Loading...
SDR50-77 POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm.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. • "i1 -'X 4 rli MlR'+'IJS' v".AICarKn4 .. ... _ « .ad„nn•,..�t ';o;tvl,�r ,C+.a n;.V+�'Sh a{", taMel�'^,.wd i"er .r,nxr,..�f{ ri�+n°' �,, t ..;qJ:A...f.• .�:,•a:::w+::,.,;a.•...x,:.:,..dalr.;a„e,a..„1s:f;.?.�t4:,'..:a."..f..,.«Jruni+I�r1,n�..M+.�..1�. ... . �:I.,..,.0 , f ci:,..,. .r`.,r�� 400 CANTElltI3RY woob►s 'APMT NTs , ;S e':D� oprnet ei�xe,r CDR ; 0 7 ]:,0 /CantOebuty' aye' "' ,,.t,.•vf. ? . 1t,G.t .. y. r li • • • • • • I I P, a• I I • a 1 r I N v, ' I off, I T r • I1L • �1• I � M I X ` r ' A„ r !• ; .'«'nom`• . « , ' 1 I I 0 i ri .•... . ., 'r, ,,._ . '.,.J.,.,,. ........t_,,...r-.L.1..�_...,'. 'i-.ry ...,.,..L,.I.rr.a A wAw , November 9 1579 • r ; I , • Hr. Peter Hoffman 1888 8W /4adii3o Portland, Dear Mr. Uof man Enclosed is a cheek for $100.00 which is your h portion of the unused deposit for the transcript you requested for the Planning Commission meeting of August: 7 1979. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me. • Sincerely* III • Doris tiartig City Recorder • • • • r I r , f � . ' . i , d CLIP Of TIGARD REQUISITION TIGARD, OREGON THiS'IS NOT A PURCHASE ORDER NO. 44' PLEASE ORDER THE FOLLOWING: P.O. NO. ."`.,,, .,.. SUGGESTED SUPPLIER: i "? "" ",•{,,°fir*`" DATE ..:::4...., _ . NAME' l.�" S� L Sc l �,^� DELIVERY TO DEPT . v. STREET ADDRESS" ao CITY&ZIP,CODE � — DATE NEEDED 1 s [I ACCOUNT NO. QUANTITY DESCRIPTI � ' UNIT PRICE AMOUNT __ — __._ _ —. .• � i; (:)..S.2..._C3)-- 1C71,5 ,.., ,. IGT,' ,,,/ 'P'N,e , ,01, ' i / . t4A&b,: t�.: rs� g1 � - .— • w (' ---.� _ w w- — 1 1 * r....-+.•r- W SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS / ToTAMc , b1' joc, ,' L._,evcnt,) SIGNATURE APPROVED „ tit.l01-•HEAb -- -—,4--,-- _, _ w._.--- .0''. ,., 5.„'Lt .,M I 7' . .,+nl „e„,„,,,,i F r APPROVE cl'ry aece� + i ..w n l I ( M / . . . • . . , '- • ' . . .„ , ...- . . .. . ., • . • , , • • . , '..".: , . • . . • I., 1 ,, SOUTHER,SPAULDING,KINSEY,WILLIAMSON& SCH1A/ASE ATTORNEYS S AT LAW ,. , • . SUITE 1200 STANDARD PLAZA 110o S.W.BT-H AVENUE , • PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 CALVIN N.SOUTHER R ROCHNE GILL JAMES D.HUEGLI ANCER L.HAGGERTY • BRUCE SPAULDING JAMES A.LARPENTEUR,JR. TELEPHONE 503-222-9981 HENRY C.WI LLENER DELBERT J.BRENNEMAN WILLIAM 14.8IN5 Ey JAMES F.sRiERERMAN CABLE ADDResst"ROSCAI: TERRY C.HAUCK ROBERT W.NuNN WAYNE A WILLIAMSON ROBERT G.SIMPSON MARK H.WAGNER JAMES E.seNeDicr JOHN L.ECHWA8F. RIDGWAY K.FOLEY,JR. JOHN G.CRAWFORD.JR, S'revEN H.PRATT V4 Et4 0 ELL weArr THOMAS m.TRIPLETT DON K.LLOYD Li ONALO A.HAAGENSEN • • aopmoN MOORE'. ROBERT E.JOSEPH,JR. NEVA T.CAMPBELL RUTI4 WAXMAN HOOPER , • t? KENNETH E,ROBEr4TS STEPHEN B.HILL November 1 1979 , JOHN E.HART RALPH V.BAKK EN SEA , FORREST W.SimmONS PAUL H.DAIGLE ROGER A.LUEDTKE ELIZABETH K.REEVE . . JAMES B.D'H ANLON ROBERT T.HUSTON ROY D.LAMBERT CHARLES RI HARM-EY DOUGLAS M,THOMPSON KENNETH D.RENNER DAVID K.mcADAms ROBERT A.STOUT JAMES R.MOORE KENNETH E.ROBERTS,JR. W.A.JERRY NORTH DANIEL F,KNO A.ALLAN FRANZKE DONALD JOE WILLIS JAMES T,WALDRON JAN IS.KITCHEL r;o1.AND F.BANKS,. J.LAURENCE CABLE ROBERT D.DAYTON L.EDWARD ROBSINS ,I ••, , GINO 0.PIE:RE:TT!,JR MICHAEL D.HOFFMAN DAVID W.AXELROD PAUL F1.BOCCI , DOUGLAS J.WHITE,JR. GUY C.STEPHENSON , ? • Mr. Aldace Howard Planning Director • . City of Tigard . , Tigad, Oregon rd, O 97223 , • . RE Anderson v, Hoffman & Hoffman, Inc. , et al ; • 1 . Dear Mr. Howard: • . ' ,. Enclosed please find a copy of the Bylaws of • • Canterbury Woods Condominium Unit Owners Association .. • which was inadvertently not enclosed with your Affidavit. Ver truly yours .4 • Sec. /.o bavid W. Axelrod „\ Enclosure . . 1 , , ode J. , ill •„, //// . . ■ ,,, . • 1 , I . , , . t I I Z t . . , —- ■ I ,,.5"1-.' 1,, •• '., I ., No.,, . ' ... L., r..:,''''-'r.• ' . , is. i , , ' ' , ,,,,- ,t,”' .1) • , ,\ . • •I . i' • • .....n...A,,... .... ,. - ,...,. .i-. ...., •...I .... . r.•.. . '..,.r..-.......... .. ... ...w..s.I.....A.....•..... ...n_ .. .r........••a.. .,.i...i...... ...._4.N_....t•-.....!..u...-..•.i.....•..:dr....i...4 t.r.. ...+,.•....• ..i• .t.- ...,v...r.«.... ..+u.wr.i....,-.0_A 1:.., , BYLAWS `1 CANTERBURY WOODS CONDOMINIUM UNIT OWNERS ASSOCIATION ` • I 1. NAME AND OFFICE 7 1.1 Name. This association shall be named the CANTERBURY WOODS CONDOMINIUM UNIT OWNERS ASSOCIATION ("Association") . I ` i 1. 2 Principal Office. The principal office of the , 1 Association shall be maintained in Washington County, Oregon. 2. MEMBERSHIP AND VOTING RIGHTS 2.1 Membership.. Every person who is a record owner of a fee or undivided fee interest in any unit shall be a member of the d Association, provided that any such person who holds such interest. merely as, a security for the performance of an obligation shall not be a member. 2. 2 Suspension of Membership. During any period in which a member shall be in default in the payment of any annual or Special , assessment levied by the Association against the unit in which the member owns a fee interest, the voting rights may be suspended by ".' the Board of Directors until such assessment has been paid. Such rights of a member may also be suspended after notice and hearing, for a period not to exceed thirty (3C) days, for each violation of any rule or regulation established by the Board of Directors governing the use of the common elements and facilities. 2. 3 Proxies. At all meetings of members, each member may vote in person or by P rox . A proxy given by a unit owner to any person who represents such owner at meetings of the Association shall be in writing and signed by such owner, shall be filed with the Board of Directors and, unless limited by its terms, shall be deemed valid, until revoked in writing. An executor, administrator, guardian, or trustee may vote, in person or by proxy,, at any meeting of the • .'•. Association respect aa unit owny•ed or ,�, 1 d, by him in such a pa ci t Y, whether not the shall have been transfer red to , i me provided that he shall satisfy Secretary gy r the Association that he the executor, administrator, guard ian, or t ruste e holdin g such unit in such ca p ity: Whenever any unit is • Page One. BYLAWS I JI 1 . ' 1 t i' h k \,' . \ . . II . ) .1 . , „ '., ." . . owned by two or more jointly, according to the reco,rds of the i 4 le Association, the vote therefor may be exercised by any one of the (1 owners then present, in the absence ok protest by a co-owner, but ' . . - . ., k , in the event of such protest, no one co-owner shall be entitled to • vote without the approval of the other co-owners. . 3. MEETINGS ' I, 1 '. 3.1 Annual Meeting!. The annual meeting of the Association , . , shall be held on the Third Monday of May, of each year, at 8:00 o' clock p.m. , unless otherwise determined by resolution of the Board of Directors. The annual meeting shall be for the purpose , w of electing directors and for the transaction of any other business brought before the meeting. The parliamentary authority for the , annual meeting shall be "Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised. " ' • . 3. 2 Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Association . may be called at any time by any director or upon the request of . , 30% of the unit owners. At least . ten (10) days ' notice shall be . . , , ... , • given of any special meeting to each unit owner. At any such , . . special meeting only such business shall be transacted as thall have been specifically or generally described in the notice for . . , such meeting. . : ...41,. 3.3 Majority. As used in these Bylaws, "majority" or . "majc :ity of the unit owners" shall mean more than 50 percent of , . , the ,tes entitled to be cast by the owners of the then existing 1 units of the condominium. Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 91. 500 (15) , each unit owner shall be entitled to one vote in . r ' the affairs of the Association of unit owners for each unit owned ro, by him, provided, however, that the Articles of Incorporation and . . the Bylaws of the Canterbury Woods Condominium Unit Owners Association . , provide for two classes of members during the first two years after , . the Declaration is filed. Class A members will have one vote . . I and Class B members will have three votes. Class A members shall , • be those unit owners as defined in the Declaration, Class B members , shall be the Declarant, their successors, heirs and assigns. //r19 Whenever a percentage of unit owners is specified, percentage means such percentage in the aggregate of the votes cast by such I - , owners. i 3. 4 Quorum of Unit Owners. At any meeting of the • Association, a majority of unit owners, computed as provided in Paragraph 3. 3 , present in person or by proxy, shall constitute a i • quorum, except where by express provisions a greater vote is required, 1 in which event a quorum shall be the number required for such vote. -1 . The subsequent joinder Of a unit owner in the action taken at ., , a meeting by signing and concurring in the minutes thereof shall ', . • Constitute the presence of such person for the purpose of determining • a quorum. When a quorum is once present to organige a meeting, '-' ,• , . Ait , • Page Two. BYLAWS , • , 1 I \ ' 1 . i ,„ ' , • .i - am}+, O n w ,i,, th f a unit owner,. it cannot, be broken by the subsequent, withdrawal of un wne or owners. If any meeting of members cannot be organized because . of a lack of quorum, the members who are present, either in person or by proxy, may adjourn the meeting from time to time until a . quorum is present. , 3.5 Voting. (a) When a quorum is present at any meeting, the vote . k )f a majority of the unit owners present, in person or ,repre-� • 1; �, seated by proxy, shall decide any question of business before . 1 such meeting, including the election of Directors, unless , the. question is one upon which, by express provision of the •I Oregon Unit Ownership Law, or the Declaration, or by these . ■ t ` Bylaws, a different vote is required, `in which case such express provisions shall govern and control the decision of such question. i (b) Proxies. A vote may be cast in person or by ,` proxy. A proxy given by a unit owner to any person who repre- sent•s such owner at meetings of the Association shall be in , \ — writing and signed by such owner, and shall be filed with the secretary. No proxy shall be valid after the meeting for which it was solicited, unless otherwise expressly stated in the 1 , proxy, and every proxy shall automatically cease upon sale of the unit by its owner . A unit owner may pledge or assign his voting rights to a mortgagee. In such a case, the 4 mortgagee or its designated representative shall be entitled to receive all notices to which the unit owner is entitled •. hereunder and to exercise the unit owner' s voting rights from and after the time that the mortgagee shall give written b, notice of such pledge or assignment to the board of directors. , (c) Fiduciaries and Joint Owners. An executor, ' administrator, ' guardian or trustee may vote, in person or by 4 proxy, at any meeting of the Association with respect to any ; unit owned or held by him in su.ih capacity, whether or not 4,' the same shall have been transferred to his name; provided, that he Shall satisfy the secretary that he is the executor, administrator, guardian or trustee, holding such unit in such . .. any unit is owned by two or ore persons • capacity.. Whenever an more c jointly, according to the records of the Association, the accc�r�i oxds o vote of unit may be exercised by any one co-owner.f the such �� owners present, the absence of protest by a e entitled then resent in h absent ■ the event of such protest, no one co-owner shall be n ' 1 tr, to vote without the a • l�o of all co-owners.s. I n event ut t�� approval owne the eve• o rrs, the f of disagreement � among the co owns e vote� of such, unit � �' (`� ,f. shall be disregarded completely in determining he proportion of given w of votes / 1' g. with respect to such, matter. k'i 111: , . / Page Three. BYLAWS . \ 4 . I, I /. j II S • • • (d) The Association shall have two classes of voting membership: . Class A. Class A members shall be those unit owners as defined in the Declaration. A Class A member shall be entitled to one , vote for each unit of the condominium owned by him. The vote applicable to any of the I units being sold under a recorded contract of purchase shall be exercised by the contract buyer unless the contract expressly provides otherwise. �. Class B. The Class B members shall be the Declarant, their 'successors, heirs and assigns. '• Class B members shall be entitled to three (3) votes for each unit which they own; provided, however, 'that the existing Class B membership shall be converted to Class A membership two (2) years from the date of recording of the Declaration in the Washington County Deed Records, or upon the sale of 80 percent of the units, whichever shall first occur. 3.6 glace of Meetings. All meetings of the Association shall be held at its principal office unless otherwise e stated in - the call, and all meetings shall be held in the State of Oregon. 3.7 Notice of Meetings. Notice of all meetings of the ' Association stating the time and place and the objects for which n i s being by chairman Or t� �n called shall- be given and mailed to II the meeting g _ g ed s g' y the Irma secretary. Such notice shall be in writing each unit owner at his address as it appears on the books of the Association not less than ten (10) days nor more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the meeting. Proof of such mailing shall be given by the affidavit of the person given the notice. Notice • . of meetings may be waived by any unit owner before or after,, meetings. When a meeting i s adj ourned for less than 30 days, ' . no notice of the adjourned meeting need be given other. than by announcement at the meeting at which such adjournment takes place: • Written notice shall be given, upon request, to any holder of . mortgage or, of trust on' a unit,'f, a first mortg g which holder shall deed o uni be entitled to appoint a representative to attend in its behalf. • Page Four. BYLAWS • /1 n ,•I 3.8 C):c7der of Business. The order of business at annual p meetings of the 1:).sscciation shall be: (a) Calling ng of the roll and certifying of proxies;„ K� (b) Proof of notice of meeting or, waiver of .notice; L • (c) Reading of minutes of� preceding meeting; , (d) Reports of officers; (e) Reports of committees, if any; (f) Election of directors; (g) Unfinished business; , (h) New business; and (i) Adjournment.. . 4. BOARD OF DIRECTORS „��'`' 4 .1 Number and Qualification. The affairs of the Association shall be governed by a Board of Directors composed of three (3.) r ', ' to five (5) persons, as provided in Sections 2 and 3 of this Article. t ' All Directors, other than interim Directors appointed by Declarant, shall be owners or co-owners of units of the condominium. For purposes of this section, the officers of any corporate owner and A the partners of any partnership, shall be considered co-owners of any units owned by such corporation or partnership. 4. 2 Interim Directors. Upon the filing of the declaration submitting the condominium to the Oregon Unit Ownership Law, and the filing of the Articles of Incorporation of the Canterbury Woods N' Condominium Unit Owners Association, the Declarant shall appoint an interim board of three (3) Directors, who shall serve until replaced by Declarant or their successors have been elected by the unit owners \, . •,- as hereinafter provided 4. 3 Election and Term of Office. At the first annual • meeting after eighty percent (80%) of the units have been sold and , conveyed to purchasers, the interim D irectors' shall resign and five , (5) successors shall be elected, three for two year terms and two for one year terms. Thereafter, at the expiration of the initial term of office of each Director, his successor shall be elected to serve for a term of two years, so that the term of not less than \ one-third of the Directors shall expire annually.1 y Directors rs shall • hold off ice u ntil their respective success ors have been elected by the � � y' he un�:t, owners, Election shall, be by plurality. • Page rive. B7LAW8 m ' .- k ' • - - .. ... ._.. ..._. w .,.... .y ,. ..a. 4... e.i rr a 4 . ,..........Y, .-u,-4•..-.t„u., 'flS{ • . t 4, '"4z N . .. I, ,. �� . 4 Vacancies. Vacancies in the Board of Directors caused by any reason other than the removal of a Director by a vote . of the` Association shall be filled by vote of the majority of the remaining Directors, even though they may constitute less than a quorum, or by a sole remaining Director. Each person so elected shall be a Director until a successor is elected to fill the unexpired term at the next annual meeting of the Association or the next 1 " special meeting of the Association called, for that purpose. i 1 Vacancies in interim Directors shall be filled by Declarant.` 4. 5 Powers and Duties. The Board of Directors shall have all of the powers and duties necessary for the administration of the affairs of the Association, except such powers and duties . as by law or by the Declaration or by these bylaws may not be delegated to the Board of Directors by the unit owners. The powers and duties to be exercised by the Board of Directors 'shall include, but shall not be limited to the followa.ng. • (a) Operation, care, upkeep, maintenance and repair of the general and limited common elements. ,' . (b) Determination of the amounts required for �' f 1 operation, maintenance and other affairs of the Association and the making of such expenditures. r (c) Collection of the common expenses from the . unit owners. (d) Employment and dismissal of such personnel as necessary for the efficient maintenance, upkeep and repair of the common elements. (e) Employment of legal, accounting or other 1. personnel for reasonable compensation to perform such I:' services as may be required for the proper administration of the Association. (f) Opening of bank accounts on behalf of the • Association and designating the signatories required therefor. closure or other judicial sales in the condominium the Association (g) Purchasing units o judicial in, the name . ., or its designee, on behalf of all the unit owners as provided M in these bylaws , but only upon approval by a majority o� f ��unit owners. 4 411q y j (h) Selling, leasing, mortgaging, voting the votes appurtenant to (other than for the election of I directors) , and otherwise dealing with units of the Condo- ' , rectors) , w�..�e� c�.ea�. minium acquired by the Association or its designee on behalf b of all the unit owners. , Page Six, BYLAWS (/1. ,,, . . . • . . . . . , . . /I . (i) Obtaining insurance or bonds pursuant to the provisions of these bylaws. (j ) Making additions and improvements to, or altera- tions of, the common elements; provided, however, that no such project may be undertaken by the board if the total cost will exceed the amount of $2,500 unless the unit owners have en,, cted a resolution authorizing the project by a vote of seventy-five percent (75%) of the unit owners present in , person or by proxy at a meeting at which a quorum is constituted. ' This limitation shall not be applicable to repairs or maintenance undertaken pursuant to paragraph (a) above. (k) Enforcement by legal m of the provisions of . the Oregon Unit Ownership Law, the Dec1 .. ations filed thereunder, these bylaws and any rules and regulations adopted hereunder. (1) To select a , person, r co ( } or corporation to be p p . in charge of the administration of or management of the condo ` , minium project. Provided, however, that any employment contract with such manager or managing agent shall not exceed one year in duration, except upon a duly executed extension agreement, renewing said employment contract for additional terms, not to exceed one year each. 4. 6 Removal. Any elected Director may be removed from . office at any time, without causer at a meeting of the Association; upon the majority vote of all of the unit owners entitled to vote; provided, however, that the notice of such meeting shall have stated that such removal was to be considered, and provided further that a substitute director shall be elected at the same meeting for the then unexpired term of the one so removed. Any appointed Director ' may be removed from office at any time without cause by the Declarant by delivery to the secretary of the corporation', and to the, Di,reCtor, a written statement that said Director is removed from office. Forthwith upon said removal, the Declarant shall appoint a substi- tute director for the unexpired term of the Director so removed, said appointment to be effective upon delivery to the secretary of the corporation of a written statement of such appointment. • 4. 7 Compensation. The (Directors shall serve without . x Compensation. � j 4.8 Regular Meetings. A regular meeting of the Board of Directors Shah be held at least twice each calendar year, once in the first six s and once in and ix months' a day and ' • of Directors. Notice of such re d1 hsr on is months the second � y time to be determined by the Board o � ar meeting � Page Seven. BYLAWS • ......,.........................W.w,,rw.,_....:...rr ..,.y::,_w....µ.,,._wr,wW_.:..:,w..,... ...,r.r..,r,...,•,.,.._....,M..,._.,.,,,..:,.,.,,,,...r._,N r...,..,,,r..,..,:,,......,..,.:..r.,.,..,,,.,.,....,.r..,,,,,.,,.,,,...,,r,....,.r,.,.,,r,.,,..,w,,.,...,,...,,.,.,..,......,.,,,...L,.,,.r..,_,..,,.....,:,,:.,,,:...:,...:,,r.,s,..,.,r.:.,.,..r...,r,...r.,„,.,,,.:. ,:,.,r,.,..,,r..r.,:.......,.r,,,... .... (” •rc o hereby dispensed with If the day for, the regular meeting shall fall upon a holiday, the meeting shall be held at the 'same hour on the first day following which is not a holiday, and no notice thereof need be given. 4.9 Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Board of Directors shall be held when called by the Chairman of the Asso+ci- ation, or by any two Directors, after not less than three (3) . days ' notice to each Director in writing. Y !r r r 4.10 Waiver of Notice. The transaction of any business at any meeting of the Board of Directors, however, called and noticed, or wherever held, shall be as valid as though made at a meeting duly held after regular call and, notice if a quorum is present and, if either before or ' after the meeting, each of the Directors not present signs a written waiver of notice, or a consent, to the holding of such meeting, or an approval of the minutes thereof. All such waivers, consents or approvals shall be filed with the corporate records and made part of the minutes of the meeting 4 .11 Quorum. A majority of the Directors shall consti-- tute a quorum for the transaction of business and an affirmative . vote of a majority of the Board shall be necessary to the validity of any act, but no expenditure which over any annual period would exceed $1, 000 shall be valid unless approved by an affirmative ' vote of a majority of the whole Board or detailed in the annual A budget. 4. 12 Action Taken Without a Meeting. The Directors shall have the right to take any action in the absence of a meeting which they could, take at a meeting by obtaining the, written approval of all the Directors. Any action so approved shall have the same effect as though taken at a meeting of the Directors. 4 .1a Liability and Indemnification .of Directors, Manager . or Mana is n _igent. The Directors shall not be liable to the ?; Association of the unit owners for any mistake of judgment, negli genre; or otherwise except for their own willful misconduct or bad faith. The Association shall indemnify and hold harmless each '' r Director and the manager or managing agent, if any, against all ±fir contractual liability to others arising out of contracts made by the ,,, f Association unless Board of Directors, on behalf on the faith or contra, t:oany theucro� shall ha�re be�:n made i s y Bacxi D�: shall, f the Declaration or of the ws "rector p contract veSindemnif indemnified by the Association against all expenses and. liabi_li these Bylaws. be y � y t^ a p abl incurred o a ties, .including attorneys fees, reasonably or imposed upon them in connection with any proceeding to which they may r be a party, which they reason having or �� y may become involved, by of being or ,` g i any re,. been a Director, and shall be indemnified fed upon ' reasonable I Page Eight. BYLAYs �I � r r. % e settlement thereof; provided, however, there shall be no indemnity • if the Director is adjudged guilty of willful nonfeasance, mis- • feasance or malfeasance in the performance of his duties. � 4. 14 Fidelity Bonds. The Board of Directors shall require that any person or entity who handles or is responsible for Association funds shall furnish such fidelity bond as t 4e Board , deems adequate. The premiums on such bonds shall be pa,..d by the Association. ,:. 4 Insurance.1 5 The Board of Directors shall obtai n the insurance required in Paragraph 8 of these Bylaws. In addition, the Board of Directors, in its discretion, may obtain such other " ' insurance as it deems necessary to protect the interests of the association or unit owners. The Board of Directors shall conduct • • an annual insurance review which, if appropriate,. shall include an appraisal of all improvements contained in the condomi • I I , I t . .,. , . . .1 .,.r. -. 4...a.._.I,-. .r.ar.". r a,. :nA.....,:.f.1.r7....1.w9.7..x.,...lr:..A.,an.:..Ii.w. .......-..,a..r.a....+..kl.q......... .l r.a.uGkPJt. .Nr..+. ...•4..:.L.?"Wtt.wrt{i+i...t:.k,.: .rJl't-lryi«t.MIY.PWe-a.x..t.r a.6r!r nn I- ^r., .r,0i r .+ .i...._ ,- . wa...wrw.wr.W, FI�I.i i • r. _..• shall have the powers and perform the duties customarily incidental. . P p to his office and such other powers and duties as may be assigned • to him from time to time by the Board of Directors. 5.4 Treasurer. The Treasurer shall keep all the Assocl ' action' s financial records and books of account `°and have custody of j all funds and securities of the Association and be responsible for e the safekeeping of all moneys, notes, bonds, and other money w�J instruments belonging to the Association. He shall be bonded and, , • 'r if directed by a vote of a ''majority of the Board of Directors, he a shall cause an annual audit, of the Association books to be made by a ' certified public account, at the completion of each fiscal year. He •shall prepare an annual budget and an annual balance sheet. ' r statement and the budget and balance sheet statement shall be 7, presented to the membership at its regular annual meeting. He shall have the powers and perform the duties customarily incidental to his office and such other powers and duties as may be assigned ' him by the rector r to y the Board, of Directors. 5.5 Compensation. The Chairman shall serve without, compensation as such. The Secretary and Treasurer each may receive 1 such compensation as the Board of Directors may determine. 6. COMMITTEES. The standing committees of the Association „ shall be established by the Board of Directors, and all members thereof shall be unit owners. 7. RULES AND REGULATIONS. In order to assure the peaceful and orderly use and enjoyMent of the property, and particularly of the ^''' common areas of the Association, the Associatit,.,',•, from time to time, may adopt, modify and revoke, in whole or in pc' .:•t, rules ''and regu- lations governing the conduct of persons in' ano upon the property and the use of the common elements as it may deem neceOsary or appropriate, by vote of not less than seventy-five percent (75%) of the members, in person or by proxy, at any meeting the notice of �, Which shall ha ve stated th at such adoption, modification, or revo- cation , I . of rules and regulations will be under consideration, and at '� •° which a quorum is pr6sent. A copy of such rules and regulations,la tions, upon adop tion, and a copy o f e a ch amendment, modification, or I . evt) r ,� revocation thereof, shall the Secretary promptly ll be delivered dry O each unit owner and shall be binding on all the unit owners and I l occupants of all units from the date of Idelivery. I • k II A I � Page Ten, BYLAWS I . I r r ry I I I I I I, I // r,.u..,,..r,r,...,r.,.,,..,r.rMr,...,,,..r.rr ..r,..rr.,......•., •.rru. r..r.r..rr.,.r rr..r.r..r..,,w, r.,.w., .,.,.... ....r. ,rr.,..,.I r.•.... ,,, .. I . r,., ,r..,.•. .... ,.I , , r�' I 1 . 8. INSURANCE rrr 8.1 Insurance.) For the benefit of the Association and � the unit owners, the Board of Directors shall obtain and maintain V at all times, and shall pay for out of the common expense funds, the following insurance: I (a) A policy or policies of insurance povering loss or damage from fire, with extended coverage endorsement, J ' 0 and such other coverages such as flooding, which the Association may deem desirable, for not less than the full insurable replacement value of the units and common elements. Such policy or policies shall name Declarant, the Association and the unit owners as insureds, as their interest may appear, and shall provide for a separate loss payable endorsement in favor of the mortgagee or mortgagees of each unit, if any. (b) A policy or policies insuring the Declarant, the Association, the Board of Directors, the unit owners and the managing agent, against liability to the public or ,'I ' to the owners of units and of common elements, and their invitees or tenants, incident to the ownership or use of the property. There may be excluded from such policy or policies coverage of a unit owner (other than as a member, of the Association or Board of Directors), for liability arising out of acts or omission of such unit owner and liability incident to the ownership and/or use of the part of the property as to which such unit owner has the exclu- sive use" or occupancy. Limits of liability under such insurance shall not be less than One Million Dollars s,' s. Such ($1, 000, 000) on a combined single limit basis. policy or policies shall be issued' on a comprehensive liability basis and shall provide cross liability endorsement wherein the rights of named insured under the policy or policies shall not be prejudiced as respects his, her or their action against another named insured; and (c) Worker' s compensation insurance to the extent necessary to comply with any applicable laws.) unit owners shall be responsible obtaining, at h?' esponsi Each uni owners �ble for o his own expense, insurance covering his insured ( . under g property not' �n d un paragraph (a) above ) and against his liability not covered under paragraph (b) above, unless the Association) g a roes otherwise. I c Insurance obtained b. the Association Shall � : Policies. Insu. y be governed by_ the following provisions : ra g e Eleven.n BYL�..'VS ,. r I I I I II I I 1 r• ( 'x + r (a) All policies shall be written with the State of Oregon or a company licensed to do business in the State of Oregon and holding a commissioner' s rating of "A" , and a size rating of "AAA, " or better by the Best's Insurance Reports current at the time the insurance is written or, prior, to the initial meeting of. the Association, one acceptable to Declarant a (b) All losses under policies hereafter in force regarding the property shall be settled exclusively ' with the Board of Directors or its authorized representative. Proceeds of the policies shall be paid to the Association as trustee for the unit owners, or, upon demand of any mortgagee, to an insurance trustee acceptable to the Association and ;,,- mortgagees of units. 4' r ' tl • (c) Each unit owner shall be required to notify the Board of Directors of all improvements made by the • owner to his unit, the value of which is in excess of Five Hundred Dollars ($500) . Nothing in this paragraph shall I permit an owner to make improvements without first obtaining the approval of the Board of Directors pursuant to 22.4 of the Declaration. (d) Any unit owner who obtains individual insurance policies covering any portion of the property other than his personal property and fixtures shall file a spy of such individual policy or policies with the Association within thirty (3 0) days after the purchase of such insurance. ' 3. Provisions. The Board of Directors shall make every effort to secure insurance policies that will provide-for the V " following: (a) A waiver of subrogation by the insrrer, as to any claims against the Board of Directors, the manager, the unit owners and their respective servants P � ^r agents and guests. • (b) A provision that the master policy on the condominium cannot be cancelled, invalidated or suspended n re individual on ,, • r account of the conduct of any one or mo l owners. (c) A provision that the master policy on the ed condominium cannot, be canccancelled, inv alida�. or suspended ; on account of the conduct of any officer or employee of the, Board or the manager. without prior 'in Bna t r demand 11 . ng the Board of Directors or manager cure the defect. Page Twelve. BYLAWS 1 I iri'1 , x .ti.+ti w.w,.,.RFenm..Wnlnk>n+'.erttVV...ix; .. t a t• Pt ,, (d) A provision that any ""no other insurance" o clause in the master policy exclude individual owners' policies from consideration, and a waiver of the usual pro_ • ration clause with respect to such policies. (e) A provision that the insurer issue sub- poliicies specifying the portion of the master policy ear marked for each owner' s interest and that until the insurer t furnished written notice and. a grace period to the mortgagee insured under the loss payable clause thereof, the mortgagee's coverage is neither jeopardized by the conduct of the unit mortgagor-owner, the Association, or other unit owners nor cancelled for nonpayment of premiums. (f) A rider on the master policy patterned after "Use and Occupancy" insurance which will provide relief from monthly assessments while a unit is uninhabitable by • the payment of the condominium expenses thereof and any other fixed costs, including, but without being limited to, taxes, rent, insurance, and mortgage payments. The pro- ceeds from any casualty policy, whether held by the Association or a unit owner, payable with respect to any loss or damage to the common elements, shall be held in trust for r the benefit of all i nsured as their interest may appear. (g) A waiver of the insurer' s right to determine whether the damage should be repaired. If reasonably available, the policy or policies should contain a stipu- lated amount clause, or determinable cash adjustment clause, or similar clause to permit a cash settlement covering specified value in the event of destruction and a decision • not to rebuild. ° 9. BUDGET, EXPENSES AND ASSESSMENTS 9.1 Budget. The Board of Directors she,11 from time to time, and at least annually, prepare a budget for the Association, estimate the common expenses expected to be incurred, less any previous overassessment, and assess the common expenses to each unit owner in proportion s p to t i the • the same as his percentage interest `n common elements. The Board of Directors Shall advise each unit owner in writing of the amount of common expenses payable by him and furnish cle budget on which such common expenses a re based to all unit owners and, i f requested, to their ortga gees. r , Determination of Common Exezises1 Common expenseS 9� 2 bete i, P shall include: Page Thirteen. BYLAWS • • i z ♦ Such aggregate sum as the Board, of Directors from time to time shall determine, in its judgment, is to be paid by all the unit owners of the condominium project then in existence to enable the Board of Directors to pay all estimated expenses and outlays of the Association to the close of such year, or partial year, growing out of or in connection with the maintenance and operation of such land, buildings and improvements, which sum may include, among other things, the cost of management, special assessments, '~ fire, casualty and public liability insurance premiums, common lighting, landscaping and care of grounds, repairs and renova- tions to common elements, wages, water and charges, legal and accounting fees, management fees, 'expenses and liabilities incurred by the Board of Directors under or by reason of , the Declaration or \, Bylaws, the payment of any deficit remaining from the previous period, the creation of a reasonable contingency or other necessary reserve or surplus P us f und, as, will as all other costs and expenses relating , to the condominium project. The Board of Directors may, from . time to time, up to the, close of the year for which such cash a requirements have been so filed or determined, increase or diminish . , t the amount previously fixed or determined. for such year. It may include in the cash requirements for any year, any liabilities or . , items of expense which accrued or become payable in the previous year, or which might have been included in the cash requirements for a previous year, but were not included therein; and also any' ' sums which the Board of Did.ector;5 may deem necessary or prudent to provide a reserve against liabilities or expenses then accrued or thereafter to accrue although not payable in t hat year. 9.3 That portion payable by the unit owner in and for each year or for a portion of a year shall be a sum within the limits and on the conditions hereinabove provided determined by multiplying the aggregate amount of such cash requirements for ', ' such year, or portion of year, by the percentage equal to the unit owner' s percentage of undivided interest in the common elements, and such assessments, together with any additional sums accruing under these Bylaws shall be payable monthly in advance, or , in such payments and installments ,as shall be required by the ' Board of Directors, and at such tames as shall be provided by the Boar'dl of Directors. Page Fodrteen. BYLAWS I I ...,a..»..,r.»..... ...x......u..n., ..e..r.... ....♦w.......... a 1v.n i„ ....,w•»,.i ..., ,. r..n. .v ..rr nr, v., n...,, a r w.we.. . 1 • ktk • 9.4 The Board of Directors shall have discretionary " powers to prescribe the manner of maintaining and operating the ' condominium project and to determine the cash requiremnts of : the Association to be paid as aforesaid by the owners under these ' Bylaws and the Declaration. Every such reasonable determination by the Board of Directors within the bounds of the Act, these Bylaws and the Declaration, shall be final and conclusive as • to the owners, and any expenditures made by the Board of Directors, . within the bounds of the Act, these Bylaws, and the Declaration ' ' shall as against the owner be deemed necessary and properly " made for such purpose. 9.5 Assessment of Common Expenses. All unit owners ,. shall be obliged to pay common expenses assessed to them by the Board of Directors on behalf of the Association pursuant to these Bylaws and the Declaration. Assessments may not be waived due to limited or nonuse of common elements. The Declarant shall be assessed as the unit owner of any unsold unit, but such assessment • shall be prorated to the date of sale of the unit and assessments ' '. •. for reserves need not be paid until closing of such sale., The Board. of Directors, on behalf of the Association, shall assess the common expenses against the unit owners from time to time, and at least annually, and shall take prompt action to collect , from a unit owner any common expense due which remains unpaid by him for more than thirty (30) days from the due date for its payment. 9.6 If the owners shall at any time let or sublet the , unit and shall default for a period of one month in the payment • of any assessments, the, Board of Directors may, at its option, so long as such default shall continue, demand and receive from any tenant or subtenant of the owner occupying the unit, the rent due or becoming due and payment of such rent to the Board of Directors shall be sufficient payment and discharge of such tenant or subtenant and the owner to the extent of the amount so paid. 9.7 Special Assessments. (a) Capital Imp vementS,. In the case of � ro o any duly authorized Capital improvement to the common elements, the Directors resolution establish �ea treated as capital �. ect � y by C P assessments the dame, which is for same, contributions by the unit owners, and andethe proce ed5 of which ! r • shall be used only for the specific capital improvements described in the resolution. • Page ?�k fte en BYLAWS � � • • • ', _ , .. _ ., ,r r '..'. .......... ......d4w..,.. .,_ __ .._,.s..._... .,J.. .,,,._.. .,J.a.....',«.—..,...,_,.t.._.,.::...,.......-._.,_»,...._.., . r «....,.,..,......,. i.M..,M�..+,..1au-.F„r, a • n i (b) Reserve Trust Funds. In establishing reserve s, 0, elect by resolution to establish o the Board of Directors may el y one or more trust funds for the maintenance, repair or replace meet of specific items, in which case the Board shall either ; designate part of the regular assessment or establish separate r ' assessments for such purposes. . The proceeds therefrom shall be held in such trust funds and used only for the designated maintenance, repairs or replacements. (c) Utility Service Charges. All charges for �.' utility service based upon building meters shall be paid by the Association as a common expense. All charges for utility 1 service based upon individual unit meters will be billed to and must be paid by the individual unit owner. 9. 8 Default in Payment of Common Expenses. In the event of default by any unit owner in paying to the Association the assessed a >' common expenses, such unit owner shall be obligated to pay a late 3: . charge of $10 if not paid within five (5) days of the due date, interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum on such common expense from the due date thereof, together with all expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred by the Association in any proceeding brought to collect such unpaid expenses, or any appeal therefrom. The Board of, Directors shall have the right and duty to recover . , S for the Association such common expenses, together with interest thereon, and expenses of the proceedings, including attorneys' fees, "' by an action brought against such unit owner or by foreclosure of ; the lien upon the unit granted by the Oregon Unit Ownership Law. 6 The Board of Directors shall notify the holder of any first mortgage k. upon a unit of any default not cured within sixty (60) days of the date of default. 9. 9 Foreclosure of Liens for Unpaid Common Expenses. In any suit brought by the Association to foreclose a lien on a unit because of unpaid common expenses, the unit owner shall be required to pay a reasonable rental for the use of the unit during the pend- ency of the suit, and the plaintiff in such foreclosure suit shall be entitled to the appointment of a receiver to collect such rental. The Board of Directors, acting on behalf of the Association, shall have the power to purchase such unit at the foreclosure sale land ' to acquire, hold, lease, mortgage, vote the votes appurtenant to, otherwise for unpaid common expenses shall pa �be maintainable oVer ` a y judgment without foreclosing the liens securing the same. a 9..10 � Statement of Common,_ .Expenses. The board of Directors shall promptly provide any unit owner who makes a request in writing hall pram t�l . rovide �a�n a ,, with a written statement of his unpaid common expenses. Page Sixteen. BYLAWS Y 0" ! , ■ ✓ \ ..-.. _, -. ..I.. - ....., .. ,., _V'.u.. ,. ..... ...wJ.».4 i..w..,+..,-n....,. ,k.+.....-..r... ..._.......,. .u. .n:.J...,..i'....,...r...Jl._..M.+l..,.. ..r....:..4d5...Un...:.i,cr,.l ...... .. I......,u.,-.ix... i., .... , 9.11 Subordination. of Assessment...Lien: Rights of Mortgagees. (a) The lien of the assessments provided for herein • shall be inferior, junior and subordinate to the lien of all � . mortgages and trust deeds now or hereafter placed upon a unit • or any part thereof. Sale or transfer of any unit or any , • other part of said property shall not affect the assessment lien. However, the sale or transfer of any unit which is sub- •,. • j ect to any mortgage pursuant to a decree of foreclosure under . ' .. such mortgage or any proceeding in lieu of foreclosure thereof, -. shall extinguish the lien of such assessments as to the amounts , thereof which became due prior to such sale or transfer; and . such lien shall attach to the net proceeds of sale, if any, . • remaining after such mortgages and other prior liens and charges have been. satisfied. No sale or transfer shall relieve •"� such unit from liability 'far any assessments thereafter beaom-- a�n,g due or from the lien thereof; . (b) A first mor tg a gee, at its request, is entitled '' to written notification of any default by the mortgagor in the performance of such mortgagor' s obligations under the Declarati,,,,a p and Bylaws which is not cured within thirty (3 0) days. Any r a comes into 'possession of a , purchaser or first mo t ee who � Q P g 9' P unit, pursuant to remedies provided in the mortgage, fore-- ., closure of the mortgage, or deed in lieu of foreclosure, shall ", ,,,SFr; take the property free of any claims for unpaid assessments ak or charges against the mortgaged property which accrue prior to the time such holder comes into. possession (except for claims fora pro rata share of such assessments or Charges resulting from a pro rata reallocation of 'such assessments A . � of charges to all property including the y mortgaged property. ) ., Such ,unpaid share of common expenses shall be a common expense of all the unit owners including such purchaser or mortgagee, °'. his successors and assigns. I1 (c) First mortgagees of any unit in the property may jointly or singly pay taxes or other charges which are in default and which may or have become a charge against any • con elements, and may pay overdue premiums on hazard insurance policies or secure new ha zard insurance coverage on the lapse of a policy for such property and first more.. - gagees making suc h payme nt shall be owne d immediate re imburse nent ther efor from the As sociat ion. Upon request, the Association shall enter into an agreement with any Y first sh to r mortgagee reflecting the agreement of the Association to such ' reimbursement. , `., Page Seventeen. BYLAWS I i , . ,k<• 1' 10. RECORDS AND AUDITS , 10.l General Records. The Board of Directors and the i • , agent or manager, if any, shall keep detailed records of managing ag g Y� the actions of the Board of Directors and the managing agent or '\ manager, minutes of the meetings of the Board of Directors and - minutes of the meetings of the Association. The Board of 1 \ Directors shall maintain a list' of owners entitled to vote at meetings of the Association and a list of all mortgagees of units. , • ■ if s �e Board and �Ex e nditure T� , l0.L Records of Receipts p of Directors or its designee shall keep detailed, accurate records in chronological order of the receipts and expenditures affecting the 'common elements, itemizing the maintenace and repair expenses ',� of the common elements and any other expenses incurred. Such records and the. vouchers authorizing the payments shall be avail able for examination by the unit owners and mortgagees at convenient 1, hours of weekdays upon reasonable notice by unit owner or mortgagee. i 1 10. 3 Assessment Roll. The assessment roll shall be maintained in a set of accounting books in which there shall be an 1 . account for each unit. Such account shall designate the name and address of the owner or owners, the amount of each assessment against the owners, the dates and amounts in which the assessment comes due, the amounts paid upon the account and the balance due ;, r on the assessments. r' ' l0.4 payment of Vouchers. The treasurer shall pay all vouchers up to $1, 000 signed by the chairman, managing agent, i' manager or other person authorized by the Board of Directors. C . Any voucher in excess of $1, 000 shall require the signature of the chairman, 10. 5 Reports and Audits. An annual report of the receipts ts _ and expenditures of the Association shall be rendered by the Board of Directors to all unit owners and to all mortgatees of units who have requested the same within 90 days after the end, of each fiscal • year. prom time to time the Board of Directors, at the expense of I the Association, may obtain an audit of the books and records per- 1 taming to the Association and furnish copies thereof to the owners c. and such mortgagees. audit` it or inspection�toobegagee may, at �I • mor tgag . At any time any owner t M expense, the �: hiw own Dense, cause an ud made o books and records of the Association. 10. 6 Notice of Sale, Mort a e. Rental or Lease. Immediately upon the sale, mortgage, rental or lease of any unit, the unit owner shall promptly inform the secretary or manager of the name and address t3' said vendee, mortgagee, less .. o f s lessee, or tenant. ,;. Page E hte en. BYLAWS it • 1 t ,' , a .;.. ,_ ..., .„ < .,_.,_,:.. ... ....... ....... n.,.,_.. ,..,i..,...,. .. ,._,,,.w..,.... .. ... ........ ..`. ,....... .,1., M.A.I._ .x..." a—,.,_„.. ✓.x,. . ,n. ,,. ,..--... n....a • 11. MAINTENANCE AND USE OF CONDOMINIUM PROPERTY 11. 1 Maintenance and Repair. Except as otherwise provided herein for damage or destruction caused by casualty: (a) Units. All maintenance of and repairs to any unit shall be made by the owner of such unit, who shall keep " the same in good order, condition and repair and shall do all redecorating , painting and staining which at any time may be necessary to maintain the good appearance and condition of e the unit. In addition, each unit owner shall be responsible • for the maintenance, repair, or replacement of windows and. doors and any plumbing, any heating or air conditioning fixtures, telephones, water heaters, fans, lighting fixtures and lamps, fireplaces, refrigerators, 'dishwashers, ranges, / or other applicances and accessories that may be in or connected with his unit. (b) Common Elements. All maintenance,' repairs and replacements to the general and limited common elements shall be made by the Association and shall be charged to all the unit owners as a common expense. Each unit owner, however, shall keep the limited common elements which pertain to his unit in a neat, clean and sanitary condition. 11. 2 Additions, Alterations. or Ymprov ements. A unit owner shall not, without first obtaining written conSent of the Board of Directors, make or permit to be made any structural alteration, { improvement, or addition in or to his unit, or in or to the exterior of the buildings or any other general or limited common elements. A unit owner shall make no repair or alteration or perform any other work on his unit which would jeopardize the soundness of safety of the property, or reduce the value thereof or impair any easement or hereditament unless the written consent of all unit owners affected . is obtained. A unit owner shall not paint or decorate any portion of the exterior of the buildings or other general or limited common elements without first obtaining written consent of the Board of Directors. 11. 3 DamagLe or" Destruction by Casualty of Condominium Propert, (a) In the event of damage or destruction by casualty of condominium property, the damage or destruction shall be r epai red, re cons trx cted or rebuilt unle, ss, within fourteen fourteen (14) days of such damage or destruction, the Board of unit mote a 'ten percent (1 f�tx shall have requested special of the Association.erectors or mo una.f owners iation p meeting - ; Page Nineteen, BYLAWS • j' Such special meeting must be held within sixty (60) days. of the date of damage or destruction. At the time of such meeting, unless ninety percent (90%) of the unit owners, whether in person, by writing or by proxy, vote not to repair, , reconstruct or rebuild the damaged property, the damage or . destruction shall be repaired, reconstructed, or rebuilt. ,a In the case of substantial damage or destruction, timely written notice thereof shall be given to the unit owners and their mortgagees (b) The Association shall, be responsible fore ' repairing, reconstructing or rebuildin, all such damage or repa�.r�:ng, recan g rebuilding destruction to the common elements and, to the extent of the Association' s insurance coverage, all such damage or destruction to the. units. Each unit owner shall be responsible for such repairing, reconstructing or rebuild- ing of his unit as is not covered by the Association' s insurance. (c) If, due to the act or neglect of a unit owner, or of a member of his family or his household pet or of a guest or other authorized occupant or visitor of such unit owner, damage shall be caused to the common elements or to a unit owned by others, or maintenance, e • repairs or replacements shall be required which would otherwise be a common expense, then such unit owner shall pay for such damage and such maintenance, repairs and replacements as may be determined by the Association, to the extent not covered by the Association' s insurance. (d) In the event the insurance proceeds paid to the Association are not used to repair, reconstruct or rebuild the damaged or destroyed property, the Association shall distribute the proceeds among the unit owners and their mortgagees (as their interests may appear) in the same proportion as their respective undivided interests in the general common elements. 11.4 Condemnation. In the event of a taking in condemnation by eminent domain.of part or all of the common elements, the award d par moron el emen ,' t ' ar payable to the Association I made for such taking shall be pay the such proceedings are instituted or such acquisition is sought by a condemning as to any p tion of the property, p om t g r notice thereof shall be given to the ` • or authority p' unit owners and their mortgagees, percent (75%) duly u Q g � If �e��t;nty�fi�`e er more of :... .owners �. and p ( )', or mo f the unit ow y E promptly approve the repair or restoration of such common elements, the Board of Directors shall arrange for the same, which shall be Page Twenty. BYLAWS m • • • ' paid out of the proceeds of the award. In the event seventy-five percent (75%) or more of the unit owners do not duly and promptly approve the repair and restoration of such common elements, the board of directors shall disburse the net proceeds of such award to the unit owners and their mortgagees (as their interests may appear) in the same proportions as the respective undivided interests of the unit owners in the, general common elements. 11. 5' Restrictions and Requirements Respecting Use of Condominium Property by all Unit Owners. The units and common elements shall be used and occupied in accordance with the restrictions set forth in the Declaration, and such additional }' restrictions and requirements as shall be contained in these , Bylaws. 11. 6 Abatement and Enjoining of Violations. The violation of any rule or regulation adopted hereunder or the breach of any bylaw contained herein or of any provision of the Declaration shall • give the Board of Directors, acting on behalf of the Association, the right, in addition to any other rights set forth in these Bylaws: y (a) To enter the unit in which or as to which such • violation exists and to summarily abate and remove, at the expense of the defaulting unit owner, any structure, thing, . or condition that may exist therein contrary to the intent and meaning of the provisions hereof, and the Board of Directors shall not thereby be deemed guilty of any manner of trespass; or (b) To enjoin, abater or remedy such things or condition by appropriate legal proceedings. 12. AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS 12.1 How Proposed. Amendments to the bylaws shall be proposed by either a majority of the Board of Directors of by thirty percent (30%) of the unit owners. The proposed amendment must be reduced to writing and shall be included in the notice of any meeting at which action is to be taken thereon: 12< 2 Adoption. A resolution adopting a proposed amend proposed Directors rop by either the eor unit ment may be y Board of Dir by the, rt • owners and may be approved by the unit owners at'' a meeting called.' for this purpose. Unit: owners riot present . p a p rit at the meeting 'co�isider ing such amendment may express their approval in writing o by proxy. . ma e, press t n g or Any resolution must be approved by seventy-five percent (75%) of the ° by developer Co long developer owns any unit i „ unit owners, and b developer o lon as deve y �n Page e g Twenty-One. 13Yr.AWs IP n ` 1 } 1 * j • the condominium. Dec1 grant' s consent shall not be required after . three years after the recording of the Declaration. No provision of these Bylaws which is for the benefit of mortgagees may be amended without the, written consent of all mortgagees. 12.3 Execution c,tnd Recording An amendment shall), not be effective until certified by the chairman and. secretary of the Association, approved by the Real Estate Commissioner, and, recorded as required by law. 13 . MISCELLANEOUS 13.1 Execution of Instructions. All checks, drafts, notes, bonds, acceptances, deeds, leases, contracts and other instruments shall be signed by such person, or persons, as may be designated by general or special resolution of the Board of Directors and, in the absence of any touch general or special resolution applicable s to any such instrument, then such instrument shall be signed by Il the Chairman. • 13. 2 Definitions--Adoption) by Reference. The definitions contained in or adopted by the Declaration shall be applicable to these Bylaws. 13. 3 Persons Affected. All unit owners, tenants of such owners, employees of owners and tenants, and any other persons who may in any manner use the property subject hereto shall be subject ° to these Bylaws and all rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, as the same may from time to time be amdended. 13. 4 Adoption of Initial Bylaws. Declarant may adopt, ), on behalf of all unit owners, these Bylaws as the initial Bylaws of the Association 13.5 Conflicts. These Bylaws are intended Law and the Declaration. In case of an �, to comply with the Oregon Unit Ownership Y irreconcileable conflict, such statute and document shall control over these Bylaws or any rules and regulations adopted hereunder. 13. 6 Waiver. obligation, I I No restriotion, condition, obl�.gatic�n, or these y em contained in the laws shall a.►s deemed l to have been ,�. provision '., ae � ave been abrogated or waived by reason of any failure to enforce the sari, , irrespective of the number of violations or breaches thereof Which may occur. Page Twenty-Two. BYLAWS E I a • � .».�......�. ........ .. .. ....... .. ... r,., ....,...a..,•_«M. ... ....r.........,».+,.+..•......w..�.,fL,.,._ .�.I�.._s..a,:4.aaY...: ,.+. .,i .air.........•.,....«r.,.,.r...:,x:.-�......«_i,�.......,,,.+...... 9u�—�..r....•.,.,��t.�«;.u...sn1.. , —a �,, ..r,,.-.+>;..�a' ,. ..,,,...:t»aA..:..a.�..1..+-�...;w:.-.;-.n..�::.:.�,::A.;.. • y, I 13.7 Invalidity; Number; Captions. The invalidity of any part of these rbylaws +shall not impair or affect in any manner the validity, enforceability or effect of the balance of these bylaws. As used herein, the singular shall include the plural, • and the plural the singular. The masculine and neuter shall each include the masculine, feminine and neuter, as the context requires. All captions used herein are intended solely for convenience of reference and shall in no way limit any of the provisions of these bylaws. • • • I I I I I I ' r I . I I v. n I li 1 Page Twenty-Three. BYLAWS I I I I V ,mi.0 u�.«unn„r•.«.,w,.�.,a».wW.>�.,,.,.e,•.u»,.,,.....,.,.,,.................n,..w.u.,.«..,.,.,.,,,..,,,...._,e ,.», .,•,. .. ,, . .,.,�.., ..�,.., ...•., , � .I l -' . ..,.��,•,,,. I.I., ...,.,. ., ,.,�, .,,,,.,, .. , �� r i' ' I »,,.«... .,,,,,l,.. 1 ...., ,Je.. ,..1 ..,.r.r. s.,A ..w.x..a _.M.«._..-..-..w ..—....P.,..-r....iJGw....• ._..., J...4.r...i.,ln..... _J.-t�{ «r.«, /(,.: ,J.FI,J�'r ..,+.,» .ua.rr 4.i+.-L .w.+....,.s».,r„U - _ •. -..., x..._..a+»..,a{„ 0...411 n;Y • • el l �! 0'' . 4:. w SOUTHER.SPAULDING,KI;NSEY.WILLIAMSON& SCHWAB E �i + ' ATTORNEYS AT LAW I ; xu sUi7E 1200 STANDARD'PLAZA 1 11, 1100 S.W.6LH AVENUE II PORTLAND. OREGON 97204 , I:ALVIIJ M.SOUTHER ROCKNE GILL', JAMES O.HUEGLI ANCER L.HAOOERTr SPUCE SPAULDING JAMES A LARPENTEUR,JR TELEPHONE 503"22 981 HENRY O.WILLF,NER DELBERT J.BRENNEMAN WILLIAM H.KtNGEY JAMES F.SPIEKERMAN CABLE ADDRESS:"FIOBCAL" "ERRY C.HAUCK ROBERT W,NUNN WAYNE A.WILLIAIv SON ROBERT G.Simpson! HARK H.WAGNER JAMES E,BEMFDICT" I u • . JOHN L.SCHWAEE RIDGWAY K.FOLEY.JR. JOHN G.CRAWFORD,JR. STEVEN H.PRATT WENDELL WYATT THOMAS M,TRIPLE7T DON H.LLOYD DONALD A.HAAGENSEN I I'k GORDON MOORE ROBERT E,JOSEPH,JR. 19'79 NEVA T.CAMPBELL RUTH WAXMAN HOOPER • 1 KENNETH E,ROsER•J';'s STEPHEN B.HILL I October 31, JOHN E.HART RALPH V.BAKKENSEN I • FORREST W,SIMMOIJS PAUL N,DAIGLE ROGER A.LUEDTKE ELIZABETH K.REEVE �i JAMES EL.OYHANLOfv ROBERT T.HUSTON ROY D.LAMBERT CHARLES R.MARKLEY' DOUGLAS M.THONIPSON KENNETH 0.RENNER DAVID K,McADAMS ROBERT A.STOUT tl JAMES R,MOOPE KENNETH E.ROBERTS,JR. W,A.JERRY NORTH DANIEL F KNO* ,' A.ALLAN FRANZKE I DONALD JOE WILLIS JAMES T,WALDRON JAN k,KITCHEL , ROLAND F.6ANKa„JR. J,LAURENCE CABLE ROBERT D.bAYTON L,EDWARD ROBBINS , GINO Gr PIERETT I,JR, MICHAEL D.HOFFMAN DAVID W.AXELROD PAUL R.BOCCI li DOUGLAS J.WHITE,JR, GUY C.STEPHENSON I Mr,. Aldace Howard rl { Planning Director I. City of Tigard ;1 I • Tigard, Oregon 97223 .., '', , RE: Anderson v. Hoffman & Hoffman, Inc. , et a1 i'� Dear Aldace: u: 'I I am enclosing a second draft of your Affidavit 1 . \, including attached exhibits and a copy of the By--Laws of . the Canterbury Woods Unit Owners ' Association. I have deleted your comment regarding the proposal for the rec 'I • building and your comments concerning site design review, x The latter will be included in Dick Bolen's Affidavit inns-- , I. much as he was the person involved in that ,procedure. • '1^ 4,q .+ Very truly yours , "n • • . , -'-'"),,, /: i T 1 ' + •✓� ” / r /,....„ /1, .L_ AV I D A . AXE LRO D / • ..J. • DWA:cv Enclosure • 1 , it i , 1M • 1 I I , r I • I I I NN ',.::�,..,« ,,.,,,,.•-1.'..„•,:.,1,...,.,..,,.w..,;..,.,...•, .r. ...............w.l.......,,, .,, ,.._ ,., . ..,,.,,,.. _ ..., ... 1! ,. 1..,.,.»,.,.,,...�,...,,., ,r..1 ,.,., ., .I', .,,., r.,.,.r a ,,r1 •., .,.r. •,,, »1 ,.,,1,w ,. , ....�.«. ..-.,ter a s e U Ili\ �..� y M, r y • I • I III .J C Pt r,{T.!`c,M, f`,r,, „,,‘,`,,''''i ,. , I •4`''fr i' ?tYViav,r5 t.ty'u, 4JW 'Sa., /), .r°;a ,6, a� q p , .a' x,ia. S,flF. A h:p r:rB tl@ r.J�`,� ImFa'' t Urr;,,S'' a ,''”' ,,0..a"....,T.'1'w r i; .'{ '..I.,,i ,!•,�'cMa%)..:'.:; F,Ii 1:.,,. x I,I,''�*'v'� . 4s'1F'w ryr`tlW "y4„ .� rc.d"rte ,. . ;;1%; 't:, 1""0—,1% %.p�.w J, ' 4 ,•tAY,,Y..G rl .'' : '.4;',r',13 ak It... 'F 4 , C'.i.'' ', ..xw .%,i ,, .. .w,G•'%'',;".'' 1 I G'0 ' ' d . « . , '4..1.*i"". r :A;'!1 :4, 1..3.•C..tC'�, swl a 8':F"„ Gr L..MMi 1 L F,9t al e;iFlt.i4.Gka!'YC11„xY p C'.,r,�C..}i'wA4',`:/. ",l.i .,.d C,«G"''I�„i'' ..". .1 C' ,, t)! " • ', •'F4 "'.'u«•r'' *:i%(,;›,,.•1a,1,l.f,"! t :' c:';'::C,: I Y;,!'k,, %%,1, ' a 1 6,. s. tis aY. ,; la., r, -Y",.M Y t 4.,,■" :',.1 t",:,w. rS-t. ti n. .S.N.)1.d.( ;•b'u, x • }ii'∎-''Yt''',e 9':5,1 'd Yi• . "tea d..., . ix Y'. , , ,I t to ' t t f C. . .. J }d'. I I .,q, F 14 �+�F.y T`!��'�" ,t' ` 4 I "A"',F'r' ,y, { w '" ra o t + y 'u 5.-� t " .4.i- YC.:11i a"1t4,a� wi -4 t.CI%i','..,t.i '.:',1!t� I d3,A oll1l1 �,`(:;j:�»u hG_/.';' Cep ?'I n,.,. f,.. ,'� S"y {', . `rt, Y, i q jyg j.f wy� jj"...r2,:', I� y{ !q }�'1/� y j 9y ' I'" edux d, d. ii C I'4 I is«..,1 t)et1): i,1il SA'•1'lk,t ;X z41t'i A 1 . I t. I I A l , • I + r , "� y P J . ' . 1 . N CITY OF TIGARD REQUISITION .�� . ric~ RD OREGON ' N O, 1 THIIS IS NOT A.PURCHASE ORDER PLEASE ORDER THE FOLLOWING: P.O. NO. SU BESTED SUPP'IE R: . 1 C.i a �___ ,!,,, ,,-. ,4— DATE ,�' 0 ""` "` { ±�' .___ , NAME d' L DELIVERY TO _ DEPT 6TRE T .. LP) cyCe0 _ 0IN-i. - ...._.- ADDRESS, 41►, , CITY&ZIP CODE zs DATE NEEDED ACCOUNT NO, QUANTITY bESCRIPTIO N UNIT PRICE AMOUNT t ,' q S'' ' Il —-'�'� ""."�' !l 6'62A"'.42..c.*‘..._,) w- w� e .• (/7 � may,�� ■ `�,�!r'4�,',{�0 1-t � . . :�.a - 140 .� i i r,;2,P,J --v---c.L.,v4,6.4_,.. r_it- 4/s „.). n a• yr i 1 , N • ., ..._.._..�. .�. a. , ,.i. . I riz _ P ST RUCTIONS �. 611 1 s i To A ill ' ', `= , 5�, N / 0 'NATURE � �,,_ r It APPROVEI DEprt HLAb ■ APPROVEb CITY RECORDER e LI . a .I I`ll 1 ' . 1 t ' .1t7 l d .1 CITY OF T6GAR E UI A T�U9U TIGARD, OREGON 21103 C1 �E ORDER 'T'Hl�IS NOT A l'URGHA, • • PLEASE ORDER THE FOLLOWING: P.O.+. Y NO. 41 N SUGGESTED SUPPLIER l 1 e? 0, , '.Y+''?1 -s,,. ' DATE '' +_ � , .+., f DELIVERY TO DEPT 1 ' , . STRF.�g�' . t'•.,• I ,. .e. ,. o' C✓ r r t' , t .,"d.«., ✓./ol 4 ADDRESS ___ ....................... .„, CITY&ZIP CODE ' 'DATE NEEDED, _ ACCOUN NOY QUANTITY ___ DESCRIPTION + UNIT PRICE AMOUNT ..i, f y� y 1` { qty+ �+'p' ,;,,, ,V'° .+'f�,I�' I� I. L e S; /1,',„/ �' ‹,' r lra”._-.._.--,1 {y h 4.I t' Vr A,f, 0 _ e+'f 1. � ' ' ' . , q t� ,,d t{,'Y"/ ~ ("' j} .,)4. ( t J,1 5,,M' t 4 /:*t 1,'N' W" .2«iM1rrw4 �+1+ti ...11 it - /art /i JP,41...le,* .4 ,' r ' '/.0. 51 c) • 1' � ✓,n.. ; °.,. Y' �g Q K.) J d .S,t, �' ry rvXSl Y Y.4 , L ,,.., ^�, 1 .1, f MpYyn I, 6, A`d r� 14i t4 I',,', Ge...,.d4u or '.4 k+ a 1 J fir � /a F a It �: '_ F iY �,+ � ��r, w, r n, , 1 I I _ 1 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS TOTAL AMOUNT "/.:;;`, r,"' c ✓ APPROVED ' dCP� N� b h;;w.^a ,,r, aI !r awl ' .� ,APPROVPD CITY Ii,eCI'JRII'ZR� ' w i I i •1 t" • • r • r • r • • r. A - ■ 1 0D1 :300,f* lut:b t.'.igat a, Otego .',•,9122,3 } o y.. yy p A r rc a1 a t..+z�� L.V.�el.1��,��.�, �',�0.�4•�� �.s����t�S�,.� .�.l��.�.�.A 4w5 ���� ,.+ • a w �-ccrtw u )h,;ir .i'<a rr iu.tc.6:.l., f',:.I n 't cio er 22, N ')/„. F Mk3M T i .ILL d City ou c1 l L + � vo*N M uo ,t • y� r" " N ` ti L doAC . ,: r „,.,, ystOp ;s,ieetI- vi11 h(, l; ilcd to you tile first .1i•r o ” " i 4 The P . , , will be ;11e10 at 14'ovlar fi.i..ntor IA, 3, �1'c%o*i 1,(, ".t tro *:0ei,„ 1 1Li'.: '3 a Y^a w I a l twi.4 6, `9 t r c't!,t ;.(4 :t;1„) x n b'f 0 r w, H 'it,' e o .,'off" Pro le,,,z r • , 'r. ., Y • I• r w .1t # r Im , Scott r ;r 4 i } i - • 7. _>•,w,....,,W... ...,,W ..w�..,»w...�•,•._,,..M,..,..,..w.w... „..,,, ,m..,,, .�•,•,........�...............................,, »•M �„,,, `. �,.,. ....�.e..,pA,•+w�^wo..,w..wroe.aC..,�rn.,, , , �� N� .,...w», , ,.r........,-.lr.,...w:u...4..,....... .. ..L..,..�.. .�,�...0.......... ...............•....AA1..4„..,W..-,1... «.a!'..,- A..i,.,,.,.•., e....,.A.,.L..,w..,rv.).,.._........,...-.A..-r4 liA,w.f...:,l..L....,,.- .,:t..,µ�x,.a...rr.,...til'�....w..JS�..,. .F,.w•-...T-..�,.:1........4.ii{.i.,.I.uL,.�4...W.....�.W.,.•La.a::... ..x,pr c 4)1. APPLICATION FOR. USE OF MODEL HOUSE(S) p r • (Ref. Ordinance 79-18) `7/-fit, • To: Tigard Planning Director We request authorization by the Tigard Planning Director for use of model house(s) . ,.„.w t' r, F Subdivision Name: ,� - ,,r Jr� 1 I Developer Name: HOFFMAN & HOFFMAN HILLTOP ESTATES - ) Address 1888 SW Madison -- Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone• 2t -7 g3 rip Brokers Name: THE REAL ESTATE COLLABORATIVE INC. I I Address: 14900 SW 109th Avenue - Tigard, Oregon 97223 Telephone: 228-2820, Tigard: 639-2121 Y „ .,. Attached to this request �.s a plat map showing the proposed location of the model house(s) . I a Application Date: October 1, 1979 ' r Authorization is/ . granted for the use of model house(s) as requested l , ,without condition for a one year period from this date. ' Conditions: , I I Tigard P 'ennin Director oe City of Tigard, P.O. Box 23397, 12420 S.W. Main, Tigard,' Oregon 97223 Telephone 639.417 � T r r I ' 8� .,....,..avwu:n.u,..,,,.w..,w., vu+l w�u ua.w.. ,a.,..nu•:vuw,rw+ nnw..,.,aun.,vw,�,.uu, .,,.: .n., ., ,,..,,.,,,, . rr,., .. � ri ..,_ ,.,., .. „�', r„ ,. � r._.,� .....,r..............�,...1..... ,,.•.. ., ..f..,•, .,... . �. , ya„.a♦ <w+..s.4t...IU+.✓-Ar_✓........ rw.FWJ.IFJ'�'.. ...L✓, .✓. _ . _ ,i .r...e,.,ew+..ue i • • ' ..i,. _.. ',i.,t.a¢ .. ..,.r-_._ _ .a,.w..x+.:i..+.W,.w Jn 1 n!.».�...,.....n ..,+,...,. n .,....,o:.... -i✓r....,.. . i , i I i i , . I F /, APPLICATION FOR USE OF TEMPORARY SALES 'OFFICES(S) Tot Tigard City Council until 0, We request authorization by the Tigard City Counci), for a temporary sales . , office(s) Subdivision.Name: CANTERBURY WOODS Developers Name: HOFFMAN &, HOFFMAN HILLTO ESTATES Address: ' . 1888, S.W. Mad.,son, Fo sand, OR 97205 Telephone: 228-23.00 Broker's Name: THE RE A ESTATE CoLL ABORATIVE INC. Address: 14900 SW 1 9th 'A - - Telephone: 228-2820 Attached to this request is a pla map showing the proposed location of the sales office(s) . ✓ Application Date: ,._ Oc t b er1 1979 . Authorization is/is not granted for a temporary Sales office with/without conditions for a, one Year period from this date. Mayor N( Conditions Date , i r e' P.O. ox 23391, X124 e � � � � � City of Tigard, ,. � 20 S.W. ' Main.; Oregon 97228 • , Telephone 689-4171 • • f w • I' X14 .If o 11-,- .._, ,.,.,.,,, .,,I, ......,. _. II ..._,,.,,,, r.,a,:..l ♦ll..-....,,.»,,,,,...»,.., L..,»,.,,,,,.1..!,.1...,.,,- .,.. .,4,,....,.....1.,,-„.u.._.».......,..u.. .,..441,..,,,.,.,1,w..,,..»4...». AL..,....,... ..-„,41..,...,.,4,.»...-:,44...-,...144l4....,,..,4:.:,,,....4--„,✓.f,..,,,_r.:at,,a,,, , p 8 ,,, ,11'''') ., , 'i CITY OF TIGARD--12420 .MAIN--TIGARD,OREGON 97223 I,, !RECEIPT DATE: 7 AMOUNT:$ /�:5"'d "”" ol,,,,,, ...,„4,,, ..„/ Alte- 04-'7 el,,i,,,,,e,) ,— DOLLARS I I NAME:lekidial cL Hers P�>� CASH: > ADDESS; . `7ca / .` ' CHECK: r # , FOR: ACCT.# PERMITS SURCHARGE AMOUNT • , SEWER BILLINGS , 40-364 $ ' BUSINESS LICENSE 05-331 PLUMBING PERMIT 05-332 $_,. _..__ MECHANICAL PERMIT I 05.332 • , . BUILDING,PERMIT C.5-333 SEWER CONNECTION 40-363 I , 4 SEWER INSPECTION 40-365 I SYSTEM DEV I CHARGE PARK IDEVI CHARGE#1 30-367 - PA R K DEV CHARGE 2 30_ 36 8 4 ZONING ADJUSTMENTS 05-362 a , .yo- 1 }Q( of } ,0.,, ).^",.. �, I j • , L . RECEIVED BY: ii_4/1 t.. _ 4 PERMIT ikIIHVESERS ASSIGNED Nuniber Amount Number ir Arriount r e i" �► t�ur�,ti" Fniaun$ ', $_____., _ ._ $.,_.___..y.,,_�.,' $,_,....�.�_� I I • 0 If I , I I , I I � I I i 411/4'''' i .u.,..v.,, „ ,•I A r' i r ..._,n_ .,...n'.: . ...•,.....,.....'.at ..w '' :,,.' - .....,. ,«,..,s..,_..w..,+,,.,.........,._.,...W.-.,..1..,..•.,».... ....._.._i ,-1....,...,c ...,,,...., ..n"JU::."..::.....,_,:A:,U...C.wtu .:.z..:_.,..'r-.. RECEIVED SEP 2 41STh JAMES A.Cox RICHARD J.GENSER`1I' CITY OF TIGARD ATTORNEYS AT LAW NORTH STATE STREET 4 .� AREA CODE S03 � I ' I LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 97034 TE L,EP H OVE F35-3SA$ I .0)-? September 20, 1979 II 1 Mrs. Doris Hartig City Recorder, and Finance Director f: City of Tigard 12401 Main Street p Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Appeal of Elizabeth Anderson Dear Mrs. Ha.rtig I s , If Pursuant to our telephone conversation of September 17 . 1979, . enclosed., herewith is a check for $150.00, Wn payment I of the appeal fee. I understand that this amount is broken r own as follows: 1. $100. 00 in payment of the transcript fee. 2. $50.00 as a deposit towards the cost to publish the public notice. The unused portion of this $50,, 00 will be refunded to me. !, Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Very .t 1y yo44s, j , f . ICHARD U. GSER RJ'G:sc • cc: Elizabeth A. Anderson I , Enclosure i • .,... ..w.,.,, ��+ ,...,.«,..... .� ,�J t� �d'�a. we.. s.v�. �� �.�1 r,rt.I�',. ,�i..�. vw'�'� ,� ....� ,.,.. .,,, ,�..._ _ „�.�r..M.__.� ....._.i.... .�.. wr 'h`�S° PiE� u - ,;Kq;r M M'.'rr t"��.' '' i'''`° ..t,4.r,•(.r.'tr .�•.J..'k�•'ta i'�'! -..t.1 '�'`' ` Y. r `tom art" i i .�• .. •�. , , ING EXHIBITS n A rr,rc B" rr, & C to GRANTING THE APPLICATION AND FIXING AN N EFFECTIVE DATE. 4 Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler to approve• Approved b unanimous vote of Council. , 20. OTHER (b) Public Works Director reported that, the Waverly Meadows project is complete, and that the inspection will be coming up soon. He recommended that :Council accept the improvements with conditions. • .; • �,' RESOLUTION No 79-93 RESObUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING TP2 'PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN WAVERLY MEADOWS SUB0IVISION, SUBJECT TO HEREIN SPECIFIED CON'DITIOIS• • Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Brian to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. (c) Public Works Director reported that the American Legion sewer extension project was complete and that the developer Was requesting the release of the cash bond and substituting a maintenance bond. Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler to authorize ' release of the cash bond and requiring a maintenance bond. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. (d) Legal Counsel reported that the Systems Development Charge v. Homebuilders was heard in the Court, of Appeals. A decision should be expected in two and to three months. (e) Councilman Scheckla asked if occupancy permits had been granted to Canterbury Woods, noting that the eastern fence installation was very poorly constructed. City Administrator repotted that permits had been granted for buildings 1,2, 8 & 9. He went on to say that the 'building code does not speak to quality of fencing and therefore there was no way to require the developer to improve the quality of the fence. (f) Councilman Scheckla, noting the increased usage of Cook lark, wondered if the distribution of City garbage service between Miller and Frank was stir: q .b table• Ci�•ty Administrator e u�; � stratdr stated that he would look into the matter. y1. METING ADJOURNED. 9: 15 P.m. City Recorder City/b Tigard • ATTEST,t w faya - City bf Tigard PACE 8 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING — September 24,� 197 . • FTC 1 c', i, d ,r''-g. , , ' September : 0 1979 - I r 1 I i I ' 7 •y. 3 rrd J; stsc tr Attorney ' 8 Novth Stage Street* Suite 204 I r �a Oswego* Oregon oM 70 Appeal Piai rt g C(.)mlissiort Decision I n tti , Anderson - Canterbury ury Wood, I Condominiums This letter r ie confirmation of the Tigard City ouA i*s •a&& o n September • L 1979* regarding Maur request for vat7or o f appeal fees regarding . above case ; I . . t,,, . Please h advised it 14y« the u y n up s decision e y Council the coot , f transcript preparation be sbared equally* w th any additional cos . incurred the cppeal to be paid by Nrse Anderson* . i nt wishes� o p w this appeal* it i r ; the fee o j $250,00 be deposited with the city, so we mey process your appeal* 11 you do not make your depotoit tly e 28 9�# we will t. suue you 1 . do not wish to pursue this s ato , !d '>aa+`t d'i7.AtM4rsv1V"7i Y7'..'il'0 , of . , riMWa7i ! I v4y oe Ri A t e I , . I I , A A Y r ' I �• •b • I b i l Ilr ua w n•nmx t •�N.d7 R'6 • SePteMbet 13$ 1970 VOrMan G Hotz Hoffman and Hoffman 1888 S W. Madison Pori :o Oregon 9720 Re Appeal Denial of Occupancy' Permits by City Administrator Canterbury Voode Condominiums Dear 1,elt. ►t t Th t letter t$ to on it thd Action of the Tigard City Council it a y e r regular meeting September 100 19790 regarding the abovt appeal. . Please be advised it Vag the unanitous decision of the Council I to require r conformance 'with the City AdminiStratorts 1e t:e t of e to ber 4 19700 with the e eepti01.1 of provision #3 (chimney chases) viilich may be handled on a building by building basis. Specifically the requirements teat must be completed and approved before occupancy e M ats vill bo ias wd 4.to as 1. Platting of o 2 more 20.foot fir tease in Uhe. large "gap" no tha easte4n property* line to provide maximum screeninz. 2 Installation of a 5-foot high fame along the o nt zo lone,th of tbe eastern prop4rty oroet04 in ouch At tO preserve the large trace. . 3* Instal1ation of chimney chases n 411 buildingOw ;o be handled on building, by building basis.) 4. itmergoncy access completed approved ion,'District, xf you have further n the above lease contact City 11411# Doris liartig t , , • • I I ' ri' • ., r r X -cone-c 't ... ! P.0„ Box 23397 12420 S.W.Main Tigard,Oregon 97223 September 12, 1979 . Mr. Peter B. Hoffman ' ,, HOFFMAN & HOFFMAN, INC. 1888 Southwest Madison .-. ,. , Portland, Oregon 97205 . „V RE: LANDSCAPING PLAN, CANTERBURY WOODS ' , R ;I Dear Sir: In response to your letter of September 5, 1979 concerning a landscape plan, I received duplicate copies from Mr. Otten through Mr. Van Lom and have . reviewed them. You and. I spoke of your intention to move the plant materials '`I along the eastern property line to the west toward the berm. Please change ., these plans to reflect your placement decision. The placement of the large m• fir trees is now "final" although two trees are still to be planted in the existing 'gap" on the eastern property line. Actual placement of these trees should be shown on this plan. Also, please include the fence along the entire eastern property line. Significant trees should be shown in relationship to the "breaks" in this fence. This plan does not accurately reflect the parking lot and garage entry configurations which you have installed. Entry to garages in front , of buildings #6 and #4 should be changed to allow easy ingress/egress. This , p g' may mean that one small landscaped island at the eastern end of building #6 • be removed. The small landscaped area to the west of building #6 should be modified to allow a straight shot to the garage from the paved area., ', The garages at the south end of building #4 open into a very narrow . paved area. This should be modified to allow easy ingress/egress: e i These are very minor changes, but your prospective o'w/01rs will complain : • immediately Y p °he garages. , when they attempt to use t.. es. I do not wi�hahoebe involved at a later date in this conflict., so I am requesting changes tow. Please modify the plans and correct the garage entries. As soon as;x I receive these plans back, I will make an inspection and report the results Lo -you immediately. . .. Thank 'you for your cooperation. If I may be of further r assstance; please contact me. ; Yours artily# b . Aldie� coward (1I' y Planning birector Ativtio° ,.uW ..,..,...w..,W ,.....u.A,w.w..w,,,.......w.....,..w. .,,Ww. ..., ... „„u, �,.,,. ,.,.u,., a,...,,, ,., ,. ,., w__._..,....�.la�•..�� .��.�l� �. .., ».., , !. .... ,.._„_ ...... ....... _. .,. :., 1. 0 s , ._. .. _....:1..l,., al;.. .... ..L i .. ..It,. .,,. -.la.m,e.. .....,.n..,ILIA....l..a....+...•,.,... n....i.],;a•_ •,+Y...WAJk ,' * • ••', I ......_,.. n.w..,.n, ✓....a .r,. ....._ u.x n, 1 a l • .. a .4F- .r♦w.«+a ra , (c) Discussion by Council as to whether or not they wished to hear some testimony this evening. Consensus of Council to delay all testimony to the September 24, 1979 public hearing. (d) Motion to approve passed by unanimous vote of Council. 7. APPEAL PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION, Elizabeth Anderson--Canterbury Woods Condominiums Consider waiver of fee _ , (a) City Administrator reported that Mrs. Anderson was appealing an August 7, 1979 Planning Commission decision. The specific request . before Council is the consideration of waiving the appeal fee, as 4 ,.•' per Mrs. Anderson's request. e. (b) City Attorney stated that the Council policy of waiving these fees is based upon "reasonable cause" and "hardship" on the part of the appellant. He went on to sa y, h owever, that another party has already had the transcript prepared and paid the City for this cost. He pointed out that the appeal fee is primarily used to cover transcript preparation (c) Norman Hotz, Hoffman & Hoffman, objected to the waiver of the fee. (d) Richard Geisert, 8 N. State Street, Lake Oswego, attorney for Mrs. Anderson, spoke in favor of waiving the fee, pointing out that the ?' transcript was a matter of public record now that it has been prepared, and that as the transcript preparat'„on has been paid for the City would incur no lAried cost in providing a u,py to Mrs. Anderson. (e) Mayor suggested that the cost of the transcript preparation be shared equally by Mrs. Anderson and the party who initially requested the transcript. !' (f) Councilwoman Stimler concurred with the Mayors uggestion. (g) City Attorney felt that, spliting the cost would be equitable and could be handled as an administrative matter. (h) Motion by Councilman Cooke seconded by Councilman Brian to have the parties share the cost of transcript preparation equally, with any additional costs incurred in the appeal to be paid, by Mts. Anderson 7< < a " p roved by unanimous vote of Council. Hoffman OCCUPANCY PERMITS BY CITY.ADMINISTRATOR, Norman Hotz of • 8. APPEAL DENIAL OF OCCUPANCY y f & Hofftan Canterbury Woods Condominiums (a) City Administrator reported that there were several p robl ems remaining ° in this project. Specifically the chimney vents and attic trap doors in the two buildings for which the developers are requesting temporary !5, permits, and he trees, emergency access plans '" occupancy the eastern fence, and chimney chases. He went on to recommend that the denial of the • occupancy permits be upheld. REGULAR MEETING MINUTES, September 10, 1979 Page , ( , t i i �Y M T I G A R D CI T Y COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 10, 1979, 7:30 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: May or Alan Nickelson; Councilmen Tom Brian (arriving r' at 7:42 P.M.), John E. Cook, Kenneth W. IScheckla; Councilwoman I Nancie Stimler (arriving at 7:37 P.M.); Chief of Police, R.B. Adams; Legal Counsel, Joe D. Bailey; City 'I Administrator, R.R. r Barker;; City Recorder /Finance Director, Doris Hartig; G� Planninp�/ 9 G Director, A1.3ace Howard; Public Works Director, Frank Currie; Research & Development Assistant, Martha McLennan. '. ` 2. CALL TO AUDIENCE FOR THOSE DESIRING TO SPEAK ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS (a) No one appeared to speak. Councilwoman Stimler arrived: 7:37 P.M. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES, AUGUST 27, 1979 (a) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council members present. 4. APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURES AND INVESTMENTS: $133,183.07 (a) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council members present. 5. ACCEPT SURETY MAINTENANCE BOND AND AUTHORIZE RELEASE OF BALANCE OF PERFORMANCE ' A BOND - MORNING HILL NO. 1 (a) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to approve.'( Approved by unanimous vote of Council members present. TEN TO CONSTRUCT CERTAIN SANITARY 6. RESOLUTION NO. 79-89 DECLARING, AN INTENTION T i ARC'. SEWER IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN AN AREA DETERMINED TO BE A SEWER IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT TO BE KNOWN AS SEWER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #17 FOR 'SUMMER HILLS PARK; "I DESCRIBING THE PROBABLE TOTAL COST THEREOF: DEFINING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE DISTRICT TO BE BENEFITED AND AS- ' E ; ADOPTING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS �a SESS.�D APPROVING AND P (FIG FOR THE WORK AND ESTIMATES OF THE CITY'S 'ENGINEER, AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING AND DIRECTING THE GIVING OF NOTICE I THEREOF. + h, (a) City Administrator stated that several. of the problems and confusion has' been resolved in a recent meeting with, the engineer and citizens, and + ' )' recommended approval or the resolution. k (b) Motion by Counciaiman Cook, seconn eed by Councilman he k1a to approve. i Councilman. Brian arrived: 7:42 PMT .,, I .6 II II y t ' h ' .wd I, (b) Norman Hotz, partner in Hoffman & Hoffman Inc., expressed his frustration with the extensive bureaucratic red-tape and citizen pressure they have experienced with this project. He went on to say that he felt that their . development was the finest in all Tigard. O • He H explained that the twenty foot tree in the are 1zn g lot was intended to , demonstrate to Council just how. large a tree ofl this siie was. He ex- plained .that the trees had been planted according to the Planning Director's stake marks and denied that he was aware of the problem e • le with,placement lac m . P P -• ent ", •, until after the rest of the trees had been planted in a row. He stated 1 that they would be unable to plant the two required trees without digging up the other trees (6-7) in the row. Mr. Hotz stated. that the installation of the fence along the eastern I boundary wor,lid be possible, but difficult. Perhaps requiring snaking 1 the fence between trees or starting and stopping the fence at every x tree. He also stated that ''as the' fence would not be visible,, he saw no Value in3this requirement. He said •Chat they planned °on complying �` 1 with the chimney chase and emergency access plan requirements. He concluded by saying that there was no precedent for denying temporary r occupancy permits for buildings which have been completed even though, F t the total project is not complete. He also pointed out that the two most serious problems (the fence and trees) were on the far side of the project from the buildings for which they are requesting occupancy. h •" Finally he stated that some buyers might be lost if occupancy permits t could not be obtained soon. I • P (c) Mark Feichtinger, 900 SW Fifth, representing the Galway Hills Homeowners 1 Association, stated that the residents agreed that this was a good project, however, they felt that as the project was so close to the neighbors M and had a vantage view into lower' neighbors property the fence and trees were essential . He went on to say that even though the fence would not be very visible, it would act as a "good neighbor" fence restricting r' P ets. children and , i (d) Richard Geisert, attorney for Its. Anderson, agreed with Mr. Feichtinger's testimony and pointed out that if the City allows occupancy before these k problems are corrected, they will lose the leverage to insure completion. . 1 (e) Councilman Brian felt that the trees and fence should be completed as well as the emergency access plans prior to any occupancy. He felt that the y chimney chases could be required on a building by building basis, He went r on to question the necessity of the size of the required trees in light ■ , i of the expected difficulty in planting them and suggested that this be referred back to staff I (f) Councilman Cook agreed with the feelings of Councilman Brian and , suggested that maybe two smalle.{a trees could be substituted for one •' e iy larger one. __ 1 i (g) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to deny the ,r appeal, and the ap pellant to conform with the City Administrator's letter of September 4, 19 79 with the exception of p rovision (chimney t�(� .,.. chases) which could be.handled on a building by building basis. o: i Approved 6 . unanimous vote of Council . li • 1, y REGULAR MEETING MINUTES, September 10, 1979, page. 3 , ' � , • i • , . . . ^ (2 ' • • (h) Much discussion by Council on alternative techniques of planting the trees. City Administrator asked Mr. Feichtinger if the Calway Hills residents would allow the machinery through the back of their property • to allow planting. Mr. Feichtinger felt he could not answer the question Yi at this time but felt that if they were to allow access, reimbursement for any damage to property would be necessary. Council also suggested that there was an access which should be explored through the Canterbury project. 9. HARVEY KING SEWER AGREEMENT (a) City Attorney stated that two minor amendments were necessary: (1) extending time of agreement,and (2) eliminating Unified Sewerage Agency from the agreement. (b) City Administrator reported that it had come to his attention that there was a U.S.A. trunk line along the back of the five property owners lots, and recommended that these owners be allowed a choice in which line they wished to connect. (c) Planning Director stated tha there was no real rush on this, and suggested that it be sent back to staff for corrections. (d) Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilman Cook to authorize signing and execution of the agreement with amendments spelling out landowner choice of hook up. 10. PRESTIGE PROPERTIES - TEMPORARY MODEL HOME REQtEST (a) City Administrator reviewed this issue for Council and stated that he would proceed at the staff level on the request. He said that he brought it before Council because of their recent interest in the subject and the change in the Ordinance. 11. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISIONS - Housing Implementation Plan - Manufactured Housiiig (a) Planning Director read two letters into the record: JoAnn. Nordling, NPO #4 member, objected to the post 1972 requirement stating that (.e this would be a hardship on the poor and elderly, she suggested that a conditional use permits be considered by Council in hardship cases; — Mr. & Mrs. Vining, 15227 SW Alderbrook Place, objected to the placement cgo;:brItiy,evhaz::.at all Stating that they would decrease surrounding Planning Director went on to describe several needed amendments: • Section 2, (a) , 1st line, delete "as", insert "and/or"; Section 3, (a), 4th line, delete "or", insert "and/or"; Section 3, (a) , (2), delete in full, insert "Mobile homes shall be installed under the provisions of the Administrative Rules promulgated by the Director of Commerce and administered by the State Building r, Code Division.y 9 Section 3, (a), (11), 3rd line, delete "agente, insert "materials"; Section 3, (a) , (13), 1st line, add an "s" to subdivision making it plural; Section 3, CO, (8), delete in full, insert "Mobile hoenis shall be installed under the provisions of the Administratl Rules promulgated. REGtLAR MEETING MINUTES September 10 1979 Page 4 • $ $ • • • • • • rq r M:ii4 ;,' opr:' ►�1•,' P.O. BOX 127 • TUALATIN, OREGON 97062 • PHONE 682.2601 • RUSSELL WASHBURN, CHIEF September 7, 1979 , ri, City of Tigard r. . , Planning Department City Hall Tigard, Oregon 97223 H. 9 g ', Attn: Aldie Howard, Planner Re: Canterbury Woods Condominiums, S.W. 109th Dear Aldie: • .1 A special inspection was made of the Canterbury Woods Condo- miniums on September 7;, 1979 for compliance with the letter and agreement written by Hoffman and Hoffman agreeing to changes in the parking lot for proper fire department access. The site has been examined and the two curb changes have been completed as shown on the map. Additionally, elimination of , parking spaces #39, 40, 41 , 42, 43, and 44 have been completed by painting out the striping. All conditions agreed to in plan that was submitted have been met and the site plan is acceptable to the Tualatin Fire . District: t . , .clours ',,,ruly /2 ,,,Li \„. .in , / • . . / hi:L., •••• , . d a �`pl4 A C eu ch 'He ty Fire Marshal t JAG:dm f r',' cc: Hoffman & Hoffman, Inc • 1888 S.W. Madison Portl and, Oregon 97205 Attn: Peter Hoffman • M u • • �/. " ... ..- ..........,,. ,,:_.lw_ .v_.I. _.".....,.¢..,...:'.,w. .....F4 _u.... ' ...a.c...:,a....,.,.. w........ •.u'..: _.. _ ,..t,.: •...,,. -..„a,i .w...,..,+.......,„..,, ,..t,.n:+.r uu,:=.,{, I. P ri GE:ARIN, LA N is & AEE!.I , ON.1"V61 LAWYERS 179 1516 GEORGIA—PACIFIC BUILDING ZLN PORTLAND, OREGON 972 04 6��� � TELEPHONE(503)224-6532 JOHN GORDON GEARIN �'. DAVID C.LANDIS' FRED M.AEBI JOE D.BAILEY JEFFREY M.BATCHELOR t: FRANK A.MOSCATO' JOHN'G.M MERGER ER .'IG LL , d JAfES M HAN A A e 5, I 1979 I emb r Se t • A • City Administrator Planning Department P.O. Box 23397 i, Tigard, Oregon 97223 i Re: Canterbury Woods Appeal By Elizabeth Anderson t� , ,, Our file: 112, 836 1 Gentlemen: I have reviewed Chapter 18. 92 of the Tigard , Municipal Code with regard to questions 'presented by I ,oe Mrs.. Anderson' s s appeal from the planning commission' s . decisions of August 7, 1979. It is my opinion that appeal from those decisions are available to Mrs. Anderson, '' P ` PP and that the appeal should therefore be scheduled for , �,, decision by the City Council at the earliest available City Council meeting. 1 i I. . Very truly 1 yours, ii(''' Alli 11!".., 400,,, Joe D. Ba lei JDB pb� • I l ; . f .0.)4, • n ., • . • • 6 M 1 1• f 'Z.'f, `` „fit r , Prig HOFFMAN & HOFFMAN, INC. I I t1A, P P 197 1888 SOUTHWEST MADISON PORTLAND,OREGON 97205 au OF TI ► (503)228-2800 ./ September 5, 197 9 A.ldie Howard, Planning Director City of Tigard 12420 S. W. Main Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Landscaping Plan , Canterbury' Woo ds w ' • Dear Sir: The landscaping plan which now has been approved by the Planning Commission, Planning Director, City Administrator, etc. , has not been received by this office to date. The landscaping plan dated March 28, 1979, by George Otten, apparently is approved With modifications. • 1 request all the modifications requested by the City of Tigard be included just the way they are proposed. These modifications are bits and pieces of three supposed landscaping plans forming a fourth and accept- able plan. } The modifications include: 1 -- A five foot fence along the easterly property line (a determined length if possi;ale?) . 2 Eleven (11) trees shown on the easterly property line and four (4) frees s along the northerly property line as shown on the landscaping plan dated February 1978; and the incorporation of these trees in the 'ii " landscaping plan dated March 28, 1979;and specifically 0 how we move the landscaping shown to satisfy all the modifict� ns a o . Thud we have the formulation of a fourth landscaping plan. 1 would suggest you have this plan expedited So we can conform rm for our occupancy permits: ;, Also�� ,�� r 1 would like to have the landscaping plan that was originally approVed which 1 have never received. This , supposedly is the plan dated February 1.978 from Which 1 , deviated, l must have an expeditious completion, of this matter, or el r , , ( Intl — 0 fr. "eat_ -peter B. Hof li :PBH h n ...., ) . i y orri 14 • �.� 1568 SOUTHWEST MADISON ._.______._ PORTLAND,OREGON 97205 TELEPHONE 503 228.2800 Septembers 5 , 1979 City of Tigard 1979 12420 S.W. Main Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 CITY OF TIGA RD Attention: Raeldon R. Barker : , RE: Canterbury Woods Condominiums Dear `Mr. Barker, We are in receipt of your letter of September 4, 1979 denying " ; any occupancy permits on the reference development. We wish to appeal this decision to the City Council. We re- ' quest that we are placed on the agenda for Monday, September 10 , 1979 « Yours u s tru7. yti l Norman G. Note NGH/ � J • !'t • -j • y Y t ., ti . . ' I(/' I' ,11*Z"."...., . . ,,...0,0,,,,„,„„0..,,,,;#4t. . ..... ,, . .„ J '� ,'I 1 :, r 1 . . \ li t4i . ." ' • rte .gyp, • A> .. b t' A ,1 L 1 y4Y� Q 1 ra'�1. � 1 CJITY OF TIIGARD. I . P.O. Box 23;9 i 12420 S.W.�'�V Main n Tigard,Oregon 97223 September 4, 1979 Mr. Peter Hoffman • ..;� . Hoffman and Hoffman, Inc. 1888 S.W. Madison Portland, Oregon 97205 Subject: Occupancy Permits - Canterbury Woods Dear Mr. Hoffman: This is in response to your letter of August 31, 1979 requesting occupancy . - permits for the units in buildings No 8 and No, 9 of the Canterbury Woods Condominiums. , As I have stated before, as City Administrator I will not allow the issuance A of Certificates of Occupancy nor allow the occupancy of any unit in any of the buildings in the Canterbury Woods Planned Development until such time as the buildings and related development of the property conform to and comply with alb. the applicable City ordinances and requirements, or until such time as a court `rder is issued forcing me to issue Certificates of Occupancy. 1 All of the units in buildings No. 8 and No. 9 have been inspected by the City Building Official and, as you know, have passed final inspection, except for the fireplace vents and the attic access panels (these deficiencies may have been corrected since the last inspection) . , There are, however, items other than the buildings themselves that must be completed and approved before occupancy permits will be issued. They are as follows: 1. Planting of two (2) more 20-foot fir trees in the large "gap" near the eastern property line. While you have planted eleven large, beautiful fir trees along the east side of your development, you have not met, in my opinion and in the opinion of the City Council ,, members and the Planning Commissioners, the intent of the Planning 1 Commission to achieve uitaxxi.munt screening. 2. Installation of a 5-foot high fence along the entire length of the 1 eastern property line, erected in such a manner as to preserve the large trees. ; . 1 II I n.u..,r....a,r.,,u ,,,..�,r��.e_.,...,.�...�wn,,,.r.,........rrr,�.,.,.n.rw�rw.,�,•..,,, era e.�.r...r„ .,,,�,.,,,rr ., .,�..,. '.., ..i. r,,,.., . � wrrmryx,.. ' N -. Il .,.i . ,..i. -,,..,wa.,M-.r„w..,..4x...,.. .u..1. ...,+..+.....Iw,-...+....un.............u,»u.i...,..._r»«wuW,..,aJJ..Na....r., ....,r1...✓...Y...,..-.u,,......1..:,.,.,.,.........-.-v..4✓,,,r.uti.w.- .. ,,, - ., ,,, „ ,,.,.i.. ..«.a+.,rt,.r.r • . y I Mr. Peter Hoffman s Septcmbcr, 4, 1979 I . Page 2 I I I 30: installation of chimney chases on all buildings. It is my under- ' standing that they have already been installed on buildings No. 8 II and No. 9. 4. Emergency access completed and approved by Tualatin Rural Fire y Protection District. It is my understanding that your revised ,„. plans have been approved by the 13 Lre District. z priviledge e of 'appealing m, decisions to the City You have, of course, the p�' g I my . Council. However, inasmuch as you are so close to obtaining occupancy permits, , I strongly suggest you quickly complete the items listed above and, upon their completion, I will instruct, the Building Official to issue you occupancy permits immediately. Sincerely, (-) w0. ,,` I I Racldon R. Barker. City Administrator RRB:lm I .. c c: Planning anninr Director Cit y of Tigard and Building Official, City of Tigard Tualatin Rural, Fire Protection District • fi 1 , I I � I , I it I II r I 1 ., , I I • ,f;?`,,Cs try c TtGARIJ PLANNING COMISSION September 4, 1979 14"--1 Page 8 as suggested by Bonn, we, explained as impractical for the Line contemplated by ' the applicant, based on his company's experience elsewhere. Smith raised the question of what our action would be were this a new applicant. Howard explained the benefits, particularly in greenway dedication and street improvements, which ' would come as a result of approval of this request. Smith expressed concern that , approval of this request be not considered as a precedent with respect to flood- way land use. Smith then MOVED for approval of Conditional Use CU 19-79 based on ' Staff Findings and Recommendations, with the added stipulation that the action on this floodplain request shall not be considered as a precedent when considering future similar requests. Helmer seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 1 5.8 CONDITIONAL USE CU 22-78 (Martin Eggert) NPO /2 • A request by Mr. Martin Eggert to extend a conditional use permit granted on August 1, 1978, to construct a duplex unit in a R-7 "Single Family Residential" zone on a .41 acre parcel at 11450 SW Greenburg Road (Wash. Co. Tax Map 1S1 35CA, Tax Lot 1500) . Since only the applicant remained in the audience, Selby read only the STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS portion of the STAFF REPORT. Of the printed recommended conditions he deleted No. 2; the renumbered No. 3 reads as follows That all units existing k or to be constructed on the subject site utilize 97th Court to enter onto S.W. Alto Greenburg Road if a permit to use this private drive is given." Printed Conditions 4 and 5 are then renumbered 3 and 4. • • Selby explained at some length the conditions prompting the revised conditions, ' and expressed confidence satisfactory traffic patterns can be worked out with the applicant in the site design process. Martin Eggert, the applicant, had nothing additional to offer in the APPLICANT'S ' PRESENTATION. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION: Smith questioned the application of the , City Code requiring each lot to have access to a public street, whereas we are strongly suggesting the use of a private drive for access, Selby explained public access must be available, even though not utilized. Mr. Eggert explained, in response to Smith's objection that, both duplex units could not have access to a public street, that the units would be so designed as to afford access to Greenburg / should the private access be denied at any time in the future. Bonn MOVED approval of Conditional Use (Extension) CU 22-78 based on Staff w . . 1 Findings and Recommendations as modified in the presentation. Smith seconded the motions which carried unanimously. N * OTHER BUSINtSS: The handwritten letter from Richard J. Geisert, attorney for Elizabeth A. Anderson, giving notice of appeal on the Canterbury Woods hearing of August 7, was read and discussed. Howard explained Mrs, Anderson has ifiled suit • + (0:‘ against Mr, Hoffman, the developer of Canterbury Woods, in which suit the City of . • + , • .y ti`s y +f n� �xF.t, _•.... w,».. '.I.,...,,....,fib .,a....,,a''. ...«,».u,7.a.. ', •I yam♦ .j`�• f 'MN'M -... ,u a.,. .•_ ..s.. . may(, • T • • • 14INUTES TIGAR,D PLANNING COMMISSION q. fr `� September 4, 1979 � Page 9 • Tigard is also named. This suit is due for hearing in. November'. Howard also stated Mrs. Anderson has applied for annexation of two tax lots next to Canterbury Woods. • In light o f the attorney's letter, President Tepedino st ressed the necessity , for the Commission to pa particular attention to the points there enumerated in which it is claimed the Commission erred, which are all points in the Administrative Procedures law. He pointed out particularly that we must state the findings on which we base our decision. Without that, it is a defective decision. With respect to the Canterbury Woods situation it was .01e consensus it has now passed beyond the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, How. ~ 'ep1ained the planting of the trees on the berm. Selby b Y reported there were only three public hearing items for the September \, 18th meeting, and therefore there could be some time spent on a study session that evening. • v • The President adjourned the meeting at 11:25. • • o it i I, I n � ' • • ,..,� ♦,..L,.,.+.., ......,......♦.i; .».n,,,.....,ia:4. � ,. ..<,„71.F+.� .:r, », -il 11.„!'.».... l,.w.M r.+1,.I,s,rt.-.l.y.av u.. i 1..r,1_. w J anJ.,LY,..,.......d0.'t++.F,a.114,�4.._. .}:r AI M1.i. +,.-r..«i4...JL'..'u:+.L”i•%11L.+Gii.1:i.;.°.�L'4.i::,4.i'.,:.11,:.i�i..i,•1 - ■ {, :; EXHIBIT A • . A tract of land situate in Section 10, Township 2 South, • Range 1 West, of the Willamette Meridian, Washington County, d Oregon, described as follows . . Beginning.at the East quarter corner of said Section 10; • 'j thence North 89° 58' 15 19 West along the South line of Lang a Hill No. 2, 330.00 feet to the• true point of b-,ginning; thence North„ .0° 51a 50" East along the West line of said . • Lang Hill 'No. '2, 478.13 feet to the Southeast corner of that ,', tract of land conveyed to Cooper Development Company, I . recorded December 10, 1972, in Book 900, page 928, Washington County, Oregon, Deed Records; thence South 89° 40 ' 0 0" West I . 661.00, feet, more or less, to a point on the West. line of . . the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 op Section 10, .0 Township 2 South, Range 1, West, Willamette, Meridian; thence south along said West line 4761.001 feet, more or less, to the South line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 10, aforesaid township and range; thence East along l said South line 662.00 feet, more or less, to the point of x beginning i�' � � .icy (,.'g. f.r 1'" e-...,'"(---• 1 L.. 1 • ♦ . 1 kV I r , 1 7 ' I I ry I I I i i I , EXHIBIT 1 y , t + 1 1 .....,,.,,......,.,,.,,,;,�...,u..,..4,:i,.,n,�,w,..,,,,,,u,.,.«i.,a...u,:,..i.,.x..�„n.�,.,,,u.,..,nxxn,.41,,.„,�..,.,,,,...,v..•,.._,�..r.,�.�,,.,��..,..,,i,.„,•,.,:a..,��...,.��,i..,..•�.,��..,.,..:�...,,,,................•,��,.,.�..,�,,,�.�..,.iL,w,,.,-, n., - ., � r �� ,,,,��..�,�.,.,,. . •.,.�� .,,�.,,.•, '.,+.+...—� +r-- ' r . ...rn- +-, xan* �. • .. n • 1 I � . ti• • • • , • • {1 irk :J :r'* 1 a' r ` . . 1' t• " \ 1 ' Y e.a".xlar., y f ;R'i t r pp � ` c t ' " + ." _ `,, to O.. ' - q : X^? �7"Yt a A � �,�q � , 1 F �„ 7LALi' • ♦j� " Q � 't T�.' Y R ,roe U� _ t~ ' \ s,tr • (((l 1 1 1 / y.,..„...— ..,'N, + y , / '' . , \ L.74,A. , ,C+s', • nr"ji \ I 1. r ,',...,44,7-4,6.44„ ,141..a2e.i.,...e..il ,. • . ....,,,..., • ,, :,.•,,,:,...,.)•: .. , :.:. •, _ - ..r." y�-'..a..�". i AUK//' !'R FeGT I1 r I ,,,,••••••'47 w.e.,. ", . 835-so„ _ :. . .q - . . . ., 'i r3 39 '(•1 r 37 r •t'' '' \ . .p 88 15•4 s� Q 16 r 1X33 ,,, ail '17 1' ✓ ' 'k''. " ik .I�34 24 " „1,... 2°'2'i' ` �, ., 128 261' :-J-�' r ',',1`p 4,4,'• • e "..rreJ' .�.' ,;'ywdyl'.I}3R:. -•fy`t"Ln.>l."' "a*' = ds.'�''r,r�."�..t rM^"N' � 1.(:_�A,} L.`1•� r_4`t •'""'.•""`�rN .g,�l:w �` i1.'- R"'/",' ,•'♦,•dt.�+`Vt•."n.• r'�e..w• Y1�+^�' ii rw,�t yu�1 D 76 42' 1, ' , a•.. ..-----"" _"_.--"--""�_�---------"` s (x]' • 7 5 I �� t•1 ' :� a 74 - ' *,i ill w, ,Jy �n � ` '�.. . X 13 n ,; „ N."w ". . • , _j454.:' , . .:,k It • G•r~ A N ,. 70 48 t� f 317' `Ar f 1 '.. „ r "may V• P y t 1 •' i7 • Im+ r Y s .}„15 67 A 5 52 ;1 ►, , ' 1 -`air �..�'+ , �r 3 0). D A. t ,r ' * r , / 1 , . —s"r 1�-"►1 r - v " • 36'2,61::.s v a 1 ,,.I A N 1 .y, ,r„ tra ��,;,.'y'i•l• . ' N • r ., , I t n C r,,, , :.: i . . ,, ' ,,,, .,k, -.',,,."n...\Al.". tA • • • Y r I , i• I I • *i �rF , ✓) , x....... ...._, f•..,.-.way....:.-..,x.........:...:_. -.4..w. f' _l.. t,...-.....a .,...ti,C...,1..,,....,.0 J..:,+..._:_.-..,....1... ,..l..t T.,o.._ _.,.v..t... .H,...+._,..4r1t....a,.A...n:l...i+i+._„I R.c_ .:.1..[r..u.......,.u..,:.xt..,v yn,wu..:v,uti. ..xW .:r u..u, .rW...t.:ik) .t ,'a 1' • 1� i t 1 • EXHIBIT I3 I ' , A tract of land situated in Section 10, Township 2 South, . q Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon: Beginning at a stone in Taylors Bridge Road 7-1/2 chains East of the Northeast corner of the Southeast our heast guar ter of said Section 10, Township 2 South, Range 1 West of the °,illamette Merida.an,' thence East 375 feet to the Southeast corner of that tract of land conveyed to Walter J. Hoge and Wife by Deed recorded October 13, 1948 e in Book 290 9 0 page. r Washington County Deed Records and the true point of beginning of the tract to be described; thence continuing East 11.50 '' chains, more of less, to the. Southeast corner' of that tract of land conveyed to Frank Spring and wife by Deed Recorded September 10, 1948, in Book 288, page 71.4E Washington County , �, Deed Records; thence North 5.12 chains; thence West 11.50 ' chains; thence South 5.12 chaff is,. more or less to the point of beginnings r r • s, i t` ,, w w ,tip., , ,A 1,C •1 am. 1 7' ♦ FF 1 r M Il EXHIBIT E r a 1 1 ,. , f i , ;N -,.nih «,3' M'Y -��. ,��,. .='-. ' .934c, r -co u I . - 4 tit Mewtm,i. - '�'. A p) p fl)r +• .;r... c , 397..12' of 347,70' �)5N'9°19`E 6i ,.1:',1"807. ._..i, ._.. w_ _ _ w7 /.✓//';� w.mpt ti;f' 740",,,e715,7450..,„ ///i' l¢'(f�f/f//l//G%', /�/////i�'<'1'y "'✓'., 1.4?/.1.,e43.,..:',R�} N :--,/p ��, r .s2Ar 50 I 50 .-,. ,. 2.fi` / i 3TAa`` `� 3.56AC. 6, +711N. -•/ - I I / m 1 j ,..t,F.f 6U do 2''' ''''' . . ',.. 1 I 0 NI It ,,! , ,y, 6 0 0 % 4 �,, ,1 E O / 3.674c. ����c�J• i” I frN y 6+\ 1 'N `'_ tC.S.No.1Ue I) v6d' • _5 31.8' ✓ I `° \ `--1 I , ', Cn ,7; ,LELA) 7 '',... / 6 4 fi `\ I WO Y • , i ..-• 196.6 \'1' Y\ V "� I t� v 'Q " i 2a78' ^. r 70F_ -� _ 2ac1 ti 25 DEDICATED Al t�7t.c�� ," s, 132 1 �1 ��i��%�!/��i�i, /,i; UrG r:,, !, „„, �iJl• 1%/, % . •i%%✓.✓/ r..r.r✓ '» .,,,,',',7%:',4,. / ... � /I/r ,4.✓; ' fr f 'nt ; ;. ,'., 444.;--f ...-/ 432.30' �r; � ra a.. Po; <91.15,.'o',A .6.9.40 w $ v N.• ti �.. ._ 3 �7. - �W..1 /�/ r1 44! F,4 �/1T`'4� 594�E DpatdiCCatrd ,by 93wJS f( 2 9T.4c. . to t " s U q. .e.' // SP9°'7'6`W 75LE;9' W / ( 2oI834C �� , N_ wy. ,1 •�' •• lil+w+�r.+....w.r.i'luw.0 h.xll'�w„wua_n • . 4200 . 4.8OAC. (C,S. L.i225o) N w tl rn t <1 ! .tr ' •,_ �,. .•..-�........-u.l� ., L '.d.+wlr....rw..iwrw•.....WY,r.n.w�al.w....... -..MArfdw SEE MAP 1 �.- 2S ( IQA�7 SW (MIURDOC;K ';� �y� o ., U) .) /11 !� I . ,5tte', RYik7r,V!1,71x,'w4.....it-. 6..,00..x...,..4 4 .•gv0•4•••Nt v'...`,`riM+.r ti 1,14, ty �° �r F .. wro• �400� � . ,. — 4,• ''' '1 `1•• �j1 t, ' t 1 .'W.4,4 4'�`^''•" My,,,,1,w+.. V .,,,r..� 'J;,,.--t, 1-��. • ,. .,., ,..«. 1.. .-•"" ..w' A„ " -, (SW, DE . , ;; .• x, pI .,yY 1 .K'�. �- '.-.� \+..a... ' .. . r ti r ark s," .. .. , Y YrW�,t..7 Q •'4 t 4 t ..rwrrwnw.l 1 wr..+r.�.+1...,n....o-1 ,x t 'tl '' u i, .. i ��Al'''''''''i .' Y v n d` Yt ' i� � i d,✓ '� 4, IH-u,xfY ��,,71�� .msµ • 1 • . ...> -0.++ /•x.rr xII 4+. 4«u wr,.r a II T 1p • . • EXHIBI2', C y. • kki 44 .. I A strip of land situated in Section, 10, Township 2 South, • Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, City of Tigard, Washington. County, IlOregon, and being 50.00 feet in width, lying 25.00 . feet on, each side: of the following described centerline: , ' Beginning at a point on the centerline of Southwest 109th Avenue, which is 'North 89°58'15" West, 330.00 feet; North '. 0°51150" East, 478 .13 feet and South' 89°40 ' 00" West, 534.2 feet from the East quarter corner of said Section 10; thence along° the arc of a 100 foot radius curve to the right ' through s. central angle of 60°21'32" a distance of 105 .35 ; (the long chord of which bears South131°0236 West feet 3102'367 West, ' 100.54 feet) ; thence along the arc of a 100.00 foot radius • curve to the left through a central angle of 60°21'32" a distance of 105.35 feet (the long chord of which bears South" 31°02'36" West, 100.54 feet) ; thence South 0°51'50" West, 40.00 feet, thence along the arc. of Ia 100.00 foot radius curve to the right through a central angle of 28°57 '18" a distance of 50.54 feet (the long chord of which bears South 15'20' 29" West, 50.00 feet) ho the Westerly line of 'said Hoffman Tract; thence South 0°51'50" West, along said "1. ' Westerly line, 165,93 feet to the Southwesterly corner",of said Hoffman Tract and the terminus of this description Said terminus point also being the terminus of County Road 1415. • •rl � I 1 a. i _ en • .y ,4 ,,t4 I I I r n I , w. w,r.l rr♦.!.J n wW�.w«,x ..W.,Fh a.. .W..H J.+.1..M.++..,✓.r „ . ..,.4I. .. .. ,,,.,..... r ...,..• .,...... ,,,....... .....,...,, ,,.,., ,., .,.,,.., ., „.• ,,,., .•,r,., , ,.•..x ,,,,.,,r. r ,ror .., .r,.,.,,. .,,„,,. „ ,,..e n r „r, .I ,.. ., - 1 • ` 1.,. r .+•" ,f tf ,r:�r pr .y ', µ , „ .,n y" ".:"4:.t.';'; N *▪ „+4q r :� '' r "� !'fit.., .. Y • Y :rwr• • i. ;,,i,:,:l 1;7;.',,,,c,7 ji '...■:.',1:FP; ' \.,.#1, : ' 1 : ,,,,i Col ., • . a y 'T`J0 �4„. t, N y,Y'S +'�"fit I i I I" M «•Y 4....,;:;7*',,a.�1+••+.,t" *,r y;�ri h 1 1 ,i(•� ,i '«x r r y' v^'- K "''! x h Y V t�fi. 7"'jFYr r , .n l , •N..k" . , . J: . ., .J __a i 1 r Y 4 A,,,$' \ 6 Y' ?. + t h'4,I4.1 - . • ,t ak C A °(/ y 'I fir hr • 1 r, .. . . ''tl I _ \. 4,,,',:.:"7-:„,,,, „r 7” !+ +rtJ7"y J !+! "rtl. / ?l i� ,tY N•r e .,...•.r...-.�....�•,wr.+..av �wi. ..,µu41.0.4.wY..1∎M.rx.•.noe1V1d0, .1..c0.41%,., l,,.t:,(.�• L•C'!; 4.61 4416 .Chill."err'' 'r��.�IKS,''""""n`",t,. ,, .♦ t .ar,'"'''r" 'r1, •r,.r . . d " - . •d' V ,• �P+ 1 '.I'` YM a,. / ,,% n r., M Y ' 9 , '• , , o Y,, � r 5. K ' c, •, P'r , ,,, C( rua7 .N.it-0!1. •„pm-,tor, .r:.,,,,,;1a;'uvpr. ,« , r'a, +r 1•4w 4, -8 M:)-54,Mr 1Ittt,,r,- -: ." r„ ..1q4nh R om..r...,,:. : ,•F.'n,re..,-,:: A, L.i1r,",-.. ?„'!" .'.•'' , h" .. .t .. ,,. t r""'' Sf,+,. ..-.'..+,'-r• e. .., ',r...'x. .. ', � ,. ^ :r 39 r . t ,, r ��4�K"„a �, 1 —. t3 i a� Fl Q • 37 14 " '4 ' ` ; � " ` . . • , X36 �y o. 15 '1 • ^J 11>b, ,•• �{t1 e,• h,•`• � / W � •.„.,• ,..•'1•x 3,..11" 011irt:1".1 .":7.e".,; tiiw. l 11 (..5 3 4 \ rt.(' •� 4 r' . j9 .� , t�' T J' . r 1 t • '� 4 y r+iii r . ' r ' ",' J « , ". 28 27 26 ��{"••i [F** 6 ,•;• „,'.�•:-.,w. 'I; ,• a a w` . • ^ 1 1 ,t 1,1;.11 .. ;. •4"±"•„ (t t I, .4 ' H., 77 ,,,,,.,,,I. ..t.,,'■ H_;;. t 44 ..f«''° ` • `+)'t t\� th — 7j�A " 412 l� r N `F , V „ ..1". F . j''� 4 S� p,• ;'a n'`; (». t—1,•' ••` �� 'h� F- , 73 Iy�� Itl 14 ti "� :. •V t___ :1 1�`� r' IG rs + •• . ti r�r 4 72 1 cC ;'.,-, ;.n,t`.(t� ix '. 4i • ,t • i y .m nae.+.Ww....,....m +�r.,,,,..,....w.,,,. 4 , 1"` a .,� , la ^t , x ".' ' , t1� � '�q ri ,A .Y wl"' Yt ' ' iM Y M* • N r''-• r; t• H l y. , r •..: r . 'r '�hl,kp � ,, w , L « . u <• r• 4 r .r Mt 1.-1,^'' .',� {{ ,e d fi v e• /,i �.: ..,y".y...� 1 F ,,• 4 1 k „yi A 1 V/ . ,1 65 /' ,', 1„ ,,r ar a 1 , Y'4 J { '"-°,1 1 M,• T µ X44� " 1 6_ �.1 µ' ��d.Yurw., , V M -11.',...,1-, 1 v '1'1 h 1 .. )1 \`•, ` N ` e" ✓ M� ♦(�4,� � J '1 N ` 4h NrF'...,4•,•.,' � K. f I g�i F "t k • , • » A'.r Aj ,it r 1 • t” r 'I n , i..J+ j .t:" .Lid ,,ww Vn i. .r 1 .. {�' 4aMl NMI ,k .S4N�x 1 .*+.• �I' .3 61 9 .', KS 55 .. • • a • y N n�...., I At n ate' t .A çzz • ' ,w�, vy'•�11 11 x,...+.,,. ,n. •r o I 1"'11.J, '''''';'4,''`14,„.17'44;'•ti f ?, ' '' A s* , ` . ^ ' •,�w ', }▪ y1 t aa� t l U . t . •t ' '' ..fi•,11V4; + i*:, Vi:'GtW:I' 1('''1 ' ` '.� ' •'4.`4 r'w'o.X+J 1„'N,.Y:1 .,P' ` H y x i 6t'' k ,„ w J . . ,.t ' . tr 'L'r' kNw f'S , wt 0. I • K ? / 4 ' WI i 1�, -,,k 1ry , .h r r 6 '� '� �N o r j ,H,r + r.'";p �,�1 d F• „y,▪Ai'rw ,�, . 6 , . •,' ! 1 Mf,'. F' 6 '" d'tr.', • ,' I r ".4 ' ,�,:, s'. " ryr,„�» +f yy.µF ",,,%ZF I• K w L. � re , . µ 4 k.ry Kw� LJi r C y " r. '.• "1•1w.▪, F r• , i �a.a,(,� X 4 , �Mi it.� ., A, 11 1 •t Nlll y.2".' sP i, 'n M,i',,�bl ' 1"r " .'n«.«.+,a n 1111 , v . w,..A... v.cW.,,,sr1tt„ V ••� K -r...C ...�„at ., «�':`. ^'t.„; ' «..,,.!w. .wu... I ikk . • at EXHIBIT D I I p A strip of land located in Secti �' !.'„u'J, ry'y,,...,,.... _ 1..._�.•. ..-..1...._.t ,.:.':- ,:..+..x._„..d,h«., ..�,..l.w.a_n...._M • ., �k al T H 1+,�y,Y��r, ,_q.* ���• '. 1.�.. ... -. LJ, ..4.' .N,_.r.�! w_.._�r...,..:.e��. ...� ,�.-»....._.�:.... �. ....,f..,r u >a t• J!yan h a 7S^ie�`'�i �LiL�YI 1r..1.,1� L ll l',✓ t a 'f, I • • t, "b---- S' is" 1 .If -0. :t"444,T.. ', :Y .7 y•/ ,1,Y1•�"1• \ �.'X V 9 ` ip% ,ie . '•r'�� nl 11 x+`r ■ 4,4, k,.•t l{'R fi i y.'l�`.4if. l'14" .«. '•,,.1 ., �" 'I . tl ��„,,,'.r,' , ;11',1}�.1 t.�, f: •'i .. ,.;p, , $ n,y l".v°' '�'W�,lw yra,,.q` «.h.11v�t :.` :�,'C '.ti,Ot'r, v�{i" A' t,�•+ -,"� \ ` I 'Y'4 r, ., •t,M' •41,,,..,••.:,...h 5 1 Al, Y." .•;1 te,,,,,,111a� .6, �AT"C''� /��•' �`'/�) f"� ' 1 �. „c 0'.,1r4,'''''' +� `�M^w .r • A » I: ,t�vW.e i „ketlA '� p�'"� ,'A' `, I 1\ I f,✓ I �t x� I." la•R��W '+r, +iyr Ad 4' F•1 ' 'I ■y A �hrwR.Yxid j '"T y• ,YYi/�f , •t. y 1 x+1"� •/ r • ,. " M , 4 ••I. . y,"X:;y.yy CIM,,/' / ,' �/ ,�/.// a � l x .ot ' •� r ,i,•//h'14,,,�f w • .�w 1 +r J 4 � , � l J 1t. r V F r-C. • , tic' /"L / ' ''' 4: ,---...-------- • ,, ' e '':?-41:4/,,c,; ,,,, .- : . 1 TRAcT ka 111 ' * . . . . . , ' , '' ' ' , � u 7' 1.1 wdl r r „ r ' , t —`37!� CC ,• • Q 1-; 53 It!? '� '� // „,...•,>,„1.,1.4.-P7',44 };�< v; +,ill ” ' . 32 Y 15, 1 + ' 1i' • r,,"i hM,XIf,,, d�C' 1 I JO i 20 µ ' ,h , + '"I i .rte' ,r.o. ?_I �n.•A x .-"„ raw r• ' tk � X l l • . J '.wuM l +I _l�.L.,1 ..�..r ' � - Iv _....----,:-,..,-,-.7--, ' , ,` f � � ,„, tV, 11.� ?' I n,I,I T∎:4 a” ' y' ..."c-.W" " wry , •.1...;.1.....4•1410,2,1, �iY,w ., k lNM�tivj�J (#}l\r .' , w\ . ..4•“f" ..s 0.f4,, '"" " ...∎y,w1'— yc. M , LL f .. 1 " G7ti. »�i 7 rfrt, r " • �J • " .,,.• 72 46 by r. ' 1 66 ` , $ . 1' ;, I i 1 g'�y i @� 1 e � ��nq ,T �' 55�y1' ,tr"``�1�, �'� 31�fdYd",;.•, 1 .` wy .lrKlxurL'wM,�'t'K:Uilny,� • M .. A/"YWICOR.i.�: "NY1,.. Fes^iiii • ^'w.h .1.'a Fr '.. t a +1 i,l �3 i. 6. c o,7'r 0I' .��. . , �._� <�_ _.a } r 1' H • , Y, !W / te , 1.1 41 4 , I A y T 1 y i, t y/ 1., .r, .v. », i.•:to.. dv, v V.v ..4v'.,.,,1/+V,x wh v„r ,...,,vn N. x r ,r.... ,. .,d ,. v. �,... .. . .. ,. ..... ..., ,,..,v. yr . •' r+ ,\ 1 . /' A 1 •\ • P IU.-.„ . /,.-» -+M, ..,..,s , a *,.r rv,... _s r......, _r,.n.m..•._ •f, R .. •„ ♦ ., w. +..-. ..,,,«..rarMww.,. i f� .r-.„,�,. ,o-... •'..+ w..m..-...fw«,-....+.n.•w♦.Y � r . ,. '. ''.:.,_,q„,,. 1.. ,;(,...6,/ ,.. .z wr w,. a• .. aw . ..,..,.., .. . . a! W `. . . bn , 1.... .. . . I _ A ' r --ak -,. l , ,, Y ' itziZ ' 'ift'' ' * ., ' n,. ,,m_ _a,+ '` •. Y J' 7.. :-I l ,/ ,A , ,. ,�� .,:.,.. ., .. ,.r.. fian.w,, ,,��.,.x..ti. , , ._.w:.,...,,... ,,..,,w„ry ra«... ,/• . ,, ,--3, , . ., ..,. X27.,bv. dr) . • , . -,. . . • I! • ,a . • r.:..,....,..W.....,,....,.u,r. h.,1-.w,n.w.«a...v'.,.,�,u...u,.+u.,+,».,.,«.,uu....,w.w•,«,•wr.+.�„«�n.r,..,.a.., �.��,..: .,,,..,n.r.,n,..,w ,.,,.,..,.'nr ,.,,,,,.�.. ,��',. : �, .,� i, :, .,, ��: .. . .,,�. �..� :d .. Ir. ,. A..�.....,I Il. u, ,.dl+ ,r, ,el n,,.Y,.., ..�..+,u,s.wr.Wv,a,wu..�wxnr.uxsFY I. 4' r q. I v ; :i II • ,, 2✓ - . . 4'''' ' 7 7edf' ' 2 ' .. /4','? 44/69(' :ItVe'&1rU 04''TIC ' ni...// / - / ti a t , :, ,, . , ee;e-,,,-t,e'''e z",(1 ,.4 7, II ' .' e,e,. ..- 2-t., '„h-te4/1- /1,4',Le- 1 . 1 d...._,,,,-z' f / 'f MV V 41ezie,c.ti �Y , ;1 & %° ,, ° ' w 472 rjt l .r�/ c, g 7 if / e, 6C,c1- d t3[e ' ,,,,,,,,e.,,,z,,,,,,e 40,-.7„oge,se, z}:(---d.,\.. a-trz.ig-,../.," `..., ''' ....-47,. . , . ' . . 1 ,:,,..--?::;;;.,,t,,,. 7//e-z. 4 ,,,,...,_, e?,' , ,,,t,146.4.,,,t .yr///�"�'JI' .y0 /�/'/��/`"��f 1.{';,,y�y.,y,.. ✓ gc,,,,.. �,/,�.'y.1 /'j/, / • ., /hit; . .eC7 djI/e,"..-e, --z,,,/L:e.z.,,ioe '' ,(L "--''' '-- , f(e,.e.zee,e..1.' ',,t,'; l ' „ ,,ze:,.. , . ,., • „ , .//),‹ ,,,,,,az ,do el ,,,?, efe,,,,ezetE — ,fpe_.." 1' f,,.# eee" ..-4,. . //0e-eilli.-Ze-e...e. l ' , 1 k,,,,, ,,i6s., 1� 1 1 , t3 „ , , fi-ees 0 e.:0%oi,,,,,Z7,,tezee, , , H. • • 1 ,' 1 , ' . eez„,,6 2, , � I t d ,,,°F��i i A/leefIV /�; e i/ � I i I MI D { i \•'. ' . ' c' Z .,,IL a , 4/....... .. � ?� %IL %p3e24' . _ . ,• y ... ., ' ' - !., '' ' ‘' ' ',''' ',H ., ''''', ' ;',',, ' '''',' . • �`� Viz` ��i , . , ., . .. . 1„. .. . 1 • ., , , , , , , . I,: . •, , .1 . .. • . , , , ,, , , . , , ,,,_, .. , , . . , , ., , , , . . . , , , . Vltz -. v r/y AZ: lC a � , ■ I w 4 , . . . ,, ..: . ,',66'7'.4./e0. , . ' :: : ✓ �. 4ue 4 , / / � , , . ' . ' / ,,Zi.Z. X44. • 6**-1. 6:e4 ,, .. ,. . , .. glov.-6. -6-e/0,-(4-' .-4-1,6a,.-e,77--(- ,,,' .. 1fr'z-de ... .' - , ,,. .. ',,' . .,' .. • . ,, . / .' ' ,,,,,' ..,,e,,, ,,,,,,(„7, ,',: ' . .. , ,,,;.,, , . . � � � f ., , . . d, : ..*,,yam n , , , . , , ... . . . . r /2„.4.,' 4.,6-e., le..., . .:,,,,,i4,e4..,6,E, ,H.r , ' r , , ' ., , ',,, ', , ,,H Hr ', , ' ,' ' :, . , . , ... . ., , , . . or_ ,,,,,, .. . . . .. , . , ...,„:„q , ../4 , , ,' ,---„/„...„' 9,7- 4'6 4...,./....166'04-a% /42,e4 r .. . ., , . , . ,. � , , Hr , r , , ,, . r , ,,r, ,, ., . yr ,. ,, . 1 ,., : . za:.:7-.0: -.c.',, r 4-yr/e71 1ST ie;?' .et,. .'.'' .. t/di,90,',,'-'44,;,"e..3 3(...:. ''. - . : • ' 4,1e-ea t'e -ems:- ?; t. 't ' ':. .. . , -e4 6f- ,,,e 7 . , :, , 7-2,,. .,.zi.,(7„,,,74..etz., /zeio-,A..-...‘e,azie-Le.. . '., ... . . . :.: 1 ''', ' , , '' ,:' ,., ''' ,,,'' 'I, ' ' : , 1 . , .. . .. .. , , , 'it 6r , i:., ‘L.,,uet,,,z. .,,a e,,,,i,.., , ,.-:' ,', : ,,,, ,, ::,,, ,:,.4,5;2,=s H, ,L, ,,H ', ':, .- ,: ., .. •. . .. . ,zg,4,...... . , eel i . ,. . , „ .... . , , . 1 i, ,.. ..,, :,, . . . , . . : .1 , . . . . . ,. . . .,.,,, . .. , 1 . r. , giL' 1/(. :'m' tP,V. ' '040t.e,. . ' ' .,... / 1 . 4.i 4.4.,,?,46.?". . .,1 ;.4.7o7.; /eet,e ., ,. , .-.101', et-41'6,4 ./ti-64,4"'=.2/1"i - . . ' ' 'el' ' / ' • ift,:,,&, ' ''''' ' ' '' '' ' '' ' ' ' 1 e". 2 - /71/Lee' '-'1' ' ' IP' '.Z-' '''''' H ' ' ' - . ''' ' ' ' ' '. ''' ,-,(( , ' W .._............+n,ew,,.a...twx�v.nt^waw.a��..x i M • • • TM • wi { n,. dl �a . M 4 • 1. . • ■ ,aig- ,-.(a/d(.,,t ,, ..,„ , / -ie:, .. .,.. , ;ee.:,47,.,--,':,/,2., ... 4,, ,,g,(4.7,'",,e, , , . , , „ , .... 41 __-a,...e7t..4z...: oe.,-4p,..''., . . . 7 ,( 1 . ./ - ' 1 , . , 4 ‘7. . /f, ,-,-_,,5i , . , , , , . , 1 . , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .ee.,., . .z. . . ,...„..,.,.e. , 4 • • , '' iL,-A6:,',.1_,(,_,.,& „.„4( J4,--& ao,i( , , , , , . . 1 , , . . . . , , . , , , , . , , , , 1A1 . . , , .1 , , . . . . , 1 '',, z,z,./e°,.. . ,,,z.e..c,,-ey,„L �, , „, , .._ . , // 03,/ , ,, . , . , 1, , , , 1 , . ,,, . i , , 1 , , 1 „. I . , 1 . , . • . , , 1 f , , , I F , , ,, ,. , , '• • • • • 1 I' ., it I r I'• • • • • • r Ir I r o j, II I I II ul 1. • • ti{ . u ' �.#'�Li "H.M t- 4 0 6 f4-47 'Iv. t . '0.k . xr3 N tr y iy i : ar•i *10'c�t * 2 ctdattcio+Jw nA'Cr+4N Y x d d e r noting C b i! 2 , 1y+r .4 �r ri 4im+v '�s4 9 • , (b) Councilwoman a ) Motion by Councilwom Stia1er, se 4 .� to a.or� +» w. • bid Carlson Chevrolet : ,a a'.a � , .' r Approved by unanimous vote of Council., ` 34. PE1'BROOK SEWER L.I.D. PETITION (a) City Administia'tor stated that a petition from the Perubrook area had been ', fit; received for. formation of a sanitary sewer L.I.D. ` arid recommended Council :' approve contracting with en engineer to start the project. (b) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded' bY Councilwoman Stimler to authorize Regional Consultant Inc. to proceed',with the preliminary engineering. Motion failed 3 to 2 -- Councilman Brian, Councilman Scheckla and Mayor Mickelson voting nay. (c) After lengthy discussion, Councilman Brian moved to have Ha.eris McMonagle Engineering firm do the preliminary engineering since they drafted the original petition, contingent upon the fact that they can perform the task • by October 1, 1979# Motion seconded by Councilman Scheckla. Motion passed 3 to 2 - Councilman Cook! and Councilwoman Stimler voting nay. 35. OTHER (a) City Administrator stated that he authorized the public works department to have Eagle-Elsner Inc. do major repair work to, Canterbury Lane since the . ; road caved in during the last heavy ,rain. City, Administrator noted that ` . due to the extreme danger presented to the vehicles on the road the project could not wait tot Council action but had to be corrected immediately. Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Brian, to declare an emergency existed and radify the action of Dick Eagle of Eagle-Elsner. Inc, who did the road work for $7,040. PP x ov d b y unanimous vote of f Council. ouncil. (b) City Administrator reported the audit field work has been completed and the annual report will be printed when we receive the final financial information from the auditors. Councilman Scheckla noted the restrooms in Cook Park are in poor condition and requested staff to make sure they are cleaned up;; PACE 13 - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1979 r :Ity q t ' ...,' 0144' r4 ,r' W 400'41186 3'WSkX-ca'�s..,11 nt.t4'.•t'S ,01.;I� � 4,,C p ..uey 1;t� . r 4 :iN* ,MN' r,? w,� 1 tl•...S . , r .Jr ."rt*/�v,S.7Yt� '4,00AOL; r w e l.!.p,;�41 0A + nl ,. +`{'mow . .. �y �f'1 y O •itf _.,. i� ���ff V�!!t! #KR�Yr. 1 '1�17�{A�' _ Al I�4MR7aV1K�dF�ACµTP�h�URMhMI�p��R7� 4 40,,4. ....rru4ri.F.9, tw.r..4. a , ,...,Y.,.. .1ae...,t 4..r4,...' ve ... kk..:..F ..* eV4 ,.,,. ..,. ...r ..+ay t1..e...r ...4�- kl;,11.:. , W4Yf£n8u Yt d 7o Ct c St4t 2Sts bt:irg it;eurd. ' Chief of Police stated there are more accidents and moving violations that take the officer's time so that there is less time to issue warnings to people for the minor violations. • (7—"*". e) Councilman''Scheckla presented pictures to Council, requesting staff place in file, of the Canterbury Woods project which show the screening problems. m City Administrator stated that he advised Mr. Hoffman verbally and the Associate Planner advised Mr. Hoffman in writing that an occupancy permit would not be issued until there was proper screening and the chimmney chases are corrected. rC City Administrator noted that Legal Counsel had requested Council not discuss any items on the appeal until the appeal is heard. 4 36. ADJOURNMENT: 11:25 P.M. , lifil,.1 1.„. %.-..,.., ' -- ' .. . . City Recorder ATTEST: . , ,,"."`y fn / , 1./,'" .."' '�1,,, Mfr !.� .. M • • a 1 ' PAGE 14 - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 27 1979 1 F A„ '4, a, `„,,,,.1`ham- 4 4A.i4S ■ 1 Ytj..4, d 1, d 6 .0v Q, ,,tri p �i {4 , �� ,1.. 'i ,, l+ 'i n F t $A`�A,j4,„\,�. ji dK ' t d},a,,,"��i ' 10'1f4A'1, It', i`r.', 'R :3,w%114 f ', t,r,444 "., 1'.'' 'Fib w t +a. . . r., r.„wr, y ^d AM, ,�. art,.±� �z,k#r I. • • 10560 SW Murdock Street . at Tigard, Oregon 97223 August 23 , 1979. "' Planning Director and Assistant Planning Director R CEjvE City of Tigard , '` PO Box 23397 1979 r 12420 SW Main •. Tigard, Oregon 97223 T* OF TJG4fln • ' Dear Mr. Howard and Mr. Selby: . . As president of Galway Hills Homeowners Association, I address your attention to the placement of trees and a fence along the boundary between Caiway Hills and the Canterbury ` Woods development. 1 believe the Planning Commission in its meeting on August 7, 1979 , arrived at a sound decision in • requiring a fence along the entire length of the easterly border S" between the two properties and the placement of the eleven, twenty foot trees so as to maximize screening. The residents of Calway Hills were relieved to see the planting of several of these large trees last week. , I I understand that you have discretion to dictate ' the placement of the trees and the fence. l also believe that the commission, as evidenced by the minutes, clearly intended that maximum screening be the criteria for placement of the trees. As you are aware, there are approximately two significant , • gaps in the screening. We would request that you direct the ' placement of the trees in such a way as to close these gaps so as to conform to the intent of the .Commission. We believe the Commission reaffirmed that conclusion in their meeting of ° . August 20 , 1979 . We wholeheartedly agree with Mr'. Selby' s letter to Mt.. Hoffman dated August 17 , 1979 noting the gaps and we continue to insist that the satisfactory placement of , trees to close these gaps be a condition to the issuance of any ' , certificate of occupancy. The Commission' s resolution • resol tionreyarding the e fenc fence could not be more plain in requiring g a along the entire� re easterly boundary. Significant vegetation in the form of trees should be leftund isturbed . v ines and un der rowth, ow ever, are not so significant in view of the fact that • I' t . ii r i .,.,;�.,...,,i,„� ...,,.,.... .,. ;�.„ -„+...as..• qy' n t a . . „'.: „;, ,,.. .,. i'' .,....rM,.i_. .. .,.,. ..u,..,. ,- .. , 4.N„._. ..,.r ,...,,.•t'._,.a:,. , ,. .,_.r ii_: n.,......M,..,,....,...lr,i- ...,.. ,o+';...,e,u,,y,', to++a—'u•,t,.t,6 o- t• Iii' ', I tl k i Planning Director and. • Assistant Planning Director August 23, 1979 Page '2 I I children and pets will find their way through the ''growthr that the undergrowth may be cleared out in the future for any number of reasons, and that the fence would admirably serve as a primary, privacy buffer. We therefore continue to insist that the development install a fence along the entire property - line with breaks only to avoid the removal trees, such y r fence to come up to the particular tree and resume immediately on the other side of the tree.' I I ' If you have any questions regarding these matters and the Association' s position with regard to these issues, please contact me or Mark Feichtinger. I will be happy to discuss these matters with you on the site if neces�:�ry. kz „ Ray Cagle President Calway Tills Homeowners Association RC:k Q' • I I f V . • • •, MINIMES A TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Auy-ust 21, 1979 - 7:30 PM Fowler Junior High School - 4ecture Room 10865 S W" Walnut St. - Tigard, Oregon President Tepedino OPENED the meeting at 7:30 PM ROLL CALL: • „ Present: Bonn, Funk, Helmer, Herron, Kolleas, Smith, Speaker, Tpedino .4 Absent: None Resigned, seat unfilled: Wood Staff: Selby , The MINUTES of the August 7th meeting were considered. Speaker asked for corrections as follows: page 3, line 9, add the word "Works" after the , , word "Public", to read " , .. both the Fire District and the Public Works peopIe..."; page 7, line 8, the word "issued" should be "issues"; and page 11, line 5, the word "not" should be "now". It was moved, seconded and carried that •. the minutes as amended be approved. There were no Planning Canmission COMMUNICATIONS. There President varied the agenda by considering a matter of OTHER / BUSINESS at this time. Selby of Staff requested a review of the performance of the developer of Canterbury Woods as compared with the directions worked • out at the August 7th meeting of the Commission. Several of the Commissioners had reviewed the site with the developer immediately prior to this meeting. fifx Selby stated the issues were thre: ( 1) chimney chases, (2.) the fence, and ( 3) trees. The President asked for comments by the Commissioners as to how well or whether the developer has complied with the letter and, the spiriE of the directives given at the meeting two weeks ago. He preferred not to open the discussion to other issues, whichwouldrequire a new public hearing with notification in order to protect the rights of all parties. (1) Chases: Speaker and Smith agreed the chases should be installed . \ on the back of the east buildings, but since painted metal chimneys blended , • into the trees in the interior of the development it might be optional with . the developer whether chases were installed on chimneys there. The President pointed out the issue was not one of what changes in the original directives might be made, but rather whether the developer has cardied, with the letter • and spirit of pervious directives. Since the original plan showed chases on chimneys, the directive from the last meeting was for chases. It was • -' clarified the developer could request a variance or pursue an appeal on its merits from the limited question we are conthidering at this meeting. It was agreed that chases have not as yet been installed, although the developer has expressed willingness to install them if required. It is the decision of the Planning Commission they are required in accordance with the original ' , plan arid the action of the Auglist 7th meeting. , • „ . ! , '. , - , _ «.... »..,... .. 1 t....._r...«.... ti4, «..,J,.. x ......... .. ,4.............».r..+..1.w.r a.L..L,...4..4_..r.a.._..+. .,,... __,,, .,, _.. .. ... .. .. ........«�- , {}T,r v duo 7.a K 'i;i0A v r' I J J..ES {` � '' ” TIGARD PLANNING COM( SIOM Jt fa�','t>�r,� r� i,, '`,"'‘','-e.,''''1'' x August 21 1979 - 7°µr30 PM 4,;t'',-,,. • All , O k .'.. Page 2 , !.1,,,:.,i2:'.1'.A.# - . . ' + P (2) Pence on east boundary Smith reported it is the developer's '. intent to install the fence, although the precise termination is open to interpretation. The discretion to be exercised by the Planning Director was . discussed. It was pointed out that details of ialementation of''the intent n ry . of the Commission should properly be left to the professional staff; but if that discretion were abused, then it would be a matter between the Commission . • and the Director. While Smith had offered a motion, he withdrew it in view ', of this discussion, in effect charging the Planning Department Staff to use. N - their discretion in implementing the intent of the Commission. (3) Trees: Smith reported that eleven large fir trees have been planted on the east boundary, that four trees on the north boundary have not as yet been planted, but that the intent of screening has not been complied with. in one area. It was agreed the developer has not complied inasmuch as four trees have not yet been installed on the north boundary, and that . . the Planning Director, in specifying the location of the trees on the east n h border, did not fulfill the intent of the Planning Commission to provide, o adequate screening along that boundary. Selby announced there would be a study session of the Commission on v August 28th to consider a tree ordinance and a subdivision ordinance, and 1 that he would try to get a packet out for study prior to the meeting. I, .. ' ' At this time ( 8:20) Commissioner Helmer was excused at his request. c;; The President then opened the PUBLIC HEARINGS, reading the usual state- :' r ment indicating the authority for. ti .. fleeting and the procedure to be followed. . 5.1 CONDITIONAL USE CU 15-79 (McCoy, Marshall & Kazebee) NPO #6 • , A request by McCoy, Marshall & Kazebee for a conditional use permit to buildp 112 attached single family dwelling units in a R:7 'Single Family Residential'' zone on a 1.9 acre parcel, located at 15805 S.W. • . 98th Avenue (unlash. Co, Tax Map 251 11CD, Tax Lots 700 & 701) . 1 Selby read the STAFF REPORT and I COMMEt DZ TIONS. He asked Staff Reconl:"menda- ° tion 2 be deleted, that printed Reconm ndatior s 3 and 4 be renumbered 2 and ,, 3, and that a Becomrr�nd,ati.on 4 be added as follows: That the applicant . , . submit for approval a landscape plan and exterior elevation design, with samples of roofing and siding materials for approval by the Site Design t , - 1Review Planner.'' , Gerry Marshall of the joint venture made the APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION. 1 • He explained this matter has been before the Commission ;previously, and that it was approved on �7une 19 as a preliminary plan and program review for a planned: ' development; hen7sver, at that meeting it was suggested the applicant and , ,. , staff consider whether application for a conditional use might not shorten the ' approval process, Therefore, this conditional use request is being made no ., a. ■ ill ■ ' a I , n 4\4. • 1Mir • . , , . • • , • • /4‘, L) . ■";41‘, oeosea t ,. k : 405" CANTERBURY WOODS TRANSCRIPT PART OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 21, 1979 - 7:30 pm Fowler Junior High School PRESIDENT: I'd like to vary the ordinary course of events here at the public , meeting to talk about first the open issue of other business so we cm clarify and hopefully dispose of an issue that has been coming for several weeks now. Staff would you pick that up now. • STAFF: Yes. The request for other business here requested to make, at this -time, a formal voted opinion as. to how the developer of Canterbury Woods Apartments . is following through with conditions we placed on him at the August 7th meeting. In particular, the chimney chase, the sight-obscuring fence; in that issue how far along the eastern line. The question there is whether - or not we go around the shrubs, remove the significant vegetation or we just terminate it at a certain point. And 3, he has planted some trees along the eastern boundarys 'and on the field investigation, some of the Planning Commissioners attended earlier before this meeting to determine whether not that implacement is in fact What was intended for the, as directed by the Planning Commission's motion, on Augost 7th. Is the intent, or what • I am saying, clear as to what we need a vote ln? PRESIDENT: What I would like to do is, if we can without prejudicing anyone's • rights, semarily treat the entire issue rather than opening it up for extended discussions. May I ask for some comments from Commissioners that have walked the • site today? Mr. Speaker could you help us out on this? COMMISSIONER SPEAKER: Well do we want to hear something from the contractor? • PRESIDANT: What I would like to do is get the sense of the Planning Commission first of all as to whether the developer is in fact complying • with the dictates of the Planning Commission as reflected in the minutes, and also in the spirit of what was written down and dictated in the last meeting. STAFF: Why don't we take one item at a time, like the chases. ?RESIDENT: All Right, let's start with the chases. Can We dispose of the § chase problems? Commissioner Speaker? , . COMMISSIONER SPEAKER: I think the painted chimneys on the interior of the .}1 project are really, to me, they are, more attractive than if they had (inadible) 0 hOWeVeri I can see the point of the people from down below on Murdock Street and perhaps other places, that the ball metal chimneys on the Last side, on the buildings on the east side, which are at the badk of the buildings, ' I hut its what the people out to the north and to the east see. I can see ,H that probably chases would, those buildings, would improve the appearande of them. The painted chimneys in the interior because there are so many trees, the chimneys, more or less, get lost. 1 think they°te less donspicuous i • on the interior without chases than with But I feel that the chases should be on ' the buildings on the east. 4•;, • ■•' ' • • , • • TRANSCRIPT PART OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • August 21, 1979 . Page 2 • PRESIDENT: Thank your Commissioner Speaker. Commissioner Smith, I believe you made the motion. Did you not? ( , COMMISSIONER SMITH: No No. Speaker made the motion. I previously to that . made comments regarding the chases. At the time, I supported the motion • that all the buildings have chases added because I was generally under the impression that the author wanted them to all look alike. But in my original comments, I felt thatthose buildings adjacent to the east property line, I think that's building's 3 and 5, I'm not sure. No questionlin my mind they'll have to have the chases. Now the question is whether or not the entire development should be done that way. And I, at this time, would support requiring the builder to put the chases on the hacks of buildings of each nroperty line and leaving it up to him as an option whether he does the rest of them. Whether he wants them to all look alike or not. PRESIDENT: What I would like to do, is refer back. We should hear this item now. Really review it, rather than (inaudible) taking evidence and going over, rehashing issues. What I would like to a.0 is compare what we've seen thus far against the decisions of the Planning Commission. Whether there • might be some improvements, some changes from the last decision. I think should be held in terms of irrelevancy, because wE've made the decision now, the question is, iS the developer complying with that decision, Staff can you read the decision as recorded from the Planning Commission meetings? Otherwise. I think we'll fall into the trap of modifying something we've already agreed to or directed and that would not be fair. We would have to open, I think that, another public hearing and would have to rehash the entire subject (inaudible) rather than hear it on a metallic basis and , • just on the record and compare the record to what's actually being done. STAFF: Minutes from the August 7th 1979 meeting, Thereupon Speaker moved the Commission approved. Number 1, chases on the chimneys in accordance with the original plan. Number 2, that not that a not less than 5 sigh- obscuring fence be constructed PRESIDENT- O.K. Let's just take the chases, So the chases per the original plan. As I recall, there was some discussion about whether all buildings needed chases or not. And then the issue was raised, and then, Commissioners correct me if you feel I'm wrong, isSue was raised, well Since the builders had agreed to do that initially, and showed on ope of the initial plans, then he should be required to do it again. Or go through with it. That's the way I interpreted the final decision of the Planning COmmission. STAFF: Yes, May I add to that. That there are approved plans for some portions of this development such as chaSes on the original plan and other parts of the plans have been changed from the developer's desire to meet ■ W ,$ . • other intents such as moving the buildings around tO save the trees. The issues, at least these 3 that were brought before you, Were at effort to try to make a plan that was representative in accord with the law that we have a governing body which takes the determinatioft to give him a preSent day plan that would superdede any other plans. That's your tight. And the,,t it would give direction, so a8 to get him back on course for the ConStrUCtion of the site. Therefore, you do that with the power to make this dedision. ' • . .\ ^ ' +.. i i .. ,. .. , ,..._ .. , ♦ .A,,...ti,.L.,_,.........:4...u•..R,.-v».. ._... l-...n.«.... .4t.arc_.«_.,_« „_._, .....__.,. „ .._ ,a«.,..,.4..- , TRANSCRIPT • PART OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 21, 1979 Page 3 PRESIDENT: OK. Well, it is my feeling on this issue in order to dispose ' of it and not compromise all the other people that are here for the public hearing, that the developer be required to do what we suggested and directed he do at the last public hearing. STAFF• ote we an' C vote on h eac one P e oL these issues, like when you are ready to !qp make a vote for the chase on? If you feel that your intent is clear, that they are to go back to the original plan and from what you've seen, you do 'not want to deviate from that. And that'll be y our direction. • COMMISSIONER SMITH: Court of order here. If in fact what we are dealing with is a question whether or not the developer is complying with the, decisions we made at the last meeting. That's rather a cut and dry thing. And do I understand correctly that, that is your statement as to our intent at this 4 time. PRESIDENT: I think so Commissioner. I think that if we go into the merits of the argument as whether there• ought to be chases here or not there and their dimensions and their colors. I think we're opening issues again to • debate to acceptance of additional evidence, rebuttal to cross examination. I think then, we would be forced to go another public hearing. What I propose we do rather than do that is to take what we've dictated in the past in the last public hearing when the issues, hopefuly, were fully explored by all 'parties concerned and, well, we made a decision. I think the thing to do today is to find out in our estimation whether the parties to that decision are in fact complying with that decision. COMMISSIONER: Therefore, It would be my understanding than, that the applicant would have the opportunity to apply to something sirniliar to a variance to come -back and say that I modify that decision. ' PRESIDENT: That's right. Or appeal it. He should appeal a Planning Commission decision or he can come back for a variance. • • STAFF: That's correct. PRESIDENT: Otherwise, I think, as I say, we are going to open up another • public hearing and we're just going to have .to re-agendize this thing and . go through the hearing process. COMMISSIONER: One thing I'd like to comment on How do we deal with something with which is not a question? How it 18 going to be done, but it hash"t ' been done yet? E'or example, chases, I don't think you can two weeks ago say we want to have those chases and the developer simply hasn't done it yet. There's a time element here. How do we make a judgement on that k this time, other than just simply say we support the original decision. Hut that's not the question, PRESIDENT: Well I take it, if we can determine what the Planning Commission • has decided like on chases or any other peoples' and its the consensus of the Planning Commission that, let's say that the developer has ito fact complied or has not complied', then that's ;a statement of fact if the developer has not • • v • , TRANSCRIPT PART OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, August 21, 1979 Page 4 • complied, then I take it the City could on the basis of non-compliance • refuse to grant Occupancy Permits. STAFF: That is correct. COMMISSIONER: OK. Well then, taking it from there on the first subject of chases, the developer to my knowledge has indicated that there m a requireent . that you will put chases on. I have had no input to the effect that he is not going to do that and it appears as though he has already done one or • • two and I don't at this time see any reason to believe that, that directive T is not in the process of being done. PRESIDENT: OK. But I take it from the statement of fact that you can say the developer has not installed chases on all chimneys. 18 that a fair statement? STAFF: From observing the site, that seems to be correct. PRESIDENT: OK. Now, whether he will or will not is problematical. We hope he will, but he is required to put chases on. STAFF: The Staff doesn't 'feel there is any misrepresentation of the intent on this issue #1 issue. Condition #2 and #3 are particularly. . . — . 4 PRESIDENT: OK. Let's go on with the next issue. I've taken it that we have disposed on the chimney chases. Is that correct. Any comments on that? • Great. Let's go on to the next issue. STAFF: Condition number 42. That a not less than 5' sight-obscuring fence be constructed and installed along the entire east boundary so as not to destroy significant vegetation. I want to make a note here that has been brought to my attention. I am not aware of the full details of it that there is a law suit pending on making the developer put in the fence. Not' having the legal counselor, I don't know how far we want to go and . . . PRESIDENT: Well, I take it what we can do is say the Planning Commission has made this determination, whatever that is Right? The record will tell us what that is. STAVE': OR PRESIDENT: And from a statement of fact as of today, August 21st, then the question, let's say the Planning Commission has said there will be a fence. •• And a statement of fact as of August 21st, the response would be, is there or is there not a fence? Today? Yes or No? And does it or does it not comply with what the Planning Commission dictates? Yes or No? COMMISSIONER! It would appear the developers intent is to put the fence in. But also it questions the length of that fence and I wOuld suggest that at this time, that if he wishes to change that, that he brings that in as a • separate item requesting the change. BUt at this point and time the . developer haS indicated that he will build a fence. . • ) ' • • r,.....e.....J.. ,....1..... ...,:,..,.....I.A.. _ p:.,.. .._-. .•- ..._..... ....f....., .. •,...1•.H.-.,.r....,,. l.w...•.n»...., .....hn. ..r..ux •.... r,. ✓...—... _«.+.,..lr.i .....1- nl .........I... r.,.4.. ,_ _ ., ..ill..-- ...1.. ' • TRANSICRIPT PAR T O. TIGARD T P D PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August, 21, 1979 • Page 5 l,. STAFF: I need to point out my observation. It is my understanding that ' Aldie Howard has written a letter, and I haven't seen it, but it is my understanding, Aldie Howard has written a letter to the developer explaining to the developer that the Planning Commission required the sight-obscuring fence up tq to 'a point where it would not be adverse to significant vegetation. And it is also my understanding that the l developer understands that, that's to a certain point along the east southeastern property line where it terminates and not throughout the property line and putting in the fence in a way as ' not to disturb the vegetation, but indeed just to terminate it prior to the conclusion of the length of the eastern 'property line. That's one interpretation. The other interpretation is that you put in the entire fence and neander it or cut it in a way that would still put the entire fence in close it off and do whatever you need to so as not to disturb the ' • vegetation. So there's two points of view. In other words, your statement here, although it seems, clear, has different ways of being looked at 'by certain parties. • COMMISSIONER SMITH: I would like to point out that it appears the director . to, the Planning Director possibly is a little vague in that apparently ' , some interpretation as to how far that fence should go. In the on-site inspection tonight between certain Plannin Commissioners, Mr. Speaker and myself and the developer, there appears to be a tenative, agreement as to exactly where that point should be And I would like to suggest that, if that could be formalized, that it might settle that issue, as opposed to leaving it unsettled with Aldie out of town, etc. PRESIDENT: OK. COMMISSIONER (SMITH: I realize that's getting a little out of it, but am leaving it up to you to decide whether that much should be buildt or not, • ,PRESIDENT: I'm a little concerned. This whole project is very bothersome • k• to me, and I feel that when reasonable people fail to be reasonable they look for, well perhaps, subtrafuses or excuses on why things just aren't getting done in accordance with the dictates of the Planning Commission, On this particular case, it is difficult for the Planning Commission, I thilik to sit up here from this forum and dictate the last iota of detail, • as to how a developer can proceed or how the Planning Staff may or may not perceive. I thought we had resolved the issue by allowing Some flexibility among the staff and the developer to the point where if there's a Significant tree, they could go around it or somehow modify the fence to recognize that particular situation and evidently we. can't seem to get there from here and that bothers me: I don't know. COMMISSIONER SMITH: OK, I move that we direct the director to work out a ' fence line and length that would not remove Significant vegetation and that 'would definitely provide necessary privacy requirements of both these,) 1 the project and the neighborhood to the east of it: P RE SIDEN7 OK.. That's s a motion. bo I hear a second. � I I , I'll second it Discussion? Commissioners do .'ou liave,Idiscix discussion o 7 tta.ss_i.. y` ssa:cs on the subject» 1 .1 ,0 • . , „ 1 . . 04 .. • . .lu.,. . . TRANSCRIPT . . 1 . PART OF TIGARD PLANNING ...IMISSION MEETING ( . August 21, 1979 . . Pages . COMMISSIONER: Doug, do you feel that, let's see, that on the site that we . decided thereawasn't any point in extending it south of, of the garage there, . because it could get into pretty, I think, the problem I have with it, the _ whole problem is that Aldie Howard is hot here and I think that maybe the • . . motion should simply read that, we or Mr. Speaker give Aldie Howard some . direction as to where that ought to be. . . . It is really a problem, the only, the only way to settle it, would be of course to have Aldie here or to simply leave things stand as they are until such the time when Aldie . . 1 is here and deal with it purely as a communicative. It could be in 'the form of a letter from the Planning Commission to the .Planning Director. I don't . ,, see any reason for it to go fumbling again. I don't see any reason for the applicant to come badk again and change it. It really could easily be .. handled by a minor communication between us and Staff. . . • .r, ' j .i STAFF: May I make an observation on that? I feel that the Planning Commission certainly has the right to appoint a Planning Director to carry , ., , . . out a direct order as you put in motion form. And I want this to be clear in the record that the intent ought to be then that, Aldie Howard has all , the power which to make that decision. Not to be appealed back and having ■•6 ' ; you review and review Aldie's decision. That indeed, if he carrys it out with what direction you have given him in this motion form, then that's . the one that needs to be enforced. Still, this motion that you lent him to A , go upon still gives him some discretion to be made and if you don't care to get a plan out here and mark exactly where you want that fence to go or -, . . as far as a line neandering around whatever significant vegetation, then . , whatever he decidei then that ought to be the one fully backed-up and not • disputed in anyway. I don't mean to put this on you so hard, but that's ., just where this thing took off two weeks ago and its going around in a circlt, because you're not that precise. . . .. . • . , PRESIDENT: Let me make a few comments on some of the issues, that you .' . . , • raised. I think that once the Planning Commission has made a decision • here, that's the decision and there are certain responsibilities and authorities • given the City Staff and the implementation of the decision of the Planning Commission, needed even of the City CoUncil, when you get down to the . A 4, .. implementation phase, There's gotten to be certain latitude given the paid IA staff to implement those requirements. I don't, I don't audit here to the , . philosophy that the Staff has no discretion whatsoever. I don't think they can operate that way. I don't think a City can operate that way,, If we, if this situation has generated to the point, where all the parties concerned . , are insisting on specific guidelines detailing every step along the way, then something is very terribly wrong with the participants of this whole i matter. And I get that feeling, that people are being unreasonable, and I'm , , k riot pointing fingers at anybody, but I'm just asking everybody to do a little I. soul searching. The City Staff has got to have some flexibility implementing . . these requirements that the Planning Commission develcp8. And to allow • , people to continually come back to the Planning Commission, I think, underminds and destroys not only the ability of the Staff to operate; but I think, , , adversely affects the City's ability to run the city. If We allow people ' 1 continually to run back here and say, see what he is doing now, and I don't think he is fully implementing the Planning (inaudible) to dome -4p with some facts, That's fine, but this kind of thing, how far over does the fence 1 • , . . , e ,• 4 ( . , . 0 e ' \ ' I I , •} M • r TRANSCRIPT PART OF TIGARD PLAra ING COMMISSION MEETING August 21, 1979 Page 7 • 99 and, too close, I think that's.. . . t o an o 00 'c l . go and is it too, close to this tree , or � COMMISSIONER: Try to, let's try to get this ironed up real fast.. I am sure that the assistant Planning Director knows of the intent of the Planning C. . Commission that were there tonight looking at the site and we're aware of the general area that we were on as to the agreem,.::nt as to where that o fence is to go. Is that correct? STAFF: General agreement of the bunch that you mentioned earlier: And t then there are some other folks who feels that, that pathway at least, ought to also be blocked that would mean neandering around some vegetation. COMMISSIONER: Well, you know where we were talking about down to the edge . of those garages? STAFF: Correct. COMMISSIONER: All right, I would, suggest that at this time, the applicant, developer, is showing good faith and intends to put that fence in. And that it appears that there is at this time a general agreement between Planning Staff and several Planning Commission Members and the developer as to where it should go and that I see no reason to feel that he will not meet those requirements. STAFF: We feel that it is necessary to get a representative from the ° Homeowner Association to feel the same since they are going to be looking at the other half of the fence, the other side of it. PRESIDENT: I think, let me interject somthi.ng•here. If the Planning Commission and the Planning Staff are in agreement, the staff is following the commission dictates, then by golly that's it. As far as I'm concerned. And if there's an abusive disgression, even under judicial hearing, if there'S ' an abusive disgression, then the people have an argument there. Somebody's abusing the disgression, ,but I think it has to something of.,. . . . COMMISSIONER SMITH: As I said, there appears to be an agreement between Planning Staff, Commission and developer as to that location and at this time, I really believe that the developer is now in good faith to put that fence in. PRESIDENT: OK. There's a motion made and seconded on the floor. COMMISSIONER SMITH: I am going to withdraw that. PRESIDENT: OK. Does the seconder agree. I'm the seconder and I agree. So ' r of that. . . would like that thaws the o Now w d ou ix. to make another motion th reflects the fact that as you see it today. - - COMMISSONER: I don't see any need for that. COMMISSION'.EP: I don't think there is any need. 1, , �..,.. ii .. , \1 ' • , TRANSCRIPT PART of TIGARD) PLANNING ,COMMISSION MEETING August 21, 19 79 Page 8 �. -, _ th e� he tha t as ��, far _ o the record then PRESIDr.,NT. OK. Let me just state for Planning Commission today is concerned, August 21st, the Planning Commission • and Planning Staff have agreed that the developer is in fact complying With ,, the requirements set out on the August 7th meeting (inaudible) fence. Is that correct? a . b COMMISSIONER: there is one more item that has not been addressed. That is the question with the screening of the trees. ,' PRES/DENT: With the what? • COMMISSIONER: With the screening trees. PRESIDENT: Oh yeah, that's to be the next item. OK. We've disposed now of the chases and of the fence and now 'the trees. Let's dispose of the trees in 3 minutes or less. Staff. STAFF: I need to give you a feed-back on what I understand you say the •, 'o, Planning Commission and the Planning Staff understands. PRESIDENT: On what is it? STAFF: On the fence. Aldie Howard has the obligation and the "priviledge of being the decision-maker with his discretion on where that fence is going to go, given the August 7th condition 42 to implement it. -' PRESIDENT: Yes, certain latitudes. STAFF: And two, I can interject for history on his part when he comes back, on this field trip we took today and what the general feelings are of the • . Planning CommisSon's. Is that correct? • PRESIDENT: Yes, I think the record explains that Planning Staff and the Planning Commission. .. . . STAFF: I'm clear on that. Thank you. Ok. Condition 43. That 11 - 20' fir trees be installed on the eastern boundary plus 4 on the northern boundary. PRESIDENT: OK. And the facts as Planning Commission representatives saw t them today. Coamissir .er Smith. • OMM SSIONER SMITH: off ,,trees exists and 4 aren't ,t F C I � Well, first off I believe ll tr exists ai~en up yet. Now 1; under the assumption that those 4 simply aren't planted Yet, then my comment is if the developer 'does not put the 4 my then I say ' • Staff has a job to do in enforcing that. In regards to location of the trees, '• " there is no problem with the exception of 1 unit which is definitely one of the major screening problems that is not 'screened In fact, its the worst In problem and is not present sd ed: " lem in the development t a just. presently reeve ,,„,• , screen g p en ,� The problem that was, I can't remember .how, I dust simply have.to say that there is one unit which will have to have a 'screen and I feel that Staff still has ail obligation to work. that out with the developer. ! • • rry e ,«,., .- •• a,„ y a • ' .,,. f,. rr-. ., - , .,..... ._...._ .._..•.._,...u..._ ,.... ..a..:....._....,.,_.. ., ..,.i.,. .......................w_,.'F... ..,.,t..,,... .r,.,.,,.,x.t.,,,.. �L.-,. ...-1-....,. _,w'.., ..._... ..»,_,. ,..,....._,,., ., ..,. ». . ,.s - f , TRANSCRIPT • n PART OF TIGARD PLANINING COMMISSION MEETING August 21, 1979 Page 9 PRESIDENT: OK. Summarizing then as the facts stand today, the developer has not complied with the true requirements that 11 trees placed in one r boundary and 4 in' the north boundary. He has partially complied, but ,has not fully complied. • • • STAFF: Aldie Howard went out, and until he comes back and confirms the date, they are indeed planted where he said to his satisfaction. Then, am ]: ! hearing Planning Commission saying that there is still an area that's unscreened? COMMISSIONER: Yes. STAFF: I will relay that to hizr and of course he will re�3 the records. • PRESIDENT: Well, I guess I have a little bit of a problem there, I don't want to be second-guessing the Planning Director. It is fine for us to have gone out there, and taken a look, but our job is not to walk the site to assure that trees are placed 2' this way and 3' feet that way. I think again that Staff has got to have some discretion. The only thing that bothers me about the whole thing is the whole intent for getting trees this size was for screening and if somebody is trying to beat the intent of what we tried to do, I would suggest that , (inaudible) an improper procedure. Is that what your suggesting? That 11, 11 trees are there, they're improperly placed: C,`OMMISSIONER: Yes. In one area, in one significant area, the intent of the s'-reening has not been met. Also, there are 4 trees on, I believe, on the other property. Was it north or south? • COMMISSIONER: Yeah, on the other line. (inaudible) COMMISSIONER: The north•p,roperty line. (inaudible) , are not there yet. PRESIDENT: Bul the problem there, Commissioners; if Aldie Howard is directed where to place the trees, I don't think the Planning Commission now should go back and reverse his decision on where a tree should be placed, COMMISSIONER: I am not proposing that. I am proposing that the developer has not met the intent of the Planning Commission decision and that be given back to Aldie Howard to enforce that intent: PRESIDENT: OK. I have no problem with that,, STAFF: portion say by way th . . �': A or�-ion of then in fast, I should sa that b the w y e record ;'' reads on Condition #3, you Can say that the entire intent and action has , along taken. theneast�.rn bon - S� , , 11, there has been 11 2 fir trees have been installed ' g boundary. You may wai.,. to reconsider that in light of his you see out there, and in light of what You g e Aldie work with in _ what there u � av his decision that maybe 11 were not sufficient and you need more: PRESIDENT: Well, but that STAFF: Would you want, basically what I want to Say i s ma ybe amending #3.. » . , '� I ;, • Y0.. • • I , „ n A . }y� . ..,.—..,•.,....,•.........+MwM++ur:'.Fbw+.use>;.f4 '�bG411. ,r" �'r 4 r n • I TRANSCRIPT I PART OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August '21, 197 Page lO i;. PRESIDENT: Yeah, we can do that unless you open up the hearing to a Public 1t Hearing. I'm against changing the requirements. We said 11, by God if ' that's not enough, that's too bad. STAFF: OK. Weil, x don't see where Al die has any more discretion to give. He's given it. • PRESIDENT: 11 is pretty definite. It's one more than 10 and one less than 12. There's not a helluvalot we have to play with ,there. The placement, now the problem. 2 guess is the placement, but if Aldie Howard told the developer where to sit trees and the developer did that ■ COMMISSIONER:NE O R: h Ten it's obviously a problem between Aldie Toward. .. . . • PRESIDENT: Yeah, we'll have to chew on A3.die Howard's, you know, but I don't think 'I you can tell the developer, well, we're g oin 9to riP th that tree out. • COMMISSIONER: What I am proposing is that we direst the Planning Staff to enforce what was our intent. I r PRESIDENT: Yeah, and I have no problem with d p m w�. that. COMMISSIONER: Our intent was to screen an area that is not screened. j r PRESIDENT: Olt. We can first of all refine that the developer has not complied p p with the requirements n as far as all the trees are concerned. STAFF: OK. PRESIDENT: And there in on the part of the Planning Commission that the Staff is not fully implementing the concern of the Planning Commission which was to maximize screening. Does that summarize it then? Does that, I think ' that settle all 3 issues. And are there any otter Old Business. Ar I 4 1I I I i i / I d ' � r 1 _ .. ,. .. ._ _.. .. ._. . ....I1',.. ...._ ..., ..,,.•. ,It,l,_..+..«..,,..« -.. r •.•..w.ti......r•...• .4•.a ,.._ -_.rr u, r a.,......lW'.1..1».n7f41....t.Je xaa lfa...a....A'.,...«.._....•r•uu!r q • •r ` ' r ,. C I -7147 A-t'ae I,�urGz4��f�fy 1 12420 S.W.Main Tigard,Oregon 9223 August 17, 1979 I , • I Y r I I -r • r I Pete;c Hoffman • 1 , 1883 S.W. Madison * Portland, Oregon 97205 I , Re: Landscaping improvements on the Eastern Property Line of the Canterbury Woods Projects o ' � I M Dear Mr. Hoffman: •; You are hereby notified that tree planting activities on the eastern portion of your project is not in keeping with the intent or purpose of the Planning Commission's review and condition at the August 7, 1979 Planning Commission' meeting. In Mr. Howards absence I am responsible to fulfill and carry out any Director- ship authority as required. ".i have personally discussed this issue with you at approximately 9:00 AM this morning and your construction site foreman. have made it, clear to your foreman that in my opinion of the eight planted trees and the markings for the remaining threeg, that they will not assure'maximum screening effect as intended. I further feel that the eleven trees are in number, sufficient to screen, if properly located. ' The foreman stated that the trees are spaced approximately 25'to 30' apart. or the most part, this has been accomplished. However, it is obvious that an area at least twice the distance has been left unscreened along the perimeter. I will be available to discuss the replanting or placement of trees in the areas that will correct the problem. If, at the completion of the tree planting work the areas to be screened have not been corrected; I will, from the administration let/el,, appeal this issue to the Planning Commission for fulfillment of your liability to execute the condition and intern: of the Planning Commission. Sincerely, • Ken Selby/ Associate City Planner t I KS/pj • ` cc: Canterbury Woods file R.R. Barker F y I ' F. Te P edino I I I, ' , ..m...u.l rl.,uu..w.r..0 rr r urrw.u...x..uanaa uns.r. .•u.w»r.w.r ..r'.....rruVU...u.a..a 1 ir.rvu .•,+ra..rx. .. ..'. r....., .,r... „•11 .r. ., ,i i.. u. ... .! ... -.. . ._.... . ._. i r. r ...•.,. .r e.r ♦.a. .•..,.,•.• .. .,... •.. 1 1 • w ' ' �•�a�•awlw.enarw•e:pl.»mewlr'm•owi • _ ' , 1 • GAR 'I CITY OF TI G :t• 4441.41, r P.O.Box 23397 12420 S.W. Main A Tigard,Oregon 97223 August 15, 1979 Mr Peter Hoffman 1888 S.W. Madison Portland, Oregon 972.05 o- Re: Canterbury Woods Dear Six: r l The Planning Commission reviewed your project on August 7, 1979 following .4 a request to do so by Mrs. Ima Scott of Calaway Hills Homeowners Association, and a request by Mr. Frank Tepedino, Chairman of the Tigard Planning Commission to place this item on the agenda. • Although our code does not specifically speak to matters of this nature, under ORS 227.090(9) - Powers and Duties of the Planning Commission . . . "Study and propose such measures as a:re advisable for promotion of the public i.a� •rest, health, morals, safety, comfort, convenience and Welfare of the city and of the area within six miles thereof" . . . the. Planning • Commission can take such action in relation to a project such as yours. In this particular case, as I have ]Mentioned in recent correspondence to you, the Planning Commission was to review several major items which have • to be attended to prior to issuance of Occupancy Permits for Canterbury Woods. It is quite clear that a five foot, site obscuring fence is to be installed along the eastern property line. Special attention will be paid to significant vegetation in this area. Do not "clear cut" a swath along the 7 property line, and "break" the fence to retain the trees. I agree with you on the fence in that installation along the entire of the naturalyve+vegetation. ' ntire eastern property line would do more harm than good because of distr g tation. On this issue anyone who has visiteel the site would have to agree that a small southern portion of the fence will serve no purpose and is, unnecessary. We have agreed upon a termination point, and if this becomes an issue I am prepared to take the "fire". � . The landscape plan, prepared by George Otten and dated March 28, 1979, will be followed with modifications. The Planning Commission directed that ''l decide the most appropriate location for the trees, .1.' ,specifidally requested that the Planning Commission state the number to be planted and the, r. appropriate location. A review of the motion clearly states that eleven (11) , 20 foot high fir trees are to be planted on the eastern boundary. In our on-site discussion you indicates that only six (6) trees, planted on 30, foot .............•..r..,.,, s,R. w.w .., ..•,... ,_v M....,.,,. .,«..,w•.... _ ,,,,o,....T. ...•,..............:. .,.,. - ..._.,-.... - .A�I... �vrrv.� �.-Ir,. ._ •. _ . .. n , • ,� ,N-.. 4— ,.. .t « ..ww..».,_,x. ,,„-.«,... .. ,..,, _,. .»u+,w,:a r.,,v., ....i a.,...,.'r.,atr,...r.i.-•w,r..w; .,. *; centers, would be planted in the general area of the large berm. I have : been directed to see that a total of eleven Cu )1 trees are installed in this area. Trying to judge the 'visual effect" of trees which have not '� been planted is very difficult; but the fact remains that my directive is specific. We went to the Planning Commission for a resolve of this . issue, and I cannot negotiate now. My reaction to this "squeeze" is to S insist upon, the.planting of eleven trees on the eastern property line. •° All this means is that you "shift" five trees to the east and add four trees on the north. I would like Ito see these trees evenly spaced from the sewer easement line to the north property line across the top of the berm,' In this way a screen would grow eventually and insure the privacy of all affected persons: I agree that the plant materials now shown on the eastern property line • be moved to the west away from the fence approximately 20 feet. Chimney shall i be covered and the top exposed areas shall be painted. The parking lot issue will be resolved by/with the Tualatin Rural Fire • Protection District. Change; will obviously have to be made, Please pay particular attention to actual parking area measurements. Stalls at 900 are to be 19 feet long and shall have 24 feet between' them. There installed and certain cu�bin must 'here arc several parking spa e es ns, g which mus be removed to allow easy maneuvering of fire vehicles and'private', automobiles in the area. I ; 1 the Again I would :like to point out that the State Fire Marshall. an d tk� • Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District Fire Marshall will, have to , sign-off before the City of Tigard will sign-off for,Occupancy Permits. When you request final inspection, I will personally review each condition to see that satisfactory completion has taken place. I � The construction of a recreation building associated with this project is no longer an issue. Construction will not take place, - Yours truly, ■ ie Howard Planning Director , AH:db • 1 I � C{' I o, I 1� lit . V rr • , 0 .4' August 9, 1979 ct RECEIVED Tigard City Council Tigard, Orego 97223 AUG 3 1 n, 1979 Dear Council Members! CiTY OF TIGARD In your further consideration of Canterbury Woods Condominipiums project, please consider the following unresolved concerns of the property owners to the South. (If you will note in the transcript of the 8/7/79 Tigard Planmng Commission session, these items were ) brought before the Planning Commission, but were not resolved, and it is our contention that we deserve as much oonsideration for our welfare and privacy as property owners to the East and North of the project.--As contended in their case , the project has failed to comply with the origiana3 requirements promised to protect the privacy of us and our property. ) As reiterated in the August 7 transcript by Mr, Howard and by A myself, both the Tigard Planning Commission and the City Council , assured us when they approved the plans for Canterbury Woods that a buffer zone of trees would be left to the South of the property (please refer to the transcript records of both of these sessions) . This was specifically included to protect my large fir trees from "domino" blowdown hazard and to assure that our residential acreage I , type property would be protected and screened from the multiple family dwellings--to preserve the integrity of the existing property. This condition was accepted by the applicant and shows in the original plans. It i8 obvious that Mr, Hoffman has flagrantly violated this condition by cutting the trees right up to the South property line on the Southeast 100 feet and on the Southwest side of the South line: The pictures, Exhibit "A" , "B" , and "0" , enclosed, were all taken with a Polaroid camera from our side of the property on the South line of the Hoffman project. As you can see in Exhibit "A° there is no tree buffer left--just a few scraggly branches. Exhibit "B" also taken from our side of the line shows the condos looking 11 East (the three trees left are between there building, but there are nene between the buildings and our line, Exhibit "0" 0 also taken from our property, shows another area with no buffer trees left—bulldozer went through here and destroyed all vegetation, along this part of line! • Because we believe our property's privacy and our privacy should be protected, as promised, we are requesting that at least 3-5 bUshy, 20' Pirsi be planted as a shield and that a 2-sided board fence be : installed in those areas where the buffer trees have been deStrdAyed •• on the Southeast line. The Southwest clie (109th side) would need similar treatment, with perhaps a few more trees because more were destroyed here, (more) . ,„. "• „• , . ,n..,M. ...,-. N:1t" 1. ...I.r.....+.r.2.w.9.r:-.bu ,..,..`.i.,•.*..r.,v U.Ka ,rn..:.A..4Fw..?.s,,,.,sx .,b.-n»«,. ,.-,.i . , r _ ,. _'a"'"...+n rw,r- -.; ' Page 2 also like to express concern about the drainage run- off ' 1 would 1 express rom the Hoffman property to my property, which I fear is directed " to come this way. Because Hoffman did not install the required holding ponds, and because he has blacktopped large areas, this could be a serious problem. If a problem does occur when the rains come, I would like to have it understood that Mr. Hoffman will be required to take remedial action. (It appears that there are drains running to my property) .?? hope after reviewing the facts, you will decide that eur re- quests are not unreasonable in view of the evidence.' • Sincerely(--N 4r" Marge avenpart 15100 SW 109th Tigard, Oregon 97223 Fnc: 3 Polaroid pictures • 4a I ° .,.,. . . ..... ,.......w. ,.,.,.. .. ..., ..... ,., .r, .i..N.rr r....s .,..Y•.ur..x4m xd.m .0.Mavmw+vka4f A.rfi • ^ r r o r w: \\. --) i , ti, �, , /: yr ' pw i ,' i f ,lf' RM i„coo. r , ',, Y r�i �' �^`^J.ern..•a•,em ...r ,,�•.ww..�w.w.'SC11"^.y"«kG"C75�...... TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS ON AGENDA ITEM 5.8 -- MISCELLANEOUS AUGUST 7, 1979 MEETING OF TIGARD CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ` , -4 Forler, Jr. High School. M Lecture Room • 10865 Walnut Street,, Tigard, Oregon • . (Stenographer's Note: This transcript is made from , a casette recording of the meeting. The recording is of variable quality: those from the audience who • ' addressed the Commission from the podium are quite clear,., those*at the ends of the Commission table carne through only fair at 'best. Commissioner Smith, who • spoke several times, sat at the right end at some ' distance from the nearest microphone) and while the substance of his remarks, is fairly clear, his exact words may not be reproduced here. Those present on the Commission were: President Tepedino, Vice President Wood) Commissioners Smith, , Bonny Funk, Helmer, Speaker and Herron, Staff were Planning Director Howard, and Associate Planner Selby. This hearing started approximately 9:40 and lasted , until after 11:30 pom*) Tepedino I would like to call now for the next item on the agenda--a request by Mrs. IMa Scott for a review of the Canterbury Woods Development. May I have the Staff Findings and position, please. , Howard: I would like to point out first that Staff has no formal Staff Report for this meeting-wit is a request that was placed on the • agenda for your consideration. I would first like to eomment that we have a debt of gratitude, if you would, to Mrs. Scott,, t. I don't think that can be avoided. I think you have seen a •,. reply on the part of Staff in general to take rather concerted fi looks at other projects. I have expressed this to her personally . that in this particular instance the final resolve may not appease e , the angry god With e ,4 , .n her, but it may in fact help others in similar situations* So thanks tolMrs. Scott. 1 think that l should outline the issues as T see them that , should be discussed this evening for resolve I think you will find idea, they what all the •r , are that t+ii7yl. be brought to ., way of knowing -� fi and I have no no � y �vha he Ztisaes g first the vhti e , would like to point you or what y ll be, but S � tout that' th basements and th.. � ,', P � the ,.lofts hvA4 ,bow of primary concern tIr. 'Walden met with the Fire , 4 Marshall today in Salem, and they worked out a press release,. Whic h I shall read, and they al so wrote a' letter to Mr. Roffman, ,dated August 1979, �gna � ire Marshall, and I like � iouldl State o to d o that now 1• °August 7, 1979 Iie'vts Release from the Office of the State Fire Marshall: l \ ',--.. •. ,. ... ....i. ... .,,�•-_,++.+�.urw.M..w+ ��.cta+6:�� • ^, M ,rx ........... ..u,..._,..,,....�. ..,..,-.,,, ._ ,.-,,, - -.,,_,x. _w:.cn_._ ..,c...::...,....,,.....,..,._.,,:..w..:,_.,...,..._..u...,«,.. ,.. .,..,.,w.K.u:..,..n...:u..,..,.,.,...,..,,w....�a,k.:i.wi�a:...............,r...a,..., ..,.,,...,.....,...,..w ..,..... ,.w,.Y m..,.w.,.k..M • .. code Reward "Canterbury ;!Woods Condominiums fire and life safety/problems re-- (Continuing) solved. "Tile intent of the fire and life safety code will be met when the buildings are ready for occupancy" says State Fire Marshall Clyde Centers. "Agreements between the State Fire Marshall; the City of Tigard, Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District and Hoffman and Hoffman:, Inc. of Canter. Bury Woods Condominiums will lead, to e. more orderly completion of the, code-complying residential occupancy. See attached letter fro; me. • Q "August 7, 1979 "Mr. Peter Hoffman "Hoffman and Hoffman, Inc 1' 1888� S Q ti�s Madison Street Portland, Oregon 97205 Y Dear, Mr. Hoffman. Re: Canterbury Woods Condominiums Tigarc1, Oregon "It 4 is the opinion of the State Fir e Marshall that t he Sta. e • of Oregon Structural Safety Code and Fire Life Safety Code does `1, not specifically address the question as to whether the loft areas as constructed in Canterbury Woods CondominiUms are a: third story or a mezzanine, as addressed in Section 414 and 3302, subsection (a). Since the loft areas are in various degrees of completion and it would be an unfair hardship on. the owner to await a code change to clarify this subjects the State Fire Marshall has elected to utilize Section 106 of the State of Oregon Structural Safety Code and Fire Life Safety Code to address the subject and assure the occupants that subject the intent of the Fire and Life Safety sections of the Code have been met. • The loft areas were computed and were found to be in the 33E-1/3 range, based on the common atmosphere of the living, • dining room, kitchen and adjacent halls which are all open to the loft. This open area will provide the occupants of the loft area the opportunity of seeing, smelling or hearing any potential hazard, such as fire, 'which may occur Within the areas of the common atmosphere. •"Th further protect the occupants of the entire condominiums p P aim, the following methods of construction shall be requires ; • o fire lm Qne h ur� ar resistant tenan t separation f' o wall , • ceiling assemblies. P ro bz , Approved single-station detector shall be located in the ceiling of loft space, the location to be approted by the local tire Marshall, • • "3. The pocket doors between° the kitchen and living-dining �; 0 • �. . .,...,.....u..._,.,. ,. ,k ,.o... ...a...,. , / l ��'• , ` �� 1 n l d • f r i U t w Howard areas shall be permanently blocked open. . (Continuing) "4o. The existing two-hour fire walls shall be completed in such a manner as to continue down through the basement, with partitions protected as approved by the State Fire Marshall. ', "Under B: Basement areas as outlined in the plans dated , October 1, 1978, and amended on July. 19, 1979, are acceptable • with the following provisions: "1. Each storage area shall have an exit door. In addi» tion a door shall be located at the rear of each storage unit, with a minimum width of 36 inches. This door and frame, will be 20-minute rated, with self-closing latch, but not locked, These doors will be marked 'For Emergency Use Only", and will be equipped with a security alarm system. In additlon the entrance doors to each of the storage areas will be lockable from the outside only, to allow egress from within in case of p a fire. Permanently designated aisles 36 inches wide shall be 9' provided on each side of the separation wall, as to assure. a ' secondary exit. "2. All exterior and separation walls, with the exception ('( of the two-hour fire walls, shall be of ones-hour fire+»resistant construction. "3, Mr. Peter, Hoffman shall provide the State Fire Marshall wit a copy of the by-laws which will address the use of the basement storage areas, maintenance of fire exits, security alarm, and fire exit aisles. "It should be noted that the items dealing with the loft areas • apply to all buildings containing lofts, and that the :require- ments for basement areas apply to buildings 6 and 7. ,x "It should further be noted that these alternate methods and construction materials were discussed With Tigard Building Official Ed Walden, Acting Fire Marshall Jack Palmer of Tualatin Fire Protection District, and Fire Inspector Jim JenWorthy of the Fare Protection District, and they should provide the State Fire Marshall with a letter of concurrence. "Sincerely, id Clyde W. Center State Fire Marshall's n • Now that is reso.lvedh-the issue of the basements and the lofts' The second issue that I would like to have resolved is the fact that in the original plan the chimneys shown on top of the buildings show that they will be surrounded by a chase. i oW that issue has been brought to our attention.. There is nothing in the Code that specifically reqUires that tho,ee chimneys be 1 r 1117 d surrounded chases. However, it does 'show on the 1 ■ ,�,r s e l �Ia� by a r plan. ; . . r on�inuing The case, has' (.,� ) .she applacant, or the builder in this ca��, ��ha.� 'made some effort to paint•--he has in fact painted some of the chimneys-- and in his presentation this evening that will be one of the considerations I would ask you to make: whether or not you would like to have the installation of chases around tho , chimneys, or whether you would like to leave them unpainted, , or whether you would like to have them! painted. 2 or 3 What's a chase? Cot,tmissioners: Howard: it's a covering for the chimney that protrudes above the roof 1ihe and surrounds the chimney. It's just that box that you Ia ' see on top that covers the chimney. Wood: What i6 the flue-metal? Howard: Yes, sir; metal. It has been anchored onto the roof at the present time in an appropriate manner, and if you decided to make this a condition, them the applicant would take dovrn those supports and put up the boxes. Speaker: Is that appropriate for us to do, or is that part of site design? Howard: Now let's talk about that just a moment. This is the final hearing--I hope, These issues that I am going to relate to you are what I see I would like your consideration of. As I say, in our specific code there is nothing that speaks to the chimney chases except on the original plan here shown. This has been a constant point between the builder and the local residents, and I think that is why we are here at this meeting, to resolve these issues, So that would be the first issue. I would like to comment briefly on the parking areas. We have reported that both the State Fire Marshall and the local Tualatin Fire District department sign off before ocottpancy , permits will be issued, On the original plan the configuration of the parking -- site design review always takes those plans and reviews them with the Fire Marshall. When they took the ,;, apparatus to this particular site they were unable to negoti- ate several of the areas. They requested changes be made, Mr. Oreulich sent me a letter with an attached map outlining those changes, -- that will be made by the builder before occupancy permits will be issued, because they will ha`ie to comply to the regulations of the Fire Marshall. The landscaping: that,s a long and irtrrolved story. You see • on the back--right to the back of you--you see to your left the original la sca r P lcr . O you see t the r ag htan additional plan. When this proposal Weht before site deign review there were some diff-ycUlties. They were handled at the , • 1711 4w' " 1 w i } o -.' a o' (( 4,,,, . Howard site design review level by Nancy, Chase, who at that time was I . (Continuing) the Site Design Review Planner. A considerable upheaval ;has taken place, and obviously we have lost some of the continuity • that is normal in a situation like this. We usually follow a project from annexation to final occupancy. In this case r that was not the case, and it was far from it. So, the original plan that you see was in the file, and a similar copy to that was rolled up here with Ed Strong was'approved On that drawing ° was donated the construction of a fence to the eastern property `i line. Now when that fence became an issue, the developer in a . ,, private agreement purchased a sewer easement across this property Al,' tc this manhole, and in consideration for that the contract. cills for the construction of a fence, along that eastern property �, line. There was a difficulty in the contract and an exchange P ' of terms and terminology, and it got a little confused. How- ever, the fence does show on the original approved plan to be ; ' P''I constructed. That's number one. r` Since that time, as I have mentioned, there have been changes. Now: when I asked for a copy of the landscaping plan I received 1 the plan that is to your rights which is extremely different ,� from the plan that was approved. However, in the course of ('C events, certain changes were requested by Nancy Chase, the • Site Design Review Planner of the developer, and there is a letter on file from Mr. Bolen, and it speaks to the problem of the tree lotting. In this project, if you have been up . there . . • 0 the majority of this area was . „ (indistinct t because he was illustrating on the back wall) . . was addressed in a letter from Bolen, and he said that because of the unique- . . ' ness of the area that they would make allowances for it. He mentions that a revised landscape plan shall be . . . • . When an applicant requests final inspection on a project* one ; of the things that we do is to go back through the files and check that all the conditions have been met. Right? Novi* , I requested this additional plan, and when the dates were Wrong . . . they brought me . s . . That's essentially What happened. A third of this has been installed. Ncw you have several options. As to this plan--a third of this .. has been installed. The reason for that is that the developer '. obviously wishes to sell his property, so he improved around the units he wished to sell. It seems to me that you have several options. One option is you can turn both plans down. And the second is that you can approve this plan with modifies cations that I Will suggest y you deny this rt to ou,. Or �. ou can, de � oiie .w , . ,;, you can deny it and move to the new plan. If you approve the ' i.4 neW plan, it will be hopefully with modifications that I Will ° x, suggest. And those are, I think, the ±sues relative 'to the landscape plan. R y �� one. of the considerations , scs. e Realize that this wao not done by a lan p arohi tec t e That was 'deration Nancy .Chase had::.' . • one of the concerns she had---when she rogliested' that c'r ahges' . be 'made,; This plan has beers. developed by 'a lisce.nsod architect;; There is a change in the amount, Of grass' there is a change ' i i v ' .. „ .a.. .. ,._ _. .... _ ., . _ .,,.... w_, ..,...,.,,.,._._..,,.,....._,..... .......y , .., .._..,,..u.a...,...,,,r... ,... r,..., ..::N.'.w,... ,.,...,„� ,., ,.�..:,..w..r w».,,.>..:.,.,...._,._...,. _:ti....,.,x.i,..,a...::.:s,.....way.s,. 1 i Howard in the plant material, but realistically, when you talk about a (continuing), landscaping plan.--and' Z have stated this to Mr. "Hoffman.-that h feel that this new plan is appropriate for the site, with the • following additions. The applicant . . (a few words" lost, here) . the developer has to place lar e_'Douglas fir trees • • over to the north and to the east s r+ that Now we have to discuss one issue, and �tha� is the fact thata large berm was constructed in this area. We did not at a • ��, that particular time request anyone (to submit) topography diagrams. other than this one, which was the basic flat shot, ' even in that the berm does not show on this plan: we did not > require the topography in the landscaping at that time. We still don't. We will try to work on the ordinance and get it out . . 0 . several things: ` one is a 3660-degree view of the . area, elevation drawings need to be specific, topography needs to be specific, and these are some of the things coming. . . • 1 mentioned that we have found in this particular project that We need to sharpen those things to see that . • . So when we talk about this berm, if in fact we condition this project b,. that the larger trees are then placed on the berm, it will mitigate to some degree the site difficulties here in the invasion of privacy issued Also in the construction of the fence, which will be along the property line that • • . • concern . a, . So these were the concerns that :L had. We have stopped the landscaping. We put a stop order on it and we have held off any further construction until these • conditions are resolved. That's why we are here tonight. So l would condition that larger trees be planted in these two , locations, an .t that the fence is in fact constructed along that property line. Now there are a couple of other issues that you should know. The plan called for a detention pond in this particular area. Now one of the difficulties of the installation of that pond is that it would have disturbed a great deal of vegetation. So, when they submitted the detailed plan for their drainage, this pond was eliminated. All the drainage from the site is taken subsurface, with pipes down through here, so we had a • minimal disruption of the vegetation. This Was eliminated. The same is true with this park . . . � . paths, picnic tables, • and so forth. In order to make . 0 . . we had to cut down a ' significant number of trees, and in order to clear that path, again you had to destruct the vegetation. So that has been eliminated. • Sb, the issue is really, what plan shall we choose-.and What additions to that plan shall we make? Now those are my concer,no, And . th ink tha -41 knew that the developer has a p; re sor at o ti (s omewhat unclear, but to the effect that he knew there � � � � � ) are those in the audience who Want to speak in opposition and he suggests we follow the regular public discussion format) is a . We Will come back to these four issues. The :dire Depart.: meat has resolved the parking issue, if you Will; resolve the loft, resolve the basement; talk about"' the chimneys talk about the landecapin - 1 think that's my list. i ;,‘ e .. _ i ., _ _ .. ,.......C«.I w-,R.Y.I A...r,...a...+,,...-J'4.+4.+.•4a.«.,,r..a.«Ir.. • Tepedino (Tepedino and Howard had a brief but indistinguishable inter- change.) Howard: Now obviously one of the difficulties in the maintenance of an open drainage area- -we have seen it in a lot of other develop- tents--we don't have the money to go out and spray it on the • first call we get; so I would say to you 'again that the parking area will be taken care of by the Fire Department, basements , and lofts have been an issue, but they have been resolved. We are talking about the landscaping and the chimneys. I think $' that is to contribution, and you can carry on in the regular Y y Y Y g public hearing format. Tepedino:. I Thank, you, Staff. I would lake to call on the 'applicants please, to make a presentation as to therm issues . . . . if you can keep' it. down to five minutes or less would be appreciated, k�. Vin Lom: That will be difficult. My name'is Joe Van Lom. I am the that through the attrition architect for this �project. I t seems eels through people through the Staff and the Planning Commission. -it seems I am the only one who has been on this project from the • very inception until this date "And a lot of things have trans- pired, and 'a lot of questions have come up, and I would like • to answer as many possible. those as oss le. I would like to start with the landscape plans since that was ;I the last thing that was discussed here at the meeting. The landscape plan that is submitted -the one on this side one that we presented to the Staff at the time we were applying for building permits. The problems that we had with it were that there were many question areas as far as the Staff Was concerned, and the submitted plan that we had was rejected. We had the party go back--the person who did that was 'a person we hire for doing landscape plans, who is not a landscape architect, but a graduate of the University of Oregon,in land-' scope. He went back and discussed the situation with Nancy ,. Chase, and I don't believe a decision was ever reached as far as the exact plan... Part o f the reason was for the statement a p approval in g • that was included in. the design design n review. It says here, and I quote, 1,0..AY landscape plan for the area south of the tree line should be received before issuance of occupancy permits. The reason behind this deviation frL normal procedure • ' is that a better plan can be designed after the buildings are in place, since it id to vegetation loss due to t �n„ll coincide t construction activity." . . No�•t the Whole idea of this plan initially Was that because T p y there are many trees on . �:te, it was ri�css5asymao�go n the s' up and move the uil z gs around in order to i n,� trees as possible; and the 4otif eer was required.'bl know at least rn q d four different times o stake out the buildings, have the Staff go up and evaluate the situation, and on those different Occa- lions we moved buildings around to miss some trees, or tO get a better outlook; and We did this On several instances, and in fact trio original plan that we ''submittedis slightly deviated Off.VA A r . : . I I r I n • • Va n La M because C we wer e t rf inr t o C iss as many trees as possible. (Continuing) So the idea then was to go back with a landscaping plan after ' we knew whore the buildings wore, how many trees in the courts, etc., so we could get a Good idea of what was there and what we had to work with. And that was the idea---the plan that you see on the right was ..one by a landscape architect.—Hr, atten--- who had visited the site during the time the buildings were being laid out, and created the landscaping plan based on the best information available at that tine. I think it is a good plan. It was followed on the first three buildings, and the reason for that, as mentioned before, was to get some units ready for display for the selling part of the program. And ' so three buildings were finished and that was as far as the landscaping plan was to go at that time. I have some slides which will show you basically the whole site-—will show you some pictures of the chases so you can ' get an idea of what's there and what we plan to do, i would, like to talk briefly about that,. Our plan I have a copy °..� they are prefabricated fire- places thaj�, s11011 chimney chasES, and th y a ,, .;+ places with a metal chimney flue that goes through the roof. ' We e through design approval .the ones E!e had shown on our plans throu��i� dea�.�� app- that were .approved--had half the chase covered, ' half the chase. exposed. There was a great deal of the metal chase e°, posed. When we were up there visiting on the site we felt there were so many units in the tree line that it actually looked better to have those things exposed, because it really made less difference to the projoct, and harmonized better with the existing environment. So, we suggested they be left off in some of the areas whore it really wasn't very noticeable. % I will show you that, and you can get your, oven opinions Mr. Van Lem then preceeded to show slides from .. Various viewpoints, including aerial. There was some interchange l w n th persons in the audience which prompted o What I would like to sn est. is that this is the opportunity Tep�diri, i g� for Mr, V . Lam, and we will get to the opponents. Included among the slides were views of a short sariple of the fence, the berm, landscaping, an ' existing fence in a deteriorating condition, the chases and bare and painted chimneys, and the lands) scaped courtyards of the unite prepared' for showing. } >:'to offered to answer questions. kule �r�� � Mr. Van Lem, or painting g ticse pipes: aren't t th y s ,a S lei o steel to begin with'? Van Loo; Yes, What kind of adherent eel. Van tom: They are all prepped' s° the paint doesn't come off. I , A In, 1 A t A.A • , k Funk: What kind of life expectancy before it started chipping and : peeling? • Van Lott: That's a good question. What we have for gutters--you know-- gutters -- sometimes you have five years and somethines ten . years. It denends. Funk: But gutters usually have a galvanized sheet metal base, . Van Lom: Yes. Wood: (Indistinct, but he stated the outside of the metal chimneys (Or Smith?) was galvanized and hence would be suitable for painting.) (There was a little additional indistinguisha . .terchange.) 1 • Tepedino: Is there any other parties wishing to speak in favor of this 72roposal? (No response.) I would like to see a show of hands of parties wishing to speak in opposition to this, or have some statement to make.--and you have all signed up? Eight or ten. I would like to ask that you limit it to three minutes • eath. That will give us about L.5 minutes, The first person who raised their hand, will you come up and identify yourself? I would ask again that you not repeat the testimony of prior testimony, Goisert: My name is Richard Goisert. I am an attorney here on behalf , of Mrs. Elizabeth Anderson, who is an adjacent property owner . and living on property immediately to the west of the project. I just have a few brief remarks to make in regard to the chim- , neys and landscaping plan. It seems there are three bases on which changes are now required. One is that vie really didn't think aboUt it that much, and the original plan wasn't all that specific, and so now it just -1 kind of makes sense to change it. The other ones are that • "Tell, we moved buildings around in order to save trees'," Well, let's talk about the first one—We didn't Specify that • much originally, and so now we ought to be able to change it. It seems to me this flied in the face, and doesn't make any • logical sense, when you have a developer who, as Mr. Van Lam has indicated, he has been with this project since its original inception, and are required to submit certain plans which show certain things to the City--those plans are given to the City at the appropriate tunes and the appropriate hearings are held, and if people are interested, those plans are available at the city for the public to come in and look at them and „ decide whether they like the project or not, and whether they want to have input on these certain things. And so we have all the way up through site design approval and all the way up to the time when building permits are going to be issued-—we have an approved set of plans. Ilow„ all of a sudden6o,..here We' are, almost to the stage ok getting ready to issue occUpaney permits, we are talking about amending the :Ate design review plant.;--tho ' w ... -...-.._i.+.,.........,,..H...t....:....a.....a•I,...w..... l..T•..rl F....o.......w.wn ..-.,..., .r .•... 1 G a.CGS' t. p lans that', were submitted a long time ago, before building G • permits were supposed to be issued, before ground was supposed to be broken. I don't really see why- -it ,just doesnt t make any sense--wrhat's the purpose of having the original plan and the purpose of having all these procedures to go througl/if, just at this late stage in the game, an applicant can come in and say, "Well', once we got around to it we decided it made more sense to do something else." It seems to that he ought to be required to show some kind of an excuse as to why he didn't have his stuff together the first time, you know--why all of a sudden is it so important to change the style of chimneys from covered with chases half way to exposed steel chimneys, you know. If that was important to him it should have been important two or three years ago, instead of important all of a sudden here in 1979. And the same thing to do with the landscaping: the trees on that site haven't moved anywhere--they have obviously , been there for a long tune. He knew where they were wheh he submitted the site plaii .application for the zone change; he knevi where they were when he submitted the landscaping plan, the sate plan for the site design review application. If he wanted buildings in different places he should have so indicated on those plans. And then to add on a berm or to move trees or to omit a park-aa park that was a prime ingredient of the original application-just to simply omit it on the basis of "Vie don t t want to cut down any more trees"i--to me that doesn't make much sense. Those trees were there originally, and if they didn't want to cut down the trees, then they should have omitted that from the original application. It was their idea to begin With, and now all of a sudden they are saying, "Well, 1 w \\ e have had second thoughts, and we really don't want to do it." It seems to me they haven't shown any justification for their change in position when they on;finally came in with a set of goods that was going to have :�,ertain qualities, and now they want to say, "no, we are not goiLr.g to have those qualities,any more." And then again, as far as the save.- tree idea--the save.a- tree idea is vIry good, you know; there is a lot of''benefit, and I think everyone agrees 'it is v orthvfhile to try and save trees. As some of those atrial photographs showy, though, the extension of 109th throagh' the project--it is only actually being developed and paved through the northern half of the site, and through the southern half of the site the developer was required to dedicate but not imroVe a half street for the rest of that project site, Thetrees for that unimproved, but dedicated area they have all boon removed. There . r a lot dedicated .�»,.. were e �, l of trees over there, and if it was so important to save trees for the site, and no pending development programs for anything, in that area-you know it might be thirty years before a street is put in--but for some reason the developer decided he didn't -'rant to save those trees—ho Was going to cut those. It just seems to there has been an inconsistency hero ad far as i reasons to do one thing Which were foll.otifed when it suits the r developer, and ro t followed when it does;n t t suit the developer. As, far as the berm and the fence on the east pido of the property I I .:."+..:«.:.._r_..,....u.A.............r-:...:.' ..:..,. . ''. ......:..,nJltJ r.. ....,.,..;..u„___,..a..:.,.. -.........: ..a, ..».,-...„ w,.,_'r x......_ •.U-4.r,.,,dur..k.._.;._... i_._...r.rw.i... �. ..,....,..n.-,, ..<....-_.,....._«-A....,.,r.. u,«....:.r,. _. ,,.,.. ..,w.•.,, .,..-.._,.......,,_.,.,,-«..x.....,. mow•, • Geisert are o conc er P d� t he berm pictures tu_ s that supposedly as e d1 Y show the effect ect (Continuing) .of the berm were, of course, taken at ground level, standing on one side of the berm and trying to look over it. I thinly what's really an issue here is privacy when you are on the balconies in the Canterbury Woods project, you are looking to the cast and you are looking right into the Calway gills living room: (applause from the audience). The privacy issue there » addressed by a berm that's down below you; it has cannot be addr..a.�ea y �' � � . " to be addressed by something that's obscure. gonna, gurtna ob„ that line of sight; and a berm is simply not going to do it. That's all r have to say at this time. Thank you. ' 'r • Tepedino: And your name, again, sir? �. Geisert: Richard Geisert.; (Indistinct, but apparently asking n a G eisert s view e ti o n what should be done now.) Geisert: I will. I think he ought to be required to build the project " as it was originally approved. Period. Just do that. . ' Smith: e . (Indistinct) . � e haven't t resolved lved P os]t ions a and I realize everybody has things they don't like about it • • 0 What would you like to see to resolve 'the conflict • ' • Geisert: Of course. In other words you are wondering whether I would have any ideas about any changes from the project as originally approved which wouldk 'even though they are changes—would ' none the less satisfy. Smith: Or changes from what you see up there right not. Geisert: Well, the changes that I have seen occurring, and the changes Which are reflected on these amended set of plans and so forth, • are changes from the original approval; and the original approval had certain ingredients which are now being attempted to be changed at this late stage. You know--to mc, you know -I can t. see arguments both ways as to how the original proposal was r good or the changes proposed to be made are good. You knot, I don't really see any great benefit one Way or the other. I It seems to me that v/ben you have your procedtircs for plan submittal and approval all the way down the line from planning ' Commission to. City Coancil, and then to the Planning Director 4, and the Site Design Review' Board, you have involved the whole range or city . � p ect �y� f had them ' � ` ty in ths project� ou have all put their stamp of approval on it. Rey! That's'''it! each • stage the applicant has his right to appeal, and thieisnit it. Smith: • 0. . . b The question. I am asking is What do you Want there specifically. Specifically, that is wrong with the project . . e • a Geisert: Well, that a couple of w o. First � I think ..�; can address ,�,�. the changes , » � a ri� I c s t way o. all, the changes that are, there okay, t g that one :Sll .r \ A '" r .r ......N.r..•.a1.nMnx_..W. rwiN4.vti4'tr„.., r .r. .v.a...r• .. ..i.r • x w r•r .n r r • - • ' Geir,�:vt� might t think that we have to just accept as a fact of 11'fe-.. , „, ` (Continuing) that this certain quality of the project is as it is, and there is nothing we can do about it t even ,though it ,might be a varia� tion from what was 'originally approved. First of all, I take issue with that, because it seems to me if a developer has a set of plans that have been approved, and then he goes out and builds something different--then he is 'biting,the bullet and • r assuming the risk that he might have to tear something down , and 'change it; and if that is what it comes to, then that is wh .'� he should be required to day ,; Smith: e • • • • disc s omble once it is built b • • d • original plans? .' . r Gei^^r�: visas Disassemble what he ha 5 built and put it where it was supposed " to be If that requires disassembly, then it requires dis— • .; assembly;, if it doesn't, .t doesn't. fin Smith. e • • e (Unintelligible) • �• m " Gei ert: Right; that's our position, And secondly, as far as how does ' '. this affect the surrounding property, it seems to me that the - • adjoining landowners.,—my client among them--simply have a right . to expect that a developer comes in and proposes to do something . that's going to have a major impact on the neighborhood--arid this place will definitely have a major impact on this neighbor . . ,hood— it's a very large development--and he proposes to do it in a certain way, to ?save as indicated on this original plan on the left side to have a recreation building and a pool, a"'�: to have a picnic area and park benches and trails and so forth-- > ',',�j IFS so he proposes this to the neighborhood and to the City$ and ". ' he gets approval. Well, if at a later date he decides some --- of these things Weren't such a sad idea I think that the • i y property owners have a right to expect that he submit a now ' application, or do something to otherwise include the- in the 0 process of approving the amended plan, other than jut.', going out t there and building it like he Want to build it, e.it then coning in later and saying, "Please let me do it. the way I have done it." That's just not simply what the property wailers bargained for when they allow their, City Council to enact the ordinances that require the developer to go through hoops in the first place, : `` i, . ,rpeake.r: I WWotild have one question about . . y ou said that the street � - "e ' t hat was dedinatod but unimproved, a half ctroo;, the trees were removed. I vi spoct, based on something that happenec. a , *iunciretl feet or so from ty place, that they Were required tri , remove those trees. 18 that correct? Co i:art t 1lo. There is no requirement from the City of Tigard'''to remove w p any of those treed. TdL Ok thk I " ilik to call on the ext es I-- . . . Wishin to speak in oppositions • 4 " 1 , r r N u ....r.+ ......wig .. rx r4 . ...ate ..u . rwrta'uw.a• 1 � J i t, - 1 . I I 4 I 1 4 Feichtinger: Iiy name is Mark Feich tinges, and I am an attorney for Galway + Hills IIomeovmere Association.ztion. I would like the members of :. Galway Ellis just to stand–-we are pretty well represented here. this' evening, I think. (Perhaps 20 25 persons stood up.) d We would like, to take' a very positive note here. We are not ' for disassembling the project. I speak only for the homeowners! ' • board and the citizens who vote to elect the members of that board, and I„don e t represent Mrs. Anderson or other property owners as individuals« I think that you will see presented by one of the other members of Calway Hills who will speak--we will keep our presentations as brief as possible—who has collected signatures of approxi-- mately 65 people with regard to ,a very specific proposal.. There has been a long simmering battle between Hoffman and Hoffman and the Calway Hills Homeowners 'Association,, and we think it can be peaceably resolved this evening, and hope that you will take our view and peaceably resolve the issue« • Calway Hills always assumed that approved plans called for the construction of a fence and tall fir trees along the easterly border; and if you will turn around for a moment,' on the original plan you will note along the righthand side there, there is an annotation in regard to a fence along; that entire area; and those little swatches of black represent tall fir trees* Toward the bottom in there, it is already populated With trees'–maple and firs. Okay, it is very heavy forestation at the bottom there. I guess the reason we are here tonight ' is, we just cannot understand why we are being asked to change �I the original plan. The original plan takes into account the site design, and the original landscaping plans take into account the privacy and so on of these various neighbors, and I would like to address those issues. . What are the land use issues in this case? They are issues addressed in your Planned Unit bevelopment Ordinance, and they are issues addressed in your Design Review Ordinance. And what are those issues? They are: noise, privacy, aesthetic appeal, compatibility with surroundings, and basically future . . relations between neighboring projects. . Motif each one of those is expressed in each one of your ordinances dealing with this areathat is, design review and planned unit development ordin urns. What are the facts in this situation? The facts are: that there is a great height disparity between the Canterbury Wool` development, and Galway Hills dawn here a We have single level down .here; we have a tall berm; we have a tWo--level or three. level structure on the Canterbury development. The other fact of the situation is that the tWo developments are only separated 1 by 40 to 50 feet. These two basic facts--that is the g reaW height disparity and a very shot open area botWecn' the property creates some issues.. And We think the e issues, are 'reaolved irz' L G , I , I , • 1, ^ ` • Fe ,•cht;i nger the following'tray. (Continuing) Fj.rst, the fence: The fence is not primarily for 'visual purposes. The fence is therefor a matter of privacy which I' prevents pets from running across, children from wandering across between the developments,' balls and frisbees, etc.,' from Going between neighboring yards, and basically serves to mark the property line. A good neighbor fence has 'a name for a good reason. It is there to prevent disputes, which arise between neighboring landowners: you and I probably have them in our back yard--I certainly do. They are not there as a ,• ratter of antagoniFm between' you and your neighbor. They are there for a very good reason--to prevent future antagonisms, 4, perhaps. And 'basically, also to marl, the property line. In fact, there is a fence oh the 'northwesterly border, and we ' believe it was put there for exactly that reason. We don't see why it shouldn't be extended any farther to include our property. (He obviously misspoke here.---Steno Now the fir trees: This is the second portion of our solution to our problem tonight, and I would like to clarify the Cal.ray Hills- In my role I am here on only two issues--that is the fence and the fir trees. We don't have other disputes with you on the internal layout, with the trees; we are here just • on the two issues. The fir trees serve various purposes. First with regard to • noise, they are essential, we think, for privacy and to deter '. or affect or reduce the sound transmission between the two properties, and we think that's a viable concern for land use considerations. Second, with regard to the matter of view. If you were to look again at that view from the second story of Canterbury Woods down into Calway Hills, it is quite obvious that the two neighbors are looking directly at one another. And that's a concern, I• think. We are interested in privacy for both parties, and for continued good relations between the tWo developments, and we think the fir trees will do just that. If anything, we think, should be apparent, it is that any revision to the original plan should incorporate, or any revision which is adopted, in addition to the original plan, or replacement of the original plan, should include these two areas within which 1`te are concerned: that is, the trees and • the fence. In fact, we believe the applicant has the burden of establishing some compelling reason why this particular t revision is necessary with regard to these two particular areas of concern for use Part of the expense of the original Canterbury do gn contemplated a commitment to put in fir trees and to build a fence'. That, commitment has been glade to ,! the Planning Director on several occasions and we believe it should be enforced; Essentially what we are here for is 'giving some direction to the Planting Director with .regard ; M • I ...,.o....•.,......,....... .,...H.v.LL,,,,„.,v.,,....x�.r..,•.,.,.,„.. ... •,,,,t•,...,.,.... .•,o..,,,w. ., w...,„ , »,_......„...,�,...r~..�w,au.d,.�x,,.�:�,' ,j , • S �ln ` W r • r + l • Feichtinger to those fenc es and thos e trees. We don't think n� ti c arc bore (Continuing) really, to delay the process. We want, to get the thing expedited; 1. ` we have serious interests in moving the project along, just as well its Mr. Hoffman does. But we want to prevent an end run. We believe that in the past certain is sued have been addressed • by Hoffman after the fact. In other words, action was taken and then approval was sought, and we believe this is one of the 0 situations where you have the power to decide the issue, and we want to -prevent an end run around the situation. r Okay, I guess in summary I want to state that we want to achieve a viable land use need, 'which we believe is a matter of noise, privacy, viewA compatibility with surroundings--,•a,11 'v• issues which are addressed in your ordinances. We want to assure that any action that is taken with regard to these plans stipulate that those trees and fence be installed prior • to, the issuance of a certificate ,of occupancy. I think that states pretty well our position. Do you have any questions? We will have other members of Calway Hills speaking incidentaily.-- there is a petition signed y 65 of the members of the Galway j! Hills on these two issues, and that's their principal concern. Voice: (Obviously a question, but indistinguishable.) Feichtinger: 'Yes, that's correct. • Voice: (Again indistinguishable.) Feichtinger, Well, I speak simply for the board in this respect. The berm is okay if the trees are planted on top of it-4-as long as we have the fence-.as I said, we are here on two issues—the berm is satisfactory as far as the board is concerned. There may be • "• individual members of Galway Hills Who may feel differently, but I am speaking for the board. L , Tepedino: May I clarify it for you? II Feichtinger: Yes. I . Tepedino: The fence and trees that he is talking about--are they .ii fact the same . . . e s . in the same location '. o s . *? I'eichtinger: Okay , thank you. If I could reserve a 'few minutes for rebuttal to Mr. Van Lom's testimony. n Tepedino: You will have an opportunity. . I Feicr±tiri{;er 'hank You, a Tepedino; ',Text speaker? 1. Davonport: (The first of the testimony of Marge Davenport,; tho lives to • t+io south of the b 'oject, Was lost in changing tapes.) ,« a'' w r • When we cane to the hearings when the original plan etas presented I ; I I n u1 • ' � -..,.._ ,.,,, Au..«e. ��. .ai. ...... .. ..... ..... ., a.,. ,.._ H... , r a ', 4' Davenport we were told that our property would be protected because they (cotr tii.aui.ng) were Going to have 'a park loft between uo and the, . They were moil to have trees left. t'!c11, the trees have been cut 'pract•» j' ; . ica.il:y right to our fence line, and the trees that you sec in the background belong; to Mrs. Ericson and our property, which . is south., (In response to someone pointing to the stall-mounted r,, plan .: - ) Yes, right; they are right up against the fence— they are cutting right against the e fence. . They have trade 'a terrible moos on 109th at the, end of our property there. Lvi dently we haventt been screaming loud enough, because nobody seer.s to be worrying abou t us; but that's why we are here . tonight--becau e we 'want to be worried a little bit too. By building the buildings so high and taking out those trees, I . they have destroyed our privacy to the south. From the bal.-' conies up there you can look right dorm into our swimming pools, right down into my hot tub,.-which is not very good, you (_____, know? (Chuckling.) I would like to see some 20 foot fir trees put on the south side to give us e green; I also would like to see a fence ;built on the south side, so if they did not comply " • with their original plans to leave the trees there and put the park there. I ~Mould like to see them fi,X up 109th and replant some trees- in there, and get rid of that dusty, miserable, , horrible mess they have there new, which is really terrible. And I think they should have a fence right dorm that side, toe. Tepodino: The south side? r . 0 Davenport: On the south side and the west side. of Topedino: The mess you are talking about is that a construction mess-, i' by that I .mean -- F Davenport: Yes, it is a big mess. They tore down the trees there, and it's jUsi a big, dust pile --- Tepedinot Would that be due to the construction -- , k Davenport: Weld, I don't know what they plan to doe They have no plans; ,•. " we have never seen any plans for that--that's why we are request- F n , ing trees be planted there and a fence be constructed along that side to protect our properties. It would take at least • 20-foot fir trees along our fence there to give us any pri Vacy. Tepedino„ Okay. Stewart: My name is Sandra Stevtart. I live at 14923 S. W. 106th, directly next to Mr. Hofftnan's pro ect. We have a petition here..-it has been signed by others of us that code later this evening / Planning i�.a,tureiu�xon and t'��. It is directed The signatures you , ``g e �xo�r total d to� oti people, the Commission` the City of Tigard in references to thtr Canterbury Woods development. i , ulWe, the undersigned residents of Calvtay Hill, a gard i Oregon,go ns vigorously object to any modification of, the original land,- soaping plans applicable to the Canterbury Hoods devolopment 1 0 1 I I ^ } J 1 I t 1 • • , * Stewart which affects the areas between our homes and the development. (Continuing) In particular we demand a five-foot double-sided neighborhood fence and tall fir trees be installed and planted between our homes and the development, as required by the landscaping plans • approved by the Planning staff on February 23, 1978. • • "We believe the fence and trees are vital elements to preserve the character of our neighborhood, to protect the privacy of our homes and units in the development, and to insure amiable relations between future residents of the development and us. ' The altertative landscaping submitted by Hoffman and Hoffman • do not address these concerns in an acceptable manner. Under i the proposed alternative plan, no fence would be constructed, trees would be replaced by plants of various types." • Let me break from reading this, because our attorney has pretty well stated to you -- you can read this at your leisure -- where he says where the petition mentions about trees being replaced by plants of various heights--he has taken away the fir trees and these plants down here, and substituted 18-inch rhododendrons? That's really not going to do much to screen us, and as a matter of fact we have had it checked out with a landscape person, and he says not only are they 18 inch ones, but they are also--this particular type—very slow growing to boot! Most of the shrubbery that you are seeing on these new plans is very, very low. It is not going to do anything at all for us. The rest Of the petition, as I said, does not need reading. We are. concerned about noise, etc. I was particularly struck by Mr. Van Lomts presentation with the slides, and naturally they would be slanted to their best interest by their little eight-foot section of fence. Now I could go behind there, but Mr. Tepedino$ you are close. Does that fence on that plan go all the Way along that eastern line? It should, because I •• have seen -.4 A , Two or three voices: (Indistinct) Stewart: Well, on one plan that I saw at one point, it pointed out that the fence was to go all along that line; and my understanding •, of the slide show tonight was that just part of it would be fenced, as opposed to all of it. Another thing I would like to bring out that I believe 15 or so fir trees Were Mentioned, and I think there were quite a few more than 15 in the original thing, and if we are going to be stuck with 18-oinch rhododendrons along there, we need more than 15 on that side; we need tall screening in order to make that bearable. The slide show from the air doeontt really • show you how it is My bedroom Window and living room windo are about 20 feet from those people that are going to be moving ift it, and it is just darn tough! Arid I live down there where they are supposedly good enough to leave the trees--they showed • hoW kind they wnre to ust Well, over there whore there are no trees showing on the s::::, there never Were trees--they . 1 . / I t 1 • ^Yt Stewart didn't do us any big favor. Those things have been so split. sf,, ' (Continuing) by construction they are going to all all down anyway. I feel that the matter of the chimneys, the matter of the now landscaping plan, no fence, the amenities being gone, no rec room, no trails, no picnic area as this other lady, mentioned-- all of the amenities were stripped from that project -- and PLRJASL don't change the landscaping plan, too. Tepedino: Thank you, Mrs. Stewart. Next speaker, please. Hall: My name is Forrest Hall. I live at 14911 S. W. 106th. I would like to say that Mr. Van Lom was very correct when he • said he was prejudiced with this project. Looking at those chimneys through the trees as he did in the slides is very . misleading. Now I live right about where the first trees are on the south end, there where the fir trees are supposed to go, and when I look out at those bare chimneys, sticking up there • ry.n the air, they don't look very good to me. In fact, I think � �• they look hideous. • • • , His view from the second story looking toward Calway Hill • didn't look too bad in that picture. But like I say, when I look out and those people are on the second story and look direct across--not at an angle like he showed in the picture-•.- they are looking right down on my patio or into my bedroom • • window; and even if I was out on my patio I would have to hide in a corner by my fence in order to get out of their view. Anti there they area--that's what those balconies are for on the west (sic) side of the building, so they can get out of the . • afternoon sun; they will be sitting there, looking right down on me. I don't like it His view from the ground level where he was looking at the berm and you could just barely see the top of Galway Hills condo- miniums well, that was fine, because he was looking at the one story ones--I am in a two—story one.--and that's from the basement level of his property. Sure, and the berm comes Up and it does out off the vie;. But like I say the people there at Canterbury are going to be up on the balcony, which is up on the second floor looking down on use • Mr. Van tom says the berm is as good a fence as a fence for the divider. Well, our attorney has mentioned it doesn't keep out the kids, the dogs or even plain old foot traffic Where people Want to cut across to go through the neighborhood. I. would l • like to ask you, Do you honestly feel that this now landscape plan will look as good as the original one? Go out and look at the site and see if you can actually say it would look'as good. They say that the change in the building does affect the location of;- in the change in the lap soaping. Well, this' could be very true; but I don't see Wher t,should change the position, of those fir trees along the ea.Aern boundary between • I : . • ,, • , A » . • , Hall the Calway Hills project and the Canterbury Woods. (Continuing) . Tepodino: Thank you, Mr. Hall. Are there any other parties wishing to be heard on this issue? (Mrs. Stewart presented the President with 'the petition she read from.) Okay, thank you Okay. • It is ten of eleven. Are there any other parties wishing to speak on this issue'' No response.) Then I would like to call for cross examination arid rebuttal . . . (a few words lost) . • . . . Van Lom: I am Joe Van Lom again. I donit mean to mislead you regarding that fence. The slides that I showed you was of the proposed • fence, and it is proposed to go in along that property line. I dongt think that the issue of whether it is going in or riot oing in should he an issue, because that feace will go in, and it will go through all of the open area. We really hesitate to put fence all the way down the property line because of the tree line that is further down, but we propose to go up to • where the tree line began, which you might recall the slides, Was about half Way down the site. That way we would provide the privacy that we need along that side, along the berm area. Tepedino: What side are we talking about—south side, west side? Van Lom: We are talking about that property line there, continuing on down to right there--that's the only fence required, and that's 44 , where it's marked on the plans. Tepedino: Oa° of the opponents was suggesting she would like to have a fence OA the south 0 . • • 0 . Van Lom: Not at all; not at all* I walked through there, and you should • really walk through there, too. There are plenty of trees to ' / buffer that area down there --plenty of trees. (Indistinguishable comment from the audience.) One thing I would like to speak to also is the privacy issue, This land Was originally zoned, I believe, R-7, It was a . residential area. If that plan was built under that designation, • you could come within five feet of the property line With the side yard of your house; you could put your house within five feet of that fence. And if you had a two-story house, you could come within seven feet; so you could have a two-story Window out back within seven feet of that property line. We are 20 to 25 feet with our Wilts back there* So it isn't that because the units are there that it has absolutely ruined the privacy of that project* Aa project that would go in there , Would have some effect as far as that's concerned. - • Voice: (Inaudible.) Vi Lon: Right; I think that's true; I think there should be enough landscaping Topudinot This 18 an opportunity for cross examinations Let's take one , ( . • ^ . , • . . , . Topedine Person at a time. Ii you have something to say I would apprec— 1 . (eontinuing) late it if you would wait until you are recognized. • Van tom: I thin]: that's a good point, though. I think the landscaping should be compatible, and what I think ,the homeowners are ' . asking for is somewhat more than compatible, because they have . no fir trees on their side, or anything to do any shielding ' . from their side of the fence. They were there first, of course, • • ' • and that gives them some right; but that should be considered, ' C too. They did have an agreement, a private agreement, which . was tied in with the easement that went through the property , that required that that side be landscaped, and it will have to be done; they will have to abide by that plan. And there 0 are fir trees which are planned to go in there. Whether there ‘ 4 are going to be so many fir trees there that will completely „ block off all the units, well, I don't think that is really . . , fair to assume that the owner should put 20—foot fir trees . all along there to completely buffer that area. I think he , should do a nice, neat, orderly job of landscaping, done by • a professional and approved by the Staff and full Commission. . I think that's what's really required here. , , . . ' . . , The other point that was brought up, of course, was the chimney chases) and We would like to have that resolved. I think the 0 slides I shoWed yon, I believe show you that it isn't any great concern anywhere in the tree line-,—that when you look at the units you barely see those units as long as it is anywhere „ in the back area we wore showing the slides from . The other— ! r, Hall brought up the privacy issue. I hope that . " we addressed that point. The photograph where he said that was taken from the basement,.—there are no basements in that area. That is taken standing at ground level looking over the project——over Clay Hills, looking over the berm——and , you can see how much fence is there. That really isn't an issue because Mr. Hoffman will put in that fence, and he will landscape that arca. Tepodino Thank you, Mr. Van Lem. 0 . 0 Yes, sir. Feichtinger: If Mr. Hoffman is willing to concede that he Will put up the . . fence, then we think that is terrific! We Want to make sure . that the fence runs the entire property line, hoWever. That's only teasonable. ..). • Tepedino: The fence on the ea ' side? Veichbinger: Thatf8 on the back Side. (indicating). With regard to the fit * trees, we want to make sure that the density is at least what is specified on that original plan. We want to make sUre they are tall fir trees as well. I think the plan —,-. statetent made • by Mr. Howard to Mr. Hoffman in a letter dated July 16 requestitrr i u a six..foot sight.,obscuring fence and 1..,) large Douglas fir trees would be basically compatible with our needs; so I think ! . ( . f . , . . (/ 4 • c'I ",.«r..:.: r .. r,. ..G .,. .r.+u'.... k.,,4...,...r....,..,,.. ...N.{,.,—._...i...:w..,<uu.4......,.................�1,.,.,.�N....rM..,. ..,r r.r-,.«, _.._r...ca..-.„-..M....:;t:,,.i.�r.k....,,.......-..:a-..'.,...a r.. „...,,ww r.. .,....r'...,.„__.i I e c r.vin-er that. s 'quite appropriate, and I would ,�e happy to give you a G � _.� (Continuing) copy of that letter. Fir. Howard probably could loan that to • you if necessary. With regard to the privacy issue, when you take a look at that photowraph which looks like'-- the statement was made that it was tckcn out of a basement at the first level -- the natural thing for any child or any individual operating; in that area is to go back to the edge of the berm, and we are still concerned • about view--I mean the bean is there, but we still need some additional view restrictions, I think. • If you have any questions of us we would be 'happy to 'cooperate with you, and I think you well understand what our concerns are. We want those' fir trees and we want them densely'put in there, and we want that fence the entire property line. , Tepedino: Thank you, sir. Any questions? . I I Sneaker; Fifteen trees•—is than what you are asking for? 1 eichtinger: Whatever the original plans call for , . • . . Mr. toward w . We would need, I think, at least eleven, and more if it is determined by the Staff, but a minimum of eleven. Tepodino c ' Thank you. Any other parties wish ng to speak in cross exam— ination or rebuttal on the issues , ''d.are raised? Davenport: I am Marge Davenport. There's been big; issues made about the need for privacy and the need for good neighborliness and for • the fence on the east side, and I think it is just as important that you consider the need for the fence on the other two ' sides in lieu of the fact thlt we have lost the privacy we ' • Were supposed to have and were told we Would have, when they " were supposed to leave those trees between their property and ours and put the park in. x don't think they need to plant. trees all along, but I do believe they need them over in that 109th corner there, and I think there is a I,place (indicating, on plan on back Wall to one of the southern buildings) • • (quite a bit lost) • Geisert: Richard Geisert again) on behalf of Elizabeth Anderson, I would like to pretty much incorporate by reference that Was said by Marge Davenport. She has pointed out in her original testimony a lot of trees have been taken out of the southerly I ' r and southwestern corner oz the p_raper uy, and along; the vest I boundary side where 109th may event all y some day go This has caused a drainage problem in that 'area.,,-it has caused 'a privacy problem in that area-Aran additional planting of trees and fencing in that area is more than warranted, even though it may not have been foreseen at the time of original applica- tion, the 'necessity for it has arisen because of what the developer has done since then. Tepodino Tank you, Mr. , Geisert. Will you tell rile Whom you -represent • aga. n'? I, I I I 4 1. • • • I I ' n ....-.1 t.... ,.J .n.:•�i lPa.li......Ji_..>._...•.....4 w._.,r..n..... Nl..e.. -.t.. w+r .«J-.J:`,�,..�:.Y1.J.....a..._..-1oisa ..rvni...,1. .....—.F-.-....l.w.....i..rrl:.....dJ.Nw. —..n.�i�nl:nwYA...»4....uA}.a.,:...SAN,un..rro..rWn,..<.¢a.a.'u-L1tP...I..v....4;...J..A..Y.L.AM1?++4. I nlizabeth Anderzon. • • r,p0.)0d i 1o: tL Cl 'where is her property? " G l.;.lert: Her property is adjacent to the southwest corner of th7 r property, all along the west side of the property. (A,' question is indistinguishable.) bler roioart: I .tm specifically referring to the trees that have been removed nov e. d in tl c soui.hern and western part of the project site-alon; the right of fray y, and from what Mrs. Davenport has just told •M1: J Lto, through the "southern area where the picnic belches were supposed to go. (.'here was an interchange, including Mrs. Davenport 'speaking , from t!•to audience, who stated they ran a bulldozer ri m' alo_ e, the south fence litre. A question was raised by a Commissioner, Funk?) tl. • I Geisert: She doesn't have a patio from which her privacy is Igoing to be so impaired; but the privacy of her property in genera, is substantially impaired, and the drat iaSe from the site-- • . the surface drainage from the site..4is very poor because of the lac;;, of trees and vegetation in the area. (An indistinguishable question; probably about the slope.) Ceioort: Right; that's' a ,downward slope, gong southwest. Tepodino: Thank_ you mr. Geiser'. Any other parties wishing to sped'. in cross examination or rebuttal to the issues discussed? Okay, I close the public hearing portion on this issue. Commissioners? Let me ask first of a;tl, bef'ore we get into the Commissioners' discussion.: Staff, vhy don't you summarize the issues that were raised here again:..-what you feel your 1, position is on the atd it seems to be issues I picked out in the discussion are chimney chases and the ..fence problem, trees and their location--east szde, south rciath-»ha,,a.calJ.y land- , scapin , trees -.4 can you Summarize for tte your position, Staff? Howard: Chimnei;:st think that you tell Irae What you Want. I have no fooling��lwn one way ort'neother I II Te Syr dine: I hiuk the chimney's were not specifically defined back hero in the initial staves. x ,,,, , They ego ahoy/ on the original pre liminary plan. ;they do show-- the chimneys show. ", 4 Terreed;'ne: Were they covered or not covered? t' , (A little of the interchange between To odino and o x d is lost hero.) { , ru vr.r.. wv .-.w.n eu n.rv, w r . ......«n • .«..-rr cuvsl 0 (. v , I N • , .,�M1.,..,...J.._' _.r+n.GlNti+.:..n..,,.A.. .._i..a...X14+y.r••I.._„r......r-..•:,A4.'-..A:G-...,«[.Jf,.-AN...A.lN..4.N..+1.,✓«. I «-tN.+.-tW.f3tn:•.,5rvJ 1-iP..lt.�.,,r...«wW1.fx..H-•...wJl,,t., , ' .,...,.... xr....-.,. ..,vo-.,,A......... .......n._., , .....,m.,.r.....,,...AI....rw..,r«.:-...4ab,... .,..n,w,.a..Y•I,-.r ..... .n.,f.w.n.1...0 ..at rl..nom • Howard: Now sortie of them are painted, some of there are the galvanized. ,, All 'I need, for you to do is tell me what you want me to do. ° just a box around 'them, SPea,tor: The box no hi t,her than just roughly the roof line? ' • a 1tovara: Yeo, sir; that's right. (Some interchange among Commissioners and a woman in the audience is !indistinguishable.) ' T o 1 Oka next issue, Staff; let's let the chimneys ;o„ and address ic'l?vC.lnQ o Okay, I i . that. The next thing. Howard.: We are talking about the fence. That is only the fence on the eastern boundary line, and no other fonce0 Tepediuo: That's what you are sumr,eoting9' , Howard: Yes, sir. Tepedino: That's double sided? �r six foot-,-I think a six-foot sight-obscuring 1 fence-- � Howard: I call for �i.� that would solve the issue for them. Speaker: along the whole thing, Aldio? Along the entire ,east side? I • v Howard: (Speaking from the plan on the wall, he discussed the existing vegetation. The recording is unclear, but alternatives to handling the fence in the area of the vegetation were discussed.) 1• a o « . then you get into the issue) do you want to put a I . jagged fence where the trees are, then that becomes a no man's I land. #. Teped,ino: I don't think we ought, to create worse • • Howard: a . . . perhaps halfway through this second garage . . . and that would effectively screen these property owners.' 8poaker Rows much vegetation would it take out? Howard: Oh, there is a grove of trees in about this location here-- perhaps .just up to the grove of trees . (a remark here elicited audience applause) . d Te i'in1 x the "text i clue now -we �"o.v c spotted ted. >, w ` v .0 pit:L�_C�: And� ��, _ � N . , � � � .i.��C� chimney �uLtG� °1;(3, the f'ence KC ?c'1 d a What 7l1CwT. pi p It:t i i 1,1,y 111r e to f ;l1,w t n 1C1 '' 1. r , heard the teotit;lony from all sides. The second plan, if the 1 fence is installed and the addition of trees Which the petition . calls for..-if those trees are insta llcd, then the addition of the trees to the property . . it b 01 you see the height of the •, apart'.rt Ylt . . . . if We use the berm as a screen, we install ' • x r: -+ 4 • '..,._i ,e, '.... .s. u ! m.........r,:..•,:,.:.r1...4t,.«-...rt.d..iJ........-... «..-V_w....,...,i...«........-.rwl..r.4.w.r..-.... ...n+,ti. .nJ.r.r.....rlll.l.....n,u...•.....,w...w..•.r..N..-..... «....L.....,..0 ...,..s.,, •«..... ..rnx.nw.x..wr11..,w.suaa+N:....rr«.W.,-r:-«.•.., I , r Ar kr' t,: ,.• Howard tho fence, then what is planted behind that fence would seem (�o r;:i': :.ing) to be tore ap ropr:i.,;te because you screened it t with trees and screened it with fence, and that is what we have requested. Once the .fence is in nlaco you must vie:'I it as a whole.e. I think that that plan produced by a ,registered landc;ciive, archi-- tect is a.pnropr�a�e with the additions tio� s that 1" have specified. The installation l t ` off: tic fen e ' l.�c , planting of th Grc.cs along the berm to the east and also to tho north, which the applicant, and developer has agreed to do. Tc'nedi Ao: 1 would like to wrap this Issue up in ten minutes, because we have other business we have to conclude before tho end of the, evening,, and at midnight wo all turn into pumpkins. pu:pk i nc . Staff,s ' •; Commissioners,toners 9 I close the public hearing portion on this issue. , • . I would like to 'hear some discussion first for a few minute; ,k atd then 1 :'could• like to, call,.for a motion trying to resolve .I �'. and finally putting to rest the issues we have identified i• tonight. �� • r k florros2: Pair. President, 1 don't know if this a is the proper time to state '', 1 this, but 1 do have a relaive who is a member of the Galway Hill Association. Tepodi; o Do you fool that would. have on adverse effect on your deliberations? Her.i:'on: 1 doubt it. Wood: •rir. President, 1 have got a conflict that would keep rte from d participating in this. ` - 71 Tepodino: Okay, thank you Commissioner Si.iith? Can I hear a motion, than? a Smith: a . . . (L rgoly unintelligible, but in general and at some „a length spoke ao a developer himself, favoring the fir trees , . • and fence. He spoke on the chimney chases, but the contout is not 'determinable from the record.) T'epedi io: Okay, thank k you, Commissioner. Any discussion prior to me 1 • , asking for a motion? . Helmer. (?): (Exact Words indistinguishable, but to the effect since the i original plan showed chases, he favored chases. Applause from r the attdiciice. � � � I .� Pepod .ao i, would ach — you know let's keep the interruptions' down to a minimum that 'just advorsely affects, if you can believe 1 • it, any consideration you tn? ht get for .I your side '' You Might , . think about th t. Commissioners? Any fUrthca' t'tecusei,on? One concern I hays on the trees---Aldio Howard has had some c :lr'tt~n c' t' ores on the trees, and t to make k �, t least. r o, Lr .t 5 ofl tr �, stn �x tree o �rt���ss sure e at we ha- o considered incorporating his thoughts as far as numbers and densities of trees r , and that kind of ttiin;..v, if We frame a motion we want to consider that. Whether the taker of the `. motion would like to include it or not is up to the � � ntal��or a�� the motion. Any other 'comments? ` a. r r • ■ A 4 % - ... .,•... .••.-..,-..-...... »...,Fl..ap.n..w,lt,•...v,.K-.n.�,.•.r.ai•.-....r •....whir....,...... wl. ry w...,M.,a,......r..1,..Xb,,...wU:r..+ll.a..,,w4.1-.,rr,.v+n4.,..(..l.J.n'..lia„1t.1.L.:.rR. ...w..._.ri'....s...•...-11x.,c.:.a.,...._•a.....,s.....-W......e...,..r,.u..n...e4w••1....>.�. Si:ii iiit ' (Largely undistir,Su7 cha"ale, but i nl general felt that Aldie ' •? . Howard and others should, determine "adequate" scrConin"'s) . 1 ep Jdino• I a; oe I agree, would yeti, like' - ; es, rrSpea Speaker? s • . . Spea:ter: I vioulcl erec with' that t'rith ,one reservation, and that is what ° t i girt be considered, adequate to you or .me or Aldie might not , . . ” be considered adequate to a homeowner, In other ;'words,, you Get down to what is reasenable? And for that reason I think 'wr .I I there Should be,- apparently: the original plan showed on thy; f cast side,' there, ,about eleven on the east side and northeast corner:, l and I think there 'should be a ;pecified number, Now, if' 'r'ee say 11 or 12 along 'there, and Aidie, you want 'four more alnn� tiz�: north side-woe 'suggest four rlore alone the north u u u side? I I , j • • i � w 1 9 t r 1 Howard: .. It totals 15 at the present time-�yt lon��,y like 15, with the E majority ,placed on the eastern boundary and the remainder on C .. tie north boundary. " ' Speaker: V7ell I ,�pectr�e_ . , I would like, to sett a f i wed nutnoer. Howard: I would almost mandate it, because with ;the detail that We ',,, have .one throuGh, if you were not specific and is there i'ras • • ' any r00t:i for 'negoti ati ons, 1 ait going t0 be in th0 1i onsi deiil---- ' ' ,+ . , and don't want to be 4: . I (Laughter) Spealer: Okays, Mr. President, in order to keep Aldie out of the lions!. , den', T move ---. let's see -- that chases be installed' in accordance • • • With the plan :r•- I presume that this is, the origii al' plan '' • , Howard: Yes, sir. They would be installed on all chimneys., '' ". , ,, ; ': i - ) r• Spoa?cer: That's what the original plan called for? RrR ts x r k, . 4.1 • Speaker: Second, that the fence go the entire length of �, now' it was ;,,.�t •, ,'.•' a five-foot 'fence that was agreed on? 1 "I Toward: 1 requested a six-foot sight' lasct••ring fence to he installed'' i along the eastern property line.• You are talking about a root I ' 1 Which ono do you Want'? 1 ,'. What ., " r Speaker: � . r ri , alnat �ra� agreed'? I thank it Was ',a f:�ve foo� �'eht.e ,t��.� flier 1 ar, ? �,reer�tal'�u. This io die ttreotz. the der eloper and the people, Vine I it a or SiJ - sot fancy?' •I . Te pedino: Staff, do you know? ie can ask',Mr o Van Lora �,,-' t'o`ad that a ' y: five-r+foo,'jt or a tsix'-foot, fence? n (There Teas sonic response, aWa y� fr.om the 'milcropheneb aid a shor•� ' iritcrclhant o, but in Selieral the n817or Was not 1e8 0 than 5 foot.) �c / it r I 4 . ., , c . 1 1• 1' el I � Ono:..�er. Okay, lot's make it accordi?t,.� 'to 'the contract--not less thatz j1 five-foot sight-obscuring fence? •a r ' i'. Ho.,rd: Yes sir. , ,Jp:•:: :Qr: And it should be co installed as not to destroy significant U'.l.';zd ficant verr�otation. And •••�w• lot's see' what was the third 44, a issue? Oh, treos: and you aro talking about 20-foot fir tree? • Iio+;;nrd: es, sir. ' "peo.l7e_ : Well, think that the Galway Hills people are concerned principally with the oast border rather than the north. Howard: That's right. -. • ��Speaker: Okay. Since the original plan showed eleven, T move approval SJ 1.\w w 1 of or installation of eleven--not less than eleven-+-twenty-foot • fir trees -- let's make it elevens ` Howard: On the eastern boundary? Speaker: On the eastern boundary. And Aldie, what do you think about specifying something along the north boL.•.Ldnry? Howard: Well, the plan calls for five. 414j. ' Spoat:er: Okay. Or is tho elovonti1 one---isn't the eleventh one this w one (pointing)? Plus four more along the north boundary. Does that to care of the issues? Tepodino: I think that's fine. Okay. Motion is made by Commissioner Speaker for chases to be installed -W correct me if I am Wrong -- for chases to be installed on all buildings, all locations -M Speaker: In accordance with the original plans. 1 Tepodino: In accordance with the original plans; fences to •bo installed along the entire east property line, not less than five-foot ,1 sight-obscuring fence, not to destroy significant vegetation; 1 ' and trees---to install not less than eleven 20-foot fir trees on the eastern boundary, plus four more such trees on the northern boundary. That's the motion made. Do I hoar a second? Two vo,t.coc, including Horron: Second. To r,ed:Wu: Seconded. Comments? Wood: Mr. President, I can't comment With respect --M ny conflict is with respect to the firm representing the homeowners on the eastern boUndlar;;. I do Want to have no conflict With respect to the southern and Western boundary. I only want to Ilthro;'t out a consideration to make sure their Lx concc x have been z • I , I 1 I I � I I I 4 E n • ...._ ....A.Xr,..d..,w. .w r-...eU:. . .xF w.,..u...r'r,. .---ti..r.6b....,.lr .v,.n.....-.M.. w.....dS...,.rnY ..,41,++.p'r 4.wH .«a. r ..,:I,X:L,1.4„-.r .,s. ...M.a1....,.4.1-1L..:.+.+..-ar . w ,.. ,,,, , ., w r dal . • y.. f^ n� them,7 1 1 claims, n understand W ,,rood considered and filed. The cl�,�.rt�, a.� I Lnet.i, tier c (Continuing) that trees wore removed in that area in addition to those necessary for the right—of—way, that da,a;,;ed their privacy. The other claims they made, the changes were made were not • specified in the original plans as approved, as I understand i t correctly, I toss it out it, but if I understand ,;r, ^� it far the • ' Commissioners" consideration. I am not cure whether there . have I been such trooc removed or 'not, and whether there should be a requirement to ascertain if trees, say, two inches in diameter or lgreater have been removed from that .area that was` ' not called for in the original plan, that trees of equal size be replaced. I ma rbo''misunderstood the n the st . ,, Mood 1 problem from tl_e tG.,��.1. many in l the hearing, but it is a concern that I want to be sure we focused on. I Tepedino: Okay. Aldie, can you address ithat issue? Howard: (Howard and others had la brief interchange, 'not determinable, followed by a longer) comment by Commissioner Smith, likewise en. indistinguishable, but in general suggesting Staff determine ,, I 7ttct e x trees i n the a r ea under discussion should be replaced.)) . ; Howard: In this particular area, if you asked for an inventory of the • , trees on the prope.rty, panda o . . . • . . . • . to triri each i'' tree Iappropriately and also to bell on the site during construe.- tion to protect . . I doti't know what the price tag is 'for that, but I think it is substantial, and I think you would find that it is the only time that we have used that severe a dictate to a developer concerning the trees in that area. I can go up and look aad maize I' check on the infringement of privacy to the south from those particular units • s p .` . Smith: . . . . . • . . which definitely affedt the privacy of the • neighborhood. Lot's face it, this whole deVelopment has been designed with a park . n . * . privacy to protect the surrounding area, zo I think . . . » . . • on one particular • person • . . . (additional lost during change of casettes). , Flood: • . . » . . . discretion there as a condition of occupancy. Howard: Nov, wait a Minute! w Tepedi no; Is that a practical -- Ho:v.4.2.d: No, it's not practical. a'opoc1in,r, We have to be practical. Why is it not practical? t 'Punk (?)1 I' think you have to look at the vegetation that'was removed. If there vas a tree surgeon present, an he advocated and directed that a lot of underbrush,-—which would be small ocrub bctk, or .>+. .4116, small maple shoots and that sort ;of ,stuff, )which Iths c"lw h j t. • 4 t 1 r . .....,'i...,r. ..:..Y.. H•l 9.«.r.,.-..t-+«w a,..r-h.. .. •.....1....r........xn,.• ..k r-w •• .. ,. , t t' iT .•..V,,....a.a.*.ian>kn.w.....a...., .,-+ w.J..,.L l..n. ,. 3' t...,x ... 1.....a...F ,.,...A .e ., t_ ..<... ,.•:.[.44...0.wr..,l.YS • ,A t (?) boa:) probably excellent screening.,.-was t•;.-en out as a h eln to CO,t inui:1C tho environment, and the trees there 'worn reinstated. I ,could • see whore that -- (Interruption from the audience)• ,;o',ard: I quite frankly could limo to get off this subject. If you ' will Give me a directive--I am not olri,r; out to count those trees unless you tell no to f y y and � .� � �.� �you �;expect l�le to �;0�.out c.rlC. maito that hind of a determination • e • o a o • . unnecessarily-- I can't do that. i don't how 1 e at.,d�..xa.� I do�l ����c�o taou tha t can bo da.lo e •' Smith: C �'onti nG or the procedure. Then commented on the screeaing, 'sti; c tinG the developer and the neighbors gettinG toy ethOr, on planting the screening--"t h,::t would be ideal; it's not a brig thing, but, it's an important thing.") Tc•i odino: Well, I don't know. I think it might be better if the Staff e^ worked with the developer; otherwise I am afraid tho developer is Going to wor! with 37 different homeot';aers • Speaker: I have just one kind of a hangup. If you aro going to live i n r a city, your privacy is not 'Oing to bo the same as you were in a definitely rural environment--and I have lived in both situations, and hind of wonder hour much of this that we have been hear inr';" is really just an uncox'scious protest against tho urbanization of what used to be a okay, let's day lovely rural corriunity; and let's face it--we aro urbanized, or we are urbanizing, and this is just part of tho pains in :tr:tsortupu:i,ng voice from audience (female) : May I point out we aro °still • 1iving, in the County? St aker (resuming): Well, there night be people who can take care of that. Voice from audience: We hope tot. Topodi.io: Oltay; we have a notion made and seconded. Further discussion Smith: a e o * (t nclear, but to the effect he favored an amendment, to • • • ' the motion that the eXposed portion of the metal chimneys should be paintod.) w •Sneaker: It's okay with mo if it is all right with the second. T :prwi3;1 no: Ol uty, so the motion is made and seconded and modified that the =posed portion of the metal be painted. I am goitg to call , for the question. All those it favor of the motion as made and oocofith and 'modified of Gn.Lfy" by sr:1yj°in ; aye. (A cherUs of ayes.) Opposed? (Dote) • Weed: Abstain. Te ve in o: One abstention. T1 E Motion carries. T an k ;o l very mlaCha • n , ....,...!„r,..«..».r.,.•w.....W O.«....«...M,..iUw.«..a.»,..•.. ». • , .l,... ,.,h=•,..�n ln, . v.., n,.• t..a•, „n. .,i, ...•..•.m•.ro,.n-.•{yrw+.nw...ws.wuin.,_ � ! . • • p .i., �,♦'., � ''.�,I .I i„".'.. ',.,,i' :,., ,,,, .. ..,,,_.,a,.,.a...,.n�t:.a..♦._♦_.�... �....�...�..,. .-.,._r,»A..,..,...��....am F...H.,♦,... ..,..,....A..M1.».-w.__, •.t-Xv,u,.-A.,i .,,....�.a..irwi..-l..a.lx..,..•,.-.»,.�lr...Ml..,a 1:L.+.,..»♦..�..,...-_.4.era♦-n.-w 1.:,..A y..0\._..a.......w.,r....i.♦.+rL...,.t.+r,d'ml,.1v«:.V) r/,� 4 ♦( 1::0: i• ' . 1./..':A:.;a.'...ft'>\,,.,l .�.r - ' Department i of Commerce• 1 r Fire Marshal` Division (" 103 1 V. Ati e•. (503) 378-4917, C� F��JPJE �.�►LE OREGON 97310 P 40,,,1141.77 L�►84I� & INDUSTRIES BUILDING, ', Y • , I I I I I I August 7, 1979 .9 Au I 1 g I . News Release from' the Of'f'ice of State Fire Marshal ' , I I . CANTERBURY WOODS CONDOMINIUMS FIRE &LIFE'I SAFETY CODE PROBLEMS RESOLVED I , II I ( The intent of the Fire & Life Safety Code will be:met when the buildings are ready for occupancy, says State Fire Marrshal. Clyde i Centers. it . Agreements between the State Fire Marshal, City of Tigard, Tualatin • R.F.P.D. and Hoffman & Hoffman, Inc. of the Canterbury Woods Condo-- J miniums will lead to an orderly completion of a code complying rest' ; ' idential 000L1paatCy, , (See Attached Letter for Details) )-. • r ■ , 1 • . yI . o I I t w 1' • • • • 111111111111111111116. 11111111111111111111111.11111111111111111111•11111111111111111111111.11k • ° • • • • " Department of Commerce .• Fire Marshal Division ROURL, rAUS 103 LABOR & INDUSTRIES BUILDING, SALEM, OREGON 97310 PHONE (503) 378-4917 August 7, 1979 • Mr. Peter Hoffman Hoffman & Hoffman, Inc. 1888 S.W. Madison St. • Portland, OR 97205 Dear Mr. Hoffman: Re: Canterbury Woods Condominiums, Tigard, OR • It is the opinion of the State Fire Marshal that the State of Oregon Structural Specialty Code and Fire & Life Safety Code does not specifically address the clutstion as to whether the loft areas as constructed in the Canterbury Woods Condominiums are a third story or a mezzanine as addressed in Sections 414 • •• and 3302(a). , .A. Since the loft areas are in various degrees of completion, and it would be an unfair hardship on the owner to await a code change to cla.rify this subjecti ' the State Fire Marshal has elected to utilize Section 106 of the State of Oregon Structural Specialty Code and Fire & Life Safety Code to address the subject and assure the occupants that the intent of the fire and life safety sections of the code have been met. The loft areas were computed and found to be in the • 33 1/3% range based on the common atmosphere of the living-dining room- kitchen, and adjacent halls which are all open to the loft. This open area will provide the occupant(s) of the loft area the opportunity for seeing, smelling, or hearing any potential hazard such as fire, which may ocdur within the areas of` the common atmosphere. To further protect the occupants of the entire condominium, the following methods of construction shall bt8 required: . • 1 . One •hour fire resistive tenant separation (walls and floor ceiling assemblies), • 2 Approved single station cieh'ctors shall be located in the ceiling- of the loft , • Space in a location to be approved by the local fire marshal. • The pocket doors between the kitchen, living—dining area shall be permanently blocked open. • • „. „ • • 111.11 .. / • 1 A r... r I, r µ . co Mr. Peter Hoffman , August 7, 1979 Page 2 s „/ . • , C 4. The existing two-hour fire walls will be completed in such a manner as, to � continue down through the basement with penetrations protected as approved a . by the State Fire Marshal. Bb Basement areas as outlined in the plans dated October 2, 1978 and amended on July 19, 1979 are acceptable with the following provisions: r' 1. Each storage area shall have an exit door. In addition, a door shall be . located at the rear of each storage unit with a minimum width of 36" . This door and frame will be 20-m,inute rated with self-closing latch, but ; not lockable. These doors will be marked for "Emergency use Only" and • be equipped with a security alarm system. In addition, the entrance doors to each of the storage areas will be lockable from the outside only to allow , egress from within in case of a fire. Permanently designated aisles, 36" • wide, shall be provided on each side of the separation. wall as to assure a , secondary exit. . 2. All exterior walls and separation walls, with the exception of the two-hour fire walls, shall be of one-hour fire resistive construction •. 3. Mr. Peter Hoffman shall provide the State Fire Marshal with a copy of the By-Laws which will address the use of the basement storage areas, , ° maintenance of the fire exit, security alarm and the fire exit aisle r . A i a It should be noted that the items dealing with the loft area apply to all buildings containing lofts, and the requirements for the basement areas pertain to buildings . 06 and *7. It should be further noted that these alternate methods of construction and ,-.:. materials were discussed with "Tigard Building Official Ed Walden. Acting Fire Marshal jack Palmer, Tualatin RFPD, and Fire Inspector Jim Ken.worthy7 Tualatin r 1 they with a letter of ° � State Fire Marshal RV PD,,,. anc�, the: shall. provide the Scat concurrence. . r Sincerely-, c .ems •rA Cst. ` -+-4.} • Clyde W. Centers State Fire Marshal , I I I Y M CwC�jC • I co: Jane luston Tzm �enwo i�hy Trevor Jacobson,Ta , • Ed Wa:lden Plans Revie w Walt Frid ay •. Wilbert Russell Russell Washburn Tack Palmer ., . I tl Ll..' 1' '' ' ' ' . . ' . ) ;"Zir , , I ' j • 1 $ , MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION b • August 7, 1979 -- 7:30 P.M. , , Fowler Junior High School Lecture Room 1086 5 S.W. Wa 1n u t Street Tigard, Oregon on President_' Tepedirxo OPENED the meeting at 7:35 P.M, He asked, in view of 4 . the apparent number of persons wishing to speak, for brevity and non- 4 repetitiveness in public testimony. \ ' ROLL CALL Present: Bonn, Funk; Helmer, Herron, Smith, Speaker, Te edina t Wood (who arrived at 7:55 P.M.) Absent: Kolleas Staff: Selby, Howard The MINUTES of the July 17 meeting were considered. Speaker asked for i. • correction of ?.age 7, pointing out that Recommendation 7 as written was correctly handled in Recommendation 5, and therefore should be deleted; and that c': • Recommendation 8 should therefore be renumbered 7. With this correction it was . moved, seconded and carried that these minutes as submitted and corrected be ( approved.. The President opened the PUBLIC HEARING by reading a statement indicating w • • the authority for the meeting and the procedure to be followed. , 5.1 ZONE CHANGE ZC 26-78 (Mackenzie/Saito & Associates) NPO 42 ; ot , A request by Mackenzie/Saito & Associates for 'a zone map amendment with General Plan and Program Review from Wash. Co. MA-1 "Limited t' Manufacturing/Production" District to City of Tigard M-4 "Industrial Park" zone on a 44.46 acre site south of Scholls Ferry Road (Wash. Co. Tax Map R'. • 1S1 34AA, Tax Lots 100,200,300, and 400 and Tax Map 151' 35B, Tax Lot 1100) Selby read the STAFF REPORT and STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, correcting Recommendation 2 to call for " . . . ..,.:installation and maintenance to�to co ecto ` %' street standa/ds . . . . " (rather than loc 1) ; and correcting 'Recommendation 9 to ', read " . . . . apply for and receive approval of a subdivision plat . ." q' ' (rather than if) . He then read letters as follows: from wire District No. 1, dated July 24, indicating approval of the plan as submitted; from the, District { Engineer of the Oregon Department of Transportation detailing progress to date ii, II in planning for S.W. Scholls Ferry Road at this point, which is complicated by . the impending development of the Southern Pacific Company's industrial park • across the road from the Koll development; and a letter received August 3 from Donald A. Jarman, a resident of the neighboring Inglewood subdivision, commending ;1' • H Kol�.'s relations with the neighborhood and stating his �approya�. of the project �, I as planned, i _ • PRESENTATION was Eric Saito Architect of Mackenzie/ The APPLICANT'S 1�SENTA`I'Ibf was .rrtade by L z�.e�' � � . � representing Roll Business Center. H� introduced Saito & Associates, r usi rater. � �e �.ntrodu �� several ;l• others from' 'Kali Company and their consultants who would' be available to answer d, • te. �� ;'t questions. He presented clan Pica ion of sib items: 1. In the last line of page 1 of the staff report, the word olai se a should be` hallow" so as to read, !"This ae:tion Would allow the developer �1 to construct the project in phases.° + 2. The applicant IS agreeable to working out a Mutually 'satisfactory A arrangement`for dedication and, maintenance of greenway and streets, r tights it had 'under 4 r but� pointed out I�o11 could grant only g � il . ji, µ. .,,. •, ,,, I., u..,s, , ^ ....�,.. .,,..,...,.....,a-.w.+.e,..,,..,2,.w•wnv',.cu:aexr +",. S .,I , . , .1, "` ' h i' -' . • • • • MINUTES ; c C TIGARD PLANNING COMNISSIL A •, August 7, 1979 - 7:30 P.M.' Page • long-term lease from the owners of the land. Itt 3. He called attention to ppr, 40.41 of the narrative submitted where the request for additional conditional use for repair was defined and " explained. 4. He felt it important that all the conditional uses be available to Koll for tenants without a time limitation in order to avoid the necessity for appearing repeatedly before the. Planning `Commission for approval of these uses as suitable tenants can be found. r 5. The project is divided into five distinct parcels of land with metes and bounds descriptions: (1) open space; (2) access roads; (3) and ' (4) Parcel A as described in the narrative, being the first phase; : (5) Parcel B, being the second phase of the project. 6. He called attention to the obvious errors in the DEp Indirect Source Construction Permit, reproduced on page 59, which indicates the source site as Tigard, Washington, and the County as Multnomah. " Mr. Saito reiterated that the Washington County Fire District has approved the circulation patterns, that Koll is working with the ODOT on the Scholls Ferry Road intersection, and that letters from the three property owners along • Scholls Ferry--Southern Pacific, Kole., and the Robinsons--expressing agreement as to the alignment of the intersection with Scholls Ferry Road, will shortly be forthcoming. There was no PUB ,IC TESTIMONY. • Smith asked if the public street would be dedicated. Saito replied the • street;.; would be dedicated---such ,an agreement had been reached with the lessor. ' However, nothing similar has been arranged with respect' to the greenwa1. ' Bonn asked about the increased building coverage in this plan as compared to the earlier proposal. Saito stated there is a substantial reduction'in the • length of the road, and that space was saved in the realignment of the inter- "` section with Scholls Ferry and by making a building two stories instead of one. V Floor elevations as indicated were questioned by Funk in relation to this floodplain. It was pointed out there is about a three-foot differende in I elevation. of Fanno Creek as it Pa-s ses by the project. Jerry Palmer, engineer, acknowledged the indicated floor elevation` ,.s in error: it etas the intention to have the floor elevation two to three feet above the flobdplain (well above the 111 feet specified in the ordinance) , and this would be • corrected. Speaker inquired of a i p n,quired {.he effect r ability to t��antLniie �•. t changed city�ordinance, for instance, in connection with Koll's guarantee of a tenants operation • � (pp of the narrative) .� Bx l l Cox, attorney de Y b f r �o ll, enp ode d that at subsequent tenants would of course h ave to abide by the o rdinanc e. � It' was unclear, in discussions on the. Commission, what the effect on tenants operating under provisions of a superseded ordinance might be. The President then closed the public hearing on this item • i ,..,..«,..a......,...w,. v..».u...,w....u».....w•....>,..,•,,,.,.m.W...• ......w.... .,.ww.. p „m.,. _.,, „.., v... », ,,,.... ,. I ,,.. ..•.--.,.rw.ro.....,,,.,..w.._w..w� m.:ys' '. .,. , • f . • I _ • ,_r., i + r MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION . August 7, 1979 - 7:30 P.M- • Page 3 • • " - COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION. Si nce no further questions from Commissioners appeared to be forthcoming, Speaker MOVED approval of Zone • Change ZC 26-78 PD, based on staff findings and staff recommendations, with � the two slight corrections to. Recommendations 2 and 9 already noted.; and that , .. ' . repairs related to industrial and business equipment be added to the list of ' approved conditional uses as 'found on pp. 40-41 of the narrative. Bonn seconded. Smith asked staff if they were comfortable with the drive-through. .y parking lots as access to the, long cul-de-sac. Selby re li d the plans•had ' been reviewed by both the Fire District and the Public �, and neither • raised. objections. Smith questioned the permitted site coverage, which staff stated is in accordance with the previous floodplain ordinance which governs , this project. He raised the questions of adequacy of parking spaces in N . p � q q y parking � relation to the increased building square footage, which Selby stated had not . been recalculated because the original plan had excess parking spaces. Smith asked that a Recommendation 10 be included as follows:: That the number of * parking spaces provided shall comply with the current ordinance. Speaker •• , added this provision to the motion, and it was agreed to by Bonn, the second. , , . Smith questioned whether access by large semis, for instance, would be adequate., ' . Selby pointed to Recommendation 5 which requires all such site characteristics to be approved in the site design review process. The motion as amended was then carried, with Wood abstaining because of an M. apparent conflict of interest. Wood then took the occasion to compliment the applicant on the quality of his presentation, ana especially for the candid and factual treatment of the property tax impact of the development on Tigard , and its citizens, Mr. Saito then asked about the time limitation on the. • permitted conditional uses. After discussion with the staffs it was agreed they were inherent in the approval of the project as submitted and approved by the City Council, and would not lapse at the end of one year if not used in • ""'� that period. ., r 5.2 SUBDIVISION S 13-77 (Kneeland Estates) NPO' #6 •A A request by Donald E. Pollock Investments for review of preliminary • ' • plans for Kneeland .Estates on 18.65 acre parcel, located at S.W. 92nd Avenue near Durham Road (Wash. Co. Tax .Map 2S1 14A, Tax Lots 700,800, . . and 801) . Howard stated the staff report submitted With the packets was that prepared for administrative approval in June, 1977. Since substantial, construction has not been commenced within one year, the applicant must request permission to proceed with the development'at this time ' The major . obstacle' has been sewer service, which is just now becoming practical for this area:, • Availability of sewer service was a condition of the original application (Recommendation 8, which did not permit recording of the final plat until such time as public sewer service is available to the lots) . The , only change of substance is the addition' of five lots along Durham Road. Donald E, Pollock in the APPT�CAN1 S PRESENTATION t to d simply the development had not been pursued because of Unavailability of sewer p io to this time. • There was no Pe... TESTIMONY: \, • • i i k • ... ixrul "a nv„u i one.' i". .J. .„ ..I" .e,,.<.. r.... ...... ...w ....• _-..+.�.M1.:..ta«.wRlawsMi lrrn 1YI,I( y n . ` 'R • +r`A;yr1 r , � .. � / I G I • MINUTES • TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSIC,,,, • August 7, 1979 - 7r.30 P.M. Page 4 COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION: Howard reported that a road problem " which arose in a recent hearing on a land partition request by Ken Bouman ' has been resolved in this plan for Kneeland Estates. Speaker inquired whether 4.• dedication of right of way for Durham Road had been required on Lot 500, which fronts' on Durham. Staff stated this was a condition, of the subdivison. Speaker also asked if there would be access by the subdivision onto Durham Road. The answer was no. Wood moved for approval of an extension of time on Subdivision S 13-77 based on staff findings that the conditions have not changed materially since the original approval. The motion was seconded by Herron and unanimously carried. , 5.3a - 5.3d ZONE CHANGE ZC 15-79, ZC 16-79, ZC 17-79 & ZC 18-79 (City of Tigard) ' Selby explained that when this came before the Commission previously, eight tax lots were omitted because of only quarterly posting of the information onto the data used by the Staff. The parcels are all annexed to the City, developed to County standards, and are considered fully developed. The STAFF REPORT was not read. There was no PUBLIC TESTIMONY. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION: It was determined this is strictly an administrative matter. Smith moved approval of Zone Changes ZC15-79 through ZC 18-79 based on 'Staff Findings and Recommendations. The motion was seconded by Bonn and carried unanimously. , , 5.4 ZONE CHANGE ZC 28-79 (William A. Cochran) NPO 47, A request by Mr. & Mrs. William A, Cochran for a zone map amendment from City of Tigard R-7 "Single Family Residential" to City of - Tigard R-5 on a .40 acre parcel, located at 10695 S.W. North Dakota ' (Wash. Co, Tax Map 151 340, Tax Lot 402) . Howard read the STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Selby reported a conversation with the developer of the lots on 106th Avenue in whichit was „• Suggested the applicant provide half-street improvements to 106th. • Mrs. Cochran, one of the applicants, had nothing in addition to the staff report to offer in the APPLICANDS PRESENTATION. There Was no PUBLIC TESTIMONY. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION: There was considerable discussion as to whether the applicant should be required to provide half-street improve- ments along 106th Avenue. The background of a controversy between developers in the area was related. It was estimated that the cost to the applicant Of improving both 106th and S.W. North Dakota would be $18,000, Smith stated aS a developer he would be quite agreeable to development costs of $6,,000 per lot, feeling it not unreasonable. Staff gave reasons for 'not requiring the applicants , • r • • �1NUr E S I TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION August 7, 1979F 7:30 P.M. Page 5 • to provide the improvements along 106th. The President complimented Staff for f, bringing out aspects of development which could be expensive for the applicant without her realization of the fact. The consensus was the applicant should not .° have to provide half--street improvements to 106th. Thereupon Wood MOVED approval of Zone Change ZC 28-79 based on staff Findings and Recommendations. The motion was seconded by Helmer and carried unanimously. At 8:55 P.M. the President declared a five-minute recess. 5.5 ZONE CHANGE ZC 27-79 (Fred Meyer, Inc.) NPO #4 • A request by Fred Meyer, Inc. , for a zone map amendment from City of Tigard R-7 "Single Family Residential" to City of Tigard C-3 "General Commercials' zone on 'a 0.93+ acre parcel, located at 7410 S.W. spruce • Street (Wash. Co. Tax Map 1S1 36AC, Tax Lots 3500, 3600, & 3700) . The STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS were read by Howard. • ' Norman Krause of architects for Fred Meyer made the APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION. He stated applicant accepts the recommendations and that the street is already in. However, it was pointed out it was built to county standards, which do not require a sidewalk, and that the street would have to , be brought up to City standards. The was no PUBLIC TESTIMONY. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION: Speaker received confirmation that ;�. { this action is that mandated in previous hearing on the enlargement of the Garden Center in the Fred Meyer complex He commented on the disparity of the landscaping in the older Tigard complex as compared to the new Beaverton complex now under construction, but acknowledged requiring upgrading of the • whole complex on the strength Of this request for a zone change affecting only three lots was not really justified. It was agreed, however; that the site design reviel' called for in Recommendation 3 would require land • soaping of these three lots in accordance with present ordinances. Speaker MOVED approval of Zone Change ZC 27-79 based on Staff Findings and Recommendations. The motion was seconded by Smith, and carried,' with ,' Wood abstaining because of possible conflict of interest: 5.6 CONDITIONAL USE CU 14-79 (Trademark Homes, lat.) NPO 45 . s A, request by Trademark Homes, Int. , for a conditional use permit to place a steel tank underground for diesel fuel in a M-4 Industrial Park" zone on a 2.76 acre parcel, located at 72nd Avenue and , Sandburg Streets (Wash. Co, Tax Map 2S1 1JC1 Tax Lot 3700) . , ..r»,.,,w,. ,..a,. ,.,:, ,,..,:,,,, .,,..i,. ,. r, .we, .,„,,,.,.,...,......,...•... ,._. ... ,... „rte.,w..,...._.,,.,. ,., .,. ., •... ...., '„.. •... ..,..P...., b . • MINUTES c'-. ' TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION , August 7, 1979 7:30 P.M. Pagel • Selby stated this item is postponed until.September 4 because the applicant's request is being amended to include a on change, for which public notice must be given. 5.7 VARIANCE V 5-79 (Creekside Park) i J PO #3 A request by, Ed Cause for a variance for a sidewalk located 'next to ' the curb in a R- 10 "Single Family Residential" zone 'on a 5.20 acre • parcel, located at S.W. 119th and Gaarde (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 3CD, • ., Tax Lots 3700,3900 & 4000) . / :1 Howard read the STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. • I. The applicant, Ed Gause, made the APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION. He, objected , to Recommendation 1 which ells for a 10-foot emergency easement from this f development to the Terrace Trails Subdivision, cul-de-sac. He stated he would withdraw the request for variance and build according to City Code if this easement remained a condition. . The only PUBLIC TESTIMONY was offered by Linda Anderson, 11805 S.W. Gaarde Street. She complained that the information which' she was able to , acquire spoke only to the variance in the sidewalk, and not at all to the 10-' � ,, foot emergency easement. She felt if such an easement existed it would be used by others--something to which she was vigorously opposed. She did not care ' ' particularly where the sidewalk (the occasion for the 'variance request) was . located. . COMMISSION DISCUSSION & ACTION: Wood questioned the circumstances . • surrounding the two long cui-de-sacs. The physical characteristics of the emergency easement were described by staff. The efforts of the Fire District • to get a second access in the area were mentioned. In ensuing discussion , Mr. Gauss objected strenuously to the last-minute imposition of this condition, which puts the burden on his development for something that has been thoroughly ` • considered and passed by City Council due to pressure from the people of the • . neighborhood. Mr: Gause explained the reason his variance request, . for h�s� �r ' pointing out it is principally on the fill portion of the street where this is of much significance. It was apparent the request fdr ,;'variance would be ' abandoned before the developer would sacrifice approximately 3,000 square feet. among four lots in order to provide the desired easement. • After further discussion, Smith MOVED approval of Variance V 5-75 based _ on staff Report, but including only Staff R.ecommendPtiohs 2, and 3, and with the , variance limited to the fill area only. The motion was seconded by Bonn: Wood expressed his conviction the concerns of the Staff and the Fire Marshall are very legitimate and are not to be minimized, but the desires of the Terrace • " Trails residents and the promise made to them by the City Council that ether would be no access bgtween the two cul-de-sacs was overruling. The motion then passed • • unanimously. i Z OU 5.8 MISOEL ANE 5 , i /' A. request by Mrs, Ima. Scott for s; review of the Canterbury Woods Development. coward introduced' this agenda itr-m with the statement there 'was no foritiel . M (Y A 1 .. • . , r r MINUTES 1 �' TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION : . August 7, 1979 - 7:30 P.M. Page 7 Staff Report. Mrs. Ima Scott had requested the item be placed on the agenda • . • . for conside-:ation by the Commission. Howard readily acknowledged the City 'tk b, rightly owes Mrs. Scott "a debt of gratitude" for her efforts on this project . for the response of staff in properly taking "harder looks" at other. projects.' He recognized the action taken here tonight may not completely satisfy her, but ' ., ., at the very least she can know she has effectively helped others. , . Y Howard outlined issues as he saw them based on many long conversations with .e Mrs. Scott and others in the past. These, he said, may or may not be issue. to , • ' v, be brought up tonight. 1. Basements and lofts : Mr. Walden, Building Official met with the State • . Fire Marshall in Salem today. Together they worked out a press release and a , ' . letter to Mr. Hoffman., the developer, signed by the State Fire Marshall. The press release stated simply that the fire, life and safety code would be met when the buildings are ready for occupancy. The letter to Mr. Hoffman stipulated r four conditions with respect to the lofts, and three with respect to the basements which were to be met before occupancy. 2. Chimney chases : Howard stated there is nothing in the Code requiring chimneys to be enclosed by chases. However, the original drawings' submitted . on the project did show chases on the chimnys. Alternatives to chases would be Cher painted or unpainted metal chimneys. .� At this point Speaker raised the question whether this should be determined. . , at the level of the Planning Commission or Site Design Review. Howard stated , , the issues he is bringing tonight are those he perceives as the principal controversies between the developer and the neighbors, and that hopefully the ' Commission, after hearing both sides, can present a reasonable resolution to the conflicting views. \: ✓ 3. Parking area The Fire District took equipment to the project and found l\ problems with movement of the egitipment as originally planned. They prescribed certain changes which will be made by the developer before occupancy. � , 4. Landscaping: This is a long and involved story, spanning changes in City staff which destroyed continuity. The landscape design originally submitted Was zlot dune b' andsca e architect, It had problems at the site design review level, but apparently was approved and filed. The* developer brrau'g`""`(a"t"""sewe case- ' tnent from the Calaway Hill Homeowners; and part of the consideration, which Was duly noted on the approved landscape plan, was cdhstruction by the developer of a , 'hot less than 5-foot,5%ate--obscurity fence" along the east property line. Some time ' �,, fia a developer for a copy of landscape plan, he was en, H��Ward asked 'the. develo the lan w given a completely different plan which had been prepared by a registered landscape L architect subsequent to the approval of the original. Howard stated that approximately one-third of the landscaping according to the new plan has been installed by the developer around units he is showing to prospective purchasers, ° He offered as alternatives to the Commission, approval of the original plan; ' approval of the revised plan; or approval of a plan with modifications which he H' ' • , 1. would suggest: He pointed out that a large earthen berm has been insta'iled in the `x northern and eastern part of the project which affords a degree of privacy, which an issue with the he ad'oi,ninc resident.. Large trees on adjoining � this berm would enhance, • the privacy desired. r5.. y / . . , .. • , . • : ■ • , . , ,,.. , \L, . . • MINUTES „ . . . ., TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION • August 7, 1979 - 7:30 P.M. . . Page 8 . , . . . 5. Vegetation, woods trail: The original plan contemplated a.small detention . . pond for storm runoff. This has been eliminated in favor of underground drainage, . because such ponds are a breeding ground for mosquitos. Paths through the woods . are eliminated in the interest of maintaining native vegetation intact so far as , , possible. With this introduction Howard suggested the Commission follow the usual format (pf a public hearing. , .• . The equivalent of an APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION was made by Joe Van Lom, , .4 , architect for the project. He first discussed the landscaping plan originally , submitted, which had a number of problems with it. The submitted plan was . , . .", ', rejected. It was his understanding a plan was never approved. He quoted a ,,, • passage from the design approval in design review whichjin effect)deferred final . , , approval until after the buildings were in place, because, it was indicated, , , . "better plan can be designed after the buildings are in place, since it will . , , coincide with vegetation loss due to construction activity." Van Lom stated the owner was required on no leas than four occasions to stake out the buildings . . on the ground to evaluate both the outlook and the impace on the numerous trees . . ) .,. in the area. He stated the idea was to formulate the final landscaping plan , after it was known what trees would be in the courtyards, etc. The plan designed by the landscape architect was done during construction when the impact of construction on the original setting was known. * Van Lom characterized it as a good plan, which was followed on units readied for display to prospective - . buyers in the development. , Van Lom explained about the chimney chases. The original plan showed chases about half way up. However, after viewing early construction in its envrionnentl it was felt the chimneys looked better without the chases and with the chimneys '. .! . exposed in that particular environment. Hence the suggestion chases be omitted in areas where lack of them would not be verY noticeable. He)thereupon5 .. . showed a number of slides of the ixtoject from various points, including a number of aerial shots. Included were views of short lengths of the fence called for, . and of the berm and its buffering effect, and of chimneys with and without chases. . . There was no PUBLIC TESTIMONY in favor of the project. •. ' ‘ • Speaking in opposition Were: Richard Geisert, attorney representing Mrs, Elizabeth Anderson, a resident to the west of the. project. He protested changes in the original plans submitted for public consideration without adequate justification (presumably subject to input from and approval by the public) . Re protested the "save-a-tree" philosophy as justification for elimination of the park in the light of the 1 , removal of trees in the half-street dedication which may or may not be further improved for some years. He opined the berm was of little Consequence in the . privacy issue when there is a veiw from Canterbury Woods balconies looking . , into Calaway Hills living rooms (applause from audience) . Upon being asked by Commissioner Smith, he stated the developer should be required to build the project in strict, conformity with the plans as originally approved, even though that requires diaassembly of a variation therefrom. He felt the neighborhood . , «. ' • „ . . . V ' 4 ' ' ., ••, '''''. ..”". • .- . ( . '''°i. • • • • • .• MINUTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION August 7, 1979 - 7:30 P.M. Page 9 should have been included in the authorization process for any change. Speaker questioned whether the removal of the trees in the half-street dedication was required by the City. The answer given was no . • Mark Feichtinger, attorney representing the Calaway Hill Homeowners Association through its board of directors, 'asked the members of the Association in the audience to stand (perhaps 20 to 25) . He stated the Homeowners Association.- • was not in favor of dismantling the project. He called attention to the height • disparity of the buildings, which are separated by only 40 or 50 feet. He dwelt on the function of a "good neighbor' fence. He stated his clients concerns were limited to: (1) fir trees to afford privacy, and (2) the fence. These should be installed before certificates of occupancy are issued. Marge Davenport. protested. removal of trees which permitted a view from the . • new buildings into her swimming pool and hot tub. She asked for 20-foot fir trees a fence along the south property line; replanting of trees removed in the half-street dedication of 109th Avenue; and a fence along the west side also, ' • • Sandra Stewart, 14923 S.W. 106th, presented a petition bearing 72 signatures • demanding a five-foot fence and fir trees as required by the landscaping plan approved February 23, 1978. Forrest Hall, 14911 S.W. 106th, protested the bare chimneys and the view • afforded from the balcordes into his patio and bedroom. With respect to the • landscaping, he was not particularly concerned with the changes in the interior, but he is concerned about changes in the fir trees contemplated in the original • plan. CROSS EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL: Mx. Van Lom stated emphatically the fence would be built along the east side as shown on the plan (which shows it proceeding . southward until encountering significant native vegetation) , He called attention to the fact that under the original R-7 zoning, a one-story house could be built to •- within five feet of the property line, or a two-story house within seven feet. •, He pointed out there is no shielding on the Calaway homeowners' properties, and reiterated the fence would be built in accordance with the private agreement with 1, the landowners. He asked for resolution by the Commission of the chitmey chase issue. He assured fir trees would be planted in the area. ' 0, * Peichtinger highly approved the assurance the fence would be installed, asking that it extend along the entire east property line, He asked for tall, fir ' trees,. at a density at least equal to the original plan. He commended a request in a letter of July 16 from Mr. Howard to Mr. Hoffman for a six-foot sight- obscuring fence, and 15 large Douglas fir trees as being "basically compatible with our needs . On questioning by Speaker as to the number of trees requested, he referred to the original plan which shows eleven. He agreed to more if the staff felt nocessaryTciE73=-TrimTZE eleven Marge Davenport urged planting of substantial trees to afford privacy in the southwest corner end along the south line. • • ••I, • . • • , ' x r I r • nti , ' •• „. , ..- ..,. 1.a ....•i i. ............ .• .,..i. r _. .a ...._.._. ..,... _ ...........{.,..... ..«.•...,.. ..+._..1_...«.,A..•....n •.�.., .,......«i_ .. � , .....1.+..,.4•v•.,.,+,w ..i'..l.,w kF • • '' .i6 • ' w , • • 5 MINUTES TZ G D PLANNING CO.�M I SSION August 7, 1979 -- 7:30 P.M. r Page 10 • Mr. Richard Geisert approved Mrs. Davenport's views, asserting the removal ' of many trees, along the southwestern boundary and in the 109th Avenue right of way has caused a surface drainage problem and a privacy problem, and asserted planting of additional trees is called for. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION: Howard reported that Mrs Anderson has sued the City in connection with this project, and that the case would probably come to trial in November. • I The Commission discuss e d with Staff various aspects of the chimney issue, the . fence .issue,' and the tree 'issue. Howard felt the landscaping plan as submitted..by ' • the landscape architect v.ould be satisfactory with the addition of fir trees along the,east and north boundaries. Smith, speaking as 'a developer, stressed the P importance of the placing such trees to assure the maximum screening effects and suggested the develorer, the Staff and the homeowners agree on the specific • location to secure the ;aesired effect. Helmer felt that since the original plan o called for chases, they should be imtalled. Speaker' advocated specifying a --- faxed number of trees, since what might be considered adequate to one person N � ht might be quite inadequate to another. Howard felt this wed, almost mandatory under . the circumstances. 0 0 1 Thereupon Speaker MOVED the Commission approve: (1) chases on the 'chimneys, in accordance with the original plan; (2) that a not-less-than five-foot sight- obscuring ':pence be constructed, and installed along the entire east boundary so as not to destroy significant vegetation; and (3) that eleven 20-foot fir trees be installed on the eastern bounds ' lus four' on the nor HbQUndary. The • motion was seconded by Herron. Wood suggested the Commission consider the assertions of the western and southern neighbors as to removal beyond the original plan of trees affording privacy, and questioning whether the developer should be required to replace some or all of them. Discussion on the. Commission indicated this was not felt practical. Speaker commented that privacy in 'a city cannot be the same as in a rural setting, and suggested the opposition to this project was perhaps in part the pains of urbanization of a previously rural environment. Smith suggested the exposed portion of the chimneys be painted. Speaker agreed to add this to his motion, with the consent df the second. Thereupon the motion as • ' amended carried, with Wood abstaining. The President then closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. There was no OLD BUSINESS: Under NEW pgpiNtSS President Tepedino read a letter of resignation from the Planning Commission from Marc Wood. Tepedino and others e ressed apppp rediati on for his servi • ., . '' .,._ :,__,. ......_...,..A... ....,, ....,.,,.,..............w_..,..,..,..... cG„L,.r ,.... ..1.x,.,w-.tM..,...:.rd.H,�...4,....,,.«.... .....-,....,...- ......._..M...-...:..a:._;._:.i:4f.=.t. ,.,..._,.4-...-vr.»,..,,.,,r..s...N....dw.k.....k MINCJTES TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSIOI, August 7, 1979 - 7:30 P.M. F ' • Pa:ge ll t, Representative of Rober. Ra_ndaJl Company appeared seeking guidance of t he Commission in developing the street intersection from their (Robert Randall Apartments) development with Bonita Road in the area of S.W. ,79th Avenue. . Howard ipcited past history and illustrated possibilities, the best of which are noVVprecluded by reason of development of apartments in one area, and a grove of`large trees and rugged topography in others. One problem is that jr the City has no control over the property on the south side of Bonita, since it is in the County. After considerable discussion, and input from Mr. Diez of . .: . . . .: consultants to the Randall Company, it was the consensus the Planning Commi,ssion' would look favorably on the proposal that the intersection of S.W. 79th Avenue be moved to the west to line up with the proposed street from the Randall. • development on the north side of Bonita, even though the angle of intersection with Bonita is different from 90 degrees. The President then adjourned the meeting at 12:05 A.M. • • r f ICI I i Lp I * • ,:,c,•........... ........... ,»„_..a.. .......,.....H.,..,........_..,_.._..,««..-._.«=oar...,..._.....ii.l.,-L.;.d.r,..... r:1,..,,...,......a.-. , . �,....,,...,1,�.'.al A,...,...,_. . ....,.....,...._,...... ,..vx.. a..:a.;.,.,l.x:x.y:x u'..M .«...... ' • • • =.A41_ 44.A-.f}. _;l..l.t» 1.J:F-...'.alisuVU..A.YTwI'.i 11• 't . rwi P n T r.. .`V Ir�� �.�• P.O. BOX 127 • TUALATIN, OREGON 97062 o PHONE b�2-2b01 .® FivaSEL.l.WASHBURN, CHIEF August 6, 1979 � Ir • Mr. Ed Walden Building Official f;. City of Tigard Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Ed: Ed., I am writing this letter at your request to confirm the statement I made to Mr. Barker on July.27, 1979.1 at the site of the Canterbury Woods project, My statement was: There 'i is absolutely no question but that the structures known as Canterbury Woods are in compliance with the Uniform Building Code re- yarding the maximum allowable height in feet. I hope this letter will be of use to you. If pecan be of further assistance, feel free to call . n5t Yours .truly, Jim Kenworthy Building Official • • 1 i T k 1 .i........ ......... ... ...m._.x..._ 1,.--.... ..�...-a14:. .r..• •. ,..w.•, an ......w+.•.r-,.1•n... .;L...+.M•....,1 d ,n.rn.r..--:1r ...r. _.+r:.A.-..r•........a ..4.fL;.lw-.:..iAlw..,r....iu,:J...�...:;G.'..,..,:•...W:+:.I«u:...�m.. _wi.n.+..x•...._....-ll...wr.l.•....,.ku.:.r:L:., +r r-..r..,rrH:�'k.r,...,.i.r�.3_IL:.,...:,..n..r..L ,t C TI P.U.Box 23397 j' 12420 S.W.ilka9 Tigard,Oregon 97223 • • July 30, 1979 Mrs. Ima Scott 14873 SW 106th Avenue , Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mrs. Scott: y This Letter will confirm my rece nt statement to you regarding the issuance ssuanoe of Certificates of Occupancy for units in the Canterbury Woods P1anrnecl, i '' Development..'-� rr� Before the City of Tigard issues any Certificates of Occupancy for any unit in the Canterbury Woods Planned Development we will request a final inspection of the units by the State Fire Marshall or his representative and the Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District. We will require that both agencies, as well as the City itself, "sign--off" on the units before any Certificates of Occupancy are issued. Sincerely, iffiR , *0 R. R. Barker City Administrator RR$e lry CC: Clyde Centers, State Fire Marshall Russell Washburn Chief' TRFPD td Walden, Building Official ' Mayor and Council ,• r, t • ','r..,.., .r;•..,. ..r.�.r.wlr.�..4..u...nr+.wx.•�.a�..u.w.wL.wwn...aru u.,u.,ru .n•wr+.rr�..n.: v.v.... 'r�r•r+�r, r �✓.•In•..•rc r.r•. r ,.�.r.,r.,,rr, u'..i,. l'rw•..r. x r • r r. r 1v1.+r. ar r Ir+.,1•v.v.•;.•., .1 n l Y:11 J...,f .. •r-nr � f•iw..n �. , n � r ,v.,...w.,.. m�.r,.-+t.rruw�ry(s-n•:uafn T :• .1 � r'1 11� � r r 1 N • �I ,• ast • ,j,rt'Y,1...in Oh ,, f '! q...o� _.Y. CITY OF T �,, . ,,, , P ®. Ba%23397 12420 S.W. Main t Tigard,Oregon 97223 July 30', 1979 4, , • »: Mr. Fred A. Anderson . Attorney at Law , , s Tigard Professional Center', 8865 S.W. Center Street . b, Tigard,rd, Oregon 9722'3' ,t. ' Re: Letter of July 24, 1979, Canterbury Woods A,' Dear Sir:: � i. The major issues to be resolved'prior to issuance of Occupancy Permits to Mr. Hoffman for Canterbury Woods are as follows: ;: 1. Landscaping: Please reference my letter to Mr. Hoffman dated • O'uly 12e 1979 and my letter to Mr. Hoffman dated July 16, 1979. ' In these letters I specifically request that certain details be '. atte, de d to. • 2. Chimney chases: Please refer' to a note that I received from Mr. Van Lora dated July 23',' 1979. 3. Parking areas and structures': Please refer to my letter to Mr. Hoffman dated' June 18, 1979. In this letter I state that final , ' approval will be dependant upon the fire district's approvals n please refer' to a letter to me from th�,� Tualatin Rural Fire ,Pro-. `� tection District, Mr. Joseph Greu1ich, dated July 25, 1979. Substantial changes will be necessary before they will approve the present installation. Please refer to 'a letter from Mr. . Barker, pity Administrator, to Ntrs. tma. Sett dated July 30, 1979. At this time we have not received clarification of the status of additional space under' the roof centerline nor have we received clarification of issues in the basement areas ; 'f a Following the Public Hearing before the' Planning Commission. oh August 7, 1979 I will have some def inate directives to carry out, Obviously the' "final '' in,,pections"' inay discover additional items which will need }�o be corrected I prior to Occupancy Permits being issued; A "final inspection" has not been !' requested to d .te. 1 • • Mr Fred A. Anderson r " July 30, 1979 1. Canterbury Woods Page ±' s 4 14 i' I Please review the enci.osuresz, If you need clarification of any material i• I will attempt to provide same. Yours truly, M I i' I � D, • Aldie Howard P7anLg Director „ ■ AH:lm r . Cc: .R. Barker Ed Walden Canterbury Woods file , 1 l i • • I n I j I f r 1 , I iI d .r ICI, i� M . n k • • • r ^ �w.,w. a...rrv,.r.••W!r..�eu• r r, ..r , ., *OREGON* Nowd, PRI"t [..11 [111 hiRiCt no Icgn» q04 ' 01'1' ty P.O. BOX 127 • TUALATIN, ORFGON 97062 • PHONE 682.2601 0 RUSSELL WASHBURN, CHIEF • July, 25, 1979 , A'i di e Howard City of. Tigard Planning Department city f i and a Oregon 97223 tl g �J Re: Canterbury Woods Dear Mr. Howard., A site inspection was made on July 25, 1 979 to check for fire department access, with site plan that was sent to TRFPD by contractor. The site plan that was submitted is different than what is actually on the site. Dis- tances, street widths, length of parking spaces, location of parking spaces are all different than is shown. The main accessway serving this complex is a private street. However, minimum public street standards should still be met. Whether or not the street is 'public or private it its still an emergency access for the fire " r department. Minimum street width that should be allowed is 24 feet with no parking allowed in this 24 foot area. Parking can be allowed off the 24 foot area as long as there is a minimum of 17 feet length of parking space. This distance shall not be reduced by curbing or landscaped islands. Parking spaces need to be relocated, landscaping islands need to be reduced in size, and curbing needs to be moved, straightened and to allow for the minimum street width. In some areas street width is adequate but between buildings and at building entrances, curbs are not in line with the garage and extend out into the traveled area. ,. In the areas where parking is allowed along the curbed area and in the turning areas, parking spaces need to be eliminated to allow for turning room for fire apparatus. A radius of 50 feet for turning needs to be provided, measured from the center point to the outside of the traveling area. In order to meet this standard some parking spaces will have to be moved and traveling space increased, and in other areas, parking spaces l have to be eliminated. Where no parking is allowed, areas to will b el��iii bate �o I ,, he signed with no parking signs, and enforced to assure no parking is allowed any i If you have any further questions, feel free to call me. ' 4/44 urs 'trul Jo :ph.A: ti eulich 1 Ut `e 1✓�r Marshal JAG dm _ ; __ ___ _ ._: j-..',.........1_ _ .: ii.T.,............j,_ _ _ _ -- -/-- .1 _ -- - - *. __ _i.,..„..„......,.....,......- _ _ _ i.7--4.0:. -..,-;-1;Ai 4IIY, f71'Vi--,,,,A a4-,5 ,\ . _•,- t_ _ 1 -- - - - - - __ __ 1 -, -L.._ . -- --? - j . _ I i i _7_,•._ - i__ _ _ _,......),--.1-.3‘,-\:-,-,-. .- --T.\- 7.-1,---7::,L.-°'-.' - _—i-A--,.--. a 7:1--= -t _,..,„...,, .... CCr.s\, . •__ _-__ ____ - _ _- . ,, ,,..,- __,,..‹- i__,,,, , __. y ,._„.. _ --'ll _ 7-r. _ ,,,. . __ __ .. __ .- _ . 4-_ -_- _: _ -\\________ ,,4 ! i_` i i_ , -,-__, i•,_ ; ,_ _ _ _ ._, ;.$ _., . ,.._ \r----_-'_ _, i /1----- - _ , _ _ _7 -- - _.- __. . . ....,71 _ _ \(-' -- \ ' - -- '4'.`r-••■a,L.- I 1-1-1-- ---■-- : _ 7... \,_... - 1 -1:. _ j_sTJ� - i_ ` -t '.-�- �� , - W \-_ - - --=:r.- - - -_ - - - K•, � +- - ;q ��, :_ma, - -- ._ -- -; --_ ;11 ii // -- _`1_- -- •tom _� -1�.a�,L�}�,�,,t - _ _ - - - - � Y } li Olg i i s ; jam- r` • —�Z ..+ _ .� • ' - 1 e...r...... r ..._h.,„=.ta. ...•r4.. ...J.t...... .... .n»«..»«..N... .•.,,-r.....v,......lJ«.r«4'>k......«n r»....i ..•... .r.:.A•r,.n......•...+r-...J.w.4.«d.rr......niv..Yuul..v«r•..«.r....-.•r«.«rti'r-++J::-mr.lrnra�.1.....-•r..wA..•..Y:Y.ea,-'««...-..w«. _.4 m. .n.«.., n..YJ•«ry«...s.lar-.• tut!_..4o-4 ..r n• • ANDERSON, DITTMAN & ANDERSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW TIGARL1 PROFESSIONAL. CENTER 8865 S. W. CENTER STREET P. O. BOX 23005, TIGARD, OREGON 07225 • FRED A .ANDERSON DERRYCK H. DITTMAN ROGER F. ANDERSON July 24, 11979 • • I 4. I City of Tigard • P. 0. Box 23397 12420 S. W. Main Tigard, OR 97223 Attention: Planning and Building Departments a. I This office represents Hoffman & Hoffman Hilltop Estates, ry; Hoffman & Hoffman, an Oregon corporation, in connection with the matter hereinafter stated with respect to Canterbury Woods condomimium project, In that capacity, we have been requested to obtain from the City of Tigard a written statement of all items and matters requiring atten- tion or completion in order to entitle our clients to the issuance of occupancy permits. In this connection, we refer to the news articles and public press releases in which it was stated that there were five conditions which our clients must fulfill in order to obtain the issuance of occupancy permits Your immediate written response would be appreciated. • Very truly yours, ANDDPSO, DITTMAN & ANDERSON a r-#(. A, Anderson rAA/dlb I I I I I i JUL 2b 1979 I I TIGMD • e r • AV C.F.I� V s 4 •/ay�..w'� �S h. O i 4 .,-rr,,.. P T , ni fit [ it . , , , m .p.r ti i n 1 T • . ' f4,..—....,.--V-4„c --i k,t..,442„5..."'" 001,17-1.5itP,O, BOX 127 4 TUALATIU; OREGON 97062 A PHONE 682-2601 a RUSSELL WASHBURN, CHIEF . d July 24,1979 , Mr. Feter, B. Hoffman • 1888 S.W. Madison Portland, Oregon 97214 Dear Mr. Hoffman: We have not received an As Built Plot Plan of your Canterbury Woods project. We have asked for this verbally several times. We won't be able to give you any approval until we have reviewed your As Built Plot Plan (note Tigard Ordinance 014.16.100). nce l .16.080 d din 4 You are currently in violation of Tigard 0, a ,� and our Fire Prevention Code #3i-1 .1 .10, both regarding access for fire apparatus. Your As Built Access does not currently meet with our approval Please ease help us resolve ve this issue as soon as possible. , , r If we can be of any assistance to you, please do not hesitate '„. to contact us. , Yours in Pi re Safety l ELI,.� � �� �J'ac B. Palmer Acs ng Fire Marshal • JBP:dm cc: City of Tigard ' • i .=d,i.,...nw,.,•.M.,..I. ., ..w..,'s,.o„., ..n.nr„ ,,,.,,., ..,.,...w„u,„".,, , ,,,. •,.' ..0..,..,.. ..«».c,. ., ., .... ifi q..„,,•,' ..,., ,w..,..,.tA _ . ..mss»..,«,...� .w.+-1, t ' .. . I r4 OREOQN1! • 0514 11 11 JHRE PR [ LECII [111 Cilt--11 rt �°0p��'°�` by. P.O. BOX 127 • TUALATIN�, OREGON 97062 ) PHONE 682.2601 • RUSSELL WASHBURN, CHIEF (q ' ti3O July 24, 1979 • Ray Barker, City Administrator City of Tigard .. City Hall Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Ray: • At approximately 11 :45 A.M. on July 20th, Ima Scott entered our offices and requested a letter that had been sent to the State of Oregon, Department of Commerce by our Fire Marshal , Joe Greul i ch, regarding ., some problems that had been encountered in t he past wit h y o ur Building Inspector, E d Walden. Under the Public Records Law, ORS 192.500.3, we had no alternative but to • turn this letter over to Mrs. Scott, as she also implied than she would take the necessary steps and go through the State to achieve a copy of this letter if we would not cooperate. ' I would assume that you were aware of this letter as we have been informed that Ed Walden was aware of the letter and had . been informed by the State of its existence, and the contents of the 1htter had been discussed with Mr. Walden in September of 1978, by the State. The reason for the letter, unfortunately I feel , was utter frustration on Joe's part in the ability of our organization to have the cooperation of Mr. Walden at that • i particular point n time, As I am sure you are aware, numerous meetings have been held between our organization, our Fire Pre- ven t:i on Bureau, the City of Tigard Building Department, and Chief Washburn and I have met with you on several occasions to attempt to bring about a better working relationship between the two organizations. T he Can terbury Woods complex problem graphically points out the need for the fire department aid the building department to work hand in glove. I feel that we should get together at our earliest convenience to discuss our mutual areas of concern Thank you Yours ruiy, RECEIVED UL 1 �� Doug1', s L,� Krebs � � � � � ; . Asst, Chief bl.l< dm 11 „, ^4 • 0 9 . , Rer, Canterbury Woods ,Condominiums ? /. H. . Chimney chases . , ,,,, * . k , Dear Aldie: . . Peter Hoffman has asked me to reivew the chimney chases at the . Canterbury Woods Condominiums. As you may know all metal pro- jections above the roof have been painted but are left exposed,. , Our drawings show one-half of the chase enclosed and one-half exposed. I have looked over the finished prodact and feel that the exposed . chimneys are not unsightly and in fact are less noticable than , . if they were exposed as we had them originally shawn. The fact . / . that the site is very wooded is of course the major factor for . the chases are lost within the trees. The chimney chases would . tend to accentuate roof penetrations rather than play them down. . I am therefore asking that this be reviewed by either the design review board at their next meeting or the Tigard Planning ' Commission on the August 9th meetings , . . If you have any questions please give me a call. , 1' Yours very truly, , 'i THE AN LOM/KRAXBER ER PARTNERSHIP A.I.A. IPPN }1/1:"" 0.14 ' .sep M. Vail Lam, A.41,,,,,, .A.,, ,,,,,,, ,,..,: ,„,. ., . A chi ect ' aVI, I vl . . , ... .... .. .,. . . , , tt. , .— 0 , ..c \; t „ .4.-, .. / .. t- .4 -.4.. 4:1) 1 -...- , . ->, „, , , ',,., 0 . ..., ,.,„•. ,,,,,. ..,,, t":7) '''.4. t, , ° -4, i'i: ,..„ , -,.... ,,, , , „ *, k; CIL 7f.i i,, ".... — ' , `,' ''‘ ”1 "k Z 0114 LU ,..... 4 .,, In 03 . '"'..--,,k ,' ---,,,,„ i: "• '. ':, '..-. ,t . 4 0 ) . i 'T..; '-', 'A . 1"-„, co ''....,.., . ' , t.,„,k ',."..., „, .,:' ; ,,,, ,, 0 0 ill gi E 1., 1 .,,, ,,.‘ ,, ....t . , ,, ..„„ ,. 7,•••• •a ,i 40 r 0 re t'li r" 0 cx , 0, 0 . W 1 . --I tij l'.:: '.* * c '''', , % Z 0 • 13. 4-, 0 . 0) D 0 \; E CL) C3Zi IT g . . a) 0- ., "47 .,,,„., ,-. , ,. cl. %... (0 i..... : , :'1, • n re Lu i .a , y -.,, 0 w LU t.,, , a z ,, , 4-, g -, ,, ,, .... ..„ 13., a cc as -.: d 6 ,,,„ • ,., , ., ,... 0 „c x ,„„,,,,, ,... , ,4, f ,ei ..' • *"*"4'. ," 4 '''' 49 -- a" 170tei :-Cf.I.53 • LL 1 U. ist V5 ..., t3" '.,. , . , ....... 4... ...I 4%.411,:. , 4.-444 , 14:' .. "44 it co E ' ("- 4 a.) ..1 1 ..'' ' : ,, I. * 4,. C ■ cti '•,-; '''"' ' "ot-, h't , , 1111 ''. ,''. '''',,,1 *':^`,t. ,N'', *,,, ,:' "',■S "L ,-",) Ai,"i ,■ = ^'Ny t,., '''''4, t .* ' CD 4. ,, .0.,4',.' . . ., a ( . . . . Iri.� • 11' ,-',..... , ?.??,".'"?'',0-", 7•"".' 1 4;, ',..,0.....,...0 ,,t.-72.'el/ �"�x'"'� " �" � ,7 �' / 1•^�i. t? / , /, ),,d�y�.in' �,,F*�r.' / , ,�/� .'r`��%� r'""�� "' 1 4"^�,f it 7 ('/�': ' ,1%',/' ( r" 1 !+' jNf frJ�F [..� `d'_ ` , ry T�< �/ I, k fi74 Z92 ..� 9 e•" '1 �'7/,/ fir' '" .• "..) /r ! ( " "yW,p; - 7 A.7.,-,r, 7� Yt . is +/ i r r ,.,(9797,7/2—) .9,4,--PW-' (72. I ;47'11- , ( 2-4'17(97 1 1 (..?v7-17 +' ' '7.-0 ,/rte' - � -7-7 7D -e,e 4'r , n � —) a-- F, r{ "P! )'V ('•A�"� r�4'j�'r"i�h ! 1277 r^i /// .�J,/Iy�� /(y�"%" /I'J/ / 1 /'. '• 1� e„• J ✓✓P;"i' A r /i 17272y4 le". r y I Nt/' Lr4n` f. FM x./,� /-73,f f�:f!//r: r7� F (1/ ] / / ;,�; 7 /y447 /42 r /19V/422 � l�` " a �/ ; 1...9 " rf -'''1! 2 .7 '- ' Y ,pp'4 / yiprri-- - " ~ e, 1 , •r z e A.'24,-,7,-777-) /77 / ,.,2 171'4'd, 0 ff/ ~ y` r. /d,„ 0.,',i PuP V ✓ n (7/2'777-7°) e'"!J " / ',,,? e°ai7'' 'Y' � !2 s. i-,r-" 4/ .. / 'i'"'�, ,;.r,... /d ';;. .�^�' -.^� �,(' ' 9-7 'C. 'r'��-,._ r� .rf•"1 , 7 Li p / .1 72".c. e..-.-. ^^� i'`~ G./ U (,(2,7-, j •`C/�{ s%%/`'i !"''� f .7'!''�,4jrf/drr✓�f /J/f// +6iA:..,,,,..,,,,,, �.;+Mxd�NUt,:i ,,,r_'cv::4,,„04,x ... ,.....yy, ---?:,,,,,-;— 7 ' (7)2-/11-12 :;„?.2 -,-„fr.r.,---ro<,v „1„.,:. 41'L':eMnmflp f� 6 '.:(�:s�"�/et�•v°-.u .,.ut•�,.�'--•^"�'"•+�'.'�+'r..x oxd"x, w y";,:F .wa.1xuS / �./r�7T' 2? C/ YC+r / / 2V A r ./y �" , ✓w /n •e,e/') /y" /6/i / ,+/ f"/ � .( r , r,n, -7 ✓t-??�" / / / r2 /7' 2 -' t9; 7D-70,-,,--7,--P, e' �/i2./ ^\ / / �4?`"�� ::r:- . ;41:::,,r4z vai:ur � /9?-*V le.97 9?.,2y (7e ve i7 2-,719'"" • (1 r '— ,21..,71//' • _ y ■ ii ' \' .,. 'C: I1 -._., , ._ .. „ .._ _. ... ...,,... ..»-�.J�. .._..__a 4.. �.k,,.,„r.. a .........,.u.M,,.:..'.�.-.,,r.,..-S..A,». '.J�,,.�.-":,.....,.`'�r....'r_.,...:..Jc-.•+1..�:.,»+.4h....:.:.':w , i /,-4 i L, m (,,, , , 0‘. 6e;.,/,,' , .✓ r .-. ''' '' le---‘1:-.)4":"2-eril 1 4-"'72/2--'ell/e.....-/ ,--,--"Z>Le.< 2a...rre(,08.. ..,,..6,6 1 ‘-0-64i .....--e-0,e‹-2.-e-e---"Z . , / .' ' ;,,,f, 1 ,7/... 7,q,.....enr - , IL.,..-5, ,--(,./i_zt;•,,, ,7- ,,,_e-1,„evee-eny../ ., . ._,Ce/ c.,7,47eiv ,_-6:e." . 1, : I ;. 4-/ ' ''' _,,/ ( (-7d . ,77 L' ) .4e '.-- -/"" ' 2,e,_e./../4 6., '' nn ' o /✓ , c.4e2/4,r✓ Vic.,/ G.� �" -4- i Gr c-,-. w-t--,- 6--e, /-v i C C / � f t„�- / Ge /� ,iw,f w ,:,\,.' tri ......,e24'-ii C ✓er '�r - 4✓r e-; ' %"Gre-e-:./ " _ C✓ ��. ✓' / • . J !'/3"'� �/ Z rr +r 6--22e,--A"' , - . ( �y � G. �� �•„ .'•.,/ � y ll 7 ' I � ' '` L ✓ J V ' 4f✓G. "t t. � ' ✓C/ . +� • . , l . ''' ,,,7 4 - ///a* --I:el o4.L''7 '' - ' ' 2' e_.-&-. Z (1",,--,/; ' ,s. .,-;,;(// ■ -i'e"/ R. V v' •i/ ' . / ; 1 .2 /. !i /2 L._..ti, .- /G/'L / 1 /Y/C� .b G / � ' .1 y.�•/,��r'�e Ze . . . � V J 41 t / y 1 �.J ,e,,ejpc// e•/,/+J _J/-V/J/e r/,V I/� e�e.2 yl.i.c..., L. 6J , ..... .r'e.z... ..` 1 . U •,I / Y . .„ . 1 i., I .. ,. ' ,, w t,:� .,r6> •2/ce.., C��./t�"u�eit.:.G'�(✓'G0, '✓G e.. �,�:J[ir(s c... ,�,:''e c /, .. . C `G✓' , . _70.„,....„1"....„4:,,,,, . 1 , 1 ` � Jy . e _6,fG ^t 2 1",1",,,,,J 62,,,e 4 42 .- :4- ,..-- .Q- ;..GJ-J' ,_.... ' . ,,.., _; ,, v, f . i ef r G � r" `'� 4+!LG°�JL ik✓, If wrf u.r ,r•-77.4 . - ✓ �4 ...r , . .. „/ _,/717-. .d / L._„,a/j_*_,"1/' / 4 j/ /, 91 r•L' ''.-7 - 52c.- . ,...- <.✓ y` 6d):1,,,7,//674/ •:/ - .`� +'.r + t/e../ vt.e. / 4',,,Lr� c.,e,:ri L' e.- ,,„ ./ .0 e....+✓L / r •✓'T ✓! t.•.°'' l....e. 6/6' 264--) 626e (,.•a..��,�...eG,/'' • ., • /� �••t j J•V ✓ i \,, 4V 'frW t.s'ra.G ,'G�a r✓jir! 4 L �f.. et; ,,, , 1.-.,•, ,r /=— li, .rrt. 4e 4 ✓fir c.L - " .,,,e.. j r � f , 1 ; � ✓j� WJV 4 {/ 6 r !_ 4 iw .�r� , � J � ! a > 31:214 - /J C, , /4-64;/3 —/'2/? •..17 1 - ,e pe, .,, ,.....e.) ! / ) • 4. r ' .fir . -' -' i;•Gyr, J` lt, tr'�/'�' J } 7 r /! f /, ,;,• ✓�'� r j„ �..�irt;�.rr K:h.�.�"G..�Yr Z17' r�'k:-• c.,,.�j�`J ;,•,..v,• ¢,,•�.r;'c��'�LL?�6446.,' �La'G•,^"7/1‘ 4<4,^",44/' ,,A....,;4 V N �r� ;` ,✓j�,"jr,f /1�,." Ij '� 1 ari!,- f.'+� rir' 1 C+"�,y C;' j✓ J rJyf�'J'r' � j fir,1 •' ,'wyray ,f�Cr'(�4 I° w�,:«.^�r4•••C-”".../i '' ,...'C+."' ( '1 :- .tai ✓b•1�i,.,•'.o'l ',..✓G• ''�„�,i�'„i +) r+ ,/�J�, )'4 v. , 06,;',/:,,,...1`24". , i ',,,.„--V , i ,, id/ 1 ...,,-"7,....' i't_'..4.4....004:..41 ■ ,, 1,,,',1,4-2,), / L.i--Z,,,,' 42,,e..'> 4,_14,,,,k' ' ...,te..;va,,f,/,, ,I,...a.),, ,," , :. - 1 I ._ �_.-. .,.. , .,.,...,,... ... .,.M .,...... ,w... �.. .:...._... ...,.„ ._.:,.,.,r ..w.. r.;1'�,...1. »�..:_...., .:,..•w'. .,._...., G .,..«. ...:�.. 'x., .i .:S':•-lia., w / Z &//,�I/Jam+ 29 ,./.-� ,. �e...#7.7 r�+'� /l'' •..- y%C ..;,. 2.4.di , ,. , .d .,:z; 7 ,.. /et,/ 62.6,../: 141.7 ,./..:e. ,, t-'Ze-i I....-4.6A-6/ ',;-,-- ...e-41.-r __ce. e ,...,ez,t,,,,,, ), . -: ' „...,.Z.e(el, 7C.d ',.. • c. t " / y � c.- J� r� �% ` 2J` 2 ' ✓ ri' _fir � .r 'i'�:: lC � � ' ,�L ; � ' ‘ 'D ey.1, ,, ..1,7 //, . 2,,teL..,, L,',7d / >/:Le-, , ./i.../2 -,! — ' ,. 4 • 6 ..g<kve..,, , ,// . .4 ,,e4..., 4....,e..e...l e2/./..1-, 4 . , ....le/if „...,/ .4"..44.4,4,:,:g. Lel ...-c..„4,42....e._,_..,--- ..0._./ 26 .,.,./e,az„e, 6c, ' . . ,,,,-72../6 LI.,....--1(-4/... ..: Lid/ :---1/4"--' .44",,* cd 1/4-1/ Ce/ --?!-/ rx-e-, ' , i/ i - /64,//' z',/e' ,/,;. ..„ :_x, 4 ......., ... " 4' '' . ' ' 1" i V,.4)."/ 4.'r.f " '''.e'' ' ° , ...,'4 :4') ''''''/1C---`66..,4,66.e.771.,) 4-.41■*....."' it ., L ., , . , i ,,,e.:ZeL./ 72..‹,,p.e'.a. , _ ‘...,■&/"Le_ -4;(-,1:57 '''') ----1-e-::a.#,--'6( --1 ,---d.e..---..4", .,€,A-2/----e-pt-a.e.:c. 4 '. . , _ =Cje 2,„4 672if,/& (.7/9„,6e2,,,a,..4,/ L--6''e..,21,--°1 6'6.e.,-,fre./. /V.A....., deL-cil &e.T.6/ cze-ae/ i ; 4761tt.,/ L__., .,, , , . . /1/ 1 4/,/ ' ..e./'/ ,-Cc../ (-4,661:.„-i6c,i Azere,d,..(-1, 2.-ez --e., e-et ' , /6Zel,..-e.1 6,60 add' . (7.2,66,‹-e,e,d, , . , 4 — .....*„.1,60 (,....,t/ ., j , 2...,/, . i ; -, ae-2....,, z„-C-61c6 -€1,/,, ,,e...4--',Ipe,e4,e,"(6/7.":„.66,,,,,,,.2 „,,4,,,,;,,,,,,e6,714,,,,,,,,,,,, l / . . � ig,...e....e/ ...ef...2, ,r, ... ..�✓L%'/' / ,J y �O �'i„' + I , y944,e-r-.44...:),' 65/121‘46, 2,':1 5,fy •-� e- 62 ,_•-! ; .,-e� ,-6C/ ,. a ' , .. / ' 7 7/7. (, , a de_ ,e,„..4,,,,6e,ee.,,, „r.- Z e,,e,t y, . ,?,,":e'rej_74 4/‘`` 616171.-leiezist ,,:f,:-2.,1Zi-il:,AiLt.,e ..„,ad &Iii/v., ___,&;,,,/v2es."4.4,<,,,t, ,,e; el lei Z:1/ at/4z, ,,,,,, /9,..? . yea I I A H ,,e.1.., .4-4'--4' . , :a'',/,-, '/1 Ze,,ye 61 c'2,26srie)-2,,, ' a?-ii,,,L,6e,iity' ..-ekt , -- --'6e. ;." - cz, .--a.., / ' / . •. 2 6 41 c t°' a 7 , 6 . , ,7 • a � f I c2 H -' �- " 41 h,/id 2 ,,,I,r-,6-e:1 W i 1 .,7/72:—,.,' 4_,,,e4- 4-.46/ c& % i 65?' _ ,.... ,,,,, _..--C e a /�G �} ; w I •v , . , , •w..s�....r.✓:4:.yw,. I. . .l.w.. •1 ....I Y". ..• _ ...,r .k.t.H r. Yr-.,..i.',1'.. 1�.� t.- ..v e.L:.�v+v.i�:?"r'.h� •.-.+ �'o . � 1-v Y MoJ.r''',-.' .»..-.l 41.,,F9�',-.,.', ,.n. c..{:'.1.,,.•-,,,- I.:,..;..a.,,ta „„.1. • , • ►► �f. ✓r , //GG.✓✓✓t/ I Y (;/•G -e2---,:e-,e-C,:.-1' .. 'V 4E. � ' '� `�� ? ✓ j '•r,' G.�. J-�/' ... C •.' ,f , f y 1I . ,,.., . .....,...cy , , , ./, ... ,i'4, .. , . /.... ...,e,::,,,' 6'..,,,o,,.,',2,z...d,,,_,,,Z1--- 6 ,:' ' •,,c,e'. , . 1' ...'- ' ''°— ,--'2../Z-eZi . -if”' , •z„.„ 6/ — / ',, . - --''' '',.-) , , . z 2. „..,.e.2. .' ..-"ze...--.- 1 .,.-,--c-e- -1 ./9/...--cee-e,..,/,,...- _,-/•,.' ..---C,-'' ec ,,,, , , . . '' ,, ,...,.....:,,...-4/:.::::/..., . '' 42-.- .44:-1--/..,, ,,... .,: • 1 I • I . r St.' t; • I , t • ' 1 . • • • 1 • • • • i I 0 I I 1 I .:�uvavlr v,.:n Y.1 uvli R...:.r.:.a.I.v .... 1 .....,.• •... ,r,.� ...r.. ..v li u..r+v...v v • . i 1 .r. ■ g i . . 1rwY �..w.�� 4 .1 • ..w � •••••44444 .�.w�.Yww.M�..� i , 1 , THE VAN LOM ‘ , . KRAXBERGER 4, - ,.. PARTNERSHIP •_ M ARCHITECTS `tr y'_ PLANNERS A.i.A. 4.4,-4 .,, _ . February 20, 1979 • a Raleigh Hills Professional Bldg, 4455 S.W.Scholls Ferry Road • Portland, Oregon 97225 ' (503) 292-8895 City of Tigard ' `: P .O . Box 23557 12420 S . W. Main . • Tigard , Oregon 97223 . 1 . Re : Canterbury Woods . • Gentlemen There has been some question as of late regarding the legality of an additional amount of upper floor area proposed for the ; • Canterbury Woods housing development. Particular emphasis has been placed on the approval of the original P . D. and how this relates to what is currently being constructed ., ' I would like to point out that the initial approval was , in fact, granted on a three-story concept (see site plan enclosed plus. written submittal material ) . These units , to be sure, > were one , two and three-story units combined into one building . The Curren "propo;sa Tor a two story development. The new . loft space addition was an afterthought proposed because of the 1, : • a ioun t of 'open ( unusable space) evident once the trusses were set in place. Note that the addition takes advantage of the „ ,, existing building configuration does not add to it . g The change is an interior, not exterior alteration . Since the space ' M ' is open to the living area it acts as a loft or mezzanine level . On page 45 of the Uniform Building Code the definition of mez_za- nine is listed as "an intermediate floor placed in any story or ' • room" . If that area is less than 33 1/3/ of the total of the room it occupies it will not be considered a floor. The proposal for Canterbury Woods is for a loft addition of 212 square feet and therefore could be considered a floor ;b_y� - definition . This addition is allowed unT6r Table 5.;g' page 61 of i; niform building Code which states that if the building i is of n h._our construction , a three-story building is perinis- . sible ., Additional structural_ engineering with regard to 'three- store stu lures e k e. , equivalent 3x4 studs at 16" o ,c . on lower floor) Will also be carried through by the Owner n w l.tw i +.I+r�1J+w4 .,.,.,-..,....•.•...-.,.,.••..w,."y.nr...,...........,•.;.,...,w.,..,.,.,,..,..,,....,..w..............:••r..w u,.ww„r,...•... .. ,... 1 ' --..+o..fwnneaw .MYdcnmx5dt7,1 fry .. 0f ( I 1 • • �..�.r ��.r.F " ,r..n,u...-++w+.�..en.,w+�•.rww.r...V.ae„M.+...i.o tr...N+f+r.Y+ .l ., February 20, 1979 City of Tigard Page 2 • • • . Since the original approval for three-story units was approved at the time the P. D. was granted, I assume this will not be an issue . There is no requirement which states that the height must be consistant with that of the underlying district in a ; P . D. This reference to underlying zones applies to lot coverage The P . O. strict makes `..F and lost size . l' . h P . 1 d ,�._.� _�.., , _ no mention of building and in fact in 18.56 . 060 Elie Code is very specific, r " In cases of conflict between standards of the underlying 'dis- trict and the Planned Development district, the standards of i the Planned Development district shall apply." (Ord. 71 -4 . Exh . "A" 1971 ; Ord . 70-32 S 1853 . l 1970. ) In our instance the three-story concept ,was clear _ .,how.n , discussed and was approved a spartoftheP . D„ ___ • This project is in .keeping with the purpose of a Planned Develop- . ment which states as it ' s purpose " .. . . to provide opportunities ' to create more desirable environments through the application , of flexible and diversified land development standards under a comprehensive plan and program professionally prepared . The planned development district is intended to be used to encourage the application of techniques .. . .which will result in superior , ° living or development arrangements , with lasting values . " Better utilizaTion of pr761 osed si:ructures such as loft spaces would L follow that intent. We propose therefore to follow the previous .aro__vart s . t, h�rough , zoning, with regard to thre story structures . In additi-On we will make those buildings conform to�thhee_D.le•-dour r requirements and of the Uniform Building Code . Yours very truly , THE VAIN LOM/KRAXBERGER PARTNERSHIP A . I .A. Jo e h M . Van Lom, A. I .A. Arc i tect cc : Mr . peter Hoffman State of Oregon , Fire and Life Safety , Salem, Oregon � � �� „,.,,.Ma .»•. w. w.,.•..,..w..• .,..w....•,.,..v,,...,....,,ow,,.,.,,.,.»..,.,,,.,...................w..•u„....i,,.,.. ._,.�......,...w..,...1-w+sr 'F;- ^ • . r f, ' • �1 ] R [1 II T . , , i k.,,..'1,j 1 — -- ti< c.J t"��' .. P. 0 FtOX 127 • 1 04,10 uN, ORE (;0N 5.7O62 • I'NOH1 1.3g M161 • HU`o.,ri . W/.5111N11RN,.CHILE ' / / * +. ' '' ,,,4.1: ■ �� S � . t�inber 25, 1�7� � , , Trevor Jacobson . , Department of •Coini;erce Building Codes Division y • I.abor & Industries Building Salem, Oregon 97310 , Subject: Plans Reviews , City of Tigard . Dear Trevor: , The City of Tigard apparently has not been requiring all buildings • that are to be plans reviewed to have the plans reviews completed. This • is creating some problems when Tualatin Fire District is going on the . • job sites and finding violations of fire and life safety sections of • the Uniform Building Code. ! + , The following i s a list of some of the buildings that have come to our attention that plans reviews, have been done at the request of fire department Inspectors , or' have not been done: 1 . Hall Blvd, Professional Bldg, 11565 S.W. Hall -- It was plans reviewed ed late; plans review ;78-1 170, however, the building was ! . over 50%'• complete and there were some problems with some exit corridors. . 2. HGM Building, also known as Utility Industrial Center, 12700 S.W. 70th Pl act? or 7085 S.W. Hurizi ker. Work began on this building ? . , • on June 6, 1978. No state plans review has yet been received. This is a two' story B2, s>prinklered , Type IIIN building, 84 ,000 ,: „ square feet. • Office building S.W 72nd and Hampton. Two story, 5N, B2 building, 5456 sq. feet. No state plans review received yet. 4. Georgia Pacific, 7920 S.W. Hunziker, Tigard. A 2-story, 80 x 25 ' office was constructed inside an existing warehouse building. The • existing building was plans checked in 1971 , ,;'9l 53. It was a 15,800 e • sq. ft,existing 4N & 5Nr building. However, later additions to the office and additions inside the building make this now a 5h building. I' • Existing building is now a total of 20,000 sq ft, plus the addition of the second story of office inside the warehouse. The ''building is not spri nhl eyed, set back on two sides only, and is in Fire Zone 2. No plans review on the office addition. All of the above bui l di rocs were apparently approved the Building Officio) . I I would ask Your attention in meeting with the City, of Tigard to straighten this rcatter out. Tualatin Fire District has met with Tigard and asked ' ,mow 1 I '" , • • r•. G riI • , , , n e Y .': ..�..i,..,...i::..,. __-'' _.-:.. ..,,...� .-',,._.,,,.. :. .�, _...«..,x..-a k.....-»..i.,w..�,-+`....,.....L_:IL..+, ......,, .«.«.n...« u.»C,.1»..L.IN:.�x..at..iJ-tt-..i.i..,n-a{�. ...�,.A.«..1. .x�...m- MHr.-avw,.-. ..,......M .✓J� ...+. .t<.,u.�,. an 4a...,._...+..-..,.,.i.nc-...,..mJ.�aAtJ.4u .��ri ,�W. .�M • • . w._w .,x a ... ♦�+up.x,...J, .a M .a 1. ..,w'vy._+.M.,.✓'..r♦.wr..,Yidw-'n�., v. ...a - , , them to require that pl anS revi rws use compl et&d. When the plans reviews . ". are not completed and Tirjard checks plans and makes. building inspections, many contractors and building owners rs think that they are complying com- b. pletely with the law. When Tualatin Fire District goes on the building 'sites and finds no plans °reviews, and finds omissions from the Uniform " Building Code that would have been pointed out by a plans review, this creates confusion on the building sites. . • This is creating a problem between building owners, contractors, the City of Tigard, and the Tualatin Fire District. . if you have any furthers questions, I look forward to meeting with you. • •ti . Yota rs �tr�u ly, . , 1 1 ���� x.41_..ti'✓i.; L.,. t,Jo ph. A. Greulich . a. Eire Ma rs hal I r• JAG:dm , 1 i r^ .�......w.�u�«.u.wu....�w........�..u...aW.��u..u.�,..�,.�„. ...,u...u,.+, a. ,....., .�. , .r...xun.aw.r ,,.wuwn,ixwx«a.. • , y w, -•�+....+♦.«1.«,.ms s,ax w._,tay„ . , „. • ; ~ • / W r • y y _. ,;y,. „H ,. .. ,. ...,. .. ....r... '1'..:',:i Ci G s rN A „x,`51., Y}r hr, u ' ::' ,I'w ' ^„t 5ry,taut+ `, "Ht Sr, i� ar,� �Yrll,�,.'�a"r i ,Y �� ,■.P • ., y�t A r Y ` ,"di, ,W ':r ,,,11 P• ,,., . i 1. r:�`� t L'•}tl,r (} I r, 1 ',,A+,< s ,a ♦w' ••`v,I,vt;,,,�„„.`t`V,a,y, •,'',,,;!.. 'l.,, .r.'Fl`„-.. i'"•r i '..Si 4r, ::, ,k 4'...x 14',:*r„ ,,,'' A Y� r :r 1 {,3;'r'hl:..^"rw;•q.:,avtg,, ' ,. -A a i,,,•i� ^r..•:r,yy i..t:� r,}"1„yRf t�,. I}�, f.tip„d'afai.�`d� u.ii'.wv<:,f _rp; ,�" .� .�}'�, l`' .r, , :.{ Ir{•'.,, NY f �'' �i ""'{e,`0",» r ,i•J :✓,4,•• 'q•"'!, i%t.'` try(' "3.• 0. ,e' „�,,rr. . '*1.ill:1 sV�,+ff.`s ` •.,f t,.5 id:f.:x•z•''„�'y; .I;?h .t. f•ra t r k � 1 1 u .s. u , k { yr. ry q' ,''. r 5,rF jw a•f-Y. r♦' • '•'" "Iktl., ," I ,< .ra {I ,FV aMrr.l Su♦N 1ixV 4,'"r+♦'S t �b.�y+ ,yR ,,V1 . ‘•''' l `'�V1,'+!}7;SF�• , rA 7;,iE�' - 5 }r c r/l ,� }:: ',' 7, ,fir ` f ,- ,' '.°+ Rn r w .rl l ', •l F,:• 'y.1+ "+".9.• F �y , J ♦,r,''li !h� 1 '. r t....,.... r E v a ,i t, ., 1 ?N4'ti.,`,r .5' Ij '.s► 1, ry , a' + ,,.. .i y�' '�, I' , " , l r(x yti YIT it I i,, . . , . ,, ,.,, '4kiA .i ,lw1.Q ilif .. :,, . , 11725 S.W.Queen Elizabeth ' Tigard,Oregon 97223 639-9200 k"` ,.. ....-a ,., ,.. t .. `. orK .Grip• tSMt^ ♦, tit Sf;, <iu :l4;',.,,,:i.,Y. •,•' `,tt^ ,, t i ) k, . , • :.. , . - ,, y ;} �S"4 1) 1,+ 'i , {. - :: k • - i,.«1 r/,„l'S r,,ICI �; , �',`' ., • "I t L, ''',^:.."'a i I . V i 4 p 1•!' L O= IMA t x;A51° N l{F d n, / x ii t " P�r ` • •('i 1�L Ft ';',1,,' M ' Yi�tIrti. , �.s•'' 's INJ V•A r r'ral Yd,'4M ♦ , N4 . RE s A D SCR]PTIOt1S 4,NDCHARACr E RIST ICS OF LISTED x LANT S" l b ..'',,,,..!.',..,,'•#...' :, L.:,0. s;t X, V , e .l , i/,'r°t.' r, t ` ' - aq;' r I, {ht'S#iL.. ,F ,r' ',,'.q�7dt I`, ll ,x y5,4•r . a ...f's i„,q',y6tA�, 'EV{ 'y. ,, y'+LL1tw _' '" .' ,IY+""4,T'' . - p.,,• 4 I}j'Lr�, )` I;' "p'�i`t ''' ' r t .p;.. '', •11rt,r ,i "- •1. . of i �i, ,.'''�Y,1 /.•,r t;!,•,•,''t}tt ; '"2#':-. t ..eik'ltib'M° i '`a; ;I{"ie;A,r , .2., , 'y't , , ' ,'V;`v1.+ I,Y 1,t x� first,. ;. , ,iv. v,Y'N!S• .r•.,•r:,.1,, • 'il.�'•at, 1 ,1, 11,�/�:f i rr .. tb rl! :", I It q y�l ,.•dN +.' 'C1tr1;, y{ir• fat �1 • f, 'p. 'a r5t �, i y , yl 1 rI (r •,.i,H 1 a'£{a �,. t' , 'M' i .�< ,, ' .'rt1{,., ,+i t•`!,'{,y^t;. rN;` , .•t•,wgy,y +§•,' el'r('.r7�. 1Y:r 1nar.t r ,^ra ' Dear,Imo •= I :'',11, , ♦I '- t" , ,1 '; °• tY r w IA5 .'" tt r.i, ! :1;1,4:4,;.41;.',„Y *k s ,ttf i l� I "°1AlitWo .y I I'' :4',,'','!::'v ,�y,,,";t'r 0 ''1' 41,),'..1: ;,; ,xi t lY, qt %!;;lt;/•4',e'r' ,,, r,4''-:1„,i4 e•J1,4k.,' 5", , +in,of ,,, i.'r S'•, ',,„'.r;. .', Iy' `, . � w., r��llk r 7 ,' t r r 4 ' "hYA.f.1q,A�^ 6• l � ' ' � �•- °Y i r ' '' ` �' ' 1 }" ! , ,e�� 1t, 51 ,.f �' �1 ','.,, w, The following is'♦,the criteria that, I would employ in the t se ,.�► i Ya`'.!1".�;, . ' t r ,r ,t r. .+.JMYyr,�H 4ri t. III � . Ali fI.. N• �' I� "01r ,�'�1iM', 1 •y;�I�lp'�il'!'tT•A7���t ��' I�.M + rt, ,i.,h " .'^��*"'`q„ {. Y., ,':'LL;fv„y r ., Ita .r,. �./,,. E•r :I,r,,,,,,'1''I,'1Y P,,,,,♦l.r"tt. 1 . „, ' S'°, . ection,:of ,the following shrubs.as regards to landscape des:i n«•y' The,` '" ' a A �.' � , . p'e' „A ,•r w. " . ' , " I11a' r CV Pi i, ,t..! j;,k•,a r,: 7, ,a l,'ta a9 Its:.tS, a,I theft -,,,, ,.., ,, , ■I� r'ii" .v.:'T" •i,"u^, , !I' � �� • ',',.. ;,{,r 4 a a" l'l ",tk iY♦l.,+#II,;...`:'r',a.'", P{,:• >aPry I ,.Y � , ���' '. „' here are � �'; ,. t , rv. I L d e scx'iptions that I: am:giving you re the same that' I''wou.7.d~'.gives. 5 ' • t' �,,� r. I 't t' 1"..1 •, � ;#4:•, a 11 at it,'t i "" 4, , ' o any,'prospective landscape customer•that, I. might prepare a. design • • ,, 5t. . ;., rw ,, ,F ,t• �' , i; t • • 111. y4.I1,Y �a;Y a� Y'.4 M. I Yi r:.cae ,, w•r �t",nhtrr r , 't .,'+ 'i` 4, tW�„t « µ •1f 'r •r.4 *+,x. ,. r �AA 1.lP l 4•1. � i 7Y� '�,:, � ,r IR . ,•. ,t .. t.. t � • tea..%b; •, t F t. . r k n ., R Y .4 l rt 1 d , A... 4,i , •, . ,. 11725 S.W.Queen Elizabeth Tigard,Oregon 97223 ' 639-9200' ,. « • I 1 G ', ' ,, "' , , , . 4'' ''',,*, r ' ", r! 1 i r N ,..„, , ,. . , . , . „. . 4. edium rate of growth.blooming in April/N.ay. Rated by American • ��y• �;: ,Rhododendron Society as a 4/3, �h�oh m�ans �lo��r quality. i• ,, ., . , f,,, at + • is above aversge arid, shrub quality is average. It is hardy to : M ' —5 deR'reesPO ,^r - ' ° 1,''t t 1+t 3) i ACER°CTR INATUN� �V . ,,,1:1.7��; e . x w,' ' 1 C � ��AP ) �.�� r�` �.�c�us shrub/tree.s �:� �� t;���,, t r n,. aei,'� . , • 11 I r Y + 35Q in sunny area,_ however does best in pa,rtial shade. • Svarse1y 4 _''' 4, • ' . foliaaged, 'tree best used e,s a flat grower against wall. I etc. Medium'"' r rate of cfre�wtha MI ,.1 l �Y 4)' PIERS JAPONICA (JAPANESE Ai DROMUDA. OR. LILLY' - OF TNT, VALL1, ` SfRUD)- Slower',er', grweing e-vergreen.,shrub can reach 9' to 19' in maturity but • � J take s ,� I Sian. years to reach this leiyele Needs shade.partial hade P many J 5) ODOD.�N1DRON DRYTANTA - Slow growin to 14 g« . Foliage ytta.1o�, s, if in sunny to B1 cros in Zola; a ARS rating of L 1 (above averae' t . flower anti shrub duality.. aARDY to -5 Degrees F . I • 6) PIER.; JAPONICA ( "�S #4, _&Bot'r ), i This completes the list that you asked me about. I hope thc.vb - •, , - • ,t s information is helpfu t to you.. ''' , 4 R ,. ; , r t - fit' i. s I • a o r , ' e t'� ' 1 t' y , Eatitg ELDON Vii. fIA, IS •m1 .'., • . VICE PRESIDENT " gin; n , ,' ,. . ' ,•.� KING"' GARDEN ;nJRSERY', INC. • w I• ! ^5 ' "t iP4'tNkA X _ ",w),,«''I „ ,'' t '''. , A Ip A _ M Y .1 t. . r t'd^ w" J.'t,± �P n P� .,4 a '1<w . r '+ ..u ' P �'� , . N .. '..W .14 .j'..Y � .n!t ,ba w„F` ,Xv }.d;,, r 011 '.., �, 't,i$, .,,a, r ,%, 31;%".1(4-,t y 1- :i. a '4: r'r* ♦WI�J:,',' ,i" w, a i.w,.7 �r l ,' k.M'1-.,'...,,. ,0.,': C e 1:- % w a.„. t'y! P1, a�,k MY,'," .2.14•, J ,"-,, ,� r,a '1, t 11`' .; §1 j j ,r jr..sk t ,. 11 . .p. ' 1� w. .� 'i J„ t T�h r..r t ^i �kZ Y fi ,M1' ,- v,(■w J `F `-,,,',.,1., t+- ' r ;Gt x � .!.', 'IWRw,. r.�Y'�`,,� f' �.w 1 I�,.1 F�4 D 4, r' '.Y,,.t � I. ���1 2 � �y � wY �"�'�h�'.t �+� '�D+ W4 dµ t C a �� k k q�» .xd r r ,,...,.. ..., ... ,•,.....«.. ,,,.W.,•,. ,«w.,,.< d, ,w..,. ..... ..,, ",, ',r �,�i„ .kygr Jk r k rt s n • ■ 1 4«4. « _ ._. ,,. .., ,.. `, .r. .. ..-,., .,» :......, • ,•". ...r. .r ,.t « .�...r. .iy.+ • ... . ...M'O'M.•«.. " if v... ,, • ' July 12, 1979 '•ti y 1,. ... Peter ,Hoffhzan 4 1888 S.W. Ma+lisoa , . Portland, Oregon 972414' . Re: Lane° ca, in.g at, Canterbury Woods • De at M2:. iloffroan The "approved" landscaping plans for 'Canterbury ids, 'dated January 26, 1978, ' do riot conform to what is presently being installed. Mr. Van.I.Lom was.asked to submit "duplicate of the original" copies of the landscape plan to this department epproxim,.ate1y, one =nth ago. The plans that I received were dated , March 3, 1,978. The clans that your si.erintendent has at the site. a... 'dated Jenu.a.ry 9, x9'79, an ax identical to the "new plans°' s,ub n1, teul to me by Mr. Van Lord. I contacted Ir. Van Lam and was told' that the dates :represented "recisions to the original plan". What is being installed on the it `con- I forms, as far as I ci ascertain, to plans dated Jan 7, 1979 and held. by id.r. 1 ' Bernhard, the tan cap?ng contractor. However, these plans have not been approv;-ed byi-�is departmen t. • In checking with Mr. Barnhart', X find that only one third of the landscapahn y' g i ' has been accomplished to date. This is a formal order to you. to stop all . work on the landscaping until you have an approval by me of your "present plan". This approval Will not be given until after the Planning Commission reviews this entire project at a public hearing sbheduled for August 7, 1979. i This is your formal notification of this public hearing. My. fee1in is that you have not conformed to the original`n 7 9 p �- o goal landsc;acng1a ►, ' << and that you have not re:eiv-ed "appro�,�al" of the "lew'd plan. i we are htiea,.e.c1 for a public hearing on this and 'other issues I feel that we 'should' "hold the, landscaping � �.o " efullj this hearing n tilll r es� v • all o f the iss ues and you will be able to complete the remainder of the work on the p ,oject and not suffer further as.bass . I �r .l1 riot oppose the new lennd.capi,rig plan and Will reco- rtd appritriral to tine I Planning Coy m is lion at the p�b��c hearing. It se eirs },fa r more appropriate„5 t a the original p 3..an; and the c e oo��s ve:nar good. You. *ug. t realize that I personally have very few concerns about your project. I ham • i • • • • , ' ,.... --,«.. ..,..,. • .. •.. ...., ,,..t. _,.._.....,,.,..,,.„.4mas.,,,......_ .. .......... ....•.1-.. ,....»u_..•„,.....,,.,..,.............J.,,«... .w..; , ...,...r1,.'.a.a,„;,H...^._..,...,..,...,-..+.-.it....l.,.,,..,.«(t..aa.-«:..•,....:-, t,h , ,try iI.•':o 'Peter Hoffman 4 o Jul; 12, 1979 Page Z 16aen'' slammed into the middle of litiga-tion litigation by lawyers plumzeled b .neigh- ; boa-.hood groups, suffered a few arrow.a from your bow.,: and been hissed at ' by the fire marshal Through it all I still. think that Canterbury tgood.s is one of the best projects in T3 ga,rd. The entire City orgaanzizatton has marred mox from this invc!lve.ent with you than from any other project fi • to date. We have L hanged our mode Of operaf•'tions to see that like problems do not arise to such a degree This may be little• comfort to you at this stage, but we all learn through experience, Yours truly, • d .C3„7.4 Howard Planiiing Director • ,, , ' .AHTim . •” . a 1 •� .. . . t. ' P fib.. r J . ,r a , ,1• .:• • • • r` „i ,,,' • . r• •}, ..Y . 1. •''f `,` 1 i, Y Y • •.1 .i r 1. F ry�• I J' 1.,, + rt« M 1 i. fie' Y , .. ,.Mll, . ,, • • 1 , 0 A w • . i • • 1 r'i))1'' I = , e r I ' r i a'" • 188(3 SW I Madison , • Portland, Ore on 97214 Dear Mr. Roffman: . • Please be advised that under the provisions of Chapter fi r l5, Section o 115 ..6mC 0(e) • of the City Code, you are only allowed two Signs advertising your 'housing' , nits for. sale. Ie appears that you he at least three within the .c►rpor .te limits of the City. ! • L You are hereby given fifteen (15) days uY Itt?Y not"LY'e to remove I one of your three signs e As per Chapter 16, erection' 23e010 of the Code, '► .if you fait to remove e 1. 8`r w t1'` i tte cn days after receipt of vtW''i�ltEi n O�s e the City may remOve such sign at cost to the o:+rner, and such costs shall ba Z !. l&an against isccd or 'pr ni seta U;7'`on w ihh the si n s lou ,ted. i,' Your cooper ation. in this :ratter will be-appreciated. 1 I a i. + l 1 r _l`�. aIa.rte.�,x •, . , 1 �,lz I P1atinin y Director • 1 + xr (-1--. ., r /,'tie--,' -/- 'Y �p •AS • 6' • - + I I I i I � i I . I „ I I r. I . w � I1 . r C, 5: r k t • . _ , - .. «1.••... 4.4 JI.-. • ,a ,1.4, -„,,.......,..-•... ,.,,µ..,,,.•L44, •• 4•.. :,.•.,.1•a••,4•,•••1..«1.,+:.4,.,.44......:.•1•44,,.,...41,411I'4: • . yb 1 1141 . j QQr . ( 1 • • • • I' } I • a w . r • July 1i , 1979 • 1 I 1 MAY P, t,(� T/O �•y..n •,• 4 lSae sb4.40w :.'1adIso 1 o; td, Ogon 97205 rn hail isca. ir:g at Can erbuty To . ' Dir. • 1 , y�a here ants -woo itctoo ,tant additions that ware omitted in tJ letter of, Jul ' 12, 1979 II the paragraph ,/h.i.c a r latss to my recoi:�en din g . ' . I '.,;pro`Vlar1 of the new la..�1 caning plan add to it..1%a first line the l.ow-c �. .. .• ..,. irho'ievler, IS 11/11 int.i.st Don the constrriction of: a six M J • , foot s ite obscuring fence' to be installed along the east-- ' . eta pro e f line,, ana the l n g of Ifi.fteen (15) larg; , Doug1e s 'Fir” tr.scaes in the eastern landscr-iped area in norti,. em lo.radecaned area.g This ad• .i.Lion was i n 1tz.�: d. i n j original d r a f t, l but c•ra5 not inc.uc a ' by qtr' secret ,y* at firxal draft. I' '• We haw. { isc ;sed the. .t sue s or e. Mr Barker a d I viere ,assure by ; oi.).:w su erintend,ent that the large trees (18 to 20 feet in hei. 4t)I Were ordered; and were to be planted soon in the Iareas' r ttlent1oned, Cie have .tr.*:!paatedly reategted that you inotall the fence l as i.g shown on the • original 1endt capingl plan tf you would like to di$cuss these issues, please call vo. . You re trtiv f Y. ry U rr Cti ..� I " Planning Director • I ;111.1t .` J 1 IC I , i I I I ,• • a , 1 yy.. ,.1....,. -...,.,1.1 .'..., .,.. 1 .................... <,.,:' ...A.....1!..:.i..1....NL—.H w...:it ..,,..•,,rM..YI'w.r .....•...., _.......... ...... ...-.....,.......+...w..,.. ..«„ .r, mk. n.. • •I .� • , i .:L .,L :.=7• ..,.J+«>,1' ".:.! 1'...:..fr... 5,:.,l Cr+r :.`✓-'V:....:SL'... ,ii`.?'i'5 .,FMx.,1..Y' , • • • aurae 18, 1979 • , + •k Mr. Peter B. Hofer . 188 $.W. Madison Portland, Oregon 97214. • Dear Mr. Hoffman: W Hr. Walden, and X have discusses your requests as ottlined it your acne . 6, 1979 is t r, You are .wars of the difficulties surrounding this particular project, and you must realize that X ham certain responsibilities which mandate sequential +erformance on your part, 8ome of these sequences have been : seised and it is diffictlk, for me to retroactively aoprove your actions. Adding parking spades, paving the area, installing curbs etch and then r ` questing approval is a "r aspersed sequence",, Tha Pire bepartmwit is not c m pletely satisfied with I this additional, ; 'parking because it� is `ems restrictive for their vehicles, and if one car is petkad "illegally" it is than impossible for the fire vehicles to navigate 'throfagh the development, so what do i do? .. D and.ing that you tear it out, redesign it, resubmit your design to the 'i w Department,t, and then re-install sttaU ` - you are clever ... you realize that it the final analysis I have no choir but to try the "sow's ear and silk puree rot- , 8 t.new---eliminate a few spades bt,'gyp .in,tir u them out". ZRea i tie;ai1 = it will A remain a "parking area" because we have x� jurisdiction over a a i e,t road henda no police power in the area. xot change a the parking area i,I 4ot satisfactory and X will not ��r aa yy of the changes until the Dim xax t- trr.,nt is satisfied,, and has notified in writing that they are Satisfied. ou 7 revised l� of; � o s � � , area a �� their` ► a+ with specific measurements shown plan, h allow vehicles. I would apreciats a cop f of this plan. lighting b ranted by Mr, Walden. is d t� Permissic to delete the trail system and picnic area and associated • The chiray flues will be ao��d» Pa• inting is not aPpropriate. 14e ti discussed this issue fora ling time and you ham previously agreed to cover b the chimty'e. please see that this is done; a • • I , ,.,.,. H. w...,j w_.....m..n ,,._,a.uuu.•.u.„,,.,..,..a,., ,. C`.,�r 1.n4� .,..�,.....srssouseu....«. Y • a l ■ r it • • � ........,al:..l.., .•...... __�_,.............» ..-.. .r... „ ..•. a l.a:-.._.._.,..HI,..,.... ..,_u.n...a..»...��«— a ,,.«•,.•.._A n..xs»..,:.'.....M1.a�,..•._..i-.�,`.J.r a.-. I....a.:...l�,dV-.L;.»«.. .tl»«'..,.-I....,.'.�1.:.CI,Y...4.<.. ...�a'...la ll... .�.i�fud «..M.;�.W.:•�•»d:.a..a«...»a.l.-lur.1...,�.1u...;.i+.;..],;«a,d�w�. r � � ' y • d Mr.•j�r•���L S.W.Peter B. Hoffman n , • 4 1• • AM • Poo. ' weand, 0'.regon 9721 e i8, 1979 Page '2 • . ' We have teen notified that yon intend t*,4) irlsta2,1 stairs . t to the storage • H in the basements of several units-;.•' ooqupanoy permits have been A' ,ssaa ". X would xggest , ct. yo not dop,�,,this, but 3 avv a terrible feeI�- °'°: ing • ha perhaps X sdr`s,�g madly ,at th. , moot. . , • a s , .die Howard Planning Dirsotor • 4 y Y . , r i qR • Y w • t /4/ 1 • • I I I r . I .•,'�..........r.•„•...'......�ir-...•......��.ry «...w.l..,,•..�..s.�..�»_,......x..r.�....u•.•..x..e•,.•.,......,u....�,r ..,....r„.wu.••. �rvv «• � I r u i,i. � .r � � .. y . • .,...,...—.»..M w w•-•• •w.•n n.,n-Wit,-.• • 51 . • " 1 Al Alt.O •....... ...........'.,,., N_ n.,'.. `,t, .i' - .«... ..I w^. «,. a......... .4..,.... .la. ..,_....- — ..1 .. i..........0-1,-n. ..._n.i 1,._w...r...,a.av..N..a,....a..wr..a... .. ,.r...h.+. . .J..«.,.1.._....+1..,.....,............, r.....,..«,,..r.q+.Wr..1.L1 ,." .l , W ; ''''*GARD : ,...N.lr 'tfftill4 . „ Iti ~14 ' e,.,...0.0....... L 1 1 Y ok ie I I: _ * ii") D I Pj F. P.O. Sox 23397 12420 S.W.Main (. . Tigard,Oregon 97223 June 22, 1979 . . Mrs. Ima Scott 14873 SW 106th . E Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mrs. Scott: This letter will confirm my recent statements to you regarding the Canterbury ' ;' Woods Planned Development. As City Administrator of Tigard, I will not allow any Certificates of Occupancy to be issued for any of the units in the Canterbury Woods Planned Development y Canterbury � (and I have instructed other members of the City Staff accordingly) until such i ! time as the buildings and related dev•qopment of the property conform to tlitd . comply with all applicable City ordinances, or until such time as a court order is issued forcing me to issue Certificates of Occupancy. •. ' Some of the issues that must be resolved before Certificates of Occupancy can be issued include the following: r 1. Proper installation of chimney boxes. �� r �/ ,r''. � xc 1.t`.' .'`✓-4- "basement" ,.:.� . 67-'LC✓ "4-6 .1 2. Removal of stairs leading to basement area. "ru:s Y. , ,:.,--,,,t,,=6/ 3. Landscaping installed according to landscaping plan. •--- 4. Fence to be installed per plans. 5. Large berm properly graded. While I took the position earlier that the City could not legally stop the 1. project (and I still hold to that position), I feel strongly that the City should not issue certificates of occupancy until the buildings and related, ,{ , development meet the City ordinances. s , Sincerely yours, . �"' I 1 4 R. R. Ba :k:t 4°'e'°14't"" ---'-''''''''—' ' . . City Administrator " CC: peter B. Roffman, Hoffman & Roffman. Inc. . 1 Ed Walden, Building Official Aldie Howard, Planning Director Joe Bailey, City, Cit Attorney . Mayor & City Council. • • ' 14 I, `f) . i • June 21, 1979 • • • TIGA D TIMES 1i - �' 90 a r�. PSI in Street .. • Tigard.' Oregon 97223 I I I . .i t. To the E r I • d�. r! � I I I ' � nienl ' Tigard citiZens should be .aware of the fo11cwirg; ` n city Hall xs being made aware pf thang es made b y developers on a rov '°' pr ts, � lc rs irs bu . d and then prese nt a "fait ac;onpl i." City Hall (rather than enforcing compliance) is allowing •. itself to be, effectively stymied. by any ('builder or developer with the chutzpah to (take it on. I I r Originally submitted and approved plans change at the whin of the • .Nontra thr Any and l all changes not considered "major" (by whose . ° . deb ition?) are made on site and at will. No stipulation is made E or Igradi.ng and/or eleVaticnl (and no plans for sPfe On file) I , City and state codes are indeed subject to interpretation,, but the 3 + � attorney for the pity of Tigard refuses calls fro i Citizens with queries thereof. The cork in complete before a "citizen is Aware of the changed plan and upon contactinq citY city off .0 la .sue--he is told that the change is "subject to interpretation. " Ux Uesa you have yotr own battery of wyers, we sUggOet that you watch . very c trefut*17 any "platuleir project being Ierected in 2gLig neighborhood. We have--fox' what gobd it has done us and have learned that most interpretation of c ,eis in favor of the deve 1oper aid Contractor. �. • It would (after too many years of bad) . . ;I---� t0 7;4. po o the C it.. y of 4 Tigard d �� court �� y Rs such 41 bills, and it is oard of corporations, that de erve � t port 2d recognition offorts to make Tigard le s s tacky and solte h at terrific. Yours ttuly, I L RtSID8NTS a CALWAY 8111 I I . ♦ , [ 1 _lam • i.. _. ._. _ i.i i 1— . ..•. _ ... ..r.uu . ...,..n•r.n _ r.. _,_.w.... ..,- w , r..xl.r ......-....L.1e....•....x4 r._... _ ..r,-n.— 4.., w ....• _. v .r x„.w.J..LLu • . r F • • • • • • • • March 26, 1979 ,r • k 214 62,444 • Mr. Marvin L. Blehm Washington County Department of Assessment and Taxes 150 North First, Room 105 Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 Dear Sir: As you suggested during our conversation of February 28; 1979, I am writing this letter to point out in writing just a few of the violations of agree- ', between. Hoffman & Hoffman Construction and the Calway Hill Homeowners Association' I w As of this writing Mr. Hoffman-has not yet repaired the damage done 1n-i ayi ng -1•.7 sewer line on S. W. 106th Avenue and Del Monte Drive. •• Nor has he made any attempt to repair the sunken 'ground where our two proper- ties meet at the eastern boundary. • The corner of one building is only .Ctt feet from our line (not to mention the over-hang caused by decrk'ng) and the agreement clearly states that he 0 ;' build no closer than twent feet •from the Association property line. /r He has also stated that he does not intend planting the trees called for in our agreement and that - furthermore - he does not intend constructing the five foot fencing along the boundary linese 4 We were advised in a meeting on. March 22, 1979, that the Canterbury Woods Project ' ” is to be condominiums, and that they are intended for sale in the month of May. This information came from Mr. Hoffman, hi s t archi tect, property manager, etc. We would like to know if this is a matter of county record in Hillsboro. attorney for Mrs. Libby Anderson has been i n touch with me during the last The n ,� y _ his i s being used this project withoUt Cal way Hill. as a the � esrt dents w � i 11. !-let property concerned about the s _ h week, and he states that s c1 i ent a s as concern •,.�, ` y p perty g ed as access her consent. y We appreciate your help and consideration in this matter. Please call me at 620--5751 , if you require further information. r Thank you again: Sincerely, I 1 I I I • Mrs. Ima Scott % • ..,.....rr.l•........•. .Ir ,...•_.a.... ...•..... ..... • .Mr. Y .__.r.....•L............,v .•.., ,_r.r ,.,•.•r..• • � . r ,. ..,•r . .._...... .a.��..r>.,.,t,,:�.,r .,.,,.. .... ,_wl,, ,, r .,, I, ..: • • ' 0 ♦ , W+. 'uw-eY......»....Fr..i.Y.. .7..+.u.L-... «.-.n..t 6. 1-r.........n J.w f:,..a.a ..,aA a,_ t - - ., I ,.....JUr...aa, I • • • January 3O 197 } • TO: City of Tigard, Oregon Dear Sirs This letter is an urgent request from the Calaway Hills homeowners concerning the Cantebury Woods project which we believe to be in violation of: 1. Section 6, City of Tigard, Building Ordinance 76-43, dated November 8, 1976, re:£ering to section 6, Tigard Nunicipa . 4 Code 18.56.060, and section 7, 'Tigard Akiuicipa1 Code 18.560060. 2. We are concerned if there is or has been changes in the , blueprints or actual construction since they were approved by the city. We believe the construction taking place does not correspond to the approved plans V e request -work be stopped immediately on this project until 'a suitable tis reached between the homeowners Peter Hof fman axar3' • t agreement meat: s awnd �'e`� � � � � �� �, recorded as such. Due to the already compieted construction, your immediate attention to this is urgently requested. Ze"(-47-- jx_./ � . , . . ` ei + �,r °�(�^ " eze.-014- 4 ,,,:reedo-- Jetow )ticiC ' ,eseer3i) • 6. (,/1 f! a• w. 40'r:7711,77 ;;F,7 r-?-74 -4:e2/ ." 1./".?:71,7,2 '''?,6.e?'77-2'-'' Z.?''''' '1/.?'"‘''' 41.'777- ,,'''' 7./.'. ,7i, , ,-2 / , eep —7- i ,, „.,,, , .',/ , , ,•r 1:'..;:.;?'" 4.;7.V�/' -:".'.1".��ry r ",-P/'-•1, 1rr7 4,,>.;r•'A'.�hl'1�'• --:,:,r4:'.5,----'77,,,---;?,' •4/'�"T ,-::,•,i-]+�W --; ,'R,,• /• ?b 3--,:;) ....--,,,,?..-2-22,4-eX.,„--' 7,,-- / 7- 's.,';'?4:,,S.??.:, ,,,,./' ' P 776ree77729 ,;;,<7,. 24.i:Wp',7e,-,',72/'' ,1;•-,7,:e.,1,/,'"" (.7?!,V,••-', ' ,,,-7-77/..7 77;;.,p79.7.--e• ;? 2 te. 'F ,,r t...,., e , '''''r';'''''' ''''''.* ,. ,•"*"/'-0,7;7).i 77741. ,,,I,D /47,,a..". -7°-; .77'-'1'77'.--... 7 E'71 9 7,2 e"-2"- , ,/f i/r ri Nom /!' " "(2r7-4,12-1--,p +te r' i,2.1, :,', , 'ur%'?✓ � "� .S"`i� ' % ,/ti's"Ji�� ''�'2 2 ./''7ri.' '^'f'r^r'�.;?f't',��j,� 1 ,-y. 7777 ��/r ''/;..- sr"i✓'�'✓T./�`,/i� ' 7"? 7''7�r/�' r•��/il, a ��:,� ... 1 n v c ' �r , + ♦ e; Y r� , 4 • J l « � , A o • . ' ''' C;j--__..,' ' r.., . , —:' 1—:„..,„1-.: ':),' '" ,1 Cc7—) '....4,-,..:-).—___, ' tj , ' ' t _, (4,,A, --;ei...,,,1/4 jj np'-L,,L-,....' ' ' . •: j_ii.jt.„,,,,t.,:i r ♦ j , + ` , '.. . .(2J'---"r2',,o- -.4 - - . . . , . ... ." \�« . ; n i: -:t-'1*n , \ir. , . , ''�,,�.,..,,�.. •.. 1-..- 1`�,w, .:J-�'"U \` l�1'` n f-r-C)/-,--♦ t -f —,.-/_ j,�.)�` " ,, . «..,...., . ., ,." 4�_ �. . 7.---t, ,�...� u� '� . J w�eJ V....:r•-- - ., ! , /`,,•-fD , Yr-rr--f- -� i{.r'\- . 1 � � •,«-+;a,./ -,r. .k , .J.,..J -0--°I� I. )`,I," / l ✓� ✓4�/1 ter+., ' 7)._ ... . f .4_," ......,, ''' .-"-' c:'-.),•••A k A--;* L„,,.0. IlLiut,(,,c-jj,..,,,,),.t.„,,,„„...., 7`,.....,"._;. . . . , , . . . , . . . ,r • r . , , et\_)/1/4„,/,......• \--.4 . k-',..- .......16,A27._.c...).1.,,t,';'-t,...,'2' .:Qa. '' , . 17 t tMr, 74,,,,,:,..._. �l r c ". , t \',.:-\,r, \ , '1) .: ' : : ' 1./'17'/,'".:‘;---"Y2___L ' ' ' , . ,',/,. „,,,,,,,,„. .,,,, . / ,1.,"? . / . : . , '.. , :. ,,' ''''ct ' C.x : -, . �' •4cy „,, . .,...�...._ ,...ter.». l ., ■ . .r-\:?..:•\,...., . . •,,, , . ,I' p 711 sr, s° /,' r• r �. VVV "3, A / r 4 , • /4 A• ( ^ °r AtO. � . � � � � �, � � � �, �� � � � � �� � �� � � � THE ����. � � � �� s - VAN LOME . ' KRAXBERGER PARTNERSHIP 111111 fi . ARCHITECTS PLANNERS A,I,A. iiillik . July 23, 1979 . Raleigh Hills Professional Bldg. . 1 ' 4455 S.W.Scholls Ferry Road Portland, Oregon 07225 (503) 2928595 . .,; Mr. Aldie Howard ' •s City of Tigard 12420 S. W. Maine t Tigard, Oregon 97223 , Re: Canterbury Woods Condominiums . r Chimney chases . Dear Aldie: • Peter Hoffman has asked me to reivew the chimney chases at ,they_ . Canterbury Woods Condominiums. As you may know all metal pro- • jections above the roof have seen painted but are left exposed. Our drawings show one-half of the chase enclosed and one-halt • ;, exposed. I have looked over the finished product and feel that the exposed chimneys are not unsightly and in fact are less noticable than . ' • if they were exposed as we had them originally shown. The fact that the site is very wooded is of course the major factor for : ''Y the chases are lost within the trees. The chimney chases, ould tend to accentuate roof penetrations rather than play them down , , A , I am therefore asking that this be reviewed by either the design . ?6( review board at their next meeting or the Tigard Planning . \'' Commission on the August 9th meeting. _ \ If you have any questions please give me a call. ", you p :eye l�:z � � � � � � � � �� � .=, • Yours very truly, THE ' AN LOM/KRAXBER ER PARTNERSHIP A.I.A. 1 f. e t M. Van Lem, A.I.A. A ohi • edt • • JVL lvl • • 4 v ' 6 , V m , July 16, 1979 . Pater Hoffman 1888 S.W. Madison Portland, O e on 97205 Re: Landscaping at Canterbury Woods ' . ' Dear Mr. Hoffm • • There are two important additions 'that were omitted in my letter of July 1 , ,".'"t''t» In the paragraph ,hic relates to my recommending Approval of the new landscaping plan and to the first line the follow llow- :i.ng„ . .."however, X. will insist upon the construction o a s:3, 4 foot site obscuring fence to be installed along the east- . elm property line, and the planting of fifteen (15) largo, Douglas Fir trees in the eastern landscaped area and north- ern landscaped area„ This addition was included in my origknal draft*, but was not included ° by my socretary at final draft, We have discussed these issues be tore. Mr Barker and X were assured „� by your superintendent that the large trees (1$ to 20 feet in°height) were ordered, and. were to be planted soon in the areas X mentioned. We , have repeatedly requested that you install the fence as is shown on the original landscaping plan if you Would like to discuss these issues, please oail me Yours t ly ° Ale Hotard • Planning Director , • A.. Z..•,. i. x.v,. iv.la.i<. u .14 f, . ....'.L...,w A, u 11 f .! ,PA.. ,. . _ .,i.. w.,. _ ..�-r.4i.un..».wn .f a� w,tt , • .. , R In M . C I • 1`' • .}• / -1,:/.. 1.' p') 4 Y } 7q S' 1 • 4111 is 1 , i i ,w. l'‘i K 1ill ,` ' , kl , I Peter f : r q�H� ��x w n 1683 YTT rr. d't ` 'Portland Or on q7214 '.i ' ' ' . ` 'Please be a v44 d that undo the yi ry$yM {b e 1y ag «r 160 S� a iW 1q � � �0 A(S) n L ehe City coats p you are only allowed t *o gigns adverti$inf!, h f yg n uoito for kia140 It appear3 that you have at leeet tUrc;b vi thin the corporate " .& t i,t.•tx'1`. of t h try $.', 1,t,:,,,i' You ere hereby g i nk .t toan t15) eayc 3r'i ton. uOtico to 'r ,Lo "' 0110 og your '. th '0..o ka"a �:'w;v it :A ,.,,, d''w' r`A,«S?` r :5`r'� V,: G`bb [[d i°(�t h,+ °'w 1}'1 @' 15559 $gµlu t Iy j0k:y Fy 4 4' ',P )r a """yy o }.•1'�' 4 N.S�� �, Ah, ..� Ff'���4,M�d.nGi}F,l�n5 'M�,�✓'t'W�YI 1Rd' +i+.l,. ,+�r IQ GW�b �'' �w T{���ua YM'�,R � �W I� i r remove p� y tdy ,r'�y°rw,. �'ae+�x' 1�p e� �yJ ,,r,5:$K a;, q ,„ �, r � , �Aw'kimove t o Ni:-.n '.a i�wah.L 1 uJn :',fn4,,. t1 dy;{ "� gyy{r J' t �"pt, `Q+ /+ry,�+ t rr no iC '+� o Y G� 4 Ai1,Fr %.Y 14wa 4S Wuuy ail��,rc 4.I Jw �:40.+tl.'.t„f".r,1j�1�� t3.4Jra+krFyµ '', hWAr 1P ' 1�1 �1��,¢ it avr Mr o-,•rn K',o f„"I',,«y'" '„'i ,"'u r "a,{"A,.Yf, t 1 a y^!,1 +"r mv4 M 1 r.1 o1,a' r xfi, '� Ya a4"'i{n S,. ,,•,u:a i''kv »„t}x _„a., m a, r.:�, ._,„i'i„ k,,.Q.r �'.`:� {� L�` 1;,F,y '1 'GO^ r v'h n 1 ru%” qy I Itti' t �a��,>Ast J { v9,vr,' or �+' ,',.,. ap xn'$q' r9hq�ry rn M ° W *tld 4 1(1 Ise(( �� V'L .�,�n !a..R>� �J' M� ;R y S W d 9 �.1 rp�p p�V I�W� 'a � wi il:A W!” b�A�,�k�F�'s ll.e�N:.C,(.t 6iP���.,�M �W.;} �w}�Vd'Y..tk;..�Pw'�nM . , , Your sM1on,wAp,I,,tlr 1.,:1 .� i'�P f,."T. ,"}I}4R "e J1ir^"Yct,',Fc'6,',n',tt1,i . r, Y I I `) ' I : , , � I { F p r I • 4..,a,A iN,.,',} ,v , ■ro.:•wet•,..1. 'A.,... .,.0,1' .°4}„,u4aw , i.E,,,ii 'r, r. ,.v � • .V..tk,tiv,,�,.r� N . 0 Alt .„.,c.,I,0, a, Y 1.0,,0,0 .0 �,`A. Al .r., . r 'A ...iE • �..n, ...r,,.r. . ...., .,.,asw IKII... . ..n'xw".» .,r„.w..r,u ..i wn,."..u.._..r wn r...• .>..wn..ww. w n •. .. ..,.... ..«.. nr . •.iH.ru ..,. ., .,a. r July 13 , 1979 . Mr. Frank Tependi o • P.O. Box 8623 Portland, Oregon 97207 • Dear Sir: This is the information that you requested. If y u have any questions please call me early in A.M. or late afternoon. • 9/13/76-_"City Council approved Hoffman's plans (ordinance #76-43) 11/8/76----It was recorded (A) Hoffman had 1 year and 31 days to start substantial ' . construction or the ordinance would be void. (Back before the people) Building permits lst-12-5-77 $190.00 9-6-78 $484 . 50 2nd--l0-25-73 Total of 8 buildings 12-18-78 4/19/77- -Ca1way Hill Homeowners sold sewer easement for $1500.00 . Ir ; ?' , agreement that we would have a double faced 5 wood fence on property line, dertain items about the buildings (2 stories) , certain landscaping, and etc. (City Council made a condition and one of them was he had to get an easement from us.) I , 2/28/78--Hoffman had the cedar siding changed to aluminum siding (without notifying the people) He did not request the tile roof but he changed it to tile. ; 6/13/78---Five families put a work stop on the, project. Hoffman, van Loom, & Holtz came to the Scott' s house, with blue prints and told us just how the buildings would be located and what they looked like. Two stories, no basements, and. no lofts, ete.' . The patios would be moved fr om our p off eet and put n the inside of his project. We took him at his word and re- • leased the stop work order. 1/30/79--Letter with 65 signatures with a request that a stop work • order be issued on the project, because he was in violation, ' City building ordinance his time 3� dated November 8 , 1.J7 q of �'iga�:d, He had ran. o - �.me to build. (Section g inance 7 6-� r , refer„ing t. to sec ion 6 , Tigard Municipal cede 18 .56 .O60 p section Tigard) on (, ) At the meet.iiig at City Hall with 26 homeowners Bailey • Barker, Walden, Howard, Hoffman, and hill two attorney's we were denied our petition,' Harker ;'suggested that we get on this City Council agenda and he would pre5c.n,t w the petition to then. • J . .,. 1.. ..-.....„; ., ...,. ........ ....,. ., ,,.n ; �' ♦ r. mnwr+r4.a'l..sn/utMUrltlM.,”„ p " ,' 1 a 9 r , .. - �s ;'',w �..«.�' lr -4,-.4:-;.:4-;;,'.. 4 ,t r:,, .w: <...,» sk . .., a,.�....�� y .,,L. ,.:r.'"1i''—'.-. .".•r ef. s. .w.ar i vir.,+<,.:.uu.., a . M .a..+ . - ...» .+ : �r. Frank` Te endio Page two July 13, 1979 r . 1 2/12/79--City Council Public hearing--Denied. Didn't call on us ?.,, and expect us to do anything when he has already started the project. He is to far along. We, thought that it was , the responsibility' of the. City to take care of matters �, like this, instead of the citizens 2/20/79--Letter from Hoffman and Van Loom trying to clarify 13 stories. i '', . (that should be 2 stories) 2/22/79- -Hoffman requested to change the site of the recreation .building. Hoffman from' A. Howard denying that the recreation I 2/28/79 -Letter to ;� g building be moved. 1 eal'n� ' the l decision of , , , 3/9/79- -Letter from Hoffmaz�� to A. Howard app t � g ���, the recreation building. 3/10/79--Letter from 76 homeowners (Galway Hill) • 3/26/79--Letter to Marvin Brehm, Washington County of Assements, & . • Taxes, Hil1saoro, He had requested a letter on the existin g . ! , problems: , . . 4/10/79--Letter from Hoffman to Design Review Board appealing their ; decision. :. 4/13/79--Letter to Hoffman from A. Howard explaining the procedure of appeal. (be sure you get a copy) , . . 5/11/79 --City received their suit against them. ,, m 6/6/79---L otter from Hoffman to A. Howard requesting to delete the ' trails and for more parking spaces. (After 7 called`A. Howard ' and told him that the parking spaces were already ,'installed.) 4 9---Russell state inspector from Salem, looked the project over 7/6/7� p p 3 '' and found violations. He told Dale Van 'Loom, superintendent that he wanted a meeting set up with Hoffman n and the city' "� state fire marshall ixrunediaely. He gave a 92 hour warning , to have blue prints in the office at Salem. ! ... i e fire marshall, he told ,t ex. 7/11/79=�-�'al:}zed to Center' state fire mars and. h lc� me that h �e was to be a meeting, July 12, 1979 to get these 'problems solved. 1 requested that Z could be present just to observe not to ` participate. He denied me . x felt tnat the decisions ons m ,de at this meeting concerned the citizens of Ca1Wsy till very much and since everyone else that was involved 'would be there that < we should have the right to be there also { , y ("/ 1 / ,...41 ` C.,,,,,':.fit, i �� r 41�.t'�yJylrtr� '''" r / P r . 4 1 I i , - .......a,..,„w.m w..».«.»,...rn,...pw,rsHia a < /• • p I n• ' ' S 1.l,n' K •,,. Al y jeA .it M +.,2";,, v•�, fir; V , i, tR§fir ■ ■ u .: � ' �; M , Pe` „» aoff �. .. w 1888 49.t4, Mt E3 � ��E Portland, O gon 97 1 a Rø« ,Landapaping at C terbury Woods Dr r. o f man The '°app ro c #, landscaping elate f'or Cte•rb'�; r t oc x Ic8at d 'arna� 26 ' 9' a t ; `I do not, conform to what is presently being installed.. Mme'. Va tIom as askeel ' . to submit .!dup1it at of the orir in.a " copies of the landscape plan 'this 4 , ' . departMent appreit m t ly ono Month ago. The pans that I reeeived Were dated ' v .az0h 3, 10780 The plans that yoUr your 1uperibt€x dent haa• at the site are dated'',are dates tt '. January a x079� and ids n cal � e °ne p1an " submitted ', ," 'iW tom. X contacted air. 'van bou and fAas foal' Tat E represented I , !1 N "revisions to the Orrigina, plan". What i's being insta134d on the site con- ,' h fr xr , 4s gar as 'X Can cam i io tO p1a a da ' ` I'•d 1979 and held by Vv. ' r Iaarnha „ the 1 a c Contractor.acto aao va these plans have not beer ' 1 . approved this i r n Che ing with Mr, .i E,r hart I find that only one third o � h6 tan capizi g : .'. : >' hay acs . snac � This aa » order.t0 to stop,411H �i,; • work on ihe landscaping „untie you'have ,an aPprovallpy to o youu: pzsen • , plan° W This apprOval will not ' given until after the 1?lanning Commission , . . . , revi wIFa this entire project at a public hearing' 01*G stied ,I..!or August 7, 1979. , 't This is your formai notification o� this public, ae it � � . . , .M eell� .you is that z a not Conformed o the original landscaping acapin plant J ' ' H. d at you hav riot received l!°approva„te of the w°° pan,, w are ea kd,for a piihlic i g . n this 014 other issues Z fe,: 1, hat, we„shotld ' hold''Inold the landscaping for ap iroVs . Hopefully this hearing-will rosol I ,r' o ^t.'i,+ wo I , • I ► an o ► � � tat144i elobapk ill not oppose he now 1 tnd oa; ing plsu and will raoomzand ,appxoval to I '' Pl a n otu ion a the public heaving. i seems axmor prOpria • • than the origital,plan4 and the coMplet c portion looks Very good.' ltou Must realize h personally ' e f oneerns about , out project 1 ha s, I u I ! L. '° ' f A A, • fit' • • Mr., Peter Hoffman • 11 12., 1979 Page 2 Ids been $lattityled into the middle of litigation by lawyers plummoled by neighs • borhood .,, by the fire marshal. Through it all X still think that Canterbury Woods is one of the best', ; : oje in Tigard. !rho entire City organization has Iltettlalt,;(1 O^ from this i.zl 3,, m nt thy. Zrclu 4ny other , °r eec y,,}M;. • • to date. W6 have changed our z e of operations sec that like problems do not arise to sudh 01. deg roe again. This soy he little comfort to you at this stage, but iJ learn, through e*ocrionc . !. • Howardo Planning Diractor • yc`1, CIS A • .a tankites -9 CITY OF TIG P.O.Box 23397 �. 12420 S.W.Main 3 :• Tigard,Oregon 97223 June 22;, 1979 h Mrs. Ima Scott 14873 SW 106th '° Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mrs. Scott: This letter will confirm my recent statements to you regarding the Canterbury Woods Planned Development. As City Administrator of Tigard, : will not allow any Certificates of Occupancy to be issued for any of the units in the Canterbury Woods Planned Development (and I have instructed other members of the City Staff accordingly) until such time as the buildings and related development of the property conform to and ', '*, comply with all applicable City ordinances, or until such time as a court order is issued forcing me to issue Certificates of Occupancy. Some of the issues that must be resolved before Certificates of Occupancy can be issued include the following: 1. Proper installation of chimney bores. 2. Removal of stairs leading to "basement" area. 3. Landscaping installed according to landscaping plan. 4. Fence to be installed per plans. 5. Large berm properly graded. While I took the position earlier that the City could not legally stop the project (and :t stall hold to that position), I feel strongly that the City should not issue certificates of occupancy until the buildings and related development meet the City ordinances. Sincerely yours, 41 R. R. Barker City Administrator 1 RE:l r CC: Peter B. Hoffman, Hoffman & Hoffman Inc Ed Walden, Building Official. Aldie Howard, Planning Director 4 Joe. Bailey, C�.t. Attorney' y� y ney Mayor & City Council , J C ''. ,.i 4, ., a,.,,r...,,,.w,...........,,.M.......u.........n. ,.. ^ , I' I 1' ,•„e.�..w..wr«rn«a.awM.navon<>n.,ac..varaslPaC'f)�. W / ♦ ' Y n o • rf • • • • • allna IS, 1910 , • I , , r Mr. Peter S of' q.an ISSS S.W. Madison Pored, 'Oregon 97 T W Dear Mr. Hoggraor:44 p _1 Xr. Waldsn„ and have, discussed your rata:wets as outlined la your 4o n, ' 6, 10/9 lot ter, Von are /Aware of tho difticultie, surrounding this ,particular ptoject, and y o* mast ttaliZia that I : ham certain responsibilities which mgat sequential performance on your part, some of these sequences have been sersod and it is difficUlt for ma tO Vatt*atitiVely ApproVe your cti s y Adding parking pas's, paving the 'arty,: installing curbs ots;d and then re questing p ��I ��jj�)��y a y .�yyp �jy sequence'''. 1gy�a may, • �h .pE a n �"p���OR"'P' Wd111� � ��6ai"iii V'�dk i� � �•I�V��,�� Piro�+ •GeM� �l�.gyp,9''�Fw'� /�Ifi'i11 no.'Wh AW1 • d 'atisfie w i% this a,d ion parking be**u 4.0 verb restrictive t it vehicles, and i off car LS parked ilia l i is then Impossible I for the fire vehicles to navigate through the 4evolopmeat, So what d ,X do? , Deeding tt you that it out, d,.si a it, resubmit, o� design to tai° i a• n „ and then re-install ,-- vou are clever .*p you realise that in the n, ftvill analysis I have no choice but to r the sow's ear and silk purse tour rye -eliminate 4 too *paces ' "Psintiag them out°. Vealistically it will , remain a 'wparking aroao because we hams no jurisdiction owe a private road hence _no police power i. • satisfactory will not any off, the changes until: the Oire Se ar h 'nt 103 Oatiagiedt aAd has notified me in 'writing that they sat .ef.cd . '0 to submit a vised ,p1 of this ,parking a `,,,, r their ro ,,w with ,pacific maaouXamenta 6hOWn WliQh will 41Iov east' movemonts of emergence vehicl,s0 / would appreciate a copy of this pima Proissioa to delete the trail yoltoms and picnic area aad associated I • • lighting is hereby gtan. . d by M110 Vail. Tha chimay flues mill be coveted* *kaiating Li aot appropriate. V6ti4 hoe I , .. r e.y discussed s e this i s s u e , I I I arr i I I I q, ara • 1 s.. • t. • rW'i`' dri 7rrb• Xtti llrl,i, 1.88 a� � ' t Oregon 9771. 100 197 • onti died that you I � � intand 1.1111 instal4 at ' ra to the oatorage a rrg Z 's ' go ,..i,t you this 1.14 true ° ; `ti isrig t1^4 w; pater itatd3.y tlat t YVAtarrs P I H I 0 • platuitaill Director • I I I I 4FI ! r li'' • • ' I I , I I I i I I II' I , r I I I , I I • 1, > HOFEMAN & HOFFMAN, INC. -r,., 4f. 1888 SOUTHWEST MADISON. PORTLAND,OREGON 97205 228.-2800 • l - —1 f June 6 , 1979 w r k t,• Planning Director City of Tigard P. O. Box 23397 t; 12420 S.W. Main , Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Canterbury Woods Condominiums Gentlemen: After discussions with the build3 n.g department of the City of Tigard on the referenced project, we request that the trail s stem and .ionic area along • 4 with related lig�lt n be delet�-f •��� ..a _••� k. This, at the request of the building department is to insure adequate drainage of the site . We also request that we be allowed to increase the ,,, , ://ity .uxsoy r=i nalzlixi ..,p. '� than .p th.e is'�.a,nds o portion o f the •arking` area o1 + Comm a _ e a..a io on the east C)r to aC nal,_mac 8. This wi "dim Rate a,ny ' congestion which may have een. caused by havl.ng less ' lif than two places per unit. F inal ly, n meat that the , We c ur rentl y have p aint ed several a n earth-tone brown ' " and believe this will meet your approval aesthetically. ///;‘,7//1 / We would like for you to visit the site to see those y prior to your decis ion • 2 any 'further information is needed please do not hesi- tate to call Yours truly, ill I !ir #61,4,,„ •rr „, ,,,Pr . H f A U rrn1 fj . . .,. . .•■ . . , . ,. . . . , , . *. . . . , ' \\, , / a fi-A ek- ' . e___ b—/./77,-'• . . . , 4..----7-- 'C, , W g wiil . i / .. 1 ■ A ...,,) • t • 1 AL.,',#';i:e4,0 "SC.)76'.7.2(7 , ■ :t I . . , ' 1 ''. , 1 * ' "J\ ' In the •. Ci. cuit Court of the State of Oregon • :, for the Coiirrty of .. Washington.. k , 0 • ELIZABET.Ii..A.,...ANDEA.S.ON., . . . . . . va, Plaintiff . . . PETER B. HOFFMANand, Tell. BURNS HOFFMAN, dba HOFFMAN & No 39-661 _ .„..." , HOFFMAN HILLTOP ESTATES, an Oregon, Partnership; --- , , ... HOFFMAN & HOFFMAN, INC. „ an Oregon Coy..p9ration; and the SUMMONS ,- ..." , CITY OF TIGARD, an Oregon Municipal Corporation/ ..., . . , . . ' Defendant 1 . To Peter B. Hoffman W. Burns Hoffman Hoffman & Hoffman, Inc .'. . 1 ' 445 N.W. Hilltop Rd. 441 N.W. Hilltop Rd. (serve Peter B. Hoffman, President) , ', . .., ■ ,I?p,rtland, OR (home) , 'Portland, OR (home) 445 N.W. Hilltop Rd. , Pprtland( OR • V6ITY OF TIGARD, 12420 S.W. Main., Tiga.x.14c OR„.....(...... c.j, y Recorder) I Defendant-P._ . IN THE NAME OF THE STATE OF OREGON: You are hereby required to appear and answer the corn- . , , plaint filed against you in the above entitled'cause within twenty days from the date of service of this summons upon i . you, if served within the state of Oregon; or if served outside the state of Oregon but within the United States, then . 1 within four weeks from the date of the service of this summons upon you;or if served outside the United States, then • • , , • •, within six weeks from the date of service of this summons upon you; and if you fail so to answer,ifor, want thereof, • the plaintiff.— will apply to the court for the relief demanded therein. <, , . NOTICE TO bEFENDANT: READ THESE PAPERS CAREFULLY? You must"appear"in this case or the other side will win automatic- ally. To "appear' you must file with the court a legal paper called a . . . "motion," "demurrer" or "answer," This paper must be given to the JAMES A. COX - RICHARD J. GEISERT days , court within * 20 ,,,,),Egviis from date of service along with the required filing fee. It mast be in proper form and have proof of • service on the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney to show that the other •". 1 . . side has been. given a copy of it. C4 ee-z W • .it summons Is served within the state of Oregon, insert "20" days; If served ---,----,- – -- . . :–• i. ■ -...–, ...... ' ... • outside the State of Oregen but within the United States, Insert "four" weeks.: it served outside the'United StiteS, InSert"six"weeks. f Attorneys for Plaintiff.-- ",:\ .. - • mowl............1 . , STATE OF OREGON, County of ., Clackamas ) . I, RICHARD a. GtISERtr ,, ., , one o, plaintiffs attorneys) . . . do hereby certify that I prepared the foregoing copy of summons and have carefully compared the same with the original thereof; and that it is a true and correct copy of said original, . , . . - Lake Osweaq....„...., Oregon, dated the —..-7-til....„ ,-da0i" 1\45,Y2,,...--... ' .., 19:1,9 . . . / of Attorneys for Plaintill....., ,.. ;. . nme/MMO.44.41.4100.4MMIPII4 • .--DO HE STIERIPP, OFFICER OR OTHER PERSON SERVING DNIS SUMMONS: 1 ; You are hereby directed to serve a copy of the 'ithin summons, together with a copy of the'complaint, upon ' c ' 1 \I • • - " •"""" „4"....,..,,.......,,......,.,.........i.,444.44 4...4,44444......,........14.4.......44...444.4.0......44.4g....4............k."....440.4.44os.“,i,....h.......4..". i a copy of the within summons only upon the other doiancia.nt...„.,.........- ....„.....,..--........--. JAMES A. COX - RICHARD J. GEISERT of Attorneys for,Plottitin 4.,. ' . . ,1 8 North State Sii Street; ite 204 11 , .Lalte...1),s7ego.,„4.011„..,.9.7.0.1.4...1..............,...........,....... 1' . ArgilyS,'5 ts!thl .O.Sj stligt ADDRtss AND TELEPNoNt 1,10113 FOAM Na, 219.0...SUMMONS...tor SorvNo inottie or Oulfido:hake, 1 ' if srsVONa,Nass LAW rUti.ao.,kintLAND.onit. OAUE 1—SUMMONS 1 T • , - I , , . ' it' l'",, 4$6 • ., ,, { V i r+ `^\ , \ � u n • _,..r..,.r,., . r f. h •\* '41/4 •A . ',4 $' 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON 2 FOR. THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON 3 ELIZABETH A. ANDERSON, ) ", li. , 4 Plaintiff, No. ,7 .-` f ,,. 5 v e j COMPLAINT '. N• ,i ) r . 0 6 PETER B. HOFFMAN and W. BURNS ) HOFFMAN, dba HOFFMAN & HOFFMAN ) 7 HILLTOP ESTATES, an Oregon ) ,,' Partnership; HOFFMAN & HOFFMAN, ) . 8 INC. , an Oregon Corporation; ) r and the CITY OF TIGARD, an . ) 9 Oregon Municipal Corporation, ) . 10 Defendants. ) 11 12 For her First Cause of Suit, plaintiff alleges: t r 13 I 14 At all material times herein Peter B. Hoffman and W. Burns 15 Hoffman were doing business under the assumed business name of 16 Hoffman & Hoffman Hilltop Estates. 17 IT / 18 Hoffman & Hoffman, Inc. , is an Oregon corporation. M I m 19 III H v * W/ 20 The City of Tigard is an Oregon municipal corporation, , b_,0h ,.....• 4 4 r,�, 21 Iv 1. f l � 6 to O ; t ro 22 Plaintiff resides at and owns the property located at 15001 4. 428 9 23 Southwest 109th, Tigard, Oregon. Adjoining the east boundary line [ o 24 of plaintiff's property is certain property owned by defendants • 25 Peter B. Hoffman and W, Burns Hoffman. A description of said d hereto ibit A an • 26 property of said defendants is attache ,to marl�,ed E�h" d, tii Page 1 - COMPLAINT , • ytn � 1 incorporated herein by reference. Defendant Hoffman & Hoffman, 2 Inc. , is in the process' b,f developing and improving said property. ' 3 Said property is within the boundaries of defendant City of Tigard, I �i 4 and the development of. said property by defendant Hoffman & Hoffman, , ' L P p Y Y ► 5 Inc. , is subject to the ordinances, regulations and requirements of. I • 6 the City of Tigard. 7 8 The development of said, property by defendants Peter B. Hoffman, • 9 W. Burns Hoffman, and Hoffman & Hoffman, Inc. , is pursuant to and 10 based upon certain development plans which have been approved by 11 defendant City of Tigard. Pursuant to the ordinances of defendant 12 City of Tigard, said defendants' development of said property must 13 conform to and be in compliance with the approved plans. Specifih- 14 cally, in addition to other lawful requirements, the development of 15 said property must comply with and conform to the following; 16 1. The site plan approved and the conditions imposed by the 17 Tigard Planning Commission on May 18, 1976. a.l, 0 18 2. The site plan and zone change approved and the conditions • m 19 mposed by the Tigard City Council on November 8, 1976 . 11• ,, 20 3. The site plan and arcdhitectual plan approved and the O�utO ‹;(.4z wr 21 conditions imposed by the Tigard Site Design Review • Board on I i" . La LI I q April RO 2 2 February 28, 1978, as amended on A ri 25 1978: VI I �d 24 The ordinances and re g. )aliens of defenda nt CI ity of Tigard 25 all provide that the City shall not issue permit 2� -` �, for occupancy of any ' i 9 26 building being constructed by defendant Hoffman & Hoffman, inc. , on N�1 Page 2 - COMPLAINT • I i I ' 1 ' III • . _ .. ., ` k- r — a,..... . ..., ....._.,...,..aA.w.kx4r•M.n.............,f....ik•wJ1....Mi:4,AC , ' ,, is said property unless., arid until said buildings. and the related' 2 development of the property conform to and comply with all .appii • 3 cable C•irty orcn`aices' and the above-noted approved plans and 4 conditions. , 5 VII , 6 The development of and construction upon said property by ? defendants Peter. B. Hoffman, W. Burns Hoffman and Hoffman & Hoffman, 8 Inc. , is in violation of the ordinances and requirements of the . 9 defendant City of Tigard in certain particulars, including but not 10 limited to the following: 11 1 Defendant City of Tigard has imposed the condition, that. 12 the right-of-way for the extension of Southwest 109th Street be 13 dedicated to the public. Said right-of-way has not been dedicated. 14 2. Defendant City of Tigard approved the construction of two- ' , 15 story structures on the site. However, three-story buildings are cs, • 16 in fact being constructed. ' ny 17 3 . defendant City of Tigard's approval of development on the 18 site was based upon plans showing that a swimming pool and recreation N 19 building would be built. Further, said approval was conditioned on to x3 44 20 the pool and recreation building being located interior to the OJu10 U U .,r, '° 21 site A swimming pool and recreation building have not yet been a,, Y 6 22 constructed at the site, and the above mentioned defendants h ave a J1 .,4 2 , ry � '1 23 stated they do not intend to build the swimming ool at all, and P 0 24 that the y want to change the locat ion of the recreation building. d '",;1 4 . The City of Tigard's approval of development of the Site hLf• 26 was based upon plan ce showing. 5 p ecaf is roadway and building locations rage 3 - COMPLAINT I .,.+rwe..0 ..0..wry r-..w.v11..1■44 yt,. 1 4 • - �,. „y.. ,I..w.-...w .i.,.l..._,. a .:. , .w..,...,P'__.a _k M.k.fYk,:7L 1 The buildings and roadways are being constructed at locations other 2 than those indicated 'on the approved plans 3 5. The city of Tigard' s approval of development of the site 4 was based upon site plans and p ro po sals contemplating an d indicating 5 that the dwelling units were to be apartments. Said units are, in N 6 fact, being marketed as condominiums. 7 6. The City of Tigard's approval of development' of the site 8 was based upon plans which indicated that a park trail and picnic 9 area would be constructed through the southern portion of the site. 10 Said trail and picnic area are not being constructed, and the 11 above-noted defendants have indicated that they do not ixitend to 12 construct them. 13 7. The City of Tigard's approval of development of the site 14 was based upon plans showing that the chimne y flues were to be ' 15 covered and hidden to within two feet of the top of the chimney. , 16 The chimney flues are, in fact, being `left fully exposed. 17 8 . The City of Tigard's approval of development of the site • 18 was based upon plans showing that vertical wood siding would be 14• 19 installed over the exposed foundation of each building. Such 20 siding is not being installed on the foundations, and instead the . i 21 foundations are being painted. • 61 0 t �o 22 9 d The City of Tigard's development of th z�" approval of nt e site y � p'P _opine 4. • w 23 was based u p on plans showing n g tha t the gr. adzng for the northeast • 0 24 � n �� DSO w corner of the site was to be gently sl p g o the east. w v • large hill has fact, been constructed in said location, an 25 a larg , in '�ac � and o in. to the east • 26 the grading is now steeply sL p` g Page 4 - COMPLAINT ( I rw ,;;;'.. .. r ti'♦,..,. _ r,_ r , .. ' ..r».... „ , .,v l,,,:r.....' ....,,..+,..,....,.,r........... ....... .,..w. ;,.___',. '/ e., r.i.ir:r,..,._. ,u,.,..... ._.....�....,,.....,:J. ... '.1 ...,r. .1 .'.s+ ..,_...,.,................ � ' . , 1 10. ° The City of Tigard's . approval of development of the site 2 was based upon plans indicating that, except for minor grading 3 changes, the buildings would be constructed upon native soils and . 4 at native elevation. However, buildings have been constructed upon S fill, and have been elevated significantly thereby. 6 11. The City of Tigard's approval of the use of alu_.tinum, 7 siding on the buildings being constructed was based upon such 8 siding being installed both diagonally and horizontally on, said . .* 9 buildings. The siding is being installed horizontally only, and 10 not diagonally. 11 12. The City of Tigard's approval of development of the site • 12 was based upon a drainage plan which provide's that the portion of 13 the site below 400-foot elevation will not be disturbed. However, 400-foot elevation are, in fact, being 14 portions of the site below r , g 15 greatly disturbed, and much of the natural timber and vegetation 16 has been removed therefrom. 17 VIII r. m 18 Defendants Peter B. Hoffman, W. Burns Hoffman and Hoffman & 19 Hoffman, Inc. , will continue the above-noted violations unless W� 20 enjoined theref rom. Defenda nt City �f Tigard as permitted to said XM ‹;4::=° violations and, will continue to permit them unless enjoined they . � 21 l c�ont�.n p ° e- �z K« is 22 irdi. If said violations ar e permitted to co nta , plaintiff Will 23 suffer. W irreparable damage from whic h it will be impossible le to tn 24 adequately compensate plaintiff. 25 IX 26 plain,�i plaintiff has no plai speedy and adequate remedy r d at law, Page 5 -- COMPL.Ali;' T ....;.w..,..:r..,.....rr...w...v........;..rw.r.,� ....;...,o:,....r,,r..r,w,......,,r rd. ' l 6 .r.. .»... ...,..-.... ...... .,...._..w.1..„nw.4......lA,w..14e ,., i. ., ..... ...'. .....,4' . ..,,. ...H4..,......4..:«...,.'..."ru.i'._..,,.•...1 1. .—.»...,.».U.l.-,..a..x..... 1!A._.,w .-r..«v..ww„.. .. - -.. • r r. • 1 For her Second Cause of Action, plaintiff alleges: I 3 Plaintiff realieges paragraphs I, II and IV of her First Cause of Suit. II 6 The ordinances, of the City of Tigard provide that all surface 7 water runoff resulting from the improvement 'of or development of 8 property shall be channeled or controlled in such a way as to not 9 cause a nuisance or other condition detrimental to persons or ' 10 property. 11 III 12 On or, about November, 1978, defendants Peter B. Hoffman, 13 W. Burns Hoffman, and Hoffman & Hoffman, Inc. , failed to channel or 14 control the surface water runoff resulting from the development and 15 construction of said property. As a result thereof, surface water 16 runoff from said property entered onto plaintiff's land and con- 17 Laminated plain .i.ff's domestic water well. Plaintiff thereby 18 suffered damages in the sum of $1,000.000 2 19 For her Third Cause of Suit, plaintiff alleges: 0 • t� w� g 0 20 ta I a uqtrig r<�'x 21 At all material times defendants Peter B. Hoffman and W. Burns a�aa 22 Hoffman were doing business under the assumed basin ss name of � 23 Hoffman & Hoffman Hilltop Hstates, an Oregon partnership. 24 Ix 25 Defendant City of Tigard is an Oregon municipal C+ar1?...orati,Jn d 26 Page 6 - COMPLAINS ..,.. ....a,..rw w,.0...u« .... , u , P -. ,,.,, _ .,.,-w�....w b.,.�.n.r�•u.rt'.x•7neeT. • ..v,. _ ..,, n _. ... .., .._, ...,aw.w,.t�«.,.,.. ....a..+ ,.M..,-... 'a,.. .......... H✓_.w:.n....,x»..,., ..:,.._«.e1•v.,.t». x;xr.....✓:. 7+..i..H`.C:e'..lv«..,...;,-.r.:.,..n..,..«A.,«,.,a+,»..,-..uaazk;,.d._•nu..:.t,.«., ,...:.4....,:.»—a':+..:a.n.'x,.,.,..•«:4:.+iK.;xz=:,c,' , • 3TI 2 Plaintiff is the fee'.: simple owner of certain real property, a 3 description of which is attached hereto, marked Exhibit B, and a b refer reference.4 incorporated� herein • 6 Said property is not in the actual possession of any person, 7 other than plaintiff. • 9 Defendants Peter B. Hoffman, W. Burns Hoffman and the City of 10 Tigard, by virtue of a street dedication instrument recorded on or , 11 about October 13, 1978, Washington•, County Recorder's Fee Number 78- 12 45492, claim some interest adverse to plaintiff in said property, 13 but said claim is without merit, and defendant has no estate, 14 t,'tle claim, lien or interest in said property or any portion , 15 thereof. 16 VT. ° . 17 Plaintiff has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy at lawn 18 For her Fourth Cause of Action, plaintiff alleges: t4 19 x m 20 Defendant Hoffman & Hoffman, Inc. , is an Oregon corporation. o'�,un o ' m 21 2 .1,c1.4!) 22 At all material times, defendants Hoffman s, cief�e� is P�ter B. �an� and �',�� turns +. 28 Hoffman we re doing. business under t h e assumed business sxre ss name of • � �x 2 4 Hoffman & Hoffman Hilltop Es tates , an Oregon partnership. 26 / Page 7 - COMPLAINT • a....-,wu.., .. ,,.... r...,..+. ✓.,u,....u...n..,,u,..w ...uu.w,e...,,s.x,. ..,,.,.a,.wu..,,.✓. mu o,,.er.✓. ,,. ,, j • .»........e...,.....+ ..,......w,. _. .. .....,... 1'1q"..,.n .,..,..„1 .L. ....._-..1-_..' .....« cF:._.......F....]..,..,,.»x.. «....w.w...4,4'U,.....I..,..... .., 11...w..:..a.,:....,,._,::u..i .-.,... ... ........-....,.....,.....,5'A ..,...4a,,.M.i kM...w:l},.«nay...:S..l-w._..a.,..l..lw:..nnk:».. O 1 - 1 ryy t(` • • t \a III 4 2 Plaintiff is the fee simple owner of certain real property, a �. 3 description of which is attached hereto, marked BxlYbit B, and 4 incorporated herein by reference. 5 , I 6 On or about October, and continuously t . y o date, defendants r 7 Peter B. Hoffman, Burns, �W. Hoffman and Hoffman & Hoffman, Inc. , 8 'hare trespassed and entered) upon plaintiff's property, have deposited 9 and placed upon plaintiff's property large amounts of dirt, debris, „ ' 4 10 brush and timber, and have further placed' onto plaintiff's pro ert 0 11 a large concrete box and pipe and wiring associated therewith. 12 said defendants did thereby wilfully sever and injure trees, timber 13 and shrubs upon plaintiff's property. 1 15 As a result of said actions of said defendants, plaintiff has 16 suffered damages i n $7,500.00. , the u �� smcf aid actions 5 a t�.ons of said� � � a s � d 17 defendants have been wilful., intentional and in wanton disregard of plaintiff's rights. Plaintiff should therefore be� awarded � 18 � ulc3' d m 0 19 punitive damages in the sum of $50,000.00. r x,144 20 For her Fifth Caua� , of Action, plaintiff alleges...,��es W 0,00 >' z 21 m a wa�u '. �0 22 This is a proceeding for declaratory relief under Chapter . cri F.11 23 Oregon Iev%fed Statutes, and is brought for the purpose o determining V 24 a question in actual controversy between the parties. 25 t 26 Defendant Cit y of Tigard is an Oregon �u� ca p z 1 corporation. Page F; COMPLAINT' i • 1 ' • • ,rMe..• ..Fr rW.+4e+m---- vp.,Y••14 ` . .,. ,,,,,. ... ..^,., • „�. ' (y' rt . ,yyX '. i-. ...., __.:. .,J. .. xa,i'.,,.._, .....i..,.' i"....fl'r...._ ,_.. .i,.,..i1w...:..... .»_«..-,_. .,._... ...a...,., ,.,t-.a._...«_•....x.»,,.A....w...or„«.rL..=...r1.n:.5n x,.ti.,.r..;.d,,,..v.,:;w.-l.,.r.a,:..r.•..,.. y.,r....««..;=.r.-'_i.4;«Y:w+„ ' • • • y 1 IZ y 2 Plaintiff is the owrer of certain real property a description '40 3 is hereto, marked Exhibit B, and incorporated ,� of which � ' P " . • 4 herein by reference. 5 IV 6 Defendants Peter B Hoffman and W. Burns Hoffman, under the 7 assumed business name of Hoffman & Hoffman Hilltop Estates, are the 8 owners of certain real property, a description of which is attached 9 hereto, marked Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference. ' 10 • • 11 Defendant City of Tigard claims an interest in certain property E 12 a description of which is attached hereto, marked Exhibit C, and 13 incorporated herein by reference. Said property is a portion of 14 the above-described property owned by defendants Peter B. lloffman 15 and W. Burns Hoffman. 16 17 Beginning on or about Sept. , 1963, and continuously from that 18 time plaintiff has traveled over and upon a rectangular strip of 19 land located in the southwest corner of the property owned by x 20 defendants Peter B. Hoffman and W. Burns Hoffman, a description of 0,00 � a Y 21 which strip of land is attached hereto, marked Exhibit D, and its .a � p0 2 incorpora ted herein by reference. zd 23 VII 24 Plaintiff has used said strip as a right-of-way for ingress 25 and egress from plaintiff's property, and said Use has been open, 26 notorious,. . , under claim of right, coat nuo S any adverse� Page 9 COMPLAIN a mf X. 4n r• µ I I i y.r ....w. .0.....v.. 1 , .. .,...e..,... , v , .,.,,t .., i i ..,_ ._...., .. .. ., .. x . tl...x .«sww ha+utaXl4+inenry,., • .. r 9 , • t ■ V+ e 1 uninterrupted from on or about May, 1961, to date. Plaintiff . 2 thereby has a prescriptiVe easement for such purposes across said 3 strip of land. • • VIII S Defendants' dispute and deny plaintiff's contention and claim , 6 that plaintiff does not have any easement across said strip of 7 land. 8 . WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays as follows': 9 1. On her first cause of suit, for a decree restraining and 10 enjoining defendant City of Tigard from issuing any occupancy 11 permits for any buildings constructed upon the property described 12 in Exhibit Al? unless and until ddfencl.ants Peter B. Hoffman, W. ' \! 13 Burns Hoffman, and Hoffman & Hoffman, Inc. , have satisfied and 14 complied with all applicable laws, rules and regulations of defendant r 15 City of Tigard regarding the development of said property, 16 2. On her second cause of action, for judgment against 17 defendants Peter B. Hoffman, W. Burns Hoffmar „ and Hoffman & Hoffman, 18 Inc. , in the sum of $1,000.00. • 4 111 19 3 . On her third dause of suit, for a decree declaring that 0 , tt 20 plaintiff is the owner in fee simple absolute of the property 0.400 21 •described in Exhibit B, and that defendant City of Tigard, and " 2tc.1 4r.to 22 Peter B. Hoffman and W. Burns Hoffman, have no estate, title, ,zd 03;11 - 20 claim, lien or interest therein. 24 4 . On her fotxth cause of action, for judgment against defendants • 2 Peter B. Hoffman, W. Burns Hoffman, and Hoffman & Hoffman, /n . , • 26 for $7,500.00 actual lamages, and for $50,000.00 punitive dainages. • Page 10 - COMPLAINT • ' ( 0 41.*: „ , i• • • • • - •., .i ....... i, .i _. _.... ......�.i, .._i..i.., _ ,i... ....... ...1a. .�.i...tt...�...,...a..�,.s.....................r �.t.......,..L.....'.4.r 1-w-w.a......._...r...« ....i .«N.I..h-..-I.i...a..1..T....i.:._+.illJ M -e,.tY.v._.i t...r{a•wl a. +n-Al.�.�... .iUarv..:l,......#k. ....�..l.r.......1l:IY:.�.,n.M M1nt:}.iL_ •,. 1 r • i Y 5 On her fifth cause of action, for a declaratory judgment 2 declaring that plaintiff has acquired a prescriptive easement over I , I 3 and upon l the strip of land described in Exhibit C. 4 6. For such other and further relief as the court may deem 5 just and equitable. • • 6 7 . For a trial by jury of the second and fourth causes of 7 action • M Y I 1 8 8 . For costs and disbursements incurred herein. • . 9 JAMES A. COX - RICHARD J. GEISER.'I iY • .�i. A fir' �`Y\ • ! Att•rneys fo P "aint.iff ; 12 13 14 1 16 . r 17 to 18 19 K<x 20 OaJ90 1 ,tC-t 22 • ry Zp w. p 24 , 1 26 Page 11 -- COi4PLAIN • • I I ' ti • , . i '• • is ,.+ iy � + y I i i ' ♦ 111 i � I � • •1 • EXHIBIT A A tract of land situate in Section 10, Township 2 South, . Range I West, of the Willamette Meridian, Washington County, • Oregon, described as follows �. Beginning at the East quarter corner ©f said Section 10; thence North 89° 58' 15" West ,along the South line of Lang Hill No. 2, 330.00 feet to the true point of b-ginning; thence North 00 51' 50" East along the West line of said Lang Hill No. 2, 478.13 f eet to the Southeast corner of that tract of land conveyed to Cooper Development Company, recorded December 10, 1972, in. Book 900k page 928, Washington County, Oregon, Deed Records; thence South 89° 40' 00" West 661.00 feet, more or less, to a point on the West line of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 10, Township 2 South,♦ Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian; thence South along said West line 476.00 feet, more or less, to the South line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of f. Section 10, aforesaid township and range; thence East along said South line 662.00 feet, more or less, to the point of f`f beginning. I , n • Y• bXHIBIT A xdw � ' Y I . -- ... .,...l...l...l..u «w..._l.._,...x.;..4a,«...1....w,_w...ea;:_..,. ..,.,a W-....._. ....._...,. _ .1• • • ' EXHIBIT B A tract of land situated in Section 10, Township 2 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon: r Beginning at a stone in Taylors Bridge Road 7-1/2 chains East of the Northeast corner of the Southeast quarter of - d said Section 10, Township 2 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, thence East 375 feet to the Southeast corner of that tract of land conveyed to Walter J Hoge and � wife by Deed recorded October 13, 1948, in Book 290, page 9, Washington County Deed Records and the true point of beginning of the tract to be described; thence continuing East 11.50 chains, more of less, to the Southeast corner of that tract of land conveyed to Frank Spring and wife by Deed Recorded September 10, l948 b in Book 288, page 714, Washington County . Deed Records; thence North 5.12 chains; thence West 11.50 chains; thence South 5.12 chains, more or less to the point of beginning. \ • EXHIBIT B i j .,,....,.. ,.'I ._. t...iF:.:a'G i;,..». ....,. ,u.._.c:'-... M..«..1. ..x...... .. ,.«,aG«._..(....:... .4 »...'.M.—.,"—rm....'l..':.F-i+..:.:.u.:-...-.w...:.....,..«..::i.«.J,:w..•a=_:.,...,...,......-.1....x._.:..,1,::+. w....:.« ,-..'.w1.:;:At,,.'-....1::i:.J L:«,.......:I.w.,;::AL.::.... • .. . ( i . • ' y , x aEXHIBIT C A strip of land situated in Section` 10, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, City of Tigard, Washington • County, Oregon, and being 50.00 feet in width, lying 25.00 feet on each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at a point on the centerline of Southwest 109th P Avenue, which is North 89°58 '15" West, 330.00 feet; North 0°51' 50" East, 478.13' feet l and South 89°40'00" West, 534.22 feet from the at quarter corner of said Section /0; thence along the : arc of a 100 foot radius curve to the r1.ght ±' 4 A f .G 1 , through a central, angle of 60°21. 32 a distance of 105.35 ; '(,...,___ feet' (the long chord of which bears South 31°02 '36 k' West, 100. 54 feet) ; thence along the arc of a 100.00 foot radius the left through a central angle of 60°21'32" a distance of 105.35 feet (the long chord of which hears South 31°02' 36" West, 100.54 feet) ; thence South 0°51'50" West, ,I 40. 00 feet; thence along the arc of a 100.00 foot radius • curve to the right through a central angle of 28°57 '18" a distance of 50.54 feet (the long chord of which bears South • 15°20 '29" West, 50.00 feet) to the Westerly line of said Hoffman Tract; thence South 0°51'50" West, along said • " Westerly line, 165.93 feet to l the Southwesterly corner I,of ' said Hoffman Tract and the terminus of this description �i Said terminus point also being the terminus of ' County Road l, 1415. • , I I • x mot^.a7144 • ... I I I I �k, NU.. • ail I 4 EXHIBIT D • A strip of land located in Section 10, Township, 2 South, Range ,1 West, of the Willamette Meridian, Washington ° I County, Oregon, and described as follows: , Beginning at the southwest corner of that tract of: land described in that certain deed recorded at Book, 1159 , page 282, of the Deed Records of Washington County, Oregon, from such beginning point thence northerly along the western boundary of said tract, a distance of 100. 00 feet, thence easterly parallel to the southern boundary of said tract a. distance of 20. 00 feet, thence southerly parallel to the. western boundary of said tract a distance of 100.00 feet to a point on the southern boundary of said tract, thence r. westerly along the southern boundary of said tract a distance of 20. 00 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning, • 4 '•r EXHIBIT "I7 • t 7 \ • 1 4 S I • • • April 13, 1979 • Mr. Peter Hoffman 1888 S.T . Madison Portland, Oregon 97205 Re: Canterbury Woods Project -- SDR 50-77 Dear Mr. Hoffman: Your April 3..0, 1979 letter appealing the decision of the site Design Review Board to the City Council has been received. Please be advised that it is not appropriate. The following references are from the Tigard Municipal Code Book: Chapter 18.92.020 Appeal to the City Council. (a) An action or ruling of the Planning Commission authorized by this title may be appealed to the *City- Council'within'twenty days after the commission has rendered its decision by filing written notice with the City Recorder. Notice,of appeal shall state the name or names of the petitioner, date, and action of the commiSsion being challenged and the reasons for such an appeal. A fee may be established by the City Council to defray' the cost of preparing a verbatim transcription of the conttiission • hearing. If no appeal is taken within the twenty day period, the decision of the commission shall be final. The location of the Recreation Building was a specific condition of Zone Change ZC 4-75 (Bunn) May 15,1976. Your appeal period obviously expired long before your request dated' E'ebrus y 22, 1979 to appear before the Site Design Review Board. Chapter 18 59.020 Administration. ) App a planning his en tL ma h (C e l: Action of the Director or his agen may he appealed to the Design Review Board by the applicant or adjacent property y owners � ropert ' provided: p , (1) The applicant deliver to the Planning Director a written notice of appeal, stating his reasons, for appeal based upon the criteria of this chapter: • $p a ti11 1 t . . v CANTERBURY WOODS n'•OJECT SDR 50-77 " Page 2 (2) Said written notice of appeal, is received by the Planning Director within twenty days of,the applicant's receipt of nature : his agent. , Director�or a n by the Planning Dire g of action g Y • On February 28,. 1978 you received a letter from this department stating '" that your Site Design Review request had been approved subject to various conditions. On°March 15, 1978 yo�z' agreed to said conditions with the single exception of Item #1 - "Exterior Siding." On April 25, 1979 this matter was discussed before the Site Design Review , . Board. You were granted permission to change the siding from cedar to aluminum. In this case you met the time deadline for appeal. Your letter of February 22, 1979 requested changing the location of the Recreation Building as noted above was not appropriate. However, I did review the record and rejected your proposal because the Planning • Commission was specific on May 18, 1976 and you accepted their conditions. The next step, that of allowing you to appeal my decision to, the Site Design Review Board was a mistake. Chapter 18.59.060(8) Design Review Procedures_. , The Planning Director d 4 1 may approve changes in approved design plans when he determines. that , , the changes will not significantly alter the character, density, , ,� intensity or otherwise significantly change the plan. Significant , changes must be approved anew as required by this chapter. . The intent of this section is to make certain allowances possible at the time of original consideration of a specific plan. I denied your request because it was a significant Change and I relied on the specific , dictates of the Planning Commission. Your time to appeal that decision . had lapsed, but we went ahead with the Site Design Review Board meeting anyway -� this the mistake. f Chapter 18.56 Planned Development Distr ict, Section is. 56 .150 Major w . Changes. This section states, Major changes in the general develop- ' • ment plan and program after it has been adopted shall be considered the same as a new petition and shall be made in accordance with the procedures specified in this chapter." , Wherefore, it would seem appropriate that you request a major change . in your Planned Development to the Planning Commission. I The first available date to schedule a public hearing is in late May. There is no fee involved for this re quest. Ireturned your $250:00 check Which you enclosed in your April 10, 1979 letter. I have spoken to your actions to date. In the future, notification of the public hearing will appear in the local newsy a er all affected perSonS in the area shall be notified, and each of the c. alm Hills Homeowners Association who signed a recent petition a g aihSt y our project be notified. 1 will pay particular attention to your notifiCation.' o . l 1 • r ION • CANTERBURY WOODS t, IIECT -- SDR 50-77 Page 3 Please be advised that the Planning Commission will required the following • to accurately assess your request: (1) A site plan showing the present location of all buildings in relationship to the Recreation Building it is p resentl y to be placed on the approved plan. Please be specific - I' provide one plan showing actual dimensions of the proposed structure, placement of all surrounding buildings, distances to other structures, parking areas, etc. , (2) A site plan showing the proposed location( p g p pos 1 anon of the Recreation • Building relation to the g ' `in present location, of all surrounding buildings. Show specific measurements to the apartment complex to the north and to the east. (3) A tree count for the present location and a clear declaration of how many, be specific, trees would be removed if the Recreation Building were to be constructed as outlined on the approved plan I would suggest that your lettor to the Planning CommisSion be delivered to this office as soon as possible, and that it include the documents requested. The Planning Commission agenda may fill up rapidly and these suggestions are for your benefit. Yours truly, Aldie o T�T ward Planning Director At:db cc: doe Bailey Mr. Pomaj et�lch SDR 50-77 file �,'q�,'s i'41. ' • 4rt i 1 888 SOUTHWEST MADISON 97205 PORTIAND,OREOON TELEPHONE 503 228-2800 April 10, 1979 • City of Tigard "" r-clifER P. O. Box 2339?, '+ j ,� ,e1.°A ; Tigard, Oregon 97223 " Jd 1 + o Ref: Appeal of Design Review Board Decision to Tigard City Council . Gentlemen. • Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 18 . 59 of the Tigard • Municipal Code we hereby request an appeal hearing of the ' ruling of the Tigard Design Review Board on the relocation of the recreation building at Canterbury Woods Condominiums. At the meeting of the. Design Review Board on March 22nd, we ' were denied on our original appeal. The bases for our original request to relocate the recreation building are outlined in our letter of February 22nd, 1979 to. Mr. Aldie Howard. Our position on that is basically that the impact on the site of locating the recreation building as originally approved would be adverse. Numerous trees would have to be removed and the density of the building in that area would be inharmonious with the general , site. The new proposed location, to the contrary, has no trees, would p � ► �'r have the least impact on the land, would prevent the dense ' cluster of buildings and would have absolutely no impact on the surroundin g properties. We have eliminated the swimming pool, thus noise would be no problem; and the distance from Callaway Hills is approximately the same in either location. The property management company for the apartments which are closest to the proposed site has written us a letter indicating that it would ' have no adverse impact on them, Further reasons for our appeal to the City Council involve the ; procedure used in the original appeal to the Design Review Hoard considerable question be cons : as to Whether the One, there seems to bl g on Planning Director has the authority to approve or deny the re- building b to that extent. Two, the only location of the bu` notice that we are aware of, of the appeal hearing by the Design Review Board, was a telephone call to our office advising us, of the time and date of the meeting. The only written notide Was a i left er fr om t h e Planning Di r ector to the Callaway Hi ll s Homeowners � • stating that we had appealed his decision to the Design Review meet` Board; j and essentially inviting.. them to come to the meeting .�. and essen i >in to • support his d.edisionu • City of Tigard April 10, 1979 Page two. • A third reason, after the meeting at which the appeal was denied was adjourned, we were told by one member that he voted against the appeal because he felt the Design Review Beard did not have the authority to hear the appeal and not on the basis of the merits of the appeal. Four, three members of the Design Review Board had not physically seen the location and the day following the appeal hearing, they visited the site and one indicated ,a they felt they had made a mistake in denying the appeal. For these and other reasons which we will present to the City Council, we are appealing this matter. Please advise when the Council will hear this. ,1 We have enclosed a check in the amount of $250. 00 as requested by Aldie Howard for this appeal. Ver truly bur Hoffman & Ho man, Inc. Norman O. Hotz NOH/hl check enclosed cc: Fred Anderson Attorney i Y A 6 t • . • . . •8 • • s dr *map :410' o . . .�r t� v,t i� . , t) v'o , s Lt f ' ?aro > a an e p� �t t� �r, ay -its �«�»,idstt, ; " t ' t +u'ta 4y i 10',• 4 y't3 +',�+ , 8, 0. " $6 t ,30$,p �2 • ' 4t o ao '&o' $Ln' &iN o tb i x it w'4"7w0t 1din4 .xiawN�r D+, A'roo'b' t?k o • ` + "a l ,e' ,A4,4iflio Uttokkill ' ' H . '''':.' .' , „' .„. •• ., . .::, •H „ :'- '' : ''' , . 1' r. 0 • , / ) ''''. . '''''' ' ': '': ' . . . , . ' . , ,. . ..we.:....................w.....++.............................r.,. ar....�Y.w+wn.r•.n..�dxoo ..m.nrAJF4W�b, 1■' r ("'P p ,.r d h", � . , 4 , „,,J.a t s1* 77 - Canteibury, W' ds P b . o Rearing U&L , . . ' ar .51.4.970'. 1r $ice DeSi� EW33w t a rd• *a on �0 .y s M ° r t se i ' ,=tereatlon buildiAq f t1 location thown aA the approved. pleas 'to ' , ' ' proposed, Cott #ion' on ..tho ntwthern pstrroter ' ' ' X !' 's u 'f .. ' may. ', ' rthe ssti ek p sage co c a at $ 4Z71: ' ' ' . '. ;r , Via ` 4 i I� i i f l , • • • • • • TIGARD DESIGN REVIEW VIEW BOARD March 22, 1979 - 7:00 P.M. Unified Sewerage Agency Plant - Conference Room Durham Road and Hall Boulevard 4 Docket SDR 50-77 - Canterbury Woods • • " Reference: Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 1976 (Zone Change ZC 4-75 - Ken Bunzn) attached. Applicant: Peter Hoffman Location• � 109th S. �. "109 i & Canterbury Lane Conclusionary Findings: 1. The site plan which was approved specifically shows placement of the, recreation building "internally". 2. Mr. Hoffman has appealed my decision not allowing the movement of this r building. t S aff Recommendata.on. Staff recommends that the recreational building be constructed as shown • on the approved plans. Report written by: A a ' ,•ward P r• Director Note: Site plans to be provided at the meeting or are available in this office for review. K. 4 1., 1ti,�tl• P TIGARD DESIGN REVIEW February 23 , 1978 12420 SW Main St. *I' Tigard, Oregon SDR 50-77 Canterbury Woods Apartment Applicant : Peter Hoffman Request : For site plan and architectural review of a 76 unit , multi- family housing project . Location : SW 109th Avenue (Wash . Co. Tax Map 2S1-1OAD, Tax Lot 8800) The site is bordered on the north and east by apartments and 109th Street on the south by a single family home and on the west by a vacant parcel . Site Designation : The site is zoned A-2 Planned Development and designated as a Transitory area from "Residential-Commercial" to "Urban Low Density Residential" in the Tigard Community Plan 1971 . Proposed Use : The applicant is proposing to build 76 multi-family units in accordance with the approved planned development . Site Description : The site is 7. 16 acres in size and slopes to the south with an approximately 40 ' grade change from the north property line to the south. Three quarters of the site is in climax growth fir trees . Previous Action : ZC 4-75 On November 8 , 1976, the Tigard City Council approved a 76 unit planned development subject to the following conditions : 1 . That SW 109th Avenue be improved to City standards of 34 ' pavement width on a 50 ' right-of-way from its existing end point through the intersection with the southerly loop drive entirely on the applicant ' s property and a 25 ' right- of-way be provided along the rest of the parcel ' s west property line. The transition from the 50 foot right-of- way section to the 25 foot right-of-way section will occur on the applicant 's property, thereby necessitating the dedication of a triangular shaped parcel (B on map) . Page 2 SDR 50-77 2. The areas along the loop drive not shown for parking spaces be signed to prohibit parking along that street . 3. A 15 ' wide easement for public sewers be established. 4. All sidewalk and trails terminate in wheelchair ramps . 5. Street lights to P.G.E . standards for Engineering Division approval . 6 . The trail shown in the northern half of the development be 5 ' asphalt paths and the trail on the southern portion be left natural with minimal improvements of crushed gravel of three to four inches of compacted bark. 7. A minimum of six picnic tables be established within the forested area; design and location subject to approval by Planning Director. 8 . Additional right-of-way to be acquired on southerly point of proposed improvement of 109th, in order to allow transition of road to connect with presently dedicated part of 109th to the south . vtow Site Plan and Architectural Review: The applicant is proposing to construct 9, two-story buildings around a circular loop road. Each building incorporates a landscaped court yard, garages and covered decks . The siding is specified as either stained cedar or light brown aluminum. Since the main theme of the Planned Development was to blend the units into the natural setting, cedar siding would be preferred. The major concern with the site, is that as many trees as possible be saved. Because of the dense growth, a tree survey is infeasible at this stage, however, after the grading of the loop road a tree survey should be done in order to determine the exact location of parking spaces and buildings . Those trees which will be adjacent to construction activity should be examined by a certified tree surgeon for the necessary branch and root pruning, and treatment for changes in grade. A landscape plan has been submitted for the northern portion of lot which is devoid of vegetation. Landscape material is sparce and not in compliance with the planned development program which proposed "Those areas north of the tree line will be planted with deciduous trees of various heights and types to harmonize with existing landscaping . . . Each building will be adequately planted with low shrubs , i .e . , azalias , rhododendrons , etc. " Page 3 TIGARD DESIGN REVIEW SDR 50-77 Therefore a revised landscape plan and irrigation plan for the portion north of the tree line fulfilling this portion of the Planned Development program should be received prior to issuance of a building permit . Details for dumpster screens, mailboxes, and picnic areas should also be included in this submission . A landscape plan for the area south of the tree line should be received before issuance of occupancy permits . The reasoning behind this deviation from normal procedure is that a better plan can be designed after the buildings are in place since it will coincide with vegetation loss due to construction activity. The site plan also specifies a large number of trees to be removed around the recreation building and lawn installed in their place. According to the adopted Planned Development program "Areas within the tree line will be left as much as possible in their natural state . . . preserve the major grouping of tall fir trees" . Therefore the trees should be retained in this area and the cleared portion of the site used for activities that require lawn. According to the Tigard Police Department the proposed project is in one of higher crime areas of the City . Since the Planned 4100 Development incorporates a trail system through heavily wooded areas it was their concern that some type of lighting be provided at points along the trail and near the picnic areas . Therefore the plan should be revised to include decorative vandal-resistant lights in the appropriate locations . Code requirements for parking have been fulfilled, however it is staff ' s experience that overflow parking for guests should be provided when possible . It is appropriate for this development in particular since double parking in the loop road could cause a great deal of congestion . Therefore additional parking should be added where possible along the northern property line. No drainage or grading plan has been submitted. These should be submitted for Planning and Building Departments approval and should be oriented so as to have a minimum impact on the site. Staff Recommendation : Staff recommends approval as submitted with following conditions : 1 . Exterior siding be cedar with natural stain . 2 . The following steps be followed in construction of the Planned Development : Page 4 SDR 50-77 a. Grading and drainage plan be submitted for planning and building department approval prior to issuance of a grading permit for the loop road. b. After grading of the loop road a tree survey be done and staff and the applicant determine the need for minor shifting of the units and exact location of the parking stalls . (prior to issuance of building permit) . c. A tree surgeon with suitable qualifications , to determine what work will be necessary to insure the survival of trees which will be affected by construction . (Prior to issuance of building permit ) . d. Landscape and irrigation plan for the area north of the tree line, details for dumpsters , mailboxes and picnic areas be submitted prior to issuance of building permit . e. Site plan be revised to include decorative and vandal resistant lighting along the trail system and in the picnic areas . f. Landscape plan for the area south of the tree line be received prior to issuance of occupancy permits . 3 . As per City Council condition 1 & 8, construction documents, street dedication compliance and performance bonds be submitted for engineering department approval prior to issuance of a building permit . R chard Bolen , Planning Director • • • CARD OF TIGARD 1 .1 P.O. Box 23397 12420 B.W. Main Tigard,Oregon 97223 • March 14 M , 1979 I I I I I I , • I r ' I , 14 The Calaway Hills Homeowners: I I The Site,'Design Review Board will meet at 7 P.M. on Thursday, March 22, 1979, Unified Sewerage Agency Plant Conference Room at Durham Road and Hall Boulevard. Mr. Peter Hoffman has appealed my decision not to allow the movement of the "Recreati on Building" at Canterbury Woods, • If you have any questions, please call me at 639-4171 Yours truly. . • Aldie h oward Planning Director! • AH:db • • • • • I I '.,,�...,...e m��.rv,w+.,,,..�,.�r.�r Mro,•.;,w��wr...�..w�r.r..,�..,n.r,.r'u.�...,,r..x,.�,�.w..«..�..,r,.,,.r.r�r.w�„r."r'..r.. q ,.,, . �... .�.i, .,..�,.r. .�,,.. �., i. � ,�. ,..., .. .. _. .. .,,...,,r�..�, n. <r ... „„i, r, ,.. • •�• .+...r � k...r«...n . . ; ......,-..«.... uwY V.a..»Y>. ...+IM.n Fah^"".`^xµ.T ...M:l...a. _........,«,....,, « . .+enA-.w.-«...,w. .«.nM 1-r..—,....—,««,.7., . r 6 �, 1 PP • II, , it 1 r I ' ' ' w.I L . voiJ Verbal Messages t). , �, • z� r� � y • To ��, . , ` ,. .r From: ... . �... . ..; . $u1)1(, 3D1 z.12'77 - -� ,� � ;9 . . / / ? _ _ .w Q j� (,r7i?(, COQ, � � � �� �j�„✓Z, ���...r����""�" ��r�'V z 2 66,LA(.1z,..,,yr? y) 9 ,z, ,4'2,t,Ae, e..,o,,eizA. , -7/,/2.„4.y e.2_) . _ 411 , 4 . i .. e 0., A ee.,oto, ,. 1 .. et)_ekej,/,,972,,Q. /2,a0 (..)-,-,d,'9? c-p 0-)-2 ..e.. 6-Lce.-46e 616727 C,.,Z C......1.....,' d . ?..to „, '( • . ,. 1.A . 1 I p , Y J, ...o..n �.r... 4 ww.w..nr.ar...bu rr.r..u. ... ...w..+u r.u..r ..,........ �rN .,. ;« . �.ar..s.!m...s.a.v i.nu,h.0 rtrM�.YT-., ,t y Y w r° t A ' 's r P p ay yy , { -`1 • f1l A, r4v HOFFM .N & HOFFMAN, INC. • 1868 SOUTHWEST MADISOE�1 :d PORTLAND, OREGON 97205 n lid (503) 228-2800 . 11. March 9, 197 • Mr. Aldie Howard, Planning Director , City of Tigard 12420 S. W. Main T1Igard, Oregon 97223 .-:. . o ;. K' Dear Mr. Howard:I We wish to appeal your decision regarding the re-- 1 location of the recreation building in the Canterbury Woods Condominium project. Please notofv us of the next meeting date of the Design and Review Board. , • • Very truly y o'1rs 1� • w II NI . ' ,./i 11:i, 5( 11 0-1/-i'ee4z--,.. r.1 „""4v ., „1 'eter B. Hoffni. PBT-I:h1 1 . I It I I/ Pt:44, , , . 1 1 1 r . • i , • • • • • • • • • • • m. • • I i I I b I I .!1 4 • n n •, '�: it • 14873 S. W. 10 Tigard, Oregon 972 . CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED • March 1, 1979 • Mr. Barker, City Manager - City of Tigard Mr. Aldie Howard, Planning Director - City of Tigard Mr.' Ed Walden, Building Inspector - City of Tigard Re: Canterbury Woods Project by Hoffman & Hoffman Construction • •C i, wry: Gentlemen: In reference to the letter from The City of Tigard to Mr. Peter, B. Hoffman, ' dated February 28, 1979, and signed by Aldie Howard, Planning Director, I speak for a group of Caiway Hill residents by saying that. . . Since determination (during initial Planning Commission discussions) stated that Mr. Hoffman's recreation building be placed "internally," we will expect to have the full support of the planning commission and the • City of Tigard in seeing that Mr. Hoffman follows their dictates. We look forward, also, to Mr. Hoffman's repair of our common area adjoining his property line where the grade is sunken., We most seriously demand that any and all further changes in Mr. Hoffman's project be brought to planning review and also to public review. Based upon the aforementioned letter, at this time we will expect to have (as tax-payers and neighbors of the project) your full support and enforcement of "internal" placing of the recreation building: If Hoffman wishes another � location - we submit that he must again go before planning review and we also , submit - that this time a public hearing, be held. We would wish to be notified of time and place of such meeting `_"! Yours truly, (-Amos' L,. scott� JLS:sis cc: Mr Bailey, Attorney City of. Tigard . 'r 6 W • • .w ,,,I�wA., j f 4 __.. 1 OFFIVMAN & HOFFMAN, INC. 1 $4P 1888 SOUTHWEST MADISON PORTLAND,OREGON 97205 'g. I (503)228,2800 Aai r February 22, 1979 Mr. ,.oldie Howard Department of Planning . City of Tigard 12420 S. W. Main Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: CANTERBURY WOODS CONDOMINIUMS Dear Sir: This letter is a formal request by Hoffman & Hoffman, Inc. , to move the recreational building from its existing approved location. Presently, the 4 building is located in a densely wooded part of the project. We have eliminated the swimming pbol from the project, which has reduced the destruction of our trees and potential falling trees. However, building the recreational building in this area would require excavation and the removal of more trees. As the developer, I have exercised extreme caution and careful planning to allow saving of trees by moving a building. The same conditions prevail in this situation. This will be harmonious with the original planning by the planning department. We Would again prefer "to move a building and save a tree. " The new recreational building would be built on the north property line, (as shown in Van tom Kraxberger - drawing) and require no tree removal. The new location will not conflict with any of the surrounding properties. We respectfully pectfull request Your approval of this ch an F and Will be starting construction immediately thereafter. 1 you consideration. Thank ou foi ,yo�i�. consider Sincer ely, 7 oak, -ter B. Hoffm. PBH/hl Enclosure I K ♦ ' u , A• /I qQ 1 • J .. .,....IL. ....._,.:1..u...,,,\..,„,.....,..... ....... .....—.—,„...n.,,.., _,4i.:,,t, ..✓n:.,,....,—c'4,,„' ,.. 1.._ c'4,,„'„ .,...ant.. ....w .„„ ,,, ..i.M,,,,Arµ_:,,,.,.J..:.,i,,...,,. .'.L4.4,,..w....,;.1....0,-.-+...,...,...i,. 1.,....-1..........•.,..•-.+,,.... '4+.,-„.l,,..... ,,.A-«.......-4 it.l.,.....'-.l,.l.....-.. ' i M i( EDF B26�1979 . .. OREGON , A R,B O 1 C U L T U 1 E CO. "Specialists in the care and preservation of trees ,,-•,,' ,"`�`'`ii,* David rlalstead:Consultant , ,. Y 4'. P.O. BOX 68478,OAK GROVE,OREGON 97266 �� • y Phone:232.8197 oP 638-5775 '44, ,, u February 22, 1979 ' pi ,titt � I r y Mr. Peter Hoffman '' . 1388 S.W. Madison T :y Portland, Ore 97205 . ► D ear M r. Hoffmann r r . =' °; You have asked me for 'aI'letter stating my opinion. on the condition of the 1 ' r, trees relative to the site and its new buildings. e ` "� � , gjit1 � beleive a tretnendous 'ob has been a.coam lshed in savin as man trees, '�- as there are. There were some mistakes mostly with those machines which i' . 4.-1 ��, must do the diggings I have been with the project as a consultant from . . '�` ” . the beginning, except when the tees were being removed for read and building sites. The amount of e.xpence in trimming and 'fertilizing which ` `' '�; O . : • THE VAN LOM KRAXBERGER PARTNERSHIP 111111 ARCHITECTS PLANNERS A.I.A. February 20, 1979 Raleigh Hills Professional Bldg,, 4455 S.W. Scholls Ferry Road Portland, Oregon 97225 , (503) 292-8895 City of Tigard P . O . Box' 23557 w' 12420 S . W , Main r Tigard , Oregon 97223 x : Re Canterbury Woods Gentlemen : There has been some question as of late regarding the legality of an additional' amount of upper floor area proposed for the , Canterbury Woods housing development . Particular emphasis has been placed on the approval of the original P . D. and how this 0 .4 relates to what is currently being constructed . I would like to point out that the initial approval Nas , in fact, granted on a three-story concept (see site plan enclosed plus. written submittal material ) . These units , to be sure , were one, two and three-story units combined into one building The current proposal is for a two story development . The new r loft space addition was an afterthought proposed because of the amount of open ( unusable space) evident once the trusses were set in place . Note that the addition takes advantage of the existing building configuration--it does not add, to it . The change is an interior , not exterior alteration . Since the space is open to the living area it acts as a loft or mezzanine level . On page 45 of the Uniform Building Code the definition ' of mezza- nine is listed as an intermediate floor placed in, any, story or room" : If that area is less than 33 1 /3% of the total of the - room it occupies it will not be considered a floor. ' The proposal for Canterbury Woods is for a loft addition of 212 square feet and therefore could be considered a floor by definition . This addition is allowed under Table 5-D, page 61 • of the Uniform Building Code which states that if the building is of one-hour construction , a three-story building is permis- sible , Additional structural engineering with regard to three- story structures ( e i equivalent 3x4, studs at 16" o . c on lower floor) will also be carried through by the Owner. • °� • '• ,^•..•. •..laoelso�olmnlapwlixllli/rwhllu +;U IcraJiaraww.Ixuekamwulmla.xucwX;prvxNanatl�AUauwany;lxe7rw+w*n..ereeegrcarswmuolmlMrsa�•F,• tWwmoaMau } February 20 , 1979 City of Tigard Page 2 • Since the original approval for three-story units was approved at the time the P . D. was granted , I assume this will not be an issue . There is no requirement which states that the height must be consistant with that of the underlying district in a P . D. This reference to underlying zones applies to lot coverage and lost size . The P . D. district makes no mention of building height, and in fact in 18 . 56 . 060 the Code is very specific , " In cases of conflict between standards of the underlying dis� trict and the Planned Development district , the standards of the Planned Development district shall apply. " ( Ord . 71 -4 Exh . "A" 1971 ; Ord . 70-32 S 185, 3 1 1970. ) In our instance .che three-story concept was clearly shown , discussed and was approved as part of the P . D, This project is in keeping with the purpose of a Planned Develop- ' ment which states as it ' s purpose " . . . to provide opportunities to create more desirable environments through the application of flexible and diversified land development standards under a comprehensive plan and program professionally prepared , The planned development district is intended to be used to encourage the application of techniques —whi chl'will result in superior living or development arrangements , with lasting values . ' Better utilization of proposed structures such as loft spaces would follow that intent. We propose therefore to follow the pl e via u.� approvals t h ro ugh I ; zoning with regard to three-story structures . In addition we w i l l make those buildings conform to the one-hour requirements and of the Uniform Building Code . Yours very truly , THE VAN LOM/KRAXBrRGER PARTNERSHIP A . I .A , SPAP >14 bile \\:7 • I Jo ep1 M, Van Lori; A. I . A. Arc itect I I r I -/ cc : Mr Peter Hoffman State of Ore go n , ri r I I e a n d LI i f e Safety , Salem, 0r. egon I t I r • Iii I I i ii iii r •'I . .•.:',. '. r p/p4LMRtlW4YVY6{Itpl {IW'r(q YqM .. _.".. .. .......... �(01f '...vu•.i„ .rl.l....u...,.. °x'e......................•L....x+--..u..i.1..,.......1.,.4x..f..r.,.r.u ..:•.,..,. .u•i l,...,r...... ..... r.r ........ r.....,..v.e., ... I.. ... ,.i Q, �—xwr+n•v.enw wJ I rWtii1.1 � .r. _,.r. ,.r r.l1 T 4 1 o • 7 a •».a. i ,-.....,., ,a... .._. 1, • , _ .rt..«..._..,...»............ .. . ...,,..J.,..,.i,L.,. .,.,.,..,: ....•.»..; .. ......,... ._.....«.,..t.. _ .t.,,I,,.. ...r..::«t ..a ..,.,_.....1«... _, ,1. .._. ' ' , V*-c t January 30, 1979 , TO: City of Tigard, Oregon w Dear Sirs: , This letter is an urgent request from the Calaway Hills homeowners concerning the Cantebury Woods project which'we believe to be in violation oft I ; 1. Section 6, City of Tigard, Building Ordinance 76-43, dated November 8, 1976, refering to section 6, Tigard Municipal Code 18.56.060, and section 7, Ti;ard, Municipal Code 18.56.0610. 2. We are concerned if there is or has been changes in the blueprints or actual construction since they were approved by the city. fire believe the construction taking place does not correspond to the approved plans, We request work be stopped immediately on this project until a suitable agreement is reached between the homeowners &nd Peter Hoffman, and recorded as such, The to the already completed construction, your immediate l'attention to this is urgently requested, 6 ) . ,,...4. 77:P'74' Qx:', ,AX,E.,:i's.-- J-44,) /696 . b!` /r'f ftlk '( 14 al I/0-'6 bd 14603 511t) P6'11-k la' el/? e.i 0,44'd fir) or i O(l � L i . 5 uz ajtiL. criato--\.. — - I q%0S ,)G3 Y . -2- ,. 0,:iiii/Ae.„..,,...... itifit)S 6to /0(-,17P'"-- (j. -- , ice" J,1/}.w'of �r,e,e2:-' ,e.,�.i_, ,/ !!'7/'.5M,//J: /N m ,�''l,��L'�r C:1,, �".✓/—�.,, ,r 1l/ 4 ' l 1 cf„.‘,, (Gsb,,,,, ..14t.i,t.. i 4 - - i 62' , , ' ' � ,r 1-7 ,,,�, t 1 s ,,f i <4'5 5,,, )C I ,,/ 4• (-)tL t i /, ''.41., . 1 'r 97t,r I Y ' 1 .6' P / .:�c.Q4, .zU,;r.+ ' .; 46/ I I I ' , , : .- .,, .,. . _ r.i ..,. ,z.. ..,__,....w,. -...«.o-«..,•i.........., ....._..M._.. .,.••.r.ua..l....,.w................,.. »._.+«.........,.,..,, ..e.r ..._,....• 4..',..t•., .,, ... .... .......,:?1 a '�i „ • • January 30, 1 • � 979 TO: City of Tigard,, Oregon Dear Sirs: This letter is an urgent request from the Calaway Hills homeowners concerning,the Cautebury Woods project which we believe to be in violation of 1. Section 6, City of Tigard, Building Ordinance 76-43, dated November 8, 1976, refering to section 6, Tigard Municipal Code 18.56.060, and section 7, Tigard Municipal Code 18.56.060. L 20 We are concerned if there is or has been changes in the blueprints or actual construction since they were approved by the city. We believe the construction taking place does not correspond to the approved plans. We request work be stopped immediately on this project, until a suitable agreement is reached between the homeowners and Peter Hoffman, and recorded as such. Due to the already completed construction, your immediate attention to this is urgently requested. /7,,,e2 �,r�/ <, ,�°'� //749/7 u / #e;•�, )9 ? /1 /61‘; • 0 / 1, °� t /L/' E v , l 6 C,, v'r� "rl / 0 a( c a/4,e v 22 el-4i clay 1 r . � lfMNlM+i •�'. •MI..p�,�� a rrlwyx�w•a i11 Mw.w-+!rr«+w,«.y • 1 a r .,w.-1..,.- .... �,4r, .. � w.n ..,... .! ...............r.r,... „Jr .n r..+.. w..-r m..w•.m.. .-,r..-.a R 9 I , • (41 January 30, 1979 TO: City of Tigard, Oregon Dear Sirs: I r This letter is an urgent request from the Calaway Hills homeowners ! concerning the Cantebury Woods project which we believe to be in violation of: 1, Section 6, City of Tigard, Building Ordinance 76.439 dated November 89 1976, refering to section 6, Tigard Mu.nicirpal. Code 18,56.060, and section 79 Tigard. Municipal Code 18.56.060. 2. We are concerned if there is or has been changes in the d blueprints or actual construction since they were approved by the city. We believe the construction taking place does not • correspond to the approved plans. We request work be stopped immediately on this project until a suitable agreement is reached between the homeowners and Peter Hoffman and recorded as such. e to the already 'completed construction, your immediate attention to this is urgently requested. , . Lei / �V'�."''C.«•'GrS..'a...t�,,,,r" / /� 'rr'C 4../ Wi'! ""'l ! f �W" t•"....r r`�'+w��� ditr1�«.:�' (at � �l:Y /1;ti•t�"� lrl. ) • I , e",00.0.1...nwttkvrev, P. • I. • n (4, \W,. . \ e1 i I i January 30, 1979 „. TO: City of Tigard, Oregon Dear Sirst This letter is an urgent,request, from the Calaway Wills homeowners 4 concerning the Cantebury Woods project which we believe to be in A violation of: 1. Section 6, City of Tigard, Building Ordinance 76.ei3, dated i November 8, 1976, refering to section 6, Tigard Municipal Code 18,56.060, and section 7, Tigard Municipal Code 18.56.060, 2„ We are concerned if there is or has been changes in the blueprints or actual construction since they were approved by the city. We believe the construction taking place does not correspond to the approved plans. We ruttak;st work be stopped im ediately on this project until a suitable agreement is reached between the homeowners and Peters }Toffman, and recorded as such. Due to the already completed construction, your immediate attention to this is urgently requested. 1, M, i ,01./Z , / ei Z. 1,; ,,j IP, ezit,,z/-2-7:Le<44, 4../ol ,fir /� i is�'�" 1fG j 6, 4t,ere e,,,., /0 9 .Jt) (ii,'„/ rre. "C ` '� j ...5'.4'rd W ,,Q82/4..z., 2 r''' ir'/,'C-a - 7 � ' �' �� ssai,4 ,4 e t Z,2/i d 2,-- /6 e.', .2-c' - ' 6-; / ,,,e_____,, , ().,,,,r .y '.."› ..,,), 1-0-e4 1 C.),ii":"Z-f-r' /6)6 o.5 -,s-e-d (0(i-, ---, "' , . 1 I; ,-y4 ,z, t; ,, J is ,�` ,:- il,l. 7,.+„��"�,,.0 i,,:9,,..,'.„ t'' �,.I'� ' 3/, li--0,1:-1-- A/414e /433.3.:1"',IP) e9e e../),,dttl re., ,e ),I', 1 � , .i i . a r . • • '1 'J (41-'-- (:'' * 4t6 C41 4 , January 30, 1979 TO: City of Tigard, Cregon Dear Sirs 2 F This letter is an urgent request from the 'Calaway Dills homeowners concerning the Cantebury Woods, project which we believe to be in violation of: 1. Section) 6, ,City. of Tigard, Tu'llding Ordinance 76-439' dated November 8, 1976, ref ering to section 69 Tigard N xnicipal Cede 18.56.060, and section 79 Tigard Municipal Code 18.56.060. 1 2. We are concerned if there is or has been changes in the blueprints or actual construction since they were approved by the city. We believe the construction taking place does not 4 correspond to the approved plans. , ke request work be sto pped immediately �n this pro j ect until a suitable agreement is reached between the homeowners and Peter Hoffinen9 and recorded as such* Due to the already completed construction, your immediate attention to "' . this is urgently requested . - fir. A -..0 ._ A- X _- / ° 6 114 0 ' 2. --?\ L-7 A-I iki/ S IL, ' ' . It- 6 1Aft-e-Y /0 4,,, c-,) ,,c,44.) .:")\(._,4. 1,. r.1.16A/7-6- t 1 -,X1 5s.k- \ v " H � a te. kit- id&)I' , r",t,1G.. R� /,6"4C J '2/ 4'14' g R y ..- �� f ` .�7,- 5 �„ 106#0:-P-1 a G . Y� � ) . 1 C e-Zic\:A-6-1k._.tzia. CQ6-w---(2,P---.._ \4 62,S z-c - - 'T. P I) ..'.,uua.u,n n „4...,., ,... ,. „ ,., ,., .,. .. ,.i , . r 4 •. I ,v e by ' r V r 1 r )y. r - _ A Tyr • • _ January 309 1979 TO: City of Tigard, Oregon Dear Sirs: • This letter is an urg!snt request from the Calaway Hills homeowners • concerning the Cante'irury Woods project which we believe to be in violation of 1. Section 6, City of Tigard, Building Ordinance 76..43, dated November 8, 1976, refering to section 6, Tigard Nanicipal Code 18.56,060, and section 7, Tigard Municipal Code 18.569060. "' 2, We are concerned if there is or has been changes in the , blueprints or actual construction since they were approved by the city. We believe the construction taking' place does not correspond to the approved plans. We request work be stopped immediately on this project until a suitable }. agreement is reached between the homeowners and Peter Hoffman, and recorded as such Y� Due to the already completed construction, your immediate attention to this is urgently requested. OZi" '5./ 7,7er ,/".' /7? AcZ 6., , 44,sr,„2„,,t .47 „, Gi�� �L'C L•+1 G�" /.916' / V, 1 (�'"'., ! ♦,r ..J;•!'•(♦ 4: :"'x"'4 �'-'' f'I',�+ "S pr�, '..J iJv ', /:'� 'w�?''' ,� '`r I"• Y "/`y .4--- :1, 4l .:; . r g` `.'" -r %70: 2,, ,/?e,,„0,z8 /0 5-K 6_2' PAA'464/e, 024.04.ake6 7,Z2,2 1.. o ....,. ,. . .. ...I.r .,• r„n ..,..us.,y.,«1....il. .nr«J,iH NUC.a... 11 , q . c ,er.' January 30„ 1979 k , , TO: City of Tigard, Oregon ,. �. Dear Sirst , This letter is an urgent request from the Calaway Bills homeowners 1 , concerning the Cantebury Woods project which we believe to be in ,. violation of: , 1. Section 6, City of Ti and Building Ordinance 76-43, dated . ;, November 8, 1976, refering to section 6, Tigard Municipal Code 18.56.060, and section 7, Tigard Municipal Code 18.56.0608, 2. We are concerned if there is or has been changes in the blueprints or actual construction since they 'were approved by , the city. We believe the construction taking place does not correspond to the approved plans. 1 . r We request work be stopped immediately on this project until a suitable II agreement is reached between the homeowners and Peter Ho f man,, and ly recorded as such. M It Due to the already completed construction, your immediate attention to this is urgently requested. I , L ---::—: 'Lf''''' L.-:7:2,/t.:_,L— ii L.,...7,,,,,., ,-, , A-,Q.L. 0 , to.,, ,.? r- r` .....1 . r\---L,-..-4, -Ill”' ' • , 3, 14-1/k„. cy, I/1/1 ,..4 .....44,1, 4 / '.. ....,,,, •••••••...o ' t . 1Y1, ))1,/,'W deeb, YALLe.,42--- /6 .,'),,2, 7 _!.. ' (0, (2'31,,(A60-- , i, r/y1 • A, .V � (2e,.4...... (e ,,,L..., /7,-.. ckt, ,„ i tt„,,c ti j 1 , !A) ).-e,C ) � / .a ..2,4"' � I'Y ' � 7 ~y1 � . �,�Y y � �, 4._, . �� , / � � ' / -0 ,,,. h w .,,ypw, , Y,, ' . 1`., r M \ - 1 ry .!"fir 1 it January 309 1979 • TO: City of Tigard, Oregon Dear Sirs 11 This letter is an urgent request from the Calaway Hills homeowners 1; concerning the Cantebury Woods project which we believe to be in violation of: ,. 1. Section 6, City of Tigard, Building Ordinance 76.-43, dated November 8, 1976, refering to section 6, Tigard Municipal Code 18.56.060, and section 7, Tigard Municipal Code 18.56.060, • 1 2. We are concerned if there is or has been changes in the blueprints or actual construction since they were approved by the city. We believe the construction taking place does not correspond to the approved plans. We request work be stopped immediately on this project until a suitable agreement is reached between the homeowners and Peter Hof fman, and { recorded as such. Due to the already completed construction, your immediate attention to • this is urgently requested. i//7L4.7 ,„' ,/f r I I — , 1:( t_ LL ev \ ‘ �. . • ,/� Ms� I i i • . • ,,,•• /2 A S . . , ',..1.'.,. ter: ., '....'.. :',..' ' ' ,, r, :',/ ''''.7 .., .. ... .. . ,, ., . . ... . , , ... , , . .. . . . , . . : . . . . , , • i,"( . .. . . !. . . , , . . , . , , . . , .. • /II' ' : ' . . . . . . , , . . . • : ,.• .. . ,.. : , , . . . .,,,,, . .• , . . .. . . : . . . . . , . . . . . , , , ., , .0- : • . , . . . . . . . . . ,. , „,:. ,, . c;,.......ki, ...,„.7 1 ,„c-,- ,:9,,,, ,,,..„)....._.).— ?:_9-6....„-,,,,.....,,,-,-\\. , (4.-T., •-•,,v,-- : . ,, , ,. : .. „ H. , .: .. ,• . ..„.„ . i . ., . ,,„,,ii.' ? ''' .1",4. . r:\i‘,... -.c",,:.'l, . km-0 0,- .,,,A....)---.e i A„,,,,,,,,..<12t• • ,',, .W � j2.)_:- .0.....,4.,_„ � -' ' ✓"> <.7u...4.....)— «".n Vi h[ v / 4..,itt,.., CR. n4. --f.,../V Mn mil. . . .. \--1,),,..m-Tij-^--\04,,,LA-A-1 f.,.;„„„),"""t71r70-, c,;?..!.1,„.„A),'N- ... . ., „ ., . . . . . . t -i.it `I wry.?. .T:r 1rM w ..... :it,"F�,.. 1^...}.: ,: . .`; ' y r� -1\--Q-A.,...› \iA,r-^1..�'�..�"��•iw!.,.,,",r�,r°p", ' J.,.,,,, „..✓ .,e-d—„r,,,t,,-P�"'"'r"«.'...�w• . 1../'v �. �'-+ w"t`"""'S .wl.,x,w.✓„,..".n4_•A..Y”-u,„, c xW (,,),: . {. �J --.f,. ,.U+..— ,,,,,,r.+A '�+,�+»�•"'�""'", /.^' , Y ( ',• k 4 /4,�) `''� f'"� `-�,�,,-tea .... i.),^P...,, *" .9„,,k,,j1)„,),,,,), i ,J .� d �,* .w"µ7" . .'.`-0 :✓ - " •••....-41..,"."--..rt,..‹, (3..„../1„,9,.. ,,,,„e1,-,,-,,,,,r,*,,, --e.3.),--, t.,.....,.1-', \'''''')j'''''''"71 *c.4"A-'):)' .,-,'"(*).t-' t , 11/4.-)-1--e''''",--' . .. ..,...A.......J.,.. "4' ''....."),\J°."'*-14,...-, %,,q:x.,4,.,./.)‘ .0:,'..i.' k.,_,se l'a-M..P.J.,/trj.,6`J'',")j*-- 4`''''t") ' , . ) . kN, ...,..'' r., ate‹ ,, \ ..4, —4!) ..� 4, + t . . 5.31,,,,,,,,' Qr.. ,,,,,,.,„.,;\?..9,4A.,,Y,e .-3?- „ „ . , , ,..,.,,Iv.• •: ,, . •. 4 . . . . , . . . . . . ,,,9$ . ,co , , . -, ....,. , . .. ... H. . . , , ..: , . • • , ' ' JIMIEMPIPP- Y. , r. r e. of 4 ta N + Q 0 l a (I,..,4 ,4,,,i ,-J',.-e.,4.., 4 / e. < . 'w ,e„„ „„tom- "' ,,,,e2,14-1 „...-iV : - 1 ,„...41, ,4,1---;° . „ ,,e-2(/ 7 7 0 ,C1 C,,,,:a„Ze e,..e.:lee”.6. V..4.4i d:Z1 .4;,e.4:'40) 44-1W,,,e,'‘i 46—.—I,,,e,,,' /, t..,� /,*y/y/�,��r/j/�/�/,r V��/�(y�'1///���^/�./I//y/y/�f/)�`/� �/J�//JJ,. J / " 2 4 / d, ,, . "2/U9 , " ,..-4-77 4.7a-Zei4:V I eft-e-- ---(---e-a■e--4,--e--6 ,...fe.-e-oCZ/ r m.r , ,_,,,F;e: ve! eZr✓a CZ ' , Gam"' C+'' r , -,,, .4„ _,--f.,,,,2,--6. ,..- Ae--eized .,, ,,z,,,,..,_e..6., ,. //---111 --(4 6/ / / ._--/(''' , ,-I.--' ,,,,,a-2,C.," , 2,,:::67,,y ,.._ _,, ,e-e-e-,"1444:-e ' a,-614'c'4,e. - ,,,...-d: , s 7'''e f y ae:i7- - '4'(Y 6/.---6,764, ,,,,,-',Med-e,, . , %,. .1 Y A ,,/ .%- ...., ,,e....2,,,--,,,t,'' Jz...- ...-e".4zz.;....,...„a:. ,,,,a,,,,f,,,,-4.,a../ee..„ 'r‘..2-e<64 , ,,,,s,„ez, ,...,...61, 6711 • A / ,o.',:,>'9 i �... I Y ef. r/ 4 w!/) .++ "12 j�r r ,. vwz"Y � ��/ 4'S 'Y:.✓'�r" �.x'9YzG'2y 4 eJ / � � 4 _,„-,' te, ,...,;)",7-2,4_,Z4 , A 1 ;C:.:4) . / e/ ,�»' . . d r cF F ,/://w :-,/,,,,,t2' / ..J -'' C e44 . '' e.,� - °ate °a"Zee-7_62,6...6J�,:.(2 . G✓';wC%,,�,`•c ,,0 ,I. /14,642/ L G- ,e, e ,,,,, ),, " ,,e ,,. " � e-... . G+,i, e ' ,7 — ' 441 % � G/ � i /4//e/2',7j7 Yy � a /, " G ./'' ./ y.✓"4 '/'•' ' -4-01 —.0 U,C1-4 W � M: - t , •rA /1/j:"*.7),44 ,1 CZ,Ce, , � / 54j. S 1 /0� , . 66....N. ,_,_ c,., 4., ���,, 4 4, ( ,, : ., o W • o HOFF AN & HOFFMAN, INC. 6 i � 0. 18.88 SOUTHWEST MADISON PORTLAND,OREGON 97205 i 1 ( 03)228- 800' A 44 May 1, 1978 +.rnw�w,.mfg,�w,unmr«�rm•�a^+"�'""`uM''r�+�'""'�'' � � � � � � ��� �� ��� � � � ��� �� ' � � � ' � � � , d;. CITY, OF TIGARD P. 0. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 t� ATTN: NANCY ,EDWARDS' RE: CANTERBURY WOODS Per your request, please find the contract from Halstead',s Tree Surgery er for The Canterbury Wbods + I g Y Canterbury • • u r�:• '' project. by T;HOFFMAN & HOFF,M.AN, INC Sincerely, ,HolifTna. �l. HOrFMAN & HOFF ,( j, INC„ President IV PBH:ps Enclosures: 6 ptAg'e s HALST AD'S TREE SURGERY letter and explanatory pages. � � � � � � � � � • N b � • 4 h � J • • � � r --""'""'"'"'""r 7."".'"""'"') , a 'I . T • �, ' �I( CE1VEOAPR2 0 1978 HALSTEAD'S " • . ,e TREE SURGERY "Specialists in the care and • ii, ,,, preservation of trees' ' PA,BOX 68478,OAK GROVE,OREGON 97268 �. *; Phone; 232 8197 , April 24, 1978 , • , Mr. Peter Hoffman 0.•V., 1888 S.W. Madison ,r w Portland, OR 97205 ' Aet,o. . Dear Mr "Hoffman • / ,;4y After inspecting the trees, shrubs, and ground cover at the proposed . • ¢ ' building can see no.g site (Canterberry) and in talking with you. I s reason ' o4' why this project can not be one of the nicest people places within the , t 4.41.ii . Ti gard: area. :, 1 $. . •� y,.. I' It is my understanding that our company is to be retained as an ongoing a. 4 -� consultant in arboriculture, with the idea of protection as much ground �� ibt N. 4 P . urea as possible and still be able to build roads and buildings. . , - p , Your first consideration is to build the roads. We can decide which s.. 4. ;,rY' trees will need added care or should come out com letl because they , 1Yt0 are to close to or will be damaged by the road. ,, � The areas��between building� � sites should be marked off by 0 a fence for , � � , Y their protection. These areas can be hand cleaned leaving the much de- , sired natural habitat, saving costly landscaping. Those trees in these 7' 4, areas which can not be treated or are unsafe to the building should be removed. ,, 141'4 In working with several projects of this nature and spices of trees.. we .:.i g P d . em al h Y h t turaa sound; � ave been �rezy successful a.n, keeping t �.ve and. struc y �towevc , t Ekes tree comple.t cooperat ton of everyone on the project and we must be notified immediatl. when work begins or there are any changes.. ' r�,� � � y g- y � g � � Below you will find several phone numbers listed, with these you will be Y P y able to contact me or my superintendent 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I I N • if i ,. , , R �[.... ..,a..,:.,... « .w.V.«... ,i ».r,..r.,m....,.,.....»..,... wa'�,.,,«....,,,r;-,i.,«,...iM..,,:,t.x.,..rw.,,.«ti...........:....w.«»,,.....».,,•.G.,.,,,......--,-a,cw...,,Mw.r.,.mJ;..rv..,v.,, a .V page •, ,t,,. Enclosed is our introduction to construction trauma which briefly explains our terminology and necessary tree care during the project. `� � � � �� � � � , ' � � � �� � �, � � � � � � � �� � � � � �� � are any questions � � � � �, . Please call me when you are ready to begin or if there a y q t; • which need answering. , Cost: Fir tree treatment under these circumstances have been averaging $90.00 per tree. This of course depends on construction carelessness. Consultants time is $25,00 per call, $25.00 per hour. I am looking forward to being part of this project. Thank you. S"`nberely '� .� ` David W. Halstead ' . DWH:pev . enclosure -8 51 office, 24 hour emergency� � g y 232-8197 office fi Canby 1-266-2911, Mark Skinner, Superintendent .. , �, .I.II 4 t 1 I • Y , I ( n • • .L....,ix .✓ ,..4++i,n...I. +.,y�llr...' -,.«,....,, ...,,.,...«... ..,., ,. .w+n r,._. .A,.:..,..-+,.... t:t......r..., .,W,.,1 „ _._.,.,,....... .,-•.L.;u,.... ...,,.x w,,... !.1:..... ....ir...:. ,.. p...m.,;: .,.......,.. _I„S Y,N.,�-.,14...:,..,ma.,,r.._.,-Inti.:..�.'..... �.,+,.. ,,,:.r+ -t,, RECEIVED 2 r 1978 INTRODUCTION In dealing with large specimen trees such as those on any site, certain factors should be borne in mind:, The survival and general health of a tree depends at least, as much as on the condition of its root system as 'it does: on the factors influencing the above ground' portion. ” This vital root system extends out to, and sometimes beyond the tree's drip line (the outermost reach of branches) . s Any significant disturbance to the root area, such as high surface compaction, • root severing, over—watering and/or removal of organic material in which. the tree has composted over several years, will almost ceratinly kill the tree immediately. The alteration of water tables, nutrition and air flow by road and building construction, the digging of trenches, artificial irrigation, construction of planter beds or heavy bark mulching can have the same effect, either �. directly of by so weakening the tree that it is susceptible to disease and insect infestation (which are always potential threats in any area) . There are of course, unavoidable changes to the landscape involved in any !a . y construction project. However, to protect the valuable tree specimens on any site; I cannot overemphasize the importance of the delicate balance of root system to the demands of the tree above ground. Strong measures may sometimes he necessary tompess on construction ± , personnel the importance of care and thought when working around large trees An initial step toward protecting the tree and its root area should involve placing a monetary value on each tree; if damaged carelessly by or other needless construction equipment, dumping of adverse material r edless acts, the party or parties responsible should be penalized: + I' {{ I it ( 1 �Ck� ...F„_ ...�,...,......�.kr._.—,,..,.rN.,.,N�,..... .......:1.,..,«M....>,....,....a....M.+.lit ,...,...u...-��. .,. �.....,.,..m. ....„_;..,�.,..«_i,:a.. .. .,'',+�.�n • • To help prevent such unfortunate accidents, simple fences can be erected • around the drip line. Where space is minimal more elaborate methods may be required. . Construction Hazards If trees are in working areas where permanent buildings , roads and ditches are to be constructed, certain precautions must be taken to enable the trees ' to adjust to their new environment. • • ti Excavation Damage When excavation must be done within the root area and roots are more than two inches in diameter are broken or torn, by equipment, these roots should be,' � cut smoo h .y at the break. This will permit new root growth to establish i itself. In cases where root damage does not occur, but soil is removed from around E: the root areas, these excavatings should be backfilled with the original • soil mixed with peat moss and fertilizer. This will 'promote an environment for the new roots to grow easily and quickly. Soil Compaction Compaction of soil by heavy construction equipment poses a real threat to trees' root system by reducing the soil 's natural oxygen supply on which feeder roots depend. Where compaction has oeourred, the soil should be carefully aerated to replace this vital oxygen. This aeration should be done immediately if compaction is severe, the aeration remedy is best done during apringtime in-g rouhd fertilization procedures. Grade Alterations Raising grade levels around trees by covering ai' the root areas with , additional soil will cause compaction from weights will limit oxygep movement and most important, will restrict percolation of nutrients and moisture through the root system. .v.,,...• :i;,,a...... ,.,..«... .,.,„.t.1a., .»...... r«.:,i.,... �.. _...»..-u• `.,,...,......,..t„,.,: .,.,....,; m, ....,...., ....,,,r.. .,,., � ,«....,.:-..,u«J W,..AkM .......o i.:Ct°.:u..._4�4 ,..J......,r..«.,,.,.e,..la . • • Changes in Water Table Changes to soil water tables brought about by construction of buildings . Changes � y g r and � �of large areas of soil�can result in over—watering �of d blacktopping o g g trees invo lved. This in turn causes roots to swell, elimina.ting oxygen ° from soil and permits root rot to develop. r, Water tables should be adjusted following construction and established at levels as close to the original as possible . This can be done by means of soil tests and observation of the trees' f,. Other Hazards • In addition to man—caused damage, there are many, other dangers to a trees' health and appearance, including disease, insects, and limb loss resulting from windstorm and ice storm breakage. Any of these can cause scarring of the trunk or limb structure. Scars that are not covered by a layer of cambium (living tissue) are made up of inactive cells and will deteriorate, leaving large rotten areas. Once established, rot is almost impossible to stop, and results in systemic' weakness and permanent structural damage Scars must be traced, broken and torn wood smoothed, rotten areas removed and filled with a solid substance to promote cambium sealing to prevent future decay. If scarred areas have already shown weakness the trunk ,,, or limbs above this area should be cabled or braced to other parts of , the tree for support. Prunning should also be used to reduce excess ti weight. PREVENTATIVE MEASURES Fertilizing Fertilizing by means of trunk injection is designed to stimulate the entire tree from root to foliage without over developing new growth. This injection technique is particularly effective,, in the fall or dormant season. Adding • a good fertilizer mix to the soil in the spring gill protect the tree from r-tress also; which is the major factor of tree decline under construction. ..✓�.., .1•.-. .a., . `f:.....«.,..,...n_.,._..,....,..«_...,. »,...,,.. ,•,..',... _,.•.,..i..,:�,.. •;1.....;'.M».• '..,..w-?..._'1 _.w..� il. _... l •....., .• _,-...... +..,,..:...t_. , r.»,. u.,t:..u'.,M1ea...»..,..•..,...- 1 Surgery �� .. As discussed above, to promote sealing of soars and prevention, of rot by • enabling the cambium tissue to grow over and protect previous injuries. • • Trimming and Prunning These measures promote healthy structural growth elimination of competition for sunlight and air by the innermost portions of the tree. This in turn . I d will help slow the lateral and horizontal growth of the tree, leaving the tree balanced and well proportioned for many years. In the case of a tree which has suffered damage to its root system, trimming of approximately 15 to 20% of its leaf foliage will reduce the demands on the roots to supply nutrients. If damage is minimal, the removal of approximately 10% of foliage is sufficient. In both instances, all dead and dhseased wood should be removed. • Spraying A spraying program should be prepared and presented for evaluation by a licensed spray company, for the control and prevention of insect and • • disease problems. General Recommendations The foregoing are brief summaries of existing or potential problems, and • guidelines for their remedy or prevention, as well as suggestions for ."'44 maintaining and improving the fine trees which are part of the total landscape development. • I would further recommend that myself or any recognized consulting arborist , serve as consultant to handle any phases of work • • The consulting arborist should initiate this program for the first month in order to completely familiarize himself with the project,' Subsequently, periodic checks on progress of the project shoul d be m ad e by the arborist for the first year, in order to assure that all necessary work is being done to protect the trees' health and ,enhance their appearance, • .... - m,u..,•..r..x.n.v v✓wu.u,br treep-•w. � t II, , • • RECEIVED Mel', :` ,rl"'.'N I f.� I�l,,:'*nti 4•1: h, ;? I, 1 n'11t 71 Anti CITY OF TIARA P.U. Box 23397 ry . • 12420 S.W. Main A • Tigard,Oregon 97223 April 27, 1978 {�itamaiwgifirat P 00a ' 7 Peter Hoffman 188 8 S .W. Madison • Portland, Oregon 97205 RE: SDR 50-77 Dear Mr. Hoffman • Please be advised that on April 2E , 1978 your request for an appeal of staff approval that "exterior siding be cedar with natural stain" for an A-2 planned development, Canterbury Woods Apartments vicinity of S .W. 109th Avenue and S . W. Cantebury Lane (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 l0AD, Tax Lot 8800) was approved as follows: 1. Aluminum siding with staff approval of colors • with wood accent and trim left to the architect 's discretion. • • Sincerely, Nancy Edwards Community Design Planner NE/db cc: Darrell Kra.xberger, Architect • NOTE : The following acknowledgment must be received by the City of Tigard within fourteen (14) days of your receipt of this letter. Failure to return this acknowledgment may result in action by the City of Tigard. ' Retain carbon copy fo r your files and please return the original. Y hereby acknowledge documenting the action a PlanninghDirector letter I have received' and • of the Tigard doc��,entedl and to abade by terms the decision here attaohe agree t O 1 do y y s acid/or conditions d y tV r'd gnatur a e I I ,s,..a.•I.. «,,,.. . ..., , j • _ +.. _ ..�. ,-.�,'., t ,......... e tea ..,.... ..�. ........�. ,�_ ........... ....«....,. t.` ,...«,....�W.d.,- . _ ..,,.... , , • MINUTES y TIGARD SITE DEVELOPMENT AND ARCHITECT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD • April 25 1978 - 5: 30 P.M. 12420 S .W. Main St . Tigard, Oregon • 1. Call to Order : , • The meeting was called to order at 5: 30 P.M. by • Chairman McMonagle. 2. Roll Call : Present : Corliss, Hammes, McMonagle, Olson Unexcused Absence: Cook : . 3. Communication: None ti 4. Design Review: • 4 .1 SDR 50-77 Canterbury Wood Apartments An appeal by Peter Hoffman of condition' number 1 of the staff approval that ''Exterior' siding be cedar, fi with natural stain" for an A-2 planned development at S.W. 119th Avenue A. Staff Report : Read by Edwards B. Applicantts Presentation Peter Hoffman, applicant, stated that thw i •, quality of cedar had been deteriorating aAd that is aluminum siding presetted a maintenance free, attractive solution for the buildings. The f applicant also presented a slide show and color samples. I;' Disc e C, Board Discussion: Board ascusse the different applicat ion tlon m eG o ds � • for aluminum siding ;' Hammes moved and Olson seconded for aluminum "c siding With staff approval of colors with wood Accent and trim left to the architect 's discretion , ' -p •.�o approved by The irio* n way a 5prave� � unanimous voice vote . C .. 4 MINUTES vo,k, • ', TIGARD SITE DEVk,. uPMENT AND ARCHITECT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD A.pri:l. 25, 1978 • Page 2 4.2 SDR 2-78 Hunziker Industrial traal ark An appeal by John B. Hering of a staff denial on • the architect plan of a 84,000 square foot warehouse at S .W. Hunziker and S .W. 77th Place (Wash. Co. Tax Map 281 1BD, Lot 101) : ^ A. Staff Report : Read, by Edwards B, ,Applicant 's Presentation: Albert Biggerstaff, Architect presented the architect model to the Board and stated that the material would be exposed aggregate concrete tilt-up, with earth tone enamel canopies. Blake Hering, presented a slide presentation • of other industrial sites in the area, which used similar. architectural . C. Board Discussion; • Board discussed visibility of warehouse from the • ' right-of-way and the use of larger aggregate McMonagle suggested that 8-10 specimen size trees 15-20 feet tall be used to accent the building. Olson moved and Corliss seconded to accept the ' architect plans as submitted with aggregate size left to the architectts discretion The motion was approved by unanimous voice vote. Staff advised the applicant and Board that the 1 landscape and parking plan still required approval The Board expressed the wish to review the plan as soon as possible after submission to staff . 5. There being no other business the Meeting was adjourned at 7:20 P1M1 a .„ . +M1 ' I rl,P ,i�"+1,k.0 ,*fy,yt)�F"v'�F .p)1,34::y AI ■ i �i.R, 2F!' 4 ..'Ir Y,F°N ri February I28, 1978 .,,v.' .' . µ ` . . o'ti k':, 4" -• 4' Mr. Peter Hoffman, ; , .. • . 1888 S.W. Madison 0 Portland, OR 97205 ;, C • � ��, r 4 SDR 50b - 77 t Dear Mr. Hoffman Please be advised that on February , 1978, your request for site �; plan and arch,°itectural review of a 76 unit, multi-family housing ,'4. '•: . project at S.W. 1O t Avenue (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 10A D, Tax Lot Wx 8800) was approved subject to the a fo owin conditions: , . y '.. Exterior siding be cedar with natural stain. ,;,ta The following steps be followed in construction of the . . Planned Development: u ' 1 . Grading and drainage plan be submitted for planning • and building department approval prior to issuance ; of a grading permit for thy. loop road. ,. . b. After grading ing of the loop road a tree survey be done ,' and staff and the applicant determine the need for b minor shifting, of the uni�:anct exact location of the parking tally . (prior to issuance of building per it ," . ,{ a. A tree surgeon with suitable qualifications, to do-i ermine what work survival of trees which will be affected by on at �E will be necessary � �� +� ���ruc (Prior uance of building permit) Landscape � J � plan the area north of , • the tree line, details for dumpste s mailboxes a M I, picnic areas be submitted prior to issuance of build,- in permit. "` . 1. e. Site plan be revised to include decorative and vandal resistant lighting along the trail system and in the ' picnic areas. i r Ii f. Landscape plan for the area soUth of the tree line be rede . red prior to issUance Of occupancy permits, { 4A ♦ fi ..........,, ,..... •.. ,,...,, .,.•... .,. .I,.....,,.„u rva....i..u.iH e M..•,.v.er,.n,a..1. ,, .. . , ..,.l..P6 9m.1C?:'1 .. 1 oo.L.l.1i pp • » k W 1 1 41 Mr, Peter Hoffman 7� DB 50-77 Page i , S. As per City Council conditions 1 and 8, construction documents, � street dedication compliance, and performance bonds be submitted r - ' for engineering department app 7QVal prior to issuanoe of 1:' building permit. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this office at 639-4171. - sincerer Nancy Edwards Community Design Planner note. The following acknowledgment must be received by the CJity of Tigard within fourteen (1 4) days of your receipt of this ' letter. Failure to return this acknowledgment may result in action by the City of Tigard. yard • Tigard I hereby acknowledge this letter documenting the action of the Tigard Planning Director. I have received and read this letter, and I agree to the decision here documented and to abide by any terms and/or conditions attached. 'wwW�+Mri,nMM4MMIW ' i�^.Mwwr:I.J/.nM+Yaiw1Nw.,'w.w,YwyMrw44.'u „ ..r t ✓r---v Please be advised that conditions subject to c to f approval satisfied prior to issuance of building permits Encl. ' i I r , f SI • - 8_, .... 6, pa 7 exeyte40.44. ,.,,ez, ("-Th . k,,,,El q 4....A.4,t ) , T TIGARD DESIGN REVIEW rer ,2„ .,„ 1 . .�, ' 12420 SW Main St. - Tigard, Oregon ' SDR 50-77 Canterbury Woods Apartment s • Applicant : Peter Hoffman Request :� For site plan and architectural review of a 76 unit , multi-� family housing project ,, Location: • SW 109th Avenue (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1--10AD, Tax Lot $800) The site is bordered on the north and east by apartments and �, 109th Street on the south by a single family home and on the •. . west by a vacant parcel. . F , Site Designation: . The site is zoned A-2 Planned Development and designated as Af a Transitory area from "Residential-Commercial" to "Urban „'„► Low Density Residential” in the Tigard Community Plan 1971. Proposed Use: The applicant is proposing to build 76 multi-family units in accordance with the approved planned development. { , Site Description: ' The site is 7, 16 acres it size and slopes to the south with an api.roximately 40' grade change from the north property line to the south. Three quarters of the site is in climax growth fir trees. Previous Action: ZC 4-75 On November 8, 1376, the +r �;1 .,, . 4 't Council approved T 76 unit planned development subject •o the o o ing conditions : • 1. That SW 109th Avenue be improved to City standards of 34' pavement width on a 50 ' right-of-way from its existing end point through the intersection with the southerly loop drive enfixely on the applicant 's property and a 25 ' right-- , of-way be provided along the rest of the parcel's west • property line. The transition from the 50 foot right-of- 1 wz'y section to the 25 foot right-of-way section will Lis o ccur' o n the 4 1� o�i r c property, t h ereby n ecessitatin g the dedication of a triangular shaped parcel (8 on map) . c (' Page 2 „ SDR 50-77 , 2 . The areas along the loop drive not shown for parkins spaces . be signed to prohibit parking along that street . 3. A 15 ' wide easement for public sewers be established. 4. All sidewalk and trails terminate in wheelchair ramps, 5. Street lights to P.G.E. standards for Engineering Division approval. . . 6. The trail shown in the northern half of the development be 5 ' asphalt paths and the trail on the southern portion be left natural with minimal improvements of 'crusbed gravel of three to four inches of compacted bark. 7. A minimum of six picnic tables be established within the forested area; design and location subject to approval by Planning Director. 8. Additional right-of-way to be acquired on southerly point of proposed improvement of :109th, in order to allow transition of road to connect with presently dedicated part of 109th to the south . Site Plan and Architectural Review: The applicant is proposing to construct 9, two-story buildings around a circular loop road. Each building incorporates a landscaped courb yard, garages and covered decks . The siding is specified as either stained cedar or light brown aluminum. Since the main theme of the Planned Development was to blend. the units into the natural setting, cedar siding would be preferred. The major concern with the site, is that as many tE..2.244a1.11241.ble be saved. Because of the dense growth, a tree Ivey is infeasible tt—tiris stage, however, after the grading of the loop road a tree survey, should be done in order to determine the exact location of parking spaces and buildings. Those trees which will be adjacent to construction activity should be examined by a certified tree surgeon for the necessary branch and root pruning, and treatment for changes in grade, A landscape plan has been submitted for the northern portion of lot which is devoid of vegetation. Landscape Material is sparce and not ±n compliance with the planned development program which proposed "Those areas north Of the tree line will be planted with decid1r5traees q4„.„Ihl'ZI541=7474EZEZIT7I1717—Tt 51.7i7nize wif5-6xisting landscapinc, . Each building ZTII—E7Tdequately landscaping 4 pl6Wr6a-71TE—r6W—grn5b , i . e, , azalias, rhododendrons , etc." • • Page 3 „ TIGARD DESIGN REVIEW SDR 50-77 • • 6 Therefore a revised ''landscape plan and irrigation plan for the portion north of the tree line ,fulf illing this portion of the Planned Development program should be received rr to *. issuance of a buildin g permit . Details dumpster screens { m oxes, and picnic areas should also be included in this , submission. A landscape plan for the area south of the tree line should be received before issuance of occupancy permits. The reasoning behind this deviation from 'normal procedure is that a • better plan can be designed after the buildings are in place since l • it will coincide with vegetation loss due to construction activity. The site plan also specifies a large number of trees to be removed around the recreation building and lawn installed in their piar.e. According to the adopted Planned Development program "Areas within . • the tree line will be left as much as possible in their natural state . . . preserve the major grouping of tall fir trees" Therefore the trees should be retained in this area and the cleared portion of the site used for activities that require lawn. }. . According to the Tigard Police Department the proposed project • is in ore of hi er crime ens �� e fir_. ince fiT fanned k rlopment incorporates a trail system through heavily wooded areas it was their concern that some type of lighting be provided at points along the trail and near the picnic areas. Therefore the • plan should be revised to include decorative vandal-resistant lights in the appropriate locations . Code requirements for parking have been fulfilled, however it is staff ' s experience that overflow parking for guests should be . provided when possible . it is appropriate for this development in particular since double parking in the loop road could cause a great deal of congestion. Therefore additional parking should be , added where possible along the northern property line. No drainage or grading plan has been submitted. • These' should be submitted for Planning and Building Departments approval and should be oriented so as to have a minimum impact on the site ; Staff Recommendation : • • Staff recommends approval as submitted with following conditions Exterior siding be cedar with natural stain . The following steps be `n' construe i n the Plait 2 e �ollo�vecl in t `o of t Planned Development : I n Y'+*++ MW,I ue...b�.+f M1, .l+i.r,W...MY "Y•'�YIIMiWF • r.w.,Lrr.+»rlww..w...nw+rw......un vurw r•u..u,ur.uw ur..,,puwrr+rw.uprc+,,,wr...vrn u. rw ,"."u u.., r,......n ,,.. , - . .. • . • 1 ' • ^ . �••r...nwwwn,uww.wtl r.,.vnxwyN.,,l . lit � - , , ' - 1. M{ ki,. ..1 CL. page ... e SDR 50--77, . . ' a. Grading and drainage plan be submitted for planning and .. • building department approval prior to issuance of a . grading permit for the loop road. b. After grading of the loop road a tree survey be done and staff and the applicant determine the need for minor shifting of the units and exact location of the parking stalls (prior to issuance of building permit) , , , , A . Ca, o tC) determine�, P c. A tree surgeon with �suitable q, �, � g what work will be necessary to insure the survival of . � M � it trees which will be affected by construction: (Prior to I issuance of building' permit) , l d. Landscape and irrigation plan for the area north of the tree ; w line, details for dumpstern, mailboxes and picnic areas " ' be subm�.ttecl ,prior to issuance of building permit. I e. Site plan be revised to include decorative and vandal ti resistant lighting along the trail system and in the 1 picnic areas. r f . Landscape plan for the area south of the tree line be received prior to issuance of occupancy permits. 3. �AS per city Council condition 1 & 8, construction documents, . street dedication. compliance and performance bonds be submitted for engineering department approval prior to issuance of a building permit . 1 u• r R chard Bolen, Planning Director_. �. �� � g f 1 1 . /,‘ I 1,I d i • SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN .0 DESIGN REVIEW • Site Plan Review � � File `No. iC� �/j7 X Architectural Review Fee ReceiReceived APPLICATION ReceptNo. • Tigard Planning Commission � ' Date Receives:, ; -S- 7 12420 SW Main St. , Tigard, Or 97223 `7... 639-4171 DY-- /.? 1 • Project Title Cantebury Woods Apartments Date Filed December 1 , 1977 project Ad d ress Vicinity of S. W. 109th Ave. and S. W. Cantebury Lane, Tigard, Oregon Tax Map No. 2S 1 10AD Tax Lot No. 8800 Owner/Developer Peter Hoffman Address 388 s. W. Madison, Portland, Oregon 97 o s Telephone 228-2800 Owner's "� motor Telephone_ Signature fp, p . . ' DESCRIPTION OF PROP RTY � Proposed �� Buildings � p d Use # # Units Sq. Ft. lAu ti-fami 1 v hdjas i ng 9 76 units each 119,132 1 ,400 Site Size 7.6 acres Tot.Sq. Ft. of Buildings 120,532 sq:ft. 60 966 sq.ft.' 61 770 one story Sq. ,Ft: of Paving Sq. Ft. of Landscaping 208,401 Anticipated Development Date As soon as possible. ' Anticipated Development Phases one phase _ 1 0 0 ` 0 4 00 0 Val ua ti an � 0 • DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE ' Special Conditions - Dedications Bonding Other Final Inspection by a e c r i SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1i,,, D DESIGN REVIEW C•, / /772 • Site P 1 a n Review ,, No. Architectural Review Fee Received APPLICATION Recei pt No ...�_...�. _ Tigard Planning Commission Date Received 12420 SW Main St. , Tigard, Or. 97223 By k.. 639-4171 Project Title Cantebury Woods Apartments Date Filed '1 2-1 -77 Refi 1 ed Project Address Vicinity of S . W. 109th Ave. and S . W . Cantebury Lane , Tigard ,,Or. • Tax Map No. Wa . Co . 251 1 OAD Tax Lot, No. 8800 . • Owner/Developer Peter Hoffman -- Hoffman & Hoffman , Inc . A ' Address 1888 S .W . Madiso , Portland , Oregon Telephone 228 2800'. Owner's ,/ ArastrAto. Telephone Si gnature'''. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY • Proposed Use # Buildings # Units Sq. Ft. ' Multi- Family 9 76 Units 95790 sq ft. ------MMUS i ng including garagcc Recreation 61dg1 960 sq . ft. Site Size 7 . 6 acres Tot.Sq. Ft. of Buildings 96750 sq . ft. 57238 sq . ft. one story Sq. Ft. of Paving 47550 sq . ft. Sq. Ft. of Landscaping 21 0887 sq . ft, ( excluding 109th Ave. extension ) Anticipated Development Date As soon a s p o s s i b l e . , Anticipated Development Phases one e Phase Valuation 1 4 mi l li oh --- DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE Special Conditions - Dedications .�_: bonding Other • Final Inspection by a Date , ( . 1' , N9 Fr a, e , ,.. "` i1 1• , . N . ' fr,;:.1.1...:11,:i I 7ale WASHINGTON COUNTY OFFICES . titre insurance Beaverton Office Hillsboro Office ' -~eArrows 12012 S.W,,Canyon Road 451 S.E.First Avenue Beaverton,Oregon 97005 Hillsboro,Oregon 97123 " Phone646-8181 April 19, 1977 Phone 6404795 �. • 0' Calway Hill Homeowners Association P. O. Box 23012 . . , Tigard, Oregon' 97223 -. Att: Dale Howe, president Re: Escrow No. 330865 ii '. . Annand/Hoffman & Hoffman, Inc. Gentlemen e We enclose herewith our check in the amount of $1,500,00, representing ' , payment of, sewereeasement, per agreement with Hoffman & Hoffman Hilltop ( '. . Estates. Also, enclosed - photo-copy }easement Agreements • • We hold in escrow the amount of $500,00 as bond to insure performance . • ; of the sewer connection line and insure replacement of the common area to its original form. It is our pleasure to be of service in thi regard. Very truly yours, TITLE xNSURANC8 COMPANY OF OREGON ‘ , • ._ � -. (Mrs,) Carrie ins Beaverton Office JO/11h . �i ' rC/11h " P Etc'1 2 �� ` r ` rte. 4 • . 4 59 i 3145 W PrJURTH,AVE�7 b AND,oneooN bt2o4 PHONE 16565?Y'bR1 AckA 7E4 s N STATE s1`R ET1L&63o tv Go COUNTY 1 flUl'rN i12.1jIh�T4EETlOfi EGON97dl$ TiLIkEL1511E ,OR_GDN9t03 T� E " 551 s fl • v d' . . \ • rn • EASEMENT DATED: April 18, 1977 BETWEEN: CALWAY HILL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, • w an Oregon nonprofit corporation, P.O. Box 23012 Tigard, Oregon 97223 ("Grantor.") AND: HOFFMAN & HOFFMAN HILLTOP ESTATES, ♦ an Oregon partnership, . " • ("Grantee") Grantor owns the real property located in Washington County, Oregon and described in attached Exhibit A. and has the 1. right to grant easements upon portions of this property. Grantor • 1 desires to grant an easement for sewer line purposes to Grantee ' !: V on a portion of the property described in. Exhibit A on the following terms and conditions. Grantee desires to obtain an easement for sewer purposes on a portion of the property described in Exhibit A on the following terms and con ,i,tions. ' a NOW THER' WORE, in consideration of the mutual`"covenants and conditions contained in this Easement Agreement, the parties agree as follows: SECTION 1 GRANT OF EASEMENT Grantor grants to grantee an easement for the placement, , operatittn, and maintenance of a sewer line in the fifteen foot �• Wide strip of real property described in attached Exhibit A. The ;. • easement granted herein shall authorize Grantee to utilize the • . ,.«......._,., .. ...... A .. y , _ ,4)'u.. • I. . u .A .r...r f4 .— ......e».- r......—s.r e...e......_,..-J—h•_...u., ...n._r.._�..r. • red• +, i , i ' I , � •r • easemented property only for purposes of placing, operating, and • maintaining a sewer line and for no other purposes. Grantee shall be authorized to h-''e access to the sewer line only for reasonable maintenance purposes and shall have the right to pass over the surface of the easemented property only as is necessary for maintenance of the sewer ,line. SECTION 2 CONSIDERATION • The consideration to be paid by Grantee to Grantor is, r I the sum of ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED and 00/100 DOLLARS ($1,500.00) , the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged. SECTION 3 RUN WITH THE LAND • The easement rights granted in this Easement Agreement shall run with the "land and shall burden the easemented property and shall benexit the contiguously owned property.of Grantee. The easement rights granted herein shall be appurtenant to the contiguously owned property of Grantee and. shall burden and bene- fit Grantor, Grantee, and their respective successors, heirs and , assignees ' SECTION 4 TERM The easement rights granted herein shall be valid and enforceable in perpetuity. SECTION 5 OBLIGATIONS OF 'GRANTEE • The grant of this easement is conditioned upon Grantee performing the following obligations 2 I I e I I • I e i', i, ,.. •r. .r...a .....:.. ...... . ...... .e....-w.... ., .Ix4 i ax (a) At the time of obtaining a building permit authorizing Grantee to locate a sewer line within the easemented property, Grantee shall post a bond with Grantor in an amount equal to the construction cost of the sewer line as indicated on plans and • specifications submitted to the City of Tigard. The terms of the bond shall provide that if Grantee fails to properly construct the sewer line and fails to do so in a timely fashionf that the Grantor shall. be paid the amount of the bond and the Grantor shall 0 complete the construction of the sewer line. The , amount of the bond shall include not only the • construction costs, of the sewer line but also the cost of restoring the surface of the easemented property i erty to its condition prior to'l the grant of this easement. (b) After the construction of the sewer line has been completed, Grantee shall restore the surface of the easemented area to a condition ,1•5^h is reasonably comparable to its condition prior to the time of the grant of this easement: At a minimum; this shall re-- i' ' • quire that the Grantee landscape the surface of the eas enented property, with appropriate plantings and - fi barkdtis.t. � l 3 nW. 4, • I I d (c) After the sewer line •has been completed,' Grantee :N agrees to landscape a parcel of property y located behind a garage which is to the southwest of the easemented ' p ' '''confo area. This area shall be landscaped in-conformance rmance ', • to the landscaping placed on the surface of the ease- �.' mented property. (d) Grantee agrees that Grantee shall construct no • • building or improvements within twenty-fiv'e feet of j the property 'line which is the`,eastern, boundary' o .a Grantor's contiguously awned property. In addition, no floodlighting of any'form whatsoever shall be utilized in connection with any structure to be built; by Grantee <, and located on property adjaceri't to' the prop rty of I (e) Along the property l�.n' i ?, e ides the property l, ' of Grantor and Grantee, G. antor shall construct a fence oublefaced cedar it,. a height of d ^ g not less than five �, feet. he fence shall be painted with an earthtone color comma ' ,: pl�imentary to the colors of housing units located within 1 ; ' • . , Calway Hill. The property immediately adjacent, to both I sides of the fence shall be landscaped in reasonable conformance with the landscaping required on the surface �' of the easemented property and shall include the planting L . of six.to eight foot evergreen trees, ") C.�J4 ':''�� .t.-,,,..,,,� ,,l'i,1„1-4..:'i I. I re ) • ' .. ' ,' • I • • I , • SECTION 6 RESTRICTION ON GRANTOR Grantor shall not construct any building or. other • c_ a structure on the easemented property without the prior written consent of Grantee. SECTION 7 INDEMNIFICATION BY GRANTEE Grantee agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold Grantor harmless from all demands, claims, and losses made against or incurred by Grantor arising out of or in any way connected with , the grant of this easement. SECTION 8 ATTORNEYS' FEES If any party should file suit to enforce its rights under this easement agreement, the prevailing party shall recover, " and the other party shall pay, its reasonable attorneys' fees as determined by the court at trial or upnn any appeal. therefrom. ♦ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties havei,.e ecuted this Easement Agreement to be effective on the date first shown above. CALWAY HILL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION GRANTOR • • By (44:ti.‘ V. 4 HOFFMAN & FOFFMAN HILLTOP ESTATES GRANTEE /1 • • } ♦ f `k IS 1 . _ . " I • 1�I ia: itlt�• S. n1kfliS 11700 ALLEN AVENUE ' dRrAV EATON OREGON 4 7005„ 7--l�G09 ' (.4 NSULTINGJSV \SURVEYOR , . , ril 6, 1877 ;' ' A Legal .�Desc'ription for a l5ft. ,li:de Sanitary Sewer E.asemen- 1 i Situate in the N.E. 1/4 of.Section 10, Township 2 South, Range I ,`r r West, tllil3amette Meridian,• City of Ti;oard, Washington County • `. .. - _ Oregon, and being 7.5" ft. on each side of the following',des- ,a . criUcd centerlines • . • :;! ,- - . , • Beginning at a point on the west line oC L,U G lit LL No.. 2 ,a plat ' ' of record, in said county, 193.89 feet, 'more or less, N 0--5x•'-5p, E �;, • ' • " from the southwest 'corner of ,said ,plat and running thence '. -' • "••L`r" • '•` `' ,X , S 89—O7-=1.0 E on the 'centerline of said',easement 115.0 feet, more ='`"-'"•,, .• w••„• or less, to and terminating at the westerly cul-de- sac right-of•-way''•--, • • of S.W, '1OGth Avenue, and''S,W _Delmonte Drive in. said 'LANG HILL No 2;', 'H ' y _ c . r • A. „ • ,4 �'", \\)1 ` NJ ,• id:'i- f/1 k. .`" . ,, C all ,SA A , 4 It • . • ' L.' --7T..n.—' ' ,. l' .' ' 2,6-/-M41) el- r=d:�•' J • N ' • . + % a' ill'x,0'4--._4rtWlE M ��!"; ' • eal,i,f. ate` 8c-r . •of,T. 64, e t, , • " i"i?5c� I be 1 ��n ca v j ' ,! ;'....•• •i ,, f•+ n / •Sr ii y `, ♦ ,�t• 11 toy k • sy' 1 ` t. . , . ' , ` •1 ,! i!!a. .'1 MJ l • • a • •,; i.41- n'a1t,'i4 4„f,• • r 1 ♦fir • '� •ra ,,• - ` I A ♦r- I r .w. s . . w .. . , ,, , n • ,-.r ,....,..—.- ».., .. w.zM..u., ..........r _«.a,�.,». ..,4»,....i.-..,.,a...,...-...h...,..-..a.,..,.....,......•_.,..-„....... ..::.x.,e•.,r,<.,..,. ..:..»...,r..'�..r,.w.,..,....._.,a,-.+,.w .ar.. r .....r ,_.,.. ,m.,..x.... • • ■ • , - x ,STATE OF OREGON ) )County of Multnomah) ss. • I I On this 19th day of April , 1977, pers.Dnally appeared the above named Grant Stebner , who being duly sworn did say that he is the President of CALWAY HILL HOME-- ' OWNERS ASSOCIATION, and acknowledged that the foregoing EASEMENT was executed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its Board of Directors. !Li( ( Not.ry Public for Oregcn t My Commission Expires; fry" r--:• ^_w,._• ".,`.tn,19:37 • STATE'. OF OREGON ) ) ss. County of Multnomah) On this /I day of r%�' r 1977, personally appeared before me, re,-4.e„- L3. , Gw- .z reN i Who being duly sworn, did say that he is a partner of liOFFMAN & HOFFM.AN HILLTOP ESTATES, a partnership, and acknowledged this EASEMENT to be the tree and voluntary act and deed of said partnership. Notary Public - x O egori. M y Commission Expires: J.) l3 V',70 . I • • • I ' ” I I , .y,.r rye'.$/]) ,,.+ •f I I • • • • • • • • • • • r • • • P, • • • • 1. • • • • • ' a • . _ '1N v • Escrow No 330865 Anrand/Roffman I-Iaff-mau. Inc. Payment of sewer easement $1,500.00 ■ 03/hh • • ■ • • h , d . • • • • 1. • • • Sk, '1 I,. . o • ■ 1. • • Y 4. • • • r I • l I .............^� '.',,..,i..........,. �. ., .r. .....,� ........, ,-.. ,�4,,...,., ......gyp. 1 • • ■ • • • • ro, 1 ■ I r n ^a• r . r January.' , 197 • c r , ' '4545. S. a Scholls. Ferry. JAS. ad i; aid 7 . a C4. /5 Tae Tigard City 'Council adopted O di atice i4c . 76,-,40' which is 'enclosed for your `,iles,, pprov .ug 'your' zone change ze uest 'The approval' is ' ...dependant upon the .ght con ons as forth' :the Ordinance. ' If you have any questions$ please' feel 'free to contact Mr. Dick. Bolen. ' i ce e1 sis : , City.Reco der 1 Dliglw c� . A 1 n . I i • I I.V '. ' ' r P , /44.1),„A -7) i 4 f , I . $-. r 4 e/ JLQ L CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 76- Al ' 5. AN. ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO AN AMENDMENT TO THE ' , 1970 ZONING MAP OF T.. CITY OF TIGARD AS AMENDED SAID AMENDMENT S. BEING REQUESTED BY KENNETH B N►,- TO AMEN'D THE ZONING MAP FROM THE ' PRESENT R-7 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE, TO A--2, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE, AND AUTHORIZING THE USE OF `SAID LANDS AS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 18. 56, TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE, WITH RESPECT TO ALL THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED ON THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A", GRANTING APPLICANT AND FIXING AN EFFECTIVE 0 DATE. �' • • The City of Tigard ordaines as fellows Section 1 : The Council finds that lands described and stipulated on Exhibit "A" , and hereafter called the '"subject pro- perty" , have heretofore been and are now classified R- 7, Single 4 Family Residential , pursuant to the zoning ordinances of the City. ' of Tigard. .1 Section 2 : Council further finds that pursuant to procedures, an -- — applicatioh for amendment of the zoning map by designating �l the subject property a residential planned development district and , for consideration of the general plan and program was the subject of a public hearing by the Planning Commission on August 17, 1976 . E The Commission has heretofore filed its report with the City Recorder , and a copy of that report is attached to this ordinance and by `' S reference made a part hereof. The Planning Commission report recommends approval of the' application Section 3 : The Council further finds that , after due and legal ' • �_ ����� notice, public hear..ng was held on September 13 1976, \ , by an impartial Council, and that at said hearing applicant and all interested parties were afforded an opportunity to be heard and to present and abut evidence with respect to said application. j� L . Section 4 : Based on the evidence both oral and documentary and the . . _.� ._._ �_ record of said bearing, the City Council makes the . following findings : ;,i • A . That the comprehensive plan entitled ''Tigard Community . Plan" a8 amended, includes the subject property as. part of a larger area designated for "residenti.al commercial" • and the granting of the app] icant ' s request complies with 1• that pl a'n , . D. That the proposed amendment to the zoning map is consistent with the public need shown by ,the applicant ; . for a proposed residential developments d • 1 1. ll d' 4 6'. I9 { . ° } I • • C. That the proposed development , subject to the conditions hereinafter set forth will not unduly burden the adjacent neighborhood, nor will it have an undesirable impact upon the coiramunity . D. That public services, including water, sewer, storm drainage, electrical and gas utilities are readily available to the site and are sufficient, providing certain conditions hereinafter set forth' are satisfied. That r E. Tha.t n.ecessar y and legal public access and ti egress • is to be provided by the applicant pursuant to the general development plan and program attached hereto ° r and made a part hereof by reference . F. That the proposal of the applicant , with the ° J respect to the dedication of public lands and rights-- ; of-way, construction of public improvements, land; t: scapi_ng and those other improvements and ammenties ° identified in or shown by the general plan and pro- gram, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and those further requirements and conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission all hereinafter set forth, will enhance acceptability of this proposed residential ,w. development . G. That the applicant is "owner" of the subject pro= perty by virtue of an agreement in, the nature of an option between the applicant , Ken Bunn , and Jack Armand • . Section 5 : The City of Tigard, therefore, pursuant to the require ments of Chapter 18 . 88 and 18 .56 of the Ti.'gare Municip,:l ' 4 Code, hereby approves the applicant ' s request for an amendment to the Tigard zoning map of 1970 as amended, subject to all applicable requirements of Chapter 17 and 18 of the Tigard Municipal Code and,' further subject to the requirements, conditions and any restrictions • , that may be embodied in this ordinance and its exhibits, hereto ° attached and made a part hereof and identified as follows Exhibit "A" Property Description 4: Exhibit "B" General Site Plan Exhibit "C" General Development Program and subject to the following requirements and conditions of approval : 1 , That S .W . 109•th. Avenue be improved to City standards m • of 34 ' pavement width on a 50 ' ri:gnt-of-way' from its existing end point through the intersection with thY� • southerly loop drive entirely on the; applicant ' s property and a 25 ' right-of-way be provided along the rest of the parcel ' s uest property line The transition from the 50. Toot right-of-way ay section to the 25 foot right-of-way section will occur on the applicant 's property,, thereby necessitating the dedication of a triangular shaped pad,ce:l (B on map) , 1 ' , /, ef ', •.,eY ,„ (. M1 A . 'i 1 • U ' /1.of •, • 2. The arcs along the loop drive nol;, .hown for parking "' spaces be signed to prohibit parking along that street . : ; 3. A 15 ' wide easement for public sewers be established. '• 4. All sidewalk and trails terminate in wheelchair ramps . ., 5. Street lights to P.G.E. standards for Engineering ..! wN Department approval . :, ;. .. n Lo 6. The trail shown in the northern half of the develop 5, . :, ment be 5 ' asphalt paths and the trail on the southern , d' portion be left 'natural with minimal improvements of 1, . crushed gravel of three to four inches of compacted bark. 7. A minimal of six picnic tables be established within .4 . ' the forested area; design and location subject to approval . ,by Planning Director. ,; g., S . Additional right-of-way to be acquired on southerly k point of proposed improvement of 109th, in order to allow „ transition of road to connect with presently dedicated ; ' part of 109th to the south. ,...,,-,1 ,.; , Section 6 : The applicant shall, pursuant to Section 18 56 . 060, Tigard j;;, ��_ _ Municipal Code, within one year of the effective date of !'!' ' this ordinance file e a final plan and, program with the City . °, Section 7: If substantial construction or development has not taken I ;,, place within one year of th,e effective date of this ''. • ordinance this ordinance shall be void. *. • i ., I ' Section 8 : This ordinance shall be effective on and. after the 31st ;,'1, ' , - day after its passage by the Council and approval by the ' Mayor . , K. ;w PASSED: By unanimous vote of all Council Members present , after .,1 being read three times by number and title only, this ,'” ..e,_... 1 day of f ,_ , /,,,''; , 19�;,�,67 ' Recorder - C i f's/ o 1' ;aiTd-- -- f . APPROVED : By the Mayor, this ....z.�.� day of f fV�cc,.uu ,,LLe, , 19 ;, • Mayor - City of Tigard - F; _1,,',/,;e-e1P'''6'-/ ‘, --4-1 - / ,r „ ORDINANCE N0 76- y{ T. • O .. ' ...+....14a•....uvu.tn 1v+wamaAnyy,.. I., A . \ :tw'Y""..).M14.4„ains.-4=^'.= ....".,.5.,'W-...-e^.!."7w ,,,,,,tr.:.?,,,-. 1,Zt"id"$lFlk.'':∎'k^g'Z11.YX;*.I17M,^..`2'DIC'.'.:,47.r.S117.w'i"N.'.',:lu,,.,",drat^'"' _«C=1,111,,111L"E1LfSi.V='S r-r.+:'.3",:1:e:4 a.. �°Mtn.R11.'444,2,a71I!»"rt.^A'F".1"u'1`J�.. ,w 0 . ' k. '.4dW ii 442,,4t 4 r ����i �{ r'rt r., f��p� 2,7}X';-2�+ n�"`z; '.'. ,� ':i-`,11' t^,.;r,t';��A � 1l� h �� , . . y �( �e:' li t� � 'ntl�:za 1: .�,,� �,..a�...,_'rGt`W� Y+ �.G. �J�e� t:a.'`J4,�+��r s.n.^Cfr'�Y�.���,ar,�� �+_'.�Lr"""'r R � r��' "����L� �.AV-leg-21,r ,��,-n:�w� x fir:, ba;,_k a �# �;�,> �: `ii i;. ` a d µii C. ik : ri 4 t , " . A . , ,,' E' '"-.5 14 L A Pc.t E3 j, IL)M 14.CA 97.MM 1 :'.''''-'7,:",r°1 k.':::-.4-,',7,-,,,:, , i 0 w r. ,fv....,,,, 7,,,,,_.,„... , , ,. ,, . L4 ,% � �rr,~au'zinc,., . fW �� . �1 , r f + t�, " d ',' , 1 September 9, 1976 . Y 1 r ,GRD 4 CITY, � T ' , ' jk,,g, -Er,„-ccf-rt_. -PLiii,,3 c.:',-PRe-:&..1.2-Aic.1,-., ' ' . ' ' City of Tigard P.O. Box 23557 ' Tigard,d Oregon 97223, File No. AC-75 (Ken Bunn) . . ” • Gentlemen: , It is our understanding that the 76 unit multi-family residential planned 0 development at Centebury Heights has been approved by the Tigard Planning . • . " Commission and now will go to the City Council for general plan and program • . • review, ' The items ,whi ch were lade a part of the approval have now been included o on the existing plans. They are as follows: 1 . The engineering department has given their approval to connect to the ,, sanitary sewer on 106th Street. We have obtained approval from the Condominium Homeowner's Association adjacent to the site to provide a :; . 15' easement through their site for the sanitary sewer location. Storm sewer will extend to the southerly portion of 109th where the outfall will be dispersed into Washington Counties' storm collection ditch. :, 2. S. W. 1 09th is shown to be improved to the loop dri ve entirely on , ' this proper^ty. A 25', right-of-way extends along the entire remainder of .. . , , the westerly property. t, s 3.& 4. The street plug along the west side of 109th wil° be developed .. and the existing street plug on 109th will be removed when construction is un de rway: � 5. Parking sighs to prohibit parking will be "included along roadways prior ' to occupancy 6. Public sewer easement will be noted once plans are submitted for design , review 7. The applicant will comply with items 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 & 13. Clarification ' of those items will be submitted along with plans during the Oesign review r processF �'.... fk'.ry .,.0"bS:w.F."..Lr.fi�.:Y.in�'L7t02:..,2i,.•.. javir1S.3IIYw 4 FT� 'L!" r. r A � , A / , , ,. n ,r . .. „ n. ,. .. •., ,w ', .,X' y',o ,.,, ,...wa4.....a.... w,,,,: r ,,...,.., ° m." ro a y 4 • N 1 I y • ,.. S$,3wr lH="w4-. u..�9R, .,`.J.-....;:oxvi x,«IT�e, 5,..rr," 4 yt"»,',=ivg.9 41. .++..*..3hE,,.1t `:;I�..V 0.4..:v1t..7 _�M:.4-,:'"w7itm.,ta,f1 1.:1,74=4t.t"AiC r,4twttt.." Xtif "rtli d7 w fiY:,G�f:6Y1L...S,;� � tin I C ty of Tigard ,. September 9, 1976 Page 2 � t 11 Application to rectify the partitioning problems are now underway. If any other items are as yet unresolved, please let us know and we will attempt to clarify them before the City Council meeti ng on September 13th. y' . , Yours very truly,� s , . THE AN LOM/KRAXBERGER PARTRSHIP A. I.A. (,..,) Jose. 4. Van Lom, A.I.A. Architect t, JVL 1 v1 9 y Nn '$ 4 i Mt 4/ C h .� I CITY �'�: p 'A • r. • n 3 4' , .w-..0,,..• ,:tkk=...,,..,:167.',C4a.'&,k.. ,.'g"µ77"d. a4 44 4t`'wY'..'"':«7tPvit.'a7!xt,�u"S IVChxt17,".'.".k..C,"n^71'h.+..,,.!.:'AI'Ydt: .e u,..,vCt:„,t,IA..Y.C,Y4'a.,..aa.,«iv:YY,h,...,,:.,.,J,-P,:.: !. .':+`as5 4. r. t '�' �t a 3�.„t,. taY'e,t":�»SSA=:,.;�P.Cx”.1 i�Y1.>,^.ti:.:zce•IR�'G.::'M+:M�'M...7XX14.+�.1i9 u1}",,,�','w"A.kz4:1at6r, . i 1 , r +'• wirtquq i 4, .• • I It go (b) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Wakem to adopt Resolution No. "�E thereby setting� Public Hearing w�..,.w.��t++r commr er cing at ;8:00 p.T :. , i ecember 13, 1976 ,at Fowler Junior • High School Lecture Room, 10865 S.W.'! Walnut Street, Tigard, Oregon: Approved by ufan, mows vote of Council. 22. SANITARY SEWER CONTRACT - John A, Loewer , 12195 SW T1ppit place R (a) City Recorder recommended Council' s approval.� (b) Motion to approve and authorize of co ntr aot; Council- man Cook, seconded by Councilman Mickelson, o y: Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 23. SANITARY & STORM SEWER EAS MENT - FIG Holding Company (a) Public Works Director recommenced approval. (b) Motion to accept and authorize execution of easement, Councilman Mickelson, seconded by Councilman 'Cook. . Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 24, SANITARY SEWER CONTRACT - Kenneth P. & Dona ,r Bouman. for property located at 9290 S W Durbam Rood. (a) Public Works Director recommended approval. (b) Motion to approve and authorize execution of agreement; - Cou.ncllbar M' cke1so , seconded by Councilman.r Cook, Approved by unanimous vote of Council, X25. ORDINANCE No 76.E C AN ORDINANCE ADOPTI FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO AN AMENDMENT TO THE 1970 ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF 'TIGA AID AMENDMENT BEING REQUESTED' BY KENNETH BO TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE, TO ' A-2, MULTI-FAMII RESIDENTIAL ZONE, AND AUTHOHI2ING THE USE OF SAID LANDS .AS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 18.56, TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE, WITH RESPECT TO AIL THOSE LANDS DESCRIBFD ON T ATTACHED }t, . � I �_ �G GRANTING .�a� ' �+CHI � �' �'A.oy , � APPLICANT AND FIXING AND EFFECTIVE (a) planning Director recommended Council's,'s spp oval with at amend- ment on page 2, section 5 sub er;tion, 1 by adding the following last sentence / The transition from the 50 f oot right-of-way section to the 2 foot right-o '-way section oc cup on applioant' S , property thereb y necessi tating the dedication a t r2iangular ,shaped parcel. 0 on map) Page 6 COUNCIL MlNU 8S - NOVEMBER 8, 1976 n n 'a„ • (b) Motion to adopt ordinance No. 76-43 as amd iued, Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Nickelson. Approved by unanimous vote of Council_ voting - Mayor Bishop abstaining. 26. ORDINANCE No. 76-44 AN ORDINANCE ATlENDING THE TIGARD MINI"CIRAL CODE CHAPTER 18.58, SITE DEVE OPI€NT PLAN TO CLARIFY BEGINNING POINT FOR `NEA,SUREt€N'T OF FRONT YARD LANDSCAPING IN M-2, 3 AND 4 ZONES; AND CHAPTER - 18.60, OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING TO 7 RE ; T ZFY DISCREPANCIES AND CLARIFY ANY VAGUENESS WITH ' . •,. .,r RESPECT TO ALLOWANCE OF OFF-STREET PARKING IN YARD SETBACKS. i (a) planning Director recommended Council's approval. (b) Motion to adopt; Councilman Wakem, seconded by Councilman .;f► (c) Discussion by Council and staff followed. . Approved by unanimous vote of Council." \ , 27. ORDINANCE No. 76-45 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TIGAfl ) MUNICIPAL CODE, • ; CHAPTER 18. 76, VARIANCES? BY ADDING A NEW SECTION ; DESIGNATED 18,76.0 '0, ESTABLISH AN EXPIRATION DATE FOR A VARIANCE APPROVED AND NOT EYZRCISED. • (a) Legal Counsel recommended mended Council as approval with a correction in Section 4, seventh line to read as follows; "expiration � m, r of � ► of one year from the date of a.ppxOVa1, CO .st ruction . v . . (b) Lotion to adopt, ordinance No. 76-45 as corrected; Cou.ricilL en Cook, seccnded by Councilman M{ckeison. I Approved by unanimous ous vote' of Council. . 28. 0'D rN,ANC fio. AN ORDINANCE Ai NDING THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE„ �. . .. CHAPT ERS 18.48' AND 1S. 2 "M-3, SIGHT D'J TRI LL" and ttM-4, INDUSTRIAL PA It 20148S, TO ADD c'r AAi.N USES AS A CONDITIONAL USE .IN SAID ZONES. (a) Planning Dig ectar recommend,ed ' aatoil's approval. , (b) Motion to adopt; councilman Wakern, seconded by Councilman - Moore Approved by unar• .x cus votC of council, Page 7- CCUNC;xL MINUTES NOVEMBER 6 1976 • F l • ■ OP a , 1r `4 t,, VAN ! . �i 4'". r B ,:i. r`,,r° ram t ,'�(.�If,9,-� �d Ri • ', : { " ,,, ,i1,- )4 ARCHITECTS I PL ANNIE,,— A 1, a a� .',4-,;,,':,:',=',",-:a ),'ryit •; ` 46 SW. BC 4 LLE PERRY O 0 7ia,i;'�°. ,".j / PD TLANL p OREGON 87 � f{„s,' PHONE: BC23 Bee' Bess , a t �:i,Li:::J + x.,hf,�:pt-(. die FimM ! i . September ber 9 19 6 � A City of Tigard 6ec?.3 P.O. Box 23557 ° Tigard, Oregon 97223 Pile No. AC-75 (Ken Bunn) ,. . Gentlemen: It is our understanding that the 76 unit multi-family residential plonnecl • , development at Centebury Heights has been approved by the Tigard Planning Commission and now will go to the City Council for general plan and program r review. " The items which were made a part of the. approval have now been included on the existing plans. They are as follows: 1 . The engineering department has given their approval to connect to the sanitary sewer on 106th Street. We have obtained approval from the „' Condominium Homeowner's Association adjacent to the site, to provide a ' 15' easement through their site for the sanitary sewer location. Storm sewer will extend to the southerly portion of 109th where the outfall will be dispersed into Washington Counties' storm collection ditch. �; 2, S. W. 109th is shown to be improved to the loop drive eftirely on / / this property, A 25' right-of-way extends along ong the entire remainder of the westerly property. 3.8( 4. The street plug along the west side of 109th will be developed r 1 and the existing street plug on 109th will be removed when construction i,s ., underway. 5. Parking signs to prohibit parking will be included along roadways prior to occupancy. i 6, Public sewer easement will be noted once plans are submitted for design nevi eta. y. 7. Th e applicant W i 11 comply with items ✓ � 8 i 9,- 10� 12 & 1.3� Clarification f�e�t�on f r of those items Will be submitted along with plans during the Design Review a process. r .. r e • Y ILtF�6l$/1�5.O�f�+�S17�7YCW1d�'7...0..• A•. ..t ....n•.._r. r. r.. n.. r .v.u.. qy�p " R p p City of Tigard September 9, 1976 Page 2 jI • '1• • . . 1 i . Application to rectify the partitioning problems are now underway. � � � "� . If any other items are as yet unresolved, please let us know and we will attempt to clarify them before the City Council 'meeting on September 13th. Yours very truly, THE yAN LOM/KRAXBERGER PART ERSHIP A.I.A. Jose h I. Van Loin, A. I.A. Architect J VL l vi 1 +t o tai t' 13 S { ? CITY OF TIGAR, i i i i i n • it 1 nupimunamam zaiva 1 • • CITY OP TI(AR NOTICE OF P 4J B�.LlI HEARING E ` Notice is e. given hearing Will the City Council at Fowler Junior 'High Lecture loam, 10865 S.W. Walnut, Tigard, Oregon on September 13, 1976, at 8:00 P. . with respect to the fallowing application. Request . utE n un r general plan and program review _ of a Props r s . enti .l planned development located at S.W. 109th Avenue and S.W. Canterbury Lane. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 281 10AD, tax lot 88O0) ti All interested persons may appear and be heard, in 'aVor of or , against the said. proposal. BY ORDER OP TfE CITY COUNCIL :a Boris 'Har tig City Recorder • TT publish Sept. 2,, 9, 1976 • • • • • a 3 h• e • • a . .. ,,�-1 ....n n ,' ^' ....,..,. ..,an...Fa..�...a.mc+...1L�.ur I . , . ,n is ,, , . D . p � .� L9 • :', e� is t ny Oregon 9 $ 8 ,., 1 ' e'8 4 7 pear, b'1~, 11 mat � The Tigard;Craa its axait 2,,$#,. 15760 ' . ' public heating: Foil your r' ues f6r g�"o , �: , : ,: 'n rta rim review 1 . of p p se residential e c v s n c te t ! . 09 � � „‘„',i0.1.:.,.. � f Gy Lane, q G i6 y � j U � 1976 . 8*00 � � gi# � M High , W � p �yyyy r rMMy fH � ' If you have. s a bons,* please feel e s o , ct ht4, offiC . ' ' ' ' i a City ,. • u , U 0t04 The following a knout dgmenoY Y�mU be. 4 i4eiv d y,• 014 City M. . :Lza by ;:yep e 1 0 974 " : u i ol40 r . a ' '.a I ac o t it 'igv 4 A a i . ' ' e edge he ' ' dOto vf :ty OUblit 111A4Vitis,v . ' . s iguo*Its .. I r 1 • I . I . 9f: 4 ` . I ) Y I Arammiimmumminua I I i1, 8u WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS John R. Skourtes, Natl. Safety Co. re: waiver of variance fee. Blaine Whipple re: Rev. Sharing for Oregon Cities Governor Straub re: Rev. Sharing for Oregon Cities Jason Bae re: Land Use Survey Memo from Planning; Staff re: frontage road U.S.A. re: Sewer Service Rate Increase State Highway Division rep Allen ,Blvd. - 217 Interchange League of Oregon Cities re: National League of Cities Annual Congress Pat Whitirg re: Rev. Shartug for Oregon Cities (a) Council requested communication from League of. Oregon Cities to be coi.isidered under "Other" later in meeting. (b) Motion to receive and file; Councilman Moore, seconded by Councilman Cook. I Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 9. SETTING OF PUBLIC HEARINGS: (a) Motion by Councilman Moore; seconded by Councilman Cook to set the follow- ing Public Hearing for September 13, 1976 commencing at 8:00 P.M. at Fowler Junior High School Lecture Room: 1. ZONE CHA. request by Ken Bunn for general plan and prog.,am review of a proposed residential planned development located at S.W. 109th Ave. and S.G . Canterbury Lane (Wash. Co. Tait Map 2S1 10AD, Tax Lot 8800)» Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 10„ APIIIMIt REFUND 'DMV/R,C. MA;LIN Design Review Board Fees $60.00 (a) Planning Director recommended Council's approval. (b) Motion to approve; Councilman Wakem, seconded by Councilman Mickelson. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 11. RESOLUTION No 76-667 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, IN BEHALF OF THE CITIZENRY OF THE TIGARD COMMUNITY, DECLARING THE CITY'S SUPPORT OF AND REQUESTING CONSIDERATION OF A MODIFICATION OF THE COMMON BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE TIGARD SCHOOL DISTRICT , (No. 23-3) AND THE BEAVERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT (No. 48)» . (a) City Administrator recommended Council's approval„ (b) Motion to approve; Councilman .Wakem, seconded by Councilman Mickelson, (c) Discussion by Council and staff followed with regards to supporting citizen's request to change school district boundaries. ' ( Approved by unanimous vote of CounGilN 12. APPROVE SPECIFICATIONS F�� STREET R ESURFACING PROGRAM (a) Ci t y Administrator' � ' the direction of C � _�. , staff w as submitting) g ) for Counc il adoption, sp ecif ications for a street resur fa ing program to be submitted for federal !funding,. . I PAGE 2 Regular- M eet3rg Min 4t g 4 7,t 2J 1 1976 • . I�\,'`\\ 7 • , 1 0 a i August 19, 1976 Joseph Van Lom The Van Lom/I axberger Partnership 454$ S.W. Scholls Ferry Road Portland, Oregon 97225 Vile: AC 4-75 (Ken ,Bunn) Dear Mr. Van Lorn Please be advised that on August 17, 1976: the Tigard Planning . Commission approved your client 's request for preliminary playa , . and program review for a proposed multi-family residential planned development in the vicinity of 109th and Canterbury Lane This approval was conditioned upon, sati faotien of the following: 1 . Storm sewer system be approved by Engineering Depart- ment prior to submission ,to the City Council for general plan and pzogram ,review e 2. That SW 109th Avenue be improved to city standards of 34 ' pavement width on' a 50' right-of-Way from its existing end point to the intersection with the souther ly loop drive entirely on the applicant's property and a 25' right-of-way be provided along the rest of the parcel's west property line. 3. That a street plug be attached along the west side of I F, the SW 109th Avenue gight-of-way until such time as the remainder of 109th (adjacent this property) is developed. 4. The existing street plug at the end of 109th be vacated. 5. The areas along the loop drive not shown for parking spaces be signed to prohibit parking along that st reet. f, 6. A ' wide easement tor PUblio sewers be established 7. All sidewalk acid trails terminate in wheelchair ramps. ,t 8. Street lights to P.G a . standards for Engineering De. partment approval. , The trail shown• in the northern half of the development o ' be 6f ,.asphalt paths old, the trail oh the souther portion be left natur l with minimal improvements � of crushed gravel of thee tO four iuoh es of compacted bark. r• w,. I F 10. A minimal of six picll10 areas be established within the forested, area; det,sig4 and location subject to approval by planning ,,Dir4ctoz' ll. Application p to rectify. the partitioning probe ms be initiated prior to cgnsiceration of the general plan and program by the City Council, Refuse containers be ,properly l2.� ���' � ecraened e I e l3. Maintain the proposed park land until sv€ h a time as , the City accepts the ,area into the city park system. If we can be o4 any further assistance, pleair.3e do not hesitate to contact this office, l 639-4171. Sincerely, • • Richard Daniels Associate Planner RDtsf .1 4 'f cc: B W:,l+ding Official, Engineering Dept. Note: The following acknowledgment must be received by the City of Tigard within fourteen (14) days of your receipt of this letter. Failure to return tbls acknowledgment may result ' in action by the City of Tigard. Pleai;e have your client sign the following and ,,,retur,r' to us promptly, hereby acknowledge this letter documenting the action of the Tigard Planning Commission. I have received and read this letter and I agree to the decision here documented add to abide by any , terms and/or conditions attached L**�...r�..w:.wr:.G�,.y�i+.�w.,.r..vW+Mi� ..nrNaRw.Wr.JhriW:+w., ah sign,attireI \\ , Ili date Pile No. Z0 4-76 I I t ti • I I ti I • • STAFF REPORT Agenda 5 . 1 Tigard Planning Commission August 17 1976 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS : Staff recommends approval_ with the following conditions 1 . Storm and sanitary sewer system be approved by Engineering I Department prior to submission to the City Council for general plan and program review. • (a. 2. That SW 109th Avenue be improved to city standards of 34 ' , . pavement width on a 50 ' right of way from its existing end point to the intersection with the southr1y loop drive entirely on the applicant ' s property and a 25 ' right-of-way be provided along the rest of the parcel 's west property line. r t 3. That a street plug be attached, along the west side of the • SW 109th Avenue right-of-way until such time as the remainder of 109th (adjacent this property) is developed. 4. The existing street plug at the end of 109th be vacated. 5 . The areas along the loop drive not shown for parking spaces be signed to prohibit parking along that street . 6 . A 15' wide easement for public sewers be established . 7 . All sidewalk and trails terminate in wheelchair ramps. S. Street lights to P.G.E. standards for Engineering Depart r meat approval . 9 The trail shown in the northern half of the development be 1 5 ' asphalt paths and the trail on the southern portion be left natural with minimal improvements of crushed gravel , of three to four inches of compacted bark. 10 , A minima , of six picnic areas be established within the $ • forested area; design and location subject to approval by Planning Director. r ' Application y partitioning problems "be initiated 11 . A lication to rectify the initiated I . • r prior to consideration of the General Plan and Program by the City Council , 12 . Refuse containers be properly screened. "(, , , ; ■ . I r I • STAFF REPORT • Agenda 5 . 1. Tigard Planning Commission August 17 1976 - 7 : 30 P.M. m ,txn 77 ior igh School - Lecture Room 14b50 SW 't, 9t -h. Avenue, Tigard, Oregon I _ • , ZONE LONE CHANGE ZC 4-75 , REQUEST: General plan and program review of proposed 76 unit residential plan development . LOCATION: Canterbury Hill and SW 109th Avenue (Wash. Co . Tax Map 2S1 LOAD, td.x lot 8800) . APPLICANT: Ken Bunn BASIC FACTS: • 1 . Tigard Community Plan designates this area as a transitionary area from "Residential-Commercial" to "Urban Low Density Residential" . • 2 . The Planning Commission on May 18, 1976, approved a pre- , l.iminary plan and program for this project with the follow- ing conditions: 1 . The amenities specified on the site plan be located on the site plan submitted for general plan and program review. 2. The method for providing the right of way and improve- rnent of SW 109th be specified in the general plan . 3. The overall density be limited to 10 . 5 units per acre. 4 . The proposed swimming pool and recreation building be moved to a location more internal to the development. FINDINGS . 1 , Al] the conditions attached to the preliminary approval have been incorporated in the general plan. The 'full improvement of SW 109th at this time as proposed should abso:ivo the applicant of participation in further improve meats for SW 109th Avenue to the south as that area develops, • 2, All trails and sidewalks should terminate in wheelchair ramps to city standards 3. Parking in areas as other than those shown for that purpose would inhibit the flow of traffic and should be prohibited. 4. No provision for storm sewer is shown. STAFF REPORT Agenda 5 . 1 • Tigard and Planning Commission n August 17, 1976. .. Page 2 5 .. The trails shown are of two different types. The trail ° to the north is to function as an alternative to a sidewalk and leading from the three lower buildings to the recreation building and pool . These would probably be heavily used and would need to be blacktop of five foot in width, The trail to the south appears to be a . recreation trail and could be developed at a lesser • standard. 6 . The applicant t is proposing Xn g to locate six (6) P icnic . tables off of the natural wooded areas and provide play- gr,ound • r • 1. 7. This parcel has not been partitioned from the original par.cel . This should be done prior to final approval by the Planning Director . Also it should be noted that there is an illegal minor land partition on the portion of the lot Y that extends along SW 109th Avenue to SW Murdock Street . • 8. The applicant proposes to dedicate a 30, 000 square foot area for public park. On July 27'., 1976, the park board " reviewed this proposal and voted to preliminarily accept this offer. Problems do arise as to the size, .location,' , • access, parking and future use of this park area, If, in further considering this request, the park board decides that it is not in the best interest of the City to accept this into the city park system for public maintenance, building seven and eight could be spaced - somewhat greater than shown on the site plan and the • trail shown on the site plan could originate also from SW 109th Avenue 9 . The Uniform Building Code require a minimum 41 high safety fence around the perimeter of the pooh, • • Staff Re�o rt 1 Agenda 5. 1 • Tigard Planning Commission • ( August 17, 197E Page e 3 I • I I CONCLUSIONARY FINDINGS mnt' r�r e development at l nt 1. The apartment ve o me 10 ap p 10 . 5 units to the acre conforms r to the Tigard Community Plan' 2. T e d ovi a t i on s from the Tigard Municipal Code are warranted • in that large areas of trees arelbeling maintained lin a natural state and the site includes a swimmr.ng"pool and recreaLion building 3. The proposal is in harmony with the type of development that has occurred on Canterbury Bill and fits well with the development both to the north and to the east . I • 4 „ The ownership is proposed to be maintained in one single ownership . This will assure the maintenance of the open u space and amenities as depicted on the site plan and noted on the program. 5. The development of the parcel in the manner shown on the site plan will have a beneficial effect on the area that would not normally be achieved under standard zoning. 6 . The applicant has stated that the development applicant can be initiated l ' I p r. ' within one year. 7. The applicant has established a public need for a multi-family planned development on this site . • , S . The site is uniquely suited for multi-family residential area of the type depicted on the site deve]opment plan . j. • • 4• +p! I I I • I I { r rY I 1 r ; '' S., 17 , • . I ' ' Iteune Bunn , 256 qu a Suits L e m . o ' ire ' 9� 8 ' it 4-7 ' ' ' ,, east ' r',w 'ulla • Phase advised, that the-Tigard Planuirtg Commissioo, .t• :heir , . . ' • `eguiar'meetiarg of 1u u t , 0 19Y8 oonsidexed your request ter ' ' ' ' ap rov-1 of a general , au program, review of a proposal: . ' .planned de e eut 4114 your s is ;oa was. tabled until the ' • . proposed street system ups uuat e shown on the Site plan. , I ' ' oan be' of and , rth r is ' #M r e, pXe se d . of hesitate ' , 1 • to eontaot i ooh e 0 a� 9, 1. 1 i .• 1 j• y' , it f " D nieI ', ' ' yory ry � I t 7 > .. 4 , Joseph Vii' loop Van Lo / rax e r a Partn rihi ; a .Sui i' O 1 ),4. , . .. o, e t1 y 1 . 1 1, • i; 1 I 1 1 I ..r.m ,.,.,,. ,. ,..,..., .•. ...«•.....ur, .« . .n.,.:•.m,:...may.,,,n"a.,,,+..0, SII.n, ....r.., .r•,,.v.e,. r „ m . r r - v. 4 r 1 r !' - " • r rc • • Note: The following acknowledgment aW At be received b y the City of Tigard within: fourteen (14) days of your 'receipt of this letter. railrue to return this acknowledgment may result in action by the City of Tigard. hereby acknowledge this letter documenting the action of the Tigard Planning Commission. I have receiv .. ., I read this letter and : agree to the r decision here' docum,.. tea and to abide by any terms and/or conditions attached. • • ,�, •� � � � ors. signature date r , ' �YwMr m�M�11pY+'TOIMwMIW.1M1Wwl �r • •' cc: Building Official • • • Pe • ' i�. ,w, ., .� �-T�, .•7'. ,_'1 M1r�...;1. a..iaW w.r..u�'m,. ...n .N.i..� t w�.w. „n .�. ,..,,..,. � .,, ��,n.r.. ..,r......,... .,,,,r...,it ,� �„i., r .�.... ,i, � K��� r.. ...—r•ir...ry.•.v.•n..u4 y+tew..pncA�avfiWR�. "n�.. n. .trr nr r..�� . ..,.,. a x. t �t ' I • t, it I CITY O.F T I GAR:D, OREGON NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING • • • I r i I r Dear Property Owner: t • The agenda enclosed for the next meeting of the Tigard Planning Commission includes an item (circled in red) which, due to its :location adjacent property owned or occupied by you or due to \.; your previously indicated interest, the City feels obligated to notify you. If you wish to make your 'views known in this matter, or if you only', wish to avail yourself of this opportunity ♦ :o be informed • concerning this, project, the Tigard Planning Commission invites you to attend this meeting. C ; • I I n I I 4 I I I i °I • I i • I M , 1,14 • • AGENDA Tigard Planning Commission August 3 1976 7: 30 P.M. 'T aThty Junior, High School .- Locutre Room 14650 SW 97th Ave.' , Tigard s Oregon N 1 . CALL TO ORDER: 2. ROLL CALL: 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES : 4. COMMUNICATIONS : .�' 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS : 5. 1 ZONE CHANGE ZC 4-73 (Farmers I n.suranco) : A request by Farmers Insurance Group for an amendment to a ' ' p`Lanhed development ( signing program) located between SW . 66th Avenue on the east and Highway 217 on the west . CWash. Co . Tax Map 2S1-1D, Tax lots 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 501 , 701 , 1100) . r 5 2 ZONE CHANGE ZC 4-75 (Bunn) A request by Ken Bunn for general plan and �. y � I program x'e V i eur of a proposed residential Planned Development located at 109th. and. Canterbury Lane. (Wash. Co . Tax Map 281 1OAD, lor Tax lot 3600) . 5. 3 ZONE CHANGE ZC 5-76 (F.ocher, Hansen' & Parsons) • A request by Fletcher, Hansen & Parsons for a general plan and program review of a proposed commercial-office park • Planned Development located at the southeast corner o S ,W. 72nd. Avenue and S .W. yarns Road. (Wash. Co Tax Map �. 'o. 251-1D, Tax lot .900) . , 5 ,4 CONDITIONAL 'USE PERMIT CU-21--76 (Fabric World) A request b y Norris�r i s & Stevens; Realtors to locate a • fabric store in a C-3 zone (General. Commercial) at ;`i 12740--12760 S .W. Paceffic Highway. (Wash, Co. Tax Map 4 251-2BD, Tax lot 1503) . 5 . 5 NON-CONFORMING USE NCJ 1-76 (Marire Lumber) • A ^equest, by .� a in+e I m1Der Com any o� r,estore a; non- confor1ming use boa~ a :Lumber' storage buildi ng in a C-S zone (General Commercial) at 11675 S .W. Pacific Highway. .(Wash. Co Tax Map 181 36CD, Tax lot 100) . 1 Avon �t� � � Planning Commission on ,. August 3, 1976 7: 30 PM Twality Jr . High School Tigard, Oregon 6 . SUBDIVISION 6. 1 I i,or Land Partition MLP 3-76 (Burnham Tracts) A request by J. W. Atwood to partition a 5-3 acre parcel into 2 ,26 acres and 3 . 04 acres parcel on S .W. Hill St . , east of 6 . q. Ash St . (Wash Co Tax Map 281 2 3D, Tax lot 200 7 OTHER BUSINESS 8. ADJOURNMENT • • • • • • , 4 M • • ■ • �,.•k Y -W 1 1, .» .• N � � � � w..•w . w ", nr:4'......v,n et'l 4, . ' 1( ' 1 1 , . 1 I I ,,, , — ,, - ,,,,lY i i �,i .ti` �Y� „ ` 1�'3 } r '�� „"� � ,�/// ;r j _ i\ " / y r.` /�„ n J' «+,,,I, � ,wn (;i1ANGE. 4;; :fb �' Yi / ".” i, ,„..r.. . i r }rte, .w , «r"1J . i.•,; w 1� / i , 1, / ■ , . ,,, .L.- t 1 ' / L V w j'' .1 •, jai - ff t :.I j , c ,, , , . r _w,. ”. w4 fi L•s4 `„M ,'''I:/� f/ I y u•. R„nMl■�,. YA '✓'; .`««,-S ~ l u F- R -1 r s` f ,,.y �, :i .,r <<x-”' / t„4'1/-r W+'1, �'/ i� J 1 ' i ' , k;» y ate t y a■ 1 rw w, ., Y f rY F. i . ,-_q .j .t,. �-..,:-•.,,, '"J' ,\ ' }�' 'fir,»..-.-.' «.�._,..... ,. «w__.rf j r �' ,..n '-4:.« .«.e r.,.. .e, -.,r.. •-✓. -w. `°+n ,,r..�-"„&;: r..v• ,. -..t,—;,...A, {} /. �..��,'! ......� «1,. -•{ / ..,.....�..�..,.;.. .�y�"� ''``"�.,,�ww.r.'Li ..",+�..i"�.•w.�a,... 't' , `F. .... , '•`v`.1'.h'lv....y : F/ �...-.....,n...r.>,...r...w...,! ° ' ! .• /� - �. «-'� � '" !' -»j,r ,, 1.A+`i E ' (7 C� wf :j'� /'�, w„'�, r-(�y rµ ,.....,` Tr ,�' !..` .•,r.nn.t ^w .. ,., �._...1...,...,� ,�,j t w li a � r r� I. ._..,..ji . -,—.! i 1 t." ' H � a: ( ..._,«« a »1 # [1, 1 ,--; f r r }.r r 4. tt S‘,I' 1,1 t.i":""D 0 r t" '' --`4' i 1 ' S '1:Y 1 1 ■ , ''l I l'• ::',.',—,.,-...-4 'a, j t,, ,_1---- I ', 4 1 -- fl ,,, - r; 1gi ■ ~ a I = 4 l � �, . ,,.. , . t J 13 J 1.-t Clu.*-c3 I li.-7 :- L ' ,�?n " ..•......n,.. •,..w w« w ..a ' n. ,.n , ♦ u _„.r., ,,, ..� .. w .. .... + ( t. . „ • ' i� ^�r -I .,. ■ il , , . i ',———--”—— ' --"'"—-- --'"—'*— t \t/ -i 0 0-r•'i!i-- ii[. , . 1/''''''''"---,. .. i 1 , , . : , I.,. ,,.,r. i .y .,,,/ ",w ' y Y '.. w w il', x .• , ,, „ ,' - ' ,,ii, , ,! , ti 1 , t.;:r 4.,,.' , t---- L. , „ f i • • • ' MINUTES I I wr , Tigard Planning Comr";"j.ssion . August 3 , 1976 -- 7: 30 PM • E. Rebuttal None " F. Commission Discussion and Action Porter moved and Goldbach seconded that the proposed , signs be accerted based on the findings in the staff report . The m7tion passed by unanimous voice vote. • C S ZONE CHANGE ZC 4-75 (Bunn) • A request by. Ken Bunn for general plan and program review of a proposed residential planned development located at SW 109th. Ave ll `and SW Canterbury Lane. (Wash,. Co . Tax Map 251 10AD, tax lot 8800) . A. Staff Report : Read by Daniels o . Read applicant 's letter • o Clarified Finding 1 to read that the west curb line of SW 109th Avenue be moved 1 ' from the west pro- , perty line. (/ Staff informed the Commission that the street situation is the only item that is not in compliance with the preliminary approval . Cross Examination: o Krause stated that the developer ,should take full responsibility for the road improvement . , o Staff explained the usual procedure for street improvements and what was being recommended. B. Applicant Presentation Joe Van, Loom project ect archite s l" o reviewed history and present status Of project o stated that they would do a full' street improvement p nt t ; the loop and would dedicate the right of way on the remaining length of the street Kenneth Bunn I I o explained proposed sewer hook-Up. 4 MINUTES , • Tigard Planning Commission August 3, 1976 7: 30 PNI Page°e 3 C. ; Public Testimony • o Dale. Howe Townhouse Association, and Dale I . Erikson -- adjacent homeowners expressed concern for the location of sewer hook-up and traffic load. o George Warner - Construction Services asked that a { buffer be placed on the east property line. D. Staff Recommendations: I , Staff recommends Rpproval with the following conditions : 1 . Storm and san i_tary sewer system be approved by Engineering Department prior to submission to the . • � City Council, for general plan and program review. ; , 2. That SW 109th Avenue be improved to city standards i of 34 ' pavement width on a 50 ' right of way from ,. its existing end point of the intersection with the southerly loop drive and a 25 ' right of way be pro- vided along the rest of the parcel ' s west property ' line. Street improvement as per Engineering Depart- ment proposal with the west curb l ' from west pro - i' petty line. 3. That a street plug be attached along the west side of the full improvement to Stiff 109th"'Avenue until • such time as the remainder of 109th (adjacent this property) is developed. 4 . The existing street plug at the, end of 109th be vacated. • 5 . The areas along the loop drive not shown for parking spaces be signed to prohibit parking along that street . 6 . All sidewalk and trails terminate in wheelchair ramps. 7. A minimum of six picnic areas be established within the forested area; design and location subject to approval by Planning Director. 8 , Application to rectify the partitioning problems be ' initiated prior to consideration of the General Plan and Program by the City Councils • • I , 1 . . . , - 0y „r . ,. I.r, ..a. .� 4.. . .l..,. l..,.....,.L..i...», .. ........w i ..., r. .....,.'...+r,.».,. �' 1 ,.w«.....0-1,.�.....................». �A� L',:', • `. .t, • MINUTES p, Tigard Planning Commission August 3, 1976 -- 7: 30 PM , k� Page , _ a' E . Commission Discussion and Action ' ' y y n • 0 1 the road o Phillips expressed concern over setbacks if ' , • • is shifted. o Krause asked that the matter be tabled until the yl- sewer and street were resolved. 1 fY o Bunn stated he would be willing to place the entire ti! " street improvement on his property . ,,; • L. o Staff re-read letter from Jack Annand to clarify ,, rl 7, em, . :access �y o Ul s t x; R o Krause Moved and Moore seconded to table the motion l' until the proposed street system was adequately' ;l. shown on the site plan . r The motion carried 8 to 1 with phi lips dissenting. I'' 5, 3 ZONE CHANGE ZC 5-76 (Fletcher, Hansen & Parsons) ' - i. A request by Fletcher, Hansen & Parsons for a g eneral plan (, • i and program review of a proposed, commercial--office park ;.� planned development located at the southeast corner of SW t, . • 72nd Avenue and SW Varns Road. (Wash , Co Tax Map 251 1D tax lot 900) . A.. Staff Report : Read by Daniels (,,� o Basic Fact #4 was corrected to read June 15, 1976 . ''°,', . ;k ' •' o Staff presented applicants program booklet to the . Commission D. Applicant ' s Presentation o Robert Fletcher stated that he disagreed with condi . tion #21 and asked that the comp1 x be allowed to set their own restrictions .on the l proposed uses , o Krause asked that the applicant clarify what uses they would permit , o Berry Rand, Architect, stated that o ground rules would preclude objectionable firms: 1 o diverse,materials and styles would be permitted in the, development \ A v . • ` . t •,j't.m gy.•0 " au y i„I• 4 ', ., ,4 1 ' � * 'STAFF REPOR'T� t , n„ Agenda 5. 2 I '',0 s Tigard Planning Commission August 3, 1976 - 7: 30 P.M. `' 'rwaiity Junior High School - Lecture Room Tigard, Oregon , , I 4 DOCKET: ZONE CHANGE ZC 4'-75 REQUEST: General plan and program review of proposed 76 unit residential , •4. . plan development LOCATION: Canterbury Hill and S .W. 109th Avenue (Wash. Co Tax Map • 2S1 10AD, tax lot 8800) . APPLICANT: Ken Bunn , BASIC FACTS: jl • r 1. Tigard Community Plan designates this area as a transitionary � ., {I �-. ' it !1 n . area from Residential:-Commercial to "Urban Density • Residential" . 2 . The Planning Commission on May 18, 3976, approved a preliminary ; , • plan and program for this project with the following conditions : : . 1 . The amenities specified on the site plan be located on the site plan submitted for general plan and program review. . • 2 . The method for providing the right of way and improvement , of S .W. 109th be specified in the general plan . I 3 : The overall l density be 'Limited to 10 . 5 units per acre.. i• A. . ` 4 .. The proposed swimming mm tng pool and recreation building be #;: moved to a location more internal to the development . I ; FINDINGS 1 . All the conditions attached to the preliminary approval have been incorporated in the 0eneral Plan except condition #2 • No provisions for the right of way dedication and improvement ' of SW 198th is specified, in reviewing this problem, the Engineering Department has recommended full improvement 'of SW 109th to full right of way to the southerly intersection • of the loop drive ' In addition, one half of the right of • [ way for continuation of the street of that portion which is ' , on the applicant ' s property, and a street plug along the entire length of the full improvement limiting access onto that street from the parcel to the west , The Engineering Department . further recommended that this street be built to city standards ' including a 84 ' pavement width. The full improvement 'of SW g pavement improvement I 109th at this time as proposed should absolve the applicant , of participation in further improvements for SW 109th Avenue to the south as that area develops . ' - M.m,:4e,y..«.r,•+wWx4t"raa..�.Y . • '1% •• it .I N Staff Report Agenda 52 Tigard . Planning Comma.ssa.on, August 3, 1976 Page 2 2 . No curve radius is shown for the intersection of 109th. 3. All trails and sidewalks should terminate in wheelchair ramps • to city standards. 4 . Parking in areas other than those shown for that purpose would inhibit the flow of traffic and should be prohibited. • • s A 15 ' easement along the east property line is necessary for public sewer . 6 . .No provision for *storm or sanitary sewer are shown nor are there' provisions pry visions for the extension for water service to the . o site. , A s 7 . No street light program is shown . ' s The are S . The trails shown a�.e of two different types. The- trail to the north is to function as an alternative to a sidewa,ik and leading from the three lower buildings to the recreation build- ing and pool . These would probably be heavily used and would need to be blacktop of five foot in width . The trail to tale `. south appears to be a recreation trail and could be developecx, • at a lesser standard. 9 . The applicant is proposing to locate six (6) picnic tables off of the natural wooded areas and provide playground 10 . This parcel has not been partitioned ed rrom the original parcel . This should be done prior to final approval by the Planning Director, Also it should be noted that there is an illegal minor land partition on the portion of the lot that extends along SW 109th Avenue to SW Murdock St. 11 . The applicant proposes to dedicate a 30 , 000 000 square foot a for r r park reviewed i foz public park. On July 27, 19 6, the paa k board Lni.s proposal and voted to preliminarily accept this offer , Problems do arise as to the size, location, access, parking and future use of this park area. If, in further considering this request , the park board decides that it is not in th best interest of the City to accept this into the city park system for public maintenance, building seven and eight could be spaced somewhat greater than shown on the site plaf and the trail shown on the site plan could originate also from SW 109th Avenue, • 12. The Uniform Building Code require a minimum 4t high safety fence around the perimeter' of the pool • d r t , � • I P Staff Report . Agenda 5 . 2 Tigard Planning Commission August 3 , 1976 . , , • Page '3 CONCLUS I OVARY FINDINGS 1. The apartment development at 10 . 5 units to the acre conforms to the Tigard Community Plan. , 2. The deviations from the Tigard Municipal Code are warranted • • in that large areas of trees are being, maintained in a natural state and the site includes a swimming pool and recreation building. 3. The proposal is in harmony with the type of development that has occurred on Canterbury Hill and fits well with the development both to the north and to the east . t. . 4. The ownership is proposed to be maintained in one single ownership . This will assure the maintenance of the open b; space and amenities as depicted on the site plan and noted on the program. • 5 . The development of the parcel t•n the manner shown on the site plan will have a beneficial effect on the area that would not ' normally be achieved under standard zoning. S . The applicant has stated that the development can be initiated within one year. • 7. The applicant has established a public need for a multi-family ' planned development on this site . • J 8. The site is uniquely suited fur multi-family residential area Y � y of the type depicted on the site development' plan . J • • tl• ».�.++.rJear+w«r,varcvml+,rarlwv..2yartpamrtiJ M I • • • , Agenda 5. 2 Tigard Planning Commission August 3 1976 • STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS : Staff recommends recommends approval with the following conditions: 1 . Storm and sanitary sewer system be approved by Engineering ,. Department prior to submission to the City Council ''for, tgeneral plan and program review. 2. That SW 209th Avenue be improved to city standards of 34 pavement width on a 50 ' right' way from ,• 1 1 1 its existing end• g S g z point to the intersection with the southerly loo drive P and a 25 ' right of way be provided along the rest of the ' parcel ' s west property line. • 3. That a street plug be attached along west side of the • P g g, the u full improvement to SW 109th Avenue until such time as the ' remainder of 109th (adjacent this property) is developed. ' 4. The existing street plug at the end of 109th be vacated 5 : The areas shown . s along tae loop drive not sho��rx 'for parking spaces be signed to prohibit parking along that street 6 . A 15 ' wide easement for public sewers be established along the east . property line. 7. All sidewalk and trails terminate in wheelchair ramps: 8. Street lights approved by P.G.E . be submitted to Engineering Department for approval 9 . A minimum f o u r foot s a f e t y fence b e located ax ouxd the peri- meter of the pool. area. 10 . The trail shown in the northern half of the development be • 5 ' asphalt paths and the trail on the southern portion be J left natural with minimal improvements of crushed 'gravel. of three to four inches of compacted bark, � d 11 A minimal of six pi( Laic areas be established within the forested area; design and location subject to approval by Planning Director . • 12. Application to rectify the partitioning problems be initiated • • Prior to consideration of the General Plan, and Program by the" City Council . • • 'l - _ '� I • ,�, f ! • y t ,b• A >4�1 n. '4,.. �ink ! � t'' VI; l' ,{ .� � 4�p t, THE VAN LOM R ► R R PARTNERSHIP }t ti f Y.t L { l�� 1 4 r,?,,,,,,,,;,4).),,' ,,,i, 1 ik�k�°A1,d 11 �R.'..: 1 ,G.1►, ,r., ,�y,c, <,,� �lbn' 4545 aw. SCHDLLS FERRY ROAD t�. ,� hay ,�:dt' x '�,', ,,,,ci�,. ' PORTLAND , 0] - EGOIN 97225 • j ,,,47.,,_ •�i his 1V n' PHONE: 503 292 - 21395 3 at 1 �x4 { i cta s v i F tii 1 tr' ,rv,iy ,t 4' ; • j F.,,,d,.,,,, ,,,.,11,1„�' � �' j���c q e ,a k 1 '' = W, t " , , /4r t ! 4 f t F 1 , June 23, 1976 ,, °„� ' 1 i, ...................m 4, wem cat”.r ....°sum •�,, 1) ti , r 9 J 4 4 City of Tigard (ff .� P.O. Box 23557 , Tigard, Oregon 97223 , . r i Gentlemen: In behalf of Mr. Ken Bunn(FI LF NO. 2c 4-75) we would like to petition for an amendment of the zoning map in accordance with Chapter 18.88. k We hereby submit the following information: 1 1. A topographic map of the total area involved in the proposal is , included on the site plan as submitted. This plan also shows the re- lationship of the buildings with existing topography. 2. The street systems to this site includes the major street, cantebury Lane, which branches to 109th Avenue, the main access to the • proposed site. To the south 109th continues as a gravel roadway. All streets except for the southern portion of 109th have been built to county standards. , It is the intention of the Owner to offer to the City the right-of-way required for one-half of the street continuation of 109th along the west property line through three-fourths of the site and full right of-way for the remaining one-quarter of west property line as is a shown on this proposal . The Owner cannot also offer the cost of providing the roadway built to city and county standards, however. There is not ; " capital available in developing the additional onal ca tai developing land for a 76 unit ' apartment to cover the major expense of developing this roadway system. i The Owner will , however, provide a 24' blacktopped drive from the projects I k loop drive to 109th(north) which can be incorporated into the through street once it is developed, The street system within the project will consist of a 24' wide street with parking on either side of the street and adjacent to each multi family unit ., _ ` be an interconnecting g system : " y There will. nectin sidewalk's stem from parking to housing units consisting of 4' wide sidewalks. Trails I are scattered throughout the site. Most will be blacktop ed- will M � st will pp , some be left natural , particularly deep in the woods. picnic tables(6) will i be located at several wooded areas within the site, Their exact location F n ,: will be determined nod ni=ter the walkways have been installed. Those ' . walkways will be of sufficient will size to accomodate biking as welib 1 . { . • ti , + it i • City of Tigard 4� June 23, 1976 a p4 2 N REVIEW OF PLAN ELEMENTS (a) The general development plan has been modified to include those suggestions mad e during preliminary y a pp rova l of the plan. (g&h) Open space, public parks, etc. are noted on sheet 1. • c Tree location for " �are not individually shown i ( �) ee 10 trees over 6 a tin sh � due to the great number of trees on the site; Those areas north 1 of the tree line will be planted with deciduous trees of various . ' heights and types to harmonize with existing landscaping. The open' - r areas around each unit exposed to sunlight will be planted with grass. f Areas within the tree line will be left, as much as possible, in their a, natural state. Each building will adequately planted with low shrubs, . ie. azalias, rhododendrons, etc. i (p) A 5 -O" obscure fence will be located along the west property line. (q) This project will be completed in one stage. PROGRAM ELEMENTS a. The proposed change of use from R-7 to Residential Planned Development is in conformance with the Comprehensive Land Plan for the • area. Market analysis by the Owner has indicated additional multi- : family need for the area. • d unit development is intended to provide a variety This planned development provide of one, two and three bedroom apartments within a designed unit dev- elopment with a distinct deviation from the standard one story 'ortwo- story garden apartments. The intention is to provide another choice it7 the multi-unit market--a cluster of units varied in vertical scale as well as horizontal . Some units will have penthouse units (3rd story) to present variety, privacy and uniqueness to the project. Most units are to be one and two-story units: The intent is to group the units in the open space--preserve : es for residents the major groupings of tall fir trees use of the r � as well��� �. �� as those in the surrounding areas. The Owner intends to provide ameni ti e in the form of walkways, trails, picnic and playground areas , SUMMARY OF UNITS AND DENSITIES • Acreage 7.29 acres 317,760 So, ft: Total number of units proposed 76 Unit density per acre 10.42 Unit/acre Unit density allowed per acre 1:0.0 .. ...I,. ....'. +• ...•t..«.,n.r.v ..r r1,r..,.rr...r;r... .v .n 1.,.«,r ...r.x.......,., 1.r. ..1• I 1 1 Sr • • City of Tigard June 23, 1976 p, 3 Total Building Coverage 49,500 sq.ft. = 16% Total Area devoted to P arkin 9 and driveways 56,700 sq.ft. = 19% total Area landscaped, open o t or• devoted, to recreation* 211,560 sq.ft. = 65% Parking required - 114 spaces. Parking available - 116 spaces. f • *.70 acre is offered to the,City fora proposed park. Yours ver y truly, y; THE VAIN 'LOM/KRAXBERGER PART IERSHIP A.I.A. • , w J seph r1 Van Lam, A.I.A. Akchi tec,t JVL sg • • 9 I ` C { . . , .. , . . , ' 1 i .. . . . „ . . , , . , , .. • , . „ : . , June 20 1976 , , ,, . , .............,,..„,,..„,...= , • •1. . , , Mr. Joseph Vat Lam , . . . The Van Lom/Kraxberger Partmersb,14) _ . . , ., 4545 S. W. Scholls Ferry R . ,. • : *4 ',' Portland$ Ore ::gon 97225 . 1 r , 11020refloet File NO. ZO 4-75 (Bunn Planned Development) - . .',. . ..!' Dear Nr. Van Lem: 4 , ; Please be advised that cm Hay 18$ 1976$ the Tigard Planning Commission i approved your client's request for preliminarY Plan arl1 program review , for a proposed multi-family residential planned development 44 the .„. , , . vicinity o 109t4 and Canterbury Lane. Thts apprOval w conditioned . , . ', upon satisfaction of the followingt . 1. The amenities specified on the site plan be located on the '' 4 . site development plan submitted for general plan and praram , -. . review. r. 2. The method of providing for the right-og-way and improvement , , . • „. of Mi, 109th Ave. be specified in tie general plan. • 3. The olderall density be limited to 10.5 1.1nitsia0ro. • , . 4. The proposed swimming pool and recreation building be moved more internal to the development. . . , , Sincorely$ , , . . . Richatd Daniels . H .. . Associate Planner i . RD:pt , cc: Bldg. Official .„,,, • • Engr . Supt. • , 1 , Note: The following acknowledament must be received by the City Tigard within fourteen (14) days o your receipt of this letter4 1 h , , Faiaure to return this aoknowledgmont mtly result in action by the City of Tiard. Please have your client sign the flowing and return, to us promptly, -•• . . ,, . 1, . • - , , , • ,.. , , I . ■ r 1 • . ' .• ..- r h paSe ° 1 f 1 , Mt. Jose an Lo 5 J this latter dooumg)tting the ,a ti o4 the • • zTi dP n gC misio * Ihe} re Lveda : eadthis letter and a it to the decision here , o nted ad to abide by any terms and/or �conditions n' tt ched. 1 �Nwri. r► «...M+annM+.n.....,neMi w...,,itWG.wr WWl i.NchW,twMM e J..c Fii:, o. ' ` 4-7!3 „ f A. • • F�. 1s' !r�� • • i ■ nr a ' n , r. I . F i I i :v.. ,.;����� �v�•+ ••••'n' ...r.�rM+r.�yy.,w.�wrw•rrtnNH��tluuJitw.+3^.Nk,���� • h ' ( 7 '��•1 I/ r l h i i' S c TIGARD PLANNING C:k �,l.C�SiOT�� t i , STAFF REPORT , u May 18, 1976 a . tem t, DOCKET: ZC 4-75 (Bun) I REQUEST: A preliminary plan and program review of a proposed . SO unit multi-family residential planned development `, LOCATION: Vicinity of 109th and Canterbury Lane (rash. Co. tax . 1' map 2S1 1OAfl tax lot 500) ' • ' ..,, APPLICANT:': Jenne ; Bunn i M ;. FINDINGS: in This proposal Was brought to the planning Commission on April 20; 1976, for preliminary review. At that meeting the develop- : ment concept being proposed was rejected. Reasons stated' for this rejection were too much density and the lack of integration � ,�� of usable open space into the development. , 2. The revised development plan lowers the density by 8 units ( from 88 to 80) . The size of buildings has been reduced, 8 ' buildings being proposed rather than 6, The original plan placed • a (3 unit, 320 :fit. long building parallel to the north property 1 i C'e. This playa places throe ten tit buildings in the same e loral area. All buildings shown are three stories, The a multi-family zone bas a height restriction of 35 ft. (18.24.050) . The submitted d p:1 dais show a cross sec LriHonai profile of the re- latiueehip of building height to the condominiums lao the north Lind the trees to the south. The previous plan. specified 18 , three story -emits en.d the present plan appears to specify 16 i throe f•3 LO 1:'y units. 3. At the Api':11 inee b:i.ng staff was requested to research the eli'r;'s b r n of w e°Lhcr previous development on Little Bull Mountain had a1 ready utilized Lhe density being proposed for this site Staff has 11e o irehed, previous zoning ac-Lions taken on this property with the Thu low. z g results: A. This s property was orIc'tnally approved as part off a 1.9 acre, 293 unit p1 omod multi-family development (dt.-nsi ter - 15.63 units per acre) . , B. 'N,,e �1eve i opnent has occurared ,,`►.rice 1972. • C, Development h ..s not occurred according to the mas"Ler .C' .. q approved by the cco.n.-Ly,, nor were updated plans • 61,1 .miLto d as the project pro gressed, U. '14-.e proposed rIo'volopl1ownt is of an entirely different . r 1 ar�. c, er Lk it p;r'evious development. i ,, page 2 �)4 ., s PC Staff Report 5/18/76 ., , , Item 5.1 { f E The City of Tigard has approved a Comprehensive Plan, c' the 'h and Camanun Ix Plan, which identifies this area ; as a transition area from "residential-commercial" to "urban low density residential". F. The plan approved in 1968 included approximately 22 . ,r I acres of open space in the wooded area on the south property r line.' , . G. The staff considers the 19681 plan as void and that . ;� 1 development of this �ra erty should be considered on its own merit and not according to the previous approval.' 3 . • ' �4. Actual development to date has occurred on about 12 acres of the original 19, with 150 dwellings units ;constructed 1 density (gr�o,ss) of 13.56 units per acre. . This proposal inclu duff, the remaining approximately 6.8 acres. ].' • 6. The current proposal spreads the development over more of the 1 site and attempts to integrate the buildings with the open and wooded area A public dedication of open space of .84 i : , of an acre is shown. Some amenities described in the appli_ f - cant's narrative statement are not t located off. the site develop- ; i on,b plan a 7. The proposed e xtens: � ] of 109th is shown as �7cL1 �` 1 � the use e 1 of property to the west. now this joint provision of right-of- 1 ` way` and J�,nprovements is to be accomplished has not been specified '. by the applicant. This issue must be addressed in the general , plan and program. . STAFF Il,N,COMW11'Iii,ATTOM r r, • to be advised at close of public tsstimon y„ I I i .. 1 1 • ' I �,» i i 1, , I I ' ail I , "• I . . (: — • A I n.o Y c; . t . . ,,,,,'. '�. • - n ■ �. .., ,,,1. ..... Via.,._.I:plr Xk ..-. .,.e,... .,.w, � ...�•. ..,.•�,........ .«, ..,+�.I • • � �, � � �...:a„w�,. tea:,.»:.,_, ZC 4-75 5/18/76 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends •�' recd n ends app r��al with the following conditions: 4 1. That the i n en ities specified o n th e site p lan be located on uhe site development plan submitted for general plan approval; r, '' 2. That of o w" a�, tl�.e method a providing a.r�in for the right-of-way�h�t-off' wa and � � Y improvement of 109th be specified in the general plan. • I i I • it It I'I I i ti a I I 1. • w nnJleyn • • • ZONE CHANGE (ZC-4 Ica) FOR KENNETH BUNK TAX LOT 8900 WASHINGTON COUNTY Vicinity of 109th and Cantebury Lane SUBMITTED BY VAN LOM/KRAXBERGER PARTNERSHIP A,I,AD, ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS Portland, Oregon r Present Zoning R-7 '. Change requested to Residential Planned Development a, The proposed change of use from R7,7 to Residential Planned Development is in conformance with the Comprehensive Land Plan for the area. • r , Market :a:nalysis by the Owner has indicated additional multi-family need for I,'; the area. • This planned unit development is intended to provide a variety of one, two and three bedroom apartments within a designed unit development with a distinct deviation from the standard one story or two-story garden apartments, The intention is to provide another choice in the multi-unit market-1-a cluster of Units varied in vertical scale as well as horizontal, Some units will have penthouse units (3rd story) to present variety, privacy and uniqueness to the project, Most units are to be one and two-story units. ' ' • The intent ip to group the units in the open space-M reserve the `, ' major groupings of tall fir trees for use of the residents as well as those in the surrounding areas. The Owner intends to provide amenities in the form,' Of,walkways, trails, picnic and playground areas b. All Units Will be controled by one owner, All units are multi I 4 • 1 family rental . ,r . • c. Operation, maintenance of pool , parking spaces, landscaping, etcA swill be the responsibility of the Owner, d. There is ample sewer and water facilities for this proposed complex. Studies are being made to determine the most suitable sewer connection point. ' ! � � Refuse will be handled by screened collection areas--one per each building . complex. It is the intention of the Owner to plan for construction in summer' or early C fall of this year. �r . � r SUMMARY OF UNITS AND DENSITIES X Acerage 608 acres 296,797 Sq, ft. Total number of units proposed 80 Unit density per acre 11,76 Unit density allowed per acre 13 • -. �, ^�a , . r % . r rcw yr or^MGM,'7*+.uM'"."{"•I[:,'M'y""'^.`'+rr+.i+;+r.'w.lr*:...r.+a • • C •,; • • ' • • , r 1 Total Ouilding Coverage 44,000 sq.ft. 14.8 % Total Area devoted to parking and driveways** 64,270 sq.ft. 21.65 % Total Area landscaped, open 188,527 sq.ft,a ft,or devoted o r q c recreation* 63.6 % Parking required r 120 spaces. • Parking available R 120 spaces. *.84 acre is offered to the City for a proposed park ** A 30' ' easement along the west property line Is set aside for future street right-of-ways • • • • • • • • • • { • •!sue +t. I• J • �, a., • • ryry G iI . e �, 0 t `G,t""t'E�'C" '" '^�r+ '"*""t^"1'. m .. -.. .�«,,, '• 4Y a ,•* 1"1 _.. S. a Y • ^mot °�` +' "," • • • • MINUTES Tigard Pltaning Commission • Ma 15, 7:30 p.m. r, 'igh School 1. Lecture Room �., 14650 SW 97th Avenue, Tigard, O�regon,' 1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairman Popp at 7:35 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: Moore, Nicoll,, Phillips, Porter, Sakata, Tepedino, Popp, Krause; staff.: Bolen, Daniels u Excused Absence: Goldbach 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Phillips noted an error in the minutes of 5/4/76 re agenda, item 1. The applicant is shown to be O`Donoghtae, 44 The city should also be added as applicant. The minutes were then approved as amended. . 4. COMMUNICATIONS: Members of the Commission expressed the concern about not receiving a copy of the ethics commission forms and asked I staff check into that problem. 4 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 5.1 ZONE CHANGE 2C 4. 75 (Bunn) A request by Ken Bunn for preliminary plan and program review of a pro posed multi-family residential planned development in the vicinity of 109th and Canterbury Lane (Wash. Co. tax map 231 .10AD, tax lot 500). A. Staff Report: read by Bolen Porter inquired as to present zoning. " r' b R 7 single Bolen responded that present zonit'g is -" , gle family residenU'i:al.• r Krause inquired as to whether there was a commitment on the part of the applicant to adhere to the original plan for the 'entire ° Bolen responded that, due to changes in land use character of the • hill; changes in being annexed to the City; changes in proce• dunes' since the original plan, the planned as presented should Stand on its own mere.is a o Krause asked for a definition of"Urban Low Density esident ial.," . 'h Bolen responded that t"haithe Community Plan cals £o for a density up r o 4 dwelling Units pet acre.• B. Appllcant's Presentation: 0 Joe Van tom architect f or the applicant, summarized the project and showed 3 alternatives for the proposal, but stated their • • ) CP page PC Minutes J 5/18/76 1 preference for alternative "B" which includes 3/4 of an acre to !� tl M '1 1004 S be dedicated for a public parka I Sakata inquired as to how the proposal affects SW 109th Ave, ° Van tom responded that the right-of-way for 109th is being shifted to the edge of the property and will jointly be provided by this , 4, proposal and when the adjacent property owners come in for their,• e development approval. The alignment shown will tie in with the existing r,.ghteof-way to the south. ..*° Harley Adams, property owner to the east, inquired about building height and setback, ° Van Loin responded that there would be 1, 2 and 3 story buildings, flat roofs and stepped back away from the property line with the closest being approximately 50, ft, to the east property line. ° Adams inquired as to the location of the recreation building and • what screening will be provided. a ° Van tom responded that screening between the swimming pool, recreation building and adjacent property will be provided and : added that if that is not sufficient, the pool can be relocated more interior to the development ° Adams urged the Commission that the swimming pool be relocated along with the recreation building to help minimize the adverse impacts on his development to the east. .• Sakata asked Bolen whether the !,1,1Le_14, Hills Homeowners Assoc, had been notified. . � ° Bolen responded, "Nov but this will be done for the general plane" • - Dole Cohn, CeTway Homeowners Assoc. stated that the 3 story • ` ' high and should be limited to 2 st r .ea. buildings s were too 'I� g o C. Staff Recot mendationo Approval with the following conditions: L The amenities specified on the site plan be located on the site development plan submitted ted for general and program dove g approval. 20 The method of p rovidin� for the right-ofewa Y and improvement of SW 109th be specified in the genera/ plan; The following condition WAS added: s/- 3,' The existing screening be.t v en the Lalwa development and th. is development be y nd new plantings should be added if it later proves to be inadequate; . • M'n page PC Minutes 5/18/76 '34- a Maurice Marzinelli, 1027 SW Fonner� a.nqui i'ed as to whether the NPO had been notified of the proposal. a Bolen responded they had riot, but would be notified when the general plan came inu a PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Do Commission Discussion and Action a Popp stated this is the 3rd plan submitted by the applicant and that each one was an improvement over the previous one. { a Krause stated that he felt the density was too high and encouraged limiting it otherwise he would be opposed to the proposal at this time. t ® ti a Bolen stated that, under the Washington County zoning, the appli- cant would have been able to build at 20 units to the acre. y . a Sakata stated she felt there were access problems with the entire Canterbury Hill and that more streets were needed. ! 43 it a Bolen stated that he felt that he was not aware of a traffic problem in this area and that the traffic being generated off the hill was not exceeding the 3,000 average daily trips for which the local streets are designed. 'repedinp stated there appeared to be right-of-way problems interna.,l. to the development, especially in regard to emergency vehicles a Phillips stated he felt 109th should be required to have a half street improvement to provide access to the park area. Porter stated that the density appeared too high. 61 Nicoll said that there has been a continual co►ntroverpy as this '' area has been proposed development s whether to save out 'are,es d for 'd pment a�, whethr�r the trees and increase the density or whether to spread the density ou ` clear cut the area. He would Support saving the trees and cluster- ing the densi ty .r�y Bolen showed the original plan wi.7�. h showed the whole area as � � ,�� duplexasn ,a;� �. a stated appeared to be acceptable and witlo this• �� � � � Moore the density p�p � � � plan showing the units in,t. lcd better � a the tre He p stated that there needed to be adequate screening along the swimming pool areas • o I 1 � ' Cn p, • ..,.,nl __ ....'y�..�,,,.-...•w,w..�.n.r..w,uw:w+eq�.a�ev..r,�:,.,,.�, ., ._,.,. y!.!r A, \ �., "_.tJ ,.,w'.'.....' : b 4 page L} PC Minutes y ... 5/18/76 • Krause inquired whether the Park Board would be willing to accept the area to be dedica't"eT `..*,,— • • ry �,r k' r�flY4�`nr Bolen responded that it will be accepted if offered with public access and the main concern is to keep it open whether via dedi- cation or open space easement. • ° Phillips moved and 9,00re second to approve the preliminary plan with staff recommendations, as amended, and the addition ofo'' that SW 109th be improved as a half street to the south i property line, " ®' ° 'Nicoll stated that a half street improvement would probably prove : to be useless and .Lhat other methods of assuring its improvement should be utiiized,, ,, ° Moore said 'heslupported the requirement of a half street improve- meat because it guarantees the improvement and provides immediate acc : s to the dedicated park laud. • . • ') Popp recommended the financing method for improving SW 109th be taken care of in the general plan during 'the general plan application,. ° Porter recommended that the recreation building be moved interior to the lots 4•. ° There was a tie vote with Krause, 'Nicoli Porter and Sakata • voting against the proposal. ° grau s e e to te ( that the ,d en i ty was not low enough. ° Moore moved and Phillips second to limit the density to rpprove the proposal with staff conditions and the addition of the recreation , building and swimming pool being moved more interior to the develop- -, that 109th St, be improved as a half ,street and that the �density be limited to 1005 unite to the acre. a Phillips stated that by not requiring half street improvement and allowing instead the developer to post bonds the effects of r . inflation would not be taken Into account and the inflationary cost of the improvement would be shifted onto the taxpayers of Tigard. 4' Motion wag denied by unan1'me•u,s roll call vote. ° Moore moved and Izrae second to approve the preliminary plan with �taff cond itio rsasampndec4, wi kl the the recreation ' and Swimming g pooi being moved rnore, internal to the devoidpment9 that i t. be ' ��the density �limited to 10.5 units/acre and an adequate page 5 PC Minutes 5/18/76 t guarantee of the improvements of SW 109th St. be. provided during the general plan and development reviews o Motion approved by majority voice vote with Sakata dissenting. 5.2 ZONE CHANGE ZC 3-76 (Belanich) A request by Roger Belanich for general plan and progrA.M. review of a proposed commercial planned development in the vici_ny of 121st:, 122nd and Scholls Ferry Rd, (Wash. Co. tax map 1S1 34E, )$x lot 500). • •`r A. Staff Report: read by Bolen. B. Applicant's Presentationo • Roger Belanich, applicant, summarized his proposal., • Porter inqui ld whether the righ of-way along Scholls Ferry Rd, was adequat ° Mrs Ernie Platt, mmonweal t. Properties, stated that he had been 4 in contact with the ighway dept. and they have approved the righ t:-- of-way edication as hown on the general site plan. �' Y p • ° xepedino inquired tabs th;, there was adequate turning radius for • a truck back .n.g into t e service area ° Belanich said that ' was an it was unlikely that traffic along SW 121st would be 'elayed whit. a truck is maneuvering into the service area, a Henry Voderberg 543 3rd. St. , lake swego, architect for the appti cant, explain bow this shopping cep ter would be able to be ex-, paraded on to the rest of the area desi Hated on the Tigard Com- prehensive Pear as neighborhood shoppin ° Krause inquired as to how access would be T .ovided for expansion:. ° Belanich responded that cross easements would be provided for all: driveways within, the developments • Bolen noted that the locati6n of the driveways €rota SW 12L t and f !' SW 122nd and the setback from SW 122nd are Est and Y j� in the general program plan code d l:d not to code and sliou be listed 3� g p r . p as ca deviations. 1 , C. Public Lestinonyo o Mr„ CY... Penn s Iercd� Development, representing Mr. Meata, property owner to the west, stated their intent-ion of not, expanding the shopping area and that the Planning Commission should review this development on its own merits page PC Minutes 5/18/76 ° Xavier Zuada stated that the development of a shopping center is being proposed to the northeast of this at Sorrento Rd. and is under consideration by the City of Beaverton,' . ` •. '\1wxtr,r'i �..r, ° Bolen stated that the staff was aware of that proposal and that ;a this plan does not conflict with the official plans of any other agefex•es. Penn stated that the CPO for the Tigard area ha6/recommended that the Sorrento site is better for neighborhood cmmercia1 and that recommendation should be adhered to, ,� .. ... ° Bolen responded that Cho Planning Commis ion: should consider official, adopted plans and that plans /tn the nmaking should not be considered as importantly as the o. ficially adopted plans, ;, D, Staff 'Recommendations Staff recommen s approval with the following conditions s �,� 4 1, Sanitary sewer hook up be sho0n for the '4100 sq. ft, building. 2, Conditions attachod at t`he'\time of the original zone change be satisfied prior to issuance\of building permits, h, 3„ Curb cuts on SW 121st and SW1.22nd be listed as code deviations as well as the setbacleon SW J 2nd, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSES Commission Discussion and Action Krause recommended that the building be\movedi closer to SW Scholls Perry, 6 Vode.,:berg exp gained the parking situation and '-..hat the parking ' stalls immediately in front of the building are necessary for ' convenience shopping and moving the building closer to Scholls Ferry would eliminate those parking places, • Saka.tq moved and Nicoll. second to approve the general plan and program., with staff conditions. ° Motion approved by unanimous voice vote 5.3 CO'NDI:1'IONAL USE PERMIT� ,� aO:}�a Stack) • lt�:ir`l Ctl 1,3 76 (T� A request by Jerry Scott and Rich ard Kiser to locate an automotive a repair business in an -4 (industrial park) zone a t 9035 SW Burnham S . . (Wash. Co, tax map 251 2AD, t; r lot 1600). At, Staff Report: read Ibl Daniels. p by rt Phillips asl.4: why It•he applicant a.s now cotY17.r.,, before the Planning Commission w; tti building is existing and ,ley are operating the y a business Ji,tiy�..«,rliFa•xea'�'+nMyw^N.y w Aa w f1' x .,.... • ...,,...a ,...» „,,,,,,,,,,,,,•.,,,.,.,.,, ..,.,.,....•..,.,,,, ,W,.,„,,,.,. ,,,,..,., , ...,,i ,,...,,, .,. ., ..,....... ..... ,,,,.,,,,., ,._.s,,..,.,,,.,,.,.,. ,. ..... ., , „ ,., ,,, ., .,.,, . ,...o. ,w„„ ,LLB. .,. . ,,. „ ..„ n �' .fir%Mw:.. w., page• PC Minutes 5/18/76 • preference for alternative r"B rr which includes 3/4 of an acre � to be dedicated for a public park. °, Sakata inquired as to how the proposal affects SW 109th Ave. Q Van Lom responded that the right-of-way for 109th is being shifted to the edge of the property and will jointly be provided by this proposal and when the adjacent property owners come in for their 1 ti development approv'a1. The alignment shown will tie in with the k existing right-of-way to the south. ° Harley Adams, property owner to the east, inquired about building height and setback. ° Van Lom responded that there would be 1, 2 and 3 story buildings, d..; flat roofs and stepped back away from the property line with the closest being approximately', 50 ft. to the east property lined ° Adams inquired as to the location of the recreation building and what screening will be provided. n I b ° Van Lom responded that screening between the swimming pool, recreation building and adjacent property wilt be provided and added that if that is not sufficient, the pool can be relocated more interior to the development. ° Adams urged the Connission that the swimming pool be relocated , • along with the recreation building to help minimize the adverse impacts on his development to the east. ° Sakata asked Bolen whether the Galway Hills Homeowners Assoc. had been notified, ° Bolen responded) "No, but this will be done for the general plan." ° Dale Conn, Calway Homeowners Assoc. stated that the 3 story buildings were too high and should be limited to, 2 stories.' C. Staff Recommendation: Approval with the following conditions: 1. The amenities specified on the site plan be located on the site % development plan submitted for general plan and program approval.: 2. The method of providing for the right- of-way and improvement of SW 109th be specified in the general plan. The following condition was added: • 5. The existing screening between the Calway development and this hand new d r it - �"• development be left �� plantings should be aide ���.�`� i later proves to be inadequate. o , % a .. • • • ,. page 4 PC ,Minutes ■ 5/18/76 i . . a Krause inquired whether the Park Board would be ;willing to accept the:area to be dedicated. ° Bolen responded that it will be accepted if offered with public • access and the main concern is to keep it open whether via dedi- . cation or open space easement. a Phillips moved and Moore second to approve the preliminary plan with staff recommendations, as amended, and the addition of: � to the south that SW 109th be improved as a half stree . P property lines 6. Nicoli stated that a half street improvement would probably prove to be useless and that other methods of assuring its improvement , I ' should be utilized. a Moore said he supported the requirement of a half street improve- ment because it guarantees the improvement and provides immediate access to the dedicated park land. ° Pe P recommended. the financing method for improving SW 109th P • be taken care of in, the general plan during the general plan application. ° Porter recommended that the. recreation building be moved interior to the lots a Tkere was a tie vote with Krause, Nicol�. Porter and Sakata to voting against the proposal ° Krause stated that the density was not low enough. ° Moore moved and Phillips second to limit the density to approve the proposal with staff conditions and the addition of the recreation building and swimming pool being moved more interior to the develop ment that 109th St'. be improved as a half street and that the density be limited to 10.5 units to the acre r a Phillips stated that by not requiring half street improvement and allowing instead the developer to post bond, the effects of d not be �, �o account and inflationary inflation would� taken i,ni. and the ��inf� y " K1' cost of the improvement would be shifted onto the taxpayers of Tigard. a Motion was dented by unanimous roll call vote. a M ooxe m oved s.nd Kra use secon d to PP approve the preliminary plan with staff conditions as amended) with the a`iition of the r ecr ea tion and swimming pool' being moved more internal to the development, *waa,t4at the density be limited to, 10:5 nits/acre 'and an adequate • 1 ) •., ..,... •• •A•••••• ; t. ' . , J, page 5 • PC Minutes 5/18/76 guarantee of the improvements of SW 109th St. be provided during . the general plan and development review. ' i 0 Motion approved by majority voice vote with Sakata dissenting. . 5.2 ZONE CHANGE ZC 3-76 (Belanich) ► A request by,Roger Belanich for general plan and program review of a � � . . proposed cot rn.ercial planned development in the vicinity of .121st, 122nd and Scholls Ferry Rd. (Wash. Co. tax map 1S1 34B, tax' tot 500). A. Staff Report: read by. Bolen. B. Applicant's Presentations Roger Belanich, applicant, summarized his proposal. 0 Porter inquired whether the right-of-way along Scholls, Ferry Rd. was adequate. ° Mr, Ernie Platt, Commonwealth' Properties, stated that he had been in contact with the highway dept. and they have approved the right- of-way dedication as ,shown on the general Site plan. n , 0 Tepedi.no inquired whether there was adequate turning radius for a truck backing into the service area. ° Belanich said that it was and it was unlikely that traffic along E SW 121st would be delayed while a truck is maneuvering into the ; ' service area. ° Henry V'oderberg, 545 3rd St. , Lake Oswego, architect for the lappli,.. . cant, explained how this shopping center would he able to be ex- . panded on to the rest of the r area designated on the Tigard Com- I � • prehensive Plan as neighborhood shopping. , ° Krause inquired as to how access would be provided for expansion ° Belanich responded that cross easements would be provided for all. • driveways within the dc�rrel oilmen t.. A ° location the driveways from SW 121st and 122nd and hat. the oca ibn o y Bolen noted t SW the setback from SW 122nd are not to code and should be listed in the general progam plan as code deviations. . C. Public Testimony: I ° Mt. Cy Penn, Mercury Development, representing Mr. Meats, property owner to the west, stated their intention of not expanding the shopping area and that the Planning Commission should review this development its own merits. I' )r I I I t I•_»..,...w,r.. .. y.y.,,,...r.u. ........r..,....u..r�...........r.u... ....,, r Y • P .nwaM1mml Krwwawsrvins.M.tanw'S4r, _ , 4 ( « o ■ . • , • • • I a !h 1 4, Cl ' E r i. • ! ; n ',--- '''‘.,c,.." . i‘.'" , '2'--4 ---;— e-c--, ,"r2 ...1 . 7**;...' ''''''',Vi,ef ' . tt • 7,:,-,...e,,,,•-',"?,.,1„,„..4,/g",...,, 44,e....p........., . • A.r • • w r � I j P i ,w . d ii 1 it ,r • • ■,,'.,•,.?,',,, 4(-- • 1 l • ; I I yy ql ■ • • 1 • S • 1 I I I I, rl I r-+.rmwl...,..+..a«n....amYx,�.r.� }y• � gyp/ .J ' 1 $ , , '04 Pi lEgi a a A Y WC*Ar . . . . . , , .��. ,rw,wf emwi,wwu„rau`�*,a'"wat"`r"oxum«rvna°m` ,c, ;.'o ii x . n v w d . 0i4.11'11. 111421H6447' ' ' . ":if)"'"Losi 'n n'. . 1 . ' 'r............, . , i , . .. . .7f3t,, ..• #3-4,-it. .' , ., , 2 laftIA.. . .eActitki.,.. ...,104,1, .. Y.64...' .' „ r.-.„ n, g b 6 •ar x Q / M ,Fti.et:r . 4,:,/;■,,:k.'4A44,4:41,4,44, sA, i,...„,,,— atiftt.:&4' i?”; ,//‘ .9'174?' ''''. ..., • PtikfrIS I I:C.-. te4°4(11" 1' `*6'1 PhimAnAm4(' ' 0 ... . . . . , . . . .. . ,,,,,,.., . . . . . . . . . , . . . . 1 . : . . , „.. . . l 9 , . . . . .. , .. . . . , . . . . : ,. .. . . . , . . itig . . . ,. . . . . . • , . , , . . . . ., ell641-1 t414"4614"''',, . p / , 1` . N. . si4tir,.A.d , , ,' 4)... 4.1.0CH. . 44,4"4/144A6*, , it' .., .n. ef Iti... , * .4 .. . tAles.14-14g ' ... . ..' ar ,f.0717)M f eatAAtc.tAtift„ '41'1, i)41' *ICa`6"-. ,' , ,p �/ RO. e73i. i )T n 4 '' AAAAAA , p.I" ` i ni 0 ceowtik,dttk r .. 444.stiatp. . , C ,. µ if A , a', .' '..,1%Itikl ,(0'‘,,,A.4.16.,0s,. lawanaii.Mmai., c . . . . . . . , .. . 0 . . 4,,,tAklik, . to , it , , . , , : . . , . , , , .. .... . , . u, : . . : : , , . . , , . . . :'.. , . ,,,,'' ' '...--... ,...,..-' i x : 4 . ... ._.• . 4 � ..w...„..• ., ,,,r.u, ,,, <.w,.,,uw I.,„x ,.x�r.l ..,,,.. �.r r yin ,..,,. .,.,., , Ka...,T,^lwa"•'nu°°l''�':Y+uWCu.4 ` ^ rl 1 .,..'..r ..:..:... .:... a«,:..,. .i..,,....�i ,..„..'__•.-.:...i.,..a„ .,.'M,.- - _. .._,_.._.M,...,. ,.,..,••_... t .u..,. .,.. ..,,,, a_,..„r.„,...,,_r..s.._,.,.,... .u._u.i..........._..,a.«M,,.a..a..i..._.... ...«cw,,..,V...,i.u.s,,. 7 • CITY OF TIGARD Summary of City Administration Expenditures (Program, 4.2) For the Month Ended 1 .. . . ,; f��~ ��, �:x��,r�' and the� w. , „� Months,Ended Current Year—To 1978-79 Remaining Personal Services Month Date Bud Balance �. . 601 Administrative Salaries ��?, z $ '/I 7/ «.$ 29,000 603 Office Salaries & Wages "f . c.:11:7',.3 6,150 S ' 604 Other Salaries & Wages '' n 0 2,004 . 608 Payroll Taxes & Employee Benefits ___ 9 2,673 g ; 610 Pension ';I��,_`; $71 //// �/J.'� ,14. • N'1 r� . 611 Social Security _ d-1/ 1,•445 9 .' Total Personal Service $ $ 42;143 $ Materials & Services 622 Employee Training an� �.,... � � 230 r 630 Stationery & Su. lies 631 Printing Forms / f r. 460 �'*4 e te:= 632 Advertising & Public Notice 3 90 633 Heather hiP f 80t3 ' 635 Books, Maps, Periodicals /d2...9 t. 230 4 '' 637 Travel & Subsistence _ 7 7 1p180 650 Vehicle, Operation a4,2 780 I P 0,4 652 Materials & Supplies _ , J 7 180 • +wwwsrw.wrW�r +�WMtiN�iw�.+ +nrw1{iW.�^ k 65 Maintenance & Repair — Building & Equipment' 180 „1,.?- • Total Materia i � bC u t'\,RT2ii4NT TOTALS 46,603 1 eau., rt,J,+ a,u.w.w.n.. uu .ra.x.....w u.l.wu ...,..ux ..iix wr......., „r•• ' -” ' .. w ....wwW..MWx,m'R MOCi.�:'4t n i Y A . ;{°.4Si wi 'r ett ttRY a '' ... a ,..e....„.,. „,.„.n+rk„..„—.w-.m a,,,+.w.ruw,yr,.rHC",,,rrwwmr:„„-.—,.,.......„, r ' t '� � , • +�n (icri.3)..61i).4,0*4044,,4 , 1 M1 d654,41...1”AkMNMMH4YIWILNA1MMrIMg41FY�MMIMI�1�N plp+i➢WYR�xA.i.MlIMRMM� . , . , 4...4411,44.4,446..,• . . . , , , illi,v4.304,44 J.;i4ciwitiv„.. . , . . . . , ., E. ., • r , '‘ lt.,.. ;It.. ,' 0.. ., , 6 .....ke i je.,to „1„,,,A.A.6.,tid,4, L ((vol. i 4114 / i',' (01.10,0444, , : '', ',• ' At • M ^�, . , ■ . ■ ' W.b. 474011.5VC4,..LY,0' . . . . . . 04.4 ' a r � / CA/AAA," ..� C '1l1o� 14 " ell . . .0, , i '"""'""�nw�rncns�+ naw""tiem.u."".."'"m +nYSN,cf'"2.m .nrn-..!!r.+ge.V.IU aZTZX,,r.MK''MtttMir,,.==!M2M='M,Ms2s' lLi '' . 0 . . 30 pt .. mAtm•104...40... . .14 . 7 ' 4 19 ,,, ,; . 4s,„,„ ,,, , p �3 • r u�d1 c.„4„:,,,,„:,,,A4A4,2,.„ ,,,,,,,„41.,, : , ,, • . ,,,A A I i , i . ,, ,,,.:: • ., , , • ,,,.., .,,, ,, :.,,..,A: ',,, ':, . . , ' . . , , , t, , , , , , , , , , , , , . , ,,,, , ,, „ , . , : , , , .,,,, , ,, ,., .____........„..., ,, ,,,...;,....__,.., ., , ) . . .4..7 . '1 , .o 1".%,7,;1' y wig p r • A t a V w. Au r., li iI t.. 7' .',,1 +'`M yak,.,."�' ' rb 1. .Va�G .. ^ .+.µ M'�� •• ' ;x fi I • 1 tip j o ftr. , l'.'"'"'‘!.."'"'4'..''• . '' ,. ••''.: ,, .:, . ,., ':.' '••,,, .., . . . „• , ,•'. y , l tt r r. ''' \\\'. ' ,'' • 1 • • ' 4 , . is ski . I. ,µ 4*; 'r t,c {) I.Y a', H '' ' rl , ,. Ian c l d,�l6 n„ssp i I .7• �,�. ' i • ' • . a Ce ,, ` .�,�'`, M.' r n 4 �h� ' •, /� ..►r. .19}.. 4111 I, p AL) '''':i.4/s.i'':'. . i ' . ' ' . ....ei:totaii,.1 • ,......„. . 1 . i 7 a ' of Ivo., M i n' . . . . . . k d . . .i . . i. . . . .*7i011 +4)1.41,4,014l,k,N0'.4,0,.. . ' ' ' . .' '- ' d \ . to.i,e":„Lotte . , ,.,,,„ ,,., . , . . . ,i .., . , , , .. . , . . . . . , At), ... .- . .- . '4°f').,Cd-:,e..e. ,..7 , .''*I.; .:.. . .-. —, • • 1.44i it:01(i„; . . , . 3 . . , . , .. . , . . . . . . . . , . . .. , . ti, 5i. . is0114`'4*.to . , 16104tildeil:,:. 3) a s 5 se. ., . . .. , , ggiira . . . . ,. , , ', 5 ,. :. .,....,.,..,....... .,..,:!..,..' . g.. . ,. . .... .�o.c1 ''t,,, ,. .. , .: . . . . .. . . . ., . . . •: ,, , . . . .1 . . . .. . . . . . • .,....r, , . • . . 1: , . . , ,,, ,„ . . . ,.. . ,. ., ,. .. ....• ,..( •:.. :, ., . . .. .,. . . .. . . . . .. . . . . • , 00 . . , .I. . . . 1 . . . 4, . .. . . , . . . . . . . , . .. . . . 9.* , ..., . . ( 1, #. . ,, ,,,,,y : . . . , ... , ., . , . .. . . . . . , , , exrAUM Win"°'en°MeiWiPoH��, • . .. • .".. .. . ,, . , .. , . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . .. . . , . . . ,, . .: , . ,.. . . . .. , , , . .. . . . . . . . . .rte,,► ,., . . : . . . , . . ,. . . . . .. . . . . . . . , .. .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . , .. . .. , ,,, . , .. . .,... . . . . , , . . . . .. . , . . . . . . ,. . . . , . . . . . . . , . . . . , . . : . . . . . ., . . . , , : . , , . . . .. . . . 1, . . .. ,. . . . . . .. . 1. ..• . , . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . . . i . : , , . . , ... .. . . . . .. „ . , .. , . , . , .. ., .. , .. .. ... „ .., . .• r ,,..., ,.,,�v,....w�w,....,M.��'.. '.,,,F�......o.:.,d.,.�M�.���v�,,.�.,..�o�H�...W,,,,,, ,,,,,,,��,., ,..•. ..._,:..,,... ..,, .{{..,,, .w,.«Ywuwlu• - akat.�>r�'t � ,...,, .............. ....... i � I. .tor, .t�,, • • M i • ' , I , i..1 ■ , ..a«... » .. . •.'' Ft., 11 . ,_ i'• ''., t"/(�t '001. "'4 I'4.i I' . 1 I. +,.' 1' ▪ 'r S:! 'r�)R�tQr"k a ti' J 1}'j,1j'FS, . /- •°.r fir»; "! i't`:! ' a °r �� f.'",••r f•' vr: ,P?'''tr' r'"pia+' !r•,,_,.. . I 1�t tY'I .t t r.+�,o • , Ij (a: ^ rly�; � t It • „4 4".. W iiL t:,• _. ,, _ , .• . 103 rt i .:.. ,,,, la , , , . 1 , ,,. yt ,j+ t�°i,J': .� p ,.,;.t� d'+1'�• J 't:' , "r Y /'r .":,:i. 1', 1r , • ,{ ' 'Ar ILsr . r.'rt..,,l•4i: at T'., 1 , .' t ! ,i.14,.� ; 4r11';Ntrt lie 0.;,I. ,4, Kt '1•a ...�. { •, ft- rr.'il:r '':t 1..r,t,r4 ,. F. I f`f�.. .,t k'( • h 'n, ' •a .I '!',•'''•,.‘t.a'• `4t:iC ' Y J` ',' v�.t,•j” tfr i .ri ;h. t .'1t:,'" "..',11 ,+T,r,r '!i 1! ' `A 1•"7•,t r* )"t r,ti�' >. ' 1.M b f41 W. !1 t,,4 "'H", ' ' .,ta /�q .•I r17t�+'1 ;R H Yt,�r'�1t'''A'}''�i.rl4;^JS�.I�r•''�•w��.�'y".� • Y�djR'{�.{(+��Y �'';',4::-..e,-.�u�•• '� i' � * }+F ..rL+t�ti r,� ' , :✓ J. } ■ �•,,. ce U. :44,4,44-:r' ✓ •M'`'1'1.l.Wl ec-Ilt Z ,1 .r11✓,j', ,ii].Myr ; t ,e "4� " l �. ) ,. (6t • ', M r,■,• -'' I....∎..' r 1741IT'r'l.: .. ••,,�.,t j' t �'ff. ' M1,T t-d "r� .I.y. �• . "rr 1 ,�i..q 'ke: l'..":1;"11,7-us! w:'C ...-^.N.1- ...5.rN.•' y ,w .t• , + 1"..,,�i�.r� - ;7 it - III) H 1w_,•ti/A 'r2.ry.1 ,,. Y! .... I - , -- t/,y -- . • + LIi_ A^ 4 . ' qq ^ i " , T,.•'.b y�,. /4. ^4 7 "Ki y•;A ;r ! . i:..4.,:at 1 1 ! , - .. 1i;,•i,y,n , .1•". , , ,"� S Xl .a:'��iQ t !r' f ,.1 , ^.•4e ' 3•X 5{ ',"4. •� . " '(4 J . •4 l' ��" 4w, 11 ; n, ).+i ,t i ;i; �t, ;�.' "0e�r r1, t� /S i d' .4 •• 4kS, • j ' i .:' ' t3 t.i `' . ,.t i'.. tn'. _, ' v', N4• .!.Lr I' 1 / F i r 1 i t 1^aM 41• t'�. f i•., t�{• 4'"'' ,1:>~ •'!•4Y tF"f -t. r .t ,, ...• .1:1 'r' -a •('-:151'`;itil n.•e)�+i ri .c° aM'F s ',J , `/ i �., .: t ,i 1` •", 1 1 r'.; :t,, it t }.S�,y�y ra. !!f y ;� . ......_•t' �+ .� �, ■ 1•+, .' !�!:"h ,,.✓N11: J i''"{.L.'1..., S •"q. 4,4, ' r•'•:,..j.r:, .00,:.,j,.'•' .i•.+• :',.t11 fi" .�F't..”'T' ' , j4''4'h r•: t , �•r ,:.:.,..,',10,1: !'.:.t n:r I' t' 1 rl.H•,f 1 t ±t'4!r ' �, �•� ,�L'1,}.d... i.. , � .,y ' •l }..,iviirvy "j(' tt.a`' M�•�t•iti r " y rYx y�ti'w K�` �•. rly 1j' rr• +' . r d./ ;`Ait '4+ s'r.,i.1kr1t'` "'"°!.^r,r1!:4(; ,. +r�' 1..� a 1,C,:.4Yr 1l.e., 1.4 tt�_t,�.a;E :l ,i .,:'t::,;,,.iii " • ,�., i, .. '•i i+!'',r1 , St + + Lt• 1",1. i»/ �•i�1 � `i,i,' A�.}"'1 J i+.'1.y„Y�,r•,L,*.}:Q. �J,�N(, f�' riwl'- cr a'"L1: 'e,,,. u4t, i 4, ,�. 't ,, - '4`'y.,qi" l.T +':i.,q Sw*•.a r a. '•y•r , 1 ti rq,.i aft 1+•�•�.i; J, tt ;''r G, „1 V++�''i`.}:•„' *j�a S}} t'.1 'rtK `n "'1"'''''r,P'^oi,1't r4.• :�."7 r, • n r t r „. ,,. }`" GC•'' 't' ,,i 1!•t a't ! ,,,4, 127} .L"/r•?y+:r,y, ...r 4.14:4r-11 'I!' V 1 .. �}•�,� Y st+': ,ti , v C FGW ry4•'q,a.w" ...I-4P- ,� �1r! ! ' w. 1 ., 4•"a;tri 0 ' 'Y?.§• , 4 ". ,1; 1yj } ii'N,,, ',.1u F^ 1,'1"•,,, 4., wr'.'�,".,4•..1,.�CF� r♦,(' in ' t ! 7,�� `I.!'.1I i, t•'t� ''� s { �ro $. • i♦19t'•' t) Y I ,1y "th74• 1♦ 1�• +�• Ytr ri.i ,i♦ 7 SC 11 '4 ,`l�'w.. �' +J 1^V �,, F 1•, V . � t+ „TI t'7';l�',lu ',',.. ..! 't� ,1 A j ' r .} s t� ,�', ✓ d•: r 1:t'i' -.S, r,1 ' t'; 1 w'r N S../'� }, ,'KrF.1:4t} 4•` 1i'h'" , ., �v,1 „ '- , `. :rlt' ,� , 1.f..,11. 1'I,. ' i• : y ' J4..jr. '/. { ' r .tr it" r ,'4331 A' Y 11'�� 7 '. a + + ! t r.,,• taw {"�♦ur1f�.1 ' i,1 .. 4t V . 9i.. .r er. ..1 4,J-•r0.'y. t F• '(sJ i�`i I , `",,F.,�,, -,1 }� ter• �.e i, i t Q-,., rG .._... 1 • �1,..--, p , ,`,i', r 1r'S t•f+r• .� , ` +:t#' r t p N iEI:itji(� t, A Syr', D i,109��1Y '�AU tL f. 14`' t • ' .I;, , r t t. _ / .ziiia , ..G1, "+:�i r. ,.t' , ( ,I,. L.Y.r Y M'i;' r",,r A, +`��S.} i!'' it. } tk:dfM31f!+e, �4 �i`.:F• .JJ+(, , t! + fig,. :?' r} �}, '(.1'' r*1 �. i.;• � i • . " 1 ��'•��� .h iY�t.;r ;*L ��q '+•t. J• r{ :J ."t n' r y t 1, ti ,'+ • ya:,:',4•,,,;,' ,.'.,�..".t.Yfiwj;,r,",.I,y ^= } 'i1µ�j0� (,4' •� • "� t t I 1`'. 'P 1' •f'' ;+::. rrf'r : riit•!f! 'f, ''t� +i4i •'J'�' It y}l.'.>1.. �,rj 1 tr it' , .i' "+,.t' ,,i jr,+.('• t 'I ,"1::' °i, *' .y.f i '+"'`LL}:.t,^ n i! 11 L_±i:tii a' 4F , .,x,,.,' .4 ' •,t 1 t- ,}..r''� ,4,;0- :t•u ,,}, J+tq,(-. •1 } . 4••4'.ti'u:.»r-t b' ,'; 'M•q,t«(1 » 1 ' !�.. 1's,+ ,,,' ,.J7 , • ,�' �,1 ;'. Vii, •!•,-..�;i,.M,i, a�i Yt,'� '+•'�▪'•':.}r{r;x t b,,' .1 '4.',.;''''=4.4e'.:1,4 +t {{.1t j� Y�1• ''.;.'''• y„^ ,'I•i', • 'I :. 1'.' r t,' 't,(' w(.I t31,,,:d'al'I.J� �•,( "' i, W. ��• . +,1 i , ,1 t+' ,'+ ...1';',4•','.4 4,• ,+„ f.1,4,,1'(�r4 i,,'1'I4,r ,3 ' - +t t. i'1A , • 1 '•\ �� I. ' ,' "+ `1 ',, i1 , t+.ir',••11 k,rt.4,,4ln/It_l h' r;� v 1 •• (.r 1 ' "�• ( 'q !''• r, , iy 4,, ,p,M✓» 1 ! /t yYt * ,r„ ,.L �3.. C ..i4,kt,t,S'1" 1 art . — •t�-, ij}�. 1,• ' `V , 4 . { !:''',""...',;:',,,,,,*,',I.,. )t p •�a jay'' tit"1 � � � w , . i '1t'r'At� 1 .,',,I,'V.;.;t ,. , t*,..* 11 "" .,. ,d' 1.'} ,I2- t.T!'r! +ter, :.Itl,t a! 11,•r i ,��,L " ,t . ,. ! I ', " •• r, . 4 ' 'C ;,t:- t„ra wl f' i7w'1-t7,::JI IL,jl�7,1..4 it µ1.,2a,,.'�7 .,i :,'•. i;. ',•• !4 i•M r.. k 4'" ,, I ✓ t 1., ,t ., y.! tti,'i r rr,,'fr I', 'e+ .'t ':"'." ,±w'4,,,.4,1 Sh.`,/r4. dt1„ vt"4";,.'.k'%'i-''"3 ir,. ',! p r k rJ" , ., Yt7 t I• t;:? - i 4,4. "4.,`i ! 1 •''r';.t,:r '! i .'F7 ,)' ,f f Q', «111a�3'1 ij`':;,Jy'`���1 L1'^J`:l�»»Ml r.a,t �`' 1' ,-. Y"! t'r' ii<» :}•/e .l 1.•..'. „ w' ' k' _ i i'' } I+ Y .tip •' " ` fr� ..r p L r^t ', �,5.^ry„4^,Ll, . 1/ . . i tt 1 k• ''., r v�R it.,�''4 4' ' .,,1• ' 1 L• + ,, 4•I ',r ' "{ rw,N F ;444',., ;%.t'''' v., I a + t'1 w ' �4,. 41,.t a ((Y� •'a; , ''''...414„V4.,1-1 Tl Y ? 1 ♦ !., ' t ,-;i:::;1'!'.,.,', '"t , i i .r +'. `,..";i + 'It r '1., 1 y'r; 1'y i, • 1 N• +"+ f' a !' l, •l + t .1 4 ,}. 1'+, i f'w• i,. j!,ii ,)•,,,.. ,, r i , a y y., " ,fit' ' }. t .. _ ,r ,4 ■ is , 4.,.. ✓,)ij5 r,'.�, ` 1,,.4 Lt,. ' '"+r ( "x:, 1 A 1 i,'8' J r -✓ n 1.'1 '.' , '. ,•'t'u. t.°r1"';',..i is r' "tt tJ :' -,::.iL 1'n�t.L �'_'h.Y ..,,r,i, ,,,. :3„< ,,H, .' ♦•, ' Lt ,r, . .„:. I,,a, ',(„11.+ n, .., '14".., ' - `Mr "MM"y, ltl i' '1 y'":it Ly *' ..J ,} 11 °r:„ a I,` i•1:/ ,r rl ?r' ! .1.t , 't” .,'. ■ i , ' t y . ” dw .4.:w i t c t, Qi''• ^t ,. �:• Ar ,t.L tw , ♦ '„ii x ,! (,ir' + y'I I'A ('+ t- „';,;r'`F1 ' V ''.4.! 1 j., r 1tri'yxl.".'•I,} r} '�.r» '•�' I ^.� , , lw�, 1 �w 1' ill ,� •; r,., , i ' •. w , t I ,,,- 1 J,,f,j5,"`7 1 J4..,Y'`, irat•;`0,4 ' L , 1�7• %1 , l r44.,.....••• r t +f,,,�„r,n�Y 74 3{y .. .� [[ 'C+t' H H F 1'L. t ' ,+,.,..e "•.. # y',i y �'r *' «watt{,r , 'i1L1 i "�YI�H��11rA L�;�.!Itulw�r't 1 'f � d t r , �p1 ,13 ` Ti • t,t' / ''i r nr,, .ati, t.41• !r.'!1"t; ,,,,,�4t,. ',,Yt 11,4+` ;.wi' ',.jl' J Y Ai' > 1 �,W*ar'Vin4�,`.._J+"�,Cn`1(,'}LIt rJ 1 , •`. :..... .', �', , , r • ix• }t r a„?�� 1Cr�4' du'�•�Yi +z•zytlCl ll�{+i ri,1'j�L�,,1^ j'4' 't;} J,. . . . , , . , ,. ' : .,. . 1 ,.): .... IC , I j ., .. rte.�. m k ' • a II Frig:: f,1 i'. 1 • 4:L .•• ' 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON 2 FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON a ELIZABETH A. ANDERSON, ) 4 Plaintiff, ) NO. 39-661 . ) 5 v. ) AFFIDAVIT OF . ) ALDACE HOWARD . PETER 33. HOFFMAN, et al, ) 7 Defendants . ) . •F,f . •. 8 STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss. 9 County of ) 10 I , ALDACE HOWARD, who being first duly sworn, do depose 11 and say that 12 1. From January 1, 1979 until the present I have been , 1 13 employed continuously by the City of Tigard Oregon as the Planning ' ,0 14 Director and have served as Assistant to the City Manager since is September 14 , 1977 . „ 16 2. In my capacity as Planning Director I am responsible 17 for the supervision of planning activities throughout this community. - w qt g 13 I am responsible for insuring compliance with the conditions placed r • � ' a4 1 upon all developments and have limited authority pursuant .to Tigard a 7 P City Ordinance 18. 56 . 160 to direct and approve changes in develop= c nay 2 20 ;r.T 21 merit projects as they progress. �%�°; jj ; .¢ or) 3'p In my capacity as Planning Director' I have reviewed, ., 23 apex ov'ed a'ld recommended minor changes to the multi-unit residential 24 development constructed, by the De endants 'which i5 the Subject of , 25 this suit. In making this Affidavit I have reviewed the preliminary ` bmi tted by or behalf of the ' ' 26 � and modified plans su � on )aeha� developer, the , r ,t. I A 1 minutes of the Planning Commission staff hearings and proceedings r.' 2 before the City Council, and the Planning Commission's record of • 3 communications between the Planning Commission and the developer, 4 other city agencies, and members of the public, , o . S 4. The 7 . 2 acre site developed by Hoffman over the last 6 completion.three years is nearin g A ll features urea of the development 7 have conformed to the plans submitted , as modified by changes ' 8 initiated by the City or the developer and approved by the office 9 of the Planning Director. Certificates of Occupancy for each of ±' 10 the nine multi-unit buildings have been issued or will be issued by 11 the City of Tigard as the result of the developer' s completed con- 12 struction in accordance with approved modified development plans 13 and conditions imposed by the City of Tigard. 14 5. One of the overriding concerns of the City throughout 15 the three-year development of the site has been the preservation 16 of large fir trees on a significant portion of the site. This was 1/ a concern of the developer, the Planning Commission, myself, the 18 City of Tigard' s Architectural Design Review Board and the public as 19 measured by input received at numerous public hearings held conderning 93J 20 this project. Many of the modifications discussed below ow were, . • ,g".o0 c 21 initiated by City agencies or were approved changes made for the 320510, 2‹ °w 2 purpose of achieving this goal. 23 6. I have reviewed the allegations of paragraph VII of 24 thE` Complaint filed by tlizabeth A. Anderson in 'Washington County 0 25 circuit Court N•o. 3 661 a make the following observations and �-" and o � �., 26 comments concerning those allegations! . Page '2 l A Fla' DA V �' 2 ci ( ` r • • 1 A. While three-story buildings were originally approved • 2 bY the Planning Commission, subsequent plans were approved which �•. . 3 called for two story structures , The height, size and density of use q �" " 4 of the buildings actually constructed are identical to that set forth r . 5 in the subsequent, approved plan. During the course of construction • 6 the developer requested approval to convert an attic space to a loft. 7 Apart from increasing the structural integrity of the ceiling and • a walls to meet conditions requested by the State Fire Department, the 9 only exterior change involved the addition of a small window in each 10 unit in the loft area. 11 This change was approved by the City Building Inspector a• 12 who advised me that the proposal did not constitute the addition of 13 a third story under the City of Tigard ' s Building Code. Because the 14 change did not increase the density of use, change any boundaries, 15 use or the location of any use, the Building official approved the r • 16 change and I concurred. Subsequently the State Vire Department made 17 a review of the proposed change concluding that it did not constitute 0 18 the addition of a third story. See Exhibit A. With the exception of 0 z 19 the addition of the small window, no exterior change is visible. " ' E t d a 20 B. The preliminary plan submitted for approval to the E'N 016221 Planning Commission envi sioned a recreation building nd n q and a swimming mminn g 9:<'4 U 22 pool. The Planning Commission recommended that if a swimming pool m. 23 and recreation building were constructed that they, be constructed ' • 24 interior to the development to minimize any adverse effect--primarily 25 noise--which the use of such fadilities might have on neighboring . • 26 landowners. T.he approved development plan reserved an .internal are a • • r Page 3 .* AFFIDAVIT rw f • ' 1 of the site for recreational use--the envisioned recreation building. . , ° 2 The interior areas of the development as constructed are not devoted • 3 to a conflicting use. • a 4 Hoffman unsuccessfully appealed this condition--of interior 5 building placement--to the Architectural Design Review Board because • 6 imposition of this condition would conflict with the primary recom- • r 7 mendation of the Planning staff adopted by the City Council--the 8 preservation of as much of the natural vegetation and existing climax 9 forest as possible. Upon a request by Mr. Hoffman , I granted him 10 permission not to build the recreation center. The interior areas of • 11 the development remain, available for common use by the residents of 12 the development for recreation or any other purpose 13 C. Neither the Planning Staff, the Planning Director, 14 or the City Council ever expressed any concern or interest in the • 15 developers decision to market the final product as apartments or 16 condominiums . The provisions of the Planned Development District 17 and the Tigard Zoning Ordinance make no distinction between apartments " 18 or condominiums for the use, affects and, demand on services are 0 19 identical. The only concern expressed during approval of the pr . Jact 0 was the belief that single ownership of the common areas would e2.7 '1 y` 21 minimize ma� This concern is unaffected E responsibilities cted N�oc�� miniirtiz i�ztenance g by the sale of the units for all common areas and maintenance re- g 23 sponsibility therefore are assumed by the Homeowner's Association.' 24 D. The approved p reliminary pla n envisioned walking raths,, 25 a picnic area, and a detention pond to control surface drainage 25 created by the development. During the course. of the development. g d..velo 'tCtertt • Page 4 * AFFIDAVIT • ( ' • n, • 1 the Building Inspector expressed concern with the structural in- 2 teg itv of an artificial detention pond, the increased surface ' 3 drainage that would be created by the destruction of natural vege-- 4 Cation and the removal of fir trees in order to construct the walking y ' 5 paths , and the hazard which such a body of water would create. As 'w 6 a result of Mr. Walden's concern this deteni-'' en pond was eliminated 7 and a sub-surface drainage plan was approved The walking paths, 8 picnic areas and associated details were eliminated also. E . . 9 E. No final grading plan was submitted or required for : 10 this development. The landscape plans are required to show only 11 existing, preconstruction grade. 12 F. Attached hereto as Exhibit B are the minutes of the ! . t 13 April 25, 1979 Architectural Design Review Board meeting where 14 the developer' s request for approval of a change from cedar to 15 aluminum siding was considered. The request was made because of the 16 then-current unavailability of high quality cedar. There was neither . 17 a requirement nor a discussion of diagonal or horizontal aluminum 18 siding and the Architectural Design Review Board decision was not . ' 0 19 predicated upon a condition or representation that siding be affixed 3 20 in a varied pattern. e `4°.'`-g61 21 G. I have reviewed the plans submitted by the developer o �m el development of� the � 22 in relation to the Southern portion of the property 23 y oot elevation level. i'„ q waterlines 23 which i s the area below' the 4 tr 0 f ices h a originally t 24 serving this development go through this area. The trig dcar- 1 . 25 templated detention pond, walking path and the like all 'affected 26 ground be low th e 4�Ob f tot o1erai�n level., wa s simply never a Page 5 - AFFIDAVIT` Y o . _. ..•. w ' ..wa.•. .a _•:,.•_ „�•.:..tea•....,,. .... .W ...., ...,.. :,,r,, • 1 condition of approval of this development that nothing below the I ,, 2 400 foot level be changed or disturbed LDACE HOWARD SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this day of l 9 7 9 NOTARY PUBLIC FOR OREGON 10 My Commission Expires r • 12 • 14 15 � . 17 tri (I 1/ Sl j • 21 22 ; a 23 A • • cq yy • Page 6 UP ? . • • ■ r ■ / "'• 4'.° L.NT: '' . 'r e r,AtIN" s. / ' • ilg‘.... ..,4+ Department of Commerce • . •4 .• Fire Marshal Division 14014:-. -. / ' E7 "4 103 LABOR & INDUSTRIES BUILDING, SALEM, OREGON 97310 PHONE (503) 378-4917 • August 7, 1979 • , , , .. , . Mr. Peter Hoffman 4 Hoffman & Hoffman, Inc. 1888 S.W. Madison St. . .. Portland, OR 97205 . . . ' - : . Dear Mr. Hoffman: ' 1., . Re: Canterbury Woods Condominiums, Tigard, OR . . . It is the opinion of the State Fire Marshal that the State of Oregon Structural ' . , Spe.cia.lty Code and Fire & Life Safety Code does not specifically address the . : question as to whether the loft areas as constructed in the Canterbury Woods 4 Condominiums are a third story or a mezzanine as addressed in Sections 414 . I and 3302(a). A 4. P - A. Since the loft areas are in various degrees of comdletion, and it would be . an unfair hardship on the owner to await a code change to clarify this subject,? dm .". the State Fire Marshal has elected to utilize Section 106.of the State of Oregon - * ' Structural Specialty Code and Fire & Life Safety Code to address the subject . and assure the occupants that the intent of the fire and life safety sections of .. the code have been met. The loft areas were computed and found to be in the 33 1/3% range based on the common atmosphere of the living-dining room- kitchen, and adjacent halls which are all open to the loft. This open area will . ., provide the occupant(s) of the loft area the opportunity for seeing, smelling, or hearing any potential hazard such as fire, which may occur within the areas of the common atmosphere. To further protect the occupants of the entire condominium, the following l' methods of construction shall be required: 1. Oiie-hour fire resistive tenant separatiot (walls and floor ceiling assemblies). 2. Approved single station detectors shall be located in the ceiling of the loft space in a location to be approved by the local fire marshal. 3 The pocket doors between the kitchen, living-dining area, shall be permanently ' , blocked open. • . EXHIBIT A • ■ ( , ' i 1, 1 , \ 4 , Mr. Peter Hoffman ? August 7; 1.979 Page 2 • 4. The existing two-hour fire walls will be completed in such a manner as to , continue down through the basement with penetrations protected as approved wu • by the State Fire Marshal. • B. Basement areas as outlined in the plans dated October 2, 1978 and amended f 'p on July 19, 1979 are acceptable with the following provisions: I. Each stooge area shall have an exit door. In addition, a door shall be located at the rear of each storage fruit with a minimum width of 36". This door and frame will be 20- minute rated with self-closing latch, but not lockable. These doors will be marked for "Emergency Use Only" and , be equipped with a security alarm system. In addition, the entrance doors to each of the storage areas will be lockable from the outside only to allow egress from within in case of a fire. Permanently designated aisles, 36" wide, shall be provided on each side of the separation, wall as to assure'a secondary exit. 2. All exterior walls and separation walls, with the exception of the two-hour fire walls, shall be of one--hour fire resistive core truction. 3. Mr. Peter 'Hoffman shall provide the State Fire Marshal with a copy of the . By:-Laws which will address the use of the basement storage areas, maintenance of the fire exit, security alarm and the fire exit aisle. It should be noted that the items dealing with the loft area apply to all buil.din.,_ s containing lofts, and the requirements for the basement areas pertain to buildings *6 and #7. It should be further noted that these alternate methods of con,f,t:,action and materials were discussed with Tigard Building Official Ed Wa. .+eri, A,cting Fire Marshal Jack Palmer, Tualatin RFPD, and Fire Inspector Jim Kenworthy,, Tualatin RFPD, and they 'shall provide the State Fire Marshal with a letter . rovide er of concurrence. , Qlyde W. Centers State Fire Marshal GWC:j cc't Jane." Huston rim Kerlworthy Trevor Jacobson .cobs s Ed Walden Plans Review Walt Friday T Tack Palmer Wilbert Russel.l:, lhussel`V. Washbium 0 4 * A 4 ( • April 27, 1978 „4 Peter Hoffman 1888 S.W. Madison :14 Portland, Oregon 97205 R2,7. SDR 50-77 Dear Mr. Hoffman: Please be advised that on April 25, 1978 your request for an appeal of staff approval that "exterior siding be cedar with natural stain" for an A-2 planned development, Canterbury Woods Apartments vicinity of S .W. 109th Avenue and S.W. Cantebury Lane (Wash. Co . Tax Map 281 10AD, Tax Lot 8800) was approved as follows: 1. Aluminum siding with staff approval of colors / with wood accent and trim left to the architect 's discretion. Sincerely, Nancy Edwards Community Design Planner NE/db cc: Darrell Kraxberger, Architect NOTE: The following acknowledgment must be received by the City of Tigard within fourteen (14) days of your receipt of this letter. Failure to return this acknowledgment may result in action by the City of Tigard. Retain carbon copy for your files and please return the , original; I hereby acknowledge this letter documenting the action of the Tigard Planning Director. I have received and • read this letter, and I agree to the decision here documented and to abide by any terms and/or cOnditions attached. -SiguatuFe Date EXHIBIT Itlauf , - , , r ( . - MINUTES • T I GARD SITE DEVELOPMENT AND ARCHITECT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD April '25, 1978 . - 5: 30 P.M. Tigard City Hall 12420 S.W. Main St . - Tigard, Oregon P - . 1 • 1. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 5: 30 P.M. by Chairman McMonagle. - 2. Roll Call I Present : Corliss, Hammes, McMonagle, Olson . o.r Unexcused Absence: Cook : 3. Communication • None 4. Design Review: • - a 4.1 SDR 50-77 Canterbury Wood Apartments . • • ' An appeal by Peter Hoffman of condition number 1 of the staff approval that "Exterior' siding be cedar 0, - • • • with natural stain" for an A-2 planned development — - a•t S.W. 119th Avenue - - A. Staff Report : •r - • • Read by Edwards - - IV I B. Applicant ' s Presentation : 1 Peter Hoffman applicant, stated that the quality of cedar had been deteriorating and that . aluminum siding presented a maintenance free, attractive solution for the buildings. the applicant also presented a slide show and color samples. . C. Board Discussion : . Board discussed the different application methods for aluminum siding. p Hammes moved Olson seconded aluminum . ' siding with s taf f aPP oal of colors with good acc ent and trim left to the architect 's discretion.a, The Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote. 1 4.21330.321111 SWEAT. AfiN10A '..", a ' r I ,,r.it G i '-. j/..x.,,a ,"o.l;:i.,.r'4. :•6111« ,j, 4 1 1M P U f+uv a lt3 1144({I OP !I'I' S c 5,200 LANO HILL CTY 1012 ,1123'1 Y y M 1. 947 11199 9/'73 ..,110AD 5,200 0487 cu 0160,.('2 STr T.IOr.'D,.OR_97 .i w ._. r 1' Mji: •• '�, - 301•-3k. • ., r. ,. .," 4 »,,4,1-4.`,. t,- ..,. ,,M fw'Y,�,"..""•-Lt6:1..,;_•MO• -YxtCf°r•° °]1104 1.,146 WICrt 4 ("wTY- it,,2 01,11 1 ' ., " L LJa'/ ``f'.Hw0.0.c ' aO;•SR 57285• _l ' ' '•'• 4 A-21330-33Do NILLOX, NAYNE R• • i-•„ , i 5,200 ' y 5,L'QO LANG HILL cry 1012 (1237 1 ,t s , OP .AR 0' 47 . ' •33 TO u L••X..NAYN"R-.......«.,...- ,H.,,,e I',-3'""S°•l�i l)a,:_:.«.m„wV�tl,' ..r.:"..a..7.;,•=arw.n.,•:.St18, {AND H,lii':.: C"1'7-..-.1-618''.643.7 /° _��0��6���3��3-SU MURUOCK»t•7OAA-0 •'aR 37??-3� .. 21 i3a-31io6-110110'6015� - '� -43 -usds''6" "• rriar-5,200 5,200 LANG HILL ' , CTY 1012 OL'37 I. a =_ -T D'F439 $ » N URDA4. _w�RQt4174,".J?MO " . ;3';y�aTqtx•',..r"a r"u"H°O1°.-:�..,,,..,. in e+u...s,r•5'i i, A IJa:FtLL••v.rn..o CIY+11 rj ` 63 ,tl WA H' A .0R ' 1- -21330-3500 CALIY HILL_ OM N 961 i 4 •2 �" 110A. LANO HILL CTY 1002 0237 . A•2i336 ;5"5t66-SPTiiN pkTi a onb'CRP►NCQ�'9 ''36="6`66'0""47`71 3'STi'6»-A• �a', 613" 5,3 OT 11,66 . N ill , 1,023" U1i2' O 17 �1' P 0 BDX 23373 TIGARD, OR 97033 ' • A-21110.3700 STAN AbK1NS BUILDER INC 30-0009 8/71 SiIOAr 5,800 6,000 -Ii 200 LANG H1LL ' C '' - , , CTY 1012 tic37 P 4,�9X 2 }7T t;6 I?L12 OR 7'0: .-_ ' ., A-2-1'336"'3116'6 51'X? A0ftl B 4 Si C INC 33 76'076`• '°9'171 -6 1"167;6 ."`.' '_7211'6" '67664"" 17;26.6- 1:A?7G riiii- e-TY� i•6"I'2 d • t P 0 BOX 23373 TIGARD, OR 97223 A••21330-3900 STAN ADKINS OU ' ILOCR INC 30»0009 9/71 -SI10A0 5,200 6,000 11,200 LANG HILL CTY 1012 0237 ' A- 1134"4600 oliXNJADI aS"131111.DClfryW/C'QR"9--' 11161564 •T=1"I" S110A• _"'.-_5..16.6 -6,6p6>.".1'6;156''_CXNC li1,LL, ' "CTY T.6' ".11037' P 0 BOX 23373 1IGARD, OR 9'1223 A-21330-4100 5TAN AbKUN$ BUILDER INC 30-0009 9/il SIIOAD 5,200 6,000 11,200 LAND HILL • , CT,Y 1012 0237 , -.;w,.+;,°,csh'p`, - 0,R�X_?13 13"T 1 QApq _.OR,9 7.2'3 A-2133'0=4"206` '1G�Y 14ILL HotSL`Ntat ASSOC 961zor.s4 -ai. ..'yT°641) ' ----m-" -Iwo --01 F11t.L-i - -t-/r.- 1161-2 '6.2'3 8959 Su 1346601 GLYD,PORTLAND. ORr00N 917.19 A-21330"4201 51 AN ADKINS DUILUCR 71JC 3134-0117 5/73 'SIIOAD 5,600 16,500 22:100 LAND HiLL./ CTY 1012 0237 P 0 13.QY,23 ,Z$ T.iGARO\48_97 '.3 . A-2T336-T'2'02 5TAN A,Uf TfJS LliTaR fNC•t. 664'= ■ I ' We, therefore, urge that any landscaping plans '' '' applicable to the Canterbury'Woods Development, 'whether 1 ,. the original plans or alternative,plansiadopted' by you, •,', ' incorporate the fence and fir trees contemplated by the original plans. �' , ' 1/f/✓/- . .( � ,/ W a Name Address' i s(-/t-t.,9 4 �-. ,1✓1,.l 1,1-„.,t, / «�,'(,fie 1 8 k+./ 10 G 13:„ / G,-ore ' i', ' Name I Address Y ' '” , 1,1 /el S''.:S "s' s 1 r:',4 — y f-tt.. ' j . Na /�' Address 1 � .� �� ' • - ',, /;;;;;:''..L 66/ :'e/ '�`i C l,(//O t -----. a • Na e' / Address. , /Yid 7 j;11Pr. AP, IA . • ,' ' i. . . , Name, ' Address �' Name r Address Or t.��� ;, l 41-g":17',,''() ,. ��,.• a l( �' 1.. Nam 1 y J'' 1 Address '''',,,-', 11, ,,:,',-,,, I la, „ ILK3:7$0 . :',-;,(ith irlil''fh. ,H ' ' I'. ' I • . ---Nam k,", Address Add , e' t l 1. • , Name • Address ; ,/,,,,,,,;„?.,1.,1:e'e,./,,,::::,,,...,•"2,2*??4,..z,',/, , , .',, . , , , " a . 2A/ Addre s s rt r / r ;r f' 4d//1 ' cC ` /«r' �' am. t , .t.„;!: ` • ' / ,,r7 tom / • 4 r d "' r r°Nate v„ ., r Adre s S t...... ;''/,a''w :'� ,jy ° y / °r'„. L,e' GtCi.C;_,,n.. [ Name ". / Address is • ,• c, a q )/ fli f. ,y;,�dLt" � �.. �k•� �,. t� r' ./'�/3� � Jx, /t ; � �, N the, Address 1 I t tro r r r d.n "t-k. \,0� .,Lv 1 ) \r't(„ r '�‘("i,A. �(.I l�(C(1 .J,t.t.�a 10I,� Name ddr'eSS 1 ( My ' 0e/et----1. . Name Address II.' Ii 1,1 ,( • 4 • . ` . • s� Na7ti��. ;, Address gi � ,y,r� Name' Address i &,,e..z.?"-,.. '*'. it-474t.r._ ___L_I'L4 19f7 . ,6-?- ,e/. --/ ' i Name Address mot, 0 ,-...Z.i:,,,,,.., , /Name`, w Address I r ',U.:4' 1'e, ."4 .': �� J 4,/ 6 a. '� ., ..$ l.,+w / 6 6 Name Address `l ' Name/'' N, .a , r• r Address te r_ -.. t // cle/ r��;r,- Name r c Address ' 1 Names Address `' <1� z ..- a /, Name Address , • /I d 4,di'Ll S,w, 4.4.3,ttP/44-1,4 1—,1 , 1 , Name I Address V • -- " ,�, � ',,,'r f Na'roe Address 1 ,., . e---7 A 6614 Li 3 /4-We-, ,. ._t_4-22.&.7,,,,U) /6 6 1 ' '',. ame Address ,,;,Neer .,,—---.,, I -t G.'B Sex.r ,L?),-.:.P.-. , , N-me Address ,-*,,-'1:::e/e4Lait•td1:: 7 CI 6,4/ lell'.',•17€eeA=4CLA44—"1-"' Name Address r'•me Addre s s t, . , IWt"tY-4v--1 L5 7 j 'Tv t L a ,, i Name Address Name' —. Address i• Name Address c' Name Address �'. ,`„ Name Address 1 I, I +. e n , r . b ame Address X06.0, ' / ,r/■ • ...,/ . t l t.6 ' M Name , Address o - ,� ,s a GPI c°//�-t� 1, ,„ ' ' "`Name Address Na e , Address el eN 11 i+"r 1 CI .tt F s? p} y p 'Vt 0a\f{ In t l U 4�.'r 'oC.: .. Y ., t f y s�„,x r 4 :� n.:, Name t'� P Address y/I�//) Name Address •' _ ,,,L,,,,A,,, i .- ; ioze iti2 ..ce,6) ,u,kie,Vo.„4,4, ii,-, , . :me Address . 3, , ......-- **-2(9 Name {ddress �, In • '' r r 4 , i . 6,4147< 1�/��� — Y � 14'e.,(:-. L- W'1.iCM+1,1.Imo/a J � . ; , Na Address ,, ,//11/?--/ ,.. iiirt/O7,141-1-- ie• (0 z-0 , Name Address -6,,f----_,,..-,...._-...........„....... ___ Name •ddress P . 1 "2"11/ /), ,- /t6tl,„&12Z „,9)4:1,,,i._ /e),s--.5-,s--- s-ie) ,),t e4, Namet / , Address r- ' . ( �- (_./" /e/ // ,lit / ,�;, 4- N : Address • Name Address . . Name Address Name Address a Name --- Address .~ r Nam( Address — Name Address Name ' Address . 0 M -• «ti,^y H .�5 1 1Y `Way 0 y 1 Name ,• .2) /L�..,) /d 6 • 1 • ' .' ' '�l" ��-.,C� ��''�--'�----- Address . . , ) Addre ss Name 11,<: r r A Address m� z — � Address k. ,ame ��� V.�m . � .��.... � � �� Address` �� �� �� � � � � �� � � � '� "i' • '. Name � -e" ., �' '� Address 5, • Name / Address / ,, ..� Address 1 • e. % ' � GS , ' ' °lam 7 , � . Name Addre s s 1 e . Address Address , ,41,� �7 .• '0'�Name r Address Add 1 Name Address ,• Name Address' Name ------ Addres s . Name dress '\ Name < - Name Name' Add , .. ,fig, ( ' r∎' J ' , , , i, . . • ' '. l,..,.\ ' P,II ' 6/11 i lame - ' ' Address I{ _P. gym ` '- ! rr,� .. // / 0, Ne . C Address- N ! - � / � o a l ' ' fi. J, aTne- [' Address / crAZ: /!vi. " , ica6,.-t 1 ,S,rrrJ, C7 a-41 art..-6e,e-h Na - Address +. 6 ame, ,,/ . Address Address 1 ,,, ././tici,Ad.._0 i,,,P,a„,..,()_.epee 10 A 3 5 L C-�0-0-tek. L.A.); Name Address ti Name -- Address — t! s Name Address , Name Address Name .—• Address • Name Address m • Name Address ' Name Address ' Name Address , Name Address Name — Address • Name Address A • Name Address i Name Address i Naine Address , , M � ' 1�.._�...i,.ti .' h, :w...�,,....,...::L..r.,..:._�..»1..+.w�.,...+..._...��...--.-N rn.u.a..:.a.,....=a». ....4.w.,,.e...r....... .....�..».4..-«.....-...�....................-,...w._..... .:.. .,,.., ., ....,.,, ..i.,. ��1,....... n,._..... __..w�N,.-.,,, � a w , 43. • w�,; .....—e, edtg 2a/./1- V C/' 4,(/./,7eil f •'A'i/he,/.(2.__ t____________L_______7/_€ ,(4-1- L- ' game i, Address O a.,---- 1.056/ o °'fir Name/ / Address Name Address Name...), Address ,,,./4,, �, �r,�,; , , ,. F. .,,ZZ . ` Address .r/` Na 4... Address ✓ t...) Na 7 �^ r ` Add '�'_y �a ,'C 7 70,�i� X :cL )tieL '.X.K..,He a, e')Address, , (67, C,L',C '. ', .�. _ Address . . Name /Name Address ._. � , o Name Address . Name Address 1 , Name Address Name z .dress Name Address Name Address Name Address , lame Address Name Address r'. Nine Address „� Name Address I (, I ti • TO: Planning Commission of the City of Tigard, Oregon Re: Canterbury Woods Development We, the undersigned residents of Galway Hills, Tigard, Oregon, vigorously object to any modification of the original landscaping plans applicable to the Canterbury Woods Development which affects the areas between our homes and the • Development. • In particular, we demand that a five foot, double sided neighborhood fence and tall fir trees be installed and planted between our homes and the Development, as required by the landscaping plans approved by the Planning Staff on • February 23, 1978. We believe the fence and the trees are vital elements to preserve the character of our neighborhood, to protect the privacy of both our homes and units in the Development, and to ensure amiable relations between future residents of the Development and us. The alternative landscaping plans submitted by Hoffman and Hoffman do not address these concerns in an acceptable manner. Under the proposed alternative plan, no fence would be constructed and the treas would be replaced by plants of various types: If such a proposal were adopted, the significant height disparity between our homes and -1 buildings in the Development and the open Space between the two properties would be glaringly apparent, destroy our sense of privacy and the character of our neighborhood, inorease the likelihood and volume of sound transmission between Galway Hills and the Development, and generally present a dbnstant source of irritation v ,. v ......... ..... ,„.•„—,-.....�......e_,..,..•,....«-M.,.,,p�4r. ,....,.._ ^ ,,,, e„,,.w.,>µ,,l ,w «,.,,.e ,,..,..,.,'. �