The URL can be used to link to this page

CPA 11-84 POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm.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. TIGARn WEST JEVET.,OPMENT. CPA 11-84 M1. I ; -10500,13370/ 13450, 13490 & 13530 SW Watkins (WA. Co. Tax Mans 2S/ 3DA lots 4700,4800,6100 &6200 .9c1 ,gnr4 ll/1‘.,.. :wry+- -r,.w.....#n.r....� J, .....e .,_. . .... _ 3, ,11 4 } r MSI t • • I Ak ' +�waur„cu.:warw�wu.:u�u�lrr.-uv:.w++.a,.'w¢u�rarwr:sw:srm.uu:.rwa?wx:uew.uuxru..d:;.wl,..wtwuww�w+c�al.a+�.xuwuz::rsazuetu � ,:.: i I ,.,, .. :: .... ,..,., _;: .::.. , ,,,;, „ u'^..:I w,.-,r:,'.Jt Icrr�rin�nlu«itPlt•mrme w�x,.wl•vs a r..�...k. .aaMl n.,e,..t ,r,nv,I .M. ,�,. .,. .,„... .,,. ,,, ..,.,,.. ... . ,.. .. BALL, JAN I K Sr NOVACK ATTORNEYS AT LAW ONE MAIN PLACE 101 S.W. MAIN STREET ROBERT 5, GALL PO''TLAND,OREGON 97204 STEPHEN T JANIK TELEPHONE(503)225-2525 KENNETH M. NOVACIC TELECOPY (503)295—IcOS8 OF COUNSEL JACK L.ORCHARL'1 JACOB TANZER JOHN W. LILJEGREN JAMES M. KENNEDY SUSAN M.QUICK WILLIAM H.'PERKINS CHRISTOPHER W.ANGIUS October 23, 1984 VICKI G. BAYLESS DENISE FRANCIS BRADLEY S. HIGBEE MICHAEL C.WALCH BY MESSENGER Mr. William A. Monahan Rilligli&I.1/ ?rifl) Director of Planning and Development ' , OCT 2 41984 City of Tigard 12755 SW Ash Tigard, OR 97223 CITY OF TIGARD Re- Tigard. West Project PLANNING DEPT. Dear Mr. Monahan: We have reviewed the site plan for , the Tigard West project, dated September 30, 1984, prepared by Brun, Moreland, Christopher Architects, P.C. , and we understand that you also recently reviewed the site plan in a pre-application conference. As prepared, thesite plan contemplates the location of Fr GI Joe's store on the northwest portion of the site abutting the western boundary of the property. Our interpretation of Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.62. 00 (4) is that a rear yard setback is required from the property line because the -G zone, tnwhich the GI Joe' s store would be developed, abuts a residential zoning district (R 3.5) on the west. 6. Our opinion also is thatthe required ` 20 foot setback from the property line can be created by a lot line adjustment which would move the western boundary of the Tigard West property, in the affected area, 20 feet to the west. Our opinion is based in part on the definition of "setback in Section 18.216.,0 0 as being.... thehorizontal distance from the propert line, ' rather than the abutting residential zone. In order to satisfy any concerns that the.. City's inter p retati n of its Ordinance isWe p the Same as ours, e would ... 1, BALLF ,..1AN I K & NOVACK Mr. William A. Monahan October 23, 1984 M appreciate your review of this matter at your earliest convenience and your written response. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, r } Robert S. a l_ RSB:yo cc: Mr. Timothy Ramis • Mr. Lloyd Powell Mr. Peter Powell• • • Si tb 3 riGli 9805 BOECKMAN ROAD WILSONVILLE,OREGON 97070 503/682-2242 October 16, 1984 Planning Department City of Tigard 12755 S.W. Ash Ave. Tigard, Or 97223 To Whom it may Concern: This memo is to advise you that G.I. Joe's, Inc, is no F longer involved with Tigard West Development Company. As owners of tax lot 4800 (2S12CB) and tax lot 6100(2S12CB) we revoke any prior authority given Tigard West Development Company to represent C.I Joe's, Inc. G.I Joe's, Inc. no longer wishes to persue any zoning changes • on the parcels they own. • Thank you for your considerations in the past. Res)ectfIJ ull'..' Wa, . Jackson Sec1111 ry/Treasu er . 1 I CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 84-01 A FINAL ORDER IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND A ZONE CHANGE REQUESTED BY TIGARD WEST DEVELOPMENT, JB BISHOP, GI JOES, AND ALICE TREFFINGER, FILE NO. CPA 11-84 AND ZC 8-84, DENYING THE APPLICATION REQUESTS, ENTERING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. The Tigard Planning Commission heard the above application at its regular ' meeting of July 10, 1984. The applicants appeared along witch their attorney I and architect. Appearing for the opposition were a numbett of interested property owners, represented by legal counsel and the Neighborhood Planning le al Organization (NPO # ' The Commission finds the 'following FACTS in this matter: 1. The applicants for this matter, Tigard West Development, JE Bishop, GI Joes and Alice Treffinger, requested a 'reclassification from R 3.5 zoning and low density designation, which would allow for single family residential units to a (C-'G), General Commercial designation on a parcel of land designated as Washington County Tax Map 2S1 3DA Tax Lots 4100, 4800, 6100 and 6200 and Washington County Tax Map ?Sl 3DD lot 200. Theinformation suppertikz the request is found in File No. CPA 11-84. . 2. The applicant's ittstification is presented in the minutes for the t y 10, 1984, Planning Commission meetanl¢c. The applicants at hat t time, represented bY Attorney Stephen Janilt, spoke to issues relating to squaring off a parcel that is 80% committed to commercial, potential negligible trafficimpact on neighboring streets, a change to a commercial designation which would be better for the existing . residences, the conformance of the application to the plan policies, whetherzoning on the 5 residential lots in question the residential ion was a mistake, and the increase in jobs for local residents and the' ' conformance or�rnan�,.e of theapplication to locational criteria. 3. The relevant approval criteria in this case` are the State-wide ' g1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, & 14. Goals 3, Planning Goals12, 4, and 15 19 do not apply. In addition, the City of Tigard Comprehensive ria Policies 2.1.1, 5.1.4, 6.3.3 and 12.2.1. A. The Commission make the following FINDINGS in this matter:. 1. State-wide Planning Goal 1 1 is met because' the City has aiopted a Citizens Involvement program including review of all development " applications by the Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO). In q addition all public ublic notice requirements were met. 2. State-wide Planting Goal � 2 is metbecause the City applied all g bec applicable State-wide. Planning Goals„. City Comprehensive Plan Policies and. Development Code requirements to the application. I 3. State-wide Planning Coal t 5 does not apply,` because no open sate p would be treated or removed by this application proposal. 4. State-wide Planning Goal # 6 does not apply because water, air and land resources quality would not be affected by this application proposal. 5. State-w� i.e Plannin8� Goal # 7 does not apply because there are no natural hazard areas on the property. 6. State--wide Planning Goal # 8 does not apply because there would be no recreational facilities being constructed or removed as a result of this proposal. 7. I State-wide Planning Goal ## 9 does not apply because the. portion of land being proposed for the change from residential to, commercial is too small to impact the City's employment picture. ti • 8. States-snide Planning Goal # In does not apply because the removal of 5 homes from. the City's housing stock would not have, a great impact City-widen 9. State-wide Planning Goal # 11,,it metpublicare because. facilities • - • available to the site. 10. State-wide Planning Goal ir'` 12 is not satisfied because, SW Watkins Street is not improved to. City standards. 11. State-wide Planning Goal # . 13 does not apply , because there 'ate no great energy savings t:� be gained by changing the f{v: residential properties co commercial. • 12. State--vide Planning Goal # 14 does not apply. because the proposed.: ' change does not affect rural, land. 13. City Of: Tigard Comprehenzive Plan ,Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because • the Neighborhood Planning Organization and surrounding property were given notice of the hearing and, an opportunity to comment on the applicants propos: . 14. City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.1.4 is not satisfied because approval of the applicantst request would allow commercial ` development to encroach into a residential area that has not been M designated for commercial use. 15. City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 6.3.3 is not satisfied because approval of the applicants' request gill not preserve and enhance the character' of the adjacent established areaw rehensive Plan, Polity 12.2, is satisified ,in that 16. City of Tigard 'Comp .y sit' of the appropriate locational criteria have been applied to the project=, howevert not all of the locational kriteria. can be, met by the applicants' proposal. , The Commission adopts the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. Based on Finding Number 14, the Commission has determined that the applicants' request to redesignate five single family residential lots to commercial would allow commercial development to encroach into a residential area that has not been designated for commercial use. 2. Based on Finding Number 15, the Commission has determined that the II granting of the applicants' request will not preserve and enhance the character of the adjacent established area. /111 3. Based on Finding Number 16, the Commission has determined that the .. ,applicants' request does not meet all of the locational criteria setforth in Policy 12.2.1. Specifically,, locational criteria (1) (a) is not met "The commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts o t more than two sides." It is, therefore, ORDERED that, based on the above Findings and Conclusions, the application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change in this matter be, and the same hereby is denied. ' It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this order. tt, PASSED: This day of 1984,1984, by Planning Commission of the city of Tigard. t . t w A. Donald Moet , President Tigard Planning Commission 06'71P dmf! h ,„, 1q81- August 31, 1984 • Mayor Jahn Cook c/o Loreen R. Wilson Deputy Recorder City of Tigard 12755 SW Ash St. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mayor Cook: This letter is to serve as a formal petition for review of the City of Tigard Resolution 84-59, adopted on August 20, 1934 and filed on August 21, 1984. The referenced resolution is further identified as "A FINAL ORDER IN THE .MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMEN NT AND A ZONE CHANGE REQUESTED BY "I`IGARD NEST DEVELOP ENT, JB BISHOP, GI JOE'S, AND ALICE REQUESTS ENTERING f NDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ENYING APPLICATION ZIi 'IN(�ER FILE NO. CPA � 84 AND ZC 8-84, D As one of the four applicants, who jointly requested a comp. plan amendment and a concurrent zone change request, I am certain that I will be recognized as a qualified and appropriate party to this overall matter and in particuliar for the purposed of this petition for review. Additionally for the records I did appear and testify at the July 10, 1984 planning commission hearing M along with other representatives of the application. Mme .. , ,:,��c..ific grounds for the requested review or rehearing of Resolution 8 :-59 are as follows: 1. It is imperative to note this resolution is a result of formal. Council action taken at the Council's July 23, 1984 regular meeting and incorporates, 16 per Council direction, a staff prepared final order intended to reflect the Council's July 23, 1984 action on the applicant's comp. plan and zone change request. As noted above, the final order was adopted on August 20, 1984. I contend that the Council's July 23, 1984 actions were in complete disregard to ed, proceeduresguidelines,Council over the past number of years)..which have up until this date insured that both proponents andopponents are heard on matters ofimportance to the parties and which is considered testimonys ci,iicall � Y �. related to theissue on the docket. Vas Due process followed when the Council opened l the,heari.ngprior to its established hearing time of 9:15 pm.? Was tuer ,p races followed when the Council, choose to continue with the matter and to, shortlythereafter ..- ., by a resolve their .intent by calling for vote without having taken any testimony or comments from the proponents? If { .� .. !., in the Council's considered opinionabove questions s pinir� , is Yes, then a reasonable n the anwwer to ,the , n person should deduce that the Council was certain in its knowledge that with the applicant's absence bein of no ilmoort to the hearing, that it was satisfied that no test cony or suppleMental evidenc could have been meaningful or available at the hearing representing the proponents issues which were the result of .a 8-2 planning commission decision —., .:... ....:, .:. .,, ..:,, .:.v.e ... .u,—...... .... .. . .....:.... ...._:4'. ,.,......_..., ..—...,. .... 'dill s 2. Did the City Attorney's designated associate attorney clearly under- stand the agreement between the applicant's and the City's lead attorney, ° Timothy V. Ramis, Esq. , regarding the July 19, 1984 written communition from Mr. Stephen Janik, attorney for the proponents, and addressed to Tim • Ramis? I assert that Mr. Pfeiffer did not. And as a further item for the grounds of this appeal, I do contend that the acceptance by the Council of Mr. Pfeiffer's advice regarding going ahead with the hearing after it was that the ' directly counter to acknowledgedproponent's s were absent was cc�-ul�..ter what the " Citypl publically has stated as its priority for an open and fair ' y r iivngnon all matters and issues brought before the Council. Bill Monahan's comments as reflected in the July 23, 1984 minutes are substantially accurate. But, again, when read in context with the July 19, Janik to Ramis memo is it consistent to believe that the issue could be fairly heard and resolved without any presentation or discussion with the proponents being present? Bill notes in 13 (f) that the,applicant wishes toe ediate the process and has agreed to waive all procedural errors; This pisicorrect. But, isn't it consistent to believe that the applicant would agree to his with the assumption that thewill as you might say "have their day in court"! 3. Furthermore, a brief review of the ,:ecord of the August 20 meeting will show that the Council did not give rie an opportunity to offer my { explicit comments and concerns regarding the Findings and Conclusions to the final order. Once Mr, Ramis had clarified to the Council that the • Council could if it wished settle their ii stent without, a final order being adopted by the Planning Ccamrriission, the Council ignored my specific request givenopportunity myg etc. to be the o rtunit to offer ccx�=gents on...the Findings, As a result of the above, and in the context of the rrAriew process as outlined in 18. 32. 290 to the end of the chapter, I am submitting this request for review. As provided, in the code, I will offer snore definitive detail at the appropriate time, both in writing and at the hearing on this request: i Sinc rely: ,..„1;,,,,(0,,..„:„..,,, ,, ,,,,,:,,,, JB E'shop 4 . a Yuir# 4 � .r ,a/ ,,, . .. „,'-'2- '.*-;,,,e,„ ' cx".illi,e,1„, ,...„,,L.ift.„.4::,_..4 Lt Aiirp,a4 0t ri 4'1 "7r'rSr -L+�,. .^"/'w.N� 6� t� i.u�ot �{.qV'', , �{' ^,w.�' s , ' t41,12,47Pidi'ltt ...'t*.t'tt 1 "'z''''f ,r,,,,” ,,,,F7 ,ez,,,,A, .044,./...cdt... ,..40.4e. ''..k,i „,,f,/ ..,,,, ,..,r , a itCfr'r-- ..a�M ,,,e. .i.,,L. ,,c,,,p1 � 4.” 4 � f TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP/SPECIAL MEETING August 22, 1984 1. President Moen called the meeting to order at 8:55 P.M. . The meeting was held at Floyd Bergmann's - 11600 SW 90th Ave. 2. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: President Moen, Commissioners "Owens, Butler, Fyre, Vanderwood, Bergmann, Leverett, Campbell, and Peterson. STAFF: Director of Planning and Development William. A. Monahan; Associate Planners Keith Liden and Elizabeth Newton; and Secretary Diane M. Jelderks 3. REVIEW FINAL ORDER FOR TIGARD WEST DEVELOPMENT, JE BISHOP, GI JOES, AND ALICE TREFINGER, FILE NUMBER CPA 11-84 AND ZC 8-84. o Commissioner Peterson stated that item number one of the CONCLUSIONS OF LAW was not a bases for denial,: Consensus was to eliminate item number one. o Associate Planner Newton requested item number 10 of the FINDINGS be clarified Consensus was to eliminate "and is inadequate to carry heavier volumes of traffic at the present time". o Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Fyre seconded to approved Final Order 84-01 as amended- Motion carried by majority vote, Commissioners Owens, Butler, Vandetwood and Campbell abstaining 4. Meeting Adjourned 9:00 P.M. Diane M. Jelderk •ecreta : ATTEST: eor A. Donald Moen, President 0671P dmf • r • 1. CITYOFTIRD WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON August 21, 1984 JB Bishop 10505 SW Barbur Blvd. Suite 303 Portland, Oregon 97219 Re: Tigard West - CPA 11-84 & ZC 8-84 Dear Mr.. Bishop: ' At the August 20, 1984. City Council meeting, the Tigard City Council "'' adopted Resolution No. 84-59 which is attached for your files. This action adopted findings which upheld the Planning Commission denial of the above referenced file requests. If you have any questions regarding this action, please contact this office, or the office off the Director of Planning & Development. Sincerely, .411 quor OOPt� >,PIP of Plann Loreen R."W lson Deputy Recorder P lw CC: Attorney Steve Janik Attorney Jim, Coit W ASH P.O.SOX 2S3D7 TI AAO,ORSO N:972$ PH*€#39-4111 CLiv OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 134- 6-'1 A FINAL ORDER IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND A ZONE CHANGE REQUESTED BY TIGARD WEST DEVELOPMENT, JB BISHOP, GI JOES, AND ALICE TREFFINGER, FILE NO CPA 11-84 AND ZC 8-84, DENYING THE APPLICATION REQUESTS, ENTERING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. TigardCity applicationregularmeeting of Thee Council heard the above at its July 23, 1984. The " applicants did not ;appear nor were they represented. Appearing for the opposition was an attorney, Jim Cox. The Commission f:nds the following FACTS in this matter: 1, The applicants for this matter, :Tigard We$t Development, JB Bishop, GI Joes and Alice Treffinger, requested a reclassification from R-3 .5 zoning and low density designation, which would allow for single family residential units, to a (C-G), General Commercial designation jn a parcel of land designated as Washington County Tax Map 2S1 3DA tax Lots 4700, 4800, 6100 and 6200 and Washington County Tax Map 251 3DB; lot 200. The information supporting the request is found in File No. CPA 11.84. The Council had before it the record of the proceedingsbefore the 2 � Tigard Planning Commission which denied the request, with two dissenting votes, on July 10, 1984. The matter was brought before the City CouncilUn der Section 18.32.090 C. of the Tigard Community Development Code. 3. The relevant approval criteria in this case are the State-wide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, Goals 3, 4, and 15 19 'do not apply, In addition, the of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 2,1.1, 5.1.4, 6.3.3 and 12.2. 1, this case, the Council makes the following' FTN on the record in ' W this Matter: BasedINGS in 1, State-wide Planning Goal #1 is met because the City has adopted a citizens Involvement program including review of all development applications by the Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO) , In addition, all public notice requirements were met, 2. State-wide Planning Goal #2 is met because the City applied all applicable State-wide Planning, Goals, City Co mprehensiv e Plan Pol..piesand Development Code requirements to the application. 1. State-wide Planning Goal #5 does not apply because no open space .,. would be treated or em�.ved by this application proposal.. p RESOLUTION N0. 84- ; Page 1 4, State—wide Planning Goal #6 does not apply because water, air and land resources quality would not be affected by this application proposal, 5. State--wide Planning Goal #7 e no • does not apply because there ar natural hazard areas on the property. State-wide Planning Goal #8 does not apply be'':ause there would be no recreational facilities being con5,1-.-_. ed or removed as a result of this proposal. 7. State—wide Planning Goal #9 does not apply because the portion of g proposed is s employment picture. land bein ro osed for the change from residential to commercial too small to impact the City` 8., State—wide Planning Goal #10 does not apply because the removal of 5 3. y Feat impact homes from: the Cig P CitY's housingstock would not have a r City—wide. 9♦ State—wide Planning Goal #11 is met because public facilities are available to the site. ` SW Watkins not satisfied 10. State-wide PlanningGoal #12 is because Street is not improved to City standards and is inadequate to carry heavier volumes of traffic at the present time. *. 11 State-wide Planning Goal #13 does not apply y becausethere are no great energy savings to be gained by changing the five residential properties to commercial. 12, State-wide Planning Goal #14 does not apply b.�>cau::;e the proposed change does not affect rural land. I . City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because the Neighborhood Planning Organization and surrounding property were given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to commenton the 1. applicants' proposal: 14. Cityof Tigard Com reheniivePlaPolice 5.1.4 is not satisfied because approval of the applicants' request would allow commercial p . that has not been development to encroach into a residential area designated for commercial use Y 5 3 � � s not satisfied Po zc 4 15. CityCity's Comprehensive Plax, 1 y � premise y ♦ , of Tigard C because the Cit' s Comprehensive Plan was built on the remise that a strong test be given to proposed developments to protect existing established neighborhoods This development does not meet this test with the addition of more parking which encroaches on the residential area. 16. City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 12..2.1 is. satisfied in that all of the appropriate locational criteria have been applied to the project, however, not all of the locational criteria canbe met by the applicant's proposal. OS.OL1 T CN NO. 84r ' z Page 041 The Council adopts the following CONCLUSIONS q►' LAW; 1 . Based on Fn4� the _ i,ng No. 10, Council has determined that SW Watkins is not improv,-%d to standards adequate to carry increased traffic loads. 2. Based on Finding No. 14, the Council has determined that the applicants' request to redesignate 5 single family residential lots to commercial would allow commercial development to encroach into a residential area that hay, not been designated for commercial use, 3. Based on Finding No. 15, the Council has determined that the granting of the applicants' request will not preserve and enhance the character of the adjacent established area. 4. Based on Finding No. 16, the Council h=,,s determined that the applicants' request, does not meet all of the locational criteria set Forth in Police 12.2.1. Specifically, locational criteria (1) (a) not "The commercial area is not surrounding by residential districts oil mr.5rc than two sides." 5. Based on 'ind'ings No" 2 and No. 15, the Council has determined not enough time has passed since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan to justify such a drastic change by allowing this type of ' encroachment. 'The Council, therefore, ORDERS that the above referenced request be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. The Council FURTHER ORDERS that the Planning Dic "i,ctor and the City Recorder send a copy of the Final. Order as a Notice of Final decision to the parties it • this case" NOW, THEREFORE, BE XT RESOLVED by the "''`igard City Council that: PASSED: This ° ' �=a — day of s 4r1c rr , 19 . °`y.r,— City of Tigard ATTEST: { Deputy City Recorder ity of Tigard ( AN:pm/0555P) RESOLUTION NO. '•B4— Page 4 Page f _ • • 1111111 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AT ITS MEETING ON MONDAY, w JTu13r 2.3, 1984 AT 7:30 P, S , IN THE LECTURE ROOM OF FOWLER JUNIOR' .HIGH SCHOOL, 10865 SW WALNUT; TIGARD, OR. , WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: PILE NO.: CPA 11-84 & ZC 8-84 APPLICANT: Tigard West Development Co. O,a; FR: J E Bishop P 3853 SW Scholls Ferry Rd. Alice Treffinger . Portland, Oregon 977.25 CI Jogs l REQUEST: A review of the Planning Commission's dee.is .on on a request for a Comprehensive Plan Change from Low Residential P g Density nt�.�a to Commercial General and for a Zone Change from R 3.5 (Residential 3.5 units acre) to CG (Commercial General). LOCATION `t 13450, 1 10500, 133 0, 13490 SWWatkinsAve., Tigard � lot 200).ZSI3DA lots 4700, 4800, 6100, 6200; and WCTM 2S1 3DD (See map on reverse side) THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE R 13LES OF PROCEDURES OF TUE CITY COUNCIL. TESTIMONY MAY BE SUBMITTED IN WRIT INC TO BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD. POR 1t.T11ER INPOREATION', 2 LEAS1a CONTACT THE CITY kgCORDER OR PLANNING DIRECTOR AT. 639 4V . .� CITY O1; TIG' '- .755` S.W. Ash Ave. Tigard, hr4go�t: 9723, 17�: (tomer of Ash & gurtham) m (0212P) • . • J. �[�4 i R ir.T►7 ,. l ..e.. , .%) ) I , C�,. ,;, R 4 5 z.,,..., Ly_.:,...j . .., . .4k,1 , - , (pn) 1 ,.. .. . : 1 . 3 rrw ..: Ir FOWLER ..7 n ion ape 4 ,`■i _j a� % I i ) • • SCHOOL : It '7 , .....,T. -- ' 3 1 : "� . ! " " I ij - 7f J�JJ y tl\ +fir:..› ' �,,..- , � - t' 1.‘,„''''''*,,„* "` � • ' • "�4' 4,4 ii ' S'�.t.L�"oe t w eT�IC�CT� t « visa "< , a*" •,, ��wt,,,,,is\+ �wr t9 • f , . , , . ,.. F �" "4 11 � 5 4...„ • ,.... _' ' ', ., N 40111 I ' , cijj " 1,,. .9 , .r4.4. ' .•. . --.., ' \ 0. " �,i g,14 i t+ 1fr - • ,"', / (PGI, \ /r '`a/,�.' "«,` L ' t' y j . X. r I « .,. 1 "*,fit , aRLE•S, ,, ` , , , ` ,Y '� 1 �_,1'4........! .. r �'''y ,h ,'��i uYcyr.„‘ t f .,,„.... „( 1- L.A ' CBD. ., .,...._.--.......-..- t‘,., ,,,,.:, . , ,/,.....,...,,, R ...1.,,,,,,,,0„,„ 4, '8 . ., 4 ,.. vo 5.11 ik ' .y W , i s f ,r r` / ♦ 44+ y c, y�� , r . i 7 4 ti , dh' I,."'"''''''''''''''' **-- o /,, , 7/6 � „� . SM tUlKl4h' � ,t ' e , i> �� :V 1, " ,,(pRD4) % y , ! w , 6 � � � ,C1 ,* «.-•• 1‘4 ‘a t 4 , . , It .' I., ' elkiFil 7,/, ,..., 400 , w « . a , t,4 a i •t , a ,A .... M (170.04. ... . a ID ,, •-4.-rk ' „1ILL It* t , " Ww r ., - t'---.1 1 it L4,.. e * t ti. sY A 1 • . ST r.- �.is moilia 1 .� ► 4 F � Sial '+ s 1 'i '- t - ,,i +'..-. d r1 `. 4o ' '''''', - ''''' R -12 1 ''' 4 1,..4..,,,t, r a y. W 6 k a ` •1 x E !tf tlk l'Y 'i w Wllrrl p tl { M�k i1 L • ,' ;i. I-—...,. ,,, , rpt* w: .w s, I 1« rpt.. ° t } t 4 k �"+ 11' Litt dyfit ,« «' « t�,> , ' [ * 'g 4 _""" 1 1 «.w ;a.°a�* ,�.45•V i M. t i.x 'f .. F' '�1� ,F ww, k ',.,. r bt"tt .:.. .,,;.. ..• ,, ,,,,, , ,,,,,, ,,,.<..�' ,x <�.e:e .n= i xfcy+ .,':: .'k°rn ..W.Wvruafli':f:G48ik US kW.". ,rWtXr a 0 = tik. "^c I ♦+moi h,1 � r Li T 1 i+►« t/R )V £ avcrl. WE WON! The Tigard Planning Commission 20 iia4"*sonY 1t41*.y t1 41* 1�M 7-rtF,Cec voted riot to grant a zone change for ; the rc. +fit, #4 Sketit7' y ar;' ilx 1`'� 'T"r�lde houses on the east side of '.datkins, The Fon. it rite Trew►eots'r3c>RMraop61.5 steering committee wishes to thank all of you for your support. The Planning 1°7 q ls 64'*ic "TH13 is rpt /4'441(144Commission on •vote was the first round and DISrAN+CGE Part. M6s-r o s�.�' f 5o. rkkE the most Important, but not, the last. , Am AFr,oira, Di N,f,, T s r`t o L> 4tm© pl7lop • ot. 4.tioko tEAttivrtRr rHei The Planning Commission hearing will be �ee2rG cart drr � art1� r°�r r~o reviewed, by the Cit Council on Monday. rifE " �.Y 13 Co i-dr C fit, r ��t21= July 23 at' 7:30 PM at Fowler Jr Hi. w you„rL nt.P 4.1 A.-J5 The steering committee feels that raising more money and continuing to participate in tht process is important. This brief update willtell you why and also how the planning process is functioning. The vote of the Planning Commission is only advisory to the City Council o We hope the neighborhood will again show how strongly it feels about this encroachment by turning out in force. At the planning hearing on July 10 there was a lot of talk about locating a. Cl Joe store on that site. Essentially, all of that discussion was irrelevant. The only question was if the land use designation for ` those five lots should be changed. Once changed to a commercial designation, those lots 'and the rest of the parcel could be used for any permitted business activity. This would include, but not be limited to a large retail store such as Cl Joe. We argued, as didthe staff report, that the change would be an encroachment into a quality residential neighborhood. The thrust of the City's Comp Plan is to preserve, not to destroy, such areas. The question of whether Cl J e, or any other particular usage, should go on that site is addressed in a subsequent step in the land use planning process. The neighborhood will surely wish to have its concerns presented during the Site Dievelo gement Review hearings for any 'project there reportand Planning Commission vote, we could claim With. a favorable staff victory and retire.tire. However, the steering committee feels that we could only lose ground already won by failing to prepare, for the City Council. We feel that Jim Cox a. d an excellentjob as your lelalrepresentative .a. r this matter. During the hearing we relievd on his training in ial law to pick up the key points of their oL a:l argument and make an of ectiit h remobuttal.t His writtten.. summary of our case was well written. and. well organized r�bu p thepreparatione to: our effort was in w that he mad planning andorganizinggrhtifor >the_ steering committee's tog presentation. We wish to continue use his services in this next phase of the process. This will requite that we again pass the hat thru the neighborhood. We will, need, to raise about half of the aMount that we got for the first round. The phone tree will be contacting you , TRAM( YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT! O'D O NN E L L. �^ Vv� DATE July 17, 1984 l SUL.L1VAN & RA IS e ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET TO Bill Monahan, Tigard Planning Director "r PORTLAND, OREGON 97209 1503/ 222-4402 FROM Tim Ramis, City Attorney, and Adrianne Brockman RE Plan Amendment Procedures Re Tigard West Development Co. The purpose of this memorandum is to advise you that it is our opinion that proper procedures were not followed in CPA 11-84, and ZC 8-84, and that we do not feel we could prevail at LUBA. This position is based on the following: 1. The ordinance provides in Section 18.32 . 090 (c) (2) that a plan amendment shall be reviewed by the Council. The words ° "review" and "appeal" are carefully used in this ordinance. "Review" means on the record; however, the definition was omitted from the definition section of th o ordinance. "Appeal" means a de novo hearing (See Definition section) . Also see SC•-:tion 18.32. 310 . Further, the reference in Section 18 .32 . 090 (c) (2) to ' Section 18.32.310 (b) was intended to mean that the decision went to the Council on the record. 2 . The ordinance provides " ' 32 260 in Section 13. that the final decision shall be a decision which is in writing and which has been: " (2) Formally adopted and signed by the chairperson. . . " erson. . . ' We do not feel that minutes of the meeting are adequate for findings P and further, the minutes will not have been formally adopted by the July 23rd Council meeting; • 3. The ordinance provides in Section 18.32 .260 (c) (2) that the Notice of the Final Decision shall state where the adopted findings of fact can be obtained. We view this provision as meaning that normal findings should be adopted as required by Fasano. (See Fasano v. Washington County Comwn'rs, 254 Or 274, (1973) ordinance4 The clearly contemplates that review by the Ccunc!l will be to determine whether the Planning Commission committed an error or based its decision on insufficient evidence the Such ' inrecord. a determination requires uires findings of fact. q It is our understanding Planning Commission decision will transmittedthat the be to the Council in the form of minutes and a transcript; W' believe this is insufficient and that a final order must be irrepared which includes findings of fact formally adopted by the Planning Commission, Local governments are bound by the rules which they' have ,adopted. Adam. v .. City of Scappoose, 27` Or App 219 , 223 (1976) . If the issue is raised at the Council, we will be required to say that, inour opinion, proper procedures I were not followed. The argument that could be raised by eitherart at LUBA is that 1 p �' they were prejudice because they did not have for naIly adopted . findings which ch .le arly articulated t.h e Planning lanning Comr !;ssiont s position. This argument, to some dereerwilldepend on the quality thefindings in the transcript, What is required by OPS 227.173 (2) is a statement that contains. AB:rich 7/17/84 - Page O'DCJRLhIEI»[r.. DATE July .17, 1984 SULLIVAN! �c RAMIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N,W. HOYT STREET T9 Bill Monahan, Tigard Planning Director PORTLAND, OREGON 97209 15031222-4402 FROM Tim Ramis, City Attorney and Adrianne .A Brockman RE Plan Amendment Procedures Re Tigard West Development Co 1. An explanation of the standards considered relevant tee the decision; 2. A statement of the facts supporting the decision and 3 An explanation of how the standards and the facts dictate • the decision reached. (see Lee v. City of Portland, 57 Or. App 798, 803 (1982) If the findings in the transcript fall short of these requirements, they will indeed be inadequate. As a side note, the ordinance clearly sets forth the procedures for the hearing. You will note in Section 18.37, 160 `b) that the . procedures do not provide for rebuttal testimony by' the opponents. As I recall, rebuttal testimony. was admitted at the hearing. This is probably not a fatal defect; nevertheless, the adopted procedures should be followed. We would be. delighted `to helpyou in anywe can. way 'h e } f r• f,a: A13'«rmch , 7, 17/8 Pare ( 1 _ • • 1 e d / e1 — RECEIVED JUL 2 CITY OF Ti .'t Ikz ,�,,� ��»•. :,mak k�¢«;s= > .:` ��:, �� ° ( . 4ti4 14r ,4 pioe liteo / tr a u r f ,'�e t rr � t� re r J +' e M { AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ` ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, &VEQ1 tiqt,e , being first duly sworn, on oath depose and say: (Please Print) That Yam a r1_E .,4 i bE for The City of Tigard, Oregon. That I served notice of Public Hearing , for City Council of which the attachedis a copy (Marked Exhibit A} upon eath of the following " 198 4 bymailingto named persons' on the /:. 41117/. day of '11, - each of them at the address shown on the at ached list (Marked Exhibit E) said notice as hereto -tt-,ched, deposited in the United States Mail on the dayof I {. , r' 2 postage prepaid. _te‘ezz/4......, _ Signature' I Person who slivered to POST OFFICE Subscrib+ d and sworn to before me on the 1 . day of ,, 198 i JN A.nr 4Jr»,Myr it e. f I' r w G ^, . r • NOTARY P LIC OF �,:� r ' r z'.1,''',1')'' � F OFtECON til r i pan IMy Cott ni;.s''scorn Expires -. """ (025Th) I I y au ' ''t'=G.73, II f ., - a e Oswgo - .• - evil.' 1 ,._ , ,, it 11111111111 ` ♦ - • 1 huicday .AKEC} WEad,.CRGt1N Vol.64 No.56 . JULY 2,1984 25 CENTS_ N ` 7S oplan • s, , c _ .. _ . By SHAItONDeBUSK. Park.. . the result of cooperation between the • said she hoped the criteria would not Ed'Rochette,an OId Town resi- ' Reporter Staff Re rter mprehensive text Planning Commission,.city staff and :r :r s•�a3rertrrr�a�rretl t*a• restrict smaller commercial pro- dent,also testified.Rochette had cir - ii TheCit Councilla•"- .okac- amendment to;change=the boundary,: area property owners:andrenidents,, s):: . • . sects, culated a petition in the -tion airs •, .. . * - -•••. ,;, •••;, which was carefully defined iii 1978 ��ts fiat th S girt nrD ria that_ a .iw:Ti.''... ,- . a • a, 7 Thomas Rodrigues,owner of Pizza neighborhood voicing the residents' ,•,ia,alo,,,,®,._----- - ---- .,p•„nm �.L,n ,. a •rs►n.,•••.�r bia—a : oundr testified against thepro- concern about the proposed amend- . by the city,local residents and pro- � � � p . "y�_ ,�g P P� yn,d.irawktgri-TT3.• . •;(fit. Old: pertyowners to protect the residen •. •-•• ••='a.• .a•+.•••.•• .r•. nmlirn nnF.Tin a mix •-use cor ject, saying that it restricted him meat. i vdn•-les* efr.tict tial area. P: th . soup A s ana , •[a+ii�=.rr.,r .�......�....,.....,•...,. from fully deveiopunghlsproperty. However, he said the_ resulting g on a•ii t '.;Commission The amendment would_change the Vinic ani .. annr.veal r c nTciar:t—rr-. . s, • •i+ularinn The°Planning Commission has not amendment and criteria was ti recommendation,. t, -;' 4• . plan's language to allow-plan map of a .eel d• • • -.., .• . .7.11t:rrsr•+z . ..• • - finishedajobthattheystarted." saiisfactorytomostpeople. r *, •v:*. ...-,. -.-.- .Mom':m 'r 2rnents- from residential to •,u .,,a,a,$ ala autarTO mortmlr e text amen• ent drew coin- He said larger developments that "11a• - • • • ••, • , .n a e ,T e 4115H; illimini; : o inmmercial"tatheminimum.degree r••, - r etca•,i.,,;•srlasrmrient . • meats for and against theplan during have enough "money and clout" • •rariTitil-daa•i• it•'nW!ur•,:n e • .. ••t'1=,•••111. .••, .►Irl•-•• - cessary to encourage major tvs•.++•+,+,nsmianasiS%17c4:a_iiitr,r•wa.-.. thecouncil meeting. would benefit while smaller ,t+•err.44,t eai i(arnn•.r.ii4iifi Z tt.1.1VilitstsPiggineinaftWVastarsaRa n ttslevelopment,"-in the area,accor- ,ig-m uav,..+•.+tt:,rron•:st•irw:t+ Marguerite _.eche, who lives on businesses would suffer.He said the *WOW=ar.'ryall•W,, • a•'1• : • li.MG1all�it 1e a ee ween a dIngtothe staffreport,. • .10111%•., .. _.•.,.,.t,l,r Furnace Street,said she wits in favor. plan amendment did not address •. 1t f •.►uw •.•.*n . or ••.t• • of the text amendment.However,she other problems such as parking. ontnue on.page A2 *••tCj "J,l�1.-._____` The recommendation, which wasWcJr-/}e✓cG rn�.l` do,.•..v 71• ,./�.?r r'tlr.i e1.:.i.•� ....,//, ra /i rJL-:...e:;� Y'_. - .ill u�'�teSt c... .•,-,..._, arCC S+►+f.YJut�«�% y .. .1 � ,- �l � � .e,,„/C.,,,,,- `I�►L kie.t, y(1'y.d4( •tz dt f.•�ttt 2i,:u C•t: n..lke:,f-.city b,...frr,)rs.;uN{ „.,,,...,/3,,,,...(,,,. �.S.....a(.rf� a.vi.sff Tors„/=F�-.r,-i,--a...-.f; W.41` ''4.h/ct•te n kr.sec ii-tf' Pe ,...(17 1,,...-,i, ,cf.itcst,f •gC.jkl rtlr..,,,3 Nrcdcey A.,,', ewt s-n.,.0 the et.1 41?-'771 w ,t,. /h-Y. 4= z-.,1./ 7 j 4c.,c e ',MCC ,7,04,,$,:,,,,i...'%t.l fr-f h-...e3 cc w4.,..4 Y'i ,R,.-•••--7-.....--f r..•.�.n.-4 c ctc y.1.r.,/I . A -'1111MMIIIIM x . 11.11111111111111.1.1111111.111111.11111111111111.11111111111.11111M1 -•AZ—Lake Oswego Review Thurs.,July 12,1984 • =OI Town amendment- doses icials ,,, Continued;front,page Al oneofse r „ ,„ Plan u'± `�' t,,,,; • - possibly asmalideli,. F ., rest, t ,-_ � �.«n,�ir�¢�p, ,,1 �; t'" •"a� �'F#�."m+-►RFTx*a.^cra�,rs,x,�y, , The Planning Commission a rov- '' �,ltrur.��i,1,�iT,t fi , n ,•xt •s a<t,�sltGtt /nu' ed the amendments on Monday (see ' F ..x The Ci , , t • e,,,. ......_..„ ,t i" Tit,.„TimI •tuAsi u,*tit iT l' an• e rest en- related story). First Western also I wk a:, ,;I e Jir,rtutcs , „ .. e own MM. proposes to vacate View Court, t r' u �ntit""micr r,Tarit'O*� n tc.`_`amendment nw. wasconsidered.first, � �8�trs�s u estern plans to build a Church' Street and an alley. I 4i t a» carat. t cording to Planning Director Sands , q e-foot structure suitable Signatures must be colt motet by af- j -I 0,e,. L',,Z iJ i_et,S2CA. ir.. ya.CC c.1z1. '1.--1:i^.5 1 t, _t_.r.,,. .r•T' rt./4'400s -,.i C t�is.r"j•t}- „ � ,x� f.,,,,,,,,.-„,,s.;.„:;,..1 �Z G.(yLt',.r,#Yitl s.ti 4l,.it t . vri,e iL}i hL�.T t".-'C,,,,, ( - Fi, 11.�( sf`r" I....t.JS . , J'heCPackhat's tiointse: Planners - - c ail e z ni� . ' plan, By MARK MEDLIN' which applied.to land south of Mer-- fast-food restaurants or grocery rdev 1=.xx .-, ._. _ =ro- StaftReporter cantile Drive,be changed to.corn- store*be built in the area,:Young e changes move the commercial 'e•i•�•GTme.ro r<Izla•n ..., - . r x.. - lbti rri hili r,.mmiligi.�.., mercial.This request was aPer ed saki, Another condition was that boundary one block to the east, .sc YI e �i iiY� . gv a a e I.• ing andcompri;len- for the land east off'” the drainageproblems on the site be cor- between View Court and Wilbur * 'anrM.1111*ats.baa•,.,..:., e - sry r geesforpactof €l *. GalewoodiMercantile Drive_In- rected,shesaid. Street.Lake Place would be built on dev•m=oil a.t ipAis•• n» " tile=Village south of Mere;:,tile tersectforibut denied:for landwest.o In denying the density increase far State Street between View and ,iauar,=i.iaxiaf..mn..rf441• or E ri;bitdenied derma far r,4 ad- theintersection. < the residential land south or Wilbur. ..'.•.a,..3:r.c,s.,..it-a ti v.-nre • •'.- _ jacent residential area soui'I of In-addition,owners of the land just Galewood,the.commission complied A Ma 31 mee in: the co is' 1... .r••.f.•+u..-aser,(:..... �-� r . ....r,L9WLr:,I .01..9YU. .u tai e - GalewopdStreet. south of Gatewood, who- were also with the' recommendation of city si.cniart..r.•u:i•aNaisacir�s•,.er.,•.e- y, ..... r� nrrt.is represented,by Benkendorf, asked-.staff. to •e . i - -- • rent al' -t.t)on,t:ra41l.jtiy$.i a.iti,��,c.u•.R#e- PACKRAT a,.- ,u .'o ••: . ,.• `_ thattheresidentlaldensityofthe.pro- "The construction of R-0 housing "•• statua..tt.......e. .s•,•..,.. « rta�ixlikt .ai,tilt ifilt.kV�rt•m -+ f .,.a..rolioa:7iTrarommr.x4.i .• ''�u'mlrr r ilita.a..�ru .i,- PAP'�R�rA%,.-'o r cs�r..utt • ,i tr,a i` 'se pertyl e.ncreased€rom I2=t»5 to.R-0.. (13 uititsperacreormnre)inthepre- - raifi=ts�.s.;_ . • .raN:aa.t••,: ..-.Thecomm ssioirdeniedthisrequest. 'sent RR-7.5 zone'(5 8 units per acre) •sI• ••.ar,r .,. .. -samr. ,k,Fr: r3?rvz-.�r x; _ ilys a. •pini rerKi...• ••,ro'''-• Neighbors of the newly designated will have severe impact on adjacent • •_` •+ `v - USED Bll(IKS .1..i.....-a.,r.wim—+:�.,=mre ucel . , commercial area were concerned It 7.5 development,-and may not be ire - 1,- rst Western Development of At 50%OFF .,-c,sc••:r..,- about commercial buildings con- ableto be constructed to meet city re- . _ • Oregon Inc.,the developer for Lake Cover Prue ,. • 'structed close'to residential str'.`.c ^, YI- 1,11 u.. • • . ,•.' t, "•en_Mercantile Village"was ap- �uu ernents: for buffering and set- Place,also proposes to vacate View ho ."HAa..--- --"'"SL3TSRi��' '' graved in X979,15 percent of its Iard tures,-according to PIann3. Direr- baitics"a staffreportsaid. Court, Church Street and an alley. 422 Second St.,1-.0.635-8E73 was designated residential; the re- torSandyYoung.Thereareno°plans• -'k ' •-1-• • ni>z: c.ua.u:.r:,r s3a:rru.v�i• +eve sn,rti.+ci�®t Signaturesa must he collected by of- mainder was deram signated rammer- to put Mercantile Village buildings .. .. .•• • ..s vrx.,,e.... r mm .n. ctedproperty owners and the vac - iVkl tial. closto the residentlalIand,she said,, .....• - rt vr'uwj. • - lion approved by the City Council. �.�`— ----•--- g �T*a:�s rr .�....•...:•.-.,., Criteria,f.., ... r a ...•••• ', The development,will then go to the ` Mercanti"Ie. Village ciwners, adsiiii thaYnohei htrestrietian was i•r3n representectby-AlBenkendori',tasked; imposedortthearea, IT�ts+rs'=s:sp,- ► r,, -. . • • . • elra .,..e.. n &.n•.. r en Development Review Board in early -%that the re dentfal designation, Acondition otapprovalwas;that no o.r• .• •n er • • s' -.•• s •• nrti[a•rf■a<,r!•r. ar August. f _ l'i a s s.v ! -r",y.•tt.t`S Gs.tt 1-c.I.1.-,,,,,Kr'.S c ,.,AJh,.,,=r/o Z.3.5 ,^Cf,,,.,„ R A,3.s »s c.,r.n,C, ..-i_3t fr twk:(t s;.t0 i rrt,t....i c,tfJ b..i c4 - ,,,,/-,,i._ CC L•rt rti t.t.S..•v,t,h-<_t-t . t4'1". rr11 a..4 cr. .1c4 #CK.• . • C` h fx C. c.',4),..bt.L t.'11‘-ti.Tt„,,,,, h..,.....) to,,-.4,7•.,c Ar4LT: k.r S •/- c i,+f.�.!•9'* 's.:t..-twj4 �,+Hi hr. «l 3<at C--.`.x the t'r.1iT i•-. ch.,.yc+ L!'s,AI- ..t 5t:Tid..1C P.Fc."r If Y- aa.{, s.rear. y vt.i. •�h,C .•r-rk k'.,t{hie �„•.t+L ...At CS.tst rctµe. .. .tS,AG ....sit hr.,..,...cd. x.,.rt. 1,z ile41r Firs,„,,.. P„C ...44r4...ic tJ..f.I, /•,,< i ►.t Y. S(,.•a-.'v-.•t-rx.,,S,Cr ..m-'t~T-5"_ c....t. .7.-.-j-r 44-.--{i,,i-yrK.ht,fi•.'4 - ... 2•2t,1.r "c 4-3 5 tiC('.L.•ITi,f,.s.tirs/- P ,)' i.--. - _..... oftio# . ay M .cr n i f-A .,----::'.~ �+Y.r .�✓,..Yrs 1 �.�� rA L 4 41-19(1V1 Idyl 1�M�+A.f v\ f '^'�`a.. i . ,• :int_ a2 ,.".3, ,. , ' - 7" ''''''' 1 ' * ' ' ' * 4 PC A,Vv114 i li., , , , , ... .„„, 1/4, i .1 i ,, "-, , I -79/ 1)171 A le/ ' . '''4, ' /0, 6-c) ,, r).4..).., , ,c, cv-„,,,i/)./,-,/, i ' : 0 , 4--LA'c - 6eAaC2- — ' 7 '''''' ' c dieA, i -10 iiii 6/--//1 /1-' ,e6( .,z/-d '6'5 ' , Le.,,,,t . , at,fx -./y1,.,‘,2, 4,6,a ,, 4.4y...z.,_ .. _i...z _2_7— t., — I _al, a t",,,T i,) LG F ,, A / /'r1 S ? t.. qp' 1 1.,e.4 , e-o% t, c../.7 di,-.1k.,,, „Led- ,, e)7/6, e, ,e.„,,i,94., a..„, i.,,,z7-7.,1. , , i , ,.. 6 ; . , ' ,,,. t. � � .J2,. .. .._,.� �,e.c e. f' / - 1,41 e)o/u,,i6,,, jz._. i 1 . ,, 1 --, : , , , , , ,4_,t- L.de..61,24:1,7t,c.,,iic_..., ,/f5-0 • "� f l� f/e..2 . !s�f �/j j� I je,). ,,,l--(.-_,...e.„ , , ; tdi . Yo—T22,ct . 4.x.c_ ', ,.7---)./(1 r - : altchfris.blk_e(„0 tlith-1-1--, -eirtiPiOriit.' ti-11- I .. 1 c„.,1 i _ . i.,,-,e 6/),(.(:;;; i . ) /46,-e. t-dej e,?ict? „,././ ' �- ' ' c/c) I , Ctie.t.- 2-611e-re ,, a 1 i , ei /2 ir , , .� ' '. ( ,/' 1,,,e/ ' i I //2('-e____, I' '' a 41-c,,/,,, (97, 1 F--6. .,o._"..4,4e 6,0-1,(- ' z-47 ai, ' 71/7 71/2 ps7F b l'4.4.,,,),91/.-- 4'eek.1 filee.e....((#0 11)62/, : . 6, is d.0,16i 4:czoce.,7 ,'' - / 1 1 i, ---- '----- t ' . ___ 5, I1 � i- �i R ' ' 6, ,ree:- ,._4-,./le,40-767' I ' . 1 ' 84:—--'41'474Pd 1tshop - 1 4),( (.. 5 ,144 6,-,tz,ltkl ci7 J.8 1L,,, 6,--,(.--T'Ll'slc.,c-- ,.. 6.7a, ,,,. 7),/- lbi. ,pry 1 4 f'7 ,„,,Et3 1 11 ',' .. . : ,tee-I' , , i, II I U4 fiUee,-6 * oc-//t1er- "„J c y 4--, e_i-L,Gez.-64. c. ',/, ..L.k.:..triir ,--0 ___ i - ___,..7:_i_i±.2. .6)›4... I, 1 , I, .e. -' X17 tv &P7 ä4tii 'to 1 (07, 6_,e,, ,,,-2 'ag_t-ey' 4.4e4.42._e,e( 00 .e4-c-eei,ba-ee,-? 7 , ,i---,-tipee,Zre. 7 c2z,707/,),t,e/t-6,e6-/— X., w ' oYys.,(4 G 5L& do d-1 luentif 4t-c, t%/ ' J (e4f /'` 50 cl (2,2.q.efgle..-('' . 0 6 ,11-21-ki.fr'xs' y- pet,7,/e, I, , 1,2z.z7.,. A:Z"'---- 7y5,- ‘Otz.-) _. r /9e 2. /36.crie..re2) 17/:- -21).,';'-',_c; .-' ,,„0"..---" m . ( .4_,z-,-----;,--rd_,4 J. / / _ , ,,,, ,i.,2 zi� 7c.71 -1,,,,z) til( i _le (5-: IY,E7r 91 - :t/ i fi-ipppo)Izzi e- 7.:0,2 - . -- 7/'341 (?0,(/)/ al C.(inee/6/11z-e 'c't, i 1014/1 elie r 0 , fi .i'L- ie:11,,,k- )ikli,< ) e‘,/,/2 -rte: y C ,,,,,,t,v/--e,a i-idle,y9 1-et dde , ...zto,/? itu.., e:, / . , 1,7- 0..c,,L,e9_,_. (e)0 ill)0#-el ..5'1A°. 5(o),10 40-6-el do.64# 6-14Ple-/-f iGrf--6/1e/ Aze--71-- o 2 . ) (1 .e3 ‘ 1 _,,ti dix fr,..0,--.' -?,,, A, ,,-* I, '-) :/, c)'':11 611-0 ;1,- 7 ,, fe - -71-&17 a,.. c,„4,1cez.--ri-c.,_, .-- Lic,i17( --e-/ii.'64-6 1 w 1 n 41-4,)'`E 6,ev)...S -.,--=' ,--- t-- 04FE7(‘C, -,%t-se-cl)r-cie-x, ih'3,-(11/re_ii -,=-/1/t-eire Cita, 1 ,/- 4/1- A7 / i !I)1 AP1J (2/ ze, xit,tiu,„,i,f:i23 ill ca)e; ‘-r,t,,,e./_.,4„ .,,_. -m„5--ey6. ,r3/- /.7,,9,,,,,--1 maie i _ i, i , i , ,....cok,,. . ,,,,,,, a ' / if- ir o'-i- idovi,ps — fa/-L-72,, -,e,/, ..' . ,,ipete,,,r4 fe.-4,(-- edi -.-t 7 r---vti,,t , Cdritt-e,--) i At..,s,4 ja6S eii,,) d - titZr 1:024, c)-.:21.,,ti 6/ ..3-,, ,eir it....074_, e,,,,,,7 e_elete7,4, , . .L.,‘ kel 4 1 7 e - ' 14/. ).: .._V-is ,. .)cl-e,7 i:12,t,",() e2), c7.,,e..-LI 41--6/Yri-— , I .(g._-27-76t54,46•1!Ite-,val . lvi/) / 1)116bs.11. A . ry /-2d6y2 .`,..3, (\e/a,k_e4,,,s hp 6,741. 119- 2. :- -2 -2 4/..e.4!:5-7hielt'a.lirc I-7i/ p4 i ier, ik ' $ iX2. - ' r 6, 1 4-L',4T 1-di11 1 �r Com- , ay,/tifte,k 71 '),-,'-, 7 =-• /-) . e .: ,e.e.i.lir.. 947,/,,4,1,4-,' ,,4.--',_,?,:5 - L-0-7e1/1,-G.t" 6-i#'1 /2((,, __&1-7-- ' u :17v(kiii isvie5.e,ieio Lft,L-e d;. 1::,idlii?!Z-el 1/ /: -,,Cf,f,t.dn ifriA-Lyid ict:///1-1-- et- ,7,Ze_., /),p,,e,e6/ 0)114vi(1 — i D . ' (1 ‘t)6,a il_e -.- ititr /P1-,Ii) /t.t,1 A 1 e/'46 .170- t/ . c.9-I? C, Vaz, ,,a2, s ,9 it /1 . ', vigcl-e.k. j91.epil/./ l • a46 -, .,e,..11 1coid k . i (/'-' , yediA" ,,,, 1/, , 31,-N 10 tUi't 4,122L_P_I___ ,__L47-) _ 5-Z,61/_,?#) , / /7 d#'' '.---1 .A2Ze:Ill-----4.'7-4-ei-ei.-oet-kl, rr '4.;--/c , cii,,-./di (11-(4,e,1 i iPie.---iv-6? 511--'e.e:74"-' . ' -ill'.cr 4,4,7 -6Z1(''' 1 'yf le5 — / /- 3 '1-5 a.-7 / C9cA i 17--rrn-1 eXtsh P1 1 -1i.,.4-1.cg g,,ie` k --I' .4,,ale.,/ ,1),,(-0(e.--t' t7)1/1.,41,,t...., e;61_.61-e497t2,c_.,, . 1-,e:),t)Ye,S, . • P — k , , 1 t., l�V (4e,,,„145.11'2,/7 p 04'"7 4‘201 t'' 4 ,"5-...) tt-4 a-&1 `d. `Ac)r1 /1tu1: G./ Gd z ' .2., /),1„e,,k, 11_,4„1. ‘,.i.. ,4,,I/2,9 4 0,0,t,0.4S-46 (..eici,4-,,. i;nolt,a+ ev-a, clit,J,,‘,15,e,t ,(-17,(14,1 a-,f-' vb., 6t .* I t 3 �, i / 7n 0, ir., n , 14,fitt,,41,,,L.1•?.f.e...zi.„ . H 1 , n,. 0 r r 1 I 7cr :‘,?'-*-- *--- .76')z'-.,, /,.,-'1 /467.i. 1,/ 7/)/)-7--/-4. , * „7 ,s ,/,1 ,r 6,4(--,ce(` , i 4-ric.,' -. ' //k.zi 6/).-) ititii/ ./.& ‘-4,,i,,,,-,,1 .r iiaoiC-C) plpi i-L.-.....L.)es--eat nese z: .. . 41._ lC� 'i-1*--61- r , ' ,1,/, ..c ' yrs f , 0 / r . 0 . 4 A,649'.S , i'.x/7) l'i.,;'t,e/A.:41,-1 - .3/17 . (i I/.1-tit e Z% : , I y 41.-6'1;L: 'ilia./ //,ra' 4 C',/ityU2if -- ,5),_,,,e ' ,27L• ---; ,,, 1 ,,iLl ' ) li '-` i S y i,0,-6 e 0,...i.t . a,5 ,,,,.47,,i'li.,e,,r,..2-, c C? wtL,4"),94_6,9../p) N r! 1. --ty-,,,, .#.e.... 4 0(...,$2,-,,9. 6,0 7,c,,,-6,,e.,( 6y.,,t,e,„C,tie. f I L,-dL- # mer tt,. .. t .:',4 i 7,,./WI b/ /1 6,,(,e.,e. .Z e.1 7t e,:/,.,i,/p 4,1,c2,/,(.,,,,4 1,41.,... ,7.,.„7„._,, 4 ,,,"64,t/IL, c:L ut,,/,,hicar4,,,,,,,, ' „1,7,.-,, i i '.4 ' ir''' * '2' 0 i IA / i t,, -.--, w w ,_ 5,„ ,,,,,„,,,,,, 4 ,,,,,,,,,,,.‘,,,, 4,,,,,e ,„4..,,,,z- , ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„4/:,,,,,...w ,,,,,, ,, ' t9p1.,,,,4.,,t41, ,,,e;,. ,do., .. ceit,o'1,,, - /.< 1.?„'Ze' 4,,,#'• t,-,,,( i0/,e,„t 0 , .V ... . r ,.Y.�.� 0 '0 worn'' s. ' l'4V,idtt-tlit,t-4-- ailt .`r ...)-3,-,t, #67/e.:4,-/....1 .-c-,..., ,' .,5-',./4/9ipc).2h- .(_.....i7 , " ,,,, //2,6;/1.,t0,1/7 / .t.,,t,,, ,..6e,e,e,-/ 6c-4,,/...5c..(4.,„c_eee, c_.‘/-26,Le.._ez .e., ,,e• -- /1. .,-:, I • )2:1-c,„,z,z-"7-„1-4/ z:- ..:,/-,2 ..- c../,‘,,v .,,,t '72t .", -e- **-. , &6t,e b /.....` 1.:,' ,ii.,,ked.,..4..Z--- ' // carct iyy( 4:--`.3 JI Z.` " S ►rte.- , ' .--;- , 3 -.' .5,1)-1,2'2 ,3, a6-- -- • , Ire-4';4.,-66647L-446a4 CiLett..k( A 6---c., 7,A,, • i , 3 5 6 rt- nit 5'1,t -e 1"' 't' ' c:;.tt 61-_,e,d-tiLi i,"-a*"'p'‘,--e_: /10 Z5-et-k., , 'Z' i:L,Afcilati"eZ fia,hetad ,, it,,,,,e_,Lt.,,,t,t,t c (...,/,;./6,,_v_ectio . j.' at,te-A(14 4.4‘, , ()/Li. '',. c.,2,61P11-:' /L4f0,-t" 4,02-e1;67 egt4ct...,- d4ia er'1/9tklar ts a pz.,.624,:t.,„c...c._ ,;-.. ., ' 2,, .br-k4c6,,,,,,l);t?,.,s' ci,9 „L, tat,e-,, :4,e, 71 e'iol ,„Zte.,,, ,,t, al ,„6)e„,,,,,,,, e glie_(1,,,e6,/ Q 4/,/,,,t,t,„ ,,i 31 /Y u " .e8‘, ttla ktt.t.,t,3L i PI'74:' 4,,,L,64 Clx4' a'`' '', " i- .. z ,,,,tio /13/3, tf-t, .:t+ 'Lde-,-4 „.07,14ti-e,).:::..., u , , ,, ,g it-tateidl,. ilietift4b,0,-.44-zt4 4E9 14t6ezLei thtez ,,,,,:„(.,„, .fr, w f a „..rM n 1 'C4 61..%6 f1, ”" t d+ /7.,2 /6 -- .. ..14// ...4,., , 1,...1k__,, 9, , % r { . 4, 1, GJ/, i .' i\;lo,„ -‘057-'—'"'-'6.6-',P 1 4/1-e-Lte//,7 ../1-ti:' 4----e:‘-'1 .4,--e-elL--16( L''''',-.41d6-c-e_, ,,' . ,, '',2 6- ',v-a..e,':k 4/14,,,,e4;1 /4 7...6 '..,(...,,,,,,,,p'e.:.,-4,:tecii,./-244/ al---ea..:,2 , i, , . 51) /-574,-- a - ,,. 70, . „, -44,-',01.e.••it-t..)-a_er6 4,4---t4 ' ' , ) / klt ,/,./64._,4 0 at(t_et ' . ' ' , d ' "e-i/l—ri•- -ille•Zt; , ''..:, ,( .L,C4 • '1'/.. -t t 0).,n/ii,,,,,,,,... , ,, ,A. , • , • 4 , ,. ,,,, , , - , .e:;.e.(41,1,-,ste,, ,-,#f 6.0,,,a'../iii, - ,z,,,e_.,ti , ,,,,, te..ta, ..,„. ii, , 71.67 '.'‘7 ait ,,-,6,, e/2 e._e 4,--- ,,,, ,s‘tt,w'' . ,, 1 . 1/1; 140 ' 1116') /1.-e-e, (.. .. 'a e/1./* ,e(e-, , ' , 3e3 - , 1 Lz0-1*- ,fit...e ei, ,.c e.,?76.7 11-4/,, ,,,,,,,---' ' e.,ei-otit.4 64.1,L A ,,,,z,...L.. , , ._.,/:/a,/..6e.p, G, e , l Vit, . a - , - ? > f , .1 4 i,2,12- i 1_3 .,0 , L,,,,,,i,c e,--)6ele'„,..Q.1' ,-,f-t.),- „ /It- 6-1''. :, . 7 / i''. ' ' ' ' ', , , ' 'I x ` .4, o '4 • s , a j4 . ', STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5.3 July 10, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION TIGARD SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD ROOM 13137 SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY TIGARD, ORt..r,;C'N 97223 A. FINDING OF FACT 1. General Informat i f)n CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA 11-84 and Zone Change, ZC 8-84. REQUEST:Q e p m T.. ive Plan Amendment! from Density Residential toCommercial General and for a Zone Chan e from R-3.5 (Residentialg 3.5 units/acre) to C-G (Commercial General). APPLIGANT: T:gard West'Development Co. OWNER: Same R; G I"Joes' inc. , Alice TrAtfin:sen' and JB,Bishop 3853 SW Scholls Ferry Road Portland, Oregon 97221 LOCATION: 10500 13370 13450 13490 and 13 30 SW s � y � 5 Watkins Ave , Tigard (Wash. Co. Tax map 251 3DA, Tax Lots 4700, 4800, 6100, and 6200 and 251 3DD, lot 200). LOT AREA: 99,000 square feet, 2.3 acres 2. Background Kristen Subdivision (5 12-79) was proposed in 1979 to create seven 'residential lots along Park Street, however, did not receive final City appro'ral. 3. VicinitY Information triangulararea lies south of Park Street, west of Parific H'':ghway, nd eastofthe subject d - (Commercial is property �ot,e C 0 General) and is Py developed dev�elo ed with commercial uses. Properties to the north, ',west \ and south contain single family residences that are id the R-3.5 (Residential 3.5 units/acre) and R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) zones 4. Site Information and Pr�aposal Description Site The five properties being considered in this appiit»at .on are developed with singly: family residences on lots that are 130 feet deep and vary `' from 116 to 210 feet in width. The lots are all contiguous beginning, at . Park Street running south on the east side of WatAini Avenue. l STAFF REi'ORT CPA 11-84 and ZC 8-84 - SAGE 1 The applicant proposes to change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Low Density Residential to Commercial General and to rezone the property to C-G (Commercial General). This modification is requested to enlarge the commercial property to the east. The applicant contends that the additional space is necessary to accommodate- a 55,000 square foot retail business. The applicant indicates that no access to Watkins Avenue is desired and an exit directing vehicles to Pacific Highway will be proposed on Park Street. The retail facility will require a Site �'a Development Review approval prior to any development of the site. ' ' 5. Agency Comments The Engineering Division has no objection but indicates that future � development on the property may require a sanitary sewer easement, across r i; Tax Lots 4800 and 0100. The Building Inspection Office has no objections. The State Highway Division indicates that the proposed f' retail development cot:Ld potentially affect the Watkins Avenue and Park Street intersections with Pacific Highway. The Division has no objections at this time. NPO # 3 recommends denial. , • B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION The applicant has, submitted a narrative in support of the proposal which addresses specificpoliciesComprehensiveThe Planning n and its relationship onsh staff has reviewed the alacatio the Plan.p to the Plan. w' PP provisionsand policies are discussed below. It is The relevant � important to recognize that this review should only deal with issues germanethe installation of a which are to the Plan and zone. chap .e not specific commercial use. The development of the subject property and the land to the east will be required to follow the Site Development Review process which includes an analysis of Code requirements such as traffic impact, buffering and landscaping. Implementation Strategies 2. The Community Development Code (C.D.C.) shall provide quasi-judicial changes to the Comprehensive Plan Map which may be initiated by affectedu. pares on a semi-annual basis and approved if the City Council finds a. g. p policies; 1he ch ane is consistent with app la.cable lan_� l b. A chi.16,e of physical circumstances has occurred since the o igii al designation; or c. A mistake was, made in the original land use designation, 411 THE CITY SHALL a. MAINTAIN AND IMPROVE TPE QUALITY OP TIGARD'S'' AIR QUALITY AND COORDINATE WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS AND AGENCIES TO REDUCE AIR POLLUTIONS 'WITHIN THE PORTLAND-VANCOUVER AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE AREA, (AQMA)i 11 SThPF REPORT ° CPA 11-54 and ZC ;8-5 "- PAGE it The applicant contends that Tigard residents must travel significant distances to reach retail business similar to the one proposed. A large retail store may reduce the amount of traveling for local residents but `'` it will tend to attract customers from other parts of the southwest metropolitan area. Further study would be necessary before any conclusions could be made regarding impacts upon traffic generation as it ielates to air quality. • 4.3.1 THE CITY SHALL a. REQUIRE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS LOCATED IN A NOISE CONGESTED AREA OR A USE WHICH CREATES NOISE IN EXCESS OF THE ' { APPLICABLE STANDARDS TO INCORPORATE THE FOLLOWING INTO THE SITE PLAN: 1. BUILDING PLACEMENT ON THE SITE IN AN AREA WHERE THE NOISE LEVELS WILL HAVE A MINIMAL IMPACT: OR ). LANDSCAPING AND OTHER TECHNIQUES TO LESSEN NOISE IMPACTS TO, LEVELS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND USES. The applicant indicates that pp the purpose of the proposal is t�a remove the house and consolidate the five parcels with the existing commercial property to the east. The additional land will be used to accommodate the store as well as a 40+ foot wide landscaped buffer along Watkins Avenue. This buffer is intended to reduce the negative impact of a commercial use particularly in terms of noise and visual impact. Standard Code requirements mandate a ten foot wide landscaped buffer with screening (eg. hedge or sight obscuring, fence) when commercial development occurs adjacent to a residential use. 5.1.1 THE CITY SHALL PROMOTE ACTIVITIES AIMED AT THE DIVERSIFICATION OF THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE TO TIGARD RESIDENTS WITH PARTICULAR EMPHASIS PLACED ON THE GROWTH OF THE LOCAL JOB MARKET. The retail development will create approximately 160 construction jobs and 60 full-time jobs. ,5.1.3 THE CITYSHALL IMPROVE AND ENHANCE THE PORTIONS Or THE ; CENTRAL BUSINESS AS THE FOCAL POINT FOR COMMERCIAL, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, BUSINESS; CIVIC AND PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY CREATING A DIVERSIFIED AND ECONOMICALLY VIABLE CORE AREA; Although this request will have a minimal impact upon the downtown area, the transformation of residential land to commercial u$;es along Pacific Highway will tend to expand upon the existing strip development pattern, If cominercia? areas outside of the CSD continue to grow it will become increasingly difficult: for the downtown area to become a viable commercial center. The downtown area redevelopment remains a high priority, however, the City*s ability to fund public improvements • and encourage economic growth has been limited by the abolition of the STAFF REPORTCPA l, �4 and ��' 1 4PAO� x 1 • TURA program. Development of the downtown area will take place only when marked conditions and land availability make it an attractive •' location. The City does riot discourage commercial development outside of the downtown, , 5.1.4 THE CITY SHALL ENSURE THAT NEW COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT SHALL NOT ENCROACH INTO RESIDENTIAL AREAS- THAT HAVE NOT BEEN DESIGNATED FOR COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL USES. ./ ' I The Plan and Zone Change will lead to the removal of five single family residences and their replacement by a commercial use. Presently, a row of seven single family residences are between. Watkins Avenue and the commercial property to the east. This proposal would leave the southern y' two lots which will only be adjacent to residential development on the west side of Watkins Avenue. In addition, a precedent could be set for the conversion of all the residential properties on the east side of Watkins '.acne to commercial use : ti The following locational criteria apply to the establishment of a Commercial General Zone: 2. General Commercial f'a General Commercial areas are intended to provide for major retail goods and services. The uses classified as general commercial may involve drive—in services, large space users, a combination of retail, service, wholesale and repair services or provide services to the t.ravelin; , public. The uses range from automobile repair and service, supply and equipment stores, vehicle sales, drive—in restaurants to laundry establishments,. It is intended that these uses be adjacent to an arterial or 'major collector r treet.. A. Scale_ (1)• Trade Area. Varies. (2) Site Size. Depends on development. (3) Gross Leasable Area. Var:ies tt E. Locational Criteria (1) Spacing and Location (a) The commercial area is not surrounded by residential districtson more than two sides., ,' (2) Access (a) The proposed area or expansion of an existing area shall not create traffic congestion or a traffic safety problem. Such a determination shall be based on the street capacity, existing andro djected traffic p volumes the speed limit, number of turning movements , and the traffic generating, characteristics of the various. types of uses . STAFF � � � �. +� a T.A F REPORT CPA 11 4 and? Ze 'd 84 PAGE � r 0 (b) The site shall have direct access from a major collector or arterial street. (c) Public transportation shall be available to the site or general area. Site-e Characteristics (a) The site shall be of a size which can accommodate present and projected uses. (b) The site shall have high visibility. (4) Impact Assessment (a) The scale of the project shall be compatible with ' P j P ''the surrounding uses. (b) The site configuration and charact:iristics shall be such that the privacy of adjacent non-r:,ommercial uses } can be maintained, (c) It shall be possible to incorporate the unique site features into the site design and development, plan. (d) The associated lights, noise and activities shall not interfere with adjoining non-residential uses. The area to be rezoned has residential zones and single family residential development to the south, west, and on the north side of Park Street. This is contrary to the criteria which calls for no more being ,adjacent to residential development.' This criteria than two sides ! is intended to minimize the potential for a new commercial use to infringe upon anarea that is primarily residential in nature. When combined with the commercial property to the east, the remaining, criteria are met or would be evaluated. during Site Development Review. In summary, the requested Plan and Zone Change does not appear to be 4 consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons 1. The change , in use from residential to commercial will encroach upon an established single family neighborhood. It will initiate the replacement of five residences with commercial development and will probably ,set a precedent for the establishment of commercial side of Watkins Avenue south of Park Street activityon the east sr. as well as other areas along Pacific 1Iighwa.y. 2.' .°he Comprehensive Plan encourages the continued development of the Cab asa commercial center and enlarging, the inventory of commercial)y co ed land along Pacific Highway contradicts this Policy. The effect =s recognized as minimal given the other factors which make the CBb less desirable for commercial 1 . development at this time. STAFF REPORT - C'P'A. 1.1-84 and ZC -84 * PACE; 5 • 4 } 3. The applicant has not demonstrated the need for the Zone Change. , The property to the east appears to be capable of accommodating a wide variety of commercial activities without requiring additional ''' land. C. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff recommends denial of CPA 11-84 and ZC 8-84 . ////1?/ I d.,. ir''''''Ade :'s.goe PREPARED BY: Keith Liden APPROVED BY: William A. Monahan Associate Planner Director of Planning Development (O50:3P f dm ) I , S lA , REPORT' - CPA 11-84 and ZC 8-84 - PAC8 6 l i • TIGARD PLANNTNG COMMISSION H . JULY 10, 1984 7:30 P.M. TIGARD SCHOOL DISTRICT BLDG. - BOARD ROOM 13137 SW PACIFIC HWY. , TIGARD, OREGON 97223 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call }, , 3. Approve Minutes from June 5, 1984, Planning Commission Meeting. x; 4. Planning Commission Communication 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEV Si iR 9-84 & VARIANCE V 9-84 WINTERLAYE NPO # 7' r 5.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 11-84 ZONE CHANGE ZC 7-84 TIGARD WEST DEVELOPMENT NPO # 3 5.3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 14-84 GOAL # 5 5.4 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 14-84 GOAL # 10 5.5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA,r18-84 POLICY 6.3.2. 5,6 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 5-84 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE 5.7 SUBDIVISION S-8--84 VARIANCE V 11-84 SANDLEWOOD PARK NPO # 2 6 OTHER BUSINESS p; Home: Occupation findings to be heard July 25 1984 o Workshop 7. ADJOURNMENT 0288P r° , „ ,„, , , , „„, , 1 ti NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Tigard Planning Commission, at meeting on Tuesday, July _10, 1984 at 7:30 P.M., in the Board Room of Tigard School District Bldg., 13137 S.W. Pacific Hwy. , Tigard, Oregon, and will consider the following application: FILE NUMBER: CPA 11-84 and ZC 8-84 APPLICANT: Tigard West Development /„ I,, OWNER: Bishop, Treffing, 3853 SW Scholls Ferry Rd. GI Joes Portland, Oregon 97223 REQUEST: For a Comprehensive Plan Change for Low Density Residential to Commercial General and for a Zone Change from R-3.5 (Residential'. 3.5 units/acre) to CC (Commercial General) LOCATION: 1050°,, 13370, 13450, 13490 and 13530 SW Watkins, Tigard, Oregon (Wash. Co, Tax Map 2S1 3DA lots 4700, 4800, 6100, 6200, and 281 3DD, lot 200.) See map on reverse side) ' hearing matter will be conducted in accordance with the The c public' on this ,�, Code rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Commutity Development dand rules oa, procedure of the Planning Commission. ,1ny petsons, having interest in this matter may attend and be heard, or testimo�t;' ma: be submitted' in writingto be yy �' entered into the record of the initial hearing. Por further information please contact the Planning Department at 639-4171. TIARD CITY HALL, 12755 S«W. Ash Avenue (Cornea of Ash Avenue & Burnham 8tr2et), or contact Neighborhood Planning Or znization (NPO) # 2 Chairperson Bob Bledsoe Phone Number639-8937 P __ (04971') dmj 11. A dedication; document inclu ging a legal description shall be recorded with Washington Cot city for the 3.4 acre park land. The dedication document will be reviewed and approved by the City pri'ir to recording. The park shall be dedicated prior to the isuance of Building permits. 12. The applicant shall be responsible along with the other developers of Winter Lake for the grading and seedit; of the e park. The method and timing of the improvement shall be approved by the City prior to issuing Building permits. 13. This approval is valid for the period of one year. 14. Adjust the buildings at the south eastern end of the project to ' p nom lete drive north to Park Street and close of the loop. 15. Stat f' to seek NPO input prior to approving landscape thep plans. 16. Th,' t es ern half of the 130th Ave. Right-o'-Way adjacent to the subject property shall be bacated. The applicant shall initiate the vacation procedure and City staff shall provide assistance to expedite this process. 17. Accomodate any utility easements with the vacation of 130th Ave. yPond Court. 18. Have a two way access onto 135th front. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion. Motion n carried, unanimously by Commissioners present. 5.3 COMPREI ENCIVE PLAN A1,1ENl)l'Eeri_._ ` A'‘,11-84 and ZONE -CRANGE ZC 8-84 TIGARD'' WEST DEVELOPMENT CO. NPO # 3 .,_YReques - for-- ,a -C:ommpreheesive- Plan- _-Amendment from -Law. Density-. Residential to Commercial General and for a Zone Change from R 3.5 (Residential R 3.5 units/acre) to C-G' (Commercial General). Located 10500, 13370, 13450, 13490, and 13530` SW Watkins Ave. (WCTMI 251 3DA, lots 4700, 4800, 6100, and 6200 and 2S1 3DD, lot 200.) o Associate planner Lidera p reviewed, the staff report and made staffs recommendation f,er denial. N-20 comMENT5 o Duane Ehr, Y NPO # `3 member, stated chat the NPO unania�ousl opposed the Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change based on City Policies and . neighborhood opposition. APPLICANT t S PRESENTATION o Stephen J nik, Attorney representing all but one of the apPlicaatt:s, site he _:placed on the Site. tie revieraed the � `'� . wouldh deedxpropertyp u alon Catkins to the Cityso stated that they g �E . P annin.,, Coidmission Minutes, 10� 1984 Page 1 g July �e a there could not be any future access onto Watkins. They would also provide a 20 to 40 foot buffer between the commercial and residential properties. He noted that all accesses were oriented on or toward Pacific Highway. He reviewed the zoning on surrounding properties, commenting that the proposal does not encroach into the, neighborhood anymore than surrounding commercial properties. Re reviewed how the ", planconforms to City policies and the benefits the project would be for the City. He questioned how the staff had applied the City's policies to this proposal. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Proponents '1 0 J. A. Paterson 11605Manzinita, supported,� Paterson, . SW PP � the proposal. o J B Bishop, 10505 SW Barbur Blvd. S-303, pointed out that Park and Watkins are unimproved streets and would be improved by this project. This project would provide numerous jobs. Also the 40 f t. buffering is 2C feet more than the code required. He also stated that GI Joes would not be built on any other site in Tigard if Lot here. Opponents o James A. Cox, 8 North State St., Lake Oswego, Attorney representing surrounding property owners submitted written testiieony as well as the tames of the people he was respresenting. He responded to the applicant's proposal by reviewing the subject site. He commented that this project would not be just a GI Joes but Lather a mini shopping' g center, which is the practice of CI Joes. He stated that the buffering is a site development review item not a land use item. He noted that the appa!,icant had promised a traffic, study which had never been submitted. He continued that the subject property has Ml be ay.' et zoned .r idential and the other properties -referred to by .. �. re already zonedcommercial prior to development proposals. He submitted a copy of testimony given by Mr. Janik to the bankruptcy court, reading portions into the record. He stated, that a corridor study has neve) been completed for Pacific Highway and it was impossible to project the traffic impact this proposal would. have. In conclusion, GI Joes had been denied. in 1978, now that the site has been altered with the construction of Pietros, it should be denied enie again invtead of entroachiYg into the residential neighborhood Commissioner Owens arrived o Doug Nicolai, 10655 SW Park 8t., President of Save Our Neighborhood showed slides of the surrounding area and the properties included in the *‘onechange request, He emphasized that these propertieserties do not warra tt ,dastruction for commercial use. Re submitted that, the buffer which: exists,* provides a better buffer against commercial development than the 40 ft buffer proposed by the applicant,. He maintained that the rezoning would be an encroachment into, the single family residential neighborhood, Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1584 Page 6 ! rb -, IJa o Dennis Moonier, 10634 SW Kirk Lane, wanted to go on record as not opposing development on the existing commercial site but only the encroachment into the established single family residential area. He quoted comprehensive plan policies which were written to protect a established residential areas. He opposed the zone change as noir being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. o Dennis Owen, 10945 SW Fairhaven, raised questions regarding the if the Commercial site is enlarged. would be increased traffic. thatg He explained how 'the traffic would impact the residential areas and the inadequate road conditions. Also because Metro has n'ot completed the corridor study for Pacific Hwy it is unknown what the impact would be. gWatkins, ' of Save' Our o George•e Fitz erald. :1:3145 SW a member Neighborhoods read atd submitted petitions signed by 184 neighboring individuals opposing the application. o Ted Pazderie, 13435 SW 107th, opposed the application because it would set a precedent and that the safe guards proposed by Mr. Janik could not be guaranteed. t t , SW 107th, opposed the application.route concern o J�.anet Kromer 13465 Her was for the safety of the children who had to use this to walk to school. o Jim Nicoll, 10710 SW Fairhaven Way, felt, the offer to dedicate the; prc erty to protect access onto Watkins was a void offer, that a deed houses`restzcticn would. be a better method. He felt if the. . were, left it would keep the juveniles from crossing into the commercial site aver the landscaped and fenced areas. He ,felt there would be jobs created even if the site would develope as is. He also stated that the neighborhood is a well maintained neighborhood and is not declining except for the homes that the de-eloper has purchased. o Donna Grossman, 13485 SW Watkins, opposed the zone change. Her house Will face the back of the proposed development. She stated they had purchased their because the existing buffer was adequate , protection fromPacificHighway noise and the commercial property. If this application is approved it would decrease the value of her home. o Duane Eht, 10425 SW Park, opposed the application as not being economically feasible. Be appealed to the Commission to deny the application and keep the residential land as residential and commercial land as commercial. o Bob ed' a � � 3, that the NPO had met the night beforeand reviewed �eapplication and concurred with the staff report, especially the encroachment into the residential neighborhood. Also, application _ s calling for a change from, , this w:�� one basic use to another use and sbou,ld have to meet the necessary criteria.. an F iu,,. Commission o Minutes July 10, 1984 page CROSS EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL o Steve Janik responded to the public testimony concerning the amount of land needed for this development. He opposed the use of the Carl Buftke traffic study as not being pertinent to this site. He commented that the noise would be better blocked by the building than ` by the existing buffer and that if it was left the way it is the existing houses would be the buffer against the commercial site. He did not feel the zone change was an encroachmeu.t into the neighborhood. o Jim Cox asked if this zone change was approve what boundary in. the City would be safe." Thi:; property has always been the boundary between residential and commercial and he did not feel thezone change could be justified. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED '. AND COMMISSION DISCUSSION NACTION o Commissioner Bergmann felt this development was likened to the Fred Meyersite. He had not made up his mind and wanted to listen to the other Commissioner's comments. o Commissoner Peterson stated he would like to see a GI ,Does,' but was concerned with the encroachment into the residential area. He felt the residential area as it is would be a better buffer. o Commissioner Leverett was inclined to support the zone change with sufficient bt ffering. o Commissioner Pyre:: asked staff if the comp plan change could be conditioned. Staff stated itcould not. He didn'tfeel there was any compelling reason to make a comp plan change. Fc saw it as a .?e#.wurm+'.r.:ruu..r.myx wa+,t�v . •. . defilla-t-e- erichroachmentai o President Moen. reviewed the staff report and applicable policies. die felt the, zone change did encroach into the residential neighborhood. Commissioneryre moved and Commissioner Peterson P y recons?ed to deny CPA 11-84 and ZC 8-(34 based on the following findings: 1. The ohtage it use from residential to commercial will encroach upon an " established single .family neighborhood;. It will initiate` ate the replacement of five residences Witb commercial development and will probably set a precedent for the establishment of commercial activity on the east side of % atkins Avenue south of Park Street as well as ctherareas along Pacific Ht ghway• 2. The applicant has not demonstrated the need for the, Zone Change. The property to the east appearsears to 'tie capable of pP p accommodating a wide g variety of Commercial activities without requiring additional land;' Planning, Commission Minutes July 10, l' 84 Page j ., r. [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] j1 P 3. Policy 6.3.1, which states the City shall direct its land use , i. action toward the maintainence and the improvement of the established residential areas. kl 4. Policy 6.3.3, whir states that all phases of the development approval process in a residential established area, primary consideration of the City shall be to preserve and enchance the character of the adjacent established areas. Motion carried three to two. Commissioners Moen, Peterson and Pyre r voting yes; Commissioners Bergmann and Leverett voting no. (Commissioner Owens abstained as she was not present for the entire ° hearing.) 5.4 GOAL # 5 SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS AREAS CPA 14-84 Associate Planner Newton madestaff's recommendation to amend Chapter 18.84 of the Community Development Code to include a new Section, 18.84.045 Exceptions for Development in the 108th/113th Ravine, significant Wetlands Area. PUBLIC TESTIMONY • o Elton Phillips, 16565' SW 108th, opposed staff's recommendation ,'' stating that the maps for that area were incorrect. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PLANNINGCOMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION o Discussion followed regarding how floodplain is determined and now it would impact Mr. Phillip's property. o Discussion regarding criteria number three. n Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Bergmann seconded to word the recommendation to City Council to add the following section: 18.84.045 Exceptions for Development in the 108Eh/l13th Ravine significant Wetlands Area. A. Under the Sensitive Lands Permit process; the Hearings Officer may allow portions of the flavine at 108th and 113th, designated as a significant = wetlands areas to development provided chat all of the following criteria are met 1, All of the land (within the ravine) being; considered for development is at less than 25 slope. 2. There are lrto unstable soil conditions on the land being considered, for development Planning Cum,mission Minutes July 10,; 19a4 Page: 4 * .. .,.,..t ,�.l.,. 1., } 4.' { .%.,t.ieff,, u.roh l 0) July 10,. 1984 Tis,e.rdtannin Cotit.s iioti ce Tigard City Council w s ' G�CityC"�.k. rl..rnerr Cay. i "ard, yr. t =zest for zone chane. t'Ile: CPA 11-84 ee ZC 8-84 f rc tun�dox,!1',si t e i; owner c property designate : lot 8 (Dersroy , .: ;13 fotknns,tip 2813311 . ectieiu CC80u. Address 13175 S. vi. ,,catkins St. or. request denial of applicant for zone c tanrre front R-3.5 to CG. in esti tttcu 65 residents of nPO 3 were preset,t at the recti it Pt} tte tint and vote( 1OCd tk *ainst the sunjcc;. cklst sre. The ijerr;, ell/,ifair is 'oui'residential area is occup)pica by families; ,ma.ny= r t"i you c are Ireil cu.ro, for and re.c'iect ptritLe r1 ., cwn, rs,i L.. . ,ne area. Is . cret,it to ::kik: City of i.a ard. The children from , r1.i .,2s use and ;art., se:ntets e nro, to J011001 tsr%t,kt.lxt.a e zro.do cre te serious b; .ft ty nnazzards for these c tildr.x. it 1110 zld cite quality ci. tic rteif°l l�cr�-hood „, the tete 'vaxlaze of tfle family residences. Tax loss fro,rb tat., re,uced V41ues co.ie well cwtccedd to a. ns `"tis cor,tt,terci,.1 pro,x)orties. bo3'iie of us 14o lid elect to �..o"xpe out cii Tigard. „ e ,.re ad bv he 1...a1nIrinn . .a+tip rtme1it, City of z'i,,ard, that a zone c,ian e cannot be cc iditio.: TRANSCRIPT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 11-84 ZONE CHANGE C — TICARD WEST,, DEVCLOPMENT, COMRANY July 10, `'`1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING E President Moen, "Item 5,.3 please." Assoce Planner�:a� : 1_iden, "Okay, this is for a application fior. Comprehensive President Moen, "Could we have :r,t quite e hear, so ..We can hear the staff report." Liden, "Okay this application is for a Comn ehensive Plan Amendment ,and Zone Change, Oh, far five parcels that aro 1 acated on Watkins Street or Avenue and south., cf Park Street, and the proposal is toH,,change the Comprehensive Plan from Low Density Residential designation to 'Cummercial General,' and also to• change the zt�nedesignation from Residential to Commercial General. The y ` , property involved cated r^ig ht over here and this is Park p y �� right here,, �..0 � Street and Watkins Ave. 'and tie first five parcels that are south of Park Street The staff has reviewed . the applicant` ,s proposalthe applicant has addressedComprehensive Flan and in our staf ' the relevant pola.c��es R�n the the c o report we do go' :through, What. wfool are the rriost� e��'v�irrtPolicies in the Com rehensive Plan which relate to this type. of praposal, Uh4 one of - : first sections of, the plan talks about implementation strategies and says that the Community Development. ede shall provide, uh, for , changes, in the p Map, which may be initiated, uh, if the City finds that the Ct�r!►� r�herrs' ave' Plan } R changes consistent with applicable plan policies, change of physical circumstances has occurred since the original. designation, or arstake' has been made in regards tothe original land use designation. Following that we have gone through an analysis of the relevant, uh, policies relating to air quality, uh, noise, versification of economic opportunities,, enhancement of the Central Business District as the primary commercial area in, the City. Uh, That new commercial and residential development should not encroach on residential neighborhoods, In ad^%ition to the policies, there are some locational criteria that are located towards the end of the plan that relate to things that the City should consider when a change in use from to a commercial general is proposed and those locational criteria are also contained in the staff report, In summary the requested plan and zone change does not appear to be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons. Change in use from residential to commercial will encroach upon an established residential neighborhood. It will initiate the replacement of five, residences with commercial development and will probably set a precedent for the establishment of commercial activity on the east side of Watkins Ave, south of Park Street, as wellr as other areas along Pacific Hwy. Number two the comprehensive Plan can encourages the continued developmentDistrict as a commercial center an I � of the Central Business enlarging the inventory of commercially zoned land along Pacific Hwy contradict; this as minimal given otherpolicy. The effect is recognized factors which make the Central Business District less desirable for commercial development at this time« And then three, the applicant has not demonstrated FI the need for thezone change, the property to the east appears to be capable of accommodated a large variety of commercial activity without requiring additional land* So we are recommending denial of this ;proposal."' .a I i President Moen, "Okay, thank, you staff. Uh, is there anyone here from the CCI wishing to speak The. NPO, Okay, now" Duane Ehr, "Yes sir, yes we do." President Moen, "Okay, NPO. Duane Ehr., "NPO # Moen, "You want to give your name for the record please." ' "My name is Duane Ehr,, The NPO has given unanimous opposition to the .gone change, due to the fact that there were ,me recent changes in the application. I understand from 20 'feet. to 40 feet, or something like this?" Moen, "No, 1 don't think there was any changes, Duane Chr, "Well this is want was discussed last night at thr NPO meeting Uh, we were still, in opposition to the zone change due to the fact that, uh, well, what we thought were changes in the application doesn't seem to satisfy the N00. Uh, 3'B were there score changes." 3B, "There's s been no changes since the submittal of the application. in Marr.h«" .sxnfor�ma:t�.cn, but at this present time Duane Ehr, .. hyo. uh, we hadsome the NPO : _. y.. 4 ' is, �..s �n �tnana�mous opposition i.o the zone change, primarily due to . the fact of community opposition. Thank you" { President Moen, "Okay, Thank you. Uh, now is the opportunity for the applicant to make his presentation, May we have the applicant please. "Good evening, meml,yrs of the Planning Commission, my name is Stephen Janik, I K, and I'm a lawyer and represent several _ r'ants A N parties who are appli 1 +„ in this matter, I' represent, under the direction of the United States Bankruptcy Court, the assets of 313 Bishop, which are now as you know are now under the administration of the court: I represent the developer of this project, which is Tigard West Development Company, partnership, and in this matter I'm representing GI :foes, who is the intended user of this. I do not represent one of the property owners, who consented to and signed this application, One of the residential properties which lies to south of the subject site. The, our request to you tonight is to prove a comp plan change and zone change to general commercial to basically square 'off a parcel that you have already 80% committed to general commercial development by including the five houses that are the subject of this in a Comprehensive Plan Change and Zone Change that will allow general commercial. All of this is to allow us to go ahead a put a GI apes store on this site. Wow, our plan, can best be illustrated by the drawing prepared by our architects, 'Brun, Moreland and Christopher, who are here tt, ight; and also with me here tonight is Mr, Wayne Jackson of GI 3oes who can answer any questions you might have. This, shows Par,.ific Hwy. along here, Park Street, Watkins Street, the property that is in question is located right along here. These are residences that will remain 13. as residences.. There are existing commercial uses here, There is a open area here, not ,yetµ , developed dor commercial.. The site of the store is here. The related park .nS will be here and here, Along this area we propose a buffer strip, the buffer striwill be 40 feet in this area and ° i p given this row of parking dere, will be twenty feet along here, The buffer strip will not only maintain the mature trees, that now exist, which / will show you in a few. .. tai minutes with some pictures, but will have several other features. First there . will be a significant ar ount of additional plantings of mature trees, 12 to 14 feet high when they are initially planted, In addition to that there will be . a six foot high fence on the , inside, with the landscaping on the outside facing the residential uses. And Final .y to insure that there would he no 1 commercial penetration back to the neighborhood, we have offered to deed this strip to the? City and maintain our responsibility to maintain it. So that there is no pc.ssibility once we deed it to the City, that we would have the opportunity to request any kind of commercial curb cuts or access from Watkins Street. Now, this also illustrates that the loading activities will occur here. The operator GI Joes will .not conduct those activities at any offensive hours, in other words they will be during daytime hours, when people are not sleeping,in not ' p '� at night time, and we urge that as. a condition if the Planning commission decides toapprove the request, Again that would be buffered by fencing itself and bythe plantings that now thefencing ` - � p � g that exist as well as those that would be installed, All of those details would be subject to further evaluatiorr through the Site Design Review process. Your going to here, based on the size of the audience tonight and the opposition of the NPO, I'm sure, a number of concerns about this request. One of them may very well be access, What we propose, your going to ,hear h3ihbors, perhaps testifythat if you put this use along Pacific Hwy your going to have cars going through the neighborhood. I suggest to g gg you that that is not a very likely situation, given the fact that the access points f (laughter) . president Moen 1 Could I have order please, Go ahead sir," 1 Given the fact that the ingress and egress points as you can see here, three of them are along Pacific Hwy 4 . The only access Point which is on Park 8 w weer is an exit only, which would allow cars, as you can see from the config,4ratio t 5 to move toward Pacific Hwy. There is no access point into the site along Park Street, Along Watkins Street, there will be the guarantee by the deeded of this strip to the City, that we cannot later on come in and request that there would be any access, It seems somewhat difficult to surmise that if all the access points are along Pacific Hwy. that anyone seeking to gain entrance to this would somehow move through the neighborhood� " orhood and impact neighborhood � g , streets. Seems also unlikely to suspect` that someone leaving through this exit only on Park Street, given the or .entation toward Pacific Hwy. , will none the less somehow impact the neighborhood streets. Now, that, I think gives you a view of what we are trying to build here, what we are trying to propose. What is really at issue here tonight is simply these five houses that lie along a strip immediately adjacent to property ` which the City has designated general commercial. The area that we are dealing with, I think has g characterized bythe staff. This diagramyou been erroneously shows surrounding v4 inity, the subject property is located here. This is another commercially designated area known as Tigard East.. This is the recent project that you've approved, that's now under r:onstruction which is a 100 or 200 feet away. In addition to that, this is another area of general commercial that has been 'designated nated on the plan. And what I would like to emphasize with this point is the fact that this property has general commercial on this site, on this thatside to south it has residences thewill remain here but it has an existing commercial building here, commercial here, and in addition to that this . ommenc.k.al %ntrudes well into this residential neighborhood. The fact already appro iee ano created by the City, Soy tonight when, you hear the arguments about the horrors of an intrusion of commercial into the F neighborhood, I would ask that you consider the fact that the City has, alr°;lady done this. t would ask that you consider the fact that the City has recently, in this Planning Commission, has recently approved this project; t hic, : has residential zoning and Planning, desiglnatit ns on all three sides. As you hear the staff's argument t 11 for example that you can only have commercial, or residential rather, on two sides, consider what this Planning Commission has already and recently approved with residential designations on three sides, As you hear the neighbors argue the horrors of an intrusion into the neighborhood from commercial, consic qr the fact that what we're proposing is a substantially buffered strip alon'. 3 ,?rd and a street before you reach the neighborhood, whereas here you see intrusions immediately adjacent to the neighborhood, In the case of this project, you can walk out the door and you can see the fact j A project recently that this project abuts houses by a distance- of 10 feet approved by the Planning Commission. Now, I would also like to illustrate that point by providing you with a more detailed il]ustratibn of that project, which shows, residential here, residential here, residential 'here, and with 10 foot separation betweeni' was approved by the the r.�s�.dent�.�l and the commercial PlanningCommission. That can b trby pictures, which e also a.11u �,� ated those show you, and these where taken Sunday, which show you, just how close you have approved commercial in this immediate vicinity to existing residential uses. This area here, sort of the brownish yellowish colored grass area is ' ` where the commercial is going to occur_. You can see the residential area immediately across the street. Similar over here you can see the close . . , position of this project to residential uses, similar to this photo as well, These photos at.e a closer documentation of what's now under construction, showing for example the close proxxmity in this photo of the access way to the existingresidential neighborhood separated only by a modest 10 or 15, excuse 20 feet and this curb cut and immediately adjacent residential neighborhood, It, additxor, to that, these photos show what's now under construction and show you the close proximity that's alreatIy been approved. And horn, I think is another good illustration showing you the house and the commercial development that been approved in this project that isimmediately across Park ,Street from 7 us, And x urge you when considering the arguments about, k gain what this • projIP II ect will do to the residential neighborhood, that you view that in some perspective as to what the City in its comp plan has done and what the Planning Commission has recently done with respect to this property. Now to give you a better view of the buffering that we've proposed, we have a number of photographs that are here. These are somewhat small, perhaps if you would like to take a closer look at them, what this is intended to show, with the green line is the approximate location of where the buffering area would start. The store area would be back in this direction. This would be the buffer area and this would be Watkins Street Similar we choose existing mature plantings that will be maintained through the site and desig-n review process. It not as though all of these significant trees are going to be removed and destroyed. Some of them will and that will be under the control ' of the Site Design Review process. Sut for purposes of this comp plan change and tonechange a relevant criteria is the degree to which we burfer ourselves from the neighborhood. What we are trying to document for you in these Photographs, is that this is a very sig nxiicaneffort to preserve the plantings that are there. Its a wide and large buffer enhancd' by Watkins Street with no access and further control by th'� City on precisely the dimensions and character of this through the Site Design Review process Y You compare what's being proposed here with what has been approved previously, across Park Street and one has no ask a ser&ous question of those who would ,pp� consist4nc.1� with t hich this Commission as well as the oppose this. �� 1a1'f2 �., City uniformly applies its standards. Hoo can one On the one hand allow a modest 10 foot separation with virtually no mature planting and landscaping and Immediately accepted +a'rguments �h�W say that i we would cause offensive intrusions of the neighborhood with the much larger buffer which is proposed here. Its not as though we art talking about different areas of Tigard, these • two parcels, are right across the street+ Now, / think its fair to deal with l g the Planning Commission decides not to approve our request. If the 'planning Commission decides not to approve our request, there are five houses out there. They will stay, they will most likely end up being rental units. This is commercially planned and zoned property. It shows up as such on the plan. Those five houses will then abut commercial property and they will most likely, because of that circumstance to narrow island strip about a 120 or 130 feet wide, be rental properties. I would have to ask you .the question, would you as a citizen, and not only that but, a Planning Commission member, think that it is a good ► exult, because of of our opponents here from the neighborhood, say no, that we don't want a CI Foes store on''this site for 'Tigard, forget it, you can put other commercial uses there, Lets leave those five 'houses there, lets let five families live in those houses, rental or otherwise, they will have a far smaller buffer from the commercial area, because of the much, I guess more liberal qofode. They'll experience a situation requirementsthe C like the property across Park Street. That is the end result. "That's what those here who oppose us are arguing for, Leave that strip there and I submit to you that that �.s not a good result in terms of the issues that, the g od is concerned about* And; I don • ` , 't; believe its a good result for neighborhood the City in terms of the benefits that are here in this project. Now, one . other point I would like to make in explaining the vicinity, is to point out the sort of front door orientation of the number, of the residences that will remain. These arrows are approximate indications of where the kind of front door, looking through the family room, or living room windows, of these houses are,. You can see that these two houses are oriented across Watkins Street back to the n,4-.cghborhood. This house is oriented `� this way toward land that is planned and zoned under the City plan as general comme.rc4a1.,►. This house is oriented in this direction, one house here is oriented in this direction, which will tee the landscaped buffer we propose, This house in this direction►, and anoth%r house in this direction looking directly into the 40 foot landscaped buffer that we have talked about` before, Another house here, another rhouses alonghere four look into this area, house here,. anti, of these across Watkins Street, Now, this is not a decision that is going to be made bythe number of people here who support my position, of which I'm sure there are very few, and I guess that's fortunate for me. Rather its going to he a function of what the applicable criteria in the comp plan. We come before you based on two grounds. Your plan says th :4: if we can demonstrate that we are in conformance wit, the policies of the Plan, then we have the opportunity to • obtain , this plan change. That is to say look at all ` the other textural policies of the plan and see if we conform to the those that we impact. on. The second ground is to say, was there a mistake. Was there a mistake in taking 80% of the parcel ',:hat is created between Watkins, Park, and Pacific Hwy1 and 'making 80% of a`,„t general commercial, changing it from commercial Professional, which is 'what is was before, when Tigard did not have a entirely Unified plan and making twenty percent of that, five houses, not commercial but residential, We submit that under both grounds there is an, appropriate ease for the change. I would like to briefly summarize what we have, already submitted extensively in writing. No question about policy th 1, which talks about natural features, no significant park land here, no significant wetland, we're not within the 100 year floodplain. Under policy four, in volar„ one of the comp plan there is an important acknowledgment, and that is because there is a inadtquate amount of retailing activity focused in Tigard, people in Tigard are' driving elsewhere to do a lot of their retail business. Now, you .now for a fact where the nearest at Foes store is. It is a specialty kind of a retailer, y�f You want to buy so�oethng at GI �Soes, there's nothing in the vicinity that you can go to, so you have to drive elsewhere. That confirms what your comprehensive plan you. Ncw, the implication of that policy is to provide more of this kindof retail activity in downtown l lgard so that . .. .... .,..ill n N i people don't have to do that. That's precisely want this request involves. Policynumber five, which is your policy to further the economy of Tigard, y • reallywant i s we want local jobs. Now, what this will says what we here produce150 " on jobs and 60 full time jobs. And those jobs will l is a constructs be heavily oriented towards these who are res ,x ..yam here in Tigard. Taxes of r fortyfifty to thousands dollars a year in addition to that. Now, that policy also says, don't allow commercial in areas that would intrude on residential. And withstanding, the not heart felt and perhaps. emotional concerns of g what tine Planning citizens here. ...tonight,.on:� ht, � find it harry to', believe, given approved in t c vicinity. of this project has wa.th ten foot buffers,. that one could conclude that this project with no access to Watkins, with a ' substantial 20 to 40 foot buffer, with mature plantings,s, deededover to the he . City separated by a street can possibly intrude into this neighborhood,hood, giver .. what now exist. With respect to housing, we don't violate that policy that five housesthat will jbe displaced splaced hEre is a diminious number in n terms of Tigar•d's housing stock, There is no questions under policy seven, ` all of the utilities necessary for this are available, i. dere. the energy policy, policy nine, to the extent that people are able to perform these `shopping trips w'thout going outside of Tigard, youconsumption of energy, . will reduce the . Now the starf in there report criticizes us for somehow violating policy eleven, 'which is to further the development of the Central Business District. How we do that on land outside of the , plans designated Central Business sure, , D�w.sDistrict '�p . tri not And if you read the staff report you can' tfind a single fact in there, a single fact, that says how r�he development of commercial residential, or retail activity outside of the CBD outside the jurisdiction of that policy entirely, adversely affects the CBD. The fact of t. themai.w going , Tigard:.. By ter~ �s +�� loot is not xto go in the middle of downtown Agreeing with the staff and denyxrl this your not going to enhance the CBD Your not going to get GI Foes down, there" r Jackson is here and Will tell you the same thing. So is the staff's approach to say, turn this down, not have retail here, not have a significant quality retail andi that's going to help the CBD, x leave with you the question of whether the CBD is going to be better off encouraging and attracting more retail if it has this substantial quality retailer herr . How much more likely is it that people once coming here will cd;rtinue a few thousan6 yards down the 'street to the Central Business District to shop and visa versa. the staff without any facts simply says its possible thrt thismight adversely affect the CBD. Now, under your commercial policy, policy twelve, you provide certain standards for locating general commercial and what you say is that general commercial is designed for large space, large scale retail users. That translates u:o me into 50,000 square foot Ct Joes store. And the crux of the problem we have here is that there is an inadequ.a,e site area, without converting these five houses to commercial mmercial t;o acomrr►odate the GI Foes store. Now we have before, and you' ll here tonight from some of our opponents, who were at a bankruptcy court hearing, were 2 was it involved. You will here that we said yes is theoreticali _ possible to lost all the benefit of 4..1e frontage along Pacific Hwy. and move the GI Joes store forward, if Cr Joes agrees, if ,you look at the amount of land area, ;you could technically accomplish that, The fact of the matter is al 'les does not desire that, iS looking at other sites. There have already been other commitments made for comprehensive plan: and zoning ordinance approved retail uses along that frontage, which would have to be terminated to accorr.piish that. Iklo one in the private side of this sees that as a realistic or� e ven; feasible alternative. It is possible. So your locational criteria say take those larger sites that accommodate larger users and make them, general commercial But we submit t what happened here was, .you made 80% of the site, which is a natural sit1., giveA the three streets, Made SCA of it but not ICC% of it gener^al commercial and left these :peopli. to be .a residential buffer for the sake of the neighborhob! I guesscondly that 1 I policy says we should he required to adequate ,y buffer ourselves from the existing residential. I won't belabor the points I've made before `about the substance of the buffer that we are proposing. The next e ement of that policy says that if we can show you that we are major retail user along a major arterial or col lector, we meet that standard, No question about hots Pacific Hwy, conforms to that. Now, there's a interesting for standard, that's says, oh by the way if your going to be general commercial you shouldn't be surrounded on more than two sides by residential. That's . interesting for a )of of reasons. F`i rs t, its about as vague as one can get in dealing with an irregular shaped parcel, And let me show you the problem. If you look at the configuration of our property, the property here at issue, which is,. this is the zone change plan change property, we' ll you've got commercial on one side, If you look, don't be „ . . with us, look at . // the whole site, fine. Look at the whole site, it looks something like this 1 and goes like that. You've got commercial over here. Staff says no, you ' ' ' don't really have commercial its there but we don'',' acknowledge it, you've got residential, ond therefore on one side you'veJot residential. The Problem is, you tell me what a side is. If this is the edge of the project that we're developing, we've got commercial here and we've got commercial here, and we've got to residential here, tell me wt-hat's a side, We've, got residential here, no question, after this is over we'll have residential here, we think that's two sides. Now lets look at a recent example in the ,. neighborhood of how the Planning Commission interpreted this policy. There are three sides to this site, which is a five sided site that have residential zoning and planning on it, Now ;`k=tt; can one make of the staff's comment that q somehow we have residential on more 'than two ides, ' I think, that at `best you can say that's ambiguous,,:,it has not been applied that, way by the Planning Commissionin, t' e past, Now finally, &t'e believe that those arguments and 0. points which we've also mao in, writing relate, respond to all the relevant comprehensive plan policies and the locational criteria for where you locate general commercial. And based on those facts we believe and adequate case has been made to jdstify the plan and zone change An alternative ,1r^ound, is the ground of an initial mistake. There maybe sortie reason that someone can explain, but I can't see it, as to why you would take and leave five single family residences immediately adjacent, with ;r,l:ttle prcon from an ,�otetiarea that you designate as general comr'er^cial. We believe that that was a mistake, that was d,ane without our involvem rnt. That. was done in the comprehensive planriiri pe~ocess. Its `illogical, we submit, to leave those five houses and to not take full advantage of the separate parcel created by the three streets. Now, the staff has made a few other comments I would like to respond to. The stat says quote, no access to Watkins Street is desired, taff leaves the lingering implication that there may be access desired in the future. I find that to be a kind of argumentative statement when in our appli,cation we've said, not only do we not desire it, we're going to deed you that strip city so that you can control that, to preclude any access. Why they ,staff report doesn't s,ay access from Watkins Street will precluded' by the applicants `'offer of City ownership of this strip, T don't know. The staff says that the State Highway Division stated that our project could, quote, potentially affect Watkins and Park. That was not a quote from the Highway Department, that was a characterizatiurt by the staff. But then the staff goes on to say, and oh by the way the Highway b.iv�sion has no objection to it. b o how� � u carr You on the one hand, have this inference that there 'couldpotentially be problems and yet the bit/Isiah says there's no Again, Highwayprob�.emM we would point out by G denying, GI Sues on this site, yourgoing to get them y � not �them in the Central ' 8usthetrs Sistri('t, and your not going to get them on Mainstreet. The Mainstreet site right nods, for exarirpio is sLib4 est to lease negotiations with another major retail user. GI3"ees will not go on that site, so for the staff going to help the 8b, ., in there report to say, denying this it and, improving it 7 11 is going to hurt It. There's simply no factual bases for that. Now, the staff also says that this could possible cause ,a precedent, well, I guess that arguments jot to cut several ways On the one hand I'd like to say to you, I would like to use the precedent of what's been done here, on a number of issues in this case. On the other hand . I would like to say, to you, that if you think this is going to cause a precedent then what is it a precedent for, what its a precedent for is if there's another piece along Pacific Highway, 80% already designated general. commercial, separated from the existed neighborhood by another street, with no access to that street, and a 20 to 40 foot planted,- , landsc aped, and fenced buffer, then I guess that's a pYecedent, and I think that's a good precedent. What it is a precedent for is establishing the kind of controls for the commercial along Pacific as they abut the residentialdon't think that's a dangerous precedent.' Now behind. I in summary, we wanted; to take more time than we usually would tonight, a°xl we appreciate your patiences, because its obvious there's a ,lot; of citizens here who are going to say a lot of things. If there are some new items that come up we would like to come back and respond to those. But really, I think there are three alte+'natives, three practical alternatives that you face. -One, :s approve this request, obtain for the City of Tigard a "'GI 3'oestore, with i:he additional taxes, 60 permanent, jobs, 150 construction jobs, the buffering of the neighborhood that has been proposed. That's one alternative and that's what we rte;,gest. Next alternative, that a lot of the people here are going to argue for tonight, is to turn it ,down. Okay, you turn it down and what r e you going to find. Your' gnirsg to find, at best, that there will be commercial development here and everything that they say about what commercial development here is goingdo yy� terms s of end{ of µy e to � in 11e1 �+7 ' (end �iA.�,G) ? 1 1 i. Y Y i 1'.1 Y ♦ i. F You'll lose some additional commercial activity here and no big deal.. Well the fact of the is that is a very naive and simplest view of what is matter fairly complex problem, its simply is very very unlikely to happen GI /oos is 15 . l i The bankruptcy co,'art� that I not interestedin it, we're e not interested in it. reps e.,ent s not: interested in it aid l submit that your not going to have, if youthat, if you push the GT Joesstore forward, your not going to have the do area to create the landscape buffer between the houses that you will leave and the 3:� Joes, there's simply not the site area to put 40 feet of landscape � buffer here. So again, you're saying to whoever lives here, renter or homeowner, your going to be immediately adjacent to that, Those I submit are the three alternatives and we think if you look at the facts, if you look at what's occurred in this area, what the plan provides, what the real standards are, that` no matter how emotional : ie testimony is here tonight, for whatever reason, that the first of those is the best alternative for the community as a whole. And we respectfully ask that you approve this. If you have questions of me or Mr. 3ackson from G1 .lues, or the project architects we' ll be happy to respond to them and we would like three or four minutes to briefly respond to any new items that may come up. President Moen, "Okay, Thank you Mr. Janik." Janik, "Thank you, we would like these to be madep art of the record in this case. Commissioner Moen, "'Okay, We'll move onto the public portion of this gcomment that we have about 16 people signed up hearing. I w��uld make a brief to speak thil5 ravening. Sixteen time 5 minutes a piece, is about hour and twenty-five t-five minutes and we have to make a decision at the end of that, So, what I guess I would ask, I would ask you, to keep that l.r mind, try to be a brief as possible, five minutes might be a good rule of thumb, Tf youcan say what you need to say in less, wewould appreciate t i Uh, we will, we are here to hear allthepeople who wish to speak and, we�f}e y going tO attempt to do 16 * P K that this evening. Thank you for your patience. Okay, we're going to start with those in favor of the proposal. I have a list here, starting with Mr.' Paterson I believe, J. Paterson," "I'm Alan Paterson, 11605 SW Manzanita, and somebody had to sign up on the other side, so I started it off. I just want to say that 'I basically for development and for this development. And I would like to see a conciliatory A attitude of whether we can work something out to make this succeed. Such as was exemplified by the first item on the agenda tonight with Morning Hill people. And that's all I have to say, President Moen,' "Okay, Mr. Skourtes". Mr. Skourtes, "I' ll pass for now. ' President Moen, "Okay, that was brief. Uh, Dennis Brun. Dennis Brun, "I will hold my testimony until later ,. , . . . , . I'm representing the developer in this issue, President Moen, "Thank you Mr. Brun. Uh, Mr, Bishop. shop, Suite 30 , 10505 SW Barbur Blvd. I am one of "my name a�s J8 ��. the property r iner+s of both of commercial property and also one of the residential . houses which is under question here. My comments are as a backup to Steve aan ik as a presentation Obviously think its appropriate to point out that one of the issues that you need to deal with, I am a former resident of the ne f r h rhood, g:-ew up in the neighborhood, is that currently that we have, a street system on Park street and we have a street system currently on Watkins • that is unimproved, without sidewalks, without curbs, without gutters, and as q. children, myself and my young brothers and more importantly the younger children in the neighborhood today, they do not have the benefits of having those public facilities, As a condition of this zone change and as a condition of the site design review it absolutely is a precondition that we not only acknowledge, but that we adhere to as Park Street Square to sidewalk, , curb, and gutter along Watkins, which would be an effect of this zone change to these five homes. It would be a substantial increase and the ability to have that kind of a urban service on that location. More importantly what we do not have in the aerial photographs and the cic roup photographs show along Park Street is the adequate right-of-way for the appropriate use of that street even as it is now for the residential neighborhood. There would be a half street improvement, as you see in the example of what will come in in the Park Street Center coming in off of 09 going;. onto Park, you can already see the impact of what that half street will do when it is completed. What you don't see is what will be part of the successful development of this project and that is the half street improvements along the south side of Park Street all along from Awful Brothers to the corner of Watkins an 'eight foot wide, extra amount of asphalt, sidewalk, curb, and gutter and no longer any ditches, which are unsanitary and have been a real problem with the DEQ over the years neighborhood can &iso back that up" That would be culverted the rtet�g r.oM entad and handle the storm drainage and take care of any this seepage from the septic tanks nut, we would have not only the proper improvements but the required improvements that would go in at the cost of the development as appropriate, should be. The other brief comments are specifically that a GI. foes or] any retail use on that property as enhanced by the zone change obviously creates for this community, r� of jobs,' of approximately rately riot the sti�i.ed amount60 jobs, but,`� do want to Point out and stress that for the most part a retailer x,. .18 such as CI Joes and other retailers, primarily provide employment for the secondary wage. employer, employee within the community. Usually at least 70 80 percent of that employment in a firm like that is a Mrs. Spencer who lived in one of the houses, who worked for Payless, over at Benard Mall, the woman and or the men need `•hr; opportunity for the ongoing cost that we all have on a day to day basis and that sec..ondary wage .ter- needs to needs to be catered '. r � our rY'� to and that's what happens with a CI Joes arid :,,;`'er^ retail use, Secondly, arr actually just as important, when we were growing up in the fifties and sixties here in Tigard, we had canneries, both here and in Sherwood for summer jobs and Christmas jobs, Both us as high school and collage and more importantly © for the teachers who work nine months of the year. Those are not available anymore, Where do we provide in Tigard for summer employment and for the Christmas Holiday employment. We don't have that base and we're not encouraging that base. Finally Ineed to point out very clearly that the buffering that's been referred to, which is 40 feet aLong Watkins, is double what the Code requiremen- is, which is 20 feet,, That buffering as explained , our memorandum as part of our presentation, will be fully enharc�.d by trees coming in, evergreen, not deciduous, to back up and add to the enhancement of what is already along there in the front 40 feet along Watkins and down towards, as most of us in the neighborhood know where the e; gland house was, which is the yellow boase on Watkins, should be lowered down to 20 feet « g FromWatkins. 20 because the building won't be along there, The building goesm feet p of in down to � prox�r;�at�:ly the beginning the: �Clumpke house, This is names that most of Os in the neighborhood are aware of and most of those behind me are aware of those homes, That forty foot bufferg, begins twice and feet, that will be brought in with tree is enhanced by the trees o�� 12 to 16 sado«g p A tree spade � is exactly what happened withthe Christmas trees that wore donated at the north and south ends of Main Street, successfully developed„ put in and maintained, and yet those are two trees What we are - 10 ~ .. ... , •v+ry ...ry uw.,..., , ,,...S.i.:,......,w is talking about here is a expenditure in excess of 30,000 dollars in excess of 280 trees. What you end up with is the buffer, that I respectfully submit to you that you have now on the west side of Watkins Avenue, All of us know the Hudson gas station which has been vacate and empty for a number of years. Many of us may not know that that commercial zoning of that property goes always back to the residential house, which is at least 60 feet on the radius curve into the west side of Watkins, The aerialphotographs show that very clearly. You' ll notice that in each one of these photographs, coming from the different directions, that the buffer that provide the buffer between the R-3.5, the same buffering that is on these five homes, except that the five homes also have the buffer of the street, the additional 60 feet right-of-way. That buffering is the natural foliage that's been planted there by the commercial property owner in the pass years and yet its had the benefit of time and growth to get to the stature that it is now and the neighboring property owners can't see through it to see what would be developed on there in the normal setbacks of 10 and 20 feet, depending on what orientation that building has. Similarly to the orientation that you have here on the Park Street Square except thatyou pdon't have the benefit of the property owner with the foresight in the past to �ave planted thh type of trees to burfer that R-3.5 and so what you end up with is a Shucks, with a small amount of minimum requirements of landscaping which are enhanced from what we use to have in the code, but a newlan, but minimal very irh scale,' scope, depth, and width, and certainly not to provide for a visual buffer orfor a sound M buf Cer+x You do have the Hudson Gas station on one end as an example of what is the beginning of a rational coalition 0',f C-3, right now C-C, commercial general as code calls +�t and yds 3 y c " contiguous, not our new, code �'�.i.[R��+J� 7.M�. /\,N"`+.7 fair ��ir�ti:�a�J.y �.SNn��'WvM�F�� 11W separated by a street and not separated by 40 foot buffer or even 'a 20 foot buffer. Final comments, our that the existing five homes, of course.,, are owned by myself, Tigard West 0eve opment, and GX aoes. All five homes are not • owner occupied currently, All five homes are part of the ownership for the development of the property. Final comment., is that on Main Street, because there will be comments from the audience on wants going to happen if GI ;Toes doesn't go here, and previous consideration that possibly CI Foes might go back to Main Street, as Steve Janik represented, on behalf of myself, as my attorney, CI does is not going tSere. Thereis a major retailer that I have consummated lease negotiations with, and that major retailer will be taking the back 10 acres of my property, Allowing for the proper updevelopment of the front 9 acres and you will have a major commercial center there, a community shopping center and there is not any room for GI Toes there. Thank you." Presider Moen, "Thank you Mr. Bishop. Is there anyone else who would like tospeak in favor of this proposal at this time. In favor. Okay, we'll move onto those in opposition. Uh, I have a list here, we will start here with the top of the list. Mr. Jim Cox. Will you give address for the record please, oyes I will . It will takeme just a moment to get my paper sorted out here, it will go faster once I do I have offered a written sheet stating our position in more detail. Ill give my address in a moment, 1 haven't forgotten that. � have' p . copies of it here for each one of the members of the Commission if you wish to have it as a matter of convenience and one for planning staff. My name is Fames A, Cox, I'm attorney, reside in West Linn, but my office address ' is, 8 North Mate Street, Lake Oswego+ I represent, formally, uh, a group of eighteen people who's namesand :Address appear on ch ;sheet, . for the sake of the record I 'Wion't take time to go through all of them right now. I have extra copies of it here if any of you would like to take a look and see whom I'm representing. Generally speaking, th+wy are the. people immediately facing ti proposed zone change on Park and Watkins,; together with some selected » home owners a little- further away, but in the immediate neighborhood. I said I amformally representing these olients, , sur o. that there is no secret about the fact that an informal committee, called Save Our Neighborhood, was formed some months ago when this project came on line, ;was being proposed and the people I represent, and my fee has been paid by passing the hat among the informal Save Our Neighborhood Committee. The reason I'm not saying I represent the Committee is because it is amorphous adhoc committee with no real legal existence. But, in once sense of the word they do exist and you see a_cod many of them here tonight. Uh, Cour method of approach this evening, with your permission, is going to be to get right to the point. I'm not going to do all the talking, or even most of it. Uh, what 1a am going to do is respond briefly to Mr, 3'anik's comments and to a couple of . points about JI bishop's testimony and kind of set the outline of the points that are going to be covered. Uh then at that point Mr. Doug Nicoli, uh, will speak and will address issues related to neighborhood impact, non traffic ° issues. Uh, Dennis Moonier, will speak briefly about the compliance, or maybe I should say the lack of compliance with the plan standards and the history of the zoning on this piece of property, pre 1983 Plan, Dennis Owen will discuss the traffic implications. Uh, George Fitzgerald will present a petition, as far as I know that's going to be our presentation. They may be other people ho x don't formally represent who .wish to speak, 1 have any control over that 14 one way or the other. I would li..e to say at the outset, that perhaps its good tactics for Mr.'a Janik to anticipate, try to defuse our opposition by characterizing in advance as an emotional response. Uh, I'm sure there is some emotion involved here, but in so fare as . and the people that I represent are concerned, we're not going to get up here and beat the drums, we're going to 'make this a completely, 0.1ee hope, objective ect ive anrd responsive opposition to • this pro ,..;&t, ro ponslible opposition,: We hope to address the issues, Uh, we don't think it is a Save Our Neighborhood Committee against JD Bishop issue We don't thinks its a us versus GI a"oes store issue, Those to us are false issues as many of the things that you heard from ;Mr, anik are ready not the i V tt 4 true issues before you. Uh, we think that the issues here are plan compliance and the 4ntegrity of the basic planning process and x hope that's what we address and hope that we can focus in those things. I'm not going to try to go through everything in detail, nor are the other speakers going to go through everything in detail that is in are written presentation. Simply for reason of time and your patiences, however, the things that are in here we believe are factual and correct and will supplement and add to the other testimony that you will hear from us Are these documents being, assigned Exhibits numbers or how should x refer to this, yparticular F any way, Secretary, "Just your submittal." "Okay, our submittal, Uh, made some notPs on Mr. 3ariks and I'm going to follow it through in order. Uh, he said that the g purpose of the application is to square off a parcel 80% of which is already committed for commercial. use. Uh, in the first place, the proposed addition of this residential property to the existing undevelopment commercial property adjacent to it is approximately a 38% additiln. Zh other words the!! are adding approximately 38% and the statics are in our opposition statement. Its not 80% committed, have. may I pin this up on the board so X show it to you. Probably not quite big enough of a scale for ai], of you to see it perfectly, but we do have some color coding on there which may help. The area, is indicated in a dashed red lined or as / understand it the undeveloped commercial properties coritt"ol.le d by ' the applicants in this case. Excluding the service station on the corner of Park and the Hwy, which is in a completely different ow `►er{ships excluding the Pietros Pi4za site, which at one time, not to long ago was under Mr, t'ishopc control, but is now awned by Pietros Corp., a subsidiary of p "'� p piece of � ,. �arii bell fou Uh, little old underdeveloped e� Property which �.s: now used as a appliance store, belonging l believe, according to the Assessor 23- record, to some people name Luty and finally some property at the extreme southerly portion of the track, which not to long ago was developed for some small office uses by Mr. Bishop and is still controlled by him, which is being purchased under a contract, together with involvement of the bankruptcy court. Uh, the property is proposed to be changed is circled in solid red. Uh, the southern most of those lots is Mrs. Treffinger's lot, of course she does still live there. Uh, its owner occupied. Several of these others were owner occupied until fairly recently, until they received o?fees they couldn't refuse. I'm not going to talk about the quality of those homes because that's going to be Doug Nicolpart of l s, a presentation. But I am going to talk ' his about values now. Mr. Janik mentioned ntioned rralues, he talked about econo,uti.c benefits and I recognized that sometimes in •planning circles we don't want to talkdollars because that somehowtaintsthe process. But lets do that, about " they open up the door, lets us walk into it. Uh, of course, sizeable piece of undeveloped commercialproperty fronting on Pacific Hwy. is valuable. How p p much is arguable. Its obviously worth a lot less after you take right out of the middle of it, the choices piece and break up the site to put a Pietros Pizza on it, a fast food operation. But even so, the remaining property d s, obviously, substantial value. What about these homes back here, the onus circl.ed, in rqd, the subject properties. They are similar in character and quality, or at least they were until they began to be run down a few months ago with this proposal on the board, to all the properties in the adjoining neighborhood. The subject properties, according to the Washington County . ssessers office, the five lots together have a fair cash market value of just u, der $300,000,00, as residential Properties. The properties immediately �;Y facing this site on Watkins and Park, which are marked in solid yellow here, most of whom, most of who of those people ,I for ally represent on my list.W. There properties have: a assessors true cash value, of $745,600,00 and the two Parcel down here in dashed yellow, at least one of whom I also represent, is which will become orphans, if you will, if this were to be approved, have a -'1 fair cash market value for those two of $131,000.00. So we're not talking about peanuts when you talk . bout the residential values that are at stake - here, so don't be dazzled by the jobs that might or might not be created or the tax consequences of a 55,000 sq, ft. building. Uh, two football fields if you will, uh, GI Joes Store, Plus its not just a GI .Moes store, read their materials, follow GI :Toes stated marketing strategy, this is going to be a mini mall, it not going to be just a GI Does building, its going to be other retail users that are going to be constructed there with GI Joes as the hub .n„ tenant under theirp lar . And, I might call it the invisible plan,` We couldn't see it when Mr, Janik was showing it to you, and that's perhaps not to important because you are the ones who have to study it. But the staff • ' «; part4 that youapprove t seen it, its not of the application and anything p Prove here is going to be ;ri approval of a land use, not an approval ►° a plan. The plan make pretty window dressing, Not out of disrespect, but I've been in this business time the dog and Pony show that �.ness a long t..�r�ie` and we sometimes call it i.h yougo through, show the prettypictures, All. the beau"ifui things that are _ p { going to happen. Don't be deluded by that, the issue here ' is land use Planning. Should five residential houses, lots filly developed, be converted from, single family residential to that's the issue, not-whether GI be a good store, because indeed GT Foes maynot build there, You Dues would g can't say we approve this on condition that GI 30es builds there. Uh, many uf the things that Mr, J'anik talked about,' the fencing, the things thatthe' trees, tFbuffer-ing, the offer of a deed. These are all things that are property addressed at the site design/developmerrt review level, at that stage o'' the game, not at this stage of thegame which is the land use stage, ( conditional Comprehensive ag g Plan change,nge, in ;otherworts conditioning the Comprehensive Plan, change on development as explained by NMr . `anikwould indeed be a strange creature and would, completely thwart the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Ple , Jarvik didn't report to be a traffic expert, I will give him the benefit of that, but he did tell you a lot of things about traffic impact, or lack thereof. What disttrbs be about that is, when I read their report some weeks ago, I expected to find sometime along the line here a CH2M traffic report, which they promised, and which nobody has ever seen. So how does Mr, Janik gain the expertise and the ' authority to tell you what the traffic impact, either on 99W or the overflow impacts into the neighborhood would be from this zone change They haven't submitted the traffic study wr�ch they promised in there own materials. V" • The land in question, that is the ` subject property, has always been _single y _� and it has` always abutted' commercial property of one kind family residential or r nother from the earliest times of zoning in Tigard as I understaffed it. distinguishes the situation trom what Mr. Janik was talking about on these other applications. Those other applications did not involve, as I • understand it, a zone change, this was talking about developing land that was already zoned. As contrast to the case before you now, where your talking ' about adding 389 to a commercial site to allow for additional commercial land to be developed, that's the difference. Secondly, those other applications, or other w deVelopments that hewherethe 1983 referred to .not done under 4i Comprehensive Plan and DPvelopneht Code, They were done under different plans and different ordin&,nces and different times and they did not involve zone If changes, thepresent ' ation is pretty remote. The old gyp r..sQni. s , So the ana�� to situation r have the bufferingand screening plan and the old ordinances did not requirements and the ,setback reruir" ments and all of the other criteria that mt,tst' be met un dper the r sent plan, It probably s miaminor point, I. guess could just simply say that Mr 3*anik is not a traffic expert or a energy e(pert, and there is no other evidence -.in the record to support his conclusion, but guess that my good as his, He said g conclusion is just as: ` that this devel.00meat would be energy efficient, or this, Z0110 change would be, energy efficient because people wouldn't drive ars far to go to GI 100s# uh, 26. t' that's a completely unsubstantiated, unqualified statement, Uh, I can equaly well say that if you put the store, including the new land, uh, it would bring more people in from further away, or I could also say, and Dennis Owens is goingto have a lot to say about this, that if you put that many more vehicles on Hwy. 99W and instead of averaging five miles an hour, they suddenly average two miles an hour and are sitting there idling, uh, how energy efficient is that. There is ho minimum parcel size or lot size ON, in the general commercial zone. Mr. Janik says it was for big developments like GI Joes. A Well if you have a big enough piece of property I guess it is. But that's not part of the zone requirement, or the comp plan requirement. tiny size parcel is permitted in that zone. Uh, Mr. Janik '•also anticipated that he was going to bequoted air to what he testified to on May 2, R 1984, at the �`� Bishop bankruptcy hearing and indeed I am going to quote h''m, I'm not going to read all „)f it, although its not to lengthy, but I'm going to make this deposition a part of, this transcript of his testimony a part of the record of this '' proceeding. Because the things he told, testified to under oath there are , '. substantially and materially d ifferent from what he told you here, I'm not . ' going to read it ail, but I'm just going to read a couple of excerpts from it but 7 invite each and every one of you to read the whole thing. And uh, w'l b let you be the judge as to, whethev this is matA •ially' different or not. On 1 page eleven of the deposition, Zudge Sullivan asks hivo,, uh, do I understand your testimony to be that, while the zone change is very desirable for lots of reasons its not critical to the ,development of the property Answer by Mr . _ . 5'ank. "That's correct, its critical to m^ximizing the value of this, total x 1h piece of iart, if we don't get the zonixg on thafir lots behind there is a -,a, feasible aternative,akternatve, which is costly to the bankruptcy estate, but we could 1 ., move the store ►orward. Then continuing ort on page twelve, line eighteen, or line fourteen, excuse me. ; Question: Can X assume then that if the store . isn't built and if the property doesn't go for whatever reason,, then that a .. taA , d s. ♦ e d t1 .4 e., figure agreed upon in the lease is meaningless as an irdication of value " . a Answer,„ "No I wouldn't agree with that, your honor, I think the land has a is value based on its location and its utility and that's not merely a function of the fact that we now have a deal with GI Joes If our development fell apart the land becomes worth less." That's what he testified to ;here and there's more along that same line about moving the store and there's also a awful lot about commitments that ht made to the bankruptcy court about time frames and things that were going to happen which have not proven to be true and I wonder if there are additional commitments and representations to you about what would happen in the future, would be anymore true than what Mr. " r , p hearing May. lanxk testified to at the bankruptcy � .: inTo point out that Mr. Jarvik does not wear any notofficial mantel. in this case, he does Y represent the US Bankruptcy Court, The US Bankruptcy Court supervises and either approves or disapproves 3B Bishops „ insolvency chapter 11 proceedings, or things that are done in those proceedings. The trustee or the debtor in possession are the ones he represents, not the court, the court, the bankruptcy courtjust la. p' y like any other judge does not go out and hire lawyers to go land use matters. X resent the fact�: : out and do _ "t that he holds out the n ; economic carrot, uh, in terms of additional jobs or additional taxes generated If that were sufficient reason to do things then I guess maybe we * rt someplacewould hire lots of should >�.,t a` slaughter house down here and it p.. ple, And eo if the existing toned Property, itself, where to be developed to its proper potential ,, whet er itsstore, p p with a �� does store or some other :tc►re, don't know, but there's a lot of land there 'that's already ready to be } eveloped, all zoned. If that were to be developed that would create a lot of d jobs a lot of tax benefits as well. $o it isn't as black in white at he would lead you believe. With regard to the traffic'ic on 99W one other point, the traffic corridor study on 99W4 I understand, is the only One inthe entire oetropol i fan area that hasrt t t been completed So really, in terms as to wht4,t 28 1 , *+ the impacts would be, of thrti.t, or the development across the street or any other significant development on 99W, pretty tougi to predict, without the 0DO1, 99W corridor studies, its not ODOT, its one of the governmental agency. Three sides requirement, that the residential property shall not have commercial prcoevcy on three sides. He said, that nobody paid any attention to That on some of these other things he was pointing out. Well, the reason is that is the requirement of the 1988 plan, it was not requirement when those developments came on line. About, Uh, I understand that Alar Paterson is a real estate developer and`'or broker, is that correct Mr. Paterson?" Mr. Paterson, "Treat's correct." Mr, Cox, "Otht)r than that I have nothing to say abouthis testimony." N1r Paterson, "How about the nine years I spend on this Planning Commission?" Mr. Cox, "I'm not criticizing you personally. . ." President Moen, "All right, lets stick to the issue," Mr. Cox, "Uh, maybe that should have been in cross examination," President Moen, t 1 think to too'it .\ Mr*, cox, "The only other thing that Z'm going to 'say in conclusion is that, uh, 1978, on thisver-y same piece of property, not inoludi g the newly rezone-.i but on the then existing commercial land, Mr. Bishop wanted to put a i noes store,' He was tuned down, Your own records will show you the r►ririutes and the reasons behind all of that, Uh, the impacts to severe, traffic, etc, etc,; 29 • j �; 4 ♦ ray I w ' etc, you applied even your more liberal standards then in effect, declined to allow a development of that magnitude to built on that p � site, uh, so then Mr. Bishop came back with a modified plan, which included some office commercial Lases, and some duplexes- mixed along Park, some residential units committed for, and other things. That plan was, amended plan of his was approved in 1978, uh, instead of following through with that plan, he took the prime piece ofro fiert , right out of the middle of it, the Pietros Pizza site, and p � y g developed part of it there. Developeded the offices down n at the far southern tip, the rest of it evaporated. Now, before the ink is scarcely dry on the 1983 plan their coming in and wt,Anting to change it on the bases of some kind of a mistake or whatever. Because we took the heart out of our 1978 approval and wrecked the site you've got to allow us to move further into the neighborhood in order to be able to now do what we would like to so that we can maximize our prfitsY Well, that's what's really behind this application." President Moan, "Okay, Thank you Mr. Cox. , press on her*, Doug Nicol .. Unknown Person, "May T ask auestion? In fairness do �# you let them talk on any subject ect for five minutes or does i ` t have to pertinent to the zone change" (r President Moen, "We would like to testimrny only pertinent to the zone change. Unknown Person' "Th traffic issue, uh, is not a part of the zone change, I'm not sure," Unknown person, "It certainly is 4" P�esdentMoen, ,', we'll aeeep{,n,, see what the testimony is. ',l'61 ► Nicoll,": .. 30 • President Moen, "We're going to take a brief brake for five minutes while he sets urs Commissioner want to caution you not to discuss. . . , Secretary, "Time is ten minutes to ten," • Secretary, ti Time is tett iclock," Secretary, "You are?" "My name is Doug Nicoll, I live at 10655 SW Park, whic�r is about two doors • down from the intersection of Watkins and Park Street, Commissioner~ Fyre, "Are you on this map here?" Mr. Nicoll "You see the intersection to Watkins at Park, okay, going to the left, one, two, three, across the street.it President Moen, "About' there. " 1r, Nicoli, "Yeah, 1 think just outside the 250 foot notice limitation, } whatever, I should also identify myself as President of the Sate Our Neighborhood Committee, which Mr4 Cox explained to you is nothing more than ah adhoc committee, which, grew out of the concern of almost everyone living within the boundaries as here shown, (referring to slide), { Director, of Planning and Development, Monahan, "Mr. alticoi.i, could you identify each elide as you go for the record so that its on the tape, Mr, t iicoli, r'Meaning, in what Manner?" 3 is 'I n , o , Director Monahan, "When you, slide number one then do your presentation. r. Nicoli, "Okay, your going to have to turn the lights back on a little bit. President Moen, "Staff would we request that these slide be submitted as part of the record," Director Monahan, "Yes, definitely, slide are par of the record." President Moen, "okay, we'll need a copy of the slide for the record." Mr. Nicoll, "Okay. As you will note the, , ,well first , of all this is the extended neighborhood, I, and, as You will note, the thing that, holds us together are the common bond here, if you will, is our dependance upon park Street, Walnut Street and 110 to get to and from our houses staff, "Would you identify the slide please." Mr~. Nicoli: "S id number three, I'm sorry, and because they requested zone change affects five parcels of property which borders two of these major streets, all of us have, or share some kind of concern. Okay, slide number fours uh, looking at the, a little closer, the subject property, if you will. What we have before us tonight is an app,licat3:on to grant a zone and comp plan change, uh, involving these five, uh, parcels. Currently these parcels are 8.5 and this is consistent with the use of this land since it was originally - f g the ed; in and around 1955 through 1��d, Okay,i lets look at individual parcels now and see what isthere and we will start on the top end with, what we refer to as the Schrarmr property, and I think most of the houses that we are talking about, the neighbors refer to them by: the names of the people,, or the i I k 4 1 lata owner occupants. Okay, and that's why we call this the Shram house. Staff, "That's slide number five." Mr. Nicoll, "That's slide number five. Slide number six is taken from the intersection of Park and Watkins looking at the property. You will notice off to the left side is the peak of a house, over and above the former shrubbery and also the bushes that existed there. Uh, this is a picture of, slide number 7, is a picture of that house. Whether or notthis house is capable of being resurrected for family residentialbeen use, uh, I don't know, �t vacant for lame time now and I understand that inside t't; r^e is certain aspects, or its certainly not in the best shape. However, I would like to emphasize that it is on this Piece of property that in 1078,, that this planning; commission, or the PlanningCommission City,withthe the neighborhood, said they could splitit into three individuals' or of and btu <<d single -family' residential'design. So whether or not this house will be retrieved, the neighborhood is already saying, that if they want to remove it, feel its uneconomical, go athead and we' ll let you build three other houses, which are probably would be smaller thanresthe homes what thy, rest, of t are in the neighborhood that already exist. Okay, what number am Y on?' eight (Staff, number eight.) Okay, number shows the location of the ''spencer ictut,t of the spencer house. (Audience, mine.) Your right, house, This s i s a p this i+, a picture of. the Spencer house that was taken last April, the Spencer's moved out sometime in late fall, uh, 1~ think some or the picture pp that were presented by the ,a leant showed this house, uh, in a greater state nr= fiend of tape) , , , , last December, as Mr. Cort indicated, when they got a offer they cot.id m not refuse. Uh, as a idea of how meticulously they keep the inside and the outside "01' their heir•h -Krouse., just look at the hedge in the foreground t { � Eddie did that himself, p�rfectl,y square He was okay. Am on • r ,. number ten, This is the location of the klumpke house, this is currently' not occupied, has been a rental and was until May 31st, was owned by the former owner who did use it as a rental. Again, this picture was taken this weekend, the yard has not been maintained since May 31st, but as T will show you in a is minute the renter who lived there kept this yard, uh, also the house, well maintained. Number twelve, this is showing the location of England House, a , picture of the England house taken this past weekend, Now, the renter who lived until May 31st in the house 'next door, moved in this house on May 31st. 'i You' ll notice that as a renter he does maintain the property in a very appropriate way. Okay, number fourteen, this shows the location of the Treffinger house and this is a picture of the Teffinger house. Uh, until tonight when I gleaned a glance at the back of some of tt.-. picture. that Mr. 3'anik was showing, it was unclear to us whether or not this property was going to be included in the development. We know that Mrs. Treffinger joined in i with the other developers, or with the developers in asking for the zone , I r . change. It has been stated :by her daughter at NPO meetings that the main reason she joined was that she felt that if the house, if they were going to J change the zone designation on the rest of the property beside her that the only way she could save some value for her house would be to also, to go along with the, and..: also have it changed on hers. Now I understanding, looking at the site proposal uh, designs which were presented her by Mr, 'anik, this house, in fact, is not designated, or will net be part of the proposal. Okay this is slide number 16, and again all I want to do here with slide 1,5, `which is of the spencer house, slido. 17, which is of the xiumpkt, e, and 18 of the �gM u�y W House,�e� and 1 �� w� C TreffingerC�f� i g�y housepe again gayn that t these houses, in lioui of themselves do not warrant remo ! vr de atruction to make way for commercial development They have been an .intregal part from the very beginning of our neighborhood and the people that have lived there have been intragal part of the neighborhood. Zn fact this is, the Treffinger house • Mrs.1 . : :tonight • John Skourrtes, "I thou htC you said five minute limits, Chairman, your being unfair, he's been going on for ten." ( ever4al people speaking same time.) " of order M�. Skour•tes." President Moen, Your^ out , John Skourtes, "This is completely irrelevant, we don't want to stay here half the night, Okay, so someone lived 'there for 20,years, so what." • President. Moen, "Mr. Skourtes." 00 John Skourtes, x thought you said five minutes limits. Your being. completely unfair in running ng the meeting," President Moet, "okay, duly noted. Go ahead." • Doug Nicoll, "As was saying, Mrs. Treffinger is not here tonight, 1 understand, she is, taking care of Mr. Fred Brown, so that Mrs. Brown, who lives down the street, could attend. The neighborly thing to do. Okay, my problem here is that I have had a couple of slides that were put in . . , y . . » 4 4 Uh, number 20. Some of the results of the change, that's what I want to ,f discuss nowt: in the, one of the main things is that there will be an encroachment into the residential arta that is established., Uh, the borderline right now between the, uh, neighborhood and the commercial general , , property is that back property lne. Once that property line is crossed there. has b‘+,n encroachment, and X think that's a violation of what we find in the cmp plan. Also, changing the zone designation on those five residences is going to isolate two homes at the south end of Watkins and . . Nli N probably, if s. `i"reffinger 's property is not included, it will isolate her house also. Now this is Mrs, Gilberts home at the far south end and Mrs, Parrot's house, number 23, next door. Both of these, agrn, are well maintained, high quality homes and: one of the results, like Z said will be to isolate them, out there kind of in no mans land. Okay, the last thing I would like to talk about is the buffer situation, because the applicants are making a big deal out of promising that will buffer the development substantially from the neighborhood. x submit that the buffer that exit along the back property line, these properties, provide a more aesthetically appealing buffer and its one that going to be because it is established, it is going to be more efficient. Uh, skip over, this is Mrs. Brown's residence. She lives directly across the street from where the Spencers lived. Currently this is the view that she has, uh, from her from house, and that' s s numbxer 26, the Spencer house, First of all notice the treeline which is behind their house. Now house and those will beremoved and be replaced with this � treesr.pl � with something like ..: this. This is a picture of the GT ;foes store in Beaverton, taken from approximately 120 feet away, which is the same distance from Mrs. Brown's front porch to about where the closest area where the store could# be set, don't know where they are going to put ' he store, but this is about the closest area, distance the store could be provided. There's been much made { about a five foot, uh, fence with slats in it, uh, but that certainly does not cover what appears there, There's also been much made about planting, or there was mentioned in tt ' narrative by the applicants of planting established ten root, fifteen foot trees. The tree on the right is approximately 10 feet tall andits goingdevelop sufficiently to to take a long time � nr that to furthr hide ,the building," ff r" 1 Director Monahan, "This is number 29, but we are sort of getting into some of the Site Design Review process that the attorn ly spoke of earlier, Mr, Nicoll, "Right, okay, z will go on then, slat fence, typical slat fence. 'lumber 30, uh this is pictures of trees that are approximately eight to ten feet tall, behind the GI ;loos store in Beaverton and again at this time I am about 110 feet away from the store. Okay, I guess I'm going to skip all, right through aal this. What I was trying to do '" � y g a.n here is show you the houses that exist at the present time, and thore relative location to the project and indicate that the project itself, ° by coming into theropert p �` y under questions, the su iect property, are goingprovide to ps ovxc�e the: same kind of 1front door or back yard, if you will, view for these nersp le in these homes Okay, : want also to 'emphasize that the existing, uh, vegetation on the back line property, the back property ;line, of the subject property, properties, is well established, it is going ter provide a better and more efficierki- more Fl aesthetically pleasing screen than could be developed for many years by the developer. This is a Picture taken from the larger pieces of property looking towards the Schram house Those trees, the taller trees, are either oh the propervery close to the property 1the, This is picture` from the property line or h roof of Eddie Spencer's house. 1 think I pointed out once before the trees that were be hind there. You can see the fence, you can also see that those trees, which are very mature, uh, a provide a very good screen, uh, are all 'within that fenceline Picture taken from the back of the� e Kluiilpke house, its the same situation well established buffer, some deciduous, sir 14',, niferss,les and, again this is a picture picture taken from the tw'riglard house. Uh, and le uh, what x reall want to emphasize herd y emphasize is that the houses and the existing back property landscaprigis going to provide a much better, uh buffer, than the , developer could ever hope to fulfill in there Y .Y ► That about, all, ', that's all ;X t ve got," * A C hw President Moen, "Okay, Mr. Dennis Moonier. ' M name is Dennis Moonier, and I live at 10634 SW Kirk Lane which is this y residence right here and 14 ill adhere very closely to the five minutes. I do want to begin by saying that neither myself or the Save Our Neighborhood Committee are here l to oppose the commercial development on the CC pai cel in question. I'm not here fighting against any specific development at that I ; `t location, however, as a citizen iz�an of the community I'm here to speak about the preserving the integrity of our land use planning process and comprehensive • plan and as a resident of ti,e immediate area I am here to address the adverse 11 impacts of commercial encroachmento and viable family �.n�� established here. The neighborhoods. The Tigard Test application states, and I quote purpose of this plan and zone change is bring this strip into conformance n e �.o br in with existing commercial designations of land fronting Pacific Highway, ;f the change is not allowed thee-f,fect will be to create a conflict between this strip of residential and the commercit;lly planned portion of the Property," First of all I want to reiterate that this is not a isolated strip of" , residential land, it is the eastern limit of a largo residential area. ' i no historical precedent in figard's !w►tst zoning, comprehensive Second; there's plan or commercial development propo8als that any conflict in these uses is present. As a matter of fact, committee at the time I was a memk�� of the NPO this was changed from CP to CO and at that time it was my understanding that the Plan change was made simply to bring that parcel into harmony with LI I I p existing and new comprehensive plan definitions and the existing surrounding uses. Ifew of likethe Pertinent section from the comp would to'quote only a plan, because there are a lot more quotes in the presentation given you. s� . t � a� y section S.,8, states and I quote, � �he community �.s th i� ma)or concern o► viability of established residential areas and the effect of these areas from viability entia�, h _ change and g owth l The intent, of thisplan is to use buffering, sc.ro ningand gg k 1 ( A transitional techniques " Policy 6.3.1 tl$tates "The City shall direct its land 6 rase actions toward the maintenance and improvement of established residential areas." 6.3.3 "In all: p approval phases of the development a process in a d residential "Established Area," a primary consideration o(' the City y shall be to preserve and enhance the character of the adjacent establ i sh41d areas." Section 12.2, it iw the intent of the plan that commercial areas beBanned a t a scale which relates its location, site and type of stores to the trade area to be served and that surrounding residential areas are to be protected from • any , possible adverse effects, c�,riicy 12.2,1, ' , Pres ,dent Moen, "Sir, we are familiaa with the policies in the written A4 testimony has spoken to that, Mr. i;o nier,, "I just, 1 am trying to reiterate and emphasize the polices of the plan th,xt t tai e that a Primarily consideration of the plan is to preserve residential areas, from any adverse impacts, that statement is used any many Places. HPProving the the zone change to allow commercial encroachment into 4 residential areas does not preserve and protect the residential area. It doesn't do it here and it doesn't do it in the next location where the (1 ' developer simply wants more land to build bigger stores, Buf tiring, M , and screening,(r +� *vocational criteria, not, demolition, are the methods that the planning uses to protect existing neighborhoods.hborhoods. The comp plan already • requires this and as Doug showed, there is at least a good start on that �.- that area. The comp plan would require srwr�. n' in � `re additional screening in adds tion to that. The existing Ca Site has all the capabilities of sustaining the lAp, licable locational criteria' without a zone change. In . fact there already ira- a commercial development planned approved on this site. The , history thatlilt) Cox talked about, is that in 1O7S, a at Foes proposal was made at this location and the Commission denied it on February Mrd. The I 4 reason for that was traffic, size, and scale and proximity to other locations such as this that were proposed or already been developed and the adverse affects on the neighborhood. The developer then designed a conforming use to - cne tip site, however, in the interim he revised the plan and immediately ;umped on that to come in with the big proposal again. In fact, he seems to ' it even more outrageous in scale than it was' before, because he have made even wants to add additional uses on that site and take away residential, uses, In conclusion that it must be keep in mind that this is an application for a comp plan change and zone change, however, the majority of the application addresses itself to plan concerns. The real questions here are not how big thebuilding is to being constructed on the site. or how much screening is " g 'g y tobe dedicated. The real required or whether street rights—of—way need questions is the zone change a reasonable and logical land use decision and if so is it consistent with the comp plan and I don't believe it is President Moen, "Thank you sir. Dennis Owens." "Good evening Mr. President and member.$ of the Commission and City stf, My name is Dennis Owens of 10945 SW fairhaven Way, will discuss some; of the mY 4 traffictho concerns we have. In interest of brevity and clarity, .twthe reference to various documents are cited parenthetically in your copies,, and t , won't react them e ,ch as I go along. And T want to say very briefly that I am not a trLf'is expert. This is a result of a research project into the traffic aspects of the code and, various other traffic reports effecting planning in Tigard and other documents that, I've` gone into and I'm rot presenting myself g - as a traffic expert hut just raising questions. The applicant t staates that the Comprehensive plan Amendment and Zone, Change requested will not tc d any vehicle trips;, since the .area of ,the Plan Amendment Will only include a small portion of the store. Their basic contention, however, is that the site is ro G, [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] tq • inadequate without the change and if that is true, then the entire traffic addition can reasonably be assigned to this plan amendment. However, analysis of the site indicates that approximately 6.1 acres of land zoned 1 General Commercial in the parcel is entirely undeveloped. The proposed store would occupy 1 1/4 acre, required parking less than 2 acres This leaves 3+ acres for landscaping, setbacks and buffering, plus a considerable amount of additional commercial detvelo ment. In excess of 20,000 sq, ft. of further retail space and required parking is possible, without the additional land covered by the comp plan amendment, Therefore, enlarging the commercial zone av ilable for development by 38%, as requested here, increases substantially the future vehicle trips to be generated by the intensive development pa won't read section, I have, gone into the �nt�.c�. iled cin this site. S this trip generation tables of the Institute of Transportation Engineers and estimated some trip generation factors for the site and then added in for the a additional development that seems possible and the further additional development, that would be enabled by granting the plan amendment; Carl guttke`s, 1979 traffic study done for NPO # 8 counted about 25,000 trips per day on the affected area of Pacific Hwy. Oregon Depar4tment, of Transportation counted about 28,000 in 1982. According to my estimate which may very well be wrong, it would seem that the comp plan amendment requested here would alone add l/8, or More, in other~words about a thousand, trips of the traffic per day growth that occurred over that seven year period on that stretch of Pacific Highway, The LCOU. transportation goals and the comp plan both speak of minimizing adverse social and economic costs and of developing a safe transportation system. The applicant says that this development will not 4 create traffic hazards, According to the comp plan seven of the twenty most hazardous intersections in the cityare ; on the stretch of Pac4ric Flw �` most ' � affected by this prwoposa,l. The comp plan discusses the problem of motorists diverging.' onto residential streets to avoids hazards and congestions, Approval 41 1( N / 0. • a of this coma plan amendment will, only exacerbate this hazard Thc applicant first states that no vehicles 1/Jill divert Through that neighborhood, then later hope that they won't to any appreciable degree. The CH2M Hill re or't, entitled "Trraffi:c Impact Analysis" with the Main Street center prepared in March of 1582, admits to the inevitability of diversion through the adjacent local streets and for that particular project estimates the degree at that diversion at 4%. for the following reasons, this proposed development seems likelyto cause even more traffic diversion onto our internal streets. The Buttke study found that ` about 12% of s►11 .the traffic .raffic in the NPO # 3 area entered and left k�l eachTiedeman . Ave. , both on the r~rorth> of SW 121st" and SW A shortcut from Washington Square, with traffic and signal bypass to this s site would follow Greenburg, Tiedeman and Walnut. The congestion developing at Pacific Hwy and Walnut could be avoided by cutting through the neighborhood on Y the Greenway area the is 121st and • � `' routei Gaarde. Both �lai.k xn"� to Park. From t,.l the comp plan and the Bunke stud; refer to the volume of through traffic '' . already utilizing lizin Gaarde Street, t cutting through y ugh the neighborhood on 110th and then on Park,, traffic could access this - par txcular site by making a ,right turn onto Paci,Wic Hwy rather than by fighting across and making two left turns across Pacific Hwy. from Gaarde and then into the site. While the applicant asserts that there are no substandard streets affected the comp plan admits that i gran of the coilec�tor streets are now below standard, Gaarde, y110th, Park, Watkins, ar I Walnut are all. classified' as collector streets, all are in . or adjacent to our neighboebood, all will be affected by this project, and none of them comply with standards. The impact on all of these sobstandards streets would; in, fact to also exacerbated by granting this comp plan amendment 0 The internal, neighborhood streets most affected are also all particularly hazardous. Watkins is a narrow and winding street with a rise L and curve coinciding midway toore ate a blind hazard, 110th is only, well its ' W ng : called a half 'street improvement huh. it isn't really, because, it ,isn't, curbed) 42 � . ....,. •, ...,. :._; :... ,,,-,.. ,,. .. ... ,. -. to un o.,,.,,ex a. ....m. .:. _ oK ` 1 r /1 11 there's no sidewalk, its just a half pavement width with a ditch on the side from Garden Park Place to Fairhaven Way and is the balance of it is hilly, winding, narrow and very much of it is blind. The completely blind, hillside, 90 degree intersection of Park g � �^ and 110th is terribly treacherous. The �•, Proposed p development used dev�lo mc.nt raa.s es question, about both hazards and congestion on Pacific Hwy and on the collector streets. The comp plan and the traffic studies repeatedly cite the increasing congestion and hazards as causing increased diversion onto interrd residential strceets. The city and the developer have an obligation to address these problems so that whatever development occurs on this parcel does not spill traffic hazards into our neighborhood. Again, these problems would only exacerbated by the granting of thiscomp planfinally, the applicant says additional amendment, And' , that the _ vehicle trips cal be accommodated within the existing capacity of Pacific Hwy. And as Mr. Cox referred to earlier, Metro is now working but has not completed the corridor study for Pacific Hwy, so this is` entirely unknown and it is premature to say that it is. Thank yov; President Moen, ''Thank you Mr. Owens. George Fitzgerald." "My name is George Fitzgerald, Z live at 13145 SW Watkins, 7 am a member of the neighborhood group opposing this zone change:. T' would like to submit to you a petition signed by 184 members or residents of this neighborhood who also oppose this zone change. This number, 184, represents esents a very large majority of the approximate 200 homes in this neighb�: hourli, Tht petition x reads as follows. We the undersigned being residents of the area circled on the endo, ;7,d exhibit, which T will 1 make available to you in ,a moment, oppose _ ! , the the rezoning of ash�ngter County Tax Lots 4�'bu� 4800, 6100, 6200,, ar�rd` 200. Said'' lots being adjacent, to Watkins avenue, oppose the .change for R 3.5 Single Family ''Residential to Commercial Otneral. Our opposition i4 based on one or it k more of the following reasons. 1. This is an established high, quality 1 n ,' residential neighborhood. Any commercial encroachment into this residential area will destroy the character of the existing neighborhood. 2. Any commercial development requiring such a zone change will be totally out of scale with adjacent uses and will adversely versely effect them by increasing beyond reasonable point traffic, noise, glare, dust, and loss of privacy. 3. The , safety and well being of the many children in our neighborhood will be jeopardized by the unreasonable increase in traffic, noise, and unnecessary exposure to a unknown transient population. 4. Ingress and egress to this • A development will create extreme traffic congestion and hazards. And 5. This f. developmental proposal without the need for rezoning residential property was rejected by the neighborhood and City Government in 1978. There is no reason to reconsider that decision now, This is the petition and I have copies fpr each member. President Moen, "It's sufficient to leave it with the staff, okay, thank you sir, Uh, Ted and can hardly read your, Ted Pazd e. , "Pazderie, I'm Ted Pazderie, I live at 13435 SW 107, adjacent and effected by 1 the area that is under consideration for the zone change. I'm in opposition • to the zone change because of precedents that could be set, or that could be and will be set by change, by taking residential property, high quality neighborhood such as this is and changing it into commercial and I do not see where there is anything etched in stone that t sa s, when you people are no longer on thisthat the sfe guardt that were brought up by Mr» 3anik would still be in effect. Sco I see no reason to change this at this point and everything else I have to say has been covered* Thank. you 44, 1� 3 President Moen, "Thank You. Jeanette Kromer, "I'm 3eanett Kromer and I live at 13465 SW 107th Ave. MY point in this is that as a mother T. have three children right now that are walking to Charles x F. Tigard, uh, its my understanding that there are 26 to 30 elementary age children which have. to go along the Park Street area and an equal number^ of preschool who have to take the same, pathway and feel that by bringing the zone change in and allowing this store to be located closer to the street its ,c mare of a safety hazard, even considering the sidewalks, : still feel this a greater hazard to the kids to be walking alongthe back and side of a" store than it is to be` coming up along a residential area until they can turn off onto Grant Street, as you can see on the map. Uh, and I just want to say that x oppose it and I feel it should be taken into consith ation that it is very close to an elementary school that we are making this President Moen, "Okay, thank you very much. Uh, Jim Nicoll.' "MY name is Jim Nicola, it live at 10710 SW Fairhaven Way, which is within the neighborhood, I think the location is important. x' have several items I was going to point on and I think that the group this evening did an exactly job of presenting a lot of facts and 0 lot of very relevant facts. Uh, a couple of things though, I guess :` would like to maybe dwell a little bit heavier on. GI Foes has, from what I ve considered, thrown out a carrot to th, neighborhood, uh, one that has no substantial need, That i s that they are going to deed over to the City a large piece of property and have it { landscaped. Uh, thengive �itttothe Citso the the can: assure that they never walk acn'4oss it or drive across it and Y want to proposes uh, that that's one of the biggest jokes that I have ever seen, First of all, the City, don't feel is in a position to accept property to landscape it for a developer and then to be the watchdog for that developer to be sure that they don't go k over it:. I also feel that, uh, that these thing, uh, were mentioned sooner that only last a year or so and people forget that the offer was made, that that's what the piece of property was originally intended for as a buffer zone. It would make an excellent piece of property to originally expand on and I'm sure that GI Foes, uh, would pay a very substantial fee to buy that back from the City. uh, and so I consider- that a very void offer by GI Joes, I would su gge;tt although, that if that is done that a more substantial offer by GI 3oes would be to put very' severe deed restrictions on their pr•operty, those deed restrictions would lie " with their property and legally prohibit them andi.l at would be enforceable a in court, and the.ir~ offer that they made, I just find no bases for it. The other thing that hasn't been discussed this eveningp t that, if the subdivision is a t all, or-t�tren touched a fan x� the i"ac, allowed to ' move up to, or excuse me", the development is moved into the property in question, up to the street, you now open up access fore juveniles, uh, who don't always pay attention to fences or trees or whatever is in Lieu way and I would suggest that if the houses and the properties stay as they are and eo le do eventually move back into" those homes, that they are going p y to refrain from allowing kids to enter through the back property line* Fences or no fences, whatever, but they are w„oing to protect their property, If they move up to the street, then you levethat whole str-eet open for juveniles to move through there to disturb the landscaping, climb over the fence and again, neither the City is in a position to put a police officer out there to stop that kind of activity, it$ the type of things that makes neighbors mad that have to sit and watch this type of encroachment take place,, and I think that those types of securityproblemseverything have not been discussed by and � anyone and I think they should be considered” The other thing that's been mentioned, I just want to suggest that GI 'des talks about 120 jobs for construction people, that's fine, they talk about 60 jobs permanent.. .'m not favor of throwing anyone out of a community that's bringing jobs to the community, I just like to suggest that I think that most of the jobs that GI Joes is going to offer is minimum wage type jabs. I don't think they pay alp of their' employes 30 to 40 thousand a year. I think that there are some people in that store that will make that kind of money. Uh, if the property s left 'as is, uh, and be developed, I think, ilh, GI Joes has said in court that they said tEey will still go on, uh, that's kind of up in the air, but whoever moves into that property, those jobs may be more pay, if they are smaller businesses people are going be, uh, sustaining it themselves and therefore paying themselves a little bit more money. They, I guess the last thin I had several more things thin s here I, wanted to say, but.' 'one thing g• g gy that hasn't been said by, again by anyone here this evening, uh, the neighborhood first was begun in 55, 56, somewhere in that time zone, uh, moved into that neighborhood, urh, oh, I must have been four or five years Uh, lived there, I believe there are occasions when the Planning Commission can justify allowing commercial development to move into a r- neighborhood, I believe that there ar-e times when there are grounds to allow that type of thing, but I guest I wanted to point out why, uh, in this case I don't believe so, This neighborhood, and you look and the entire neighborhood, is a very well maintained neighborhood, this ri ighboncood has continuedto grow, to develop, people have added on, uh, landscaping, you drive through the neighborhood, You see beautifully maintained homes. As Y walked through the neighborhood today I see people that have besn living there all their lives and their still living their. x don't think that thio' is a declining neighborhood, 1 think it is a very positive neighborhood and { think it has a good many years of being a neighborhood. `here's nothing in ti g exceptthe. developer the neighborhood . for the five houses, that +�� g'ces and have left: go to extremely poor maintenance I" almost ashamed to $ee the homes and what these developers have allowed them to become in the lastfour : or five 47 �,.. months. I think its a disgrace and I think that we can look at that as what there intent is when they do move into the neighborhood, :hat's the type of thingthey that than thy have to offer us, My finally point. that I would like to make, now I'm not very good at this, this is my nephew, I don't know if my brother signed up to talk or not (Comment from audience, he did.) . `!'here are, right now there are four li.coli's living in this neighborhood that exist. This is the third generation Nicoll that I'm holding here. I think thatthis neighborhood ''is going to be a very positi'fe thing, When he becomes of age, that he will be able to live there too, If he so desires. I can't leave this with you, as evidence, uh, I would like to end my presentation there. Thank You. President Moen, "Donna Grossman. We would appreciate it if, we would appreciate it anything that you can do to help speed the testimony along and not repeat what ot ; r people have testified to*" "sure, I'm Donna Grossman, I live at 1a48S $i,W, Watkins, and I just want to show you where 1 live because I think that its relevant, significant. I live right here, so I'm one of 4-he houses that will face GI Does, or the back of the GI Joes and I would just li:,ke, to say that some of the things that Mr, Nicoll, the first Mr. Nicoll, said about the buffer zone, some of the slides that he showed, You know a twelve foot tree is not going to hide GI Joes building and the trees thathe showed in his slides, obviously are hiding, or would hide a building that was built back th*arei And when we bought our house,.' uh, three years ago, one of the th?ngs. that we considered was the noise from 50 and we actually went into the yarlistened and waited there and lsten w : .. ed to the traffic and You can't really hear the traffic, uh especially from our back yard, but from our front yard its very well bufferedand by a line of twelve foot trees and a fence, I don'` think, I'm sure that the noise from 99 and from the parking lot will not be buffered to our house. Uh, another thing x would like to say is that visually, I think that anybody in this room would rather look at a nicely keep house, than look at a fence with twelve foot trees and see a building and parking lot behind it, ` Uh, I' don't think anybodydoubts that, if they were buying c; house, if you consider buying your own house, youll be lookingat if the GI look at: ��• ,.,: that's what x wa. which would rather , Joes goes in. I would also like to re—enforce what that second Mr. Nicoll said about what's happened to those houses since the renters moved out. They are really very unkept and we are tired of looking at them and we both, all feel that if this is what these people our going, if this is how these people are treating us now, do they really care about us, about what we 'are looking at Obviously right now, they don't care about what we are looking at, and we don't think that they will care once they put the GI 70es in. Another thing just on the traffic, uh, and this thing was covered i)y the person 'who talked about the traffic, I think really well, hut 1 would just like to say that's how, to re—enforce that personally I live in this neighborhood and that is how I get home from the whole area back by towler ung or High and Washington Square and there a lot of residential neighborhood back in that area and , that's how all of those people access 99, Because that's the quickest way, you don't have to deal with any lights„ So personally I would just like to re—enforce that I'm positive that the trafric will use that route.. Also, that lC have a two year old child and so does neighbor who lives two streets down who is on the corner of Park and Watkins and those two children will be living on that street will be having a lot more traffic and that's another thing that we considered when we bought our house, is the amount of traffic, that went ppl c, kay,t And' then another thing is that:... thea � �ants were referring to this, as a real emotional reaction that we don't want this here, but, I think if you were -in our position and owt7ed, a house in that neighborhood and were, thinking of reselling the, house within the next few years, now that's not .a emotional reaction, to realize that the value of your house is going to be significantly — 4 — r' I I 11 depreciated by having a GI Joes being the scenery from your house. That is nut a emotional reaction that is an aconoirlic reaction to my husband and I. Thanks a lot. President Moen, "Thant( you. Uh, Duane Ehr." ,' live at 10425 SW Park, which would probably be the M name �.s Duane y Thr, I center of the yellow to the northof the empty lot. I wanted to commented an ' the application as a whole, but, it was primarily was aimed at, at a mayor~ c commercial development and the economic advantages it, was going to bring to the community. As far as I can see, right now the only economic things that are going t; happen are the destruction of five estimated $80,000 homes to yearsWhich I don't thin: start with, that have been there for 30 or more. ' should really happen. They talk about abutting residential neighborhoods with commercial development, we're µ lk ire not tang about. 'abutting the,e, we're talking about the residential zone change as you are well aware of I live right on , the corner from the proposed zone change and I just ifeel that its grossly unfair to the people who live there, myself, ub, all the neighbors t'`:ff ;„ would be abutting this corirercial development as our invest ;tints would be grossly taken away from us if this zone change were to happen. Probably loses along s uh, would come to no less than 10%, property value loss, which was quoted to 4 ', mg by J`i bishop at the March .6, l PO meeting. I don't really believe, myself on a economic standpoint, my neighbors can really afford to have the =zone change go into effect and have a major commetcial development built on our front doorstep* It just seems very unfair to .me and to my neighbors and think, and I appeal to you, Planning Commissions that you see in our favor a held keep our beautiful neighborhood as a residential,, keep our residential at. residential and commercial as a commercial development. Thank you, „.. 50 ( - ° . President Moen, "David Nicoll. Okay, Charles Atherton. (both had left) Bob Bledsoe. "My name is Bob Bledsoe, Ir chairmanNPO of NPO ## 3, I'm sorry I was late for the meeting, was suppose to speak for the , NPO at the beginning. The NPO did meet last night and. we, after reviewing the earlier proposal and the, recent change which involved the dedication of the land strip, we concur with the staff ' report, that the revised proposal does not meet the objections of the neighbors in our March 26th meeting as outlined' in March 29th letter, especially ` concerning the encroachment of the commercial property into the established residential, uh, neighborhood, contrary to Policy 5.1.4. I would like to point out concerning Mr. Zranik s testimony, that he refers to several of the policies and locational criteria which are Chapter 12, those apply in this case where you are transferring property from one use to another, in this case residential to commercial. (end of tape) . . . Y several years ago, what happened was that you changed them hack and forth from one commercial to another, you went from commercial professional to commercial linear and then commercial general so one by one they got changed from one thing to another, but they were, actually the lines wrwre not changed. In this case, what he's calling for here is a change from one basic use to another use and in this casae the criteria should Apply to his,, where it would' not apply to an area , which was already zoned. He's mining apples and oranges, President Moen, "Thank you sir, Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition to this proposal. okay, now is the time for cross examination and rebuttal, uh, we a ll start with the audience, is there anyone here that wishes to make a e that wiwith regard tothat. Y . Okay,, Commissioner, do you have any questions that you would like to direct to the audience at this time. Commissioner Pyre.rt .. b,i 4kits N\ Commissioner F+ re, "None at this time." Steve 3anikr • "Mi^, Chaa,rntan, when you refer to the audience to make a rebuttal * did you include the applicant in that," President Moen, ►fix certainly did." r Steve Janik, "I'm sorry, .�'" would like to do so for a few minutes, 7 President Moen, "I think that's appropriate, now is the time." Steve Janik, "I have a numbs.; Lf fairlybriefM started points, uh, _ r� Cox out is argument by saying, lets talk about what are the comprehensive plan policies and what are the land use issues and then he spent most of his time personally attacking me, (laughter) I don't think that's particularly retlevant. He referred to some testimony in front of the bankruptcy court, the t�stimony is asin the deposition, which you can read, and is as "I said to you '. here tonight. There is another, there is a feasible alternative of moving the store forward. That is feasible in the sense that there is suffidic it land area* Now that is what we were talking about in that testimony and here tonight, youalso find that from the point of view of not only the asset that are the bankrupt estate that I represents, that is not desirable and CI does would here tonight tell gyou, uh, that is not something that they would do. That has been their consistent position,, Its ben recently even more underil4ored by the developments,, Now Mrs, Cox's. 'says that we're going to take 1i% of the property, I think that's a little, bit inaccurate,, What_I was referring to when I held up my drawing and drew the, triangle, it was the entire ` e Piece,* b th piece that' is subject to this change for � ve houses and the rest of the property If you look at the facts the totality of of those 4 two pieces is 10.8 acres, twenty percent ,of that is 2.3 acres, 80% of that balance is what x was referring to is already being general commercial, Just so happensaccurate, is the strip that we are J that 2.3, �t 8� acres to be a talking about here. In other:-words that's 20% of what I r,;eer+red to the balance 80% is general commercial, Mr. Cox's written material, he says there's lots of room for the site that GI Joes site only needs 1.25 acres. you that's because take 60,000 qy s ft. of� the store ,buildingitself and he says therefore there's over three acres to use landscaping and buffering and other purposes. He ignores the access ways the parking and all those other things. In fact the store rec ices 5.2 acres. Mr, Cox says that its e inappropriate_ to have .: conditional comprehensiveplan change or zone change. " " "conditional comprehensive ge. ' w think I need to tell You that in I don i.. y your experience most of the comprehensive plan and zone changes are subject t to certain conditions. There was a reference to the 1978 application that was made on a portion of this property, the inference was that because something occurred in 70; it was a denial of the request for change to commercial, you should not now tonight allow a change to commercial even though there's been a passage of six years a chan5!o n the plan and a number of other thinks I think in addition to those differences, in 1978 whit occurred was that the property that is not now before you tonight, that the that r g property was originally CP, was the site of a request to change to allow G . Transcript of those hearings will indicate in 8rr that the Council at that time 'had no interest y retail retail on that site. are at that That is the 8t��n, that I have been talkingabout. The five houses issue here tonight was not included in that application. and the Council's position was at that' time no retail, hut leave it as CP, We, re dealing position � � with different facts, f diferent requests ata different time. Now the concern, about the CI 3'oes screeningat the� he Bearterto,nstore. think that Chairman of , the staff accurately pointed out that the quality and this details of that is subject to site design review. Suffice to say that once that issue has been raised here, won't to negate the i aW visual inference, that's not what we're proposing here, we're proposing substantially wider, more wens e, and different buffer. The Carl Buttke report is referred to as though it were to say that there is an inadequate road system to accommodate our traffic. First of all that report was done in 1975, did not address this site or this propoai, it covered a much broader area as part of the NPO thrust. That study ,hould nvt be used to draw inferences about the impact from this project today, a number of years later. In fact a traffic study and report is not required atthis stage of the approval process. It is required at the site design review process and one will be pr^ovided at that time What have here is the fact'that Pacif.�: Hwy, ' we ' is under the jurisdiction of the State Highway y Deraar^tmertt, is theprovider of the access to this site. The State Highway Department has in there commentary to your staff indicated that, that highway can accommodate the incremental traffic from ,his projet. The testimony that you've heard by inference from i what Metro may be doing and otherwise, I don't think is really pertinent testimonyas to what the agency that deals with that highway has to say and that is that traffic can adequately be accommodated. One, a lady was concerned about noise,se, and she pointed out -t.that trees provide a mise buffer. Well, the fact of,the mater is that Z think that you know as a m.,.tter of your experience as members embers of the Planning Commission that more effective of the i� more interment buffering , caused by trees is the fact that the noise from pacific Hwywill hit the building that g "s being proposed here and that those � i. x noises (laughter) President Moen, "Okay, let the gentleman speak,6. The noise will be intercepted by he very structure thebuilding,�x In fact you; would not haye the same sound continuation wait' out aailing 't. that site. X guess X have no response .to, some of the otner points, such as the gentleman ( • e f - r • who brought his nephew up here, I certainly couldn't attempt to hespond to that. I think what the real issues are tonight, its five houses, a strip of five houses, that if you turn this down you will leave sandwiched and it was yinteresting here tonight, as a lot of the neighbors who are across very Watkins Street are saying please leave the five houses there to buffer our neighborhood, acknowledging that whoever lives in those houses, renters, single family owners, and whatever, will be performing that function for the rest of the neighborhood abutting this commercial development which is designated on the plan. The issue is .whether that •i.s appropriate policy for you to adopt. ' It may be what thorn immediately across the street desire, but I don't think its good policy. the next issue is I think, how does a store 60 to 80 -'feet away separated by this landscaped buffer and a fence encroach, • crawl across the buffer and encroach across Watkins Street into the neighborhood. I guess we have heard a lot of people say 1•14, *1111 encroach and y that askl how does really P� ppen. Given fear it, � �: you the' question factu�� the fact neighborhood, inclose wt•oxmi-try to Pacific Hwyct that, again' that this ne and a commercial designated area that's already shown on the plan. We don't diminish the neighbors concerns, that's we proposed well more that what is required Code in terms of a separation between ourselves and t�, esidential neighborhood.. But truly don't believe that there are any factsto indicate that we're going to cause any other portion of this residential community on the other side o Watkins to be change to commercial or to be otherwise affectedthisappreciateou attetion.by development. We y + ion, `I"'hank you« President Moen, "Any further cross examination or rebuttal. Mr. Cox are you. t' Mr. Cox, "Xs it my turn ,.f I wish." r • Arosidont Moen, "Yes, please keep it br41f:," (11' ,II ' r O !TV "E will. If you grant this zone change and comprehensive plan cchange, what zone boundary in the City is safe, chis is a zone that, as I said before, has existed from the beginning of time, particular avocation has always bean the boundary between residential and commercial and I not going to repeat everything else that everyone else has said. But I have a hard time conceiving of anyg ;gone change e that. 'could not be �Justified, that this one can ' e be justified. President Moen, "Okay, thank you very much. Okay, close the public hearing Commissioners, its time for comments. Mr. Bergmann. Commissioner Bergmann, "I can see, obvivusly many good arguments on both side., x have to say that I look at planning as a process and not a product, its never finalized and we established zoning, I thinking ' back at wha' happened in what happened in this case. Whether it was right or wrong, or it od' y rightwayr or'wrong, �:f there were houses there ';'" whether is the it is when we adopted zoning that land became residential. It didn't necessarilyily mean that it wasgood, that that's the zoning that it had, ` that maybe it should have been something else, but that's the way it all started. And we will have commercial development on that site, with or without the additional land and I liken that very much to the Fred Meyer site of Tigard and r can remember that there was a lot of concern in the Metzger community and. appareni-ly the traffic generation out to the rear never materi lized, though the site is almost the same with pacific Highway and 72nd at a angle just like that. Most of the 1.ra:"fic at Fred Meyers still uses the front. That doesn't mean to say_ that they wouldf't here. It seems that if I was one of the people that lived across the street 1 would really like to my neighbor across the street buffer me, but is that really right if we're, really concerned about the whole neighborhood, .I think thot those five houses would make an adequate 4 buffer 56 . s probably a fortyfoot strip, wf.�li p► �. c,esignd could make just as good of a buffer and therefore not :hake one` of your own neighborhood community People ., p provide 'I that buffer for the develo ment. I've not totallymade p� up mind, I' ll listen to the other comments from the Commissioners ;and weight some of the testimony that I've recorded here as it was given. earlier and when the vote comes I shall vote. Thank you." PresidentMoen, "I would like to" take, just a brief interrupt the process here, Wr're certainly not going to get through all theitems here tonight, uh, Ithink we should take a consensus from the Commission,mmxssion, woUld say that the subdivision item 5 8, I don't think that we 'should, would take action with this one, but to put it over, so if there's anyone here for that regarding that. Application S 8-84 and Variance V 1184, the Sandlewood Park area. (Discussion not relevant to comp plan change item). President, Moen, "One other statement I would just like to make here tonight, we did get a petition, ora signed sheet here when we started this thing about people having difficulty coming to the meeting. I guess we 'just want to make commentthatg ' gduly µ we are.. oxn to record that and noted. � ;think I_object to that, as to what was said in the statement, Maybe you could make a comment ' - staff as to regard to the p;Lacement of the meetings gust briefly. Director N.onahan,; "Well we felt that that petition was submitted to us at the time before the hearing actuily began and the end of the first hearing. At the end of the first hearing several. people left the room making available f room for additional folks, In addition I think there's a reference there to ,Y ,4 the meeting location actually being changed. That isn't totally correct in that the location was designated as the Tigard School, District, the error occurred in the newspaper advertising but not in the notification that went out, 67 111 the official notifications that went out, role have had a policy as a result of our inability to control our own destiny, I guess, by not having our own meeting place, uh, we've been in a situ�!t .on with the School District owning the schools hasriot allowed us to use FowleFowlerJunior High School for the last couple of summers and I'm not sure, Diane how. , Secretary, "For the last three years, I've been here we ve had to use this. o president Moen, "We've WeFve met here for some, I just wanted to have that for the he record and lets go ahead with Commissioner Peterson. Commissioner Peterson, "Okay, I can be brief. Basically I would like to see a GI Joe on that. particular piece of property. But the concern here is that ars encroachment on the commercial, excuse the commercial, if we change it ial neighborhood. encroachmentg borhaod' and was there a 1 would be an on the " residential mistake made from the original zoning was made here with the comp plan. And , in listening to the testimony, I feel that the residential neighborhood rhooc! left ° as is would be a better buffer than a 40 ft, buffer deeded and treed and I think I would be reluctant to go for a change in zone at this time." president' Moen, "Okay, Commissioner 'Leverett," L, Commissioner Leverett, Stat f what'sbuff the current "' buffer now that will be required for existing commercial zone to that residential zone." Well if there some significant Associate Planner Liden, ve-detation tho. trees and; so forth, they could be required. to retain those as part of the development and then there would be a 10 ft. wide landscaped buffer with screen that would be a requir cament w" b K • p ?Avg . President Moen, "If the present vegetation was outside the ten foot area would they be required to possibly keep some of that as part of site design review," Associate Planner - h Liden, "They couldbe, although if we get outside of the 10 foot buffer it might become a little more vague on whether or not they would he required to retain it." Commissioner Leverett, "I guess I'm inclined to feel that, I don't whether 40 feet is enough, but, I think that I would be more inclined to go with the change of use and make a significant buffer, 40 feet or maybe somewhat larger than that could be a substantially better buffer than the residential. I guess basically that's my position." .I' President Moen, okay, Commissioner Eyre. Commissioner Eyre, "Question of staff to start off with, Is there any g uarantee, and X think T know what the answer is, that a GI Foes will go in if we grant this comp plan. So there's no guarantee at all what sort of, is there any way thatwe can guarantee limited access to Watkins -Street. Perhaps through a site design review." ._ Associate Planner L,iden, "Site design review certainly . Commissioner Fyre, "nut it would be fiery difficult though wouldn't it." Associate Planner Liden, ''I would say that there would be enough in the plan and in the code to not allow cc:mmero:i.al access onto Watkins,, gut, how access are restricted all the way along ane eventually" Commissioner Fyre, "We can't condition really condition this comp plan change, it would be very difficult to do so." Director Monahan, "I don't think that you can condition it, I think you have to rely on the language of the Code, as Keith's referring. We believe we have enough protections in the Code that when a site design review does come up, we would be able to limit access. And that brings us to another point that Commissioner Peterson raised, the 4.rhole issue of whether or not a mistake was in, fact made. keith reminded me earlier that our feelings are that a mistake was not made and that if the Council had made a change, intended to change that land to commercial it would have made five additional parcels of land n commercial that each would have a legal acc1ss to Watkins, you would hav five commercial access to Watkins. It sort of dispels that notion, we feel. Commissioner F yre, "Well, we've heard a lot of good input tonight, some of it f was very sophisticated, some of it was very emotional but effective. What try to do myself is to sort through and find some fact, some real facts What y didn't ' hear was any compelling reason to make a comp plan change. Compelling reason means that as you say as mistake was made, uh, that commercial development couldn'tgo forth unless those fivepart parcels were a of the larger piece of property, tine of the things that x do see and its • contained in the criteria here, is that the shall insure that new City commercial or, and industrial development shall not encroach into residential areas that have not been designated for commercial or industrial. use. What see here is a defi ite encroachment, Jour taking over five parcels of residential land and not only that, you have a side encroachment, a commercial encroachment, because you'll have commercial on one sidt of the street, residential on the`other. If your talking about buffering, its much better t ► look into someones ekes front yard and fP you have to abut commercial its much better if the back I" { Cr . w 4, f part of yourabutscommercial. I think I've said' enough, I think house the Sommer you have a feeling of how I'm coming down on this issues," President Moen, Okay, I guess it my turn, Uh, make a couple of comments, . in looking at one of page two of the staff report it discusses items to, any quasi—judicial development code should provideq siMjudicial changes tocomp plan, which may be initiated by affected parties and approved byh Council if the Council finds the changes consistent with applicable plan policies, I have a • problem with that in this case, uh, I'm not sure that it is, The change of physical circumstances occurred since the e original designation. I don't see any changes in physical circumstances. A mistake was make in, the original land use designation, definitely don't`t feet that was the case. Uh, x guess my feeling is that this does encroach on establish single family neighborhood and I guess in that sense I'm opposed to it, I have, looking at the staff findings, uh, lC find soma of them to be a little circumstantial or not really germane• to the issue, is the change in issue. On item one, think the; main the use from residential commercial encroach on the established single family neighborhood. That's true, the rest of it, I don't know if its pertinent, g • Item two, I don't know if that' s pertinent, Item three the applicant has not demonstrated a need for zone change. The property leased appears capable of accommodating a wide variety of commercial activities without requiring additional land, I think that statement. is true and I agree with that. Uh, elsewhere here in my little, uh, I had one other point I was going to ma&.e, if I can find it It is basically, I think, is an established area and how the Cityp �~ the City shall direct its, land shall direct it, this, olx��y' �� 3 states use action toward the maintains> and the improvement of the established residential areas and 6 Ys -a,. states that all phases of development approval process in a residential established area primary consideration of the City shall be to preserve and enhance the character of the .adjacent established • areas and I guess ; agree with Commissioner Fyre when he says, I think what we have here now, the present state of affairs is the best means of interfacing a commercial area to a residential area. I think what we've got now is the best way to go and changing it would be a mistake. So with that, uh, think what we need, x think there a consensus on tho Commission, I think what we need is a motion that says what we talked about clearly and supports the , , „ , , findings, I think. Mr. Fyre. CommissionerFyre, With some help here 11 move. move that we deny Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 11-84 and Zone Change ZC 8-94, uh, based on the findings, so stated here tonight,” President Moen, "Based on the findings, uh, as, maybe we can use the findings just now. that, uh, discussedI think we ought to outline those," � se Commissioner Fyre, "Okay, based on the findings that discussed,g you da.scussed, based on { the findings of staff in the summary, findings one and three in particular," President Moen, "Okay, think we ought to strike two.Vit, Commissioner Fyre, "Strike two." President MOOn4 `okay, we have a motion," Commissioner Peterson, "8econd." President Moen, "Second,, any further discussion. All those in favor of a motion as made and seconded signify by say aye f (three;: ayes) Ouposed.� (twG , no)» Okay lets have a roll call please . 6 _ Secretary, "Okay. Don Moen," "Aye ,y / "Milt Eyre" "Aye..tt "Deane Leverett" "No "� "Dave Peterson" "Stye." "Floyd Bergmann "No." '1; President Moen, "Okay motion carries ttwree to two. " . *I i 1. is t (, j, 1 1 ( 'Q► .. JAMES_A Cox CHAS. CLEVELAND ABBE ATTC0RhlEYS AT LAW - LAKESIDE PLAZA O NORTH 35-3546 IC) AKE OSWEGO,OREGON 97034 TELT=PHONE (503) 6 JUL 61984 July 6, 1984 CATV OF T GARD p4.,ANNtNG DL • Mr. William Monahan Planning Department • City of Tigard 12755 S.W. Ash Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Your File No. CPA11-84 & ZCB-8 Tigard West Development Company Dear Mr, Monahan The published notice of the Planning Commission hearing in khe above matter said the meeting would be held at the lecture room of Fowler Junior High School. On July 2nd l learned that the mailed notices sent to the adjacent property owners stated that the meeting would be held in the Boarc Room of the Tigard School District Build- ing On July 3rd expressed my co7cern toyou that 44h e Board the. interested Room will be totallyinadequate to accommodate � � that citizens who wish to attend thy. hearing. I estimated as many as 100 persons from the so-called Save Our Neighbor- hood hood Committee" plan to attend. ; In our telephone ersati� you declined to change the p 2'1e ct"3n'ty' cin, ' preasonable acconmiodati,on for it eaningful meetinglace to make public participation. • Ver ,ruly yours E5 A co aAcilk1 s .„, 40, pA 41. ,.. Cff -6 ,,,ff ge, AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, Kathleen Reffett ,- (being first duly sworn, on oath depose and say: That I am a for The City of Tigard, Oregon. That I served notice of hearing of the Tigard Planning Commission of which the attached is a copy (Marked Exhibit A) upon each of the. following named persons on the 29th day of June. 198,4 , by mailing to each of them at the address shown on the attached list (Marked Exhibit B), said notice as hereto attached, desposited in the United States Mail on the 29th day of June , , 198/4. , postage prepaid. " )'P.fry , ► '_. 4 Sec etary Person who delivered to POST OFFICE Subscribed and sworn to before me on the day dfI 19 } i • a', NO "ARY PUBLIC OF OREGON My Commission Expires:/ -C • r: Cl)• C) ra w O w acr- Oco, 0 0 m C c� O . .O g =, cD to a H id 0 t:rA CD 0 = N. 0) ,.., tn Z m O qi H n n — i W A O p --) 0> 1- .W °' aW wM in a D N . O " r+ 0 in td „,gG h 0 Nb 0. o O M N O w •-p, , Q" , *3 0 'fi' W H X SSf • a mcn`m = a N xO -n W o r- - 5. "0 5w —2 m a, -- -a r,,,,it :, w .w .� -r W O iLl r CO a'\ oi`, -C.1 P cD 0 ty c m b 1 OD ,, c r i PS Pp) 0 Z 1 r Cl) 0. pMIMI rt a o CD C �'< 0 ❑ a r.) o QD CD a , ro 5. 5 . (7) '` d N M ti; ca a Q =• ' ,ate ,1 i Q' a c) 1 ca C� csg o. 0 , r w m The following will be considered bythe Tigard PlanningCommission on._ �, Tuesday, July 10, 1984, at 7:30 HighSchool Lecture a �, o Oregon.. Director P.M.112 at Fowler Junior may be' obtained � �� Room,10865 SW Walnut,Tigard,are Further information from the Director of Planning and Development at 12755 SW Ash Ave.Tigard, < co OR 97223,or by calling 639-4171. '4. 1 PUI3LIC HEARINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENbMENT CPA"114WZONE CHANGE A TIGARD WEST DEVE. A request for a Comprehensive Plan Change,from Low Density Residential qtr :` to Commercial General andfor a Zone Change from R-3.5 (Residential 3.5 Iris units/acre) to CG (Commercial General). Located: 10500, 13370, 13450, "� r- 13490,&13530 SW Watkins Ave.,Tigard,NPO##3(WCTMVM 2S1 3DA lots 4700, o ca 00,0100,and 6200& 1`CTivi 2S1 3DD lot 200 . " • COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMEND1VIENT CPA 14-84 GOAL##5 ; rr2 '" A request by the City of Tigard to review Goal # 5 In Order to comply ..~ ' statements and the floodplain nncr wetlants natural areas as identified in the ESEE section of Volume I of the Comprehensive Plan, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 14-84 GOAL#10 . cquest by the City of Tigard to increase aka maximum number of units allowed in the . lviediutn High Density Residential Plan,designation from 13- `�' 20 to 13-25,Also a change in the zoning district ci nation in the Medium High Density Zone from R-20 to R-25. COMPREHFNSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 18-84"POLIO. a:;, A i'egr"cst by the City of Tigard to clarity the matrix contained in Policy 3.2 of the Tiger i Comprehensive Plan.. ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 5-84 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE Request by the City of Tigard for a Community Development Code amend ment ill modify the definition of "Wheel stop" in Section 18,106.050. Ly, to Creation f Access Easements to modify Chapteroval rs in Section 18.164.030 g:„- i 1 1 130 Conditional''se to ) inciude requirements for Site"Development Review(Ch.18.120)to eliminate the need for Said review following Conti tional Use approval:and to estab, lish a Minimum size for accessory structures that require review under Chapter 18.144 RE VIEW,APPLICATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL VOR APPOINTMENT TO NPOs TT8038 ., Publish Attie,28,198 1984 } 1 • 1 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY CO U'tT 2 FOR THE DISTRICT OP OREGON 3 4 In re: ) w: 5 BISHOP WILBUR A, , JR. , aka ) Case No. 382-03350 J. B. BISHOP, dba Main Street 6 Land Corporation, a WasdlirLgton ; corporation, and ) MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAB 7 BISHOP KRISTEN K , ) EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS 8 Debtors 9 11 I 12 13 May 2, ,1984 Orbanco Building 14 Before the Honorable DONAL D. SULLIVAN 1� p O (1/44, e 17 t t7 k 2 19 APPEARANCES w. 20 Mr. Kevin D. Padrick, Attorney at Law, Appearing on behalf of Debtors ; t,► 21 Mr . John C. Ra o Attorney at Law, g 22 Appearing on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. ' Leonard Wahi s- and Mr, Harry Wa i l 23 mg, Lo . Portnoy, Attorney at Law, 24 Appearing on behalf of Wayne Rembold 25 :-f lM t INDEX OF WITNESSES /, -..'' ,, ,,' 2 Debtor° s itxies 5 D, X X Ct. 3 St ;phen Jan i e 4 By 11r, Padrick--_. _- _ _- -_ 5 By Mr -. - 6 By M ., Portnoy_ -.. .... ••• -- 8 . By The Court_,.::.__.._.,-�..._ ....----.-- 9 4.. 9 , 1C1; tco 0. 12 14 {h 1 1 N N 21 2a ill, 2 1 MR. PADRI L'h: Before the recess, Mr. Janik has to catch 2 a plane and he needs to l eave here in about ten minutes . Can 3 we put him on? 4 THE COURT: What is he going to testify to? 5 MR. PADRICK: Pardon ane Your Honor? 6 THE COURT: What is he going to cover? I ' 7 MRPADRIChAll he 's going to cover is the zo r;g and 8 obtaining a change in zoning with the -- 9 THE COURT: He iS goingto testifyas to value? rt 10 MR. PADRICK: No. 11 THE COURT: I 'm not sure there is any disagreement over 12 this ; is there? Have you told Ms , Portnoy' before today, what : % , ,. 18 he's going to testify to? �• .°.spa r. 14 MR PADRICK: I think they understood. is THE COURT: Why don't you put him on. It's quicker to put him on. ury Mr,. Janik, why don' t;'you come forward? 18 STEPHEN JAN1K, tai /6, 0 1 was called as a witness, and after being first duly sworn, } 20 was examined and testified as fellows: . 1 WITNESS: I do, Your Honor. 22 THE COURT: tlease be seated. Give us your full name ' 3 and sell your last lame 4or the record 4 Tilt: W' T C"3ES Stephen an .k t e h-e- 25 Janis .. .. ...,.. ,...,. ....,�,. .. r ... ,.....r �. � ,. i- _ 4 n, i • ' f • •y i L ,ll DIRECT EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. PADRICK: 3 Q Mr. Janik, give us your addres, 4 A 101 Southwest*Main. 5 Q Okay. 6 how and where are you employed? 7 A Partner involved in 'Lail, Janik t Novak. 8 Is ,Mr,, Bishop o°i e. o�f` your clients? 9 A 'es* 10 Q What services have �,eu performed for Mr. Bishop on the 111 proposed Tigard West joint venture with respect to the 12 development? 1,,',, ,: 13 A I have handled the negrtiation of the lease, the 3 alders South lease forG. I . Joe 's. 15 Q And have you been consulted with respect to the change 16 of toning of the rear residential parcel? ,r • ' "- t51.7 A Yes I have. 18 g Okay i V 19 Is i, t fair to saythat you're re familiar with the Tigard / , w ) Westfamily? 21 A , yes, I am. :2 What experience do you have in real property matters and w s �, E.'l.ifit;..al1y in` obtaining pe.�mm1isP .on of ptu.blic bodies to al. of 1 w ,, 'y development of projects? t ; ea A. '" years -- Nine years., • rY r e" 7". a . per . ,. ( • .. i rY' 4 1 1 MS. R)RTNOY: We will stipulate to Mr. Janik's qualifi 2 cations, in the area of real estate. 3 THE COURT: That's your specialty, one of your special- 1 4 ties . And, you 've been ill it for tey , years, �- inthe local area'? 5 THE WITNESS: Yes . 6 THE COURT: Okay. 7 We' ll take that stipulation. 8 BY MR. PAD.IU C, 9 Q Okay. 10 Has^= r, Bi ` op consulted with you, with. respet `o the 11 need-'for o tain ng ermi,ssion` from the city of Tigard to allow 12 the . Joe's portion of t . ! Ti and Wes7t� development to be 13 huil.t on the`' arcel.s of real property that are c}urrenti r, zone 1. reside tial' m , 15 A Yes. co cu ,, 7 t is the ca �. 16 'What is the status�,�s of_ the proposed h �,� a7 status? 18 A The status of the proposed change in the comprehensive E 19 plan and in the zoning is that there is an Inco p . te' a 20 application now pending before the City of Tigard, which will 21 be completed and finalized in, probably, a wileto ten days. 22 The matter will be set for hearing in June. And in, addition a, u 23 to t thathere will be a series of meetings with the local . 24 NPO* in the next three to four weeks. a Q Oay. 4 • 1 Based upon your experience in real estate matters and 2 your review of thisparticular matter, do have� you h�. e an opinion 3 as to the likelihood of success of the proposed rezoning? 4 A my opinion is that th-e(proposed rezoning will be 5 accomplished. 6 Q Okay. 7 The C. 1. Joe lease, which 1 understand you participated 8 in the negotiation of -- 9 A Yes . Q -- value set that lease? �� was there a land xl A There was an implied land value set in the lease. And 12 fly recnilection was that it was approximately S4 . 75 or $5. 00. 13 a square foot. I think it 's more to the high side of that. jt 14 1' dont recall precisely right now. 5 Q We have an exhibit that we are going to introduce that tD z' willAnd did that include the rear parcels , the � show that. entirejust 1'7 land, not � tile. front parcels? 18 A Yes , it did. a 19 MR, PAfRICV:Y: That's all 1 have, Your Honor. 20 .N11. RAY: May I cross ...examine him, briefly? 21 .o E A I ATIO 22 W"" MR. RAY: 2 Icatch 'a plane, Mr.. Janik,understando* toW , o 1: • 24 will be as brief as I can. 25 We have been provided, by M . Patrick, a copy of the Jan k • - 9 n r f I 1 proposed lease with G. I. Joe's, as well as what appears to be 2 a commitment letter from Wayne Jackson, Secretary-Treasurer 3 of G. I. Joe 's . 4 A. Correct, correct 5 Q There are five conditions listed in the last paragraph 6 oft ti .at letter, eine of ` case includes. the zon ng 7 A l'Correct 8 Q of Tigard West. You have indicated that there is 9 presently an incomplete zoning application that's filed. And 10 when do you anticipate that the zoning change will occur? 11 A I anticipate it will be in the period of June or July. 2 r Most likely, from the PlanningCommission, it will go to the R 13 City Council . After that, it 's matter of a few weeks 1 And 14 you could see it approved, probably, late June or early July. MThere was a fairlyextensive article -- not that I'm Q lb relying on the article for truthness -* dated April 20th of 17 this year. There isment i oof Neighborhood Planning n 18 Organization, No 31, as protesting the zoning change. Do you 19 1 anticipate difficulty in overcoming their protests? clear that they' re opposed to it right N 21 now. We have � a number of things we can offer them that I think will mitigate their concerns, And 1 can' t guarantee 23 you that we can eliminate that opposition, The NPO ; ` worked 24 with before, it started out in a situation where they were 6 opposed to something, and we ultimately ended up making a 1 compromise which was then approved by the Planning, Commission 2 and the City Council . 3 Q Should a compromise be reached, is it your understanding 4 that, G. I . Joe' s will agree'• 5 A I f the compromise 1 mise isconsistent with what we have ,' 6 promised them in the lease, I 'm sure they will. 7 Q One of the conditions in the commitment letter is also 8 approval by the Bankruptcy Court of the ultimate transaction 9 by July 1, 1984; is that feasible?' 10 A I 'm not a bankruptcy lawyer. I don't know. 11 Q Okay. 12 Do you have any knowledge from G. I. Joe's that they' re 13 willing to waive any of these conditions in the commitment 14 letter? 1,5 A I don't believe that they will be willing to waive any • 16 of those conditions right now. 17 What is the status of the Main Street Project? As far presented 18 as theplanto ' the Court. and being approved, being 19 how close are we? w 20 A. Well, the debtor in possession has conducted negotiations 21 with a number of prospective tenants . I have not been 22 involved in those because they have been basically Diego tiatio .s 28 and : ve involvement y �° vent tins not needed until those business deals 24 got firmed up. It is my understanding that he has a very goo4,,, 25 project but l haven't been involved in that . so I don't know,. r.. .. -. .......... .... .. i ... ... I r t.-.I• x...i..t V.•+r tlu .V r • r u a.• M , • • • t Q Is it safe to say thatit is not as far along as Tigard . tea ° 2 West? rt 3 Al,' You 're kind of comparing 'apples• and oranges . "` It 's, fair 4 to say that he has got the zoning a.nd governmental approval. . 5 In that sense, one is further along in Tigard West than 6 ;Tigard l East b N. the 'negotiations are` ongoing. 7 Q At least ' a, commitment for a s igne'd lease agreement? 8 A That's correct. 9 BY MS. r: 1.1 Q • I have just three questions , Your Honor. 12 That .,signed• le*s,e agreement ith G..I. Joe's is d-� p endent i ' ( r A upon this I zoning,? ' . 14iA Yes There is on.0 other' .alternative,t '', That isy we, �co,uld i 15 reconsider' the pare-0l. that they would: build by Sasicaiiy p;, ; E 16 moving. the s ore fortward. And the re con we dog;'t 14a It t;o do u II it, it l4o.uid dimilx sh the value d some other parcels o land, IL W 18 that die close to Pacf.t.fic High ray 14hieh- -are also. ih the ' a a ' g 19 Ea.flkruptc ,. ., ,:state That ' af.oth r a ternat<<ive, ce ,r. g 2Q 0 That ialternatve would v... ire additional 'time to' get V •. i.re t at s r �. d L .,',':',1. h te��e out; 1oul( t 'r• g 22 . Pr�;obabl a very 1. the �i "final time. Ve have talk d CC , } 2 *hetth .* in theal .ern . e to the extent e. au''t got t` 24. , , ,'%tilting. by • ,. ,'..., ' t " 0 ; ate.. It wen only r q i ' i' . ' '25 .''''. mod ficatiu-n of ,the site plan 40d AdaifitOtio4 o; the 1:e se. ; ' .Tartik X . 1 Q And how long do you think that would take? 2 A. Assuming everyone's schedule permitted, it could be done 3 in a week. 4 Q But it could take more - 5 A Like anything else. 6 Q So the lease is really still contingent? 7 A It 's clear. The lease is contingent upon five things. 8 MS . PORTNOY: I have no further questions. 9 j1 MR. ,RAY: Nothing further. 10 EXAMINATION . 1 11 BY THE COURT: 12 Q 1 want to make sure I understand the feasibility of this f y,,,,l 13 project. Let me put it this way: G. T., Joe's 'is the major 14 tenant? m 15 A Yes', Your Honor» { 16 Q Without G. I. Joe , you go back to zero? - �� A That 's correct. I want to emphasize, getting G. I. Joe's Is to sign, given ali the ups and downs and the bankruptcy, took IL R. But C. 1. Joe t s they are committed to the 20 extent that itthat they are ,� feasible. I have no doubt, 2 21 . going to go ahead with it, I take it , 1n order for G. I. Joe'„,, ' ',1, 1, this commit- , Zi me :t, they have to expend a certain amount of t: eir money? 24 A They already hl .wwe r.6,,' 25 Q Do you know how much ,- Gpi, Joe's -- they have in this? p 9 Jan:Lk. -, X i. ,//-fit A y 1 A would estimate because they have a lot of in-house 2 r4� people. But I would estimate that they have probably got a 3 couple hundred hours of this in-house evaluation. Thehave 4 also spnt money for these houses. Before we had that lease ' 5 commitment signed, they went out and bought one of these 6 houses and spent somewhere on the order of $80.000. $Q ' 7 think that 's a very strong indicator of their coi mItment. 8 Q But they cl-uld_ withdraw without _a great deal of loss? 9 A They could withdraw, if they wrote off their cost _. JO their in-house cost. p k ., 11 0 so to speak , tr8i $80 ,000 w 12 A yes , what' s, correct. I think that is very unlikely. V3 They intend tobuild one storea year, for theirown. This is 14 to be their store they are going to next. They want to 41 15 penetrate this Westside market which they don't have right 1E now. I thin ., theTe is a great -d•al ;, f busin.es purpose why ti 17 they have been willing to make this al and why they have 18 been willing to negotiate with, us over many, any years A6W. 12 19 Q How many yers 20 A Pou.r years,, probably, maybe mere that that There was letter agreement with thew about abs ut four years- ago. 2 Q The negotiations egot�.ations sta:rted long before this Chapter 11 was 23 filed'' • ,... It was filed on the gain Street site that they were , focusing on at that time • w •. ro1111. • /, 1 Q 790 I `unc�erstan;c�; your' te5ta�l. 1Tt� y to be that,� o� n the ion ch'a G e verydesirable 2 i s• . for lots of �r�as,ons, nOt 3 critical to the development of t1_l:ss° property? 4 A That correct " I s critical to ma)ci,iliiiing the value 5 of this total pieceof land: If we don'.�t get, thilzfil>zOti.ing o , 6 the four dots`'' behind, there is, a feasible alterna -,'ve 7 costly to the Bakruptc. ~ estate but we could 111o1-Are the store 8 t'otwarr 9 Q The figure of $4. 75 to $5 .00 a square foot, which 19 haven 't had a chance to read, the loss, would you clarify for 11 me _-1,!litic that is 12 A Your Honor, when we established the amount of the monthly 13 rent, we they reed with them that g y w ould, pay, as I recall, percent of 14 12 the agreed upon land valu as a compane11t. xs Therefore, we would establish -- The land value was e s 4 ab l i s tx d fU tD 16 at $5.00 a square foot. I think Mr. Padrick has that number I 17 more accurate . � a 18 Q That's for the entire area that they would occupy? 19 MR. PADRIC1 r That's $5 .75. 20 THE COURT: I think that's Exhibit A, somewhere 21 Exhhib :t A, 22 M .. P .D '.:LCA* Yes 23 T.111 WITNESS .. Tliat w a a negotiated number with them . w. 24 EY THECOURT: • 5 Q (Continuing) And that, of core, is based u orw or am I 11. ', .mow 1 assuming that is based upon the proponent here doing everything 2 that they are required to do in the lease? 3 A Yes . 4 Q Are there improvements required to be made by the 5 developer in this arrangement, other than rezoning? Any 6 Physical .mprovements? 7 A The owner would go out and build the store. 8 Q G. 1. Joe 's would build the store? 9 A No, no , the owner of the property. 10 Q The developer? , , I11 A Correct Any additional rent would be paid based on 12 hvw much the cost was for the store And those numbers r would 13 be firmed up And we have contract bids on that n'-,,'7. 14Q Can 1 sume , then, that if the store isn't built and if y 1,5 the property doesn't go for -whatever reason, then that figure • N ^ 10 a 16 agreed urn in the lease is meaningless as an ino.±cation of 17 value? LL 18 A No , Z wouldn't agree with that, Your Honor. I ll think ,the., a 19 land h .8 a vale hated on its locati'c,n and its. utilit ., And tt 20 that's not merOly a function of the fact that we now have a , ! 21 deal with G, I. Joe' s, if our d )t;elopment fell part the land d ,,I rr. 22 becomes wort: e8s a .t Sf ` Y'Q► �" ? ;4. au) { ,,.....� �• E a `2.. ,o d s a."t.,�o r'f , L e cs, 1 just assumed the figure o 5 . 7 or $4, 750 whatever 24 the figure is , often includes thy* development cost and the 2 construction cost? 4 12 x. A No , it doesn' t, Your Honor. There is an additional rent �t c 2 on top of that. Our rent formula, Your Honor, is based on the 3 agreed upon land value, based on what he spent to build the aLL' 4 building, you then pay additional rent based on those 5 additional costs to build the building. 6 Q Okay. 7 l understand the figure now. 8 A On the top of my head, my recollection is their total 9 rent, based on the estimated cost of the building would be w ' xo $390000 a year. Andthat land value componentonent would d be rent 11 of $12O,000or >$140 ,000 a year. So that gives you some idea 12 of what we are talking about. 13 THE COURT Okay. Anything further? 14 I mayo have p,�.ened areas that you want to pursue. Ms. 15 Portnoy? E16 MS. PORTNOY: Nothing, Your Honor. r; 17 MR. 'NAILS. Nothing. 18 THE COURT: Thanks Mr. Janik, catch your plo.ne tstimon was then cor J ' eluded ��he�'�'�x: ��1_ t�1�' 20 21 w, 22 23 24 25 13, „ rev • 1 STATE OF OREGON, ss. 2 , County of Multnomah. } 3 4 I, DEBORAH PARKER, Court ,'i. eporter, do heroby certify 5 that I reported in stenotype th,e proceedings had upon the 6 hearing of the matter previously captioned herein; that my , 7 stenotype notes were thereafter reduced to typewriting under 8 my direction; aid that the foregoing excerpt of proceedings Stephen Janik, pages 1 to 13 , both 9 covering the testimony r,of e�. p g 10 inclusive, constitutes a full, true and accurate record of 11 said oral, proceedings p g had upon p the hearing of sai IJ • • f: _ ...CITYOFTWARD. WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON April 30, 1984 t Mr. J.B. Bishop.. *' Tigard West Development Co. 3853 SW Scholar Ferry fid. Portland, OR, 97221 Dear Mr. Bishop: Due to the lac, of a complete narrative, your application for a Plan Change/ " Zone Change (CPL 11--$4/ZC 8-84) has been removed from the May 8, 1984 Planning Commission aZ~nda. A completed narrative must be received four weeks prior to ' a Planning Commission meeting before it can be scheduled for review. • If you have any questions please contact me. Sincerely, Keith S - Liden ,,: ,Associate Planner (YSLpm/Q425P 4. f 12755`SW ASH. P.O.SOX 28397 T1GARD,O tIEG 14 47223` PHt 6S9-41.71 -0,\-'-----,,. . THE OREGONIAI',FRIDAY,APRIL 20,1984. 4M-MWi G7.` - West Metro - .. � T _ _________________ _ _ ,....,_, ____ ., . . . . a a st So . hazards, ' i ei - ors a e potential hazaraTorm group _� 0YJANiftAtl`CtlELL The zoning proposal involves the first five Commission is important and will be considered, borhood's formation. soaped and fenced buffer zone.Bishop is not a' armee, i.asti a angle-faintly lots gthe east side of South- but the people the neighborhood feel we need "But if they(the representatives)come back g Y along P p g P ) partner in Tigard West Development Co.,Co• lar'-v4 a I'IGARla- ,icreased traffic,safety hazards west Watkins Avenue south of Southwest Park to make our opinio,na.,our feelings,knownto the with the same proposal,I don't think I'll even said. 4 to children'and diminished property values are .'trem.House owners Bishop.G.I.Joe's and Alice Planning Commission.We need to present our schedule a meeting,"Bledsoe said. A proposed exit on Park and people using th'a.oternsof anew neighborhood group fight Tiefi nger are the applicants for the zone own case,"Nicoli^aid. He acknowledged that"there were a few Park and Watkins as shortcuts to the new store' R r xr"•'xorinchangesproposedtoaid construction of changes,along with Tigard West Development Neighborhood. Planning Organization 3 is people who spoke disrespectfully of other le "would endanger'the children walking to and-`' 1 _ g g *G t.Joe's store on Pacific Highway. Co,which is developing Mesita, bounded by Southwest Walnut Street on the pie"in the form of hostility against JB Bishop, from school more than they are now,"Nicoll `.-ave Our Neighborhood has been formed: 'rhe comprehensive plan says that's for rest north and Pacific Highway on the east.it�u- the son of retired Tigard Mayor Wilbur A A.Bish- said, t 1 ' ithinNeighborhood Planning Organization 8to) dentist use-,and the zoning ordinance reflects eludes everything west of Pacific below Walnut op, "The streets are not made for that kind oP'•• !natal a pro ed comPrehensive land planand that also;'said Keith S.Liden,associate city past the city boundary into the area known as an "That's why O.I.Joe's will be coming back. use.We simply want toprotect our children. --= ' Zoning_ehangeof five residential properties from planner,"The burden of proof is On the applicant "active planning area"in the comprehensive --the 0.1.Joe's people have expressed .at to "There is g manyfear am of the property' R ' , Inw•denslty°residential tageneral commercial. to show why it's a good idea to change." plan. me,"Bledsoe said."It would have been better owners that their property values will go down: The houses would,he moved n der Douglas F. Nicoll, chairman of Save Our = _ = for them to have a different speaker... I think We would rather keep those homes located ' f or to pro- Neighborhood and a.Park Street resident,said rganization Chairman Robert C.Bledsoe they vote the same way even if a.different wherel' naturalpartof our 'ride landscaping and a<buffer zone between the Ifsaid that about 45 homeowners beard Bishop Y " a o are.They area icn store and the neighborhood,the lan . his;,ore group of 175 homeowners living.within - person was speaking.The JB factor is there. neigh "n�cxl for 30 years,"Nicoll said. ` planning fine blocks of the proposed development was describe his plans at a March 29 planning orgy J •B Bistop himself declines to talk about the ` zatigrt was told.last mont=h by IEi BishrrPi who - nizatian meeting and most spoke inapposition: -q Nicoll said;that his neighborhood consists of .: _ fur sevi r:ye,'_rs has owned tl3e.S,5 acres now rGrmed ttr Iobby the Tigard PTannnng Commis-= We voted unanimouslyto recommend denial of ",,iter,shying there is `too much emotionalism �h_to 30=-Par-old homes with a"good balance" Partisil ecu lean pfetrtr*s Pizza. sion,e: though Neighborhood a Planningagainst the Orgy the changeover." ag iarst the Bishop name."He refers reporters y 'hies and retired le Y p mzatinn 3 uaanimous[y voted agiunst the zone mstend to Stephen T,Jamk,attorney for'Figaro of young and people. -- -..-- e"' The Tigard Planning Commission will con- changes. Bishop saidMonday that representatives of West Development Co.and Bankruptcy Court- "I'mjust an average guy trying to enjoy }.: - sitter the requests at its May 8 meeting at 7r3f1 "People in the immediate neighborhood feel 0.1.Joe's and Tigard West will address the plan- appointed attorney representing the real estate retirement harm in this fight all the time,"said`-' P.m, at Fowler Junior High School If the ,re eyedto carry the ball ourselves,"N coli said, ning organization again in late April or early assets of Bishop's Chapter 11 reorganization. Alex Mackin,a Watkins resident who said he Is- changes s changes are approved;.the proposed develop- Hiringanattorneyisunderconsideration- May before the May 8'Planning Commission. Janie said the houses were acquired to "solidly opposed"to removing the houses anti--- . went wouldbereviewed separately. "The NPO recommendation to the Planning meeting.He was not aware of Save Our Neigh- accommodate parking and a substantial land- building a GI.Joe's. '' veli i . 111. . AA tk ...- 1 e . ....,.. . ,... . . .. : ,... • ,...,..,.„,„.„,....,.....„,•,,,....„,„... . • _ c - ,-, -, ..d-- ' ; - • ___. . _ .. e F y- _ . " j� �..i^wig' `..„-,,,,..-„..c......„,„.•yls A: g5�fi' ..... - - - there for tne as ing - - ,, Y _ - '£' E3 it E :�T - '_ y r"'rr's. • - - `_ . -.._„ . . °gam i„.-- "ga-� ti: ., .'...: .. . , „ • •,, . . .,, .. ., , . t I , .. . . . „ • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING .... . .,- . ,.. Notice is hereby given that the Tigard Planning Commission, at its meeting on ,Tuesday Lpril 3 1984 at 7:30 P.M. , in the leLture j . . room of Fowler Junior High School, 10865 S.W. Walnut Street, Tigard, Oregon, • . will consider the following application: . . FILE NUMBER: CPA 11-84 ZC 8-84 • APPLICANT: TIGARD WEST DEVELOPMENT CO. OWNER: Bishop, Treffinger, ill % 3853 SW Scholls Ferry Rd. GI Joes Portland, Oregon 97221 . •:,,,. 1 REQUEST: For a Comprehensive Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Commercial General and for a Zone Change from R-3.5 (Residential , . 3.5 units/acre) to CG (General Commercial. . , . . . * ' LOCATION: 10500, 13370, 13450, 13490 and 13530 SW Watkins, Tigard, Or. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 281 3D11. lots 4700, 4800, 6100, 6200 and , 281 3DD, lot 200) . . . (See map on reverse side) . . , . H The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Community Development Code and rules of Procedure of the Planning Commission. Any petsons having inteL ,t in this CI, . ',. matter may attend and be heard, or testimony may be submitted in writing to ba entered ilito the record of the initial hearing. For further information please contact the Planning Department at 639-4171. ,- ' TIGARD CITY HALL, 12755 S.W. Ash Avenue (Corner of Ash Avenue & Burnham Street), or contact your Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO) # . % Chairperson Bob Bledsoe Phone Number 639-8917 . . ' (pm/0257P) t '. .• -- .. . , . - :I - .. ... . _ . . . . 1 ,,,i i • . . , • , . " • - 0 1 • • .1 ,.. . "cit: \* ig R 4 .1 I ,.,„, ,„ ",. . , ,../ .. - -1 i 1. 4\) !I ! 'if t11116 p1V. ,u i „, �Y.'1 - ••.••„ ..s• is �( C^'x • • • 3 . YttRr� M " ' t�4 f� � Y 1. 1® gait IN* + F G Vu Y= ". ,, 4's..4�' �.., � • JR. HIGH' .._ \' ~ F 4 r; '� :� SCHOOL r ›. .. +.:AL, 1.1; ,' '''- g. L.* •••••••••••••' '' j.,J1 ' ::,,./4„,).„'" 1,..„....., T,..,,_ , ' '‘'...' •••,..-...: ' 4,.."I'''' ,. ' ,441,0 .„.. ,s ., , 5 . imirm I , I F..,,,„, i L.:7 ,,, s ,,,,S,,,, i n. ,,,,,,,,4444.).,,,,,..,,,,,• , .„4/ ,v 4p .li 1<‘...,,,..4 . 41. . . , , .. ... �i �S„ 1.1E7�R15L , S*KWr,,t, i. $\� yr ?,ti41 �ti \� .r•..• •r ''"*,'"—"-'".,. Y r t 1 `� " hal;. r ,. `, e ; . ., :) ., ,,. . r� \��`� ' y„,,,,‹^`s.'0,.:';” ' , ,,,- .1 - ' _ 400. . -, y°M +'� "., t11.44 \A ,.. ,,,N,.. " 3r• � y i ry .♦ ♦ •f=? 4 5 �" f p! x`79• : :C*17.'1\10,P C B D .4,4 ' 4 ` y % " • '' y p ) { 1 r ` _,..1,., y", .•fi' r110. \•rY� '''''''4.' ' taL,Imisi %,',:: A' ', Ts 13, 4 ‘,.. '''' .,, F. ,...1 ,„,.. c,,,,n,.,,.4,4, . - . . / / r „_____i ytzdCt ®,111 '`�;! " c-, Jam, ,`u' �l%r, ' , • e `...{- Jai,,' •. •`.y " '. '• � � �12 ' i 'Gtr'� b. \ K .fit, 40. . . .* yw . • 4 ti r 4'y_ '• may,.. '«y -r„•i ',. .f..�.�•, ' (.5 V!, . 1 Ln itA .• . ' " '4 - C-4\'1/4,400' - * R la p ) ' , .. ,�r,rr,� Y U , Illos ''''. ' * n (PD) ' r . w T / a r 4hP •~f y 1 ,,,,„ %• 1 ,1� M r• r ,i —A , K "* '�, ✓.Khy d �. ion w tl� r' • r 4 \v/i "4, , 4 , \ ' ?i .1 K 7 e r " t'� 4O " Cl...K T444,1 - ...._"i:• ,P,•„,.,prt \, y;.r 4,�i Il.L tt'W . • ., , ., : . u a . 1 4 tt R R tr i @law we\ . , w f r P. r ' , ` ,.w &' w 1 1' L� r 'arra,'.1... ( .."y" ,,,r w l N E F WW +r 7� . (t, , �.y� r .:. !"ih'",Krwr •4,_,U`,,,wlew 1 i K " L k SW 1,+ L1,.,I'Vq , A. 0 t4 L ,a *, " 4#441.1t 4 y t�i# t " • +'vi+alY Mgt � T rtli e I l�x 1.- . / ...., �j 4 �i H. ,� �R " �.ylY. uN.* t r ,r 11••x_+ u11 . w I k, , , , . , ..,,,, ii ' It AFllht"t"Cw * A f'i. �f, 6,,, a. MYK+�a'Y yr ar , , ,+ +-t kpok l ..1 I 4, I j jj{ [gyp y�i h '' - �, �r ..y '.N , r L 1 _,--t--,..' �e.`Y'r.i.—, ..% L IW A L I 1 ,, Mb,h Y. T'1 -1'.', ", ig' 11 Y 1 #x 0. Z ;, - I ,, 4 ti9 k!4 C7f M A '' ' Y i "" i r7rnvl Li , . �^i,i, tk#4,.„C7,v ,, . I . , y. w )'.r.b 4�rsr' ty r � Rc A Nva u k K I " NYJ y_ ,, G if,y�.@c �� ♦ I �y,, � Department epa tma/ t of Transportation ransportGtil (,,,,,,,,, *M #' f HIGHWAY DIVISION VICTOR ATIY H 1Vieiro Region GOVERNOR 9002 SE. McLOUGHLUN BLVD., M LWAUKIE, ORE •ifr •7222 PHONE 653-30:)0 • ilE V 1 April 2, 1984 nIS(g......, , 2, In Reply R9ter To AP 199 Ile 1\10,: CIS OF TI AR11 Planning Dept City of Tigard .pLANNi DEPT. • PO Box 32397, Burnham & Ash Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 • Attn: lei th Li den t for_ RF. Request Comments on Tigard West Development , Company proposal for Comprehensive Plan Change from Low Density Residential to 'Commercial !, General and for a Zone Change from R 3.5 to 'i' Geeral Commercial on various properties in`the City of Tigard ; , fi requested You the Department of Transportation to comment on the reverenced comprehensive plan change. Mr. Terry Flink, from our District office, has previously commented. In addition to Mr. Fl i nks comments, I offer the following: The proposed land use change will possibly result in an increase trip generation rate to Park and Walnut Streets. We estimate the current zone plan would generate approximately eighty trips per day,. The proposed , zone commercial could generate between 150 to 600 plus or minus trips per day. Although this is not too significant in terms of the Hwy 99 traffic, ly' it may require future improvements such as added right or igft turn lanes , 1 on the approach streets, such as Park or Watkins' depending on the level of r' N' development, Without more specific type land use or floor area, it is difficult to evaluate the specific'. impacts. However we request the opportunity to review specific developmental plans as they occur. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I , ,,,t,joit, ifi,lie-,c.,, ', O o,,,,;,,,,,, tC) R6 A SP " Plan St Program Manager TAB►sly cc: Terry r inor Tom Schwab Charles L. Stevens, Jr. • e,a,«,n.,;»: m...e..,,,.n.+ .u.......w..:. cx.v.wu,,.w e, ,.,hp. w 1 +1 ::::'1":::,,‘'',:,,,., . . . .. , . . . , . . .,.. . , . ,„... , '. . , . . , ,,''-..:"' i ATTORNEYS AT LAW ONE• r� MAIN PLACE 101 S.W.MAINSTREET ' ROBERT S. BALL PORTLAND,OREGON 97204 CITY 't ' �q ��^'��qq (+� ',1, S'TEPI-NEN T. JANIK TELEPHONE(503)228-2525 %JU .FI '9 ISA �ggii �, pp KENNETH M. NOVACK C"LA NIt i, FL JACK L.ORCHARD .JA.0B TANZER JOHN W..LILJEGREN ' JAMES M. KENNEDY SUSAN M.OUICK March 29, 1984 :, I WILLIAM H. PERKINS VICKI G. BAYLESS DENISE rRANCIS , , Mr. Bill Monahan Planning Director City of Tigard 12755 ;SwAsh Street' Tigard, Oregon 97223 . Dear Mr, Monahan: Thank you for' your communication regarding the `, April 3, 1984 Tigard Planning Commission agenda. Prior to your staff's comments that the agenda had become overloaded ", and a special meeting of April,, 17 was being scheduled, my partner, Steve Jan�k, and �'' s client, Tigard Te .:t Development .. ,Company, were preparing fa. she April 3hearing. ' .. sn reviewing the approximate time available' to deal with the issues of this Comprehensive Plan aTt;',enid`lent :'' and zone change request, it became obvious that th€Y Planning , Commission allowance for presentation at the hear.t�ng would not permit a full discussion and deliberation o:"µ the issues. ' b Since, Mr. Janil 's schedule prevents him from r participating in the April 17 special meeting, we are p 0 y u intend to place our clients application early, ih f not first, on the regularly scheduled May 8, 1984 agenda. This w.1.1l confirm our 'understanding that you have rescheduled this matter. ' We boat forward tocontinuing our planning steps .., with your staff, the Planning Commission and .P O. 5, fY Sincerely, ' ' '1 :— '''' • ''''''t it ' ' ti..,LA : ''', , ': ' : : ' ''''• ''''', obert 'S S. .: Ball Pall P.BB/et c,, mr. Greg vi ;r Mr. Lindsay' MoAr°thur Mr. Wayne Jackson Mr., Douglas. Stearn ' i i j • 4 , w i• Y .' YY 4@ �,w la { ,• a v 1. .U;' ORANDUM j. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 1 . MN, TO: Planning Commission March 29, 1984 • FROM: NPO #3 '.: SUBJECT: Report of NPO #3 hearing of J.B. Bishop's request for comp plan change andzone change from residential to C-P of lots along Watkins, as part of development plan for Tigard West. Our hearing lasted over 1 1/2 hours of testimony by the developer and the public. Maybe by preparing this report we can shorten your public hearing and avoid some duplication. At the very first J.B. Bishop was challenged by Ralph Furter who claimed that J.B. was wasting all our time because he is not a viable developer since he is j bankrupt. J.B. responded that his assets, mostly in land, exceeded his . liabilities, and he would have arranged a repayment schedule when this development is approved. Mr. Furter left the meeting, speaking loud denunciations. J.B. Bishop delivered a carefully prepared presentation of his plevelopment proposal. We will not try to relate all of it since of necessity he will have • to present most of it to the Planning Commission. He noted the owners of all property around, his site, relevant history concerning the neighborhood especiallyPark Street and Watkins Street, and the presently more rigorous s • buffering requirements in the new development code. The project is a 60,000 pointsPacific qJoe's and one exit s . ft. G.I.G.l. „oe s srorp with 3 access » on' Highway on Park Street, with no acwess onto Watkins. 0 Duane Meyer,, who lives across thestreet from the site, spoke several times. Y:•I He refuted some of J.B. 's claim of how Park Street got its signal at the highway. He expressed a lack of confidence in conditions since he remembered that there was supposed to be 4 duplexes across from him. He suggested a 100 ft. buffer instead of J.B. 's 30 feet. Alex Maaohon, who lives a few houses away on Watkins, also spoke several times. Ha said the proposal would, destroy the neighborhood, and the zon:Lng should not be changed. He recited a previous occasion when J.E. said there never would be a G.I. Joe's store on this site. Bibianne Scheckla commented several times also. She, also recommended that there was not supposed to be a G.l. ,r J store. She stated that the lots on Watkins were designated reside,-~ to retain the livability, of the neighborhood, consequently she .,4omriert ed disapproval of the tone change. She said the O•.I. Joe's store should go downtown - J.B. responded that that is their .second choice. hibianne is a former member and, secretary of NPO #3. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO MARCH 29, 1984 PAGE 2 Yeon Ada discussed the traffic impact: can Pacific Highway handle a Bi-Mart, G.I. Joe's, etc? He noted long times to go short distances on he highway. Planner Keith Liden responded that the State Highway Division had no objection .. when they received a copy of the rezoning proposal. Yeon said "We do not want to become a City of Beaverton." Jim Hahn recommended leaving the homes and adding the buffer (both). Mrs. Thomas referred to the crowded G.I. Joe's store in Beaverton. She spoke • oP traffic on the highway remembering a time when a lady walking beat her coining from Fred Meyer to Tigard. Ken Forbes spoke of night deliveries and early morning deliveries with much noise, and a high light glare. J.B. responded that the delivery area would not be along Park or most at Watkins; it would be closest to his father's house. Also the lights will be designed and placed to prevent glare outside the development. A lady who had lived near the G.I. Joe's store in Milwaukie area said residents left the are and the houses became small offices or other ' - . ; commercial. This theme was later emphasized by Doug Nicoli who said it is an observable fact that commercial activities will erode into nearby residential , areas. 111 Lindsay McArthur asked if J.B. Bishop could assure her that that the S neighborhood value would at least stay the same and not go down as a result of building a G.I. Joe's store. Later this question was repeated by Jean H Fitgerald who lives 3 houses away on. Park Street. t Duane thr had asked Beaverton G.I. Joe's how much business they did and the answer was 6,000,000 sales per year. That is 17,000 people per day. • There were ceveral others who spoke that we did not hear their names Dave • Nicoli asked a series of questions as to why J.IB. wanted to convet„- the residential lots to commercial. There were responses to most of these questions and objections by J.E. tishop or by the planning staff when appropriate. The chairman took a vote at those favoring the zone change, with the accompanying buffering that J.E. was offering - no one raised his hand, For the show of hands to reject the comp plan change and zone change, all but about 6 or 7 raised their hands. There were about 45 people total in the audience, The chairman of the NPO suggested a compromise of granting the change for only the back 50 feet of the total 130 *- feet, leaving 80 feet deep residential lots - only one of the people who had voted negatively was willing to accept that compromise. After some discussion by the NPO members, the NPO #3 voted unanimously to recommend denial of the proposed comp plan and zone change. This was on March, 26, 1,984, (pm/0384p) • . . 4 • 4(V frt it ( ,'. PLANNING COMMISSION !I EMO MARCH 29, 1984 • Afterr, some discussion by the NPO members, the NPO #3 voted unanimously to recommend denial of the proposed comp plan and zone change. This was on March s 26, 1984, based on the surrounding neighbors request for denial, the col r rehens iive plan to remain a originally laid out. +`,, (pm/0384P) ia, . o • 1. 'J43a b8 N I W lel�l d aVDl1 OAk1119 0861,,L4p 0 .A,IfT • • 7"X /e0.,:ejZ (:2,. e'l.df(L„-, tz„,o 4:4 At ' r , 3. t,3 IS" ,, ‹ t '+ // ""` ,r' ,4/t/ _ ,4e* /0/1:311LI e 90:0 40 le-,14>L1:40,1,5 . /1/.00 „Fes/ /0.-e..c?, . ;;DR: ^' ,✓' 1 +'�',(4C” .. +`�u.n� ,ljP'��rp'u��`�""'�«�'.'�"�".... ."'�' $4",..).....0.#9w.►..�� . _ ��. ,,/ze.tom (...,,i +e '�.. ^ . /it " '14 � �„, , iy ie-i/ 44)/ ,11/ • "S d'rel,,Z,I it.40..11 C,./1;900-s'ye 00-0.5,001,42., /724,„4/1:4-1 / /I/ ST' //e,' 04S'od ..0>( '4/ ren f/ «s� tirt� a a� ��p" -.ref: MKw, e," " dk , i7 a ,r•Cs' • / 4//' 04.) a�,. ''"°' se '' N'Y%a" �u ;' F .. � .�^ ,1� de 5r AP1,10$4,10414"ei: 4.,10,44141' +OAP C/61''#‘4:1401''''a'tt"tf-' ,11,"/440 „,,4,4, ��Yk 61,1 * ?# d +ic w • it gip_ ' .9 , v M > .. ,,,,,,,„if / ,,,,/ : aN to W • 1. ,...4. K F�:rtw Lr.. ' 'wwq ` Y 70 M �. X -,►-e! , '2 �. . >rA,,,z` A's( ,, p , / 5:1 ,, it , on , 4:Ze,„ e4e.../.,5 .0t...:„9 ..-- -.... 4.r . 4.1"4.4'7c./r,,,,,51-/ ,,,,,41.4,24_4-'1' e"..,..1.4:-:' ' - " / ..,14 ..,,C 1— ''', ' p,/ 4,4(' e-4e,-1 , , p.itt›,,elee.,,a 0,0.-Ar...-.4.4,.":7„,4dry* -,-1-.0-t04/ el-44‘.- . et,C jAsfe,(,„e_ste' , o , 4, , et.t..,,,,ot,e1<<',40.,:i ,' 4, • ? `4,49*'''Ll.." .h' ' _ ` " �i M+ P" c.,;„",,,?' ,t';u , i. ,eco , ,7,,./ i zt/ff , _.,)4 ,,,/,„ , : 4. v ,„, ./„.i'04,0 4e4) Y ..p04;9-007.$4i!, CZ': .✓4'"14./ ,4746„1j :41. ,. ,e04:9 1+!y'".fn'«.I{ iel"4"<" 4,51; '. /4 ,cze_'.,-,,,,,,,4" /I 'C'' le .04,0"/ c W ' / 0 ', '� �- :,,r"1-0,,,"�Li .. „.", ,,,. e xp" �, +'�^, "4 -,.,',iie ,,,r^',"+'"'. a a, r'1'4,,, i .. , ,/ti f /di '' ' .+ •�^ # +�."" + ."L1/ °+ " -7 , " + ' ilje /,‘,.;:e:‘,L,17 /1041.41 ar� 0:4,51-/ • " a- FL4 4• . 1P1 � w ! , sM ?Ma' ( � " e , r / i ' d* ' 4;7 , Z { a Ia I , M � �,+»w.' r .,�:.-. .w„ep,«..,,m, ,. „ ..ha;,�r i�� •» • • ,e/// cf,./v/' .iFFIDAVIT OF MAILING 46)&4 STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington City of Tigard i'. . �, I, Karhleen Reffett , being first duly sworn, on oath depose and say: That I am a aide for The City of Tigard, Oregon. That I served notice of hearing of the Tigard Planning Commission .. of which the attached is a copy (•Marked Exhibit A) upon each f the following named persons on the 23rd day of March 1984, by mailing fo each of list (Marked Exhibit B), saI notice as hereto attached, desposited in. the UnitedMail on the 23rd da; of them at the address shown on the attachedStates • March 1984 , post ge prepaid. J.Y cam}.,a' �� 41 ...� _ r ' Secretary 'erson who delive •d to POST OF,0' CE andsworn to before me on the _ day of � 198+, . Subs+��;:�bed .�. �� NOTARY PUBLIC OP OREGON i'; My Commission Et.pireaw//.-e40.'. ''� •y , .+. k rt s .r ^ L r. e .s�,ta.„wwGa.l.t n.m.... +., s ..v.. .o-c ' M u,xat -.vL•tY.... .1 t r. . ,r .,n a.n. i.in w 1 r. Le-r? 't r Yr` O t—ott71 GJ' bric:c.7-- ` rji,p iagr v • 4 4444 a , } ypfl i + REQUESTS FOR COMMENTS t ..., DATE: March 20 1984 FROM: Tigard Planning Department 1, ~RE: esu- ST DECIELO MENT CO. fora Com re.hensive Plan Change from ,Request oar TrGARD GJE P �,, Low DensityResa.denLla1. to Commercial General and for a Zone, change from 3.5 units acre) to C-G (General Commeraia1.) .on properties R 3.S (Residential / located at 10500, 13370, 13450, 13490 and 13530 S.W. Waltkin5 Ave. , Tigard 6200 and 2S 1DDot 200). ' . Map 2S1 3DA lots 4700, 4800, 6100, and Wash Co Tax { Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for, your review. From ,>. , , information supplied byvarious departments and agencies and from other available • P information Ppto our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared the proposal in the near future. re aced and- a decision will be rendered on this March you wish to comment on application, we need your comments by',;,� 1f .W .�.. p provided below or attach' a I may �6 . 19 84use the space ; separate letter to returnyour comwants. If' ou are unable: to resiond b the abo please phone the staff contact noted below with your comments and ve date confirmyour comments writing as soonpossible. If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, P.O.a Box 23397, Burnham and Ash Ave. , Tigard, OR 97223. Phone: 639-4171. STAFF CONTACT; Keith Linen PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPL` » f. We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office, Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments: Name of Person Itomme ►ting: Phone Nb• (KSL:PMI0356P) "Tez t ti „ u NOTiy 'A'T'ION GIS%P'OR ALL APPLICATION 1. :. ALPO No �' :,.1.* CPO No 2. CD,EPA:RTMENTS 7Building Inspector Engineering-Randy +' Engineering-Frank/John Parks and Recreation City Recorder Other 3. SPECI DISTRICTS Tualatin R.FP.D. School Dist. No. 48 (Beaverton) Washington Co, F.D. No. 1 School Dist. No. 23J (Tigard) f Tigard W.D. Other. .... . Metzger W.D. 4.k AFFECTED JURISDICTIONS City Council __--�- Boundary Commission :.� Planning Co ini`:Bon t4E`.CRQ Planning Department Other Wash.Co. Land Use & Trans.Dept.. 5. STATE AGENCIES + . Aeronautics Div. (ODOT) DOCA14I Engineer Division of State Lands , board of Health Commerce. Dept. - M.H. Park _r_. ,,, Highway Div. - Terry Flink Fish & Wildlife Parks & Rocren. Div. (ODOT) , DODO Subdivision SupervisorPUC Dept of Energy P*'. , Marshal Dept. of Environ. Quality 6. FEDERAL. ACENCTES. Corps of Engineers , Other ______ Post Office 7, SPEC'tAL, AGENCIES General Telephone Portland,,General Eiec.trio P oific Northwest Dellother �. Northwest tlathral. Gas'' 8. NEQDg` .. gts '` og C#N NT EENT �' St: m/D. 5 � P P ) REQUESTS FOR COMMENTS TO: 1�� `. DATE: March 20, 1984 FROM: Tiga $ Planning Department RE: Re us es by TIGARD WEST DEVELOPMENT r0. fora Comprehensive Plan Chafe from Low Density R.esdent.ial to Commercial General and for a Zone change from R 3.5 (Residential 3.5 units/acre) to C-G (General Commercial) on properties located at 10500 ,' 13450, 13490 and 13530 S W Waltkins Ave., Tigard ?W200). , 13370ash. Co. Tax Map.2S1 3DA lots 4700, 4800, 6100, and 6200 and 28�1 DD of . Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, we ,reed your comments by March 26 , 19 84 You may use the space provided below or attach "a separate letter to return your comments. ...... .., are unable above date, please phone the r staff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questionsregarding matter, contact the, Tigard Planning Department,' P.O. 7Tigard, 1 Box23397, rgurnhacn and Ash Ave.,A mer d OR 97223. Phone: 639-4171. 2 9., g , STAFF' CONTACT: Keith Lidera PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING IT1~'MS THAT APPLY: , We have reviewed the prcoosal and haveno objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments r fi Namot of Pe sot ;ommenting: . . Phone ne No.. L (KsLtpt/0356p) " ,.... ,„.. ,,.a ............ .... .. ,..,.. r...... REQUESTS FOR COMMENTS TO: k - DATE: March 20 1984 FROM: Tigard Planning Department RE: Request by_TIGARD WEST DEVELOPMENT CO. for a Comprehensive Plan Chan:e from Low Densit Residential to Commercial General and: for a Zone Change from R 3.5 (Residential 3.5 units/acre) to C-G (General Commercial) on properties , located at 10500, 13370, 13450 13490 and 13530 S.W. Waltkins Ave., Tigard Co. Tax Map 23'1 3DA lots 4700, 800, 6100, and 6200 and 2S1 DD of 200), , Attached is the Site Plan and applicantts ztateinent for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal, in the near future. if you wish to comment''on this application, we need yourcomments by March , .. 26 ,, 19 8 . You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. if ,you mare unable to res�ord by t:he above date, please phone the staff contact' noted below with your comments and i F confirm your comments n writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, P.O. Box 23397, Burnham and Ash Ave., Tigard, OR 97223. Phone:l 639-4171. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Lien PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments: rRW R"a_.:.r`.,w ka.�•+�� V»ui� F” s * Name of Person Gom%entiiig: Phone No. (KSLtpm/03,5611) 1/4 REQUESTS FOR COMMENTS 143 �. ` `j)t1a. DATE: March 20, 1984 FROM: Tigard Planning Department .. t bxr TIGARD WEST DEVELOPMENT CO. fora Comprehensive Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Commercial General 'and for a Zone Change from R 3,5 (Residential 3.5 units/acre) to C-G (General Commerci.al) .on properties located at 10500, 13370, 13450,13490 and 13530 S.W. Ave. , Tigard W Walticins A,ve. Wash. Co. Tai Map 2S 1 3DA lots 4700, 4800, 6100, and 6200. and 2S1 3DD Ti7t 200). Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From , information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other informat• ion available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, we need your comments by March 4 You may oments use ther fspace ou areovided unable below res ondattach the 2 6 1 g�._._.�, separate letter to return your co _y,..� w 2,. y above date.. please phone the staff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any quest .ons regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, P.O. L hone.. 639-4171.a artment- P.0 . Box 23397, Burnham :and Ash'Ave. , Tigard, OR 97223. P STAFF CONTACT: Keith Lidera _ PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We' proposal he and have no objections to it have reviewed t Please contact of our office. to the enclosed letter. Please refer v r Written comments: e7g;. ,/ ,"") 10, . ` .. N,ante of Person Cotitnenting _.: , . t, Phone No. � 8 .p ,�a K L` m, 556P 5 ) REQUESTS FOR COMMENTS �•° • TO: - 0DATE: March 20, 1984 FROM: Tigard Planning Department RE: Request by TIGARD WEST DEVELOPMENT CO or a Cove rehensive Plan Chan from T . Low Density Residential to Commercial General and for a Zone Change from R 3.5 (Residential 3.5 units/acre) to C-G (General Commercial) onproperties located at 10501 , 13370, 13450, 13490 and 13530 S.W. Waltkins Ave., Tigard Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 3DA lots 4700, 4800, 61 )0, and 6200 and ;2S 1. DD . of 200). Attached is the Site Planand applicant's statezz.nt for your review. From information supplied, by various departments and agencies and from cher information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will , be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. ., youapplication, we need your comments by March If wish to comment on this ; 26 , 19 84 . You may use the space provided below or attach a C , aeparate letter to return your comments. If _you are unable to respond by the date, pleasephonebnheff contactas soon notedasbIfuyoumhaves and aboveY confirm your commentswriting possible. any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, P.O. AshTigard, 9 7223. Phone: 639-4171. Box 23397,: Burnham and Ave. OR 1 STAFF CONTACT: Keith Lidera 1 PLEASE d ECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: c proposal and ?`' We have reviewed the objectionsto it. have no , r Please contact of our offices +', Please refer to the, enclosed letter. 4, Written comments: A � 0-v44 /�,�, 1101n- 0...i' 1,�5k-011+�r' i-, #.6,--e e ►Ut.7 a~" ► d E " '`t . ,4' rz -t c fres. l,r11 o r ei " � tr ti1t�1,...,,,.p.........________,...,.. � il14 e. 14. t K. rei.t'" f a i, e?tra , Name of Persoli Comment10 « ' P rOrte tio. 7 "` 3 — 11 7 (KSL:piii/0256P) • ( r ., • htl rlq1/01/1111Ut'il Frt 1114''1 CI1YOFTI6ARD WASHING1tJN COUNTY,O F ON TO: TIGARD WEST DEVELOPMENT COMPANY FROM: Keith Liden, Associate Planner µ BUZJECT: ..:Acceptance of your Development Application/Coordination with NPO. CAa:1NUI BER(S): COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,AMEls`DNENT.CPA 11.84 ZONE CHANGE ZC 8-84 ,,FEOPERTY LOCATED:. . '13490' w,{ 13530 SW Wa 10500 f3�e5�9 �>~ , . 13370 � t �. 't.�l •a� l rw,x.r s n a / s r��;.�.a • w - DATE`'ACCEPTED l� • This I'letter notifies you that our•,application is accepted and will be placed on the .;appropriate approval.authority agenda within 35 days The Citywil co""'ie' a ail actions ncludin resolution of all appeals by. A 120' days time limit applies to decisions wholly wj.thiu the authority and control of the city of Tigard. The .120 'day period,. can be extended for a reasonable period at your request. s 4, In. adds ions,' please 3 Yf a�t�rzsed .that thick •application concerns property � hn . situated''with Tigard 1 # You ms wish to present your proposal to the NPO` prior to your formal hearing. P' contact the Chairperson of your NPO Ca 'determine whet such' a Meeti•ng,can b:. a ld: • Chairperson � Bob Bledsoe Telephf a No. '639-8931' rt i t a _ ' cc: NPO. Chairperson, (0345.1 1285 S ASH P. ►,Box 23397',Y 'TIGARD OREGON 97223 PH:339-4171` { • • µ, iiiiE 1..�S � iii 1111 ' çj : 9805 BOE'CKMAN ROAD WILSONVILLE,OREGON 97070 ?'i a t:c} 13, 1 g 8 4 503/682-2242 RichardG. ovT, . Rosemary r(luempkr-: c, ;q ‘,., I.'. mnuntai.n View Lane 9 Tigard, Oregon n722 .z; 1r and Mrs. Xluempke: The option set forth in that Option Agreement, dateri rohruaty 16, 19" s hereby exercised. Yl .11 youplease ncknow1ydae receipt of this notice of !IF exercise y sicjnin ,3 the enclosed copy of this letter and returni `c it to us. The transaction is to he closed 60 cays after. the date of this letter by Transamerica er ca Title Insurance Company in •1 beaverboll. Very truly yours, y 'C G. I. JOE'S,, IW • At i.1.r3 y ,• Jackson . i, ot-cl - trty-ileabure ' Timely receipt of notice of exercise acknowledged this / day of March, 1984. ' r t 4' ., ,r Richard �d CXlLtempke r /j f r 14,04...,..1.,...: .,, ,t,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,-NN!lt, os.‘vt. . asemt �y� Kl yen P ke ,, it I it I , ,, 1 A ,. , ,,,,,!,. , . . yyn� _. CITY OF TIAR -12420 S.W.MAIN—T TIGARD,OREGON 972YRECEIPT , DATE: _� - AMOUNT:$ 'F ., 4( 4 ' rel 64'' _______., k .'i,a— • _ r.,, --4,--::,../ s L,LARS t NAME: .,! 4� CASH: '- A�' ADDRESS: .. *0 %r n "' ,. ' .,, of M,o.. s: FOR: ACCT.# PERMITS SURCHARGE AMOUNT SEWER BILLINGS 40-364 Y 1 '€ BUSINESS LICENSE 05-331 p' PLUMBING PERMIT 05-332 -MECHANICAL PERMIT 05-332 ._.' BUILDING PERMIT 05-333 `, SEWER CONNECTION 40-363 -,r SEWER INSPECTION 40-365 SYSTEM DEV.CHARGE 25-366 PARK DEV.CHARGE#1 30-367 PARK DEV.CHARGE#2 30-368 ZONING ADJUSTMENTS 05-362 , 4-4-'-'1 , , _(/ov,y/j/p "644 .,g2 ' , , G vs { ,2 r:',,,,' , . , , : , . .. , ., , .. , . , , , , . . R._ 1 .(( TOTALS $/ }:3 ,,-,4, ',RECEIVED IS''''' 'BY, *µ PERMIT NUMSERS ASSIGNED. ' Nu,ibor Amount Number Amount Number_, Amount l:p a RECEIPT } i # 1 31 kj•r,_ 1 • i,',,,,1•!,,1 4 6,4S X • tl • i. ', SOP ° ' 01 nvi '-' 'SI) ltr'hfFillee ' i 7 nii(117 I6-"-r e'''''P fil'Y'r"1 ' 7 ei---,,c--- ,5'IA..) ."1 /0;1- 3 , /..., '7,4/14 b`re-,>/.41°'71 .,*'4 ice' ; is 77- r 1+''' \ c.40Vg— /5, ( Ae,-no i' ,,,,,,,,,i k„,i.y.7-- icie-1/ ri,s,4,--- ----** di4eir //,P.'e. i --J-** ..",,,,,A„,,,4t. e:1,6V e,. , de,.t,If ,e 5 1'f (‘-ilt2e.j. /716.‘.1 / ,e,.-/,#;',1..le ''''''"? ' ' ,1', if/ ' ' L,,_.1.\„,,,c.., do,' '771 - / A, i ' t .-- (-' ,„ . c.,14,,,,,,,,tee..ri—i ,,,eri i .,,,0 eo- ,&,,i," 'i ir)‘'ff 1 ''fr ,,-,* ef,;7*-- de'''''1* �--' 7 1;7 ' 1 (7 ` t e/ / li ' - s • 4 ''''Y'' ' j - , ' i ,‘,242 e) (t,2.5.1-'360i f,)7e.e, '1'C/i o" ,,, ,,,(ar 6. ,,„.,,, „ , e i ,,,,pe,:,die.,( r ' it.s 7--' ',.. )e' 4) 0,,e . ere.. ,Aix, /y- , / ;',rt, (fic,,d0;e fig 41, x x , e� � f „ ' ti fir ' if 1, leAu dam ' d�%'r ;` 1 i4.0'11 4 C .. t.•e /4,, !,k4 /3147 4 cif 4, e - ,i.i e4,t+tk, f•efy f(e-(ti(2.' e4t *f 77' r,1" 1-,/4/- rqU4e /414'214 6°1 'It TV11.(' i'.elif -di itlio'ee 1-iie'i6-i ',i/1/.,.g... ,. %iis,.2:,/,,,,e ,,,?0, ‘,0 44,,,,,,,, /31,t,,,,,,,,,,, er, u.� V . , . . lit, . e . tir w. ,.. Iii: ,tif,.:' ' i.:,,, 6 2 . ' . 4. 4,-'' .-,K >z.,-,frt., ileeLy , kt.d. ' .''' ';';'‘' ,ye.,11.4 11"c!. ....-- ' , ' t5;').',C:.C 0 e e'ii''''‘ri/ '1' 1�• t� 1 �'' ! v 1 1 h 6, / / ... . ,.„,„,...,, I t I/ce " w i I a i 4 `I 4 / r . •i • tki I'd' CI IS S(4' i 0 9805 BOECKMAN ROAD WILSONVILLE,OREGON 97070 503/682-2242 February 17, 1984 Planning Department City of Tigard 12755 S.W. Ash Ave. Tigard, Oregon 97223 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: This memo is to evidence our intent to join with Tigard West Development Company in an application for a comprehensive plan change and concurrent zone change. It is our understanding that this request will be heard by the Tigard Planning Commission at its regularly scheduled. April 3, 1984 meeting. As owners of tax lot 4800 (2512CB) and option purchaser's of tax lot 6100 (2S12CB), we hereby authorize Tigard West Development Company and its agents to represent our firm in this application. You will note, per paragraph nine of the attached option agreement, dated February 16, 1984, that we are making this request with the acknowledgement of the current owner. y ; As a matter of courtesy, please send copies of any written communi- ' • cations pertaining to this application to tale following parties: , G.I., 'Joe's Inc. Richard 4 Rosemary ICluempke cjo Wayne Jackson 9380 SW Mountain View Lane 9805 Boeckman Road Tigard:, Oregon Wilsonville,; Oregon 97070 97223 Thank you very much for your cooperation in this matter. • Sincerely,, , j4,,,,L.--- ,, 5 ilia• T. Jacks } C. doe's, Inc i • at CONSUMER INFORMATION REPORT • (per PREPARED BY SAFECO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY CSF OREGON Prepared for J B Bishop • 2-16--84. Date Prepared Property _ ns OR 97223 � �Address � Tigard, _ 13530 SW Wa�ki Enclosed please find the following information per your request: Tax Information 2S13DD 00200 Account Number Description Melrose Tint 3 _,._.. Assessed Value-Land $23,000 TIC (Total Assessed • Assessed Value -Improvements $35,400 T/C Value--$52,700 19_84 Tax Amounts $1408.82 less stat=e $170.x00 , Alice Tref finger, e b Assessed Owner �, . map 2S13DD 200 Copy Deed Ejl Contract 0 Other Documents d (Check(Ir►e only) 0 452/131 Consumer information reports available at these Branch Offices WASHINGTON COUNTY CLACKAMAS COUNTY Bea Certo n .,.:.....a....,..,N297-4911 Nlit�vaU�tle .. .�...653-7300 a N M.V N. , Earl Bir ...................297-5353 Ba trd Early D ,F»,....». ' .,. .,..853-7330 MULTNOMAH COUNTY - LANE COUNTY .N. .485 ..N ,aN ., .A Portland ,.•F...,...}......225-1005 SAFECCI Eugene ....X4i >,3538 Early Bird» ..» ..,, ...243-1100 Call 225-1005 for Agents throughout Oregon This title information has been furnished,without akar e,in conformance with the,guldeilrres approved by the State of Oregon insurance oommisstonerA The insurance Division ctii.111%,i15 intermediaries that this service is designed to benefit the ultimate insureds'indiscriminate use only benefiting intarrreediAries:will not be perImmlited.Said services maybe discontinued.No liability is assumed for any errors in this report. Piet'S»1O5(4-80) 1 N STATE OF OREGON } )ss. County of r' � On this ,/ day of Februaz:y, 1984, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said county and state, personally appeared the within named RICHARD G. KLUEMN(E and AOrEMARY KLUEM1KE, husband and wife, who are known to me to be the persons named in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed said instrument freely and voluntarily. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and` 9 affixed my official seal the day and year last above written. rt r• .�, c�« Notary Public for Oregon My Commission expires,t 'r`- STATE OF OREGON ) rr )ss. County of C,t On this t , day of February, 1984, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said. County and State, personally appeared the within named DAVID E.° ORKNEY, and, being duly s`iorn, for himself did say that he is President of G. T. ,70E4S, 1NC., an Oregon ccs... oration; that the seal affixed be the foregoing 'instalment ic, the corporate seal of said corporation that aid instrument was signed and sealed onbehalf of said cor pora .ior° by authority of ;its Board of Directors) and he acknowledged saidinstrument to die its voluntary act and deed. 'IN TESTIMONY wa8 EOF', I have hereunto set my hand. and affixed my, official seal the day and year la above written. issx.or► est i�res. �J, C No ar; Public fc Oregon / My.kCot Page 6 - OP ",a0N AGR8E;t5,11` f r � Mf • i C tlwa1 9{ D JUL 121984 CITY OF TIGAitO Integrity of Planning Process; t _. In spite of the recent 1983 adoption of the Comp Plan, ' and with the ink scarcely dry on it, the applicants want to expand their commercial property and encroach into an established residential neighborhood. Their motive is to maximize their land value and their profit. The existing commercially zoned land can, readily be developed without a zone change, though perhaps not as profitably. See, Janik testimony before the Bankruptcy Court. Approval of these applications would be contrary to the Plan policies, would violate good planning policies, would open up a myriad on unanswered problems, would be contrary to the history of what has happened regarding this land, and would be a slap in the face to the int& grity of meaningful planning. * * True and False Issues Before Commission:, Whether a GI Joes store is desirable as part, of a "mini-mall" in this area; and whether such a development into the existing residential area could be adequately buffered without adverse traffic impacts are not the true issues in this hearing. These are Site Development Review issues. Approval of the application wouldnot restrict, the develop- ment to a CI Joes store The issues before the Planning Commission are solely those related to general land use considerations, not a particular plan for a Particular tenant., Don't be confused into thinking that this is an "Us against GI Joes" problem. The question is whether the Plants criteria for granting a plan change and a tone change have been, met As will be shown, they have not. There will be no evidence of change of circumstances since the Plan's adoption, nor of mistake in drawing the line where it is , Ne tahborhood Impact: Let' s look at the impact to this property should the zone change be granted. 1. There would be an encroachment into our r.esidentia . area -- into our neighborhood. Policy 5.14. The boundary between the zones is along the back lot line of the property. Once the application is granted, there has been encroachment into our neighborhood. II. Approval would isolate the two remaining homes on the east of Watkins Street which are not part of the planned development. These parcels are currently zoned C-3.5 and would stay so zoned. Consequently, these two fine single family residences would be surrounded on. three sides by commercial development. III , Approval would create a less effective and aesthetically less pleasing buffer between the development and those living on the West side of Watkins. The applicants have stated that they intend to remove the houses but leave in the shrubbery that would fall within the proposed 20-40 foot buffer zone. As far as a buffer to minimize the adverse impact on the residential area from any•development of the property, the existing landscaping and structures do Y p g' much better. IV. The existingsingle-family residences are median-priced, high quality, and well maintained. They are and always have been a v, able and important part of our neighborhood. In short, they are simply not by themselves in any condition to 'warran• their removal. The comprehensive plan findings state "A major concern of the community is the viability of their established residential areas and the effect on these, areas from change and growth." Further, Housing policy 6.3.3. explicity states that: "In all phases of the development ap,Prova.lprocess in a residential ' established area, ' a primary consideration of the City should be to preserve and enhance the character of the adjacent established areas. i Cle. y' g way for the proposed. , development of Clean makxn y . " s landby granting this application flies in the face of the policy. L I P Compliance With Plan Standards 1. This application states " . . the purpose for this plan and zone change is to bring this strip into conformance with existing commercial designations of land fronting Pacific Hwy. If change is not allowed the effect ' will be to create conflict between the strip of residential , - and the commercially planned portion of property." A. This is not a strip of isolated land -- it borders the wast side of the commercial property and is thea..eastern limit of large residential area. B. There is no historical precedent in past, zoning, comprehensive plans, or commercial development proposals that any conflict in uses is present. Il. Section 6.3, Volume 2, Established Residential Areas, states: "A major concern of the community is theviability w of established residential areas and the effect on . these areas from change and growth." and "The intent of the plan is to use '��ffering$ t, screening and transitional techniques to: 1. Assure that private spaces are protected 4 2. Assure that possible off site effects such as noise, glare, lights, and dust do not adversly effect adjoining land uses, Preserves the character of established areas 6. Provide a transition between. unrelated A. Policy '6.8.1 states "The City shall direct its ..and use actions toward the maintenance and improvement of established residential areas. . . and ti t. poljcy 6.3.3 states "Iv all phases of the development approval process in a residential established area F a pritnary consideration of the City shall be to preserve and enhance the characters of the adjacent established areas . . " a ; C The implementation of buffering, screening, and "locational criteria" to achieve the desired results. III. Policy 6.6.1 states even more explicitly that "the City shall require buffering and screening between residential and commercial uses. The developer proposes an action to complywith these policies that is pure doublethink. r' This application proposes removing part of the residential area in order not to encroach upon it and suggests we use the residential street as a barrier between commercial and residential uses -- Pacific Highway may be a barrier; Watkins Avenue is not. A. Approving a zone change to allow comercial encroachment into residential areas does not protect and preserve the residential area -- it doesn't do it here, and it doesn't do it in the next location a developer simply wants more land to builder more and bigger stores . B. I should also say that buffering, screening and x locational criteria not demolition are the methods the Comprehensive Plan details to protect existing neighborhoods. Since the Comprehensive plan requires this, as well as projects to be built to scale, certainly nothing can be gained by the neighborhood or the community by rezoning. IV. Section 12.2 of the Locational Criteria dealing with commercial development states .. "It is the intent of the plan that: ", . Commercial areas be planned at a scale whichrelates its location;; site, and type of stores to the trade area to be served" and "2. surrounding residential areas be protected from any possible adverse affects in tems of loss of privacy, noise, lights and glare" A. The CG designation used and defined here,, as well d as in 18.62 of Volume 8, Zoning District Classification, state that the CG uses range from the smallest of establs�shmerit s to large space uses se and are intended to serve the travelling public. It does not, as the application implies, limit or even encourage _..:. the devel�a�►iTrent of large space uses. 18�;.62.415+ states "there is no minimum lot, s3tze' required.'r lri Fact, the major objective ctive of the CG designation ins oil that r'etail',wholesal , and service establishments be adjacent to Major transportation routes. 7-' ,_....„.., .. __.._.. ......:,._.. .,._..:._.:... , ..;.,,. ,+V lam.:_ x it B. Section 12. 2.1 - 2.B. (3) (a) states "The site shall be a size which can accommodate present and projected s; C. Section 12.2.1 - 2.13. (4) (a) states 1eThe scale of , ,. the project shall be compatible with the surrounding uses. D. clearly the existing site without the zone . change - meets all criteria for being designated commercial general. V. g site has all the capabilities lities of The existing CG F sustaining these locational criteria without approved ' .� zone change. In fact, there was a commercial development plan for the site in 1978 and I am sure that it, or a modif,ed version of it, is still viable today. A. to put a GI Joes at this location, a�zone, change. B. It was denied by the Commiission February 21, 1978 traffic,reasons relating to size and scale, site other existing, or proposed proximity of the site �+ P commercial development, adverse affects on the neighborhood, etc. C. The developer designed a commercial-professional, omplex that tigated thse adverse affects. heplanwas eventually approved. Same additional residential ruses were included. The developer ' even began construction, including thechoicest, most valuable piece for Pietro s Pizza. D. The citywe revised evised the Comprehensive Plan and, in. the process, the site' s designation changed from, CP to C . This change Was, however, not to change the use of the site but to keep what had already been approved at that time. It seemed like a definition change only. E. The developer has, however, decided to try again. In fact, their philosophy seems to be -- if it was out of scale in 1978,. make it even more outrageous in 1984. %' • • o VI. In conclusion, we submit: It must be kept in mind ,that this is an application for a comprehensive plan and zone change. However, the majority of this application addresses itself to site plan concerns. The real question here is not how big a building is to be constructed on the site, or how much screening is requires between residential and commercial uses, or whether street rights-of-way need to be dedicated. • The real questions here are 1) is this zone change a reasonable and logical land use decision, and, if so 2) is it consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan. It clearly is not! #` • • } • Traffic Implication of 38% Increase in Developable Commercial 2roperLY: I. The applicant, in item B 7 on page 9, states that the plan change will not result in any additional vehicle trips, since the land area in the change will only include a small portion of the store. However, the entire thrust of the applicant' s argument is that the site is inadequate without the change. If that is true, then the entire traffic addition can reasonably be assigned to the change. Our analysis of the site indicated that there i5 approxi- ' mately 6.1 acres of presently zoned general commercial land in the parcel that is entirely undeveloped. The proposed store would occupy about 1&i/4 acre and its required parking less than 2 acres. This would', leave nearly 3 acres for landscaping, buffering and a consid- erable amount of additional commercial development. Our estimate is that 20,000 to 40,000 cruare feet of • additional space, with required parking, is possible without the zone change. In that case, the zone change, representing a 38% increase in the commercial zoned land available for development, consistitutes a very substant'Lal increase in the potential for vehicle trips generated by the development of the site. The following vehicle trip information was developed from the "'Trip Generation Rates" of the Institute of Transportation. Engineers. It includes a deduction Of 20% for drop-in trips that are not added to the traffic { stream, as recommewded in the CH'2M-Hill "Traffic: Impact Analysisi Main Street' Center" dated March l9i'32. for The The GI Joe Store wii:'. alone add some 30000 trips per day to 99W. ' The anticipated development of the rest of the current parcel will add from 1,000 to 3,000 more trips, depending on the size and usage of 'the assumed retail space. 'The further additionalg development went, permitted bY the zone change would add yet another . 1,000 to 2,000 trips to 99W. earl uttke e s 1975 traffic study for NFO 3 found traffic on 99W at about 25,000 trips per day. ODOT counted about 28,000 in this area in 1982.. This zone change alone has the potential of adding one third or more, of ? thert�wt�h- intrips Sthat seven year period. � On 99Wover gtr. (0.- Whhy does the Tigard Comp Plan Transportation Map project lowerpeak hour traffic volumes o t 991Ar for the year 2,000 than ODOT counted in 1982 8, 1983 II LCDC Goal #12 Transportation, item (5) (a transpor- tation plan shall minimize adverse social and economic costs (Comp Plan, Vol I, p. 220) Comp Plan, Vol II, p. 57 "Implementation Strategies" 2. b. (The City shall) Encourage a Safe transpor t,atiL.on system." Applicant on pages 12 and 13 asserts that the development will not create traffic hazards. According to Comp Plan Vol I, p. 244, Table Vi, 7 of the 20 most hazardous intersection in the City are on the stretch of 99W which will be most, affected by the development. ; Comp Plan Vol I, p. 243 discusses the problem of motorists ) diverting onto residential streets to avoid this congestion and hazard. A. The applicant on page 2 asserts that no vehicles will divert and then on page 8 hopes that they will not to "any appreciable degree." The CH2 - 1 Hill report referenced above admits to the diversion of traffic through the neighborhood adjacent and, in figure 3, places the volume of that diversion at 4%. From the Washington Square; Progress and Oleson Road areas, an obvious shortcut and traffic by- pass exists along Greenburg, Tiedman and Walnut. Congestion at Walnut and 99W can be avoided by cutting through tI e neighborhood on Watkins and Park. From the Greenway, Scholls Ferry Road and Murray Road areas of NW Tigard and SW Beaverton on the connector lies along 121st and Gaarde. By cutting ,through the neighborhood on 110th and park,,' traffic will be able to access the site by turning right onto 99W instead of by making two left tutns across 99W traffic. Carl. Buttke' s study referenced above found that , about 12% of the traffic in NPO 3 entered and left the area by each of the routes above -- that iFs Tiedeman and 121st. (A total of 24%) The Buttke study and repeated references In the Comp Plan refr to the increasing congestion n on 99W and on the collector streets as producing diversion of traffic onto residential streets in the neighborhood. / j '® • The Buttke study in 1975 observed that there may be too much CG space allocated along 99W, attracting an excessive number of trips into NPO 3. He advocated a greater amount of office space and developed an alternative forecast hseds on more Commercial/Professional usage. In conjection with the comments above on the by pass along 121st and Gaarde Streets, bath the Comp Plan (Vol II, p. 73) and the Buttke study (p. 18) refer to the amount of traffic on Gaarde that is through traffic. Buttke estimates the number of through trips will reach 2, 500 per day by 1990. This volume would certainly result in many vehicles using the 110th and. Park route if the site is developed as called for in this application. The impact is increased by the zone change. What provisions will the City and the applicant, make to insure the safety of our residential streets and our. children? B. The applicant, on page 10, asserts that there are no substandard streets. The Comp Plan, on page 229, Vol I, states that Major congestion will continue to develop along 99W . .will cause traffic diversion to • . internalstreets problems will also occur in ' • the vicinity of new development, the impacts of which should be assessed s, The Comp Plan, Vol 1, p. 221 says that mah of the collector streets are currently developed below standard. Among the streets alreadY discussed, 121st, Gaarde, • 110th, Park, Watkins and Walnut are all listed in the Comp Plan, Vol 1, pp., 226 & 227, as coli ector streets. We do not believe that any `of them, comply with the standards for such streets as set forth in the Comp Plan Vol 1,M pp. 223 8 224. The internal streets within the =neighborhood which will be specifically affected are all particularly • hazardous for this kind of impact. Watkins is.� ` narrow, winding, with a rise and curve coinciding midway. 110th is only` ,a half-street improvement from Garden Park Place to lr airhaven Way and is hilly, winding, narrow and much of if blind. The blind, ,hillside, 90° intersection of Park and 110th is particularly treacherous. The Comp Plan, Vol 1, p. 227, raises the question, of who will pay for necess^:cy street improvements. Vol 2, p. 56 under findings, says the City needs to coordinate improvements for most effective use of the limited dollars available. • comp Plan, Vol 2, p. 56 under policies says that: • The City shall require as a precondition to development approval that: 8.1.3 (d. ) Individual developers par- . ticipate int he improvement of existing streets to the extent of the development' s impact." This would certainly q ld' certainl seem to require that the City and//or the developer either devise methods to preclude the through' traffic on Walnut l s absolutely and Gaarde from diverting through the neighborhood or improve, and bear the cost, to remove the hazardous nature of these streets. , The Comp Plan, Vol �, pp.. 80 & 81 under Locational Criteria 12.2 item 4, says "Ingress and egrees points not create traffic congestion or hazards. " proposed development o raise The o osed develo Ment would seem t questions about both hazard and congestion both on the arterial, 99W, and on the collectors. The city and the developer have an obligation to address problems prevent is from ' t - spilling... over into the neighborhood. As is indicated i above, there i h �s everyreason to believe that they will spill onto internal streets. Again, exacerbated by zone change. III. The applicant, on page 10, says that the additional vehicle trips can be accomrntdated within the existing capacity of 99W. This is a complete unknown.. Metro is currently working on a. corridor study of the traffic on 99W, This will not be finished sooner theu Kugust of 1984. tO Why 'was the traffic study <alluded to not submitted on time?) I The proposed development of the GI Joe store will represent about a 10% increase in the traffic on 99W. With the addition of the land covered by the zone change, the development of this site could increase the traffic on the -- stretch of 99W by more than 20%. Throughout the traffic studies referenced and the • transportation portions of the Comp Plan, there are repeated references to the congested condition of 99W. tintil the corridor study by Metro is complete and a plan for future traffic growth on 99W is developed, approval of this major addition of vehicle trips in this area would seem to be premature. IV. The applicant, on page 7, says that truck activity will be limited to hours that will not interfere with sleep. (Q. Do you suppose that GI Joe would ma'kA commitment not to have trucks on the premises between say 9PM and 7AM?) V. The applicant, on page 6, says that the store will reduce trips by locating this type ilerchant in T1gard. Perhaps it cannot be quantified, but there will be an offset of this by trips attracted into Tigard for this particular store ..,, ''., 1-7--'"rz,, /Aki6LE Or i.ii torc) t301-4,,,,,r) is.t) tri, y .s L.) PAM K/ S 14) w7r 1- IA 5 ' S to , PfiGz arc 1 7Cf"tif9 45) . --r:2)-/-791. A i 5 /1 Ac s : f e'Zip-4i erelt rS6L4A)0 4-5r) S.S.`Vel 13y lc..JEZ4 e,o6$ ‘ . r ti.4 y j 7 7 8 O'Xt5rj 6 Dw eh4IA,a,s . O eQc ''7a xr5r/ & Ci,AO Pte, c«41.. c.rt J e'l 1 ,Acr)VvV'L a f'P i II., 7 4 ca,. 6/ '', I e) 2 it i Al6 C,alititc.t.)1Se Doehz/4.)es . 7 l':)4 it4e, to 0/c, . Tiz '/ 6,0 1 ,Ei /� . clie r3 °/c 1 1LA44 46 cif' 004)1:1 61/Aa)46 '` s, r, Atr f2.4 /2 6/0 Mit) ~ oh) E X47 4644 44) w At,air i 64/14 t �o 04,4. ,0Imo.to DJe '3 i. "' A cat,: t3 4sso tA[ST- y Pot eDowd). [ r Acrzo /0 { 'C 6M A ra IP 4 Gt,>b CV. L A Q 6, • 1 4 c rz a X °,,r',c, .,, ", (0,0g..?), ReSaDrauT$Ax. I SL4vDq 1.'itZiffri+vb1r114 I. /44 ' '', iv 1 .4..4.'1.. A 1--PrI41k16°E D koleo i ge,;Oiriii,CSK, • 1 'ie. Ls, ze a, Taos 'uC` .1"Z':=$! 7ecur'"/A i,, "ZoJoz jA, TA pA/0 I 3..10. A 42.70/6 y, , ( ALAIL,ce p PAft-6EL. C, 1 4 ? Af - .r sT Lors Ait''). r,41 Acrzqsd t a .., ) ,„''',"1-) ti. : :,..4 l '43,015 6N4 06,t ors 6rs 3 Atte* 2S /0 a ti ' at i AskiAlt.oikt54e t ) LT N ZIOA)tr Citi4106E Rai1 i* it as 1 Procedural `O jections;: , The following objections are procedural in nature. If the applications are denied on their merits, the objections become moot. But the points must be stated to protect the. record: 1. The application, names Tigard West Development Company as the applicant. It is impossible to tell from the ' application and submittals who the real parties in interest , are. According to the Oregon Corporation Division, "Tigard ., West Development Company" is not registered with the State '' 4s a corporation, partnership or assumed business name. The ' law prohibits the: transaction or doing of business in a name such as that without being registered under ORS Chs. 57 or 648a 2. Thei. s . ThSreport/ ogeocaurs e have no. .quarrel with itsffinalreormendatioWaprepared, and available to the public five days before the heaingas required by City' Ordinance. It was not completed until about 4:30 PM. on. Friday, July 6th. 3. Inadequate and: incorrect notice was given of the hearing. They official ff..ticial published notice stated that the meeting was to be at Fowler Junior High, not at the School District Building« • u BEFORE THE CITY OF TIGARD 14F( PJ tt •c) ' IN MATTER OF THE »J° " a THE MAT F p APPLICATION OF TIGARD WEST ) File No. CPA 11-84 ' DtvELOPMENT CO. , GI JOE' S INC. , ) and 4 t''F 1` R MRS. ALICE TREFFINGER, AND ) File No. CZ 7-84 JB BISHOP FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGE AND ZONE CHANGE INTRODUCTION This application i nvolves five residential parcels described as Tax Lots 4700, 4800, 6100 and 6200 in 2S13DA and 200 in 2S13DD ((the ' Pro ert_.�`") The Property abuts SW Watkins Street and forms the rear edge of a triangle of land formed by Pacific Highway, SW Park Street, and SW Watkins Street. That triangular property,r except for the Property here under consideration, is planned and zoned for commercial development and is the site of `;,, existing commercial uses along a portion of the SW Pacific E` Highway. The applicants in this matter pp are the owners othe E ,. residertial lots', along SW Watkins Street and SW Park Street which. constitute the Property. The balance of the triangle is ownedy b who is now in a Chapter 11 reorganization before the Bishop 9 JB .� P P U.S. bankruptcyCourt. As part of the reorganization, agreements ,f I. r: reached for developing the entire triangle as a retail have been. , center with G.I. Joe' s as the main retailer. The developer of this retail store will be Development, a partnership u . � '' Ticrarc�. West p P com ODevelopmentp Y �, � Eugene and Mr. Lindsay sect '�a f Vik µ.wc,m an o f p. McArthur. Tigard West De�relC;� meant has obtained an option to ✓Mpurchase the property fromt�BBishop. Tigard West u�,Te1S ment, k ' and G.T.. aoet 8 have enters d into a lease agreement, Pursuant to which Tigard West Development will build a 55, 000 square foot G.I. Joe' s store, related parking, accessways. Ped landscaping and lease the completed store facility to I.I Joe' s. The commitment of G.I. Joe' s to this proipct is perhaps best - P p evidenced bythe fact that G. I. Joe' s has purchased Tax Lots 4800 and 6100, part of the Property which is the subject of this application. Construction of this project will commence in • September of 1984. �„ The Property is a strip of existing residences abutting a key commercial area along SW Pacific Highway, The Property is separated from other residential land by SW Watkins Street. The entire triangle is separated from residential uses by SW Park Street and SW Watkins. The site plan proposed provides for no truck or vehicular access along SW Watkins to insure that no tra f'fic sorting from this commercial development will affect the residential streets. The store is oriented on the site in such a way that no trucks, or vehicles will divert through residential streets in order tog gain access to the store. There is no ehtrance to thepaParking areaalong SW Pack Street, only an exit clearly marked, so as ' to minimize any traffic on Park Street, ' north of SW Watkins Street. To further insure that no access from the project to SW Watkins willoccur, the developer offers to deed a 20-foot stripalong of its land SW Watkins to the City of Tigard'� That s�r�pwill be of a 20-40-foot buffer area which will be maintained by the developer. ,; _: .. i.::.. .....:...., ': ....V.1.:::...n. "i...0..0 t4':.:<„i.. I1hu-,rat•fir. F .. . ,::,, 1111 In order to further buffer this commercial use from the residences west of SW Watkins Street, the large trees and shrubs { that now exist in this 20-40-foot strip will be retained and additional 13-14 foot evergreen trees will be planted in this to t p 20-40-foot strip requirementsaccording to the to be imposed in the Site and Design Review process. Additionally, a six foot, sight obscuring wood slat and cyclone fence will be built on the easterly edge of this 40-foot strip. Thus, those drinrin.g down Sri' Watkins and those living along SW Watkins will see mature trees • and a 40-foot landsca .ad area, and will only intermittently see a six-foot wood slat, fence. Thep recisefence materials and color. _r will be subject to the Site and Design Review approval. The applicant' s purpose in requesting this plan and 4 ' zone change i '-; to bring the planning and zoning of this strip f residential land into conformance with the existing commercial designation of approximately 80 percent of this triangle of land frontingon Pacific Highway so as to allow sufficient land area for a retailalong ilarge, quality center Pacific Highway.g If this change is not allowed, the effect will be to create substantial conflict between this narrow Strip of residential land and the commercially planned portion of the triangle. In , that c.Ircumstancet those residences would .not be buffered from e p plannedtheComprehensive' Plan by a the commercial development merit in street and there would be inadequate uat land area to locate the 204,-4C-foot landscaped c ,ped buf,. ` being proposed h?re a. SPECIFIC REQUESTS Thus, the a. plicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan and zone change on the Property from Residential, 3 . 5 to General Commercial, C-G COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE A. Co:preteens ve Plan Changes l The standards foz igranting grantinga Comprehensive Plan change under Tigard' s Comprehensive Plan are set forth in Policy 1 , Implementation Strategy 2 at page 11-8 of Volume 2 of the Plan. That section provides that comprehensive plan changes may be granted by the City Council upon a finding cf any of the following: "a. The change is consistent with aDplicable ,. an policies; n. A change of physical circumstances has occurred since the original dsignation; or e c A mistake was made in the original land use designation. " The applicants submit that the requestedplan change q is justifiable under either criteria (a) or (c) B. compliance w1., th Plan _.Policies This application affects some but not all of the Plan' s policies. The following is ananalysis of the impact of this application on each of the Plan policies. olicies .r.. P- ` 1. Citizen Involvement �t�,.lCy 2.1, 1 With the establshed notification and hearing procedures of the City of 'Ti :gid which w1l1 be followed in this case, granting the Plan change will be consistent with this policy,y �. ....; iV 2. Natural Features and Open .Space - Policy 3 . 1 to 3.6 Policy 3. 1. 1 prohibits development in certain land areas that have serious development constraints that cannot be accommodated by proven engineering techniques. The requested Plan change does not hate any impact on this policy because of the fact that the Property is already developed for residential has none of the development constraints use and listed in Policy evel 3. 1. 1. Policies 3. 2, similarly, restricts development on which is in the 100-year floodplain. The Property is property � P P ' y not within the 100-year floodplain and thus there is no inconsistency with this policy between the requested Plai,1 change Y policy and this policy. areas 1 P Policy 3.4 provides limitations on development of y that have been designated as areas of significant environmental concern, such as wetlands, geologically significant lands, and fish and wildlife habitats. The. City Comprehensive Plan does not designate anyertion of the` Property asenvironmentally g pp y such an env' ly sensitive area. Accordingly, the Comprehensive Plan change is consistent with this policy. Finally, Policy 3.5' provides for the establishment of certain open spaces and recreational areas pursuant p nt to 0-, implementing strategies setp Code, The �.m lementin s gate its forth in the Development proposed comprehensive Plan change is consistent with this policy Property is alreadydeveloped a.n has not been because the Prop y p designated forarid'� open space or� recreational space utilization. t Similarly, Policy 3. 6 is inapplicable to this request, because !' fi i i, 1 none of the Property is designated under the parks and open space standards and classification system of the City of Tigard. 3. Air, Water and Land Resources Quality - Policies 4. 1. 1, 4. 3 Policy 4l. 1 (a) provides that it is the polir.! of the Ci.:y to maintain and improve the quality of the air in Tigard. As is noted in Voi°.lme 1 of the Comprehensive Plan, a number of the shopping trips by citizens of Tigard requiretravel to retail activities outside of the City of Tigard. The Comprehensive Plan change requestedwill be in conformance with this policy because it will locate a signlicant retail area in the` center of Tigard will enable those seeking to make purchases at stores like , G.Y. Jae s to do so without the longerv' trae1trip that is currently. necessary. Overall, this will� C ytravel �• d red, uce vehicle and related air pollution. �' Policy 4. 2 is not applicable to this request,Pp g , given the fact that there will e no adverse effect upon the water quality wa.: Tigard of ` g rd from thproposal. Twenty to forty feet of the Property will remain in a semi-natural condition and not increase the run-off. The run-off from the entire triangle will be collected and reLaine onsici- t to allow a controlled release intostorm water syStem in Pacific Hi hwa�� and the. existingg y Park Street at rates within the capacities of this systham, Policy 4. 3 requires that developments Which create . noise in excess of applicablestandards incorporate mitigation :ion measures in the development and operation of suih facilities. A retail store, as proposed by the applicant, w1ll be b�.ilt and 6 7 {{ operated so as to fully comply with all applicable noise standards. In addition, truck delivery and garbage truck pick-ups , a source of noise of concern to some, will be limited to hours that will not interfere with sleep. 4. Economy - Polic5 The requested Comprehenszve Plan change fulfills this q policy in a number of si• gnificant ways. Without 'the` re requested ` IT Plan change, the sits area will be inadequate to accommodate the proposed 55,000 sc*uare foot retail business. Thus, the Plan , w, ' change i s essential to bringing this amount of retail activity to this area. The constructiondevelopmentwill have an _ of the w` approximate cost of $1,850,000 and will produce approximately 150 jobs during the construction period. Thereafter, it will produce approximately 60 full-time jobs. Finally, the developmeritwhich will be allowed by the Comprehensive Plan change will produce additional taxes of approximately $40,000 to $45,000. These e economic benefits fulfill a number of the policies set forth under Policy 5. Policy 5 ,1. 1 provides that the City shall promote a diversification of economic opportunities available to Tigard residents, with particular' emphasis placed on the growth of the local job market, The requested change will promote this goal by bringing an additional 60 number of full-time jobs to Tigard area rs.°siden.ts, Policy 5.1.4 provides that the City shall insure that new _„ .. coumec.ial development does notencroach into residential derital areas that have not , been designated for commercial or industrial uses. The requested Plan change complies with this policy by insuring that there will be impenetrable buffers protecting the adjacent residential areas. Those buffers consist of SW Watkins Street and SW ParkStreet, the 20-40-foot strip along SW Watkins Street, which will be deeded to the City, the extensive landscaping that will be retained and enhanced by the planting of mature trees, and the six-foot fence. All of this will insure that there will be no encroachment of commercial activity into ° the residential neighborhood. The entrances and exits for the _ _ 3 store will similarly insure that traffic coming co and from the is store will rc t, to any appreciable degree, utilize SW Watkins SW Park, beyond or he and i ts_ intersection with SW Watkins buffering requires land area Thise �xirer a of a Street. kind of . sufficient size to accommodate -Lase buffering area as well as the store and its ancillaryparking. Without this Plan change, there would buffering be an inadequate land area. to accomplish the proposed, as well as accommodate the store and its parking. 5 . Housing - Policy 6 Grantingthe' requested Comp r�e change would p hens�.ve Plan Provide for the elimination of only five single family dwelling units. This number, in light of the existing supply of housing in Tigard' and vacant land areas planned for residential development, will have no impact upon Tgard' s ability to meet its housing comply and With LCDC Goal 10 The onlypolicy that directly applies _ .. P� to this request is Policy 6.6.1 which provides that the, City shall .require buffering between dif.ferent types of land usesin order to ,1 • } d., .... a.. uses. The requested Plan change complies with this policy by insuring that there will be impenetrable buffers protecting the ° adjacent residential areas. Those buffers consist of SW Watkins Streed S t aiir7�"Pafk '"`Street, the 20-40-foot strip a�lon�g SW Wats� k ri Street which ''� will be deeded to the City, the extensive"''- `-�-..v.._.,,,�,�� (I, ...,-, landscaping that will be retained and enhanced by the planting, of-'''" mature trees, and the six-foot fence. All of th•�s will insure thatinto there will be no encroachment of commercial activity the residential neighborhood. The entrances and exits for the L, store. will similarly insure that traffic coming to and from the , " store will not, to any appreciable degree, utilize SW Watkins Street or. SW Park, beyond' its intersection with SW Watkins II! Street. This kind of buffering requires a land area of a sufficient size to accommodate the buffering area as well as the store and its ancillary parking. Without this Plan change, there would, be, an inadequate land area to accomplish the buffering s well as accommodate the store and its parking. proposed, a. 5. Housing Policy 6 Granting the requested Comprehensive Planchange would , provide for the. elimination of only five single family dwelling units. This number, in light of the ekisting supply of housing in Tigard and vacant land areas planned for residential levetoP..mentr will have no impact act upon Tigard' s ability to meet its housing needs and comply with LCbC coal 10. The only policy that directly applies to this request is Policy 6. 6.1 which provides that the City shall tequire buffering between different types of 1.and uses in order to N I Y ., 1 - _ ^ ti 5 protect established resi'ential areas. The policy requires that the type and extent of the buffering be flexible and be tailored to the precise conflicts that may result frd,-,, ,x fit proposed m 'f,f rig provided in development.:. As is discussed above,. the bud: . this development will be extensive and will be a very effective buffer between the residential areas and the proposed commercial use. In addition, the store building itself, as well as the landscaping and fencing, will provide noise buffering from noise sources along SW Pacific Highway. It is well established that structures such as the proposed store serve to reduce ambient traffic noises. 64 Public Facilities and Services - Policy Policy 7. 1. 2 requires that as a precondition to the development approval, all required services are adequate and available. Sewer and water service for the development of the w entire retail store are similarly readily available through sewer and water lines that are .in the pacific Highway right-of-way and are sized with adequate capacities to accommodate the requirements of this store. Storm drainage will be accommodated within the existing storm drain system in SW Pacific Highway and SW Park Street as discussed, above. Thus, the requested Plan changes are in confolmance with the requirements of Policy 7 7. Polity 8 The only policies under this sectionof the Plan that are applicable to the requested Plan change are those set forth in Policy 8. 1. The Plan change itself will not result in any additional vehicle trips r since the land area involved in the 9 Plan change will only' include a smallportion of the store. and. the landscaped buffer. However, the development of the entire triangle for the requested retail store will produce additional vehicle trips which can be accommodated within the existing capacity of Pacific Highway, the principal access to the development. This will be further documented through a traffic . • study by CH2M Hill to be submitted prior to the staff report in thise request is consistent with Policy 8 . 1. 1 case. Thus, th which provides for a safe and efficient roadway system adequate to meet the needs of development. Under Policy 8. 1. 3 there are a number of requirements which are' preconditions to development. The requested Plan change conforms with these requirements. The development 1#ill abut a publicol.ly dedicated street and will have accesses which are approved by the State of Oregon, Department of Transportation. There are no substandard street widths and thus there will be no required street right.-of-way dedication. Sidewalks, streets , and curbs within the development, will be constructed by the developer as required by Policy 8 .1. 3 (c) With respect to Policy 8.1.3 (e) ,'' theaccesses to and from Pacific Highway_.. will not cause traffic hazards, and will be regulated by the state o± Oregon, Department of Transportation Disabled persons parkingspaces will beprovided as required b. Poli p q y �cy g proximity the store entrance �. l. 3 � j in close t . to 8 8ne12l,icy 9 The requested Comprehensive Plan, change has little impact upon Policy 9 other than teduction in vehicle trip 10 N (i. length, and the savings of fuel, which will result from bringing the proposed type of retailing activity to the central area of the City of Tigard, 9. Urbanizat, -Pol.lcy 10 This policy is inapplicable to the Comprehensive Plan change request. This policy deals with annexations of lands to • the City ('Policy 10. 1) , extensions of services outside of the city limits ;Policy 10.2) and annexation of lands outside the established UGB (Policy 10.3) . None of these, events will occur in connection with this application. The Property is entirely within the city limits of the City of Tigard and the established urban rowth is very near to thea central g boundary, and it business district. 10. Special Areas of Concern - Policy 11 Policy 11. 1. 1 provides that the redevelopment of the central business distract should occur and that "convenience, appearance and the needs of the shopping public should be primary considerations. " Even though the Property is not within the designated CBD, it is very close to this area. The policy • suggests .that bringing additional retail, activity` of a type which 4 is not now found within the City of Tigard, and bringing more cox►Yemen; shopping to the City of Tigard is an appropriate goal for the City. Thisthis , ; ,� request cnnforY�ts to otic bylocatinga P y substantial atountof additional retail. additional retail.` osose to the center of Tigard, a type of retailing activity that is not now located within or near the City of Tigard ,a lin n e > 11. Locational Criteria - policy 12 Implementing strategy number 12. 2 provides certain standards for the location of commercial activities within the City of Tigard. The requested Plan change fully conforms with the elements of this implementation strategy. Element n ember 1 provides that "commercial areas should be at a scale which relates to the locatypestores to be served. " t ion, site and of This implementation strategy is precisely the reason for this requested Comprehensive Plan change. The site is a triangular area pp y percentdesignated of which approximately 80s already desi nated for general commercial purposes. Leaving an approx imate1y 130-foot • wide strip of isolated residential is not good planninginlight of .,�_ thep y t y� sical dimensions of the site. Additionally, the conversion of this residential area into a conformin • g general ' nation is necessary because of the size of the commercial desig retail storebeingthe amount of land area which is ' provided and necessary accommodate: that store as well as the City-required M1 and developer proposed buffering Second, element number 2 of that implementation strategy requires bufferingof surroundingresidential areas. has Thisbeen. will. be accomplished asy discussed above. �. Element ntimb er 3 requires that c ommercia�. centers.. be . aesthetically attra ctilandscaped. v� and This will be insured through the Site andp resign Review processwhich will address the details of the land,tcaPing and architecturalof the treatm�.�nt store. :ementnumber 4 re wires that ingress and eg. res8 not create traffic hazards. This will be insured through the • s Id "�{ ai approval of the City as well as the State of Oregon, Department of Transportation which will control access to Pacific Highway. Finally, element number 5 will be fulfilled because the retail development proposed will substantially reduce trip Lengths for those who are now having to go outside of the City of Tigard to purchase the items offered by the proposed retailers. Policy 12 also goes on to specify certain locational. general commercial. That section criteria forpl� v; des that general commercial is intended for "large space users. " It further provides that general commercial is intended to be adjacent to an arterial or major collector street. The proposed ' retail use is clearly a large space user and the Property and the p Y ,-. development is located adjacent to a major highway. Under locational criteria B (1) (a) , the proposed development is not surrounded on more than two sides by residential districts and thus therop this F posal complies with thirequrcament. Pursuant. to B (2) , the general commercial shall not congestion create traffic congestion and shall have direct access ' from a major collector. As noted above, these requirements are met. Under subsection B (3) , general commercial shall be located in landareas that' are sized to accommodate present and projected uses- That is Precisely the basis for the requested, Comprehensive g . The develo p eherisive Plan ch��n e pmsrnt plan proposed will enable this si nifi cat t general commercial site l' g � ` located along , Pacific Highway to accommodate the immediate use of the 0.I. Joel s store as well as to allow for future retail development along '�e frontage u± SW Pacific Highway, thereby concentrating r . commercial activity and efficiently utilizing the access points along Pacific Highway and this general commercial land area. Also, the site is required to have high visibility. This site clearly has such visibility given its location along Pacific Highway and the slight rise in the topography moving away from ' Pacific Highway. In addition, the developer has agreed through a deed covenant to leave 50 percent of the frontage of Pacific Highway with unimpeded views to the major retail store. Subsection B (4) requires , in general, that the proposed general commercial not adversely affect surrounding uses. As explained in detail above, the surrounding residential areas will be significantly protected from traffic, noise, lights and adverse visual impacts. ZONE CHANGE Pursuant to Section 18.32.250 (A) of the Code of the City of Tigard, zone change and Plan change decisions may be granted where this applicant demonstrates compliance with: "the. City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan and the relevant approval standards found in other applicable code sP�ctions, " With respect to the conversion of the Property from a residential p y de signtiori of R-l0 to a C--C zoning designation, there are not other separately applicable standards beyond those set forth in th Comprehensive Pian. Therefore, the P applicant reincorporates the justifications set forth above regarding compliance with the text of the Comprehensive Planas a basis for its requested zone change. STJO CI5 14 f To: The Honorable Members of the City Council of the City of Tigard, Oregon RE: File No. CPA 11-84 and ZC 8-84. WRITTEN ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION I. By Whom Submitted. This argument is submitted by James A. Cox as attorney for the eighteen homeowners named on the attached list, which includes most of the residences adjacent to the subject property on Park and Watkins, plus additional parties owning homes in the nearby residential neighborhood. The role of the informal Save Our Neighborhood Committee, and the attorney' s relationship to it, are; explained in the Planning Commission record. IX. Source and Sce of Ar.�gument. An extensive record was nand a transcript made before the Plann�.n Commission, Council ��,er�C,-:: available to each Cou . • , the testimonyis , of Without attempting to be critical of Diane Jelderks who had the unenviable job of preparing the transcript from tapes under extreme timepressure, there are quite the • ' P make it s oz�,►etim e s difficult to follow*a few errors in the t Nevertheless, the ;transcript is no doubt better than trying to listen to three hours of tapes -- but it will take solite careful reading. In addition to the transcript, the Plannii g Commission record to be reviewed by the Council contains the r writings, documents and P tot staff report...:and. numerous e ver�b�.7, , testimony. . photographs o f equal importaace Also and this is particularly important for an understanding of the history of the applicant' s adjacent site and to an understanding ta.n.d.ing of what occured on other commercial properties which applicant mistakenly relies on as setting a precedent for What is proposed here -- the Council can take official notice of the City' s own ordinances (present and past) and of the City' s official actions. This argumentwill be based oh information from those three sources -- the Planning Commission hearing's testimony; t'h Planning Commission hearing' s g .- ,. .: - City' s v�r�tin s, documents and photographs,_ and the City ;.ctioris and ordinances which can be deemed. part of the record under ytrvh�,ch the official notice" doctrine. y • M RE: File No. CPAs 11-84 and EC 8-84 . WRITTEN ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION 1, . We will not attempt to add new e dencel i- , which indeed we are not entitled to do. Nor will we attempt to repeat every argument and objection made LI, our written or verbal presentations to the Planning Commis sion. Those arguments and objections are already part of the record and should not be considered waived s, reply because they are not restated here. III.11 I°' �� city of Planning Process; Timing of A.Apl .cation. `.iga�.d' s new Comprehensive Plan - i.n. luding the w Community Development Code -- was adopted November 9, . 1983, effective December 9, 1983. The Council is well aware of the thousands and thousands of hours of citizen and staff time which went into the' formulation of these basic land use documents designed to plan for the City to the year 2000. About two months after r the new Plan went into 4, effect, JD Bishop filed the Plan Change and Zone. Change ' oo ,, • us.. Planning Commission application• now before The hearing was postponed serveral times because of incom- plete submittals or at applicant's request, but the , , fact remains that the ink was scarcely dry on the new plan before the application was filed. If the int� the planning process is to be integrity of Preserved/ and if the monumental planning effort is to have real meaning and significance, it should take a r ' verystrong showing to justify a significant change in allowable land useS, such as is involved here, only a few months afteradoptionof the plan. No such showing f has been or can be made byPP the applicant. 'certainly there was no materialchange in circum- stances in two or three months. or was there any ''mistake" in the adoption of the plan. It was a conscious ; decision to leave the boundary between low-density residential and commercial uses exactly where it 'had: always .line of the eci.sti ,g hoses on the Ii/.est side of Watkins. i �;�zns The comprehensive. Plan should have more permanence , by :.- t; castle Which can be� washed awaythe nest than a sand ,,., high tide of economic gain to a would-be developer. 1 r' RE: File No. CPA 11-84 and ZC 8-84 WRITTEN ARGUMENT Ia OPPOSITION I � r, 7 IV. The , bkLy " The property proposed to be e changed consists of five developed residential lots covering approx. 2.3 acres Four of the homes are good quality, consistent with the residential neighborhood. The fifth home, the northernmost one on the corner_ of Park and Watkins, is a different situation. It may be beyond repair, but the large lot on which it is located r is already approved for three dwellings. See Sec. t.., Gornrttercial Property. Tea four oe Estorv' ofhomes �'have �beenaoccupied andwell-maintained, ; and of tl�;e G , well main ta.•�. the last few months. The values of , • nea.rby homes, is substantial and is shown in the record. Thesis, homes are compatible with the viable, stable ;..,:. neighborhood which they are on the easterly aren'tf They were built in the 1950's and certainly a • blighted area. All of them have mture landscaping (trees and ;shrubbery) on the rear of the lots which effectively buffer them, and the rest of the neighborhood, from the colnmercial property to the east. to . a • • h h ( , • • • • R . H u r ♦ ♦ • \Wp xi } i , RE: File No, CPA 11-84 and ZC 8-84 WRITTEN ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION V. The Proposed Deve1pment of the Property. The dhange of 2.3 acres from low density residential to general commercial would add about 38% to the approx. 6.2 acres of undeveloped land controlled by applicants which is already designated general commercial. As stated by applicants' attorney, Mr. Janik, "All of this is to allow us to go ahead and put a GI Joes store on this site. " (Transcript, page 4. ) . What the applicants don't say much about is the fact that the GI Joes store, proposed to be a 60,000 square foot building, would be just the anchor tenant - - situated at the rear of the site -- with other proposed retail-commercial buildings situated closer to ;f he front near the highway. GI Joos itself could be sited; on the existing 6.1 acre. There. But,` as Mr.stateyeJanik, "GI Joes does not desire that .- y . have already been other commitments made for . approved retail uses along that ; rontage, which would have to be terminated to accomplish that." (Tr. , p. 12) .12) . See also the parking • y the submitted. `• and traffic circulation la, out of the site to the Planning Commission, about 325 �' f Planning showing parking k space§ with blank spaces apparently indicating the areas where buildings would be built. Thus, what we really have is a case where a GI Joes store could be accommodated on the existing 6.1 acres, but instead of going ahead with such a plan, the• app,i!cants want to plat Gi Joes toward the back and into the area which is now residential, thus enabling them tout other tenants toward the front in the high-- visibility, highway frontage portion , We have no quarrel with the profit motive; but the opportunity for financial gain is not by itself justifi- cation for a Plan or Zone Change. Yet that motive, is what is really involved here as illustrated by Mr. Janik',s sworn testimony before Judge Sullivan on May 2, 1984,. in a hearing held in JB Bishop' s Bankrtitpdy Court 4 4 case: JUDGE SULLIVAN: Do I understand your testimony �, the zone change very to be that, while. is desirable for lots of reasons, it's not critical to the development of the property? • MR. JANIK: That's correct. It' s critical to maximizing the value of this total pieceof land. If we don't /set the zoning On the four It s behind, there i s a feasible alternative which is costly fb th'i bankruptcy estate: but we could move the stare forward. see also the transcript of Ur. Jani.k e entire Pahkruptcy Court testimony hi'h is a Planning Comiis.ion exhibit. ) -4- , :• •4 • i ' .. ,.:: • ._gaga. „a .. ,aoat.naVW+iN#Wxx.3S.kt rYf5'fMN y,YNrI'G'+!;'Yc tS},"r. c .• "'��'""'777 4 • •• ww • 4 w • RE: File No. CPA 11-C4 and ZC 8-84 WRITTEN ARGUMENT IN OPPOSIT:IOhT VI. His dor of the Commercial Site. The :residential land has p 1 ys been designated and developed as such. The present commercial site has likewise been designated for some sort of commercial uses asfar back as we have been able to go. The 1971 Tigrd Community Plan designated. it "Residential-Commercial." On December 15, 1975, by ordinance 75-55, the Council adopted the NPO#8 Plan and designated it "Commercial-Professional.. ° In early 1978 Rembold/Bishop Properties applied for a Comp Plan Amei d x int and Zone Change on the property. We understand that this was to be for a proposed GI Joes store at that time. But the requested pian change from Commercial s-r.r ofessiona1 to Retail-Commercial was denied. Later ',7..hat yearthe parties ties submitted an amended zone cltange for a Commercial Professional Planned Development overlayo This request was ultimately appr.-ved by Ordinance t,o 78-55, on September 25, 1978. The approved site plan included a mix of retail and office uses plus some duple,:es along Perk and three single family dwellings on "Parcel A, " the large lot on the cornea. of Park and Watkins which remained zoned R- 10 butwhich was included in the overall Planned Development site plan. After the 1978 plan approval the applicant did not proceed to complete it. The choicest, most valuable portion was developed and sold as Pietro' s Pizza right out of the middle of the 7.8-acre site. A group of small offices were built onthe southerly end on the highway, None of the less profitable duplexes or houses were built, as should have been done to balance ,.. out the site plan. Now, after chopping up the 1978 site and skimming off the cream, the applicant wants the City to allow the commerical property to move back into the residential. -. area to regain a larger comnerci-x1 site. , 5_ I :I RE: File No CPA 11-84 and ZC 8--84 WRITTEN ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION VII. Neighborhood Encroachment and Buffering; the True Issues. The applicants offered evidence of the steps that would be taken to allegedly buffer the remaining residences from the impacts of an expanded commercial site. For � a.nded commei example they offered to deed to the City a 20 to 4F foot landscaped buffer strip along WTatkins, with no .. access points onto Watkins. There are several reasons why this approach puts the cart before the horse. A.AThe threshold question is not whether adequate ° q ate buffering rin could `oe 'provided if the boundary is moved but, rather, whc.ther, the land-use boundary needs to be moved ,at all. Only if it is first decided that the land use should be changed (which is the true issue in this hearing) would it then be relevant and proper to consider the developer's plans for the lay out of the site and to determine what conditions and restrictions s-hou1,1 be imposed to minimize the impacts on the, remaining resi6ential neighborhood. The consideration of the plans and the imposition of necessary conditions and restrictions are part of the Site Development Review u Process which is not before the Council. Nor should the focus be on vxh sther to approve the changethe purpose of encouraging GI Joes to build. for The change could not be approved subject to a GI Joes Store going in GI Joes might not proceed, but once the land was approved for 'G--C use, any lawful development for the zone could be pursued. goodlB. From the. standpoint of planning the more a logical place to draw a line betweenresidential and commercial land is on back lot lines, rather than separating the uses only by a neighborhood street. A residential :street serves to tie a block together, and should not be a line of separation between two disparate uses. Back toback juxtaposition of uses Is less of an has less adverse into encroach en.t,.. neighborhood land impact on the nehb,rrhood. C. Applicants have called the subject property a . p � ^ property uding into a commercial "strip" of resident alintruding site. This Is an invalid characterization, especially since this land, has already developed residentially as part ofanestab1ish4a neighborhood. This land is no insofar as the neighborhood is affected, more a "strip, " than is any piece of property along the edge of a land use boundary. I. .��.i..n....r..mnr r u..r�,....1... r.n..,.r... ,rr..i... ,. ..r.. ..,«. �..�,....... v .. ...,....., .. . .. .. .. .. .. ........ .,.... ., ,.. y ...,.... • �C • d R: : rile No. CPA 11-84 and ZC 8-84 WRITTEN ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITIO D. The boundary is now on well-buffered back lot lines, approximately 130 feet east of Watkins. No matter where the commercial boundary is, either on the present line or at the edge of the Watkins right--of- way, the Development Code requires that the developer provide minimum 20-foot building set-backs and a minimum ten feet of buffering and screening within the set-back area. Thus, if the line is left where it is, the residential neighbors will have not only t iie mature landscaping on the back of the subject properties but also some additional buffering and screening on the • commercial site. But if the line is moved up to Watkins facing the houses across the street, there would only be newly planted buffering and screening as would occur in the proposed 20 to 40-foot strip. T,. E. Applicants' plan for development does not include the southernmost of the five lots on Watkins. It is occupied by its owner, Mrs. Treffinger. Applicants' attorney, Mr. Janik, does not represent Mrs. Treffinger. r The offer of a deeded buffer stripwith no access onto ,; Watkins could not be fulfilled as to that lot. If the ,' application were granted, the Treffinger property would be in a strange situation. °°-- it would be zoned general commercial but presently used for residential, with no street access except onto Watkins, and without being integrated into the development of the GI Joes/Bishop property. • • r . ay 1 0 • RE: pile No. CPA 11-84 e.nd ZC 8-84 WRITTEN ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION VIII Traffic Imacts. In their written submittal to the Planning Commission the applicants said they would file a CH2M traffic study. But they did not. Our written submittal to the Planning Commission specified in detail the unanswered traffic concerns, both as to mounting pressure on Pacific Highway and as to the short-cut and spillover traffic into the residential streets. These concerns are based on earlier data and studies which are cited in our submittal. There will be enough tough traffic problem, connected with the development of the existing 6.1 acres,, plus the other undeveloped commercial property in t'ae immediate h. area and along Pacific Highws./ Certainly there is no justification for adding to these problems by increasing the commercial site by 38%, at least without some stronger evidence than Mr. ' unsupported contention �'ani� s that the added traffic problems would be non-existent or minimal. • 11 ' f1 RE: File No. CPA 11-84 and ZC 8-84 WRITTEN ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION IX. Lack of Demonstrated Need. The applicant did not introduce any evidence to show the public need for 2.3 acres of additional general commercial lam+.:.d, either in Tigard generally or at this location in particular. applicant Nor did the a plicant intaroduce any evidence that, if there was a need, the subject land was the, only or "best available. Nor has the applicant pointed to any Comprehensive Plan provisions which indicate an intention to have the general commercial . lands expand (particularly to expand away from the highway into existing residential neighborhoods) , or which set up criteria and standards to govern such an k; expansion. 4" In the absence of all of the above, theapproval of the application would be about the same thing as what we used to call spot zoning; and we submit that it . would be contrary to the requirements of Fasano v. Wash- . ashes Ston Count , even as a comprehensive plan amendment. X0 Conclusion. The applicant has utterly failed to meet the burden of proof. All of the Plan standard , cited reportsubmittal to extensivelyb the staff and in our thePlanning Commissions emphasize overriding objective Lo preserve existing residentialneighborhoods. This applications if approved, would have the opposite effect. If this application should be approved it, is hard to imagine any residential area in the City where the Plan be relied on to protect from commercial erosion. +' Respectfully submitted, Ja fr s A. cox M. orney for Objectors d,b I... Good evening Mr Chairman, members of the Commission and city staff. I'm Dennisy. the Owens of 10945 SW Fairhaven ��a � T will discuss some of traffic concerns we ha”e. In the interest of brevity and clarity, the references to various documents are cited parenthetically in your copies, but I will not read each one as I go along. • The applicant states (p 9) that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change requested will not add any vehicle trips, since the area of the Plan Amendment will only include a small portion of the store. Their ;, basic contention is that the site is inadequate without the change. If Y signed that is true p then' the.. entire traffic addition can reasonably be as r ; to the Plan Amendment However, analysis indicates that approximately 6.1 acres of land zoned General Commercial in the parcel is entirely undeveloped. The proposed store would occupy 11/4 acre, required parking less than 2r This leaves 3+ acres for landscaping, setbacks and buffering, plus a considerable amount of additional commial ercdevelopement. In l " excess of 20,000 sq ft of further retail space and required parking is possible, without the ;• additional land covered by the Comp Plan Amendment. Enlarging the commercial zone available for developement by 38%, as requested, increases substantially the future vehicle trips generated by the intensive developement anticipated. The following trip rates are from the Institute of Transportation ,' Engineers "Trip Generation Tables". Included is a 20% deduction for drop-in trips not added to the traffic stream, recommended in the study ` ryTraffc Impact Analysis for the Main Street Centre'° prepared by CH2M-Hill in March 1982. The GI Joe store Will alone add some 3000 trips • per day to Pacific Hwy. Developement of the rest of the present commercial zone will add from 1000 to 3000 more trips , depending on the ‘i:„. size and use of the... additional retail space. The fu..-1". rr,,. ad.ditional..: • developement permitted tv the Comp Plan Amendm :, increase this by het another 1000 or more additional vehicle trip4 .y on this stretch of Pacific 14wy. Carl Btz.ttke" s 1975 traffic study for N?O countedr �ps . about �� Of10 tri... � per day on the affected area of Pacific Hwy. The Oregon nepartment of . TransportationComp counted about 28�C�O� in 1982. This Plan Amendment alone has the Potential of adding onethirds or mores of the growth in daily trips th"t occurred on the affected stretch of pacific Hwy over that ? ear y period The LCDC transbortation goals and the Comp 'Plan (Vol I, p 220, Vol II, 13, 57) speak of minimizing adverse social and economic costs and of pp y (pp developing a safe t+ransportation syst�i�«' The a 'licant sa s 12 & 13)' that thisdevelopement' w i11 notcreate traffic hazards. According to the Comp 'Plan (Vol I, p 244, Table VI) seven of the twenty most hazardous intersection s in the city are':on 'the, stretch of Pacfic Hwy most affected by this proposal. The Comp Plan (Vol I, p 243) discusses the problem of motorists diverting onto residential streets • to avoid ards and congestion. Approval of this Comp Plan Amendment yi ` ' haz • will only exacerbate this hazard. The a li, (p . `cles will. divert through pp Dant first states 2) that no ve��i the neighborhood, then hopes (p 8) that they won't to any appreciable E' degree. The GH2M-Hill report admits (p 2) to the inevitability of diversion through the, adjacent local streets and estimates (fig 3) the degree at 4%. For the following reasons, this proposed developement 4. seems likely to cause more t.raffic diversion onto our internal streets. 1 The Buttke study (p 11) found about 12% of the traffic in NPO 3 entered and left by each of SW 121st Ave and BW Tiedeman Ave. A shortcut from Washington Square, with traffic and signal bypass, to ;, r i this market related site would follow Greenburg, Tiedeman and Walnut. Congestion at Pacific Hwy and Walnut could be avoided by cutting through µ the neighborhood on Watkins to Park. From Greenway the route is 121st' and Gaarde. Both the Comp Plan (Vol II, p 73) and the,. Buttke study (p 18) refer to the volume of through traffic already r utilizing Gaarde. By cutting through the neighborhood on., 110th and Park, traffic can access the site by making a right turn onto Pacific Hwy instead of fighting two left turns across 'Pacific Hwy traffic. While the applicant asserts that there are no ,substandard, (p 10) , the Comp Plan admits that many of the collector streets are nOw below p , , Park, Watkins , and Walnut are standard (Vol I - 22.1) . Gaarde 110th all classified as collector Streets (Vol 1:1 PP 226 & 227) 1, all ere in g , by proj ect or ad,�'acent,~ to our neighborhood,�c�rhood a1,1 w��.11 be affected this : and:+ none. ,of them com. ly with standards i.n the Camp :Plan (Vol I pp 23 p � 2241. The impact on all of these substandard streets` would be exacerllated byra{nin this comp Plan. hmenmnuk xs The internal neighborhoodneigh,hothood,, streets' ItLos ' efE0tted ,ate also all ParticuletIY hata rdous Watkins is narrow and winding w .th a rise and curve r coinciding midway to create a blind hazard. 110th is only a half--street improvement from Garden Park Place to Fairhaven Way and is hilly,. winding, narrow and much of it is blind. The completely blind, hillside, 90° intersection of Park and 110th is terribly treacherous. The proposed developement raises questions about both. hazards and congestion on Pacific Hwy and on the collector streets. The Comp Plan and the traffic studies repeatedly cite the increasing conestion and hazards as causing increased dive:cion onto internal residential streets. T.:hq. city and the developer have an obligation to address these problems so: that whatever developement occurrs on this parcel does not spill traffic hazards into our neighborhood. Again, thoae problems would only bv the be e�acexacerbatedg g rantin of this Comp Plan Amendment that theadditional vehicle trips can be accommodated The applicant says p within the existing capacity of Pacific.fic. Hwy (p 10) • y This is a complete unknown. Metro �s currently working on a corridor . study of the traffic on Pacific Hwy int he`Tigard area. This will not be completed sooner than August of 1984. Until a plan for futti ce t. trafficrowt g h on Pacific Hwy is, developed, approval of this major additoirr of vehicle trips would seem to be premature. • e e '` ' t ;.' " fe "i'/" 4.0.1., � . �-:�t& f° C�e rvw ray d '" aY+ "TM ' ' ` 4' � k ` r � ,"� a w*„ _, •,0M4� » t vM ikI40 J7It� e- X l�. c �� r,?�� +J ) ' jil.. a •'"'A4- _Lake OsweaoBe_vriew Tbucs.,J any 12, t 984 -41111111110'; , , , , i .. LOlcJTowñ is 1 -...,,.,:** h��rJ„ r.. cooperation k The rec , :”ent passage a comprehensive plan text amendment in the Old Town area carries with it, we believe, some symbolic % _. •meaning. Recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by .� 1 4 the City Council last week, the amendment allows boundary changes to take place in the Old Town Design District east of State i;street 'between the Village Shopping Center and George Rogers "4.Park. q • ': • 1 • g jt. • • •.. •a •r •r • a V.•• ` -At •n • • y 1 f h ..•rrri ►., , (Mii,ti, I'S O k 2 L f .. • fan• is Willing to ma e�some_..cgtl essivns to accommo'.ate it. rµ( 4*,,,,,.,,tc, •�t,.,ri ✓hzt..• ) Y uim.;; 1 .t me . - ►• •If •• • • • Ili .:. : _`the # • •t,a a as a . ••1t.wt a as endable. f • •• . 1'".lim pit s« •• •,$$0 .al a I C tt`_E*rgia ___ ,1 i ! oo .wn ail • • 1 , •• . •• •. •'"•• . I I n •.. ! .i.r� : t � .'• � Wit. • The lines were•_•• ars •. • •. • .' e needs of i iti `resit'enfs � • •'owners and 'usinesses when t _c °e en. , "t°T"'St?R .rtsiMi•icolij-i.1 ua•a was .ur•ose • 1 . ace• in the n eat.amen•men ne...�s,�y to move Amur r • 4 ut t e an rig Commission and City Council',agreed that in r ":order to attract business downtown, the city should be willing to • the residential/commercial t eAnd •, .:provide rncer�tives to'developers. • #boundary in the Old Town Viesign District was targeted as an area f ;in which the city could benefit by being flexible. t f* The •• S .•.••• which. 'a, • • a W5' a veto ers.with * I �•tf t C.-r.t:. 1+ ., 1-4", ...) 1 ► 111a o a • .t a . •` •.• • • • , t ' • � �• • Hen s in �'� area,: ��ab � y� •w,! :*wa •r • • a • •^• • ' • . u•1r e • �esr•ents - owners and ad . • . : "° See s.r•0y + 'v�;, ,. h , e.,.,ir.-rle.:c t, That.s not,to say that everyone was pleased with the outcome. s , nt►vts t• e ,y 2,14e_ 4,.,ry if ,;,Some`were concerned that the city was being unfair by only allow, , •• `;r Mutrir he end even the residents,-who have t istrarically been 4‘4'41 44cQ 411''‘'' 11'' `i' 1 5,idrt.�r • ,ivnoet;il aboutvrotectin tstheir onei thhborhoodal , were'lar r y satisfied n ,.f 'r til' a.. , « at, r raga a a 4 J a, .,0+'�.h�: 1.. During,the next several weeks, hePlanning Commission will , e i `` ,. old public hearings on other amendments aimed at encouraging ,*�'t• ,e,,e� g • ,'re l would krt4 P ` „ �r4 1.4014r..,1,01", i / t o.,. ., • encoura► a the communityfollow�hrs �` ' to tine example , lit cooperation and involvement. , +. , - + * r Via•,. y CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION • FINAL ORDER NO. 84-701 (2 '., m` A FINAL ORDER IN THE MATTER OF THE 'APPLICATION FOR 4 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND A ZONE' CHANGE REQUESTED BY TIGARD WEST DEVELOPMENT, JB BISHOP, GI, JOES, AND ALICE TREFFINGER, FILE NO. CPA, 11-84 AND ,ZC '8.-84,, DENYING THE APPLICATION REQUESTS, ENTERING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS M , The Tigard Planning Commission heard the above application at its regular ; ' meeting ,of July 10, 1984. The applicants appeared along- with their attorney ' ' and architect. Appearing for the opposition. were a number of interested property owners, represented' by legal counsel and the Neighborhood Planning ' j Organization (NPO # 3). The Commission finds the following FACTS in this matter: 1. The applicants for this matter, Tigard West Development, JB Bishop, GI Joes and'Alice Treffinger, requested a reclassification from R 3.5 zoning and low density designation, whichwould allow for single family residential units to a (C-G), General Commercial designation on a parcel of land designated as Washington County Tax Map 2S1 '3DA ' ' u, Tax Lots 4700, 4800, 6100 and 6200 and Washington, County Tax Nap 281 3DD lot 200. The information supporting the request, is ,found in File No. CPA 11-84. 2. Tie applicant's justification., is presented in ', the minutes for the July 10, 1984, Planning Commission meeting. The applicants at that time, represented by Attorney Stephen Janik, spoke to issues relating . to squaring' off •aparcel that is 80% committed to commercial, pei hboring streets, a change i which would g 1 potential ne l� il�le traffic: impact on n � �� o a commercial designation wro 1 ' be better for thea. existing • residences the conformance of the application to the plan policies, , e residentialung on the 5 residential lots in question whether th zoni ffi *gas a mistake, and the increase in jobs for local residents, and the' conformance, of the application to locational "criteria, 3. The relevant approval criteria in this case are the State-wide Planning Goals' 1,, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 1.2, , 13, 14. Goals 3, 4„ and 15 �- 19 do not apply. In addition- the' City of `Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 5.1.4, 6.3,3 and12.2.1. The, Commission, make the followingrINDINGS in this matter: 1. State-wiee Plannint, Goal f 1 is met because the City hair adopted a Citizens Involvement' program including rev`iew of sll development app1icatious by the Neighborhood Planning Organization, (NPO). In edditi.orn Ill public notice requirements were tet. 2. State-wide Planning Coal 1t 2 is met because the City applied all. applicable State-wide Planning; Goals,, City Comprehensive Plan ' . ' Po1icins- and feveloptrient, Code 'requirements to the application. ,3', state-wide Planning 'Goal' 1/ 5 does not apply because no open space - 'would be treated or removed bythis application proposal „v r,.. ar a a ,.n.w, .74 n n� ;wrr wJ4r uu.,u„ eawi�r.rtrrow& 'a:..,,.;:.0 u n •u� ,.. a i�x a +o. ',m , ur u.x w,w u 4. State-wide Planning Goal # 6 does not apply because water, air and land resources quality would not be affected by this application proposal. 5. State-wide Planning Goal 11 7 does not apply because there are no natural hazard areas on the property. • 6. State-wide Planning'Goal // 8 does not apply because there would be no '.. recreational facilities being constructed or removed as, a result of this proposal. 7. State-wide Planning 'goal 1/ 9 does not apply because the portion of land being proposed for the change from residential to commercial is too sw.all to impart the City's employment picture. 8. State-wide Planning Goal # 10 does not apply because the removal of 5 homes from the City's housing stock would not have a great impact City-wide. • 9. State-wide Planning Goal # 11 is met because public facilities are available to the site. 10, State-wide Planning Goal # 12 is not satisfied because. SW Watkins Street is not improved to City standards and is inadequate to carry heavier volumes of traffic at the present time. ° 11. State-widz Planning Goal # 13 does not apply because there are no great anergy savings to be gained by changing the five residential properties to commercial. 12. State-wide Planning Goal # 14 does not u,pply because the proposed change does not affect rural land. 13. City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because the Neighborhood Planning Organization and surrounding property Were given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to co , ent on the applicants proposal. 14. City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.1.4 is not satisfied because approval" of the applicants' request would allow commercial development to encroach into a residential area that has not been designated for coma ercial use- 15. se.15. City of Tigard Comprehensive, Plan Policy 6.3.3 is not satisfied because approval of the applicants' requestwill not preserve and enhance the character of the adjacent established area. Y5 City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 12.2.1 issatisified in that all of the appropriate locational criteriahave been applied', to the project, however, not all of the locational criteria can be met b h the applicants' proposal.. • The Commis, lon adopts the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. Based on Finding No. 10, the Commission has determined that SW Watkins is not improved to standards adequate p q to carry increases' X;, traffic loads. 2. Based on Finding No. 14, the Commission has determined that the applicants' request to redesignate 5 single family residential, lots to commercial would allow comms rcial development to encroach into a residential area that has not leen designated for (::ommercial use. 3. Based2 on Finding No. 15, w ermined that the the Commission has determined granting of the applicants' request will not preserve and enhance the character of the adjacent established area. f; 4. Based on Finding No. 16, the Commission has determined that the p request applicants' re lest does not meet all of the locational criteria seforth in Policy 12.2. L Specifically,y, criteria (1) (a) is not met. The �vec,�f icall locational . commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides." It, is, therefore, ORDERED that, based on the above. Findings and Conclusions, the application for a C'omprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change is this matter be,' and the same hereby is,: denied. It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of the this • order. PASSED: This day of 1984, by Planning Commission of the City of Tigard. President - Planning Commission ., 1 City of Tigard m 0529? dna i' ..... -.,. ,_.... .....- .. .... ......:."tel'>'w. • , ti }} • 1y A"'I 'til`"..'� r ' ,,,,e7 iVIDA , .,, ,.., ,,.„, . ., .. ., .. 4-7. wX Qv M Aler , � . rr -YkhAk }yA. '1 _y�•'', v" M e,- ti tIF� 1a v F.P' N �4. ',. ' '' �„G �t v. 75' }"`?� A X75: *� r^�� • '�;� dj 3, .'�, °rR �w�* i",� `� �,' .. „> 'G4�` ,7:;:e �" .' +k'kle4 ' +'i4 `,*pit' 4,10-41e-,'.. 'k. .tg-4'4 r` , aJr ,, ,,, .'` /€ gip 4r„ y,�. *a” ''•� nt� �� ' r k v" �} � "r'� *u "RF (yP' r.,. 1 tp, # A 1 ,,,,. I^"t ,:,a r. x t I :?+ „; ^r�; Is a" 4•Adr , ±�5 t ,�y� 4„,,,,,,,,,,,,,� ham. ��l y t, ,fit � ,,spy W , "` -'ic ,,`�))p�rpg.'. ,,,„ L"„,rr,»: S V3, t+ f,Y,, ;'. r ,•,„Nt.... ,,,i s.,tr .' •..AV,.., i t. ,=•a,,•n '''d`�.: 91iM"AC'¢= fy, r,. '' �'••,, i ;,� '�yb �Mwr„,. ,PP'". '�'' M ` � �RJ' �,.h'* ,F,. .py�.. 4u. t� Mh'� rv�`� ��#� :f ,�p' 6•,,;,,,,,„ IC +f U „ y,. c; ,,,,!1; � ,f.ti av ,v' i'i'i S w lye `� ,d: , Y ,t»,xY•," ,,t ;'.;,, ,r .t",tµ,€'.Vi A ,_t r.," 6.: ;a >tif ';tfr o ,a " , r.-,• r• ,,,,,,,e'.4 'S, �l�� :',:,� «,, `�+'^ -� �.•^ ,a r � ,��t�t;.�•� �l!' �u� � .�r �`ro- �, ' �I�' °��'r� �`+:�, ,�,�� `�a° �'."'+� �• ,�Y, <:,�. w�,G��,,''-.,�.�,?t .. ..' ,l 4 t r' � +v-:x. :: �r',-' 4,,,--x"' f fin. _ rfp ✓.+ I. 0' » r,, './.4,,',' ^, • }n 1,— r'�,r" 6 tt 2Qh %', v, .x #..< ,rc '»:;O, .,a" , i t't', �f '+,..,•1 "f •tl-' F' �9' ,p ;1 . .,k��K, - ,.><: �«a. fir`�,i.'t<+�'��'' �,"'aY N.* �a=13 'a '�x' �•, •. ,�„�k".�,�`°,<,•'+. w"kr '��" �-* 4„',�u :kd^t,r«•14"" 1',';,r��y,+„X,<j ss ,�3' �•l.t°M'�? �'*'�^7 y`�y. '�"ri�"II''.F e `, 1 '* . r�''<,« i x ;n .:s•*r �,.,,,),tr F1+k, ,,,i Y i•+-,•‘'•ro 4-.,. _ T-.,P':: r r tx,.,e,s � r llE ." + `, •" 7, '''+ t .. � .y�. �T4. �_. 4 � 4 4.., 'ur..«,., �..^ ...Cx+t^^'_•,q ,*."._..`��,� I ,.a 4'',d«,1. ^^ .4 y�.t?°,. N'C:' w, t+tl� �p„•t,,.�,.4, '�� (..":„17, rK�-" i.,..,'�� ':'',, efr , . :v „,,,,, ofn , „0 ' .,", 4.,..,,,,, ,,nA ', ,,,if.' ' '4 ' P )/„.•,-.40'} ','* ! ',� �,,' h ry,y"'Y .y 'uM., ;�•` h [ k .j; � .. wY , M.- R;I*9i� 4G ' , ,y2at'.. , ° 4 7 ;q}:s n.• , c ' Y` ° • �s,��'W' w'�'✓�� .u, v' c .,_ w u '�x%� �' '*��' � +~* �">w„,v„r".. ,-��'� �k,�`"tu 1,,.." �'''t l�`p•v_.�^ ,.,„,,,,,,,,p,,c„��;��, w �f , il a' Y�'. • ,.to.�- ••••-•.,,,.1 �.,,it}4` ,UI"`A r �yga,•"..d . . /ri ux'( :'? ,�.-',, ;: �y'-`7.: ' id ,,,, .w^: ,y,,�,t"+•y,( i,.-t y ,,,,t`,,,,,' >'�*..� }� r. "„�• ',• T.,.e�"r�'.,,. }'q ".'`” 6' 0,0-1'14.,,,,,, A;-• L,°..i 4,••C,..�WtiF '' ,:nk O,' .... ^,yi".,,.,1-4,^ y';*J"„+'y , } �. ..Y ,:i°J ' a�,,' .��'+�'r "" ✓Y �:4: P� ,A. 'ilb ✓"' •r' „r k"+1 ,,,,,,,, �, t .`. ,. '' I 4 „,{ye,mt(� I �w"�, ' ,{�N' y� ia."4�•u, 4, 4P".....i,�, W&•� 'Y^ y, � � ,.iw ..� : 1 ,'•'.. p ,',,, 4: t' �••,.' ,s,,..0¢p r a,, 4 .gyp ' h. }� w a �7 k3 "' *" 7 fie: ` 'V Al "b • 't .+8 „� ,47,.',„,,: '#1 $ ,,,,,0,-„,,. y,L,GN @ f;;.� ..41,'" � fw" wT ��r� :�«ry1^' 0/4,.titl0,4,4?.: -'1•,, �in:. , P v' k.. "+' n.%ii '','', # �'e'.1:1 017 t' ;a�.„-'=rr-� *k ',`'''.f.*,';``''' `, F;._��"�It5. S � ,'a „., » i • * ” 4in " y Ry, " w R;. v ., t ./, ; C S;fi a 'A + „,,t,..(!)-k.,.., ..,a,. C• 4,,,,„.„4,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ..0 y..wN , Gi, uf •• ,, rtV fit . , . it , ' ” Jr ri .•` d 4e + tP0'6'",i,,..,04, "-t .04, r } ",' 0'' J ,. #{ r' ° Y "'t "x 'C a G ( + " 'ta, :•''�� `; . r^ t iia. to'•_s / ek „r % � 1,,'` r4a^"" r fixG� ' ." ,e ' ` M, «" � ,Xt$ 1K; 9,� y12Y"�� L „..tef + ,Vi+ift11,�� µ .,-k +5N^4AvtIrAfFA�4�rr ' 7, t:.^ «.-44,,,,,,t,,,, , "i'el".M• 5; r ,t.il�y'Ci4 �« ,.. ,, ,.l" .. . r ' .,. r rrd� I� .• '+r: �'. i "e, air!' 'F; s. p,.�r ";. ,,1� i„,S+,p`r','..- ,),„,...,0,'-'4,,c.,.... ,,,Y,';' ,>•"" .0.,..:4r,-"C•A 1 oyw'-n'I, J,:.'„--.: ,i ' t,', ft' e:1„ 0 , G!, „ ry '" -)•*, y. ';,, ,F' t..„., '�,• .' ,,;.,,,.. 4y ,,„,m 1 F ,.�;� "^�'y ,•}"'*e.,, F 6 '..� .4,,,,,,,:,'7-1i-,---• 'R:: r, 1 r' el „;•Pil' ik ,I,'11"1` „+ . at,4 r' pp _fir... '�- h,' ,. 'N^' � ex r' ' s. tee" � ,,,e a'' nF, ..I� e 'L S, J'' %K"t'+_ 'r1' ' ,'�, ,,t ,.'. ,;j -, .a°„m .7,,,,..,,,..-0,..,...,,,,,,,,,c.,...,..,7 t "•a ,J,4'''''`-'4,r w,.r '•4•., ,4•, ,�t:' >w` i. b'��,, :wi', „,. '..f, $ ^,,.. ,,?r .,iy;. r, ',.r r '�;.� '" �,�'�. v BIW„'. I �''w, hwi'`�+ �r�.:ww1 :'µ,.ms 'nrM, #.MIM,'.:ey" "9� ,r �9r` w A.`�M-'�j,k ^Yf� V i ' P' p•,. .^'u' 0 Ary r IN.M,yy "•(�Fa y,.+ * r��trk) Ir Ali.,. ,,( .'� �i`7kK a. 6`P 4i,.,, 'p-^I„1 pq rr ,,,G ,,••,,, r •r, .4I,."f_ CM.0.;•#:I!' ai.;'6' 44'""„,,• I,„.'^ ,�.- •1, , w n w � ,,,,,,,,.-„-",,,,,,...ti E ��vr, � q ,', ,,•/'J,,,, t � �p: /t •i ? 1 4 J 44,41? 4w. krt" "" alb •• a # ' µi ,qN"� ,��r t. �r. ;'� CI' r V ��' i.„"4 �,'�.• p"fi y,+7> aN} ,� na�,,a.�' )•, ,,. yu,, r• ,I 004,,,,,,,.,,t,-7 ( 40.1,«. {^ate �y t ' ,,s, ,"yy ,,•>, - , y "%4F«",„''i*i. i,'t'. .,,,P,•,,, ''R+r ''.riy' +4-§f,• '4,.�t� 'riL-W p., �"Y',.« 'F1w^',�r'4?�«�� 4*.° r. 1 "� +i„ Y lw'} � ,+,R w�. ' • ;i �.t ..fry a fiL,� d a•", n idr. '.�,,, v i 1 �"' J�i„ ,.y � , r..K� n,,��;�1 n. _w„t ,,.; v� , u•`.�' ":«' d�fa �rq�� W'"''..•r �,�. I�y+k��' 'r n o' ^'" r��.'.!n t•"6 ' , r ;,,,,,�p �jM''0 'Ir`+�"R ,,,x,1.�' L•• ,4k"�`•,+i' x ,yt «ate ..rri M' ,, �,,, y �'g�r✓,� "",,t`,t l,.,„ ` ' � kNY f'^ 'e `^.,.,w`w• d 4 2N.I� o^ 1, , "'k"'.''*'.:.,. ,,o ��,,,. ,, (, ..d ;, ":Sim +� i �S - � iitet '+'" �'ra:•,r`'.. 'Gtr "M 1 ''„•w''"r - i• • ,• 1 1'v/I- ,,.„.+.,,+»rwnn.,wyN+aw W , 1 ..., �r.w..,.wy].,• .....' • .. •M1 1 '«"rh w•. '+.a'.wu+awmrvuw .,Ws„e..«v. 1• r, . k . 'tlb),,,,,1410, *4,1.014... I ''''' ' '' i :10 H 14,"4-pcze..0 iiil#..; ', ,.,,, , r ,,, ,,, ,, ., V , ,,,,,, ,,,, ,../ ,,,,,,, ;,,,...,17'''.,,, . (e,...„... 4 t ,..,, ,,,,,k) e tile ,., g)i.„, ,,, 4 , ,,,,,..... , ..,,,,, ...I ..(tt 1 I A,,,,, : . , ,,, , 1 0 ,,,,. .., , . , c. ' ' i 3 / s—j SW ' { ra �' c ''''' + r i R Zt,pF' $ $. 4 ~I" � � '1'4P,0-014? , ,• { • r go ''''' - I 6,7,...., ,„,,,,„,. , ,,,,,,, (., 1, r.A,.,.......,, , A.„.1 k.,.. /A A , 1+ ''�` q Iff C/1 ff'' 7, 4. . ) . lam `" „,,,,, , {r"�`Kky'� �,tyv. ' ” 'a• y.•,, t,, Wr ,��,.., r .` ,.r'} r ,p "_: -. _. I-7.. '.'tr gni:'11 ', v,'•�t`'tZ.R 4. M7r,� n0'k.`'+.-'"ti,,,,,, (7;i'2� ere, f?J' 1 ,mac y r �w � �. ��Sph�'j f}� 4�,� f'•�i t'Jtr� }�GHJ,"�74'p�,� rt��, f ' .4?`:1,1�Li'i'it,.J;+ir f`fi ^ta.,C-.�4+i�,s 4"'i ,"*. L 4,pi�R - 1 r. rJ lei, dA,p .-„Y .NA /.11 - N.,,,, . ,:„;,....,i•7, ,.:7-43 O.!, '67 ct'ifi oe,,.' (' I:70„.",),y ' fe,,,T' li!O`'''',041'0'''.0) ' , t..,4,'4' 1sf,:4 V''',-,-,',' v'' .,.'4(.SC4q4tit d:. r { �ltz.' .. ' a, t �.,,14 p,, " � !'S,, 4:'','..')'': t $'` it' tiE „ •"y l." Y .t 4 . . 4CIWOFTIRD WASHINGTOP4 COUNTY,OREGON a ( If 'i5' , '... .., Ce ../"." , , t GENERAL APPLICA'T'ION FORM CASE No. : CITY OF TIGARO, 12755 SW Ashy PO Box 23397 RECEIPT No» , , Tigard, Oregon 97223 -- (503)639-4171 ii 9 u i . GENE .AL INFORMATION 014) , FOR STAFF USE ONLY PROPERTY ADDRESS - , r'.,t„ � AssociatedCases: LEGAL DESCRIPTION c6,1.44 Ci 0:° ► _,._. m TNI'ER1A.L PhOCESSING a Acce ted for Pre-�1?,pp. • SITE SIZE .e ' . S..^x,„r�vr t ' , s ' 0 P 5 r , PROPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDER* C4Mep4 + i e„." .» w ADDRESS PHON GTY _ ,a;II ' y. .r.. Pre-App. . � �fI Z'IP , -p �, .. ;,• ; "' Date & Time: APPLICANTt. d. ADDRESS , fes` .; : rr� .: ,� PHONE, .— _- Accepted for Det„is on: � . CITY '°'r ?r' ., '�. .-' -'. 1 ZIP ' T ` rapplicant ,. * are different people the By Where the owner and the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a leasee in 7 Hearing Date: possession with written authorization from the owner or aI1 " agent of the o+saner with`written'authorization --�- . r The written Hearing Reset To: authorization must be submitted with this application. EE$2• REQUI0ailedRED LETTER C)F Ail'T�iORIZATIC;�d IS A"ITACk�ED NO. : Dec�.szon. filed & m . THIS APPLICATION INVOLVES THE FOLLOWING: APP. _ � , .W I"EE FILED PAID Accepted for Appeal: Comp,:ahens ive Plan Amec-6ndment -� M By: from ” 3'. "` t o quasi-judicial /legislative • Date of, Rearing: '� Zone Change frr;m,� a - tom ,., quasi-judicial ,. legislative g DESCRIPTION: Planned Unit Development .` "-'"" Comp. Plan Designation concept plan. detailed plan Subdivision: . p._ 4 N.*O No. Hajor" Partition .Minor Partition ' ^ Zoning District -- , ` : , Design Review `� Conditional UseZPning map N Variance to Zoning Ord ,nanc.e (Title 18) Quarter Sects on ot. Variance to Subdivision Ord (Title 17) ».�. 7.. k Sensitive Land Permit , ..._. STAFF NOTES: Ploodpla,ins Dra nag " ays S tee p Slopes _ _.... _. 3.�� Otheru. L OTASA. : r ,uta.w ' AA In . GENERAL APPLICATION FORM • 'AGE 2 CASE No. _ CITY OF TIGARD ij 12755 SGS Ash, PO Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 -- (503)639-4171 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION (TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT) FOR STATE USE ONLY 'Notice of Response 'r 4 . DISTRICTS .�-�� _Aeps�.. Sent ' to - 4 Y- ,,' Ye s SCHOOL DISTRICT rrr" G,� J'/rc WATER DISTRICT "` FIRE DISTRICT ,' , : , PARK DISTRICT > ' I- UNIFIED SEWERAGE A.GENCY - Sewer Available: YES El N0. , OTHER 5. PUBLIC UTILITIES ELECTRICITY ,/'� � h' i-„ ?,�f`� ”/e'C,`�. ':, _ f ,. NATURAL CAS_ , ( t.014,/ '-7 ',`- :• TELEPHONE 4 , M � OTHER 6. PUBLIC TRANSIT (TRI MET) • NEAREST BUS ROUTE AND STOP j `1C 494' j7; e;latutt,t, 7. OTHER, INTERESTED AGENCIES (SPECIFY) • o , 8. CHARACTER OF TRE AREA • EXISTING LAND USE PLAN` DESIGNATION ZONE VERIFIED BY STAFF NORTH i9 t p e&° / ter.. ` , ;SOHT� tp..-- . EAST , '1E81 1( cx*de.itittk � �M g,. f)."6 • R i s ► "« wu • N n -w r GENERAL APPLICATION FORM '.: PAGE 3 a CASE No.---_-- CITY OF TIGARD, 12755 SW Ash, PO Box 23397 Ti ,ard, Oregon 97223 - (503)639--4171 9.. CHANGES IN THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA WHICH AFFECT THIS APPLICATION. Please Discuss: . 4- oairdof 1, fie. -rrr s v' e., - moi, 9 461, dt 2.4,11't , + c+ � � i t • 14 ^ r"Ott,rty el Ze-ritog} fe," .rif tb £'6 zm4'0,j, , 44.E ea ye r r f k ��1✓G' ",r 1 k� 2:` � d,✓�wd �/// 6J'e t1r1*'� 4MFwil`'� 'rZti Sik,,11,41.4 it 4,417, 0.A r �hy /11954r1e .d IP ,, , ,k„ ,{ e��,�� t t''. 3, plc y�{,i,{ q r�+',}P, ..j1 ee 71' : t4 A0 rz -G1e f" TICI','f'� �/��7,/,,M ,,, , r(�'t } .., efts 't .-. .e. 7, 2,--),,,,,t, A'J7- 4.4...-"tr., arr - ii b • �l�e�Wy e r4/700 ( 2.s 1 AC 8),11.,44 1ee',,, � , 40 e e D 'v'e / y � y} 'i. P 71,a/ ^�'�''' y,�'.. �r y 7 e)4,;(7-,),,,,,,, �6�' ...e.->f,, fe - , "is k ;`. ; t Aiz .44 e'! G .,.. P ,1 x1 ete )ler CZ /+`w"7 +4 f+� #'''x ,� da,t, fr �" ` dd r'#�rneg t,Q 1 a,,,,,r L '"r 10. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE t Lot Area (acres, square feet) ' re"r : ' , J r ,.;t , ..� 4,410,.�4.4A-- - • ' 11. EXISTING STRUCTURES ON THE SITE Square Distance Frort"i Property Li.rue '(+kms Feet North �! Use Au i ra Sout East .West +SLC , .<[ f* . . �a1 H C" ,, , , I,t1 .1 � , ,. i. 4, ,II ' ,� 2' e.�tii d / t ,eel, califs°e�', _ ,' 5 say. :• „kJ,,. '�i vde . r''`'e .,e 4' e. 1M G;ti 1/,‘-‘,e.,,' , . .t 62, 'a' l.i . . 1t14ve ,1 v44 1r10se .2 ..Li NATURAL CONDITIONS 12, Percent S lope t ,> -'..174;/;i474- 13 ' Vege talion Types Average Diatte ter Percent. Of Each ," Yes No Size Of Trees PerSize Irees, «......,.,...�•. • Brush: } • Grass,: ,,. 14 Floodpiaitis t iow much of the site is in floodplain?: 44, 15 Water Courses What type? 16. Rock Outcroppings ...., �.._•,,.�;...� . Other: .. 18,3, Proposed De e1opmentt Please brie ly 'describe' the proposed development: GENERAL APPLICATION' FORM -�..t 'AGE 4 CASE No CITY OF TIGARD, 12755 SW Ash,, PO Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503)639-4171 19. The following is [:], is not required.' 20. Overall Site Development Residential Commercial Industrial Open Space Other Roads Total No. of acres or square 4,4 o •.• ee t per use .w Percent of site coverage p . , 21. T e of ResResidential�a.l. Use and Characteristics # of Bedrooms/Unit ti ° T pe of Use # of T nits EFF. 1 2 3 4 Fro op, se,d Density } 22. Where applicable , please explain how the open. space , common areas and, recreational facilities will be maintained. 23. If the Jcompletedin be ro ect is to ' phases, please describe each . phase of the praje��tx p teff. * Please submit the following with this application: ` • 1. Written General Narrative, number as, required. by. Planning Department., 2. Proof of Ownership Lotter of anthoritatio taut is not owner '' �.; 4. Tai. Map as required byDevelopment 5. Names and address of surroundingproperty owners pent code. '. Staff will identify for you, whether this section isto be completed. • .00 4, • PAGE GENERAL APPLICATION FORM -` 5 CASE No. CITY OF TIGARD, 12755 SW Ash PO Box 23 Tigard, Oregon 97223 - (503)639-4171 THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE, AS REQUESTED By; THE APPLICANT, SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF EAC} HEARING A Ce.g. Attorney, Surveyor, Engineer) Staff Notice . .,K' Notice Report Decision of Review Name c as ., '/ '77 - 1111 Stree t r'c rrPe /fel i 41,4 j .:',.`- d..). 41,14f j,1,�,, r/Ire " City tate Zip 9 ', G' Name y 00/ Stree t '� , P'' , , ;,:..,,e _ LI, Cit w''r'ti'-f:/p"iLaT state ffe;, Zip r2Z, Name 1111111 .0 4,04>' s tree t qe'd µ Botcl 44, 1 Y. 1,3 City LO t State O, ' Zip , <74120 Name . pit: APPLI CANT �' ,r e .a e w'e'` ,,,;' J r i ..hw —See o'r a i'i'' OWNER Ce-if fix iltd`64.4-0-ee+4itiolAiry, ittlitetlke ' � , /t 7 j . I 5 ., . . . .1 .1 t - j, 0 ( 9 7.crg .. ,, , . . , . i . . , .' , . , --B rM'arianr�. -Atherton, Charles and • • is � '• 2S13�A 00400 -Baker, Ruth H 2S13DA 6£300- :i s, ( Elizabeth H ieifron, Donald E 10620 SW Cook PO Box 267 Tigard, OR 97223 Troutdale, OR 97060 05900--Bishop, Wilbur A and Martha 00500--fep'pner, Selma 10590 SW Cook Lane 13180 SW Watkins St Tigard, OR 97223 2 Tigard, OR 97223 •.: 06000---Grossman, Randy M and 00600--Meyer, Duane Francis and Grossman, Donna L Wheelock Annie Elizabeth 13485 SW Watkins St i • 13210 SW Watkins Ave Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 • 00700--Ha.tch, James S and Marciel Jeanette 2S13DD 00100--Gilbert, Bertha A 13 205 SW Watkins Ave 13610 SW Watkins Ave " Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 00800---Braden, Robert W 'and 00300--Parrott, Alice G Annie L 13570 SW Watkins 13175 SW Watkins Tigard, OR 97223 ^ Tigard, OR 97223 00401--Forbes, Kenneth L and 03201--W,inters, Gerry L Charlotte Nl • : 10625 SW Park.St 13525 SW Watkins Tigard, 0.h. 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 04400--Christ the King Lutheran 00402---Borthwick, Betty Church 10605 SW Fairhaven 10630 SW Park St Tigard, O^ 97223 • Tigard, oa 97223 0043E -Ward, Marion 4 04500--Stanley, Jabez B and 10600 SW Fairhaven Gladys Tigarc'., OR 97223 10600 S7 Park , Tigard, OR 97223 00437-Bay,. Norma A 13605 SW Watkins 04600--Grose:r11, Kenneth R and Tigard, OR ' 97223 Susan M fp, 10570 SW Pari 00500--nucleon Oil Co Inc ##23 Tigard, OR 97223 PO 80X 907 �Cansas '�' f••{ ity, MO 64 41 04900--Brown* Fred and Virginia 13365 SW Watkins Tigard, OR 97223 -. 2512CB' 00: 00--Regehr, Donald G and,. � t Rogene 05000--Dunn, Charles W and MarY 12050 SW, Sth061 St PO Box 23728 Tigard,, OR97223 Tigard, OR., 97223 01400- Rill ate .aud i and 'erald ,r e 05100--Oregon State f Vaughn . 'dard ad : Nelson, Philip D and Burke,, Randai1 B, and Xelly Barbara S 10475 SW park 10635 SW Cook Lane Tigardd oA 97223 } Tigard* OR 97223 01600--Pairton� �uW e W 05700--.Moonier, t erun' s L and 10295 SW Perk Ave Victoria C Tigard,, ,011 87223 10634 sla Cook Lan Tigard* OR 97223 • _ - _ -..-^a<�.�'+'+e*:" —�.t.�a`_,:, •- -;, - - -Via: • - -•r=-.a€` t-- •, _- ,s.:'•;i� >, -. • _.. ,. s. ....=';, - -'s > • R � - -.. , .. r-. t"-„,:;,",IL:' f.9..-•E...r-.'�..W� r ,_..,''. f.... �'.r_...t_-.-,>.-.r. -c._S. -..�� ). r-r:. •_,_-_.,:rt_- --.--x.y.... "�"�Yy�.�.-'."._.e.,a.ec ,-s•n <,a.*x,esrS E€.t�3..Ces�-�.: .,._w'>s -^•- 'a,+ i _ - • • .�. i ,s.._�, ""•!,,,,,,,.. a,, : r, :,--;›-.a"_i,...,..Y-.1 -`-,1,',.-'-'-,1.t. . : < -..a r_ -.•-. _E i ! .;, F _3f,'P••4:4,11;, x . .._>c. _ r'. t"`";,-.,"""- a. ,b- a✓_ 1 , _! f_ __.-1T�. =:t i — RI - ._.> ..r,.. u�:..r< s,.. _-__.. �-a„a x„=.-F.. ;... •ry,. : -..,.. -... -. ..- --:4_ --Y.. -J; _-r.k; .. t1 J _+c .t_. , - , ,/►TION ' 4 I11°me ._ } TON COUNTY OREGON .,S ,it x : «c1 ii- 10° ; 1 R. II 114 SEC COR.ON 7 is 3 i OF SEC.8 fits $W Iti ,t IP 313.,L / I ELY S.V.COR. o J `T '.. ..,, Hit L.HIC W ; f '. je F ."!!�"�'-:".•/T'1,.,::::,:,:,-.4...,:-.f,...:,, .$;, J>.'�-�`...t / f P'1 «,f 1 - •>-' - - ,'d:.. fj /.. , ✓a .Yr I. 1 per . , .-� «. .<..F�_.t ✓• !..� �+>...,.>r,��...,-e. -("i -- - - -. # • filTi�t �T'.t►iEtROBE 1 r > 404 403 . 402 401 200 _ .. -cANc,ELLED T LATS I 3g - - 2 3 14OO, 169O,SO1 1500 M 1— 4 'h 3 n. 2 N , ;- ;� ' I • N d ' _ ..-.A t 'i:I--i'' I: 11239 772 79 112.7 114.06- Al V * a • e.:"' . 'E. *g< >' [44.98 TREET331,9'1 300 : ' , -�r a iO1 ._---Z 50 110.80 103 98 11.1�r 417 . 435tet 437,E, E ,S 40 ......r_ a1,° _- 117.17` - I ‘4:- 'ile'is,- ._ - I z 3 a 2 �' 100 '"'�:-1 s.::„tote. 77jj� T r ...,a.,...!„,; _00' it e 1..„4 �ej� 142..84 96.15• i N84°4p bO W 61 _3e, 14189'46k 14369 TM�, 137.96 L, 434 30' ,, t-„,-.:-..4.‘-4.:,-„, f f.:max 5O 8=2 `� -,:,;:.--4ree.191 . . 1 -. .. .' •1y 'it': lr} m 'ma g c 9,''''''':--I'''' 5 00 - *1.fle' \ 5. 1. - 1 Ira I 41- 11''''; e t' 15 it,, + es 4�' � o 4 �b 7, • Oma , (C:S�lo•i2O82) �/�O re,f ,�i�,it r -A� 433 ::, 1 �:_. Jt it >r 1� i♦ris ? I \ 4, . o 4- ° -,s 28.6 1 4 i- f 46 65 io> f r hdH eMwrww,rrfrw"1 • • .• 6,../f,o • . . ... t.. ,y-.."••,• .... eyMt"++i.r�Y7,?"k.;.i'.. r ..rM,;, r,•t. .. r.i'.,wMh w.'1r,x• ..r .• } w,.w ' (If'*' ° rSYA4 a► +a...bs.h,...r:a•�ir..,. '4w..eraaw .,'� .r .';y 014003 108 R ; sus AM' F. + ►E I o; r,mm,.,rym-armtf eebG. ,. I. SlsuSy. E C m Ota Qre�eaaa mrr�csratitoae t".s..aeaan+„edlii+�oheceflead weed provamrer fete erlteedneme,iyieems .t•,, + , •. ,.e e9xa ILeeeeri�u a ,.. 1H ease Eta A eaitgtcrti �•• { Lot 17. FAra%AST KILL. T0CL4.at;l VIT* TBi5tFOXIIOS OF VACATED COOK tAKE adjoining that would aa«cached tl ereto by Q r•dee7 to. 17-40. recoardod Al is Soo& 1190, rag. 225, la the City of Tigard. County of Washington used• State of Oregon". • «+ +c — C""",.uae 'lmenatas aef*d iristariece�[asnest recorded 10/26154 ,lila 'nook 361, rag* 711 , tetere*tt ,recti rded 8/ttil aasin Zook 1190. rages 213.. Laser eatsseatta of the City of Tirjard." • The wee"ce:=4ekreareket Aer eelaae ezress•ersetrie sir Se - ._ 'eevet!!weer,.r,iriiiivesiiitrao,*ft bits otinutte I , Awarr!'s9�ar'� ,rlaq�cd _lemmat .�r Jf9r' • Coe. 11196 ixaX �« anaeth, A. , • AL Lt'!roe* 71.5 to aC'C ' STATE OF O eeA_- JaPrhSlIL t ) jIILievAmi.,• a '�`';_ ,ALM_ • • a pbetd 146.4104 irD ice. k+i'ylE Irjri y1y 1 ONPrezmil„Smu4. Grp 'la` of IteCcnil • Scala V. Coe e set 004.440.44,440,400,_ 404444.. C.L. J eae as , 3[aa a .».. c »� . .� • ena t t «t. a cap+ Ee .e ms-.er+ , : _ , + a. G.7t. C, aid er imaaa Lir.44,1000K.0 aimrdt. sal,fiat t vri 2 l a 674 'S 'e "1tl t Y _piii, fir w• AG+.ywi .Q�• ♦ ^ .r MIMI4x hu. ' x. a6...ra Oat. ie+ x * . • ' J�1t?5 $aoaec`ltwts� jrCeita. Ot taCoscrr ]l e. 9' 010 gyp gra, tre4 ‘1-4b IjLO t --* W+.4,:.w.,r.L.u.w.=moi•. m .41A ,,.. x�'"h �Mr• YIH, i a '•lIMM1MN',. GL ,..� .wm 1'a• '. . �=u-. Wu..an'F6W.,r,,,,,.G;._..... � w;'.+F:rw�.h.wr„t+�', r I ....Al.,r,.,,,,.•w r+r�y�-n.,n• ,r war•+r;t..a-.nyy�r r.:.e,4: s . , • ' �,. • -� A. .. �. .. 1W � u,�4�.�' `i W*'�♦ �' ;%,r ....p•) ,d' M�...: + .i +� Ai , i a,,.,rL,n. I'r a • • .Ai. i A i.w a r i,•, *1,#+ +t .w Z,. + n'A',.'. �•'�. �r �Y � 1 '•"�1„, ..,r,� • ✓ _!;� .,,r..l a,I�tT."2 ;h i i.f,... „ e.r:+., I �6 1 YV « '!., ,� �' y 4 orf V'A ,:µ r • �a.-..-•-.'_...N _.. ,wt,wws wwrw.M.++wrr ++4..rrww.Ir+arw.r+i:tfry+Awl+w.r.w.�urww�.,vrrr..r wwi..Wmi,,. ..M war wuiu w.wi"x w..r... µ i t✓ WARRANTY DEED--STATUTORY FORM �• .F (individual or Corporations 83 U 3 6 0 1 3 NIAN L,w ENGLUND and PATRICIA A. t +tK;2. llEsr huatia nd amd wife {' •.. .a rwa•w •h.w... ..fa.••••W •.a ..+,.}•...ea«w Af+}..•.aw wa-a.r.. .}.Ww.c... .'... . .a Grantor,c ROBERT L SAX l!c•ARrittitt i conveys and warrants to .. I e ' '.� i, a,'♦♦i w Y a w w a w a a Y 1 4 F•+'•a w.i i•.t a"•..a s i f•«++•f a•+..♦.W w.w•w.+.S w w• a• •a.Y I w w}x.i.••a•w.• »iw a Grantee, the following described real property free of encurnbranc.es except as specifically set forth herein: Lar 15, ah.in axst J►l�2'A.5'1< 1tIIwL, tta gt County, Oz'etaltstt { • ' 10/26/54 [+l Encumbrances' Subject to vers of Unified'SewerageSewerageAgeu 'y. Cav�enaanacrecorded ' • Book 351 peg* 711. The trtxr,consadeiataoh tear this conveyance rs S (Here comply with the requirements of,ORS 93:030'). c,. Dated tii& .w .aw a.•,i«• y +»..•w.. Bgrantor, d G its name to be si ned�b order of its b oftd t,f directors.. «'it a ccsrparate it has cause aid' f. .,.. '•+�' • 1V.. w... 4 "„ wf♦M+ +.+i i• aA1a►Pt L+a Eno AatA + raltw>~1C1.�t a« c�ZAtBsd..4 �" _ rw Yw...rl ww waw..w w+.ww.s• »w+wa� i � �.. y �.. }+}aFw.',.kh«w•.a Aa.M.F.ww wa a++aa«+•wx ..w+ww.+ww,w si+».}w f. w.xwa STATE OF O taoN, ) 5`tATE or'4�CON c iti at at c qty"e{ Washington t as „le i Septet las 20 ,to 03, ? Personalty i^i'peered ItAS.1 ,' Personsiy appeared ins, *bore named',. .. .Y..a+ wno.bei.W duly,wom a )1.1ph Ias,ie+l9 ittt b �dsh l i�1.4 w,pp, vAd each tot*whorl'end not One tot tn.tartar,did*ay asst the;ormer is l . . M •xw•�rf -.,. i •Yw +l+«w,«.w1+.+-}+»w . W•..«+.a•r isu ccrataay't+r tAie oar rteiY:tec it ttwt the president,and tr ♦.way ,«w ^+trill eckno.kdded nAa tc**06 .1 ►a►M a coiport.tna,and l said kietrunant ttrV' ni•i4 hKre «... .,:F�n�' � ,. +raiu>tieary Ii etkt 43eed rww.se signedirin belied o said Uttastaiatittn''by abAtnruate of tt, booro dl I ice•+} oitectors,end sac*;P ttr rin soinostyd.V said,inaistunw�'nt�to be. 'Its r Sitar"a'ye,t '''' +"` v unlzty act'and dted. + } • Ql4itiaar!elMi'� /c140b3•10 ,, wwwihwWww w..i•wx ,+y-_/•� " • fHJfiA h 1f1f h+ Y+ ,,�3� q{,y�� }w.iw«w wwa,4+.•ww.wwax•+ $$Vtaty Pubs::.,toad'�t • F M#.at r'nrn.n.e n rant* `t t, 9/22/66 1.4y•ceirnimilasion imps**. • • }t!cut cdniaiaruat•on CoM+sti of or include^other properly or?attic add the todr wnnp Tar 3Ctauea t- y+ttetstion ecrititit br dr wic iidee Oilier diOper%i tar ratite t}r,e+A ci promised which it part of ate'ease tonsideration tit.ditatewhaq�'.t . ... ` . '' wwwa w + }«w w+ +wY♦iM+r.rW}• ww}www,ww•kx.... .w. . .. M'4 owµaw+ w.•Y }♦ .ww•+Ww iia+++k+4« � �'• w,,�,,y.�.y -.�, Mw wn # a Fwaw.•»iaa♦„;waww.wa w+.Wr Ywa rY w w w♦ '. Grantor■Mta ne and Rddrass •0• t''`a•a 'at Wtor~ 1 w . �• � yFZ;i : iiY+wwM;w»•Wwa•.ir++IiwxW. 4 +..♦♦ }wi +♦.www..,}}ww+Wa«#.Mwx.xw+w 4 O<Cvi y�YrC6YRiW i6t44ltwCA}^Ffw�,s'”n}..a AD'ha4ta45t Cpt�:brl'riyi'Aded#watA9elttaaCa:,sirrrnatw doom iris s kin*and IiiddieSa w id##!a+^r in bast st nerdy el iota county Met tavCrx I :}' t Ntid rtapir w; tit ,J) ' ti2,00$10Y, 7icA aysi 10$ ryAa10 '06010 thiol Cys '1,'.c1` y,J� ...., YeFY+�i�i.siw•fw.F.www ai. � fAri�+ �w ,»i tJthait C tt'sinpit•lei teguesiae'aft telt.aat<tet#etnce the*be*0* tart +r•i• w***** • - Mr. R wwMi wf$ w w w w4ANiA F w wwwW 4iwwiwJF wY•♦ +wA yW ..qty.. •. �'u. .+ag9r.•iri.xiwW�cw.i Nll.iroFp�w+i ipw},AfWw+ tapir,t t .Iia r ~,tY waF piWi'MiF' 3MM1t "JI"Iki,�"Wi„ ;dr+a,.y, a.Fi! F'M4 r. e +w q. .aw , + • n. wFlivaxW.,H..�-�w....L..•...... ..'. ry ,:.> .e...e, h' µM✓lY i ' 'nainLL%:. woKr..ru_ x�,w•..«+...:+Fa. +w...+e:sna u.._...r.a:.• "..., r • a .a w s� f 7 ey / . 888 texe1,0,01, Omr,*Oa 0400.000 1,4010,0,inw.. «,a ,, I �tW'tJR+t!At.1".Att$M my S 7 � ftSAs d$ t. 40SG:E4srawrt �S M. Y 44. Z hUabs+� wife r „.• , ..,.•. antko; A*�reiR. , �, 44, t#gt‘tm� txwea�+i 0ivl,�.,.pdPe� ltt /iO0M•+d•-•••.•. `' t Rt;GFARtlC.UEPt� ah, � �Ek� 1f � Itttt�°!� flttle� p �e <„. � � i ; .q tY pin t el dirmrt.b+t'kain.wilt'*NW s e'rt'ardb''the ea.ket*webs.email ekae wr'0 hairs.tiveietee ee Nadi Me. ' i a • » 40, �'!t property.. „ tave0it**aoot.Ml tWuev^�4 e. ar eepperteivettet tritatettedi,bo the Cotenter aid' W tt h 11 na`i t*. moist Skoog o , I ; w a • i' )'. ' N oSS W.teem* ant&tett e, order the sects!' s Y10 1lRerrs sod� i t' d Awl Otic,*mew SofoR►.r tier ewarte Ref 'moth 104 emelt�cOeretee a S O'a+i.;14.V0:010,1011811161*Mit am. aer�eaeemd`s seas! `nr y e -004 irk*mew cs4tiatfr*moat tea dare 0,01,04,$cd CAS meow*Onertitsel a rse tketee.,fare,scrum's a1 tetesseettrthetert i t t t"R ttttemtRs � rtootrtt.xtowa or t ; »,.......yam . , .w :meet >afM we're*amt:aro*eicoeecrf Msr soon”t ova?wool Item~ • r • 4 '; ewe*esti ret el o rt ail iteetievot iriassiegtower. . s• is Wit ilomit esrOt arae the elaleaAradrt to r IS* "" ieAthethe d+St,.t I gra:art t l►it mai F , ». ,,e: . ' - . i ,I. . . ., +t.c....6.40 tomsA t tCO/i +kN J S • t.'4,..; �� ivi Eort . '61 >r dei lea o.. ,' , ." ? a .Ig e" SOW 14.401601 irettrUaiiiPtd Ili at. R,t ttrr.`._ all owl obit Jx :, I. a 01,t.i#," arr mooliss1'60.01. ! t1610...-.-,—. " t • t4 a r t iq)b► i ,A',t•'x.alien `.r et,serene as w� aY ., 10.00.4 is90"ilF.+ mex#mfr.es a" Ir.�exaxla * e OM,"0000 in it ser+ ."41 'eltd'las*irn't .t. v `4,:' .re. toraNsterroxatatementairostortrgioargnitearnAwAt �BiRe�i etip1aa4 44,a A.y�eyA .r Ib7�'l9MIf��M IA: a 000000011100i.Nile* tdflXtctait'tt;t"Cftt.ttk,YN!►zy6 a { ! / .0.0 4,,f-t' IIIb , M d +V r- :": nuµ i. , tt y _ _ « , it • 0 It NIt _ l .. i, ,,'aK�►fio,.++„wri.erwrr 's.=»..wi.+.»..,:,ta€..+t..+,w.+r`..w,... wsswrr..rrw+Y�wYrptlr�wrr,e,,,,,, ' , 74„..,, , 6,,„„_,,,,i ,0 , 1 WARRANTY DEED --STATUTORY FORM 78043800 'b (individual'for Corporation) , . PRAM( D. SCHWA and A L. sarnea, husband and rrifea d € x#II YM#..w.,r. •.r q q.€€K b ♦Y a€ i i�. .h• Y K.+Y• ! #M W€i♦f+ w KY\ +i W a r.i+r.#Y Y LL!!• t x G /W y nve y� }an dW to t>it.eurt BI lfS}1P .w ...... Grantor conveys and iMtR wrote to a L 1.Y Y+ t t'•. i rY• ar+YY"Y Y Y YY.K€•«.Y.#€ •r YY+Y riK Y. . x i,.Y..#.n,i.x.#i Y..Y Y Y Y.+n.Y•+.#+t+f i€.i i.#• a Y Y Y...Y#K.w}.Y#!r!♦.. Y++.:f€R!t#,w€Y.i ♦+ i_t!} Grantee, the following described'real property free of encumbrances except a : ci8Oelly set forth heroin: ' ' " ' The following described property in Sections 2 and 3, T'ovenship 2 Saut"n, Range 1 Watt, 41/4.1) : ' ' i;., Willamette Heridian Witshinitton County, Oregon: 1 Beginning at the Southeast corner of Lot 17, FANTASY, HILL: "thence !forth along the East line of said lot a 4iritence of 115 feet to the Northeast corner thereof; thence West along the North line thereof 130 feet to the Easterly line of Southwest Watki.ns; ' ' thence Northerly along said Easterly line a distance of 188.62 feet# thenen following ' - the arc of a 20 foot radivat curve to the,right through a central. angle of 89. 07' 3O" a distance of 31+12 feet; thence North t19* 38' 307 East along the South line of GI) 5t:tathwost Park Avenue a distance of 170.32 feet to a point South 89* 40* East 60 feet • from the West line of Section 2, "Township 2 South, Range 3 West, which le'the scat k)61 ' ' t~: `'s Northerly Northwest cornet Of that property as described in Contract of sale recorded /,,.,.w..,, r October 2, 1957, in uuook 398 at page,405;, thence: South 364.5 feet, sore or leas, to „ • 4 � a point which is 60 feet South 89 42 1/2' Seat frac the Southeast corner of Lot 17 ;' s.. FANTASY HILL: Thence North 89* 42 1/2' West 60 feet to the said Southeast corner of c #',4 • Lot 17, FANTASY HILL, and the place of beginning. I L'd`°.t�. '.I . Enbumbtances: 1. Taxes for 1978-79, a lien but not gnat_ payables '41'x;',, Et 2. egulatione othe Unified Sewerage agey#l � A3...,19:9'?...........5 , ,„.„4,,, "- The true consideration tor this conveyance s S .« ,. {�rt 'ctmpty wifh the ttQUtt8rtefts , .'.1.6. ,k Y . I of`OEIS 93.030'x# 4. Dated this to be 5'sa..,..b' Y ! i day of L—K t.t.°kxer.Y...... , ?f## ratstor.'1 has reuse.d * ;y Y r «+ of fts .....ird of ditectors. ' I .rte b ord i9+€+€if a corporate ' frttaiX40 #stC, k —*4,,...4.C: 3 T2S R' 1 Mt' WM -... ' 2,.4,,'''S'' 1 . : ,, ;OUNTY OREGON' k N 1°° ice# aft $ f as 4)ir tEC.$ 4"2S I; R,I .. JOHN'L.$tCMt1 M'm "" ' ' l'41.1'..../ .,, q• �e fin, ';/7,o//i " �' ///. / / ../ r ,✓�" ' r,.//4 r' . Ir r/ r /I,.I �S 3 Y ykr w t 404 403 402 401 !� goo ,, ,+„ ,{y 'VK e }t x To Lam ,• 1 ,.' Ypp W' ir, IJ tr iwa: f fi1.10: '.{ea ,� s,•1,+ :� t400 169tt 401 tSQ iR c 1.>*j v , ,� ro 1 Y 1 Al "/ 3 2 ; . is ,, ,« • r., ,,, mi\. __, ,..,.4,:z , '1:?, A, A ....,... .,,, , „., ,, .,, ..,,,,,,,lw ,., ,..4„,,,,,,.. ,,,vr- „,,, , , tt� tt2 7 11'x`v tl .0 S«.,,042.3„1*iF,F ..„, - "� ..� 1 s. 4'^r • 14446 STREEll' \ `4 7` a, 43 « 6 431 ,, y f ,, . "" til ,,,,,it. 0 cif 6 o',' 1 •" z4.. ; J-s.)1 3 ,,,.. 2 8' ,, J"-/,204. sr ..;,,,i.„, LF.*0t4,-„.,4,, ,zm:,i.`.,:...,.,"''f,,.1. ' � ;dam, ,�y 6 46t 146 37:96_ 'T5,S tit ',t r : .<atz 6E. -..a. 64 .13‘,1°: ,.7�i ;It., , ..,';411$ Gi y�am,.+ w, 434 "L,°,I�yy��,''.;;44.'1,47...4.„1,„,,,-.. ; a��yw{F�yvlu•�aa�+m- w w Guuia ,yp�>. w is. 500 +r ,, ' 1, •; .. :,4,4* t‘"*,,,,,,.. 4'31 4, Ito , s r i'zi , • o` tC S•No 12 582) "w :' ,,,,)/1 433 f° . ,i ' t - 1 yi' t, y��.40. Y3..,0* eCiti "�, 1.�e f'," *', , yy 11,$11,4* ,.,.(°.1„ v a w a dV 3 S�U p t b s Fox Fa7� �k '. m ylA a ' � a f: r ,, .+y,�y*.. . i :` a ; ' , 7q h �Y,Wr `..a"' P aMP 1«i-� *& 3E4'1" 1 R ,...� . ... ! " l '.. ,r. ( , b�"w^4' 9 �'WN+��+u4�a4 .,W .-. �'(,(:',1,‘:..',,,:,,Y++ �4J 'SEE!� ." wWaLF 4 +Yi:W4' ♦wµ. .ts.ay M ,i++w,i:.ay pM } t i .`Hr h.,yl,:'"Sd'✓ .d,S W/li. alti : 1,� qP , 4„I _ � . giy ., b*. 600 4 414 23 "' �`""" =,..,, ,;,"fie a . e. . , if,00,41:. .„ 0, ' /// . ',C) ,Xtil , -, P 0,4.*' '''''',4191 .A/ aUflE ORANGE I'' 1 t '� u : F , k „tea f.ravw.-re,rr.-a.rq}t9'n•""u.wvrx.rp..u�sxn.i..l vw f M µ .:, LL y. rOttlt N41,,432,—W ittlt%SNile DEED. ri.... ,..+ %..W%,.,..,.,+.., xWa M ,FI,a d, :line-7'. *t„a,d �t°1a i3.rt i 5 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, arhat �` � � :^', ns nW. . , in con derar:o;;. l-.,%.' e1?!.n xtd z:c?Z.t;t ..n }]�n� wraY sywwwrr w wwrwo. w r w.w war erwrrr««rwY1w% i3Orillarac, % , • of : 4. r .♦. %,a Y., a«a.YW.hM.«Yx4%+,*+,x.+ »Ynr a.a« ♦ % N, » «%+.,-,u5„,,......... '.•%,`+aaa.N rx«is. %%+.%.i« x4Mrs.a., ,.,»«.a %, %.« % + %rx.» x r%,..ne-.a% %.-.Y «e,%» „ M % to.. paid by..Y.ITAc 7�h.Tr+ .' '.r,.gsrn.,sr,d.«3..ree.,Tr,*hn Tr.e..fitgar►...tus r« .r. .a* .r`,u,� .-...,w,.i ..,....,,x,+ . h.. .. 2,,.....-... iiah«it%,y„x,+M..,.aa,i,,'%.... .%..r. ....,%.,.h.a.Y 1.grantee «»+., ' t ' '% ' do hereby grant,bargail,sell and convey unto the said grantees , heir.... belts and assigns, all '‘`.114-',,' . =w the following real'property,with the tenements,hereditarxtents and appurtenances,situated in.then! '.ot,tnty . s,w of Nti� tan .x, . a. shi ng ,.. ...,....M ...«%... and State of Oregon,bounded and described as lolYows,to-wit: ,. ;1,'m ,.r Lot 3, tleirose Wa.shirt ton County, Oreo _ 74� .M..Wn,.7b,v..,.,xWyr1Y . h ak �'r r. r �' , ;i' ‘'..4°....,..........“............ To Have and to Hold the above described and granted,�Srentisets unto the said grantee s, ,tc...t::.i�xw«.. . • `, _ a % And..Wwa..!t grantor:6«do covenant that.h0,he,..are,..a% ..2tVt Illy seized in tee simple the above • • . . ,grtmted, �eds a firm trout.oil encuazmbranc�ese,.eXaePt.%xeZ: .J-Cty.i:�., .O. ...t» :.4.,:, M ...h i»�.. ry a .ya 44+«x♦ . «w+.Y.r..W,4,+..4.«,ixiy.-... Yr.«%+«aaa.a.%4,a,.*y.+Mh+tl%nx4'xx,.«h+.s Mr.ax%.�h+w,a+MxW..W%♦%a,r n,%%v>.a+.%h:rn,.a.u.a. ,...%a,«.i+aa a,..«. w W . ...4.. .»r4,%%.%_ .4M.Y+, ..%,,,. .. ,.,.. .,. .%ha.Yx «” ».. ''. Y +,k,4,. ,W - -�' %=x..«.<., +..sw..a«a4« .«..+%<.>a..,.x, r..x,+a. a rx%4.,..w,«%%i%cx +%nni%•.rxa%-% ' :, and that....-Ire_ will and tit "..,,i. heirs, executors and admimstr.xtors, shall warrant and forever l`, ,x ,defer;d the z granted pserni'ete, ,a�ritt Aveary wart and piarcel thereof, a�a,nst the lawful claims and . ,,, . de Inde at all '*hotw .: ti'', itr '..,Y.:it)S .....:.h..lsar^,at armed ami", . this-«...,%, 3rd.:%..clay of r. ,C Q 9.ew, + .%;r. .«..«::w'�.;'"'' .y 4.;.,�C.w�r.Vat:Ewe1i�I:a° `"1.,. .,i..r , S .t. . .. , , ' :(StAt..) yL%.,+IrxM!t• r+Y..w.:«.�. ' -%r ar.r,..r%WY�..a*4..++, x, • • r�V. � , " STATE OF OIZEGOlit, 1 .....r..,.,..,i, . . .. ._ .., (SEAL) �+ rte .,,„.4,4,-;:..:4 q e ty of 4;t/` li% to a Ox tlz;s 23.rt days t .y. ;F b: ' 5ce • 4{ OPTION *.GREEMENT OPTION AGREEMENT made this 16th day of February, 1984, 1 by and between RICHARD Go KLUEMPKE and ROSEMARY 1(LUEMPt(E, husband and wife, hereinafter designated as the "Optionor,`* and G. I. JOE'S, INC. , an Oregon corporation, hereinafter designated as the 'Optionee.I1 n WHEREAS, the Optionor is the owner of the following described parcel of real prope:ty in Washington County, Oregon: Lot 16, FANTASY HILL, together with the por- tion of vacated Cook Lane adjoining that would attach thereto, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington, State of Oregon , and, � WHEREAS, the Optionee wishes to secure an option to purchase such parcel of real property pursuant to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth; NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of Five Hundred and No/l00 Dollars ($506.00) in cash paid by the Optionee to the Optionor, the receipt ofwhich is hereby acknowledged, the Optionor does herewith give and grant to the Optionee the right at.d option to purchase thl;above described parcel of real prope ty pursuant to the following terms and. conditions: 1. Optionee may exercise this option at any time prior to 5:00 P.144 , on March 16, 1984, by giving Seller its written noticestating.' "The option set forth in that Option Agreement, dated February 16, 1984, is hereby exercised.'' No other act shall const tote the + f f+ r~tive exercise of this option. In the event Opienee gives the notice Aet forth in Paragraph 1, then a binding purchase and sale agreement shall thereby exist between Optionot at solicit., and Optionee as buyer, ' t Page 1 - OPT/Ott A0t3„t t+�'•tENT i., ( " • • 1 ` all pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. In the event Opti nee does not give the notice as set forth above, then, at • 5:00 P.M. , on March 16, 1984, this option shall automatically ter- minate and be of no further force and effect and Optionor may retain, for his own use and benefit, all money paid to him hereunder. 3. In the event Optionee exercises the option set forth in this Agreement, then Optionee shall pay to Optionor as the purchase price for the Property, the total sum of and No/lOn Dollars (, 4. Optionee shall pay the purchase price set forth in paragraph 3 above as fellows: (a) Five Hundred and No/100 Dollars ($500.00) , the sum paid for this option, shall be against the purchase price. (b) Dollars shall be Paid, in cash to Optionor, at closing. (c) The balance of the purchase price, nam ;► . and Dollars . , shall be paid by, delivery to Optionor of a promissoty' note, payable to the order of Optionor, in that amxmount, the principal balance payable in Four (4) equal annual installments of and No/100 Dollars ( each. Interest at the rate of Twelve Percent (12%) per annum shall be payable annually on the unpaid balance. The first installment of principal and interest will be due and payable on January z;, 1985, and subsequent installments of principal and interest shall be due and payable on each and every January I thereafter until the unpaid balance,. together with interest therweon# has been paid in full. Optionee shall not have the right to accelerate the unpaid balance of the note, The promittoty note will be secured by an irrevocable 4 later: of credit iashred by first Interstate Dank of Oregon. 4 Page 2 : OPTION A .REE:i N ` 5. This transaction shall be closed 60 days after the 4 effective date of the notice of the exercise of the option set forth in this Agreement (the "Closing 'Date") The purchase and sale of the Property shall be closed in escrow at the offices of Tr�nsamei:icaTitle Insurance Company, 126.55 S. W. Center Street,; y Beaverton, Oregon, on the Closing Date. The cost of the escrow feey' shall be shared equally by optionor and Optionee. At clo:;.ing, and upon the payment of the purchase price as ab ve pro- v ided, Optionor shall convey, the Property to Optionee by means of ' executing and delivering Optionors statutory warranty deed con- veying the Property free and clear of all liens and encumbrances except those easements now of record. 6. At the closing, the following events shall occur in the following order: (a) The escrow officer shall prorate all ad valorem real estate taxes, governmental liens and assessments, and ' 1 Optionor shall pay the amount of all accrued but unpaid (as of the Closing Date) ad valoretu real estate taxes and liens. (b) Optionee shall pay the purchase price as provided in paragraph 4 hereof. (c) optionee shall receive credit for all prepaid rents and deposits which shall be prorated between Optionor and Optionee as of the Closing Date. (d) Optionor shall deliver the statutory.. warranty deed described in Paragraph 5. (e) The parties shall pay the escrow officer its fee and optiohee shall ply all recording costa 7. Within five days after the Closing Date, Optionor shall provide Optionee, at Optionorsexpense, with a standard form owner's title insurance policy insuring Optionee as the owner of the property in the amount of the purchase price subject to only the standard printed exceptions contained in such poli cies and those exceptions allowed pursuant to Paragraph 5. t Page 3 - OPTION AGI,P M8N't`,' 8. except as set forth below, Optionor makes no repre- sentation epre sentation or warranty in any form whatsoever, either express or implied, regarding the condition of the Property or its suitabil- ity for any particular use or for the use intended by Optionee and Optionee accepts the Property with no representation or warranty, and accepts the Property in its current as is con- dition. During the Option period, Optionor agrees to cooperate with Optionee's application to the City of Tigard for a zone change necessary to allow the development of retail stores,,;) and parking on the Property, at the Optionee's expense. • 10. All notices required, permit,4ed, or otherwise given pursuant to this Agreement shall be given by hand or by Q ".hand d� certified mail, addressed to a party at its address set forth above. A notice shall be effective if given by hand delivery, p party's below. A notice shall upon deliveryto a orf•~ s address shown • be effective, if giver by mail, on the third day following the day when the notice, with postage prepaid, was deposited itt the U.S. mails as certified mail, and addressed as follows: (a) If to Opticnor, to: 9380 S. W. Mountain View Lane Tigard, Oregon 97223 (b) If to Optioneo, to: 9805 8oeckr aad ( vilonvil" tregon 97070 11. This Agreement contains the entire agreement among the parties pertaining` to the matters contained herein, and * supersedes and replaces all prior written and oral agreements betwee4 the parties or their representatives. � ' 12. This Agreetn nt shall be construed in; accordance ' . andOregon. governed by, the laws of the State of 1 . This Agreement shalt be bind.ng upon and shall inurs to the benefit ref the parties and their respective heirs, per- sonal representatives, :?4uccessors, and :essigns: Page 4 oPT1O AO I!IE:M NT I , i 14. Whenever the context so indicates, the masculine gender includes the feminine and/or the neuter and the singular includes the plural. fi 15. In the event that any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid, such event shall not affect in any respect whatsoever the validity of the remainder of this and the remainder shall be reasonably construed without the invalid pro- vision so as to carry out the intent of the parties. 16. In the event a party initiates litigation to enforce I! or interpret any of the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party its rea- sonable attorney fees as determined by the judge(s) at trial or any FF upon a eal, in addition to all other damages or costs awarded. r p ion 17. Any covenants the full performance of which is, not required prior to the closing or final payment of the purchase price shall survive the closing and the final payment of the purchase, price and be fully enforceable thereafter in accordance c 1t their terms. 18 In order for aclaimed waiver of a term or provision to be an enforceable waiver, the waiver shall be in writing and by k��, party by for be signed ` t ' art to be bound the waiver, A waiver one event shall be a waiver for that 'event. only and not a general waiver of a term or provision of this Agreement. IN WITNESS W11.1 1k8OF t►e parties have executed this instrument as of the day and Year first above written. 0# 1. J08'S,S, i ic+, an Oregon corM4por:a tion, .1 opTroN E I v F i dh G. t€lu ttpke " l�osernaty }duernpkre oPTtONO Page $ -; 'OPTION A RElMcN'l' aw, I . . .,.. . y . . /......2Laim„. 3 5 , • NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME: and note their address on this sheet. (Please Print your name) r , Rig'ITEM fttEsCRIPTION: C �/' '.�, d.- a J. . i ki P * I A 7' PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) { Name, Address and Affil` .an ,� I �I1).me, Address and Affiliation >0f�''/y ' /�Jj,/)yt.+ /��y eft /� j ).dps.-//.y��r , A 11�` a V r eY ' * ( 1 J, 1! /.M.4�(`1, 13e,., . V 4!"� V HAI ( ..'Yi.�.".rs+l,r.:+. ; ''''''' I\, u " ' dui m" uox t'� t, try __ � , . / /1_ ` a UG , GCS B1J . 9y /e 9<1S PA t''''',11 R.,)1110e-A, 1-4.hi e 'a 110 . _ ti, „ w43C GE 1 ►, fav / ' V3 S 4., iih s k ' /(77to S,trv.r g'i,i0AkfauLtA$ WI, /7 117 i it.4- // ( `i's'S s,, »t.A.1 04-tun. t-fre ii(J/�,M/�i , Y j j} ��/(J}j�j.0 �(j(_,,' . t.K. tek ,si r .. :.,...., .... .. ,I_ ...,. , if J�A...„.. ,..-.. f J 1,�wi Imo. .�wMF... I Y i *_* . 13 v,s' 1014C- ' o1 C- ............••••••=low ...1 i' '' .” de4r Avmmt.',- ' /i.,4 zP,i'fi-V...etia:../1,1(ef,e4(P---' .......... .7/' j T M' Y r, ._,. ... ....� .,,.. .. .. ... , , ..,. . , 1 d - js i, JAMES A. COX, Attorney - List of Clients for whom. formal appearance is made: DOUGLAS NZCOLI RANDY GROSSMAN a- DONNA GROSSMAN 10655 SW Park 13485 SW Watkins DENNIS OWENS KEN GROSS N , . haven Way E 10945 Std? Fair, 10570 SW Parr ' ALEX MAC IN �. RANDALL BUR 13120 SW Watkins I;;E 10475 SW Park DENNIS MOONIER 10634 SW Cook Lane GEORGE FITZGERALD 13145 SW Watkins, VIRGINIA BROWN ., 13365 SW Watkins . (All addresses are: DUANE MEYER Tigard, OR 97223.) ! 13 210 SW Watkins JIM CAMPBELL 10365 SW park DUANE EHE 10425 SW Park !. EUNICE PAINTON d 10395 SW Park JIM HATCH 13205 SW Watkins BERTHA GILBERT 13 610 SW Watkins ALICE PAR2Oz2' 13570 SW Watkins , KENNETB FORBBS L; 15525 SW Watkins f; t;. , fir 7 City of Tigard Planning Commission Tigard,, Oregon RE: Application of Tigard West Development Co. (GI Joes, Bishop, Treffinger) File Nos. CPAIl-84 & ZC8-84 The undersigned are aggrieved parties opposed to theabove applications, Because of the change in the meeting place from the Fowler Junior High Lecture Room, which has a capacity of about 120 persons, to , the District Building, we have been deprived the Board mtofattendcthelhear and see the evidence and . , of our rightshearing, r y � g, but there present our testimony. We tried toget into the meeting, was no room. Please enter this in the record as our appearance in the proceedings to assert the above objections and to oppose the app] ications Si nature Print Name Address . LI, >~ OlAit 1` S4 bi66&.) % iCOLJ 1 430 SUO 11) Li, 4e! 'r ' '''' ?".2,' pP '' ;. /2"Pi ___. Ce'_✓ i ''"�'' A c f ,- ►(. e' .7 ..1 �'�"_ t, F. ') `-s�''G/w [iv.« (.�• "7-,/t / r)_s" -__ ., in..)e.-e-e;e-e---±,-__. - . M4 o'it te-c,": 9e---4-.-t:s/56-?tilie-ece- /3 or6ct ) c.,./ tLe_.,,It-77--e.„.,-,.5. 'eg '' +"C RN 4nrn . ,2_11 ?-.% Z.LS ,/,i).7 7 ' --. rte" ,/ " •-•",''fie- '4 '' ',d ,,,,#''' ) ' ' ' _....4. 0 6 •V In.4'5'4a) itietirj.'' ' ' '".. ,f, 1 - i(4it,17.. 1 AO AL..,"d, f "' II fl.eio: i 1...i_v_____skix‘ i_i'.-1,1,). dew r-le 14 .,il,41 e ( ) ,., ,,,,,...,,,./,( jr, f , .12..."4,,e21,- - i t-)61,0 e) ..fd 42." Lee 4 i/I-1 if ec W.. o * ,- .i xi.rr1..A 't W "".t 1 '4.. ..t .( (.,,.. M r id. .r-» yy (0.1,�� . ''�.,+ r.� /3' o' -... Wi2tL1j<s it/4/ 1 !!jjH H 1061 _ d e t I ('-‘,:f • ,� ft 1 .4,, ; �'„.� . ►c. . ,f y 4 a U fl t o),i1136 , >4‘ t IU 1*10 s A vo i ow . , M,tLjZ) *• r ,t_ Ia f it „S:A t” : rrbU'.ed-A 1 �"'. o- 7,,,A' 1,,,,,,40. 1 /all!' y r• i .�s X1)`14'4 .,»y�1 ''L2 # 'ft i 1,1; e , ,I 11 / "'° .- ''1 . ' L pw a v r 6 n • 1 SAN7E CUR NFTGHBORHOOD We, the undersigned, being residents of the area circled on the a enclosed exhibit A, oppose the rezoning of Washington County tax lots 4700, 4800 r' 6100,b200, and 200, said lots being; adjacent to Watkins Ave.,; from R-3.5 single family residential to commercial-general. Our opposition is based on one or more of the following reasons: #, 1. This is an established high quality residential neighborhood. ., Any commercial encroachment into this residential area will destroy the character of the existingeighaoood. will 2. Any commercial developement requiring izoning change g be totally out of scale With adjacent uses and will adversely affect them by increasing •bdyond a reasonable point traffic, noisefare dust, and loss of privacy. 3. The safety and well being of the many children in our neighbor- hood will be jeopardized by eue unreasonable increase . .n traffic, noise, andunnecessary exposure to an unknown transient 4 population. 4., Ingress and egress to this development will create extreme traffic congestion and hazards. 5. This development proposal - without the need for rezoning residential ,property - wet rejected by the neighborhood and city government in 1978. There is no reason too reconsider that decision now. NANE ADDRESS DATE c.1/2 1Fti �ryp 1 "' ti {(r ppp I ,, '" ,/ 6- �i��,j� j 9 .+mow. t vei*d, Aiitc,yokir1/4,,wv‘- „ ,),( (-L-. ,-57- x , , izci‘,5 .6(4,3 1t.y-1 31,iii tA_ . 4 � c`� 3. ,i'n,"'1i1 �ito/t( r tAll C' 4" ' ' '-- '3 .3; lite . ;-qF' /71 4. .,0, G" ''� 13' 2 yam" w , " - 5. 0_ / '" -' ' "$1,& *—/' rL.� t4e',81- g-''6*--- (r4. 4 ' SR r� 3-/ - ,r 'o- %iic ,-7 79 h. r 4 I 6 8. ' ''''''.t- ' ' /3 3 3r SI L'Id ' '' 4,1t:, 10 11 lc { ? fig} 11 ,r SAVE OUR NETGHB0RHOC I , We, the undersigned, being residents of the area circled on the ,� enclosed exhibit A, oppose the rezoning of Washington County tax lots 4700, 4800, 6100,6200, and 200, said lots being adjacent to Watkins .AAve., from R-3,5 singlefamily residential to commercial-general. Our. Y` opposition is based on one or more of the following reasons: 1. This is an established high quality residential neighborhood, destroy he character of the existingneighborhood.Any encroachment into this residential area will: Y g 4.it • 2. Any commercial developement requiring such a toning change will be totally out of scale with adjacent uses and will adversely affect them by increasing #� ,yond a reasonable point traffic, noise, glare, dust, and loss of privacy. 3. The safety and well;being of the many children in our neighbor- hood will be jeopardized by the unreasonable increase in traffic, 1 noise, and unnecessary exposure to an unknown transient population,' 4. Ingress and egrets to this development will create extreme g t i traffic congestion and hazards. ' 5. This det= lapment proposal - without the need for rezoning residential property - was rejected by the neighborhood and city government in 1978. There is no reason to reconsider that decision now. NAME � ADDRESS DATE ,�F / *4...44,44., , i...., f (//�j� /,ffj,�(y1r�f]A y�fjf��/f'Kj�/•,�/.y}/yy�y w �' ....,4,1# 1. �� 4^yN• IIIIII y • /J ,(P 0 etieL,,,e)",") * ox,,,,,,, if x� - 4,:,,,„4„ e - �3. , ,. , I fw) , , r.. ` ` '6. • , " Y;;4 ' « p , 7 ,,,,,,,„ ir , .; , 4 , ,4 c,5 14,01, /e e.,.. f 6, ,, 9, .. , ' ?;i /itt � �r u i a �tl 4•�' /494e401.-3 "��y'. �Pfi �M��c NiM i. , 6' +{t{0� .,,y 9e W . tN. k 2 . id tz e . ,/, ... ,,,,,,,r.,„p.,,,.,,,,I.,,,,4,44'f-' , 36 t_ a t 1 SANT. a OUR 'NETGHBOPHOOD a We, the undersigned, being residents of the area circled on the enclosed exhibit A, oppose the rezoning of Washington County tax lots I 4700, 4800, 6100,6200, and 200, said lots being adjacent to Watkins Ave., , from R-3.5 single family residential to commercial-general. Our } is ! or more of the following reasons: opposition basedon one ,„ 1. his is an established high quality residential neighborhood. Any commercial encroachment into this residential area will '' ..• destroy the charas ter of the existing neighborhood. , `' 2, Any'commercial developement requiring such a zoning change will a be totally out of scale with adjacent: uses and will adversely affect them by increasing :b,eyond a reasonable point traffic, noise, glare, dust, and loss of privacy. 3. Thesafety being of the many children in our neighbor- '` ... and well hood will be jeopardized by the unreasonable increase in traffic, noise, and unnecessary exposure to an unknown transient , and . population. 4. Ingress egress to this development will create extreme traffic congestion, and hazards, 5. This development proposal a without the need for rezoning residential property was rejected by the neighborhood and city government in 1978. There is, no reason, to reconsider that ,decision now. d , N .ATMES S DATE , • ia ' ‘--;17/7.?/--;/% s.1:;14.4e:;*fn-d,e4,01 ' - , /0.3&.5.7. ..3:.e.,4) gi'.1-L ri?Le--- .d• , : c4-3o-?cti . 4 P1,40-ti . e- ilcie.c , /03( r s .w.. 12-4:r' k . -ri. '' ''' ez'-vt-( ' ', - '' ' -3- 6 -' gY' i * , k-k.'"-.7C)'%/*-k, ' ' l' 4 ' •Ko(1- A--\ LIL ..'4,_ , kotor.k.s-' ' ki:Ls,,, kk/c..4,,Ny,,i,_?..._ •.... 46► . ' , ,' / - .g. . .. ,, . . ., , , ,, ,.. ).0 "<, .. - , . ' i_, 44. /1,4/ 7 • .: ' t t0 5,t 'r - - 0 . 4 . Y ,, - 1 8 i, -C , . s. .. 1 ."2.i.,-..„,1,-..,- : /pt.'s' -5• , -s'44-1, , '. . ' - . ' i , ., . ' . ''. , , H,Hr . H $4,0'(:;'..Z7.7—. '',101,X,heiog;;-'4 ' .j40'.' - - -6. '7,,e;,,,,:t.,..,ILI.''''''''''''''''.. .. .'4• :%,,,,' '. ' , . .5„, &it/ir ''' Q4.. . , . . ' ' ' ..(D''''P .4 ---r - ,I.. 11 . ' ' - ' -, '„ ',i',':.' : ',.,''...,.. 'ILL ', , .:'."' . , : : , it,6.L.<'s,,.."". , 6- ‘. '. ..,..,,,-, A,,,:-., f,..' ,— . ' ,,' :;;ti#,,:i 9 4/: . eti„it, , . . , ..10, ,,H y L, .•, ,y,..•.,..., .. .yAte ,.. . , .. , . . . ,,, .. . . , . ,, .,„ .. . (,„ H, , ,. . .. . , Y , ,... .. ,, . , , . .., .... . ,, . , - ' 1Y1. 4„ i uvrvjto,,r, 4�., .,,,,,,,,,,,,,, , , .t . . , ii. , ,. , . . ,. . , I .,. .., , , 4. ,, . . ,, , . , . , , , . .. . . h . . .. , , . , , , , .. . . ,. . , i, 1 . . , .... . . , , . . . . . , N.. , „ u SAYE OUR NE1 GHBORHOOD rw We, the undersigned, being residents of the area circled on the enclosed exhibit A, oppose the rezoning of Washington County tax lots 4700, 4800, 610p. 6and 200, being WatkinsQ Ave.,from R-3Ssingefamily residential to�commerialgeneralu ;;. opposition is based on one or more of the following reasoner 1. This is an established high quality residential neighborhood. , . Any commercial encroachment into this residential area will destroy the character of the existing neighborhood. 2. Any commercial developement requiring such a zoning change will be totally out of scale with adjacent uses and will adversely affect them by increasing •btyond a reasonable point traffic, ,, noises glare, dust, and loss of privacy. 3. The safety and well being of the many children in our neighbor- hood will be Jeopardized by the unreasonable increase in traffic, noise ' o} ulation,and unnecessary exposure to an unknown transient f ,. p 4. Ingress and egress to this develf,2ment will create extreme a traffic congestion and hazards. 5. This development proposal without the need for rezoning residential property etas rejected by the neighborhood and city government in 1978. Thee is no reasonto reconsider that decision now. NAME ADDRESS DATE w ” e " — / • 4 ::/7 ' . ,� ",ry yprf�'" .' I""`w.`�. r i+"�',�n ..wjDy',. /i ,l� ""'� ' amp r A z +(t / trif re, //e, y 3. Y *r V .^r"'= .'Ari' i.' 7'4'.4'. 4 5 'W k in rsa , q X11 c g1y ,.. 4,4 ?i P'ror • P 7wn ro 8. 4 . st � F 4 1t "+ ri �! 14.*.t `w �n,w= �is�u�"'"��If�'��j N 40'4.04444'411 aiy' y� +.. �,.i,��,� . (I � r , `� '�aw� :H+�d-' ' q�, .' " r '1".�"'+" a �;��" ,l �` t�� "w�+� , S 7E OUR NETGHBORHOOD X We, the undersigned, being residents of the area circled on the enclosed exhibit A y oppose the rezoning of Washington County tax lots 4700, 4800, 6100,6200, and 200, said lots being adjacent to Watkins Ave.y, from R-3.5 single family residential to commercial-general. Our opposition is based on one or more of the following reasons: PP fn 1. This is an established high quality residential neighborhood. Any commercial encroachment into this residential area will destroy the character of the existing neighborhood. 2. Anyp requiring such a zoning change will . commercial develo ement re u be totally out of scale with adjacent uses and will adversely affect them by increasing beyond a reasonable point traffic, ° noise, glare, dust, and lossof privacy. 3. The safety and well being of the many children in our neighbor- hood will,be jeopardized by the unreasonable increase in traffic, noise, and unnecessary exposure to an unknown transient population. 4. Ingress and egress to this development will create extreme traffic congestion and hazards, 5. This development proposal - without' the need for r�ezonig P �; . residential, property - was rejected by the neighborhood and city government in 1978. There is no reason to reoonsieer that decision now. .,, NAME ADDRESS DATE41;i/ ,, , 666 iE y' w�-ply.,, " ] qyi9 ry ,�,yt `may, 'rii6w ' -fn'.✓ wl 1. ;'LL n t t " p8 I .+ L Y w• , ..', a ''R`'Y,�vMr pyo`.dr n;� 'u!�'µ N'„r y r J. /n ,. ^ +"" ru � 1?61:er" ''",,,,,X �/` au,' �'n « wa 41! + M«K r- vi h rr'' .w �y wi .6 vw � �.:w� ,:., '�,,."+w,.++w++:4. Bene.'-*�..:F.","f�S.,.; r..,b ry +u ,fit d , it, L7. pw p wn,ar:u:....wa.-.. CX {,, ='�Y µ* 1„.„ °,�•+:+ 41. 8r y «� �, ;p� p a , /q yy 1 4 j ,q ,� ryi d 1' �� .1 yy'Cyy7(•ysp9.44 {a,f ,�' ICI I . i�rh `"mayy t,4» SAVE CUR NEIGHBORHOOD We, the undersigned being residents of the area circled on the e reclosed exhibit A, oppose the rezoning of WashingtonGounty tax lots 4700, 4800, 6100 6200 and 200, said lots beingadjacent to Watkins Ave., fromR-3.5sin le family residential to commercial-general. Our g y g opposition is based on one or, more of the following reasons: 1. This is an established high quality residential neighborhood. Any commercial encroachment into this residential area will destroy the character of the existing neighborhood. 2. Any commercial developexnent requiring such a zoning change will t be totally out of scale with adjacent uses and will adversely affect them by increasing .bdyond reasonable point traffic, a nois , glare, dust, and loss of privacy. 3. The safety and well being of the many'children in our neighbor- l' hood will be jeopardized by the unreasonable increase in traffic, noise, and unnecessary exposure to an unknown transient ' population. 1 4. Ingress and egress to this development will create extreme traffic congestionhazards.and 5 This development - without the need for rezoning ing residential property - was rejected by the neighborhood and city government in 1978. There is no reason to reconsider that that decision now. ,. NAFIE ADDRESS DATE : . 1 0 i a'. ,C,; t.' ,f-i .a,, `n 7 .� /71):,S , '<:.> f, c_ ,5;.c r ''‘'41 t,r""I ,/#" r�,d e=t'`/" Lei-/it 7- r,, ,a^ :» (' LJ (44.4 et'il.#4.4 I.06.'f'4-..5'44,/ 'I-‘21-4.-ft-4140 -1,..-;k„) 4r-s,r,c,„.1A-let V722,3 tfj 4 44:4,, aftes4., /4,,,25,- sw 1,,,-.., kuite,o,..,.. ,7",-;/_,,,,ezzeit /0•,, ;1 ,773 (//' S lit - (bI' rtI t.w" i. .t/r ..7 x ;7;;q ) ?nz3 5. ."", , w ' t 1' ,C« ,�'c —1 ''" t"' ' -'�,i 'M`ile",4,.t1 e jf ! i te,�' 4'it p7 I )s„„, LI t / A /1 f l 11 1 6 ,' ''‘' tel C./ti tr6e .,,,,,,441 :r.../e.,„,, „iiii./.. a * to,te":4;1,. ..,.,. y / * i iire / i ' x ,,,.. ie*.e .' .4,.a.#4t,e...*0 y*--e-- , --- --4)iy„4,57.741/ . 0.".00 .." .0 ,0',:? e r 7 �' ' ,�t, fa76' �, 6 , . At i 4.--4 5.- „, , i f-- j” I I ''''''''''''")'' '°' ' ' * I 4 4Y:'-''''''' ''' ' ' -1 4".''''' '1 1 ' d ),./1 Li6) ic:./,57,,,ir itile,Ge 181 - . 9. f,,, It... Y t ,,,,Kit.,,,,L gsvHIrt.1.10,.(4,,ti i i i L. - ' 4' c,,,,Kt-r , i i p-#' h , ,„, .i., .,„,,,,... /4, i,...„, -1?(,,,e1 44,74,/i5... ,,,,‘,6 , ic)rdis. sto rifiae „Litt EA, .S. i i iisoed , i ,01,0. ' •• 4,144,* tSAVE CUR NE?GHBORH00D WE, the undersigned, being residents of the area circled on the enclosed exhibit A, oppose, the rezoning of Washington County tax lots 4700, 4800, 6100,6200, and 200, said lots be;t.ng adjacent to Watkins Ave., from R-3.5 single ,faiily residential to commercial-general. Our opposition is based on one or more of the following reasons: 1. This is an established high quality residential neighborhood Any commercial encroachment into this residential area will destroy the character of the existing neighborhood. 2. Any commercial developement requiring such a zoning change will be totally out of scale with adjacent, uses and will adversely affect them by increasing . Ayond a reasonable point traffic, noise, glare, dust, and loss of privacy. qe The safety and well being of the many children in our neighbor- hood eighborhood will be jeopardized by the unreasonable increase in traffic, noise, and unnecessary exposure to an unknown transient population, • "; 4. Ingress and egress to this development will create extreme, traffic congestion and hazards. 5. This development proposal - without the need for rezoning residential property was rejected by the neighborhood and cite government in 1978. There is no reason to reconsider that decision now. NAND ADDRESS DATE .�" 4 x �'" ""' a v'',Iltde$4,4t.a / t.,''',4 sP,S;eclfiZA-�y'_jj"��r/ry/ ---- -14 '"*1'k''''''.i/ad' t-- ‘2 ' '''''' ,(/'44" * i-scidedt.-SY - —. ed---E2. �, .....14itt ,,,,,..41,3e (.., 4 ..:' , ,, ,,ar ,..., , K 0 o . - , , v „ i fe.),..../0 e coo, )e.,...)I _t„ , ,ei, . j, _ r ` 7�^y /� 1 ,liw;1,,. ,:i.7\1 i 1,710 .,.5,2,0 436,001 4 NeWite) / -' 713Ai - 1-- — 5 it , ._..,,„;i:. 5r —7--64" .4, .7,- 0-<„1, 1 3 c T' n * I i ..... ,„, jh i c I m Lvillakle/144,1ii,(212_,, w iocolos hzifr i , 1 ( Pet.7 t.,:z..",;,0.,,-11 ii.,k,5 4,,...),, ect„,tutlit14,,,,,,,,,,„.). iiiii,,.:'. elezrrj y "7 7* ( .,L "x'k4.44-''' , L„ . „.? ir4,,, s4_ ,---,,,,,,i6.itte,...„ ,_,., _ 1 _ 2.7, , / 1,1 5 u 1.) a ,,j, telc,Ld r_ ,, , ti," 1 ' „,. . _404e.t..) 16.41::,04.:0 r.," , v 0, I, 10 4eet,oe' 4' 4144 i z14 116 : 1 ao w alt. (. ' _ ' ' 4 M SAVE OVR NE1:GHBORHQOD We, the undersigned, being residents of the area circled on the t enclosed exhibit A, oppose the rezoning of Washington County tax lots 1 4700, 4800, 6,100,6200, and 200, said lots being adjacent toWatkins Ave., from R-3,5. single family' residential to com tmsrercial•general, Our 1 opposition is based on one or more of the following reasons I 1. This is- an established high quality residential neighborhood. . . Any commercial encroachment into this residential area will destroy the character of the existing neighborhood 2, Any commercial developement requiring such a zoning change will be totally out of scale with ad acent us and will adversely ' affect them by increasing `gyond a reasonable paint traffic, noise, glare, dust, and leas of privacy. 3. The safety and well being of. the many children in our neighbor- hood will be jeopardized by the unreasonable increase in. traffic, ' noise, and unnecessary exposure to an unknown transient population. 4. Ingress and egress to this development will create extreme ' traffic congestion and hazards. 5. This development proposal - without the need for rezoning' ' residential property - was rejected by the neighborhood and city government in 1978, There is no reason to reconsider that decision now. NAME .ADDRESS DATE �� . f �Jam" )�/�(�I��,/,,y �y /� ,�✓��y 4,X�'j� 1';''',..4/ " gi �4.326 ,"fi v p:. 1w mss . E ' ' ' ' '' ' '' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '' ' ''' ' g. 44.i/rd ' d . } yi � r�/� /�{X .. y , p' ,W),,,,,,,i,e),f- , :4-, ' 'c.,,,iH','. 1.,-,$'t4 s ' , : . ' 411/›.-4/e V , ''' i '-f•ft 'AS' /4.0`-e 4./.2j/S ,* ' 5. '‘i,,,y1i51,1.,#,,tek' , 6,,,Lo. '4A.41,142:.1,,L, ', i 31+ , ' „ .' . . 3 4,- , 4 ce.tr, - ' y 6. . ,..,J8., ' ce . - i 1 . ' . ' . 4 : . -.,,.„TV . . : -9/ Y V 7 ' , ii k,.,. ..„ , . . , ,, „, . , . , ,, ......,, . ,,,,,‘,40,,,,t,..t1 ., . ,, . , , , is,..,, . , '' ' ' ' ' '. ' .I ' ' '. ', . . . .''' ' .: ' .......,04 ''I ,., ' . .8 '..."del . 7' .d...,0'' ' ' . i ' 1 :. ' ''' '1 ' ' ' '.. ' '' ''''"' ' ' / /3s "2 ei , ., , ',,r'. se, ,,r.,,. ., .. .t.a , ,.,.. ,. .,,-,.y. ,..,, ,, ..".r .. , . . . , . .. . , , , .4 :. , - . . i„: . - : . . . ; , . . .. -.. , .' eit:1 -e,,, . '. II .. 0.. . ' f 11' : ' 4' --4--- .i2;. . ,. . , , .,.. ,_ ,‘t,. .. .a19jek4t ,40 ,;c 1, ,,,, .1,,/,‘t ,,. . , 5 ' 5VA ' ' Nr lY ,, w • . i. , SAVE WR NE .GHBORROOD' We, the undersigned, being residents of the area circled on the enclosed exhibit A, oppose the rezoning of Washington County tax lots 4700, 4800, 6100,6200, and 200, said lots being adjacent to Watkins Ave., from R-3.5 single family residential to commercial-general. Our 0osition pp is based on one or more of the following reasons: 1. This is an established high quality residential neighborhood. Any commercial encroachment into this residential area will destroy the character of the existing neighborhood. 2. Any commercial developement requiring such a zoning change will be totally out of shale with adjacent uses and will adversely affect them by increasingyond a reasonable point traffic, noise, glare, dust, and loss of privacy. 3. The safety and well being of the many children in our neighbor- hood will be jeopardized by the unreasonable increase in traffic, noise, and unnecessary exposure to an unknown transient Ingress and egress to population. 4, gr this development will create extreme traffic congestion and hazards. 5. This development proposal - without the need for rezoning residential property - was rejected by the neighborhood and city government in 1978. There is no reason to reconsider � that decision now. i Nd ADDRESSDATE 1f r- Ji' a . 44 .2 Y/ ��ib rY �� ..t.,-.. �� T '�" e'''; µ �V . ii � ry. l'' ' i?)C,:p-7t'.4e.e4e. ' 1'': '114"6--- ‘-e--).6e1-2zIKe.:,,z4). '4,18, . (1-0..- '7'-2(71-- j i4 2 7F - ØS .,,,....„:„..,,, f. / -2i . , 4i, s,d'a/ i 5. ' '' '' 4k,te? Slit,/jtia,t' (e: *frj :2 7 / c" q- i2tisi/e, 9 ii:'--/ ‘54-.11,,a-14 cc ' LE.e.-/d174-ftlyr.' --/ii,. /o .51,0 itfiat&-, ' 7. i ,evi.,,,,,,,,-,,k,...), _ , 1444 4 1 11 7 g 11 7 ,adt ) 4, ,,,,,,,_ 5,,,,,,,,,, .„,,,,,7_,,,,,,,,,,,,., . ,,, it e---' -,,,,77° nisi 9/' „,,„,12'-'-,) ' *I/ °°''' 71° 2-r-- d-r. . 4/ 4dt,‘..t54'.. dr- 3.0e,„/_gcr--/,,, 9 Qost'e.,..--it--'1-7403,-.. -0-40-06-1-- /*:// ,).”' -,e,'° . ,... kr,r -"" ,, ,,,,,,i, 4 , ,.,...,„ 7/2,p/8,,f/ `' cx,>1" ,'e,it-ot.#1-4-0.--' ../:,5 i'76- „,.„,,« 10. 1,,,1 9, ,,,,,,iti i - ai y ty deat ' 14 ' 42,,,' a.,14.00 '. ' !I'll,„,,,,_-1.'7":11 , ,,,,,;?0 3-- 64'. cd 4 4,,,,44,,,to, 11. 9 • AVE OUR NE CKB ORh 00u .T ' We, the undersigned, being residents of the area circled on the enclosed exhibit Al oppose the rezoning of Washington County tax lots 4700, 4800, 6100,6200, and 200, said lots `being adjacent to Watkins Ave., . from R-3.5 single family residential to commercial-general. Our opposition is based on one or more of the following rea eons c , 1. This is an established high quality residential neighborhood., Any commercial encroachment into this residential area will destroy the character of the existing neighborhood. 2. Any commercial developement requiring such a zoning, change will be totally out of scale with adjacent uses and. will adversely ' affect them by increasing -beyond a reasonable point traffic, noise, glare, dust, and loss of privacy. 3. The safety' and well being of the many children. in our neighbor- hood will be jeopardized by the unreasonable increase in traffic, noise, and unnecessary exposure to an unknown transient ' population. 4. Ingress and egress to this development will create extreme traffic congestion and hazards. 5. This development proposal - without the need for rezon Ag residential property - was rejected by the neighborhood and city government in. 1978. There is z,, reason to reconsider' that decision now. ADDRESSTAME DATE 1 ova \` S ..:1. ' (31e \ ,., A7 art. I s`. sz2 t.,tse‘2,1 ' ' 'V":36///tV . . , , , / . , i , . ,,, .4 c7L, ,,,,9,5,,:,./.,,,,iz.„,,, , : .,, ,,,F ,J,,, , ,,,,A.44.._,/ . . ' . . .: . -. , , 1 , . ''' .,, . ., . ,c,,,,,, .. . „ , t.„4,,, ,,iiit - . . , . //e) _5-7) ,,,,,, a. . ,fr.,,.4. ,...,......' , „:„ '4. ujyr e-i ;--#'4 / 4, ,,„1.. .---,Q5: „_.:',01-: . 7'. .: i,.'„era?.2(el-**''' ? : _ '»..'W.,. W. — "'iw+yiyrw.� /1 44.4+'.'” w.. ��,{ IpI A ryf .d" P ,o''''' o' o r �' 5, t�� . - .... . . ' , , fe.,, : : ' . , ' , '..H. '. ' ' . 1 0 ,:ii) -,,,,,,,. • - . - .' ' ' - 6 it,i - . ' ;Iv c7,i,,i 1( / (,e-71-- . 7 , 1 r 4_ . ' ' H ''' ' ' ' ' ' ' "''' ' ' - /0 yc- Ld ..•, , ,,,,,--,-,-, ce.)-('-' . ,,,:,,,o) ,e.,,,, r , • ' ' ' ' ' 'L. ior - ':. ' •. • • •' . ' - - • . . - . • . ' .. 7 • ._. . ,,...,.. .,.op, •,-•. .. ... .. ,•'. • - .• . . . •.. .. •. . , . , , . ..... •, .. , , ... ' ' H''''' ''''''' ' ' ' P' Vr : ''' ' : ' - 11?L' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ''' - ' ''V '5' 'F''' ' ''' Zle)L* „,. LO -R,A-'''' ' '' : H. - ' ' 1 . '4' ' , : - ..,',. .11-: ,,, ,' ,,.,,, ...:: ', :, ' , . ' ' , ,, ': loq05. ...,.. ,,, .4,,,, ,4-7/-* . . i . ,,,,, . , . c...,..(tiLice..k,_ , 7 .. „'.: :10.''44,....'.,.°°*:,...',:e.*:X.''''''.'....,1:: ' ,"'.„,e:„H.r.,",,,,'..'d,,. ,'„'',,,,,,;_.,....''..4."''...:,,,,... ,',,. ': iii;$,H'.9,*‘),:r .‘,.5.,---aii,t ,.,,,,rio„,:.: ,,',',„;. • ...,:., ,..,..,.'"'...'.416'.',..,” ' 9,4/Jefoe,''''''r-''''g/ (.r SAVE OUR NETGHBORHOOD We, the 'undersigned, being residents of the area circled on the enclosed exhibit A, oppose the rezoning of Washington County tax lots 4700 4800 200, and 200, said lots being adjacent to Watkins Ave., from�R-3 5$si 61006200 familyresidential to comm g commercial-general. Our opposition is based on one or more of the following reasons: 1. This is an established high quality residential neighborhood. Any commercial encroachment into this residential area will destroy the character of the existing neighborhood. 2. Any commercial developement requiring such a zoning change will be totally out of scale with adjacent uses and will adversely affect them by increasing b,eyond a reasonable point traffic, noise, glare, dust, and loss of privacy. 3. The safety and well being of the many children in our neighbor- hood will be jeopardized by the unreasonable increase in traffic, noise, and unnecessary exposure to an unknown transient population. 4. Ingress and egress to this development will, create extreme traffic congestion and.hazards. 5. This development proposal - without the need for rezoning residential property was rejected by the neighborhood. and ' city government in 1978. There is no reason to reconsider that decision now. NANE ADDRESS DATE . ,e• ' - -r-1 , r, , -- ..<,,. ,,,,,,, ,,,, ct. , ..-- ' . 1 6#', -)// (.,4 ,-, //I ',4,2 )/7„;) iy./.,,r,) ii,'(//' z--ii ' .2 izc3..) ./;1 c'll i ' /7frk' , 6e,,,,,,,,,t----,-..2 4,/A,-j 5//4,1-P 2. 12,( t';` '' 1. e -r--'' .. 1//2-.'f/dC de 1 ecti‘,.. - , 3. - .,,,,e-i iku,tii),- ,t,e,fiii,t,„ezei,/t/7- - e„:„..,...._. /3006 . k........,... ,, , i r i i y i? 1 -I D a s` . 4. `t *t "� ci �, ,,' ,/ 1A M/11/5 r M ' Ary' 1 'r ' V V1/49r/ 2 V .• ' i 'WV✓. il C)L4' 4,/, 5,,,,)/$,'., 1 ".1 ,,, ii,14000 ,k,„, st tl.s30.`, SI.1") 41)/97' 17'''''''''' 07tdd 4'ig-2 -6.6.fr''-€."4-*' '''' ( 4,,,/t.)../i- kti- ,49.,/I PP . , ,c, 1 ,,,,..,,,,,,, ' , dli 2 :1 ,4, l0. 4,,,,,,i)it: 7t. (,,1, , , 1 -----a, . 4., .4124;) 4? '. ,,,,,,,,,i;,,,,,,,,, .„.„ .,, , 4 , 4,,,... . ,., a .., .." -,k4e't l'.1 7 - ' 4 , _ t. 4,,, ,,,,'.:"I'''' lit.re„,,,o- tra794...,... edt,v,i,-/-0„. , , 4,7*je, t,......*„„, 1+ r, . , , „, _. : ' SAVE OUR NETGHBORHOOD ' We, the undersigned, being residents of the area circled on the ' enclosed exhibit A, oppose the rezoning of Washington County tax lots 4700, 4800, 6100,6200, and 200, said lots being adjacent to Watkins Ave., from R-3.5 single family residential to commercial-general. Our ppthe, following reasons: opposition is based on one. or more of 1. 'This is an established high quality residential neighborhood. , to •' Any commercial encroachment into this residential area will destroy the character of the existing neighborhood. to Any commercial developement requiring such a zoning change will µ be totally out of' scale with adjacent uses and will adversely ' affect them by increasing beyond a reasonable point traffic, ' noise, glare, dust, and loss of privacy. 3. The safety and well being of the many children in our neighbor- hood will be jeopardized by the unreasonable increase in traffic, noise, and unnecessary exposure to an unknown transient population. 11 4. Ingress and egress to this development will create extreme traffic congestion and hazards. k, 5. This development proposal a. without the need for rezoning ' residential property was rejected by the neighborhood and city government it 1978. There is no reason to reconsider that decision now. . , ADDRESS :DATE f . �., 'i(° ul '""'' !f -- 4- r i/ 'tie .., 04,„ 4V,/..76/5'. v '- 1�� '' 2. w , /b 933— cO ;r,,i. c�... 3 c� , c. ., '•' ,/, ' (41/ gi/if/ V '. a di '3'7 e40e1 ''''?/;?" ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '' 'C2:elee.e -''4 r tai. /c .�' 15 '' / O ' W/3 "7" 7,21 r _ 3 b ii„:t___A ' ' , 4e7,,,„,' 'i.3i,„v, ',' ' i 6 ' , 6. , , : , fc,;4_,J1,44.,,,,,14.0t, , ii, ,,,„ , 4..,,---3„ , , ,,, , , , ., 7 ..''''' Z'''''. g;- ' , ' ' ' ,' f , e"-- 2 1„,„*„, / '1,r,„/ .r:to (,„,. - '' ' - 7,,, /. ., * 'if ' ' ' , ' i , - ' / t n, ,,,,,' r P/ , ' , S 1st) „,,,,,, ' ,e,,....,:s›,a ,p• ,,,, , yup /,yy�X��rr ^rte' '�` # . 6,,:,.1 w` I, ( n SAVE OUR NE GHB ORH OOD We, the undersigned, being residents of the area circled on the enclosed exhibit A, oppose the rezoning of Washington County tax lots F' 4800, ' a ' , 200, saidlots being adjacent to Watkins Ave. 4700, b�JO b..�0 and d residential to 'cor,mercalw�,eneral. Our from R 3.5 single family res a g. opposition is based on one or followingoef the reasons: 1. This is an establishedhahqualityresident�alneighborhood.rhood. Any commercial encroachment into this residential area will destroy the character of the existing neighborhood. ' 2. Any commercial deve:lopemen , requiring such a zoning change will ' be totally, out of scale w.',i h adjacent uses and will adversely affect them by increasing tgyond a reasonable point traffic, glare, dust, and loss, of privacy• noise, tyra and beingof''the manychildren in our neighbor- The safety n hood will, be jeopardized by the unreasonable increase in traffic, r noise, and, unnecessary exposure to an unknown transient population. it 4. Ingress and',egress to this development will create extreme traffic congestion and hazards. 5. This development proposal .. without the need for rezoning residential property -" was ejected by theneighborhood and , city government in 1978, There ;is no reason to reconsider that decision now. { .ti YN ,� ADDRESS r DATE .1 Y' -� —r '.a" / y,• , ? 6 fir! 6,1,.. - 2. det..L./e,, AL-1, c'-'. ' ' ' ' 'f;iic ' ' '''4:/:?/6),// ' ' ' a 3 iR .'tet.. `47'1' :. '' t { , ,r �. . ,. 1 5. t«„ le.,,,-, 4c) - t Mtf- Liu ' . y t a 4 S iy Ski , ' -C. - i i,,ie i' '' / t.Tefoi , , ,, , 4 , cc, „ ... , , ..,,,,,,H ,. _ ,. . . , ,, . , , , , •, , . , , , , 1 . : frit , , 1- 3 ,. 6 t _,,,, (,,,,v /1() 5--I-.. , .is--//, /I 66-'''''I'' ' , ', ' ', . . 1, ' ' ' ,. 1.) ::',,, : : ', , -, ,,, ,,, L4,,,,, 1,, '5', w,,,, l'o L,...,,, ,, .1 101017f: , , 11, .. 1.0,4 r ,,' ', ,, .1, ,I r „ (f 6t,IT, 5 1 j Iv ,2 14 /,./ a , ,, ' .. ill S — ' 7 ' . t • t. SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD We, the undersigned, being residents of the area circled on the enclosed exhibit A, oppose the rezoning of Washington County tax lots 4700, 4800, 6100,6200, and 200, said lots being adjacent to Watkins Ave.., from R-3.5 single family residential to commercial-general. Our ri following reasons: opposition This i��san astablishedohigh fquality residential neighborhood. . h Any commerc- ° encroachment into this residential area will the cr::�,.i;nter of the existing neighborhood. destroy , 2., Any commercial developement requiring such a zoning change will ' be totally out of scale with adjacent uses and will adversely . affect them by increasing beyond a reasonable point traffic, noise, glare, dust, and loss of privacy. 3, The safety andwell being of the many children in our neighbor- hood will be jeopardized by the unreasonable increase in traffic, noise, and unnecessary exposure to an unknown transient population. 4. Ingress and egress to this development will c%'este extreme traffic congestion and hazards. 5. This development proposal without the need for rezoning residential property - was rejected by fhe .neighborhood and city government in 1978. There !,s no reason to i','econsider that decision now. NAME ADDAEss DATE ,,,,, i i , , A,l. ,CG e'e/ir .4_,;91.4''''S ..c e'V /.4'''''.7g , r . i ird,,,y4-1,144.-e-wi..," 4 . /7;44...i/e +ve r4 0' 1 r-. lir /1 3V5 e-- 5'Zi /4741wk 4/-..? 7— (S'cx, 4. '0, ' . 1i. pd / '',//C5.- <5'4,d) /07 i'--- X 6)7'2,6't t v • 5. . d'1 i/ ' / 1 .,„,d /3 cf,l'i 56ti rio-7' ' - ' +tau w �' '� /9 I.,, , i,,„,,,,' diom 06.3s.--` ZU,it (0i4,. ikt f." Y ym� } 9 ;;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,e , 6a � >'/'�,,,„„, Iry i„ �� 'W `G.a. L..,,i`(,y. 'i� if/ ,r r 4, , / ..,..4 aI l r x„.,,,' `'k.CW'„. T" . ori." • `* it r Y 4; fo. :Atio. A ° SAVE OCR NETGHBOPITOOD We, the � being undersigned, residents of the area circled on the g enclosed exhibit A, oppose ppose the rezoning of Washington County tax lots 4700, 4800, 6100,6200, and 200, said lots being adjacent to Watkins Ave., from R-3.5 single family residential to commercial-general. Our opposition is based on one or more of the following reasons; 1. This is an established high quality residential neighborhood., Any commercial encroachment into this residential area will destroy the character of the existing neighborhood. • 2. Any commercial developement requiring such a zoning change will be totally out of scale with adjacent uses and will adversely affect them by increasing . yond a reasonable point traffic, noise, glare, dust, and loss of privacy. 3. The safety and well being of the many children in our neighbor- hood will be, jeopardized by the unreasonable increase in traffic, noise,' and unnecessary exposure to an unknown transient population. 4. Ingress and egress to this developmerit will create extreme traffic congestion and hazards. 5. This development proposal - without the need for rezoning residential property - was rejected by the neighborhood and city government in 1978. There is no reason to reconsider that decision now. NAME ADDRESS DATE 1. 7,1"'''', ,,_6e,..,e, ), /3 6 *7:5-, '(4)) ed,,z6Le* .1/ ;2,,i,.,,,ti..„ 6, I...J.__ , 07- 1 .-1 .. ft".L., - r „( 2. ,e'Pisi .7 `iir' 5., it,,,,, ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,, 7,47,..,,,Is 9_, ,,,p_.., 5,., ifl&-Ye.") 12-2$*/ . 3 - . //V r I 2-7 Sidite) StO lAdia7./e1/YX -4—2,f-ril / i.„H.-,e. ,.,..4, 4,,--t,--24 5. .,,,/.60 '--7, ,1, "716 " , ; ' .-- " f (0(1 alceitgiLitrA,, 1 A 2 ,e,,,e) . f _ erii. 00 5 tc)ea -0#. 2 6 6) `,, + - Y17,b( wr,4 ,-t L _ ,..„,,,,, 0,, i . ai ,,,,,T . t '-' ai,4,44 / ,4 6 4/14 _P s V i A , i ,,-,1 (tte, 5 / 6 9 eit. , . 10,,,,,,Le etk'' /lc i „,,,,,,„ i. ''"..4 a ' „ii.,, — ' . i„,, , d , :i 41 el., 3)1,4 I y bill it r (1 , .,. , :L. , t e.,4 )1' � � ,,,„ � e /411P-M-' 5' (5 � i 7 t) t',1) '''''''l ,t7 ,. , • ° A . '. . .1 SAVE OUR NETGHBORH00D We, the undersigned, being residents of the area circled on the enclosed exhibit A, oppose the rezoning of Washington County tax lots 4700, 4800, 6100,6200, and 200, said lots being adjacent to Watkins Ave., ..T from R-3.5 single family residential to commercial-general. Our opposition is based on one or more of the following reasons: 1. This is an established high quality residential neighborhood. Any commercial encr,oathtnent into this r•:sidential area will destroy the character of the existing neighborhood. . 2. Anycommercial developement requiring such a 2oning, change will be . totally out of scale with adjacent uses and will adversely b affect them by increasing bgyond a reasonable point traffic, noise, glare, dust, and loss of privacy. 3. The safety and well being of the many children in our neighbor- hood Will be jeopardized by the unreasonable increase in traffic, noise, and unnecessary exposure to an unknown transient population. • 4. Ingress and egress to this development will create extreme _ traffic congestion and hazards. . , 5. This development proposal without the need for rezoning residential property - WAS rejected by the neighborhood and . city, government in 1978. There is no reason to reconsider that decision now. NAMEADDRESS DATE ' ' / , i't .div. ' . ,,, , (4-. —sc)—.,4,./ - ' .4*-/e-ge ' ". W , : . � c2 / , 3. ' Ir'''‘'`e-Y-f • .',. ' . 6,6.1:i . f:.3 ,,,.,3 , ,,,,,,_ 1 (:),,,,,,,,,,,5- 4..,rcu„, Lt, ,.!$()-St.( 5, i . ' , , . so,:L ' I 4 L be ,so P d ,-6' ,;,25 -r� t , T ' ' ' ' 6. bJrJ `r° „. , u ,, /" . 6 w °k e-___ �: ,.. . . , t .t..24,t71,,,,l, , , . . .7. ..-777(e,,,,,,,, 7,,, ,,, , r.4.4 • , . , . ,, )?' ,4.L ,,,,,,,,, . , ' ' /(,)er'S k`:CL) 4d11� ti,:v 0.._ - iii` ' ' . ' ' t,' / „pi' ' p,:it)..,,,,- ,, / 757 9 � is /P P 6 7 ' 2.' le 44 ' ' ''s# '.''2,/ ' i - 9 'S - ' ,:).),*°*‘‘‘ 4.-a / /7' '''' ' /13 Via,, • , c x j I,. - y u SAVE OUR NETGHBORHOOD ,, We, the undersigned, being residents of the area circled on the enclosed exhibit A, oppose the rezoning of Washington County tax lots ' 4700, 4800, 6100,6200, and 200, said lots being adjacent to Watkins Ave., from R.3.5 single family residential to commercial-general. Our opposition is based on one or more of the following reasons: 1. This is an established high quality residential neighborhood. Any commer'ial encroachment into 'this residential area will destroy the character of the existing neighborhood. 2. Any commerr:ial developement'requiring such a zoning change will be totaU.ly out of scale with adjacent uses and will adversely affect them by increasing •bgyond a reasonable point traffic, noiE,e, glare, dust, and loss of privacy. 3. The safety and well being of the many children in our, neighbor- hood will be jeopardized by the unreasonable increase in traffic, noise, and unnecessary exposure to an unknown transient population. 4. Ingress and egress to this development will create extreme traffic cr.;tgestion and hazards. 5. This develop'ment proposal - without the need for rezoning residential 'property - was rejected by the neighborhood and city govern creat in 1978. There is no 'roason to reconsider that decision now. („,..1,,,r7, NAME ► S . , � ,---, s, s "� M-, v .i3- u ( t0-4 ''` 4 v l t7a'9 --/-3'D' `' , , , ( , , / i , y i,,,,- 1 3 ti.;75- 5,14,,,,, //0 7-7?,,,,, rt ./Yoi. ' ' ///--) i("g LiLl 3 v 2... -',4Y/ 1,,,," i i.6'- t‘-‘1 ,,Y(' ' ,, ' 6 'I'LL '-'-' c) ' ‘,7/' '''s-i' " . 4,,/yo. .,?- . 3. L .,,,,,0144-e i' 1 ,, ,,,,,,, .,,,,,,;:g,,,,,„,,, t e,,,,,,,,_,,,,,,,,,.. . . V /Ct-(1'. 5. i9; / - e) . i.,, ,, iy / ,- . iict c 4/36/gq "a`r1 .,41. i _,,, iild ' q 5‘14/ //0;5-* . -/-'e.er)44''''P ' 9t j -1 ' ' itk'it,. 144.,,i dP6'4.-„ 1-,---'51z-- * * , 7 tx,vtot., :, , 4 „,.....- . i . ., e .. . vett,. I ye ' ' . , I i ti 2 = �,..e ( h..4 ' 'T- d' /7' t"' 'i 9. eI ' ,1Ct .isIF'','' , , ...e..4 .,, :'.s'ii,t i a' 17.13't:/' .t14. filo M t v-il 6.4:6,-0-7i/3 t'" "`�' ,,, ,w',re''',,,,)&. r*Liti-,- 'eil, „),e,,,,,,,41, d, c , ,o.. .,, .„_,),,,...ii„.„),,e,,,,....e... ___., 0 If t,ectlt " i3,0' ,,, 1 • `. Ir._ \ ' - ...ve '4------- 7,-----------'71 . / /49 . 2,_,,s s. ,-, ...„.,....,............ 1 u r,z 4. / 1 3i 25 =Iiii.a LI US}, + 4. ..... ,,,,i 't r *{ s \ • Lam'...I.Lk,� - EL ;. 411 J t- � n SRO L. 6.0............$4........ir .......i xi rr .0 . II W..D. 4. -- r r-7-...iC1td , 1+.'"4`4:x. (� L'. D v/c ,,,,if 7 „-- ..., yr'1 1 } ._..„. Tt,o,.....,.. „.., .. , v r/GARV/C/N/fl' • NosTAFF HAWK n s I' "!,(• ST• �^ ! § *OFT D 7...,...+ f__.,,..,.•' .,(11.'..........:] ,pr,..,'.T...,.1.Y...q '2'7 1 u s �Q+r �iW y t N IJ ` SCGLE in feet(hundreds) w 1 Op :74 C . 1:' P IW LLI K g �� 24 I N � � J11, f =1 g 0 • I. •REST DInVE ,..•�•-•+. , 'LEwls s•rIc� w t � h, 011!• o ,Y`',4 - "+1i1. u �' L ivi TINGE �w , " r , r -i., sw. �• ` s .t. c-y .t_r �' + - ` tl baw S .F. 0 r ..i 33 3. SX r s\ .; a O N (I c R f F K, �� L., 3t;2 C 1. r,TT • ., •r sty '44.641:,../...›,. " 4. MIME ST._ M \ , iiumpt G4 woesAfF 14.14\ ` • kite 1 ,A � � �J i.M►�' ffiT, eL+`c�^ .• N �..•'�'! rr ST '`, `D ��'y,� �` ' s J ..0 A y :. `� 40„0,,,,,, tl► � _ry >e.w.1 _ �,# 's ,�4�A" ,,•" a1� �' sx tov s 51.7•'"' N> ci. • fr. s 1N T 1 r�S C /ST. j '�I! • w FANNER A wl, ^�` �S L.... Q &L S M. �j w�5�` / 10 "` cARSOI ,. ATMs V .►){ i •;i S,S,. ej 'rr / 1! sw, ALttelevA st, > t., •4 4, ' ,*4 • fir, god ce. . I s.w I�oN►tFF '� ,� 3a „. ptxKr' �i �► o �- ��. s ST. ,.,1, , ''t / M t,r!w JAMES F3 , YS •.. t �'4t'M:. >e'"----" +et 0 \R t i / r cr / ti, SAP, ST'. �, S, Ori -amu.-•.., A .., `.. aw, 1u11t . t. r \ ` Li sT.. �. a • w � l v �, '� a w tri t n,C c r " 1 k p % a, I1 r -+Y , ,:e p S4 1 lir c !h1 j ST,t ,�4 4 , t?DF' 43•.,',. .. ., alk. r O'MARA S P / t e ,44...,P- tj " n sw 4 w ,,�,r s1 . rr < 1' .t '-* 0. r: ' ' is o s.w .•� ti's` s.w EDOErvbon rr. @' 3 C7 p►M1FlEw W� r t� w Sw.'tett., 4 ^ }' 5, r, Nf.0,,t,,, Ste` a" o~ S,iM, ti< 4N dJj Ft, �I1--157t a � '~� HiLLviEW CT. r. Atiy a Ts* PARK PLr C r I �,C 'b' MebbMALC St m YtcWAcOG a E . �^-""- LROSE' • 99 i E l` = tl > fu a. l w' ii� omf4� W W S I t V S 1 MOU411.1WiEW LAN,' .:, e bU c'1' L sw ;.� •iEw —.-tri..-7,7- .. s G �� r N i r.. 1+'k IxC i 1 d tr 1 w` ui "�� Vlcw TEkRACE I �5'ti' INc. 3T. `t a t ! S vitt oby sx � + '4' P i� .....x: g E. 1 rwwt,t :;• 1 s km �,«,T tlr�TClt a ;. a t Q _,..,. SAY+, . ;1 �t 3 ; ,— Di r ilbilNT'*4 s"..1AD_ .., 8 PEMmoc), rt , w h l .-ti; ... ....... 1 'yr. -b 5T71 T .y, ..,0 tME.,.' � f. M atilt if'ilFnnrl� ' s.+c «t ''"7C'CR. t a 1 E ., i�eaohr�w 4 ' ( , e'.'''' ii . 4. ' i ,, ,,,, ,,,11t .1 L �.* ,dry. �i Zr•,,, 44. " 4+ two...erim tT : ' ' e. ++4, ,` t IW it. }I a sr 1•}1!11 iIM. wtrUstisli fra, 4a. =-,;"—•I' 'II 1 } "I r lai- -'-`..._ ' m 'AAAA ._. h•‘. t t ; t AA� 1 1fJ �y S E s .<.. e �i`)'�--' 11 'S1rH%. }' �lA; �i�' S, 'l' �' /i7't tT! Jft,�� 7.+4` 1� � '3A' .ItG` <� a IA 1 { l l r { 0E , t` t ! • �j. 1 ti3wGY may,, .. _; tSt.-NDyil!!7fr. ..a. ^ \� rj \� V:... +, - 'r .rrf+ iti1iS 1g.n_ - q'�. 'o ff i .M. _r�s ii NC N /i),..\\*. i. 1; s� V '� t f M rc„,..... vF46 "R13 4 � �+ au ��y t� 9 k, u [....:,-3._Ay ' ♦ #• 'a 4,��. 1 o t i /Ls i fir' .. ., ' _ d v Ms y 1�YGlr'Mti '[i�Va9 t!i1 1 t 1, Aiii ! / ,} 0, ,. '�_._ qq 2 6r Gy r ,� '11.,...,, >vAp r _ ,0.m. a •Ail f; V ., u 6 • '.3A!! j� : s, c'i '~ ,, \# 4 4v n L. > . '. * ; iK3AVd s a 3.�i-4 -.5 P ' 4 q4j } Ity 1�i d < AI. _• y_ � � � � v9J G.� > yi .p 9rYi.ii1 ,K'� • �{ �9Al r ''... .\ 1 i 1.--1,...z 44.441 Vs t ,,i la YX —t) .„-E---- . , ~ ir-illtrii,i6I:Al.1..-1.4:4. r ,r�• 'F �Iw��'.` � �� a a._.._..VtLB i � :... �' �'i - �''��t III y � F� it 1,4 is '♦ �ChA� �`1. i Sw`'c-�, rP. ?a 3 =i '7A/ j-""`�,N i c;i ,,L )„,,,* , , a ... w �* p$ i "a . S t J_ 8c_t dz.": mu a , / ? 3,511 ♦f+ J, 4 '�, .t.‘ 'a.t .alt. . Vt0i1tr__.........,_,, ,..1.....:1,. ., ...z , Jli!ill ,., y Al I 7 ____ j- S.i.. � A+7aA: ' ` ar 4 h �31f0 ` El 7Ar .y ..T c 1. _ a,(„?; Ti+ y " CASCADE m1` Y .� � '� �` .q� �£ � ..---,.., lt, ,, i, -1 ° lsJoµ 11 1N ......„d•--*,�, p +.. + Q ••• 3t /6 _y�` ipst�. _ M t'f?� 1 i) s. - rfr �- i, tih Z J S r... vii• l`M's� . ! � i ii of . i.i e 1" 4- ,i ', C1tIi1tVAA ,c , ' . 1 ` '0!M �\ by E x {�.V1GAi _soot 'AA`s' » i 44 - i - 1. _..•.SE_ is t'bi 3d ' /_ . y _7--.. ._ _Ley, N ♦ i 1 13 r 4 u h t � !'t!f !Dl J' ,at • -� ., Viill.{ yHlt(3 a, , .6E. 117� # �' t HST 0 ,,aQ��t 0 4 . t W .fiat 41211 M S ao ,� . s i c. o --A-�---y ai 3........:.. t` -� t ,i Mlid 't4i• �, s t i At'f .., G(Its3A V19t1 7All Vttilt ..r M.F ,`,1 L 4-II \I, 11P11‘ik,Tzliktr /� 'la o\,. o - L _..S --- A�,. S`?�l �._ a d #- 64 06,2 1A ♦ 4\4.,,,,,,,_ d ° [—,;:i l; g a5yrr V II i . tkiYaNY1i j ` i tt p iJ mutt c _ _— "►�° i Am•, `boy "' ' ,��,�� t y44 i��a w tsik, j1i i _ i a ( i L—# . W i > !! \\........._j Q O i _I t — Ni Q Vjs M to 7Ar .... r . 7nr U. b it ...that., 4 '!� , D.,,,y� h £ '^ F < F: *slo'--.Ist�i3XYN q, 4A ,,.. .. !- -!.1. -� it7ilt N i' �'Ara7b:t1 .. i 1",7 3�tyU31' Oi yr A t�: sia E : IA 7AY ,1 > Atr 4, o /.+-vltii•Ms YLKi 1A•; 21 H. .'-.g • ,,, ck 3iltioC V AY NT•'` '11--°' 11Aa�3A1 aiSxi •X 4: q a 6.1 1st; Gv x119Et�,s is js ! � a ... t 11tAt1 =S �� 'r�tAY _ _;Pi—• w ea and! N. f ' i Zsl. a— . 'S L.. + .�.c c Me .,• SAA1 44 i �a 1 '3Atl V1E61 ytt3' :. i Jj f e P '. .-+r,•.♦.... .. .....,w._,..,,.. .....• .. .. _. ._..t ,.a�., ,,,,.«,_....,,... .,.. -� ., '� ;. ,,. «�'-f tt+ M.,. s».,.. � fsAs ,w .��i..,.., .� c. ,z A 1 . . Ar L'#;",t "I,+ !7 • x i� ..wr.::.4.,4.w. rii ......,:i .7, i ; 34 23 .1-'.... ,o,.. ( "1,,E iij ',-,..-il,....„ r , 1 �a2tJu+Eat 47 fz sI w I tea ,�. 4, 1 aLx_s.‘3.1.....____,,J , --...„,_ ...„:.,,,:.-1 . [ r ,, r 0 /��..� t"11- V i L .• ,.. ^#' -"'''', 1. S `, i } 4;e1. " d 00,' 7 1//:?/:2 a ViCiN/ �* Stia S�C� •` 1 �' • ,,.. 1 < � ;w �,r �.-..;f w ,DC7 +f TM011� • TICAMY.MC` 1.4MTlJT1rF ! ti 1 *OPT . .......♦.....tom °t } ,I CAtf in feet(hUndreds) ;; ;.. .st14 r�• i; Q• ,. y a 4. 31I KrR£ST OF+vc acaTz tri.,i J a W ik:,tC' j 1 ,,,,,,=,, • p rs ie.i t C ,a Lets re..t,,jz.j., ,,y , i • t _ W t. +r ,, sx cF � ux>M+ lag, t '-*.r `!. =i 1 e� awe' t"---).H; t[Drw, flit rt nP4. ot. 1/dT r.• SS S EMME 4T,, ritt4 - o w ••' C,Itf` R• ,, .«= K�Yl1£R ST. 4, ,r,Si cl ,},4• =s/� tC AIDCL J 5 p : .e''r ' r v _ ./"� +'r,/^I 3'ke ,�'r' ^d CT. 1. 4 syr {.'� D vU .� a�'i ti tom" sX.ate4,ST.!! rts,aUT ,,....-.�',. ..r 2 +. � ��'t� �� . . ,fir 4;,.... t T+ 1 £ P 1440. ,..wu)R." C. i a, a in> , l \ \ rr�'► `'. , ,, A471.„14'0,14 t Sw' SM: —�51• 441.—11: ,moi.' .C'y Yy'� t moi! s Csm.y^ it . * '' ' C♦, C t ,/�'.2 4y A (" 1 21 4. 4 :L-11?t_. ...0,44:. u ,.,,..,L.;- I w CaA wtM tT t5.lif. v �9 A f t : �,, ►., '`'fMATKMS 4 M 4y*4' sty uATRTA 4Ti_l ° .►4v ��,,r>4.„, (io �`r s S „ . .\ '/=-------, 0., 4 ANT V?T:' ' /'. ' tSt c... a 0 � Ion's..Pro. '^ Is.,/ ,0,'' � t�xy t4L G- ? .k 44, 1 ,/ c +«'i 'mak ^ ."^""/. '�4 a' Z' ` 0' r • •4 /� 14, C:".' .* tiARION ..:ST. .. S AMB{'+ /SW. kXR4 1 „t, - �' *t.r n .. I , .. tz to '` eIl 4? c�t, r .i!as� • 4 K`yi` ++ S' � � OifAk4 4 r •�' k gw .iaok N., sT / ti.. *,,,,tiff *:.:4"Lt,./ `" ; �, + F GT , 9 s;vi roGer 0c, 9T.... 4 i 1 sr ►!p a y*` a i B k7 rrl.OUtt-M -bOEN i r act a � 5 y1. to- sir 4-,t7 w N+rtc {"Is n*i PatiK P4, Et, ri i ' ui• M� �u ,t.Lv Ell Cf. "` 1 ,,4 i > ,J', , +to a+r of 'u LR tt, £ s 4 { � ,. ,. o w ,it i' '�' 'I ,.� t :an't'i` H' t }iT > .. 't ,I, 51+° W < it,, u stew wtrrtTl e- K IM ,rr re w { W !y a , r n COR11.449. w r Obs ST, 2„ �" , ��' YI£W TCF9!•Cf ., w '1 v * i •. '�c..� Ci +/ri1 W: s> tr+II ( a1,. �p t.•i, .,£. 3 T k.r )4.. K M .. / t...vait +•a .e tiiu. f ,.. ..6�... .�..'.y�cw ' Shy'.`;",, �4L " ' 44 : ~ .IIOt}N1 a.., ..r--..-.."'".t ...,.. dNMMtLFt�• ""` PkN944oct it N w .+ tt Al4 ,..,- LR. . W. + J rsh• 4 ,,. « �kN ..I. ... r1w. VRIE@a # ` .. w Y. • ... a . ..•;i .` �4 N'Ct., ,fir"""► ia 4 �' own f " +tG��,�-1 *'�' -rIn'r i ./ ;� a ti, ilt iwntw .....?'i_...'. '1+�1 ..,,,1 , . y, ! k'kTI i ! - sJlr„ 1 a rtt+ t �' @ • st 1 w+ ilk {:i j tw * ( r.,...�.,ra..� t.. , ,�." t�dpa'wwJfrniai��` '�UM#k1Mi Its 0 '* #.r�•„r�v ,� 4 ,.- , I� 4 -C+iwf�llM "X!'1 ?taJ !s � � +4 A,. a � to kNlU:[-"-'''''-'-'7-."---"*4-..., 1r 0,tr a_ , a _ VFX ,, I II i131h AVC f -1% TM <t a, •�'-r-• — =tom—� A l' ' i. s * 1a3r4 AVE. \.....„\\\ a E 9 - \\",j--- 'p1tT.} _ 0 or %:::":..—.." :-...::.'_-:::::.-_: _ �w Ia2n, -f `Ilea Wg't T r .'"---1\\IS i r (alf) -'spit. ,_ 1_ AVE_ .-._ .4a - tc Z.. `'Avr Ai mss. ,- t �'N.1211th �� e, I; 3k- yA� F` - R. • 1 SaW 1361k 4try1 i h'' d' -t AV v !CARE �,;,.. i s=w 1xs►1,AVE(PVT) ,a,. �1 I ` -}- S.W 121rh p. Sw.2eln} 73 4W- fYt� v .w A t' 2 s t AVE'. - fi t[r!►a a -� = a7E13R G 123..:!F ►'�At � M -e 113,4 E. VC.'M �' 1 - a¢ YA 10 TERAccE c, 5 y i •`w. p... i au1 }t si TC L 1$OA2ELNIt:tcg'.OR r 1 4 t G 3� � : ,� Avt • 4. N 4•fRt... _ is ,[ � v{ p • '' - I -- s Z '•i'j .7 �`�/e j "E y i, r � vu,_. :: .TAL ., S ! \1if l� Q As/E. s a E D' • -' 1 : a -. I cs - - *sw- alb cf. _$/ -.a-t I-. 3 - m- Y" 4 * : , ,- \ • Mcf.ASIA1}') Q g f1 R �4sf O r\I _I A > oe e► ` . EIVO _cr, x~ r noses q YE - •> -- , 11! t�f -+....../ � ..s�. ssy P IIO1h' Z AVE Ilan 0 pL a t JJJ �ftSy,, 1114.sw 1tAtt. AVE` .. V •7 '. Lewy w 0 _'?-°CJI S � • A �� I. ,` • , G `t, W41 f. . .ill 2'0 1 I,r a ti, A Q,- ►ei. . , tw. -". .ilia P td, i t av , .. ., / �• AVE-- ix _IA ` 1._a x. chlwP) ,,,./..-- '-. g z....... lasetlxY �.�. #`' .. N •Ire rr 'i W ! °� tc , - g x , s.w. oi.t „ 41, * 'SW” l'''''C' '''. .1 r Hz ,___ „,,..... ,...„ , - .4. ,. ,, 1 4 s;17 taAl :_i' c N 1), w r ,/ V‘AlKINS r. ii „ ♦ _ ie' fir'. -- r !w41p 4 N <C�. Jo. �N • q, 2 a. �t i t w o F t > " � �/ 6 t', „.—. - a sw_ p AVE. SW. r:a r;.,, .,. �' �,f, • ;�1. 'c p� .:t w ) rl 3 IE J. s ,, _. 41. �4 ,_„ IE' n r _. AYE, tor, - ',. .;” :. , 0 t. •,'a o ,r ! 1R n AVE •C I. ,Yf. � .- - cp�T-�.. !� �:�a. t to i � ay C►�� .�� S.w A � � � � ;yr f f - .. .. ,.. ; � is #--f`, .� ��n . - sv, Al - f tt ir 41 z ► c iEw 1s• i- -s. 4 I �4 %l �', 4ttr W 1 IN I� AVS ,. r n -..4 G A+ ,r 4 t 3L1f R t /22..3 33> • +_ '1 r °'E y. {rye; �s� _m, 951k {w N.1 . , stagy / F bq sv;�rt s +` Y AVE. •--t^�i., •r �u I :-z rr' r Fa..,-.a l - ('_ is.,.... ,2.,e .' 1 ��,} ,./ �� S.W. 91cr- AVE. �i -� n > .,. .: + 2 s= tZc giP:.n: ani a `' a }c' 7 !` ��} LI/ . 9►tt' f^ n C ` of - i;.5.\ :a l roc q Z`� j sw" SOW AVE �+ r �, ►+ 4. 1 1 1 w -, o ,, ca� � *Cw .t n ; !yr 9 0.A ^ ti r..w. r_ t l'M'►ti ‘EAt san 1 ri= N ' h 6-` .t _ - *' x►rEPso gst !i.f` _ _ .: Ar? 1 a � -? �! f y ITA V �:r. ti ! , w sW =j-,I. j o `% c, I SW, rA ►j r« f1Sn,t G e 1. wit ,. .., 4QU r a: ► VCS g ,11 i est• j f'' ., `S Yr,._. "' '� y4: 21 VtJ: !i'.M. simtnillili Int f A - K ....-"`..�✓"�" 'mow ,y rv� #i (,, fd,,,,,,7/ ‘1„,/,.„00,,t,t414.11, .. - ; t 2 -- /4=4 3 „1,4 i4. 3 26''' ,', dt..„,,71 A.,r.st.„.„1„,,,,it ,t:it .9,4,4,k—,e;i 61 e 4,,,,,,,,A 5., 1,,,,4:;..„........-< _ a,,,,t, .,,,,,,,,,A., ,,,e., 1,, If . . to . _5', 3e7i 1 .:. ,,4 „.„0.4,..,/,e..., ,. )1 6 a 1 urt,,,,,,7A.v). 416,---),,,A' )„,,,,,,,,,,,,,..-,,,, s.41 f , L. it.f4,4044 ,,, / i- ,7-2 t 7,t,61:6.1 .ft...44''''‘.- ,--#1k..5-11Y--Ite't it,,,14 , 19/tdtd1147:''i r 4 1 3 L, ifl'''"4"--1 ..,,,,,..f7/6"?_‘,.,, (....,,,,g.,,,, 1 ? t i J 14, ,1,../ir.. --/-,T-4,-.,,,, ,,s' ) „,,, . ; , ' ic 4441,-;:-\. 7 ,ie , ‘ 1 .,t.. ,--z., 1 t(0, , .:i' ,c— ';' h ,,,,,,,e,,,,,,.........„itt,„(.40 1 , 1 ... /A 0 il,„t,,t.,.-r,,.,,,,_...,, 141, I jei,,,,z. '4 I ,„4.,,,,,z,,,e,i4 2„;), ra..,,,,,i,../N A.4,5,,,vv-'-'-' '-( (1 /1/1 ,e, -, ' ws........„...., r*„,,,i,:t„,,t..„,,e. , .1. 4„,t. „.: Ad LiN,,,,tii.,,,41 k,,,,:j111‘,Atv-tot,* IN-10"el/i' it t , ry ' e 1:1.0i--'2 .--- , :40 ,,,,le 0041_7 k or 4,0:2 2.0,,iy:st,,, )',L' 0, p tp..4,0 6 rte+f 7IY T o :.r+io^W.. , 4 ' f . . , . „.,•t-il..,•s...„ ••••,4 X'•',. „....,•: ',,,,, ,,,. ,:::1\;;;!.-.,;.).•A14',` , - ,'.•. .,4,4':',.-• ... ,,,,,:.. .1, ,.., •4,.‘st,1 ...,,,,,,,i1'..,..,,;.„ . .t'','4t‘t/,' -,,,.1:'. i'-'' ''',7:1 'IX '•,' .4.'''.•'‘,, p .....0 ...S , '' , ', ,et ,,,, ,, • ....?• *,.,.,:•,.:-,!„v.:,,,,I. ..gt- . ... 4„ 440‘;',. ••::,.,‘,,,',,, 1;4:,..: .,.,t,,,,,,e:2).. •,:.,..,;-cs.,:4:,,;c00., ,:i.',.,ii, 4... ,. .. 4- 4 '5».Vex' qt. 4 s ,-„,:,•••,,,,......-.-...X '' 1:*•,..;c. ' -,4'•' •al••.''''' ,.:• ttr'?•.. °,440 • st”,* . • '' '.TA, ,.1 • „,,,t 11, 4,7 rest) a. 4 •-;'*::,,,,,!-:‘...ir• '7"', ‘• • ,-,;.i. ; . - ' '••••f*-f.--1 N- •') ' . t,,,P; :•• ,„ ,,,,,, • !... -'' :•,..,,,,...7.. .*,,,.„_,....„:.t., . .. . **, ,,t , ,,,,,,.-- . ‘, *,..„ • ., 1111 ' ..:'',•;;Aif'.. .. „`..•..., 4;,.'. ....s "-'*;,,..A.,.,:-. .1).'f.,:,1.r--;* :,,' * za. . . ..,.•,.....4...4.k...•,. .:. ..,...„.,„..:...., . , .4, . . .... . , kkri- 4a,,'1/413' .--,e.z.':.'"k-iiii'' .•,••'• .:'•'. i. i''. ,itkiliit'N'''1. 41.-k l'4',''• '-.' •4., 1.,.,s, ,.,• ..,- -24. . ,, .v.„...,,.,‘ . •,N•:•••• ' , castX 4314,.f..:• , 'X:1:`,t'4 )•*. .. , ,.. ''.',. .., 4/•••t„-4,,,gfal • ,_ a• ta.., Ilk a", a*- . ' ••4,•; .., ' ` "k*" ;' '•, 4. ":'tk.„\"i,•k.k.o,Wg'..'',•.• •••'f;-•• t`4'-''* • •.• :' -',..' •'' ••,-, •,'N* t1.4* ..,„:4**4,47',,, ..,0t,„ ,,,,.,..1*,:' ,;15,:;*,',.;: .1.'":..,1,.. - 'Vi; - ''''-'• ?`• '•' ,,'*','4'.,'','iv.k,, 1- s;:\'''''•':-16'' k ''g'' . „, ,:':,;;":3#' :5!...fire..-1 "4-7- ,,--• • .4,,I, ..t. ,. , , •,,,, ,. . ,t • • . . . . r''•A'Z'S.." t,.'i), r'X'\ '*'-1,4 • •• "a•., ,,•. ;., ,,,,'•ia aig, . . , At '",,,,,,,,,, ,, ‘,.' jfr '' :,:'.7,1t1r,ii,',,.;.,:k,'...y,,,,;!•., .•„•,,,,voil .. ...., ,••‘......,k•-.,1-,: . :..,*,-,,. A., ‘,.,...''Ar''- '''' ;' . '''''. ''' •'':1;,,,,4 11'• r ',.'''''','''',' • ''' ' • '' ' ,, . 'V,t, ';',,:- Ci.".A.A., ir, • . ..•.%k.,: •',V..'7:,it. ,s:".,,,,: ,•.AIM\",: :if , .,.,1*-,47:-,7.% -1''',,,,osr:'.':' L'1,`,.,, ,-'.-• ,i.'t,,',' .r-s1.1,‘"..e4'4.!-•',-, do,..'4.• . 0 ' ' ' 41,,,V * ,..,14h •.',.' 14' 1,:.4,Y ::. • • :.,,,,:.v.,,,y tr,„,,N,,,,..,,-.,...,,,,,,,,, .,,, ., , ,,, ..,. si.,..,..,,..,, .,,,, ,,.„.. ,.,..,., ,,..„--. ' '.-1. , ':;*;,,t.' ' ,..,'4. •. V t:,,,,,...7," ,.'.1...44'?':' .,-•%,C.indb, A*".„44 • .i )1' . '''. '-'. I k• ''','it I.',''',, k . _.,4, ..,_ .,.i.„4,-.:.,.....,\0,)::: , -4,-,. ., 4 .•,‘. «1•';..*)... .t.. A\). '0'''' :''''',7'..; ''',fir- ,'., ',',d.','''' .s:3- At.,-,... .:-,,41,-.' ' ',.....''''1.''''':',It'00. .s.' '2.•., ,' 7', .....'-' ' .';',',:-.5.:* ,,lica ' .4,,,,,, ix,,,,, ',,,Lii.„???,;' ',11 '', . 4.,t,,A:E.',..? -7,in,..,., ••,,. .' ..-' ,'''"', ‘,:.•:- --,.... ,,v, .. 4..,•V••••;''' ' .•'''-u",,?"*I•••,,-; ' • ''''',.:•'1N7!",;..,.'44.-,''.*..,.,ty b i . sti.)''''''Cl. . 4'14 mi',';';vi" .-;4.• ..,-•3,Ri7",.:144:•;2,','•„.•;',,,,,•,„,`,,,,,,,,;, '•":, s; 4..t.0-:,,,‘„ ..,••••.H' ; „%.:t,› ,',, •*,,,,,,4,.-',1'14'$:?4,,,,,-...,,• .. ;,..,, ,.. ..-,,• 44••, .•3.,.,, ,;•iii. ' , II icss, .'""‘''''' t'1,-'1•:,":.171,',Li.l. 1 ,, ...,.,,,,.;V,4!: .01k''..:*'',;.':•:'•...."::'''7' '1.:',,;:\''' ,14'*'.74^'''',..)":„"1‘^,t'-'?'''•:::: :14,•'fil.4•''')'!,.:'.'r.,41•4•4'''''-','''.. %.\'•';':'-,., '''':ir„H;•••11'*';':*, ...'.'i'1,1t;),'•444**,::;,,,,,:4' ''.4'''''''*,t,-';':*..."...*„..i...*'',..'‘...74',.'''''' .1"''''r . k '14 .;...,',4"vt,..' Alt;', • ..4,-i..‘,..'....•,::'-'•4.''t' .•,-, .4 4-.!:',1"eit,.,,.- .",.. -.... • , '... . i•.4. ,..:4.,; 4.---s'..,'-.\r''..' ,.4.....' i44 ' . . . , . '‘..:-*,‘ ,.:-%:-...."...4;....,... .','. 4,4\ " „,.3.4.. .4,...pc.i4. 4, =-,n,. ' .... ,i,,,,..!,,,, ;'.;,,,,.., ,-.. ..,, ' .1.,„-.;.,, v ei!,. ..;.".,..,:„,*; ‘-',..1-...,..! : .•-. -"2- '''' - ',1.......4,-'.,..i...:,:,,.t. . . .. .. ., . ..04X.,:..,-.4,-,0 ot,i4i. .9,,,,:".7t,,'..':;',.,-. •,',.--,;,-1= :,,:' ,., ,,, ,•,. ' -.,..?",‘.‘,•... .:,.. . ‘ .. -' - .4 ,.4 .,,:,-....1. t. * ''-..- - 4". • -.,- '.: •-• -•,,,,,-' ittl - 4 • ' '' - 1 cr., ,-.. -,. - ,i, „ .,. '‘.r '...' ' -'r%,,'t'.1.AY A • .11 . ', NO:.., ''.,',., 'I 'N.,L •• ,•,•''''' . *.ioi,,„1.4Ail:::-',-P.;,,,-' ,.; '.:5, •-- -,,,,...:i '' ..::-. ' * '-.1,„-.;,.....,:r•ti,,,•- .• . ,i,,,., ,.,,,.' , .., ., ..,,,-,..,'•.,,._. ,„,„4.,, .,,0:‘,.:., ,,,,,. .:r• _.,. ., ,;,.,.,..„. .-,,,.....',4...;,a,,cif• • . •••*a••".'•• 4 * .:. .....;,7,*‘'''': ., -k,...k. ti'''',....1-1,?::4,:.tkV -Ai!, ,.,,r:.,.,.,,:,J. .,;,,,,,,.. „ .., :„,,,,y,•,•4 1.....4::,..i•A;;,, '..s,,,,,,- , s-it ..44i,,_,.„ ,• 4!.e-,:r!:_,.‘,. , .,,,..i.r.`. . ,,, .. .,... . ,::,.., V.,:". ,,,,...,..h- ,'•4*. ‘,..- tr4.-,.. ,.. v4."'.' •-',•:,'.',,) '-:,, V.•- '..t.‘4.. .('7:-.-.4'.•••,.. -..5 • - f.1,• tr. .4,. .' -.... .. .,,,,,..4.• ‘,..` ,-4. -4 .„...,..:4-''.1r* • *. ''.• ;.,0...:Y;': t..-•.:*,,,,,s•.-VfF: ..-a•pl •'',,,'',,': '1r4'..,..t,.... 4•,.•-, ., :.r'' ••', •'‘. Itt4' i.• * ;•' ' •*".••••',•• '' C '-'''' *n' k'• i'' .' '..`174,7'‘' '' '' ''' • ••-"! '. n ''''' ••••'''•''' I? ' •. V' -."1, •a'",-.',' •‘•••. litt .,,a•"'e,;1';•,• „. . ,,•.'"• .„."?.,:tae,,''f'•• •• ‘•,ik ',. ..-- '' '•••al,' ,/.'.•aa'.t• '1":'la'N'4''''•'••• • • 4,**.'• ,'•,', ' • .•1 ; ' iil'F'7a •'''' :i'.'t. "'4-4, '' '•°-*,- 114. ' ..., ., 0\,, ;„ ,.,::... L•.,,,,,, k.:...,,, „s, „..,.,.,..... " li..4..4.,,,..-. .-• t,,,..,2.,, ..., A,-0. .- ,,, , ..r",,,,, ,,•,,,,if, . . ( •,,,,i,*• •.•,.. •. •,11.' .,.,' ?Kit .r.,,c tr' ''',, •-••:4••• •.:f.,'''". ' 'iik•-",', • i+ •"'" •`"•-•',-"ric ,'• i• ''• ' .• a '''"' ..• ' • ' •"'•" ' ''''''*, - ''' -• ,,•\•,•‘4;2'"i.'. '4.,:•*','• ' ?,•',3*1-'''!..",..--1.r?<1,..,•'•....•,lit.,''',, 4,*•4,:-. , -.L'.'L'. I*I:11'';''''''.''''.' L t IL.' '' ' .' ''-. '' • ' '4'1.:• •'•- - *•• *44 ..• •''''' ''''4''''''''''' ''''''"'4'.' ": ' :•'''‘,S'''''.."•"1"'i''''""t''''.''' !'''.i:tr-** ' *.t',?i,•‘' '''''..‘ 41'.''''i,'*•,'',,:'-'‘ '. *.,A '..'''.....'7***. ..* ,*. P':•,,:f ''''' , , ,:.. ' k.kf4it•'... ': . i F.i . _Ai., te, 7 ,..„,,., .„„, ..,.,,..,,,..,,..,...,...).„.,,,,„,_,.. ......... .. ,4„, .1,,,,..„._.r.,_-...., _,.t ,4‘;‘, ..,,,.roe„ _ ,:‘,.., .t,:.4.,,, . 1.r. .,;,),,. ,i,„ . ,. .... , . :,..:4..., ,.... .) 1 4 ..„.„ ,„,,,„......,„„.„,...„„ „.,,..„,::,„..„..„. ,, ,„,.‘,...„,;„.....„..,. ..,,, .. .. , .. .. „,„,„,„.t;... .„....„..„„:. • ,. . . .. ..... .„.. . „..,, .,. 4..:,.. '7it:' ' `• k"i'',''4•';''''. 44 ' .,•4t1J,k,,,i...'4 ,....•-..;;,..,,,i:'.:„:-i.,'",.•, ..,..0,,'A, ,,, •-. -,p• •".,..s '...,"..7 ''•;'',•-• , ,' ,, . :--,' ,', ,';1- ,•'• L .: ..1 "4 ', VT:k`',. .,,,,i;::,404:,,,'*6-liAliik.1'.. 4,a,,,,:7,1*s, =,s. '''.1',:.'•-' ,d':,•". ‘A':',.-- *•;,741 „2••..k*,.' ,.. ,' - :: . •- • -:,••,,,," , "•• •.•:. Nvik„,k. 4,1;1:v•.''''''''," -1,t•140, ,,,,, • • ' •*. 4‘4,-. •341.:kiiY;:*P",ilk3..,!'it. '".",.•• ,til,. ."4":p.,.• . ••••.: . ,•41A*04-..,.* \ 4.;::‘,::;'i•••,•• •: l'6-ifi'.'' : ." : ., e4*;.4 -• - .:-• '•. ili.,''t',4011.0. -7''''' ' :*-;,AL , -• • It4..:A':.:4:1.:%,'". '''''': ,...,,, ' i k - .. .,11.4tiyal,4.,....,,. ._...,,,,,;,.;:„......:,...„1;,,,,.., , , .A.y'kiAiltti"•,',• - 1''i',-,6 ,.•,.,,,,;°. ,.,4.,,,,,` i, .,,,•.?' 41, ,, ,, ,'E't. •,,,:.,,,,,.,,,,;,. ,• • A '1',...,:"',4-, '*•4#,!\4:-. ',':.0044.-4., .,.,-..,It'•.'. ' ...iMv•A .,,'.-H`1,,,10, -,.•.,•%f-.,,: -,, . . ••- - r •,1,,,,,..i. ...,, ,i ",,-....,2' , tilk•-,-1--:-..t. ' .-••'-','f;°•,.'''-,-,,,,-P-',$.1''A %, • • . , ,„,•-r; ., .... „tt k.,,,4.,„°-7;•-,•,:,..s, ...,--L,., ;:.:-;°,•.4w,.... .,. , ;e1114,-,,,,,,,,.°1-,-,, ,,,.-, .::r - . 4-•.., k• --k....,',-,::- ..- ..0.4 ---',-,„•ft,.4.i,',....‘ ,.. -.114.-..„,,,,,,,..,,--,. ..4.,....'.1... • ...,.'..:....-,t,..",... .:,..,!. . - ,A t A.„.,,,,savt..1.,,,,,,, ,3a4,„.,,•,4",,,:,,,•,,""tt,r,:i-,;,.a, •,%K„,s,;_t• i.-...„±. _..i, ,,. —,,,, ,....„ . . .. . w..,..„,....„,,,..,41c_c:„.'Cliiir-Ai '.,.4 • '''' " .• , `•. ' •'''1'''''' ''''•' '1.•.$. k ,qirrX,Wit'rl..i.'..r`.;',* !'4,7 ,,, k.,.,. ,ekt iicv A.,: -.;.,,,,.. 44_ r 1.,.,,,, ., 4,„..v If ''.•L's -•',.',,,,_ '''•';-7 ' ' •'•'-.'•-• .;‘,-, ',7,x,f•,'i.- \ / 4; ''':.' .**., •:..*.1,st ........ ..' --.,..., .t.;,-.4:.•.-' ,'.•;- ; • • . 2'•. . ,r.- .. -,..' • k..zt.,.1., .,,&,,,..„ . .4*.111, v-A,11.47;.;g4:::.,;-,,sjf: ,',4.,-,::. ,.:i , „. :,... :.• . .k.,'-; 4",‘"• •'''.•'• 4 i•-• '',,,,,••'•,-',N''-'?''' * 1''4; •'• •"iltr * ''• •' ' ••• "•' ''-- 4"'v•-•'''.**7%wir*''' 4 1,,,,, ,,,,,,,•:„. 47;:-.;,,--,*„..,1,..':.:4-1.,i., ' Aya..1.,,,..., , ik.,,,;,,,,:,;,.: ,,,-....-' .i.,1.4..„,,..,:z; „:,.. l'.?, .' '.'''... .• i ..,t4::,,,V s''.''.'.4k''' '?4,, ' •: *'''.''..', ' ilk\''''4'''''''"; '*4 \*'''''4'; . '.' .' f". iit,47f,k.k..."' '".:.' •';..,'.' :'-', ;i17,7‘''...':'...;ti;!,..:':"4.-' ' '4.-?.t:,•';', ,-,tr!..c.3....•.% ,,,,,,'-,,,,..--.,...., a -4,,, ....1/4,;.,,`....,,,,j,...-, :' , . 0,-, ,,..:. .,,,,A.0•1:,:-:...:.•.'04S-it. t*,;,•;.--,. %II. , '. . ,.., s',;,. ,i:alif.::: ,...„,,-..-7,,,:,,.**I0 A.,* ..,*:,A-.. ..4.,,,.:;,,,-,,,,..,•.. ',..4„Nr.t,...,,..•' .,f..A.,„..:!•-.,4.. '..-•°,•, -,, ..,''..-,,;,,, °,-.;f* "-.,- -_,- .''-.,'"!I;f.„,..a0,-•k• ,',,-,"- ,' i'',..?1''0,'''.,''-',.';':. 1,.*:4-4,4*."4,',',.:A"'-".' '''',e ' • 41, ' A - ilil, 1.,:‘,11$ .0,:+-,,,ci:#.', "S.:',.`:',-.46"...i.v . .li;L'..-":4. ...,44.'.'..".. '''',0''''''..?;,:i.A....'),...-.'„%!;i:.);„, • •.,:s.-- Z'....-'-;,,,1 ..47.' :.1.t-..j. ,....•s„kli. ••,\, ',.;i'..•,,,;.'4441.vi•'!*,,,•.''';I, 1,,,,, st : '' '''',,.,..,-,44,,,,4;;.:'`„,,,,,,,,.1,17'.A.,,: . ::'•':'''''''.',4:::IT.fr:,;/' ;11,,,,4,41%, 4'111*4.c.iii.?''S.:''' , ,,''':'...t''',''•;."4.•'?"k'4' '.: ,. ,,,,,,'''',''',,.:•'. 1 k''..,L1,,IA.:\," . -'t&::-,;.•."11,'.1.7 ,:'.Y.ii:01'-,V.;',,T1:••••,',.',. V,,,..,:„.,..".•'••-•P',•':L',1..., / ,lit ,i,184,1*'W.•.','M''.,Y.4:".':li.r:',,, -,:' '''' ''''L;f4y, •.'41„,..34-A..`4,s,.,-•:" e., '',:,' '''','","'''''''ii;'Ito, ‘** . . ,".. i • 'r*Ol‘k,.1.;,•• L.'s*..144.;• : *.'44F'. :14 1 t..-4:*•"!Z 4110.it1;:,'"L'r• ,.,i'';*- ft ,4:,.Ld.„44 1,4t,';‘*,'-•-•7:1e40-,,,,'.i.•'',:& L.4e,;?‘„... 'p-L.1', ' "••„4*..4 ,17 \ ''•',,-,. ' '.:,', .•.,ve- 1. • v., . ,.• .••..L ''. .-.,....::'\•.‘,L..• .:, . . A. .N•••,. : .4:,•,,,,";.V0,...•.'IA .NI:.,,.,. - ,,, . .,-;....,,,„1,-,..-„,„..•..,...v ,......,,,,t, ..,,g,,.. .,,..,„.., ,.. , ,..q.,..,: ..,, ..- ,...",.' r tr' ',',' C, , . '' , ,,;.,,,40 • 1- ,- ,ri,- .*••• ... ..1,. .•.:•k ..L''-''*-.J•.4.*,..*'-,5.44'`"".t:;A;';,S,..i,krA.Tt,.'-I,4"i,.lfo°'.k•'...-•;*ii•7*.'t:,,-'.,,‘'','.',,,.'.".,,,\,:•„‘'..::..•,;:,41'.,,",••,..:,'.:'?'.,*...•'':,'','...',..-1a-,';•M•,•••,'-•':;''i-.„*•„.-'4...''',',',,.:•4.;••„t',i,.••4-4•'•4!7.;+41-.-,.*.'..,'‘..',•„, '''';')''',,.4'4.',.-1'-'''W4,'.1'-..,,.t."'"'lf:'•-. .•''4.-,4,1i,.,....,..,1•..J.i•':.'•,•.E.,:,v*,,.•.•,.,,.'N..'t,-„,,',,,-41'1'k.''6.i''i''',cr...-14,1:.'L',.''.:,' ' -'.',.*.,..'k,.'.'',,,'''.,'',0'''',.':*l,,k,6.,',:,-,:„',,',.,1..•.:.....,°•--1'-'_`--- ,'..#-„.,:.::I..,..,,',•.,',,t,'.-44,...,,..%.t,.•,.,',Iv',1''.'0,,..,.S...;...';..i',,4'4.',. .'r:.':...•','.,..'~,.1,.%-;'`:'',..1...tN!'.'s.5a:v;eP..':'-''t'a.W.,.-..'.-.Y'4.•e.-4,,%,,,4,,,*s•k,,7;t,1.".;.4'.Li,''41.''1.,4"'1,c1.),.4,4-4i”.r:.-,',k'';.'1'',.,.••k•'''A:.t.._t„1,,.',1,,''r,,.,7'.•...o'*:t 1.,,•1.'`,,•%r . ..•v1/4, • ,'. . ''',;,,oil*.-4Z,!.,'-(;',', ...:kkk.k.',.'-. ''f,.,,ri-*rhi.,,.,.. k * ,,,, .0,?7,i,g‘x.r42*-‘-'47,4,;•* •'4.•.,.',.••••''''"''',....4.'•._••;;;:4 -1,, .,t4.. ,, 4 4 ,,\ .4,.,---. , .-,„, A t „„,4,,,,,,-,.,....„.\..-%,,,,4, 4, w., ,', .-.:._. •,•;,tit-, --..,,, i'c'N'''' '.. rfr:v--,..V_ '•-..._1(.1._te t'.•!•"r . ,:,,,,'".„-,:. ' :.0 l'rit. ! '..4!. - , •, - 4 - ., i .4 , ..:-.. ., -,74, . . ,.„.,,,,,,,•„. tits .. ,,,,t„,,,0%,,,,, 4,:-.4.1.1.,:-•••.;, Iti„;•,,, 4 - .•,,,-, .' .../.00,.,,t '',..:11,,,. ,_ ve' clti-,-i •',-0.°••,-.s'-,••••'•'•-' • ' 4-',. ''''''' '''', -ri"'*.-` -.1,•'"'"''' ig, . , \ ,.., 4-1,,,,,,:.•iT...:„. , A, ','..,,., ..,..:.... .,.- ,,z,-,,,,.„. „,; ,., 7:E,-- ...,t, \•.•--.....A1 .4-..,,itx,,,,, ,.•;,,, . , ,,• i. ,.,:.',.. ':•-•' ?•,.... „,„ 1,.;,,,,,. 1.14.,,,,, ,:,•,'. ,I .';,4, tz- : ^i*.- ,1),,,,,5144, ,. , '17'....+ w, $r.te''. ', ,' ' ' t.' ''' '-'4' ' ••••"-' ' ) *' t t " 1",•',_;;•'*'•.', . .,7,2,1,' ,,',4:.:•,•,,itr.,;1;,44..At., •,.•`;',..... •••.•***., X ,,,A; ' '' ''ZIL.*. ; •‘:,,,e.!e•::•*"..t r,c...,,,,,,, . . ,. ' 4..: ',0,', .... '„•,"',P ' 4,• tu., , 4t,r' 'L':*..4iti,7,•,. ',,,••• "7, ‘, • ",•••;',, -',•,;.r"*''t••'1•;•'.;•;•.:',";,'• r''',"it":. •-.,,, ••••'•• ', ••;••••••"!",•• :•;;,,.., .•11 .• :,..,a,.: ' ••••••••1;•••••;-,t,•;, it'.a, •4 ,t.': .-•',„:'t'-77i...„-‘1,7,.,•7;'.• %. 0 1 •' '' . 1 ''' ', ,, v.I'V, '%l''V-','•-..41MI:‘.:NZOC,' t 3:.''''°•r •?,:.4.. L,- w, : %..., - ',.- ‘-'.-:'.'Y,:::',...,,,,,,, ..!..4'...,., .:, . :- , ....,„,,,111_ ‘,.4. L.,...,4. 7.i.:4:,'",•'t,'k,!,,,k'4,--t;:*•. t ''.1i-''-' ti'*7.4'\i;'••','‘'-'''.4,":„•00.0,!.-t'L 4": ' 4,...'''•'••.‘• 'AL''''*',"` :**t.•''',-.1•••*r''''''‘+''. ' 14 . . „ . ::: .,....:, ii,*„.N,.. 4.-414,, '••••ki-,4.4A1,44`;,• '•'•'''>4••••.,• 1, ‘' . •••••'',A1, 044,'„,. 'Or”. ,..; i't • ' 4. ',.•,. •• ,'• ••,,,'.; ,„•• aalko'S' ,.." ;;:j. . ' 4 \‘. . ' ' 1'''',1 4''"••••"14 ,g k:'‘,'-•'.' ',•••••‘44 •"'*,to, • ••••,*, i,"•4',S*,•,••••••;04"•vit4 4,itk.'.. •, „v•-••*.-•!, -.7 ''',7' ;'.- :t••-,-T•,,,,k. - - ,-, • N • ';,,, •• • a • t•f,•••'.t •i„...,`,"'",a-. , '''''.-- • - .7..3',..',''' ; •-:.,, 4.,, ,2/.,1.:;.• 'AV''''' ''''4,' ' 'l'.. ' . ..: '..• 't,. '''''' N.'1 ''''' . l'i:.% .''.;:44* ''' ' 4. ' '4.'l'il:''':'''W' .:'.:1-f::',k",'-'-', ":•-.''.' .--.-"7,. .,:-4?.,.: ,c,:*:-.4„. ''.*,:7,..,,,,sit,,,-,.;;:,..i,,,,-F.*-4ki,,,,,n ,..,,_..4.0,,,,,a,,,„ li.,,,,,,,.-,,,,,t,..„,..,*.t.„,,•,,,•.• -.,,,_.•7-7- 4,,..,i.., ,.=, - .• '41,44,••.:„...„,)-40,..°.,--k.4c., .t... • • .,, • '"'.:'''.''''••:‘",- ..1!"-.., .,k.'.'t's-- .,. '''.41-.,' .... 14.,-,- -'''.:V4.-, '•I'''',,T#...-1,-e-'*-1...',- k.,'''''' ' '. -;,..;.-'-':•..', ieg,T,.-1P‘•', .'T '''.•-•Itr.,' .;•-' .T...';'.'''',4•':k-‘1,- •.''•*A:-i,. '.i4i.,`•'', - ..,,*t;•'' it) 41., „le \ .ti '.,..,.. .7,e......"t74",...4..,,..,',;,'„:4.,,;,. -:‘,, .",..4..".• ,'•.•;''': ''„ .4to...v, '••.,. .14,.'''',V,,tt-.,,......!...-A, ... ,,.., .... ,.. T. ..',..,...„I',„„:,,, ,',...*. ''14!...'.',',:•• ,,,,t ,,,,•47)::: c.,,•,,,:•.;:,,,:,,,., ,,,,,,..,;,,A,., •,,,, 14.„,,,ik.,,,tyf',....k. ,. -.. . Ai..,:, ,,,,..,:A..,..,,..,,'''- ' '''''\''-''-••,' 7'Si'l'' i,,,,,-.-t.4, irl-...:;•„:,$,,,,•.-•,,,,,,;„• .-,.Ilk -.-4'.,,,.... I .•,'...., , -, 4 , ... .,\.*,, ..• I *,'.'4,,. A ,',',.:,,, - „».!t.!*.••••, .r..k ''‘i.,,' r..',i' -- ''•'•'::,1',"1°.i.:-;•:".:?iit.%','•,,.-' ',77'.-,i ' ',-• :•(.,'''''-,"' '.'- '''' -'i,'''.- -.-- ' 2 . - 41i,;•%° :, 4 -;441i. '..4.' . ',.. ,,' t, ,.,,i#,•;,,, ,, ,..1 ''''':»Vt, ' 'icf,..;):;:,..,',`,'!. 4.,., *, ,:','t'i, itr:,:,',Virilittl.'',''S':..1..,'.- .t'',,,t,, }Ili,'';,.,....k..4 • -, . ..kis -,:, .. -• : ...- . ' ,;„. , ....,,, T., 4 ,,,, ..,t 'k , . ,w,..* .„i‘,. ,, 4- , , ,,‘ .:-.4,4:-,..., ..,„ . ': . .,,, ,...-,.,,. t. •,,,,,, , ,,, . . „ a , . ''veV;o•."-'''''.0•,,,•'•• •• ' '1.•40-`••* -t.' ' ..s-;kf? ,•.--:'''A• ".!t''•*,-1''1*-7..*- ,?... - ,\ ,• '',, •''.\k1.4. '0' Lt -•"-41,, -•,••:,V 4 ... , ' ' f ^ '''' ;it'• ,_•,•‘1$ • 10. , i, ik .....,. .4.,,,,,.,44:,,,.,... , ...., ,..:. ,,„.....L„ ,„.,. „ ,:,..,.,,;.,. ,,:t..,..,4.,,,•., „..,.., !„.1..„,,,,,..„.:,_t ,,, .,.. , ,,,. .,.. : . . ,a.„ ,, , . ,. .,,,4„.\ ,,,, ,.., •,k.,..1.,,.,.,..„• ... . . :,,,,v , • . 10,:.„,.....:„..,;,....,•,..4t.,..1t.„., ,,..x1.1)i„.,,..,!,,,...,,,-,4t,,. 14.41/4 ,,,-0,:r-.,.; , -:.,, ,,,',',,,,:, •,,,.: '. '.....1.,,,; '- -.,i tut, , .,,,, ,.....,,:-.-•.. ,...'i••• ' , -.4.'Y 4. 41 1 ,ci ;, ..x.:, ..,...-;-., %4740fli ., .‘....,,,,m; ,,,,,;,r..,:„;4,„•‘,;,•4t,„....- •,,,,ta.`„,a4t ,, ,",,,i,"„",'..,,_,.,,,:•••• ',...,)•410‘"t,.. ,.,„r•4,,,,.., -4.i,-st...- ...,or, .„,,,,),.. ,,,,,,o,....,,,,,,-, ,.. . viT,,4, . , -• - •., :;,,,...;. •.,v,,, .: „.,,,,,,,,•• . ,. ..., ,c, ,. 2.7.,,,,Jkl ei.'„ 'Ir. , , , ' ,4, k., * ..4,,,, ....5„), .„ ,,,!,'`.1:4 , . ,4 % w .• 140 . ,,,, •,.•: .:., —r. ' 44,... ,0 -•:,•,:,,, .!'-. •,-,••••ii'''‘,5-'374",''''''-'',' ''' ' .,- '''-',1*,-. ,'•.' --t$,,2,..t. \ "-.- ' ',,-,rF4,;',4•', - W'4Z ' N . , -•' .,••‘• , ' ' , 'r ' ' ' ''''. '''.‘ ''T•-iikti.: ',,•••Atem4:4,1,4.4.',..,.-: .. .v. •.:' ::,‘",''. , '.1‘. 1 : :k, ' i rA",:::''''''.'.* ''',* ("••,; - -'1*.i,-' .' • S,`4",s• ;'1".• •• '- "' .• ' ,,,,...._*6 • .,,'.. •,••,. . '0.,,, trAf 74. ' , '..!:,?.,.;,".. ',ki..,:j`.•'',..•,,';•.••,•'''f'', •I‘-•••.„,ii„ ,-,;•,:•",••'-'' ' X,,,.. •,4.","•-•;`,-• •-jltat• ', • "•-•',. ' • ' •‘ • - •,,'"'''' ' '' • - "41411 '• , '•-••'*•‘'' V.•*'1` •• 'l'''.* ''• '/I* - , • '• , ,,,*.p..*•,,,,N, ',„1,„„0.,,, .;‘••, „a,•4*, ic.... . , . . . ..... .i.,,,. r.. '. ' ' '•::::.'4'i:',''' '14.4';*;,.',`;'‘:4,'tr.,:r*,'/' 4C1` ''''''','''''' ''''.:':'... 44'.' '''.'n;'."0,::,:4: \,°-- •'\, • '' • -' • . - -'7• *7'4°,4 ,,,, •,,,,,, . ',,,v..',':r..,"•-'•', :,,,,,°. 4°-•i, 7-,4°A;e,,---:•;.,.--,1 ' ',.-.,,,'f...,. -,..- f •,•,..-, •*;‘'..vt.41.44.41. , • .:'• — . I ''•z4,',4 -'1),'"0-',r Ifir;r: ':.,',,,:i;r',.-i• r., ',1,4•''''''.., 4.".,.A.7-4., '-'''''''''. •-‘'A''''' - ' *'''"'n '• ' 'irl.r A- Tsw. ... t, , , .,,• ,,,,,,,-,.,•••.4, ,,,,,.4„... - ... ,,.:44 .,,r .. ,,,,, s.::::.,'. '- - \'. 1 __-,- , A• , . . .','Z•.'-','fi.it,,,s4,.''..;:24•:- ,., •,-,p.q,...•,.,.i.. ', '4,, ,,Yir;,.,-: '), ; '.""V. ',7 , •,,..„-..„,,:,,. .,'..P.,,,,,-4,,,,,,,,,,.. ',..,' •••‘-,..'.N, 1,!--;%•,H 4''-'..'...i.,"- •,,•'';'• -'''.i'''' ,,,,•.:,.:,:::.• .•- ''.....„ . „ilt\. , '',' * ,44.:;„-T'' ' • . 4,. . -* -..,..i,-;*.:,.; ',#4.,„ ,,,,,-,1'•',...-, ",,,t ' . *k .74;.;,:,..:-‘•-4---1,•.;•,': . ''-••;•?.;,',,,,,:'.... .,-. litiii\ l' . ‘.•-'• ...' ';'-• "'i ., . ..„,..- ' •'. •.;*'*`,•,VAi-,,-,.*4,:'...-*-.-.=',.. •'-'A• . .,.. 'ti•ii- .:',.' ...-kt• ...'t,-''''''7'. : *•.,,,,1".. . ' •-•• - . : -,• -A. ., . ..1,,,,.(1\- * .. , ,... ,01., ,,,..--- .. ,;-,,,-..r.,,,,v.•,.:.-4;4•..... ...:'...,.•:- '7":',;•'i.A'..,-•"t. -.°,.. •.,4,. A, ',•:, ..,..', 'AL, . It'\,„ir•••*a ;••••?4 ,„•,''.. ,l'''145:''''.,• .*•' '''''' ' ••' •-••1'‘•:," -''',''..,...7 ..':•'!-••'',...f• 4.'*!"(,,,,:',1''•, " ..:.,4', ''', • ` '',, '.-.'';!1*ii„,--No.' • , ...,A. -0, ,..:.,•-•''' ,, V,, .,,A-, .:,`,,,, . , ''"'..',.,,,,,'''it,'"o. ., q, , ''.,,L''''.,;;, ° '.,, • tt.' ,' 4 tt.. *VI\ It''',,:i',':.7",.'.-k'.,,2\''*4'. '".'tt.f,r ",,,,",,,,:-''',.' 4 ,-:::._ Avii.'%,---,..-.'"1.,,,,,-,....- '„. '1,-0"..i,: ,.tsi . .L'•.i.Y.,. t :-.-4',,e-.., '•'%4' - ' - -.8.7,•.' w.-, '.---- :,;...',,,i-"Ti';',Ii.:tifiht,,,•- ...1.-',. iNtH, I.R.4.",',',1,#,;1;,. 2, :-.... .-,:.:,,x. 1,,";-4,.:',-,',t,:,.,,,,*‘,,i:...,k,,,,,ikyl.:,,,,, _.*...„4.,,,,,,, ,,,,,, .4, , i •••,., LN,, . . 410, %.,1*.. „,,,,,,.,,L,,, it , •L'f,,,-.).0i1":‘,:!'::,,,***„.',,,,',...,•,:,. .. ,-,, -'.,..'',1',4.14,, '..r':','"k"'.,',. ' tilit'44 iP''''''. 'r'",.,, ,'''' :,, .. • ., • 44 " '' ,.••••,,,'''.'.' ' , ,''',?i•,'.,:' '4,'','•'.0.',4,',:,'.. '•,?, ''' .•,. ',,‘, '''''l.7%..''''.?A ''`'''''. '''.: ''''''! . ''f ,.'' ,):,_ , ..•• - , • '4,-.• .,-;:-• ,-t.,4,144.,-,'.•,•,• ... ".'."4: •%11,...'. •,ire'', .. tia•.-"-i•-' -" 41a- ,,-• , . ••, trZ, -- '.74';.,'"•**,, ;,,,''•••••''" *4.01". ...,,,,.4t1 ''•i•'••'• 44t.,,?*4 ' '•',11'• •',';11,‘;:'•'•'. it ,..., '. ,•.,,,,L7,,— ,,,,:, .. r'' ' ' 34441,,::„:"' 3':'N'.' 'i:,r, ,, ,,i;'.'..,,... ......? ri,........ „c....„ ,, .-,,,,-,,,i,,:. ,,, :•!.. . ...:-.. .'. . , „, .— . . .„...,..,..,„.s.,,-:.r.,.k,,,,.,..'•,„ ...,,:„ ,,,,„, ,, ,.. ,,,,,.. ,,..- ..., ..,-,,,,,:„ ,,, .,. . - „ .-, . ':•:::-,.,.,*::.-,:,',:,,,,,,,,.,...,,,...,,,...,,..,..,..,,,,:e.,,, ,,, ,, .:.„,.. ,. ,,. 11,„, li,,y• ' 4444,,.•• ._ itt, 11/4 . ,44,,,,,,,i,„;;;,,,,,,„.4,'rviiii.„..:.-•••-,.':!:\kk•L', .',,',f,:, t'4".' !;,'•'•.' :-••',•- •,......-: ' - , , - ,....r•-•*,•i,-.•,;•-:t.:',.'..,,.,..;;,.'•.,;:' ..)44-..."-_,,O,,, ,.• 1";,, -s. • I.,..• . ,- '*"' ';;T:,,47'''':•'-':'!'44,4‘:.;'.'.141'..,., I.•. i., -'' 44 •te, 14i41.' :.'ffIA?•44 *..*:.-...,.,.;',.<.;*:'•'' ..----- ' -- i';,..; ....,.. ...- ,. :.,.., ,,,,...... if* ANN BAY .,., f; O. Box 23728 13605 SW Watkins Tigard, OR 97223Tigard, AOR 97223• ' BAKER, ADKTNS, HEFFRON State of Oregon HUDSON OIL P.O. Box 267 C/O NELSONP.O. Box 907 Troutdale, OR 97060 10635 SW Cook Lane KANSAS CITY MO 64141 ' • Tigard, OR 97223 • { HEPPNER MOONIER REGEHR 13180 S.W. Watkins St 10634 SW Cook Lane 12050 SW School St Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 ATHERTON BURKE MEYER � 13210 S.W. Watkins 10620 SW Cock Ln 10475 SW Park' . Ave Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 ' HATCH BISHOP PAINTON 13205 SW Watkins 10590 SW Cook Lane 10295 SW Park Ave Tigard OR 97223 Tigard, L'R 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 . BRADEN GR05S:%«yi� 4 Steve Janik, Atty 13175 SW Watkins 13485 SW Watkins Suite 1470 - One Main Place Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 101 SW Main ST. . PORTLAND OR 97204 , Robert L. McArthur WINTERS GILBERT 10625 SW Pari St 13610 SW Watkins 3853 SW SchoUs Ferry OR 97221 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 9723 S THE KING LUTHERAN CHURCH` PARROTT C b��iVAJOE'SNE IN CSON CHRIST � 10630 SW Park St 13570 SW Watkins 4 a805 Boeckman Rbad Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 WILSQNVILLE, OR 97070 ,- STANLEY FO RICHARD & ROSEMARY KLUEMKE ksES 10600 SW park 13525 SW Watkins 9380 SW Mountain View':lin T1ard, OR97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard OR 97223 9 JB' Ri_ OP CROSSEIV BORTHWICt 10570 SW Park 10605 SW Fairhaven Suite 303, 10505 SW Barbut Tigard., OR 97223 Tiard, OR 9`7.2.23 PORTLAND OR 97 219 a OWN 'WARD BOB ShSBS08 13165 SW Watkink 10600 SW tar:S haven 11 SO0 SW walnut° Tit acd, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard t OR ; 97223 BALL, J,AN I K &, NoVAC y ATTORNEYS AT LAW ONE MAIN PLACE • 101 S,W. MAIN STREET PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 • Mr. Bill Monahan Planning Director City ofTigard 12755 SW Ash Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 i' ctcO� 7F q „ Srs is w' r so" { I .3 M i'L I, I* L.L.' j p7'"p..w,. C" 4. Y ,: t�.- ,,v yam:,>x,i,.,1.N"'' yT Y6,4. +, of a Y R '4 +�1 (/b 4 . y '.yep+ ,',(f f ..�i9+[�+rl. F.w "LAS'+�4.�. �,(� � • J' We II' � �4 �;,+ ,,,'7, � YNv e� 1tit 4, , + E `I .,JW.ASH ;' 1w s P.O.BOX 23397 ,i 7 '. T1GARD OR 97223 CHRIST THE KING LUTHERAN CHURCH 10630 SW park St, G Tigard, OR 97223 r-- . ' ,, — v , , a* ,.,,,..44:i;-"' ) . Otl.'1' 1) *4 ii.31'.A6' r V't.','5 ,TIQ' 14''')l'C' 1 d i'''P tt.-." '4 , ,, , .,,, „ . , , ..,,, ...,,, , 8 .-- ' ''' ' ' '''' la'at''''C'''''' ' ' 1i � ., . 11, u ki1; tt,tr1e11tt . \ G -- --,....s-" y 1 ,, [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing]