Loading...
Planning Commission Packet - 09/17/1968 POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm.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. MINUTES Tigard Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting, Tuesday September 17, 1968, 8:00 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL A. Present: Clarence Nicoli, Elton Phillips, Everett Severson, Charles Woodard, John Perry, members; Allan Paterson, chairman; George Fan, Planning Consultant, Phil Balsiger and Associates, A.I.A.; Keith Thompson, City Engineer; and Emily Wied, Planning Administrator B. Absent: Jim Aitken 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes for the regular meeting August 20, 1968 were approved as written. 3. APPLICATION FOR ACTION: A. Zone Change: Cooper Development Company, applicants A request for a ^.hange from R-7 (Single Family Residential) to A-2 (Multi-F. Lily : 'sidential) on a 4.88 acre property located at 11585-11595 SW Greenburg Road and 11785-11830 SW 95th Street (Map #151 35DC Tax Lots 2900, 2800, 3900, 4000) 1. Staff recommendation for denial 2. Public Hearing a. Mr. Jerome Petrin - 11570 SW Greenburg, Mr. C. Christensen 11540 SW Greenburg, Mr. Ed Gause 11550-11475 SW 94th St. Mr. Leonard Dieker 11420 SW 94th and Mrs. Haggerman 11945 SW 95th spoke in opposition to the zone change expressing concern over the inadequacy of the sewers in the area and the increase in traffic on Greenhurg Road and also stating objection to apartments in the area, b. Mr. Robert Cooper, the developer, explained that the development would be one which was higher priced than any other now in the area and that access had now been provided onto 95th Street as well as onto Greenburg Road in order to distribute the traffic load. He said he was unaware, however, of the inadequacy of the utilities in the area. c. The Public Hearing was closed. • 3. Commission discussion and action , a. Mr. Perry said he felt the utility problem was enough reason to deny the zone change at this time, b. Mr. Paterson asked Mr. Thompson when improvements would k' be made in the area. Mr. Thompson said it would depend It upon the outcome of the September 23, 1968 Bond Election. • c. it was moved (Perry) , seconded (Severson) and passed by unanimous vote of the Commission that the zone change from R-7 to A-2 be denied. B. Continued hearing on a Zone Change: Howard Gass, applicant owner A request for a change from R-7 (Single family residential) to A-2 (Multi-family residential) on a seven acre property located in the vicinity of the Beaverton-Tigard highway, Hall Boulevard, and Manzanita Street (Map #1S1 35AD Tax Lots 1600, 1700, and map #1S1 35DA Tax Lot 2500) 1. Staff recommendation for approval with deed covenants 2. Public Hearing a. Mr. Cole, 8811 SW Spruce, spoke in opposition saying that the County had recently denied the adjoining property to the north a zone change to A-2 because of access and no proximity to other A-2 zoning. He expressed concern that granting this change would set a precedent for the area. Mr. H. W. Kruger, 8807 SW Spruce, explained he had just bought and moved into the area in order to raise his children in an open single family area and he opposed this development which would bring great density to the area. Jim Miller, 8808 Spruce, spoke in opposition saying that the increased traffic would be dangerous for the 21 children already in this neighborhood, that this traffic would destroy the roads 89th Street and Spruce Street which are only 20' wide and maintained by the surrounding property owners. b. Mr. Gass, applicant owner, spoke and explained the 50° road which- he reminded the neighbors would be an improved public road over which they also could travel. c. The Public Hearing was closed 3. Commission discussion and action a. Mr. Severson asked if a temporary plug could be put at the property line. Mr. Thompson said no, not on a dedicated street. b. Mr. Nicoli asked if the lot on which the road would be built to Hall Boulevard would be annexed to the City. Mr. Paterson said it would when it was dedicated to the City. c. Mr. Perry said he felt the neighborhood would retain its character because most all the traffic would choose the improved direct access, as opposed to the indirect unimproved 20' road. He suggested a cul-de-sac at the property line on 89th as an alternative. d. Mr. Phillips asked if the road could be improved by Mr. Gass to within a few feet of the property line and planted with shrubs across the end. This was agreed to be a workable solution which would protect the neighbors' roads. e. It was moved (Phillips) , seconded (Perry) and passed by the unanimous vote of the Commission that the zone change to A-2 be approved with the deed covenants limiting development to that shown on the plan presented to the Commission and labeled #103: development limited to a maximum of 150 units and the new roads to be improved page 2 to city standards from Hall Boulevard to the parkway shown below the north property line, and dedicated to the city. C. Conditional Use Application: Howard Adkins, owner applicant A request for a planned residential Conditional Use in the R-7 zone on his 1.35 acre property located at 10010 SW Garrett Street (Map 2S1 2CB Tax Lot 3600) 1. Staff recommendation for denial 2. Public Hearing a. Letters in opposition to the development were read as received from Mr. F. E. Cresmer, 9980 SW Garrett Street (property adjoining on the south) , F. E. and Juanita Williams, 10040 SW Garrett Street, Mr. Norman W. Page, 10040 SW Garrett (property adjoining on the north ) , and a telegram received from Mr. and Mrs. William Sabisch, 9995 SW Garrett (property across on Garrett Street) b. Mr. Paterson explained to Mr. Adkins that the Commission had taken a good look at his proposal and would not like to penalize him by disapproving the plans as shown. Suggestion was made that the hearing be continued at the next meeting and that, in the meantime, Mr. Adkins work out another plan showing less density and better circulation within the development. c. Mr. Norman Page, 10040 SW Garrett, asked for clarification of the zonin g property of his which he understood to be A-2. Mr. Thompson explained that his property had been re- classified to C-3 at the time of the adoption of the zoning ordinance in 1967. 3. Commission discussion and action a. It was moved (Severson) and seconded (Perry) and passed by unanimous vote of the Commission to continue the Public Hearing at the next meeting (October 15) . 4. Miscellaneous A. Revised plans - International Village - a Conditional Use approved March 19, 1968, at 13660 SW Pacific Highway. 1. Staff report disapproving of revised plans 2. Mr. Frank Bonson, the designer for the development, and Mr. Noble Chowning, developer, explained the new plans and the problems which had arisen when financing had been applied for on the plot plan approved by the Commission. Mr. Chowning said the new development was of higher quality than the original plan. 3. It was moved (Nicoli) , seconded (Phillips) and passed by unanimous vote of the Commission to approve the Conditional Use for apartments as amended by the plans labeled "Pre- liminary Site Development Plan - 43 Townhouse Apartments for Tigard: Revised 8 July 1968." B. Street dedications 1. Street dedications - Canterbury Lane and Scoffins Court a. Approved by unanimous vote of the Commission page 3 A C. Zoning Ordinance Revisions - 1. Mr. Paterson introduced George Fan, who presented his proposed revisions for the Zoning Ordinance. These revisions would add a section on implementation which would require plans and a program from each applicant for a zone change, would amend the A-2 section by providing less density and more open space, and would add a new zone labeled P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) for properties four or more acres in size. • 2. Mr. Perry asked 'why a planned development couldn't be worked out on a smaller piece of land. Mrs. Wied explained that Mr. Fan had recently been asked to work on a new zone or zones , which would be somewhere between R-7 and A-2 in density. This would provide much more blending of densities and also give smaller property owners more flexibility. 3. Mr. Paterson said he would like to divide the Commission into • two committees: one to write down policies of the Commission which. would lead to the Master Plan Development, and one which • would 'work on revisions of the zoning ordinance. • 5. Adjournment -,10:15 P.M. • • • • • • • • • • •is page 4 j 1