Loading...
CPA 1-85 POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm. The following document is a copy of the microfilm record converted back to digital. If you have questions please contact City of Tigard Records Department. ALLISON, Ken & LaVene CPA 1-85 9655 SW McKenzie also ZG 1--85 2S1 2AC lot 1800 • • dr r , � s 11, t n CITstOF T1FARD I May 3, 1985 WASHINGTON COUNTY,OR111 GG4 N 1111 Kenneth & LaValle ,Allison 6445 NE Union Avenue Portland, OR 97211 Re: CPA 1_85 and ZC 1-85 Dear tlemen: The Tigard City Council, at `j.ts meeting of April 22, 1985, approved your requests as set forth in the 'attached copy of Ordinance No. 85-190 The action was final as of 4/22/856 If you have any questions regard::r►g this matter, please contact the Planning & Development Department Sincerely, 0, 1 CL/ Loreen R. Wilson Deputy City Recorder i, Stic• 12755 S,W,ASH PA BOX 2:1897 TIC4ARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639.4171 cX u - t N O TI C E op P U B LIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AT ITS,MEETING ON MONDAY, Agr i 22. 1985_ AT 7:30 P.M. , IN THE LECTURE ROOM OF ry FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL, 10865 SW WALNUT, TIGARD, OR. , WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO. : CPA 1-85 and ZC 1-85 APPLICANT: Kenneth & LaVelle Allison OWNER: Same 6445 N.E. Union Ave Portland, Oregon 97211 REQUEST: Review Planning Commission's recommendation for approval to amend the Plan designation from the Central Business District to Medium High Density Residential and subsequently changing the zone designation from CBD (Central Business District) to R-25 (Residential 25 units/s^re) for a 2 acre parcel. LOCATION: 9655 SW McKenzie, (WCTM 2S1 2AC lot 1800) NPO # 1 ry (See map on reverse side) THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTE? WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF PROCEDURES OF THE CITY COUNCIL, TESTIMONY MAY BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD. rCONTACT THE CITY' RECORI)ER OR PLANNING- DIRECTOR. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,,,„ PLEASE - Ore�an 97223 AT: 639-4171 CITY OF', TIGARD 112755 S.W. Tigard, g AshAwe� (C.ornet of Ash & Buricl;ham)° (0272P) iV ... a ... ., ..... - x .„11,L1,.L,Q0 40, ,..\,,,,,,,i.1.,* ,....,,,,,,,,,,,,...\_„ 4, i,., ., / ,,. ,, ,,,,....„.„., A DOL .4 ',\ , l's--1 \iir'l \ , '''''' 't,/,// / -pi, ,.., 1 , ik,.. _ , ., ._, ..,.„ , ., , , „ ,, 4",. .' '''--- , / a/'.' a gill � ..777 4 tz< f f `tt... : ^, 4 yr* Ste.,, ,. 1 a "� ft • Y. �—✓ ��/� fr r jC �< / w t✓ . , \`'s ,,)\4, gi v f Tr T�Ety«.-.—+ j `v'r w'•. a t t, 4” `•�� �4 • � t .."' w 4 r �y , j� t -•.: .,,,,'',, r,+` Q Net , r s. F' /d n j f, / r r' y ty �' / 0„' , N ,, x ✓ ✓✓`t • r* c4 "r I� , .r ` ' ChtARLES. ' I` " t „› -,, _, i , *il , * / ,-\:” \ F. 4 . ` t,i(7/ �„ ` T1GAf , ` a RT a ~� r". oyaaELE ,t <</.\\,,,,,,,,...„..,..\ :,:=:,.., ,pa °' pr, k. L DTict�' ____ t ,' .0 y„ 6 0 . r l 5 �. N r d.^,(,,, ! . '-e yv • �. `t,� y✓q4.-" r'»r ,GLr,` ,,y.�y• Ni, `' of , '•+.,.��� , it /t 1 "' ,s GUalf LANE, I /". b v"* ,rr f^rf t �.�^' 1 ' ssnfEr 1 1) 1 ' t , � „,......s. ! t %,„ a c 1 1-.ri 1 ' I ' I L .,,,,,,, . , .,,, , a . , . , .4 . .,., \i, , , , ; ,,. , ,, 4 , , , , .. Z -. r _ _ ..... .,,,,, ''''' ,„ , '-4 .„ ,\ '', ''' ,."' s I 1 4 \ - 1 , , ri . .s. _. X I. M 1 . .. I '4.: ‘...,,,,,. ,.. ,..-,.. .*, ,x—1 , ,;. .,,.,,i — -- i I', ' , r : 'Y t � i t wr .ri, . t �� a yW Mot al � tN t �, 6�1644tCW/TL � I) i . t 'r i ' . - .I 1 1 ' .4,,, c tr . 5LSAc -- " t y tnLi it tol Z 2 t ( i i i , , , , 4 . ., ' .. CL al 4 1 L 7,t 11:1 i , • .. a * k wtt Y t t N i o • r tt it A. ,1� rt M�•w,a.� �,� t4 4 t;,t a� I. \ , * ' t w 3,_ i, * 17;,„-Altt r,..' .1— '' 1 ; ''1. 1 I 1,, '`I i 5 1 'f 1 1 I r ---14- .,,. tr, , , zu :--1---��'..:p y. �`..: r.: rz. .,,,,i,-,4 k MI • 1 .� NEMtli Uki 11I �1. ! ALI 11�LY ,�„ ( t � �' 4 •� ,� .,,�A.� � , S"�� � ft1Nf N�lr7�l'7�Mt "°,..,,, 1 +" W t z ,.. , w • JR Ht ; : p t5 ,4. YtikUilCk iTi I w" « MId II DO r. 1 . P t 1 ` 1 �. ',II p� �I .�w .t 1 . .4. A T +•«k, .v� ,V" 1. {t,. 1 i.,d y , . , .. - i i.., ELEI\il 1 } Li+ ,.__,..,,, i 1�Y t p � * � Gltr�arRft 44 M„ w"�4 .� •^ t`yt,tN�a ..f ° ,M t 11 , I r'., r ' 104 I rm v 1 '.yy,,, y I ,*.,,,,41'. .? a.`a1, {lir Y. . 1 I ,t.i 4 µ 4 . k 1 a ', * 47. * 4 4 t Ir � i V K :44"i i #.i. y o-r w `" 't to. v x 4 ' ! 4 , 1 I n , * 7r5t`Si i : +#r'li a-. :, 4 .w , ,{{•• °" a'+f• y.....," +,'r"4 r ,.. ti. " CITY OF TIGARD,^ OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: April22, 1985 AGENDA LrEM #; DATE SUBMITTED: _April 17, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Commission ISSUE/AGENDA 'TITLE: Ordinance for recommended a+•roval 4/2/85 CPA —1--85 & ZC 1- 85 Kenneth PREPARED BY: Keith Lidera & LaVelle Allison ._. REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: l CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE r is INFORMATION SUMMARY The Planning Commission recommends approval of Comprehensive Phan Amendment CPA 1-85 and Zone Change 1-85 as indicated in the staff report and Commission minutes, } ALTERNATIVES CONSIDELiEU ..)' ! 1. Adopt attached Ordinance vr 2. Deily attachd Ordinance, SUGGESTED ACTION Adopt the a,l tanhed ordinance, 1244P dmf N CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON • ORDINANCE NO. 85- AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA 1-85) AND ZONE CHANGE (ZC 1-85) PROPOSED BY KENNETH AND LAVALLE ALLISON AND DEC, ARING AN EMERGENCY. pp requested' a Comprehensive Plan Ancndment From WHEREAS, the applicant has Central Business District to Mediu: High Density Residential and a Zone Change CSD (Central.' Business) to R-7R (Residential, 25 units/acre); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commi!,sion reviewed the proposal on April 2, 1985 and recommended approval; and WHEREAS., a public hearing was held before the City Council on April 22, 1985 to consider the Commission recommend ation, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The proposal is consistent with all relevant criteria as discussed o in t°5i April 2, 1985 Planning staff report to PlanningCommission (Exh ,)it „A"). Section 2: The City Council upholds the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map Amendment asset forth in Exhibit "B`► (maps). Section 3: Inasmuch as it is necessary to revise the City's Comprehensive Plan Maps to allow development in a timely manner, an emergency is declared to exist and this ordinance shall become effective upon its passage by Council and approval by the Mayor. PASSED! £y ,� vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only; this day of 1,1 85 Deputy City Recorder - City of Tigard APPROVED This day of 1985,. + f Mayor * Cit of Tigard y y (KSLtbs/1282P) ORDINANCE NO. 85_ . CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 85— AN ORDINANCE-ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS To APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA t-85) AND ZONE CHANGE (ZC 1-85) PROPOSED BY KENNETH AND LAVALLE ALLISON AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a Comprhensive Plan Amendment, from Central Business District to Medium High Density Residential and a Zone Change frop CBD (Central Business) to R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre); and WHEREAS,, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal on April 2, 1985 and recommended approval; and hearing a public was held before the City Council on April 22,` 1985 to consider the Commission recommendation, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The proposal is consi , At?FIDAVIT OF MAILING 'STATE OF'O1 EGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) f I, �",,-, ,,i e. // ..,,,„,e,_ „ being first duly swnnrn, on oa,Wh depose and say: (Please Pri t That I am arc' '„ for The City of Tigard, Oregon { . That I served notice of a public hearing / for City Council. ' of which the attached is a c4L---,..,:.:,,,,y (Marked Exhibit A) upon each of the following named personson the /7/ day of ,e,/,,,,..:;,9,/,,,/ 198 , by mailing to each of them ._ at the address shown on the attached list (Marked Exhibit Ii) , z; ` sa�.a notice as hereto attached, deposited in the United States Mail on the .,/,'/-1 .'-'=111 day of of,./ ° , 1985; , postage prepaid. Signa ure e p 1 Person who del' ered to POST OFFICE , Subscribed and sworn to before me on the ,�" day of ' 1s3 ` 4 ! p s r. '! , y rY .- P.TAaY PUBLIC OP OREGON ..4',1..4',1 My k;o:TItii'ssionp ,,-.',K4 ",- ; E�Expires: ll . • Ids !s .. r ' (0257'? 1 I NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice` is hereby give., :.`gat the Tigard Planning Commission, at its v,aeting on A xi2 1985 at 7:30 Tuesday, D ,�� yP.M. , in the lecture room of Fowler Junior High School, 10865 S.W. Walnut Street, Tigard, Oregon, will consider the following application: FILE NUMBER: CPA 1-85 and ZC 1-85 APPLICANT: Kenneth .& LaVelle Allison OWNER: Same 6445 N.E. Union Ave. Portland, Oregon 97211 REQUEST: For a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Central Business District to Medium High Denity Residential and for a Zone Change from CBD (Central Business District) to R.25 (Residential, 25 units/acre). LOCATION: 9655 SCAT Mc1entte (gash. Co. Tax Nap 2S1 2AC, Tax Lot, 1800). (,se.e map on reverse side) The public hearing on this smatter will, be conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Community Development Code and rules of procedure of the Planning Commission. Any persons having interest in this matter may attend and be heard, or testimony may be submittedin writing; to lbe i of:t1e. i ,itial hearing. enteredinto the record For further informationp lease contact the Planning Department, De artment at 639-4171. T1.CARD CITY HALL, 12755 S.W. Ash. Avenue (Corner of Ash Avenue & Burnham Street), or contact your Neighborhood Flannitig Organitation (NPO) '.. 1 Chairperson Gareth Otte Phone Nuftber.._.. (pm/0257p) f • . � . ., ! — e oi ~~. S```ri r h 1/ ,, -`` ` •:' ' ,. ' ,, yii,- „ / ,,„ ,. , , 40, / , ,,. s '. ' * craci p 0 , _ „„s .,„ . , \ III, as . , , m_ I, 44 ,4,ilip ' n n op ar '., * • ''' ",,, i IN i1jrW�1.. �, r u ✓ r i•. 2:r?" I'll/ / •_di,' 44' '''''' / \\',"... '''''4 • . ' , '''' * ' ''''','„', .' :—.1 ,. 4 14 ,,ir. ..e.• ' •f‘..,V \ \ - .. 4, 4, ,4 , ,, "� .`.a w,, sT,r 'SIE. � i� � , < r. -, ',. d r.= ♦ °K" tip, ` " r,, \ v l , r + 1 �.N.Ki ''' CHABLE r~/ ,,,fi_. ". ., + ,,,r. / r, y /� ‘"-• c- ''‘', '' '`. ' S W 1 i��:."_ .tea" ''',;4'1<`..' (� * ,'` r y \ �+'� /" b IIII 4r 4 w c. ./4 4' ELE Pc```y �,.' ,., per, 1 ,rd . o.LL co_kr / oo v sA:\ y 14 1N,\\,\,\\\:\s, Pt. k 87R E �• r rr »" 5, „, : , ; '”/ f * la TIT— 4 , ,, * � is �`f S COt7�"LAt1E� f"+,,,, ,. -t, -C „, ys LG ~ # - , A, i ., . , \., " . ,rf 1 Jnr �r. ,i, j ,‘,... , ..,•-,, ,,, „ ,, , ,, A I , uw Y . . ; t 1 , - 4 . — L4. 4 -;';; , ' .1 '''. ', , ` , \ x,. Sir I 0*EWbol ,„ ,,',,,,.i__ ,,,,, Hi fi} '0):1.1" j «/ _- ,�.._SW 1311 f,w'1 ��rtit.tT 1' n ILL.IEv1 ; A " r '^.1 ". .. .H 1 ., ,,,, .4. _ .,..,„ , .±:± . , 1 4� } � »I S.Ne� C...,,.1... r � �,,.�t 1..�....IM1Ilf7 tLri lLl"r ,„ „_.. � . CL'7 �. '” .. �s 2 , f $a, i a , , ` �,,,, 6 , i i amt i i ! CLft. tr'. ^t i i 1 w' {. - 1,;,:1111111-1A }JI .. y ,rt rr .1 i 1 --- ft\ ? -:T', I I ' ®■ 5 View i Elite E a,,,,,,,,,, , ; , ,it ! ,1/44,42. .,. i..- b ''''''''..‘�F R4 t*# l y i .., 1r A , 1,-,,,, al rl v.r�,iN 1 1.------ ,\ �`, .,,a..r..... w ; 11 , J . 1 4 4 tµ S Y N` 1 i L 4 41 i Y- i rx ` t Y 1. L't't'`tt * 6 . e �7.. � - .. iiwii:t `F ia�.1..3p}.yam. PSL,`,. 4# [ wvnw,"wJ, �., .1a,41.41 .... .J. .,t,... t. M .. G . ,...�w,yyytlll .. K' .,w--t. hi ..i.14t.fir r{ T i fW3 4i ,,..: ' r +x LwNL I, }h} " " i, •. � wAlet o' k +1 ..0" b.,' y' l''''''yl'�kot'}Git t'.�"i� w� � "" I hE BIR�v lk ,1 .a� • TWALI T "- � �� ^yak ,,.:1 t , a LIR HIGH 1.--11,-*, -rti tcK ,, .....,,...r,.M.. .. i ,; )1 3 ! 4,u i 1 Yx�w �tkthLY "11 '" _ • '' 1 I TE LTON , :,:i s wr`,, tib :, r W t h „. .nE 4. 44A let ruin,'(„"''''1,.4., '� , I r ++Y a h 4 t" ,,'""4,....i',i,,,, <�� :lit I.C:1 a y,t ¢ l >4 �4 dt3.� P, 'r 1 i, �; �'( 1""• t"9Y�r wz .,�. L�,1k ,' ,j A -, j YI i { i 4,, �vi•M7^ AC„ *; • {�� .x .F.. L J,.... “,d at..-J+,.,,,,,4a,ra.i: 144 d' Aut.01* , ,.",''P,,_ i. - '''' ...a. r n ty4 W C 7 Alk 14 ,,,,ftii tit M 'h Nwt t1..1' ,..k 4 4 4 A t '� +i1. a ! 10",,. ,'-..n- �4 '''''".«..+,,,L. 4. v ft , +�r • I .. STAFF REPORT Mc AGENDA ITEM 5.5 April 2, 1985, 7:30 P.M. TTIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FOWLER JUNIOR. HIGH SCHOOL -- LGi 10865 S.W. WALNUT TIGARD OREGON 97223 A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment. CPA 1-85 and Zone Change ZC 1- 85 REQUEST: Amend the Play: designation from the Central Business District to Medium High Density R,efiidential and subsequently change the zone designation from CBD (Central Business District) to R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre) for a 2 acre parcel. APPLICANT: Kenneth and La Valle Allison OWNER: Same (: 6445 N.E. Union Ave Portland, OR 97211 LOCATION 9655 SW McKenzie Street/Pacific Village Apts. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 281 2AC, Tax Lot 1800) 2. Background On June 29, 1979, the P1.annin Commission approved the development of a g PP 10 unit apartment building (SDR additional 4 unit building was approved on Se tember 171984 (SDR 19-84/V 11-84) and construction is expected this summer. 3. Vicinitnformattion Kingts Choice Apartments are located to the southwest and that property is zoned R-25 (Residential,, 2 units/acre) Commercial development located along Pacific iligh+way is tothe north., Vacant land zoned " Proposal, is the subject CBD which is, included in the. "Main Street" ro osal abcs property to the east, and south , 4. Site Information The property is developed with 52 apartment unit*; and it is anticipated that four additional t this year. The. applicant is ,e .. re uesti' the Plan Amendment and Zone units ui11 be buil p.. n ,. � Change so that the development o ng the vacant property t,o the east (Maio Street project) will be required to Maintain a 30-foot building setback from the subject property, The ppermittedin the CBD and R-25 tones apartments are a , use STAFF" REPORT -CPA 1-85 & +0 1-8 - PACS ti As the, Community Development Code is written, developments in the C iD t zone are not required to provide a setback when adjacent to property that is also zoned CBD. The Site Development Review or Planned ` Development criteria indicates that appropriate. screening must be provided between different,,uses', (i .e. commercial and' residential) but' no specific standards are given. 5. Agency and NPO Comments ' , , , ,' ' /r 1! , , The Engineering Division and Building ', ,Inspection., Office have no objections to the request. Comments have not been received from NPO #i1. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevag.t criteria in this caste are, Statewide Planning Goals 1 and 2 and Tigard: Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 6.6.1, ani, Chapter 12, ti Locational ;ritetia. t, The Planning staff concludes that the propo9arl is consistent with the applicable: Statewide Planning Goals ;and Guidelines based upon the S'''' following f;itc Ings r 1. Goal #1 is met because the City' has adopted a Citizen's Involvement program including review or all development applications by the Neighborhood Planning' ° Organization (NPO). In addition, all public notice requirements were met. I 2.' Goal #2, is met because. the City .applied all applicable Statewide . Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Development Code ' requirements to the application. The Planning staff :has determined that the request is consistent with the applicable e Comprehensive Plan policies based upon the, following g ' 1.. Plan Pothe 0 osud commercial licy 6.6.1 is tn,et because the re�ou ,ng would require 3Pplica,Cion► of specific, setback standards for ttte, pr p .,` development to the east. Provision of specific setback trid sc.re.eningg standards between the existing residential use anal the proposed commercial development is consistent with this policy. '2. The' 'proposal' is consistent with le the applicabLocational Criteria contained in Chapter 12 of the Plan based upon the following findings: a. The land is, dot committed to low density development. n b.' The property is developed and presently buffered from the ' low density residential uses to the south c.` The apartments have direct actress to Pacific highway which i. , an; arterial,: , , . ' . , . , , ' , ' ' , , , t' d. The prope.rty iti developed and no development limitations, including eapAcity, of public facilities>;, are sppur�ent STAPV REPORT T - *PA 1-8., 4C 1-B5, - PACB; 2' 8 µ iv'd' yf !' "`f r ' r .t!. e. Public transit is available on Pacific Highway. tie) f. General commercial services are available within one quarter mile along Pacific Highway and on Main Street. g. The property is in close proximity to the proposed Fanno Creek Park. Finally, it should be noted than existing CBD zone allows for multi-family Aevelopment equivalent to that allowed in the R-40 (Residential, 40 units/acre) zone. This proposal will reduce the future development potential of the property. This proposal is directly linked. to the Main Street development which buffering between what. consitutes will follow this item on the agenda. Determining adequate screening and b gdifferent land uses is y difficult at best. Since this propsal meets the applicable criteria, the staff is recon^ending approval. However, it is also ouggesied that both cases be hear,..i by the Commission before any recomi:endatinn$ or aecisions are made. • C. RECO M NDA.TION Based u orc the findings ;fusions noted above, the Planning s taf p g and ' cone recom nend:s approval of CPA 1-85 and ZC 1-85• („ A PREPARED :If: Keith Lidera AP?:UVED g` I William A. Monahan, Associate Planner Director Y Development t I)evelo ment (br/1133P) I STAFF RtPGP, " -CPA 1-85 6 Z.0 1-65 - PACE 3 , 1 • 'TICARD PLANNING tCOMMI`��SI,ON REGULAR MEETING APR1I 7. 1905 1. President Moen called the meeting to order (;►t 7-34 PM. 1 he meeting was held at Fowler Junior High -- LGL Room - 10865 SW Walnut. 2. ROLA.. CALL.. PRESENT: President Moen; Commissioner' Butler FVre, 4anderwor.d, Bergmann, Campbell, Leverett, Peterson, and Owens (arrived 7;45 P.M. ) STAFF', Directo'o- or Community Development William A. Monahan; Associate Planner Keith S. Liden,' Secretary Diane M. Jelderks. 3 APPROVAL. OF MINUTES Com Commmissioner• Campbell. seconded'_ to :Commissioner Vanderwovd' moved and:. ,, approve minutes' as submitted;. Motion .Carried unanimously. , 4. COMMISSION C^'_.MM UNICATIOl# Director, of Community Development Monahan explained that it is necessary to he`d a second hearing on April 16 1985, because of `the number of the ( Comprehensive Plan Applications which need processing. Also., a brochure Printed by the Tigard Chamber of Commerce was distributed. , rive letters were distributed' for Agenda item 5.6, Main Street Land Corp. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 SUBDIVISION S 2-85 and VARIANCE V 1-85 MAWHIRTER NPO # ti Request for preliminary plat approval for a six lot su"b'divis.ion and to d:1low two 7,125 square foot lots where minimum of 7,500 square feet is required. Located 9680 SW McDonald St« (W(7;TM ZSt it lots 104 and 200).. Associate, Planner Lideti reviewed the status of the application and made staff's 'recommendation For approval with 11 cnndit.ions« APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION' Vern Lentz, 8150 SW 39th, Portland,, representing the applicant requested that Frank Curries City Engineer, address the issues regarding access onto McDoanld and the need for the approval Of, the variAnce Frank Currie stated that it the Variance was denied, it still would not decrease the nutber of driveways onto McDonald.' He explained the alignment 'of: the existing sid+ wale and the special circumstances involved with that .alignttr n=. He requested an additional. condition b added which HaPPlitant f'roiri any legal ramifications related to. the negotiations, for condemnation of right--0T,way. ll arso explained the I difference between publ i, casements Arid row, dedic, t ons. PLANNING CO#` `i,Il1f,11 ON MINUI t {1 April1� 11 Pogo.qe 1 III III ..x 1 REBUTTAL it- o Hal Hewitt, distrtbuted photos of the area, a diagram of the what the ` ` proposed expansion would look like, and an aerial photographs depicting the Commercial properties along Scholls Ferry, from Hwy. 217 to SW North Dakota. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Discussion followed regarding surrounding, zoning, traffic flow, and locational criterial (CG B 1 A), o Commissioners Leverett, Campbell, Bergmann, and Peterson favoredthe proposal. Commissioners Pyre, Vanderwood, end Moen had mixed . feelings. Commissioner Butler opposed, he felt it violated ' the • locational criteria. Commission Owens reviewed the history of the a I NPO and their concerns at the time of the original NPO 7 plan. * Commissioner Bergmann moved to approve and Commissioner Leverett seconded to forward a recommendation for .,approval to City Council. Also, they directed staff to take into consideration previous use requirements when the Greenway Towne Center was originally constructed. Motion passed by majority vote, Cornmissionerz Butler, Pyre, and Owens voting no. 5.5 COMPREHENSIVE VE PIAN AMENDMENT CPA 1-'85 and ZONE +LHANGE 1-85 ALLISON Request to amend this Plan designation from the Central Business District to Medium-High Density Residential and subsequently changing the or designation from CBb (Central Business ►`i.strict to R--25 (Residential,, 25 units/acre) for a 2 acre parcel 4 proposal Planner' Liden reviewed' the oi osal a.nd made staff's 3 recommendation for approval. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o Kenneth Allison, 6445 NE Union; Ave. , Portind, explained that he had nice quality; apartments and did -not want the quality' to be destroyed by having a commercial structure built up to Lhe property line. He felt his property had originally been zoned residential and hewould li. .e to have it rezoned to residential to protect the livability of ti the apartments, v PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Carolyn Eadon, NPO .1t 1. Representative, They did not have a F re; ,nmenae.tion as they had not reviewed the project. ..p PLANNING COMISSION MTNUTE8 April 2 1t5 Page r Architect,11111 • • 34 NW 1st, Portland, stated that the o Joe Van Lom, applicants primary concern was buffering. Presently their is nothing in the Code to protect this residential use from the commercial use. He was also concern with the noise problems which would be created ) with commercial development. o 1.8 Bishop., 10505 SW, Barbur, Suite 303, opposed the , zone change from CBD to residential. ,Hestated that the properties were not very wide and needed the ability to build uild with 10 feet of the property line. He reviewed the history of Mr. Allison site and added that they would be providing adclquate buffering through the PD requirement. REBUTTAL o Mr. Allison stated that the Code was designed to protect people and felt his tenants should be protected with a 30 ft. setback. , which is what would be required between a commercial and residential zone. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Discussion followed with staff on how the site had become zoned CBD r • * Commissioner Fyre moved and Commissioner Vanderwood seconded to forward CPA 1-8 5 and ZC 1-85to City Council with recommendation �ation for approval. Motion carried by majority vote. Commissioner Leverett, Campbell and Bergmann voted no. 5.6 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD 1-85 & ZONE CHANCE ZC 5-85 MAIN STREET ".ANJ Request for Conceptual Plan approval for a 221,000 square foot rc.tail center on a 20.3 acre property and for a Zone Change from R-12 (PD) ' Residential 12,units/acne to CBD (Central Business District) for a 3,19 acre parcel on the southeast side of Ash Street. Associate Planner Liden reviewed the project and made staff's recommendation for Conceptual appr:'Ival of the Planned Development and denial of the Zone Change, APPLICANT'S PRESENTAVTON (:. o 38 Bisho , 10505 SW Barbur, Suite 303, reviewed the history of the project. He expressed his need to have the .Zone Change to allow e . .. i for the Farina Creek Parrk. He vyee Parking as well as Parking , p p g � 9 em �. also explained why he need conceptual approval tonight, otherwise Where would be no Project y 0 Grigsby Christopher, of Brun,, Moreland, Christopher Architects, r reviewed the layout of the project and the design features used to protect the abutting property Owners. o 3'B Bishop continued that they would be applying for a Sensitive Lands Permit. Also, the project has more land, however, 'the ratio of land +� . to parking is decreased has well as� �~:�tin retail l s pace to land has detcreased. PL ANNtNC c CMMI sSINN IN 'T l " APr " 8 ` P Be i TRANSCRIPT roR CPA 1-85, & 2C 1-85 ALLISON ? M. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 2: L98.5 President Moen, . , you said something about that these should be taken into account at the same time, is that it. Liden, Well, what we're recommending is this proposal is for a zone change on ij • "a piece of property that is adjacent to project that is going to be considered next on the agenda. Uh, the property property in question shows up on Mr. Bishop's sketch, uh, Mr. Allison owns this piece of property right here and there are apartment buildings as shown on the sketch. The zone change, as ro ose° iness District to R-25 wqu'ld, if that gets approved, p p from Central 8�.� ', that would require this development in the CBD zone to maintain a 30 foot building setback from this line. So one proposal has a definite affect on the -t other and vis—a—vis so we are recommending that beforea decision is ::made: on either one of them th't essentially you hear what is being proposed on both sides fence, you ' one thing and then see whats of the so that don't recommend proposed he' e andgo oh gee- I wish I could. of taken that back, 'or so your just aware of both before the decision is made. suggesting Moen, So what yourgg gthat we hear testimony on this item and then " xn is th i Liden, Close the hearing, start the hearing on the next proposal and then and then deliberate on both separately at the end. But after you Butier, Your assuming we haven't read this over already. ` Linen, Obviously, i\;s still a recommendation like everything else, you don't have to do that, thats just Moen, Well I think we ought to go through and hear the, get up to that point, c)osethe hearing, and then we can discuss how we want . to handle, to continue or to vote, Sta'�rf could we have .F } . 1"RAN CRItT DCPA 1.-85 and ZC 1 .85, i age, , Aiden, Okay, this is a zone chance, I'm mean a Comprehensive Plan change and Zone Change proposal, its on Central Business District to a R--25. The property is presently developed and contains, 1 believe its 32 apartment units. There was a site developfnent review approval given for four additional units that are expected to be constructed this summer, that will basicly fully develop the property unless some building ` are removed. Uh, Kings Choice pimmediately J Apartments are adjacent acent ' to the west; I guess that would be the west, or the southwest, and those apartments where recently rezoned to R-25. The property to the south and east is Zoned Central Business District, ani there is a proposal on the that property that we will discuss as the ,next item. The applicant is req estiny the zone change and plan change basically for one reason and that is that at the present time, since his zone is Central Business District, there, the provision in Central,ADusiness District zone says that when you are_developing in that zone, you are not w y p g required to provide a building setback from other properties that are also zoned Central Business District, If you are in Central Business District, but the adjacent property is zoned for residential use, you are then required to maintain 30 foot buildingsetb� itspecific Also, there are additional landscape buffering items that must also be added, Now, the planned develope ent 'criteria as well, as the• phave a section that does talks sate development review. cr�.ter�.a do aut buffering between different uses,, Regardless of the zone. But we do not have specific standards, such as the 30 foot setback, those standards any are basically subjective ones Uh, we have reviewed the; proposed plan change andtone change, against the applicable statewide planning goals as well as the relevant policies and locational criteria IN the plan, and we don't really find that there is anything there, that wou'id that would prohibit, or would be a reason for saying nb to this proposal. So, as we mentioned before , its really linked to the proposal that' your goingto y " hearnext, while wo are recommendingapproval off' this proposal plan and zone change,. ' Moen, Okay, thankyou staff, could we have the applicant's rese tatio leas p � . presentation � My name is Kenneth Allison, and my ,; .. . ,,, w�,fi`e, and `� awn the F�aci;fi� Village Apartments, which is a2, units. t bought 22 units, 'quite some time ago, about a . w �: a w 14 years ago, arld, uh, , " I've built 10 additional two bedroom TRANSCRIPT CPA 1-3`5 and. C 1-85 Page r 1._x'1 apartments, Now they are beautiful apartments, and I've kept the grounds up in real lush conditions, I have wonderful ten ants there. These are buildings that will be there 15 or 20 years and I don't want to think about tearing them down. So . . . .coughing. . . „live, decent place to live. Its a question of zone and the Commercial Developer is allowed to build right up to the line, well no telling what, what they will , ., , .to, what they will have to .tok at, how much noise have, and it seems to me that in all fairness that I should be entitled to put this property back into the residential zoning, because thats the way it was less than five years ago when I built my 10 Alex. I was required to set back 10 feet from the property line, which I did, and uh, now the code, if my property is changed g to residential again, I have some protection, and I feel I am entitled to this protection as well as anybody this else. Now the good , . . . . . , , . . . , code made rule with 'a 30 foot setback, seems to me for one reason and that was to protect tnants and gave them a A decent place to live from commercial development. My story is short, I would 1 like to have my property changed back to residential. Owens, I have a questiJn. Moen, Mr.. Allison, we have one question here Allison, Yes Owens, Yes, could you show me which are your apartments here, All of these» 'y All of that, okay, thank you, issue.Is, there anyone here from the NPO to speak' on this ssue. Yes» I'm Carolyn Eadon, and I represent NPO 1# 1, and I'm just going to make a brief statement. We have not had an opportunity to meet with the applicant on this issue and although we know that it is important in regards to the next issue you'll be haring;. I'm sorry we can't make a recommendation on this particular * 4444444 at this time. Moen, Mr. VanLom, "J A SICJ IPT CPA 1-85 and ZC 1-85 Page Jt Mr. Allison, I'm sorry I'm just a little hard of hearing, I just didn't understand what this lady was saying. Uh, would you enlighton me as to what your talking about here. Moen, The lady that just spoke? Allison, Yes, Moen, Well she just mentioned that the NPO, which is your local Neighborhood Association had not _ had a chance to meet on your on- your issue, so she couldn't really say Allison, Well, I might say this that last year, let see, five months ago, or six months ago, I met regarding the building of the/ four plex, which has been built, and at that time I was asking for r variance of five feet from the property line and they just didn't see it that way so I was denied. I had to set back 10 feet and at that time, several of the members recommended that I have a zone change as we talked about Moen. Okay, uh, Mr Van Lom. Joe Van Lom, I'm a architect, I work for Ken Allison. Those things, the primary issue here is one of buffering, Ken builds the apartments .O feet from his property line, the way the Code reads, This other property can build up to the property line. On Mr, Bishops proposals to set back 10 feet. The questions are, what kind of buffering does, how does this 10 feet really figure in, if its allowed to go up to the property line if he wants. Theeses no sure way of determining' whatthat buffer should be, either . . . , . . , . . so there is a problem with buffering. The reason for the tone change, it establishes 30 foot setback and elevate the problem a lot of things., Uh Mr. Bishops is planning on putting his building within feet of the property line- there are still some questions regarding, equipment noise, and all those kind of things that I think that you should address. Moen, Thank you, Mr. Van Lam. We have one in opposition, Mr. Bishop has signed up to spaak.' T tAf SCPIP1° CPA 1-85 and ZC- l—B ' Page 38, Both of my comments are consistent, excuse me I should introduce myself, apologize, 38 Bishop owner of Main Street Land Corp. and adjoining property owner with Mr, Allison, and I've certainly have certainly Planning Commission before, My c -.1ments are basically are consistent with ' comments that I will make when we go into the issues of the scope of our project, proposed adjoining, but limited o the issue th.-.t have been raised by the , applicant that I think are the most appropriri.;.. and also by staff report. Also, my Architect of my project, I believe na$ ,ire , , comments also that are consistent with' some of the things s that have been brought up. Specifically T want to point out to you that the existing zoning on Mr. Allison' s property and mine are consistent, and that is C,yntral Business District. That is by design and a little over a year ago, Mr, Allison came to the Planning Commission and asked that Planning Commission, this was overa year ago, to make a zone change to his property. At that time you directed him that there was a procedural time and it ended up now coming as far as a pp changep Cone application and zone to this April, He had gone to staff about a year before that, which was about 6 months after the Comp plan was formulized ,And at that time he had asked to have h>s property exempted out from the Central Business District, He felt that the Commercial in front of him, being specifically Century 21 Realty, and basically, x guess, the dental building, `. across from Floyd' s, uh, , those buildings where }obviously commercial, my property was zoned commercial, but he had been a mistake an error in mapping and he shouldn't be in on the map as CFO, Staff didn't agree with him. They left it in there, you approved it as the Planning Commission, the City Council approved it, and obviously its now gone through the different levels at LCDC for different steps of approval, He's now in front of you, obviously for a change of what you prev4.oully approved. Specifically what he is asking for is that he has maxed out the use of his land. He has a existing permit for ' Sensitive ive Lands, excuse me for Site Design Review, that was issued by the tli.ty staff September of 1984, It permits him to build the floor plea he desires to build on his property., and our drawings will show where he plans to build that, and its well in excess of 30 feet away from my property line and \ certainly well in excess of from where propose to build my plan buildings. 1~ have no problem with the four plex. The existx�g 10 Plex sits on a parcel of land that Mr. A1Ii son bought from Mrs. nucholtz, the former property owner, T RANSCtzl;p1 CPA l 5 and ZC ,, : Page 5 ,. `sem. and from myselF in 1979. , . , . . , bought that property From us for the express purpose of building a 10 plex. His zoning at that time allowed a' maximum of 10 units, now it allows, a higher zone density, and I can certainly understand ' the reason for a the higher` zone density, have no problem with v: that, Ken is allowed to build more units, uh, than what he's is asking for in the four plex, if he can find the physical space to put it there, The specific points that I. want to raise is that he mentioned that he has a 15 to 20 year life, approximately, in his estimate, of his apartment complex as it is now. I respectively show you that we talked of Comprehensive Planning in Tigard for 20 years or longer, which specifically talks about the use of property and when it is approve, hoping of course that its approved to its My commercial property adjoining, which is very highest best use. e and sensitive to where my setback ling; is and we'll show that to you on our drawings, is my issue and my concerns are because T`m a very narrow `piece of property. I do not have the luxury as Mr. Allison did, and why he built elongated, neither his property or mine is very wide in comparison to the proposed osed use. Because of that the sideyard setbacks are critical to both of us. I respectively point out to you that his 15 w 20 year life to his buildings, my buildings are ready to come on line this fall, be open. The life of those buildings, the tax assessors requires me to assess those and 20 and 30 years and some of them 40 years depending on the style of construction.' Can believe, commercial constructions of this quality is going qby on there,: quality and the type thats required the USC code will be there 4o to 50 years. So your talking about commercial property abutting commercial zone thamay be in an existing use as residential, multi--family, but not for j 30 or 40 years. MFinal point is that is when Mr. Allison ' bought the property myself, it was a one acre piece of Property, from 'Mrs, Bucholz and p p +y that we did not feel at great commercial use to- us and it was Don Angle, he `gp� plexit. property ned For 12 units designed the 10 lex, and 4 on Thewas. zoned per acre, excuserequired when it h�►d a esidenttal' me 10 units per acre* It zoning on it, the old designation, you may recall, instead of the new CBD that we had., Mr. Bergmann, and some of the other members, Bonnie, w'ten you recall before we came up with CBD the old zone was C3M, tLhaL was crea°ped' by the City Council of Tib rd in 1971, the, 3M zone setback requirement, wF`ich Mr. Allison conformed to and I, if I would ` `e built in the seventies, would have conformed to, because it would have been a requirement, is 10 foot side yard' ;, TRANSCRIPT CRIPT CPA 145 5 and ZC 1—$5 pag mss..., i.. that you made the comment that it is a subjective standard and x think you were referring to the subjective standard when CBD is next to CBD, there isn't any thing in the Code, it says what that buffer is I specifically recall and its part of the records and testimony, from other people in addition to myself, that one of the reasons that those staff and many of the property ownkrs that now have asked for it to be flexible, was because of the unique different parcels of land and size and configuration, some long and narrow, some very small and they as ..ad for the flexibility in CBD, because their was no real thrust, short term or long term in the past or in the near future for economic growth and vitality in the downtown, and always that the thrust that Council had in saying that the old C3M, the explicit wording, the first , . { paragraph , . . , , was. We have designed this Code to have the most flexible zoning district in the City of Tigard, in all commercial zoning. Consistently {. thats what you get in the CBM and the CBD is that y9u typed it up and exempted out so that the currot issue,ssue, such as warehousing and special ars a, and some of the residential setbacks in the R-12PD, which will be an issue in front of you, What I am respectively pointingout is that, you' the PlanningCommission y p y and the City Council thereafter, specifically wanted flexibility, we are now willingto be in - conditioned a PD,. which a. PD allows you to do, to condition us, we don't want something subjective, we want something that we will suggest to you 'and your staff will follow through if you so deem to tell us if we've done something in our zoning. Obviously, I` think you will tell us later tonight that we have done some we not ,;': asking for something subjective, because the PO ordinance , Slues Us restrictions, but we also believe that the zone plus the PD gives us some ability to do some design, Thank you very. much{ Moen, Thank you, Mr, Allison you have an opportunity now to rebut anything that Mr. Bishop said, you can make a comment on anything that 'Mr. Bishop said. address what he had to say. Allison,, don't know what Mr. Bishop is talking about the four ple t. The four plex i.s a separate building: all by itself, which he says is quite a distance from his property Theres no questions about that, Theres no question about that TRANSRIPT CPA 1-45 and 2C 1-45 Page �1. a �µ, • Moen, Your concern is just that Allison, I'm concern about • , , thats already there in place, I can't move, I can't do, anything with them. I mentioned 20 years, I said nobody would want to tear them downin 15 or 20 years, Those buildings will be uh, 100 years, theres a lot of building a 100 years old, If you don't think so travel through you' ll see lots of them. . . . . , in good shape. Moen, Do this apartments, or 'Look directly out to this property line. Allison, Yes, they do, As a matter of fact, I had . . . , and I designed, we ` . asked for a Code to buildthese10 units, One cf the girls on the units the� me to turn that building completely .,,around so that' the front of staff, wanted ,: the building would be looking over these beautiful berries and wooded area and wildpointed out to her that people would have birds and this and that, and: I oa.n _ p p to walk from a carport, clear around to the end of the building to; get into their apartments, And so, well anyway aside from that, it seem to me theres lots of land over there. Mr. Bishop ,hasn't built anything yet. He has every opportunity to comply with the Code. The Code was designed to protect people, and I, , . . . . . . , , , , , . . . , . . that is the law, unless an amendment is made. And, uh, this . . . , . . ., .. . . . . inauJible. ` , . . . . . I'm entitled to , . . . Moen, Thank you very much, with that I'm going`, to close the Public Nearing. Commissioners do you have any questions at this time. Commissioner Leverett, Leverett, No` . , , , . .inaudible, . . , , . . Moen, Could we also get a consensus on whether we want to holding this over and not taking g action'as this time. , . . , , . , , inaudible , „ . . . , . , Leverett, affect K.. s�n�e �t. he otherpretty serious / suppose get with them. Moen, Commisu`'wner Campbell, rgANsogxpl. CPA 1—R5 and .0 1-05 Page t Campbell, I have no questions ; , , in audible , , , Moen, Commissioner Fyre, Fyre, I think we should , , inaudible . Moen, Commissioner Vanderwaod, Vanderwood, Not at this time. , . Moen, I have a question of staff. Not knowing quite the history of the property, how, if its residential and , here now, how would it up being CRD Monahan, I think it occurred when the City Council. created the Tigard Urban Renewal Agency. First, set the boundaries for the Urban Renewal Program, What they did is they set the boundaries, to determine the taxing area, that then would be frozen, and then the increase value done to go to the Urban Renewal project. So that created the boundaries, and then, after that, that was in December of 1981, Then around December of l982, the urban Renewal Agency created the zoning for the area, thats when they created the Central Business District zone, and the subzone of the R-12, which is south of the Fanro Creek and south south east of Ash Ave. So it left that section that Mr. Allison in, in a commercial. Moen, Alter I guess this is just a questions, is it your opinion and your opinion that Mr. Allison after 4 , attempted .to change it back to residential Monahan, Mr. Allison appearA.d at the, at least, he wrote a letter, but X think he also appeared at some o'r the proceedings that we had during the overall land use and zoning maps. Now at that time the Urban Renewal. Program was 1. still active.ve ani our r �rri tumendation at that time was always, no, don't even touch the zoning within the Central Business District because thats being dealt with by the Council sitting as TURA, so if you recall the Planning Commission and Council didn't change it at all. Right after we created the map in May of 198x, in September or B , was, when the Urban Renewal Program was defeated by the voters TPAN:t`'1XPT CPA l-Ort and ZO 1-85 Page 10 { Moen, Commissioner Butler, • Butler, I have no questions, but I believe that each item should be heard by 1itself as a separate,` I mean this guy has a right to get a decision fro► us on this issue right here, we shouldn't have to combine it with a whole lot of other stuff. !. Moen, Commissioner Owens uh, I think questions, '� , i`. Owens, I have not t uh, r.^egardless of what happens pp with the next one, the this persons application, I'm inclined to support it and I don't know that I'moin to change mymind, Uh, based on . , g 5 • inaudible. . . . . Moen, Commissioner Bergmann. Bergmann, I need some clarification. These apartments were built in two phases, the numbers immaterial but it was twenty some was built when the zoning was what? Fourteen years. ago? severaleo le talkie p P 9 . , x � e, The first unit that c the file. Jg, � can. answer that for you � have built, 22 units, x . . . x « . . . . , . . . that was R-12, about three years later down zoned the property to R-IO;, thats . . x , « « Mrs. Bucholtz and I sold to Mr. Allison as R-10, which is 10 units per acre, he bought x.93 acres, to build his ten Alex' on The other factual point is that at all time the adjoining properties was zoned, which Allison was fully aware of, as C3Mwhich is Central Business District, thank you, ' District, x . x �. and the Ber�ma.nn, But there was a setback requirement �n U��l first of 10 Feet « old zoning for R-12, had a 10 foot setback requirement. 4 « . . . « . then when Mr. Allison requested from the City to build 10 new Whits: that was under CBD, TRANBC RXPT CPA 1-85 and ZC 1-85 Page l i< JE3, That was under, P-10, and at the time of R-1O he had a 10 .'Foot setback, which he had to be from both adjoining property lines, and he adhered to that as his design shows. 10 feet from the CBD and 10 feet from the King/3 Choice Apartments. Bergmann, So, the point that I'm trying to make is that the person who had full control of the piece of property chose to build these apartments, full well knowing what the setbacks where at each and every step of the development, there was a 10 yard setback, he had ;:o have the adjoining property had to have a 10 uh 10 foot, and in both cases, now we get to the point where they are already built and now we want to have someone else have the 30 foot setback. Monahan, There was a change in the setback to. lorry to interrupt but, when 111 the Urban Renewal Program was active and the designation of the zoning was, done, . . } . . . , , . . . , what they also did was eliminate that 10 foot sid,eyard. They felt it would 1;)e valuable to have the flexible zoning and uh, zero setback, so t would riot only allow for flexibility, but yardthat ��, p� redevelopmentmote: the change of some residential omote, the of the area P.ro uses that were under utilized, to go to commercial use, So you have, so yoga aorta have a impact that, lets say if JB had built four years ago; a : the time the Urban Renewal Program was active, that would possible, force an adjoining property owner to rethink his situation and say well I've got an opportunity fere to build comme,. my commercial, and his property t�cx,al because land. is zoned value goes up, and the uh,. because of tr,*,.t zoning, but negative impact of the adjacent commercial might force, that person to think aboutreuse of the land. So he would also be able to have zero setback, Bergmann Thats truebut the point that T m ..pecif ,calty trying to make that . . . . . end of to ewe Noise on the tape • Side five of Planning Commissioner tapes for April 2,, 19B5 is not `Y1. anscribeableA TRANSCRIPT CPA 1-85 and; 2C 1-8; Rage 12 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OV OREGON ) County of Washington r ss. City of Tigard ) ',Harold M. Dickhous , being first duly sworn, on oath depose and say: That I am a r. off i.sa_ .. for The City of Tigard, Oregon. , That I served notice of hearing of the Tigard Planning Commission of wh Y ch the attached is a copy (Marked. Exhibit A) upon each of the following namee .,5 rsons on the 221:1.d dayrf ...1:2,,,.... ......d..,____ 194;5; by mailing to each of then .tt the address shown on the attached list (Marked Exhibit B) , said notice 9 ..s hereto attached, desposited -in the United Status Mail on the 22nd day of March , 198 7Postage prepaid. 6 ./()" 'aro d M." :khou atIPVagiligiYOFFICE AIDE o';) )(''' 4 (C., Person who deliv,, ed to POST OFFICE t Subscribed and sworn to before me on the i ,),. day'©f / c ., ej-: , 1g , r 9 a , NOTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON 1 My C(immiss ion `Expires: �� e I r. O,• - . r ' rig. FOR COMMENTS' February 8, 1985 TO DATE: ,._.._..._,, �.�._. FROM: Tigard Planning Department RE: CPA 1-85 ZC 1-85 Request b Kenneth and LaVelle Allison for a Com•rehensive Plan Ame,nriment from Central Business District to Medium High Density Residential and for a Zone Change from CBD (Central Business District) to R-25 (Residential 25 units acre) on property at 9653 SW McKenzie (ETCTM 251 2AC Lot 1800) / pro ert located Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement foryour revie ,. From 01 information supplied by var!ous department_ and agencies and from other information 1vsilableto our, staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal :.n the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, we need your comments by _March 1 st. , .9 85 You may use the space provided, below or attach a ( separate letter to return your comments. If y ru are unable to reepond by thea , please phone above datethe staff contact noted below with your comments and confit your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have, any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Dep.artmvnt, P.O. Box 23397, Burnham and Ash Ave. , Tigard, Ok 97223. Phone: 639-4171. STAFF CONTACT. Keith Lidera PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of olrr office. Please refer to the en=, lysed letter. Written comments: ,�„ -.. ..".ter .... `.. ..y�»s .... ........ ,. .,.:. ... ...... ...,y ,- . �", .:. .... .. ...,.. _.,..... w.n_.i�w�w#�IM .-... w•�.r .....rr..r+r..,C.,....... .....Iv. '-�.rw.w:rrar. 4 ', Name of Person Commenting ,.. Phone so. , (K$ILtpm/'t156P) _ . .. 10 NOTIFICATION LIST FOR ALL APPLICATIONS 1. NPO No. � CPG !o. r, 2. CIT? DEPARTMENTS } Building Inspector p// Engineering-'Randy Engineering-Frank/John Parks and Recreation 3. SPECIAL DISTRICTS { Tualatin R.F.P.D. Metzger W.D. Washington Co. F.D. No. ,; 1 School Dist. No. 48 (Beaverton) Tigard ' 'g rd W.D. , School Dist. No. 23J (Tigard) 4. AFFECTED JURISDICTIONS City Council Wash.Co. Land Use & Trans.Dept. Planning Commission Boundary Commission'` w:; Planning Department METRO 5. STATE AGENCIES Aeronautics Div. (ODOT) DOGAMI Engineer Division of State Lands f , -- i3oar.d of Health Commerce Dept. - M.H*. Paris " . .�. Highway Div. - Terry ''Flinn Fish & Wildlife Parks & Recrea. Div. (ODOT) LCDC Subdivision Supervisor Pilo Dept. of Energy Fire Marshall Dept. of Environ. Quality Other 5. FEDERAL AGENCIES Corps of Engineers Other , post office 7. SPECIAL AGENCIES General Telephone :,.: Portland; General Ele4.trie Pacific. Northwest sell Other i �o=rthwes t Natural Cay ' S. REQUESTS FOR COMMENT SENT ,,, :' (kSt ,pm/O356?) 1 o ! G '4-a'e" e',P ce too e.,,t' w " 4.' m. REQUESTS FOR COMMENTS /fig— ---- u TO. t �'` �'" °t DATE February 8, 1985 FROM: Tigard Planning Deparrt en RE: CPA1--55 ZC 1-85 ..q x ._-�.�.... .�,•;:� ,,, - uast b Kenneth and LaVelle Allison for a Corn rehensive Plan Amendment from central Busine.;s District to Medium High Density Residential and for a Zone Chang...2_ from CBD (Central. Business District) to R-25 (Residential 25 units/acre) on propetty located at 9655 SW McKenzie (WCTM 2S I 2AC Lot 1800) - Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From ,...... information supplied pp by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a 'decisionwill be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to' comment PP nt on this application, we need your comments by March , 19 You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable gond bar h�. ---- separate a _ .,e date, please phone. the staff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writingas soon as possible. If you have, any questions regarding this mbtter, contact the Tigek4 Planning Department, P.O. . Box 2. 397, Burnham and. Ash Ave. , ',Tigard, OR 97223. Phone: 639-4171. STAFF CONTACT: Keith Laden, PLEASE CHECK fl1 FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to P P J it. Please contact of our office. 8 Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comizents: '„„,' ik„,,s,,,,,' h \. 1*-411 v.e... /„,,e.A4,,,z„,t c *"' ""...,,A,(.-‘,..,c c,..,,,t, k.ki ',0‘ot, r \,.,.. ...,___________,,_,_... , \ x ,,,, 1,.. \, L s,,, . . . , .. _ , k + �,,, r ` $ t tA,,i~ ,'.. r * .,.. • j ..: -^ "^"�'''. -- ,. 4N,µ„ . L \'' wq e �y ,..:7%,e.... ,y w A e^ eya �`^t, . 1,....vc.Q.%_....._.\t ,.. ,‘\4,,,, C'Ck'‘4 N.). \,, -('''‘ 1 p,, Iaeofers4 �' on Commenting:__. ', '' ( ,SL:p /0356P) .:. te. ..4.ua-:r,«. 4U i. .. N f.4.5Ac \ O • • $ 130() Jam,,.�" 45 4 *,t , 140a, .,, ai Qd , • C • �°C. ? :,,, ` '12'7 2' 4 V ,911/ 1"x}1 t y d1,a •:, ' 3 714 '',,,SP 24 A �',�►. c)0 134, 11.), .4.1) , "�t► 1703 -44 .184e k 15 Acc,, ` far 4��0.+� y, :4;1)8'I �9, ' `p r �.. Y» ♦ ti �4 ''r' t / Peo \ s "4! I', tir ,t" f# ♦1 *aye 01, SEE MAR ' !' ' 41-• �. 2$ 1 260 'f n .9 4'J { uli � y�.�'Si d 1... Al '� nn f� r *4 i o n �i 1 b ati Fps r.3"w 1 ;w, all 4 _0 1?4� #,, �Xo , ,, A., a 304c �. _rte -,.....:-..r.„. . ..- .0..., -44, Olt ° tS) *i;'4- -_' - , • ' `_ ,.. -„.3<4 c,t . ilg - 1503 -41--,.. R 3 :}p — -� (11111 _ 144 at v2+ �� , _ .i „ ` �-'t T {I - .J lifi G .- i� '_nn t ' ,' .f fG *'i! ' D f tT IH"= E-,-t, �s J:i 1tl Y 4% act '011/111'f' -' 1701 - , 0, `' P'r :, ., 80,0 "e, _,: •`►iiii 4 �-l0J ;4c ,l,, . F F'F? 1 r *.,, N (5,41,.. 1 ! vi' N' CCNa r r256' �*74 .T.7 AC: s -_ i. c . S'tit 4s1� ,cC� � o Viao - + - oC2 . il iiiii ' t'y, "' ,,,e,` v„r_.',:t3 ‘ ' 14 .. k ;71 i-IA i i � , •I ! ° 4, IT, Dp ' ,,, . . ;,11,:__...,.. ,,,, 9 d'145r„ ;\ s 2.20 4c rs - ......... . ,,,d. .6 . . - z ----..--,:_, g ;- ..,---".2.3.03..—rgs F - -T r., ...._ .., , . .,. .....it .,,.... ( ...„ , % . _ , ... ._ 54 4c,, .,..' \-, c 0 -N..," .,,,t int)' i / - a,..,..? .../74 44. _ , .r ....... _ ,_•.: . J .r- AP' ,...... .,'"..i., ..,,,,• —J F ., __ 1 ,1N� y t r2C , . 7 ,, SES MAP .�. • z { 1 .2S 1 2CA. r . J ' A z� # { _ - • \ i_. 7 P,•y , 7 a'e a• V ,'-'22,S 'S`i•,a #_siy,Atf; '.` -#.. - - - a : •.4, - i • • G:.c°- s,, •!..t• Yf Fi*iss r.. :i�`=�:'a';r- "r?- -r. ,-f'€ s ;• . «t` •,,,,4,-,7. ,' # 'a1 s7:, x r Lf:C 9 a{.Rt.' �..»...:.�5ii!..Y�c1` ..a: CITYOFTIGARD OF WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGE COMPREHENSIVE ..PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONECHANGE/ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT APPLICATION CITY OF TIGARD, 12755 SW Ash, PO B&-'x 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 - (503) 639-..4171 FOR STAFF USE ONLY CASE NO. U • RECEIPT NO. APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY: DATE: __2":/. '5.2.4/.1 ;" ( 1. GENERAL INFORMATION Application elements submitted: g65 S. W. McKenzie St. ' PROPERTY ADDRESS/LOCATION roam 1. Application form (1) Tigard, Oregon 97223 (B) Owner's signature/written . TAX KAP AND TAX LOT NO. 251 2A0 TL 1800 authorization p;'(C) Applicant's statement SITE SIZE apnrox. 2 acres (13 copies) enneth t. A lson and ,t PROPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDER* LaV'elle D. Allison u (D) Filing fee (0%00O ") ADDRESS 6445 N4 E. Union Avenue PHONE 2.112_11132.4___________ Additional information for Compre- CITY Por1and., Oregon ZIP 97211 sive Plan Map Amendments/Zone Changes APPLICANT* ) E) Mars ., '± (Above!, owner~�. { ( Mars .�tx�.�mating property .. ADDRESS PHONE location (15 copies) CITY ZIP /(F) List of property owners *When the owner and the applicant are different ir within 250 feet (1) people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record (G) Assessor's Map (1) ' or a leasee in possession with written authorization -1r./2....(H) Title transfer instrument (1) from the owner or an agent of the owner with written authorization. The owner(s) must sign this application in the space provided onpage two or submit a written authorization with this application. DATE DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE: 2.. PROPOSAL SUMMARY • The: owners of record of the, subject property FINAL DECISION DEADLINE:y� :. , aeqlicab.�.efro�z ComprehensiveBDPlan Amendment (ifCOMP. .PLAN/ZONE DESYGNATION, Pp ) ua , nt .al and a Zone Change from CD to R- I N.P.O. Number: OR The applicant requests an amendment ro the Planning Commission Approval Date! following sections of the Comprehensive Plan or Community Development Code City Council Approval Dates (.iSL:pm/O73111 t1 3. List any variance, conditional uses, or other land use.: actions to be considered as part of this application: none r • 4. Applicants: To have a complete application you will need to submit attachments described in the attached information sheet at the time you submit this i application. 5. THE APPLICANT(S), SHALL CERTIFY THAT: A. The above uest does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed upon the subject property. B. it the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. C. All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the applicants so acknowledge that anypermit issued based on this , �p s application, may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. D. The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including ands the requirements for (approving the policies and criteria, and understands or denying the application. DATED this 22nd day of Januaxy iq 8 { 1 iSI GNATURES of each owner (egT husband and wife) of the subject property. r 4 � N 1 , (KSL:pm:/O737P) , { c 6445 N. E. Union Avenue Portland, Oregon 97211 January 22, 1985 City of Tigard P.0.1$. 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Attention: Keith S. Liden, Associate Planner gentlemen You. will find enclosed our application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Zone Change on our property located at Lot 1800), on which our Pacific 9655.5. McKenzie Street (Tax VilE•ge Apartments are located. We are requesting the omprehensive Plan Amendment frau Clap to Medium High Residentialand the Zone Change from CBD to R-25. It is our understanding that within the last few mt.nths the Westland Investment Company requested and received a gone change from R-12 • to E,-25 for the Kings Choice Apartments which immediately adjoins our property on the southwest. It seems reasonable that we should, have the same zoning on our property. Oar units are in excellent condition and will be available for people to live in for mangy ears. We have 22 one-bedroom a artmt�ents and ton two--bedroom years. apartments, apartments which were built in 1979. hre believe when the zoning code was written it was for the protection of residential property and provided a 30 foot setback to keep commercial structures and objectionable noise a reasonable di,stance. In submitting t}' is application for a ,:.a it is not our desire to intensively increase the denslt;„, of ou,,' apartments Alf • _ e • Page 2 - City of Tigard; - January 22,E 3.985. The reason we are so concerned about the zoning of our property. is that there is a large undeveloped area zoned for commercial use mmediately adjoining our property on the northeast. 1114e feel that without a setback of at least thirty feet any commercial development of that property would defirlitelyr decrease the liveabilat; of our apartments. • Very~ truly yours, KenrYeuh V. Al lison 01ANr.tt • • is forpk+lllll)1,$111u.41.���\ y art OF TIG'. January 11, 1985 WASHI COUNTY','OREGN Ken Allison ` 80-000 Avenu,. 48, Space 25 Indio, California 92201 Dear Ken, This is to inform you that we are accepting Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications between January 17, 1985, and February 15, 1985. You must submit an application, including the items we reviewed before your left, on or before February 15, 1985. The fees have not been revised as I had hoped and therefore the total fee for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Zone Change is $1,000.00. This fee ;oust be submitted along with the application. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. • Sincerely, Keith S. Liden Associate Planner (KSL dmj/0902P) . 12755 S.W.ASH P,O, SOX 23397 1!GARLb,OREGON 97225 PH:639-4171 • A „. 111son Electric co� I n . CONT r,CTI NG • • COMMERCIAL. § INDUSTRIAL § RESIDENTIAL. 6445 N.E.Union Avenue Portland,Oregon 97211 Phone: (503)289-8894 November 6, 1984 Mr, Keith Lidera Associate Planner City of Tigard P.O.Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear sir; This is to advise you that we would like t%;'i apply for a Af zone change on our property at 9655 s . W. McKenzie Street, Tigard. (Tax Lot 1800) . Our present zone is R-12 and we would like to apply for an lk-25 zone. • protect our` apartments from The Purpose �� • of this change naocordance�t ��h the code fi. . wt a commercial development calls for a 30 foot setback from residential propertt; We. plan to spend the winter in 'Indio, California. Our address there is: 80-000 Avenue 48 Space 25 Indio p California 92201 Telephone: (619) 347 0209 II Please keep us advised of the date when the Planning Review Board ` have first meeting, and the date on which the LxtyCourcilwill, pass judgment on this matter. Also, please let the' know the amount of money required for this application. Very truly Yours) je. Kenneth V. Allison tri • / , .,, , „ . (g.),f1....- . , 4 , .y 0_, � .. ..firAz'l ... ,., ........ • . / ' //%e.1 AA P . , ,,,...., ....,/ /,......-- ..... ( ,,,.. r ,f , , , ,. :f, .,,,,,,I....,...,. . .„, ,,lit ' 1..,., I ,,,,,,,,-/ , 41, ,,,?,(„,,,t7,r, ., , . , "'el‘ .4e. ..., e . - . a ' ' ' ► n a CITY OF TIGARD bn Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL. DECISION - BY CITY COUNCIL (Sec. 18,32.380) 1. Concerning Case Nuloiber(s): CPA 1-85 ZC 1.85 , 2. Name of Owner; Kenneth & Lavelle Allison 3. Name of Applicant: Same Address 6445 N.E. Union eve. City Portland StateOR Zip 97211 4, Location of Property: "-,,1 Address 9655 ^w McKenzie _St» Tigard, 0regon _,,,,, ,, Legal Description 231 2AC lot 1800 5, Nature of Application: „ Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Central Business District to-Medium High Density Residential and for a Zone Chace from. CBD (Central Business District) to R-25 Residential, 25 units/acre). . 6. Action: Tigard City Council adopted Ordinance No. 85-19 which upheld the planning Commission sppcopy dec�.s�.an fora approval. Attached �.s, a of Ordinance No. 85-19 for your files 7. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: XX , The applicant & owners _.- AA owners of record, within the required distance XX The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization xx Affected ted' governmental agencies 8y Final Decision THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON 4-22- 85 . , J, The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of condttion can be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Nall, 1785 SW Ash, P.O. Box 283971 Tigard 1 Oregon 97223 9. Questions t. If` you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard City Recorder, 639-41/1, (O2s7p h • z , .._ � ° , 'a�, cp • •,47 t I74,4- 41' -x0 \ --4-€.5. a_ —_ 7 .18.: U j,t,,' 3i Cry 4 lomTills"plot is forj sa.!aid i . � �� tri streetand oydi etc: -' –: i;;,# `'7 111 t ilii.: ti11s pi f ti a roar tt i ---1.---,--;---- _ + �. ls#. � ((�ll-F� �y L44 Alr, [� �� be,ia•.E!r�i.•Vfei t�lSi liiA33v�'?�1#J S:t��s�Rt 1. i�+�t t} x 3tf=3i€i for aar�g.,.'�i.,111 /IIIIII 4 . _•34 ` .#. ;_me g J...vait',,,1114'.. - r r ,-...' \. Map No • S�1FEC-�,3"TITLE tN�[}wlt;CE�`c�iP{t?�Y F lr ' 170 i 8��� .yam � �t f3}�s �, `� �'�' X121��1.�V7�=11.531.E�`NY. .tOi %, €=EC+F ,&*' — �- • PORTLAND.OR 57225 , ..,y- At., .„.. ..--,.54, -------7-tN..,„,,liA0'` _ - .. %- r r-) . ‘1\ii \I — 1 4. -2101''--,,, 's.0--, r'`>F -- '° {CS No r 125 i.t .7©- mss i � � �,1«{� �,� <",1,9' IT�0 ' c.,4�,ICS$ftiel , , f•titi;ii t 5ilc -_ •Q ��a ', 'B E i5 "' ',„\\.. 1 airy 0 - -1 q ' ''ate/ ........ r ,--- ,r.:7? , )- t ,,z, lit 4N I x 9 ,� e:: zw 4. 1502 gg ,,- • �3. t s 01 ,!� i 2.2,3 arc, \\- , „,,,, ��� '�' � �,�" [ 4_�3 �� - �� 1.--y% `a ,kms � \\� + � 'its � _, 3.? sa `�s"'. ,j�[Jj� ,,,,,� � �`�T3c� � 4' r-�.. .=, i , r w -‘6',1:3t6 ,, 6', 6t J ,� 3:74 ,q , ,...7.:-...` a,.,....„ _ \ i� ,— _ D l t Urtl\J �` fg , l a ` — .. , �,, ° y ri e S .�_ N. ,t., /�' SEE MAF _�� 2S 2C4 • r i 644 y e d, 9,,,, ,„,.,,,, ‘ I 200 "r"' ;r \ " } / tiMt l i '•Y b / -'"' "' 9QAe " 4 / , . ,,,. 1400 t?, ". .1'4,, .J fAc. 0', c� 0 • 4 02 A a` C 1600 lire ;. . syr,/,./ ‘ i ' Ac a / 'TQC,..1 ``� ate • , i r ; 6�ppa Ar "Y + a r rr c1 A' «ar. 43 So 4,1'42' 1170 '' . . 4,4 \ b r w� �° "' `! Si ,,, ,re•S" it N. . i / i" \ . ,/�' f.. . + ' e`'" °I" .rye'C4' ie,.,„.. , r i o i,,,,,•,,1 . s:i s.u� ,,..,,,,,,...7,,,,,,,•,.:,,,,,,,,,,,' -irr:,., . '' , ' ''''',,,„„..:40i, , ..,,,t' ' .' rApo ,. .,,,,,\ , ,40,0,,,,,,,i'''''''' . r Q ,,,. a us }3141 1 °t LAY Ind J M,,. rt�F ,ynIM�W31 o' ,YN .li Ci !411' ';']",,,i':,":'1 $''atw 1.-`t,'IM ,�94 5 j. ,, db� * ' ' ' ' ' :1;:-,,:ilit,i's;o,tunoz;,.'2:5, \ 0,40,,,,0„,,,,. ,,,,,. 2300 ,, r � . .:, •u, ,a • a x 'I . tea 'p 4..�, s , "t i 'i . L .LF', , ,,, ,': SAFECO TITLE INSURANCE ,:, Customer Service x Service Fie • reserltative { x r, e R_=A Jfk i 1 .,F 1\' 'f 51 h a., \ M c :,.1 a i. s .;5 '1+ ,,.. �. ,�� Y.r '' 7'''. ,y cm i? :t "J I eith t ' � ',• The enclosed information is in regards to' ,,, ''.: a Mr Kenneth Al:;.ison who called our office and re- p d 'N guested that it he sent to you. If you have any �4, questions t, please give me a Call. ' 4 :; c f t.. , ' e/i7 ),,),te,„7 , et'N ' - , ,...,,..,„, , 6,-, ,, ,,,.„, ..„,,..:„ , ,..; ,,, 1 ,:::,.,..,:,: ,., ., , 1 ' ,',...........„(,,, .: , , , •.•,.',., ii,, .„.,,,,,,„, , ....... ,,.,,,. , ‘.:\ , , , • , . .. , , , loil .. I • : `FTI .. •+� Yw ay • b► t T r /f 2S12AC 0150 -Main Street, Land Co1j % Main Street L, nd Corp •. 10505 SW Barbur Blvd #303 Portland, OR 97219 . 01600--Pipkin, Gordon T, Main Str . t Land Corp 11 18710 SW Castle Drive Aloha, OR 97007 01700 w--Village Square Gospodinovic, Rose k'> 12770 SW Pacific Hwy Tigard, OR, 97223 , 01703--Springer, O'erry C .. 7970 SW Northvale_Way Portland, OR 97225 41 01704--(saxie as above) 02200---Main Street Land Corp . 10505 SW Barbur Blvd #303 Portland, OR 97219 02300µ--Hanneman, A J and G E 13075 SW Ash Ave 'Tigard, OR 97223 02301---(same as 02200) 2S12BD 01501--Tate, Noah and Lydia A % lings Choice, LI:,'.d By Sutterfield Capital Corp 1220 East Birch St Brea, CA 92.621:' • 01502--(came as Pbove) 01503--Village Square Gospodinovic, Rose , .-112770 SW Pacific Hwy ', Tigard, OR 97223 - INFORATIONs C NSUM' PREPARED B SAFE,7C',0 TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY ORFGON OF Prepared for Keith Lidel Tigard Ciy Hall • 12755 SW Ash St • Tigard, OR 11-7-84 Date Prepared Property/Address P"JEASE TURN OVER FOR PROPERTY OWNERS NAMES AND ADDRESSES to d has' Enclosed plea&a find the following infoi mation per your request: Tax Informatior, :n Account Number am Description True Cash Valhte-Land True Cash Vale-Improvements 19___a, . ,Tax Arncunts Assessed Owner Map Copy Deed C Contract Ej Other Documents [J (Check one only) Consumer information reports available at those branch Offices: WASHiNGTON COUNTY CLAC A ,1 COUNTY Beaverton.,., .... ,297.4541 • Milwaukie — ...553-7300 Earl Bird Y ...... ,,, ...t297-5356 Early Bird .. .. .553.7330 MUL`r`N AH COUNTY LANE COUNTY Portland.,. ...:......:.. ,.2251005 SAFECO Eugene .485.3558 r,arty Bird .243-1100 Call 225.1005 for Agents throughout Oregon This title information has been furnished,.without ohatxie.in conformance with the guidelines approved by the State of Oregon insurance Commissioner The Insurance tiiv sloe cautions intermediaries that this service is desired to benefit the ultimate insureds;indiscriminate use only benefiting intermediaries will not be permitted.Said services maybe discontinued,No liability is y, assumed for any errors in this report SAFECD Stock Na.O tcS,tf't 05(Rev 3-84) a.rc a • - yy -� •`,. • Fisc • Kenneth & LaVelle Allison v,. 6445 N.E. Union Ave. Portland, Oregon 97211 NPO 1 Gareth Ott 9055 SW ?:dgewood Tigard, Oregon 97223 • Main Street Land Co p' 10505 SW Babuir Blvd. # 303 ,+• • ;. Portland, Oregon 97219 • Pixy 3:n/ % Main St. Land Corp. • 187W SW Castle Drive Aloha, Oregon 97007 i • • VILLAGE SQUARE! % GOSPODINOVII : [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing]