Loading...
Planning Commission Packet - 05/08/1984 POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm.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 COMMISSION May 8, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - LECTURE ROOM 10865 SW Walnut Tigard, Oregon 1. Call to Order 2. ROLL CALL 3. Approval of minutes from April 17, 1984 4. Planning Commission Communication 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION APPLICATIONS for NPO #'s 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6. 5.2 SUBDIVISION S 6-84 W. L. & Bertina Sawyer/CECIL BOONE PARK NPO # 5 5.3 CPA 13-84 BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, EXCEPTIONS 5.4 CPA 14-84 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOCUMENT AMENDMENTS 5.5 CPA 15-84 SETBACKS IN THE CG AND CP ZONES 5.6 CPA 16-84 AMENDMENT DECISION PROCESS 5.7 CPA 17-84 DENSITY TRANSITION 5.8 ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 10-84 ROBERT GOODRICH NPO # 3 5.9 ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 11-84 EUGENE A. AND EUGENE B. RIMKEIT NPO # 3 6. OTHER BUSINESS o Election of Officers o Training Workshop o Comprehensive Plan update 7. Adjourn Meeting 0288P • TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - MAY 8, 1984 1. Vice President Moen called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. The meeting was held at Fowler Junior High School - LGI Room - 10865 SW Walnut, Tigard, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Vice President . Moen, Commissioners Leverett, Fyre, Butler, Moen, Peterson, Owens, and Vanderwood. ABSENT: Commissioners Tepedino and Edin. STAFF: Director of Planning and Development William A. Monahan; Associate Planner Elizabeth A. Newton; Secretary Diane M. Jelderks. 3. Minutes from April 17, 1984, were considered. Commissioner Butler requested that condition number one for S 7-83 and V 7-84 be corrected to read that the "Pedestrian bikepath will be construction on the south side of O'Mara". Vice President Moen requested that Commissioners Owens' suggestion to the motion be modified to "negotiate so street improvements could be made on property to the north", as this was the intent, not full street improvements. Commissioner Owens and Vanderwood arrived. Commissioner Peterson moved for approval as amended. Commissioner Fyre seconded. Motion carried unanimously by members present. (This motion was made at the end of the meeting after Commissioner Owens had left. ) 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION • There was no communication. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION APPLICATIONS FOR NPO # 1, 2, 3, 5, & 6. The following applicants were present and gave explanations as to why they would like to be appointed to their appropriate NPO. Emmett Whitaker, 13250 SW Burnham St. NPO # 1 Roger Maddox, 11555 SW 88th, Apt. 48 NPO # 2 Mark Padgett, 11270 SW 95th NPO # 2 Duane Ehr, 10425 SW Park St. NPO # 3 William Shenk, 15685 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd. , # 55 NPO lb 5 Mary Clinton, 9865 SW View Ct. NPO # 6 Bruce Rodgers, 10305 SW Serena Way NPO # 6 Connie Smith, 8860 SW Scheckla Drive NPO # 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 8, 1984 Page 1 The follow applicants were unavailable, however, staff supported appointment to their appropriate NPO. Floyd Bergman, 11600 SW 90th Ave. NPO # 2 Ralph Flowers, 11700 SW Gaarde St. NPO # 3 Sue Carver, 10155 SW Hoodview Drive NPO # 6 NPO COMMENTS • NPO # 3 Chairman Bob Bledsoe submitted a letter supporting the appointment of Ralph Flowers and Duane Ehr to NPO # 3. • NPO # 6 - Chairman Phil Paste is was encouraged by the input he had received from the applicants without being members of the NPO and supported having all of them appointed as members. PUBLIC TESTIMONY • Mrs. Geraldine Ball commented she was pleased to see so many people applying for NPO membership. She is a member of NPO # 4 and would like to see more people apply for membership in that NPO. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION • Commissioners were pleased with the number of applicants and offered suggestions as to how they could best help their NPO. • Discussion followed between staff and Commission on how to handle motion. Director Monahan also asked the Commission to include in their motion a request from Muriel Gillen to be transferred from NPO # 6 to NPO # 2. • The Commission requested staff to contact the applicants who had not appeared and suggest that they attend the City Council meeting. • Commissioner Owens moved to forward to City Council with recommendation of approval for appointment of all applicants to their appropriate NPO. Also for staff to notify the three applicants who were unavailable to suggest that they attend the City Council hearing. Commissioner Leverett seconded. Motion carried unanimously by members present. • Commissioner Peterson moved to recommend to City Council that Muriel Gillen be transferred from NPO # 6 to LPO # 2 per his request. Commissioner Butler seconded. Motion carried unanimously by members present. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 8, 1984 Page 2 5.2 SUBDIVISION S 6-84 W.L. & Bertina Sawyer/CECIL BOONE PARK NPO # 5 • Associate Planner Newton explained that staff, the applicant, and the State Highway Division had met to discuss the road issue for this application and that more time was needed to prepare information. Staff recommended this item be continued to the June 5th hearing. • Vice President Moen moved to table S 6-84 and continue to the June 5, 1984, public hearing. Commissioner Peterson seconded. Motion carried unanimously by members present. TIGARD WEST • Staff commented that the application for Tigard West had been withdrawn from the agenda. Discussion followed on how many times this item could be set over. 5.3 CPA 13-84 BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, EXCEPTIONS Director of Planning and Development Monahan reviewed problems which staff had been encountering with Section 18.98 of the Community Development Code. NPO COMMENT - Phil Pasteris, NPO # 6 Chairman, reviewed the memo he had submitted to the Planning Commission. PUBLIC TESTIMONY • Mary Clinton, 9865 SW View Court, submitted and read into the record a letter recommending changes to section 18.98.030. • Morgan Bleek, Titan Properties, 2090 SW TV Hwy, explained he had just obtained a minor land partition which has two flag lots. He felt the Code was very restrictive and didn't address important issues. He recommended either throwing that section out or having flag lots brought before the Planning Commission. Lengthy discussion followed. CROSS EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL • Mary Clinton asked NPO # 6 Chairman, Phil Pasteris if City staff had input in his memo. He responded City staff had only typed the memo for him. She continued that she felt flag lots should be restrictive and that developers should be made aware of this fact. • Lengthy discussion followed between staff, Planning Commission, and public. • Associate Planner Newton explained that the Building Inspector would prefer to see the section on flag lots eliminated and just have a height restriction. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 8, 1984 Page 3 • Vice President Moen questioned if these restriction were intended to apply to flag lots created by minor land partitions to protect adjoining properties and not to new subdivisions. Further discussion followed. • Mrs. Clinton stated she had a copy of the Uniform Building Code and read how building heights are determined. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION • Commissioner Leverett favored the Building Inspectors and staff's recommendation. • Commissioner Fyre commented that the problem would have been worse if the lot had not been a flag lot. He wanted to see the staff come back with a specific recommendation. • Commissioner Butler suggested contacting other jurisdictions to see what they have and have staff submit a written recommendation. • Commissioner Peterson did not support having flag lots more restrictive. He felt the issue of flag lots in a subdivision should be dealt with. • Commissioner Vanderwood concurred with Commissioner Fyre that subdivision flag lots should not be included under Building Heights and Flag Lots. • Commissioner Owens supported staff working on wording, possibly with Mary Clinton and other jurisdictions taking into consideration the Building Inspectors recommendation. • Vice President Moen was concerned with the higher height limit in the R 4.5 zoned. He felt the Code needed to be made clearer that restrictions for flag lots applied to flag lots created by minor land partitions not subdivisions. • Lengthy discussion followed. • Commissioner Fyre moved to recommend to City Council that Section 18.98.030 be titled Building Heights and Flag Lots (Flag lots in subdivisions excluded), then under section A. change "may be 2 1/2 stories" to "must be 2 stories" and change "35 feet" to "30 feet". Also, under Section 18.52.050 Section E. , change "35 feet" to "30 ft." Commissioner Leverett seconded. Motion carried by majority vote, Commissioners Moen and Butler voting no. • Consensus of the Commission was for the staff to rewrite section 18.98.030 after contacting other jurisdiction and resubmit to the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 8, 1984 Page 4 5.4 CPA 14-84 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOCUMENT AMENDMENTS. Associate Planner Newton reviewed items of concerns which needed to be addressed for LCDC Goal # 5 and Goal # 10. (items which had asterisk next to them). Discussion followed mainly on item # 7, policy 6.3.2 B. Consensus of the Commission was for alternative (b). Item # 10, consensus of Commission was for 2nd alternative. Item # 12, staff recommended maintaining. Item # 4, staff reviewed alternative which they had suggested to City Council to resolve the 10 units per acre requirement. Lengthy discussion followed. Consensus was to change wording to meet intent of Goal 10. Commissioner Butler suggested adding policy 3.1.2 to protect the wetlands. PUBLIC TESTIMONY • Mrs. Ball submitted copy of a report she had made to LCDC. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION • No action was taken. 5.5 CPA 15-84 Setbacks in the CG e .d CP Zones Associate Planner Newton explained problems which have resulted because of the setback requirements in the Commercial General and Commercial Professional Zone. Staff recommends forward a recommendation to City Council amending the Community Development Code deleting front yard and corner lot setbacks in the CP, CG and CBD zones. The Visual Clearance Areas section of the Code should be referenced where no setbacks are required. PUBLIC TESTIMONY • No one appeared to speak. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION • Vice President Moen felt there should be 10 ft. setbacks on all sides. • • Discussion followed among staff and Commissioners regarding the effect of eliminating the setback requirements and how the landscaping requirement would still have to be met as well as the visual clearance requirements. • Commissioner Vanderwood moved to forward a recommendation to City Council to amend the Community Development Code deleting front yard and corner lot setbacks except to comply with visual clearance in the C-P, C-G and CBD zones. Commissioner Leverett seconded. Motion carried by majority vote, Commissioners Moen and Butler. voting no. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 8, 1984 Page 5 5.6 CPA 16-84 Amendment Decision Process Associate Planner Newton explained why an amended decision process would be helpful and recommended adding Section 18.32.275 Amended Decision Process. The Commission did need to determine how many times someone could apply for an amended decision and whether there should be a fee. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o No one appeared to speak PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION o The consensus of the Commission was for one time and that a minimal fee to cover cost of processing would be necessary. o Discussion followed regarding other requirements. o Commissioner Peterson moved to forward staff's recommendation to City Council for approval adding under section B. "and accompanied by required fee. Under section C. add item number 6. "Any party who has commented in writing." Change section D. to read, "The amended decision shall be limited to one time. Change "D" to "E" and change "E" to "F". Commissioner Butler seconded. Motion carried unanimously by members present. 5.7 CPA 17-84 Density Transition Associate Planner Newton made staff's recommendation to amend Section 18.40.040 of the Community Development Code to allow for cases when the density exceeds what is allowed in the established area. o Discussion followed regarding changes. Commissioner Owens left 10:25 P.M. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - No one appeared to speak PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION o Commissioner Butler moved to forward the following to City Council with recommendation of approval. C. Subsection 18.40.040 (A), above shall not apply where the actual density in the established area exceeds the maximum density allowed under the Land Use Plan Map designation for the established area. The density transition still will not exceed 1.25, that of the actual abutting established area density. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 8, 1984 Page 6 • Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. 5.8 ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 11-84 EUGENE A. & EUGENE B. RIMKEIT NPO # 3 Associate Planner Newton made staff's recommendation for approval of the Zone Change with conditions and forward the annexation to City Council PUBLIC TESTIMONY No one appeared to speak. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION AND ACTION • Associate Planner Newton stated that condition number one had been completed and was no longer necessary. • Commissioner Fyre and Butler were concerned about allowing development with septic system. • Staff read letter from NPO # 3 stating they had no objections at this time. • Commissioner Peterson moved to recommend approval of the annexation and for approval of the Zone Change from RU 4 to R 4.5 subject to the approval of the annexation by City Council with the following conditions. 1. A minor land partition application shall be filed with the City and approved prior to issuance of additional building permits on the property. 2. A metes and bounds legal description for the property to the center line of SW 121st shall be submitted prior to action by the Tigard City Council on the annexation. 3. Development will not be allowed on the property until such time as sewer is available to the property or percolation tests indicates that there is adequate room for septic systems and the applicant signs a nonremonstrance for sewer. Commission Leverett seconded the motion. Motion carried by majority vote, Commissioner Butler voting no. 5.9 ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 10-84 ROBERT GOODRICH NPO # 3 Associate Planner Newton made staff's recommendation for approval of the zone change with conditions and to forward annexation request to City Council. NPO COMMENTS - Staff read NPO # 3 letter stating they had no objections at this time. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - No one appeared to speak. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 8, 1984 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION. • Staff stated that condition number one had been complied with. • Commissioner Butler moved to recommend approval of the annexation and for approval of the Zone Change from R-30 to R-2 subject to the approval of the annexation by City Council with the following conditions. 1. A dedication of right-of-way on SW Bull Mtn. Road shall be made as required by the Washington County Planning Department. The dedication shall be recorded with Washington County and a copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the City of Tigard. 2. A metes and bounds legal description for the property to the center of Bull Mtn. road must be submitted prior to City Council action on the annexation proposal. Commissioner Vanderwood seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously by members present. 6. OTHER BUSINESS • Because of the July 4th holiday it was decided to hold the Planning Commission meeting on July 10, 1984 instead of July 3rd. • Discussion on members of the Planning Commission attending a workshop sponsored by Linfield College. Interested Commissioners are to contact Director Monahan. • Discussion regarding days for Planning Commission Workshop. Proposed days were June 12, June 26, and July 24th. Consensus was for June 26th. • Elections of Officers. Donald Moen was elected President, Bonnie Owens was elected Vice President, and Diane Jelderks was elected Secretary. 7. Meeting Adjourned 11:00 P.M. Diane M. Je O s, Secretary ATTEST: A. Donald Moen, President 0453P PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 8, 1984 Page 8 -�' • PUBLIC HEARINGS NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION APPLICATIONS The Planning Commission will consider applications for NPO es 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 to make recommendation to City Council for appointment. SUBDIVISION S 6-84 W. L. & Bertina Sawyer/CECIL BOONE PARK NPO 5 Request for preliminary subidivision plat approval for a 20 lot development on a 2.37 acre parcel zoned R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) located on the northwest corner of Durham Road and 81st Avenue (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 12CC, Tax Lots 1800 and 1802). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 13-84 BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, EXCEPTIONS A request by the City of Tigard to review Section 18.98 of the Community Development Code. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 14-84 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOCUMENT AMENDMENTS A request by the City of Tigard to review various sections of Volumes I, II, and III of the comprehensive plan in response to issues raised in correspondence from Washington County, the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland, Oregon Legal Services Corporation, The Department of Environmental Quality, The Oregon State Housing Division, 1,000 Friends of Oregon and Metro. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 15-84 SETBACKS IN THE CG AND CP ZONES A request by the City of Tigard to review the required setbacks in the General Commercial (CG) and Commercial Professional (CP) zones. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 16-84 AMENDMENT DECISION PROCESS A ree%est by the City of Tigard to amend Chapter 18.32 to allow the Planning Director to amend a decision after findings have been prepared in response to issues that are raised prior to the appeal deadline. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 17-84 DENSITY TRANSITION A request by the City of Tigard for a review of the Density Transition section of the code, section 18.40.040, and conditions when application of this provision may not be required. ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 10-84 ROBERT GOODRICH NPO # 3 A request to annex .69 acres at 11885 SW Bull Mtn. Road into the City of Tigard. Also for a Zone Change from Washington County R-30 to City of Tigard R-2. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 281 1OBD lot 1100). ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 11-84 EUGENE A. AND EUGENE B. RIMKEIT NPO # 3 A request to annex 1.53 acres located at 13615 SW 121st into the City of Tigard, Also for a Zone Change from Washington County RU-4 to City of Tigard R-4.5 (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 3CB tax lot 4900). 0288P F ",.. „. 5 . 8 ..sv NOTICE; ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME and note their address on this sheet. (Please Print your name) 5 ITEM/bESCRIPTION , NAV 4ppL/e Tews 0 • __, _ . ______ PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation ---(ApfLI BRA{i) j32S° $-W. BL(KNKN/i els LNf'9r7T \/81 rAKr& 7-16/9 D . • • ___ 6--- giiisy TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN UP SHEET NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME and note their address on this sheet. (Please Print your name) . 6 6 24,6 ITEM/bESCRIP.TION: Cael I ?atom r M. hem. wig he z c ve-or- -1b Zuul 4 s /98 PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation f NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME and note their address. on this sheet. (Please Print your name) 6' 3 ITEMPEECRIPTION: 131L1 Idin6 IIQACi1+3 L n, ifi 41ons , EYee. 10,03 CPA 13 s 8 PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) Name, Address and Affiliation 1 . Name, Address and Affiliation , d-1/) I �c mil' 4,-...4_, M00 _� . . _ (///,-,-,,,, ,/,, , - 7- N X) e . . . i TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN UP SHEET NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEII NAME and note their address on this sheet. (Please Print your name) e • dalITEM/bESCRIP.TION: w ed A . ae. • 14 CS CPA lq- PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation c- •.4 '� -,Lo i 6%-5. _ .. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN UP SHEET NOTICE : ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIE NAME and note their address on this sheet. (Please Print your name) 10; ITEM/bESCRIP.TION: 4inendirnenis.. .4.5. M ;z; oc€.ss CPA ill r Skie PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation r • f I NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME and note their address. on this sheet. (Please Print your name) 7 ITEM�bESCRIPTION: ,� r twill V• ________________ aloft 17. 6, 5i 1 PROPONENT (For) • OPPONENT (against) Name, Address and Affiliation . Name, Address and Affiliation • • TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN UP SHEET 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/bESCRIPTION: 2eA /0 T 5 .5 D ° PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation 4 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: 2Jgj I' " S t/ I '1 . 1 . A. , IA PROPONENT (For) OPPONENT (against) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation r 1 , RECEIVED MAY a 1984 /41 j CITY OF TIGARD Feb 14,_ af, 6teriso,e c6,40-.14 A/1)0 1)0 v1 1/ gay /el A/po 3 . ` - =►�a`5 c,„& f � U/Q. c(/Ye ��i+GC � fly f/l J t.v�iitt� t• 66 ® s Agenda Item 5.1 May 8, 1984 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Members of the Planning Commission May 3, 1984 FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning & Development ' SUBJECT: NPO Appointments The following individuals have applied for membership on the City's NPO's: Emmett Whitaker, 13250 SW Burnham St. NPO #1 Floyd Bergman, 11600 SW 90th Ave. NPO #2 Roger Maddox, 11555 SW 88th, Apt. 48 NPO # 2 Mark Padgett, 11270 SW 95th NPO # 2 Ralph L. Flowers, 11700 SW Gaarde St. NPO #3 William Shenk, 15685 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road, #55 NPO #5 Sue Carver, 10155 SW Hoodview Drive NPO #6 Mary Clinton, 9865 SW View Ct. NPO #6 Bruce Rodgers, 10305 SW Serena Way NPO #6 Connie Smith, 8860 SW Scheckla Dr. NPO #6 These interested citizens will be considered for membership as the first item on the agenda for your meeting of May 8, 1984. Should the Commission and City Council vote favorably on the application of each applicant, the makeup of the NPO's will be as follows: TOTAL MEMBERS NPO #1 9 NPO #2 6 NPO #3 7 NPO #4 9 NPO #5 10 NPO #6 12 NPO #7 8 lam. kokyt e EJA.p. • ►04 25" *40 ePp'"\ St, v e o (WAMbr/0414P) • 49144'1 N P O A P P L I C A T I O N QUESTION: What are NPO's? ANSWER: The function of each NPO is to he involved in all phases of the Comprehensive Planning process and the implementation of those plans; to review City plans; policies, projects or other actions affecting the livability of the neighborhood, including, but not limited to, land use, zoning, housing, community, facilities, human resources, social and recreational programs, traffic and transportation, environ- mental quality, open space and parks; to participate'in the process of determining City priorities for capital improvements and development • of specific project plans; to keep the neighborhood informed; to seek neighborhood opinion on issues brought before them; to represent the views of the neighborhood in matters of extra neighborhood importance. PLEASE COMPLETE THE QUESTIONS BELOW NAMR,G i 1', :rr, 1N N ,7"1�>t"1~R '" ADDRESS isl �3tt 1e J Mr91!1. GTE e oK` 9T& 3 • TELEPHONE NUMBER (Bus.) 'SIB`/9 (Res.) lt,3 e—BS1, ' PRESENT OCCUPATION C O!YIP/,1•,t✓K PR(5 • FIRM NAME BE/47- F2/-i4KLt,J ) ED SpU1/J Gs i LCAA HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS :FIRM? 1. y/fix •IS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA? N HAVE YOU BEEN INVOLVED•WITH MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS BEFORE? N O IF YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR INVOLVEMENT: A/44 % • • • • • WHAT DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN OFFER AS A MEMBER OF AN NPO? /7- 1C i/ri foRrOA/7- I Ai- p"t CPtt (7n1 /9N Alpo 1,1,1JD1 EZSrNiJp 7"11E /JEh'DS Oi- IiJDi1'1Dtxt?L RES1prATS! 0_177 / 1A,1P BUSII1ESS. x FCMfr T0r9r- x Cr71J o1.FG2 f3 L.0T- I J KEEPI46 oue. CITY ff.lD ;eUhlr • .. Y , . t.i i ' _i s / Met a a ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: C1'7Ty @✓JD Y C/" Br P Row Q 1- • • DAYTIME TELEPHONE NUMBER 2 HL`S 75 -' • 3/t7.01n N P O A P P L I C A T I O N QUESTION: What are NPO's? ANSWER: The function of each NPO is to be involved in all phases of the Comprehensive Planning process and the implementation of those plans; to review City plans; policies, projects or other actions affecting the livability of the neighborhood, including, but not limited to land use zoning, housing, community, facilities, human resources, social and recreational programs, traffic and transportation, environ- mental quality, open space and parks; to participate-in the process of determining City priorities for capital improvements and development \\-..----L,--------).-} of specific project plans; to keep the neighborhood informed; to seek neighborhood opinion on issues brought before them; to represent the views of the neighborhood in matters of extra neighborhood importance. PLEASE COMPLETE THE QUESTIONS BELOW NAME ADDRESS I..I 0 0 S CO q 04 NA.�FLo`Ft? P�'C,Q6-rat r�" TELEPHONE NUMBER (Bus.) CJ 2 ( "iZ) V (Res.) (,,3c-- d`C 44 PRESENT OCCUPATION >A 'I - '° ' * W S. • FIRM NAME 160 ',I♦s„..w )1� ��'` I1 :+�0- -a♦ . HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM? f)-S IS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA?-0411,6 _,V _ HAVE YOU BEEN INVOLVED WITH MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS BEFORE? IF YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR INVOLVEMENT: /..721 r 1 J, 0 WHAT DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN OFFER AS A MEMBER OF A NPO? ht.jl ,„ j: , C' 0,,lfJ_ l LC, , ..i i,•,,'... ` i ° 1. a 1. . • 1_, 7 I ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Gk Yw( /w•t" �) DAYTIME 'TELEPHONE NUMBER (0'.'5,9^-?CI 3 3/12/R0 RECEIVED CITY OF TIGARD CITI'LEN COMMITTEE INTEREST APPLICATION MAY 1 1984 CITY OF TIGARD AD)REISS (RES.): /J555 5 dt1, A78 r, 19 /' —_ RI ;. PHoNI:: 622--4e) ADDRESS lus. ) 0 a,2 1,116-, /e-,41.4.d7) Pepc—r , r . FIR/NE: 02,30—17'535 LENGTH OE RESIDENCE IN TIGARD: / Y2 yr5, SUGGESTED BY: WHERE 1)10 YOU LIVE PREVIOUSLY? (L)9DSTbr C7I� EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: /9/61/ Sc)7e,e7 L- f�� S yt,:ei rS cAh:C4.l e G!r &Arr "'Repo rT1» �v►.STiTuT� OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND BACKGROUND: ii/ark fog PvhY>IP Ur t.Le tstC r AcihA i n I s rr<a T1 j e 6 l ch4 n∎S Trek rl 1 i jc r . pf•PFarE 9 4ct er-, 4 I)1/t,LVec,i ii,r'4 $Pace PL�nn�n9� P'e''senneL MarT'er$) .Trcenrive f7rvard5. e , HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM? 3 Yz YS IS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA (NPO APPLICANTS ONLY)? /t/C> PREVIOUS COMMUNITY ACTIVITY: ,.1e.=uder- 47, Rays' /3r�cia�e c&. Ch Lire-�E'.$) ..Served GLS (Scttrd. Mir r triZr ter. C171-LY \} I I71/u!-i/e'd ir/ (vtu h:7;›' /90-/e7,0 cre u p 10 3.01. /Meryl,bar 1\06'8 ORGANIZATIONS AND OFFICES: $•e e J4�,Ive' OTHER INFORMATION (GENERAL REMARKS) : ..l ceyy/ JTlyerr5?E'cj )h TAE Conr,v.:uh :ry )v1 WA c), e , • BUAkDS, COMMITTEES OR NPO INTERESTED IN: 31.ZC:9e -J?ftYkS 74:13t°CYea2T-1011 __ .p©_ Daly Rrcooivod at City Hall - Uato Intotviewed I).111• APP"illtr,II 1")aId , t:cniiin I111• , III NIP() Iii II10 CII '. ity , (114610 RECEIVED /?PR 3 9 1964 CITY OF TIGARD CITY OF TIGARD CITIZEN COMMITTEE INTEREST APPLICATION NAME: ('. J � :� C �� DATE: Li"� ADDRESS (RES. ) : /11 X2 S611:11'' `' �4 ,RES PHONE: ?`' ? e ADDRESS (BUS. ) : (pi"- ((> 4..() )1)47.4a BUS. PHONE: LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN TIGARD: ‘.2 —'r SUGGESTED BY: WHERE DID YOU LIVE PREVIOUSLY? T r G' EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: 1/ t JL /'l/' &771 /I/ [GC_(4t 4i 41,4/7(/�' e C'4 z j p u J T 6 4/ 2 o/1;2 rt r C 4 2 OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND BACKGROUND: „ie ( A'C-c /'16>-?e. ,q - a-A/ - HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM? 6/V2, IS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA (NPO APPLICANTS ONLY)? .NP PREVIOUS COMMUNITY ACTIVITY: 76<44i CJA/v(1(1/C 6 1/ 4eel .Z/� C P el I-7'=7E6(C(-/Xkesv"7-j C c141/41 (C-- CAI VA i 7c" CO , e nv'J ORGANIZATIONS AND OFFICES: - 1 4(.,j OTHER INFORMATION (GENERAL REMARKS) : ( 4M 4 .4-G-C-E Al' 7'6'C L.4-CI( fri/ A M) jt> . 1 p eG 676` g&.- � ,--'e ,?e i&,/ , `7" + `(,Ft}~ 'c 7,1,1'1,71- /4/ neq - ,{t�v l 6-(<44/7 Grp ' /t/" Ik BOARDS, COMMI'T'TEES OR NPO INTERESTED IN: 104 Date Received at City Hall Date Interviewed Date Appointed Board, Committee, or NPO Inside City _ Outside City (0346p) I \ f.: ti y t 5"k $ ' -_ } { ) +v 'r'.. ,f e fi j'- , l J b ' s.... .w. ''A 4 C ' , * ' CansOQ VRE I/I E SAPPL T - ,,4- �y, �icl to l', , D i ,F - c5.9 A� l .**" e k, E 'F ,' ," DATE: .; �4�' _ , �+'` ' / 1E Ds RES P ONE 3 / 1 p /' ° �, ' ' ' P1(0" (Bl. 4); .E PHONE Tr '' it 041,OF RR tE$OE TI BY:D �'� ��ARb �` _� ^•� ..�, SUGGESTED B ��AN" DAD= YOU LIVE PROVIOSSLY? �.,,.. .�; 1�OATIO.IAL RAO tOROU1D: M �`- ..i ,. 04,i. z- 2I, STATUS BACKGROUND: ''''':41,:, p >.' 1 + • ,i` d" ,. , '� , F' k4 NOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM? - w. �, IS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA ( PO APPLICANTS ONLY)? e2i LL PREVIOUS COMMUNITY ACTIVITY• 't' �, .` ." ""` t ,, .., ,<, / ,,, 6 , r l ' .Ga J z, 2 pax x / ` ± ►'�' f fl t, y. ,,, , t'i 1 1,14,4P'1- -,n-r t.! -%- i eg r '-' r w01-s e ..„, Lit,.. ,cf 1, 4 tl . ORGANIZATIONS A OFFICES: �s , .,4 . � 'T,,,c., . I r -"'Jf7 'to, ._ ^..er, '-,e) .,,,, „ , .erl ' ,7 >.w,,, i { , . = .rte ', -,-.Deet",-2, ,..L?-004-14-14.12:4' '',-4er....t.,01;;;,,c/: ;////---e2/ ;;7`7,/-e:),--2',',-/(--ci OTHER INFORMATION (GENERAL REMARKS): (I( R' � er”r,', � � fry-° l" ;r�"�..�G:4 '--.�• t.", e_��'� .�, i Fk' 1F Al 4 it -BOARDS, COMMITTEES OR NPO INTERESTED IN: ( `' s _ , Date Received at City Hall Date Interviewed 1. ''" Date Appointed Board, Committee, or NPO Yr Inside City Outside City 3 ,41',1;. (O$46p) s`kl'* .,. a 1 _,.„.. ., .,, - — "x wys.e g 'tl», 'r c^m,, _'x'':;.`1_t r�+fi°".' _}_`'- __...zz`;�:3u.f si.4e *s .!;,`_-. _ __ `' l 7 CITY OF TIGA RD CITIZEN COMMITTEE INTEREST APPLICATION NAME: L PL G/ /i�I . ' DATE: ,.52 4d/ ADDRESS (RES.) � " Seim/vLw3 % •' `.S"S_ Or RES. PHONE: ?bar-- ADDRESS (BUS. ) : 7/ S SGT L./r¢s�/ttf' "tied 9P9-3 BUS. PHOONE: LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN TIGARD •Y SUGGESTED BY: /1 #/oi q r i,, WHERE DID YOU LIVE PREVIOUSLY? /'2 cST_ EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: /95sae/#90' c /Y/6v -CyE.vt,e,e-- 7 - a Y ' ' 6 S4' '., fir OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND BACKGROUND: '>!/&' ✓ --1J GG-1 .�;.` e; �S /1}- C..._/ / Ter e/f/4s ),c x Z-19,1-'.6 lee" ''efe,< ,',t' ./< d G'. HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM? r 1,✓ �J} S IS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA (NPO APPLICANTS ONLY)? PREVIOUS COMMUNITY ACTIVITY: /4'0, /1-55:6,1, 90r /eS c ORGANIZATIONS AND OFFICES: /'Ie°- 4` '' tY 77 e ✓?/ ''/� L'4 re/ . . /1;4 eat-07.07/ /2'7'r'y/� ,4,PeSd'1°i x�ae i' Of 6444 6400.4^ e I` " r - c' /;'e4 sSr .1. rU A/-5',- OTHER INFORMATION (GENE'AL REMARKS): BOARDS, COMMITTEES OR NPO INTERESTED IN: / ' 4 ,0 /G/ f. Date Received at City Hall Date Interviewed Date Appointed Board, Committee, or NPO Inside City Outside City (0346p) J C v��1 �� j��Z Q N P O A P P L I C A T I O N QUESTION: What are NPO's? ANSWER: The function of each NPO is to be involved in all phases of the Comprehensive Planning process and the implementation of those plans; to review City plans; policies, projects or other actions affecting the livability of the neighborhood, including, but not limited to, land use, zoning, housing, community, facilities, human resources, social and recreational programs, traffic and transportation, environ- mental quality, open space and parks; to participate•in the process y ". of determining City priorities for capital improvements and development of specific project plans; to keep the neighborhood informed; to seek neighborhood opinion on issues brought before them; to represent the views of the neighborhood in matters of extra neighborhood importance. PLEASE COMPLETE THE QUESTIONS BELOW NA hE' . fir ' ' /0/6 3 46V _1,0114<-0 6"‹,_ q-'-a3 TELEPHONE E NUN BER Bus . C�SZ� es.) 63 b E � 7 PRESENT OCCUPATION ` f !'✓LJ� -/f FIRM NAME HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM? IS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA? HAVE YOU BEEN INVOLVED WITH MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS BEFORE? v V v IF YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR INVOLVEMENT: • WHAT DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN OFFER AS A MEMBER OF AN NPO? j� /, ii, ,e/(e.6/72,.e/X, ///q7/ ./K&( ter- ---- Gam/ C(�YYI a i ii �lis.�►. ; iii --A—! : aA_ .a./-Cad Q-toz-,/ L i 1.iri. � - C DAYTIME ■TE ,ONE •746evt.1,, ,/P° 3/1>»n N P O A P P L I C A T I O N a r_t QUESTION: What are NPO's? ✓ � ANSWER: The function of each NPO is to be involved in all phases of the Comprehensive Planning process and the implementation of those plans; to review City plans; policies, projects or other actions affecting the livability of the neighborhood, including, but no,t limited to, land use, zoning, housing, community, facilities, human resources, social and recreational programs, traffic and transportation, environ- mental quality, open space and parks; to participate'in the process of determining City priorities for capital improvements and development of specific project plans; to keep the neighborhood informed; to seek neighborhood opinion on issues brought before them; to represent the views of the neighborhood in matters of extra neighborhood importance. PLEASE COMPLETE THE QUESTIONS BELOW NA&IR *Ley, / tr ADDRESS J-2 Res.) '�9--�3r� TELEPHONE NUMBER (Bus.) ( r/s PRESENT OCCUPATION Lev✓ � - Aka FIRM NAME HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM? "ia 6'J. IS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA? 8( gay HAVE YOU BEEN INVOLVED WITH MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS EFORE? ✓` J IF YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR INVOLVEMENT: • • • • WHAT DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN OFFER AS A MEMBER OF AN NPO?,_QGlifi� `" '<`- / i' � j ...✓....+✓rte. :.ql -lkzeoltr Laz . f L O ENS • DAYTIME,TELEPHONE NUMBER -d.. Y aI1Vgn NP6L N P O A P P L I C A T I O N QUESTION: What are NPO's? ANSWER: The function of each NPO is to be involved in all phases of the Comprehensive Planning process and the implementation of those plans; to review City plans; policies, projects or other actions affecting the livability of the neighborhood, including, but not limited to land use zoning, housing, community, facilities, human resources, social and recreational programs, traffic and transportation, environ- mental quality, open space and parks; to participate'in the process of determining City priorities for capital improvements and development of specific project plans; to keep the neighborhood informed; to seek neighborhood opinion on issues brought before them; to represent the views of the neighborhood in matters of extra neighborhood importance. PLEASE COMPLETE THE QUESTIONS BELOW NAME �,. � . ADDRESS Id 30-F 72.23 TELEPHONE NUMBER (Bus.)__ l (Res. - 0-2-c PRESENT OCCUPATION FIRM NAME 1 • HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM? (C7 `o t-) /��l.l 6-1./ IS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA? N C� HAVE YOU BEEN INVOLVED WITH MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS BEFORE? ��s IF YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR INVOLVEMENT: E413'072-h nay /1"5Sa` I Z 1 G t r,c. -t > V 15 17wa . WHAT DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN OFFER AS A MEMBER OF AN NPO? iegiag s ki�r a OF rte£" A/c K /16";zy lerVo z r' o.e) ) /4—r i1 4 -4lt d ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: _— — DAYTIME TELEPHONE NUMBER F7"85 3 (6'E? ar>>tgn 4PR 0 tj 0 O 7984 elty OF CITY OF TIGARD CITIZEN COMMITTEE INTEREST APPLICATION t7n NAME: ;.it. _..LJ i7 ,/ 4� d DATE: I ` r , ADDRESS (RES..): 64 L h �_�� : ` . is RES. PHONE: ( 9- '7: 76 BUS. PHONE: ADDRESS (BUS.): `..) ,�- . 7u SUGGESTED BY: , / , , A .• v .,er LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN TIGARD: (..r r r1�, . �, WHERE DID YOU LIVE PREVIOUSLY? t j,r A, /-it //,o), ( / k e) , g,4 -� EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: jiLlof,j, 7, (4,,e>2 d r A ,�r7-y n 4,1,� ,;, (t ..4x,1f-,x,i' l7— fil..4 , , OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND BACKGROUND: v1.g w.e.2e-0 > f ,1 -' , �✓ -e�'"'' z.r-e-`ul.ed 4 �� T .,r,6 1r f1 „le (/ )ter°_/ ..7.--6-6(-, /c-A;64/0 f,.a 7„-, a-�'- - HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM? IS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA (NPO APPLICANTS ONLY)? — PREVIOUS COMMUNITY ACTIVITY: -1- ,ii . A a A d --A ORGANIZATIONS AND OFFICES: JLiJ' /� )rs /..12? 1 rL , o ,) OTHER INFORMATION (GENERAL REMARKS) : ��,..,2_, zeid,,,,'..LP ,..5,4„..) n'- ,,1,_`',_'_ G i 2! E .i��.� .Wiz,.'' . ofs _ 0C1r41G "¢ �y„, L - BOARDS, COMMITTEES OR NPO INTERESTED IN: /11 AU ,- A Date Received at City Hall Date Interviewed Date Appointed Board, Committee, or NPO Inside City Outside City (0346p) I • NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION #1 POSITION TERM EXPIRES GARETH (Gary) S. OTT - ACTING CHAIRPERSON 08/16/86 9055 S.W. Edgewood Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 620-0267 Bus: 221-1814 RALPH APPLEMAN 06/09/84 12555 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 (out) Res: 639-5976 (Prop.Owner in) Bus: 639-9744 JB BISHOP 07/25/87 10505 S.W. Barbur Blvd, Suite 303 Portland, Oregon 97219 (out) Res: 232-6599 Bus: 246-5479 or 243-9174 (Voice Pager) CAROLYN EADON 12/20/86 12645 S.W. Steven Court Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 620-8506 JOHN OTTING 03/09/85 8885 S.W. O'Mara Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 639-3686 Bus: 224-6435 HARRY OWEN 03/09/85 9765 S.W. Frewing Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 620-4619 EDWARD DUFFIELD 8895 S.W. Edgewood Tigard, OR 97223 Res: 639-4759 ROBERT WYFFELS 8895 S.W. Edgewood Tigard, OR 97223 Res: 620-1577 Bus: 627-0385 NPO MEETS: 1st Wednesday, 7:30 p.m. Tigard City Hall STAFF LIAISON: Keith Liden R-5/84 (dc:0011p). • NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION #2 POSITION TERM EXPIRES MARY A. KESKi. 09/13/86 2385 S.W. 173rd Court Aloha, Oregon 97006 (out) Res: 649-1624 Bus: 684-0239 DENNIS P. RUSSELL 01/01/87 12020 S.W. '95th Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 620-2370 Bus: 635-SAVE THOMAS R. WOODWARD 01/01/87 11970 S.W. Lincoln Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 620-1280 Bus: 643-6474 MAILING LIST: North Tigard Business Assoc. c/o P.O. Box 23385 Tigard, Oregon 97223 NPO MEETS: Inactive as of 9/1/83 R-5/84(dc:0011p)' NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION #3 POSITION TERM EXPIRES BOB BLEDSOE - CHAIRPERSON 01/21/86 11800 S.W. Walnut Tigard, Oregon 97223 (out) Res: 639-8937 Bus: 796-7126. DENNIS L. MOONIER 05/24/86 10634 S.W. Cook Lane Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 620-6680 Bus: 221-2796 LOU ANE MORTENSEN 05/24/86 11160 S.W. Fonner Tigard, Oregon 97223 (out) Res: 620-3072 Bus: 243-3520 HERMAN PORTER 05/24/86 11875 S.W. Gaarde Road Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 639-0895 Bus: 639-0545 VITTZ RAMSDELL-VICE CHAIRPERSON 05/24/86 11635 S.W. Terrace Trails Drive Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 620-2772 Bus: 240-6282 ext. 204 MICHAEL A. SMITH 12/20/86 11645 S.W. Cloud Court Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 620-3656 NPO MEETS: 1st Monday, 7:30 p.m. Fowler Jr. High French Room STAFF LIAISON: Keith Liden R-5/84(dc:O0llp) NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION #4 POSITION TERM EXPIRES LaVALLE ALLEN CHAIRPERSON 09/13/86 7540 S.W. Hermoso Way Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 639-0592 Bus: 636-8642 GERALDINE L. BALL - SECRETARY 09/13/86 11515 S.W. 91st Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 639-2900 LOU W. CHRISTEN 09/13/86 17895 S.W. Shasta Terrace Tualatin, Oregon 97062 (out) Res: 692-6360 JEAN DANLEY 09/13/86 7060 S.W. Beveland Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 639-4876 CARL JOHNSON 09/13/86 6155 S.W. Bonita Road Lake Grove, Oregon 97035 (out) Res: 639-1011 IRVING LARSON 09/13/86 11720 S.W. 68th Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 639-1497 GORDON MARTIN 09/13/86 12265 S.W. 72nd Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 620-2477 RICK McMAHON 09/13/86 13111 S.W. 61st Portland, Oregon 97219 (out) Res: 639-6225 ALAN ROTH 09/13/86 7420 S.W. Hermoso Way Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 639-5827 NPO MEETS: 1st Wednesday, 7:30 P.M. , Tigard City Hall STAFF LIAISON: Keith Liden R-5/84(dc:0019p) NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION #5 POSITION TERM EXPIRES DEBRA J. NAUBERT - CHAIRPERSON 07/21/86 14365 S.W. 80th Place Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 620-8425 Bus: 248-5015 BILL BIEKER 04/18/87 7730 S.W. Cherry Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 639-5765 Bus: 620-1620 HOWARD CORNUTT 03/08/87 11720 S.W. Lynn Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 620-2180 Bus: 641-6143 GERALD W. EDMONDS 07/25/87 520 S.W. Yamhill, Suite 610 Portland, Oregon 97204 (out) Res: 692-4634 Bus: 222-2867 CRAIG HOPKINS - VICE CHAIRMAN 07/21/86 7430 S.W. Varns Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 639-5823 Bus: 563-0440 JOHN D. LOGSDON 07/21/86 7570 S.W. Cherry Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 639-8967 Bus: 238-6321 JOHN SCHWARTZ 07/21/86 15900 S.W. 76th Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 620-5963 Bus: 682-2601 SHARON TAKAHASHI - SECRETARY 07/21/86 7610 S.W. Cherry Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 639-4061 NPO MEETS: 3rd Wednesday, 7:30 P.M. , Tigard City Hall STAFF LIAISON: Keith Liden R-5/84(dc:0011p) NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION #5 (PAGE TWO) HARRY SAPORTA 7745 S.W. Gentlewoods Tigard, OR 97223 Res: 684-1243 Bus: 238-4943 NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION #5 MAILING LIST JOHN SMETS TED NELSON CLAIR UELTSCHI 6830 S.W. Bonita Road 14280 S.W. 72nd COE MANUFACTURING Tigard, Oregon 97223 Tigard, Oregon 97223 7930 S.W. Hunziker Res: 620-1607 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Bus: 639-3121 NPO MEETS: 3rd Wednesday, 7:30 P.M. , Tigard City Hall STAFF LIAISON: Keith Liden R-5/84(dc:0011p) NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION #6 POSITION TERM EXPIRES PHILLIP A. PASTERIS - CHAIRPERSON 09/28/85 8935 S.W. Pinebrook Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 639-9740 Bus: 221-3611 DAVE ATKINSON 12/20/86 10460 S.W. Century Drive Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 639-1402 MARGE DAVENPORT 09/28/85 15100 S.W. 109th Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 639-5637 EUNICE DAY 07/21/86 15940 S.W. Oak Meadow Lane Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 620-0843 JERRY LINSCHOTEN 04/18/87 16120 S.W. Grimson Court Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 639-5067 Bus: 642-8867 JANE P. MILLER 09/28/85 10920 S.W. Highland Drive Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 620-2038 LOREN TOWER 07/21/86 10040 S.W. McDonald Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 639-2536 MUREL GILLEN 14936 S.W. 109th Tigard, OR 97223 Res: 639-4246 NPO MEETS: 3rd Thursday, 7:30 P.M. , Tigard City Hall STAFF LIAISON: Keith Liden R-5/84(dc:0011p) NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION #7 POSITION TERM EXPIRES RICHARD W. BOBERG- CHAIRPERSON 03/28/87 10660 S.W. North Dakota Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 639-2342 ELLA C. HINK 07/25/87 11333 S.W. Ironwood Loop Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 639-5911 YVONNE M. LARSON 03/87 10730 S.W. North Dakota Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 639-7828 JAMES MONROE 05/87 11330 S.W. 108th Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 620-3704 Bus: 227-2524 PEGGY OBER 09/13/86 11385 S.W. Cottonwood Lane Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 639-2372 BARBARA PRIEST 07/21/86 10710 S.W. Ponderosa Place Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 620-6438 Bus: 682-3790 NANCY ROBBINS 07/21/86 12185 S.W. Summer Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 620-4679 JOE SCHWEITZ 09/13/86 11020 S.W. Cottonwood Lane Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 639-9226 Bus: 238-4882 (See Page 2 for Attendees) NPO MEETS: 2nd Wednesday, 7:30 P.M. , Tigard City Hall STAFF LIAISON: Keith Liden R-5/84(dc:0011p) NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION #7 PAGE TWO ATTENDEES LEE CUNNINGHAM 12527 S.W. Scholls Ferry Road Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 644-2552 or 639-6940 Bus: 639-7447 JUDY GALLOWA 12190 S.W. Summer Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 639-1794 KAREN MOEN 11395 S.W. Ironwood Loop Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 639-0834 BRUCE PEARSON 11535 S.W. Hazelwood Loop Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 620-7363 WAYNE & DONNA THOMAS 10900 S.W. 115th Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 620-4649 SHARON WILLIAMS 10805 S.W. 121st Tigard, Oregon 97223 (in) Res: 620-3707 N P O A P P L I C A T I O N QUESTION: What are NPO's? ANSWER: The function of each NPO is to be involved in all phases of the plans; to review City plans; policies, projectseornothernactionsse afaec; ng review p including, but not limited affecting the livability of the neighborhood,facilities, human resources, to, land use, zoning, housing, community, social and recreational programs, traffic and transportation, environ- mental quality, open space and parks; to participate.in the process of determining City priorities for capital improvements and development of specific project plans; to keep the neighborhood informed; to seek neighborhood opinion on issues brought before them; to represent the views of the neighborhood in matters of extra neighborhood importance. PLEASE COMPLETE THE QUESTIONS BELOW NAME L(A/1 e tJ/2 ADDRESS ie im S 5W T, k S(> TELEPHONE NUMBER (Bus.) -4/ . (Res.)e O PRESENT OCCU PATION S /r ye,0 $ Y + 5e/l meA ` /geO ue 4145 FIRM NAME '177/kLS `7'fle -I'S HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM? O/-€. ye W l IS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA? \1e5 y/ HAVE YOU BEEN INVOLVED WITH MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS BEFORE? Ye-5 IF YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR INVOLVEMENT:C.,4 5e /t/i, G'f' lI - N 3 we -f'-C'.S-le"lent C.ov,ce,F-'•'7/hi Me deaelOr/rGeri7t [y C;,17/nn/2Ci# i_. ffea(et.Yie, J,15I01 to ,env O/ Degx1 Pe/ CorronleteC ' A ex fires )/ -7B, .615hap , WHAT DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN OFFER AS A MEMBER OF AN NPO? #crin:r;t-i . 1 (l.c,., €.Pa _4 ), �. e g ri ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: • DAYTIME TELEPHONE NUMBER&34- 5-4,28'11 A 3 K FvR ,A4 KIAC EtiQ , r,- :1/17./SO Agenda Item 5.2 May 8, 1984 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission May 4, 1984 FROM: Keith Liden, Associate Planner RE: Cecil Boone Park (S 6-84) On May 4, 1984, the applicant meet with Frank Currie, Terry Flink from the State Highway Division, and myself to discuss the access issues related to the development and Durham Road. It was decided that additional information is necessary before a recommended course of action may be formulated. The applicant and Planning Staff request that the hearing be tabled for an additional month and place on the June 5th hearing agenda. Agenda Item # 5.3 CPA 13-84 Tigard Planning Commission May 8, 1984 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Planning Commission April 12, 1984 FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Building Height Limitations, Exceptions Some members of the Planning Commission and NPO 46 have asked that the Building Height Limitations, Exceptions section of the Community Development Code be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. Chapter 18.98 - Building Height Limitations, Exceptions is attached for your review. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not have a recommendation on this issue. Staff suggests that the Commission review the Building Height Limitations, Exceptions section of the Code, take public testimony and make a recommendation to the City Council. Staff will be available to answer questions and address any concerns raised at the April 17, 1984 meeting. (EAN:pm/0400P) 18.98 BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, EXCEPTIONS 18.98.010 Projections Not Used for Human Habitation Projections such as chimneys, spires, domes, elevator shaft housings, towers excluding TV dish receivers, aerials, flag poles and other similar objects not used for human occupancy, are not subject to the building height limitations of this Code. 18.98.020 Building Height Exceptions A. Any building located in a non-residential zone may be built to a maximum height of 75 feet provided: 1. The total floor area of the building does not exceed one and 1 1/2 the area of the site; 2. The yard dimensions in each case are equal to at least 1/2 of the building height of the principal structure; 3. The approval of this exception is a part of the approval of the conditional use allowed under Chapter 18.130; and 4. The structure is not abutting a residential zoning district. 18.98.030 Building Heights and Flag Lots A. The maximum height for a single-family, duplex, attached or multiple family residential structure on a flag lot or a lot having sole access from an accessway, private drive or easement shall be 1 1/2. stories or 25 feet, whichever is less, except that the maximum height may be 2 1/2 stories or 35 feet, whichever is less, provided: 1. The proposed dwelling otherwise complies with the applicable dimensional requirements of the zoning district; 2. A residential structure on any abutting lot either is located 50 feet or more from the nearest point of the subject dwelling, or the residential structure exceeds height stories or 25 feet in hei on an II 1 1/2 g y abutting lot; and 3. Windows 15 feet or more above grade shall not face dwelling unit windows or patios on any abutting lot unless the proposal includes an agreement to plant trees capable of mitigating direct views without loss of solar access to any dwelling unit, or that such trees exist and will be preserved. B. Where an agreement is made to plant trees capable of mitigating direct views, the agreement shall be deemed a condition of approval under the provisions of Section, 18.32.250 (F). III - 158 C. The tree planting agreement shall be a condition of (SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) for 3 or more attached units or a multiple family residential structure, or for single detached units; 1 duplex or 2 attached residential units, at the issuance of building permits. r' III - 159 r /4„fr,, CITY OF TIGARD WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development 42 DATE: March 23, 1984 SUBJECT: Building Heights Recently the City Council received much testimony from citizens adjacent to the McDonald Acres subdivision concerning the height of a two story dwelling now under construction. The particular issue dealt with the interpretation of section 18.98.030 of the Community Development Code which relates to flag lots. Under the code, a house on a flag lot is restricted to 1 1/2 stories or 25 feet in height unless the building qualifies for an exception allowed by the Code. The purpose is to preserve privacy as necessitated by the often odd p.lac ement__o.f a._home_nn-_a__flag_lat. During the discussions before the City Council, NPO #6 raised the following issues 1) That height limitations on flag lots should be discussed and possibly be made more restrictive and 2) That building height information for an entire subdivision should come under close scrutiny. You may wish to evaluate the flag lot height limitation issue as well as the • overall height limits in the community. Presently the height limit for re& Jential dwellings is as follows: R.1 30 R.2 30 R.3.5 30 R.4.5 30 R.7 35 R.12 35 R.20 45 R.40 60 Single family development is taking place in all zones up to R.12 at this time. The standard home in the community ranges from 1 to 1 1/2 to 2 stories, less than 30 feet. The house which was in question before the City Council is a two story house. The provisions of 18.98.030 allow up to 2 1/2 stories or 35 feet on a flag lot if steps are taken to mitigate the impact on the neighborhood. You may wish to look at this section of the code to determine if it should be revised. A copy is attached. 12755 SAM ASH P.O. BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171 The Council felt that the issue of building heights should be studied. I have stated that I do not believe that we should limit all single family homes to less than two stories as this would limit the size of future homes, particulary in those areas with smaller lot sizes. We may, however, want to revise the flag lot section of the code so that it does not allow a building to exceed the height of other units in the area. If the Planning Commission would like to discuss this issue, I would suggest that we set aside some time at the April 17, meeting. Please let us know in advance if you would like to discuss a possible change in our building height restrictions. 12 March 1984 TO: TIGARD CITY COUNCIL FROM: NPO #6 SUBJECT: Allowable Building Heights on Flag Lots Mary Clinton's Review of Construction - 14185 SW 98th Ct. NPO #6 convened a special meeting on 7 March to discuss this issue with Mrs. Clinton. A city staff report dealing with this subject was made available to the NPO by Mr. Bill Monahan, Director of Planning and Development. The NPO reviewed the staff report with Mrs. Clinton and several other interested guests. A. NPO Analysis of Mr. Monahan' s Report We agreed that the house under construction complies with the first two exceptions provided for by the Community Development Code. 1. dimensional requirements of the zoning district _2. ___a_res.idential_structure. on_ any ahutt?,ng_lot_ether is _.._.------_ located 50 feet or more from the nearest point of the subject dwelling, or the residential structure exceeds 11/2 stories or 25 feet in height on any abutting lot; However, we disagree with Mr. Monahan' s interpretation of condition #3, "windows 15 feet or more above grade shall not face dwelling unit windows or patios on any abutting lot unless the proposal in- cludes an agreement to plant trees capable of mitigating direct v..<=ws without loss of solar access to any dwelling unit, or that such trees exist and will be preserved. " The 'following facts support the NPO's position: 1. Photographs provided to the NPO by Mrs. Clinton clearly show that, even though these are windows intended to act as a passive solar system, a clear and unobstructed view of Mrs. Clinton's backyard and patio exists. 2.. According to the current Development Code mitigation of what the NPO feels is a violation of condition #3 requires planting of trees which would not block solar access to the dwelling unit. The NPO feels the planting of trees is in conflict with solar access provision of the code. ,Tigard City Council - NPO #6 page two The house is situated on the north slope of a substantial • hill. Solar access during the prime winter heating season will be minimal at best without trees planted to mitigate the view of Mrs. Clinton' s property. Therefore, we feel the solar access argument for the two- story windows in this situation is a moot point. A structural change in the house design should be investi- gated. B. Other Specific Concerns, 1. Mrs. Clinton related experiences with city procedures for inspection and enforcement of the Development Code. Some of these dealt with: a. Measurement of building height on a terraced property b. Determination of final height before construction of the dwelling in question is completed. The NPO feels specific procedural matters such as this should be addressed and solved or they will surely come up again. C. Summary In a broader sense the NPO feels that an examination of building height limitations may be in order. Current R-7 zoning provides that no building shall exceed 35 feet in height. In the situation under discussion tonight, a dwelling 35 feet in height could be built directly to the north or east of the dwelling currently under construction, thus blocking any view the current owners sought to gain with their current house design (see attached map) . The NPO suggests that the height limitations dealing with flag lots be made more restrictive. The NPO also suggests that building height information for an entire subdivision come under clohie scrutiny during the established city process so that height related "one-up- manship" is minimized in order to keep the livability we have worked so hard the last 2 years to preserve. <0,5c 0.4-tri A As..#.... ....................V' �a3e .W Av- DONALD Geo. It1GhN tiP s ON DA-G• ____ •t%• ��' _41,951 25 - N.°rs,2.,,-;„1, •4.7 0 � V. . e o.ao 157. , ' v N ,N O . ,d .0 7514-6) C U Rol F DADA NOT IN o r 'o3 PLAT • _ zi , 4 .e-t{•z1•'t:. D��TZ X31^ s 28.93 1 ' �(►. p�•ZO . 4.92 ' . GH• G'!>7 t CO • to. o A: 2 3o 09 • , 1.'0:10_9 loo,a :,Q` .- R 7• •qe _. Gam• , IN T .tM . N•Be,4y* 75p4 4 R•70' , L�•71 3't GHs ,. `Ll1-.1.0 5CO3- . b i0 L. ,4, J A e0'•K-Z7 C Y R-�/, A-56'54 28 O N-157 LI2o,-,�W - •' 7'500 N M ' t7. -tom.,, '� �.�= • 'q�" Ct-t 57 2�, r°mss' `_tN$9'rlO W ty,g01, ' - 504-11 R- '° �/'93. 3 � c to 2• Z 6.65.4c',z7 ..• _I. to A.g7.42 19" Gh. :3'L..31 i. t` 4. 3- Ze.c !�' , 8284 �„�y 16. t- N .c g 2.31 5 39 �° V cc- ♦ n ,-1�,3040 a- 0 u ; p: 37',4z i°". Gtr 3 5•so-s4...eu .It : n +, '� - �I I. �_"_-----p•67<t�' 1 �N `j5. ,� 3 'se.t '_ • r►i- S e?-'yo v� ' R=50 l.A�' 1G' CH. = 7.55•a� N,ba•w. u• n5. 12G.•)a' I• R=20 c.•2 1 o 4`./'t� ..: 7g 59' °, , 90 .41' _ LO"I"�_ , ' 3 CN%7�, gs, N \titin,` 24 ••� • 7 •i�-�: w ;Q '7501 m - ;��•�5 Q. a'7G�39" Gri ';y7•'11 17. • 7531 r ' " • I.1.89's�'�'E' 6 0 'vJ O N�99-'�'4`� ° �'OT s C.�'S7�"39 Gti.•21.3>=+ �0*, t to8. ,i, ` lot p R= 5p p• G5 44 1,0 �. w.t.1a' Z Z n9o9 ■ >s. Lo-l' S. . l t .�.Sa t 17497 aV �0�N.0*. :1;�. d• 7g O•D C 19"7°/ Q T• h` fl.b�alii a 13. �1---10 °O G��. CAI 3.' 4 .UMEI`tT� N• 6,o.0 •' GT, ISO : 18,09 q1 -o R' D• 27 Pr.5--T/�• .o _ _ a- .F2tOD �� .00,004_ ; 7 e 154,..L., �: 11. `41 l2• _• F.= .-1.; °O O" GN i 1� y� v 1•6,5 = ° 95.66' -, -t> `��75'D9�s ;A '`pVll.t.-'� S∎ o tp0. • 1 4 o Z 5 �_ ,p A =4Z° a3�1f3' GH'` 'r'4 d . . tI 19 `�[o t,o>1.I it ° 6e,•„off Lp-l- 14. - - t�.(.9 / +I 1' -\23.46--. • . '�q Ct t. iiip‘ . . I . :1.5 I 4.11.4.41c.:.-1.1.-ip.'V. -I. a•42. • T = 27. 08 v- z7- A.Y441o' U.5.30 hi= �.. • p��t Imo° X7.5 435 12'1 'Ll9 FCC 225 d f'43 3 - tG1 ICN� Vrater �T A I-0-1-- l7• f R pp, �.1titEST or Pftt� �' W1�PcRt: � ` •gc-o7 ,-a0 :.n• • 28.3 . S' \Moe:. = l�-.f I.I N.E S c� �• 'Lei• 5' 1 t., NE RON'�' P �sA t 0 1Jm GN t'de 1, . 7�.7 G A • T C- �M�I�IT � /Am r--17- _rip ', L., 1.35.55', A t✓t t g- Iv rr l G ,G FOR TNT ►t�15Tf�1-L.h��NL IT D Gt uP- . 2i9 37'x3" uAt-c'!1 ��E� 1 N P,G,E. GAS : /� �T��1� ."? - i�R DF�°" , O. Gol -dc -6o.L �Ad. io7. IG' L.i.MIT>:1� �I S . t✓c-�Pttor-tc Ul CITY of S,v\I. LiF�1` E-:t---1 GT•. '{71G ATED T!' Z ti c-- o F 96Th May 7, 1984 Tigard Planning Commission : c/o Tigard City Hall Tigard, Oregon Ladies & Gentlemen: Please accept my apologies being absent this evening; I seem to have conflicting demands on. my time right now. I have reviewed the Planning Commission packet for May 8, 1984 and wish to offer the following comments: Item 5.3 Building Height Limitations I` am intimately acquainted with the specific issue leading to this discussion. I concur that the current language in 18.98.030 is difficult to understand and explain andagree that some clarification is needed. I can support NPO # 6's recommended language if two clarifi- cations are added. They are : a) We need to define how we measure the height of homes on adjoining lots, and b) We still need to address the window height issue as de- scribed under 18.98.030 A.3 . Item 5.5 - Setbacks I understand and concur with Staff that the sideyard setbacks should not be more restrictive than the front yard setback requirements. I am not persuaded, however, that we should eliminate front yard setbacks. I would encourage the Commission to retain the 10 feet front yard setback, change the side yard setback requirements (on corner lots) to 10 feet and to con- tinue the (visual clearance) requirements. Thank you. Sincerely, Phil Edin 13110 S,.W:. Ash Drive Tigard, OR. 97223 I _ � TO MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CC: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, NPO#6 FROM: MARY CLINTON DATE: MAY 8, 1984 SUBJECT: BUILDING HEIGHTS AND FLAG LOT RECOMMENDATIONS Flag lots should only be used in developing areas that do not have a direct access to any street in order to use valuable property not close enough to be directly adjacent to the street. If flag lots are put into developments they should be used in no smaller than R-10 lots. 1f the Planning Commission allows flag lot designations on smaller lots, the more restrictive should be the Code. The NPO 6 memo to the Planning Commission addresses the height portion of 18. 98.030. Other restrictions under 18.98. 030 should remain to provide restrictions to "preserve the privacy as necessitated by the often odd placement of a home on a flag lot, " (from Mr. Monahan 's memo to the Planning Commission dated March 23, 1984) especially on a flag lot R 4. 5 or less. Recommend Proposal to read: 18. 98. 030 Building Heights and Flag Lots 1 . The maximum height for a single-family duplex , attached or multiple family residential structure on a flag lot or a lot having sole access from an accessory private drive or easement shall be no higher than the lowest established structure on any abutting lot or higher than 30 feet, whichever is less. 2. The proposed dwelling on a flag lot shall comply with the applicable dimensional requirements of the zoning district and shall meet setback requirements stated in 18.96. 080 and 18. 96. 090. 3. A new residential structure shall be located no closer than 50 feet from an established residential structure. 4. Windows 15 feet or more above grade shall not face dwelling unit windows or patios on any abutting lot unless the proposal includes an agreement to plant trees capable of mitigating direct views, (the agreement shall be deemed a condition of approval under the provisions of Section 18° 32.250 - F) or that such trees exist and will be preserved, U' & ' 1 The purpose of this Code change is not to Make the code less restrictive or easier to administer but needs to be as restrictive as it now is and used as law when issuing building permits for flag lots. The problem is not in the code restrictions, rather in the application and enforcement of this Code. I propose the wording to be changed but not the intent no the restrictions of this Code. After extensive research into this Code on Building Heights and Flag Lots this Code has proper restrictions to preserve the intent of the Code, however the enforcement of this Code has been blamed on the Code itself. Hopefully these suggestions will be of help in rewriting but not eliminating sections of this Code. This is an optional proposal for #2. above to include the restrictions in 18.96. 080 Lot area for Flag Lots and 16.96.090 Front yard Determination for a flag lot. 2. The proposed dwelling on a flag lot shall comply with the applicable dimensional requirements of the zoning district and shall ; a. The lot area for a flag lot shall comply with the lot area requirements of the applicable zoning district. b. The lot area shall be provided entirely within the building site area eaxclusive of any accessway. c. The owner or developer of a +lag lot may determine the location of the front yard, provided no side yard setback areas is less than 10 feet. (i ® / .rte jbigyic �00 v / CPA 14 -84 AGENDA ITEM # 5.4 tif\r- Ma y 8, 1984 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff % 6t ' r SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Document Amendments On March 20, 1984, the Planning Staff mailed to each one of the Planning Commissioners a packet of letters from various reviewing agencies commenting on the City's Comprehensive Plan. On April 5, 1984, Bill Monahan, Liz Newton and Adrianne Brockman met with the LCDC Staff to review their staff report on Tigard's request for acknowledgement. The issues raised by the various reviewing agencies were all considered by LCDC Staff in preparation of the staff report. Some of the objections raised by reviewing agencies were substantiated by LCDC Staff, some were not. On April 26th, Bill Monahan, Liz Newton and Tim Ramis went to the LCDC acknowledgement hearing in Salem. The Commission adopted the LCDC Staff recommendation to continue acknowledgement of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan to July 1, 1984. The City's Planning Staff has prepared a 5 page response sheet which addresses each order to comply by goal. Please pay particular attention to the items marked with an asterisk (*) on pages 2, 3 & 4. Background material for the items marked with * is attached and marked with the Goal and Item # to correspond with the response sheet. Staff would like the Commission to . address the Goal #5 concerns at the Mai 8th hearing, The Goal #10 issues will be discussed at the May 14, 1984 City Council Meeting for policy direction and then will be brought before the Planning Commission on June 5, 1984. Also attached to this memo is a list of streets organized by classification. These streets and corresponding classifications were inadvertently omitted from page 1-226 of the Resource Document. Staff would like the Planning Commission to forward a recommendation to the City Council incorporating these streets and classifications into the Resource Document on page 1-226 to conform to the City's adopted Transportation Map. C STAFF RECOMMENDATIONt ` Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward recommendations to the City Council on the others to comply issues yet to be resolved to City Council. In addition, staff recommends that the Planning Commission also forward a recommendation to the City Council incorporating the list of streets and classifications into the Resource Document. Agenda Item # 5.5 CPA 15-84 Tigard Planning Commission May 8, 1984 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Planning Commission April 12, 1984 FROM: Planning Staff et SUBJECT: Setbacks in the C-G and C-P zones During the process of implementing and administering the Community Development Code, it has come to staff's attention that the front yard and corner lot setbacks in the C-G and C-P zones are inconsistent and limit flexibility of development. The setbacks in the C-G zone currently are: 1. The front yard setback shall be 10 feet. 2. On corner lots and through lots, the setback shall be 20 feet on any side facing a street, however, the provisions of Chapter 18.102 (VISUAL CLEARANCE) must be satisfied. 3. No side yard setback shall be required, except 20 feet shall be required where the C-G zone abuts a residential zoning district. 4. No rear yard setback shall be required, except 20 feet shall be required where the C-G zone abuts a residential zoning district. The setbacks in the C-P zone currently are: 1. The front yard setback shall be 10 feet. 2. On corner lots and through lots, the setback shall be 15 feet on any street facing a street, however, the provisions of Chapter 18.102 (VISUAL CLEARANCE) must be satisfied. 3. No side yard setback shall be required except 20 feet shall be required where the C-P zone abuts a residential zoning district. 4. No rear yard setback shall be required except 20 feet shall be required where the C-P zone abuts a residential zoning district. CPA 15-84 Memo April 12, 194 Page 2 In both cases, the setback requirement on the side abutting a street or corner lot is greater than the front yard setback. In addition, the developer is also required to meet Access and Egress Provisions (Chapter 18.108), Landscaping and Screening Provisions (Chapter 18.100), Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements (Chapter 18.106), and Additional Yard Setback Requirements (Chapter 18.96) . It is staff's opinion that these provisions provide the controls on developers which will ensure quality development. The setbacks are an additional requirement which limit design flexibility and essentially force all commercial development into the same site configuration. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council amending the Community Development Code deleting front yard and corner lot setbacks in the C-P, C-G and CBD zones. The Visual Clearance Areas section of the Code should be referenced where no setbacks are required. (EAN:pm/0400P) Agenda Item # 5.6 CPA 16-84 Tigard Planning Commission May 8, 1984 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission/� FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Amended Decision Process During the process of implementing and administering the Community Development Code, the Planning Staff has determined that an amended decision process might be helpful. The amended decision process would be available only on decisions made by the Planning Director. Any amended decision would have to be filed by the Planning Director within the ten day appeal period. Staff recommends that a new section be added into the Quasi judicial section of the Code (Chapter 18.32) outlining the amended decision procedure. 18.32.275 Amended Decision Process A. The Planning Director may issue an Amended Decision after the Notice of Final Decision has been issued and prior to the end of the 10 day appeal period. B. A request for an amended decision shall be in writing and filed with the Director not more than eight (8) days after the Notice of Final Decision has been filed. y & Prt ar .9 C. A request for an amended Decision may be filed by 1. The NPO affected by the initial Decision (1a� 2. The City Council ` 3. The Planning Commission t 4. An employee of the City's Planning Staff -5.e 1, t W 5. Any party entitled to Notice of the original decision. l P' d�1JK/w"�"" -5t..aat CAR Itwutrid tD1s04. -tLr , y..,0 The Director shall make the determination as to issuance of an Amended Decision based on findings that one or more of the following conditions exist: 1. An error or omission was made on the original Notice of Final Decision. 2. The original decision was based on incorrect information. 3. New information becomes available during the appeal period which alters the facts or conditions in the original decision. tAn amended decision shall be processed in accordance with section 18.32.120 of this code. (0402P) Agenda Item # 5.7 CPA 17-84 Tigard Planning Commission May 8, 1984 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff 444e1 SUBJECT: Density Transition Section 18.40.040 of the Community Development Code setforth a formula for calculating a density transition where a property being developed abuts an established residential zone. There has been one instance where the density in the established area exceeded the density allowed in the established area plan designation and the developing property with the 1.25 density transition, could have developed at a lower density than the abutting established area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: . Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation 44/%141 ,, amending Section 18.40.040 as follows: ;4414". C. Subsection 18.40.040(A), above shall not apply where the density in the established area exceeds the maximum density allowed under the Land Use Plan Map designation for the established area. (0402P) U Agenda Item # 5.7 CPA 17-84 Tigard Planning Commission May 8, 1984 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff 4A SUBJECT: Density Transition Section 18.40.040 of the Community Development Code setforth a formula for calculating a density transition where a property being developed abuts an established residential zone. There has been one instance where the density in the established area exceeded the density allowed in the established area plan designation and the developing property with the 1.25 density transition, could have developed at a lower density than the abutting established area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation amending Section 1840.040 as follows : �C1 C. Sub n 18. 0.040(A), above shall not apply where the(\density in the stablished area exceeds the maximum density allowed under the Land Use Plan Map designation for the established area u�(4 E(. p 'J y ��//``�M q� ° Cj s°1 nv�a,r "'' !°+T✓'`"44. - .�,.� Fl`°.c ❑ `ms's ll °° " (0402P) rJ Y1 *y awT'' I Y,MNv v.._.. yyv;1ll���r��\1 Y ...-]4'.. y p� .�wsi'+ 4'A k , �, •+A" e' „w=r S � a�q'�11 s" .sT ,t P I:.�ixv it?"' k' (''''1%..- .6 e„.„..,.., sr,4, . 1 I STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5.8 May 8, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - LGI 10865 S.W. WALNUT TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FINDING OF FACT 1. General Information CASE: Zone Change and Annexation ZCA 10-84 Robert Goodrich NPO # 3. REQUEST: For consideration and recommendation to the City Council on annexation of .69 acres into the City of Tigard and a Zone Change on the property from Wash. Co. R-30 to City of Tigard R-2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential. ZONING DESIGNATION: Washington County R-30. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the zone change and the annexation request. APPLICANT: Robert Goodrich OWNER: Same 11885 SW Bull Mtn. Road Tigard, Oregon 97223 LOCATION: 11885 SW Bull Mtn. Rd. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 10BD tax lot 1100. ) LOT AREA: .69 acres. NPO COMMENT: No written comments had been received from NPO # 3 at the writing of this report. . 2. Background No previous land use actions have been taken by the City on the parcel. 3. Vicinity Information The property involved in this request is bordered on two sides by the Shadow Hills subdivision development. Across SW Bull Mtn. Road are large residential home sites. STAFF REPORT - ZCA 10-84 - PAGE 1 1 4. Site Information There is a single family residence on the property the applicant lives in the home. The septic system serving the residence has failed and the applicant requested permission from the City to connect to he City's sewer system. Policy 10.2 of the City's Comprehensive Plan prohibits the extension of City sewer outside the City limits except in certain cases as outlined in the analysis sis and conclusion section of this staff report. y 5. Agency Comments No agency comments objecting to the proposal have been received. The conditions recommended by commenting agencies have been incorporated into the staff report. B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION Mr. Goodrich has requested annexation into the City to obtain sewer service. The drainfield for Mr. Goodrich's septic system has become plugged by the roots from large trees on the property. The Unified Sewerage Agency has a policy that if a septic system or drainfield fails and the property is within "a reasonable distance" of sewer to connect, the septic system should not be repaired but the property should be connected to sewer. Unified Sewerage. Agency does allow for exceptions to that policy only if the City agrees to allow the exception. The City has adopted policies relative to annexation and extension of City services outside the City limits. The following policies apply to this annexation request: 10.1.1 PRIOR TO ANNEXATION OF LAND TO THE CITY OF TIGARD: a. THE CITY SHALL REVIEW EACH OF THE FOLLOWING SERVICES AS TO ADEQUATE CAPACITY, OR SUCH SERVICES TO BE MADE AVAILABLE, TO SERVE THE PARCEL IF DEVELOPED TO THE MOST INTENSE USE ALLOWED*, AND WILL NOT SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE LEVEL OF SERVICES AVAILABLE TO DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF TIGARD. THE SERVICES ARE: 1. WATER; 2. SEWER; 3. DRAINAGE; 4. STREETS; 5. POLICE; AND 6. FIRE PROTECTION STAFF REPORT - ZCA 10-84 - PAGE 2 *Most intense use allowed by the conditions of approval, the zone or the Comprehensive Plan. 10.1.2 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ANNEXATIONS OF LAND BY THE CITY SHALL BE BASED ON FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE FOLLOWING: a. THE ANNEXATION ELIMINATES AN EXISTING "POCKET" OR "ISLAND" OF UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY; OR b. THE ANNEXATION WILL NOT CREATE AN IRREGULAR BOUNDARY THAT MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR THE POLICE IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PARCEL IS WITHIN OR OUTSIDE THE CITY; c. THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS COMMENTED UPON THE ANNEXATION; d. THE LAND IS LOCATED WITHIN THE TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA AND IS CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY BOUNDARY. e. THE ANNEXATION CAN BE ACCOMMODATED BY THE SERVICES LISTED IN 10.1.1(a). 10.2.1 THE CITY SHALL NOT APPROVE THE EXTENSION OF CITY OR UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY (USA) LINES EXCEPT: a. WHERE APPLICATIONS FOR ANNEXATION FOR THOSE PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE CITY; OR b. WHERE A NONREMONSTRANCE AGREEMENT TO ANNEX THOSE PROPERTIES HAS BEEN SIGNED AND RECORDED WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY AND SUBMITTED TO THE CITY; OR c. WHERE THE APPLICABLE STATE OR COUNTY HEALTH AGENCY HAS DECLARED THAT THERE IS A POTENTIAL OR IMMINENT HEALTH HAZARD. 10.2.2 IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF POLICY 10.2.1, the EXTENSION OF SEWER LINES OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS SHALL NOT REDUCE THE CAPACITY BELOW THE REQUIRED LEVEL FOR AREA WITHIN THE CITY. The property is presently served by the Tigard Water District. Drainage is adequate for the site. The Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District already serves the property. The City of Tigard Police Department should not be adversely affected by the annexation of the property since there is only one home on the site and there are no plans to develop the site further. Bull Mtn. Road is within Washington County's jurisdiction and plans are for Bull Mtn. Road to remain under the jurisdiction of Washington County. Bull Mtn. Road is designated as a major collector on the County's Transportation plan. The standard right-of-way width for major collectors required by Washington County is 70 feet, 35 feet from center line. The Shadow Park subdivision immediately to the east of the subject property dedicated 15 feet of right-of-way on SW Bull Mtn. Road. Kevin Martin of the Washington County STAFF REPORT .. ZCA 10-84 - PAGE 3 Planning Staff indicated in a telephone conversation on May 2, 1984, that the County would request dedication of an additional 15 feet of right-of-way as a condition of approval for this annexation and zone change request. The zone change request is in conformance with the adopted City's Comprehensive Plan. i C. RECOMMENDATION j The planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the annexation request to the Tigard City Council and approve the zone change subject to ' annexation of the property with the following conditions: 1. The annexation proposal shall be reviewed and approved by the Tigard Police Department. 2. A dedication of right-of-way on SW Bull Mtn. Road shall be made as required by the Washington County Planning Department. The dedication shall be recorded with Washington County and a copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the City of Tigard. 3. A metes and bounds legal description for the property to the center of Bull Mtn. road must be submitted prior to City Council action on the annexation ro osal. p P £1 Qb P REPAR BY: Elizath . Newton APPROVED BY: William A. Monahan Associate Planner Director of Planning & Development (0428Pdmj) STAFF REPORT 2CA 10-84 - PAGE 4 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5.9 May 8, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - LGI 10865 S.W. WALNUT TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FINDING OF FACT 1. General Information CASE: Zone Change and Annexation ZCA 11-84 Eugene Rimkeit NPO # 3 REQUEST: For consideration and recommendation to the City Council on annexation of 1.53 acres into the City of Tigard and a Zone Change on the property from Wash. Co. RU 4 to City of Tigard R 4.5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: Washington County RU 4. APPLICANT: Eugene B. Rimkeit OWNER: Same 13615 SW 121st Tigard, Oregon 97223 LOCATION: 13615 SW 121st (Wash. Co. Tax Map 251 3CB lot 4900) LOT AREA: 1.53 acres. NPO COMMENT: No written comments had been received from NPO # 3 at the writing of this report. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the zone change and annexation request. 2. Background No previous land use actions have been taken by the City on this parcel. STAFF REPORT - ZCA 11-84 - PAGE 1 l 3. Vicinity Information The property involved in this request is surrounded by land designated for low density residential development on the Comprehensive Plan Map. The land to the north and west is undeveloped. There are single family residences to the south and east. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description There is one single family residence on the property. The applicant lives in the home and has requested annexation to the city in order to partition the 1.53 acres into three 1/2 acre lots. The applicant is proposing to leave the remaining house and sell 1/2 acre lots to the north and south of the property. Sewer is at least 800 feet from the property. The applicant has indicated that percolation tests have been done on the property to ensure that septic systems can be installed for the three lots. No evidence has been submitted to the city planning staff which indicates the results of the percolation tests. Policy 10.1.1 of the City's Comprehensive Plan required that services be available prior to development of newly annexed parcels of land. 5. Agency Comments No agency comments objecting to the proposal have been received. The conditions recommended by commenting agencies have been incorporated into the staff report. B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION Mr. Rimkeit is requesting annexation into the city to partition the 1.53 acres into 1/2 acre lots. The partition may be approved upon the filing of an application request for a minor land partition. Development will not be allowed on the property until such time as sewer is available to the property or percolation tests indicate that there is adequate room for septic systems and the applicant signs a nonremonstrance for sewer. The City has adopted policies relative to annexation and extension of City services outside the City limits. The following policies apply to this annexation request: 10.1.1 PRIOR TO ANNEXATION OF LAND TO THE CITY OF TIGARD: a. THE CITY SHALL REVIEW EACH OF THE FOLLOWING SERVICES AS TO ADEQUATE CAPACITY, OR SUCH SERVICES TO BE MADE AVAILABLE, TO SERVE THE PARCEL IF DEVELOPED TO THE MOST INTENSE USE ALLOWED*, AND WILL NOT SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE LEVEL OF SERVICES AVAILABLE TO DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF TIGARD. THE SERVICES ARE: STAFF REPORT - ZCA 11-84 - PAGE 2 1. WATER; 2. SEWER; 3. DRAINAGE; 4. STREETS; 5. POLICE; AND 6. FIRE PROTECTION 10.1.2 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ANNEXATIONS OF LAND BY THE CITY SHALL BE BASED ON FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE FOLLOWING: a. THE ANNEXATION ELIMINATES AN EXISTING "POCKET" OR "ISLAND" OF UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY; OR b. THE ANNEXATION WILL NOT CREATE AN IRREGULAR BOUNDARY THAT MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR THE POLICE IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PARCEL IS WITHIN OR OUTSIDE THE CITY; c. THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS COMMENTED UPON THE ANNEXATION; d. THE LAND IS LOCATED WITHIN THE TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA AND IS CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY BOUNDARY. e. THE ANNEXATION CAN BE ACCOMMODATED BY THE SERVICES LISTED IN 10.1.1(a) . The property is presently served by the Tigard Water District. Sewage disposal for the existing home will have to be considered as part of the minor land partition application. Sewage disposal for development on any new created lots will be addressed prior to issuance of Building Permits for those lots. There are no drainage problems associated with the property at the present time. The City of Tigard Transportation Plan designates SW 121st as a major collector. The standard right-of-way width for major collectors is 60 feet. Currently SW 121st has a 40 foot right-of-way. A condition of approval for the minor land partition will be the dedication of 10 feet along SW 121st for right-of-way purposes. The City of Tigard Police Department would not be adversely affected by the annexation of one single family residence. The Tualatin Fire Protection District already serves the property. STAFF REPORT - ZCA 11-84 - PAGE 3 C. RECOMMENDATION The planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the annexation request to the Tigard City Council and approve the zone change subject to annexation of the property with the following conditions: 1. The annexation proposal shall be reviewed and approved by the Tigard Police Department prior to action by City Council. 2. A minor land partition application shall be filed with the City and approved prior to issuance of additional building permits on the property. 3. A metes and bounds legal description for the property to the center line of SW 121st shall be submitted prior to action by the Tigard City Council on the annexation. g , PREPARED BY:/ lizabeth Newton APPROVED BY: William A. Monahan Associate Planner Director of Planning & Development (0429Pdmj)) STAFF REPORT - ZCA 11-84 - PAGE 4 .::" __1_ 1. 1 ; i ..('-- -1 3 1 ® K RE ST CC, ,. EE' J r ( ;;�... m 11 -1 64 ,. '. F' w aLNU T 1 J at 0 . 4,.,,sq 1 1 a ., .- .- ; 1 , 1 VIP In PI _ —1- O 'i i 0 �s 11 1 1 / .J.. _1_I.. f C R N ST -- I - ,. -All I r T l 1 _ , 1 it \ \1/®� � I. 1 ...� , j3W1 j AUSEpT.1 1ST EE �10NNR�, I. . i 1 .t,^ i .. \ STREET 1 ; ; / 1SW Y _� JAyl f,� 15 Tl EET W t<S..I /I\.t_3 cc • e r `GCE ` F. L W O.pl'. "'. `\ 1 6. S \ �W A�'.1 MAP ION ST- ' i .,.`I / o m 11 f I I. I 1 ' l -#4p4;' 4 r\ - ' ./ f n„ , - ..-- lie”) Alp _ 41k 4*. S' 40_ . it • . itt, -i- ., alio 14-,,r) -> n , � 1' w/Bi pA' MEI FAIR!! VL '-.... a . _. Mill ;__ . MINI . FA 4 ' ViE MOU T T S- �� s , 'r --j-- n i %,.~'F _ . � .. 1I / `\ I j : ter—i--1 ■. , - '.. j� C t`m J ri-i • IL MO NTTN •__ it o I 1 lc 4 3 w _� I. l I �enaxoe I l _ _ j STREET 1 r 9 10 I L___ J _.� IA!. • 1) ___ � _ _ , I t , \ n I CL UO T /\ - _ __.. �n _ � SW ..McFPR4 O BL .. � o_.. Illiorstit _ f J S\ Y:JUS C 1 -�' SW ,,, .- _L._ --^ - m ( I 1 I l • SE I/4 NW I/4 SECTION 10 T2S R I W W.M. 2S 1 10BD s WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON SS W ,.,.•.ri.. .� �., S O4F1 LE I{I= 100' t25if • X46 800 ,,,. 110.4 q•? ( 2,40AC. SEE MAP .02 Ac,' S 801 1tia 700 isss*s 70 • 2S I IOBA 48 Ac. I r c 'o , W SEE MAP 6 !� 'o ''.\ 2S I IOBA o A 600 h '�0 ` N Orri I 5 0 0 00 / 23-74 > : �, MATCH LINE j:z /� J! 119.94 ./ f 23 Pr ! 120 4 ,to CO.1 • l z I 901 900 1000 so 77.02 ` 1.56 Ac. ` /0.02Ac. T44C. 1 �� '� oh�f 0° 's. "'1>s STREET g 1 100 ho .�/ 7Z.as 24 9+ • `155 r I r 69AC = /�, 400 300 Q 140 ��*�o 200 , r. (L r ci N M 401( 3"' , / N o 1 2 . I 0 `�\� o 60 , ,o, ' I z.os a4ij ��T 'A y.''�a 12819 23 0� ;a° fib' ,fib V J •?d u r 138.05 1 74.12 P� N� 107 .ati ro 2 01:rr E • 137.28 , ` as /�d+�, G N 18 2 26.T I N /� /^ 50.24 V�/ 188.26 2100 BULL �." 169.6 N84°21'E �--- A C.R. 147 1�2 0 11117711: !!!11,716111101111 A 1600 3.37 AC. •'� '+ 617,84 1300 1400 1500 ° \ N84°55'E o 69AC. n /./7AC 104,05 a, /.68AC. /./7AC a40 n 1200 /4,39AC. • N88°49'E 188.48 • 94.24 SEE MAP �° 2S I IOBC N o op t0 0 • N M 0,-,„o in~ a + �'z SEE MAP • 2S I IOAC 23 -78 3 m .... 3 . N W O aD O O O O i p O a1 O N O to Z N to . no M 5 w S89°49'W 168.8 144.49 y 458.07 • 1700 • . to i- 4.6/AC. S es°2T W N H 265.70' ■ N 0 h r a ■ ar H 0 z Z 1800 N°° .32AC. 4 5 °29 64 1900 • ‘6A 64 45AC CENTER OF SECTION WEST 719.26 z ^ A 55.36 .1/ _le_ WEST 222.42 .V • N T \ O 2000 ~ 282• SEE MAP • aS 2S I IOCA 87AC. NO po J- 0 �i a v�. � SE MAP �'° y 2S 1 IOCA • TIGARD r" ��r ,f !'-'''''''''i''111-11"''''1: C 2S 1 10BD '•e t 4r'i raj t,{,: r i M,V,. '1 Y,n',.,-, i I r 1,l,r �, - y h&`i/,&tX a ^v.r. y sv ?S�r 4' 4 ,.,.. .� .. ya ,n v o k t,a. Wa+"=;.;.. r .`,M_ t1111.?34, r •,.,. .ss: .. ,nr.., ,R'ii∎ ;a -`' 'ura v:.,.3°Fia 7i,: ':':rnouu, :<s.t r, 'rrx4.*""X ,. - r r ''' :. ,r;: �.. a84kd.9`c�d�vw�;;d"5".`i�i�t5 "sdrl7durgxi tr„�y. r' ,,x .,. ,, • -. w.e' S .. ,..,:t 4 .4%.4, :.,a ,40., ty. ,I,W, ,', 1,41.404,.'x': Rw. 3 i SY"•'nn?n.r... I i" ."4" . ._ � � ,... z fi.'�:�'y,. `.�`VA v „tii.e., ..:.:�: , -� .: u :,rG :K r x5u^ "'.e,i d' �:jl .. . - Ri.s it ,+ r >� ..i. a 1.? ._ %A`. ..P Y :u ti".. `t " +. { ,.._, r ».. _ _ .,. �.�4 '�r::.a:,a�.e.wer�.,, .� _ _ ` a:;.v..:.« ... n2�., r Yd F F N e r .r :,.>l .r ,, u. .vc:� >a�� 4. ,...>, . e ,. I"'"."`7`. 1" ,..;._ .. M .:. .... .._. �. ,;.. ._... _.. \ ..___. : ,... ,.. !t 1„: d 1 9 t .�,a7;,-y Rr .., sfi iks.,7 a,.Y•^, o.. ......,.,:.,<..,..:. .....�.,........y,.>e•.�.L:vta. .,'�; 5, ,,.y 1'. >.1+� 1::c,,. .tt � t... . .f� r. : � , tY. . .vcra w.,. ..,,. .., , , .. ,., .. .. ..- ..... _. ....,... .. �- .. ..d:a X 'N to• L t�, ' : 7 , .. c � 'r. . �, a ,• ,4sx. , •.,... ,:,..-.,. ,, .... ,;.,. ., . .._ ,. a. `� A :r.. G ,�m r,. U.. : � 1 � , i . � c ...... . .... . .: .. t .. d.l3.aatafi�+,t�,k'`5.�.,u , c .1�.� ,gg , 'cs fid, ., r,.. : �� : .. f > i .: .4. �.... m . . � ,.,: ,.,. .. {.. . Sfi±4w._vi. � s1 5 dijn �Ja..�.,i, ,` �' :� � � �.dR I' ., . , '... : , ': 7 � .. , ,r< _,: . ., .� ,.,. :.Y, .:e., ....,.., &+:w((�� EA>tf„1.�.&31Aib�� ii. few �r... F ,., ,. e. � � f - r V 5 i v , ., - . . n,.. � , �i � . r`. R. n 4 i +. 1 . 1 1. 1 1 i i �. 4- , . _ r T 1 NOTE: IF IS K GIgFI �;, ...,, u_.. , _,..., t+o 1N u R.._ 1 1 Ff DIMMING IS SS CLEAR ! m • •t LEG LEA-„ TM s. 4 i r . . u TMls.rat T' ,� ':+ CITY`OF ref ORIGINAL t r F .. . t tr -..;p , t 44Y rau•-..,.nw S .. ...n..ay .: . . ...w aw .,. .. n „'. 9 .' L Vii, .► # za4,F,.„se,vu a ""-"' ,ter I t r ,:. ,_ r., . .u.. ..!'., :o- � 1^ . � �" ��',., .. `.. _ - aka �"a� +,fS*'1 e.dcp:,-> :s. . �r^" ''1 i 414 �1. n' ,,•to„t,bx146„ :4t1�lt,1,Pitirror•n .•. : • ...ii.,. '' '::.. [� 4i .,a0J � ,,.- 1 p #> ,:.g�! �,.:s.,.:, c.,..,....: i .: :r (: ..a... aawr=«.-_ « ..sAy• IN rV pyIk, "t ) .{,d , r,�. i ' uy it' .A !.. •' �..c-:..morn-.»,.. ,. F': f .. : .::..