The URL can be used to link to this page

S 4-82 POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm.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. tLTk5 , +.l.. �. ..�.s a.ktL� u f 4.t.w a�f F• �Y,r r�, n1 k t.. .y. 1 y�Y' °v � :,* sti¢i:, _•, *.{i- ,, r _. v:it. _ ....i .r ,., ,%,v, . Sunuyside Estates S 4-82 s Robert Randall Co. See file ZC 12-82-7 ;ti 4• r. ,,,.�,,. ..xna�...1ww .u...;y.,+.w,.,�Kr«><..aWws::&,o-.x,.,.X..w+...•W, 4t+'. ..,.r IIIy, a 1 BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS ' 2 OF THE STATE OF OREGON . 3 THE ROBERT RANDALL COMPANY, an ) Oregon Corporation, ) 4 } Petitioner, ) LUBA No. 5 ) 6 V. 1 ) , CITY OF TIGARD, ) 7 ) Respondent. ) 8 9 NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL:' . 10 I 11 Notice is hereby given that Petitioner intends to appeal 12 that land use decision of Respondent entitled "RESOLUTION NO 13 83-22 IN THE MATTER OF THE DENIAL OF A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 14 OF RESOLUTION NO. 82-136 ADOPTING A FINAL ORDER UPON COUNCIL REVIEW 15 OF ITEMS S-4-82 AND ZC-12-8 2, AS PETITIONED BY THE ROBERT RANDALL 16 COMPANY, APPLICANT, (Sunnyside Estates) by which the City Council 17 of the. City of Tigard on February 28 , 1983 denied Petitioner' s 13 Motion. for Reconsideration of a denial of an application for a zone 19 chaz,; o to R-5 low density and preliminary subdivision plat for a 20 total of 25 single family lots. Said action was final upon the 21 Petitioner ' s receipt of writtek notice of the decision on March 7, 1983. 22 II 23 Petitioner is represented by its legal sic ilnsel, John T. Gibbon, 24 r C�5ttnsel, The Robert Randall, Company, r, 4 Sec�.eta ,� � � "' ny, .9500 SW Barbur Blvd. , 2b Suite 300, Portland, Oregon, 97219, Telephone 503/245--4336. 26 Respondent City of Tigard has as its Mailing address P.O. Page 1 = NOTICE OP INTENT TO APPEAL JOHN T.61840N 79o4 Anot iev,of Lbw 950 S,W.Sorbut Mud.,SUB4 SW Gartland,°re§ar9 97219 `Telephone 03)200131 4 1 23397, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, attention William Monahan, Director 2 of Planning and Development; Telephone 639-4171, and has as its legal 3 counsel Edward J. Sullivan, City Attorney, 1727 NW Hoyt Street, 4 Portland, Oregon, 97209, Telephone 222-4402. 5 III 6 Peitioner has been informers by Respondent that the persons 7 listed on Exhibit A attached h reto and incorporated herein iy this 8 reference are apparently entitled to receive (or have received) notice 9 of land use decision described in paragraph I, above. Exhibit A 10 is a list provided to Petitioner by Respondent. NOTICE: Anyone 11 described in Exhibit A to this notice who desires to participate as 12 a party in this case before the Land Use Board. of Appeals must file with 13 tie Land Use Board of Appeals a Statement of Intent to Participate in 14 this proceeding as required by Section 5 of the Board' s Administrative 15 Rules. This Statement must be filed with the Board within 15 days of 16 service of this Notice upon such person. 17 IV 18 In the event Respondent believespersons in addition to those 19 listed on Exhibit. A were parties in the proceedings before the City 20 Council of the City of Tigard relating to this matter, Petitl.cner shall, 21 upon receipt from Respondent of the name (s) and mailing address (es) 22 of such person (s) serve this notice upon ;,uch person (s) and afford 23 such person (s) a similar right to file a Statement of Intent to 24 Participate within 15 days of service of this notice upon :iuch persons. 25 Petitioner requests that Respondent t provide the name s) address (es) P � ( and ad ss (es) df slzck'zadditioA Irl person. days�(s) within ten (10) 26 ys ' following receipt of Page 2 NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL JOHN T.GI1313bN *79045 Attorney,tit law 5'S0d 5',W4 Bnrbur Hlad.,5uitO 300 Pot IEhd#.Oretloh 97219 Thlephana 1503)245,1.131 t' v 1 , • • this Notice by Respondent. / /John T. Gibbon 4 Attorney for Petitioner 5 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 7 I hereby certify that on March , 1983, I served a true 8 and correct copy of this Notice of Intent to Appeal on all persons listed in paragraphs II and Exhibit A of this Notice through Personal 10 delivery to the following persons who are representatives of the 11 City of Tigard or, who appeared in opposition to Petitioner's request 12 before the City Council of the City of Tigard. 13 14 EXHIBIT A 15 No persons appeared in opposition to pet5,tionerts application before the . 16 City Council. 17 18 DATED March ;-4t) , 1983. 19 k/1), 20 21 /John T. Gibbon Attorney for Petitioner 22 23 24 25 26 Page 3 - NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL JOHN t.0111BON Attorney at law 9500 S.W.Satbur 811 th.Suite 000 Pattlandt Otoon 94219 Uepharm(503)204131 ' n, 1 4 . • G STATE OF OREGON) ss City of Tigard I, DORIS LIARTIG, hereby certify that I am the duly appointed, rt qualified, and acting Recorder of the City of Tigard, Oregon. I further crLify that I have compared the herewith copy of Resolution No. 83-22 of the City of Tigard with the original in my possession as cu odian of the official records of the City of Tigard, and that the herewith copy is a correct transcript of the whole of Resolution No , 83.22 . IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hei.euata set my ;laud and Uu. seal of the City of Tigard this 3rd day of March 19 83 City Recorder • • My, emu. • ■ • January 10, 1983 CIWOFT4RD WASHINGTO COUNTY,OREGON John Gibbon Robert Randall Company 9500 SW Barbur, Suite 300 Portland, Oregon 97219 Re: S 4-82 and ZC 12-82 Dear Mr. Gibbon: Enclosed is a copy of Resolution No. 82-136 which was approved by the Tigard City Council at their special meeting of December 6, 1982. Your request was denied for the reasons set forth in the final order. r.y If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact the Director of Planning and Development. Sincerely, Doris Hartig,, Finance Director ity Recorder DH lw Enc. NOTE: The following acknowledgment must be received by the City of Tigard within fourteen (14) days of your receipt of this letter. Failure to return this acknowledgment may result in action by the City of 'Tigard. I hereby 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/or conditions attached. Signature Date ----- 12755 SW ASH P,0.SOX 23397 T GARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-017i �_, 4 Y 1:r\ CflYOF TWARD WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON O '• March 7, 1983 John Gibbon Robert Randall Co. 9500 SW Barbur Blvd. , Suite #300 Portland, OR 97219 Dear Sir: The City Council at its meeting of February 28, 1983 adopted Res. #81-22 denying further consideration of your appeal. Enclosed is a certified copy of Resolution #83-22 for your records. . Sincerely', Doris Eartig • City Recorder DH/p1 Encl. cc: Wakes & Associates P.O,t3OX 23397 TIGARD*OREGON 97223 PH:12755'SW ASH � -,.,_...r `639��171 • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON C;) ' RESOLUTION NO. 8 2-J3 IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF A FINAL ORDER UPON COUNCIL REVIEW OF ITEMS S-4-82 AND ZC 12-82, AS PETITIONED BY THE ROBERT RANDALL COMPANY, APPLICANT. THIS MATTER came before the Council at its meeting of November 15, 1982 , upon the filing of a Notice of Review under TMC Sections 18 .84 .240 and 18 .84.260. The Council had before it the entire record of the proceedings before the Tigard Planning Commision, which denied the request with one dissenting vote, on September 5, 1982 . The applicant, The Robert Randall Company, has sought review of that decision by filing a timely Notice of Review on October 5, 1982. The applicable criteria to this decision are the following: --State-wide Planning Goals 1 , 2, 6, 7, 9 , 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 . --NPO Plan Policies 2 through 6 , and the Plan Map. 0' --TMC Section 17 . 06 .065. Based on the record in this case, the Council makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 <. The subject site is located within the corporate limits of Tigard, Oregon at 15280 S. W. 100th Avenue, and is also identified as Washington County Tax Map Parcel 2S1 11CA Tax Lot 900 , comprising 3.89 acres, more or less. ' 2. The subject site is designated Urban Low Density on the NPO 6 Comprehensive Plan, which is applicable to this case. The site is zoned R-7 (single family residential , 7 , 500 sq. ft. minimum lot size) and i5 proposed to be rezoned R-5 (single family residential, 5,000 sq. f't. minimum lot size) to accommodate the proposed subdivision. 3 . The surrounding area has been developed primarily as single family residential, although the Church of the Latter Day Saints lies directly to the south and the property to the east is vacant. 4 There is an existing house and garage on the site which be integrated into the w subdivision, ` could b- ne . sion� The site is grass coveted and slopes to the south. There are 3, tew trees on the northern portion of the site • 5. The subject site is within the acknowledged Metropolitan Service .11. ;tr .ct Urban Growth boundary and is both, too small RESOLUTION NO. 82- i2C0 Page A W • • and surrounded by development to allow for farm or forest uses. 6 . There are no resources as listed in State-wide Planning Goal 5 on the subject site. 7. There is standing water on the site, causing drainage . difficulties (Transcript, pp. 6 and 17) . Otherwise, there are no natural hazards on the site. h 8 . The area has sufficient recreational facilities, according to the Tigard Parks Plan. 9 . The staff report, Section B(1) (d) notes that no storm. • drain plan was submitted with the application, that fire hydrants were not located and there was no response regarding the capacity of the schools. The Council determine s that the applicant failed to show compliance with State-wide Planning Goal 11 , notwith- standing the proposed attempts (Transcript at p. 15) to show that ' proposed drainage facilities were adequate. No drainage plan was submitted with the application and the verbal indication of • compliance is insufficient. See also, Staff Report, February 20, 1980, Finding 12. 10 . The city has undertaken a revision of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and, will bring the draft revised plan, including consolidation and revisions of the existing NPO 6 Comprehensive Plan before the Council in December, 1982 for its review. The Council also makes the following CONCLUSIGNS OF LAW: 1 . The Council concludes that the main issue in this case is conformity of the application with the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, in this case NPO 6 . The application could allow up to 25 units on the site, while the R-7 designation would allow as little as 15. The PD District is not applicable to this site to increase density, as the site is less than four acres is size. 2. The application does not conform to the Tigard Compre- hensive. Plan Maps of NPO 6, applicable to this site. In order to approve this application, there would have to be 1, Comprehensive Plan revision 3 . The Council notes that the Planning Commission considered the possibility of revision of the NPO 6 Comprehensive 'Plan for this site when all comprehensive plans are reviewed by that body and the Council. The Council concludes that this process is a more appropriate means of dealing with the issue of "split density" on the site rather than applications such as this or small-tract comprehensive plan revisions, because the g policy issues need and are more app ro priately addressed . at - that level. NcInt re Coo ri� s ofGashin ton County, 55 er. ,app. 78 , 637 P. 2d 201 (1981) . RESOLUTION N NO. 8.;!-.1 Page 6 Itx 4. The Council need not reach the issues of compliance with other applicable State-wide Planning Goals, neighborhood compatibility, nor the adequacy of facilities and services, with the exception of drainage facilities. On this point, the staff report found, and the Council believes, that there was insufficient evidence to show compliance with State-wide Planning Goal 11, as stated in Finding of Fact Na , 9 . The Council rejects the staff conclusion at p. 3, t' .1.rd paragraph, which is a conclusion not based on the evidence in the record. 5. The applicant states that Policy 2 of the NPO 6 Plan, limiting density to four dwelling units or 12 persons per gross residential acres, should be construed as to allow an increase in density in the area. The applicant does this by suggesting different demographics by way of household size, MSD and LCDC rules, and the Draft Tigard Housing Plan. The Metropolitan Service District and LCDC housing rules are directed to the plan adoption and revision process, not to individual zone changes and subdivision requests. McIntyre-Co22er v. Bd. of Comm'rs. , supra; Euiipoto V. City of Ea22yyalley_, 55 Or. App. 905, 640 P.2d 656 (1982) . 1 Nor is the city bound to accept more recent, but con- flicting, evidence of household size over its adopted • comprehensive plan. Homebuilders Association v. Metropolitan Service District, 54 Or. App. 26, 633 P.2d 1306 (1981) ; Valley & Siletz Railroad v. Laudahl, 56 Or. App. 487, 642 P.2d 337 (1982) . Nor is the city obligated to use its Draft Plan over its comprehensive plan already adopted. Green v. Itaywal7d, 23 Or. App. 310, 317-318 , 542 P.2d 144 (1975) ; re,rersed on other • grounds, 275 Or. 693 (1975) ; Deters v. Bd. of County Commirs, 1 Or. LUBA 217, 221 (1980) ; Tiffany v. Malheur County, 5 Or. LUBA 57, 62 (1982) ; Atwood v. City of Portland, 2 Or. LUBA 397 (1981) . 6. The city interprets NPO Plan Policy 2 to emphasize the four eivvelling units per gross residential acres. The reference to 12 persons per gross acre is illustrative and surplusage, especially in view of the remainder of that policy. As inter- . preted, the Council concludes that the applications do not meet this policy. 7 . Because of the noncompliance with the NPO 6 P3 ,7111, the applications also fail to meet State-wide Planning coal 2 and TMC Section 17 .16 .100 (b) (3) . The Council, therefore, ORDERS trial the above-referenced applications be, and the same hereby are, DENIED. cc, RESOLWIION NO 82-,/..-5 Page 3 fl The Council FURTHER ORDERS that the Planning Director and the City Recorder send a copy of the Final Order as a Notice of Final Decision to the parties in this case. PASSED: � -� 1982, b . This day of ��C�� 1,��;G- � Y the Council of the City of Tigard. .4...••• • ••• Mayor - City of Tiga ATTEST: City Recorder, it T of Tigard 4 • 1I R1SO UPION NO. 82-- ii3 Page 4 460.. CIIYOFTIQARD November 17 , 1982 WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON Bob and Sue Maddy 10185 S.W. Hood View Drive Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Bob & Sue, Your letter of November 10 , 1982 has been directed to • my attention. Please be advised that a copy of your letter • was referred to the Tigard City Council at its November 15, 1982 meeting when the Council denied the appeal or Robert Randal Co. Thank you for your continual concern in this matter. Sincerely, V1-717" William A. Monahan Director of Planning & Development . . / • WAM:dmj 12755 SW ASH P.a. BOX 23357 TIGAHO,OFtGON 91223 PH 639-4171 -- ,• i , , \\-\\IV, IA, ' . • t 1 . , . ,, e. .,.. NOVj2 . L ,.-1.10.5p11.4._.:61J0L1L-1,,,. ,//-�/�-- 'd2) , . •" G-i'Mi'/"/?7MI s ;,t5 v. 4 'v s�rz. /1'''Em 64 2.c ' ' ' lti /S /.//;. tear r':<&x�.e/Ir.'/j 7 27` /.5/ c1Qr■.7I , ,,Y ear.- se- 0•i /ee1�,�-, /axe /b��/fe/A-• �� 1 ' /P dare //ales- /s t k ( ,v:. 77,71.:-.0/ fim 7 44�e ; AeQ"r 7`: e '42.5 G 'aGS 7'�,se !�©,4-/-1 eawa '"'' . 04)/,9•, 71,0; 1r/,��G 7.k:7 , Aeafr- 714e /efithv*- a t�ertie/-7,,,s . t1 l , &S '74> �i h/r ro r>a/e i 76,"r %'e �in ' b ' /5 /2O/ g Com l/7I/ ,/,;711` f?I 71-- e D vern.Zz. .,,s- .kikie /s" a 1-eet., Y - ie c hi>ee/,: ea(2:/77'. .- ) J/40/v cy'1 i e %.".„5-7- i "y 4c& /fre 'l 74/e 4 pro/oced. ,4 rose; P 47-s. wdu //),92.e ;464S. afre4 Sa c'e/7se, /h?/ 71//g)10 ,v7C i r 11 /?e) a.)41/ he a.6/e' 7ze, hzCGD.0 r 74/;- . /r1 1 y peo/b/ef., n 1�g a ig feat-ch/, 9;77v' e2•��.�ir u,%� ' /12 7: /c r11://... k4,'" O'de . ,ii,4 LlDe. /k Ak,/ d a 6- , dG/d' -A, aw,E. ' m. exhe .sJ, Qierr� x> erg7 /hre.e /��e r� e/; , ,mod i /". . ' -/o, ' cro,& /4 ,?5.--/./M-, i2,i):76 '/ /3% ke /II ..)- d, ‘,),7e. ,..96-,,,-,=,? . '. ' ',, d'. 4Cr !C � ' eee'S ro, e //p• e 6 z; &" ja, r2/g 'e r /e ', zy ;/� ',4 ULre ,4-24/e ad` /af /47-0. E. /44,..x,-,./44-,.. t, ; . .1://).."454,,ert i ar .m .... L..� . ..• _ ., ., .,.,. . ,,,., ,,.,,...,,,.....—.■ a... ,,_(7,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,n7,,,,,....,•,,,,,,,o,1,,,,.,,w, I V • .. . • . • e., . • L ' A '■,.4, ,,,,, , 1 * , / c.,7".--. oea.,//7 60 0 AV 74.Ae e.iliyaemenrj gre -/ e. ,s-oine ,.. 0, e,...-,/ 2e), 74-4 /,' Tea /9 0 Ina 1'.71* - a1 , — -A .. W 77G ex efy 74;4e --.41 I L-1 2-/ 1 ..5-a7,,,, -6‘pe / „/30 4y/caL, &,,e2.y // ,. -e 1,",)._/0,,,,P.icy 7-#.7&71 cai, 0/6- LeP4e ea ,s0 , 192.L 7& i:)k7 4 /s- /Dro/seii and 010 E/7e)/ /v >e-/;/74-i< 65-z7 1, -, /-"2Q, / ,,i,,,/e,. th-ea.. 01e272 41A,/ ' -... • _ 6?-701 Nye ‘74.." ..,s /9/-xx-e- 7-6, 6,-,ete I' .,76 -/-/, .. . <7,,,o/ iii5z, „ !Afe"caold , .„ 771;,972.e. yaii 762 7/Xe ,e;2700..,7/t//7/7 ,, 71) 1107e (mi./ lo;),;/:94 . , i . • ' 4' 1 ' 'i .. -----412z--11// AZCee- .. • 1 ' 21Z-2;e4 / a I;*6* 9.7.6-.S&L5;777-A(3711-74. , •' , , . . ., , .0,?. /eS. /* a/ ''ea a 1)/64'4P-a -S:beil'e li-ty,ale/- it? J;/.mwofr/le=4/ ,e1'7 ., ea29,1) 19 4‘,74 4/XY/P74 s.}411-Pi',7i'f,e' . 1 r 40/Z/hi/ 47//e Iã//2%/x4 .7‘ 07 IWAW/ i2E Rear k , . .1.4 e. --/P hy e i/z/ , -,/,fe. - to,-, /17 a s0 e--',.:4,///•:-/7,4-Almooi--1 ' H oAelie 7444/ 4"4fn //)41, 1,,'" /kit i'04 qa/c,/,/ diel;"/k ler -lie 46/4, 0-A, 4,61.642/y 6411, /1/c, .M?717146' 44.4/ oh , //11,492.10;4 ,‘,,,!1'?.ii/ /f 1/142MV 7 .6,i,e;47/12,/,-/ef . ,. i cd7r2 /bis ez.,/, 7/4s jr) eiio 4 J-Aotev iwr 1114) oi,e7 " /,40'101e,kki...- . 7 -/ eSe 6-4//61X4),I k/i.,;,, ,z, ed4 -76 ,e;A:2)./tei -rill . yovi. ,:--- . • . ,. • „, H , , « ” 0. I'' 4' ..., , • BEFORE THI CITY COUNCIL CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON IN THE MATTER OF THE ) ZC No. 12-82 REZONE & ELIMINARY ) S No. 4-82 SUBDIVISION APPLICATION ) Address: 15280 S.W. 100th FOR SUNNYSIDE ESTATES ) Legal:T 2S, R1W, Sec. 11 CA, Gulfside Estates The Robert Randall Co. 9500 S.W. Barbur Boulevard, Suite 300 Portland, Oregon 97219 Applicant-Owner-Appellant . APPELLANT'S ARGUEMENT BASED UPON TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING Appeal from the decision of the Tigard Planning of September 7, 1982 • � N John T. Gibbon, Counsel for. Appellant 1, The Robert Randall Co. 9500 8.W. Barbur Boulevard, Suite 300 ` . ,c.;6/ Portland, Oregon 97219 4 • C '�� (503) 245-1131 ,c) �c 0\c,. O� c\ The appellant hereby requests the City Council, upon review of the record and the arguements befor it, remand the zone change and subdivision applications to the Planning Commission with the following conditions: 4' 1. R-5 zoning may be approved for the site provided no more than 600 of the lots may be less than 7,50 ) square feet. 2. A maximum of no more than 21 single family lots may be approved Eor the site. The appellant bases its request on the following findings of • facts and statements in the transcript: (1) Commissioner Owens at page 21 states, "I think that I'm interested in Commissioner Eden's proposal of sp:,it density and I don't know, if we even want to discuss that tonight or can't. . . but it's not a clear cut issue one way or the other. (2) Chairman Tepedino at page 20 while stating; "I'm not persuaded that we should change this from R-7 to R-5,", does state "(On) this Commission we should look for smooth transitory changes rather than abrupt changes". (3) . Commissioner �Edin at page rr �ion that Comrnissi p�ge �.� states � �: guess the goes• r would likee to ask and 'didn't get it said during the cross examination • � is has anybudy looked at the possibility of perhaps 11-5 below Kable • • and R-7 above. Using Kable as the medium for helping draw this line between Summerfield on both sides and keeping the larger R-7 above it. I'd be far more, open to that." The applicant submits that these statements indicate a desire on the u ' part of the Planning Commission to create a compromise on the density issue, it believes the suggested conditions represent such a compromise. II The Planning Commission's decision was based on the Staff's recommendation • of denial based on the following findings is "The proposal violates policy 2 of the adopted NPO #6 plan." 2. "The proposal is not compatible with existing surrounding land uses." The applicant believes it was error to rely on those findings for the following reasons: (1) NPO #6 policy 2 is out-of-date having been adopted in 1975 and is contradictory based on current housing statistics. Policy 2 states, "The maximum overall density of development will be four dwelling units or 12 persons per gross acre." Density requirements for the areas within the Urban Growth Boundary such as Tigard have, since 1975 been established as 6 per acre by LCDC and Metro. More importantly, Tigard'<; current Draft Housing Element indicates household size has Shrunk fruo 3.0 assumed in 1975 to 2.3 assumed currently. Therefore an approval conditioned as suggested by the applicant will result in a ratio, of persons per gross acre closer to the 12 per acre suggested by the NPO policy than that allowed under the current R-7 plan. C2) Reliance on NPO #6's Policy 2 alone is not sufficient when reviewing the application, it must in fact be balanced against compliance with other NPO policies. If conditioned as suggested by the applicant the proposal will comply with NPO policies 6, 7 and 8, in that it will emphasize single-family homes in the area, it will provide a transitional buffer between. Summerfield's higher density areas and both the large lots and the undeveloped tracts in the area, finally it will reflect a concern for the natural topography's constraints and oppor*unities of the site, (3) The compatibility 'issue raised by the staff and the NPO related to the applicant's original complete R-5 25 lot subdivision proposal, If the conditions suggested by the applicant were imposed, compatibility With the 3 diverse elements existing in the area can be accomplished. „ The three different densities with which this proposal must be compatible • are: 1. The 41500 squire foot lots adjoining the site in Summerfield. 2 The larger lots adjoining a portion of the site 4A 4�4 4 3. The numerous undeveloped tracts adjoining the site, which will eventually be developed at urban density, The applicant submits that by mixing the density across the site compatibility with this -diversity of adjacent land uses can best be achieved. " III Testimony by opponents of the proposal centered on two issues: 1. The value of the homes constructed in the area. 2. The concerns regarding roads and access to the property. In regard to the first issue Commissioner Moen was, the applicant believes, right in his characterization of the value concern articulated by the opponents as really a concern with density and compatibility (page 19) , the applicant believes that the conditioned approval will address these concerns. Moreover as Commissioner Speaker (page 16) and Commissioner Owens (page 18) indicated in their statements, value compatibility between the mid-$70,000.00 homes proposed by the applicant +. • and the existing homes in the area obviously will exist. (2) The traffic and access issue raised by the opponent's is clearly, the most valid of their concerns. On this issue the Planning Commission supported the applicant. Commissioner Moen at page 19 says, "And I don't think we can refuse to develop an area because of a road; because the roads are going to have to be squared away sooner or lacer and hopefully in this case the developer would be involved in doing some of that." Commissioner Speaker alc.o discusses the issue at page 17 and concludes that the benefits which will cr: ie from the development include both improvement to 100th and Sattler as well as the beginning of the obvious link-up needed for Kable between 98th and 100th. The applicant also notes that Sattler has bee planned as a minor collector in this area and that 100th will obviously over time become an important access route to new commercial facilities in West Tigard as well as the downtown area. IV The application to change the current 15 lot (19 unit) R-7 subdivision to a 21 lot R-5 and R-7 mixed subc:ivision is based on the following considerations and constraints: 1. Redesign of the current plat is necessary to utilize the sewer in Summerfield as suggested by the City staff: 2. In its revised proposal the applicant has eliminated all attached single family homes in conformance with the NPO's policies. 3. The proposal has sought to maximize solar orientation for its lots, 4. The application has, in response to the NPO's concerns, reduced the number of homes using the flag lot driveways and rationalized ti Yi it the locations of their entrance onto the adjoining streets. 5. The appeal proposes a conditional approval which will produce a neighborhood with all essential urban services that will still be compatible with areas near it which were developed without those services. The,eonstraints affecting this application included accommodation of the existing improvements on the land, a street configuration dictated by the City's needs and the limitations produced by size and shape of the parcel of land to be developed. V The applicant in its Notice of Appeal (pages 2-3) set forth the reasons that its proposal complies with the Statewide Goals it adopts by reference that statement into this agruement. Attached as exhibit to this agruement is a letter from an organization with an interest in the outcome of this matter and expertise in the issues raised, the Metro Home Builders which supports the appellants proposal. VI For the reasons set forth above the appellant respecfully requests the City Council remand these matters to the Planning Commission with the conditions explained herein. • • • (tom • HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN PORTLAND . jiANU4 ROAD, SUITE 301 ~iWEC$O, OREGON r:4:0:4 684.1`150 THE METRO HOUSING CENTER • November . 10 , 1982 • City Council City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Appeal of ZC12-82 , 54-82 , Gulf Side Estates Dear Mayor_ and Council Members : The Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland supports the Robert Randall company ' s request cu appeal for a remand to the Planning Commission to consider a new plat meeting the conditions proposed by the Randall Co. The blend of R-5 and R-7 lots suggested by the Randall ` Co. complies with the comprehensive plan low density designation while at the same time solving several problems that this site suffers from. The proposed redesign satisfies the NPO plan policy encouraging the retention of the single- family character of the area. It provides for a gradual, • rather than an abrupt transition from the large lots on one side to the smaller R-4 lots on the other side of the subdivision. The new proposal will also result in a more efficient road and sewer system: Most importantly, the redesign will create the opportunity 0 for the construction of housing more within the abilities of potential buyers to pay . Despite the three-year recession in the general economy, home prices have on the average • held stable or decreased only slightly. Our association 's economists anticipate that when the economy improves , home prices will once again climb steadily, It is important , therefore, to provide lower cost housing opportunities to meet both short and long term needs : Smaller lots, in the R-5 range, will be much more prevalent in the future to meet these n.2eds . The proposal for Gulfside Estates presents an ideal opportunity to begin to meet that need. S ncere y, t �y✓ �U .. van L. Hanw y Staff Attorn y ' I<L,H:t l c I • . ° •i .'.!,: 4 sl,, ,, ---. tio i /q CZ._ , \\.. ,.. ...1 ... , I:1) r?r6)L 7 ri nrLF7 - . 1&,,,: P1-161 - '6' /z- z, a,tic . K.S -4z-I Z , NOV . 0 192 f a - s-,e4,,) 4J-74-662.60 /4/Po 6 1 ! . e-tic, 4 1 . 1 a .z d et- .. : 7azybdaff e-0 • ft-J-1 -ZL '*-- - de.)7 1 • . . L ! ciLa,27 r...6711. ic,-,, # , , , 1 • . ,j ,4..A.,(Awt„---)1. cle,"›9. L-2-ze 2,kirw,o/ £ d 60`t-e--- 11t/ LL , . i ea(,_.) 0, . . '' • ' .. 4',J24-- . G'i L-Tfrt.e-d-e-4‘,94-0 64/4 I --- cc At ' I) C6 41 e_,e--6,64.L.0 , i ' .,-/ , „ ,„,11,6-0 1.(7-t)- 6 1, LO-e-e-6-ee____ d-:-: --z.6L,ty,„ 1-1,-(--;:i ?1 ,(7. ' • Z)04/f/91.6'C„/ .,t/L, , I • ZILL '1°•''t'47149'16/9/t el'1.7.)1 l' 4,44-At'eLlikj 1 ' _i/(12k..?,_. -, ..__,. -----‘,0 A„c,,ez,e. • _____, /00 _44 a „..c..e...d-di C • (\s-- ) az a"),-- , , • -. q . , ciAzeitea,3 0 . ,; ___.,. ,__ __. _,._ . , , ., ,,•n , , •I,•, • ,4,-,• , ,•,, 4.•,.,,,,,,.,■,,i,■■, ,,,,..a,t.w,t•,o,,,1.■,,,, .' . ):. ',„,c.,4-e,./)) . . - . fir: Z--� - ,% itz.4, a c(d... . ,ii(. 0/,...(A a dort/r(.. 1(7.(_,,,) 5' L---1/(6?----'2 ec- ce-61-1--0-7c-i---X:--6--6(____) Gre.et,e4 ;. ' CO-Wc_ eCrb,k__9 /7C/A. ,61-f--e-t, 1 / / CZA-6,6 ,GZ.-6(j . : t., c.... 2A- �, G< --` I At / . Col 'z iwz,41 ,.. a_i've., a., c .Ca.: x-e , "7 a,f tt, .-e te___ __ea.zZ`., ---4.4.0_4.4/it. , . --7,-t ., /2.7- 6-zyx.4...9,c,t_. -----6-6e7y( . . r 11 7/t. . -21.4.6.c) 1 },_ •-• fit,om Cz -77_, -•; L-.�. ''w 4.7 ' I/ ,i,Ar_wzyc , ---(:A,,a.2,c.) , y, \S AM / b I W.■6/, r)C,I ..71., /(44, d&4 are_eit;-tiltt..to-e.' zekify-x,3) . ,. . A--(.64A.41--it.0 : j' (.} 6(---C) , id -s aril C °�� 4., ,C 1 ,'11-e.) 6/ . 4-1z-L-,--( ..2 eke__ -ta ce.,6-e--(-777(..- - — - — - 1 ,, , )---&ela-<_.../ ' (--e43-Tk.,/ ?d%d"t-' (-7 , ,: ____6/4L, 64).c.,z,,a_., ......._ ,A1-1-ete....) _____6.4i2i. eo_ei)4.46a),,At_t ,r),j) .,,e;.0 :/ 7-a_,6-c67--C.. -71- -e_-,), , . -keri7t24 ..„.41_,A.a..4s?..--;z,.41 .,(_./. A.,-.4tiLi -)-n-‘,1-4-1-- - /-1- . ' ' ' 1 4 c 7�1 retot`?'z- . ' 2) .c /64,itip, 04->itt'a,41:74- ( at3 ' /71-elL.. - 1,}0 jetin't ' /. / • CLethLAS 51,6 67:-" ClAi,-;7, -&-"vt-diA/ -".„64 ,_,„rt-it-'64-4L,', 6C)i& 441‘7“4-"Lj '---7/tial / .8,M ,.. ?-17-6/1( / ' 66----CAth,(_, --Cr-C.,/6(ILe--, a_21/ 11 ZU-Xel-C-C,,/' 67/C-Ci • . . kez, ck&i.4Aczyi.c) _to ../2,1a , ? - , . . ,, . .2,,e 2_,7,7:: .:1 - -, J 4k ,; 7/1A-; (/ ___Zea-e/trA - (A-L .S- /L'e_.& . 61/7-1 — ---2 . . L--7/--A.61:, —10 /61-o 5L-4 I . 0,1Wcic..). -- (4--eirtfi2 - . • , ,4 . °IL,. ,0,, . -P' -z/iLetZ. /7-(-c--' re"...teik- i6c) d--(0-r-JPA--e-e", --t,-„ioto c.?,74. °L.---/-/C.6Ld-c-) -77 kt7t(pLo . ( ..u._,;(_,... ) , ., o 6.6 . / , , . , , ta„nd., ,si-c"-- , a--n di. 1-u`--,--- rj--/r‹.--) t i CCU. L. a://a/ C . 'D ..----/-.-.1-- / / ,ATL,Id-k2 e--C7----e- .._. . ' ''N\ / ( '',/ ' . . /0 /5--S---- S-6<-1 . 0 15),,,,,,,, ' '' , /(C it4,1e7) (5') 6?7 2' ''''---.'. \ ... . , i . . ;,.. , I r _ .„- .. .. .. ,. . W ,. - . -%,off !,., 1 till � ',,,` „„ .0 , --r5-,.:,6,i7;14.'„ U., E) il tit 5 L.1:3''L'''' V 1"."'' 1 o , • , / . r :,'.. . : 4 �. r . ...... r__ _, ..._ . r /6/e,s- 5 . , .... . .,_. , _......, , ........ _„. . _. _ „ . _., ,. .... _, „ ,,, .. , „.. J. ,a4 ,) ..),. Qn.,7Q ,,3 / n... ) -zie,frx-iLr.e.4..) /0 /0?c , , ' , , . ,„ . ,. ., ... . . , ,... , .. . , ,. ,, .„...., / „, - ”" ,. a, ,. ".L1:- (4z1/9.1 tom; _ -._ .,....- ._._.., -.. _ -_ .. �,....77 . , / tt,0 ILtti,v__tJ [-t? 41(tte,i MV, a',4oata.,.1,,e1.4.a,b.„....,,... ___, __...„_.. .., .,,,. .. , .t ��` : 4f JL 1��(d2.k' ,. '. )�-') ..'.. ... _ .._ ..,L 10frr.dt-'2,1-,..ti ,LI: 2.,_) (/.,,,,,,,,a4:1/14,6".' 71. 470772',17",21/4.-..444,//:_,_ , .,.,), /,',.-2,)! --- . '" li.'lit 0-21-e) Q.1 �i 5/-c,,? leM) f 7 -.lb 47 . (4,..4,,....1d, cL) A,..s ,, .07,;-,,/,' .. , , ,.. , , ' .. ,. ,. „, .Attz.J... //6 0 6-4 * /206 40 616(itt). t-6 JWoi .i FP T---... ., .. „.(.,..441 r4H ..i.-6ty =. Y,Y T'; =,_`_r'!' ".,`... !»__., ,. _`."',�.�.i,..'',9 _ .,,.. _ ,.. . „, , ._,...._. . ' ILL, lit) a6t Pkytt„ o , I , ' .... 6 (b '..,-6,:(4&) ' �'�, /kali ._ g- Z, nic--i 1 f,1'1,' .G 1..' 'ezto ,, . , , , . , ., � /j� //°mil, �-- , ,, i .-,t,3,,,;(_,;(,(-rti i.t.'„o_,./itc-ikl,4.('t,:f_ C1,,'. .'''', ' 1,Lia,.17r''U 64- -t(ill t 0 1,2t, „.., til 241 a& )ict. --'! i 2-7° cz;,, TO( , ktt.:ri.) ,.s. , _ . ,_ w ii. f• ,d tt; i 11-i, ' 1, 1(0111'14 6.' L 01411/1V 4 4 :',41 b jfriteeft&r ',,,, , ,C t/' . —64,c, 7) ,,e,,ttet7)ti fi . 4 IL, ' L',ii .(, .„9-e 6i,L,'-'7. u )/Lk.)..,' 4,(zt 06-.)24,tc,, -.(:(11 , , 1 CL) L_1 " ici ui��.t�. :1 ,' c z ..c �yy yy ��rr i q r r� cA4 w�'ti '�-.''` rj t/ ,L r'.,L'(t i°;?,.),1,49,'L, k r 1 , t-t-LA L"E�',�v. v v-, t" ILtaa .L fie ��' ,�.' -t.�;,„ áLL. .__ /4. ;.r!�+�'�i 1:':.,".c/ tic,,,) ' )JZLtJL X I ��MM . ` -.,,,, ., 1, . e -i =��cu ,, .tt,,/: ,' c,.., 6 i „ : _ AL-„zpvt/m.1. . Atli . 1, ''').) i 5 tit° -i.2 Otr )Ld /.64egt .„ 1.1,c,.,, '',9,,„J . 4 A • i„,„„ ),„,„ ,,,,.1, di,„„..,„c, „,:, / 14 Lte az, , ci, f-, t.-:,...,' ,' ,,,H(:,:tillt.,,, ' ), t')„,,,It,,—,E sex-t, „/„ce.„, LA„, a444...4 l'4, , , fi r i(),,,,1 . i. , ''*."+'” 4 i» ,lv «-:'ils ,,'LI Lat 1 4 L r to r ter J L""U, ^M"t,+Lp'y. ^f ,`"4,s , tip •',,,7.4ter 0 • . . . .. _w. a.,,.b w a,.. ,. r .,, .r .. w w w w,I a w a.c'W o•-w 41144 , 4 r.4 tr wu'4.4 v...,w'a w w'w m r v•a r w V. 1 4 a4 N ■ . w ... .,�..,...,. ter, . ::., ((/��^�� .f/fir I- cF 1r, (/fit i, `.'�..f �u..r';.••.. ,V. k r, ` c • +1. Y., 16 �.✓.../..4 ,.��',•.`.'."»'• .. .... .r ,.- ......t.i.. .i.„, 4 ' , , iii,„ f 4 ' 17.-4-t ee._ . . (,,, , ,...: A , .1.,„ , , . ... ,t--; a, ,L„, tect,3 a) z„LAbL., ittu..,,,T(‘',..1,.:,.... (,.,...O..„..,/..,.21. i-e,_...,. 61.,Ac.,/,.. ,,..„,. /:.,..-. ‘„Aw. ._-e4... / • _.._ _,„._...,_...„,„..... ., tb.t/LmQ/U. _ : :.4.....-.44—.4.- -44„.4-4.. 4.-4.4 4 ......._,L„)1- 4.41 ,. ),___,,, ). � � . ,I , , .,...6.» '•�1�,- O' Al'.• '. ._ C.r�`:r»,. (I"' 1, `!._.•.1/`' C .4/,...% b--(163( '�'r?C...�..•✓`. ...- L;t21" ti nizO . 66,a,:i L Lc-ic. 1,/ai--rtpue.:j ,,)---/Aiz,‘„) At. ,!..0, ..:„. . +x .,, �,ttlii,.0 ,.01)4111 ii,tkL- ) A at.i 'i 2 . L i 1.e: r G u' .- c / . _ _ Y ., . / .L. _ �X . /v,9u,lem .. .1 ..- .. ... _.. ,. ., ,. ,_ .,-et• .. j.., 1, 1 ti 14/11.Wka,'(JR; „. . it a C.:(' C't-''''.. . _.-2' ..:1 '',''17/1?....,,,E a...a' . ._.-.)........('.,:e). .,:. .. .---.,..... ...„ .. .............„„ , -, �.,,... . , .,. .,,. .74,4 l.,r'd cp e-t- d r J ia,fC: '`L,Lf) 1,44L •- 4:Z"`-'.,(.r':'. ..,,u7�C..Y.,0, , e.:.....s...., .....,.- .,64') _L t th, J2,/,,Ivivi..4-1,/t.mx..,1 .4-0/4 a.. " .), ! _ i,. . . a�.- . a .,.. ...zrv., ..ww.xr n, .,.,...nx-.a r. -, .. . ,e,:n. , •.,�•,.n,...... .. :s.. , , - -t "".-, - .. ,...• ,....-,». ..a......- _.,• .w a-, ..-a-,..-.-,u. -.e.. .,-..x.....•,. =s... awc.,a,.,-.,. • u..e,.--r.�.,��.�e .,.0 ..;•an-:x.a xs, .-.,_...a..x 6na,,. a...a.. ... .,i. -r -r....a ,-, -..-�,. .- .-.- .•u,...•„ ,.,• .. _.-_-,- .. . _ .. ,/• ' L7,_?(..?1di.441,,,,lun:. ...,.. ...„,,„. ..... • . . ,, ....7), , . . . . . . ___4„:,.... . ,.---, v , ,..,..,1 . . .. , . ...... . .. ,._. • ....,.. , ....„. .. , , . .... . .,. .. . -; ag. 1., ‘ts1,1•Lt.../06. a" 2/''''(•''''a,6:(676:7,_, . ,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .., . . .., .. . .. . . . .,.., , .. ..., . . . , , . . .. , , .... .....„ . .,.. _ , , ..... „.... . . . . . . . . ,..... . • ..... , . . .„. .. ... .. ..... . , ,.., . ,. ,. ., .. . .. , . , ,,.. ..... ., . , , . ..„. . . . ... . . . . • . . . . . . . .. . , .. . ...„.. ..•... , . .. .......... .. , „... ....... . . ...... .. . „,_. , ,,,,... , .„..„ . ... .. . ,. ... . . ,. „.„. , . , . „_,. ..,...,„„ ..... ., . . • . . .,... _,.., ..,. • . ,..„. ...,. ,,,, , ..., . . _ . .....„ , . . . . . .... . .. , . . .. ,... „ .., • ,.. . . . . . . . . . . __ . .. .. . ,.. ,. . ..... . .., ... . . .. . . . . . • I x_ - . ... . .., . . .,• .. . . . . . . .. . , . , , ., . .. . , , ,. , R • , , . , . • . • . . , . .„ ... . , . . .. . . , . . . , . .,.. . , . . • . . .. , ,... „ ..,. . .. ...... ..., • . . . . . . . .. . , . . ... ... . . . . ___ . ....... ... .... . .. . , . . , . . . . . , , . . . , . , . . . 1 "... . . . .. .. , , ,• .,,,.. . . . .. . .. .. . " . . . • .... , . . . „ , .. ., , , .• . .. . , . . . . :, ,.. . . . . .. i. . , . , , . . . . . . . i ,. , , . . ,. , . ... „. . .... , , ,,, . . ._ ,.... •• ,. ...., .,...... r . . . ,, . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . , ,, . ,, .. , , . . . , . . , , . . , . . . . . . . . .. . , ., ., , , . . , , . , . . . . , . , . ... . . . ... . . . „ . . . ,. , .. • . . ,. ..... . . . , . F.,.. , . . , ,. , .... . .,..., .„...„.. . „,..., „ .„.,... .,, . , ,. . . .,, 4, . . . , , „ , . . .. . . , , . , . . , . . , . , . . , . . , . , , . . . , , , . „ , . . ,,. . . , , . , . . .. ..... ,.. . .. ... ......, . „,.. „,........,..„...„....„..............„.„....„...,.... /fir /- ,, , , -\,, _.. „ .. 1 p n i November 9, 1982 MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the City Council FROM: William A. r,)nahan, )irector, of Planning' & Development RE: Appeal of S-4-82, 2C-12-82 Sunnyside Estates The Robert Rand411 Company has filed an appeal on the above named application denied by the Planning Commission off, , . . 1982: The applicant requests that`t ie'mZ=2" ounci: w ew t e decision and remand the decision to the Planning Com:ti:,sion. The applicant re requested a .g 5 • Femily q zone change from R 7 to k-,..•...•...:lit ,- ._. ...... residential as well as approval o a su:•lviszon on 3.89 areas. taff i` "1:nliri'° ' on in•in s t at J .. ...,... .._'..... •.. . _.-.* the proposal violates policy 2 of reco�;�iit��u�ct'°""�t'�' g P P P Y the adopted N. M"°'P± n and the proposal is not compatible with existing surrounding land uses. Attached are are the following:, 1. A copy of the transcript of the Sept. 7, 1982 Public Hearing 2. Staff Report - Sept. 7, 1982 Planning Commission Meeting 3. Minutes of NPO #6 June 17, 1982 meeting 4. Staff Report , earlier consideration of the proposal when A' 0104)( it was titled Golf Side Estate on February 20, 1982. 5 Site Plan Title of Appeal, October 5, 1982. • e0.1 fsp,,_ c kV(' AIbtke,NI> ,kittl)d) 4,1 prval") R' Ir jr. Page 1 SUNNYSIDE ESTATES ZONE CHANGE ZC 12-82 ?' SUBDIVISION S 4-82 ?! President Tepedino: I have the staff report Associate Planner Newton: This is an application for a zone change from R-7 to R-5 single family and request for approval of a 25 lot subdivision on 3.89 acres. The property is located south of Sattler and east of 100th in NPO #6. In 1979, the City Council approved a zone • Chang-_ .f .�..... .�._... �._.r in t ,e annxng . a 15 lot su z ... Dig:ec •. lot .,.�.on in - zotA' •.` I- .r•• e su•.: vision being proposed or proposed to staff by the applicant is shown here. There are 25 lots. The applicant or the staff reviewed the application with NPO #6, reviewed the application with other city staff, Public Works Director, Building Official and after a review of the area and s.h,e review with the NPO #6 policies, staff feels + v....,. ..:.......... �,,... not �t` su' the character of. .. - *, it violates P ~... e., .. , recommends Polio ... o e �'0 plan and therefore recommends i '�' •' denia� 1 of�-t j • _ e su division ayout. President Tepedino: OK. Thank you staff. Is there a report from t e NPO please. Jane Miller: I'm. Jane Miller and I live at 10920 S.W. Highland Drive and I have been asked by the Chairman of NPO to read the comment. NPO 6 does not support the zone change from R-7 to R-5. The NPO feels the zone designation should remain as :- • """Puri, the Nee' .- . the flag lots and increased density does not suit the character of the neighborhood. The NPO voted unanimously to support the original subdivision plan for 15 lots approved on February 20, 1980. President Tepedino: Thank you Mrs. Miller, I appreciate: that. President Tep Is there a report from the C.C.I•? (`t,o response) . edino.• OK. May I have a report by the applicant please. Presentation by the applicant, • John rfibbon: Ladies and gentlemen here, my name is John Gibbon, I am a staff counsel for the Robert Randall Company and here the proud recipients of the famous or possibly the .infamous and soon to become infamous Randall diary which we plan to submit to all Planning Commissions and other bodies at any time, There's one for each member of the Planning Commission there at any time we make an opplication f Page 2 President. Tepedino: Ir. Gibbon, let me ask you a question. Is this just a recapitulation of the historical events? Mr. Gibbon: It is a recapitulation of the historical events in the matter of the Gulf side Gulf side subdivision. President Tepedino: OK because we would not accept any new matter but since it is a recapitulation it's more than regular history I guess. Mr. Gibbon: Yes and I think it's a valid type of item to be for any group when they consider an application like this. And I think this one summarized briefly will a show you that there has been a variety of false starts and mixed signals that have come from uh public agencies and the economy and everything else and the development of this particular piece of property what it basically boils down to is we come up with about three different plans based on two different ways of d..signing a sewer system for this particular piece of property. Right at this point we have a commitment from the Unified Sewage Agency in the City of Tigard that we can hook into the Summerfield line located at the southwest corner of the property and frankly, we're a little bullish on • the economy and we'd like to build the subdivision this fall, if at all possible. Uh. .. I think, there 8houid be a couple things added to this diary just so we know exactly where we stand. I think under the listing of fall of 1980 you should note in September of 1980 bri'ds were given to the City of Tigard for the to pay for the subject improvement for the 15 lot subdivis4on referred, to earlier and those bonds will expire this month unless they're expended. Urn.. ..and secondly, you should note in December 30, approximately of 1990. a plaque notice the Gulf sides that's with a G u, was recorded at Washington County for this piece of property and I think if we get nothing else accomplished here tonight we would like to get the name changed because I don't know where the nearest Gulf is but we sure would like to get some changed bad. Maybe it is the Gulf between us and the neighbors. I hope not. Um. .. ..to go on and briefly state again. The situation that we're in is that we have gone through a, long and torturous process and laying out where we are going to put our sewer for this particu ,ar piece of property. At one time we intended to hook into the line. that's located in Summerfield as I said to the southwest part of the property* Somewhere along the line, and 1 frankly don't know why because T wasn't involved in all of the negotiations, they Page 3 John Gibbon: decided that that wasn't going to be feasible and we went out and acquired or thought we had acquired an easement from the property owner adjoining us v.,, from the east so that we could bring the sewer line through and hook into an existing sewer in Lakeside Drive which is to the east of 98th Avenue. When 4° >. the economy went sour and the deal didn't go together as quickly as we'd like to, the property owner recinded that transaction. So out of the last fall we were in the situation of not having the sewer. At that time it because apparent that TDC wasn't going to get the Summerfield trunk line built on the schedule that they had committed to a 4 • number of years ago so we entered into negotiations ; r with the City and Unified Sewage Agency to acquire access to that that line and had been told by USA that there is adequate pumping capacity to handle the sewage from this particular property at this time. Uh in the range of 22 to 28 units on that • property. So at this time our plan is to hook into that sewer line. And with that plan came a determination that given the market conditions that have redesigned the subdivision to accommodate .• 5,000 square foot lot was what our company felt was best in the market at this time. Uh so we have • gone through a process since then wovking with the NPO and other people in developing this site with our these goals in mind for the Randall Company. One is to utilize that sewer line. Two we thought to minimize the use of attached homes or units in this area. We didn't feel that we really wanted to have anything but a single family subdivision here. I suppose you might think that's a little bit of break with, tradition from the Randall Company but I don't think if you really look at our record as a subdivision developer as, opposed to a condominium then a harbort(?) developer you would. see that that is really two different we've used we've developed at a variety of densities. Uh . . . arid. .. but I think that underlining all the densities that we've come into and applied for in the past is the fact that we are looking to develop urban land to an urban standard and produce good neighborhoods. Um... I think the theted goal that we had when we taame back with this 5,000 square foot plan was if you're, familiar with the topography of this particular site, and because I was very interested in the property at the time having at that time I was living ott the house there, we were looking to maximize a solar - the number of solar lots on that site and it is the property to what would be the north side of Cable Road that we analyzed has the right slope facing . , Page 4 John Gibbon: south to take advantage of this solar potent;,.al and we would like to see the number of lots increase in that area.. I think that as we went through the process of 1) analyzing the Market and 2) talking with the neighborhood, we came to the conclusion that another goal that we should have is to minimize the use of unimproved flag lots in a subdivision. Our lot salesman who has done a '... tremendous job for us in the last year and sold on the order of 600 lots has said that he just doesn't want flag lots that don't have improved driveways on to try to sell. And so he urged us to look to plans that layed out and put in as private drives the flags. Uh,. . . . and then finally and then keeping with our goals to bring things up with to maximum urban standards we sought to maximize our , lot yield and at the same time we have sought in our negotiations with both the NPO and with the staff to look to something that would produce some good livability for the site. Uh.. . we came up with th 25 lot plan you have before you but I think that our body line in this is we need the flexibility of the R 5 zone change. Because of ; considering the other goals that we have and considering the neighborhood and the configuration of the site we need that flexibility but we're not married, to that 25 lot plan and have some other 2 proposals for you tonight and develop working with staff that we would like you to consider.. . . 1 think the main thing we are looking for tonight is some certainty I. mentioned. ? Th zone change and • 1 some idea and what everybody is can come to a concensts as the, good number of lots for that site and then we'll of down to the P's and Q's of getting a final layout done and getting on with ■ _ fulfilling the subdivision. And I'm going to turn it over now to my planner from Waker & Associates, Joe Walsh, to give you some more ideas on the constraints and the other issues that would come into the foreplanning. Joe Walsh: As John said, my name is Joe Walsh and the Planning, Director of Waker Associates in Beaverton. And we have been contmissionerw to take a look at this tt • property and redesign it to ghat we believe is the I neighborhood need and the property owners wishing 0 itse.ives. If I can just take, a minute I will put up a couple of examples or that illustrate more clearly more where the property lies in relationship to the surrounding neighborhood. If t rAn ,just talk up here or a s •cond, I will try to : talk a little bit louder, Um., this is our plan ,,, right here of the 2;1 lots and I'll get into where • and how we arrived at that a little bit earlier but 1 , Page 5 Joe Walsh: since I'm up here I'll explain right now. This shows some possible building site locations as far as the plan shows itself. Until the named public street, which is already dedicated, Kable Street, and can use some improvements to the named driveway, which in the shaded areas here, here, and here, to allow for access to our lots on both of these already areas served. They are they all have public access to or access to a public road but improvement is done by the developer in the shaded area and we estimate the 'aide ? be the driveways to end of ? itself . But you have access to all the lots and apparently weight the • problem with any flag lots ? . This does make my. the utilization of the property yard, by density. Now the plan itself is in an area of older homes on 10,00.0 square foot lots which was platted through the County and the time they were built on these lots the was the septic tank limitations „back in ? you can see the size. That's one of the main reasons an that's the only, reason. Since then the property has rather been annexed. The piece has been in for three or four years or whatever and we did have a plan 7500 square feet.. square foot lots. Now we bring the sewer and location down here and built into the site if we bring it up to here to be extended on for the future development that any property that picked up r, a hundred ? or whenever the drainage would sewer. So as we all from one time opened up a little bit more land to develop in the future. In the meantltua, we're dealing with (change tape to side 2) in the near future. The same one ? ' all serves as available. Sutnmerfield No. 12 over here is also 4,000 square foot minimttn lot. For an area on the outskirts of this older neighborhood in the area of developing a new neighborhood, we have a Church here that constraints us from going south with the development at all. So we're right at the tail end of this neighborhood which leaves it the .R-5 is the best suited for a ? this site. Some of the constraints that we had on this property is 1) tho dedicated road right through the middle of the property that left the area to the north and the south side of that street rather difficult to plat out as. 1) an R-7 subdivision and 2) getting public irnprovettents in there. Um... between the two it takes up to &i land lost in street dedication. and p mu �and l tree right-of-way to develop the size of any urn yield„ So we're looking at this plan that you see up here as totaliyr designed through the R-5 zoning designation and through the subdivision ordinance itself. it meets all the criteria of the •4 1 -J 44. I -In h . I1 1 a Page 6 1 Joe Walsh: subdivision ordinance under an R-5. Um. . . the staff report talks about the incompatibility of the surrr,,unding uses and I think I earlier discussed f those about how we fe l that we're compatible with the newer developed area in here and that um we are just making a better utilization of the remaining I square chunk of land that's left between Sattler . , and 100th Ave. and 98th. Uh. ..pub•lic improvements, we would be bringing up the sewer that's fully serviced with water right now. It would be adding r just about 300 feet of water line. There is a drainage problem in the southern end of this property where we would be tying into an existing storm drainage and alleviating that problem with the ,ieveiopment site Some concerns that the staff . had when we met with them after we received the staff report were there weren't really problems with the zoning itself, it was mainly with the configuration um of some of our, lots that we had um some lots that were served with our private access roads of more than two units on the private access roads. Um. . .. that was the main concern that the staff had that they had felt lacked in the R-5 0' proposal and subdivision. So we gent back and looked at the plan to see what we could do to alleviate that problem but still make a viable project. And what w& did was e 'liinate the hammerheads uh configurations that ‘;_e eastern portion of the property and put in now the plan we've come up with is to utilize just two lots off the individual access roads which would be improved with the subdivision so that we don't have t1.:`ee or four lots on a private, road. We would just Lave two fuel :lots now and that's the situation that did drop um three lots from our original proposal of 25 so we would, be down to 22 in this. Our average lot size in that case would be about' 69,165 square feet ' • per lot. So we fee?, that compromise that we have come from our original approval of 15 lots with �} possible duplexes on three of them, um. 2 of the 25 units we have kind of hit a happy ground at least in our terms of developing this property. Uh.. and as John said is the main influence we need to understand tonight is the R--5 designation on this site. It allows s the most flexibility um to • design the lots here and still cote up with our + ` yield. One other thing is that when the NPO plan was uh approved or adopted back I believe it was around 1975, the City didn't have an R-5 one at that Lime. It's just recently, been put into the ordinance and the R-5 zone is still one of the. single family ;Ilones in the. City. And I think since that time this is cane element that may have been 4 Page 7 Joe Walsh: overlooked in the NPO of not allowing in the ' difference in density of the single family uh.. .. zoning constraints that they have come up with now where as there, there were going to the R-7 as being the lowest single f.+mily designation. So with that I think I finish my presentation. if there is any questions I will be happy to answer ft em. . • President Tepedino: OK. Thank you sir. I appreciate that. Are there any parties wishing to speak in favor of this proposal. Mose in favor. Any parties wishing to speak in opposition. Those against the proposal. Bob Maddy: My name is Bo') Maddy. I live at 10185 S.W. Hoodview Drive which is in this one of these older estaf`ished area which this gentleman is making reference to. Eut I think what will be probably pointed out by some of these other homeowners here tonight, I am going to probably be perhaps be a ls,►:tle bit repetitious on some of these things but I think our primary concern in the area is urn simply some of the items that the young lady on the end here brought out. We got an established residential area that right now contains on the average of I'd say 100 to 150 thousand dollar homes. Some of them probably in the area of 200 to 250 thousand dollars. And I think the concern. that we have as established, homeowners is the type of development that is being proposed for this area. There is a couple of other things, I think that haven't really been brought out Uh. . . access into • this area is going to be extremely limited because there is no dedicated; to my knowledge anyway, no : dedicated roadway other than the partial access from Kable into the development. The remainder of the traffic pattern has to come down 100th. Which is the only access into this particular established • residential area we're making reference to. I think if nothing else just the increased traffic rattern is going, to be crested by homeowners living in a 22 to 85 unit compleX using sole access which right now IA' the worst in county road and has not been repaired for probably oh I'd say four or five years. There's nothing that the City of Tigard will do relative to the conditions of this roa4 at the present time; Beings it is a Washington County road. Um.. . I think those are some of the primary • concerns, there t+P4s another comment brought up relative to the, solar application which: kind of caught my attentok. I've been in the con.. . .. in M w t Q n' c A 4; , Page B Bob Maddy: the mechanical contracting for 25 years. The slope of the particular development has absolutely nothing to do with any advantage relative to solar heating. The only advantage that anything would have relative to solar would be the, lots on the , southern portion of the development. Everything else from that point up Is going to pretty well obliverated by the Jason Construction. So that's all I have. President Tepedino: Thank you Mr. Maddy. Anyone else wishing to speak . in opposition. Bill Carver: My name is Bill Carver,, 10155 S.W. Hoodview Drive. Uh I would suspect that the majority of the lots, I live a,;ain to the west of this, are substantial larger to the 10,000 square feet because we are on . ' septic tank. My lot runs just a little over 17,000 ' square feet. And r don't care what you call it 0 this is an apartment complex. It's flat. It is an apartment complex when you get a density this ' great. I reinterate again one of my main concerns is the road. There is only one road going ' into that area. And right now with the it is in ' pretty bad shape. ' And I would just be wondering if it the Washington County road who would take care ' of it. It's going to get alot: more traffic. P There's alot of cars going up and down that road today. Uh. .. . just the picture alot the building she location is just really not that, big. I just can't visualize 25 or 20 lots on a site that size. Uh. . . I don't know if I can talk out here, T was kind of curious to what the value the home value of ' these houses would be I'm just curious what they ' would be selling for. Any idea? I'm kind of President Tepedino: You will have the opportunity to cross examine. . . . ' till Carver: OK. Um I had a question about sewers but that was. brought up. Um road design was another question ' but that explains .i t o gut,, tho,se again was my concerns that the road oc or ss .bi :,t ty. It's a . relatively high dense rot t 4 neighborhood that really is not in its charm; ,,' to trt,kat this many ' lots in the section of that sip i,b It seems out of charaeLer as the Pb N brought thit , to t1te attention that this doesn't meet with their 1' A President Tepedino: `thank you Mr. Carver. Other parties u ish±ng to apertk in opposition: Those opposed? Yes sir. s Dave Atkinson. Dare Atkinson: My name. "M � I reside on SW Century Oak Drive. My position here as an opponent is /4, '/ Page 9 Dave Atkinson: actually in the form of an inquiry, And I wonder if I might direct my inquiry to Liz Newton. Liz this subject hasn't been addressed. But I'm concerned and several others are most concerned if the City has any future disposition plan for Southwest 100th Street. Uh. .. the main reason is that it would develope a quite a bit of consternation or is the bit of exteided of street to be taken care of. Uh. . . . what we are primarily concerned is that in the distant future that perhaps some sarpticious manner, some mysterious manner and all of a sudden have a petition confronting us. Like moonrising. So consequently we are interested — Has the City had any particular disposition in the future on l0JOth? Associate Planner Newton: Mr. Currie ,:_.'nntends is to have 100th be a ° cul—de—sac here. He doesn't feel that there is any need to connect 100th with Highland Drive. His only idea would be to perhaps allow some sort of an emergency plain through here. There is public right—of—way and that would give fire and ambulance vehicles another way in. But in terms of making ? improvement to connect this area with this , { area, there are no plans to do, that. And he would at the subdivision stage, it is my understanding "►' that this to be a cul—de—sac. Dave Atkinson: Well thank you Liz. Your cooperation in front of y, all t;.ie public is appreciated Thank you Mr. Atkinson. Any other parties wishing • President Tepedino: y � g to speak in opposition. Yes sir. John Ulwelling: Mr. Chairman, for the record my name is John Ulwelling and I live at 15165 S.W. 100. I have not signed up on your list initially. I came with the idoa if the spirit so moved me I would speak. The spirit has moved me. I would think because I. . I live directly across from the project and I agree • with what Mr. Maddy had to say but I also thought you might want to hear from those homeowners who do not, live in 150 to 250 thousand dollar home. Uh. . . . We, live in an ol-ier home that was built about between 1910 and 1920. And we live on 38,000 +. square feet. And we're almost part of our house is directly across the street from the project. Our neighbors to the north of us right next door have 7, atret;. 'So I want to give you the, 1 want to add to what the other previous s.aeakers have already said. This not an area ±trade up, of lots of apartLents, condominiums, or what have you.. This is trade up of sophisticated homes between 150 and 250 thousand dollars and thosz other areas that ' • ,/''pay ^ , _..•. ��,; c, . ta � b Page 10 John Ulwelling: have not been developed, places like ours have one acre land, junior acre, next door neighbor has seven acres, we both have sheep, so it's a it's an kind of area the kind of development that I personally have felt has been incentive to what has been going on in the neighborhood. And I think the general, feeling, at least to the pe',ple I have talked tc before when there was fifteen houses , approved for the development, I have walked that . area many many times tryit,gg to figure out how they are going to put 15 houses in there and I figured well somebody must know better than I And when I saw this 25 houses I said this is enough and 1 , p think some of the neighbo-., felt the same way and decided to come down and share our views with you ':.his evening. Thank you very much. President Tepedino: Thank you Mr. Ulwelling. Any other parties wishing to speak in opposition? n.J f; ,.. Tom McQuire: Mr. Chairman, my name is Tom McGuire. I live at 9975 S.W. Sattler. First of all by showing the -" ., people here, tonight that aren't saying anything, 1 think that shows the support in the whole neij'.,hborhood the people that are against this. And r may I use the .. I think originally you know when ` this, was our semi ? You know, if we . had to have something done down there. But if you go ahead and approve an R-5 zoning here we have • these end zones blocked right now. Pretty soon they'd came in an want an R-5 zoning just because . these people could have it like when they do. Then all the density would be b. teed up here. So •, eventually this thing would be all stopped in with housing. Uh... I justed wanted to make a point • . , that pretty soon this would just be a conglomeration of houses uh everybody trying to a', escape up 100th that. is right on the corner of 100th and Sattler. It is busy enough right now with the Hoodview coinp:Lex and everything else. Uh. . . ' omce you start bring 25 families up this street down Sattler uh we'd just have a mess: So I j?a.st wanted to go on record as saying uh letting you know about that. . President Tepedino: Thank you s.ir. Any other parties wishing to speak in opposition. Those opposed. \. Steve navi 'son I also do not. ... my tame is Steve T a'v'isson. I'm at 15040 S.W. 100th. I'm two houses above Tom. who spoke a minute ago We have, a. parcel. of land witnin that block - Sattler and 100th and 98th. It is yet undeveloped. Just above me: and across the R r • Page 11 Steve Davisson: street is another parcel of land which is undeveloped. Wh6n we moved into that area, like these other people have stated, the lot sizes were • large. That's one of the things that we felt gave our house our home value. Uh. .. as they say there're sheep across the street, there's a very open field in there. Uh. . . if as Tom says this allowed to go through with a density level less ' than it is now, I don't think any of us are happy with the R-5. But if it goes in even as R-7, that still more dense that a lot of the lots a lot, of the development that has been done in that airea. And it's just going to set a precedent for the rest of the builders who are going to go in there4 I can see um I mean economical advantage or some place between an advantage and greed in trying cram 4 that many houses into that small of an area. Uh. . .Tom mentioned the traffic between 100th and Sattler. There's no other access to Hoodview except down 100th and Sattler. There is no provision made there for multiple ways out of that area. As Hood'-iew developed, the traffic on 100th k. uh became heavier and heavier and if you put the traffic from this development plus any future, development in that area, 100th is going to be very, very heavily traffited and it's, not adequately maintained. It's also narrow and there's a very, there's an offset up on the corner of just above that, on the intersection above Sattler. Urn.. . the intersections are very hard to see around you know. Pulling onto 98th and Settler ;.r' is taking your life in your hands right now because you can't see around the ^orner. And I just don't feel that added density in that ttrlaa would be anything a detriment to us aad I don't think it's going to do anything but bring our property values down. Thank you„ 6, President Tepedino: Thank ynu- Any other parties wishing to speak in opposition? Those against this proposal. 4 i Malcolm Jones: Hello, my name is Malcolm Jones and X reside at 9885 S.W. Sattler. I had list of questions and subjects that I want to have covered hav already been covered. I just want to go oz !;,' a;;.ti,e'i '.,tat I'm in agreement with the City ,•. y and ,,�,�"�1x l Ind the other opponents. If passible, ;, . . ,, ' ,;„ ;.:ikiV what the procedure is, I would likt ak some • ques Lionr. Pres4dedt T'e pedino: OTC. We have an opportunity for that in a few minutes. Malcolm Jones: Alright keep me in mind. 1 a a 4 Page 12 ' . President Tepedino: Any other parties wishing to speak against this ' > proposal. �.,. Associate Planner Newton: Chairman Tepedino,, I have a letter that I. would like to read. President Tepedino: OK why don't we read for the recd;_; this time. Associate Planner Newton: "City of Tigard, Planning Department. In regard to your letter on the Hearing of September ;i{rd, of the Robert Randall Company, no change reque:3t, I have no objections to the building. Howe-war, I would object if there is a road put in from the property joining Highland Drive as it, would be very close to my back door in creating traffic noise and all that would go with it. When I bought this house in . Summerfield, I was under the impression the roadway would be vacated as it is passed Highland Drive to the south. I would like to be informed of the decision as I will not be, in town for the meeting. Sincerely, Noldrum L. Lewis" President Tepedino: OK Thank you staff. Any other parties wishing to speak against this prctiposala Vote against this. I Thank you. We will now move on to the cross examination and/or rebuttal. There is a concern or ? several questions. First, for the applicant. Yes sir. Bill Carver: Yeh uh. Bill Carver again. Um dollar value of p5 homes? Anybody ? . What these homes would be selling fur? John Gibbon: We recently had an appraisal on that house that was there. I guess the appraisal was done on part, of my divorce settlement as a mstter of fact. Um.. . it's f Y Bill Carver: On that house that's there? John Gibbon That house that's the'r&. That house is an arcritectuytally designed house built by uh. . built in about 1960. It's designed by a free spirit John Gibbon: ` Yeh I would say a fret ..p�rit. Uh. . lair. Zake went on and designed the Portland General Electric building is more of his recent work. it was appraised at 78,500 and 1 would not think that any 'louses in that area would go appraised at anything less than that I.4 we can keep them single family. And that's what our goal is. Page 13 Bill Carver: What a. . „ single level? John Gibbon: Single and double level on the lots of around 6,000 square feet we are looking at 2 story homes. Bill Carver: I would hope they would not block my view of the mountain. John Gibbon: Well I would ? without a view of the mountain too, so yes I understand that one. Bill Carver: Um.. . Wour1 all the homes be build at once. Is the whole development be completed or/as ordered or.. S John Gibbon: No the public improvement would be put in, utilities would be put in each lot and then they would be sold to individual builders. It wouldn't be any kind of a track homes. It would be custom. homes. Bill Carver:, Um. . Would Randall Company be responsible for taking care of that road - 100th coming in there 1.* ` now or is the trucks, the caterpiller going to chew it up t John Gibbon: The original approval contemplated building a ` half-street on 100th north of Kable, a full-street 41 improvement to Kable, a full-street improvement south to the property line on 100th and half-street, on Sattler across the length of the property and we , .r have always assumed that those were going to continue to be ours ? Bill Carver: And viewing it from here, are those driveways going out onto, 100th. John Gibbon: Those, Yeh. Bill Carver: And up on Sattler. Up on top, those are three driveways. a n John Gibbon: Right. Bill. Carver: And did I hear you mention that you had some duplexes in mind in there. John Gibbon: Undor the original plan three of the lots were . 1 large enough, well four of tha lots were large enough to accommodate duplexes under City's ordinance. Three of them could have beu built on, in fact, the two to the south of urn 'under the original plan had 20 foot .flags out the{. street so they were contemplated for duplexes. At this point • what we want to do is' Ging .e family structures in this area and no attached nomes are planned, under interaction of our this proposal. Primarily because . ., with the WPO and their concern. t W4CT' ;n7 y � ,r Page 14 Bill Carver: Sewer would be coming down 100th there connecting in that direction, coming straight on down. John Gibbon: Sewer would go down. 100th past the existing Summerfield development. Bill Carver: Through that cul-de-sac? Joh.a Gibbon: Through that cut-de-sac and manhole there yes. .. Bill Carver: As I say we are all on septic tanks and I don't want them to get the idea yet the sewer is ready there. • a. John Gibbon: No. Bill Carve. I hav:„I+ 't had to have it pumped yet so we are OK. That's all I have. Thank you very much. Prerident Tepedino: Are there other questions. ? I would like to address my q'uestion.s to that gentleman from Beaverton, your planner. This might seem rather elementary to you, but can you tell me what you had in mind when you drew these two little lines down here? Joe Walsh: That outlines the area of the lots that are 4,000 square feet. Minimum of lot size. This is a continuation of 100th. Joe Walsh: Not contemplated. There is publi!. right-of-way 4, dedicated south. ? You came right down to a ? I Joe Walsh: No, that wasn't. . '. ? Did you have a contemplation in mind when you put this down? Joe 1'dalsh: No that comes straight off the Tax Assessors maps. Just shows the c°qtl.ine of the lots. You yourself didn't make any predetermined ideas? Joe Walsh: No, that shows the existing... eopecially on 100th. street. Joe Walsh: Absolutely riot: • This is a field y o;! ,know. This is a church. Page 15 Joe Walsh: Yes that is a church. 9 Joe Walsh: And I watched the soccer players down there for two years. No we did not intend to extend that street. We always have assumed it would stop at the end of the property line. .*. President Tepedino: OK other questons? Yes Was it part of the denial that recommendation from staff and rep NPO that they did not comply with the storm drain or was there adequate storm sewer? • Associate Planner Newton: This wasn't a subdivision proposal for this particular we weren't addressing storm drain. ? Has there been any addressing of the water problem with that property. • John Gibbon: We have under the original subdivision we had plans approved, for storm drainage off that site going down into the Summerfield lines. And as you know having watch me wade out of my distance the last two winters there is a storm drainage problem there. One of the tangs that we were working on under this new layout was with us being able to go to sewer in Summerfield it's keeping all of our utilities in one line coming right to a storm drainage line serving in the top part of, the property uith half-streqt improvements catching it coming down where on the east side thq existing house where the neck is. The smaller piece of the west side the line being east of that coming down • straight down straight, through the property making • one turn and then coming out through the south end and down through the Summerfield line. So it would be fully storm drained. I think at the bottom end •, „ we're looking at a what was it a 40" pipe, no I think it was a 36" pipe and the half-street improvement all away around has some storm drainage that comes off the hill. bt President Tepedino: OK Ill have to take one other quick question and quick answer, Is there one other question? Close the public hearing, portion on this issue. Commissions? Commissioner Moen.? COMMiSgiOftet M00111 I have a couple oe questions, Which are mostli, for st,...af. Staff what is the overall it our new Comprehensive Plan that we are looking at what is the planned density for this area • . .1111L Page 16 Associate PlaInner Newton: I think it was medium. Commissioner Owens: Uh Liz? It hasn't been decided yet, we need to get on the night of the 16th. Associate Planner Newton: But under a, I think you're talking about staff proposdl. Commissioner Moen: When the NPO 6 reviewed this, there seemed to be a couple of objections Uh. . . Was the main objection the lot, layout or here or the overall density? Associate Planner Newton: Both. Commissioner Moen: Both, so not only didn't they like the layout, but the density ? UM. . . that's all I have for right now. I may have some more comments later. President Tepedino: Thank you Commissioner Moen. Commissioner Speaker? Commissioner Speaker: Uh. . . I have a. question and three or four Comment . Of staff, if we approve tonight this zone change to R-5, what further steps does the * developer have to take. I'm thinking particular will we look at it again as say a subdivision? Associate Planner Newton: Under the current administrative prcIcedurs, you will under the administrative prdur,,.s.s, the oubdivision will come before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Speaker: OK. Then uh uh the applicant is absoluriy correct when he says I want R-5 to give fle-ability. Now even here his average lot is consid,2rably more than 3,000 square feet and apparently he i8 already reworked sow._ of it to a reduced uh the 25 to 22 lots. Something like, that. But, my point on that is that' the people who are concerned and the Planning Commission and the staff have another crock at what will finally be built there. Associate Planner Newton: Correct. Commissioner Speaker: OK. Uh. ..I have been sitting on the Planning Commission for over four years now and quite a few of these arguments lre uh kind of like a crack record. Uh.. . I wad say this to the objectors who live in , staff am I correct that this Hoodview addition on Kable and Hoodview is not in the City. Associate Planner Newton: It ,is now. " _ . i r 4 0 J r''if,. r'4 ' Page 17 Commissioner Speaker: It is now? Uh Ha. Well, they protest about the poor roads and don't want any more travel on them, to but they have the opportunity to form an LID to get roads. And the last time I was up there it was in the spring, in this Hoodview area and I was kind of appalled at the lack of street drainage up there. 4' It seems to me that uh that's something that, it's . apart from this development but, it's something their eventually going to have to take care of. Now, another thing when lot 400 which is lies between this development and SW 98th. Staff correct me, but I presume SW Kable Street will go directly to 98th. Associate. Planner Newton: Yes Commissioner Speaker: OK. So, uh you presently go around, you have to come out Kable Street whether you live on Hoodview ; • or Kable or whatever. But you will be able eventually when development takes place on lot 400, which is now vacant, and when utilities are available. Undoubtedly it will not be too long in development. You will have better access than you would have even with improved street 100th and SW Sattier. OK. This is something that has always bothered me with people who have large lots and 1 uh. . .Well we bought because it was large lots. But what they overlook is that this is now, whether they like it or not, whether anybody likes it or not, this is now an urban area and really their 1 are lots or their 7 acres lots are you tnigb.t say und:veloped and eventually will be subject to -- development. Uh. . I would also like to point out, that adjoining this Hoodview development is Summerfield. Uh. .. which I don't think anybody has to be apologetic for. After all I live there. The density is actually much greater than R-5. And IIIalso to the east there, where SW Kable Street will go out that Lakeside Drive, the lots are smaller than R-5. ')K they bring up a point the density is not as T stated because of the gulf course. But that is open space but these residential lots are actually much less than R-5 even though within that total development the average land per household could be greater than A-5. But you people in H,00dvieW are looking down on houses ol, housers that are on smaller than R-5 lots President Tepedino t Do you have any more comments sir? g Com issionet Speaker: I think that's it n i �: ` , , N Y ~' ~ N++ .■ ,.• . % . ..• '` • '•' ks ,..,, ' A '4. Page 18 .., .,.,, President Tepedino: OK. Commissioner Owens? ., ...0,., 0,- Commissioner Owens: I had a question that I think I should have asked •,*.‘ it during cross examination. It was So I .". 'P... will just make a comment and you have already ' addressed it anyway. That was, my question was .,,,. What is uh, I was wondering what the opinion was uh ..,, just the lots in Summerfield, the size of the lots --- in Summertield, some of the people who spoke, who ,',.. %., were residents of houses on larger lots. I don't . have any other comments now. . , President Tepedino: OK. Thank you Commissioner. Commissioner Christen? Commissioner Christen: Uh the only comment I have to say is one of the gentleman was opposed to it because they lived in ,, : an area of 150 to 250 thousand dollar houses and I don' t really think that is a valid argument for you ..,,' know people who live in big houses shouldn't look down on people who live in little houses and if , .- they are going to build an 80,000 dollar house below what difference is that going to make to . you. ..., ', .. President Tepedino: Thank you sir. Commissioner Bonn? -: * , .,. Commissioner Bonn: Looking at the latest plan, I prefer that than what was given to us in our packet. I do not e,C particularly like flag lots, and I hate to see flag lots on any development. Although it does look better than many of them I've seen. Looking at the total nlmber of units, under the present R-7 zoning .•4 ...,. that they have, they can put a total of 19 units ,,. based on the 4 duplex lots that are arriving of a .' 1 duplex and compared to the R-5 which they show here of 25 units. So what they are talking about i..:. ,...„ basically is a six unit increase for this 3.9 : - „.., something acre site.. . 3.89. The area of course uh ? two 4,000 square foot lots is a sort of ;,',;:-• ,. . competition area between large very very large lots and of course the 4,000 square foot in %! Summerfield. I wish there was some way they could , .,, develop this without flag lots, but uh with the . street passed in stone 1 would say it looks like it , is impossible. .:. President Tepedino: Thank you Sir. Commissioner Edin? ., ..: ,.. .., ••• .-.', • ir :.','v' e'..-"' ''' '',1 '''' "44 ' " d " " ' - ' ' ' ' . 4' ' 4. Page 19 ' ` Commissioner Edin: A. couple of comments. I think in general I am in ;r ;; agreement with Commissioner Speaker in terms of the road road. I think that the ? be it my neighborhood be forever is eventually property owners are going ,,, to develop. 'DIP issue of condition has got to be addressed. Soong or later that is going to come. So I find it hard to say don't develop because it is going to tear up the road. That's an issue that `, has got to be decided on. However,. I think there L;; .,,;., is ax,other issue of incompatibility with parts of the neighborhood, and unfortunately a difficult one . '4`` and a real question to all of us is ''Where do we ; ' draw the line?" Look at that map that I guess is ?�� over there now. We find some part of it that are ;, .,'. :. 4,000 or 5,000 lots. This would set very well. y`-` This is very compatible with that side of the ''` neighborhood. If you look at the other side you •'.L look at the minimum of R-7, you look at many that are 10,000 or larger. The seven acres I duly suspect sooner or later are going to be developed. ' ' ' It's not going to take seven acres for ever. But °`` certainly there are many of them that are 10,000 ',, and that is the compatibility issue that i don't fP, a ,:,, think is really been addressed very well. I guess r.,-. ' the question that I would like to ask and didn't } get it said during the cross examination is anybody looked at the possibility of perhaps R°-5 below Kable and R-7 above. Using.Kable as the medium for °' ` -- ,,,;; helping draw this line between Summerfield on both sides and keeping the R-7 larger above it. I'd be SII far more open to that. It seems to me that there's ' i t kind of a natural break there. That hasn't been •; addressed. I think there is an issue against the . .. Prom what I look at it I think it's really a.. . ►° what boils down to an issue of compatibility. President Tepedino: Thank you Commissioner. Commissioner Moen? Commissioner Moen: I tend to agree: with those comments. I think that maybe uh now we sit on this Commission uh and hear ` these arguments time in and time off and uh for someone who hasn't been here very often the _:. condition of the toads uh. . .' it certainly ? point however, it's something that sometimes we don't have a lot of control over. And I don'c think we can refuse to develop an area because of a road =, because the road are going to have to be squared away sooner or later and hopefully in this case the developer would be involved in doing some of that. :;�: Uh however, I think the density issue um. . should not be made light of Uh. . we know some members, I know some members of the Commission feel we should , that yes Tigard is an urban area. It should !+:''F `, Page 20 ; Commissioner Moen: develop to the maximum density that you can `` ' really. Uh. .. I don't necessarily agree with that, I think that uh people that have uh have homes that are medium density to it density have a ':r right to have those homes and certainly have a valid concern as to what kind of home they are going to go in near. I think we should definitely take that into account. And I don't think also " make light of the recommendation of NPO 6• We '': asked those people uh to put provide us with input ... and opinions on developments and I think we should i `' give them due consideration. Uh I think there is a + , density problem here that I'm not so sure was !,. 'N addressed properly when we had an R-7 L)ne. Um.. . and I think it may be , unfortunate that uh people a::. may not express that concern most nicely best •. sounding manner regard to value of homes and so on ,;;,'` that they could find the value of homes is now ,,Y becoming not so much the respect to the lot size, whether you have a 10,000 square foot lot or a 5,000 square foot lot um.. that the house is 0•'> determine how much the lot's worth . .•. just the r, same I think there is a problem in shifting density and I guess I would have to come down personally on the side that opposed to this development based " : on that and the recommendation of NPO 6. President Tepedino: Thank you Commissioner. My comments are the change in the zone I feel the request for that change has `;::,• just been not been carried to my satisfaction by the applicant. I'm not persuaded that we should change this from R-7 to R-5. Tha_a licant at one times 1,ied for and wasranted an k.- • �� uh '`;�' in while I can and and the point that may be relevant in so a as e ;t s""°""Ciavzn er U M� lots and they don't want t e neighborhood to go to hell in a an as a an a that, I'm not ' persuaded that's going to occur either. But the problem that dealing with is the transition upon some of the surrounling ,areas um. .. where there are smaller lots even higher density than the pie that " '` was illustrated here to the areas in Tigard where there is less dense and fewer homes. And I thing. +; , ' that as far as anything on this Commissi:u we , should look for smooth transitory changes rather ,' than abrupt changes; like gas stations next to schools, those kinds of things and we have bees, ,, trying to fight that for many years. And I see a problem here in joint in something like this application were, its quite a dense application, °: lots of homes: I'm concerned also about the access C;' for emergency vehicles which is a big problem; Fire s, and police. They only have respond during the day { '•4 .. Y `. ,1. ''. 141.,4 `,Y Page 21 Precedent Tepedino: when the sun is our we wouldn't have much of a '' problem, perhaps, but that's not the case. Where A. , I'm concerned and i feel that the applicant hasn't t, .;" really convinced me that this is in the best 1 IL interest of not only the neighborhood and the NPO ''° and the City and applicant and everybody else that is r' we ought to change, and I'm not convinced we ought to make the change. ' Every Commissioner has had an opportunity to speak .' now. Is there some Commissioner that would like to -` make a motion. Commissioner? Commissioner,Owens: Well I didn't really make a comment. ire, President Tepedino: Oh, I'm sorry. Did I miss you ' i- Commissioner Owens: No. I just didn' t t . . . ! President Tepedino: Didn't verbalize. i, .� Commissioner Owens: didn't verbalize when it was my turn very much. ; : Um. .so I will now without trying to repeat everybody. Um.. .My I think my general feelings 1'' ; "" about the higher density is negative. However, :`a'" n, ,.; when I hear and what I say doesn't necessarily mean ;' that I persuaded in the other direction. But when 1" :: I bear the arguments that I've heard tonight and I've hear lots of times before and I have made ., ,, , before Planning Commissions myself, before I was on x a Planning Commission, uh makes me want to at least '' be an advocate to the other side just because there , and sometimes room for thought on the need an ,"� .. reality of smaller lots and smaller homes and the " fact that there are smaller lots south of this area r 1 ' um. . . really does not make it 100% out of place at all. Um.. . I think that '`'m interested i n um ,;; . '- - Commissioner Eden's proposal of split de,Asity and I I _, don't know if we even want to discuss that tonight "'.7 or can't um. . but uh it is not a clear cut issue 1: 4 '.' one way or the other. A difficult one to decide on. .^ President Tepedino: Thank you Commissioner. Any other comments from 4. the Commissioners before I ask for a motion? ' Commissioner Bona? Commissioner Bonn: OK. I make a motion based on information submitted by the applicant, the applicable NPO, policies and ' staff investigations, recommend that sae. r, •'. denial of Zone Chaxige 12- 2 an u 3vi.sion 4--82. • President Tepedino: OK. Potion made. :; • x '£t,�- a+ .i *, - .,j -r t N,i ik"r:, i. i.. r 1 �' xt. y , , ' •• .'.. ,....',., Page 22 Commissioner Speaker: Mr. Bonn, are we voting on the subdivision too. . , Commissioner Bonn: Yes , Commissioner Edin or Commissioner Christen: Second , President Tepedino: Motion made for denial based on staff findings and :". recommendations and the evidence ‘-: i , •. i it Qie , -.;...,,,. ,.. A ,... ' .... ..'••• .. .., ,....,.' ..,.,, „.. .4 4 i /1#41111113/ , - I;ii44.10/AJt- ,I ..,,, ..,.. t , , ,.., , '11 vil4/1 ''. •• .I 4 lib '■ .. • ' .:" j ..... I ... '.C ■ .'*■%1 %V, I 1 ■•'...,•r ;.t.*. „ • • .. .. , ■ . . ' . • ,4',,, .a.. , ,,., 4 '4 ..' ,, . .,.. *4' ' ' ' Y ' :-7-----------7.--.1-1-,,-..,,- : . . — .---4.4.?",,.,,„ ''•• ,:'.-,';''''',t ,'''' : . . ' '.---,- ---."-- ,-.° -"' - : " ' I,1 , the ., Obert �: ;{ :. ;r \ V: company 7 :,,:: Kristin Square• 9500 S.W. Barbur Blvd. 0 Suite 300 0 Portland, Oregon 97219 w (503)245-1131 Telex #360557 r. r -0,, t October 5, 1982 s �9b2 � Rqg OCT OC 4 l " 1 To the Mayor and Members of the Ciiy Council CITY OF TIGARD d C/0 William Monahan PLANNING DEPT. Director, Department of Development CITY OF TIGARD P. O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 NOTICE OF APPEAL - S-4-82 ZC - 12-82 Sunnyside Estates A,`;, ;,,`.{ 15280 SW 100th - 2S1 1 LCA Lot 900 ,, i k...\ Dear Mayor and Council.persons. iL This letter will serve to notify you that the Robert Randall Company, the ` .1 applicant in the above referenced action, hereby appeals the September 7, 1982 decision of the Planning Commission. The applicant requests the City Council review the decision of the Planning Commission and remand the ap- plication to Planning Commission with the condition that the R-5 zoning r . . designation .s appropriate for the site provided that the subdivision be , limited to ru more than 60% of its lots of less than 7,500 square feet or a maxims . of 21 single fami1 y lots. The applicant notes as of the date of this application, neither the minutes ;;''; ' nor the transcript of the hearing of September 7, 1982 is available, and it therefore requests the opportunity to submit further written testimony upon ; , the availability and review of those materials The applicant's assertions • regarding the Planning Commission's hearing and its deliberations are based '' on its own notes of that meeting. The crux of the issue is of course whether or not the applicant has submit- t4"`' ted evidence sufficient to permit the zone change from R-7 to R-5 to occur �•�'� '. . upon this parcel. A review of thin record will demonstrate that while the y Planning Commission clearly feat that while the applicant has not establish- I ed that at the density of 25 lots it originally proposed the zone change ..:4.: ' was appropriates a conditioned utilization of the Rµ5 zoning would be ap-- f :� propriate for the site. y} '4 - , t,:i4 ! x 1 1 v.:•w ,i • . �., i. , a , ,„ •, , a , . ,•' i t ^ + y L . r.. • To the Mayor and Members of the City Council °. ` •,:_ October 5, 1982 • Page 2 ,, :. ; While the Planning Commission Chairman indicated the; applicants plan re- , qu..red more justification, he also indicated that the site did require a ,',..,`. • careful consideration of the transitional of nature if arts location. Such a transitional character can be achieved through a mi,•teire of R-5 and R-7 : lots allowed by the conditioned app.-royal. #t1: The applicant's burden of proof in this situation is clearly to demonstrate ■ such an approval's conformity to the comprehensive plan for the arealthat of NPO #6 :',' • ,'• : The staff report on this application emphasizes that the application vio- '4', fates Policy #2 of the plan requiring 4 units per acre or 7,500 square ° foot lots. NPO #6's policy number two also suggests that 12 persons per ,' acre is an appropriate density for the area When it was written the plan assumed that a household population of 3 per living unit was normal. Cur- rent statistics demonstrate a typical househola size is nearer to 2.3 per- ' '''''. sons. A condition permitting only 21 homes on the property would result "t :' in an average density of only 12.42 persons per acre. -` The application conditioned in such a manner should be carefully judged ,. �`':; `i against the currently approved n--7 plan, which allows 19 units in the area, '.1 including eight duplex units. Its impact is minimal in terms of an in- i.,' • creased numbers of units and it furthers several of NPO #6's other goals. 7,:'.. - NPO Policy #6 which emphasized the construction of single ,, family homes. .: - NPO Policy #7 which recognizes the need for buffers between 00 ,, various densities, in this case Summ.erfield's 4,500 square foot lots and the larger lots of the other neighborhoods in the area, a fact rec">gnized by several planning commissioners. . While several commissioners suggested a split zoning for the site the ap- ��,, , ,•, plicant believes that a mixture of R-5 and R-7 densities across the site is more appropriate because it permits the greater utilization of the -. '. areas south facing slope(±n accordance with NPO Policy #8.)An approval conditioned in such a manner is appropriate in relation to the applicable LCDC Cools 0' - Goal #1, in that it is responsive to the NPO's input concerning �; tho single family character of the area. `• ",.`4 Coal #2, in that it responses both to the NPO, the, staff and . • the planning commission's concern regarding the over utiliza ,:. tion of private drives. - A conditioned approval would permit a design for the subdi- s vision which take's account of, in an efficient manner, the existence the private open space adjoining the site, en- hancing Goals 6 and . .., x �.w`'k ..« r' „ ., �1. 1`•i-*+f.+a�.wrxna c{««ew.�«.c m,+w.,a+ew+y��•. '�.° .`^;(N »,:.ywrmrtn.�} '� �,., .. 3 t/ r , ' ♦ \�' `', , t. f To the Mayolz, and Members of the City Council October, 5, 1982. Page 3 '' - A conditioned approval of this request would permit a ;.e- design of the subdivision to more efficiently solve a j'' serious drainage problem previously identified on the site, Goal 7 is therefore addressed. ,. -- By removing further governmental restrictions on the de- • ' velopment of the lots, avoiding the duplexes conditional ,, use process, it enhances quick economical development of .w. the property, addressing Goal 9 concerns. "., - Goal 10 is furthered by providing a few more, &nd.ividually > lower priced, homesites for the more preferred Lousing al- ....,``. ternative, the single family residence. s Goal 11 is enhanced because a re-designed subdivision would , produce a more efficient sewer, system utilizing a closer USA ` ;, connection as well as solving the drainage problem discussed ,$-.., above. " ;': The Planning Commission's record clearly shows that the street °,`t improvements proposed by the applicant, improvement of 100th, � Kable and Sattler, was adequate in relation to Goal 12 - the Transportation Goal, in the judgement of the Commissioners. ,r' '�'1 - Goal 13 is served by allowing a higher single family density on a south facing slope where greater potential for the use of ' solar energy exists. LI - Goal 14 is furthered by the infilling of vacant land within a :A build up area at a density which is reasonable in its transi- ' )'` tional character between a higher density PUD and lower density '' single family homes and underdeveloped properties in the area. .', ','''.' It is apparent from the comments put forward by the Planning Commission in "` I Y ' _ its deliberations on the matter that no opposition evidence was presented '� at the hearing to under cut the applicants basic proposal. The question was a close one at that time an adequate transitional solution was what was sought. The applicant believes an approval conditioned on a mixture tF of no more than 60% R-5 sized lots or 21 single family homes resolves the transitional issue. A choice between 21 single family homes or 19 ;`," W homes including 8 duplex units it submits, should be resolved in favor 1 ,, of the single family homes as more in keeping with the character of the `� neighborhood. ` , The applicant respectfully requests the representatives of groups t`;�; serio asl,r interested and with expertise in the issues raised by this s. ' appeal, the Metro Home Builders and 1000 Friends of Oregon be permitted r. . ,�, ..to- aiM .uL ♦ . •,e.�,t .' l� e. »„., : -r ,�w'.'1w.w. , cti.:.� 7 J!° ��x i � 4. ...•■ . ' W^' y1 f d +. • ::.. • i• 11'' ,4 "Co the Mayor and Members of the City Council °, f ;' October 5, 1982 `` " Page 4 to make oral presentations to you at the time of your deliberations on , �, - ' the matter along with the representatives of the applicant. We recognize the same opportunity should be afforded members of public with opinions on this matter. ' '. Respe tfully submitted, ----7--- , i2 e /(///,( / / 7 Jahn T. Gibbon Secretary/Counsel i JTG/cl .."'...:: 4; 4'' t. t c,, v`. ,a ti ti y '' X:„.r*iw.., •+ ra+<:a'.r„<;M4rr..,x,+wSY,..M.»wZr� tt .-}e'^a:.ynr at q ' f A'' v .' . ,,. , ..,,. . ' lr — .. — .• ,- .;:. . 'f 4 ',.•, , '' I NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 4 . ..i viA,SHUNIGT31. cot T.' OREGOi, ' e . - Notice is hereby given that the Tigard Planning Commission, at its meeting ,..: , . ,: ; on Tuesday, September 7, 1982 at 7:30 P.M. ,in the lecture room of Fowler Junior High School, 10865 S.W. Walnut Street, Tigard, Oregon, will consider the following application ,,•:-', ,,,... .. ,, FITE NUMBER: ZC 12-82 and S 4-82 At, .. t ....-.-- APPLICANT: The Robert Randall Co. OWNER: Same 9500 S.W. Barbur Suite 300 Portland, Oregon 97219 ; '.4 ..-:' .. t :... .... c..., REQUEST: A request by the .,::Jert Randall Co. for a zone change from R-7 to R-5 Single Family Residential and for approval of a 25 lot subdivision on 3.89 acres. A , ..,. - . ;. LOCATION: 15280 S.W. 100th Ave,, (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 .11CA tax lot 900) „ .., . .,, (See map on reverse side) The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of procedures of the Planning Commission. Any persons having interest in this matter may attend and be heard, or testimony may be submitted in .,,... writing to be entered into the record of the initial hearing. Should you wish to appeal, a written letter addressed to the City Recorder must .',..!. be received prior to the expiration of the fifteenth day after the decision of :. , -- the hearing. If notice to appeal is not received within fifteen days, the action is valid. For further infoimation please contr,Ict. the Plannan4 5 Department at 639-4171. TIGAID CITY HALL, 12755 S.W. Ash Avenue (Corner of Ash Avenue & Burnham Street) - .... .: . - . 12735 SW ASH P.O.BOX 23397 T1GARID, OREGON 97223 PH.639-41 71 —I ,•.' ,' 's ' , . 0, : ', '.:',.' .."., . 'J.'. ,'..1.,t,'.', - ,o, . * ' ' „ ,: `, it.- : # , •,' '. . . ...„:. ' ' , ',. ' 1 e1 fn CO ' _— .r.-�r -- - -- -- - - - - ` —r n,- O. . t!ta. . 11 tilt ttilll 2 ttliti Hill itItt ing11 TtitI1111Ittfj1-g Siftill111-111111 till-1.211- , --=-4` 40 + u+ co 0 1 i { IN O - n. 0 1. ,._-.t.,- ,.,, .,... :,- , . : .. -_ . -.., _ rt.-- _ lei 2 i tt yteittilittumniiii-till I Hi -i col LA rt h Q `' 0 n A � ,n'n Eb a ♦ : _` a 9 90 iM NS. till 11 208.05 -.4 ,h'E' 'i °ft tttttft-t1ft .lttJ'tjjtittfl.18-11.I111111.jft .1-11111111 I iiHHaa ,. 1.6 3.35 s z:; o;. = h o * ` - - 4, -. .�tit 1. a .r 16335 a C tit - S 0° 13' VY 306.70 "' 2 �"� E Co r-- t,.� a. _„. f_. x E/f O o`z 6 -I 4 - Zi Crl - - t VI w n ■ N '' E- ,� O n _ ° w N ZJ�c. rn I- 25 2b F{ t 5:c,.ifi} 1653001 9.901 CHAINS [ N O° 13' E 326.70 i` - C.�"t btu t�?Et 8E0 C R t40,2048 TERM CR N,� '9 32 — -' t, •.Z. pt2'.2.�-i�cq.n,�„Eu rte.,. �.. �c' - ._ r...... U " �'�a7_ ' ' (�1 '7 .Y�}G; � a. f, /fitlljtiftiflfll//Ltf/ll, it'^�!t" /l iffllf i/!! /F/!!Ff!!,wro:.S1Y C3 AVE N E 8 !///li`1.:::!-4,Ax�F./::%:• C-� ~#, 7i 1� 65: !3s �t7' el,-/1c° r4.9G { co 60 -) _ Q� 2F • r '[} - .. }4 - Lo1 G.,! 1 i..t I� - ✓ .... CD' n r ;t 111! L -. .- A- - is - . . _. - SA. ." •'-y°';� s, %. .. .., . .: i . . :,. s.,..-. ariroF TIGARD .., WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON . • ..., NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION ,),',•.•, ., .. 1. The final decision was filed by PLANNING COMMISSION '''... S 4-82 _,.... tt Concerning ZC 12-82 on September 7 1982 -:'-- ............... Case Number Date ,.. . .,y ,A, ..,,., ....... 2. Name of Owner: Robert Randall Com 3. Name cf Applicant: The Robert Randall Company ..., Address 9500 S.W. Barbur Blvd. S-300 City Portla.nri State Ore. . . ..;', , ;,.. , 4. Location of Property: ri- . , ___ Address 15280 S.W. 100th Ave. , . t ' . ,., Legal Description 2S1 11CA lot 900 •,..:., ...,,,..- 5. Nature of Application: Zone Change from R-7 to R-5 Single Family Residentl.al and for approval of a 25 lot subdivision i .s.I 6. Action: [__J Approval as requested F --1 Approval with conditions rui Denial s'Ir 7. Notice: *Notice was published in the newspaper & was mailed to: 1.1 ''.'• „ 1.,. The applicant & owners ... , . . ,: IsOwners of record within the required distance • , , , 1---] The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization xx ,E. . pi Affected governmental agencies 4 , If there are questions regarding the names of the persons or agencies who • received notice, this information is available at the Planning Department. '. ..t ..• 8. Final Decision: -:- The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of condition can be obtained from the Planning Director, City of Tigard, City Hall, 12755 SW t, Ash, P.O. Box 2397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. • • in the case of a decision on an application for a variance, the applicant must acknowledge this form and return it to the City of Tigard, Plannlng -.. Director, before any building permits will be issued or engineering approval , given. .i" i qt ............* Signature of Applicant or Applicant's Agent Date 'y rl � t • • 9. Appeal: An appealf j has been filed 1111 has not been filed. , Note: Any party to tb decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.84.250, which provides that a written appeal may be filed within fourteen days after notice is given and sent. ~ Notice is given on Sept• 21, 1982 , therefore the deadline for filing of an appeal is October 5 , 1982 10. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard • Planning Department, 639-4171 . it;'• .r l •• • totit• . i 'Ir t.1 1'+ A• r.. • � . tac. a��. ' 1.• Sd. L,, 'ti ITEM 5.4 'WS„ y, , ,p STAFF REPORT !=;;«;I AGENDA ITEM 5.4 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 1982 - 7:30 P.M. F.. FOWLER, JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - LECTURE ROOM ?° 10865 S.W. Walnut Tiga:d, Oregon A. GENERAL FACTS . CASE: ZC 12-82 Zone Change Sunnysi.de Estates NPO # 6 S 44-82 Subdivision - . r ', REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a zone change from R-7 to R-5 Single Family residential and approval of a 25 lot subdivision on 3.89 acres. RECOMMENDATION: Based on information submitted by the applicant, applicable NPO goals and policies and staff's field investigation, t staff recommends denial of ZC 12-82 and S 4-82. APPLICANT: Robert Randall Co. OWNER: Same 9500 S.W. Barbur Blvd. S-300 . ; Portland, Oregon 97219 ,. SITE LOCATION: 15280 S.W. 100th Avenue (Washington County Tax Map 2S1 11CA lot 900) LOT AREA: 3.89 acres NPO COMMENT: NPO # 6 does not support the zone change from. R-7 to R-5. 1 ‘ The NPO feels that the zone designation should remain as R-7. . Further, the NPO feels that the flag lots and increased density 'A do not suit the character of the neighborhood. The NPO voted • l4 to 'support the original succwvis.ion plan for 15 lots approved on February 20, 1980. ;a BACKGROUND: On June 25, 1979, the Tigard City Council approved a zone change ,.e': from Washington County RU 4 to City of Tigard R-7 with conditions (ZC 12-79). On.February 20, 1980, the Planning Director approved a 15 lot subdivision at the R-7 density with conditions. (See attached S-5- 79 staff report.) ` AREA CHARACTERISTICS: The surrounding area has been developed primarily as single family residential. The Church of Latter Day ' Saints lies directly to the south. The lots to the west and north are developed to the R-10 density. The property to the east is vacant. SITE CHARACTERISTICS: There is an existing house and garage on the site which '= Will remain as a part of the new subdivision, The site . slopes to the south and is grass covered. There are a few trees on the northern portion of the site. • w tlr,.o- . v x{ STAFF REPORT ITEM 5.4 ;44 ZC 12-82 & S 4-82 Page 2 B. APPLICABLE PLAIN`NING CRITERIA AND STAFF ANALYSIS 1. LCDC GOALS AND GUIDELINES a. Citizen Involvement — The purpose of this goal is to provide the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all aspects of the planning process. In the case of this application, all owners of record within 250 feet received notice of the time and date of the public hearing on this matter. In addition, a public notice was published in the Tigard Times on August 26, 1982. b. Land 'Use Planning - All applicable LCDC Statewide Goals and, Guidelines, NPO # 6 Plan Policies and City of Tigard Municipal Code provisions were considered in review of this application. c. Housing -- The purpose of this goal is to ensure affordable • housing and .a wide variety of housing. types for the citizens of the state. * The subdivision proposed by the applicant offers singe family dwellings on small lots which may reduce housing cost. d. Public Facilities - .The purpose of this goal is to ensure that pubic facilities to the site are adequate. Sewer is available from an 8" line south of the site at Highland Thrive and S.W. 100th. There is a 6" water line in S.W. 100th and, an 8'" water line in S.W. Sattler. There was no' storm drain plan submitted with the preliminary plan. Fire hydrant locations were not indicated on the preliminary plan. There was no response included in the application from the Tigard School District indicating available space in schools to serve future residents of the subdivision. 2. NPO # 6 POLICIES Policy 2. The maximum overall density of development will be four dwelling units or 12 persons per gross acre. This amounts to a standard of 7500 square feet of land per dwelling unit allowing for streets and other open space. Some areas will have a lower density owing to topography, existing development patterns, or the desire of individuals to own a larger lot. Policy 3. Residential subdivisions will be developed with paved streets, curbs and gutters, street lights and walkways, according to city or county staid ards. All utilities will be placed underground. Policy 4. Development will coincide with the provision of public streets, water and sewerage facilities, These, facilities shall be (a) capable of adequately serving all intervening, properties as well as the proposed development, and (b) designed to meet city or county standards. ' i ..,,., .,. ........ ....... ,, :.... ,.. ... , i.i+....,a,......, .i....wok+...... ... a ,"y STAFF REPORT ITEM 5.6 ZC 12-82 & S 4-82 Page 3 1 Policy 5. Planned unit development will be encouraged on tracts large enough to accommodate ten or more dwellings. Planned unit :evelopm.ent will permit a degree of flexibility in design that will enable a higher quality of development in accordance with zoning standards. • Policy 6. The single family character of the area designated on the plan map as urban low-density residential is viewed as a positive asset to be retained. Projects proposed for this area must be judged according to affects upon this character. The density of the proposed subdi.vison exceeds the maximum recommended in the NPO # 6 Plan but retains the single family land uae. Public facilities and services are available to serve the site. The applicant has not requested the PD designation. 3. TIGARD MUNICIPAL'CODE PROVISIONS : 17.16.100 Tentative approval. (a) Within sixty days of the date of sumission of the preliminary plat, the Planning Commission will review the plain reports of the agencies listed in Section 'l7.."_6.090 and may give tentative approval of the preliminary plat as submitted or may modify the plat or, if disapproved, shall express the Planning Commission's disapproval and ,reasons therefor. (b) No tentative plan for a proposed , s bdivision and no tentative plan for a major partition shall be approved, unless: (1 ) Streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions or maps of major Partition already approved for adjoining property as to width, general direction and in all other respects, unless the City determines it to be in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern. (2) Streets owl road held for private use are clearly indicated on the tentative p . n and all reservations or restrictions relating to such private roads and streets are set forth thereon. (3) The tentative plan complies with the comprehensive plan and. applicable zoning regulatio s of the City then in effect. (4) No tentative plat of a subdivision or map Li . major partition shall, be approved unless, there will exist adequate quantity and quality of water and an adequate sewage In system 'o support the proposed use of the land described a�.n the proposed plat. 4. STAFF ANALYSIS After ; viewing the proposed plat and making a field, investigation staff with NPO cor�ct,rs # 6 that the. proposed R-5 density p ible with . P Posed R 5 is incompatible surrounding land uses. Further, staff feels that the lot configuration and acesses; proposed in the original proposal (S 5-79) makes better us of the proprty, I. I iy W STAFF REPORT ITEM 5.4 ZC 1,2-82 & S 4-82 , • Page 4 d 7 5. STAFF RECOI NDATION Staff recommends denial of ZC 12-82 and S 4-82 based on findings as follows: O ,e 1. The proposal violates policy 2 of the adopted NPO # 6 Plan. 2. The proposel is not compatible with existing surrounding land uses. • e y .,-.!--------"5----;77,,,,..2,--er,,...,-/'•g.'"-'e„e- -...cair- 4Pfri, -)1.--Zet.'7/----Z....—.—' 4,, ., g '91.1J/103//) . PR': RED BY: Eli a►eth A. Newton APPROVED BY: William A. Monahan. Associate Planner Director of Planning and Development • a E. •• " c ■ • y It MINUTES NPO #6 -- JUNE 17 , 1982 1. ) The meeting was called to order at 7: 39 p.m. 3 2 . ) Roll Call NPO #6 Members: Phil Pasteris (Chairman) , Don Quinn John Arrigoni, Jane Miller, William Frederick, ,.a Marge Davenport Guests: Bob Bledsoe (NPO #3) , John Gibbon (NPO #6 r member - Randall Co. ) , Mike Man (NPO #6 ' • member) , Loretta Allen, Mike Sheppard. City Staff: Jeremy Coursolle 3. ) Approval of Previous Minutes --- Approved as written • 4. ) Golf Side Estates -- John Ga. on representing the Randall Company presented three site designs. . , s * Plan A was presented to NPO #6 April 15, 1982, and showed 20 developed lots * Plan B was new and showed 25 developed lots. This was a variation of Plan A clustering flag lots. * Plan C reconfigured Kable Street to a "T° and provided 25 developed lots. The NPO reviewed these designs and indicated the flag lots and increased density did not fit the character of the neighbor- hood. The NPO then reviewed the approved plat for, that area. F � It was noted that the approved plat was significantly, different than Plan A. The main difference was the orientation of the flag on lot 11. The following resolution was unanimously passed. NPO #6 favors the original approved plot of 15 lots with the potential of three duplexes making a possible maximum of 18 P dwellings. This will be presented at appropriate Planning Commission hearing. 5. ) Review of' Anne>cation Policy Report that the C Jeremy Courso the annexation "bits It " • e ata.o said 1.hat y lle reviewed the r port and s would now emphasize th� n of some bits and pieces will old plox of "large Cit. winot approve extension of lines beyond of land vs an e area annexation. City PP ` y nd Cit}' •• limits' unless annexation applications have been filed. Continued. . . o• Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County 150 N. First Avenue Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 503 648-8621 <471 • April 15, 1982 Mr. John Gibbon The Robert Randall Company 9500 SW Barbur Blvd. , Suite 300 • Portland, Oregon 97219 Dear Mr. Gibbon: In response to your letter of March 9, 1982, the Agency • has no objections for yOu connecting 22-28 units of individual and attached single family homes to the • Summerfield Pump Station system. Please submit your plans for the sewer improvement for this project to the City of Tigard. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a can. Sincerely, • Terr3f. Chambetlin Design EnginOer TC:jf ,. • / Li%f CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO IN THE MATTER OF THE DENIAL OF A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO 82-136 ADOPTING A FINAL ORDER UPON COUNCIL REVIEW UF ITEMS S-4-82 AND LT 12-'82, AS PETITIONED BY THE ROBERT RANDALL COMPANY, APh.JCANT. d (SUNNYSIDE ESTATES) • THIS MATTER came before the Council at its meecing of February 28, 1983, upon the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration under TMC Section 18.84.330. The Council had befo,.:e it the entire record of the proceedings before the Tigard Planning Commission, which denied the request with one dissenting vote, on September 6, 1982. The applicant, The Robert Randall Company, sought review of that decision by filing a` timely Notice of Review of October 5, 1982. On December 6, 1982, the Council affirmed said denial and entered findings and conclusions by Resolution 82-136. Based on the record in this case, the Council makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The findings of fact contained in Resolution No. 82-136 are hereby reaffirmed by this resolution except as indicated below in Finding No. 30 4 2. By failing to provide a drainage plan with the application for what the applicant has termed their "new proposal," the Council determines that the applicant failed to show compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 11 as well as submission requirement,, for subdivisions and rezonings. See Resolution Ho. 82-136, Findings, of Fact No. 9, December 6, 1982. The applicant fined to deal with the drainage issue adequately by evidence submitted in the record, thus failing to carry its burden of prcof on this point. 3. The City has begun its scheduled revision of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan which will bring the draft revised plan map, including consolidation and revision of the existing NPO, Plans before the Council in February and March 1983, rather than December 1982 as formed in Resolution 82-136. At present, the Council has adopted the policy elements of the plan which ` ' will be effective April 1, 1983, some of which (housing, public facilities and services) affect the application under consideration. During March, the City Council Will deal with the map element of the Plan and the implementing Development Code, which may well render moot the applicant's contentions. jy v The Counci.;. also makes the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 1. The, conclusions of law contained in Resolution No. 82-136 are reaffirmed and ,Ireby incorporated in this resolution. RESOLUTION No. 83-- : 1 0 Iii, 2. The Council concludes that the application should not be remanded to the Planning Commission. The issue raised by the applicant's Motion for �_ . Reconsideration (B)(1)(2)(3)(4) is the same as the issue which, is the subject of Resolution No. 82-136, Conclusions of Law Nos. 1, 2, and 3, ��. December 6, 1982. In view of the revision of the, Tigard Comprehensive Plan and implementing ordinances already in progress, no purpose would be served by the remand, due to the change in applicable criteria, .: 3. The staff may not waive substantive requirements of an application when accepting it for consideration. 4. The Council did not have a Comprehensive Plan amendment before it in this application. The Council concludes that it was, therefore, not appropriate to consider Comprehensive Plan issues which were not before • it See Resolution No. 82-136, Conclusion of Law No. 4, December 6, 1982. 5. The applicant contends in Item II B(2) that the Council is free to approve actions which vary from our NPO plans. We do tiot interpret either state law, see ORS 197,175, 227.160 to 227.100, or our ordinance, TMC 18.84.100, to allow this. In the event of conflict of differing standards, the stricter regulation governs. 6. The Council also concludes that the applicant a7a,d the public are better served by a new application being filed, if necessary after the adoption of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, Development Code, rather than sending this application to the Planning Commission for a new hearing on criteria other than that which was before the Planning Commission previously. The Council, therefore, ORDERS that the above referenced motion be, and the A‘. same hereby is, DENIED. The Council FURTHER ORDERS that the Planning Director and the City Recorder send a copy of the Final Order as a Notice of Final Decision to the parties in • this case. PASSED; This p day of _ �"� �,� , 1982, by the Council of the City of Tigard. Mayor - City o Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder CitVI Tigard RE; OLUTION NO. 83 PAGE 2 (0458A) a STAFF REPORT FINAL ACTION TIGAfiD PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tigard City Hall. 1242.0 SW Main St., Tigard February 20, 1980 DOCKET: SUBDIVISION, S 5-79 (Golf Side r 4C 12-79) APPLICANT: 1 BERT RANDALL COMPANY OWN: 1•Z: SAME 95U0 SW Barbur Blvd. Portland, Oregon 97219 • CONTACT: DON DRAKE, PROJECT MANAGER — . 9500 SW Barbur Blvd. Portland, Oregon 97219 APPLICATION DATE: January 23, 1980 SITE . LOCATION: 15280 SI' 10Oth, southeast corner of .attle an 100th (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 11CA, Tax Lot 900) REQUEST: To create a fifteen (15) lot subdivision on a 3.89 acre parcel in an R-7 Zone, "Single Family Residential • - SITE DESIGNATION: The site is presently zoned .-7 and is designated R-7 "Single Family Residential" on the Comprehensive Plan. P,4EVZOUS ACTION: - A request by the applicant for a zone map amendment from Washington County RU-4 to City of Tigard R-7 on the subject site was approved by the Tigard City Council, June 25, 1979, with conditions. (ZC 12-79) A request by the applicant for approval of a subdivision preliminary plat on the subject site was tabled by the Tigard, Planning Department in June 1979, until a sewer easement to SW 98th could be acquired through the adjoining lot to the east, Tax Lot 1100. (S 5-79) I. FINDINGS OF FACT: 6 1. The applicant: is requesting preliminary plat approval in accordance with the TiMunicipal : : . .. fifteen of ei� ��alots wt�t, ainY.nimuttt 1osubdivide si�:P�o�a7�s89 acre Section 17:06 0 parcel, into fifte ( ) 00 square feet, four (4) dwelling units per gross acre. 1 . ' 4 STAFF REPORT FINAL ACTION . TIGARD PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 20, 1980 Page 2 2. Applicable policies from NPO #6 Plan are as follows Policy 3. Residential subdivisions will be developed with paved streets, curbs and gutters, street lights, and walkways, according to city or • county standards. All utilities will be placed underground. • Policy 4. Development will coincide with the provision of public streets, water and sewerage facilities. These facilities shall be (a) capable of adequately serving all intervening properties as well as the proposed development, and (b) designed to meet city or county standards. 3. Section 17.06.065 of the Tigard Municipal Code states the following criteria for approval of preliminary plats:, "No preliminary plat for a proposed subdi.visior and no map or major partition shall be approved unless the Planning Director finds; (a) Streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions or maps of major partitions .already approved for adjoining property as to width, general direction and in all other respects, unless the city determines it to be in the, public interest to modify the street or road pattern. (b) Streets and roads held for private use are clearly indicated on the tentative plan and all reservations or restrictions relating to such private roads and streets are set forth thereon. (c) The preliminary plat complies with the comprehensive plan, the applicable zoning regulations, and the regulations within this title. (d) There will exist adequate quantity and quality of water and an adequate sewage, disposal system to support the proposed use of the land described in the proposed plat. 4. The site has one single family house located at the center of the proposed subdivision, with access from SW 100th. The site slopes downhill from the northwest tosoutheast corner. It is a vacant field except for lines of trees on the south and west sides of the house. The house is served by overhead electric line a from Sattler Street. 5. Surrounding land uses ,include single ,family housing to the north and west, a baseball diamond and church to the south, and a vacant field (Tax Lot. 1100) to the east: 6. A 10 lot subdivision is under Consideration for the adjacent lct to the east of " lf Side Es tate s' . .. (Tax Lot ottoman pr(i:, .rtr) , 1 preliminary s u bdx' ision proposal for thq adjacent lot was submitted by the applicant, shoving the extension Of Xable ti;,traet' as a through street from the east liLti of Golf Side Estates to the,, intersection of Std 98th aid Lake Side Drive to /take a 4 way intersection there. Vc 1\N • / I 1 , STAFF REPORT FINAL ACTION TIGARD PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 20, 1980 Page • 7. The nearest available sewer to the sit,:, is located in SW Lake Side Drive. This line is presently under the control of the Tvialatin Development' Corporation, until such time as it is accepted by the city for city operation and maintenance. A ten (101 foot sewer easement has bee . H granted to the applicant by the owner of the adjacent lot to the east (Lot 1100) . The easement follows the south line of Lot 1100 to SW 98th Avenue. 8. Water se2:vice is available to the site from Tigard Water District lines •;, on SW 100th or SW Settler. 9. Traffic movement to and from the site will be served by SW 100th, SW Kable, and SW Sattler. NPO #6 Plan designates Sattler as a collector street (36'' - 44' pavement) and 100th and. Kable as local streets. SW 100th and SW Sattler are county streets, presently in substandard condition, without adequate paving width, right--of-way, curbs,, or glitters. sia 100th does not, presently extend south of SW Kable Street. As part of its approval of, the Surrrnerfield Planned Development, the Tigard Planning Commission approved a forty (40') foot pavement along SW Sattler Street at the north side of Sutumerfield No. 7. The Tigard Municipal Code 17.28.040 requires a minimum fortyfour (44') font pavement for collectors. 10. Applicant proposes to dedicate ten (10') feet of right-of-way along a SW Sattler Street, and 25 x 73,91 of right-of-way along SW 100th at the southwest corner of the site, as required in the zone change for this site., (ZC 12-79) 11. Sewer, water, and drainage plans, and lot-line utility easements were not indicated on the preliminary plat. 12�. Off-site drainage from the southeast slope of Little Bull Mountain collects in the southwest corner of the site, via, open drainage ditches on 4 100th. There are swampy conditions in portions of Tats 10, 13, and 14. The nearest storm drain to the site is on the west side of SW 100th., aabout. 100 feet south of SW 'Kahle Street. 13 A school impact statement from the Tigard School District, aanuAry 23, 1980, stated that trio negative .impact is anticipated" from the proposed subdivision. 14 Lots 1 and 2 on the preliminary plat are only 6,920 square feet each Enos including the ten (10') foot street dedication n on SW Settler Street) . Tigard Zoning Code Section 1'8.20.0 35 requires minimum 7,500 square EWE lots it R-7 Zones w .S•a. p STAFF REPORT FINAL ACTION TIGARD PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 20, 1980 Page 4 15 , The street cross sections proposed on the preliminary plat do not comply h city standards. JNGLUSIONARy FINDINGS: 1. The proposed preliminary plat conforms to WPO #6 Plan, in that the lotting pattern is for single family residential purposes. The grass residential density 'of 3.86 units /acre conforms to the R-7 Zone requirements, but Lots 1 and 2 are substandard. Lot 3 to the south of these lots' is - nearly double the 7500 foot minimum size, 'so an adjustment to the south lot lines of Lots 1 and 2 could bring them into conformance with the R-7 lot size requirement, 2. Both sewer and water service are available to the site to facilitate the proposed density. An adequate sewer easement from the site to SW 98th has been obtained by the applicant. However, since Tualatin Development Corporation presently controls the sewer on Lake Side Drive, the applicant must obtain permission from the Tualatin Development Corporation to tie into that sewer or wait until that sewer is accepted by the city for city operation and maintenance. 3. Adequate right-of-way has been indicated for SW Sattler, SW 100th, and SW Kable Street on the preliminary plat. • 4. The proposed extension of SW Kable Street through the site and the �„• adjoining lot to the east (Lot 1100) would be desirable to provide better access for property owners in Golf Side Estates and better traffic circulation for the surrounding area. The Tualatin Fire District (Joe Gruelich) concurs in this judgement. S. Surface drainage is poor on the southW3st portion of the site, due to the topography of the site and the runoff from uphill properties. Drainage will need special attention on this site. The applicant should • f ' provide for improvement of drainage throughout the site and downstream I thereof. 6. Applicant should revise the street cross section plans after consulting with the Public. Works Department and before submitting gvading and improvement plans for street improvements 7» The City Council should adopt the Comprehensive Plan WO) street standards by ordinance, so that the previously approved forty (40') foot pavement on Sattler Side s without�unnecessary i t y side � �' wid 1 at Summerfield #7 can be permitted ed on the nor of Golf Side Estate , a y variance procedings. fi , • ( • ,, p : ' STAFF REPORT 1. FINAL ACTION � .. TIGARD PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 20, 1980 Page 5 III. STAFF RECOi't&1ENDATIONE Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: ' 1. That the lot size on Lots 1 and 2 be adjusted on the final plat to allow x?)r a minimum of 7,500 square feet per lot. n 2. Public water service and sanitary service shall be installed to this site prior to the issuance of a Building Permit including the existing- house on Lot 6. • 3. That applicant obtain permission from Tualatin Development Corporation to tie into sewer on Lake Side Drive or wait until that sewer is accepted by the city for city operation and maintenance. 4. That applicant convey a one (1') foot street plug reserve strip at the east end of SW Kable Street to the City of Tigard. 5. Storm drainage plans for the site and downstream thereof shall be submitted and approved by the Public Works Director, and install storm drainage system to the site prior to issuance of a building Permit. 6. Grading plans and construction plans on all public right-of-ways shall be submitted and approved, by the Public Works Director prior to commencement 4 of work. 7. 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. 8. Fire hydra,tts be placed as per Tigard Water District and Tualatin Fire District reg,2ations 9. All existing or proposed utilities shall be placed underground, including the existing house an teat 6. Street lighting installations shall be approved by the Public Works Director. lb No Occupahcy Permits shall be issued until all conditions placed upon this development by the City of Tigard have been satisfied and inspections verifying this have been carried out by the appropriate department. • 4. • STAFF RE PO RT FINAL ACTION TIGARD PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 20, 1980 Page 6 11. That ten (10' ) feet of right-of-way along SW Sattler be dedicated to the county along the frontage of the site with Washington County approval to improve SSW Sattler to collector street standards prior to issuance of building permits. 12. That twentyfive (25') feet of right-of-way along the southwest side of the property on SW 100th be dedicated to the county (the area is approx- imately 74 feet in length) . Half street improvements are to be made op along SW 100th from the intersection with SW Sattler south to the intersection of SW Kable Street. Full street improvements are to be made along SW 100th from SW Kable Street intersection south to the rind of the subject site property line. '13. That street improvements be constructed to the approval of the Public Works Director prior to the recording of the final plat or issuance of a Building Permit. Action of the Planning Director is final unless notificatiot;, of appeal to the Planning Commission is filed with the City Recorder within twenty (20) a• .days of the Planning Director's Action. Prepared b y Richard Ross, Approved by Jad. : •ward, Intern Planner 1V1-4 in, Director vim:. This acknowledgement must he signed and returned to the City of Tigard, Planning Department. Failure to return this acknowledgement will result in no further action on this project with regards to issuance of Building Permits or engineering approval. Signature Date 3 . • . . . . . . . , . _ , _ - -- 1:1 X Cl( I --- - - " _ - -- ' - . . . . • rn . J> --- U3 • _ 217.arttlitittla- i t. 1.00 th AVENUE ,..„--_ ., . - . - .4.. • ..ow ftl_11-fliki 11111-Ittitl HI I IIIIIIIITH-11/11tn1-/111-11111111111-1I-11111111111111111-1-1-11-11-I-11-111-1E"ii !...,-401 4. . 44, . w : "0"- I 1 .o. _ 0 k ° . . r... 0 L .,---_ .,.._ . ,. , c-1 41-II tH-I 1-1-tlX_Itn11 11 1-tHI Hi -4 co O. I— ci o , ..) ±- ty4 01 C.1 at ,,, - 0, C) , • 9,30 Cis'INS tr,`1-1.1111 200 05 •• Eli atilt 1111111• 1 it]11 t1111111t111111:111 111111111- 1111111 .111111111 r.--. 163 35 A I -13-,CT1 ;--- . :Sti S 0 1 - - -.I k 0 -li 0 N = _ N. 0 , -¢...... ..• I; N) 1.t., CI ,-,, .:-,:, iTi ,.., Is, 0 Z.--.I • ,,, z s.., 0 ,,, ir al rc 1 —i .' 206 05 103 15 ,..A err i . . 0 -- S 0 13' V, 100.70 LA 2 I 112 .....,,,.. 1 I. 0— . n „..s=rt4F, 2. ,. 11 1„ 'I.; ,-,-•— - 'LL) ITI I tfi It, CN • slt '-' 72 1 ,_:_. tt, f•'' . (-1 ,..- I-- n - iu 21 0 1 En rn I 10 Ill k.._— b 4s t- i ' i05.3 40i 990 01401 s L N 0° 13' E 326,70 --, ...,—___ _ —— — `---.--- C if Nu Pt.1-.1t1 __' f3EG CR No 2048-:N. -11,, ,TERM CR Ni) 1,31:: 5--1 17, --...._i!..., . . , AVEN U E 8 -Va,-,-,w4-.--..-8 v..../..p.-..:,.:-.-.,,-., C) - . . . . '- — -3---"tr , 4.-, z6,--7----c`----9--------- -4. 7 S 1,e'`'r-s- 1-- E5 T. .4,/,..cSk- '! ,35 CO GO :I 25 ::2 J _Ii■, 411.- r ,1 c tmi N.1' It— — G1 0 - 50 .'' Ls.) N ._.1 . ...,...- , : , •1 [WI--i.1-1 al r). 4, t 0 CO ,r1 1-‘ 74 0-) (-1 1;7- --..4 I 0 1,-0 UI s: till I cb'7'1 . . - -' • • - --_ . - - • '-•• • - i •- ' -- : - . __„ - , - . _ .., ,, -- - • 4 ;, '►_ 1 BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS 2 OF THE STATE OF OREGON 3 THE ROBERT RANDALL COMPANY, on ) Oregon Corporation, ) 4 } Petitioner, ) LUBA. No.83- :..•�... v. ) 6 ) CITY OF TIGARD, } 7 ) Respondent. } 8 9 10 11 STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER FOR REMAND 12 It appears to both T.-titioner and Respondent actions by the 13 City Council of the City of Tigard in adopting its Comprehensive Plan 14 Map and Interim Zoning Designations subsequent to its action on the 15 above referenced matter have resultedathe interest of both parties in 16 the efficient functioning of the land use decision 'making process being 17 best served by a remand of the matter to the Tigard Planning Cam mission. 18 19 20 Edward J. Sullivan John T. Gibbon • Attorney for Respondent Attorney for Petitioner U 2 22 IT IS SO ORDERED this day of , 9 ' 23 24 .0.00000.0000.0 1000000* 25 Referee 26 Page . JOHN T.0153bN g/9045 Attorney at Liztw 9500 W.Bbrbut Blvd.,81/1t6 300 pbrtlbntt G rn bn 4 1 , Telsp'Nbne(5O3 245.11 3t SUBDIVISION- FILE CONTENTS SEE ALSO 2E76 Z4?--1.g? ----- LEFT SIDE RIGHT SIDE , Assessor's Map Maps/Preliminary Plat . Notification Legal Description/Deed __ ............... '_Surrounding Property Notice Letter of Authorization __Affidavit of Mailing __ Copies of Correspondence with pplicant Agency/NPO Notice Public Input __Affid //avit of Publication . Agency/NPO Comments i/7/ _ rticles/Notices from U ' Staff Report(s)-Date(s) Application/Narrative Minutes of Meetings _......._ V/:Final Action Notice Planning Commission-Date City Council-Date -_-_ ,Al 1/Resoluti6n No. 22-..—„Date a-‘-'12 9rdinance No., _ Date /Correspondence After Approval SUMMARY V Approved Denied No of Lots No. of Phasos Special Setbacks Plat Recording / Woe Buuk/Page hio 4 ()ate Additional Phases Recorded (Date) (Book/Page No,) , (Date) (Book/Page No,) . . kLilojs(06i6P) -.- ---10--:-. . -. [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing]