Loading...
S 4-81 POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm.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. ,c . , .,.., • r' . < 4. Fl., . , ". .� •, � { .,u r , _,,.. i h . afi) 'b Ba:t Pi Genn S 4-81 � " -/ � ►fy "71 40 SW 94th 35DB 5501,552,55 • 5504,5505,5506,5507,5508 .,1 , , w w k.....u� m.M._u� 1 C• f , n t. •r 1'• A . 1 is p '1., f r'. dl tri,T.,, ' • , , , H ,gip 1 r ed .M,-.-L ,., .. r'. W. a � M • 4 NOTE: The following acknowledgement must be received by the City of Tigard within fourteen (14) days of your receipt of this letter. Failure to return this acknowledgement may result in action by the City of Tigard. I hereby acknowledge this letter documenting the action of the Tigard City Council . I have received and read this letter and I :,. agree to the decision here documented and to abide by any terms and/•r conditions attached. ` 6"x""4.14 �"'o p e T Own e* Date ,4601614401 ..dRg'(.4„,goor i,,v 'eperty Owne. Date Date • • July 7, 1981 Burt '3irod Falcon Construction ction Cowpany ;:95,5 Commercial Tigard, Oregon 9722 F, Re: Dale' s "lenn Subdivision S 4-- 1 Deer '`+r. Girocl The Tigard CiI t y Co uncil approved your request for a sub- division at their rej idar meetina. of ...une. 29, 1991. Enclosed are two copies of Ord inaznce &o. 81-53 ' , 4 tatzn.z the conditions of the approval. seep one copy of the ordnance ance for your files. The second Ordinance has air acknowledgement • attached which needs to be executed by all parties involved, a, showing that the parties agree to the conditions as set forth. Please r3ail this copy back for our records. If you have any questions regarding. this matter, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Doris Hartig City Recorder D6 :flu + - J,• i, " a - 7 • • ♦.au. .a.r rrw Jam: 1 w r. , Enc. . :y t I CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO 81-ja • AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE PLAT OF DALE 'S GLENN, BUT MODIFYING THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IMPOSED BY THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION . • By Ordinance 79-44 of May 21, 1979 , the City Council zoned this property R-5 Single Family Residential. In May of, 1979, the owner applied for a zone change from R-7 to R-5 and proposed a sixteen (16) lot subdivision. The Planning Commission approved . Zone Change 22-79 on June 19 , 1979 , and the Planning Director approved Subdivision 3-79 on August 14 , 1979. The zone change (ZC 22-79) was forwarded to the City Council and was approved on • August 13 , 1979 by Ordinance 79-64 . • At this Council meeting, the conditions of development were , mdified. Staff had asked that SW 94th be completed through from SW North Dakota to SW Greenburg. Council change& this requirement and asked that a cul-de-sac be installed at the southern boundary • H of the proposed subdivisiol. Following these cictions, the developer failed to make signifi- • cant improvements to the property within one (1) year, Therefore, under, Tigard Subdivision Regulat :bns, subdivision approval expired. The new landowner, Falcon Construction Co. , applied for subdivision review. A staff report was prepared approving the subdivision with conditions. One condition was that a street barrier be installed on 94th to indicate that it would connect with Greenburg Road at a later date. This condition developed following consultation with the Public Works Director. The property owners in the area were notified of the proposed • action and an appeal was filed regarding the condition that SW 94th be a through street. elViT,In1.7trem=rti ((171-in-V.gltullogrIgenncolgw=:,2hTolincT7.. • • June 2'21: initiated an appeal under Section 17.05 . 070 of the Tigard Municipal Code regarding a request to retain Condition #3 to the rezoning approved by Tigard Ordinance 79-64 . The COuncil has decided to / approve the subdivision, as previously approved by the Planning Director and Planninci Commission, but to retain Condition 43 of Tigard Ordinance 79-64 , based on the findings and conclusions listed • below. NOW, MERE:FORE, the City of Tigard ordains as follows : Section 1 Findings Of Pact.: 1. The only issue raised by the appeal to the Planning Commission and to the Council was the cul-de-sac condition proposed P • ORDINANCE NO 81-11.0 Page 1 of 3 , . . . . ..., ." ,d . 44 as part of Tigard Ordinance 79-64 or, alternatively, whether the subject parcel should be rezoned from an R-5 to an R-7 classification. . . 2 . There has been no request to initiate an amendment to Tigard Ordinance 79-64 by the landowners in the area, the Tigard Planning Commission, nor this Council. Hence, that ordinance, with the conditions thereto, remains the legislative policy of the City of Tigard. 3. The Council believs the testimony submitted by the . opponents and the Public Works Director that a through street in this area could not now be constructed on SW 94th near the subject site, due to lack of funding to do so on the part of the city, lack of adequate street width to meet city street standards, and lack of development activity which would allow for conditions of approval that SW 94th be dedicated and improved as a through street. Section 2 : Conclusions of Law: 1. As indicated in Finding 3, above, a through street cannot now be constructed in the area of the proposed subdivision. The . applicable Tigard Comprehensive Plan shows a through street; how- „ ever, the cul-de-sacs proposed are not inconsistent with that Plan, due to the present and forseeabie inability of the city to put a ), 1 through street in the area. • 2 . The Council further concludes that, consistent with ,, Condition 03 of Tigard Ordinance 79-64 , any modification of that condition would require a new public hearing opportunity and an amendment of that condition by ordinance of Council. Barring such hearing opportunity and amendment, the condition requiring a cul-de-sac at this portion of SW 94th remains city policy. 3 The only State-Wide Planning Goals applicable to this matter are Goals 2 , 11 and 12. Regarding Goal 2 , the Council , determines that, given the city Comprehensive Plan and the nature of possible improvements in the area, that this solution is the only, feasible one to the Council at this tlme. Regarding Goals 11 and 12, the public facilities and improvements proposed are consistent with the level of improvements which are feasible to the Council at this time and do not preclude further improvements being made upon changed circumstances. Therefore, insofar as is possible, an adequate level of urban services and facilities are provided to the subdivision and the most safe, efficient and economic transportation system, consistent with fiscal realities of the city is provided. 4 . The Council finds no error in the determination of the Planning Commission and Planning Director in this matter, other than the modification of the condition imposed by the Director and Commission regarding provision of SW 94th. ORDINANCE No. 813 sage 2 of 5 1, , \ ,L e .!"<C4 ' • ' , ? / ' i i , .u,x.• _ . .•... .'• ., .^. .- --,. • - • x. aM rr,.i...-x...WM n.. ♦ .rw....w.4n..d.. ,.a.x M Section 3: Order. With the exception of reaffirming Condition #3 ■ of Tigard Ordinance 79-64 , as applied to the subdivision request in this matter, the decision of the Planning Director and Planning Commission is affirmed. ' Section 4: This ordinance being necessary to assure the stability of .;, the neighborhood affected by this proposal and to allow the applicant to process this matter without undue delay, an ;: .' emergency is hereby declared and this ordinance shall take effect upon its passage by Council and signature by the Mayor. PASSED: By 4�4 f4�, vote of the City Council this a, day of June, 1981. r, , 1 4 Recorder - City alof Tigard ‘,,--/APPROVED:: This � `•' day of June, 1981. ii / -I- . 4/r el-rtrer"),4--- .1.....,d • Mayor r- City of T' and ., Zs O0• t• • ORDINANCE No. 81-At IA Page 3 of 3 • Staff to submit draft recommendation to Council tor review, item will then be referred to NPO #1 and Planning Commission. RECESS: 9:21 P.M. RECONVENE: 9'38 P.M. Planning Director left, at 9:30 P.M. 6. BLOCK GRANT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (CDBG) (a) Hank March of the County office of Community Development presented reasons for Tigard to stay in the program. He quoted figures on amounts received in the area, and stated participation must be for three-year periods. In response to a question by Councilman, Brian, he offered his assessment of ik PI the change in philosophy of the program under the new administration, relating it to what is needed t-:ost. 7. ORDINANCE/ No. 81-53 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE PLAT OF DALE'S GLENN, BUT MODIFYING , THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IMPOSED BY THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION. (a) Legal Counsel Sullivan discussed briefly the legal aspects of the ordinance. ' (b) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Brian for adoption. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. . 8. ORDINANCE No 81-54 AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING PERMITS FOR CERTAIN TEMPORARY LAND !4 USES AND AMENDING SECTION 18.80.010 AND 18..80.030 (4) OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE. • (a) Motion by Councilman Cook,, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to adopt. (b) Louis, Smith, an ice cream truck vendor, inquired what effect the proposed ordinance would have on his ability to operate in Cook Park,, permitted under ptesent regulations. Counsel Sullivan replied his status would be unaffected, with or without the proposed ordinance, because his business is considered an ancillary use of a public park. (c) Ordinance No. 81-54 was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. • 9. ICAP PROGRAM (a) Chief of Police referred to his two -page memo of June 23rd to the Acting City Administrator, together with attached time schedule f,:or implementation, and offered to answer questions: (b) Councilman Brian requested continuing reports on progress so there would be no serious questions at budget time Chief Adams promised to provide regular progress report8. ChieE of Police left at 10:00 P.M. ° (,‘„ 10. ORDINANCE No. 8 52 AN ORDINANCE Ty 0 y ORDINANCE NW"r 81-52 AN' ORDl:1VANCE SECTION �.y'U4 X040 AMENDING S � � � � OF '`CHE CS`Ty OF �TIGABU ADEN CODE, RELATING TO THE D?`tIES OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR. (a) Second reading of ordinance. (b) Mayor Bishop cited the City Charter provision calling for appointment of all city employees by the, Mayor Mayor with�th the consent of the 'Council. • 10. -DE 'S GLENN SUBDIVISION S 4-81. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 79-64) NPO 112 A recommendation from the City of Tigard Planning Commission to amend Ordinance No. • 79-64 by changing Condition #3. (a) Recommendation of Planning Commission. (b) Consideration by Council (c) ORDINANCE No. 81- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE No. 79-64 OF AUGUST 13, 1979 AND CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON JUNE 2 1981, WITH REFERENCE TO SUBDIVISION S 4-81, . 7 DALE'S GLENN. PUBLIC HEARINGS 11. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION CPR 10-81 An appeal filed by NPO #1 concerning the extension of Ash Avenue across Fanno Creek to Burnham Street. An appeal of the Planning Commission action upholding Policy No. 28 of the NPO #1 Plan at their meeting of June 2, 1981. This appeal is to the City Council to eliminate Policy No. 28 of the NPO kl Plan. This hearing will be on the record and testimony will be limited to summation of previous statements. (a) Public Hearing Opened (b) No testimony will be heard. Public input will only be accepted at "continued" public hearing on June 29, 1981, at 800 P.M. at this same location. 12. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION CPR 8-81 & CPR 9.-81 (MAIN STREET/J.B. BISHOP) NPO #1 A request to change the Comprehensive Plan Designation for approximately four (4) acres on Ash Street from A-12 "Multi-Family" to C3M "Main Street Commercial"; and a request for a Preliminary Planned Unit Development for approximately sixteen (16) acre between SW Main and SW Ash Avenue (Wash., Co. Tax Map 2S1 2AC, Tax Lots 201, 1200, 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600, 220 & 2301). (a) Public Hearing Opened (b) Summation by Planning Director (c) Public Testimony Proponents Opponents Cross Examination (d) Recommendation of Planning Director (e) Public Hearing Closed (f) Consideration by Council (g) ORDINANCE No. 81- AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FIND1NCS WITH RESPECT TO AN APPLICATTON -- FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION TO THE 1974 NPO #1 PLAN MAP OF THE CITY OF TIGARD DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND FIXINr: AN EVFECTIVE DATE. (MAIN STREET DEVELOPMENT/J.B. BISHOP) . 13. ORDINANCE No 81- A4 ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE TUAtATIN RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FIRE PREVENTION ORDINANCE. (a) Recommendation of Building Official. 14. SALARY ADJUSTMENTS (a) Recommendation of Arting City Administrator. t5. CIVIC CENTER DISCUSSION (a) Lease and related moving coats - Acting City Administrator (b) Civic Center Dcvelopment Committee (Duties, Responsibiliti , D'os t' ) 'roc loft PACE 2 - COUNCIL AGENOA JUNE 22.. 1,981 /I (b) Public hearing will be held on July 13 , 1981 at 8 : 00 PM. 10 ORDINANCE No . 81-50 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A FIRE PREVENTION CODE FOR THOSE AREAS OF TIGARD NOT WITHIN WASHINGTON COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT No. 1 . . (a) Acting City Administrator noted that the Building Official gave his approval to the ordinance as it stands . He stated that the Board of Appeals for the Fire District review was not approved by the City and would be acted on at a later date . (b) Councilman Brian stated he could not support the ordinance if the sprinkler system requirements were included.. � . Staff advised that this had been left out of the ordinance and that the Fire District would report later suggesting an addition of the sprinkler syster. requirements . (c) Mr. Eldon Johnson, TRFPD, stated that this code was the same as last year except that the new national fire/plumbing/and � • mechanical codes were included as an update for the code . (d) Motion by Councilman Scheckla , seconded by Councilman Brian. to adopt. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. .� 11. SALARY ADJUSTMENTS (a) President of Council stated the Mayor requested this item be considered at the June 29 , 1981 meeting since the Mayor was a ` not in attendance . (b) Consensus of Council was to consider at the June 29, 1981 , meeting. 8:00 P.N . PUBLIC NOTICE HEARING 12. DALE 'S GLENN SUBDIVISION S 4-81 (ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 79-64) NPO #2 A recommendation from the City of Tigard Planning Commission to • amend Ordinance No. 79-64 by changing Condition #3 . (a) Legal Counsel stated that there were two items to be considered. Y 1 . Thf'. Planning Commission denial of the appeal and upholding of the Planning Director ' s decision on S 4--81 . 2 . The old ordinance no. 79-64 which changed the zone from R7 to R5 in 1979 . He noted that the second item could be reversed or changed if Council wished, by sending back to the Planning Commission for a zone change which would be initiated by the City. (b) Roger Anderson, 11385 SW 94th Avenue, stated that the neighbox s were opposed to the street being put through and requested that the cul-de-sac remain a condition of the zone change as originally adopted. PAGE 3 - COCNCtL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES, June 22, 1981 110 I d d i, • (c) Actinb Cit y Administrator stated that he would always p re- fer a street be put through instead of a cul-de-sac in the over-all city plan to facilitate traffic flow and eme,:•gency rio vehicle access . (d) Council discussed the zoning and noted that the condition of a cul-de-sac with the higher density would protect the ON neighborhood from increased traffic danger and would act as a buffer to the surrounding pr,operf ' owners . (e) Mr. Russ Lawrence, 8955 SW Commercial Street , requested that E ' Council make a decision to either leave the street a cul-de- sac or put a through street in, at their earliest convenience . ,, He stated that the time span for a new zone ci"ange request or further work on this project would create a financial burden �.� to the developer. (f) Councilwoman Stimler, moved to uphold the original condition of Ordinance No. 79-64 by retaining the cul-de-sac street configuration and directed staff to prepare an ordinance for consideration at the June 29, 1981 , meeting. Motion seconded by Councilman Brian. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (g) Ed, Williams spoke regarding his dissatisfaction with the R-5 zoning on the parcel . t� 8 :00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS 13 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION CPR 10- 81 An appeal filed by NPO #1 concerning the extension of Ash Avenue across Fanno Creek to Burnham Street. An appeal of the Planning Commission action upholding Policy No. 28 of the NPO #1 Plan at their meeting of June 2 , 198 1. This appeal is to the Ci�-Y Council l to eliminate Policy No. 28 of the NPO #1 Plan: This 'hearing will be on the record and testimony will be limited to summation of previous statements . (a) Public Hearing Opened (b) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to continue the public hearing to June 29, 1981 , at 8100 P.M. to be 'held at Fowler Junior High School Lecture Room. It was noted that this was with the consent of the NPO #1 Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. President of Council ' stated the testimony wcuid be on the record and that a summary from proponents and Opponents would be accepted. • PA . , GB 4 -, COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES, June 22; 1981. • �,. 11300 .. 92nd Avenue Tigard, Oregon, 97223 Jur..,, • Mayor Wilbur Bishop Tigard City Hall Tigard, Oregon 97223 P lira V Dear Mayor Bishop: • It is my understanding that on. Monday, June 22, the 'T:` - • • ity Go n.cil • will consider the proposed housing development known a-"Dale's Glen. :e- • cause I will be out of town and unable to attend this meeting to voice • y strong opposition to that development in its present form, ' '._ y hope that this letter can be read for the record as well as for the benefit of those attending thc; meeting. . I oppose the development in its proposed density on several grounds. First, it will enormously aggravate the traffic problem on already-congested Greenberg Road. Sec ]nd, it will depreciate the value of surrounding proper- ties, including mine. Third, the transient nature of buyers or renters at- tracted to such low-cost, high-density housing will. create an island "slum's that will hetp transform "Terrific Tigard" into "Terrible Tigard. " It should be clear that such housing density will substantially reduce the quality of life for all the people who live in the area. Finally, an eyesore in that portion of the city will be a reflection on the entire city. The proposed development is to take place on only about 2. 5 acres, To build a street and 16 individual homes on. such a small. parcel of land is very unsound esthetically as well as ecologically. The fact that, the surrounding parcels are large ;.nakes it logical tha'; this property be developed in accord- ance with the original zoning that of R-7, not R-5. The zoning change evidently was made in 1979. Why the change wa,�P made and who instigated it, I do not know because we were never informed of it. Had we been inform- ed,, I would haw, opposed it. It is my understanding that even the adjacent property owners were also in the dark about the change. (Parenthetically, let me add, there has been a comedy of errors in the recent notifications concerning the proposed development. This was brought to the attention of the Planning Commission by several ps rsons and acknowledged:. by the responsible city staff so it does not require documentation here. ) At any rate, the change two years ago to R-5 was a mistake, in my opinion, and, whoever instigated it did not have the well-being of Tigard. in mind. In its g � present form the development is beneficial. only to the developer, the Falcon Construction Company. The City Council now has an opportunity to right, the situation, It is not too Late to undo the earlier ill-a.dvis ed decision. 'or' all of the above re' .sons, I strongly. urge that the Council reject '�. development in the proposed density and rezone the property in question to the original 11.41 This would be in the best interest of all the people of Tigard. • S :nerelyy ours, i/./7C/10411r*. r: n i 0.8 to all Comic.ii.. embe,xs June 17, 1981 ,4 Eig55WgLi 0 MY OF TORO TO: Mayor Wilbur Bishop and 1981 Members of Tigard City Council Gentlemen: This letter is written as I will be unable to attend your June 22 meeting. As an owner and resident adjacent to Dale's Glenn Subdivision S4-81, ' ,object to this high density spot zoning of R-5 established in 1979, and request a change to R-7, which would conform to your current mlnimum standard, for this neighborhood. This subdivision matter has been confused beginning with the original action in 1979 when inadequate notice was given to affected property owners. ' The zoning action in 1979 establishing R-5 was improper because R-7 is the minimum standard for property in this neighborhood not contiguous with S.W. Greenberg Road. I recognize, but disagree, with your planning function dedication to high density housing. At a hearing on June 2, 1981 , random comments by Planning Commission members referred to our section of S.W. 92nd Ave. off Greenberg as an example of "poor planning", and R-5 high density housing in Portland as quite satisfactory. We feel we have a pleasant place to live here and object to the potential hazards to our future enjoyment of our property by your "good planning" placement of high density housing nearby. Many of us moved here to avoid the high density housing of Portland. If that is what we wanted we could have annexed to Portland instead of incorporating Tigard. High density housing has broughturbanization type problems including higher crime rates. Our pleasant living "poor planning on S.W. 92nd Ave. has not been a source nor an object of crime in Tigard like your high density "good planning" has brought. I respectfully request that your mistake made in 1979 be corrected and rthe R-5 zoning be changed to R-7, your current minimum standard for this area If you decline to make this change, I request that you require • an appropriate buffer such as an eight foot fence along the east boundary of Dale's Glenn Subdivision S4-81 to reduce noise, visual pollution and . 1 foot traffic disturbance to permit continued enjoyment of our property. . Sincerely, --77/ cri,,WA14,126/1—K' Wi liam Webber 11285 S.W. 92nd Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION • June 2, 1981 - 7:30 p.m. Fowlex Junior High -. Lecture Room 10865 SW Walnut Street, Tigard, OR . President Tepedino called the meeting to order at 7:35. IROLL CALL ',, i Present: Bonn, Funk= Helmer, Herron, Kolleas, Owens, Speaker, Tepedino b Excused: Moen Staff: Howard, Newton; Ed Sullivan, City Counsel The MINUTES of the May 5 meeting were considered, and on motion 1 of Speaker, seconded by Helmer, were approved as submitted. COMMUNICATIONS: Staff reported receipt of a number of communica-. Lions, nearly all of which had been supplied the commissioners in their p ackets. Those not so su pp lied would be considered when their pertinent 4. ,agenda items are heard. ' '' " The president read the usual statement of authority for and • procedure to be followed in the meeting. He announ.s, ed the meeting would close at midnight, with postponement of those issues not able to be heard by that hour. He called attention to what he characterized as iF a sp?ri t of animosity in the city toward certain members of the city council a:eid staff, and warned that should any slanderous attacks occur ii , in this meeting the individual would be ejected, and it persisted in, x the meeting would be declared adjourned. He then OPENED the meeting for ', i PUBLIC HEARINGS. . 5.1 APPEAL OF SUBDIVISION S 4-81 (DALES'GLENN) NPO r2 Appeal of Planning Directorts approval of a request by Falcon Construction Company to subdivide 2.40 acres (the M public notice stated x..14 acres) into sixteen (16) lots of . five thousand (50002) square feet each at the SW corner of 95th and SW North Dakota. (Wash., Co. Tax Map 1S1 35DB, Tax Lots 5501, 5502, 5503, 5505$ 5506, 5507 and 5508). In lieu of a formal STAFF REPORT, Howard read, a memorandum dated May 26 'outlirrrIng the histor,r of the zoning and actions and lack of action • by the previ.vus owner, toge,;her with a statement of what the real4.ssue ? appea± d to be. The memo P 8COMMENDED denial of the appeal, thereby ` allowing the subdivision t,r proceed as originally filed. Roward stated there were fourteen letters in opposition to the subdivision, all of which had been supplied the commissioners in her packets, and which, , are o t ar part the record available for review at City Hall. The APPLICANTIS PRESENTATION was made by Russell Allen Lawrencr a •- : MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION June 2, 1981 Page 2. president of H, & L Inc., an engineering and surveying firm, who stated they are asking for the same subdivision and lotting pattern which .had f previously been approved, the only change being that at the request of Frank Currie, Public Works Director, the cul-de-sac was eliminated, indicating the street would u.ltimatel;' be continued. He stated they were asking for an outright use as znr.,:d, acd offered to answer questions later. PUBLIC TESTIMONY, all in opposition to the construction of the subdivision as planned, was • ,,, p , presented by the following'(those designated by an asterisk had also submitted letters outlining their views): *Geraldine Doll, 11390 SW 94th *Roger Anderson, 11385 SW 94th (2 letters) • *William Webber, 11285 SW 92nd • *Leonard Dieker, 11420 SW 94th (2 letters) - *Basil Dmytryshyn, 11300 SW 92nd . *Richard Burton, 11160 SW 95th • Karl Bowersox, 11360 SW 92nd *Stephanie Franklin, 11315, SW 92nd. Theodore Franklin, 11315 SW 92nd (He raised the question, declared by the president to be out of order, whether the planning director has a direct or indirect financial interest in the Dales? Glenn subdivision. Howard nevertheless answered no.) *:t 1d :iiliamscu:, owner of a house at 11315 SW 92nd Principal objections expressed--some by several people and some ar, considerable length-are summarized as follows,with the number expres;;ing the particular objection indicated in parentheses; ' The confusion and alleged inaccuracies in the notifications sent (6) Criticisms of information supplied (or not supplied) the residents (2) Concerning; traffic: The intersection of 94th & Greenburg is very difficult because of width Of pavement, accidents cited (L}.) Narrow pavement on 94th (16 feet in width) is unsuitable for addi tional traffic (4) The intersection of 95th & Greenburg is dangerous (I.) "Depreciates value of my property" or similar sentiment (one asserted this would be by 3074) (4) • Noise and visual pollution, "people congestion", "harassments (4) Houses will have to be very small or inexpensive (3) R-5 lots are too shall (3) 1 V Final; decision was made pretnaturelys prior to April 27 (3) Legal issue that a condition of the zone change was construction of the cul-de-sac (2) fence. objection c�.1 rriandatod to Navin; to come back again (Z) Council" a cul-de-sac at the request of residents in 1979 (1) MINUTES • TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION June 2, 1981 Page 1;.. Mr. Burton wanted assurance that the subdivision would not adversely affect the drainage in the nehborb.00d, which has flooding problems at present. Lawrence explained in some detail the procedures which will be used to alleviate the present situation. GOMUISsioN DISCUSSION AND ACTION: Speaker stated .his strong objec- tion to the line of argument presented at this and other planning com- mission .hearings that the existing streets (not developed to city standards) would not sustain the additional traffic imposed by a new development. He pointed out that the present residents have the ability through formation of an LID to raise the standard of their public improvements to those imposed on every developer, who comes before the F . commission. He felt it unfair for such residents to attempt to deny the, right of development because of their failure, in an urbanized area, to supply their own urban-level improvements. Owens opined the area is kind of a "mis.h mash" so far as type of • dwellings is concerned, and asked if staff felt the drainage issue which was raised has been adequately taken care of. Howard responded with an over-all view of drainage solutions in the city, and stated the residents could, if they would, form an LID to handle the problem--- whether it be paving at bad intersections, sidewalks, street lighting _ • or drainage. Lawrence stated they were tieing in to an, existing storm c drainage system. c Funk questioned why staff approved this without an adequate fire 1 truck turn-around. Howard stated there would be a break-away barrier. Funk opined opening 94th would give the residents a superior, traffic • pattern. Bonn stated we are not discussing R-5 because it is a fact; r ; rather we are looking at whether a cul-de-sac shall be constructed or not. Kolleas and Herron and Helmer stated their concerns had been addressed. Funk questioned the break-away barrier through a private individualrs gardens Howard stated the garden is on a dedicated public right-of-dray. Speaker asked staff to expand on the request of the public Works director that the street eventually go through. Howard spoke along the line that to allow proper circulation, streets should go through--a stand he has taken since 1975. It was pointed out that the NPO g2 map shows the s ',reef going 'thro igh. The president read from the staff report that if this appeal is denied, the staff would prepare an ordinance for adoption by the city council (removing the cul-de-sac as a part of the subdivision) , and, that the residents could address the council with their case. � p , staff presentation ,� Funk, MOVED denial of the arbeal based on the • and the evidence submitted., Speaker seconded the motion, which carried ,,r unanimously. Comtissioner Bonn uithdreW from and tool no part in the hearing on Item. � 2� • t y MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION June 2, 1981 - . Page 3 s � I; Because original developer did not construct, it should go back to R-7 zoning (2) The following objections were also raised. "Unnecessary density", "spot zoning" Objection to R-5 zone change "More than one house adjacent to my back yard°" Land unsuitable for development-.natural spring in winter If allowed, should have a sight-obscuring fence (1) ' y. n H 91 " U 1.0 foot brick wall (1) "It a s a turkey, it r s .a turkey19 ° CROSS-EXAMINATION AND RF-UT TAL: Roger Anderson asked who suggested the elimination of the cul-de-sac (responded to in rebuttal). Leonard Dieker asked the city counsel how this could be la P proved in violation of the city ordinance. Sullivan replied the ordinance would have to be amended. Lawrence responded to several issues: with respect to the cul-de- sac, they have no feelings either way. The director of public works requested it through the planning director. With respect to, the lot '4"•I size, he pointed out that the cul-de-sac would reduce the size of five lots even further. He, raised the question, the residents want larger lots or the cul-de-sac? The storm and spring drainage problems raised have been addressed and solved according to acceptable engineering practices. He suggested that the testimony on the diffi- culties with the intersections in this forum could well bring the problem • to the attention of others 111 the city; that as subdivision developers they have no control over these problems. One man in the audience asked hoW many square feet would be in the. houses. Lawrence stated he had not been retained to design the houses. Gery Doll asked why the developers had not gone to the council first to change the ordinance requiring the cul-de-sac. Lawrence stated he relies on planning directors' guidance in such matters--they are much more knowledgeable than he with respect to local ordinances. Speaker raised the question as to the truth of the common assertion at planning commission.hearings, and one made several times in this hearing, that a certain type of development would devalue adjoining property. Mr. Webber agreed it is difficult to determine without a sale, but argued additional density it this case vtould add to noise and visual pollution. 8d Williamson asserted as a builder that smaller houses would indeed lower the value of adjoining larger homes. die. appeared to object to the lour value of the houses to be built. Speaker pp p pointed out the planning commission has authority only over the zoning, • not buildings lot, and he felt the i�ul,lthe��hb�.lc�obe�a:7.lo�`e�atoo�►uil�auij.t' on the �l.ot der build at zoned. • iV . .ia.... .;. rr.r...,. .a. i♦ v ..V,A. .v .7v w;na; 1 ♦ 1 ••' Y I' ire • MINUTES ,)11 • TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION June 2, 1981 Page 5. • 5.2 APPEAL OF MINOR LAND PARTITION MLP 2-81 (GIROD) NPO #2 i d Appeal of Planning Director's denial of a request by Jon Girod to partition two (2) lots into three (3) lots to build a Single Family home on rear lot. Proposed lot sizes are 13,791 square feet, 14,641 square feet and 7,554 square feet. Lots are located at 11390 and 11420 SW 92nd. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 151 .35 DB, Lots 3800 and 3900) Howard read the brief STAFF REPORT on the appeal, correcting the !. designation as Variance. .. : R. 'V5-81, and that the request is for the granting of a 6't driveway width variance (rather than side yard setback variance). He also read the staff report of .Final. Action on the original rLLP 2-81 request. • The APPLICANT'S, PRESENTATION was made by Russell Lawrence (of the previous hearing), who concurred with the staff recommendation for • granting the variance so deve1o7ment can proceed. • PUBLIC TESTIMONI, all in opposition, was given by the following: *** Norman. Kolmodin, 11450 SW 92nd, read excerpts fromi, the Declaration of Restrictions for Dogwood Ridge that constitutes deed restrictions on all property in that development. He asserted it was because of those restrictions that he bought originally, as he opined most of the present residents did, and pled: reluctance to have to go to court to enforce them, but would do so if necessary. *** Donna Sandbo, 11475 SW 91Lc, referred to the petition of March 22 signed by 18 neighbors who felt ''This action is in violation of the Declaration of Restrictions . . . covering Dogwood Ridge." She asserted there is no need to build even a "dream home" on this lot-. there is other land available. She deplored this proposed action as a start on a trend for infilling. She felt it would "undermine the integrity of the neighborhood." * '* John, Sandbo, same address, did, not feel it is necessary and would affect their privacy, adversely affect the neighborhood. He -� there are alternatives other than building a new .house. *** Karl Bowersox, 11360 SW 92nd, referred at length to conditions In the deed restrictions mentioned by Mr. ;Kolmodin, and opined considera- tion of having a second house on one of these lots roan outrages' • At this point Speaker inquired whether the deed restrictions precluded a minor land partition. The question was passed to the city counsel, who opined the co uaissiOn should be concerned With the granting of the variance; that the approval of the 'ML? would not involve' the city in 'a law suit, but that the other owners could sue basis of should ht,. attempt .co Mr. Girr�d�� on the .� f the deed i build on�the. lot carved out. Sullivan read qualifications the ual �, ��ctzans for granting a variance from the city code . ao� MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION June 2, 1981 Page 6. Geraldine L. Ball 11515 SW 91st, raised a question about mat q overall density in Tigard. r CROSS-EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL: Lawrence addressed the four qualifications for a variance in relation to this property. He asked where the expressed concern for the "integrity of the neighborhood" was when the minor land partition on,a lot adjoining the Sandbo a s was considered and granted. Mrs. Sandbo stated they had received no notice, or they would have protested„ She argued that this illustrated her assertion that granting this MLP would set a precedent. John Sandbo reiterated this would be injurious to the neighborhood. Lawrence asked the question, "If it is an owner's right to do something, why should this owner not be allowed to do so?" COMfMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION: Funk questioned the setback-- was it to the overhang of the eaves? (It is to the foundation.) He 'with the qualifications for a variance were not met. Owens agreed wiith Funk„ Speaker read a paragraph in the staff report and asked staff for infill. Howard pointed out ever • : to enlarge on the need y case is different, and therefore it is very difficult to formulate a general infill policy. Speaker called attention to the need for greater density in order to make mass transit 'work, and opined it was small individual decisions such as this that would be required to achieve greater density. . He agreed with Funk the provisions for a variance are not met in this • case. Funk, felt the deed restrictions should be observed because people bought because of the Helmer favored denial--that this is not an area suitable for "a house in tte back yard's. Tepedi:no, while sympa- thetic to the applicant, could not agree he qualified under the provi- sions for a variance. Kolleas thereupon MOVED for denial, of MLP 2-81 and Variance V 5-81 As proposed. The motion was seconded by Helmer and carried unanimously. At 9:40 the president declared a ten minute recess, at the con- . clusion of which Commissioner Bonn rejoined the commission. ° 5.3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION CPR 10-81 -- NPO #1 POLICY 28, NPO pa. A request from NPO #1 to revise Policy #28 which reads: "Ash be across Fanno Creek, enabling Art Avenue should bM extended access to the Neighborhood's commercial area without using Pacific Highway. Design features should be used to slow traffic and make the street as safe as possible." Hw.a.cd read the STAFF R. .. and RECOMMENDATION, and called atten- hon to a number Of ,letters from residents i.hcluded in the packets. MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION June 2, 1981 Page 7. • He entered into the record two additional letters in oppositica to extension of Ash Avenue--one from Floyd K. Lissy, 13270 SW Ash Drive, and one from Douglas R. Saxon, 13415 SW Village Glen Drive; a memorandum from, the chief of police; a copy of park board minutes addressing the issue; and a transportation analysis prepared by Associated Transporta- • tion Engineering and Planning, Inc. All of these were stated, to be part of the record and available for review at City Hall. • The APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION was made in several sections: • *** Gene Richman, 15120 SW Ash Avenue, spoke on behalf of NPO #1. He asked what the procedure would be to appeal this matter to the city council, responded to by Howard. Richman cited a statement made by the city counsel with respect to NPO #4 concerning conversion districts-- "What the NPO did, they can undo." He declared that is what they wish to do--the NPO created a document including Policy #28, and now they wiah to change the policy. He stated the narrative and Policy #28 are in conflict, and it is their desire to eliminate this and other incon- , sistencies through removal of Policy #28. Richman told of discussions with the police department, and cited • OPTICOM and its use in expediting emergency vehicles on Pacific Highway. He asserted "Deletion of Policy #28 will protect the residential char- actor of the neighborhood; it will insure the integrity and safety of the neighborhood.n He predicted the neighborhood would be ruined by putting the street through. He summarized that with the deletion of • the policy, the nsafety, integrity and residential character of the NPO #1 neighborhood will be preserved. " *** Phil Edin, 13110 SW Ash Drive, representing "a considerable number of residents of the Ash Avenue neighborhood," cited the physical dimensions of Ash Avenue right-of-way and pavement. He compared them with collector street standards and asserted 'the physical limitations of Ash Avenue are being ignored by the city staff and its consultant." Be then compared the very recent traffic study by Mr. Woelk with that of Mr. Buttkels December, 1973 study, and implied it was designed by • staff "to make the projected traffic levels where the staff wishes • them to be." He asked the commission to reject Mr. Woelk's report non the basis that it fails to, incorporate what you need to make an intelligent decision.n * * Dave SWenWold, 13140 SW Ash Avenue, discussed at length traffic projections oft Ash Avenue if 4xtended, citing Buttke's projection of 5500 vehicles per day, and a forecast by CH2R-Hill of 5 - 6,000 per day. He quoted sources describing the adverse effects of high traffic streets in residential neighberhoOds. He compared engineering requirements for a bridge across Fanno Creek as Compared with the public works director's statement as to hoW the c...'Ossing could be constructed. He stated a proper bridge would require expenditure of MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSIOi1 June 2, 1981 Page 8., seventy-five per cent of the systems development fund. The extensions of Ash and Johnson Streets as proposed by staff, he asserted, violate Policy #27 and LCDC Goal 12. He discussed, the concept of "good traffic circulation", which has not been defined by staff, and asserted that the time to.travel from downtown to the Ash Avenue neighborhood is highly acceptable. *** Jeff Graham, 13290 SW Ash Drive, "representing over 150 residents on or around Ash. Avenue," made several observations: the 4: staff report offers no justification for the staffts opinion; he took exception to Finding of Fact Nos. 3, 8, 10, and Conclusionary Finding Nos. 1 and 3. He noted failure to provide cost of construction and the justification therefor, particularly in view of the Woelk forecast of traffic volumes. He predicted severe safety problems, including safety of the area's children. Phil Benson, 10529 SW 54th Drive, Portland, speaking as a proponent, stated he sold a portion of his property because "I didn"t want to see the traffic problems created on Ash Street by a large multi-family development. . . . We dormt want all these cars from the proposed shopping center going up and down Ash Street..." He discussed the negative impact of proposed traffic volumes on tour duplexes, he proposes to build. ** Doreen Thomas, 13165 SW Ash Avenue, asserted there is no need for, Ash Avenue extension, especially to relieve Main Street congestion. She went into considerable detail, citing Buttkets methods and report, the Woelk and other reports to document her view,, PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Spelling as an opponent was Dick Woelk of Associated Transportation ;ngiaeering and Planning, Inc., who rroduced for the City of Tigard the repot "Transportation Analysis of "tending Ash Avenue to Burnam Road in Tigard, Oregon" dated May 29, 1961. He gave the scope of the report and the assumptions used in its adding the unstated assumption that the city would not extend sewer service to parts of the area until after 1985, the time frame for his report. He called attention to the different assumptions between his report and Buttke t s 1973 report, resulting in incomparable traffic flow figures. He stated his report considered what is best fcr the city from an engineering standpoint. He described the bases used, and the alternatives considered. With the aid of the overhead projector he went into con- siderable detail on the traffic ixdpects of extension and nonextension of streets, with and without construction of the proposed Main Street Development. This led up to the study recommendations, essentially, that from an engineering standpoint if Main Street Development does not take place, Ash only should be extended; if the Main. Street Development doer, take place, both Ash and Johnson Streets should be extended to provide the most workable circulation pattern with loW volumes on residential, streets. •.. MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION June 2, 1981 Page 9. „e CROSS-EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL: A man in the audience, asked Mr. Woelk, "Did you or did you not work on a project for Main. Street Land Company" in connection with a traffic study foz' them. Woelk replied in . the negative, and explained his partner did have a management position in CH2M-Hill about our traffic studies ago; that the possible conflict of interest had beep, explained to Tigard officials and was considered inconsequential. � (At 11:20 the president announced that agenda items 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6 would not, be heard at this meeting, and will be rescheduled.) Beth Blount, an attorney in Forest Grove and representing the Ash Avenue group, not the NPO", had questions of Mr. Woelk with respect to his study and his professional qualifications. The president ascer- tained that her line of questioning was aimed to lead up to her ques.- 1' . tioning of the credibility of the report. She felt it was a report to support dhe concept that Ash Avenue should be extended, nd that the report has some flaws in it that the planning commission should be aware of. She questioned the ability of the streets to handle the volutes of traffic projected. Woelk pointed out neither did Buttke's report--that question was not part of his assignment, but it is a • , question which could be addressed. Blount asserted Ash Avenue does not have the available right-of-way to be brought to minor collector standards. She asked several very detailed questions, responded to by Woelk. She asked that Mr. Kittleson of ri2M-gill continue the questioning. Kittleson pointed out an area along Hall Boulevard where the numbers which should have added up to zer, didntt. Woelk acknowledged it, salving he didn't know what happened. He admitted that in the time frame allowed there could be some errors; but over, all, the circulation pattern and numbers are consistent. Pat Hutchison, Chairman of NPO #1, questioned the increase at her intersection and the effect of the new senior center and the A-7O/80 retirement home to be build in the area. Woelk responded that it was not builtg and the assumptions consider the average anticipated growth in the specific zones. Gene Richman pointed out that the NPO #1 report was submitted without access to or analysis of fir. Woelk's report. He questioned why the city spent city money for the report. Howard responded. Richman opined with the limitations placed upon the Woelk Ludy, it does not have much bearing. He inquired Whether Howard has had di cUssions With people on Hill Street concerning development along Hill. }oward replied affirmatively. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND .ACTION: Funk felt that the commission should look beyond the desires of 1?50 people:to to the needs of all of Tigard. He Felt that Tigard needs this transportation plan, and that Ash extended is needed. Bonn expressed a need for a "back door" access ,• w MINUTES _ , .: TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION June 2, 1981 k° Page 10. to the Main Street development, where access to the east and south would TM be pulled from Main Street and Pacific Highway. Kolleas agreed with Bonn. Herron sympathized with the people en Ash with the traffic, but felt the extension is very much needed. Owens had a "challenge" to the people. on Ash with respect to bearing responsibility--,then they bought their homes it was obvious r the street some day would go somewhere. Her challenge to the commission, staff and council is to explore all possible alternatives. She did not feel Ash should be extended; that Johnson should be extended; and that . there should be a good look for other alternatives that would not impact on Aah. Speaker pointed out that the higher volumes projected would have to go on either Hall, or Pacific Highway If Ash is not extended. The only access to downtown by NPO #1 is via the perimeters. He asserted there should be access through the middle for the people in the area. He pointed to the preponderance of professional opinion in favor of this extension: the fire marshall, the police chief, the public works • director and the planning director. He affirmed agreement with their opinion. Helmer agreed with Speeker, and felt Ash should be extended. Tepedino, while sympathizing with the Ash area residents, agreed to the necessit:7 of the Ash extension. . Speaker IM0VED for adoption of the staff recommendation, which he read, based on the staff report and the testimony .heard in several meetings in the last 23 years at which this subject has been discussed. Bonn seconded the motion. J. B. Bishop from the audience called atten- tion to an apparent conflict between the staff recommendation and Findings of Fact No. 10. After a little discussion among staff and cobtmissioners, Speaker modified his motion) With the consent of the second, to the first sentence of the staff recommendation: "Staff recommends that Policy 28 not be changed, and that steps be taken in the near future to construct this extension in connection with development in the area." The motion carried 7 to 1, with Owens voting no The president then adjourned the meeting at 11:.57• • { yy 1• • AGENDA TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION A JUNE 2, 1981 - 7:30 p.m, Fowler Junior High School - Lecture Roan • 10865 SW Walnut Street, Tigard, OR 1. OL.e...n N eting 2. Roll Call 4 . 3. Approval of Minutes from Previous Meeting 4. Planning Commission Conmunicaticr. 5. Public Hearing: A. Staff Report B. Applicant's Presentation C. Public Testimony 1. Proponent's 2. Opponent's 3. Cross Examination 5.1 Appeal of Subdivision S 4 -81 Dales' Glenn NPO # 2 5.2 Appeal of Minor Land Partition MLP 2-81 Girod and 0 Variance V 5-81 Girod/11390 SW 92 NPO # 2 5.3 Comprehensive Plan Revision CPR 10-81 NPO # 1 Policy 28 NPO # 1 5.4 Conditional Use CU 4-81 I(C=s Amusertients/i.ttleson Brown NPO # 2 5.5 Remand, of Comprehensive Plan Revision CPR 1-81 Willowbrook NPO # 6 5.6 Subdivision S 1.0-01 Winter Lake/Century 21 NPO # 7 6. Old BussinesS 7. New Business 8. Other Business 9. Ad j ournm en t ! . F M PUBLIC NOTICE f! TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION r JUNE 2, 1981 - 7:30 p.m. i a Fowler Junior High School - Lecture Pooh 10865 SW Walnut Street, Tigard PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 Appeal, of Subdivision.S x:481 Dales' AGlenn NPO # 2 Appeal of Planning Directors approval of a request by Falcon Construction Company to subdivide 4.14 acres into sixteen (16) lots of five thousand (5000') square feet each at the SW corner of 95th and SW North Dakota. Washington County Tax Map 1S1 35DB Lots 5501, 5502, 5503, 5505, 5506, 5507 & 5508 5.2 Appeal of Minor Land Partition MLP 2-81 Girod NPO # 2 i .. Appeal of Planning Directors denial of a request by Jon Girod to partition two (2) lots into three (3) lots to build a Single Family home on rear lot. Proposed lot sizes are 13,791 square feet, 14,641 square feet and 7,554 square feet. Lots are located at 11390 and 11420 SW 92nd. Washington County Tax Map 1S1 35 DB Lots 3800 & 3900 Variance V5-81 * Girod/11390 SW 92 NPO # 2 A request from Jon Girod for a variance to required access width for one lot. Granting variance would result in a nine feet six inch (9' - 6") access running approximately five feet two inches (5' - 2") from an existing structure at 11390 SW 92. Washington County Tax Map 1S1 35DB Lot 3900. 5.3 Comprehensive Plan Revision CPR 10--81 NPO 4 1 Policy 28 NPO # 1 A request from. NPO # 1 to revise Policy 28 which reads: "Ash Avenue should be extended across Fanno Creek, enabling access to the Neighborhood's commercial area without using Pacific Highway. isign features should be used to slaw. traffic and make the street as safe as possible.'` 5 Conditional Use CU 4-81 KC's Amuserttnts,, ittleson. Brown NPO # 2 A request by Jeff Chase and Mike kimrey for a conditional use to approve rekiil wiles of limited timo to play various games such as electronic devices, pool tabes and foos ball, Tigard l; ocated in the Tig Plaza, Suite 102, SW Hall and Pacific Highway. Washington County Tax Map 1S1 35Db lot 2100. rte. Tigard Planning Commission Public Notice June 2, 1981 Meting • Page 2. of 2 5.5 Remand of Comprehensive Plan Revision CPR 1-81 Willowbrook NPO # 6 A remand fran. City Council to the Planning Commission for reconsideration of an approval of a Comprehensive Plan Revision from present NPO # 6 Plan Map zoning (density) classification to Al2 PD & A20 PD Urban Densities "Multi-family residential" between Naeve Road to the south • and Evangle Cemetary on the North, 99W to the west and 109th Avenue to the east. Washington County Tax Map 2S1 10A Lots 4200, 4390,. 4402, 4500, 4600, Map 251 10D Lots 500 and 600. 5.6 Subdivision S 10-81 Winter Lake/Century 21 NPO # 7 A request by Century 21 for a time extension, new lotting and a minor change to Winter Lake Planned District Development located at the east side of 135th and the west side of 130th,. Washington County Tax Map 1S1 33D Lots 300, 500, 601, 602. Please run in the. Tigard Times on Thursdays May 21, and May 28, 1981. , . i ..,` r- ,, w.,.. i.. .gyp rrnk_ " .v e .4w4-wYf,+'o-w, M-.+,m,gMW'NY/G'Nfr:Vt"w�'�IMF�1'.,' �' Xp°5 .rimes 2 4.:,..� �.A 'yl 1 ., ra L- :‘..E'''''''..t...e... ./ .".4, -..,7e/P.4,•• .""i --*— -.-—1 9ti?3`l'L --N7''''''"' �ehf O' H3 24 " U3 d4 1 t:tt' 196 4,/::;":6../..,/,.7 f 5 507 5506 : c ;� -. 5541 434 i . k\,..si, OMR, N‘,s■ ,'' ,s,c,,,,,\_.! LI ,1 MI ,Si;4., I . ar ■\‘\\,,,, — _ • 1:,141, 1 s --J H C .NA 1: i 196.9 ' II" N 89'45•30''E., •'S `, , L 5500 550. . '+' ' 502 2.i..ipt ,.it 1"+590. -At r tiii, ,..;...H..e-,.,,, ,,,,i.,, 3 2 ri goa ss'v+0. 4gOQ ,C) + 6 1 0 to N,89° '5'` lir N 89°39`30"6 *• 3 tl'' 4 _ ,t39'• '132'. "500 • 504 O 5503 "a 196.9 5 4500 ;�� 5510 4 C.). _....r,6114Z. 5 -' 6 �'` 3 r c ci • 45k,,,..,..1.-� N 89°41 30"1. INtriAL PONT `+ 196 9 1' :''� ;1 S. 36 / 113 7c - 41 : 601 90 +1 (711 ` • g: . ! PLANNING GCM't[SSIOI AC A 41111milmj .. _• a_ 9 �� NO. 5.1 5502 t./.0.1.3 d. , PUBLIC NOTICE 11 wi k,1 top ,. 1 4= 2 93.c DALES 11 T GLENN SUBDIVISION -•;;P"- 1." i■t i t n t i 5 4-81 ,.: ' 1 50 5 700 583 0'0 1� f !I . PI�OPQS L: To subdivide e _ 4.14 acres into sixteen i;16) 7 - ° �* lots of 5,000,000 square feet �' each. 4. 1 y r0 114 ZI , • .....___,..114 s 1 10E ,,Z , ' -PiTION 11340 SW 94 , ; �, 1 '•' _ Washington County Tax ` �s u 5901 Map 181 35DB Lots; 5501, :.• 5 ' 5502, 5503, 5504, 5505, 5506 - "� 5507 5508. C, w' 1 . \\":4L---,, 5900 5 .0 '.'Li � --4 ,a�i "k .;, i M9etin held at Fowler , �e 0 junior Hid, School • ' s w � 10865 SW Walnut, June 2, 198itn i $:e$,--A I :'-909 Z5.1 Il' III ii +' 61413'14'=s,r, , ° !".., i 1 i ..,. S..... ....1 .o*rio'i,n / ct. m ! ' x . • • . IA' N - - - - a o. ar O t e.-.�. a.. # s ss ��' aa`° 3si. � S8 034 -� S.`. ' DAKOTA c r 40C _ 29.94 56.60 56.60 29.33 2 30.77 57 0 69• 34'-'00" ( 139° 34 00" E � N •3 la • o = } Q , • 0 .Q t . o 0 0 - , 0 r,�_ _ f 4 � � 5 in 6 a� _ 7 J 4 N 5 6 .a 6 ` 1 I to b � 0 an ° N _ 1 - d ° ' _o tO t3 -� - n 56.g.�' ' 0 ` w w v 5?.50" 5'U' L� 56.60' 5.60 `� 56.89' 0- 'm f- vr 0 N * 113,19' - N 890 34' :00" E 1 13.49' Q v .= 0 115.00 N89.34'00"E o 0— I . '; 0 © oC- zo 4 6 ;F 1 0 3 BLOC K lei 1 1 8 0 BL{ CK 2 `o a C) _ 1 ci 1 115.00' - C1 !t3.f�' i !13_66` ( a • "-..z '�'�DO p © I°' i 03. 19 1t1 89" 34 E 123.66- 5.1? � f! � f � 0 2 0 e� -4 g-' FO' C1 nn to _ y �,. f f _'-`•;::r ' .� - 100.58 4 1 • •.�,� � ,/e� .e N :8 , 34' 04.E ��7 94.80 ...` 103.19 .1 j I 0 N89 0 34 00 E In N -13 9 3 00" E :: • I, if," . m,:� 1 . 1 2 _ 0 _ , 1 1 0 I v i0 �,�O N 83.51'22"W i • in U) 10 4.27 i - 103.19` 123.96' - . „•XI t J 1 ! v a - 6 to.N 1 tr., �al i u O ....*:V . °"— [48'O0E 27 7.17'- 0m .cr 0 'i lc, - -.** \ F - , Q 41. D 1 * ° N 8'?';:0'.00"E 11°5 0.0' I - y , . - . -. -,, --..■-•.- - .. .fr. . .. 1 i94-1*--, / '' . ' % t . 1 ,,,, k I 1, * NI , - PROPERTY DESIGNATION NAME OF OWNER. ADDRESS (Indicate tax lot, sect. , num ber ..and TomE12.S.21,_ .00•1*.................. 4.0.0................... ............, 01 t' '1 ) 41/1... .affied $1 3:3 r)6 H , . 4 , . ■••■■■■••••■•■■•mums•orNMOI r ::.L. .1 . 2 • .. ... . . ..... . .1.Z '' ..' '. ''I'° (2) 141 \/, /J,, _ ____ZeE_La&&' f el/ v e7-0 ___ -- - - -----„, /3 r5/u9 /: ZC26-0, f . Moverr...0**.o.lryores**.s. I (3) dA106014....._ _ _, ... _72I.L , 1 ... , (4) ir• (./e ' v ( ) , t 4 ie,,t,th*e___ • fir _. _,......._,............. _____, (6) ... , 4-0-- 1 ' 47L7 ........., (7) /4 at 4 . / - - - -.44 .._ 4.—wg.IA r .. 41 i 19 0 ,,...... / , 6, • , .. _____ i • (8) ,,V, / 1 jo A 14.4_ e / (9) p •i rg„011,4 " .I .4 / 4 ............... ............4tv • .. 64 .1' / " I''' ,,■■ , . . • (1 0) 1 •.IA.41 i A 9,AVA acri.i.V vs,• or r •_- • al ga,6; 1 ' A." 0 . ..,,I1.1(.1.4 4/11., .r II J .. I .4 (11) , iv....414.....4 •Jit..4i'...e 44.44.44.44 • S----/ ed)---0 / 5 2a 44A / .4 iii of . . , j."---6 0- (12) DIU. 1,411, ISA A 4 i /..At G" i I/530 Stt) ° .3---q i ....... !., .,, i (14) ( -, , ,. .! .• . - , . ..„„._ • . . ., ..-. .«--., . aWa r .. r.... n „ .. .. w....�..,a.us- a w... a. ,.ua.. a„ ..r•.,wa-a,.ts w.,. n.w.v+wa.es.+.��.i�s n+r�i., .-. •a•,xw�.af+.r.,. . ,.n le M ♦s.:xa.'x•1ti„ih.lmt,w'Nw..+ ..,r,.r.. 1 d e .0...... V--- "" )111 tiA ,., , .----- i PROPERTY DESIG�lATI N ! NAME OF G NER ADDRESS (Indicate tax lot, sect. f number and Town.sh i ,i or 1 4 ' . (2) ) � c _ ? — .t LAtiA(411E /A ail, i/ . ... � � A .44.....c.:).4,‹......) 1 CS----6 a-0 , .146' ..... ...wo..a ••■,,/4r .. . ,. d ) i�) / .� __ T 5 (6) 1r.tit .,1rA._. 2 '� .__.�.. �� r ,•, (7) __4z2_L,• ..,,,,t ,„0 ,,,,,,, / „ail f.." ../...,../ 1 it-i,I .—........._.--, . A j' rh 2z22 (8) Alijia4,....4....4 41 ' / irr. (10 ' .04 . 1 / Z).11 , „ �r�+..w�.r+�r[ +.n++•M ..�r+.....w,+.es�r........—:..rr ,H r..i w..,...wr . ' *.i''..L1:111Lowso.rwft. t -,40, 9-a, , . / (10) p .._ 4 . A� a.,. ,, —__.. .1.2— 0 c -. //pia 2.. :2 7 ..�.,.�... +....+.,..,,r....: r.:........:.: ,,,, (12) I iiig ,;, IA ,thyeiLli()_, Li 2 L/ co r ( . , 14) . elf, , ., .. . , , ,,, I Ne . .-, t a .': ''' ;41v M ..,N ,... 1>a,4 / FR.OpERT� DFS�;G���.'.�. 5-N- . : . NATO ► OF OWNER ADDRESS (Indicate to l©t, sec '. . number and Tov.inshi !/% ' f••a/X 1 i /1 / . ........._62,12"...150 : d.r :1 .;*.a..4,./A f 1 7°7, . _,___4'17-1.1________ ■ 5, t ., ,,, i (3) . 0 r . t vod . .//1)0 C�C' / 2,e /3 7 of e.'9. • i'P 9. i7e." — • , __IL!? (6) • Iff, k_p_e_..,(6, ,z23he2a,,_ Y; Y (7) + / O i Y `i. J '1MwY�.1YM�M1M1.Y.wMr�4 'f Phi. (8 ......�.�,. Z 6 e. .--0 , ,. LPL2i 7 . 9 -� C 0) i' ---:12---ed:4---/-1— ----/:22—0 7-2 ` ') s.........., 1 j4 0.110/.'" I 1 iii t , 4 (13) s 6 1 r• -'9 pye C14 u n , Y r ,, ......575._.,,,,,E1A, *---e,4 , r , iit ' 64* /1- ‘k _ - . ri► " PROPERTY DESIGNATION NAME OF O���'NER ADDRESS (Indicate lot, sect. y /�JJ n/L.uL^___ g and//��T©wnshi I i ___b_x_:_g2L g . rfue M 1 i r , (2) i...„44.4,(44/.., // w • t (3) _______Jdedii 1 f.----- --7-)-----W----e---:1-------___________:. .,........? (:::2 ILL . ______jzia2_ 2...22gLY___________ , ..........,,&7447* . Is t (5) 1 At__ Ai ' ' AIM/. ;;2‘2,N..6 • SILO ).P__.... ) s 1 (6) _.,,__ . IL 4 ,.w. At"—. �. .�.... , , I „5"—D S-60 fc/.141,-) 1 (7) _____J, C> C fla ., 1i ►. 0 (8) / ''' /1. - '1 , 414., , .44,,,,, _____40E4a. // c.kc.".(506";,'-23..ci?.___ ..4 ..�..�. Ur 4 „2..c )___. . (1O) '' ..� , (11) -----1-1-1?--"-5----- --iall--,--- ' (12) ''''N L6f(e/r , ,, 4 i .. ° r ►te n C12 t54.9'___ ti., , 1 . )' 1'.13-1" ,,4 ' /14q,,,,,e/ . )e 2.* 7 d,, i' ''6) /4.44 4 A 2 r 1 41 1 e 72 J14 do- , (14) - •,� SI4 Lt per rwrr i . r r Y.hs. «.r r.w- r � w.aw_. r i•wpv. � .. •A ,.pi iiJ.Vrw..L_a.r u .ir- I s„n.,4, .,r I fv.n♦ ..t, ,,' **, / / / --if /4' �:' y r 7.17._ . t two” \b. 444 2.„) . PROPERTY DESIGNATION N.ANE OF OWNER ADDRESS (Indicate tax lot, sect'. • number and Tod mhio (1 ) ■ 1.d.c1.4. aga ,..,. � i ,G;;alz ..._____. I 4 „,...,----_-- :7-- (1 e,e) ive„.2„0/1), / 94;92_ ...„=„101 / ,i' .. ....,.............. . (............ , ..................A..................., (3) ' J2 ./ 94.7 . i t d . , so . , (4) i1. .%11 Li rlr ' , I33 4 a 1 i I Y''70 -54,t) V A 6 /, - -- `-_'12 u /' 11& 9 1 : (7) 1 4)41‘...:411 a f / . ,..4 41 // 0 ■ 4 • 3 s7c---,( ,ir. / /69) (9) 1 / "I lid_z________ .44../.6:._. .� ' (10) f "r ors 9s / : 3 ....._. , (11) 11 P. ---) 5 (12) ) rallitill4 /6,04,16.- --„ _...s...6..._—. .2 ç ) L) L) ua,, � 11. (13) 4-orti s 'J _ 67 > � A J h (14) ,,,..„ tr - / , . 1 • �,, ..aL:.,.,�-��Y+s.,Nw:r..•.»...,....-,..,.e.w...w....ar•. ,.m».w.•„..,... .. �.... ..,«. ..,.,.a�.... ..e...,... vew.+e ......, n,.�... nr ...,..,.,rw.„.ea,««u... :,�a..t»-:rA.n,.�-.. ..i • .r� �' I , „ , 1 1-.7---.. . '''''' A 0 4 f/j '3-t., • , ,. , .4. . , , - k>''' - .4 w .. ,r ..,....,_ . .._.�......... �'RC.� EiRr DES G�I.4TI t r�AT�� � + 4;�t'NEi ADDRESS (Indicate tax lot, Sect'. I number and i`Q`c�,r c.hi i , '4, , / _....,______._L____ _z_..._._._._._.__ , L.42. ...._....____.... ... . ' iii .; ,.. AvAlri . ..."74..'*''''''''*"'"..' . ' t .................. Y... .........7'; ...: ' . y 1!; 3 (3) a.............«.....,.....••••.. t (4) 5) .. ; . , (6) 7) �.. . • . . • w.�.... :.._Y, . . • • (11) -...—,~ • t. 4� 1); L..,,,..w,, ,..wa,,..•w,.w,rM,....,,.,-w.,,uw,.,,w.,,..,wrwe, w �rnMt*.+w�n+t-k.�+liu8�f3J`1'��'t;rc�SG+:ts� siZI. ' +'..:.' NA,, `t••lii,i4....>w."*"4"`''''' Lt',rd'+"N+,.-.C„" ,"' e "'k .W.r••. 'y+r �"';e rz w...H.,rw.:+Y+„a.ad r•o r4-+l+.wb � � � 1 w:uow.k+,:.w.r•s,µ;..,�y:«ui�L:+7At Yew rte.+ \' ti 1S 35DB, 4600 1s1 35 DB, 4700 lo John Trolls � I John Gl.aubke, 11435 SW 92y 11405 SW 92 - ( dOfl 97223 igardm Oregon 972 3 l' '!,(At ,•• .'", :i:Frl''. . • /„ .., .. „..,,,r . , . . , 11 .,k 's'r r\.r ' -�5 L1B 5 fi Oa"` �, rC'. .tt �t 15135—DB;54oa �'" ` :;=; ,e: ' ; YF� '�t,. 'Gerald Doll. Everett Hooten___.. �' 11'400 SW 95 ].1390 SW 94 Tigard, Oregon 72 2 3 C,Ti ard; Oregon 9 72 2 3 .° �` r burn LUemaker ' r . ,Karl Bowersox 111.360 SW 92 (11270 SW' 92 a Tigard, Oregon 97223 igard, Oregon 97223 „..... (iv) , : \, .. .. . ............. 1� 5 bB 440O 1 i 1Sl d .00 ___ `` r Donald Seable : c ax % Williamson 11345 SW 92 5250 SW B%z1l, Mt Rd -' Tigard • egon 972 3;ga d, Oregon 97223 1S1 35DB, 4100 1 151 35DB„ 3700'.'""\\ , . Roy Bonn Norman Kolmodin. 11330 SW 92 1 . 50 SW 92 �. Tigard, Oregon 97223 T gaud, Oregon 97223 rr ' 'f. r'C :4' I i 1 _: - r 4 4 4-F r • t ....- Hwy,, (' a` •' .:1∎t. 1S1 35DB, 4300 !°'',,,, 151. SD��p 4107 'w —.. :) , • . 11'`` William We bk. r Basil il Z �j�r ysh;_ _ . it F • l:r v , 11206. y 1 1 300 SW 92 Ti ;ar , Oregon �^ i arc, Ore gon 3 . �`' 0 • • s,• , ••• 0 • • • MEMORANDUM TO City Council • FROM: Planning Director SUBJECT: Dales' Glenn Subdivision S 4-81 and Letter , from Roger Anderson DATE: May 26, 1981 On May 21, 1979 the Council created an R-5 zone for this parcel by passing Ordinance 79-44. A development group - Lumpkin-O'Neel - applied for a zone change from R-7 to R-5 and appeared before the Tlanning Commission on June 19, 1979. The zone change was approved with conations. On August 13, 1979, this matter was brought before the City Council and approved with condition • #3 changed by the Council. Originally I had r quested that SW 94th be constructed as a local street frJia. SW North Dakota South :_hrough this proposed development to connect eventually with the portion of 94th North from Greenburg Road. Frank Currie became the Public Works Director just after this proposal went to . 4 the Planning Commission. Frank drafted a letter to the Planning Commission requesting a through street. At this Council meeting Mr. Anderson, with others, objected to a through street. A cul-de-sac was ordered by Council and Ovdinance 79-64 was changed to reflect this. The market fell apart and this development fell with it. On March 25, 1931, Falcon Construction applied for a Subdivision Review. The reason for this was that Lumpkin didn't make significant improvements within one year and sJld to Falcon Construction. Problems developed with the Public Notice schedule and the preparation of my Staff Report. A new secretary came on, line and trrors were made. I gave the surrounding property owners time to respond, but. the Staff Report had f . been prepared, and Falcon agreed with the conditions. Frank Currie and discussed the through street vs. the cul-de-sac. We decided that a through street was necessary. This showed up on the Public Notice and my decision was appealed by property owners. was prepared to draft an amendment to Ordinance 79-64 had we not had an appea., . The surrounding property ownettl would then have been notified of this change in the conditions of developmant and could then have appeared before you. As it stands now, their issue will be before the Planning Commission on JUne 2, 1981 as an appeal of my approval of the subdivision. One of the ironic iatts is that 94th will not become a through street with the completion of this subdivision. We will have a street plug in place until future development takes place unless the City agrees to complete the public improvements. 4 Just a quick comment on "final action." The code allows a thirty (3) days appeal period following the action I take on a subdivision regardless of the date. 1 agreed in my letter not to take final action until April 27, 1981 which gave the property owners until apprecamately Nay 27, 1981 to appeal. Mt. Anderson's comment 4- it° • „ hr 1 ,o „ .w„♦w•wrrwr+..r.rbr— -- w.aA.M aw ra.r..,++r,.....-....a -. . ea.r...:.v.....r.nu.a w++,...,K......Yra w..aa.... a __ _ ___ �alY:....lx. Page 2 SUBJECT: Dales' Glenn Subdivision S4-81 and letter from Roger Anderson "the input by citizens requested was completely ignored, showing an obvious attitude of contempt.. ." is rather weak considering the fact that this development has been basically approved since 1979. The real issue is that we now have a Public Works Director who feels as I do, that SW 94th should be a through street eventually. I anticipate an appeal of the Planning Commission decision which. I think will uphold my approval of Dales' Glenn. The issue will be the size of the lots, possible "low-income housing,' the street and reduced property values in the area if this development is approved. All of this is just another indication that we are becoming urbanized. We will see more appeals from surrounding property owners when density increases. I suspect that the reactions for the future will be just as vitriolic as Mr. Williamson and Mr. Anderson are today. • ta. Al oward Mik r i •5 I . y M MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commissio . ,/ FROM: Planning Depar '' , SUBJECT: Appeal of Da' -. ' Glenn Subdivision S 4-81 a ' DATE: May 26, 1981 By Ordinance 79-44 of May 21, 1979 the City Council zoned this property R-5 Single Family Residential. In May of 1979, the owner applied for a zone 7 The Planning .• c.iaxige from R-7 to R-5 and proposed a sixteen (16) lot subdivision. Commission approved Zone Change 22-79 on June 19, 1979, and I approved Subdivision 3-79 on August 14, 1979. The Zone Change (ZC 22-79) was forwarded to the City Council and was approved on August 13, 1979 by Ordinance 79-64. At this Council meeting the conditions of development were modified. Staff had asked that SW 94th be completed through from SW North Dakota to SW Greenburg. Council changed this requirement and asked that a cul-de-sac be installed at the Southern boundary of the proposed subdivision. Following these actions the developer failed to make significant improvements to the property within one (1) year. A new owner, Falcon Construction, applied for subdivision review. A Staff Report was prepared approving the subdivision. with conditions. One condition was that 94th Avenue be completed to connect with that portion of 94th in existence. This condition developed following consultation with the Public Works Director. The property owners in the area were notified of my proposed action and an appeal was filed. The property has been zoned R-5 since 1979. The extension of 94th Avenue is perhaps the major issue. If the Planning Commission denies the appeal, the applicant could carry another appeal to the City Council. If the Planning Commission denies the appeal, therefore upholding the Staff Report, on Subdivision. S 4-81, Ordinance 79-64 will be amended. This amendment will be prepared for Council action and those perons directly affected will be notified. They would then appttat at the Council meeting to state their case. Staff recommends denial of the appeal. p, i n � i yy 1 y C ft t , , )1 1 / - il 'k ( ( . . , v , ('‘ ', (‘..• AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING . STATE OF OREGON ) i. , County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) :4" r * f. I, Ann Gaylord, • being first duly sworn, on oath despose and say: 1 - i • That I am Segretary for the Planning Department for H- , •, the City ofitigard, Oregon 1 I ' . That I served notice of hearing of the Tigard Planning Commission ■ ,• e of which the attached is a copy (Marked Wit A) upon nceel,..„4Fof the ', • fo3.lowing named persons on the day of / I _____D , 198 ) , by mailing to each of them ai e address shown on the attached , , - list (Marked Exhibit B) , said noti e 1 ,\hereto attached, deposited in 1 1 / th 1 (1: • -,— the United States Mail on the day of DLEI,J , 198 k , postage prepaid. I ' J ' • , . , ) ' SubscriMdd swOrn to before me on the __LC_ day of _ __ _e_ _____71'76 .... 1984 ,.:''.. , , ''' ' / - .','...• , , ,,...,, , ---- .....• Notary Public of Oregon , i , .■ ,,'%" My Commission expires: 21 i - I . , • .., - ' (A . . . f "C / • tk, i , . , b ' ' . I, , • . . . „ . . , . , , . . . . . . . . . , • , , ! A ■ , ■ . , o , May 18, 1981 • . , . . , . . . . . . Wilbur Bishop , Mayor ... . . . John E. Cook, Councilman , . , . - . Kenneth W. Scheckla Councilman , 3 . . i Nancie Stimler, Councilwoman ' , Tom Brian, Councilman . , • . Frank Currie , Acting City Administrator ., . . .. _ J.D. Bailey, City Attorney . . Aldace 'Howard, Planning Director - . . . . , .. . Re,: S4-81 and ZC-22-79 Dale' s Glen , . . . • ,. . . , , • , . We were astonished by the deceitful manner in which this sub- • . division application has been handled coy the Planning Department • . . • . ,.' and Planning Director. HE: v. , . ) By letter dated April 15 , 1981 the Planning Director stated: , . , "I will not take Final Action on Dale ' s Glenn .,. until April 27 , 1981. At that time , I will pre- :. .. . , .. pare a Staff Report which will be available for your review upon request . " (See copy of letter attached hereto) ' . Contrary to that letter, the Planning Director took final . actiOn on this matter either on April 17, or April 20 of 1981, as shown by the 3taff Report Final Action containing those dates , a copy of which is attached hereto. The City staff is ignoring Ordin- ande ,No. 79-64 which prOvides as a condition Of any subdivision that S.W. 94th contain a leFll cul-de-sac at the end of the improvement ,' See copy of Ordinance enclosed herewith. ' I .,,' The information which we have received indicates that it is • . ,. the City staff and not the developer which is seeking to avoid the . , .. ' Ordinance and the City Council' s decision in this matter. The de- . , . veloper submitted plans , following the Ordinance but the City staff ,, ' chose to violate the Ordinal-1'0e ' and amend the plan or plat: submitted . by the deVeloper by eliminating the required cul-de-sac , and insert-7 •... ing a requitement for a barricade to indicate that .S.14, 94th shall , . • be connected. This is contrary to the Ordinance) which the City Staff, of all people) should, take care to Pollow.. The final action and conditions were accepted and acknowledged' by the developer on April 24 , l981) three days before the final • . action was supposed to have taken 'place. Therefore , the input by , citizens, requested was completely ignored, showing an obvious at- : titude of contempt by thePlatning Director for the cititen8 of Tigard Who are in th,4 neighborhood of this development, by intention- ally doteivingmembers of the community with respect to submitting written, comment for consideration with 'respect to this SUbdiVisibn, . . . . . . . . . , . „ . . . . „ . . . , . -....,.. ._,. . ., ..„. ..„.. . . k ■ N.: ' , . • May 18, 1961 Page Two If the City of Tigard is not going to follow its own ordinances, this subdivision approval should be revoked and the zoning reverted to R-7 which is the appropriate zoning for this area. This develop- ment cannot proceed in viol-tion of the zoning ordinance 79--64. Before this Ordinance was passed in 1979 , the City failed to follow proper notice procedure, and therefore, the legality of this zone change and subdivision is in, serious doubt, in my professional opinion. ery tru y yours , Roger F. Anderson 1., V I Vii, 1 r • 4 RECEIVED 4 MAY 1 9 19 81 . A PLANNING COMMISSION BEFORE THE arrtannla OF TIGARD, OREGON CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF APPEAL File No. S-4 81 1. Name : Roger F. Anderson and Esther Lee Anderson 2. Address : 11385 S.W. 94th Avenue (StreeT7P .O. Box).- Tigard, Oregon 97223 (City) State Zip Co e 3 . Telephone No 639-1121 4. If serving as a representative of other persons, list their names and addresses : Planning aommission 5 . H What is th decision, you want the aithytxactkriaxicl to review? 4 (Examples : denial of zone change; approval of variance. ) Thg_Planning_Director' s Final Action on Subdivision S4-81 dated 6. The decision bcing appealed was alR444,tRa.e.e.4,431,y--t4e-4.1 .ataitiftg-Gemmis.s.ion on April 20 1•81 and A•ril 1 19.81 ,Date 7 On what grounds do you claim status as a party? (See Section 18, 92.020 Tigard Municipal Code. ) We reside within 150 feet this subdivision and are Aggrieved by the Action of the Plannin- Director 8. Grounds for reversal of decision, (Use additional sheets if , necessary. ) Your response should deal with the following: " (a) Explain how your interest is damaged. (b) Identify any incorrect faits mistakenly relied on in the decision or recommendation from which you appeal , (c) Identify any part of the zoning code or other law which you claim has been violated by the decision or recommendation from which you appeal. (d) Describe what decision you are asking the City Council to make. See attached copies of letters dated April ?3, 981 td May 18 1981 which bY this reference are incorporat,ed herein Page 1 of 2, ' ( ,. • • i r 9. Estimate the amount of time you will need to present your argument to n the City Council. (The Council will schedule more than 15 minutes per side only in extraordinary circumstances. Each side will be given the same Meng ., of time for its presentation. ) IO l; tes Signed: \ t 5, ----y & S/5 /: J(() 111/// Date: \° ° ''-.1 ########################################## ##### ######################## FOR USE BY CITY Date and time of filing: Date of planning Commission decision. Date set for Council consideration: Time allowed for arguments : per side Entered by: .. r Amount paid: eceit j.. 44 1 f Page 2 of Notice of Appeal • rF [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] Y I , ir �'�'tF�°""33jjt CflYOFTWARD RD VV\SHiNGTON COUNTY,OREGON May 15, 1981 REFERENCE: Dales' Glenn Subdivision S 4-81 11340 SW 94th a,, Washington County Tax Nip 1Sl 35DB Lots; 5501, 5502, 5503, 5504, 5505, 5506, 5507 & 5508. x, Dear Property Owner: My decision to approve this subdivision was appealed to the Planning Cc rani.ssion, We will hear thi., appeal an June 2, 1981, at 7:30 p,m. in the Lecture roan of Fowler junior High School, 10865 SW Walnut Street. Shoulc! you have any questions regarding this issue please contact rne at 639-4171, Yours truly, N . ,,Ingfi ing Director .Alt:ag encls ■ AtD, 0REG,)N 972'' 12420 S,'WM MAIN �',C7, BO�t 23 ��' TfG PH: 689-4171 L a a a A a s As a so W• a • • •••••g •• •g ••■•••• ••••g a••••••••••■•. • .• • • • • • • •>.;• .14 Val; May 6, 1981 (Tillrg31: 11.10174, WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON Reference: Letter dated April 28, 1981, from Mr. Williamson to the Mayor, City Aaministrator, City Council Members and Planning Commission Nembers. I • Mr. Ed Williamson 15250 SW Bull Fbuntain Road Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Sir: Obviously you and I have had a difficult tine trying to communicate. Perhaps I will be able to clear up a few of your misconceptions this time. • Paragraph two (2) of your letter - I told you that we had made an error • and that I 'would advance the final action date to April 27, 1981. Not only did I do what I said I would do, but I sent another letter to the surrounding property owners explaining the situation. Paragraph four (4) is only amusing, Mr. Williamson. Regardless of the dates on the paper, nothing happens until the passage of a thirty (30) day appeal period. I night add that it is impossible for me to wait until the final day to write a Staff Report. The appeal period is established by the Code - Section 17.05.070. The developer agreed to the conditions of development in advance of the final action date, but he still had the appeal time to endure. Paragraph six (6) - The final action has not taken place yet. An appeal was filed and thiS entire issue will be before the Planning CaTmission on Diane 2, 1981. This parcel of land was zoned to R-5 "Single Family Residential" on May 21, 1979 by the City Council. OA June 19, 1979 the Planning Commission • approved the zone change, If the economy had not slumped, Dales' Glenn Subdivision would have been oorkoleted now. I wrote the Staff Report for this project in August,' 1979. The only major change in the situation was brought about by the fact that the City hired a Public Works Director who feel's as I do that 94th Avenue should be a thru-street in the future. It amazes me, Mr. Williamson, that for the past two (2) years you have no/:. known what has taxer' place in your backyard, but you have apparently scid the property. In 1979, Ilk. Donald Seable was notified of zone chanv 22-79, and Mr. Seable was notified of the Dales' Glenn Subdivision S 3-79 In 2.979. Your charges that I have blatantly deceived the public and flagrantly violated the public trust; just don't hold oredance. 12420 S.W. MAIN P.O. BOX 23397 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PH 639.4171 • , ' M b_fio .. n .,. _ r usr. ♦.. n s..r. , .. •., r .. • tr .n ,., r u. n.. .r v_r>s.MwP..r_.r•.. Page 2 The truth of the matter is that we have notified the property owners. In this case Mr. Se,3ble shows on our records as a contract purchase in • care of you. We contact the person directly affected. It is easy for you, to scream for the removal of the Planning Director. I suggest to you that. if it were not for new construction Dor Pac would not exist, Mr. Williamson. mad your letterhead -- "A corn plete interior trim material and installation package service for the builders of hci es and apartrrents'o b will notify the surrounding property owners of the appeal before the Planning Commission. on June 2, 1981. This is your notice. We will meet at Fowler Junior High School at 7:30 p.m. I regret this unfortunate set of circumstances.stances. I value the trust placed upon me by the public,, and have tried very hard to follow the complicated procedures concerning developrrent in this con-amity. 11 r popularity is questionable regardless of the issue - one side is delighted and the other side hates"are forever. We shall wait together for the outcome of the Public Hearing on Dales' Glenn. In the interim, I will gladly provide any information which you desire. Yours • y, t /e) - die How4 Pl hector • AH:ag CC: :Mayor Bishop City Administrator Barker Councilman Scheckla Councilwoman Stitriler Councilman Cook Councilman Brian Commissioner 'repedino Commissioner Speaker Corm issioner Bonn Commissioner FunU. Commissioner Helmer Commissioner'Herron Coal dssioner l olleas Corm issioner llben Corrrnis5ioner Owens ►jl I I u CO DENOTES FOUND 5/8" IRON ROD. " - Eop ; 0 DENOTES SET 5/8" X 30"l.R. W/ PLASTIC CAP STAMPED i`SUMM ERS P.L.S. 1042. %' , .......,.., '-- f-,-,----..--0111r- -, --,111.1r.„--deb- NORTHEAST CORNER • ,, JOHN L.IiiCKLiN s D.L.C. No_54 �ti lionommera011oswa --- S 89° 34'00"W 391.38'—— �' S89°34'00"W ter- 1400.42' � -- �� � f4-00.E?_ r S M. DAKOTA KO TA �4s � > ` , f .-- ..•_ _- _ . . ...... .. .�.v��.�. il;;;,' -5.00 - / 29.94 • 58.60 • 56 0 29.33 �Q - 10 ' 30.77 -57.50 i - / N 89° 34'1 00" E N 89° 34 00"E � 3 - - 0 , -• c-=--�`;_ o r. s us q- Q 00 o0 O { In m o p_ ,� �,v 8 1 ca 4 �- 5 use 6 60 7. N - 5 c5-a) 0 • • t f CD o ° w ri 31 0 1 o oo .(•:(0 o ° 1 N ° w 00 lt' Ct1 0 "' _`t N 1 0 iri Z 56.59' 56.60' 56.60' 56.89' 0 _Q . 57.50' o 57.50' ! Q• 0 to� 113 9' N 69° 34' 00"E 1113 49' o ao 0 115•.00' N�189°34' •00"E 0 = ° 0 0 0 - 1 Q ! z 0 o Q r - I 0 f 0 t o 0 Sr Z Q 4 a, 0 z w t 3 B L O C K 1 8 0 (n "' 8 L 0 C it u� 1 p_CD ! ---- - 3 !t 3.19' ! l 1 3.68' • 115.00' - - I 1`• -(r- M. 0 s , N 8Q 34'00"i o I-- 103,f 9 N 89 34 E !23.66 5.17 �i 1. - I - a a1 c a . Kr- ,r1) (ly 3 _ I 1 o 9 -- A • el v 'f tri I- _ i 100.58` v I • •103.1.9` 0 94.80' N 89°34' 00"E ao• n - o - N189° 34' 00"E Qa) N.89°9°34'00"E ° in' 00 r� m 0 5.00' vj 2 z a Co r 0. 1 Tv 10 '�5 1'489"51'22"w i " _ t 0 THAT THIS- ` �' "' (5-� 104.27" .. • j Q `, .. iJ 8 9° 34 00 E ANC EXACT f.JPY 103.19 123.98 �`:. ell.- i- , I t� 1 itDALE1 -LEN" - ,� _ . : . . . G f N 89°48'00"E 277.I7`- ` . /• • . / i INITIAL PR INT t. _ " ' f . _ _-.-_- C DRIVEN 6"BELOW �" t GROUND SURFACE 40, 15250 S.W. BULL MOUE FAIN ROAD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 I PHONE(503)639-4078 Lt .. • j?' Aos " 'kr • Georgia PcIfic"Vinyi-Clad"door Inc Neam. 4 millwork packages, • Birch-Senn Mahogany,raw or Ed Williamson pretinIshed. 4, President A complete interior trim material arid installation package Wood&Stoel Entries, servico for the builder of homes and apailments. e BI-Fold&BI-Paiss Sets ▪ Bath Accessories, Copies to ; April 2 Rth,:Ltigc EiVeC). Paneling, • Complete hardware selection. CITY of Tigard Mayer, City Administrator, IVIAY 5- mi. Skilled Installation workmanship City Council Members , and Planning Commission Members . CITY OF WARD Sirs ; It seems that we still have a credibility problem with the Tigard Planninq Director, Mr. Aldie Howard. On April 14th, 1981, 1 recieved a letter of notification from him written on March 25th, 1981, with a "Final Action Date" of April 15th, 1981, and postmarked April 13th, 1991. Of course, this was not at all proper notification procedure, and after recieving no satisfaction From Mr. Howard when I objected , T k then called many of you, SEE EViIBIT "A"attatched. On April 15tho 1991, (After action by some of you, Iassume) t recieved • . a second letter from Mr, Ford (Dated April 15th, and postmarked April 15th) acknowledging i the erro i. in lack of roper notification 4to-responee time • frame of letter, Ykt #1, stating that same was not the way "We usually do buisir ess" , and that the "Final Action Date" had been moved ahead to April 27th,1991 letter also states plainly that a Staff Report would be prepared a TEAT TIME, and would then be available for Iv review upon request. :5,E,,E EXHIBIT "B" . Today, April 28th,1981, I w went to Tigard City Hall and aquired a copy of the above mentioned Staff Report, which is attatched as EXHIBIT "LI' . As far . as I am concerned, the "CI' should stand for CRIMINAL ACT, and SEINE AS A CONVICTIONI ! „ NOTE that page 1 is dated Alar,11 20th,12319 and pages 2 and 3. are dated Anril 17th, 12111. Also note that the Builder-Developer signed the acknowledge- ment on AlrIL 24th,19al8 All of these dates are well in advance of the April .27t,11,1981. final Action Date stated in Exhibit "B" , WHAT IN THE HELL IS THIS GUY DOING! ?? WHEN, TRUT9, WAS THE FINAL ACTION ''EALLY TAKEN?? WHO IS ZHIS MAN TO BE SO Ao.ROGANT AS 10 BLATANTLY DECIEVE THE PUBLIC WROM HE IS SUPPOSED TO SETME FAIrILY??. Tr4IS MAN,,_ IN A POSITION OF PUBLIC SERVICE, gAS PLAGANTLY VIOLATED • TEAT PUBLIC flUST THAT HE AS 'TA') VESTED TO HIM, AND I SUBMIT THAT .BE SOLD BE F,VE.„P FPOM tlIS POSITION IM !EDIATELY FORTFMTH. I also submit that the whole issue of the "DALES GLEN SUBDIVISION S -4-81" should be shelved until it IS Aulato THAT eaopE.1 NOTIFICATION has been made to ALL affected persons ffegarding same. I consider the enclosed ,locumention to tbrmore than allpie evidence that their rights and due process bas been violated too much to continue with the process at this time . I have talked to many of those said persons who live surrounding the property in question, who swear that they have not been notified at all not even with Vp deceptive letters such as I enclose, 14,,c04J Vat lel 't" (V l-F OWN-m 4 lists BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIGARD, OREGON NOTICE OF APPEAL File No._2, 481 Name Gerald & Nary Doll • 2 Address 11390 SW 94th Tigard, OR 97223 . : Street P .O. Box (Tate) 639-0775 3. Telephone No. : 4. If serving as a repr,...sentative of other persons, list their names and addresses : • 5 . What is the decision you want the City Jounci1 to review? (Examples : denial of zone change; approval of variance. ) Approval of S 4-81 Subdivision -Dales Glenn _ . Director • 6e The decision being appealed was, anno ced by the Planning3Ga[Mil,540.0n on (Date) 7. On what grounds do you claim e as Iparty? (See Section 18, 92.020 Tigard Municipal Code. ) , 8. Grounds for reversal of decisi n. (Use additional sheets if necessary. ) our response shou deal with th following: (a) Explain how your interest is damaged. (b) Identify any incorrect facts mistakenly relied on in the decision or recommendation from which you appeal. (c) Identify any part of the zoning code or other law which you claim has been violated by the decision or recommendation from which you appeal. (d) Describe what decision you are asking the City Council to make. See attached letter Page 1 of 2 0*. 9 . , Estimate the amount of time you will need to present your argument to the City Council. (The. Council will schedule more than 15 minutes per side only in extraordinary circumstances . Each side will be given the same length of time for its presentation.) Signed: / Date: #################################################################### ##### FOR USE BY CITY Date and time of filing: Date of Planning Commission decision: Date set for Council consideration: — Time allowed for arguments : per side Entered by: Amount paid: Receipt #: Page 2 of 2 Notice of Appeal 2 BEFORE THE" • L OF TIGARD, OREGON NOTICE OF APPEAL File No. 1 . Name : Robbie Wisdom 2 . Address : 9405 SW North Dakota Street P.O. Box Tigard, Oregon 97223 ("CT "� State Zip Code M, • 3 . Telephone No. : (home) 639-6528 (work) 629-1711 4. If serving as a representative of other persons, list their names and addresses : 5 . What is the decision you want the City Council, to review? (Examples : denial of, zone change; approval of variance. ) The design of the Dale's Glen subdivision 6 . The decision being appealed was announced by the Planning Commission on 25 March, 1981 (Date ° 7. On what grounds do you claim status as a party? (See Section 18, 92.020 Tigard Municipal Code. ) Owner of Mayfair lot 900, directly across SW ;forth Dakota from the proposed development 8 . Grounds for reversal of decision, (Use additional sheets if ue.essary. ) Your response should deal with the following: (a) Explain how youi interest is damaged • (b) Identify any incorrect facts mistakenly relied on in the decision or recommendation from which you ;appeal. (c) Identify any part of the zoning code or other law which you claim has been violated by the decision or recommendation from which you appeal. (d) Describe what decision you are asking the City Council to make. #iw As homeowners affected by the development; my husband and I should have been plans for the subdivision. We have received information of the 1 ans fo e i ved no �nf�o n Page 1of other than that provided by the Planning Commission on the date, of this appeal . #2. I oppose that part of the design of Dale's Glen that shows SW 94th as a closed-off street. I feel 94th should be niadc a through street to the south. This design would spread the increased car traffic load between all adjacent streets. As is, the plan puts too much traffic pressure on SW North Dakota. Even if SW North Dakota were widened and improved, I would still oppose the plan because of the number of cars that would use the street for access to the subdivision. 9 . Estimate the amount of time you will need to present your ar ;ument to the City Council . (The Council will schedule more than 15 minutes per side only in extraordinary circumstances. Each side will be �1 given the same length of time for its presentation. ) Signed° `' Date: 4-27-R1 w ########################################################################## mo' FOR USE BY CITY Date and time of filing: r Date of Planning Commission decision:_ Date set for Council consideration: Time allowed for arguments : per side Entered by: Amount paid: Receipt #: Page 2 of 2 Notice of ppea ./:•' .., .,.., . . . ■ , -- . e / ,,/ /.7 ar ..e eF/ ; ,2;- ,7„ „ ,, . . . . ,dr ,',,„ ..5 if -,g.,/ . .. . , . . . „., .. ., . ,...../ .....„.. ,/,./ ..., , _,,. ji ....t.,_ c:v•--,-4-4 .....e.-4...7.,..-/- -z.. ......4X—.....e.,/.2. ...----2 ..”: 6...4 4e0-1.:711. ---', ‘3.--2,4,-.0-at-f- -1'. ,v,.. . . 1 j' ,,,... ce..„..,'- ./2-4"--r---,e-e-" , .. --e-Z.' ....1--",--)-,...-t: .....-e-;°.,-;-,....,„..K k L4;.-r ..,..._.,-,,-C e-6:- ....-21elf...g ...,,k-e . -3 ,e.... r.-,..-e..._ .0 1 ) ,19/---7--1-1"-< ez,-..z. .. .e. e.. -s,..1- ...77- --4 .,' .. -9/ , . -.'-:,....i.. 8' • ....:„.„2""t '-i-A1P--a4 .e-,.......,„/ ...e..--7e „,-- .., :../ • A _est, . . ,e%.,.,..,.- . ,": e ). e ---e-,-i-.-rt' -..2 e ' e - - 1 ' .2 '..714;■.;.'e'''' ...."?.e.ee''4 '.ifi'e----4,4-e..42:-e----.,..-7.- . -, ,--ef --- "...e ....--2-&,e...4..p. ,4.. e" .4., .,,,.,.f ...,...r i il ,•,'. (" e- 7 --e--?t:.ee,-?''. e-42-- ----(--f---,----4/ /-4:2--,---i-----''41'..4"."4'." 01. , . C7,9..■...e5e# * . " . , 1 Ci'l i ..I.7jr,,,C■C,',.... "7'it-er„-e--0,--e..„,. il ..e:9-c' e",._ ...0-- ,,,4'...,'... 47`"" "" -""Cf.4. 'I"- --- ---el.:;,.....,,,i f..., - - ''', i ,. , ,." er f/ :■°°- I) 11)4.. '.." el,e1;•C+'''e"..e...*Nere'7"...... C.'0 /c( " - 42-e ex-eit-e 1 ..,--e:-Z 1'. , , ' .,'.e1),---/,/,..-‘;,1..e-,,,,-:,-;e" n..,,=4A" , e"--- ,- .. _.,../. .2........-- , ir,' t:=, / 7:Intent e4"e'A .-"';ev...t...., ....e,e‹...-_, ., ,....k.f..-.," _'-i,.-.-, -t- 1 ....,,,,— ' .d. d' / cje'-'-'f''/"..2-"". -- ',--e-e' 4- ......--2.,e,e:,,,z,....-e'fr ,---4 c-,-- d,--p-z-ee..„,t 4";fr---19 -e.'"" .-- e2.-4' ,..‘e„,,,, , ) e ...../ .., ,/,/, ' y t:t1.11..■"...4,S1.t"e ...e e.i .. ,4„. 1,1.-,......,....e,.„:4. .7." :.- ..1:: . „ e 9 . ,''' ,,,,te:11,5e,.'10/:74 ,•-z1s..77.e'e' ,.6-e' ....,,,le---,,,,r-,4.- ,... , el4 P .1,,.2' . - - t.-.1 :"7,7"4",/ t--14.7 e7 4-,:..e..-e.,-,1 - ......-K-e,-,,,,,,,,..,„....1-4.e. '4) " eo.3 , ›eC/C.,4 o' 4-7.- /-4,e"-i-e.-) . ,........,, .,..-77-7174.,,-.4. ......*evt-'7•-re,..'4.:';'(' ,...4. ,f,.12.-0.re,...."'"rty).,?..,..°:- / ij.:, , ,., 4 ‘1,-, '"',*704qt''';*1-,. 4.? ';? /#69," .-;',.'".,4',-ir-re-,--e;t f" ..,r-e , z.... , .3 ) e<t ".. .-..,0%,.." .„.......----- ,;,.. .. . CP,4t.-" 'it.-•`(-"''''e--'''':''..-1'''''t'e 4"--- c..7.:.f 7,2... ...,--e , 2-enot,e,...e.,; c.,....e,,,,--. „:-.......,,.......,/, ir . . , • • • • trw"""'�L'"•"..a"'�i�' "' p t. '�i """, .eCP' ) l��! .f."�M",�.... a ..+'Gar•y!' —e:`' ,"'.'S..,..1+'Y', Sl'u`xa�"S n1r . ' gfrri • • • • 1, . . . . ,,..............4.',...4,-tsrantu6.1„,,,:rt"....4..t.:Am!...- -togr-,,..t.r.,Irg:OiLltitigi41.,' l• ' 1 ,. • , . , !I• • ,...., „ #14,7 r)6, / ,6, .,, 72,-41e 4 /04"4.0.,,,A../ii. C,,, ,101,4(..S.X...-o.",.) -51 , . . .. 11MeAt L. 'OM e-gal 44e x ,1, .' . i t,..7.---. I . . C erm).4.17;414-1,,, 71 4s,'„,e:j , .'elr4g.--t. 0.-4 cl, / ?.0e-,1 -41-fr 4-4,49 i L**41''. • , 1,11*efe / . " yevr •.,. ,e 4, 6667A.14 ,, :...-. . , . . 4(Cio ,-, .. ( C a-ky.snu cr 4 0 ,,, 5 Re4 o 42'a P''' 7"-e) t./r- ' /(:,., . , • : ‘fre',4%,. 4 41,8 1-7i: .4..." rs 41),/04!6-c-re. y., ' /4-ezi.,,,e. 0,s-s t-eVcE. sTe.Ec."-- jø bv „ _y We 40, e ,s 4):A,,,/1-cl,i'c ,42 7:4‘16. r-o. .A/145-±.. ,, , . , . , . . ' 4)6 f.. "we i i e 'too 4q,-- /0 4:47.7r 4v/1 .73-bo ..5.1ti cr-' ,4,,,,,,t,,:mt,,,,1 dad,,,X,e' . , a .401)4,,,,,calf ' ra. ,6e 420' cIttr-.4..riarr6,01,r 4.ii".7"Ai The, e,../c/..r 4,-/A..,5 ,.. . , , , 1e d::$4 467 Alsis,,,,0 de , . . 'ihd 4:1104V 0 A) G.( 4-51)co k..5".1. gir C.,o 73 1.441,4eV” Ylfe. ' t:(1-4,froeu . . . . i . . fal Cie,41-PyP ed„ et-J0-?Q.1, .,.;:), Ap— 440s,cr. „40;e:4 /,-- 4i.-riotaitir3 , . -4 4 . 4I44 C0114 ert:0 MeAkie'4,40tr "9,,, ..,0411" eil,. 1w- , by vvei. 4)04/1 / ) . , , , , A/0 frie. . - —rOnt 4fr me o 4,4'4111 "1-41d itedeiad'.,4:,:i;it-iei 4,AV 4.1° 4:4v'n;ite1* , . , C414$617:41 rIt'i 41440**t ',71.0 e A1;64 d'it:',0 44,4**leetr ete.'840flio-0 , . , k..,, , 4 , , .. •21:14" J4/1)ile"71 4/4, 4 ,41,-,.#4,M,',et. ";4/e..4 As esth y- ra , i.4.,411. 4).4,,,,,, alegl.edr,,i4,,nr;,,,,,t ha r n 04 coo t'A'.„I ,44,44e.44.4.61 , : , , . • ilea AiaTio i1 t5e-6,-?1,4, ,a4 , y. , , . 4, ' ' ,,n; &,.2,-' .• • •-,: ,ARte.-** ":41..m,01044#1 . . , , , w" ' • , , ifti‘o .5 44.1 $1/25:-yiti i reZet."/' - . , (j e)*-: . , ', , I ,. :c/ '' / . April 25, 1981 11315 SW 92nd Avenue " Tigard, Oregon 97223 • Mr. Aldie Howard Planning Director City of Tigard 12420 SW Main Tigard, Oregon 97223 Hand Delivered RE: Proposed "Dales Glen" Development Dear Mr. Howard, I wish to notify. you of my opposition to the proposed "Dales Glen" development as described in your letters of March 25, 1981, and April 15, 1981. The development of the property as described in your letters and accom- panying maps will have a substantially negative impact on the property values of the homes in the areas surrounding the "subdivision", and a damaging effect on the quality of life in the adjoining neighborhoods. As you are well aware, there is a: great deal of concern about and opposi- tion to the 'Dales Glen" development. I urge you to hold a public hearing by the Planning Commission on this matter to give the residents of the area (both those who have been notified in accordance with city guidelines and • those who have just recently learned of the proposal) an opportunity to dis- cuss this issue in greater detail before you proceed. Sincerely, • I . Stephanie Moore Franklin cc: Mayor Bis hop City Council Members P1ai ring Commission Menib ars ; 1 fb V y 1l4L 5 S. W. 94th Tigard, Oregon 97223 Aril 24, 1981 )/ To Members of the City Planning Commission: The description we recently received from the City r'lanning, Direc- tor of the Dales Glann subdivision does not conform to the agree • m.ent previous]y reached by the property owners surrounding the area with. the City of Tigard nor with City Ordinance No. 79-64 passed in August 19', 9. It would seem imperative for the property owners and t e aty to have further communication on this matter since it is hardly ethical to change the manner of plotting the lots after a proper agreement is reached. In the new plan there Is no longer a cul-de-sac at the • en', of the property as granted in Ordinance 79-64 which assured us that one would be included as building sites were plotted. Yours truly, _ , f rs. Frank r 6, • n t " A i o ` ~ April 23, 1981 Wilber Bishop , Mayor John E. Cook Councilman ' Kenneth W. Schec,kla, Councilman Nancie Stimler, Councilwoman -�'�� • Tom Brian, Councilman r°" J.D. Bailey, City Attorney �, � Aldace Howard, Planning Director Re : S4-81 and ZC-22-79 Dale ' s Glen • We are, outraged by this attempt to ignore the decision of the City Council, which on August 13, 1979 allowed ZC-22-79 with , the express condition that the subdivision of this site include a cul-de-sac on S.W. 94th Avenue. Contrary to the City Council' s decision, the subdivision plat has been changed by eliminating the required cul-de-sac . The City Council 's decision on ZC--22--79 which allowed small R-5 lots , was clearly set forth in Ordinance No . 79-64, which pro- vided in condition #3 as follows : 1 "3. That the applicant, improve SW 94th from SW North Dakota south to the end of his property to full local street standards and provide a legal cul-de-sac on the end of such improvement at the property line, prior to final plat approval. " (Ordinance attached) This condition imposed by the City Council cannot legally be • changed or eliminatedby the City staff on its own initiative. The letter from Planning Director dated April 15, 1981 (copy attached) omits any reference to the final action by the City Council on ZC-22-79 taken on August 13, 1979 by Ordinance 79-64. He should know that a zone change requires City Council action. You may recall,, and the record will show, that adequate notice of this zone change to small 5,000 sq.ft. lots was not given prior to the Planning Commission hearing on or about June 19 , 1979 . This was conceded by the City Attorney, Joe Bail;yy) on August 13, 1979 i at the City Council hearing on this zone change On August 13, 1979, a number of residents of S.W. 94th Avenue appeared at the City Council hearing and spoke against the imjection of a high density R-5 subdivision into an established neighborhood. To do so would be contrary to prior statements made by City Council officials. Numerous safety problems were heard and considered. • ' ter` April 23, 1981 , Page Two s' An understanding was reached at the City Council hearing be- , tween the neighbors present and the City Council that the zone , N' - . change be allowed on the condition that there be a cul-de-sac. in �' the subdivision and that there be no connection to S.W. 94th Avenue . south of the site. (See attached Minutes) • • The City staff (including the Planning Director, who ::was pre- , sent when the Ordinance was passed) has an obligation to k'ollow ' the directions and Ordinance passed by the City Council. ' We trust that the City of Tigard will do as it agreed on August 13, 1979 , and will follow,, rather than ignore ,; Ordinance 79-64. To r do otherwise will seriously damage the City' s integrity and credo.-- bility in the eyes of the citizens of Tigard. As stated, on. August , 13, 1979 by Councilwoman. Nanciie Stimler, , the people in the established neighborhood on S.W. 94th, Avenue should not have to keep coming back to fight this matter. Yet, here we go again. . Very truly yours ,,,,,a,...., .. . . ito,,,,, , 1 , ,., , . , b Roger F. Anderson 11385 85 S.W. 94th 4th Avenue' Tigard, Oregon .97223 • r ' i . I 4 R Gentlemen: Enclosed is a letter to flr. Howard in response to two letters I recieved from him concerning the proposed. Dales i'.inn Development. I strongly ul- e you to read the entire letter and study the documents closely. The letter and map referred to in item 1 are marked in red with a i and the letter and map referred to in item are marked with a reel 2. I do not think further comment concerning the confusion these letters and ' 4 maps cause is necessary. I do not feel that the residents of Tigard should be treated in this manner. Whether you agree with me or not, I would appreciate a call or note to that effect. I feel that the citizens of Tigard expect and deserve better treatment than this. I believe the whole situation is an attempt to force a situation on the residents of the area, that is not compatible with the area,nor is it desired by the .residents of the area. Sincerel2 '" Leonard. C. Dicker (2.,/// 11420 3.10.94th ave. 639-3601 \ w tg // t,1 Ar- , . April 23, 1981 Aldie Howard Planning Director: Dear Sir, • In response to your letter dated. April 15, 1981, concerning the proposed Dales Glenn Development, there are several things that I feel are very questionable. i. I can accept your excuse for the letter dated March 25, 1981 -postmarked April 13, 19C1, received by me April 14, 1981, with a final action date of April 15, 1981. What I cannot accept is the map that wasganclosed with it which shows (9) Lots, not the (16) proposed, as well as the fact that the south boundary shown, is approx. 100 feet south of the proposed boundary. 2. The second letter dated. April 15, 1981, has a more representative map, however, there is still no mention of the fact that 94th Avenue is to be extended through to North Dakota Street. There are, however, some confusing pencil markings that make no sense to me. The zone change approver in May 1979, from R7 to R5, included the stipulation that a cul-de-sac was to be brought in from North Dakota Street and 94th Avenue was to dead end at its present northern limit. fou stated in our telephone conversation that the present developer's plan was essentially the same as the May 1979 plan. As far z,',s I'm concerned, this is a drastic change, in direct opposition to the wishes of the residents of 94th Avenue. 3. The April 27, 1981 deadline for approyal. of this is grossly inadequate, one week to prepare a response, especially when the facts in the letters and maps were sketchy at best, is unethical to me. In light of the above discrepencies and mishandling of the whole situation, my contention is that thezoning should be restored to R7, as was specified in the N.P.O. design of a couple years ago. The developer should, then present a detailed plan, the area residents informed fully of the plan, and a public hearing scheduled on a timely basis. Anything less than this wouldbe another disservice to the citizens of Tigard. • I have sent a copy of this letter, along with copies of the 2 letters I reteived from you, to the Layor, the members of the city council, and to the members of the planning commission. • I sincerely hope you will consider this situation in difference to the residents of the area, as well as the entire homeowner population of Tigard. They are the • ones who will suffer from this substandard developement getting a foothold in the Tigard. area. Sincerely, Leonard O. Melt -A0 11420 S. V. 94th1 Ave. Tigard., Oregon 97223 111445 S. W. 94th Tigard, Oregon 97223 April 23, 1981 Dear "Mr, Howard: The description we recently received of the Dales Glenn sub- division does not conform to the agreement previously reached. by the property owners surrounding the area with the City of Tigard nor with the City Ordinance No. 79-64 passed in August 1979. 1 " It would appear that there is need of further discussion of this matter since the notification has been very late; some have not received notice; and some property owners are out of town. If this is not passible, then we will need to follow proper channels to appeal any unfavorable decision, The reasons for which we want the cul-de-sac to remain are of course, the same as those given in August 1979. In addition, if ,SP: the legal" cul-de-sac is considered as building sites are plotted.', it would remain a permanent fixture while a simple barricade very • likely would not remain Yours truly, rs Frank Yi1ler is • • • 15250 S.W. BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD, TIGARD, OREGON 47223/ PHONE(503)639-4078 AinAma ci,,,,ropatlfiG"vtnyrxweduor DOR= Pell% inc. • ri Pacha000 • Birch,Senn MahoOarly„rut or • efiaoi Ed Williamson . President • A c,orvolete iiiitoilor trim material and tr.stal!atiivi wickage !ice for the budder of homes;and ariarim:NAts. v A Di Paw)Set5 Butt,Acc.4)39,urjo9, ParroPqa "C.' /Oa se- tiocit...gieill) harJelcve Skated in swtlation workftrant3674: •- • 60 A/41 ill' biterdi - illy OF or/544.cP rn fie/.elA14 771-1" Fe— ix te.A1C9 7117 /4:1419 /41 It' //1-Alft 15C-to,ss6 ) -4-- —7,17 0/— /94-0 ( i tcQ • 00 A- Aft s_e 901., 417-04-r 1, 477 e.x„ ,:1--ezr I . ,4p ft 11, 41/ .21/147tel& a 41t*-1'4":L1-' le 15250 S.W. BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD;TIGARD, OREGON 97223/ PHON E(503)639-4078 lir&j)fr (OK FV(97e* DCORm PAC inc. rrt;0,er:%k • B.,c1 rea Ed Wiiha on wood President A ccmplete Inteior trim material ratg mqictlicit,on rect,,eq, • q se- ',e ft$the buildet of tILM apJ • noon Act,:,psw • .mc Copies to; •4-2.1- 821 4 r401,,r.,.e.4 tra 104 'se'e4v, • 0,$^ 4 eity of Tigard ; Planning Director, Planning Commissioners , And Councilpersons. RE: Zoning anti proposed subdivision of Dales Glen, S 4-81 Sirs ; This letter is to Serve you notice that I str.onctly oppos.e the zoning that it seems you have approved on the above specifieH subHivision. As an affected party, having purchaseH property in W the area recently and not being aware at the imff time that such an unjust zoning had even been , . considered, I wish to at this time ask you each to personally take a second look at your decision. I sincerely believe that when you have a physical look at the existing :twat neighborhood involved , and realize the great degree ' of clash that is going tio occur when small houses are built on these smali lots , that you will then in all fairness reverse your decision to a lot size that trill be considerably More in compliance with the norm there now. Being involved in he building industry as well as real estate, I fully realize that you are all, as planners , under considerable pressure from LCDC,ect, to adopt higher density policies in an effort to save land , provide homes to a broader scope of people, ect, ect. However, this is simply not a suitable neighborhood to mix such housing into the middle of As a matter of fact, I feel it should be an imperative function of planners such as yourselves , to PREVENT such a clash, rather than CAUSE one The affected area, particulary SW 92nd North of Greenburg load , consists of an enclave of fine, valuable (at least thats what the various taxinp authorities say) older homes on large lots of 20,000 sq ft and more. .-:ost of the owners had their dwellings custom built over 25 years ago. They comprise a cross eection of Tigards most respected citizens , constituting Professionals , . Buisinessmen, ect. They have R chosen to E remain in these homes for a quarter centurty anH over, raising k their children and griwing oldc7 with pride, dignity, and grace. At the ame time they have seen to it that their homes have done likewise. They have paid higher than average taxes(of all types) and in general are examples of America's , as well as Tigards , finest contributing citizens. It would be an absoulute insult to penalize these people at this time in life thru a 25,000 to . 30,000 reduction in value to their properties that will occour if you allow a builder to construct add sell these small houses in a hack to back relatiomship to theirs. I have reliable word that • these houses will be under 900 sq ft and will be designed and constructed for a fast buck g sales price of approximately 't40,000. As a summary, 1 would like to submit to you a sincere appeal to reevaluate your r4oniginns on this matter. I personally o HOT reside in the home in which holti an ihtrest in the area*even tho I stand to lose a consiletable ,amount CONT. Par,e 2 • Mir qp.' 15250 S W. BULL MOUNTAIN.ROAD, TIGARD, OREGOi,, 97223! PHONE (503)639-4078 DQR%on la PfIC 1�'li ■ ckY,x. , . Ed Williamson President t p4r44 PAGE • • financially thr.a a loss in value of an investment , It is the fine people who have to live there who will lose the most. That would be almost immoral to let happen to them. Therefore, I have three requests , in what I feel is the order of fairness , justice and preference , to make of you in resolving this matter. 1 I; Leave the zoning a minimum of R-7 for h the whole parcel, and approve the right of the owners of the existing homes on large lots that block 2 barks up : X to, to construct a sight obscuring cyclone fence (Chain link with slats )along the 300 feet of property line that is affected, fence at least R feet high. #2 ;; At least leave Block 2 larger lots ` (r'-7 or larger) to serve as somewhat as a buffer, ririth the Builder--'' evelooer to be required to construct above snecifierl fence. #1 ; '1.s a last resort, i C the whole parctel is to be the little rinky-dank lots . , ann houses , f70'1. DAWN SUE recuiege that at least the Fence is built. It would seem to me that the price of 300 feet of fence would be a damn cheap price to pay for getting to wreak havoc with the lives of so many fine peoole in the intrest of making a fast buck. /05, 47 Ary-41,642_,Q A.,-91.4.1? " SINCE)'ELY, 5f7C"' a/ YiXd4r.'''''* '421L0 owner; 11315 SW 92nd Avenue •1 Ma} • I • I J t I.., roWNONOIMO F, w `, APB n m J�.� .� -��r_64, CITYOFTWARD WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON STAFF REPORT FINAL ACTION . TIGARD PLANNING DEPARTMENT APRIL 20, 1981 DOCKED.; SUBDIVISION S 4-81 NPO # 2 1 DALES' GLENN 11340 SW 94, Tigard, OR 97223 REQUEST: Applicant is requesting to subdivide 4.14 acres into sixteen (16) lots of 5,000 square feet each. LOCATION: Southwest Corner of 95th and SW North Dakota Washington County Tax Map 1S1 35 DB, Lots; 5501, 5502, 5503, 5505, 5506, 5507 & 5508 J APPLICANT: Falcon Construction Co. 8955 SW Commercial Tigard, OR 97223 APPLICATION DATE: March 25, 1981 • s SITE DESIGNATION: The site is designated R-5 "Single Family Residential" permitting six dwelling units per gross acre on the NPO # 2. Plan as amended by the T gard City Council ' on May 21, 1979. PREVIOUS ACTION: The Tigard Planning Commission on June 19, 1979 recommended to the City Council that the applicant's request for a zone map amendment, from City of Tigard R-7 "S.Ing1e Family Residential" to R-5 "Single Family Residential", be approved. (Reference: Lumpkin - O'NTeel, ZC 22-79) On August 13, 1979, the City Council approved the zone ch%,ige request ZC. 22-79. On August 14, 1979, the Tigard Planning Director approved the Subdivision request. (Reference: S 3-79) t I. P INDINGS OF FACT: 1) The Site is designated' as "Urban Low Density` era the NPC) # 2 plan and currently zoned ',-5, "Single Family Residdential". ,, ' 21 The applicant proposed to subdivide and construct sixteen (16) single fa : y units with a minimum lot site of 5,000 square feet. 4 4 0 1 2%420 S.W, MAIN P.O. BOX 23397 TI C► REGfJ�!97223 PH: �a39- 17t i a •R STAFF REPORT FINAL ACTION TIGARD PLANNING DEPARTMENT April 17, 1981 S-4-81 Page 2 of 3 • :r 3) The site.is presently vacant with a slight change in elevation :- from the southwest to the northeast. Surrounding land uses are single . family homes. 4) Access/egress to the subject site is provided along 95th on the west, SW North Dakota on the north, and 94th through the middle. SW 94th is a dedicated street with a 50 foot right-of way. 5) Sewer and water facilities'are available along SW 94th. 6) Homeowners, who reside at 94th Avenue and adjacent to the proposed subdivision are opposed. to having 94th Avenue extended in order to create a through street. II. CQNCLUSIONARY FINDINGS 1) The applicant's' request is in, conformance with applicable NPO 4 2 plan policies and the. Zoning Ordinance. 2) Sewer and water facilities are available into thin sate 3) It is expected that the development of the site will improve street conditions along SW, Dakota, 94th and 95th streets. III. STAFF RE COMMENDATI ONS s Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request subject to the following conditions: 1), The applicant shall make half street improvements to SW North Dakota to local street standards prior to final plat approval. 21 That the applicant provide half - street improvements along SW 95th to local street standards prior to final plat approval. SW 94th shall be improved to local street standards to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director A street barricade shall be placed iii,. the southern term nous of this street to indicate that 5W 94th shall be improved through to Gr ;enburg at a later date. 4) Applicant must provide sanitary sewer 55± ice connection ava labiEy tracts, which are not now connected to public sewerage fac- for existing tact ach ax, ilities on tax lots 5.50_ arid' 5400, (see item 7) STAFF REPORT FINAL ACTION TIGARD PLANNING DEPARTMENT April 17, 1981 Page 3 of 3 5) 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 havu been carried out by the appropriate department. 6) No changes will be made to approved plans or specifications unless formal application is made to the appropriate City Department, and changes are approved by that department. Application for changes will be made in writing and shall include applicable drawings. 7) Grading and construction plans for all work in public rights-of-way • and all other publ5c improvements shall be prepared by a registered professional engineer in accordance with City Standards, and shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review. All public Improvements will require a Compliance Agreement and must be T I (design' approved by the Public Works Department, and must be either (1) fully and satisfactorily constructed prior to the recording of any minor land partition, public dedication, final plat, or issuance of Building Permits; or • C2) botded to the City for 100% of the estimated cost thereof prior to the recording of any minor land partition, public dedication, final plat, or issuance of Building Permits. 8) 2,11 proposed utilities shall be placed underground. Street lighting ihstallations shall be approved by the Public Works Department. 9) A metes and bounds legal deScription and map shall accompany a dedication of public rights-of-way, parks, open space or floodplain areas, and shall be pmpared by a registered engineer or land surveyor. 10) All street and parking areas shall be concrete or asphalt. All sidewalks shall be concrete. 11) No Building Permits shall be issued until the expiration of the twent (20) da appeal pc od from the date of approval. • 00000,, 40000P -4 •ie P ng Director NOTE: Sign below to acknowledge conditions set, forth for this project, and return to the City of Tigard Planting Deuartment. Failure to aCknowledge will result in Vo further action oh this project with regards to issuance of )3uilding Fetmits r engineeriftg approval. • 25,f.-9/1 w eica -ignatUre 47 Date )16 . • 4 A April 19, 1981 p Mr. ,oldie Howard f. Tigard Planning Director Dear Mr. Howard I am writing to request you to reconsider your decision to approve Dales' glen Subdivision S 4-81. :C an not against progress or development but to construct sixteen residential units on so small a parcel is beyond comprehension. To me this would create an instant "slum". This area was not designed or intended for that type density. Existing residential properties surrounding the intended development consist of larger lots and above average homes that would be devalued considerably. x am strongly age.?ns,t this subdivision as presonted and again request you to reconsider your decision and the effect it will have on the established residents involved. C4;) Norman E. Kolmodin 11450 S. 4. 92nd Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 639-6277 L/7 April, 19, 1981 City of Tigard Planning Commission 1.. Tigard City Hall Mr. Aldie Howard, Planning Director 12420 S. W. Main Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: File # Dales' Glenn S 4-81 Dear Mr. Howard: On April 16, 1981, I received two letters from the City of Tigard. One dated March 25, 1981, the second one April 15, 1981. Each letter contained a Map "of sorts" of the property located along 95th. street between Greenburg and S. W. North Dakota. The first map, dated March 25, indicated on 9 lots. You stated in your letter, in May 1979 the Planning Commission granted a zone change from R-7 Single Family to R-5 Single Family, to my knowledge we were never advised of that zone change or had an opportunity to respond to that matter. Now April 27, 1981, almost two years later we receive this notice that not nine units be construced but sixteen(16) Single Family Units. It is my understanding that the property recently changed hands and the Developer, Falcon Construction Company, is now ready to construct sixteen (16) Single Family Units on this small parcel of land. I most vehemently appeal your decision to approve this dev�4lopment. It would cause el devaluation Of all the adjacent properties and cause our neighborhood to become a noisy, over-crowded, mish-mash of "slum" type dwellings'. Please, reconsider yot;,r decision to permit this development and the effects it will have on the established residents involved May, I have a copy of your decision when it is finalized' Mrs. Wilburn O. Shewmaker 11270 S. W. 92nd. Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 97223 • • , ( ' 64,e, /S i /f .7/ .. , h ......7 7 / L/?J-e'- '•eA / L/?J- 14-31.4.i.. -ril,c2 . , 1 4 c ,,e,e1e,t-i-iii,, 62/pv .' 1-- /51-1 J , ,e, ,, 81 61--/z--, 1 , - -:...51/- r(5')ii („ 2,.,,' ))). a ,/, Y , - '71 .4. ' /Lz, i6 - 66,1,1,,ee d,. ..,. t.,, ,4,--e,x..,e."6. ' ' e- et -....0(4, , ,.„ -,42,e,„tivJea...izz...-41,,, _, , 0 / , il?,,2„,:zi:,,,,,,,... .1 e„,217-, .,;6-7-',,./.-A,/:,:ik.,, .2 , 7 ,1 ,_,. / I 0/72r, ic4.4..t...r„ ,,-";:, de (ii .,..,,6.e.4.,‘,44...c„, ,,u,2,..,, ,..zi,41,2. ,..„..zzsei, i t' -1. d „ .-4' '. ' Z.e.A ee,dd.-)•--e$7--;79 t,,,,-6-0,4 Q.„, 4e .c,2_, . 1.4,7„, /24-.71ezeb,)-4 ,,.. ...e...1.44.-..,... ...- ,..0.,e,..,., „,...- . , ,..- , ,.. ..., ,-- . ., . e . /71-2-de,'i' t.-64,. -,4-2 4. - 4 e- e,V ,.., 2,,,,,,,,,,_, .64,,:.,,,,, ‘9,c7,,, 4f,,,,„,, 4,. It, ,.. E..0,... te et. I . e'-' T i 1 i el , 1.. 7 v--- ',._ e,t-‘'"?...A e P,',4A ,e.z,e-e-, C:). t--61-'4'.'4--'--"t€-42-'' Ze-'4e-Z:le ie• i . .• .- .....e.. /2.-t .i, 4.:,..e.4 z,Z '„se j,.., .i-- - 4-,.t, t., ,-„c -Y...., i.... ., ..- ...,-,'2- ..",.- ,-- ,,e-tt4 ..,-74.4f,e‘, ., ■ : ,' a / , / c' : •1 , e , — '14 SI/71,4''1:-•Le elle.' ,4,-?.df.C..-- ..4....,-', , ) L.. 6..,k 4'441,2;,,.-41 /V,.11; ---1:-...,-:1e. .,...L.,1'.--1,t,_., _ ‘--57- j.---- 9(:) e°'2...-1'412. 7:7 -''''''''''''<''4' -7 -7 -'i )' 4 ' ,1-4'4'et, a...At-et ,`7,ei-el-4- 4.66- /6//' /-4.' ;-7 - .464-e,te.,t,i,„ ' -- 'e-44.7 .-e- ,+/P . ; , 4........... ".-1 '1/4 e. 1 i.,`;e7,-- ,.' di . t,r.." ,i-- 79:e,1:4: , e 4,,4,,,, ,, 1..4„&,,c,':A?'.1: -''''. ,.. "' t, ''''je '-'1--..... ' '''' ,. ",^1 .-.,::,.., . 4. 4 ei. , ---z-c.;-,-,(6,‘•- - j, i • ., . .. it; ., ).-1 g -, 1 ' , ,,,?..ed., ,zeoe..., Aii,et. ,-,,:e /41Le erie/-,2. .,,,,L.tc.'r.1 */.. „,i z..A,„ c:16,cic „.,47,..i.4, ,,,,,, ,4„,.„, , . / .. .,..1...pt...el (1,-'-- 1.42.e.-,L 4)-- 7 "..i?..1,4 (;._-- 41,e,..._,..!, ) 4,.. "'ii.) C. , ) A -7 t - ' i-f j a 1 A, I. , Qt ,..- 7.,,;..4-ele -e-' -et kz-t74. ,A,t 4ree. ,,:ze,,,t,eve-- 7 4;°,,e,)ji e.,c,,, ,,, t,-7L,L_,.. ,?... .: )77‘,27,, ,,, c... . ii:414t-;'"4e, .-.. a,-t Le ,,,,La- hn," is.4)80 (litz, 4,),/.11„...6.-c„.4t,/ ':'t,"fie,!..,Cite.z, , -12Z 2., ,., „ 4 iCi:F.,"AL',. .1,::,U'-''ltZe'triii-et4 4z1/: Lt - ez-t--, „ete4.1..,,,,,Le,e ,,ia,e,L. et,, /1-L41 /?pi-c.,./0-1,- -- 4t,e, I,L,.o' -tilez.c,e/45--i, e" .et,.t'ii.61.;. ,,,,,h„,.,:r 4.4,:„.,; .,,' ...„.„. # , ,ot,,,,, # r,t-,,,,v,..2.,„..,„,,,,2„ , R .„,, ,,itr ,,„ , , , i, j v ■ , • '''' ' 'ek.-1-' ‘-) ' il."-tY/ 44-4-44-,e,t-Z,et. .,--tte, .. if 1, -,,,, , i .,.." , -.6- -t.,-,,, 1.,..it,.. ')..e. , 6' ; ....„, .„,e0,,,er-,,,,.. , --e.:„...., ,t,..4 ,- , 4., ,e,t,„, ,•..< ,.,.„..., ...- e'l . t/i 1.42.-t,'e 1 4'4 1:"Z.-4,2 i i i-e".4 e 1 e 4.i■Ce t,e,1,40/421 , „9-t ,Le „el-ti".141,1 , ,e.(1.,, ,,,61 ,, a...4•14,-ite-4-fe,,ene / „01, (i.. re,44;1...."--,...till; -1, '',6, ..,, 4.-1,9,...44*.e,L,4..,'1' nt ,Pt...t.f.,..rt- 6e-A,; „„e1:1....e..„4, ...:*At..-4,,-24-,,e / '' , , ' CI,,› ■.r ,r- 'f; , 4fr,:x, .1 C' , , -"Le.t. ,_,L„,,,,,,,,,„ .‘.5 y- ,,.N.,i at. reor 61 ' ,,,,e 4',..L.: il A, t' ;0, I , * I -1-..-• ,„ j - .. 1 , . � r . , � �1 r . 4,t,i----, . ' ...Le....., --t-et-eeeaL;'-di-'tA--t* '' ' ,.. 1 5//---8 i 2,4,11.,:._ ,er...-1 -/t1 :We7:4:6'1.14Alj .,die,0 l'' AreLl'i..''''-' "" 4,...."„rezzitzte„-riteLei-„, ---- , . A , ,• . , • ..„ . . ,Q ,....... , . .. .... , jilitz,e6ti , ./. f„,,4,,9cl,,,,,,,,g,,,, . Ali . L.„ ';4;4'g-," 01,6,:trit.,& .(tiel-'22:,--.")1. a/pa, ad,- . ,,,1,1",,,,,,/„A--4_,. . , . , _, , _i_,,...4 . i ' 1 . '71,44' ' M . imeiz; .4. .„17..a- x,...5, .•leel.,,,,,J4:,,,,„p' 44:e3-4,--) , . . , )0.7... .1,:', 12' . -41.--:rotol,1/4.--)3' . • • • + ' J , fi, r� w r r , , M a 1 h `1 i J7 ' „ sue.:_ �....... el. '' --- '^ 11300 SW 92nd Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 ,April 18, 1981 Mr. Aldie Howard Planning Director City of Tigard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Dale's Glenn, S 4-81 Dear Mr. Howard: We received your letter of March 25 on April 14 (with a postmark of April 13), and your April 15, letter on April 16 We did not know that the property in question had been rezoned in 1979 to allow small lots. We did not receive any notice of such action If we had known, we would have opposed such a change in density on environmental and ecological grounds because, in our opinion, it would lower both the quality of life in this neighborhood and our property valu ui Does the "final action date" of April 27 mean that there is a public meeting on that day? Any "action" on that date would seem to be a mere formality. The following quote from your :.April 15 letter says that your decision is already made: "Should you wish to app,;al my decision to approve this development, you have the right to appeal my decision to the Planning Commission " We want to appeal to you to reverse your decisions and, failing that, we most certainly will appeal to the Planning Cominission and to the City Council„ Please let us know the dates that this matter will be brought to the Planning Commission and to the City Councils Sincerely, /a173-14.4 v v Basil Drnytryshyn cc: Mayo r Bishop Planning Commission Je ■ k ,11 B 41 art OF TIGARD WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON April 15, 198]. • File # Dales Glenn'. S 4-81 Final Action. Date: April 27, 1981 Dear Property Owner; it is true that we made an ezror relativc to the Dales' Glenn Subdivision Public Notice that you received. Unfortunately, the department secretary resigned, and we have had difficulty trying to get the system in step with time. In May of 1979 the owner of this parcel of property applied for • a zone change from R-7 • Single Family (7,500 square feet per lot) to R-5 Single Family Residential (5,000 square feet per lot) and I proposed to construct sixteen (16) units. On June 19,1979 the Planning Commission approved Zone Mange 22-79. On August 14, 1979 I approved Subdivision 3-79 for Dales' Glenn for sixteen (16) lots. Since then nothing has happened. Recently, the property changed hands. The new developer made a new application to this department because under the Tigard Municipal Code, if substantial progress towards completion of a project does not take place within one (1) year, a new application must be made. The notice that you received, should have been mailed March 25, 1981, which would have given you ample time to respond. Obviously, an extension is in order. I will not take Final Action on Dales" Glenn until April 27, 1981. At that time I Will prepare a Staff Report which will be available for your review upon request. This report will contain all the conditions for development tO proceed. The developer will then agree to the ctnditions by signing the "acknowledgement" and he then will apply for building permits. . Should you wish to appeal uy decision to approve this development, you have the right to appeal my decision, to the Planning Commission. 12420 S.W. MAIN P,O. E1OX 23397 TIGARbe OREGON 97223 PIA, 631,4111 • File # Dales' Glenn S 4-81 TIGARD PLANNING DEPARTMENT Page 2 • I sincerely apologize for the difficulties. This is not the way we usually do business. If you have any questions, please contact me at 639-4171. Yours truly, Aldie How Plann,�'nDirector Ali/ag • tl YID•' '` Y N,4 Y I: 1 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, Ann Gaylord, being first duly sworn, on oath despose 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 Planning Commission of which the attached is a copy (Marked F xhibit A) upon each ofe the following named persons on the 5 day of p V i , 198 , by mailing to each of them at the address shown.on 'the attached list (Marked Exhibit S) , said notice s hereto attached, deposited in the United States Mail on the � ' "` day of -- Apt-14( , 198 , postage prepaid. Jim A 1 Suhscriec1arid sworn to before me on the day of 40/-/ u, 19i • . ' x' '" W y t L ` pM ' 4 Y J W �� � Notary Public of Oregon My Commission expires; .Y r s. e • fie, • April 15, 1981 File 0 Dales Glenn'. S 4-81 Final Action Date: April 27, 1981 Dear Property Owner: It is true that we made an error relative to the Dales' Glenn Subdivision Public Notice that ou received. Y 1 - Unfortunately, the department secretary resigned, and we have had difficulty trying to get the system in step with time. In May of 1979 the owner of this parcel of property applied for a zone change from R-7 -• Single Family (7,500 square feet per lot) to R-5 Single Family Residential (5,000 square feet per lot) and proposed to construct sixteen (16) units. On June 19,1979 the Planning Commission approved Zone Change 22-79. On August 14, 1979 I approved Subdivision 3-79 for Dales' Glenn for sixteen (16) lots. Since then nothing has happened. Recently, the property changed hands. The new developer made a new application to this department because under the Tigard Municipal Code, if substantial progress towards completion of a project does not take place within one (1) year, a new application must be made. The notice that you received, should have been mailed March 25, 1981, which would have given you ample time to respond. Obviously, an extension is in order. I will not take Final Action on Dales' Glenn until April 27, 1981. At that time, I will prepare a Staff Report which will be available for your review upon, request. This report will contain all the conditions for development to proceed. The developer Will then agree to the conditions by signing the "acknowledgement" and he then will apply fox building permits. Should you wish to appeal my decision to approve this development, you have the right to appeal my decision to thb Planning Commission. • • File # Dales' Glenn S 4-81 TIGARD PLANNING DFPARTMENT Page 2 rk I sincerely apologize for the difficulties. This is not the way we usually do business. • If you have any questions, please contact me at 639-4171. Yours truly, +.N Aldie How Plann`.n Dire ctor AH/ag de at •■ 4 9 i t � ...� 'emu .'u�+Y1y , ..... .1 r •� tiw ' dY1l� + •..' .. I .'S ♦.i qY p Q +r...,w, ♦ u . .. �,.�r .... .+,. ...... .,r..w..n wn_ww.,... .a.a Sr`�r«.,r.,c. r.+ — — . _....:.... _ ..„_r...0.r.. e.M... .vHr.� •n AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, Ann Gaylord, being first duly sworn, on oath despose and say: That I am Secretary for the Planning Department for m the City of Tigard, Oregon That I served notice of hearing of the Tigard Planning Commission of which the attached is a copy (Marked Exhibit A) upon each of the following named persons on the 1 3 day of Jy p y-1 / r 198 ( , by mailing to each of them at the address shown on the attached list (Marked Exhibit B) , said notice as hereto attac ed, deposited in the United States Mail on the +k day of fir` ( , 198 1 postage prepaid. • /r Subscribed and sworn to before me on the day of /2/N-',// _r o .! Notary. Pt�bli c of Oregon . ,! My Commriss`ion eXpires: 1/7,4444—.(7/ ♦.+= PPP ■ •r i rr w�1r 60 • I •F•J11�i. 1, CI1Y.OFTIARD WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON FILF: # DALES GLEN S 4-81 TODAY'S DATE MARCH 25, °1981 ., FINAL ACTION DATE APRIL 15, 1981 j Dear Community Member: On the reverse of this letter is a tax map outlining a subdivision request by Falcon Construction Company to 'create sixteen (16) lots approximately 5,000 square feet each to build single family homes located at the SE corner of SW Dakota Street and 95th Avenue. • Written comments are encouraged. Please submit any correspondence. in advance of the Final Action Date noted above to the Planning Director,, Tigard City Hall, 12420 SW Main, Tigard 97223 r i -re- y, Sinr. ( M -+war. Planning Director AHvnc oot • • ti 1242 ��.yy 12420 MAIN TI A Y 63/. 417 IJ S.W. !VU"itN Pia f�./r �11.7� 1- L , • ■ , N V'''''''/4 1/4 S' ( 4,0\. r*'"- ,.^'.., a,. w E C ' : i WAS H IN GTgj," 55 L SEE , (MAP I S I 35 AC 4 fr� ---__ . � SOUTH LINE E OF GRAHAM O.L.C_NO 52-- lcw�Sfr�l+'YH�1 -•.vy*T ,wp.±. « ,� ' r t.w,.••, ;_ `�R.n...v�r:•�,. .. .� j �, /•t1 �/ // !rl� ,+ ����//, ",�4%9, .. /%f1J'aJ�f ,,'i3AY...5,4: ,,,,K, 5,•f;V, 4,401%".17 t.0"/". .0:,,V 1_ / ,� N,B9°34 NORTH LINE OF JO1gi 4:r c \ 11324 113.24_ 50 . 1 15.00 196.9 50 q l . ' 5507 5505 • 55a 4300 iF:I i'', 1 h t* . ' r } k \ A (—. '�� _ W 8°!°58xW _ _� 1 �.I a....■ i vi • 19 6.9 4 ' N 89°45'30"E , i �` 113 61 sly a.. �. I .i ` j' m . . 550 •1 5505 ,' 5502 2 2 0 111 0 ,,.._,, Lij-b, -.:,,,., r r.:1■1/4 -, 1969 LL1 I ' z.s.'',- 3 `,• , 2 CU ' N 99°55'W 1'�I'(... -i 4400 , '4_ s a�M. o . ° �',r' ° N 89° •5 30 L < N 89 39'30 E ." •�., 11399 !1324 < 11500 I :14 . ,� 5504 • 0 55 03 4 196.9 , 1 1 4500 " 5 _� 6 M — 3--� 4 0 Y '_� _W _ • z, 1 .. N 89°4t'30:'Ya INmTIAL POINT—, " 190 9 SEE: M A Efts J.�1' .,'• ........_ r ....-- , , ,„ 1 %: t 3 5 0 M 011 ,i J•�, 56011 .. _6 in 03 o �. O . �„/� �r�, 1'r, tZ( ..ER t 40 1..) et 0, 5 Z Cr .0 h b c :_.. • •rtt9°9 ., r 5 6 0 2 4 n :� +° C`9 M dl. 1 15 0C' 46(0 �. i Y� m G 00 0 . ' t. _.., 14« `E • P.13.0 ■ m -v,,,,, A ,,. ,. 14 yt 114 7�1 • 1 14 1 ~ �` ,n"'' d �7 �,4r.4' ,`' '.. . ,, 1 � Y 5700 5 8 00 2 c �., ,, , w 8 7 0• 1'15 00 ".- ��./to 0 . E x 5200 : 7 1 1 4 't 0 1 1.4 .:1 e• 1 1 � Y. 1969 r• " 6000 I — w -r• r,, .��ywN 8 9°5U"W �_� t 4t •e., �-�` S�Cx l 1' .o 4800 cI _1 ', z 6 r:I ..1) —j . . -. ,'i,� I 7 ' SC C 490? �' , �' CY ., ".... 41561..«Ib 1.:;" '' otu 1, . .4..� 1�y fi l V a,„. JIB t „�_ ik Ty, �1�14!�. "� b .F'.'i}y, c) �' 0 4900 ' V 4, 4✓ Yµ 1M y�Ikk /,� :t. Y . ti CITY' OF TI'uARD P�,ANNING DEPARTME,""'"' FILE # 1'''" 1 1\ ._.__ • • It W..i/IDIVi610N AgP,I.pic.ATION ' — iX .4 12420 SW MAIN STREET k'EE REC'1;, ,, r c:::',3 ,,.r.' - T,Y RECEIPT r .0- 1IGARD,' OREGON 3;7223 �; ,.a 6 9-417 . . O 2" DATE RECD _e REC 'D BY r,y .y- 9. , . w ,F PLEASE PRINT IN INK OR TYPE ' : L T 1.1AME DALES GLENN SUBDIVISION ADDRESS Tigard, Oregon__ w 5507, 55a,p, 558,- ' TAX MAP j5 I,,.q 5TH , TAX LOT ..4 �r ,AL.. B5 5. °` APPLICANT'S NAPE Fa1 con Construct ion Company ADDRESS 8955 SW Commercial , Tigard, Oregon PRONE (Bus . ) 684-0060 (Res . ). 639-5160 ' PROPERTY OWNERS NAME Fa l con Construction ADDRESS 8955 SW Commercial , Tigard, Oregon, ,, . PHONE (Bus. ) 684-0060 (Res . ) 639-5160 PROPERTY GINNER RECOGNITION Of APPLICANT .,4, ° S r • -, ,, .ail -. rr signature of owner(s , ENGINEER,/PLANNER/OR. SURVEYOR NAME Johnnie �1. Summers P.L.S. , Inc' ,►�. ADDRESS 323 S.E. 3rd, Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 PHONE (Bus . ) 97123 LAND PROGRAM NUMBER OF LOTS 16 MBER Q ' PARKING SPACES APPROXIMATE AREA OF EACH LOT 5,000 square feet POSSIBLE BUILDING LOTS IN SQUARE FOOTAGE 16 _ ,} DATE' OF DEVELOPMENT COMPLETION July, 19 81 ZONING DESIGNATION GNATI ON R-5 ` 1V 0 PLAN NO. _ {f LIST UTILITY DISTRICT PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN _ _ 7 "' F IRE DISTRICT Tualatin SCHOOL DISTRICT 23-J City of Tigard SEWER DISTRICT unified Sewer District 1, ATER, DITRICT R . APPLICATION WILL NOT BE .ACCEPTED UNLESS FULLY COMPLETED O2EP581 t c • . r' .e G l� 4 v. „. c^ . - Type of units beir Proposed: t, „R. • Single Family . Number of Units Duplex Number of Units -0- ' ' Multiplex Number of Units -0- _ 4 . r„ -0- Multifamily Number of Units . - . 4 • . / - How many bedrooms in each u►. „t: Single Family 1 ,2 and 3 Duplex -0- Multiplex -0- . . Multiple Family -0 }.,, • - How many acres are intvolved in this proposal approx. 2 ` - When is construction likely to begin.; year 1981 month rApr i 1 -- Is the development to be completed in phases? No . If so, how many and over what time period P . •- 1982 is the last unit scheduled to be completed: year 19$2 month A r+ i , II. SUBMIT THE COMPLETED FORM TO THE BUSINESS OFFICE OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN "y' WHICH THE SITE BEING PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED III. THE 'FOLLOWING IS TO BE COMPLETED' BY APPROPRIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICIAL y ` . SCHOOL NAME EXISTING ENR. EST_ CAPACITY Elementary Mary Woodard Intermediate Fowler Jr, High - High Tigard High _ • Additional Comments!: a Falcon Construction Company 84-0O6O • Information provided by: 'fi ..;,.: ,E'wP Na. Date: March 25, 1981 RETURN' TO DEVELOPER FOR SUB T:,�`_ � ' "" SUBMISSION WITH APPLICATION Name & address on page 1) . . i. r `'. CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DEPA1 ENT SCHOOL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP:LENTS OF 4 UNITS OR MORE Since one aspect of development impact .relates to schools, the fol?,owinc; information must be completed, and this sheet submitted to the Planning Department 'cgi:h the effected application. Please call 639-4171 if there are any questions. • 1. THE FOLLOWING IS TO BE COMPLETED BY THE DEVELOPER - Name of person or firm developing the property Falcon Construction Company Person to contact Bert G i rod/.ion G i rod r-0060 a Phone number 684 .tailing address 8955 SW Commercial , Tigard, Oregon 97223 . Legal description of property being proposed for development (map number and tax lot.(s) number ,15.1._.s � 50 ,. %. ` -- - In order t.ry •expedite responses from the school district involved, please inidcate a t,:eneral vicinity description of the property being proposed for • development. Single family development. -- Does the proposed development require a: (please check appropriate box) • Plan Amendment no Zone Change no Subdivision yes ,,0 Variance no Conditional Use Prermi.t no r of dwelling units being proposed Total number �.lzn trait proposed 16 /✓ a "a �...,ry� ,�;`j • _ ..�,� ~.P•' M,' �e , w 6y , It 1 ( ° , ,. (............• ki, ................. ......................1. • )41 ii, . CIWOFTIQARD WASHING1ON COUNTY,OREGON FILE 4 DALES GLEN S 4--81 , • TODAY.°S DATE MARCH 25, 1981 , IWAL ACTION DATE APRIL 15, 1981 • 4 . Dear Community Memb�ere , On the reverse of this letter is a tax map outlining a subdivision request by Falcon Construction Company to create sixteen (16) ' lots approximately 5,000 square feet each to build single family . homes located at the SE corner of SW Dakota Street and 95th Avenue. Written comments, are encouraged. Please submit any correspondence • in advance of the Fi [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] Si AGREEMENT AND RECEIPT FOR EARNEST; INEY { "1 1 Portland Beard of Realtors • r :1 i ' Copyright 1974,1977 Rev, 3/78 REALTOR' 1;. • .A. The undersigned purchaser offer to ur hose the following descrl ad r al property Attu red In Th Illy of,,...•4,:.i, -;, .t:..,„«,Y C'ourt' of/yI(�L�/ .,. ,1 . »i/ y u t ..- 5.»: -•7"..5... .�»� �l /,,. , 0 ,"../- -n---r- oSt of Oregon t win ..i., .. y � .... .Y.�'....". l.;,;1.....�._.....«.-.....«.»2 St b'1�ltl!� . .. .,.a.gi�J,p (legal 044480 {� and commonly known ass .. »•-••••" """""""'s--i +�r�' (street edam+s)'� 6 • E for the purchase price or t a`an the following farms,I6•wltr Earnest money herein receipted for of h-+G.h� a � 7 ,at i.ditlonal earnest money,the cum of 'S —14S, e At or before closing,the balance i.:down eoymenf . 3 •' day /1} 9 Upon acceptance of title and active,of. DEED t '$ r`�06C0• '" i CONTRACT hey�s e• sit f /. . g, Mines 7,8,9,10 must aqua line 647 ,.. M 1.14.. � �►/�44: f Ce 3; A•/} . ,�y, o o payable its tdllowst .,,«..... ,.,„.,,..1X (a m'° .f/.e!«.,lrhfkTK .,. !, ��iy�4�rlifym»r »...«»,.,« ... addition to the purchase prise,Purchaser to pay required assumption foe and reimburse coffer'for ems held'in,resetve accounts on any Indebtedness assumed In this transoNlon.15 c ' I IF NEW LOAN IS REQUIRED TRANSACTION SUBJECT TO PURCHASER AND PROPERTY QUALIFYING FOR THE LOAN.Purchaser agrees to make written application therefor not Inter than'16 . /� u�' p necessary Pap d iced t through FHA or Federal A, It a eeess to p yAse pre�r complete r qufrers bydl odes,Ilk.hest exceed efforts to'•Ir ray..... ` /If� c n I �„e! 18 • '►xG_ ice, I P .Trr gtt:4r?« ey� All. Q/��� �(,{/(,�J �nxw� SPECIAL CONDITION 1.... A 4-#.� .0.. ... +� •.+ -w .!'_s«19 s p. - cv pr l6' .,°7, r,.4.....i ,•�g...ra:J r.�. `ter t. .Rp,E' �: ... •.r ..l2 •.�°! � .:r� & �on . , g e (Unless otherwise heroin provided,the property is to be conveyed by+totutury warranty deed free and clear of.all Ilons and bounces exce�ptt soFi6ru oorroinonces,building and 23 - , cap use res1tiction*,reservations In Federal patents,utility easements of record which'bona7lt the,property.er,area in which the property Is Iocateel and/r f.d.C.S�.�..n //C xer-1.424• h + !'K S Seller shall twnbh to purchaser n lUla Inavranre policy(n the amount of the purchnsn price from d.title thsurance company showing good and marketable title,Prior to dosing 28 i , 'a a the transaction seller,upon request,will furnish to purchaser a preliminary tttln report made by a title Insurance company showing-the,condition of the title'to the property. 29 ' If seller dons not approve the sale,or cannot furnish marketable title With i in thirty days utter nettle containing a car tten statement of defects is delivered to seller,or,having ap.30 1 f:••..„proved the sole,falls to consummate it,the earnest money heroin tacetoted fo'shall I be refunded,but the acceptance by purchaser of the refund'does not constitute a waiver of other 31 � remedies available to him,but,If seller approves the tale and title is marketable and purchaser fade tp complete the purchoie as herein provided.the ec;rnest money herein recelpled for 32 -V2 and any adddionni comets money ppaid of agreed to bo paid shall be forfeited sit sailer a IPqufdalad damages and this contract thereupon shall be of no further binding effect,it 33 (� I being the Intention of the parties lltar �aser may forfeit the edrnaat motley ant.'be ilea oi•any further obligattone under thit••agteimenr, 34 (. j w All bultt.in appltahces, waii.tn.wall ctirpeling,drapery and curtain rods,window and.loot screens, storm doors and windows, Irrigation, plumbing, ventilating, cooling and 35 . heating fixtures and equip ens!Including stoker and oil tank*but excluding detached fireplace equipment),water heaters,attached electric light Oho bothroom fixtures,light-ulbs,36 „ 1 planted;braes,pioflt t and tree*and all'fixtures ate to be'aft upon the premltes sit 37 fluorescent r het propart/nourchoaed blinds,xcep nintl►.attach a ch lino....... attached IeUv plan antennae,al .......M.`....:.•,„.,.»....•»„....................."•.._....,......,•... „. .....,,,.--•».,..,.««...,.,38 i °-a The following personal property In its present condition,unless r;^drwiee stated herein,Is included In than purchase pdcea,..P.V ................................. ....•.......,-.,.».,..,-..,,..39 ''• • The following ftxtu.,are not owned by seller and are not being•olds /I4. .........••....._p• •'•'•"""'""""'a m....,.l" '”........ ”"" ''•'«•41 ' - Seller represents.That the above dwellttg to connected to. ❑A public sewers stem,Q A'cesspool Cr to tic tmtlu that he knows of n r tcturrl eects. that all 42 s, a electrical wiring, heating,coolin,•I and plumbing systems will be In good working ardor and that the balance of the property including yard+Wilt be in sub...m.11y its present 43 1, E 2 condition,at the elms purchaser Is entitled to possession It.*t he hot no notice of any Hens to bq asapUed against the proportyt that he hos•no notice from any governttre•Mol agency 44 S; E of any violation of tow feinting lu the ptaperiy't except... .................. . ........«..••. .,..,..,.i....,,».«s»««.»..«,.,,.»., ..».„•....».,...,•..«•_.•.»„«,«,.,,.•.« ..........«. . 45 t( THE SALE ILL BE CLOSET IN ESCROW,Cosh of eSCrow'shall be borne by toilet if purchaser Is finnan tht ugh Federal V.A.,” w J.a W � gig olheiwNn•alich cows shall bi shared equally dT 0 Transfer tax if any,shall be.shared equally by purchaser and xelter. �' � ` �� 49 between taller and purdsasel. It a contract solo,legal feat for contract preparation shall be paid by rf�P,. ' - P8 Prorates lot tants, iasad Interest on assumed obligation, Insurance premiums tit purchasartaseurnes Yxistfng policy)and ether prepaid expenses attributable to the property+hall 50 g E be mode as of(check one on'yi❑Dale purchaser it entitled to possession.A. .r ••.days A.1ter delivery of oboe mentioned deed,at contract.❑On . . .,19 .,.51 ¢¢ t3 Seller to any all utility bill. accrued to dale purdre.wr is erttitted to pauession and pu4dtmsyr tr.pay sal er far heating fuel then an premises,paymenf'fa be'handied between put.52 chaser and seller, ry� 53 TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE.OF THIS AGREEMENT.Transaction to he•elosed on at Relate••.,.„,.,.,.,..„`., ,..•a.Swt:t,,...,,.......,A/.at an soon thereafter as financing dorumentt 55 e can be proposed and marketable lisle delivered,. .N Paisesslan shat)be deltvetnd in purchaser)check one antylr ❑•,•.....••.....'s"..„...,.dpys afros recording'of abovo•mettlonnd deed or Contract and disbursement of fund;to seller $8 � Aim °, cn •. 19 r a•as soon thereaffer.at exlsting laws and tegyfOti eta wit)paresis removal of tenantE,If any,Possession shall be deernec(delivered 57 310 hee seller has vacated the property and dnllvareri leaps therefor to purchaser or the underslgnad Rs.*rids • Sd a Seller to keep the property Insult's(Check one oniy)•❑Until.po eUlon Is lave•.•to p chaser or recording orabove•menti.ned• ed or contract,,,whlcheverfirst otrurs.or❑bat's 59' 5 CJ. :i.1,a 4 r j p. re ., putchasar is entitled to possession, Inturonce will be teemed at .�. N THE PROVISIONS PRINTED ON THE REVERSE SIDE HEREOF'WHICH ME:CHECKED BELOW ARE I CLUDED;IN.THIS AGREEMENT, ,, is ®ADDITIONAL LAND SALES CONTRACT PROVISIONS ' 'T. -fill FRDERAL VA APPRAU1IED:VALUE CRAUSB CI CLOSING—POSSESSION RENTAL CLAfefSBr.' 62” , . u AS IS CLAU5E/IN5PECTION REPORT FHA APPRAISED VALUE CLAUSE if 63 > ❑CONDITION Of WELL CLAUSE CITY INSPECTION AUTHORIZATION Rant to be# . _„•. «......Oar day. 64 *l S This agreement is binding upon the heirs,passant tepretenfafNea,tuccastora and oOtgnt at pstrchdter and.taller, if after closing purchaser will owe a"portion of the purchase 65 . , price to seller,purchaser's rights harem ate eat oaslgnabio without written conceits of setter, e„ 66 Seller and purchaser Instruct the undersigned Reaper to handle the a bone detctlbed earnest Money•a+follows, ❑Retoih in'�ipiat'!t�ryryissi��d,fe,nt's ttust account only if not a coop 67 ' ' t et-*.' transaction); 0 Upon seller's oceeptance of offer,frantfar to the listing broken Deposit and traniferrtie/P ` .C'./..aCa. Jf.. ..os eactaw(SEE fSCROW,DEPPEIT 6E . • , *cS CLAUSE ON REVERSE WHICH 15 INCLUDED HERE AS PAR'OF THIS AGREEMENT) .. LISTING BROKER AGREEMENT Itelttall...«,«.•, .69 REALTOR SHALL HAVE NO FURTHER LIABILITY WITH RESPECT TO THE EARNEST MONEY'Wort TRANSPRR,TO LISTING BROKER,OE DEPOSIT WITH'THE ESCROW DESIGNATED ABOVE.714 The undersigned',Real'aa acknowledges receipt of earnest money(Which Rbaltot agrees to handle as,ptovlded above)from purchaser In the sum of 5....,,...•...».,.....,„.evidenced by t1 c ❑Cash.i0,check r❑promiUoay noel payable alt dr before 72 a E, ldatn Office Address . _ , .. • .. . - . ., , ..., .. ,.., . -. .75 , i PURCHASER IPrint) 4' l* 6—•1 (147'?.«FC, Y w;4{ ”... •« HlikEBY'ACKNOWLEDGESS,RECEIPT OP A COMPLETELY f6 BY SELLER OR ANY REAL ESTATE'AGENT WHICH AbE NOT HEREIN EXP SSED.DEED OR CONTRACT TO/E PREPARED IN THE NAME OF.,(4`"'. ,,41.1". ATEMENTS MADE 77 FILLED IN COPY HE EOF WHIG PURCHASER HAS FULL READ AND UNDERSTANDS«AND ACKNGWLEDOEEJSp THAT Hi:HAS NOT RRt"EIVED O RELIED L. N AN ST • Tliit oflvr She r! of tucte lad.•itti 0ihot• ,. 9 e t,� - v Il quioma11ta11Y expire.,-., du� flit timl n(putchbEet t slg�luwr IF e p Wlthl Ehnt lime.79 ••• g Addteit 9,i7.a,,.. .41..!�!�"1,.,ei !,0 1 4_* .�»�t t ;•,1..,.., j-+.s,r ,.,'Defy ' '.. «,,,.{..,,- .,,,) t ,,..».,.A,M.,. .s 6 P,M,BO f rc'o. 1 Q f:A'iS.� ,.<, w-,,-,....„......,..21)1 r H L..l�..� s.:?w.. jhr« p t., Rr .•., ...,•„.:...,.,..,. , PVrrhdEer EI ��r*''1.5 U.� t�2c.060. ...Mn,.. ;f! r c • ' ....... .......purchatat 65 Phcne- kas3�?r r Rut,Mr „ «. r ,e ��.r.il�(�► Seller hereby,toledt the fotegamg offer and 0 Makes the attached chanter offer. ,,-,-,, E3 Stiller hoteby'accepts the foregoing alter of purchaser on the tetmi and cdtulitlant,Specified'gbove,SELLER Ai1EEBS to PAY NOT MORE'THAN s,.... .,., ,...,,POE REPAIRS Its B4 REQUIRED FOE PIf4ANCING,Seiler ugtets to pot'abave•hateed Reoltot,6r,If thin'Is d co•bp trdnsudton,the lifting stoker the bmw of w.. .rdt'aitvtcei rendered in E5 ' this.Irontaclran Seller authdttees Realtor at fitting banker To order title ihturoecs at Srlier's Poerree and further aultroti►^t thorn and esctow In pay out of the cash ptocseds of...the 86 esdenRet at lutpithtna title insurance.Sitters setatdthg*n*s,Scuff's eloelnH casts and arty enturrtbranSeS nn the'pidprtty��poyrrbiO by Setter an ar Relate Clenu.SELLER HEREBY 87 ' fi'”ACKNOWLEDGES ItECCIPT OP A COMPLETELY FILLEO'IN f'JI,'y OP'THIS AGtECMENY WHICH SELLER'HAS FULLY READ AWL,UNDERSTANDS.In the event purchaser fdrl*to to piele the 56 R'�Said as harem provided,forfeited earned money.shall be dlstrtbuted,as fo taws alter dedaptidnr Of gisy„tills tnttitancb airs escrow,tahtellallon chalgnn G To Redttar,ot it this 1s a 39 ,c La•Up tmesoctrort,So the Irat?eg,bicker.to the extent of the egtied epmatiitlon Mist 0t 11 lh*IranirCHOi,had been contummdtrd,with tesidae to iellert❑,:"""”".. , ...,. .'.. ,.,,90 . ,�.� . 91 Address ';7 .rJj GGY. •Dali Jeki + f.* .,,.. A q 4/� -...e. r, .,�.». �.xIPr+G°r .w . tea .. „.. s railer 4S pitons. Ra►. r —.--- Dale «,»*..«14.V...., ..,.•«,.«....•..•»».Ii,,M, 6•y..., P M. Itos• Ii I. n''.`aWibdge sr'4ip a Edgy Cl obaver a1teerirent beettltti 95 { • dlceptone*'of!hie of e*by StEgr." ,/• �+7' _ / $5 utc}104e,» ,.. PU'tthatst 95 edop ttaatdcitots between vt ttnmed,Realtor and.,...,..„.......,,«.. , ....„.,:,., ,.........,....«.,....., .,.,..,...........,.,......................ae bat.,, 5. / 5,.90 ' THIS it A LEGALLY'sINbiNG tbNtRACt.It Not UUNbERIIYOGD.'SENt COMPETENT ADVIt1. tlttIrtH RlaHnr• SeIIitip«prdllat 99 fireless s.Inftidit«_.�........... ..„ 100 f •{� (`I ,f. l, CI'T'Y OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO 79-64 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO AN APPLICATION BY LUt4PKIN-O'NEEL PROPLRTIFS FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE 1970 ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, CHANGING THE ZONE DISTRICT FOR A TRACT OF LAND AT 11340 SW 94TH AND DEPICTED ON WASHINGTON COUNTY TAX MAP 1S1 35DB, TAX LOT 5501 , 5502, 5503, 5505, 5506, 5507, 5508, FROM CITY OF TIGARD "R-7'° TO CITY OF TIGARD "R-5" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND ADOPTING EXHIBITS "A", "B", & "C" GRANTING THE APPLICATION AND FIXING AN EFFECTIVE PATE. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS SECTION 1: Finding that the land., hereinafter described have been heretofore and are now classified as City of Tigard "R-7" and further findings 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 Corr.rr fission on June 19, 1979, and all interested persons were there and then afforded an op- portunity to be heard, and thereafter the Planning Commission filed• its report anfl recommended approval with the City Recorder, a copy therefore hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, the Council adopts the folloqing substantive findings: A. That the applicant is in conformance with the NPO #2 Plan. B. That the proposed zoning is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. SECTION 2: THEREFORE, pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 18.88 of Tigard Municipal Code, the applicant's request for an amendment of the Tigard Zoning Map of 1970 to zone those lands described in the attached Exhibit "A" for Single Family Residential (R-r5) use is hereby approved subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.20 (Single Family Residential Zones) of the Tigard Munici4al Code as embodied in or exhibited by the documents submitted and identified as follows: Exhibit "A": - Legal Description Exhibit "B" : - Staff. Report Exhibit "C": - Site Plan t, o. further st..bject to the following condition: 1. That the applicant dedicate five feet of right-of-way along S.W. North Dakota with half street. improvements to collector street standards prior to final plat approValy 2. That the applicant develop half Street i.mprolr�►'rents ►'long SW 95th to local str:!Lt standards Prinz t'n, final plat approval. pp p SW a south t-i�M, the end of .s kr' i'r ,applicant improve � rtrt from 5 North Ualt,c�t. 3. Chnl. r a h1 p ' p� ry to full local s,tr,�t starc;�ard:� and provide legal l'd ac on ihtl end of such improve mt rit. At thn property 11 Ltv, prior to final plat a.� appro. 4t'i 4. No cbaages will be made. f. ar�proved pinri' or speti,fi.catibtis unless formal "' o ORDINANCE NO, /9-64 AC 22-79 if • " t c4, application is made to the appropriate department and changes are approved by that department. Application for changes will be made in writing and shall include applicable drawings, engineering specifications and other details requested by the department. No construction shall take place in these instances until after the changes have been approved. Any deviation from this condition, will result in the immediate posting of a stop work' order on the project or any portion of the project. SECTTON 3: This ordinance shall be effective on and after the 31st day after — its passage by the Council and approval of the Mayor. . PASSED: By ,,...,Linazdnions vote of all Council members present this day of A111,1St , 1979, after being read two times by number and title only. ---70/ Recorder — City of ir- rd APPROVED: By the Mayor this la day of , 1979. 1)'-';;7'. • :27 Mayor — City of Tigard • PACE 2 ORDINANCE No 79— 407,171 17,C 22-79 Attachment p 104,■ ,734 4? Approved by unanr lus vote of Council present. ' (. RECESS - 8:54 RECONVENE - 904 15. ZONE CHANGE ZC 22-79 Lumpkin - O'Neel Properties NPO #2 A request by Dale Lumpkin for a zone map amendment from City of Tigard R-7 "Single Family Residential" to R-5 "Single Family Resideatial" on a 4.25 acre parcel located at 11340 SW 94th and SW North Dakota Street (Wauh. Co. Tax Map 1S1 35DB, Tax Lots 5503, 5502, 5501, 5506, 5507, 5508 and 5505). (a) Planning Director noted where request was located and synopsized ' • histor'y of request. , - (b) The following people spoke requesting that 94th Avenue not be a through street as noted in Planning Commission action. It was also noted that • 94th Avenue was a hazardous intersection at Greenburg and additional • traffic would create hardship to residents. Roger Anderson, 11350 SW 94th Avenue Mrs , Miller, SW 94th Avenue Jerry Dahl, SW 94th Avenue John Thomas, SW 95th Avenue (c) Mr. Dale Lumpkin, developer of the land, stated he would be willing to delete the connection of 94th and the full street improvement if Council wished. (d) Planning Director stated he would uphold the Planning Commission recommendation - to have 94th Avenue connect and require a full street improvement the full length of the street. (e) ORDINANCE No. 79-64 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO AN AP- PLICATION BY LUMPKIN-O'NEEL PROPERTIES FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE 1970 ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, CHANGING THE ZONE DISTRICT FOR A TRACT OF LAND AT 11340 SW 94TH AND DEPICTED ON WASHINGTON COUNTY TAX MAP 181 35DB, TAX LOT 5503, FROM CITY OF TIGARD "R-7" TO CITY OF TIGARD "R-5" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTI. AND ADOPTING EXHIBITS "A", "8", "C" GRANTING THE APPLICATION AND FIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (f) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler to approve. (g) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler to modify con- dition #3 to read that the applicant improve SW 94th from SW North Dakota south to end of his property, to full local stteet standards, and provide a legal cul-de-sac on the end of such improvement at the property lie, prior to final plat approval. Councilman Cook clarified the motion to mean the cul-de-sac to be to the end of the tumpkinWNeel property. Amendment was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (h) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler to amend . ordinance title to include the following tax lots numbers - 5502, 5501, 5506, 5507, 5508, and 5505. Amendment to title was approved by unanimous vote, Of Council present, Motion to approve ordinance N . 79-64 as amended and modifiedlwas approved by unanimous vote of Council present. pApe 4 - COUNCIL MINUTtS - AUGUST 13, 1979 , , , 4: (:. ' EXHI.IBIT "A" • Thomas Terrace Lots 1, 2, 3, & 4 Block 1 A tract of land in the Northwest quarter Southeast quarter Section 35, '=-► Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, in the County of Washington and State of Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at a point 25 feet South - .nd 5 feet East of the Northwest corner of Percy C. Thomas DLC point per deed. book 151 Page 2931, to the initial starting t+� point a 2" iron pipe set 6" below the surface of the ground. At that, said initial point East 226°48' continue South '265.79' continue West 227.23° then North 265.03' to the initial starting point. Thomas Terrace Lots 1, 2, & Portion 3 Block 2 A tract of land in the Northwest quarter Southeast quarter Section 35 Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, in the County of Washington and State of Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at a point. 25 feet south and 5 feet East of the Northwest corner of Percy C, Thomas DLC point pet deed Book 151, Page 293, to the initial starting point pipe set 6" + the ground. k `, said initial point a 2tt iron p'p � t 6� below the surface of the round At that °d . East 2.76.45 to the point of beginning continue East 115 continue South 301.34 continue West 115° then North 301.1.7' to the point of beginning. d � ORDINANCE No. 79 + ..... 1., I . H. _ STAFF. REPORT AGENDA 5.3 • ' TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION ,�, t. 8.... L. June 19, 1979 - 7:30 P.M. i '�.� Fowler Junior High School -- Lecture Room 10865 S.W. Walnut, Street - Tigard, Oregon . • Docket: Zone Chao s ZC 22-79 (Dale's Glen subdivision S 3-79) • • s Applicant: Lumakzn '- o'N-el Properties Owner: Mr & Mrs Vickery ° • :: • 10175 S.W. Barbur Blvd Suit 211-B 11340 S.W. 914th : ' . Portland, Oregon 9 722 3 Tigard, Oregon 97223 ♦ • • '• Application Date: May 25, 1979 . • ■ Site Location: 11340 S.W. 94th and S.W. North Dakota Street (Wash. Co. • . Tax Map :sl 35DB, Tax Lots 5503, 5502, 5501,5506,5507, 5505 and 5505) • . . Request: For a zone map amendment from City of Tigard R-7 "Single Family ' Residential" to R-5 "Single Family Residential" on a 4.25 acre parcel. Previous Actions The applicant, has a subdivision plat application: in the City ..h pencti.ng zone change approval. The plat will create 16(5,000) sq• ft. lots. I. Findings of Fart: r . ''"' 1° The site is designated "Single Family Residential" permitting six dwell-- ing units per gross acre on the NPO #2 Plan as amended•hy'the Tigard . City Council on May 21, 1979. 1 2. Applicable policies from the NPO r2 Pier), area: "Supplementary�` " �.P y facalites 1 and services" - Policies 2 and 3, page 13. 3. The applicant proposes to construct 16 single family units having a minimum of 5,000 sq. ft. on the subject site. 4. The site is vacant with a sloping: elevatipn from the southwest to the ;. northeast at a 10a grade. The surrounding" land uses are single faun, ,y • homes. North served by th on the w 5. Traffic to and, from the site w�.l]. be S.W.S.F1r. west, S.W. n Dakota on the north and S.W. 94th through the middle of the site. S.W. 94th and S.W. North Dakota are city streets. S.W. 94th has no a ± i y 1 ht-of-wa but . has dedicated through the site to with 50 feet of r g y h S.t . North Dakota is classified as. a collector ' f stye j 250 east et. It presently has 16 feet of paving from the cotner`of S 1�tM 95th; with curb and sie�a�talk on. the north side. � From this paint it m becomes a narrow gra ve 1 road with only 50 feet o f dedicated tight-of- way. S.W. 95th is a county road. with 45 feet of right--of-Way and 16 '1. s I • 1 _ T .. ( ( , TSCA•1:C) PLA.NCett�G CO.V.'1Xz,SXC)∎i .v,, • Jt:nr: 19, 1979 -- 7:31:1 P.M. . . • Pag`= 2 • . zC 22-79 ° . feet: of paving. It is designated as a local Street in the NPO D2 Plan . 6. 5e r connection is a vailable on S.W. 94th which is at the south edge ° , of the subject site. There is adequate capacity and grade gravity'to . utilize the line. Slater service is also available to the site. . II. Conclusionary Findings: . 3.. The zone change request is in keeping with the Itousing Imp1er, nte.ion ` , Plan adopted by the City Council which identified the subject site , as zoned for 5,000 sgua.*.e foot lots.. • , 2. Sewer and water are available to the site with ample capacity.. 3. The development of this site Will improve the street cor.ditio:as of . S.W. North Dakota, 94th and 95th. Therefore,, safe and efficient - traffic flow wi l 1. be provided.. 1 • 1 III. Staff Recomr:endations: . . Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: ' •• • . 1. That the applicant dedicate five feet of right-of-way along S., i. . North Da.l ota. frith half street improvements to collector street ' , ` • ' standards prior to final plat approval. . . 2. That the applicant develop half street improvements along S.W.. 95th .to local street standards prior to final plat approval. . 3. That the applicant improve S.W. 94th from S.w. North Dakota south to connect with the existing portion with full local street standard5 ,a prior to final plat approval. . • . 4. No changes will be made to approved plans "or specificat.ores tmless , formal application is made to the appro r ate departrienl� and. chances . axe approved by that department. Application for changes +will be •. de applicable �` gs, eng Peering made in writing. and shall include aca plc r1xa•ritn specifications and other details requested by the depa,:tment. to • • construction shall tale place in these instances Until after the -_ chances have been approved. Any deviation frott this condition 'will . P result in the ir�.�iecli.ak:e, posting of a stop kt•rork. order on the pr'ojacE .• . or any portion of` the project Y f f � V2Q�cd � .: l t � �- ,+ tr Cd GpJr prepared � . Xe1 S 1t j d esso `IatM City Plattne r • r ing Dire cttr' • • f r1•it'3 a , `� l;' .99',"'' CI'T'Y OF TIGARD, OREGON ?* ORDINANCE NO. 79-___41_ AN ORDINANCE CREATING A HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE TIGI RD DETAILED PLAN AREA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICIES ESTABLISHED UNDER ORDINANCE 17--22 WHICH ADOPTED THE TIGARD HOUSING PLAN WHEREAS, the City finds that certain policies must be adopted to implement- policies established in the Housing Plan and; WHEREAS, the City finds that said policies indicated in this ordinance have been reviewed and approved by each of seven Neighborhood Plan Area Organiza^ tions (NPO's) within the Tigard Urban Planning Area, and; WHEREAS, the Tigard Planning Commission approved said policies and imple- mentation procedures at a regular meeting May 1, 1979, following a public hearing NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Housing Plan Reference Policy 412. Revise lot size requirements to allow smaller lot sizes in designated areas. HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: Smaller lot sizes. The Comprehensive Plan ( seven (7) NPO Plans) . It ' is/are, hereby amended to designate thirteen (13) specific areas as Urban Moderate Low Density (6 units per area) . These areas are as follows: NPO 41 -- Between Cresiner Drive and Ash Avenue and Between Edgewood & O'Mara Street �NPO #2 (area a) - South of S.W. Dakota, East of 95th .(area b) - South of Greenburg Road, Between 95th & 91st NPO #3 - West of 121st NPO #4 (area a) - North of Pfaffle and East of Hall (area b) - South of Atlanta Street and North of Franklin , NPO #5 - East, of Hall and North of Durham Road NPO #6 (area a) west of Hall Between McDonald and Durham (al.*ea b) -- South of Durham Between Pacific Highway and Hail Blvd NPO #7 (area a) South of Scholls Ferry Road and East of 135Th (area b) •- South of Scholls Ferry Road and West of 121st Section 2 Housing Plan Reference Poloy #15. Provide greater diversity of a . housing dens t.ty (eg. , duplexes, 4:Alex, attached single-family units, etc. �j ' ` HOrJS"i TC IMPTEMFIgT TIO' PLAN,: High Density Apartments.. (40 units net acre on 50 units gross acre) tl I • NA. e are crd as an outright permitted use'-in NPO 44 in the area of ,*6 • Atlanta, Franklin, 68th and 72nd Avenue which contains approximately 53 acres. • Section 3: Housing Plan Reference Policy 48, Low and moderate income housing units shall be located according to appropriate standards (eg. , not concentrations of undue size, to minimize impacts on existing neigh- . borhoods, etc.) HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: Assisted housing shall meet the following criteria, if possible, , prior to siting within this community: A. The proposed housing density is permitted outright or is a ' a conditional use according to the existing zone designation on the site. B. A full-service grocery either exists or is proposed within the maximum radius of the site. C. For projects intended to house families, rather than the • elderly, there should be no other assisted, housing for families within 11 mile of the site. D. There is existing bus service within 14 mile of the site. Section 4: Housing Plan Reference Policy 414. Accomodate for the provision of subsidized housing assistance to meet Tigard's fair share of local/ ' regional housing needs. HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: Relative to our fair share of low income housing, the City agrees to participate in a Regional Housing Opportunity Plan, through Metropolitan Service District (MSD) . Section 5. Housing Plan Reference Policies 411 and 413. 411. Review an&revise the subdivision and zoning codes to ascertain the presence of any unduly restrictive provisions Which could significantly increase costs while providing negligible benefits. 413. ACcelerate the review process for approval of development pro- posals where the quality of the review is not adversely affected. HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: * • Unnecessary standards on restrictions The City should make every4„.. effort to reduce delays in the developmental processes which could • Page ORD/NANCL' No. 79-A±4_, ■ • • cause increases in ultimate costs to the consumer. 9 w This ordinance shall take effect on the 31st day following its passage ' and signing. PASSED: By unanimous vote of all Council members s.)resent, after being read • two times by number and title only, this _..„2/ day of )LIf .R 1979. Recorder -• City of Ti,gu APPROVED By the Mayor, this ,4? ) day of n 4 , 1979. ' 7.4(e/( Mayor - City of s•Ti.Bard • , / • • r. '°i�• vA iii. PAGE OPDIN C.E No. 19- 11=1 I 11,101 M , \ 4 5 r JJJI.: arroF TIGARD WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON LAND USE APPEALS TO THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL The Tigard Municipal Code requires that appeals from decisions of the Planning Commission be filed on the attached forms . Appeals must be filed in duplicate at the City Hall within the time limit provided in the Code. Appeals to th City Council will be placed on the Council 's / agenda about four weeks after they are filed, Notice of the setting of the matter on the Council 's agenda will be sent to those notified of the hearing before the Planning Commission and to all persons who have made an appearance in connection with the matter. The appealing party should be prepared to make a brief presentation to the City Council at the scheduled time, Council members will, have been provided with materials on the case before that presentation is made. These materials will include the written appeal statement filed by the person making the appeal. The Council is required to hear all appeals and decide each case on its merits , but it does not consider new evidence, and in preparing apresentation for the Council you should be careful to avoid offering evidence which was not presented to the Planning, Commission. The function of the presentation to the City Council is to assist the Council in understanding what happened at the Planning Commission and the contentions of the parties as to whether the action of the Planning Commission was proper or improper. The proceeding is an appeal, and not an additional opportunity to submit evidence. The. Council will be familiar with the evidence submitted before the Planning Commission. A copy of the current fee schedule for appeals is attached. Fees are due at the time notice of appeal is filed., When a transcript 0fH the Planning Commission meeting has been prepared, • a coy will be sent to the appealing party. ' . r . Ko 1420 S.W, MAIN P.O, BOX 238W TIGARD, OREGON 07223 PH t 639-4171 • • MEMORANDUM TO:. Planning Committee FROM: P/D RE: Appeal of Dales Glenn Subdivision '" By ordinance 22-79 of the City Council zoned their property R-5, Single Family Residentual . On May of 1979 the owner applied for a zone change from R-7 to R-5 and proposed a sixteen lot subdivision. The P/C approved zone change 22-79 on June 19, 1979 and I approved subdivision 3-79 on August 17, 1979. The zone change (ZC 22-79) was forwarded to the City Council and was approved on August 13, 1979 by Ordinance 79-64. At this council meeting the conditions of development were modified. Staff had recommended that S.W. 94th be completed through from S.W. North Dakota to S.W. Greenburg. Council changed this requirement and asked that a culdesac be installed at the southern boundry of this proposed subdivision. Following these actions the developer failed to make improvements to the property winin one (1) var. A new owner, Falcon Construction, applied for subdivision review. A staff report was prepared approving the subdivision with conditions. One condition was the 94th Ave. be completed to connect with that portion of 94th in existance. This condition developed following consultation with the Public Works Director, who feels that street should connect. The property owners in the area were notified of my proposed action and an appeal was filed. The property has been zoned R-5 since 1979. The extension of 94th Ave. is perhaps the major issue. If the planning commission denies the appeal the • appelant could carry another appeal to the city council . If the planning commission denies the appeal therefore upholding the staff report on subdivision S-4-81 , OR 79-64 will be ammended. This arnmendment will be prepared for council action and those persons directly effected will be notified. They could then appear at the council meeting to state their case. Staff recomend denial of the appeal . • • (, o :r , .•' .• . . , . . . , . .. . , . . . . „ , . r , , . . ' , • , , .., .,.. .. 6,..0, .(4,0„ ., . .,,,,....4,....411. . „ . . ,. , art_oF roma „,441411, • . . WASHINGTUN COUNTY,OREGON ' f.•/ ,' ., ' ' CITYOF TW1RD 1 ' ,• WASHINGTON;COUNTY,0 EGON Ai / '- IR . 'LAANie4(4.44 cQ..... , , . .11. •• I , , ,/ . , .. , . , : . -..of \ . . , : .,,, . . :,. , 6li 40'7. /3', ; . . . . 1 &.,,... . . . , ' ' &.';e), . -. fg,d 3. . . . . _ . .. , , . . . .. . iiif 13„4„,5'.„...S.:14,2 f',:z.---/` , . 1.... ....„, , 1 . . ' ,., .0e--- , ..., , , ft: ... • „ 40N7,uNTy...GoN ,......_ .,„.... ,, .0,11. . _ ., TIOIRD 1 I 4 i',''. ..: . • ,.. .,.. :H,r , . , . ') 1/ ' I" , ,, •.•, A. ' 11 . ■ . ■';') .. . . . I ' 1 ' pr, • . i . . . 4tespiZel°19.;,LI: ' . a :it •. ., , , ,,. . ... , . . 0 , ,,. ,,.................., . . , 0 ,i,, , , . . . ,.„,,, t,..______ . r . / . ,,2420 S.W.MAIN F.C.Box 23397 TIGARD,otirGoN 97223 9,14!6394171 1 / 5.. .' ., i . . . ,,,del•'. ,, TroFTIFA0 ..; - „, . _.,....____,..9• COUNTY,OREGON ,.-• --4.,e,a, . . ' - . , . . ■ • . 1 / .• , tO2A1( , , . 4 • .. ' ' - •• . ..i GARD . WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON . , . . . .• . ' , . 11. 0021 . , I '' /4.0(//, , . /. , . . , .. . 'X .9r.23;11 . . , , . . . , dr 7--A 0 e:. ..,;, .wAsHiNulo4 touNre.v,,:fro: „itisO . . . ,., 4906) . . . . . ; ... .. .. . . . .„_. . . . . . .... ,. . ..„... . ..... . .; . . .., . ., . . „: . /.. . 0 ., . ..: , :,.. . ..,. ..,. . . ,. . . . . . , . . . . . . , . , . . . . . . , .. . . .. . . . . . ,. . : . . . , . . . , . .., . . . , . . . . . . , . , . , . . . . , . . : . . . . , . . . . . . . . . , . . . , . . . . . . , . . , . 1.. . . . „... ....... .. . f _........_ , . ' go\ 1 I ' . ) (: / 6r) . s-t,4) f.:_5 • • //„2, --io c5a). . 9 d-- . .. .. )); Z/0 elA- ' . . 7 ( . 'H i fi , f.:-.. . Kik,ry\-, APAjtj . ' ' , . /7a1 C.-- q ? ' ] 1 ' 13 1 ( 1 Z'''' , , V /\ .D I AO C1,1,4.1.,, . '. , ' ,. ' . ' ' li()) /10442'1-\ . ' ., �,j ��� 7' j''‘i ' . . '' -', '' :‘ - ' 10 .[L91( ' ' 1\ \ : . ' : ..'' ' ' ' 1 4 /4 -/-ei . .. ' .-, ‘. '' ‘ ,. . --, , . ,. . - , A ) (i, , / 47)._6, , ..". ..(,---. .. ,,, . . . I , , ,,9 . . , . , ,,. . ,, . .... . . . . ,, I----ariarir, I, - , . . . . ' ' . . ' 1 . i ' ' '. ' ' ' ' '.' . ' , ' ' ' ' . ' . : H ' .. ll ':‘,,:j ' 4 '/. .i 1 iç 3 ., . . , . ir , . i ' .,„).--.,."--, , , . ' .: ', ----- c'' ,H . ': ,' ,, , 4 .66').5. .fr7. . .' , . : , ' ' e-'(dit4V-01-4-e)-11. , ' ' . ' . .9 s . , . ' -H .. 7. - . . ' H /73 '. .S---. 4,--' ,/"" 1 (. . . /411/) ,. , .. 7 ., , , . , , . . . . . • ',6L, , . , , ,, ,. :'' '' '' &II/ .' '.' ' ''' . ' ' ' ' ' //575 A 9'. 7) .. , 9- . H3 , 0 , . y .- : .' . . . ' . 1,,,,,k,,,,,, .m .„,,,,,. ,. . , , , , , . .: . , . .„„,..,...„. ., . . is?de,:,7 6 C7c5''et),:f'-'-* ,H ,.. ,,,, ',,..0, . (:)0,142., .. ..,.0. .. . 'L a , , ' I „vid ' . ' I 't I 'M '''. 6.1) '4 #3 et, . ''. .'' . ,. .. . h, ,„ ., , , , , . , .: . , ...,. .. . , . , , , . , . . . . i . . . , . . , ..., ,, ,, .... .........,,...„,,.....„ ..,.....,............„.,....._...„.„.....„,,..,....... „,„„„ ......,.. .. „.„ ., - . d..�d• ' � .dam•-r...r.r -aMra..Mr.rwr".._--- -'aa�...�..w+.ti+.n+.ysrra�,. ww-KMIn cMwN.nr..r ♦rb.i-rertl...an.++w; MM+4.iwr.clv+es lmin.l�ir-M rtrWMM++4.a„Lw.a+vnAUw.,+.w.w.wr?4,..i.p...n ...rr.a.wa.r .v..Nn...w...,wwnwrw.rr..--.ru .. •..t., .u«.w ww...x w..mw*^ter••: ; : Henry Weiss bale's Glenn Pg. 2 Doow1,as Walker 94 S.W. North Dakota 1Si 35AC 68L, SW 68th Tigard, OR 97223 ' Tigard, OR 97223 Donald Ramsthel Stephen Wetter R. Minnier (re 10765 SW Hall) 6930 SW 68th %Furber 6221 S.W. Radcliff" Tigard, OR 97223 11330 S.W. 97th Portland, OR 97219 Tigard, OR 97223 Alice Suve Hall Blvd. Francis Orval Leonard David 10655 Tigard, OR 97223 8510 SW Pine 11470 SW Greenburg Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Jovit4. Schweitzer Employee Transfer Corp. • Charles Greenwood 10685 S.W. 85th 8504 S.W. Pine 3420 S.W. 116th B Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 B'eaverto;. OR 97005 (11165 95) Thelma Crouch Dale's Glenn Peter Prieskorn 13760 S.W. 28th �S1,c1 35CA 13355 S.W. 110th ..� Beaverton, OR 97005 • Tigard, OR 97223 1erberg Krueger Thelma Lamb, (re: 11485 95) Marianne Ryan 1 g 8807 S.W. Spruce %Canton (11465) 11145 SW 95th Tigard, OR 97223 5590 S.W. 182nd St. Tigard, OR 97223 Aloha,, OR 97005 Eugene. Davis Terry Rogers Dee Carlson 4550 SW Lombard 11405 S.W. 95th 11115 S.W. 95th Portland, Oregon 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Donald Pollack Bertha Luther James Knudsen 10175 S.W. Barb''r Blvd,. #202 11375 S.W. 95th Attn: HUD Control • Portland,' OR 97219 Tigard, OR 97273 11085 SW 95th Tigard, OR 97223 Alan Paget (11490 Grnbrg) ,' (re: 10725 SW85) George. Walker Thomas Moore. Munikut 11055 S,W. 95th Coy 10725 S.W. 85th 11270 SW Seadowbrook #7 Tigard) OR 97223 a ; Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Dorothy flirning Travers Albrecht 6325 SW 90th JoAnne Brookman Tigard, OR 97.22'3 S.W. 9 5' 96 North Dakota • 11345 S�.W a th 35 S.W.S,W No Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Robert, Wise (10670 Hall) Kay i ; d • Kay Livingston Cathleen Beardsley Box 978 ZKociemba 9605 S.W. North Dakota Apache Junction, AZ, 85220 9600 S.W. North Dakote Tigard, OR 97223, T. and R '7223 ✓ a. ' • • . x a . .:,r..,a.....u•rw. ,. ...,.,..n,.. ,_. ."w,..,•v.,.,w..,. .,+w+... ., .., ..,,,a..+,wwue.a., .,.r., .,...,,aw«w-+..,r.,.,..wa,.....i,w....,..ww... .w v.- ...3•.•r.....war..'......w x,+.r-.••, .... a.,a.r.w......w....».....r-». ..... ,w.+....«.+,.+... .a+,«.,..w.X.:uw...,c. , DALE'S N Ver- Christensen E S GLEL:N Gera Doll S-4-81 P/C June 2, '8i 113 S.W. 94th Q 115, S.W. Greenburg Rd. 300 ft. Tigard, OR, 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 131 35 D3 Leonard Dieker Wilburn Shewmaker 11420 S.W. 94th . 11270 S.W. 92nd Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 • Wm Webber Rolland Taylor Basil Dmytryshyn 11235 S.W. 92nd 9118 S.E. Evergreen Hwy 11300 S.W. 92nd Tigard, OR 97223 Vancouver, WA 98664 Tigard, OR 97223 (re:. 11450 SW 92) EdxWz n Marry Sniedeman Karl Borverso SW Greenburg Rd. 11360 S.W. 92nd Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Dora Seable Barbara Snyder 11315 S.W. 92nd -T : Tigard, OR 97223 11550 SW Greenberg Rd. • •30-- ! , . Tigard, OR 97223 Ed Williamson Paul Dorrell Pauling Girod 15250 S.W. Bull Mt. Rd. 11475 S.W. 94th (re: 11420 SW 92) a Tigard, OR, 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 11390 S.W. 92nd Street Tigard, OR 97223 Weritworti. Vandenbatch Prank Miller Norman Kolmodin " 11345 SW 92nd Tigard, OR 97223 11445 S.W. 94th, 11450 S.W. 92nd Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Virgil Tobuson 1.1375 SW 92nd JohncBoultore 1S1 35 CA. Tigard, OR 97223 11425 S.W., 94th Tigard, OR 97223 • John Glaubke 11405 S.W. 92nd Roger Anderson Ronald Anderson 11385 S.W. 94th Tigard, OR 97223 9645 S.W. North Dakota Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 John Trolley Everett ilootin Gordon Carpenter . 11.435 S.W. 92nd 11.400 SW 95 6900 SW O1 eso n Rd. Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Portland, Oregon Davrin. Spi ttei Robert Nagler er 11465 S.W. 92nd 11450 SW 95th Tigard OR 9722.3 Tigard, OR 9722 . 1 }a i • 4 1 Dales Glenn 13 4-81 • PC June 2 300 feet Wade S rin stead Occupant Occupant Wade SW 93 Ct 11450 SW 92 11165 SW 95 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Occupant Burton •. 11420 SW 92 11160 SW 95 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 • ,1( c Franklin 10765 SW Hall 11315 SW 92 Tigard OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Occupant Wisdom o • 10725 SW 85 9405 SW North. Dakota Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 \ Occupant 11485 SW 95 Tiga ,r OR 97223 • Occupant 11465 SW 95 Tigard, OR 97223 mf Occupant 11490 SW Greenburg Tigatd r OR 97223 r w h ,. •f k'*. .,;.- is 35CA,• 1200 1S1* 35A, 2100 ,'..,4.1,., . ' ;; �. . , Ilene Host Bertha Luther :�f .� . 10940 Sw 95 11375 SW 95 ' " i Tigard, Oregon. 97223 Tigard, Oregon 97223 v4, J* r tYt Ii P 4.r.;, I4y wry. .l." t \ . 13A i. 1 ( 1S1 35A, 1100 1S1 35A, 1000 ' 1.k 1...- --- a3 James Bozich Pricilla Raugen i. I., 5. ,p P ; 9425 SW Longstaff 10890 Std 95 ri Pi ti o v I Tigard, Oregon 97223 Tigard, Oregon 97223 ;;.: -+ r U . e CD+ tyl M G ' j 1 w i 1S1 35 CA, 2000 1S1 35CA, 1900 ► JoAnna Brookman R H Miniear -. `, 11345 SW 95 I % I(ociemba ` Iif e. �4: Tigard, Oregon 97223 9600 SW North Dakota 4,' .. -1 Tigard, Oregon 97223 '• s'..C�r� .,. • _. .. . ,._ •1 isi 35CA, 2300 1S1 35CA 2400 ,t `•.r ! George Walker Leanord Davis ;fi-`:r % Hunnicutt 11420 SW Greenburg 1 ' 11270 SW Meadowbrook # 7 Tigard, Oregon 9 2 9 , g 7 23 {:; ■ Tigard, Oregon 97223 •+n,w'1 J•+Arta:ir.i/�'� .JI!! ..,y:.J.... .uRw,•,t �t�'r . �� � _ •'�r.:+- 3 51. 35i08, 570' 151 35DB, 5800 I.4 , Y .a ' ,.,.. . . . 7..- , Robert Nagler Frank Miller 'r '{ `'' 11450 SW 95 11445, SW 94 � �.c..kt4i J .Ri x� ! ti, 3 . ,7,��4,',.; 1 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Tigard, o go 972 .,, i, :II V tti tY# . , 't 1/ :41^ 4.ti444/„.;',./r.,I I*4 * .. . ,,,,,„ S' „ 151 3 .a r :►.t0 ” 085.,901 Barbara Snyder Paul Dorrell ' ' t r r 11550 Greenburg 11475 ' Tigard, Q�g©n Tigard, Oregon 97'23 1 • ' ..,.._.. ... a•.,. . y.. .,.:..rw;.:.,. -..Yt.Y.x.,». .ri' W.w.Y.,MJ-.,r.J+..+l.+... y+, r+w,+w w..ar..+..,.,.,r..,t W..,r,:;.,,y:.,,, ..,........ �,,.,.ay 'w`74M. f4. i,� ,', ^ 1',+ r t•.k,s..awu_,x»Y+Y�..:!V4,on �•�.gtn.Y,Jr.eM-Mr;'.•nr-�W„uiiN'.c4MA•eaM.�'+MiN'fk!+R�+d+,�'•iM "1tl+bM 4R±Jr' r _' , • 4_ yyy�' ti SUBDIVISION FILE CONTENTS SEE ALSOG. LEFT SIDE RIGHT SIDE Assessor's Map _T Maps/Preliminary Plat /Notification Legal Description/Deed "„__Surrounding Property Notice Letter of Authorization //Affidavit of Mailing Copies of Correspondence with Applicant Agency/NPO Notice Public Input I�. Affidavit of Publication Agenc y/NPO Comments • �� // Articles/Notices from TT ('rJ Staff Repart(s)--Da,'te(s) 4 _© ��,�' / .1)i yea- beets's i , . __Application/Narrative Minutes of Meetings �. ✓ Planning Commission—Date t o ' ,e .)icb- City Council—Date „ f Resolution No, Date Ordinance No.17-,6-3 Date /Correspondence After Approval SUMMARY :i roamed 1;7174674 la 7g-44 6'2/21: Approved Denied � �' F No, of Lots /6 No, of Phases Special Setbacks Plat Recording Name • Book/Page No, & Date Additional Phases Recorded (Date) (Book/Page No. ) (Date) (Book/Page No. ) KL/b, s(O613P) 3 1 , I,, . .... . • 04 , /,.,,r) \ A �N ..fir .I .. .\/' 1 ,. ,or ,„ . c&\es e -, t ,. p. I . • >72 ,4,-0 " .... ,/ E 9 , ; . . A .// 11 5- a*# 4'2- 94 : ."itadot-2-e4r c .,)......, - 0 Lit sT, _ i , . 1.S?: c, s,,...,..- -Fel\ 1,...h\r"-.3.0.e.,,, 11' ' ' v S's.At( 9q NA. . 7-1-z„,,,.1 c, _ 4-)1.,'"),i , CoZ a)— I • > , CITY OF TIG�AAR D P.O. Box 23397 '20 S.W.Main,Tigard, Oregon 97223 n>, ate,. ' 9, sz0"'Z„° r .a..: _,.s _,p1IYAa f i (11490 GrrLbrg) ... 1 George Walker ; unkLit SW Ile a.dowb rook #7 ,i e 'Tigard.', OR 97223 ,” „NOT DELI VEflA LE. . " �1? CL� `�" ! tI... 1:I. 1.41i 1 ti�rii20l .i.i, • LP) jt y i ! +a ..uw w. t}i a zK N. n r A r 4.e..,,4' �l�f r,�w'.�, �{ �d�i,w��� '�F+iV�r�rl w..w�«��H�'iw`.�,hlr'1�1KM%����b��a��a���.�!'t+k���1 .. 11Rry �+,y � L 1 vA s 9u+ 1• �..� nau ro.ro Y4 ,� iyFr y j+(I,(�4yy p/.ra�.ryy, t .r W�yy r+w.w..�w�wx.www •.�� +1' 'Y...'k+i r iti/ .4 14 Y• ,�� 1 J�A),•.""'M 1 1) 'r1. N1^M n1 • / �.. . -,,_.....,,, K_ /,, tit [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing]