part of the final plat indicating that each parcel owner shall not remonstrate against the future formation of w+ Local Improvement District to improve Durham Road. •. 11. All conditions under Title 17, Tigard Municipal Code, shall be adhered to in filing the preliminary and final plat for review by the various ) ' departments of the City. 12. No Occupancy Permits shall be issued until all conditions placed upon this development by the City of Tigard have been satisfied and inspections verifying this have been carried out by the, appropriate department. 13. Grading plans and construction plans on all, public rights-of--way shall be submitted and approved by the Public Works Director- prior to commencement of work. Street improvements be constructed to the approval of the ` uari c of Building Public: t�or3cs Director prior to the is� y - . .ding Permits `" •, 14. Public c �atn r s ervice and sanitary service shall be installed t o this site prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. • / ORDINANCE NO, BO- 8 8--79/ZCPI 25-80 Page 2 • :., "^"� i:z`r-:u:e',tr.�^tir-c..,.e-iix »,r:«..,..:.r':,rt _ . .:+e+,r...e.+-.,x.:arn'.s'onsetsyx+c+.am,.r.;^N!nr:maa+rnssriNara �.�",.....«......... i=r'i,.n'�'r f� ^'.,,.,. ...�,.. n ,�„'� Y .,,„ ,. �r, �, �• • b ! n ' 7 15. All existing or proposed utilities shall be placed underg� punde Street lighting installations shall be approved 'ty the Public Works Director. 16. No Bui;.dingc Permit shall be issued until the expiration of the twenty (20.) day appeal period from the date of approval. ` 17. All existing easements recora d with this parcel shall be reviewed iewed with applicant and the City prior to filing of a preliminary plat. 18,. Al]. land within the sensitive lands area hall be subject to an easement ° for greenway purposes. w SECTION •3: This ordinance shall be effective immediately after its passage by the council and approval of the Mayc.1.. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present this day of , 198 , after being read two times • 14 by number aad title only,, Recorder - City of Tigard APPROVED: By the Mayor this day of —, 198 ,„ Mayor - City of Tigard . r ..c 0 ai • ORDINANCE NO. 80-- S G-79/zCPD' 5' 8 - Page • 1 � mssvcc. u:fix,::.... -.:.y..,t F t " ...n-. • ..,..,,,., .,..,., . ' ,., ......, ............ .......,.,,. , „• .. .. :r..V •,r M1 i...n- M..m-.Ya t wleh':'...Ndt'wYaNy}zYRR».?1.'f lq!lltfrC • 11 4 Approve4 ty unanimous vote of Council 17 . SUBDIVISION S"{ 6 '79 and' ZONE CHANGE PLo NNED DEVELOPMENT ZCPD 25-80 (Golf o-,•'.•RmET''tates) a NPO #6 A request by Michael D. Elp :an for a resubmittal of a Subdivision application located at the southwest corner of S .W. 108th and -. S.W. Durham Road with a Zone Map Amendment from City of Tigard R-7 to City 'o of Tigard Cornpre_lens 1ve Plan Designation R-5PD (Wash , Co. Tax Map 251 15A, Tax Lot 1500) (a) Planning Director synopsized request and stated the Planning Commission recommended approval . w (b) Applicant's Legal Counsel, Edward I. Engel, gave ale projects ' , i history and asked Council if four of the conditions on the Ordinance could be modified at this meeting. (c) After much discussion by Council and Attorney, Joe Bailey, it was decided to go ahead at this time and hear from the proponents on the Golf Creek Estates . . \ Mr. Richard C. Waker, Waker Assoc . , explained the reasoning _. behind changing each condition. Condition #1--requiring • planned development does not relate to the. R-7 zone which was originally applied for, asking this be deleted. I. Conditions #5, #11, #20, dealing with "Sensitive Lands"; sett- ing up a Homeowners Association desired by the City. Their :request being that each property owner should be responsible fdz. the maintenance of the creek area as part of his property. Michael Elton, showing Council the proposed planned project i ' indicating houses are set back 50 feet from center of creek; i." I suggested that the restrictions be placed on the property' ., ..f' owners deeds . (d) Councilwoman S timler suggested a green'way easement would , take care of the situation, r. (e) Mayor Mickelson called the other names on the proponent list, , y W.A. Lissy, approved the present project. 1.1 Lanries Baird, agreed with the present plan. Opal Laback, 16190 S.W. 108th, in favor of Mr. Elton's plan, Waneta M. Chamberlin, 16720 S .W. 108th Ave., in favor of the plan, Joseph Duna, 16760 S.W. 108th, approved: )1 1. t. / ?AC'P 5 -°- RE ULAI. COUNCIL MINUTES September 22, 1980. . a � i ti fit_'..•. ., .. .a.•-„i .. . — - .... . ', -, .. •.I+1. wwe v• .. v.e..,. K v. .. yt.x:♦.4FC Ltp'n,..-riw Y. - iwM.+:Yi.:JLY.....� 1,Y.i»••%k.'.w..:rri,wlN+.'•'W.JYii.:iiw:'J•1.. i ..._. ,� (f) Legal Counsel , Joe B a i l ey r ' commended that condition #5 be revised; that condition #11 and #20 both be deleted. (g) ORDINANCE; Nc; 80- AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO AN APPLICATION FOR.AN AMEr''D-- MENT TO THE .1970 MAP OF THE CITY OF TIGARD AND FIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Golf Creek Estates. (h) Mayor Mickelson recommended that this Ordinance go back to The Planning Commission so they can see what has been done and be given a chance to give their input. (i.) Motion made by Councilman Cook and seconded by Councilwoman Stirnier to table this Ordinance until the October 13th regular meeting. Approved, by unanimous vote of Council. • 18. 'ZONE CHANGE/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION ZC/CPR 23-80 (Robert NPO #6 Randall Company) . A A request by the Robert. Randall 'Company fora zone Change/Comprehen- s i.ve Plan Revq.sion from C-3 "Commercial Retail” to Z-12 "Urban $ Medium Density Multifamily Residential" and C-4 "Residential Commercial" located at the northwest corner of S.W. Hall Blvd, and S .W. Durham Road Gash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 11DD, Tax Lot 200) . (a) Planning Director explained that this zone change is a step 'f down from what it is presently zoned. A Comprehensive Plan Revision from C-3 "Commercial Retail" to Z-12 "Urban Medium Density Multifamily Residential" and C-4 Residential Commercial". Planning Director stated that the Planning. „, Commission has approved this p; oject. (b) Paul Yang, The Robert Randall Company, stated the reasoning 01 for changing the zone because this area is not a good location for, a large shopping center. They had done extensive research and discovered tha t no main. ,, ocery chain store would be will- ing to locate in this area. (c) Public Works Director asks 'vtnt, conditions #9 and #13 be changed to read as follows No. 9 Grading plans and cuL, _,.ion plans on all public rights-of-way shall be submitted and approved by the w •• Public Works Director prior to commencement of work. No, p may be bonded prier to issuance of 13 Improvements t s Y Building Permi_.s .. PAGE 6 REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES - September 2;21 080 • y.-» k.a+isuncx•.. /...r 'x • c. ......,.. i`a.: y ,.. „ry,rt,_p..i.Mn.,aA.- i,i,.nwnJ'4..+/W .r.`ertGUn1R1-.rteemY't4�73WR,""".4`:.:%.f;y4' -'-^.-�,+<....'•'tw:Cir,L'A'Y"w .p r ) J 1 CITlr`O'1' T ICI.s►RU PUBLIC NOTICE AFFIDAW. ' NOTICE z�� HEREBY GIVEN that 1,,' •�i:: �-- e City Council will consider the fol- . STATE Off' OREGON, �, wing at� Fowler Junior High School >, ss. C_ 2 f `'980 acture Room, 10865 SW Walnut, Ti- GOJNTY OF WASHINGTON`, 4 1 rd, Oregon, hn September ?`G, 1980, �r�. FAR ...1•ti;=f;C � ZONE CHANGE PLANNED bE`�F-' •''• JOSEPH SCHA cm \ . I, ....,... .. ...._.......... lVARANCE,VIO-8O dieing first dy sworn, depose.and sY at I am the publisher --- (Oregon Edu- , :Cation Association Phase II Construe- _of The Tigard Times, a newspaper of gene..a1!.•irculation, as defined ition)p1PO No.4.A request by Balsi er • IShewrbridge Architects fora Zone Map 1 by ORS 193.07.0 and 193.020, published at Tigard, in the aforesaid county �al{'•d 1Amet;idment horn. the City' of'Tigard ,1 • Y G=3 "General.Commercial" to City of •- 1 state; that the legal notice, a print•;d copy of which a'i l'r..•,N.to'annexed, i/as Tigard Comprehensive Plan designa- ^- ttion C-PPP "Commercial Professional , in the entire issue of said newspaper for ....... :�._.. s,tccessive ;Gnd 1Planned Development District" Zorn t b published_ " ,, ',Vitt; a request for a building height e c�llowin issue[; _....,... _..... ;vas lance from forty-five(45')feet to se- • coose�utue weeks i�► th. g • . venty-five (7:') feet located on 32.42 .�+sER`�mBER.-:1fl r _��,-, ' - _ ,acres on the east side of 72nd and on the north side of Atlanta continuing to . ' 'the north side of 67thhfAtlanta intersec- • (Sigg uar ) ` ,lion and on the west side of I.5(Wash; - !Co.Tax Map IS1 36DA.,Tax Lots 100, Subscribed a ._. .5........•.•----day of ............ 401,IJB 102, 90 ION0 S.6- r n,d sword to before me this ...,... ....__ :� a�4 ZONE J ..� ,a CHANGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT I `- -* • .SE?T•EMRRR•• . 19,.,8.0 / ZCPD 25-80(Golf Creek Estates)NPO o° : request by Michael D. Elton ',• ,,. f r a resubmittal of a Subalvision appli- �'; � �,,.•i\144 rg :c;don located at the southwest corner 0 �,�ISS10 �q2 i s o SW 108th Arid SW Durhai•n. Road -`` a I s - M commission expires ....•..... ....•, 16,.j„ ` 19•, .`,• With a Zone Map Amendment from , 1. My City Tigard R-7 to City of Tigard.Com pi ehensiv.. Plan Designation R-5PD (Wash.Co.`Tax Map 2S1 15A,.Tax Lot . 1500)• ZONE CHANGE/COMPREHEN'- • SIVE PLAN REVISION ZCICPR 23-80 1` • (Robert Randall Co.) NPO No.6.A re- .. quest by the Robert Randall Company for a Zone Change/Comprehensive Plan Revision from C-3 "Commercial ; Retail" to A-12 "Urban Medium Den- sity Multifamily Residential and C=4 .,. "Residential Commercial" located at .- , the northwest corner of SW Hall Blvd. 4 •,. and'SW Durham Road(Wash.Co.Tax : " i' Map 2S1 1IDD,Tax Lot 200). �, ZONE CHANGE PLANNED DJ� 'E::- ' LOPMENT DISTRICT ZCPD 1-80 : (Cooper Creek) NPO No 6. A request c • by Tualatin DeVeloprnent Cornpany for 1, - General Plan RevieW of Stage EI Cop- •; . • w per Creek asking for a Zone Map IA,':• Amendment from'Washington County "lt.yt•., , RS-1 to City of Tigard Comprehensive I 4%110.4.- 1_ f,' Plan designation R-7PD"Single. 'ami'',,r a ,', '`'. '.:- ,Residential Planned�Develc meat Dit- ' " ,,; 4 • trict"' located south of r'•Arham� �Rot.d .1 ,� Ai,:0 k and east of Sertua t,ha at Pick's Land- l i 4,,t„.1 , , ing subdiVision (Wash. Co, Tax Map , ' .* - 2S1 14B,Tax Lot 100), , kit H ! BY CITY t' - City LRoecor de pW ro-tem (TT A■.150 -- Publish Sept. A0, 17,1980) ; J J,r . «�.:�� 1 , H,, , ... . , • ,,. r- / . -,4„. t , 4. „, , - . . _ -S . , . I .: .. ,.:7,ft, : 171 ilta 57L6-1-' . 471JVIEJLik .. crievoF 1147A let.:,,,'' - ' .„...i-, ' ' ' 0,4-3-,`,,if Li • WASHINGION COUNTY,OREGON ' epte er 5„ 1�8C� • 0 ' " Mi. Michael D. Elton V . 500 NE Multnomah, Suite 380 ' 1 Portland, Oregon N 97232 . . --'`" • . '�R =0 SURD 'VII O 4c.-..E--?9 ON�; MA PLANNED DE7ELOkO•�ME1�7T, , • ZOPD 25.430 .(Co: Creek' Estates) i ,ATIOili Southwest.cornet' of SW 108th and SW Durham • i Reid rear Mr. E1tr w . 1 , The• .�•+.g6►r,d P1arming Conm fission on +September' 2,' '198..0 i has 'rated to reco end. ., '. to the City Council that 'y,4..+1=, rec st•'for:''r Nibs "ttaI of:a..8ubai�:��,tii:,�r�- . ., .. . . _ , n y app .cation with a Zone 244p Mendm st. from'City of Tigard R-7 0S ncle , ,, ' • • Family Residential" to City of Tigard Cor reheilsive Plan 3designa.Uon R-5PD "Single Parn3.1y Residentta1.P1anned' Y eve ,©,ptent D.iatzi.et" Zone '' . . . be approved subject to the following conditions: ' . t to 1 raperty be developed as a Planned v 1opmn t District.. , :7. Sever easerent 'he granted to unified' Sewerage Agency or City of , . . Ti..gard to allow construction of sanitazy sewer line thr©ugh this ,% :parcelp ^ ' 30 °. renty--a ve (25) feet rig at-naf-way be dedicated on, entire forth property 1itie on Dzrha t, Road„ plus an additional.fifteen' (15) foot' • �. I s1cp e•easement adjacent to:the outh line of the` foty-fie 145) foot . • • - half right-of=-way of'SW Durham Road and within the limits of 4-he' . one-hundred. (100) foot drainageway eases ent.. Five (5) :feet'he dedicated. 032 108th. Avenue` cti entire eastern property line 4 flog-remonstrance. agreements.be made a oo tion of the final 'plat t' . . mod this, condition be mad.'pal of each 'deed r,,,r, Sir , „ Roza,_,.. . . ' ktr±l.and s-s. . � . • 1 » st = -2-1-4etc. , 'g p cpl. ke_c in: ih. c -- am. es at eat ( pe Y / !t br C° i s wr:a � " E1---j w fie arirca v y aiLas 3 ay.. .. ' Sa.0 O y C o(,4 1 L ivi't Nevi t81 P ( ^ ,.,,, 4 V rider t1 direction"ti©n"o 'theaE 1ic Work Director. dead b. 'Serial 7. tia1f."8,treet i iroVernent3 shall be, aua+�e ,� 108th :venue ' issuance of°7iui.1dim Permits.. the ry,,, prior to . a � � S. A temporary aoce5 s to Duiain Road shall be allowed until propel ague. to, tho .south "end vest`clew:Lops s to aii. a .S=uture access to SW 113th. 12420$►, :MAN P.O. BOY 33V7 T Ge R Jr ... t; 630-41/1 =�-�_._:�,_,— - • .; �.. .,.��......:��...,�...,..�..... �,. . µ C7RcC�N 9722 .PH: ! N •/ .1 ' (nib, .. •• • ^� t b I♦I tt•,:= N%.,,,'-; as 4. 2 K:,,,�� ,,.• •� 1 tom?'�Y'n, .'••' a1 T:4fY� .14..t fJ { Y�W 4r ' ` W 4 t h ,djq w �•'.+r Y�—+Y,e b t,t r rYF�,'. ..r, ' '�S ' ZCP; 25•-80 ,, 4 - -• :c„' r'w,':. „k. f �',.: ,,: `� ' . :: . 9.. porary turnaround easement" be granted to the City. Easement • -.•.w 7,-S:z :; } 4 . • `to terminated'whew` temporary access to Duxhaim Road is terminated. . .:,i .. ��++ 10. Street plug to be installed.on half-street shown orx.plan ▪ ..-„t!,:4... �� _„ L.,, an as 110th - t • • ' . Avenue.• Street improvements to be made`on right-of-way to include - ,: �w„=fit; ; R ., .1�' , gutters:e storm .drains,• sidewalks, and'paving. Cul-de-sac (one-half). to' be installed' at Lot #2 Just' south Qf Durham Road. - ,. Temporary access to be, approved'by' Public Works Director.. A cash . bond sufficient to vacate the easement„, restore,' and landscape . , 1. the access area according to' the' specifications, and plans to be - . sub fitted with the half-street improvement plans'shall be provided. • . ! i ' . i.z---zt rW4e-t/wa ' gxeent n-i•ie--kr p8re e ve � •�-�-sd Yve . • lan areas to include brushi.*tg, tree• 'pruninq,_�tc _prier-,. °assxaricee • of.Building Permits.' T its nt-s Zl,--te' approved' by the. Public. • . - V 1 Wa ss' Dirrectox Council.- This Agreement to be perpetual anti., '~ °;an,a,_ `o r SEE, C Co DA)C, c... fns, try* • )0 , / / ) L2. stri:cion shall apps- as a part ,of the final plat indicating ., , that each parcel' owner shall not retn nstr to against'the future ., . , fo .atian of a Data' Iipa. ment District' to :.imprc Di air, Road.,..* o,. . i. 11. All conditions under' Title 171 Tigard Municipal Code, shall be adhered , to in fi.l.ing the preXimina.ry and final plat for review'by .the.various •,„ ''"( departments of the City.. ' Occupancy . . to P zvuts shal3 be a.��ue 'until all condxt�Nans placed . . • upon this development by the' City of Tigard�'d 'have been satisfied' and inspec`-ions verifying this have been' carried' out by the appropriate ~ •, department.' ., 1.5., C +,gig plans and construction Plans ozz a :l. public r%ght rof�•way . : shall be ubm3.tted' and approweri by'the:Public Works Director prior i to commerxc nt of work.' Street` mprovements`be. constructed' to the k ' •• • approval oaf'.the' Public Works' Director prior to th.e`issuance. cf. • • Building permits.' ' 16. Public water service and sanitary service shall be installed two this - . + site prior tO the issuance 'of.a Bui.l: i ng Pe ..;t. . 1 , • r. 17.. All existing or -proposed; utilities 'shall_ be p3 a-,led imdV.rg rind-. 2.14312.17:117.1-; +,N _._.a+ t..ar - L t -^,.::;;;, .'....,--.--;"--7 "",�r t r' - i" ..:. TkIticat.. - Director„ . l8` No 13uii rte„ shall be issued until'the ex ai • . , dizxg Pe ,,_ h sued un � � :atio� of Vie' twenty (20)4 day r^.ppeP.l period from'the date of ap roval, I 1.9., An existing easement. recorded 'with this parcel :shall be reviewed • with applicant and the City prior to filing of a pml.itii:ra plat. • 241. On. loots, il..matting sensitive lands,-b.uild ngs may be c ca ib:.:: cited to i of,`the' sezisit ve lands,' a �a s,+ev'e#a though tha.s, �:�:.- ti** b . *cc/Ord with strict app1 ,cation; of'the setback re m n' g ,� not e. in + • a � is ... ., • + N + Y. I ' a» '• • • �.• `, N v,• i`a i` W W L.i':1•w i I'.yY'r•aA.Y.,N li4.+i•»:i.. , O N i4 y t I M " . „y, � w , AA »...:M•.+•+r,+ - ...,.-s:x:r..u,s...+a,:Y C:-....r_.i.t<=J r..n,..;.-.+a ,a..._.,:-:. ..:.,...m«neYrw.irrM rxw.,rr..nynr9'".'.rtapMmnnsea„.ror .ax' • =;.--.;r k.atinec.,cc ..-...',s , r. 1 .. IV' •'i.•yll� ^ {a T"!'/�'rt, ^� �y��ti� �, i4,1:4',f, ` } . s` � ., ,., �, .,,,... •. 1.'e'.« .•.� u._. ..n-..�.+j;`+'+°w . •,•M .{ , ?,'1 A h y�„'1 i, �; C•. i4t2,,-tea , yls/ ' . '"N+ ''44+n 1 !4'Tl,zig u4i,:r•r �l�f , , r- f (if , 7.4p.0::`,WW541 =PID 25- -- ' ' • . i ISItt S. recommendatican, has been written'in r 3 r Ce `fezzu and will be corns iaered ' by' the City Council at its :eptembe'r 22,' l:Soa "IV.I./itytipgo fowler ,Aullor; . • High Scho 1, ,' ectUre Room., .10865 'SW T'a;7.nu• . Street.,,?•a3QQa. At thai� .ime,, ,the,• City . ,aunc.b�. has'the' followitig opti:on :• approve,'modi.fi, . daily, 7,:entaAa back to the. Planning'COmmi.ssz.on'or determine to hold a. ,r • • hearing,Lin the record established,at Attie' Planning Cor sF.;si•sin. ` No additional 'testimony will be taken`by the C'ounc .l at its meeting. "ou will be provided written'n'.°noticae'O f'the' Council's a .on:. . , Sincerely • . 1#1,,ax . D.'rec z ' . • Aldus • • • ROTE: This acknowledgement must.be ei9ned' and retuned'to the. Cite off° a . '.mart, Planning Department-.' Pa3.iure to ±ethru this ac wleageutent- will result in no further a _.A'Ac'on'thus pro je ct'with regards to issuance of Build ...Permits or - , - • a ppro le . 1 w... .•.. . . • Sin- � (app ca � ia,��. .. ' 6 d . . � Signature Owner) Date` µ ' . • . ' . . a ...M.,y . 5 4 II II • , . I •). 44 •4 • a m .. 4 • ` W 1 ' t I,, a ' y • F W ih. • ' JL t ' _ w.,:.w..4 w , w. ., ., ,.1, .....• ey.•..xpry °.r ..,•emu.. -#.+.I M,MP•+:'2.'+'C,mn :B.r'1...F d.L'k':xt' _..r.,a.:1K'.....,.-..o•...aziw ttC a•K ,„,.... .. e ' ■ I , 6 MINUTES • TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION September 2, 1980 Page 2 warehouse to the north, and explained that whit the five story building is some time down the line, they wished to get tIte variance taken care •, of at the same time as the zone change. PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Carl Johnson, 6155 SW Bonita Road, Lake Oswego, inquired about the circulation pattern, responded to by Howard with probable development patterns and timing. Speaking in opposition was * Robert Slate, 11200 SW 72nd Avenue, resident directly south of the • project, feeling Tigard does not need such tall buildings. • ee CROSS...EXAMINATION. AND REBUTTAL: Mr. Shewbridge responded, stating there is no intention to remove,the tall trees, which effectively screen the area. He responded to a question about traffic pattern and flow iu the project, stating most of the employees reach the complex • • from the Haines Interchange on 1.5. • COMMISSION DISCUSSION PANT) ACTION: Funk asked questions about .e 2* interior traffic patterns. Speaker raised a question about whetheet this would come back to the Planning Commission for Phase III. Howard stated it would depend on whether there would have to be a sensitive r : lands application; in any case Phase III would have to go through c,, site design review. Moen questioned the propriety of the 75' building. Howard pointed out it is allowed by NPO 4 in tie area, and Shewbridge explained the economics and energy efficiency of the building worked 1 , out better this way than for a lower building. Funk MOVED approval c! ZCPD 24-80 and Variance V-10-80 based on • staff findings and recommendaelons for both Part A and Part B. Kolleas seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. • 5.2 SUBDIVISION, S 6.-79 (Golf Creek Estates) NPO #6 A request by Michael D. Elton for a resubmittal of a Sub- division Application located at the southwest corner af SW 108th and SW Durham Road (Wash. Co. Tax INWp 2S1 15A, • Tax Lot 1500). Howard read the STAPP PEPORT and RECOMMENDATIONS. • The APPLICANT'S PlaSENTATION was made by Edward Engel, attorney, 875 Boise Cascade Blinding, Pertland. He opened with the statement their purpose in appearing tonight va to see whether an agreement can be reached With the Planning Commission so development can proceed. He stated the case is no before the Land Vso Board of Appeals, but that it a settlement con le reached tonight they would drop the appeal. He reviewed the history of the appearances before the Commission and the Council' and read excepts from previous Planning Commission minutes. 4 • • I . 4 • 11111 , - k . ' % " MINUTES . TIGARD PLANTING COMMISSION ,. t September 2, 1980 ,e - Page 3 ' . . , He asserted the sole issue for the previous denial (which is the aiatter • on appeal) was access to Durham Road (reading from the miuutes of the ,, December 4, 1979 meeting) and that this is not proper, since the , comprehensive plan classifies Durham as an arterial street. Mr. Engel, V. -- working with City Attorney Bailey, had a late August hearing on the• . case postponed in order to see if a satisfactory resolution can be " secured at the planning commission level; if not, the case will be pursued in court. I% Engel enumerated conditions or portions cr wording of conditions - which are unacceptable to the applicant t Staff Recommendations 1, 5, . 9, 11 and 15. He reported an intervenor in the collet case would like- wise withdraw if something can be worked out in this hearing. He - e ' introduced Michael Elton, the owner, who described features uf the ,,. , development. Mr. Engel then reiterated the matter would continue i to be pursued in court unless (as he hoped) a satisfactory resolution could be reached here tonight. ,. I . st . , . PUBLIC TEST:CMONY, was offered by ..e. , C.. . *** Wilbur Bishop, 1090 SW Cook e.ane, who inquired how 110th , would eventually reach 113th Avenue. Howard drew ,a rough sketch of the properties in the area on the blackboard, and indicated possibili- e, e ties as vroperties develop. , . *** Donal McIntosh Sr., 7148 SW Laview Drive, Portland, or of iproperty adjoining that just previously discussed. He expressed the . c :11:Tie o = tlaZ c :dy Ntao developed irt: 1: dtproperty e : 1:tlld :O c:scresdwrola. , . ,J CROSS-TIAMINATION AND REBUTTAL: Discussion folaowed atong Speaker, c' *, , 0....MS1.1143,0.1...0111..■•••■•••••9110W/VM •MIPMV.I .71■110.010111.0.0.1 Howard, Engel and Elton on a variety of subjects, ineluding the zonings . •, the homeowners association as condition in staff recommendations and enforcement of maintenance withoutva homeowners association, the e , limited access status of Durham Road, and the language of Conditions • , 9 and 15. With respect to the substitution of deed restrictions in lieu or a homeowners association, Howard suggested they submit to him proposed broadened dead restrictions to accomplish the ourpese desired. ,e,, ,. This Engel was unwilling to do on the basis the signle cavse of rejec- tion previously was the road aces, which is resolvea in this hearing. in defense of Durham's limited access Speaker cited a nearby development of 40 acres which will have a temporary 4ccess until adjacent property is developed, when it will have to direct access of its own. Engel . objected oh the ground that such a no.access policy, to be enforceable, ' must be an adopted public policy, and that there is none such from the , • Planning Commiesicee or the City Council for guidance of developers; t therefore it is not a Valid consideration, and that is one of their , arguments before the Appeal Board. , Speaker inqUired why they object to the PD designation. Engel a A . . , ' .................. :.......,... .._. ,..-..—,..,,,..,,,, —. ,,, .„ 7 ..,,,,,,,...... .T. , 0 „ h . MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION September 2,1,' 1980 ?aged 4 stated they felt it would require yet another appearance before this • body, and reiterated that since they were turned down last time solely br,cause of access, they feel the imposition of the conditions attached to the current proceedings are Funfair". Howard objected to their threat to carry on with Cie Land Use Beard of Appeals if they do not get what they want at this hearing. He felt this belied their avowed • I desire to cooperate. Howard stated the Commission would not have to hear this applicant ' again, because if 1.1q would accept the PI°i designation the Commission 4 can, at this meeting, approve both a preliminary and general plan for this development. Also required would be submission by the applicant f w , ' of language agreeable to the Planning Director and Public Works Director � . '� 1 „, ',•r,. to assure maintenance by the homeowners of the greonway. k The R-.5 designation is mandated by the comprehensive plan, and the ,.." PD designation by the sensitive lands involved. The applicant's next appearance would be before the City Council. Elton's major concern is •._..,. that the lotting pattern be not changed, since he feels it is a very t good one. Howard pointed out that the City Council does have the power 1 to make any changes they desire. e • r COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION: Bonn felt this was a good development nor. Funk wondered if one or two additional lots could • be secured under the R�-5 designation, but the applicant does not desire •• any more. After some further discussion, Bonn MOVED approval of Subdivision S 6.-79/Zone Change Planned Development ZCPD 4:5-80, together with . e. approval of the planned unit development at the preliminary and general plan level, based on staff findings and recommerndations, with changes e 1 in recommended conditions as fellows: *** 9. Second sentence to read: HEaaement to be terminated, when temporary access to Durham Road is terminated." a*** 15. Delete in the last sentence the words "recording of the final.plat or". *** Add`2Ot On lots abUtting sensitive lands, buildings may be coxxstrxctedto the edge of the sensitive lands, even though this may O not be in accord with a strict application of the setback requirements. k, 1 ' i• I: ' The motion was seconded by Funk and carried, 'with Moen voting no. 1 i The president rleclared a five-tinute recess at 9:35. :: a 't. 5.3 ZONE CT �NGWOO4PRRENSIVE PLAN REVS/ON, ZC/CPR 23:.80 (Robert Randall Co.) 111,0 #6 si A I • , ..sL.,atzn 'Y4...n.,.33M N ...�C.9-w'tmr..rc«.. ..,. v .•.• i.+'yY,q w.,y+..".fir..p:v ^m.:nfaMw!'M*n.'' " eu 75.NmrEe:.caaY.u:,." '„" ..':.-`WG7:.:?4^=M',5''ct'ecNC7#1„jam • 1 .,.:..+„ ».M,....• ..«........-.aa..,i............... ,......,v,.;....:.,...,.._..m...,......+^C.,,.._.,....W....,..-. .... ..:,«.teC�-..:.IC..w i......u,,...,„ .a+....,,,_4:,.,t:u;=.:✓_ ..i:r.,..4.._.a......:i:.a,x._:t.._:.u.a...,_..,.-,......._.,.,, _...._....t.... .......i, ,.., <.. .,.,w.„,... 4 „ DESCRIPTION EHEET { See,page 1 for vesting and encumbrances,if any. • Description of the tract of land which is the sublect of this report: ' The East one-half of Lot 26a WILLOW BROOK FARM, Washington • County, Oregon. ALSO, beginning at the Northeast corner of the West one-half of said Lot 26, from which an iron pipe is set 20 feet South; thence South 890 52' West 115.45 feet; thence South parallel with the Eastern boundary of said West one-half (at 20 feet an iron pipe is set at roadside) 37/7.2 feet to an iron pipe on South bounda ► of said lot; thence East 115.45 feet to the Sortheast corner of said West one-half of Lot; thence North 377.45 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING the South .a.; 100 feet of the East half of said Lot.-�. �..�.......... .- A Report No 34-A-8801 ' .p a -.,a..•.,.0 .... mwnw a•w.,,u..r.4:: ...k.i.. fey-i :ff ' The sketch below is made sole .a-The purpose of assisting in locating said ''rises and the Company assumes' no liability for variations, if any,in dirnensions and location ascertained by actual survey. A Pioneer National Title Insurance Company , ..„r. A TICOR COMPANY , • • • E 1/4 SEG TIO rl ••••1 5 . . . WASHIP4GT 'I COLJN'` Y. fi��c " . . . cn SCA L� ".- 20� ,_ . » •EE MAP • 1 r" .i t 2 Sw.f 10 0 0 c • 537.414. , !64S Y R D • 150 ` . „. ' ' !GOO ! 0Q. . c in f ! 343• -------714* t 842-°, ' -t-;-- a ay7.Oa I44' * 3�14.3s I 3370 , 292.05 " ' 4, .93: w, 0� o 14-01 idi _ • 0 0• 2.204C 550"—, set7. Q ply ' tn _ ... ; a7o 6577 6 1200 7777 0 , j o �,c .. so a of 28 Ya S 70 `k. 3,3 Y yy��(z...,, . � M tie . ..0. 41!!"7, 21OC) 1101 . 4 al,44 40 r" !..S. Nkt.13t .' u, . .. ".,..„i•,wa . . . ' * .. .. p r , 7 ' t\ STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5.2 TIGARD PLANNIUG COMMISSION h . September 2, A980 - 7:30 p.m. (_ Fowler Junior High - Lecture Room 10865 SW Walnut Street, Tigard No submission of additional material by applicant shall be made at the Public Hearing unless the applicant is requested to do so. Should this occur, unrequesed, the item will be tabled until the following Hearing. DOCKET: SUBDIVISION, S 6-7,9/ZONE CHANGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, ZCPD 25-80 (Golf Creek Estates) TYPO #6 APPLICANT: Mr. Mielael Elton OWNER: SAME AMFAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION • 500 NE Multnomah, Suite 380 Portland, Oregon 97232 REQUEST: Resubmittal of a Subdivision application with a Zone Map Amendment from City of Tigard R-7 "Single Family Residential" - to City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan designation R-5PD "Single Family Residential Planned Development District" Zone. LOCATION: Southwest corner of SW 108th and SW Durham Road (Wash. Co. • Tax Map 2S1 15A, Tax Lot 1500) . • PREVIOUS ACTION: • On June 22, 1978, Mr. Elton applied for a Zone Change (ZC 16-78) from Washington County RS-1 to City of Tigard R-7 "Single Family Residential" and Conditional Use (CU18-78) for a retirement center - Wedgewood. On ■ September 5, 1978, the Planning Commission approved the Zone Change to R-7, but denied the Conditional Use for the retirement center. (Reference Ordinance No. 78-66, Zone Change to A second application was made to construct duplexes on this parcel. (Reference Conditional Use, CU 1-79) The Planning Commission denied this request on March 6, 1979. On June 11, 1979, Mr. Elton applied for an eleven (11) lot subdivision on the parcel - Golf Creek Estates. On July 17, 4t979, the Planning Director denied the preliminary plat. Reasons for this action centered around the accesS to Durham Road, and he drainageway through the parcel. On July 27, 1979, Waker and Associates, on benzIlf of the developer, Mr. Elton, appealed the decision of the Planning Director. Sevvral changes had taken place at the Planning Commission and City Council level during the time that this parcel was being processed through various app1ications. The Sensitive Lands Ordinance had been passed and the zoning designation for the parcel had been changed to single family residential on the Comprehensive Plan Map. Because of these changes, the Planning Director notified the applicant that a Planned Unit Development designation Was necessary and that a Sensitive Lands Permit was required for any work it the drainageway. The applicant stated his reluctance to do this in a letter dated October 25, 1979. , if- H -,,• . .k ' \-• •, ,,, • . (,• • - i( ,, „A-, i ,. . , . i . , STAFF REPORT . • AGENDA 5.2 - S. 6-79/ZCPD 25-80 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION 4 . , ll September 2 1980 1 . Page 2 . . . ' ... On December 4, 1979, the Planning Commission heard the appeal and .upheld the ' . Planning Director's denial of the subdivision preliminary plat. Applicant - ' appealed this decision to the City Council. On January 28,, 1980, the city Council heard the appeal and upheld the Planning Commission's denial of Subdivision, S 6-79, Golf Creek Estates. . a. . , • In February 1980, the Land Use Board of Appeals was notified that Mr. Elton • . had challenged the City of Tigard's decision. Through negotiations with the . 0 applicant and several legal people, Staff has agreed to return to the • s Planning Commission for one more review. . ' • I , , . Several issues need to be addressed. Access to Durham Road will be "temporary" until a street is constructed to serve property to the south. M. Elton obtained an agreement from Mr. Lamkin which states that he, Mr. Lamkin, does .' , not object to the half-street development, will dedicate and improve the .. - 0 41 . . , half-street on Tax Lots 1300 and 1600 at his time of, development, and does . . agree to the "temporary" access to Durham Road at a cul-de-sac. . .., . , . Harris-McMonagle, Associates has applied for a Sensitive Lands Permit to , . construct a sanitary sewer line through this property from the south to .. the Durham Road Pump Station at 108th Avenue. Staff has conditioned this P. Permit to protect significant vegetation (trees) on this parcel and provide -- . - erosion control during and after construction. . - Staff's major concern is protection of the drainageway through this project. The applicant has provided a Declaration of Conditions: and Restrictions .. for Staff review. Several questios need to be answered concerning this )Pi • . document if the intent of the drainageway protection (maintenance) is to . . i be carried ont. . .... , i The applicant has agreed to dedicate fifty (50') feet on either side of tae , , i- .V stream bed as open space. However, lots still include portions of the -----.■ , sensitive lands (slopes) . As this area has been Zoned R-5 (5000 square foot , • , lots) , it is possible to lot out of these sensitive areas and, form a Homeowners' Association for the entire greenway/drainage avea. The applicant has not agreed to do thiS4 In the Declaration of Conditions and Restrictions, the following appears.. .."shall take title subject to such general scheme and plan, even though no refererwe to such plan shall be made in the deed of conveyances as to way such successor,". No deed restrictions are therefore plaCed on the future owners, plus "The slope control areas of each lot and . ■ all improvement8 in them shall be mainf4ained continuously by the owner of the - lot, except for those improvements for which a public authority or utility .° company is responsible e i ■ ,,..,„,, „_- .. ..... ..,, • . . , ,■ •, STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5.2 S 6-79/ZCPD 25-80 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSON September 2, 1980 Page 3 • It is the intent of the City to have the homeowners' maintain the entire greeenway on the entire parcel. Individual owners cannot insure cooperation and, therefore, we anticipate future difficulties. The term is for twenty-five (25) years with renewaale ten (10) year terms. This is not • acceptable - Staff suggests that deed restrictions be placed on each parcel and that a Homeowners' Agreement be initiated which clearly addresses the • concerns of the City. ? I. FINDINGS or FACT: 1. Land is presently Zoned R-5 "Single Family Residential" on the Comprehensive Plan. A large drainageway cuts this parcel almost in half north to south. . 1 A Planned Unit Development (PD) designation is mandated by Ordinance No. 79-73 (Sensitive Lands Ordinance) . 2. Sewer service to this property is possible when the gnivity line from the pump station at loth and Durham Road south to the Tualatin Interceptor is complete. Construction of this line is being held up by this applicant's refusal to grant an easement through this property. 3. Applicant has agreed to set aside fifty (50') feet on either side of the centerline elf the drainageway. This area is to be cleared of all noxious vegetation and dead plant materials. Area is to be maintained thl,..ugh a Homeowners' Agreement. 4. 108th Avenue is substandard. Five (5°) feet of right-of-way aloLg 108th will need to be dedicated to the City with half-street improvements beirog made during construction. 5. Durham Road will be improved in the near future. Wenty-five (25 ) feet of frontage along the north property line will be dedicated to the City to provide forty-five (45') feet from centerline for public improver,ents. 6. A non-remonstrance agreement is needed for this parcel consenting to thi, formation of a Local Improvement Distrjat in the future. These agreemeats will be recorded for each lot and shall appear on the recorded plat. 7. A half-street improvement is planned on the western property line with • a cul-de-sac just south of Durham Road. A temporary access to Durham Read Will exist until property to the south develops and a street can be built through adjoining properties to 113th At:c,-,.ue. Emergency vehicle concerns need to be addressed, 8. Portions of several lots include areas identified aii sensitive lands. • 17, $7 .. . . • tt • ••' , • • 'N: 0 7' jr , (Z; k ' , 4. . • STAFF REPORT . ' AGENDA 5.2 - S 6-79/ZCPD 25-80 .• TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION . September 2, 1 .580 . Page 4 , , --. 9, Applicant has not agreed to develop under the Planned Development District (PD) designation. . . , II. CONCLUSIONARY FINDINGS: . . 1. Sewer service can be provided if this property owner agrees to grant an easement to the Unified Sewerage Agency or the City to allow construction. . . . -- . '1'. - 2. A temporary access to Durham Road can be constructed. Adjoining property mner (Mr. Lamkin) has agreed with the proposal. Ths Fire Marshall's concerns over emergency vehicle turnaround is still an issue. . n , ' - 3. Parcel should be Zoned P.7-5PD. The R-5 designation would allow the City to protect more of the sensiLve land (slopes) areas and still allow . . • maximum development. . .... . .. . .. . . . 4. The Homeowners' Agreement should be changed to a perpetual document to run with the land, and all homeowners should share collective maintenance responsibilities. al . , . d• . III. STAFF RECOMMENDATIXwa: . . . . Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: . ,.• 6 • t,r 1. Property be developed as a Planned Development District, 4 • „ '2. Sewer easement be granted to Unified tewerage Agency or City of Tigard to . , allow construction of sanitary sewer line through this parcel. . . • 3. Twenty-five (25') feet right-of-way be dedicated on entire north property , line on Durham Road, plus an additional fifteen (15') foot slope easeMent ... : , L adjacent to the vouth line of the forty-five (45') foot half right-of-way , 1 4 • of SW Durham Road and within the limits of the one-hundred (100') foot .0 . drainageway easment. Five (5') feet be dedicated on 108th Avenue on ti entire eastern property line. . . ) 4. Non-remonstrance agreements be made a portion of th,A f4v,t11 plat and this • condition be made a part of each deed for SW Durham Road. . . 5. All lots btt platted outside the sensitive land areas. A Homeowners' .• ,z Agreement (perpetual) be drawn which clearly states that each property owner will share in the maintenance of this drainageway. 6. Drainageway be Cleated of all noxious vegetation ar , ,:ad material under the direction of the Public Works Director. . 7. Half-street improvements shall be made on 108th Avenue prior to the issuance of Building Pemits. . , . . 4 1.. . 4 4,1 .. . • i • • (11., +A 1 4( f' . ' 'STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5.2 - S 6-79/ZCPD 25-80 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION ' September 2, 1980 Page 5 8. A temporary access to Durham Road shall be allowed until property to the il south and west develops to allow future access to SW 113th Avenue. ° . 9. "Temporary m porary turnaround easement" be granted 'o the City. Basevent-t-e-b.e- . , errT131 ;t"-ifrr''-raSUTMrt'-bCr+e--JgZan±,P-4L-kirr5ZrtrTXTTC--eg.b""S""''''t-e--"Dklrh.aZti--RZtad i ,--terraTrateltfr60.404.oe2-e4e- -4,?...,, - c .eca-9.4.2 ,7,),-coatria-4,/ . ezee.40:7* e-)"4-11e2-41 i'' ' ' ' .. f t ,,. . 10. Strlet plug to be installed on half-street shown on plan as 110th Avenue. Street improvements to be made on right-of-way to include curbs, gutters, storm drains, sidewalks, and paving. Cul-de-sac ( e-balf) to be installed at Lot #2 just south of Durham Road. Temporary access to be . - . . :approved by Public Works Director. A cash bond sufficient to vacate the . easement, restore, and landscape the access area, according to the specifications, and plans to be submitted with the half-street improvemert plans shall be provided. . . % . 11. A Homeowners' Agreement be prepared for the maintenance of the sensitive .4 land areas to include brushing, tree pruning, etc. prior to issuance of Building Permits. This Agreement shall be approved by the Public Works Director and the City Council. This Agreement to be perpetual and to run with the land. 12. A restriction shall appear as a part of the final pl.at indicating that each parcel owner shall not remonstrate against the future formation of a Local Improvement District to improve Daxham Road. : . 13. All conditions under Title 17, Tigard Municipcq Code, shall be adhered to in filing the preliminary and final plat for review by the various departments of the City. 14. No Occupancy Permits shall be iss,2ed until all conditions placed upon this development by the City of Tigard have been satisfied and inspections • verifying this have been carried out by the appropriate department. , 15. Grading plans and construction plans on all public rights-of-way shall .rr be submitted and approved by the Public Works Director prior to commencement of work. Street improvements be constructed to the approval I A - Of the Public Works Director prior to thei-see29-r-eli'Irrarrer-grat•-• I. ,. .e.4.issuance of building permits. \ , 16. Public water service and sanitary service shall be installed to this sit-. prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 17. All existing or proposed utilities shall be placed underground. Street lighting installations shall be approved by the Public Works Director. , . .. , .10 / , • � I lur' STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5.2` S 6-79/ZCPD 25-80 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION September 2, 1980 Page 6 18. No Building Pernriit shall be issued until the expiration or the twenty (20) day appeal period from the date of approval.; J9. All existing easement ; recorded with this parcel shall be roviewed with app`:i.oant and the City prior to filing of a preliminary plat, C2°' .. . . --ea-%41-4) q' t2 '014 4-016-12. ileX IA4 4/...itt/C-f2a 1---Lt4"-111. Ti 44,tatjill 44,114 nee!. cyjU aideZIAC710 4)(..*11- Ct 41A4454 c��/+ ��j• CeLtk„R,-f r, t `2 j1 J ,t-sl►�t o ✓iL • 1 , o • • • y y b' »+ 0, , n P1 ing Direct a�.: ) 1 r . ...... , ',wM.,,nzrca..«+a.,�,�wuxi'emawmn..nw+ar+nrawrrrnts.:.^va7,t�xcy",•��:.e;�..•,:L..i,..r....-. —,� . .. ., .. , ,. ..,.,,..., ., ...,,,.,. .. n - - • .. 11,E d ;.._..._......1„-II_..._.,......,._._,1...)`i.de_. _»,w___.........,Jtcw._,_......._...,:�._... ;w,,.„..,.0 _ma,:..a...;.--,..:,-.._,__...._'_.w....w-.,.,.........:....„--..:.,-._,.:...._,,.,..,.._...:.,JS,,._.._,......_»:........,_.d_:.,.,._..«..._..JL.rr.u j;_ ,Fr' _ - ilt 11 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) l' County of Washington ) s5► • City of Tigard J, r ` / I, Viola Chritensen, being first duly sworn,. on oath despose and ..says That ';x am Secretary for the Planning Departn nt for ' NI the City of Tigard, Oregon •' j' t' II That 1 served p1otice of hearing of the Tigard Planning ; Cis.9 on 4 `4. i. )l j ! I C of which the attached. is a copy (Marked Exhibit A) upon each of the , following named persons on the _ day- of / ,�: �� ` , l98 _, y mailing to each of them a the address shown on he. attached 9 ' la.s-t ((_Ma!:ked Exhibit B) , said notice s hereto attached, deposited, in • the United States Mail on the t,Q day of 198r) , postage prepaid. z 1 � ./L"::"./12 :1*/ /----6-:.11<(""4 .. . 1 z)C-;?-:-:-.7*---- • • ca P. ' Subscribed an.d sworn to before me on the ��,''� day of ; , r i 198 „ ;r,,mttirititi,),,' C';.Aga ,I A'rt,• ;..„. . ''''N L',,'h :,-.1 ,ve..,.,,,, • ..-0',0° '''.«„V,,,..!.t'l, '' '')''',,,,\ep--rAfi),4:,tvA--•-!..i. ., ° * t'C is_� ,4 oIL ' I rw ”" :b f,ft■ g ca Public of Oregon AC'Y ,»� fl +y ,, w ' .r a ,Rro k 4 II '••�'{ , / My Co MIt's CM'''e kpi re 5: � r it, • H 01 IR , ' 'i0 1 ?, 1 is V . :t,, rJ b,wr:., mm�`+ensclmus+:c,nWi._ve,4.A r 14 ;�+ A ■ - A .:'.w_ .•�.oi,.,., ate:..... ...-..,•. we« -i ., . i, - - ,. -- - .a.;.,.i',_,,Is.su+:'[."".J...,...a;.(-1'G,.._.«'�,`..'—"•-1...,,.Gi»...+•«a....L.C.l ai...:«::u....u...,.":.a:.::t,... ..�..:C,J.:...�.J..:A,..,.:.::.,i;•e-..++a.,c=:.,w.r. ,..+.u..._,.....u,,.._.....,.....-_,. .. a, ., ,_, ,- .,-.H.a is-. ) f L 1 ,,,,, . ' . ( ,,y 1 i F pu BL lc H EAR1NG , . . * , NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION AT ITS MEETING ON TUESDAY, !'• SEPTEMBER 2, 1980 , AT 7:30 P.M. , IN THE LFICTURE ROOM OF FOWLER 'JUNIOR HIGH '' SCHOOL, 10865 S.W. WALNUT, TIGARD, OREGON, WILL .CONSIDZR THE FOLLOWING APPLIAT:1;ON: , APPLICANT: M . Michael Elton OWNER: SAME '• : . AMFAC MORTGAGE CORPORAT:`?ON 500 NE Multnomah, Suite 380 %, A,... Oregon 97232 72 32 : . REQUEST: A resubmittal of a Subciivisica Application with a Zone Map Amendment from City of Tigard R--7 "Single Family Residential" to City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan designation R-5PD "Single Family Residential • Planned Development District" Zone. LOCATION: Southwest corner of SW 108th Avenue ant SW Durham Road (Wash. Co. • . Tax Map 2S1 15A, Tax Lot 1500) . 1. ' FILE NO. : S 6-79/ZCPD 25-80 NPO #6 �. fur. -:: ae; kj r n . V4eI!• S W. ho t a r( .w v m Fn0! {-1) . rt t nr N 1 ■ Q �� <7 IVE 4 ° n SKEW \,�*'i' p ppt. 0''... '. 0t i _0.4 .i O(1RL'PtN.�i J 4 0-.‘'� (�F'o4 'L''•b,'�< vet SH.,MI'r71L• Q, ! Mid , � <C �s. . 0. a--- Sl �� rJ"a aj� Fy,nQ 2,, 0 ,. rircrol9119W., �m ' ( , � , 1 KING. , gAMFN 1/4- --4, ROYAL, - 1., MI c ,,,/ . . i i ' 4 V 'ir 90 Yj. I t" o • . 1 r r 1 � 951x (Pj � *y t i � '� b 7 E r / f T ` ( i y i L„."+ r r' ;,` 4. f" 0 IMNI: . v . wvit<_.....“...----- 't N. TATW'' ' f .04 THE .PUBLIC REARING ON THIS MATTE.z WILL BE CONISUCTEn IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF PROCEDURES ' r THE PERSONS HAVING y � COMMISSION., � , ., -�"� OR. TESTIMONY PLANNING BE "`JEMITTED It WRITING TO 3E ENTERED INTO THE RECORD OP THE INITIAL HE RING. h r YOU . A WRITTEN LETTER ADDRESSED T THcy CITY RECORDER RECEIVED .� � SHC�U�,�'" YC��Y WxS�� TO APPEAL, � 4. R ED ��.0 `�.�; MUST BE � � It'' . ,4 PRIOR TO THE EXPIP,ATICN 0? THE TWENTIETH DAY AFTER THE DECISION OP THE HEAPING, lo NOTICE / 1 1` 7_ TO APPEAL IS WITHIN TWENTY DAYS r E ACTION I VALID. • . "CR IUtxEiEt zrOv� TIONPLEASE CONTACT THE Pr rrn 1GDEPART [ENT AT 531:..41 . CITY OP TIGARD, 12420 SW Mani ' 'm. T,.g '.LiU - on .9/223 `a ^n m-:.�...ee:,acy nc"KMme -:,.can- .:' •v"�+' 'SS'�(:c j1 , .• �•.-'W.. . '" r _ ' a- .• � ' "�;:,\� � ., r -`;NGTON COUNTY OREGON 0 , `" O ,. ' 1. ' �P . S C A L I - 20 0' o EE I9 A-P 2 1 loan ' --: --- -�---- ------ R 3�A M , s,8 9°52 :2 9 �___._ ROAD --- ° j 9 ;. '`� 6 8 7.05' i .' 1.' I 00 ,,.A.83 Ao. 1 .. . estop • 15 1 IA, 1,• . , :; • _ ` !t• r1 —, , 111 �5 .1 . 3 6 0 '4 -. 2_d 2_.O S, d .' 688 d` 34 7 9 A s 1a W .63 344.3.,5 • • 00 _.._.___ ._,_ -6-' ..• 76.4c,a a o e------337 05 92.05 1300 2.2 A� W 201 ►o• 1401 al . 2.9:3,Ia a> T.93 40 ai ti r ti a, Ih' `^i 3 5 '� • r• 2', . 0 370 ' to x202 ' 667.06' . i_i in L..e, �� 68ti ,, 344.35 370 7.r i'',gyp 3 0a ., 13 81 Ae. 5.8" 1,4 c. . r--) . 1 B o . , � . m 34 9 , p 1'44 T. �' _ —W Qt 28 • M to ./ . g- .g ,off *3 • , 687.06' ._ �� 6 85.4 -0- ° .. .• _.._., . ---^..,.......— 2.29.4e_ 0 5.364e. a in n " CO • r., is+,ac. 29 1102 a 1 to N 2 5 0' S '. r ';, (C.S.f9c H54) , .� 01 ` 4355 _�_ 686.x' d 6617.0 3b9 5 .1 10aa 5.�9 a�, SOO M Got 602 • . 6a /234c .. M 3, 14 ,t\ Fs. . .1)14 ... ' . . . • S} 0.W■ 1 tf9°56' 367 0 a . ° 5 t a 3' r= w wi 4 '' ."'"' '''''''''' ...-6 1',-4 4 44..2 0 R l':Vi c " CO 4..i, 14003• .S1 , ' i "7 'r � .,d , ' t+y j, -r i z '1G d 1 Mw.awszr..nraxuura;.Jwu..... .:7}..._,,,.::.,.a ,.-�C�Y'L ,....+:., ,,.w.■..�:.� :�;:m¢I*�#1:�. "V. y,.x.wm'mxM*?:NaK ' li.+�MC+C:a.:l.1C;"..:"" "'C71fi ":.'4 �'(xaYai%: 13' ` / ._ , -J Y:''�'I ` — •. ". _1 ' t L ''• i 410.3 7 • 67‹ OSSOI acs ZV5" W.77/1/ ° F .. • /I:3-674 1".' ..7,,. ,r. 04 09 x"' c o b g t . �<, '1 0 s-L:- 08- ' '- T{9 ,5(QOh 0E,6 2/56 4'P.r ,.r.c i/ 0004.4 r 7.43 0001 w S s .. x..62 .( eiiwre Ire .. " ...- (?-t.',14.,_' ' . -- ..4.,,zif,J,: C ,c-/ ,a.. M.,,..,... <..F�... .yK ,_...w,+. ^•'-N�.,.4n_...4 w u\r,JSr.,, � w"..c,.. .. �.<.. : ,,!� ,.,,,.� » y..... »., ... .,. _«.� _ ; . . ._, _. .w ,_,.• ',:....1/41;vw . . , . ,,,/,,, ,z3.7., ' ,. ., •.• .' . . (... ' .,,' , z. .4 ±� wry Gam. � �� .% ,��./ • a : ., ..',fo.,:"...21:j..' 6).. ,. „ ',..el..C..,„ ,,,,.:..,. ., ,,,,,_„'„„.:,,,,„ .,,,,..., ..,.„'',„„,...,,,,'.,..,,,,—.. —.,,,,,,„., .. ,_ „,,„. .,,,,,.__ ,,',.;:I., 1 ' lc ... .,�, . , 1 , � ,� . . .. . _ k. , r� r , . ,' '•;.. 9,,,.4.4....c...........L.j-. 0 . o7'4-c:,-1,,4..r4AdZ' . ,. . i..3,5:z9jtstft,,,d:A' '' , . , I . I ��'''' N .J""w , , _. ' . ' ',...:„' , ,„,,,',,,.,„ ', ,,., - ' ., ,,,'',, j .. ,'.'-11,,_' ,.0e,:ek..4462_, ,.it .Litet,0 ,. .. .. ,., . , , , . ,, j, ., . . . . . . .. , .. . . , . . __...„. ., , . . . . , , .,. , . . .,. f„, . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . , . , , . . , . „ , . . . . , . , . ; , ,, . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ... . . . . , . ,, . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . _ , ., . . , . . , . .. . . . . a \ .. .. .i,'^....r"...•. '.t�: .W_ '. .x..+.1..<I•awq,« ...w. ur'w�ai,•nac :ar ar+>rof,ti attxsY,.... x +,';SY, "C..v., i-��-^li...t+'-.�°'kRd'�"{,"\:„4 A . � �., 'her I -\ •. • to Ii • , �} ail /� . '''S'' ' ),.:5- ' : ' ' ' ' d ... •'' • -. ' 9" ' . '.. .HC.c/..7,2,Z44i • . ,.. ' .'' '. ' 4 • .. ..._„11,-„(24t2 ..v,:a0'.-- -tr2 /306 ' ' " ' ' ''' -.' . .. " It ^ f • ' C , _ ,r,,.n, ..{. .i .,�,.r... a r.., ,,. .. .,... -. ..4 w 1 A _. .,,. .. �„ ,i. .. i.,.e , n , . ge2, .) . - ' . . ._,,,,.. .......,,,,,./&.46:0,,,a‘ry)2_,," „) .,c74) -.-,r)..,..._-,i....-).7:7_,r7.....,: 1'' x ry.',I sue 9,a.. I -6,' , a,., ,. 1 gc--ct),........&v...t.e...4.4):',o..•(_ , ,, .,. , , . ,. .,..,_, -)49,__.?:,-,.,e'et,,ncea, g.#.2a.,/, p . . . . , , , . . .,, , : •:, ._. .. . . .. „ ....... .. .......„...., .. ...„.. ., . , . .... .. .. . . .. , ,14?-42C2 y1°..1 ' 40 tire:_ '..m ' ._ ... '....,. .,., ,,... - , . .. ' ., :fir-&)4/,/,....?— , ._ , A , ., • ',w a ,, . ,,, • . r - •J . I p , . . • v ti 4 , I r . �, .. ;;�,.�:n±:x�:.w.:�.*��,,,.., ,... 1:. .raga�x�c....,....4.n...,Guam .. r•ir��-ar�.:V: , .�,-;.��,-�:�,s xa.��j. M 0 *a 4 A - f - - -- — -- - t•.---. • -• - - • -, - - • • _ • . , - - ' . . -- . . . --:•- ,-----' - -.-- -,-,,,-.e.,,,gi-e.n.-14,.4.4.--4, . f_ -NEN.-ssigrs.A4i,-*;*ri•-.1--r='0".-hrt44.--1 ...;-:,.';_;"'444*-7. -41-1N4-',-t-l-."-..---_,,zt:-.- i t, .,,-.. • utr-• -- '7...0 -, - ......,- .-.,...., .---,...,..N ..r..---,---,..t_:--,-,-.4,: __ -,-----... . . _....„.....,_,i---.,.-,..-,.."e.41':trW4',-,**=',*•.-....". ' .- -.....-Ts r,...--.7.-- - -,(.31-1,-i-W,-.:-.4:', :-..,:-.3: .-,.-.,,--..,-...,. .,,,.• __ • . I I I S * p i ; , .. 1 1 - • ti-.6j,s..1.:4,-- f,,.,,, j it at li - 1 \. c......_.., ...- , , - A: .., .11-:1 ....... kti. ji ............____k WI- - L--C) ( -.. I • I L-1- . ----E-:,.'- 11 \cid . . - 1----H IRO 111111i , ightp( ' .•- i---,----- --,. ,--s,...,..J.s..,..,:.,y.,r..,,e....,..,........ f___,..„...., . §)N . , -I Pr" --.--1 '-' ' I- / . . 'S ..,...m....-1,----7- - -..,..../..-...,-..--"_•- , a i- * -,...--t...1.0-1.0........ i -f , I ' 1161111i ..,'.rx,..be.. .....f, _...e. '1 III '..."'..',.....ji i . - I t _ ,r,.., .._.] . . _. . 1 --.. „ , 4.-1 I [::\ ' s. i ,...,...._.:1. ii . . atei.o_i_ . ________ ,....... ........5., 711.1 — ilif ., 11111 ,- . \ - - _ .. .. ',i t- ; Anuel _ _ _ 1.... - , , Illp.Ili_ Ileit _ -._.:4 I ;____Oh._0,,,._,. ii. 4 % 1' . .ii 11 . . . i . las, . . .. .., 1 .0..''- .t. .1 . 1 , ,..r i. .--.............. .4 • //' a P ......../ . ,4 • -F 1 1 III ' . - 1 . , - : . . . : 1„ • - 1-1 ._...,-.2- ---- --_____ - ---'.. WA411.--1111411* :::7-•---r- 1:: / r:21-177. ------- - ----.,11-----'--.. --): - lir-rViss Li voi, .70- i.- ;_....... sKiiimAI-Li,..;-.#40,k7„,-- , . - 11,,,,,.Vp?.- : . • saRSP,404,11V,Ir'Anifki /if ---------' --1 / /11 1 le, 011 00760 ., /4( • / NY 416 ..-•ti 7.4.:- - tit fr. - . 0 Wittit 1 fr""911- ..... 0 ..,,...-"ZW60 t-.• I,vtli- 1.0 -; It*Pt ....,•.4, OW. Ito . IN1/4 , . __.. i MUM 11111 li° 14b Et itilil'o,tin - - . to / ...■ -_ --= NIS Ai ea 'at., 14:% AO \' au". , ii. . ........... . 1dt or.4, II f42... If eriV.)11111111 % . ,. - ' jo ........,./ ,,,, :=, 7.0.=:. 0.;;;;i..a.ssicittillig:T.:.: 7"*""*-14111111" 4 . ... -- gi. i ,.. ‘,5- IVO mmmmm wasissaio 4 . Immo in.., .... so _ • " immelf • c, ''''' .4_ , : 1 :1 ""rarrIC- E`-- Lill' Mil -c6,4114 -- 'a - -11411"1111111 MIMI I . 4 - - • jive no - all a IIII .. 04 ii. -- -4146,--11"• X --....ir pi? __a 1 . . . _ p Nri, _.....;• -... :,_:... .•_ ,..„.-- -- ..,......, -.-....-....._..... ...--_-.,,............ . ...,.........-..,.....,..,...,..„...,,..........1., -., ......„;__. ,.„..,,...t.....,... „ipt• a ii.-an 5- -,--., .-------r1i.--1 • 1 .e.• .--1 . . 1 ... . -.:.• • __-- . . 0 ' • -di :-,_./.. -. ...: -- Pr-. ..i , . :- _'le .- i . •:_ . . . .., : , ... - _ . ... .._ : 4 . ; 4- '' ' I‘S. A t ' t4 ,>4 'c •FTI4 ' ' Y WASHINGTON COUNTY;OREGON ' . Y August 7, 1980• , . REFE ENC E: . S 6--79 t GOLF`(CREEK; ESTATES ` ') 108th/Durham 251 15A, 150E q Mr. Michael Elton \MFAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION 500 N.8. Multnomah, t uite 380 ' Portland, Oregon 97232 ‘ .( Dear Mr.. katon: . We are currently reviewing, your most recent submittal of Information regarding • "' . the proposed Golf Creek Estates. In order to complete a Staff Reco ndation . Report for the September 2., 1980• Planning Commission meeting, we will need more information. This is .:equirod by August 22, 1980. . We request the opportunity to review the redrafted plot plan holding the lots 4i away from the sensitive lands area i urt ter, we would like to review a draft of the homeowners' agreement making the homeowners' association, r' w ( • responsible, for the ima,;..ttexianoe'cT the draf.nageway. Also, we suggest that the proposed development bn discussed with property ' • owners to the south with land in the sensitive lands area. This would be . N to ensure that further 2:..r;elopment.will correspond with the proposed 110th IA "t` Avenue. • Please contact, this '.office at 6 39-4171 Lf we can be of assistan a in'this , '.6 matter. ... Y Q t IA Y Yours trail?, „34,1,4 660/04 a 40' 73 I > Elizabeth A. N'ew'ton .2 Staff Planner r 4 ‘.. , 1 . V . 12420 S.W. MAIN P,O. BOX 28397 TI • w k . -i�..4:,.,s , p- _ , ,-,,, , p x..,-.,nua+w:znuanrasr'N "'"3"anmr � . . ^«. ''S, „ l'[I \ \, •.■• , , . , •, ,‘„..,„,„,, ,\A;;:.'w,.,:;:,,t..,,,,,.,.'„L.k.„,„„:a.,LL,.„,....;,,..'..„.±,,2_,,,,,..4..,..:::..-a„:-,L.,,:-;.4,„.. '' '° , --'• - .D , 4' 5,4 ZONE CHANGE PLANNED DE ; , $.9.1.213_,_ , .-------1_,— VELOPMENT DISTRICT, ZCPD 1-8O4 ' ., . (Copper Creek)NPO_ ,No.6 , , .. .."' - AFFIDAVIT C •A re-hearing,directee Tigard: . " . City Council,for a request by the Tual- ' ' PUBLIC NOTICE 1 , TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION. ,,,,„, . atm Developthent Company for a Gen-• , STATE OF OREGON, Sept. 2, 1980 --7:30 p.m. , 9 eral Plan Review of Stage II Coppe,r ss Fowler Junior High, ,. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, Creek asking for a Zone Map Amend-, ' Lecture Room 1-'5* , ment from Washington County RS-111P-• . 10865 SW Walnut.Street Tigard , . —, City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan 5. Ouhlic Hearings ' • 'Tigard „. . TOseph SC I, ,' - ..'designation R-7PD"Single Family..4„eP,1-, . . , 5.1 ZONE CHANGE PLANNED DE- , . *Wendel Planned Development Distrit;i", VELOPM, ENT DISTRICT, ZCPD :14-80 • ., ,.‘ being first duly sworn, depose and sa:located south of Durham Road "And, ' ',.' and VARIM.410E,V 1C-80(Oregon'tdu.,1 east of Serena Way at Pick's Landing t cation''AssOciation I>hase II Construc- „.„, , . ,. .„,..,of'Ilhe Tigard Times, a nc subdivision'(Wash, Co. Tax Map 2S1 ., ''tion) Npo,No.4 ...; 14;13,Tax Lot 100). - A rec,lueSt by Balsiger Shewbridge , . by ORS 193,010 and 193.0201 publishec 5,.5 V A R I A N C E,.'V I I..8 0 ArchifOts for a Zone Map Ameridrnent .1 t. . t (T.D.C./Brooliside Condos)NPO No.G-i fromCd'itY of Tigard C-3"General Con- ' state; that the le al no ice, a prin e, ./(( ", - A request by th,o Tualatin. tzvelop-1 mercia1".t6 City ti)f Tigard Comprehan-i Company for a setback and sive Plan designation ,C.,:-..PD "COM— •I b • published in the eutirp i`tsue of said nt ment .. ,. , height va7iance located at 10820 SW m,ercial , Prof‘tasional , PIanrted., f n ;:ss MeadOWbrOOk Drive (Was Co.'Tax Develc,pm Dis ent trict" Zone with a re- ' *. , :, . consecutive week in the following IL. Map 2S.L.,v.wr),,TarLoV,7800) que.,st for a building height variance , . • i.. „ ______ _August 2,0....&_2 ..,.... *.ii:, . ..:...,.... ...,.. , ,, , — ,„,t , ,,, , from forty-fiVe(45')feet to seventyifive ,. ,o,.r.ovilt...EL,...ANECIUS, M 6O.....- (75p. i ) eet loca,ted on 32 42 acres on the , . , "(T.A.ciStunmerfielo S*si..1..!ve La,,,,n,..,da„ . . east side of rind and on the north.side ' — erinit) N.P0 No,0. ' ,i . of,i,'Iliania confirming to the,north side' A request by the T.'ualatin Devele0, of o7th/Atlanta intersection and on the ment Company for a Sensitive Lands west side of 1-5 (Wash. Co. Tax Map„ Subscribed and sworn to before Permit to construct a sanitary fg.',-wer in 151 36DA, Tax Lots 100, 101, 102, 902, , a drainageway located surrounding . . .,.....,.......... August 19._.8 0 108th A.venue and on the south side of an_d_231q. 2si _p_o__SUB,DTVISION S'6-79 (Cxoif Creek " Durham Road(Wash.Co.Tax Map Estates)NPO No.6 ' „,..., 15A, Tax Lots 1000, 1100, 1101, .1200, A request 1)y IVIichael D. Elton for a • .4°' 1300, 1500, 1501,1900, 1901 and 2100). ' A fr.__ 53 CONDITIONAL USE, t U 12-80 resubmittal of a Stkbdivision* pplica- LIUMI (Richard Cochran Tire Shop) NPO No, tion lOcated at the southwest corner of . SW 108th and SW Durham. Road , rw,.....„,,,,sh.Co.Tax Map 251 15A,Tax 1...0t. aly commission expires ................ „I 1 A request by Ritha.rd Cochran for a louu)„. . ,v ' Conditional Use for a Tire Shop located 5.3 ZONE CHANGE/COIViPR.EHEN- il , at 12533 SW IVla Street (Wash. Co. srvE PLAN REV/SION,ZC/CPR. - Tax Map 251 2AB,Tax Lot 2100). 23-80 (Robert Randall Co.) NPO NO. --- Publ h Au 20—....../ 1i980 . , (Tr 4626 isg. ,1 ,--. --- .. _ A. request by the Robert Randall . ,....................... Company for a Zone Change/Compre- hensive Plan Reviltion from C-3"Corn- , , , mercial Retail" to A-12 "Urban Me& r . urn Density Multifamily Residential' •, .. -and C-4 "Residential CoT,Mnercial" 1 . . .. , cated at the northwest corner i,;,f S Hall Blvd. and SW 'Durham Roe!, (Wash.Co,Tax.Mal 2S1 11DD,'Tax .4•,, .' 200). ' t■. . : .' itt: '4::::1 :1:1 • ... ■ ". I , 1 I , 1 , •i4,...el • ,• •. % r•+'4,, "3;.,...n41,-.')•1,:,' .: I 1H .:,1'',''.1' :4'kl';•*?.trirl,i-•- : I I • 1 '9,,4'''!, 41:01, '.k.' ' , 1 .11 ; 4•`„, 1:',P,, :, : , . h c •,.1 ., `'• c' 4, •1- 4. „, 4 . .• f .„ .. . • .-.4 , . 1 • , • t. .„ , 4 . , • , e • . i sj.,i c. III- , . . 111 0, P ,., t, ,y . July 30, 1980 e Mr. Aldie Howard • , Cheirman, Planning Staff City of Tigard Tigard, Oregon 97223 'e . . Re: Golf Creek Estatee -: ,• 108th/110th Avenues at Durham Road Tigard, Oregon 0 Dear Mr, Howard: • . , 1 Under over yoe will find enc.',.osed a copy of the agreement from Mr. James ' Lamkin, the adjacent property owner on the west, regarding his certification s , to the approval of the half street, temporary access and connection at some future time with SW 113th Avenue. Also, you will find enclosed a plot plan as requested indicating the Lamkin property and the proposed development at Y ", eeete future date to connect SW 110th with SW 113th and subsequent closing of . 6 access to Durham Road. /Furthermore, as requested, we do hereby acknowledge that we will hold our houses on the proposed lots in Golf Creek Estatrs back fifty feet from the ' centerline of the creek thus maintaining the sensitive lands area requirement, , Also, we will agree by covenant to the subdivision that the association of , homeowners will maintain the creek area free of refuse and any other unsightly debris, . i , . It is further hereby understood and agreed to close the access along 110th . , .., at such time as the future street connection can be made to S\ 113th Avenue, e 4 jr P 1 At such time as we receive a definitive agreement from the City of Tigard • regarding this alternate proposal for temporary acess to 110th and other items as mentioned above, we shall agree to sign the sewer easement through the creek area with the understanding that the trees along the sewer easement U . will in every possible respect be saved and not destroyed to make way for the . sewer. This is an important item to us because of the beauty of the creek and • our deslre to relate our Landscaping to the beauty of that creek without destroying the amenities thereof. We would appreciate your presenting this before the plannieg commission and , -. City Council at the earliest possible date so that we can cooperate with the ), 31) , engineers an.d contractors for the installation of the sewer as proposed. , Very truly yov,rs, t,* , tnclosures Oct Mr. Et Cagle J., 0 ., i .. , '\ , .: . i 'II . . - • , U 7 • u , Associates, inc. ,, CNGINEERS-SURVCYORS, 8905 S.W. COMMERCIAL, STREET TIGARD, OREGON 97223 'Telephone(503)639-3453 IP ■ July :22., 1980 • v ,w •- / , . Mr. Edward I. Engel Goldsmith,� Siegel , Engel and Littlefield ,t 875 Boise Cascade Bldg. 1600 S. W. 4th Avenue • Portland, G;regon.9720) Re: Summerfield Trunk Easement No. 9 Michael 0. Elton M rl .. Dear Mr. Eng0 ti . We are enclosing a copy of the ,,sewer easement and temporary con_, structi on easement for Mr. Elton. 0 1 The consideration for both easements would he: r 1 . If the subdivision is built a 8" 6" tee and ,7 feet of 6-inch - , side sewer would be installed to the edge of the sewer easement for , ' P, w the 11 lots shown on the preliminary plat. 2. If the subdivision was not built the side sewers would not be p4, I built and Mr.. E;ton would be paid $600.00. The sewer l oca'..i on has been checked by Mr. Elton's engineers ,faker and Associates. It is located in the low ground which is a non-buildable area. w , • �` When the method of compensation is determined, we can give you a �:.., p .. 'w; letter on the side sewers or �i insert $600,00 in the temporary ry easement. • Sincerely, /6/:(1 2''''' ''''' ,,... . . ■ 1' ' Harris-Mc onagle Associates, Inc,- , . By: Stuart L. Cato,. P.E. ..° w SLC.ds ,, d cc: Michael U. Elton . , 'cc: Roy Brown • , I 4 1 • .` .._ .......'.'n . ,,,'ryro.AUy .w" ♦ ,rcp.a:vµYeK ..y^-V..«.. .-.r.n/r y . � 1r`" ' r.F.^�� fd . ,' jt a .,_ ,tir _12,....„„.11, ., --- -, ..' , . d I CIVIL ENGINEERING th, 21 ri WAK ER PLANNING.SURVEYING ifEt)v . Associates Inc, . , July 18, 1980 Job #56101 \ . i,.. ,.. --.., 0 Jim Lamkin 10960 S. W. Durham Road Tigard, Oregon 9722,3 0 RE: Golf Creek ... • \, Dear Jim, '- t 0 - , We have been negotiating with the city of Tigard on access to Mr. Eitons property and have come to an agreement with some conditions that would require your -Approva'0 , The first condition is that you do not object to the developrent of our street in its . ., proposed loc6tion. The second conditioa would be that you would agree to dedicate and improve the other half of the street when you wish to develop your property. The last Condition is that this , . street end in a cul-de-sal at Durham Road if and when future .0 connection to S.W. 113th can be provided. -A • I have enclosed a revised possible develiopment plan for your 4 • ' property so that yo J can have an idea of woat is trying to be accomplished by the city. ekr We would lIke to have your comments and or written approval .• - of these conditions so that we may proceed with the development of Mr Eltons' property, If you have any questionJ please do not hesitate to call . III .. Thank you, . Sincerly, WAKER ASSOCIATES ,3,1C. • fe Walsh lanning Director JW/ ..k jh ENCLOSURE: • , , ,. .. 14080W ALLEN BLVD. / SUITE 100 1 r4:AVEP,r0N, OP■EISON n7005 / (503) 643-9410 .. 4, a Y. II . , ' *...• ''N 'A --"- — ' _ , - • • 4 4t. July 18,1980 56101 C rit To Whom It May Concern: .7, The undersigned has agreed to have the following conditions placed on future develorlent of Tax Lots 1300 and 1600 T2S, RIW, Section 15A ,,Wne'd by James Lamkin: P ^ 1 • Does not object tO development of proposed half street for Golf Creek Estates. 2. Agr9.e to dedicate and improve o4'her half of street upon de% sllopment of Tax Lots 1300 and 1600. 3. Agree to end street in Cul-Pc-Sac at Durham Road if and when future street connection can be made to S.W. 118th s, Avenue. - • r;mes Lamkin or) 14k: 0960 S. W. Durham Road Tigard, Oregon 97223 • , . ■ 160- ' " ..1 „ie dr,74 .00,4keeizezesd. • a�. LANDIS,'AEBi & 3A1L.E'Y LAWYERS 1616 GEORGIA-PACIFIC BUILDING a , PORTLAND, OREGc r 97204 TELEPHONE(503)2'4'1-6532 i^ (4)DAVID C.LAW-US / '' •. FRED M.AEFI • JOE D.BAILEY JOHN C.MERC.••»R July 30, 1980 JAMES M.CALLAHAN !ti ANNA M.MORAN H.ELIZABETH GOEBEL t • Mr. Aldie Howard Planning Director City of Tigard P. Or Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 ra. Dear Aldie: Elton v. City of Tigard Ito I enclose a copy of a letter I have received from Ed Engel, Mr. Elton's lawyer, as a result o: a telephone con- '1 versation I had with him July 28. You will remember that I . called you earlier that day to see where things stood. We have a nervous bunch of people involved here: Dick Waker, Ed Engel, and the man at the Land Use Board of I” Appeals, Mr. Bagg. Wherever I turn there is someone wringing his hands with concern about all the ways something could go wrong. I send you this letter just to keep you informed as to the kinds of responses I am getting as I try to assist in '•� resolving this problem. Very truly yours, ci-i) Joe D. ) JDB/fir Enc1osure, o • •W4, - '"`••+a v...a-a;'.:«w r.„:.,a.:,....s r.....::.,_::.; ,.,:.,.. . - ::.-.. ,,',,.,.. rxnve..>:.a..,c...,-rxw:.:xm..,w•cae»amuwry,•r an7+rn,uc..7y.:,....x .w"-t.}r'u.=+--L �•x:G..-•'n..:ac.:.4. � n , _ Y• . a p ■ . ' • ♦ 1 • J ♦ \ / \ p• [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] , • GOLDSMITH, SIEGEL, ENGEL & LITTLEFIELD •. ATTORNEYS S AT LAW , • • • B7S BOISE CASCADE BUILDING ARTHUR A.GOLDSMITH 11894-19651 1800 5,W.4TH AVENUE SOL sitGEL PORTLAND, OREGON 97E01 GERSON F.GOLDSMITH EDWARD L ENGEL TELEPHONE(503)226-4165 BRAD LITTLEFIELD July 28,. 1980 • Joe Bailey, Esq. Attorney at Law , Georgia-Pacific Building PortlaLd, Oregon 97204 . Re: My client: Mike Elton • Your Client: City of Tigard Dear Joe: This will, serve to confirm my telephone conversation of July 28, 1980 regarding the above-capitoned matter as ! . follows: a. Aldie Howard wants a new proposal from Mike Elton consisting of a plan designating the ' roadway together with a statement setting forth that 110 Avenue will be converted to a cul-de-sac as soon as the new roadway has been constructed. b. In addition, Aldie Howard has requested that Mike ' Elton obtain a written agx:Gcment from Mr. Lampkin agreeing to the foregoing together with agreeing to pay one-half the cost of the roadway extension to the prospective street. 4 t c. Aldie Howard furthermore told my client orally that he needed a 50 foot set back from the "sensitive area" consisting of the creek. d. At the present time, Mr. Howard has scheuled the matter for Planning Commission consideration on Tuesday, September 2, 1980, and it will probably not be put before the City Counsel until the meeting September 232, 1980. e. we will retain the August 28, 1980 hearing date be- fore the Land Use Board of Appeals until we see whether, nor not the foregoing mati,ers appear to have been resolved. se-f if • Joe Bailey, Esq. Re: Elton v City of Tigard -2- f. No new application will have to be filed, however, new notices will have to go out to the abutting property owners,„ g. In the meantime, we will retain the hearing date of August 28 , 1980 pending resolution of the foregoing matters. If there is any question regarding any of these matters, please contact me immediately. Very truly -yours, EIE:pas Lrt :A.RD I. ENGEL cc: Michael Elton Dick Waker Kevin Hanway, Esq. • . A ,, r ,,F F'. ri PP RffeEIVED GOLDSMITH, SIEGEL, ENGEL & LITTLEFIELD ATTORNEYS AT LAW MAR 2 # 198 t 675 8015E CASCADE BUILDING b ARTHUR A.GOLDSMITH(1694-I965) 1600 S.W.4TH AVENUE CITY OF TIGARD sCL sIEGEL PORTLAND, OREGON 97201 ,, , GERSON F GOLDSMITH — �� EDWARD I.ENGEL TELEPHONE(503)226-4185 BRAD LITTLEFIELD t March 20, 1980 Land Use Board of Appeals �, C� 7 '.. 475 Cottage Street, N.E. �L -� Salem, OR 97301 • Re: Michael D. Elton v. City of Tigard ;. LUBA No. 80-•022 J �n . 'gip- „ Dear Madam or Sir: Enclosed field for filing of record in the above-captioned • matter the following original documents: a. Motion by petitioner. • 1 ^ b. Amended Notice of Intent to Appeal , c. Affidavit of Michael D. Elton. d. Affidavit of Richard C. Waker. e. Affidavit of Joe Walsh. .i f . Affidavit of Edward I. Engel. , g. Affidavit of Mailing, wherein copies of the foregoing • . documents have been sent to the parties listLd thereon. Very truly yours Please advise. 4:1/./1/714L,,,-,\ 1 1 i,,,�-' . fi i ,"35,6 f%'f, D.1 gAri-' 'EN E `: 2.11Etkk enclosures cc: Joe' Bailey, Es q. (with copy of enclosures) � ity of Tigard 11 ' ) 4, Ni-vin L. Hanway, E sg. Michael D. Elton w Richard C . waker '1 fl ,.,..sw.I4LrNwt.•W4 KgLL+d4 ... k. 0 .1 ✓ f .. • ' l ;± ,i L.. ....A..._...,. , a......,....r-.A,..»...,,..,...li..L.:.. .e,....,.w.,,». .,.1J" . r,.-r..a, ..««.+.,µ«.............4«--.,.....,»,,.._., .,.....,•«+Ae.....,...M..A.....•,r t...........-ir...M,...a,....-.?N.:4_,...._x..wi.__.-.•+,u... .,..,r «„L+. dfl d....... ,.......,.,..�.«...t..,k.,. .«..i ..J,..«..v.» .., I� I� el 1 BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS a 2 OF* THE, .STATE OF OREGON • 3 MICHAEL D. EL`TON, ) 4 Petitioner, ) 5 vs. ) LUBA No. 80-022 6 CITY OF TIGARD, ) » 7 Respondent. ) , 8 MOTION 9 COMES NOW petitioner and moves for entry of an Order as , 10 follows: 11 1. Dismissing respondent' s Motion to Dismiss and holding 12 the same for naught upon the grounds and for. the reason that counsel p 13 for respondent accepted service of petitioner ' s Notice of Intent iiK, 14 to Appeal on February 29, 19 8 0 but failed to challenge the same C t 15 within ten days thereafter as required by Rule 14 ($) . . •• 16 2. In the alternative, and without waiving his first 1? motion, petitioner requests permission to amend his Notice cr Intent ,, 1 18 to Appeal in order to allege the following W ! F it 'V 19 A. The date of respondent's hearing was January 28, �18.T. 19 8 0 X38&1 20 1980 . (D.-. w° I OR r . ,•io` 21 B. The date respondent sent written. notice of its ca o m'r'. w_iooa "15.<1.1t a 22 denial was January 30, 1980? as evidenced by a N 23 copy of the same, attached to the Amended Notice 8 7,2 24 of Intent to Appeal (marked Exhibit A therein) . 25 C. The date of receipt of such written notice of 26 denial by petitioner and his representatives was lage 1. MOTION' rA r1. I �r..�✓rt". .t.],I..ti'. ,,,.j:y...y t ..:.'..:,. .y ;.., ...� .. '.-. . -rn. .. upe , as ..ti.xrvgF+.fw rwiaT..,f4uwir". ers.... ..•w.iw..A.w«.:.I-.t....W..,..isyuw...]. - . ..+..A.«I.-...-«...,,....V.........:na..l.....,:.A.,,..:, _..,..,...._.._...,.,.._............�.._,......_s.; H.t....-..._....,.«,,...".�fa......n....`..._/n.a.............,.r.u..........,......_,.,.-...-.....-L.:.._.._-......H._,.......�..._...........«.....,...,...�._..._...S L�,r..�1.�`".y^.�..t • Wy • 1 February r1, 1980, as evidenced by appropriate 2 Affidavits being filed contemporaneously h- ewith. •. Ka /4 l Edward I. Engel, of w. 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff cAti 6 a a 10 11 • 12 • 13 I 14 • 15 16 17 18 „, Wa W *. 19 dS o°ao-$ 20 g 66-2 21 t'1 Ota C rte rJ O n1`,,cMyyyy CO 94 • 25 ry 'age PLOT i OY AI .u.• .., INwl9'y ta.0«.lYA4"0.�...`.:.'.:'.r..�.iW ,..:' +C .. .:�,..w...,._�.n i�. ,a. .+,myn:c.l Saar`' w..r n¢.v Rr:NIr.FRrn t4C .aw,pY.WW.rce.N./M/ lu +....siW.::k:.rww... .v-ryh ., . 1 , 4F a u:,. -+.I;if..T '4........ ..✓�.2.41.L...y,.- .ti.;..w - «- ..._.-.. .. ,..«w.,_w.....mk..., ,w.:J1h....v.. .-...c...tM..___-.»-,ti»..C..«:.a 4--j.: &I.«:-...1...w _,_.,_.-.,.... ,.t, _ -,,.r,S-.. BEFORE THE L AND USE BOARD OF APPEALS o'. OF TIE STATE OF OREGON 3 MICHAEL 'D D. ELTON, ) =3 ) fl 4 Petitioner, ) ) 6 vs . ) LUBA No. 80-022 6 CITY OF TIGARD, ) 7 Respondent. ) 8 AMENDED ' 9 NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL -\ • 10 I. V - 11 Amended Notice is hereby given that petitioner intends 12 to appeal that land use decis'on of respondent entitled S6-79 which 13 involved denial of Subdivision Application for Golf Creek Estates ' 14 which was the subject of the following action by respondent: 15 A. The date of respondent' s hearing was January 28, 1980 . 16 B. The date respondent sent written notice of its denial 17 to petitioner was. January 30, l980, as evidenced by a 18 copy of the same, marked Exhibit A, attached hereto and 11, w W 19 b Y this reference incor orated herein. °, 4 4 a ill 20 C. The date of receipt. of such written notice of denial ® c: 2 by petitioner and his representatives was February 1, 1980, W 'O im' 4a 22 as evidenced by appropriate Affidavits being filed con- dam 5 23 temporaneously herewith. 2 4 II. Iby 25 Petitioner, Michael D. Elton, is represented by Edward I. ,. 6 Engel, 875. Boise Cascade Building, Portland, Oregon 97201; phone 225-4135 : r ' Puge I . AME TDED NO'tIC E OF INTENT TO PPEAL , Ao ,. 4' y ....».t.........--. ......«...,.,..,..t_,.—.--,...',.,-......,—,..e--)4- .' ,..:—....,..16...-„,..-,..--,-._,.,,...:,4,41 :w,..x ......;k.'.-.,._.tom.....................,......_......_.._..-,. .....,-......k.....,....+4,..,,,”.,..i,,,..,L.,-,-..:•:v.....i.,,,,„',.....u.....:.4.,...-.....a1...;....A\.»...,,...,::—...., »-,.,..».. ,. • d w ` w ''L' . ' k' ( r /' 'k, 1 Applicant, Michael D. Elton, was represented in the 2 proceoding below by Richard . Waker, P.E. , 11080 S'.W• Allen Blvd. , ' 3 Suite 100, Beaverton, Oregon 97005; phone 643-9410; and by himself. d~ 4 Respondent, City of Tigard, has as its mailing address --�. F 4• 5 and telephone number P. O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223; phone o 6 639-4171; and has, as its legal counsel, Joe D. Bailey, of Landis, , Aeb$ & Bailey, 1516 Georgia-Pacific Bld g• , Portland, Oregon 97204; 8 phone 224-6532 . r 9 Other persons, designated by the City of Tigard as parties 10 to the proceeding below, are none. 11 III. . . -, 12 NOTICfl: 13 A;,Zyone designated in paragraph II of this Amended Notice 14 other than. respondent, City of Tigard, who desires to participate as n 15 a party in this case before the Land Use Board of Appeals must file i i with the Board a Statement of Intent to Participate in this proce- r 16 1I eding as required by Section 5 of the Board' s. Administrative Rules. . 18 The Statement must be filed with the. Board within 15 days of service . S.¢ w `'C 19 of this Nrtice. r r .Y "\,..<e,! ' - ia / ' 0, .e w . ...J v.,,‘ :75 20 4,,ii o ct, �r"w {'i i ri° 21 ?r ,.. _ 1 ap W oat o Edward I I. Engel,, of p " s "5:7111 ,,, 22 Attbrneys for Petitioner ,.i L 1....' V,.C/ 1 L dS I t 1 2 0 23 ° f ,may ;EVI �'Y 1110,1"' " .r , if 0v UNI 002 x* " w" Mitt C , * '1 1 C 4.flit,/ .e ,� � y : r Page 2. ANDED NOTICE OP INTENT TO APPEAL f[ o '"Ima, _-'.yt A -:a `._ ';:c a ' uw" «c,r+x .mnr..rro+;'. .•„•,wm,wnmrmvnNm+z'ak^wix'- 'rh..:..:.t w..:..:t'•..::y........5:.+^cre'..r^,-u ..,. .. . , ' .,,-,-.-.--.-*.-....,-',--.....ij■:(a,...-,...“1.......---,..2'.....-..-. ....1.,-.:r 6';',7r,4:_,..,-4-,,,,,—.......u- P....?.,..L........'...,.4.4,„...,..._0\w--4...,.!--_-.......-...e4.--,,,,,,,......1.,,,Aas-,..--+,-,..-,. ,..., .-I,'. .._. ... • - , Vt. 1 ry OF 1,--IG R D -, ,....,....... „ , ..::......:,....=,.. ". , P.O.Box 23397 12420 S.W.Main . Tigard,Oregon 97223 • , . ... .. ...' . . . . - . • . . January 30, 1980 . , Mr. Joe Walsh, Planning Director 0 , iti • paler Associates Inc. 11080 S.W, Allen Blvd., Suite '',,00 • . Beaverton, Oregon 97005 . . .,..•- Re: Golf Creek Estates (S 6-79) - Dear Mr. ,Walsh: •. ,. PI ea,.$e, be advised the Tigard City Council at thei regular meeting of • ,. • January'28, 1980; upheld the decision of the Planning Commission and your appeal is therefore denied. . .- . Enclosed is a check which represents the amount to be refunded after I' deducting the following expenses: .t. ' I, Deposit 12-21-79.... $250.00 7 ' . . Transcribing costs $80.00. Publishing Tigard Times 5.78 ..., Sub Total (expenses) 85.78 85.78 . . Balance to be refunded 164.22' . ' . If you have further questions regarding the above, please,-,feel free to \ .., contact me. — i Sincerely, , -- . Doris Eartig if / City Recorder 0, .../ . r-' Dli l m . • _., • Furl asure - • „ re: Hi citae.1 Elton . . ' . „ . o ., 0 Y- ("8.1,0J-17C1 '...-::1.-ji 0 0 ""'.. 14(14:1 ' S'3 .,r, • ' . C ...il,' _, 0, 1 . . 4 0 , • ), XXII I B.1:1,' A , . . . • . , ' \.. _ 11 . . d w_.ti ; ..i .,•,_,...... ,»,n.,.....» ..,. t. z,. w ., :. _wn.-_. »1..,,.._ ,. .... ._,l!• .,..im.«-. , a..4, ... .,•. 4 ' (T: I r 0 1 BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS 2 OF THE STATE OF OREGON rl 3 MICHAEL D. ELTON, ) .A 4 Petitioner, ) ° 5 vs . ) LUBA No. 80-022 1 6 CITY OF TIGARD, ) a 7 Respondent. ) 8 AFFIDAVIT 9 STATE OF OREGON ) ,.• • 1 ) ss . 10 County of Multnomah ) t 11 I, MICHAEL D. ELTON, being first duly sworn on oath, a . 12 depose and say: 13 1. That I am the petitioner named herein and that I 14 make this Affidavit in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss filed 15 by the respondent. . 16 2. That the first w.rit',:en notice. I received of denial 17 was by copy of a letter, dated January 30,r 1980, from Doris Hartig . ,, at 18 as evidenced by Exhibit A, attached hereto and by this reference . a Q 19 incorporated herein. That such letter was received by me, by mail, . "•6*�'N 20 an r813-:nary 1, 1980 . 41.E eR ' ,..i nor tnp'n� �i 1 MC f I. " ' r,; //,(1,:_---'' w.c'.. m -� , '6'90'a 22 WA OF,. / i,„ /. , .. 4 , .. 4,,,,:, 624 417! It ' D. - .a::. / yD �" ry W. CCJJ if r '24 Subscribed and sworn to befor me this r """`day of .` 25 March, 19 80 . �y" A `y o/' . s 26 r'o -ary 'isu6f c far Oit gon • My Commis'i•orr expires : 34'7/81 81 . Page AFFIDAVIT (OF MICHAEL D. ELTON) ..T«•,...,.... s ai_.. ..,„.. ,.._._ •....ten'_«.r.,.,..,-.....,,x' ... ..o,, . . •. k ..,. C.. CITY OF TIG R J ' ° „, P.O.Box 23397 r 12420 S.W.Main Tigard,Oregon 97223 , r • January 30, 1980 „ Mr. Joe Walsh, Planning Director i Walter Associates Inc. 4 . 11080 S.W. !'Alen Blvd., Suite 100 . Beaverton, Oregon 97005 ' i ..v° Re: Golf Creek .Estates (S 6-79) ` • . Dean Mr. Walsh: • M' Please be advised the Tigard. City Council at their regular meeting of '., January'28, 1980, upheld the decision of the Planni:lg Commission and ;'nur appeal is therefore denied. V? Enclosed is a check which represents the amount tr, be rer,/nded after F dcductirtg the following expenses: ,:. Deposit 12-21,-79.. $250.00 Transcribing costs $80.00 Publishing Tigard Times 5.78 • 0• Sub Total (expenses) 85.78 85.78 Balance to be refunded 164.27 . f If you have ,further questions regarding the attove, pleasenrfeel free to '? contact me. Sincerely, . r`�' • - Doris Bartig '' ct' City Recorder 0. `. Olitlm , t Enclosure - Crock ' • cc: Michael Elton j _ fA. 'Lt OC -/4/.: ), ,. 1 y B:1H IB IT A. 1. I\ r � BEF?RE THE LAND v.SE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON 3 MICHAEL D. ELTON, ) a:%etitioner, ) 5 vs• ) LUBA No. 80-0;,,t2 ) • 6 CITY OF TIGARD, ) ) 7 Respondent. ) r,. 8 AFFIDAVIT , 9 STATE OF OREGON. ) ) ss. 10 County of Multnomah ) 11 I, RICHARD C. WAKE R, being first duly sworn, upon oath, 12 depose and say: 13 1. That I am the President of Waker Associates, Inc. 1d and a representative of the petitioner named herein and that I 16 make this Affidavit in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss filed 16 by the respondent. 17 2. That on February 1, 1980, we received the first 18 written notice of denial by letter, dated January 30, 1980, from ; 4 a a w A 19 Doris Hartig, as evidenc.,d by Exhibit A, attached hereto and by fit, E L. 30 l 20 this reference. into_ ora - • h, xe .n. \ tiit',2g!H I MOW CEBTAFT THAT 0 Fowl q ' fi. a �3Z , Cain/.C :rj2 o vole V7<G 0 m 22 '^ -J + wi _ �_ "l.4^,/�4ii �m //yy " Richard C Wain r 0 l Subscribed and sworn to .before m this 19th day, ef arch, IA 24 1980. ! ! , ;4.:// 25 ( t ,j( • 1 1/ - 1,44/17 lotary r ubl i.c for Oregon T 26 My Comr,lission exl ires t 3/17 41 ,Page. AFFIDAVIT (OF RICI'IARD C. WAXER) •• .•. .. • ,_-I alt. .r.......++--Y:.....w.: . .....-.x . ... ..:r �..: `.k ..,. •. .....,1 n ' i.r..M mite.ix+miRmF+aM,nYN-4k:xrtY^..Y1 r W'(^.-r1:.::.Y..rY„LC.f ^C '!y i • ..---7.7-L.41.:, . ,... ..•......,,....„..A v.,.•..,—---,•.•--,•-----.1.,.3.•-.--.,.....„...,.................._..i....._„....§,—,..L=:.T...._2$;4).7/---E.............,................— \r,,,---;•......4.:1•::`,... — 4 )::,:::: ,,::11 0 1 r a a. [••I'. .c • ' 4:1 li % .i. , . . \'`.......: ITY OF TIG 'RD 13,0.Box 21397 12420 S.W.Main Tigard,Oregon 97223 • . , . . . . . ' . ' , • January 30, 1980 Mr. Joe 1.1.-...1sh, Planning Director Walter Ass:...ia teS Inc. • . . . 11080 S.W. Allen Blvd., Siite 100 Beaverton, Oregon 97005 . . : , .. . Re: Golf Creek Estates (S 6-79) - • ' .Dear Mr. Walsh: Please be ocivised the Tigard City Council at their regular meeting of • January"28,, 1980, upheli the decisioo of the Planning Commission and your appeal is therefot:e denied. . ... t . Enclosed is a check %..),lich represents the amount to be refunded after deducting the follawi.i,g expenses: Deposit 12-71-79__ ' $250.00 , . . . • Transcribing costs $80.0& ,.,. Publishing I%gard Times 5.78 . ' ..., . —... . Sub Total (vexpensds) 85.78 85.78 te . Balance to be, refunded 164.22' , • If you have further questions regarding the atiove,, pleaseerfeel free tto contact me. Sincerely, • ... Doris BartLg City Recorder .., Dli:lt , .. . . . Enclosure — check cc: Michael Elton , , O_J' ktoi-t-e_ci -113 e.-L-ro,,,, z1/41 o4 [.. i . ) . er . . EXM18IT A , . ,.., . ■,..-+ ' ...---..; . ..... , , ..,......,...-„_-„.. .' p e y 1 BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS ; I • 2 OF THE STATE OF OREGON i'. . 3 MICHAEL D. FNTON'1 ) IV °' 4 Petitioner, ) 5 vs . ) LUBA No. 80-022 ' 6 CITY OF TIGARD, ) ) , 7 Respondent. ) 8 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING 4' - 9 STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss. • A 10 County of Multnomah ) • f 11 I, EDWARD I . ENGEL, being first duly sworn upon oath, 12 depose and say +-hat I am the attorney for the petitioner in the 13 above-entitled cause and that on the 2.D day of March, 1980, I ' 14 caused a copy of the following documents to be sent by certified r . 15 mail 16 1. Amended Notice of Intent to Appeal . . 17 2. Motion by petitioner. . 4 18 3. Affidavit of Mi.chael D. Elto a 3IT', 19 4 . Affidavit of Richard C. Wa} aJ I 4 nay 20 5 . Affidavit of Edward I. EngE,. z,"`E. 6 6 . Affidavit of Joe Walsh Walsh. , , O 21 Said copies were distributed to the ollowng persons t9 o'v'a c 9 " ' 9 q�� 22 at their addresses listed herein: 23 4 0 3:roe D. Bailey , ° ti LANDIS f AEBI & BAILEY 24 Attorneys at Law" 1516 Georgia-Pacific Bldg. 25 Portland, Oregon 97204 . 26 * * * * * 1. Page 1, AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING (; _ r . . .„ . , ,., •• - i. . - :- . I,' ,,, . • , • : ,.; . ....s.....-.....-.A`w _a..,...,,., .,...,...t.,,,xu:.-AS+w.,,,,,,t,,,. ... : i,..,,-,11axi..,,.. ,.....∎...41,3;a...,,r;41,.A._.;::,,..«-..—..-...n .44“»._ u.∎........;441_✓I-.,.....41:,.....4.44,.....-:c4"-.........-.;.5....t......... .........,, r4..:U_,,.',,,.1.∎.....,..:ra.a..,,,,,,,,U 4,:, 1.4...a...a,444---„....1..,..4. 4k (44 +4 . ' ( ''' , r 1 City of Tigal•d P. O Box 23397 2 Tigard, Oregon 97223 . Kevin L. Hanway Attorney` at Law 4 Home Builders .Z..ssociat;. , ' e 3140 N..E E . Broa.,dway : Portland, Oregon. 97232 -, 6 Michael D. Elton ” 500 N.H . Multno ah, Suite 380 1 Portlan;, Oregon 97232 ; 8 Richard C . Waker 110*80 S.W. Allen Blvd. , Suite 100 .. Beaverton, Oregon 97005 „,, .1S/ '\ ' , , /• /„...'"\, ./ P -• ° ' Ire., . , . i01, ,e,,,4,11,,) \ ?'`_:,'...P.: 44 ,e; 11 �r '' f f . 1 Edward I: - Engel,, of r , Attorneys for PetitionAr .q • ' '' 13 Subscribed; and sworn, to before me this 20 day of • 14 March, 1980 . .. , �.�. �. . Notary Public for Oreg . . 6 My Commission expires : J/11/82 . .• 17 �1 . 18 • l W � 19 '�° i. O ivw r,y_ wRt . -- 22 23 `f�� .„ m a c8 ,,,, k 24 rr r'' h 25 L. 26 'Page 2. Ak?ID1t.'IT Or I► „fir..ING , • 4' ^+ , .... .. ' •''• . ' • . .\ I t o \' .. . rt, ' 1.. . co aim ‘k-'Iv , . k.....- ' 012,),4-74". /2,-e--/-1,4 6, 3/12-1° s GOLDSWTH, SIEGEL, ENGEL Z.* LITTLEFIELD 9/C-. 7714-(-4 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 8,5 BoiSE CASCADE BUILDING *.F /i ,, •- ARTHUR A.GOLDSMF.14 089.4.-I9851 1150D S.W. 4TH AVENUE ,,, SOL,SIEGEL PORTLAND, OPSGON 9720i .... , If 0 GERSON I-1 GOLDtMITH dm , —7—t , . . . , EDWARD L ENGEL TELEPHONE%SOO,226.4185 E3RAD LITTLEFIELD .....2 C.........,... ' February 27 , 198 , . . , . • ,4 . , .77 , . , Land Use Board of Appeals , 475 Cottage Street,i. N.E. Salem, OR 0301 -///4/...--'-//''' ,,---- Re: Petitioner - Michael D Elton .. . Respondent - City of Tigard . , - ! ' Dear Madam or Sir: .. . . Enclosed find original together with three copies of Notice of . Intent to Appeal regarding the above-captioned matter for your ( further action,. Also enOlosed you will find petitioner' s checks numbered 600 and .. • 601, in the amount of $50 and $150 respectively, representing . payment on account of the filing fee and costs herein. , . > ' If there is any question regarding this matter then please contact me immediately. • Very truly yours, ./. , ! EDWARD I. ENGEL •,, ,... EIE:kk enclosures • cc: 3-2,..e.,Bailey, Esq. (wit'li copy of Notice) ity of Tigard (with copy of Notice) Richard C. Waker (with copy of Notice) • Michael D. Elton (with copy of Notice) . . • , .., • i . , ... . , 1 . 1 , . '' • ' .. ._, +..... ...-. .....».».. in,...,......................./. ..m.,.,..........,.h..r_ .,,._.1'n,l✓,wl...«..,...m-.4.—.u».J...rv.....««.......wr,...:'k....»t.nN....f.......».w..x...ry-...., r,..r......-........-.. ...,i.i..,.... ..i,.....-..._. _.l.v._......._.._....,...............................a...............i u....st,,..........„_.... , r' /- Y?J---/? f . . 1 BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS 2 OF THE STATE OF OREGON J 3 MICHAEL D. ELTON, ) ) . . 4 Petitioner, ) 5 vs. ) LUBA No. . _ - ) . 6 CITY OF TIGARD, ) ) 7 Respondent. ) NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL 9 I,. 10 Notice is hereby given tha*etitioner i zds, to appeal 11 that land use decision of respondent entiti d S6-79, which became 12 final on January 28 , 1980 and which involved denial of subdivision wt . 13 application for Golf Creek Estates. 14 II. • 15 Petitioner, Michael U. Elton, is represented by Edward I. 16 Engel, 875 Boise Cascade Building, Portland, Oregon 97201; phone . ,'r' 17 226-4185.° * a 18 Applicant, Michael D, .Elton, was represented in the .. i, W < 19 proceeding below by Richard C. Taker, P E . , 11080 S .W. Allen N 20 Blvd. , Suite 100 , Beaverton, Oregon 97005, phone 643- 9410; and by : z, cw' w:..:1,Og 21 himself, . �,4 22 Respondent, City of Tigard, has as its mailing address and 2 23 telephone number P. 0. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 57223 , phone m ) . c 24 63.9-4171, and has , as its legal counsel, Joe Bailey, 25 Other persons, designated by City of Tigard as parties to 26 the proceeding .belovr are none Ps NOTICE�� 1. � O.E INTENT TO APPE.Ai, a ` , , , ” ,o. A tl ,. . poi r • /1- ,-,_t.......,- ..._.,- .:n. ._._.,1..,..... _ _\-,..•.,,...,..-A-!:......;l.-W. -._ .....k...t....V.--..,» .........,,,>2-....0.,..-.--,—...,,,,,,., ...._. ......._..,...-.......-_...,..•«..^.........,∎J........,,.. ,..i:.:,:....3.k .,......,. ..M.,., .r._......__...,• III . • • li 2 NOTICE r 3 Anyone designated in paragraph II of this Notice other than 4 respondent City of Tigard who desires to participate as a party in • S this case before the Land Use Board of Appeals must file with the .. 6 Board a Statement of Intent to Participate • in this proceeding as 7 required by Section 5 of the Board's administrative rules. The 8 Stat+ mint must be filed with the Board within l5 d1 of v serice 9 of this Notice. r- 10 (7 )( b I T) 11 L'741) 4 4r 't.4°. 6/ Edw d I . Engels f 12 Attorneys for Petitioner 13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE • 14 I hereby certify that on February 27, 1980, I served a true 15 and correct copy of this Notice of Intent to Appeal on all persons,.. 16' listed in paragraph II of this Notice by certified mail, with Notice to Joe Bailey, Esq. at 139 N.E . Lincoln, Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 , 17 Dated February` 27, 1980. 19 -2,46.71,r, t9�,`'gcy Ic1 .," \fros. LiJ~ y 4 2 1� w a G.g W e-r $ Q - co 24 26 Page 2. 40 i:CE OF INTENT TO APPEAL a::F.ax.e;u_s..e.,a.z".;. .r, ,,..,,.,.,.,',r_..:., '..., :.. :,.'. ,...'-.'.....,; n..,,.yv:m.:.s'-,.:,R,.:uw.n'.. ".:;c+,mi,M=insrtz...,..:,w::.-r:.k..w..r...:...c..r .a•v.:af......po.:..r1�� p ; mow. a „ t \ I a p &1YOFTIGA1D P.O.Box 23397 12420 S.W.Main • Tigard,Oregon 97223 .1 , January 30, 1980 , Mr. Joe Walsh, Planning Director • . Walter Associates Inc. 11080 S.W. Allen Blvd., Suite 100 ' Beaverton, Oregon 97005 Re: Golf Creek Estates (S 6-79) .Dear Mr. Walsh: Please be advised the Tigard City Council at their regular meeting of January`23, 1980, upl.eld the decision of the Planning Commission and your appeal is therefore denied. . Enclosed is a check which represents the amount to be refunded after deducting the following expenses: Deposit 12-21.79; $250.00 Transcribing costs $80.00 Publishing, Tigard Times 5.78 Sub Total (expenses) 85.78 . 85.78 Balance to be refunded 164.22" . 1 If you have ,further questions regardin, the above, pleasetrfeel free to contact me. .1 • Sincere:7 -. .(di;•;e:c...i /e)t(r-r fi' Doris Hartig , . City Recorder . UHtlm 1:;iirlo+sure •- c:Ii.tck • •c: Michael Elton rt .IJL. I c, • 0 E o • E:Li 00 ;-/4.�. • • / .......•.w�. .. ..., a+ Erna { * e 9 .,•+.:rFi.,.r.v......,._,..w..:ti...a:....w,..,.1_.._...,......v11.1��i.».«»...,,.i..x,,.. ...-..C..�..,..»....,.,...,.,`.."�`a:,..,a..u..................�....».L-.....:r_.....—._..._..___..._..._.........-....,__....,..x;nJi:,«_._..»..,. .,,...e,.ll:,_....._..,..:a:.»._..._._._.._....,.._.a;.......»,...,_.. ....«w......._«...w`...+..._,,..«.,__.a..,....._.,...._ , B. SUBDIVISION 6-79 (Golf Creek Estates) NPO #6 The Planning Commission denial of a request by Golf Creek, Estates for a subdivision on a 2.83 acre parcel located at the Southwest corner of S.W. 1 ;` 108th and S.W. Durham Road (Wash. Co, Tai Map 2S1 15A, Tax Lot 1500), which decision has been appealed to the City Council. ,. . (a) Public Hearing Opened. (b) Planning Director noted the location of the subdivision proposal and gave brief synopsis of history. (c) Public Testimony: • Proponents: Ir. Richard . Waker, 11080 S.W., Allen Blvd., Beaverton, developer Mr. Jim Lamkin, 10960 S.W. Durham Road, Tigar4 adjacent property owner Mr. Michael Elton, 1801 Cloverleaf, Lake Oswego, property owner * Tr Each proponent spoke to the question of access onto Durham Road and requested Council allow the access since there were drainage ways on each side of the parcel making access across difficult. (d) Planning 'Director discussed at length the difficulties with access and recommended Council uphold the Planning Commission denial since it `.° conforms with Council's directive to limit access onto Durham Road. Planning Director suggested the applicant work with staff to create acceptable road access and that no fees would be charged for the new application. (e.) Public Hearing Closed. (f) After discussing concerns regarding new access streets being created onto Durham Road, Councilwoman Stimler moved to uphold the Planning 7 Commission decision and deny the request. Councilman Brian seconded the motion, -222.2.91-12Y 4 to 1 majority vote of Council, Mayor Nickelson voting nay. A 9. ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 5-79 (City of Tigard) A request by the City of Tigard for an amendment, to Chapter 18.36 from. C-5 "Limited Neighborhood Commercial" to C-5 "Highway Comr rcial4'. (a) Public Hearing Opened (b) Planning Director stated the request was for a simple uatne change of the C-5 section of the Code. (c) Public Testimony„ No one appeared to speak ' PAGE 2 - REGIMAR MEETING' MINUTES, JANUARY 28, 1980 . , , L :.., .. , „.,,,-: 0,,, , ! # .c., ,04, . ,,,... . ' TIGARD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING ,MINUTES, JANUARY 28, 1980, 7:30 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Alan W. Nickelson, Councilmen. Tom Brian, John Cook, Kenneth Scheckla; Councilwoman Nancie Stimler; Chief of Police, Robert Adams; Legal Counsel, Joe Bailey; City Adniini.s- trator, R.R. Barker; Director of Public Works, Frank Currie; Finance Director/City Recorder, Doris Harti.g; Planning Director., Aldie Howard; Administrative Secretary, Loreen Wilson. 2. CALL TO AUDIENCE FOR THOSE DESIRING TO SPEAK ON NON-AGENDA 7TENS. (a) No one appeared to speak. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 14th and 21st, 1980 (a) Motion by Couzcilwoman. Stimler, seconded by Councilman Cook to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. : » 4. APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURES AND INVESTMENTS: $78,794.97 ,,.' (a) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Cook to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 5. MONTHLY REPORTS: Receive and File- Building, Finance, Library, Police ," (a) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Cook to receive & file. AppLuued by unanimous vote of Council. 6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: . Mayor Kent L. Aldrich, City of Salem (a) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler,, seconded by Councilman Cook to approve. s' Approved by•unanimous Tote of Council, 7. 72ND AVENUE/217 PROJECT (a) Mr. Jim McClure and Ron Kleinschmidt from O.D.O.T. were present to answer questions of the Council, staff and audience. (b) Councilman Brian, along with other Council members, questioned Mr. McClure at great length regarding the project expecially dealing with air and noise quality matters. It was noL d that the MSD traffic volume projections used for the study were lower than the volume projection developed by Mr. Carl Buttke, a private consultant hired ' by the City, Mr. McClure Stated that if a 'to build' decision were made, the project, would be put out to bid sometime 'betwee,. January and April of 1981. (c) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler to declare a 'bui,td' decision for the project with the modified design as present- ed by O.D.O.T. and add landscaping along 72nd Ave#tue East of I-unziker as discussed by the Council and ODOT and to use updated traffic pro- jections when developing the indirect scarce permit for D.E.Q. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. �_.�[ E.1...^i,iG +.t:^rce , .+.•w...Y^`Cl11YSL'."��'I.47CRR";RFM' +.,..w.-w �",+, 4 •K' " •01..1'.,•.,-n-....r.m...t,.;Me•+,...,,.....,.1„i:,..x ..ar-V...,«..I..,.rv-.t..,..+,1.4,11,:,..:„,,..n.-n..,.,+.y_.e.,.n...,..--,.;,-n.µ.n,,w..,,_....._,—,,,,a,.......wxn... ',,...IL:11, .-rn.a. .-n.r.. .J......,,......r..-... .,.i»..V..n..w....N....r.,..m...i..I.., ,,, ..,.4 _ , .. ...-.,,.....yv.. lr, .,, A ,1,7:1' lot dl!'. lY,•4. i C 4. (,, CITY-OF'T'IGARD - AFFIDAV OF PUBLICATION u.. . ' PUBLIC NOTICE Notice: is hereby given that the CitY' STATE OF OR�,GON, 1 . Council.will consider°the following at ss. :.Fowler Junior High School, Lecture COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, 1 Room,10885 SW Walnut,Tigard,Oregon, one January 28,1980,at 0:00 p.m. ' 1 .Josephh Schafer ,. 'ZONE CHANGE ZC'34-79 (Cun'darir _.................. Development) NPO No.,4 being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the publisher _. request by Gundari, Development r a zone change from Washington } ,, of The Tigard Times,.a riewsoaper of general circulation, as defined 1�ounty RU-4"Single-Family Residers ',. tial"Zone to City of Tigard C-P"Com-•< by ORS 193.010 and 193.020, published at Tigard, in the aforesaid county and mercial Professional" zone on a .$0) ' acre site located north of Hampton;be-! state; that the legal notice, a printed copy of which is hereto annexed; was ,tween 63th and 67th,(Wash. Co..Tax Map 25,',1 lAD,Tax Lot 300,500 and part.i published,in the entire issue of said newspaper for ,.......2...,_. ...... successive and ; of 600). ZONE CHANGE 35-79 (Cundari. r consecutive weeks in the following issues ,......_.,............................ .........,., _ -....,. Development) NPO No, 5 ' A request by Cundari.Development;! _..-----_...,. •_far t1 max' fir...86- 23,. .. , g$a.._. __ ... �_ :fora zone change from. Washington _ County RU-4 "Single-Family Residers-,1 . ( . , ` tial"Zone to City of Tigard C-P"Conn S ~` t re) mercial-Professional" .Zone on a .47 Subscribed and savor "acre site located adjacent. north of r ,. a to before ire this 24th _ day of.,.,..._•., .,Varns, south of Highway 217,,approxi- r ,mately 400 feet east of 72nd Avenue (Wash.Co.Tax Map 2S1 IDA,Tax Lot PUBLIC NOTICE O;'APPEAL {{i . ,..-. .�....:..,. 1 .... " 5 �Llz2,.(G�lf Cam,., reek Es- Notary Public of Oregon ,t„atr thRa,,, gyp.,„ ,,,. The Planning Commission denial of - ,, GOM M i a S i O Pa E;,# Y ;=,' ,a request by Golf Creek Estates for a , Mycommission expires ............. ,,.. -...,.,,-..�.„. , I = r3; -i�x t�o�' subdivision of a 2.83 acre parcel located ---------,4--- at the Southwest corner of SW 108th .and SW Durham Road(Wash.Co,Tax Map 2S1 15A,Tax Lot 1500) which de- . .,,� .-,'.x.,-., w, „ ...,.�.,..- - .,Y,_.,,. .w ,..aw.-„Y ..-.,,-..,_.,,- •• w, *- -a.,_ Y n,. -. cision has been appealed to the City _. ... .. . ' Council:. , Testimony will be limited to summa- • •tion of previous statements. •NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ZONE ORDINANCE .,.MENDMENT' ZOA 5-79 (City of Tigard) ... A request by the City of Tigard for an amendment to Chapter 18.36,from C-5 "Limited Neighborhood, Commer- cial"to C-n "Highway Commerical''.' '4., •- ZONE OPDINANCE,AMENDMI✓NT ZOA 6-779 (City of Tigard) A request by the City of Tigard for an amendment to Chapter 18.44 from. ' - --,, M-2 "Gt.rieral Industrial", to art-2' "Heavy Industrial':'"` . N' f 'Z' ONE'OR'DI'NANC7`;AMENDMENT r "k r' "}. ZOA 7-79'(city of Tigard "kv," i A request by the City of Tigard for k ?I`KM �,' 4:, an amendment to the code for a Condi •, . ��: '.,� . tiona,l USe Permit A41 y 1` ct to allow mini- fi warehouse storage in a '7,-3 Zone, ..�• , , ' Chapter 18,28 and a C-5 Zone,Chapter F:" "�; ' ' 18.36. . ;,; 1IY'";Y All interested persons may appear -' and be heard,regarding said proposal, -..,,:4. (TT 4405—Publish Janie-23 1980) • At't.t.....f,.. .-k 1.-. r._y" x....,.nri».. .,-.. ..., wean w..v.,.;n.•.w._ AETtQR''t'.«":'�'G..J,SL?..:,. x:......._.r axe:,ucati:'�. a:e A 'sl 41 ..I:,..:H.. ....4...�.s....a:J.w.......M,.�,.«...._....-...e,.w.',:u1w...,..i,wm...r..i:a..v;..w-.«,... .s..,.....w,., ,...�... .a-r:».................i....„,. ,..�,..,.+e.....«..,...+�... 't,.,.:`�t...c...,...,, ......J......,�.,A...:-,.,.,,,..a..,.....t .., ,...,...».»........ti...u._. ...�_...:.,c,.a..a..,_..M ..u........»_,...,.,..............+ 4 l ,„Y at r"» 11, " '°.:aup"'" CITY OF TIGARD P.O.Box 23397 12420 S.W.Main Tigard,Oregon 97223 January 18, 1980 Mr. Joe Walsh ''— iT'r Associates Inc. 11030 S.W. Allen Blvd. No 100 Beaverton, Oregon 97005 Re: Subdivision S 6-79 (Golf Creek Estates) Dear Mr. Walsh: Enclosed is a copy of the Golf Creek Estates transcript which will be heard on January 28, 1980, 8:00 P.M. , at Fowler Junior, High School, 10865 S .W. Walnut, Lecture Room, Tigard, Oregon. If you. have any questions in this matter please fee ', free to call us at 639-4171. Very truly yours, Doris Hartig City Recorder DH 1m Enc. � ' f s t rl rrns:>ti:C.v.rvsx:r v x....' ..•:: ..::. ., �,,. ,. �.-r.a .,:nn-a'm�.mtreya-.bn:*.mi+sa va+w++mr,nmaw+rt.l�xcrMZ+Ym+a:Y+.-r,xa.:,_X4.»..�.,M- r-m.4...�7�..�+. --.,.�!- o • • 4-2 TRANSCRIPT - TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION, December 4, 1979, Fowler Junior mign , / e School, SUBDIVISION S 6-29 (Golf Creek Estates) denial appeal A request by Mr. Michael D. Elton to appeal the decision 1 the Planning ' Commission on September 18, 1979 for denial of his subdiviEiion request on a 2.83 acre parcel located at the southwest corner of S.W. 108th and S.W. Durham Road. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 15A, Tax Lot 1500) . PRESENT AT TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 4, 1979: Bonn, Funk, Herron, Kolleas, Smith, Speaker, Howard, Selby ABSENT: Helmer, Popp Tepedino AGENDA 5.1 Howard began with the Staff Report. (Please see attached) SPEAR: Thank you Staff. Does the applieant want to make his presentation now? Joe Walsh of Waker Associates, Inc. of Beaverton: - * WALSH: My name is J Blvd. I'm Walsh. 11080 SW Allen Blv I'm with Waker Associates : and we are representing Michael Elton, the property developer. I might say this is our third go-around on this site. Two previous proposals were turned down by the surrounding property owners and our present proposal has has the • support of the majority of the surrounding property owners that you can see on that map behind you which is in green. There is a letter that the league has submitted to, with the property owner's names which are indicated on that map there. They, their mein SELBY: ExCuse me. Is the signatures of the people that's • WALSH: Right SELBY: Would you pass that down? WALSH1 Their opposition has been that they want to keep the density down. I believe this proposal we have before you with 11 units has done that and ' V allows us to develop this site with the least impact of the area. We do have all our lots within code right now. The hale street which we propose I ' ) is allowed in the ordinance with the Planning Commission approval, that is shown that the surrounding ar a can be developed by the extension of the other half of the street. There is also a map behind you which shows possible future developments. It doesn't mean that the road is going to be exactly the it is shown on this map. It is possible, future 6e.velopment of the surroui.ding site which is adjacent to the property. We have talked to that . property owner and he has given us an indication that he has approved of this 8W 110th street location on Durham Road. We do have a letter front the city Engineer stating, or the Public W(..rks Director, stating that this hale street, the location that we have it, is of the best locations within this little island area, and that future development of this site is best appropriate with this location. This, there it a point brought out that this , • . _ . ..7 .. . .. - S 6-79, Golf Creek Estates denial appeal Transcript P. 2 , et , e ;e • - • ■ . . ,, , , '4-4 ' ' e .. " of the, if the sewer line is brought up in a year and a half or so, it, will , . be past its time period. Well, the Ordinance states that the final plat must be submitted and not recorded or approved within a year's time and we can submit the plat and when the sewer is evailable, then we will record and , all our lots Daly buildable. Our lot extension to the drainage way, I was locking into the Sensitive Lands Ordinance, and I didn't find anything in that Ordinance stating that we cannot have lots in the, sensitive lands ' - , areas. We cannot build in there, which we are not going to. We provided an . . A open space easement. Note that the open space easement shall remain in . .i, natural topography condition.. No private storm culvert excavation or fill , shall be constructed in the open space easement unless cleared by the City •. ,' Engineer. I believe that we have adequately provided for the open space in this area. That there's no reason why we shouldnt (inaudible) into it. We not going to build into it it's just a matter that this area would be c -' left up to the maintenance of the individual property owners which there's t . 8 of thentbacking up into the drainage area and nothing has been brought . -* up in the Sensitive Lands Ordinance. This, our, just a matter of timing, ,. . . . our application, our original application of the site, preceded the Ordinance for the sensitive lands by a week or two and I believe the, although we ,, were in sensitive lands, it may not apply to this proposal. As per our . application, although we're not, I think, we're abiding by all the intent of ' the Ordinance. I think that it should not apply in this case. We have as , far as the sewer timing goes, we would like to be able to go in the:Le and do all our engineering work and platting and have a stipulation that once the sewer does, is into construction that you may get Building Permits at that time. In other words, start (inaudible) again because the sewer line brought up at that tine to service these sites. Until (inaudible) 1 half of the e. , timing at all in this case. I think this is one of the better proposals on ,e ' the site that have been presented and it's, has the support of the majority . of the property owners and I believe that, it would be in the best interest . . to approve this plat. ., SPEAKER: Mr. Walsh, you present a photocopy of a petition in support cf Mr. Elton's present subdivision plan. Can you tell me approximately the date , of this ,l • WALSH It will be presented legally. i .. ! SPEAKEA: All right, but I want to know the date. Nk SOMEONE IN AUDIENCE: It was just before the last meeting that we were hea:ed. WALSHg I believe it was November 13th. I .,01i SAME PERSON FROM AUDIENCE About 3 weeks ago. SPEAXER: In our packages is a letter to the City from Mr, and Mrs. Lampkin, whgse names also appear here. In the letter they say, in reference to your letter dated October 1, 1979 Colf Creek Estates Proposals. We are opposed ' q to the plan as presented. We own 2 acres of Tax Lot 3.600 and 3 acres of Tax Lot 1300 which adjoin. We feel the plans do not allow us tct develop our property to itS full potential. Now, I bring this up because pat of the presentation of Staff was that the, the neighbt,ts, or the neighbor opposed, opposed the, it, Can you acereSs that? I - . , . . r ... __ __ , 1 ' S 6-79, Golf Creek Estates denial appeal Transcript . P. 3 i) I• • . . WALSH: Ok. That letter was...... . \ . ,,, LAMPKIN: May I address that please? 1 am a neighbor to the west that owns / -, 3 acres, Ken Lampkin 10960 Durham Road. That letter has nothing to do with opposing the development of Golf Creek Estates. It w to do with the proposed running of 110th down the mt,ddle, you might say, or my property and then , • , , • crossing it twice with two 50 foot side roads. That is what I complained ..,. about. Mr. Howard knows that. I do definitely approve of Golf Creek Estates , . , Subdivision and I informed him that I do. That letter is erroneous as far ,,. , / as saying that we don't want this in there. • ' . SPEAKER: I think there is an issue them that we will have to address later. ..,-'.. . WALSH: I might just say that That letter was written on the premlous • map that sits behind you on the possible future extension. At the time we . , - came up with a, the map for the surrounding area, we were, it .was our understanding that both those tax lots were under separate ownership, so we had . I) • a concept of streets running through the property and since then we found out '"*14-. that they belonged to both the same property owner and a better, more logical extension of 110th Avenue was developed and that's what this nap /0 , here is, relates to and Mr. Lampkin's letter related to an earlier map which a, divided his land up with more streets and less lots. I think that his ' 4 disapproval is on this map here. (inaudible) , • , SPEAKER: Ok. Thank you. There. is a sign-up sheet at the table in the back. Anyone who wishes to speak should sign on that. Now, we will hear the proponent's pi of this proposal. Will you please come forward to the microphone. Are ' there, is there anybody speaking in favor of this? (p. ., . . LAMPKIN: There agin, is it necessary that I - , ,4 1 / - * , SPEAKER: Came on down here please. . LAMPKIN: Chairman, My name is James Lampkin 10960 SW Durham Road, ana 1 am 4 I very much in favor of the Golf Creek Estates Subdivision. We own the S ' 4 .,.' acres adjoin3ug on the west. I said earlier there was a different plan • going up which I didn't approve of. Subsequently, it has been changed and I •:' do approve of it very much. , . It SPEAKER: The Staff based part of its, don't go away, based part of it's 4 I 6 1 objection to this, as that 25 foot street on west side, which assumes, hopefully, that 25 foot would be dedicated from your property. Is that right? . , • LAMPKIN: Yes. ' ) 1 SPEAKER: HoW do you feel about that? At : LAMPIC.t.N: That would be fine. At this time, as still County property and that ' t will be the access, and this would be my idea also of coming into this property and a previous plan was to come down there and cross entirely across the property with a 50 foot wide road depth onto the property on the west ov of ours, go down that and come back across with another 50 foot wide road / bed. This left a little planning in the middle for lots. And this is what I objected to it but now i,, is gohei I do favor, the road bed down the west • side and come in across the property in the back vith a cul-de-sac or something like that leaves it all open for development. (inaudible) , to the west which is just fine with me. 7 4 1 id S 6-79, Golf Creek Estates denial appeal Tranipt 4f' P. 4 X SPEAKER: In other words, you are not oppsed to, should we s committing development, full development of that 110th? • LAMPKIN: At this time, our property is not in the City or Tigard, it is in the County, so it can't be developed as a 110th Street. I am favor of the (inaudible) being developed, and at such a time, or Tyvhe n. we do develop as a subdivision, then that's just fine, I'll join to it and add my 25 feet .1 as access. SPEAKER: Ok. Thank you Are there any other proponents? Those in favor of thls? BREWER: My name is Mrs. Brewer. We on the property south of the Golf Creek Estates. South and a wee bit southeast too across the creek on the southeast on the east side of the creek which is south and wa are in favor of the Golf Creek Estates. We think that it will not be as crowded as some of the apartments or duplex that at first were proposed, the nursing - home. We would like to keep it at low density. Not so, we think that the creek should belong to the homeowners. Since we pay for it and pay taxes on it. / believe that the creek should belong to the people who buy the property. We are in favor of the Golf Creek Estates and much favor of 11 lots and having 2 or 3 people on L'-',ose two acres like it could have on other place, SPEAKER: Thank you What was your nairn again. BREWER: Brewer, B-R-E-W-E-R. SPEAKER: Thank you. Anothe ' proponent? CHAMERLIN: Yes sir, I am Wanete Chamberlin, 16720 S17 108th avenue. And I am the lad l that took up this petition and the only reason you don't have more than 23 people because I only had 1 evening and I, everybody I stopped at signed it. They were very much in favor of the way it is tow, in fact, they said they would have it no other way and as you remember, well, others have called me since, that I didn't get to awl they're very much in favor of it and I think you'll be getting letters from them, and as you remember, I fought like heck and s) did everybody else with Mr. Elton, why don't you put in the nursing home or the poor kids need, you know, type thing and I have two petitions here and I have presented them to you people. I mean you're pulling out what you want to pull out, but if you look farther, you'd Zee that I have one heri.i with 100% signed, because I had a couple of days to go, and says that we do not want a park now or in the future, you know p or anything, we don't want a open greenway for the public to use to come in. We want the people to take care of their own property, the peopie that on it. We feel that they are alot more capable than turning the public in and qYpeCting the City to take care of it and the tax payers to come across with funds to do so, cause we know how this works. And you know too. And, so, we are all in favor of the plan Mr. Elton has out now with the 15 x 100 lots and with the 8 people doming down to the Sierra Creek Course not wrecking the Creek or using it unwisely, but you know, and taking care of maintaining it themselves and owning it. I mean, Mt. Elton owns his prc- rty. He bought it. And he is entitled to sell it I mean no one t.r.1 take this - from horn. You know, it's not or sale at any price. He doesn't want to , . 4 , 1 . - .. .- * S 6-79, Golf Creek Tstates denial appeal Transcript . ". P. 5 " q tw ,,,,-- r . F , ; , • sell it, he just bought it to make use of it for himself. And the fact that . . somebody would like to have it and it is not for sale this doesn't mean ' ( . they can come in and take it anyway under any circumstances, I mean this is . ,., against the law, v,r all know this. You can't take a man's property if he doesn't want to sell it. That's all about what I have tc say. Thank you. .. . .._ ..- SPEAKER: Thank you Mrs. •Chamberlin. Are there any other proponents? , Opponents? There's opportunity now for cross examination if anybody wants . to. .. .. . , . SELBY: Comissioner Speaker: .,. SPEAKER: Yes. . . . . SELBY: The Staff has some statements to make in rebuttal basically to the applicant's statement. One on the issue that if the preliminary plat is not acted upon as far as construction and he can't get any Building Permits ■ 10 until the sewer is in, then he has to come here within a year's time. His : 1 . ... statement was that the Code stated that the final plat is drawn up within \ ' \' , 12 months. The Section of the Code that the representative was speaking 1 from 17.20.010. And he stated part of the Code. Not the full paragraph. . Part he spoke L.,f was that within 12 months after tenative approval of preliminary plat subdivider shall cause a subdivision or any part thereof to be surveyed in a final plat prepared in conformance with the preliminary plat is tenta- \ tively approved. That's the part he spoke of. The part he didn't state, is the one of the same chapter and paragraph, that Staff means by, is that if ., the subdivider wishes to9roceed with, in the subdivision after the expiration 1 of tie 12 month period following a tentative approval of the preliminary \ plat by the Planning Commission, he must resubmit his preliminary plat to the , . Planning Commission and make any revisions considered necessary to meet changes. This is based on the- fact that we feel that the sewer will not be • in that area between 18 months to 24 months. At this time the trunk line • the U.S.A. has, just passed through the Cook Park and is on its way up along the river bank to this parcel. There is an agreemeht that it will stop short . . . . of that site and within one year aftarthat location TDC is to come down across Durham to the south and connect to it These are the contracts that are • elect to the subcontractor who is dr/ing the engineering and the work on the sewer. It's our understanding and communications to them that this hook-up • - by contract will probably not take place anthing short of a year and a half .K . and that's why were making this statement. So that's one part of the Code : rik that we feel if you give approval now as being somewhat redundant. Of course, • that •doesn't speak of the merit of the subdivision. Do you have Some other ' point . ■ SPEAKEA: Now if I understand you, Staff, should we approve this tonight, , /- .0 ' 1. We would still, if your concept of the timing on the sewers is correct, We Would still have to have anotIker hearing on this? . . . . 8ELBY: OA this same issue, yes. ) SVEAXER: On the same issue. . i SELL: Another point is that the letter on October 1• that went out to the . . Surrounding neighbors explaining theproposed half Street and its future • possible eXtenSion was the only plan that was the plan that the Staff had , . , - -iv,— . . --,,, ., -, . v....._. .----„4-4...., 1"------7—,-- --- ' — -, ; ,. ''''.-- ' ) , A ” k1 I( 1 , .1.• . . . , S 6-79, Golf Creek Estates denial appeal Transcript e ' P. 6 . 11) , C „, L N4,,, (, I ">.:„,,. .„ : j ' at the tim it reviewed and denied the subdiv-Ision and now the applicant . le, , e, is coming in with a second alternative plan to a street that we have not , reviewed because it was not the plans as submitted to us with the application. , So, we recognize that the developer and his representative may have made *. , . , , . peace with the neighbors by coming up with a second alternative road as far as future extensions of it, and, therefore, that nullifies the documentation I • . ■ . • . that we used. But our presentation of concerns for it not being a practical .e . half street is still alive in that if you'll consider that the cross street .. ..- . • as you the cross section of the road that's on your plan, it shows 17 feet • of pavement. Imagine that you have an average of 8 to 10 trips per day out : "; of each unit, that's the average trips out of 6. That's minimum around 38 A to 48 cars going in two directions on the 17 that gives them about 8 feet apiece to zravel on. And each lot is required to have a parking space on , their own individuel iiites about 2. The garage, pax-Pang the car in the c ' garage conceivably, and oa the driveway. This weule: prohibit them this width of street any on-street parking which of course we „mild prohibit, off-street parking, or on-etreet parkieg, say, there's no on-street parking. But where would the people then visiting these 6 lots park? They can't park down on Durham because there is no improvements along there for that and even if there were, that's an arterial and A very dangerous place to be parking a Oar and then walking up bac - 6 ,e potential site of visitation. Therefore, ' , . we contend that this in • intr vt period, we don't know how long that will hE, is a very bad idea fo fie circulation and perimeter traffic. -. e . SISAKER: Thank you Staff. Anything. . .. yes, Mr. Walsh do you want to rebut.. -,- . . , .. 1:4ALSi1.: You might say we can zecord the plat within one year. You can get 4 ' ' all our recording and surveyAng work done and get the plat to the City, and get recorded within one year. , HOWARD: That's not the point. . e . • WALSH: -0,ge may not be able to build all our lots within one year. )0 SELBY: That's not the point. Yes, we know that you can get the final plat .. in. The Code doesn't mean if you get it recorded and you get it to the • County. The issue is, that you must have a subdivithion in whole or in part . , . . or else you Lave to come back at the preliminary plan level. O.K.? That's . . • .., what it says. It's not the issue on whether or not you get the .,!.zial plat recorded. Let me read that section again. Is it necescaryor do you...O.K.? SPEAKER: well if I understand it correctly, what, what it means is that -.• ' regardless of how many plats have been filed, they can't build in accordance with wi what the plaaniag commission has approved, unless unless they start within a s, ) year. Ts that right? .--, . . SELBY: That's correct. If the subdivider wishes to proceed with the . subdivision, proceed with the sul.division, what would that indicate to you? i ir . WALSH: That mnans proceed with the final plat. , SELBY: Well, it doesn't say final plat. It says proceed with the subdivision. A subdivision ha A beet determined in the past by this Planning Commission g • has been signiadant imptovementA on the site. That's a subdivision, not .., the final plat. the subdivision is subdividiag that land. After the , • eXpiration of t,te, 12 itonth period, follOWing the tenative approval of ..e.; • •• /. 7 ,. S 6-79, Golf Creek Estates denial appeal Transcript ' r P. i ... (- . Alt , of preliminary plat by Planning Comiseion, he must resebmit his preliminary . , plat. So you've got the final plat recorded by the County, but you have not 1 1, . proceeded with the subdivision physically, and therefore, there might be; i he reason for this chapter, the intent is that there might have been some , physical differences made on that land, or around it that might prohibit ■ the prev, e4sly approved preliminary plat. It's a re-hearing for that ' .. purpose. WAXER: Mr= Chairman, my name is Richard WWcer of Waker Associates and I would just like to suggest that this .1..e really not an issue. if, the ' ' 1 . ' ' see l:' 4-71 there, first of all, we don't icnow what TDC's plans are to build a sewer, although we certainly assume, given all the flack they've had over the 1 . operations og that system, that they're going to discharge that obligation , at the lowest possible cost, which means they're going to spend the money e sooner rather than later 'cause costs are going up. This Planning Commission • I has absolutely no risk involved if they favor the subdivision and if the . . sewer is theee, will help improvements. We are here, we are e,aving a hearing. ' I don't see why that's an issue. If the subdivision has met all the 4 requirements, the risk is upon the developer to build the improvements or ; u ' not in esiticipation of the sewer construction. City has no risk whatsoever. . . . If we are unfoetunate enough to have to come back here one more time for ' "• ' . another hearing, I surely will be as unhappy about it as you are, but I don't see why that's an issue. We can build the improvemente, We can record the plat in the time frame that has been presented to you TOC chooses not to . build a sewer line for 4 years, I think it would be a rather foolish move for us to go ahead and speed the money, but they're going to move ahead on e'ee it We will have the opportunity to get in there on the same time Erame and build on improvements in the order of fashion, so I don't really see ...i that this, I don't quite understand what the Staff is trying to get at here. e i SPEAKEA: Thank you M . Waker. . . • e.- WALSH: May I also say that half street have been approved before the issue / " 4k , about off-street parking, or parking, like, I was wondering if that's ever cf been a condition before? We've submit half street improvements. In this case, here, we do have Indication that the property owner to the west is , 4, willing to go along when h develops' to give the rest. We see no problems • with this cage here. We have 6 lots, we'll be using this, this street here , .. , with maybe 56, turns out about 60 trips per day. We believe this is..., we do provide for a turnaround at the end, that we do meet with the fire marhall's approval. Can I answer any other questions? SPEAKER: Anyother questions from commiseioners? O.K. Thank you. FUNK: EXdus0 me a minute. Question for (ieaudible) turnaround Zor emetgency vehicles at 110th? , wALS4: Yeah. That will be temporary until the halg street, the rest of the , half etreet is provided for. I FUNK: Where are you croin.g to take that area, out Of Loh 46",* . WAL§q: It would be the last lot. rt.ltit.c‘,- That would lee paved then fox a ttirttltoutid? . SI . . , .1' .• . , — - -w • .. . ,• , ', A',$f ; S 6-79, Golf Creek Estates denial appeal Transcript . 4 Q. 8 WALSH: It doesn't necessarily have to be paved, just a hard surface that the • fire truck would be able to move in. • 14 FUNK:: It comes up to mind that you would consider, there again, could', take Lot #6 and reserve it for off-street parking in addition to the emergency vehicles turnaround (inaudible) , WALSH: In addition to off-streat parking? FUNK: Well, the area of the lot doe; a't satisfy the (inaudible) requirement..... . 'til such time as it is. applicable. WALSH: I believe the lot sits there. Since we have our easement behind it, we. have our building en ce(ope for that site is probably at its minimum now, within an acre, acre and a half, I don't think we could get our off-street parking in * there. Off=-street parking (inaudible) FUNK: As I said (inudible) I say you can get off-street parking on it. •; y y g P g WALSH: (inaudible) 90 foot depth lot plus we have a FUNK: Your_'re not going to try to put a structure on that lot besides e T, ancy turnaround? ~ ' WALSH OR WAKER: No, No. The structure wouldn't be there. That location of that turnaround has to be kept open for emergency vehicles (inaudible) . 'U No. I'm saying in addition to the turnaround area would accomodate off- street parking besides that.- - ■ WALSH: I don't think you could do that. FUNK: Thank you. HERRON: I have a question sir. RI • WAXER: I'm sorry, I heard. the question differently. You asked whether or not there'd be a house constructed on lot 6? « s;, T FUNK: yes. WAKER: Alright, then the answer, yes there would. • PUNK: In addition to the turnaround? WAXER: Yes (inaudible) ;arm\,. FUNK: My question was then, could you do without the house for the period of time to accomodate off-street parking? WAKER: I don't know the answer to that. Why don't you, if you wish to approve the subdivision put that condition on there and we'll try and live with it. n . .J ., —.I.0 - cci�r � • ,� � �._. , � -..-.� x.: 'm ..y' ��.•ma�e*�. cs.�,r 'Y .11 .., P • S 6-79, Golf Crees Estates denial appeal Transcript :4- ,-,- . ,..0 P. 9 (' ' , , . ,. FUNK: All right, 1 .. )' WAXER: Certainly, we're not going to build all these houses next summer. Seems ', \ to me we heard the joint property owner has some interest in developing his • property so' maybe the time frame in development, get the rest of that street, or get more enough of it to build a wider street. We'd like to have the opportunity to work with that condit!Lon not just be turned down because we're not sure. ' SPEAKER: Thank you. I close the public hearing and we gc into a commission discussion and action. Commissioners? . • ... . HOWARD: Sir? Staff would like to make a couple of comients. SPEAKER: O. K. Staff. . , . WA(ER: Mr. Chairman, i Staff is going to make more comments, we would appreciate the publi„:: hearing be kept open so that we may have our opportunity also . , • , A ' SPEAKER: O.K. This has Leer the realm of the cross examination and rebuttal. Go ahead Staff. HOWARD: Well, it's our feelings in developing the Sensitive Lands Oranance, . i although your applicant in this particular case doesn't think he comes under it, the whole attitude expressed by the PlannIdg Commission or by the City Council in adoption of that was to protect these dr.Page areaS. In this particular case •,• we asked that, that land not be dedicated to the City, but that the homeowners ' - agreement be formed so th t we would in time deal with one person for the maintenance - of rea. If it is allowed to be platted as shown, and the responsibility , i borned y the individual property owner, it's a good collection place for old tires beer. cans. And that's one of the things that we try to get away from )' . when we devised the Sensitive Lands Ordinance, was that these areas be maintained.. We discussed that. City Council discussed that. Staff reacted to it in this particular situation. The applicant in this situation chose not to. That's one Number two is that Durham Road, although the City does not control it yet, is a ... limited access road and the Council has been very protective of Durham in not . . allowing access or new roads to connect onto it. Kneeland 'Estates, 97 units, . O.K. We combined, we combined, Pick's Landing and Grimstad, we're going to combine Knouse, we're going to combine TDC next door, There will be limited access on Durham Road. Now with that in mind, it doesn't seem quite smart to Me to create an immediate access for this particular development. When we discussed it last 1 . i time, and you upheld the denial that I made, one of your directive was, directives III Were to go back to the applicant and have them submit to us a plat showing the . ,..- _L general transportation in the area.. All right, they did. I sent that plan to all • the neighbors in the area, and they Objncted. For obvious reasons. It rilt into their plans, or into their lots if they should develop at a later date. NoW ( r4 / „ . ) the applicant comes back with a plan that he has sold to the property owners which • r i different a fferent plan, (TAPE ENDED AN, TURNED OVER). ....... .. , the city Council dictates as the Planning Director for Tigard. Now . . that's all that this •8taff report reflects. . . SPEAKER: Mr. Waker? • ),4 -, , . . • • , . . , ,., eir- " . a '1, s 6-79, Golf Creek Estac es denial appeal T:canscrip - ,,,:,/ 4 WAKER: Now I suppose it's my turn, Mr. Chairman. And I would say that we believe `t that overdoing fully meets the intent of the protection of the open space. in this particular area and we have provided on the plat for an open space easement and is \, ' very clearly spelled out, and that's to remain in its natural area in its natural state and there are no plans to touch that. I think it should be left in its natural: state. Might say the Planning Director in a letter to us , • indicated that he didn't think it ought to be left in its natural state but we , , ought to clear and landscape it and improve, it for the enjoyment of Golf Creek Estates. We don't want to do that The neighborhood doesn't want to do that. They don't want to mess around with the open space. They want to leave it exactly the way it is and this is the best darn way to so it There's just no other way to do it Now, the question of Durham Road being limited access. we have no e; . problem of the concept of Durham Road being limited access. Nobody has ever said that somebody can't have access to the property on Durham Road. If you look on the topo map right above City Staff on your left, ycu can see that that particular area is an island where there's two open space drainageways going up to Durham Road. The only alternative to putting a street on Durham Road is to cross one of �', these drainageways which is much more obviously in violation of the intent of "� preservation of open space than proe ding this (inaudible) . We've provided a plan w, ich showed how we could access this little island area and unfortunately, . we showed -re went too far, we showed a ehadow, a concept of how somebody's property ' could be developed because we thought there were two property owners in there and . that they both needed to have public (inaudible) . The property owner turned out to own both parcels and didn't care for our plan which is most understandable. But he did not object, and you heard him say, didn't object to the concept of ; " ° bringing the street up there. Nublic Works Department thinks it's the best elace to have an access. I submit, tact you cannot simply cony soy the right to ' r)*.j r- ac;c:ess o 5 perty. That's not the intent of limited access. That's no w S. ac cess at all. We found a good place to access it. It compatibly serves both ' e isn't an other reasonable alternative without the properties '.n the area. Thor y crossing one of your drainage ways which T think Mr. Howard will agree is the worst condition than having a street access on Durham Road. I think that, that, Mr. Howard is quite correct when he used the word dictate on numeral occasions. Som bod y's tirying to dictate to us exactly ho we auctht .o use the Q._._.�� ,,,.,,, I think the ro"Ce Cf"`1.ann.i.aig C'mmi.ssion ought to be al 4e to be looked at reasonable • ways to develop property in the framework of what C:1/27 wants to see. I believe , , we've done that to the satisfaction of everybody but Planning Director. And T 'QI. do not, I submit that maybe we can never satisfy Planning Director in this issue, but T don't think that's the issue. I think we've satisfied all the problems in '" the area and i think we're deserving of your support in being permitted to ",. � . develop this property in accordance with this plan and didn't rs ' I think the nei hho support that and I just don't know. I wouldn't be back here if I believe that this was the proper way to do things:. We don't know of any other way of doing there and we would ap)reciate your support in this matter. And if there's , P , more comments and questions from the Planning Staff, would also like the right . •`°,' ) to reserve the right to discuss those comments once more. It is very unfair for A ' the Planning Department (inaudible) Planning De artment to make comments after the fact that ( nand SPEAKER: I think, one of the things that the Planning Staff objects to, and Z V kind of share the objection, g g' et to them it's given to us and the ectioo., is something is iv' , g, then something else is tossed, in for us to act on. 4 Ilia k _"rot.+r�+lecr..rc::.na1 r .3....as,....-::.0»�v cFCTaN..�, ..M.im.; .mrcx„-.o-++.+rrt'ax.eic^ma,.«x..9•yx�ak . . �.^�arzama^"a y:�.-•ww:W:�=.-:..,.�^w;a��crac:scxLlu: � q p . , . ., . , S 6-79, Golf Creek Estates denial appeal Transcript • , P. 11 , . . ,,- 't, .. • ' WAKER: We have not changed our plan. You asked that we take a look and we agreed , and we met with the Planning Director en -what the impact of having this access on • , ' the west would be on the adjoining properties. We did that. We did not commit ■ . „, • the City to adjoining a particular, to adopt a particular, the dark stuff is the , important things. We showed some light. I don't know what 'ehat has to do with i t it. I mean, I think it's a, red herron. We showed that this is an island, there's It no other reasonable way to do it. We did, we tried to show a pattern that could l'e work in the future on that property belt. That property owner is here. He i,,, S interested in developing. The property has no problem with the concept of i...le , ee:V., road there. He may choose to have a different pattern all together. I don't . think it has, you know, what those shadow lines on paper have anything to do with . • this application. We showed that this is the access that needs to be used to•, service this piece of property and can be compatible to the property next door. I. don't know what else we can show. Now, I don't think weee, you know, were not • , ' trying to, we submitted this plan a long time ago. You know, we've been trying to ,7et this over with just as perhaps you'd like us to get it o-er with and we can't 1 . L . deal with one new question each time we come here and I don't, I hadn't heard 1 , anything about whether 60 trips per day on a 2 lane road which might have parking 1 , on it is going to be a major hazard or not. It's the first I've heard of that -e and we had to turn around (inaudible) trips. I'ria. sure there's other questions that we answered or asked rather, and I'd like to see an end to it. I think we have a good plan and we're not going to Apologize to , . , anybody for that plan. We think it does what we think the City would like to . see done. What the neighbors would like to see done. And that's, well, that's , , t the wy a I feel about it. I can't help it. , ,. , , . ' SPEAKER: Anything else under cross examination and/or rebuttal? If not, I will - . r close the public hearing and it's open foe discussion of the commission. Commissioners? i■ 1 • . SMITH: Let's start off with this, this sicaation of what happens if you don't do • . 4 anything with the subdivision for one year. In the past, there's been enough g711=1 atTn: Co(111:tsusd=1)lasph.lyirirc:Ierc:= Orlilsh:sjtioon:iat.: '‘,Z17d: blearIorsltr 2 on-1.1 tgly feel that if the applicant is aware of this problem and we should take a chance that a . he may in fact go through the process and have the committee go through the process -, . ...e again, incur those costs plus the possibility that, there could be a different Planning Commission with difrorent ideas at that time. If they're willing to . ) . take that risks I really don't think that we should, you know, turn down their request based on that fact. So I just think it's just a case of them being aware of that, That they could be in that position. But that's not relevant to the i question here, of, of whether or not the subdivision is acceptable. Now, I had much problem with the application to Sensitive Lands Ordinance. The question was . . brought up that something about the .e ,tent that this application recording prior to , the final, to the final appeal tha47•, ladle can you enlighten les a little on whether in fact this legally applies or is this just si ply a decision of the Commission at this time, or where do we stand on -. .. HOWARD: Well, we had a Sensitive Lands Ordinance previous to the new one. . „ . SMflH: PreviouS to this application here? HOWARD: sure. There's been a Sensitive azdinance in effect in the City for two, . e./ -...„,. three years, 8o, at that particuleir time, it would have depended on your, your, you %now, your response to what we had in place at that time . . i . , . . , , ... . „-......-. ,i,,-, ...;....-;'.,--r--..,•......4......., c#0, -.,,,,,,...p. ..., ,,,,,, . - ,ktr , .., .. , „ . ,\,A , iiel,;, . , • r ..1' h'3 13 . 0 . S . S 6-79, Golf Creek Estate!, denial appeal Transcript , ' t .I .. P. 12 4'''" : , ‘ ; „.„, , . SMITH: O.K. Thank you. I guess the question I come up with; is this application •... " . here in fact the equivalent to a new application, or is it an extension of an old application? . , , HOWARD: Extension of an old application. The applicant's admitted that. . . SMITH: And at the, at the time of the old application was a (inaudible) Sensitive Lands Orainance in effect? w ' : . , '1 HOWARD: I don't know.. .. • SELBY: I'll research the adopted date. , . . SMITH: Apparently, though,tithere's one question I would asks is if we were to demand compliance with the present Sensitive Lands Ordinance, what differenJe would it make in hie; physical arrangements for the properties? Would he develop it any • diffe,-"ently? . •, . NoWAPOt. Not in relations to the Sensitive Lands. No. . "4 SMITU: In other words, whether its under the old one, or whether it's under „ . the present one, it would not, it would not affect this development. HOWARD: Apparently,he was under the present one. The date is what SELBY May 2 . • . 1 , . , HOWARD: May 21? SMITH: That was my next question. Apparently then, it's really just a question of - . a means by which we protect that drainageway more so than any case (inaudible) --- It has to be protected and that's essentially so. • , HOWARD: That's right. And you know that from the, you know, the past that we've , . asked for an outright dedication. You knows long before we had the actual Sensitive 1 Lands Ordinence. t V - SMITH: All right, then I think my feelings about it is this That in general, w0 we are looking for dedications of these lands subject to the City. That's a question , . for you \ldie. SPEAKER: Well, I don't think that is even contemplated or desired or requested in this meeting . . , SM/TH1 That's my question te yot, Aldie. Is it, is it Staff's posit:won that you'd I' 9 like to see this drainageway dedicated or otherwise managed differently than what "I their proposing? HOWARD: Yes. And I eXplaineei that. I'd like to see a homeowner's agreement for , . . • the maintenance of that draine.ge area Now, We've done teat before. It worked r? , Successfully. We've dealt with one groep. 0.X., one perstn and that's the home- ,..-.r 2 ovrner's association, rather than in this case 11 different property owners. Some fellw sayS, va like to just maintain that immaculately, then the next guy Sayes .„ N4 I'm not gonne, touch it, And then you have a difficulty, because it is then two • property owners going at it And it's always the fella that complains aboUt, I Wish that guy wout4 take Care of his prcperty„ that Calls us, And we cannot do anything to enforce maintenance ol that area then. • ek. , a 1'1.! ' i. • i . - ' a i;!., .1 . . , . I% .• •• ... I » ` .:d..L.......-1'_...,._w...rv,1�...x....,...w✓1.....-.,--..-.......,..._...+.....«.+.....,....�.nrr.t.-..„L...._, —.1:. _......-,M.+.........+......- -:..-.•r.. .........N..rf.-..-.-n--.•N:..•4.s......+..S..wv..kr k. .....+....u...A,......tti.d'N..•)/......y.r.n.......rl.. .. w ,_.... ........., n • ..,. ■ \.,r S 6-79,P 13 e,., Golf 'Creek Estate: denial appeal Transcript 4+ •ti P. rr 1 1 4 . M` SMITH: O.K. and if you have a property homeowners organization, to what extent does that leave a, that type of problem. EOWA D: Well, it is then the homeowners responsibility. It becomes a deed , . restriction that they shall join and maintain that 9reenway for each )roperty. Arcd, so then, they form the association and put in 20 dollar?; a year or something, and they u;e that money to maintain the greenway, or maintaiL the dzainageway. d '.' SMITH: O.K., but the actual way in which it is maintained is still a decision, of , • the homeowners association? , . HOWARD: It i.s, unless it becomes a nuisance in which the City abates that nuisance. j, ~C SPEAKER: I'm curious. How would you enforce abatement of a nuisance on the part ` .,, of a, I would say, a rather emorphis homeowners association's 1. HOWARD: Issue it a citation. It, being the homeowner's association. ..for nuisance ; abatement of the greenway. t. I .c; SPEAKER: 0.K. '. SMITH: I may have some comments later. SPEAKER: Mr. Funk? •, 4 4 FUNK: Well, I sure contest to the Durham Road being a highly traffic area, bnt r'° k I'd have to concur that 'there's not much other way to develop this thing without, without creating a road or a cul-de-sac. I don't think that access onto Durham . Road bothers me much. I think if we were to approve this thing now, I'd like to take care of that off-street parking with the use of Lut f6. I think you're ' r talking about that. Find out whether that's applicable. It's up to them. I'm 0 a little concexned about the lots being reduced in size much by the open space t, easement. The way I compute through, these lots has .come down 3 or 4,000 square foot. I question whether you could get a good livable home on 3, 4,000 square foist, 41 I don't think that other than those 2 or 3 problems, I've_(inaudible SPEAKER: Mr. Bonn? Commissioner: Bonn? ."r i u r} , An questions I have at the moment have been answered. BONN:W, y q � , SPEAKER: Commissioner Herron? at r HERR03: My concern, and that has been discusses, is the off-street parking on 110th H and also the turnaround and wondering if this is adequate for emergency vehicles lit,.. ;M1 ; - were coming in with the turnaround there if there would be xti gym. if anti._ than one SPEAR: Staff can you address that? A Sr:68Y: What was the question please? 1 ' HOB We were talking. 6w n /../ --'y��' .�.._y'm;,':"�. .,a.. '.....1 G..a ,.n.- ,..r+rrx.mm:wwm+.+v.+Fn..-�. ,a. wl-;•a'wempmna tM me4;at 4'sru:.::=.:1' .'.......:�,u.....;� .� h ' .. ,.` r , ■ . . , • )/ 41. wry 44•A Ad R 1 .... ' ' S 6-79, Golf Creek Estates denial appeal Transcript P. 14 . 1 r „ ,,,,,,„„, , . „ 4 HERRON: I was concerned about the parking on 110th. Also the turnaround for . em.rgency vohicles and if more than one emergency vehicle were to come in there, would there ,be room for them to take care of whatever they needed to do? ( HOWARD: Well, apparently the applicant's instructed, the fire department and they oe think it is appropriate;. SELBY: Well, let me answer that I mean, that's true, they have the hammerhead t that allow a 60' in depth for a turnaround. That's one vehicle at one time given the straight and narrow road of about 300' in deep. That would be one vehicle that , , ) '-', can turnaround at one time, and the other vehicle would have to bank out. In other words, you wouldn't expect two trucks to get too far up the throat of the road that one couldn't back out. Secondly, about the off-street parking; I don't • • knew. That is something I don't have the answers to. ' ,. SPEAKER: Staff: .. . . . • , ; SELBY: O.K. If the 60 foot hammerhead also meets the requirement of tho. fire department, it's not their most wanted type fairnaround, but it is woricdble. • , 0 SPEAKER: Yeah, what I'm wondering i* Stafi; would you want to comment on the - approach to as busy a road as Durham is from a 1/ foot strip pavement. It seems . to me that would create some problems., SELBY: won, in the interim of Durham Road being the vertical. differences , li being changed and the widening, the depth of the width of the dedication that the applicant would do on Durham would allow some kind of a ,:-.deceleration lane for ..,, • any vehicle westbound, to turn into the site. Also, any vehicle leaving the site on the west side going eastbound would have the . acceleratiOn lane to turn 1 , into, from. However, there's no refuge like that for any car coming c the speed of Durham eastbound into the site nor to the left hand turn of that vehicle out of 110th onto Durham, so there is that problem there. It'S prohibited. 0 4 ' SPEAKER: As I read this, I do not: see that we are requiring this.developer to . , develop half street improvements on Durham, Is that right? SELBY: Well, there's two points to tha.. One,we're denying it so we don't have any recommendations of any action to the land. Secondly, his Zone Change required , . . , a dedication, and if you chose tonight to Tprove 'the plat', 1 cm write up some conditions that wc-Ild reqUire fulfillment of those improVements. • SPEAR: Commissioner Herron, does that take care of your concern? ., . • . HERRON: Yes sir. , •. I . ) SPEAKU: Commissioner Kolleas? . . , KOLLEAS: Well, this 17 foot wide street's vitlat I was concerned about (inaudible) 1 don't like it. 4 , I ' SPEAKTR: 1 share your complaints. L. ,y FUNK: Why do we say 17 feet of paVerent. Are we talkinc ,.1.,,),,,:l... 47/1s ewalk on ' A one side . --- 't SELBY: That'S correct, 'They ve done the standard half street cross Section. 17 feet of paving, curb and easement and utilities going in a 5 foot sia.4.1walk .1 s text to the ptoperty line, .4) - .. ' ... ., . , --- . . .., , , S 6-79, Golf Creek Estates denial appeal Transcript ' 1\ P. 15 c" 4," ', , s , C k., . .._ ".. SPEAKEA: Doug, do you-have anything else? . 4 . . . , . . SMITH: Well, I, this problem with an access to Durham Road. Looking at the . topography of land, there does appear to be somewhat of an island there in terns ' ,e -, • of parts of the property line between two drainage easements and, Aldie, what would your, what would you propose as future access to those paxcels if we gi117 don't allow access to Durham Road at that point? , HOWARD: Well, 1 think it's a continuation of the sari thing that we've tried through Picks and Kneele.nd Estates. And, that is come out at an intersection ! where you, in this case, you don't have any come into Senmerfield, but you would have a road midway between Durham and the river and make the connections there N. me 1 ' and co out on 108th and... what's the next one further down? : . SELBY: 113th. , HOWARD: 113th. ,, , . SMITH: I think at Pick's Landing we were involved with two parcels of land. 1..... .' Right? And two developers who cooperated. In this particular case, (inaudible) looking at three and were looking at three parcels in that so called island we've ,- - . . , been talking about, but from there to the access between 108th and 113th, if you're looking at lea_it one more, possible four, imaybe even five people which would essentially would have to cooperate in order to produce that type of draining, or , is that reasonable? .. HOWARD: Yes. I think that's reasonable, given that once the sewer line comes tip $ . to service Summerfield and annexation will follow. And as annexation fellows, r development follows. No - ' - SELBY: Another way of looking at this, is If it's not feasible to assume that I. they'll ever cooperate on that expectation, why is it feasible to create a half street expecting someone to cooperate in the future on that, where you've already placelin half it and. now you're assuming that he'll cooerate. . . SMITH: The point there is that the other property owner involved in a half street " ' imorovement is here and I think as essentially on notice, that if we approve this, \ '''■ that he has essentially committed himself for that. Because if he comes in for development, he's stuck with that, at that point. HOWARD: That's correct. 1:: ' . . $1 SMITH: He's had his pulAto hearing. opportunity to, to be in opposition to that. So, 1 don't think that's quite the same thing. • ) SELBY: T see. r i :Pp:=RorI: rel:tmcoM:net:r*.cm'el'h: : :,DU:lhiliMf.ligi:r7:nda rrtlawc-TIMtro% btlhtoZhone 0., - .4.. the applicant's property. And here is another draw which is another dip in Ourham. ) -1 i.,, ,.g i, Do you believe that this sort Of triangle here could be adequately served from somorhe^; , somewhere down here without: having problems in crossing the draw? . , . .. „ . „ ,....' . . , .,, • - . - 'n ... . S 6-79, Golf Creek Estates denial appeal Transcript P. i6 r'r r " HOWARD: Yes Sir. Well. There's quite a difference now in here, in your drainage I way. This comes from the ,pond from Summerfje1d (inaudible) through here. This, you can see of the development of the apartments, there is ,,` very little water that domes down, so there is a possibility to bring in develop- ment something like this. O.K. And then you pick it up. You can cross this . usually easily (Inaudible) similar to what we're doing with Picks and Knouse. ., S EAKER: ism, in a previous hearing, or in the material for previous hearing, you indicated that crossing, to have the e!evtloper provide a crossing of that : 4' was impractical. I did not raise question at that tine, but I am now. Why . is that impractical? ' ') HOWARD: Because it's sly deep. ,. SPEAKER: Because it's so deep. Where, as you feel, that down here that would not apply? SELBY: Les, you can tell by topography that the difference HOWARD: Very shallow on the other side. ie ,IBUIY: Of the use of the drainageway (inaudible) more intense on this level than aver here. 9 SPEAKER: In other words, you could approadh it from SELBY: . .. . here, over here. t SPEAKER: From, from over here? . SELBY: It's still a problem. It's not desirable but it's more possible .1 than the other thing. rr SPEAKER: We don't have an awful lot of choice in the topography. HOWARD: Right. n, SMITH: fir. Chairman, I don'ts really diSlakc the proposal, but the problem that ` We're up against is essentially that if we have then maintained a policy of whether to access to Durham Road, I think that's a precedent that we have set' and I am. not too sure that at this time we should be deviating from it. It seems to me i 1 that the applicant presently has some cooperation from one property owner and I Ithink he has the future possiblity of getting cooperation from cane more property owner, and I think he Would, he would have the additional ,access more likely to 4 y,+08th or 113th. But, I think we're going to get into a problem here, if particularly the City Council is fairly hardnosed on limited adcesses onto Durham Road because quite possibly we could approve it and then have City Council require equal hearing Council level. HOWARD: Well, sir, I can only say that we have gone to great length to limit Iw access to Durham Road. And, that's as the Colrncil directed. t L 4 • ■ ..:.�..N=F...7'+-«T.:YrJ , .!:"lyr.: "Ja"W ..r,iO.,t..11 yr T'It{n.tLR-..Y c"eMN.i!"a!4wYM"lifk#PMM 4':T'Flo'1M15.""C•.S"iaEi.;!t:.,— Sr3' :.p r [ 1' I' 11 r ' • 4 1 '• ''h ' r . • 1 1 4 fa. 1 S 6-'71, Golf Creek B19.tates denial appeal Transcript • P. 17 LAMPKIN: May I say, I have lived there over 20 yea l-s and that limited access as you say is the only a,cess to that island. I'll take that back. There's another road further to the east where Mr. Labhon has always had the orchard there. So there has then, two accesses on the south side of Durham to that island. There always has been. I've lived there over 20 years and I've never had an accident in or out of that driveway which would be quite close to where that road is. Right next to it. You oan see; no problem. But, as far as coming in anyplace else from the south, that's the only access onto Durbam to that island if you will look at it It's deep canyon, you might say on either side, east or west. They join together and run south. If you're going to access it from the south, you'd have to cross one or the other, or the main one, for the only 0 access is of of Durham to that piece of property. SPEAKER: Thank you. SMITH: Mr, Chairman?, (inaudible) SPEAKER: O.X. FUNK: I think I might like to say that, that I don't think we should here and try to second guess the City CoLmcil. I'd rather see us improve this situation. They feel they take a hardnosed standing on it. Least we reflected what we felt here tonight. SMITH: Let me explain. I'm going to move for denial based primarily on the " — access question. And if it, if the motion should carzy, I would propose that applicant take this to City Council and in which case the City Council overrides us, then I'm quite satisfied with that output. And, if they qon't; let's say they do override us, I don't have any real problems with the remaining design of the subdivision. A little bit of question about the protection of the easement, • • . . but I don't think that's as serious as other ones we've dealt with And, just to get, along with this, I move for denial based on the fact that the subdivision • accesses onto Durham Road and an area which I would be undesirable due the 6 desired limited access on Durham. SPEAKER: Is there a second to that motion? KOLLEAS: Seconded. SPEAKER: Seconded by Mrs. Kolleas. Discussion? All in favor of the motion for denial based primarily on the access question, that your Speaking, Doug, • • of 110th, proposed 110th. SMITH: Yes, Proposed 110th acne.t.1: onto Durham. SPEAKER: All in favor of that motion Say ,Aie COMMISSIONERS I Aye•• 5P8Axt1 : Opposed No. COMMSTONEIIS: No. SPEAXBRt You were the only denial, the only no'il O.K. the motion #,Iarried for denial and the applicant has the opportunity to appeal to City Cound1.1. „ • • • — , • •‘,1 c. d i - - n i i! !_ -__ 1 s Lf- j-. --.lr-'-' _ - __�-,may-i X i :1:1112":1. . , .,. �� 1 a •, o A 3 . 3IltJ S t to fn,q ' i gi x nr ev$� 1 ri. 7 } n1 ra 7' tt 1 � t''4 _ 1a 1 'I'lfir- ri— -1— - —i ii;;;3-,-*-7'47- \_ IL_ I,%Iv L-tocivir....1 F f1 1 like 7.I -n.'�.�...�..._,14' ‘,.54;q:',•;!, i } ; irra 5141,--4) ? ",ti°-truer ;r, `14�';` ' •-i•`� 21 I I II 111 'I • 1, 1 d _y ,i i a O i - 1 ,..,...- —'1. I;r?1 :, .3i i4C) i, ' ta, ii 3 ,-.--...," 4. i , V---717,_...„.. 5 4‘...t..., , if 1. - -- - j - - '�• i� t;\" C �4 r� t r---,-, ......-____,..r,--_-_ _f -" - ,�y - x - a } -- i 'Yl>fi — 153 'r•"�•'• 3 • 11 l 1 .. n to • dr 4 $ `, r. - 1 �nni f**Fuld il I-. 1,4 j tr i 7 )1.... 1 -...4nv 171x-'1 ;A 4 .,c—;-...., --— ,, ?nt 4- _ 11� , Fnrg*� t i�� 't ! 0 1 \, , ---- .al Z 1 - --- _ - V ►� ,4'R1d� Fi -. - 'u uc, , AS • .-_____^ Yl _;•' - :r - - ( fF4spr 1 _ - - -- i :4'1' lil J R tri i nb 4/ +. _1 V TTe yi �kGU � '= xi it tt N - $_ a 1C-P.4:11,7711ill ] ri 1 }, ,• t . i _ t, , o:...4,:..:....:.,. ,.,.+;,.x,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,,u.xx:,,,,,,,. #::;1..: . ..,,,,C,.., r. T ^ 1.0m «...,,,,,-, ,..«aww»+.w..,,,a «a q n 'v a ,. if, ,, 0 .. �.: k C. .' • wA SHIN G r ON COUNTY OREGON .� ttl 1 , . C.4 L E 20 0 �..__�__ a � �"V''fr� z `4 r +�. 4 24 � o A 1.t ..� f i50Ca 1 I - i 1 100 . 1600 . ... i et.,a► r 1-, �" �, 1 �1 . ...i. , ;',..,11..,-,..----.. ,.... ,....„, 4 8 7,o a' . . r..,,,;i,276.0.0 1 , ...a , . ,-;■-, tg 14.01 354 1300 2 20,1 241 1'n r {n �` 2 7 1 e.. 1 35 24 i •n .n ,w , (44.3‘ 202 . `"` 1.1,2 r.i�C.. tit e a»i - ► 344,3e ., i yip 387 a j 1 794 4.l- + 1200 I 300 •+ 7,91.Ac, ?,92 Ac, 1 1 • 0 j J ED S 'J3 J... G K 34 r1� v ,'SSa1te •4 to M 4 _ r.'' 1 n., , ,,..,, ,, • ,,,,,,, aea t '"'10t5 iG `, ; , +i r 1 ' is a, 13 68 i d6+ +4` , 2100 224.4c. r.. ° 5,36 Ac. i ifi) CO •` ♦__._...r7.77, ....... o r z ` i 02 „ 1.07,,a 0 1 S . t ii 2 p s.1t �+ iCoSS Nc '05943 40,1 y'` - i : .-- --..- ,. !S t 5 4 a d ''F m y 3 501 '01 ',`ir,wn t:..,. a»w^u:...ae:a;zaHtixnyl►ml,i_,='"'j4'y 1:.,.n\.tN., n.tt 2 00i 1 Sr '" i . Mmw. M A7uiR:4.,,- L. .�. ASw LY.' I,+4'.a • ♦ ' y «\ - 1 w "D' i :• •I , . . • k . , ,, . ( , . i .. i , ..... . MINUTES . t ' . Tif.PRD PLANNING CMMISSION . December 4, 1979 — 7:30 p.m. . Fowler Junior Eigh School — Lecture Rool . - ,.1 . . It 10865 S. W. Walnut St. — Tigard, Oregon ... . • The elee'.' , was OPENED at 7:55 p.m. by Vice Presideat Speaker, who acted as President throughout the meeting in the absence of President , Tepedino. . .,.' , 1, ROLL CALL: - . Present: Bonn, Funk, Herron, Kolloae, Smith, Seeaker . Absent Helmer, Popp, Tepedina Staff: Howard, Selby ,. . • The MINUTES of the November 13 meeting were approved as submitted, .,- . ,e. , • ,,, upon motion made, seconded., and unanimously carried. • , , , There were no Planning Commission COMMUNICATIONS. . . . , . .,, The President at 7:40 opened the PUBLIC HEARINGS portion of the , . . meeting, reading the usual notice of authority for and procedure to be . followed in the meeting. ' ' )4 . . , 5.1 SUBDIVISION 6-79 (Golf Creek Estates) NPO #6 , e f . A request by Mr. Michael D. Elton to appeal the decision by . ' the Planning Commssion on. September 18, 1979 for denial of ,\ es • his subdivleeion request on a 2.85 acre parcel located at the Southwest corner of S.W. 108th and S.W. Durham Road. (Wash. ) Co. Tax tap 2S3. 15A, Tax Lot 1500) .. Howard read the STAFF REPORT and RECOMMENDATIONS. , The APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION was made by Joe Walsh of Waker Assoc- iates, Inc. of Beaverton. He reviewed the various proposals for 1 . e ' development of the aite yhich so far have not been approved by the . P Planning CommiSsion. He submitted a photocopy of an undated petition .40 • • signed by many of the surrounding landowlers approving tho single— ieetly development present:4 proposed. He snggested the sensitive lands ). ordinance should riot apply because the original application *Pas submitted . I . ) shortly before the present ordinance Was paosed. He stated their desire to get the engineering work done and the plat recorded with the stipu.. lation that building permits would be issued when the sewer became avreliabLe, estimated roughly at one and ono—half yeara from tow., • The President inquired the date of the petition oubmitbedt since * ) it eottained the names of the adjoining landowners Who, under date of," • i October 17, sUbmitted a letter in oppositio-a to the development.. Mr. Latkin, the adjoining landowner, speaking from the audience, stated • , . 4 t , . ... ./01 ...........,,„„,,,,,,,",,,,,,,.,..,-,, -: .--- ,... • • ' ' • 1/ . i / . . 11'11 I'll ►nrii111 fill IIIa , NI MV a 1VNI ThO 11 d 0 AII1Vfl 3 al '3 no si ii: ,0110N SI H1 NWL. V710 ssai SIOIM Q ' 1Tal l VI SI H J MiI . 3.1.0N [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] re: . . : r '. , . J , . i ( ,. ) \4,,,>. ' . ).' MIITUTES , TIGARD PLANNING- COMMISSION . 3., . December 4, 1979 I Page , . . , ns that subsequent to the sendi of the letter a different plan for 4C‘* development of teeir property had ',len suggested, and that they now aeproved the requeet, • . . • PUBLIC Tc'STI: ONY in favor of the request was given by -- FA ...a...c.r..........po.......... *** James Lamkin, 10960 S. W. Durham Road, the adjoiej.ng property , owner on the west, who upon questioning by the President stated his willingness, when his property is developed, to dedicate the other half , - .:' ''-1 of 110th Avenue and thus gain access to his future development. . *** Mrs. M. Brewer, 16185 S. W. 108th, who commended the lower density development, and expressed her conviction the drainageway should . p be owned and cared for by the individual landowners. . . • *** Mrs. Waneta M., Cbemberlin, 16720 S. W. 108th, who circulated the petition submitted. She asserted there was virtually 100 per cent neighborhood approval of the present proposal for this site. e . . There was no public testimony in opposition. • CROSS EXAMIN1'...VI0N !,ND REBUTTAL: Selby of Staff clarified be' ..-----. !,. $ referring to the City Code an apparent misconception of Waker Associates ei ; with respect to the Planaing Commission approval required in the event . . , baildimg oermits are not issued within twelve months. According to the Cede, another hearing will be required on this same issue if sewer is not available within averoximately twelve months. He estimated daily • , - traffic volume on the half street, and called attention to the parking problem for visitors of the six residences facing 110th while it is a half street. In discussion with Mr. Walsh he explained the meaning and e ' reason for the one—year rule on developmeset of a subdivision. Mr. . Waker of Waker Associates, Inc. stated he felt the issue of timing of • sewer availability was beside the points indicating esire to get ' . - approval here so improvements can be put in in order that when the sewer is available, home building can commence. VUnk inquired about the turn—around at the end of the proposed half street, particularl:f with reference to use by emergency vehicles. A. 4.., . with.4. There was als,..ussion wl,,h. the Waker people about the possibility of using Lot 6 as off—street parking. They indicated a desire to work with the adjoining landowner if the Commission chose to condition parking • on Lot 6, for instance, suggesting' the possibility of develoement of the adjoining property wittien the time frame of development of the applicant*s property. II .'. Rowaxd of Staff discuased the sensitive lands issue, expressing a strong desire on the part of the City to be able to deal with only one• • entity with respect to proper maintenanoe or the Arainageway. He cited • i other developments' along Durham Road that heve been severely restricted in their access to it. ite did not feel this development justified u , ., .•" r • . . 3r* • ' . .. MI i T TIGA.RD PLANNING ING COMMI SION • . . December 4, 1979' ,- Pa se 3 another access to this arterial road. Mr. 71a_ker responded to the open space -issue, and argued that the island between the two drai.nageways . should not be ce'�r.ied access to Durha :, since such access is essential , for the development of the properties. . COIF tISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTIU t Smith felt the issue of the requirement for another hearing; if substantial construction cannot be ste 1ted within a year, should not be an issue for the Commission at this etre • time,, since the applicant is aware of the problems which might arise at a future hearing with a different Commission. He discussed with Staff the issue of sensitive lands and the governing orczinaaces, It ., was determined that the present ordinance would call far no different physical handling of the d.raivageway by the developer than he now • proposes. Smith asked the City's desire for this drain4;geway--whether outright dedication or some alternative. Howard stated he would like to see a homeowners assn:iation responsible for the maintenance of the . 1 open space in accordance with a deed restriction+ V ri . Funk expressed more concern for the availability of parking than for the access on Durham, since this appears to be the only practical ^ access to these properties. 13onnls concern had already been addressed, Herron explored the parking and emergency vehicle situation an. 110th . with ota.ff. Speaker inquired about adequacy of access to. Durham via a i7-foot-wide pavement,, and whether the developer is required to provide half.street improvements along Durham (he is not, according to the present proposal.) Mrs. Kolle.as expressed concern about the 17,foot-wide street-. ;, Smith raised the question of how access might be provided other than via Durham. Speaker and Staff discussed possiblealternatives with the aid, of a large aerial photograph of the area. It waet pointed out the r c rainagecrays can be more easily crossed with culverts farther south, ° while still allowing access to all properties on Durham. It was agreed • this might not be ideal., but neither is the topography of the area. r_ Smith stated he does not dislike the proposal, but felt the limi,taa tion of access to Durham .. oad was very important. He thereupon MOVED r1 for denial of Subdivizion S 6-.79, based on the fact the proposed subdivi- sion accesses via 110th. onto Durham Road. This is considered undesirable , a..c because of the policy established by the City to limit access onto +, thie road." The motion y. ;Which was, seconded by Kolleas, carried with ' Fnn voting no . .2 t NE CHANGE ?C 379 Gir ad Property) No ig A request by Mrs. Pauline. Girod for a zone change from City Of Tigard C..3 "General Commercial" to City of Tigard a-2 er,Rulti.:fe Lily" on a r.41 acre parcel located at 9900 SV1 _ Freirring. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 231 8C8, Tax Lot 3300) Howard read the 8rAPV PIP'RRT and. 5SCOMR IIDATIOIJS,; r r i w - -.- "tl`,�'R"�;ca 4L'.1.:...ew""N...:.+:!: N-7':i. :.... ,,. +cRf:,.M zmarcr.r:.sr..;:r. xauK«C rw.-.rrcaM N6�xYap.`-'u..�^ r ,S,�Lrk'.�"'«�.. ..--r'v}"•zuC�"Wre=..0:..,µ�1 ,y Ai r ° %'1' , . , . • • . ki .. .. MINUTES 4 ,' ' . ,, , , TIGARD PLANNING Ca NI .#SS'Ytlig , Dece=ber 4, 1979 pace 4 . . Bert Girod, son of the owner, made the APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION.. . ..; Ee had othing further to add to the Staff Findings and Recommendations. .54 Thee was no F7BLIC TEST/MONY on this matter. CO112,!ISSTON DISCUSSION' AND ACTION: Mrs. Herron exnressed concern . about the access from Frevriz onto Pacific Highway. Staff expressed ) the opinion this would be alleviated in pari..• by the forthcoming signal— ' lr.fi.... ization of Paific Eishway, and by the com.-.4eion at some future time . of the Ash Street extension. Smith inquired about the area indicated • ' in the flood plain. Staff explained this is considered fully in the • development plan and preseated no problems. -.... • Bonn MOM approval of Zone Charge AC 36-79 based on Staff Findings 1 , and Recommendations. The motion carried unanimously. ' — 5.3 ZONE GRANGE ZC 36-77 (Western Pacquet Club) NPO #5 • ■-.. A request by Western Racquet Club to extend a Plann,id Develop— . • anent District on 20.75 acres off S. W. Garden Place 150 feet , . south of Pacific Highway. (Wash o Co. ".:ax Map 251 1BB, Tax , . Lots 200, 300, 800, 1100, 1101 and 1200) tp, Since no one in the audience appeared to be interested in testify— , ing for or against this item, the reading of the STAFF REPORT and RECOMENDATIONS was dispensed with. • . . . .. Ronald G. Moore, the owner, had nothing to add to the Staff Report ,. , . as the APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION. He concurred. with the Staff Recommenda- , .° tions. There was no PUBLIC T-ESTIMO'NY as such. . . .... , . *4 Smith inquired about the floodplain, Selby responded, giving a brief history of the action taken at hearings before pre 'ious Commissions. He asserted that floodplain considerations were adequately addressed • ..' and conditioned in the previous hearings, and that a site inspection • . • showed nothing to prompt further concern with respect to sensitive , . ,• lands issues. SPeaker inquired whether compliance with the present ,,f sensitive lands ordinance would entail any physical site changes from 1 what is required tinder the previous approval,. Edward said not, but that if there were any changes of significandr, in the plan requested by the applicant, he Would then have to have another heariag before the , . (700MML11.0111 at which time full compliance with the current sensitive r 4 - landr.1 ordinance Would be mandated. speaker inquired about the drainage, • which was an eXPressed concern of Commissioner Popp, who was unable to • Isli• be preSent. Howard affirmed this is adequately coriditioned and added , ,.. . .. . k . . . ... , . . „ , .. . . , • • • MINUTES , / TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION December 4, 1979 Page 5 that th0 drainage of this and surrounding properties Qill be dealt with as a package when development commences. /van Jack, 12350 S.7. Knoll Drive, inquired what was contemplated in the development* As an adjoining resident he is interested, partic- ularly in the height of the buildings to be built. Es was assured the • warehouse buildings, which he would overlook, would be only approxi- mately 20 feet high. Selby outlined on a large plan the various elements coatemplated. The plans for noise abatement were explained. Mr. Jack asked for restriction of night truck traffic in the area. Mike Duyn, realtor representing Bruce Rosford, the applicant, explained • their intention was to have a multiple—business type of park, in which the traffic would be largely light trucks and vans rather than the larger vehicles. Selby offered Staff Recommendation 7 as follows: "That truck traffic between 7:00 p.m* and 7:00 a.m. to the site be prohibited." He explained enforcement would be on a misdemeanor basis on complaint of citizens* COMMISSION ACTION: Sm:th MOVED for approval ot: Zone Change ZC 36-77 based on Staff Findings and Recommeadations, including Recommendation 7 ( prohibiting night—time truck traffic. Bond secondee the motion, which carried unanimously. The Presidett at 9:25 declared a Tive...minute vecess. . • ' rh, 304 CO NDITIONAL USE CU 25-79 (Roger Belanich/Sea Galley Restaurant) NPO #2 A request by Roger Belatich for a. Conditional Use to operate a restaurant in a C-3 Zone at the Northwest corner of Caecade • Avenue and. Greenburg Road* (Wash. Co* Tax Map 1S1 35B, t Tax Lot 1301) The STAFF REPORT and RECOMMENDATIONS were read by Howard. The APPLICANT'S PRESENTATIOA was made by William Blue, architect 4 408 S. W. Second Avenue, Portland. He concurred with the Staff Findings, stating that the plan submitted is preliminary at this time. Virgil • Russell of Seattle, representing the Sea Galley Restaurants, explained •ys the family type of operation his company conducts. Staff inquired if a liquor license would be applied far. The resDonse was a hard liquor lidense has already been applied for. Bona • inquired whether there would be aces s through the Mobil station. Staff eut-olaited the whole access situation is tentative, and WIll be worked out with the applicant* •• , 4.••• 4.. 411 MINUTES ee TIGARD PLANNING CO!,DIISSION • December 4# 1979 Page 6 COMMISSION DISCUSSION An ACTION': Kolleas expressed concern over the traffic problems which would be heightened by the traffic generated by a popular restaurant. Howard explained factors affecting possible futare changes in traffic patterns in the area, predicting substantial development ia the foreseeable future. Funk inquired the volume of business end traffic anticipated. Smith objected to the access through the Mobil station, to which Staff concurred. Speaker raised the question of emergency vehicle access, which is provided for by entrance from two streets. Smith MO= for approval of Conditional Use CU 25-79 based on : Staff Findings and Recommendations, with the addition of a Recommenda- . tion 8 as follows: That no ingress or egress be permitted from the site onto S. W. Greenburg Road. Bonn seconded the notion, which • - carried, with Kolleas voting no and Funk abstaining. • 4. 5 VARIANCE V 8-79 (Peterson/McDonald) NPO g5 - A request by Carter Case for a side yard variance of the setback requirements in the M-5 Zone "Light Industrial" on two parcels located at 15855 and 15895 S. We 72nd, (Wash. , Co. Tax Map 231 12D, Tax Lots 2400 & 2500) The President asc4rtained there was no one in the audience who wished to present testimony in opposition to this item. Therefare the r reading by Howard of the STAFF REPORT Was limited to the RECOMMENDATIONS , portion only. An addition Howard specified to Recommendetien 1 is that the owners' signthu e petition for a Local Improvement District which is now circulating in the area. APPLICANTtS PRESENTATIONS were made very briefly oy Rose Petersen and Lynn McDonald, owners of the properties involved, both of whom agreed with the Staff Findings and Recommendations. There Was no PUBLIC TESTIMON1C. However, Susan Knowland asked for a clarification ox the "no occupancy" recommendation, fearing that she would no longer be pe=itted to live in the house on the property. Sbe was assured this clause had nothiD,g to do with the continuation of 1 occupancy of her residence. ) COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION: Smith MOVED approval of Variance .4 • V 8-79 based on Staff Findings and Recommendations, including 'the addition to Recommendation 1 that the applicants must in the LID petition now circulating fee' the are. The Motion was seconded by Kolleas. Funk inquired as to the location of the house on the property, and as to the senarateness of the ownerships and the impact on the build- ings to be constructed. The Motion then carried Unanimouely. s 1,11 4 I 4- . . /977 i f 1 . _ • MINUTES •• TIGARD PLA:'r+ING CO•24ISSION ' December 4s 1979 • Page 7 546 VARIANCE V 9-79 (John. H. Rooney) NPO A request by John E. Rooney for a Variance from rear yard set back requirement in a R-7 "Single—Family Residential" Zone located at 121$5 S. W. 126th. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 4AA, Tax Lot 3000) Since only the applicant remained in the audience, the reading of the STAFF REPORT was omitted. Howard read the brief STAFF RECOMMENDATION for approval. John Rooney, the owner, made the APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION, in which he clarified the amount of the variance requested,—roughly a triangle six feet by two feet, • COMMISSIOLT DISCUSSION AND ACTION: Bon n MOVED approval of Variance V 9-79 based on Staff Findings and Recommendation. The motion was seconded, by K011eas and passed unanimously. There was no OLD BUSINESS to consider. 4 NEV BUSINESS' *- 4' Selby explained the appeal of the Studio tstates Subdivision by three citizens, who a?.Iseal an approval of a sucadivision by the Planning Director on a parcel on Dtrham Road near 92n,a Avenue. *** Bonn inquired about the tearing up of Gaarde Street by the • Water District,k Howard explained the new procedures which have come as a result of this situation--the Water District must now secure a permit for every operation involving tearing up of City streets. *** Speaker asked Howard why he recommended approval of Mrs. Burn za,:a's appeal to the City Council for three duplexes, contrary to the decision on two occasions when the matter etas heard before the Commission. Howard explained his conviction that we are going to have to live on smaller lots, and clarified what he perceives as unexpressed motivation of some who objected to Mrs. Burc .'s requests and other requests we have heard recently. This developed into a rather wide- ranging p'aiiosophical discussion of the problems of and proper function A of the Planning Commission. Staff explained problems they have with . proponents and oploononts of requests. There was a discussion. of density, and the prOnrie ty of the Commission doing what it can and should do to promo'.., higher densities ;there practical. The problem created by the lack of positive direction tram the City Council on these matters, was also discussed. It .'as felt a consensus of the Cotioiion on some Of these matters sh oticl be sought at a time when tore Ccmmi scion members are, presents the President AMJOURitti the meeting at 10.403 p.m. M n •.«.u•n+,w.aM.. «,ur�::':u._ .,..aa.:.u,.;y. .,...:.,:a .0 ,i,,: ..r-,.. y ' r ....-,...'24:,....w..............�..,-.....I-..,....al.+.,_,�i.,�C.m:a.+,.:... .......�....,.........,•.....:.✓a.:.._..:.11..,,.,,.,...,....::a..�.'.t..,.:.a:. ..,....`:.�iL.:...,�i..,.....�.., ,._.w_.,.....�.:,,,.�.,...,.....,.__i....»,day-u..:_,....,..»�:.......-,-.. ,_..t...�:..a..,...._........._.,..,,:t+,:...:a,,-..,_>.n,.».,aan...,w.�,......,�.....-..,+..u..'t_.-:_._..„.,w.,.- ' a 4 Y .wax. `. ') 11;P NNI C C.( !NISSIO SIC —UP SHEET � '‘„ '`,70TICE ALL PERSOidS'DESIRING TO SPEAK ON Al ✓ ITEM MOST SIGN THEIR NAME CN THE E APPROPRIATE SIGN—•UP SHEET(S),, LOCATED AT THE BACK' OF THE ROOM. pER$0 NR" a DESIRIxYC TO SPEAK WILL THEN'BE CALLED FOR.Si7ARD BY THE 'CHAIR. TO 3PZAK ON ' INDICATED ITE:.1{S) . 5 . f • ' AG.ENDA ITELM: .5. I REFEREZ`JCE: '.5 t;--21 DAI'F..x ./211/ 7 .• NA ADDRESS \JPL E VA �, A 0 0 ' V. A�,.t. ) • �►�' t"',, .... . . /e../940 TA, i 0 ;,---. ,,i'r 0,.4 I . .. 'VA..4.f'4•=,%. 11..., ...., .(77.. ., .. , . . . . ..„ • ,.,.. . . .. , • . i....„...".4,,,,,..,2,. . • oe:. , • s,. zitr--. .4.," ...,,,,-; ,.. , ..r ,., . . • . . ...„.„,s, . ,. / i rt. . ,, '401111., , • - Z R CE —AGENDA ITEM: DATE: �, // ,._....., 1 . '� NAME; ADDRESS • , • 1 r.✓ yam., . . 11 's ,. AGENDA Y'rt�+u"'�. • RE EPENC '« 1,. _.. 34',.7j,71 LAs.Grd, ��' f • . NAME ADDRESS 4',• w • I .y, . 9 • • ... ,, '. ' • mnen �Arzr.. 'cC r---"."..r---"."..."*"''''''''''''' . . y i r _,1/ r� P!:!:' 4 STAFF REPORT • ` AGENDA 5.1 TI:GARD PLANNING COMMISSION December 4, 1979 - 7:30 p.m. 5 . FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH -- Lecture Room 10865 SW Walnut Street, Tigard, OR • r T)OCKET: SUBDIVISION S 6-79 (Golf Creek Estates, Ref. ZC 16-78, CU 18- 78 & CU 1-W)' APPLICANT: Mr. Michael Elton OWNER: Same ''r‘, 500 NE Multnomah, Suite 380 ' Portland, Oregon 97232 , i co" APPLICATION DATE May 11, 1979 SITE LOCATION: Southwest corner of SW Durham Road and SW 108th Street (Wash. Co. a • Tax Map 2S1 15A, Tax Lot 1500) REQUEST: To subdivide a 2.83 acre parcel into 11 lots in a R-7 "Single-Family 6 Residential" Zone. { PREVIOUS ACTION: ; . On September 5, 1978, the Planning Commission approved the applicant's' . “,k ( request to zone the subject site from Washington County :RS-1 to City R-7. (See Ordinance 78-66) . However, they denied the Conditional Use request for permission to construct and operate a retirement center. (See Exhibit "A") . On March 6, 1979, the Planning Commission denied a second Conditional Use request by the owner to construct duplex units an the 2.83 acre parcel. (See Exhibit "B") , On July 17, 1979, tha Planning Director denied the owner's request to sub- °. divide the parcel into 11 single-family units. (See Exhibit "C") . III OA September 18, 1979, the Planning Commission heard an appeal by the owner's representative and moved for continuation of the Planning Director's denial with special conditions; there be a waiver of fee for the next request and the Staff work with applicant to resolve Code violations. (See Exhibit "Lift) . Since the Efeptember meeting, there have been several letters to and from the owner's representative, (,Waken AssociaLas and two letters of opposition by surrounding landowners, (See EXhibits "E-*l and E-2") . The owner's representative appeared before the City Council on October 8, 1979, requesting that they extend the appeal ' deadline on the decision by the Planting Commission of September 18, 1979. (See attached Minutes dated October 8, 1979) . , 7, ( • .. ...w• ., ,., ._.,... .., . wG:*aCtYL.�.....,:.R�!"�... ......,.-... MI IrviYMU l'r., u.,N.'.".'�.••nuMY J. .'SW'FfiITN' •!1`mY.l"7.'V'VlMMUMRWT[W'l+li.'1CASAMri1 Cam" .�R.�••1. ly ( • .. . NI. ' , . . • ., _ , . .,..... . . ... ( . . ..: .. , . ,A • STAFF REPORT ( AGENDA 5.1 . .. i. , TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION •• • December 4, 1979 ' \ , • t-r Page 2 ,.. . , : On November 13, 1979, the own.er'srepresentative appeared before the Planning • Commission with a letter dated November 9, 1979, requesting a hearing before the - , I Commission. The Commission granted the request. (See Exhibit "F" and "G") . • . . I. FINDINGS OF FACT: . 1. The subject site is zoned R-7 "Single-Family Residential" and is designated '.. ,, R-5 "Single-Family Residential" on the NPO #6 Plan with specification . ,..$0 •, that cluster housing be encouraged in respect to the sensitive lands . . , Conditions and significant vegetation along SW Durham Road. *.• 2. Throughout the prolonged review of this request, the following issues have been present: a) the duplex request was denied based on "change of , .1 character" of the area, and b) that a Planned atwelopment designation . on this particular parcel would be appropriate (see Exhibit "B"), and . ■ c) that sewer service will not be available to this site for approximately , . . , . . f • two years, and d) that direct access onto SW Ditrham Road off the vest side of the parcel is questionable due to heavy traffic on an unimproved arterial and off-setting intersection, and e)the proposed plat would d . . ,,v create a temporary half-street consisting of seventeen feet of paving, .. , , . - 334 feet long. The entrance is off SW /Durham on the west side and would extend south through Tax Lots 1600 and 1300 in the future. The owners • of these Lots and Lots 1501 and 1400 have wrtten letters of opposition. . (See Exhibits "E-1 and 5-2") , and f) in May 1979, the City Council adopted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment identifying certain Tax 'Lots to • become R-5 "Simgle-Family Residential" with 5,000 square foot lots. • The purpose of this descriminati,on was to create lots available for . .- moderate income financing, lots appropriate in size to develop on sensitive land areas and higher density locations near community services. • ... . -. 3. The preliminary plat before you is not the original plan which the . Planning Director denied. However, Proposal "B" is acceptable since the . ' 1 Code Violation along the western side of the site has been eliminated. . 4. In review of Proposal "8", the following Code violations and planning , . . . concepts exist: 1 1 - .i a) Eight of the eleven properties' lot lines encroach down to the creek - bed. Furthermore, there iS no proposal indicating that each individual lot will be restricted from developing the sensitive lands portion. , . - This drainage way is a critical water course for the Summerfield drainage and therefore, must be left in a natural state tb prevent . 1, interruption. For this reason, the planning staff feels that tA. ,, Section 18,56.015 be (.'nforced to require the owner to apply tor a i planned Development DeSignation on the property which can adequately 17- ( deal with the drainage condition. . A . ' I r \ ' ' '' r , ■ • , , . , ( . , - ( ., .,, ., ''' STAFF REPORT '. AGENDA 5.1 ,• ^o,- ! ( TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION December 4, 1979 „ Page 3 . . . . b) The owner proposes to create a half-street along the western portion of the site identified as 110th. Section 17.28.100 states that ,,- 4-.. half-streets are possible while not generally acceptable. The ' . Planning Staff feels that the temp -ary condition of the half-street a is not practical since opposition to the future of the street has •. . . . . been expressed. Furthermore, the temporary street width will be 17 „ feet wide which will restrict traffic circulation. SW Durham Road .5 5 . ."..- daily travel is up to 5,600 trips per day between SW Pacific Highway 5.% ..0 and Tigard High School. This amount is above the road capacity by , 2,000 trips. The future tripe are estimated to reach 10,000. ..,,' Therefore, opening additional off-set intersection on to SW Durham • . should be carefully considered. II. CONCLUSIONARY FINDINGS: 1.. . 1. Proposal "B" has eliminated the Code violation of the original plan. However, several Planning concepts are being ignored which are supported ...• by the Tigard Municipal Code. The Planned Development Designation, . ..., . Sensitive Lands Ordinance, the creation of half-street and lack of - ,..,,.• f„ ,,e sewer availability are concerns of the Planning Staff. N „ ' tk iiIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ..• - .i,' ^'„ Staff recommends that the Planning Commission denv the subdivision request .._—_- 1 based on the following findings: '.' . e 1. The proposed 110th is opposed by the surrounding property owners which . f ..- indicates that the resistance may prolong or eliminate any future , t pc,ssibility of the street being completed. .E1' • -,. 2. Sewer will not be available to the site for at least a year and a half. .. • Therefore, this subdivision approval will have expired and a new hearing will be required. , . . ., 3. The proposed lot extensions into the drainageway requires a Planned Development Designation. ,i1 4. This site has been redesignated on the Comprehensive Plan to accomodate the need for moderate income housing and to avo,;',..d encroachment into sensitive land areas. V) GENERAL STATEMENT: . Staff feels that there is an appropriate method of developing this site which has tot been fully explored. The ComprehenSive Plano Sensitive Lands and Planned ., . OevelopmPnt Ordinances support the feasibility of this lite to be developed as ,- . clustered housing totally on the east side of the drainageway with two story _ dwelling units. Twelve dwelling units would be the permitted density. " . • • - , i•.. ,._1,.. ,,.,.. .,....., m..,. ,....v„ •,„,... ,_„ - .. - ., ,,,..., ,: .:cam=,:y. ,. �i..,...,.....-....,:....•.,, ...» L.,.,».,.—..e...«.ti,,.... »«.»..�,.. ■ • • • STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5.1 • TIGARD PT.AanI G caMM:SSION December 4, 15'79 Page 4 The opposition to this type of development has come from some land owners living south of the site. Their opinion is that clustered housing would not be s • in keeping with the character of the area. This statement is true. The City Council has adopted amendments to the Comprehens�.' e Plan which effectively begins a to change the character of this area. Lots fronting on the south side of SW Durham, 200 feet in depth between Pacific highway and Tigard High School are designated to develop a density of 6 dwelling units per gross, acre with clustered ;� housing type. This tope of development will buffer single-family units from SW Durham. It will also provide low cost housing and allow lot locations to . avoid sensitive land areas. Finally, the major issue here is approving a plan to develop this site which will best serve the community and provide a needed housing type. • 0 1 h' A M • • PREPARED BY 1:N SELEY; APPROVED BY ALb+ ; ,UWARt7, • csociate City Planner Plan g Director a. � - ' Y. .• .'I ■ rl C r-r 9 , ( ■ ig-Alkeil.r '2,4' . . , 1096C SW Durhrim Road . . Tigard i Oregon 97223 4P‘tti k . . . October 17, 1979 . , City of Tigard ; 12420 SW Main Tigard, Oregon 97223 - . . 1 i Attn: Aldie Howard, Planning Director 1 Dear Mr. Howard: In rference to your letter dated October 1, 1979, "S6-79 Golf Creek Estates Proposal", we are opposed to the plan as V 1 presente0. We own 2 acres of Tax Lot 1600 and 3 acres of Tax Lot 1300 which adjoin. 1/..:r„. feel the plans ao not allow IP • us to develop our property ',..o its full potential. Sincerely yours, , ... , 1 Jamc.,i,s si Marlys Lamkin 4,11-4.,...414,/ I cot Walker Associate r . ) ''? .1 ., . . . -,. , - -"*.;, •, \ - --, , ,, •_ \ -- k t ' (7- . • • . ,, ....,. ,, ,,•„. ......- wr CITY OF 1 IGARD , e .... P.O.Box 23397 ke 17,2420 S.W.Main RECE/vE.. Tigard,Oregon 97223 JAN 21 1979 1 City OF ' ", TIGARD . .... January 15, 1980 It . iTh Pw 1. Mr. Joe Walsh, Planning Director . . 1 Waker Associates, Inc. . . 11080 S.W. Allen Blvd.., Suite 100 Beaverton, Oxegon 97005 .. .r , 1... I Re: Golf Creek Estates td 6-79) Appeal u , - Dear Mr, Walsh: — ? Please be advised that the Tigard City Council will hold a public . As hearing on the above mentioned request on January 28, 1980, at 8:00 P.M at Fowler Junior High School, Lecture Room, 10065 S.W. Walnut ., ,, Street, Tigard, Oregon. If you have any questions regarding the hearing, please feel. free to contact me. . • • Sincerely, Doris Hartig „ City Recorder o Dlitilm .3 -1,. t NOTt: The following acknowledgment must be recc id q wy toe City of Tigard before the date of the at.ove menu :, ,r., ,i public hearing. ' -- Failure to do so may result in action '1 , A,- city of Tigard. , I hereby acknowledge this letter documenting i, iql , -1 public hearitg i as set by the Tigard City Council. I have r-r this letter. 1 i i i W . 0 Signattr-Or .. , \s lid r . . Date J ' . / P A,. . ., . l• n Y ,t- cRtP 4(6 9 3 e .,........._..,li.._e ._.,..�'�:,. �.... ..C% ...,...........•.,. -.,...,,,._.,,.•.,,..,..1.0 ii,...,�,.t t.'..i._..,J:..a..,,-»..v E1....,,.., ..,—,.....,.._-...,�'•5.....,.,...,.-..,... .. ,....n...__....•...... ,..•. .«...,.. ..«....,.,_ .,.,.. , ,.,T ,..,..•..,,�. , ' a CIVIL ENGINEERING 4. m PLANNING ,. U VEY NG , 1at December 17, 1979 56101 o. Tigard City Council Ms 1r P.O. Box 23397 12420 S.W. Mai n - ° Tigard, OR 97223 , RE: Golf Creek Estates S ‘—''7 7 L Dear Councflinen: On behalf of our client, Michael Elton, we are appealing the Planning Commissions denial of our proposed Golf Creek Estates Subdivision. The denial was based on the proposed subdivision access via 110th Ave onto Durham Road, The Planning Commission ' a considered this access undesirable because of the policy estab- 1 ished by the city to limit access onto Durham Road, We contest that this access point is the best and only access to ` not only the property but that of the surrounding area between the drainage swates1 ^ te r ; ..h . Enclosed is the fee or $250 to process the appeal . Please V notify me as soon as possible as to when we will be placed on the City Council agenda. Sincerely, . WAKER ASSOCIATES, INC„ (j6oe Walsh Planning Director ' n' . • cc: Mi chael El ton . .r JW/mhg t . 1, b1 J p 1 1080 SW. ALLEN BLVD. ►' 5L ATE 100 / BEAVERTON,,'OREGON /1005 / (503)643-9410 ._ ia. .a..n....ai.•u...._.c.',.A t 1, ^:a ,,..x.. w.... r.Mu.7.am,r,w1A*.x.*p.c+: M. Tway'mw.nx,R pwm,S*wvnM w.A,;,,mL„a,.:...:.,......�...-.-.,.w. .c., . .�. i- s lw ....,..:/"'��^-.w:n...+..s..+..,.... ................_......,-J.-..r,..,M..,..,.,......:.u'.,............ .,♦ ,..r.J...,....x_...w.u4.;,y:xw lz l:.m..•},`..._....,...,,u.,.....,...a...,,...+.-,•i...•a...,1.._... ......••.,....a,l...aa _..a.w,..,.•.....-.a.w.'...il-...1....,.... ..u..haa..4..n...•Gw.._,aw..,..._.......•-,.-,tt.....,..,•.a l.,r.,._-.,.- .,,•,... ..,.......,..._... , I iy CITY • P.O.Box 23397 12420 S.W.MiAin Tigard,Oregon SI72 73 . s Decer,iber 10, 1979 Mr. Michael Elton ,�. •' 500 NE; Multnomah, Suite 380 Portland, Oregon ;,97232 Reference: Subdivision S 6-79, Golf Creek Estates Dear Mr. Elton: Please be advised that the 'Tigard Planning Commission at their regular > .. meeting of December 4, 1979, denied your request to appeal .the decision by the Planning Commission on September 18, 1979 for denial of your subdivision request on a. 2.83 acre parcel located at the southwest corner of SW 108th e • and S.r Dur"ham Toad The appeal was denied based on, the fact the proposed subdivision accesses via 110th onto Durham Road is considered undesirable because of the policy established by the City to limit access onto this road. Action of the Planning Commission is final unless notification of appeal, to the City Council is filed with the City Recorder within 20 days of the Planning Commission's action. :. • If you need additional information or assistance, please do not he• sitate to contact this office at 639-4171. • Sincerely, 1 Ken Selby ):, Associate City Planner Ksvrmo' 1.I ii i t ^:.::.. ,•..,4.... .'v ....h-...•a.jwt-P;:.,.: ......._.;. ..... -ieN r,,.•.. MW'.:.-:.vli+u.."c_...: ...:.;.: ... ..L..N......,..:,....wA.w. ... .,, - .. '. .... . y . .. .. 4. 1vrr, .. - ..."r r. J...,«,r......r.c ....y'.d a.,.r_.•a.,l'.nm ..Y:....wi x,r-.-.w.l.:.....,r .,..t[.....-..4.,......r.-.......1:..., ..,.._.u..a..,....L..»•n.r.......r_..........t,.l....au..t--4.1titM..t-..r....«1.4,:+,e,..A,u........-_e. _ ...r 1_.-....r- • • • ' V• AGENDA TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION L) cember 4, 1979. 7:30 p.m. .®' FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL LECTURE ROOM 10865 ,SW Walnut Street - Tigard 1. Open Meeting: ft 2. Roll. Call: .G. r 3. Approval Of Minutes From Previous Meeting(s) : 4. Planning Commission Communication: 5. Public Hearings: d r A. Staff Report B. Applicant's Presentation C. Public Testimony 1. Proponent's 2. Opponent's 3. ' Cross-Examination D. Staff Recommendations E. Commission Discussion & Action i 9 5.1 SUBDIVISION ri 9'(Golf Creek Estates) 5.2 ZONE CHANGE ZC 36-79 (Girod Property) „ r• r 5.3 ZONE CHANGE ZC 36-77 (Western LL cquet Club) 5.4 CONDITIONAL USE CU 25-79 (Roger Belanich/8ea Galley Restaurant) O N 5.5 VARIANCE V 8-79 (Peterson/Mct.cn.ald) 5.6 VARIANCE V 9-79 (John H. Rooney) . ter 6. Old BUs;Lness: 7. New Business: g. Other Business: � r 9. Adjournment r �r i �'.c-``"as..:4.cr...a;-,w,.r.s ;.r7•..n..r,._.,....c a-..-,.,,.... y _,+- .,q,,.,R,�,.'".. .m..�,,>�x ,: ;- .x.+;va'c,*: �,vr w._�'saa*:.r. ._.r..r .,,,.«�«..:,n^ i;�sr.ru.. . „.„ ..„ • . 0 PUBLIC NOTICE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION ” December 4. 1979 - 7:30 p.m. . FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL LECTURE ROOM 10865 SW VicTInut Street - Tigard 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 SUBDIVISION 6-79 (Golf Creek Estates) NPO #6 1 • A request by Mr. Michael D. Elton to appeal the d-cision by the Planning Commission on September 18, 1979 for denial of his subdivision request on a 2.82; acre parcel located at the Southwest corner of S.W. 108th and S.W. Durham Road. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 15A? Tax Lot 1500) 5.2 ZONE CHANGE ZC 36-79 (Girod Property) NPO *1 A request by Mrs. Pauline Girod for a zone change from City of Tigard C-3 "General Commercial" to City of Tigard A-2 "Multi-famiJy" on a .41 acre • parcel located at 9960 SW Frewing. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 MI, Tax Lot 3300) P • 5.3 ZONE CHANGE ZC 36-77 (Western Racquet Club) NPO 45 A request by Westerli. Racquet Club to extend a Planned Development District on 20.75 acres off S.W. Garden Place 150 feet south of Pacific Highway (Wash Co. Tax Map 2S1 1BB, Tax Lots 200, 300, 800, 1100, 1101 and 1200) • , 5.4 CONDITI(Y'4AL USE CO 25-79 (Roger L'elanich/Sea Galley Restaurant) NPO 42 A request by Roger Belanich for a Conditional Use to operate a restaurant • in a C-3 Zone at. the Northwest corner of Cascade Avenue and Greenburg Road. Wash. Co. Tax Map 1S1 358, Tax Lot 1301) 5.5 VARIANCE V 8-79 (Peterson/MCDonald) NPO 45 A request by Carter Case, for a side yard variance of the set back requirements in the M-.3 Zone "Light Industrial" on two parcels located at 15835 and 15195 S.W. 72nd. (Wash. Co. TaX Map 2S1 12D, Tax Lots 2400 & 2500) , 5.6 VARIANCE V 9-79 (John H. Rooney) NPO 47 • A request by John H. Rooney for a Variance from rear yard set back requirement in a R4 "Single-Family Residential" Zone located at 12185 S.W. 126th. 'CWash. Co, Tax Map 2S1 4AA, TaX Lot 3000) • TT Publish NoVembet 21 and Nbveither 23, 1079 11/19/79 VIDO • • • ° • fr SI• • ,• , • . / ( , . • k. , MINUTES . TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION December 4, 1979 - 7:30 p.m. Fowler Junior High School - Lecture Room 10865 S. W. Walnut St. - Tigard, Oregon , . • , The meeting was OPENED at 7:35 p.m. by Vice President Speaker, who acted as President throughout the meeting in the absence of President • Tepedino. . . ROLL CALL: 4 . •• Present: Bonn, Funk, Herron, Kolleas, Smith, Speaker ' Absent: Helmer, Popp, Tepedino Staff: Howard, Selby The MINUTES of the November 13 meeting were approved as submitted, upon motion made, seconded, and unanimously carried. There were no Planning Commission COMMUNICATIONS. The President at 7:40 opened the PUBLIC HEARINGS portion of the meeting, reading the usual notice of authority for and procedw-e to be followed in the meeting. SUBDIVISION 6-79 (Golf Creek Estates) NPO #6 A request by Mr. Michael D. Elton to appeal the decision by ...,-, the Planning Commission on September 18, 1979 for denial of his subdivision request on a 2.83 acre parcel located at the . ,.... Southwest corner of S.W. 108th and S.W. Durham Road. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 251 15A, Tax Lot 1500) . , Howard read the STAFF RgPORT and RECOMMENDATIONS. . , . The APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION was made by Joe Walsh of Waker Assm;- iates, Inc. of Beaverton. He reviewed the various proposals for ' development of the site which so far have not been approved by the Planning Commission. Re submitted a photocopy of an undated petition signed by many of the surrounding landowners proving the single- , family development presently proposed. He suzge8ted the sensitive lands ordinance should not apply because the original application Was submitted shortly before the present ordinance was passed. He stated their de8ire to get the engineering work done and the plat recorded, with the stivu... lation that bUildinq permits would be issued when the seWer became available, estimateli roughly at one and one-half years from now. 0.11 The President inquired the date of the petition submitted, since it contained the names of the adjoining landowners who, under date of October 17, submitted a letter in opposition to the development. Mr. Lamkin, the adjoining landowner, speaking from the audience, stated , \,. • _.--„,...,,,.---•---k ,'4.«- ,., ,. v,^.“..-41. . ”K,,m wnaper,...,....ran...e.... 1 onrom..arr -..--,c.-- --,-,--.,,----4.--,4,,, . *•‘ .. V • MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION December 4, 1979 . Page 2 that subsequent to the sending of the letter a different plan for • development of their property had been suggested, and that they now approved the request, PUBLIC TESTIMONY in favor of the request was given by -- *** James Latnkin 10960 S,, W. Durham Road the adjoining � � J g property owner on the west, who upon questioning by the President stated his ' willingness, when his property is developed, to dedicate the other half ry. of 110th Avenue and thus gain access to his Future development, *** Mrs. M. Brewer, 2.6185 S. W. 108t11, who commended the lower p density development, and expressed her conviction the drainageway should be owned and cared for by the individual landowners. *** Mrs, Waneta M. Chamberlin, 16720 S. W. 108th, who circulatea the petition submitted. She asserted there was virtually 100 per cent neighborhood approval of the present proposal for this site. There was no public testimony, in opposition. CROSS EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL. Selby of Staff clarified by referring to the City Code an apparent misconception of Waker Associates e with respect to the Planning Commission approval required in the event building permits. are not ie,sued within twelve months, According to the Code, another hearing will be required on this same issue if sewer is { not available within approximately twelve months. He estimated daily traffic volume on the half street, and called attention to the parking problem for visitors of the six residences facing 110th while it is a half street. In discussion with Mr. Walsh he explained the meaning and reason for the one-year rule on development of a subdivision, Mr. Waker of Waker Associates, Inc. stated he felt the issue of timing of `ewer availability was beside the point, indicating a desire to get approval here so improvements can be put in in order that when the sewer , is available, home building can commence. Funk inquired about the turn-around at the end of the proposed half street, particulaY1y with refe:ence to use by emergency vehicles. There was di f C ''v-. .. ,......—.....,__......_..,.........._,.,..:tea.+. v.,-,w»«........1 .................w . ' .,,,.... .., i.._,n,...�.,......x...-.-.�,...........,.._..�_..........-,...,_.._........�.+...,r ___,...,. ._, ...,._».....� ......_.,�.�..,J e, 9 Y x , d ' [L 't, ' MINUTES .TICARD PLANNING COMMISSION Decem'6er LI, 19?9 Page 3 another access to this arterial road. Mr. Waker responded to the open space issue, and argued that the island between the two drainageways should not be denied access to Durham, since such access is essential for the development of the properties. C : COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION: Smith felt the issue of the requirement for another hearing, if substantial construction cannot be started within a year, should not be an issue for the Commission at this time, since the applicant is aware of the problems which might arise at a future hearing with a different Commission. He discussed with Staff the issue of sensitive lands and the governing ordinances. It ,° .. was determined that the present ordinance would call for no different physical handling of the drainageway by the developer than he now 1 proposes. Smith asked the City's desire for this drainageway--whether �,. outright dedication or some alternative. Howard stated d he would like to see a homeowners association responsible for the maintenance of the open space in accordance with a deed restriction. Punk expressed more concern for the availability of parking than, ' fob^ the access on Durham, since this appears to be the only practical access to these properties. Bonn's concern had already been addressed„ Herron .xplored the parking and emergency vehicle situation on 110th with otaf$. Speaker inquired about adequacy of access to Durham via , �, is required to provide a 17 -wide pavement, and whether the developer i� q �+ half-street improvements along Durham (he is not, according to the present proposal.) Mrs. Kolleas expressed concern about the 17-foot-wide street. Smith raised the question of how access might be provided other than via Durham. Speaker and Staff discussed possible alternatives with the ' aid of a large aerial photograph of the area. It was pointed out the drainageways can be more easily crossed with culverts farther south, while still allowing access to all properties on Durham. It was agreed this might not be ideal, but neither is the topography of the area. Smith stated he does not dislike the proposal, but felt the limita« Lion of access, to Durham Road was very important. He thereupon MOVED for for ,iaa121 of Subdivision S 60.79, based on the fact the propozdjukILL, 14t. + sion accesses v` to able Vie. u icy��es a• is e• e Cit �' rcd undesirable, via 110th onto Durham Roa is is cons�de w- se o, e c�. . y carried nto T oar , n by�e ��• , i . n�c. -was seconded b Kolleas, .tied w1 " Fnnk voting no. ' 5,2 ZONE CHANGE ZO 36. 79 (Girod Property) NPO 41 A reqUeet by Mrs. Pauline Girod for a zone change from City of Tigard C.3 "General Commercial" to City of Tigard, A-2 i "Multi-famijyo On a .4.1 acre parcel located at 9960 SW Frewing. (Wash, Co. Tax Map 2S1 2dt?; Tax Lot 3300) Howard read the STAFF DEPORT an d RECOMMENDATIONS„ �.,;;y...,.+.....ywnwnisma� r^ a '.c... +: . ..'.:..,.r 1 .,._�..wom:9i.n+r,»ecr,��u:,a:•e:unim»u:xttra,r.V"r,.y�:urr.,..'�.x.^x's:;r .....=.;::.:;-.:._ • ...1 �� .''._.., ....... ....,� .,.,,. �... .�... .,.. „ .. .... ..,. r A • � 4 ...a.•• r...a.,U.,......-,.....,.,_..n...,.....v....,..w......,.,v..i....,..x,...w-,.. ..A.+"..n..w1i`..,...... ..a.....r.,a.............vin., 'a.'a-•.......uv.i.f- av-....._.....»...\T..a+.r.)...,.,......,,...�.....,....-.++ .:.A-l-.•a..W...,-.....,._.... ,. v.'.4..v.....e.»._....,.". +. ,..u.,..-._ „_- ..I, ....n STAFF REPORT ' AGENDA 5,1 TIGARD PLANNI.NIG COMMISSION , December 4, 1979 - 7:30 p.m. ' - FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH - Lecture Room. 4 10865 SW Walnut Street, Tigard, OR DOCKET: SUBDIVISION S 6-79 (Golf Creek Estates, Ref. ZC 16-78, CU 18-78 & CU 1-79) ' APPLICANT: Mr. Michael Elton OWNER: Same 500 NE Multnomah, Suite 380 Portland, Oregon 97232 APPLICATION DATE: May 11, 1979 . SITE LOCATION: Southwest corner of SW Durham Road and SW 108th Street (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 15A, Tax Lot 1500) REQUEST: To subdivide a 2.83 acre parcel into 11 lots to a R-7 "Single-Family Residential" Zone. • PPEVIOUS ACTION: On. September 5, 1978, the Planning Commission approved the applicant's request to zone the subject site from Washington County RS-1 to City R-7. (See • Ordinance 78-66) . However, they denied the Conditional Use request for permission • to construct and operate a retirement center. (See Exhibit "A") . s On March 6, 1979, the Planning Commission denied a Second Conditional Use request by the owner to construct duplex units on the 2.83 acre 'parcel. (See Exhibit "B") . ~ . On July 17, 1979, the Planning Director denied the owner's request to sub- • divide the parcel into 11 single-family units. (See Exhibit "C") . On September 18, 1979, the Planning Commission heard an appeal by the owner's 3}. representative and moved for continuation of the Planning Director's denial with special conditions; there be a waiver of fee for the next request and the Staff work with applicant to resolve Code violations. (See Exhi'Di t "D") . • Since the September meeting, there have been several letters to and from the owner's representative (Waken Associates and two letters of opposition.�. p , by surrounding landowners. (See Exhibits "8-1 and E-2") . The owner's representative appeared before the City Council on uctober 8, 1979, requesting that they extend the appeal deadline on, the decision by the Planning Commission of September ' 8, 1979. (See attached Minutes dated October 8, 1979) . ._._,. .r.'T'.:«T.....,x:fr;,._,.,�.i4�f,,a t. "y,rr 4'"' . , v.n_.a»r.>W«,.,ia¢..MC:Mm^n:.ecc'wu-*a.Maxcaaa-me'n;N".',r"Y'sata�r`ar«k`nu....••[Le.w-,.:�'7..7, ur'vY.MirakT-G1C..,`^„ . • . STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5.1 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Cecember 4, 1979 • Page 2 On November 13, 1979, the owner's representative appeared befoese the Planning ,P Commission with a letter dated November 9, 1979, requesting a hearing before the Commission. The Commission granted the request. (See Exhibit "F" and "G") . I. FINDINGS OF 'ACT: • ' 61) 1 The subject site is zoned Re7 "Single-Family Residential" and is designated Re5 "Single-Family Residential" on the NPO 'ff6 Plan with specification that cluster housing be encouraged in respect to the sensitive lands conditions and significant vegetation along SW Durham Road. 2. Thro-ughout the prolonged review of this request, the following issues have been present: a) the duplex request was denied based on "change of character" of the area, and b) that a Planned Development designation on this particular parcel would be appropriate (see Exhibit "B"), and c) that sewer service will not be available to this site for approximately two years, and d) that direct ac.:ess onto SW Durham Road off the west side of the parcel is questionable due to heavy traffic on an unimproved arterial and off-setting intersection, and e) the proposed plat would create a temporary half-street consisting of seventeen feet of paving ' - 334 feet long. The entrance is off SW Durham on the west side and would extend south through Tax Lots 1600 and 1300 in the future. The owners of these Lots and Lots 1501 and 1400 have written letters of opposition. (See Exhibits "E-1 and E-2") , and f) it Mai 1979, the City Council adopted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment identifying certain Tax lots to become R-5 "Single-Family Residential" with 5,000 square foot lots. The purpose of this descrimination was to create lots available for moderate income financing, lots appropriate in size to develop on sensitive land areas and higher density locations near community services. 3. The preliminary plat before you is not the original plan which the Planning Director denied. However, Proposal "B" is acceptable sinde the Code violation along the western side of the site has been eliminated. 4. In review of Proposal "B", the following Code violations and planning concepts exist: a) Eight, of the eleven re .3perties' lot lines encroach down to the creek bed. Furthermore, there is no proposal indicating thaf each individual lot will be restricted from developing the sensitive lands portion. This drainage way is a critical water course for the Summerfield drainage and therefore, must be left in a natural state to prevent • interruption, Por this reason, the Planning Staff feels That Section 18.56.015 be enforced to require the owner to apply for a Planned Development Designation on the property which can adequately deal with the drainage condition, r - _ ' k: • / • ( STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5.1 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION December 4, 1979 , Page 3 b) The owner proposes to create a half-street along the western portion, of the site identified as 110th. Section 17.28,100 states that half-streets are possible while not generally acceptable. The Planning Staff feels that the temporary condition of the half-street . is not practical since opposition t . the future of the street has been expressed. Furthermore, the temporary street width will be 17 feet wide which*will restrict traffic circulation. SW Durham Road daily travel is up to 5,600 trips per day between SW Pacific Highway and Tigard High School. This amount is above the road capacity by 2,000 trips. The fiture trips are estirriated-to reach 10,000. Thex:?fore, opening additional off-set intersection on to SW Durham should be carefully considered. II. CONCLUSIONARY FINDINGS: 1. Proposal "B" has eliminated the Code violation of the original plan. However, several Planning concepts are being ignored which are supported by the Tigard Municipal Code, The Planned Development Designation, Sensitive Lands Ordinanle, the creation of half-street and lack of sewer availability are concerns of the Planning Staff. • III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION * Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the subdivision request based on the following findings: • 1. The .proposed 110th is opposed by the surrounding property owners which indicates that the resistence may prolong or eliminate any future • possibility of the street being completed. • 2. Sewer will not be available to the site for at least a year and a half, Therefore, this subdivision approval will have expired and a new hearing will be required. • 3 The proposed lot extensions into the drainageway requires a Planned Development Designation, 4 This site has been redesignated on the Comprehensive Plan to accomodate the need for loderate income housing and to avoid encroachment into sensitive land areas. GENERAL STATEMENT: Staff feels that there is an appropriate method of developing this site which has not been fully explored, The Comprehensive Plan, Sensitive Lands and Planned P Development Ordinances support:, the feasibility of this site to be developed as clustered housing totally on the east side of the drainageway with two story • dwelling units, Twelve dwelling units would be the permitted density, • — - Joe— • ' • • • • • • STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5.1 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION December 4, 1979 Page 4 The opposition to this type of development has come from some land owners living south of the site. Their opinion is that clustered housing would not be t, in keeping with the character of the area This statement is true. The City Council has adopted amendments to the Comprehensive Plan which effectively begins = to change the character of this area. Lots fronting on the south side of SW Durham, 200 feet in depth between Pacific Highway and Tigard High School are designated to develop a density of 6 dwelling units per gross acre. with clustered housing type, This type of development will buffer single-family units from SW Durham. It will also provide low cost housing and allow lot locations to' avoid sensitive land areas. Finally, the major issue here is approving a plan to develop this site which will best serve the community and provide a needed housing type. • T • I , r ti ti� •P • • • • r '~r• 1 Ft S .• PREPARED 3Y i SELEY, APPROVED BY ALD A °WAI D, , • • sociate City Planner plan''� g Director -eA«wF.aaa.'rtigT"^ keariCY..`1FC.'74'3 '—''+ ? t 'h . , • • F;y1,1.‘ i7. • le 0 • .%,"' ( .44,470 CITY OF TIGARD P.O. Box 23397 12420 S.W. Main, Tigard, Oregon 97223 September 21, 1978 Michael D. Elton & Victor L. Lund 1801 Cloverleaf Road Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Re: CU 18-78 Dear Sirs: • Please be advised that the Tigard Planning Cornmision at their regular meeting of September 5, 1978 denied your requast for a • conditional use permit to construct an 80 unit retiremnt center at the southwest corner of Durham Road & S.W. 108th. The proposal was denied due to the following: • 1. Over impact on number of units on lot, over impact of sewage system, over impact on Durham Road & 108th. Actions of the Planning Coxrunistaion are final unless notification of appeal to the City Council is filed with the City Recorder within 20 days of the Planning Commission action. • If we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this office at 639-4171. Sincerely, e,4 . Ken Selby Associate Planner • RS:db cc: Opal A. Labahn L' VOTE: The following acknowledgment must be received by the _ City of Tigard within fourteen (14) days of your receipt of this letter. Failure to return this acknowledgment may result in action by the City of Tigard. I hereby arAngwledge this letter documenting the action of the Tigard Plan,qitig Commissiga. 1 have received ad read this letter • Signattrp / _ Dae „it . , r - ' j ' • A 0,44-41 ) 9 . ,,, , .,, . i ` f 14 NL Lfr" ....) r C ci,e, ' TIGkii , OREGON ". ,, ,i,t I . . \N I • 3 I, . ORDINANCE NO. 78- Ap___ 41 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO AN APPLICATION BY MR. 1 t MICHAEL ELTON & VICTOR LUND roR AN AMENDMENT TO THE 1970 ZONING MAP ! i OF THE CITY OF TIGARD CHANGING THE ZONE DISTRICT FOR A TRACT OF LAND ' l ' AT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DURHAM ROAD & S.W. 108TH AND DEPICTED ON . WASHINGTON COUNTY TAX MAP 2S1 15A AS TAX LOT 1500, FROM WASHINCTON 1 ' COUNTY "RS 1" TO CITY OF TIGARD "R-7" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND ADOPTING EXHIBITS "A", "B", & "C", GRANTING THE APPLICATION AND FIXING I t AN EFFECTIVE DATES 1 i ........._. ...._ ............ , , THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: . . , SECTION 1: Finding that the lands i s hereinafter described have been r heretollore and are now classified as Washington County I 1 "RS 1" and further finding that pursuant to prescribed procedures, the above-stated application for a zoning map amendment was heard in a : public hearing held by the Tigard Planning Commission on September 5, , • 197 , and all interested persons were there and then afforded an • -- opportunity to he heard, and thereafter the Planning Commisssion filed . .i. its report and recommended approval with the City Recorder, a copy k therefore hereto attached add by reference made a part hereof, the •,, Council adoptn the following substantive findings: , . A. That the applicant is in conformance with the Urban Low Density Residential designation of the NPO 06 Plan, and S. That the proposed zoniag is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. , , • SECTION 2 : THEREFORE, pursuant to the requirementsfof Chapter 18 .88 of ... Tigard Municipal Code, the appacantss request for an amena-- 1 ment of the Tigard Zoning Map of 1970 to zone those lands described in the attached Exhibit "14... for Singh Family ResidAtial (R-7) use is hereby approved, subject to the provisions of Chapter 18 .20 (Single Family Residential Zones) of the Tigard Municipal Code so h.mbodied in or exhibited by the documents submitted end identified as follows: Exhibit "A" : - Legal Description .... L, • , , ,• Exhibit "B" : - Staff Report Exhibit "C" : - Site Plan . •1 And further subject to the following conditions: 1. That 25 feet of right-of-way along S.W. Durham Road • be dedicated to the City and the applicant file an agreement to participate in the improvement of S .W. Durham Road. 2. That five (5) feet of right-of-way along S .W. 108th . .. be dedicated to the City and '.' half street improve- ment be provided along S .W. .uoth to the City of Tigal-d. Standards before a building permit is issued for the lob. • , ORDINANCE No. /8- . . ZC 16-78 ' 4, , . , ....- t , • • 1 1 . a re . r ' k,..,. J•Or"..• ,.........A. ' (1 • 0 4 3. That the developer receive approval from the City Engineer prior to construction, and especially in regard to building on natural drainageway and grade. 4. All utilities be subsurface installations . SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effeCtive on and after the 31st day after its passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor. . . • , . _... . . PASSED: By _Qc.tjjzth .. vote of all Council members present • : this :2R day of 6klesill2„ , 1978 , after being • read two times by number and title only. q ° ' . . . [ ■ Recorder -' City /oil' Tiga.rd L/ . • APPROVED: By the Mayor, this 2 ... day of 0,,,:72e/„,..t,, ' 1978 • • . . , 2,,tr .,,„,, .., g,.....siz.„4..,..., . • Mayor - City of Tigard / 4 . . . . . .. i I . • . ) , . . PAGE 2 1 „.' . ORDINANCE No. 78—_,.6.4 , . • 2C 16-78 . • 4' J. r . . 0 ,1 'IA ■, •, { • • 1 • A , 0 % . . ) . ,I ■ _ • 24. 4 o . A. t` rt.,n........... . .. e 1.. .... ..._a ..,a...... -..0., _ -r ., ..,,—,...+..a.,...1 l .a.+.,_......M.. .s.,.1....�.wJ.....,.. »�..., ar.. .._..r._.1 «_.... ..�_ ..._.__.,- a,a_..•,_ .. �I. t .,;, •Y �. , `; I �( �', t I RECEIVED • . t_,,; .,3' CITY O T AR CITY OF T,GAR© t R.O. 8 ox 23397 12429 S.W. Main , x/4tt11r"j3 ' r, Tigard,Oregon 97223 A March 12, 1979 . Mr. Michael D. Elton 1801 S.W. Cloverleaf Rd. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Re: Cu 1-79 Dear Mr. Elton: Please be advised that the Tigard Planning Commission at their regular meeting of March 6• F. 1979, denT'ed your request for a conditional use permit in reference to the above project. • This proposal was denied due to that the duplex units would not be in keeping with the character of the surrounding single family residences, and that a planned development would enhance the subject sites develop- ment as it relates to the greenway on the site. Action.of the Planning Commission are final unless notification of appeal to the City Council is filed with the City Recorder within 2C j. days of the Planning Commission action. ? .. • rd• If we Can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this office at 639-4171. . Sincerely, u: Ken Selby • • : Associate. City Planner XS:db i, Note:. The following acknowledgement must be received by the City of Tigard within fourteen (14) days of your receipt of this letter. Failure r .h44, . to return this acknowledgement may result in action by the City of Tigard: I hereby acknowledge this letter documenting the action of the Tigard Planning Commission. I have received and read this letter, and r agree to . , the decision here docunented and to abide by any terms and/or conditions attached, • -CiGn? awe _ dte-' ./ n . s i , . c . . t 1 , 11-14 5, Z. (f- , c sTkE.1, wc.::--.)0.PA. Et( .4. 0 ‘,. li e'''', It • 'I'LGALID PLANNINC.; D 'r...'4,-.UT a x 1.4-1 6 ir -e,Pi 1 C1'1-17 12420 S. • . 10;,:drz St: ,,, m•- '. - ' ..7u.ly 3.7, 1979 . • . . • ' IX.Ir'KET: Subdivision 6-79 (Golf Creek Estates) . t. • . ; . REQUEST.> To subdivide a 2.83 acre parcel into eleven lots . • , SITE LOCATION: Southwest corner of S.c th. .. . .i. Durham Road and S.W. 108 Stmet ' • . . . .. , APPLICANT: ';-1-.1 chae .1 D. Elton , ' -. . 500 N.E. Multnomah • • . . Suite 380 • • ' • Portland, Oregon 97232 • . • . . ' • , - I, I SITE!, DES,IGNi'51,20a: R-7 Single Family Residential . , .0 . ' • . 1 , ,. P P,F,V IOU S ACTION: .., ., . • ma Tigard Planning Commission on September 5, 1978 approved the applicant's ..*„, roquest .fOr a zone Liap amendment for a trace of land, depicted on Wash.. Co. • Tax Hap 2S1 15A as Tax Lot 1500, from Wash. Co., "P5-1" to ,City of Tigard . . , . "R-7" Single Family Residential (Ref: ZC 16-78) . 11 . ., . The Tigard Planning Commission at their regular meeting of March 6, 1979 denied the applicant's request or a conditional use perrp,it in regards constructing duplex units on the subject site. .. .. ". t FINDINGS OF ACT: , 1 ,, r 1 The site is designated as 'Urban Lora Density" on the NPO fiG Plan and zoned • R-'7 "Single; Famii.y Residential". ,*• :,, The applicant proposes to subdivide and construct eleven (11) single family ' .. .a.n / tinitt5 with the smallest lot size being 7,500 sq ft ,. ei the largest 15,000 sq. ,/, ft. . ... . . . ,,. The. sit.e is split 11'y a Creek which flos-s north to south through the area A major portion of the property is in the nature drainage way. Water lines are adjacent to the site and th.! Summerfield Trunk Sewer line is . - 1 . . lleing designed to pass through the site in tile creek area. . . S.rrl. Durham. Pad is designated as - residential axterial. road in the n'EN) ; P1;1:1 ,..r. t'll Lilt' rw'c...,,,..:Ivat-,-y rl.yl.t.;..- o F.-.-.t.tty of t)O n.... s.cl. 1.0 1 th ''. '. cl..si,s,:.1..at.,_,.c.1 a , . . ' ... r 7 local street. ' . . • , L,'":7'.011:',1!".'0.4A1'.? V"InraNC!'",.:: ., . .., , The avplicant.'s reqtae.st fOr a .3t..)ne change, to City of '.eiga.rd R-7 ...`3ingle ramilv , t , Rosidential, was approved by the city Council October 23, 1978 5t.11.1ject to . 4A, cuLton..5. as enumerated,. ° ..,t•1,,,, . '''. ,,, • . , . '' '"""'' '..e 4 '"'"''''''''''''''''''''—`kr:1—"4.":— .. ,,t4:%) if . "•00 -44 . 1, - 1 , 4.,,r .,. . • \.,.7 . : - - - ,. • • • (r: ,, STAFF REPORT w ••. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION . s . July 17, 1979 . . Pages? 2 . . A major portion of the subject site falls within a natural.drainag� system Prom the Pond. across Durham Road in Summexfie1d. No buildings can be ' . placed on this portion of the properly,: Access from the western portion of this site on to Durham Road is contrary n to Washington County Policy to limit access .0 Durham.am. . . 1111, , Sate has been designated for higher densi ty development_ recently by the Tigard C`.ty Council on. May 21, 1979. „ STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: , , • Staff rticormrends denial of this proposal for the following reasons: 1. Access/ingress tp western portion of property is not appropria.t DurhaM .Road` shall remain a' "Limited access road". . s w 2. Spanni . . II' . , ,',Y(: . ,.":.rJr.". ,`■ -,''(41,'"4a0*:,:‘,-4 A. ' , , 4 I ■ .7.^A,., ;V ,.. .- ( 4 7 ' ' ' 1tf—^..' ./..4 .,y ---'. sl ,IT, '`,,i.:,...fx n , ., 'e f i . ( .., ilt \„ \,, , . ,.. , , 15-X#161 r'D'° ' MINUTES . TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION • , September 18, 1979 Page 2 . , • • ,. .0 . . 5.3 TEMPORARY USE TU 12-79 (Summerfield, Roderick Enterprises) • A request 'by Mr. ',onald K. 7,■.nutson for a six Month Temporary Use Permit to locate two security guaYd trailers in a C-4PD "Retail Commercial" .1 Y zone, located at 11205 S.W, Summerfield Drive (Washington County. Tax• Map, 2S1 10D, Tax Lot 1902) . . \\ \,•1 Howard read the STAFF REPORT an Pd RECOMMENDATIONS, adding as Staff . Recommendation 3, "That only two security guard trailers be allowed." He 4. . . I stated he had counted six trailers on the property. . •• . • . • ,. . . . • . .• -, . 4 " . . , There was no one present to make the APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION, nor was .. ,A there any PUBLIC TESTIMONY. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION; Speaker asked clarification of the •. security 'guard designation, the date from which the six months aPpro7a1 , wuuld run (September 18) , and whether there would be separate trailers for . , , construction offices. Howard felt the two authorized should be adequate, \, '' and stated he would follow up on the matter. , Speaker MOVED approval of Temporary Use TU 12-79 based on Staff Findings , . , . ? and Recommendations, including Ret. mmended Condition 3 limiting authorized trailers to two. Helmer seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. . 5.2 SUBDI‘r.SION S 6-79 APPEAL (Golf Creek Estates) . „ ..-. A request by Mr. Michael D. Elton to appeal the decision by the Planning 7.....\ - Directory on duly 17, 1979 for denial of his subdivision request on a 2.83 acre parcc1 located at the Southwest corner of S.W. 108th and S.W, . Durham Road (Washington Coullty Tax Map 2S1 15A, Tax Lot lsno) . • Howard read the STAFF REPORT and RECOMMENDATIONS, being the report prepared ..., • by Staff as the, basis of the denial by the t• anning Director of a request for a regular subdivision, of a 2.83 acre parcel for single family residences. . '" Tonight's hearing is on the applicant's appeal from that decision of the 1 . Planning nirector. . p .. aoe Walsh of Waker Associates, Inc. , made the APPLICAVT'S PRESENTATION. He related past Commission denials of two higher density development proposals for the site as the reason for coming in with this single family proposal. (,) He cliscussd their proposed handling of the drainaje swale open space. Be , lill felt even if the City were to own the Swale, 7-he property owners would „Ip . probably plovide E.otter care oE it than the City bc.lcause of limited City budcpts. PUBLIC TESTIMONY was offered by Mrs, Grant Chamberlain of S.W. 108th •. • Avenue, and Mrs. Narisa Brewer, an adjoining landowner. both spoke in favor of the single family style of development for the property (in effect, oppcing the denial of the proposed. subdivisio0 , . . • ,,.. .. )• - ". q\ ' t . I r 4/ V ) .44 AY . ! M I NOTES . A A s TIGARD PLANNINe: COHMISSTON September LI, 197S •. , Page 3 . . , . . . COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION: Selby discussed this application for Tjstandard subdivision in relation to Code provisions calling for abutting , . of each lot onto a public street. He pointed out the private drive planned • . for the east portion, and the "temporary" 25-foot right-Of-way proposed on the west, characterizing them as violations of the City Code for standard e * . ' subdivisions. Ke explained the concerns of the City with respect to the drainageway, outlining methods by which it might be handled. He doubted sewer to the area would be available very soon. Tepedino inquired the type of Staff work with the developer which has taken place. Selby explained the conflicting views of the NPO (favoring higher developmen along Durham , I , Road) versus the neighbors, who have appeared in force at the two previous Planning Commission hearings for higher densities on the property, favoring w, single family development. • • . , Funk questioned if there had been any stexgestion to the developer to come in as a PD. Selby pointed to the Staff statement that the fee for a request for a Planned Development will be waivea. Speaker asked when sewer would be available. Howard explained difficulties occasioned by new develop- , , Ments which utilize the capacity of the higImpressure system in the Summer- field area, thereby forcing reliance for sewer to this development on the ilk, USA intercepter. He guessed it would take a year to get the service to this L area. He forecast the nature of development along Durham Road when sewer rr, . co ‘4 does arrive, and expressed very strong doubts that the property would be ., developed single family in the light of the higher densities already approved. .. He explained that DurFam Road is still under jurisdiction of the County and • has decreed it is a limited a=oss toad, and that there is no circulation . . • 4 plan for the area south of Durham Road. The NPO approves R-5 zoning, - whereas previously the neighbors have been very vocal in favoring only single • .: e family development. The site is rnique because of the draitegeway bisecting , _ it. In all, manythings- have affected permissible land use on it, and the . A arrival of sewer will bring many mere, possibly drastic, changes. He explained his strong aversion to committing the direction of development ref surrounding property by allowing the half-street dedication/ and temporary use thereof, • with the expectation that future development will take place in such a manner that this is an appropriate part of the eventual transportation plan. He felt these uncertainties were too great to take at this time, since he looks •1 . , for development of the whole area within five years. While the developer • has come in with a revised plan calculated to remove some of the Code viola- \ tions pointed out by Staff, it did not arrive in time for Staff properly to 'valuate it for this meeting. The President felt we must act on what is submitted to us, and it was gnnerally agreed it was not the commission's part to l'edesign the nroinch to make it meet the coar.... , . ' The President recognized Joe Walsh, who explained features of the new a. plan. Be felt sewer would be available by next aline if OSA keep L on schedule. •- , His desire is to have everything ready by the time Sewer is available. He felt development at R-5 denSity Would not permit appreciably more units than •. - - are shown in this request because of ,the:topography. — , Calltil si..oloue,o4t>" 002.40.4 . , - . \ • .. _ , • : 1 ir ( kir \,.,,„ ,, . MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION ., - , September IS, 1979 , . . . , Page 4 . . 11 Tepedino deplored the number of appearances aleceady made on this property, but favored additional working with the Staff to the end of possibly bringing • in a PD proposal. Staff indicated willingness to work further with the applicant, eNpressing confidence in their ability to work out a satisfactory . . , solution. . . . ; The President recognized Michael Elton, the owner, in view of the . . peculiar characteristics of the site and its history before the Commission. II He stated 5,000 square foot lots would almost certainly result in rental properties.. He felt larger lots tended to promote larger interest by owners o in goo(' maintenance of the grounds (in this case, the creeM . . . . At the request of the President, Selby summarized the legal difficulties • in the plan proposed originally. Howard asked the Commission allow him to OW -."' work with the applicant further. Selby explained the form of motion necessary to fulfill the apparent intent of the Commission based on the discussion.• Tepedino thereupon MOVED for continuat:ion of the Planning Director's . /- denial of Subdivision 6-79 based on Staff Findings and the information •{' M- . generated :,in the hearing, with these special conditions: that there be , ,.. a waiver of fees and costs to t applicant for his next request on this parcel; that the applicant and the Staff work together to resolve the discrepancies with the Code; and that the item bi., reset for the earliest possible rehearing before the Commission. The mr .on was seconded by Kolleas and carried unanimously. 4 o , ........0•FIM.,..., OTHER BUSINESS: --Selby-Selby brought to the Commission a petition signed by all the i residents of S.W. King Raysyth Court, who ask their street be renamed Ponderosa , ' Place., Speaker MOVED recommendation by the Planning Commission to the City __- Council of the change of the street name as requested. Helmer seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. , t \ ---Tepedino brought up the subject of time limits on various approvals -- a sort of statute of limitations. After considerable discussion it was generally agreed Staff should conslder inserting as a more or less standard condition that the authority granted muse. be exercised with a certain time frame. Staff agreed to give some thought t the problm. / * ) c ---Howard brought up the letter directed to the President from Puget Diecasting and Injection Moulding regarding an old (1973) floodplain fill ., p-!cmit. H rolat.ed the history and present status of the property involvod. The feeling was that a public hearing on the matter 11, *.; in order, After considerable discussion Tepedino MOVED the Plannirr Staff request the applicant to appear at a full public hearing on his allegat'..ons concerning the filling CV i VI' i ot' the floodplain. Kolleas seconded the tion, which passed unanimously, . - lio C 4 : . , • • --4 * ,,...,,,,,i,,-.,, — ,....,., . . . -..... .,.....,,........ .._„... 1 f...---,,,.. .....,...,,,,t,.....,,, ty.„.......—....,;,,, , ,, . . •4 ,. , , .ti) Ilk y 9• w CIVIL /�� +�j �pp//±�. { •�� '• ` a'ri Si i ..r G�1?/y��649a�QdV ? PLANNING•'SU kVEYIN _ G , hic t . 4';' Ao rF^' ;p d . 4 y P ,. November 9, 1979 Or i Commissioners • Tigard Planning City of Tigard ' 11,.0.. Box 23397 Tigard 'o'regon 97223 Dear COmmi ss ioners;: On behalf of our client, Michael Elton, (Golf Creek Estates) , a'' we are•em:losing a letter we submitted with material required ''., , to be placed on the November 13th Planning Commission Meeting. Since the time. we had submitted tnis information, the Planning Director has Itaken us off the agenda for that meeting until we submit a r'ianned*Development. We feel that we have the right ,; to be heard on our proposal and not succumb to Mr. Howards plans .\ , for the site. So we are sending you this information in case i. elf, if was not sent to you by the City. Since we were pulled l l ed from the agenda for the November 13th hearing, we will be in `.'• attendance to d i scusr. this project as a non.agenda item, w, Thank you, r , 1f'IryAKEF .ASS©C}`"11 GS,'NC. m.w ,,,,},..$v L ,, J, f , . '11 (—#../Jloe ;Walsh, . Planning Director b ,, • cc, Michael 1ton JW/md i 4. 11080 5.W. ALIIN OLVD, j" V11 18' .Q0 / �E��E��,�♦ DI GON 97005 ObB / (503) 643=9410 4 ; n r.x,r,. ws� ••n -^ y c , w ♦ R �m „a � r , .9 ' T , ,r il'k ...• ,., n, . ff-,r1i—vic3 r. /.1g...1,., S 6- 2, . ' 10960 SW Durham Road _., ... migard, Oregon 97223 -..._...,-- ■1 Oregon .1- kl 1=1S' October 17, 1979 Al; , i?.. . . . . ,3. .. City of Tigard 12420 SW Main - .., Tigard, Oregon 97223 - Attn: Aldie Howard, Planning Director Dear Mr. Howard: 1 in refetence to your letter dated October 1, ...i.979, "S6-79 * • Vk ' Golf Creek Estates Proposal", opposed P we are op osed to the plan as ', , ... presented. We own 2 acres of Tax Lot 1600 and 3 acres of • ., , Tax Lot 1?00 which adjoin. We feel the plans do not allow - ' ...C.. - us to develop our property to Its full potential, . 4 ' . .. '•! .., Sincerely yours, P .'A. ■ ,.•. co. . I • Jaes & Marlys m Lamkirl: 1' C;7F,1/1.,Jit,./ . . -,1 cc: Walker Associates —" % r .„ ..._ ..v . ... ,,„ je. 'Ili ' •\--1 ., . t f • . 1, 1 , It. • 9 s, .i., . 1 ' • +`—. �^'f-!�Y"M 1*.C'4".,2','9rA'1'.1 L•I+R rnofH.aw41`mrsl.HNm1 rf ;4::!E*? *---,/ by i pele';771 , e0'-‘,1467-) IVY". '2r/1/ ...7,,7,337d 'W. 7 a ,''��✓ IV / /rf 77,744 ,m 4, <;"21 47/9 ‘-',117/ --/,wd 9, 67o. ,/ -A-14/. 'tom /11' 2?-f/2701, f 74.1,zfr- /7-;< 0 ,,?2,01 .r r It _„/ '',, ^ ,,�'' '' / -ArD Y 1 , )/ . ;z_....,.w... .r.,.,r.. ,1 t.,.n�� ♦,.<+.. 1�Y .--.au.,y..:t..3niu nwww.NM,..w..-....„mr..,+a.,w„u,.,.,.....,.,»...a,,.. ' f,<Nw.r,+wv,tr,R.:....µxaua.•.,a 1.,..<.t:..s..,.,.,w,«,.. „.ar.e..k.r.-+ua.,4,+x.,r..:-d:,..t..Lery:,,t,., .ru.a.a.n..at. _. 11 MINUTES • • • TIGARD PLANNING�� COMMISSION ! November ,Y. x,974 , .page in this instances since the proposed subdivision development does 44 r; ° „, not enOroach on any, sensitive lands. On the basis; of the Staff's M explaYat,iou and precious hearings on this subdivision, Speaker MG approval of this finding. Hopp seconded the motion, which Passed, unanimously. + + 4 Richard.'Waker of Worker Associates, Inc o d P 4. material mailed to each Planning Commissioner (but not yet receive6 y by all) con:ierning Golf Creek Estates, of which Michael Elton is .t. the owner `faker Associates take strong exception to the require— rlents for this property imposed by the Planning Dirocto,�•, and aok y- ' the Planning Commission to approve the subdivision as submitted at ' the September meeting. In the discussion that followed.; some of the concerns felt by the (o1nmi ssioners were expressed, and above all that the matter should not be resolved without a full public hearing. ", HOpp M VED the matter come before the Commission as a public hearing item at the. ea rli t possible date. The motion was seconded and carried ur animouuly. On motion the meeting ADJOURNED at 1 0:25 p.m. ;1 1 1 • V / . It ti d ' [1.'..111. N r. 1 1 1 . fit i, ti ,4 r—mo ... .. e , • , ..` u ,tu..=.N. tw:L,. a=,r...Y. t '.• r '°• 1\«_M.�,.., .,,».• �,...",•....,, - _.,,...._ »,..,a..� _u..M,f..«,._e i .,. ,,_ .....a �,...Jai`.. ... .. ,.s, ww..«.».. .,. _.... .........._,..w .... _...,,. -- ...rte.,:_.: ..—.:-�.- ,—;. i.2�.,, � A FIDA .. OF PUBLICATION �t u .��y1� . �.<<Y- r= • r , ,- 4 f r'� ''�" Vii", ,s' ` `' c 1, Eli, 7 N > •t`ti s p Xy,'�'� ,}STATE,OF OREGON �; 43 f. i6 ° � ,� ',a ' �-COv?uT�''OF WASHINGTON ss, . , µ `�ryyw a s,61 y,' 4 '"e .0I..., ;; ,,A r 7 x- 1t.' : q ri 7y,b y � �,.D�* +;;11��iiY"�j 'I •�+ v � � xis,�,:;y:ib.,::.1' '� y� i; I, Joseph Schafer :,,..',,5,'..,,,e,4,!,..!:, t.. '? �°; 41:::::,,, ,; 145.being first duly sworn, depose, and say that I am the publisher .... . ........_.—__...: I3 t '+, e k y �y`��;", ' ..,.._. ., ..of The Tigard Times, a newspaper of general circulation, as defined f i'' 4 '`t �' ,∎� t t`0.,1 iiitti ' `� �'I'C:Ca1.fC1� S ,( .J4�iC.Y t�4.ia"_�-SMA`'' A� fiS', f'tt• h'I by ORS 193.010 and 193,020, published at Ti�,:rd, in the aforesaid county and ry ` �of 1:',,.1$3 ay�iy.�y r E3yy,l 4a t P V.,54+4`N � C� 4+, f�,114j'U „c1`,-t4� �'.,....,`�1,�,;=-22.....,k y�.,., state; that the legal notice, a printed copy of which is hereto anne,ted, was s, 0 t`p r �3 �l�? ,'> , �, t � tM`�"a (lp�� '' �� YU b' 1 :'� published in the entire issue of said newspaper for,..—.2—...-,. ...,. successive and y , .,1 { • a consecutive weeks i the following _,. ��r 5,r ,2ONE. ,fl G1 Z $0 7,P:��x,,,I.,,,,;:.,:/. t, in o owing issues ,... ,. ....... ............ .�,. }rt pez' ')''1 P0'.v ,�3;.� r i „ aft 'r” qu t by'.� ri' '1 tit, �i iiaodl`is1L°d+l�li, ' Nev-pmb�ee.._.2•1 &..-2, ,......1-9`-9.. ;._.. j°iii,,,e�'1,4,i1g0 i C1 y,°t-"'gat' "'° �', a'` •�,d'' , 40,, °rat,Co &t texe,141.'' to:.City:, 1 ';'k'- .0 p 4 „ ,..._.....,» ` ... atllr 6 . _.__.., J at`�',,�ic,.!tf uiti'�f.ti,`iiiii„.!.,ti 1i :d ,i ;ref[f'Y',, IG yyy p fin" 00-;,,,114 0:,';te.d$t"b96V t'.?yy'.v4),,,�- r,6.. ii eG., ,. ,. .+• ,y i46�'4� },M�M e l ' + 1 1 d(w4 11.1 m,i61 1.l2,0, o �'f ' I Suhgccibed�and sworn to before me this �' ' � '�� ,,• ;:?;^ ' -.. , day ` 5 Z A-s E CfAN't I L 77('S stet 1?, r ,w I �P; •il.' , '.. ts,. 79 , . osiuesE, Neste t, e,zo4ket C,tGb� ,p y` it l , k, Fl . _ „ ,p f .,.,Z ' , !L�-2.0 C�' //,(//✓G�G:. /%�♦ .,4 x:''' - fie'' y�?/ Iiiii1i100'L� }}V.}y�1a of.'t,9yJ, t$,,x�• 1 . Ake' W+ , ,/ .) .'. y' ........ ,.✓ /IJ+f '!..��. •..... ( iic (di '26!' 5,'',f.4�Yl�oa.'n Y S , ar,,de ,,•� " *'r ."� Notary Public of �kegon `1 Otatlii1' aGi �. s �. ,i r '' ash CO 1 .Talc, 402"i� 1,tog144t., 1," , ),',' ' ,'` Y COMMISSION EXPIRES x dt� 30.E . 0 ,104 k10 t, il;, ) &.i, ., 'k;� Atcornm,ission expires J. EY...6 „-,5 r`j t �y ' ` G `, -,raTfE t; :r;2 fir ; _._, �, .r.,..___._ -----.�.....,..,_°. �0:,48g0. ( 14hidh1 e4. G a lOy estate- :l. 1 E S17tj1 ' ��r '� 45 r r 0. • ,, A re det)py,.Ro erg Be1aaidh'l ,,,,,�'� 'COOOlt ara ./ 5 tai 01) tt, rest1..t, • . :1.q 11 ad: !j ilttt.r,.tnd:Gt~'e i1= 1I ;o � ( t 'i, � 'l t I! t. D t,9 1 a !).„41 . •r . 5. ,V T IANC l 49 (P texsot M , D,l' al.d) N10'5 a ' (, ,i .,;,A rotgtiest;lv,carter Ca fgr,a.$i0. varianhe'of'the s t'bkOl, ret tutu r4.1'1,ttY'S in the M. 2drte``L•ight"t ci t i,, ;w 41"thi,two Ip cols'ioext ,at 15845,at e `,' 1550 SW ',2xati,. (Wadi "M .p � '2S1 1211, Tai` is 40oo, &2*) .:r,A/ aF�l 4CE V''.919 l'ohx if,Boor. ' A t'em�,aesk try ,,oh 11.R o ft r 4 Iartai to 1rt t rear.;yard'set back re, .1 ... ', ), ' ide of,. n1'tj iltioa , ,:Iat 42185' 'S ,y , 12 ,t1,, '(W Siti d; T0.x,Map aS 1 A, , i ''i ,f. ,.w -' r 1 I . ... r • e p � .v.•,..-u..•,�p,.:......, r c..,�,,:._.. _�;,_�, - p � +.a+s',nb1 a: i��u•ar••xoscy�p�'tttt�ia tv _ .....,. .,,,._., •� • • '� ,+Fr:ttsssnwc.r,�Y-%+r�uAtx F..,;1'tl�..,,W,w-,:.Y'M+" . 'p '. .......':..,.. ..............l,�t+w.r......u:„,u. .,.,,......,.r r.. r_n„».,....•.. .,....., .....a,..- .I,..._ n.,.....,..,..,....,.:;iu,u..4:i444_............E'a:..... ...,n. i.».....i.,. rN..r,..e...,.,.,,.:m» ,1 ,_. .,,..- ' • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING rc STATT, OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) , 1, Viola Christensen, being first duly sworn, on oath depose and say: ° That T am Secretary for the Planning Department for the City of Tigard, Oregon That I served not4.� of hearing of the Tigard Plan- .• f ning Commission of which the attached is a copy (Markd Exit A) upon each of the following named persons on the day of , 197 , by mailing to each of them at the a dress shown on the attached list (Marked Exhibit B) , said notice ' ., as here:t attached, deposited in the United States Mail on the day of Q , 197 , postage prepaid. 's r ,a Subscribed and sworn to be fore me on the 24j-- day of • 197 .• , • ° Wo1:-ry Public of iregon • ` My commission expires I K ri •• i 1 O • I 0 Y '^ r VI • 4* ”" " ' 0x454 ',ucu; , ■, .h .1 • 4 0,..00100#4144A"e4 #141..,.. . al ,I ' , . , .' , .,r 'N ..-r- _ A .,.. ri , Op . , [Du 1... .,-. L iu : H F.* ... 1 • „.-' i,. -:,.------., ',, .. .. 1 . k ,. , j' NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TilA T THE TIG .RD PLANNING COMMIS,ION AT ITS P, ETING ON TUESDAY, ' DECEMBER 4, 3.979 .7 AT 7:30 P.M., IN 'S'c-IE LECTURE ROOM OF FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH l' . • .. SCHOOL, IC.) S.W. WALNUT, TIGARD, OREGON WILL CONSIDER, THE FOLLOWING APPLICATT N: . .r ', , i8• ' 1‘,. APPLICANT:. Mr. Michael D. Elton OWNER,: SAME ; ' 500 NE Multnomah, Suite 380 a •' Portland, Oregon 97232 REQUESTED x * ACTION: To appeal the decision by the Planning Commission on September 18, 1979 1 (. .% , , for denial of his subdivision request on a 2.83 acre parcel. , 1 i LOCATION: Southwest. corner of S.W. 108th and S.W. Durham Road (Wash. Co. Tax rt` Map 2S1 1SA, Tax Lot 1500) . ,;.' FILE NO: S 6-79 (Golf Creek Estates) ' c. � �� ,� SMI' NCKSOVIEW 'I_.''.•W,�..J L___,,..5�,. 'Jai i Lcn 4 V i : r- _ ST �._•..� R055 ST,• e , AV , i,. ,.,' "qh` t. S.W. :KAS E ST Al,_ F tl C `, �Y Sv 5:::.,,� -.+ ;00, IVE s a J Y ._. 1 / :, r 5. � Svl c{,E�NLC{f T:R c:-4,4 j .--- r, , a OORtYJRN k'L� tlst--.z,. .a' / •' 6,j34 / N� GN►P 3'x.1 <4: 3.4.MFMLCT STi , Lam: , ./. 0/ 0t.0 rpt%i �•£It'' 451 .f �` ' �y* ( �, �t>~d /pR «J « O Q y� rurwrn.W r.ft oar:.. ¢ Yr F,~'' 4P ''t I.Li 1 . t. :::,..,. .1.""'"*.. 1 i 16 5 ;+r �tt y„•r, COMMA K. a r f I 41' N B b y i ,'' „ ,.q 1 w t 1 L...J? , ,. ti4+ a r Nj i ,,Ji J1; e f' T a, �E hV (KING a J1MES '`z z' ti ROYAL 7 W✓ ;j J I +r� ! �✓ ro a : .�, .1............ ^. i z irk KI ti../< 1.7"' pl -\ 1 E ii .� "" �.` t= L rrrY ' / \ Si uH W¢ill; "� 1 : �C,•,4(r•.tL•1�4r �. Y t'' ,• (. _,`,,,� '�'iM �+� rr,C GRAVE &T. I' Ei,'� -r`s."ti'+.� CooF irMk r ,,, , j fit, .. r+ Stll. F ! o . !" ,t�"'t't ;-„;5-,.,.^;'?, it-,.... ' . . il.„.•i, t, • .4,.. ,, k . , „:.., ,.% , !,, . . . 1,.... ' RO'. i^ ','} 1 %T,�jf "41� ot40AY1Y �x��aa�1nK .....................1 r�..... ,t� LZ L' f C ... t�+ ' )1 I 4 R SNAWN4 E Yy �ill 4/11(1 of 1 a.A/' to I ,. OF rU REARING�1 ON THIS MATTER” trxir B COZUCf . , .� art,-cORDANC. E' " PROCEDURES'�:� PUBLIC 4 AT s.•�R ��rTI� ��0 IN,ACCORDANCE� WITH THE� RULES C� O.1 .-1., PLANNING CO_LLLSSIOL3. ANY I'HRS t�'S It, T._:s NTE REST IN 'THIS MAT".5ER MLA'J4 ATTEND AND BE HE Apt '�� OP? TESTI,�MONY MAY' BE SilEMITTED IN WR`TING TO SE ENTERED I•l`YTQ may. RECORD OF THE INITIAL HEARING.' t •.Y WISH "E yI� �i . • SHOULD YOU G,�I TO APPEAL, ,,."f...7: 1 �P,.ECO � ,;.LTS'I' A W .M. �.TE�t BETTER ADDRESSED TO TH,�. CITY 8�;, RECEIVED 1IOc, TO E :�:� PAT ION OF THE `I�i',�w " t De AFTER THE DECtSION OF THE H ''RING, IF OTzC TO APP WITHIN S THE ACTION IS VALID., , r EC FURTHER INFO I i IE, E CONTACT T PLA !G DE A'TiLN AT 519-4111 • „ , \;■ '` Tai `,ari t Ctrs q�ri 7,2 2 3 . - w w ur+ur ,s+9•arch�' . untni r�x^:maa•..txa'.Mf�7a:��S"'"w"Yd1M.^ r ,., Y ... ,,., ,....,.. ..... ...,•, . ,_ _ II „ .. ! '' .... ...„A.,..S.,"'"":4,eg.,4:::'''''''t., 4!'■=6',.. 444:!ii'.',i4,•"'.''''''."'tj:4ii.i.'''''''''''',!';''''''''''''Zrt.;',:',:4::::,4,.r:,"'L..'''',3.1i;4'...t,:i;',4'''''''''''..;Slita.:,,,'''''''',"41.t”4 4,:•'4'41.:!'t!t''**S'4441",'4,1"t■,'''' '''''''.:=.4 t-',,tiMA.:4;1'.f■•■'‘..i'■';':.7.:e:',,Mt■■■•■'::.■#,E.,t.:,:.67,,:,ii*Iri.,24..'..;:::: ',...;;':::'..'....,4.a:;.:,..",'!::.;:4",.....'''-,/,,,-.',.....7. ,,,,,,,,p,,-,,- ,, . I , .1 n „ 111 ,X. ■ ' k a r.. 1 iii ': „,,,,,,4„.,;) ,i,''' \ 1 . .: , ' . : rsj, t, i ili.1 SECTION I 5 . " 42S RIW W.M. , 4 . . , vvA'SHINGTON C GU NTY OREGON , —i 1 E At E 11 :t 2001 - ,.. ■ t ' ,.. _____ I . ,_........_._............„. .,.. C R 429 0 1 .. . 0 A D . ,...... 5. 4' , 50 i -. .:: 1 50 0 i 1 0 0 & „ • , ,, 1600 2.83,4c. ' 0 i ., 5 SO A c. /..92,4c. .' w . L. „.., .•• f0 „. _ „ 'J c1/41 . Z it'. ' . » 3 6 I IA 25 x t., ',::: 26 ''.1 , t.D . W ,..r , rs "1 - I. 1 6 8 c.4 (343 2) . A ., J .....--- 35'4 30721 4. ,...t.”,87.0 6•'5 9 4' -- ;:j-rr) '' 1 1 5 4 ' -- — .....,...:°...,&., 337,06 ' • ts' 1400 0 200 , ....7.1. ..... tz'I .76.4c, 92.05 . _ to .63,4c. —_.....– _ 140 1 350 , . , 1300 2,204c, pz 201 , ILI 2 93Ac. P,„.,....r*: 3.93 4c, . •' ' t . in 2 7 ..)....) . A...isi ... •r.,, i : 37i . v . . ....I . i;—.—- ---................... I 202 1 . .. t 484 . 6 87.01 , . al , 594 ,'''' - 344.35' -,.. 370 6 8 7. E:,, I, ■ I' 1 200 300 • . . ,'..iF ,. ...., 0 , 5,61 A . 5.6 2 A c. . - r- D. v — , . . .............1 0 \iV , p .1.— 0 . ,r,..... . . t.0 . , ,n .,..„-,,, in 3 4 28 , ..# ... . o, a, - 'ao■• .... .. ,.. ee CS1*.:0670 - r.e? ..'• ..:'.':. , t.) „ . 666.4 68 7 c6' 0-.- ........_ _ . :, "' '.i• ii 5723' , ..., • 1 1 0 1 .,... 5.364e, . . . . ' . (.C..8. NO.t..413S) • 1 ii'. ai ' . 1 100 ‘:'" , ,---'------ **' 4''''''.- - I a 33 22 t - t.,e,Ac 2.9 1102 - col tr-, " 2 601 , , (C.:3No 11594) —, 4,01 . 't, c 4.5 Ac. .:•6'. . ----...._,.._ " •IA '.... s.,.. ----'--.---"'",.... e -, , — 66 6 41 4356 26t,l' • WESt 1...40,' I(.)00 .../•,. ,..„..A..4,4-s, — —....... ............... ,..— ...... .—. ,..... ,, 4 s i . 0 A 1 ' t4 1 6;00 1 , ! 4,140Ae ki 1 /, 1,414/A ' r i 'Li 6CZ rek w 4 • 12 4.0 3 . '.......,......6...■...........- ............ tr, , ,,,;, 2 1001 I i ..., .....1 \ ,- .1 - ,...4.,;,1 ,• . 1 . 1,.. . . .. • , ..-. . ,. • '',1,. • , . . --' , ,.. . , . , . , . , , ,, v. . • . , . . .,. , . ' '■\ ''1 . ' , . 4.• ' , .('''. C(' ■; , • .. .. , , . . _,,„„,.„,44 , .,, ' / - ) 01, ,,,,A„,,')'1,-47 ( , 1::" 2(') .„ - - , , r, . ., , . c CikL Ii f /1 . , ,,6)), , ,, ,.., r .4 , '. 1 ''' 41" ' alliq. i 1.. ' "'''' '' , - t, ' . -■,' ...,,,,, ,-..... , , w,, . , f ' , i&-..114,, 'i:ZIC...1.- 4..4.,,,.- ; 1,- -. 10:9. ' ' 4--1,10,g7.444-1*a:=.,,..;i:,:::-:::,,z''':34.T.,,.,::: • . , -77:.,..., ,.,,.,...41.-4.1.-,,,v,:...-..,:c4r.,,,,,,4,1:,,,::-:;-.,:,,,,, ,,,,,'„,„4,,,„.%:-.,.. I ." „,!,,,,,,,p,,.,, - „,,;,' - -,ii„1,;,,-„,-, •....z,s4'44 .— . i, ''' • . . . . , . , • . .., , ' 4 , , , • ;'t)2,*. '2.,,',1 ' ' ■ ,k■6,1 0 ■ ,f (LS:-.3.,./9 1 . 0.1 tV . . , I)t if4, ?, it,,,,,Aac.m)) ' CI 'F;” 4.'''' 0 / 'a,,,,,t,,,,,ec.,,,-,‘,,,,,), , . . . i op i C*,,:'' ,,.,;,c-0) /0. 2; ):, . .. , . , . . /67 / 8 ,45-.. s(.,c) /4.',4)q. ., . 4. , . , . . . , . . . . . . , . . . . , .. ., .. . . . . ./______L2E . LL . ,• . . , .•, J /A.4..... , , _4. .,.. --- 1 4,.., ,,. ,,, . „ ...) ou ,,:...,.. /- 1- /..,:, ,e,.7...,, ,!),—,.(,,ek-.,..:-4!,1)'',f7'.'. i 471 L'' . ' 4 a-4')ri:,,,47 / . i) s LI-0')l'it,,TA,1,,H,;;;„%.',i''4',ini!/ir•,..' ',,,'''::'.., . . . . . , . • . . .._...., , , ;4 1 , . / .„.... 1 • ' .. ' ::)''' / . ,„.........,..44 , . ) '1, 1 i 4'; './ 1) -' ' f'... • . 1 . ■ . , . , c.. . , . , 1 ) ".,„,.'1, ,,,,, ..J.: ,L,„' ..,, , • • . If, , ■ i14,„I''et ;1,. 1,,'"rtit ,; ; ., y• ' ' ' '- '-' ,...we , , .....00....".." , .....,,,,...... t,,,,,,,, , i• , 1/4''''''';'',.■:,-,,''''0),1,,,e ,t' ,14,,, ''i ,,•;' ,41*,e7.6'1.,'' , • , . ..,,,,..„ , i',''''' t..1 , ';, '' ;','..::,'4.4' '''''''''''' 1 ' .I , 4 , ■ , .• 1 , I ''',"4" ■•'7'''I,,l'' !''I'L',e;':;T:,, ' I ."1 61.!1'.i,i17 ' ''''-:' 0° . j •, '',',./ f!,.,1.r-', . , , , , , ,• 1 , . . . . •,,,„. ,,-... it t s '' .. a . ■ ■„ 11, 4 ..... a . * 4 . k■••''''""'''' [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] .;:,.:..,.,,.......:.a.�i .A...s., +«.1..,:;'4'...,...,.,..,.:,Irn t—.Ia.,.-...,w.:u-.......,..,-,.,w•tt+'.N a.r, ...-.-,_' .•......,. y .[,I.,,,,,.�:..�:..»+'t.:,,..,.. "�.:+4'.,.�lnf ,.....wn ...::.,..a..._',+z�sx,.rs',.,...e,uc...-...,.:v. .,G.'4.na a - !1k,d «Y..,»..;-.,A. L.,..aoas,.,.....a:r.,..:w TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION November 13, 1979 • I in this instance, slnce the proposed subdivision development does not encroach on any lands. On the basis of the Staff's explanation"and previous .hearings, on this subdiris wn, Speaker MOVED approval of 'tLis finding. Popp seconded the motion, which patsed unanimously. `. Richard l'aa er of Waker Associates, Inc. discussed material mailed to each Planning Commissioner (but not yet received by all) concerning Co reek Estate , of which Michael Elton is the owner. Waker Assoc,; e e' s •,Tong exception to the require- ments for this property imposed by the Planning Director, and ask .a, the Planning Commission to approve the subdivision as submitted at the September meeting. In the discussion that followed, some of the concerns f._r1t •by the Commissioners were expressed, and above'all that the matter should not be v c1ve d without a full public hearing. MOVED the. matter come before the Commission as hearing Pp h C ias�,,o s a public i�.. • • item at the earliest pussible date. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously. On motion the meeting ADJOURNED at 10:25 p.m. k 61 • d .o -act.•,, '.atm:<.'.w,umauar:, a- at7auo^atz+'.c'GOaa9 w.,,... ,., .,.... ,,...,. ., � - , . • . 1 • . .. , ( ' . MINUTES •, • . , TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION . . , November 13, 1979 • , Page 7 e- , ' , City in a future hearing 'would have to provide much more information than is presented here in order to get favorable action from the , • Commissior on a request for floodplain fill. Tepedino suggested the City might use the occasion to mitigate some of the effects .,4' • . _,..s of actions taken by others in the past which have had adverse effe,.,,, on the floodplain. Seroy explained this hearing was called to get . public reaction to the concept, even though the specifics of the . floodplain changes had not yet been worked out. He did not ask for approval at this time. Tepedino then MOVED, in line with tta Staff Recommendation, . that the Planning Commission accept receipt of information provided by the City Engineer and the City Planning Staff and that its . . • general agreement with the conceptual approach expresses neither approval nor denial of the proposed Special Permit to fill in the floodplain along the SW Ash Street extension right-of-way. Helmer . seconded the motion, At this point the President recognized Stephen Fausti, 3.3255 SW Ash Avenue, who called attention to a petition circulated in 1971 which indicated, he said, that 89 per cent of the • signers were opposed to the extension across Fanno Creek of Ash . , Avenue. After some further exchanges about citizen input into the , process, the motion carried unanimously. . , OLD BUSINESS. ----.• + + 4. President Tepedino reminded Staff of previous discussion . of USA activities in the floodplain) wherein they made extensive sewer installations in the floodplain without complying Iith procedures r called for in the floodplain ordinance • , + + + President Tepedino brought up the matter of a three,- ,. story apartment building in the floodplain in the Tigard Grurth Area. This had been approved by Washington County without any ,\., consultation with the City of Tigard. He wished a letter to go . Vi from the Tigard Planning Commission to Washington County. Staff reported a letter had been sent, since vhen the siti•ation with . .- i repect to communication between the City and County has improved. This satisfied the President, (s c ) . i . VnER BUSINESS: + + -14 Selby eXplained circumstances surrounding Mr. Patterson'S . a Sierra Subdivision. It was explained that compliance with Section • . '- 1°i 18.56.010 (S) required a finding on the part of the Planning Com- mission that creating a Standard Planaed Development is unnecessary . . tr • 4. ..,,,„ o' ' '''',1- •Well' . , , CIVIL ENGINEERING ^a4 ' WA 4} . �� PLANNING•SURVEYING e Ott' o Asscciates November 9, 1979 e Tigard Planning Commissioners City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Commissioners: on behalf of our client, Michael Elton, (Golf Cr-,.ek Estates) , we are enclosing a letter we submitted with material required to be placed on the November 13th Planning Commission Meeting. Since the time we had submitted this information, the. Planning Director has taken us off the agenda for that meeting until we submit a Planned'Development. We feel that we have the right to be heard on our proposal and not succumb to Mr. Howards plans for the site. So we are sending you this information in case it was not sent to you by the City. Since we were pulled from the agenda for the November 13th hearing, we will be in attendance to discuss this project as a non-agenda item. Thank you, WAILER ASSOCIATES, INC. • . d. Joe .Walsh., Planning Director cc: Michael E lton JW/md • • �' # 11060 51W, ALLEN OLVD, / SUITE 100 BEAVERTON, . /015 / (50 8) 646-9410 ' ' ...,..,', ., .. ,. ,....,,, T,navna.:n.•eaimrK:xe.,src a.aearr;.:a x a.r.4.kwr:drsnwASFzr1;:[-.._T.:,,..«....u.-0....:r:y3Risw:za+"wu(._„ ., ti; .., , .. ,.. .. ..,.,,,:.... ..,i..,.,.. . •• u* d f'ri.'y r4ti.r .4 CITY OF TIGARD P.O.Box 2339i` 12420 S.W.Main Tigard,Oregon 97223 , October 31, 1°79 File # S 6-79 Golf Creek Estates Mr. Joe Walsh Planning Director WAKER ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 `. 11080 SW Allen Blvd., Suite 100 Beaverton, Oregon 97005 I, Dear Mr. Walsh: Golf Creek Estates has been removed from the Planning Commissirnn Agenda for November 13, 1979. A spot has been left "open" on the Agenda for December 4, 1979. The final date for submisEion of materials to us for inclusion on this date is November 19, 1979. Should you desire to appear before the Planniag Commission on December 4, 1979, please submit the following material for staff review as soon as possible. 1. Complete application for a Planned Development District. This designation was suggested to you by the Planning Commission on September 18, 1979, but to date, you have failed to respond. In relation to the drainage area, we request that no lots include any portion of the designated drai;;iage U , area and that an agreement be provided which clearly states that this entire area will be suitably maintained by either the developer or homeowner. I do not envision this area, left in its "natural state". I do envision it cleared, landscaped and improved for the enjoyment of Golf Creek residents. 2. Access/ingress to the westernport.Lon of your lot is, according to the Tigard Mtnicipal Code, "generally not acceptable" (Section 17.26.100) and unless c. 1 can make it acceptable, I will not approve your plans. The resent p . proposal is unsaty5factory for the following reasons: a) Emergency vehicle access is less than that required by the Tualatin Rural Fire Protection 'District - (i.e. no turn around of less than 50' radios is included or a hammerhead of 60' in depth) . To allow think•y,+tau to develop commits all parcels within. the drainage area, and I hink you have that right, and I do not think I have to keep telling you these things. When you are redrawing your plot plan, please . --'__" r•,.,..,,,.,.,,,,.', ... .. n.-.a,. :-'-.«. "v .' ��.:rz•eva�^^-rn.>.,n,..m...,:_.. 'a.:n:r.,,.ry-s.+µ:.;n. � , i q t r"""'e t. d• 1� 6k., a. a. i.tit wy. ,.n _ ., - ,._ ... . ,t. . 1 �..., ..a.. w _. ..•. .. _, , --, .. ,.. ..i n. --.,n.. .... .• .w..n n �'r-•:, • Vage give some thought to one access onto '108th and possibly only one access onto your proposed 110th, if it `:;.s approved; With the. 5,000 square feet lot designations, you are able to provide adequate internal traffic circulation • to serve each lot, and address my concerns over access/ingress. As soon as you have shown me that a half-street should be allowed at this time to serve your property only, and as soon as you have decided on the planned development designation,, and made the necessary changes in the proposal - we will consider your request for Planning Commission Action. As it stands now, you have been denied pending resolve of these issues. Your trul ; , Aldi oward Planning Director AHvmc r r i P,r .0.t.ia',r -«, ry... • ■ .«." t w�:,a,raNe�mux,+� ..�,�..as.macamn v�**+ro«r nx�urAixA:*,rYGnM:az;:j.i r-::�:.'', �.u.r:..:. r , «'� , .. • - _ l X41 4 Al\ - a • a i« 4 r, ///,h r r. (( CIVIL ENGINEERING PLANNING.SURVEYING 470. 1 4 yF, io, ciates Inc � "Ai October 25, 1979 Tigard Planning Commission P.O. Box 23397 12420 S.W. Main Tigard, OR 97223 REF: S6-79 Golf Creek Estates Dear Commissioners: On behalf of our client, Michael Elton, we are asking for approval for oar subdivision of Golf Creek Estates. Our earlier denial was based on the Planning Directors denial of the proposal for the following reason: • 1 , Access/ingress to western portion of property is not appropriate, Durham Road shall remain a 'Limited access road. 2. Spanning of this natural drainage way is not appropriate to serve the western portion of the property. 3, Area is now designated for apartment units, Single Family Residences are now not appropriate, • The. Planning Commission instructed the Planning Director to work with the developer and solve the problems of acceE:s to Durham Road and protection of I of drainageway and to return to the Planning Commission as soon as possible. I would like to address the three conditions of denial first. Our plans never considered crossing the drainageway because it is impractical and would ruin the intent of the proposed development. The intent of the development is to back lots up to the drainageway and provide an easement for open space so that the area, may be kept in its natural state, The west portion of the site has existing access to Durham Road and our location of 110th. Avenue is cons i stant with future development of surround- operties . This d a ing pr `� roa Ices is totally explained in t�u,r letter +,.o the Planning Commission dated September 28, 1.979 which is attached to this. 1 etter. The third condition of denial is that the site is designated for apart- ment and residences are not ate, meat u d that single family res�.d t now appropriate, In the past year, a nU o :L•r of proposals for development of this site, have r , 11080 SN, ALLEN BLVD, / SUITE 100 / BEANOTON, OREGON 97005 / (503) 643.9410 -vr.r nvxc..r::Yx.l....;,:.� ..•.a.:.:';r..,r.x.....,;, , .,,.,r.'. `_...'., .�:....*,j,. 4:.. ; ,.,.r.',,..u,, .xMr,,.wz,.nx x rr«.•u.u:.srr-'w �I°ti,l r u.:i'r. � � .., ..•... .. 1, 1 . ....... �_,.......-...�.._..,..�:..:.al,.,r w...�a ^ 4.r _le«.:.:.a.,.tii.r.t,«..:�:_/1...r. ., _ l 1 � _ ...0,.._...,.... ..er-r---. r..a_.1 r._r/t.,.r.t Y.a A._..m.r..a, .� _.'. � .. �_ r..r.. .n.._.r a ...w..e:. .. ,.. e 'f 1 A ( . w Tigard Planning Commission Page 2 October 25, 1979 a. been denie r. which included a retirement center and a ?4 unit planned unit. development, A few of the surrounding property owners were at the last ,, Planning Commission Meeting and endorsed our latest proposal where as - ' at earlier meetings they were against the higher density development,, At the last Planning Commission Hearing, Mr. Howard had indicated that he thought our proposal had illegal lots and that the commission could . . r not approve the subdivision. The Commissioners had indicated that they 1. liked the proposal and would probably approve the subdivision if there 01;. was not the question of possible illegal lots. At that point, the commission denied the subdivision and instructed the Planning Director to work with us and solve the so called problem of illegal lots. We met with Mr. Howard and thought that we had reached a mutual agreement that our lots were legal under Section 18,64,010 (Access & Egress) and 17,28.100 (Half Street) See. Attached Letter, We also agreed to supply Mr. Howard with a ossible future development plan of the surrounding properties, which we did see enclosure). This pos§ii.Ae future development plan is just one of many different concepts on future develop- ment of the surrounding area and should not be misconstrued as the only way to develop this area. .j Howard, dated October 8, Since this time, we received a letter from Mr, H 1979, which stated that when we return to the Planning Commission, he 7 will insist upon 4 R-5/Planning Development Designation, because of access to Durham Zd. and the drainage swale through the site. I think that our letter c4'ated September 28, 1979, explains our access needs and future development of the west side of the drainageway adequately. • . • Mr. Howard stated that under Section 18.56.015 all parcels containing sensitive lands must be rezoned as planned developments. But the next ., sentence says "The Planning Commission may grant exemption from this ' requirement if sensitive lands are left undeveloped and the Planning Commission finds that a planned development designations ie not needed ,- to carry out the purposes of Section 16, 56.100 Open Space. " Our plan provides for a one hundred foot wide open space easement and restriction that the area in the easement remain in its natural state and undeveloped: There. fs also the question if the sensitive land ordinance applies to • this proposal since the application preceeded the ordinance. By ordinance we can develop as a subdivision and h fl d� io - t have a planned development ' forced on us, ,; We have exhausted the possibilities of development of this site and feel that this proposal should be approved because it has the endorsement of the . neighborhood and general approval of the Planning Commission given the fact that the lots are legal which we have shown, M. , ... 1 w � �.... ..,,.... ... . ,... _■�,.:-rc:-..C n,rh.,.. +., .,.,.,.�:a.,:,,:« 1'/ *r.nanrs, .� ,na�.,+a';nnnm�. „.....t.,........._......_:,,,,,„ 7 � .. �! • Tigard rd P1 annin 9 Commission Page 3 October 25, 1979. Since we have met the concerns of the Planning Commission, we feel that we are being unduly harras'sed by the Plann 4 ng Director with his bta:s o - t,,„pi pion that we must develop as a planned development, We do not agree with Mr, Howard and ask that the Planning Commissioner approve our subdivision as submitted which meets ordinance requirements as stated earl.i er. Since;'ely, WAKER ASSOCIATES INC, (3)a,e.Walsh Planning Director Attachment Enclosed: Exhibit "A” Exhibit "B" Proposal "B" cc City Manager City Attorney Michael Elton JW/mhg 4 « • • ,p AC f ft 10960 SW Durham Roan. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 d Y October 17, 1979 • • City of Tigard 12420 SW Main Tigard, Oregon 97223 Attn: Aldie HoWardt, Planning Director Dear Mr. Howard: In reference to your letter dated October 1, 1979, "S6-79 Golf Creek Estates Proposal", we are opposed to the plan as presented. We own 2 acres of Tax. Lot 1600 and 3 acres of Tax Lot 1300 which adjoin. We feel the plans .10 not allow • us to develop our property to its full potential. Si:Werely yours, Jamas & Marlys Lamkin " �t Cc: Walker Associates : '": • p .. �nar..'�, , �..'. �i.,.� ..,�... ,,«, �'i �.r,H srtC-�r..,..�xum_-n,�, a Y�re�.ww`rtttc�4nctcmrc ...vw-ut:.-... •°y� r• f Q ,1 ...Y..v...._..:.,r......w..«1...., -,....m.«...,....Y«1x...4. .-...✓ir.w.e.,Urrl.u4 v....4w.......-.,..»........w..-nt....r.x...,«....t'1...�FN..«n..u,.,..H.....,-a..w.....,..v,..«3L-....x.....,r,.w�. »,Fn.,...,._:A:.._....a....�..J...:., ..)ri:.,.,.....u......nx.•,..haw..'.............u...,«.w..A.....,,...r.u..........M'a:x..:..'I...rx.}A_............+A l.N. a o-_.. _t.. -,, • • 3tityt , " �, •� {,�.1 N h,.� pppp 1 .Its f OM , h .f."�i, • �` ` P.O. Box 23397 12420 S.W.Main Tigard,Oregon 97223 October 8, 1979 '-. Mr. Joe Walsh Planning Director WAKER ASSOCIATES, INC. 11080 SW Allen Blvd., Suite 100 N Beaverton, Oregon 97005 Re: S 6-79 Golf Creek Estates Proposal Dear Sir: F1 You are scheduled to appear before the Tigard Planning Commission November 13, 1979. You will not be first on the agenda, but the items before you should progress rapidly. I will :;.resist upon the R-5/Planning Development Designation. The Planning Commission waived the fee for this zone change, but upheld my denial . Should you refuse Attie follow my suggestions, I can assure you that my report to the Planning Commission will be less than supportive. Concerning your request for appeal, I would like to point out that you r 1 have not exhausted your administrative remedies. The City Council could decide not to hear your appeal of my denial until after the Planning Cont- i, mission has made its final decision following your next appearance before them. I suggest you follow my reasonable suggestions and request the Planned Development Designation, protect the drainage area as I proposed, and hope that your proposed future street is approved by the local property owners. Your final date for submission of amended material is 0ctober 26, 1979 for the November 13, 1979 meeting. Yours trul , AId' oward awning Director AH/p3p } i -- _.•-..--y-^.er 7yu.:tt::,: �.t ,x-:.»y..„-.;...w r:.v..,..:d,^ w r v,.. w..n..:r:..,.- nrrrrr ^'c. -,�wuro•mhYt»w;tiwn+�xuz!r's.,,�;;c;:.z._^"c:_. - Legal Counsel sta that the City's motive in petit;Zoning for the vacation . " was to benefit ot'.;'y�,rs on the right-of-way, to take(, re of the entire right- . •� of-way at once rather than piece-meal, and because\he land is no longer of value to the City. cm Mayor suggested that the issue be put on a Study Lession agenda so that more ^r( � ! back cut a information c ou ld be provided to the Council. ' (4-4, ),J) M r � Legal, Counsel requested that Council ,';reci~ him to prepare the rsceessary °� 1 � resolution calling for public. hearing for the new vacation. 4. lnn 1'' Ted Miller, stated that the deadline for filing a writ of review on the cur-- - : 0 rent ord`inanace would expire this week, therefore he needed assurance from Council that the Ordinance would be reversed. Legal Counsel objected to the reversal of the Ordinance and requested the '�' Ordinance be declared null and void due to procedure. After lengthy discussion Councilwoman Stimler moved to direct staff to prepare the necessary resolution to nullify the previous vacation orilinaxice due to . procedural error. Motion seconded by Councilman Cook. R„ t c Motion failed by a 2 to 3 vote. Mayor Nickelson, Councilmen Scheckla and Brian voting nay. i, Afte;i additional discussion Legal Counsel said that the motion had been proper a i. and was what he would recommend. Motion re-stated by Councilwoman Si imler to direct staff to prepare the nec- .1 essary resolution to nullify the previous vacation ordinance due to procedural error. Motion seconded by Councilman Cook. 6 j 'v• Motion passed by unanimous vote. ',, 5g. Mayor directed staff to prepare necessary paper work to nullif y previous revious • ,�, •'. ordinance y prepare the new vaea.tion papers and set public hearing data,. (c) Joe Walsh, Waker & Associates, 11080 SW Allen, Beaverton, referring to the letter provided to Council, requested an extension of the appeal dead line (for appeal to Council) on the. Golf Creek Estates project. . Council explained that the appeal deadline would be countad from the final ti , Planning Commission decision which has not yet been made (only a conditional condiEriiial i decision has been reached to date), ° City Administrator stated that Maker & Associates would have 20 days from the �yf ,/ final Planning Commission decision to appeal to Council. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 24, 1979 (a) Motion by Councilman. Brian, seconded by Councilman Cook . .i aptrove. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 21480.55. APPROVAL Or EXEi�pZ�rs .AND I1v�ilaSTNEr1Ts ,,,, 5. (a) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilman Cook to approve. ,. ' Approved. .. � bvediy unanimous vote of Council. "'• , RECAR VESTING N1NI1TES, OCTOBER 5, . 1979, _.Page 2 IL. , , . , , /r7A, 1 . .,.. ... ii-,f3,7 -g.. z- .4. . ,/,,, A, / .. . . . . . ,,,, ,/,,, r-z" ...- er , ,,..,,,, , ...., //„ iiP/ eeete . , . r , . / e lrbK Ai:ilef4 0,- . 6e, 0/ Oa, X,.., artidlt . eiv4,7 ,t, i., -. ',/ ,./-aeW ,,,,,, ii?.02 / 4 "/„.....„--- ....„ ,........ ,fr 064,...,4,....Aol .,;/' • . --'------"'L . ,/..,,i 41/, /41;00 8,1a,-"1,e,,./ / .. ,... „ - -'4. 4.-z 62 /la ,A2 - , 4 o- ,),- * if0 . ,...4,.. , / i r .. ,V 06, e "e 0-401 I.Pfrg."' (*al 11.444,W1 be OW , ,1.-: , ,,,..,4,t,o, /,0 ii, Z'ta, /fe,e, ok 74 c,,,, oz , / e.1.-- / . 4 a .6',,4ei .../ 4/1 444-4-11--'" r coogpv ,,74Taie , ..,.. e4;.. . i ,iat _....... 1.... ., „.. ,„.. ,:..../ . I), . I ,, ..„,...,'. • --..„,,. ..,:..i ,.;, ::,,,,, , . 1:„: „ =-,4-:, ,, ; -• :, A -..-....,.._. ,..• H. .,,,, .,,.: •.4 r ' , . .:,. .$ ..- • - „ , . „ - A • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING „- STATE OF 0 EGON ) • County of Washington ) 5s. • City of Tigard ) 1, Viola christensen, being first duly swcrn, on oadepose an say: That I am Secretary for the Planning Department for the City of Tigard, Oregon F That I served notice of hearing of the Tigard Plan- ning Commisi8on of which the at:tached is a copy (Marked Exhih' t A) upon each of the following named persons on the day of 1975y , by mailing to each of them at the address shown on the attached list (Marked Exhibit B) , said notice as hereto attached, deposited in the United States Mail on the 2 *---7-\----re/ day of 4111* Al, , 197? , postage prepaid. • ° I • • Subscribed and sworn to before me on the day of , 197 9 " 111' 7,w ; 40 x Notary Public gdn • My corrt-,!,nlsion expires:: • 1/11 . . - 'III . , - Y .,o ( 'i'i , ... ,- , ' , ,, :rze!-?... t•*'•r'.11M N• k:Ilf""t#'airr,q.'%. 1 • . • I . , ‘ 4. '''''4.'a*"*°C.''''' 41 • Cir/ OF TIGA41-- 14: tr I 1 ttl , ' .• : 4. , P.O.Box 23397 12420 S.W.Main .' lIgard,Oregon 97223 . , October 1, 1979 : 1 _ Ref: S6-79 GOLF :QBEE,Ki ,........................................ . . E02ATES PROPOSAL ,,• tic ^.,..„ Mr. Joe Walsh . , Planning Director 1 e ' - WAXER ASS )CIATES, INC. . 11080 SW Allen Blvd., Suite 100 Beaverton, Oregon 97005 _ . Dear Mr. Walsh: „..14 .4 When you return to the Planning Commission, you will carry with you a . .. PD (Planned Development) designation. (R-5D) . It is my feeling that the ■ ' significance of the drainageway cannot be addressed in any other way. The major difficulty stilt remains entrance onto Durham Road from the lots to the west. Although your proposed "Possible Future Development Plan” 4 is appropriate, the code states that the minimum requirements for residential • use be 50' wide for 6 ,.or more units on a local street. (Section 17.28.040) . ... (Section 18.64.020) . You do not meet this requirement. A half-street to /tor Dtrham is not appropriate to serve the western properties. 6 , . However, you may request permission to serve this area with a half-street 6 . improvement from the Planning Commission. Section 18.56.040 Action and Findings (3) - "potential future use" - may be used in this case if they . „ (the Planning Commission) considers this an appropriate tact. Section 17.28.100 could in fact be used to further your request. One thing I am going to do is send a copy of your proposed road plan .. • . to the surrounding property owners. I feel that they should have the opportunity q; to respond since, if you are approved, they are committeCI also. Should 4 they object for real and valid reasons, I Will consider alternatives. A copy of the letter to them is enclosed 2or your review. Protection oii the drainage area is another important concern of mine. ' i ' The City would 1.g,lc to deal with one (1) person in t1-is ard. I would la like to see you re-plat this area to exclude all sensitive land areas from . .., ,, lots. You could then, through a Homeowner Agreement, guarantee that maint- (mance of this area would be assured and that the City would deal with , one (1) person - the association. , p You should prepare a flomeowner Agreement for maintenance of th,?, drainageway . . Acondition U.1. upproval will be that it be cleared and planted under the L. • )j• I 1 ........,..4., • , ,.. 4 , ,,,,.., ,,,. ,,, . ,, , 4...11144111;0 g.17-,grmumvrir. . , --........... .E.41,.......l, , , i'ltr',71:4." r .'1 ,r .. Z./ NIt ■ , . . A. \ 6 0. ..... * - ., ,-. ...- . ,..."r.. . w.— .. wa . r♦ ..xa.1... w .>. .1. r w :.w.,. .. w....w, .,u Page 2 supervision of our Public Works Department. No building permits will be issued until such time that gravity sanitary $,service is available to the site following the completion of the Tualatin Valley Interceptor and the line to Durham to serve Summerfield. I do not think i'(our suggestion is appropriate because the bid may be let and construction n>>t compleb?d for a long time I want a little more control over your development, realizing that. without sewer service you could "force" us to find alterra&-i.ves such as pumping stations ' which we do not normally approve; When I have further information, I will contact ycu. Yours trul Aldi award P anning Director.' MFlvmc encl. cc: Mr. Mime Elton hll, f 1 ' I f _.,...._..•.:.......1�-"":n�..'w......._.I._..............I:/..�. ....•...i,w, ....,..w...An..4.+a...�M .e.«..4,...+,.,.....w.1.-...«.......i........_m,.1.:rr....._.....�.n.IJJ:.Y.....,..r.. ....x....a-a.».-rF..a...I..',I«_..,.,..•..n..,...,,..w......1.-• ,,...,.-...,., .,nom....,....-I,,..�:r...,,.».F...r+.....n,... ,....,n,+_n. ....,...... .,. il_.. ei.r:•,f-.• ma"VICAR QNIObN. . CITY OF TIGARD • INra#pap A•fb fn#� r P.O.Box 23397 d I 12420 S.W.Main 7.•• 4' Tigard,Oregon 97223 October 1, 1979 ` Ref: S 6-79 GOLF CREEK • "t? ESTATES PROPOSAL • Dear Property Owner: The map I have enclosed for your review suggests a proposed public ' y street to be constructed in the future as development of your property ° takes place„ Golf Creek Estates (outlined in black) is a subdivision which we are considering at the present time. One of the difficulties associated with this development is that a, deep drainageway cuts the property north to south This area is unbuildable and we do not want to cross it with an access road west from 108th Avenue. Because Durham Road is now a County Road, Tigard must honor the County, "limited access" requirements. This simply means that access to Durham Road be limited to as few accesses as possible. In this part;cular case, the only available access to the western portion of this lot is to create a 110th Avenue. If this is allowed, it . will "commit" all, or a portion, of your property to access to Durham at a. later date. As you can see from t'he map, the green "V" shows the drain- ageway. If you wish to develop in the future, it is possible that you • wou'.,d experience difficulty because it is our intent to protect the drta.inage areas. As you know, the Tualatin Valley Interceptor is being constructed now. One addition to this line will be the construction of a trunk from the river, north to Durham Road at 108th Avenue. When sewer service is avail- able, development will follow and we want to plan for it now. Please review this proposal related to your land and respond to me verbally or in writing. This is a "proposed plan". Vothing has been approved. Golf Creek Estates Was denied by me, and my denial was upheld by the Tigard Planning Commission on September 18, 1979. I have been instructed to try to solve all the problems of access to Durham, and protection of the drain- ageway, and to .return to the Planning Cor; fission as soon as possible. If you want clarification of any of this, please call me - City of Tigard, 635-41i1 Yours ti;q. /24( A rie !Toward Planning Directcr AHvmc .,,mow_,•. :�j.Y-%.J.:I,x �:.,.. . 'H. ,.,. ..-'._..".! .'i.•.nn .'_r...mFn-r.."Fm. M1 M'WiME!iw1Y.P':ri,i �.9N�^UYI,.W,:vt.na:w+-+t.,...r. ,.y .t..rl'., • i b I ,17 . . ; En 1:_ i 3. . . . b at.• 1 \ t.Cll 1r r-ic,1 -, /7e, t� . -00 1. c,,,&,4104 .I- ` L r SIT J, r--^•- t' --- 1 e--1 Cc:-1 r /p- // GL ta«t-;,..,rh _ R.,r_:� •!...t:,1 1 I J ' �1 /, //' J7 rt/ / / r'/•2v-�tO Ac cr v-,`-, r ..\ a>AAL.l... e .v\Al ) t-r—E..-- //. //. . �� f tih� �,41t�rf=,4�.+ 10 dC�...a- '}SIG G O�.IS�\"'C1G�7�, . //1 1,•\-) Yak,N4\-1 4\'C ca... 2.-51-0 \A CA.\i-«V -r∎'S W.GAV,�,-v\o 0 d "-- to___ ` 1L- ,-" I.. oo 'S 4,.110.-t' 1« , ' // •. 7/5/ NOT!': V Means properties that will be affected _. 4 ` by the propor,ed development. ... .� 0�_» • r^.•,c•.moan...uaws■,.*Y 0014«m40.0.00v",^vI ge.en..+.yxu14..+•1tar.•ref:ra,rw+"15wsa.a,r.•rrrronn°Per witrovr.it.roti.../{t ^«..,r..a.• ,uru a,ahu00110wMyi•rNMM u♦r•y r+•w,:+o^!i hay.« y I 4y n 1 .' :-, • • it r o. • II • • 1 'S� - •'^'.•mo�.t':�q;i,rr „ NCI S ;sr- '^.' r ; „4y • 4 y � .... •, CrI Vi L EN G IN ER INp PLANNING=SURVEYING G AL.ssocoattizet's i September 28, 1979 • City of Tigard Planning Commission 12420 S.W. Main Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 . ' RE: Golf Creek Estates 6 Dear Commissioners: • I would l i ke to thank Al di e Howard for his assistance in making sure that our subdivision is legal and that there should be no problem approving the preliminary plat. The question arose at the last Planning Commission Meeting that access to some of the lots were illegal. After conferring with Mr. Howard and going' over Section 18.64.010 (Access & Engress) of the zoning ordinance, 'we found that lots 2 and 5, on the east side of the reek, .had • '°- legal frontage because they are flag lots and will share a common driveway. The lots on the west side of the cree', ' 1 so have legal access under Section 17.28.100 `Half Streets) of the subdivision ordinance. This section states that half streets may be approved where essential to the reasonable development • of the subdivision and were future right-of-way may be ',acquired for the development of adjacent properties. • In reviewing tie surrounding area one can see that two drainage �• swat es leave a pocket of land south of Durham Rd. The . • drainage way traverses our site and the west swale is approximately 500 feet away. To preserve the city`s policy of not crossing drainage ways the only possible access to this area is from Durham Road. The city's public works director has reviewed this situation and has commented in a letter to Ken Selby dated September 12, 1979. In that letter he states that our SA. 110th {. Street is the logical location for future development because of topography. Enclosed is a possi b1 e future development plan for the surround- ing properties. Because the adjacent property to the west wraps around the south end of the proposed half-street, future development of the surrounding properties would be-assured of a full street improvement. We would provide one foot street plug at the end of S.W. 110th Ave. and along the west side of that street in order that the, city could have control of access to S.W. 110th Ave. 411650 5°1 y ALLEN"BLVD, / SUITE 100 1 BEAVERTO , OREGON 97005 / (503)643-9410 ° . « .; ,.r :• ,.nss-mma.>bxr,,mra:s:rr cz:t:.�;a.wrq.:rwatN'✓^'n '.M': �, .. .... ...,. !Pil .., r. . , " ` . City of Tigard :'° t Page Z . September 23, 1979 We are also proposing an open space easement°of 50 feet on both sides of the creek. In order to protect this drainage • way', we will attach ! a condition which states; "Open space easement shall remain in natural topographic condition. No - private storm, culvert, e 'cavation or fill shall be constructed - within the open space easement unless approved by City Engineer" There was a question of timing on when the Summerfield sewer trunk would be built to serve the property. We believe that it will be finished by next summer, which would be in the time frame of construction for improvements and home construction on the site. We understand that at this time we cannot be i :;. assured of the sewer line being completed by next summer. Therefore, we would like to suggest that a cons ;tion be placed on the approval of the preliminary plat. The condition could . ' read "No building permits shall be issued until the bid.has - , 4. been let for the construction of the Summerfield trunk." . Since this item was continued until the next Planning Commission Meeting, we feel, thatAdecision can now be made that is both acceptable to, the city and the neighborhood. " Thank you for your indulgence on this matter. E Sincerely, WA R ASSOCIA S, IN -lot /6g4r/44(--,- , . • Joe Walsh Planning director Enclosure -; Exhibit "A" Y Proposal B cc: Aldie Howard ' Michael Elton dW/mhg b � 1 0, • p r---74-0.-, LT�z'SC 1 --. n -.,,.. awa0.n-n-uts{._.n.�. ra w _�a.. ..,..q?u+.tg.... .....„... �'1-S,,,..tdAiR3P+'tJMC1t.....' }Nan`' ,....._C1:;.wu.w.�':FL'r ,...tR.'`J.:t'Y.�'.2' A'"`� • 4 ♦.A • of •�", ».., r,4nw.iG.......t..., F,.,.,µ.. „'A•.:^.:' ,l—.a:_....,.o....,, .. .. „+.iw....,.i sw>..'..'.u.i1-,'.c.,._..s.;.s.:.Wcc.:::..,.-•-,...ui.+:.:W.','.:-;:t:.W:.-., .a, __ ., J ,. , o ' - ,u, la-:. ,.,...,.+:.....«........,:.Y....i.w......a.,.s...a.,.w......-ty..a.r._: .r...l.u.a,.,, . -. „ ,_ `e- .,.z....4w..a ' jRw •e. . — , 1 ,. .. .. ,. I' ., . .. - ... , - n4• .. a .. ..• w.. . M u, . ..,.i,. ,.q,_.'.,s .. • AFFIDAVT OF PUB'PUBLICATION , PUBLIC NOTICE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION' STATE OF OREGON, September•>ia,1979--7:30P 1LL ~owlerJunior High School COUNTY OF WASHI1GTON, Ss. Lecture Room ; ; 10865 SWWalnut Street ' ., Tigard,Qregon I, ,......Josepl?::_8c,ha..fex ........,..... • 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 CONDITIONAL USE CU 18-79 r duly rn depose and sa that T am publisher ..._..__........._•_.._...... (T��rbell Realtors building) NPO 6' being fiat du1 swo p y the u A request by Thomas a><w',d Grein- 4. of The Tigard Times, a newspaper of general circulation, as defined er/Architects for a conditional tise'per- mit to construct and operate a Profes-, ' by ORS 193.010 and 193.020, published at Tigard, in the aforesaid county and sional Office Building in a -3 "General ' Cor imercial"zone on a 1.47 acre parcel- state; that the legal notice, a located at the Northeast corner ta. , printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was Shady Lane and-S -Greenberg Road 2 (Washington'CountyTax Map•131-35B•,, published ';n the entire issue of said newspaper for successive and, Tax Lot. -.•. . �.. �. 205). consecutive weeks in the following issues __. DL1.01‘5_15_,1;2,9 . ues ..._.,._. ... .......,... ��;� (Golf Creek ° Estates) NPO 6 • _.... , eY 'si33ex'._ ., -12,..-w9 •— -- - A request by Mr. Michael' D. Elton to appeal the decision by the Planning / ,te (.l-._. ,.� - ` Director on July 17, I979 for denial of t '� his subdivision request or, a 2.83.acre ! ''. ,,\ ( `gn ture) parcel located at the Southwest corner 1 at of SW 108th and SW Durham Road Subscribed and sworn to before me this �_,.._._.,....-..._:- day of ... , (Washington County Tax Map 251 15A, Tax Lot 1500). Sept either is 79 5.3"I"EMPOR�,>,'Y USE TU 12-79(Sum- merfield, Roderick Enterprises) NPO 6 • Arequest by Mr.Ronald K.Knutson fora six month temporary use.permit .. . ...._,.....•. T..� to locate two security Notary Public of Oregon a C-4PD"Retail Comtneraal"tLoner io- cated at 11205 SW Summerfield Drive • My commission expires C v11Q-' :. 13.....,, •(Washington County Tax Map, 251 `.'b1'0'Pv '>"-;rlr,1l E4l 10D, Tax Lot 1902):. """"`""•"'"_...` F. ..a, .16� (TT 4273 -Publish Sept.5, 12, 1979) .. • 1 3 '1 t� l 1 rfj',-jg i. 1r Y' tS r ky' H „; n ti . ' ,, ',. lil,,■,,i,,v i lipT,i or w� •n• , 'dr. / 1 . Pi' • .i a �•,,.�cirnu.,.n,... .,z.:,,.,» .,'..,s. :....... ..v.:.�.-:.. c v..:r.:,,,.zk..,s.:.....r,.. ..,a.,w.,u w;».r uv , rv..u...., ,....,,_....._._ ...n;,. ,� 0 •l ' ` .,. i,.._..._...«.i_:.........,... s..,_...r..:.M.... _..-".+.r.-:....t-?.s. - .Aw,n..-..._...i':.. w.uM,...t.iL..l.]1..La......1:.................t.lY.nrJ.il..u..,. ..... 0 MEMORANDUM TO Planning - Ken Selby �J FROM: Public Works - Frank Currie SUBJECT: Review of Preliminary Pla of Golf Creek Estates DATE: September 1x, 199 v , Because I was not available for the preliminary develovuent meeting concerning this proposed development, I have ra;de a field trip with John Ragman and discussed with y 4� o some of these concerns. .u We looked specifically a:: sanitary sewer requirements, access onto existing public rights-of-way, requirements for improvements to existing adjacent facilities, storm drainage requirements, and pedestrian concerns. As a matter of rime concern should be the fact that this F proposed development does not have access to sanitary sewer facilities. As a matter of practicality, this proposed development should not be allowed to start until a construction contract has been let and a foreseeable completion date is available for sewer service to this development. The nearest feasible sewer line location is the, as yet, uncompleted U.S.A. Upper- ., Tualatin River Interceptor. This property will eventually he served by the one- half ' . mile long Tualatin Development Company "Summerfie'Ld" trunkline which will , 4 connect. U.S.A.'s Interceptor with Summerfield Subdivision (by gravity flow). You had mentioned some concern about increased traffic exiting from the proposed a subdivision onto SW 108th Avenue as contributing to a possible safety problem at ;., the Durham Road intersection with SW 108th Avenue due to the undulating condition of Durham Road. An investigation shows sight distances to the east are in excess of 1000 feet with 9 no undulations and in excess of 600 feet to the west with one undulation, the bottom of which is 150 feet west of the intersection. While a driver in the bottom of one of these +._r,ndulations may have a problem with sight distance, the driver entering Durham Road who is required to stop has good visibility in both directions. The minimum desirable stopping sight distance, as recommended by the Transportation Research Institute to the Oregon Traffic Safety Commission, for 45 mph design speed is three-hundred seventy five (375) feet. The same site distance situation o .curs at the proposed private road at the west end of the proposed development, except that visibility is, almost unrestricted. Access at this point, likewise, is no problem. I do think this proposed private road should be public in view of the future development which will occur south and west of this proposed, development and will, because of topography, exit onto Durham Road. r�•.�..—,.N, 4A i �p yr, 11 e 1 4 Page 2 { Topography is such that half street improvements should be required at this time on SW 108th Avenue as a condition of approval. suture, full street improvements on Durham Road will preclude total half street improvements at this time. I think we need a consent covenant guaranteeing non-- remonstrance and partial street improvements, as they relate to pedestrian traffic on Durham Road (ie., a paved pedestrian trail and a temporary crosswalk at either SW 108th Avenue, or the road at the west end) and as they relate to each of the two ' street intersections Or Durham Road (ie., curb r{eturns). Profiles of -misting ground at curb line and trail locations should be required along the st: .4-x side of Durham Road. Appropriate easements for sewer, storm drainage and roadways should be provided. Streetlighting within the development and at both intersections should be provided. s Half street improvements on SW 108th Avenue and improvements on the proposed roadway at the west end of the development will necessitate some storm drainage installation which, if not carried west from SW 108th and east from the indicated private road, would require off-site construction and commitment to off-site construction; therefore, Storm drainage should he prov.dec onsite, west from 108th and east from the 'private' road to the ravine in such a manner as not to contribute to existing erosion in the creek bed.. { 0 , Niwr A , AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigal-a. I, Viola Christens , being first duly sworn, on oath depose and say: That I am Secretary for the Planning Department for the City of Tigard, Oregon That I served notice of hearing of the Tigard Plan- nilg Commission of which the attached is a copy (..larked Exhibit A) upon each of the following named persons on the 44'7!\ clay of . , 1979 , by Failing to each of them at the address shown on the attached list Marked Exhibit B) , said notice as hereto attached, deposited in the United States Mail on the 2/74 I\ day of 1972_, postage prepaid.. rN Subscribed -n-id sworn to before ma on the 44,- day of • op ol&r,),,0.7,4e4 ) ' Notary Public of My Con ion expires /571(7- • , 4 T I flGr1RD ,• , 4/ '�,/r�l. `� . . ..,. } 4 ()T E f .. "mow .'D a H S �g7Jt,' 1J\\ fir+ , l�' .0'1�', f E i\R F R&'„.„ I' NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION AT ITS AJEETING ON TUESDAY, , AT 7:30 P.M. , IN THE LECTURE ROOM OF FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH .. SCHOOLS 10865 S.Vr. WALNUT, TIGARD, OREGON, WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: n 4 APPLICANT: Michael D. Elton 500 NE Multnomah, Suite 380 Portland, Oregon 97232 ■ REQUESTED ACTION: Request by Mr. Michael D. Elton to appeal the decision . by the Planning Director on July 17, 1979 for denial of his subdivision request on a 2.83 acre parcel. FILE NO: S6-79 .. LOCATION: Southwest corner of S.W. 108th and S.W. Durham Road + 10' (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 15A, Tax Lot 1500) . ' CT: emu p)% / y ..�4 1,(� -, ., s.w`/.. ....... '1.... rrc: , sr --".,,,,,_..� .. r ��\V\��.J� u.m „,,.Aa ,, INcz r s .�i t R Cr, W7. 3 N t....r r`1. R0, crNrTE rOff♦ r Y LN. p o "i.W, 3 f J? l ♦ _ 3 ��1 a+ �rDIJNYAiN Q y w C 9,w. _ MURDCtCk STREET �' 0+ `, +' rq? �� a=+ ; PINE1lH9 • I ! h E `J Ira 1 ”" a i . I rirw;4Yr ttE r1 C t ui K cr. ccL�'�\ ILINts ST, N f 5.w, o~ 11 LMONTE to 40.R�15\' cT..,"1 _2 ' 1 7R. CT c:"J'J t a . EMERALD Hrs.„.....,>..—.../1 J'� i i Si cT A l i s.w. I i SW HOOD S'2._ SATTI.CR iJ ST. ROSS ST.' I' ��e S ui'I , � C1 j ioll •/ �'F�f ° �5,W KAN4ik 1 5T r't.�' r6.'WOVE aC*° 172 pQ` ,�"'rr �,t'1n.,,I m ,6�toR ,Pq Ic y,l N 3P I ja6'°Ii67,\ ."vU -,M a ., 13' �' � �r O IEA�iC WEENIE PE rr ,�... i G r , /� ^Lp 4NEEN 41 fey o ODRDIJRN P4.=, °p'0,0 �/' 1.0 UNG �'., u.p ♦'' P.; ^,94 N,4ANLET 6T. t a. x , \� 7'4 '7 it I IC `I 3 2 pH :Ri' + 49' "��hr .uae.rllHd tivll nbYr.. //�� V, "h y u, y ,Pf 3 31 i- -^., ✓. ^ -?, ., FORM ° Y �' s 440 F CEN,URY Ak .0 u '1' 44u •+ iF 0 j C1 h 7 r ? / 5.19 rig Lam' L I 1 1/ 4' } max- „1.. { N , DURHAM RD. ,- {—� !I a w / / 'I u, ui 1 1 • Es Avg• y y / 1, ,�'=��' y <r �J !' iCI.YG ` av i� ! 1 JAMES ? P ti«.. 1 i 1 7' + !iOrAL i2 1 1 r I i ,' I ILLIC-0 9 14,4\dp.; .:-.=:-...::-..= 1 ), 4 ,,,o. r_ti,P -- e 0 ,_,.. 1, b , 'f 0 w ,,, .9 1 v 4- ,0 IA_ .'1"":I'. ' * ska 2L., ________, r----‘ „E 01 1 'A".. 7r4:1.70Ne �"�e 6 1 DR VtN6 7" ST7 N, I,I ,- ��4E.,:"o.;..,7, ,,,,*.r 0410, w ,.`',1 '`' rt JI P 1 j :+f,�0lr1;',1iro; .r >' ". v 1ii=t4ngbDK 1. _...,r---1 ,It�• 1-1;,/40.,46:.-1'�ri?b' w �+r .P"6 r+ I ` THE PUBLIC READING ON 'THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDI 'TED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE .WLES OP PROCEDURES OP THE PLANNING CO t- SSIOW. ANY PE 2SONS HAVING INTEREST IN THIS MATTER MAY ATTEND AND BE HEARD, , ',, :,, OR, TESTIMONY MAY BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO BE ENTERED INTO THE P°7.CDPD OF THE INITIAL HEARING. . 'FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT 639-4171 CITY OP TICAI"'�D 12420 S.W. Main ,,, , Ti g rd R Oregon 57223 a - - :u.WZ,ex,.-:QY.7. �...�tt.-.a. ..:1:.'.:,...:.rn,,.�,.H ...-..:n- .,�, N..p„ '.,�n.r.+..-.rtr �.uu..• re�r..r armNw?.• de �Nln Y.tt'1� '>n L.:^'.,�:t:'c,:.;e= :.traa,• C,,., .. -•-.. 1 . , i i r Oy 1 t/'.'•,.. .. ,...... i,),----74 ' rsrr'aO"'''' . f_.2..1 0 16 VE:1240210\LI,A-Y7q,-(1,4.,(-4-/-----ACfr--. 1-5" 4.1- 1.-“j° "te& 6;,' i&—.4 1 4.1re->6:-- (0 ; i163g0.,,,_z j,") /1/3':41‘ ,A, u--e-- ) 0 a/2,2g,erd d. .I,j Y,irk64.2.a411,a d C:;/6"tilie/k9°- . J , C. _i_. ..(3,,,,,,,I,,,g,„,t. e, . ,,L.„,,,?an,64a, ..-z-viie.e.< , ) 4740 1/ C0a/2"•,}t-e 1 ; , " 7002 ;0.,, .-,, :.:.J... dainte: • 'ix, 00 1 .46.4_ - ,-.77,L,e a,,) /3067 , j ... - _.Vii. d --.» ✓ i T c" »-»- dlaoi . A p c, C., a» g ,, . ---/--- 9t,) ct2L,,. ..„2.„,,so ar,02„ , . „, ., -' c?), 2-5- gy • tbnitOIL -t ,),IL',' i 1 !H ,.«. w!' ...wtw4CJ[`/21 li ' • • ''.).11, (-----) 2,,,,,,tea (9'A. v .9_.--,----, -- _.........................._-_- . _igidr1 (7 9 Z-,e” e_i,ezeiot, A, ''7' ,.,,,,, /(Le":59 — .. /L :; ,i ,5 a-)/1/3 ,, (--/,de e ee„,,,,,U12 ,._____,...--,----------- 1 1�5.._._.anC.:Y.:ri++::..44�4a..:�A.:.w.W.�aAi.l-rl i .�.�.�.w... .mn ,r: .�...,.....,. ..-.h•.yy�yy. Y .ra...�..w{ .u�i...w..«.u�.Wrv.wrM��r l.i.wrLiv✓+Hi "1{�-A�tiil+:Ls-+.T '�":�,.iG+.,✓.`MSC:Y:.;.iu Ni,4M \�j.{w�.h �/p� I I I � I « SURVEYING Associates Inc, August 9, 1979 Mr. Aldie Howard III Planning Director P.Q. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 RE: 56-79 Golf Creek Dear Mr, Howard: In response to 1979 p your letter of August 7,. 1�e9 T again must state we are still seeking an appeal to the subdivision denial . We agr we that spanning the creek is unnecessary in this situation, The fact that you are i,ot considering the option and allowing access onto Durham Road is our basis of appeal . After discussing the limited access policy with Washington County Public Works } (Mike Borreson), he assured me that (1) it is only a policy, not an ordinance, and (2) that it is a limited access policy, not a non access policy; limited meaning to confine or restrict within a certain range or designat!Hd amount. Our client's property fronts onto Durham Road. We believe the only feasible solution to develop this site is to allow access off Durham Road, It may be possible to obtain a variance and limit all driveways to one access point. We believe the original proposal is supportable and will seek Washington County's support of this plan. Please notify us of the time of the appeal , 2 Sincerely, P WAKFR ASS16CIATES, INC, Greg Jones Planner GO,fmhg 11 080 �,1 ALLEN BLVD. / SUITE E 100 / E EAVERION, OREGON 91005 / (503) 643-9410 `ky.:.,.,..+»,,.,.,.,w r.4er .,; «,.,u,.. :m.. w.,,,.Ma>•,r w+o,��w.t�.Mx , ,...:.. s- 70. 1977A t Vfak*r a t4 .' *? moo. 13,080 $.43/0 oto Sat UV H Rit,1 S 6.40 Otook st * ?4,11kar Mimeo* Itt thio prepool and thqk 'S-' s stwold 0 ,orly • r *440tt u. Ittsobingitcm buy ocobtroito ttuxtwoo 411440 11144y c ist . 1.1140) datAti 040 atx t s ' thia VAVWX2Sto SeStalV41400 p , siat ougot*ts two 4.aste s gx* ,pauta to .. s ±oI, : 340 b, I Splugii.no thoi n t X L .t u*w y vitt rost. ctorAsidetrool tauttew tolit progoot 64x4. ( 4) atso V* *rot gta,40Nota 4 *10 woo pozattoe ino,l,varag moasttivts loads 1,1,1 b. I a r1it Pla to Clos kta o att wN 4rY l x4 Nirolosioat q� w ac‘, 14, ,E of Ulla Unit Lot :04soit04 Ivr the tuilutzlat toter whIqh OitrovItyp,r>;a R oleo* rimiLal, of a omtloot moo %lot 000sti,t0,00 "t404,45 e0 ' • .43o t Um' , *' '$,4* tAbo. tato, with *Iv *patios,. V i_ CLIv + r4,4 futara 60vt4cip ss 41 11040 pA,. whia +fie' sot sa,'.z,is* , , ' * sollat44, w4s,ya '1 t fAtl ott evt,r attonvt * howtiol tiv 4 ' 414Lf•*d ' : '' "fi4 'rt " fps* {whip, �� .-.. ,- Sy,,,,.. .•>f w..,..... ,. , —Ta Ynii'n"+sf-t �iv�.n'�W^�SIDGEAI'?�'iF.c t.��:;-,..-- �..IC+�=:�u..r�P:4.-si�.nc=-F.,h 1 ►' 1 v � �•p \1 / Vin ` ..._-� .� 1 n � w I _ • �, ��,l 5 X11 .4r � � • • • SOC LE$, INC. t 60-79 GO U Creek Estates Page �. If you still wis;b to appeal this decision you are free to dc` rf ►, biLlt our staff report will clearly, .delineate these concerns mud we will recommend denial unless a proposal addresses these concerns satisfactorily. To ` 1 . . date this not e the case• • tours truly, Aldie Rowar'd ?larniixi; " i t*ctor 0/1. • g. r1 , * t gl Y , �� Vex,.,;�•..a, S1r rf , "S ;1r_ „ ,_ m. .,' `\� a.F„ �� M , 19 ,, ,, .., ,:t,,s,,;. '. i' ,k le If. , to CIVIL kitsIGINEERING • ' A! 1-7.1'5.'""'t''., 4*ci,I, '' : • if NI.Pim In al A 1:71NNIr,QG•SURVEYING, %it:4 4,", 0-'4, , • '''4" 4'44 ` 1.* SSCV r 9 +1 tt ti, 1;111 July 27, 1979 . lb, a - Aldie Howard Planning Director i , . > , P.O. Box 23397 . 12420 S.W. Main , fcgard, OR 97223 - I RE: S-679 (Golf Creek Estates) • . I , Dear Mr. Howard: / II ' . 42t , On benatlf of our client Mr. Michael D. Elton we are seek$nran N4 . appeal on action S-679 Golf Creek Estates which denied the , vi preliminary plat on July 17, 1979. Staff recommendation for denial based (3,1 conclusionary findings are conflicting and in error. , . , Staff findings one and two are conflicting; ,....., ... 2. Access/ingress to western portion oj* L...roperty is no* appropriate. Durham Road shati remain a "Limited , t., access road". - . 2. Spanning of this na*ura12 drainage way is• not appro- priate to serve the western portion of the property f ' mk , These finding limit our clients ability to use the initial if • western portion of this property. The only reason given is ..gi that its inappropriate. Mr. Elton has the right to use his , property as designated. They presence of a natural drainage- !, . ' way is not a satisfactory finding to restrict any access to tho, western portion of the lot. This action is a "Taking" of + the applicants property rights without supportable findings, or 4. 1 compensation. The presence of another span at Durham Road is . .Y, adequate evidence that the L'.reek is not in a natural condition, ,I• an another span nearby would not substantially injure the creek habitat or appearance if construction is carefully managed. 1 / ' If the Ci4t:y fees the preservation of the vrqinage-way is most ,. ) ' 014 Ofu \mportant then access should be given to t,r_ site off Durham If access control on Durham Road is considered most important then a creek crossing must be allowed. ....... 1 '' .,_. .4 ),' 1 4 4 . . ..„, , . , . 6 1 1 0 8 0 SW, ALLEN BLVD. i 13LitiE 100 i BEAVERTV,, OREGON 97005 / (503) 643.9410 , , ■ .1 . .., ... ' ,. 'eg, • ' r ' . 1 i'N / ft Aldie Howard . Page 2 • .�, July 27, 1979 The most environmentally, aesthetically, and physically acceptable solution is the one present in the preliminary plat which we The "Catch 22 situation is not acceptable; the City submitted. • r' must provide Mr. Elton 4ith options for using the entire property as he desires. 3. Area is now designated for apartment units. Single Yami1.y Residences are now not appropriate. • A medium density designation sets a maximum density for develop- mentnod; a minimum density. Lower densities should be place on 4 sites with topographic or natural vegetation problems. This site .• has these problems. We believe a lower density is appropriate, • Sincerely, WADER ASSOCIATES, INC. X, ) .--- ---1------7 a;e4.,--,...-. Greg Jones .. ', Planner a. GJ/mhg ' o g il r rYy' . ff� a = r 0 61. \ / r e . . n • ['t'n W Y' •t' !y r.n . ., mjyrn.geq�"`rc..e-,�i;•ae�q 9 v" `) a t 'Gi" — e. y , • •,� F x 1; July 23, .19 79 1 . . , Mr Michael D. Elton 500 L.E. Multnomah, Suite 380 Portland, O 'er 97232 S 6.19 a; o11f.' Creek Estat es) `=;' Dear Mr. Elt ri; Please be advised that the Tigard Planning Director on July 170 1979, denied • your request for preliMiAary plat approval for the above referenced project. , % This, denial is subject to the following cornd.itior J: ;, ai , 1. ha ss, ingr s to west,exn portion of property is not app priate. • � �%�'� Durham Road a ti 1 red (in a "Limited access road". ., spouting Of this natural d.rainage way is not appropriate to serve th , western portion of the property. `' 3 a A; a is now designated far apartment units+ Single rail ly sidences. } are n ,.v not approl2 'elate e . I : ACti,on. of ,die; Planning' Dtri,ctor is final unless notification of appeal to th,e w Planning Coltitmiesion is filed with the City within 20 days al: the Planning Di eotC' r's action. ',,, It we can Of any, further assistance, please, c: not hesitate to contact this cede at 639. 1.710 S - Sin. e .ly o ,,� a I Xen Selby sboiate City planner '1 oil • ,,... .... „ -.r .. ,. ;mu..,m.rw.Mrs w..r.xn *.4 mri x ^'� 5 • , {A ,, n, . ( ''' ' ',,,_„. STAFF REPORT REPORT . r' TIGARD PLANNING DEPARTMENT , 1 CITY HALL, 12420 F.W. Hain 'St July 17, 1979 - • , . ' DOCKET: Subdivision 6-79 (Golf Creek Estates) I r.i:QUEST;; To subdivide a 2.83 acre parcel into eleven lots '. SITE LOCATION: Southwest corner of S.W. Durham Road and S,.W. 108th Street ' . 1' (• APPLICANT: Michael D. Elton 500 N.E. Multnomah Suite 380 - 7 ortland, Oregon 97232 �x 1 .P. • 79 SITE DESIGNATION: R-7 Single Family Residential PREVIOUS ACTION: The 9.:igard Planning Commission on Sep'oember 5, 1978 approved the applicant's 1 request f)r a zone map amendment for a tract of land, depicted on Wash. Co. I Tax Map 2S1 15A as Tax Lot 1500, from Wash. Co. "RS-1" to City of Tigard Y 3 "P-7" Single Family Residential (Ref: ZC, 16-78) 4 The Tigard Planning Commission at their regular meeting of March 6, 1979 ,/ I . denied the applicant's request for a conditional use permit in regards constructing duplex units on the subject site. ' FINDINGS OF 1'1CT: The site, is designated as "Urbax., Low Density" on the NPO #6 Plan and zoned :, R-7 "Single Family Residential". �. R The applicant proposes to subdivide and construct eleven (11) single family ! units with the smallest lot size being 7,500 sq ft �,.d the largest 15,000 sq. ft. w The site is split by a Creek whih flows north to south through the area. ;; A major portion of the property is in. the natural drainage way. ► Water lines axe adjacent to the site and the Summerfieid Trunk Sewer lino is being designed to pass through the site in the creek area,. S.W. Durham Road is designated as a residential arterial road in the NPO #6 Plan with the necessary right-of-way of 90 ft. S.W. 108th is designated a local street. • CONCLUSIONAR1 FINDINGS: , The applicant's request for a zone change, to City of Tigard R-7 Single Family Residential, was approved by the City Council October 23, 1978 subject to con- . ditions as 4:numers.ted. r, i. ....i „ Cif�MC�r[ Ary'r PRi �J1 ^'. _. {Wl...v.nrL ...„.La.�--+u .,.o-.:l..,,a.«-,+..,.��. { :;......n a ... fi.':,- .«ra51f+T.i�... -�. ♦.., � w�......•.i..w:.w:...�+:��,.f.a4�lN..iW.».4 .. ,.. y.,.: ..,.. a .�� 0 - , 1 t '�- t..r.. aF.. .t.!✓-..a;Y'Na ,:,.k„r i-.. . _..i. ., '..w..ra-.rt.Ww iu...w ai.- +,.a� -r-txt ...- r.4.a'.a; STAFF REPORT REPO�Rx' a. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION July 170 1979 Page 2 • • i A major portion of the subject site falls within a naturat.drainage system from the Pond across Durham Road in Summorfield. No buildings can be , r placed on this portion of the property. • Access from the we s to rn portion of this site on to. Durham Road is contrary . to Washington County Policy to limit access to Durham. Site has been designated for higher density development., recently by the Tigard City Council on. May 21, 1979„ . • STAFF RE:COMMENDA 'IONS: Staff recommends denial of this proposal for the following reasons 8 . 1. Access/ingress to western portion of property is not appropriate. • • -'•' DurhaM•Roads' shall ,remain .a':"Limited access road”. 2, Spanning of this natural drainage way is not appropriate to serve the western portion of the property. 3. Area is now designated for apartment units. Single Family Residencies are now not appropriate. . GENERAL STAFF COMMENTS: J • r Ironically Mir. Elton's original proposal fOr a Senior Citizens Retirement d Complex may now be possible for this site. If the applicant wished to 3,.'• , , reapi,ly for a planned development retirement center, staff would process s • • same. . 5 a 3 In consideration of the number of times Mr. Elton has applied for applica- tion to this site. T'h.e fee for the planned development will be waived.. A 1) Report prepared by; Kei e y Report review by: Aldi ,4ward . i, Assoc ate City Planner P1. rtif •� birector Q e .4' v 1 • NI V aYt.Ya''YN ..... Atl1". t • • ` - w ` • Y . , A R_•1 ,.a.•.-.��a..a,..,•t:,. a.... e,x..+......_.-...», ........ .». .J.-."¢... i.:.7Y....•..,">..x a...,.:.,+,yin.:.;-, 1 a. .,1, r A'J.a}.u... , ...e A'S.. •..h::r'1 .,Yr•:..+......oA.:.:..,»...-.,..,....,. y.,.,w. • ,,. . Y ,. . _ ..♦." ... „ e ,.. . .w ..,e. .. A M,f�.. . rn. m, . .ry ... 4.. :tto:...:.:r,..•«::_.......w+,t.. i r AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING e • STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. • City of Tigard ) 1, Lowana Murray,: being . i.rst duly sworn, on oath depose and say: t mhat T am Secretary for the Planning Department for • _ ". . the City. of Tigard, Oregon J , . Y That 1 served notice of hearing of the Tigard Plan- „� fling Comcnis, ion ' of which the attached is a copy (Marked Exhibit A) upon each of the following named persons on the _ ,-.3 day of 1, ' r , 197_1_, by mailing to each •cif them at the • , address--S-E77-7141h he-attach d list (Marked Exhibit 8) , said notice � , , as hereto =attached, deposited in the United States Mail nn the . day of , 157 , postage prepaid. A 4 a Subzscribee and sworn 197 before me on the �+.�______??'.'1 day of „' h y,ro, ,,, t,t, ., i 9 7 0 _ m `o , 9, `w k, y�, i,, `-.r. „, ,i off_!y/I, wry r, ,I '.�'\^'G✓ -F `"" Gam„ �. r�,•`6.w >; Notary Public of Grego • • My cor m .,ssion expires: '�' a . I. t M • ' - ie.-. . .. . . % ',.... " , - 0 ,,,, .,,, • , . . . i, ) ; ■•' tro' 1 ,14 * " '` oitoo.Ait. P.O. Box 23397 • 12420 S.W. Main Tigard,Oregon 97223 ' 1 Reference,' 4S6 C12,11°(' ere(te..2.s&k Today's Date Final Action Date: c Dear Community Member: The enclosed site plan and narrative should be of intere7t to you. Specific plans for this property are available in this office for your review. Written comments tre encouragea. Please submit ' correspondence in advance of final action. Note that the final action date is stated above. rg, If you have any questionsi please contact Mr. Ken Selby, Associate Planner at 639 Aldie Howard Planning Director • Enc. • ' 4■‘ • 3 • • •• ‘.4 -m•mr.em•frr* •••m •Ormr4 onolgrmir,-,t.1,11 M.-1 tam. • „ I gM s � +y b '. � ; 1c .o�� cos- 'OREGON ., bct w{ S 0 EE MAP 2S 1 100i) R ,ii” '� ,+ S89 ,82'�� V ~ .. .a-..m ,�.r,.......w. n i__—:- r D1_i }`�a C 429 0 ROAD/ 50 N . K.11 "< 4).. _..._____...,..8._._..a...._, 6 fl 7.06' ,_ 1504 ' e ` 100 ;, etc, 6-7 9 (Golf Creek •� � 1600 _�.�,�ao. � � ,,.�� „�o SUBDIVISION S ( Creek 1 , • �.�2A.. Estates) " !( `•� Y Location: SW coa:�nes of S.W. Durham � ( .z Rd and S.W. 10 8th ,eve. • h`, L.., �� 26 ! in-.0 Lot: 2,83 acre ".''' '. -�a Final Action by P1af..ni; ,g Director •• q. 1' �. ' July 17, 1970 .1 \L .., • ...,... . _ .,„,.,. ,,, , 8 .4 G I 343.2 .. 342.t1°h , :I' 14C)C' 4,3 1-2- 00 l0 337,Ofi . 'r1 • 292,05 t* .634c. .�- . �3'tic i9 i� '.'�, a 1300 d?20Ac z, 201 ' ' , 2 343 oi h 2 i7 1 , to r r� I� + ' !./2 ,Are. j cn=' ,! .._., 344.351.1......._.. a�. ,___37O 8q.?. 5 • 12,'00 30C) 5,O1 40; 5,82 Ac. . .,, .4% W ri ., ri 0 a . 1 ' .14D r c, 0 li'C . , . 28 t 3 o; hr — T- .,'a to - to r •nom, i`- }i ' 686.4' 667,08 � ■ _ _ r 54 t 1101 400 " .' b ,2Qplc. m 5.36Ac. h n u of , 'v ,i.9) _ir, _ ...._. _—._..._._..—. _ 0 M 1 100 -- -- -- I,bra 2.9 110�' C , Z 5u .`_1 3 3 { IS/At; •° '9 x . .; _ (C,S,No 1 1594) 401 k:, _ w-r w 0.4,1•Ac, m :4.4•••_ - 686.4" 435:6 250' ..�y _, �O 6874 0F3�'' i r :,, ., �00� r 00 ,... 601 602 v0 1 • ' ' A `\ 1-� � y �1 2.54, . , 6' .4e 3',tip e. -�to to' to I q 1'0 .., 588°56'E 3�1,0 e . 1001}}yy{ i �+ q1t{y. .1'96) ,in l w 32 ta .r. - 2 J! wY � , r1 3W� f , An r � ,y a . ..�- ,'". � o 1 4C. 3 b - ` ..k..e :.k a. .w._ awro «. « ... r.y..,nY^ N..x+^cxw+*v, tcacx'"f':JrH^,..��.w..,.. .�.-a•�,idi 1 r „n '_./fZett4 511,9 ^" UM d!d .:37 P7S' 3(3/?/, 71p ov b#7,2 rcy Lu(-12yiroo (7 '7bC2 toqp,66,q2 .75 `u y l/ 7� �7 C1 Q 3 vi-vc- 2702cryre79--pc 0Q / W-9 / is-c‹ peJ-29, D2/., , 02 C 95 .� _� /3. , • - • * '29 v:(-z(702zig2= 3,2 -1-bcpcoy---,putriv 1,7,E r)-cr,1 ,� c7-, ;. r f ff 7,0* � � ,r✓ A fA\ el-g■Vric). t,. aft. ovcr2 /7?.(77'0-- a Wm c 07712-2/A. .." r ,,Z,3 07P 0 2-91 ,.0,477,??7,70( _e.<?,72.:12,72 row. - 9 CV e;)' 000-4 (71(TC7 g ,• P '-'• f, . . . ' ■ .. • ''',' ■ • , .01 , . , i7thlitt 40 1972 . . . Wigton County PUbl4c Works Da.PsY*'"OrAt ' ) _.-. . Vitst it • atilmboto, Orogon 97123 ... •• . $ PO* Coif Cok5 tes . . 1 . Dear Mr. Apeara , . Pleage call mZ in feference to direct accees onto 1..)tuA.katxt, toad ,.. per the attached subdivision* FAn SeIby at 6,3 -4171, Thank ''JpDu, ;., .. Kon Selby Aseociate City planner ItSalv.1 Li r.•"") ' , ..., ,• , , . • , . ! ... .. ' , • „.” • /•7 ..,......---„.....„.......„,,„.:-...! , , • . . . . .... .. S SSSS,SN : It',^ , 9 ,w•" '\ r .. t.,' r," SUBDIVISION APPLICATION . I, ,} Ar , �CIOF TIGARD PLANNING LL"ARTMENT F.,S'iete 4, • C ` -4cPo2 _ 12420 SW, Main Street �,':.: --- Tigard, Oregon 97223 Fee Ric d 6.39-4171 Receipt # •-gl� A Date Rec'd . 1 C`7 , A\9 n 0° ,,,,1 N — By 0.,:,,,,\ / J ..�Ylwr+nn.•......!.ai Wrl...r. Yr+. ar.w ...n..w...w�r�. . r.....w.».y...,a ..r1.rr•M , . PLEASE PRINT IN INK OR TYPE I. PLAT NAME: Gol t Creek Estates 0... ADDRESS: -t„„ T2S RIW Sec.15A b� 1 1 -LOT s "1500 . AREA OF TAx(s) 2.83 AC x,,� MAP # ( ) _r...... _ ._. ,, APPLICAAT' S NAME: Michael D. El ton —_ PHONE (BUDS.) 243-1708 (RES.) 635-3382 . ) .........■ l. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 500 NE. Multnomah, Sui ,,e 380 Portland, Oregon 97232 0- e" (STREET) (CITY) (STATE) (ZIP) • OWNER'S NAME: Same PHONE (EUS.) ,n , - OWNER'S ADDRESS. Same . ...__ (STREET) (CITY) (STATE) (ZIP) OWNER RECOGNITION OF APPLICATION: / d------45L--)„door, _ — , .., ,M jar ...' if,.a rY I, . 4, ( 4' 'IGI\ATU' I S t�4S) 0 *'' • PLEASE CIRCLE: PLANNER .. ENGINEER Wakcr Associates Inc. 6439410 ` SURVEYOR NAME: PHONE (BUS.) No. 100 Beaverton, Or �. � ADDRESS: 11080 .SIB A'1 erg Blvd. CJ egon 97005 M - ., , _..'.� (STREET) (CITY) (STATE) (ZIP) ; ------ 11 LANJ PRoO 2.4 t^ NUMBER (*" ' LOT(S) : APPR)XIM4".IE AREA O1 BAC i LOT: 7500 Sq, Ft. 'I ZONING E. SIGNATION: R- z. LIST UTILITY DTSTR' "CT PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN ,',,,I4 DrsTRaCT. Tualatin Fire Di stri c,t •,,;f SCr«:OOL t IS(R t`CT: _ r i arC[ �...W SEWER DISTRICT: Tigard a U.S.A. 1 "' LIST ALL EASEi+, NTS AEEECTING TFri ? OP EP.TY: a.. .,_ _.. _.,(, .. r , -n-+c.np NV+4 ,t.r...-u:_;.a4 a..,. w--. • ` . .._ X11, ' t +..', ':,1 n , .' ti-.1 4.: r , (1 . ki ' ‘ 4'41/440V -a sm I I■mr' CIVIL ENGINEERING i t. , 1 . 4t. x', ' dawn ' • PLANNING.SURVEYING , I it: , .-te ' ,;- in -' , d4 . , . May 10, 1979 ,-- t 56101 , .; Ken Selby Associate Planner City of Tigard , 12420 S.W. Main Street Tigard, OR 97223 At k RE: GGI,F, CREEK ESTATZS PRELIMINARY PLAT 1 ,f, Dear Ken: a ,1 , , . We are submittlng a preliminary plat of Golf Creek Estates on behalf of our , , , client Michael Elton. The project is located at the southwest corner cf , S.W. Durham Road and S.W. 108th Avenue. The 2.83 acre site is split by a creek which fioi:s north to south through the area, Zoning on the property is R-7 (7,500 square fe, t) and the Comprehensive Platt designation is also R-7. Water lines are adjacent to the site and the Summerfield Trunk sewer line is -, being designed to pass through the site io the creek area, $, Because of the existing conditions of the site, i .e. , the creek through the ( middle, a conventional subdivision would be impractical to develop, Therefore, we are proposing to develop the site as a subdivision using Chapter 18,64 _ (Access and Egress) as our guidelines in design of te lots and roadways, / The lots will conform to the requirements of the zoning and subdivision ordin- ances, which call for 7,500 square foot minimum lot size, We are proposing 11 sirgle family lots with the smallest lot size being 7,500 square feet and - 0 _ the largest lot t-,.,ing 15,000 square feet, If the site were to be developed a as a Planned Development, a maximum of 14 units could be built, but the owner of the property Wishes to develop the site with large privately owned lots, .1 Most of the lots will get access from a 24 foot wide private roadway in a 30 foot easement, An average 100 foot wide open space easement along the creek , , • will also be provided, Development of the site is expected to take place • this summer with appropriate approvals, Thank you for your attention to this matter and if there are any questions 1 ° or discussiDns, please do not hesitate to call , , . S riCe?'egett, . oe Walsh . ,...,, (..1 Assistant Planning Director Ends, ..,, I '11060 S.W. ALLEN OLVD. / SUilt 100 / L3EAVEPTOH, OREGON 97005 f (503) 643-9410 ' i , . ,., ,•\k '.• 1610- t I * o , , • ,• i 41 J• ....r _„_ ,.,....-.,......t,c..ur.._,',.,'a.._..var '.w' i>a.»......F.re„Uar:P,:x....<...i-...e...r...a.,...,. „ ,,a.., •. .:_-...n,._,.-r..w...w.... ' ; '' I r,..x _ gym'«. ,�) 1 '•i, 'a CONDITIONS OF APPR`VAL, FOR C.e:?LF CREEK ESTATES r � Approve with the following conditions! 1) street improvement along S.W. ' 1O8t;, 2) z street 4 m?rovement along the proposed S.W. 110th Ave with a tempoa emergency :• turn„around as shown on the pr.e1 imi nary •' ;• • .plat 3 ) Waiver of remnnst” nce of future im. rov�ements along 3) � g �S.�dr, Durham Rd. 4) No building permits will be issued until such time that gravity sanitary sewer service is available to the site, r 5) The area within the open space easement remain in its natural state and undeveloped 6) Dedicate 25 feet of right-of-way along S:yW. Durham Road 7) Dedicate 5 feet of right-of-way along S.W. 108th Ave. i �• 8 , Access be restricted on S.W. Durham Road and allowed only on S.W, 108th Ave. and S.W. 110th Ave. lk.19 /'j., • • r rytm.t n:. .. .. u..„ .,. �� un rorty�r r h n+.nrmn.r.r•rri Y.:'amx,.” - ; 1 • � �'.'t„"Y..�1GS„�t.�..;..u.u."zr ka^a*.vau.,�ni9++ra=w:,� a ...• , .,. .. „ _. , I [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] • ' 417000t4V.04.---. zoo() 25 'C I GOLF CREEK ESTATES I. Nature of Thi aring Applicant ha ' agreed to return to the City Council for one more hearing in the spirit of compromise. Otherwise, the applicant • .;/ will proceed with his appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals . A. This is not a new application for a zone change or R-5 PD-- that is staff's proposal with which we do not concur. B. We are here to suggest that the city on its own initiative approve the prior request with appropriate conditions. II . The conditions which are appropriate and which we agree to are 2 ,3,4,6,7, 8,9 ,10 and 12 thru 19 . III. The conditions which are not appropriate with respect to your reconsideration of the prior application are: , • A. Condition l- -requiring planned development does not relate to the prior application and must be deleted. This item was not a consideration in the pieviuub denial of this application and should not be a consideration now B. We are further concerned about the abrogation of the representations we have made to the neighborhoud concerning this development and their support thereof. The consensus of all testimony on this project has been to retain the single family nature of thi6 area on conventional lots with private ownership of the creek area. • • • IV. Condition 5 then also violates this trust and should be deleted along with compaftion conditions 11 and 20 . V. The deletion of these conditions should in no way be considered a failure to acknowledge the protection of "Sensitive Lands" as desired by the City of Tigard. We fully acknowledge that this 100 ' area should be protected. We do not agree, however, on the methods proposed by the unsatisfactory conditions mentioned above. • VI. The formation of a Homeowners Association neither affords the city a vehicle to insure maintenance, nor do we view it a necessary item in such a small project. VII. Our view of this need is as follows : A. Each lot owner should be responsible for the maintenance of the creek area as part of his property. B. Each lot owner should be prohibited from constructing any- thing within this area, and the city should hve some ,.nforcement rights established in this area which would not be the case with staff conditions . C. Tn the case where one individual fails to perform his obligations, others (an association) should not be re- quired to share in the cost of abating the nuisance. . "" , .� ....„.. ,...u,.a..4,.,.,,...,vµ...., i.:i..»........ .,,....... ...4- "....... r. .ryvc.u. .::.,. Ma_........:u._._+...._....,_..,.M'3.0«.;.x.,_,va.-i' m..,u,4.an+..,x ,., .v..... .. ,...,.,.....,....-............. .. .. -- .. .-_,- • o .W: III. • VIII In order to deal with the inequities, the desires of both the applicant and the city to protect the creek area, and to provide some legal rights to the city of enforcement, if necessary, we, hereby propose the following conditions for '. substitution as fo1l..ovs : .4 A. Condition 1, substitute the following: No construction shall occur, within the 100 ' creek area which shall be delineated on the final plat as restricted } lands in a form acceptable to the City Attorney." R. Condition 5 , substitute the following: "Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions shall be adopted, •, subject to the city' s review, providing for maintenance of the drainageway in perpetuity by the lot owners chid their successors or assigns . Said Conditions , Covenants and Restrictions will also prohibit the construction of any structure it the drainage way, including but not limited to buildings and fences . " C. Condition 1.1, substitute the following: "The developer shall petition the city for formation of a perpetual maintenance district providing for the right A, of the city to maintain the drainu'L;4eway and/or remove A any structures placed therein and assess such costs as may be incurred on the property owners. ".a...... x ..; ;°. . . Page 1 of 3 Pages ' . :f 4 DECLARATION OF CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS GOLF CREEK • • WHEREAS, the Declarants have filed for record in the office of the County Clerk of the County of Washington and State of Oregon, a plat . designated as Golf Creek. Located in Seetion 15A, T2S, RIW, Willamette Meridian, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON, WHEREAS, Michael Elton, is the ownor of ell the real property included . • therein. NOW, THEREFORE, this party, the above described declarant, does hereby ' • adopt the following general scheme and plan for the improvements, use 0 and restrictions in the use.of the land herein described and represented by said plat for the enjoyment and several benefits of himself, as owner of said land, and also for the owners of any part of said land, and also 1 ' for the owners of any part of said land claiming through them, their • successors or assigns; and they do hereby declare that having adopted such general scheme and plan the same is now hereby impressed and fixed on all of the said land and each part and parcel thereof and that all their successors, representatives and assigns who shall derive title from the said declarant, shall take titlesubiestIo such general_scheme and, plan, ev9111102.1121.9ULeaDce made EUnv- . - is to an such successor, representative or assign; and the passing of title to any par or parcel of said land to any successor, representative or assign shall carry with it as an appurtenance the • obligation and burden of such general scheme and plan.. The said general plan shall consist of the above described property being and remaining subject to the following conditions, restrictions, covenants and :agreeee • "• ments, to-wit: I. LAND USE AND BUILDING TYPE: No lot shall be used except for ftsidential purposes. No building shall be erected, .altered or placed on any lot other than one detached single family dwelling not to exceed two and one-half stories in height, exclusive of daylight basements, and a private garage * or carport for not more than two cars. 2. DWELLING COST: Quality and Size: The round floor area of, the main structure, exclusive of one-story open porches and garages, shall not be less than 1000 square feet for a one-story dwelling, not less than 750 square feet for a dwelling of more than one story A basement or partial basement structure shall be considered a two-story structure. 3. YARD REQUIREMENTS: All buildings shall be located to comply with City of Tigard Zoning Ordinances and variances granted therefrom. 4, UTILITY CONNECTIONS: On each of the lots in the tract, all telephone 111 service wire connections to the main telephone system and all power connections to the main power system must be placed underground, 5. NUISANCE : • No noxious or offensive activity shall be carried on upon any lot, nor shall anything be done thereon which may be or may become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood. 4 — ‘t, l ,, U . . . . . , .A . ' Page 2 of 3 Pages( 4 A ' ( a 4 ' 1 4 4 • '''' . 6, TEMPORARY STRUCTURES: No structure of a temporary character, trailer, . , -basement, tent, shack, garage, barn or other outbuilding shall be used on any lot at any time as a residence either temporarily or permanently. '6 . , . . 7. SIGNS: No sign of any kind shall be displayed to the public view on , any lot except one professional sign of not more than one square foot, one „ sign of not more than five (5) square feet advertising the property for sale 1., or rent, or signs used by a builder to advertise the property during the / construction and sales period. ,. , 8. OIL AND MINING OPERATIONS: No oil drilling, oil development operations, . oil refining, quarrying or mining operations of any kind shall be permitted , upon or in any lot, nor shall oil wells, tanks, tunnels, mineral excavation or shafts be permitted upon or in any lot: No derrick or other structure • , designed for use in boring for oil or natural gas shall be erected, maintained, . or permitted upon any lot. " , ', .• 9. LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY:. No animals, liVestock, or poultry of any kind , v . , . shall be raised, bred, or kept on any lot, except that dogs, cats, or other , household pets may be kept provided that they are not kept, bred or maintained d.' for anycommercial purposes. • . 10. GARBAGE AND REFUSE DISPOSAL: No lot shall be used for or maintained as a dumping ground for rubbish. Trash, garbage or other waste shall not be kept , ' except in sanitary containers. All incinerators or other equipment for the , , .. • . storage or disposal of such material shall be kept in a clean and sanitary • 4,, condition. . . ok . 11. SLOPE CONTROL AREA: Slope control areas are reserved as shown on the plan titled "GOLF CREEK ESTATES", dated "September 27, 1979", and recorded as a part of these covenants. Affected lots are those which abutt the drainage courses as shown on the recorded subdivision plat. Within these slope control areas no structure, planting, or other material shall be placed or permitted to temain or other activities undertaken which may - damage or interfere with established slope ratios, create erosion, or sliding problems, or which mas change the direction of flow of dra'eage channels or - i . obstruct or retard the flow of water through drainage chani,els. The slope (- . • control areas of each lot and all improvements in them shall be maintained . . continuously_"-- --i_owner a =2>p-TEE-rf-o-Friose lmproveme ",s-for which a public authority orutilitv comatil_11217i1E :r7E117.7------------ ' ' 41 121 SLOPE AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS: The owner and occupant of a residential building site will permit access by the owner or occupant of an adjoining , ..., or adjacent site to slopes or drainageways on the property of the former to p. maintain slopes or drainage facilities for the protection and use of such , adjoining or adjacent site. Each owner will not block, hinder or interfere with the established drainage pattern over his land from adjoining, or adjacent . . land. . .. :. • 13, EASEMENTS: Declarant hereby reserve to itself its successors and 1 assigns, perpetual easements under, over and across strips of land five ) (5) feet in width running along and interior to the side lines and rear lines of each building site owned by it for the purpose of erecting, con- structing, maintaining and operating sewers and drainage system, and poles, • pipes, wires, cables, guys, anchors and conduits for lighting, heating, power, telephone and any other method of conducting and performing any public or , S a f r , -,... , ,, , ,� Page 3 (t' 3 Pages 13. EASEMENTS cONt quasi-public utility service or function beneath, upon or above the �'a�.ri7ace of thee ground`'withi said five-foot strips of land, A and de:l.arant re ,erves the right to cut and/or trim any trees or other growth � ion such five-foot; 'tAtri ps. which may interfere with or menace the construction, maintenance ithr operation of said utilities. 14. GENERAL PROVISIONS: (a) TERM: These convenants are to run with the land and shall be binding or all parties and all persons claiming under them ; for a period of 25 years from the date these convenants are recorded, after which time said covenants shall be automatically extended for successive periods of 10 years unless an instrument signed by a majority of the then owners of the lots has been recorded, agreeing to change said covenants in whole or in .part,. ENFORCEMENT: (b) Enforcement shall be by proceedings at law or in equity -` against any person;, or perscis violating or attempting to violate any covenants either to restrian violation or to recover damages; if upon the erection of the first improvements upon any Of the residential lots which are subject to these restrictions, it is disclosed by survey that a minor violation or' - infringement of the setback lines has occurred, such violation or infringement ■ may be waived by the written consent and waiver :nf the owners of the residential lots immediately adjoining on either side of the residential lot upon which the violation or infringement occurs and such waiver shall be binding upon all other owners of residential lots which are subject to these restrictions ':t d shall nullify the provisions of paragraph "b" herein insofar as any right of • suit or action, occurs by reason of such violation so waived. Nothing herein contained shall prevent the prosecution of a suit for any other violations of these restrictions. For the purpose of •uefir\ing.a "minor" violation herein contained, such violation shall be not more than two feet beyond the setback dines as herein set forth, This provision shall apply only to the original structure and shall not be ap,:licable to ainy alterations or repairs to such structure, SE";VERABIL.ITY: (c) Invalidation of any one of these convenants by judgement Zr"court order shall in no wise affect any of the other provisions which shall ,. remain in full force and effect. i f f .... 5"1A 1. '.1•!. ..M i a.fw. a v,n:.,. . .. NAN1"M.R'.CStI.._.INiMYfi. �N,' ,... .., -. ........ ... .i'.«'fl�C 1 L~ If .M,u.��.,.....-. "WdkC"W.::tC31�..r."'4'G� '- •l' - , . . - , 4 4 .. ..• • ••••04 I ....I. V. 1 . M • • • . '4• . M.ia 4 "77. . ,M M " .4. A 0 I . . .,, ,,•m A mmm,,..mm,,,,.. , 01;0 ,i,.' " glow •''" ..;., , , 'H ,,, "*, ;.:,vC7 ' ' ' ',.-r , ' .; 1 4 ' . Policy .12. Planneid unit development will be encouraged on tracts-‘ , large enough to accommodate ten or more dwellings. Planned • unit development will permit a degree of flexibility in design ,: that witi enable a higher quality of 4evelopment in accordance : k',-, with zonin standards. . ,- 4 1 ",:',,4:,,0,v`t,';,',.iel*,--- '.-, , 1,' ',k ',))5,.!''•:,-,' 4:1.. ','' tn4 i' ',,,: ':1,';',;.. .,'.,:', , "ct;,1,''',':-. ; P''1.f's:,,1 N..„,(,,,,,,,i. • Policy 13. Site plans will provide for adev.!ate open space o (a) •. - protec adjacent properties ' and (b) provide ample yard space : ' , for residents and play space for youngsters. • . , . Policy 14. High design standards will be established for signing . . and appearance, including the landscaping of setback areas and, .. " the designation of access points. ' PROBLEM : Ulfortunately, some apartments have had a detrimental . . affect on the Neighborhood. Land not covered by building is . given to the automobile as parking , at the expense of land- scaping and useable open space for residents . , . . . , . . As provided in Policy 8, the maximum permitted density is 12 dwelling - units per acre. This density is well below the 19 to 38 units per • , . acre allowed when the Neighborhood's existing apartments were con- ) , - . structed. The result of these higher densities with . a a site wit `a• two or three story building surrounded by a parking lot with littl or no room left for landscaping or on-site recreation space. To ,/ remedy this situation, the Tigard Zoning Ordinance has been amended . • 4 to conform with the Ti.,2.:ard Community Plan. The A-2 apartment zone -- now restricts density r,o a maximum of 12 units per gross acre and ( , requires landscaping and on-site recreation space. . .. , • , PROBLEM : Many existing apartments are poorly sited in re- . , lation to ahjoining development. In some cases apartments have been .located wh,ere they conflict with single family homes or where they become part of a .commercial development. . .4' i . . '11 Multi-family deelopment is a living environment and its ' liveability" is a primary concern of this plan. Apartment projects oftering a . desirable living environment have the lowest vacancy rates, the , lowest turn-over of tenants and are capable of higher rent sChedilleS for their owners. This type of apartment is desirable to the coat , munity because ney can be better maintained, the residents are more r permanent members of the community and the structures maintain a higher taxable value over their life span, Therefore, each apart- , '.. ment project must be evaluated according to the kind of living en- vironment produced. The impacts upon surrounding land use, especially single family homes , . . , must be considered. Large buildings should not tower over single ' family homes, causing windows, balconies and patios to look into • #'' the windows of adjacent homes or apartments, Policy U. Apartments should be located to produce an optimum tiviig environmewb for the occupants. Dezielopment criteria skouZd A. Puttering by means of landscaping, fencing and distance ) ' from commercial areas and major traffic cars such • as Pacific Righway. J l ■ A. a ;� ..«w.,w. .., _..Yr+.'YN.-.».«..w.,yW'..�.ry y.tnw,'.L. W.A,.rr r:�l.....�,1." w.«.....,.+...........,.,.•,4� .. ...,... . w.. , .. C'r4'.�,:. ..-�..«..... ........ ..... _ ... _ _.».A�.�-�.�11.,_ ,.__, � _ ilk , e'4 r ,it -V- 4 51141 ..,e,i 'il'4 Vi - flA 1,04v, ite a N•v..."a w. w.. 4 ,v"'M I,, m,..Ak,wn..ry.4H.=re,.-N•srza.,..,_..x .,L .,r-no A,w«wwx.w.wrwsx ..wL ..,w_ k.1Mw.+k a. .i.ep.•ea.w e..p.mm ,+:..m+w s.,.w w- w.o.,..1 p..a ' n. .� � /' war/" � 11,, , f/i� 4 VP. git-. 0, *--.0 iit. . , .. , P ' 7$"--,614 1. ��' "5, . . f.. %,,rd, ..1•0 aI,. ►, y..). .GG .._ ,fig-..� :•,,�k,',E.-a,.,,�" N \ '. .... ,..cere,t e,i...,t,,`( t, ..-i- -i G44 ,. ;',_ '-,._,.,e..•a,,, i,/ -4---1,A.- •!..,, .s . . +°•It'll,.'4,4 !4'• ize pw. ,.. . 0-t lit., ;(d,-1."...,_,( .cetid `1/A4. 6 -R_ r 4,0..di,'e:,-7 , /0)77-1, , C a � G! . t c-- mo ' C." 1. F 4 0 a e i-----7z , i , ()t,4 Tom- --e--6--.7...e.-",-AL,At-. "' r •' -e-,, 7.�—c...L,,L -7' 7 -.-- `I 4. r.r- .Q e'er' r p, ` �w 1.6w40.4.: . • r".s . _..C}^A�t_.W S G »t..-..,.YC t.,..... a,t q „}rnn+t uu..YU. m ttttcxxw n•'�M1:W9iGR1_ ,wr- m.. ' G^"�Z 7 !� t 4 'Ct. ,• li ' , r aa-e b +rEwuP xw,ha�.aa,aa4aw..an r'Yn',:an wr. 4r.nn r NYwY ,xso ,r+' . ur,r«,.,s W,O«ap A+•M .,.nwu:iiiixi nNN4+anH,w 'r• rW,.a+.i«rlvawwasi..vap..ur"rr,,,r.nrwriarcw„aw,e 1 ak..�� _ r•rn ,wu.,H+x m.e„"r,,cw'r>rf+air,.s„•M,wa,wr.,vzaYMhn�Nw.,rYA•hMMYM+n-aawriva 4.Y+W ,r`"'r . Y :9;; i,..r,arbr.«.,.�-,.arr e.w. .awy».,as.w.l.«"�....,...«,�w.,aa...a.m ,.0,.4 .w"w.nwwa...«n..e,ra«..v..uhay..+wra»,�,aw -+. a. ,...«mn,.,.w,.n...+, « ,m,�.#, . .., � - ,�. reX„e,Y „w....s,...#,>Laaa,,., , m u.„m m. ., 1.i n,n_r«>noaea- �t.,.w-«,.., +-..<# ,w>`•+ ' _,.., _ ., -. , .. ,.rw. +. uY '.I w w ro raY x V'a,� u,,+ . -•a ....,n. �, ,.,.,_..,n ♦,er„»,,.•,„.,«.«.,«- .,a.,,can»n-r,,an....,.rk«.,a«,...e. MW.., :.r.rw.=�K.r«,«, <#.nM,.Ywr� �i •, , r .a.. r,..w.a., ...a w,..a.-.a......ox,na«..«d.µo,.uea,a,vrr.W�arwaw.ru,e,,,,w-,nw,»�•rb+a.,.*aa„«ra.s«,n»:,..,,,n«...r..,.�++.wau.lr., . ;Y.w....aw.:.wwr.w..s«.,wrw,.w..,.sa.w+.0 l�n'_«wn.-- -4�,.ak�,,•, ,•�—aa. !(,�p!�¢�e+�x...«.,rr,uwa.4v. ,m.-.,�k,,.«�w., n_. w pw.r ."a, .r r..,wmK.b,<.Kaw:•?: r„a usa,IYIC-”-n xr,a,4a<u,xe..wla�H„-.d S.. iRa v.a,.et,Jawv.,aa-a&Y'ws•'+,d n,'b=Y-rs,,,-WXM,�n.N r r r,rw.we,ww.u,Ar-ca.iwdaPM�W+w-,•# M•�p.NaA*rau'.+nR,w,�Mnwa»,,.^pM,iplsuaxwsx.W.pv<�+,+,>+'.WU,w •w,-�Lµ..,yLy..n,amY lrriU-«#eW-'wf«YW,Wid,r,warlM,a rwuM1Srr;.pana ur,rK+,I",rvam,v.a,N+,m„e. ,.rrwerhaw..a+ar aaar, ,u,nµy, r 1 • .r F rtua,«s as,.�-uoaye. +. .,sra MYf,'In re•,nw,a,r Y.wuwn,tmpw.,u,+Y.:+u.�Y,+H+uvapawp a.Hn,+WxMm.,u+.r-a+.wm,ra:.S.'WarM.«•v+a .s�whiv,vaswnu«+,a1,rM rdM.yna-aw,•m«aY.reaamxMl.ppm,i>ywsn,a'w..Y,Y»waw,nAVc�,«A�.+•,#+siM,arrvN,y.s.,•µa>'M ww,rwt..rt,«pai W-a,„ wa+aaHw•miw.ix4,a„r«vq,.baa««u..awxwy.+s,.Y,n+„4N„m,,,ayyrvi '•\i • Av, L#wa•pn,«.'. nv ,w.a,..+�,,,mwaar.,.,erce,�u..,..Lb.w ,..,nw�..rk r+,a, w,n, W.,..a a,. •• ,sa<ww.r..r,.anra a.. .,..a w w,,ar„w-,,,,,a-ur..aw-war^a,.�. ,..,.....=r.�, ..m.e...�... .m=.a,row,_...,, , r rr,+.r'tk't!x-'H.,..,.,.aarp,' �.a,,,,.�a::awl;ir. rr,u.,. . „--. .,..,.;....,•r., ,�.w,,,«,.r<,..w h, !# .��j? • •', 1 r.,,,...,,at r.„.6 .,,, , , , . ......., , y s i . p aA �A,,,„„ e.,r r •�,w ... �.. ., ♦L'7N -..... -4 ,,,a,,t rnp"i:. ,., > .. ., ,.«,n.n,,,.y„w,r,«.•-. ,u,,,,,- -.. ,., .. I, .a.,rt',,.-„ a - :.»„,., r r ,�., ,y..,.»,..iL,-.., -,,._ a .:. , I 1 ,. ,,.- ., rµYw ,.,,,.,-,_„ ,.. .,..<,. ..„oar..,,..,..a.aw...., .,„_, ,a, ,.,.a,.,-ti-.,,,,.. ,,,..,,,,. ��.., ».,..a..., ..,..x....��,r,e .., -.,_., ,�,_ ,.x„_, ,..,,,,,,,. ..:,.,a.,..... ..,.. _,.-, ,• � "M , ..r.,,al a+- .,-a.. r n av kp'e ,. .,k+aw,w•M...-, ..Fs,.Yn iA .0 '� ,.., - - .,....w....e r.=-m.-..a.,.w .m.+.x„.++_ x.,u..,.Y.�.,,,,wa,x,.,a.+,ar.,4....s,r -...aw+wwc.,.,_, m,..e.,+x x._, ., r<.,:.�,, — �.»r.x . r n !I .l l.... ,. .,, n__r-r..,+r,..n..a.-,w-,, •M"x,l....ir+v m-er w;.,«�P<,t3M".:r_,anu..]tl�.W,H:;.AI+.MY�'e�q.^,,:.t,K,Y;.,1Y'wpC.WvwLr'�W,+;.,'.1' -. .ly'KAN.rre.ra i'0.++,h,- .a M•a,w v, am.v K '1' xaM,u°.f,. laW.,.-,rwe b arW'a '",.,.+y�9r--i.,'a+..wa err,a.,..va ss.�.xe w.a a.,,,,,.wu IIYY , _ 1 �Il, 1 k` 'r a fe + , 4t. -i'x 1 4N+Y r• h 14 is ", t , ✓ A V • 4 w ally E 1 x 6 A : . T '. , ■ r' «r • ` a.- iii .. < ,m„fl .n••p,'.axN' u w. ...w .a.r,. r,�, ,.a .,,.,4y .n,Ar. .>ti,M.r, _ ,.,.w V r>r.s rn , .. -yr, .. .o-� y .-t' „ a, n µ",. L+7 ... , „ .,, - if .,�,r r,,,,.- .� �..,. _ .� _ .,., ._. - ..,r .,, , ,. ,,,:,,,,,,,,,,--. 1.t.,,.,47. .'u":b,_.7,....40ya•, w'-,t,. ( ..yyam� 'w lfrs. y19„1' ,« is r ` •'y ,yw ''h,ri' yF+e't.r .� .. ° qa.wt ., .., la ,' 010.''''''''''.:4"'''.',H0,' y .l'� 9x, I 0. , M• - ---... ,�x7u:.',a: .-.7..,..:rw'rra-.�p8....><.,...... Jx... .v�L»m. .t .r.^:ry'..^-^ :r.: -...,r• :.a+aaw, , t,. ., r 1+ Y � I„ q�may .-�Ti. , -.. --..''';:,' ... '., .. C4(t.' ':,>ii4---",..--'t-iiii—' i'l)I.ael.eVei . '':'i'-'j ''.'.. :-> -'../(? tjet,..di-e..-,t_i : • • f �/~ 6 v' ' 3,v d_ pa . ,vn R ^ •r• r :64.+" lry�l‘ . ^a / nit� ', — /64#1i.. I 1 a . .„,,,, (re_e_..„..... , ,./.) c i (/ b M _ • l"r . &;-,,,,,- ,,t' ' eb , - „ izt-1. Pb . rlf . - . ti p .. .. •HC '•Y .;-µ-..-.4 1..'HtN..r. ;04 , . R . , 4 .. I..• .. .. • • • • , , �t;�i ., ,,,. r r. . ..:*. �ii:.wpe�^ 4 r +c.✓',r ,k , ` ' - _ ,,..,,. ,i, .. _., ., F A 11'4 a ., ad • 1 ' f ■.'M,» h,1,w , ,., ` . 4, x ,1'Ai v • H ` • 4 :1,,r fxs' • , , Z * � + r. \'x "::r w ` i x w « / . ',t...: l 1 I • x, i 4 • • a • .., .,..... [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing]