Planning Commission Packet - 01/31/1983 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PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and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.
AMA
411 110
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 31 , 1983 - 7 :30 P.M.
FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - LECTURE ROOM
10865 S.W. Walnut St. - Tigard, Oregon
1 . Open Meeting
2. Roll Call
3. Planning Commission Communication
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
4 ..1 Development Standards Map
4 .2 ZC 19-82 INTERIM ZONING DISTRICT MAP
5. New Business
6. OTHER BUSINESS
7. ADJOURNMENT
4
II
1 E r
PLANNIN COMMISSION DATE
ROLL CALL:
•
Frank Tepedino f /
Clifford Speaker
•Roy Bonn_LIAD
/ r , � �.►
Aryl
Y
Don Moen AO
Bonnie Owens
t
g°'< 4/(36)
Mark Christen
Phil Edin4
Deane Leverett
Ron Jordan_��
41. OF
k
A
„.".”
31-8„1
NOTICE : ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAR ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME
and note their address on this sheet. (Please Print your name)
ITEM DESCRIPTION:___q_i__
-
Ike
' 41. 41. 'VA it/Jr 'Zit
4 A
PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against)
Name, Address and Affiliation
' I Name, Address and Affiliation
1/4
- ,
I /2 Al
0.64. ,
4
I
e)
(I)
0 -
411 411
1!
✓l11 N-
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME
and note their address on this sheet, (Please Print your name)
ITEM/DESCRIPTION:
_t_AiTif-E,12 1 fz3,._:___-2_____&_0 I vtc is21/_"--E7.:______
PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against)
I
Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation
-.7,7717-477-7-757.04-
/0 IF U 5 G) o , .�
:a r# .4.±6 J ✓ /,_;' •P..
• - , - - lit,OIV- OF / : -r4 iVO,K4362 --,.,? ' 1
I — ' -�7.s_
•
-
, 1
I
I.
I
( 6L. .R.6,AYF
I ,�
,. anaall
iv)) company cx
�
Kristin Square W 9500 S.W.Barbur Blvd. 0 Suitfiw.4ortland,Or ein 97219 a (503)245-1131
s �
Telex #360557
January 31, 1983
Chairman Tepedino and Members of tee Planning Commission
CITY OF TIGARD
C/O William A. Monahan, Director
Dept. of Planning and Development
RE: Interim Zoning and New Comprehensive Plan Designations
Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission:
As you move to adopt interim zoning for the newly designated comprehen-
sive plan map; I am writing both in my capacity as a spokesman for the
Homebuilders and as the counsel for the Randall Company in order to
address a concern which I believe needs to be discussed, given the
way the plan is currently being adopted.
1
This concern relates to housing policy 6.3.1 already adopted by the •
City Council, as well as the effect -that this policy will have on the
City's ability to comply with Statewide Goal 10 if the Community De-
velopment Code is adopted as now proposed. To illustrate the effect
of this policy, I will describe its apparent effect on property owned
by the Randall Company.
That property is Sunnyside Estates, also known as Golfstde Estates lo-
cated on the southeasterly side of the intersection of Sattler and 100th.
Apparently on Thursday evening you designated the entire parcel (orginally
indicated of the Staff's map as Medium Density) Low Density. If you do
not see fit to amend the Community Development Code in the manner I re-
commend in this letter, I would respectfully request that you reconsider
that designation and at least designate the portion of that property lo-
cated south of the proposed Kable St. as Medium Density. We are reluctant
to seek the Medium Density designation however, because we really believe
that a Low Density designation is appropriate to the basic single-family
character of the area. We would prefer that designation if it would per-
mit single-family development on lots of 5,000 square feet or greater. •
•
Chairman Tepedino and Members of the Planning Commission
January 31, 1983
Page 2
Unfortunately, your Development Code as proposed places 5,000 square
foot single-family lots into a Medium Density designation.
In my opinion this is simply not a correct approach to take in the
division of density. Single-family homes built on 5,000 square foot
lots are of a character very similar to any other single-family home.
Placing them in the same category as other forms of housing which can
be built in densities of up to twelve units to the acre would, I am
afraid, result in a housing pattern which defeats your other policies
regarding transition and buffering.
As I understand your current Development Code, a substantial division
exists between your Low Density designation which permits a maximum o
of 4.5 unit per acre and your Medium Density zoning which starts at
7 units an acre. What that means is that no place in the City of
Tigard is a density of from 4.'5 to 7 unit acre permitted.
The impact of this restriction on the housing industry, frankly facing
the "affordability" crisis of the 1980's, can best be described through
an analogy to the auto industry when faced with the energy crisis of
the 1970's. The current density split you propose, amounts to some
regulator telling the auto makers in the mid-1970's, that the only
autos they could produce to solve the energy crisis were full sized
cars for those who could afford them and vans and buses for those who
couldn't. Obviously the mid-compact and sub-compact autos were in
large part the solution, such as it is, to the energy crisis. I strong-
ly believe, based on current trends in housing, that densities in the
range of 5 to 10 units to the acre will provide the flexibility in
terms of type that will allow the production of viable and desirable
housing to solve the affordability crisis. The statistics contained
in the housing element show that the single-family home remains the
preferred housing style for the American consumer, this demonstrates
that if market preferences are accommodated, the majority of the homes
built at that density should be of a single-family character.
LCDC has previously recognized this trend when as part of the continuance
order for the City of Beaverton, they required that 5,000 square foot
lots be a permitted use in areas, classified as low in their comprehensive
plan. The City of Tigard is so similarily situated that I feel such a
policy should be adopted in this community also. At least I believe you
must carefully re-examine the validity of the Staff's assumption support-
ing its vacant buildable land inventory that all land designated medium
will develop, at its maximum, 12 units to the acre. If the 5,000 square
foot lot is included in the medium designation, market forces will work
strongly against this assumption.
Chairman Tepedino and Members' of the Planning Commission
January 31, 1983
gage 3
• Ultimately I think that the abolishment 4.5 to 7 unit per acre densities
• in Tigard is the result of policy 6.3.1 that assumes in established areas
:~<:( new development must be "of the same type and density in order to protect
the character of the neighborhood". If the character of a neighborhood
is really an objective standard, rather than only a mechanism to prevent
any change, a proposition I am not willing to concede, I think that it
can be shown that the legal premise behind zoning related to use or "type"
• not density per se, hence I believe the reference to density protecting
"character" should be removed unless facts not opinions support.
In conclusion then I will say the Randall Company firmly. believes, and
the evidence before you shows, that at least for a portion of its Sunny-
side-Golfside property; 5,000 square foot single-family lots are ap-
propriate. On behalf of the company, I urge you to take action to per,
mit this, even if it means placing the medium designation of the compre-
,'`:` hensive plan on part of the site. As a representative of both the cam-
,
pany and the homebuilders, I' would urge you to remedy this problem and
others like it that I am sure exist by permitting 5,000 square foot lots
in areas designated low density. I firmly believe that an intelligent
application of the transition and buffering requirements of the Housing
Policy by the commission and the staff will result in more protection
and vitality in the established neighborhoods than policy 6.3.1 which
arbitrarily relies on density to do this.
°�' I want to apologize to the members of the Commission for having to raise
the issue as I am out of order, after NPO #6 decisions were made, and
for having to do it by letter rather than in person. Unfortunately, the
press of business has forced me to miss the Wednesday Council meeting
as well as both your Thursday and Monday meetings, at each of which I
had planned to address these issues.
It has been an honor and a pleasure to participate in and observe your
deliberations on the comprehensive plan. I am sure, based on the ex-
. perience, no matter what decision you reach on the issues I raise, it
will be based on a full, fair and careful consideration of the facts
before you.
Sincerely yours,
John T. Gibbon
Secretary/Counsel
JTG/cl
al '
• • .
. ... .
,......„ ,,,.....,. .
. . .
.1 : f___H 1 q.14,4 . i 17 /Fir2..•
I
�F,i(t WV .__ �' .. __ r-1 _
',3. 'X? I G I .1••••!•::•:., - - -
1 1
_ � ,�
1{.1 0 - .
. o �
,0
i.
.€X!.i.... ...._ _..;l . - - .• t� uci'z,e, & 44,. .., r
lMr .moo _
•
. 1 •IL
r:xi-.
1 - 7" f
j s
�: -t . 1' M_. Z40
IS
I I 1 g
-.. i I
ZS T. i
jr:
* , •
_ 4,_ -
• 44, 17 I g eV : K i-• 14 H /44'
j
{
, i 11 1 + 1 - I i
1
' -- I; i ---_...___,i / j ' •
• I
IF II I
41117041Y .
i - 1
i '!
1
- — I
-► iu Po /''/ .
p g caE A it
10730 SW North Dakota
J�,N '� 1v 83 Tigard, Oregon 97223
January 27 , 1983
CITY OF TIGARD
Tigard City Planning CoELAWN DEPT.
Tigard City Hall
•
Tigard, Oregon 97223
I represent myself and the 14 property owners whose signatures
..appear ,on the attached petition. Our concern is in regard to
the medium density designation of the Cowgill property and other
flood plain property in our area, Aall of which has been designated
medium density. Our basic concern is that our neighborhood is not
designated as an "Established Area" on the proposed Comprehensive
Plan; and, therefore, we are not protected by Policy 6. 3 .2 of the
•
Plan whereunder established residential areas are protected with re-
gard to density transition and compatible housing type. We par-
ticularly want to be protect-et from having apartments built next
to already existing residential homes. Whether the Plan recognizes
us as established or not, the fact remains that there are in exist-
, , ance some very nice residences situated adjacent to the designated
'' '_ medium density property.
All we are requesting is that our area be recognized as an
"Established Area" to protect the existing residences and to assure
us the protections of density transition and compatible housing
type under Policy 6. 3 . 2 of the proposed Plan.
•
•
In further explanation and support of our contention that we should
be designated as an "Established Area," we call your attention to
the following information:
° (1) The SW 108th Avenue subdivision Doreen Court having 9 lots
• though not designated "established" on the map which I last
saw at City Hall is in fact established with new homes con--
,. structed on all 9 lots of approx. 7,500 square feet. Tax Lots
2000 and 2200 are also developed lots occupied by private
residences .
(2) The area easterly of SW 108th consists of large lots varying
Min size from approximately 1/3 to 1 acre, all occupied with
0 private residences.
•
:i
( 3) The lots are all developed, landlocked and/or flagshaped
M with insufficient access to allow further development . In
0 particular, note T.L. 2300 which is only 87.34 feet wide ;
w ;„ thus , after allowing for the required 50-ft. access, there
would remain only 37 . 34 feet of buildable land. T.L. 2600
is flagshaped with insufficient access in that it has a 40.68
ft . . access . (Both tax lots are already occupied by private
'3`-`< residences. )
cg D
410 410
Tigard Planning Commission --2-- January 27, 1983
(4) T.L. 2800 is also flagshaped with sufficient access, but
because of the positioning of a large residential structure
it would possibly accommodate only one additional residence;
since this tax lot neighbors medium density property, we
feel it is imperative that it be protected.
(5) This area was recently annexed to the City of Tigard and pre-
viously Washington County had designated' these lots as single
family residential and the recent development necessarily took
place in accordance with that outlook. We are advised that
Tax Lots 2900 and 3000 were formerly denied permission for
additional development by the county because of lack of the
required access.
We therefore emphasize that our neighboriTood is an established area
in entitled to the protection
and the existing residences n use are enti.,led o th
g P
afforded "Established Areas," and that in keeping with the large
lotting patterns in existance that we be zoned R-20 as no other
designation would apply under any theory or guidelines with respect
to planning and zoning.
e y truly yours, /)
JU9 - 12. lrxv�.-�
• vorine M. Larson
a
II
11111 4 4
411 4111
Tigard Planning Commission -2- January 27, 1983
(14) T.L. 2800 is also flagshaped with sufficient access, but
because of the positioning of a large residential structure
it would possibly accommodate only one additional residence;
since this tax lot neighbors medium density property, we feel
it is imperative that it be protected.
•
(5) This area was recently annexed to the City of Tigard and pre-
viously Washington County had designated these lots as single
family residential and the recent development necessarily took
place in accordance with that outlook. We are advised that
Tax Lots 2900 and 3000 were formerly denied permission for
additional development by the county because of lack of the
required access.
We, therefore,emphasize that our neighborhood is an established
area and the existing residences in use are entitled to the pro-
tection afforded "Established Areas," and that in keeping with
the large lotting patterns in existance that the area be zoned
R-20 as we feel no other designation would apply.
Airy trulrs
. onne M. Larson
•
•
•
fr-
•
•
0 i
•
•
Soo AC.
a 600 1_ s
17..
sv's 10 1 1�g 23-Iq�� .., . i.A.
1400 [ ffi$ k ` 0 UD
0 500 I ±03 0' 4 S 5 "' 6„'1
R 15003
z2
o :1 6 LL, 40. t zs 1� j
13x.3% g 400 72s4 'o-�= m 73
•
i 12 3600 tI 4200
1600 e
.37Ac. 2LL., `r'a 7(,,�.±i
— 134.28 I�
r
300 U
o
.223 10,-.9
•
399°I6 t 14.$ I OP) 1 302 :` 1 .” I i 8
169_2 s 13a.9 7 �0,�
‘M.7---- i ✓ f 02.49 4 set-6630 60 115.29 1 • 7299 .24 Q 73
I � - _ .
IC.R. N0.452 o U
y
673s 67 `A e0.68 f`
2.i�IQ 2.65[5 50— _.., si'SCx' NORTH LI!A r s JOHN L. F?ICKLIN ES.LC. NO. 54
2200 23f30 7.400 25�Q 2�OQ �®Q
28[)0 29QQ 3QQC. ..92AC 3300 9Ri4.N
42AC o 3s�Ac 96:G
• _ .37AC- .37AC. 1164C .66A C. 1.�6AC. 96AG. 96AG 9ZAC.
4B.47AC.
a
(140) 1=
4400 13979,.., �o ` k.1. P ,
SZ a
INITIAL PONT a: y ssi zo y .Q �j e ii
l.
113.03 M _c r d
1
45 •. 91 32» u ¢ csi N i
.1 1, 5200 I_ E t
Q t' 7 �.0 3 67 6 7 1 � '.�
..M .. I 9 r :2a.s
..SID$ v 105.65 0
Y 320 0
4600 L�1 �. 5100 2378
3 _ n a r /.004 C.
A
•
' a. 105.59
I •
' m w
{
a700 L 5000 N _
0 0 - ;
�T N
105-99 c.72 - 105.51
Si X00
=4900 �,�
5 �aM 6 0
;, •is 589°36 30 ---8 3.97CN.
• • n 74aCT a" .^ 99 52 7 34 y '
.:,,.,, ... .. ..-. :.� ITi.Ea 2 65[1. II _ 2 65 CH
.. . .
' , 1
..i. I
I •
411 Alk
411" I
, . I
REQUEST FOR "ESTABLISHED AREA" DESIGNATION & R-20 ZONE
.",:-'•;,:,':',•', .
. ..
i:,.:.,1.‘T.•• •:,:'. .
•
;:•:,,;:•:1•.::.- , We, the undersigned, request the Planning Commission and the Tigard
.1:,,y'.:•:-::': . City Council as part of the Comprehensive Plan to consider the SW
North Dakota area as colored in on the attached map and by this I
reference made a part hereof, as an "ESTABLISHED AREA."
.,.....-.....„ We further request that the area referenced be designated zoning
of R-20,
.. ..::v ..:
_..,...-„.„
.. ,....,--, We make this request for the reason that the lots indicated are
presently approximately one-tbirdto one acre residential lots,
many of which cannot be further developed, and we wish to maintain
and preserve the character of our existing neighborhood . We strongly
desire that our neighborhood be protected by the comprehensive plan
policies governing "ESTABLISHED AREAS. "
,:,•,:.••.;:,:;..•:.,,
••'.. ...:.1::,•::.::." •
. „....,
-•••'.?::r:'.'•:-.:.:.: SlEhature Address Date
ta(060 , .0i likeeht,
.. . .,. ..
,:1',:'.:• :..•-•:••••
UJIL:fio /MO
-1505cd
j1(3/14(AN4 C.,
/
1
i.,:::: :‘,:',';,::•::,
0 5.ui - N 7 ,-0,-1,24- . 114.3 ti-3
KV\ Ilez/Vs-01- I 01 ,5 S,w . i,), bry1-61-*0-- I
.:;, :,',..,'.::.•'‘,.:. Uvwv) (,),i dor ota \0 ‘u 5 `--)No N•O ea-01k, ,9, . ci I z*S3
0Jt, 't) -4-04-0141.1 j 6 g 0 a f Vil 124. ,A)ideCePti I
/0 770 S 44 Vork Pa kb.11cA,
,...j;•,,5,:,.':::.-," • ei----e56>14---- //z .ye 1
_ . . , ..
y•_.. ,....., n ',„tei ,4 cc., s, (.), Xitgr# 4ratri /1/.93 AO
.. .• ."-
ai ,>; ° • il44mr3 ,
Ciclz---1-A---8-- 1 /- i /0/23o
• ,,
, olt"Vot"PferAC
d27 dAai, 1/ 1.5-,44.3
eS
• .;' ' AtlYi 6-0,4711- 2
'41,1 30 S tu Ai, aajTA /71203
-7/44-44,$_ee:0441/
/0 3703--5 A d lete40#14/ a fro,7C7/A
)
//z7A--4,
. . . 1
ifi;.".:...'::•7.,
. .?. ::
,,, ..•.,...,,
• ..::....,..,
%-_ ---.
- . „
APO # 20
• %0ERTI:gio
10730 SW North Dakota
JAN 2 7 1983 Tigard, Oregon 97223
January 27 , 1983
CM' OF TIGARD
Tigard City Planning coRLANNING DEPT.
Tigard City Hall
Tigard, Oregon 97223
I represent myself and the 14 property owners whose signatures
appear on the attached petition. Our concern is in regard to
the medium density designation of the Cowgill property and other
flood plain property in our area, all of which has been designated
medium density. Our basic concern is that our neighborhood is not
designated as an "Established Area" on the proposed Comprehensive
Plan; and, therefore, we are not protected by Policy 6. 3 . 2 of the
Plan whereunder established residential areas are protected with re-
gard to density transition and compatible housing type. We par-
ticularly want to be protected from having apartments built next
to already existing residential homes . Whether the Plan recognizes
us as established or not, the fact remains that there are in exist-
ance some very nice residences situated adjacent to the designated
medium density property.
All we are requesting is that our area be recognized as an
"Established Area" to protect the existing residences and to assure
us the protections of density transition and compatible housing
type under Policy 6. 3. 2 of the proposed Plan.
I •
In further explanation and support of our contention that we should
be designated as an "Established Area," we call your attention to
the following information:
(1) The SW 108th Avenue subdivision Doreen Court having 9 lots
though not designated "established" on the map which I last
saw at City Hall is in fact established with new homes con-
structed on all 9 lots of approx. 7,500 square feet. Tax Lots
2000 and 2200 are also developed lots occupied by private
residences .
(2) The area easterly of SW 108th consists of large lots varying
in size from approximately 1/3 to 1 acre, all occupied with
private residences.
( 3) The lots are all developed, landlocked and/or flagshaped
with insufficient access to allow further development. In
particular, note T.L. 2300 which is only 87 . 34 feet wide;
thus, after allowing for the required 50-ft . access , there
would remain only 37 . 34 feet of buildable land. T.L. 2600
is flagshaped with insufficient access in that it has a 40. 68
ft . . access . (Both tax lots are already occupied by private
residences. )
410 • 411
•
Tigard Planning Commission -2- January 27, 1983
(4) T.L. 2800 is also flagshaped with sufficient access, but
+ because of the positioning of a large residential structure
ee it would possibly accommodate only one additional residence;
since this tax lot neighbors medium density, property, we feel
it is imperative that it be protected.
(5) This area was recently annexed to the City of Tigard and pre-
viously Washington County had designated these lots as single
family residential and the recent development necessarily took
place in accordance with that outlook. We are advised that
Tax Lots 2900 and 3000 were formerly denied permission for
additional development by the county because of lack of the
required access.
We, therefore,emphasize that our neighborhood is an established
area and the existing residences in use are entiAed to the pro-
tection afforded "Established Areas," and that in keeping with
the large lotting patterns in existance that the area be zoned
R-20 as we feel no other designation would apply.
e vy truly jJours,
onne M. Larson
•
R2 I
P""
•
M
W
v .. .
410 410 ,
REQUEST FOR "ESTABLISHED AREA9/ DESIGNATION & R-20 ZONE
' We, the undersigned, request the Planning Commission and the Tigard
City Council as part of the Comprehensive ,Plan to consider the SW
North Dakota area as colored in on the attached map and by this
reference made a part hereof, as an "ESTABLISHED AREA."
We further request that the area referenced be designated zoning
of R-20.
We make this request for the reason that the lots indicated are
presently approximately one.-thirdto one acre residential lots,
many of which cannot be. further devel.op'ed, and we wish to maintain
and preserve the character of our existing neighborhood . We strongly
desire that our neighborhood be protected by the comprehensive plan
=`- policies governing "ESTABLISHED AREAS."
Signature Address Date
., .ems 'e)C--lit t (0 L 6 0 -LA) 1'1,1141-- etk, / ..•2 .3 43
„• At 44 a„,,0 cu ii,e4a , /0‘40 5 4) 0 ILL=I'et. 7- /, 3 - -6'..S
no_ j-icowtet c, bo,vgyt_ !07505 N ` , ; ._ -�:.- j.---„ -
PLr) .. 15-\--tr W--1 s•0 <3 .Lki _ N 76,-16LA 1/--.3 ji- 5
n Y=-�� 1 b-1(a S S,k.,1/4) , k D r .�-
_ti:° UtA.xr ) Cw.l r 0,,.9. 0,-\v 5 �n.,% N .� ox 0A-�4 ' C 'I. /�3
k ) 'I� `°) ' ct-712- ,41 iDgoc, Cw 7Le A.)/ti. e, 11 L l3
,f• .,/, ,7/V6 c‘,4oil'‘It'-j-) :(-- exj.7Z-tZ15,70aci-144-- V.,,z0-3
C.. � -e.-- X30 7? '- bhp&i //.2v/
/o
Lien--/uL ii `" , 'i /� - .,
`:: 7 A±l /' �,,
, he& ae,./jrn..„ eS-r.,2 el -S;4'41-' P
• i
•
41
9.00 AC.
II*. 600 !:;
• a !0'—' 6444
1-
w
�. m: 15
. ro - X
a 1110 I(
00 a0 *.
no ao I n 5 0 0 500 °3 Q 4 2 ` {
la
_ 1"500 L 1212
x1 le
1 iS,.S/ 400 72-99 t-
1600 12 3600 4200
I N �,a1-
1 .3TAC. m 2LL �N e 7�-�;!
134._8 . I 6)
300 W
—23iO • — — 13- -1-1 3500 Haw 4300 1
y/q 1f ■ a
505-16.9 I IG4.9`: Vl f 302 r! I m 1 o a 0 3 �:�
34.3
-
- _ 165.2 ✓ 82.45 N .y 61- . • - 60 , 115.29 7299 241 73
�@ ._. ._ .. _--"...... .p) .gyp. .. —_
f•..' 'C.l$T 3.97CH' S0. '
67 ._ `068 .._.� .. 3 55CH 90 r' C.R. N0.452 d' o Ld YJ 0, • J e. �„o.,,�.,4. ��_�._ _
f9 2200 .....32'SCH ..
2000 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 :2800 2900 3000 NORTH �sv "...JOHN L. HICKUN D_t.c. 55 s4
.424C. -34 4c �E 00 � �� sAS.ats
` .96AC. .37AC. .37AC. /./8AC .66AC.
L 26AC. .96AC. .96AC. .92 AC.
I I 4.4AA�
NCI _ N
[. .3i79.,,. u7 CV
,..v
IP
C
4400 °' r ! I. - a N
INITIAL PONT 4r.... W y .1
u s.43 = a * Q ,0 i. _.
- 1 a}'n/V P .•` @-200 W ' " w �J
..
7. 23-74 237
�.a'a �� 67 67 , ,t
''2- Z N a) `� 9 c ; n ` n 126.4 N'
145$4 N 145.65 0 °
` . 3200 !
4600 LLi 5100 L� .
R 2 8 1
/.00AC.
•
105.58
•
4700 1" 50W - a u.;
I
4 P. 7 ea a ro cyj (� .
1 105.89 x.721 105.51 2
4800 '`_.4900 ()
5 6•
-. av s 89°36. 30 % - 3 97CH.
•
I. o TRA4 3%. 99 t< . - 8734 174.69
-..>.. .. . 265CH I 2.65 CH '
•'; IR% IllV)
T Lf 12180 SW 126th Avenue
JAN L 1983 Tigard., Oregon, 9' 223
CITY OF TIGARD January 26, 1983
PLANNING DEPT.
Dear Sirs
Although we live en 126th Avenue, which to net under consideration
for the transportation element of the city's land use planning, we
de travel frequently on 121st Avenue, Walnut Street, and Gaarde
Street.
We are opposed to changing these streets from their present desig-
nations to ones of "major collector" streets. It appears that
widening these streets would eliminate possible foot/bike path
development and shrink front yards and divrrways. A change to
increase the present width does not seem appropriate to a residen-
tial area.. We are also opposed to using these streets to
Murray Road to Highway 99.
The proposed plan must include a a policy for dealing with conflicts
between street widening and residential property, especially if the
option to widen remains for future deliberation. Such policy
determined in advance will allow for orderly, fair decision-making
in the future.
Sincerely,
PO MO • 64/6/4014:
Mr. and Airs. R. Y. Canemori
a.
co
C°1