Planning Commission Packet - 11/19/1968 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PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and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.
TIGARD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Tuesday, November 19, 1968, 8:00 P.M.
City Hall Council Chambers
Tigard, Oregon
MINUTES
1. ROLL CALL
A. Present: Commissioners John Perry, Clarence Nicoli, Everett
Severson, Charles Woodard, Jim Aitken, Elton Phillips, and
Allan Paterson, Chairman; Keith Thompson, Director of Public Works,
and Emily Wied, Planning Administrator
B. Absent: none
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes for the regular meeting on October 15, 1968, were
approved as written.
3. APPLICATIONS FOR ACTION
A. Continued Hearing: Conditional Use
Howard Adkins, Applicant Owner
A request for a planned residential use (16 units) 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 approval with conditions
2. Public Hearing
a. Mrs. Wied read a letter submitted by the applicant
4" from the Tigard Water District saying that a new
water line, sufficient for domestic use and fire
protection, will be included in next year's budget
for construction.
b. Marion Sabisch, 9995 SW Garrett Street, and Mr. Frank
Cresmer, 9980 SW Garrett Street, spoke in opposition
explaining the single family nature of the area, the
inadequacy of the road and their desire to see the
area remain as it is in single family development with
the existing apartments for a buffer zone.
c. The public hearing was closed.
3. Commission discussion and action
a. Mr. Paterson and Mr. Phillips explained to those in
opposition that they felt the PR plan proposed by Mr.
Adkins was really a better development, and better
controlled by the City, than a single family subdivision
would be with no control as to layout, sight-screening
and such. 1
b. ft was moved (Phillips) , seconded (Severson) and passed
by simple majority of the Commission, (Commissioners
Nicoli, Aitken and Woodard dissenting) that the Condition-
al Use for a planned residential development of sixteen
be approved as the staff recommended with the �.
following conditions:
1. That all utilities be underground
2. That a five foot strip of land be dedicated to the
it City for future improvement of Garrett Street
3. That decorative lighting be installed along the
driveway and in the parking areas . . . plans to
be approved by the City Staff.
4. That landscaping plans be submitted for staff
approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
5. That the property be fenced on the sides and the
rear providing privacy to the property.
page 1
IL
B. Conditional Use
Mr. Stuart Milne, Applicant Owner
A request for a duplex conditional use in the R-7 zone on his
8,000 sq.ft. property located at 14135 SW 103rd Avenue (Map
#2S1 11BB Tax Lots 1502 and 1701)
1. Staff recommendation for approval with conditions
2. Public Hearing
a. No public comment was offered.
lk b. Mr. Paterson asked the applicant if he understood the
conditions. Mr. Milne said he did and that he planned
to construct a sewer line from MacDonald Street.
c. The public hearing was closed.
3. Commission discussion and action
a. It was moved (Aitken) , seconded (Severson) and passed
by unanimous vote of the Commission that the Conditional
Use for a duplex be approved with the following conditions:
1. That inasmuch as connection to the existing 6" line
serving the adjacent two lots would not meet State
approval, a sewer line must be built as indicated in
the City's plan for future expansion.
2. That a sight-obscuring evergreen hedge or fence
(5' to 7' in height) providing screening for the
adjoining single family properties, be installed
along the property side lines.
3. That a 5' strip along SW 103rd for street improvement
be dedicated to the City prior to building.
4. That a landscaping plan be submitted for approval
at the time application is made for a building permit,
showing areas of landscaping, species of plantings,
and including at least two trees in the front yard
(set back 10' to 15' from the front property line) .
C. Zone Change Application
Applicant: J. F. Corporation by William Holden, President
A request for a zone change from R-7 to C-3 on a 2/3 acre property
located on the NE corner of 72nd Avenue and Hampton Street
(Map #2S1 lAC Tax Lots 1400 and 1500)
1. Staff recommendation for denial
2. Public hearing
a. Mr. Bob Lucas, 7026 SW Gonzaga, Mrs. Anne Hicks, and
Mr. Larter from Beveland Street spoke in opposition,
stating they agreed with the staff recommendation, that
the site was inappropriate for commercial use because of
its close proximity to the school and that there is
already enough hazardous traffic for the school children
who must walk along 72nd Avenue which has no shoulders or
sidewalks. Mr. Larter suggested that an applicant be
required to state his use proposal on an application for
a zone change.
Mr. Paterson explained that this could not be required,
but that the permitted uses were stated in the C-3 section
of the zoning ordinance.
b. Mr. Paterson asked if the applicant was present. He was not.
c. The Public Hearing was closed.
3. Commission discussion and action
a. It was moved (Woodard) , seconded (Perry) and passed by
unanimous vote of the Commission that the zone change
from R-7 to C-3 be denied as the staff recommended.
D. Zone Change
Lyle Goodell, Applicant
i> A request for a zone change from Washington County SR to City R-7
on a 23 acre property located on the north side of Walnut Street in
the vicinity of 121st Avenue (Map #2S1 3B Tax Lots 200 and 202) .
1. Staff recommendation for denial
2. Public Hearing
a. Mrs. Wied read a letter from J. A. Paterson, developer for
page 2
Lyle Goodell, stating that his plan was to develop a PR on
the property as the staff recommended and requested that the
application be tabled until a preliminary plat was prepared.
b. It was moved (Aitken) , seconded (Severson) and unanimously
passed by the Commission that the application be tabled
as Mr. Paterson requested.
E. Zone Change
Stan Adkins, Applicant
A request for a zone change from R-7 to A-2 on a 15' strip of land
along the western side of the property located at 8345 SW Bonita Road
(Map #2S1 12B western 15' of Tax Lot 1600) .
1. Staff recommendation for approval
2. Public Hearing
a. No public comment was given.
b. The Public Hearing was closed
3. Commission discussion and action
a. It was moved (Woodard) , seconded (Aitken) , and passed by
unanimous vote of the Commission that the zone change from
R-7 to A-2 be approved as the staff recommended.
4. Other Matters
A. Dairy Queen
1. Mr. Thompson reported on the traffic survey conducted
by his department at the Dairy Queen:
a. The traffic counter recorded an average of 320 cars
per day.
b. Three separate one hour observations were made of
the parking habits of the customers: a total of 50
cars were observed, and 60% of these parked in
violation of the painted parking stripes.
c. The recommendation is that the parking plans approved
previously by the Commission be complied with.
2. Mr. Paterson asked for comment. None was received.
3. The Commission voted unanimously to accept Mr. Thompson's
recommendation. II
B. Robert Cooper Proposal
1. Mr. Cooper informally presented plans for a planned
residential development he is working on, and requested
the Commissioners' comments. k'
C. 91st Street Dedication f,
1. A dedication was received from Mr. MacKenzie for property
along the west side of 91st Street near its junction with
Lincoln Avenue for future street improvement.
2. The dedication was approved by unanimous vote of the
Commission.
D. Zoning Ordinance Amendment: C-4
1. Mrs. Wied presented the staff's rough draft of a revision
of the C-4 zone. Various comments and suggestions were
made by the Commissioners and further work by the staff
was requested.
E. Expiration of Conditional Uses
1. Mrs. Wied asked the Commission's feelings and suggestions P
for an expiration of Conditional Uses granted by the Com-
mission, but not put into effect. After discussion, the ?{
it general concensus was that one year was a reasonable time
limit and that such an ordinance or zoning ordinance amend-
ment would be appropriate. (`
5. ADJOURNMENT: 10:15 P.M. ('
page 3
F