Planning Commission Packet - 10/07/1975 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PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and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.
0P7 7C/.9(
AGENDA
TIGARD PLANNING COFI(MISSION
October 7, 1975
Twality Junior High School
14650 S.W. 97th Ave.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 9; (special meeting) ,
• September 16, and September 30 study.
session.
4. COMMUNICATIONS
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5.1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RENEWAL CU 12-72 (McClements/Tigard
School of Gymnastics) - continued from September 16, 1975
A request for a two year renewal of a conditional use
permit to operate a gymnastic school in an M-4 -zone
at 9800 S.W. Tigard Ave. (Tigard Industrial Park)
A. Staff Report
B. Public Testimony
C. Staff Recommendation
D. Commission Discussion and Action
/5.2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CU 20-75 (Scales 'n' Tails
Aquatic Imports)
A request by Randall Conat. Co. and Louis Jordan
Burton for permission to operate an aquatic supply
company at 8900 S.W. Burnham Street (Security Storage) .
A. Staff Report
B. Public Testimony •
C. Staff Recommendation
D. Commission Discussion and Action
_ .
5. 3 VARIANCE V 8-75 (Morissette/11370 S.W. Tigard Ave./setback)
An application for a variance to allow an 8 ft. side
yard in an R-7 zone. (continued from September 2, 1975)
A. Staff Report
B. Public Testimony
C. Staff Recommendation
D. Commission Discussion and Action
_
6. SUBDIVISIONS
„. 6.1 PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL AND SUBDIVISION VARIANCE
5 3-75 (Morissette/Mutley ' s Addition)
A request for approval of a preliminary plat of 24
lots on a 5. 64 acre site, including an 860 ft. cul-
de-sac located southwest of S.W. Tigard Ave. and 113th.
(tax map 181 34DC, tax lots 2500, 2600, 3500 and 3600) .
(continued from Spetember 2, 1975)
1 C 7. PUBLIC HEARING (legislative)
7.1 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 5-75 (Duplex lot size
in residential zones) - continued from September 16, 1975,
A request by the City of Tigard to amend Sections 18. 20. 020,
18.20. 030 and 18. 20. 040 to increase the minimum lot size
for duplexes in an R-7 zone and decrease the lot coverage
permitted in an R-15 zone.
A. Staff Report and Recommendation
B. Public Testimony
C. Commission Discusssion and Action
7-2- Z-C9A-- —
8. TIGARD CLINIC SITE PLAN - Review & Consultation (Garrett and '
Pacific Highway)
A. Staff Comments
B. Applicants' comments
C. Commission Discussion
9. OTHER BUSINESS
10. ADJOURNMENT
Agenda - Planning Commission-10/7/75 Page 2
,
(M
- MINUTES
Tigard Planning Commission
October 7, 1975
Twality Junior High School - Lecture Room
14650 S. W. 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon
1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Hartman called the meeting to order at
7:40 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: Members present: Hartman, Hansen (late) , Popp,
Porter? Sakata, Wakem, Ems, Nicoll.; staff: Powell
and Laws; Absent: Smelser
3. MINUTES:
o Popp stated that the Planning Commission minutes roll call
should be amended to read "Ems" and not "Hammes" present.
o Porter stated that item C2 should be rewritten to say that
"The NPO Plan should be rewritten and not sent back to the
Planning Commission" .
o Porter requested that all motions made by Planning Commission
members and roll calls be shown in the minutes and forwarded
to the City Council.
o Hartman then stated that the minutes would be approved as
amended with names on the roll call votes and forwarded on
to City Council.
4. COMMUNICATIONS: None
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5.1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RENEWAL CU 12-72 (McClements/
Tigard School of Gymnastics) continued from September
16, 1975.
A request for a two year renewal of a conditional use permit
to operate a gymnastic school in an M-4 zone at 9800 S. W.
Tigard Avenue (Tigard Industrial Park) .
A. Staff Report: Read by Powell.
B. Public Testimony
o Mr. McClements stated that the change over of classes
creates a small period of congestion, but there is no
permanent parking.
C. Hearing closed,
D. Staff Recommendation; approval.
•
•
oir page 2
PC. Minutes
October 7, 1975
E. Commission Discussion
o Popp asked Mr. McClements when classes begin and end,
o The applicant responded that -classes begin at 1:00
p.m. and end between 7:30 and 9:30 p.m. He further
stated that a, change in traffic occurs at the hours
of 3:30 p.m. , 5:30 p.m. and 7.30 p.m
r
o Popp further asked. the applicant if, when his lease
and the conditional use applcation expires, will he
be seeking an alternative location.
o The applicant responded affirmatively,
o' Motion for .approval (Popp) for a period of two (2)
years for conditional use permit, at which time the
permit would expire on September 30, 1977.
o Seconded (WSkem)..
o Motion passed unanimously.
5.2 ; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CU 20,75 (Scales ,21 Tails Aquatic
Imports)
A request by Randall Construction Co. and Louis Jordan
Burton for permission to operate an aquatic supply company
at 8900 SW Burnham pt. (Security Storage).
A. Staff Report; Read by Powell,
B. Public Testimony
o Mr. Johnson, lessee, 6695 SW Imperial Drive, Beaverton,
Oregon, stated that adequate parking and access, which
appear available at this time for a maximum of 6
employees as stated in the staff report, was not
necessary because there would be only 3 part time
employees. He further stated that he presently owns
one van and is in the process of acquiring another.
He also stated that clients would be received by
appointment only and there would be no more than
1 client and 3 employees at one time on the proposed
site.
o ' Hartman asked if other than tropical fish are to be
sold.
o Applicant responded that only wholesale sales would
take place and not retail sales.
o Sakata asked hours of operation.
page 3
PC Minutes
October 7, 1975
o Applicant responded that the operation hours would
be 9:Q0 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
C. Public Testimony closed.
D. Staff Recommendation: Approval based on earlier Planning
Commission action for permitted uses at this location.
E. Commission Discussion
o Sakata asked if we were opening a,can of worms by
permitting this use,
o Popp asked if additional heating and ventilation is
required for the fish tanks,.
o Applicant responded "yes“.
o Motion for approval (Porter) .
o Seconded (Wakem).
o Motion passed unanippusly, Sakata abstained.
V 8-75 Mors 11370 SW Tigard VARIANCE 75 ( i tte se t / g and Avenue/setback)
An application for variance to allow an 8 ft. sideyard in
an R-7 zone. (continued from September 2, 1975) .
A. Staff Report: Powell requested that variance V 8"r75
and Preliminary Plat approval and Subdivision Variance
S 3-75 be read sequentially.
Staff report was read by Powell.
B. Public Testimony
o Glen McBride, 7075 SW Shady Court, stated he felt
the project had abided by the existing Tigard code
and had produced a project in the best interests of
Tigard.
o Porter asked McBride if he had an agreement to pur-
chase the home where the variance was being requested.
o Ems asked applicant if he had considered adding a
garage to this home.
o McBride advised he was not sure at this time.
o Popp asked applicant why he had requested a 7 ft.
variance on the west side of the property and retained
20 ft. on the east side.
77age4s
PC M
Octo
o Applicant responded by saying "to meet zoning code
requirements and compliment the existing residence".
o Popp asked applicant if the resident on the west side
does not object to the 7 ft.
o McBride responded by saying "no".
o Popp asked what is to prevent owners of property on
lots 12 thru 16 in building their own entrance way
onto 113th.
o Powell responded that a one ft, reserve strip could
be retained the length of the frontage of the sub,
division on 115th for closing access to 113th,
C. Commission Discussion
o Ems asked if 5 ft. walkways are standard for Tigard,
If so, a 30' planting area was being proposed.
. o Powell responded that 4 ft. sidewalks were being pro-
posed to meet this problem.
o Porter asked if it is necessary that a condition be
that the sale of the house go through to the developer
based on the 7 ft. variance.
o Porter stated that lot 2500 driveway access should be
on to the unnamed subdivision street and not Tigard St.
o Hartman concurred with Porter's remarks.
o Powell stated that if lot 2600 is to be part of the
subdivision, a minor land partition is needed or the
developer must purchase the entire lot.
o Porter asked when the new street is to be named,
o Hartman asked that before the preliminary can. be
approved, is a minor land partitioning required.
o McBride responded that, in order to avoid a minor
land partitioning, all parties will be signators of
the plat.
o Hartman then stated that lots 2500 and 2600 should.
be included within the plat.
o Motion to approve the preliminary plat and subdivision
variance (Porter) with the following conditions:
YY�� iL
Page 5
PC Minutes
October 7, 1975
1. Street plugs be dedicated at the end of each
street stub.
2. A one ft. reserve strip be dedioated along
rear lot lines adjacent 113th,
3. That a 5 foot utility easement be dedicated
along the front and side yard lines with tie
back easements as required by the utility
companies.
4. That 40 ft. stub streets be developed with
a 4 ft. sidewalk on the north side of each
stub and a 24 ft. roadway.
5. That street trees, as approved by staff, are
to be provided throughout the project, installed
and maintained by the developer until he vends
the adjacent homesites.
6. A 5 ft. street dedication, curbs, sidewalks
and street improvements as necessary to match
existing pavement shall be provided on SW
Tigard St. to the edge of the plat boundaries.
7. That all of tax lots 2500 and 2600 be included
within the plat.
o Seconded (Wakem) .
o Motion passed unanimously.
o Popp made a motion to approve variance V 8-75, based
on the approval of the subdivision and the improve-
ment of SW Tigard St. and the unnamed street within
the subdivision.
o Seconded (Nicoli) .
o Passed unanimously.
8. TIGARD CLINIC SITE PLAN - Review and Consultation (Garrett and
Pacific Highway)
A. Staff Comments: Read by Powell.
D, Applicant's comments
o Bob Gray stated there is a need for coverting and filling
a portion of the site.
o Applicant further stated that all major trees can be
preserved.
•
Page 6
PC Minutes
October 7, 1975
o To date, applicant is still not sure of the location of
the clinic. He further stated that this is a good site
Without the road, but would be a bad one with the road,
fl
C. Commission Discussion
o Popp felt that the site proposal was in conformance
with NPO #1 land use designation for the area.
o Wakem concurred with Popp's remarks and favored this
type of land use for the area. Secondly, he felt that
this would eliminate additional curb cuts and a pro-
posed bike path on the plan was a good idea.
o Nicoll felt that the frontage road as proposed by the
NPO #1 Plan would have a negative effect on this site
proposal.
o It was the Planning Commission's concensus that this
was a good site plan. There was no formal motion and
no vote was taken on this matter,
7. ZONING
7.1 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 5-75 (Duplex lot size in
residential zones) - continued from September 16, 1975
A request by the City of Tigard to amend Sections 18.20.020,
18.20.030 and 18.20.040 to increase the minimum lot size
for duplexes in an R-7 zone and decrease the lot coverage
permitted in an R-15 zone,
A. Staff Report: read by Powell.
B. Public Testimony
C. Staff Recommendation: approval.
D. Commission Discussion
•
o Popp stated he favored the proposal.
o Motion for approval (Popp) .
o Seconded (Ems) .
o Passed unanimously,
7.2 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 6-75 (Fee Schedules)
A. Staff Report: Read by Powell.
•
(
Page 7
PC Minutes
October 7, 1975
B. Public Testimony
C. Staff Recommendation
D. Commission Discussion
o Porter stated that he felt the fee schedule should
be in the form of an ordinance and not a resolution.
o Motion (Porter) to recommend that this item not be
acted on by the City Council at a regular publiq
hearing until the Planning Commission was given
additional time to examine and discuss this matter
at its next study session,
o Motion seconded (Wakem) .
o Approved unanimously.
9. OTHER BUSINESS: None,
10. ADJOURNMENT: 10:50 p.m.
(I
STAFF REPORT t
Tigard Planning Commission
October 7, ... 1975 x
(
Agenda Item 5.1
CU 12-72 (Wayne McClements/Tigard School of Gymnastics)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RENEWAL
A request for a 2 year renewal of a conditional use permit to
operate a gymnastic school in an M-4 zone at 9800 SW Tigard
Ave. (Tigard Industrial Park)
Staff Findings
1. A conditional use permit for the Tigard School of Gymnastics
was approved on September 19, 1972, by the Tigard Planning
Commission under the condition that it be limited to one
year and then may be extended with Planning Commission approval. d'i
2. On September 18, 1973, the matter was heard by the Tigard {{
Planning Commission and a two year renewal was granted. 11
f?,
Apparently the entire four year renewal period asked was ;,
not granted due to some reservations concerning the
appropriate continuation of the school in that location as
the Industrial Park continues to expand and fill available Ian
vacant space. f
1
3. The location of the school in the project has been changed
since the conditional use was originally granted in 1972.
The move was in 1974 to the second building to be built in
the project. This new location faces Tigard St. and is at
the end of the building where conflicts do not occur with
the industrial traffic serving the project.
4. Staff is aware of no particular difficulty caused by the
school' s operation in this location, although staff has it-
self observed that available parking appears to be nearly '
saturated at times.
5. Applicant is requesting a renewal for two years, to coincide
with the termination date of his present lease agreement.
Staff Recommendation
To be advised at the close of the public hearing.
•
1
Fie /4L
STAFF REPORT
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
October 7, 1975
AGENDA ITEM 5. 2
CU 20-75 (Scales ' n" Tails)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
A request for permission to establish a wholesale distributor
of "aquatic supplies" in an M-4 zone in the Security Storage
project units E17, F17 and F18, which are subject to a prior
conditional use permit for "storage" granted to the Randal Co.
Location of the project is at 8900 S.W. Burnham.
STAFF FINDINGS
1. Applicant intends to lease approximately 2800 square feet
(units E17, F17, and F18) for a warehouse and wholesale
distribution.
2. It has previously been found by the Planning Commission
that any use of the security storage units besides
"storage" is a conditionaluuse, amending the existing
conditional use permit for storage and allowing another
specific use.
(.` 3. Adequate parking and access appear available at this
time for a maximum of six employees.
4. Staff has no information on pick up and delivery activity
to be generated.
5. Staff is under the impression that no retail sales or client
contacts are to be conducted on the premises.
6. Staff finds the use proposed to be compatible with previously
approved establishments and with the design capabilities
of the security storage project,
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
To be made following public testimony.
E tJ
t ( `_
J"
September 11, 1975
TO: CITY OF TIGARD, PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: TROPICAL FISH IMPORT AND WHOLESALE
RE: REQUEST APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE
TAX LOTS 2200 and 2300, BURNHAM TRACT
In regards to the "Fasano" requirements the following request is submitted:
1. An existing project entitled "Security Storage" located in the
Tigard Industrial Park is zoned M-4. One of the conditional uses
of M-4 is for warehousing and wholesale distribution.
We request permission for the conditional use of Units F-17, F-18,
and E-17 as a warehousing and wholesale distribution site of fish
and aquatic supplies.
2. The requested conditional use zoning is in conformance with the
City of Tigard's adopted comprehensive plan.
3. There is a need for a wholesale distribution center for aquatic
supplies in the Tigard area.
4. There have been no changes in conditions, to our knowledge, that
would not justify a change in the zoning (conditional use) for this
piece of property. The current surrounding land use and street
capacity, and the present sewer and water are adequate to serve the
proposed uses.
5. The location for this zoning action is particularly suited for the
proposed purpose because it is already developed and is the only
available space to suit our purposes in the Tigard area. We have a
small operation and it would not be economically feasible to rent
a larger structure. In addition, adequate parking space for our needs
is available. We will only require 3 .Spaces but 6 will be available
for our use.
6. The proposed zoning (conditional use) will have no change in the
adjacent neighborhood and on the adjacent properties. Currently
all the adjacent properties have been developed into industrial
and warehouse properties and our proposed zoning would not change
the current trend of development in this neighborhood.
4
•
Page 2
TO: CITY OF TIGARD
FROM: TROPICAL FISH IMPORT AND WHOLESALE
7. Public services would be little affected by the proposed changes
in that water and sewer is already developed. The project, as it
exists, requires normal police and fire protection. It would
require no school, public transportation or hospital services.
minimal traffic would result from the change. Therefore, the
overall impact this change would have on public services would be
minimum.
This proposed zoning change (Conditional use) would have no adverse impact
on the community.
Respectfully,
TROPICAL FISH IMPORT AND WHOLESALE
('(-`tztttl&-' 9P1144--191 -
Burton Louis Johnson
BLJ:ss
milimmmommmism1111111111
•
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Notice is hereby given that public hearings will be held by the
Planning Commission of the City of Tigard in the Twality Junior
High School Lecture Room, 14650 SW 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon.
Said hearings will occur on October 7, 1975, at 7:30 p.m. and
will concern the following:
o A request by the City of Tigard for amendment
of the Tigard Zoning Code (Title 18, TMC) to
establish a new fee schedule (section 18.92.060
Fees) .
o A request by Randall Construction Co. and Louis
Jordan Burton for permission to operate an aquatic
supply company at 8900 SW Burnham St. (Security
Storage) as a conditional use.
All persons having an interest in these matters are invited to
attend and be heard.
r
s STAFF REPORT
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISON
. October.?, 1, 1975
',) AGENDA ITEM No. 5. 3: ,
( VARIANCE L'
V 8. 75 (Morrisette/11370 S.W. Tigard Avenue) '}
A request for a side yard setback variance to allow the construction of
a 50' street for access to a proposed subdivision (Muttley's Addition). 1s
STAFF FINDINGS:
1. Approval, of this request must be based, on •findings ' that:
a. Exceptional or extraordinary conditions applying to the
property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same 1
zone or vicinity, which conditions are a result of lot size or
shap e, topography, or other circumstances over which the applicant
has no control; and
b. The variance is necessary for the preservation of a property right 1;
of the applicant substantially the same as is possessed by owners
of other property in the same zone or vicinity; and
i nce shall not be materially detrimentalt!
c. The authorization of the var a t.
to the purposes of this title, be injurious to property in the zone �.
or vicinity in which the property is located, or be otherwise l'
detrimental to the objectives of any city development plan or policy; i
Arit and fr
d.
The variance requested is the minimum variance from the provisions
and standards of this title which will alleviate the hardship (Ch. 18. g
76.020 TMC).
2. Applicant's written presentation of hardship is attached.
3. The best alternative available, which would require a variance to
l3- foot setbacks for both houses fronting Tigard Street, although
allowing non-conforming side yards for both properties, would be a
less drastic variance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: f`
To be presented after close of public testimony;
rl
il
E Cj- s _ - -_ -
- - - - - - --. --.t - - S.W. TIGARD ST.. (G O. RD. 9:6) - . � — --
90.99 •- - -
r --- T FAR y
0• TL
. • ••• ' \...:\r2........H.700 2800
. ;\ - - I - • • 1
-2 'Pl\c\\\•• ••• 1 ' ' C . . . —.........--:...........
__...... . A . _ ''• ,.1 7 .; • -\ .
1 .. ..,. . . ., ..\ , . . . . • \
. • \N . 1 . • . E_ L',-,.' . -
. •..
. ..
. .
. • •
- gip. . ` ________
. •. .
• .
. . 193..SG. .I* . . \-. • ',. 11. . •• , .. \O .. ./›. ... .
/ . ,
- . " 600 • ---,‘ •----\ -.. .
. - i . . -\ .......,_
•
-\ ,
5 0 82,(00 . \-.,„°�
75.97 . • ,y `,.,,
\. .
lam_.- - .�, �� - �p r,..... ,• 0 • ,---
•< \I i 4 . . ..: .: .. `s- '-'•may. —� .. N. 1: --._,.`....,.,_
.. \ Cl. \ .
rs(t? — .., a oiN-
,....... .., ,z,zs • •.: . . . .
Herb Morissette, Builders Inc.
P.O. Box 65 G
Garden Home, Oregon 97223'
8-19-75
Tigard Planning Commission
12420 S.W. Main St.
Tigard,Oregon 97223 -
Dear Sir:
Weethe developers of the proposed subdivision of "Muttley's
Addition" would like to define the variances required for this
project and point out why they are necessary'.
VARIANCES REQUIRED:
' 1. Si de_-yard' East of existing house: needs to be"reduced to 7'
to road right-of-way.
A. Exceptional or extraordinary conditions:
There is no other way to gain adequate entryway into this
project. If the road is moved to the East the Jensen's house
will have less than the 20' side yard required and both houses
will violate the code.
B. Preservation of a property right.
This entry off of Tigard Street is the only logical way to
develop this property. If this entry is denied the property
can not be developed.
C. Variance shall not be materially detrimental to this property,
or other property in the area, any city plan, or policy:
Although 7' from the road' right-of-way is not as favorable=
as the utopian plan we might wish. It is adequate enough to
provide the house with a 15' side yard from the actual street
pavement.
D. Request is the minimum variance-which will alleviate the
hardship:
The varianee' being asked' for is only that required to provide 1
the subdivision with a 50' road right-of-way,.
a'
.3.
At: the present time this property belongs to four different
owners. They have all agreed to sell. In the future this may not
be•the case.. It takes the cooperation of all four owners to. make
this project a success.
The preliminary plat of thi's pro j'ect has offered' a development
soltitiosa to all the,wand' that is locked between the flood plain and
the school district property: The time is right to develop this � .
land. The future may bring•more development problems that could make
this prop erty:°:even-'harder to:.develop..
•
Sincerely,
Herb Morisset e7Builders Inc.
Hy.
—err W. ' lir de'
• land. Developer
•
•
•
•
ar�,�rc/AI&
STAFF REPORT
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION ',
October 7 , 1975
AGENDA ITEM 6. 1
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL AND SUBDIVISION VARIANCE
S 3-75 (Mor.iSsette/Muttley ' s Addition)
A request for preliminary plat approval for a 24 lot subdivision
on a 5. 64 acre site, including a request to allow an exception to
the subdivision code for an 860 foot cul-de-sac.
STAFF FINDINGS:
1. This plat is an effort to replat portions of four large
parcels situated to the north and east of Summer Creek, south
of Tigard Street, and west of the future high school site
owned by Washington County School District No. 23-J.
2. Access across Summer Creek in this area is very difficult due
to the relatively flat terrain and stream gradient which would
necessitate extensive road fill creating large backwater
swales upstream of the road fill.
3. Existing development to the west (S.W. 114th Place) is on
a cul-de-sac precluding connecting streets for a conventional
loop local street system. The expansion and improvement of S.W.
113th to the east is not possible due to the parcel straddeling
that street, nor would it be econofiice.11.y viable in any case
due to the school district ' s ownership of the lands to the
east of the street. S.W. 113th at present is a 10-12 foot wide
in foot right-of-way.gravel street n a 20 f t right f way. t resent At present, this
"street" provides access to three houses and a sewer pumping
station. Vacation of S.W. 113th would be considered advantageous
by staff were suitable alternate access to be provided these
places.
4. Due to the physical and developmental constraints imposed by
the creek and its flood way, the high school site, and existing
residential development surrounding this site; this subdivision
will not only establish the development pattern for its immediately
parcels,arcels, but will foreclose alternative development
J
patterns for the remainder, of the Hokola and Simonton properties,
all of the Glaubke property north of the creek and all of the
Gallo property.
5. Applicant proposes a north-south street extending south about
1000 feet from Tigard Street to the south edge of the proposed
development. Two "stub..streets" developed to city specifications,
but-Ain 41 '''right-of-ways are proposed to provide access to the
Hakola and Simonton properties. The Glaubke property is pro-
posed to be served from a southerly extension of the proposed
"main" street. It is staffs opinion, that these changes from
the original preliminary plat, (which placed a dul-de-sac
60 ' from Tigard Street with access easements to the adjoining
independent properties) have pub the subdivision in conformance
with Tigard ' s subdivision code and moot the previously requested
street length variance.
6. The commission, at its September 2 meeting tabled this matter
to allow the applicant time to redesign the proposed subdivision
and contact ihesurroundingf property owners. Staff is satisfied
that the presently proposed subdivision design provides adequate
access to adjacent parcels, and that those parcels not included
in the present proposal could be included only with a great deal
of effort.
7. The commission indicated a desire for a bikeway/emergency access/
pedestrian way through to 115th street. Staff believes that
in this particular instance, such provision is not a good idea.
The more appropriate tie-across would be at the south end along
the sewer easement. The bikeway/emergency access/pedestrian
way could then be part of a;;trail within the greenway along
the creek.
8. Street plugs should be provided at the end of each street
stubbed out to the property lines. The City could then
permit access under a special permit.
9. Staff finds the 40 ' right-of-way proposed for the two street
stub to be adequate if the planning commission finds a roadway
less than the 34' to be justified. Each of these stubs would
serve four or five parcels, should they eventually be developed
as cul-de-sacs. Should they be joined, however, as a loop the
` loop would serve six or seven parcels , at most. A 24' roadway,
with restricted parking; 5 ' sidewalk on one side adjacent the
property line with a 5' planting strip and street trees adjacent
the curb line would be acceptable providing easements are
provided adjacent the property lines for utilities installation.
10. The "main",istreet, shown as a 50 ' right-of-way should be
developed with a standard 34' roadway, with 4' sidewalks on
each side adjacent the property lines, and with 32 foot
planting areas for street trees between curb and sidewalk.
Again, 5' utilities easements would be necessary along front
lot lines.
11. No access to 115th ought to be allowed without specific City
permission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval on conditions that
1. street plugs be dedicated at the end of each
stub street.
2. reserve strip be dedicated along rear lot lines
adjacent 115th.
Staff Report - October 7, 1975 S 3-75 Page 2 •
3. 5' utilities easements be dedicated along all
lot lines with tie back easements as required by
the utility companies.
4. 40' "stub" streets be developed with a five foot
sidewalk on the north side of each stub, and a 24'
roadway.
5. etreet trees, as approved by staff, are to be
provided, installed and maintained by the developer
until he vends the adjacent homesite.
6. A 5 ' dedication, sidewalks, curbs, and a 2 street
improvement as necessary to match existing pavement
shall be provided to the edge of the properties
fronting on S.W. Tigard Street. (Tax lots 2500
and 2600) Such improvements shall be a continuation
of improvement westerly of this proposed subdivision.
Staff port - October 7, 1975 - S 3-75 Page 3
. . .S .
,
.
...,..;t......, (2
I..
. i
t.•
. ,'-'.•.: .
I •L-7" :.*.:.;". -,."-'. . . : •• ....,.
-j-
[
. I.
-71' .:.. • . . • • _ DAKOTA-
. , . ''.
.. I—Li .. . . . ,. ..,
%...
1:',,7.:. I;ii
,
___] , •
. • I,I
. ,
----_—_. . __J .. • • . n
h
4 . .
.11 1,
_.
.....
. •
II 4] ....:
.
. .
.
. .
•
. • :. . 4::......:: "..•
. • .
......--......—:—.--1* • •, ..a. .
-- ... ... . .1 :'.... 1. 4;'... .. • i i
g 1
. .. .
d .
`a . . . ...•.. , .,. •, ._. . .
.•. •• - ,
.4411111
• . . .
.„-:... •
. .
C. . .. •,1 .. ,
111
' • 1 •
• . .. . ": •• •
.
1 •
.
. 404 IIII1* ASPIII.
_ S Nii_\ T_I G_A P.ti. . ...' ....-.is. .li•, ,
.. . I.
1r -% • . ,
. ...)a,„,-,r... ..;,.././..„ •.5 G.-/7('' ' . '..
1.'1-) •-•
.'Isa. '''' •
•
. .. ,.,
. , . ..
1 _
. .. .11 J, • ). (.,, ••,..4 •. " .
. ... ,. .. .. - -
• .
,' - ---‹* . - .'.. J 1----"'-- —.— i(.5 . r .•
• . ,...•
i 1),,• .
L c, C... .• . .
• / I < • 5c,/re• , - . .,. -,. .: :. •
7 ___
1/'.6.°4"9E 4.— . ----` Z • •
, , t C :.-----_--.___ . . .. :....
1R linil..--. _____,p
/m-oxeir19 •__ ----. r.4 _e... e... 4 •
5 C..e‘-•-•' • • . ••
•i .. .
•
• * . . •' '..•.' .• '•+. .
. . •
i■- ■
. . . .
.,—.---. ------) . 1 • ..
--..--
....... . . . .,..
. .
6 _A u 6Z--.e.:,- .... •- ' -----4-------- --- -- -----
...1 -• _......._...........____________
•
_
_ . c.7., .
e,.4,,,6IC- _—::- , '"---.' • . ''....... - •
. . -
•
. . . . .
.. ..
. .
. LY N STR EET .0 •
. • : - . :. .
k.-- s-• V - •
• , •- • .
. .. • *. , .. ....\......... . ,, . .
•. .
. ,. . . .
• ••
. •.... .•
lA-N
• • -11 iST1 EE - • .\:.(1 • . .
. _ _.. . .. ..
11111' . . .•I.
. . C •
ro .
. ..
•
... illjI---------------"--------T. --- . _____..- - . - .• •.
)11111i. Yi A LN.0 '. .
. .
. .
-r‘r- . . . .., -.•
.,.... .
• '. , - -"-,,
. r-■• I . 4' .
(.... .-. .i..t.. ...........,
f .
i Ho
._,
.. . .. .......... . . . , . . , , . ., . . . •
7
r ._
Staff Report
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION '
October 7� 1975.
iir . .
Agenda Item '-7. 1. • •
ZOA 5-75 .
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT '
A request by the City of Tigard to amend Sections 18.20.020,
18.20.030 and 18.20.040 of the Tigard Municipal Code to in- ' •
crease the' minimum lot size required in an R-7 zone and de-
crease the rot coverage allowed in an R-15 zone for duplex or
two family use. _ •
'Staff Findings •
• •
I. R-7 Zone
The purpose for allowing two family and duplex housing in ...
"single family" residential zones is more to allow variation"
in house type and style than it is to allow an increased
density. When it is considered that ordinarily duplex use is
allowed on sites difficult to develop for single family use
(either due to adjacency to a commercial or industrial district
and/or due to a need to cluster buildings on one part of a
site so that the remainder of the site may remain open) , it
becomes obvious that the use of the duplex as an option. to .
d permit development of otherwise difficult or unattractive
sites has outweighed consideration of the place of the
duplex in the neighborhood environment, the attractiveness
of duplex development for optimizing residential site use and
the economic attraction that exists for many people for owner
occupancy of a two family dwelling.
1
The policies of the Tigard Planning Commission with respect
to duplex development in subdivisions have led to some in-
consistencies in development allowed by the minimum site
standards presently in the zoning code. For instance, the
code requires a full front yard setback for both streets, .
a site standard that reduces the buildable area of corner •
lots in an R-7 zone by 8 to 12%. If such a site were developed
as a single family home (7500 sq. ft. lot, 75 x 100' ) , the
• buildable area Would be about 2000 sq. ft. and the usable
outdoor living area/play yard would be at most 1200• sq. ft.
A similar site, but 8000 sq. ft. for a duplex (80 x .100) ,
would have an appreciably larger buildable area (about 25%
' ' larger) with about 18% increase in outdoor space, which would
then be split between two users, giving each about 700 sq.'
ft. net usable back yard. '
The density standard from which the R-7 zone district is .
derived allows 4 units per gross acre. After deducting
C streets from an R-7 zone district, approximately 80% of the
land area is developable. When the public use needs of a
• large area are considered it is usually found that another.
•
10-20% is used' ,gip by schools , churches parks. This is
the "net" 'acre. A net acre, assuming that about 70% remains
for development, would then be 30,492 square feet. This
"net acre", then, would accommodate four single family resi-
dences or 3.8 duplexes for 7.6 dwelling units (at 10,000 sq.
ft./building site there would be 3.05 lots/net acre or 6.1
dwelling nits per net acre) . It is the staff's feeling that
the allowable maximum density for any site under a conditional
use ought not to exceed 1.5 times the 'otherwise allowable
density. For comparison, it should be pointed out that the
maximum coverage of a duplex. on" a 10,000 sq. ft. lot would
be 35Q0 sq. ft. , which exceeds the typical coverage require-
' ment for a two family or duplex house by 1600 to 1700 sq. ft.
leaving not les's than 6500 sq. ft. (and usually more like
8000 sq. ft. ) of uncovered land, of which (assuming minimum
o 3000 to 4000 sq . ft. of "backyard" (or
on setbacks) from 3 sq. , . -
front )
for recreational._
unit could be available r
1500 to 2000 sq. ft. /unit)
use. In other words, the result of increasing the lot size
for duplexes in an R-7 zone from 8000 sq. ft. to 10,000 sq.
ft. would be to triple the usable .outdoor living/recreation,
space.
II. R-15 Zone
The R-15 zone is a two unit/gross acre density zone. The
net density is arrived at here exactly as in part 1 preceeding.
The impact of duplex development on a 15,000 sq. ft. site is
mich different than it is on a 7500 to 10,000 sq. ft. site.
• The allowable maximum building area (site coverage) on a
15,000 sq. ft. lot ranges from 4800 to 5250 sq. ft. ; however,
few duplexes exceed 2000 sq. ft. coverage, including garages
and backyard remaining typically would range from 7000 to
10,000 sq. ft. In the case of a duplex built 'on such a lot,
the backyard for each unit would exceed substantially the
backyard possible on a: 7500 sq. ft. lot for single family use.
•
III. R-30 Zone
In staff's Opinion, duplex use in this zone is compatible'
neither with the comprehensive plan's typical suburban
estate land•use nor with the economics of a 30,000 sq. ft. •
minimum lot size.
•
Summary of Findings •
'
1. It appears that the 8000 sq. ft. minimum lot size for duplexes '°
in an R-7 zone is presently not sufficient to provide adequate
usable open space for two family use. At a lot size of 10,000 ,
sq. ft. for duplex use, there is space for light and air and
usable open space per family provided comparable to that pr-o-
vided for a single family house on a 7500 sq. ft. lot.
2. The site standards applicable in an R-15 zone allow sufficient
area for light, air and recreation with no increase in lot
size for duplex use. In that the usable open space available
for each family exceeds that necessary to meet minimum family
page 2 - staff report - 9/16/75 - item 5.2
a■iw
needs by nearly 2 fold, the same considerations that apply
``� i.n the R-7 zone do not necessarily apply here.
3. The maximum lot coverage practical in an R-15 zone and, in
fact, in staff's opinion, desirable, is in the vicinity of
3000 sq. ft. , closer to .25% lot coverage than 35% presently , ,
, allowed.
4. The present setback requirement in an R-15 zone is twenty'r�
feet, very much out of balance with a lot size of 15,000
sq. ft. and a net density of two families per acre. Staff's
opinion is that in order to allow the kind of environment contemplated in this zone, a more realistic street setback
. would be 30 feet. Similarly, the 30 foot setback in the
I .
_ R-30 zone should be not less than 40 feet, although that may
be considered skimpy.. • As setbacks were not intended to be
discussed in this staff report but have been dealt with as
a result of staff initiative, no recommendation will be made
concerning this finding.
5. The intent and purpose of the R-30 zone is to provide a sub-
urban environment with estate type development. Two family
use may be compatible with this environment in the case of
the "extended" or two generation family, but it does not
appear that the duplex as such is either intended or desirable
in the R-30 zoning district.
,�- 5 6. The conditional uses allowed in residential zone districts
in Tigard include many other uses besides duplex use not
appropriate on minimum size sites specified in those zone
districts. For instance, institutional uses such as churches
cemetaries, parks, playgrounds, hospitals, nursing homes,
schools and children's day care centers are subject only to
a 7500 sq. ft. minimum site 'size in an R-7 zone. Granted,
the thirty-f ive% lot coverage requirement would tend to re-
late the scale of such an enterprise to the size of the lot,
but the fact that such use is possible on a site of that size
is of some concern to 'staff. Some adjustment in site sizes
minimums for such uses may be a subject of a future detailed
study.
Staff Recommendation r,
Staff recommends the following amendments be. made to Ch. 18, TMC, :- - '
based on findings above.
18.20.020 Conditional Uses
z of eight
s� e
residential, with a minimum lot
Duplex res ...
• e
(1) 9
thousand square- feet:-- -one -duplex Ter 'lot;
,
be amended to read:
'• (1) Duplex residential on any R-7 or R-15 zoned site, but
not on an R-30 zoned zoned site, providing that only one
duplex may be permitted on any one lot.
page 3 - staff report -- 9/16/75 - item 5.2
•
C
18.2_0.030 Lot Size - R-7 Zone `� 1
. . . (1) the minimum lot area shall be seven thousand five
hundred square feet. . .:
. be amended to read: •
h
. . . (1) the minimum lot area shall be seven thousand five a
hundred square feet, excepting for duplex use;
• (2) The minimum lot area for duplex use shall be ten thousand_-
square feet. . . ''
r9
(3) The maximum lot coverage shall be 35%. . .
18.20.040 Lot Size -__R-15 Zone
. . . (2) The maximum lot coverage shall be thirty-five percent.
be amended to read: - N
. . . (2) The maximum lot coverage shall be twenty-five percent. 1;
ii
1
•
•
Cl'
j
a
!'
• 1
page 4 - staff report ,- 9/16/75 - item 5.2
MB
b
TIGARD CITY OF TIGARD
MCO„u Ilo
P. O. Box 23557
12420 S. W. Main
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Memorandum
To: City Council and Planning Commission
From: Planning Department
Subject: Fee Schedules for Zoning & Subdivision Items
Date: September 23, 1975
As a result of the financial situation that is presently afflicting
the City, it is necessary that every revenue source be examined to •
see if a few extra drops can be squeezed out. The fees charged for
zoning and subdivision items have not been revised since 1972. As
a result, we find that Tigard has one of the lowest fee schedules
of the jurisdiction in Washington County. While it seems obvious that
the fees should be revised upward, possibly now is the time to re-
examine the basis for fees charged in order to ascertain that they
are properly related to the service provided.
The basis for the fees charged on zoning-items has, in the past,
been related to the amount of staff time spent on a particular
category of request and the fees charged by other cities in Washing-
ton County. Traditionally the greatest emphasis has been on keeping
pace with the fee schedules of other cities. The intent is to re- it
cover a portion of the cost of staff time expended in reviewing an
application. The question which is asked each time a revision of
fee schedules is considered is, how much of the cost of reviewing
an application should the City attempt to recoup in the form of
application fees? Should the applicant be required 'to cover the
entire cost of .considering his request' or should-the taxpayer (the
_ _ _public,..whose ..interests..are..being_protected) be required to bear 1
a portion of- the cost? 4'
f'l
Last year in a staff report to the Multnomah County Planning Com-
mission, the planners stated their opinion that the applicant should
bear the direct cost of considering his request. Their report
states, "In all publicly sponsored activities, those who receive :;'
benefit from an activity are seldom paying for the full cost of
the activity that provides that benefit. This disparity, if overly
. indulged in, can lead to an inequitable redistribution of public
funds and benefits. " In their staff report they go on to propose
a fee schedule based upon the direct cost of supplying service. This ;`
direct cost includes only the time spent per application and not the
overhead costs of the department. In May of 1975 the County Com-
LI
L
A
MEpt
{
missioners adopted the proposed fee schedule, thereby accepting
this basis for fee scheduling. It is important to point out that
the large number of applications being processed by Multnomah County
made it possible to cover the direct costs of the Zoning Division of
the Planning Department. In other words, the volume served to keep
the individual application fee down. If in Tigard we attempted to. 1,
accomplish the same thing, our lower volume of applications would
require a much higher application fee.
. El
The fee schedule proposed for Tigard in this report is based upon 1
the fo.11owing 'objectives: F.
k'
1. Match the fee to the size and complexity of the appli- . ,
cation request with,_special ..consideration for individual -,, . ,.
home. owners and small bus'ine'sses_in need of a Planning' ,: !
Commission' decision- in order' that they may •contintae "to -'• I'+
use or logically expand ,their.present. use.
,2. Attempt to recover as much of the cost of considering t
zoning and subdivision applications as possible.
I
3. Do not create too great a disparity between Tigard's fee
schedules and those of adjacent cities. .
EXISTING FEE SCHEDULE
Estimated 175-'76 Revenue -
KC J
Projected No. fee Revenue 1
• of cases for
calendar year
• 1975 ,
1. Zone Change 3 150 450
1
2. Conditional Use 25 100 2500 i+
Ia
3. Conditional Use Renewal 1 25 25
4. Planned Development 6 250 1500 ___ [r
5. Home Occupation 1 25 25 - k;
6. Non-Conforming Use 2 100 200 ;,',
7. Variance 11 50 550
8. Subdivisions
a) Minor land partitioning 11 50 550
b) Major land partitioning 0 50
)c ___ Preliminary plats 6 50 plus 300
$100 for ea.
lot over 50
lots
d) Variance 3 75 225
TOTAL $6,325.
F (. -3
PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE
Projected No. Proposed Revenue
- of cases for fee
calendar year
. 1975 -
Zone Change
1. Residential
A. lucre or less 125 .
B. 1 acre plus 1 - . 200 200
2. Apartment__ 1 300 300 -
3. Commercual & Industrial ,
A. Under 1 acre 300
B. 1-10 acres 1 400 • 400
C. 10 acres plus; 700
4. Planned .Developments :::: 6 125' - ' 750 '' ••
(including change of
Y underlying zone) Pre. Review
General Plan & Program
Review
A. 1 acre or less • 175
• B. 1-4 acres 3 275 825
C. 4 acres plus 3 575 1725
5.. Conditional Use
A. Change in use of an 18 125 • 2250
existing structure
with total of site .
utilized for use less
than 30,000 sq. ft.
- B. Change in use of an 6 175 1050
existing structure
with total of site
utilized more than
30,000 sq. ft.
IL C. Outside storage 1 •100 100
D. Request involving 7
275 1925
•
development of a
vacant parcel of
land
4 _
Projected No. Proposed Revenue
( .
of cases for fee
calendar year
1975
. •
E. Renewal 1 50 50
F. Home Occupation 1 50 50
6. Comprehensive Plan 2 500 1000
Amendment •
7. Non-Conforming. Use _ 2 150 300
8. Flood Plain -
. 1
A. Area of flood plain 1 100 • 100 -'
affected less than
7500 sq. ft.
B. Area of flood plain 300
affected more than
7500 sq. ft.
9. Variance
t A. . Single family. resi- ' 3 '
dential zone 50 — . 150
B. All other zones 8 125 1000
,10. Sign Code Appeal 3 25 75
11. Temporary Use
A. by City Administrator 4 50 200
B. By Planning Commission 1 50 50
for less than 6 months '
C. By Planning Commission 100
for more than 6 months
12. Interpretation of Use 4 25 100
13, Subdivisions ,
il
A. Minor land partitioning
1
1. residential district 5 50 250
2. Apartments, commer- 3 100 , 500
IL cial & industrial
1
,. ,
,
. 1
-5-
B. Major land par- 150
tition
C. Preliminary Plat 4 100 + 825
$5.00/
lot
D. Street Dedication 1 50 50
E. Street Vacation 1 50 100
• F. Variance 3 100 300
Design Review Board
Project_value vased upon 35 .1 of 1% of 500
building permit building
permit value
Total $17,925.
tie
I. I
. i
i
K.
MEMORANDUM
,
TO: Planning Commission I
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan interpretation
Frontage road at Garrett and Pacific Highway
DATE: October 7, 1975
The planning staff has been presented with a development
proposal for two parcels of land fronting Pacific Highway
between Garrett and the existing frontage road. This
proposal suggests that the frontage road not be extended
to Garrett and the present point of the frontage road
access to Pacific Highway be improved by the developer.
The present ravine on the rear of the property would be filled
to accommodate a parking lot and bicycle/pedestrian path. A
bike/pedestrian path would also be placed along Pacific where
( none exists today. The first phase of development is for a
medical clinic and pharmacy for the doctors presently oper-
ating a clinic at Center Street and Greenburg Road.
In order to evaluate the Gray proposal in terms of its con-
formity with the adopted NPO #1 Plan , it is first necessary
to examine the intent of the plan. By providing the front-
age road the NPO #j Plan is attempting to eliminate the need
for curb cuts directly into Pacific Highway. In addition,
the greater set back from Pacific Highway which the frontage
road permits, is more conducive to the less commercialized,
professional office uses proposed for this portion of the
Highway by the plan. This development proposal offers to
fulfill the Plan ' s purpose by placing no curb cuts in the
Highway margin and by improving the present access point
of the frontage road., at Pacific Highway. The frontage access
can be given a deeper "throat" , providing for adequate stacking
room and a better grade transition with the Highway. Access
to the clinic would then be from a idtiveway off an improved
frontage road and to Garrett Street by means of an access
drive to their parking lot. t
The planning staff finds it necessary to seek a Planning
Commission interpretation on this matter because the feasibil-
ity of extending the frontage road to Garrett was a question
when the plan was adopted. Of course, in addition, since the
original plan adoption the whole concept of how this road t<
is to function has changed. As you recall it was first
located to the rear of the properties along this portion
of the Highway, with the existing frontage road to be vacated
and returned to the adjoining property owners. With the most
recent revision to the plan the recessed frontage road concept 0
Memo October 7, 1975
Planning Commission Page 2
was scrapped in favor of using the existing roadway. In
the process of revising the Plan the question of how feas-
ible the frontage road extension to Garrett Street may be
was not considered in depth. The greatest difficulty arising
from this revision is that when the frontage road is moved
from the rear of the properties in question it must cut a
diagonal swath across the subject property in order to
enter Garrett Street at a sufficient distance from Pacific
Highway. Therefore, now that a development proposal has
been offered, the Planning Commission must decide the best
method of connecting the existing frontage road with Pacific
Highway. The alternatives are:
A. close the present frontage road access to
Pacific Highway and connect it with Garrett
Street, using this as the new point of High-
way access, or;
B. improve the existing frontage road access
point to Pacific Highway and do not provide
Highway cuts for the e property between
this access point and Garrett Street.
In evaluating the two alternatives the following observations
can be made.
Alternative A--The extension of the frontage road
to Garrett makes it possible to
eliminate the existing access point
on Pacific Highway , this being the
primary reason for the NPO #1 Plan
recommending it. However, by so
doing the property in question looses
considerable area to street right-
of-way as well as double fronting
with streets the long narrow piece
of land which will remain for
development.
Alternative B--By not extending the frontage the
property in question is left more
useable area. However, this alter-
native should only be considered if
the existing frontage road access
point is improved and no curb cuts
are allowed onto Pacific Highway.
•
Memo October 7, 1975
Planning Commission Page 3
The staff' s judgement on this matter is in favor of the
applicant' s request. The proposal does adhere to the
intent if not the letter of the NPO #1 Plan. In addition,
the staff is concerned that the recent plan revision
which moved the frontage road from the rear to the front
of the lots was done as a motion by council without pre-
liminary examination into the feasibility of such an
alignment. It should also be remembered that this link
to Garrett was once of much greater importance because
the frontage road on an earlier plan was proposed to be
extended to Frewing Street.
{
i
I
C.
4.,' „,,z„„, 6J 29001
9
.194c. ''
a
L. ` 1;, Saba --
s
0
NIP'' 2800,99. cs
/ ' ys3/BAc. .90 /1,, �t.
Rso a° /s w
k
',a 3, 61/4, 93 p '�'®
le a• 00,, / 2700 •rY
S
`` './ 25
Ac. 616,..t96/
Y ) 9 d'
Tj n 5 O
9
?� °y`� ,,Iq�.i, oti 2 600 r
/ / 1111,. a`' 3300 ,
1111111 5 .74Ac. T
--s'''':. ,', / ''' 111, se .27 Ac.
s
t}0� ' �.,i�? c� 11111111111
lo (C.S. 12690/
27A c aka 1111111111 x� 0�'�2 5 0 O "'3s SS2
�`` X1111111111111 `. .20 Ac. 20 °e
a
a0 / 300 F9S ,A a ... 111111111 >e /p. 0 y, SSy
N /27Ac �F 11 �'�S 0�•.)
tiro 11i11111 y 2.4 0 0 Nso
111 N 9
7
J.
, 2 3 0 0 r-� ■
l ` �7 1.30 Ac. \ C) R
�\
3..a / \\ �. 3403 f1f
0 2 I. \ L
p ,.."C 9 yv'°e3404 na ?)a \I•
a 30 I saAc N
42A°. . ,
v rt3 h° s
<r 0. �\\ .�C vo 99 9 ',-0
car � ^ o+vs o. S.NCIC19 6) W'
z se90 1.3W - 10 � e Ci 3504 pi, \ 3401 emu. .°,� ""�� 1
.cl 30 Ac. I74c nmiq
-,a' vi 71.9 4 . '1.--0,:_. r 06 aW ,o / — _ -N `CP ` ' "'.1 0 2
° /g2CH ti"�a 3503 .� 3500��`' ti ,.7/Ac.
2200 �,� 26nA . e�aT. 07Ac. i � �.
_� 1 ' / D� 2/p° �/ Y '�2L'
Cv
c.
aA / 1' }3, Q yti p
• \ 296. \ \p,6°! N' A• _ 9e h.
L
e my• �. °\, f 3600 c P
e1 as a 3502 I. \ 22 Ac. 'e : b
2100
ti ./7Ac. n ` 3BAc. ltl/ \ Z,r4 /4Y 1~.-- ,_ ?r
5000
/VG •h; 5�OQ ,,l a 1 : \ N641 /Itr
■ A.�r 2s 4' T ( c• -•• -`•iIl ll"
\ 3�3 T \ o°\ A!.t1fa o 5100 0y?a >;. "fib-N •
/` 2 / 97��• 6o0t3W' } (�,
° 9
ry�4 'tf +6Ca'?..ii,2A,s/p ,2„ 6F'' .� S ,^ \/C.0 / �R
o O 2000 .13c'59. 0 6 �' )
^h ^4, `� jfi/t W, 314,,, OP �: N, } �.
.. .96Ac. 4I9 s47°j3�o, ? , y6 <-' C� yn, G °.
`� l 3 s46�11 .02a 9a To b,jife,'-'1.6 �(��/`,`���1• ‘0A t
(G.S No. 12,1751 30 0,),„ *5600 � � J ,� 390
0 ? _+b `;�a T R;A'�•1 . %2 .31/190.6 4 v r >\ l fit 199 I.
� 400 *.\r+` ` ".a
�k �OaA 0 `�S'.�7�jab r'.a F
„1'2)('f 1] �Y.o 1�.. 4.. �.F ,d a ..,
41 MO