Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CPA 3-85
POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm.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. S & J BUILDERS CPA 3 -85 & ..��.. 1S1 34BC 400 ZC 3 -85 "°` Scholls Fry /Nor tl across from Sorrento File 1 of 3 . ?lan Amendment Rezone Portland Fixture Go.; February, 1985 REQUEST: To amend the comprehensive plan from commercial - professional_ to a general commercial designation and rezone accordingly - BACKGROUND The su bject property is located along l x ga nd s northerl y common boundary with Beaverton. Verton. It's principal locational identity ° along Scholls Ferry Road makes it an attractive site for serving continued market de mand for neighborhood and community shopping needs. Sorrento Road is planned for extension south of Scholls Fe?try -Road; it would form, the western boundary to the subject P roperty. multi-family residential development currently under' o n..� t r on s ucti along the adjacent southerly pa.r.cel would form the c '� southerly boundary. Should the prdpoSreceive City" endorsement,, site planning will be c- arried opt th two objectives one, to address my sent ti ities or concerns arising from adjacent residential areas; and two, a functional design which will complement the existing Greenway Town Center. Urban development along the Scholls Ferry Road corridor both cast and west from the subject property appears to be sub- stantially y P 'ally com lete. Exceptions to this, in addition to the subject , are. a shallow site north across Scholls Ferry. R oad in Beaverton, and a small parcel imrmtediatel y west of the subject property. e . It is doubtful, 'therefor, that approval of P the petition could lead to any of the common forms of strip commercial development which have occurred otherwise along some of the metropolitan, areas older arterial roads. ATE PLANNING GOALS AND GUI P L IN S This P roposal is consistent with th an y applicable statewide planning goals. If approved, it will provide for the° orderly ent of the subject and the extension of a development � ct prop Y b e property +, w neighboring ing street and othkL related offsite improvements. In a dui Lion, it should r: ult in reducing the duration of shopping o ers - thereby reducing fuel consumption and many � trips by man s �p motor vehicle emissions in the area. Also, it should enhance somewhat at the economy in the general area as well. l )' .PPLI ICABLC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES 5.1.1 The City shall promote activities aimed at the diversi- economic opportunities available to Tigard f ication resident the local of the with particular emphasis placed on the growth of jo b market Comment: Proposed development on the subject property will generate 150 -200 new job opporLunities, all of which will be available to Tigard residents. 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 and industrial uses Comment: If approved, this proposal will be entirely portion of the cor►sistant with the foregoing site will actually encroach into a residential area. All portions of the site perimeter will be buffered and/or landscaped as deemed; apporopriate to ensure good continuing land use relationships PROJECT SC1T,,F policy. No The following charaeteries the pr posed tevelopm ent on the subject proper't '. 199) 1 Site size': 5.4 acres: 235,224 square feet 2 Trade area 1.5 to 2.5 mile radius,: 22,000 to 52,000 population. 3. Gross leasable area Approximately 58 a 000 square feet. LOGATIONAL CRITERIA: Spacing §pacing and location: Subject ct property will share one common property line with a multi - family residential development on the south only Other residential development lies southwest-. of the site, but will not share a direct common physical relationship due to the extension of Sorrento Road, Access: The proposed development site is intended to have one point of access on Schol.ls Ferry Road as well' as one ac point oint on the Sorrento Road extension. Given the character and ultimate design for Scholls Ferry Road, on. can be made to avoid unwanted congestion or Provision, ntec� c,oh -ges traffic safety problems The attached traffic analysis Y .. .Will ade r i .� uate1Y address the various concerns relating to tri p generations, vehicle movements and so on. 20t Site characteristics: te, has been selected r�.cter�.stcs• This primarily due to its size and proximity to the existing Greenway Center, as well as its central position in an established trade area If approved, all development will be designed in scale with the capacity of the site to accommodate retail demands within the trade area,, The site - also demonstrates a very high visibility factoC g iven its location along Scholls Ferry Road. The proposed southerly extension of Sorrento Road will further enhance the visibility factor relating to the property. Ym P act assessment • As previously indicated , intended commercial development for the property will be sized and scaled in a manner which will be quite compatible with the existin g commercial development to the east as well as residential use to the south Privacy of the adjacent southerly residential area will be emphasized. CONCLUSION: CLU'SION The s� rimary candidate for responding to subject property is a p � r:cntinuing demand` for retail, goods and services in his part of the c,ommuni y t . It is a highly accessible site from virtually every direction. Its development should not Produce any increased traffic congestion which may in fact d be reduce what with the completion, off' the Sorrento Toad extension. The proposed development on the subject property should provide increased shopping and employment opportunities. for the city's residents while at the same time reducing related vehicle travel time S CONS NFORMATiO PREPARED BY FECO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON Prepared for _Jial GrennhiJ I and:_Asr.�_ _ 11_ E1�l t ig 2- 14.85. Date Prepared Property Address 10575 SC, 122nd. _ Ave. Enclosed please find the following information per your request: intformation Account Number 1S134F3C 00400 Description s 20.97 acres Cash Value -Land 1, 87,500 es,a.ad True Cash Value - Improvements -- 114.3,5(?0 184 =85_ Tax Amounts 31 it 5.01.-68 Assessed Owner Map r1 °ats� Jos eph_William...:.Estate _ c/o S & J Builders, Ltd. 5335 SW Murray Blvd. Beaverton ,©F 97005 Copy Deed f Contract ®' Other Docuinents ❑ (Check one only) 84-11306 Consumer information reports available at these Branch Offices WASHINGTON COUNTY Btaverton. .... »....,.....:.257 -4941 Early bird F_ , . ... ..257.53b MULTh OMAH COUNTY Portland,..... . ..... .225.1005 Early 8`rd ... * . . 4, ... w . ....:24 — 00 CLACKAMAS COUNTY ti►1waukie _653-7300 Early Bird _.. ..... . > ,653.7330 LANE COUNTY Eugene • M. Y N... i. L 'i N w Y 1 W i i Y .. 4 ..0 5 V B �' tall 225 -1005 for Agents throughout Oregon This title information has been furnished, without charge, in conformance with the guidelines approved' by the State of Oregon lnsurarcce Commisstc.ner. The insurance !Division cautions intermediaries that this service is designed to benefit the ulti'nate hsureds; indiscriminate use only benefiting interrn- :diaries will not be permitted. Said services may be discontinued. Nti liability is assurr.ed for any errors in this report. 1 SAE" O St 44.1 . On w0 t0:5 (tidy, 3.84) 94) r ai* z 4 2 . /», »x» . \., \l \ Ai. 1 553 62 , ; 7i . \■> 3?0 /26 AC Vr1,11 5AV. Qg$' PORTLAND. 011172244 4 00 : 30 ..97 AC !0 2 CiiYOF TIE4RD WASHNGTON COuNrY, QR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ZONE CHANGE ZONE ORDINANCE AMEND -=- NT APPLICATION OF TIGARD, 12755 SW Ash, PO Box 23397 CITY Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639 - 41.71 1. GENERAL I.NFORMA TION PROPERTY ADDRESS /LOCATION Scholl Ferry Rd at Sorrento TAY„ 151 34 BC 400 MAP AND TAX, LOT NO 400 SITE SIZE 5.4 Ac. 'PF ,RTY' OWNER /DEED - HOLDER*.• S & 5I i ADDRESS 5335 SW Murray PHONE P CITY Beaverton APPLICANT* ADDRESS 338 NW Fifth CITY Portland ZIP ereflt applicant are diff *t�Ihet� the o�rnei: and the of record • .10 .• ZIP 970Q5 PHONE -- people, the applicant must be the purchaser or a leasee in possession with written authorization from tha owner or an agent of the owner with authorization. The owner must sign this or application, in the spate provided on page two Ii or:kion submit a rritten authorization with this app PROPOSAL S`CiMMAR' ect property The owners of record of the subj �r st a Compre eque hensive plan Amendment (if applicable) from Cto Pon rt�ttt° � om'''b lr ff. -' o to e from ,,. and a torte Chan re f, .... GC OR' +Writ to the The app1iesnt requCbts anendmeot v'e Plan following sections of the he t tnpr or CommuflitY Developmeet Code (St pm /G /37 p') FOR STAFF USE ONLY CASE NO. RECEIPT NO APPLICATION • ACCEPTED BY: DATE: Application elements submitted: (A) Application for (1) --(B) Owner's signature /written authorization (C) Applicant's statement (15 copies) E:i11ng .fee: ,(.t - - --� : - ion for Comp e Additional information r sive Plan. Map Amendments /Zbne Changes (E) Maps indicating property location (15 copies) (F) List of property owners within 250 feet (1) (G) A,ssessor t f � rt _(U) Title tra ns strumfnt (1) DATE DETERMINED' TO BE COMPLETE FINAL DECISION DEADY,INE. COMP. PLAN /ZONE DESIGNATION: N.P.O. Numbert P1ntt in, Commission Approval.. ity Council Appro a Date:, Date: ' 92) AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. Ciry of Tigard ) 34 5, ""b I, Harold M. Dickhot;s , being first duly sworn, on oath depose and say That I am an office The City of Tigard, Oregon. That I served notice of hearing of the Tigard Planning Commission for of which the attached ;s a copy (Marked Exhibit A) upon each of the following named persons on the 22nd day of Marcie I9 by mailing to each of them at the address shown on the attached list (Marked Exhibit B), said notice p on the 2nd __ day of as hereto attached, des posited in the United States Mail o +2„____ March , 19$A"', Postage prepaid. aro '; d 2KRKSatfERXX OFFICE AIDE T OFFCE Person who del.i'v Vij ed e.d t<1 POST L Subscribed and sworn to before me on the day of._... 19 My Commission Expires` 4 NOTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON A CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ENGINEERING SERVICES REVIEW CHECKLIST" REVIEW OF SUBMITTAL NAME: DATE: CHECK (IF'. ITEM WAS CONSIDERED) ) AGENCY COORDINATION (OR) PrR I'T' CONSIDERATIONS A) Federal ..... ... ..... ..... .. .. .... C.O.E;, E.Q., F.E.M.A., U.S.P.S. B) State ,..... :....,...: ........ ....... .............. L.C.D,C., State O.D,O.T., B.R.C. D.E.Q., Parks & C) Reg■.onal ....... Me" eo, Tri -Met Lands, Commerce Dept., Board of Health, P.U,C., Water Resource, Wildlife, Recreation. i U.S.A , Public works, Health Dept., Land Use & Transportation E) Local . opwooao .:..... . ....'. 1) City of Tigard: Development Services, Operations, Building, Engineering, Engineer, Finance, Administration, Council, Planning Commission, Park Board, N.P.O. (NOTE: Pg. #2 for details hereinregard) 2) Other: Fire District, P.G.E., N.W.,Natural Gas, Water District, Telco, Storer Cable, Solid Waste, Private Ownership, School District II) GENERAL CONFORMANCE CONSIDERATIONS: A) Transportation System .... :.: :. ;. .. ..,... .... .. .. :..w. 1) City of :Tigard; a) Comprehensive Plan b) Street Classification(s) c) Bike /Pedestrian Path Plan d) Traffic Studies (CH2M Hill & STRAM) e) Existing, Pending, Under Construction 2) Regional Transportation plan 8) Sewerage System i r L • YI i:. N • i 1) City of Tigard a) Master Sewerage Plan b) Existing, Pending, Under Construction ) Unified'Sewerage Agency Regional 'Plan C) Stormwater System .%. 4 4 4 4 w Y, . , . ; • . ; • 0 1 k . 1) City of Tir'jard: a) Maste'r Drainage Plan (CH2M Hill) b) Fi:�' w ► C.O.E. Maps (Floodplain &rr', Sensitive Lands) ) Regional Stormwater Management 1 Plan D) Park & Greer,'wJay`` Development Plan E) Capitol Imprbvement Program :. 1) City o'. Tig. ed 2) Wass it,gton county ) fir 1 L r ENGINEERING SERVICES REVIEW ; CHECKLIST (Cont ' d) F) L.I.D. Development & Non - Remonstrance Status .. ITEM #I(E) DEAI LS . Sensitive Lo,nds . . FloodPlain. . Major /Minor Partition.. Planned Development..... Annexation...:... . • •. Al Building Permi* . . - '....'..... Sewer Cor nect.a.: n Permit..'. , . Sign Permit..:° Fill Permit.. ....... . ... .,..0 Street Opening Permit.... .......f3 .f3 compliance Agreement » . -gX.'. Detailed Plan..,.. » .`: +....... » Dedication.... . . . ;:'"4 : . . . . ■ ..... . Easement ..CiA.... ...Q System Development Charges; Extra Capacity Streets........" Recreation Facilities...—. ..0 Storm Drainage Improvement. . Int Z sanitary Sewer Surcharge .. 0.1, ..0 fay MAtAzAci.14, ie)% 1lc.v40, 14 -x° t" III) SPECIAL CONCERNS: A) That this information (form) be ,touted to the City Engineer' for{� /may. yL y�. y�� review and comment . .. . • ... . • .... . . • i i M ♦ • • .: M • . a . • +r: w . • i. a '! ♦ M Comp. Plan Amendment ,....`. +...""� Zone Change....... • V .. .11'* Conditional Use.. . , ........ ..i' Temporary Use............ ..i Variance. .... ., ... .. .. .0 Nonconforming Use...'...... ... Accessory Structtu.te.. Tree Removal Permit... . r 0. Blasting Permit.. ..... ... Special Assessment—,........... Business Tax...... . .........0 Fees... . . - `:'G '. ∎Vrt,.'P / .. '' Joint Use ,Agreement , hl' ' `t, , ..+. maintenance Agreement... t .. NO I+ it Jtkvt- YAAA a A No E3 i 1 V-C,,eit k-o kte. 10 k k- ft 4..) k Iv. 4P:640 .1‘tar;) 4\i Ik v- . ,~. Li d '\ �, 0 ik.. , 4\,104.4.1'4..\40\ 4(1.- 14S1/4. k 44 kre.. toi.4410,AE.C114,Z 4,a, -00.042 •44' i'itzC ‘ 64' ;4-\'‘..3 • toseo, .4ki, ‘4.0 CVf. \of. "4,croiv-el 'to \\ \'r o vc 100 v vk w.kA, 41.'40" r41 `:r �✓,, +"i'A Mwe "�.cl j,r<.+:;" 1D4 `-� 1 1 gk<' 7M }} . �Yw' . 'M"W �Y' k �1C" M. 4a 4.. r w +rw .ii I✓ v`MM Vt'�'— e aV "14"\AiL„, t wt„ sk-Le a 'etc: . ' + ' ! k■C `‘''L k V- e,,,,,\04.4.4, 6•kok *‘4,41:0 tNk,,Nt.\\-k t \*. 44? "Igbtive,... , ENGINEERING SERVICES REVIEW CHECKLIST (Cont o d) IV) RECOMMENDATIONS A) Apply the "Standard Conditions" noted on pages #4 -6 (herein) 4.5 'v v 'R-",.\ 0'... 1 ersj s a- "t"„q. '` '" Cpl " . - \" NOTE. Attach additibftal sil~ etS necessary u 5� STANDARD 'CONDITIONS UNLESS OTHERWIL NOTED, ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS, v Standard half- street improvements including sidewalks, curbs, streetlights, driveway aprons, storm drainage and utilities (delete inapplicable items) shall be installed along the.t frontage', Said improvements along SA JO d... cSAMN shall be built to — standards and conform to the alignment t - !g , t° W6 e i ' = ( Sit 4 _. Standard half- street improvements including sidewalks, curbs, streetlights, driveway aprons, storm drainage and utilities (delete inapplicable items) shall be installed along the frontage,' Said improvements along shall be built to Standards and conform to the alignment , of existing adjacent improvenents and (or) Seven (7) sets of plan - profile public improvement constrlction ! plans and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, sf vaped by a Registered Professional Civil. Engineer, detailing all proposed public improvements shall be submitted to the Engineering Section for approval plan-p ofile details shall b provided sew�er�xplan��p�^ p N d as part of the public improvement plans; <, ti �y � ��9 e, aid.. "C2.c.ti\'tN-a. v-e- a.ok w '0- -N o w Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Section has issued approved public improvement plans, The Section will require posting of a 100 S Performance Bond,a the payment of a permit fee, • ` . W 14-44* Also, the execution of a .. ,='per construction compliance agreement shall occur prior t• or concurrently with the issuance of approved public improvement plans. SEE THE .,ENCLOSED HANDOUT GIVING MORE . SPECIFIC INFORMATION REGARDING FEE Sr HEDULESJ, BONDING AND AGREEMENTS. A one (11) foot reserve strip granted to the "City of Tigard" shall be provided at the terminus of Additional right -of --Tway shall b' dedicated to the Public along the ' ,. "oo' frontage to increase the, right -of -.,way centerline. The description for said dedication feet from to the existing right-of-way centerline as to ate +sn sha�.l be tie established by k...„,(iith.l..44\WS<Ar,,t.tli : r " The dedication document shall b4 on City forms, and approved by the Engineering Section. DEDICATION FORMS ANO INSTRUCTIONS ARE ENCLOSED. e tey Additional right-of may shall be dedicated to the Public along the _ frontage to increase the right-- of-way to feet from centerline. The ascription for said dedication shall be tied to the exl.tsting right-- of -A4ay centerline as established by P The dedication document shall be on City forms and approved by the Engineering Section. DEDICATION FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS ARE ENCLOSED, Joint use and maintenance agreements shall be executed and recorded on City standard forms for all common driveways. Said agreements shall be referenced on and become part of all applicable parcel Deeds Said anreement shall be approved by the Engineering Section, JO �. OSED , _ AGREEMENT �ORMu ARE ENG, JOINT USE AND MAINTENANCE Street Centerline Monumentatian In accordance with ORS 92,060 subsection (2), the centerlines of All street and roadway right -of -mays shall be monumented before the City sill 1 accept a street improvement, All centerline monuments shall be placed in a monument box conforming to City standards, and the top of all monument boxes shell be set at design t finish grade of said street or roadway . The following centerline monuments shall. be set; a. All cs oaterline- oenter'line intersections. Intersections created with "collector" or other existing streets. shall be set when the centerline: alignment of said "collector" or other street has been established by or for the City, b. Center of all cul-de-sacs; c' Curve points. Point of intersection (P.I.) when their position yfalls inside the limits of the pavement otherwise beginning and ending points (B.C. and E.C.) . d M All sanitary and storm locations shall be placed in ;positions that do not interfere with centerline monumentation " of s." The basis of; bearing be Survey Network. After r;tiew and apprgval by the Planning Director and Public Works Director, the Final Plat shall be recorded with Washington County for the Plat or Survey shall which is a pert of the Tigard Field (RSC1b3 /O T )... BEAVERTON Keith Liden City of Tigard Planning Dept. 12755 SW Ash PO Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 March 14, 1985 glElla\N MAR 21 1985 ci'ry OF HIGJND PLANNING DEPT. Re: General Plan Amendment Rezone at the Sorrento /Scho11 s Ferry Intersection Dear Mr Liden: The City would like ,to go on record as not being in opposition to the proposed Plan amendment and rezone. There, are, however, a number' of concerns that should be addre'5sed. They are: 1. The two projects (Greenway I and Greenway II) should be intertied together for both pedestrian and vehicular circulation. Vehicles should not be required to use Schol l s Ferry Road to go between the two projects. 2. The Sorrento /Scholl s Ferry intcrsecti on should be improved by signals, etc. prior to development of the center. 3. The Sorrento extension (Dakota Street) should be improved as part of any development approval. If you have any questions, 644-2191 ex. 222. Y t.. ens, please feel free `to contact me at Sincerely,"' f t/6 James N. P. Hendryx Semi or 'Planner 8314- J11- L►10:28a City of Se • 4950 xV1►'e Hail Bole +yard • Beavert Snt Oregon 970 95 M (503) 644-2191 9 CPA- S"--' 2,0, 3 es REQUESTS FOR COMMENTS "I/ r DATE: March 5 4 128__ TO: 011 1 FROM: Tigard Planning Department 11E 'bequest by S & J Builders for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 3 -35 and zone change-from C-P ( Commercia l Professional) to C -G (Commercial General) on roper` y sated on the south side mad, immediate east of t to .p, of Scholls Ferr F.o the Soarento Road intersection (WCTM lSl '4BC, lot 400) Attached is the Site Flan and applicant's statement for your review.. otr�om', information supplied by various departments and agencies and from information available staff, report and recommendation will be • 'fable to our staff a re sec and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. prepared we need your comments b If you wish to comment. on this application, by • d` b attach a ace provided below or arts r 19�_• You may use, the s7 the... separate I OU are unable to respon y aepar�ate letter to return your comments. ,� ,w below with your comments and staff contact toted belo your comments in possible. If you have any above date please phone the confirm, y writing. as soon �,s P De a:rtment, P.O questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning p Box 23397, ' Burnham and Ash Ave , Tigard, OR 97223 Shone: 639- 4171p STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden_ PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT .PPL` We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to ].t. Please contact of our office. Ple4se refer to the enclosed 'letter. Written comments ..... Name o f Person Coruneri t i tg Phone No. (1 SLt pm /0;356P) NPO No. NOTIFICATION LIST FOR ALL. APPLICATIONS CPO No. . CITY DEPARTMENTS .5 I/ Building Inspector Engineering-Randy Engineering - Frank /Jot.a ____.., Park's and Recreation SPECIAL DISTRICTS Tualatin R. F.P.D• Washington Co. F.D. Tigard W.D. . AFFECTED JURISDICTIONS City Council lanning Commission Planning Department Metzger W.D. r School Dist. No. 48 (Beaverton). School Dist. No 23J (Tigard) Wash.Co. Land Use '& Trans.Dept• Boundary Commission METRO • STATE AGENCIES Aeronautics D3 ,v. (000T) _., DOGAMI Division of State Lands Engineer Board of Health Commerce Dept,. _- Hi g hva Y Div, - Terry Fl ink Fish & Wildlife Parks ,& Recrea. Div,. (QDOT) LCDC '.._._..`_ F U C Subdivision .supervisor'' ..:. _ _ Marshall Dept. of Ene: �gy �� Fire Mar Dept. of Env iron. Quality Other . FEDERAL AGENCIES Corps of Engineers. Post Office • SPECIAL AGENCIES General Telephone Pacific Northwest Sell -thwest Natural `Gas REQUESTS :PO E COMMENT SENT K L.,pm `O3 6t) Other M.H. Park, Portland General Eiectric Other R E I UESTS FOR COMMENTS TO: f' DATE: FROM Tigard Planning Departm RE: Request by S & J Builders for a Com March 1•8 rehensive Plan Amendment CPA 385 and zone change from C-P \Commercial Professional) to C -G (Commercial General) on property located on the south side of Scholls Ferr y Roadd im mediate east of the Sorrento Road intersection (WCTM 1S1 34BC, lot 400) Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other aP ,,� to staff, a report and recommendation will be information available to cur sta P prepared and a ';decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. you your comments by March If ou wish to comment on this application, we need 15, y 19_ You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your ' comments. If you are unable to res and by the above dateL please phone the staff contact noted below with your commetits and as soon as possible. you have, any confirm your comments in writing If ou questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, P.O. Box 23397, Burnham and Ash Ave., Tigard, OR 97223. Phone: 639-4171. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden PLEASE t' CK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Contact P l .ease of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments: Natitt of P son 110,;Lpm/O1 61') to ci REQUESTS FOR COMMENTS DATE: March . 1985 FROM Tigard Planning Department RE: Request by S & J Builders for a Com rehensive Plan, Amendment CPA 3 -8 5 and zone change from C -P (Commercial Professional) to C -G (Commercial General) on property located on the south side of Scholls Ferry Road, immediate east of the Sorrento Road intersection O1CTM 1 S 1 34BC, lot 400) 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 need your comments by March You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to resapnd by the above date L P phone . your comments and e lease hone the staff contact noted below with our co confirm ynur comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions r +il� ardin this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, P.Q. q g g Box 2.3397, Burnham and Ash Ave., Tigard, OR 97223. Phone: 639 -4171. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden PLEASE CHECK. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: () /1\973 ns and have no ob �. �t it 5 198 5 We have reviewed the. proposal 3 e of our office. CI FY OF TOGA D Please contact' Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written cc ninents : 4 • Name f Person Commenting Phone No (K L; . m/03 6 P ) REQUESTS FOR COMMENTS TO: la'► l,i?' FROM Tigard Fla ng Department DATE: March • 0 ea.:04 416' RE; Request by S & J Builders for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 3-85 and zone change from C -P (Commercial Professional) to C-G (Commercial General) on property located on the south side of Scholls terry Road, immediate east of the Sorrento Road intersection (WCTM I S I 34BC; lot 400) Attached is the Site, Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From i nformation 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 a licationd your comments March application, we need b Y You may use the space provided below o attach a 19 85 • Y P separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable t p nd I?;Y the your staff contact noted below with your comments and above date comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have, any a Y please phone t questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard lannin Department, ett , P.O. Box 23397, Burnham and Ash Ave., Ti g ard, OR 97223. Phone: Planning 639-4171. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Liden PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to i t . Please contact Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments: of our office. • Name �� f 'Pecs l Comm ertt In Phone 'No. (KSL,prn /03. h C1TYCF TIGARD WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON � ORDINANCE AMENDMENT APPLICATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT /ZONE CHANGE/ZONE ORD CITY OF TIGARD, 12755 SW Ashy P0' Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639 -4171 1. GENERAL INFORMATION PROPERTY ADDRESS /LOCATION Scholl Ferry Rd at Sorrento TAX MAP AND TAX LOT NO. 1S1 34 BC 400 SITE SIZE 5.4 Ac PROPERTY OWNER /DEED - HOLDER* S & I -B1Wde rs ADDRESS 5335 SW IMUrr2y PHONE CITY Beaverton Z1P 97005 APPLICANT *. ADDRESS 338 NW Fifth PHONE CITY Portland - ZIP A7209 ',Jhen the owner and the applicant are different P P eeo l the a 11. ^ant must +e the purchaser of record � PP or a leasee in possession with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner with written authorization. The owner(s) muh.t sign this application in the space provided on page two or pp submit a written authorization With this application. 2. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The owners of record of the subject property request a Comprehensive Plan Amendutent (if applicable) from C0 Prof to Gen Caft01 and a Zone Change from L,V to GC OR pp q The Applicant requests an amn ent to the following sections of the Comprehensive Plan or Community Development Code --w- RSLtpm /0737P) FOR STAFF USE ONLY CASE NO. RECEIPT NO. APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY DATE Pp u',nmitted, App elements s (A) Application form (1) (B) Owner's signature /written authorization (C) Applicant's statement (15 copies) (D) . -,Fi ling .fee..($.. Additional information for Compre sive Plan Map Amendments /Zone Changes (E) Maps indicating property location (15 copies) (F)` List of property owners within 250 feet (1) (G) Assessor's Map (1) (H) Title transfer instrument DATE DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE. FINAL DECISION DEADLINE: COMP. PLAN /ZONE DESIGNATION: (1) N.P.O Number. Planning Commission Approval Date; City Council Approval 'Date: 30 List any variance, conditional uses, or other land use actions to be considered as part of this application: • Applicants: To have a complete application you will need to submit attachments described in the attached information sheet at the time you subunit this application. THE APPLICANT(S),SHALL CERTIFY THAT. A, The above re.uest does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attaelhed to or imposed upon the sub "eroperty. • If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. • All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true., and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on th :s application, may be revoked if it is foul d that any such statements are false. • The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving . or denying the application. DATED this day of 19 g wife) the subject property. SIGNATURES of each owner e . husband and wife of i,e,i re...E,Atit IIIIF ____ r L+4 411:7Pr a'r2- ,A.13:6L-ut----, Also please notify: Greenhill Associates 1730 S.W. Skyline Blvd Portland, OR 37220 (Kgttipm /0737P) GREENHILL INIM erne. ASOCiATS 1730 SW Skyline Blvd Portland OR 97221 February 14., 1985 City Planning Commission c/o City Hall Tigard, OR 97223; Ladies and Gentlmen: This petition p being filed by our office in behalf of Portland p is � g . FixtUre Company who, as you may be aware, also have an interest in the Greenway Town Center. This petition seeks a planned amendment and zone change for, approximately '5 a 4 acres of property- lying immediately adjacent to and welt of the existing shopping center on Scholls Ferry Road. As you are undoubtedly aware, this portion of the community, Especially along the Scholls corridor, has experienced comparatively rapid growth lin�reentoyear' This continus:� growth has attracted the attention of the of the developers p he Greenway Tawn. Center who feel demand within the market area justifies an expansion. We are aware of some sensit.vity in the community regarding commercial development and would indica;;e to ..,t any development occurring on the subject pa.�operty will be don tr. in a manner complimentary to the existing commercial center and with an awareness of the needs of adjacent residential areas. We would appreciate your thorough and careful consideration of this request and are prepared to accommodate any additional needed information, Very truly yours, t e, P ann ng a telopmen INFORMATI T PREPARED BY FECO TITLE SUR NCE COMPANY F OREGOE: Prepared for - -.�1 Grennh anrk_As.c , _ . .. . W111 Pis:k Up - 2-14.-85 Date Prepared Property Address 10575 SW 122nd. Ave Enclosed plee ,,e ,Ind the following information Y er your request: p Tax Informplu . n Account Number s1 3 aBc _ 0040 Description 20.97 acres.. True Cash Value -Land 87 500 to_ta, ' . e se 1 True Cash Value - Improvements 184.85_. Tax Amounts 33 ,50_,L.5.8 Assessed ()wrier Map ____Me a ,—?os e1_11 -1/1 r1.. an EGZ-t. c/o S & J Builders r Ltd. 5335 SW Murray Blvd. Beaverton., OR 97005 Copy Deed 0 Contract [] Other Documents 0 (Check one only) 84 -113°6 Consumer inforr.ation reports avaiiable at these Brunch Offices; WASHINGTON COUNTY Beaverton ,4444.,444...4.»,.. «42974941 Early, Bird . , » 4444 » 4444 » 4444.4297 -5356 MULTNOMAH COUNT ` Portland . » ».www.w. ».4225 -1005 Early Bird .... 444 »4,444 »4...243,1100 E o Lail 225.1005 for Agents throughout Oregon This title irlft mation has been furnished without char ��e. in conformance with .the uidelines approved by the state of Oregon 9 9 � insurance tommistiOner. the Insurano,r Division ceutions interm diaries that this service is de.eigried to benefit too ultimate insureds; indiscrirrinat �lSe�nl berye�rfingite rmediarie. natt�eperrrtitte �aidservrces mad be des Co ntnued. No liability it assumed for any errors in trris r+;pott CLACK/ MAS COUNTY Mti+ ouki ». ». .,..... ». »....553 =7200 Eari'r Bird « .. . ........... , w.5 -730 LANE COUNTY Eugene ....... 4 w w w ......485.3588 SoB,i r ? Sttadk s . at (i =teV» J44 : 390'» 6 ACS � � 7 t.� � §: tJy��t»2w�� \�\ 7 j , %� \� 7 #$!. - . a #p: > r#4T4tV # INIVV.:4,ZWAVi 9011 ItAY, #U% /V vOIGIAND. C? en1727.5 d . I» « »55 02 .. SU TORTING STATEMENT Plan Amendment Rezone Portland Fixture Co February, 1985 REQUEST: To amend the comprehensive plan from commercial-professional to a general commercial designation and rezone accordingly. BACKGRCCJND The ,. � g 's northerly common �e subject property is located along Tigard 's ncJr a� with Beaverton. It's principal locational identity bo �.;n d , y along Scholls Ferry Road makes it an attractive site for serving g continvd market demand for neighborhood and community shopping needs. Sorrento Road is planned for extension south of Schc l.lS Ferr+ Road; is would form the western boundary to the subject ro p ert Multi - family residential development urrent:ly under i � y parcel rm � the construction along the adjacent southerl areel t�oul. ro southerly boundary. Should the proposal receive' amity endorsemen t p nning will card ied. out with two site la �.i1. be object? ves: on o address any snstivities or concerns 4. 4. arising from adjacent residential dential areas, and two, as functional design which will complement the existing Greenway Town Center. Urban development along the Sklholls Ferry Road corridor both east and west from the subject property appears to be sub - stantially complete. EXceptions to this, in addition to the subject property, are a ! shallow slte north across Scolls Ferny Road in Beaverton, and a small parcel ircm►ed:iate,ly west of the subject property. It is doubtful, therefore, that approval of the petition could lead to any of the common forms of strip commercial dvelopment which have occurred otherwise along some of the metropolitan areas older arterl al roads STATE PLANNING GOALS AND 74UIDELINES: This proposal is consistent with any applicable statewide planning go zls. If approved, it will provide, for the orderly development of the subjct property and the extension of a neighboring street and other related offsite improvement$. In addition, it should result in reducing , _ � � red�.cin the duration of shopp ing trips by many shoppers,' thereby reducing fuel consw ption and motor ;vehicle emissions in the area. Also,, it should enhance economy in the general area a somewhat the well. 0" APPLIICABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES 5.1 7, The City shall promote activities aimed at the diversi- fication of the economic opportunities available to Tigard residents with particular emphasis placed on the growth of the local job market. Comment: Proposed development on the subject property will generate 150 -200 new j.'.io opportunities, all of which will 1.a available to Tigard residents. 5.1.4 The. City shall ensure that new commercial and industrial development ohall not encroach into residential areas that have not been designated for commercial and industrial uses. Comment: If approved, this proposal will be entirely consistent with the foregoing policy. No portion of site will actually encroaedh into a residential area the All portions of the site perimeter will be buffered and/or landscaped as deemed apporopriate to ensure good continuing land use relationships, PROJECT SCALE a, p p evelopment, on the The ,fol�.r�w�ng cha,.�actor���s the ro used d subject property. s L r Site size: 5.4 acres: 235,224 square feet 2. Trade area 1.5 to 2.5 mile radius: 22,000 to 52,000 population. o ulatiun. 58 Approximately Grosz leasable area. Approxy ,000 square re feet.., LOCATIONAL ORITERiA: t. 5 acing and location: property hy� Subject propert w .��. share one common property line with a multi - :amily residentia l Other residential development on the s mouth only. 0 development lies southwest of the site e, but will not share. a direct common physical relationship due to the extension of Sorrento Road. Access: The p roposed development site is intended to have one point of access on S'cholis Ferry Road as well as one access point on the Sorrento Road extension. Given the character and ultimate design for Sch olls Ferry Road„_ provision can be made to avoid unwanted congestion or traffic safety problems. The attached traffic analysis will adequate ,y address the various concerns relating to trip generations,'vehicl.e movements and so on. • Site characteristics: This site has been selected primarily due to its size and proximity to the existing Greenway Center, as well as its central ` position in an established trade area. If approved, all development will be designed in scale with the capacity of the site to accommodate retail demands within the trade area The site retail e � also demonstrates a very high visibility factor given its location along Scholls Ferry Road: The proposed southerly extension of Sorrento Road will further enhance the visibility factor relating to the property. Impact assessment As previously indicated, intended commercial development for the property will be sized and scaled in a manner which will be quite compatible with the existing commerri41 development to the east as well as residential uses to the south. Privacy of the adjacent a` y area will be em hasized south _rl residential a� p CONCLUSION The, object property is a primary candidate for responding to continuing demand for retail goods and services in this part o the community,, it is a highly aucessible site from virtually' e eery direction. Its development should not produce any increased traffic congestion which may in fact be reduced somewhat, with the completion cf the Sorrento Road. extension. r The proposed development on the subject property should provide increased shopping and employment opportunities for the City's related vehicle travel residents while at the same time reducin g rely time AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Was ington ) ss City of Tigard 1, Lor en R. Wilson and say: (rlease Print) being first duly sworn, on oath depose That 1 amxtc the Recorder The City of Tigard, Oregon. That I served notice of Final Decision for the Tigard City Council for of which the attached .is a copy (Marked Exhibit A) upon each of the following da of _, -,o. , 198 , by mailing to named persons on the y t (Marked Exhibit B), each of them at the address shown of t attachedelist Mar said notice as hereto attached, deposited in the United Statt,s Mail on the ' "' day of e .-ham 198 (' , Postage PrePaid. } �M 4/L1°- w Subs,dribed and' sworn to before nee on the My "Ccy tcniss on Expires (0257P) Signature Person who deli` day: NOTARY PUtLIC d to POST OFFICE 4 OF OREGON 198' fl ti r, A FINAL ORDER IN THE PLAN AMENDMENT AND A AND S & J PROPERTIES APPLICATION REQUESTS CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 85 -108 MATTER OF THE APPLIC..TION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE ZONE CHANGE REQUESTED BY PORTLAND HCO. , FILE NO. CPA 3-85 AND EC 1 -85, DENYING , ENTERING ; FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. WH EREAS, the Tigard City Council heard the regular meeting of November 25, 1985 The were represented by Sumner Sharpe, Jack L. , appearing in opposition were Richard Bober Williams. WHEREAS, the Council finds the following above applicat on applicants appeared and Crchar and Dave Pietka, g of NPO #7 and Howard FACTS in this matter: applicants for this m tier, Portland) Fixture Co. and S &h3 Properti�. ; , requestt,:1ti a reclassification from C -P ., -G (Commercial General) for a 4 (Commercial Professional � to �, a� acre site designated Washington in Gounty Tait Map gSl S designated atdesignated g' the request 00. The ortin explanation su��p g 34BC, Tax:Lot...4 Portland Future Co. is found in File No. CPA 3"o5ctobe�r25 � 1J8�'�, and S &' J withdrew as an applicant on applicant. Builders has proceeded as the sole app voted t h: hi 2. The Council ad before it the record of cthe proceedings l before the Tigard planning Commission wvotes, on April. approve the request, with three dissenting 2, 1985. �hi� app After revievain licatio regular meet n at its st !ng of 3 . � � Ap ril 22, 195, the City Council denied, the request (Resolution No. 85-28). � Review was f ileed with the Land Use Board of A Petition for Re ,� / 5985. pp May Appeals (LUBA) on M August 1985, a Metier n for Voluntary Reman�� Eras f i l r ^d, 5 , by thc 1 I order to improve the findings contained in by the City in its Final Order Resolution No, 85-28, an d LUBA entered Order remanding the case on A1g' st 22, 1985. r 9, 1985 , the City Council held a public 8 , On Sep criteria to t.e�'ilbe r h�,a1.;� n,g Qn, the record to consider the g�r ace ure which to identify the h followed on ;remane?, and *` should have been addressed in the earlier app lication and Proceedings. Public testimony was heard, and the matter was allow additional time tiding for the council and . inued to al Goal, Code a,nd . was cent the applicable a i,st ing partie�c to identif�` R S0LUTI+O t' .NO. 85 -108 pa go i 9 -; Comprehensive Plan criteria_. On September 16 1985, the matter was gain continued .;to,'allow the Planning Director ' re a p p_ applicant re and submit to the apP nt a representative, ,� although not all-inclusive, listing of the applicable criteria as requested by the applicant. On October, 28, 1965, at the applicant's request the hearing was again continued to November 25, 198f, On Septemb er 27 , 1985, a letter was sent to the applicant identifying relevant cr!,teria which should have been ,�,icant applied to the earlier application but which the app., and parties did not fully address. case from the Planning and thy' City Council hetarings of the Council makes the following WHEREAS, based on the record in this Commission hearing of April 2, 1985, p � ril 22, 1988 and November 25, 1985 FINDINGS IN THIS MATT . : The relevant approval criteria in this case, as identified in the September 27, 1985 letter to the applicant a . Stltewide Planning Goals and Guidelines b. Tigard Comprehensive Plan. 1, Policies 2.1,1, 6.1.1, 5.1.4, 8,1. Locatonal Criteria, Section '12.2 General Commercial and Commercial 3 and 12.2.1a pertaining to Professional Tigard Community Development Code 1♦ 18.22.020 Purpose (Amendments to the Code and Map) (sic Purpose section is numbered 18.22.010) 040 nts and Standards 2 , 18 22 Quasi-Judicial Amendments Making, the. Decision. 3. 18.30.120 Standards for the Decision. 18.62010 Purpose (c-G Zone). 5 , 1864 r 0 10 Purpose (C -P Zone). of the T�.Oarca LocationaJ Cr�ite icn 12 .2.1(2) (14) (2) (a) they Ti Comprehensive P3 a:,,r relating to access for , �t This crite�i�a�dedquires Commercial uses been m,, the proposed General not Cammercia3, area. or expanded " shy l not create traffic congestion r a that : th p traffic area problem. One tact. r in determining h�hether' 0 plan amendment meets the criterion is l'the t�raf.cic sat a r+�ques ed ,p }E8OLUTION ? O. 85 -108 Page 2 traffic generating characteristic!, of the various types of uses" allowed under the requested zoning. At the various Council m.letings, the 'Council heard conflicting testimony regarding traffic issues. The applicant presented the report and testimony of its traffic engineer. Opponents presented testimony and i11vs,tr &five slides The photographs and accompanying testimony established that present traffic conditions in the area are Very c The applicant responded to hazardous. this situation with�the p ineet�r the re port of a traffic eng The central feature of this analysis is that the change from the existing C -P to the proposed C -G would have no appreciable effect on traffic volumes and that the ,le.el of service, after certain improvements were made would be similar under either designation. The engineer reached this conclusion by certain aumptions about trip generation. Under the present zoning the engineer assumed that 90%, of the 5.4 acre parcel would be developed as professional offices, producing about 1,17C trips npernday, P d to c,�cci.\r during about 90 of which. would be expecta�. evening peak hour. He then posited that the remaining 10% would be developed as a 3,000 square foot convenience store which would almost double the number of trips per dad{ and add 100 trips to the evening peak hour. Gr(.:envaay Town Center Phase II Traffic Impact Study a.. 2. Under the proposed zoning, the report assume: the r foot retail center development of a .a8 , 000 squaree� day, of which 450 would generating about 4,760 trips per y occur during the evening peak hLJr. An addition to the impact study argues that if the property were developed under existing `' service ce i '{ bank, dPathe level ofeseren ena L the ng honing to i stor e a restaurant aid a intersection a change in zone ion wrauld be unaffected by property. resulting in, retail development of p ]� we cannot accept p the conclusions of the study because we do s. not a ree with it remisee. The applicant has has hot made any attempt to justify` the assumption that the property p nvenience store. Neither has it will be + developed ed Edith a c® shown ari4 evidence that restaurant development' would occur. The opponents have; introduced photographic evidence and �� a in testimony indicting large amounts of empty retail .pac the existing center. Given this situation, we are, skeptical that a convenience store would be developed at this location. No evidence wus offered to demonstrate that such development would occur: gvidr:nce of the development of a conversance store was +crucial to she traffic impact y - � se the effect �. analysis becau.,._- he e: ES0LUTT 14 N04 8+5 -108 usage 3 a ._ wa, 4 "�.Ulill➢!h.'+Fn'31Yi1rt4'4fMtli _1�nauanur.hu, u�� a this assumption, was to more than double the aan'tic::�pated of peak hour trips. Without this number cr `,evening p s might show that the traffic anal that only development under the current zoning would produce projected fram the retail about one - fourth of the trips P 3 development P ent s et f ically assumed to take place under the proposed zoning,, The 'report offers no analysis to inform u o traffic f v�hether tr�._i�c flaw and level of,,service aboutl ©ne� us ° produced only affected if the existing zoning P the. praposec�, quarter of the trips; that would i�ted�'weucannot analyze this. zoning. •From ct that a cony !fence store was assumed, iseue. -The fact �� uestion the su orting ' evid °nce , causes us to q without any Pp in credibility of the traffic study. There use here exists might our have been minds the lingering doubt. th at produce ,.the desired chrseu for analysis in order to p conclusion. Thy report s incom late in other respects nor example, i P nts to Sorrnt o doubt increase traffic improveme r� � �4gerry Roast . 1 Adequate traffic hazard problc��r�s on Schols l anal sis 'should provide more information ut :impacts y y 'intersections on ScYiolls Ferry :Road anrl; Schclls Ferx°y the vicinity. are w decide not to ly uP on e are For these�r�asans we des reand, theref applicant s, traffic i�Pshas� been ,introduced which would not persuaded that e''id ence prove that the prop osed zoning would result in a safe and -- a area, efficient traffic. system for th relate to Section 18+ 22 t�40(�.) J e traff erslicaaitrfar�a r�uas judicial amendment' These euires'an app. wo pz r 4 e will not adversely 'affect the to pr've that the Chang The evidence- 's community. hcealth„ safety- and welfare at affic is clear t,aat the retail development assumed by the �, fan in the areas for increase the trip general study woul�w the this report is not rel.able 3.ai ��► reasons described above, this. therefore has not Vrovinc�iits conclusion. The aPP� �,� 11 riot advc�rsel Met its burden to - prove that the, gaf; the` cotn�aun�.ty: affect the health, safe .y and w elfare compared to what would occur under the present zoning,, ales, to The a' licable Locat'nnal Criterion also relate ato use po n, tIt:° i requires, that t proposed, rtat �.an i � _traffic. cc Ian ". r reate transportation xea, shill no . ore • ans3an of existing 'Area the reasons safety probltem f y congestion r�r a traffic d _ adequately y ails to ad have the trafficeimpact' annatsdetermine from t'he out linet,� a r i ter ion L' o�. address tum' h the. conclusion that .,_pis change e�r.izone _.yy . produce, ho additional traffic safety problems . ro in rote a In .add.t t: on to the matters described aabvt ' a the tr would pr is reliabl v�., we are also concerned that no +ef tort was made by REsotibTiu1I NCB. 85--10 Page ti engineer to validate his trip Projections for this particular area by co=mparing them with the actual number of trips coming from the present adjoining shopping :enter. The engineer admitted he had not done this at pages 13 and 14 of the transcript of the first City Council hearing. Until the shorty ~omings of the tiraffic ' innpact study are remedied we are unable to determine whether or not various proposed conditions and improvements to the area will be sufficient to satisfy the traffic related criteria. Section 18.22.040 (4) of the Community Development ~,.ode requires: "Evidence of change in the neighborhood or com unity or a mistake or inconsistency in the Comprehensive Plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application. This section of the Code is essentially a qualification of the traditional "change or mistake rule." No effort .,o this case has been the plan designation is a p � mistake. Instead, the �applicant ' presented evidence of changes that have taken place in the nelghborhood or community. Under this standard the applicant applict must produce proof to support the conclusion that substantial change has occurred in the neighborhood hood or community twhich would justify the proposed zone change. Anderson American Laws of Zoning 2nd, Section 507. In the November, 1985 memorandum from Sumner submits of zone char ges and Sharpe, the applicant .�uiatnits evidence other support a claim of change of her i reformation to su��ort circumstances. A school has declared A future school site as surplus, adding approximately 22 acres of residentially zoned land t;4 the area. In Beavflrton 8 acres was rezoned from R- to R 7 thus�iicreasin g the allowable density. nsity Also, 2.5 acres of F- was rezon ed to Office Commercial We agree that the changes have taken place. However, we have not been offered an adequate analysis demonstrating that these ;hanges have produced a change in the character of the neighborhood that would justify the requested zone change, tqe have been offered anecdotal evidence Of Particular changes y to jus fy the art.cuYar c�a� » egF��stnat�i���a�i�sa�e�ns�o effort to net proposed change. First, out the ` effects of these changes on the relative ratio of land zoned for residential, CP and. CG There is no t these changes have oththisc ratio, anal. s is ©f what 33npar �'�a�ng y � Nor is there y indicationf why ges if any, � any there change ause us to coricluGde �astt`heree`beenaadeparture from, would ustifying additional C RESOLUTION' NO. 8t5 -108 P g d e.. the overall pattern in the plan =' To what extent is the loss of ' residential land in one area balanced by the addition of residential land in another? in order the d,e��onstrate change in the charkindroff�ssine� area, � :nfor�aation. applicant should provide this Second, without more information and analysis of the effect of these changes, it is just as likely that we can colaclude, based upon the evidence introduced so far, thato the changes conf irk retention of C -P rather than g C -G , The Beaverton change from residential to Office Commercial may show that, even with some slight increase in residential density, there is already sufficient CG to service tho neighborhood. In fact, ti is point of view the substantial number of seems to be validated by available but the record; of currently photographs in retail space. The Beaverton zone change to unoccupied Office Commerci bl may also show that certain basic p:reoepts of the plan are being carried out and that there3ras not This been a change in the e„'sential character of changle may reinforce the pattern of the area which i r3 de;gnpd to'pr provide office job opportunities in close, proximity to ,residential development. Y t also clearl y supports the existing plan policy 'to locate office employment where it can supp ort other c ommercial uses.' '� TMC Section 18.64.010(6). Absent more information and detailed analysis by the applicant, it is just ''as likely that ,the anecdotal evidence reinforces the current charact._ --r ne ghbo.rhoodrather than proving a change in charac tee.. neighborhood justifying ., t property CG on the subject The information which comes as close as any to providing an overall analysis appears on pages 2 through, th ough4 of the November 20, memorandum submitted Sumer Share. rSharr anazes the population necessary to support a community shopping center based upon the criteria Development Handbook (Urban Lana in the .5ho1�P +3 �� in Center ?,eve vn' reflection we find. this Up 3.tu�.�� , 1�'7'd the handbook analysis pects. First sis lacking in several res that a site of 10 to 30 acres can be suipported by a�ndicates �. " people within a 6�ervice +� population off.• S5,000 to 4t3 0(�a n area The` Xist'ing size. e � eleven acres and therefore falls within approx:ima'�sly t�ao miles ih. d t for here shopping canter is � plan for the.. the range indicated. Therefore: the furtner"�'2one chang'e� . any a area �ae�ts the criteria w thou r e report �.ort apparently recogni2es this fact and he therefore cites the handbook, that t The ad�moni t iron in the :Prudent dev e o p er of a community center will plan to have adequate land for expansion when the growth and , ,avolume warrants and, the drawing ' ''p,wet justifies o the RESOLUT f C 8 5. 'i ►B g'ag'e 6 a 0 [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] N ti communi ty center can often be increased. .. by the introduction of. .. additional shops, ► office and services. " The report then makes the observation that the existing center has no room for expansion And that the . subject parcel would provide that potential The second problem analysis provided in the report with the analysi is that it ignores the qualifiers contained in the handbook criteria. Phrases such as "when the growth and sale volume warrants" and " [when] ] drawing power justifies" are the o salient points i n the handbook's criteria. In presenting its analysis the report provides no information an sales volume and drawing power. In fact, the record indicates the, there are many empty stores at this time in the g s and, therefore, unlikely that a case existing center �� it and. "drawing power can be made that sales volume wary ust:ifies" the 'expansions of the existing center. The analysis presented demonstrates the need for a center such as the existing one. However, it does not prove the need for expansion under the criteria which are cited. applicant controls the subject property and Furthermore, can .that eforefollow the suggestion of the handbook - that land be made available for expansion. The land is available and when sales volume warrants the applicant may apply to change the zone designation. with the analysis provided if We wo�xeh be more comfortable w the it somehow linked the e�► zone to Bence of chang��Pinustifit;a ivn overall character of the community and j for an ex ansion site for a ccamamunity commercial., .Center. ded does not show these link P the The evidence provided �'geS th r able in addressing therefore we do not find it r�.l criteria contained in Section 18.22.040(4).' 4 Because the applicant has failed to introduce evidence described satisfying its bard en. under the above des will l : n this application C .���rs,ct be granted, other re anted. We w item relevant criteria exhaustively address each of application use, even .i if they were satisfied, the app cannon be gran failure to satisfy the above �- tad due to fa► described requirements. NQwr THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City council that: , r x * findings the counc i 1 has determined Based upon the ab ova fi ehensiwe Plan requirements o that. the re of the Code and Compr - � application. have not been satisfied by the subject app otational Cr of all, iteria have not Based on Finding additional 2 he change been .:met.. T g �+�rould create. �►dc�. t traffic congestion anc related problems, c ontr.ary to Code' Section i8.22.040(1) a .d Comprehensive Plan Section 12.1.1(2) (B) (2) (a) IESOLUTION WO, '8 08 7 rage AV 1 Section. • Based. on Finding No 3, the Council finds that the applicant has not provided persuasive arguments to change the comprehensive plan and zoning designations and then reduce the amount of available C -P coned land in section of the City. The change applied for would violate Section 1.8.64.010(6) by reducing land available for office employment to support . the existing and planned commercial development. Applicant has failed to prove changed circumstances or any mistake or inconsistency in the Comprehensive Plan which would warrant the requested change, as required by Section 18.22.040(4) The Council, therefore ORDERS that the above referenced request, be, and the same hereby is, DENTE D. The Council FURTHER ORDERS that the Planning Director and the City Recorder send a copy of the Final Order as a Notice of final decision to the parties in this case. 1986. Mayor City of Tigard ATTEST CITY OF 1 "3;GARD, OREGON NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION 1 BY CITY COUNCIL (Sec. 18 .32.380 1, Concerning Case Number( 2 Name of Owner; ): CPA 3 -85 ZC 3-85 SRUilder; 3, Name of Applicant: Portland F:;.iture Company Address 338 NW Fifth City, Portland State OR Zip 97209 . Location of Property Address Schol ,s Ferry Road across from Sorrento_ Legal Description 1S..14BC Tax Lot 400 5. Nature of Application: Review on the record of the City Council's denial on April_ 22, 1985, of a request for approval fora Cenprehens,ive Plan Amendment and. Zone Change from CP (Commercial Professional) to CC (Commercial Generi* for a 5.4 acre site Action; The Tigard City Council heard the application on 11/25/85 and adopted fiadings ' on January 6, 1986 by passing Resolution No. 85 --108. Said resolution is attached for your information. N atice Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed tot '; The applicant & owners XX Owners of record within the required distance XX_ The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization it Affected governmental agercies Final DeCision; THE DECISION WAS SIGNED ON 1- 6---86 : AND ''BECOMES EFN'"CC7 "IVE 0L , 1- -6.86, Thp adopted findings of facet, decision,, and statement of condition can be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard' City Hall, 12755 SW' Ash, Box 28897, Tigard', Oregon 972:a3, A review of this decision may be obtained by filing a notice of intent with the Oregon Land Use Board, of Appeals (LU'BA) accordir g o their procedures Eye:, t`�ar3 : If you htdve any oucstions, please call, the rl' "i.gard City Re r order at 619-41.71,, (0257P) Westlake Consultants nc. 7145 S.UJ. Varns Rd. TigarcJ, Oregon 97223 Meadow Creek Commercial Site October 25, 1984 Legal Description 503 -684 -0652 P. tract of land situated in the N.W. 1/4, Section 34, T1S, R1W, W.M. , City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, being more particularly y as follows: ,.: Beginning at the west quarter corner of said Section 34; thence, along the west line of said , Section 34, North 0 °10'48" West, 634.36 feet to the true point of beginning; thence, continuing along the west line of said Section 34, North 0010'48" West, 524.26 feet to a point on the southerly 348); right-of-way line of S.T. Scholls Fe�:ry` Road (C.i�. 3 thence, along the southerly line of said S.W. Schols Ferry R an angle point; oad, North ?8 °41'49" Easy, 4.98 feet to a g along southerly l line e of said S.W. i, uoad allortht84 °21�49�r1 1,�4 ?7.04 feet to a thence, continuing Scholis k err R p Y that vine on the northerl�r extensa.on, of the west line of that tract of land conveyed to Portland Fixture Company, in Fee No. 78 -9703, Washington County deed records; thence, along the west line o Portland Fixture ompany' ' f said C tract, South g0 °05'42" East, 5 71. 04 feet to the southwest corner thereof; thence on a westerly projection of the south line of said Portland Fixure Company tract, South. 89 °52'27'' West, 478.92 feet to the true point of beginning. kEG1STERED pRo ES510WAt LAND Sut 'rybR ORHEGON t t»Y 13, 1979 t o t4 AM) S, C I4 L :C Y 1 41 NGlN E 4I G SU V= i PLANNING ar . George R. StrOempl e P. O. Box 1810 . Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 INTENT TO LEASE / s4'irte have an interest in leasing, and possibly eventually owning, our offiee on land owned by Mr. George R. Str©etnp]e on Scbolls Ferry Rd Certainly, at present it is impossible and nct economical to proceed with a detailed lease agreement or architectural P y (our) knowledge a .a� laps. �iowever, to the best. of m ou at a market transaction, I will rit d Oo net square feet of space. This is only a preliminary intent to lease and is not binding on either party until all details can be worked out and CIT Accepted Date BEAV'ERTON ZONING r.STABLTST./ED George emple Accepted: Date: / � Mr. George R. Stroemple F O. Box 1810 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 INTENT TO LEASE (we) , Dr. Charles. H. Samuel O.D. ate: Dec. 8th 198 have an interest: in leasing, and possibly oly eventually owning, our office on land owned by fir. George R. Stroerple on ScY olls Ferry Rd. Certainly: at present it is impossible and not economical to proceed with a detailed lease agreement or architectural plans. However, to the best of ray (our) knowledge and at a market transaction, 1 will need /000, net square feet of space. This is only a preliminary intent to lease and is not binding on ether party until all details can be worked out a ;d C'I TIi OF BEAVERTON ZONING ESTABLISHED AccePted George : ' '` oempl e Accepted: £ c._ 8 Late: � 4/ � Da:te: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 3-85 ZONE S & J Builders -- NPO #7 DIRECTOR: Mr. Mayor, members of council, this is an 4 applicatic', by S & J Properties for a zone change from C -P 5 commercial Let me point s al Professional to C -G Commercial General. 1 6 out on the map to you Where this property is It 's on Scholls 7 Ferry Road. It adjacent to the CrLenway Town Center 8 Union High being developed right 9 now 10 The applicant asks for a general commercial designation 11 feeling that the C -P was inappropriate for their intended use. 12 There are no plans at this time for the development of the 13 property reviewed the application based rt to obtained. We have revewe 14 Community p found that the application on the communx.t Develo meet: Code and ..faun 15 meets the standards for a C -P zone. We ran it through the NPO; 16 NPO #7 was opposed to the, change by a 6 -1 vote indicating that, 17 the Planning Commission by a 6 -3 vote however, agreed with staff 18 that - recommended to the council a change of designation from 19 =-P to C -G 20 21 PUBLIC TESTIMONY y 22 JOHN SCHG EIT'Z : Thank you Mr. Ma o� , council. 28 We, for the recorc1, we state notice that you have already 24 gotten our vote and what W-e felt -- NPO. Our concerns were that 2k at the time that this was; presented we dick not `i,av sufficient �'6 in ormati.on and it was just wrought to us once. Tien it ur "ent to Page the Planning Ccnm3 ssion and was kind of rushed through. I feel 2 that it should t . held and go back to the Planning Commission for some clarification of some of the needs, proving that, true, they 4 nee d more space ace for commercial zoning which now the Greenway ^"own 5 Center is not full. A lot of the people at the Town Center are 6 the owners -�-- the shop owners a�s:e still concerned that there will 7 be_ other businessess like themselves that could force them and other her o wners to go out of business. Therefore, we're concerned 9 that the best interest of this area is not served by going, full 10 cotuerc is I at this time. Thank you. 11 • COUNCILOR SCOTT: I don't know whether 12 notice here on page 1 where it says site information. The site 13 is P resen }ly undeveloped and a four -way intersection will be 14 constructe d at the. Scholls Ferry intersection and my question is 15 wi th traffic signal. My question is: Whose expense? 16 DIRECTOR. I believe that that si nal being 17 part by & J because of thei r r 305 unit shopping complex x being 18 built. 19 COUNCILOR SCOTT But you don't know for sure? 20 DIR ECTOR: No, but the city is not participating in that, 21 my knowledge. 22 COUNCILOR I-COTT: go over that ground. 23 S iIITZ : The signal, of course, under the transportation committee - we do khoz that the State Highway Department has, , � they were going to ':put 5 planned this signal for a long the we p time. And in if for no rrento Road on the Beaverton � . other reason �o 26 it Page 1 side, and because of the construction to the south, it's going to 2 be for both areas -- North Dakota alignment as well. And I don't know right off hand who is paying, the cost either. 4 COUNCILOR S .. T. 4T. T. Another question uestion I have is ... 5 CITY ADMINISTh. TnR. Councilor Scott, in that regard, not to 6 contradict Bill, but my understanding is that there is a match 7 requirement with the State Highway Department and that there is a 8 responsibility of the property owner, but I believe the city 9 through System Development Charges, which is a fee paid by developments, And that particular 10 p ent5, is contributing�in that way. 11 project has about 300 units and the System Development Charge for 12 streets in that particular area is about $180,000. So that's the. 13 purpose for which that money is being- collected. So in one way 14 Bill is correct. The developer is paying for that, bnt I don't 1.5 want to have you under the impfession that some of the System 16 Develo meat Charge f..i- nds are not going back to that purPose. 17 COUNCILOR BRIAN: I believe Bob's right, Ms. Scott. 18 COUNCILOR SCOT' What are your feelings as far as -- I 10 think the y' ve got the curbs and the s idew alks in - do you thin k 20 it warrants a bike path? � alignment 21 CITY ADMINISTRATOR. I don t know the construction ali g� 22 of that it feasible to have one hat' area -- or no �. �.t would be. lea 23 Y y . Y ; .- that the width Especially With the sicle'wa�.ks I am not sure that t would give you room. COUNCILOR SC.. r TT NPO look on o that'? CITY ADMINISTRATOR Okay, we will do that. 25 26 Page 4 1 COUNCILOR SCOTT: Thank You DIRECTOR: Are there any other questions Tom? . My my primary concern would COUNCILOR BRIAN: M observation rc► 4 be - they're looking for a road change from C-P to as I look 5 at the map if I'm reading this right to that area _ �. ht 6 doesn't. show up too well here, 7 but 8 (Pointing at map and discussing mostly blurred). That's the 9 only other commercial - I've had several so 10 interested in changing the designation of their land to 11 commercial -- my recommendation at this point is that any 12 residential land be changed to commercial 13 be looked at in a legislative approach as opposed to 14 • 15 That would be my last Started taking me off 16 on that is the commercial professional rather than the commercial 17 general _ _ .__ _._.�— And guess my 18 concern would be giving up becau:;e no C_P . We' ll have a C -P there • 20 My concern Would be and residential 21 whether or not commercial professional -- 22 whether given up on that, The Beaterton side has a lot of commercial, but we re lacking in that strip r_ iS commercial 23 a t s tr 19 24 professional' 25 CITY ADMINISTRATO:tt: But of cr u e if we did make the change somewhere else in this area. - r C -G, and under It could. be C P o Page C-G allow the use of -- that we normally had on C -P are also under the C- a 2 ' allowed und G • So we would need 3 legislative change and still have the opportunity Y to have those kind of uses Also, the C P uses would still' ' there _ be allowed t 5 6 COUNCILOR BRIAN: The odds are the market would take it to retail. 8 CITY ADMINISTRATOR: Yeh, it does I don't think 'we ° d be cl' seeing the 10 COUNCILOR; BRIAN: Bill, 11 'CITY ADMINISTRATOR: Yeh, the C -P. It only amounts to about 12 an acre and a half 13 COUNCILOR: Fine, 1 didn't understand .. 14 COUNCILOR BRIAN: I guess that's my concern, that it may 15 underline the compelling reason to change it. It' s already zoned 16 commercial althou g h �t sn t commercial Professional. If it 11 means that 9' iven the densities, residential, densities that we see 18 developing out there, on both sides of the highway, going d p g oxn to 19 be greater C -P than C -G given the amount of C -G and the amount of 20 commercial upon that site 21 MAYOR C ©OK : Any other comments or questions? Recommenda- 22 tion, by the Director. DIRECTOR: The staff and the Punning Comttission haVe 23 24 25 6 Page recommended approval changed to 385. CPA 3-85 zone change be 2 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 MAYOR COOK: Close the public hearing and consideratioft by the Council. HEWITT : Can the applicant have a chance to speak? MAYOR COOK: No -- I m sorry - T EWITT: I guess we overlooked that MAYOR COOK: Okay, , we Y 11 reopen a public, hearing and come back to that but... the testimony on here • HEWITT Mr. Mayor, for the record r, the gentleman going to apparently hand, us some maps wad a few other things - I would like it known, 1, g i nown, for the record, if yotx show it ,:o us, give it • � � S� y�u to us_ ( ?) I've already given it to you HEWITT Okay. 14 ( ?) Unfortunately, �. HEWITT pick them u and take them 15 Some folks like to then P 16 home and I don' t want them to get upset 1? HEWITT My name is Hal Hewitt I am with Greenhill 18 ;,s cciates and I'm here, this evening representing S & J and the 19 ?or-bland Fixture Company who are developer/owners of the present 20 Creenway Center 21 y C r g and 1�r. Mayor, r mem�aers ��� the Council, in .�u� work through 21 anal y sis of this p ro oseo amendment and iote change, r .t seemed' to us that we essentially three fundamental issues. 23 came down to thr 24 One was the matter of s ip corrtmercial development along Scholls 25 Ferry corridor if you viIi. The second one was the availability 6 of` office space, althouqh that's not the criteria as we under Page 2 3 4 5 stand it for gaining the planned amendment. And the third one was traffic, how the traffic flow and movement would be handled if the proposal went through. I want to talk about these first two items and we have our traffic engineer give you some „ eer here, Mr. Tom Lancaster, to gi commentary on his findings resulting from a study that he did for 7 us on this project and relating to these roads and the present $ futu.ce capacity in ne immediate area. I want to give you a copy 9 of you could share with one another.. kept 10 it for the record, the Planning Commission Hearing. You'll notice that We've identified not just the subject property and 12 the adjacent existing commercial retail center, but that we've 13 also taken into consideration other existing commercial zones 14 down Scholls Perry corridor to the East. We have primarily 15 relating back to the matter of strip commercial development 16 concerns that the CPO people indicated about that.. We have `r evidence on that, photograph; very little land remaining for 18 development. The only major parcel I think of any consequence 19 that is undeveloped is that which is immediately to the north 20 right across the road in Beaverton, which interestingly takes up 11 21 most r the area, not all, but mo,> t of the area between these two 22 key intersectional, Sorrento and. 121st. Beyond, that, as far a.s 23 the property is pretty well developed to the Wes'. 'we can tell t P p y P � 4 You've got, to go some distance again-before you, can even find. any 25 vacant land that could qualify I guess for commercial develop- 'ae men t . And I think even they you. & d probably agree that that 7 • wouldn''t be construed as strip commercial development which in Pp our understanding of the application ,!„ is something 2 n 3 Canyon Road or Pacific Highway or something of that sort . What 4 we basically got along thi:' corridor are about three commercial 5 centers that are already established; two on the North side and 6 the Greenway Center on the southside. The two centers on the 7 north side, and I'm going to move into the second area of concert 8 the matter of available office space, �q_.. ace, have some rather unique, 9 if not peculiar site designs. I have some photo, °x:aphs that I' 11 10 show ipu momentarily to illustrate twat further, but basically 11 both of these sites and, primarily the one to the east which I 12 believe is Robinson Crossing have got some rather awkwardly 13 located builling space; rental space in them. The other is 14 center p arkside -- also has a rathe r unique site Plan that 15 creates in both cases some rather undesireable possibility for 16 retail locations and market rents for those spaces. Now they've 17 rented out for the most part -- I think some of yu could drive 18' by here acid notice that they've rented out most of the good 9 s aces that faces the street, has good visibility and so forth, P 20 but these portions of the centers that are not readily visible to 21 the street, are having some difficulties, Both of the brokers 22 that are handling. those Centers have indicated that they foresee 23 as a result of their experiences to date, that virtually all of 24 the remaining r: ntal space there will go into office type users 25 And indeed ...ou've already get some of that in the Parkside Center 26 where you've got 1 the nk a couple of medical clinics if I recall �` age 8; 1 r 1 correctly. By the way, and 'I don't mean to be argumentive with 2 *r. Monahan, I can understand his perception, but I think that it fi is not a foregone c<,.nclusion -- we do not intend it to be a 4 foreg one conclusion - that because we change the zone spay from 5 offs. e 'c commercial to retail commercial that we will simply have 6 no office renters or na office space available in the center. Quite the contrary is true. We know that there will be demand 8 � hope there will be some. for office ce space, in the area we would h re th er 9 We don't '. see that market as being terribly hard right now. It's 10 space gone in rather soft. Most of the of face s ace. in the area has 11 dose proximity roximit to Washington Square. And I. think beyond the es of developments Washington 12 so- called five star types of opments �.r the Wa 13 Square area r we've clot some of the smaller scale operating as I 14 can demon strate m y point right here in tbre city. P:yimarily I'm 15 talking about the gen eral commercial area on Greenberg at 217 on 16 Lhe east side of that interchange, where you've got a couple of 17 gas stations, , s but you also have four office developments in there 18 nc l udig n the Good Sam Clinic and as I recall three others. 19 That's a general commercial zone, Indeed it has retail users. 20 It also his a very healthy mix of office type u.sert+ in the same 21 those kinds of uses are not only allowed .but they'' re a gone. So 1. 22 fact of life in this type 0E a zone and we think that that' 23 a -- ood �-.ro. abil ,tY of seeing that on this -- this prc�bahly � P 24 25 props s a #1 be granted Going back to the existing Bottle, g c �v. g_ e e centers here. , � �,: 26 piCUres� to illustrate e; liustrate my arlier point about the availability of Page 9 r*, Q office space currently in the market place. That first picture 2 is of Robinson Crossing which is the Most easterly of the two 3 centers and it has approximately 8200 square feet remaining which 4 the broker indicates will undoubtedly go to some type of office 5 professional use or what have you The top picture at least is erg the front of they ro 6 p p y facing the road; the lower picture 7 shows the side, rear retail office spaces that are available in 8 that center. The second set of pictures illustrates the 9' situation at Parkside -- the west. Where you can see that there 10 is a dental health clinic in there. There's the emergency center 11 in there. And then those buildings that are the darkest in the 12 cen'.c �c of that upper picture are still vacant. Again the brokers 13 ' indicating there that the 11,000 square feet they have 14 thre is a high probability that they're going to see pfl ofes� 15 sional business type users in that complex. The third sheet is 16 has a picture of, of course, the Business Center.' 17 Office users are also allowed in that..., w district and in 18 that complex. The bottom picture there i s the area directly to 19 the north of our site.. There is somewhere between 130 -150, 000 20 . e there in the city of square feet that would be available' the 21 Bea'rerton, should a case be made for commercial office needs in 22 this dart of the cpmmun;Lty. . The g n who Thp Planning eta f in Beaverton 23 handle that kil ld of thing were kind enough tq review that with one 24 25 26 Page . at length-And. confirmed m.. sius is y p probably .tsr� t �0�1 '� at 3t bin try be a i resident a. ,, . the y oul.d F said ;t e ther b 5 '° e a nigher' dens,it� r�.s,id,�nta,al or 'some. kind +cf. an office 10 f development going in there and that if that -- demonstration of that kind of need can be made to them, that they felt it would be approved Now I'm not saying that that is going to happen. I'm just trying to illustrate the probabilities for different 5 opportunities occurring out here, primarily that office needs are 6 being met, #1. Number two, that they can be met in the future, 7 and guess uess most importantly that that need not result with or 8 approval q in strip without a rout of this request, that need not result 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 commercial development along the Scholl% Ferry corridor I think we share the community's concern about. that. *I don't think we want to see another Pacific Highway or a Canyon Road here in the community but by the same token we found that the city has experienced a 27% population increase in just the last five years. The people at Portland Fixture Company are in the business of providing and meeting shopping needs of the 16 community, They feel rather strongly that the site is a highly 17 appropriate location given the traffic facilities and the public 18 streets serving this property and that it makes a logical _ 19 provides a logical extension and a compatible location for the 20 extension_ or as an extension to the existing shopping center that 21 is currexz41y on th r easterly portion of the site. We think it is 22 compatible not only with that b�.t with the other immediate land 23 uses in the area that is the subject that -- discussed somewhat 24 by the Planing Commission and my observation was that thaair 25 consensus about that particular part of the proposal. So i think 26 you can see from the information we have here that the proposal. ia� 11 r q I does in fact meet the requirements for a planned zone change for 2 the state and local criteria. And that it will not certainly 3 need not , result in any kind of a negative effect, eit, .r in 4 terms of the availability of office space or creation of a strip. 5 commercial corridor an the street. Beyond that I would defer to 6 Mr. Lancaster unless you have questions of me regarding this part 7 of our presentation. 8 MAYOR COOK: Thank you very much. 9 I,ANCASTER. I'm Toar, Lancaster and. I am a consulting traffic 10 engineer. I made a traffic analysis of the effect of this 11 p roposed zone change. I looked primarily at the intersection at 12 Sorrento Road and Scholls Ferry Road since that will be where the 13 traffic problem would ; probably occur if there were one. I looked 14 at two different that the cases here. The first case I assumed parcel subject sub 7 arcel would be developed as it is presently zoned, which 16 is for offices. The second case I' assumed that the zone would be l d would 1.: +a and that ld be developed entirely as retail space. 7 Changed a it ' Y 18 Now for the first case with the existing zoning, I estimate that 19 there would be approximately 2,140 trips generated per day and 19 e_ is occur during the P 20 that g PM peak hour which is about „ 19 0 would occu would be a second case which 21, l time fore. traffic. For the seco 22 would asstMe a zone change with retail development, i estimated a 23' total of about 4,760 trips per day which is roughly double than that in the other case,. 450 trips estimated would 25 occur during the pNS peak hours. Now of those 450 trips I 26 estimate that about 251 would come from traffic that is already age. 1y 1 passing by the development- In other words, there would not be 2 new trips There would be a net total of about 338 new trips 3 generated by the development. Now I calculated the effects of 4 these additional trips on the intersection of S(aholls Ferry Road 5 and Sorrento. I found that with no development at all, that is 6 if no offices and if too retail, that the intersection will operate at a fairly good level of service of C. Now I projected 8 with development as offices, that is with existing zoning, the 9' additiona' trips would not change noticeably Congestion that 10 would be would continue to operate at about level of service 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21. `,412 c, which would be no significant delays Now with the zone change and with e'ommercial development there, the additional trips would result in a measureable change in congestion there. It would lower the service somewhat to a level of service of D which means that there would be a little bit more delay than would be otherwise. However, this delay I calculated could be g by ' ' the proposed signal thee . mitigated � �. minor modification to t That would be to install a right turn signal for the northbound traffic pproaching the intersection. If fie on the:. Sorrento Road this were done w this would bring the intersection back to the level of service C. which means that there would 'no noticeable' R uld be diference in congestion or delay as a revult of the zone change. 28' Are there any questions regarding that? 24 26 26 Page COUNCILOR (?) min from the Present shopping' many trips day �' on how -man tr;� s a da are co p center` 18 Can you tell Moe,, do you have any data 11, • Qf 3 5 6 7 LANCASTER: No, sir, I don't. Not the existing shopping center. COUNCILOR ( ?): Do you have any data or any estimates of what the traffic flow will be with the addition of the apartment complexes that are already under construction LANCASTER: Yes I do. And in fact I included those 8 estimated flows in my calculations. I assumed that they were 9 present. My estimating that something on the order of about 150 10 trips during a PM peak hour will be ncthbcQund on Sorrento from 11 the residential development. 12 MAYOR COOK: Thank you very much. Are there any other 13 Okay, then we'll close the public hearing • again and make 15 DIRECTOR: Recommendation of the staff and the Planning 16 Co approval Zone Commission _art ;�, for the a royal of the CPA 3 -85 and Zo 17 Change ZC 3--35. 18 L caUNCiLOR BRIAN: I appreciate ate` your testimony. I agree with 19 the strip development on - I don't think as it's not 20 Again though my concern is in view of the 21 comment that that office market is ;oft right now and that 14 22 mY concerti is that obviously that plan iLd 23 . not the property w At 24 the same tint time the plan has to be for 5, 10 y 15 Years, and 1 do admit that the demand for office space can 25, � be filled out 7.5 26 -- for the. next, 5t Year �.s not there. The plan. _ ;:. ,,_ Page 14 15, 20 years. And I just have a difficult time justifying the c zon . at this time. 1 just don't think -- feel that that has been justified in my mired. And I understand 4 concern and osition p , but again ;' 5 (Same limited unintelligible conve' „ "ation) 6 CLERK(?): Ordinance No. 85 -18, an ordinance adopting ? findings and conclusions to approve a comprehensive plan 8 - Change ZC 3 -85 proposed by S &J amendme�it CPA 3 8 5 and Zone 9 Builders and declared an emergency. MAYOR COOK: • COUNCILOR 'BRIAN I move to deny COUNCILOR SCOTT: Second 13 MAYOR COOK: We need a _� _ If it's a 14 denial, we need to vote on this motion or on the ordinance 15 findings. We've got to ha,,e a and 16 vote on it 1 7 ' And then 18 COUNCILOR What we can is vote not to adopt this 19 . ordinance. You can t c g' G on he:� direct the staff as to findings 20 21 22 28 24 25 26 Page the other side MAYOR COOK': Okay. COUNCILOR a. You should, indicate for ` the record the kinds of considerations that you made in the denial so that staff will know '.. .:_., findings . 5 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21. 22 23 24 25 26 gage We 34.1 need a motion to not to adopt and to prepare a staff direct staff to prepare findings for denial of the zone change (Some limited unintelligble conversation) COUNCILOR BRIAN: The primary finding is the lack of for the change vs, the need for preservation of those lands - lack of the plan for commercial professional zone. That to me is the key issue the traffic issue • Although. I have -- certainly that the change of zone doubles is , although I have not heard testimony to the contrary y _ M and test that that can't be dealt with, but it is _ concern. But I think the key factor of this is -- basically I don't feel that -- argument one over the the test has been ent to change the met in ar um " And go away from our limited C-P in the zone comprehensive plan. g Y comp P - in the ,area. 16, 'Fic Studies . „ning Safety TOM R. LANCASTER, P.E. Transportation Engineering GREENWAY TOWN CENTER PHASE II TRAFFIC IMPACT :STUDY Scholls Ferry Road at Sorrento Road Tigard, Oregon PROpt 4` 8454 27, 2239 Monterey Lane Eugene, Oregon 97401 (503) 683-4818 SITE DESCRIPTION TOM R. LANCASTER, P.E. Tr san poi'tation Engineering The proposed development is located on State Route 210, Highway Number;. 143, known as Scholls Ferry Road, at ' the intersection, of SW Sorrento Road in the City of Tigard. Scholls Ferry Road in this area forms the boundary between the City of Beaverton and nd the City of Tigard. The proposed development will be in the southeast quadrant of the intersection The development will consist of 58,000 square beet of commercial retail space. The site design and the parking layout are not time. t known at the present ti Scholls Ferry Road is two lanes in width in the vicinity of the proposed development, with left- turn refuges at the major intersections. The average daily traffic volume is about 13,000 vehicles per day, Sorrento Road enters Scholls, Ferry Road from the north to form a T-shaped intersection. Sorrento Road carries wo lanes of traffic plus a center two-way left-turn lane. Sorrento is controlled by a STOP sign. A drive Y + wa enters the intersection from the south. in conjunction with planned developments to the south of Scholls Ferry Road, Sorrento Road will be extended to the south, and will then curve to the east to intersect SW l2lst Avenue at SW Dakota Street. This extension will probably be known as Dakota Street. On the Dakota Street approach to Scholls Ferry Road, which will form the r e fourth leg of the intersection, there will be two lanes for through plus a northbound left lane and a traffic, p + left—turn l ��n northbound right--turn lane. Scholls Ferry Road will be striped for a left -turn refuge in each direction. The Oregon State Highway Division is planning to install an eight-phase fully actuated traffic signal at the intersection. Construction of the signal is expected to begin in 1586. It is and large housing ,W� understood that two lar developments are currently planned to the south of y Road. a, to the Dakota Both would have. �cc:es5 Scholl street extension. The first development consists of 304 t apartinen units, .. .. ., and the second consists of 120 t single - famil` .' hcuusing units, TOM R. LANCASTER, P.E. Trunaportaiion Engineering It is expected that the proposed development will have two access points to the adjacent street `,ystem, one on the Dakota extension, and one on Scholls Ferry Road. The exact location and the design of the accesses are not known at this time. TRIP GENERATION Projected trip generation can be estimated for the subject parcel both with the existing zoning and with the proposed zoning. Trip generation for the proposed housing developments, which would affect traffic volumes at the intersection of Scholls Ferry Road with Sorrento Road, can also be estimated. All trip generation Projections in this report will be based on data in "TRIP GENERATION", Third Edition, published by they Institute of Traffic Engineers The existing land use zoning for + fo nor the parcel r which the development is proposed is commercial- which allows up to ten percent retail professional, resent zoning, ninety percent of development. Under the p the 5.4 -acre parcel would probably be developed as Professional offices. The estimated trip generation would be about 1170 trip ends per day, about 90 of which would be expected to occt.tr during the evening peak hour. If the r e m a in i ri g 10 percent was developed as a 3000 square foot convenience tore ' theestimated trip generation would be about 970 trips per day, with about g Peak hour-' This 100 tri.:�s occurring during the evening p of 21 4 0' trips per day, with 150 would resul��. in a total occurring during the peak hour. Under the proposed zoning, which would be general commercial, the 58,000 square foot retail center would be developed. . It is estimated that 4760 trips per day .: during the would be generated, of which 450 wr�uld occur durzi� y Assuming g � i cent of the evening peak hour Ass�min that about 25 pe trips would' be diverted from the: passing traffic stream, as' s t e d b y TRIP GENERATION, e 338 of the 450 generated suggested tri.ps;represent new trips added to the adjacent roadway' system, sed apartment development is estimated to The propo� � � _ and the housing :�devele�pment generate 2010 trips peer day, ous er da for a total of 3210 Assuming that 1200 trips p, l' "� about two-thirds' of the trips would use the Dakota si 1 1' TOM R. LANCASTER, P.E. Transportation Engineering Street extension to reach Scholls Ferry Road and that one-third would use 121st Avenue, the number of trips using the intersection of Scholls Ferry Road with Sorrento would be 2150 per day. About 215 of p these trips could be expected to occur during the evening peak hour. TRIP DISTRIBUTION To determine the effect of the propose( development on the intersection of Scholls Ferry Road with Sorrento Road, the intersection level of ' service during the evening peak hour can be calculated first with only the housing developments, and second with the housing developments plus the proposed corimercial, development. It will be assumed in the calculations that the Dakota extension is constructed, and that the traffic signal is installed. All calculations will be based can methods described, in Transportation Research Circular 212, published by the Transportation Research Board. With y the housing developments in. place, the estimated evening peak volume on the two 0 k hour traffic south leg of the intersection. of Scholls Ferry Road with. Sorrento road is 216 vehicles. This would result in a level of service C at the intersection. With the construction of an office development and a convenience store on the subject parcel, the level of service would remain at C. commercial development, although W the access driveway cess drivewa configurations are not known, it will be assumed that there will be full accesses on each j +� streets. It will also b of the adjacent be assumed that g 4-raffic entering and leaving the development will be split' evenly between b e tw een the tw o driveways, that the traffic ` u sing rh S c h o l i s Ferry 1 0ad access y p + evenly between east and west, «n at two-thirds ds of the M ..n. g' will, be to or from, traffic using' Dakota extension will north and one-third will be to or from the south. p ffi on the w With these assumptions, , the t:ra�. �c volume with south log of the inters ection of Scho .ls F erry Sorrento Road is estimated to be 330 vehicles during ; the evening peak hour. This' would ouldresu result in an �n tersection level of service As a mitigative traff'ic measu eir the northbound J TOM R. LANCASTER, P.E. Transportation Engineering ' � �d separately • from , Scholls Ferry right -turn lane on the Dakota extension at Road could be signalize the northbound through movement. This would allow the northbound right turn movement to be overlapped with the concurrent westbound left turn movement, reducing the required green time for the south intersection leg. This would result in level of service C for the intersection during the evening peak hour. SUMMARY With development of the subject parcel under the present zoning, the reconstructed intersection of Scholls Ferry Road with Sorrento Road would operate at level of service C the evening in peak hour. If the during g parcel is developed as commercial retail under new zoning, the intersection would operate at level of service D. However, by signalizing the northbound right-turn lane, the level of service py rvice could be improved to C. f APPLICATION INFORMATION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT REVIEW CITY OF T IGARD, OREGON PART I PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS APPROVAL PROCESS A. Public Improvement Review shall be applicable to X1:1 new developments and remodeling of ex t, g de velopments. B. All provisions and regulations o f the Municipal C ode sh all apply unless modified by other sectiop,r of said Code (e.g. Planned Development, Chapter 18.80; Variance, Chapter 18.134; Unusual Conditions, Section 15.04.120 Sanitary Sewerage Regulation, Chapter 12 :0 ) , C. Thc, a.J' ication and approval E,rocess is a three -step procedure which ! avoly s 1. A Pre2eplication Preliminar. 3' Public Lzurovement Construction Plan Review. ( public improvement construction (Prior to forma,,.., submittal p ans)..,the Applicant must of one copy of the proposed 1 public improvement construction plan, said plan having been P ... to the prepared and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer, t City's engineering office to facilitate preliminary review. Upon conclusion of said review, City staff will contact the Applicant and the Applica=nt's Engineer to discuss any obvious also formal submittal requirements applicable and, t deficiencies , thereto. Formal Public Improvement construction Plan Su bmx_tta.' Circulation and Final Review (Prior to qualifying to receive an approved public 'improvement construction plan to facilitate commencement o construction wok and receipt of buil lag permi is) ..t the Applicant must submit the designated number of sets of plans, AG will have been specified at the conclusion of the aforesaid Preliminary Public improvement Construction Plan Review process, for formal circulation and final review, and simultaneously', must submit the following, a . One comprehensive i t e i�ed ?ubli c l� P tavement Construction, Cost Estimate, prepared and signed by a registered civil engineer. b.' One motes and bounds legal description, prepared and sip ned } by a egistered Civil Engineer' or laud Surveyor on 8 112 A : *�` 1 i 1 ,� `k ,rite bond paper for each necessary dedication and easement Upon receipt of All of the aforementioned, the City will afix lipo p then, either the stamp on one set of the plans and, the, eit its routing P e City or the Applicant shall circulate the plan through the appropriate Agencies for comment and , at.�,ca�dle (It to is a recooP Applicant hand-carry s plan, recommended that the App Thereafter, a c+ted thereby). savingiaof time which will be $ City staff. Should will l be` conducted need by Tina plan review wi. staff, to bring plan be deemed necessary by City revision of the P with established City standards and y it into conformance comments or development ¢ Applicant's Engineer shall p ns, circulation s specifications, stipulations, _ the Applicant and the App then thereof. Should the plan be deemed b�; City then ' be notified ��.�� .. licwant and the Applcant'� staff Co be approvable, the ,APP shall then be notified thereof. Notice of City Engineer approvable plan does not mean that rea�d,�.�neF s Co issue an aPF n can commence nor does it mean that building pemt constructio public improvement construction documentation �n be secured; F rior. to the actual. issuance o� the must first be completed (prior public improvement construction plan). . approved P Public Improvement Construction Documentation public improvement ent (Prior' to qualifying to receive a» appro p commencement of construction facilitate c construction plan to work and receipt of building permits).�..the Applicant dust execute either a Street Opening Permit or a Public Improvement Compliance Ag reement and, also, must submit, the following: Oregon; erf ormane,e bond in favor of the City of Ti staff at gone a° A p City the sum of which will b�� determined by conclusion of the formal public improvement construction c j review pr,oces�, plan circulation ai.d final review ent of al;, requ�.zed public improvement construction b. Paym control (plan rev.tw, field inspection, street andamai cone Plan �p ' maintenance) + r, ght ene gy sign inst.ptla�.io�.t And stteP' li staff, and. -:.,t_ rmined by City �- .will. ' be ...� e Y u� of tahi�.« Applicant at the conclusion of the, fees the s ` will be provided to the App formal public im rovemout construction plan circulation and F final review process. r The city will prepare to number three's _. procedure: To nlari,fy ` ^P � ;meet document and form of construction tgree ent d must then the appropriate The ApL �trJd� it to the �,pnlicant �. shall p�'t;:.:. -� '� and return it to execute (and notarize) the agreement document the City with the Aforesaid bond, (form subject. tt apprrw al a.�c u�� -,�, along by the Cits' Si Simultaneously, %,be Applicant m tra t remit the total aforesaid p ublic u ro vement constr. ct�on p ion review Permit 'was the form of event that Street Opening ., being most fees. selected i�� staff as � construction documentation �,�.lecte by then issue the approve: d b�. �� ap,p,�opr�:at+� for the project, staff will Plan hearid ,�pp;i.icant �na�� public improvement constructio4 p su�se� ,..n+t1 i N, commence public mp° oVetttent construction ware and,, .., 1 ,►' .also, may make application for building p *rm its • in the event. lS:e Agreemtat Way:: the form of that a Construction Come ::zeff as being most construction dtzumentation selected by City iate then, upon Applicant's return of the said agreement appropriate, nts to the City Council. and bond, staff will route both documa, After such Co{sncil acceptance and executions public for staff will then issue the apvi oved cou�ater-eignattaxe s licah�. `may subseq ma uently lan and App also, improvement construction plan may commence public improvet�►ent construction work ands finalize plat ' recording and may make application for building permits. Dedication and Easement documents s $ha l then be completed and recorded. PART II - FLOW DIAGRAM OF AFORESAID APPROVAL PROCESS' PUBLIC'kMPROViEMENT PLAN I PY■ELT,MINARY REvIn PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN FORMAL REVIEW R p T DOCUMENTATION---1 PREPARATION FEE DETERMINATION (TO APPLYCANT)1 STREET OPENING PERMIT BOND EXECUTION (CITY STAFF APPROVAL) FEE PAY6ENT PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN ISSUANCE WORK COMM'ENCEMENT'; PLAT RECORDING & APPLICATION FOR EUILDING PERMIT(S) 1 (TO APPLICANT) COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT & BOND EXECUTION' (CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL', (DEDICATION /EASEMENT EXECUTION & RECORDING) I .44 INSTRUCTIONAL HAND -OUT STREET DEDICATION FORMS The purpose of this hand -out is to assist th' dedicator in completing this form, along with familiarizing the dedicator with the City's legal acceptance process. There are two different street dedication forms used by the City depending, on if the dedicator is 'a Corporation or an Individual- General Partnership If )' form please notify us. ' you have ,received the incorrec ;� fo A. Legal Descriptions 1. The legal only description must onl describe that area being ,dedicated for street purposes. Please do not include an area already`dedicsted. ?,.. If this dedication n is an addition : to existing right-of -way, the alignment of the new right-of-way line must be controlled by the existing right -of -way centerline, wording sufficient to accomplish t his must ' se contained in the legal descrpt ion ;with all new right -of -way, such as in a Major Partition, a "strip" type of dedication is recommended. 3. If the space provided for the legal descrirtion is insufficient, please use "Exhibits". Plane this 'xhibit(s) on the reverse side of this form and reference the front to the reverse side. 4. IT IS REQUIRED 11.1'ff A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR PREPARE THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND CERTIFY IT BY HIS OR HER SEAL. . MAPS AND SKETCHES 1. ' A map prepared on a separate sheet(s) (not larger than 8 1/2" X ") g be attached to this 14 showing the area to be dedicated must ae ,attic form. This map must be neat and legible. • OWNERSHIP AND TAXES 1. 'Please provide documents showing that the signers) i.s the proper owners ). If t P P y condition of a 'current es must � P deve he ro ert �siss under contract both arri s must sin. If this dedication pP of ro e ownership is not required. n, then proof P ��.r a lica do 2. All "back."' and "current" taxes owing on the area to be dedicated must be paid. Washington. county' Depar *.menu. of Taxation'will' assist Y ou in th computation Jf Lhis prorated amau nt. Please provide verification that this has been done. D. APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE PROCESS 1. A.11 dedications; are received and reviewed by the Engineering Section. Plaa.e direct alluest,ions you may have i o 'U on aff a rival of this cement, '`t is. g ing p sit PP � � do Eti ineer suall a ty It. s.ch.eduled for City, Council acceptance u forma..I is then sent to Washingtoitt County for recording. Please notify us where "recorded "'' copi eis►, >of this document should be seat. (name and address . Also p1r are allow 8-14 weeds after Council: acceptance co receive your recorded copy.* (RC pm/O766P ' C z 0 SW # / 4 N W U 4 SECTION 64 [ i 5 M k ` Y.M. it a rw h# f ui ,w r +w+ SEE MAP K'�;.t.tviA,rr+ ,sr tS 3488 1 ION °. ,. ft LL` -' ia.t L • t.a�ia • r VT FERRY K. � W CHoLLS! -,00 s = 30 Z f,r Q WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON SCALE t00` 3 .1" •� at ZS tME y!i'T. uETSisa SPRINGWOOD DR. 27 50 50 al SEE MAP tS 1 34er 1J1 Vl 11 ,y.•I V0, ..i U11i.1 SCALE I ",, 100' Liln.■ti +. 1 ; 52- 41 I c.1:i1 r 1? ,i HO IlGtalrl) 1..,“4. , x. . 1. *, ,-� byr:a•- 1 .1 SEE AAAP yo u �F�� ;�''�!„r,.c r Q .�srrbaiycf'`.rIKec4"it . Cr I S 1 33AA `� �' R�E '" �»e 100,E d /' 'ZOO) : 0° ,1 ,,21 300 -,23 24 cr A� 400 ;- , R TIZS i�►` " 71.0 500 ' 22 b al e0 7r " 700 20 71.x5 600 19 !■ toy e7 ;. ••� *° 900 18 r� r-� , °-- -''''� 000 • IG 17 ,� s r 7,. :5 _�..-- �"""�` u r, 7, 14 j15' 1 yl is ,1 ©u ___,... '" "► /2600 . � SAO 2400 Cµ r U aeC (0. , '` J 2700 ✓ 2300 .. A 70 ►"' ' I _ -'c ,c 9100 � � g 2� 800 �� 2' IODO I35 v . •G. w` e� 4 r 290(. 3w 1 r Y i1 �t ti f :a: ;3000 •� .i 3 I0- 0 5. ,It 19s 3200 7800 D > .11. 9 7 W W 6 m : 23, 122 '3300 tin z 31 C] " We 42 '7: 3400 7700 121 �Y[ yai 300 • 3600 120^ •44„ be 10 7500.N 47 its° 4 '6 °3rzs`, -,i. +0 ''':./ ;,14.3800t1 `'Y^ R.;-' 5'ea ! y jrjp 3900 .° 13 a; 4000 4 4 4100 I4 ^o- 15 rya 16 306' i7 p le i 240 2500 240 SEE 'MAP IS/ '3304 d ro'tot 51 -85 SEE MAP IS I 34 BC 2601 13' (+i aroMNltN: i'.3EA ERTON -.6 s:- ): ,f >: MAP. 334A ' mJ oa$2Z 1.74.5 a es= fa 1.77AC SEE MAP IS I 34 C cx'1' 2' h rJ 65 72 f �,, <b � ' L �� 70.55 70 63 9500 9600 9700 _ _ 10 100 10200 10300` Erd 4. i 16 1 i7 I i8 122 0 123 a 124 0 4.t3 72 5769 t R.ktr , ' t_._.__ 56.24 70 108.62 H5 F""" (02,.51 IpO 0 9400 9800 < 10000 10400 Q.. C. V. 121 �' 125 a Sj 0 P15 M 119 '. 8 . er �. s 100 ---. ` 9900 10500 _...........tp.,,,„.., .R to gz �. � F? 120 }$ a� ter- it 11 ht �� 126 -) 4. 0 ba.3y 1 J�1vc.,1. 78 9100 9Qt C► BIKE PATH , �� �* , ca 77.4 r 76 75 6�, 4.,a s D — s ,0 8900 36.65' 44.94 04 �� 0 0 637;tkLL°* i\N( 69.a6�,') . 4243 • 11036 8600 8700 d 73 6811y0 8500 N �, -� 68p0• 1-� 8`� 00 W 71 p f ,iG 0 �• 70 7 69 N 645 k »' 7d 74 7000 7b 7'3.9G 55 3500 136,84 136.81 3800 128 127 14 7500 74 7300 7200 7100 LANE RiiZ50 ci 37.77 84.34 Q ��'�P 6500 45 71. 63t',G14Ot 54 ot 34 4000 'Fs. /s 30 k ty6.65 a 4100 29 136.6 w 4200 ea 28 136.55 ( ti 4300 71,E 6000 it 4700 y INDIVIDUAL- ,ENERAL PARTNERSHIP ---Rr STREET DEDICATION KNOW ALL ) EN BY THESE PRESENTS, that do hereby d2d .sate to the Public a perpetual. right-of-way for street, road end utility purposes on, over, across, under, along and within the following described real, property in Washington County, Oregon: To have and to hold the above - described and dedicated rights unto the public n ereisiabove stated. forever for the uses and purposes h The grantor(s) hereby covenants that tt,e are the owner(a) in fee simple and the property is free. of all liens and encumbrances, they have good and legal right to grant Y t p h pay xnd owin f� on the rights Above-described, and they will a all taxes and assessments due the property The amount paid fcv this dedication is s IN FITNESS WHEREOF, the grantors) has (have) hereuM o set his (her) (their) hand(s) and seal(s) this ! dal of , 19 • (SEAL) (SEAL) (SEAL) (SEAL) STATE OF OREGON ) ss• 19 COUNTY OF WASHINGTON) Personally appeared the above named who executed this instrument and each of them acknovledged to me that this instrument vas executed voluntarily and freely. Notary I'ublio for Oregon Hy Commission expires: ACCEPTANCE Approvedias to for this day of By a. 19 City Attorney City of Tigard Approved as to le . gai deseziptir,n this day ta'f „ 19 , gy;. Accepted by the City Crune"1,1 this day 'o (1/O4 ) (7-114) ity Engineer - City of Tigard' 194 CITY 'COUNGIL, CITY OF T,IG'kRD, 'r :=CON City Recorder City of fiiu. ard: 0 INDIVIDUAL- GENERAL PAit NERSHIP . 19 between . hereinafter called the second party,. , . AGREEMENT FOR PERPETUAL EASEMENT For Motor Vehicle Driveway on Ad,join$,V,& Parcels Residential Use .d WITNESSETh WnER.EAS, the first party is the owner in iee simple of the fo?1Owing described real property in the City of Tigard, County of Washington, State of Oregon, to wit: and the second party is the owner nfeestate, to w�(tthe following described , real - property in the said City, ,, y a and said tw:ti parcels of real estate aujoin each, other; and WHEREAS, ehe parties desire to grant to each other an. easement and right to use the described motor vehicle driveway now or to be constructed along anal upon a portion of both of the parcels in conjunction with any lawOul use ` consideration ng t the a other an NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration a,f each party's' granting easement hereinafter described and other valuable ch to the other in and paid, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged: FIEST: First party ;:onveys to second party a ,perpetual easement for motor vehicle driveway purposes for use in conjunction with'aty lawful use along and p p y'' property llows; to wit: upon that or�ian of first part E4 described as fo SECOND: Second party conveys to the first party a p rpetua. use slang for. er r use in conjunction with any etual � easement ro motor vehicle purposes for p y. ro ere' follows,* to wit: upon that, portion of second art 's p p y described es fo THIRD: It is mutually agreed that each partf may use innncl motn►gwith t the orther part Y, the whole of faro ere motor ofvehicle ottrdriveway, jor ingress and egress of on the p` i y the motor veh eile�d Pedestrians to an lawful use of fans, and uses incidental proper t, • a a • 0 • FOURTH: This agreement should bind and inure to the be'Y.f it of, as the circumstances may require, not only the immediate partiet hereto, but also to their respective heirs, executors, 'ndministrataro and successors in interest as well FIFTH: (Opt.) The maintenance shall be a shared responsibility of the parties and each of the parties shall share the cost of maintaining, the easement. The obligation to share maintenance costs shall, begin when the driveway is completed. SIXTH: (Optional;) Each of the parties shall maintain liability insurance which, at a minimum, meet the standerd in the industry for the particular types of uses for which the properties ace used. The insurance policies shall name the owner of the adjoining par.^el as an additional insured in connection with the use of the easement. SEVENTH: "In construing the foregoing agreement, the plural shall mean and include the singular whenev'r the context so requires. IN WITNESS WHEREOF* the parties hereto have subscribed this insttumeut in duplicate on ehio the day and year first written hereina Bove S y of )ss. STATE OF OREGON, Court Personally appeared the etz a named 19 to be and acknowledged the foregoing instrument voluntary act and deed. (Official Before me: Seal) .. - Notary Public for Oregon, "y commission expires: (RC:pm /067SP)' L J « #a \ § yewy_ =_ x 11191A ®221 f» # " } < 2 10513 % 390 .. < - A \ W /d .26 Ac : 4 S.W. 01111 Pi= E .\ `\ U9722 300 .§ 7.93 /C. (1037.94) CITYCF TIQA RD WASHINGTON COI.k� TrY, OREGON COMPR;.EHE AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE /ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 'APPLICATION Y NSI'VE ELAN' AMENDMENT /Z CITY OF TIGARD, 12755 SW Ash, PO Box.23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 - (503) 639 -4171 1. GENERAL INFORMATION Schell Parry Rd at Sorrento PROPERTY ADDRESS/LOCATION TAX MAP AND TAX LOT NO- 1S1 34 BC 400 SITE SIZE 5.4 Ac - PROPERTY OWNER/DEED- HOLDER *, S & j= Bifi- Jens ADDRESS r,SW Murray PHONE ` CITY Beaverton ZIP _ 97005 APPLICANT* Po•tland F' yfurw - rm._.,; «.. "VE=717k" S' .— ADDRESS 338 NW Fifth PHONE CITY Portland and ZIP When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a leasee in possession with writtert authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner with written authorization. The owner(a) must sign this application in the apace provided on page two or submit a written. authorize ion with this application. PROPOSAL StriYARY The owners of record of the subject property request a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (if applicable) from COm` 1 P to Ben_ Gnm` l ant, t3. one Change from to GC OR The applicant requests an amendment to the following settibns of the Comprehensive Plan cis Cc mmuttity Development Code _ . (KSL pm/0737P) FOR STAFF USE. ONLY CASE NO. �(l 3 L .�,: RECEIPT NO ,2 APP�,ICATION ACCEPTED BY: DATE: Application elements submitted: (A) Application form (1) (B) Owner's signature /written authorizati:on (C) Applicant's statement (15 copies) (D) _Ei.lin.g ,.fee, .( ._ Z Additional information for Comps sive Plan Map Amendments /Zone Changes (E) Maps indicating property Cr) location (15 copies) List of propP=CY owners within 250 feet. (1) (G) Assessor's Map (;'.) r(H) Title transfer iistrument (1) DATE DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE: FINAL DECISION DEADLINE: COMP. PLAN/ZONE OESIOlgATION: P O . Number: Planning Commiasin Approval Date',; City Council Approval Date: (2 3. List any variance, conditional uses, or other land use actions to x_ considered part p a� axt of this application: p have a' complete application you will . need to submit attachments �. To_ii d3. � �.i.cant � ` Pp • escribed in the att.� rhea information sheet . at the you submit this d application. 5. THE AkPLl(* NT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT re nest does not v any '74>�� The above iolate an deed restrictions that -�--� 9 property • attacched to or imposed u 2E_rhe subject pp . If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions limitations of the approval. of All o the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are trite, and the permit issued., based on this applicants so acknowledge that any p u statements this application, ma be revoked if I t is found that any such statemen false. The ant has read the entire contents of the a p ,' including g li.cation applicant agp�.i the P olicies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. day of 19 ;DATED this SIGNATURES cif each owner (eg. husband and wife) of the subject property. r�r�,Fiis^ 't iM-LLtti. C,, (2) Access (a) rhe` proposed center or ,expansion of an existing center stall not create traffic congestion or a traffic safety problem. Such a determination shall be based on the street capacity, existing and projected traffic volumes, the speed limit, number of turning mo`rements and the traffic genera:.` .,g characteristics of the most intensive use allowed in the zone. (b) The site shall have direct access from one of the following; (i) An arterial, (ii) A collector street which will not direct traffic through local neighborhood streets (3) Aite Characteristics, The site shall be of a :size which can accommodate the present and future uses, but shall not exceed two acres, (4) Impact Assessment (a) The scale the project shall ie compatible .;th the surrounding uses (b) The site configuration and characteristics and relationship toshall the ;�tt^pet system hall be such that privacy of non - commercial uses can be maintained. (c) It shall be possible to incorporate the unique features into the site design and development plan, (d) The associated lights, noise and activities shall not interfere with adjoining non — residential uses. 2. General Commercial General Commercial areas are intended to provide for major retail goods and The uses classified service, wholesale drive—in service d ,.as •ge s . • � combination, of �retail, l ma involve .r�. and services, large .space users, a repair services or' provide Bert, ices to the traveling public. The uses range from automobile repair and services, supply and ecluipment stores, vehicle t • establishments. It it intended that sales, drive -in res �aura•7ts to laundry es these uses be adjacent to an arterial or major collector street. Scala ( trade Area: Varies • ( bite • Siac . t� p ands u�r devcl.c�pment (3) Gross Leasable Area Varies • tel that this wfc'il dc: to, - ^n a Listing traffic s tua;icn, that is not only in- dangerous to `yone using Scholls Ferry Rigid. There will be a Tigard ity council meeting Man Oct. 28th 7 :00 P. M. at Fowler Jr. High. We would rnvient but ppreciate any assistance that you can give us in this matter. We are not in favor of additional retail Dev. and traffic on erry Road. S. W. Scholls PP P'.sD AC R.ES j; 064 SCE0 is S WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMEOT P RY ROAD rea me ma NAM ADDRESS ...___:...rr_._JJ.`•Yrr__. —.w nYrr/. y .4�ry.�Yr r, ,�� '/ /� //��/I�f]4 11-Zenze)-e---e: te. --- 7 '-f? • {r��ww Y+Y _iYw.w rlw�r YM. �M�_ _ V i 9'71,2 — : Ysr _ .Y..,_Y..r Y. YYw.1iJr Jd _YYYjt irl�_+.+w._ ts- t1/4. Y✓ ! � � 4 Application has been made, on a 5 acre site West of the Green way Town Center or a one change to retal,, commercial. We the merchu-4s of Greenwa, an Center 'eel that this will add to an exhistinq traffic situation, that is not only in- onvient but dangerous to anyone usins Scholls. Ferry Road, There will be a Tigard ;ity council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7 :00 P. M. at Fowler Jr. High. We would appreciate any assistance that you can give us in this matter. We are not in fa :,or of additional retail Dev. and traffic on S, Scholls Ferry Road. Thank you Greenway Merchants Grt FIN way TOLN e itof7 PIE P. .9e WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR O) ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT FEFRY 1'RQPOSaD A C R. S ow so MP ow 0 0 Ole WI, OP NO NAME .e,,,e) /..) ADDRESS Th 71 te ii_i 993s—c56,240,111-a- - , i 9 .2 15ri5 .r_ / � ..) _ a (-6.. e r sq i te � wE:L_PPY6[ t-) Y91,15-±w' e1141:11)/ )2/1 f,/.f rx ,..4,4,4,;,4,„ 9 ?,4t .94/ 49,33- pkitiztil,pse, .^ �rTwl �wiaw'YIi�Y+L� »1�4 �'YM�Ai1 _ t 011 kit , .rte. iJ4 Lo tE it111.82,S.6€2 4 Application has been made, on a 5 acre site West of the Green way Town Center "or a ,zone change to retai,„ commercial, We t\ le merch _s of Greenway Town Center °etl that this will add to an exhisting traffic situation, that .s nc: only in- .onwient but .iangerous to anyone using Scholls Ferry Road. There will be a Tigard 4'ity council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7:00 P. M. at Fowler Jr. High. We would appreciate any assistance that 'you can give us in this matter. We are not in favor of additional retail Dev, and traffic on S. W. Scholl-s Ferry Road. Thank you Greenway Merchants IMF Y'AN Oft . PO MI 11110 Mme. 4 1Ih A N.d O'. O. Y.*Q Mt R.ES e ,., A & s �°eaRY ROAa WE AP„E NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT *11,017 4s4 NAME ..-t?..z.fgegg.:skteS,der2ae. ADDRESS •.• ± �' Z a ..1114LOLLaLli-i-atil2lituNSi.p.isi 1.).)8 v F r�+riw�iii� rrr_,11r4r.�Mi •/�rM+r �r��iia w�,r��'r.� ri �: ✓_.�.R iw w /oGM .a ie ��i. wi'�iLti. iA�M�� Ir �'�aw�1r 43. 13,15 3 Y,r _./..wri.Ca- a4c".. Applica'tioon has been made on a 5 acre site West of the Green way Town Center or a zone change to r,eta �,. commercial. We the merchk .ts of Greenway Town Center :eel that this will add to an exhisting traffic situation, that is not only in- Scholls Ferry Road. There will be -a Tigard. :onvient but dangerous to ;•qty council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7:00 P. M. at Fowler Jr. High. We would Ippreciate any assistance that you can give us in this matter. We are not in favor of additional retail Dev. and traffic on S. W. $cholls Ferry Road. anyone using Thank you Greenway Merchants W.lissw r m _s sq.. m...s rw it ‹, m GitEEN WAY Tbi l e EAliE PROPOSeD S A R. E S "' HOAR �" °�i FORRY R040 WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADI TIQNA L DEVELOPMENT NAME J._ 71/LUIZ ADDRR$S T SpecTic-wti.W - L ,.8 Via.. .7,),S\.. ..51.15a.X4 I, 1, 1.11 Jel;:gi',44.S., *1.1111/411114::g44711:6.** 48\ f111., eniC,INOL J11, cV"ifiatAt, ,11. WO, ino 414,4Fed , ti:tom �Y.. iii _rw___wV...:. rY_r�r M._•riW Wwi�WrWW ("Icier' ✓, rL'.�W._W+WWrw_Yii ML 1fi. lin d.._ y4 b.t .i iw +w :iL'Wteri i 'Pt Fs'. 3 Application has been -ode, on a 5 acre site West of the Green way Town Center or a zone change to retain. commercial. We the merchants of Greerway Town Center "eel that tha.s will add to an exhisting traffic situation, that is not only in- lonvient but dangerous to anyone using Scholl!: Ferry Road. There will be a Tigard ;ity council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7:00 P. M. at Fowler Jr. High. We would Ippreciate any assistance that you can give us in this matter. We are not in favor of additional retail Bev. and traffic on °S. W. ccholls Ferry Road. Thank you Gr cenway Merchants ovanworsolsooseissormseoessinosonsissoossemenaseosomporsoomorovasavoserressmossome Or moss is moo IS fa es es ao env r s - r1 leo I. 1 El Efi PR OAS A ° 5 GiLE AIWA' MINN ACRES ° e EWTE t� r I'. 1:11 t 6 t .. e . s i �.r .rr es m .a.... WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITT1NAL DEVELOPMENT NAVE O ADDRESS 4t.rr---..... ).... 404,.4.1041„.45 . ___________ ________ /4.1.,40 ci, 1,J, S' _ ,..11;ti,,,,I ml / ic) Aiw ". .t ► to .. ryG�"�` "'�G'a'�' .. r r r .. r µ...... r .. .. �.5.' w. iu+ yyiJ41J" •��`j�'. wO�}�}}�y�,f.,%Y1 _ Mr Iri 02 .. yyyy [�,y •y � � a ti iaa..12.,..s.i.&...1aCre4.....- te .p-,:ae9 Yu_V + ;? Y _ _Y „...)......-____,.,t iY aw +4 .INflt:itS.,:j41.1.$1=W.1Zadr"\TAi54::) MiwLiL .01 Yr r.1-TMta._ 'w � SrvAiris Application has been made, on a 5 acre site West of the Green way Town Center ar a ,zone change to retai, commercial. We the merbht.,.s of Greenway Town Center eel that this will add to an exhisting traffic situation, that is,not only in-- onvient but dangerous to anyone using Scholls Ferry Road. There mill be a Tigard tity council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7100 P. M. at Fowler Jr. High. We would appreciate any assistance that you can give us in this matter. We are not in favor of additional retail Dev. and traffic on S. W. Scholls erry Road. Thank you Greenway Merchants. as Mr J. WNW, aQ mJi CIA Ph a1.,YO t- s-i Gk EN W14Y TOWN PRoPOSg D 5 A C 6101 IMP ON OM NM MO illat OW *111 SOW., . CHO& L S FORRY ROAD WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADD °,TTONAL DEVELOPMENT NAME �j„1�figea load , ere-441.4- ADDRESS 1 %Jc, ./II . _I � ��Vr � s'wrw�iJ _ri�YU r 14.6al 1,€4 42d 4�,,R�J'iyj�Il �J/i) rw r� 2 +n��i�rs a.�wrrwY arl` r:' iMO yN rrw / //y • 2,2_60riW r4r � V�✓_.W Jr Diu . 4CIL MLi � +b i1X j.i r M� r.�iliii4i Ai 4 Y.. IMINIMININSUSIBEINIMUMMODUagemea MOM AIM7110.= Application has been made, on a 5 acre site West of the Green way Town Center 'or a zone change to retai':• commercial. We the mercha...s of Greenway Town Center 'eel that this will add to an exhisting traffic, situatiOn, that is not only in- :onvient but dangerous to anyone using Scholls Ferry Road. There will be a Tigard Jity council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7 :00 P, M. at Fowler Jr. High. We would ipprecia *.e any assistance that you can give us in this matter. We are not in favor of additional retail Derr. and traffic on S. W. Scholls Ferry Road.- Thank you Gre+enway Merchants P11161)6 Se AC, ItES CI O L L S WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT . .2 A______824VS.T..._a2./-44./4.m.aL-40.11-44.;k.,a."0-)23 .: .4, a L ti Application has been made, on a 5 acre site West of, the Green way Torn Center or a zone change to retat. commercial. We the mer,cha►ts of Greenway Town Center 'eel that this will add to an ex1isting traffic situation, that is not only in- ;onvieant but dangerous to anyone using Scholia Ferry Aoad. There will be a lity council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7300 P. M. at Fowler Jr. Nigh. We would appreciate any assistance that you can give us in this matter. We are not in favor of additional retail Dev. and traffilc on Sr W. Scholls Ferry Road. Tigard Thank you Gre‘nway Mercbh.nts 00 mita. net gm on is Pa maw An. PROiiS' P 5 ACRES iYA?Lrf4t 1 1 r " hm as r/e rd� y ,/ter J70.44 WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL ';EVELOPMENT NAME ADT)RESS ; 5 1 . 1 1 9 . 7 5 rw «..... :. � 4``` = .. 6- ...Pt _rigCary 21. Jy,���� 0 .r_ iY7oO .� CJ0 tti .1144-114.1/441444 909 rY iw� w+ .I.Fliil �...4 ... ... ✓:�w,.i�iq StL +R Rw.ar fir,. {t.3 M ............. ... w. aq ii�.�i411Y rim 4.. ar YY. �4w 1.�.r.4Gw I.t.... iM�i lwli',Fr1.. MAO:ril �i lT. -iN: .4..i4...N+K 7+••+.r. ,.f. w4�u:44'i4,.W..r ..K... .. ar ...a...ai.aJ./.rM+..$i4..w'(iii k..Iw1.G,+iir:.iw....I.. ..... �. r.r.i.... W.Mar.r...w......iir+.. 4i.....1.. r. M.4...M ,.,,4,. iwl,.LL..., .4.,+r ww..'.w p+ f+.n,a:. . wt..d.w M.,.. .w,i:ii w.l.. ... +iw f:h r .. L"+.+.i'c.� '.ii.....w.. ...44.... niA '.. 44?.•. 4. il.. ai .y .....; w a:i......MWi/.i. iiihir Fi. �.". a•.i4... Wi:iir ..Wr+..M.f+.4.iu.i..4ir.. iit Y. Y.N1w.4..r...ir:.ti.../..Wa...i. W'a..:N.ri a. MM w.4 ,.. .'.i.� 4.h ar ..r r 1G. ra.4 WI M.i i. appreciate aI1y ass3.sLanUe 41i4‘. ,yvu We are not in favor additional retail. Dev. an( traffic on S. W. Scholls ti Ferry Road. Thank you Greenway Merchants e.so.oaw.rwarw. MEI PRDPOS D ACILES CNQLL S RRY (NAD WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT • WO OM .04 ADDRESS *.1.147ja'' ,14(21*.e.kfeetetedildtoiwilt .a2222,1- s....=,....�rrr,...w w..w rr0-44,34.346.t0avim, «.�....�..�., rrwwr r.mrr rrr. , �LYirr..rrd�.��`��ai"�ii. i�/ rr l.i r.ur. 1"..r���:J Vitt Ja Application has been *^ade, on a 5 acre site West of the Green way Town Ceiater or a 'zone change to retai\.`i commercial. We the mercha;ts,of Greenway Town Center Feel that this will add to an exhisting traffic situation, that is not only in-. .onvilnt but dangerous to anyone using Scholls Ferry Road. There will be a Tigard ity council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7 :00 P. M. at Fowler Jr. High. We would appreciate any assistance that you can give us in taxis matter.' We art, in favor of additional retail Del, and traffic on S. W. Scholls Ferry Road. Thank you Greenway Merchants 1 m S■W Scar+0LL S WE ARE. NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PRDAOS D rCR.ES F dRY ROAD 1 1 s r* ow tri NAr: UP OM E ADDRESS r; w .raw '4.. ,4J 4,, _.r�r___rMi+�wrwMr ,. LLIJo/ct,aseo.ca.a...eL8,Lftty.eze-2rg-t � _rr�.�t�►L_..l''�"' rte' ' r �1 ZLii� 1w.tiL�i� r�aYL Ye Y�f �Jf�.�r Liw�4G•I�Y�. Yip._ 1� LMi{N. �ra� �� Len ` 4 $ .. �:.� �::�..13 ' i' • `" �17067 of'OLei3/4..6 6 ?!4'( kaL6,1s.--LL.4,411.4.2.2.9.1.1AiL !�C A+' Ii+ 1j h / 4' Lr+E_�_+� _ t rrr r r..rt.r rl rYx r L 4i�.w rd r. a i' rr. r rF wi r r rr r r r — r r rw Yw.Yr.+r1 L r r,'L' -r L r r L iw Hr. r.IYi. r Lr rll r yr liL.rfi.iL4 r Jl'w 'r rr r4 rye rlrrr Ld�r.r irr+r _.i.r+rF+r rY rrr rnrrriLrr L IiL rp'f Y.',�rrw L rl L rY.'ii1 r r i. ii re r W.1iw Application has been made, on a 5 acre, or a "zone change to retai ,, commercial. We th .'eel that this will add to an exhisting traffi ;onvient but dangerous to anyone using Scholls :ity council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7 :00 P. appreciate any assistance that you can give We are not in favor of additional retail Ferry Road. site West of th e Green way Town center e mercha.,:.s o c situation,' Ferry f_Greenway that Town Center M. at Fowler Jr. There will be High. We us in this matter. would on ,S. W. Scholls Thank you Greenway Merchants Ift 4, 1111 .s MAW o.MAI 1F.wceVif 5 AC RES IMO NW OW IMIN, itlf• • � NoLi S. Fe1to A 4I)+ WE ARE NOT IN FAVrR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT ADDRESS �iAl`1E Sp%' Yr a ` J ^te.� k � „CgEs7.0..o ca Cou. ,, va- 5 7°4.5 — — 6 WA 84) 4 -7001 f,4 t _c.3 7 rS� ,,��' Ii.�w” �, ��l (pjyy(/� � � / /J�.��'�7�✓- �, wrr -tea a" r SiilL;ie4f.O.T1 *720,S-- 14 .. q tr.:,.. 0444 = 4.1z J' G` tai. L ":iLrYw Applicat.un uae beer ade, on a 5 acre site West f the Green way Town Cente or a zone change to retai,. commercial. We the merchants of Greenway Town Center 'eel that this will add to an exhisting traffic situation, that 10 aot only in- onvient but dangerous to anyone using Scholls Ferry Road. There will be a Tiger ity council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7:00 P. M. at Fowler Jr. High. Wo would appreciate any assistance that you can give us in this matter. We are not in favor of additional retail Dev, and traffic on S. W. Scholls ,erry Road. m Thank you Greenway Merchants L r-- GkEElUI Y TOWN Q PROP e s a 1 5• AC R.ES Myo +'oer..MD dm. s w ur am WRE~NO FAVOR-OP ADIT IONAL DEVELOPMENT NAME A DRESS lihar.L2 get-a 344t)k _ _ \pAti_or.c1-100-1. lis- s Fr 017202, IG g5-s— c . 0 ".() a 4 P., Cife-16 /Jo Wq .-1,16fr 4, r4 .r a r - r •'• II C4C` > "TA �?_I.___�_ tQ?.�:? ..mod .,W`(. ergth att 7k6 1w ti. l� .12 .....(22E-Pr-) r -) 97017 w' " 1 _ .: -,.._,....-:r.. _1_... \,mow _..�.. w,� -_ ..�......j.._.._ —..--'---r;-------..—'2) .F iww�+'_wYYn iLl�w _.�. )Ir Yi .iw 4.4w1.. *--::b. .:,( sYu 2rY w. rq.:1: 3 tr ,41 .►�..:b 4.0 1315.- C.: EA T . LC 47 tl.........�.�w Yil +w.Wl, r:•cl...,, Y. sst��r�..i..r....:..L �..��i��:,:u4r. L . . V...i. YN'r aLii� 5i4 r +i :w..i;tii a .. . .. (42) Application has or a zone change to 'eel that this will :onvient, but dangero ;ity council meeting appreciate any assis We are not in f Ferry Road. 3) been made, on a 5 acre retalt commercial. to West of the Green way Town Center We the meroh , .s' of Greenway add to an exhisting trafiEi us to anyone using 1cholls Mon Oct. 28th 7:00 P. tance Town Center c situation, that is not only in- Ferry Road. There . will be a Tigard M. at Fowler Jr. High. We would that you can give us avor of additional retail in, th&s matter. Dev. and traffic on S. W. Seholls Thank you Greenway Merchants Et kWJ 11V 1lY YhWN eEA/7E It PRO P O S 4D 5 ACRES b lb. Or Ill. Imo' am #U oils e oLi s FERRY ROAD WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAh DEVELOPMENT NAM a ADDRESS _14a 1 g S _T1?A .4 rib Lfres .024-1:11,4,2 ,..1220,...W.Lc261/4 /52'd l'4715V;""' f ''\\IW&V\C)0,A,LZ wd w � c'c/rit . .1-'i.w_w;4.ywr ( www Wri4_�.. ir.' .�1i.r�I_�,s Ya w +•pwi i�lw.n Y.:,ai:...rur�rw r •d.r.w —r .iWnr wY. IiYww wr.W irw W:W rr.. W_..ti'.w —_lei wi 1. wax ..ilWwl— e.'Mrrri�w,..— wvt.M+`r it.A Ni �' . : i.. . ... .. .� .. ..N..'. ir.'w. rb'.:_w.:.: iii:'•w. iL W.i,r.. r A.Iwu.,v.i�.r k.iw%�1 rrwl..wW4i Wiwl ..._. f wart- Applicati ^n -has bee& de, on a 5 acre site West L ' the Green way Town Cente or a zone change to retail commercial. .:e the merchants of Greenway Town Center 'eel that this will. add to an exhisting traffic situation, that is not only in- :onvient bt,t dangerous to anyone, using Scholia erx,y. Road. There will be a Tigar ;ity council meeting on Oct. 28th 7:00 P. M. at FbWIer Jr. High. We would appreciate any assistance that you can give us in this natter. We are not in favor, of additional retail ,Dev. and traffic on S. W. Scholls Ferry Road. a e;, m At .+....•ice. 4. 2F® GRIEN WF Y TOviiht e EAITER. Thank, you. Greeniiay Merchants p!6posaP c i=fRRY WE APSE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT AM .4",..f /fa -6L<---ea.P7Z__ .../44_77.. ___,... (....,,/,4k_el.._ ""-, ` �g9- -- .,.),.. t '1 _ mo ,:; _.... _'_.. '. ''�IM_._r.. � Ir G . r )) :y ll ... .,4 N.f i ...6..........-... L.r.i.. rr V'..T. "mod.. ` ' Ok. 10360_ ..(,..g.ntosidu_ -745,)-A'.. e ✓l1 �_W W V i w.�r . . y _L_ r .. i ..w/.:i'iw. W.C1. ..... v..r. i...i- ---...-- -- .rrli.---- il....— ..- u.._... —i... WI H.... r.'_...- u....hYw.i.. V:_y y ..Wb.......1 .... .4...,rr. 1..d4*i... ..... W...:. .i. 4.uGL.1. "w ....,l ..wi . w.•' _ W W I.+..w1. .. it. .+. 4. .. .....air r...... w.. J...' i..•Wr Wr u.iw ... v........ r i1 144 I ....i.w.:PJ. 4. A.......I._i... w.. 3':.:.. W.: .A `A '(44) Application has been , ',de, . on a 5 acre site West , -o£ the Green way Town Center etai We the merchaits of Greenway Town Center 'or a zone change to r eel that this will add to C011c «li::rcial. an exhisting traffic situation, that is not only in ;onvient 11ut dangerous to anyone using Scholia Ferry Road. There will be a Tigard 3ity cou icil meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7 t 00 P. M. at Fowler Jr, High We would ipprecLate any assistance that you can give us in this matter. W41 are not in favor of additional retail. Dev. and traffic on S. W. Scholls Ferry ltoad rrs Thank you Greenway Merchants GR.EENW14�t' TOWN €EA/TER St'.v0t£ a WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT FERRY PRD P US D 5 R.ES ar.woo es. weww R040 NAME ADDRESS r_r __:___ r__ r . w_r' (.r w�au _..���__Y.r_r_iA_rw._ ► /_(\/__. _.u.O _n�___3rrdih _r_ , c, .. . 4. . ... 4. 01* .1 .... tor . .....1.3,11)..5 ..' 5...o. . csm.,'.. (110.',0401, .... killiiiii41.--_—_-__. __ 11342.4SIL'._ 14‘113i iti •i., 14447774.,— �iCGG.�'c ..S.44'" ;i''2 - _ 14 -Cit, JJ(7 .J W 1 ri(4 ':') —.4-4 4 y al I ter', 0J, - 1 r.. .._'..,:..i_i._1....+.Ii ' w_.._:r...r_:.. Y._i. .....r.._._.d_ri.w w_. 3.... ._.L......r..r .................. r�_G.r .i r. ..Y wL. 4i. Mi -..__ .- +u_r.+.w"_w- w- ..W-...... :._. i. ..�r.'r.r.ri:. "_riWr..___wi..:. Jl .w.i. i....rr. _.iwl w.w�_::rr wiMrw...i.w i...w r.n v.i r•y.r _..w M....._u� w. ra.ili....._._w..i.f...i.i lY 7.. wuiw.WiM rr.r4rw.iw_LL.:Y. Y. Y..i liYl:irlMwf.i1'M...F ....... :Nd.i ww. WYN �.It M1 x.11 wrM fw.... _�___.rw ...__......'.i r.. «..:....' _ _+'ii:.d.r.w.iJ : i.Y.+.4.1..'•.ia..G...k MiMirr lw 4.,tii..wli.44i'.+lu . w �:..,r:.r«. w.w.•%« i....•,.ir �.....c..S_�+. _.. ^w _ {.. •..' _ __ _ __..1.._ _ r'_:_ W 4..._ Li.+F.M...____._Wr _..._...__ 1.. ...i..'...r__.r..i..I._,i.i_i.. u...._.. W �..!_..Mr':i.w.Y._`,wi_Yw WI.1...n.. r,f« ►fix •••.r _:�:.._ • t r Application has been ade, oa a 5 acre site West f the Green way Town Cente or a zone change zetai zommercial. We the mercha a of Greenway Touu Center eel that this will add to an exhisting tra- "*.: situation, that is not only in- :onvient but dangerous to anyone using Scholls Ferry Road., There will be a Tigat :ity council meeting Mon Oct. 2tth 700 P. M. at Fowler Jr. High. We would appreciate any assistance that you can give us in this matter. We are not in favor of additional retail Dev. and traffic on S. W. Scholia 'erry Road. rrs at Wi Thank you Greenway Merchants AM IN,. MOS 1.16 GIZEE141,1111Y TOW N e EA.)7 E — rest R R04 0 3,W. CNOLL WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT NAME ADDRESS a . . ... . . a =1_4 41)3;a*._41%11-441,0:d.,=L_APJJele__SQ_I; -------------__ .... cazatub 16c-fivr,:prou r“.ko sc-J ft0,4ere,) eQfrft (P&p iti-tleAtiLtL Vhit) Pg )1( '-?.t5A)(?:444_6sesie.z.P.E:t:s4›,.2 4 .4.. a ...a...a.. ... Application, has been made, on a 5 or a one change to retail' commercial 'eel that this will add to an exhisting :onvient but dangerous to anyone using :ity council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7 :00 *predate any assistance that you can We are not in favor of additional Ferry Road. acre site West of the Green way Town Center We the merchait,s of Greenway Town Center traffic situation, that is not only in Scholls Ferry Road.; T4ere will be a Tigard P. M. at Fowler Jr. iii g1.. We would G give us in this matter. retail Dev. and traffic on S. W. Scholls Thank you Greenway Merchants GREEN WAY Y TaW N e EA/7E g. pRo1pO5!! D S AC. S s ...a a "- �',��q R M ROr4 D s,W. scM ®i 6 S WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT NAME ADDRESS �' -rte � q') tIlli_Claa-Lt"\, ]5 e):21%.. $pUtP6PA e- (;) LA& 8L0 S ( 02- q-12-2z ../Aggy,P /32.0..o � f ,y J 1,,.I,. y(Fy.�/ rTw,?iw4t w� l d.2).k App.»"RtiOfl has been -de, on a 5 acre site West f the Green way Town Centt or a zone change to retail commercial. We the merchants of Greenway Town Centet 'eel that this will add to an exhisting traffic situation, that is not only in- :onvient but dangerous to anyone using Schol s Ferry Road. There will be a Tigat ;ity council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7 :00 P. M. at Fowler Jr. High. We would ippreciate any assistance that you can give us in this matter. We are not in favor of additional retail Dev. and traffic on S. W. Schoils Ferry Road. Thank you Greenway Merchants GIZEEN WAY TOWN cEAMEJ PP6Pl5S4D. AC R.ES ow amm nor elm woo 064 4 sCH O L L S FEARY ROAD WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT ADDRESS El /IU S �y♦� k'...*_,.4..... I __.rir LY V_.._r r ■Liatu - ti--3-0--t13 - 4121a..Vkii4-, eat,. k4--/9:6(6'. f L aar______ .4/...A4SE3........ .....k...............4._ 9 » ��1 , _ 1 e. 44"...:-.-q..t.i.44.-- a..., 40 I. 1 0 641).4 el iWi jlnr ♦ i„n"iMr iii Yw Yii k iiil ii{ iw M1u W�lii in Mi i � w4 ri' -Y+4 � wi M� yyyiib'A�i'_ 48 1• Application has been ade, on a 5 acre site West of the Green For a zone change to retail. commercial. We the :eel that this will add to an exhisting traffic :onvient but dangerous to anyone using Scholls Ferry Road. way Town Center mercl}ants of Greenway Town Center situation, that is not only in- There will be a Tigard City council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7100 P. M. at Fowler ',Jr. appreciate any assistance that you can We are not in favor of additional Ferry Road. rirs m High. We would give us in this matter. retail Oev. and traffic on S. W. Scholls Thank you Greenway Merchants GkEEWWAY TOWN eE.A/TEit asrw.. mi.a a. pRoposaD 5 ACIRES wT 1w M e. r ri,w re. 016 r. w. w. �.. FORRY AOAO WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT NAM* 1 ADDR.E Clq 51A) Cti)181)(t8 ITIOCS x r p _.44r31.. :1g. i i,... ... 722-3 two )4, 41410V r.r ,..00241"2"- .. w • igii —131222- I s_Dzicg:-...._Btii...1700.s-- 1 L 5 j-.74eo, yy, .r ' ��I`,`� (:yam{+ J✓'f`' ,�! y b,.6 -e. 54d ' 1.brir ri l.4 _viii mor 0 iesti44. iyie. ?mac • one s been made, on a 5 acre ,si'cee� to retail, 4 mmercial. add to an exhisting eel that �k$ onvient bA. ;;,, ous to anyone using Scholls Ferry R ity council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7:00 P. M. at Fowls ppretiate any assistance that you can give us in this We are not in favor of additional retail Dev. and We the merchan\` traffic sltuation, 'erry Road. Green, ,way o f .,4,C.ic, eRn w a y T that is not only ter d. The will be a Tigard Jr. High. We would matter, traf£tc on S. W. Scholls Thank you Greenway`114pant ie ..I /M1p1A M 11 $ w . 0£' L R WE Alt NO T FAVO _p4;AZDXTIONbL]1MLQPN. w FERRY � ES8 ,.. .. 4,/.. -SACALITtr rrrmr +.rrr..rrr. �i.wJ..�F/�d•G r> �. r .w r u 40 ui 14 144.44.44.0, w�-- �1 r x. d Gam. �►�/a u,r r.: "a�i:i �+. r�..L 4. M4 W.r ���.- .. r 14.4.411 :Uw. 14. 4141.4417Yi�YF YaIw. W r 44 w.'r tl 14w � l� Application has been made, on a 5 acre site West of the Green way Town Center or a one change to retail;,. commercial. We the mercha ,s of Greenway Town Center `eel that this will add to an exhisting traffic situation, that is not only in ;onvient but dangerous to anyone using Scholls Ferry Road. There will be a Tigard .ity council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7 :00 P. M.. at Fowler Jr High. We would appreciate any assistance that you can give us in this matter. We are not in favor of additional retail Dev. and traffic on S. W. Scholls Ferry Road. Thank you. Greenway Merchants &kEEIV W14Y' TO IY €EA/TEA PR POS P AC itES .90A6 crMOLI S FERRI Ro4o WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT a i.«1 NAME ADDRESS; r� J j r�J ............. ..... ,�,.Wi.. W — ,.• .:yr p.... ,11u t� : � (:i�Q' ,____zelli i ` ,,46,Ade dei--' W n.4�. r ir.i..M V1 r wzo ✓w�- �MI..Y.iOJI �.. ww��_�W MIY ��rilYy ��ii'�M I_I..wwFdt 774 �r1 aqtrM S i "�iV' City council meeting Mon Ort. 28th 7:00 P. M. at Fowled: Jr. High. We wouia appreciate any assi stace 'Lnat you can give us in thie- .latter. We ate not in favor of additional retail Del', and traffic on S. W. Scholis 0 Ferry Road. Thank you Gree :way► Merchants PROPOSAD AC /L E S etiv�.� FeRRY' Ro40 WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT NAi ado ADDRESS eeettekA z65.5A-'42te.ack_ds _12:540 4E- S7 cg',0,6 t.. q ,36,„,,,..0 IN 7420 si-vi.P.,....„ t, R t*tl 1 f _rwY4_i�.w b. Yy_M q■ et 04 q 16Z.P4 111 ray_ f.::. r ice. 1_-.`.i.id. Application has been r le, on a 5 acre site West of the Green way Town Center a one change to retail'Ycommercial. We the merchaets of Greenway Town Center ?eel that this will add to an exhisting traffic situation, that is not only la- aonvient out dangerous to anywle using Scholls Ferry Road. There will be a Tigard amity council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7 :00 P. M„ at Fowler Jr. High. We would 3ppteciate any assistance that you can give us in this matter. We are not in favor of additional retail Dev. and traffic on S. W. Scholls Ferry Road. Thank you Greenway Merchants c:• igkEEM WAY TOWN eEithlit PROPOSED 5 'ACRES P .1 ;,....----sf-'--„E SAW. ARE „7 NAME ;thd S FERRY R040 NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL 'DE'VELOPMENT' ADD'(ESS d0� 24 tie 5 r.'r !,d t _csZ:'!ns2Q 97at1 694 tek4 2(7 eal .9+C- _S_CZ IPCs ft,ielk"`.rgt iL ›_. _ L L Application has been le, on a 5 acre site West the Green way Town Center n M' a 41'41 y; or a zone mange to retail commercial. We the merchants of Greenway Town Center ;eel that this will add to an exhisting traffic situation, that is not only in-' :oavie but dangerous to anyone using Scholls Ferry Road. There will be a Tigard ;ity council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7 :00 P. M. at Fowler Jr. High. We would appreciate any assistance that you can give us in this mattes. We are not in favor of additional retail Dev. and traffic on S. W. Scholls Ferry Road. Thank you Greenway Merchants rw=smrts.ii..41..rrtas.tat. PRARbSep s A RES 4141 w afiN 4181.. .r e 0 4. t s FERRY ROAD WE ARE NOT EN FAVOR Of ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT NAME. ADDRESS '_ _.._r %� le013s7 8 ./ ' wNJ ..r r __ +r...r_1. -.Jr __.r:............................ .._W. 41r r..r ..i•rrrr r_ -wrV.n ..r rr.._ _ Y ,t.; C/0 4141.._.. - 4141- 1.- 4 � r yIl te .cJ. y i r ., ' I t w ..„ : r. 4181,, _.:rrrirrl.14141. r.—..ri.i lrwrr. «. b: w..r r.... +�' Mt 41._ _ _4 _ i ji et / /Aye Sld, 1 Met)t ed 1'....r....v_�., 4141 ai.__�,..w r- 41....+x. :4141.. 4141 4141 4141. �., wr.e,.� Ill l✓�� 1'�� C.f, ZQ . iL: i....r J.. ,....,..- i:i,...:.J.4..Wit6riW rfw..1r. ... Y Kli r.. «. C.i....:i:i. L.. ....0, 141,E r,.. ... wi r G.... fw «.. .4.... 4ii . r ■ ii.�Yw rF r. +...i... W ri 4. ii,e .sv. v i5 .i ..,r rY:wr.ir ..... N..... . . Affil r, r r 4141.... G 41. li. y... . i..r�.. •4141.. r.: r r ...iii.. _ r d.t ..+. r ............. ...r Ii6 l..5.1....Iv... 1 Application has been made, on a 5 acre site or a zone change to retai :ommercial. 'eel that this will add to an :onvient but dangerous to anyone West zf,! the Greeft way Town Center We the merche s of GreenwayeTom. a Center exhisting traffic situation, that is not only in- using Scholls Ferry Road. There will be a Tigard ;ity council meeting Mon ,Oct. 28th 7200 P. M. at Fowler Jr. High. We would appreciate any assistance that you can give us in this umtter. We are not in favor of Ferry Road. in additional re tail Dev. and traffic on S. W. Scholls I Thank you Greenway Merchants &kEE411/AY `SOWN EAITE. PROPOSeD AL R.E,S U SCH 0 L S f14R11 ROAD WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIOAL DEVELOPMENT MO MINI OP NAME 4$m, ADDRESS l` Gam.. »L�± -= d ...1222LCILigpli rr_ _ V e_ y rY�r_W r9s.w _r. -tat alz 62, 10 "r rr&LL 906-so Zvit'Lkae45,t4112egaik o e7 el,e)rit 01'n tee ... __ rr1', W.. I�... �. iw ._.d_�rrrr- .i�.iw+r_r_,�r�:.i. wif�..:.w ..,�l:•r'.:• (��+yb 'er 414 cwc I " �� r11 �ilf i ll s 4 „Lr u� •IG wGI"..13i: �.i A p' r, plicaton has been r 'e on a 5 acre site West of the Green way Town center a or a zone change to retail commercial. We the merchants of Greenway Town Center 'eel that this will add to an exhist.ng traffic situation, that is not only iu onvient but dangerous to anyone using Scholls Ferry Road. There will be a Tigard ity council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7 :00 P. M. at Fowler Jr High. We would appreciate any assistance that you can give us in this matter. We are not in favor of additional retail Dev. and t taffic on S. W. Scholis Gerry Road,, Thank you Greenway Merchants 0 ,,JOP M Alm OhMID ,.. tee! PRdPeiSe ACES Sc QL1.S WE ARE NOT I'N FAVOR OF :;UDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT AME ADDRESS Aitiblat4-: 1.1i.o...ntit.`",a.14.,...„*.e.d......... leArsA3,23.9iiki,10___ _ Paoli. .......—IMI4eytt..,- . _ . 4,44t,.. T. ,,a„,.(...,,?.. .S..-VZ. enti)X6ZS. .:,....... 'LIT 7Z/SL `41 . 0/ce67re-, ? s 4 7-PL .. 7 war Application has been made, on a 5 acre site West of the Green way Town Center or a zone change to reta commercial. We the merch,_ :s of Greenway Town Center 'eel that this will add to an exhisting traffi c. situation, that is not only in zonvient but dangerous to anyone using Scholls Ferry Road. There wi11'be a Tigard ;ity council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7 :00 P. M. at Fowler Jr. High. We would appreciate any assistance that you can give us in this mater. We are not in favor of additional retail Dev. and traffic on S. W. Scholia Ferry Road. Thank you Greenway Merchants ar orw�Y��ro�a w...�r.un a►� PR P O S'g ACRES - „d4,01„ts FERRY ROAD Sew. WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT OM OW MP OK NAM ADDRESS /_622 .SW =era: de4LiGaa. _ +.. ''Zi/S6= a a a 12014.11.50.0_5 a�,1 -2 , . - _ tee 1‘43 7 1...3kg.—.....t12'.......1q.1(0---1,74S-9,:5-1!0! 4)/44.),P,t4L47'.92, ,04 / '''' -4 ktiAlL15'6i).1;62./_ _ Pad. _ _ 770 3 .20,2Lsta_ ... 7.1i2'3,-.4iff7,07 b c,�U . / 21 U P1r* L ��1 :._w1 -�Yrwl it +wr_ri :.ljw .d iw._Mlr blesz geLblit-14Aroti) ocrei Application has been m.de, on a 5 acre site West the, Green way Town Center, `or,a zone change to retail commercial. We the merchants of Greenway Town Center 'eel that this will add to an exhisting traffic situation, that is not only in- :onvient but dangerous to anyone using Scholls Ferry Road. There will be a Tigard .ity council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7 :00 P. M, at Fowler Jr. High. We would of appreciate any assistance that you can give us in this matter. We are not in favor of additional retail Devil and traffic on S. W. Scholls ?erry Road. Thank you Greenway Merchants s.A. a:.o t .. .1. 1R.EEMUWAY Tom/ ti EAPTEPt rav PRO POSAD 5 A /,. t E S t a SeWe WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVEL0PMENT AME ADDR.V .� eet:eitz.et /ao w .: r►..::�__:� __ ;� b `30 S r l r mil , " I...r r�rr_ y..rJr.Ir�_wr1i��Lrwr ri�..ilV�.i qIwo__ .l .W 115-6 6 V140 410 Application has been made, on a ! site West ;of the Green way Town Center orr a, one change to retail commercial , We the merchil is of Greenway Town Center 'eel that this will add to an exhisting traffic situation, that is not only'in- �on°iient but dangerous to anyone using Scholia Ferry Road. There will be a Tigard d g y i ar g would .zty council meeting M. h Oct. 28th 7 : -00 P. M. at Fowler Jr. High. We Yppreciate any assistance that you can give us in this mattchro We are not in favor of additional retail Dev. and traffic on Sa El. Scholls Ferry Road. Thank you Greenway Merchants PROPO S4 5 ACRES GREEN W Alf Tc%N1 EiViEtt ( ROAD WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL' DEVELOPMR•?T , e" N $ ADDRESS , 4C1.2.1- -././:‘?"&62262ii644121..itZer' ---..-1=......SiU@G44iLlegt 1 / + (gyp_ ° ;) bd wA 4,4.b �. t. w�1idl .rA Yrw_- wwrw _ �r wl �+lwwwr 11..e0...e?‘.22...82ualith..i, (a/6dg Asaa....dae4‘.....: " W...4("Va„!../. ..'4.' JZ eft 5b0t, CZ7‘,6_, 0 A Application has 'or.a zone change been made, on a 5 acre site West of thu Green way Town Center to rota "I:J. commercial. We the merchants of Greenway Town Center ` in eel that this w�3.'1 add to an exhistin g traffic situation, that is no t only :onvient but dangerous to anyone using Scholls Ferry Road. There will be a Tigard ;ity counci?,'meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7 :00 P. M. at Fowler Jr. High. We would appreciate any assistance that yoU can We are not in favor "eery Road. m give us in this matter. of additional retail Dev. and traffic on S. W. Scholls Thank you GxeenwaY Mero1ant:5. �,.:.. + it 0...44047 Gk ENw 1Y ThiNX c EATER odd dr 4 1 _rr WE ter /nab. to use wl aRD P 6 5e D S AC R.ES O,y, , cNOL I. 9 FERRY Ao o NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT i ADDRESS DDR�ES;S a// ^.w 0 rr I, U %/'C: 1'� f JCL 9%i l efr 31,4i r...rr.. `�' ro 2iamouh,v‘Y1006'.. 1 y17 t2 "IR CA .1 Application has been made, on a 5 are site West of the Green way Town Center ,or; a io.r.e change to seta ',:.. commercial, We the merch`a•,:ts of Greenway Town Center ,eel that this will add to an exhisting traffic situation, that is not only ^a'n- .onvient but dangerous to anyone using Scholls Ferry Road. There will be a Tigard ;ity council meeting Oct. 28th 7:00 P. M. at Fotaler Jr. High. We would appreciate any assist .tce that you can give us in this matter. We are not in favor of additional retail Dev. and traffic on S. W. Scholls Ferry Road. Thank you Greenway Merchants astsamor 1 PROP SA 1 « GREEN WAY TOWN xi it t rn 1 M • b... viers.. mimes w... a. U s W.. ScNoL4 S FEAR; ROAD WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT NAME ADDRESS 9 Vic. ---- - -7....._- _ -_... .. - -Zt- p-_• .-/". wd..44- .4S."44; , Fu 9 7ud•'— ILLSI LI., . .. _ill .: ..... W- _ — ia_.. . -4. i' 1 bp _%a1-,La ' •r--- -.ter.. _..w_ti.r,wr' J. i 1..: , W - M/-1), L. 1 _ ,/ ,/� .-.t- ....._ 4 ,6_ `___..�.L. ' ©.. J»1L4.")Cr4iy:!.�LCrt.4.;0:_ —_G r ° .r • 44, e,� 4,:a3 /+e �. _co �— ,6„). - .., _ — _h.__ ,AIWI.LA11,514.4U.Ir z.Jayso L ciit -to oq.-- }a Ste' C,,'' »'., ��_rr�..i r..Yrrrr.r .._w �'��r �`i. Yir_ L= wrr. Y_rL_.r N1.�w �.wY wlwiw_._ Jetre'Precid _ Yr - ,. r,.•�„i rr:� rn ,y :T.z�.,��c� X72 ,� Yl� // y}�� /♦ �,Y..` �r f j'` y. - r'" � � ✓r..�' ,rid:: �i ��,�+ '�y/✓j''} - f'.�` `'.,.'_ � +yry �.rf.4+r+'..rw_ f• ♦1i!' �r M.�. r.r.�i...— _r1.._.. ... us.— .lr70:f��.r� r .4 �'.,7'. K,,(.0_,,,,uck. i. t -1 '. r � � r iL..'tw I..twL. iF�./ owi cr2 7,„ +M Y.. Y..rr .Ilr M_ r._ w.YW`wT4 Q � s is 'or. Application has been made, on a 5 acre site West of the zone change to reta. commercial. 'eel that this add to an exhisting :onvient but dangerous to anyone using Jity council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7 :00 ippreciate any assistance that you can We are not in favor of additional Ferry Road. 3 m m Green way Town Center. We the merctit.uts of Greenway Town Cen+ :er traffic situation, that is not only in- Scholls Ferry Roast. There will be a Tigard P. M. at Fowler Jr. High. We would give us in this matter. retail Dev. and traffic on S. W. Scholls Thank you Greenway Marchants 6ItE.EN WAY TOM/ €EATE4. too .16 ,9 t 1 Imo CAA 4404.4.4.44441.444e.i►eakftw.rw.w ♦. PROPOSIED sd AgR.E F1'kRRY A* 40 SOW, Se/401.A 5 WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF AL DITTONAL DEVELOPMENT ; iv "VP" Ae • ",ADDRESS azVASILListapd 97/ f 01, 'L ? . 241. ezi ak4 age,. �l',1�r/y� Ste 4.C.441 i. 44.444 1D t iii+ .! 44 ow 4to 44,44 Lf i. Application has been made, on a 5 acre site West of the Green tvwii commercial, We the meretit-ts of Greenway Town Center 'or a zone change to reta` - 'eel that this will add to an exhisting traffic situation, that is not only in- :.onv°ient but dangerous to anyone using Scholls Ferry Road. There will be a Tigar ity council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7 :00 P. M. at Fowler Jr. high. We would Yppreciate ary,assistance that you can give us in this matter. We are not in favor of additional retail Dew. and traffic on S. W. Scholls. Ferry Read.. Thank, you Greenway Merchants GkEEIJW11Y •oiNN eEAPTEtt PP PO e D ACRES SSW. ,RCN o x FOR V ROA° WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT NAME ADDRESS .MM11rV �w__1��Y i��w YMSyi�j _wY�wM. Year r_ czgza74.6 ■ (4,7' ■■ / ` . ; Wi: ∎. — - Application has been made,. on a 5 acre site West of the Green way ToTr : ^zz,_er or a one change to reta``.. commercial. We the merch'iavts of Greenway Town Center 'eel that this will add to an exhisting traffic situation, that is not only in- ;onvient but dangerous to anyone using Scholls Ferry Road. There will be a Tigard ity council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7 :00 P. M. at Fowler Jr. High. We would iprreciate any assistance that you can give us in this matter. We are not in favor of additional retail Dev. and traffic on S. W. Srholls terry Road. Thank you Greenway Merchants aRbA6sef AC RES scHoL4 S WE A1U''NO" IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT a4 NAME' � - -� -�r C�� L ✓r 405 ../..d.4.0 S641 /At '13 _ 5:2'4 16)2, -r- ---' > 23 r ate ja? at) ArAkki fb-e6,10/ r Lc) P,s"` /6& 1*..26,S7ar .S . Appli',aticn has been made, or a zane change to reta, on a 5 acre site West of the Green way Town uentier commercial. We the merch,.ts of Greenway Town eel that this will add to an exhisting traffic situation, that is not only ,;:onvient but dangerous to anyone using Scholls Ferry Road. There will be a amity council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7:00 P. M. at Fowler Jr. High. We would appreciate any assistance that you can give us in this matter. We are not in favor of additional retail Dev. and traffic on S. W. Scholls. Ferry Road. Center in- Tig& rd Thank you Gri enway Merchants ,r 1•■ E. WI mraf a► Mk 1.• .1 5 IC ILES 1 on. Iwo FERRY Ao O WE SARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT NAME ADDRESS 77 6SI141 --alg-OSLaC(J'AVAL:Tetko( _w_..1.r "r_rw "�_rwr r_.. w...r _.r..rr.w.bu. ■ 'r «.y 1'14' ..:.1� ..... '',, I. ...,...L. .i'. ..,y.A,,,,.".,.ia/Y.1.Ete-Z,:.gE V din lr .N ,,,, w.s wY. 4,2 iL 4LWr.W Mi .i. 1n1 M4 4'Ll"ivYi w,Y, t Lei:.:. ,Aa, ∎ wl: Ji wi. iM1... 6+.. aY_ "w.kvr:..i.: AA «;i:l.r�+I�L 1. :i U.W I..I +-W Yr r4:i tiJ W.II.A+LY wai iilr . ..w L..i.l •c::.. r l...w.. Application has been made, on a 5 acre site West of the Green way Town Center i or a zone change to retaL commercial. We the :eel that this will add to an exhisting traffic . zonvient but dangerous to anyone using Scholls F yity council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7:00 P. 14. at. merchants of Greenway Town Center situation, that is not only in- There Road. There will be a Tigard Fowler Jr. Hig''.. We would appreciate any assistance that you can give us in thi-. .I,attox.• We are not in favor of yiditional retail Dev. nd traffic on Ferry Road. Thank you lie,M II, MS 11.110,4111.*•1111411, P0.71. WI PROP654 D A R.EE & kEE N WAY TOW it €E 1ER S cti o I, £ S IAVOR FERRY t o40 ApbxTIO$AI, )4144L:oPt EE V ADDRESS eleTelasat unr...52,o_f(0 1.r Z T. 01rr��w.— r!�.w_ /et (4 day ›t • At_ ite y.r�i yy Yj9_,1i "r11 ._„!.71,441.' ha bo Iwo 4 A 1 lij.`LY r�1 46 appreciate any assistance that you can 0 We are not in favor ' f additional Ferry Road. give us retail Dev. and traffic on S. W. Scholia Thank you Greenway Merchants qo a�.�a�• o W 101 fro G :MEN VII AY TOWN e EIVIE R. di S• .; CNQt ite S WE ARE Z IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT ADDRESS 11,1 514, altpikiiii Ofild ova/ Le-4Z- Tc2a644-44; z/..?2-F a.7 al.CD ei C77 /ewe, ore ng.78, 774 IJr l Y. 4. � _ � `5:.;`�t+r"��"'.i;� Lynn _ t n the Groan way Town. Center Application has bey.. made, on a 5 acre site West of or a zone change to retail commercial We the merchants of Greenway 'eel that this will add to an exhiuting traffic situation, own Center :onv ient but dangerous to an ae using meeting Scholls Ferry Road. There will be a Tigard ;' Mon Oct. 2�3th 7i00 P. M. at Fowler Jr. High. We would appreciate any assistance ''that you can give us in this matter. We are not in favor of additional retail Dev. and traffic on S, W. Scholls Ferry Road. Thank you Greenway Merchants PROPOSED AC RES Elf 6REEM W Y 'TOW', e EA/TER. .1"- r SCN O , 41c S FERRY WE ARE NOT IN FA'V3R OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT Y ! 40 IOW wr RoAo ear mi ow aft NA MS ADDRESS :... ' y,A..�..... ter ✓ 1 +C 5 Gj �. 7 s //. �-�0' �wL�" %/� ,i°rrJ" 97005' Yr,s\'r'�Mw/w�w 1Y.{ ".r.�1r.�i. 1 i rww M� 9�r�IV.rr+w r `� w 4�.w..rrr`.:r wd rri 4w_r_ —r_rr _.rr .et- e4-4\44xb‘15P....14Lt aiLe /.J 6 t 414;') r ?^ ? ��.'' r"" �.7?f:, c4: 4CA' i.' s}M.r..r....''"�rw":'��'f'i +'wf �.�V '� .i►f '►` . �•_M ..°'/�.."'�'��. ^� ........ 1. .4- .7,1:, 4 Ir':,.., 1/4r/el ...i G ..ee ` i '',r 1:0 bilive 2/yo 9 Green' way Town Center Application has been made, on a -5 acre site West of the or- a azvne change: to retal,, commercial. We the merch...ts of Gteenway Town Center :eel that this will add to an exhist?.s1g traffic situation, that is not only in- ;onvient but dangerous to anyone using Scholls Ferry Road. There will be a Tigard ity council meeting Mare Oct. 28th 7:00 P. M. at Fowler Jr.- High. We would appreciate any assistance that you can give us in this matter. We are not in favor of additional retail Devi, and traffic on S. W. Scholls Ferry Road. Thank you Greenway Merchants m m `i jt GREEN WAY IMAM' e EEAHE PRt PO v' 4 D At R.ES .. $c • QLL S WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT NAME •�v_ 2r. ADDRESS jav-e-k_.,01„r r 4,,m" - , ... ,...................././. *9.3,7'..r. .... ......1,fr.'L'''...‘ ' 4>"/ ,ter .: i.r -- - --w.., i..f[r�' �.' �i� S�.�d..C.. r+ G �..- .r...n r+. r �,.r. a► _c.at:.L�'..+'�"'.� •+ _ q r..J_ _ + CAM y Sid c Syr irr4 4 i.r rii, 4r..Iw +4 w4.',ilr.L r i. yr..xr rri: irL as- . :'..ppiication has been ma:;e, on at 5 acre site West of the Green way Town Center :or a "zone change to ret ,;.. commercial. We the merch .4ts Qf Greenway Town Center to an exhisting traffic situation, th "-'eel that this will add g ion, Chat convient but dangerou to anyone using Scholls Ferry amity council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7:00 is not only in Road. There 11,114 be a Tigard P. U. at Fowler Jr. High. We wa ldtw appreciate any assistance that you can give wi in this, matter. We are not in favor of additional retail Dov. and traffic on Ferry Road. GRIM VittlY TOWN eE /TER Thank you Greenway Merchants 'rr I..dofla.. #J.1.....amaY.. . PRe)pOSaD AG. RSS C,h®S x S Foggy R0e41, WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT NAME �iA1Ykisgek Mi.rY _ It ADDRESS AZA1-92.14ie:-..t-CteLacifezz Lro,SU'otijdopeliecacri 1Q-,g "1,) S w! W. Scholls. ...7.../ .ae'C` 1:S- r4 :— .�u.ww /y � au n4. . ......... ...,........... ..,, i A t .1? t i ali-ei 71:00,6's YOM 06 +� J Patloui�j INDIVIDUAL- GENERAL PARTNERSHIP STREET DEDICATION KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that do hereby dedicate to the Public a perpetual., fight —of °way for street, road and utility purposes on, over, across, under, along and within the following described real property in Washington County, Oregon: To have and to hold the above— described atd dedicated rights `'unto the Public forever for the uses and purposes hereinabove stated. The grantor(s) hereby covenants that they are the owner(s) in fee simple and the property is free of all liens and encumbrances, they have good and legal right to grant 8 v .. they pay ssessmenta, due and owing on the rights above ..described, and the will a all taxes and the property. The amount paid for this d'dication is IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the grantor(s) has (have) hereunto set his (ritr) (their) hs , nd�a) and seal(a) t his day of 19 (SEAL) (SEAL) (SEAL) (SEAL) STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON) Personally appeared the above named 19 who eaecuted this instrument and each of them acknowledged to me that this instrument vas ehecuted voluntarily and freely: Notary Public for Oregon Commission e)tpires t ACCEPTANCE Approved as to form this day. of Bye City Attorney City of Tigard Approved legal p f , '�1, ppraved ss to Le al descrf tton this da y o 1 City Engineer'- City of Tigard Act -bled by the City Count°il this day of 19 CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON City Record *, - City of Tigard (1104A) (1.84) • INDIVIDUAL- GENERAL PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT FOR PERPETUAL EASEMENT For Motor Vehicle Driveway on Adjoining Parcels Residential Use THIS PERPETUAL 'CASEMENT, made and entered into this 19 between called the first party, and hereinafter called the second party, WITNESSETH hereinafter _tea WHEREAS, the first party J,s the owner in fee simple of the following described real property in the City of Tigard, County of Washington, State of Oregon, to wits and the second party is the owner in fee simple of the following described real property in the said City, county and state, to wit: and said two parcels of real estate adjoin each other, and to usseeEtheSdescribed part$es desire to vehicle driveway now or other an aconstr:ucted along and grant and upon a portion of both of the parcels in conjunction With any lawful use NOW, THEREFJRE,in consideration of each party's granting to the other an easement hereinafter described, and dther valuable consideration each to the other in hand paid, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged: FIRST: First party conveys to second party a perpetual easement for motor upon le driveway purposes first o use i property with any lawful use along and vehicle portion party's P p y described as follows: to witt SECOND: Second party conveys to the first party a perpetual easement for motor vehicle purposes for use in conjunction with any lawful use along and upon that portion of second party's property described as follows, to wit: TiIIRDv it is mutually agreed that each party may use in common with the other party, the whole oi° said motor vehicle driveway;: including that portion thereof situated on the property" of the other party for ingress and egress of motor veucile, pedestrians and uses incidental to any lawful use of the property roURTH: This agreement should bind and inure to the benefit of, as the circumstances may require, not only the immediate parties hereto, but also to their respective heirs, executors, administrators and successors in interest as well. FIFTH: (Opt.) The maintenance shall be a shared responsibility of the parties and each of the parties shall share the cost of mrntaining the easement. The obligation to share maintenance costs .shall begin when the driveway is completed. SIXTH: (Optional) Each of the parties shall maintain` liability insurance which, at a minimum,' meet the standard in the industry for the particular types of uses for which the properties are used. The insurance policies shall . name the owner of the adjoining parcel as an additional insured in connection . with the use of the easement. SEVENTH: In construing the foregoing agreement, the plural shall mean and include the singular whenever the context so requires. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have subscribed this instrument in duplicate on this, the day and year y first written hereinabove. STATE OF OREGON, County of d )ss. , 19 Personally appeared the above named and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be voluntary act and deed. ( Official S e al) y : Notary Public for Ore on , My commission expires: (RC :pm /0678P) S &.,b J ,*13UTLDERS ':35 SW Murrgy Beaverton, Oregon 97005 OREGON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Salem, Oregon 97310 Portland Fixture Co STROEMPLE 338 NW Fifth PO Box 1810 Portland, Oregon 97209 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Richard Boberg 10660 SW North Dakota Tigard, Oregon 97223 DAVIS 5775 SW Elm Beaverton, OR 97005 AL• N"' kYAN, SULAIMAN & EBTISAM RAJHI v Box 1724 Portland, Oregon 97207 CHATZIPETROU 6571 Fairlynn Blvd. Yorba Linda CA 92686 HEIt4! 12610 SW Tarpan Dr. Beaverton, 0P 97005 American Guaranty Life Ins._ 1430 SW Broadway Portland, Oregon 97201 H ABIK/ CUNNINGHAM 13385 SW 115th' Tigard, Oregon 97225 OLSON 12520 SW Scholls Ferry Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dept. o Transportation; 0 Pfia ar a t 310 r Kt t a ct t3obprg 10660 SW North Dakota Tigard, Oregon 97223 Greenhill Associates 1730 SW Skyline Blvd. Portland, OR 97220 John Morris Morning Hill Assoc 11900 SW Morning Hill Drive Tigard, Oregon 97223 Portland Fixture Co. 338 NW Fifth Portland, Oregon 97209 Joe Sehweitz 11020 SW Cottonwood Lane Tigard, Oregon 97223 Mr. Jack Orchard Ball, Janik & Novak 101 SW Main zjtreet Portland, OR 97204 Mr. Sumner Sharpe Cogan, Shatpe & Cogan. 71 SW Oak Street Portland, OR 97204 Tom R. Lancaster PE Transportation Engineering 2239 Monterey Lane Eugene, OR 97401 Mr Howard' Williams 12220 SW SCholls Ferry Road Tigard, OR 97223 Mr;. Dave Pietka Real Estate At^praiser L/o Jack Orchard 101 SW Maine Street Portland, OR 97204 r *r. v *4, /9 6,44- ekx. ,�C` ►,YOB j 2'j t 4',t RI ST : (15{' -41t 08 Chi).'- es.I''ii % 1 :4t1 7 tt1E: 10.000 TARPAN DRIVE SW JV:C,934 ._k AREA. :SC48 ROLL Sit] 26838 n�tr7.44 , IFRtrt ICI L [ 01 028 BLOCK CHAPARRAt tTllt1 SU SALE 0479 79014121 I WD 0 E AvE R lu R 97005 ..----------------------- t V AND RPAN 0 114,s 043 Totr 02.6 $9-9 CTL :2250 LIT I ; UTZ; BAP`A, NTO410 V AND SOht-ICANG A 11tT420 Sty TARPAt+. DR E ATiE WTON. OR 97005 PCA : 1013 D I s T: 052 -41 52 08 LOC: 10420 TARPAN DRIVE SW JV :228.34 APr'A :S(48. ROLL SEO: 26839 101 027 BLOCK CHAPARRAL SALE 0279 79006448 I wD 0 r.�_a._ —sw- _ate: +.. MAP: 00PR MAP : OOPR ANO Bi D —VAI •ASSESS:? OOPR TAXABLE LAND 6LD —VAL *ASSESSED OOPR TAXABLE ,'ti,r,nt) AD VAt trrtp 46,100 ',1Alt I'A1t' r't1, 10t) NI I TAX 0 it DIY- MINI 67. i0t: LUI+LOENI IA? 25.400 AD VAL.Ot+EM 44,100 TAIL F'AIt tar' `00 "4[ 1 lAx 0 5% D l'(tzLIN1 64.800 CURRENT 1AX • • 4 r e•�wawr..+ 15133A7 >: KEY: s *0'06 CTL 01;1.: U12: 1wL:IE AND. RAINER AND VERA. 10440. NW TARPAN DR BEAVERTON OR 97005 1 S 133AA 04500 KE'I. 00260915 CTL: UT'1: uT 2: DAVIS. MICHAEL K AND JEANNE R 5775 SW ELM BEAVERTOEd OR 97005 • RCA: 1013 DTST: 052 -41 52 08 LOC: 10440 TARPAN DRIVE SW 1V :22834 AREA :SC48 ROLL SEO: 26840 LOT 026 BLOCK CHAPARRAL SALE 0379 79010225 1 UD 0 IS133AA 0460 KEY:. 0026' 4 UT1: MORS • a :ER fit 126 T :(PA- �s I ' ..AA 04700 t 002,93 UTT : HAUNG .I S A CHIA 126 ,,V TA• DR BE RION f DCA; 1013 DIST: 052 -41 52 08 LOC: 10-470 TARPAN DRIVE SW JV:22834 AREA;SC48 ROLL SEU :' 26841 LOT 025 BLOCK CHAPARRAL SALE 0279 79008368 1 UD 0 MAP: 00PR LAND BLD —VAL *ASSESSED 00PR TAXABLE LAND MAP: NOOPR BLD —VAL *ASSESSED TAXABLE PCA:; 1013 DIST: 052-41 52 08 LAND C ` .4076, LOC: 12625 TARPAN DRIVE SW JV ;22834 cT2 AREA:SC48' ROLL SEQ :: 26842 fit) ANGE . LOT 035 BLOCK CHAP RAL DRIVE SALE 0280 80006834 I WD 0 OR sn MAP: OOYK RCA: 1013. DIST: 052 -4.1 52 08 CT :42 == LOC: 12655 TARPAN DRIVE SW JV :22834 AREA;SC4TI ROLL SEO: 26843 INE LOT 036 BLOCK CHAPARRAL / SALE 0978 7804.311.4 I UD 0 e. 97005 TS133AAAs 800 PGA:, 1013 LIST: 052 -41 51 08 KEY-: • 609 i'. 000 LOC: 12685 TARPAN DRIVE SG J11:22834 UT1: UT • AREA :SC48 ROLL 5E0: SCH;•ERMER 3 RN MA OEII E E LOT 037 CHAPARRAL 12685 S TA PAN RIVE BEAVER sN OR 005 —.� ,. --- -4141_ 1513•AX'049 KEY 00260' SI CT ' UT1: KELLER * 0 E H D; EURUSH IIAURI ELL 12705� 1 TARP � N. D BEAVERTON 1S1=33AA- KEY: 0- tITT ATK INSN 23,400 AD VALOREM .6,400 STATE PAID 69 ROO NET TAX 0 3% DISCOUNT 67,000 CURRENT TAX 1 .6',1 .4f 110.00 1,481.'15 4445 1,457.10 23,400 AD VALOREM 40,600 NET TAX 64,000 3% DISCOUNT 61,400 CURRENT TAX - - - - ... 4100 - - --- 24,600 AD VALOREM BLO —VAL 47,400 STATE PAID *ASSESSED` 72.000 NET TAX OOPR' 0 3% DISCOUNT TAXABLE 69.100 CURRENT TAX 1,513.aO 1,5-13.50 45.41 1,468.09 1.703.33 170.00 1,533.31 46.00 1,487.13 LAND MAP: NOOPR E1LD —VAL *ASSES`ED TAXABLE 24,600 AD VALOREM 45,900 NET TAX 70,500 3% DISCOUNT 67.700 CURRENT TAX L 1.668 80 1,668.80 50.06 618.74 LAND 24.600 AD VALOREM 1,745.24 MAP: OOPR BLD —VAL 49,100 STATE PAID 170.00 26844 *ASSESSED 73.700 NET TAX 1,575.24 SALL 1282 82033175 I WD 0 00PR 0 3% DISCOUNT 47.2!6' TAXABLE 70.800 CURREN! TAX 1.577.98 *a" DELINQUENT TAXES • ** ofL p.---- ., - -a. - --. --- s-- -- --.- -mpss- --... a— —s ---a -e s--a. - s .----r—. ---..--_s r ---- ....— ..... PCA; 1013 DIST: 052 -4' 52 08 LOC: 12705 TARPAN DRIVE SW JV:22834 AREA:SC48 ROLL SEU 268/5 LOT 038 BLOCK CHAPARRAL SALE 1078 78047405 I WO 0 R 97005 60 CTL: U-T 2; ICHARD G AND MAP: OOPR LAND 24,600 AD VALOREM 1,853.66 BLD —VAL 53,700 STATE PAID 170.00 *ASSESSED 78,300 NET TAX ,683.t,;, OOPR 0 3% DISCOUNT 50.51, TAXABLE 75,200 CURRENT TAX 1,653.1' - i- 4-- �zs..- -'ft,....r------ � -i.d -- PCA: 1013, DIST: 052 -41 524 LOC 12725 TARPAN DRIVE E'# JV : .4 AREA- :SC48 ROLL SEO 2684', LOT 039 BLOCK CHAPARRAL .,_ ‘ND 24,600 AD VALOREM MAP: NOOPR 6_D -VAL 46,800 NET TAX *ASSESSED ,_ 71,400 3% DISCOUNT 1, t ;fi,tt�_: ,_.; hA- ,S00.._MODFNT- Tklt__. 1.685.5t 1,688.46 50.66 t I C1- 014:���.. -I... .. ...,. LAND PCA: 1013 DIST; 051-58 ' 0 CTL: LOC: 10445 130TH kVE SW JV:32671 MAP: NOOPR :ASSESLED UT UT2: AREA :SC48 RO:.L SEQ: 27051 *,C.. REAL ESTATE FUND 11 LOT 289 FORESTGLEN NO 3 ** * ** * * * * ****e * ***r* * * *e* ** TAXABLE 5300 SV 1t6.TH CO, 39436 6726184 CODE CHANGE 51-61 TO 51 -58 GARD: OR 97223 SALE 0981 82015455 1 CT M' ' -a *- #swsw-ww --� wwaw- sr -wwa-s Tww-w ww wwwwww.wwssss 1ST33A 1:10100 PCA: 1013 DIST: 052 -41 52 08 LAND KE1<: 0 • .-' CTL: LOC: 10500 TARPAN DRIVE SW JV :22834 MAP: 00PR BLD-VAL T°1: UT2: AREA.SC48 ROLL SEQ; 27052 *ASSESS AL- NOSAYAN, SULA1MAN M LOT 024 BLOCK CHAPARRAL 0AP. AND EBTISAM RAJNI: SALE 0179 79001684 1 WD 0 P 0 BOX 1724 PORTLANDN OR 97207. S133AB XET :. 4 0 39 + ^ +-o 1 S1 33A 00200 tcErt, 6 CTL OT ► F UT2 CHAT2iPET11OU, NICK AND CATHERINE 6571 FA IRLTNH BLVD YORBk LINDA CA` 92686 asws�eww� / —wdssa - # #. 15133AD 00300 KEY: OC1<26 J 4' CTL: DTI: UT2: HEIM. FRANCES = E 12610 SU TARPAN DR BEAVERTON. OR 97005 23,400 AD VALOR( M 39.200 NET TAX 62,600 3% DISCOUNT 60,100 CURRENT TAX , 1 ,4(.! /.4', 4 S .'J1t 1 , 41') , 5 5 23.400 AD VALOREM 43,700 STATE PAID 67,100 NET TAX 0 3% DISCOUNT 64,400 CURRENT TAX PCA: 1013 DIST: 052 -41 52 08 LOC: 12570 TARPAN ITRIVE SW JV22834 AREA . ;5048 ROLL SEC: 27053 LOT 023 BLOCK CHAPARRAL SALE 02.79 79006326 I WD 0 LAND MAP: NOOPR BLD-VAL *ASSESSED TAXABLE. 23,400 AD VALOREM 41,900 NET TAX 65.300 3% DISCOUNT 62,700 CURRENT TAX 1,587.45 170.00 1.417.45 42.52 1,374.93 waa�s•s- wsww3w 15133AD 00400 KEY: 00261 UT1:« - .RAJ! PCA: 1013 DIST: 052 -41 LOC: 12610 TARPAN DRIVE SW JV :2.2834 AREA:SC'.8 ROLL SEC.: 27054 LOT 22 CHAPARRAL SALE. 0978 78042859 I. WD 0 MAP: OOPR LAND BLD-VAL *ASSESSED OOPR TAXABLE 23,400 AD VALOREM 49,300 STATE PAID 72,700 NET TAX 0 3% DISCOUNT 69.800 CURRENT TAX PCA: 1.013' DIST: 052 -41 52 08 CTL: LOC: 12640 TARRAN DRIVE SW JV :22834 UT2: AREA:,5C48 ROLL SEO: 27055 ,BTISAM N LOT 021 BLOCK CHAPARRAL .0K 1151 SALE. 09178 78044201 V WD L CENT1A CA 92670 - - _ - ##13wi.Uww - -w .. .........- . - . - ... . . --........ . 1S133AD 00500 RCA: 1013 DIST: 032. -41 52 08 KE : 0026 .. CTL: LOC: 12670 TARPAN DRIVE SW Jv :22834 MAP: OOPR 0T1: UT2 AREA :SC48 ROLL SEG: 27056- ' ANG PIIUOC. AND LOT 020 BLOCK CHAPARRAL NG D SALE 0582 82013215 1 WD 0 IP9TFI1 2670 SW TARPAN DRIVE f -BEAVER'TON OR 97005 LAND MAP: OOPR BLD -VAL *ASSESSED TAXABLE . - aar_ _ rs�+��- wwss�wsr�ssr•asw woo- aswwww wssa�rrwssw- ww. -s�o -. S1�3�4D 00600 - PCA: :013 DIST : 052 -41 52 08 LAND 1 KEY: 00 261978 CTL.: LOC 12690 TARPAN DRIVE SW JV:22834 MAP: NOOPR BLD-VAL 23,400 AD VALOREM 43.200 NET TAX 66,600 3% DISCOUNT 63,1)00 CURRENT TAX LAND BLD -VAL *ASSESSED OOPR TAXABLE 1,545.55 1,545.55 46.37 1,499.18 1,720.59 170.00 1,550.59 46.52 1,504.07 1,575.12 1,575.12 47,25 1,527.87 23.400 AD VALOREM 52.900 STATE PAID 76.300 NET TAX 0 3% DISCOUNT /3,200 CURRENT TAX 23,400 AD VALOREM 41,800 NET TAX 1,804.36 170.00 1,634.36 49.03 1,585.33 1,543.1(1 1,545.10 iIT`I j U12.1 AREA.SC48 BULL SEC: 2,7057 4k4H1 r SAM t4 LOT 0 19 BLOCK CHAPARRAL BT RED. * PROPERT.'IES. SALE. 0179 79Q04091 1 WD 0 14'11.5.1 . P CE#TIA CA 92670 . "52 -41 52 08 1 T33AD 00700 PCA: 1013 DIST: V .5 ,a8 'ft 002619 CTL. :3229 LOC: 12710 TARPAN DRIVE Su J.: 22834 UT1 :. UT2 AREA :SC40 ROLL. SEC: 21058 TA. GAt.1 AT,POCINiO 0 AND LOT 018 BLOCK CHAPARRAL OEANl6 SALE 1078 78045981 I WD 0 127 ; V TARPAN DRIVE BE R TON OR 97005; 1T MAP: OOPR *ASSESSED TAXABLE LAND BLD -VAL *ASSESSED 00PR TAXABLE 65,200' 3% DISCOUNT 62,600 CURRENT TAX 46 .29 1,496.81 23,400 AD VALOREM 1,528.30 41,200 STATE PAID 1,170.30 64,600 NET TAX 0 3% DISCOUNT 40.75 52,000 CURRENT, TAX 1,317.55 00800 PCA: 1013 DIST: 052 -4t ' 0B 3� 002 96 CTLt52 4 LOC. 12750 TARPAN DRIVE SW 0`._1834 MAP: OCDR 812: AREA.: SC48 ROLL SEGc 27059' ,*- .ter►• ..:__ _ — - ,ruLPLQR1 LAND BLD -VAL *ASSESSED 00PR 2.3,400 AD VALOREM 44,200 STATE PAID 67.600 0 NET TAX 1,599.77 170.00 1,429.77 42.59 ; • . � t- :t:L t ¢,th0 x295 o- Sw SCROLLS: 38 Y RD. R 97223 V `AL NON- raSLSSAULt a- --a+ ........— s-- e—'—.lOaa-- s—sQa-- a--i..------s o.-. i------r+ ra r--- a- ress- -.--- s- .rw -0 - --_ PCA: 4015 DIST: 051 -85 1..1 51 85 LAND C.TL :4551 LOC: 1.4820 130TK SW JV:22837 MAP; NOOPR BLD-VAL UT2: AREA:4SBV ROLL SEQ: 27073 'ASSESSED FIT BALD. ROBERT D 2.00 AC, SALE 0000 09180371 TAXABLE L \ `E_ TINA /I 103211 SW 130TH TIGARD t OR 97223 ......'.....7r.".....•...... -------.--- i . ?'A-------- -.ia----- a.ia - ---- - ... -rrri-m a- rrasp.m, .1�aOOO.Y- rv..- a-aYr r00- ..- w- r- lmra -... O--- om- - -s.mm... �Y -- -- S13AD a�3 PCA: 4003 DIST: : 051 -85 LAND 282.900 AD VALOREM 5 910 72,000 AD VALOREM 63,200 NE _ TAx 135,200 3X DISCOUNT 129,800 CURRENT TAX 2,824.46 2,8?4.46 84.75 2,739.73 1 O1 CEY: 00267T47 C`IL: LOC* JV :00003 MAP: NOOPR *ASSESSED UTT: UTZ: AREA:4SBV ROLL. SEQ: 27074 TAXABLE AMERkCAN GUARANTY LIFE: 12.86AC * * * ***** ** ****tat»tff **.st* IN URANCE tOA 'ANY` AMERICAN GUARANTY L.IFE INS 8/83 - 83028787 1430 w BROADWAY SALE 0000 79016862 PORTLAND O.R 97201. 282.900 NET TAX 5,910.01 271,600 3Z DISCOUNT 177.30 CURRENT TAX 5.732.71 *'* DELINQUENT TAXES *t' 1S133ADt012 0O, ` PCA: 2013 - DIST: 051 -85 51 85 KE`f t 0026x 51V CTL:: LOC :12526 SCHOLLS FERRY RD SW JV :22839 MAP: NOOPR UT1: UT2: AREA:`2WSQ ROLL SEQ: 27075 HRAgIK... RAYMOND A FRANCES 1..38AC SALE 0000 78037943 CUNNINGtAK. LEE REED REED 13385 Sri 115 -Ti TIGARD OR 97223 15133AD 025002 PCA: 1 013 DIST: 051 -85 KEY t 002 CTL: LOC:12520 SCHOLLS FERRY RD SW JV :28996 MAP: 00PR UT1t UT2: AREA :WS68 ROLL SEQ: 27076 OLSON., VINCENT MARTHA 1.,08AC SALE 0000 04950481 12524 S6t SC' OLLS FERRY RD TIGARD OR 97223 1,.iUa.� -a— Sara -ss s-q o—ssw -s , .M — Ma. r—s ttRtl l # # #OttYCt****ittt't4fti * * * * *** *' LAND BLD -VAL *ASSESSED TAXABLE 60.100 ;.D VALOREM 3,553.42 1",000 NET TAX 3.553.42 1_'x0,100 3% DISCOUNT 106.60 163,300 CURRENT TAX 3,446.82 *** DELINQUENT TAXES et* LAND 25,300 AD VALOREM BLD -VAL 39,600 STATE PAID *ASSESSED 64,900 NET TAX GOPR 0 3% DISCOUNT TAXABLE 62.300 CURRENT 1AX 1,355.66 170.00 1,185.66 35.57 1,150.09 *t ***t * **:i * -**t* `**Art ****(t ftti *M. * * * *** *q ** ** **** ********* *turf** ***0 =V *Q* * ** * *****4#.0t**t9 MARKET 2679,-454,200 MARKET 2679,4'4,200 LAND BASE -01 2567610400.00 BASE -02 111.14.00 8ASE -03 BASE -O6 290600.00 BASE -07 .00 BASE -08 AD VALOREM 58.ir74 *092Q09 STATE PAID 2.830,x27.90 SPEC ASSMT CURRENT TAX 57- ,17,954.94 930,540 800` BLD 133313.00` BASE -04 .00 BASE -09 2,823.501.44 NET TAX 1748,913,400 SP -FEAT 15362.00 BASE -OS 112210.00 .00 BASE-10 .00 58,966.965.63 3% DISCOUNT 1,'69,010.69 ROLL.. PARCEL NUMBER ORDER VASKI N;GT 0N_ COUNTY PROPERTY VALUES FOR 1984 -85 REAL PROPF 1977 RILL- CONmO. 1 S=T3-3AD 00251 ET t 0099032 C1L TT E UT2 R AMERICAN GUARANTY LIFE 1NSURAN COMPANY 410 5W OADVA.Y POR LAND OR 97201 PCA: 1003 DIST: x}51 -85 51 85 LOC: 4V :29041 MAP: 00x08 APF :Si:48 ROLL SEG: 27 f1 ':SAC tr+etf * ++�r�►*tttt *i*taet *sriz, APIERICAN GUARANTY LIFE INS 01/84 =003060 SALE 0381 810:4716 QC U .Lllir NUi#YF,.Y:a?>: to wt4oi;Y�t_is LAND *ASSESSED TAXABLE 100 AD VALOREM 100 NET TAX 100 3% DISCOUNT CURRENT TAX *** DELINQUENT ES ei' 2.20 2.20 2.13 .40. .0-- 'tir - -.l --ice — — .sa- -sa —ui S 1 S48R 00200. E : 00264984. CTL T UT 2; ETE f. ERNEST ,t GRAC DIST: U51 -58 ROLL 5E0: 1 61 t AND ,, :17877 MAP: 00PR B. 0 -VAL 27751 ' ASSESSED *** *6*- * **,,, w,0*t **$*e***** 0s PP 147),uu:; 1W Y't IDK; 1' 4.500 SIAIE PAID ,iii,.`` l ?9.500 NET 1 AX ,` , f,�t :. I 0 3% 01SCOUN1 3 39436 6126184 CODE CHANGE 51-61 TO 51 -58 TAY.ABLc B VERTOR - REEi ORR97005 cO - 33451 7/20181 FROM 1.51348 00201 . --- -------------- ------- . - , LAND 513488 00300 PCA.: 40:4 25 DIST: 052 -41- ,,- JV :43037 MAPS NOOPR *ASSE�.'.ED 00264993 CTL 1 TAKABLE UT2% LOCI" AREA.:4:SW ROLL. SEQ: 2`r'752:. OEMPLE. GEORGE R AND 9.07AC ***4.* * *- * *** * **4* ***o***.* ** R-A ,I CO 39436 6 /26fg4 CODE CHANGE 52 -08 TO 52-41- P0 BOX J810 CO 334.52 7120/81 FROM 151348 00202 LAKE OSWEGO 0R. CI7 34- SALE 1278 82016038 V SID D - - -.._ a - ,.$,.�....�..,: ,,....�..,.- -e. -�. - LAND 1 51348E 00400 PCA: 4004 DIST 's 051 -58 ,!+! s 29433 MAP: NOOPR SSESSED' 4ET : c0,1a §01:9 CTL LOC; TAXABLE : AREA;4SBV R' SE44 27753 I ��Tt s UT2f v *: *- *a * #r * **:+� *r *e* *tie **c TROEMPLE GEORGE AND MARLA 1.77AC :1 °58 0 BOX. 1310 C4 39436 6126084 CODE- CHANGE -51 -61 AKE OSWE O OR 97034 CO 3345 7/20181 FROM 1.S1342,.; 002s SALE +•82 82016038 V WO 0 124,30.0 CURRENT TAX • 204.700 AD VALOREM 4,8',3.76 204,700 NET TAX 4,843.76 196,500 3% DISCOUNT 145.31 CURRENT TAX 4,698.45 *** DELINQUENT TAXES •tt 90000 KEY:-- 01221369 CTL:: UTI : UT2: GREErVOGO. TERRACE CONDO UNIT OWNERS 34BB 90000 01 r 01221.341 CTL tint - U GREEit!'.00D TEPR'AC CONDO UNIT OWNERS DIST: 051-58 AREA :9065 ROLL 5E0: 27754 COMMON ELEMENT GR SALE 0381 PLAT4006 40,000 AD VALOREM 935.03 40,000 NET TAX 935.03 38,400 3% DISCOUNT 28.05 CURRENT TAX 906.98 44+ DELINQUENT T ?aS ,** JV :.33. 8 MAC': NOOPR WOOD TERRACE CONDO '` *ASSESSED RCA: 1914 DIST: "052-41 LOC: Ts18B -9001 KEY:_ 01221 18, C IL:: U I: UTZ: CORRELL. - O9ER:T" L ET AL % TOWNE WILLIAM ' R AND JOAN A 7860 5 PORTLAND LLOWMERE OR 97225 *AS D JV:33448' _ MAP: NOOPR AREA :906 ROLL 5:0tj` 27755 COMMON ELEMENT GREENWOOD TERRACE CONDO COMMON ELEMENT INTEREST IN SALE 0381 PLAIA006 PCA: 1914 DIET: 051 -58 NOOPR *ASSESSED LOC: 12066 CONESTOGA ; ')RIVE: SW' JV :33448 Ps NOOP *ASSESS AREA9065 ROLL SEOi 27756 UNIT 1 BLDG /1 GREENWOOD T RACE CONDO INTEREST COMMON ELEOIENT SALE 0581 :1017150 I Cl 0 44,200 AD ''VALOREM 44,200 NET TAX 42,400 d`t DISCOUNT CURRENT TAX 1,032.43 1,032.43 30.97 1,001.46 1513488 90021 KETt 0=1231161 CTL : LIII: UT2 :: ET CORRELL. ROBERT L. ET AL, % TW' MAN. GLORIA. AND HAY E -, CYNTHIA B 12058 SW CONESTOGA BEAVERTON OR 97005 PCA: 1914 DIST: 051 -58 LOCL 12058 CONESTOGA DRIVE AREA :9065 ROLL 5E0: UNIT 2 BLDG 1 INTE :EST IN COMN0f4 SLD -VAL ...JV:33448 MAP: NOOPR *ASSESSED 757 7 OOPR GREENWOOD TERRACE CONDO TAXABLE St,LE 0381 81008383 I CT 0 47,200 AD VALOREM 47,200 STATE PAID 0 NET TAX 45,300 3% DISCOUNT CURRENT TAX 1,103.06 170.00 933.06 27.99 905.07 i t iIr*ttW# *fSti.ilfi *'f' #i*** ***** * *t' W *t * *W***WW *i*W **JR#** # t********** Vt itern et** R* f* ff* t** K*** * * ** * ***fM*44t **MtitQleesttetlt MARKET 2744.189;800 MARKET 2744,189,800 LAND BASE -01 2629675100.00 BASE -O2 11114.00 BASE -03 BASE -06 290600.00 ERASE -O7 .00 BASE -O8 O VALOREM 60,392,087.66 STATE PAID 2,883,497.90. SPEC ASSAT URRENT IAA 58,523,299,91 950,525,400 8LD 134517.00 BASE -Ot .00 BASE -09 2.824,711.14 NET 1AX 1793,664 400 SP -FEAT 15362.00 BASE -05 112210.00 .00 RASE -10 60,333,300.90 3% OtSCOUNT 1,810,000.99 to kOL L : E ARCEL NUMBER OR1ER uASHITVGTON 0:LTwTY' PROPERTY VAI UES COMPA ROAO1rtAY rr4D 02600 00P i C T L UTZ: (ILAN. GUARANTY LIFE `.,t1RANC.E COMPANY SW BROADWAY POR TLAN .1R 97201 LIFE: OR 1984 -85 RI' 61 PPIWPI U t r ROLL-CONTROL FICA; 1003 01S;T: 051-85 51 85 tOC: .1V:29001 MAP; 00008 AREA: :S:C48 ROLL SEO- 2.7077' ..SAC et*•. *e •kit¢A * *. *t*ttte•zt. *c0 AMERCAN GUARANTY LIFE INS 01/64 64003060 SALE 0361 61014716 DC U OR n72o•1: LAND ' *ASSE SSi TAXA.OL E 1140 AD VA' (11;1M 1 €10 NI I IAX 100 5% Dl S I O(IN i CURRENT 1 A) * . a tit 1111)111 7' 1 4 . I •. •,• PCA: 1003 LOC: AREA: SC48' ROLL SE, U; ,1 SAC AMERICAN GUARANTY LIFE SALE 1178 F- TLP0000 DIST 05i-85 51 8-5 V.1 :28997 27078 3A KEY; 0'989(1 CTL T r u 2: AI ERICA? GUARANTY LI FE INSUR +NLE ZOMPANY 1:430- Slat BROADWAY- PORT LANQ OR 97201 — sl____s _atsxJS. ... _ —____ ________Ra _____ ir�gi>s�..o ii-a —a._ _ ra a...' D 02CE31 MAP: O0(% f * *:k **:*O. t #,I. of oo -a f f1 !'.' '. INw 01/84 - 84003060 I S -'I 3SAD 02700 BEY: 01112067 C UT 1: U Ai4E;RI'CAN GUARANT, IFE: INSURANCE COMP I`4. Z LUTZ, ARTS 5120 Slit H1E:I PORTLAND?AR f LAND •ASSE SSED TAXABLE IOC AD VALOR' M 1_ ZO 100 NET TAX 2.20 100 5% DISCOUNT .07 CURRENT 1 AX Z.1 :.A DELINu'IFNI 'AYE', ••, PCA: 1003 DIST: 051 -85. 1 85 'LAND , LOC: 4V:28998 MAP: 00008 *ASSESSE>> AREA :SC48 ROLL SEQ: 27079 TAXABLE ,-19AC * ,r * * *rt*t** **vt *.* *t0. ***r. - -• AMERICAN GUARAxf71 LIFE INS 01/84 -- 84003060 SALE 1178 000Ft125 100 AD- VALOREM 100 NET TAX 100 3% CNCOUNT . Zt➢ 2 z2.O .07 CURRENT TAX 2.13 * ** DELINQUENT ;AYES ... PCA: 1013 DIST: 051 -85 D 51 8'5 LAND LOC; JV:00003 MAP: 00012 *ASSESSED AREA :WSGB, ROLL, SEG: 27080 TAXABLE LOT 1 AMART SUMMER LAKE *s *r* * + * * *i*.**** * * ** *.t * ** Z. LUTZ. ARTHUR A 5/84 - 84016699 SELU PROPERTIES 5f84 - 8401669T AMERICAN GUARANTY LIFE INS.c 8!8 - 630287 &7 SALE 0879 PLAT4737 1 53 AD ' 800 �- 0` 120.7 C UT 1: T2. AJE ` ACA GUAR A __ Y L Pt' R CO i AN Z, ART 52€1 5t iE5; ;ILAN • R 13,100 AD VALOREM 13,300 NET TAX 12,800 3% DISCOUNT CURRENT TAX *t DELINQUENT PCA: 1003 DIST: 051 -85 V 51 85 LAND LOC: SV:00003 MAP: 000'2 *ASSESSED AREA - :6568' RCLL SED: 2181 TAXAF3E C (.OT 2 AMART SUMMER LAKE *r * **t *r.t *•.* * **,*** * * *4** X LUTZ, ARTHUR A 5/84 84016699 I SELU PROPERTIES 5/84 84016697 AMERICAN GUARANTY LIFE INS 8/83 83028787 SALE 0879 PLAT4737 9722 1513: F 2900 KEY 1120• L Lal. ; UT . ; AMERICA t J Gt -ANTY LIFE IkSURAI E OM ?A. Z C-cfT,�rrsur� 512E HEU_ E T_ PORTLANi1 OR =97221 OP. {k }a- .+i►a`..� ww Eeiii )is f�.__ -it: T ,.135AD 0 /OGG KF } .. 0=111 2. 0094, C IL: UT 1- `' U T Z AYE I r' cOARANTY LIFE 1451i COt JTAHY .a.urt ARTHUW A f,72(1 SI- BEI4E TT 13,500 AD VALOREM 13,300 NET TAB; 12,800 3% DISCOUNT CURRENT 14t * * * PE .L I Nt)UEN1' f_.�sfs_iw-- ,.__o- --.iss PCA: 1003; DIST: 051-85 D 51 85 LAND LOC: ,JY :00003 MAP 00012' ASSESSED AETEA:E, S&8 ROLL SEA: 27002 TAXABLE LOT 3 AMART SUMMER LAKE • * * * * **t•*rtt. *a. *t* **O ** *O is LUTi• ARTHUR A 5 /84 - 84016699 X SELU PROPERTIES 5/84 — 84016697 AMERICAN GUARANTY LIFE INS 8/83 81038787` SALE 0879 PLAT4737 13,300 AD VA,.`:REM 3,500 NET 1'�� t , 80O 3% D I SEt,LIN 1 CURRENT 1 A . ** DEIT'NUOL1iT 1 At! • PCAx 1003 0151: 051 -65 D 51 85 LOG: 3V:00003 MAP: 00012 AREA :WS6R . '111 SE:): 27083 LOT 4 AI`4ARI_ jUf4MER ! AKF •a * * * *•*r *f *teat **t * * *ra *. X LUTZ. ARTHUR A 5/84 016699 SELU PROPERTIES 5/84 - —=.0166C7 AMERICAN 5UARANTY LIFE INS 8/83. 830211787' 0 LAND 'AS S5 SE P TAB;RLE 15.300 AD VA! OR( M 15,300 NE_ T 1. -k t ,R00 3% D1SLO'",. CURRENT I AX • . DE( IMP! PROP 0* PokTL FROM IL 100 SALE 05/4 74055212' TST348C 0 KEY. 0026 uT1' OEL i, StLN S:ATT.E✓ -- OR 97208 PCA. 2014- �_-D I T : 052 -29 A3 CTL: LOC: JVt30985 MAP NOOrR U72 =' 221,60 AREA IWSQ ROLL SECT: 27775 ROGER M 2.28At SALE 0579 79024799 V T?S L HER BLDG VA 98101 t 12: ORTLANO FIXTURE CO P0 BOX 5308 PORTLAND o 972-28° 00390 1109776 .Lt TT' uT"2: TE OF DEPARTMENT OF O PR'TAT IONS - OR 973I0 ST 48C 00 (ET 0 O 6 CTL: Ut1-. UT Z: PCA.: 2014 DIET: 052 -29 0 LOC :10575 122N0 (EVE SW JV 30981` MAP: NOOPR AREAZWSQ ROLL SEO: 27776 7.93AC * * ** * * *g *;r ** ** ***,, **t * ** ** Et OF F 1342 7/29/82 8 OF E REC. 81 -82 -SALE 0000 78009703 t—+ w7w. r— r_s- s- .m - .. PCA1 9054 DIST 052-29 D 52 29 LOC: JV32104 AREA; ZWSG ROLL SE0 :: 27777 .26AC NON - ASSESSABLE SALE 0979 79044174 PCA: 2004 DIST: 052-29 D LOC:10575 122ND AVE AREA :1‘/S0 ROLL SEO 27778 SW JV :30980 MEATS.. JOSEPN WILLIAM. ES<TAlS 5 AND J BUILDERS LTD 5355 .SW MLRRAY BLVD UEA1VEi TON OR. 97005 1i 134BC 900 '.t`'ft 011 CTLt JTit 1112:' PR ING ZONDO OWNERS .8A- PROPERTY CO SE Plfai STREET GLAND OR 97233= 513480 900 _ tET. 01 60 UT� it LARRY M 157 SW T2.1ST TIiARD. OR 97223 751 a4UC X.E_Tt UT+'' M-tEE, SHEILA T0955 SW 1216- T TIOARD I ST'34BC 9 XE UT1 20.97AC. MEATS, JOSEPH W ESTATE 3/84 - 84011306 CLERICAL ERROR r'iAP: NOOPR LAND 342,600 'TIGRDELSW 221.60 BLD -VAL 796,900 AD VALOREM 24,131.41 'ASSESSED 1739,500 SPE: ASSMT 221.60 TAXABLE 1093,900 NET TAX 24.353.01 UT2 221 60 3% DISCOUNT 730.59 CURRENT TAX 23,62.2.42_ LAND BLO -VAL *ASSESSED TAXABLE 1191,700 AD VALOREM 83,227.98 2738,300 NET TAX 83,227.98 3930,,000 31 DISCOt'NI 2,496.84 3772,800 CURRENT 1'X 80,731.14 *FSSESSED LAND MAP 00010 *ASSESSED TAXABLE * *** * *. **d,*t **** fr*4 ** ***** 1 S AND J BUILDERS LID AA 38997 12/7/83 SALE 0384 84011306 V CT 0 PCA: 1914 DIST: 052. -29 LOC: JV:30983 AREA:9026 ROLL 5CQ: 27779 COMMON ELEMENT WOODSPRING CONDO SALE 0779 PLAT0208 MAP: NOOPR PCA: 1914 DIST: 052 -29 LOCI 10957 121ST AVE SW JV :30983 MAP :`00PR AREA:9026 ROLL 5E0:; 27780 UNIT 1 WOODSPRING CONDO 4.1661 INT COMMON ELEMENT SALE 0979 79044921 I WD 0 PCA: 1914 . CIL UT2t 1' 487, 500 AD VALOREM 1467,500 NET 1AX 1428,000 31 DISCOUNT *ASSESSED BLD -VAL 54.400 AD VALOREM 'ASSESSED 54,400 STATE PAID OOPR 0 NET TAX TAXABLE 52,200 3% DISCOUN1 CURRENT TAX 1,151.52 170.00 981.52 29.45 952.07 DIST: 052-29 LOC 10955 1 -21ST AVf SW JV :30983 AREA :9026 ROLL SEOs. 27781 UNIT 2 WOODSPR,'NG CONDO 4.166% INT SALE 0979 79046029 I WD 0 OR 97223 BLD -VAL 50,300 AD VALOREM 1,065.51 RAP: UOPR *ASSESSED 50,300 STATE PAID 170.00 OOPR - 0 NET TAX 895.51 COMMON ELEMENT TAXABLE 48,300 31'. DISCOUNT 26.87 CURRENT TAX 868.64 7 . «u-��.. «� «-�P• «a��. q' -�'-- «ice«...-- .� —... PCA: 1914 DIST: 052-29 BLO -UAL LOC: 10947 121ST AVE SW JV:30983 MAP: OOPR *ASSESSED AREA:9026 ROE . E0: 27782 OOPR PkIT` 3 W00DSP,`1ING CONDO 4.166% INT *''0MMON' ELEMENT 1AXAB.E SALE 0879 79032483 I WD 46.600 AD VALOREM 46,600 STATE PAID 0 NET TAX 44,700 3X DISCOUNT CURRENT _ TAX 986.07 170.00 816.07 24.48 11.59 CITY OF TIGARD 12755 S.W. ASH P.O. SOX 23397 TIGARD, OR. 97223 AL-NOSAYAN SULAIMAN & EBTISAM RA,JH.I PO Box l 7 4 Portland, Oregon 97207 J BUILDERS 5335 SW Murray Beaverton, Oregon 97005 OREGON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Salem, Oregon 97310 DePc, of Trartsportat fa S & 3 Biz DERS CPA 3 -•85 & 1S1 34)3c 400 ZC , 3 -85 .m ... Scholis Fry JNcrth Dakota across from Sorrento File 2 of 3 NOTICE IS T',AEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AT 'ITS MEETING ON MONDAY, October 28, 1985 AT 7:00 PM , IN THE LECTURE ROOM OF OWLFR JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL, 10865 SW WALNUT, TIGARD, OR.) WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO.: APPLICANT: Portland Fixture Co. 338 NW Fifth Portland, Oregon 97209 OWNER: S & J Builders ' 5335 SW Murray Beaverton, OR 97005 REQUEST: By the City of Tigard City Council for a re- hearing on an application filed by Port land Fixture to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designation from CP (Commercial py.afessiona1) to CC (Commercial General) for 5.4 are site. South side of Scholls !erry Road, ,west of Greenaway Town Center (WCTM 1.51 34BC, Lot 400). LOCATION: THE PUI LIC HEARING ON THIS MATTEt` . WILL BE CONDUCTE D IN . A .CCORO ANCE WITH THE RULE ' OF PROCEDURES OF TUE CITY COO.' CIL . TESTIMONY MAY BE SeENITTED IN WRITIN0 TO BE ENTERED INTO THE Heco D. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, LASE cONTA T THE RECORDER OR PLANNING I CTt R AT: 6I —4I71 CITY OF TtGe 3:'A ,li755 5. . Awh Ave. Tigard, Oregon 97223 (cornet of Aah & Burah ) DATE I wish to testify before the Tigard City council on the' following item: (Please print the information) +e**&*** *** ***ak** * *1tisk***t****** 'c**ve***itisic*sh** r* e***fk ** *ic *sti*sk c******* * **,* *** *sir* proponent (For Issue) opponent (Against Issue) * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Name; Address and A:filiatlLon Name, Address and Affiliation CITY OF TIGARD OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: O -2' 5 AGENDA ITEM #r`: DATE SUBMITTED: 10-23-85 PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: ! CPA 3 -85 and P: t4eitwt Liden 2C 3-85 5 S & . Prd ern REPARED BY . es --- .L --�- REQUESTED BY: DEPARTME NT HEAD O CITY 'ADMINISTRATOR K: �,.._,; INrORMATliaN S1piiMARY This application is' to be heard by the Council following the remand from LUBA. Deny and adopt fihdi;igs with the assistance of staff. SUGGESTED....ACTIQt ' PA T`IGARD CITY' COUNCIL REC';JLAR MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 28, 198. -- 7 :00 P.M. ROLL' CALL: Present: Mayor John Cook; Councilors: rom Brian, Jerry Edwards, and Ima, Scott; CitJ Staff: Bill Monahan, Acting City' Administrator & Community Development Director; Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; and Loreen Wilson, Deputy City Recorder. CALL TO STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS a'. Acting Administrator requested item 14.6 be pulled from Consent for brief discussion and item 119 be tazbied at tfr applicant's request. • Consensus of Council was to approve' requests ,.r„'.u`.+ -r .}:?FSr.s.,1"kc.'�E ^' »ra, ,•w ;w,..» ,. ;x- - ^.i' ... °PU HEARING •,PORTLAND FIXT,U9F %S & J APPEAL CPA 3 -85 FULL EVIDENTIAL HEARING NPO #7 A H request' by the City of City Couvticil for a re-- hearing on an application filed by Portland Pi�tture to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zonrg designation from 'CP (commercial Professional) to CG m (Comercial' General) for a 7.9 acre site located on the south side, of Scholls Ferry Road, west of Greenway Town , renter (WCTM 1S1 34BC lot 400). Public IHearing Opened . Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Edwards,' continue the public; hearing. to 'November' 25, 1985 at 7:00 PM. Approved by! unanimous vote ;,f Council r° resent, VISITOR'S AGENDA • Mr. Bob Bledsoe, 11800 SW Walnut,' suggested Council 'view a film, regarding sewer options, prtoared by EPA.' mays, wish tQ' Council directed staff to ra.'v i.cw the film and bring to Crunc i l it seems appropriate, PARK, BOARD WORKSIOP Pare Board Members Pr °esent: Cha` rman Jim Blaue0ek, Pat Oi'ggs Betty Golder►, Steve Slabau:gh. Mr. , Jc in Mahler, recreationn study coo:rt1inator'F F a c �al;�t.1 On r.. �. r �.u5s,ed 'th �u�inc�1, acrd Parr. .lord. Mc.�iabc,r�s d gas . � , Fens bii l ity and Implementation Sti!td ► , � Additional info itat 1 O .t.quc.sted Ito be incliuded . in the , report are 1tac l i ty inven'tc ry , programming! priorit iatiun with costs, `and more compiette l youth and senior 'Activity "! inforniationF - 1 CoUNCIL MINUTES — 00 Tt B'. • 0) ROBERT S. BALL STEPHEN T. JANIK KENNETH M. NOVAC,K. JACK L. ORCHARD SUSAN M. 'QUICK' WILLIAM 1H. PERKINS CHRISTOPHER W, ANGIUS VICKI G. BAYLESS BARBARA W. PADLER MICHAEL C. Wr'LCH DAVID A, URMAN SUSAN N. HOWARD AN,1 K '& NovAAc:'K ATTO R N EYs''AT LAW ONE MAN PLACE 10.1 S. W, MAIN STREET, SUITE 1100 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 -3274 TELEPHONE (5031 228-2525' TELECOPY (503) 295 -1058 TELEX 910 -380 -5470 October 25, 1985 The Mayor and Members of the Tigard City Council c/o Mr- Xeith Liden Office of Community Development City of Tigard 12755 Svc Ash P. O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 O] 281 CITY 'O F T! A- �RD PLANNING DEi.yr+ . Re: Portland Fixture Company/S & J Builders Heari� .E c2f October 28 , 1985 (CPA3 -85 /ZC3 -8 Or COUNSEL JACOB TANZER Dear ' Counci'lors On behalf. of S & .J Builders, we •respectfully �regquest that the hearing` currently scheduled for October.' 28 , 1 985 on the above matters u be contined to November 1, 19 8 5 for the f ollowing reasons t 1/ & dui lder w s notified by Portland Fix u e Company on October 2$, 1985 that.Portland Fix tur" e Company pp arentl y t w sh to participate a t�oe5' no ` further in these proceed.inggs. This position by Portland Fixture Company has come:as''a complete` surprise to S & J Builders and S Builders would like the. opportun .ty' to 'determine the rat ionale for Portland 'Fixture Company s position. • S & J Builders, at this point, is inclined tee p roceed Frith the hearing process on its own', if necessary'., (2) tin Wednesday, October 2 3 , 19 8 5 , th,e City of Beaver- ton Planning Commission conducted hearings on s propose° play amendment and rezoning for property almost immediately across, S.W. Scholls Ferry 1. ad from the property involved in the Portland Fixture/S & i Builders applications, That plan amendment a.nd, rezoning request, involved a proposed re.d,esination of a portion of ,that property to an OC use,, which is a compa, able use to the Cit The Mayor and Members of the Tigard City Counci 1' coo Mr. Keith Liden October ..r 5 1985 Page T'go of Tigard "' s C -P 1 The Tigard Community Development staff has indicated to S & J Builders that in light of the Beaverton application, it would be useful for` the two City staffs to confer during t`�e, next •two w 'eeks to attempt'',to reach some' type under5tanring= concerning the coordination of the'` proposed uses and. lama 'use' designations for Rtl e S W. Scholls Ferry 'Road corridor. This `effort obviously would have a di ect im ct�upon the subject applications. o >inuance d there be am cost involved in the wont of the hearing from r.i,'ce October 28 meeting, S & J Builders; will defray anST City expense occasioned by the continuat o of these proceedings. Zt is o;�r' underst-.anding that the City staff has no opposition to. a' continuance of the proceedings, a.nd,' in fact, believes that a continuance is in order at this point for the' reasons outlined in this letter. Tank fOr your consideration to this matter. Y Sincerely, �aok z 'orchard Of Attorneys for S & a Builders o: Robert G, Johnson David Zimel William A. Monahan Timothy V. R.amis MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON T0; City Council Octo 1985 ber ,�3 , �9 FROM: Keith Liden BUBJECT: Portland Fixture /S & J Properties CPA 3- -85 /ZC 3-85 Summary Followin g a remand from LUBA regarding the City Council denial of CPA 3- -85 /ZC 13-85 the Council held a hearing to determine how a second 'review of the application would bel conducted. A hearing before the Council was set for October 28, 1985. The Council also indicated that the following items 'would be considered as ,relevant eva.,uaton criteria; statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1., 5,1.1,, 5.1.4, 8.1,3, and 12'2'1 a' bi Locational criteria, Section 12.1 pertaining to General Commercial and Commercial Professional. Tigard Community Development Code a. 18.22,020 Purpose (Amendments to the Code and Map) b. 18.22.140 Quasi -- Judicial Amendments and Standards for flak &ny the Decision, c, 18 .30.120 Standards for the Decision d. 18.62.010 Purpose (C—G Zone) 18.64.0 10 Purpose (C—P Zone) A revised, set, of findings has been preparE=i; by the applicant which addresses all. of the criteria noted above i The sto,ff has assembled a, packet of information for the Council's review' of this issue. The fol10 Ding' items are 'inncludec) t 1 . Staff report' ,, AAppl,icant "s Htpppldmtht al statement. addressing hie criteria note abate prepared i by Cogan,,, Sharpo, Cogan +on October :l6, 10854, .. frog 8` i ;City Council minutes, �relati lg to this i'tw rn afte,, t was r , randed 'LISA (September ,9th ,arid 16th, 1985). Final. order` denying ,CPA -- B5JZ.0 8 -85 (Rest+ ,ut .+ n No. 8i tPA -8 ZC 3 -8y Pa+e • 5. Council minutes fer the decision for denial (Anri1 22, 15!85). 5' Planning Commission minutes reco►unending approval (April 2, 1985). 7, Staff report presented to Planning Commi3sion (April 2, 191/J5). 8, Traffic engineer's report prepared by Tom Lancaster. ' statement Prepared by Greenhill', Associates on, February �• Applicant s. � � p 14, 1985. SuPPleMental Staff A na1 's The original staff report addressed the relevant' Statewide Planning 'Goals and Plan Policies 2.1.1, 5.1,1, 5.1.4, 8.1.3, and the Locational Criteria in Section 12.1 that pertain to General Commercial Plan and Zone designations. The staff has reviewed the comments made in the , April 2, 19815, report and we conclude that the findings are atipropriate. The criteria which were not addressed in the original report are discussed below; Policy 12.2 The determination of a trade area for a commercial activity requires a considerable amount of research and analysis that the staff is not in a position to provide. The . Locational Crites is for both General Cc,,►,r<lercial and . ' Commercial Professional indicate chat trade area, site i ze, and i gross, leasable area will vary depending upon the nature of the development Tt appears that either a C -P or C-G' zoning designation would be consistent with part a. of this policy. Parts b. and c. of this policy have been Met because the appropriate Plan policies, and Locational Criteria have been applied Locational Criteria - -• Compayison between General Commercial nd Commercial Professional The criteria which apply in both cases are identical except fci),- several additional items that apply only to properties being considered for a General Commercial designation. In addition to the common criteria, ' a General Commercial property must have direct access to a major collector or arterial street, availability' of public transit, and a , project with a scale that is compatible With surrounding uses;, As noted in the original staff report, the s f that the applicable Locational Criteria have been staff c�rtelutied .,hat all. of t, satisfied, Tigard CoMmunity Development 'Code a, Section 1.1.22,020 relates to legislative amendments and since the proposal is a quasi judicial amendment, this section is not relevant, b, Secta�n .8.2Z,C -G gives general guidance regarding the items to b!e considered when reviewing a quasi-) ud- .c iai4 c ra i . The staff concludes that this, section of he Code : has berrn met because the apps icable Plan policies, Code p ovistons., and, Statewide Plannin5 Coals have been applied r This sect1,7,,,n also indicates that a "evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the Comprehensive Pia; or zoniPg map... ' should be apparent, One, change in the neighborhood has been the significant increase in the number of approved reside:'tial lets and dwelling units in the northeastern section of the City and the south portion of Beaverton, 'The second significant change in circumstances relates to the extension of North Dakota Street to the Sorrento Ro :dYScholls Ferry ,,.oad intersection. These two factors have increased the potential demand for retail and other commercial services in the, a.' °ea and creation of a four—way intersection at the northwestern cornw.'r of the property has enhanced the accessibility of the site. Section 18.30.120 as well as Chapter 18.130 of the c'de deals only with legislative changes to the Plan,' Code, or map. Section 18,.62.010 and 18.64.010 are the ' purpose statements for the C—G and C—P zones. These purpose statements are, not intended to be ut4 lized as evaluation criteria but are meant to describe the types of activities permitted in the two Zones, The Planning staff concludes that the informat, on and finding's contained in the applicant's: submittals and the staff replfrts address all relvant Statewide Planning Goals, Plan and Code provisions, Since the review was initiated, the 'Tigard': Comprehensive Plan wa acknowledged, the State Goals no longer have to be addressed,; Mr. Gordon E. Davis 1020 SW'Taylor Portland, Q'? 97205 RE: General Plan Amendment /Stroempale,Property Dear Mr. Taylor: The Tigard planning staff h6s reviewed the proposal to all w a combination of Office .Commercial (2.4 acres) and Muiti Pamily Resi, en"ial ; (7.8) acrcs) on a Parcel located on the northeas corner Of Scholls Perry Read deweio�a�ent p �¢ Sorrento Road. µWe; have no objection' to the requ st but we would and, , relimin.ar deve]:r�pment. ' p�.ans� for the appreciate an opportunity to revie.' the p ;Y site Keith S. Lid;en , Senior Planner 23397 TIGARD« OREGON Current Land Use. 5tab�edt ��� �erty. 'sac nt i'Ctd Sut "rou�id y �1g l�ra�• forth - Vacant land b L' East Ors `he Green ccudomi n i t ms ..r to i Yo d th. Creenwa Shoppi'n44,enter ,�'a�a il, home $�rt is y e,s,t g Urban' Standard (5,000 - 1.0,000 net sq. ft. per unit) -- is r aci l i ti es Plot th (future itchool site) East Urban Standard (5,000 - 10,000 net sq. ft, per unit) South - City t'f Ti and Commerci-111l 1 Wes, Urban .St. ndaT a (5,000 0,000 net .,spa. ft. per unit)‘ R -5 (Single - Family [Standard] density, 5,000 'sq ft. per dwelling unit) u 4: �. -7 sine i N�th �. � g a u [.Standard;?, dens�,,ty'y 7,000 sq. ft, per dweilitig, unit) East - R-7 , Si ngl e- Fami' {y [Stanidard3, density; 76000 sq. ft, per dwelling unit) South - City of Tigard zoning - (:ommerc i al West (Single - am ly L Standard] densi t. ; too sq ft or (1wellinq unit) TO; Planning Commission' �AT'F October '. - , 085 a,l n d:, P1 �an Department,' en FROM 9 De i rid Hendryx., Senior 1 i anner D' F ego 1 e r y S�� T: �� GPA 128�► /R'Z 13 85 (Stro p � UBJE�� REQUEST:...' „ R r quest t o the BeavertOr Are 3ener;l P1 an an d Rezone .Property "atatnei 'on .he n orth _side of Sid Schol s -.ferry road between Sorrento and Boones Bend R-5 5i n l a -F'ami l',,Y. Dr or fr 0 m a g, len tia Multi - Family . _ Residential and OC, �. ffi ce Commerci a-1 he applicant s aln proposing to oon�� , i date twd required. ie,. Pat hs 0 n , th° property al on g ;SchoT1s Ferry Road• Tax Pots 300, 400; Map z5' -3486 The area proposed ohangerd i s apptoximately 11, acres i n 1 4/ �erdon 1800 and 2050 ARE APProxiU te•ly 10+ acres . ql SO lARY .AND I RECOMP ENDATION applicant i cant i s ►'equest;rng General Plan /Zone Amendments for 2.4 acres from the, to OC (Office Commercial) and 7.8 acres f p�? 5 ��ies� dents al � Single Family) -`�� (Residential - Mil �i ��mi �y � R -5 (Residential - Single Family) to R aced on the ' information oresen' e,i'�, -- ami l y portion of the request an 4eni al f recommends approval of the Multi- of the Commercial Office request. W,. • 1 (PA- 12-85 Oct3ber 23, 1985 Page 3 of 16 `Generall r, to the General Plan, the �Commi'si on and change A. �n order to approve a �; the gfollowing >i in making � rec��mmendatson and "Council must consider th rni n the aPP P change (Reso y �;:ti � ',� 2155 as decision concerning � rr� r�ateness .of the � ch amended by Resoluti'n 2358): need to be satisfied by the amendment. dmeR t ne 1. Demonstrated public requests fo e ndi n the, Plan which would have the In the q case, of u for amending re t of increasing ng housing densities in the acknowledged Pant areas effect adequate housing the i tyn of the General Plan, Cuuncil 1 however, Public i c� ne� d will l a1 ready. been met. .ho 9 '' � a ups such as nce that the needs =P of .spe�i al gro 'finds there:.. i s clear evTde , ��� home occupants, reandi pp P or 'a, ,nomi cally >, � ' o,ar- ed Persons ��►el�nlors� nursing usi� g need Est. met 'by constructing ho 1 need •persons, i' be best. � n�: p Council may p disadvantaged p ns, wig The Co�� nit to be used ,exclusively by a special group. ndi ti nn on the amendment whi qh. �requi res the .,onstructi on to include the needed housing for the particular group; other conditions will not be used to exclude the housing type, Public Furthev�mt�re, a ubli c need'' for a l higher Beni sty may exist when there is clear Zvi dence that a .remnant tract of land may not be developed a reasonable manner under der its .current density designation. I n : detErmining whether the land can be developed in parcel, anner, the. Council may consider: the size of the p , adjacent nt uses access, 1 ocati y/n and,.ether 'relevant matteer, that may' create a spei a`i problem for the ,,development of the lot." teas Public f aci 1 a ti es and services, des; the 2. 1�t�pact: on the surrounding areas, P ia.nvi ronment •and''the general a econoMY.a y *with the General Plan text %pro` i�s.i, ►ns, �C�nsi..:tenc 4 . . Compliance with Oregon' Land Conservation Development C omm1 ssion goals and gUi del i nes. a, • � .� � �entsYl � Ve z l�udi n ca i �t��1mpr ,;a roc p s: �riee.�ed, g i on ro ram 4 g,� ImPl e�'nenta p 9 'consistency with igoal s and development Plans of 6. Coordination �t on and ,,cos� s affected by State, - regional and local jurisdictions. ubl ic costs 1 .,b �e and nef is associated with the amendment. 7 r' .. a 4 ' =of , life 'of persons directly `impacted by the proposed 8. Effect on quality ro �hance. .R k l i l a I W rIl Criteria Evaluation bloc n` I • :, , rated p he amenC mentw t � g►emonst a eed, to be. satl sfi ed 'by t See. a..1 i caht s 8ta,tenient of Y ntent. RP ,, 4 Vay YH{ GPA -12 -8 October 23, 1985 Page 4 of 16 In the case bf requests for .amending the Plan Which ch would have the effect of increasing housing densities in the acknowledged Plan areas of the Ge rera Plan, the publ i. need for >adequate housing density has already been met. However, public nerd will exist when the Council finds there i s clear evidence, that the needs of sp' ci al groups such c;s seniors, nursing home occupants, handicapped persons or economically disadvantaged persons, wi'11 be best met by constructing housing nee.d not to be ' used exclusively by. • a special group. The Council may pl a0t. a, condition on the amendment which requires the construction to include the needed housing for the ...particular group; other conditions will not be used to exclude the housing type• oe a ubl i c need 'or a hi gher depi sty may "exist when there it clearevi dence that a remnant tract of 'land., may not be deve oped i;n a reasonable warner under its; current density designation. In determining Whether-, the land can be developed i in 'a '°reasonable manner" the Council may+ consider; the `si x,e of the ..parcel„ confi guration, adjacent uses, access, location and other relevant matteer, that may create a space al problem for tie development of the 1 ot. See. appl i c��.,.��' � � „+ utementiof Intent. .. :w I i I r '1 I dW t. e, ....Proposal It.. �� .Jrban St andard , � � Q � Q00 snit C 51 to Urban Mpdium 2OOQ 6 000 net :s h q e t ,is •i : • . rf e r d well� n g unig t ) The c.lpl i cant is basig his request on the fact that he considers the site a "remnant tract of land which +fray oct be developed in a reasonable manner under its current density deg i gna tii on. As amended, Resolution 2155 as_ amended states that when clear evidence is presented that a remnant tract of land may not be developed in a reasonable manner under its current density designation, than a finding may be made that public need exists for the change. The applicant has preseOted a valid argument °that it would be difficult to develop the site unitier its current de4, ;i gnati on: The site could be developed under the Planned Unit Deve''r opment (PUD) procedures for a total of 85+ units. However it is staff's opinion (that, it would be difficult tti meet the overall obj eti ve of a PUD nce there is nothing unique about the site such as extensive trey:° coverage, water features, etc. As a result of these facts, staff concurs with the applicant and finds that this site is a remnant tract of land and that it could not be developed in a re4s rmlabl a fa ;,hi on under the current designation and that .i it meets the ty' st of neee . 5 OCb .l.Q 0 net, s . ft. per dwe t l i n;g Pro oral 2� ''Urban Standard, 10,000 g P p � ro 2.4 acres. unit ' (R-5) to> Commercial Office ( dG) app �t� mately 2 Public need can be dem� i , „,� 1 methods. Two m thuds �rr��stratr�d i r3 save .� include a vacant`' land survey market 'analysis. The following table indicates vacant land within the cit, f CPA -12 -85 October 23, ' 1985 Page 5 of 16 Vacant Commercial Lands ..a „. ..; =.n,r.i: t I ', ?fiv Wtithin• the:City Limits ,rtc)i al, wtio. � K Ir �,,� � ,Fg' -� x�. 4. 3 ik,..) .i 4 4,, ,• • f r 'k' ."; r'y�.. Yni *}4 ®,; :. e:'t t �' t «t t'.pGTI.,�` I'r, 1 r, �,1i'�'0,, M ►�" :% latigtfist,'e' 1 985' . 5 c" I a 5 r Y F ` t 1 . ` r. b t.= T M m ...... r t•'Y a , ` ; r t C;r'' •i b X, S " iisfi 1 Vacant Acres :t : 1 i Zone ° Town 'Center . 375:59 ' .,., Is „,.1.' ';''';'1"Ii 9 General Commercial 32.4 Communi ty Service Office iC e Commercial al I tl� P , •� ����Y,� »a,,1.v ,l 2.3 ,.tr 5 Commercial Convenience • , J�;.. . • �� ' 'i-.: 4 � (1'. 1. + acres of roxi mate, � � ac` The Iapplicant has requested to redesignate app Y The Single-Family 5) to Office C C� 1 • 2 3rcia* � ». • (R-5) acres of OC land the site from previous table indicates there is approxintate y ', . Oti<` eo.t �y ,'to the south, within Tigard • �Tdef`s� mated within the .�'�,t���;» »i-`' h Y ... t 3 ' ;ac'res (.;.� ►of ....vacant Commercial Office ° ` 'there y s per i s�� 1mmed a e iy adiacent rte the . south on the ,west side Property. This This s arty cut ar A site involved his Commercial is ti nvol v of the GreenwaY Shopping.' Center. h particular �1 G Y ,:►a .,� ; ,i h a,, Pi are /Rezone,- 1emerlmer�t ireeuest from Oftf i ce Com erc s Counci 1 and t s r�i iira�l 1 rg* 'fithi ' request wasudehited. b to Ti g '� "' � ��� "erg �• M sanded fur fort er . eat ed to LUgA..aud re'queed, that th s be t e r ��.985. PP' thei r-. CoUVIdifl which will occur on October 28, • �. consideration erM vicaritw•01"iLe ° land, however they are Tigard has other ommervial 1 an located along Pacific Hli9hviaY aht.0 fuii then to the sout „n • r ua,re "r`ithk t--i's 1iec�a`ted inn.. uni,ncor orated ;Washington ITT � °Washington g � site, located County. There are two parcels that total �+ ar. res. O rote,. (Hearth r enburg Road and Hall Blvd pp on. ,,the N'� corner of ��'e� ,.� t . '� i''C.- fl' r�.'q r,1�t •z.- of * roff i ee�: space. .There av'e 2 1. /4 » Cie e "'ho "menu � �; :,al so located on r r�W "" '” off" ` tcalitt" . e al . 0� is 4 ti ran, tWeigel a 'site. rr � Y�( ", � �i:��t7ryi� III }• 'N^ »�� �3t����� �1�' rat. ...'i .'A �yi �j",�+pie0ir 'Riiiid.I' 'Ig 'aff vis(lunt1 and of the status.. • w � , y .♦ ,t i n Tigard ' that the regueisty 'to itr on .� djacent proper Y g A� i OEd nded � a �:d. r,be di ff j cUl t o determine VetOmrr y » ,ai,' i ni t�qi. in total 1 re rWomt<iec land in the City ntha 'anal office » ..Office w a d-r t /+yM lr�7 �rL! a �aT. ero , 1 �Of4f� tea. �appro�� matel,� � � the surrounds ng area. It is staffs opinion that this d questni is and th the site i r�' i nceF� , a ermi nation ,oi Ti g r i"' premature n t .r . } "� »ter „ ' I T,,, f i�Y » 'w 'w� t;' °i 1Pv '..0 .i 0* 0% been made F �� mer c� al ,Office *� t Com w x . '4 n .. taff`- nal s� � ,s ;bf � .:�a� .... � � �� t s�bt►�'�_ d b� i noted) �t�`at � "� #» � imdirato =�wea� :such a5 » .. t ' tl'ud 3l %\thicto alasi c.oitsi deg �theih:� � � � r�, d dTd � PQ I � the area a i -„ ' x -- i f F dtetc` id'e l i tt»`a'sl�wel 1 cp de th e Carador i;sl C M a .µ 1 1 1 1 r w 1 bob u j# q �t`y,. fi u a * M fF y } y� ,o � b � 4R 'Y'� � •� µ -. ,. �r a �h i'� *M �'��1� �4 �?»�tt4 ' j ��e. CQmmet^e� al re,cy rr C �. a My '' W r ehtekd infor>1at ion , 1f! mark L,gr1 y .�� app's � �a���' :1��v � , : , ' ,oders ° e � e zde�:�rps � Qf', �e Jw� {A yy��y- a�y� �I�ffli+w�,o��hi��: ,� art �� °i�'� �' �fi a��i�t thi�� site. ,, M ': 'lb tot thei`r:3, f s dKc, ���,� ���� � ,� - o��.�tt�"' "���' �"�' a �t� � :� �; out ` ap`��� ��aCr� `'fit �,�,� *;�ppnc �pt�� �c�f � �� e� "� ng r . ,. it S arket a e1y i s §,oe 'ton" to,zl:iadd1�es$,r �, w . w ova ' ,' con ? e0 ;O r: such � ��s as 1,6 r.. . hat Vie` nej hht ood/ s acs not �o , w. a girls 'b' ,,„e 'i. , pwe14er chsar, ,sin w+C � �V�t� ��p� �� ORf,�t.»1 � � �j � :pent t demand �'�A�A�'�`.'. efi� w7t.Th that ''° • • ",f of croon tra`l� ttrzi t - th r� it an a+stual y :P •, this request Would d meet. t ry GPh-12 -85 October 23„ 1985 Page 6 of 16 I n cortcl usi on, there As very ,limited vacant Covmerci a1 Office land within the City. However, immediately adjacent, but within 'Tigard there is a acre commercial Office site. The applicant has not , ; clearly demonstrated that there is a dmand for additional Commercial Office land at this time . Impact on the surrounding areas, public facilities and services, the environment and the general econom! • Se applicant's Statement of Intent. Ire acts on the surrounding area Noise Pro p osal 1. tirbam Standard Density,, 5,000 - 10,000 net sq. ft. per dwelling unit (R-5) to urban Medium Res denti al 2,000 - 6,000 net sq. ft. per dwelling urit (R--2). to determine noise impacts associated with General P Plan /Rezone;; amendments. It Cs obvious there will typically be noise associated with the use o this property. associated multi-family activities occur fom vehicles entering and leavi ng the site, refuge pickup and general maintenance and upkeep.' Vehicle noise is generated throughout the day with the greatest amounts occurring during the !'peak am and pm hours (8 am and 6 pm) Refuge pickup and landscaping and gFrer,al maintenance activities occur generally throughout the 'day. Properties to the south are designated commercially while prop erties to the east are within the On The Green planned unit development. Properties. Ito the north are currently vaunt but designated as single- family residential » , The ul ti mate design of the multi - family dev'el oPment can impact the : amount of noise affecting adjacent Properties, Adjacent Properties would not be impacted by the noise if the ultimate design of the site coi si dens this factor in its site layout.; Therefore, adjacent properties will not be impacted. Pro osal 2 Urban Standard Density, 5,000 - 10,000 sg. ft• per dwelling unit to Office Commercial (0C) Noise associated wi th Commercial Office type activities typically occur from vehicles (autos and delivery trucks), parking lot sweeping and, cleaning, landscape maintenance, etc Noise, occurs duri np the horrial business hours (8 am to 6 pm) and is generally not a problem to nearby residential areas. Typically late night noise is not associated with office type activities.° if this request is approved, the design of the ultimate use of the property would i in ac t the amount of 'noise impacting adjacent residential aeas. As noted previously, adjacent property to the north and east are vacant. Residential properties to the west are Oparated by SW Sorrento Road. Noise ass ci ated with throe � the ultimate use cf thi i; property could be mitigated og po er 's�. p , to planning r I tt •J o GPA -12 -85 October 23, 1985 Page 7 of 16 Li ghti rig typicaal�' Agave parking ciall Office and Multi - family activities s that lights !�a a cut- off Commer Ordinance 2050 requi r Vries. 1.vt� 1 i ghi:ed at night ° i xtures so that glare i s not emitted does not address property 1 While e d addressee gl are, it ��t up i�hi 1 e phi s standard act; �; ti es can tend to 1.19 itself . Commercial and � Mul ti -family ed , to Si ngl e�- family res; dents al the area more acannhav'e ansimpact ion adjacent' residential areas. As al i s existing rest denti al area immediately to tes• Th;�s have nct�d there the adjacent noted 'previously , i ted impact of 1 i ghti n.g on , the east. There would be a lam .This can be On The Green residents al units in en level opment. . e h spec; f; c 1; ghti: ng the �. ct i mi ti aged through technical measures asse�ry wou�r�wnot be �mpa 9 r r� a. standards. Therefore the surr�.un i !I I Tr €e removal and f i i 1. to the e Road t Ferry es crown from Schol l s y property bass cal ly' �l oP ro erty 1 ne. There The prop north to a � creek that ' fl o'+�s � al:on si te� northern ,lev 1 op►p�nt of the site w; l l are , no significant trees . car, the grading and filling -` to make �'t buildable. the proposed is require gr 9 a grade d,aference be potential that there �v; �i sting structures 'located within the., On The �mul ti �fami ly and the e 9 � -w;1 l impact Greer development Staff i s unaware of et by installation of matu��e Gr This impact can be off s adjacent areas. proper site des; gn; ��g landscaping at the time of d�evel apment.s�� Through � not impact adjacent and landscaping, `level bpment of this residential areas. 1i act on p►abl i c facilities' the y line of them :property There i S a s ewter line located along 'the °, nor ` 'p erit. site. Adequate f aci 1 i ti .'s exist to {serve thi s dev opm -, Adequate water the City of Beaverton. q . (► 1 Water service is , i`�`oV'i led by �hi�. :,property. Specs f 1 facil�'i ti es are aVai`i'abl a � �, serve lines will be requ � red a� the improvements such aI ' E�tensi on of water p pro erty ,de`1el p apse � µ p r t wfi � as �.hi s property meat � , Storm sewer faci��t;es ��11 be a requl re 'swill exist �v serve this ilev+el op. Adequate storm ; ewer f aci 1 i ties development. the by t andard s k on w S r � Ferry ssi f ed as ads eau wgon ay -Road i s c1 a �� � ��� �Bnaver Corr Area General P1 an. This requires a 1� � c1 �a�ss fi,i ed as a ��ga� and 'gG ft. � of improvements • > SW Sorrento Road .: -way and 62 ft� of oh ' which requi res u`86 ft. cif 4 ri gh dof pia taa and specs f f Standard section I 4 � will r�q t of this site �i mprbye�ents , peel opr�ert a�cclom�bdate, Vehicle � try p. -r trip rovements to, the adj ace' t streets �- > thl s enerati on. Adegraa �e street facilities ‘ e�1�t a serve development. ; .: , OPA`12 -85 October 23, 1985 Page 8 of 16 Im act on the envi ronmPr�t : Impact on the environment would be associated with air and water quality. Specific state and federal standards address both areas. The ultimate mate users of this property will have to comply with all applicable environmental standards. Approval will not impact the environment. o the eneral economy t Impact _�...._. Ultimate development of this site for Commercial Office development nt elo will provide a location for future jobs. Approval would therefore benefit the general economy. ��. Consistency with General Plan text provisions. pP of Intent. d ��1Ca'��Jt � Staem2 S lto.. t See Residential Areas Policies 1 e All new residential 'd veto meats should comply with housing of e, site size i�r, densities plan, regardless o� tYP es shown on 'the timing as related to other developments. , ;, of this site !will' require consistency with de n� Ultimate � vet anme 'will have the underlying density. Furthermore, actual development to comply to all app i i cabl e standards and regulations- Appropriate areas should be des fined for various ,.;esi dent. wal Z. dhnsities to provide a'maximum range of choice with pr pet Y related amenf i es and facilities. lis Pa "ti cul a 'Site* with its location and Physic-'5) cohstrailits, � • � �,� sent. As des not lend itself to Single-family residential al did a lop pointed out by` the applicant, the 's ate ti s impacted by noise from Sc l l s Ferr� Road and . does not appear ; to be ,appropriate ate for Soho � y p �o � _ n the site's single -� am ly devel o meet. This r,, nc1 usi on i s based o Physie?l characters sties and l�o�� ati on. Ultimate development of thF� propertY will provide ,a suitable housing choice, y e�'vti r�:5 and All resi denti a + areas shpul d be provided with serve cl i v. an facilities neces sary for safe, healthful, convenient u ail `1 an recogthites that a1'[ residential areas need The �' : � � This ' Provide p�►hl `a o ty e u w site i s well served for adequate ., + e ` � ` �;��e ubl �c face , �'�7��s�• . . P foci 1 its es:, Eventual div'el +opment of this site can safe,, healthful and convenient urban y al development, meht should, be coordinated with other land use `Resi deni.z elements and coYmnunity facilities which are consi stmt with projected housing densities, GPA -12 -8S October 23, 1985 Page 9 of 16 As stated pr y, eviousl the site is adequately served with public facilities and this request would not overburden those. . Variety in types of residential uses consistent t with the housing density and character of the area should be encouraged. Eventual development of the site will have to be consistent with the underlying density • ▪ Various kinds of residential uses should be protected from the intrusion of incompatible uses i n order to preserve and stabilize values and the character of the area. Properties to the east are within the On The Green -Planned uni t development, (Properties to the south, are developed commercially while properties to the west are developed- as single-family resi denti al . Properties immediately t0 the .north are owned by the Beaverton School District. The drool site is designated for •Single -Fami ly •dvelopment. This site has ben decl ared as as , , P development of this property for multi - family resi denti a, 1 will require Board of Site and Design Pevi env approval . Specific conditions can be proposed at that time to offset potential ~ts throu h the use of l andscapi ��g, bermi ng and appropriate �mpa .� site de i gn.' • High density rest dential deve opments f 500 ",000 sg�a e feet P er dwell °,toy unit) should be permitted only to areas with community water and sewer .,services and their l ocatios should. have good access to major streets and be near commercial services and /or • public open space.. Adequate public facilities ere avai i abl a to serve the increased density proposed with this request. The sr to is wel 1 served by major streets. and i s adjacent to commercial services. Park facilities are located approximately ,1/2 m*m l e to the east. Transit service is ' available in the area. g. Efforts should be made to • provide safe , sanitary housing for low and moderate income families and the elderly-. The- residential and commercial areas of Central Beaverton are recognized d as desi rabl e locations for these special housing nee:Ls. tGPA 1- $2/307 ) °Multi - family structures can provide housing for income f anti l'i es and the elderly . To increase moderate and low housing, 4 variety of lot sizes should be provided. (ORD 3084) This request provides for a va greater City of Beaverton. low and moderate o,. Ilyyi14y'g✓yh densi tylwJ resi denti`al housi n w V i,ett of housing;• types for tlhe shall be' encouraged, n the Cg'LL LZ • GPA- 12 -85' Octob ■Fr 23, 1985 Page 10 of 16 The Plan encourages *li gh density residential d(,;vel opment within the Central Business : District. This site is well outside thia CBD and would not be considered to compete with that area. 11'. The City , recognizes planned unit developments ,'offer the greatest opportunity to provide a variety of housi ,ig types, desi gn.s, preservations of natural features, and should be encouraged as much as possible. (ORD 3360) This site could be developed as a planned unit development to provide a variety of housing types and design. Statement of Intent: 1. The basic and most important single residential areas is housing density. Ultimate development will have underlying housing density. development criteria, for a, be consi stern r.. vrd th the Residential densities indicated on the General Plan shall be respected and reflected in city codes and ordinances. The intent s g than type of of the Plan i s to indicate housing density rather building construction permitted within val''i ous density areas. (GPA 13 -80 /Part I/2181 Ultimate devel o P ment of the site will have to be consistent with all applicable sections Of the City codes and r,Erdi nances. Multi family development requires Board of Site and Design Review: approval which will consider such things as th0 livability of the Project. Once densities are agreed upon and the Plan adopted, all new housing developments shall conform with the designated housing density, regard i ess , Axf building tpe, site size or timing as related to other evel opments, (GP.A, 13- 80/Part 1/218) Specific standards must be get in the ultimate development of the site. Open space and other amenities are ' typically ' required for mul ti -family devel'op.ments; All' res 1 deriti al devel o mentsl shall res ect, their si`cal P P. � y. charac the Site relating ' to soils, slope, geology, te�'istycs of erosion, flooding and natural vegetation. (GPA 13 -80, Part 1/218) Development of this site will have to be consistent with the prtysicai characteristics of the site. As noted previously, the site does not have �',►Y significant Development wi l l require grading hg anti contoUri hg of the site' This will have ` to . occur in accordance With sound, engineering principles. r GPA-12 -85 October 23, 1985 Page 11 of 16 . In all resi denti8 1 areas, consideration shall be given o designating areas for living rather than directing the major effort to a development which is simple and economical to build. (GPA 13 -80, Part 1/218) Ultimate development of this property wi 11 require consistency with the City °' s development standards. Multi - family development requires Board of Site and Design Review (BSDR) approval. The Board is responsible for insuring the site i livable e_ as well as architecturally acceptable. Residential opportunities shall be increased to take greater advantage of the proximity to urban services. These efforts must be balanced, with the goals of preserving single -family housing stock and the :stability of neighborhoods. : (ORD 32371 The overall site is well served by 'urban services. Ultimate t development opmemlt of the site will provide future residents with access to these services while protecting existing and future residential areas through proper site and design considerations. 'Established aind viable residential nevi ghborhoods shall be ireserved. Mul t -fami 1y developments should be encouraged and ntegrated where apr,ropri ate, � but should not be the presumed ultimate use i n older residential areas not should the transition to multi -family be encouraged by bl anke t 9 zoni n' designations. (ORD 3'237 Development of thel multi - family portion of the site will have to conforf to all applicable ordinance standards. These steps will address the issue of compati bil i ty . Medium and high-density residential developments should be located where they have good access to arterial streets and are near 'Commercial services o r public open space. Mass trans 1it syste ms shoul d be developed that effic1 ently serve medium and hi gh-densi ty ' re si dent•ial areas (GPA 8- 80/173) S1 , Sorrento and SW Schol l s Ferry Road are classified as arterial streets. Commercial facilities are 1 ocated immedi ately ` to the south across Schol l s Ferry. Tr? -Met provides but service 'along Sri Schol l s Ferry Road. The site Meets the l oca a ()n o cri erg a of the General P an. convenience commercial neighborhood comet merci al , and community' con uerci al shopping areas wey be located wi thin residential districts and > sho�lld 'have. development standards 'which recognize: the residential area. o The Pin recognizes than. certain commercial, uses are ao o prri ate . p ill n and adjacent to a residential areas. Comtlmmercl al Office (0O) acati vi tes Were not identified as being compatible with adjacent residential activities. It should be noted5 however , , that while, the OG' zone is adjacent to the residential area, it is also GPA-12 -85' October 239 1985 1■ Page 12 of 16 and located between existing commercial, south of Schol l s Ferr�oa d major arterial streets (Schol l s Ferry) . The �r OC categorY provide a transition between the conflicting 1 a6d uses. 10. All residential ` development should respect the natural ground , existing and mature of the area insofa r as Possible, and all trees within the community should be preserved. As noted previously, previously, this site does not have any mature vegetation other than grasses on it. Commercial Statements of Irtent: 1 Additional oral o ffi ce and retail developments shall be encouraged to loc ate to assure its role as the regional employment and , retail center in in , ss U �" n the CBE) r the suburban southwest area of the metropolitan area Any regional shopping center proposed need the trade area may be opposed by Beaverton unless addi ti ona n com P i iance with the CBD goals can be demonstrated. (GPA 1-82/307) rea i s located approximately four miles from the Central The ar would' not be considered to Business District., As such, the area wou • compete with the Downtown, and this goal would not be affected. s . No new commercial developments sr ►could be established in the Planning area. Properties to the south are designated for commercial activitles. A .rov ?`I of this request would result ri n a cente+�4being, located on two of " ``the four corners y p rner.� of Sorrento a,. =� Bch F..rr . r ola� ' n for additional onal or expanded com rierc i al center areas should Zoning apparent need and this need should be allocated orated can a basis of app supported by current market analysis eysi s submitted by the app 1 i cant. (ORD 3289) der- demonstrated public need, there As noted under � � amount A^ rr n is a limited - ` � . Y nd� ng area. The of O C designated land within the City and surrou . .. � � .:, - '' demand for applicant �: cant has not clearly demonstrated that there is e additional ! Commercial Office land. . be taken to control the size of •these centers so that � Care. should . excessive zoning does not require the addition of other kinds of uses Which ch would generate traffic from well beyond the servi co area. �,.. This re..uest i.nvoliven its ' approximately 2 1/2 acres of sand. q lves it wool d� not create significant traffic Given � . limited size, generation or draw trafficc from outside the immediate area. i al areas shod d be sub ct to devel opm►ent standards All cot'nme�ro ,... s,cj� =� �i,�ta � access, signs, relating to setb; r;ks, landscaping, building heights, Outdoor s torage/di spl aY,, and archi tectural review. (ORD 3289 a, GPA -12 -85 (Ictober 23, 1985 Page 13 of 16 Ultimate development of commercial section of this site require, consistency t4111 a'fi i ordinance standards. ▪ Care show d be ;i taken to control the size, location and scale of new commercial ,i€vel opments so they do not generate traffic from outside the intended service; area. (ORD 3'289) i This request is very limited i n size and therefore ::oul d not draw traffic from outside the ili .ended service area. . Commercial developments which abut residential zones and residential uses should be subject to special set!)ack screening provisions. Eventual development of the Commercial Office portion of this site would be subject to a1 ' standard specified 3 n •Development Code. This addresses su�ecial setbacks, screening etc , Office uses should be iocated in areas appropriate to the need for Offs � r rton as a public accessibility with an emphasis on downtown BEa�.. major area for a mix of both commercial office and office industry. (GPA 4 -81) The General the Central Beaverton Area is neral Plan recognizes � site As noted previously, this site i s intended for office type uses. the Central Business located approxiMa teiy three miles from t. Drstract and a(4 a result would not be co n sadered to o c ompe e with the CBD. Conclusions - Cons with the General Plan s t to ).edesi nate the site from Si nil e Fani ly to Sul ti --Fami 1y The reques 9 appears to be consi sent with the Gyaneratl Plan. The site is notThis request menos appropriate Tor typical Single - Family (development. the intent of the P1 art. ' s to �.. � year 2 i c e s to Commercial Office app to redesignate � � '... , demonstrated The request meet the Policies of the Plan with the e ti ole. Of fdaes not rated public need. Granted the City and surrounding i designated land, however, r, the ail pl i cant has large of vacant OC des' owe�e p ' amounts not demonstrated a clear need for additional OC land. ons that , there i s The General Plan has several ? Policies and Statements of Intent hat are not applicable to this request and therefore were not discussed. compliance with Oregon Land Conservation Development Commission goals an gui del i nes. see applicant's Statement of Intent • GPA- 12 -8'5 October 23, 1985 Page 14 of 16 r- Procedures and By 'vi rture of the City's ackn��rl edged General Plan, regulations to implement the Plan, this request would be consistent with the LCDC goals and guidelines. 5. Implementation programs needed, including capital improvements. s Statement en 4 of Intent. . Seea applicant' to pP. As the area ultimately develops, specific standards will have to he met, to insure that adequate Public facilities exist to serve this development. At this time no capital improvements are asiioci ated with this request. oor f di nati on and consi stency with goals and devel opment plan s V affected state, regional and local jurisdictions. See aopi icanc t ' Statement of Intent. 5 This request is consistent with the goals , ar,d development Plans i affected Late, regi onal and l ocal jursdi cti ons. of �� from the amendment. 7. I public costs and benefits associated fr 0 r r See appl i cant Statement of Intent. s As the area develops, specific improvements will be required of the developer(s). At this Point in time, it is not clearly Understood what Public improvements would be required for is overall that site. { hat the w R P While public costs �, are not known at this tune, it � s, assumed t ultimate developer will be ''responsibl e for offsetting chases costs. d be associate' r section o th d with this request would associated with they f Benefits associated increased job opportunities in the Commercial Office sec site Gnd increased opportunities for housing l' in � the 'multi -farm y Portion of the site. i t �zl i of life of those persons directly impacted by Effect on the �L_ ��! . q the proposed change See a pp licant`s Statement rf ,intent. With proper site designing, to desing ni , ,a►yout, etc. this site can develop as proposed while net impacting the quality of life of adjacent Properties. Bike Path Consideration The applicant has req +.jested to ei i iii mate the requi r"ed bike path that i s • t`denti fi ed,' by thy, General Plan. 'Thy • path i s to • oe 1 ocated • along the northern • r'operty l ne a Staff has 'eval uated the 'request and `has determi reed that th' path should be ocated on the. north side of the creek, on the Schoo Qi stri ct' s prape rty '`fhi s resolves the i ssue.s ra'i sed by the a'ppl i cant , whi l e pravi di rag,' 'for 'the future i'nterconn c t ora of the separated bike path. • GPA -12 -85 October 23, L9.8 � Page 16 of 16 Discuss 'i This request is `con si der;e d to be quasi - j udi c al amendment. The appl i cans+., must the burden of proof that the amendment is needed. The �rp.ater, the carry burden and the applica t must demonstrate that th charge, she greater the y conforms to all the applicable 'statutary o r u1 ati ons. proposal � rdi Hance � e. ....must,' teat the request conforms to the R eol urton' Area i+urther, �t t be found ent a Lion 2155 General Plan and there is a public need for the amendm . t specific criteria teat must be met in approving such a request. sets out sp However compliance with that criteria does not SCreti Ondry h S Commission or P est sinc,L this is Counci 1 a provi rig' t �e request CONCLUSIONS aura The applicant has demonstrated tha t. ,there is. a. need for the Multi-family, Portion on of this request. It has not b€'en demonstrated that there is > a need for the Offiq e 'Commercial portion. The request would not have an impact on the surrounding area,, services, the environment or the general economy. I. The, Multifamily portion' a the ihequest 1'3 consistent with the genera ; i pl an text provisions for residenti a areas. i h the excer tan of public need, toe Office Commercial i s coni scent with the Plan. . The request meet LCDC goal's and guidelinesQ including capital improvements, • Pio implementation prograws are needed, will result from thi request. 6. The request does not affect goals for development plans of State, regional or jurisdictions. 7. There are no public costs associated' with this amendment. that the quality ty of life would not be affected by this r juest. 8. It appears :tha. q 9. The, sep parated bike path should bed located on adjacent properti es to the north. RECOM Et DATIONS,,, To approve a. General P1 4‘'I amendmen L, all ' of the criteria a0 sP 0 f i e rli n pp Resolution 2155 must be mete proposal 1 Urban Standard 5, stqe. f t `i e p e er # d welling unit (R'...'51 to - Th e Counci .h p os be ppraVed . Prhpasal 2 Urban "StandGrd 000 0000 nci't � sq � 4. per dwelling unit t R5 l to 0 ric Cormer c a f � �0C' � does M M1�Y� , 'ctri tri a. Ther staff rec(ti,mmends that the Pl ann in g Cu74„,,, nr i ssl O re mthend tth a o�ncil eni a i)f prvpaal 2 m [ d • , October 23, 1985 Page 16 of 16 • Applicant's Statement of Intent. • Traffic c arrasysi s. GPA-12 -85: 14:1 o:17b STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) and say: (Please Print) That I am a 6'« %( for The City of Tigard, Oregon. That I served notice c f a public hearing for City Council. of which the attached is copy (marked Exhibit A) upon each of the following named persons on the day of _ e."7 ,),,4 198 6--, by mailing to each of them at the as hereto shown on the attached list (M«�rked Exhibit B), said notice ' to attach d, deposited in the United States, Mail on the day of x,98 Postage re aid. Signature Vered to POST OFFICE Subscribed and sworn to before me on the / `,, ;day � 198 �. + §t�« *MA�nmxc I i o . a I OT Ai Y PUBLIC OF OREGON Commissidti Expires' 4 C O GAN SHARPE COGAN 8 ' M O R A N D U M TO: William Monahan, Planning Director City of Tigard FROM: Sumner Sharpe C S Cogan �.harpe Cogan DATE: Octobei SUBJECT: Su...lemental Statement for 8 -� PP or, CiPA 3 ,�S / 2t� 3 8 Our firm has been retained to prepare a s uppleme ntal statement for the Portland Fixture /S &J P ro p ert y a pp eal for t�he October 281 Ci �Y Council hearing. In this s tatement, Y will refer t0 Y our. September 27th memo to Mr., Jack Orchard which identifies the relevant criteria to be addreSSed by the .applicant. STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES The Tigard plan has been acknowledged i P � and this request a quasi udicial change to the comprehensive g 9_ is . � g � plan and dev P for elapn����t code Maps` It is our ()Pinion that the stateside planning goaiz and guidelines generally do not apply. These would apply i ,' the request were for a policy or code text change or a legislative action to modify the plan. The property is already designated for commercial 'uses, and en this has'be accounted for in the plan and code. This reguest.is to allow for a minor change in the land use designation CFA ;'to CO, 'which could result in a different . mix of land uses. t.101.4eVer, the location of the property is such that the criteria for both CG and CP 'uses are satisfied and supportable in the existing plan and code. 71S iOAS FtW;I'LAD • 97204 503/225 -0192 MINIMINNIMMOMM . TIGA D COMPREHENSIVE, PL ! 2.1.1 Citizen Involvement Program.' This is a city responsibility and does not apply to the applicant, and there is a finding on the record that this policy has been satisfied. 5.1.1 Diversification of Economic Oppartunities. The change from CP to CG would accomplish the following: potential for a faster build out of the property, . thus creating jobs fastt.r than if the property remained CP, as a more 'diverse mix of' uses is permitted in CG zones. A more advantageous structural configuration. Professional services can locate in structures designed for low -rise commercial developments; however, it is often too costly to convert structures designed for office use to comi0er- cial Purposes'. Furthermore, commercial typE' Construction results in Lower square foot costs to the lessees. Consequently, CG type p cvibility as market deuelo merits offer more f� conditions change more diversity in use and activities to serve the area. A survey; .if existing development along Scholls Ferry Road from the area in question east to 217 shows that because of the inclusive nature of Zoning, business and professional offices have already locate di in both commercial and industrial zones. Consequently! Ouch o'&' the demand for Profes- sional services is already being' addressed. In addition, some retail rises are found in industrial, tones. This has been the case on both the Tigard and Beaverton sides of Scholls Ferry +Road. ard'.' . ( south;) side ' of. Sc,halls Fear weist to east In she adja cent dG zone (Grcenway Shoppi n Cent,E'r "1 ; t. 3e f,c,? 1,. 'V;ng.!.`P permittted uses carp be found: ~ pst shop and grooii.ng animal c1 in,�i c and post office. r .. te 4 In the IP ` zone, just west of the Southern Pacific railroad tracks, the Koll Business Center has more than 50 tenants, mostly offices, and includes several restaurants, a travel agency, business systems companies, health care offices, and a design firm. In the CC zone just east of the Southern Pacific railroad tracks, none of the uses currently in the Time Publications Building could ba classed as retail; tenantsin.clude g counselor, an 3 asurance a career management counsel office, and a diet centers Beaverton (north) side of Scholls Perri (west to east North of the Greenway Shopping Center, in an R5 zone, there is a day care center. The Parkside Center, zoned CS (commercial service) includes a medical emergency center and a dental care center. The Robinson Crossing Center, located within' !a CI (campus industrial) zone, is primarily retail uses, but includes an eye ca77e center. The Nimbus industrial park, zoned CI, includes, or will include, office uses, a health club, a conference center, and a large pharmacy services "she point of this quick review is to show that, in situations where zoning is inclusive of other use;, as is the case with Tigard° s CG and CP zones, the market becomes a major determinant of specific 1.10es as opposed to zoning designations. It is our opinion that, given the degree to which business and professional services already are located in commercial and industrial zones not designated primarily for orofessional services, the 5.4 acre site .1n question here cannot be expected to develoP ; )(clusively for professional and b=usiness off ces. As market conditions dictate, p roi l sionai $ rvi ces locate where appropriate and as .131lowe0 by the underlying zones �}a Furthermore, up to 30% of Tigard's CP sites can be developed with certain CG permitted uses. Therefore, the difference between CG and be more a matter of perception than reality, the CP designation inhibits development venthe the existence of other office development ia vicinity. Finally, with regard to the timing of deve loPme nt and job creation, a CG zone which allows a broader array of +ommercial services as permitted uses allows for a more flexible development and marketing response to the marketplace. . 5.1 .4 Non = Encroachment � ; The area is already designated a.. �� .� omme,rcial , and zone . no expansion of the ne zs raga fisted. Therefore, this policy does not app 1 Y- • 5.1.3 Dew Preconditions It is understood that these preconditions et o acceptable to the applicant. With reference S.? .3.et the traffic engineer for the applicant has identified that a minor change in the signal item is possible to accommodate t he differences fferences Y in peak hour traffic that array be generated from CG' uses as opposed to CP uses. { L : Provided both zones �.n the fiexibi li ty provided y, terms of allowable uses and the mixed use +. rn y..n the Scholls nature � of the development pane r.: F.oad areer it is not possible to be definitive Ferry traffic in the area . er of about the e �a ct character put example, office uses.: c and 1 zones create peak hour traffic and may not have been. e s s; p accounted for in traffic forecasts. .nali t the Tigard compre hensive plan e d not identify the level of st re et im tovementa that has resulted in thr North Dakota extension which and connects l2lst; Avenue to Scho11s Ferry Road Creates a major four -;-gay intersection with S. W. �:�, Road. Theis change ho l is �. �>. � Roa �o�srenta Road at Sc of circumstoncue, rest1i8 in a aodified traffic attern:', and as Sorrento i'rprovest North Dakota p rove .. more direct ,�st as p :des a mor ct ConneCt�:�iin to �ot.rento�l�ls,t opposed', to using SCholls Ferry for a 4 connection, ei& Id O. , hYe 1 'afl d YW4. 5TH c Scholls Ferry; is a state .highway, and a major four -way signal at the North Dakota /Sorrento intersection is paan ied. Modification to the signal to reduce congestion due to any traffic increases due to CG type uses as opposed to CP ty,le uses is achieved easily as outlined in the traffic engineer's report. 12.2.1a w_P_P.._.J . A ro riate The CG zone allows all CP type uses. The "scale" criteria for CG and CP zones are virtually identical trade area, site size and leaseable area are varied,' presumably based on market condi tions . 1242.1 TIGARD Locational Criteria All locational criteria for CG areaddy,essed by proposed roposed change. With the decision ' to have the North Dakota extension serve as a major connection between 121st and Scholls Ferry Road, the site is served by major roads on two sides'. This improveMent and the proposed tra f is signals make it possible to accsmmodateCP or CG traffic; s and if added traff:: results, signal modification are Possible to mItigate any impacts. COMMUNITY' DEVELOPMENT . CODE'. 18.22.020 Legislative Amendments This section does not aPplY7 this $. s a quasi �- judicial amendment. 18.22.040 Quasi. Amendmenteri and Standards A L e g ucst fvr a comprehensive plan map change is submitted co t.ly with i th the coni ng . ,n is map amendment. As has been shown, there i.s no. adverse ,� � .y effect on health, safety sand welfare. The 6n Possible impact is a Potential increase in traffic gen6kration e `which is not adverse for three reasons: /• .1t1M'rw.nll�h�. l» The North Dakota' extension was not part of the city d;3, comprehensive plan when the site was designated CP, and therefore the current capacity of the interchange easily exceeds that projected by the plan. This is a change in the traffic pattern not foreseen at the time of plan adoption. 2. The mixed use development along Scholls Ferry Road suggests that traffic generation character- istics are not related solely to underlying zoning; i.e., there are no developments with one type of use in C or I zones. 3 ® If the deitiopment on this site is primarily retail versus business/professional services, then additional traffic generation can be anticipated; however, given the psens for a four -way signal at the intersection, a slight modification in the signal will mitigate the additional traffic and maintain "C" level traffic flow standards. 18.30.120 Standards for the Decisibns All standards have been ;addressed including the change of circumstances related to the North Dakota Extension. 18.62,0'10 CG: :: Pulrpo e Professiona services are allowed as outright Professional uses in CG zones; thus that potential is maintained by , this change. It is located on a major arterial. Y, 1.8.64.010 cP :.. Pu'.rpose The change allows for business /professional, services„ The CP zone across North Dakota from the site in question maintains the transitional use of CP. The residential tone . south of the site in question already abuts an existing CG P Zone; therefore a n �" CG zone � the the C' s � ansAon o does not dramatically change the nature of zr ninr relationships- n 0 Opportunities create business and professional services to serve the nearby residential neighbor- hoods . nea. h�aor hoods are preserved, and the pos sibility of more rapid devOlopment due to enhanced development and marketing flexibility will support the city ° s economic growth. The use will be compatible and supportive, as business and professional services are ,allowed under both CG and CP ones Finally, under the terms of current CP zoning,' there are no guarantees that primarily business and professional offices would locate here; for example, la permitted motel /restaurant (transient lodging) could utilize the entire sip: CONCLUSION This change will have little, if any, impact on the health, safety, , and welfare of the community. - Business and Professional services are permitted in CG zon es, and these uses can be sited more cost effectively; in 'commercial type structures than can retail type uses in structures designed for offices. It alread Y exists as a commercial zone on the plan and zoning maps. If additional traffic is generated it is eai3 1y mitigated as a condition of development. edevelom North. 1nakota as a connOct:ion between 121st Th p ent of an r is e • •• •{ d d Scholls Fer y change of c�.rcumstan� e. not �.dent�.f to in the city's, plan. Given this improvement, the traffic impact differential, between CP and CG is minimal. Oevelaprnent along Schoils Ferry Road is diverse in nature •- - business and professional offices exist in CG/CS and industrial zones, and retail use exist in industrial zones. Consequently it is questionable to assume that a CP site would be developed entirely as business and professional ser.`vi ces or that a more flexible CO zone would not include business, and professional services.' In our estiratie n, development of existing business and professional services in the vicinity has weakened the market for development of a substantial amount of new business and Professional services By allowing the:` change to''a ct z,one, mor4l flexibility in structural type and a faster cons "'u ction schedule' is encourage, More diverse 'iconomic activity l is promoted, and the creation of ,jobs, is t likely to begi -i sooner C GORDON k-L'. DA I5 1020 TAYLOR BUILDING', SUITE 555 POST O1.FICE BOX 8774 PORTLAND, OREGON 97207 503.248.1185 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PUBLIC AFFAIRS CONSULTING STRATEGIC PLANNING Jim Hendry, Planning Department City of Beaverton 3800 SW Cedar'Hills Blvd ,Beaverton, ,Oregon' 97005 RE: GPA 12 -85 Office Commercial Resolution 2385 'You` have asked me to address in greater specifics the demand for and rationale for office commercial on the Stroemple site and the relationship of 'our proposal to Council Resolution 2385. Resolution 2385 0� April 12', 1982;1 the Br . vertow Council adopted this resolution to further define the need for increasing' densities within the city, In summary, the, council recognized that it hid1 special circumstances in the city that might warrant increasing the housing density in certain areas,'properties or projects. These circumstances include: For projects or properties that could reasonably be built to accommodate the housing needs of special groups such as seniors,' nursing home occupant handicapped and economic disadvantaged persons. Properties es that because of size, ha e r �� s elationshi to �' nor other factors 'cannot reap, P ad,7acent�.�sos, i;icces�; loca�.io t be sonabl,y developed under Its culhr nt land used eli gnatiol' The resolution characterizes such parcels as remnant tracts o l and , While a 101 acre parcel like the` Stroemple /V'ae7ra /barrow, ,property would not ordinarily be considered a remnant parcel, its shape and relationship to adacnt` roads and activities certainly places it in that category T r The O e t r is over 1 4 Mile e 13 C�0 'feet � n length. t" Z t � s 490 feet widest ,p p � % � � g h� ee at> its w est iyoint (on Sorrento) and 225 feet at its narrowest';Boones Bend Drive).' The property varios in width throughout its length with the majority of its width at approximately~ 350 feet. Jim Hendryx' October 8, 1985 Page 3 GPA: l?_ - -85 Site plans prepared for the property (which also incorporate the day care center into the parking and on —site circulation system) ,include two office buildingsy',one in 'the southwest corner at the intersection of 'Scholls Ferry with Sorrento; the'second in the northwest corner of,the property., Both, offices orient internal to the site rather than to either adjacent road and along with th'e day care center, access from a single `shared drive to `Sorrento. The site ;plan, designed to exceed cit Y re q uirements for p arkin g landscaping end al 1 ow s the two buildings. to' be either one or two Story, provi d i ng a total of 16,000 to 32, 000 square feet of office space for the two buildings. . Market One of the two buildings will be occupied by George Stroemple with his business -- Trans Pacific Export, Inc. While Mr. Stroemple owns this'proPerty and has been involved in a few small development, projects, his full time business is the impo''t' and export o• building materials from the orient. This ,project will enable Mr. Stroemple to relocate from his current leased space in Lake Oswego to his own building on his own property, n addition to Trans Pacific Ex Port, Mr. Stroemple has three companies with w he z s a partner in various p rojects, including the residential portion of this project. Vieira /Darrow, a development company in Bellevue, Washington will be establishing their Portland operations in the Stroemple building. In addition to the Stroemple project, V i ei ra /Darrow now have other projects in the 'early planning rtages in Washington County and Lake Oswego. Ij Two other of Mr. , Stroempl e' s partners- -Jon R. Jur` ens & Associates an architect tect with offices in Portland, and Doug Kohlberg &)Associates, a real estate firm will also be occupying space with Mr. Stroemple. Between these four firms, ms, one of the two buildings will be fully occupied. The development concept. for the second building is to "bu'fld to suit ",fora single user or, pan anchor user. ie.re the market. concept is to'`seek ou' a user °that provides nei ghborhooci/communi ty bzrsed serv'i ces�- -such as doctors, dentists, CPA i s, l',awyers, surveyors, engineers, insurance or reel estate' brokers and other Simi tar profess:1onal ±s. . While these office users are also found in the large, commerc.ia'l office complexes i'n areas' like Washi'n ton Square, a 'segment of, thess g e professionals operate within a market that is' more 1 °retail'' 'in nature,, catering to a more localized clientele and not de if zn the i!,tage and prestige of mid -rise :lass A office 'space, Demand for this ty e of nei hborhood oriented rofessi'on al� of ` X " P g p n Tice space �.s dzffzcult t�`', quar.tify since. it. is not Just a demand for general office space, but rather a - demand fr'r a particular type 'and locartion of office space bar !professionals who operate in, a somewhat speci al i zed market. as' compared with their 'peer s I er ha'g's the most graph,i c example of this community on ente d offi ce'' pra,ct i ce i s w � t'h they medical professions. Practitioners not only „chose medical speciral tie ,, but they also',, �c,hose their specific .approach o practice. F ►mily:.medica.l practice is considerab';y • A.� MEMORANDUM;, October 8., 1985 TO: Jim Hend'ryx, Senior Planner Cit..), of Beaverton r Davis, 0 Go don Qa s a AICP M Beverly Book in, AIc,P, Additional Justification for Office ComMerci.al 1(OC) Designa- tor SUBJECT:' g for the Stroemple Property The purpose of this memorandum is to present addi t ►,ona1 information which justifies the redesi gnati on of 2.5 acres of the Str dempl a site from resi- denti.til (R5) to office, commercial (0C). To do this, we have undertaken a survey of seven existing office commercial iSIteS in south Beaveton and north) Ti garrl wi thi n a two-mile: radius of the, site. The location and character- i sti,rs II of each of these rse a summary aed in' the `attached map and table. All of these sites area located on main thorou hfares e. Murray nd 9 9 y ha Boulevards and Greenbur Road All area 1 ar eas,, prier al ly mul � fami� l developments, and m st buffer these resi � nt to resi en �a 9 dences from mare intense neighborhood and c.ommuni ty r ommerci al uses. Al ready developed sites I al so have some traits i n comnon Contain 1- and 2 -story buildings which .re similar i n size and scale to those in typical suburban= complexes. In the rneW er de�l o p erits, i .e. those � n 3eavertn� , t hese structure.: mirror the architecture, building materials, and landscaping of nearby apartments, In facti, one proje(,t, the Hilltop Prc fessi onal ` Center;, is an integral Paetrkif a large apartment, complex. a I of - provi de rental space for a wide range ,�f' Professionals s and re P 9 .P tail service providers--doctors, dentists, CPAs, lawyers, engi peer's, arc'hitects, landscape architects.,' insurance brokers and real estate agents --.who practice alone or in small groups evera:l observations can be drawn from this survey: Except f or a small P orti on o f the GrQenwa y Center sa te � � h e e currently) ts no vacant office commercial property in south 'Beaverton, from Scholl t Ferry Road to ;Alien Soul evard. A f tew Parcel the rezoning' of the : immediately south of t he Stroemple si te to perMit ex p ans cn of the Greenwa Y Town Sq uare Center, there wi l l be no office commercial' property al ontl S chol l s Ferry west of Washington Square.` This leaves only 4 5 acres of vacant OC property o n Hall Boulevard in, downtown Tigard. U.i'[# « J mn. i, k d ..,..?1G:rvwlunllh+4J'm.iMelo-ilq fl �V• ALL r: c? L 51TE Leo versa nlhion.5 reen (wev�l oWf a / or ointoWitii , a Ownto n % 1, r ocati on INVENTORY OF OFFICE. COMMERCI_dL •rPOPFRTJEa IN BEVERTON ANiU TIGARD WITHIN VICINITY O STOEMPL� SITE Site Status Development enarats Surrounding ng Uses I. BEAVERTON COMMONS (Murray Blvd. at lien Blvd.) 2. HILLTOP PROFESSIONAL CENTER (Hall Blvd. at Ridgecrest Dr.) GREENWAY CENTER (Nall Blvd. at Greenway) DOW #'TOWN TIGARD (East side of Green - burg Rd. at Center Street) ., DOWNTOWN TIGARD (West side of Green- burg Rd. at Center Street) Approx,_ Fully Six 1- and 2- story 8 acres developed profes si onal office buildings Approx. Fully 2 -story professional 1 acre developed office bu l ai ng, inte- grated part Lf Hilltop Apa rtix a cs-wp ex Appro:K. S acres Approx.. 7 acres All but small por- tion devel- oped Fully developed Two 1 -story profes- sional office bl dqs. Several unrelated 1 -story prrfessi onal office buildings. Approx. Requires Single family housing 10 acres redevelop- ment Physicians, den -- ti its, CPAs, in-- surance broker, mall consulting/ high tech firms CPA, architects, landscape archi- tect, engi reeri ng firm, n,urance br'okor Braun;` rn ■ estates office, dentists, chiropractor, n- surance broker Dental and medical clinics, law of- fices, large pro - fessional office building .....� r ...r...,..W■M.r.. « _ _ Highland Hills. Shop- ping Center t outh), single and multi-- famil y residential (north /E ut4) Mul ti-family residen- tial (west/south); single family resi- dential (north /east) Albertson' s (south) ; single family resi- dential (north/west); open space (east) Tigard Plaza Shopping Center (east); multi - fan,-ly residential (north /west); general ,commercial (south) General consnerci al (south); office com- Ri ercial (east); single- and multi-- family residen'ial (north /west) NORRIS, BEGGS s M P S (1 1 \T 720 S.W. WASHINGTON STREET. PORTLAND, OREGON 97205 (503)223.7181 October 4, 1985 rii r. Gordon Davis P.O. 'fox 8774 Portland, OR 97207 RE,: Stroempel Project - Northe;.as';t triener o; Scholls Ferry and Sorrento Roads, Beaverton Dear Mr. Da '41.3: Dea n to our conversation, I am writing to clarify market conditions in the Southwest Pursuant . , _ � y area on Scholls Ferry market: In parti dren's World Daycare Center. the _ Clu,9. a � Suburban office Y cinrt ,aft ,�•sotc w� ��srusy �, the Greenway in th vi y The following points oints should be considered when looking at. the possible construction of an office buildiltig on the Stroempe) property: The closest office building is at Higtivya.v 117 and S.VV. Cascade Boulevard. ThiS .s the Times Publications building its a 20,000 square foot, two -story Wood that is currently 75% teased xatuan 'aysrag. rent of $12.00 per Full servie y g i p y frame building g annual This one square a fast. F eon an approximately tel art ual basis '& h�;s aui . miles north of your site. • 1 mil ma in and .one - hail. y is o� .eta l space s ace is available aer4,'►ss the street from your site and medical ''space is available approximately one mile north f your site on. Sci7o11s Ferry Road. While T uncertain about the demand for pure medical Office spare, 'Y believe y our site lends itself well to service-type businesses such a „5 insurance, veterinarian, financial seorlees, banks, tax services, and other retail-oriented office users. lr; Wottitt predict you could probably e ,r�t to r�,ac� 70% occupancy twelve m oaths of tftt' completion of the structure. X � t - . been 'There. is no , historical data ,to use as a �.anparison ,a as the site ha s Ir�o considered co maer ci �llof roe by the estate brokerage and elopm en t community until the last two years. However, We rereiveapproxirately four our t o five ;nauiries Etach' month looking for office space in the Greenvway area. 1V11r Davis, please contact me if 1 !cal be of arlditzonal, assistance. Sincerel y, WORMS SEGOS' & S1MFS +I. C /bt /aa6 • it d • ROBERT S. BALL TEPHEN T. JANIK KENNETH M. NOVACK JACK L.O'rlCHARD JOHN W. LILJEGREN SUSAN M. QUICK WILLIAM H PERKINS CHRISTOPHER W. ANGIUS VICKI G. BAYLESS DENISE FRANCIS ' BARBARA W. RADLER MICHAEL_ C. WALCH BALL, JAN I K 5t NOVACK ATTORNEYS AT LAW ONE M4.1,N PLACE iO $, W. MAIM STREET PORTLAND, OREGCN 9 7ia04 TELEPHONE (503) 228 -25 }25 T ELECOPY (50 3) 295.1P58 8 TELF_X 910 -380 -5470 Mr. William Monahan Planning Director pity of Tigard Tigard City Hall Tigard, 'Oregon 97223 Sepember 27, 1985 Portland Fixture Company/ .. & B? d lders OCT OF COUNSEL JACOB TANZEF Dear Bill: As of the above date, I have not received your on of the additional standards and criteria which compilation � 6 �. cons , � � p the Tigard City Council identified at its September 1 , above heating on the. e a pl_i. cation. Obvio sly, without direction as to which standards and criteria which Council now feels Proceed__ - '.s impossible for the applicants to P pp le it. M� � p � •� beady succes�s- ,4re a scab the a plicants have a, 4xurther. . As you. are thearrev criteria . opted by th(� sly cri teria, fully addressed all .:. . p i�u r� in. prior y ad r or he�.r�.ngs is and • Staff, Planning Ccrn�nis Coun , . _l p r siox� and City � � - �' t; s doubts whether the criter nd tari .ards I entertain er�.o „� are legally or factually' the Council now believes apply a. appropriate roe riate 'at this stage of the, proceedings incorrect � Y �� I Ora n m understanding that you were �il x� ` these new standards de r- lgated the : esponsibility of comb Elting where, the sr grid. criteria, please direct tae to a source dids and criteria can be identified. In any event, 'Bob on and I Would like to discuss the :•pure ` of the future proceedings application , as well as the Staff's position regarding on the +r ear possible Con such future Proceedings at our earliest Thank you for y our cooperation. Best Personal regards . Sincerelyr 1 1985 L0�", tµC Mr . obort - ' Johnson i r 'Ant' lr4..,yy ��. let e� DQ.A :Z ii el chard I( eptember, 27, 1.985 Jack. Orcha.r"', Attorney Ball, Janik and Novach 101 SW Main Street, Suite 1100 Portland, OR 97204 Reference: Portland Fixture, S & J Property Appeal City Council Hearing Regarding PA's 3- 85 /ZCF T!G#RD WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON The Council has date ed' that soveral relevant criteria contained in the Tigard Comprehen6ive Plan and the community :velopment ,Code were not addressed during ;:he initial review of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Zone • Change (CFA 3 -85 /Zi -85), application for S &' J Builders. In order for !the applicant to be> adequately prepared for t. t October 85 lze,3 28 19 ring of this re q uest the relevat �rite ria listed below: 1. Statewide g Plannin Goals and,Guidelines all 2. Ti g ap ardCoa rehensive Plan and 12.2.1 a. b. Loca'tional Criteria, Section 12.1 pertaining to Generr.tl Commercial and Commercial,' Professional. Ti dv A vP tCd.e ar omnntinit `fie ,.lea mien o g Y P a. 1.8.22.020 Purpose. (Amendments to the Cade and Map) 18.22.040 Quasi - Judicial Amendments an4H Standards for makilxg the Decision c. -16 30. "! 20 the Standards for the Devi sior, d. 18.62.010 Purpose (C °G Zone) e. i8 64.010 Put ;nse (C-P Zone) which will allaiv you to address these The Council' r�yll conduct g hearing jt Comprehensive P.1 an and Code issues' as well as' othears whichou identify as being of concern. l Please. consult with Keith Liden of my off ice at ;ur earliest convenience to coordinate; ou'r a >fforts to give the issue a full hearing ;with cc:4,sideration liven to all polcy and, plan concerns. Slac, rely, is Williom A. 'l onahat , Director, Comriuni ty Development CcY City Cotxnc i 755 SW+ As yO B O C 23397 TIGARb$ OREG N 97223 >H: 639 4117 ` 4. Bait Plairthluest Illanaqctinent Lam ang Mr. Keith Liden City' Of Tigard PO BoX 23397 Tigard, OR, 97223 HAND DELIVERED S pte1n'ber 23, 1985 1 SEE 2 3 1985 CUY OF I`iGARD PLANNING DEPT, Dear Key. h c Our attorney, 1r. Jack Orchard, has requested that 1 obtain from the City a a6mPlete copy of all findings , of fast and council orders for all zr.+m• re]nensivw Plan changes �. since the most,,recent comprehensive ,� p initiated s Plan adoption. Secause . vi,e will need this information for evaluating the council's ha nd lin g o f our par t i cular com p a hens sve change request, would appreciate your expediting t,xis request. PleaGe do not hesitate to c aY1 if I can provide additional infoa.mation. ncereayr CO: J Orchard i Sw. W' 'Iu rra r' I 'da Ro w e Press ent `1.., Johnson Seav r on egon i+ ) 541- 5i, i! Notice is, hereby, given'that a •public "hearing, will be heft located et 12500 W Allen. ulevar" � eelt i tOn, Q r9 purt,cc of receiving testimony from inte S ; G'�A l2 85/R7 1' :85 t TR05MPL. t4 a '•+I 5 d N 5 l oceted do .ante 'not and Booties. Bend Drive from i 5,.' Multi Family't^es�dei i "a nd' 0 O s: '� co.rt,sol i da:te� "tltti ` . l51 •3BB., Tie .proposedo;' be clan . �omrr�i ioh ati ... he Wu, " rt E , dl�Pp" � r Any person rrr y appeilr'tieidfe the; i'l Ih�t,ti : � _w w , ,..� to the erg information may be Obtained by contacting the Plannitio Department,; City of lion to the granting of the request. Written testimony is acceptable if received by t to �Ccim' slon rror to the �-neetin;, Further in .. munify�'Room' lrior+iringe' are K!ori cte t3oulnvard, Bel v+ertan, i tihe "`i er,verlon Librmiry tom" reboil and begin et'1,:30 p,m,► toPanningC ml 0linµ, 1) Deny the; p` Ott) 2) ,Approve ,the epf li , 3) ApproVe:th 'condif 4) Continuo v, tr th ap, ' `� yfor.further CO ri ideration. �t Ij,,M "• '!it' ���ws ttricii a e t Upon t a Ifafi; i ' 11bj ►' i d4f ijf#� the "5 ,,} �I �'3Y t T'.4w�✓r r� � MT ^'z7. 1 niiri5 *woirmisto ,ref o o ,i �vlf ti`lodi ►tibp guile pubilo hearing on the pr CITY F BEAVERTON Office Of Community beveio tinent 4950 S.W. Hall touievard Beaverton, Oregon. 9/005 OENiP1E/yS, 5 , .l lCl TY) H ar Native e 1U'AD Pi 1, , 10 YOU AI `�' A AIM I.1 PEOPE T 0 %VNE1,4 R E JN2t A `'TllS Anima d 'til.il"i,ilRJ .. l 3b 5l'f MORAY.kll Vii t E V Rl Utz qlt 9701 �.,i,��- c Committee mem Hers advised Council teat' focusing on the Downtown area h:as cliv_n the Committee more structure and is creating a more cohesive atmosphere on the Committee, There w;rs cony, ;ern that more work needs to be done strengthen the ties with rather Economic Development committees' ;thel . surrounding area. d, Council expressed their appreciation for the Committee' efforts and time to 'date and encouraged', them to appear before the Budget Committee,,; with a,ny requests for funding 1 which ,should be r;rnsiderQd. Council further supported f''ocusing on ' or ? ;najar g+bals and indicated 1 wntow,i, Tigard is especially appropriate. CitYl Administrator stated the le..st legislative session set new e. chl §,nges in the Local Improvement District laws which will impact economic development both in the public' and private setor. He suggested this information would be provided the Committee. f. community t)eu,,1.opment Director stated that the Council will see members of the Cornrnittee appearing to testify at public hearings in the 'future. They are enrourctging d�velopet^s to 'Present development', requests to them for comment CIVIC CENTER DISCUSSION, & UPDATE City Admini trator distributed revised Pr' ject Budget Report and stated the October r° 0°1-t should. be more detai'�;,ed after' the soils 1, � p dispute is resolved He ad`v ised Council, tVi ,c the Civic Center. Advisory 'Committee i s meeting regularly again Civic Ctriter Advisory Coin ,',tee representative, radon, b� site. , e ' M i v iewr�ng state _ om�titte� members n,.re going to d that�the C the more `often PUBLIC HEARING: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDME zG -85 P0RTLAN'b FIXTURE /S & J BUILDERS N1'?C' #7' et 3e of the city, Council's denial on April 2 ?.1 19851 of a re a .. . d Zone f �„y1 for a Com reheri$xve Plan' t�mendment an Change from CP (Cornrnerci.al Professi.ona i (Commercial General ,or w �o CG C : , s Ferry a 5.4 acre site, Located : South s icue o 1t2((.:/a, imine la e. y west of Gree "nway Towne Center, WCTTM iSl, 84BC, Lot 400) Public Testimon Portion, of hearing was concluded at ,the 9/9/85 ,. Council 'was .continued to, this date, meeting artid :consideration of C�un Legal Counsel stated Council needed to identify those section1 of He suggested �ested that the Cade �!h�.th are �'el,ev&nt to t'hea. °t� decis'�.on� cJg if sections of the Code and Comprehensive Plan were considered in the formation of a detitionl decision which were not addressed at the previous hearings , then. the participants.' need to have a chance to respond in a Public Hearing ei.ther before Counci`l. or Planning Commission. 3- ,Fgl) ZONE CHANGE Council noted the fo]lowing; area s of the Code which, should be addrestseri in a public hearing: P ge 2 - -Ct UI CIL MI:NUT FS 4' 4 EMBER '.16,x:, a 19,64,010 — purposes of the CP zoning not addressed. 18.64.010 & 18.62.010 -- definition of both zones not addressed Comp. Plan Section II, pages 79--86 Policy 12.2.1 18.30.120 —,Criteria for Council approua.l, 18.22.010 18.22.040 Beaverton 20ne/Com0 `Plan Maps All LCOC Goals Motion by Councilor E' rt, seconded by Councilor Brian to set full evidential public hearing before Council on 10/14/85 at 7 :00 PM to hear issue. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. Jack. Orchards, representing applicant, asked. who would determine what items are to be addressed at the new hearing. After lengthy discussion, consensus of Council was that the Community Development Director would advise applicant of sections outlir red by Council as ar +Las of concern, however, that listing would not be all inclusive, q, After further discussion, Councilor Edin moved to reschedule the hearin g date 'from 10/14/85 to 10/28/85 at 7:00' PM to ca,ve � applicant further time to prepare presentatio h. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present, COUNCILOR EDWARDS ARRIVED: 9110 PM 8. ANNEXATION PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT Tabled from 9/4/85 Meeting sus of Council was t continue this item to 9/30/85 Meeting,. 'Consensus 9 CITY QUESTIONNAIRES DISCUSSION Consensus` oi'•' Count;il was to continue this item to 9/23/85 meeting, CABLE TV RENEGOTIATIONS REPORT 1 - � miry of ...the agreement reached t,r.�unc,il�i� �cot� d�.st sum r�buted 'a between MACC and Storer Metro ComOunicatiohs, Inc. She requested input. from Council regarding their concerns as she was scheduled to attend another meeting; with MACC on 9/16/85 at'' 4:00 PM,. b. Legal, Counsel state that he wou l.d bo studying the agreement with the tediall COunse . from MACC (Mr. bash' Cooper) end would' also r°esporid to arty concerns Council might express, Page G0UNCII� Mt UTl-S EI TEM R ib, 1 8t 4 Committee members advised Council that focusing on the DowAtown area has given the Committee more structure and is creating a more cohesive atmosphere on the Committee. There was concern that more work needs to be done to strengthen the ties with other Economic Development committees in the surrounding area. Co and Committ cons idere goals and cil expressed their appreciation for the Committee's efforts me to date and encouraged them to appear before the E3udget with any requests for funding which should be • Council further supported focusing on 1. or 2 major i ated Downtown Tigard is especially appropriate. • e. City Administre►to stated the last legislative'' session set new Changes in the Loca Improvement District laws which will impact economic development • h in the public and private sector. He gg rmation ould be provided the Committee. suggested d this a.nfa f. Community Development Director stated that 'the 'Council will see members of the Committee appeari -. to testify at public hearings in the future They are encou Ping developers, to present development requests to them for comme CIVIC CENTER DISCUSSION & UPDATE a City Administrator distributed revised Project . dget Report and stated the report s p should ,,,be more detailed October re ;ter the soils dispute 'is resolved,. He advi.sied Council that the iv .c Center y meeting, regularly again Adv��sar :Comm ttee �.s m 'a. Carolyn Eadon, Civic Center Aevisory Comm_ ", tee represent' stated that the Committee member!i' arc yo i ng to be viewing the s e more oftenw PUBLIC HEARING COMPREHENSIVE . PLAN AMENDMENT" CPA 3-85 AND ZONE CHANGE. ZC -85 PORTLAND FIXTURE /S & 3 BUILDERS NPO 7 Rnv lea on the record HOf the City Council `s denial can April 22, 198$i of a request for aPprova'i for a Comprehen a ive Plan ,. Amendment: and Zone Change ;from CP (Commero a.1 ,Professional) to CG' (Co;rmercia1 General) for a 5 4 acre site Loca:,d: 'Roa.i, immec'tiatel west of G. e,enWV 'To . y ,~ whe Center, WCTM l5t 3BC, Lot 4130) was Public Testimony ' Portion of �; hearing ' concluded at the 9/9/85 meeting and consideration' or Council was continued to this date Legal Counsel stated Council needed to identify those sections of the code !which a're rel.e.vant to th dec;ision, ale suggested' thOxt if sections' of the. Code `and Comprehensive: Phan here considered in' " isign which were not d adressed hat the the fc; inati,on , of a dec previous hearings,, then the participants !creed to have a ,chance to respond in a, Public Nearing either before' Coi.►nci or' P1ahning Commi. sioh. r e whr ch 'shoul.i be r r,f e Cod ��ut•,c�i. hued the fo�.l.ow�:r�� areas th ,ddressed` ire 'a pr blic hearing ouNcrt MTNUTES i,) 4 ( 18 .64.010 purposes of the CP zoning not i addressed. 18.64.010 & 18.62.010 - definition of both'zonos not addressed, Comp. Plan Section II, pages 79 -86 Policy 12.2.1 18.30.120 -- Criteria for Council approval 18.2 ?_.010 .18 ._ 22 040 Beaverton Zone /Co m Plan Ma r> , r> All LCDC Goal Motion by Councilor Edin, seconded by Councilor Brian to set full' evidential public hearing before Council on 10/14/85 at 7 :60 PM to hear issue. A roved ,b unanimous vote of Council present. PP y., Jack Orchards, representing applicant, asked who would determine what items are to be addressed at the new hearing. After lengthy discussion, consensus of Council was that the Community Development Director would advise applicant of sections outlined by Council as '' areas' of concern, however, that listing would not be all inclusive. moved to reschedule the uss�.on Councilor Edin After•. further disc � �nc1l hearing date from 10/14/85 to 10/28/85 at 7 :00 Pm to give applicant further time to 'Prepare presentation, Approved by unanimous 'vote of Council tY sent. COUNCILOR EDWARDS ARRIVED: 8 :10 PM 8. ANNEXATION PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT Tabled from 914/85 Meeting a. Consensus of Council was to continue this item to P/30/85 mr_eting - DISCUSSION ONNAIRES �� � `# QUEb ONi�A 1 ti Consensu f Council was � continue t item to 9/23/85 meeting a CABLE T'V RENEGOTIATI REPORT y •he a reement reached • � . r of t ?� � uteri a s�larn a. Gourycxlor .�cott d�. , _b '� between. 'i AC:C; and Store^ etro CrmmunlcatioflS, Inc. She requested • input from Council rega.rd�. their concerns';' as she doled • to attend another meeting with .iACC on 9/16/85 at 4 :00 PM, 4 jr ' Y sta'ce I'that he would studying the agreement W� E�, ,' L.e al CounsQi g Coo er and woult also 1�he ' Leg�l, Counsel from -- I`lA C, CNir. D p " c . .. nd c►Uri�i.�, � ma.ght �,p respod any concerns C CCaggl L MINUTES '' SE1 1 "E1ISER 15, 1985 / ♦.a� ^__�. ) M • NOTICE OF P1J'BLIC 11EA'RING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD CITY CuUNCIL AT ITS MEETING ON MONDAY, September 9, 1985 AT 7:30 P.M. , IN THE LECTURE ROOM O1 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL, 10865 , SW WALNUT, TIGARD, OR., WILL CONSIDER THE „FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO CPA 3-85 & ZC 3 -85 APPLICANT: Portlatitd Fixture Co. 338 NW Fifth Portland, (JR. 97209 REQUEST LOCATION: OWNER: S & J Builders 5335 SW Murray Beaverton, OR Review on the record the City Council's denial on. April 22, 1985, of a request for approval for a Comprehensive' Plan Amendment and Zone Change from CP (Commercial Professional) to CG (Commercial General) for a 5.4 acre site. South side of Scholls Ferry Road, immediately west of Greenway Towne `'Center, (WCTM. 1S `I 34BC, 1nt 400)` see trap on �re:t'er ale. Side) THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED I N ACCORDANCE' WITH TH RULES OF ,PROCEDURES OF THE CITY COUNCIL., TEST. aNY MAY BE SU B. tLIT TED I N W. R IT I G TO R ENTERED INTa THE RECORD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT' TAE CITY RFCORIRR OR PLAN$XNG DIRECTOR AT: 639 -4171 CITY OF TIGARD w 12755 S.W. Ash Ave. TiRard,, aregon 97223 (02'72?) r (eornn .r Of Ash 61 Burnham) Senior F)J. :`►rR r r►otod history or r'cquest and rtot.t.d - ghat. Staff', Planning ^r mr,. .� .ti i ar ar d C( r. have d1fferences roF opinion' inion on somti recommendations c. Public testimony' Gerald Crow, Cr-ow Engineering, requested .Council approve staff's' recommendation to allow gravel parking re s for special areas, 1,e, temporary uses. Staff requested dir ^motion from Council. Public Hearing. Closed ORDINANCE NO 85 -31 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 18,56:050 AND 18.58 050 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY (ZOA 4--8 5 ) ` S conded b Counc i.lor Ed i.n tra adopt' Mot�.on by councilor �c�tt; se y setting minimums setback requirements . Approved by unanimous vote of Council. present. Council :ti scussed other proposed changes- with staFf and gave direction for preparation of ordinancp.s i — the 9/2.3 95 meeting. PUBLIC. HEARING: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT a;►r AND ZONE CHANGE ZC 3 -85 PORTLAND FIXTURE /S & 3' BUILDE;`t5'' NPO City Cc'�%iici].' s denial on April 7Z, 1985, of . aq e record of the Review on the pprr,val request for a for a C,ompreher *si +ie Plan Amendment wnd Zone Change from CP (Commercial Profesional) to CG (Commercial Gfyneral) fci' 5.4 acre site. Located, south side of Scholls Ferry Road, rnmediately west of Greerway Towne Center, (WCTM 151 3480, lo'c 400) . a. Public Hearing °Hearin Opened b, Legal g Counsel I noted that Portland t= ixtur`e Company;- g & 7 Builders, have petitioned LUBA for review of the Council decision of April ?2, 1 1985 which denied a comprehensive plan' amendrnent and zone change The Council needs to revi.'w the application based upon the prior record and the testimony given on the record, at this new hearing. A decision shop, .tld be made based, upon the criteria established in the comprehcinsive Plan, He recomrrznded' a 'terta.ive finding be made with direction to staff for preparation of the adoption papers to adopt ,findings and ttonclusions.' COUNCILOR kr .fVED t 7 ,54 P I uk lic' 'Testimony ,'. A el.lants _pp . 3'ack Orchard,. 1.,100 Orue Ma .rr Place, PortlarnL stated that. CoUr i,1 needs to address' Crite'r•i.a.' i.ri maki,ncj decision and had only addr=essed 5 r the c r iginal. ii,�ar ind,.- He noted that Stair! Wid Planning Goal, II anti C rapter is , L'ocational. Criteria, rriust b acdres;sed L M NU1 xiy A " '1 s • }icy r'eciucl sIed t.ri,►FFi.c: eruy i.ric:er information be ( >onsidered regrardr► the :impact of the F,raCF•ic from the proposed site, o torn La►ic:as ter , Ira ffi.c Cr ii ricer , posted ai ;neap o thca proposed intersection at SchoIis Feerr`y /Sorrerito /Dakota arid di.st.ribu,Fted a syoops is of the traffic study report for Greenway;, Town Cent Jr- Phase II. He reported that congestion and safety would not be significantly impacted if the proposed signal would provide a special si Hai pha,se for northbound right turn traffic. This mod,i.fication of the si'gna], would be about $1,000, u N1r. Orchard noted that the developers would bear the entire expense of the modification to the si.gnal. �. Senior Planner Liden stated the StaFf recommendation .for :approval stands as before based on a stri :•t interpretation of the codes. Legal Counsel noted that any decision may by Council would have be • fca5ed on the criteria set out in TMC U3.22.040. e, Public`! hearing Closed f . Council Consideration Councilor Brian stated that the plan design and long ter€ community needs were addressed during the Comp Plan hearinw:l to set the standards and that today's market should not be the issue considered Councilor Edwards agreed with Councilor Brian, and added that there was concern that the traffic study does not address the true;, traffi impact to the area.:' r. Councilor Ed in stated that LCUC has logically required red 9 ood plan designations and the burden of proof for the change is on the applicant, He wished to evaluate the comp plan further and, requested this item be continued for 1" week for study , Mayor' Cook stated the NPO was present at the last hearing and they recommends d denial of the request. Comp Plan hearings were held for over- two years to " make the designations 'originally and felt the intensity of the use would lead shim to stay with the existing zoning. Discussion followed'' whether: the Qeavert'n /Tigard zoning maps could be c'ons,idered at the hearing for u.se x studying the ;;issue for a week . Ot �`1 x�n � Courxc�.lo Coun rd1n sec�.nc�ed b. t ,o y ► ,.. y 1 r Bccstt to Iccr�itYnue the; Council' Consideration Courwoi°l • add itaioh ark t �,m i e ;for consideration aril d `tailed study t pprovet by una us vote cif Council present !Mr± dro and u+estioned whether 'he wools av a g h change to address the new info `oration o`f the urround'ing n ng maps lie was conc+ rued he ml h,t be precluded from any input. UNCI IINIUTES t, SCOT'E !OER w d L_ega1 (";ourrse). st.i 't.r!d cueryone slloul.d hay the opporLuni t._y to address that i.ssue, Mayor Corok' stated t1' t1. i .ri'Porm&ti.on were deemed no essar-y'' for cons i,derat; ion b;! Council t ;hhat, t:he ssue could be remanded' back to the P1anna.ric Commission, for- Lt-Ii!, to be introduced into the record MSTIP RESOLUTION .& LETTER or INTENT a, Mayor Cook read into the record the memorandum From the Transportaiton Committee setting, forth their recommendations noting support of a' bond measure with conditions, Lengthy` discussior, followed. RESOLUTION NO, 85-75 to RE OLU CION , Jr THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL SUPPORTING THE WASHINGYON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COORDINATING OMMI'1"TEE' S` MAJOR STREETS TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM �MSTIP)' AND RECOMMENDING SUBMITTAL 1 "0 THE VOTERS. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded approve, y Councilor Edwards tr Tom ,Sullivan, Trarnsporttion Committee Chairman, spoke i to the bond measure as the best' way to insure funds are available 1 r all cities, Bruce garner`, Washi.ngton Cnunty Deputy Directlor F'or Land Use and Transp,trtatcn, stated that chic would be a joint project and that' a bohd, proposal would be the way to aet the benefit for the j ur i sdiction:.s projects , tJe' noted._ that October 1st, is the hearing before the Board of Commissioner's regard the road jurisdiction issues for the City Motion to approve Resolution No. 85 -75 was approved' by -1 majority of Council present, Councilor ' Scott voting nay Con ensuis of Council was to s end 1 the Resolution and a letter of'' intent setting out conditions of support as set .iut in the Tigard Transportation Committee's s Memo and ` ask the: County to also commit to cities being allowed the option :jf administering certain projects within their iuri.sd ction,'' COUNCIL�'STAFF TRAINING ••••• DrSCUSSION aAfter lengthy di'srussior on this i ssue,'`i consensus 0f Council +as to hold a wot�kshop in Tigard on October 12, 198'5 ��rr�m 9 :00 AM to 4.bC PMT • This work.sshop; ,.1, 'i be for Council • onl.u, ho • ever, the meeti,tig is Open to the public:' ttecutiue Staff will trot be • er aired to attend attd wild hot kye compens +ed for` their .ime if they o attend y' yacht Cr unci]or will submit i'te'ms for the agenda too the Mayo b�y " 9/ t 85. Mayor Cook w ll then prepare air agenda for tote meeting and' will wear wits staff to publish and call the meeting at the apprur ria.te i me , The profes s for al trai.her wig :� Y e : l trot be used, f ref^ 1��,e ses s cart and 4r; e boat, »ot� 'ut~ the • me t1 h is try be der rmxr��d aLY a 1[�tel date i � e ��1. �4r1'....{�J 1.W 111 N �a✓ V'.PI � A (1-.) 4 ; j r• . • 'aeni.or Pl ►rlr►cr nr ts,d hi story of request. and rtotAld that Staff, Plannirta t'r` nm ssion arld C(;i' haysr differenrses of r :pinion on some onirnc+ '... tt iun,? Public .• st imony , s Ge, old Crow, � ow Engineering, requested Council. approve staff recommendation t allow gravel pc r-king areas for special areas, %.e. temporary, uses. f� c ,staff requested dire,.tYon •m Council. Putalic Hearing C�i.osed ORD'.ENANCE Nu. 85-31 AN ORDINANCE., AML 18 58.050 DE 'ME CO is "CITY oF.vELOPMar EMERGENCY (LOA 4 -85) INC SECTION'S 18 56 050 AND CODE AR O: DECLARING AN Motion by Councilor Scott, sc!conded by Counci Ediri to adopt setting minimum setback requirements. Approved by una,rtimous' vote of Council present. Council ds► 'with staff and s�..3gsed other proposed chanr�es !� direction for- prepar4tion of ordinances for the 9/23/85 meeting., fi r} 'PUBLIC HEARING! C AMPREHENStVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 3 -85 AND ZONE CHANGE 2'C 3 -S5 PORTLeCAD FIXTUR =/S & IS BUILDERS NPO 11 7 n the record ' s � April 22,'1985, of Review c of t:he, City Counc�.l denial on A a request for approval for a Comprehensive Plan Amo.ndment and Zone Charge from CP (Comtnercial Professional) to CG (Corrimercia,l General) for a 5.4 acre site. Located: South side of Scholls Ferry Road; ( 11 1S1 34BC lot 404 . dYarte � ly west. of Greenway "Cowrie Cr�ri1`twt'", Wt a. Public Hearing Opened P e ned Le 9 a 1 'Counsel � ot. = t a t Portland � iktu°e .$ & 3 :. have petitioned LUBA for review of the Council decision of April , 22, 19S5 r,+li,tich denied "-1 comprehens i ►1e plan amendment and zone change,. The Council needs to review the application based upon the prior record and the testirnony ' gives': on t:hP record`' at this nett) hriaring. All decision ' hoM.rld be rode bases twpon the criteria,' +rstablished in the cot.; )rehensivc. plan. " He re;.ommended a nta'' ive f .ding be made utith direction wo staff I for preparation ` of the adoption papers to ar;opt findings and r-onclusioriis. COUNCILOR I BRYAN ARRIVED ~: i P+Fi. ge Public Ths'timony 0 , llants r j 1\ + ti r:, .., .h o�.rtd . s �att�d ixl.fih4 x: '�: �frV.Ac i l chat• d i.iG�t� #one ax�► Race r or•t 1 g risio'n anti 4,,.yid only t kt�rt«'� Y,ri ttGt Ira a d�, rrr?eds to add, es� 7' c'r � add "Tess :d 5 �t tahe original heart:rtg. pie noted that,. 4 to bide p , r�nl ing Gal r Xnd Chapter i. v Lr cat cana Crit,er' a ►r us b: ,r+e s sed' K atl . GOUNCLL. MINUTE "S • aua ■ He r .que, ted traffic engineer eer _ information iort be considered i - regarding the irrp*c.'of the traffic from the proposed site. Tom Lancaster, Traffic:' Engineer, posted' c map of the proposed intersection .it Scholls Ferry /Sorrerato/Oak{.a .a and distributqd c'' synopsis of the traffic study report„ fir, Grtertway Town Center Phrase II. He reported that ?;;ongest}, n and safety would not be significantly impacted if thrl ` proposed signal would ' provide a ¶.special signal phase for the northbound right turn traffic. This modification of the signal would be about $1,000. Mr, Orchard noted that the developers would bear the entire expense' of the `nodif ication to t''le signa;l.' Senior Planner. f.den stated the Staff recome ndation for approval sta ; d s as before based on a str,;ct inter pretat ion of the codes. Legal Counsel noted that any decision may by Council would have to be used can the criteria set out in TMC.,18.22.040. Public '.Hearing Closed Council ''Consideration Councilor Brian stated that the plan do s ign and long term community needs,,; were addressed di ring the Ccmp Plan hearings to set ; the. standa rds , and that today's market should not be the issue considered Councilor Edwards agreed with Councilor Brian and added that 'there was conc €!rn that the , traffic study 'does snot !addre$s the true traffic impa•t to the area. Councilor Edin stated that ECDC has logically required good plan;,„ dec ignati.ons and the burden of proof for the change is on the applicant. He wished to e valuate the comp plan further and' requested this item be continued 'I `'' -,r 1 wee' for study. Maior Cook stand the NP() was present at' the last. hearing and they recommended derdal of the request Comp plan heari;rtg .were held for wer~ two years to cooks' the des, gnatici is or gin Illy and felt the irate sity of the use woul.d lead him to stay with • the'. exa ting ci'ning tliscr scion fo1,JNed whether the geat,erton %Tigjard coning maps' cot d be considere t; the hearing • for• use in' ,stud�ting th'e its sue ror a weeka� Motion b1 Councilor Edin!,# seconded by Councilor Scott to continue the Council Consicjeration of issue to V 1,6/85 to allow Chanel]. additiona]. '%,Lute for consideration' and detailed study, • Approv4d b unanitF ts: .8..a. t S, Cou'r,exl.'. present ., Mr Orchar-d q uestioned wil ether hc i would •haJe a. � ch a ige to addr e s • ,it, e hew inforrnt ion.. of... the sra.rroundi, g zoning ire ,� tI was ' M ,... ed froha any irrptft coke, r;ed he flight bra prey lud page ., t 1JP CLb. 6. Nttl'ES - SEPTEtBER ' 1985 Ca . Lega). Couri:,el stated everyone should have the opportunity address that lissue, Mayor Cook stated that if that infor:...,t ion were deemed necessary For consideration by Cuunci'i that the issu'. could be remanded back to the Planning Commission for this to be introduced into the record, . MSTIP RESOLUTION & LETTER OF INTENT Mayor Cook read into the record the memorandum from the Trans ortatior G ommittee I setting forth their recommendations noting ppctrt su of a bored measure with conditions. ts thy discussion 'foi,?.owed . RESOLI• ION NO, 85-75 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL SUPPORT G THE WASHINGTON COUNTY 1"RANSPORTATION ICOORDINATING COMMIT STREETS 'Y�E MAJOR STREETS TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ' (MSTIO) AND ',ECOPIMENDIWG SUBMITTAL TO THE VOTERS Motion' by C'o cilorj Brian, secor ►ded by Councilor', Edwards to approve. Tom fi '' ' t tee � Chai rma� o spoke to the bond T r►. ,.ull,i�rar,, ;Trans r I tat , ors Cctr „�tx , P measure) as the best, way '' to insure funds are available, for all cities. f. Bruce Warner, Washington 1 %c'unty Deputy Nrect r For Land Use and TraYisportation, stated that his woc Iii be a joint project and that a bond proposal wohJld, be the wE.,y to ,gee',,, the full benefit: for the jurisdictions 'I projects. He no -d tnat October •I,st is the hearing before the Board of Cccmmissione rego:rding the road jurisdiction issues for the City of Tigard, Motion to approve Resolution 1NO, R;., 75 was approved by a 3-1. majority Vote oI' Council present, CoLtn for Scot voting nay, ConsF nsus Council' n � of was to send the Res utrion land a letter of ` ing out conditions support s set, out Lin the Tigard xnte�. Ott ” co TranspL Cation Committee's Memo ar a sk a ndxi.�ions � of I p 'Cation � � pu� ask the uht:y to also I i ;ommi.t to cities being allowed, the 'option of adn nistering ct':rtain pro jects within their jurisdiction. COU,NCI I` S T FF TRA NINE WORKSHOP LISCUSSI I cN I II I i ,Pt, ,tor 1 vr►gt -hy discussion on this issue, consensus orI • •until t4as t•,o t" 'load a workshop in rigard on October 1.2, 9,985 from ' `O0 AM Ito 00 PM, This wnrk shop will be I for Co urc i i only hawe r, the mereting is o,p' n 'Ito 'the public. Exeeut ive' Staff will. of be '7 a � y for their ti e if I .. 4 . x;� ` i i i l ti'. mi t 'L'te ens for tah','I genda; to they Mayor y 9/ 10/85 , 11ayror Cook will then prepare n 0,gunda forl tit- itioet,,irg and will l work with staff to ' .pubit sh an '64114.. ,`the imeeti'ng I at the ,ppropr.i,atre me , ThOH. profess' iid tvra,iner will not be used For t'<te: se ?siot are tVhe lncat~i,r�r�' of the rneo i.ng `s; do 'be ,determined t' a 1.a.ter date, COUNCyIL INUTES SEPTEPM; ER 9,. .1855 • 4 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON COUNCIL. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA' F: Se "'em a r g i 985 AGENDA ITEM # DATE SUBMITTED: : ` September; 5, 1985 PREVIOUS ` ACTION: ial b City Council ISSUE /AGENDA TITLE Comprehensive on April 22, 1.,985 Plan Amendment CPA 8 -85 and "`' William A. Mona Plate Zone Pe F.PARED 8Y : William han__ _____.W f'li Chae,,ZC 3--85, Portland Fixture/ REQUESTED BY: S & J Builders DEPARTMENT 'HEAD OK: er;g1 CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE Should a Compr(ahensive Plan amendment and zone chani)e to C—G be granted for 5.4 acres of land now zoned C—P on Scholls 'Ferry Road rl the vicinity of 121st. INFORMATION SUMMARY Portland Fixture Company /S '& J Builders have petitionqd. LUBA for review of the Council decision of April 22, 1985 which denied a comprehensive plarr amendment and zone change. The Council should rev&ew the application based upon the prior record and the testimony given on the record at this new hearing.' A , decision should be rnade ' based open the criter':a established in the comprehensive plan. ALTERNAT ',VES CONSIDEREQ G su orts C t3 ,Which evaer�. +, the a l�.cat�,on on the record and reach � �e �.sa. n u! pp 1, R pp the April 2 "2 dace` sic��. 2 Review the a fic tion n t$ e pp modification 16f the 6.prii 22 denial,, Review Ith ippIi.cati.on' or► the record and roach a decision to at1prove, th application, r ',cord and reach a decision which is a SUt GE O ACTION y �� �, W. a Jrt °thee record Condutt. a h�.�r�.r,� based ot� the. red , d y m�lte � a�,�p � rr b se. apply the app r,t v ,.l cri 4tiri.a and rriake Find it g y fJL (a) The commercial area is not sur rounded by residential districts on more than two sides, (2) Access 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 and Projected traffic volumes, the speed ,limit. number of turning mavement s , and the traffic gen rating characteristics of the various types of uses. The site shall have direct access from a major collector or arterial, street. Public p • lic trans ortati.on shall be avntilable to the site or general area Site Characteristics I' a ) The site shall be of a size which can accomm'oda'te present and projected uses. (b) The ,site shall have high visibility. Impact Assessment The scale of the project shall be compatible with the surrounding uses. (b Th e site configuration and characteristics shall be such that . commercial. uses .. t non can be max.,nta�.ned . ivaco ad ac en of the pr' y � possible to incorporate the unique site features . 11 be p corptsrate is (c� It shall into the site design and development plan. (d) ; The associated lights, n o i s e and activities ies c hat. 1 not interfere wi t h adjoining non—residential uses , earinl to discuss the criteria, the Staff will be avxlable at the h � � app p licant`s application and the ana;jisis used in comparing', the application to, the criteria (3) (a) (b) (c) (a) (« t; br /t8O4n) • ■ ro • It . : A of 11� GEFNWAY TOWN CENTER PHASE, I' TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Scholls 'Perry at Sorrento Road Tigard, Oregon TOM R. LANCASTER, P.E. Transportatio Eny;:1eering r ,, r; The proposed devrelopme,nt is located in the southeast 'quadrant of the intersection oaf' Scholls Ferry uthEast q � � � Dakota , Sorrento. Road (the north leg ) , .',and Dakota Street (the south leg) . It will consist of 58,000 square feet of commercial retail space. T.. legs. An eight--phase signs can the � north and south g � - actuated traffic sig ~jai is scheduled to be installed by the fire on State Highway Division o n in 1986. of change for To assess the traf:�, • ,." impact ot: Lorne c a z �' the subject 'pz.operty from ..ie existing C -P to C -G, three scenarios were studied: (1) existing traffic, (2) i r existing with development under existing zoning, and (3) traffi c with develo p nent under the proposed Zoning. „ intersection is presently controlled by STOP It was found ' that with existing traffic, including traffic from housing > developments in the area currently under construction, the intersection will operaile at c' the If the level, ot. service C with e new traffic signal. property were developed under the existing zoning to include offices, a convenience store, a restaurant, and a bank, traffic entering the intersection would increase by 9 percent, and the level of ,ervice would be r'duced to D. if the zoning is Irian ed and retail space is developed, the increase in i existing traffic would be 11 �.op r percent, arid the level of service would also be reduced to D. secLus:e there is presently a northbound Irig,itt-turn lace at he it terse,c oh, the traffic signal could be rtiod,L:, fed to ' provide a special sign.a phase for the northbound right 'turn. This would increase the level of service' `with either scenario 2 ar scenario 3 tc level C, eve 1 of serer j',ce at the hich is the ,present l.. iz tersection . The cost, of the signal revision would be less-! than $1,, 000. • \ 9/c, A- TO FROM:`' MEMORANDUM CITY; bF TIGARD, OREGON Members of the City Council, William A. Monahan, Director, Community Development SUB1.1'FCT comprehensive phens iv e Plan Amendment CPA 3-85, and Zone Change ZC 3--85 Portland Fixture /S & 3' Builders September . ,`' 1985 The Council has accepted t h the recommendation which 1: and Attornelf Tiro Ramis d to hold a review on the record of !the above named , pp 1ication . The have has been remanded from LUBA following a petition for review of the City Council's April 22, 19851denial of the request, the record of the Prior ,proceedings, on Attach''ad' for this issue. the Council's review is Applica tion filed by Louis Z'irrrel, February 15, 1985.: Supporting documents wi,threquest for agency ! review and agency responses Not ry` meetin of April 2, 1985. ice. of he�.� rlg o � Plann�.r�g Commiss�.on g�, P1 anni ng Commission staff reports Planning CommissiO1 minutes of April 2, 1985 ` of City Council of April. 22, 1985 Notice! of hearing f � �' minutes of City Council Meeting of April. 2 Notice of decision Final Order Resolution., Comprehensive plan 85-28, Pages #,82 -84 of ''Chapter 12, 1985 of ';prime concern to'ithe 'Council is tht 'adequacy of the findings contained in the Final 1 Order, The Council must, following the hearing, make a decision and th draft findings which apply the ,criteria outlined in the Comprehens .ve Plan for a corm rehensiv plan, amendment and zor hose criteria, analyzed � �e ,change p P in the staff report considered by the Planning tionm' usibn are taken fv om chapter' 12, page 1T-,8 of the Plan'..' B , ;l'oca t,x�brr al' Cr�.t±�r.. , act ng and Location 1- / t. AFFIDAViT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON 7 County, of Washington' ) se. City of Tigard 4-./8 and ;,ay: Please • print biat' 1 gw .a ,A ,I ,,/1 ?i , „ __, `for The'City of Tigard,, Oregon. That I. eery ti notice of a pubi.ic heating for Cit Vi� i . • • r ed Exhibit 'A) upon each of the following att Elari� o::" which.. the ached .it rj copy r � 98 �'.�`"� by �aai�:�ng to • persons �M ' of 4arr4' a hid `_"" the. Y rsons on th gat list, Narked Exhibit B1 d' name 4I',, a on ttre shown U each of them at 'the addxe.. united Stat�ea M�,�.l on sai'' notice as hereto attached depo &iced in the sire day of �� �--- -' 198 67 , p' stage g,e epaid . eing f irat duly sworn, on oath depose pe: sovi dela.vered to iVST OFFICE Subscribed end sworn bet41.re me on the �y oasaxas d �o Ex,Lres J,��...« O'DONNE,LL, RAN'S, EL..L1O1 T & CREW ATTORNEYS AT LAW 17257\ N.'W, HOYT STREET PORTLIkN ; OREGON 97209 (5 03) 222 -4402 Jf; DATE To Bill Monahan and Liz Newton FROM Adriz nne Brockman RE Portland Fixture Co. v City of Tigard Petitioners have . filed their brief. We have responded, with a Motion to Remand- We are asking that the, decision be given back to the City to repair the findings. Would` you Please read the brief ca ± efully, and determine whether ' in the' record to sustain a denial. there is � � �, u,F. z tci� nt evidence In other w67.,-`dzs ` te` `�ndin s based on the simply rewrite i �,� th c.. fi 1. C a z we sa. g � P Y' e _iating record; or 2. In ord.0r to denial, � we have t o gather sustain the den W 5 more evidence to support the denial? If we need more 'evidence, what evidence do we, need? You should start generating it. find the best way to proceed is to start writing the findings. The weak s p o ts then become a ppa rent P le ase call Me if You have any questions., i � i ,•.aii �yi v � s;wa.c � „ruu , wcH i . � �.m:.i „au,., ...� � .:s,...Jili. I BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE STATF OF OREGON ` PPORTLAND FIXTURE CO. and ) , S & J BUILDERS, LTD LUBA No • 85 -035 9 MOTION FOR REMAND 10 11 Respondent requests this matter be remanded to the City of 12 Tigard for .h purpose of improving the findings. 13 Respondent takes the position that the findings can be improved, 14 and it would be an t nefficient use of the Land 'U':;e Board of Appeals' 15 time ` to review, this , matter and to prepare a decision which, ill all 16 kelihood; will result in a remand for inadequate findings. 17 0 a OONN,8 1,t, RAIIS r ELLIOTT & CREW 18 T1 thy V. Ra:ri s' , O SB No- _ 75311 20 Of Attorneys fur : Ftc:ondent Pa� i g - MO T.ION FOE REMAND :�of 4'DO RAMt5 CREW Atto ney`s at taw t1 ,N. W. ,Hoyt it t, 1 t,rczandt Oregon 972ti 104 22Yu yyO 'ACA �19U CERTIFICATES OF SERVICE AND FILING 2 1 hereby certify that on August 1 , 1985, I serves a true and 3 correct copy of the foregoing MOTION FOR REMAND on: 4 Jack L. Orchard, OSB No. 72118 Susan M. Quck, OSB No. 81126 BALL, JANIR & NOVA.CK 101 S. W. Main Street, Suite 1100 Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone: (503) 229 -2525 7 8 and filed the original with the Land Use Board a State, Library Building, Salem, Oregon 97310e by 10 rregular first class mail, with postage prepaid, 11 Land Use Board of Appeals Rules of Procedure. 1u I3 'I T�,. s „ s day of,.., Ugu.str .. l 13 14 15 16 1'; 18 19 20 21 �f Appeals, 106 depositing in as provided in the othy~ V. Rami Of Attorneys for 2 24, 26 Paige CtRTI ,CA j8 F SBRVIC AID FILIt 6,boNNE11, 4AMtS LLtbt W Aitottb ar LiW W «, Ho + Sired!, 003), .7.22»44 • -t OSB No. 75311 Respondent 1 BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEA S' PORTLAND FIXTURE CO. an S & J BUILDERS, LTD., Petitioners, ) LUBA No. CITY OF TIGARD ITEMS No. CPA 3 -8 dnd ZC 3 -85 Respondent RETURN OF THE RECORD FOR. ITEMS 'NO CPA 3 -85 AND Z Jack L. Orchard, OSBI ,No 72188 BALL, JANIK & NOVACK OnP Main Place 101 S. W. Main Street Pcrtland, Oregon' 97204 (503) 228-2525 Attorney for Petitionere Ti.tnothy V Ramisr OSF3 No. 75311 O' DONNELL, R. MIS, ELLIOTT & CREW 1727 N W. Hoyt Street Portlandr Oregon 9/209 (501) 222 -4402 4 .ttorne' f r Respond e +t CERTIFY. "!' ,T'T1tE FO tEGOIN IS A CO:sfPLETE'A ND EXACT COPY Oar`` TI4 1G ` .A L'TH iEREO Attorneys BEFORE THE ` LAND USE jOARD OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON PORTLAND FIB :.'URE CO. and S & J BUILDERS, LTD., Petitioners, ) LUBA No. 85- -035 ) CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ) Jack L. Orcharc�� , OSB Igo . 72118 Susan M Quick, OSB No. 81126 BALL, JANIK & IOVACK 101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 1100 Portland, Or►lon 97204 TelePhone: (S03) 228-2525 Of Attorneys for POtit`ion.er s Timothy V. Ramis, OSJ' No. 75311 Adr"lanne Brockman, OSE' No- 82034 O `DONNELL ► RAMI S , ELLIOTT & CREW 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon :97209 Telephone: (503) 222-4402 of Attorneys for ResPbndent. St CERTIFICATE OF SERVTCE I hex eby ,certify that on July 31, 1985, I served two true and correc;t copies of the foregoing PETITIon FOR REVIEW on: Mr. Timothy V'. Ramis Ms, Adrianne Brockman 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 Of Attorneys for . R8spondent by depositing such in the first class mail at Portland, Oregon, on July 31, 1985. BALL, JANIK & NOVACK Jack L. Orchar , O B No 72188 ' Susan Ni. Qu I OSB No. 81 126 f Attorneys f r Petitioners CERTIFICATE OF FILING, � I filed the , ,7u 1: v I hereby t� hy ertfy that on y �, 8 REVIEW, b� depositing in the. first class ; foregong PETITION F02� REVIEW, I P mail at Portland, Oregon, one or - ginal and four copies of same, atidresed to .Land Case, Board'of Appeals` 106 State Library Buiidinc 5a1 tin, Oregon 97%10 BALL, tIANIK & NOVACK ;ft acl L. Orc• arr '"' O$B No. 2188 Su: A i 1 „.....:...n. ici`r eOSBt. Now 8112 r At tr e,4. .• fo. C .Iii 0 S 1 ri INDEX Page STATEMENT OF THE CASE. A. Nature o: the Land Use Decision and, Relief Sought B. Summary of Arguments C . Statement of Facts II. STANDING OF PETITIONERS III. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO 1 The City failed 4o address and misapplied the standards applicable to quasi- judicial comprehensive plan amendments contained in the City Development Code, AS S IGNMI NT OF ERROR NO. 2 The Cifv' s broadly worded findings fail to provide an adequate factual basis for denial, ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO 3 The City's decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the record,{ 20 ASSIGNMENT Ok" ERROR NO. The failure by the City to address all clearly applicable LCDC Goals is reversible error_where the Cite's comprehensive plan is' not acknowledged byLCDC. i Y r u i r • 1 Y . w . . i A CONCLUSION 31 APPENDIX At City of Tigard. Resolution. . . . A -1 APPENDIX i, Tigard Community Development Code rani: Creek v Cite of Portlnd, LUBA may_ ,. LUBA No. 84- 061 . (1984 ) . 23 Bay v. State Board of Education, 233 Or 601, 378 P.^.d 558 (1963) • 20 City of wood village vi Por_tland Metro Area LGBC, 48 Or App 79, 616 Plc? 528 (1980) - 18 Commonwealth Pro2rt1es v. Washington Countj, 35 Or App 387, 582 P2d 1384 ;197) Bast date Theatre v. Bd. of County Comm' rs , 37 Or App 745, 588 P2d 640 (1978) Green v. Hayward, 275 Or 693, 552 P2d 815 (1976) 15 Hill v. UniofCcauntyLoui , �� , � - -- , 14,20 601 P2d 9 Q 0 5 ( 1 9 Q 1. /y9) s r e r . . • • r • w • Hjllcrest Vineyard v. Bd. of Comm. Douglas C o . , l8 45 or App 285, 608 P2d 201 (1980) Jury ens on_ v. Union County Court , 42 Or ,.App 13 r 2 0 , 21 505, 600 P2d 1241 (1979) Liles . Gresham, 7 Or LUBA 87 (1982 Marracci v- City of Scappocse, 26 133 App 131, 552 P2d 552 rev den 276 Or 133 (1976) • 1.3 Messer v. Polk Co. Dist. Boundary Bd., 25 58 Or App 46, 646 P2d 1'36'3- (1982). - Or 982 ) y 27 Morrison v. Cannon Beach, 6 Or L UB�x 74 .► of Portland, 281 Or 55 vM C�.t�r » ......, ., 603 P2d 771 (1979) » M . • 28 Richland EL terprises v w 1l,�oodburn, 6 Or LUBA 60 (1982) Index of Authorities, continued Page Cases Sims v. Tillamook County, 2 Or LUBA 83 (1980) 5un,~r side Neighborhood v. Clackamas Co . Comm. 280 Or 3, 569 P2d 1063 (1977) - • 27 13,17,22,31 Sun Ray Dairy v. OLCC, 16 Or App 63, p 517 P2d 289 (1973) 15 Utah Int ! 1 v. Wallowa Countj, 7 Or LUBA 77 (1982) - 27 f County Cornet x s , BCC. r y Wes Finn- Land Co. v. �P 36 15,16 ✓ Of A 39 , 583 P2d 1159; (1978) ORS 197.175(2)(c) « . 30 ORS 197.830(3) « « . . • 6,7,31 ORS 197.835(2) » 30 LCDC Goal 1 LCDC Goal 2 LCDC Goal 3 LCDC Goal 9 LCDC Goal 12 9,11L2,31 9,11,12,31 9,11,12,3. 2,'31 9 ,' 11,1 2 r 31, iv Page City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1 .1.1' 5.1.4 ;8.1.3 Chapter 12 . . . , 9,11,12 Tigard Community" Develop-ment Code' Section 18 22 04 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. Nature of the Land ;Use Decision and Relief Sou ht � and 5 & J Builders 4 Portland Fixture Company ('Petitioners"), as the proposed `developer and owner, 5 . y designated pk� y parcel 6 respectively, of a 5.4 are commercially the City of Tigard jointly submitted an application ? located . �n Y 8 to the City P , The ' change. Cit for a comprehensive plan and zone change. 9 i nvolved a proposed re-designation of the p ro P erty from 10 Commercial � of ' al Professional to Commercial General. The City 11 Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing relating to the Council •� �� Ci�?- 12 roposal on April 2 1985 . and recommended to taw. r P � licuni�s ° request. T�i��, City Counoi]. then 13 that it approVe the z�PP on April 22, 1985, at which time it denied the ;r:4 heard the matter p , 15 request. The City Council thereafter "'adopted Resolt.�. ,, ion 85 -28 on 16 May 6, 1985 which contained the final Order and Findings of Fact 17 and orsc. fusions pertaining to the denial of the request. 18 Petitioners seek reversal and remand of the final order request for the cor=tprehensi�re plan and 19 denying the application q 2 on the rounds set forth in this Petition for +�, done change �a5ed g' 21 Review. 22 B.'umnar' of Aut�nts_ 23 Petitioners a sse ift the foliowing aryruments as a basis 24 of appeal. 25 (1) The Clty vi 'P . visa, lied the Cit of Tigard Cammunit�' � 25 nev elopmen t Cody etardards guasijudicial Comprehensive plan n Page l PETITION FOR REVIE BALL, .JAN1K & NOVACK Attorneys to Low 101 S. W. "310 5t ett 'ortiand,, Ott ctt 51god Te1aphOt e 3i 2 5..525 6.a: r, rivrwt.n 1 and zone changes by failing to address clearly applicable 2 standards, and by, 'creating new standards which are not a part of 3 code requirements. 4 ( 2) The City's findings do not rocite the facts relied upon 5 in making the decision nor do they relate those facts to the E standards and criteria of the City Ordinance. Rather.-, the 7 fi;,ding s state mere conclusions, giving the applicant no factual 8 rG'tionale for the denial. 9 (3) The City's findings are not based on substantial 10 evidence in the record in that the record contains virtually no 11 evidence on which to base the City's denial. The majority of the 12 testimony was favorable to the applicants. No factual evidence 13 was presented by the sole opponent on which the City could base 14 its denial 15 ( 4) The City of Tigard' s Comptehens ire Plan has not been 16 acknowledged by LCDC and therefore the City was required to 17 address LCDC Coal 9 (Economy) in its findings 18 C. Statement of Facts 19 Petitioner S & J Builders is th.e owner of apps rx ,mately 20 21 acres located at the intersection of Scholls Ferry Road and 21 Sorrento Road in the City of Tigard. Approximately 151 acres of property 22 this ro erty is designated for multi - fancily residential use by 28 the C y's Comprehensive Plan and is the site of a 305 unit 24 apartment complex known as Meadow Creek. In conjunction. with th.e. �P 25 a Pp :.rova1 of the Meadow Creek apartment project, 5 & J Builders 26 was required to contribute to extensive road improvements Jge 2 P TITION FOR R Vit Atttttrtt~yii at taw 11 b . S. W. Mciti Sttte Pottkintl, Ore■jtih 9/204 tsltpfimhe 0031 228-2525 2525 • extension of S.W. Sorrento Road into a loop 1 including the S.W. North Dakota Street and to rink with exiting 2 configuration 3 S y Avenue in the City of Tigard. As part of the road 4 improvement project, signalization of the Scholls Ferry /Sorrento 5 intersection is occurring. R. 57• 6 The remainder of the site is the subject of these 7 . -. � d 5 a) � n.ot . comprised :Qf.�_5:...� acres R. i s a parcel. compr i ..._ _. . pros. ���cling� . It , .�. 8 �a . . , I. . 9 acres a s indicated i, . l ,': h... e City's F..�i..�.n_., d� i n. g s M R• - ,. , h is 5.4 4 9 acre sit e is currently desig nated C-P (commercial professional) T 10 and J.s located immediately adjacent to the existing Gr eenwa Town use retail and commercial center, also fronting 11 Center, a mixed u 12 on Scholls rry Road. R 48 13 Petitioners submitted their application for a change in to C-G (commercial general) in order to 14 designation from C-P allowed on the 5 • a 15 expand the types oz permitted commercial uses zone -.,., permits office uses and a variety of 16 acre. site The C �' p 17 retail ... uses of somewhat lesser intensity than the C -G zone. 18 A request for a change from C--P to C-G was submitted by X85. R. 43» Petitioner Portland �g Pei�itione�s on February 15, 1 1 ' the proposed d�r�ve1oper of the commercially' ox .ercial y 20 F,,,{.x�"Y1.�;��•= Go. 1:s, the pr' P � desi natEd parcel. The matter was then submitted to the Tigard 21 � 22 Planning commission at its April 2 x585 meeting. the staff. �. Planning Commission recommended approval of the 23 report to the 24 appl A. 24. The staff report indicated that the �.cation . 25 relevant crYIteria applicable to the application were Statewide 2 an � Co�ttprehensive Pian Coa 1 s Nos. 1, d 12 and Ci ty 2� Planning PtTI'TION VOA REVIEW BALL, NCV CK Atfortity$ at 101 W. Maio Street C i h 8'2 pone of L2 3 4 5 6 7 Policies 2.1. l 5.1.1, 5.1 4, 8. 1. 3 , and Chapter 12 (.vocational criteria) . The staff repay ' contained recommended finding j dicating that the application satisfied all of the relevant criteria. At the April 2, 1985 public hearing, the Planning Commission adopt staff-recommended Findings and Comm' voted 6 -3 to ado t the staff -rec Conclusions. R. 20. Thereafter, the matter was forwarded to the Tigard City Council for final action. 8 The matter was heard by the City Council on April 22, Again, the City staff supported approval of the R 5 After an application Supp a . � ter abortive attempt to close the public hearing, prior to the Petitioners' opportunity to address the Council, the Council voted to reject the Planning Commission findings and deny the application. Sup ?. R. F. At the City Council hearing the opposition testimony consisted of one witness who expressed-an unsubstantiated that an enlargement of commercial uses on the property ,could " "force [the neighboring Greenway Town Center P y retailers] and other owners to go out City Council members voting. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1985. "concern" subject 20 to "1 22 3 24 25 26 of business." Sup p. R. 2. very briefly discussed the application prior Councilor Brian basically_ccntr_Pl.leei,:Lhe,..,„di,SClAgaion, initially indicating that he opposed the request because: of his concern about changes of residentially-designated land to y .� reminding himself that. the commercially designated lands After remind property ro,..ert , was already' designated for commercial user he subject p p � gtxestned. Whether a C-P designation on the property sho ,Ild be �. o, "given up". ,Supp . R. 4. The Council then agreed to deny the Fags 4 PETITION RO1 rnV1BW tiALI, t,A.NtU & "t bVAt Attcteys tit taw i ar s. v . ML Via. Portia id, Ot tdh .0204 ettphar.m ;S 31' 220,2525 • l cation and reject the Planning Commission findings. In 1 app �,� ,, � direction 2 light of the vote, the Council was asked to provide 3 staff P ff for reparation of findings supporting denial of the 4 application. Councilor Brian exclusivelY provided such a 5 rationale by stating in material part 6 "But I think that the key factor - this is basically I don't feel that the test has change the - argument to c 7 been met yet ..n -- g zone over the Comprehensive Plan. And go away a from our limited C -P in the zone - - in the area." Supp. R. 16 forwarded to the Council, for adoption 8 9 10 11 at The staff then its May 6, 1985 meeting, Resolution No 85 -28 constituting 12 Findings and Conclusions justifying denial of the application. 6--8 In the City Cit.: Council- adopted Findings, the Council determined that Statewide Planning Goal 12 was not met because "the proposal will have a neg ative impact upon Scho11S Ferry Road R. 6. Additionally, the Council found that the. 'applicable locational criteria" were only partially satisfied by the proposal because it found that traffic related Problems at the 5ch1S Ferry-Sorrento Road intersection could ol not be remedi ed thereby " c.y eating traffic congestion adopted Findings , to 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21. 22 23 24 25 26 1 "age R. by increasing traffic'. and related. problems." relating to applicants, 9. R. 7. Finally, the City Council criteria never previously considered by the staff or the Planning determining eta i Commission de The a pp licant'' s failed to persuade the City Council that the plan designa io4 i . 1983 �niproper. The plan was adopted i following zizbstantial community input W� NO lun� Policies �, , s y the applicants. p � 1ri�:�e� c�.t�d C PGR R IE 7 • BALL„ JANIK NbVAC1C Attorneys of tow 101 ; S W. Motrk Street PortIontL Or. VI104 Telephone c0 *3 ott 2B 2 S that~ convinced the Council that conditions in the area have substantially cha n g ed to com pel a change -Co C_G In addition, no convincing evidence of mistake or inconsistency was presented "10. The applicants failed to address the long term community needs of the City, for Commercial Professional land uses. The Council interprets the, Comprehensive Plan to be a long' range plan created to provide for the many diver: se and competing land uses and business which serve the public need. A reduction amount of land dedicated to commercial proLessiona commercial the amc�un �,lopment in this 1: de�.. section of Tigard would have a negative impact over the projected peric: of the Comprehensive Plan." R. 8 10 11 In the portion of the resolution dealing with the 12 Conclusions based on its findings. the Council specifically based denial on Finding NO. ? (detrimental traffic impacts) Fand.� g � ` n. No. 8 ■creation of additional traffic congestion and .� �5 related problems) roblems) , and Finding No 9 (failure of the applicants Provide p 16 t �� ids persuasive arguments to change the designation from 17 ) s No mention of Finding No 10 was made in the C � t o C -C 18 Conclusions ant apparently no reliance was placed on Finding �.3 Cor>,c�.us�. PP 19 No 10 as a basis for the denial. (R. 8) 20 These Proceedings were instituted by Notice of Intent « appeared in Of parties who app 21 to Appeal or the eat: dated I��a � , 1985. �`7C�117�� 22 opposition b�l ow has filed a Statement Intent to participate. 23 1 2 `�ANDIN This is a quasi - ludic «i.a. land use actio;:i and 26 pe'titioner's assert standing under ORS 197 3301 (3) age FTlT10 FOR REVIEW BALI, JANNK ti,'.NOu ,Arai ►ttattiayi as taw 101 5« W hditi,5ifeat_ P6tNoiid« bt • tin W204 tttlep#lbne (5631 M,252.5 ,lu +.u.l hlUet'. "AJt�`Fri•,In hi>blfl'. n .w Petitioners were the 'co- applicants in the proceedings below and have: (a ") filed a notice of intent to appeal; (b) 2 3 - .appeared through their representatives before the City of Tigard; (c) 4 and c ' were entitled as of right to notice of the hearing prior ... ( 5 to the decision. See ORS 197.830(3). Consequently, Petitioners .�:.. 6 have standing to maintain this appeal:. 7 8 11I ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO, l 10 The City failed to address and misapplied, the standards applicable to 11 q uasi- judicial comprehensive plan amendments contained in the City Development Code. 12 13 The City � has both failed to address and has misapplied. _ 14 the applicable standards set forth in the City of Tigard , ode for 15 a quas. judicial amen,iment to the Plan. and zone designations for �- �.c�.al 16 the 'Subject property. ert.., Tx�ese shortcomings are fatal to the City' � p Y denial 17 proposed change and require a reversal and remand of the pr o P 18 of the matter, 19 Pursuant to Section 18 .2 2 * 0 4 0 ra f the Tigard Development 20 Coder the following standards apply in making a decision for 21 approval or denial of an application for a quasi - judicial 22 comprehensive Plan and zone amendment like the ,application in 23 24 26 ge this case: „(a) A ::econ mendation, or a decision to approve, approve with conditions o o deny an application for a quasi-i UdiE1al . � all the aa���d�ient shall be based on alb of t following standards PIT FOR VIEW BALL, JAt U & & NOVA A tortmeyt tit ;Ltt4+t "tit 5. W t bih Su i� l'nttlotid„ Otegart 204 Te{ephtlr9t3 4503) l .5252..• ft " (1) The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and map designation; and (A) The change will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the community. (2) The statewide planning goals adopted under ORS Chapter 197 until acknowledgment of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and ordinances (3) The applicable standards of any provision of this Code or other applicable implementing ?ordinance. 9 "(4) Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a 10 mistake or inconsistency in the Comprehensive Plan or zoning map as 11 it relates to the property which is tic. subject of the development 12 application.'d (Emphasis added) 13 The City was required to address these standards to 14 justify a denial of the application. A review of the City' s 15 findings in this case reveals that these standards were not 16 specifically or properly addressed, and in several key instances 17 were clearly misapplied. Therefore the City's decision is 18 inconsistent with its own Code provisions. pp, _ before �'.7 rst, it should be noted trait the application the City involved a change in type of commercial tIse typically regarded as a zone change - rather .. +Coal prehensive text change or change in category of use Thus the basic Plan 23 ri:haracter of the pre *perty has been established as commercial, 24 there is no i,ssu.e conc orning such overall designation: proceedi :gs • in these Page 3 ETIT N Eon VIEW MIL JA IL' NOVACX Attorneys a! lbws 1015. W. Matt Stitt!' Telephone (503) 228.252S From the outset, the City interpreted Code Section 18, 22.040 as it, apipiied to this case to require address only ... Statewide Planning Goals Nos. 1, 2 and 12 and Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.4, 8k 3 and Chapter ter 12. The Petitioners were required to address those 6 criteria, which they did to the satisfaction of all agency -es the City but the City Council. The Council's denial action 8 relative to these criteria was premised only on a failure to 9 satisfy the traffic and transportation concerns included in 1C Chapter 12 of the City''' s Plan - LCDC Goal 12 The Council 11 concurred curred with the Planning Commission that Policies 2.1.1, 12 2 5..L 'j 1 5.1.4 and 8.13 had been satisfied, as well as Goals 1 and a p 13 2. R. 7. the After �,he public hearing p rocess was completed and 15 after the Council voted to reject the . 2lan1ing Commission s 16 findings and deny the application the Council engrafted two 17 entirely new sets of criteria onto the process in an effort to 18 justify its denial action. These are found in Findings No 9 and 19 No. . 1 0. 20 21 the applicant to Finding No 9 states The applicant ' s failed to persuade the City Council that the plan designation is improper. The plan was adopted in 198 following substantial commtnity input. plan policies cited by the applicants convinced the Council that conditions in the area have substantially changed to compel. a - har.ge to C-a . In addition, no convincinq . evidence of mistake, or inconsistency was R. 8 w presented." +, re s �rnte,d M. �� BALL. JANIK & NCIVACK A wtoo! bt Wvw 131 S. W. Mn a1 +5ttOet 1,611101dt''Cittlis t'1i '2C3� ielbp�+'►he X5031 28-5.5 This fi '4ding represents a belated effort 2 in different terms Criteria (4) f.Code § 18.22' is t hat the standards utilized by the Council in Finding significantly - •. cantl. at variance from the language of 'Criteria (4). Petitioners were not required under Criteria (4) to show that the C -P designation was "improper, n:o that conditions in vicinity ' cini.t. of the property had "substantially." changed in order to "compel" the red..signat on of the property to a C -G use Quitc simp3y, the Council embellished the S ,ndards of Criteria (4) its findings without any basis or explanation for so doing. p 11 The remises of Finding 10 also he\ve no basis as in the 12 City s ' ordinances. Interestingly, Finding 10 appears to he s 13 surplusag e r in that the Council's Concessions do not reference it 14 as a basis for denial of the application Finding 10 states 15 "10, The applicants failed, to address thF,: long term community needs of the City, for 16 Commercial Professional land uses. The Council interprets the Comprehensive ` Plan to be a long range plan created to provide for 17 ea land uses and . the z�ari.y diverse and competing business which serve the pubic need. A reduction in the amount of land dedicated to commercial professional development in this section of Tigard would have a negative impact over the projected riod of the Comprehensive plan.. " R. Nowhere in the Tigard Code is, disproof of a "long-term �, need." .art of the criteria for a Plan/zone amendment. community p It instead nstead is a standard. apparently created ad hoc to bolster the Council' prev.iously formulated decis problem l0 PETIT. o FOR REVIEW Att+ JANIK & NCB /ACK Attwhetti tft tdwr 01 S. W. Main Sit6et Portland„ ave of 97204. 1:41epfiwie 1503) 223.2525' s a rationale for Finding 10 is ]. .summarize Councilor Brian's ,i. denial, Fnd,�.n 2 not based on any articulated standard set forth in the City' 3 ordinance pertaining to plan amendments. '4 The problem goes even deeper. Not' only did the Council 5 misapply and misinterpret the criteria for the type of action 6 undertaken in this case, but it: (a) altered the applicable 7 standards after the denial decision was reached at the public 8 hearing and (b) afforded Petitioners absolutely, no opportunity to 9 address the modified criteria. Petitioners submit that up to the p of the Co Findings y 85 , the 10 point of the adoption o W f Council on May 6 , 1 11 sole criteria which Petitioners were asked to address (and the p 12 sole criteria included in all the City reports and public hearing 13 statements) were Coals 1, 2 and 12 and City Plan Policies 2.1.1, 14 5.1.1, 5.1.4 8.1.3 and Chapter 12 (locational criteria) 15 Instead a different set of criteria were applied. This 16 was undertaken without notice to Petitioner nor an opportunity 17 for Petitioners to consider these new criteria, and address them pp p large 18 if a ro riate. �.s noted above, the new criteria are, in l�a,r 19 part, without any basis in the City's ordinances. Rather, they 20 give every evidence of bein g s p eciall y created t o justify 21 reversal of the prior staff and Planning Commission findings in 22 this Case. The use of such 'extra" criteria as new hurdles for' 23 Petitioners to surmount, especialiy after the close of the two 24 public hearings, is invalid, The obvious use of such new 25 standards without permitting Petitioners reasonable notice and. an 26 opportunity to address such standards (boYth legaly and Page ,PETITION FOR VI BALL,. JANIK a NbVAC Attttme o . tit Low ) 01 Math Street Pwilatik4 Ctk6 0et 4t O4 telephdi (503) 28.2$25" to raising the hurdle above the Petitioners' 1 factually) amounts.. afe crossing can riever be attained. 2' heads so that a s Mall; 3 What the City Council has done is change the prover. n 4 "rules of the game" after the fact. One set of -� address. approval criteria" was described . throughout for all to 6 A later set of criteria was then inserted after the public -een concluded. Nowhere is this conflict more 7 process had b 8 evident than in the Council' s own Resolution denying the iication. On the �� rst page e of the Resolution, the "relevant 9 app � and 12 and Plan 10 approval I criteria" :re, found to be Goals 3 , 5.1.1, 5.,.4, 8.1.3 and Chapter 12, locational 11 Policies 2.1.1, 12 criteria. Findings on each of these: criteria are made on .rage 2 .� e 3, without any reference to any 13 o f the Resolution. r Then � -- Pag rds Findings 9 and 10 proceed on the 14 applicable legal standards, never previously utilized nor addressed 15 basis of several criteria n. P 16 bY the Petitioners, staff or the Planning' Commission (or, for er with any degree of specificity by the Ca�xnc i l ,, 17 that mitt , 18 itselfl. a 19 The deviation ( in two pages time) front the criteria g 20 which the City found to be the relevant criteria, points out a fundamental difficulty in, this case Petitioners have a right to 21 rr approval criteria" as set forth.. ,and, 22 rely on the. re�.e�crant app 23 utilized the City The �y Zhe council should have confin. ed its 24 riteri�. and no motet once it determined � consideration to those . 25 that those were the rre levant aP r oyal cry eri a,t f the Council 2 truly believed that other criteria also appll ame it was obligated Page 12 - PETITION VOA REV I ETisPage 1 �. Nat, JANtK & NbVAtit Attornty9 tit LOW tat 5. W. Sttett �brlldnd, btegdst 97204 Telepilbad 15031 225,25 1 at least to identify such criteria and allow Petitioners to 2 address the ±. 3 Local governments are required to provide an applicant 4 with clearly a ted standards against which to judge its y' rti�:Ltla 5 application. Sun Ray Dai r v� y . OLCC, 16 Or App 63, 71 t 517 Plc? 6 289 (1973) . Ad hoc creation of an additional or new standards - - --- 7 creates an unfair burden on an applicant. Such additional and 8 new criteria cannot form the basis of a decision denying an 9 application. The use of such criteria is simply invalid. 10 _ 11 ASSIGy':MENT OF ERROR NO. 2: 12 The City's broadly worded findings fail provide adequate rou�de an ade uate lac tual basis for 13 denial. 14 This Board may review the adequacy of findings in land 15 use cares and remand a decision if the - findings do not set forth 16 the facts, reasons and conclusions which form the basis for the Sunnysde Neighborhood v. Clackamas 17 local government's decision. ' 18 Co. comm. , 280 Or 3,, 569 P2d 1063 (1977); ORS 227.173. The 19 courts have genral-y found that review of a denial of a land use 20 change is less extensive than review of an approval of an PP 21 application granted by a local government. Marracci v. City of 22 5ca: dose., 26 Or 131, 135, 552 P2d 552 rev den 276 or 133 23 (1976) 1 County: Court, 42 Or App 505, 600 P2d 24 12,41 (1979). (Comparing an applicant's burden in a land use case . � -.... P: � ' case« . 25 to that of a plaintiff in a ersonal' in ury 2 Page 13 PETITION PO R REVIEW BALI, JA I & NOVACK Atfoirtitys of taVit 101 5., W. Main :5traaf Partleo:1, Chegori 9z2a4. Talephana j5b3) .226.2521 1 Nevertheless, even where a local government denies land it is � 7 use change i required to provide an explicit factual and s' °�, or its decision. Eastgate Theatre v. gci. of 3 rational basis f 37 Or App 7450 750, 588 P2d 640 (1978). See 4 Count `T Cortm r s , 3 PP . Hill v. Union Coun,rt, 42 Or App 883, 887, 601 P2d 5 1 s o . �...�. 905 �� 97 ., ?�) (held where there is a denial, there is a heavy burden 6 .. n on a plaintiff if the board entered proper fi 'ndi g s; without proper findings of fact a reviewing court must remand) 9 � As stated by the Court of Appeals in E;astgatec "It is at commission �� ' , well established th 10 application for a plan change is in nature, and, that the quasi-judicial brad.. must 11 governmental body determination of the g supported .- easoned order based upon 12 be by a findings. Although orders denying land -use 13 chang .. es are often less extensive a:ve than orders .,. allowing change, they must neve rtheless have 14 an explicit factual and rational basis. [Citations umitted]il Id. at 750. 15 16 In urt remanded the decision back to th county .'�ast�'a e the co 17 for the entry of a reasoned order of denial. 18 The p further refined the level of T he Court of Appeals f, 19 detail in t he findings necessary to support a denial in 20 mmonwea.lth Z.r ernes v Gash n ton Count , 35 Or App 387, 582 l th t �' county's 0 19 7 8 � 'a in Commonwealth the court anal zed the c oun 21 P2d 1384 (1978) 2 findings denying a subdivision request and found. that the 22 r county standards were not clearly articulated iculated pryol to the ,J�[( Plain d. the county's , findings did not sufficientl ex �;� hearing and 25 the The court found e grou�ndS for denial. 26 Page 14 'AL1 J»1 a IvC�4�.AC Atatiradyt at La* 161 5.1A1. Man 5teett, at dnl 97204 Tclkphone 1503 22645 [ ] must be articulated in a Terse gricientl. detailed to give a manner sufficiently 2 subdivider reasonably definite guides as to what it must do to obtain final plat 3 approval, or inform the subdivider that it is unlikely that a subdivision will r i_gton Coun l th Frvpertes v. 4 approved." Commonwealth L Tipp at 4D� Washtty, 5 6 The rationale behind requiring adequate findings even e is a denial a l - permit as 7 where there ' of a permit is twofold. First, as �.r, Sun 8 Ra Dar , supra, supra. L the courts are Y , and Commonwealth, su ra ed that local 9 concerned governments is prov ►de applicants with t he 10 criteria and standards against ainst which their applications will be 11 judged, secondly, the courts require local governments to 12 provide a factual basis to explain fully why certain facts led to 13 a particular a .. - icular deciF;ion in order to provide basis for judicial o f the c� �y d 707-708, 14 review Teew decision. v. H� ward, 275 Or 693 , 15 552 P2d 815 � (1976 (articulation of reason5 for a decision 16 affords a safeguard against arbitrary action by agencies). 17 The principles of Green„, i a d supra, were applied 18 in a denial case in Wes Linn Land Co. v. of County Comm' rs , 19 39, 583 P2d 1159 (1978) . in that case the Court of 20 36 or App 3 � by , � Appeals held that the findings entered b the county i t n denying a 3 .., " judicial review. 21 subdivision permit were not adequate to permit u 22 Yn so f indiig the court held: "Although it is true that findings In support of a denial' need not always, be as extensive p approval . they msthneverthelessnsupport a reasoned order. must Nos. 2pthrou through 7 are merely Here, Findings � r3 cryptic references to general policies rather than explicitly tl.. y reasoned applications of PE,TI '1oN FOR REV t 23 24 25 26 Pap 15 EIALL, JANIK NOVA Attomey$ tit LtIW 101 5. W. Maio Slum/ Po tit ttd, tittgbn 97204 . teIe hon t, )3)! 84525 • 1) 2 those policies. We cannot discern from them the reasoning for the denial." 36 Or App at 43 -44 In Commonwealth, supra, and Wes L'Lnn, supra the Court 4 of Ap ?eals was concerned that the Board's denial failed to 5 specify the criteria which were used to explain why the 1:ropcsed P Y 6 subdivision did not comply with the comprehensive plan. Id. p. The same problem City's decision in this 397. p is evident zn ,the Cz�y s deci o case. There are essentially three grounds the City gives for 9 d e ` the application. These are: (1) traffic problems, (2) denying e s•PP 10 failure to demolt:>:ate the plan designation is improper, and (3) 11 failure to address long term community needs. R. 8. None of 12 these e reasons are sufficiently explained based on facts in the 13 record to allow for adequate judicial review, or to apprise 14 petitioners of how their application failed. 1 5 The initial rationale for denying the application is traffic impacts on Scholls Ferry Road. 17 R. . 7 Although this may be an adequate reason for denial, there � g �. record as to 1.8 is no explanation in the findings or an where in the recor h.e traffic generated by the proposed change rill necessarily`' 19 why the _ q 20 ca qse an adverse impact. The City has f lipe-f lopped on thi, s issue going from `staff and Planning Comrnissioxi findings, ply 2 � 4 - �` s , alit' 22 supported in the record determining that traffic impacts could be • l' s negative fit ding.' to The Council's mm ncz g �3 ' accommodated to the Cote, os " ' i .. rte testimony was given at the 25 24 p ,ztton is curious in that no adwe:: �.� Council hearin g inndicating that the Planning Commission finding yaS incorrect Page 16 PETITION FOR REVIEW BALL JAN1K & NOVAS Attarneyi at Lair 901 S. W. Main Street p,rHat+d4 Ot ga 5 97264, Telephone (5103) X28.2525 1 Petitioners provided ansvers to all the standard 2 questions about the traffic issues. The City Council has no 3 explanation for its action. Consequently, the findings are 4 merely conclusions insufficient to support the city's decision. 5 Sunnyside Neigithorhood, supra, at 21. The decision leaves the 6 petitioners wi.thout a clear understanding of what facts and ? standards the City relied upon in denying the proposal for such 8 reasons. 9 Both of the other two reasons given by the City to deny 0 the application are conclusory and not ' based on relevant facts. 11 The Supreme Court emphasized tht� importance of the statement of 12 facts which justify local government's decision in a land use 13 case in SL'nn 'side Nei•hborhood v. Clackamas Co. Bd. of Comm. 280 14 Or 3, '21/ 569 P2d 1063 (1977) in finding= "What 15 Gv gt�ate� judicial review t is needed for is ha clear statement of what, specifically, 16 the decisionmaking body believes, after hearing and considering all the evidence, to 17 be the relevant and important facts upon which its decision is ` based. Conclusions are 18 not sufficient." 4 19 In Finding No. 9 the City merely states that th e. 20 applicant did not meet its burden to demonstrate that the current 21 plan designation is "improper ". Not only is the propriety of 22 plan designation ndard as set forth in Assignment; of not a standard 23 Error No. . above/ but the, City does not Provide sufficient � 24 factua l basis to exP lain why it denying- the request esfi fo r such a 25 reason. Does the Cit y bet iev'e that there is a shortage of 26 commercial office space in the area? If sc , what facts does the Page 17 PET 1TION FOR REVIEW BALL JANtk & NOVACK Attotngyi at Iaw 101 S. W. Maih ;StTret tiott1and, Otego0 : C/204 1eIephbnti (5O3) 22B -2525' . Cite rely upon in reaching this conclusion based on the record before it? The City does not address the evidence presented by 4 'ones , Petitioners s which. demonstrate that there is sufficient land in satisfy 5 the area', to atssf the need for commercial professional A use and _ 6 that an expansion of commercial uses throug h a C -G designation is s both logical ical and needed. Petitioners argued that office uses 7 . will ll be accommodated in the Cm; : zone. Supp R. 9 . Inherent in 8 9 the. Council's reasoning is the premise that a change from C -P ti 10 C -G will ll destro the potential for office uses on the property. 11 c the contrary, y xtrar as pointed out by the staff, the re-designation r 12 will not preclude office uses but will only enhance the range of 13 commercial uses. R. 24 14 Petitioners presented, an analysis of the vicinity and. 15 an inventory of C -P zoned land. R. 24', Supp R. 9 -10, R. .t ` There Was no testimony to the 16 Photograph e�h�.bst (oversize). ` g� ' n to the extensive �,�vai 1. ab i l ity 17 ' contrary at the hearing Pertaining 18 of professional commercially zoned areas in the City. Whe re 18 there is relevant probative and reliable evidence in the record 20 the City required, t was re uired , at a minimum, to address it in the 21 findings. V v and �. $� ( • o� Comm. ngl15 las Co./ 45 Or 22 App, 285. 508 P2d 201 (1980) (holding that county's failure to evidence rG ised by petitioners, is reversible error); City a � 3 address eta. Villa e va Portland Metro. Area LCBC 48 Or App 79, 616 � of �c�od. ., 28 P 528 � 1980) {holding that the boundary commission. m st address �d 26 Page 18 PETITION FOR REVIEW BALL, JANIK & NOVAC• AttoieYi aF id* 1 b1' 5. W. Mtiin Stte *t Porttattd, Cre on 97204 Tr1ephon tl03J 228,2525 .�r.V � the issue of financial integrity where a proponent raised it at 2 the hearing) . It is impossible to tell from the City' f indings what 3 _ facts it relied_ on in finding that "[a] reduction in the amount 5 of land .fie r dicated to commercial professional development, 6 have a negative ' impact. ." R. 8. This is the epitome 'of . �.gata. ve P a conclusory 'T finding. A reduction in and of itself is not 8 necessarily' negative/ especially where there is a sufficient or 9 oversupply of land zoned for such uses as demonstrated by the 10 applicant and unrebutted by other evidence in the record. 11 Finding Findin No. 10 the City states as a reason for _ In . that the applicant failed to address "long term 12 al the fact Beni 13 community needs for Commercial Professional land uses. 14 R. 8. P �s set forth in .Assignment of Error, No. 1 , the City's Code 15 contai ns no such standard required by "an applicant for a 16 comprehensive plan and zone change. 17 The City Provides neither facts n.or' standards on which ty it based based denial under Finding 10. How the Petitioners were 1.8 y standard seq. f orth by City r. How 19 to satisf the st the Cxt is unclear. Z City Clay arr ived at its finding is even less clear. The record -: ��, is devoid statistics, projections or qualitative evidence � o f any C�►ncernin .' s chara.cteritation of its "lung term need" ;(2 �' the Ci ty definition of g t� The �.on term ,nee entirely 24 23 for C �' areas, needs' �.�5 ... ain r this finding is premised upon the, erroneous ac in will adversely affect 25 ass mptiori that a change from C-P to C-G fess purposes. As l� use of the property for prof `ona:l office +.: FOR VIED ' N �. -a � 19 P ��.l,Tl C� , ,/ BALL, JAW is.'NbVACK .Attoine i di laW 101 S. W. Sto.et Ponlond, Oteeon '77th Telephone i5O3 2211.25 1 indicated by Appendix A the categories of allowed uses ln the 2 C -P zone make it Obvious that the zone is not an exclusive 3 professional; office zone and already permits a variety of retail 4 uses. The C- G designation merely expands the types of retail � uses. It does not preclude the uses allowed by the C-P 6 designation. 8 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 3: The city's decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. 10 11 LJBA is empowered owered to a local government decision by substantial evidence and 12 where that decision is not supported ..3 the whole record. e C3RS 197.835 8(a) (C) . A. review of the evidence 14 in this case reveals the City 's reasons for denial are not based 15 on evidence which a reasonable person'rely upon as adequate to 16 support a decision. Lis,2,y_y......._ELLe.:;Eaad_pf Education , 233 Or 601, ) (held substantial evidence must consist � y 17 605, 378 P2d 558 C19a:A 18 of more than a "mere scintilla" of evidence which a reasonable lJ mind w ould accept as adequate to support a conclusion) 20 Pplicant's burden in appealing a denial of its An a apply ication b a local government has been. characterized as a 22 heavy one where here allegations are made that the decision is not 23 supported by substantial evidence. /ul enson � w Uni On o rty App 42 24 Co Or A 505, 600 P2d 1241 (1.9`79) Hill vw Union County court, 25 C+oilrt � In d`urgenson. the Court of Appeals found that t a sL�;' rcl e that the denial a matter 6 � proponent must prove was erroneous as Page g e 20 FOR REVIEW OALLr JAN1K 6t NO AtK Attorneys at Low t Dt /Mitt Slteet' patldr>d, aretjbh 91:104 `hteptian1 (S03) 228.2525 1 • 1 law before a reviewing court will overturn the local government's determination based on substantial evidence. Id. at 510 2 3 Nevertheless there still must be . some reasonable basis to make ,, the decision. g 5 In Jur enson the Court of Appeals upheld the county's 6 denial of the subdivision of agricultural land because the 7 plaintiff has not sustained its bu den of demonstrating the land �.� - 8 was other than agricultural land. In fact, there was evidence in ' ' : 9 the record that the land was predominantly Class L -VI soils and 10 thus agricultural land under the Goal 3 definition. Id. at 512. was 1,1 Thus there reasonable evidence to support the county's denial 12 based on the clear standards of Goal 3, agricultural land. 13 contrast, the record in this case does not contain 14 any reasonable evidence to support the City- 's de.iial. As set : _c'aso e the Cit. ' s denial of the .petitioners ° application in v , Y 15 forth above, of fic " roblems,t � t � ) 16 this case, was based on three reasons: (1) tr P. '� lan des:IT improper p 9 nation; and (3y failure to address long -term �= any legal 18 community needs ds (assuming the last two reasons 19 stand R. 7 -8. Petitioners assert assert that there is not standing). substantial -� 20 f antral evidence to support any of these, reasons for denial. _, 21 1. Tr�ic l coact 22 The City ` s net .found that Statewide Planning Goal 12 �." 23 .......,met a. by the proposal, because the proposal "will have a negative 24 impact upon Scholls Ferry Road by it creas ng traffic," 25 With . s P ect to traffic, the Council specificallY found: With re 26 Page 21 - PETITION FOR REVIEW Attorney* dt Lear S, W. Math 5tteet parttatid, ttr eh 17204 Te ephohe C Oa 2.2a,25V 'Finding 3: At the dity Council meeting on April 22, the 2 Council heard conflicting testimony under the ch the 3 colncerning' the amount of traffic d, prt�per y would generate developed 4 present C-P and the proposed C -G deSignations. The Council determined that 5 th,e preset traffic situation on Schol1s Ferry Road would be more adversely affected with the addition of traffic from the property if built under the C -G zoning designation than under C -P." R._6 -7. Later, in Finding No 8, the City found that the zone change would: 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 " [C] reate additional traffic congestion or related problems which cannot be remedied by the proposed traffic signal at the S,IOI1s Ferry /Sorrento /North Dakota intersection. Although traffic volume would also be under increased if the property is developed generated by the C-.P, the number of types g property when developed out to full capacity ender C-G is greater, thus adding, to th traffic volume of Scholl: Ferry Road." R 15 16 The even Council also found that the increase in traffic 't detrii�:�ntal impact upon Scholl: Ferry Road. 17 would hake a 18 with the completion of a new traffic signal." R. 8. 19 These findings pertaining to traffic do nothing more 20 than re cite the evidence that more traffic will be generated 21 the C-0 designation than without it. The ` findings fail to 2 p r the decision as required by the Shnn, s :A9 Provide the reasons f 23 . ?- rh0or 4, su ra, case. 24 r re traffic :. will be 25 Although there is evidence that more general commercial her thin a ene�ated by g de s ig at�bn rat het 26 professional commercial desgna t iof t there i s also 2Itefuted P I �g� 22 � ����Tz�N FOR R� v BALL, JANIK & NOVACK Attorneys ot Low tot 5. W. Main Street Portland. Oregon V /26d. 'telephone 1503i 22B2525 1 evidence in the record that with the addition of a left turn ' 2 sa.gnasignal at Scholls .'Ferry and Sorrento (at the a pp licants expense) 3 the traffic impact will be negligible and manageable at level of (the same level of service present with projected C-P service C'� 5 uses) . R. 50, 60, SR. 13 The traffic problems could have been 6 easily resolved through imposition of a condition on the zone 7 change requiring the additional signal phase, The City does not 8 address this alternative in its finding Its failure to explain 9 its decision detracts from the reasonableness of the City "s, • t �� Portland, LUE.�- 10 decision. See Ash Creek v. City of Portland, 11 No. 84-061 (1984) 12 P �' dim l because more traffic will be added to a major 13 arterial is not a basis for a denial when a simple solution 14 exists to ameliorate the increased traffic, at private expense. 15 All the testimony given at the hearing-before City Council 16 p .ert,ining to the traffic impact supports Petitioners' position 17 that a minor improvement to the traffic signal would alleviate the any i by - designation �g impact of an increased traffic caused b a C � desa. 19 on the site,. It was error for the City to reject this competent, 20 probative evidence and further error not to consider this 21 22 In fact, the Council ignored evidence from. the 23 independent agencies which reviewed the app i found 23 �..lcat�.C�n, and oun that, the proposal would not adversely impact, existing arterials 24 that g 25 The State, Highway Department had no objection to the proposal. evidence in its findings. 26 R. 40. The City engineering staf f supported the proposa finding ing 2 PETITION FOR REVIE BALL JAWIK 1. rJovAtx Attttt►c'B tip "Law ittn 5. 'Ml.: Main tittle Pottlatwdi br, '' dh. 97204 T tlephatxe 1503 228 -2525, 21 • `, t that the site would not create a traffic congestion problem that 2 could not be remedied by the traffic signal. R. 23. Also, the 3 city of Beaverton had no objections so long as traffic signal 4 improvements were made part of the development. R. 37. 5 City Council had testimony before it that the traffic g 6 signal would be added at no cost to the City. Supp. R. 2. Testa y me revealed that although there would be approximately 7 8 double the amount of traffic generated by the site under general omm 9 c erc -al zoning as under professional commercial zoning, the 10 level of service would remain unchanged so long as an additional 11 left g turn signal were added to the already committed traffic 12 signal. R. 60; Supp R. 1-3` • 14 Contrary to statements made in the Council Resolution, , 14 there was no conflicting testimony perta7,ning to traffic impacts. 15 NP(? -7 g ave testimony at the hearing but said nothing about 16 traffic imp act Supp. R. 1-2. With no negative: testimony 17 Pertaining ainin-� to the traffic impact, the City had no substantial , 18 evidence to support its findings ` that the additional, traffic 19 would adversely impact Scholls Ferry Read. There is smpl'y 20 nothing i ng in the record that Would support this finding.' 21 2. Change in the _ NFea 22 As set forth under Z.ssigniment of Error` No. 1,- there, is 23 no o standard in the City Code or state law which requires the 2� applicant to demonstrate that the existing planning designation ti: ro e.r " as the City attempts,,. to require by 'indi'ng No.'' 9. 25 .�s p �' r 8 Nor .. .s there a requirement that the applicant demonstrate that " 'a 24 pEilTi1aN FOR E E [MU:, jA1,41it & SPVACK kttbrney dk tswho. 101 9,. " . 'Math Wee h 6tt n 5031 4+ 28 25 Tet hr �. 1. 1 the area has "substantially changed to compel a change to C -G. " 2 R. 8. In fa ct the standard under the City's comprehensive plan , 3 is that the a demonstrate that there is "evidence of change in the or a mistake or inconsistency in t1e 4 ' Community Development Code Section 18.22. 040 (a) (4) . 5 plan. Tigard Y � In addition to Petitioners' argument that the incorrect standard was applied in this case, Petitioners also submit that 7 � there is no substantial evidence in the record to support a 9 finding that there has been a lack of evidence of change in the neighborhood. 10 The Court of Appeals has made it clear that where 11 there is no substantial evidence in the record to support a local 12 government s denial of an application, tLe court will remand the 13 case back .. to supplement the record. Messer v. Polk Co. Dist. 14 Boxxnd3ry Bd. 58 Or App 46, 49, 646 P2d 1369 (1982) . Ire. Messer, ► 15 the Court of Appeals found that the local district boundary board P 16 relied on general statements made by a school district official � � 17 in denying transfer of ' , ,op_rty from one school district to 18 another. The court found that the general statement made by the • constitute 19 district official was not sufficient to cons•Litu•c substantial 20 evidence i e in the record to support the board's finding that the 21 tr ansfer of prop ertY ,.. would adversely affect the school district 22 Id. 23 In this case, the city's finding refers to no evidence 24 in the ,record pertaining to a change of condiAons in the area. Y i w i w • p 25 , This �s because there ss r�c� ��.vydence �,� the record to support the 26 ia. i n i d.�.n.y, g that changes have not occurred. The only testimonY " go 25 PETITION" FOR REVItW BALL. JAhtiKK IsittVACK t ttothetyt at LtiW' ltat Math Street pJti0andi tuttert 412b4 Teloph0 15tl31 228.252.5 1 P resented in opposition to the proposal at the hearing was from a rhood -lanri±,ng organization spokesperson, Mr. Schweitz. ne �. ghbo P His testimony ' mon was brief and did not address the issue of a change � in circumstances in the arena 5 "John Schweitz : Thank you Mr. Mayor, Council. Wel for the record, we state notice 6 that you have already gotten our vote and r what we felt NPO. Our concerns were that at the time that this was presented we did d it was not have sufficient information and 8 j Ltst brought to us once. Then it went to the Planning kind of rushed 9 Commission and it k be held and through. 2 feel that it, �.hould go back to the Planning Commission for some clarification of some of the needs, proving 10 ,ace fob that, , they need more $p true: 11 commercial zoning is which now the Greenway Town a Center not full. A lot of people at the 12 Town Center are the owners -- the shop owners ., t there _ are still concerned the e will be other 13 businesses like themselves that could force them and other owners to go out of business' 14 Therefore, we're concerned that the best y interest of this area is not served b g n g 15 full commercial at this time-. Thank you." Supp. R. 1-2. 16 17 Mr. Sdhweitr' main concern pertained to competition 18 betwew.n b.. y existing shop sho owners' in the area and new commercial 19 tenants. Mr. Schweitz did not address the issue of change in the 20 neighborhood. 'C yhc y presented by the 21 urn the o�.:.�r hand, testimony was presen e community development director, as well as the applicant, that - A,3 GC') .y y. ' � .�. rapid the last f1iTe �3 the popu��t�on growth in t , the area, has .been. ra id in 24 y ears , representing a 27 percent increase. Sup p . R, 11. chnges! the neighborhood 25 in ` in g hborhood also involve the present construction of a 2+5 304 uhit multi family residential deve1opm nt r approved in 1984, 26 == PETITION FOR RtVitq ALLF,tANIKs NOVAtit AttortvEytt'at law i X11 s« W Maio Street Pbttiat d, btejlbkl 9/2 tekphoh ( 3j 22807.5 ti 1 a;te7 adoption of the comprehensive plan. The expansion, looping 2 and signalization 'of Sorrento Road icy also entirely new to the h material change in circumstance. R. 47, 3 ne �g�aborhood and is a mat 4 S.R. 3, R. 21. The expansion of an existing commercial' center is thus a logical change to meet rising population growth. There is t g 6 simply nothing in "che record refuting these changes nor 7 justifying a denial. 8 This Board has consistently held that even where 9. 9 local government denies an application for development, the 10 record must ,contain substantial evidence to su p P or it s findings. 11 Morrison v. Cannon Beach, 6 Or LUBA 74 (1982Y; Sims v. Tillamook 12 Count: , 2 Or LUBA 33 (1930); Richland Enter •rises v. Woodburn, f 13 Or LUBA 60 (1982); Liles .v Gresham, 7 Or LUBA 87 (1982) . 14 In Sims v. Tillamook County, supra, LUBA found that g may -tapplicant's 15 while local government may decide not o believe an ap 16 testimon:�Y ,it must explain why that testimony is not accepted. 2 17 Or LUBA p y here) there is BA at 83 « This is e5 eca.al�. true where (as here.,... 18 11n►ccn tradicted evidence in the record. See Utah Int' lv. Wallowa 19 County, 7 Or LUBA 77, 81.8 2 (1982). 20 The City's findings in this case pertaining to a change information to explain why 21 in r�ai'cumtance do not Provide enough �" '� �' 22 the recant residential development and population growth in the 23 area is not sufficient in co j fy the a duff' a.cen� change ndi to justify �. tons coin rehensive plan and Zone change, requested. Although the city` p 25 in denying the application could choose not to believe those 26 tge 2 "7 -' PETITION 011 REV t EVI BAIL JAhltK :i NOVACte ,kt�Mts7 •Qt t aW i S 5.'W Math Sheet Potttb id, kit„, an 47204. 'iek hats I03 228 25 Q 1 facts, it must explain in its findings why it did not so believe 2 in the face of uncontradicted testimony. 3. Need 4 Y The City's s findings also include Finding No 10 which 5 criticizes the application based on a failure by the applicant to .._. 6 address adequately a long range need for professional commercial 7 land. As set , forth in Assignment of Error No. 1, this standard 8 also is not contained in either the City s comprehensive plan, 9 code or in state law. Public need has not been required by the as a criteria change since Neuberger` v . City of 10 courts for a zone chan e sznc 11 Portland, 288 Or 155, 603 P2d 771 (1979) . 12 Nevertheless, there is no substantial evidence in the 13 record to support ort the City's conclu,Slon that a reduction in the p 14 amount of C -P land will have a negative lon g-term impact o n the 15 City. R. " 8 16 There is unco;ntradicted evidence in the record that 17 there are a sufficient number of sites in the vicinity to meet 18 the demands for,commercial professional uses. As noted in the 19 P staff report. the rezoning` would not actually preclude the 20 establi shment of office within, a C -G zone. R. 24. As stated P r�t fed zn the staff' re Port! 22 "Alsot similar` services are established east an Sc holls Ferry Road in Beaverton and 23 appropriate zoning for this a ctivit y exists in the Progres s /Washingtof Square area.." 24 R. 24. 5 The applicants assured the Council that some 26 dffic e uses would be preserved .,t the site. Supra, R. 9. Market Page 2 8 - PET I`l'ION VOA REVIEW 4LL, JANIK & NOVAtit Mtoimeyi dt Law 11! St f« M &Pn Street Pbrtldnd,„ fir ern 97104': Tetephdhe 003) 228 +2525 l r I'. 0 -9 conditions (which actually document "need ") will dictate the 2 amount of space consumed for such purposes Supp. R. 9. The 3 applicant also provided photographs and detailed explanation of _ cant 4 the available land zoned and planned for office space and land 5 currently p l developed and available for office use at this time. 6 S.R. 10, R- Photographs (oversize). 7 With this information in the record, `she City was 8 required to provide more than a mere conclusion that there was a 9 need to retain the land zoned for C-P use. There is no testimony 10 or evidence in the record pertaining to a shortage of commercial 5 area. !See Richland Ente rises 11 prof �.. s s a.onal land in the ar urn 6 car ,LUBA 60 (19 8 2) In Richland nterp�: i , LUBA 12 Woodburn, 13 overturned the City's decision to deny an application for zon 14 change from office commercial and resider 1 to general 15 commercial. The City had found that there was sufficient 1.6 ,underdeveloped commercial lands within the City as a basis for 1.7 denial LUBA found the City's findings inadequate and lacking e 18 any factual base in the' record. . As LUBA found: 19 "The recOrd does show a statement as to the available in the number of r.ommercia does�not�shew and, 20 city, but the record �' � ` acres l is 2 does u tet certainly the finding ddoes not show whether 21 or not the number of quoted mmex�cial suffic.ient or not sufficient f`�arrC °t,�:me in uffc�. 22 development at this tine, or at. y the future. The petitioner is Left with no understanding of what the city believes to be 23 'sufficient Aindeveloped and underdeveloped therefore he is �,� commercial zoned lands'; � and; t ?xereforto the unable Present facts and arguments to rese or . his proposal, will 25 c� y �. not ht t' to show whether o meet any need for more commercial land*" 26 6,i Or LUBA, at 64. Page PETITION TOR REVIEW ■ JAN1K 7v0V Z Attotdeo tit task 101 S4 + Mdl t 5ttett Po tlr'4yd, "!t �" ott 91204 T'elembrti t, J31228.25 1 Just as in Richland Enter risES, the record in this 2 case contains no detail,as',to how much land is currently zoned 3 and planned for Commercial Professional use in the area, and why removal of this acreage cause a shortage and thus negative 4 va impact to the City. This is especially so when the proposed C -C 6 designation leaves intact all of the C-P uses • The Council. s _ nation 1 7 finding of a negative potential impact is based on sheer 8 speculation ion and.. not on anything in the record. In fact, tiie loss 9 of purely C-P uses on the site may be negligible • With no 10 evidence in the record to support the City °s finding in this 11 regard, ard it must be remanded for further consideration. 12 13 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO, 4 14 The failure by the City to address all clearly applicable LCDC Goals is reversible 15 error where the y Cit s comprehensive plan is not acknowledged ,bv LCDC. 16 17 OR S 197.8:7.i7.(2) empowers this Board to reuerse or remand 18 Y_ >u g iction for 8 a land use decision made by an nacknowled ed �ur�sd .As of the date of the hearing, 19 failure to apply LCDC goals City plan and April 22, 1985, the Cit of 'Tigard' comprehensive 20 P 2 1 zoning Ordinances were not subject ct to final nal acknowledgment. e g me n t. 22 order signed by LCDC. Thereore , in making the decision not to .23 ,`', 3 g� ant the application in this case., the City ° was required to , a 24 pp l y g the goals to the decision. ORS 197.175(2)(c). 25 In this case the City's order states that the only 26 relevant approval: criteria are: Pag 80 PtT'lTl ON. VOA REVIEW SALL, )AN1I NbVAC t AttortweYs 1 tcVv 01 . W,,Mti Suitt l�ortlatid, OtOjOh.012 4 altphbnt; (5173) 084525 4, M1 r 1 2 3 4 Consistent with state law the City was required to address all 5 a pps icab le LCDC goals in making its decision to deny this "Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, and 12, Comprehensive Plzn. Policies 2.1.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.4, 8'.1.3 and Chapter_ 12, locational criteria." Re 6. 6 application. 7 in this case. 8 � City In fact, the Cit found only three goals applicable In For some reason which is not stated in the findings or anywhere in the record, the City found that Goal 9, application. the City was required 9 Economy, was not applicable to the 10 Petitioners submit that 11 address Goal 9 in that the proposal f 12 commercially designated property 13 application dealt with issues pertaining g to a change in business, 14 and commercial activities which generate employment for the state 15 and. the City, the required 9 to the City was re u�.red under the terms of Goal 16 address the terms and policies of that goal. The proposal p oral would 17 generate new business opportunities for City, residents as well as 18 the creation of 150-200 new jobs. R. 23, 49. Failure to address 1 applicable LCDC goal is reversible error and this Board should an ' applic g further consideration. ORS. 20 remand the case back to the City for ,L. 21 197.835(3). Sun ide Nei .835 �3) . � nys hborhood v. Clackawas Co., Comm., 280 < � Nei 22 Cr 3, 16, 569 P2d 1063 (1977). concerned the to location in the City. Because the a 23 24 CONCLUSION 25 The Council s actions in this instance are a, M:ias sic 26 case of "reasoning backward. The difficulty in such an approach 'age 31 - PETITION FOR REVIE BALL, JANIK & NOVACK Attcmeys of LaW 101 5. W. Mcitn Street tl�tland, +Or� On ,0201 4 T'61011one 1503) 228.252 1 is that tb Council's decision had to be based on application of identifia)le, legally -based standards to the facts in the record. 2 3 The Council ignored the facts - which with minor exception are 4 undisputed by staff, applicants and opponents. The Council 5 failed to apply and also misapplied the 6 instead created new standards 7 effect is a decision which is at best, 8 denying an application which unquestionably a actually applied criteria. 10 There are no reasons justifying the City's denial the criteria which the !.cants 11 action, based on t e C �. t y told the .app 12 to address. The City s denial findings are ill- explained and 3 f.. ctuall unsupported. j the City ,� factually exists because This situation. ex 14 Council had no `real basis for rejecting the f ;sidings made by its 15 staff and the Planning Commission which were factually based and 16 adequately stated. The cil difficult task Y he Coun ,was faced with a d 17 in attempting to explain how the Planning . rsion . � g p e. staff and � tannin Commis 1.8 had gone yr �' '' g� y As ,. g on in their anal ses . �,5 the Council hearing it had no good for its 19 p d reasons ,transcr�: t demonstrates the Council 20 denial action. The transcript is devoid of a legally sufficient 21 explanation. The "after the fact" findings rflect an ill- p,,.ut t magic wordstt, Into the Council's 22 concea.�red e�for�~� to g collective � �s r reversal 23 oll:ective rnorith . based on the record and the findings 24 and remand ar :e clearly required. 25 Page 32 - P TIT 'ON FOR VEVItW applicable standards having no legal basis, The net and internally contradictory, bl satisfied all BALL JANIK t� t,te+�t, :+~k Attootai'! at Ltd* 101 'SF W'. Mdln Street OtittI nde Ot,ttott 9/2U tolipttbnd (SO3). 22E14515 • 1i 2 3 4 5 SQOO6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21. 22 23 24 6 DATED this 31st day of July, 1985. ry BALL, JANIK & NOVACK Page 33 - PEI ION FO t REVIEW By ack L. Orcha -d, OSB #72188 Susan M. Qu k, OSB #81126 • BALL JAN1K & NOVACt Attt%tniey rat` lw 10 s� w. a1H tirEdt 'attlartd,� elt ,�ri: 972 . talephatirf 1.5m3j. 22a -25�, APPENDIX It ll 18.6 2. C -G (GENERAL COMMERC.L L' DISTRICT) 18,62.010 Purpose The purpose_ of the General Commercial areas is to provide for major retail'goods and services. (1) The uses classified as general commercial , 'ay involve drive—in services, Large space users, a combination of retail, service, w holesale and re p air services or provide <.ery ices to the traveling public (2) The uses range from automobile repair and services, supply and equipment 'stores, vehicle sales, drive -in restaurants to laundry establishments 3 It is intended tha. these arterial � � �- a uses be adjacent to artp or major collector street. 18.62 .0.0 Procedures and Approval Process 2 A use permitted outright, Section 18,62 03.), is a use which (a) _q approval a under the provisions of this may coda. bhe If a requires no a proval Fund held to use is riot listed as a use permitted outright, it my be a similar unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter 18.43 (UNLISTED USES). A conditional use, Section 18,62.040, is a use the approval of which is discretionary with the Hearings Officer. The approval process and criteria for approval are set forth in Chapter 18,130, (CONDITIONAL USES) . IF a use is not listed as conditional use, it may be held to be a similar unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter 18.43 ( UNLISTE D USES). 18.62,030 Permitted Uses Permitted Uses in the C—G district are as follows: ( 1 ) Civic Use Types (A) Public enc administrative services 9 y (B) Cultural exhibits and library services (C) Public support facilities (0) Lodge, Fraternal and civic` assembly (E) Parking services Postal services (F) (G) G Public safety facilities (b) (2); Commercial Use (A) (S) Ypes Agricultural Sales Amasement enterprises. Animal sales and services (i) Grooming (ii) Veterinary: small animals ( ii) Sales/Rentals, Light Equipment,: Ili 101 A-4 (D) Automotive angi equipment O Cleaning (ii) Repairs: light equipment (F) Business support services (F) Convenient sales and personal services (G) Day Care Facilities (11) Eating and drinking establishments (1) Financial, insurance and real estate services (J) Food and beverage retail sales (K) Funeral and interment servicES (i) Crem, ting (ii) Undertaking_ (L) General retail sales (M) Med",cal and dental services (N) Participation sports and recreation: (i) Indoor (:i) Outdoor ...0) oersonal services: geieral (P) Professional and administrative Yu-vices (9) ', oosumer Repair servicOs (R) Rei gous Assembly (S) Sp4,ctator sports and entertainment 'facilities (T) TrAnsient lodging (3) Nome Occupations subject to provisions of Chapter 18.142. 18.62.040 Conditional Use (Section 18.13 Conditional. Uses in theeC --G district are as follows: (1) Adult Entertainment (2) Automotive and equipment (A) Fleet storage (B) SaleslRentalt farm equipment (C) Sales /Rental: heavy equipment (D) Sales /Rental: light equipment (E) Storage: recreational vehicles and 'boa.'-s (3) Wholesaling,torage and distribution, (A) Mini -warehou szs (4) Utilities (5) Heliports, t n accordance with the Aeronautic's Division (000T) and ' the FAA (6) Hospitals (7) Spectator :sptor t facilities (8) 1de.hi61e fuF 1 sales 102. 18 62.050 Dimensional R?guirement Dimensional Requirements in the C-G district are as follows' There is no minimum lot area required (1) (2) The average minimum lot width ue 50 feet. (3) The minimum setback requiremet is are as follows (A) There shall be no minimum front yard setback requirement, however, conditions ;.n Section 18,102 "Visual Clearance Areas " and Section 18.100 "Landscaping and Screening" must be met. (8) On corner lots and through lots, there small be no minimu.1 setback r r,.quirement, ;however, the provisions of Chapter 18,102 (VISUAL CLEARANCE) must be satisfied, t C ) r, No side yard setback s ia11 be required, except 20 feet sha11, be required where the C-G � one abuts s a residential zoning district. (0) No rear yard setback shall be required, except 20 feet shall be required where. the C.G zone abuts a residential zoning district, (4) Except as otherwise provided in Chapter 18,98 (biIL0INNG' HEIGHT LIMITATIONS) no building in a C—G zone shall exceed 45 feet. (5) The maximum site coverage shall. .be 85 percent including all buildings and impervious surfaces. The minimum landscaping requirement shall be 15 percent. 18.62.060. Additional Requirement Additional Requirements district � s' xn the C�G are as follow Off — street parking loading, C ,; pter 18.106 Access and Egress, Chapter 18.108 (1,) (2) (8):. Landscaping and Screening, Chapter 18.100 (4) Signs, Chapter 18.114 (5) Nonconforming Situations . Chapter 18,182 (6) Sensitive Lands, Chapter 18.84 lit 103 A 5 l8�64, C—P PROf EC SIGNAL /ADMIW .STRATIVE OFFICE COMMERCIAL 0I8TRICT 18.64.01 Purpose (a) The purposes of the C —P zoning district is: (1) To provide for groups of business and offices in center; ) To accommodate the locrati cJn of intermediate uses between residential districts ann areas of more intense development (3) To provide opportunities for employment and for business and professional services in close proximity to residential neighborhoods and Major transportation facilities; (4) To expand the City's- economic potential; (5) Tci provide a range of compatible and supportive uses; .. nd (6) To locate office employinnt where it can s .ppurt other coM .. rcial uses (b) The trade - area will 'vary] and may extend outside the community, This [one is intended ta implement the policies and criteria set forth in the comprehensive plan. 18.64.020 Procedure ,and Apr�rvyal process A use permitted nutright, Section 18.64.080, is a use which requires no approval under the provisions of this code. IF use is not listed asa use p' permitted outright,, it may be held to be a similar unlisted use under the'" provisions of ;Chapter 18,43 (UNLISTED USES). (b) A conditional use Section 18.64.040, is use the approval of is discretionary with the Hearings 0rfi°cer, The approval Process forth in Chapter rocess and criteria for approval are set i`�rt . y listed as a 18 , L30 (CdNDTIONAL USES). If a use is 1`1ot lis . , y held to be aYsimiMlar unlisted use conditional use, it ma be hel under the provisions of Chapter 18 , 48 (UNL L TED USES) . 18.64,Q8P Permitted :Uses Permitted Uses in the C —P district are as follows (1) Civic Use Types (A;) Public agency admi.ni:vtrative services (8) Cu1t',,w °a1 exhibits and ltbroery services (C) Publtc support facilit:4As (D) Lodges # fraternal and assombly ) Parking! services (r) postal servtees (0) P blic safetY services, (a) 104' 1,4 (2) Commercial Use Types (3) (A) Animal sales and services (i) Grooming (i i) Veterinary: small animals `A) Building maintenance services (C) Business equipment sales and services (0) Business support services (E) Communication services (F) Convenient sales and personal services (not to exceed 10%, of the total square footage within the office complex) (t3) Day Care Facilities (H) Eating and drinking establishments, (trot to exceed 10% of total square footage within the orrice complex) (I:) Financial, insurance and real estate services (3) Medical and dental services (K) Participation sports and recreation: (i) Indoor (i L) Outdoor (not to rxce'd 10% of the total square footage within the office complex) (L) Personal services general (M) Profesr.'ional and administrative s�irvices (FU)' Research services Residential Use Types (A) Multiple family residential units as a mixed use in conjunction developed at R -40+ stanOt rds with a commercial development, only in the CP District within the Tigard Triangle and the Bull Mountain Road District, on or above the second floor of the structure. ( 8 ) Home occupations subject to pr, 'av i sions of Chapter 1 1-,142. (4) Transient lodging/Restaurant (on the same parcel) 18.54.040 Conditional Use (Section 18 13Q1 Conditional Us.e.s in the C—P district are as follows: (1) Helipors, in accordance with the Aeronautics Division (nnOT) and FAA, (2) Hospitals (3) Utilities A) Part.ic ipation St Jrts and Recreation (A) Indoor~ (8) Outdoor iC 105 A Et '18.64.050 Dimensional Requ'tir~ements� Dimensional Requirements in the C—P district are as follows (1) The minimum lot area shall be 6,000 square feet, (2) The average rnirimum lot width shall be 50 feet. (3) ( (5) The minimum setback requirements are as follows: �A) Them shall be no minimum front yard setb 3 2 requirement, however, conditions in Section 18, "Visual Clearance Areas" and Section 18.100 "Landscaping and Screening must be met. On corner lots and through lots, there shall be no minimum setback requirement, however, the provisions of Chapter 18,102 (VISUAL CLEARANCE) must be satisfied (C) No side yard setback shall be required except; 20 feet shall be required where the C—P zone abuts residential zoru. g district. (B) (0) (E) No rear yard setback shall be required erccepi; 20 feet shall be required where the C_p zone abuts .4i. residential zoning district All bu'lding separations shall meet all Uniform Building Code requirements. Except as otherwise provided in Chapter 18.98 (BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITATIONS) no building, in the C—P zoning district shall exceed 45 feet in h ight The maximum site coverage shall be 85 peresxit including all buildings and impervious surfaces. ...... e minimum landscaping requirement 1! percent. (6) The eht '.shall b y8.64. 060 Additional Requirement Additional Regt,irements in the C—P district are as follows (1) Off—street perking and loading, Chapter 18'1°6 (2) Access and Egress, Chapter 18..108 (3) Landscaping and Screening, `'Chapter 18.100 (4) Si.gns , Chapter 18 ,1.14 Nonconforming Situations, Chapter 18,1 2 (6) Sensitive Lards, Chapter 1884 tit — 106 ROBERT S. BALL STEPHEN T. JANIK KENNETH M. NOVACK JACK L. ORCHARD JOHN W. LILJEGREN rUSAN M. QUICK WILLIAM H.GPERKINS CHRISTOPHER W. ANGIUS VICKI 0. BAYLESS DENISE FRANCIS BARBARA W. RADLER MICHAEL C. WALCH BALL, JAN I K ''& NOVACK ATTORNEYS AT LAW ONE MAIN PLACE 10 S. W. MAIN .STREET PORTLAND, OREGON 07204 TELEPI- ONE (503) 228 -2525; TELECOPY (503) 295 -1058 TELEX 910 - 380 -5470 July 9, 1985 Mr. John T. Baggy Chief Referee Land Use Board of Appeals 106 State Library Building Salem, OR 97310 it J'u L -o 'AGORA kta 054. t■ Ret Portland ,t F w mpany and S & J Builders ixture Co v. ,.y,t of Tiga�.d LUBA No 8;� -O35 OF COC:•SEL JACOB TANZER Der John Attached to this letter is petit1oflerS' supplemental record _ dig tape entae • above-referenced proceeding, u submitted of av typed etranscript of a tap recording record consits Council for the City of Tigard public hearing pertaining to the application in this case for a comprehensive plan and zone change for the City of Tigard. \s nay this transcript, there are several �aa be set ` portions of the tape. In fact, the entire n from i Planning . unintelligible P . • matter is unintelligible for Commission hearing' for the record.. As wild. be not �:d in the purpose ranscript,tblank lines words or Chet indicate unintelligible � lznes•indes a break in conversation sentences. A dash line indicates conversation rath than missing text: In additioaa to this LestimonY, the record also contains y g this � g � oto ra hs presented durin this hearing b -, the series of ph g �+ p ' p Council for respondent City of petitioners' representative. . rCyga;rd has assured me that she wi .l transmit these photographs to ar uitt nt+ the Board at the time of oral g Tt I BALL, JAN 1 K & NOVACK Mr. John T. Bagg July 9 1985 Page 2 Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Very truly yours, Susan M. Quick Attorney for Petitioners Portland Fixture Company and S & Builders SMQ:lmw Enc. cc: ' 1ga1d City Hall. Mr T mothy V. Ramis Mr. Bob Bledsoe Mr', Joe Schweitz Mrs. John C. Morris • VICTOR ATIYEH GOVERNOR s Oregon 'State Highway Division DISTRICT 2A MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR P.O. BOX 565, BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 -0565 PHONE 229-5002 une 30, 1985 Keith Liden Tigard Planning Department P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE. Zone Change Scholls Ferry Road Get Sorrento Road WCTM 131-34 BC, Lot 400 rw JUL 1 1985 CITY OF 'TIGARD PLANNING DEPT. In Reply 'Refer to Dear Mr. Liden , review of your request During au • initial re for comments on the zone change pr&'posed by S&J Builders, we failed to realize what effect • this would have on traffic volumes.; The traffic volume projections provided in Greenway Phase I1 report the zone C` per . would increase the indicate trite gone change from �P vehicles es� eC �} 'wo This report assumed generated trip ends by 2,62J eh p y p a full access on both Scholls and < North. Dakota with a 50-50 split in the usage for the level of service projections for the Dakota St./ Scholls intersections, yet failed to address the impact of the acces on the highway. In order to maintain an acceptable level of service on Scholls for the future the access to the highway mus be taken into co nsideration. Our design' crit eri a for Scholls Highway is to minimize access disruptions and encourage alternate access. In this development we would recommend access via Dakota Street only The site generated trip ends can be accomodated through a full access on'' Dakota at a level of ,service C with the Commercial Professional Zoning Th e level of service provided to th e public o Scholls c� be better served by the imapct of this property zoned commercial profes sional, i onal , Sincerely, '`,w„u>c:....0iiV4.weiGwk'�. '`► d,;'"I. cur, ,.,cf"'� "C.�r".+:L.;.kc�w: =�� Leon.61 'N. ' underson Asst. District Maint. Supervisor LHG:3s cc: Ron Fai lmezg +r Hal Hewitt - Greenhill Associates CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 3 I hereby certify that on June 10, 1985, I served a true and 4 correct copy of this RETURN OF THE RECORD on the following 5 6 7 Jack L. Orchard Ball, Janik & Novack One Main Place 101 S. W. Main Street Portland, Oregon 97204 8 and transmitted the original to: 9 Land Use Board of ;"appear 106 State Library Building 10 Salem, Oregon 97310 11 by depositing in regular first class mail, with postage prepaid, i2 as provided in the Land Use Board of Appeals Rules of Procedure. 13 DATED this 10th day of June, 1985. 14 15 t Timothy V: Rami s 16 Of Attorneys for Respondent 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Pagel csf' ,1 CERTI `'CAVE OF SERVICE. o'bOINIt4 LLu RAMIS, ELLIOTT & cREW ttottit t at Lnw 1/27 N. Vit. Hoyt Sfrt t PortI ndy. btetib 97209 (503 ) 222.4402 BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE C>TATE OF OPEGoN PORTLAND FIXTURE CO. and S & J BUILDERS, LTD., Petitioners, CITY OF TIGARD, Respondent. LUBA No ) CITY OF TIGARD ) ITEMS No CPA 3 85 ) and ZC 3 -85 RETURN OF THE RECORD FOR ITEMS NO CPA 3 -85 AND ZC 3 -85 Jack L. Orchard, OSF No. 72188 BALL, JANIK & NOVACK One Main Place 101 S.' W Main Street Portland, Oregon 97204 (5p3) 228-2525 Attorney for Petitioners Timothy V. R amis, OSB No. 75311 O k DONN ELL , RAMI S , ELLIOTT & GREW 1727 N. T. Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 (503) 222 -4402 e for Res ndent Attorney �' o r �. BEFORE THE. LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS 2 OF THE STATE OF OREGON 3 PORTLAND FIXTURE CO. and ) S & J BUILDERS, LTD.,, ) 4 ) LLB A No Petitioners, ) 5 _ ) . ) CITY OF TIGARD ITEMS 6 ) No CPA 3-85 and ZC 3 -85 CITY OF TIGARD, ) RETURN OF THE RECORD Respondent. ) 8 9 Pursuant to OAR 661 --10- 025 (2) (a) (A) , respondent City of Tigard 10 returns the record of Items No. CPA 3- 85 and 3-85 described d ZC 3--5 11 below: 12 1. Letter from Jack L. Orchard to Kay Kingsley dated May 9, 13 1985 with Notice of Intornt to Appeal dated May 9, 1985 (pp. 1-4) • City o Tigard n dated May 6r 14 2. Cit f; T �. and Notice. of Final Decision 15 1985 (pp. 5`9) 16 3 Tigard City Council Minutes of April 22, 1985 (pp. 7.0 -14) g Notice of City Council Public Hearin 17 4. Affidavit of Mailing Hearing 18 with support docu menu April r dated l5 1985 (pp. 15 -18) City Planning Commission Minutes dated April 2, 19 5 � C�.t of Tigard P1 20 1985 (pp. 19 -20) 21 6. city of Tigard Pl.ax ping Comrnl.ssion Staff Report dated 22 April 2, 1985 (pp. 21-24) . 23 7, i g, Tt gK Planning Conu fission P...ff�dat�a.t of i+�a�.l�.n - ��.oi:�c.e of T� r� ■ Plana 24 hearing dated March 22, 1985 (pp w 25- 28)y 25 8, Letter 'dated. March 15, 1985 with support documents 26 (pp. 29-36) Pagel - RETURN OF T t RECORD o`DONNELL, RAMIS Eld IOtt 'CREW' Attattie 1 nt tt'iYtr 1727 N W. HOWW Sttetet Pdttlatitc Oregtrn 97209 0003) 2L2.4 b2 r 1 9 . Letter from James N. P . Hendryx, Senior Planner, City of 2 Bea'Terton, to Keith Liden, City of Tigard Planning Department, 3 dated March 14, 1985 (p, _37) 4 10. Requests for comments dated March 5, 1985 (pp. 38.41) 5 11. City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone 6 Change Application dated February 15, 1985 (pp 42 -43) 7 12. Consumer Information Report prepared by Safeco'Title 8 e Co. of Oregon dated February . 44 --45). Insuranc y 14, 1985 (pp 9 13. Letter from Greenhill Associates to City of Tigard 10 Planning Commission with support documents dated February 14, 1985 11 (pp. 46-61) 12 14. Letter from. Westlake Consultants, Inc. dated October 13 1984 (p. 62) . 14 15. App lication info rmation Public Imp rov ement Review, 15 City of Tigard, Oregon (pp. 63-67). ib. 16. Location map, ,Greenway Town Center Phase II (p P. 68 17 17. Map. Section 34, TIS, R1W (p 69). 18 18. Map. Section 33AD, TJ S, R1W (p. 70) - 19 19 Map. Section 34, T1S, R1W (p. 71) 20 20. Tax. Lot Map (p. 72) 21 21, Tax lot information (handwritten and printout) (pp. 73-80). 22', 22. Street dedication. 23 24 25 26, Page 'DR OP T.B. RE RD and easement f0rm8 '. (pp 81_83) O'DO.NNELL, RA IS, ELLIOTT & CREW Bat: V. Rami- OS No. 753 t� .. imoth� � Of A.ttorneys for Respondent VOO4 4ELL, RAMts, ELLIOtt & tliNt Ati rn�+ m nt Lbw 172/ N, Nn tt Sittist ptrrt1(5 3J 222 4 4ti0 404 �a • AFFIDAVIT 2 STATE OF OREGON )ss. 3 County of Multnomah ) I, TIMOTHY V. RAMIS do hereby certify that I am the City s : 6 Attorney for the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon. 6 That I have compared the attached copies of the City of Tigard 7 files regarding Items No. CPA 3 -85 and - d Fixture ZC'3 -85, Portland Co. Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change Application, to 9 the originals and the attached are true and correct copies of the 10 originals. 11 ,.bATED this 6th dad; of J tne, 1985. 12 13 Ti thy V. antis 14 City Attorney City of Tigard, Oregon 15 16 SIGNED AND SWORN to before me this 6th day of June, 1985, 17 by TIMOTHY V. RAMIS. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 5 26 Pagty (NOTARIAL SEAL ArFIDA.VIT' q a M C • Public for Oregon iesion expires: �tztaNt t6,, IZAMIS, ELLIOTT! CREW Atttttt+cyi tat to* 1127 rit W. I•ieyt Stteet arti(0 1 222 44'97209 11 Proposed Amendment to Beaverton General Plan and Beaverton Development Code (Ordinance 2050) for George R. 5troemple Lake Oswego, Oregon and Vieira /Darrow Development Bellevue, VVathington June 1985 DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPORT A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT /REZONING REQUEST Prepared on Behalf of George R. Stroemple Vi ei ra /Darrow Development Prepared by Gordon Davis, AICP Beverly Bodkin, AICP For Presentation to the City of Beaverton Planning Comm ssi o June 6i 15BS f '(i Request, Location: George R. Stroemple Vieira /Darrow General Plan amendment /redone of 10.9 are parcel from single family residential (R -5) to multi - family residential (R -2) and office commercial (0C),, General Plan amendment to consolidate two bicycle paths adjoining the subject property North side of SW Schol l s Ferry Road between Sorrento Road and Boones Bend Drive Tax Lots 300 and 400, Mir ?gip 1S1-34B6 1' I . SUMMARY The r request a 10.9 are applicants cents ues c, re a General Plan amendment/rezone for Parcel, currently 'designat 5) develop- ment. for single a fame ly residential al (R - ment. As illustrated in Figure 1, request designation of the re nest incl�� des re 7.8 acres in the eastern portion of the property to multi - family residen- tial (R -2). If this request is approved, Vieira /Darrow, a development company which has entered int.. purchase agreement • ple o a urchase a reement with George Stroemple for Pthi s acreage, plan R-2 p tment complex containing s to construct an a ar An R -2 desi gnats on also is regueste for an between 150 and 165 units. ._ existing day care center, occupyi rig .7 acre, which has been operati n as a conditional use within the R -5 zone since 1983. It is further requested that the remaining 2.4 acres at the western end of the parcel be redesig- nated for office commercial (OC) development. George Stroemple retains o1,4nershi of this property as well as the 'n addition, day care center. I• he Par- cel's applicants request amendment of t +R�, :general Plan t � � t, permit the consol- idation of two bicycle paths, which currently are routed along the �t cel `s northern and soon hwrn boundaries, into a single path along the ter, which is adjacent to Schol l s. Ferry Reed.. III. BACKGROUN( Location. The property is located on the north side of SW Schol l s Ferry Road between Sorrento Road and Boones Bend Drive (121st Avenue), i, south Beaverton just north of the Tigard city limits. The props y free- way � r a major link nk in the regional i motel, 1 5 miles, es, went of Highway 217, way system , and the Washington Squa a regional shopping Center. Site Figure roughly As illustrated[ u.stra F� ore 1 the. site i s 5, ��� Charater� sti cs: to in rectangular -F-' " iY , feet hid k it �r n sfiape� approx��ra�e�r, a00'fee long and 350 feet lies in a northeasterly . am �ch4kll rt Derr Road � 4 � slo es g�ntily away fr '� ,� W ditch s w northern o.anda y separating the A dray Wage o��� �3 l i e � para�l 1 eel to the there b fu bu ur y the . s vacant with the property from a re school site, ��y r� � �. which con,ta ns, a Children's World exception of .7 acre along Schol l s Ferry y wh day care center. This facility and the Proposed office commercial prop . - � ° � access erty� adjacent to i t are served by a private roadway wt i ch takes its from Sorrento Road. Primary access to the proposed residential complex will be provided by a private accessway from Scholls Ferry at a point directly across from the main driveway oF Greenway Town Square, to the south. A secondary, exit -only access to the complex will be provided via r3oones Bend Road to the east. Surrounding Uses. As illustrated in Figure 2, an existing single family esi en a1 development, zoned R -7, lies to the west across Sorrento Road. A large vacant parcel, also zoned R--7 lies immediately to the north; this has been designated as a future school site by Beaverton School District #48. A large tt act of R -2 and a smaller area of R -1 lie beyond the school . site to the north. The property is bound on the east by the On -the- Green condominiums. Although zoned for single family (R-7) development, this area rla 1 been developed as a high density rnesidential area within a large PUD. with an average density of approximately 15 units /gross acre, On the- ;rett. contains 224 owner -c :cupi ed and rental units. Across Scholls Ferry Road to the south lies the L. reenway Town Square shop- ping center, which has been zoned for general commercial development by the City of Tigard. Anchored by a Thri ftway supermarket and a Srouse Reitz variety store, the center contains over 25 other tenants including a post office, banks, restaurants ra�ts and specialty shops. Other uses al on g Scholls Ferry n77ee several medium and h igh density, residential, office/general commercial, and campus industrial develop- ments. Availability of Services. A full ;ompl ement of urban servives are availa- ble totes� te. i re and': police ;service are provided by the City of Beaverton. The Brockman Fire Station is located approximately one mile the northwest. According to the city engineer, there is sufficient y;'ater and sewer capacity to accommodate the proposed level of development. A 12 -inch water main already serves the day care center and can be extended to provide service to the remainder of the site. A major sewer trunk line runs along the northern boundary of the site. According to preliminary ' discussions with Beaverton School District #48, there will l besufficient capacity in local schools to accommodate develop- ment of 7 8 acres at the proposed R -2 'density. Although this will result in the construction of twice as many units as is permitted under the existing R-5 zoning, the number of children/multi-family unit is signifi- cantly lower than that, associated with detatched single family units. Public transit is available on a regular bases by Tri -Met which operates its #45 bus line along Scholls Ferry to 12lst Avenue (Bc ones Bend Road), During peak hours, the site also is served by the #87 line. According to the General Plan, Apo, portions of two bicycle paths are. slated. for development along both the no, th and south boundaries of the site. Zoning His torY. Originally the property was part of the Ors- the -green esi dentx a1 PUD. In 1981, the then owner, L. B. Ne1 e,ion Corporation, re- quested that Tax Lots 300 and 400 be separated from the PUD and rezoned from R -7 to R -5 (RZ 4 -82). The Cit of Beaver . �" + y rtn approved this request In 1983, the current o rner, George R. Stroemple , requested a conditional use permit for the construction of a day care center on a .7 acre portion of the site (CUP 8.83) This request also was approved by the city. ANALYSIS Overview of Proposal. The applicants request a general plan amendment / rezoni flg`5?' e property which is currently designated for single family residential (R -5) development. The property is not suitable for such development based on the following: Configuration. ors. The long and narrow site and th, p • the placement of ,day care center make it difficult to design an attractive and efficient single family residential project. Location. Low density residential development is the least appropriate use for a site located on Scholls Ferry Road, which is an increasingly busy major arterial Through innovative de- sign and careful landscaping, the adverse affects associated with congestion and noise can be more effectively controlled ; n a multi-family. than in a single family project. Furthermore, due to the proximity of commercial facilities, employment cen- ters and public ,transit, the site is better suited for more in- tense residential and nonresidential development. Market. The Highway 217/Schol l s Ferry Road area is the focus of s� 7n Sri cant growth in the commercial, service and industrial sectors. This growth is generating jobs filled by Profession- als, an increasing number of whom prefer to rent reasonably- priced, attractive apartments rather than purchase single e family homes. The continued high cost of home ownersh ti p and potential loss of favorable tax bonefi is are accelerating this trend. the applicants rcawest redes i +gnati on of 8.5 acres in In view of the ab►�vc, r� the eastern portion of the property m density residential (R-2); this to medium �R includes k .by the Chi l drei s World day care center wh i ch ha s been o_.� er ti n occupied as a conditional use ,, i nce 1983. If the reques t is approved, Vi . rra /Darrow plans to construct a 150-165 unit planned resi- dential community on the remaining 7.8 acres, The applicants also request that the remaining 2.4 acres be redesignated for office commercial (OCR) development. This complex of two or three buildings in combimat i ors with the day care center will create an office service 'center. It will ,accommodate doctors, denti stet accountants, in y, a Professional are: service providers so important t,��r ance agents and other p. _ � � low-intensity nonresiden- tial the surround? ng community. As a relati vel to tial use, office commercial fac ; l i ti es also provide a good transition between general commercial use to the south and residential uses to the east, north and west. The above request requi r ` s simultaneous amendment of both the city` s zoning p , 4ii d .t i ,,t y;. General �'1 a�} and �cox �R �t'a s and ent<< � � � e�toh� r'at�on of �;�,rr�ol. ti ance with the fo1 lowi ng criteria: Two conclusions are evident from this information. First, the city is not achieving thc, overall housing density proposed in the General plan. If this trend continues, Beavertco will fall between 30 -50% short of its density goal. Secondly, the actual shortfall is about 10% gra +er for multi-family than for single fami `' ;;. units; thus, the city is also failing to maintain a 50% /S0% hosing split. Therefore, the city is not achieving the diversity of housing oppor- tunities required by LCDC. This imbalance can in part be addressed by redesi gnati ng the 'property owned by the applicants from a single family (R-5) to multi - family' (R -2) designation. Potential impacts. With regard to surrounding uses, the redesigna- t� an t‘, acres of the site to R -2 is in keeping with the intensity of residential and nonresidential uses along Scholis Ferry Road, arti cul arly to the east of Sorrento center al- ready Road. The day care cent y p s,rvice, to the local neighborhood and has read provides an important had no adverse impact upon su roundi ng residential areas either in terms of its physical or operational characteristics. A full compl e went of urban services - -includi ng fire and police protection water r' sewer service, schools and public transit - -is available.' The site Si s physically suited For the type and intensity' of use pro- posed; this combined with the availability of adequate urban services insurer, that there will be no undue harm to the environment associ- ated with the proposed development. The construction of additional housing units close to rapidl' developing commercial and industrial areas supports the city's general economy. In addition to its compatibility with surrounding uses, R -2 develop- rent also is more appropriate for a site located adjacent to such a busy arterial as Schol l s Ferry Road. According to recent readings, noise levels at various locations on the site average between 55 and 65 decibels (dBA) during the weekday evening rush hour (see appen- dix) noise at this level can significantly interfere wi and very ayof` acts v i {e Because of greater flexibility in the design siting s 1 Ys�ll units and the use of a common landscape program, such noise imp are more effectively mitigated in a multi-family than in a single family project. Sped fical ly, apartment units can be set back fur- ther and oriented away from the source of noise and buffered by a berm ane /or landscaping. Such measures often are not pry cti cal for single family homes built on individual lots. 3. Consistency above request complies with the ' with General Plain. The a o owing po o t e :eaverton General Plan: o General Policy #3: "Residential developments should be located so ,a ey are convenient to places of employment and shopping facilities.. —" As noted above, the site is located within the Highway 217/Schol l s Ferry Road area which it currently the focus of significant commercia1 , service and indusrial sector~ growth. 4 Anal yis of potential R i al traff is I'm aces associated. with the full develop- ment of the site i spresente�d in separate p repot €: ,a, uQ_ 1 •d _e. the intensification of development on this site can be accommodated without endangering community health, safety and welfare. Office Commercial (OR). The applicants, also request that the remaining w single family acres on the west end of the site to redesignated from residential (R -5) to office commercial (OC). As noted in the overview section above, r► ?tenti on of the R -5 zoning her is inappropriate due to the physical constraints of the site, the l ocat ► on of the day care center, and the general incompatibility of single family residential developments located near congested and ncisy arterials. This sgngle family zoning designation is even more `,mal if A inajority • � uns � tabl e for this 1' portion of the site is redesignated for R -2 development as is requested above. If not R -5, what is the suitable alternative ?' Because of the proximity of the Greenway Town Center, there is little or no need for additional con - venience, neighborhood or community service commercial acreage in the imm(di ate vicinity. General commercial and industrial uses are too in - tens and: would have an adverse impact upon nearby residential areas. (Jffi c; 2 commercial (0C) is tie i dial alternative as, according to the rxi ty's zoning code, it is "intended for a mixing of professional offices and other compatible commercial parposes with medium and high density residential uses". If rezoned, it is likely that a two- or three - building professional office complex would be constructed on the site. Likely tenants include Physi- cians, dentists, accountants, insurance agents and other professionals providing much needed services to surrounding residential areas. Because of their hysi cal a earance and operational characteristics, office com- mercial ' devel' opmentsR also are compatible with residential uses • 1. Pt'bl is Need. According to .a recent vacant land i,ive tort' conducted Ft' apartment of Planning, there are less than 64 acres of OC zoned property within the city. Only three parcels, containing a total of 3.4 acres, are vacant; none of these parcels s i s located in the Scholl s Ferry corridor. The need for additional acreage in this zoning catagory combined with the l ocati oral attributes of the site provide this request. rovide the justification cation for the 2. Potential Impacts. Structures are subject to similar uctures �n the OC zone ar rt t e'i g, n a se ac requirements as those in both the R -7 ar►d R-2 zones. Thus, there will be no adverse visual impacts associated with professional office buildings at the site when viewed from either the single family residential area to the west or the prrposed R-2 devel o ment to the east. This portion of the site, including existing the�� s., p day care center, takes its access from Sorrento Road jilst e: half a block north of Scholls Ferry. T,htus,,, traffic from the site will not penetrate local neighborhood street,,. Furthermore, prof ass i onal of fi ces generally not open °iuri nr, the evening or on +weekends, the lly are periods when traffic would have the most impact on surrounding resi denti al areas. The site is physically suited for the proposed use • 5 p tr for na1 si See accom any ng �,raffic report a y `s of projected traffic,. ifpactsY op .ti • dustrial uses. The site provi es a convenient location ion for profes- sional offices without adverse visual or traffic impacts upon sur- rounding residential areas. Furthermore, because of the noise asso- ciated with Scholls Ferry and Sorrento Roads, office commercial is a more appropriate use for this portion of the site than the current rouriate u R -5 zoning. Bicycle Path Consolidation. According to the City of Beaverton, there are por i ons o wo i cFe a paths which converge on the site: a 14 -foot path which is to be located along Scholls Ferry Road on the southern boundary of the property and a 12 -foot path along the northern boundary. These two paths di v .rge ' further to the west. As they are only 350 Beet; or less apart, i.e., the width of the site, the applicants request that these paths be consolidated into a single path Ferry right-of-way adjacent to the property. In the within a the Scholls of a osed a arti,hent complex, some units and parking final design of the proposed P areas are likely to be oriented to the north side of the property. As the site is unusually narrow, the presence of a public bicycle path in close proximity to these units will adversely affect privacy of complex resi- dents any may create safe ty /security problems for both residents and Path- way usei .. In this particular case, the consolidation of the paths also is more functionally efficient with regard to getting people to commer- cial areas and other destinations. This proposal is in keeping with the General Plan's Statement of Intent #16 for parks and recreation: ".....,..... rr e City may entertain ex* changes in right-of-way for innovative and functional alternatives which can better be accommodated and integrated into private or public develop- ments along the route." SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 1. The applicants request a CJneral Plan amendment /rezoning for a 10.9 acre parcel located on the north side of SW Scholls Ferry Road be- tween Sorrento Road and Boogies Bend Drive. Currently designated for single p .property � 'oper- ating ex- . gl a far�il y �R -5 } development, went the i s vacant with the cepti on of a day care center, occupying .7 acre, which has been as a conditional use since 1983. 2. The site it bounded on the west by a single family residential neigh- borhood, on the nary` by a vacant school, site, and on the east by On -the - Green, a high density residential PUD. A full-service com- muni ty shopping center, Greenway Town Square, lies directly to the Y . n y of properties r aad ,n the vicinity south, Other along Scholls s Ferry Road site. are devoted to medium and high density residential, c fi ce commercial, and campus industrial us es The site is within 1.5' miles of H1 g h� ay 217, why ch pravi des acce ss to the region's freeway system, and the Washington Square regional shopping center •0 most nearby residents are home. Finally, there are only 3.4 acres of vacant 0C-zoned property in the entire city, thus, to rre is a public need for additional property in this zoning catagoryQ There are two bicycle paths which which converge on the site, one located on Scholls Ferry along the southern boundary and the other along the northern boundary. As these are only 350 feet apart, i.e., the width of the site, the applicants request that they be consolidated along the Schol1 s Ferry route adjacent to the site This is both more functionally efficient and gives the developer of the apartment complex maximum flexibility i n orienting boi l di ngs on an already significantly constrained site In addition, consoli- dating these biLeways within the Scholl; t=erry right -of -way will eliminate the safety and security problems associated with the placement of a public path through a residential area. With regard' to the rerouting of bicycle paths, the city permits "functional and innovative alternatives which can better be accommodated and inte- grated into private or public developements along the route ". 13; 55dBA 58dBA 58dBA PtoPtt.E`R. tows • 57dBA arr+}r rp.r. sus' 374aomv an l Measw ements taken at 5.00pm Fr=iday. June 7, 1985: using Simpson #885 Sound Level Meter a.. !!I Proposed Amendment to Beaverton General Plan and Beaverton Devdoprneflt Code (O'dinance 2050) IP Traffic Analysis for George R. Stroerr ple Lake Oswego, Oregon and Vier ra /Darrow Development Bellevue, W s hingtoi June 'x985 TRAFFIC ANALYbIS PROPOSED RESIDkNTIAL /OFFICE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD AT SORRENTO ROAD BEAVERTON, OREGON JUNE 19 85 PR 8 22, i OREGON' JWY n0, �g1 Prepared By Robert Keecb, P . ` .A JUN I,4 Traffic AnalysisY:. Proposed Residential /Office Commercial Development Scholls Ferry Road at Sorrento Road Beaverton, Oregon TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Ia. PROPO SED DEVELOPMENT Ib. OBJECTIVE OF TRAFFIC IMPACT INVESTIGATION lc. LOCATION Id. SETTING II. FINDINGS IIa. SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC lib TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION IIc. TRAFFIC PROJ3CTION I Id . ACCIDENT , .IL SI S II SORRENTO ROAD AT THE DAY CARE CENTER ACCESS I t . SCHOLLS FLRPY ROAD AT SORRENTO ROAD IIg. SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD AT WEST SHOPPING 1E1TER ACCESS IIh SCROLLS FERRY ROAD AT BOONES DRI III. CONCLUSIONS: APPENDIX A. Vicinity Map B. Site Traffic Generation C Site, Traffic Distribution D. rite Traffic Assignment E. Existing Traffic Flow F. projected traffic Flow C4. Analysis - Sorrento at Day Care Access H. Analysis -- Sorrento at Scholl's Ferry I Analysis -Scholls Ferry at Shopping Center y _ y 21st Ave. J. Analysis -Scholls Ferry at S%. 1 X. Accident History L. Site Layout ■ 'traffic Analysis Proposed Residential/Office Commercial Development Scholls Ferry Road at Sorrento Road Beaverton, G egon I . , INTRODUCTION Information for the following report was obtained from Gordon Davis, the Oregon Highway . vices Consultant, the City of Beaverton, t Development ymDivisi.on, and field observations done between May 9 9 and June 9, 1985 Ia. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: This proposed project is on a 10.9 site situated north Scholl4� Ferry Road (State Highway acre si of Number 143) between Sorrento Road acid Boones Bend Road (SW ` 121st Ave.) The site will tncivide approximately 150 attached housing (medium density), and 2 r 4 acres ir►its on approximately 7.8 acres developed as a Service Office Center (35,000 square feet). The service office activities will include such uses as medical/dental, insurance, accounting, and similar types. The remaining 0.7 acres of the site are already developed as a day care center and will not C�g with deve3opmento this proposal Appendix L contains a layout of this proposed . The residential portion of the project will have a primary po »■nt of Y y the main access on Scholls Ferr Road directl across from t (west) access to the Greenway Town Center shopping center. A second, limited access (egress only) will use the signalized d intersection at 121st to access Scholls Ferry Road via Boones Ben Drive. The Service Office Center along with the existing y care will ista.n Da Care Center y r - e ,e exisinfr��ayocare 11 access directly to Sorrento Road at the access point. There will be no internal connection f i c be�ween the + vehicle traffic �ret,rdentia1- and office uses.... _ ib. OBJECTIVE OF TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The objective of this will be to assess the adequacy of existing and planned transportation+ facilities to handle the proposed development. Ic. tOCATI ;: The proposed site is located on the northeast corner, of the intersection of Scholls Fern Road at Sorrento y Roa d within the City of Beaverton(see appendix A and L). will cholls Ferry Road �, Drat on S Y Ro Id. SETTING: This development � fr and Sorrento Road. Scho.11s Ferry Road is a two ',.ane arterial of variable width. It has 'no sidewalks or street lighting.' IIb. TRAFFIC DIs "IuBnTIc»1: Traf is distribution of the residential activity is based on M.NTO trip table for "Hofte Based Work" trips. The traffic distribution for the service office activity was based on METRO trip table for "Hone' Base6 Other" traps. IIc. TRAFFIC The projected ected traf f :c was done in two • i� steps. First an adjustment in the traffic flow pattern was one to reflect the direct connection of Sorrento Road with SW 121st Ave, This adjustment would reduce the amount of left turning vehicles from SW 121st to Scholls 'Ferry Road. Appendix E contt ins a detail diagram of this traffic: flaw adjustment. The second step included the addition of the site generated traffic, and are estimated tXaf fic growth of Sch l is Ferry Road o 3% The detailed traffic project is containd in Appendix F ACCIDENT ANALYSIS_: There have been 23 accidents bet���Yeef Mile IIdI. A Road (the vicinity of the site) Post g. Q 9 and 8.31 1984.ScTable B isyaRsummary of theEle accidents by during 1982 thru accident type. TABLE ` B ACCIDENT' SUMMARY TYPe of Percent Accident of Total Rear End Turning 36% Angle 24% The largest ( ear to have occurred at st number of accidents (15) appear , e The completion Th l g� � on. ,��.on of the Sorxentoi Schvlls Ferry intersection. signalization of this intersection will rt. tigate this situation TWo accidents have occurred at the west shopping c enter access, both occurred in 1984. Additional appendix X. `anal details are contained in app w 1 y. . • / ■ It 9 •9\ a The existing shk., aping center access operates w: ch noticeable delays for vehicles' attempting to make a left turn onto Scholls Ferry Road during peak hours. Some improvement of this intersection will take place by the Sorrento Road 'conn,ction to SW 121st Ave. and the installation of the signal at Sorrento and Scholls. I Ih . SCROLLS FERRY ROAD AT BOONES DRIVE (121st) : This existing, signalized intersectio-A currently operates below a level of service "D" during peak hours. The completion of the Sorrento Road extension will ease the traffic demand at this intersection. With the completion of these improvements and the addition of the traffic generated by the project, this intersection will operate at a level of service "D" overall, the proposed project wIll not significantly impact this intersection. When completed, this project will account for less than 3 percent of the critical lane volume of this intersection. III. CONCLUSIONS The west residential access onto Scholls Ferry Road is adequate, g turn refuge is created on Scholls Ferry Road assuming that. a left to and the nearest 30 feet of the access approach be constucted to a level grade. Its presence will reduce traffic at the adjacent signalized intersections where capacity is more critical. Also ` `` p Y the constrained left turn out of the site will have a viable alternative at the sig`alized SW 121st Ave. /Scholls intersection via Boones Bend Drive. The current situation at the west shopping center approach will be improved with the completion of the committed street improvements within this area. This connection of Sorrento Road to SW 121st Ave. wiL1 p rovide two alternatives for left turners from the ,` First, by actually using the connection and shopping center. _ entering Ferry . to Road, n Scholls Fern Road at the new approach of Sorrento secondly, the shift in the traffic pattern caused by the connection will reduce congestion at the SW 121st Ave, /Scholls intersection. There will be furore need for a left turn refuge on Sorrento Road at the Day Cate Center access. The overall impact caused by this project will be relatively minor. With the additional p e v ent , extension of Sorrento Road and the signalizatiori Cfthe Seho11�/Lf3rrento intersection, an adequate will exists for .t' e near future, There is now and Will continue to be congestion during the peak traffic flow periods along this section of Scholls Ferry Road. .t . he long term solution to this situation is the widening of Scholia Ferry goad to five lanes thru this area .hd east to Highway 211. ne • A4, id 2 , y '�� ... h p$1)1 r1E y .,S y � Si x ° ELMf7, r A' 1Y irk, b. CEDAR l suns, - 6 IA0 4 T'lILL S .. !� a „ , d ---, ail._ « 717 Sw �, ( Johl ton _ 3t. 5 , I lid q "dam. 8 ii)F4i :' halo"; 1-t116R� r %_ ; REEUIVIiLF r ... . 8 ,K amaa 1 2,. 10 u. 3 HIV " q• • Oak St , �� W FST rvl 1 'il.OPl SW, H Ron AI .EI HILLS 2os Imam, 1•ntere iKeismer Perk F ;AI4NO WEST _ 1' ferry' ui CLARK KINI7' I r Hwy. Bt • MOOtlr�TAtN LJ • Cutttap �uli ' mount ,n Rd, t Id SI, Powtris WLAtvD Chapman a►,. 4ir lti Un 7 1 �1. , ` 1 * Cpa � Watl r�h�� tro r a CIu1 hkr i l '' LL! tto .. F w _ / W�(Imarc Ild 1 Flo :) ski Oar ; to ��I 1 I "iN C 1 �10 t cr as ,n �„�y 11.1L_ ICHVIIAI t N1(., iMisbingtoi COO M.. yam! Yutrihyll ~ C trUMY A IP E 4 x SITE NAME: Scholia at Sorrento Development SITE USE Attached Residential Units SITE SIZE (A): 150 units UNADJUSTED DAILY VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION RATE: 6.6 t /unit ESTIMATED MODAL SPLIT: 0.0 ADJUSTED DAILY VEHICLE TRIP 71ENERATION RATE (B): 6.8 t /unit PERCENTAGE OF TRIPS OCCURRING DURING AM PEAK (C) : 6.0 %s PERCENTAGE OF TRIPS OCCURRING DURING PM PEAK (D): 10,0 r TOTAL DAILY GENERATION (E) -A #B: 945 traps per day AM PEAK HOURLY GENERATION (F) =C *E : 57 trip. /hour AM ENTER TRIP SPLIT (H) : 0.20 trips in /total trips AM TRAFFIC VOLUME IN F *H. 11 trips /hour AM TRAFFIC VOLUME OUT F *(1 -H): 46 trips /hour PM PEAK HOURLY GENERATION (G) -D *E: 95 tripe /hour PM ENTER TRIP SPLIT <I I! 0.70 trips irnitotal trips PM TRAFFIC VOLUME IN G*It 67 t;.ripg /hour PM TRAFFIC VOLUME OUT G* (1k 1) : 18 trips /hour aw Oft 4/310 4110 SOIlLiEWT o t v S top % #`�.- 1,w 1,141 i1e4 ri'It[ S Robert Keeck PE., Inca Consulting Traffic Engineer 1990 NW 119th Portland,, Oregon 97229 (503) 641 -6333 i it �. poswo 4J,1.b, 4..i- 1 ►�� 10 .4 1 ( all SO 40 a* er ea go ow saw esin too 54ff 01.44 Kr SO PA EV TO. PeNrE Loris e).3°T 13:7 elert ArL- rrat A161gam KX RA Robert:Keech, PE., Inca Consultl Traffic Engineer 1990 NW 119th Portland, Oregon 97229 (503) 641 -6333 i'p • 4 a V i,� e II Cr.'" . t: (11‘)- .2'. - gip.: �� :. . 0116 3 'lit �" a .2.- 3 t- , lCtO !3'x'3 10 $640PPOGI ; CerroTirR ts°T1, 1 RAFFrG � :w x Robert 'beck, PE, Inc. Consulting Traffic Engineer 1990 NW. 119th Portland, Oregon 97229 (503) 64143 sr --.... (VICA girl _ .� 2 haZ' Z itf tt2) S s L3J a1 r- r., Y - v P Robert Keech, inc. Consulting Traffic Engineer t990 NW 119th Portland Oregon 97229 • ( ) 641 -6 A', ate-+ T D UNS I GNr ZED INTERSECTION Sorrento o ar►d Day Care Acs-. s,.. Date of Count: Exit a.Y►0 Day of °ricer'.. Week0aY Time of Dax,. .�►i Prevailing 1.. ,"�,rwg �,i'.. i 4~1uJ ` EXXSCX? �X ?t��?<}(xXX?S}C?tXXxXXXX;<:�X: APPROACH GRADES: xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx Sorrento x x SHARED LANES: x x APP ROACH C: rare x ► x Day Care AF'F'R7ACH ) >),)) > >Attt <tt {)),) > >> DR CL CT CR BL BT AL, AT A R ' DL DT E :E 1A 0 (VO US VOLUMES 0 0 0 C0 35 CONFLICTING FLOW LgW 3 9 AR AT _ i=0• CAPACITY ss RIGHT TURNS FROM C (CR) .. CRITICAL, GAF _ 5. 5SEC. IMPEDANCE ADJUSTMENT= 1 DTl�TED CAPACITY '962 CAPACITY CAF AC l TY USED= S. 2 IMPEDANCE CREATED= . 98 DEMAND t LCS =A) 28 CONFLICTING FLOW AR C CAPACITY '1048 LEFT TURNS FROM D (DL CRITICAL GAF- 5SEC� IMPEDANCE ADJUSTMENT= 1 ADJUSTET CAPACITY 104 8 ZAPACITY USED= 29% IMPEDANCE CREATED= .�a DEMAND rLCS =A? 84 -- ON F Y C? NC . S A r A? AL BL- BT +BR +D ,+DR- : 5 . u CA �A 7TY 644 LEFT TURNS FROM (CL) CR I I IA( 3P = 6E. 5SEC , I MF E-DAN CE ADJUSTMEN -. 98 L USTED CAPACITY 884 W =GAC ITY USED n.2.3% IMPEDANCE CREATED= . 96 EYAND t tCS=4 33 On Major . is th 4 laneti r et1f tiw .lt � t ' L LS L v,e ce . I ZED I NT :RS'ECT : rat CA PAC: Sor,r^E'nt o and Day Cal-P_ i cdv.! s Da tt; of Count: Exiwa..Z9'Id nay of ;.Week weekd:7ty Time o r' nay: o rl of lanes on major =titre .t A APPROACH r, RADE XX:>{xX> xxxxxx xxxxxxxXXxxx A 0%:T 0%:C • Sorrento x x SHARED LAKES: at �< APPROACH C: none x CDay Care' APPROACH > > > > > > err A' ( \ ( l ` <> > > f > > ) D ( 4 1,, < < < O > > > J > ) C < ri ( ` \1, O > > >> > 1, ? ( ; .� MOVEMENT AL AT AR DL DT DR CL VOLUTES 0 200 30 0 30 0 E0 20 110 PCH L.r� 22 RIGHT TURNS FROM C (CR) CONFLICTING FL]W 5AR +AT= 215 CRITICAL GAP= 5.5SEC. IMPEDANCE ADJUSTMENT= 1 CAPACITY USED 2.56!",, IMPEDANCE CREATED= .98 LEFT TURNS FROM 8 < SL CONFLICTING FLOW AR+AT= 880 CRITICAL GAP= CSEC. IMPEDANCE ADJUSTMENT= 1 CAPACITY USED= 2.32% IMPEDANCE CREATED= .98 LEFT TURNS FROM C (CL CONFLICTING FLOW 5A r +AT+AL +'DL+ST+D R+DT +D► -- 345 CRITICAL GAP= S • CSEC. IMPEDANCE ADJUST.+ r.NT= 98 CAPACITY USE 5.82:<, IMPEDANCE CREATED= .96 SAPACITY AD,.` 1_S`! ED CAPACITY DEMAND (LOS =A, CAPACITY 599 ADJUSTED Cr PAC I "'Y 58 DEMAND (LO a ==P) + of G @r a s` tj i h 4 for i.r 1 1 arty UINSIGI`f 1 ZED INTERSECTION C A P C C I TF `v 'O R✓ Sorrento et Sch :1 I s x Sorrento x x x x xxxXXXxxxxx. S x D xxxxxxxxxxxx A xxxxxxxxxxxx Scholls x. APPROACH MOVEMENT VOLUMES PCH xxx:xxxxxxx )<x � H E 4.t Date of Count:: Fxistir ;_i' Day of Week: Weekday Time of Day: AM Prevailing Sneed 40 # f lanes on major street APPROACH GRADE'. A 0%:B 0%:C 0;'w,cD 0% SHARED LANES: APPROACH C moons APPROACH D: none >>>>>>> A((<(<<<>)>>>>> D<<(<<(<> )> > > > >C('(((1 < < >> > > > > >8 < <((<(C AL AT AR DL DT DR CL ` CT CR Gig EST BR 35 1038 0 144 0 3 4 3 0 3 3 483 96 158 39 u RIGHT TURNS FROM C (CR) CONFLICTING FLOW 5AR +AT= 1038 CRITICAL GAP= 5. 5SEC. IMPEDANCE ADJUSTMENT CAPACITY USED .97% IMPEDANCE CREATED= .99 RIGHT '1"IJFtNS FROM D (DR) CONFLICTING FLOW . 5BR +DT= 531 CRITICAL GAP= 5. `►SEC. IMPEDANCE ADJUSTMENT= CAPACITY USED== 8.11% IMPEDANCE CREATED= .9 �, LEFT TURNS FROM A (AL) CONFLICTING FLOW EAR +DTA 579 CRITICAL GAP = CSEC. IMPEDANCE ADJUSTMENT= t E .9 CAPACITY USED 6.03% ' IMPEDANCE CREATED LEFT TURNS i utROM B (BL) CONFLICTING FLOW AR +AT= 1038 CRITICAL GAP= OSEC. IMPEDANCE ADJUSTMENT= 1 CAPACITY" USEL`= .79% % IMPEDANCE C RE 'ED= .55 LEFT TURNS FROM C (CL) CONFLICTING FLOW SAR +AT +AL. +DL, +DT-E-BR +DT +DR= 1885'; CRITICAL GASP= 8. 5SEC. IMPEDANCE ADJUSTMENT= .91 CnPAC I TY USED= 4.35%, IMPEDANCE CREATED= .57 7 LEFT TURNS FROM D (DL) CONFLICTING FLOW . SEAR +LT +DL +AL +AT +AR +CT +CR = 1610 CRITICAL GAP= 8. 5SEC. IMPEDANCE ADJUSTMENT .94 CAPACITY USED= it 10.577: IMPEDANCE CREATED= 0 1 LOS = Leve , of Sc rry ce On ma -It-. stt'eets; ,with 4 xarnes, coff1 ct ing volume 1 • CAPACITY 310 ADJUJSTE , CAOAC I T;i 10 DEMAND (LOS =Es) CAPACITY ADJ JST.D CAPACITY DEMAND (LOS =A ) 598 37 CAPACITY 847 ADjBLS ; ED CAPACITY 647 DEMAND (LOS =A ) C" CA 0AC I TY 76 AD JU`' I ED CAPACITY 378 DEMAND (LOS -B) CAPACITY 76 ADJUS -ED CAPACITY 89 DEMAND ( OS =E ) CAPACITY ADJULLITED CAPAC I T >r DEMAND C ,OS-=F , 158 80 ua1s 0.75 0 PCH' m Vr UNS I Ghr, L.. I; ZED INTERSECTION CPC I TN," 'ORI- S iE ET Sorrento at Scher i e FiN x D x Sorrento x x >t x xxxxxxx).Axxx xxxxxxxxxxxx D A xxxxxxxxxxxx Sch ►►1 1 s x x APPROACH MOVEMENT VOLUMES PCH x XXXXXXXxxxxx x x C x Date of Count: Existir:q DaY of Week Weekday T) me of DaY : PM' Prevailing '- r eec : 40 of lanes es orl major street: 8 APPROACH GRADES A 0 /:D 0" /:C 0" /:D 0/ SHARED LANES: APPROACH G none APPROAJ,.r' P: none >>>>>>> A((<(<<())>>>>> D<(((<<( > )) > > > >C(((( <(( > > > > > > >B< <((((< BT DR AL T AT AR DL DT DR CL Cr R BL D 1 1.. 107 aO8 E;,' SAS 4 87 0 5" 0 1'E 3 24 96 58 `t RIGHT TURNS FROM C (CR) CONFLICTIN', LOW SAR +AT= 611 CRITICAL G1.'1. 5. ESEC IMPEDANCE ADJUSTMENT= 1 CAPACITY USED= 2.21% IMPEDANCE CREATED= .98 8 BIGHT TURNS FROM D (DR) CONFL I C� I NG y FLOWS. 5BR +DT= _,1 17 ADJUSTMENT= CRITICAL GAF'- 5, .:,SEC. IMPEDANCE US1D= a2_39% IMPEDANCE CREATED= 84 LEFT TURNS FROM A (AL) CONFLICTING FLOW 7'.,R+BT= 1279 CRITICAL GAP= 5SEC• IMPEDANCE ADJUSTMENT= 1 CAPACITY USED= 8.T9% i MPEDANCE CREATED= .94 LEFT TURNS FROM B (BL) CONFLICTING FLOW AR +AT_, 613 CRITICAL, GAP= 5SEC. IMPEDANCE ADJUSTMENT= 1 CAPACITY USED= 48'/. IMPEDANCE CREATED= 1 LEFT TURNS FROM C (CL) CONFLICTING FLOW . 5A R +AT+AL +DL +DT +DR +DT +D R= 1968 GAP= � IMPEDANCE ADJUSTMENT= .79 CRITICAL iGAF G« �,SEC� ' CAPACITY USED 700% IMPEDANCE CREATED ► L EFT TURNS NS RDM D (DL) CAPACITY AD.t'USTED CAPACITY DEMAND LOS =A) CAPACITY ESS Aid „TuSTED CAPACITY 2E9 DEMAND (LOS =C) 58 � 3 CAPACITY I TY E7:, AJa.TUSTED CAPACITY 273 DEMAND (LOS =C ) CAPACITY ES E ADJ.i T -D CAPACITY SE's: 1 DEMF,. �D- (L'OS =A Cyr C4 CAPACITY ,ADJUSTF'? CAPACITY DEMAND (LOS =F” ) 7 CONFLICTING FLO W ' 5LR +ST +tL +AL +AT +ARt 1 B'4 CAPACITY CRITICAL GA=- 6.5SEC. IMPEDANCE ADJUSTMENT= ' ADJUSTED CA'AC I. T Y � r DEMAND . r LO�IE �, CAPACITY USED= 9600% IMPEDANCE CREATED= 0 LIDS = Le ► 1 ,p Ser {V i e -Ott. 1 it Ar"'r)Exp i QJiV.S'1 Gt`.IAti:J: ZED INTE.RSrCT RKSHEET Scho 1 at Shop.ping Center, Wes': L ccesS Date of Count Existing Day of Week: 'weekday Time of Day: Pi xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx �r e� i l i r g Speed: �:.,,ctee':: # of lanes on r:, a.1 ' r A APPROACH GRAZES: Yxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx A 0 x x SHARED LANES: x' APPROACH C: none x C x S. C. Access ((<<<)) ))) > >0((<((<0) > >) > >C(<<<( <( ) ) >> > > > (<< <((< AR DL DT DR CL CT CR BL BT 5R 90 0 0 0 100 0 28 44 1040 0 110 31 48 Schc'11s APPROACH ) ) ) >) >A< MOVEMENT AL AT VOLUMES 0 530. PCH RIGHT TURNS FROM C (CR) CONFLICTING FLOW 5AR +AT= 575 CRITICAL GAP= 5. 5SEC IMPEDANCE. ADJUSTMENT= ` 1 CAPACITY USED- 5.46% IMPEDANCE CREATED= . SE LEFT TURNS FROM Et (DL) CONFLICTING FLOW AR +AT= 680 CRITICAL GAP= SSEC. IMPEDANCE ADJUSTMENT= 1 CAPACITY USED 7. 781 IMPEDANCE CREATED= .95 LEFT TURNS FROM C (CL) CONFLICTING FLOW 5AFZ +AT +AL +ESL +DT +E<R+DT +DR= 1655 CRITICAL GAP= 6. v'` EC, IMPEDANCE ADJUSTMENT= .95 CAPACITY USED= 150.68% I MPi DANCE CREATED= 0 CAPACITY 568 AD I USTED CA 'AC .t Y s68 DEMAND (LOS =A) 81 CAPACITY 617 ADJU tED CAPAC I `' V 617 DEMAND (LOS =A ) 48 CAPACITY 77 ADJUSTED CAPACITY 7 DEMAND (LOS =F) 110 LDS n Le�r� +► Sery�re 4 1 +es i PLH • N . UNS I G NL I L ED INTERSECTION C>^aPAC: TY ', 'RKSHFFT Scholl at Sh tpiny Center Weci,:, crC" 4 Date E D ty of Weak: Week.c y Time of Day: Ai P r,ev 1 i 2. g I.:iC?r, =�t.i : 40 D #* of lanes o:,t n major �. APPROACH GRADES: A 0%:B 0%:C 0 SHARED LANES APPROACH C: none xXXxxxxxxx XXXx)XXx xxxxXXXX A xxxxxxxxxxxX XxXXxxxxxxXX Sc ho 1 1 s x X x APPROACH MOVEMENT VOLUMES PCH X C x S. C gctesS >>))>)> A<(<<((())); t)>> D(<(<(((>> > > >> >C <(,( <( << >))))) >B'(( <( < << AL AT AR DL DT DR CL CT CR LL, ET BR 0 104 27 0 0 14 0 3 13 415 0 15 G 14 RIGHT TURNS FROM C (CR) CONFLICTING FLOW . 5A R +AT= 1056.5 CRITICAL GAP= 5. SEC. MPEDANCE ADJOSTMENT CAPACITY USED = .99% IMPEDANCE CRATED=' .99 LEFT TURNS FROM S (BL) CONFLICTING, FLOW At +AT= 1070 CRITICAL GAP= SSEC. IMPEDANCE ADJUSTMENT= 1 CAPACITY USED= 3.85% IMPEDANCE CREATED= .97 CAPACITY 302 ADJUSTED CAPACITY 30; DEMAND (LOS=C) CAPACITY 364 ADwiLS -ED CAPACI Y 364 DEMAND (LiOS =8) 14 LEFT TURNS FROM C (CL) CONFLICTING FLOW . 1A R +AT +AL, +DL+ CT+8R +T)T +D R= 1484 . `iC APAC 1 TY CRITICAL GAP= S.. SSEC. IMPEDANCE ADJUSTMENT= .97 'i t"IDJUSTE.D CAPACITY CAPACITY USED 16.48% IMPEDANCE CREAT ED= .88 Dt MANID :LOS=E) LOS = Lev ei of Str'Ne. 0 � Oh i a j ;r' st e& S with 4 te?sil c v c um 0 7 0 f :' A 94 91 15 APP1" I Y'" INTERSECTION CAPACI' Y ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : 5c- '4 CyL , d r ('Z- T DESIGN HOUR /YEAR Am . EX 4T111/43G Lane Sc "II°ruc a e).24 Local =tue8 PHF 0, 9 0 ., 1 tv_ -4 2.8 'ZS 3 HV ' Truck* PVC Local aua.a PV PHF a P Lane Vol usa * S ac Trucks 0E25 _ at Local Buaaas Lane PHF G =90 HV 4- • .:fig `7.14 1 ;.e. I t, 8 la$i 4'119 - , ,et c0 r 2,10 — -1) Sc "II°ruc a e).24 Local =tue8 PHF 0, 9 0 ., 1 tv_ -4 2.8 'ZS 3 HV ' Truck* PVC Local aua.a PV PHF a P Lane Vol usa * S ac Trucks 0E25 _ at Local Buaaas Lane PHF G =90 HV 4- • .:fig z z 1-5 114- 119 111 Lana Volumes PV PHF d_,3 PVC q vt Local Bua.aa NV _: 14 Trucks STREET CRITICAL MOVEMENTS StkoWs wool irivessrolasEranialm11001.6100110.1......01111. 08.' › CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES la t SUM OF CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES 1545 NUMBEROF PHASES _:,...._._...r- LEVEL OF SERVICE, £ CS ,. -,. SUM OF CRITICAL LANE VOLUkES LEVEL OF SERVICE TWO PHASE THREE PHASE MORE PHASES FOUR OR 1000 950 900 A P, 1200 1140 1080 C 1400 1340 1270 D 1600 1530 1460 E. 1800 1720 1650 REMARKS: Vr INTERSECTIGN CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSEC`T'ION Sc44e)t G 44• DESIGN TOUR /YEAR. " p T7G*t moommommimmilmommammar AMMIUMMINUNIMINNIMINNIMIMMINNOMININEMIWAIMMINIMMENNINIMINNIR Lane mss' Trucks Local Buaea PHF HV ° It Trucks PVC , C> 3t Local Buses PV PHF)„ Lana Vo l uaca ■r Truck*.. o $ Local Buses Lane PHF oluma PV PVC HV ` ci I' INC Il- D 534 lv 1 S'? - 2is 2- Zi , Trucks Local Buaea PHF HV ° It Trucks PVC , C> 3t Local Buses PV PHF)„ Lana Vo l uaca ■r Truck*.. o $ Local Buses Lane PHF oluma PV PVC HV �► `` ` ci I' INC 4 1 lv 1 .��2 IIIIMINIMaiii �► `` ` ci I' 4 1 lv 1 .��2 IIIIMINIMaiii Lane Volua as PV PHF PVC o 5 x Local Buaaaa HV S Truca STREET CRITICAL MOVEMENTS CRITICAL LASE VOLUMES amok �e�.bLLS 2 tV 't.iirsisasmaa _ —'— erirm rra es 8 . Irr.ws.er�auiii' SUM OFF CRITICAL LANE' VOLUMES 0 NUMBER OF PHASES LEVEL OF SEnVICE SUM. OF CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES' LEVEL OF SERVICE TWO PHA$E THREE PHASE FOUR OR MORE PHASES 5 S A B C 0 1000 550 Sao 1204 1140 1080 1400 1340 1.270 1600 1530 1461 $0O 1720 1650 Nowirmoommomm REMARKS Jormarm \'- l J ACCIDENT HISTORY MILE DATE TIME COLL DIRECTION POST TYPE 8.05 6/08/82 18: 00 REAR EW -_-EW 8.05 N/10/83.13:00 TURN EW ----NE 8.05 D/U1/83 13 :00 TURN EW -NE 8.05 8/22/84 19:00 TURN wE - --SW 8.OS N/14/84 17 :00 TURN EW - - -NE 8.05 N/29/84 17 :00 TURN EW - - -NE 8.08 3/22/82 22 :00 REAR EW - - -EW 8.09 1/27/82 7 :00 ANGLE WE- --SN 8.09 6/03/82 8 :00 ,ANGLE WE - - -NS 8.09 6/03/82 17 :00 ANGLE WE` - -NS 8.09 6/04,/82 21:00 ANGLE EW---SN 8.09 N/02182 19 :00 ANGLE WE- - -SN 8,09 D/21/82 21:00 REAR WE 8.09. 0/19/83 18:00 REAR EW--- -EW 8.10 7/14/82: 20 :00 REAR EW - ---EW 8.18 8,05/82 17:00 REAR EW- ;,. -EW' 8.18 5/28184 20 :00 TURN WE -• -SW 8.18 7/16184 19:00 TURN we - -ES 8.20 N/12/83 13 :00 TURN WE:, -- SW 8.25 8102/83 24 :00 NON-COLLISIONS WE, 8.26 4/17/84 N/A TURN WE ---SW 8.30 8/02/83 11:00 REAR WE - --'WE 8.30 8/08/83 13:00 REAR WE- -WE 8,30 0/06183 19 :00 ANGLE EW -- -SN 8.31 5/15/84 18:00 REAR EW - - -EW 8.3: 4/11/82 4 :00 FIX OBJECT EW - -- '«'"�^r "VP,f„:L�`s'� '���, `y��' `'• i��''�*d t�13. .ir ^,"� 1�i�jC �, 'l Sh'j • �.. WFfal pia i ^fir ♦ ._.iri•.�+..r K ;14 ": *. Ji 44 1, 41701,5 j May 22, 1985 Land Use Board, of Appeals 106 State Library Building Salem, OR 97310 Reference: Portland Fixture Company, File #55 -035 LAND USE. BOARD OF APP MAY 24 9 .11Vi crrif F TI61 •., r: VAST+ ! GTON COUNTY, OREGON Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed please find the complete record of the Portland Fixture Company's application for a Comprehensive Plan Change (CPA 3 -85) and Zone Change (ZC 3 -85) for property located in the CiLy cf Tigard. The following items are included in the record: 1 • Application filed by Louis Zimel, Feb 15, 1985. 2. Supporting do request agency 'x agency .,..meats with re oast :for a enc � rLview and responses. 3 • Notice of hearing of Planning Commission meeting of April 2, 1985. 4 Planning Commission staff reports. 5. Planning Commission minutes of April 2, 1985. 6. Nature of hearing of City Council of April 22 1985. 7► Minutes of City Council Meeting of April 22, 19858 8. Notice of decision with list of mailings. If you have any questions on this record, please call Associatfl Manner : eith' L3don at 639 -4171, Extension. 27. Sincerely, Ili iam L Monahan, Director, Community Development ttels . (WA t : fir/i3 92P) 65 S INS ASH PP0, SOX 23391 TBARD, OREGON 97223 PH: 639 +4171 Y 4 ROBERT S. BALL STEPHEN T. JANIK KENNETH M. NOVACK JACK L. ORCHARD JOHN W, LILJEGREN SUSAN M. QUICK WILLIAM H', PERKINS CHRISTOPHER W. ANGIUS V■CKI G. BAYLESS DENISE FRANCIS BARBARA W. RADLF_R MICHAEL C. WALCH BALL, •,,SAN 1 K �' NOVACK ATTORNEYS AT LAW ONE MAIN PLACE 101 S. W. MAIN STREET PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 TELEPHONE (503) 228 -2525' TELECOPY (S031295-.1058 TELEX 9104,3.80 -5470 ay 9r 1985 Sf /a/0 5( so Atm-, OF COUNSEL JACOB 1'ANZER COPY FOR YOUR I F RMA ION CERTIFIED MALL RECEIPT #366-241-876 Ms. L. Kay , Kin sl - 9' ey Management Assistant Land Use Board of Appeals 106 State Library Building Salem, OR 97310 Re: Portland Fixture Co. and S & ' Builders v. City of Tigard, Oregon, LUBA Appeal. Dear Kay: Enclosed is original 1:mmn.d fear copies of our Notice of Intent to Appeal in the above -er,ti pled matter, together w .th out check for $200 representing ,fil..ng fee and deposit of costs Pursuant to pule 561 10 015 we have this date served all parties of interest:. JLO:yo Enclosures cc W' /encls . Very truly yours, Jack L. Orchard Tigard City Hall Mr T i ttto th:y V. Ramis Mr. _; Bo,,` Bledsoe Mr. J Schweitz Mr ►Tohrt C Morris fwl 41 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS A COMPLETE AND EXACT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL THE OF : By �► �C-- -E,Gc, ,,' . Ora;4ara ttorneys for Petitioners BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS 2 OF THE STATE OF OREGON 3 PORTLAND FIXTURE CO and S & J BUILDERS, 1['D . , ) 4 )' Petitioners, ) LUBA No 5 ) vs, j, 6 )' CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, 7 )' Respondent.. ) 8 9 NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL 10: 11 Notice is hereby given that petitioners intend to 12 appeal that land use decision of respondent entitled CPA 3-85 and 13 ZC 3-85 as emodied in City' of Tigard Resolution No. 85-28, which 14 became final on May 6, 1985, and whr..hinvolves the denial of an 15 application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change 16 requested by Portland Fixture Co 17 II 18 Petitioners are represented by Jack L. Orchard of Ball 19 Janik & Novack. Petitioner, Portland Fixture Co. was the 210 applicant. Petitioner S & J Builders is the owner of the real 21 property which was the subject of the application. The applicant 22 below, Portland Fixture Co., was not represented, in the 23 proceedings below by legal counsel, 24 Respondent City of Tigard, has at its mailing address 25 and telephone number: Tigard City Hall, 12755 SW Ash, PO '$off 26 2.339'x, T ,gard, OR 97223, Te.1ephona: 619. 4171, and has, as its Page 1 NOTrCi OP INTtNT TO APPAL BAIL, JANIK & NOVACK. Attatnei+d at Law 101 4Wf, Me1.h Sheet Pottlacld, or+bgan 97204' Teleahatia (5031 2.252: o. 1 legal counsel : Timothy V. Ramis , 1727 NW Hoyt '' Street, Portland, 2 OR 97209; Telephoner 222 -4402. Other persons mailed written notice of the land use 4 decision by the City of Tigard, as indicated by its records in 5 this matter, include: Mr. Bob, Bledsoe Mr. Joe Schweitz NPO #7 NPO #7 7 10660 SW North Dakota 11020 SW Cottonwood Lane Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Mr. . John C. Morris 9 11900 SW Morning Hill Drive Tigard, OR 97223 10 11 NOTICE: 12 Anyone designated in paragraph 1.I of this Notice other 13 than Respondent City of Tigard who desires to participate as a 14 party in this case before the Land Use Board cf Appeals must file 15 with tho Board a Statement-. of Intent to Participate in this 16 proceeding as required by rule 561 --10 020 The Statements must, be 17 filed with the Board within 15 days of service of this Notice. 3 10 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 BALL, JAN II & NOVACK By (c) L. Orchard, OSB #72188 ttorneys for Petitioners CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 9, 1985, I served a true and correct copy of this Notice. of Intent to Appeal on all Page 2 - Nt T ICE G1F INTENT 10 APPEAI, IALL,.JANIU' HOVAelt nttorr,evt tit t,ow 101 5. W, /Mitt SStrtritt Pti+titatyd, Oregtlrt Toltphohit '(503( 221 0525 C • 2 3 4 5 6 Ja L. Orchard, OSB #72188 Of *ttorneys for Petitioners 8 9 10 I hereby cert ' y May 1985, I filed the �f that on Ma 9 , 11 foregoing Notice of Intent to Appeal, by depositing in first 12 class mail, certified receipt #366 241 876, one original and four 13 copies of same, addressed to Land Use Board o 14 f ' Appryal s 106 State Library Building 15 Salem, OR 97310 16 17 Jack L. Orchard, OSB #72188 Of Attorn wys for Petitioners 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2i 26 Page 3 - NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL persons lited in paragraph II of this Notice pursuant to rule 661 -10 010(8) by mail Dated: May 9, 1985. BALL, JANIK & NOVACK CERTIFICATE OF FILING FALL, JANIK & NQVACK A tcmeilos at Lard 101 s. W. Main Street porland.: Croon 97204 'telephone 15031 228 -2525 re CITY OF TIGARD Washington County Oregon 0.411 NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION - BY CITY COUNCIL (Sec, 18.32.380) Concerning Case Number(s): CPA_ 3-85 AND ZC 3-85 Name of Owner: S & J Builders_ Name of Applicant: Portland Fixture Co Fifth cityFortlan tateC Zx p 97209 Address 338 NW .. F _.... -. Location of Property Address Scholls FerrT Rd at Sorrento Legal:nescription_ 181 34BC lot 400 Nature of Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Application: �. _ ~- -��- Chanme from C-P (Commercial Professional) to C -G Commercial General} Action: Tigard City Council, denied the application requests by passing Resolution No 85 -28 on 5- 6--85. A copy of the resolution is attached for your record Notice Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Nall and mailed to XX. The applicant & owners Owners of record within the required distance XX The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization XX Affected governmental agencies Final DeCis ior`1- THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON 5 6 85 ._ The adopted findings of condition can be p � g. �, acts .. � � and statement of can decxs�on obtained` from the P1ann :ng Department:, Tigard City Hall, 12715 SW Ash,_; P ,O. 80x, 23597, Tigard, Oregon 9721 L : questions, please: call the City of Tigard �iuestxons., If you hai�e any nest City Recorder, 689-4171. (oa57r) 4 TIGARD CITY C O U NCI L; SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES * MAY 6, 1985 - 7:30 P.M. 13. 1. ROLL CALL: Present Mayor John. Cook; Councilors: tom Brian, Phil Edin, and Jerry Edwards; City Staff: Bob Jean, City Administrator; Sill Monahan,_, Community Development Director; Mark O'Donnell, Legal and Loreen Wilson, 11, Le al Counsel; an Deputy City Recorder. 2 CALL TO STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR NON- AGENDA ITEMS a. City Administrator requested a brief executive session be held at the end of the meeting under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1)(n) to consider pending litigation issues Consensus, of Council was to hold executive session, . VISITOR' S AGENDA a., Rob Bledsoe, NPO #3 Chairperson, presented a request to be heard under agenda item #13.1. The NPO i� desiring to appeal a Director's _ q � ' the appeal fee. ,,,:rec-Lor s Decision and requests Council wo<<�te t Consensus of Council was to consider under consent agenda matters, 4, RESOLUTION NO, 85 -28 A FINAL ORDER IN THE MATT<✓',R OF THE APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND A ZONE rA. _ RE COMPANY, CHANGE. REQUESTED BY PORTLAND 3-85 DENYING FINE f *: 85,,.., AND APPLICATION REQUESTS, .iui, n4Tv� , Nt T` NGS AND CONCLUSIONS. ,y Page Motion by Councilor Brian,: seconded by Councilor Edwards to adopt. b. Councilor Edin stated he would abstain since he did not attend the hearing Approved by 8 -0 =1 maority vote of Council present, Councilor Edin abstaining, OREGONIAN ARTICLE recent article in th^ Oregonian a,. Mayor Cook. ad��sed;. citizens that �. rea x base this year. y p that Tigard was going to raise the Ceaued by concerned year, reported t Mayor Cook noted many calls have been r,,e y citizens regarding the article. He stated that the City has no intention of raising the tax base this year PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 4-85/ZONE CHANCE ZC 4-- 85 /KRUEGER /NPO 7 y C-N "4 n for approval i to move the Yissxon s recommendation Review Planning Comer ` Present g � ( Neighborhood) from the art ._ of the ro osed 135th Aver /Murray R ent area. desi nated C N Commercial i11ei hbor northwestorn corner p p � d eactensi,on to c�a the northeast corner of the future Murray Road /Scholls Ferry Rood intersection, (WCTM 151 88C,, lot 1OOO)E Public Hearing Opened - COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 6* 198 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 85- A FINAL ORDER IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT' AND A ZONE CHANGE REQUESTED BY PORTLAND FIXTURE CO., FILE NO. CPA 3-85 AND ;�C 3-85, DENYING THE APPLICATION REQUESTS, ENTERING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council heard the above application at its regular meeting of April 22, 1985, The 4ppli.cants appeared and were represented by Hal Hewitt and Tom Lancaster; appearing in opposition was Joe Schweitz of NPO #2. T WHEREAS, The Council T finds the following FACTS S xn this matter; 1. The applicants for this matter, Portland Fixture Co., requested a reclassification from C -P (Commercial Professional) to C -G (Commercial Genera') for a 2.9 acre site designated as Washington County Tax Map 1S1 348C, Tax Lot 400+, The explanation supporting q . File CPA 3 -8i . � ortYn the request nest �.s found in F�.'le Na 2. The Council had before it the record of the proceedings before the Tigard Planning Commission which voted to approve the request, with three dissenting votes, on April 2, 1985, 3 The relevant approval criteria in this case aro Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, and 12, Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 5 ,1,1, 5.1.4, 0.1.3 and Chapter 12, locational 'criteria, WHERE e the Planning Commission hearing WHEREAS, based on the record in this case from t of Apr1J 2, 1985# and the City Council hearing of April 22, 1985, the Council makes the following FINDINGS in th . matter; 7, Statewide 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 r;NPO). In addition, all public notice requirements were met, 2. Statewide: Planning Goal ##2 it met ` because the City applied all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies. and Development Cade requirements to the application. 3. Statewide Planning Coal 412 is not satisfied because the proposal will have a negative impact upon Scholls. Ferry Road by increasing traffic. At the City Council meeting on April 22:, the Council heard conflicting testimony concerning the amount of traffic which the property would generate developed under the present C—P and the R SOLUTt N NO'S 8 Page 'l proposed C-G designations. Tile Council determined that the present traffic situation on Scholls Ferry ` Road would be more adversely affected with the addition of traffic from tl.le property if built under the C-G zoning designation than under C-P . City of Tigard C(4mprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because the Neigh bo n ,o � Planning Organization and surrounding proper.j owners were giver notice of the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the applicant's proposal. 5. City of Ti and Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.1.1 is met because th,a proposal will have a small positive effect upon the number of jobs available to Tigard residents. It is estimated that the p provide , between 150 and subsequent cr.�;�ter�al development the C-G designation, however, could result in less higher paid 200 jobs. Development under skilled positions than under C-P. 5 . City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.1.4 is satisfied because the proposed change from C-P to C-G will not enlarge the area presently designated for commercial use and will not encroach upon nearby residential areas. 7 . City of Tigard , Comprehensive Plan Policy 8,1.3 will be satisfied as a condition for development of the site. Before any commearcial development'' occurs, City approval through the Site Development Review process will be required. R, The applicable locational criteria are partially satisfied for the following reasons: a. A residential zoning district is only adjacent along the southern boundary of the site b. The change of zoning would create additional traffic congestion or related problems be remedied b 'bated. problems which cannot; by the proposed traffic signal at the Scholls Ferry /Sorrento/North Dakota intersection. Although traffic increased if the property is developed vvolume . .. would a1s � be xncr under C-P, the number of types generated by the property when developed out to full capacity under C-G is greater, thus adding to the traffic volume of Scholls Ferry Road, o. Direct access to an arterial and collector street is available p available on Scholls Ferry Road d.' Public transportation is ava3 Because of its location and the. site Development Revie+,w approval which is required prior to dei±iopment1 a compatible relationship with nearby properties can be maintained. RFtt LUT tON 'tO . AS. Page 9. The appl is &nt' s fai'ed to persuade the City Council that the . plan designation is improper. The play, was adopted in 1983 followin3 substantial community input. No plan policies cited by the ,Tpp1 cants convinced the Council that conditions in the area substantially changed to compel a change to C--G In addition, no convincing evidence of mistake or inconsistency was presented applicants failed to ,address the ''long term community needs 10, ofe the City, for Commercial ` y ' a1 protess Tonal land uses. The Council interprets the Comprehensi,,e Plan to be a long range plan created to provide for the many diverse and competing land uses and business which serve the public need. A reduction in the amount of land dedicated to commercial professionai development in this section of Tigard would have a negative impart over the pro)4cted period of the Comprehensive Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that Section 1 The Council adopts the following CONCLUSION OF LAW: Based on Find,tng` No 3, the Council has determined that the proposed change in zoning will result in development with the potential to greatl y increase traffic over that which the ex!.sting zoning would generate, The increased traffic will have a detrimental impact upon Scholls Ferry Road even with the completion of a new traffic signal, 2 Based on Finding No, 8, locati.onal criteria have er,ot all been met.. The change of zoning would create additional traffic congestion and related problems. 3 . Based on Finding No 9, the Council finds that the applicant has ind s not provided ava3,lal:l� persuasive arguments to change the comprehensive plan and zoning designations and then reduce the amount of C-P zoned land in this section of the city. Section 2, The Co1.1ici1, therefore, ORDERS that the above' referenced request bed and the same hereby is, DENIED . The Counc i't FURTHER ORDERS that the Pianning Director and the City Recorder send a copy of l parties in the Final Order as a Notice of Final decision to ` the a this caso. PASSED This ` day of d. 1985. ATTEST ;yor ity of Tigard Deputy City recorder City of Tigard (WAM; bra 13 RESOLUTION_ NO. . Pa+ CITY OF T1GARD , OREGON RH SOLU1 ION NO . 85.. r A FINAL ORDER IN 1Hr. MAfl Eo OF mi APPLICATION FOR A COMPRLHENSIVL PLAN AMENDMENT AND A ZONE CHANt.ae REQUESTED BY PORTLAND FIXTURE CO . , FILE NO CPA 3-95 AND ZC 3 -85, DENYING "HE APPLICATION REQUESTS, ENTERING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council heard the above application at its regular r y meeting of April 27, 1985. The applicants appeared and were represented by Hal Hewitt and Tom Lancaster; appearing in opposition was Joe SchweitL of NPO #. WHEREAS, The Council finds the following FACTS in this matters 1. The applican is for this matter, Portland Fixture Co., requested a reclassification, from C—P (Commercial Professional) to C—G (Commercial General) for a 7,9, acre site designated The Washington County Tax. Map 1S1 34BC, Tax Lot 400. explanation supporting the request is found in File No, CPA 3--85. 2. The Council had before it the record of the proceedings before the Tigard planning,.,,COmOission which vtQd....mxto app rye eq dissenting votes, on April 2, 1985. request, with three..,: 3, The relevant approval criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, and 12, Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.4, J.1.3 ano Chapter 12, locational criteria. based on the rect�rd in t Planning Commission hearing a hl,, case from the Plannx WHEREAS 1985, the Council of April 2, 1985. and the City Council hearin of April 22, 6 : w+a�ayr.dn»uaescsru++. ^..� ue. .rw makes the following FINDINGS in this matter} !. Statewide Planning Goal '1 is met be"lause the City has adopted Citizens Tnvolve►.,.eht program including review of all development � O Organization (NPO), applications by the Neigl -bI rhood Planning In addition, all public notice requirements were met. 2 Statewide Planning Goal 1#2 is met ,because' the City applied all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies an d Development meet Code requirements r the application. Statewide Planning Goal, i!l2 is not. satisfied because the P rapozal will have a negative impact upon Scholls Ferry Road by increasing traffic the City Council meeting on, April 22, the Council heard f li ctin � t es- t i� m o n conc. ernin ,�...�,.th.��e amY ou. nt ro P rt� � w ould generate developed under the present t Ffic— Waintd h 1� PFSOLU I "ION Nth. 8,5. Page l proposed C --G designations:, The Council determined that the present traffic situation on Scholls Ferry Road would be more adversely affected with the addition of traffic from thv property if built under the C -G zoning designation than under C-P 4 City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1 .1 is satisfied because the Neighborhood Planning Organization and surrounding property owners were given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the applicant's proposal. 5. City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.1.1 is met because the proposal will have a small positive effect upon the number of jobs estimated that the subsequent c mmer ia1T development residents. ill provide between 150 and q 200 jobs, Development under the C-G designation, however, could result in less higher paid skilled positions than under C--P, City of Ti Policy 5.1. i and Comprehensive Plan Pol . 6, Tigard is satisfied because the proposed change from C-P to C-G will not enlarge the area presently designated for commercial use and will not encroach upon nearby residential areas. ? City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 8.1.3 will be satisfied as a condition for development of the site Before any commercial development occurs, City approval through the Site Development Review process will be required, The applicable locational criteria are partially satisfied for the following reasons a. A residential zoning district is only adjacent along the southern boundary of the site. FSOLU ttoN NO . U 5 o e _ Thu change of zoning would create ,additional traffic congestion or related problems which cannot be remedied by the proposed traffic signal aty the Scholls y /` o Perr Sorrer+.to�'North Dakota intersection. Although traffic volume would also be increased if the property is developed and qr C -P, the number of types generated by the property when developed not to full capacity under C---G is greater., thus adding to the traffic volume of Scholls Ferry Road. Direct access t*o an arterial and collector street 'is; available. Public transportation is available on Scholls Ferry Road. ' location and ref it s, w nd the ,Site Development Review, approval which is required prior to development, a compatible atible " relate, onship with nearby properties" can be om maintained 9. The applicant's failed to persuade the City Council that the plan deli n Lion is improper. The plan was adopted in 1983 following substantial community input No plan policies cited by the _ applicants convinced the Council that conditions in ..he area have substantially changed to compel a change to C-G. In :addition, no convincing evidence of mistake or inconsistency was presented, 10, The applicants failed to addres„ he_ losg_ term common ty ,weeds of the Cit y, for Commercial Professional land us s. The Council P1"-F--"—r. ; ';' Mme. J^ MFIM1WPiWMX4AM4' sWM: N1fH.%KUUYMWKM'P'MOo^^'`"' ,. _..__ . eWOa'.:�+N1s:''iW'Wt1f7. aM� nteprets Loreinsive Plan to be a long range plan created to provide for the many diverse and competing land uses and business which serve the public need, A reduction in the amount of land dedicated to commercial professional develo me t in this section of Tigard would have a negative impact over the projected period of the Comp; ehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1 The Council adopts the following CONCLUSION OF LAW: Y. 1, Based on Finding No. 3, the Council has determined that the result in development with the proposed cha 9 g increase traffic change in zoning crwill res ffic oven that which the potential to greatly existing zoning would generate. The increased traffic will have upon detrimental impact a on Scholls Ferr y Road ev en with the completion of a new traffic signal. Based locational criteria have not all been on 'Finding: No �. 8, met. The change of zoning would create additional traffic g g congestion and related roblems, sed on 3. Based Finding No, 9, the Council finds that the applicant has i.ve arguments to change e the comprehensive sive not provided persuasive ehen plan and zoning designations and then reduce amount of , available. C P zoned 1oiod in this section of the City. . Section 2, The Council, that the above referenced request ��` cil therefore, ORDER, . the same hereby is, DENIED. The Council FURTHER ORDERS t and that the Planning Director and the City Recorder send a copy of the Final. Order as a Notice of Final decision to the parties in this case. 5 RA�'SE,O � This day of �% � 198. -, �.. da d.. � ycr City of„ ATTEST far Deputy City Re order City of Tig (WAM;br /t280I ) R'ESOLU1`tON NO 8 Page 4 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEtiRING� NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AT ITS MEETING ON MONDAY, April 22, 1985 AT 7:30 , IN THE LECTURE ROOM, OF YOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL, 10465 SW WALNUT, TIGARD, OR., WILL :,ONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO CPA 3 -85 and ZC 3 -85 APPLICANT: Portland Fixture Co. 338 NW Fifth Ave. Portland, Oregon 97209 OWNER: S & J Builders 5335 SW Murray Beaverton., Oregon 97005 REQUEST: Review Planning Commission's recommendation for apps Tal for a p Zone Chan a from 'C -i (Commercial Cotn re hens �.ve Plan Amendment. and g from to C-G (Commercial General) for a 7.9 acre site LOCATION: South side of Stholls Ferry Road, immediately west of GreenwaY Toone Center (WGTM 151 34BC lot 400). NPO f 7 (See map on reverse side) THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTEP : WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF PROCEDURES OF THE CITY '.COLNCIL TESTIMONY MAY BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO BE ENTERED INTO THE RR::CORD, FOR FURTHER INORMATION, PL CONTACT THE :, ant DIRECTOR w CITY RECORDER OR ���:. � 'tIR1rC �� � `� � EASE C�1�t � CLT 01± TIGARD 127'. :.d, Oregon 97223 AT X39 4��1 CITY 4� S.W. S,W� � �A�h Ave. ��Ave., Ti�z� (corner .� Ash & Burnha 027:2P) f)) T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C'I REGULAR Mf ETIN a MINUTES ;w APR.CL 22, 1985 7:30 P.M, ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor John Cook; Councilors: tom Brian, Phil Edin (arrived at 8:30 P.M.), Jerr y Edwards, and Ima Scott City Staff: Bob (4dams, Chi.,zF of ` Police; Bob Jean, City Administrator; hill MonAhAn, Community Development' Director; Tim Ramis, Legal 1ounsel; and Patt Martin, Deputy City Recorder. . CALL TO STAFF AND COUNCIL. FOR NON — AGENDA ITEMS a. City Administrator stated. Item 116 and item Y9 will be pulled and tabled to May 6, 1985. VISITOR'S AGENDA 0 one appeared to speak. ASSUMPTION ORDINANCE NO. 85-12 (Second Reading) Counci:lur Brian moved, Councilor Edwards seconded, to adopt Ordinance No 85 -12. Approved by 3-1 majority vote of Council present, Councilor Scott voting Nay. PUBLIC SIDEWALKS MAINTENANCE & REPAIR ADOPTING REVISIONS ORDINANCE NO 85-16 (Second Reading) a. Councilor Brian moved,. Mayor CGok seconded, to adopt Ordinance Ne, 85.16,' Councilor Brian questioned if the City has ot• has not maintained the sidewalks up to now Community Development Director stated the. `City had hot. Council 1. feels this stated e�;.st�in or '� was to clarify the Code if g policy. Motion failed on second reading by 2. -2, vote, Councilor Edwards and Scott voting Nay. Mayor Cook requested tha s item be brought back for further cons ideration. 6 DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS ORDINANCE. NO, 85 --17: F'MENDMENT Chief of Polite gavo a summary of the. ordinance. H► stated a dent had re.. i au Dome to him regarding having a busi:ne±�s of gun g w to test the guns. The sm�ihin and to allow to have, a plate Ordinance would, alloy.: the business under certain conditnns which would be inspected by the City Building ,oar Police before a busines1 tax would be granted. o stated ther�w would be no change in �"ommunity Da�ue�opmeht Di��ec #tor' st�a the zoning code and the Pl,aohing staff would go by the criteria of the Code before apprt ing the applica ion4 Page 1: �- COUNCIL MINUTES APR L 2, , 198 p_ • P v9 b, Councilor Brian moved, Councilor Edwards seconded, to Ordinance No 85-17. Approved by 3-J majority vote of Council. present, Councilor Scott, votin Nay. A second reading is required T. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 4 -85 ZONE CHANGE tC 4 -85 KRUEGE R NPO #7 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Councilor Brian moved, Councilor Edwards seconded, to continue the Public Hearing to May _6, 1985 Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 3-85 ZONE CHANGE. IC 3-85 S & S BUILDERS NPO #7 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED a. Community Development Director gave a sumrAry stating the Planning Commission recommranded 6-3 approval of CPA 3 -85 and ZC 3-85 from C -P ( Commercial Professional) to C-G (Commerc,ial General) , NPO #7 opposed this recommendation 6 -1. PUBLIC TESTIMONY a john Schweitz, NPO #7, stated there was not enough time for the NPO to review this issue. He felt it should go back to the Planning Commission. . o r p , traffic signal 'would be o. Councilor Scott asked wh �n ense the Community Development Director thought it would e responsibility of S & 3" Builders- 30e Scweitz stated th, State had planned in the future to p n put a tre, fic signal in but did not know off hand if it 18 their responsibility- City Administrator stated there was a match requirement betwuer S & S guilders and the City' System Development Charge Councilor Scott tusked if the area would warrant a bike path and asked the NPR.`) to look into this.. councilor Brian had a concert on giving up the only parcel. that is zoned C-P , ' lders (owner of Greenway Town Hal, l�ewy t? �tt, representing S & 3' dux Center) felt there were, three issues: 1) Strip commercial along Scholls Ferry Road, 2.) Availability of office space, ar. 3) Traf fie situate' tn, The Greenway Town Center has rented out Most of the good location that face the str eet The vacant locations will go into office spaces. This site is a ,highly appropri4te locat.on.'and does Meet the criteria accordiig to the state and tool code CCUNCIt rIrNUTES APR I. 7 , 19'8! 1 .NYf Aw n moved. Councilor Edwards seconded, to :�duriL Coun . r ®rt�� Ordinance ,• 85--17 Approved by 3-1 ity vote of Council present. Councilor Scott voting Nay. A - .aCOnd ing Ls required. ZONE CHANGE ° ZC q--85 KF�LIEGER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA NPO M7 PUBLIC HEARING G,PENE® r Brian moved, Councilor Edwards seconded. at+ � ®ur�c�l�o to May 45. 185. Public Hearing antinue the Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. COMPREHENSIVE "PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 3-85 ZONE CHANGE 2C 3'85 S 6 BUILDERS NPO #F7 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED a. Commit P m Director gave a summary stat ing the r e p tanning Commissio n recommended 6-3 approval of CPA 3-85 and IC 3-8S from C —P (Commercial Professional) to C-G (Commercial General), raE( NT opposed this recommendation 6 - 1 PUBLIC TESTIMONY time for the a. John Schweitz, NPO 117, stated there was not enough back or the NPO to review this issue. He felt it should g Planning o Commission. Cotnc%i�r Scott asked ed who's ec ease the traffic signal would be. i t would be the Community Development. D ;rector thought responsibility & ,� Builders .:Toe Schweitz stated the State respansihali.ty of S � nal in but •di.ci not put a traffic sig had Planned i.n the future to p City Administrator onsbil.t±� z Ci know off hand if it is their rasp between S & J Builders and stated; there was a match requirement M the City's System Development Charge Councilor area would warrant asked . Path and .ited if the a bike p o Councilor 'SO+aiw� a asked the NPO to loett nto this parcel that is i ing up the only p � a o Cauinc.lor C�rian hard a conCt� on '� w v zoned C—P Hal Hewitt, . repr '' ~ S & 1 BY uild er s (own er ' of,GrtertwaY Wn Center) felt there were three' � sU � � 1� Strip a •o Bcholls Perri aoax i d ) A �� i1 bilitY of Office Space, end 3) Traffic s ituation. The Brae n wa Tos Centel has r enter out most of the good hibcation tha t face the st teat w The vacant pxotis will go into off ice spacts Th is site i s A highly apropr �at t location and noes meet the criteria according to the State and 'Local code Page 2 — COUNCIL rINUTES - A ' : , 198 4f' Tom Lancaster, Consulting Traffic: Engineer For S & .7 Builders, stated he looked at the intersection of Sorrento and Scholls Ferry road where the traffic problem would most likely occur, A survey showed if there was no development at all the intersection would operate at a level C. II' there would be businesses in the area it would still be level C. With a zone change the intersection would operate at a lev'sl 0. This could be mitigated at level C with a traffic signal. PUBLIC HEADING CLOSED STAFF RECOMMENDATION a« Community Dk;uelopment Director and Planning Commission recommended approval of CPA 3-85 and ZC 3 -85 From C -P to C-G Zoning COUNCIL CONSIDERATION a Councilor Brian f=elt this is :sue should be looked at as a plan not that office space was hot art demand -now. He felt , .t did d justify a zone change at this time b. Coun,.ilor Brian moved, Councilor Scott seconded, not to app ove Ordinance No 5 18. Staff is to brin g back an Ordinanc e of the findings. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT' CPS; 1-85 AND ZONE CHANGE ZC 1--85 ALLISON NPO #1 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED a. Community Development Director gave a summary of .the proposal. w .. P g _ ss1On The �ppYiat,on i� supported by staff and the Plannxn C���mi for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Central 'Business District to Medium High Density Residential and a Zone Change from CBD (Central Business) to R-25 (Residential, 25 units /acre) N''O #1 had the opportunity but did not comment. PUBLIC TE�,tIMON' PROPONENTS a Kenneth Allison, applicant, 6445 NE Union Avenue, Portland OR, y �^ «�' zoning way CAM stated when the grope rt . was first purchased t with a 10 foot lot line setback. The City has changed the zoning to CBD with a the 10 -plea �'° zero lcat l%ne setback. The bedroom o� t y face the corn ercial property and the tenants would probably move out when th ;s property is developed because of noise, Aldo the property value would go down. COUNCIL C1tNUTES - APRIL ,. g' RECESS 9:00 P.M. RECONVENE 9 :15 P.M. 5.4 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 3.85 ZONE CHANGE ZC 3 -85 S & J NPO __## 7 BUILDERS Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change from C-P (Commercial Professional) to C-G (Commercial General) for a 7.9 acre site. Located south side of Scholls Ferry Road,, immediately west of Greenway Town Center (WCTM 131 34BC lot 400) Associate Planner Lide'i reviewed the staff report a, rd made staff's recommendation for approval with one condition, ;;iscussion followed regarding the traffic signal at North Dakota /Sorrento and Scholls Ferry Road. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION O Hal, Hewitt, representing the app, i scant, reviewed the history of the Greenway Towne Center, He explained how,, they would like to expand the center as Phase II with a mixed use of retail and office uses and how it was needed to meet the needs of the neighborhood, He requested that their traffic engineer, Tom Lancaster, address the traffic concerns. Tom Lancaster, explained he had done an independent traffic study and reviewed wed the impacts the proposed change would have on the area He felt with the addition n of the ' traffic signal ' at cholls Ferry and Sorrento Road would mitigate any increase traffic caused by this development. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Richard Boberg, NPO # 7 Chairperson, explained that, the NPO had reviewed this project, .Originally the vote ' was 4-3 against the ch�►nge, however, after more review the vote had changed to 6 -1 against the change. They felt this would create strip development alofug Scholls Ferry Road, The NPO would lake to see the property remair% zoned , CP as they had decided upon durir the. Conoprehensive Plan process. Bob Johnson, S & 3 Builders, partners in the developers of Meadow Creek Apartments, explained that they had selected their, site because of the immediate access to retail space. High quality apartments and high density put a high demand on retail sites and he supported making additional retail property available. john, Morris, Morning Hill Association, supported the NPO mendation. c� * g � the Comprehensive Plan cause .. .,.ertial wecom � Ac ord �,n. t�; � move comet ... property was not needed, F e felt the change would a, strip p zone. PLANNING COMM (NN MINUTES Apri ;l ., l 9 85 Page 4 r Councilor Scott roved, Councilor Edwards seconded, to approve the following consent agenda items. 11.1 Approve Minutes of April 15, 1985 11.2 Receive and File Department Reports 11,3 Receive and File Community Development Land Use Decisions o Site Development Review SDR 3-85 (Donald & Julia Pollock) 11..4 Approve and Authorize Signature for Hall Blvd. LID agrE,..-went for professional services 11.5 Approve Resolution No 85— 24 Final Accept, of Public Improvements /Summerlake Subdivision 11.6 Approve. and Authorize Signature for Bond —ANTON Park (Phase 1) Subdivision Compliance Agreement Approved by unanimous vote of Council pr5sent, 12, NON—AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff a» There were no non-- agenda items. RECESSED AT 9:10 P.M. 13. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192,660 (1) (d)(e)(f)(h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions,, records exempt from public and pending litigation issues. 14. ADJOURNMENT AT 12t15 P.M. Deputy City Recorder - City of Tigard Al VEST: - or City of 'Tigard (PM /2684A) Page 5 C OUNCIL MI;NUT 'S — APR XI: 22 , 43 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING .STATE OF OREGON County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard (),5//6-e// being first duly sworn, on oath depose and say: (Please Print)r That 1 am a .«t41'6 '' for The City of Tigard, Oregon. That T served notice of a public hearing for City Council of which the attached is a copy (Marked Exhibit A) upon each of the following named Persons on the ..//442 day of ), '°'1,■1 198S , by mailing to each of them at the address shown on tho attached list (Marked Exhibit B), said notice as hereto attached, deposited in the United States Mail on , 198 , postage prepaid. the ,�' . % ? 1 day of 1�, /r Subscribed and sworn to before me on the y Cotimission Expires.: c (0257p) Signature J et Person who.;, deli./ red to POST OFFICE, rj /3-47.'11 day o; OTARY PUELtC OF OREGON NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Tigard Planning Commission, at its meeting on ya �� � o High x:30. Walnut Street, Tigard, Oregon, Tuesday, Aril 2 1985 room of Fowler Junior Nigh School, 10865 S.W. Waln g : g will consider the following application: FILE NUMBER: CPA 3 -B5 and ZC 3 -85 APPLICANT: Portland Fixture Co. 338 NW Fifth Portland, Oregon 97209 REQUEST: LOCATION OWNER: S & ,1 Builders 5335 SW M'urrary Beaverton,_ Oregon 97005 For a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and. Zone Change from G P, (Commercial, Professional) to C -G (Commercial General) South side. of Scholls Ferry Road, immediately east of the Sorrento ltaod intersection (Wash. 'Co. Tax Map 1S1 34EC, Tax Lot 400) . (See dap on reverse side) 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 . testimony may be submitted in this procedure of the Planning Commission. Any Persons having interest matter may attend and be heard, or testim y y ed in writing to be entered into the record, of the initial hearing. .. CITY please contact the Planning Department ;at 639 - 4171.. For further ._ ... I Y HALL, S.W. ; Planning Organization m TIG�A.S,b C 12755 S W Ash �lve�ttxe (Corner of Ash Avenue & ! urnha Street), or contact our Neighborhood Pl:nn (NPO) # 7 Cha rperson �, Richard Babpro Phone Number 639- 2342... (pt /025 ) REBUTTAL • distributed gram of the what the ' photos of the area,, a diagram Hal Hewitt, dis..ributed pho proposed expansion would look like, and an aerial photographs depicting the Commercial properties along Sc;holls Ferry, from Hwy, 217 to SW North 4akota. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Discussion followed regarding surrounding zoning, traffic flow, and locational criteria' (CG B 1 A) o Commissioners Lever ett, Campbell, Bergmann, and Peterson favored the Commissioners Fyre, Moen had mixed proposal. _ Vande�^uuood, and feelings, Commissioner Butler opposed, he felt it violated the locational criteria. Commission Owens reviewed the history of the NPO and their concerns at the time of the original NPO 7 plan, Commissioner Bergmann moved to approve and Commissioner Leverett seconded to forward a recommendation for,, 'approval to City Council. Also, they directed staff to take into consideration previous use requirements when the Greenway Towne Center was originally constructed.. Motion passed by majority 'vote, Commissioners Butler, ' �yre,: and dens votin g no 5.5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 1-85 and ZONE CHANGE 1-85 ALLISON Request to amend the Plan designation from the Central Business District to Medium High Density Residential and' subsequently changined the zone designation, from CBD (Central Business District) to n -25 (Residential, 25 units /acre) ''for a 2 acre parcel., Associate Planner Linden reviewed the proposal and made staff's recommendation for approva' APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION a Kenneth Allison, 6445 NE Union Ave., Portland, explained that he had nice quality apartments did not want quality to be destroyed ed by having a commercial structure built th e property in eHe felt his Property had originally b,en zoned residential and he would like to have xt rezoned to residential to protect the livability of the apartments. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Carolyn Eadon, NPO # 1 Representative, They did not have r•ecommenc.ation as they had not reviewed the project, ANNA G COMM1551 N MI UTE April 2,_ 190 Pa=le L STAFF REPORT April 2, 1985 - 7:30 P.M. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL -- LGI 10865 S.W. WALNUT TIGARD, OREGON 97223 FACTS . General Information. AGENDA ITEM 5.4 CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 3 -85 and Zone Change ZC 3 -85 REQUEST: Amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map designations from C-P (Commercial Professional) to C-G (Commercial General for a 7.9 acre site.. APPLICANT: Portland Fixture Co. OWNER: S & J Builders 338 NW 5th 5335 SW Murray Blvd. Portland, OR 97209 Beaverton, OR 97005 LOCATION. South side of Scholls Ferry Roaa, iutmediately west of Greenwa y Town Center (Wash. Co. Tax Hap 1S1 34BC, Tax Lo 400)b 2 e Eackgrounrl The ss b ect property �' Was annexed to City along with em other Parcels 1976 ( C 12-76). The Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1983 designated the northern section of property for Commercial Professional and the larger southern portion for Medium high Density residential use Site Development Review approval for a 304 unit apartment complex on the • southern segment of the property was granted in 1984 (SDR 22--84) Vicinity Information The eastern boundary of the site adjoins Greenway Town Cent^r which is presently zoned ,C -G The area to the south is zoned R -25 (Residential, 25 units/acre) and construction the a pa rtuent project recently beeo initiated. In conjunction with he apartment complex, 125th Avenue will be extended along the western boundary of this site as well as the apartment project. This street will ultimately intersect with North Dakota Street at 121st Avenue. The parcel west of this street extension on Scholls Ferry Road is also toned C -P. Other parcels to the south are zoned ( p nits /acre, planned development). Solia err. (I'D) and the City of Beaverton lie to the north. Scholia Ferry City 4. Sid a information The site is presently undeveloped, A four -wady interaction will be constructed at the Scholia Ferry/Sorrento' Road intersection which will STAPP RgPORT` - CPA 3 -85 &; ZC 3-j8'S �7 } include a traffic signal The proposed 'Plan Amendment and Zone Change w ll allow for an expanded list of commercial retail activity • (� i 5•' Agency and NPO Comments $ The Building Inspection Office has no objection to the proposal. is J The State Highway Division has no 'objection to the requesst, but iwiit , is noted that curb and sidewalk matching the facilit to the be required. The Engineering Division has the following comments: . Site Development Review approval is required prior to development. Access to and from the site ;must be approved by the City and State Highway 'Division. olls c. Additional right- of-way shou:2,d be dedicated along the Schfrom Ferry Road frontage to provide a right- of-way width centerline of 45 feet. pp NPO 17 is opposed ro the proposal and a representative will, be present at the hearing to comment. • FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning goals 1, f � 8 and 12, Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.4, 8.1.3, and Chapter 12, Locational. Criteria. The planning staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the Guidelines � upon the . able Statewide Planning Goals and Guideline based u appl�.c following findings is met because the City has adopted a Citizens Involvement.. Goal 11 i applications by the program including review of all development app' all by the ra ram includ In additinn: Neighborhood Planning Organization (NP0) notice requirements were met. 2,. Gcai #2 is met because the City applied all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Development Code requirements to the application. in -con �,;<tictan with the 3 Coax tit i.s, satisfied because the proposal , i, impact upon Schalk new traffic signal will not have a detrimental ittpa� p Ferry Road has determined that the proposal is consistent with The Planning ' staiff p based upon the findings the relevant portions of the Comprehensive rehensi`�e Plan noted below: :J..1 is satisfied because the Neighborhood Planning n l . Plan Policy � i, property owners were given notice and scrzr'o �pdin$ �' � � on the. applicant � s Organization p.,. the hearing and an o ortt nit to comment o proposal. STAP1= k T - CPA 3 laC , :55 ** 1w,AC 2. Plan Policy 5.1.1 is met becaut e the proposal will have a small positive effect upon the number of jobs available to Tigard residents It is estimated that the subsequent commercial development will provide between 150 and 200 jobs. 3d Plan Policy 5.1.4 is satisfied because the proposed change from C -P to C -C will not enlarge the area presently designated for commercial use and will not encroach upon nearby residential areas. 4. Plan Policy 8.1.3 will be satisfied as a condition for development of the site Before any commecial development occurs, City approval through the Site Development Review process will be required. 5. The applicable locatlona1 criteria ing PP teria are satisfied for the fallow reasons a. A residential zoning district is only adjacent al.or.g the southern boundary of the site. b. The site will not create traffic congestion or related problems which cannot be remedied by the proposed traffic signal at the Scholia Ferry /Sorrento/North Dakota intersection. c. Direct access to an arterial and collector street is available d. public transportation is available on Scholia Ferry Road e. Because of its location and the Site Development Review approval which is required prior to development' a compatible relationship with nearby properties can be maintained. C oncern has open expressed regarding the potential this proposal OSaI would have commercial development along Scholia Fe-cry, e g ng "strip =� r Road. for lthouuh z p t any policies Although �►� Comprehensive Plan does la the staffs position that which deal specifically .. t' this issue b it w p proposal � the following reasons: this ro osgl does note pose such a th peat for the follow ly The site is presently designated for" commercial use, 2. The change will broaden, the list of commercial uses permitted and it will not displace residential uses. Other undeveloped properties along S,tholls Ferry Road in Tigard p. .. designed for residential toxx for the most art, are de use. Conversion of these lands would ruqu + rutiny' on (and Haver ire closer be = the part of the City. Also, the City is obligated by the Metropolitan wousing Rule to provide for an equal mix of single 4 g i . es' with. an overall density of 10 �. cal family and' Multi -family residences unite per acre,, Any proposal to convert residential land would need to show compliance with this rule. S r'!FF R POR`i` CPA 3 85 Z 3 -5 1!ACg l b second concern relates to the ir:cent. of this C-P designation to provide to medical au other professional services for the ofge oral a p p ' d not preclude the establishment area. This proposal would since they are permitted in the C-G r zone well in . Also, similar services are established east on Scho]_i y Road in the and appropriate zoning for this activity Progress /Washington Square area C. RECOMMENDATION n the findings and co above, the Planning staff Based upon _ „_ ,� 3-85 sub ' �s noted abG- a. roval of CPA 3 85 and� ZC iect to the following recommends approval Additional right -of -way shall be dedicated to the the SW Scho'Lls Ferry Road frontage to increase right-of-way feet from centerline. The description for said dedication shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline at established ly Washin ton County. The dedication document shall be on city foams g and approved hy. the Engineering Section. .. r L - APPROVED BY William A. j'ioElt�hA1\ PREP • ' D B'Y o Keith iden Direct -� . of Si Associate Planner Development (KL :pm /1130?) STA: g.E.POtiT gC S - '► Ch S & J BUILDERS CPI 3-85 1S1 34 BC 400 & 2C 3-85 Schol1,s Fry /North Dakota a.9ros8 ,, Qm ) ISQ Q ltO iii y3_ 3 .Qf.., MARK P. O'DONNELL TIMOTHY V. RAMS KENNETH M. ELLIOTT STEPHEN F. CREW CHARLES E. CORRIGAN JOSEPH M. SULLIVAN KENNETH H. FOX ®'DOr%IICIELL, RAMIE, ELLIOTT & CREW ATTORNEYS AT LAW HALLOW & WRIGHT E UILDING 1727 N', W. HOYT STREET PORTLAND, OREGON 97209 (503) 222 -4402 CANBY OFFICE, 181 N. GRANT, SUIT'" 02. CANBY, OREGON ' .+•13 (S03) 266.1149 ,ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT MARGARET C, HAND SHARON L. WILLIAMS KATHERINE A. FLYNN ALSO ASMITTED TO PRACTICE IN STATE OF WASHINGTON COMPTROLLER PRISCILLA E. WAY Mr. . Bill Monahan, Director Planning & Development City of Tigard P. 0. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 City of Ti ard. S & J Builders, Ltd.; LUBA No 86 -004 Dear Bill; 1 have enclosed a copy of S & J Builders I Notice of 'Intent to Appeal the LUBA decision to the Court of Appeals. Once LUBA transmits the record of its decision to the Court of Appeals,' we are bound to a very tight briefing schedule. Z will keep you posted as this progresses rel; ours, Enclosure cc: Bob ant City Administrator 12.1 ApprQve:,Ppu cj1 .Ninutes. -- Piay..-12r 419 1 .? ,Rectivs , nd Filet A. Can i t y Development Land use Dec isA ons be Departmental t anthly , R*ports 1986 c. . LUBA Fin ►l Order, O -004 •ibi, Cityti favor - . J Btti'.ld.r d. Sewer . USA 16% Interest' ChargeAclorandum 12.3 Approve Computer .Contract . Finance Agreement 12.4 A PP rove Council Meeting Cg ,end ar R�� 12. (� V Appro,e Pa li ce 'R P i ment ` ehiPdu1 + ,.., 12.6 Approve Fsd.ral Aid . for ' raffia Signal' Improvement ., �:.. Auth rize Signatures --Resolution-No. 86-61 Approve Subdivision, bdivision, C ance Agreement & Per forms c Bond sAuthoriz4 Signatures - Karen park 12.3 Approve Subdivision Compliance Agreemeht & Authorize 3ignatures, Gear V'v, Efer.a1d At - s 13.9 Accept Krueger Nor-Remonstrance ,Agrrmalent treet improvements) ,' 135th Avenue 12.10 Approve North Dakota Realignment, Engineering in Contract & Authorize Signatures - Dc4Las & Associates - *15;.975 12.11 Accept Levitz Furniture Co. Street Dedication - Cascade Avenue 12.12 Ratify Council poll a. Approve OLCC Applications Golden rlourMet - 242 Tigard Plaza, Tigard - P3 & R .App. Newport sdy Sea:fooc! Broiler r 10935 SW 69t h p Tigard P App. Short Stop P1 rket, 15995 SW 72nd Ave., Tigae"d -- P3 App. b. Approve Additional $1,000 donation to TAG .or Courtyard .construction (Total now authorized' is 49000). c. Council requested review of Pacific frOntier wood markttsyRob,mt Randal, Co. `Ner`arings Officer Finial Order - U 1/36'1 3L 5/86,; 4014t 1 3 . Public Fearing to be scheduled 6/23/86. d. Approve Training Request -- ,City Recorder - $241.00 for City Clerks seminar (funds required by Cii4, after tuition scI►•.:,,iarship granted by Oregon Association of Municipal Recorders). 12.13 Authorize Mayor and recorder to execute Partial Bond Releaser` Penn Lawn Estates No 2 -$439871.04 - Resolution No $6.6' a. Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor SOhnsOn to adopt Ccaent Agnda Approved by unanikr4U% rote of Council present. 13 NON- AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff 130/ Training Request Office Managor Ai Motion by Councilor Johnsont seconded b y Cow i)p President Orlin to approv+ a Approved by Unanimous vet. of Council !present. 13.2 Mal% /Durham LXD Land Acquis tier AIL MxNUTE3 +JUUnM .''r' 1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 2 OF TIE STATE OF ORE3ON 3 S & J BUILDERS, LTD., ) ) NOTICE OF INTENT 4 Petitioner, ) TO APPEAL 5 v. ) LUBA No 004 6 CITY OF TIGARD, ) APPELLATE COURT ) No 7 Respondent. 8 S & J Builders, Ltd., Petitioner, hereby gives notice 9 of its intent to appeal from the Final Opinion and Order issued 10 in this case on May 19, 1986, by the Land Use Board of Appeals, 11 wherein the Petitioner was S & a Builders, Ltc and the lw Respondent was the City. of Tigard. Petitioners represent a 13 follows 14 A, Nature of the Order,. Petitioner Desires Reviewed. 15 The Land Use Board of Appeals affirmed the 16 decision of the City of Tigard which was a denial of Petitioner 17 request for a comprehensive plan and zone change from cone ierical 18 professional (C P) to commercial general (C-G) for Petitioners 19 property iz.. the City of Titlard. 20 B. Nature of Petitioner" Int<'rests 21 Petitioner is the owner of the property which is 22 the Subject of the LUB1! decision. Petitioner will be unable to 23 develop its property as planned by Petitioner in the. event LUBA' s' dEREBY CERTI is A COMP1.4ETE ORIGINAL TI-IE Att6 o5 for FIAT' TFIE FO r4c107 JCS rACT -COPY c • X2 1 24 decision is not reversed. 5 26 1 age 1 - NO OV INTEND' ' TO APPEAL' JAN P Nt.VAC ANttmgyx of taw • xt►r s, w. Mata,Sfiaet aartstatia, by eq . *0 falept, ($04), 220.2.04 1 Attorneys. 2 The names, bar numbers, addresses and telephone 3 numbers of the respective attorneys for the parties are 4 Name Bar Number Address Phone Number c,tephen T. Jan.ik 74153. 101 S.W. Main St. (503) Suite 1100 228 - -2525, 6 Portland, OR 97204 7 Timothy V. Rami s 75311 1727 N. W. Hoyt St. Portland, OR 97209 9 and the Land Use Board of Appeal:;: address and telephone number Stephen T. Janik, OSB No. 74153 Of Attorneys for Petitioner S & J Builders, Ltd. ge 2 NO A3 Off" INT NT TO 'APP.. L AtL JAW NWWAty tttlkilityi tit Lt5w Meiirt 5ttebt aitttGsihtik 0.0,4,trrc V/204 C ephohtt 4503? 22E25 _ 1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 2 OF THE STATE OF OREGON 3 S & Li BUILDERS, LTD. , ) ) PETITION FOR 4 Petitioner, i JUDICIAL REVIEW 5 ve ) LUBA No 86 -004 6 CITY OF TIGARD, ) APPELLATE COURT 1' No. 7 Respondent. 8 PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW 9 S & ' Builders , Ltd. seeks judicial review of the F: iai 10 Opinion and Order of the Land Use Board of A;peals in LUBA Case 11 No 86 -004, dated May 19, 1986, and represents as follows 12 A. Natuif.: of the Order Petitioner Desires Reviewed. 13 The Land Use Board of Appeals 'affirmed the 14 decision Of the City of Tigard which was a denial of Pe'.itiori,pr `s' 15 request for a comprehensive plan and zone change from commerical 16 profes professional (C P) to commercial general (C -G ) for Petitioner 17 property in the City of Tigard. 18 B Nature of Pet' tioner' s Interests 19 Petitioner is the owner of the property which is 20 the subject of the LI BA , decisiOn_. Petitioner will be unable to 21 develop its property as planned b y Pe iti GTer in the event LUBA' s' 22 decision is not reversed. C The Record - 24 The entire agency record is relevant to the issues iii the appeal . before2.s court. There e S uilders 4 Ltd. s 6 age, E T ITTON FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW X LL, JA 1 K & NOVACK Attomey, at Law ibt S. W. iMatn.5treet liottIortd, ()tom 9720. telopha;a 031 22a 2525 are :. not willing to stipulate that the agency record may be shortened D . Attorneys The names, bar numbers, addresses and telephony numbers of the respective attorneys for the parties are Name Bar Number Address, Phone Number Stephen Ty Janik 74153 101 S.W. Main St. (503) Suite 1100 228 -2525 Portland, , OR 97204 Timothy V Ramis 75311 1727 N.W. Hoyt St. (503) Portland, OR 97209 222 -4402 10 ' 11 and the Land Use Board of Appeals address and telephone number 12 are 100 High Street S . E,, , Salem, Oregon 97310, (503) 3i3- -1265 . 13 DATED this 6th day of June, l)86. 14 15 STEPHEN T. JAN1K Stephen T. Jarlik, OSB No 74153 16 Of Attorneys b=ar Petitions r S & J Builders, ,td 17 18 17 Page 2 - PETITION 1 `0R JUDICIAL REVIEW MIK" Adt A AttGetnryk dt ,L w 101 t. W Mock Stir t Ptektoci, .Otepti t"Uet t Tol hotie aus 455: BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON S & J BUILDERS, LTD. , } } Petitioner, ) LUBA No 86-004 vs. ) FINAL OPINION AND ORDER CITY OF TIGARD, ) Respondent. Appeal from City of Tigard. Jack L. Orchard, Portland, filed the petition for review and argued on behalf of petitioner. With him on the brief were 10 Ball, Janik & Novack Timm;thy V. Ramis, Portland, filed a response brief and argued on behalf of Respondent City of Tigard. D. William Venable, Beaverton, filed a response brief and argued on behalf of Respondent Williams. With him on the brief were Bomarito and Henderson, P.C. BAGG, Referee; KRESSEL, Chief Referee; DUBAY, Refewee; participated in t.ie decision, AFFIRMED 05/19/86 You are entitled to judicial review of this Order. Judicial review 18 governed by the provisions of ORB, 197 850. .F� fi Opinion by Bagg. NATURE OF THE DECISION 3 Petitioner appeals the denial of its request for a comprehensive plan and zone change from Commercial Professional (C-P) to Commercial General (C-G) for its property in the City of Tigard. 7 ` FACTS $ The 5.4 acre site is presently zoned C -P} a designation 9 which allows professional offices, but does not permit the U) wide- variety of businesses, including retail sales, permitted, n in the C -G zone d 12 The property is at the intersection of Southwest Scholls 13 Ferry Road and Southwest North Dakota Street. The City of 14 Beaverton city limits are immediately across Scholls Ferry 15 Road. The site is north of and adjacent to a 15 and one -half 16 acre parcel also owned by petitioner which houses a 305 unit 17 apartment complex. The site is also adjacent to a retail 18 shopping center known as the Greenwaj Town Center. If the 19 requested changes approved, subject property would tad than es were a rovedD the ,pub act r 2t1 house additional commercial retail space as part of a second 21 phase of the Greenway Town Center. A similar 21 application wa - before the in Februar , 23 1985. After: approval by the planning' commission, the city 24 council heard the application on an appeal and reversed the 25 'planning o tm scion in April, 198.x. Petitioner filed, an appeal 26 with this board, and pursuant to a .request by th city, the 2 44B matter was remanded to the city on August 10, 1985. Builders ders va city of Tigard, (CUBA No 85-035, August The city council took up the remand on September At that hearing, petitioner stated that only traffic from the proposal required further inquiry. The petitioner took this ono. ition because the city had stated, in the findings adopted May 6, 1985, that all other approval criteria had been satif,ied. At the close of the September 9 hearing, council voted to 10 1'1 12 deny the petitioner additional criteria s application ,. but the dOnial was based on which city council members believed were unsatisfied. Petitioner stated again that it understood the 13 only issue properly before the council was transportation. The 14 council then voted to continue the matter to prepare findings.. 15 On Septemer 16, 1985 the council reopened deliberations. 16 The council concluded not only that additional criteria should 1 be applied, but additional public hearings should be held. on 18 September 27, 1985, petitioner was notified in writing of the 19 added approval criteria.' Petitioner submitted new application materials (under protest), and after a city council hearing on November 25, 1985, the c 23 zone change.: Findings were prepared, but the council referred 24 them to the city attorney for revision. New f 'ridings were approved by the counc.ti on January 6 1986 The city' 26- f denial became eff,2ctive January 16, 1986, Ptilg e 3 0044B 10' 11 12 13 14 15 16 Fl 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR "The City is required to consider Pet itioner's application based upon the standards specifically adopted by the City in the original proceedings on the application." Petitioner claims the city announced the appropriate a ppr oval criteria prior to the order of remand by this boa rd. Those criteria did not include the issues later relied upon to deny the application. Petitioner asserts the original announced criteria form the only "legal" basis to evaluate the application. Petition for Review at 17-18 . Addition of other criteria, later used to deny petitioner's appli at on, amount ,,?d to an ad hoc process of the kind specifically invalidated in Sun Rai Dairy' v. OLCG, 16 Jr App 63, 517 P2d 289 (1973) according to petitioner. Further, petitioner argues the city's action violates ORS 227.178(3) . Petitioner claims this statute prohibits changing land use approval criteria spin mid- stream during the processing f an application." Pµtition for Review at 19, ORS 227.178(3) o provides "(3) application was complete when first (3 � l f +the apP �,. plan and submitted... and the city has a com rehensive l land u regulations acknowledged under ORS 197.251, 251 approal or denial of the application shall be based upon , , t ... re aPPlicable u. an the standards and criteria that weubm��.tted. at the time the a. �elicat.ion was first s Em hasis added) Petition for Review at 19. C P e find no error as alleged. The remand order to the city did not address the merits of the case. The remand did not direct any particular action by the city under such an order ►844B 9 we believe the city was free to undertake a complete review of ` the case. See OAR 661-10-080(D). 3 In addition, all of the criteria existed in the city's" a comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance prior to and after the ;5 first application by S & J Builders. No ordinance criteria were changed, but the city did change it's mind as to which of the existing ordinance criteria would be applicable to the applicant's proposal, The applicant, was informed by letter of the changes 28 days prior to the scheduled hearing. Petitioner 10 requested that a later hearing be held, and the matter was 11 rescheduled giving the petitioner another 28 days to prepare 12 for the hearing. Petitioner had ample time to address all 17 criteria noted in the city's letter. 14 Under these circumstances, we find the city was free to 15 choose the approval criteria. The choice involved no 16 deprivation of petitioner's due process rights, and no 17 violation of ORS 227.178(3) 18 The f i. L st assignment of error is denied. 19 SECOFD ASSIGNMENT Or ERROR 20 "Assuming .. C + ►. , .. had Y , ` that. the ��.ty Council ha,� a right to adopt pp . -. _� following and of the . approval oval cr�.tPria ng reap additional case, and , approval criteria were the, new h��dbasoxs�and . Were inconsistent with an ad 22 a adopted ro�alocriter a � utilized for other land use actions P e Simi request." o the ��yp " la,� to �►et�.t�oner s 3 In this a8signment of error, petitioner complains that the 24 city's additional approval standards were imposed ate hoc 2 e c1us ely fox' use in evaluating S & d` Bui s proposal. 26 0' 4 8 These changers braise significant due process issues." Petition for Review at 22. Petitioner cites prior city council concerning plan and zone changes which petitioner says show city applied different approval standards to 'S & J Builders 5 than to other applicants with similar proposa.so See Petition. for Review at pp. 24 -25. We are not persuaded that petitioner's substantial rights have been. violated.4 Even if we were to agx_e that the five orders cases cited by petitioner show a course of conduct far' different from that applied to petitioner s application, petitioner is not relieved from the burden of showing compliance with all applicable criteria. This petitioner may 13 not use past city erors to prevent t r.e city from finding an 14 applicable criterion unsatisfied.5 See Archdiocese of 15 Portland, v. Washington Co., 254 Or 77, 458 P2d 682 (1969) City 16 of Eugene v. Crook:.' Co , t 55 Or App 351# 637 P2d 1350 (1951) 43 17 Op. Att'y yen.. (1984). 18 The second assignment of error is denied. 19 THIRD! SSIGNME TT, OP E Rak 20 The City Council lacks an adequate basis for denial of Petitioner's application as evidenced by the 21 reasons given for the decision and the findings documenting the denial decision.." Petitioner claims that the written order do sons for denial given orally at the November 25 hearing. thstandi,.ng petitioners complaints believe th.e matter yf s e? eviewa.ble for o't.Y�' review �s tie' c'��y � wr�ltten order. �,�`l� decision is not what individual council min bers may have stated from time to time during the course of hearings, but is the final written order. See Citadel Corporation v. Tillamook, Or LUBA 61, aff'd 66 Or App 965, 675 P2d 1114 (1984) Bennett v. Linn. Count, Or LUBA (LUBA No 85-073, January 16, 1986) . Petitioner next attAcks each of the reasons given for denial of the permit. Re :loner ° s complaint' is that each o the city' findings is not supported by substantial evidence in 30 the record. NFL` TEST According to petitioner:: the city required petitioner to 13 demonstrate a long -term need foz additional C -G zoned 14 property. Petitioner claims there iS no basis in the city's 15 comprehensive plan or development code for such a requirement. 16 In addition, petiti,bner argues the city erred in finding that 17 there were existing empty retail spaces along 5cholls Ferry 18 Road because petitioner's application was neither for a 19 particular type of commercial use, nor for an immediate 0 development. Although petitioner believes the city relied on a the city's order does not discuss We do not understand the city's order to say that the proposal 24 should be denied becausA it is not needed, attack: is misplaced in that has violated , its plan We conclude that it does not exp1a t t• • 8 applicable criteria. See our dis.yyussion under Assignment of 2 Err No . 3(C), infra. 3 B. TRANSPORTATION ISSUES The city found the zone change will negatively impact Scholls Perry Road and exacerbate existing traffic 6 difficulties. Petitioner argue;.~ this finding is erroneous and pp by y prepared part the '7 is not supported ted b a traffic stu,,;� repared as art o£ th original application process and update: fc:r \the hearing after 9 remand. Ti p study concludes the traffic impacts would result 10 in _a level of service no different from the existing level of 11 service on Scholl's Ferry Road. See Record at 28, 206 -210. In '12 other words, providing the property is developed as proposed, 1'3 there would be no adverse traffic impacts and therefore no 14 violation of any applicable criterion according to 15 petitioner 16 Petitioner goes on to argue that not even she city:. ctImprehensive plan inventories show Scholls Ferry 1`oad as, a 18 highway of major congestion (in contrast to Highway 217, 19 Interstate 5, and Highway 99W). Petitioner explains that the 20 city's fear of congestion on Scholls Ferry Road is based on the 21 22 mistaken assumption that under the present C-P zoning,' the property would be developed for office use, and under C -C 2 zOning, the proPertY property would be develop ed for intensive retail 24 use. Petitioner states it is impossible to pinpoint the mix of 2 uses or impacts which may actually occur Uses; in the C -C zone 26 do generate as much traffic as certain 8 2 include those which do not 00448 Page A 1 other uses in the C -P zone, notes petiti.oner. city's The czt s order relies on locational criterion 3 i2.2 .1 (2) (B) (2) ,(a) of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. This provision requires that the General 'Commer'cial area or an 5 ex andin existing General Commercial area must not create expanding g 6 g safety problems. congestion or traffic Th e city found petitioner s traffic study unreliable The study was based on the premise that offices would be built and a small cony, once store sited in the property The city 10 notes, however, that there is no analysis showing traffic 11 impacts if the store is not built. The city uses this fact to 12 posit that without �h� store , the traffic impacts under the C -P 13 zone might be consi derably Jess than those anticipated with 34 development at C-G levels' 15 The city also faults the study because (1) it did not 16 include a count of actual traffic volutes in the area, and (2) 17 it failed to consider the effect of improvements to Sorento Road, an improvement that the city thought might contribute to 19 traffic p roblems on Scholls Ferry Road. 20 The city concludes that it 21 "cannot determine from the evidence submitted whether the conclusion that this change a.n zone would produce 22 no additional traffic safety problems is reliable," Record at 10. The o nly evidence cited in the findings showing that a raffic hazard does indeed exist i,s found in opponent s testimony and photographs. According to the city, this evidence 3 2 2, age. M shows that "traffic conditions in the area are very congested and hazardous." Record at 9. I t is not our function to reweigh the evidence to determine whether we would reach the same result reached by the city. Our job is only to determine whether the city' findings are supported by substantial evidence, ORS 197 ,.835 (8) (a) (C) Here, the city noted the evidence showing the traffic hazard, and explained why it found petitioner' s evidence about traffic ,j reliable. --o, `, y 9 impacts was not it need do no more. Gorac ,e 10 Benton Co. , 74 Or App 453 P2d (1985); Morse v. ,C op C1 Co. P 12 Or l'BA 70 (1984) 12 We conclude that th a city's finding is supported by 13 subtantial evidence and we find no error as alleged- We note 14 that in a typical denial case, the proponent must prove the s g Union �S denial was errnneo�t;� as a matter of lawn 0'�,�r ensc�n v. � 16 County Court, 42 Or PPP 505, 600 P2d 1241 (1979) See also City p 17 t�9 ' aracc v. Get of Soap Dose r 26 Or APP 131, 552 P2d 552 (1976) IS C. CBANCsE IN NBICHBOI HOOD 19 Petitioner next attacks the city's finding that petitioner 20 failed to show how change in circumstances warranted a change 21 g designation. n 18.22.140 of the Tigard �.n zoning Section 21 Municipal Code states, ' in part, that: 23' °A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve .. y d on for a with conditions t�,ons or to den an a�apl.i.cation 24 quasi-judicial the ud�ca.es anendinent shall bc. based n al` of t following standards. "(1) * * * ** Page 25 10 0044B "(2) ****50 s� (3 * * *** "(4) Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comp ehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application." Petitioner ins:i;sts changes have indeed occurred the 7 neighborhood. Petitioner ' states that two other parcels in the immediate vicinity haVe been redesignated asp, suburban office use and, as a result, any need for additional professional o office space can be met at those parcels. Petitioner I1 introduced evidence showing the property is not economically 12 s uited for office and p ace development. Petitioner a dd s that it 13 14 15 17 114 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 is unlikely that the parcel will be used for office space. Petitioner paints to a 22 acre parcel within a half a mile of petitioner's property which is to be sold as residential land. Additional residential use in the area will, acc.ording to petitioner, "focus the need for sub - regional commercial opportunities in the area...." Petition for Review at 44 According to petitioner, the city ignores the enlargement of the Scholls Ferry Road and Southwest North Dakota Street intersection, and signalization of that intersection. These improvements change traffic patterns' In the area, according' t petitioner, and provide a link between the °`City of Beaverton and Tigard not existing at the time the comprehensive plan was adopted. The net result of this changed traffic pattern wil,i according to petitioned`, ll P':ge O344B 10 12 13 15 16 "be to increase the necessity of utilizing the subject property for a broad range of commerical uses because of the 'draw' of the signalized intersection and its cross-city linkage." ge" Petition for Review at 45. Lastly, petitioner notes that it introduced evidence showing that the area is defi.rrient in "commercial opportunities:" Also, the nearby 305 unit apartment complex includes new residents who need "further' commercial opportunities," The city noted petitioner's evidence of change but concluded the changes did not justify approval of the application. The city adds that the submitted infolmation and analysis confirms the need to retain the C -P designation, rather than change it to the C -G designation. The city also said petitioner presented no analysis of sales volume and drawing power for adjacent retail uses and that the record shows, ? pty stores in the community. The city concludes that the commercial analysis presen#-s,d by /,-..he developer shows a need' 17 -+ e, but does for the shopping center such d;F the one in existent 18 not rat e. p that changes a. hanges in the are establish a need for . 20 21 22 rezoning the site to C- zone. As noted earlier, the proponent of the land use change has �.� �aotAd earl: a heavy burden. Jurgenson V. ,Union County, Court, supra. The c ity's analysis adequately explains wh y the changes noted by 23 petitioner do not justify the proposed rezoning. . PROCESS FOR ADOPTING FINDINGS Petitioner r makes' the following argument 24 26 Page 2 04413 of 10 11. 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 2'2 23 24 26 Page "As extensively, noted throughout this brief, the process utilized by the City Council in adopting the January, 1986 findings was designed to accomplish one purpose: to find reasons to support a decrial oa Petitioner's application. Based upon the record, there is no doubt that the City Council starting with its April, 1985 p hearings and continuing through the September and November, 1985 hearings reached its .. decision first and decided its reasons later. This violates the requirement that the decision must flow from the ,findings and not vice versa. heilman v. Roseburg, 39 Or App 71, 591 P2d 390 1979). Petitioner °s reliance on Heilman is misplaced. In Heilman,, the city council voted to deny the application and asked the city attorney to prepare findings. No formal order of denial was made after the vote. The court noted that "there is no order made contemporaneously with or after the fact- finding and [sic) the findings themselves do not in any express or implied way suggest a deliberat�p at Heilman, 39 Or App decision." ratification of an earlier 75. tentative deca. City council minutes of September 9 1985 show the city council had grave doubts about the merits of the application. The minutes of the November 25, 1985 hearing show thf:t city council asked that the findings be redrafted. A new ' set of findings was drafted and submitted for council review at a hearing on January 6, 1986. The minutes show the council considered this last draft of findings, including an order of =denial and approved the combined document at the January 6 Meeting. we believe these circumstances show that the city decision was made on January 6, 1986. Unlike in Heilman, the city dic3 not commit itself to any particular course of action 18 00448 4 m• at any particular meeting, as it reviewed findings at each of the various hearings in which the matter was considered.8 We find no error as alleged. The third assignment of error is denied. The decision of the City of Tigard is affirmed. 10 11 12 13 1'4 15 16 17 18 ' 19 20 21 Z2 23 24 25 26 Page 14 0 044E FOOTNOTES l The uses allowed in the C -P zone include such civic uses as postal services and libraries, and such commercial uses as restaurants, business equipment sales, professional offices, and "convenient sales and personal services (not to exceed 10 percent of the total square footage within the office x) , �� In contrast, the C -G district ict permits all of the useslallowed in the C-P district, plus automobile repair, general ales, sports and entertainment facilities and �.�neral retail sales, permitted within transient lodging Further, conditional u. than.... zone include -� variety of additionial.,commercia1 and Fur the C -G z service uses. See Tigard Community Development Code, Sec. 18.62 and 18.64 10 2 including citation to approval critiera,then 11 The letter, � Petitioner receeded, the scheduled hearing by 28 days submitted application and ,'asked for a continuance on 12 su�bmztted a new app October 25, 1985. A continuance was granted and a new hearing 13 scheduled for October 25. See Respondent's Brief at 5 & 6. All the approval criteria e sted in the ordinance at th e 14 the application for the plan and zone change was . filed. 15 3 Petitioner argues, that the city's first order setting forth be applicable approval criteria y believed to b what the cit �, `e city made a "the in • constitutes the law o� the case" in that. the that `petitioner's first application met. most a pp roval criteria. See The Matter of Heater,. Estate,r 24 Or App 777, 547 P2d 636, 1976. We do not belive the law of the case doctrine applies. As noted, the city's first order, issued May 6, 1985, was appealed to this board and remanded. W sues the city order of remand was not specific as to the i was o • ".reinvested'' city. with our to consider. Our order srmply re�nves� ed neh�h the plan a.nd. zo an . ci jurisdiction over the matter ge. She of t p ' in OAR 662- �.0 --Oib (b) (4) « There was, then, no "law " existing the case which the city was 'obliged, follow on reriand. this Auc bo iety yr. Clac ama,s Cr mpare this case with PPrtland n Soc Co. , Or App ( CUBA No. 85-032, April 28, 1986) 17' lyi , 20 21 22 3 24 26 :age e under stand petiti+ ner to claim •'i t has been denied equal. poteotion of 1~he aw Under the city approvr 1 1.5 004,4B I • policies plan and zoning change requests We note tha�� none of the p cited by petitioner as evidence of discriminatory p ractice by the city P zone to the C-G zone. ��it involves changes from the �'� e We believe it would be necessary for p tition r todcomparprove criteria utilized in C--P to C-G zone c g than. that other similar applications were treated differently petit application. plicat ion. Tribbet v. Benton Co., 2 Or LUBA 161 (1981) 6 is, however, a discussion of a study attempting to justify more /'shopping center. space. The discussion, however, 7 Y approval criterion- See Record does not reference any "need" app 10 at 13 i The discussion is relevant, however, 1-o the c ty's requirement that a proponent of a change show a change in circumstances since plan adoption. 12 J applicant) that the following actions would The traffic study assumed (as does the app f y � be taken along with development of the 14 property: ( 1) extension of Southwest North Dakota to the City ,�. of Tig ard (2) expansion of Scholls Southwest 'Ferry Road and the 15 thwest ''Nor.,4h Dakota Street intersection; ( ) g 4) the addition right-turn on of a �. �.ght -turn p as e of that intersection; -and on the signal. During the cours the city council was intersection e of the hearing,. 7 g improvements Southwest � informed that the im rovements had been in North isand that the signal at Scholls Ferry Road and Southw Dakota would be operational sometime in 1986, 19 20 8 - a' not rovde the notice of decision required by The city did n p � . ,� January ORS 2,? i.l`73 until. after it had issued its f�.rr in" s on 2� 6 22 23 25 26 Page 16 0044B CERTIFICATE OF MAILING y y foregoing Final i .p' Opinion I hereby certify that serR�ed the forl�o86 , � mailing and Order for LUBA No. 86 004, on May 19, , by 9 said parties or their attorney a true copy thereof contained in a s4:aled envelope with postage prepaid addressed to said parties or their attorney as follows: Jack L. Orchard Ball, Janik & Novack 101 SW Main, Suite 1100 Portland, OR 97204 8 Timothy V. Ramis O'Donnell, Ramis, Elliott & Crew 1727 NW Hoyt Street 10 Portland, OR 97204 i 1' 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 5 24 25 26 D. William Venable Bomarito & Henderson, P.C. 9880 SW Beaverton -- Hillsdale Hwy. Suite 201 Beaverton, OR 97005 Dated this 19th day of May, 1986. 1/. 00448 °atr icia J. .adaj a Administrative Assistant John Bagg BUBA 100 High St., S.E. Suite 220 Salem9 OR 97310 S & J Builders v.. City of T,tgard. (LUBA No 86 -004) Encl copy �. ;Volumes ° of the Tigard ose.c� is a �co of each of the three Comprehensive Plan. If you need` any additional information relating to the ,case noted above, please contact our office. Keith S. Liden Senior Planner 5 S 8,161I, ASH 1' B 339 1 T1UA' C OREGON ' 23 pH 63 9 41 VICTOR MITER, aov: WW4 Land Use Board of Appeals MAR 2 8 1986 o'DONNELL & AA $ 100 HIGH STREET SE, SUITE 220, SALEM, OREGON 97310 PHONE (503) 373 -126 arch. 25, 7.,9136 Jack L. Orchard Ball, Janik & Novack 101 SW Main, Suite 1100 Portland, OR 979204 Timothy V. Ramis O'Donnell, Ramis, Elliott & C rew � 1727 NW Hoyt Street Portland, OR 97208 D. William Venable Bomarito & Henderson, . 9880 SW Beaverton - Hillsdale Hwy. Suite 201 ' Beaverton, OR 97005 He: iS & J Builders, LTD. v. City of Tigard Lr7BA No 86 -004 Orr w 1986. To the Parties The oral argument for the above captioned appeal, has been scheduled for Thursda y , April 17, 1986 at 1:30 p.m, in the Land Use Board of Appeals Hearings Room, 100 High Street, S.B. , Suite 220, Salem. Because of limited spacer please notify the _Board as soon as possible i �.. more 10 people plan to attend, so alternae room �'" more than arrangements can be made Very truly Yours, Patti J a+ a 1' a' Adm ;n' Stt tiVe AssiSt,llnt a, ^ G g X £choec/ ha e 446 order from LUBA finalizing the record as o f March 3, 1986. The brief rom S & J Builders is now due on March 24th, and our respondent's brief will be due on April 14p 1986. Si cerely KME such Enclosure 0 the e�! 14"3, J4ha.�; cre ia©4Ici�r a ire a�er'/f, e/ a/eaKe. Mr. Bill Monahan City of Tigard TO P. 0. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 pv Llliott O'DONNELL, RAMIS, ELLIOTT & CRk V ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET PORTLAND, OREGON 97209 (b03) 222 -4402 6 Q .d� �a y, Use Board of Appeals ',lif'r, ", te4,, Land �� �� eal 100 HIGH STREET SE, SUITE 220, SALEM, OREGON 97310 PHONE (503) 373 -1265 VICTOR ATIYeH GOvERNO:1 Timothy V. ,Ramis O'C ,)nne11, Ramis, Elliott & Crew 1727 NW Hoyt Street Portland, OR 97204 Jack L. Orchard Pall, J'Janik & Novack One .Main Place 101 SW Main Street, Suite 1100 Portland, OR 97204 D.William Venable Bomarito & Henderson, P.C. 9880 SW Beaverton-Hillsdale Su:t.e 201 Beaverton, OR 97005 Re S & J guilders v.� City of Tigard LUBA No 86 -004 Hwy • TO the Parties: p pp ` . We are in receipt of the Supplemental record for the. above captioned appeal. we will refer to the Boards Procedural Rules for the calculat,on of the briefing schedule. e >ttion for revir ?w is due twenty-one days after receipt The U . e respondent's briefis due forty -twt days o t the supplement . Th �, supplemental record was. after receipt of the supplement The supp received on .March 8, 1986 Very truly yours, Y: Patti J kC Ada u Administra ive A8siStant or. 4.0 1 *9 , yh , ;3 x 1859 VICTOR ATIYEH COVE lt4Of FEB141 Land Use Board of Appeals 100 HIGH STREET SE, SUITE 2.20, SALEM, OREGON 97310 RHONE (503) 373-1265 Jack L. Orchard Ball, Janik & Novack One Main Place 101 SW Main Portland, OR 97204 D, William Venable Bomarito and Henderson 9880 SW Beaverton- Hillsdale Hwy. Suite 201 Beaverton, OR 97005 -3386 ruary 13, 1986 Timothy V. Ramis Legal Counsel 1727 NW Hoyt Street Portland, OR 97209 Re S & J Builders v. City of Tigard LUBA No 86 -004 To the ` Parties: vir e are in receipt of the record ransmattal for the above captioned appeal. We will refer to the Board's Procedural Rules for the calculation of the briefing (schedule . twenty -one days after T�� p :. tion for review is due ' dais a �, receipt of the p forty two The �ti he record. The respondent's s brief is due y P p e received on. days after receipt of tht, record. The record was rece February 11, 1986 +1tfh ::Ye rel 1 Very truly yours, Elizabeth B. Sheridan Management Assistant "Rot RA IS r I), WILLIAM A. MONAHAN, Director of Community Development for the City g certify that the contents within Hof Tigard certif are a true copy of the record. .12/'65) DATE TABLE OF CONTENTS ENTS Page Statement Certifying the Record of Proceedings as a True CoPY • Table of Contents EXHIBIT NO Notice of Intent to Appeal, January 22, 1986 2 Affidavit of Mailing and Notice of Final Decision by the Tigard City Council for Case No a. CPA 3-85 and AC 3-85, January 1986 5 Januai l 6 s �. 3 City of Tigard Resolution No. 85 -108 Setting Out Final order for Case No CPA 3 -85 and CZ 3-85, January 6, 1986 Regular Meeting Minutes of Tigard City Council, January 6, 1986 (Audio tape available for review in the Community ev lopment Office of the Tigard City Hall) . Letter from Jack L. Orchard to the Mayor and Members of, the Tigard' City Council, December 16, 1985 . . 15 17' Regular Meeting Minutes of Tigard city Council, November 25, 1985 (Vide) t-.pe available for review in the Community Development Office of the Tigard City 'Hall) 20 Letter from Sumner Sharpe to William Monahan, November 20, 19 8 5 . 2 3' 8 City of Tigard City Council Agenda Item Summary Sheet with Attached "Greenway Town Center Phase 11 Traffic ,Impact Study", November 25'; 1985 2/' 9 Letter from William A. Monahan to Jack. Orchard, November 20, 1.985 •, . . . 29 10 Regular Meeting Minutes of Tigard City Council, October 28, 1S85 (Audio tape available for review in the Court ' r.ity Development Office of the Tigard and it Hall 0 11 Petition Opposing Additional Retail: Devo1opment and Traffic on S4 Ti.;4fio Scholl s Ferry Road, October 28, 1985, • . b 31 EXHIBIT NO. Page 12 Letter from. Jack Orchard to the Mayor and the Members of the Tigard City Council October 25 1985 « « • 71 4 • 13 Letter from Sumner Sharpe to William Monahan, October 16, 1985 73 14 City of Tigard City Council Agenda Item Summary Sheet with Attachment Memorandum from Keith Liden to the Tigard City Council► October 23, 1985 . 86 15 City of Tigard City Council Agenda Item Summary Sheet with Attached Memorandum from William Monahan to the Members of the City Council, September 5, 1985 90 16 Motion for Remand to the City of Tigard for Improving Findings, August 1, 1983 . 93 17 Petition for Review (with attachments), July 31, 1985 « . . « 95 18 Return of the Record (with attachments) , June 10, 1985 . . « 146 -- Letter from Jack L. Orchard to Kay Kingsley dated May 9, 1985 with Notice of Intent to Appeal dated May 9, 1985 « 151 --City of Tigard Notice of Final Decision dated May 6, 1985 • « . • 155 -- Regular Meeting Minutes of Tigard City , p 22, 160 Council (April 22 19, 85' « ..,. --- Affidavit of Mailing Notice of City Council Public Hearing with Support Documents dated April 15, 1985 165 - --City of Tigard Planning Commission Meeting .Minutes dated April 2, 1985 169 - -City of Tigard Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 2, 1985 -- Affidavit of Mailing Not ice of Tigard, Planning Co`rcissionHearing dated March 22, 1985 « 171 175 EXHIBIT NO. �W. Page -- Letter dated March 15, 1985 with Support Documents « • • . 1"19 -- Letter from James Hendryx to Keith Liden 187 dated March 14, 1985 . ' --Request for Comments dated March 5, 1985. 188 --city of Tigard. Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change Application dated 192 February 15, 1985 « ° ° -- Consumer Information Report Prepared by 19 4 Safeco Title « • -- Letter from Greenhill Associates to Tigard City Planning Commission (with support 196 ' documents) dated February 14, 1985 .- Letter from Westlake Consultants dated 211 October 25, 1984 • - -- Application Information - Public Improvement Review , City of Tigard . 2.12 --Location Ma p Greenway Ttw Center, Pha se II 217 -Map, Section 34, T1S, R1'W' 218 .. --map, Section 33AD, T1S, R1W 219 --Map, Section 34, T1S, R1W • 4 . --Tax Lot Information (handwritten and 223 printout) - . . . • • w. • • .. i • •. ... tiion and Easement Fornts . . 230 ��Stre�.t Deda.Ga�. Y 1,9 Cit of Tigard Resolution No. 85 -28, iadopting 233 a Final Order, May 6, 1985 . . ii, . . 20 Regular Meeting 'minutes of Ti ra7�d City Council, g April 22, 1985 (audio tape available for review in the Community De? relopment Office of the . y 237 Tigard Ci.tl% ) • Affidavit of Mailing and Nc�-ide, of Public 21 �, . . 242 Hearing - April 111 1955 Regular Meeting Minutes of Tigard Planning 22 :24� Comrnissyion, April 2, 1985 . « . . . .• . • 220 EXHfl3IT NO Page 23 Staff Report to the Tigard Plai aging Commission, April 2, 1985 a .. • 248 2.4 25 26 • Affidavit of Mailing and Notice of Public Hearing March 22, 1985 • l • Request for Comments and. Notification all Applications - March 5, 1985 Comprehene,+ive Plan Amendment and Zone Application - February 15, 1985 . List for Change . 252 256 258 (v) u BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS ��•� OF THE STATE OF OREGON 3 S & BUILDERS, LTD.,, 4 5 vs. 6 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, ",despondent. Petitioner, 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ., LUBA ND. 86 -004 STATEMENT OF INTENT TO PARTICIPATE BE IT HEREBY ADVISED that Mr. Howard Williams, 12220 S.W. Scholls Ferry Road, Tigard Oregon, 97223, intends to participate in this proceeding BOMARITO AND HENDERSON, P.C. D. j ia>si Venable Of Attorneys for HoWard Williams OSB No 85090 2'! 2 26 Page 1 - STATEMENT OF INTENT TO PAT ICIPAT BOMAPITO tied HENbtPtON , C. 965th Sa W. tittvort6n,Hilheititt Hwy.. Suite 1 Btir,vertcrn, Or .7r! 51005.338+ , (5031 1-5,04 C CERTIV ET) TRt1 E rttl)Y CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 7 '.►ereby certify that 3 by ma i 1 , and correct a true to Participate on 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 2 24 Mr. Richard Boberg NPO No. 7 10660 S.W. North Dakota Tigard, Oregon 97223 Mr. Sumner Sharpe COGAN, S HARPE , COGAN 71 S.W. Oak Street Portland, Oregon 97204 City of Tigard Tigard City Hall 12755 f .W Ash P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 DATED: January 26 Page 2 - STATEMENT OF INTENT on January 31, 1986, I served copy of this Statement of Intent Mr. David Pietka PALMER, 'GROTH, PIETKA & STEFFEN 50 S .W. Pini;e. Street Portland, Oregon 97204 S & J BUILDERS, LTD. c/o Mr. Jack L Orchard BALL, JANXK & N0'VACK 101 S.W. Main Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Timothy V. Ramis 1727 N.W. Hoyt St. Portland, OR 97209 1986 BOMARITO AND HENDERSON , P.C. By4•..,3 D. William enable OSB No. 85090 Of Attorneys for Howard Williams TO PAM' CLPATE BOhkAtliTO Wig H UOtOtbtst, KC, Atiotwiro tt tnw 9580 5, tit S rftitj,.Hi11$4& 88, 44uite 151 edvtirion, 0 itgoti '7,,JC1 • 386 $5031 .J 4tid 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2 24 25 26 STATRMENT 0° INTENT TO PARTICIPATE; CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify that on Tauar 3Z ,, �a$fa Z filed the foregoing Statement Of Intent To Participate, by placing one original and onk copy of same in the U.S. Mail at Portland, Oregon, postage prepaid and addressed to: Land Use Board of Appeal 100 High Street, S .E. Suite 220 Salem, Oregon 97310 BOMARITO AND HENDERSON, P.C. BY D Wi tam ena.o OS..,. No. 85090 Of Attorneys for Howard Williams 10 tOtl and HENDERSON, P C, Attarheyt Dt Low QBBD w, trauprtar, ;Hlilsdal Hwy.. Suit Be avertor„ Orin ara 97005.33E Oa M1 ,S4O4 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING Yg A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL THEREOF, ({ � //+ // �y `a' L ,, �" �. Y C k Gil. r 11 AttQ;C,,, ys for Petitioner RECEIVED io USE JAN 2 3 19x6 BOARD OF APPEALS OF TIGARD 1 BEFORE THE LAND USE ` BOARD OgmAP A •. ou 2 OF THE STATE OF OREGON S & J' BUILDERS , LTD., ) ner ) ?I �O Petitioner, LUBA No. 4 ► ) 5 vs. ) 6 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, 7 Respondent. 8 9 NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL 10 1 11 Notice is hereby given that petitioner intends to 12 appeal that land use decision of respondent entitled CPA 3 -85 13 and ZC 3-85 as embodied • City • g No. 8'5 -108, ed in Cit of Tigard Resolution y • involves the 14 which became final on January 16 , 19 8 6 , and which nv for ' p 15 denial of an applicati on a Comprehensive Plan Amendment 1E and Zone Crange requested by S & J Builders, Ltd. 17 1 8 Petitioner is represented by J`ac.k L. Orchard of Ball, 0 Petitioner owner of the real prop°rty 1� Janik & Novack. Pettior�er is the ow 20 which was the subject of the application. 21 Respondent, City of Tigard, has as its mailing address 22 and telephone number Tigard City Hall, 12755 S.W. Ash, P.O. Box 23 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223; Telephone: 63.9 -4171, and has, 24 as its legal counsel: Timothy V. Ramis, 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street, 2 Po g p pane: 222 +�402. 25 �'tland ► Oregon 97205 ► Te le h 26 Other persons mailed written notice of the land use Page 1 NOTICE 0E INTENT TO APPEAL BALL, ,JANIK & NOVACi Attorneys at Low 101 54, W, Mrtin Street itportlond'�.Or an'7204'. tephons (5Q3 5 5' 1 decision by the City of Tigard, as indicated by its adopted 2 Resolution in this matter, include: 3 4 5 Mr. Richard Boberg NPO #7 10660 S.W. North 9D Dakota Tigard, Oregon Mr. Sumner Sharpe 6 Cogan, Sharpe, Cogan 71 S.W. Oak Street 7 Portland, Oreg on 97204 8 In the event Respondent provides information regarding persons to whom notice of the lan d use decision was sT:ailed 10 beyond thos e listed above, Petition er will similarly serve a 11 PY co of this notice upon such persons Mr. Howard Williams c/o Howard's on Scholls 12220 S.W. Scholls Ferry Rd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Mr. David Pietka Palmer, Groth, Pietka & Steffen 50 S.W. Pine Street Portland, Oregon 97204 9 other 12 NOOTIIGE 13 14 than Anyone designated in paragraph 2 of this Notice other Respondent City of Tigard who desires to participate as the Land Use Board of App S must 15 a part,. this case laefo r� Appeal in 16 file With the Board a Statement of Intent to Participate in 17 proceeding « The Statement this proceeding as req,.1wr 'd by rule 661 -10 .- 0 18 mush b e f iled with the Board ws.thin, 15 days of service of this ,. 19 Notice. 20 21 22 23 BALL, JANIK & NOVACK ac 114. Orchard, OSB #72138 ttorfeys for Petitioner 24 /// 26 page ,2 — NOTICE, OP INTENT TO APPEAL BALL. JANIIt & b1 VAGiK' A9ormyttit LaW 10 5 w err Styr' tiOr ikAs tit oh 97204 Te epItnd 150 228 -2525 4 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE T hereby certify that on January 22, 1986, I served 3 a true and correct copy of this Notice of Intent to Appeal on 4 all persons listed in paragraph 2 of this Notice pursuant to 5 rule 661 - 10-010(8) by mail 8 7 8 9 1.0 11 Dated: January 22, 1986 BALL, JANIK & NOVACK J L. Orchrd, OSB #72188 0, ttorneys for Petitioner CERTIFICATE OF FILING 12 I hereby certify that on January 22, 1986, I filed, 13 the foregoing Notice of Intent to Appeal, by personal delivery 14 of one original and one copy of same to: 15 Land Us' Board of Appeals 100 High Street, S.E. 16 Suite 220 Salem, Oregon 97310 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ck L. Orchard, OSB #72188 Attorneys for Petitioner Page NOTICE OF INTE TO APPEAL Al.JANIK.& tOVACK Adicr we x LcW tOl 5. Mt ,Street Po rtat4d,, Cat on 9720,t„ Telephone (51031 2V14,52.1. .STATE OF OREGON County Of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) It and say: AFE't.l)AVI I O ' MAILIW L o re e n R. 1l1.1ssin (please Fria") �e'.ng; first duly sworn, on oath depose That 1 am ) the Recorder The Cit.! of Tigard, Oregon That I served notice of Final Decision for the Tigard. City Council for of which the attached is a copy (Marked Exhibit A) upon each of the following d day of » ,c.r, 198 , by mailing to named persons on the /��_ y �` ''' •L`.. each of them at the address shown on tth attach list (Harked Exhibit B), said notice as hereto attached, deposited in the United States Mail on �.i .- 198 ( _, postage prepaid. the /L, x Ir day of .crF �L.�.r <..; �.., ^ 1 V ww i� Ct.. h..0 . i.•.C_ 1. e° t:,) \ • `6N ; _� 'w._� C Sig,nature M Person who deliv& red: to POST Of F10E 3ubscra.b the day of ed and sworn to before me on Hy Cotrnn.ssion. Expr res (02.7 ) f IiA.�iM Y lv+ w yP w) rI /(/L4)1' * NOTARY pUBLIC OF OREGON CITY OF 1.'I:GARD, O!~ ?rGOrd. NOl 1 - 01 I- ENAL 1'E':LSI:ON . BY CITY COUNt;I l (Soc. 1J3 .3'2 , 320 ) Concerning ease Number( Name of Owner: ): CPA 3 -85 ZC 3 -85 Name of Applicant: Portland Fixture Compe y Address. 338 NW Fifth. Location of Property: Address SchollsFerry Road across from Sorrento City Portland 'State OR Zip 97209 Legal Description ,j.5.l 34BC Tax Lot 400 Nature of Appli:catiori: Review on the record of the City Council's denial on of Flan Amendment f a ..e•��est for approval fir a Compreh�nsi.ve g CG (Commercial Genera.) and Zone Change from CP (Commercial Profe�s� -oval to C for a 5.4 acre te. Action, The Ti a'rd City Council heard the application on 11/25/85 and adopted findings on January 0 1986 by passing Resolution No 85 -108. Said resolution is at tached for your inform &tiOn. Noti.cr Notice was published i.o the newspaper, post d at City Hall,. and mailed to The applicant& owner Owners of record within the requireo d i.stance XX The affected Neighborhood planning Organization xx Affected governmental agencies Fin 1 _, Decision: `i'HE DECISION WAS STONED ON 1-6-86 AND BCGOMF:B E rrEc °lv 4 ON, 1-6 -86 :' i d�C ltu_d findings of fact ;. detisiOh; and sta,tem(Int. of condition, can be Tftc a .a�. � obtained from the P i� r�nir g Departments l"igard Via. t,y Hl 1, 1.r_7b5 8W Ash, P.0. 8o( 233')7, 1°ic ard, Orecjon A ' revi. ww or Lh ►is' doc lion may be r. ►bLa.i:r eti by f" 1 nig a not.icr r�� f is n t e r► h. with the Oregon Usn Board of Appeals (LWIA) r rarc3 ►:t tr-.t their prat. dur °es , Qu St.I. n (12.51 • f you half any que;;t�rarts,7 e order° ' 619 -4171 n 11 tiiv ; "i re ' City ✓. AGENDA OF: CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMAR`. January 6, 1986 DATE SUBMITTED: December 31, 1985 ISSUE /AGENDA TITLE: S &. J'. Appeal • CPA 3 -85 Findings AGENDA ITEM #: PREVIOUS ACTION: Post; one�...ed dopton of Findings on November 25, 1985 PREPARED BY.' REQUESTED BY DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: . CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE The City Attorney has reviewed issues raised by the applicant concerning the draft findings of denial of the S & j application. A revised .set of findings has been prepaTed for your review and adoption. -t The, application of S Amendment was deniad 25, 1985, The City review and adoption INFORMATION SUMMARY & J Properties for a Comprehensie Plan Change and Zone by ouncil vote pending adoption of findings on November C g .ttorney has prepared updated draft findings for your ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Review and adopt the findings as A y R P prepared by the City ttorne s office based on the public hearing of November 25, 1985 Review and revise for adoption the findings as prepared by the City, • � 195. y office p» er 25 Attorney's afficP based on the jblio hearing ttov`emb . ...�w.�+. - L.i.r......:ter .». .- .- .....�.�..�.,.����.w:u.+�. r.,�.�:.,.:. -:r"'»��. - -�... ��.,. SUGGESTED ACTIOr Review and adopt ,the pt pared fiiidin g repared by the Cit Attorney `s based on the public hearing of Novembe r 251, 1985. '2284P) ' offioe CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO 85-108 A FINAL ORDEJ' IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND A ZONE CHANGE REQUESTED BY PORTLAND FIXTURE . AND S & J r'ROPERT`" Z ZC 3-85, DENYING w ��. FILE NO CPA 3-85 AND � FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS. APPLICATION REQUESTS, ENTERING FINDINGS AND WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council heard the above application at its regular meeting of November 25, 1985. The applicants appeared and were represented by Sumner .�harpe, Orchard Dave Pietka; we � Jack L . Or�:hard a,nd. Da appearing in opposition were Richard Boberg of NPO #7 and Howard . WHEREAS, the Council finds 't?- following PACTS in this matter: A. The applicants for this matter, Portland Fixture Co. and S & 3 Properties, requested a reclassification from C-P (Commercial Professional) to C-G (Commercial General) for a 5.4 acre site designated as Washington County Tax Map 1S1 designated 'ngton Count } tie the request ,��UC, Tax Lot 400. The explanation supporting is round in File No. CPA 3' -85. Portland Fixture Co. withdrew as an applicant on October 25, 1985, and S & Builders has proceeded as the sole applicant. 4 ord of the proceedings 2 . The Council had before it the hozri�niss3 on which voted to before the Tigard Planning Commission the request, with three dissenting votes, on April 2, 1985. l ication at its regular meeting of Sn After reviewing this application April 22, 1985, the City Council denied the request (Resolution No 85-28). . A Petition for Review was filed With the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on May 9, 1985. 5 , On August 1, 1985, a Motion for voluntary Remand trams filed bV, the City' rove the findings container in W �` 'Final contained Ressol cation No . 85-28 ,hand LUBA entered. its remanding the case on August 22i 1985 the city . Co held public • OA Septer�b�a�c 9 , 1985 ,� unci.l duce to be hearing ton the record. t� consider the. proc .: followed on r criteria, which nd an d to 'identify t�.t.. .area er application and should .hays been addressed in the earlier and the ma�te.r, proceedings. Public testimony wars heard, was corst ihue . . , `, ... tile r� � � Cody �;r�d additional time for the .�,t applicable e;ci.,,ting C a , to allow parties to dei�.i�y the aPP� ,RESOLUTION NO, 85- 108 Page 1 r Comprehensive Plan criteria. On September 16, 1985, the matter was again cantinued to allover the Planning Director to prepare and submit to the applicant a representative, although not 'all- inclusive, listing of the applicable criteria as requested by the applicant. On October 28, 1985, at the applicant's request, the hearing was again continued to November 25, 1985. On September 27, 1988, a letter was set to ` the applicant identifying relevant criteria which Lhuald have been applied to the earlier application but which the applicant and parties did not fully address WHEREAS, the record in this case from the Planning AS, h.ased�ongt p City Council hearings of Commission. heaa. i.:� of April 2 , April 22, ...1985 and.. November 25, 11985,athetCouncil makes the following FINDINGS IN THIS MATTER: 1. The relevant approval criteria identified criteria in this case, as id en to the applicant 'are: in the September 27 , 1985 Lett er a. Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines b Tigard Comprehensive Plan. 1. Policies 2.1.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.4, 8.1.3, and 12.2.la Looational Criteria, Section 12.2 pertaining to General Commercial and Commercial Professional • c . Ticrard Community Development Code 1. 18.22.020 Purpose (Amendments to the Code and Map, . (sic Purpose sectirn is numbered 18 .22,010). 2. 18.22.040 Quasi-Judicial Amendments and Standards for Making the Decision. 3 18.30.120 Standards for the Decision. 4, 18.62 010 Purpose (C -G' 2t.,/,1e). 5 .. 18.64.010 Pa rpome (C_P Zone) Locational Criterion 12.2.1(2)(8)(2)(a) of the Tigard This General Comprehensive Plan, relating to e.ccest� Commercial ta.ses, has neat been met. is .:riteriondreq+air�e ► General Commercial area or dree�ratfiecongestion or a that the proposed G ene existing area �'sYia:�l not traffio safety proble' . D One factor in deterMining whether a requested plan amendment meets the criterion is ° the P�'�OLti`�1O1�i N0. ,85�10� r traffic generating characteristics of the 'various types of " uses allowed under :.. the requested zoning. At the various Council meetings, the Council heard conflictin g' testimon y regarding traffic issues. The applicant presented the report and testimony of its traffic engineer. Opponents presented testimony and illustrative elides. The photographs and accompanying testimony established that present traffic conditions In the area are very congested and hazardous. The 'applicant responded to of a traffic engineer this situation with the report The central_ feature of this analysis if7i that the change from the existing C -P to the proposed C-G would have no appreciable effect on traffic volumes and that the level of service after certain improvements were made would be E3i milar under either designation. The engineer reached this conclusion by making certain assumptions about trip generation. Under the present zoning the engineer aasuwed that 90% of the 5.4 acre parcel would be developed as professional offices, producing about 1,170 trips per day, about 90 of which would be expected to occur during the evening peak hour. He then posited that the remaining 10% would be developed as a 3,000 square foot convenience store which would almost double the number of trips per day and add 100 trips to the evening peak way Town p t � P in eak h�u� Green Center Phase II Traffic Impact Study the proposed zoning, the report assumes the develornent of a 58,000 square foot, retail center generating about trips per day, of which 450 would occur during the e'eni't g e evening peak hour. An addition to the impact study argies that if the property were developed under existing zoning to include offices, a convenience store, a restaurant and a bank, the level of service at the intersection would be unaffected by a change in zone resulting in retail development of the property. We cannot, accept the conclusions of the study because we do not agree with its premises The applicant has not made an'� t p i y that the property a::tera � to ustif the assumption t will be developed with a convenience store Neither has it shown any evidence that restaurant development would occur: The opponents have introduced photographic evidence and testimony indicating large amounts of emptyrf)tail spare in the existing e nter . 0 g iven this situation, we are skeptical: that a conver..ence store would be developed at this location. No e vi deuce was offered, to demonstrate that such developmer`t wc,uld occur n 'l _ anent; of a convenience store �t�;ce of the d�ev�� c►p a was wide crucial to the traffic impact a,lalysis because the effect RESOLUTION "Ni0. 85 -108 Lagee of this assumption was to more than double the anticipated number of evening pear hour trips. Without this assumption, the traffic analysis might show that development under the current zoning would produce onl.. y about one - fourth of the trips projected from the retail de'=elopment specifically assumed to take place under the proposed zoning. The report offers no analysis to inform us of whether traffic flow and level of servit „ would be af fected , if the existing zoning produced only about one- quarter of the trips that would be produced by the proposed zoning. From the evidence submitted we cannot analyze this issue. The fact that a convenience store was assumed, without any supporting evidence, causes us to question the credibility of the traffic' stud';. There exists in our minds the lingering doubt that such a use might have been chosen for analysis in order to produce the desired conclusion. The report, is incomplete in other respects. For example, improvemetats to Sorrento will no doubt increase traffic hazard probXems on Scholls Ferr y Roa d. Adequate traffic aatalysis should provide more information about the impacts on Scholls Ferry Road and Scholls Ferry inters ?.ctions in the vicinity. For these reason- We decide not to rely upon the pp ' impact study, and, therefore, we are n 1pers s traffic evidence has been introduced which would not persuaded that the proposed zoning would result in a safe and efficient traffic system for the area. These traffic matters also relate to Section 18.22.040 (1) which . requires an applicant for a quasi judicial amendment to prove that the change will not adversely affect the health, safety and ;welfare of, the community. The evidence is clear that the retail development ent assumed by the traffic study would increase the generation in the area. For the r easons described above, this report is not reliable in n proving its conclusion. The applicant therefore has not met its burden to prove that the change adversely nne will not adverse affect the health, safety and welfare of the, community ttr under the present zoning compared to what Would occ The applicable ... Locational Criterion also relates to transportation in that it. requires that the Proposed use ' p p P for expansion of existing area shall not create traffic congestion or a traffic safe_ typrom. For the reasons outlined above the traffic im P a t bley falls to adequately address this criterion, We cannot determine from the evidence submitted whether the concits .on that this change in zone would p reduce no additional traffic safety problems is reliable. the matters described above we In addition to above ir are also concerned no e�� fo;rt ���s made b y the traffic RESOLUTION N0, 88 --108 Page 4 ° engineer to validate his trip projections for this particular area by comparing them with the actual number of trips coming from the present adjoining shopping center. The engineer admitted he had not done this at pages 13 and 14 of the transcript of the first City Council hearing. Untilthe shortcomings of the traffic r study are the c �' remedied we are unable to determine whether. or various proposed conditions and improvements to the area will be suff.tcient to satisfy the traffic related criteria. �; Section 18.22.04O(4) of the Community Development Code requires "Evidence of change An the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the Comprehensive which or zoning map as it relates to the property ch is the subject of the development application. This section of the Code is essentially a quaff ificati°n of the traditional ` "change or mistake rule No effort in this case has been made to argue that the plan designation, is a mistake. Instead, the ^pp1icant presented evidence of changes that have taken place in the neighborhood or community. Under this standard the applicant must produce proof to pP change has occurred support the conclusion that. substantial chan in. the neighborhood or community which would justify the proposed zone change. Anderson American Law _of .onin rsd r 2a Section 507. In the November,' 1985 memorandum from Sumner Sharpen the applicant of zone changes and cant submits evidence of change of other information to support p phas declared a � future school site circustanoes . A scLool acres was rezoned p adding approximately 22 acres of residential as surplus, , acldi d zoned .and to the hen 8 acr M R-7, ethus increasing the allowable density. from R 5 to Also, 2.5 ,acres of I.--5 land was rezoned to Office Commercial_ We agree that the changes have taken place. However, we analysis demo, stn g f Bred an adequate anal that these changes offered have produced a change is the character of the neighborhood that would justify the requested °;zone change. W have, been offered evidence of �► N anecdotal av p g analysis jus tify the changes but ' no overall to articular chan proposed change net . there has been no effort to First, then out the effects of these changes on the relative ratio of land zoned for residential, CP anti CG. There is no �..�ys�,s of what i�apa.c�t these chances have on this ratio, a there any indicatic� of why these changes if any. �cr is t would cause us to conclude that there is a change j ttsti y ing additional C Has there been a departure from e,. � ABSOLUTION NO. 85 -10i Page the overall pattern in the plan? To what extent is the loss of residential land in one area balanced by then addition of residential land in another? In the demonstrate change in the 17;. r ter of the area, applicant should provide ',;'i.d of missing information. without more infortatiy ". and analysis of the effect Second, f these changes, it likely that we can of is just as conclude, based upon the evidence introduced so far, that ® the changes confirm retention of C -P rather than c g The Beaverton change from residential to Office C -�G . to in Commercial may show that, even with some slight increase residential density, there is already sufficient CG to ses.. In fact, this point of service the neighborhood. seems to be validated by the substantial number of hot, raphs in the record of currently available but t, unoccupied retail space. P The Beaverton zone change Office Commercial may also show that certain basic precepts carried out anc! that there has not be been Phan are being carried character of the area. This cY�en a. change in reinforce the tern of the area which is sage d t provide office J ortulities in close designed to P Job vpl� proximity t� to residential development. It also clearly supports the existing plan policy "to locate office employment wherre it can support other commercial uses." TIM Section 18 64.010(6) more information and detailed analysis by the Absent m aPP ,,ic.t, it is j st as likely' that the anecdotal evidence of changes reinforces the current character of the n g ei hbowhood rather than proving a change in character justifying CG of >. the subject property. information which comes as close as any to providing an t The pears on pages 2 th ..Ugh 4 of the overall analysis appears November 20, 1985 memorandum submitted by Mr. Surmner Mr. Sharpe analyzes the population, necessary criteria Sharpe. M based upon the cri ort a community mmunity shopping center bs d. Shopping Canter Development Handbook (Urban Land in the 3hcapp Upon - reflection we find this Ta��ttute,� 1� ?� edition). eral respects. First, the handbook analysis lacking in several orted by �.nLiic�ate that a site of 10 to 30 acres can be supp population of 35,000 to 40,000 people within a service a popap imately two miles in size. existing area approximately G3��.s shopping center is eleven acres and therefore falls within Plan for the . erefore. fisting p the range indicated Therefore eft ., zone change. area meets the criteria, without any further s.on The ., rpe r e ort apparently recognized this fact ct an d therefore c it e s the ion in the handbook that "the F i1iielt developer ofcommunity center will to have e adequate lend available for expansion when the growth and lura�� warrants and the drawing the power j'�1st�.f fires , the sale bra► RESOLUTION NO. 85-108 Pack community center can often be increased...by the introduction of...additional shops, offices, and services." The report then makes the observation that the existing center has nu room for expansion and that the subject parcel would provide that potential. The ,second problem with the analysis provided in the reprt is that it ignores the qualifiers contained in the handbook criteria. Phrases such as "when the growth and sale volume warrants" and "[when] drawing power justifi Based can Finding No. 1 thr. Counc:a] finds that thE� applicant has not provided persuasive arguments to change the comprehensive plan and zoning designations and then reduce the amount of available C -P zoned land in this section of the City. The Change applied for would violate Section 38 .64.010 (6 ) by reducing land available for officde��plopffienfin�.t �p���Pe.nt the existing and planned commercial mistake or in the Comprehensive has failed to prove changed circumstances �anwhieh would warrant g the inconsistency i. requested change, as required by Section 16.22°040(4)• Council, therefore ORDERS that the above referenced The cil, t The Council request be, and the same hereby is, Director� and the City FURTHER ORDERS that the Planning Recorder send a copy of the Final Order as a Notice of to es in this case. final decision to the parties Section 2. PASSED' ATTEST day of May or c-i ty of Tigard Deputy City Recorder City of Tigard R SOVUT ON NOR 85 -108 ' ag 8' f 1986. (14) .o 1 T I G A R D CI T Y C O U NCI L REGULAR MEETING MINUTES -- JANUARY b, 1986 - 7:0.0 P.M. ROLL. ALL Present: Mayor John. Cook; Councilors: tom Brian (arriving at 7:14 PM) and Jerry Edwards;. City Staff: Bob Jean,' City Cit �taf Administrator, Joy Martin, Administrative'' Assitan , Monahan, Community Development Director; Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; and Loreen Wilson, Deputy City Recorder. QUORUM,: Lack of quorum was noted by the 'Mayor. Decision was made to proceed and review the action items and to formulate a recommendation by consensus of the members. Final action will be taken upon quorum being present:. EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR RECOGNITION a. Mayor Cook and City Administrator presented the Employee of the Year Award to Mr. Al Dickman who is in the Community Development Department, Waste Water Section. The Mayor noted that Mr. Dickman was chosen by the City's employees. M large plaque will be placed in the new Civic Center and Mr. Dickman received a small key plaque, 4 STATE OF THE CITY MESSAGE y presented City Message, Attached it a a. Mayor Cook resented theo� State message it is considered a part full and complete, copy g of these minutes. COUNCILOR BRI p notice ARRIVED: 7, 1A PM A quorum is now present and due note has been given for this meeting. 5. ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT a. City Administrator presented the, Annual Performance Report for the y `j �rmance year. City for the this last 5 fiscal years i and projecting f next fiscal The He noted this is the 25th anniversary year Council has directed the City's focus to Economic Development `Community Involvement, and Ei 'ficie►ht City Services. He noted the need for an increased tax base to handle the increases in population, area, and inflation, 6. to!t1SENT AGENDA* These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one t of on without separate d'iscusu,i.on, Anyone may request, that an item be removed by mct on for discussion and separ °ate action. Motion to: 6.1 Approve Council Minutes -. December 16 l 6.2 Receive and File Community Development L and Use Decisions 6.3 App rove Contingency Appropriations for FY 85-81 budget. Res. 86 6.4 Designate Vehicle Dealer Authori zing Agent Resolution No, 86.52 b.5 Approve 'S & a- Application rti .Now , »�B5-108_ 6.6 Receive and File Council Calendar Update 6.7 Accept Pfaffl e & 70th Improvements Resolution No , 86 -'03 6.8 Accept Milimont Subdivision with Conditions - Rer. No, 86-04 6,.9 Rol ase Funds, Mi.11mont Subdivision' - Resolution No. 86;70S. Page COUNCLL MLNUTES. - TANUARY b, 1986 LLO 5) a 1, December 18, 1985 Attorney Jack Orchard Pall, Janice, and Novak 101 S.W. Main Portland, Oregon CITYOF TI64RD... WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON Reference. S & J Properties Dear Jack: On Monday, December 16, 1985, the Tigard City Council delayed adoption of the n � ' The delay Baas requested by Final Order for the S & Properties application. delay q P Attorney Tim Ramis to allow him an opportunity to review and comment to the The Council will consider the Final Council on your letter.. of December lb. City Attorney suggest y torne su gest revisions to the that date, 1 will send copy of the proposed Order on January 6, 1986 e Should the Git t Final- Order prtor to t�� � d �'° u a co y ,Lor revisions. Sincerely,_ William A. Monahan Director, Community Development (WAM:bz /2262P 5 S.W. ASH P.O, BOX 23397 TIGARD, ,OREG N 97 228 PH: '639 -4171 4, f ROBERT S BALL STEPHEN 7.JANIK KENNETH M. NOVACK JACK L. ORCHARD SUSAN M. QUICK WILLIAM H. PERKINS CHRISTOPHER W.',ANGIUS VICKI G. BAYLESS BARBARA W. RADLER MICHAEL C. WALCH DAV :I"J A. URMAN SUSAN N, HOWARD BALL., JAN I K & NOVACK ATTORNEYS AT LAW ONE MAIN PLACE 101 S. W. MAIN STREET, SUITE 1100 PORTLAND, OREGON 9'204-3274 TELEPHONE I543) 228 -2525 TELECOPY (501 295-1058` TELEX 9IO-380 -5470 BY MESSENGER, The Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Tigard 12755 S.G. Ash Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re A •• e ember 1'985 lication of S OF COUNSEL JACOB TANZER & J Builders (CPA. 3-- 85 and ZC 3-85) Dear Mayor Kirk and Council Members: I received on December 16, 1985 the proposed reso'.ution, Resolution #85-108, constituting the findings and order relating to the above application. . I will be unable to attend the City Council meeting this evenin due to a prior commitment involving C g g g Y a hearing before the Beaverton City Council, Nevertheless, I did wish to comment for t he record on the proposed findings w�� and or dewr which have been forwarded to me. 1. I wish to reiterate the fact that the Council, in law and contrary to its handling of other n violation of comprehensive plan amendments and zone changes, has introduced new and additional criteria, substantially different from those criteria applicable to the original application and ,hearing before the Cit y y, The us of these additional and newt criteria r 1� are not legally justified, ied 2. Throughout the findings and order is a recurring premise that the traffic conditions created by the slight shift - worsen the facilities �'�,' will �I w "" totcommercial use. from C-P to �" Those types of findings and con- clusions are alreac. ha.zardoup. y» � al sis any c1.u.aions are simply not supported by an objective an �' of the intersEyctions and facilities in question. The proposed findings are diametrically: opposed to the certified traffic x relating matters. report -'and the City ri Knee y7�' �w staff analysis rel,atii�. to these .. � .'.+� '.staff Gina �7.L .. F g+., �. .. ��,t�" d con, lusion by both engineer and �` the traffic e. �' aria C intersections The undisputed staff is that., the l��ve:l, of service at the elong Scholls Ferry Road will continue to function at an appr'op -` riate level of service. due to the intersection improvements gna.��n, even if the r" worse case° C -G uses occurred. end s�. � BALL, JAN I K <Sc NOVACK The mayor and Members of the City Council City of Tigard December 16, 1985 Page Two The Council cannot adopt such a findings when there nottsubstan- tial evidence to support such a conclusion, as ther e in this record. 3. Paragraph 5 references some claimed standard dealing with an "improper" plan designation. There is no such standard. in misinterpreted any require- ment has totally mis p Furthermore, the cthe change in circumstances criteria which men dealing g the City attempted to impose. The issue does not focus on whether plan indicated change, but rather whether P applicable stand- ard indicate that a change has occurred. The ape but estanr and is not whether such evidence compels a c g.. , there is "evidence ' of sun a change. 4. There is simply no criteria, nor did the Council . even in its September 27, 1985 listing of new and additional criteria, indicate that the "long -term corcmunits{ needs of the cr P addressed by the constitute a criteria whicn had to be a pp "need" criteria applicant. e The.. City simply does not have a ne relating to land use changes, nor one state. in those terms. 5. The proposal before the Council was not premised y upon any particular type o,! commercial use. Yet, the Council has mistakenly believed from the outset of the hearings before it that the C -1', zone is are office zone and the G zone is a retail zone. A review of the°rarious permitted and conditiol uses within the two zones indicates that such a charac of the two zones is incorrect. There is nothing in the record ro which would indicate that development on the subjecv} p p art y would not be supportive of development in the existing greenway . There is no effort on the part of tie applicant area. , rr pert . to exclude office uses the subject p r `�y from uses within M types �,. C-P Instead, the n seeks to broaden ature of w'�e C"`s zone pp o commercial Ve nature �A t �o e�ty a lica io of the unduly restrtcti .,ub�, W p P uses because e the c p demonstrated that to us The applicant amply p p excessive office for exclusive office ur �ntsofothe recent rezoning across . vacancy, especially in light Unfortunately, funda- mental street in the City of Beaverton a mental misconception of what is permitted within hasc�t the nobzones continues to color the discussion so that there a careful analysis of the applicant's proposal. 1 believe that the findings document suffers from order, Thil e same difficulties e tperienced with the original Coun ciln findings ` ndings arid, he findings in the proposed le 9 o far beyond any disoussiop which occurre6 at the Council hear.. 1 • The Mayor and Members o the City Council City of Tigard December 16, 1985 Face. Three ing, and are not supported by substantial evidence. With then:.: comments of mine, I would respectfully request that the Council reconsider the findings and order and its overall decision. Sincerely, JLO cmg cc: Mr Robert G Johnson Mr. Brent W. Miller Mr. Sumner Sharpe Mr, 'Greg Davidson, of Davidson's Restaurant, proposed to place a sidewalk along SW Walnut Place t0 the Methodist Church, but not along the back where SW Walnut Place turns. He noted apartment pedestrians have other ways to reach Pacific Highway. Mr. Davidson also requested awu extension of the appeal time to give staff time to do «n inventory and analysis' of the problem. Mayor Cook stated an extension of the appeal time would be appropriate, with a hearing of the matter on 1/13/86 ant, the permit be granted without prejudice, with the righf, to appeal Motion by Councilor Brian, ;seconded ' by Councilor Scott to extend the appeal Period of Davidson's application to no later than January 31, 198b and as , soon as staff can get inventory and review done. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.. COUNCIL RULES AND PROCEDURES DISCUSSION Legal Counsel commented' on how the Council. will operate with only three' members. Council vacancies will be filled at i.he 3/25/86 election. A quorum will require three members present. If. only 7' p they be able to hold a „,ub1it members are regent, �heGake will formal �'� hearing and vote or l actions, He encouraged coordination with the staf%. in s >ttint agendas especially on land use and public hearing issues. As a backup, the Council could sit as a Council Commi! tee if all parties concur and then review the issues for action when a full . quorum is present, A 2 to 1 vote is sufficient to pans an ordinance upors - second reading. CONSENT AGENDA, The items are considered to be routine and enacted in one motion 4ithout 1 Rep «rate discussion. (nyone may that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate Motion to 15,1 Appro tta Council Minutes: 12/9,85 15,2 Appr ve ,rindings Of ,'Denial -Fo , $" & J' Application CPA ,Held 11/25/85) -- resolution No 85 --103 15,3 Approve Management/Professionals rofession Benefit a kage 15.4 Approve Management/P rofessionals ,. Salary Plan 15,5 Approve Library Reciprocal Borrowing Agreement -- Res, 15.,6 Receive and rile; o Police Control. Budget o E'µonomic Development Committee B5-06 Action y Larry Schmidt' 15,7 Ratify NF��3 ,�5 Appo �ntmeht 4�, #fir, � Liar 15, 8 Authorize Building Main4 nance Custodian Recr a /.tment 15,9 Receive and File Community Development Land Use Decisions Motion by Councilor Sriam, seconded by Cc ntilor co the consent agenda with the following modifications'. may be, request action. No. t3 S 09 Plan adopt 15,1 Typographical error to be corrected in Council minutes of ir "9/5, page 4, item 14, reSoluti,on cumber should red 85-10/ for thr' 6uPPlemental budget resolution, page �W Ct U SCI, MIN TES '- 0 EC M R 104.. 1!9 3 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: DATE SUBMITTED; 10 -23 -85 FREVIOU ACTION: ISSUE /AGENDA TITLE: 3-85 and ZC 3-85 S & S Prg erties � PREPARED BY Keith Liden REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR; POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY is to be heard by the .Council following the rem nd" f '6th LUBA ;µ This application .., ALTERNATIVES CONGIDERED Approve and adopt findings prepared by staff. Den- and adopt findings with the assistance �y P y of staff. Alternative 2027I V'dm j CP ZC B -85 . CITY OF _TIC ARg OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA '.1:7EM SUMMARY AGENDA Or, ovem � r : 1985 A !;NUA ITEM it; DATE SUBMITTED; NLrvember 20, 1585 PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE /AGENDA T:rTLi """CPA 3«- 85,'ZC 3 85. ..2) S & J' Properties, PREPARED BY: rw Keith Liden fRFQUE I "ELI) BY Ci.y Council. DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR:. WW . «Nw..w..1w. ww.. -- -- ww: Nw... �. ..�i.w..W «rW...«�wwN...�r.✓.w.. ..♦�iwwu «... r..«.. w.... WM.« W.. �x.. MU_«.. w�...; un.. w.. w... u«._.,....... wW: u.. Ww .w««..:«.N+ww«w..wW.w.. «w.4.w. phµ... wW.• �iW.« rwi_«. w««:. wr...., lw. www .:.w..xww._ «.+.:�WwW «�...w «wW POLICY ` ISS'UF. 0.. rwµ.:YW«..w.Ww.N♦N«r«.Www•..N 1«i«w r «WWw. -' WWN��WW .....W.rww........... «I.... .I...N «Ww ..I.w..« ..WWM.♦�r..+,u.i.. «w�..x. ..W.N4 «i W «W.+iM . ♦ w♦wx« a rx w..WN.w.xr«x.N♦IwrxwwN.ww«.. «fx r.r.w.xN«wMNN..x.�wx.�x.« . r.w.x Yx . wi...♦.♦.♦.«. WUw...♦ nW.. wl.♦ W. xwxww «..W«Ww«MW«WW..«...wxw.r..r.♦xl M w.W.N...xw..w INFORMATION SUMMARY This application was to be heard by the Council on 10/28/85 following a remand' from LUSA , The applicant requested that the hearing be postponed and it was - rescheduled` for 11/25/85 The packet for the 10/28/85 hearing should provide the necessary, information along with the attached statement submitted by the applicant's' traffic engineer on 9/9/85. A «rrw «w ««.w.w.r.. MNw W «+w_Wt� wi..�.riaWi.. «.� Wva.Y. +.u.nrMbl...rr . . uW..N..w+ .♦....I...ri.. Nw« Ww.M «, ....«w:nfu.Y�w�...0 1 iwl.' KAUwww .«�:W..Y.WwuM.�wwxrlN.44.Mw.W Mwa.WwM.+...._+n ^Wi«..N M�♦.�..w.�ww«..WU♦rWrwWw..rw.N ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED I. Approve and adapt findings prepared by staff, Deny and adopt findings wit h t he ds s istan e of staff, ...ia d W..wF.w.'.♦r�l w.a 1.. -�xr Ww♦+.w W-l.. ...tN I+a « u .'...- iuiw�.i+w...M.v..«NwHNw:" uY8ugp $TE0 ACTI~t l Staff recorn cards Al uern , v ##1 (Kt wbr /21640' iA Q . -- !)€ 04+ ocrIciarts d' 4tioSau.tzdtrtt,d Otfr 061, 150 ovrozeir.1, fa-AO i ifrtfit4cr ' i-. Peep Att4Atiomdr kkQ titt.5t The NPO requesting the 'ee waiver shall make a presentation to the c;i•:T., which •i, mr•1uti < ?> a justification as to how tho NPO proposal x,').11 benefit the City has a whole. The CCI shall: then take 4 vote to support or not support the NPO request.. The appeal to application will be considered valid when renditions 1 'and 2 above aria met and all other filing requirements are met. Should the Council deny the NPO request for a fee waiver, the NPO shall submit the required fee within three (3) working days of the denial, the fee shall be filed by 3100 P.M. on the third (3r•d),day. f , Public Hearing Closed g• Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Edwards to apVrove staff's recommendation and direct staff to prepare an ordinance for adoption. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. PUBLIC HEARING PORTLAND FIXTURE'S & 7 APPEAL CPA 3 -85 FULL EVIDENTIAL HEARING NPO #7 • of T�. City and City Council for a re ••hearif'lg on an A request by thc. C�•t application filed by Portland Fixture to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designation DesL nation from C "r (Commercial Professional) to CG (Commercial General) for a 7,9 acre site located on the south side of a �� 3gE3L Lot 400) Schol.ls Ferry 'Road, west of Grec,nway `Town Center (WL,TM 1S1 , NOTE: Public Testimony Time Limit '•- Proponents 20 minutes, Opponents 20 minutes, Cross Examination` 10 minutes, .Council ,Questions 10 minutes. a, Public Hearing Continued from 10/28/85 Declarations or Challenges Councilor Brian disclosed an ex-parte contact with Mr, Johnson, Mr. Johnson was advised that Councilor Brian would ri eke this disclosure. Councilor Brian stated he was not 'biased and would be voting on the issue: c. Community Development Director noted the history of the request noting that the Council's original denial was appealed to JUBA. ' .. i hearing to This is back before Counr��.l. for a full. r.v �.dc.n'ty:al review the application based on relevant evaluation criteria. The " . s to be addressed are as follc�t ,4� t criteria set. out by staff t 1, Statewide Planning Goals and Cuidel ines 2 . ' igard Comprehensive Plan a .1 8.1.g, and i . . J, a. a, 2.1.1, 5.1.1, .� , Policies b. "` ' _ + k, Section r "2..1 pertYa" ring to Lo�atir.�rral Lrn.tr�r� � �'�' General ColnInorcial. fcs.,ional + and Cr.,mnircrci.al, Prt�, Tigard Community Dr±ueloprttent Code a. 1R .22 "O2r) Purpost (Amendments to the Cade and M61.1) b. 18,.22+040 Quasi- Judicial Amendments and Standards for Making the Oec i; s ioen i.. 18.30.120 $ t:andar'°d s for the Dec i. s i.un d. 10.6', 010 Purpose (C-G Zone) e . t 8 . ti ,ClO Purpose (C: -P Zone) t3 ► 3 COUN(: t l t 1 NU1 i NOVEr'lUt'R ' t� �� 198;*, (6) czoy / 0 Community Development Director continued Lnued by advising Council t:h,At. Portland Fixture withdrew as an applicant in October .and that J than ' requested a setover to allow time to study the issues further especially the impact of Beaverton developments and rezoning across Scholl.s Ferry Road. Legal Counsel, cautioned that whatever decision is reached, Council must address all criteria and note how findings address the criteria;' Public 'testimony: Proponents Jack Orchard, representing a J' Builders, addressed the criteria' noting that Council has added new criteria since the First hearing He noted that ORS 27.7.1.80 does not allow that, Mr. Sumner sharp, oF Cogan, Sharpe, and Cogan, 71 SW Oak Street in Portland, dx.scusscd transportation issues and stated the intersection with Scholls Ferry Road would be fully signalized. Current level of use on Schol.ls Ferry would be able to be maintained with signal e'veai with the change of circumstances i . e, zoning and development) surrounding Sorrento /Scholls Ferry. o Mr. Dave Pietka, Real Estate Appraiser, stated the zone change proposed - b� bal ance ance bc.►een retail and commercial development in the area, Opponents:: o Richard fobcrg, NPO #7 Chairman, noted the NPO has not, and duns not support upzoning of an area fa developm ent is needed to enhance current, uses in the area The NPO suggests ;auto service use is needed in the area ra Howard Williams, Business Owner at Greenway Town Center, opposed the Zone chance request and asked Council to deny the -application. He presented petitions from shopping center lusrs opposing tht4 zone rhange and showed pictures addressing the traffic/congestion concerns in the area and vacancy problems currently at the Shopping Center. Rebuttal o lack- Orchard stated that currently there i.s no at ht intersection and this would allow the problems with congestion shown in the slide ' presentation. He noted that with the signal installation tra:rric would be able to now better. Rozoniny would girre the City the chance to diversity the zoning and usos in the arOot ra Mr `►It, r•I C` c ►rJLed use whi h would be used ' in the now ayrane and ncit.t d that this would not impact" tra.rNc to a deirithent Mr . How rrd t i l 1 t€ mss, rrrt i,dents wan,t. major- gas st a,t.i.1)0 and h uto parts store* now rrrrlobs Pa l OUNCI t NovrmnrR 25, 1985 21) • r�. r., Mr. Richard floberg stated the transportation study doe;; not t.akc, into cor idc ration the zone, changes on the Beaverton side of Schools f =erry Road. Mr. Sharpe stated that in order to have automotive needs add �e�, ;tad the zone change to C—G would need to be approved c • Community Development Director recommended approval as application meets criteria, f, Public Hearing Closed Councilor, Brian stated he understood the " arguments and noted change, In, the area in upzoning has increased the neeos, but C—P area is the only one for Tigard &; Beaverton in the area. There is sufficient Population now and at build- -out of on designations to support a C: •P, zone. Councilor Edwards noted that the "' need for the C--G one has not been sufficiently addressed, noting that the standard is not dependant Upon the market place. He also felt the traffic signal would not sufficiently relieve the congestion whether the zone were C--P of C—G, Mayor Cook felt the installation ofi the sigrnal. would in fact bring riarfic to the area than before and felt the C—G zone would more t , he a detriment to the traffic circulation; Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Edwards Lo direct staff to prepare a resolution to deny the ret(uest and include the issues the Council discussed, including: Failure to show original plan design was improper. Failure to convince Council of a long range Community need requiring •q irirrg the zone change, Transportation impacts, Approved by unanimous vote of Council present, PUBLIC, HEARING HALL BLVD. /8URNHAM Ilt3' FORMATION Phase III Public Hearing Opened Declarations 0r Chr 11engrs - None were. disou,sed Stu Cato, Project £ng .niter, noted the history of the issue and; slated staff has modified` the improvement a"lw► se E Fr rt.h ire the revised cnrgihoer's report Ti g and E.lcct ri_c's property ha,s bocrt. excluded rr"rJm the proposed .project; Public 1 .c 4, t. i trlO o y PresKyrjrtr nls c� 1�hri l • t'din Churt1, of Cltr i st Elui ]ditrg t r�mrrtti tt�ee Cµttai rtr «arty st« t.t +t thr t: sup,pur't, the'' 1. t,fl Tor.' hht i r...pr ri t rty s itrr�c� i t w�i l l a1:' *c •• •srilvo s0HIc+ s, foty isst,tt atotq thal••prrr .ion of.flt l 1. Ulv t.c,�r►. pc,( rx .OUNt t I.. M ENIJ y E Nc"tVl`MI 11 R :,:.."19g5, 4 S November 20, 1985 Jack Orchard Ball, Janik and Novak 101 S.W. Main Street Portland, OR 97204 Reference: S & J,Prope{rties — CPA 3 -85 Dear Jack: CITYOF 1WARD WASHINGTON COUNTY OPZEGON Mayor John Cook asked that 1 write you to establish the groundrules for the upcoming full evidentiary hearing for S & J Properties on November 25, 1985. Please be advised that you and your client as proponents sill be given 20 minuted to present your application "following a summation of the staff report by Keith Liden. The opponents, if any, will then be given a like 20 minutes to present arguments. You then will be given ten minutes to cross examine or rebut any s r ztement made by opponents. The (council then will consider the input presented at the public hearing followiiag the close of tLe hearing by the Mayor. We will make every attempt to adhere to these groundrules in an attempt to provide for a fair and complete hearing. Sincerely, Cf� William A Monahan;; Direc tor, . Commuriity Development 'A 1 br /2124P) 12755 SW ASH P. SOX 2 ‘,119/ PUsi.L'�u,;.MVw' - ,a»;weuruiuuuWw, 16 TO: COGAN SHARPE COGAN M E M O R A N D U M William A. Monahan Director of Community Development City of Tigard FROM Sumner Sharpe Cogan Sharpe Cogan DATE. November 20, 1985 SUBJECT :: Addendum to October 16th Otatement CPA 3-- 85 /ZC 3 -85 In addition to the information provided in our October 16th statement in support of CPA 3 -85/ZC 3-85, we would like to add the following There are two recent changes of circumstances that should be accounted for in considering this request: 1. In October, the sc hool district declared surplus future school site in Beaverton, almost, immediately north of the location of this proposed change. This will add approxi- mately 22+ acres of residentially zoned land to Beaverton r s residential land inventory; greater demand for cc,Timercial services will result as the Beaverton plan does not contemplate development of this site for non- school: uses. 2. On November '18, 1985, the Beaver. . „4, City Council approved two zone changes at the n:or -b d: ; .rner of the. intersection, �'k Previ of Sorrento/North Dakota a� .�: . ���n �� . ���� erry. Road. " o'us`? zoned ; -3, „�, 8 density. rezon,�a , ���x,� -•2, more than doubling the allowable ensity. the :other ch.nge was for 2.5 acres of R-5 zoning to OC, Office Commercial. With a specific off z e developer' as the applicant, the site location , i u pP y adjacent to the Will Provide a su 1 of office land a of this proposed change. 9 71S OAK PORT AI'�t'T 97204 503122540197 These changes in conjunction with the level of improvements at the Sorrento - Scholia Ferry Interchange, alters the character of this are that was contemplated at the time that the Beaverton and Tigard plar f were adopted. In addition to these changes of circumstances, we have conducted a study of the characteristics of community shopping centers in the Beaverton: -^Tigard area, centered on Scholls Ferry Road, west of Highway 217» In conducting this study, we utilised the Shopping Center Development Handbook (Urban hand Institute, 1977 edition) in setting cri r.eria for the study. In the handbook, three types of shopping centers are a,Jentified Neighborhood Center: Provides for the sale of convenience goods and 'personal services which meet the daily needs of the immedietc neighborhood trade area Community. Center: Includes a supermarket and variety store as the major tenants and offers a greater depth and range of merchandise than does a neighborhood center. Regional Center: Built around at least one full -line department store, it provides shopping goods, gene '31 merchandise, apparel, furniture and home furnishings in . full depth and variety. Although the handbook suggests there are variations of these three genaral types,'it is obvious that the CG one and activities in the adjacent shopping center fit the description of a community shopping center. The handbook provides some general indicators for this type of center: 10 -30 acres in si&e; minimum 35-40,000 :population in the service area: and service area approximately 2 miles in size. Furthermore, the handbook states (on page 5) "If population increases in the trade area can be predicted reliably', the prudent 'developer of a community center will plan to have adequate land available for expansion. When the growth in` sales volume warrants and drawing power justifies, the community center can often be increased.. by the introduction ai T ..add,itional shops, offices, and services. " The development of a strong regional center, with the , p ullin g p ower of one or more department stores, May impinge on a Community center's trod s area. But in a normally strong mar ket ar� w M . even if they', are ea, both can, succeed eve withan several miles of one another,' because of the difference in the types of merchandise offered and because of the community center's convenience to the shopper, particularly the convenient vehicle travel distance." f Based on this ULI information,, two important findings arise which are pertinent to this request: 1. The adjacent shopping center of approximately 11 acres in size does not have any expansion room. Planned and zoned population densities within a radius of less than two miles result in a conservative estimate of more than 30,000'peo; people.* If a full two -mile radius were assumed, the planned population would easily exceed 40,000 people This is the only convenient community shopping center in the vicinity. The closest similar center is located in Beaverton at the inter` section of Murray and Allen Boulevards. It is assumed ° that convenience shopping east of 217 is difficult for those living in the areas north and south of Scholls Ferry Road and access to community shopping facilities on Pacific Highway to the south is also difficult for those living in -the vicinity of Scholls Ferry Road. To calculate the projected population, a boundary was drawn around the existing and planned residential areas, centered on Scholia Ferry Road, west of 217. Because of the street pattern in the area, the distance from than location bf the proposed change varies from 3,000 to -2,000 feet. The approximate boundaries are Brockman Road on the north, 2171 on the east, Walnut ` Street on the south, and Beaverton and Tigard city boundaries on the west., (A map will be avai7,able at the November 25th hearing,) We did a rough calculation of the gross residential acreage by zones Within ies, using Beaverton and Tigard zoning maps. Property in the county and lands held for p Property public or utility use were excluded. The gross residential acreage estimates were then reduced by 25% to account for local access streets; major street alignments were omitted the calculation. This resulted in a net residential g tip]. ied b the zoned densities an avera a household size fa.qure which was mul andea (In the g races � 1985 houSe�..,rsons. e oaf 2�5 `� Tigard area, census t�� , . old sizes are 1.80 for multi- family and 2.64 for detached single; - family uhitS,) The re. lilts show an estimate of ap proir,ately 150000 people on the Beaverton side of Scholls Ferry Road and almost 16,000 people, on the Tigard side. el In conclusion, a community ty shopping center in this vicinity is well situated to serve a growing popmlation base, and the adjacent center lacks expansion space to cope with the growth projected by the Tigard. and Beaverton plans. Finally, given the fact that the Sorrento /North Dakota. intersection will become the major north - -south access in the area, as opposed to 121st, and that Beaverton's recent zone change will accommodate office uses in the vicinity 1 this proposed change is A, ppropriate for the site. [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] 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. Application has been made) on a 5 acre site •'West 0 Town Center-„4. Center in- Tigard for a .zone change to rat'ail. commercial. 'We the merchants of G &enway Town that this will add to,,4an exh.isti,ng traffic' situation, that is not only convient but dangerous to.anyone using Scholia Ferry Road. There will. be a Mon Oct'. 28th 7:00 P. M. at Fowler Jr. High We would us in this matter. We are not in favor of "additional retail Deer. ry Road. Thank Greenway Merchai . _aWaS. rL,Iw. -1116y. ILEA J WAY Tinivot �a a nro ne set,' 0 is S ® am osi as. gab me as r so !� FERRY 8040 WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT ADDRESS gam° _, ----- - . - .. - _r_ -_- ....t#A#.4,,,.2,...-zsi„....:.PAILSA:42,..c y 17 _ ArIALA,‘1_,L6Y21,626L.22,221-_12..gsAt Aga, ale yt Ii 1-1 4 r Q /40 -W 6.,wwWwW:W - 5 y ) J , tv .rt.4..rriJ_rw. W'',�Wit rr.'+WWWW Yrlwbr � �irw�Wlr�W.�:. rwriw Application has 6eex ; irr c�e, on a acr. 1si a 1 e jt off `Chs a xn, Cnte? * ire the rrnerchanf of x ;ra Town Center for a zone '0 't0:1: t0 ��x.etail ti2rAflIfl1'E;rCaif��. � ff that this aill add, to 'an exhist$ng traffic situation, ti}t Xb riot on''1 convient but d'an,gerous 'to ° anyone .us ibe Scbolle , Farxy Roa,dl, �har.e 1414;12,',.,, be a Tiga�Ci City . council metng i > on Oct. , 28th .7 * (10 " Ph M.� at Fo filer' Tr. High. We wciuld. appreciate any assistance tnat you can give °oS in this matter. We are ''. not in, favor of additional ,retail Rev' a and traffic ors. S.' N Scho3.is ry Road a sits 1g)$ S �'�� Ro 4f) NE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT NAME ADDRESS «.r... ri. «rrr rw .. .. «li.Ls «'s�wirrir lrlsr «re r.« rr."«nlrr«. wxw rsirrrrrirrr�nwr- -- - ^'-- --- --iw wi ild «.i_*_.d «�r «.nmr:r «ai. --- ... r... r... «.r....irr.r. «rr «sv «rircri.rr4s N►r rril�:w Ydir iaw «rw.i�i c�r�e "r irr rw «riwrrY+1�. a .«r.. i......r. .... r.Yrrrwil .... MYnt.:rwr -.6 ........r- JiW «idr..-- wrr►i.Y ...I..... maims. .....- r_`.I.ii.r . .. .0 .i _ __._------- iw- -..........rYL,wj tl !i w. «wr..rr -.... rrr «..rrr..... ,..r.. ««r.r .— i:.«. r r rw L... .Yhi..a wr..r..rlYrrq'Y.Yr.. r..... " ^.... iL.rrYyw.WrwIr..11.:...ri d+.. wr�.iiiww... ii.. .l...... I.t, Yr «L.r «wi A ti . ...rr «'..rr.w...w« «.rrr.. r.r ,wi..rr.i a.. rrr.. «,w. r..wfr..,...I....r.:w�. wU 1r. L%Y...w •«Mi:.lr r.d rlYri rY+ +.,.. wr:tier.i.......,.........r 7r.Lwiiw... .......w..ii,. r'. Yi.i r.iYih. rriw..r Y.'i rr....w «w « «rw. r+......wi irw,r. s... rrr++. wr Y..«(e..ej.rr Yr i.i «r «.ii.ii hrr.rY+ra.r wif-. rw.1, ilNi..«. r!« rw-« 4ir« wr«« 1 .....rr....'.ri......WiW «rA..Nr .. i. i ..:r 44r. rws: Y. j.. r... w+.... Ya1Y. w .pwt�r.,.seY:w.......Irrtr•w..i Application has been made, on a 5 acre site Nest of the Green way Town Center for a one chaIge to retail comme; ial. We the merchants of Greenway Town Center 410,1 that this will add to an existing traffic situation, that is not only in- convient but dangerous to anyone using Scholia Ferry Road. There will be a Tigard City cbuncil meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7100 P. M. at Fowler Jr. High. We would appreciate any assistance that you can give us in this matter. We are not in favor of additional retal Dev. and traffic on S. W. Scholls terry Road. — aO F��'RY ��'�� ate' ,W� . WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT n s ate. _ . Y } J huudtn. - f '- .F.:).(3 ___ , ,.. LlV'1d "Tvn 12.2 SVt M ie-et `E_...�. 11 esta 4,41t;',... ...k.s.tt-.......Igaga,..8:44.i6144.0AILLA.... .1,704,5'. ►� . . 2k 4w. :: fir.. _ •__▪ ,,.. ' '..__ � "" I.i. °_Yr ..:4 .+u. ►. - --- .., tit at M1 iV leatioA haet been "hale, on a 5' ae a bite ,West r N 0 Gt',an;":Wa 4 owz1 Centn 144 a . znne change to rata comrieroial We the merchants o,f Greenway '1' ►trr),� f ��ha.t t'h3.''s n 'add t r an eachis'ting traEf'ic s,ituat$.on,, that is not only° convient but dangerNotia _to anyone 'using .SCho11a'",Eerry:Road, There w ,?1. i be a City council meeting Mon u'ct.• 28th i :Op I'� M.at.F'otJ.et Jr Eli�;h. We would appsreciate any assistanc;+s that Yo u, can. give us •in this .matter. We are not in favor of additional retail Dev. and traffic on S.. W. Scholls ry Road. ante:! Tigard m G lEN Wf Y TOWN eEarEtt Tharik ;you Greenway Merehan'te ▪ fM 0►a1®esa go mum 1mj r m. sat, PRO P6 Co AG ICES w Y.ta' ARE ; Ili NOT Ii FAVOR or ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT Ili; NA /p * , . 3 0 0 ADDRESI$t i:oth4 01944 W .,. w w r 6ii5lML . r 6rsr�. + ! �� � i 'S ;Ak " __z / ? _ ' ▪ .is. ` s..._ , 0 1e, • eia'ettfierkia-iedh-e&af 4gea e g '. - -- - 4., 124.1, .. ..62L1-54,A.2./4(Se-41°, ..w ■ rr .. / /o did • " r_rwrwr r_w.w _.:'w i:i_a.i rwrr wbr'ri r.d.raa�wr_ � e:.s wrrrrrr��r.hl�}r A / 1 4 Imio; 46 .46 1`A 'Y�.i�i�' .w +r__rw rrrl .i --Yw •."�1w.7 .:��.: u. -t- iLIA4Ndemati. bw. «_r rww. Yn rr 44 1 16.6.6,fiL,T564:44.; — �.ww.rwrraarr..�1!_�w�wbV LLX.16111'gr.L9.4.:. 414 ION r. .w.:0. Application has been ma4e, on' a S. acre' site W'eet of the 07.'een ,Way Town CentCI Or a zone change o', tetaiI com ercial. We it tie m atchar is o een�a lowr► ',Dente f 1-that this will add to an ,eli.: '1istilar; traffic sitnati:o that ale not mnl,y n- convie.nt but dangerous to anyone using' Scholla'. Ferry Rad. ere i,..i.11' be 'a''Ti.gard' City council meeting Mn • Oct. 28th 7 :00 P M. ;at, Fowler .fir.` Hi:g'n. we woul.,d'. appreciate any assistance that you , can give u's' in'`thi;a „,matter. We are not in favor of'additional "retail Dev. and traffic on S,. W. 'Scholls ry Road. ti Thank rra0 d el►a.1..∎ ••s ���s.el qti WE ARE NOT IN PAVOR OF"',ADDITIONA L DEVELOPMENT NA ADDRESS /% - .. � {rte`” /l �, 1�� /I��w +, y' ww wwH... woe- ,..w.wwri�irMO -41 ' irr 4 / J`) ri., f .... -. .... w ►,.r4n.:.2 -.. pwr..... 1..... r..n w'w�r_.r 2-64A 1) . ie'6' ....pig ci..at $ �, .i ,— wtiFS±ar�iiikkw ;rr W.a „„..,.C..„.w ..,�.::. ,,,,..�.w rrM m ois tt . w...." *_Z:i44i..I__...w..1____w w_ww�l iq _.r WS.M, �. s..s .+.�+ 4, 444 __rwr__.. c.1.5 t.. L 7iL'�idask.+Ast. r ELsao ' fte ' q, .r.iiY.i �r_i.r�rlr_y 4i_iw wi_r r.. ii V.. _1. ice__ �r .i w ,61g 11-1 y "'r .... r Yi.' v.. ri rL_ i._1r' -_LAV .�_: Ii.A.L Se29,+�w ewL`.- r_i�6. Ili pp..&cation ina e,* ,`or� ;ov 5 e e' . zone change ..'to retail : commeraial. 'e the ner0tn'atts 'of G,reentta that s wi tra convient but dangerous to anyone ueing Sch�ille There ril . b'e`` .City council meeting Mon Oct ". 28th /:,:09 Y'`. aka at iF'owdle,r Jr', #.i h Vie' 14oul ., � `', , is . • appreciate any assistance thai you c.n g :'tre its in "this matter. We are not in 'favor of additional re'taiL, Aevj! and traffic on So Wi'., St�holle wry Road. Thank Yon'' Greenway Merchants' 4.4.4a w►sesaYao as ss p. .is 1w em s � ,ye f, i s� CI A 6 RAY AO4 .ae. o .. as WE ARE NOT xN )'AVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT C�1E w oYw w.wir_rw�F__al_w r wr_r...+ww_YS M:r , 1„ Ii /6117j��,�(,t)�y/( / /rj i yam �y _ y ) r1 .2(mle) y�r. llSG T. �lw tirrw.S:.r a�3�'w. �1�f/ r.wr_�r rrir w i. w6rW W..1' wYm �, iu rr: YS�µr _�a isi_tii Y.i�ii: irl. wl) w1e�ti ai r.flii Y. 4ii1 M �II'MY. App :icat1on lhas 'bean, made on a ,5 act site Weat oi~. the; Greari tray To.iwn Center` for a zone change to retail conmerci. y1.' �n t'he': merchants of Creonway Town Center tin tiaff is situation, rat is not only i,ti- e1 that this i,�ri:7.l dd �.n a - 'ex�i,�.s g onvient but daugerous to' anyone using Scholia Ferry' Road. There trill be a Tigard. City council meeting ;Mon Oct..,2.8th' p7 :00 P. X. c't Fowler r" 'High' We would . appreciate any assistance that You can give, us in this matter. We are not in favor of additional retai.l Uev• anti traffic on S. V. S'cholls Ferry Road. Thank you Greenway Merchants s earassoowY�es.s►we� av�'w s.�a. Ora .r Yro eo. erp rm eYa m s I0/O scfri s FORAY (1040 WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT NAr ADDRESS Avdol or.;‹,---s7/401 AtAvize47 7" or 7 11..2...,.S:IP61 a agd! r ,.. ,� �. WA, _ &(17t rb__ bM fr No 99 /liseL4/1 24L44 .d.fg ) Oec.'_` OM MO + f r u ' i„�_4��,. "r _b wrwiy lr r : . _ _iw._4.. .w _wd wn _1R`.t_R....'r i.r.:r �_U$Sd� ii_ . .r Y ,Xi; ii � Yllr W'I lt Wbb=Lt rr r. L'1 a4 iYe YYIiw Ir j�i. Mll�wdrb tia`�r11M 11,..4.: , '11 .4244 . ur Lrr . Y..'u'ii iM�L Yen.14 yr iwl r»i Application, has been;'madey on a 5 ''acre' site We" t,o the; reen war Totan Om ter £off a zone change to retail commercial. We the merchants of, Greenway 'Town' enter 1 that this will add to an exhisting traffic situationy that is not only in convient but dangerous to anyone using Scholia Ferry Road. There will be a Tigard City council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7 :00 P. M. at Fouler Jr. High. We would appreciate any assistance that you can give us in this matter. We are not in favor of additional retail Dev. and traffic on S. W. Scholia rry Road. Thank you Greenway Merchants .. to o�• «� a..` .� ... m...A, SAM SCHOLL S FeRRY Ao 40 WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT NAME ADDRESS .c4zdrDz 7r 993.5ir-cy. 71, i 5-61 ----_-__ 5`776 d et is S ...g,Auti.e..4e.d&z.1....77;sed,.0-x. 0243 _______Iaeglasco wet, iguen r:.ir__.wf:s *.04.11 _.r.. /193i SP/ _ 1x1.o �•lw� ,,.�. ,45:1 ■ yi ..r rr�r wrWa �':I rY wir.il ..i��x�S11i�iA1�w�+�i..1�+� �•rYx...�nw ttdw.a w.:10iw1 �+4 •Y+rr.. _M:.r.�Y� Application has been made, on a 5 acre site West of the Green way .Town, `Center for a zone change to retail commercial. We the merchants of Greenway Town►` Center 1101 that this will add to an exhisting traffic situation, that is not only in- convient hut dangerous to anyone using Scholls °Ferry Road. There gill be a Tigard City council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 71100. P. M. at Fowler Jr. IigN. We would appreciate any assistance that you can give us in this matter. We are not ;j.n favor of additional retail Dev. and traffic.' on s. W. Scholia r Road. Thank you Greenway Merchants r mss. or o e�ma oe� s sea w MM. w.s o. Taw lit Q117 b. 40 4d o or mw or eon •r SOW. : CA010A S AMR VP AC1440 WE ARE NOT II FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT G eie 2-! r .i's v . ' l o eta ..,rwr ,ado r2 cw7 -JUSAISLalliM114,62kaAl- '.._.YK.I+.,{�'___`. �t_rr.'ri�7 ►w�r�, ��.� _.�. /�dGS"�'r aw�iA6 wr W."iY ��r�w +..�� • i w"ri emir 5 Ti�1 {elit ry�y�l�.M Butitx4Adoo V ..y - -" - -- `° 7 rr- !' /�+iiM 'Y.� A&c., .Y wG'.u`G y�✓ MR `. • .4601 441 6110.11.1.0 _•w.r :►.f- Y�,'.iii'�id'44r�I�wr410 ��4 : 44a14.wi Application has been made, on a 5 acre site °West: of the Green -`way Town Center for a zone change" to tetail comuercial. We the merchants of Greenway Town Center that is not only in- There will be a Tigard High. We would 1 that this will add to an exhisting traffic situation, convient but dangerous to anyone using Scholls Ferry Road. City council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7;00 ... M. at FoWler Jr. appreciate any assistance that you L:.i give us in this matter. We are not in favor of additional retail Dev. and traffic Iry Road. Thank you Greenway Merchants 4.11, oo... atw a� m SWO SC" S FERRY RO�i, WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT NAME ADDRE ..i-ii_sz_A(Adiikizalt.4—.22.4161:412146 • gitt.b.J.31AiA7r viss.4.4gAustuiL:,..',....._,.....012.--- -1.4e4gi61,441?,..i'aridkiLLS4,..e.,-).. )1116,,..11"-' bra ri e)z tYom.. ice+ . .. '1 1.... ri4 416,1.... w_iA_IM Iw_ .�r Y/4 �w .i ______r:. ri irfr .rr.r W W K4' t. '" .we l�i_+l L i.r.._a+.r +. 526 W, �) �'"a11ii :A.1"1,42 � 9h76 d"): +.: WU.W:Wi:.iyW,W+ ............ 1..WW'....W.. on a 5 acre "s#.te West of the Green way Town Center -far a zone 'change to retail commercial. We the merchants of Greenway Town Center 1 that this will add to an exhisting traffic situation, that is hot only ,in -b canvient but dangerous to anyone using Scholls 'terry Road. There will boa Tigard City council meeting Mon Oct , 28t 7:00' P. M. at Fowler Jr. High. We would appreciate any assistance that you can give us in this matter. We are not in favor of additional retail Dev. and traffic on' . W. Scholls y �rryRoad. tkEE ►w14Y OWN PEI RY R040 WE sow, RE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT NA''E ADDRESS rG �'�t•5 i_rerO i'�.�.Gw_�werr v `rc /'.. P'uJ'"'�{I 1; IA), �""�' �r�arWr�w i.L /4R10 +eeb 449? 5a2Covita .5 / .. /W ...riw �:r w,r rli frrri: , i.�'s w. rh GLF�'i ��Y"'�G aY 4 �: w�dG air �"Y. rrr�wCe L'.ii.l fff fiii _..w .. .. .`. . .. _ ' swll Si�aR" gy�Si'+ il'• roi�: w. 7�" 3� +G1`il�.}MS�L'Y(fi,�jt�1...'. 4.` .:�w Y. Yw4 " Application has been made, on a 5 acre site West of the Green way town Center .for a zone change to retail commercial. We the meohants of 'G'eenwaY Town, Center I that this will add to an exhisting' traffic situation, that is not only in- convient but dangerous to 'anyone using Sehalls Ferry Road. There Will be a Tigard City council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7100 P. M. at Fowler Jr. High. We would appreciate any assistance that you can give us in this matter. We are not in favor of additional retail Dev. and traffic on S. W. Scholls rry Road. .. ai ms os_a o. M bus GR W W 1Y' TO%N e EAJTE S, 'RD P t) S A` 5 ACRF, S JSCN O& £ S Few bQtmo WE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT NAME ADDRESS fikaA —11641/i' no esoil +i j., .,mow .74K'iw2L.1‘r rnw..._.+r`_ ~" — • ^' Yi�o w1 e^ a it / ..--- rrfr- -.... w.Y.. _wwi ii_' I_ -..ir w�iw i+ �r'rta w_Li n�wiiiwrrlrlMiir+di- _rw.:►rtw+,4,.YrrYw Lw a-ir w..�t.i. iii.ri rikreh w�iiiww. _Mill Q i21r :+l ii 1�G YK it IMi, er-A,itt„.4.44?„,, Application, has been made, ,for a zone change to retail Commercial. We the meichanta of Greenway Town Center el that this will add to an e,histing traffic situation, that is not only in- c nvient but dangerous to anyone using Scholls Ferry Road. There will be a Tigard City council meeting Mon appreciate any assistance that you can give us in this matter. We are not in favor of additional retail Dev. and traffic on S. W. Scholls Irry Road. ' . ..: .. esvk eyes �. a c..w -4 W, + ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT 92..,;� d g''Q s ---4471 / //)� /J1 .0 i g OS 00 ig .__ 1 L� - .s: ., C4 1' t2 1' v ' 6 Gov _Jnit,t2:;:..._aXjAt._414.424;14,e44i.4.Wa. .�1 Application has been made e , on a. 5 acre , '41* Kea t? of 1 h e Green way, Town tenter for a' zone change to retail commercial We the me*chan•ts of *eenwav "Tt n Center' 1 that 'this will add to an ex isti'ng, traffic.' situation, that is not only in convient but dangerous to anyone ,using cholle' 'r "erry Road. There 14111, b`e. a' Tig'ar (::fty council meeting Mon Oct ." 28th 7 :00 P ,M,. ,at', Fowle "r Jr.' high. We wqu.ld appreciate any assistance that yeii" can give ue in'this matter., A We are not in favor of ,adiditienit1 retail ;Dev. and traffic on S. W. Schalls Ifry Road. try m &SEEW'WA4Y Tow a- EA/t1E X Thank you Greent ay Merchants PRO R a s t ACRES saw, set o a. A s Polity Rojo WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT �Ri�f�YW.i�7f IOW NW MI 11=0 . tip 1 s i 1 1 s �j/�,/!J ADDRESS 421 p - r_.. 4ge x,77.2 i../C-,..3 _ -040 4...alsod4)E l'd Oa ma VII/ VA t._ PO &Zits- NINO 1: ..a..IVi_... . 1. r.. w�....:.. ...._r:...er.ww- r..r*.- _wW..... _::.ii..w. -... rr r:41... Yr`.. �I i►.�iw.+ .r i.Lir.. r ..ri w ...:•__wl �.L /..i .. fV ..ter'. ............ .--- iiiri. wL .ilr— r- .- w:r".. drr.J..l'.sr.ilr. .. ..rr_Ls...rr.. i+i. .ri s..w..li.w ".•'., ...... ..:...l..i r.. rw . r . . p+ r......... } .................. w -r iGii r 1....,.. ......... 4i. i..4ii. Yw :.i Liir' li.i r .... iM d.4i I.1 •Yr w bi Iw.F...w w'iwi it i .rL . w ..i.._..w...S..wi_......- --wi.w it i.. wFrWiw_.rii.'..i_i.uu... bil_.......i....•...Ww.i.iN.:i: 91006-- a4 ettza31 g 20z.. J Application has been made, on a "5 .acre site 'West of` the Green way Town. 'Center for a zone t.hange to retail commercial. We the merchants of Gteenway Town Center l that this will add to an exhisting trafi.ic, situation, tbatis not only in- convient but dangerous to anyone using Scholls Ferry Road.. There City council meeting Mon, Oct. 28th 7 :00 P. M. at Fowler Jr. High. We Would appreciate any assistance that you can give us in this matter. We are not in favor of additional retail Dev. and traffic `on S. W.'Scholis 4Ifry Road. will be a 'Tigard. • rig Thank you Oreonway Merchants JI WAY TNN BV eLtIrER 9 aveo WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT imp Iliaa hsao�aas�►a PROPOSED z ACRES FERRY 8040 ale ow dr NA B ADDRESS s_r `41_i.. ,. .Earner 41 ._E- EL,___ .,,,444T.A, '-----:-..:-l.,ie2(v...„s.,..q.-2,Ak-.Z.?.e_,_2::if2ita.A.. lr ..:-.1a1! Iler-4, 1.2 0/4tOSR),L-2/S'aaa._Et. q 2* i __,..L‘..e....4.--Z,.... _ 5 a .4.i. 3., cA14' "4564..-v.da7.4.(r_ _ dedgik,tfrid NW, . - .233.4 1."` q'f.t 70a _oat__ r I M. 01 igt 94 1/, ktilti. at:17N 7 �+..Mi rr wi.lw i w_.li.iw._.ii.r�.i _L.il: _L.. --__ __.ii.i__rU.Y.__I.. ....i'.1li...r..ii.i ......... wi'r _ B..iii.— .i__' Application 'Has been made, on a 5, ,for a zone change to retail commercial. 1101 that this will add to an;exhisting convient but dangerous to anyone using City council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7:00 appreciate any assistance that you can We are not An favor of additional cry Reads acre site West of the Green ray 'E•o..�i.Center' We the' merchants ot` Greenway 'Town..Center. traffic situation, that is not :on'y in- Scholls i erry Road. There will be a Tigard at.FOwler Jr.High. We would . M. give us in this matter. retail .Dc'v. and traffic on S . W. Scholas "AM Lid► .EW Vw 1Y eF��'�K WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT AME ADDRESS TAI °MAI i Thai k you Greenway Merchants r wswwl_a�warw�K�. ..i.to .1 1 S 1 0 1 1 PRDPOSAQ 5 AGREE FERRY 14QA0 � asp smo ,an AA.- Attn. $ 1 LLB?.. R- jE�774�� So 7005 _�4r� ,._ _ Q.1 :► _ - -9166 ZeZa4 motes 4 1400 Ma NO t , r Ay Ar: 9704 y Q1D0 -44.3J0t,L:743 9A0Zzy. 7,744.13 5i41ii•i� tii l�. 47611 &A3/ $1.--IterAr.e.V.evj -140 s.E,Att LL4s.,1.51tat' ri(�i'_+, .i.r.1.L,iir _ •w1 r _-°- ii w .i w S _•� I .1124A-41-4- e a f�. 147- YO'4f'i 1Z-511i'i• i , i'eil 4ott& 44 y • Application has been made;, on a 5 'acre site West' of for a zone change to retail'commercial. 114, the-merchan lreen way 'Town Center" GjenWay Town Center 1 that this will add to an, exhisting traffic s"ituataiyt that, is not only in- rr convient but dangerous to anyone. using Scholia Ferry Road. Thetelwill be a Tig r ' F M. M Fowler' i. Hi P. at High.: We would f City council meeting Mon .Oct. 28th 7100 P appreciate any assistance that you can give us it this matte.ri We are not in favor of additional retail Rev. and traffic on S. W. Scholls •rry Road. Thank you Greenway Merchants 1 f GREEN WAY TOWN E•/ 'Est • ACRES WE *RE NOT IN FAVORO •ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT / (T,/ � % /1jV'A �j�D�RE�G` S r 1 .w "�. sit 12 [j•s..3.CL _1.i�.1V.r --.Y� i� __ �.. '` 41157 sE 3a k- c Cam. 017202 -, JO (0_1121._...:. 19,_.(16162,... tikitib 'IV kAi;lejtit'- ' ,. tilfa...01.VCept (I'LL___ (C)q SO Sc.() 6 .ftLA, 54fo. 6toem.t. , 21.N. ` f j14■ & (Mj reir 7, I'3 �p]���,/6•f�__ r _ rte'_ \iff.. , illiit..% 0,!.. / f` ie. 24',.:311.0 .5‘,,,e''' ',2.. 12.04,-te 4,-'---- .w6S-- 9:0 1,1# mo..#frt,.... 15/5 ..soki,..nageAs'L..&Artt. 1(17 NAME f • woo mi __rir�` ui V ii•i _ �:.+r..r r....� r _ �.: �...r _..:IV _ _rri. 'r: _ —. ii -a. L• ti il.%:ws _ V bl :. rW.�w '�.. �r s:L.iw'ii.. +ir _ _•r ::G: r'. a zone change to xetai� ,com��ccia,l 1 that ti�is will dd.,t'a an' exh st'i�n co vient but dangerous to anyone ;;using' Schu' • City council meeting,, Mon Oct. 28th 7t0,0' appreciate any assistance that you e'' we are not in favor. 'of additional •rry .Rdad.,, Thank : yclu Greenway Merchan S•yy. • SCH O L L S WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR Or'' ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMRNT NAM Jred141f60.:iw _�Y 'Y.I"16'L k SchtL'/ rr�i� /� C •�O ; � \k. w rrwwr_rr_w__Wa . w_Iwrr•W r�iirr_._rr�r_ -'� - •�" ---- - = —_ie ��.. rani ri Nr... ....w-r ......... w.war --w. irr rrr'wi Wrw�.VeM4 e�.i rrwwWW— +�W.wL - ___wrr..I...rWWi.:lrrww�WiiM'W r.i it i.i.i11'�Li�wr.r i► i:. Ws hi w...r ..... W .■■ .i WL..wr'. iiiw wwW.sf.i...ill. iYi...i...i Wi.1.... `.1, viii -... ....i...u. i.r rr.i..d..di..i.'i.w Www i.....'..r.._....w a_.... ..i 'r ri. iwl.yj..r u......1. �.w i.. w i....ai...0 i....ir rl ..wi.r4l nfLrw.�w..W.. W...rr W..l..i w..i', ,,.. .... r.....y Li..w........ f:...:..... « i.i..,......i4. Pik Application '1;►as been made on 'a 5'. acre 'site West o ,:the teen Way Lownd �enGz for 'ws zone change Pto reta'il commercial :. We the ' ;;merchants Yof .tree eway ;,Town' Cente 1 that this will ad ±d to aii 'exh sting traffic i;ituation, that is not, conv] ent but dangerous to anyone using 'Sc o1� s err -Road. There Will be a Tigard City council meeting Mon * ' Oct. 28th 7:00 P. M. `ate+ i l'e1 Jr. High. We would appreciate any assistance that you, can gi to us i,,n this flIatter. We are not in 'favor, of additional retail D evj arid traffic on 5. W. Scholls K Thank' you Green*ay Merchants mM iao lib a.. ao 11•14.a IOWA ink a... - 11 $C$OLL WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF 'ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT NAN rwlono .i4 ".. on Y. A /66a-%t j A' �wwr is i.wr O.' ff " .V:,• ,13�r , r /:M rww w ►k , n 360 jS. y:.a�. w.: j wwww re r'rr�.r�Y ..w rw �'� /� i rrrw�{- .nwwwrrias r+.� rn ii. Mt' rie wiirw rwy w,..:11rri J M ...w.w :.r_si1,MM: ill. `140 611 1140. 1rT414 Ac `*: o ..:1 w Y.. 1 �:w, �..i.i...rL...irblr-- ..:rirw .i..iLiw )02i. M1.4.11..10 r...i:..w ., 'i.lrri+'ri....i Mr` MMM .. r∎M—M'M.MM'..;r Y:rr: r.r�irrwi.i'i. w.ii: i.rwl�i. rwrY., iiY.il1,1rw.. wiww �.r�W 11,111, MM V.i""wLi . i.i w.bw.irwY.l'" ';wr:rr•ii� .ii�Lwr.iilr rrrw.irr rl�rrir'w�i. w.i.rrwrrii,wi. i. .." ........... .i:e.ii.' —rwi :, r .iir.dw.ii.iw iirww..fi.i+ri.i . wLirwr'i..i iiw��. ii �I iliY'ii. f••V �, .♦ rw.ww:+�ii..t4..iti Y.Yie iia L.. i,i..Giw...'.i':w:..rY1cf..r Yr+ii .%aa lir", .r r ",. wii. Lw„ ww.ii i.ir4r' .ii....Y".. i..,,y. s"'irl::4 •� .Y;� A °.''4�taz;i 4,1, Application .has been i adet; on a 5 acre site'° West of trie '�rnen we i �rn "Center fox a zone change to ,r:etail commercial.' We `, the :mer:�ihantg of reenw'ay own: Center 1 that this will add to an• ,exhietig tta.ffic stt jatior o that is po•t only in- 1W cr nv4ent ut dangexi,.us to anyone u,sing,`Schols Fetr3 Road. There 11 h.e' a . Tigard • City council meeting. Mon ;Oct. 28th,,? *00 'P. Mi • at Fowler ',:',04,t'll'i r . would appreciate a.ny. assistance that' you can give us 'in this matter e 'are not in fa v or of additional e a t,l ,D.e r and' traffic on S. W. Sch,oll,`s Hry R'orid . '/ %r f d'. I /� ►w rr rrrr rr rrlw rYwrr rri 6.ir�r+����w'r+�' 1'� �A ►� I r i. r ! wrrrrr�w.wrrLwr7 wI i.(iFi7rrr L.rrrrr r.rrrrr��rw:rrw .►,,Lrrr� w.�iw�.wr c+'.. esi '....�, �R��NO � ZN FAYO WE CN FA OF `ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT NAME A:DDitESS q4;:t( Oa) rri.r.rru+wrrl��:wrww:l�.wr.w irr ro�rswr,l w.rr.'.i r.� 1834X I Ir tow, 04074 7-1,54AD .r....rr..rww.. . wwww wwr:. irrririrrrr'rlr.rw.....rnwrir rrr.►wi....irrwYrr. wwr....rw.f. w wrrwdrw ............ -... r.... ii.. r...M w'..... ..i"..1Y.:w......i..Y..1�4..r w..lw,M...r7.. ..................... -r rwi r.Jd «wr1.�41 rw.Yr b.:L.,__,.u' ia.�+wiwrti.- -- -...i. ... r.. 1"...r....rr rdwar.. w. w. w'... r:..... w.. iw. ri. 7.. Ir..•.... r. r"i.......i... "..i.....i...... ... rirY ... wi...wr4�.iLit irl rLrf..4....i.. w.�i'}�' -.i.. YI. wii ii.i�iii .fir it .'i I•i'iifG Yi 4 • .sY:ii.....Gr.ru...'....w. i'.r.i...G rri...ii uil4....i..... d. r..i..w..i...iL ii w'.+• Application has' been', made, on a 5 acre, site West of the Green way Town Center for a zone change to retail commercial. We the merchants of Greenway Town Center All that this will add to an exhisting traffic situations that is not only in- convient but dangerous to anyohe using Schc,ils Ferry Road. There will be a Tiga.d City council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7 :00 P. M. at Fowler Jr. High. We would appreciate any assistance that you can give us in this matter. We are not in favor of additional retail Lev. and traffic on S. W. Scholls ilfrY Road. Th(e�nk you Greenway Merchants \ s s D o AC AES 0 GR,EE14 WAY T® III 11 1 eE/TER 3 El .- I w•, set #0g4S FERRY Ro40 WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT NAME ADDRESS o r : _ASIA �- ��..`Tr:rrww'wwwra.rw irrrr_w_r w_ • ti1___r._ww�ww,y���w w�1..Mpi'i .�. �Lu,40∎∎r_wrsw— w .. irLw+._Jr f..r�.iliwr r. r. ∎∎∎∎∎. rerw..■L_r— .waGiiiie_w ∎r._r WLLw MIi (4 " :_Ir ii wl iiiw+w�w�la�w iLlwVW - .- G.r— ∎4447.r ... i. i..r 7.Fr .L..iww ■■■■■....■ ■■■..1_ :i+ir .r+r wLa,_:iir r'v1 Yr YW rd'�wA�. Application has been '.made, on a 5 acre site West of 'the, Green way Town Petiter. it com a'..of Gre,enway,'Town Center for a zone change to retail mmercxal. � the'tnerchant 1 that this will add ta.an exhisting tra,ffic..situation, that is not only but dangerous to anyone using Scholls' Ferry Road. There will be a Tigar City council meeting Mon Oct. 20th, 7200 P. M, at Fowler . We would viler Jr. 'high appreciate any :tscistance that you can give' us in this matter. We are not in favor of additional, retail 'Dev. and traffic on S. W. Scholls Ory Road. Thank you Greenway Merchants p 4 • GR.F.EIJVVAY 'rowI c EAITE IR sea al* .• .l ama.aAwaus Not a►r:te r: At iaES - „,,�•,"'`"”' 0.1. r 0 & & FIE RY R sc 0 40 WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDTTIONAL DEVELOPMENT NAME a ADDRESS l 1 1 i e cos 102trzALJkAbilylawatia, olx , e . t `as sA14.: j.•_ 4 A-12 2- lii. ...._r rrb ^roRmAeg.Aittia2a.1.7044 ' �• d w+J4.�ii _T d iii - �.r _ S T YY+i 1r _.i S. r�1iW • • r �i��+Wi� bw��� e, � � � •. __ rri rr _w. 62195' .ter_ r•r Yw '•w� r. r ,.,el r. i mid iw �fl Application has been, made', on a 5 acre site West °of "the Green Way Tpwn Center for a zone change to retail commercial. We the merchants. of Greenway 'Town Center 1 that this will add to an'exhisting traffic situation, that is not only in- c'onvient but dangerous to anyone using Scholls Ferry Road. There will be a Tigard City council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7 :00 P. M. at Fowler Jr. High. We would appreciate any assistance that you can give us in this matter. retail Dev. and traffic on S. W. Scholls We are not in favor of additional terry Road. Thank you Greenway Merchants r GREENWF Y TOWN EA/TE ft Qo. PR0t6Sep ,5 ACRES Iew wr SIwi SC?" L S Pettey WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITTUNAL DEVELOPMENT 1 1 1 1 e 1 1 1 1 1 1 as _ _ _i NAME • .a. 0 ;, ' ADDRESS 1.0132 rie_11A.4.4/ ita AO_ _SiO ska V014 exT 14 °QS _ICI 633 s (AS geivs. � ` , __L • `�� Logirj. to- -.ante Jled. 1 __ -■ dam, 4bo 444-4 �T • 1«.t _ w.s� jj R L7 a 1 D..l Ateati _ - f.....:: .n r. _ I. Li 3iwi'W `. YI LYir i. w:w ...„-,.....„„.....„,„.,::7""'"-"""" r.lr iF is i.:w___r+nlr 04/ t 4÷,640 9)144).3 t 1,2_5`73 Application haS1,, bee,ri made, on a 5 acre site Wet of the'. fqr a zone, change to tetail commnercial . We the mer'chan'ts' of 1 that this will add to er. e�:h sting traffic suativn,l; that °is` nottonl convient but dangerous to any4ne using 'Scholls, Ferry Road., There will' b'e' City council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7:00'. M. at Fowler ^Jr. High. We iiould;: appreciate any assistance that you can give us in this matter. We are not in f%4vor of additional retail Dev. ' and traffic on S`. W. Scholls,; rry Road. far wrap N. ow es or. FERRY ROAD WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT NAM 7. ADDRE ..�1. = — �_ 1�l _S_to= .L_RDA :.1 . oos". 4 61/005 ctql? „ S r Tr/�+ Id / .r.r fiL ✓ _ /y � w 0. ei irV.Yi4 i” *�. ;,, wlf'r _ iJ r i. ii.r i w _ iN Y4J"._ :/._ �� �i+fll �y ��. ii'i► Ti P +n.. ow rein' 'way : dn:' for a zone change to retail com mer.cial." ides' 'th.e merchants, a€ Greenway Town (;enter l that this will add to an ehhisting traffic situation, that :is not only in convient but aangeious to anyone using Scholia Ferry Road. There will be a City council meeting Mon 'Oct. 28th 7s00 'P.. M. at Fowler Jr. High'. We would',` 0 appreciate any assistance that you can give us, in this 'matter. , We ate net in favor of additional retail Devi and traffic on S'. W. Scholia rry Road. Thank you Greenway Merchants i14E0t .q'ob . SCNO L L S' WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT NAME ADDRESS 4 dPQ _ _ _ cs.......--Yaette.-).._____________maiza,.. ,,,,,,,,:,..t...e. S./ 4ifeez....tep- m AWL, �'�,•��I r.:L, y,� �.ii� ..:.�i r: Wr _ _+:i r diw +.. �. +�+i::..r i.i ' rM i �Lw rii:':�i�Y r.rw i.'w w_r>Ai. WriL__pe riW 'r_Mir rw _i.i_ for a .zone that convient b as been made ",'; to retail commercial. ;arQ M,i:te, We the merchants of `Gr,eenwa°y add to an exhisting traffic. situation, 'that is not only . in- ous to anyone using Scholia Ferry Road. :4 Sze will be a Tigard can give us in this matter. r.wal. so u sera. ∎ or ir.y "9,W. $4°'° t r h'ER RA E ARE» NOT ZN FAVOR QE' ADfl RY TTONAL O DED VELOPMENt.., ADDRESS ITI 606W I.., tylzr17'1•44. 4 -Ne. d'AILJtere/.... (32..5P ■ fot a zone change:tO retail commercial'. 1 that this will add to an exhiating. traffic ',sjtuatiOff; that is not convient but dangerous to anyone using Scholls Ferry Road. sherd gill be,a Tigard City council meeting Mon Oct. 28th. /s00 P. M. at Fowler Jr. ;High. We would appreciate any assistance that, you can give us in this matter. We are not in favor of additional retail Dev. and traffic on S. W. Scholls West of the'Gt`eet:n way Town {Center merchant of 'Greenway Tows .Center •-- SOW. Se/401.4s WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT w wsw..w..... �i �./w�brwwi wwi wo 3.1 JAY) } 7 r/ n. r,w w..ib W.rr+n w.w Lr� "r .► �: -Jac. ate^ "4, • � � r ...E.wr....yL =k:. r.. 14.1.4b:.129 tar l that this will add to an exhmisting traffic situation, that is not only i convient but dangerous to anyone using S holly Ferry Road. There will be a, Tigard City council meeting, Mon Oct.' 28th 7 :00 P:. M;. at Fowler Jr.' High. We would appreciate any assistance that you can give uS in this matter. Application has been made•, on a'; a zone change to retail Gommerciah. We the me Ch la'ts of Greenway'TowfCenterr acre site Wiest 'of the Green wa *.,, Town; Center' We are not in favor of additional retail'Dev. and '.'traffic on S. W. Scholia rry Road. s cH o S FORAY &PAD WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT 47h.. 411 ✓ 7 -y e a ` j / ✓! Me,g0 0S1 %j m_mm mm .dee4 cR\-, 117 -P SO ,91dGi7 Application °ryas been made, on•a'. for a zone change to retail commercial. acre . site West' of the Green way Town ,'Center e the merchants of Greenway Town Center situation, that is ` not only in- Ferry Road. These ° will be a 'Tigard r 1, that this will add to an .eachisting traft`ic convien't but dangerous to anyoie using Scholls City ,council meeting Mon Oct. 28th,7ZOO P,. . at Fowler Jr. High. We would. appreciate any assistanc'€ that you can'give .us in this matter. We are not in favor of additional retail`Dev. and traffic •on S. H.'Scholls Irry Road. -'a m m I- ,Thank you Greenway Merchants aw wnY TQ N.V cFA/TER PID P6 S g S A [ R. E' S. Srwe - gCNQLL 9 FI4Rti .. 1Q�A0* WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT NAME r ADDRESS / a�- r Wei 7__ y_ Mi NM ww rWrlrirAY.. eWWWrWi__ W� _rin>—ri,_..W..W:...•Ir- W«eiri r rrr����_W'�i��wwl e•i Y'W'.��� r.•Y W�1r iG rw erj[r,{WWW w 1i l M fr W r i w r Liw w .i. W :ii `. rni i:Y iiie W r W ilee "� W r W i _ r W 'W W •di �l i{i 1� W eee �i, iw .F ii. W: W w r'W we W id W er,:r :i W W +rW W:. WSW I.fWp•WWWW.W WW WIi� inr.rWWW_ ... ,. W..sWrr4r_r+:4 W:W W.iW�i�r _f:iWWWLW:W {•s _ . W W Gii r W_ wi W 4• +�r r d qi� r. W"4:W id..-: -.W Gr IW_wYii t Application has ° been made, On for a zone change 5 acre to retail commercial. 1101 that this will add to an exhisting convient but dangerous to anyone using City council meeting Mon Oct. 7100 appreciate any istance that you can We are not in favor, of additional likrry Road. ri I 40 site 'West of ° t'he Green .`way Town Center e ,t"hemerchant.s of Greenw'ay S;p�t0, Center traffic situation, that is not 'only i Scholls Ferry 'Road., There will be a Tigard' . M at'Fowler Jr i*' High. We' would give us in this mad :er. retail :bey,. and traffic on S. W. Scholls Thank you Greenway Merchants GILEE141VV AY TOWN rEAltElit , 9',w• sCNOL t S FERRY �oA� WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT' PROP °S' D 5 At ICES _ _1 NAME ADDRESS 14.67' Lae-3697-5w7Z4LIA • allt _922of .1?zz7 6.444.4.4, Ficov- rrrr.w_ r_rr- .iLlrM!".w� rS J"r� r r� if!'iFf. �i • iG4�4d, r r _ r tdelP r 1•.d _r.._ _W ���.. r _�Sr-w.�r.Yrrr.�.r��ilri4.lr.i i.�r�" IZ.Ti iWlr+:w_r,.., fr4...�.fr�.i.i iyGLL r I Application has been made, on a 5 acre site, :.West of the Green way Town, ,Cen;ter for a zone change to retail commercial. ,We the merchants of Greenway Tun Center •r: 1 that this will add to an exhisting traffic situation, that is not only in- convient but dangerous to anyone Using Scholls Ferry Road. There will be a Tigard Y g Y City council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7 :00 E. M. at Fowler Jr. High. We would appreciate any assistance that you can give us in this matter. We are not in favor of additional retail Dev. and traffic on S. W. Scholls "lorry Road. O Thank you Greenway Merchants A a ati _r _ _ ROPOSAD 5 &REEK W14Y T NN At RES t EA/TE R 1 F 1 r- wr w S.W. .W. SsHoL L t FARRY 0 OA WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT AME ADDRESS 1P1413- W_ �s_Q)Ca__11x1-1' 12 5°S-54A1 _-471 C C?3..2ZZ2 _ -__ - a� � 0 1 11114 Astg gee 4710(1,41,A1 il....102Q3,10 P_Itlitt .W___Ti1100/ , r - - - - -- _ 1/0 s2-- 11. ." "to 9 -F Z. anio lowa Lixv 3 -fit 44, 4w.V4.r�n "M.. —7 d ow ma am erAZ Application has been made, on a 5` „acre site Nest of the Gre for a zone change to retail commercial. We the merchants of Greenway Town,i,enter 1 that this w.'1 add to an exhisting traffic situation, that is not dom y , - nvient but dangerous to anyone using Scholls Ferry F',oad. Ther will be a "''Tigard City council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7:00 P. M. at Fowler Jr. High. We would appreciate any assistance that you can give us in this matter. We are not in favor of aticiitional retail Dev. and traffic on S. W. Scholls C, rK: en way Town ;;enter ,� ; rry Road. ge r m Thank You Greenway Merchants GkEEPJ VUIY TaiivR e EA/TE i4, PROpOSat) 5 ACkES gm dm air am ame wor s.w. s LA 9 WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT NAME ADDRESS 11,‘ZILl,...-Et1E-3- .L-144 61'01 1 .>a►d■- _R .10_13 = rev am_ a_ _5\aat ki_ r toGSe St, /zl i 0 s V ..tii,...kar253._ .c.) _g65742.....5_64/.. _..... „ J 0 :Ail aol s. / 0917,111 a +v,-i0 ar Zaz _oz,e.,02.gi V67 'r5'S :wit '7 1.06a t2tat • _ r Aoro '�► . ^ • '- IN• MN AM Wilfrap.cst.` - - - -0, g-$rr ..r _�:rrr_sr .wry rrICItts i�r.V _wit rr.� z3 �1 epze9 2r .:fir Pao q7)- x ..a Applicatioh has been made, on 11 a 5 acre site West for a zone change to retail commercial. that this will add to An enhisting convient but dangerous to anyone using City council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7 :00 appreciate any assistance that you can We are not in favor of additional iry' Road. m of the .Greer4 °way Town Cen't4r We .'the merchants of ` Greenway Town CeLte .. traffic situation, that is not only in Scholls Ferry Road. There will by a Tigard P. M. at Fowler Jr. High. We Would give us in this matter. retail Rev. and traffic on S. W. Scholls Thank You Greenway Merchants GFLt[N W14Y TOW" eE?/tER sr =raw Eonsoas ooh v.so 1,1 PRopasA g Ac RES 1 1 1 0 • • 1 1 1 �rIMOra.rr..r..s s,w, schro s FAIRY Rowe WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT ME R SS ed ,747 !ll • 2-9.9 .rA',5 40'66-ka1 Qr ' - +.I ..rir . �• r_.er. =,fir fr.�.:.� w _r_..rw,:r a,36 S i:r____r ______rar r.rr4. rrr.. 10 tit 61 r�,riM:L.Lr. .iw r 50,E _a.: YrrYr ri+Mr� marl. ins r_ rw � lr err r. •.v iir r it r* H Application has been made, Aato, a 5 acre site West.••of 'the; Green way town Center for a zone change td retail commey�cial . We the merchants of . Greenw•ay Town Center 111 that this will add to an exhisting traffic situation, that is not only in- convient but dangerous to anyone using Scholls.'Ferry Rona. There will be a Tigard City council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7:00 Pc M. at, Fowler Jr. High. We would appreciate any assistance that you can give us in this matter. We are not in favor of additional retail Devi. and traffic on S. W. Scholls 4Iprry Road. Thank you Greenway Merchants, GREED WfY TOWN €W E4 PROp6SAO 5 ACRES s.w• S CNOL s FERRY ROAA WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT I 8 1 S 1 8;1141 1_5 ADDR1 S _ ,2Y� g -- a r:- Maga _ • , _- (56-50 x-12.44. 62,,,_, ..beiki...__.a2,2..4:-... _ ..,...1.. _ /2 2)1 r s W 4,a1d.j.:t$11-, frir Atia. 0.642P: 2 .;r k�r .09e 4 ON r limos 1' NM OM 4 40 -ArAFP dr. _rilr.� 2,, ri-44 .i .i4 dam r: ba>r _ r w {nV.w '� = 9'7 1, "Appl cation has been made`, . ,on';� '",.Tor a zone change to retail %commercial We the merchant's of- Greenway Town Center. acre site West ,;of the Greer .Way Tpwn'.C'enter 1 that this will add to an„ exhisting traffic situation, convient but dangerous to anyone. -, using Scholls Ferry Road.' 28th 7800 M.' at Fowler Jr. High. We would appreciate any assist,ince that you can give us in ',this matter. We are not in favc.:.� additional retail Elev. and traffic �rry toad. Thank you Greenway Merchants Tigard W. Scholia" TOWN _l._ lino _r c( 1_ -may . 4.$ -..,,, • >tvo r.r wirrw�i:L:wri+ii.r iiwrr■■ Yie�lr� eisMv- 4110) rwirr rlwi�s_wiili� -iri. �ihi iil ri 4iY lrf"r' irSi .0 r rl r L Yr _ r ri.lni r r Lu iX. mow:. �.i.tiir r W ir- r `. iii iii w r iii w: wir .r, Lw rr war r. 4r ui.:il l'lwi w+i. r "r..- W.--i. ii wririr hil:. jr_it irf+r Teat of the Green =way ,Town Center t a zone change to retail commercial. We the merchants 'of Creenway Town Center'' 1 that this will add to an exhisting traffic situation, that is not only ',in- convient but dangerous to anyone. using Scholls Ferry Road. There will ,be a'Tigard City council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7:0.0 P. M. at Fowler Jr. High., We would appreciate any assistance that you can give us in this matter. We are not in favor of additional retail Dev. and traffic on S. W. Scholls �rry Road. Thank you Greenway Merchants GREEN W04Y TOWN g *. 3.1,10 $c$ o L t r FERRY ROAD WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OIL ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT NAME ADDRESS � w• // 5,► /f _ ____,4MIY_:,cLadL91__Lt 4/ _ rr, _ ,,aX...ii .l�.Y2rV1.1e..r- - 1614.*444444144 4-16441.4- 41. 4,44- w.i the Green way ' Town Application has been made, on a 5 acresiee West of tor a zone change to retail commercial. We the merchants ofGreenwsY Town Center Center 'in a Tigard 1 Ythat this will add to an exhisting traffic 'situation, that is not Only convient but dangerous to an ne using Scholls Ferry Road. There will be City council meeting Mon Oct. 2 th 7 :00 P. M at Fowler Jr. High: We would appreciate any assistance that you can give us in this matter. We are not in favor of additional retail Del,. and traffic on S. W. Scholls 41111r Road. 01 Thank you Greenway Merchants GREENWAY TOUV SEA, /TE Pt is rib as.. �aaa.- _.1 PROP6S 1,rr S AC R.ES „g,Vy, SCHOLL S #gRRY ROAD WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT NAME I S ADDRESS difirSt - - _ , -----.--27-dtd-i24, tbr ide-2-2r941-1.' Sr'.k_ _ ....gtOPJLIql_act 4212'20r-% iiiiit +'`sue.. QtAciNt eL...24..dee2.7.. we ___ ?a:. . te . e ..■ _ ..v...-0.44.1co- - .1, • : - > d r - -- .036,.:. 4.4.3A4421......JAL-LI.ill...All.i411.sel..- ..ti- __INd..424.41/PIYA...., .. _ .......... Ad i-lif' te,112:&t:Wei-1; M pifi_. .O iY _�..._ w.l. ,iirp.l_./.- i`.._V..�l� . r i tlb-.rri.06 . tl ,jam. /yj�,) i A jJJ ,I' Application has been made, on a 5 acre site West of the Green' way Town Center for a zoeg'' ch$nge to retail commercial. We the merchants 'of Greenway Town .Center 1 that this ward ;Add to an exhisting . traffic Situation, i!that is not only in- convient but dangerous to anyone, using Scha11C F •�., _, Goad. There will be a 'Tigard' City council meeting on Oct. 28th 7s00 P. M. at Fowler. Jr. High. We would' appreciate any assistance that you can give us in this matter. We are not in favor of additional retail Dev. and traffic on S. W. Scholls IlIrry Road. GREENWfY TOWN eEA/tER: $CiN Q a L 9 AWRY ROAD WE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT M .. M% afteMeMe. _ _ s" ....... ... . 4L 9.7i1J-7 16;_ - - -_w - w - - -�_ - . - -�- r a /y� _.. ..- . ,,,,, h...., „.„ ______ ,, . ... ‘, I , ,m7 ..� , ,� fA ✓ ✓ /f -.. f �(...1�.. _ +L.iJY // ' IP `i -i Application has bcen made, on a si'tehWeet of the Green way Town Center' - ... for a zone change to rotai,l commercial d 'tie merch4ntk of, Greenway Town Center {'1 1 that thi;a will add to an exhisting traffic situati.on,'that,is not only in- convient lbnt dangerous to anyone using Seholls Ferry There will be a Tigard City ccnci,,1 meeting Mon Oct. 28 h 7r00 P'5 M. Fowler Jr. High. We would appreciate any, assistance that you can g• * a us in,this matter. We are notlin favor or additional retail D.ev.'and traffic on S. W, Scholls Wry, Road. • m m ti Thank you Greenway Merchants GREEN WAY' TO WWl eEIVTE 4s. was wimp Now INLM111111,1,0 PRRp6SeD 5 ACRES FAA RoAt; WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT, ADDRESS E zaaza.Y./d2Catei‘ lia,Aavttive m f, 4i. s�1s�l er �►t��.�.i,.LY.r r0r_1r r Q‘:l�i r::.►.i /I SaA. e,4#6.:ot.z _4/ :44_ _ ,/ i7 +7 C;3 1w ..11-t , r' b 2'l' ; I Application has been made, on a.5'acre site West of the Green way Town Cen't.er. "for a zone cange to retail commercial. We the merchants of Greenway Town Center 1101 that this wilt gdd to an exhistin4 traffic bituation, that is not only in convient but danget,vus to anyone us:.ng Schol.ls Ferry Road. There will be a Tigard City council meeting Mon Oct. 28th appreciate any assistance We are not in favor Ilkry Road. that you can gave us in this matter. of additional retail Dev. and traffic on S. W. Scrolls -Y Ae. -team. A Ir. e. - fi ak,',E,EN WAY Toi NIN c EAjTER ',MAY ROA0 ADDIONAL DEVELOPMENT a 0 4 _ ,f Gl`- - - +fi ..) &IA" 0 .!' /Q Ai ,00r,,...-- areie :00" r, •i = ! XLiC) W_1_ Fek9g J.2..s.Q.s....s.. i4,..e.4.4,-.11., _r2 s _Z ; 7 of o - .. ' _- _w1_ _.► _ iN 4) w 4. $7? ;1.Z3 Application' has been made, oan a 5.=a e site West of . the r {eetl. way Town Cante 'f r a mono change to' r#tail commercial9 We the merchants off. Greenwa; 1 that this will ;'rdd to an exhist:&ng Town'Center'. tr.aff'i.c',' situation; "tha.t ie not convient but dangerous to.anyone'u,ailhg Schol1a City coundil, meeting Mon Oast'. 2Sth 7 :00 P. M. appreciate any assistance that,you' can .gig's u's We are not in ;." vor of—. additional retail ry Road.' m Ferry Road. There at owler Jr. High. We would'' in this matter. Dev.; and ; traffic on.. S. W. .Scho:lls 'ig4rd Thank you Greenway Merchants; GREENWAY TOUTAI' f EA/tER' PROPOSR A S �[1l.ES as so erf ° L L S FERRY Ro40 WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT NAME ___ r.: a ADDRESS V- h'arot -.4/ .. A2-4.4) .iu 97a.4. Itt:__ _ _hal i�.r 9lLr j ��if _i 1CLY.� t.1YQa7 . tepr�� _ . . 422n" .slt ac .0 �c ,4114.y.. _4'• ori I ( t- Gler- ► a l g S' Sc,S �! 64,08/ _ 413 ,7;),.. .10 rh'r _•__'�1 WON'a.,.!r...., .._J,.i ai ry. ' 1. i._rr9nr_- r_rri:l +i_ _ .._r rA.y irW �r id irrtiril. ig • swam 9, i 0 J'. APp1iiation'has' been made, o'n a 5 acre site West a, the'G • for a zone change to retail comm;ercia We the merchant of Gre,,enway Torn Cent\ re /in way Town `Cener 1 that this will add to an i ; exhi,stng traffic situation,,; that ,'is not only c nvient ,but dar gerous to anyone usi;�g Schalis Ferry Road, There will be a :2,6ard City council meeting Mon Oct. 28th /300 P. M. at Fowler Jr High. We 14onid appreciate any assistance that you can give us in this matter. We are not in favor of 'additional retail Dev. and ttcaff=o on S'. W. Scho11s ry Road. Thank you G*eenway Merchants :ors. ^.� - _.��. r.rs'rrsa�rarrs�or.�.� ••1 4 1 PROPaSi g CkEENW14Y TOWN Ac € Wit R L"" $ ' t 1 s sw• c ► o t s ieP ROAD WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDtTIONAL DEVELOPMENT NAME ADDRESS ------- _ .42 Y.: 1-42.6..kg-4(..& 7 _______ 191 r 1. .t.Uz attr- 1.T-5O-V 046 r I / /e t. SSG w .."‹.1:7P° ....... L .re 57-6d ..,2:41'174°°4424-4' e7' i , . — ff 1-9614;v_roy.... r..r71<i in �71::i..i r 1. rte: rJ i'i IYY w+ fir it rYr iw Wiii. +i� i�i L.Ya.7i.l:r�.1r_rL..r..._rwaL Li I.i�.i`r ti4rrV.ir r`_iriw i.i..i 4�wi..i iirrYYiV.rY..i+w.itit i._wYri drr�wi4w ii4f b4"�`,ti� 1- A°Oplication has been made, On, a 5 `acre site West of the Green way Town Center, for a cone ;change to retail commdlfcial. We the merchants of .Greenway Town Center 1 that this will add, tRo an exhisting traffic dituation, that is not .only convient'hut dangerous to anyone using SChells.FeFTy,Road. There will be a Tigard City council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7100 P. M. at Fowler ,Jr.',High, We would appreciate any assistance that you can give us in this matter« rt We are not in favor of additional retail Dcv. and traffic on S. W. Scholls y Road. Thank you Greenway Merchants 6kUENWAY Taw& e Eiiht or rase. maw aaa. m I•1I■ O►,/IO. am. PROpaSe o 5 ACRES in as s 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 $ 30* coo 4, 44 r f RY R040 WE ARE NOT IN. FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT © NAME ADDRESS A101 (1= AL cPrtc,r1 _Y..._ _____________.14z_ilwL__4Lys_smiAvr,-,cD4..c all 8u - 4!% r_ e11-3 _ ---(116° S.e,A) LA4__27.2.460,(4,7,7= p d 102 ....(2:-._/ e% i 9722:i .,, u Alle5,. driiilill' r .<',. d'.' . if,* los 1 •1 exo- , i.17-'3,c PAZttt • .rirr****ir.i 1 .. w'r fw'w f+i�r ism J�• Application has been made, , on a 5 acre sits West of the Green, way Town Center for a zone change to retail commercial. We the fmerchants of Greenway Town Center $J. that this, will add to an exhisting traffic situation, that is not o L ' ;in- convient but dangerous to anyone using Scholls Ferry Road. There will be a Tigard,, City council meeting Mon Oct. 28th 7:00 P. M. at Fowler Jr. High. We would appreciate any assistance that, you can give us in this matter. We are not in favor of additional retail Dev. and traffic on S. W. Scholls Sry Road. m Thank' you Greenway Merchants i 'REEW W11Y 7ar�vR € EJVtE * V .r 41411444 4.,11111 ■46.416 MA 44 .14 ■ PR®POssD At ACRES cN v L L r FERRY RAO WE ARC NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT f _r �.IS ADDRESS iLZ NA 143°--514-lauaLCIik / 6 ,2 5— :pm f fir'/ rr £ r ✓ '1 1 1 1 1 e 1 . Me ....114Dk.4Y. 614t(qtt`'' ''. Ptnt- k.s“' cctiltdidsmiLvide- e4,- (Qa- ---- J2LL± `r 77/ _ ... ilk:tip:4, ,..7-..b....,,i,:,,,47,45,„.,.. j,,,,,o.,.. , , WV._ .1.:►i:w._,rr4W�-- +L��w�ll�.r W- Wwi- _W- W_ -iw. .................. A." Ir .. wi4 iir -_.iw4 - W "Ww_..:W "W_44:._4 ra4rWrr....rbY:liw_Ir 4i.l4rYW�er rri "rWr:w'4__Yi'.irr.i�,.4Wii 4+i +W�'.